<div1>fol. 58v (cont.)I</div1>
pass<expan>us</expan> xii<expan>us</expan>
<head><foreign><hi>Passus <sic>duodecim<expan>us</expan></sic><corr>[tertius] decim<expan>us</expan></corr> de visione vt sup<expan>ra</expan> .</hi></foreign></head>
<l> <hi><hi>A</hi></hi>nd I awaked þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>with  witles nerehande .</l>
<l> And as a freke þat <app><lem>fere</lem></app><note>R.13.2: Cf. F's <hi>a-feerd</hi> and beta's <hi>fre</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> appears to have had <hi>feye</hi>, but X, the best single copy of the final version of <title>Piers Plowman</title>, reads <hi>fayre</hi> (with the last two letters erased later).</note> wer<expan>e</expan>  forth gan I walken .</l>
<l> In maner of a mendinaunt  many ȝere after .</l>
<l> And of þis metyng<expan>e</expan> many <app><lem>tymes</lem></app>  muche þouȝt I hadde .</l>
<l> Furst how fortune me failed  at my moste nede .</l>
<l> And how þat elde <app><lem>mansed</lem></app> me  miȝte we eu<expan>er</expan> meten .</l>
<milestone>fol. 59rI</milestone>
<l><hi>And how þat freres folwed  folke þat was riche .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>And folke þat was pore  att litel pris þei sette .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>And no corps in here kirkeȝerde  ne in here kirke <app><lem>wer<expan>e</expan></lem></app></hi><note>R.13.9: This is a unique reading in R; the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts show the indicative <hi>was</hi>.</note> <hi>buried .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>But quik he by<seg>-</seg>queth hem auȝt  or schulde help quite her dettes .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>And how <app><lem>þus</lem></app></hi><note>R.13.11: R's <hi>þus</hi> is unique; other <hi>B</hi> copies have <hi>þis</hi> (LMWHm). Most X family copies of the <hi>C</hi> version agree with the F/beta reading, but four P family copies (RcScZKc) agree with R. Some manuscripts of both major families omit the lection completely.</note> <hi>coueytise ouer<seg>-</seg>cam  clerkes and prestes .</hi><note>R.13.11: There is a pointing hand here in the right margin.</note></l>
<l> <hi>And how þat lewed men ben ladde  but our<expan>e</expan> lorde hem helpe .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>Þoruȝ vnkunnyng<expan>e</expan> curatoures  to incurable peynes .</hi><note>R.13.13: Here RF omit seven lines attested in the beta manuscripts:<lb/>
<hi>And how þat ymagynatyf in dremeles me tolde <lb/>
Of kynde and of his connyng and how curteise he is to bestes <lb/>
And how louynge he is to bestes on londe and on water <lb/>
Leneth he no lyf lasse ne more <lb/>
Þe creatures þat crepen of kynde ben engendred <lb/>
And sitthen how ymagynatif seyde vix iustus saluabitur <lb/>
And whan he had seyde so how sodeynelich he passed</hi>
<l> ¶ I lay doun longe in þis thouȝte  and at þe last I slepte .</l>
<l> And as<note> A dark smudge partially obscures <hi>as</hi> in line 15 as well as the first two words of line 16.</note> criste wolde þer<expan>e</expan> come co<expan>n</expan>sience  to co<expan>n</expan>forte me <app><lem>i<expan>n</expan></lem></app><note>R.13.15: R's <hi>in</hi> is unique; the other manuscripts omit it.</note> þat tyme .</l>
<l> And bad me come to his courte  with clergie schuld I dyne .</l>
<l> ¶ And for consience of clergie spake  I cam<note>R.13.17: This is an alpha variant; beta reads <hi>come</hi> (presumably a preterite as in alpha).</note> wel þe rather<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> And þer<expan>e</expan> I say a mayster  what man he was I neste .</l>
<l> Þat lowe louted  and loueliche to scriptur<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> ¶ Consience knewe hym wel  and welcomed hym fair<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> Þei weschen and wipeden  and wente to þe diner .</l>
<l> ¶ Ac pacience in þe paleis stode  in pilgrimes clothes .</l>
<l> And preyed mete for charite  for a pore eremite .</l>
<l> ¶ Consience called hym in  and curteisliche seide .</l>
<l> Welcome weye<note>R.13.25: <hi>Weye</hi>, "person, being, man."</note> go and wasche  þow schalt sitte sone .</l>
<l> ¶ Þis meyster was made sitte  as for þe most worthi .</l>
<l> And þanne clergie and consience  and pacience cam after .</l>
<l> ¶ Pacience and I  were pote to ben <app><lem>mettes</lem></app> .<note>R.13.28: For alpha's <hi>mettes</hi>, beta has <hi>macches</hi>. Though two <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agree with beta (one being the highly contaminated N, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note></l>
<l> And seten be our<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>selue  at a side<seg>-</seg>borde .</l>
<l> ¶ Consience called after mete  and þanne cam sc<expan>ri</expan>ptur<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> And serued hym<note>R.13.31: Though Hm and B concur with R's <hi>hym</hi>, both F and beta have <hi>hem</hi>; this is also the reading of <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> þus sone  of sondri metes many .</l>
<l> Of austyn of ambrose  of alle þe four<expan>e</expan> eu<expan>au</expan>ngelistz .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Edentes et bibentes  que apud eos sunt .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Ac þis mayster ne his man  no man<expan>er</expan> flesch eeten .</l>
<l> Ac þei <app><lem>hadde</lem></app><note>R.13.35: Where RF read <hi>hadde</hi>, the beta manuscripts show several variants of <hi>eten</hi>. Although this passage is revised in <hi>C</hi>, the verb in the revision agrees with beta.</note> <app><lem>metes</lem></app> of more coste  mortrewes and potages .</l>
j iij<expan>us</expan>
<milestone>fol. 59vI</milestone>
<l> Of þat men mys<seg>-</seg>wonnen  þei maden hem wel at ese .<note> A bracket in the left margin joins these lines together. A <hi>nota</hi> appears to the left of it.</note></l>
<l> Ac here sause was ouer sour<expan>e</expan>  and vnsau<expan>our</expan>ly grounde .</l>
<l> In a morter <foreign>post mortem</foreign>  of many bitter peyne .</l>
<l> But if þei synge for þo soules  <app><lem>with</lem></app> <app><lem>many</lem></app><note>R.13.39: R's <hi>with</hi> is unique, but <hi>many</hi> is an alpha variant (the beta phrase = <hi>and wepe</hi>). <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> salt teres .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Vos qui peccata ho<expan>m</expan>i<expan>nu</expan>m comeditis  n<expan>is</expan>i p<expan>ro</expan> eis lac<expan>ri</expan>mas & orac<expan>i</expan>o<expan>n</expan>es effu<expan>n</expan>derit<expan>is</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Ea que in delicijs  <app><lem>in</lem></app> <app><lem><sic>comed<expan>is</expan></sic><corr>comed<expan>is</expan>[tis]</corr></lem></app><note>R.13.41: R's <foreign>in comedis</foreign> is unique and ungrammatical; cf. F's <foreign>comedistis</foreign> and beta's <foreign>comeditis</foreign>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> in tormentis euometis .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ Consience ful curteyslich þo  comau<expan>n</expan>ded scriptur<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> by<seg>-</seg>fore pacience brede to bringe  and me þat was his <app><lem>mete</lem></app> .<note>R.13.43: Once more, for alpha's <hi>mete</hi>, beta had either <hi>macche</hi> or <hi>make</hi>. Though two <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agree with beta (one being the highly contaminated N), <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note></l>
<l> ¶ He sette a sour<expan>e</expan> lof to<seg>-</seg>fore vs  & seyde <foreign>agite penitencia<expan>m</expan></foreign> .</l>
<l> And sith he drouȝ vs drinke  <foreign>dia p<expan>er</expan>seuerans</foreign> .</l>
<l> ¶ As longe <app><lem>q<expan>uo</expan>d he  as lif</lem></app><note>R.13.46: R's phrasing here is unique; F reverses the phrase (=<hi>as lyf quod he</hi>); most beta copies have <hi>quod I as I lyue</hi> (manuscript O concurs with alpha in attesting the third-person pronoun). However, most <hi>C</hi> manuscripts read the phrase as R does.</note> and likam may dur<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> Her<expan>e</expan> is p<expan>ro</expan>pre s<expan>er</expan>uise q<expan>uo</expan>d pacience  þer<expan>e</expan> fareth no prince bett<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> ¶ And þanne he brouȝt vs forth a mees of other mete  of <foreign>mis<expan>er</expan>er<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>mei</lem></app><note>R.13.48: F and all beta copies except Cr add <foreign>deus</foreign> to the end of this scriptural citation, but the entire text is deleted from <hi>C</hi>.</note></foreign></l>
<l> And he brouȝt <app><lem>of</lem></app><note>R.13.49: R's phrasing here is unique. Beta adds <hi>vs</hi> before <hi>of</hi>. F completely revises the line.</note> <foreign>beati quor<expan>um</expan></foreign><app><lem>and</lem></app><note>R.13.49: R uniquely supplies <hi>and</hi> to the text attested by beta at this point. F completely revises the line.</note> of <foreign>beatus vir</foreign> his makyng<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> And<note>R.13.50: For R's <hi>And</hi>, F shows <hi>&</hi> (but in a completely rephrased line) while beta reads <foreign>Et</foreign>.</note> <foreign>quor<expan>um</expan> tecta sunt peccata</foreign>  in a dische .<note>R.13.50: R agrees with the beta manuscripts against F in attesting a line break between KD13.54α and KD13.55 after <hi>dische</hi>. Although this is impossible, and F correctly senses that Langland's alliterative pattern requires a line break immediately after the Latin quotation, it is much more likely that this represents one of F-redactor's many shrewd editorial guesses than that F alone here retains by vertical transmission the reading of <hi>Bx</hi>.</note></l>
<l> Of derne schrift <foreign>dixi</foreign>  and <foreign>confitebor tibi</foreign> </l>
<l> Bryng<expan>e</expan> pacience so<expan>m</expan>me pytaunce  p<expan>ri</expan>uelich q<expan>uo</expan>d consience .</l>
<l><app><lem>Þanne</lem></app><note>R.13.53: R uniquely omits <hi>And</hi> at the head of this line.</note> hadde pacience a pitaunce .<note>R.13.53: Where RF divide this material from the ensuing quotation, most beta manuscripts join it to the Latin in a single long line.</note></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Pro hac <app><lem>orabit</lem></app><note>R.13.54: Here beta distinctively adds <foreign>ad te</foreign> to the Latin quotation. However, in a homologous but heavily revised passage, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha in omitting this prepositional phrase from the same citation.</note> om<expan>n</expan>is sanctus  in tempore oportuno .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> And consience conforted vs  and carped vs <app><lem><sic>mrie</sic><corr>m[e]rie</corr></lem></app> tales .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Cor contritu<expan>m</expan> et humiliatu<expan>m</expan> deus non despicies .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Pacience was proude  of þat p<expan>ro</expan>pre s<expan>er</expan>uise .</l>
<l> And made hym murth with his <app><lem>mene</lem></app><note>R.13.58: R's <hi>mene</hi> is unique; cf. F's <hi>mowht</hi> and beta's <hi>mete</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note>  ac I murned eu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> For þis doctor <app><lem>vp<seg>-</seg>on</lem></app> þis<note>R.13.59: R's <hi>vp-on</hi> is unique; R shares <hi>þis</hi> with Hm alone but shares <hi>hey</hi> with beta. F reads <hi>on þe dees</hi> while beta reads <hi>on þe heigh dese</hi>.</note> hey deyes  dronk wyn so faste .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Ve vobis qui potentes estis ad bibendu<expan>m</expan> vinu<expan>m</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app> eet<note>R.13.61: Cf. R's <hi>And eet</hi> to F's <hi>Þey etym</hi> and beta's <hi>He eet</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R.</note> many sondry metes  mortrewes and poddynges .</l>
<l> <hi>Wombe cloutes and wilde brawn  and egges fryed with grece .</hi></l>
<l> Þanne sayde I to my<seg>-</seg>self so  pacience it herde .</l>
<l> It is nauȝt four<expan>e</expan> dayes þat þis freke  by<seg>-</seg>fore þe den of <app><lem>seynt</lem></app><note>R.13.64: R's <hi>seynt</hi> is a unique addition.</note> poules .</l>
<l> Preched of penaunces  þat poul þe apostel suffrede .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>In <app><lem><sic>fam</sic><corr>fam[e]</corr></lem></app> et frigore </foreign>  and flappes of scourges .</hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Ter cesus su<expan>m</expan>  et a iudeis quinquies <app><lem>quadrag<expan>enas</expan></lem></app> .</foreign></hi> </l>
<milestone>fol. 60rI</milestone>
<l> Ac o worde þei ouer<seg>-</seg>huppen  at vch a tyme þ<expan>a</expan>t þei p<expan>re</expan>chen .</l>
<l> Þat poule in his pistel  to alle þe poeple tolde .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign><app><lem>Et in p<expan>er</expan>iculo</lem></app><note>R.13.70: R uniquely differs from the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts in rendering the opening phrase of this citation as <foreign>Et in periculo</foreign> (cf. beta's <foreign>Periculum est in</foreign>). F joins R in omitting <foreign>est</foreign> but otherwise attests the same text as beta. The <hi>C</hi> manuscripts divide on this lection, many P copies agreeing with F while the X family supports beta's reading.</note> falsis fratrib<expan>us</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Holy writ bit men be<seg>-</seg>war  I wil nauȝt writen it here .</l>
<l> In englich an auentur<expan>e</expan>  it schuld be rehersed to ofte .</l>
<l> And greue þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>with þat gode men ben  ac gramerienes schul rede .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Vnusquisq<expan>ue</expan> a fr<expan>atr</expan>e se custodiat .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Quia vt dicitur p<expan>er</expan>iculu<expan>m</expan> est in falsis fratrib<expan>us</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l><app><lem>I</lem></app><note>R.13.76: Alpha and G omit beta's <hi>Ac</hi> at the opening of this line; though the b-verse in the cognate <hi>C</hi> line is substantially revised, the opening agrees completely with beta.</note> wist neu<expan>er</expan>e freke þat as <app><lem>frere</lem></app><note>R.13.76: R uniquely omits <hi>a</hi> from the phrase attested by beta (but F uniquely revises the entire a-verse).</note> ȝede  by<seg>-</seg>fore men an englich</l>
<l> Taken it for here teme  and tellen it with<seg>-</seg>outen glosynge .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Ac</lem></app><note>R.13.78: Both R and F attest an alpha line introduced by a contrastive conjunction (R = <hi>Ac</hi>; F = <hi>But</hi>); beta clearly omitted such a conjunction, and <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> þei p<expan>re</expan>chen þat penaunce  is p<expan>ro</expan>fitable to þe soule .</l>
<l> And what mischief and male<seg>-</seg>ese crist for man tholede .</l>
<l> Ac þis godes glotou<expan>n</expan> q<expan>uo</expan>d I  with his grete chekes .</l>
<l> Hath no pite on vs pore  he parfourneth euele .</l>
<l> Þat he precheth <app><lem>and</lem></app><note>R.13.82: Where R attests <hi>and</hi>, F has <hi>þus &</hi> while beta reads <hi>he</hi>. Most of the X family of <hi>C</hi> witnesses agree with R. Manuscripts UcDcTCh and most of the P family agree with beta.</note> <app><lem>p<expan>re</expan>ueth</lem></app><note>R.13.82: Both R and F omit the required negative after <hi>preueth</hi> (beta's phrase = <hi>he preueth nouȝt</hi>. F substitutes <hi>yt</hi>). Apparently this omission derives from alpha. The reading of <hi>Cx</hi> for this a-verse mostly agrees with beta's.</note>  to pacience I tolde .</l>
<l> And wisched witterly  with wil ful egre .</l>
<l> Þat disches and dobleres  by<seg>-</seg>for <app><lem>þis doctor</lem></app><note>R.13.84: F reads the end of this b-verse as <hi>þe doctour</hi>; beta has <hi>þis ilke doctour</hi>.</note></l>
<l> Wer molte lede in <app><lem>here</lem></app><note>R.13.85: R's <hi>here</hi> is unique; the other manuscripts read <hi>his</hi>.</note> mawe  and mahoun a<seg>-</seg>myddes .</l>
<l> I schal iangle to þis iurdan  with his <app><lem>iuysty</lem></app><note>R.13.86: This is the alpha reading (F = <hi>Iusty</hi>). The beta form is <hi>iust</hi>. Although two <hi>C</hi> manuscripts (TCh) agree with alpha's form, the <hi>Cx</hi> reading was <hi>iuyste</hi>.</note> wombe .</l>
<l> To telle me what penaunce is  of whiche he p<expan>re</expan>ched <app><lem>þer<expan>e</expan> ay</lem></app><note>R.13.87: R's <hi>þer<expan>e</expan> ay</hi> is unique; cf. F's <hi>euere</hi> and beta's <hi>rather</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> Pacience parceyued what I thouȝt  and <app><lem>bad</lem></app><note>R.13.88: R's <hi>bad</hi> is an alpha reading; cf. beta's <hi>wynked on</hi>.</note> me <app><lem>be</lem></app> stille .</l>
<l> And seyde þow schalt se þus sone  whan he may na more</l>
<l> He schal haue a penaunce in his paunche  and puffe at vch a worde .</l>
<l> And þanne schullen his guttes godle  and he schal galpen aft<expan>er</expan>.</l>
<l> For now he hath dronke so depe  he wole dyuyne sone</l>
<l> And prouen <app><lem><sic>it here</sic><corr>it [in] here</corr></lem></app><note>R.13.93: The source of this emendation is F, which presumptively preserves alpha here; cf. beta's <hi><hi>it by her</hi> pocalips</hi>. Most <hi>C</hi> witnesses agree with beta.</note> pocalips  and passion of seynt auereys .</l>
<l> Þat noþer bacou<expan>n</expan> ne braun  <app><lem>ne</lem></app><note>R.13.94: Beta omits <hi>ne</hi>(2). Among the <hi>C</hi> copies, the X family agrees with alpha on its inclusion while the P family agrees with beta in omitting <hi>ne</hi>(2).</note> blaumanger ne mortrewes .</l>
<l> Is nother fisch ne flesch  but fode for <app><lem>þe</lem></app> <app><lem>penauntes</lem></app> .<note>R.13.95: R's <hi>þe</hi> is unique; F omits a determiner here but agrees with R on <hi>penauntes</hi>, which is an alpha variant; beta reads the singular, <hi>a penaunte</hi>. Though <hi>C</hi> manuscript N agrees with beta (presumably as a result of its usual pattern of micro-contamination), none of the other <hi>C</hi> copies does and <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with F.</note></l>
<l> And þan schal he testifie of a trinite  and take his felawe to witnesse .</l>
<l> What he fonde in a freiel  after a <app><lem>frer<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.13.97: The unmarked possessive, <hi>frere</hi>, is unique to R; other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read <hi>freres</hi>. However, among the <hi>C</hi> copies, the predominant form in X family manuscripts is the same as R's.</note> leuyng<expan>e</expan> .<note>R.13.97: The punctus is topped by a diagonal slash that rises slightly toward the right; no conventional punctuation mark used by the R scribe matches it. Furthermore, there appears to be a superfluous dot below and slightly to the right of the <g> of <hi>leuynge</hi>.</note></l>
<l> And but if þe furste lyne be lesynge  leue me neuer after</l>
<l> And þanne is tyme to talke<note>R.13.99: Though O agrees with R, beta reads <hi>take</hi>, a lection also supported by most of the X family of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts. F has <hi>a-posen</hi>, but F has also revised the b-verse for this line. Most P family witnesses (and several X family copies) agree with R and O on <hi>talke</hi>.</note>  and to appose þis doctour .</l>
<l> Of dowel and of dobet  and ȝif dobest be any penaunce .</l>
<l> ¶ And I sat stille as pacience seide  and þus sone þis doctour .</l>
<l> As rodi as a rose  robbed his chekes .</l>
<l> Couȝwede and carpede  and consience hym herde .</l>
j iiij<expan>us</expan>
<milestone>fol. 60vI</milestone>
<l> And tolde hym of a trinite  and toward vs he loked .</l>
<l> ¶ What is dowel sir doctour q<expan>uo</expan>d I  is <app><lem>do<seg>-</seg>best</lem></app><note>R.13.105: In place of alpha's <hi>dobest</hi>, beta reads <hi>dowel</hi>. Once more, N is unique among the <hi>C</hi> copies, mirroring its beta collational source (= <hi>dowel</hi>), while several <hi>C</hi> manuscripts read <hi>dobet</hi>; nevertheless, <hi>Cx</hi> clearly agrees with alpha.</note> any penaunce .</l>
<l> ¶ Dowel q<expan>uo</expan>d þis doctour  and <app><lem>dronk after</lem></app><note>R.13.106: R and F differ slightly here (F = <hi>dronk a<seg>-</seg>non þere<seg>-</seg>after</hi>), but alpha's version of this phrase was obviously quite different from beta's. The entire beta b-verse reads <hi>and toke þe cuppe and dranke</hi>. Though N reproduces beta's b-verse exactly, all the other <hi>C</hi> manuscripts support alpha, with <hi>Cx</hi> reading <hi>and he dronke aftur</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> Do non euel to þin euencristene  nauȝt by þi power<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> ¶ By þis day sir doctour q<expan>uo</expan>d I  þanne be ȝe nauȝt in dowel .</l>
<l> For ȝe haue<note>R.13.109: R's <hi>haue</hi> is the alpha form (supported by Cr); beta reads <hi>han</hi>.</note> harmed vs to  in þat ȝe eten þe puddynge .</l>
<l> Morterewes and other mete  and we no mussel hadde .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>ȝe</lem></app><note>R.13.111: Among the <hi>B</hi> witnesses, R uniquely omits <hi>if</hi> before <hi>ȝe</hi>. However, the opening phrase of the same line in <hi>Cx</hi> shows full agreement with R (though the remainder of the line is revised).</note> fare so in ȝour<expan>e</expan> fermerie  ferly me thenketh .</l>
<l> But cheste be þere charite schulde be <note>R.13.112: R uniquely splits this line in half.</note> </l>
<l> And ȝonge children durst pleyne .</l>
<l> I wolde p<expan>er</expan>mute my penaunce with ȝour<expan>e</expan> . for I am in poynt to dowel . </l>
<l> ¶ Þanne consience <app><lem>ful</lem></app><note>R.13.115: R's <hi>ful</hi> is an alpha variant omitted by beta. As usual, <hi>C</hi> manuscript N agrees with beta's omission, but <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> curteislich  a contenaunce <app><lem>he</lem></app> made .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>prentede</lem></app><note>R.13.116: R's verb inflection here is unique; F chooses an entirely different lexical root and produces <hi>plukkid</hi>, while beta reads <hi>preynte</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> vpon pacience  to prey me to be stille .</l>
<l> And seyde hym<seg>-</seg>selue sir dottour<note>R.13.117: <title>OED2</title> fails to note this form. It might represent nothing more than a slip of the pen creating an accidental ascender on the <c>. But the R scribe clearly renders this word in the same way at R18.369 as well. <title>MED</title> cites a parallel from a fifteenth-century manuscript of Hilton's <title>Scale of Perfection</title>: "If þei wilen vndirstonden holi writ and <hi>dottours</hi> sawes þerof, þei schulden finden as I seye."</note>  and it be your<expan>e</expan> wille .</l>
<l> What is dowel and dobet  ȝe dyuinoures knoweth .</l>
<l> Dowel q<expan>uo</expan>d þis doctour  <app><lem>dos</lem></app><note>R.13.119: Cf. R's <hi>dos</hi> with beta's <hi>do</hi> and F's <hi>ys to doon</hi>.</note> as clerkes techeth .</l>
<l> And do<seg>-</seg>bet is he þat techeth  and traueyleth to teche other .</l>
<l> And dobest doth hym<seg>-</seg>self so  as he seith and p<expan>re</expan>cheth .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Qui facit et docuerit magnus vocabitur in regno celor<expan>um</expan></foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ Now þou clergie q<expan>uo</expan>d co<expan>n</expan>sience  carpest what is dowel .</l>
<l> I haue <app><lem>sones</lem></app><note>R.13.124: Before <hi>sones</hi>, R omits <hi>seuene</hi>, an omission exclusively shared with L (whose corrector supplies the missing word in the right margin). Because of the stemmatic primacy and steady accuracy of both L and R, only two explanations of this apparent omission seem plausible. Either an authorial marginal in <hi>Bx</hi> was transmitted in the same form by both alpha and beta, allowing the L and R scribes each to overlook it by chance, while other beta scribes noticed and inserted it into their text; or there is no omission here at all, merely an editorial addition of <hi>seuene</hi> by the scribe of beta prime (progenitor of the CrW subset of beta), a change which then was passed laterally to the corrector of L. In favor of this latter possibility is the fact that the line is metrically unexceptionable in the form shared by LR, and the fact that a reiterative phrase, <hi>þo seuene</hi>, is invoked two lines below this passage by the archetypal text. The wording there could well suggest to anyone that the number reference might have dropped out of the earlier line and thus invited early editorial "repair." On the other hand, the strongest evidence in favor of the first hypothesis (randomly shared LR error caused by an overlooked marginal) is that <hi>seuene</hi> occurs in M as part of the scribe's original copying and not as an erasure / writeover (the usual sign, in this otherwise independent witness, of later lateral "correction" from the CrW branch of beta). The line does not appear in the <hi>C</hi> version.</note> he seyde  s<expan>er</expan>uen in a castel .</l>
<l> Þer<expan>e</expan> þe lorde of lif woneth  to leren hym<note>R.13.125: R shares the spelling <hi>hym</hi> exclusively with beta copies LM; HmCGYBF read <hi>hem</hi> and WCrO simply omit any pronoun. The RLM form is likely that of <hi>Bx</hi> but as such may be merely a Northern relict: <hi>hym</hi> = standard <hi>hem</hi>. However, Schmidt assumes that the sons of Clergy in this puzzling allegory are the teachers (rather than the pupils) of the Lord of Life; if so, then <hi>hym</hi> would be a singular, a substantive lection preserved solely in these three witnesses.</note> what is dowel .</l>
<l> ¶ Til I se þo seuene  and my<seg>-</seg>selue acorden .</l>
<l> I am vn<seg>-</seg>hardy q<expan>uo</expan>d he to eny wiȝt <app><lem>p<expan>ro</expan>ue</lem></app><note>R.13.127: R's <hi>proue</hi> is shared exclusively with F; cf. beta's <hi>to preue(n)</hi>.</note> it .</l>
<l> For on peres þe plowman  hath inpugned vs alle</l>
<l> And sett alle science at a soep  saue loue one .</l>
<l> And no <app><lem><sic>tix</sic><corr>tix[t]</corr></lem></app> ne taketh  to meyntene his cause .</l>
<l> <hi>But <foreign>dilige deu<expan>m</expan></foreign>  and <foreign>d<expan>omi</expan>ne quis habitabit &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> And seyth þat dowel and dobet  aren to infinites .</l>
<l> Which infinites with a faith  fynde oute dobest</l>
<l> Which schal saue mannes soule  þus seyth peres þe plowma<expan>n</expan> .<note>R.13.134: After this line, the R scribe omits his usual line break between verse paragraphs, presumably because the next line is the last one ruled for this side.</note></l>
<l> ¶ I can nauȝt here<seg>-</seg>on q<expan>uo</expan>d consience  ac I knowe wel peres .</l>
<milestone>fol. 61rI</milestone>
<l> He wil nauȝt aȝeynes holy writ speke  I dar wel vndertaken .<note>R.13.136: Between fols. 60 and 61 there was a leaf removed (the original cognate of fol. 60) in the course of producing R. Its stub, which measures an average width of 1.4 cm., was pasted down to the current fol. 61, causing this quire (the ninth) to be an irregular one of 7 leaves (8-1). No evidence of text loss or irregularity is apparent in the immediate vicinity of this intervention, but something must have been awry, either with the scribe's initial "casting off" of text, or with his first try at copying fol. 61, to cause such a radical intervention as cancelling a leaf. It may be significant that the text on current fol. 61v begins precisely at a point where the beta manuscripts omit nine lines of authorial material. If this material existed as a marginal addition or an attached slip in R's exemplar, it may have been initially overlooked (as in beta) but then noticed in time to remedy by means of excising a singleton and recopying. Whatever occurred may also relate to a gradual change in lineation noticeable from early in the seventh quire (41r-48v): while the earlier fascicles of R are ruled exclusively for 36 lines, beginning at 42v most sides are ruled for 37, and at the crucial fol. 60, both sides are ruled for 38 lines.</note></l>
<l> Þanne passe we ouer til peres come  and p<expan>re</expan>ue þis in dede .</l>
<l> Pacience hath be in many <app><lem>a</lem></app> place<note>R.13.138: R's <hi>a place</hi> is unique; F's agreement here with LWHm in omitting <hi>a</hi> suggests that <hi>Bx</hi> read as they do. The other beta copies render this lection as <hi>places</hi></note>  and par<seg>-</seg>auentur<expan>e</expan> knoweth .</l>
<l> Þat no clerke <app><lem>can</lem></app><note>R.13.139: R's omission of negation before <hi>can</hi> is an alpha reading shared with OC<hi>2</hi>; beta has <hi>ne can</hi>.</note>  as crist bereth witnesse .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Pacientes vincunt et cetera </foreign></hi> </l>
<l> At your<expan>e</expan> preiere q<expan>uo</expan>d pacience þo  so no man displese <app><lem>hem</lem></app> .<note>R.13.141: R's <hi>hem</hi> is unique; the other manuscripts have <hi>hym</hi>.</note></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Disce</foreign> q<expan>uo</expan>d he <foreign>doce  dilige inimicos .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <foreign>Disce</foreign> and dowel  <foreign>doce </foreign> and do<seg>-</seg>bett .</l>
<l> <foreign>Dilige</foreign> and dobest  þus tauȝt me ones .</l>
<l> A lemman þat I louede  loue was hir<expan>e</expan> name .</l>
<l> With wordes and with werkes q<expan>uo</expan>d sche  and wille of þin herte .</l>
<l> <note>R.13.147: R uniquely omits <hi>Þow</hi> at the head of this line. F, on the other hand, preserves all the elements but reverses the phrasing of the a-verse to <hi>þy sowle þowh love leely</hi>.</note> <app><lem>Loue</lem></app> lely þi soule  al þi Iif<seg>-</seg>tyme  </l>
<l> And so <app><lem>to lere and</lem></app> to louye<note>R.13.148: Alpha's a-verse seems to have been garbled here; cf. F's <hi>& so to leerne to lowe the</hi> and beta's presumably archetypal <hi>And so þow lere þe to louye</hi>.</note>  for þe lordes loue of heuene .</l>
<l> Þin enemye in alle wise  euenforth with þi<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
<l> Cast coles on his hede  of alle kynde speche .</l>
<l> Both with werkes and with wordes  fonde his loue to wynne .</l>
<l> And ley on hym þus with loue  til he lauȝhe on þe .</l>
<l> And but he bow for þis betyng<expan>e</expan>  blynde mote he worthe .</l>
<l> ¶ Ac for to far<expan>e</expan> þus with þi frende  foly it were .</l>
<l> For he þat loueth þe lelly  lyte of þin <app><lem>desireth</lem></app> .<note>R.13.155: R's <hi>desireth</hi> is an alpha variant; cf. beta's <hi>coueiteth</hi>.</note></l>
<l> Kende loue coueyteth nauȝte  no catel but speche .</l>
<l> With half a laumpe lyne in latyn . <foreign>Ex vi transic<expan>i</expan>onis .</foreign></l>
<l> ¶ I bere þere<seg>-</seg>inne a<seg>-</seg>boute  fast I<seg>-</seg>bou<expan>n</expan>de dowel .</l>
<l> In a signe of þe saterday  þat sette furste þe kalender .</l>
<l> And alle þe wit of þe wednesday  of þe next weke after</l>
<l> Þe myddel of þe mone  is þe miȝte of bothe .</l>
<l> And here<seg>-</seg>with am I welcome  þere I haue it with me .</l>
<l> Vndo it <app><lem>and</lem></app> late þis doctour <app><lem>se</lem></app><note>R.13.163: The presumably archetypal <hi>se</hi> is shared by RF with L (whose lection was <hi>sen</hi> before "correction" to the common beta reading, <hi>deme</hi>). R's <hi>and</hi> and <hi>where</hi> are alpha variants; <hi>and</hi> is simply omitted by beta manuscripts while the meaning of <hi>where</hi> is rendered in beta by <hi>if</hi>.</note><app><lem>wher<expan>e</expan></lem></app> dowel be <app><lem>her<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>inne</lem></app><note>R.13.163: R's <hi>her<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>inne</hi> is unique. The other witnesses read <hi>þerinne</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> For by hym þat me made  miȝte neu<expan>er</expan>e pou<expan>er</expan>te .</l>
<l> Miseyse ne mischief  ne man with his tonge .</l>
<l> Colde ne care ne companye of theues  </l>
<l> Ne nother hete ne hayl  ne non helle pouke .</l>
<l> Ne nother fuer ne flode  ne fer<expan>e</expan> of þin enemy .</l>
<l> Tene þe eny tyme  and þow take it with þe .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Caritas nichil timet .</foreign></hi></l>
<milestone>fol. 61vI</milestone>
<l> And <app><lem>eek</lem></app> haue god my soule  and þow wilt <app><lem>it</lem></app> craue .<note> These lines are omitted by the beta manuscripts. F offers numerous variants from R's readings in these lines—and completely omits text for KD13.169 and 171 (= R13.176 and 178)—so the most efficient representation of these differences is to cite F's text here completely (cf. Appendix 1, R13.171-79, for details and any cross-references to the <hi>C</hi> version): <lb/>
<hi>& eek so have god my soule / & þou wilt love crave. <lb/>
Þere nys Emperour ne Empresse / neyþir Erl ne baroun. <lb/>
Þat pure resoun shal the make. <lb/>
Mayster of alle men / þoruhȝ myght of his reede. <lb/>
Nowht þoruh no ryche craft / but þoruh wit of hem<seg>-</seg>selue. <lb/>
To ȝeve þe al þat þey may ȝeve / as þou for beest ȝeemere. <lb/>
<foreign>Pacientes vincunt</foreign></hi>
<l> Þere nys <app><lem>neyther</lem></app> emp<expan>er</expan>our ne emp<expan>er</expan>esse  <app><lem>erl kyng<expan>e</expan></lem></app> ne barou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
<l> Pope <app><lem>ne</lem></app> patriarch þat puyr<expan>e</expan> reson ne <app><lem>schal</lem></app><note>R.13.173: Where R has <hi>ne schal</hi>, F errs by omitting negation, producing instead <hi>shal the</hi>.</note> make .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Þe</lem></app> meyster of alle <app><lem>þo</lem></app> men  þoruȝ miȝt of <app><lem>þis redeles</lem></app> .</l>
<l> Nouȝt thoruȝ <app><lem>wicche<seg>-</seg>crafte</lem></app> but thoruȝ wit  <app><lem>& þow wilt þi<seg>-</seg>selue</lem></app> .</l>
<l> Do kyng<expan>e</expan> and quene  and alle þe comune after .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Ȝyue</lem></app> þe alle þat þei may ȝiue  as <app><lem>þe</lem></app> for best ȝemere .<note>R.13.177: R's <hi>ȝyue</hi> is witnessed in F as <hi>To ȝeve</hi>; in the b-verse, R's <hi> as þe </hi> reads <hi>as þ(o)u</hi>.</note></l>
<l> And as þou demest wil þei do  alle here dayes after .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Pacientes <app><lem>vincunt . &c<expan>etera</expan></lem></app> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ It is but a dido q<expan>uo</expan>d þis doctor  a disoures tale .</l>
<l> Alle þe wit of þis worlde  <app><lem>ne</lem></app><note>R.13.181: R's <hi>ne</hi> is an alpha variant; cf. beta's <hi>and</hi>. The same variation is attested in the <hi>C</hi> version, the X family agreeing with beta while the P family supports alpha's reading.</note> wiȝte mennes strenthe .</l>
<l> Can nauȝt conformen a pes  by<seg>-</seg>twene þe pope and his enemys</l>
<l> Ne by<seg>-</seg>twene to cristen kynges  can no wiȝt pes make .</l>
<l> Profitable to aither poeple  and put þe table from hym .</l>
<l> And toke clergie and consience  to conseil as it were .</l>
<l> Þat pacience þo mote<note>R.13.186: R's <hi>mote</hi> is a unique form here, though its semantics are identical with beta's <hi>most(e)</hi>. F completely revises the a-verse, producing <hi>& leet Pacyense forþ passe</hi>.</note> passe  for pilgrimes ku<expan>n</expan>ne wel lye .</l>
<l> ¶ Ac consience carped <app><lem>a<seg>-</seg>loude</lem></app><note>R.13.187: R's <hi>a<seg>-</seg>loude</hi> is a unique form. The other manuscripts show <hi>loude</hi>.</note>  and curteysliche seyde .</l>
<l> Frendes fareth wel  and fair<expan>e</expan> spake to clergie .</l>
<l> For I wil go with þis gome  if god wil gyue me g<expan>ra</expan>ce .</l>
<l> And be pilgrime with pacience  til I haue p<expan>ro</expan>ued more .</l>
<l> ¶ What q<expan>uo</expan>d clergie to consience  ar<expan>e</expan> ȝe coueytous nowthe .</l>
<l> After ȝeresȝyues or ȝiftes  <app><lem>other</lem></app><note>R.13.192: R's <hi>other</hi> is unique. The remaining <hi>B</hi> witnesses all begin the b-verse with <hi>or</hi>.</note> ȝernen to rede redeles .</l>
<l> I schal bringe ȝow a bible  a boek of þe olde lawe .</l>
<l> And lere ȝow if <app><lem>ȝe</lem></app> liken<note>R.13.194: Cf. beta's <hi>ȝow lyke</hi>.</note>  þe lest poynt to knowe .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Pacience</lem></app><note>R.13.195: R uniquely omits <hi>Þat</hi> at the head of this line.</note> þe pilgrime  parfitlych knew <app><lem>eu<expan>er</expan>re</lem></app><note>R.13.195: R's <hi>euerre</hi> is shared solely with Hm. Beta and F read <hi>neuere</hi>, which is required by the sense of the sentence.</note> .</l>
<l> ¶ Nay by crist q<expan>uo</expan>d consience to clergie  god þe forȝelde .</l>
<l> For alle þat pacience me p<expan>ro</expan>fereth  proud am I litel .</l>
<l> Ac þe wille of þe weye<note>R.13.198: <hi>Weye</hi>, "person, being, man."</note>  and þe wil<note>R.13.198: R's apparent omission of the preposition <hi>of</hi> before <hi>folk</hi> is not reflected in F but is shared with several key beta manuscripts. It is quite likely here that R is accurately representing an earlier textual transmission error, not merely creating one of his own. The most salient clue lies in the fact that <hi>of</hi> is also omitted by L (the best beta copy) as well as by M, C and B. The preposition is later inserted into M above the line by Hand2 (a scribe trying to re-work M's text to match that of the CrW sub-family). These facts suggest that <hi>of</hi> was either completely omitted or interlinear in <hi>Bx</hi>, that it was inserted (or remained obscurely interlinear) in beta, and was overlooked by alpha. Then F, who is more attentive to the need for such tidying than is the R scribe, and who has a variety of collational sources at his disposal, simply resupplied it. Cf. this textual situation to that found at <ref>R.13.124:</ref>. On the other hand, Burrow and Turville-Petre prefer simply defending the reading found in R and L as a "harder reading," by glossing <hi>wil</hi> as an adjective (= "errant"). As is frequently the case with such suggestions, one must decide whether the reading proposed is merely "harder" or in fact metrically awkward and semantically unlikely.</note> folk here .</l>
<l> Hath meued my moed  to mourne for my synnes .</l>
<l> Þe gode wille of <app><lem>vch</lem></app> a<note>R.13.200: Cf. R's <hi>vch a</hi> to F's <hi>euery</hi> and beta's <hi>a</hi>.</note> wiȝt was <app><lem>nere</lem></app><note>R.13.200: R's <hi>nere</hi> is a unique form; all the other copies have <hi>neure</hi>.</note> bouȝt to þe fulle .</l>
<l> For þere nys<note>R.13.201: R's <hi>nys</hi> is shared only with L and W (the others read <hi>is</hi>); however, the attestational authority of these three copies in agreement makes it likely that their form represents the reading of <hi>Bx</hi>.</note> no tresor þere<seg>-</seg>to  to a trewe wille .</l>
<l> ¶ Haued nauȝt <app><lem>marie</lem></app><note>R.13.202: R's <hi>marie</hi> is an alpha variant; beta omits it.</note> magdeleyne more  for a box of salue .</l>
<milestone>fol. 62rI</milestone>
<l> Þanne zacheus for he seyde  <foreign>dimidiu<expan>m</expan> bonor<expan>um</expan> meor<expan>um</expan> do paup<expan>er</expan>ib<expan>us</expan> .</foreign> </l>
<l> And þe pore wydewe  for a peyre of mytes .</l>
<l> Þan alle þo þat offreden  in<seg>-</seg>to <foreign>gazophilaciu<expan>m</expan></foreign> .</l>
<l> ¶ Þus curteyslyche consience  congeyd ferst þe frere .</l>
<l> And sitthen softeliche he seyde  in clergies ere</l>
<l> Me were leuer be oure lorde  and I lyue schulde .</l>
<l> Haue pacience parfiteliche  þan half þi pakke of bokes .</l>
<l> ¶ Clergie <app><lem>and</lem></app><note>R.13.210: R's <hi>and</hi> and F's <hi>ne</hi> attest to an alpha failure to grasp the meaning of the passage; cf. beta's <hi>to</hi> (the reading of LHmOCYB) and the easier reading adopted by CrWG (= <hi>of</hi>). M was altered at some point to the latter reading but almost certainly agreed originally with L.</note> consience  no congeye wolde take .</l>
<l> But seyde ful sobreliche  þow schalt se þe tyme .</l>
<l> Whan þow art weri for<seg>-</seg>walked  wilne me to conseill<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> ¶ Þat is soth seyde consience  so me god helpe </l>
<l> If pacience be our<expan>e</expan> partyng<expan>e</expan> felawe  & pryue with vs bothe .</l>
<l> Þere <app><lem>ne is</lem></app> wo in þis werlde  þat we ne schulde amende .</l>
<l> And conformen kynges to pees  <app><lem>of</lem></app><note>R.13.216: At this point, beta has <hi>and</hi>. </note> alle kynne londes .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.13.217: <hi>And</hi> is an alpha variant; the beta manuscripts omit it.</note> sarasynes and surrie  and so forth alle <app><lem>iewes</lem></app><note>R.13.217: R's <hi>alle iewes</hi> shows a unique omission; all the other witnesses have <hi>alle þe iewes</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> Turnen in to þe trewe faith  and in til one byleue .</l>
<l> ¶ Þat is soth q<expan>uo</expan>d clergie  I se what þow menest .</l>
<l> I schal dwelle as I do  my deuer to schewen .</l>
<l> And conformen fauntekynes  and other folke I<seg>-</seg>lered .</l>
<l> Til pacience haue p<expan>ro</expan>ued þe  and parfit þe maked .</l>
<l> ¶ Consience þo with pacience passed  pilgrimes as it were .</l>
<l> Þanne hadde pacience  as pilgrimes han  i<expan>n</expan> his poke vitales .</l>
<l> Sobrete and symple speche  and sothfaste byleue .</l>
<l> To confort hym and consience  if þei come in place .</l>
<l> Þere vnkendenesse and coueytise  is <app><lem><sic>honger</sic><corr>honger[y]</corr></lem></app> contreyes bothe .</l>
<l> And as þey wenten be þe weye  <app><lem>and</lem></app> of dowel <app><lem>carpede</lem></app><note>R.13.228: R's <hi>and of dowel carpede</hi> is the alpha version of this b-verse (cf. F's <hi>& of Dowel carpeden</hi>). The beta half-line is <hi>of dowel þei carped</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> Þei metten with a ministrale  as me þo thouȝte .</l>
<l> Pacience apposed hym furst  and preyed hym he<note>R.13.230: The phrase <hi>hym he</hi> is another example of a variant attested exclusively by LMR. The majority beta reading here is simply <hi>he</hi> while F reads <hi>hym</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with the beta majority.</note> schulde he<expan>m</expan> telle .</l>
<l> To consience what craft he couthe  and to what contre he wolde .</l>
<l> ¶ Ich am a ministrale q<expan>uo</expan>d þat man  my name is <foreign>actiua vita</foreign> .<note>R.13.232: In the right margin opposite this line appears a simple gloss: <add>actife</add>. This marginal gloss is in a very light brown hand and has been partially erased.</note></l>
<l> Alle ydel Iche hatie  for of actif is my name .</l>
<milestone>fol. 62vI</milestone>
<l> A waferer<expan>e</expan> welle<note>R.13.234: R's <hi>welle</hi> is shared exclusively with Cr; all other <hi>B</hi> copies, including F, disagree, attesting instead some form of <hi>wil</hi> here.</note> ȝe wite  and s<expan>er</expan>ue many lordes .<note>R.13.234: At the top right margin of this side, there is a black ink stain, which also has transferred onto the top left of 63r. At the top left margin, there are pen trials or a cartoon, extending down the left margin to R13.242.</note></l>
<l> And fewe robes I fonge  or furred gounes .</l>
<l> Coude I lye <app><lem>and</lem></app><note>R.13.236: R's <hi>and</hi> is an alpha variant; beta has <hi>to</hi>. Though <hi>C</hi> manuscript N also reads <hi>to</hi>, showing its unique and typical deference to beta against all its versional siblings, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> do men lawhe  þanne lacchen I schulde .</l>
<l> Other mantel or mone  amonges lordes ministrales .</l>
<l> Ac for I can nother tabre ne trumpe  ne telle none gestes .</l>
<l> Farten ne fithelen  at festes ne harpen .</l>
<l> Iape ne <app><lem>iangele</lem></app><note>R.13.240: Beta reads <hi>iogly</hi> in place of alpha's <hi>iangele</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> is uncertain; large numbers of <hi>C</hi>witnesses agree with each of the <hi>B</hi> sub-archetypal readings. </note>  ne gentyliche pipe .</l>
<l> Ne noyther sayle ne saute  ne synge with þe gyterne .</l>
<l> I haue non gode giftes  of þis grete lordes .</l>
<l> For no brede þat I <app><lem>brouȝt</lem></app><note>R.13.243: The beta manuscripts read <hi>brynge</hi>.</note> forth  saue a b<expan>e</expan>n<expan>i</expan>son on þe soneday .</l>
<l> Whanne þe prest preyeth þe poeple  her<expan>e</expan> pat<expan>er</expan>n<expan>oste</expan>r to bidde .</l>
<l> For peres þe plowman  and þat hym p<expan>ro</expan>fit wayteth<note>R.13.245: R's <hi>wayteth</hi> is an alpha form; beta shows <hi>wayten</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> And þat I am actif  þat Idelnesse hatye .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Of</lem></app><note>R.13.247: R's <hi>Of</hi> is unique; cf. beta's <hi>For</hi> and F's <hi>& for</hi>.</note> alle trewe trauailoures  and tylieres of þe erthe .</l>
<l> Fro miȝhelmesse to miȝhelmesse  I fynde hem with waferes .</l>
<l> ¶ Beggares and bidderes  of my brede crauen .</l>
<l> Faitoures and freres  and folk with brode crounes .</l>
<l> I fynde payn for þe pope<note>R.13.251: The word <hi>pope</hi> has been cancelled with a later black horizontal line.</note>  and p<expan>ro</expan>uendre for his palfreye .</l>
<l> And I hadde neu<expan>er</expan>e of hym  haue god my trewthe .</l>
<l> Nother p<expan>ro</expan>uendre ne personage  ȝut of þe popes<note>R.13.253: The word <hi>popes</hi> has been cancelled with 2 later black horizontal lines.</note> ȝiftes .</l>
<l> Saue a pardou<expan>n</expan> with a peys of lede  and to polles a<seg>-</seg>mydde .</l>
<l> Hadde Ich a clerke þat couthe write  I wolde caste hym a bille .</l>
<foreign>laus & vis Indulgencia<expan>rum</expan></foreign><note> There is a brace in the left margin, calling attention to this marginal gloss.</note>
<l> Þat he sent me vnder his sel  a salue for þe pestylence .</l>
<l> <note>R.13.257: The beta manuscripts read the opening of this line as <hi>And þat</hi>.</note> <app><lem>Þat</lem></app> his blissyng<expan>e</expan> and his bulles  bocches <app><lem><sic>mȝte</sic><corr>m[y]ȝte</corr></lem></app> destruye .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>In no<expan>m</expan>i<expan>n</expan>e meo demonia eicient  <seg></seg></foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Et super egros man<expan>us</expan> imponent Et bene habebunt .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> And þanne wolde I be prest to þe poeple  paste for to make</l>
<l> And buxu<expan>m</expan> and busy  aboute brede and drinke .</l>
<l> For hym and for alle his  fou<expan>n</expan>de ich þat his pardou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
<l> Miȝt lechen a man  as Ich by<seg>-</seg>leue it schulde .</l>
<l> For sethe he hath þe power<expan>e</expan>  þat peter hym<seg>-</seg>self hadde .</l>
<l> He hath þe pott with þe salue  sothely as me thenketh .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Argentu<expan>m</expan> & auru<expan>m</expan> no<expan>n</expan> est michi quod aute<expan>m</expan> habeo <app><lem>h<expan>oc</expan></lem></app><note>R.13.266: Beta omits alpha's <foreign>hoc</foreign>; <hi>Cx</hi> is uncertain: the X family mostly agrees with beta in omitting this demonstrative, but most P family witnesses include it.</note> tibi do .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>In no<expan>m</expan>i<expan>n</expan>e d<expan>omi</expan>ni surge et ambula .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Ac if miȝt of miracle hym faile  it is for men beth<note>R.13.268: R's inflectional form is unique here; the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read <hi>be(n)</hi>. However, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R.</note> nauȝt worthi</l>
<l> To haue <app><lem>no</lem></app><note>R.13.269: In place of alpha's <hi>no</hi>, the beta manuscripts read <hi>þe</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> g<expan>ra</expan>ce of god  and no gult of þe pope .<note>R.13.269: The word <hi>pope</hi> has been cancelled with a later black horizontal line.</note></l>
<milestone>fol. 63rI</milestone>
<l> <app><lem>May</lem></app><note>R.13.270: R uniquely omits a word at the head of this line; cf. F's <hi>Þere may</hi> and beta's <hi>For may</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> no blissyng don vs bote  but if we wil amende .</l>
<l> Ne mannes masse make pees  amonges cristene poeple .</l>
<l> Til pruide be <app><lem>priueliche</lem></app><note>R.13.272: Cf. RF's <hi>priueliche</hi> with the beta variant <hi>purelich</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> fordo  and <app><lem>alle</lem></app><note>R.13.272: R's <hi>alle</hi> is unique; cf. F's omission (shared by WCrM) and the beta original reading, <hi>þat</hi>, found in LHmCOG, which is shared with <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> þoruȝ payne defaute<note>R.13.272: Covering the right margin opposite R13.272-73 is a black inkblot that has also transferred onto 62v. Additionally, a black stain that appears to have originated in the margin of 62v, just inside the aforementioned pen trials of 62v, seems to have transferred to lines 271-72 here, partially obscuring <hi>poeple</hi> (271) and <hi>payne</hi> (272).</note></l>
<l> ¶ For ar ich haue brede of mele  ofte mote Ich swete .</l>
<l> And ar þe comune haue corne a<seg>-</seg>now  many a cold morwenyng<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> So ar my wafres ben I<seg>-</seg>wrouȝte  muche wo I tholie .</l>
<l> ¶ Alle londou<expan>n</expan> I leue  liketh wel my waferes .</l>
<l> And louren whan þei lakken hem  It is nauȝt longe I<seg>-</seg>passed .</l>
<l> Þere was a careful comune  whan no carte come to towne . </l>
<l> With <app><lem>bake</lem></app><note>R.13.279: Beta omits <hi>bake</hi> and thereby produces an unmetrical line of the format <hi>ax/ay</hi>.</note> brede fro <app><lem><sic>statforde</sic><corr>st[r]atforde</corr></lem></app>  þo gan beggeres wepe .</l>
<l> And werkemen wer<expan>e</expan> agast  a litel þis <app><lem>wel</lem></app> be thouȝt longe .</l>
<l> In þe date of oure driȝte  in a druye au<expan>er</expan>el .</l>
Chicestr<expan>e</expan> Maior<lb/>
<l> A thousend and thre hondrede  tweyes thretty and tene<note> In the right margin opposite these lines, in a thin black, nearly contemporary hand, someone has written, <hi>Chicestr<expan>e</expan> Maior londou<expan>n</expan></hi>.</note></l>
<l> My waferes þer<expan>e</expan> wer<expan>e</expan> gesene  whanne chichestre <app><lem>wer<expan>e</expan></lem></app> mayre .</l>
<l> ¶ I toke <app><lem>grete</lem></app><note>R.13.284: Beta reads <hi>gode</hi>.</note> kepe by criste  and consience bothe .</l>
<l> Of haukyn þe actif man  and how he was I<seg>-</seg>clothed .</l>
<l> He hadde a cote of cristendome  as holy kyrke byleueth .</l>
<l> Ac it was moled in many <app><lem>place</lem></app><note>R.13.287: The singular form is unique; the other manuscripts show the plural, <hi>places</hi>.</note>  with mony sondri plottes .</l>
<l> Of pruyde <app><lem><sic>he</sic><corr>he[re]</corr></lem></app> a plotte and þer<expan>e</expan> a plotte  of unbuxu<expan>m</expan> speche .</l>
<l> Of scornyng<expan>e</expan> and of scoffyng<expan>e</expan>  and of vnskilful berynge</l>
<l> As in apparail and in porte  proude amonges þe poeple .</l>
<l> Other<seg>-</seg>wise þanne he hath  with hert <app><lem>and</lem></app><note>R.13.291: R's <hi>and</hi> is unique; F omits it (and completely rewrites the b-verse), while beta reads <hi>or</hi>.</note> siȝt schewynge .</l>
<l> Hym <app><lem>wilnynge</lem></app><note>R.13.292: R's <hi>wilnynge</hi> is unique; cf. F's <hi>wenynge</hi> and beta's <hi>willynge</hi>. In a cognate passage (from <hi>C</hi>6), the <hi>C</hi> version agrees with R on this variant.</note> þat alle men  wente<note>R.13.292: <hi>Wente</hi> is a dialect variant for the preterite of <hi>ween</hi>. <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>ween</hi> (v.), recognizes the form as viable from the thirteenth through the sixteenth centuries.</note> he wer<expan>e</expan> þat he is nauȝte .</l>
<l> For<seg>-</seg>whi he bosteth and braggeth  with mony bolde othes .</l>
<l> And inobedient to be vnder<seg>-</seg>nome  of any lyf lyuynge .</l>
<l> And so synguler<expan>e</expan> by hym<seg>-</seg>selue  <app><lem>as to siȝt of þe poeple</lem></app> .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Was non suche as hym<seg>-</seg>selue</lem></app>  ne non so pope<seg>-</seg>holy .</l>
<l> I<seg>-</seg>habited as an heremite  an ordre by hym<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
<l> Religion sauns reule  and resonable obedience .</l>
<l> Lakkynge lettrede men  and lewed men bothe .</l>
<l> In lykyng of lele lyf  and a lyere in soule .</l>
<l> With in<seg>-</seg>wit <app><lem>and</lem></app><note>R.13.301: Alpha and Cr hereafter omit a repeated <hi>with</hi> found in all other beta copies.</note> oute<seg>-</seg>wit  ymagynen and stodye .</l>
<l> As best for his body be  to haue a <app><lem>bolde</lem></app><note>R.13.302: For alpha's <hi>bolde</hi>, the beta manuscripts have <hi>badde</hi>.</note> name .</l>
<l> And entermeten hym ouer alle  þer<expan>e</expan> he hath nouȝt to done .</l>
<milestone>fol. 63vI</milestone>
<l> Wilnynge þat men wende  his wit were þe beste .</l>
<l> Or for his crafty kunnynge  <app><lem>or</lem></app> of clerkes <app><lem>þe</lem></app> wisest .<note> These lines are omitted by beta. F's rendering of these lines is sufficiently different from R's that F's lines should be cited in their entirety (cf. Appendix 1, R13.305-311, for details and any cross-references to the <hi>C</hi> version): <lb/>
<hi>Or for his crafty konyngge / of clerkis he were þe wisest. <lb/>
Or strengest on steede / or styffest gyrt with gyrdel. <lb/>
& lowlyest to loken on / & leellest of werkys. <lb/>
& non so holy as he / ne non of lyf clennere. <lb/>
Or fayrest of fetoures / of face / ne of forme. <lb/>
Or most sotyl of song / or slyest of hondys. <lb/>
Or looþ for to leene / & large for to cacche</hi>
<l> Or strengest on stede  or styuest <app><lem>vnder</lem></app> gurdel .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>louelokest</lem></app> to loken on  and lelest of werkes .</l>
<l> And non so holy as he  <app><lem>ne</lem></app> of lif clennere .</l>
<l> Or feyrest of feytures  of <app><lem>fourme and of schafte</lem></app> .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app> most sotyl of songe  <app><lem>other</lem></app> sleyest of hondes .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And large to lene  losse þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>by to cacche</lem></app> .</l>
<l> And if he gyueth ouȝt<note>R.13.312: R and L alone omit the preposition <hi>to</hi> before <hi>pore</hi>.</note> pore gomes  telle what he deleth .</l>
<l> Pore of possession  in purs and in coffre<note>R.13.313: Only R and L end the line with <hi>coffre</hi>; F omits the entire line and the other beta copies add <hi>boþe</hi> at the end.</note> .</l>
<l> And as a lion <app><lem>to loke</lem></app><note>R.13.314: R's omission of the preposition <hi>on</hi> after <hi>lion</hi> is unique. F includes the preposition but rearranges the phrase so that beta's <hi>a lyon on to loke</hi> is rendered <hi>a lyoun to looken on</hi>.</note>  and lordeliche of speche .</l>
<l> ¶ Boldest of beggeres  a bostere þat nouȝt hath .</l>
<l> In towne and in tau<expan>er</expan>nes  tales to telle .</l>
<l> And segge þinge þat he neu<expan>er</expan>e seyȝ  and for<seg>-</seg>soth sweren it .</l>
<l> Of dedes þat he neu<expan>er</expan> dede  demen and boste .</l>
<l> And of werkes þat he wel dede  witnesse and seggen .</l>
<l> Lo if ȝe leue me nauȝt  or þat I lye wenen .</l>
<l> Asketh at hym or at hym  and he ȝow can telle .</l>
<l> What I suffred and seyȝ  and so<expan>m</expan>me<seg>-</seg>tymes hadde .</l>
<l> And what I couth and knewe  and what kyn I come of .</l>
<l> Alle he wolde þat men wist  of werkes <app><lem>and</lem></app> wordes<note>R.13.324: Beta reads the final phrase of this line as <hi>werkes and of wordes</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> Whiche miȝt plese þe poeple  and preysen hem<seg>-</seg>seluen .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Si hominib<expan>us</expan> placerem <expan>christi</expan> s<expan>er</expan>uus non essem .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Et alibi Nemo potest duob<expan>us</expan> d<expan>o</expan>m<expan>ini</expan>s s<expan>er</expan>uire .</foreign></hi><note> Both of these red boxings have been blotted and partially erased.</note></l>
<l> ¶ By crist q<expan>uo</expan>d consience þo  þi best cote haukyn .</l>
<l> Hath mony moles and spottes  it most ben waschen .</l>
<l> ¶ Ȝe ho<seg>-</seg>so toke hede q<expan>uo</expan>d haukyn  by<seg>-</seg>hynde and by<seg>-</seg>fore .</l>
<l> What on bakk and <app><lem>on</lem></app> body half  and bi þe to sydes .</l>
<l> Men schuld fynde many frou<expan>n</expan>ces  and many foule plottes .</l>
<l> ¶ And he turned hym as tyte  and þanne toke I hede .</l>
<l> It was fouler bi felfolde  þan it furst semed .</l>
<l> It was bi<seg>-</seg>dropped with wrathe  and wikked wille .</l>
<l> With <app><lem>eneuye</lem></app><note>R.13.336: R's form here is unique; Kane-Donaldson transcribe it as a nonsense error, <hi>enenye</hi>; however, a likelier reading of R's intention is that he meant to render the same word as the other witnesses, <hi>enuye</hi>.</note> and euel speche  entisyng<expan>e</expan> to fiȝte .</l>
<hi>lyȝyng<expan>e</expan> or lakkyng<expan>e</expan></hi>
<milestone>fol. 64rI</milestone>
<l> Lyȝyng<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>or</lem></app> <app><lem>lakkyng<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.13.337: R's <hi>lakkynge</hi> is an alpha variant; cf. beta's erroneous <hi>laughynge</hi>.</note><app><lem>a</lem></app> lef tonge to chide .<note>R.13.337: R shows two small unique features in reading this line: (1) where the other manuscripts read <hi>and</hi> in the a-verse, R has <hi>or</hi>; (2) where most of the others read <hi>and</hi> at the head of the b-verse, R has <hi>a</hi> (cf. G's <hi>and a</hi> and F's <hi>& with a</hi>).</note></l>
<l> Alle þat he wiste wikked  bi any wiȝt tellen it .</l>
<l> And blame men by<seg>-</seg>hynde her bakke  and bidden hem mischance .</l>
<l> And þat he wiste bi wille  tellen it to watte .</l>
<l> And þat watte wiste  wille wiste it after .</l>
<l> And made of frendes foes  þoruȝ a fals tonge .</l>
<l> Or with miȝt of mouthe  or thoruȝ mannes strengthe .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Auenged</lem></app><note>R.13.344: R uniquely deploys the past tense here; the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts show <hi>Auenge</hi>. However, almost all the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts endorse R's lection, reading <hi>Venged</hi>.</note> me fele tymes  other frete my<seg>-</seg>sulue .</l>
<l> With<seg>-</seg>inne as a schepster<expan>e</expan> schere  I schrewed men and cursed .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Cui<expan>us</expan> maledicc<expan>i</expan>one os plenu<expan>m</expan> <app><lem>est</lem></app><note>R.13.346: R's <foreign>est amaritudine</foreign> involves a unique omission. All other <hi>B</hi> witnesses (as well as <hi>Cx</hi>) agree on <foreign>est & amaritudine</foreign>.</note> amaritudine .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Sub lingua eius labor . et <app><lem>dolor</lem></app> .</foreign></hi><note>R.13.347: Alpha omits a second tagline, from Ps. 56.5, <foreign>& alibi filij hominum dentes eorum arma & sagitte & lingua eorum gladius acutus</foreign>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta and includes the citation. The first Latin quotation is from Ps. 9.28.</note><note> Both of these red boxings have been blotted and partially erased.</note></l>
<l> Þere is no lif þat I loue  lestyng<expan>e</expan> any while .</l>
<l> For tales þat I telle  no man tresteth to me .</l>
<l> And whan I may nouȝt haue þe maystrie  <app><lem>which</lem></app><note>R.13.350: R's <hi>which</hi> is unique. F and some of the beta manuscripts (CrWHm) read <hi>swich</hi>, while others (LGCO) have <hi>with</hi>. As for M, the beta editor has "corrected" its reading (from the spacing it appears likely that the original reading was <hi>with</hi>) to the WHm lection. <hi>Cx</hi> attests <hi>suche</hi>, but Kane and Russell choose <hi>wiþ</hi> for their edition of <hi>C</hi>, presumably on the basis of its being a "harder reading."</note> malencolye I take</l>
<l> Þat I cacche þe crompe  þe cardiacle su<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>tyme .</l>
<l> Or an ague in suche an angre  and su<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>tyme a feuer<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> Þat taketh me alle a twelmoneth  til þat I despise .</l>
<l> Leche<seg>-</seg>craft or<note>R.13.354: R's <hi>or</hi> is shared only with L (cf. the common beta reading, <hi>of</hi>). F reads <hi>be</hi>. Although two <hi>C</hi> manuscripts, Q and F, agree with this RL reading, <hi>Cx</hi> certainly agrees with the beta majority. If this RL lection is, as seems likely, an error (rather than a harder reading distorted by most of their fellow copyists) it would represent a coincidental misreading of a single character.</note> our<expan>e</expan> lorde  and leue on a wiche</l>
<l> And segge þat no clerk ne can  ne criste as I leue .</l>
<foreign>n<expan>ota</expan></foreign> sowt<expan>er</expan> of sotwerk
<l> To þe souter of south<seg>-</seg>werk  or of schordych dame emme .<note>R.13.356: In the right margin opposite this line, someone has written <hi>sowt(er) of sotwerk</hi>. This note is in a thin black, nearly contemporary hand, apparently the same as the note about Chichestre on 63v. To the immediate left of this gloss, between it and the end of the text line, there is a design consisting of a triangle of dots with a penstroke resembling a modern comma extending from the middle of its base.</note></l>
<l> And segge þat no goddes worde  gaf me neu<expan>er</expan>e bote .</l>
<l> But þoruȝ a charme hadde I chaunce  and my chief hele .</l>
<l> ¶ I waited wisloker  and þanne was <app><lem>I</lem></app><note>R.13.359: Cf. R's <hi>I</hi> with F's <hi>he</hi> and beta's <hi>it</hi>. Apparently the R scribe failed to notice that the confession ends in the previous line and that this description is rendered from the narrator's viewpoint.</note> soyled .</l>
<l> With likyng<expan>e</expan> of lecherie  and by lokyng<expan>e</expan> of <app><lem>myn</lem></app><note>R.13.360: R's <hi>myn</hi> is an alpha reading; cf. beta's <hi>his</hi>.</note> eye .</l>
<l> For vch a mayde þat he mette  he made hire a syngne</l>
<l> Semynge to synwarde  and so<expan>m</expan>me<seg>-</seg>tyme he gan taste .</l>
<l> Aboute þe mouth or byneth  bygyn<expan>n</expan>eth to grope .</l>
<l> Til eytheres wille waxeth kene  and to þe werke ȝeden .</l>
<l> As <app><lem>wel</lem></app><note>R.13.365: Beta reads <hi>wel in</hi> for alpha's <hi>wel</hi>. But <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> fastyng dayes and fridayes  and for<seg>-</seg>bode niȝtes .</l>
<l> And as <app><lem>lef</lem></app><note>R.13.366: Beta reads <hi>wel</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> in lente as oute of lente  alle tymes I<seg>-</seg>liche .</l>
<l> Suche werkes with hem  wer<expan>e</expan> neu<expan>er</expan>e out of sesou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
<l> Til þei miȝt na more  and þanne hadde murie tales .</l>
<l> And how þat lechoures louyen lawe<expan>n</expan>  and iapen .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Or</lem></app><note>R.13.370: In place of R's unique and incoherent <hi>Or</hi>, F and beta begin this line <hi>And of</hi>. Later in the line, R opens the b-verse with <hi>and in</hi> where all the other copies read <hi>in</hi></note> <app><lem>herlotrie</lem></app> and horedom  <app><lem>and</lem></app> in here elde tellen</l>
<l> ¶ Þanne pacience parceyued  of poyntes his cote .</l>
k j<note>R.13.371: At the bottom of 64r, in the lower right margin, a signature mark, <hi>k j</hi>, appears to be partially detectable but is mostly erased. The bottom middle section of this leaf was torn long ago at a diagonal extending upwards to the left for 4 cm.; it was repaired by stitching.</note>
<milestone>fol. 64vI</milestone>
<l> Was colmy thoruȝ coueytise  and vnkende desiryng<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> More to goed þan to god  þe gome his loue caste .</l>
<l> And ymagined how he it miȝt haue  </l>
<l> With fals mesures and mette  and with fals witnesse .</l>
<l> Lened for loue of þe wed  and lothe to do treuthe .</l>
<l> And awayted þoruȝ <app><lem>whit<expan>us</expan></lem></app><note>R.13.377: <hi>Whitus</hi>, "wits." Beta reads <hi>which wey to bigile</hi> instead of R's more apt <hi>whitus weyus to begile</hi>. Cf. F's <hi>wit fele wyȝes to be<seg>-</seg>gyle</hi>.</note><app><lem>wey<expan>us</expan></lem></app> to begile .</l>
<l> And menged his marchandise  and made a goed moustre .</l>
<l> Þe werste with<seg>-</seg>Inne was  a grete wit I lete it .</l>
<l> And if my neȝbore hadde <app><lem>an</lem></app><note>R.13.380: Beta has <hi>any</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> hyne  or any best elles .</l>
<l> More p<expan>ro</expan>fitable þan myne  many sleyȝtes Ich made .</l>
<l> How I miȝt haue it  al my wit I caste .</l>
<l> And but if I hadde<note>R.13.383: Here alpha's phrasing differs slightly from beta, which reads <hi>but I (it) had</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta, and supports the LMWHm inclusion of <hi>it</hi> in the phrase; but the P family mostly agrees with Hm's order (<hi>hadde it</hi>) while the best X family copies agree with LMW (= <hi>it had</hi>).</note> bi other way  at þe last I stale it .</l>
<l> Or priuelich his purs schoke  vn<seg>-</seg>pyked his lokkes .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Other</lem></app> bi niȝt <app><lem>other</lem></app><note>R.13.385: R's correlative conjunctions <hi>other . . . other</hi> are unique; except for F, all the other <hi>B</hi> copies render both of this pair as <hi>or</hi>; F agrees with them on the second but renders the first as <hi>Eyþir</hi>.</note> bi daye  aboute was I euere .</l>
<l> Þoruȝ gyle to gaderen  þe goed þat Ich haue .</l>
<l> ¶ If ich ȝede to þe plow  I pynched so narwe .</l>
<l> Þat a fote lande or a forw  fecche Ich wolde .</l>
<l> Of my nexte neyȝbore  or ȝaf hem rede þat repen .<note>R.13.389: Here alpha lost a b-verse and a following a-verse, resulting in the compression of two lines into an aa|bb metrical pattern. In F, the resulting half-line reads <hi>whan y sholde repen it</hi>.</note></l>
<l> To sese to me with her sikel  þat I ne sewe neuere .</l>
<l> ¶ And ho<seg>-</seg>so borwed of me  a<seg>-</seg>boute þe tyme .</l>
<l> With p<expan>re</expan>sentes priueliche  or payed som<expan>m</expan>e certeyne .</l>
<l> So walde he or nauȝt walde  wynnen I wolde .</l>
<l> And bothe to kytthe and to kynne  vnkynde of þat Ich hadde .</l>
<l> ¶ And ho<seg>-</seg>so cheped my chaffare  chiden Ich wolde .</l>
<l> But he p<expan>ro</expan>fered to paye  a peny or tweyne .</l>
<l> More þan it was worth  and ȝut wolde I swere .</l>
<l> Þat it <app><lem>coste</lem></app><note>R.13.398: Beta becomes more explicit, inserting <hi>me</hi> after <hi>coste</hi>.</note> muche more  swore many othes .</l>
<l> ¶ In haly dayes at holy cherche  whan Ich herde masse .</l>
<l> Hadde<note>R.13.400: After <hi>Hadde</hi>, R shares with L alone an obvious error: the omission of the personal pronoun <hi>I</hi>. Both F and beta include <hi>I</hi>, as does <hi>Cx</hi>. This apparently random error, shared exclusively by the two best witnesses to <hi>Bx</hi>, probably derives from an overlooked marginal correction in that archetypal copy, one that was transmitted faithfully (as a marginal) by both alpha and beta.</note> ner<expan>e</expan> wil wote god  witterly to be<seg>-</seg>seche .</l>
<l> Mercy for my misdedes  þat I ne morned more .</l>
<l> For losse of goed leue me<note>R.13.402: A stain or discoloration of the parchment has partially obscured <hi>me</hi>.</note>  þan <app><lem>fore</lem></app> lih<expan>a</expan>mes gultes .</l>
<l> As if I hadde dedly synne done  I dradde nauȝt þat so sore .</l>
<l> As whan I lened and leued it loste  or longe ar it wer<expan>e</expan> payed .</l>
<milestone>fol. 65rI</milestone>
<l> So if I kydde any kendenesse  myn euencristene to helpe .</l>
<l> Vppon a cruele coueytise  <app><lem>my consience</lem></app><note>R.13.406: In place of alpha's correctly alliterating <hi>consience</hi>, beta reads <hi>herte</hi>.</note><note>R.13.406: Wetting has caused the ink to run, partially blurring the word <hi>my</hi> and the <co> of <hi>consience</hi>.</note> gan hange .</l>
<l> And if I sent ouer see  my s<expan>er</expan>uantz to brugges .</l>
<l> Or in<seg>-</seg>to pruyslonde my prenteys  my profit to wayte .</l>
<l> To marchaunden with monoye  and maken her<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>chaunges</lem></app> .<note>R.13.409: Beta reads <hi>eschaunges</hi> in place of RF's <hi>chaunges</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note></l>
<l> Myȝte <app><lem>nere</lem></app><note>R.13.410: R's <hi>nere</hi> is a unique form here. The other copies have <hi>neuer(e)</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> manuscripts attest the majority form.</note> me conforte  in þe mene tyme .</l>
<l> Nother masse ne matynes  ne no maner <app><lem><sic>shytes</sic><corr>s[yh]tes</corr></lem></app> .<note>R.13.411: R's nonsensical error here is unique among the <hi>B</hi> copies. The scribe's usual spelling of the word in question is <hi>siȝtes</hi>, but the spelling adopted here for the emendation is assumed to have been inherited from his exemplar, so that his only mistake is likely to have been a simple reversal of two letters. Two <hi>C</hi> witnesses, VcAc, render this word as <hi>schytes</hi>, but <hi>Cx</hi> presumably had <hi>syhtus</hi>.</note></l>
<l> Ne neuer penaunce parfournede  ne pat<expan>er</expan>n<expan>oste</expan>r sayde .</l>
<l> Þat my mynde ne was more  <app><lem>in</lem></app> my goed in a doute .</l>
<l> Þan in þe grace of god  and his grete helpes .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Vbi est thesaurus tuus  ibi & cor tuu<expan>m</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Ȝet <app><lem>glotou<expan>n</expan></lem></app> with grete othes  his <app><lem>granement</lem></app><note>R.13.416: Although listing it as a viable spelling variation, <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>garnement</hi>, offers no other evidence for this spelling of what is commonly rendered <hi>garnement</hi> (as in F). <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>garment</hi>, <hi>garneament</hi>, and <hi>garnement</hi>, provides no citations either.</note> <app><lem>hadde</lem></app> soyled .<note> These lines are omitted by the beta manuscripts. There are, moreover, substantial variations between R and F in this passage, so that it seems preferable here to cite F's version uninterrupted (cf. Appendix 1, R13.416-25, for details and any cross-references to the <hi>C</hi> version): <lb/>
<hi>Ȝeet þat goome with grete oþis / his garnement was soiled. <lb/>
& foule be-flobered it / al with fals speche. <lb/>
& þere no neede was / nempnede god ydellyche. <lb/>
& swoor þerby / swythe ofte / a-bowte þe ale cuppe. <lb/>
& ofte moore eet & drank / þan kynde myȝhte defye. <lb/>
& sumtyme kawte seknesse / þoruh surfetys ofte. <lb/>
Þat for dowhte y dredde / to dyȝen in dedly synne. <lb/>
& into wanhope y wente / y wende neuere to be savid. <lb/>
Þe wyche slewþe is so slowhȝ / þere may no sleyghte it helpe. <lb/>
Ne no mercy a-mende it / þe man þat dyȝeþ þere-Inne</hi>
<l> And foule beflobered it  <app><lem>as</lem></app> with fals speche .</l>
<l> <app><lem>As</lem></app> þer<expan>e</expan> no nede <app><lem>ne</lem></app> was  <app><lem>godes name an Idel</lem></app> .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Swore</lem></app> þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>by swithe ofte  <app><lem>and al by<seg>-</seg>swatte his cote</lem></app></l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app> more <app><lem>mete</lem></app> ete and dronke  þen kende miȝt defie</l>
<l> <app><lem>And kauȝte seknesse su<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>tyme  for my forfetes</lem></app> ofte .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And þanne</lem></app> I dradde to deye  in dedlich synne .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Þat</lem></app> in<seg>-</seg>to wanhope <app><lem>he</lem></app> <app><lem>wrathe</lem></app><note>R.13.423: Compare R's <hi>wrathe</hi>, an impossible choice, with F's <hi>wente</hi>. However, the error probably occurred in alpha (cf. Kane-Donaldson's emendation <hi>worþ