<milestone>fol. 96rI</milestone>
<head><supplied>Passus vicesimus de visione vt supra</supplied><note>R.20.0: At the top left of fol. 96r, an early modern italic hand, probably the same as that found at the bottom of fol. 95v, adds the passus heading.</note></head>
<foreign>Passus vicessimus</foreign>
<l> And bete men ouer bitter  and <app><lem>su<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>body</lem></app><note>R.20.1: For R's <hi>sum<seg>-</seg>body</hi>, beta reads <hi>somme of hem</hi>. F has <hi> summe bodijs</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R.</note> to litel .<note>R.20.1: The manuscript resumes after a lacuna running from KD18.411 to KD20.27.</note></l>
<l> And greue men gretter<expan>e</expan>  þan gode feith it wolde .</l>
<l> And <foreign>sp<expan>iritu</expan>s iusticie</foreign>  schal  iugen wol he nol he .</l>
<l> After þe kynges conseil  and þe comune like .</l>
<l> And <foreign>sp<expan>iritu</expan>s prudencie</foreign>  in many a poynt schal faile .</l>
<l> Of þat he weneth wold falle  if his witt ne were .</l>
<hi>wenyng is no wisdom</hi>
<l> <hi>Wenyng<expan>e</expan> is no wisdom  ne wise ymaginac<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan></hi> .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Homo p<expan>ro</expan>ponit & deus disponit </foreign> and gou<expan>er</expan>neth alle .</hi><note> Alpha's and beta's line division differ here. Beta reads as follows: <lb/>
<hi><foreign>Homo proponit & deus disponit</foreign> & gouerneth alle good vertues <lb/>
Ac nede is next hym for anon he meketh</hi>
. The <hi>C</hi> manuscripts also show considerable variation in how this series of lines is divided.
<l> Gode vertues and nede is next hym  for anon he meketh .</l>
<l> And as lowe as a lamb  for lakkyng<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>þat</lem></app><note>R.20.10: Beta reads <hi>of þat</hi>; a majority of the P family of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agrees here with beta, but the X family and some P manuscripts agree with alpha.</note> hym nedeth .</l>
<l> <hi></hi> For nede maketh <app><lem>nede  fele</lem></app> nedes lowh <app><lem>herted</lem></app> .<note>R.20.11: This line is omitted by beta but attested by the <hi>C</hi> witnesses.</note></l>
<l> <app><lem>Filosofres</lem></app><note>R.20.12: Beta reads <hi>Wyse men</hi>, taking the line to alliterate on /w/. However, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees here with alpha.</note> forsoke <app><lem>welth</lem></app>  for thei wolde be nedy .</l>
<l> And woneden <app><lem>wel</lem></app> <app><lem>elengly</lem></app><note>R.20.13: For R's <hi>wel elengly</hi> (cf. F's <hi>wol elengely</hi>), beta reads <hi>in wildernesse</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees here with alpha.</note>  and wolde<expan>n</expan> nouȝte be riche .</l>
<l> <hi></hi> And god alle his grete ioye  gostliche he lefte<note> In the right margin, in black ink, there is an early ownership stamp for the Bodleian Library.</note></l>
<l> And cam and toke mankende  & bicam nedy .</l>
<l> <app><lem>So he was nedy</lem></app><note>R.20.16: This phrase is transposed in beta as <hi>So nedy he was</hi>; F reads <hi>He was so needy</hi>. The P family of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agrees with F on this phrasing, but the X family agrees with R.</note> as seyth þe boke  i<expan>n</expan> many sundri places .</l>
<l> Þat he seide in his sorwe  on þe selue rode .</l>
<l> Bothe fox and foule  may fle to hole and crepe .</l>
<l> And þe fisch hath fyn  to flete with <app><lem>or</lem></app><note>R.20.19: Beta omits <hi>or</hi>, as does <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> to reste .</l>
<l> Þere nede hath I<seg>-</seg>nome me  þat I mote nede a<seg>-</seg>byde .</l>
<l> And suffre sorwes ful sour<expan>e</expan>  þat schal to ioye turne .</l>
<l> For<seg>-</seg>þi be nouȝt a<seg>-</seg>basshed  to bidde and to be nedy .</l>
<l> Sith he þat wrouȝte alle þe worlde  was wilfullich nedy .</l>
<l> Ne neuer<expan>e</expan> none so nedy  ne pouerer<expan>e</expan> deyede .</l>
<l> <hi></hi> Whan ned hadde vnder<seg>-</seg>nome<note>R.20.25: At this point F and most beta manuscripts include a direct object, <hi>me</hi>; but R shares the omission with O, while M supplies the missing pronoun above the line. The same omission of <hi>me</hi> is seen in three of the best X family manuscripts of <hi>C</hi>: manuscripts XYcUc.</note> þ<expan>us</expan>  anon I fel a<seg>-</seg>slepe .</l>
<l> And mette ful merueylously  þat in mannes forme .</l>
<l> Antecrist cam þanne  and alle cropp<expan>e</expan> of treuthe .</l>
<l> Turned it vp<seg>-</seg>so<seg>-</seg>doun  and <app><lem>ou<expan>er</expan>tilth</lem></app><note>R.20.28: R's spelling here is unique (cf. the comments on this lection in the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref>, but the meaning is likely to be identical with that found in all the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts, which read <hi>tilte</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> has <hi>tulde</hi>.</note> þe rote .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>made</lem></app><note>R.20.29: Beta omits <hi>made</hi> but the <hi>C</hi> witnesses include it.</note> fals springe and sprede  & spede me<expan>n</expan>nes nedes .</l>
<l> In ech a contre þer<expan>e</expan> he cam  he cutte a<seg>-</seg>wey treuthe .</l>
<l> And gert gile growe þer<expan>e</expan>  as he a god were  </l>
<l> <hi></hi> <hi>Freres</hi> folwed þat fende  for he ȝaf hem copes .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>religiouses</lem></app><note>R.20.33: This plural form is unique to R; beta and F both show the singular, as does the <hi>C</hi> version.</note> reu<expan>er</expan>ensed hym  and ronge<expan>n</expan> her<expan>e</expan> belles .</l>
<milestone>fol. 96vI</milestone>
<l> And alle þe couent <app><lem>cam</lem></app><note>R.20.34: R's reading, <hi>cam</hi>, is unique among the <hi>B</hi> copies; F has <hi>cam holly</hi>; beta reads <hi>forth cam</hi>. Among the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts at this point, the P family reads <hi>þo cam</hi> but the X family agrees exactly with R.</note>  to welcome <app><lem>a</lem></app><note>R.20.34: For R's <hi>a</hi>, both beta and F read <hi>þat</hi>. Among the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts, the P family and several of the X family agree with the <hi>B</hi> majority; however, a majority of the X family, including the most reliable copies, agrees with R's reading.</note> tyraunt .</l>
<l> And alle his as wel as hym  saue onliche foles .</l>
<l> Whiche foles were <app><lem>gladder</lem></app><expan>e</expan><note>R.20.36: Beta reads <hi>wel leuer</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agree here with alpha.</note>  to deye þan to lyue .</l>
<l> Lengore sethe leute<note>R.20.37: Alpha's <hi>leute</hi> is clearly the correct reading here, supported by Cr and Hm as well as <hi>Cx</hi>, but beta's reading seems to have been <hi>lenten</hi>.</note> was so rebuked .<note>R.20.37: There is a diagonal smudge of uncertain origin between the <d> of <hi>rebuked</hi> and the terminal punctus.</note></l>
<l> And a fals feend antecrist  ouer alle folke regned .</l>
<l> And þat <app><lem>we</lem></app><note>R.20.39: For alpha's <hi>we</hi>, beta reads <hi>were</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> mylde men and holy  þat no<expan>n</expan> meschef dradde<expan>n</expan> .</l>
<l> Defiede alle falsenesse  and folke þat it vsede .</l>
<l> And what kynge þat hem conforted  knowyng<expan>e</expan> hem <app><lem>gyle</lem></app><note>R.20.41: For alpha's <hi>gyle</hi>, beta reads <hi>any while</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> .</l>
<l> Þei corsed and her conseil  were it clerke or lewed .</l>
<l> ¶ Antecrist hadde þus sone  hundredes at his baner .</l>
<l> And pride it bare  boldely aboute .<note>R.20.44: There is a diagonal smudge of uncertain origin between the <e> of <hi>aboute</hi> and the terminal punctus.</note></l>
<l> With a lorde þat lyueth  after lykyng<expan>e</expan> of body .</l>
<l> Þat cam aȝeyne consience  þat keper was and gyour<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> Ouer kynde cristene  and <app><lem>cardinales</lem></app><note>R.20.47: R's plural is unique in the <hi>B</hi> tradition; both F and beta read the singular <hi>cardynale</hi>. Among <hi>C</hi> copies, though manuscripts EcRcMcVcNc agree with R, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note> v<expan>er</expan>tues .</l>
<l> ¶ I conseile q<expan>uo</expan>d consience þo  cometh with me ȝe foles .</l>
<l> in<seg>-</seg>to vnite holy cherche  and holde we vs ther<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> And crie we to kende  þat he come and defende vs .</l>
<l> Foles fro þis fendes lymes  for peres loue þe plowman .</l>
<l> And crie we <app><lem>on</lem></app><note>R.20.52: For alpha's <hi>on</hi>, beta reads <hi>to</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> alle þe comune  þat þei come to vnite .</l>
<l> And þere abide and bikere aȝeyne  belialles children .</l>
<l> ¶ Kende consience þo herde  and cam out of þe planetes .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>sende</lem></app><note>R.20.55: Only G agrees with R in reading an apparent present tense here; all other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read <hi>sent</hi>. However, in light of the morphological and phonological ambiguities discussed in the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref>, and since R20.54 clearly depicts a situation in the preterite, it may well be that the R scribe intended <hi>sende</hi> here as a preterite. Although several <hi>C</hi> copies (DcQScFc) share the RG reading, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note> forth his forreores  feueres & fluxes <seg></seg></l>
<l> Couȝhes and cardiacles  crampes and tothaches .</l>
<l> Rewmes and radegondes  and roynouse skalles .</l>
<l> Byles and boches  and brenny<expan>n</expan>ge aguwes .</l>
<l> Frenesyes and foule eueles  forageres of kende .</l>
<l> Hadde I<seg>-</seg>priked and praied  polles of peple .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Largeliche</lem></app><note>R.20.61: Beta reads <hi>Þat largelich</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> a legiou<expan>n</expan>  lose<note>R.20.61: R's form here is unique, but L also attests a present-tense form, <hi>lese</hi>; most <hi>B</hi> witnesses, including F, show a preterite (e.g., W's <hi>loste</hi>). The <hi>Cx</hi> reading (<hi>lees</hi>) agrees with L.</note> here lif sone .</l>
<l> ¶ Þere was harrow and helpe  her<expan>e</expan> cometh kende .</l>
<l> With deth þat is dredful  to vndoen vs alle .</l>
<l> ¶ Þe lorde þat lyuede after lust  þo a<seg>-</seg>loud criede .</l>
<l> After <app><lem>kniȝte</lem></app><note>R.20.65: In place of R's truncated <hi>kniȝte</hi>, which clearly involves an omission, beta reads <hi>conforte a knyghte</hi>. The omission appears to have occurred in alpha, with F attempting a typical repair by fleshing out <hi>a komely knyght</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta, and no <hi>C</hi> manuscript shows a comparable error to that attested by the alpha manuscripts.</note>  to come and bere his banere .</l>
<milestone>fol. 97rI</milestone>
<l> Alarme alarme q<expan>uo</expan>d þat lord  ech lyf kepe his owene .<note>R.20.66: After this line, the R scribe failed to leave a blank line, his usual custom for dividing verse strophes. No reason beyond oversight is apparent.</note></l>
<l><app><lem>Þanne</lem></app><note>R.20.67: Beta begins this line <hi>And þanne</hi>; the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agree with alpha.</note> mette þise men  er mynstralz miȝt pipe .</l>
<l> And er heraudes of armes  hadden descreued lordes .</l>
<l> Elde þe <app><lem>hore<add>l</add></lem></app><note>R.20.69: Kane-Donaldson thought that the <l> of R's <hi>horel</hi> (= "whoremonger") was inserted later. The ink color is identical to that used by the R scribe, though the character form is much more compressed than his typical final <l>, so the likelihood is that he himself added the character, possibly even before copying the next line, in order to "correct" R to the alpha reading also found in F. Beta shows <hi>hore</hi>, which is also the reading of <hi>C</hi>. One would normally assume, when confronted by such an array, that the beta / <hi>C</hi> reading is authorial; however, in this instance it would be easy to argue that their shared phrase, <hi>Elde þe hore</hi>, is not only a classical example of an "easier reading" (because stereotypical) but that the initial omission of final <l> in R's transcription offers evidence of another motive that may explain the widespread presence of the dominant lection: censorship.</note>  he was in <app><lem>vaunt<seg>-</seg>warde</lem></app><note>R.20.69: Following <hi>in</hi>, R uniquely omits <hi>þe</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> manuscripts here agree with the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note> .</l>
<l> And bare þe baner bifore deth  bi riȝt he it claymed .</l>
<l> Kende cam after <app><lem>hym</lem></app><note>R.20.71: Beta omits <hi>hym</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note>  with many kene sores . .</l>
<l> As pokkes and pestilences  and muche poeple schente .</l>
<l> So kende thoruȝ corrupc<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan>s  kulled ful manye .</l>
<l> ¶ Deth cam <app><lem>driuende</lem></app> after  and al to duste <app><lem><del>p</del><add>d</add>aschte</lem></app> .<note>R.20.74: Once more, R began with the correct reading, <hi>paschte</hi> (cf. beta's <hi>passhed</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>'s <hi>paschte</hi>) but was "corrected" by Hand2 to the erroneous reading attested in F. The likeliest cause for this seemingly bizarre series of "corrections" (cf. R5.178 and R18.53) is that Hand2 was comparing R to a debased alpha copy; in this particular instance, the scribe of that debased copy would have found <hi>daschte</hi> appealing on grounds of extra alliteration (aa|aa) as well as greater familiarity.</note></l>
<l> Kynges and kniȝtes  caiseres and popes .</l>
<l> Lered ne lewed  he <app><lem>left</lem></app><note>R.20.76: Beta reads <hi>let</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> no man stande .</l>
<l> Þat he hitte euene  þat euer stired after .</l>
<l> Many a <app><lem>louely</lem></app><note>R.20.78: Here R shows a unique omission: the other <hi>B</hi> and <hi>C</hi> witnesses attest <hi>louely lady</hi>.</note>  and <app><lem>lemmanes</lem></app><note>R.20.78: Once more, R shows a unique reading (relative to its <hi>B</hi> cousins): most of them attest <hi>lemmanes <hi>of</hi> knyghtes</hi>. F shows an entirely unique half-line. However, in this instance, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R.</note> kniȝtes .</l>
<l> Swouned and swelted  for sorwe of dethes dyntes .</l>
<l> ¶ Consience of his curtesie  to kende he be<seg>-</seg>souȝte .</l>
<l> To sese and suffre  and se wher<expan>e</expan> þei wolde .</l>
<l> Leue pride p<expan>ri</expan>ueliche  and be p<expan>ar</expan>fit cristene .</l>
<l> ¶ And kende sesed þo  to se þe poeple amende .</l>
<l> Fortune gan flateren þanne  þo fewe þat were<expan>n</expan> alyue .</l>
<l> And be<seg>-</seg>hiȝte hem longe lif  and leccherie he sente .</l>
<l> Amonges alle maner<expan>e</expan> men  wedded and vnwedded .</l>
<l> And gadered a grete hoste  al agayne consience .</l>
<l> Þis leccherie leyde on with <app><lem>lawhyng<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.20.88: Beta reads <hi>a laughyng</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> cher<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> And with p<expan>ri</expan>ue speche  and peynted wordes .</l>
<l> And armed hym i<expan>n</expan> Idelnesse  & in heȝ beryng<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> He bare a bowe in his hande  and many blody arwes .</l>
<l> Weren fethered with fair<expan>e</expan> beheste  and many a fals treuthe .</l>
<l> With <app><lem>vntidy</lem></app><note>R.20.93: At this point, beta reads <hi>his vntydy</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> tales  he tened ful ofte .</l>
<l> Consience and his companye  of holy <app><lem>kerke</lem></app><note>R.20.94: Alpha is responsible for correctly alliterating <hi>kyrke</hi>, and is joined by Cr in that reading. The remaining beta and almost all <hi>C</hi> witnesses attest either <hi>chirche</hi> or <hi>cherche</hi>.</note> þe techeres .<note>R.20.94: After this line, the R scribe failed to leave a blank line, his usual custom for dividing verse strophes. No reason is apparent.</note></l>
<l> ¶ Þanne cam coueytise  and cast how he miȝte .</l>
<l> Ou<expan>er</expan>come co<expan>n</expan>sience  and <app><lem>cardinales</lem></app><note>R.20.96: Once more (cf. R20.47), R's rendering of this word as a plural is unique; the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts attest the singular, <hi>cardynal</hi>. Among <hi>C</hi> copies, though manuscripts EcMcNc agree with R, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note> vertues .</l>
<l> And armed hym i<expan>n</expan> auarice  & <app><lem>vng<expan>ri</expan>seliche</lem></app><note>R.20.97: R's <hi>vng<expan>ri</expan>seliche</hi> is unique; cf. beta's <hi>hungriliche</hi> and F's <hi>vngryly</hi>. R's form is not found in any <hi>C</hi> manuscript; moreover, the sole attestation for the word in <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>ungriseliche</hi>, is from this passage. <title>MED</title> offers a possible gloss of "Not hideously, sumptuously" but also notes that it may be merely an error for the commonly attested form, <hi>hungriliche</hi>.</note> liuede .</l>
<l> His wepne was al wyles  to wynnen and to hyden .</l>
<milestone>fol. 97vI</milestone>
<l> With glosynges and gabbynges  he giled þe peple .</l>
<l> Symonye hym <app><lem>seude</lem></app><note>R.20.100: R uniquely deploys this apparent nonsense word; almost all other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read <hi>sent</hi>. However, on the basis of R's apparent metathesis of a very plausible reading unanimously attested in <hi>C</hi> manuscripts, Kane-Donaldson proposed emending <hi>B</hi> to that reading, <hi>suede</hi>.</note>  to assaile co<expan>n</expan>sience .</l>
<l> And p<expan>re</expan>ched to þe peple  and p<expan>re</expan>lates þei hem made<expan>n</expan> .</l>
<l> <hi>To holde with antecrist  here temporautes to saue .</hi></l>
<l> And come to þe kynges conseil  as a kene barou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
<l> And kneled to consience  in courte be<seg>-</seg>fore hem alle .</l>
<l> And gert goed faith fle  and fals to abide .</l>
<l> And boldliche bar<expan>e</expan> adoune  with many a <app><lem>rede</lem></app><note>R.20.106: In place of alpha's <hi>rede</hi>, beta and <hi>Cx</hi> correctly alliterate with <hi>briȝte</hi>.</note> noble .</l>
<l> Muche of þe witt and wisdom<expan>m</expan>  of westmynst<expan>er</expan> halle .</l>
<l> He iugged til a iustice  and iusted in his ere .</l>
<l> And ou<expan>er</expan>tilte al his treuthe  with take þis vp amendement .</l>
<l> And i<expan>n</expan><seg>-</seg>to<note>R.20.110: Beta copies (except for Hm, which agrees with alpha), read <hi>to</hi>. Among the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts, the P family agrees with beta while the X family agrees with alpha.</note> þe arches in haste  he ȝede anon after .</l>
<l> <hi>And turned syuile into symonye</hi>  & sitth he toke þe official .</l>
<l> For a <app><lem>menyuer<expan>e</expan> ma<expan>n</expan>tel</lem></app><note>R.20.112: Beta reads <hi>mentel of menyuere</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note>  he made lele matrimonie .</l>
<l> Departen ar deth cam  and <app><lem>a</lem></app> deuos<note>R.20.113: Beta reads <hi>& deuos</hi> where alpha attests <hi>and a deuos</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> schupte .</l>
<l> ¶ Allas q<expan>uo</expan>d consience and cride þo  wolde crist of <app><lem>grace</lem></app><note>R.20.114: R uniquely omits <hi>his</hi> before <hi>grace</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note> .</l>
<l> Þat coueityse wer<expan>e</expan> cristene  þat is so kene <app><lem>to fiȝte</lem></app> .<note>R.20.115: For alpha's <hi>to fiȝte</hi>, beta reads <hi>a fiȝter</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note></l>
<l> And bolde and abydyng<expan>e</expan><app><lem>þe</lem></app> while<note>R.20.116: In place of alpha's <hi>þe while</hi>, beta has <hi>while</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> is uncertain here since the manuscripts are almost evenly divided, with members of both major families supporting alpha and others agreeing with beta. However, those that agree here with alpha include most of the best copies of both X and P groups.</note> his bagge lasteth .<note>R.20.116: After this line, the R scribe failed to leave a blank line, his usual custom for dividing verse strophes. No reason is apparent.</note></l>
<l> ¶ And þanne louȝ lif  and lete dagge his clothes .</l>
<l> And armed hym in haste  in harlotes wordes .</l>
<l> And helde holinesse a iape  and hendenesse a wastour<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> And lete leute a cherle  and lyere a fre man .</l>
<l> Consience and conseil  he counted it folye .<note>R.20.121: After this line, the R scribe failed to leave a blank line, his usual custom for dividing verse strophes. No reason is apparent.</note></l>
<l> ¶ Þus relied lif for a litel <app><lem><sic>fortue</sic><corr>fortu[n]e</corr></lem></app> .</l>
<l> And p<expan>ri</expan>ked forth with p<expan>ruy</expan>de  p<expan>re</expan>iseth he no v<expan>er</expan>tue .</l>
<l> Ne careth nauȝt how kende slow  & schal come atte laste .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>calle</lem></app><note>R.20.125: For alpha's <hi>calle</hi>, beta reads either <hi>kille</hi> (the lection found in WCrCO) or, more likely, <hi>culle</hi> (the reading of LM). The latter reading is also that of the <hi>C</hi> version. All three choices are textually and theologically viable, but the agreement of LM with <hi>C</hi> probably indicates the authorial original.</note> alle erthly creatur<expan>e</expan>  saue co<expan>n</expan>sience one  </l>
<l> Lif <app><lem>seith</lem></app> <app><lem><foreign>occide</foreign></lem></app><note>R.20.126: For R's non-alliterating <hi>seith <foreign>occide</foreign></hi>, F has <hi>seyde <foreign>occide</foreign></hi>, but beta (agreeing here with <hi>C</hi>) reads <hi>leep asyde</hi>. </note>  and lauȝte hym a lemman .</l>
<l> Hele and I q<expan>uo</expan>d hee  and heyȝenesse of herte .</l>
<l> Schal do þe nauȝt drede  nother deth ne elde .</l>
<l> And to forȝete sorwe  and ȝif nauȝt of synne .</l>
<l> ¶ Þis liked lif  and his lemman fortune .</l>
<l> And geten in her<expan>e</expan> glorie  a gedelyng<expan>e</expan> at þe laste .</l>
<l> On þat muche <app><lem>wrouȝte</lem></app><note>R.20.132: Here alpha omitted a word; cf. the phrase from beta and the <hi>C</hi> version: <hi>moche <hi>wo</hi> wrouȝte</hi>.</note>  slewthe was his name</l>
<l> Slewthe wex wond<expan>er</expan>e ȝerne  and sone was of age .</l>
<milestone>fol. 98rI</milestone>
<l> And wedded on wanhope  a wenche of þe stues .</l>
<l> Hir<expan>e</expan> sire was a sisour<expan>e</expan>  þat neu<expan>er</expan>e swore treuthe .</l>
<l> On t<del>o</del><add>h</add>omme to<seg>-</seg>tongge  ateynte at vch a queste .<note>R.20.136: After this line, the R scribe failed to leave a blank line, his usual custom for dividing verse strophes. No reason is apparent.</note></l>
<l> ¶ Þus sleuthe was war of werre  and a slynge made .</l>
<l> And threw drede of dispair<expan>e</expan>  a doseine myle aboute .</l>
<l> For care consience þo  <app><lem><sic>crieden</sic><corr>cried</corr></lem></app><note>R.20.139: R's plural form for this line's verb is unique error.</note> vppon elde .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>bad</lem></app><note>R.20.140: After <hi>bad</hi>, alpha omits <hi>hym</hi>, witnessed by beta and the <hi>C</hi> version.</note> fonde to fiȝte and afere wanhope .</l>
<l> ¶ And elde hente gode hope  & hasteliche he schifte hym .</l>
<l> And wayued away wanhope  and with lif he fiȝteth .</l>
<l> And lif fleyȝ for fere  to fisike after helpe .</l>
<l> And bisouȝte hym of socour<expan>e</expan>  and of his salue hadde .</l>
<l> And gaf hym <app><lem><sic>goel</sic><corr>go[ld]</corr></lem></app> goed wone  þat gladede <app><lem>her<expan>e</expan> hertes</lem></app><note>R.20.145: R's plural possessive in this phrase is unique among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts; both beta and F read <hi>his herte</hi>. However, all but six of the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agree with R's reading.</note> .</l>
<l> ¶ And þei gyuen hym a<seg>-</seg>geyne  a glasen houe .</l>
<l> Lif leuede þat lechecrafte  lette schulde elde .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>to</lem></app><note>R.20.148: Beta omits <hi>to</hi>. More than half a dozen of the P family manuscripts of <hi>C</hi> concur with alpha on this reading, but the rest—and all of the X family—agree with beta's omission.</note> driue awaye deth  with <app><lem>dayes</lem></app><note>R.20.148: R's <hi>dayes</hi> occurred as an error in alpha for <hi>dyas</hi>, witnessed in beta and in <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> and dragges .<note>R.20.148: After this line, the R scribe failed to leave a blank line, his usual custom for dividing verse strophes. No reason is apparent.</note></l>
<l> ¶ And elde auntrede hym on lyf  and at þe last he hitte .</l>
<l> A fisisian with a furred hode  þat he fel in a palsie .</l>
<l> And þer<expan>e</expan> deyede þat doctour  ar thre dayes after .</l>
<l> Now I se seyde lif  þat surgerie ne fisike .</l>
<l> May nouȝte a myte auayle  to medelen aȝeyne elde .</l>
<l> ¶ And in hope of his hele  gode herte hente .<note>R.20.154: The <hi>Bx</hi> phrase is <hi>herte he hente</hi>; Bo and Cot also omit <hi>he</hi>, but F includes it. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note></l>
<l> And rode so to reuel  a riche place and a myrie .</l>
<l> Þe companye of conforte  me<expan>n</expan> clepeden it su<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>tyme .<note>R.20.156: After this line, the R scribe failed to leave a blank line, his usual custom for dividing verse strophes. No reason is apparent.</note></l>
<l> ¶ And elde anon after <app><lem>hym</lem></app><note>R.20.157: Where alpha reads <hi>hym</hi>, most beta copies read <hi>me</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note>  and ou<expan>er</expan> myn hede ȝede .</l>
<l> And made me balled before  and bare on þe croune .</l>
<l> So harde he ȝede ou<expan>er</expan> myn hede  it wol be sene eu<expan>er</expan>e .<note>R.20.159: After this line, the R scribe failed to leave a blank line, his usual custom for dividing verse strophes. No reason is apparent.</note></l>
<l> ¶ Sire euel ytauȝte elde q<expan>uo</expan>d I  vnhende go with þe .</l>
<l> Sith whanne was þe waye  ou<expan>er</expan> mennes hedes .</l>
<l> Haddestow be hende q<expan>uo</expan>d I  þow woldest haue asked leue .</l>
<l> ¶ Ȝe leue lordeyne q<expan>uo</expan>d he  and leyde on me with age .</l>
<l> And hitte me vnder þe ere  vnnethe may ich here .</l>
<l> He buffeded me aboute þe mouthe  & bet out my <app><lem>wange tethe</lem></app><note>R.20.165: The beta version of this b-verse is uncertain but is likely to have been that now attested in LMCr: <hi>& bett out my tethe</hi>. F reads the verse as R does, except that F's verb is the uniquely represented <hi>buscht</hi>. The reading of <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R.</note></l>
<l> And gyued me in goutes  I may nouȝt go at large .</l>
p <supplied>i</supplied>ij<expan>us</expan>
<milestone>fol. 98vI</milestone>
<l> And of þe wo þat I was inne  my wif hadde reuthe .<note> A bracket drawn in brown ink in the left margin focuses attention on these six lines; opposite the space between R20.169-70, at the nose of the bracket, a small <hi>n<expan>ota</expan></hi> is inscribed.</note></l>
<l> And wischede <app><lem>wel</lem></app><note>R.20.168: Cf. beta's <hi>ful</hi> and F's <hi>often</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R.</note> witt<expan>er</expan>ly  þat I were in heuene .</l>
<l> For þe lyme þat sche louede me fore  & leef was to fele .</l>
<l> An niȝtes nameliche  whan we naked wer<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> I ne miȝte in non man<expan>er</expan>  maken it at hire wille .</l>
<l> So elde and <app><lem>hee</lem></app><note>R.20.172: <hi>Hee</hi>, "she."</note><app><lem>it hadde</lem></app><note>R.20.172: Here R shows a unique word order for a phrase which reads <hi>hadde(n) it</hi> in most other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts, including F. However, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R's phrasing.</note> forbete .</l>
<l> ¶ And <app><lem>was</lem></app><note>R.20.173: For alpha's <hi>was</hi>, beta reads <hi>as</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> I seet in þis sorwe  I say how kende passed .</l>
<l> And deth drouȝ neȝ me  for drede gan I quake<expan>n</expan> .</l>
<l> And cried to kende  oute of car<expan>e</expan> me bringe .</l>
<l> Lo elde þe hore  haueth<note>R.20.176: R's inflection for this verb is unique among <hi>B</hi> copies, but manuscripts RcMcQScZNc of <hi>C</hi> show the same form, <hi>haueth</hi>. F, beta, and <hi>Cx</hi> all attest <hi>hath</hi>.</note> <app><lem>my lif</lem></app> <app><lem>seye</lem></app><note>R.20.176: R's <hi>seye</hi> is unique; both F and beta read <hi>biseye</hi>, as does <hi>Cx</hi>. The preceding phrase in R, <hi>my lif</hi>, is from alpha; beta and <hi>Cx</hi> read <hi>me</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> Awreke me ȝif ȝour<expan>e</expan> wille be  for I wolde be hennes .<note>R.20.177: After this line, the R scribe failed to leave a blank line, his usual custom for dividing verse strophes. No reason for this omission is apparent.</note></l>
<l> ¶ If þow wilt ben Iwreke<note>R.20.178: R's form for this verb is unique among <hi>B</hi> copies but closely resembles the spelling favored in many <hi>C</hi> manuscripts, <hi>awreke</hi>.</note>  wende into vnite .</l>
<l> And halde þe þer<expan>e</expan> euer<expan>e</expan>  til I sende for þe .</l>
<l> And loke þow cune su<expan>m</expan> crafte  ar þow come þennes .<note>R.20.180: After this line, the R scribe failed to leave a blank line, his usual custom for dividing verse strophes. No reason for this omission is apparent.</note></l>
<l><app><lem>Conseileth</lem></app><note>R.20.181: R's inflection for this verb is unique among <hi>B</hi> copies, but most <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agree with R. F and beta attest <hi>Co(u)nseille</hi>.</note> me kende q<expan>uo</expan>d I  what crafte <app><lem>be</lem></app><note>R.20.181: R's <hi>be</hi> is unique; beta reads <hi>is</hi> while F rephrases the entire b-verse as <hi>what craft y myȝhte leerne</hi>. Though several <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agree with beta, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R.</note> best to lerne .<note>R.20.181: After this line, the R scribe failed to leave a blank line, his usual custom for dividing verse strophes. No reason for this omission is apparent.</note></l>
<l><hi>Lerne to loue q<expan>uo</expan>d</hi> kende  and <app><lem>leue</lem></app><note>R.20.182: Cr joins alpha in omitting <hi>of</hi> after this verb. The other beta copies include it, reading <hi>leue <hi>of</hi> alle othre</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with Cr and alpha in reading simply <hi>leef alle othere</hi>.</note> alle othere .<note>R.20.182: In the left margin opposite this line, in a black, late-medieval cursive hand, the word <hi>love</hi> appears.</note></l>
<l> How schal I come to catel so  to clothe me and to fede .</l>
<l> And þow loue <app><lem>lelly</lem></app><note>R.20.184: At the end of this a-verse, the beta manuscripts interject <hi>quod he</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha in omitting the phrase.</note>  lakke schal þe neu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Wede</lem></app><note>R.20.185: In place of alpha's <hi>Wede ne worldly mete</hi>, beta reads <hi>Mete ne wordly wede</hi>; <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha's phrasing.</note> ne wordly <app><lem>mete</lem></app>  while þi lif lasteth .</l>
<l> And þer<expan>e</expan> be conseile of kende  <app><lem>co<expan>m</expan>sed</lem></app><note>R.20.186: R here omits any reference to the subject; cf. beta's <hi>I comsed</hi> and F's <hi>he comsed</hi>; F's reading suggests an inept attempt to restore a word sensed as grammatically necessary. Among the <hi>C</hi> copies, RcMcQScZFc read the b-verse as beta does, while the majority agrees with R. However, it is clear that, unlike any <hi>B</hi> manuscript, <hi>Cx</hi> positioned the pronoun reference in the a-verse: <hi>And y bi conseil of kynde</hi>.</note> to rome .</l>
<l> Þoruȝ contric<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan> and co<expan>n</expan>fessiou<expan>n</expan>  til I cam to vnite .</l>
<l> And þer<expan>e</expan> was <app><lem>constable</lem></app><note>R.20.188: Again R omits a stave (cf. <hi>conscience constable</hi>, the reading of beta and of <hi>Cx</hi>), presumably reflecting an error in alpha since F tries to patch up the same omission with <hi>he was mad a cunstable</hi>.</note>  cristene to saue .</l>
<l> And biseged sothly  with seuene grete geauntes .</l>
<l> Þat with antecriste helden  harde aȝeine consience .</l>
<l> ¶ Sleuthe with his slynge  and harde saute he made .</l>
<l> <hi>Proude p<expan>re</expan>stes come with hym  <app><lem>passyng<expan>e</expan> an hundreth</lem></app> .</hi><note>R.20.192: Beta's b-verse breaks the alliterative pattern of the line, reading the b-verse as <hi>moo þan a thousand</hi>. Although two <hi>C</hi> manuscripts—P<hi>2</hi>Fc—agree with beta's reading (presumably through lateral contamination), <hi>Cx</hi> agrees exactly with alpha's b-verse.</note></l>
<l> <hi>In paltokes and piked shoes  and pisseres</hi> longe kniues .</l>
<l> Comen aȝeyne consience  with coueitise þei helden .</l>
<l> ¶ Be <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.20.195: R's <hi>þe</hi> is unique among the <hi>B</hi> witnesses; the others omit the word. However, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R in including it.</note> marie q<expan>uo</expan>d a mansed prest  <app><lem>was</lem></app><note>R.20.195: Beta omits alpha's <hi>was</hi>. Several <hi>C</hi> copies support beta but <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> of þe marche of erland<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> I counte namore co<expan>n</expan>sience  bi so I cacche siluer .</l>
<l> Þan I do to drinke a drauȝte  of gode ale .</l>
<l> And so seide sixti  of þe same contray .</l>
<l> And shoten aȝeine with shote  many a shef of othes .</l>
<l> And brode hoked arwes  godes herte and his nailes .</l>
<milestone>fol. 99rI</milestone>
<l> And hadden almoste vnite  and holinesse adowne .<note>R.20.201: After this line, the R scribe failed to leave a blank line, his usual custom for dividing verse strophes. No reason for the omission is apparent.</note></l>
<l> ¶ Consience cride helpe  clergie or elles I falle .</l>
<l> Þoruȝ inparfit prestes  and p<expan>re</expan>lates of holy cherche .</l>
<l> Freres herden hym crie  and comen hym to helpe .</l>
<l> Ac for þei coude nauȝt wel her crafte  co<expan>n</expan>sience forsoke he<expan>m</expan> .</l>
<l> ¶ Nede neyȝede þo neer<expan>e</expan>  and co<expan>n</expan>sience he tolde .</l>
<l> Þat þei come for <app><lem>no</lem></app><note>R.20.207: Erroneous <hi>no</hi> appeared in alpha. <hi>C</hi> manuscripts support beta witnesses here in omitting it.</note> coueytise  to haue cur<expan>e</expan> of soules .</l>
<l> And for þei aren pou<expan>er</expan> p<expan>ar</expan> auent<expan>ur</expan>e  for patrimonye hem faileth .</l>
<l> Þei wil flater<expan>e</expan> to fare wel  folke þat ben riche .</l>
<l> And sitthen þei chosen chele  and cheytifte<note>R.20.210: F is uniquely garbled in this b-verse, reading this variant as <hi>chastite</hi>. The most commonly attested reading in beta manuscripts at this point is <hi>cheitif</hi> (MCrHmCO); but the original beta reading is probably that of LW, which agrees with R and <hi>Cx</hi>: <hi>cheytifte</hi>. The widespread misreading of this word is probably owed to its comparative rarity relative to the adjective—as well as to the unexpected syntax.</note> pou<expan>er</expan>te .</l>
<l> Late hem chewe as þei chese  and charge hem with no cure .<note>R.20.211: Alpha omits the following two lines, which are attested by beta and by <hi>Cx</hi>: <lb/>
<hi>For lomer he lyeth þat lyflode mote begge <lb/>
Þan he þat laboureth for lyflode & leneth it beggeres</hi>
<l> <hi><app><lem>For</lem></app><note>R.20.212: Beta reads <hi>And</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> sitth freres forsoke</hi><note>R.20.212: Beta reads <hi><hi>þe</hi> felicite</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> <hi><app><lem>felicite</lem></app> of erthe .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>Late hem be as beggeres  or lyue be angeles fode .</hi></l>
<l> ¶ Consience of þis <app><lem>conseile</lem></app><note>R.20.214: Immediately after <hi>conseile</hi>, beta adds <hi>þo</hi>. Though a number of P family manuscripts (RcMcQScZWaFcNc) agree with alpha in omitting <hi>þo</hi>, the word seems clearly attested in all other <hi>C</hi> manuscripts.</note>  comsed for to lauȝwe .</l>
<l> And curteisliche conforted hem  and calde i<expan>n</expan> alle freres .</l>
<l> And seide sires sothly  welcome be ȝe alle .</l>
<l> To vnite and holy cherche  ac o thyng I ȝow preye .</l>
<l> Holdeth ȝow in vnite  and haueth non enuye .</l>
<l> To lered ne to lewed  but lyueth after ȝour<expan>e</expan> reule .</l>
<l> And I wil be ȝour<expan>e</expan> borwe  ȝe schul haue brede & clothes .</l>
<l> And other necessaries Inowe  <app><lem>þow schalt</lem></app><note>R.20.221: For R's <hi>þow schalt</hi>, beta reads <hi>ȝow shal</hi> and F shows <hi>for ȝee shal</hi>. Though a sizeable number of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts read <hi> ȝe shal</hi>, the majority agrees with beta.</note> nothyng<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>lakke</lem></app><note>R.20.221: Beta reads <hi>faille</hi>, but <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha's <hi>lakke</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> <hi>With þat ȝe leue logik  and lerneth for to louye</hi> .</l>
<l> <hi>For loue lefte þei lordschip<expan>e</expan>  both lond and scole .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>Frer<expan>e</expan> franceys and dominik  <app><lem>fo</lem></app></hi><note>R.20.224: Neither <title>MED</title> nor <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>for</hi>, cites 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, R14.60, and R15.379) and probably represents an instance of idiolect apocope.</note> <hi>loue to be holy .</hi></l>
<l> ¶ And ȝif ȝe coueyte cur<expan>e</expan>  kende wol ȝow <app><lem>telle</lem></app> .<note>R.20.225: For alpha's <hi>telle</hi>, beta reads <hi>teche</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha's reading.</note></l>
<l> Þat in mesur<expan>e</expan> god made  alle maner<expan>e</expan> thynges .</l>
<l> And sette it at a certeyne  and at a siker nombre .</l>
<l> And nempned <app><lem>hem</lem></app><note>R.20.228: Beta omits alpha's <hi>hem</hi>, but <hi>Cx</hi> includes it.</note> <app><lem>names  and newe</lem></app><note>R.20.228: Beta transposes the alpha phrase to <hi>newe and</hi>. None of the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts attests <hi>newe</hi> in the line in either position.</note> <app><lem>nombre</lem></app><note>R.20.228: R's uninflected verb form is a unique error; F, beta, and <hi>C</hi> all attest <hi>noumbred</hi>.</note> þe st<expan>er</expan>res .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign><app><lem>Quis</lem></app> num<expan>er</expan>at multitudi<expan>n</expan>em <app><lem>stellar<expan>um</expan></lem></app> .</foreign><note>R.20.229: R's <foreign>Quis</foreign> is unique; all other <hi>B</hi> and <hi>C</hi> manuscripts read <foreign>Qui</foreign>. R's complete omission of much of this Latin citation is unique among the <hi>B</hi> witnesses; O shares R's gap for the initial part of the omission, a phrase that beta renders as <foreign>& omnibus eis</foreign> (cf. F's <foreign>& omnia eis</foreign>). The most interesting feature of the attestational array for the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts here is that the <hi>C</hi>-version's citation of this text agrees completely in its shape with that of R.</note></hi></l>
<l> Kynges and kniȝtes  þat <app><lem>kepten</lem></app><note>R.20.230: R's preterite form is unsupported by any other <hi>B</hi> copy; the others all show <hi>kepen</hi>. Nevertheless, though most <hi>C</hi> witnesses agree with beta, three of the most authoritative X family manuscripts (XIP<hi>2</hi>) agree with R's preterite.</note> and defenden .</l>
<l> Han officeres vnder hym<note>R.20.231: R is joined by Bm and Bo in reading <hi>hym</hi>, but F agrees with beta and with <hi>Cx</hi> on the plural pronoun, <hi>hem</hi>.</note>  and vch of he<expan>m</expan> c<expan>er</expan>teyne .</l>
<l> And if þei wage men to werre  þei write<expan>n</expan> he<expan>m</expan> i<expan>n</expan> nombre .</l>
<l> Wil no tresorer<expan>e</expan> taken <app><lem>hym</lem></app><note>R.20.233: Once more F agrees with beta in reading the plural pronoun (<hi>hem</hi>) against R's singular; however, the entire phrase in which the pronoun occurs (<hi>take hem wages</hi>) has been corrupted in beta to read <hi>hem paye</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> version reads the phrase in exact agreement with F.</note> wages  trauaile þei neu<expan>er</expan> so sore .<note>R.20.233: The final punctuation here appears ambiguous because it has been partially rubbed away; it may have been a punctus elevatus originally. After this line, the R scribe omits his customary practice of inserting a blank line to divide poetic strophes, presumably because the next line is the last one ruled for this side.</note></l>
<l> ¶ Alle other i<expan>n</expan> bataille  ben yholde briboures .</l>
<milestone>fol. 99vI</milestone>
<l> Piloures and pike<seg>-</seg>herneys  i<expan>n</expan> vch a <app><lem>parische</lem></app><note>R.20.235: The beta variant is <hi>place</hi>. <hi>C</hi> attests the same variant as alpha.</note> acursed .</l>
<l> Monkes and moneales  and alle men of religion .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Heraude</lem></app><note>R.20.237: Alpha is responsible here for a botched a-verse (apparently alpha omitted <hi>ordre</hi>, leaving <hi>Her ande</hi>, which R took to be <hi>Heraude</hi>). F attempted a complete revision of alpha's a-verse to <hi>Þer is in here rewle wel</hi>. Beta and <hi>C</hi> witnesses have <hi>Her ordre and her reule wil</hi>. </note> her<expan>e</expan> reule wol  to haue a certeyne nombre .</l>
<l> Of lewed and of lered  þe lawe wil and asketh .</l>
<l> <hi>A certeyn for a certeyne  saue onlich of freres .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>For<seg>-</seg>þi q<expan>uo</expan>d consience be criste  kende witt me telleth .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>It is wikked to wage ȝow  ȝe wexeth <app><lem>of on</lem></app></hi><note>R.20.241: Cf. R's <hi>of on</hi> to F's <hi>ouer ony</hi> and beta's <hi>out of</hi>. Once again it appears that R probably reproduces an alpha error here, which F attempts to correct. The <hi>C</hi> reading is the same as beta's.</note> <hi>nombre .</hi></l>
<l><hi>Heuene hath euene nombre  and helle is withoute no<expan>m</expan>bre .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>For<seg>-</seg>þi I wolde witt<expan>er</expan>ly  þat ȝe wer<expan>e</expan> in þe registre .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>And ȝour<expan>e</expan> nombre vnder <app><lem>notari</lem></app> sygne  & noþ<expan>er</expan> mo no lesse .</hi></l>
<l> Enuye herde þis  and hett freres go to scole .</l>
<l> And lerne logik and law  and eke co<expan>n</expan>templac<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
<l> And p<expan>re</expan>che men of plato  and p<expan>re</expan>uen it be senecca .</l>
<l> Þat alle thynges vnder heuene  ouȝte to be in comune .</l>
<l><hi><app><lem>He</lem></app> lyeth<note>R.20.249: Beta reads <hi>And ȝit he lyeth</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> as I leue</hi>  þat to þe lewed so p<expan>re</expan>cheth .</l>
<l> For god made to men a lawe  & moyses it tauȝte .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Non co<expan>n</expan>cupisces rem p<expan>ro</expan>x<expan>im</expan>i tui &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> And euele is þis I<seg>-</seg>holde  in paresches of englonde .</l>
<l> For persones & paresch p<expan>re</expan>stes  þ<expan>a</expan>t schuld þe peple schryue .</l>
<l> Beth<note>R.20.254: R's <hi>Beth</hi> is a unique form but semantically equivalent to the predominant <hi>Ben</hi>.</note> curatoures calde  to know and to hele .</l>
<l> Alle þ<expan>a</expan>t ben her<expan>e</expan> parshiens  <app><lem>penaunces</lem></app><note>R.20.255: Beta reads the singular, <hi>penaunce</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> manuscripts are divided between these two options, with members of both major families attesting each reading.</note> <app><lem>enioynen</lem></app> .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>beth</lem></app><note>R.20.256: Beta reads <hi>shulden be</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agree with alpha. Once more, only R shows the verb form as <hi>beth</hi>.</note> aschamed i<expan>n</expan> here shrifte  ac shame maketh he<expan>m</expan> wende .</l>
<l> And fle to þe freres  as fals folk<expan>e</expan> to westmenster .</l>
<l> Þat borweth and bereth it þider  & þanne biddeth frendes .</l>
<l> Ȝerne of forȝyuenesse  or lenger<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>yere</lem></app> leue .<note>R.20.259: R's unmarked possessive (=<hi>yere</hi>) is completely unique. For the entire phrase, the beta majority reads <hi>ȝeres loone</hi>. F's <hi>bleve</hi> seems an obvious editorial conjecture. R's <hi>leue</hi> is uniquely shared with L and is almost certainly the original <hi>B</hi> reading. It is shared with <hi>Cx</hi>.</note></l>
<l> ¶ Ac while he is i<expan>n</expan> westmynstre  he wil be bifore .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>maketh</lem></app> hym merie  with other <app><lem>men</lem></app><note>R.20.261: R's unmarked possessive (=<hi>men</hi>) is unique among the <hi>B</hi> copies; however, though a majority of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agrees with beta on <hi>mennes</hi>, a significant group of good copies in both families agrees with R.</note> godes .</l>
<l> <hi>And so it fareth with muche folk<expan>e</expan>  þ<expan>a</expan>t to <app><lem>freres</lem></app><note>R.20.262: Though Cr reads this phrase in agreement with alpha, beta apparently had <hi>to <hi>þe</hi> freres</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> concurs with alpha.</note> shriueth .</hi></l>
confession made to Fryers
<l> <hi>As sisoures and executoures  þei <app><lem>schul</lem></app></hi><note>R.20.263: Beta reads <hi>wil</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> <hi>ȝyue þe freres .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>A parcel to preye for hem  & make <app><lem>hem</lem></app></hi><note>R.20.264: The other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read <hi>hemself</hi> here, but <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R's reading; the alliterative pattern of the archetypal b-verse fails in <hi>C</hi> as well as <hi>B</hi>, probably through an error in line division.</note> <hi>murie .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>With <app><lem>residue</lem></app> & <app><lem>remenaunt</lem></app></hi><note>R.20.265: R omits two determiners from the beta (and presumably <hi>Bx</hi>) phrase, which reads <hi>With <hi>þe</hi> residue and <hi>þe</hi> remenaunt</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> shows a major difference here, completely omitting <hi>þe residue and</hi>.</note> <hi> þ<expan>a</expan>t other me<expan>n</expan> by<seg>-</seg>swonke .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>And suffre þe dede i<expan>n</expan> dette  to þe day of dome .</hi></l>
<l> ¶ Enuye her<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>fore  hatede consience .</l>
<milestone>fol. 100rI</milestone>
<l> And freres to filosophie  he fonde hem to scole .</l>
<l> Þe while coueytise and vnkendenesse  consience assailed .</l>
<l> In vnite holy cherche  consience helde hym .</l>
<l> And made pees porter<expan>e</expan>  to pynne þe ȝates . .</l>
<l> ¶ Of alle tale telleres  and tytereres <app><lem>an</lem></app><note>R.20.272: R's <hi>an</hi> is unique in the <hi>B</hi> tradition; beta has <hi>in</hi>; F reads <hi>of</hi>. However, among the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts, most of the X family agrees with R. The P family and several members of the X family agree with beta.</note> ydel .</l>
<l> Ipocrisie and he  an harde sawte þei made .<note>R.20.273: In the right margin, there are remains of a pen trial, in light brown ink.</note></l>
<l> Ipocrisie at þe ȝate  harde gan fiȝte .</l>
<l> And wounded wel wikkedliche  many <app><lem>a</lem></app><note>R.20.275: Though Cr<hi>1</hi>W agree with alpha on the presence of <hi>a</hi> here, the other beta copies omit it. A few <hi>C</hi> copies agree with beta on this point, but <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> wise techer<expan>e</expan> .<note>R.20.275: As with R20.273, here there are remains of a pen trial, in the same hand.</note></l>
<l> Þat with co<expan>n</expan>sience acorded  and <app><lem>cardinales</lem></app><note>R.20.276: R's use of the plural form here is unique in the <hi>B</hi> tradition (cf. R20.47, 96); the other <hi>B</hi> witnesses read <hi>cardinale</hi>. Manuscripts EcRcMcNc of the <hi>C</hi> tradition agree with R, but <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note> v<expan>er</expan>tues .</l>
<l> ¶ Consience calde a leche  þat cowde wel shriue .</l>
<l> Go salue þo þat syke <app><lem>wer<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.20.278: In contrast to alpha's preterite form (cf. F's <hi>weren</hi>), beta reads <hi>ben</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note>  and thoruȝ synne ywounded .</l>
<l> Shrifte shuppte scharpe salue  and made men do penau<expan>n</expan>ce .</l>
<l> For her<expan>e</expan> misdedes  þat þei wrouȝt hadden .</l>
<l> And þat peres wer<expan>e</expan> payed  <hi><foreign>redde quod debes </foreign></hi> .</l>
<l> ¶ Su<expan>m</expan>me liked nouȝt þis leche  and l<expan>ett</expan>res þei sente .</l>
<l> Ȝif any surgien wer<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>in</lem></app> þe <app><lem>sege</lem></app><note>R.20.283: In place of alpha's <hi>in þe sege</hi> (also attested by Cr), beta reads <hi>þe segge</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note>  þ<expan>a</expan>t softer coude playstre .</l>
<l> Sir <app><lem>lif</lem></app><note>R.20.284: Beta reads <hi>lief</hi> for alpha's <hi>lif</hi>, but the alpha reading is supported by Hm and Cr as well as by <hi>Cx</hi>. The Russell-Kane edition emends this reading, replacing it with that of beta.</note> to lyue in leccherie  lay þer<expan>e</expan> and groned .</l>
<l> <hi>For fastyng<expan>e</expan> of <app><lem>o</lem></app> friday<note>R.20.285: All other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read <hi>a fryday</hi>. Although one manuscript of <hi>C</hi> shows the same numerical determiner as R, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note>  he ferde as he wolde deye .</hi></l>
<l> Þere is a surgien in þis sege  þat softe can handele .</l>
<l> And more of fisike be fer  and fairer<expan>e</expan> he plastreth .</l>
<l> <hi>On frere flaterer<expan>e</expan>  is fisisien and surgien .</hi></l>
<l> Quatz<note>R.20.289: R's spelling for this verb, <hi>quatz</hi>, is anomalous and unique, probably attesting the Northeastern origins of the immediate scribe. Both <hi>Bx</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> read <hi>Quod</hi>.</note> contric<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan> to co<expan>n</expan>sience  do hym come to vnite .</l>
<l> For her<expan>e</expan> is many a man hert  þoruȝ Ipocrisye .</l>
<l> ¶ We han non nede q<expan>uo</expan>d consience  I wote no bett<expan>er</expan>e leche .</l>
<l> Þen p<expan>er</expan>sone or parisch p<expan>re</expan>st  <app><lem>penauncer</lem></app><note>R.20.292: R's <hi>penauncer</hi> is unique; beta has <hi>penytancere</hi> and F reads <hi>pentawncer</hi>. No <hi>C</hi> copy supports R's lection.</note> or bischop<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> Saue peres þe plowman  þat haueth<note>R.20.293: Both beta and F render this form as <hi>hath</hi> (although F transposes the phrase). Mss RcNc in the <hi>C</hi> tradition replicate R's form, but <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note> power ou<expan>er</expan> <app><lem>alle</lem></app><note>R.20.293: Beta reads <hi>ouer <hi>hem</hi> alle</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> .</l>
<l> And indulgence may do  but if dette lette it .</l>
<l> I may wel suffre seyde co<expan>n</expan>sience  synnes ȝe desiren .</l>
<l> Þat frere flaterer<expan>e</expan> be fette  and fisike ȝow seke .</l>
<l> ¶ Þe frer<expan>e</expan> here<seg>-</seg>of herde  and hyȝede faste  </l>
<l> To a lorde for a lett<expan>er</expan>e  leue to haue to curen .</l>
<l> As a curatour<expan>e</expan> he wer<expan>e</expan>  and cam with his <app><lem>lett<expan>er</expan>e</lem></app><note>R.20.299: Beta here shows a plural, <hi>lettres</hi>. The reading of <hi>Cx</hi> is uncertain; the P family agrees with beta while the X family agrees with alpha's singular form.</note> .</l>
<milestone>fol. 100vI</milestone>
<l> Boldely to þe bischop<expan>e</expan>  and his breef hadde .</l>
<l> In contreyes þer<expan>e</expan> he <app><lem>cam</lem></app><note>R.20.301: The beta form of the verb is <hi>come</hi>. All beta copies except W (which agrees with alpha in omitting the postpositional particle) read the phrase as <hi>come in</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees completely with alpha's lection.</note><app><lem>confessiouns</lem></app> .<note>R.20.301: R uniquely omits the end of this line, which in <hi>Bx</hi> reads <hi>to here</hi>.</note></l>
<l> And cam þer<expan>e</expan> consience was  & knocked at þe ȝate .</l>
<l> ¶ Pees vnpynned it  was porter of vnite .</l>
<l> And in haste asked  what his wille were .</l>
<l> In faith q<expan>uo</expan>d þis frer<expan>e</expan>  for p<expan>ro</expan>fit and for helthe .</l>
<l> Carpe I wolde with contric<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan>  & þer<expan>e</expan>fore cam I hider .</l>
<l> ¶ He is syke seyde pees  and so ar many other .</l>
<l> Ipocrisie hath herte hem  ful harde is if þei keuere .</l>
<l> ¶ I am <del>am</del> a surgyan seyde þe <app><lem>frer<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.20.309: The beta reading for alpha's <hi>frere</hi> is <hi>segge</hi>, presumably intended to resolve an anomaly in the line's alliteration. However, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note>  & salues can make .</l>
<l> Consience knoweth me wel  & what I can do bothe .</l>
<l> I preye þe q<expan>uo</expan>d pees þo  ar þow passe forther .</l>
<l> What hatestow I preye þe  hele nauȝte þi name .</l>
<foreign>penetrans domos</foreign>
<l> ¶ Certes seyde his felawe  <hi>sir <foreign>penetrans domos</foreign> .</hi></l>
<l> ¶ Ȝee go þi gate q<expan>uo</expan>d pees  bi god for alle þi fisike .</l>
<l> But þow cunne <app><lem>any</lem></app><note>R.20.315: R's <hi>any</hi> is unique in the <hi>B</hi> tradition; cf. F's <hi>more</hi> and beta's <hi>somme</hi>. However, though seven P family copies (RcMcQScZWaFc) read <hi>other</hi>, most <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agree with R.</note> crafte  þow comest nouȝt <app><lem><sic>he</sic><corr>he[r]</corr><seg>-</seg>Inne</lem></app> .</l>
<l> I knewe swich on ones  nouȝt eyȝte wynt<expan>er</expan> passed .</l>
<l> Come in þus Icoped  at a court þer<expan>e</expan> I dwelte .</l>
<l> And was my lordes leche  and my ladyes bothe .</l>
<l> <hi>And at þe last þis lymitour<expan>e</expan>  þo my lord was oute .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>He salued so our<expan>e</expan> wymmen  til su<expan>m</expan>me wer<expan>e</expan> with childe .</hi></l>
<l><hi>Hende speche heet pees <app><lem>þo</lem></app></hi><note>R.20.321: Beta omits <hi>þo</hi>. However, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> opene þe ȝates .</l>
<l> Late in <app><lem>frere</lem></app><note>R.20.322: R uniquely omits the determiner in the <hi>Bx</hi> phrase, <hi>þe frere</hi>. Only one <hi>C</hi> manuscript (Sc) duplicates this error.</note> and his felawe  and make he<expan>m</expan> fair<expan>e</expan> cher<expan>e</expan></l>
<l> He may se and here <app><lem>her  so</lem></app><note>R.20.323: Cf. F's <hi>er so</hi>. As the testimony of <hi>Cx</hi> suggests, this <hi>Bx</hi> line probably read as in R: <hi>He may se and here her so may befalle</hi>. Surviving beta manuscripts read <hi>He may se and here so it may bifalle</hi>.</note> may befalle .</l>
<l> Þat lif thoruȝ his lore  schal leue coueitise .</l>
<l> And be adrad of deth  and withdrawe hym fram pride .</l>
<l> And acorde with consience  and kysse her eyther other<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l><hi>Þus þoruȝ hende speche </hi> entred þe frere .</l>
<l> And cam in to consience  and curteiseliche hym grette .</l>
<l> Þow art welcome q<expan>uo</expan>d consience  canstow hele <app><lem>syke</lem></app><note>R.20.329: Beta renders this phrase as <hi>hele <hi>þe</hi> syke</hi>; <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> .<note>R.20.329: In the lower left margin of fol. 100v, there are the smudged, partially erased remains of various pen trials.</note></l>
<milestone>fol. 101rI</milestone>
<l> Here is cont<expan>ri</expan>cion q<expan>uo</expan>d consience  my cosyn I<seg>-</seg>wounded .</l>
<l> Conforte hym q<expan>uo</expan>d consience  and take kepe to his sores .</l>
<l> Þe plastres of þe p<expan>er</expan>sone  and poudres <app><lem>ben</lem></app><note>R.20.332: R's <hi>ben</hi> is unique in the <hi>B</hi> tradition; cf. F's <hi>byte</hi> and beta's <hi>biten</hi>. However, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R.</note> to sore .<note> There is a black ink stain about 2 cm. long in the right margin beside these lines.</note></l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.20.333: Among the <hi>B</hi> copies, <hi>And</hi> is unique to R; beta and F read <hi>He</hi>. However, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R.</note> late hem liggen ouerlonge  and lothe is to chaunge hem .</l>
<l> <hi>Fro lente to lente  he lette his plastres bitte .</hi></l>
<l> ¶ Þat is ouer<seg>-</seg>longe q<expan>uo</expan>d þis lymitour<expan>e</expan>  I leue I schal amende it .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>goth</lem></app><note>R.20.336: R's reading is unique; F and beta show <hi>goth <hi>and</hi></hi>. Nine <hi>C</hi> manuscripts, mostly of the P family, agree with F and beta, but the majority of <hi>C</hi> witnesses, including most of the X family, agrees with R.</note> gropeth contricion  and gaf hym a plaistre .</l>
<l> <hi>Of a priue paiement  and I schal praie for ȝow .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>For alle þat ȝe be holde to  al my Iif<seg>-</seg>tyme .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>And make ȝow my lady  in masse and in matynes .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>As freres of our<expan>e</expan> frat<expan>er</expan>nite  for a litel siluer .</hi></l>
<l> ¶ Þus he goth and g<damage>.</damage><supplied>a</supplied>dereth<note> There is a hole in the leaf here, the result of damage after copying.</note>  and gloseth þer<expan>e</expan> he schriueth .</l>
<l> Til contric<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan> had <damage>.</damage><supplied>c</supplied>lene for<seg>-</seg>ȝetene  to crie and to wepe .</l>
<l> And wake for his wikked werkes  as he <app><lem>woned</lem></app><note>R.20.343: From the b-verse of beta (<hi>as he <hi>was</hi> wont to done</hi>) and that of F (<hi>þat he <hi>was</hi> whont to doone</hi>), as well as that of <hi>Cx</hi> (<hi>as he <hi>was</hi> woned bifore</hi>), it appears that R accidentally omitted alpha's <hi>was</hi>; nevertheless, F's general adroitness and eagerness to repair corruption make it difficult to rule out the possibility that R's error is derived from an omission in alpha itself.</note> to done .</l>
<l> <hi>For confort of his confessour<expan>e</expan>  contric<expan>i</expan>on he lefte .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>Þat is þe sou<expan>er</expan>eynest salue  for alle kynne synnes .</hi></l>
<l> ¶ Sleuthe seye þat  and so dede pruyde .</l>
<l> And come with a kene wille  consience to assaile .</l>
<l> Consience cride eft  and bad clergye helpe hym .<note> Between these two lines, there is a hole in the manuscript, but no text has been affected.</note></l>
<l> And al<seg>-</seg>so contric<expan>i</expan>on  for to kepe þe ȝate .</l>
<l> ¶ He lyeth and dremeth seyde pees  and so doth many other .</l>
<l> <hi>Þe frere with his fisyke</hi>  þis folke hath <app><lem>so</lem></app><note>R.20.351: Beta omits <hi>so</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with beta.</note> enchaunted .</l>
<l> And plastred hem so hesily  þei drede no synne .</l>
<l> ¶ By crist q<expan>uo</expan>d consience þo  I wil become a pilgrime .</l>
<l> And walken as wide  as all<expan>e</expan> þe worlde lasteth .</l>
<l> To seke peres þe plowman  þat p<expan>ruy</expan>de <app><lem>myȝte</lem></app><note>R.20.355: Beta reads <hi>may</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> destruye .</l>
<l> And þat freres had a fyndyng<expan>e</expan>  þat for nede flateren .</l>
<l> And co<expan>n</expan>t<expan>re</expan>pleteth me consience  now kende me auenge .</l>
<l> And sende me hap and hele  til I haue peres þe plowma<expan>n</expan> .</l>
And siththe<note>R.20.359: Someone has scribbled these replacements in modern pencil in the right margin opposite this line.</note>
<l> A<unclear>nd sithe</unclear> he<note>R.20.359: Although the erasure here is thorough, with manipulation in Photoshop it is possible to make out the probable original reading.</note> gradde aft<expan>er</expan> grace  til I gan a<seg>-</seg>wake .</l>
Will<expan>ia</expan>m Butt<expan>es</expan>
<trailer><foreign><hi>Passus ij<expan>us</expan> de dobest <seg></seg> <seg></seg></hi></foreign> <note>R.20.359: Regarding the location and purport of this rubric, I have noted ("The Reliability of the Rubrics in the B-Text of <title>Piers Plowman</title>," <title>Medium Aevum</title> 54 (1985): 214, n.11) that it "is an anomaly with no significance other than as an indication of incidental contamination in the <foreign>ordinatio</foreign> of the MS. . . . It appears at the very end of the text of <title>Piers Plowman</title> and would seem to be an <hi>explicit</hi>, but this MS uses no <hi>explicits</hi> elsewhere and there is no clear indication that the scribe even realized he had reached the end of the entire poem." In actuality, the only manuscripts with an identical rubric are four <hi>C</hi> copies (XDcYcUc), which use the phrase as an <hi>incipit</hi> for the final passus.</note></trailer>
<foreign>p<expan>assus</expan> ij<expan>us</expan> de dobest</foreign>