<div1>fol. 66r (cont.)I</div1>
<foreign>pass<expan>us</expan> xiij<expan>us</expan></foreign>
<head><foreign><hi>Passus <orig><sic>xiij<expan>us</expan></sic><corr>xii[i]j<expan>us</expan></corr></orig><reg><sic>tertius decim<expan>us</expan></sic><corr>[quartus] decim<expan>us</expan></corr></reg> . de visione vt sup<expan>ra</expan> . <seg></seg> <seg></seg></hi></foreign></head>
<l> <hi><hi>I</hi></hi> haue but on <app><lem>hater</lem></app><note>R.14.1: Most beta copies have <hi>one hool hatere</hi>. L, however, shares the alpha reading.</note> q<expan>uo</expan>d haukyn  I am þe lasse to blame</l>
<l> Thouȝ it be soyled and selde clene  I slepe þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>inne on niȝtes .</l>
<l> And al<seg>-</seg>so I haue an hosewif  hewen and children .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Vxorem duxi & ideo no<expan>n</expan> <app><lem>poss<expan>um</expan></lem></app><note>R.14.4: R uniquely omits <foreign>venire</foreign> from the end of the Biblical citation.</note> &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi><note>R.14.4: The right end of the red box is open.</note></l>
<l> Þat wolen by<seg>-</seg>molen it many <app><lem>tymes</lem></app><note>R.14.5: Beta reads the singular form, <hi>tyme</hi>; however, manuscripts G and Cr<hi>2-3</hi> agree with alpha's plural.</note>  maugre my chekes .</l>
<l> ¶ It hath ben laued in lenten  and oute of lente<expan>n</expan> bothe .</l>
<l> With þe sope of siknesse  þat seketh wonder depe .</l>
<l> And with þe loss<expan>e</expan> of catel  lothe for to a<seg>-</seg>gulte .</l>
<l> God <app><lem>ar</lem></app> any gode man  by auȝt þat I wiste .</l>
<l> And was schriuen of þe prest  þat gaf me for my synnes .</l>
<l> To penaunce pacience  and pore men to fede .</l>
<l> Al for coueytise of my c<expan>ri</expan>stendom  in clennesse to kepen it .</l>
<l> ¶ And coude I <app><lem>nouȝt</lem></app><note>R.14.13: For alpha's <hi>nouȝt</hi>, beta reads <hi>neuere</hi>.</note> by crist  kepen it clene an hour<expan>e</expan></l>
<l> Þat I ne soyled it with siȝt  or su<expan>m</expan>me ydel speche .</l>
<l> Or thoruȝ werke or <app><lem>thouȝt</lem></app><note>R.14.15: In place of R's unique and non-alliterating <hi>thouȝt</hi> (F = <hi>elles þowht</hi>), beta has <hi>þorugh worde</hi>.</note><app><lem>and other</lem></app><note>R.14.15: R uniquely reads <hi>and other</hi> for beta's probably correct <hi>or</hi>. F has <hi>or þoruh</hi>.</note> wil of myn herte </l>
<l> Þat I ne flobere it foule  fram morwe til eue .</l>
<l> ¶ And I schal kenne þe q<expan>uo</expan>d consience  of co<expan>n</expan>tric<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan> to make .</l>
<l> Þat schal clawe þi cote  of alle <app><lem>kynne</lem></app><note>R.14.18: Beta has <hi>kynnes</hi>, while F reads <hi>vn-clene</hi>.</note> fulthe .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Cordis contric<expan>i</expan>o &c<expan>etera</expan></foreign></hi></l>
<l> Dowel waschen it and wringen it  þoruȝ a wise co<expan>n</expan>fessour<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Oris confessio . &c<expan>etera</expan></foreign></hi></l>
<l> Dobet <app><lem>þat schal</lem></app> schal <app><lem>beten</lem></app> and bouken it<note>R.14.22: R's a-verse is unique; cf. beta's phrase: <hi>Dobet shal beten it and bouken it</hi>. F has <hi>Dobet bowke it & beete it</hi>.</note>  as briȝt as any scarlet .</l>
<l> And engreynen it with gode wille  and goddes g<expan>ra</expan>ce to amende þe . </l>
<l> And sitthen sende þe to satisfacc<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan>  for to <app><lem>sonnen</lem></app><note>R.14.24: This variant is shared with F. Most beta manuscripts have <hi>sowen</hi>.</note> it after .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Satisfacc<expan>i</expan>o .</foreign> dobest</hi></l>
<supplied>k i</supplied>ij
<milestone>fol. 66vI</milestone>
<l> Schal neu<expan>er</expan>e myst by<seg>-</seg>mole it  ne mothe after biten it .</l>
<l> Ne fende ne fals man  defoulen it in þi liue .</l>
<l> Schal no heraud ne harpour  haue a fairer garment .</l>
<l> Þan haukyn þe actif man  and þow do be my techyng<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> Ne no ministrale be more worth . amonges pore and riche .</l>
<l> Þanne haukynnes wif þe waferere  <app><lem>which is</lem></app><note>R.14.31: Beta reads <hi>with his</hi>. </note> <foreign>actiua vita</foreign> .</l>
<foreign>Si mea penna valet melior mea litera fiet<lb/>
Dextera pars penna Brevior et lenior debit esse</foreign>
<note> In the left margin, an extended comment is written vertically, in a black secretary hand, beginning at R14.54 and reaching upwards in the margin to this point, R14.32. The second line of the comment is under the first and thus slightly closer to the text line initials.</note>
<l> ¶ And I schal p<expan>ur</expan>ueye þe paste q<expan>uo</expan>d pacience  þouȝ <app><lem>þow</lem></app><note>R.14.32: R's <hi>þow</hi> is an alpha variant omitted by all beta manuscripts. Though <hi>C</hi> is substantially revised at this point, a half-line occurs in the cognate passage of the final version that exactly confirms beta's reading (=RK C15.234).</note> no plowȝ erie</l>
<l> And flour<expan>e</expan> to fede folke with  as best be for þe soule .</l>
<l> Þowȝ neuer<expan>e</expan> greyne growede  ne grape vp<seg>-</seg>on vine .</l>
<l> Alle þat lyueth and loketh  liflod wold I fynde .</l>
<l> And þat I<seg>-</seg>now schal none faile  of thinge þat hem nedeth .</l>
<l> ¶ We schulde nauȝt be to busy  abouten our<expan>e</expan> liflode .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Ne soliciti sitis &c<expan>etera</expan> . Volucres celi deus pascit &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Pacientes vincu<expan>n</expan>t . &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ Þanne lawhed haukyn a litel  and liȝtly gan swere .</l>
<l> Who<seg>-</seg>so leueth ȝow <app><lem>noþ<expan>er</expan> be</lem></app><note>R.14.41: R's <hi>noþer</hi> is a unique addition to the a-verse witnessed by beta (F completely rephrases this half-line). However, R's <hi>be</hi> is merely a spelling variation for beta's <hi>by</hi>. Cf. <ref>R.14.29:</ref>: <hi>be my techynge</hi>.</note> our<expan>e</expan> lorde  I leue nauȝt he be blissed .</l>
<l> ¶ No q<expan>uo</expan>d pacience paciently  and oute of his poke hente .</l>
<l> Vitales of grete vertues  for alle maner bestes .</l>
<l> And seyde lo her<expan>e</expan> liflode I<seg>-</seg>nowe  if our<expan>e</expan> bileue be trewe .</l>
<l> For lente <app><lem>ner<expan>e</expan> was þere</lem></app><note>R.14.45: R's <hi>þere</hi> is a unique addition to the text witnessed by the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts; however, R's reading has a substantial likelihood of being original since at the same point the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts attest either <hi>here</hi> or, more commonly, <hi>þere</hi>.</note> lif  but liflode wer<expan>e</expan> schape .</l>
<l> Wher<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>of or where<seg>-</seg>for  and where<seg>-</seg>by to libbe .</l>
<l> ¶ Furst þe wilde worme  vnder weet erthe .</l>
<l> Fisch to lyue in þe flode  and in þe fuir þe crikat .</l>
<l> Þe corlew be kynde of þe eyre  most clennest flesch of briddes .</l>
<l> And bestes by grasse and by greyne  and by grene rotes .</l>
<l> In menyng<expan>e</expan> þat alle men  miȝt þe same .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Lif</lem></app><note>R.14.52: R's <hi>Lif</hi> appears, at first, to be lexically unique. F has <hi>& lyve</hi> and beta shows <hi>Lyue</hi>; many <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agree with beta, but many others read <hi>Leue</hi>. The problem with R's "uniqueness" is that this spelling may not reflect intentional lexical difference but merely inadvertent phonological overlap between voiced <v> and voiceless <f> in Langland's own dialect; cf. the archetypal <hi>B</hi> spelling for the noun (= ModEng "life") at <ref>R.14.27:</ref> above: <hi>in þi <hi>liue</hi></hi>.</note> þoruȝ lele byleue  and loue as god witnesseth .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Quodcu<expan>m</expan>q<expan>ue</expan> <app><lem>pecieritis</lem></app><note>R.14.53: Here alpha omitted the phrase <foreign>a patre</foreign> from the Biblical citation as witnessed by beta. Nevertheless, the alpha reading may well be original. Among the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts , the X family (generally regarded as the more authoritative group) also omits the phrase.</note> in no<expan>m</expan>i<expan>n</expan>e meo  &c<expan>etera</expan> Et alibi .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Non in solo pane viuit homo  s<expan>ed</expan> i<expan>n</expan> o<expan>mn</expan>i v<expan>er</expan>bo quod p<expan>ro</expan>cedit de ore dei .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ But I loked what <app><lem>þat liflode</lem></app><note>R.14.55: For alpha's <hi>þat liflode</hi>, beta reads <hi>lyflode it</hi>.</note> was  þ<expan>a</expan>t pacience so p<expan>re</expan>ysed .</l>
<l> And þanne <app><lem>was a</lem></app><note>R.14.56: RF's reading, <hi>was a</hi>, is an alpha variant shared with CrHm; beta reads <hi>was it a</hi>. </note> pece of þe pat<expan>er</expan>n<expan>oste</expan>r  <hi><foreign>fiat voluntas tua .</foreign></hi></l>
<milestone>fol. 67rI</milestone>
<l> ¶ Haue haukyn q<expan>uo</expan>d pacience  and ete þis whan þe hungreth .</l>
<l> Or whan þow clomsest for colde  or clingest for <app><lem>drouȝthe</lem></app><note>R.14.58: Beta has <hi>drye</hi> for R's <hi>drouȝthe</hi> (F = <hi>drowhtys</hi>). <hi>Cx</hi> agrees here with R.</note> .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app> schal<note>R.14.59: F begins this line with <hi>Þere shal</hi> while beta simply begins with <hi>Shal</hi>. However, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R.</note> neu<expan>er</expan>e <app><lem>feytoures</lem></app><note>R.14.59: R's <hi>feytoures</hi> and F's <hi>faytour</hi> ) against beta's correctly alliterating <hi>gyues</hi> probably reflects a misunderstood gloss in <hi>Bx</hi> reading <hi>fetters</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees here with beta.</note> þe greue  ne grete lordes wrathe .</l>
<l> Prisone ne payne  <app><lem>fo</lem></app><note>R.14.60: Neither <title>MED</title> nor <title>OED2</title> cites <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>for</hi> an example of <hi>fo</hi> as viable for the preposition signified here, but it occurs in R in four widely separated contexts (cf. R2.64, R15.379, and R20.224) and probably represents an instance of idiolect apocope. Beta here attests the expected <hi>for</hi>, and F has <hi>whil</hi>.</note> <foreign>pacientes vincunt</foreign> .</l>
<l> By so þat þow be sobre  of siȝt and of tonge .</l>
<l> In etynge and in handelyng<expan>e</expan>  and in alle þi fyue wittes .</l>
<l> Tharst þow neuer<expan>e</expan> care for corne  ne lynnen clothe ne wollen .<note>R.14.63: There is a superfluous bar over the <n> of <hi>wollen</hi>.</note></l>
<l> Ne for drink . ne deth drede  but deye as god liketh .</l>
<l> Or thoruȝ honger or thoruȝ hete  at his wille be it .</l>
<l> For if þow lyuest after his lore  þe schorter lyf þe <app><lem>leuere</lem></app><note>R.14.66: Beta shows <hi>better</hi> where alpha has <hi>leuere</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Si quis amat <expan>christum</expan> mu<expan>n</expan>du<expan>m</expan> no<expan>n</expan> diligit istu<expan>m</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ For thoruȝ his breth bestes wexeth<note>R.14.68: Cf. F's <hi>weren</hi> and beta's <hi>woxen</hi> or <hi>wexen</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> manuscripts are divided, typically witnessing the same forms as beta, but seven of them (IP<hi>2</hi>RcMcScZWa) agree with R's <hi>wexeth</hi>.</note>  and a<seg>-</seg>brode ȝeden .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Dixit & facta sunt &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <foreign>Ergo</foreign> thoruȝ his breth mowen  men and bestes libben<note>R.14.70: For alpha's <hi>libben</hi>, beta reads <hi>lyuen</hi>. The difference is, of course, purely phonological.</note> .</l>
<l> As holy writ witnesseth  whan men seggen her<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>grace</lem></app><note>R.14.71: F offers a completely different b-verse while beta shows the plural form <hi>graces</hi>. Although <hi>C</hi> has been slightly revised in this passage, <hi>Cx</hi> shows the same plural noun form as that in beta (but four manuscripts [KDcWaGc] agree with R).</note> .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Aperis tu manu<expan>m</expan> tuam et imples om<expan>n</expan>e a<expan>n</expan>i<expan>m</expan>al b<expan>e</expan>n<expan>e</expan>dicc<expan>i</expan>one .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ It is founden þat fourty wynter  folke lyuede with<seg>-</seg>oute tulying<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> And oute of þe flint spronge þe floed  þ<expan>a</expan>t folk and bestes dronke .</l>
<l> And in Elyes tyme  heuene was I<seg>-</seg>closed .<note> In the right margin, in black ink, there is an early ownership stamp for the Bodleian Library.</note></l>
<l> Þat non rayn ne roen  þus <app><lem>rett</lem></app> men <app><lem>on</lem></app><note>R.14.76: R's <hi>rett</hi> is unique; the same is true of R's <hi>on</hi>. The majority, including F, attest <hi>rede men in</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> is uncertain, but five manuscripts (YcIP<hi>2</hi>UcT) reflect a similar verbal inflection to that found in R (<hi>rat</hi>), and XIUcZ agree with R's ensuing preposition.</note> bokes .</l>
<l> Þat many wynter<note>R.14.77: R and Cr alone have singular <hi>wyntre</hi>. F omits the entire phrase in which this term occurs. <hi>Cx</hi> clearly agrees with the RCr singular.</note> men lyued  and no mete ne teleden .</l>
<l> ¶ Seuen slepen as seith þe boke  seuen hundreth wynter</l>
<l> And lyueden with<seg>-</seg>outen liflode  and att þe laste þei woken .</l>
<l> And if men lyuede as mesure wolde  schulde neu<expan>er</expan>e more be defaute. </l>
<l> <app><lem><sic>Amoges</sic><corr>Amo[n]ges</corr></lem></app> cristene creatoures  if <app><lem>criste</lem></app> <note>R.14.81: R's unmarked possessive, <hi>criste</hi>, is unique; all other manuscripts have <hi>crystes</hi>. Among <hi>C</hi> copies, only P<hi>2</hi> agrees with R's form.</note> wordes be trewe .</l>
<l> Ac vnkendenesse <foreign>caristia</foreign> maketh  amonges <app><lem>c<expan>ri</expan>stes</lem></app><note>R.14.82: All other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read <hi>crystene</hi>.</note> poeple .</l>
<l> And ou<expan>er</expan><seg>-</seg>plente maketh pruyde  amonges pore and riche .</l>
<l> Ac mesur<expan>e</expan> is so muche worth  it may nowȝt be to dere .</l>
<l> For þe mischief and þe mischaunce  amonges men of sodome .</l>
<l> Wex thoruȝ plente of payn  and of puir slewthe .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Ociositas et habundancia <app><lem>panis</lem></app><note>R.14.87: F omits the entire citation; R leaves off the end, as seen in beta manuscripts: <foreign>peccatum turpissimum nutriuit</foreign>.</note></foreign></hi></l>
<l> For þei mesured nauȝt hem<seg>-</seg>selue  of þ<expan>a</expan>t þei eten and dronke .</l>
<l> Deden dedly synne  þat þe deuel lyked  </l>
<l> So veniaunce fel vpon hem  for here vile synnes .</l>
<milestone>fol. 67vI</milestone>
<l> Þei sonken in<seg>-</seg>to helle  þe cites vchone .</l>
<l> ¶ For<seg>-</seg>thy mesur<expan>e</expan> we vs wel  and make our<expan>e </expan>faith our<expan>e </expan>scheltroun .</l>
<l> And thoruȝ faith cometh contric<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan>  consience wot wel .</l>
<l> Which driueth aweye dedly synne  and doth it to be venial .</l>
<l> And þouȝ a man miȝt nouȝt speke  co<expan>n</expan>tric<expan>i</expan>on miȝt hym saue .</l>
<l> And brynge his soule to blisse  <app><lem>bi</lem></app> so<note>R.14.96: Immediately following this word there is an unintended ink dot.</note> þ<expan>a</expan>t feith bere witnesse .</l>
<l> Þat whiles he lyued he byleued  in þe lore of holy cherche .</l>
<l> <foreign>Ergo</foreign> co<expan>n</expan>tric<expan>i</expan>on faith and co<expan>n</expan>sience  is kendeliche dowel .</l>
<l> And surgyanes for dedly synne<note>R.14.99: Many beta copies read this noun as a plural: <hi>synnes</hi>. However, CrHmB agree with alpha.</note>  whan schrift of mouthe faileth .</l>
<l> ¶ Ac schrifte of mouthe more worthi is  if man<note>R.14.100: After <hi>man</hi>, R shares an omission of the verb <hi>be</hi> with C alone.</note> in<seg>-</seg>lich co<expan>n</expan>trit</l>
<l> For schrifte of mouthe sleth synne  be it neu<expan>er</expan>e so dedly .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Per confessione<expan>m</expan></foreign> to a p<expan>re</expan>st  <foreign>peccata occiduntur .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Þere contric<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan><note>R.14.103: Here the R scribe uses two separate bars for expanding the final affix, one over the <c> and another over the <u>; the second of these is partially obscured by the red boxing above. What this instance indicates by inference, however, is that his intended spelling (when the bar covers only his <c> or his <o>) is <hi>-cion</hi>, and that the only warrant for expanding to <hi>-cioun</hi> is a bar extending beyond the <o> of this syllable. These conclusions are confirmed by the scribe's overwhelming preference for <hi>-cion</hi> forms when he spells them out fully.</note> doth but driueth it dou<expan>n</expan>  in<seg>-</seg>to a venial synne .</l>
<l> As dauid seith in þe sauter  <foreign>& quor<expan>um</expan> tecta su<expan>n</expan>t peccata .</foreign></l>
<l> Ac satisfacc<expan>i</expan>on seketh oute þe rote  & bothe sleth and voydeth .</l>
<l> And as it neu<expan>er</expan>e hadde <app><lem>be</lem></app>  to nauȝt bryngeth dedly synne. </l>
<l> Þat it neu<expan>er</expan>e eft is sene  ne sor<expan>e</expan>  but semeth a wounde I<seg>-</seg>heled .</l>
<l><app><lem>Ȝe</lem></app><note>R.14.108: <hi>Ȝe</hi> is an alpha variant; beta begins this line with <hi>Where</hi>.</note> where woneth charite q<expan>uo</expan>d haukyn  I wiste <app><lem>ner<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.14.108: R's form here is unique; the other <hi>B</hi> witnesses, including F, read the negative as <hi>neuer(e)</hi>.</note> in my lyue .</l>
<l> Man þat with hym spake  as wyde as I haue passed .</l>
<l> There parfit treuth  and pou<expan>er</expan> hert is  and pacience of tonge .</l>
<l> Þer<expan>e</expan> is charite þe chief chaumbre  for god hym<seg>-</seg>sulue .</l>
<l> ¶ Whether <app><lem>pacience and pou<expan>er</expan>te</lem></app><note>R.14.112: Most of the beta manuscripts render this phrase as <hi>paciente pouerte</hi> or <hi>pacience pouerte</hi>. In <hi>C</hi>, the phrase becomes <hi>pouerte and pacience</hi>.</note> q<expan>uo</expan>d haukyn  be more plesant to our<expan>e</expan> lord .<note>R.14.112: Many beta manuscripts (and presumably <hi>Bx</hi>) read <hi>driȝte(n)</hi> for R's bland <hi>lord</hi>; F has <hi>god more</hi> as the end of the line; R's reading is in agreement only with G, presumably by convergence. The <hi>C</hi> revision abandons beta's archaic <hi>driȝte(n)</hi> in favor of <hi>god almyhty</hi></note></l>
<l> Þen ricchesse riȝtfulliche I<seg>-</seg>wonne  & resonabeliche yspended .</l>
<l> ¶ Ȝe <foreign>quis est ille</foreign> q<expan>uo</expan>d pacience  quik <foreign>laudabim<expan>us</expan> eu<expan>m</expan></foreign> .</l>
<l> Þouȝ men rede of ricchesse  riȝt to þe worldes ende .</l>
<l> I wiste neu<expan>er</expan>e renk þat riche was  þat whan he rekne schulde .</l>
<l> Whan it<note>R.14.117: R's sole partner in reading <hi>it</hi> is L; F reads <hi>&</hi>. The majority beta reading is <hi>he</hi>. In a partially revised line, the <hi>C</hi> version also attests <hi>he</hi> at this point.</note> drouȝ to his deth day  þat he ne dradde hym sore</l>
<l> And at þe rekenyng<expan>e </expan>in a<seg>-</seg>rerage fel  rather þan oute of dette .</l>
<l> ¶ Þer<expan>e</expan> þe pore dar plede  and preue by puir resou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
<l> To haue a<seg>-</seg>louaunce of his lorde  be þe lawe he it claymeth .</l>
<l> Ioye þat neu<expan>er</expan>e ioye hadde  of riȝtful iuge he asketh .</l>
<milestone>fol. 68rI</milestone>
<l> And seith lo briddes and bestes  þ<expan>a</expan>t no blisse ne knoweth .</l>
<l> And wilde wormes in wodes  þoruȝ wynteres þou hem greuest .</l>
<l> And makest hem wel neyh meke  and mylde for defaute .</l>
<l> And after þou sendest hem somer  þat is her<expan>e</expan> souereyn ioye .</l>
<l> And blisse to alle þat ben  bothe wilde and tame .</l>
<l> Þan may beggeres and bestes  after bote wayten .</l>
<l> Þat alle here lif han lyuede  in langour and in defaute .</l>
<l> But god sent hem some<seg>-</seg>tyme  sum man<expan>er</expan> ioye .</l>
<l> Other her<expan>e</expan> or elles-where  kende wolde it <app><lem>nere</lem></app><note>R.14.130: R's form here is unique; beta reads the negative as <hi>neuer(e)</hi>; F rewrites the half-line completely.</note> .</l>
<l> For to wrothor<seg>-</seg>hele was he wrouȝt  þ<expan>a</expan>t neu<expan>er</expan> <app><lem>ioye was</lem></app> shaped<note>R.14.131: R's <hi>ioye was shaped</hi> is an alpha phrasing substantively shared with FHm; beta agrees with <hi>Cx</hi> in reading <hi>was ioye shaped</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> ¶ Angeles þat in elle now ben  hadden ioye su<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>tyme .</l>
<l> And diues in deyntes lyued  and in <foreign>douce vie</foreign> .</l>
<l> Riȝt so resou<expan>n</expan> : scheweth þat þo <app><lem>men</lem></app> :<note>R.14.134: Here alpha probably was identical to R's reading; R matches beta exactly through the phrase <hi>þo men</hi> but is missing <hi>þat were riche</hi> F reads <hi>þo men <hi>shulle redyly a<seg>-</seg>counte</hi></hi>.</note> </l>
<l> And her<expan>e</expan> makes also  lyued her<expan>e</expan> lyf in murthe .</l>
<l> ¶ Ac god is of a wonder wille  by þat kende wit scheweth .</l>
<l> To ȝiue many men his m<expan>er</expan>cymonie  ar he it haue deserued .</l>
<l> Riȝt so fareth god by su<expan>m</expan> riche  reuthe me it thenketh .</l>
<l> For þei han her<expan>e</expan> hire here  and heuene as it were .</l>
<l> And is grete lykyng<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>to þe lif</lem></app><note>R.14.140: Cf. R's <hi>to þe lif</hi> to F's <hi>of lyf</hi> and beta's <hi>to lyue</hi>.</note>  wyth<seg>-</seg>oute labour of body .</l>
<l> And whan he deieth ben disalawed  as dauid sayth i<expan>n</expan> þe saut<expan>er</expan> .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Dormieru<expan>n</expan>t & nichil inueneru<expan>n</expan>t <app><lem>&c<expan>etera</expan></lem></app> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> And in an<seg>-</seg>other stede al<seg>-</seg>so  <hi><foreign>Velut so<expan>m</expan>pnu<expan>m</expan> surge<expan>n</expan>ciu<expan>m</expan> d<expan>omi</expan>ne</foreign></hi> </l>
<l> <hi><foreign>in ciuitate tua  <app><lem>ad</lem></app> nichilu<expan>m</expan> <app><lem>eoru<expan>m</expan> rediges</lem></app><note>R.14.144: R's <foreign>eorum</foreign> is a unique addition to this citation.</note> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Allas þat richesse schal reue  and robbe mannes soule .</l>
<l> Fram þe loue of our<expan>e</expan> lorde  at his last ende .</l>
<l> ¶ Hewen þat han her<expan>e</expan> huir<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>to<seg>-</seg>fore</lem></app><note>R.14.147: Alpha is responsible for <hi>to-fore</hi> where beta reads <hi>afore</hi>. At the same point, <hi>Cx</hi> has <hi>byfore</hi>.</note>  aren eu<expan>er</expan>more nedy .<note>R.14.147: A brace extends down the right margin from this line to R14.152. Apparently, it is intended to call attention to the <hi>nota</hi> at R14.149.</note></l>
<l> And selde <app><lem>deyeth oute</lem></app> of dette  þ<expan>a</expan>t dineth or <app><lem>þei</lem></app><note>R.14.148: In place of alpha's <hi>þei</hi>, beta reads <hi>he</hi> (as does the X family of the <hi>C</hi> version; the P family of <hi>C</hi> agrees here with alpha). In the a-verse, beta reads <hi>deieth he</hi> where R omits the pronoun and F revises the entire half-line.</note> deserue it .</l>
<l> And til he haue done his deuer  and his dayes iourne<note>R.14.149: In the right margin, in a light brown ink and a near-contemporary hand, there is a large <foreign><add>nota</add></foreign>.</note></l>
<l> For whan a werkeman hath wrouȝt  þan may me<expan>n</expan> se þe sothe .</l>
<l> What he were worthi for his werke  & what he hath deserued .</l>
<l> And nauȝt to fonge byfore  for drede of disalowynge .</l>
<l> ¶ So I segge be ȝow riche  it <app><lem>semeth</lem></app><note>R.14.153: R parallels beta but omits <hi>nouȝt</hi> after <hi>semeth</hi>, completely inverting the intended sense of the assertion (beta's version is vouched for by <hi>Cx</hi>). F rewrites the line.</note> þat ȝe schulle .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Haue to heuenes for</lem></app> ȝour<expan>e</expan> her<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>being<expan>e</expan>  and heuene þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>after .<note>R.14.154: F offers a typically unique reading of this line (<hi>Cleyme two hevynys oon here & anoþer heerafter</hi>); R's partial agreement with F in the a-verse shows that R's <hi>to heuenes</hi> descends from alpha. R's <hi>for</hi> is unique among the <hi>B</hi> copies. By contrast, the beta manuscripts show considerable variation in the a-verse but clearly attest the singular form <hi>heuene</hi>. However, the fact that the <hi>Cx</hi> phrasing for the a-verse is identical with R's strongly suggests that R's reading is the authorial one.</note></l>
<milestone>fol. 68vI</milestone>
<l> Riȝt as a s<expan>er</expan>uaunt taketh his salarie by<seg>-</seg>fore .<note> Alpha divides a <hi>Bx</hi> line here into two lines.</note></l>
<l> And sithe wald clayme <app><lem>huir<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.14.156: R's <hi>huire</hi> is an alpha reading (cf. F's <hi>his heere eft-soones</hi>); beta shows <hi>more</hi>.</note></l>
<l> As he þat non <app><lem>ne</lem></app><note>R.14.157: This double negative is unique to R. Beta has <hi>none</hi> while F reads <hi>non hevene</hi>.</note> hadde  and hath <app><lem>heuene</lem></app><note>R.14.157: R's <hi>heuene</hi> is an alpha variant; cf. beta's <hi>huyre</hi>.</note> at þe laste .</l>
<l> It may nauȝt be ȝe riche men  or mathew on god lyeth .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>De delicijs ad delicias difficile est <app><lem>ascendere</lem></app><note>R.14.159: In place of alpha's <foreign><hi>ascendere</hi></foreign>, beta has <foreign><hi>transire</hi></foreign>.</note> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Ac if ȝe riche haue reuth  and rewarde wel þe pore .</l>
<l> And lyuen as lawe techeth  don leute to alle .<note>R.14.161: Beta ends the line with <hi>hem alle</hi>. Only L agrees with R's omission of the pronoun, while F offers a completely different phrase, <hi>his brothir</hi>.</note></l>
<l> Crist of his curteysie  schal confort ȝow att þe laste .</l>
<l> And rewarde alle double richesse  þat rewful hertes habbeth .</l>
<l> And as an hyne þat hadde  his huir<expan>e</expan> ar he bygu<expan>n</expan>ne</l>
<l> And whan he hath don his deu<expan>er</expan> wel  men doth hym other bou<expan>n</expan>te .</l>
<l> Ȝiueth hym a cote aboue his couenau<expan>n</expan>t  riȝt so crist ȝiueth heuene .</l>
<l> Bothe to riche and to nauȝt riche  þ<expan>a</expan>t <app><lem>riȝtfullich</lem></app><note>R.14.167: Beta reads <hi>rewfullich</hi>.</note> libbeth .</l>
<l> And all<expan>e</expan> þat don her<expan>e</expan> deuer wel  han double huir<expan>e</expan> for her<expan>e</expan> t<expan>ra</expan>uaill<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> Her<expan>e</expan> for<seg>-</seg>ȝiuenesse of here synnes  and heuene blisse after .<note>R.14.169: Hereafter alpha omits five lines present in beta (of which, the last two are also found in the <hi>C</hi> version): <lb/>
<hi>Ac it nys but selde yseyn as by holy seyntes bokes <lb/>
Þat god rewarded double reste to any riche wye <lb/>
For moche murthe is amonges riche as in mete and clothyng <lb/>
And moche murthe in Maye is amonges wilde bestes <lb/>
And so forth whil somer lasteth her solace dureth</hi>
<l><note>R.14.170: R uniquely omits a conjunction at the head of this line; beta reads <hi>Ac</hi> (which agrees with the reading of <hi>Cx</hi>) while F has <hi>But</hi>.</note> <app><lem>Beggeres</lem></app> aboute missomer  bred<seg>-</seg>les þei soupe .<note>R.14.170: In the left margin, extending from this line to R14.183, there is a black brace and a hand (at R14.178) pointing to these lines.</note></l>
<l> And ȝet is winter for hem wors  for watschod þei gange .</l>
<l> Afurst sore and affyngred  and foule I<seg>-</seg>rebuked .</l>
<l> And arated of riche men  þat reuthe is to here .</l>
<l> Now lorde send hem somer and so<expan>m</expan>me man<expan>er</expan> ioye .</l>
<l> Heuene after her<expan>e</expan> hennes<seg>-</seg>goynge  þ<expan>a</expan>t her<expan>e</expan> han suche defaute .</l>
<l> For alle miȝtest þow haue mad  non mener þan other</l>
<l> And I<seg>-</seg>liche witty and wis  if þe wel hadde liked .</l>
<l> ¶ And haue reuth on þis riche men  þat rewarde nauȝt þi <app><lem>prisones</lem></app><note>R.14.178: <hi>Prisones</hi>, "prisoners." R's form of the word is unique; see the note at <ref>R.14.184:</ref>. F reads <hi>porayle</hi> while beta has <hi>prisoneres</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> Of þe gode þat þow hem gyuest  <foreign>ingrati</foreign> ben manye .</l>
<l> Ac god of þi godenesse  gyue hem grace to amende .</l>
<l> For may no derth ben hem der<expan>e</expan>  drouȝthe ne wete .</l>
<l> Ne noyther hete ne hayle  haue þei her<expan>e</expan> hele .</l>
<l> Of þat þei wilnen and wolde  wanteth hem nauȝt here .</l>
<l> ¶ Ac pore poeple þi <app><lem>p<expan>ri</expan>sones</lem></app>  lore<note>R.14.184: R's <hi>prisones</hi> is simply an archaic formal variant for beta's <hi>prisoneres</hi> (cf. R15.207 and R15.380, where beta also shows this form). Perhaps because the F scribe was confused or troubled by this form (he uses <hi>prisoner</hi> in the other two instances mentioned), the a-verse in F seems completely rewritten: <hi>But þe poore in prisoun lyȝn</hi>. As for R's <hi>lore</hi>, see Richard Jordan, <title>Handbook of Middle English Grammar: Phonology</title>, translated and revised by Eugene Joseph Crook (The Hague: Mouton, 1974): §199, remark 3. The spelling occurs as well at R5.409 and R18.61.</note> in þe put of mischief .</l>
<l> Confort þo creatures  þat muche care suffren .</l>
<l> Þoruȝ derthe þoruȝ drouȝthe  alle here dayes here .</l>
<l> Wo in <app><lem>wyntres tyme</lem></app><note>R.14.187: Beta reads <hi>wynter tymes</hi>.</note>  for wantynge of clothes .</l>
<l> And in somer tyme selde  soupen to þe fulle .</l>
<milestone>fol. 69rI</milestone>
<l> Conforte þi carfull<expan>e</expan> criste  in þi riche .<note>R.14.189: The top right margin of fol. 69r has a tear in it that was long ago repaired by stitching. The tear extended diagonally downwards and to the right for approximately 3.8 cm. </note></l>
<l> For how þow confortest alle creatoures  clerkes bereth witnesse .</l>
<l> <foreign>Co<expan>n</expan>uertimini ad me & salui eritis</foreign> .</l>
<l> Þus <foreign>in genere</foreign> of <app><lem>alle</lem></app> his genitrice<note>R.14.192: R's phrase, <hi>of alle his genitrice</hi>, is part of a complex variation. Most beta copies read <hi>of gentries</hi>; L, which overlaps with R here, reads <hi>of his genitrice</hi>; and F also shows partial agreement with R, reading <hi>of alle Ientylis</hi>.</note>  ih<expan>es</expan>u crist sayde .</l>
<l> To <app><lem>robberes to</lem></app><note>R.14.193: All other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts have <hi>robberes <hi>and</hi> to</hi>.</note> reueres  to riche and to pore .</l>
<l> To <app><lem>hores to harlotes  to all<expan>e</expan> maner</lem></app> poeple .<note>R.14.194: Beta omits this line. F renders its central phrase as <hi>harlotys & to hoorys & to all oþer</hi>.</note></l>
<l> Þow tauȝtest hem in þe trinite  to take bapteme .</l>
<l> And be clene thoruȝ þat cristenyng<expan>e</expan>  of alle kynnes synnes .</l>
<l> <hi>And if vs fel thoruȝ folye  to falle in synne after .</hi></l>
<l> <hi><app><lem>Knowlechyng<expan>e</expan> and confession</lem></app></hi><note>R.14.198: This pair of nouns is transposed to <hi>Confessioun and knowlechyng</hi> in the beta copies; F reads <hi>& be<seg>-</seg>knowleche it In confessioun</hi>.</note> <hi> and crauynge þi m<expan>er</expan>cy .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>Schuld amende vs as many sithes  as man walde desire .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>And if þe <app><lem>pouke</lem></app></hi><note>R.14.200: Beta reads <hi>pope</hi>.</note><hi> wolde plede <app><lem>þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>aȝeine</lem></app>  & punische<expan>n</expan> <app><lem>on</lem></app></hi><note>R.14.200: R's <hi>on</hi> is a unique addition to the text witnessed by the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts.</note><hi> vs i<expan>n</expan> consience.</hi> </l>
<l> <hi><app><lem>Ho</lem></app></hi><note>R.14.201: <hi>Ho</hi> is unique; cf. beta's <hi>He</hi> and F's <hi>We</hi>.</note> <hi>schulde take þe a<seg>-</seg>quitaunce as quik  & <app><lem>do</lem></app></hi><note>R.14.201: R's <hi>do</hi> is unique; the other manuscripts show <hi>to</hi>.</note><hi> þe qued schewe it .</hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Pateat &c<expan>etera</expan> per passione<expan>m</expan> d<expan>omi</expan>ni .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> And putten of so þe pouke  and p<expan>re</expan>uen vs vnder borwe .</l>
<l> Ac þe parchemyn of þis patent  of pou<expan>er</expan>te be moste .</l>
<l> And of puir pacience  and parfit byleue .</l>
<l> ¶ Of pompe and of pruide  þe parchemyn decoureth .</l>
<l> And principaly of alle poeple  but þei be pore of herte .</l>
<l> Elles is alle an ydel  alle þat eu<expan>er</expan>e we writen .</l>
<l> Patern<expan>oste</expan>r and penaunces<note>R.14.209: With the exception of Hm, which here joins alpha, the beta copies show the singular <hi>penaunce</hi>. In a revised version of this line, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha, attesting a plural.</note>  and pilgrimage to rome .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.14.210: Cf. beta's <hi>But</hi>, which agrees with the opening of the line in <hi>Cx</hi>; on the other hand, at the end of the a-verse, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R, which uniquely reiterates the possessive, reading <hi>oure spendynge</hi> where beta merely has <hi>spendyng</hi>. F completely rewrites the a-verse: <hi>With oure spendyng of spekynge</hi>.</note> oure spenses and our<expan>e</expan> spendyng<expan>e</expan> springe  of a trewe welle .</l>
<l> Elles is alle our<expan>e</expan> labour lost  lo how men writeth .</l>
<l> In fenestres at þe freres  if fals be þe fundement .</l>
<l> For<seg>-</seg>thi cristene schuld be in comune riche  no<expan>n</expan> coueytous for hi<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
<l> ¶ For seuene synnes þat þer<expan>e</expan> ben  assailen vs eu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> Þe fende folweth hem alle  and fondeth hem to helpe .</l>
<l> Ac with richesse <app><lem>þo ribaudes</lem></app><note>R.14.216: Beta shows the singular <hi>þat Ribaude</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note>  rathest men by<seg>-</seg>gyleth .</l>
<l> <hi>For þere þat richesse regneth  <app><lem>reuerences</lem></app></hi><note>R.14.217: Beta has the singular <hi>reuerence</hi>. Most <hi>C</hi> manuscripts concur, but three important ones, XYcUc, agree with alpha's plural.</note><hi> folweth .</hi></l>
<l> And þat is plesaunt to pruide  in pore and in riche .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Ac</lem></app><note>R.14.219: Beta has <hi>And</hi>; F reads <hi>But</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> manuscripts divide by major families on this lection, the P family completely omitting the conjunction while the X family, like beta, attests <hi>And</hi>.</note> þe riche is reuerenced  bi reson of his richesse .</l>
<l> Þere þe pore is put by<seg>-</seg>hynde  and par<seg>-</seg>auentur<expan>e</expan> can more .</l>
<l> Of wit and of wisdome  þat fer <app><lem>wei</lem></app><note>R.14.221: Most beta copies read <hi>awey</hi>. F omits the entire line. Among the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts, KcUcDcZN agree with beta while the others agree with R.</note> is better<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> Þan richesse or reaute  and rather I<seg>-</seg>herd in heuene .</l>
<l> For þe riche hath muche to rekne  and riȝt softe walketh .</l>
<milestone>fol. 69vI</milestone>
<l> Þe <app><lem>riȝt</lem></app><note>R.14.224: Here G joins the defective alpha reading; other beta copies have the correctly alliterating <hi>heigh</hi>. The a-verse of this line also occurs unrevised in <hi>C</hi>, in the same form as represented in beta.</note> weye to heuene<seg>-</seg>warde  ofte <app><lem>riche</lem></app><note>R.14.224: Beta reads <hi>ricchesse</hi>.</note> letteth .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Ita possibile diuiti &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ Þere þe pore <app><lem>p<expan>re</expan>cheth</lem></app><note>R.14.226: R's form is probably a distortion of alpha's <hi>procheþ</hi> (a reading preserved in F) through misunderstanding a scribal suspension; cf. beta's <hi>preseth</hi>. The lection in <hi>C</hi> agrees with that of beta.</note> byfore þe riche  with a pakke at his rugge .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Opera eni<expan>m</expan> illor<expan>um</expan> sequntur illos </foreign></hi></l>
<l> Batauntliche as beggeres dou<expan>n</expan>  and baldelich he craueth .</l>
<l> For his pouerte and his pacience  a p<expan>er</expan>petuel blisse .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Beati paup<expan>er</expan>es q<expan>uonia</expan>m ip<expan>s</expan>or<expan>um</expan> est regnu<expan>m</expan> celor<expan>um</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l><hi><app><lem>Ac</lem></app></hi><note>R.14.231: Beta has <hi>And</hi>; F reads <hi>But</hi>. <hi>C</hi> manuscripts attest either <hi>And</hi> (mostly in the X family) or <hi>Also</hi> (P family).</note> <hi>pruide in richesse regneth  rather <app><lem><sic>þam</sic><corr>þa[n]</corr></lem></app> in pouert</hi></l>
<l> <hi><app><lem>Or</lem></app><note>R.14.232: For alpha's <hi>Or</hi>, beta shows <hi>Arst</hi>; later in this a-verse, where alpha repeats <hi>or</hi>, Cr agrees with alpha but beta has <hi>þan</hi>. On both of these readings, it appears that <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha (although a cluster of five <hi>C</hi> manuscripts—P<hi>2</hi>TH<hi>2</hi>PEc—reads <hi>oþur</hi> in place of <hi>or</hi> on both occasions).</note> in þe maister <app><lem>or</lem></app> in þe man : su<expan>m</expan> manseon <app><lem>haueth</lem></app><note>R.14.232: R uniquely omits <hi>he</hi> before <hi>haueth</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> confirms the correctness of the majority reading.</note> .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>Ac in pouerte þer<expan>e</expan> pacience is  pruid hath no miȝt .</hi></l>
<l> Ne non of þe seuene synnes  sitten ne mow þere longe .</l>
<l> Ne haue power<expan>e</expan> in pouerte  if pacience it folwe .</l>
<l> For þe pore is ay preste  to plese þe riche  </l>
<l> <hi>And buxu<expan>m</expan> at his biddyng<expan>e</expan>  for his broke loues .</hi></l>
<l> And buxu<expan>m</expan>nesse and bost  aren eu<expan>er</expan>more at werr<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> And ayther hateth other  in alle man<expan>er</expan> werkes .</l>
<l> If wrathe wrastel with þe pore  he hath þe worse ende .</l>
<l> For if þei bothe pleyne  þe pore is but feble .</l>
<l> And if he chide or chater<expan>e</expan>  hym cheueth þe worse .</l>
<l> For loulich he loketh  and loueliche is his speche .<note> These lines are not found in beta. There are sufficient differences between R and F in these lines to justify reproducing the latter's lines verbatim (cf. Appendix 1, R14.243-53, for details and any cross-references to the <hi>C</hi> version): <lb/>
<hi>For lowly he lookeþ / & lovely is his speche. <lb/>
Þat ony meete or monee / of oþere men mote asken. <lb/>
¶ & if Glotenye greve pouerte / he gadreþ þe lasse. <lb/>
For hise rentys wil not reche / no ryche meetys to bygge. <lb/>
& þowh his glut be in good ale / he gooþ a-cold to bedde. <lb/>
& hys hevid euele y-helyd / & vnesely y-wryȝe. <lb/>
For whan he streyneþ hym to strecche / þe straw is his schete. <lb/>
So for his grete glotenye / he haþ a greuous penaunce. <lb/>
Þat is wellawo whan he wakeþ / & wepiþ sore . for colde. <lb/>
& sum-tyme for hise synnes / so he is neuere merye. <lb/>
With<seg>-</seg>outyn moornynge a-moong . & myche myschef to boote.</hi>
<l> Þat <app><lem>mete</lem></app> or mone  of other men mote asken .</l>
<l> And if glotonie greue pouerte  he gadereth þe lasse .</l>
<l> For his rentes <app><lem>ne</lem></app> wol nauȝte reche  no riche metes to bugge. </l>
<l> And þouȝ his <app><lem>glotonye be to</lem></app> gode ale  he goth <app><lem>to cold beddyng<expan>e</expan></lem></app> .</l>
<l> And his heued <app><lem>vn<seg>-</seg>heled</lem></app>  vn<seg>-</seg>esiliche I<seg>-</seg>wrye .</l>
<l> For whan he streyneth hym to streche  þe strawe is his <app><lem>schetes</lem></app> .</l>
<l> So for <app><lem>his</lem></app> glotonie <app><lem>and his grete scleuthe</lem></app>  he hath a greuous penau<expan>nce</expan> .</l>
<l> Þat is welawo whan he waketh  and <app><lem>wepeth</lem></app> for colde .</l>
<l> And su<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>tyme for his synnes  so he is neu<expan>er</expan>e murie .</l>
<l> Withoute mornynge amonge  and <app><lem>mischief</lem></app> to bote .</l>
<l> ¶ And <app><lem>þouȝ</lem></app><note>R.14.254: Cf. R's <hi>þouȝ</hi> (shared with F) with the beta reading, <hi>if</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> coueytise <app><lem>walde</lem></app> cache þe pore  þei may nouȝt come togideres .</l>
<l> And bi þe nekke nameliche  her non may henten other .</l>
<l> For men knoweth wel þat coueytise  is of a kene wille .</l>
<l> And hath hondes and armes  of <app><lem>longe</lem></app> lengthe .<note>R.14.257: For R's <hi>longe lengthe</hi>, beta reads <hi>a longe lengthe</hi>; F has <hi>an huge lengthe</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note></l>
<milestone>fol. 70rI</milestone>
<l> And pou<expan>er</expan>te <app><lem>ne is</lem></app><note>R.14.258: R's <hi>ne is</hi> is unique in form but substantively in agreement with the best of the early beta copies (LMWHmC), which read <hi>nis</hi>; F and other beta witnesses (CrGYOC<hi>2</hi>) read <hi>is</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with F and the inferior beta group.</note> but a pety thyng<expan>e</expan>  apereth nauȝt to his nauele .</l>
<l> And louely layke was it neuer<expan>e</expan>  by<seg>-</seg>twene þe longe and þe schorte .</l>
<l> And þouȝ auerice wald angre þe pore  he hath but litel miȝte .</l>
<l> For pou<expan>er</expan>te hath but pokes  to putten in his godes .</l>
<l> Þere auerice hath almaries  and Iren bounden cofferes .</l>
<l> And whether be liȝter to breke  lasse bost it maketh .</l>
<l> A beggeres bagge  þan an Iren bounde coffre .</l>
<l> ¶ Lecherie loueth hym nouȝt  for he ȝiueth but litel siluer .</l>
<l> Ne doth hym nauȝt dine delicatly  ne drinke wyn ofte .<note>R.14.266: Immediately following this line, alpha omits two lines present in beta (and in the <hi>C</hi> version, though somewhat garbled there):<lb/>
<hi>A strawe for þe stuwes it stode nouȝt I trowe <lb/>
Had þei none but of pore men her houses were vntyled</hi>
<l> ¶ And þouȝ sleuthe sue pouerte  and s<expan>er</expan>ue nauȝt god to paye .</l>
<l> Meschief is his meyster  and maketh hym to thenke .</l>
<l> Þat god is <app><lem>grettest</lem></app><note>R.14.269: Alpha and B omit <hi>his</hi> before <hi>grettest</hi>. In correcting the error, F presumably misplaced the possessive and ended by creating the phrase, <hi>grettest his helpe</hi>.</note> helpe  and no gome elles .</l>
<l> And he is<note>R.14.270: R's <hi>he is</hi> is unique in the <hi>B</hi> tradition but agrees with the vast majority of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts (of both major families). F and several beta witnesses (Cr W—and M after alteration above the line) read <hi>he his</hi>. A few <hi>C</hi> manuscripts support this reading. Most beta copies (including LHmOG—and M before alteration) show simply <hi>his</hi>.</note> s<expan>er</expan>uaunt as he seith  and of his sute bothe .</l>
<l> And where<note>R.14.271: R's <hi>where</hi>, a contracted form of beta's <hi>whether</hi>, is shared, among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts, only with L. However, most of the X family in the <hi>C</hi> tradition supports the RL reading. The P family tends to support the common beta reading.</note> he be or be nauȝt  he bereth þe sygne of pou<expan>er</expan>te .</l>
<l> And in þat secte our<expan>e</expan> saueour<expan>e</expan>  saued alle mankende .</l>
<l> For<seg>-</seg>thi alle pore þat pacient is  may claymen and asken .</l>
<l> After her<expan>e</expan> endynge her<expan>e</expan>  heuene<seg>-</seg>riche blisse .</l>
<l> ¶ Muche hardier may he asken  þat her<expan>e</expan> miȝt haue his wille .</l>
<l> In <app><lem>lorde</lem></app><note>R.14.276: Alpha almost certainly read <hi>lorde</hi> at the beginning of the a-verse (cf. F's <hi>As a lord of</hi>) and seems a classic case of scribal anticipation of <hi>lordschipe</hi> later in the line. Beta, by contrast, has <hi>londe</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> and in lordschipe and lykyng<expan>e</expan> of body .</l>
<l> And for godes loue leueth al  and lyueth as a begger<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> And as a mayde for <app><lem>a</lem></app><note>R.14.278: R's <hi>a</hi> is a unique addition to the text witnessed by the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts; however, the vast majority of <hi>C</hi> copies agree with R's reading, so it is probably authorial in <hi>B</hi> as well.</note> mannes loue  hir<expan>e</expan> moder for<seg>-</seg>saketh .</l>
<l> Hir<expan>e</expan> fader and alle hir<expan>e</expan> frendes  and <app><lem>folwed</lem></app><note>R.14.279: R uniquely deploys the past tense; all others read <hi>folweth</hi>. But see the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref> on tense ambiguities in this manuscript's tradition.</note> hire make .</l>
<l> Muche is <app><lem>þat</lem></app><note>R.14.280: In place of alpha's <hi>þat</hi>, beta seems to have read <hi>suche a</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> certainly attests <hi>such a</hi>.</note> mayde to louie  of hym þat suche on taketh .</l>
<l> More þan a mayden is  þat is maried þoruȝ brocage .</l>
<l> As by assent of sondri parties  and siluer to bote .</l>
<l> More for coueytise of gode  þan kende loue of bothe .</l>
<l> ¶ So it fareth be vch a persone  þat possession forsaketh .</l>
<l> And put hym to be pacient  and pou<expan>er</expan>te weddeth .</l>
<l> <note>R.14.286: R uniquely omits <hi>Þe</hi> at the head of this line. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note> <app><lem>Which</lem></app> is sib to god hym<seg>-</seg>selue  and so <app><lem>neyȝ is pou<expan>er</expan>te</lem></app> .<note>R.14.286: Beta's b-verse is entirely different, reading <hi>and so to his seyntes</hi>. The b-verse of <hi>C</hi> is completely revised and distinct from alpha or beta: <hi>and semblable bothe</hi>.</note></l>
<l> ¶ Haue god my treuthe q<expan>uo</expan>d haukyn  <app><lem>þ<expan>a</expan>t huyr<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.14.287: R's meaning is unclear. <hi>Bx</hi> itself may have been corrupt at this point. Cf. F's <hi>y heere</hi> and beta's <hi>ȝe</hi>.</note> <app><lem>faste preyse</lem></app><note>R.14.287: R's word order is unique; F omits <hi>faste</hi> while beta reads <hi>preyse faste</hi>.</note> pou<expan>er</expan>te .</l>
<l> What is pouerte <app><lem>pacience</lem></app><note>R.14.288: Beta here reads <hi>pouerte <hi>with</hi> pacience</hi>. F omits the phrase entirely. The X family of <hi>C</hi> agrees with R. Some P manuscripts read <hi>patient</hi> instead of <hi>pacience</hi>. </note> q<expan>uo</expan>d he  p<expan>ro</expan>prely to mene .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Paup<expan>er</expan>tas</foreign> q<expan>uo</expan>d pacience  <foreign>est odibile bonu<expan>m</expan> . <seg></seg></foreign></hi></l>
<milestone>fol. 70vI</milestone>
<l> <hi><foreign>Remoc<expan>i</expan>o curar<expan>um</expan> possessio sine calumpnia .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Donu<expan>m</expan> dei <app><lem>semita</lem></app><note>R.14.291: R's <foreign>semita</foreign> is unique (<hi>Bx / Cx</hi> = <foreign>sanitatis</foreign>), an obvious error by anticipation of the same word later in the citation. </note> mat<expan>er</expan> absq<expan>ue</expan> solitudine semita .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <foreign>Sapiencie temp<expan>er</expan>atrix  negociu<expan>m</expan> sine dampno</foreign> .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Incerta fortuna . absq<expan>ue</expan> solicitudine felicitas .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ I can nauȝt construe al þis q<expan>uo</expan>d haukyn <note> Here R divides one <hi>Bx</hi> line into two.</note></l>
<l> Ye moste kenne me þis an englische .</l>
<l> In englisch q<expan>uo</expan>d pacience it is wel harde  wel to expounen .</l>
<l> And some<seg>-</seg>del I schal seyn it  by so þow vnderstande .</l>
<l> Pouerte is þe furste poynte  þat pruide moste hateth .</l>
<l> Þan is it goed by goed skil  al þat agasteth pruide .</l>
<l> Riȝt as contric<expan>i</expan>on is confortable thyng<expan>e</expan>  consience wote wel .</l>
<l> And a sorwe of hym<seg>-</seg>selue  and a solace to þe soule .</l>
<l> So pou<expan>er</expan>te p<expan>ro</expan>preliche  penaunce and ioye .</l>
<l> Is to þe bodye  puir sp<expan>irit</expan>uale helthe .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Ergo paup<expan>er</expan>tas est odibile bonu<expan>m</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ And contric<expan>i</expan>on conforte  and <foreign>cura animar<expan>um</expan></foreign> .</l>
<l> Selde sit pou<expan>er</expan>te  þe sothe to declare .</l>
<l> Or as iustice to iuge <app><lem>men</lem></app><note>R.14.307: The b-verse of this line was either garbled beyond hope or completely lost by alpha; R omits it entirely while F repositions the caesura and fleshes out the line with <hi>of gyltys</hi>. Beta reads <hi>enioigned is no pore</hi>, which is similar to the reading of <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> </l>
<l> Ne <app><lem>for</lem></app> to<note>R.14.308: R's <hi>Ne for to</hi> is a unique version of this line's opening. F reads <hi>Ne as</hi> while beta has <hi>Ne to</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta on this phrase.</note> be a meyr<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>ou<expan>er</expan>e</lem></app><note>R.14.308: R's <hi>ouere</hi> is unique; F reads <hi>on</hi> while beta has <hi>aboue</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R.</note> men  ne ministre vnder kynges</l>
<l> Selde is <app><lem>enemye</lem></app> pore<note>R.14.309: The problem here seems to have its source in alpha. R's <hi>enemye pore</hi> is an obvious corruption of beta's <hi>any pore</hi>; F's <hi>þe poore</hi> looks like a typical effort to repair the alpha damage merely reflected thoughtlessly by R. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> y<seg>-</seg>put  to puneschen eny poeple .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Remoc<expan>i</expan>o curar<expan>um</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <foreign>Ergo</foreign> pou<expan>er</expan>te and pouer men  parfournen þe comaundement .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Nolite iudicare quemq<expan>ua</expan>m  .</foreign></hi> The thredde .</l>
<l> ¶ Selde is <app><lem>pore riȝt</lem></app><note>R.14.313: The majority of beta manuscripts has <hi>any pore</hi> in place of alpha's <hi>pore riȝt</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> riche  but of <app><lem>his</lem></app><note>R.14.313: R's <hi>but of his</hi> is unique among <hi>B</hi> copies; F has <hi>but it be of</hi> while beta reads <hi>but of</hi>. However, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R's phrasing.</note> riȝtful heritage .</l>
<l> Wynneth he nouȝt with <app><lem>wittes</lem></app> fals<note>R.14.314: F seems to have been unhappy with alpha's reading, (presumably identical to R's) and smoothed it to <hi>hise wyȝles</hi>. Beta's reading (<hi>weghtes fals</hi> = "false weights") seems more vivid and stylistically superior to R's <hi>wittes fals</hi>. Most P family copies within the <hi>C</hi> tradition agree with beta. Nevertheless, R's relatively bland reading may in fact be authorial; a comparison with <hi>C</hi> shows that five of the best X family manuscripts (XYcKcTH<hi>2</hi>) agree with R on this lection. This agreement is highly unlikely to have resulted from merely random convergence; at the very least, the bipolar confusion of this variant array appears to reflect an ambiguously spelled form in the common archetype of both versions. R's reading may, in fact, be no more than a formal variant of beta's; cf. the comments on <hi>wit</hi> at <ref>R.15.225:</ref>.</note>  ne with vnseled mesures .</l>
<l> <hi>N</hi>e borweth of his neyȝebores  but þat he may wel paye .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Possessio sine calumpnia </foreign></hi> </l>
<l> ¶ Þe ferthe <app><lem>it</lem></app> is a <note>R.14.317: R's <hi>it</hi> represents a unique addition to the text witnessed by the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts (including F), but <hi>it</hi> is supported as authorial by a majority of <hi>C</hi> copies, including the most reliable members of the X family.</note> fortune  þat florescheth þe soule .</l>
<l> With sobrete fram alle synne  and also ȝet more .</l>
<l> It affaiteth þe flesche  fram folies ful manye .</l>
<l> A collateral conforte  cristes oune ȝifte .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Donu<expan>m</expan> dei</foreign></hi><note>R.14.321: R omits his usual blank line before the next verse paragraph, presumably because the next line is the last one ruled for this side.</note></l>
<l> ¶ Þe fifte <app><lem>it is þe</lem></app> moder<note>R.14.322: Cf. R's <hi>it is þe moder</hi> to F's <hi>is þe Moodir</hi> and beta's <hi>is moder</hi>.</note> of <app><lem>hele</lem></app><note>R.14.322: Cf. RF's <hi>hele</hi> to beta's <hi>helthe</hi> . </note>  a frende in alle fondynges .</l>
<milestone>fol. 71rI</milestone>
<l> And for þe lawde<note>R.14.323: This variant array shows a truly puzzling configuration of attestation, with <hi>C</hi> offering no help because of an extensive revision to fix the confusion found in <hi>B</hi> witnesses. R's <hi>lawde</hi> agrees with the beta copies CY but makes no obvious sense; F uniquely reads <hi>lawe</hi>, which is probably no more than a typical piece of that scribe's speculative reconstruction. The most trustworthy beta copies (LMCrWHm) all agree on <hi>land</hi>, which has the advantage of making ordinary sense, but Kane and Donaldson prefer <hi>lewde</hi>, the reading of GOC<hi>2</hi>B.</note> eu<expan>er</expan>e a<seg>-</seg>liche  a lemman of all<expan>e</expan> clennesse .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Sanitatis mater</foreign></hi> .</l>
<l> ¶ Þe sixte <app><lem>it</lem></app> is<note>R.14.325: R's <hi>it is</hi> is unique among the <hi>B</hi> copies; both F and beta read <hi>is</hi>. However, a large majority of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agrees with R (though five <hi>C</hi> witnesses support with beta.</note> a path of pees  ȝe þoruȝ þe <app><lem><sic>pa</sic><corr>pa[s]</corr> altone</lem></app><note>R.14.325: R uniquely omits the preposition <hi>of</hi> before <hi>altone</hi>. G's source may also have omitted it since that manuscript supplies <hi>at</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> Pouerte miȝt passe  withoute peril of robbynge .</l>
<l> For þere þat pouerte passeth  pees folweth after .</l>
<l> And euer þe lasse þat he bereth  þe hardier<note>R.14.328: R's omission of <hi>he</hi> at this point is distinctive. F omits this entire line; beta reads the phrase as <hi>hardyer <hi>he</hi> is</hi>.</note> <app><lem>is</lem></app> of herte .</l>
<l> For<seg>-</seg>thi seith senecca . <foreign>Paup<expan>er</expan>tas est absq<expan>ue</expan> <app><lem>solitudine</lem></app><note>R.14.329: This error (for <foreign>solicitudine</foreign>) is shared with F and thus derives from alpha, but it is also found in several beta manuscripts, indicating that an uncommon Latin suspension in <hi>Bx</hi> may have been the original stimulus to what seems, at first glance, an unlikely mistake. </note> semita </foreign> .</l>
<l> And an hardy man of herte  amonge an hepe of theues .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Cantabat paup<expan>er</expan>tas coram latrone viator .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ Þe seuenthe <app><lem>it</lem></app> is <note>R.14.332: R's <hi>it is</hi> is, once more, unique among the <hi>B</hi> copies; both F and beta simply read <hi>is</hi>. Most of the X family in the <hi>C</hi> tradition agrees with beta; however, a simple majority of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts (including some of the X set and most of the P set) agrees with R.</note> wel of wysdom  and fewe wordes scheweth .</l>
<l> For lordes aloweth hym <app><lem>lite</lem></app><note>R.14.333: All the other <hi>B</hi> and <hi>C</hi> witnesses read <hi>litel</hi>.</note>  or listeneth to his resou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
<l> He tempreth þe tonge to trewthe<seg>-</seg>warde  <app><lem>þ<expan>a</expan>t</lem></app><note>R.14.334: At the head of the b-verse, beta reads <hi>and</hi> in place of alpha's <hi>þat</hi>; however, all of the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agree with alpha here.</note> no tresor coueyteth .<note>R.14.334: Immediately hereafter, alpha (as well as a majority of <hi>C</hi> witnesses) omitted a Latin line on poverty found in beta:<lb/>
<foreign>Sapiencie temperatrix</foreign>.
<l> ¶ Þe eyȝtethe <app><lem>it</lem></app> is <note>R.14.335: R's <hi>it is</hi> is, once more, unique among the <hi>B</hi> copies; both F and beta simply read <hi>is</hi>. However, most of the <hi>C</hi> copies agree with R (though half a dozen—UcDcChEcGcN—support beta).</note> a lele <app><lem>laborer<expan>e</expan></lem></app>  and lothe to take more .</l>
<l> Þan he may wel deserue  in somer or in wynter .</l>
<l> And if he chafareth he chargeth no loss<expan>e</expan>  mowe he charite <app><lem><sic>wynte</sic><corr>wyn[n]e</corr></lem></app> .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Negociu<expan>m</expan> sine dampno .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> ¶ Þe <app><lem>nythe it is</lem></app><note>R.14.339: R's spelling, <hi>nythe</hi>, is unique among the <hi>B</hi> copies and may seem an obvious error of the simplest sort: inadvertent omission of a nasal bar; but virtually all of the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts share this spelling of <hi>nyneth</hi> Both <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>ninthe</hi>, and <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>ninth</hi> and <hi>nineth</hi>, acknowledge the possibility of this spelling of the ordinal in Middle English.</note><note>R.14.339: Once more, R uniquely reads <hi>it is</hi> where the other <hi>B</hi> witnesses have <hi>is</hi>. As in earlier instances in this listing passage, however, though a few <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agree with beta's simpler rendering, the vast majority supports R's reiterative phrase.</note> swete to þe soule  no sugur is swetter<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> For pacience is payne  for pou<expan>er</expan>te hym<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
<l> And sobrete swete drinke  and goed leche in sekenesse .</l>
<l> Þus lered me a <app><lem>lered</lem></app><note>R.14.342: R's form is shared with F; beta has <hi>lettred</hi>. Several variants (including <hi>lewed</hi>!) occur at this position in <hi>C</hi> witnesses, but the majority agrees with alpha on <hi>lered</hi>.</note> man  for our<expan>e</expan> lordes loue .</l>
<l> Seynt austyn a blissed lif  with<seg>-</seg>outen busynesse .</l>
<l> For body and for soule  <foreign><app><lem>solicitudine</lem></app> felicitas</foreign> .<note>R.14.344: Among the <hi>B</hi> copies, R uniquely omits <foreign>absque</foreign> at the head of the Latin phrase. The same omission occurs in three <hi>C</hi> manuscripts of the X family (TH<hi>2</hi>Ch), but <hi>Cx</hi> supports the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note></l>
<l> Now god þat alle gode gyueth  graunte his soule reste .</l>
<l> Þat þus furst wrote to wisse men  what pou<expan>er</expan>te was to mene .</l>
<l> ¶ Allas q<expan>uo</expan>d <app><lem>haukyn</lem></app><note>R.14.347: R completely drops the second stave of the a-verse (<hi>Bx</hi> = <hi>þe actyf man þo</hi> ), probably mirroring alpha in this loss, while F gives the appearance of trying to repair the damage, replacing the missing material with a simple <hi>þanne</hi>.</note>  þat after my cristendom </l>
<l> I ne hadde be dede and doluen  for doweles sake .</l>
<l> So harde it is q<expan>uo</expan>d haukyn  to lyue and to do synne .</l>
<l> Synne <app><lem>scheweth</lem></app><note>R.14.350: R's <hi>scheweth</hi> is an alpha error shared with F; beta's <hi>suweth</hi> is obviously correct.</note> vs euer<expan>e</expan> q<expan>uo</expan>d he  and sori gan wexe .</l>
<l> And wepte water with his eyȝes<note>R.14.351: R shares this version of the plural with F; the beta form is <hi>eyghen</hi>. </note>  and weyled þe tyme .</l>
<l> Þat euer<expan>e</expan> he dede dede  þat dere god displesed </l>
<l> Swowed and sobbed  and siked ful ofte .</l>
<l> Þat eu<expan>er</expan>e he had londe or lordschipe  lasse other more .</l>
<milestone>fol. 71vI</milestone>
<l> Or meistrie ouer any man  mo þan of hym<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
<l> I were nauȝt worthi  <app><lem>wite</lem></app> god <note>R.14.356: Cf. R's <hi>wite god</hi> to beta's <hi>wote god</hi>. F and some of the beta manuscripts completely omit the phrase <hi>woot god</hi>.</note> q<expan>uo</expan>d haukyn  to werie any clothes .</l>
<l> Ne noyther scherte ne schone  saue for schame one .</l>
<l> To keuere my caroyne q<expan>uo</expan>d he  and cried mercy faste .</l>
<l> And wepte and weyled  and þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>with I awaked .</l>