<div1>fol. 35v (cont.)I</div1>
<expan>us</expan> de<lb/>
& c<expan>etera</expan> .
<head><foreign><hi>Passus nonus  de visione vt sup<expan>ra</expan> . <seg></seg> <seg></seg></hi></foreign> <note>R.9.0: At the extreme left margin of the same line as the passus heading, there is the cropped fragment of a small brown guide, illegible except for the ends of three lines: <hi>s<expan>us</expan><lb/>
<expan>us</expan> de<lb/>
& c<expan>etera</expan> </hi>
<l> <hi><hi>S</hi></hi>ire dowel<del>l</del><del>eth</del> <add>dwellis</add><note>R.9.1: Manuscript C also reads <hi>dwelles</hi>, but the <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> versions attest the same present-tense verb form as F and most beta copies: <hi>dwelleth</hi>. R's original reading, before editorial correction to <hi>dwellis</hi>, was a grotesque error involving the accidental merger of two words (<hi>dowelleth</hi>), but the form of that error makes clear that R's copytext attested the same verb form as that now found in F and most other manuscripts.</note> q<expan>uo</expan>d witt  nauȝt a day hennes .</l>
<l> In a castel þat kende made  of foure <app><lem>man<expan>er</expan></lem></app><note>R.9.2: Beta reads <hi>kynnes</hi>, which agrees with both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> þinges .</l>
<l> Of erthe and heyer is it made  medeled to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
<l> With wynde and with wat<expan>er</expan>  witt<expan>er</expan>ly enioyned .</l>
<l> Kende hath closed þere<seg>-</seg>inne  craftily with<seg>-</seg>alle .</l>
<l> A lemman þat he louyeth  <app><lem>y<seg>-</seg>liche</lem></app> to hym<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
<milestone>fol. 36rI</milestone>
<l> <foreign>Anima</foreign> sche hatteth  ac enu<del>.</del><add>y</add>e hire hateth .</l>
<l> A proude prikere of fraunce  <foreign>princeps hui<expan>us</expan> mu<expan>n</expan>di</foreign> .</l>
<l> And wold wynne hire awey  with wiles and he miȝte .</l>
<l> And kende knoweth þis wel  and kepeth hire þe bettere .</l>
<l> And hath <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>do</lem></app><note>R.9.11: F and some beta copies (e.g., CrWHm) here read <hi>dooþ</hi>; LMGO, by contrast, read <hi>hath do(on)</hi>. R's <hi>hath I<seg>-</seg>do</hi> is almost identical to the reading of L. The predominant readings among both <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> witnesses are small variations of the RLMOG phrase, but six manuscripts from the P family of <hi>C</hi> attest the same reading as FCrWHm.</note> hire with<note>R.9.11: Beta reads <hi>with <hi>sire</hi> dowel</hi>. This reading is also found in <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> <app><lem>dowel</lem></app>  is duk of <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.9.11: Cf. F's <hi>þat</hi> and beta's <hi>þis</hi>. Beta's reading is also that of <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> marches .</l>
<l> Do<seg>-</seg>bet is hire damoisel  sire doweles douȝter .</l>
<l> To s<expan>er</expan>ue þis lady lely  both late and rathe .</l>
<l> Dobest is <app><lem><sic>aboute</sic><corr>abo[u]e</corr></lem></app> bothe  a bischopes pere .</l>
<l> Þat he bit <orig>motebe</orig><reg>mote be</reg> do  he reuleth hem alle .</l>
<l> <foreign>Anima</foreign> þat lady  is lad by hys <app><lem>lernyng</lem></app> .</l>
<l> ¶ Ac þe constable of þat castel  þat kepeth alle þe wacche .</l>
<l> Is a wise kniȝt with<seg>-</seg>alle  sire inwitt he hatte .</l>
<l> And hath fyue faire sones  by his furst wyue .</l>
<l> Sire sewel and saywel  and <app><lem>sire</lem></app><note>R.9.20: Beta omits alpha's <hi>sire</hi> from this b-verse. <hi>Ax</hi> agrees with beta in this omission, but a majority of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts, including the best X family witnesses and most of the P family, agree with alpha here.</note> here<seg>-</seg>wel þe hende .</l>
<l> Sire werche wel with þin hand  a wiȝt man of strengthe .</l>
<l> And sire godefrey go<seg>-</seg>wel  <app><lem>a grete lord</lem></app><note>R.9.22: In place of alpha's singular (<hi>a grete lord</hi>), beta opts for the plural: <hi>gret lordes</hi>. Beta's choice agrees with the reading of both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> for<seg>-</seg>sothe </l>
<l> Þise fyue ben sette  to saue <app><lem>þis</lem></app><note>R.9.23: Beta reads the phrase as <hi>þis <hi>lady</hi> <foreign>anima</foreign></hi>.</note> <foreign>anima</foreign> .</l>
<l> Til kende come or sende  to saue hire for euere .</l>
<l> ¶ What kynne thynge is kende q<expan>uo</expan>d I  kanst þow me telle .</l>
<l> ¶ Kende q<expan>uo</expan>d witt is <del>a</del><note>R.9.26: Although M agrees with R in the omission of the determiner (in both copies by what appears to be an editorial erasure of the word <hi>a</hi> originally written), most beta copies and F agree in reading <hi>is <hi>a</hi> creatour</hi>. However, the overwhelming majority of <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agrees with the "corrected" (i.e. the erased) version of RM.</note> creatour  of alkynne þinges .</l>
<l> Fader and formeor  of alle þat euer was maked .<note>R.9.27: There is a cross in the left margin here, but it is much heavier and thicker than the similar crosses used by the scribe to mark Latin tags for later boxing. This cross is presumably a correction mark; there is no mistake in 9.27, but the mark may refer to 9.28's <hi>gete</hi>, which was never corrected.</note></l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.9.28: R uniquely omits a phrase immediately after <hi>And</hi>. In beta, the phrase is <hi>þat is</hi>; F omits <hi>And</hi>, beginning the line with <hi>He is</hi>. <hi>Ax</hi> confirms the authenticity of beta's phrase.</note> þe <app><lem><sic>get<expan>e</expan></sic><corr>g[r]et<expan>e</expan></corr></lem></app> god þat gynnyng had neuere .</l>
<l> Lord of lif and of liȝt  of <app><lem>blisse</lem></app><note>R.9.29: The group of witnesses joining R in attesting <hi>blisse</hi> (a non-alliterating synonym of authorial <hi>lisse</hi>) includes F, as expected, and five typical beta manuscripts: Cr<hi>1</hi>, G, and B (Bm, Bo, and Cot). Cr<hi>1</hi> and G are late, and exposed to extensive lateral transmission, so that their agreement in this reading is not problematic. Likewise, the B group is so textually inferior in its common source as to be an unsurprising ally. However, what is mildly surprising is that M also has been "corrected" into agreement with this alpha error. This fact suggests that <hi>blisse</hi> was already present in Cr<hi>1</hi>'s exemplar (beta2), because Cr1's exemplar was almost certainly the copy that had been used long before to "correct" M into agreement with the WHmCr sub-family.</note> and of payne .</l>
<l> Angeles and alle þing  aren at his wille .</l>
<l> Ac man is <app><lem>most hym</lem></app><note>R.9.31: This phrase occurs in beta in transposed order as <hi>hym moste</hi>. The cognate line in <hi>Ax</hi> is identical to beta's version, and <hi>Cx</hi>, in a revised line, repeats the word order of beta's phrase.</note> like  of marke and of schafte .</l>
<l> For þoruȝ þe worde þat he spake  wexen forth bestes .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Dixit et facta sunt </foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ And made <add>ma<expan>n</expan></add> <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>likest</lem></app> to hym<seg>-</seg>self one .</l>
<l> And eue of his ribbe<seg>-</seg>bon  with<seg>-</seg>outen any mene .</l>
<l> For he was singuler<expan>e</expan> hym<seg>-</seg>selue  <app><lem>seyde</lem></app><note>R.9.36: R uniquely omits <hi>and</hi> before <hi>seyde</hi>; F reads <hi>he</hi> in place of <hi>and</hi>.</note> <foreign>Faciamus</foreign> .</l>
<l> ¶ As ho sey more mote hereto  þanne my worde one .</l>
<milestone>fol. 36vI</milestone>
<l> My miȝt mote helpe  now with my speche .</l>
<l> Riȝt as a lord <app><lem>schul</lem></app><note>R.9.39: R's form here, <hi>schul</hi>, is unique and may represent either a present or past tense inflection; F and beta both attest a past-tense form, <hi>sholde</hi>.</note> make l<expan>ett</expan>res  and hym lakked p<expan>ar</expan>chmyn .</l>
<l> Þouȝ he coude write neuer so wel  ȝif he had no penne .</l>
<l> Þe lett<expan>er</expan>e for alle þe lordschipp<expan>e</expan>  I leue were neuer I<seg>-</seg>maked .</l>
<l> ¶ And so it <app><lem>semed</lem></app><note>R.9.42: R's apparently past-tense inflection is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> has <hi>semeth</hi>. Cf. the discussion of R's problematic tense marking in the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref>, where this example is categorized.</note> by hym  as þe bible telleth .</l>
<l> Þeer<expan>e</expan> he seyde <hi><foreign>dixit et facta sunt .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> He moste werche with his worde  and his witt schewe .</l>
<l> And in þis maner was man made  þoruȝ miȝt of god almiȝty .</l>
<l> With his word and werkmanschipp<expan>e</expan>  and with lif to laste .</l>
<l> And þus god gaf hym a goste  of þe godded<note>R.9.47: <hi>Godded</hi>, "godhead."</note> of heuene .</l>
<l> And of his grete grace  graunted hym blisse  </l>
<l> And þat is lif þat ay schal laste  to alle <app><lem>his</lem></app><note>R.9.49: R's <hi>his</hi> is an alpha variant; although W agrees with alpha in attesting the presence of this possessive adjective, the other beta manuscripts omit it. Nevertheless, <hi>Ax</hi> supports the RFW reading here.</note> lynage after .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>þis</lem></app><note>R.9.50: R's <hi>þis</hi> is unique; the other <hi>B</hi> witnesses read <hi>þat</hi>. <hi>Ax</hi> agrees with beta here.</note> is þe <app><lem><sic>catel</sic><corr>ca[s]tel</corr></lem></app> þat kende made  <foreign>caro</foreign> it hatte .</l>
<l> And is as muche to mene  as man with a soule .</l>
<l> And þat he wrouȝt with werke  and with <app><lem>his</lem></app> <app><lem>wordes</lem></app><note>R.9.52: R's plural is unique among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts; the others read <hi>worde</hi>. Moreover, beta omits <hi>his</hi>. <hi>Ax</hi> agrees with beta on the omission of <hi>his</hi>, but the <hi>A</hi> witnesses are divided on whether the following noun is singular (as in F and beta) or plural (as in R).</note> bothe .</l>
<l> Þoruȝ miȝt of þe mageste  man was I<seg>-</seg>maked .</l>
<l> ¶ Inwitt and alle wittes  <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>clothed</lem></app><note>R.9.54: R's <hi>I<seg>-</seg>clothed</hi> is unique; the other <hi>B</hi> copies read <hi>closed</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> support the majority <hi>B</hi> reading.</note> ben þere<seg>-</seg>inne .</l>
<l> For loue of þe lady <foreign>anima</foreign>  þat lif is Inempned .</l>
<l> Oueralle in mannes body  he walketh and wandreth .</l>
<l> Ac in þe herte is hire home  and hire moste reste .</l>
<l> Ac inwitt is in þe hed  and to þe herte<note>R.9.58: Only Cr and R omit <hi>he</hi> before <hi>loketh</hi>.</note> loketh .</l>
<l> What <foreign>anima</foreign> is lef or loth  he lat hire at <app><lem>hire</lem></app><note>R.9.59: R's <hi>hire</hi> is unique; both beta and F read <hi>his</hi>.</note> wille .</l>
<l> For after þe grace of god  þe grettest is Inwitt .</l>
<l> ¶ Muche wo worth þat <app><lem>wiȝt</lem></app><note>R.9.61: Beta reads <hi>man</hi>, and <hi>Cx</hi> revises to <hi>hym</hi>.</note>  þat mys<seg>-</seg>rewleth his Inwitt .</l>
<l> And þat beth glotones globares  her<expan>e</expan> god is here wombe .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Quor<expan>um</expan> deus vent<expan>er</expan> est .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> For þei s<expan>er</expan>uen sathan  here soule<note>R.9.64: Most beta copies and F agree in rendering this variant as a plural (<hi>soules</hi>), but the support of LM for R's singular suggests that the reading of alpha, and of <hi>Bx</hi>, was <hi>soule</hi>.</note> schal he haue .</l>
<l> Þat lyuen synful lyf here  her<expan>e</expan> soule is liche þe deuel .</l>
<l> And alle þat lyuen gode lif  aren like<note>R.9.66: Only L and R omit a preposition before <hi>god</hi>. F's version of the b-verse is <hi>lyk after goddis techyng</hi>, while the other beta manuscripts read <hi>lik <hi>to</hi> god almiȝti</hi>.</note> god almiȝty .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Qui manet in caritate in deo manet &c<expan>etera</expan> . </foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ Allas þat drink schal fordo  þat god dere bouȝte </l>
<l> And doth god forsaken hem  þat <app><lem>schope hem</lem></app><note>R.9.69: In place of alpha's <hi>schope hem</hi>, beta reads <hi>he shope</hi>.</note> to his liknesse .</l>
<milestone>fol. 37rI</milestone>
<l> <hi><foreign>Amen dico vobis nescio <app><lem>vos</lem></app> .</foreign><note>R.9.70: F omits the entire Latin tag; beta's version of the tag continues beyond R's end, reading: <foreign>vos & alibi et dimisi eos secundum desideria eorum</foreign>.</note></hi></l>
<l> ¶ Foles þat fauten Inwitt  I fynde þat holy cherche .</l>
<l> Schulde fynden hem þat fauteth<note>R.9.72: Beta reads <hi>hem þat <hi>hem</hi> fauteth / fauted</hi>. F's rendering of this a-verse, <hi>Ne knowe no(n) defawhte</hi>, is too different to make comparison relevant.</note>  and faderles childeren .</l>
<l> And wydewes þat haue nauȝt where<seg>-</seg>with . to wynnen he<expan>m</expan> her<expan>e</expan> fode .</l>
<l> Madde men and maydenes  þat helples were .</l>
<l> Alle þise lakken Inwit  and lore byhoueth .</l>
<l> ¶ Of þis matire I miȝte  make a longe tale .</l>
<l> And fynde fele witnese  amonges þe foure doctoures .</l>
<l> And þat I lye <app><lem>nauȝt</lem></app><note>R.9.78: Alpha here omitted a syntactically important phrase present in the beta manuscripts: <hi>of þat</hi>. In a second stage of corruption, F characteristically sacrifices from the mangled a-verse of alpha (as attested in R) an alliterating phrase that now makes little sense (<hi>I lere the</hi>) and adds weight to the b-verse with <hi>sey<expan>n</expan>t</hi> luc.</note> I <orig>lerethe</orig><reg>lere the</reg>  luk bereth witnesse .</l>
<l> ¶ Godfader and godmoder  þat sen here god<seg>-</seg>children .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Þat is</lem></app><note>R.9.80: In place of R's <hi>Þat is</hi>, F reads <hi>In</hi> while beta reads <hi>At</hi>.</note> mys<seg>-</seg>heise and at mischief  and mowe hem amende .</l>
<l> Schal haue penau<expan>n</expan>ce in p<expan>ur</expan>gatorie<note>R.9.81: This word is partially erased, and the erasure is very old though presumably not contemporary. Despite the attempted erasure, the word remains entirely readable.</note>  but ȝif þei hem helpe .</l>
<l> For more by<seg>-</seg>longeth to þe litel barne  ar he þe lawe knowe .</l>
<l> Þan nempnyng of a name  and he neu<expan>er</expan>e þe wiser<expan>e</expan>.</l>
<l> ¶ Schulde no cristene creature  crien atte ȝate .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.9.85: Beta reads <hi>Ne</hi>.</note> faile payn <app><lem>and</lem></app> potage  and p<expan>re</expan>lates dide as þei schulde .</l>
<l> A Iew wolde nouȝt se a Iew  go Iangelynge for defaute .</l>
<l> For alle þe nobeles<note>R.9.87: R's alliteration fails here; cf. beta's <hi>moebles</hi>, which clearly reflects <hi>Bx</hi>. F's effort to repair the alliterative pattern with the easy and obvious <hi>mone</hi> suggests that R's error was derived from alpha.</note> of þis molde  and he amende it miȝte</l>
<l> ¶ Allas þat a cristene creature  schal be vnkende til annother .</l>
<l> Sitthen Iewes þat we Iugen  Iudas felawes .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Þat</lem></app> <app><lem>ayther</lem></app> helpeth other  of <app><lem>hem</lem></app> þat hym nedeth .<note>R.9.90: A series of small variations differentiates beta from alpha in this line, making it most efficient simply to show the beta line in its entirety: <hi>Ayther of hem helpeth other of þat þat hym nedeth</hi>. F renders the line thus: <hi>þat ech helpiþ oþir of hem / of good þat hem neediþ</hi>.</note></l>
<l> ¶ Why ne wil we cristene  of cristes goed be as kende .</l>
<l> As Iewes þat ben oure lores<seg>-</seg>men  <app><lem>to</lem></app><note>R.9.92: Beta omits R's <hi>to</hi>; F reads <hi>It is</hi>.</note> schame to vs alle .</l>
<l> Þe comune for here vnkendenesse  I drede me schul abye .</l>
<l> ¶ Bischopes schul be blamed  for beggeres sake .</l>
<l> He is wors þan Iudas  þat ȝiueth a iaper<expan>e</expan> siluer .</l>
<l> And bit<note>R.9.96: F reads <hi>byddis</hi>; beta has <hi>biddeth</hi>.</note> þe begere go  for his broke clothes .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Proditor est p<expan>re</expan>lat<expan>us</expan> cu<expan>m</expan> iuda qui patrimoniu<expan>m</expan> <expan>christi</expan> min<expan>us</expan> distribuit .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Et alibi . P<expan>er</expan>niciosus dispensator est  q<expan>ui</expan> res paup<expan>er</expan>u<expan>m</expan> <expan>christi</expan> i<expan>n</expan>vtilit<expan>er </expan>co<expan>n</expan>sumit .</foreign></hi></l>
<milestone>fol. 37vI</milestone>
<l> He doth nauȝt wel þat doth þus  ne drad nauȝt god almiȝty</l>
<l> Ne loueth nauȝt salomones sawes  þat sapience tauȝte .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Iniciu<expan>m</expan> sapiencie timor domini <seg></seg></foreign></hi> .</l>
<l> ¶ Þat <app><lem>drad</lem></app> god he doth wel  þat <app><lem>drad</lem></app><note>R.9.102: In both instances in this line where R reads <hi>drad</hi>, <hi>Bx</hi> has <hi>dredeth</hi>.</note> hym for loue .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And drad hym</lem></app> nauȝt for <app><lem>loue</lem></app> of vengeance  <app><lem>to do</lem></app> þe better<expan>e</expan> .<note>R.9.103: Beta's line reads <hi>And nouȝt for drede of veniaunce doth þerfore þe bettere</hi>. R's <hi>And drad hym</hi> is unique; F has <hi>he dredyþ</hi>.</note></l>
<l> He doth best þat with<seg>-</seg>draweth hym  by day and by nyȝte .</l>
<l> To spille any speche  or any space of tyme .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Qui offendit in verbo<note>R.9.106: R's <foreign>verbo</foreign> is almost certainly authorial, albeit not an accurate Vulgate citation; L is the only other <hi>B</hi> witness that completely agrees with R, but M probably did originally (by erasure and correction M now reads <foreign>vno</foreign>). F tries to split the difference between alpha's <foreign>verbo</foreign> and the common beta reading, <foreign>vno</foreign>, by adopting a reading of <foreign>vno verbo</foreign>.</note> in om<expan>n</expan>ib<expan>us</expan> est reus .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ Lesynge of tyme trewth wote þe sothe  </l>
<l> Is most I<seg>-</seg>hated vp erthe  of hem þat ben in heuene .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>seche</lem></app><note>R.9.109: F reads <hi>all swiche</hi>, which looks as though it is somehow related to R's <hi>seche</hi> but is equally devoid of sense. The likeliest explanation for these variants is that alpha's <c> and <t> were indistinct and that alpha had intended <hi>sethe</hi>. Beta's correct reading is <hi>sitthe</hi>.</note> to spille speche  þat spire is of grace .</l>
<l> And godes gleman  and a game of heuene .</l>
<l> Wold neu<expan>er</expan>e þe faithful fader  his fithel wer<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>vntymbred</lem></app> .<note>R.9.111: For R's unique form, <hi>vntymbred</hi>, <hi>Bx</hi> reads <hi>vntempred</hi>. There is no semantic difference in R's form, merely a changed spelling produced by the voicing of an unvoiced consonant in the middle of a voiced consonant cluster.</note></l>
<l> Ne his gleman a gedelynge  a goere to tauernes .</l>
<l> ¶ To alle trewe tydy men  þat trauail desiren .</l>
<l> Our<expan>e</expan> lord loueth hem and lent  loude other stille .</l>
<l> Grace to go to <app><lem>hem tille</lem></app><note>R.9.115: R's <hi>hem tille</hi> is a unique reading. Beta simply reads <hi>hem</hi>. However, F offers a different unique reading at this point, <hi>hem to</hi>, suggesting that both R and F are mirroring an alpha variant.</note>  and agoon here liflode .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Inquirentes autem dominu<expan>m</expan> non minuentur o<expan>mn</expan>i bono .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ Trewe wedded libbyng folke  in þis world is dowel .</l>
<l> For þei mote werche and wynne  and þe world susteyne .</l>
<l> For of here kende <app><lem>he</lem></app><note>R.9.119: <hi>he</hi>, "they." Beta and <hi>Cx</hi> read <hi>þei</hi>.</note> come  þat confessoures ben nempned .</l>
<l> Kynges and kniȝtes kaiseres and cherles .</l>
<l> Maydenes and martires  oute of o man come .</l>
<l> Þe wif was mad þe wey<note>R.9.122: <hi>Weye</hi>, "husband, man."</note>  for to helpe werche .</l>
<l> And þus was wedlok I<seg>-</seg>wrouȝt  and god hym<seg>-</seg>self it made<note>R.9.123: Alpha omits the following lines from <hi>Bx</hi> through eye-skip on identical a-verses: <lb/>
<hi>. . . with a mene persone <lb/>
First bi þe faderes wille and þe frendes conseille <lb/>
And sytthenes bi assent of hemself as þei two myȝte acorde <lb/>
And thus was wedloke ywrouȝte . . . .</hi>
<l> In erth <app><lem>þere</lem></app><note>R.9.124: For R's <hi>þere</hi>, beta reads <hi>þe</hi>; F reads <hi>here</hi></note> heuen is  hym<seg>-</seg>self was þe witnesse .</l>
<l> ¶ Ac fals folk <app><lem>and</lem></app><note>R.9.125: Beta omits <hi>and</hi>.</note> faithles  theues and lieres .</l>
<l> Wastoures and wreches  oute of wedlok I trowe .</l>
<l> Conseyued ben <app><lem>Iuel</lem></app><note>R.9.127: R uniquely omits <hi>in</hi> before <hi>Iuel</hi>.</note> tyme  as caym was on eue .</l>
<l> Of suche synful schrewes  þe sauter maketh mende .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Concepit <app><lem>dolorem</lem></app><note>R.9.129: R's <foreign>dolorem</foreign> is the alpha variant—to which Hm has been "corrected" by a second hand (the other beta manuscripts read <foreign>in dolore</foreign>). This variation ultimately reflects a discrepancy in the textual tradition of the Vulgate itself, but the predominant reading among <hi>A</hi> copies of <title>Piers Plowman</title> is the same as alpha's, while the overwhelming preference among <hi>C</hi> manuscripts is for the beta reading.</note> et peperit <app><lem>iniquitatem</lem></app> .</foreign></hi></l>
<milestone>fol. 38rI</milestone>
<l> And alle þat come of þat caym  come to euel ende .</l>
<l> For god sent to sem  and seyde by an au<expan>n</expan>gel</l>
<l> Þin Issu in þin Issu  I wil þat þei ben wedded .</l>
<l> And nauȝt þi kende with <app><lem>caym</lem></app><note>R.9.133: Beta reads <hi>caymes</hi>.</note>  I<seg>-</seg>coupled ne I<seg>-</seg>spoused .</l>
<l> ¶ Ȝet so<expan>m</expan>me aȝeyne þe sonde  of oure saueour<expan>e</expan> of heuene .</l>
<l> Caymes kende and his kynde  coupled to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
<l> Til god wrathed for here werkes  and such a worde seyde .</l>
<l> Þat I maked man  now it me <app><lem>þinketh</lem></app> .<note>R.9.137: All other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts here read either <hi>athynketh</hi> or <hi>forthynketh</hi>. F shows the latter reading, as does <hi>Ax</hi>. For the sense of R's reading, see <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>thinken</hi> (v.[2], 10 [a]).</note></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Penitet me fecisse ho<expan>m</expan>i<expan>n</expan>em .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ And come to noe a<seg>-</seg>none  and bad hym nauȝt lette .</l>
<l> Swithe go schape a schipp<expan>e</expan>  of schides and of bordes .</l>
<l> Þi<seg>-</seg>self and þi sones thre  and sitthen ȝour<expan>e</expan> wiues .</l>
<l> Buske ȝow to þat bote  and bydeth ȝe þere<seg>-</seg>Inne .</l>
<l> Til fourty dayes ben fulfilled  þat floed haue <app><lem>Iwasted</lem></app> .<note>R.9.143: For alpha's <hi>Iwasted</hi>, beta reads <hi>ywasshen</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> confirm the correctness of the beta reading.</note></l>
<l> Clene away þe cursed bloed  þat caym hath I<seg>-</seg>maked .</l>
<l> ¶ Bestes þat now ben  schal banne þe tyme .</l>
<l> Þat eu<expan>er</expan> þat cursed caym  come on þis erthe .</l>
<l> Alle schal deye for his dedes  by dales and hilles .</l>
<l> And þe foules þat fleth  forth with other bestes .</l>
<l> Excepte onlyche  of <app><lem>on</lem></app><note>R.9.149: Beta reads <hi>eche</hi>; Cr and F have <hi>euery</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi>'s <hi>vch</hi> supports beta's variant.</note> kende a couple .</l>
<l> Þat in <app><lem>þis</lem></app><note>R.9.150: Beta reads <hi>þi . . . shippe</hi>; F omits the entire line. <hi>Ax</hi> reads <hi>þe . . . ship</hi>, but <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> schingeled schipp<expan>e</expan>  schal ben I<seg>-</seg>saued .</l>
<l> Here a<seg>-</seg>bouȝte þe barne  þe belesires giltes .</l>
<l> And all<expan>e</expan> for here forfaderes  þei ferden þe worse .</l>
<l> Þe gospel is here<seg>-</seg>a<seg>-</seg>geyne  in on degre I fynde</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Fili<expan>us</expan> no<expan>n</expan> portabit iniq<expan>ui</expan>tate<expan>m</expan> p<expan>at</expan>ris <app><lem>n<expan>ec</expan> pat<expan>er</expan></lem></app><note>R.9.154: Instead of alpha's <foreign>nec pater</foreign>, beta reads <foreign>& pater non portabit </foreign>.</note> iniquitate<expan>m</expan> <app><lem>filij</lem></app> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ Ac I fynde if þe fader  be fals and a schrewe .</l>
<l> Þat somdel þe sone  schal haue þe sire<note>R.9.156: Though C joins R in attesting the uninflected form, F and the other beta copies read <hi>sires</hi>.</note> tacches .</l>
<l> ¶ Impe <app><lem>vp<seg>-</seg>on</lem></app><note>R.9.157: Beta reads <hi>on</hi>.</note> an ellerne  and if þin appel be swete .</l>
<l> Muchel merueile me thenketh  and more of a schrewe .</l>
<l> Þat bringeth forth any barne  but if he be þe same .</l>
<l> And haue a sauour after þe sir<expan>e</expan>  selde seste þow other .</l>
<milestone>fol. 38vI</milestone>
<l> <hi><foreign>Numq<expan>ua</expan>m colligit<expan>ur</expan> de spinis vuas  n<expan>e</expan>c de tribul<expan>is</expan> ficus .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ And þus þorȝ cursed caym  come care vpp<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>on erthe .</l>
<l> And alle for þei wrouȝten  wedlokes aȝeyne goddes wille .</l>
<l> For<seg>-</seg>þi haue þei maugre for<note>R.9.164: Although most beta copies read <hi>of</hi>, LM agree with R in reading <hi>for</hi>.</note> her<expan>e</expan> mariages  <app><lem>as me<expan>n</expan></lem></app> marien <app><lem>now</lem></app> her childer<expan>e</expan>n .<note>R.9.164: Beta's b-verse reads <hi>þat marye so her childeren</hi>. F has <hi>for maryagys vnkende</hi>.</note></l>
<l> For so<expan>m</expan>me as I se now  soth forto telle .</l>
<l> For coueytise of catel  vnkendeliche ben wedded .</l>
<l> As careful concepc<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan>  cometh <app><lem>to þat</lem></app> mariages .<note>R.9.167: R's b-verse is obviously corrupt, and may include two mistakes at separate stages of transmission; in any case, the R scribe shows his characteristic timidity toward emending patent error. The beta manuscripts here read <hi>of suche mariages</hi>. Alpha probably generated at least one component of the error shown in R; F appears to adapt to the error in alpha with typical adroitness: <hi>of þ<expan>a</expan>t Maryage</hi>.</note></l>
<l> As bifel of <app><lem>þat</lem></app> folke<note>R.9.168: Beta reads <hi>of <hi>þe</hi> folke</hi>. In a parallel but not identical line, <hi>Ax</hi> reads this phrase in agreement with beta.</note>  þat I before of tolde .<note>R.9.168: Two lines present in beta manuscripts (and in the <hi>C</hi> version) immediately after this one are omitted by alpha: <lb/>
<hi>For goode shulde wedde goode þough hij no good hadde <lb/>
I am <foreign>via & veritas</foreign> seith cryst I may auaunce alle</hi>
<note>R.9.168: A text line appears to have been erased immediately below this one.</note></l>
<l> ¶ It is an vncomely couple  by <app><lem>Ihesus</lem></app><note>R.9.169: Beta reads <hi>cryst</hi>, which maintains the line's alliterative pattern. <hi>Ax</hi> agrees with beta.</note> as me thenketh .</l>
<l> To ȝeue a ȝonge wenche  to an olde feble .</l>
<l> Or wedden any wydewe  for welth of hire godes .</l>
<l> Þat neu<expan>er</expan> schal barne bere  but if it be in armes .</l>
<l> Many <orig>apair<expan>e</expan></orig><reg>a pair<expan>e</expan></reg> sitthen þe pestelence  haue pliȝt hem to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
<l> Þe fruit þat þei bringen forth  aren foule wordes .<note>R.9.174: Alpha omits the following line attested by beta witnesses (and by both the other versions):<lb/>
<hi>In ialousye ioyeles and ianglyng on bedde</hi>.<lb/>
Kane-Donaldson and Schmidt re-arrange the lines, placing this line after R9.172.
<l> Haue þei non children but <app><lem>iangelyng<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.9.175: Here alpha's alliteration fails; beta properly reads <hi>cheste</hi>, a reading confirmed by both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>.</note>  & <app><lem>gaying</lem></app><note>R.9.175: R's <hi>gaying</hi> makes no sense. Beta probably read <hi>choppyng</hi>. The entire line in F is garbled, presumably by loss of the end of the a-verse. As a result, F reads the line thus: <hi>þey have no children / but Ianglyng hem be-twene</hi>. </note> he<expan>m</expan> bitewene .</l>
<l> And forto go to du<expan>n</expan>mowe  to fecche hom here bakon .<note> R and F here depart extensively from the text witnessed by beta, but R and F differ between themselves at many points regarding the underlying alpha text. Beta for these three lines reads as follows: <lb/>
<hi>And þough þei don hem to donmowe but if þe deuel help <lb/>
To folwen after þe flicche fecche þei it neuere <lb/>
And but þei bothe be forsworne þat bacoun þei tyne.</hi>
F 's version of these lines reads as follows: <lb/>
<hi>Þey sholde gon to Dunmowe & fecche þere bakoun <lb/>
But for þe caryage is karkful þey dore non fecche . <lb/>
But lyven þus in Ianglyng þoru þe develys loore .</hi>
<l> And whan þei haue brouȝt it hom  to whom is best to selle it .</l>
<l> And þus þei lyuen in coueytise  þe deuel and þei to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
<l> ¶ For<seg>-</seg>þi I conseill<expan>e</expan> all<expan>e</expan> cristene  coueite nauȝt to<note>R.9.179: Though Cr and M agree with R in reading <hi>to</hi> here, most B manuscripts, including F, omit it. Nevertheless, nine <hi>A</hi>-version witnesses attest the presence of <hi>to</hi> at this point. By contrast, only two <hi>C</hi> copies agree with R on this issue.</note> be wedded .</l>
<l> For coueitise of catel  ne of kenrede riche .</l>
<l> Ac maydenes and maydenes  <app><lem>make</lem></app><note>R.9.181: R's reading is unique. Beta reads <hi>macche</hi>, while F has <hi>marye</hi>; <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with F.</note> ȝow to<seg>-</seg>gyderes</l>
<l> <app><lem>Wydeweres and wydewes</lem></app><note>R.9.182: Beta reads <hi>Widwes and widwers</hi>, reversing alpha's phrasal order; <hi>Ax</hi> agrees with alpha, but the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts are divided here by family, with the P family supporting alpha's order while the X family agrees with beta.</note>  wercheth þe same .</l>
<l> For no londes but for loue  loke <app><lem>þat</lem></app><note>R.9.183: R's <hi>þat</hi> is unique. The b-verse of most other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts reads <hi>loke ȝe be wedded</hi>.</note> ȝe be wedded .</l>
<l> And þanne gete <app><lem>ȝe</lem></app> grace<note>R.9.184: In place of alpha's <hi>grace</hi>, beta reads <hi>þe grace</hi>.</note> of god  and god Inow to lyue with .<note>R.9.184: Hereafter alpha omits seven lines found in beta (and in slightly revised form in the <hi>C</hi> version):<lb/>
<hi>And euery maner seculer þat may nouȝt continue<lb/>
Wysly go wedde and war hym fro synne<lb/>
For leccherye in likyng is lymeȝerde of helle<lb/>
Whiles þow art ȝonge and þi wepne kene<lb/>
Wreke þe with wyuynge ȝif þow wil ben excused<lb/>
<foreign>Dum sis vir fortis ne des tua robora scortis<lb/>
Scribitur in portis meretrix est ianua mortis</foreign>
Whan ȝe haue wyued bewar and worcheth in tyme<lb/>
Nouȝt as Adam & Eue whan caym was engendred</hi>
<l><app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.9.185: R's <hi>And</hi> is unique; the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read <hi>For</hi>.</note> in vntyme trewely  bi<seg>-</seg>twene man and wo<expan>m</expan>man .</l>
<l> Ne schulde no <app><lem>berde a<seg>-</seg>bedde</lem></app><note>R.9.186: <hi>Bx</hi> itself may be marginally corrupt here: F has <hi>lyggyn In bedde</hi>, while beta reads <hi>bourde on bedde</hi>. Both Kane-Donaldson and Schmidt emend this beta phrase to the reading of <hi>Cx</hi>, which is <hi>bedbourde</hi>. However, a key component of the larger textual conundrum is the meaning of R's <hi>berde</hi>. It seems completely implausible as a spelling of beta's <hi>bourde</hi>. Far likelier is a bland meaning such as "a youth." Cf. <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>bird(e)</hi> (n. 1[3]): "A man of noble birth; scion, lord . . . also, any young person." The omission and garbling here in R and F suggest an intention, on alpha's part, to bowdlerize the entire passage, as at R3.52, by omitting most of the offensive sexual material (here the lines are KD9.182-88, with their hypothetical reference to the reader's youthful, "keen weapon" and the untimely engendering of Cain) and patching together what remains.</note> be  but if þei bothe were clene .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Of</lem></app><note>R.9.187: Beta has <hi>Bothe of </hi> while F reads <hi>Boþe in</hi>.</note> lif and of soule  and in parfite charite .</l>
<l> Þat ilke derne dede  do noman <app><lem>schulde</lem></app><note>R.9.188: R uniquely omits <hi>ne</hi> before <hi>schulde</hi>. F cannot be compared since it completely rephrases the b-verse. In slightly different version of this line, <hi>Cx</hi> reads the phrase in question precisely as R: <hi>do no man sholde</hi>. Moreover six <hi>A</hi> witnesses (UDChVKWa) also agree with R's version.</note> .</l>
<l> And if þei ledden þus her<expan>e</expan> lif  it liked<note>R.9.189: F reads <hi>wolde lyke</hi>; most beta copies show <hi>likeþ</hi>, but L agrees exactly with R.</note> god almiȝti .</l>
<l> For he made wedlok furst  and hym<seg>-</seg>self it seyde .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Bonu<expan>m</expan> est vt vnusquisq<expan>ue</expan> vxorem suam <app><lem>habeat</lem></app> .</foreign><note>R.9.191: The beta copies are fuller, ending the citation with <foreign>propter fornicacionem</foreign>, which is also the reading of the <hi>C</hi> version.</note></hi></l>
<l> And þei þat othergates ben geten  for gede<seg>-</seg>lynges ben holden .</l>
<milestone>fol. 39rI</milestone>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.9.193: Beta reads <hi>As</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees here with alpha.</note> fals folke fondelynges  faitoures & lyeres .</l>
<l> Vngracious to gete gode  or loue of þe poeple .</l>
<l> Wandren and wasten  whatte þei cacche mowe .</l>
<l> Aȝein <app><lem><sic>dewel</sic><corr>d[o]wel</corr></lem></app><note>R.9.196: R's <hi>dewel</hi> is a unique error presumably induced by anticipation of <hi>deuel</hi> later in this line.</note> þei don euele  and þe deuel s<expan>er</expan>ue .</l>
<l> And after her deth<seg>-</seg>day  schullen dwelle with þe <app><lem>deuel</lem></app> .<note>R.9.197: In place of R's <hi>þe deuel</hi>, F reads <hi>here Mayster</hi> and beta reads <hi>þe same</hi>. The <hi>Ax</hi> version of this phrase agrees with beta.</note></l>
<l> But god ȝif hem grace here  hem<seg>-</seg>self to amende .<note>R.9.198: Hereafter alpha omits the following lines attested by beta family manuscripts (and in slightly different form by the <hi>C</hi> version): <lb/>
<hi>Dowel my frende is to don as lawe techeth <lb/>
To loue þi frende and þi foo leue me þat is dobet <lb/>
To ȝiuen and to ȝemen bothe ȝonge and olde <lb/>
To helen and to helpen is dobest of alle</hi>
<l> ¶ And <app><lem>þus is dowel</lem></app><note>R.9.199: Beta reads <hi>And dowel is</hi>. F's reading is identical to R's, except for the omission of the initial conjunction. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees here with R.</note> to drede god  and dobet to suffre .</l>
<l> And so comes dobest of both  and bringeth a<seg>-</seg>don þe mody .</l>
<l> And þat is wikked wille  þat many <app><lem>werkes</lem></app><note>R.9.201: Beta has the singular <hi>werke</hi>, which is also the reading of <hi>Ax</hi>.</note> schendeth .</l>
<l> And driueth awey dowel  þoruȝ dedliche synnes .</l>