<div1>
<milestone>fol. 13vI</milestone>
s<expan>us</expan>
<head><foreign><hi>Passus quintus de visione petri plowman . vt sup<expan>ra</expan> .</hi></foreign></head>
<lb/>
<lg>
t
<l> <hi><hi>T</hi></hi>he kyng and his knyȝtes  to þe kerke wente .</l>
<l> To here matynes of þe day  and þe masse after</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> Þanne awaked I of my wynkyng  and wo was with<seg>-</seg>all<expan>e</expan> .</l>
R.5.4KD.5.4
<l> Þat I ne hadde sleped sadder<expan>e</expan>  and I<seg>-</seg>seyȝen more .</l>
<l> Ac er I hadde faren a furȝlonge  feyntise me hente .</l>
<l> Þat I ne miȝte forther<expan>e</expan> a foot  for defaut of slepynge .</l>
<l> And sat softly adoune  and sayde my beleue .</l>
<foreign><expan>Nota</expan></foreign>
R.5.8KD.5.8
<l> <hi>And</hi><note>R.5.8: R uniquely omits <hi>so I</hi> before <hi>babeled</hi> and replaces the presumably original <hi>on</hi> with <hi>vppon</hi> ; cf. F's <hi>y bablede so on</hi>. <hi>C</hi> omits this passage, but in the <hi>A</hi> version it reads as in the beta manuscripts of <hi>B</hi>.</note> <hi><app><lem>babeled</lem></app> <app><lem>vppon</lem></app> my bedes  þei brouȝt me a<seg>-</seg>slepe .</hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And þanne saw I muche more  þan I befor tolde .</l>
<l> For I say þe felde ful of folke  þat I be<seg>-</seg>fore of seyde</l>
<l> And how resoun gan arayen hym  alle þe rewme to p<expan>re</expan>che .</l>
R.5.12KD.5.12
<l> And with a crosse by<seg>-</seg>for þe kyng  cumsede þus to techen .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> <hi>He p<expan>re</expan>ued þat þis pestilensez  was for pure synne .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>And þe south<seg>-</seg>west wynde  on saterday at eue .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>Was perteliche for <app><lem>pruyde</lem></app><note>R.5.15: R's phrase here is that of alpha (cf. F's virtually indentical wording); the beta copies read <hi><hi>pure</hi> pryde</hi>. The <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> versions both agree with alpha.</note>  and for no poynt elles .</hi></l>
R.5.16KD.5.16
<l> Pyries and plumtres  wer<expan>e</expan> puffedde to þe erthe .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.5.17: <hi>And</hi> is an alpha variant (cf. F's somewhat different rendering of this line), but it is not present in the beta manuscripts, nor is it attested in the manuscripts of the other versions at this point.</note> in ensaumple ȝee segges  ȝee schulden do þe bett<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> Beches and brode okes  were blowe to þe grounde .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.5.19: <hi>And</hi> is an alpha variant completely unattested in beta copies (which begin the line with <hi>Torned</hi>. However, the alpha reading of this line opening agrees exactly with that of the other two versions.</note> turned vpward here <app><lem>taile</lem></app><note>R.5.19: Alpha omits beta's <hi>in</hi> before <hi>tokenynge</hi>. Both the <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> versions agree at this point with beta.</note> <app><lem><orig>to kenynge</orig><reg>tokenynge</reg></lem></app> of drede .</l>
R.5.20KD.5.20
<l> Þat dedly synne ar domesday  schal for<seg>-</seg>don hem alle .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Of þis matere I miȝt  mamely ful longe .</l>
<l> Ac I schal seye as I sawe  so me god helpe .</l>
<l> How perteliche be<seg>-</seg>for þe poeple  reson gan to p<expan>re</expan>che .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.24KD.5.24
<l> <hi></hi> He bad wastour <app><lem>to</lem></app><note>R.5.24: R's <hi>to</hi> is unique among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts. The others read <hi>go</hi>, which is also the reading of the <hi>A</hi> version and of the P family of <hi>C</hi> witnesses. However, the X family agrees with R's reading.</note> werche  what he best coude .</l>
<l> And wynnen his wastinge  with so<expan>m</expan> maner<expan>e</expan> <app><lem><sic>crastys</sic><corr>cra[f]tys</corr></lem></app> .<note>R.5.25: R's <hi>crastys</hi>, is probably an alpha error (cf. beta's <hi>crafte</hi> and F's reconstructed <hi>werkys</hi>). The phrase is omitted from <hi>C</hi>, but the <hi>A</hi> witnesses support beta's rendering.</note> </l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And preied pernele  hire purfile to lete .</l>
<l> And kepe it in hire coffre  for catel at hire nede .</l>
<milestone>fol. 14rI</milestone>
</lg>
<lg>
R.5.28KD.5.28
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Thomme stouue he tauȝte  to take to <app><lem>stones</lem></app> .<note>R.5.28: R's <hi>stones</hi> is unique. The other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts, as well as the other versions, read <hi>staues</hi>.</note></l>
<l> And fecche felice home  fram <app><lem>wyuene</lem></app> pyne .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> He warned watte  his wif was to blame .</l>
<l> Þat hire hed was worth half marke  his hode nauȝt a grote<note>R.5.31: HmGCotH join R in omitting <hi>worth</hi> from the final phrase of this line (witnessed by F and most beta copies as <hi>nouȝte <hi>worth</hi> a grote</hi>. The majority of <hi>A</hi> witnesses agrees with this <hi>B</hi> majority in attesting the word, but RaUChJEK agree with Rawlinson 38 in omitting it. So do all but two of the <hi>C</hi> witnesses.</note> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.32KD.5.32
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.5.32: R uniquely omits the verb <hi>bad</hi> before <hi>bet</hi> here.</note> bet cutte  a bow other tweye .</l>
<l> And bete betou<expan>n</expan> þere<seg>-</seg>with  but ȝif <app><lem>heo</lem></app> wolde werche .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And þanne he charged chapmen  to chaste<note>R.5.34: The uncovered final <e> makes R's reading unmetrical. R's verb form is unique among the <hi>B</hi> witnesses; some beta manuscripts have <hi>chastize(n)</hi>. However, R's form is attested in some copies of both <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi>. Likewise, some of the <hi>A</hi> witnesses agree with beta. The <hi>Cx</hi> form appears to have been <hi>chasten</hi>, quite possibly the reading of Bx, since it is also the reading of LCrCG.</note> hire childerne .</l>
<l> Late no wynnynge <app><lem>for<seg>-</seg>wanyen  þe</lem></app><note>R.5.35: R uniquely omits <hi>Bx</hi>'s <hi>hem</hi> at the end of the a-verse and uniquely adds <hi>þe</hi> at the head of the b-verse. However, the addition of <hi>þe</hi> is paralleled in the X family of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts.</note> while þei ben ȝonge .</l>
R.5.36KD.5.36
<l> Ne for no pouste of pestilence  plese hem nauȝt oute of resou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> My sire seyde so to me  and so dede my dame .</l>
<l> Þat þe leuer childe  þe more lore byhoueth .</l>
<l> And salomon seyde þe same  þat sapience made .</l>
R.5.40KD.5.39α
<l> <hi><foreign>Qui parcit virge odit filiu<expan>m</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Þe englisch of þis latyn is  ho<seg>-</seg>so wil it knowe .</l>
<l> Ho<seg>-</seg>so spareth þe sprynge  <app><lem>he</lem></app> spilleth<note>R.5.42: Beta omits <hi>he</hi>. Although three <hi>C</hi> manuscripts include the pronoun, it seems clear that <hi>Cx</hi> read here as beta does.</note> his childern .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> <hi>And sitthen he <app><lem>p<expan>ro</expan>ued</lem></app></hi><note>R.5.43: R's <hi>p<expan>ro</expan>ued</hi> is unique and presumably results from scribal anticipation of <hi>p<expan>ro</expan>ue</hi> in the next line; beta reads <hi>preyed</hi> (which is confirmed by both the <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> versions) while F completely rewrites the line.</note> <hi>p<expan>re</expan>latz  and prestes to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</hi></l>
R.5.44KD.5.42
<l> <hi>Þat ȝee prechen to þe poeple  p<expan>ro</expan>ue it on ȝow<seg>-</seg>selue .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>And doth it in dede  it schal drawe ȝow to gode .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>If ȝe lyuen as ȝe lerne vs  we schal leue ȝow þe bett<expan>er</expan>e .</hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And sitthe he radde religiou<expan>n</expan>  here rewle to holde .</l>
R.5.48KD.5.46
<l> Lest þe kyng and his conseyle  ȝour<expan>e</expan> comunes appeyre .</l>
<l> And ben stwardes of ȝoure stedes  til ȝe be rewled bett<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And siþþen he conseyled þe kynge  þe co<expan>m</expan>mune to louye .</l>
<l> <hi>It is þi tresor if <app><lem><sic>treson were</sic><corr>treson [n]ere</corr></lem></app></hi><note>R.5.51: R uniquely drops the negative.</note> <hi> and triacle at þi nede .</hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.52KD.5.50
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And siþþen he preyed þe <damage>pope</damage><note>R.5.52: The word <hi>pope</hi> has been partially erased, though the original reading is visible. The erasure is very old but not the work of the original scribe.</note>  haue pite on holy cherche .</l>
<l> <hi>And er he gyue any grace  gouerne furst hym<seg>-</seg>selue</hi> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And ȝe þat haue lawes to kepe  lat trewthe be ȝour<expan>e</expan> coueytise .</l>
<milestone>fol. 14vI</milestone>
<l> More þanne gold or other giftes  if ȝe wil god plese .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.56KD.5.54
<l> <hi></hi> For ho<seg>-</seg>so contrarieth trewthe  he telth in þe gospel .</l>
<l> Þat god knoweth hem nouȝt  ne no seint of heuene .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Amen dico vobis nescio vos  .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And ȝe þat seke seint Iames  and seintes of rome .</l>
R.5.60KD.5.57
<l> Seketh seint trewthe  for he may saue ȝow alle .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Qui cu<expan>m</expan> p<expan>at</expan>re & filio  </foreign></hi> þat fair<expan>e</expan> hem befalle .</l>
<l> Þat sueth my sarmou<expan>n</expan>  and þus seyde resou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þanne ran repentaunce  and reherced his teme .</l>
R.5.64KD.5.61
<l> And gerte wille to wepe  water with his eyȝes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Pernele proude<seg>-</seg>herte  platte hire to þe erthe .</l>
<l> And lay longe ar <app><lem>he</lem></app><note>R.5.66: <hi>He</hi>, "she."</note> loked  and lord mercy <app><lem>he criede</lem></app><note>R.5.66: R alone reiterates the feminine pronoun (in R's typical form, <hi>he</hi>) in the b-verse. The correctness of the majority reading is confirmed by the text of <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> And by<seg>-</seg>hiȝte to hym  þat vs alle made .</l>
R.5.68KD.5.65
<l> <app><lem>He</lem></app><note>R.5.68: <hi>He</hi>, "she."</note> <app><lem><sic>sclulde</sic><corr>sc[h]ulde</corr></lem></app> vnsowen hire serke  and setten þere an haire .</l>
<l> To affaiten hire flesche  þat fers was to synne .</l>
<l> Schal neu<expan>er</expan>e heyȝ herte me hente  but holde me lowe .</l>
<l> And suffre to be myssayde  and so dede I neu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
R.5.72KD.5.69
<l> But now wil I meke me  and mercy byseche .</l>
<l> <app><lem>For</lem></app> þis<note>R.5.73: Beta's phrase is <hi>For <hi>al</hi> þis</hi>. F has <hi>For <hi>þ(a)t</hi></hi>."</note> I haue  <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>hated</lem></app> in myn herte .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þanne lecchour seyde allas  and on our<expan>e</expan> lady he cried</l>
<l> To make m<expan>er</expan>cy for his misdedes  bitwene god and his soule .</l>
R.5.76KD.5.73
<l> With þat he schulde <app><lem>on þe day</lem></app><note>R.5.76: Cf. beta's <hi>þe saterday</hi> and F's <hi>euery day</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> version is completely revised at this point, but the <hi>A</hi> reading agrees completely with that of beta.</note>  seuen ȝer þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>after .</l>
<l> Drinke but with þe doke  and dyne but ones .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Enuye with heuy herte  askede after schrifte .</l>
<l> And carfulliche <foreign>mea culpa</foreign>  he cumsed to <app><lem><sic>schrewe</sic><corr>schre[u]e</corr></lem></app> .<note>R.5.79: R's error, <hi>schrewe</hi>, was not a misreading for <hi>shewe</hi> (the beta variant) but for <hi>schreue</hi>, the alpha reading (cf. F's <hi>shryve</hi>). The <hi>A</hi> reading agrees with that of beta.</note></l>
R.5.80KD.5.77
<l> He was as pale as a pelete  in þe palsey he semed .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>cluted</lem></app><note>R.5.81: This is a unique R reading (<hi>Bx</hi> = <hi>clothed</hi>). According to <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>clouten</hi> (v. 1), the form is the past participle of <hi>clouten</hi>, which usually means "to mend" but here and in a few other documented instances clearly signifies "to wear patched or ragged clothes."</note> in a <sic>tauri<seg>-</seg>mauri</sic><corr>[c]auri<seg>-</seg>mauri</corr><note>R.5.81: R, probably by coincidence, shares the <c/t> confusion with Bm.</note>  I coude <app><lem>nauȝt it</lem></app><note>R.5.81: R reverses this phrase, which in the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts (as well as the <hi>A</hi> version) reads <hi>it nouȝte</hi>.</note> descriue .</l>
<l> In a kertel and curteby  and a knyf be his side .</l>
<l> Of a <app><lem>frere</lem></app><note>R.5.83: R's uninflected form, <hi>frere</hi>, is unique in the <hi>B</hi> version. The other copies have <hi>freres</hi>. However, five <hi>A</hi>-version manuscripts (DJLaEN) agree with R's unmarked genitive.</note> frokke  were <app><lem>his</lem></app><note>R.5.83: In place of alpha's <hi>his</hi>, beta reads <hi>þe</hi>. <hi>Ax</hi> is unclear on this point, a majority agreeing with beta, but a large minority (HaLaEAKWa) agreeing with alpha.</note> fore<seg>-</seg>sleues .</l>
R.5.84KD.5.81
<l> And as a leek hadde I<seg>-</seg>leye  longe in þe sonne .</l>
<milestone>fol. 15rI</milestone>
<l> So loked he with lene chekes  louring foule .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> His body was to<seg>-</seg>bolle for wrathe  þat he bot his lyppes .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>wryngyed with</lem></app><note>R.5.87: Beta reads <hi>wryngynge he ȝede</hi>. F has <hi>hise hondis he wrong</hi>.</note> þe fist  to wreke hym<seg>-</seg>self he thouȝte .</l>
R.5.88KD.5.85
<l> With werkes or with wordes  whan he seyȝ his time .</l>
<l> Eche word þat he warp  was of <app><lem>an addre</lem></app><note>R.5.89: Beta shows a genitive, <hi>addres</hi> or <hi>Neddres</hi>.</note> tonge .</l>
<l> Of chydynge and of chalengynge  was his chief lyflode </l>
<l> With bagbityng and <app><lem>with</lem></app><note>R.5.91: This line's second <hi>with</hi> is a unique addition in R.</note> bysmere  and berynge of fals wytnesse .</l>
R.5.92KD.5.89
<l> Þis was alle his curteysye  where þat euere he schewed hym .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I wolde be Ischryue q<expan>uo</expan>d þis schrewe  and I for schame durste .</l>
<l> I wolde be gladder<expan>e</expan> by god  þat gybbe hadde mischaunce .</l>
<l> Þan þouȝ I hadde þis woke I<seg>-</seg>wonne  a weye of essex chese .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.96KD.5.93
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> I haue a neyȝbore neyȝ me  I haue enuyed hym ofte .</l>
<l> And lowen on hym to lordes  to don hym lese his siluer .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>al<seg>-</seg>so</lem></app><note>R.5.98: R's <hi>al-so</hi> is unique; cf. <hi>Bx</hi>'s <hi>made</hi>.</note> his frendes ben his fon  þoruȝ my fals tonge .</l>
<l> His grace and his good happes  greueth me ful sore .</l>
R.5.100KD.5.99
<l> By<seg>-</seg>twene <app><lem>mayne and mayne</lem></app><note>R.5.100: The form <hi>mayne</hi> is the R scribe's spelling for <hi>meine</hi>, "household" (see also <ref>R.16.247:</ref>). In F the a-verse reads <hi>By-twixe hym & manye me<expan>n</expan></hi>; most beta manuscripts have <hi>Bitwene many and many</hi>. Though <title>MED</title> lists the head form as <hi>meine</hi>, <title>OED</title> notes that by the opening of the fifteenth century the word was sometimes spelled <hi>many</hi>, which appears to have been beta's intention. Its authenticity is also supported by a cognate line from the <hi>A</hi> version, where the phrase reads <hi>Betwyn hym & his <hi>meyne</hi></hi>.</note>  I make debate ofte .</l>
<l> Þat both lyf and lyme  is lost þoruȝ my speche .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And whan I mete hym in market<expan>e</expan>  þat I most hatye .</l>
<l> I hayls hym hendelich  as I his frende were .</l>
R.5.104KD.5.103
<l> For he is douȝtier þan I  I dar do non other .</l>
<l> Ac hadde I maystrie and miȝt  god wote my wille .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And whan I come to <app><lem><orig>þecherche</orig><reg>þe cherche</reg></lem></app><note>R.5.106: HmF agree with R in reading <hi>cherche</hi>, but they omit the article. The beta reading, <hi>kirke</hi> (also the reading of the <hi>A</hi> tradition), fits the alliterative pattern of the line; <hi>cherche</hi> was the alpha reading, shared by convergence with Hm.</note>  and schulde knele to þe rode .</l>
<l> And preye for þe poeple  as þe prest techeth .</l>
R.5.108KD.5.107
<l> For pylgrimes and for palmeres  for alle þe poeple after</l>
<l> Þanne I crie on my knes  þat crist ȝif hem sorwe .</l>
<l> Þat bare away my bolle  and my broke schete .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Awey fro þe auter  þanne turne I myn eyȝes .</l>
R.5.112KD.5.111
<l> And beholde how heleyne  hath <app><lem>on</lem></app><note>R.5.112: R's <hi>on</hi> is an alpha addition unattested in beta or in the <hi>A</hi> version.</note> a newe cote</l>
<l> I wysche þenne it were myn  and alle þe web after .<note>R.5.113: Here the scribe omits his usual line break before a new verse paragraph, presumably because he has reached the end of a side.</note></l>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And of <app><lem>his</lem></app><note>R.5.114: R's <hi>his</hi> is a unique reading among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts (both F and beta attest <hi>mennes</hi>). However, it is clear that <hi>Ax</hi> reads as R does.</note> lesynge I lawhe  þat lyketh myn herte .</l>
<milestone>fol. 15vI</milestone>
<l> <app><lem>Ac</lem></app> for his <app><lem><sic>wynnyge</sic><corr>wynny[n]ge</corr></lem></app><note>R.5.115: At the beginning of this phrase, R's <hi>Ac</hi> is unique among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts but is also the reading of <hi>Ax</hi>; by contrast, F has <hi>But</hi> and beta reads <hi>And</hi>). As for <hi>his</hi> (an alpha variant contrasting to beta's <hi>hir</hi>), a majority of <hi>A</hi> witnesses agree with RF.</note> I wepe  and wayle þe tyme .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.116KD.5.115
<l> <hi></hi> And deme <app><lem>men</lem></app><note>R.5.116: R's <hi>men</hi> is unique; F substitutes <hi>hem</hi> while beta omits it altogether. However, in a slightly different phrase found in the cognate <hi>A</hi> line (<hi>I deme men þere hy don ille</hi>), we find unambiguous support for R's reading.</note> þat hij don ylle  þere I do wel worse .</l>
<l> Who<seg>-</seg>so vndernymeth me her<expan>e</expan>offe  Ich hate hym dedly after .</l>
<l> I wolde þat vch a wyȝt  were my knaue .</l>
<l> For ho<seg>-</seg>so hath more þanne I  þat angreth me sore .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.120KD.5.119
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And þus I lyue loue<seg>-</seg>lees  lyche a lyther dogge .</l>
<l> Þat alle my body bolneth  for bytter <app><lem>in</lem></app><note>R.5.121: Cf. R's <hi>in</hi> to F's <hi>ys</hi> and beta's <hi>of</hi>; it is unclear what the alpha reading was. The <hi>A</hi> reading agrees with beta.</note> my galle .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I myȝte nauȝt ete many ȝeres  as a man ouȝte .</l>
<l> For enuye and euel wille  is yuel to defye .</l>
R.5.124KD.5.123
<l> May no sucre ne swete thynge  aswage my swelynge .</l>
<l> Ne no diapenidion  driue it fro myn herte .</l>
<l> Ne noyther schrifte <app><lem>no</lem></app> schame  but ho<seg>-</seg>so schrape my mawe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Ȝis redily q<expan>uo</expan>d repentaunce  and radde hym to þe beste .</l>
R.5.128KD.5.127
<l> Sorwe of synnes  is sauac<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan> of soules .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I am <app><lem>euer<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.5.129: Beta omits <hi>euere</hi>. This omission is also found in the <hi>A</hi> version, but the <hi>C</hi> version agrees with alpha and includes the qualifier.</note> sory q<expan>uo</expan>d þat segg<expan>e</expan>  I am but selde other .</l>
<l> And þat maketh me þus megre  for I ne may me venge .</l>
<l> Amonges burgeys haue I be  dwellynge atte londou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
R.5.132KD.5.131
<l> And gert bagbytyng be a brokoure  to blame me<expan>n</expan>nes ware .</l>
<l> Whan he solde and I nauȝt  þanne was I <app><lem>aredy</lem></app><note>R.5.133: Beta reads <hi>redy</hi>, and F has <hi>ful redy</hi>. Some <hi>C</hi> copies agree with beta, but <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R's form, <hi>aredy</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> To lye and to loure on my neyȝbore  and to lakken his <app><lem>ware</lem></app><note>R.5.134: R's <hi>ware</hi> is the alpha reading; cf. beta's <hi>chaffare</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> I wil amende þis if I may  þorȝ miȝt of god al<seg>-</seg>miȝti .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.136KD.5.135
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Now <app><lem>waketh wrothe</lem></app><note>R.5.136: R's <hi>waketh</hi> is unique (most of the other witnesses have <hi>awaketh</hi>). Likewise, R's spelling of the following noun (= <hi>wrothe</hi>, but rendered as <hi>Wraþe</hi> or <hi>wratthe</hi> by most of the others) is unique among the <hi>B</hi> copies—cf. the same spelling at R5.138 (at which point F and the X family of <hi>C</hi> concur with R's form). According to <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>wrath</hi>, and <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>wroth</hi>, this spelling is a late adaptation from the adjective <hi>wroth</hi>, = "angry." Nominal usage is also found in a manuscript of Gower's <title>Confessio</title> (at 3.217) and in the Trinity manuscript of the <hi>A</hi>-version (at 5.66).</note>  with to white eyȝes .</l>
<l> And nyuelyng with þe nose  and his nekke hangynge .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I am <app><lem>wrothe</lem></app><note>R.5.138: R's <hi>wrothe</hi> is a relatively uncommon spelling for this word (cf. R5.136 above), but it is also attested in F and among the X family of <hi>C</hi>. Beta and the P family of <hi>C</hi> witness the more usual spellings (e.g, W's <hi>wraþe</hi>).</note> quatz he  I was su<expan>m</expan>tyme a frere .</l>
<l> And þe <app><lem>couent</lem></app><note>R.5.139: R's uninflected form is unique; F and beta read a normal genitive, <hi>couentes</hi>. On the other hand, the R scribe may have taken the phrase <hi>couent gardiner<expan>e</expan></hi> as a compound noun.</note> gardiner<expan>e</expan>  for to graffe ympes .</l>
R.5.140KD.5.139
<l> On lymitoures and listres  lesynges I ymped .</l>
<l> Til þei bere leues  of lowe speche  lordes to plese .</l>
<l> And sitthe þei <app><lem>blosmed</lem></app><note>R.5.142: The beta phrase, which has the advantage of alliterating properly, is <hi>blosmed obrode</hi>.</note>  in boure to here schriftes .</l>
<l> And now is falle þere<seg>-</seg>offe a fruyt  þat folk haue wel leuer<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<milestone>fol. 16rI</milestone>
R.5.144KD.5.143
<l> Schewen her<expan>e</expan> schriftes <app><lem>til</lem></app> hem  þan schriuen hem <app><lem>til</lem></app><note>R.5.144: Both of R's uses of <hi>til</hi> in this line are unique; F and beta read <hi>to</hi> in the first instance. F revises the b-verse substantially (so as to be unsuitable for comparison), but beta again deploys <hi>to</hi>.</note> her<expan>e</expan> p<expan>er</expan>sones .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And now haue p<expan>er</expan>sones <app><lem>ap<expan>er</expan>ceyued</lem></app>  þat freres parte with hem .</l>
<l> Þes possessioneres p<expan>re</expan>chen  and dep<expan>ra</expan>uen freres .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>fynden</lem></app><note>R.5.147: The agreement of RF in omitting the first stave of this line (<hi>freres</hi> in beta) indicates that the error derives from alpha.</note> hem in defaute  as folke bereth witnesse .</l>
R.5.148KD.5.147
<l> Þat whanne þei p<expan>re</expan>che þe poeple  in many places aboute .</l>
<l> I wrathe walke with <app><lem>hym</lem></app><note>R.5.149: R's <hi>hym</hi> is unique and obviously an error; F and beta read the plural <hi>hem</hi>, which agrees with all of the surrounding context, including another pronoun reference later in this same line.</note>  and wisse hem of my bokes .</l>
<l> Þus þei speken of my spiritualte  þat eyther despi<del>.</del><add>s</add>eth other .</l>
<l> Til þei be bothe beggeres  and <app><lem>by</lem></app> spiritualte<note>R.5.151: Beta reads <hi>by <hi>my</hi> spiritualte</hi>. F has <hi>by almesse</hi>.</note> libben .<note>R.5.151: There is a black, vertical line from this point to R5.160 in the right margin.</note></l>
R.5.152KD.5.151
<l> Or elles alle riche  and riden aboute</l>
<l> I wrathe reste neu<expan>er</expan>e  þat <orig>Ine</orig><reg>I ne</reg> mot folwe .</l>
<l> Þis wikked folke  for swich is my grace .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> I haue <orig>anaunte</orig><reg>an aunte</reg> to nonne  and an <app><lem>abbesse</lem></app><note>R.5.155: Beta adds <hi>bothe</hi> at the end of this line. The <hi>C</hi> version, however, agrees with alpha in omitting it.</note> .</l>
R.5.156KD.5.154
<l> Hire were leu<expan>er</expan>e swowe or swelte  þan suffre any peyne .</l>
<l> I haue be cook in hire kychyne  and þe couent serued .</l>
<l> Many monthes with hem  and with monkes <app><lem>alse</lem></app> .<note>R.5.158: R's <hi>alse</hi> is unique; the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read <hi>bothe</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading agrees with that of the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note></l>
<l> I was þe prioresses potager<expan>e</expan>  and other pouer ladyes .</l>
R.5.160KD.5.158
<l> And made hem ioutes of iangelyng  þat dame ione was a bastard .</l>
<l> And dame claris a kniȝtes douȝter  ac a cokewolde was hir<expan>e</expan> sire .</l>
<l> And dame peronel a prestes fyle  prioresse worthe heo neu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> For heo hadde childe in chirityme  al our<expan>e</expan> chapitere it wiste .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.164KD.5.162
<l> <hi></hi> Of wikked wordes I wrathe  here wortes I<seg>-</seg>made<note>R.5.164: Only RLOC<hi>2</hi> have the metrically necessary dissyllabic form from OE <hi>gemacian</hi>. F has a recomposed line, and other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts have <hi>made</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> Til þow lixt and þow lixt<expan>e</expan>  lopen oute at ones .</l>
<l> And eyther hitte other  vnder þe cheke .</l>
<l> Hadde þei had knyues by crist  her<expan>e</expan> eyther hadde kulled other<expan>e</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<foreign>Gregorius</foreign>
R.5.168KD.5.166
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Seynt gregorie was a goed pope  and hadde a goed forwitte<note>R.5.168: In this verse paragraph and the next, the scribal hand becomes noticeably smaller, and yet the 36-line ruling is unchanged from the previous leaf.</note></l>
<l> Þat no prioresse were prest  for þat he ordeyned .</l>
<l> Þei hadden þanne be <foreign>infamis</foreign> þe firste day  þei cu<expan>n</expan>ne so euel hele conseyle .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Amonges monkes I miȝt be  and many tyme I schonie .</l>
R.5.172KD.5.170
<l> For þere ben many felle frekes  my feres to aspie .</l>
<l> Bothe priour and suppriour  and oure <foreign>pater abbas</foreign> .</l>
<l> And ȝif I telle any tales  þei taken hem to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
<milestone>fol. 16vI</milestone>
<l> And do me faste fridayes  to brede and to water .</l>
R.5.176KD.5.174
<l> And <app><lem>ȝeet am</lem></app><note>R.5.176: R's <hi>ȝeet</hi> is a unique addition to this line, as witnessed in the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts. However, it is also clearly attested in the <hi>C</hi> version.</note> chalenged  in þe chapitelhous .</l>
<l> As I <orig>achild</orig><reg>a child</reg> were<note>R.5.177: R's line division here is unique and obviously an error; F, beta, and the <hi>C</hi> version read this phrase as the end of the preceding line .</note></l>
<l> And baleysed on þe bare <app><lem><del>hers</del> <add>bak</add></lem></app><note>R.5.178: R's cancelled reading, <hi>hers</hi>, is the <hi>Bx</hi> original. F agrees with R's "corrected" and euphemized reading, <hi>bak</hi>, but the <hi>C</hi> version agrees with the <hi>Bx</hi> original.</note>  and no breche by<seg>-</seg>twene .</l>
<l> For<seg>-</seg>thi haue I no likyng  with þo ledes to wonye .</l>
R.5.180KD.5.177
<l> I ete þere vnthende fissh  and feble<note>R.5.180: The final <e> of <hi>feble</hi> is blotted.</note> ale drinke .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ac other<seg>-</seg>while whan wyn cometh  whan I drynke <app><lem>wel</lem></app><note>R.5.181: Beta reads <hi>wyn</hi>.</note> at euen .</l>
<l> I haue a flix of a foul mouth  wel fyue dayes after .</l>
<l> Alle þe wikkednesse þat I wote  by any of oure bretheren .</l>
R.5.184KD.5.181
<l> I couthe it in oure cloystre  þat alle<note>R.5.184: R uniquely omits a determiner after <hi>alle</hi>. A majority of beta copies, and F, read <hi>þe</hi> here while LMCrW attest <hi>owre</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with F and the beta majority.</note> <app><lem>couent</lem></app> wot it .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Now repente þe q<expan>uo</expan>d repentance  and reherce þow neu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> Conseill<expan>e</expan> þat þow knoweste  by contenance ne by <app><lem>speche</lem></app><note>R.5.186: R and F agree with the <hi>C</hi> version in attesting <hi>speche</hi> as this line's final stave. By contrast, beta reads <hi>riȝte</hi> at this point.</note> .</l>
<l> And drink nauȝt ouerdelicatly  ne to depe neyther .</l>
R.5.188KD.5.185
<l> Þat þi wille be cause þere<seg>-</seg>offe  to wrathe miȝt turne .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Esto sobrius </foreign></hi> he seyde  and <app><lem>so he</lem></app><note>R.5.189: R's <hi>so he</hi> is a unique addition to the text witnessed by both <hi>Bx</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> assoyled me after .</l>
<l> And badde me wilne to wepe  my wikkedenesse to amende .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<foreign>descripcio avaritie</foreign>
<l> <hi></hi> And þanne come coueytyse  I can hym nauȝt descriue .</l>
R.5.192KD.5.189
<l> So hungrilyche and holewe  sire henry hym lokede .</l>
<l> He was bittel<seg>-</seg>browed  and baber<seg>-</seg>lipped alse .</l>
<l> With to blered eyȝes  as a blynde hagge .</l>
<l> And as a letheren purce  lolled his chekes .</l>
R.5.196KD.5.192
<l> Wel sydder þanne his chyn  þei chyueld for elde .</l>
<l> And as a bonde<seg>-</seg>man of his bakun  his berd was bydraueled .</l>
<l> With <app><lem>his</lem></app><note>R.5.198: For alpha's <hi>his</hi>, beta reads <hi>an</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading agrees with alpha.</note> hode on his hed  a lousy hatt aboue .</l>
<l> And in a tawne tabbarde  of twelue wynter age .</l>
R.5.200KD.5.195.1
<l> Al to<seg>-</seg>torne and baudy  and ful of lys crepynge .</l>
<l> But if a lous coude  <app><lem>lepe</lem></app> þe bett<expan>er</expan>e .<note>R.5.201: All the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts are corrupt, presumably losing most of the original b-verse: <hi>But if (þat) a lous couthe (haue lopen / lepen) þe bettre</hi>. RF omit <hi>þat</hi> and avoid the perfect tense. F's reading for this line is unique in other ways as well. The <hi>A</hi>-version reading for this line's second half is uncertain, with considerable variation between witnesses. Kane chose <hi>I may it nouȝt leue</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> b-verse has the appearance of a feeble patch rather than a common original: <hi>y leue and y trowe</hi>. </note></l>
<l> <app><lem>He</lem></app> <app><lem>ne</lem></app> schulde nouȝt <app><lem>walke</lem></app><note>R.5.202: Cf. beta's <hi>She sholde nouȝte haue walked</hi>. Evidence from the <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> versions suggests that archetypal <hi>B</hi> was already misreading the first verb in this line (= <hi>wandre</hi> in <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi>). Though most <hi>C</hi> manuscripts attest the line's opening as <hi>He sholde</hi>, manuscripts X and P<hi>2</hi> here agree with R's version of the opening phrase, <hi>He ne schulde</hi>. Among the <hi>A</hi> copies, the same pattern is apparent, with most opting for some form of <hi>he shulde</hi> but with ChRaU paralleling R's double-negative syntax.</note> on þat welsch  so was it thredebar<expan>e</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> I haue be coueytouse q<expan>uo</expan>d þis caytyf  I be<seg>-</seg>knowe it here .</l>
R.5.204KD.5.199
<l> For su<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>tyme I seruede  symme at þe style .</l>
<l> And was his prentis I<seg>-</seg>pliȝt  his p<expan>ro</expan>fit to wayte .<note>R.5.205: R omits his customary blank line between strophes at the juncture of ll. 205-06, presumably because the latter is to fill the last line ruled for this side.</note></l>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> First I lerned to lye  a leef <app><lem>or</lem></app> tweyne .</l>
<hi>wikedlyche to weye .</hi><note>R.5.206:These catchwords are partially cropped.</note>
<milestone>fol. 17rI</milestone>
<l> Wikkedliche to weye  was my furst lessou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
R.5.208KD.5.203
<l> To wy and to wynchestre  I wente to þe feyre .</l>
<l> With many maner marchandise  as my mayster me hiȝte .</l>
<l> Ne hadde þe grace of gyle  I<seg>-</seg>go amonge my <app><lem>ware</lem></app> .<note>R.5.210: The alpha variant <hi>ware</hi> is supported by LM, but most beta copies read <hi>chaffare</hi>. However, as is often the case with such splits, both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> support the LMRF variant.</note></l>
<l> It hadde be vnsold þis seuen ȝer<expan>e</expan>  so me god helpe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.212KD.5.207
<l> <hi></hi> Þanne drow I me amonges draperes  my donet to lerne .</l>
<l> To drawe þe lyser a<seg>-</seg>longe  þe lenger it semed .</l>
<l> Amonge þe riche <app><lem>rayeres</lem></app><note>R.5.214: R's <hi>rayeres</hi>, "a maker or seller of striped cloth," is a unique variant among <hi>B</hi> witnesses; <hi>Bx</hi> reads <hi>rayes</hi>. The same variant occurs in manuscript Uc of the <hi>C</hi> version, but both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> clearly attest the same word here as the <hi>B</hi> majority. For other citations of this R form, see <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>raier</hi>.</note>  I rendred a lessou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
<l> To brochen hem with a <app><lem>batnedel</lem></app><note>R.5.215: Most beta manuscripts read <hi>paknedle</hi>, but L (and perhaps M originally, which has been corrected to <hi>pak</hi> by erasure and writeover) supports alpha's <hi>batnedel</hi>. The majority of <hi>A</hi> witnesses agrees with beta, but manuscripts AE agree with alpha's lection. <hi>Batnedel</hi> is also the reading of the best <hi>C</hi> manuscripts (though most of the P family copies agree with the common beta reading).</note>  and playted hem to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
R.5.216KD.5.211
<l> And putte hem in a presse  and <app><lem>pyned</lem></app> hem þere<seg>-</seg>Inne .</l>
<l> Til ten ȝerdes or twelue  <app><lem>tolled</lem></app> oute threttene .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> My wif was a webbe  and wolene cloth made .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Heo</lem></app> spak to <app><lem>a spinnester</lem></app><note>R.5.219: Beta reads <hi>spynnesteres</hi>, which is also the reading of <hi>Cx</hi>. The <hi>Ax</hi> reading is uncertain since the singular and plural forms are both well attested among extant copies.</note>  to spynne<expan>n</expan> it oute .</l>
R.5.220KD.5.215
<l> Ac þe pou<expan>n</expan>d þat heo payed by  peysed a <app><lem>quarter</lem></app><note>R.5.220: Beta reads <hi>quarteroun</hi>, but <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> confirm alpha's lection.</note> more .</l>
<foreign>N<expan>ota</expan></foreign>
<l> Þan myn <orig>owenauncer</orig><reg>owen auncer</reg>  ho<seg>-</seg>so weyȝed trewthe . </l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I bouȝte hire <app><lem>barly</lem></app><note>R.5.222: Beta and F read <hi>barly malte</hi>, but both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> confirm R's reading.</note>  heo brewe it to selle .</l>
<l> Peny<seg>-</seg>ale and puddynge<seg>-</seg>ale  heo poured to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
R.5.224KD.5.219
<l> For laboreres and for low folke  þat lay bi hym<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Þe best <app><lem>of alle</lem></app><note>R.5.225: R's <hi>of alle</hi> is unique; F and beta read <hi>ale</hi>. Among the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts, the P family omits this lection entirely (as does the cognate line in <hi>A</hi>), while the X family agrees with the reading of F and beta.</note> lay in my boure  or in my bedde<seg>-</seg>chaumbre .</l>
<l> And ho<seg>-</seg>so <app><lem>bu<expan>m</expan>meth</lem></app><note>R.5.226: R is the only <hi>B</hi> manuscript to render this verb in the present tense (but see the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref> on R's—and alpha's—possibly ambiguous tense marking); the others read <hi>bummed</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> agree with the majority <hi>B</hi> reading.</note> þere<seg>-</seg>offe  he bouȝte it þere<seg>-</seg>after .</l>
<l> A galoun for a grote  god wote no lesse .</l>
R.5.228KD.5.223
<l> And ȝet it com in coppe<seg>-</seg>mele  þis crafte my wif <app><lem>vseth</lem></app> .<note>R.5.228: The present-tense marking represents alpha's reading (but cf. see the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref> on R's—and alpha's—possibly ambiguous tense marking); cf. beta's <hi>vsed</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> agree with beta.</note></l>
<l> Rose þe regrater  <app><lem>is</lem></app><note>R.5.229: The present-tense marking represents alpha's reading; cf. beta's <hi>was</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> agree with beta.</note> hire riȝte name  .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Heo</lem></app> hath <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>holde</lem></app><note>R.5.230: Cf. beta's <hi>holden</hi>. <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> witnesses show a mixture of verb forms here, but the P family of <hi>C</hi> agrees with alpha's form.</note> hokkarie  alle hire lif<seg>-</seg>tyme .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ac I swere now so <orig>theich</orig><reg>the ich</reg>  þat synne wil I lete .</l>
R.5.232KD.5.227
<l> And neu<expan>er</expan>e wikkedlich weye  ne wikked chaffare vse .</l>
<l> But wenden to walsyngh<expan>a</expan>m  and my wif alse .</l>
<l> And bidde þe rode of bromeholme  brynge me oute of dette .</l>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Repentedest þow euere q<expan>uo</expan>d repentau<expan>n</expan>ce  ne<note>R.5.235: Among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts, only LM support R's <hi>ne</hi>; most beta copies read <hi>or</hi> and F has <hi>&</hi>. However, <hi>Cx</hi> clearly agrees with the LMR reading.</note> restitucion madest .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.236KD.5.231
<l> <hi></hi> Ȝus ones I was herberwed q<expan>uo</expan>d he  with an hepe of chapmen .</l>
<milestone>fol. 17vI</milestone>
<l> I ros whan þei were a<seg>-</seg>reste  and I<seg>-</seg>rifled<note>R.5.237: LR alone have unmetrical <hi>I<seg>-</seg>rifled</hi>. Other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts have <hi>riflede</hi>.</note> here males .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þat was no restituc<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan> q<expan>uo</expan>d repentance  but a robberes thefte .</l>
<l> Þow haddest bett<expan>er</expan>e<note>R.5.239: R shares with LM alone the omission of <hi>be</hi> in the phrase, <hi>be bettere</hi>. Their reading is, however, likely to be the original. M later was "corrected" to the majority reading.</note> worthi  be hanged þere<seg>-</seg>fore .</l>
R.5.240KD.5.234.1
<l> Þan for alle þat  þat þow hast here schewed .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> I wende riflynge wer<expan>e</expan> restituc<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan> q<expan>uo</expan>d <app><lem>heo</lem></app>  for I lerned neu<expan>er</expan>e rede on boke .</l>
<l> And <orig>Ican</orig><reg>I can</reg> no french in feyth  but of þe ferþest ende of norfolke .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Vsedestow eu<expan>er</expan>e vsurie q<expan>uo</expan>d repentance  in alle þi lif<seg>-</seg>tyme .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.244KD.5.238
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Nay sothly <app><lem>heo</lem></app> seyde  saue in my ȝouthe .</l>
<l> I lerned amonges lumbardes  <app><lem>a lessou<expan>n</expan> and of iewes</lem></app><note>R.5.245: Cf. beta's <hi>and iewes a lessoun</hi>. F reads <hi>a lessoun be herte</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading agrees exactly with R's.</note> .</l>
<l> To weye pans with a peys  and pare þe heuiest .</l>
<l> And lene it for loue of þe cros  to legge a wedde and lese it .</l>
R.5.248KD.5.242
<l> Swiche dedes I dede write  if he his day broke .</l>
<l> Ich haue mo maneres þorȝ <app><lem>regages</lem></app><note>R.5.249: Beta has <hi>rerages</hi>; alpha's reading, <hi>regages</hi>, is unrecorded in both <title>OED2</title> and <title>MED</title> <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>rerage</hi>, and <hi>arrearage</hi>, and is presumably nonsense generated by the misreading of a single graph, an anglicana <hi>r</hi>.</note>  þan þorȝ <foreign>miseret<expan>ur</expan> & comodat</foreign> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I haue <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>lente</lem></app> lordes  and ladies my chaffare .</l>
<l> And ben here brokour after  and brouȝt<note>R.5.251: R shares this error (<hi>brouȝt</hi> for <hi>bouȝte</hi>) by convergence with Cot alone.</note> it my<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
R.5.252KD.5.246
<l> Exchaunges and cheuysaunces  with suche <app><lem>chaffares</lem></app><note>R.5.252: R uniquely deploys the plural form here.</note> I dele .</l>
<l> And <orig>lenefolke</orig><reg>lene folke</reg> þat lese wole  a lippe at eueri noble .</l>
<l> And with lumbardes l<expan>ett</expan>res  I ladde golde to rome .</l>
<l> And toke it be taille <app><lem>þere</lem></app><note>R.5.255: Cf. R's <hi>þere</hi> with beta's <hi>here</hi>; F omits the adverb entirely.</note>  and tolde hem ther<expan>e</expan> lasse .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.256KD.5.250
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> <app><lem>Lenedest þow</lem></app> eu<expan>er</expan>e lordes  for loue of here mayntenance .<note> A design is scratched in drypoint in the left margin beside these lines; its shape is that of three pillars of approximately the same length, a vertical pillar with two supporting pillars on its left side; the higher supporting pillar is a flat horizontal, joining the vertical midway along its length, the lower one running diagonally upwards to join the other two at the same point. The effect is almost that of a reversed capital <K>.</note></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ȝe I haue lent lordes <app><lem>q<expan>uo</expan>d heo  loued</lem></app><note>R.5.257: The attributive phrase, <hi>quod heo</hi>, is an alpha reading not witnessed in any beta manuscript; cf. F's <hi>quod he</hi>.</note> me neu<expan>er</expan>e after .</l>
<l> And haue I<seg>-</seg>mad many kniȝt  bothe m<expan>er</expan>cer and draper .</l>
<l> Þat payed neu<expan>er</expan>e for his prentishode  nauȝt a peyre gloues .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.260KD.5.254
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Hastow pyte on pore men  þat mote nedes borwe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I haue as muche pyte of pore me<expan>n</expan>  as <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.5.261: R's determiner, <hi>þe</hi>, is an alpha variant; it is not present in beta manuscripts.</note> pedler<expan>e</expan> hath of cattes .</l>
<l> Þat wolde kulle he<expan>m</expan> <app><lem>and</lem></app><note>R.5.262: <hi>and</hi>, "if." Beta reads <hi>yf</hi>.</note> he cacche he<expan>m</expan> miȝte  for coueytise of her<expan>e</expan> skynnes .<note>R.5.262: At the bottom center margin of 17v, there is a drypoint figure almost identical to the one noted at R5.256 for the left margin. Now, however, the <K> figure faces downwards, and the top is trapezoidal rather than a simple rectangular pillar.</note></l>
<milestone>fol. 18rI</milestone>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Art þow manliche amonge þi neyȝbores  of þi mete and drinke .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.264KD.5.258
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> I am holden q<expan>uo</expan>d he as hende  as hound in <app><lem>his</lem></app><note>R.5.264: R's <hi>in his kychyne</hi> is a metathesis of beta's presumably original text (= <hi>is in kychyne</hi>). Cf. F's <hi>in þe kycchene</hi>.</note> kychyne .</l>
<l> Amonges my neyȝbores nameliche  suche a name Ich haue .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Now god lene neu<expan>er</expan>e q<expan>uo</expan>d repentaunce  but þow repent þe rather .</l>
<l> Þe grace on þis grounde  þi good wel to bi<seg>-</seg>sette .</l>
R.5.268KD.5.262
<l> Ne þin vssue<note>R.5.268: R reads <hi>vssue</hi>, agreeing with L alone (= <hi>ysue</hi>); M has been erased and overwritten to match the other beta manuscripts' reading, <hi>heires</hi>. F reads <hi>houswif</hi>.</note> after þe  haue ioye of þat þow wynneste .</l>
<l> Ne þi <app><lem>seketoures</lem></app><note>R.5.269: RF's <hi>seketoures</hi> is an aphetic form of beta's <hi>excecutours</hi>.</note> wel bi<seg>-</seg>sette  þe seluer þat þow hem leuest</l>
<l> And þat was wonne with wronge  with wykked men be despe<expan>n</expan>ded</l>
<l> For were I frer<expan>e</expan> of þat hows  þer<expan>e</expan> good faith and charite is .</l>
R.5.272KD.5.266
<l> I <app><lem>wolde nouȝt</lem></app> cope vs with þi catel  ne our<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>cherche</lem></app><note>R.5.272: Two alpha variants are attested here, the second inadequate for the line's alliterative pattern; cf. RF's <hi>wolde nouȝt</hi> and <hi>cherche</hi> with beta's <hi>nolde</hi> and <hi>kyrke</hi>.</note> amende</l>
<l> Ne haue a peny to my pitance of þine  be my soule hele .</l>
<l> For þe beste boke in our<expan>e</expan> hows  þouȝ brend gold wer<expan>e</expan> þe leues .</l>
<l> And I wiste witt<expan>er</expan>ly  þow wer<expan>e</expan> swiche as þow telleste .</l>
R.5.276KD.5.269α
<l> <hi><foreign>Seruus es alterius cu<expan>m</expan> fercula pinguia queris .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Pane tuo pocius  vescere liber eris .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þow art an vnkende creatur<expan>e</expan>  I kan þe nauȝt assoile .</l>
<l> Til þow make restitucion <app><lem>q<expan>uo</expan>d repentance</lem></app><note>R.5.279: Only R records <hi>quod repentance</hi>. The other <hi>B</hi> witnesses, including F, are here content with a line having only two alliterating staves. The <hi>B</hi> manuscript that Langland used in creating <hi>C</hi> appears to have shared this faulty alliteration since the alliterative key is there shifted from /r/ to /m/ in order to make use of <hi>make</hi> (=<hi>B</hi>) / <hi>ymad</hi> (= <hi>C</hi>) in the first stave position.</note>  and rekene with he<expan>m</expan> alle .</l>
R.5.280KD.5.272
<l> And sitthen þat resou<expan>n</expan> rolle it  in þe registre of heuene .</l>
<foreign>N<expan>ota</expan></foreign>
<l> Þat þow hast made vch man goed  I may þe nauȝt <app><lem>saue</lem></app> .<note>R.5.281: R's <hi>saue</hi> is unique. The other manuscripts read <hi>assoille</hi>.</note></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Non dimittit<expan>ur</expan> peccatu<expan>m</expan> <app><lem>nisi</lem></app><note>R.5.282: The predominant beta variant here is <foreign>donec</foreign>, but Cr agrees with alpha.</note> restituat<expan>ur</expan> <app><lem>ablatu<expan>m</expan></lem></app> .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> For alle þat hath of þi good  haue god my trewthe .</l>
R.5.284KD.5.275
<l> Is <app><lem>haldynge</lem></app><note>R.5.284: Only LMF agree with R's <hi>Is</hi> (but F's verb occurs in a completely rewritten line). The other copies show <hi>be(n)</hi>. R's <hi>haldynge</hi> is unique; the other <hi>B</hi> copies all show <hi>holde(n)</hi> as do many P manuscripts in the <hi>C</hi> tradition. However, the X family of <hi>C</hi> agrees with R's lection.</note> at þe heyȝ dome  to helpe þe <app><lem>restitue</lem></app><note>R.5.284: With reference to beta, R's lection here appears at first glance to involve a unique omission. Beta reads <hi>þe <hi>to</hi> restitue</hi>. However, the supposition of omission collapses when we notice that the nearly unanimous <hi>C</hi> reading at this point is identical to R's (F rewrites the line completely).</note> .</l>
<l> And ho<seg>-</seg>so leueth nauȝt þis be soth  loke in <app><lem>a</lem></app><note>R.5.285: R's lection is unique; the other manuscripts read <hi>þe</hi>, as does the <hi>C</hi> version.</note> saut<expan>er</expan> glose .</l>
<l> In <foreign>miserer<expan>e</expan> mei deus</foreign>  where I mene trewthe .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Ecce enim veritatem dilexisti &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.288KD.5.277.1
<l> <hi></hi> Þer<expan>e</expan> is no laborer<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>wolde</lem></app> leue with <app><lem>he<expan>m</expan></lem></app>  þ<expan>a</expan>t <app><lem>knoweth</lem></app> peres <app><lem>þe</lem></app> plowma<expan>n</expan> .<note>R.5.288: Kane-Donaldson dismiss this alpha line as spurious because of its reference to Piers Plowman, who has not yet been introduced into the narrative.</note></l>
<l> <app><lem>For</lem></app><note>R.5.289: <hi>For</hi> is an alpha variant; beta omits it.</note> schal neu<expan>er</expan>e werkman in þis world<expan>e</expan>  thriue with þ<expan>a</expan>t þow wynnest .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Cu<expan>m</expan> s<expan>an</expan>c<expan>t</expan>o sanctus eris </foreign></hi> construe me þat on englisch<expan>e</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Þanne wex <app><lem>þe</lem></app> schrewe in wanhope  and walde haue hanged hy<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
R.5.292KD.5.280
<l> Ne hadde repentance þe rather<expan>e</expan>  co<expan>n</expan>forted<note>R.5.292: Although Hm and G agree with R (presumably by convergence), beta itself had a compound of this verb, needed for alliteration: <hi>reconforted</hi>; F offers, in a rewritten b-verse, <hi>reersyd</hi>, which looks like an attempted repair.</note> hy<expan>m</expan> in þis maner<expan>e</expan> .</l>
d ij
<milestone>fol. 18vI</milestone>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Haue mercy in þi mende  and with þi mouthe byseche it .</l>
<l> For godes mercy is more  þan alle his other werkes .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Misericordia <app><lem>d<expan>omi</expan>ni</lem></app><note>R.5.295: This is a unique variant in R; the beta copies that contain this citation read <foreign>eius</foreign>, the accurate Vulgate form. Approximately half the beta copies and F omit the entire citation.</note> super o<expan>mn</expan>ia opera eius . &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.296KD.5.282
<l> <hi></hi> And alle þe wikkednesse in þis world  þ<expan>a</expan>t man miȝt worche or þenke</l>
<l> Ne is namore to þe mercy of god  þan in þe see a glede</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>O<expan>mn</expan>is iniquitas qu<expan>an</expan>tu<expan>m</expan> ad m<expan>isericord</expan>iam dei  est quasi sintilla in medio maris .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> For<seg>-</seg>thi haue mercy in thi mynde  and marchandise leue it .</l>
R.5.300KD.5.285
<l> For þow hast no goed grounde  to gete þe with a wastel .</l>
<l> But if it wer<expan>e</expan> with þi tonge  or elles with þi to handes .</l>
<l> For þe goed þat þow haste gete  bygan alle with falshede .</l>
<l> And as longe as þow lyuest þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>with  þow ȝeldest nouȝt but borwest .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.304KD.5.289
<l> <hi></hi> And if þow wite neu<expan>er</expan>e to whiche  ne wham to restitute .</l>
<l> Bere it to þe bischopp<expan>e</expan>  and bydde hym of his grace .</l>
<l> By<seg>-</seg>sette it hym<seg>-</seg>selue  as best is for thi soule .</l>
<l> For he schal answere for þe  at þe heyȝ dome .</l>
R.5.308KD.5.293
<l> For þe and for many mo  þat man schal ȝiue a rekenynge .</l>
<l> What he lerned ȝow in lente  leue þow non other .</l>
<l> And what he lente ȝow of our<expan>e</expan> lordes goed  to lette ȝow fro synne .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Now bygynneth glotou<expan>n</expan>  for to go to schrifte</l>
R.5.312KD.5.297
<l> And cayres hym to <app><lem>cherchewarde</lem></app><note>R.5.312: As is frequently the case, R's unique reading here is defective in alliteration (cf. <hi>Bx</hi>'s <hi>kirke-ward</hi>).</note>  his coupe to schewe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ac betou<expan>n</expan> þe brewester<expan>e</expan>  bad hym goed morewe .</l>
<l> And asked of hym with þat  whyderward he wolde .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> To holy cherche q<expan>uo</expan>d he  for to here masse .</l>
R.5.316KD.5.301
<l> And sitthen I wil be schriue  and synne namore .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I haue goed ale gossib q<expan>uo</expan>d sche  glotou<expan>n</expan> wiltow assaye .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Hastow auȝt in þi purce  any hote spices .<note>R.5.318: Although the scribe customarily enters a blank line between paragraphs, following this line he seems to have forgotten to do so because of the heavy prevalence of paraph markers to indicate dialogue.</note></l>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I haue peper and <app><lem>pioyne</lem></app><note>R.5.319: R's singular is unique among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts but agrees with the reading found in <hi>Ax</hi> and in the X family of <hi>C</hi>. The P family of <hi>C</hi> shows the same plural as the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note> q<expan>uo</expan>d sche  and a pound of garlek<expan>e</expan> .</l>
R.5.320KD.5.305
<l> A ferthyngworth of fenel seed  for fastynge<seg>-</seg>dayes .</l>
<milestone>fol. 19rI</milestone>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þanne goth glotou<expan>n</expan> Inne  and grete othes after .</l>
<l> Sesse þe souteres  sate on þe benche .</l>
<l> Watte þe warner  and his wif bothe .</l>
R.5.324KD.5.309
<l> Symme<note>R.5.324: R's non-alliterating <hi>Symme</hi> is shared with HmYCBoCot among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts but also agrees, oddly, with the reading found in <hi>A</hi> manuscripts TRaDH<hi>2</hi>H and with the reading of <hi>C</hi> manuscript P<hi>2</hi>. Presumably the cause of these overlapping errors is the mutual resemblance of the relevant capitals.</note> þe tynker<expan>e</expan>  and tweyne of his p<expan>re</expan>ntys .</l>
<l> Hikke þe hakeney<seg>-</seg>man  and howe þe nedeler<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> Clares of cokkeslane  and þe clerk<expan>e</expan> of þe cherche .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.5.327: <hi>And</hi> is an alpha variant; beta begins the line with <hi>Sire</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> version of this line agrees exactly with beta.</note> sire peres of pridie  and p<expan>er</expan>onele of flaundres </l>
R.5.328KD.5.313
<l> Dawe þe dyker<expan>e</expan>  and a doseyne other .</l>
<l> A ribybour<expan>e</expan> a ratoner<expan>e</expan>  a rakyer of chepe .</l>
<l> A roper a redyng<seg>-</seg>kyng<expan>e</expan>  and rose þe dissheres <app><lem>douȝter</lem></app> .<note>R.5.330: The phrase <hi>dissheres douȝter</hi> is an alpha variant; cf. beta's <hi>disshere(s)</hi>. Both the <hi>A</hi> version and the <hi>C</hi> version agree with beta on this reading.</note></l>
<l> Godefrey of garlek<seg>-</seg>hethe  and <app><lem>grifyth</lem></app><note>R.5.331: F reads <hi>Geffrey</hi> while beta has <hi>gryfin</hi>. Both the <hi>A</hi> version (some copies omit the line completely) and the P family of the <hi>C</hi> version agree with beta's name form here (P family = <hi>griffyng</hi>), but the X family of <hi>C</hi> agrees with R's otherwise unique form.</note> þe walsh<expan>e</expan> .</l>
R.5.332KD.5.317
<l> And vpholders an hepe  herly by þe morwe .</l>
<l> Geue glotou<expan>n</expan> with gladde chere  goed ale to hansall<expan>e</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Clement þe coblere  cast of his cloke .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>to</lem></app><note>R.5.335: Beta reads <hi>atte</hi>; F has <hi>in</hi>. The <hi>A</hi> version reading agrees with beta while the <hi>C</hi> version agrees with R's <hi>to</hi>.</note> þe <app><lem><orig>newfeyre</orig><reg>new feyre</reg></lem></app>  nempned<note>R.5.335: F and beta both read <hi><hi>he</hi> nempned</hi>; however, both the <hi>A</hi> archetype and the unanimous <hi>C</hi> reading agree with R in omitting <hi>he</hi>.</note> it to selle .</l>
R.5.336KD.5.321
<l> Hikke þe hakeneyman  hit his hood after .</l>
<l> And badde bette þe bocher<expan>e</expan><app><lem>to</lem></app><note>R.5.337: The verbal particle <hi>to</hi> is an alpha variant completely absent from the beta manuscripts. It does, however, appear in a few <hi>A</hi> manuscripts (RaUDJ) and in approximately half of the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts. It may, in fact, be the family reading of the P group.</note> ben on his side .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Þere</lem></app><note>R.5.338: R uniquely omits the <hi>Bx</hi> verb <hi>were</hi> at this point, treating the participle <hi>Ichose</hi> at the end of the a-verse as the verb.</note> chapmen Ichose  þis chaffare to preyse .</l>
<foreign>N<expan>ota</expan></foreign>
<l> Ho<seg>-</seg>so haueth þe hood  schul haue amendes of þe cloke .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.340KD.5.325
<l> <hi></hi> Þo<note>R.5.340:R and Bm are the only witnesses in the <hi>B</hi> tradition beginning this line with <hi>Þo</hi> (= not the common adverb but rather the plural demonstrative pronoun, equivalent to Modern English, "Those." See Kane, <title>Glossary</title>, pp. 207-8). The other beta copies all attest <hi>Two</hi> while F begins the line with <hi>Þan</hi>. The P family of <hi>C</hi> is joined by manuscripts Uc and Dc in support of the beta reading, but manuscripts X, I and P2 (probably reflecting the X subarchetype) agree with R and Bm in reading <hi>Þo</hi>. The <hi>A</hi> archetype also supports the RBm variant. Presumably R attests this reading by descent from alpha while Bm has it through correction, perhaps from the <hi>C</hi> exemplar used for its opening passus. Schmidt is probably correct in hypothesizing (II, 353) that <hi>Bx</hi> actually spelled <hi>Þo</hi> in this line as <hi>To</hi>, thus inviting the common subsequent scribal error of <hi>Two</hi>.</note> <app><lem>risen</lem></app> in<note>R.5.340: R uniquely omits a word from this phrase. Beta reads <hi>risen <hi>vp</hi> in</hi> while F has <hi>ryse þey ful</hi>. The reading of beta is also found in many <hi>A</hi> manuscripts and is clearly archetypal in that tradition; among the <hi>C</hi> witnesses, the P family mostly agrees with R (omitting <hi>vp</hi> from the phrase) while the X family attests its presence. However, many <hi>C</hi> manuscripts in both families omit <hi>in</hi>.</note> rape  and rowned to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
<l> And preysed <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.5.341: Beta reads <hi>þese</hi> in place of alpha's <hi>þe</hi>. The <hi>A</hi> reading agrees with alpha, but the <hi>C</hi> version is split by families, with the P family supporting alpha while the X family agrees with beta.</note> penyworthes  a<seg>-</seg>part by <app><lem>hym<seg>-</seg>selue</lem></app> .</l>
<l> Þei coude nauȝt by her<expan>e</expan> consience  acorden in trewthe .</l>
<l> Til robyn þe ropere  <app><lem>arise þe</lem></app> southe .<note>R.5.343: R may well represent <hi>Bx</hi> here, but the b-verse is plainly wrong. It is obvious that the F redactor has completely recast the b-verse because of its archtypally defective sense; in beta, the b-verse is similarly lacking, reading <hi>arose bi þe southe</hi>. Both Kane-Donaldson and Schmidt emend this verse conjecturally to conform to the <hi>C</hi> version: <hi>aryse they bisouhte</hi>.</note></l>
R.5.344KD.5.330
<l> And nempned hym for a noumper  þat no debate were<note>R.5.344: Beta and F read <hi>nere</hi> in place of R's <hi>were</hi>, but both G and Hm agree with R (presumably by correction). The <hi>A</hi> witnesses are split, but a majority agrees with R; the <hi>C</hi> version reading is unambiguously the same as R's.</note> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Hikke þe hosteler<expan>e</expan>  hadde þe cloke .<note> In the right margin, a note was written horizontally here, covering three lines, but was later scraped. It appears to be in the same hand (later than that of the scribe) as a number of other erased notes, such as that found on fol. 94r.</note></l>
<l> In couenaunt þat clement  schulde þe cuppe fille .</l>
<l> And haue hikkes hood hostelere  and holde hym I<seg>-</seg>s<expan>er</expan>ued .</l>
R.5.348KD.5.334
<l> And ho<seg>-</seg>so repented rathest  schuld arise after .</l>
<l> And grete sire glotou<expan>n</expan>  with a galoun ale .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þer<expan>e</expan> was lawhyng<expan>e</expan> and lowryng<expan>e</expan>  and late go þe cuppe .</l>
<l> And sitten so til euesonge  and <app><lem>syngen</lem></app><note>R.5.351: The present tense, <hi>syngen</hi>, is unique to R; cf. F's <hi>sunge</hi> and beta's <hi>songen</hi>. R also shows a present-tense form earlier in this line, <hi>sitten</hi>, where most <hi>B</hi> witnesses record a past-tense form (but Cr and G agree with R). Context alone would suggest that the past tenses are correct, but the unanimous witness of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts as well as the attestation of a clear majority of <hi>A</hi> manuscripts in favor of these forms decides the question. Cf. see the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref> for a discussion of R's problematic tense marking.</note> vmb<seg>-</seg>while .</l>
R.5.352KD.5.339
<l> Til glotou<expan>n</expan> haued I<seg>-</seg>globbed  a galoun and a gille .</l>
<milestone>fol. 19vI</milestone>
<l> His guttes gonne to godly<note>R.5.353: R's <hi>godly</hi> is shared exclusively with LM. As odd as it first seems, this was almost certainly the form of the verb in <hi>Bx</hi>. F has <hi>gowle</hi> while most beta manuscripts read <hi>goþelen</hi>. The same phrase occurs in the <hi>C</hi> version, where it reads <hi>His gottes gan to gothly</hi>. Significantly, a sizeable number of <hi>C</hi> witnesses agree exactly with manuscripts LMR of <hi>B</hi> on the spelling of the verb form, and <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>gothelen</hi>, acknowledges both <hi>-dly</hi> and <hi>-þly</hi> forms as viable for <hi>gothelen</hi>, but citations are solely to <title>Piers Plowman</title>. The same limited acknowledgment of these forms is found in <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>gothele</hi>, and <hi>godele(n), -y</hi>.</note>  as to <app><lem><sic>gnedy</sic><corr>g[r]edy</corr></lem></app> sowes .</l>
<l> He pyssed a potel  in a pater noster while .</l>
<l> <app><lem>He</lem></app><note>R.5.355: <hi>He</hi> is a unique variant; the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read <hi>And</hi>. However, R's reading is also that of four <hi>A</hi> manuscripts and of the X family of the <hi>C</hi> version. Both Kane-Donaldson and Schmidt prefer the F/beta reading, presumably on stylistic grounds since <hi>And</hi> avoids a syntactic repetition (the previous line begins with <hi>He</hi>) that modern tastes find clumsy.</note> blew his round rowet  at his rigges bones<note>R.5.355: Most manuscripts have the compound riggebone, but both <hi>rigges</hi> and <hi>bones</hi> are genitives. Manuscript C has the same reading.</note> ende .</l>
R.5.356KD.5.343
<l> Þat <app><lem><sic>alle þat</sic><corr>alle [þat herde] þat</corr></lem></app><note>R.5.356: Here R uniquely omits a key phrase from the archetypal text.</note> horne  held here nose after .</l>
<l> And wischedun it hadde be wexed  with a wips of firses .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> He miȝte neyther steppe ne stonde  er<expan>e</expan> he his staf hadde .</l>
<l> And þanne gan he go  liche a glwemannes bicche .</l>
R.5.360KD.5.347
<l> Sum<seg>-</seg>tyme a<seg>-</seg>syde  and sum<seg>-</seg>tyme arere .</l>
<l> As ho<seg>-</seg>so leith lynes  for to lacche foules .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> <app><lem>Ac</lem></app><note>R.5.362: <hi>Ac</hi> is unique to R; the other manuscripts read <hi>And</hi>. The <hi>A</hi> archetype seems to omit any connective here, but the <hi>C</hi> version agrees with F / beta.</note> whan he drouȝ to þe dore  þanne dymmed hys eyȝes .</l>
<l> He tremled<note>R.5.363: R's <hi>tremled</hi> is uniquely supported by L (M having been altered once more to conform to the typical beta reading—for which, see below); F reads <hi>tripplid</hi> while most betas offer the non-alliterating <hi>stombled</hi>. Among the <hi>A</hi> manuscripts, only Vernon offers a viable reading, <hi>þrompelde</hi>, while the others attest various forms of <hi>stombled</hi>. As for the <hi>C</hi> version, though a few opt for <hi>stumblet</hi>, the majority attest <hi>thromblede</hi>. Based on its alliterative pattern, this is presumably what Langland wrote originally, but the LR form is almost certainly what it became in <hi>Bx</hi>.</note> on þe threswolde  and threw to þe erthe .</l>
R.5.364KD.5.351
<l> Clement þe cobbler<expan>e</expan>  cauȝt hym by þe myddel .</l>
<l> For to lifte hym a<seg>-</seg>lofte  and leyde hym on his knowes .</l>
<l> Ac glotou<expan>n</expan> was a grete cherle  and a grym in þe liftyng .</l>
<l> And cowede vppe a caudel  in clementes lappe .</l>
R.5.368KD.5.355
<l> Is non so hungri hound  in hertford<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>schire .</l>
<l> Durst lape of þe <app><lem>leuyng</lem></app><note>R.5.369: Beta shows the plural form, <hi>leuynges</hi>, while F rewrites the a-verse beyond recognition. The <hi>C</hi> version agrees here with R's singular.</note>  so vnlouely <app><lem>it</lem></app> smauȝte .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> With alle þe wo of þis world  his wif and his wenche .</l>
<l> Baren hym <app><lem>to</lem></app><note>R.5.371: Beta reads <hi>home to</hi>; although three <hi>A</hi> copies (VHaN) agree with beta here, both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> concur with alpha's omission of <hi>hom</hi>.</note> his bed  and brouȝte hym þere<seg>-</seg>inne .</l>
R.5.372KD.5.359
<l> And after alle þis excesse  he hadde an accidie .</l>
<l> Þat he slepe seterday and soneday  til sonne ȝede to rest .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Þanne waked he of his wynkyng  and wiped his eyȝes .</l>
<l> Þe furst word þat he warpp<expan>e</expan>  was wher<expan>e</expan> is þe bolle .</l>
R.5.376KD.5.363
<l> His witt gan edewyte hym þo  how wikkedliche he leuede .</l>
<l> And repentance riȝt so  rebuked hym þat tyme .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> As þow with wordes and werkes  hast wrouȝt euele in þi lyue .</l>
<l> Schriue þe and be aschamed þere<seg>-</seg>offe  and schewe it with þi mouthe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.380KD.5.367
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> I glotou<expan>n</expan> q<expan>uo</expan>d þe gome  gulty me ȝelde .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Of</lem></app> þ<expan>a</expan>t<note>R.5.381: R's <hi>Of</hi> is unique; the other <hi>B</hi> witnesses begin the line with <hi>Þat</hi>. However, the <hi>C</hi> reading here is identical to R's.</note> I haue trespased with my tonge  I can nauȝt telle how ofte .</l>
<l> Sworen godes soule <app><lem>and his sydes</lem></app><note>R.5.382: Beta omits the entire R phrase for the end of the a-verse (<hi>and his sydes</hi>); F reads an abbreviated version, <hi>& side</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading is probably that of the X family (which agrees exactly with R's). The P family reading (<hi>& sides</hi>) agrees with F's omission of the possessive but with R's plural number.</note>  and so <app><lem>help me god & holy<seg>-</seg>dome</lem></app><note>R.5.382: Beta appears to reverse a key alpha phrase (the latter being more colloquial), rendering alpha's <hi>so help me god</hi> as <hi>so god me help</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading for the end of this b-verse is revised but its opening agrees exactly with alpha's phrasing, <hi>so helpe me god</hi>. Beta's motive for revision was probably metrical, but manuscript M somehow still agrees with alpha and displays a form that may explain both Langland's intention and the apparent lapse in alliteration. Alpha and M read the line as aliterating on /s/ (hence M's <hi>selpe</hi>) but beta judges that it must alliterate on /g/ and generates the aformentioned phrase reversal to highlight that possibility.</note> .</l>
<milestone>fol. 20rI</milestone>
<l> Þere no nede ne was  nyne hundreth tymes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.384KD.5.371
<l> <hi></hi> And ou<expan>er</expan><seg>-</seg>seye me at my soper  and <app><lem>sum<seg>-</seg>tymes</lem></app><note>R.5.384: R's <hi>-s</hi> form here is unique. The other <hi>B</hi> copies show <hi>some<seg>-</seg>tyme</hi>, a reading shared with <hi>C</hi>.</note> at nones .</l>
<l> Þat I glotou<expan>n</expan> gurt it vppe  ar I hadde gon a myle .</l>
<l> And I<seg>-</seg>spilt þat myȝt be spared  and <app><lem>spend</lem></app><note>R.5.386: R's <hi>spend</hi> is an alpha variant; cf. F's