fol. 200r (cont.)I
us · ij · & vltimus de secundus Passus - best · do
t
fol. 200vI
...?... ȝeueþHm.20.18: Hm alone reads , which is over an erasure, against ȝeueþ in most other if manuscripts. Note, however, that BmBo read B, with gif added in Bm, and Cot reads g. Note too that gyue is the reading of the P family in ȝeueþ. C hym .... eue lHm.20.18: HmCot alone read , which is over an erasure in Hm, against leue in most other lyst manuscripts. The word is followed in Hm by a dividing slash, indicating that the original reading was shorter than 4 characters,
possibly like BmBo's B. lif forto lape · þe lawe of kynde wolde
& fol. 201rI
Hm.20.56KD.20.57
Hm.20.56-61: Reacting to a stain, hand3 has retouched some letters on these lines.
and gart gyle growe · þere · as he a god wereHm.20.58: Kane and Donaldson read , thus creating a unique reading. However, the scribe infrequently wrote <uu> where a single graphie would be expected; e.
g. Hm.14.218 religiouns and Hm.3.295 rybauud. The forms of <u> and <n> are indistinguishable. leauute reuerencid hym and rongyn here belles y
and religiouus... wteHm.20.62: The original reading was probably , clearly an error, though in all beta manuscripts except Cr. Alpha and lenten read Cx. lewte was so rebukyd ·
lenger · syþ le fol. 201vI
r er þ wheHm.20.106: Hm's original reading was correct. Cf. Hm.11.87 (KD.11.83), Hm.12.364 (KD.11.189), Hm.12.577 (KD.12.270), Hm.12.599 (KD.12.291). wher they wolde
to cese and suffre · and se fol. 202rI
fol. 202vI
Hm.20.173: The spelling is unique among manuscripts. See B, MED s. v. n.(2) and dragge n. drogge ·
and dryuen awey deþ · wyþ dyas and drages amyte auayle · to medle aȝen elde a myteHm.20.178-183: A water stain over parts of these lines does not affect the legibility of the text.
may nougth fol. 203rI
Hm.20.218-223: A water stain over parts of these lines does not affect the legibility of the text.
yn paltokes and pyked schoes · and pissers longe knyuesHm.20.220KD.20.221
By mary quod a ma ¶esed nHm.20.220: The scribe first wrote an <e> and then overwrote it with an <n> like the one usually appearing in Latin quotations. pest · of þe march of yrlond re
i sepius
d est
Hm.20.240KD.20.241
yue eHm.20.240: The correcting scribe's changing the infinitive form , "to live" to lyue is mildly odd. Hand2 usually wrote "live" (both infintive and finite forms) with the leue spelling, though in several instances (e. g., Hm.4.190, Hm.10.154, Hm.13.52, and Hm.14.51) the lyue spelling was used. At Hm.17.26, Hm alone reads leue against most manuscripts' lyue. The form leue at Hm.5.307 was written out by hand2, but the same correction as here is made by hand3 at Hm.15.542 and Hm.15.565. lyeue by aungeles foed ·
lat hem be as beggeres · or l fol. 203vI
e so sore erHm.20.262: WB agree with Hm's line ordering; however, most manuscripts supply this line, Hm.20.262, two lines earlier, after Hm.20.159. (The Kane and Donaldson numbering reflects this
different ordering.) B ·
wol no tresorer hem paye · trauayle þey neu fol. 204rI
· c ·
t hHm.20.317: Hand2's usual form is but he had in one case written þurgh (Hm.12.341). þurgth ypocrisie
for here is manye a man hurt · þurg......tres cure · Hm.20.325: Ultraviolet light shows, faintly, letters that may be , the scribe having written prematurely the last word of the following line. tres
to a lord for a lettre · leue to haue fol. 204vI
Thus þurgh hende speche · entryd þe frere ¶Hm.20.354: A modern hand in the right margin has written 00 MS ends .. British Library MS Additional 10574 (Bm) ends at this point. Bm is finished in Dr. Adam Clark's hand, possibly from Hm,
and it is possible that he wrote this note since he owned both manuscripts. The number given here does not correspond to the
shelf marks (102 for Bm, 129 for Hm) in his library for either manuscript. Here the
fol. 205rI
ploughman · ¶ Explicit visio Petri