<div1>
<milestone>fol. 1rI</milestone>
<head><supplied>Passus secundus de visione Petri Plowman . vt supra</supplied></head>

<note>R.2.0: Here the lacuna in the manuscript (running from KD1.141-2.40) ends and text resumes.</note>

<lg>
<l> To on fals fikel <app><lem>of</lem></app><note>R.2.1: Beta omits <hi>of</hi>.</note> tonge  a fendes byȝete .</l>
<l> Fauel þoruȝ his faire speche  hath þis folke enchaunted .</l>
<l> And alle is lyeres ledynge  þat sche is þus ywedded </l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.2.4KD.2.44
<l> <hi></hi> To<seg>-</seg>morwe worth ymad<del>.</del>  þe maydenes bruydale .</l>
<l> And þere miȝt þow wite if þow wilt  whiche þei ben alle .</l>
<l> Þat longeth to þat lordschippe  þe lasse and þe more .</l>
<l> Knowe hem þere if þow canst  and kepen þi tonge .<note>R.2.7: F and some beta copies read <hi>keep <hi>wel</hi> þyn tunge</hi>. Other beta witnesses show <hi>kepe <hi>þow</hi> þi tonge</hi>. Manuscripts CL agree with R's phrasing. None of the <hi>B</hi> witnesses agrees with <hi>Ax</hi> or <hi>Cx</hi>, which both attest <hi>kepe the fro(m) hem alle</hi>.</note></l>
R.2.8KD.2.48
<l> And lak hem nauȝt but late hem worth  til lewte be iustic<supplied>e</supplied> </l>
<l> And haue poer to puneschen hem  þanne putt forth thy r<supplied>eson</supplied> </l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Now I bekenne þe crist q<expan>uo</expan>d <app><lem>he</lem></app><note>R.2.10: <hi>He</hi>, "she." R's <hi>he</hi>, repeatedly deployed for the feminine 3rd person sing. pronoun, is relatively uncommon among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts in this role.</note>  and his clene moder .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>at</lem></app><note>R.2.11: <hi>At</hi>, "that."</note> no consience acombre þe  for coueytise of mede .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.2.12KD.2.52
<l> <hi></hi> Þus left me þat lady  lyggynge a<seg>-</seg>slepe .</l>
<l> And how mede was ymaried  in meteles me thouȝthe .</l>
<l> Þat alle þe riche retenawans  þat regneth with þe false .</l>
<l> Weren bede<note>R.2.15: Though identical in meaning to the majority reading, R's form here is unique among the <hi>B</hi> copies; most of the others, including F, attest <hi>boden</hi>. <hi>Ax</hi> agrees with the <hi>B</hi> majority (although manuscripts VRa agree with R) , but <hi>Cx</hi>'s verb form is uncertain. Though a majority of <hi>C</hi> witnesses also supports the predominant reading, most P family manuscripts (PVcAcQScFcGc ~ <hi>ibede</hi> McNc) agree with R.</note> to <app><lem>þis</lem></app><note>R.2.15: F reads <hi>his</hi>; beta shows <hi>þe</hi>. Two <hi>A</hi> witnesses agree with R (manuscripts LaK), but <hi>Ax</hi> agrees with beta. <hi>Cx</hi> is uncertain: the X family reading is identical to that of beta, but the P family reading is <hi>þat</hi>.</note> bridale  on bothe to sydes .<note> In the right margin, in black ink, there is an early ownership stamp for the Bodleian Library.</note></l>
R.2.16KD.2.56
<l> Of alle maner of men  þe mene and þe riche .</l>
<l> To marie þis mayde  was many man <app><lem>ensembled</lem></app><note>R.2.17: For alpha's <hi>ensembled</hi> (F has <hi>ensemblyd þere</hi>), beta reads <hi>assembled</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> As of kniȝtes and of clerkes  and other comou<expan>n</expan>e poeple .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> As sysoures and sompnoures  scheryues and <del>.</del>her<expan>e</expan> clerke<supplied>s</supplied> </l>
R.2.20KD.2.60
<l> Bedeles and bayliues  and brokoures of chafare .</l>
<l> Forgoeres and vitayleres  and vocates of þe arches </l>
<l> I can nouȝt rekene þe route  þat ran a<seg>-</seg>boute mede .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ac symonye and cyuile  and sysoures of courtes .</l>
R.2.24KD.2.64
<l> Were moste priue with mede  of any men <app><lem>þouȝte</lem></app> .<note>R.2.24: R's reading here, <hi>men þouȝte</hi>, is unique error. R is probably reproducing an omission that had already occurred in alpha. As is often the case, F 's homologous reading, <hi>þere owte</hi>, has more the appearance of an attempted repair than a faithful reproduction of the sub-archetype. The <hi>Cx</hi> reading here is identical to beta's; however, manuscript X, the single best witness of this version, agrees with R in omitting <hi>me</hi> but then reinserts it in another hand! X's corrected error may attest to an early documentary parent of both <hi>B</hi> and <hi>C</hi> traditions in which the word occurred only as an interlinear correction.</note></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ac fauel was þe furste  þat fette hire oute of boure .</l>
<l> And as a brokour<expan>e</expan> brouȝt hire  to be with fals enioyned .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Whanne symonye and cyuile  seiȝ here <app><lem>bether<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.2.27: The variant genitive forms <hi>bether</hi>, <hi>boþer</hi> and <hi>beire</hi> all appear in the manuscripts.</note> wille .</l>
R.2.28KD.2.68
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.2.28: For alpha's <hi>And</hi>, beta reads <hi>Thei</hi>. Although the line is revised in the <hi>C</hi> version, its opening is identical to beta's phrase.</note> assented for seluer  to <app><lem>seggen</lem></app><note>R.2.28: R's verb form here is unique; F has <hi>seyn</hi> while beta reads <hi>seye</hi>.</note> as bothe wolde .</l>
<l> <hi></hi> Þanne leup lyere forth  and seyde lo here a chartre .</l>
<milestone>fol. 1vI</milestone>
<l> <supplied>Þ</supplied>at gyle with his grete othes  gaf hem to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
<l> <supplied>A</supplied>nd preyede cyuile to se  and symony to rede it .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.2.32KD.2.72
<l> <supplied>¶ Þ</supplied>anne symony and cyuile  stondeth<note>R.2.32: Although R's meaning here is identical to that found in beta (presumably reading <hi>stonden</hi>), R's verb form is unique at this point in the <hi>B</hi> tradition; F agrees with YM in reading a preterite, <hi>stoden</hi> castel. Nevertheless, R's form is probably also the reading of <hi>Ax</hi> and is certainly the form attested in the X family of <hi>C</hi>. Among the P manuscripts, the preferred reading is that of FcYcMc (which can also be found among some <hi>A</hi> witnesses).</note> forth bothe .</l>
<l> <supplied>A</supplied>nd vnfoldeth þe feffement  þat fals hath y<seg>-</seg>maked .</l>
<l> <supplied>A</supplied>nd þus bygyneth þis gomes  <app><lem>at</lem></app><note>R.2.34: R's <hi>at</hi> (cf. R2.11 above) = standard <hi>þat</hi> and is a unique reading here. The other witnesses attest <hi>to</hi>.</note> greden ful hiȝe .</l>
<l> <supplied>S</supplied><hi><foreign>ciant presentes<note>R.2.35: R uniquely omits the end of this citation: <foreign>& futuri &c</foreign>. The <hi>C</hi> version of this citation agrees with that found in F/beta.</note> <app><lem>&c<expan>etera</expan></lem></app> .</foreign></hi> </l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.2.36KD.2.75
<l> <supplied>¶ W</supplied>yteth and witnesseth  þat wonyeth vppon þis eerthe .</l>
<l> <supplied>Þ</supplied>at mede is I<seg>-</seg>maried  more for hire godes .</l>
<l> <supplied>Þ</supplied>an for any vertu or fairenesse  or any fre kende .</l>
<l> <supplied>F</supplied>alsenesse is fayne of hire  for he wote hire riche .</l>
R.2.40KD.2.79
<l> <supplied>A</supplied>nd fauel with his fikel speche  feffeth by þis chartre .</l>
<l> <supplied>T</supplied>o be princes in pruyde  and pouerte to despise .</l>
<l> <supplied>T</supplied>o bagbiten and to bosten  and bere fals witnesse .</l>
<l> <supplied>T</supplied>o scorne and to scolde  and s<del>.</del><add>c</add>lander to make .</l>
R.2.44KD.2.83
<l> <app><lem><supplied>B</supplied>old and vnbuxu<expan>m</expan></lem></app><note>R.2.44: In beta, the phrasal order of this a-verse is reversed: <hi>Vnbuxome and bolde</hi>. The beta rendering is, however, the presumptive original since it matches the order found in <hi>C</hi>.</note>  to breke þe ten hestes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <supplied>¶ A</supplied>nd þe eerldam of enuye  and wrathe to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
<l> <supplied>Wi</supplied>th þe chastelett of <app><lem>gestes</lem></app><note>R.2.46: Cf. F's <hi>Ieestys</hi> and beta's <hi>chest</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading agrees with that of beta.</note>  and chaterynge out of <app><lem>tyme</lem></app> .<note>R.2.46: F's b-verse is unique (<hi>& þe Iangelynge of synne</hi>). For R's <hi>tyme</hi>, beta reads <hi>resoun</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading agrees with that of beta.</note></l>
<l> <supplied>Þe</supplied> contee of coueytise  and alle þe costes aboute .</l>
R.2.48KD.2.87
<l> <supplied>Þa</supplied>t is vsure and auarice  alle I hem graunte .</l>
<l> <supplied>In</supplied> bargeynes and in brokages  with alle þe borgh<expan>e</expan> of thefte .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <supplied>¶ An</supplied>d alle þe lordeschipp<expan>e</expan> of lecherie  in lenthe and in brede .</l>
<l> <supplied>As</supplied> in werkes and in wordes  and waytynges with eiȝes .</l>
R.2.52KD.2.91
<l> <supplied>In</supplied> <app><lem>wedynges</lem></app><note>R.2.52: Cf. F's <hi>wenyngis</hi>, which is probably the reading of <hi>Bx</hi> as well as that of alpha; beta reads <hi>wedes</hi>. The <hi>Cx</hi> reading is uncertain; the P family agrees with beta, but the X group rejects all the <hi>B</hi> variants, revising to <hi>woldes</hi>.</note> and in wischynges  and with ydel þouȝtes .</l>
<l> <supplied>Þe</supplied>re as wille wolde  and werkmanschipe fayleth .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <supplied>¶ Gl</supplied>otonye he gaf hem eeke  and grete othes to<seg>-</seg>gydere .</l>
<l> <supplied>An</supplied>d alle day to drynke  at dyuerse tauernes .</l>
R.2.56KD.2.95
<l> <supplied>An</supplied>d þere to iangle and to iape  and iuge her<expan>e</expan> euencristene .</l>
<l> <supplied>An</supplied>d <app><lem>with</lem></app><note>R.2.57: R's <hi>with</hi> is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> reads <hi>in</hi>.</note> fastyng<seg>-</seg>dawes to frete  ar ful tyme were .</l>
<l> <supplied>An</supplied>d þan to sitten and soupen  til slepe hem assaile .</l>
<l> <supplied>An</supplied>d bredun <app><lem>as a</lem></app><note>R.2.59: Beta does not attest <hi>a</hi>.</note> burgh swyne  and bedden <app><lem>hym</lem></app> esely .</l>
R.2.60KD.2.99
<l> <supplied>Til</supplied> slewth and slepe  slyken his sydes .</l>
<milestone>fol. 2rI</milestone>
Robart Bente you shalbe w<expan>i</expan>th vs at<lb/>
Budworthe and there to Testyfy<lb/>
youre knowlegh in a mater<note>R.2.61: At the top of fol. 2r, a secretary hand has written in black, <lb/>
<hi>Robart Bente you shalbe w<expan>i</expan>th vs at<lb/>
Budworthe and there to Testyfy<lb/>
youre knowlegh in a mater</hi>
.<lb/>
This note may explain the cropped margins of the first few pages of the manuscript: someone appears to have been using them for occasional short notes. <hi>Budworth</hi> probably refers to one of two ancient parishes in Cheshire, Great Budworth and Little Budworth.
</note>
<l> And þanne wanhope to a<seg>-</seg>wake hym so  with no wille t<supplied>o amende</supplied></l>
<l> For he leueth be <app><lem>yloste</lem></app>  þis is <app><lem>his</lem></app><note>R.2.62: R's <hi>his</hi> is unique (but preferable to the F and beta alternatives, which are rejected in its favor by Kane-Donaldson and Schmidt); F reads <hi>þe</hi> while beta reads <hi>here</hi>.</note> laste ende .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And þei to haue and to holde  and here heyres after .</l>
R.2.64KD.2.103
<l> A dwellynge with þe deuel  and dampned be <app><lem>fo</lem></app><note>R.2.64: 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. R14.60, R15.379, and R20.224) and probably represents an instance of idiolect apocope.</note> euere .</l>
<l> With alle þe <app><lem><del>.</del>p<expan>ur</expan>tenaunces</lem></app> of purgatorie  in<seg>-</seg>to þe pyne of hel<supplied>le</supplied> </l>
<l> Ȝelding for þis thinge  at one ȝeres ende .</l>
<l> Here soules to sathan  <app><lem>and</lem></app><note>R.2.67: R's <hi>and</hi> is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> reads <hi>to</hi>.</note> suffre with hym peynes .</l>
R.2.68KD.2.107
<l> And with hym to wonyen in wo  while god is in heuene .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> In wytnesse of <app><lem>þis</lem></app><note>R.2.69: For alpha's non-alliterating <hi>þis</hi>, beta properly reads <hi>which</hi>. Unfortunately, the problem appears to be, at some level, authorial rather than merely scribal. That is, although <hi>Ax</hi> clearly agrees with beta in alliterating this line on /w/ (using the exact same variants), <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha just as emphatically in ignoring the normal alliterative pattern. Russell-Kane emend their <hi>C</hi> text back to the norm, but that seems pointlessly meliorative. At the very least, the aforementioned variant array (which is fairly typical) suggests a cavalier attitude toward such small metrical issues on the part of the <hi>C</hi> author.</note> þing  wronge was þe furste .</l>
<l> And peres þe pardonere  of paulynes doctrine .</l>
<l> Bette þe bedel of bokyngh<expan>a</expan>m<seg>-</seg>schire .</l>
R.2.72KD.2.111
<l> Reynald þe reue  of <app><lem>rokelond</lem></app> sokene .</l>
<l> Munde þe mellere  and many mo other<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> In date of þe deuel  þis dede I asele .</l>
<l> By siȝt of sir<expan>e</expan> symonye  <app><lem>at</lem></app><note>R.2.75: This is a unique reading in R; <hi>Bx</hi> reads <hi>and</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note> cyueyles leue .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.2.76KD.2.115
<l> <hi></hi> Þenne <app><lem>teneth</lem></app><note>R.2.76: Only R deploys a seemingly present-tense form of this verb (but the difference may be illusory; see the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref>. Beta reads <hi>tened</hi> while F has <hi>was teenyd</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> agree here with beta.</note> hym teologye  whan he þis tale <app><lem>yherde</lem></app> .</l>
<l> And seyde to cyuile  now sorwe mote þow haue .</l>
<l> Swiche weddynges to wurche  to wrathe with trewth<supplied>e</supplied></l>
<l> And ar þis weddyng be <app><lem>y<seg>-</seg>wroȝt</lem></app>  wo the be<seg>-</seg>tyde .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.2.80KD.2.119
<l> <hi></hi> For mede is moylere  of amendes engendreth .<note>R.2.80: R shares an apparently nonsensical verb inflection (<hi>engendreth</hi> for <hi>engendred</hi>) with beta witnesses LCY. Nevertheless, any RL shared form, however odd, is intrinsically likely to be archetypal, albeit perhaps non-authorial—because of their extraordinary accuracy as well as their definitive stemmatic positions. If this lection is not merely a blatant archetypal error (one "corrected" by most later copyists to the expected form), it may be that the R and L scribes (or the Bx scribe) understood the <hi>-eth</hi> suffix in this word as allomorphic with the past participle suffix <hi>-ed / -et</hi> attested in other <hi>B</hi> copies. The final phone of <hi>engendreth</hi> would then probably have been construed by L and R as /t/ (not the /θ/ which the spelling would suggest to us). Cf. the 1408 London will of John Plot. Twice in this brief document, Plot uses a phonologically identical verbal suffix <-yth> to denote the past participle form usually spelled as <-ed>. In the first instance, Plot requests that "thyr be Spendyth among my Nyebourus in Mete & in drynke" a certain amount of money; in the second, he requests that some of his assets be used for road repairs, or, as he phrases it, "be yspendyth betwene London and ware, of fowle weys, . . . there most nede ys" (<title>The Fifty Earliest English Wills</title>, ed. Frederick J. Furnivall (London: Trübner, 1882), 14-15. A few pieces of evidence scattered throughout manuscripts L and R may support such a conclusion. One wonders, for example, whether the strong preference in manuscripts L and R for the ON-derived spelling of the cardinal number 100 (= <hi>hundreth</hi>) over the OE-derived form (= <hi>hundred</hi>) indicates that these scribes, or their models, would have pronounced that word with /θ/ as the final phone, rather than /t/. Such a conclusion seems doubtful. Rather, this spelling preference for the number 100 probably attests the same trivial orthographic anomaly hypothesized above concerning <hi>engendreth</hi>. For fuller discussion see Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref>.</note></l>
<l> And god granteth to gyue  mede to trewthe .</l>
<l> And þow hast gyue hire to a gyloure  now god gyue þe <supplied>sorwe</supplied></l>
<l> <app><lem>Þe</lem></app> <app><lem><sic>tixit</sic><corr>tixt</corr></lem></app> telleth þe nouȝt so  trewthe wote þe sothe .</l>
R.2.84KD.2.123
<l> For <foreign>dignus est operarius</foreign>  hys huyre to haue .</l>
<l> And þow hast fast hire to fals  fy on þi lawe .</l>
<l> For alle by lesynges þow lyuest  and <app><lem>lechores</lem></app> werkes </l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Symonye and þi<seg>-</seg>selue  schenden holy cherche .</l>
R.2.88KD.2.127
<l> Þe notaries and ȝee  nuyȝet<note>R.2.88: Some beta copies and F agree in reading <hi>noyen</hi> but beta itself probably read as LMHm, <hi>noyeth</hi>. Only R shows what appears to be a preterite form of the verb (but see the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref> regarding the possibility of morphological ambiguity in R's verb-tense marking). In a similar version of this line, <hi>Ax</hi> agrees with beta and F in using a present-tense form.</note> þe poeple .</l>
<l> Ȝe schulle a<seg>-</seg>byggen it bothe  by god þat me made .</l>
<l> Wel ȝe wyten wernardes  but if ȝour<expan>e</expan> witt fayle .</l>
<l> Þat fals is faithles  and <app><lem>fals</lem></app><note>R.2.91: R's <hi>fals</hi> is unique; <hi>Bx</hi> reads <hi>fikel</hi>.</note> in his werkes .</l>
<milestone>fol. 2vI</milestone>
R.2.92KD.2.131
<l> And <app><lem>as</lem></app><note>R.2.92: Beta reads <hi>was</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> agree here with alpha.</note> a bastarde ybore  of belsabubbes kynne .</l>
<l> And mede is moylere  a mayden of goode .</l>
<l> And miȝte kysse þe kyng  for cosyn and <app><lem>he</lem></app><note>R.2.94: <hi>He</hi>, "she." On this variant of the feminine, 3rd person sing. pronoun, see the note at <ref>R.2.10:</ref>.</note> wolde .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <supplied></supplied> For<seg>-</seg>thi wercheth by wysdom  and by witt al<seg>-</seg>so .</l>
R.2.96KD.2.135
<l> And ledeth hire to londou<expan>n</expan>  þere lawe is yschewed .</l>
<l> If any lawe wil loke  þei ligge to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <supplied></supplied> And þouȝ iustices iuge hire  to be ioyned with fals .</l>
<l> <supplied>Ȝ</supplied>ut beth war of <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.2.99: R's <hi>þe</hi> is owed to alpha, though it is shared by GH. Beta omits it. Many <hi>A</hi> witnesses, as well as <hi>Cx</hi>, agree with alpha on the presence of this determiner.</note> weddynge  for witty is trewthe .</l>
R.2.100KD.2.139
<l> And consience is of his conseyle  and knoweth ȝow echeone .</l>
<l> And if he fynde ȝow in defaute  and with þe fals holde .</l>
<l> <supplied>I</supplied>t schal be<seg>-</seg>sitte ȝoure soules  ful soure atte laste .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <supplied>¶ H</supplied>ereto assenteth cyuile  ac symonye ne wolde .</l>
R.2.104KD.2.143
<l> <supplied>T</supplied>il he hadde siluer for <app><lem>this</lem></app><note>R.2.104: R's <hi>this</hi> is unique; beta reads <hi>his</hi> while F rephrases the entire line (which appears to be corrupt at the archetypal level when compared to the rendering in <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi>).</note> s<expan>er</expan>uise  and al<seg>-</seg>so þe notaries .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <supplied>¶ Þ</supplied>anne fette fauel forth  floreyns ynowe .</l>
<l> <supplied>A</supplied>nd bad gyle to gyue  gold al aboute .</l>
<l> <supplied>A</supplied>nd nameliche to þe notaries  þat hem non ne fayle .</l>
R.2.108KD.2.147
<l> <supplied>An</supplied>d feffe fals witnesse  with floreyns ynowe .</l>
<l> <supplied>Fo</supplied>r <app><lem>he</lem></app><note>R.2.109: Only L, among beta copies, agrees with alpha's reading here; the other beta witnesses attest <hi>þei</hi>. However, the LRF reading is almost certainly authorial, matching the reading found in <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> may mede a<seg>-</seg>maystrie  and maken at my wille .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <supplied>¶ Þo</supplied> þis gold was Igyue  grete was þe thonkyng<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> <supplied>To</supplied> fals and to fauel  for here faire ȝiftes .</l>
R.2.112KD.2.151
<l> <supplied>An</supplied>d comen to conforte  fram care þe fals .</l>
<l> <supplied>An</supplied>d seyden certes sir<expan>e</expan>  sese schul we neuere .</l>
<l> <supplied>Til</supplied> mede be þi wedded wyf  þorȝ wittes of vs alle .</l>
<l> <supplied>For</supplied> we haue mede amaysterud  <app><lem>thorȝ</lem></app><note>R.2.115: Beta reads <hi>with</hi> here, agreeing with the apparent reading of <hi>Ax</hi> (two <hi>A</hi> copies, manuscripts LaE, agree with alpha); the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts support alpha almost unanimously.</note> oure merie speche .</l>
R.2.116KD.2.155
<l> <supplied>Þa</supplied>t heo graunteth <app><lem>goo</lem></app><note>R.2.116: For R's <hi>goo</hi>, F reads <hi>for to goo</hi> while beta has <hi>to gon</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> agree with beta's phrasing.</note>  with a good wille .</l>
<l> <supplied>To</supplied> londou<expan>n</expan> to loke  if <app><lem>þat</lem></app><note>R.2.117: R's <hi>if þat lawe</hi> is unique; F and some beta copies read <hi> ȝif þat þe Lawe</hi>; other beta witnesses have <hi>if þe lawe</hi>. The reading of <hi>Ax</hi> is uncertain (because of a wide variety of variants here) but may have agreed with R's. The reading of <hi>Cx</hi> is <hi>if lawe</hi>.</note> lawe walde iuge .<note>R.2.117: R uniquely divides this line after <hi>iuge</hi>; all other <hi>B</hi> witnesses divide the line before this word.</note></l>
<l> <supplied>Ȝo</supplied>w ioyntly  in ioye for euere .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <supplied>¶ Þa</supplied>nne was falsenesse fayne  and fauel as blythe .</l>
R.2.120KD.2.159
<l> <supplied>An</supplied>d leten sompne alle þe<note>R.2.120: R is joined by G in attesting <hi>þe</hi> (and <hi>Ax</hi> agrees with the R variant), but the word is not found in F (<hi>alle me<expan>n</expan></hi>) or beta (<hi>alle segges</hi>). The P family of <hi>C</hi> agrees with beta's rendering of this phrase, but the X family has <hi>alle <hi>his</hi> segges</hi>.</note> segges  in schires aboute .</l>
<l> <supplied>And</supplied> bad hem alle be bown  beggeres and <app><lem>otheres</lem></app> .<note>R.2.121: R is the only witness for the plural form; all other <hi>B</hi> copies (except Hm, which shows <hi>ellis</hi>) attest the singular <hi>othere</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> agree with the F/beta phrasing.</note></l>
<milestone>fol. 3rI</milestone>
M M Butte<space>   </space>N N<lb/>
Nell<space>           </space>XXX<unclear>CX</unclear><lb/>
God from <unclear>Sa</unclear>m<note>R.2.122: At the top of fol. 3r are the remains of various sixteenth-century pen trials, scribbled in jagged fashion horizontally, from left to right.</note>
<l> To wenden with <app><lem>hym</lem></app><note>R.2.122: Though RF opt for the apparently singular form (a reading endorsed by Schmidt), beta agrees with <hi>Ax</hi> in reading <hi>hem</hi>, which seems more appropriate to the plural referents named in previous lines; the P family of <hi>C</hi> also attests this reading, but the X family agrees with alpha. However, <title>MED</title>, s.v "hem," documents <hi>hym</hi> as an available but rare spelling, especially in the fifteenth century, for the objective case of the third-person plural pronoun. So the difference noted above may be only a clutter of scribal / authorial accidentals.</note> to westmenstre  to witnesse <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.2.122: For alpha's <hi>þe</hi>, beta reads <hi>þis</hi>. A majority of <hi>A</hi> witnesses supports beta, but a sizeable minority agrees with alpha.</note> dede .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ac þanne cared þei for caplus  to cayren hem þidur .</l>
R.2.124KD.2.163
<l> And fauel fette forth þenne  folus Inowe .</l>
<l> And sette mede <app><lem>vpp<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.2.125: For R's <hi>vppe</hi>, F has <hi>on</hi> while beta reads <hi>vpon</hi>. The same line occurs in the <hi>A</hi> version, where the reading agrees with F's.</note> a schyriue  <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>schoud</lem></app> alle newe .<note> The terminal punctus for each of these lines has been rubbed or partially erased long ago, but they are both sufficiently visible for detection in normal light.</note> </l>
<l> And fals satt on a sysoure  þat softlyche trotted .</l>
<l> And fauel on a flaterere  fetysliche atyred .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.2.128KD.2.167
<l> <hi></hi> Þo haued<note>R.2.128: Only manuscript L agrees with R's unusual verb form <hi>haued</hi> (common in the thirteenth century but nowhere cited in <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>haven</hi>, later than about 1330, except for <title>Piers Plowman</title>). Both F and the majority of beta copies read <hi>had(de)</hi>. The same line appears in <hi>A</hi>, but Kane was not concerned to record such morphemic variations, regarding them all as accidentals.</note> notaries none  anuyed þei were .</l>
<l> For symonye and cyuile  schulden on here feet gange .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ac þanne swore symonie  and cyuile bothe .</l>
<l> Þat sompnoures schulde be sadeled  and s<expan>er</expan>ue hem vchone .</l>
R.2.132KD.2.171
<l> And lat apparayle <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.2.132: FGH omit any determiner, while beta reads <hi>þis</hi>. The same array of variants is present at this point in the <hi>A</hi> witnesses , with no strong evidence for originality.</note> p<expan>ro</expan>uisoures  in palfreyes wyse .</l>
<l> Syre symonie hym<seg>-</seg>selue  schal sitten vppon here bakke<supplied>s</supplied> </l>
</lg>
<lb/>
T<space>     </space>om<unclear>th</unclear><note> Between these two lines is what seems to be a pen trial of uncertain age: <hi>T om<unclear>th</unclear></hi>.</note>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Denes and southdenes  drawe ȝow to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
<l> Erchedeknes and <app><lem>deknes</lem></app><note>R.2.135: R's <hi>deknes</hi> is a unique addition unattested in any other <hi>B</hi> manuscript.</note>  officiales and alle ȝour<expan>e</expan> regestreres </l>
R.2.136KD.2.175
<l> Lat sadle hem with siluer  oure synne to suffre .</l>
<l> As <app><lem>deuoutrie</lem></app><note>R.2.137: This is the alpha variant. Beta offers a more common synonym, but one that fails to alliterate: <hi>auoutrie</hi>. F reverses the noun phrasal order of the a-verse.</note> and deuoses  and derne vsure .</l>
<l> To bere byschoppes aboute  a<seg>-</seg>brode in visitynge .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Paulines priues  for pleyntes in þe consistorye </l>
R.2.140KD.2.179
<l> Schule serue my<seg>-</seg>selue  þat cyuile is nempned .</l>
<l> And carte<seg>-</seg>sadele þe comyssary  oure carte schal he lede </l>
<l> And fecche vs vitailes  at <foreign>fornicatores</foreign> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And makeþ of lyare a lange karte  to leden alle þes oth<supplied>ere</supplied> </l>
R.2.144KD.2.183
<l> As <app><lem>fobberes</lem></app><note>R.2.144: Beta has <hi>Freres</hi>. A majority of <hi>A</hi> witnesses attests <hi>folis</hi> at this point (though three, manuscripts LaWaN, agree with beta). <hi>Cx</hi> has <hi>fobbes</hi>. That support, as well as the word's relative rarity, suggests alpha's variant is likely to be authorial in <hi>B</hi>. Schmidt accepts <hi>fobberes</hi> at face value. <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>fobben</hi>, hypothesizes that <hi>fobberes</hi> was derived from "fobben," v., but cites merely two <title>Piers Plowman</title> manuscripts for the form's existence. Conversely, Kane-Donaldson view alpha's variant as scribal and emend to the <hi>C</hi> form.</note> and faytoures  þat on here feet rennen .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And þus fals and fauel  fareth forth to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
<l> And mede in þe myddes  and alle þese men after .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I haue no tome to telle  þe taile þat hem folweth .</l>
R.2.148KD.2.187
<l> Of many maner man  þat on þis molde libbeth .</l>
John naylle<note>R.2.149: A sixteenth-century signature written vertically upwards appears in the lower left margin of fol. 3r: <hi>John naylle</hi>.</note>
<l> Ac gyle was forgoer<expan>e</expan>  and gyede hem alle .</l>
<milestone>fol. 3vI</milestone>
<l> Sothnesse seiȝ hem wel  and seyde bute a litel .</l>
<l> And prikede his palefrey  and passed hem alle .</l>
R.2.152KD.2.191
<l> And com to þe kynges courte  and consience it tolde .</l>
<l> And consience to þe kynge  carpud it after .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <supplied></supplied> Now by crist q<expan>uo</expan>d þe kyng<expan>e</expan>  and I cacche miȝte .</l>
<l> Fals <app><lem>other</lem></app> fauel  <app><lem>other</lem></app><note>R.2.155: Beta reads this set of correlative conjunctions as <hi>or . . . or</hi>. F agrees with R for the first (<hi>eyþ<expan>ir</expan>) but reverts to the beta variant for the second</hi>. A majority of <hi>A</hi> witnesses agrees with beta (but Kane chooses the alpha set, exemplified in manuscript T, as a "harder reading"). <hi>Cx</hi>'s reading is also somewhat ambiguous, with a majority of witnesses (mostly of the P family) attesting <hi>oþur</hi> in the first case and a minority (again mainly P family manuscripts) offering the same variant in the second instance.</note> any of his feres .</l>
R.2.156KD.2.195
<l> I wolde be wroke of þoo wrecches  þat wurcheth so ille .</l>
<l> And do hem hange by þe hals  and alle þat hem maynteneth .</l>
<l> Schal neu<expan>er</expan>e man of molde  meyntprise þe leste .</l>
<l> But riȝt as þe lawe wil loke  lat falle on hem alle .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.2.160KD.2.199
<l> <supplied>¶ A</supplied>nd comanded a constable  þat com atte þe furste .</l>
<l> <supplied>G</supplied>oo<note>R.2.161: Beta reads <hi>To</hi>, which is also the reading of <hi>Ax</hi>. Four <hi>C</hi> witnesses (IP<hi>2</hi>FcNc) agree with beta, but <hi>Cx</hi> clearly agrees with alpha's <hi>Goo</hi>. </note> atache þo tirantes  for eny thyng I hote .</l>
<l> <supplied>A</supplied>nd fetreth fast falsnesse  for eny kynnes ȝiftes .</l>
<l> <supplied>A</supplied>nd gerdeth of gyles heued  and lete hym goo no further<expan>e</expan> .</l>
R.2.164KD.2.206
<l> <supplied>A</supplied>nd ȝif ȝe <app><lem>laccheth</lem></app><note>R.2.164: R's form is unique; F and most beta copies read <hi>lacche(n)</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> appear to agree with the F/beta reading.</note> lyere  lat hym nouȝt asckapen .</l>
<l> <supplied>A</supplied>r he be put on þe pillerie  for eny preyere I hote .</l>
<l> <supplied>A</supplied>nd brengeth mede to me  maugre hem alle .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <supplied>¶ D</supplied>rede atte dore stode  and þe dome herde .</l>
R.2.168KD.2.209
<l> <supplied>A</supplied>nd how þe kynge <app><lem>demede</lem></app><note>R.2.168: R uniquely fails in alliteration here; F and beta read <hi>comaunded</hi>.</note>  constables and s<expan>er</expan>iantz .</l>
<l> <supplied>F</supplied>alsnesse and his felaschipe  to fetturen and to bynden .</l>
<l> <supplied>Þa</supplied>nne drede wente wiȝtlyche  and warnede þe fals .</l>
<l> <supplied>An</supplied>d bad hym flee for fere  and his felawes alle .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.2.172KD.2.213
<l> <supplied>¶ Fa</supplied>lsenesse for fere þanne  <app><lem>fleiȝt</lem></app><note>R.2.172: R's form is unique; F and many beta copies read <hi>fleiȝ</hi>. Other beta witnesses have <hi>fledde</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> appear to agree with the F/beta reading.</note> to þe freres .</l>
<l> <supplied>An</supplied>d gyle doth hym to go  agast for to deye .</l>
<l> <supplied>Ac</supplied> marchantz mette with hym  and made hym abyde .</l>
<l> <supplied>An</supplied>d by<seg>-</seg>schetten hym in here schoppe  to schewen her<expan>e</expan> war<expan>e</expan> .</l>
R.2.176KD.2.217
<l> <supplied>An</supplied>d apparayled hym as a prentise  þe poeple to s<expan>er</expan>ue .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <supplied>¶ Liȝ</supplied>tliche lyere  leep awey þenne  </l>
<l> <supplied>Lur</supplied>kynge þorȝ lanes  to<seg>-</seg>lugged of many .</l>
<l> <supplied>He</supplied> was nawer<expan>e</expan> welcome . for his many tales .</l>
R.2.180KD.2.221
<l> <supplied>Ou</supplied>er al I<seg>-</seg>howted  and I<seg>-</seg>hote trusse .</l>
<milestone>fol. 4rI</milestone>
<l> Til pardoneres haued pite  and pulled hym into house .</l>
<l> Þei weschen hym and wyped hym  and wonden hym in <app><lem>cloth<supplied>es</supplied></lem></app><note>R.2.182: Although Hm agrees with alpha, beta itself must have read <hi>cloutes</hi>. It is unclear what the reading of <hi>Ax</hi> was since the alpha / beta disjunction is mirrored by nearly equal numbers of <hi>A</hi> witnesses. <hi>Cx</hi>, however, agrees with beta on this form.</note></l>
<l> And sent hym with seales  on sonedayes to cherches .</l>
R.2.184KD.2.225
<l> And gaf pardon fore pans  pound<seg>-</seg>mel aboute .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þanne lowrede leches  and lettres þei sente .</l>
<l> Þat he schulde wonye with hem  watres to loke .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Spiceres speken <app><lem>to</lem></app><note>R.2.187: Beta has <hi>with</hi>. Although both readings are available in the <hi>A</hi> tradition, a large majority of <hi>A</hi> witnesses agrees with beta. On the contrary, <hi>Cx</hi> clearly agrees with alpha's <hi>to</hi>.</note> hym  to spien here ware .</l>
R.2.188KD.2.229
<l> For he couthe <app><lem>on</lem></app><note>R.2.188: Although Hm supports alpha, beta itself must have read <hi>of</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> agree with alpha's reading.</note> here craft  and knew many gu<expan>m</expan>mes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ac minestrales and mesageres  metten with hym ones .</l>
<l> And helden hym <app><lem>half a</lem></app><note>R.2.190: For alpha's <hi>half a</hi>, beta reads <hi>an half</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> probably read simply <hi>half</hi>, a variant also found in the <hi>A</hi> tradition (manuscripts TRaUNMa). However, a plurality of <hi>A</hi> witnesses agrees with alpha's phrasing (though two agree with beta).</note> ȝere  and elleuene dayes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Freres with fayre speche  Fetten hym þennes .</l>
R.2.192KD.2.233
<l> And for knowyng of comeres  coped hym as a frere .</l>
<l> Ac he hath leue to lepe out  as ofte as hym liketh .</l>
<l> And is welcome whan he wille  and wonyeth with hem o<supplied>fte</supplied> </l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Alle fledden for fere  and flowen into hyrnes .</l>
R.2.196KD.2.237
<l> Saue mede þe mayde  <app><lem>no man</lem></app><note>R.2.196: R's <hi>no man</hi> is unique in the <hi>B</hi> tradition (four <hi>A</hi> copies share the reading); F and beta read <hi>na mo</hi>, which is the reading of <hi>Cx</hi> and of a majority of the <hi>A</hi> manuscripts.</note> durste abyde .</l>
<l> Ac trewly to telle  heo tremeled for <app><lem>fere</lem></app> .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>al<seg>-</seg>so</lem></app><note>R.2.198: Beta reads <hi>ek</hi>, which is also the reading of <hi>Ax</hi> (<hi>Cx</hi> has <hi>bothe</hi>).</note> wepte and <app><lem>wrong</lem></app><app><lem>heo</lem></app> was<note>R.2.198: Where R has <hi>heo was</hi>, F reads <hi>for she was</hi> while beta reads <hi>whan she was</hi>. Beta's rendering is that attested by the other two versions for this passage.</note> a<seg>-</seg>thachud .</l>
</lg>
</div1>
MED