<div1>
<milestone>fol. 13vI</milestone>
s<expan>us</expan>
<head><foreign><hi>Passus quintus de visione petri plowman . vt sup<expan>ra</expan> .</hi></foreign></head>
<lb/>
<lg>
t
<l> <hi><hi>T</hi></hi>he kyng and his knyȝtes  to þe kerke wente .</l>
<l> To here matynes of þe day  and þe masse after</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> Þanne awaked I of my wynkyng  and wo was with<seg>-</seg>all<expan>e</expan> .</l>
R.5.4KD.5.4
<l> Þat I ne hadde sleped sadder<expan>e</expan>  and I<seg>-</seg>seyȝen more .</l>
<l> Ac er I hadde faren a furȝlonge  feyntise me hente .</l>
<l> Þat I ne miȝte forther<expan>e</expan> a foot  for defaut of slepynge .</l>
<l> And sat softly adoune  and sayde my beleue .</l>
<foreign><expan>Nota</expan></foreign>
R.5.8KD.5.8
<l> <hi>And</hi><note>R.5.8: R uniquely omits <hi>so I</hi> before <hi>babeled</hi> and replaces the presumably original <hi>on</hi> with <hi>vppon</hi> ; cf. F's <hi>y bablede so on</hi>. <hi>C</hi> omits this passage, but in the <hi>A</hi> version it reads as in the beta manuscripts of <hi>B</hi>.</note> <hi><app><lem>babeled</lem></app> <app><lem>vppon</lem></app> my bedes  þei brouȝt me a<seg>-</seg>slepe .</hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And þanne saw I muche more  þan I befor tolde .</l>
<l> For I say þe felde ful of folke  þat I be<seg>-</seg>fore of seyde</l>
<l> And how resoun gan arayen hym  alle þe rewme to p<expan>re</expan>che .</l>
R.5.12KD.5.12
<l> And with a crosse by<seg>-</seg>for þe kyng  cumsede þus to techen .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> <hi>He p<expan>re</expan>ued þat þis pestilensez  was for pure synne .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>And þe south<seg>-</seg>west wynde  on saterday at eue .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>Was perteliche for <app><lem>pruyde</lem></app><note>R.5.15: R's phrase here is that of alpha (cf. F's virtually indentical wording); the beta copies read <hi><hi>pure</hi> pryde</hi>. The <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> versions both agree with alpha.</note>  and for no poynt elles .</hi></l>
R.5.16KD.5.16
<l> Pyries and plumtres  wer<expan>e</expan> puffedde to þe erthe .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.5.17: <hi>And</hi> is an alpha variant (cf. F's somewhat different rendering of this line), but it is not present in the beta manuscripts, nor is it attested in the manuscripts of the other versions at this point.</note> in ensaumple ȝee segges  ȝee schulden do þe bett<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> Beches and brode okes  were blowe to þe grounde .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.5.19: <hi>And</hi> is an alpha variant completely unattested in beta copies (which begin the line with <hi>Torned</hi>. However, the alpha reading of this line opening agrees exactly with that of the other two versions.</note> turned vpward here <app><lem>taile</lem></app><note>R.5.19: Alpha omits beta's <hi>in</hi> before <hi>tokenynge</hi>. Both the <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> versions agree at this point with beta.</note> <app><lem><orig>to kenynge</orig><reg>tokenynge</reg></lem></app> of drede .</l>
R.5.20KD.5.20
<l> Þat dedly synne ar domesday  schal for<seg>-</seg>don hem alle .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Of þis matere I miȝt  mamely ful longe .</l>
<l> Ac I schal seye as I sawe  so me god helpe .</l>
<l> How perteliche be<seg>-</seg>for þe poeple  reson gan to p<expan>re</expan>che .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.24KD.5.24
<l> <hi></hi> He bad wastour <app><lem>to</lem></app><note>R.5.24: R's <hi>to</hi> is unique among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts. The others read <hi>go</hi>, which is also the reading of the <hi>A</hi> version and of the P family of <hi>C</hi> witnesses. However, the X family agrees with R's reading.</note> werche  what he best coude .</l>
<l> And wynnen his wastinge  with so<expan>m</expan> maner<expan>e</expan> <app><lem><sic>crastys</sic><corr>cra[f]tys</corr></lem></app> .<note>R.5.25: R's <hi>crastys</hi>, is probably an alpha error (cf. beta's <hi>crafte</hi> and F's reconstructed <hi>werkys</hi>). The phrase is omitted from <hi>C</hi>, but the <hi>A</hi> witnesses support beta's rendering.</note> </l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And preied pernele  hire purfile to lete .</l>
<l> And kepe it in hire coffre  for catel at hire nede .</l>
<milestone>fol. 14rI</milestone>
</lg>
<lg>
R.5.28KD.5.28
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Thomme stouue he tauȝte  to take to <app><lem>stones</lem></app> .<note>R.5.28: R's <hi>stones</hi> is unique. The other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts, as well as the other versions, read <hi>staues</hi>.</note></l>
<l> And fecche felice home  fram <app><lem>wyuene</lem></app> pyne .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> He warned watte  his wif was to blame .</l>
<l> Þat hire hed was worth half marke  his hode nauȝt a grote<note>R.5.31: HmGCotH join R in omitting <hi>worth</hi> from the final phrase of this line (witnessed by F and most beta copies as <hi>nouȝte <hi>worth</hi> a grote</hi>. The majority of <hi>A</hi> witnesses agrees with this <hi>B</hi> majority in attesting the word, but RaUChJEK agree with Rawlinson 38 in omitting it. So do all but two of the <hi>C</hi> witnesses.</note> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.32KD.5.32
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.5.32: R uniquely omits the verb <hi>bad</hi> before <hi>bet</hi> here.</note> bet cutte  a bow other tweye .</l>
<l> And bete betou<expan>n</expan> þere<seg>-</seg>with  but ȝif <app><lem>heo</lem></app> wolde werche .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And þanne he charged chapmen  to chaste<note>R.5.34: The uncovered final <e> makes R's reading unmetrical. R's verb form is unique among the <hi>B</hi> witnesses; some beta manuscripts have <hi>chastize(n)</hi>. However, R's form is attested in some copies of both <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi>. Likewise, some of the <hi>A</hi> witnesses agree with beta. The <hi>Cx</hi> form appears to have been <hi>chasten</hi>, quite possibly the reading of Bx, since it is also the reading of LCrCG.</note> hire childerne .</l>
<l> Late no wynnynge <app><lem>for<seg>-</seg>wanyen  þe</lem></app><note>R.5.35: R uniquely omits <hi>Bx</hi>'s <hi>hem</hi> at the end of the a-verse and uniquely adds <hi>þe</hi> at the head of the b-verse. However, the addition of <hi>þe</hi> is paralleled in the X family of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts.</note> while þei ben ȝonge .</l>
R.5.36KD.5.36
<l> Ne for no pouste of pestilence  plese hem nauȝt oute of resou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> My sire seyde so to me  and so dede my dame .</l>
<l> Þat þe leuer childe  þe more lore byhoueth .</l>
<l> And salomon seyde þe same  þat sapience made .</l>
R.5.40KD.5.39α
<l> <hi><foreign>Qui parcit virge odit filiu<expan>m</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> Þe englisch of þis latyn is  ho<seg>-</seg>so wil it knowe .</l>
<l> Ho<seg>-</seg>so spareth þe sprynge  <app><lem>he</lem></app> spilleth<note>R.5.42: Beta omits <hi>he</hi>. Although three <hi>C</hi> manuscripts include the pronoun, it seems clear that <hi>Cx</hi> read here as beta does.</note> his childern .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> <hi>And sitthen he <app><lem>p<expan>ro</expan>ued</lem></app></hi><note>R.5.43: R's <hi>p<expan>ro</expan>ued</hi> is unique and presumably results from scribal anticipation of <hi>p<expan>ro</expan>ue</hi> in the next line; beta reads <hi>preyed</hi> (which is confirmed by both the <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> versions) while F completely rewrites the line.</note> <hi>p<expan>re</expan>latz  and prestes to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</hi></l>
R.5.44KD.5.42
<l> <hi>Þat ȝee prechen to þe poeple  p<expan>ro</expan>ue it on ȝow<seg>-</seg>selue .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>And doth it in dede  it schal drawe ȝow to gode .</hi></l>
<l> <hi>If ȝe lyuen as ȝe lerne vs  we schal leue ȝow þe bett<expan>er</expan>e .</hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And sitthe he radde religiou<expan>n</expan>  here rewle to holde .</l>
R.5.48KD.5.46
<l> Lest þe kyng and his conseyle  ȝour<expan>e</expan> comunes appeyre .</l>
<l> And ben stwardes of ȝoure stedes  til ȝe be rewled bett<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And siþþen he conseyled þe kynge  þe co<expan>m</expan>mune to louye .</l>
<l> <hi>It is þi tresor if <app><lem><sic>treson were</sic><corr>treson [n]ere</corr></lem></app></hi><note>R.5.51: R uniquely drops the negative.</note> <hi> and triacle at þi nede .</hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.52KD.5.50
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And siþþen he preyed þe <damage>pope</damage><note>R.5.52: The word <hi>pope</hi> has been partially erased, though the original reading is visible. The erasure is very old but not the work of the original scribe.</note>  haue pite on holy cherche .</l>
<l> <hi>And er he gyue any grace  gouerne furst hym<seg>-</seg>selue</hi> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And ȝe þat haue lawes to kepe  lat trewthe be ȝour<expan>e</expan> coueytise .</l>
<milestone>fol. 14vI</milestone>
<l> More þanne gold or other giftes  if ȝe wil god plese .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.56KD.5.54
<l> <hi></hi> For ho<seg>-</seg>so contrarieth trewthe  he telth in þe gospel .</l>
<l> Þat god knoweth hem nouȝt  ne no seint of heuene .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Amen dico vobis nescio vos  .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And ȝe þat seke seint Iames  and seintes of rome .</l>
R.5.60KD.5.57
<l> Seketh seint trewthe  for he may saue ȝow alle .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Qui cu<expan>m</expan> p<expan>at</expan>re & filio  </foreign></hi> þat fair<expan>e</expan> hem befalle .</l>
<l> Þat sueth my sarmou<expan>n</expan>  and þus seyde resou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þanne ran repentaunce  and reherced his teme .</l>
R.5.64KD.5.61
<l> And gerte wille to wepe  water with his eyȝes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Pernele proude<seg>-</seg>herte  platte hire to þe erthe .</l>
<l> And lay longe ar <app><lem>he</lem></app><note>R.5.66: <hi>He</hi>, "she."</note> loked  and lord mercy <app><lem>he criede</lem></app><note>R.5.66: R alone reiterates the feminine pronoun (in R's typical form, <hi>he</hi>) in the b-verse. The correctness of the majority reading is confirmed by the text of <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> And by<seg>-</seg>hiȝte to hym  þat vs alle made .</l>
R.5.68KD.5.65
<l> <app><lem>He</lem></app><note>R.5.68: <hi>He</hi>, "she."</note> <app><lem><sic>sclulde</sic><corr>sc[h]ulde</corr></lem></app> vnsowen hire serke  and setten þere an haire .</l>
<l> To affaiten hire flesche  þat fers was to synne .</l>
<l> Schal neu<expan>er</expan>e heyȝ herte me hente  but holde me lowe .</l>
<l> And suffre to be myssayde  and so dede I neu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
R.5.72KD.5.69
<l> But now wil I meke me  and mercy byseche .</l>
<l> <app><lem>For</lem></app> þis<note>R.5.73: Beta's phrase is <hi>For <hi>al</hi> þis</hi>. F has <hi>For <hi>þ(a)t</hi></hi>."</note> I haue  <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>hated</lem></app> in myn herte .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þanne lecchour seyde allas  and on our<expan>e</expan> lady he cried</l>
<l> To make m<expan>er</expan>cy for his misdedes  bitwene god and his soule .</l>
R.5.76KD.5.73
<l> With þat he schulde <app><lem>on þe day</lem></app><note>R.5.76: Cf. beta's <hi>þe saterday</hi> and F's <hi>euery day</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> version is completely revised at this point, but the <hi>A</hi> reading agrees completely with that of beta.</note>  seuen ȝer þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>after .</l>
<l> Drinke but with þe doke  and dyne but ones .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Enuye with heuy herte  askede after schrifte .</l>
<l> And carfulliche <foreign>mea culpa</foreign>  he cumsed to <app><lem><sic>schrewe</sic><corr>schre[u]e</corr></lem></app> .<note>R.5.79: R's error, <hi>schrewe</hi>, was not a misreading for <hi>shewe</hi> (the beta variant) but for <hi>schreue</hi>, the alpha reading (cf. F's <hi>shryve</hi>). The <hi>A</hi> reading agrees with that of beta.</note></l>
R.5.80KD.5.77
<l> He was as pale as a pelete  in þe palsey he semed .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>cluted</lem></app><note>R.5.81: This is a unique R reading (<hi>Bx</hi> = <hi>clothed</hi>). According to <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>clouten</hi> (v. 1), the form is the past participle of <hi>clouten</hi>, which usually means "to mend" but here and in a few other documented instances clearly signifies "to wear patched or ragged clothes."</note> in a <sic>tauri<seg>-</seg>mauri</sic><corr>[c]auri<seg>-</seg>mauri</corr><note>R.5.81: R, probably by coincidence, shares the <c/t> confusion with Bm.</note>  I coude <app><lem>nauȝt it</lem></app><note>R.5.81: R reverses this phrase, which in the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts (as well as the <hi>A</hi> version) reads <hi>it nouȝte</hi>.</note> descriue .</l>
<l> In a kertel and curteby  and a knyf be his side .</l>
<l> Of a <app><lem>frere</lem></app><note>R.5.83: R's uninflected form, <hi>frere</hi>, is unique in the <hi>B</hi> version. The other copies have <hi>freres</hi>. However, five <hi>A</hi>-version manuscripts (DJLaEN) agree with R's unmarked genitive.</note> frokke  were <app><lem>his</lem></app><note>R.5.83: In place of alpha's <hi>his</hi>, beta reads <hi>þe</hi>. <hi>Ax</hi> is unclear on this point, a majority agreeing with beta, but a large minority (HaLaEAKWa) agreeing with alpha.</note> fore<seg>-</seg>sleues .</l>
R.5.84KD.5.81
<l> And as a leek hadde I<seg>-</seg>leye  longe in þe sonne .</l>
<milestone>fol. 15rI</milestone>
<l> So loked he with lene chekes  louring foule .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> His body was to<seg>-</seg>bolle for wrathe  þat he bot his lyppes .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>wryngyed with</lem></app><note>R.5.87: Beta reads <hi>wryngynge he ȝede</hi>. F has <hi>hise hondis he wrong</hi>.</note> þe fist  to wreke hym<seg>-</seg>self he thouȝte .</l>
R.5.88KD.5.85
<l> With werkes or with wordes  whan he seyȝ his time .</l>
<l> Eche word þat he warp  was of <app><lem>an addre</lem></app><note>R.5.89: Beta shows a genitive, <hi>addres</hi> or <hi>Neddres</hi>.</note> tonge .</l>
<l> Of chydynge and of chalengynge  was his chief lyflode </l>
<l> With bagbityng and <app><lem>with</lem></app><note>R.5.91: This line's second <hi>with</hi> is a unique addition in R.</note> bysmere  and berynge of fals wytnesse .</l>
R.5.92KD.5.89
<l> Þis was alle his curteysye  where þat euere he schewed hym .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I wolde be Ischryue q<expan>uo</expan>d þis schrewe  and I for schame durste .</l>
<l> I wolde be gladder<expan>e</expan> by god  þat gybbe hadde mischaunce .</l>
<l> Þan þouȝ I hadde þis woke I<seg>-</seg>wonne  a weye of essex chese .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.96KD.5.93
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> I haue a neyȝbore neyȝ me  I haue enuyed hym ofte .</l>
<l> And lowen on hym to lordes  to don hym lese his siluer .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>al<seg>-</seg>so</lem></app><note>R.5.98: R's <hi>al-so</hi> is unique; cf. <hi>Bx</hi>'s <hi>made</hi>.</note> his frendes ben his fon  þoruȝ my fals tonge .</l>
<l> His grace and his good happes  greueth me ful sore .</l>
R.5.100KD.5.99
<l> By<seg>-</seg>twene <app><lem>mayne and mayne</lem></app><note>R.5.100: The form <hi>mayne</hi> is the R scribe's spelling for <hi>meine</hi>, "household" (see also <ref>R.16.247:</ref>). In F the a-verse reads <hi>By-twixe hym & manye me<expan>n</expan></hi>; most beta manuscripts have <hi>Bitwene many and many</hi>. Though <title>MED</title> lists the head form as <hi>meine</hi>, <title>OED</title> notes that by the opening of the fifteenth century the word was sometimes spelled <hi>many</hi>, which appears to have been beta's intention. Its authenticity is also supported by a cognate line from the <hi>A</hi> version, where the phrase reads <hi>Betwyn hym & his <hi>meyne</hi></hi>.</note>  I make debate ofte .</l>
<l> Þat both lyf and lyme  is lost þoruȝ my speche .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And whan I mete hym in market<expan>e</expan>  þat I most hatye .</l>
<l> I hayls hym hendelich  as I his frende were .</l>
R.5.104KD.5.103
<l> For he is douȝtier þan I  I dar do non other .</l>
<l> Ac hadde I maystrie and miȝt  god wote my wille .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And whan I come to <app><lem><orig>þecherche</orig><reg>þe cherche</reg></lem></app><note>R.5.106: HmF agree with R in reading <hi>cherche</hi>, but they omit the article. The beta reading, <hi>kirke</hi> (also the reading of the <hi>A</hi> tradition), fits the alliterative pattern of the line; <hi>cherche</hi> was the alpha reading, shared by convergence with Hm.</note>  and schulde knele to þe rode .</l>
<l> And preye for þe poeple  as þe prest techeth .</l>
R.5.108KD.5.107
<l> For pylgrimes and for palmeres  for alle þe poeple after</l>
<l> Þanne I crie on my knes  þat crist ȝif hem sorwe .</l>
<l> Þat bare away my bolle  and my broke schete .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Awey fro þe auter  þanne turne I myn eyȝes .</l>
R.5.112KD.5.111
<l> And beholde how heleyne  hath <app><lem>on</lem></app><note>R.5.112: R's <hi>on</hi> is an alpha addition unattested in beta or in the <hi>A</hi> version.</note> a newe cote</l>
<l> I wysche þenne it were myn  and alle þe web after .<note>R.5.113: Here the scribe omits his usual line break before a new verse paragraph, presumably because he has reached the end of a side.</note></l>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And of <app><lem>his</lem></app><note>R.5.114: R's <hi>his</hi> is a unique reading among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts (both F and beta attest <hi>mennes</hi>). However, it is clear that <hi>Ax</hi> reads as R does.</note> lesynge I lawhe  þat lyketh myn herte .</l>
<milestone>fol. 15vI</milestone>
<l> <app><lem>Ac</lem></app> for his <app><lem><sic>wynnyge</sic><corr>wynny[n]ge</corr></lem></app><note>R.5.115: At the beginning of this phrase, R's <hi>Ac</hi> is unique among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts but is also the reading of <hi>Ax</hi>; by contrast, F has <hi>But</hi> and beta reads <hi>And</hi>). As for <hi>his</hi> (an alpha variant contrasting to beta's <hi>hir</hi>), a majority of <hi>A</hi> witnesses agree with RF.</note> I wepe  and wayle þe tyme .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.116KD.5.115
<l> <hi></hi> And deme <app><lem>men</lem></app><note>R.5.116: R's <hi>men</hi> is unique; F substitutes <hi>hem</hi> while beta omits it altogether. However, in a slightly different phrase found in the cognate <hi>A</hi> line (<hi>I deme men þere hy don ille</hi>), we find unambiguous support for R's reading.</note> þat hij don ylle  þere I do wel worse .</l>
<l> Who<seg>-</seg>so vndernymeth me her<expan>e</expan>offe  Ich hate hym dedly after .</l>
<l> I wolde þat vch a wyȝt  were my knaue .</l>
<l> For ho<seg>-</seg>so hath more þanne I  þat angreth me sore .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.120KD.5.119
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And þus I lyue loue<seg>-</seg>lees  lyche a lyther dogge .</l>
<l> Þat alle my body bolneth  for bytter <app><lem>in</lem></app><note>R.5.121: Cf. R's <hi>in</hi> to F's <hi>ys</hi> and beta's <hi>of</hi>; it is unclear what the alpha reading was. The <hi>A</hi> reading agrees with beta.</note> my galle .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I myȝte nauȝt ete many ȝeres  as a man ouȝte .</l>
<l> For enuye and euel wille  is yuel to defye .</l>
R.5.124KD.5.123
<l> May no sucre ne swete thynge  aswage my swelynge .</l>
<l> Ne no diapenidion  driue it fro myn herte .</l>
<l> Ne noyther schrifte <app><lem>no</lem></app> schame  but ho<seg>-</seg>so schrape my mawe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Ȝis redily q<expan>uo</expan>d repentaunce  and radde hym to þe beste .</l>
R.5.128KD.5.127
<l> Sorwe of synnes  is sauac<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan> of soules .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I am <app><lem>euer<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.5.129: Beta omits <hi>euere</hi>. This omission is also found in the <hi>A</hi> version, but the <hi>C</hi> version agrees with alpha and includes the qualifier.</note> sory q<expan>uo</expan>d þat segg<expan>e</expan>  I am but selde other .</l>
<l> And þat maketh me þus megre  for I ne may me venge .</l>
<l> Amonges burgeys haue I be  dwellynge atte londou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
R.5.132KD.5.131
<l> And gert bagbytyng be a brokoure  to blame me<expan>n</expan>nes ware .</l>
<l> Whan he solde and I nauȝt  þanne was I <app><lem>aredy</lem></app><note>R.5.133: Beta reads <hi>redy</hi>, and F has <hi>ful redy</hi>. Some <hi>C</hi> copies agree with beta, but <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with R's form, <hi>aredy</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> To lye and to loure on my neyȝbore  and to lakken his <app><lem>ware</lem></app><note>R.5.134: R's <hi>ware</hi> is the alpha reading; cf. beta's <hi>chaffare</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> I wil amende þis if I may  þorȝ miȝt of god al<seg>-</seg>miȝti .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.136KD.5.135
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Now <app><lem>waketh wrothe</lem></app><note>R.5.136: R's <hi>waketh</hi> is unique (most of the other witnesses have <hi>awaketh</hi>). Likewise, R's spelling of the following noun (= <hi>wrothe</hi>, but rendered as <hi>Wraþe</hi> or <hi>wratthe</hi> by most of the others) is unique among the <hi>B</hi> copies—cf. the same spelling at R5.138 (at which point F and the X family of <hi>C</hi> concur with R's form). According to <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>wrath</hi>, and <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>wroth</hi>, this spelling is a late adaptation from the adjective <hi>wroth</hi>, = "angry." Nominal usage is also found in a manuscript of Gower's <title>Confessio</title> (at 3.217) and in the Trinity manuscript of the <hi>A</hi>-version (at 5.66).</note>  with to white eyȝes .</l>
<l> And nyuelyng with þe nose  and his nekke hangynge .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I am <app><lem>wrothe</lem></app><note>R.5.138: R's <hi>wrothe</hi> is a relatively uncommon spelling for this word (cf. R5.136 above), but it is also attested in F and among the X family of <hi>C</hi>. Beta and the P family of <hi>C</hi> witness the more usual spellings (e.g, W's <hi>wraþe</hi>).</note> quatz he  I was su<expan>m</expan>tyme a frere .</l>
<l> And þe <app><lem>couent</lem></app><note>R.5.139: R's uninflected form is unique; F and beta read a normal genitive, <hi>couentes</hi>. On the other hand, the R scribe may have taken the phrase <hi>couent gardiner<expan>e</expan></hi> as a compound noun.</note> gardiner<expan>e</expan>  for to graffe ympes .</l>
R.5.140KD.5.139
<l> On lymitoures and listres  lesynges I ymped .</l>
<l> Til þei bere leues  of lowe speche  lordes to plese .</l>
<l> And sitthe þei <app><lem>blosmed</lem></app><note>R.5.142: The beta phrase, which has the advantage of alliterating properly, is <hi>blosmed obrode</hi>.</note>  in boure to here schriftes .</l>
<l> And now is falle þere<seg>-</seg>offe a fruyt  þat folk haue wel leuer<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<milestone>fol. 16rI</milestone>
R.5.144KD.5.143
<l> Schewen her<expan>e</expan> schriftes <app><lem>til</lem></app> hem  þan schriuen hem <app><lem>til</lem></app><note>R.5.144: Both of R's uses of <hi>til</hi> in this line are unique; F and beta read <hi>to</hi> in the first instance. F revises the b-verse substantially (so as to be unsuitable for comparison), but beta again deploys <hi>to</hi>.</note> her<expan>e</expan> p<expan>er</expan>sones .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And now haue p<expan>er</expan>sones <app><lem>ap<expan>er</expan>ceyued</lem></app>  þat freres parte with hem .</l>
<l> Þes possessioneres p<expan>re</expan>chen  and dep<expan>ra</expan>uen freres .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>fynden</lem></app><note>R.5.147: The agreement of RF in omitting the first stave of this line (<hi>freres</hi> in beta) indicates that the error derives from alpha.</note> hem in defaute  as folke bereth witnesse .</l>
R.5.148KD.5.147
<l> Þat whanne þei p<expan>re</expan>che þe poeple  in many places aboute .</l>
<l> I wrathe walke with <app><lem>hym</lem></app><note>R.5.149: R's <hi>hym</hi> is unique and obviously an error; F and beta read the plural <hi>hem</hi>, which agrees with all of the surrounding context, including another pronoun reference later in this same line.</note>  and wisse hem of my bokes .</l>
<l> Þus þei speken of my spiritualte  þat eyther despi<del>.</del><add>s</add>eth other .</l>
<l> Til þei be bothe beggeres  and <app><lem>by</lem></app> spiritualte<note>R.5.151: Beta reads <hi>by <hi>my</hi> spiritualte</hi>. F has <hi>by almesse</hi>.</note> libben .<note>R.5.151: There is a black, vertical line from this point to R5.160 in the right margin.</note></l>
R.5.152KD.5.151
<l> Or elles alle riche  and riden aboute</l>
<l> I wrathe reste neu<expan>er</expan>e  þat <orig>Ine</orig><reg>I ne</reg> mot folwe .</l>
<l> Þis wikked folke  for swich is my grace .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> I haue <orig>anaunte</orig><reg>an aunte</reg> to nonne  and an <app><lem>abbesse</lem></app><note>R.5.155: Beta adds <hi>bothe</hi> at the end of this line. The <hi>C</hi> version, however, agrees with alpha in omitting it.</note> .</l>
R.5.156KD.5.154
<l> Hire were leu<expan>er</expan>e swowe or swelte  þan suffre any peyne .</l>
<l> I haue be cook in hire kychyne  and þe couent serued .</l>
<l> Many monthes with hem  and with monkes <app><lem>alse</lem></app> .<note>R.5.158: R's <hi>alse</hi> is unique; the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read <hi>bothe</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading agrees with that of the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note></l>
<l> I was þe prioresses potager<expan>e</expan>  and other pouer ladyes .</l>
R.5.160KD.5.158
<l> And made hem ioutes of iangelyng  þat dame ione was a bastard .</l>
<l> And dame claris a kniȝtes douȝter  ac a cokewolde was hir<expan>e</expan> sire .</l>
<l> And dame peronel a prestes fyle  prioresse worthe heo neu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> For heo hadde childe in chirityme  al our<expan>e</expan> chapitere it wiste .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.164KD.5.162
<l> <hi></hi> Of wikked wordes I wrathe  here wortes I<seg>-</seg>made<note>R.5.164: Only RLOC<hi>2</hi> have the metrically necessary dissyllabic form from OE <hi>gemacian</hi>. F has a recomposed line, and other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts have <hi>made</hi>.</note> .</l>
<l> Til þow lixt and þow lixt<expan>e</expan>  lopen oute at ones .</l>
<l> And eyther hitte other  vnder þe cheke .</l>
<l> Hadde þei had knyues by crist  her<expan>e</expan> eyther hadde kulled other<expan>e</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<foreign>Gregorius</foreign>
R.5.168KD.5.166
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Seynt gregorie was a goed pope  and hadde a goed forwitte<note>R.5.168: In this verse paragraph and the next, the scribal hand becomes noticeably smaller, and yet the 36-line ruling is unchanged from the previous leaf.</note></l>
<l> Þat no prioresse were prest  for þat he ordeyned .</l>
<l> Þei hadden þanne be <foreign>infamis</foreign> þe firste day  þei cu<expan>n</expan>ne so euel hele conseyle .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Amonges monkes I miȝt be  and many tyme I schonie .</l>
R.5.172KD.5.170
<l> For þere ben many felle frekes  my feres to aspie .</l>
<l> Bothe priour and suppriour  and oure <foreign>pater abbas</foreign> .</l>
<l> And ȝif I telle any tales  þei taken hem to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
<milestone>fol. 16vI</milestone>
<l> And do me faste fridayes  to brede and to water .</l>
R.5.176KD.5.174
<l> And <app><lem>ȝeet am</lem></app><note>R.5.176: R's <hi>ȝeet</hi> is a unique addition to this line, as witnessed in the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts. However, it is also clearly attested in the <hi>C</hi> version.</note> chalenged  in þe chapitelhous .</l>
<l> As I <orig>achild</orig><reg>a child</reg> were<note>R.5.177: R's line division here is unique and obviously an error; F, beta, and the <hi>C</hi> version read this phrase as the end of the preceding line .</note></l>
<l> And baleysed on þe bare <app><lem><del>hers</del> <add>bak</add></lem></app><note>R.5.178: R's cancelled reading, <hi>hers</hi>, is the <hi>Bx</hi> original. F agrees with R's "corrected" and euphemized reading, <hi>bak</hi>, but the <hi>C</hi> version agrees with the <hi>Bx</hi> original.</note>  and no breche by<seg>-</seg>twene .</l>
<l> For<seg>-</seg>thi haue I no likyng  with þo ledes to wonye .</l>
R.5.180KD.5.177
<l> I ete þere vnthende fissh  and feble<note>R.5.180: The final <e> of <hi>feble</hi> is blotted.</note> ale drinke .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ac other<seg>-</seg>while whan wyn cometh  whan I drynke <app><lem>wel</lem></app><note>R.5.181: Beta reads <hi>wyn</hi>.</note> at euen .</l>
<l> I haue a flix of a foul mouth  wel fyue dayes after .</l>
<l> Alle þe wikkednesse þat I wote  by any of oure bretheren .</l>
R.5.184KD.5.181
<l> I couthe it in oure cloystre  þat alle<note>R.5.184: R uniquely omits a determiner after <hi>alle</hi>. A majority of beta copies, and F, read <hi>þe</hi> here while LMCrW attest <hi>owre</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with F and the beta majority.</note> <app><lem>couent</lem></app> wot it .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Now repente þe q<expan>uo</expan>d repentance  and reherce þow neu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> Conseill<expan>e</expan> þat þow knoweste  by contenance ne by <app><lem>speche</lem></app><note>R.5.186: R and F agree with the <hi>C</hi> version in attesting <hi>speche</hi> as this line's final stave. By contrast, beta reads <hi>riȝte</hi> at this point.</note> .</l>
<l> And drink nauȝt ouerdelicatly  ne to depe neyther .</l>
R.5.188KD.5.185
<l> Þat þi wille be cause þere<seg>-</seg>offe  to wrathe miȝt turne .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Esto sobrius </foreign></hi> he seyde  and <app><lem>so he</lem></app><note>R.5.189: R's <hi>so he</hi> is a unique addition to the text witnessed by both <hi>Bx</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> assoyled me after .</l>
<l> And badde me wilne to wepe  my wikkedenesse to amende .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<foreign>descripcio avaritie</foreign>
<l> <hi></hi> And þanne come coueytyse  I can hym nauȝt descriue .</l>
R.5.192KD.5.189
<l> So hungrilyche and holewe  sire henry hym lokede .</l>
<l> He was bittel<seg>-</seg>browed  and baber<seg>-</seg>lipped alse .</l>
<l> With to blered eyȝes  as a blynde hagge .</l>
<l> And as a letheren purce  lolled his chekes .</l>
R.5.196KD.5.192
<l> Wel sydder þanne his chyn  þei chyueld for elde .</l>
<l> And as a bonde<seg>-</seg>man of his bakun  his berd was bydraueled .</l>
<l> With <app><lem>his</lem></app><note>R.5.198: For alpha's <hi>his</hi>, beta reads <hi>an</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading agrees with alpha.</note> hode on his hed  a lousy hatt aboue .</l>
<l> And in a tawne tabbarde  of twelue wynter age .</l>
R.5.200KD.5.195.1
<l> Al to<seg>-</seg>torne and baudy  and ful of lys crepynge .</l>
<l> But if a lous coude  <app><lem>lepe</lem></app> þe bett<expan>er</expan>e .<note>R.5.201: All the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts are corrupt, presumably losing most of the original b-verse: <hi>But if (þat) a lous couthe (haue lopen / lepen) þe bettre</hi>. RF omit <hi>þat</hi> and avoid the perfect tense. F's reading for this line is unique in other ways as well. The <hi>A</hi>-version reading for this line's second half is uncertain, with considerable variation between witnesses. Kane chose <hi>I may it nouȝt leue</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> b-verse has the appearance of a feeble patch rather than a common original: <hi>y leue and y trowe</hi>. </note></l>
<l> <app><lem>He</lem></app> <app><lem>ne</lem></app> schulde nouȝt <app><lem>walke</lem></app><note>R.5.202: Cf. beta's <hi>She sholde nouȝte haue walked</hi>. Evidence from the <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> versions suggests that archetypal <hi>B</hi> was already misreading the first verb in this line (= <hi>wandre</hi> in <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi>). Though most <hi>C</hi> manuscripts attest the line's opening as <hi>He sholde</hi>, manuscripts X and P<hi>2</hi> here agree with R's version of the opening phrase, <hi>He ne schulde</hi>. Among the <hi>A</hi> copies, the same pattern is apparent, with most opting for some form of <hi>he shulde</hi> but with ChRaU paralleling R's double-negative syntax.</note> on þat welsch  so was it thredebar<expan>e</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> I haue be coueytouse q<expan>uo</expan>d þis caytyf  I be<seg>-</seg>knowe it here .</l>
R.5.204KD.5.199
<l> For su<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>tyme I seruede  symme at þe style .</l>
<l> And was his prentis I<seg>-</seg>pliȝt  his p<expan>ro</expan>fit to wayte .<note>R.5.205: R omits his customary blank line between strophes at the juncture of ll. 205-06, presumably because the latter is to fill the last line ruled for this side.</note></l>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> First I lerned to lye  a leef <app><lem>or</lem></app> tweyne .</l>
<hi>wikedlyche to weye .</hi><note>R.5.206:These catchwords are partially cropped.</note>
<milestone>fol. 17rI</milestone>
<l> Wikkedliche to weye  was my furst lessou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
R.5.208KD.5.203
<l> To wy and to wynchestre  I wente to þe feyre .</l>
<l> With many maner marchandise  as my mayster me hiȝte .</l>
<l> Ne hadde þe grace of gyle  I<seg>-</seg>go amonge my <app><lem>ware</lem></app> .<note>R.5.210: The alpha variant <hi>ware</hi> is supported by LM, but most beta copies read <hi>chaffare</hi>. However, as is often the case with such splits, both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> support the LMRF variant.</note></l>
<l> It hadde be vnsold þis seuen ȝer<expan>e</expan>  so me god helpe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.212KD.5.207
<l> <hi></hi> Þanne drow I me amonges draperes  my donet to lerne .</l>
<l> To drawe þe lyser a<seg>-</seg>longe  þe lenger it semed .</l>
<l> Amonge þe riche <app><lem>rayeres</lem></app><note>R.5.214: R's <hi>rayeres</hi>, "a maker or seller of striped cloth," is a unique variant among <hi>B</hi> witnesses; <hi>Bx</hi> reads <hi>rayes</hi>. The same variant occurs in manuscript Uc of the <hi>C</hi> version, but both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> clearly attest the same word here as the <hi>B</hi> majority. For other citations of this R form, see <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>raier</hi>.</note>  I rendred a lessou<expan>n</expan> .</l>
<l> To brochen hem with a <app><lem>batnedel</lem></app><note>R.5.215: Most beta manuscripts read <hi>paknedle</hi>, but L (and perhaps M originally, which has been corrected to <hi>pak</hi> by erasure and writeover) supports alpha's <hi>batnedel</hi>. The majority of <hi>A</hi> witnesses agrees with beta, but manuscripts AE agree with alpha's lection. <hi>Batnedel</hi> is also the reading of the best <hi>C</hi> manuscripts (though most of the P family copies agree with the common beta reading).</note>  and playted hem to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
R.5.216KD.5.211
<l> And putte hem in a presse  and <app><lem>pyned</lem></app> hem þere<seg>-</seg>Inne .</l>
<l> Til ten ȝerdes or twelue  <app><lem>tolled</lem></app> oute threttene .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> My wif was a webbe  and wolene cloth made .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Heo</lem></app> spak to <app><lem>a spinnester</lem></app><note>R.5.219: Beta reads <hi>spynnesteres</hi>, which is also the reading of <hi>Cx</hi>. The <hi>Ax</hi> reading is uncertain since the singular and plural forms are both well attested among extant copies.</note>  to spynne<expan>n</expan> it oute .</l>
R.5.220KD.5.215
<l> Ac þe pou<expan>n</expan>d þat heo payed by  peysed a <app><lem>quarter</lem></app><note>R.5.220: Beta reads <hi>quarteroun</hi>, but <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> confirm alpha's lection.</note> more .</l>
<foreign>N<expan>ota</expan></foreign>
<l> Þan myn <orig>owenauncer</orig><reg>owen auncer</reg>  ho<seg>-</seg>so weyȝed trewthe . </l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I bouȝte hire <app><lem>barly</lem></app><note>R.5.222: Beta and F read <hi>barly malte</hi>, but both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> confirm R's reading.</note>  heo brewe it to selle .</l>
<l> Peny<seg>-</seg>ale and puddynge<seg>-</seg>ale  heo poured to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
R.5.224KD.5.219
<l> For laboreres and for low folke  þat lay bi hym<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Þe best <app><lem>of alle</lem></app><note>R.5.225: R's <hi>of alle</hi> is unique; F and beta read <hi>ale</hi>. Among the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts, the P family omits this lection entirely (as does the cognate line in <hi>A</hi>), while the X family agrees with the reading of F and beta.</note> lay in my boure  or in my bedde<seg>-</seg>chaumbre .</l>
<l> And ho<seg>-</seg>so <app><lem>bu<expan>m</expan>meth</lem></app><note>R.5.226: R is the only <hi>B</hi> manuscript to render this verb in the present tense (but see the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref> on R's—and alpha's—possibly ambiguous tense marking); the others read <hi>bummed</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> agree with the majority <hi>B</hi> reading.</note> þere<seg>-</seg>offe  he bouȝte it þere<seg>-</seg>after .</l>
<l> A galoun for a grote  god wote no lesse .</l>
R.5.228KD.5.223
<l> And ȝet it com in coppe<seg>-</seg>mele  þis crafte my wif <app><lem>vseth</lem></app> .<note>R.5.228: The present-tense marking represents alpha's reading (but cf. see the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref> on R's—and alpha's—possibly ambiguous tense marking); cf. beta's <hi>vsed</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> agree with beta.</note></l>
<l> Rose þe regrater  <app><lem>is</lem></app><note>R.5.229: The present-tense marking represents alpha's reading; cf. beta's <hi>was</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> agree with beta.</note> hire riȝte name  .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Heo</lem></app> hath <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>holde</lem></app><note>R.5.230: Cf. beta's <hi>holden</hi>. <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> witnesses show a mixture of verb forms here, but the P family of <hi>C</hi> agrees with alpha's form.</note> hokkarie  alle hire lif<seg>-</seg>tyme .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ac I swere now so <orig>theich</orig><reg>the ich</reg>  þat synne wil I lete .</l>
R.5.232KD.5.227
<l> And neu<expan>er</expan>e wikkedlich weye  ne wikked chaffare vse .</l>
<l> But wenden to walsyngh<expan>a</expan>m  and my wif alse .</l>
<l> And bidde þe rode of bromeholme  brynge me oute of dette .</l>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Repentedest þow euere q<expan>uo</expan>d repentau<expan>n</expan>ce  ne<note>R.5.235: Among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts, only LM support R's <hi>ne</hi>; most beta copies read <hi>or</hi> and F has <hi>&</hi>. However, <hi>Cx</hi> clearly agrees with the LMR reading.</note> restitucion madest .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.236KD.5.231
<l> <hi></hi> Ȝus ones I was herberwed q<expan>uo</expan>d he  with an hepe of chapmen .</l>
<milestone>fol. 17vI</milestone>
<l> I ros whan þei were a<seg>-</seg>reste  and I<seg>-</seg>rifled<note>R.5.237: LR alone have unmetrical <hi>I<seg>-</seg>rifled</hi>. Other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts have <hi>riflede</hi>.</note> here males .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þat was no restituc<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan> q<expan>uo</expan>d repentance  but a robberes thefte .</l>
<l> Þow haddest bett<expan>er</expan>e<note>R.5.239: R shares with LM alone the omission of <hi>be</hi> in the phrase, <hi>be bettere</hi>. Their reading is, however, likely to be the original. M later was "corrected" to the majority reading.</note> worthi  be hanged þere<seg>-</seg>fore .</l>
R.5.240KD.5.234.1
<l> Þan for alle þat  þat þow hast here schewed .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> I wende riflynge wer<expan>e</expan> restituc<expan>i</expan>ou<expan>n</expan> q<expan>uo</expan>d <app><lem>heo</lem></app>  for I lerned neu<expan>er</expan>e rede on boke .</l>
<l> And <orig>Ican</orig><reg>I can</reg> no french in feyth  but of þe ferþest ende of norfolke .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Vsedestow eu<expan>er</expan>e vsurie q<expan>uo</expan>d repentance  in alle þi lif<seg>-</seg>tyme .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.244KD.5.238
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Nay sothly <app><lem>heo</lem></app> seyde  saue in my ȝouthe .</l>
<l> I lerned amonges lumbardes  <app><lem>a lessou<expan>n</expan> and of iewes</lem></app><note>R.5.245: Cf. beta's <hi>and iewes a lessoun</hi>. F reads <hi>a lessoun be herte</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading agrees exactly with R's.</note> .</l>
<l> To weye pans with a peys  and pare þe heuiest .</l>
<l> And lene it for loue of þe cros  to legge a wedde and lese it .</l>
R.5.248KD.5.242
<l> Swiche dedes I dede write  if he his day broke .</l>
<l> Ich haue mo maneres þorȝ <app><lem>regages</lem></app><note>R.5.249: Beta has <hi>rerages</hi>; alpha's reading, <hi>regages</hi>, is unrecorded in both <title>OED2</title> and <title>MED</title> <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>rerage</hi>, and <hi>arrearage</hi>, and is presumably nonsense generated by the misreading of a single graph, an anglicana <hi>r</hi>.</note>  þan þorȝ <foreign>miseret<expan>ur</expan> & comodat</foreign> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I haue <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>lente</lem></app> lordes  and ladies my chaffare .</l>
<l> And ben here brokour after  and brouȝt<note>R.5.251: R shares this error (<hi>brouȝt</hi> for <hi>bouȝte</hi>) by convergence with Cot alone.</note> it my<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
R.5.252KD.5.246
<l> Exchaunges and cheuysaunces  with suche <app><lem>chaffares</lem></app><note>R.5.252: R uniquely deploys the plural form here.</note> I dele .</l>
<l> And <orig>lenefolke</orig><reg>lene folke</reg> þat lese wole  a lippe at eueri noble .</l>
<l> And with lumbardes l<expan>ett</expan>res  I ladde golde to rome .</l>
<l> And toke it be taille <app><lem>þere</lem></app><note>R.5.255: Cf. R's <hi>þere</hi> with beta's <hi>here</hi>; F omits the adverb entirely.</note>  and tolde hem ther<expan>e</expan> lasse .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.256KD.5.250
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> <app><lem>Lenedest þow</lem></app> eu<expan>er</expan>e lordes  for loue of here mayntenance .<note> A design is scratched in drypoint in the left margin beside these lines; its shape is that of three pillars of approximately the same length, a vertical pillar with two supporting pillars on its left side; the higher supporting pillar is a flat horizontal, joining the vertical midway along its length, the lower one running diagonally upwards to join the other two at the same point. The effect is almost that of a reversed capital <K>.</note></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ȝe I haue lent lordes <app><lem>q<expan>uo</expan>d heo  loued</lem></app><note>R.5.257: The attributive phrase, <hi>quod heo</hi>, is an alpha reading not witnessed in any beta manuscript; cf. F's <hi>quod he</hi>.</note> me neu<expan>er</expan>e after .</l>
<l> And haue I<seg>-</seg>mad many kniȝt  bothe m<expan>er</expan>cer and draper .</l>
<l> Þat payed neu<expan>er</expan>e for his prentishode  nauȝt a peyre gloues .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.260KD.5.254
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Hastow pyte on pore men  þat mote nedes borwe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I haue as muche pyte of pore me<expan>n</expan>  as <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.5.261: R's determiner, <hi>þe</hi>, is an alpha variant; it is not present in beta manuscripts.</note> pedler<expan>e</expan> hath of cattes .</l>
<l> Þat wolde kulle he<expan>m</expan> <app><lem>and</lem></app><note>R.5.262: <hi>and</hi>, "if." Beta reads <hi>yf</hi>.</note> he cacche he<expan>m</expan> miȝte  for coueytise of her<expan>e</expan> skynnes .<note>R.5.262: At the bottom center margin of 17v, there is a drypoint figure almost identical to the one noted at R5.256 for the left margin. Now, however, the <K> figure faces downwards, and the top is trapezoidal rather than a simple rectangular pillar.</note></l>
<milestone>fol. 18rI</milestone>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Art þow manliche amonge þi neyȝbores  of þi mete and drinke .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.264KD.5.258
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> I am holden q<expan>uo</expan>d he as hende  as hound in <app><lem>his</lem></app><note>R.5.264: R's <hi>in his kychyne</hi> is a metathesis of beta's presumably original text (= <hi>is in kychyne</hi>). Cf. F's <hi>in þe kycchene</hi>.</note> kychyne .</l>
<l> Amonges my neyȝbores nameliche  suche a name Ich haue .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Now god lene neu<expan>er</expan>e q<expan>uo</expan>d repentaunce  but þow repent þe rather .</l>
<l> Þe grace on þis grounde  þi good wel to bi<seg>-</seg>sette .</l>
R.5.268KD.5.262
<l> Ne þin vssue<note>R.5.268: R reads <hi>vssue</hi>, agreeing with L alone (= <hi>ysue</hi>); M has been erased and overwritten to match the other beta manuscripts' reading, <hi>heires</hi>. F reads <hi>houswif</hi>.</note> after þe  haue ioye of þat þow wynneste .</l>
<l> Ne þi <app><lem>seketoures</lem></app><note>R.5.269: RF's <hi>seketoures</hi> is an aphetic form of beta's <hi>excecutours</hi>.</note> wel bi<seg>-</seg>sette  þe seluer þat þow hem leuest</l>
<l> And þat was wonne with wronge  with wykked men be despe<expan>n</expan>ded</l>
<l> For were I frer<expan>e</expan> of þat hows  þer<expan>e</expan> good faith and charite is .</l>
R.5.272KD.5.266
<l> I <app><lem>wolde nouȝt</lem></app> cope vs with þi catel  ne our<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>cherche</lem></app><note>R.5.272: Two alpha variants are attested here, the second inadequate for the line's alliterative pattern; cf. RF's <hi>wolde nouȝt</hi> and <hi>cherche</hi> with beta's <hi>nolde</hi> and <hi>kyrke</hi>.</note> amende</l>
<l> Ne haue a peny to my pitance of þine  be my soule hele .</l>
<l> For þe beste boke in our<expan>e</expan> hows  þouȝ brend gold wer<expan>e</expan> þe leues .</l>
<l> And I wiste witt<expan>er</expan>ly  þow wer<expan>e</expan> swiche as þow telleste .</l>
R.5.276KD.5.269α
<l> <hi><foreign>Seruus es alterius cu<expan>m</expan> fercula pinguia queris .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Pane tuo pocius  vescere liber eris .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þow art an vnkende creatur<expan>e</expan>  I kan þe nauȝt assoile .</l>
<l> Til þow make restitucion <app><lem>q<expan>uo</expan>d repentance</lem></app><note>R.5.279: Only R records <hi>quod repentance</hi>. The other <hi>B</hi> witnesses, including F, are here content with a line having only two alliterating staves. The <hi>B</hi> manuscript that Langland used in creating <hi>C</hi> appears to have shared this faulty alliteration since the alliterative key is there shifted from /r/ to /m/ in order to make use of <hi>make</hi> (=<hi>B</hi>) / <hi>ymad</hi> (= <hi>C</hi>) in the first stave position.</note>  and rekene with he<expan>m</expan> alle .</l>
R.5.280KD.5.272
<l> And sitthen þat resou<expan>n</expan> rolle it  in þe registre of heuene .</l>
<foreign>N<expan>ota</expan></foreign>
<l> Þat þow hast made vch man goed  I may þe nauȝt <app><lem>saue</lem></app> .<note>R.5.281: R's <hi>saue</hi> is unique. The other manuscripts read <hi>assoille</hi>.</note></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Non dimittit<expan>ur</expan> peccatu<expan>m</expan> <app><lem>nisi</lem></app><note>R.5.282: The predominant beta variant here is <foreign>donec</foreign>, but Cr agrees with alpha.</note> restituat<expan>ur</expan> <app><lem>ablatu<expan>m</expan></lem></app> .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> For alle þat hath of þi good  haue god my trewthe .</l>
R.5.284KD.5.275
<l> Is <app><lem>haldynge</lem></app><note>R.5.284: Only LMF agree with R's <hi>Is</hi> (but F's verb occurs in a completely rewritten line). The other copies show <hi>be(n)</hi>. R's <hi>haldynge</hi> is unique; the other <hi>B</hi> copies all show <hi>holde(n)</hi> as do many P manuscripts in the <hi>C</hi> tradition. However, the X family of <hi>C</hi> agrees with R's lection.</note> at þe heyȝ dome  to helpe þe <app><lem>restitue</lem></app><note>R.5.284: With reference to beta, R's lection here appears at first glance to involve a unique omission. Beta reads <hi>þe <hi>to</hi> restitue</hi>. However, the supposition of omission collapses when we notice that the nearly unanimous <hi>C</hi> reading at this point is identical to R's (F rewrites the line completely).</note> .</l>
<l> And ho<seg>-</seg>so leueth nauȝt þis be soth  loke in <app><lem>a</lem></app><note>R.5.285: R's lection is unique; the other manuscripts read <hi>þe</hi>, as does the <hi>C</hi> version.</note> saut<expan>er</expan> glose .</l>
<l> In <foreign>miserer<expan>e</expan> mei deus</foreign>  where I mene trewthe .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Ecce enim veritatem dilexisti &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.288KD.5.277.1
<l> <hi></hi> Þer<expan>e</expan> is no laborer<expan>e</expan> <app><lem>wolde</lem></app> leue with <app><lem>he<expan>m</expan></lem></app>  þ<expan>a</expan>t <app><lem>knoweth</lem></app> peres <app><lem>þe</lem></app> plowma<expan>n</expan> .<note>R.5.288: Kane-Donaldson dismiss this alpha line as spurious because of its reference to Piers Plowman, who has not yet been introduced into the narrative.</note></l>
<l> <app><lem>For</lem></app><note>R.5.289: <hi>For</hi> is an alpha variant; beta omits it.</note> schal neu<expan>er</expan>e werkman in þis world<expan>e</expan>  thriue with þ<expan>a</expan>t þow wynnest .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Cu<expan>m</expan> s<expan>an</expan>c<expan>t</expan>o sanctus eris </foreign></hi> construe me þat on englisch<expan>e</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Þanne wex <app><lem>þe</lem></app> schrewe in wanhope  and walde haue hanged hy<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
R.5.292KD.5.280
<l> Ne hadde repentance þe rather<expan>e</expan>  co<expan>n</expan>forted<note>R.5.292: Although Hm and G agree with R (presumably by convergence), beta itself had a compound of this verb, needed for alliteration: <hi>reconforted</hi>; F offers, in a rewritten b-verse, <hi>reersyd</hi>, which looks like an attempted repair.</note> hy<expan>m</expan> in þis maner<expan>e</expan> .</l>
d ij
<milestone>fol. 18vI</milestone>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Haue mercy in þi mende  and with þi mouthe byseche it .</l>
<l> For godes mercy is more  þan alle his other werkes .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Misericordia <app><lem>d<expan>omi</expan>ni</lem></app><note>R.5.295: This is a unique variant in R; the beta copies that contain this citation read <foreign>eius</foreign>, the accurate Vulgate form. Approximately half the beta copies and F omit the entire citation.</note> super o<expan>mn</expan>ia opera eius . &c<expan>etera</expan> .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.296KD.5.282
<l> <hi></hi> And alle þe wikkednesse in þis world  þ<expan>a</expan>t man miȝt worche or þenke</l>
<l> Ne is namore to þe mercy of god  þan in þe see a glede</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>O<expan>mn</expan>is iniquitas qu<expan>an</expan>tu<expan>m</expan> ad m<expan>isericord</expan>iam dei  est quasi sintilla in medio maris .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> For<seg>-</seg>thi haue mercy in thi mynde  and marchandise leue it .</l>
R.5.300KD.5.285
<l> For þow hast no goed grounde  to gete þe with a wastel .</l>
<l> But if it wer<expan>e</expan> with þi tonge  or elles with þi to handes .</l>
<l> For þe goed þat þow haste gete  bygan alle with falshede .</l>
<l> And as longe as þow lyuest þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>with  þow ȝeldest nouȝt but borwest .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.304KD.5.289
<l> <hi></hi> And if þow wite neu<expan>er</expan>e to whiche  ne wham to restitute .</l>
<l> Bere it to þe bischopp<expan>e</expan>  and bydde hym of his grace .</l>
<l> By<seg>-</seg>sette it hym<seg>-</seg>selue  as best is for thi soule .</l>
<l> For he schal answere for þe  at þe heyȝ dome .</l>
R.5.308KD.5.293
<l> For þe and for many mo  þat man schal ȝiue a rekenynge .</l>
<l> What he lerned ȝow in lente  leue þow non other .</l>
<l> And what he lente ȝow of our<expan>e</expan> lordes goed  to lette ȝow fro synne .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Now bygynneth glotou<expan>n</expan>  for to go to schrifte</l>
R.5.312KD.5.297
<l> And cayres hym to <app><lem>cherchewarde</lem></app><note>R.5.312: As is frequently the case, R's unique reading here is defective in alliteration (cf. <hi>Bx</hi>'s <hi>kirke-ward</hi>).</note>  his coupe to schewe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ac betou<expan>n</expan> þe brewester<expan>e</expan>  bad hym goed morewe .</l>
<l> And asked of hym with þat  whyderward he wolde .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> To holy cherche q<expan>uo</expan>d he  for to here masse .</l>
R.5.316KD.5.301
<l> And sitthen I wil be schriue  and synne namore .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I haue goed ale gossib q<expan>uo</expan>d sche  glotou<expan>n</expan> wiltow assaye .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Hastow auȝt in þi purce  any hote spices .<note>R.5.318: Although the scribe customarily enters a blank line between paragraphs, following this line he seems to have forgotten to do so because of the heavy prevalence of paraph markers to indicate dialogue.</note></l>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I haue peper and <app><lem>pioyne</lem></app><note>R.5.319: R's singular is unique among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts but agrees with the reading found in <hi>Ax</hi> and in the X family of <hi>C</hi>. The P family of <hi>C</hi> shows the same plural as the <hi>B</hi> majority.</note> q<expan>uo</expan>d sche  and a pound of garlek<expan>e</expan> .</l>
R.5.320KD.5.305
<l> A ferthyngworth of fenel seed  for fastynge<seg>-</seg>dayes .</l>
<milestone>fol. 19rI</milestone>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þanne goth glotou<expan>n</expan> Inne  and grete othes after .</l>
<l> Sesse þe souteres  sate on þe benche .</l>
<l> Watte þe warner  and his wif bothe .</l>
R.5.324KD.5.309
<l> Symme<note>R.5.324: R's non-alliterating <hi>Symme</hi> is shared with HmYCBoCot among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts but also agrees, oddly, with the reading found in <hi>A</hi> manuscripts TRaDH<hi>2</hi>H and with the reading of <hi>C</hi> manuscript P<hi>2</hi>. Presumably the cause of these overlapping errors is the mutual resemblance of the relevant capitals.</note> þe tynker<expan>e</expan>  and tweyne of his p<expan>re</expan>ntys .</l>
<l> Hikke þe hakeney<seg>-</seg>man  and howe þe nedeler<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> Clares of cokkeslane  and þe clerk<expan>e</expan> of þe cherche .</l>
<l> <app><lem>And</lem></app><note>R.5.327: <hi>And</hi> is an alpha variant; beta begins the line with <hi>Sire</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> version of this line agrees exactly with beta.</note> sire peres of pridie  and p<expan>er</expan>onele of flaundres </l>
R.5.328KD.5.313
<l> Dawe þe dyker<expan>e</expan>  and a doseyne other .</l>
<l> A ribybour<expan>e</expan> a ratoner<expan>e</expan>  a rakyer of chepe .</l>
<l> A roper a redyng<seg>-</seg>kyng<expan>e</expan>  and rose þe dissheres <app><lem>douȝter</lem></app> .<note>R.5.330: The phrase <hi>dissheres douȝter</hi> is an alpha variant; cf. beta's <hi>disshere(s)</hi>. Both the <hi>A</hi> version and the <hi>C</hi> version agree with beta on this reading.</note></l>
<l> Godefrey of garlek<seg>-</seg>hethe  and <app><lem>grifyth</lem></app><note>R.5.331: F reads <hi>Geffrey</hi> while beta has <hi>gryfin</hi>. Both the <hi>A</hi> version (some copies omit the line completely) and the P family of the <hi>C</hi> version agree with beta's name form here (P family = <hi>griffyng</hi>), but the X family of <hi>C</hi> agrees with R's otherwise unique form.</note> þe walsh<expan>e</expan> .</l>
R.5.332KD.5.317
<l> And vpholders an hepe  herly by þe morwe .</l>
<l> Geue glotou<expan>n</expan> with gladde chere  goed ale to hansall<expan>e</expan> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Clement þe coblere  cast of his cloke .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>to</lem></app><note>R.5.335: Beta reads <hi>atte</hi>; F has <hi>in</hi>. The <hi>A</hi> version reading agrees with beta while the <hi>C</hi> version agrees with R's <hi>to</hi>.</note> þe <app><lem><orig>newfeyre</orig><reg>new feyre</reg></lem></app>  nempned<note>R.5.335: F and beta both read <hi><hi>he</hi> nempned</hi>; however, both the <hi>A</hi> archetype and the unanimous <hi>C</hi> reading agree with R in omitting <hi>he</hi>.</note> it to selle .</l>
R.5.336KD.5.321
<l> Hikke þe hakeneyman  hit his hood after .</l>
<l> And badde bette þe bocher<expan>e</expan><app><lem>to</lem></app><note>R.5.337: The verbal particle <hi>to</hi> is an alpha variant completely absent from the beta manuscripts. It does, however, appear in a few <hi>A</hi> manuscripts (RaUDJ) and in approximately half of the <hi>C</hi> manuscripts. It may, in fact, be the family reading of the P group.</note> ben on his side .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Þere</lem></app><note>R.5.338: R uniquely omits the <hi>Bx</hi> verb <hi>were</hi> at this point, treating the participle <hi>Ichose</hi> at the end of the a-verse as the verb.</note> chapmen Ichose  þis chaffare to preyse .</l>
<foreign>N<expan>ota</expan></foreign>
<l> Ho<seg>-</seg>so haueth þe hood  schul haue amendes of þe cloke .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.340KD.5.325
<l> <hi></hi> Þo<note>R.5.340:R and Bm are the only witnesses in the <hi>B</hi> tradition beginning this line with <hi>Þo</hi> (= not the common adverb but rather the plural demonstrative pronoun, equivalent to Modern English, "Those." See Kane, <title>Glossary</title>, pp. 207-8). The other beta copies all attest <hi>Two</hi> while F begins the line with <hi>Þan</hi>. The P family of <hi>C</hi> is joined by manuscripts Uc and Dc in support of the beta reading, but manuscripts X, I and P2 (probably reflecting the X subarchetype) agree with R and Bm in reading <hi>Þo</hi>. The <hi>A</hi> archetype also supports the RBm variant. Presumably R attests this reading by descent from alpha while Bm has it through correction, perhaps from the <hi>C</hi> exemplar used for its opening passus. Schmidt is probably correct in hypothesizing (II, 353) that <hi>Bx</hi> actually spelled <hi>Þo</hi> in this line as <hi>To</hi>, thus inviting the common subsequent scribal error of <hi>Two</hi>.</note> <app><lem>risen</lem></app> in<note>R.5.340: R uniquely omits a word from this phrase. Beta reads <hi>risen <hi>vp</hi> in</hi> while F has <hi>ryse þey ful</hi>. The reading of beta is also found in many <hi>A</hi> manuscripts and is clearly archetypal in that tradition; among the <hi>C</hi> witnesses, the P family mostly agrees with R (omitting <hi>vp</hi> from the phrase) while the X family attests its presence. However, many <hi>C</hi> manuscripts in both families omit <hi>in</hi>.</note> rape  and rowned to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
<l> And preysed <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.5.341: Beta reads <hi>þese</hi> in place of alpha's <hi>þe</hi>. The <hi>A</hi> reading agrees with alpha, but the <hi>C</hi> version is split by families, with the P family supporting alpha while the X family agrees with beta.</note> penyworthes  a<seg>-</seg>part by <app><lem>hym<seg>-</seg>selue</lem></app> .</l>
<l> Þei coude nauȝt by her<expan>e</expan> consience  acorden in trewthe .</l>
<l> Til robyn þe ropere  <app><lem>arise þe</lem></app> southe .<note>R.5.343: R may well represent <hi>Bx</hi> here, but the b-verse is plainly wrong. It is obvious that the F redactor has completely recast the b-verse because of its archtypally defective sense; in beta, the b-verse is similarly lacking, reading <hi>arose bi þe southe</hi>. Both Kane-Donaldson and Schmidt emend this verse conjecturally to conform to the <hi>C</hi> version: <hi>aryse they bisouhte</hi>.</note></l>
R.5.344KD.5.330
<l> And nempned hym for a noumper  þat no debate were<note>R.5.344: Beta and F read <hi>nere</hi> in place of R's <hi>were</hi>, but both G and Hm agree with R (presumably by correction). The <hi>A</hi> witnesses are split, but a majority agrees with R; the <hi>C</hi> version reading is unambiguously the same as R's.</note> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Hikke þe hosteler<expan>e</expan>  hadde þe cloke .<note> In the right margin, a note was written horizontally here, covering three lines, but was later scraped. It appears to be in the same hand (later than that of the scribe) as a number of other erased notes, such as that found on fol. 94r.</note></l>
<l> In couenaunt þat clement  schulde þe cuppe fille .</l>
<l> And haue hikkes hood hostelere  and holde hym I<seg>-</seg>s<expan>er</expan>ued .</l>
R.5.348KD.5.334
<l> And ho<seg>-</seg>so repented rathest  schuld arise after .</l>
<l> And grete sire glotou<expan>n</expan>  with a galoun ale .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þer<expan>e</expan> was lawhyng<expan>e</expan> and lowryng<expan>e</expan>  and late go þe cuppe .</l>
<l> And sitten so til euesonge  and <app><lem>syngen</lem></app><note>R.5.351: The present tense, <hi>syngen</hi>, is unique to R; cf. F's <hi>sunge</hi> and beta's <hi>songen</hi>. R also shows a present-tense form earlier in this line, <hi>sitten</hi>, where most <hi>B</hi> witnesses record a past-tense form (but Cr and G agree with R). Context alone would suggest that the past tenses are correct, but the unanimous witness of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts as well as the attestation of a clear majority of <hi>A</hi> manuscripts in favor of these forms decides the question. Cf. see the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref> for a discussion of R's problematic tense marking.</note> vmb<seg>-</seg>while .</l>
R.5.352KD.5.339
<l> Til glotou<expan>n</expan> haued I<seg>-</seg>globbed  a galoun and a gille .</l>
<milestone>fol. 19vI</milestone>
<l> His guttes gonne to godly<note>R.5.353: R's <hi>godly</hi> is shared exclusively with LM. As odd as it first seems, this was almost certainly the form of the verb in <hi>Bx</hi>. F has <hi>gowle</hi> while most beta manuscripts read <hi>goþelen</hi>. The same phrase occurs in the <hi>C</hi> version, where it reads <hi>His gottes gan to gothly</hi>. Significantly, a sizeable number of <hi>C</hi> witnesses agree exactly with manuscripts LMR of <hi>B</hi> on the spelling of the verb form, and <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>gothelen</hi>, acknowledges both <hi>-dly</hi> and <hi>-þly</hi> forms as viable for <hi>gothelen</hi>, but citations are solely to <title>Piers Plowman</title>. The same limited acknowledgment of these forms is found in <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>gothele</hi>, and <hi>godele(n), -y</hi>.</note>  as to <app><lem><sic>gnedy</sic><corr>g[r]edy</corr></lem></app> sowes .</l>
<l> He pyssed a potel  in a pater noster while .</l>
<l> <app><lem>He</lem></app><note>R.5.355: <hi>He</hi> is a unique variant; the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read <hi>And</hi>. However, R's reading is also that of four <hi>A</hi> manuscripts and of the X family of the <hi>C</hi> version. Both Kane-Donaldson and Schmidt prefer the F/beta reading, presumably on stylistic grounds since <hi>And</hi> avoids a syntactic repetition (the previous line begins with <hi>He</hi>) that modern tastes find clumsy.</note> blew his round rowet  at his rigges bones<note>R.5.355: Most manuscripts have the compound riggebone, but both <hi>rigges</hi> and <hi>bones</hi> are genitives. Manuscript C has the same reading.</note> ende .</l>
R.5.356KD.5.343
<l> Þat <app><lem><sic>alle þat</sic><corr>alle [þat herde] þat</corr></lem></app><note>R.5.356: Here R uniquely omits a key phrase from the archetypal text.</note> horne  held here nose after .</l>
<l> And wischedun it hadde be wexed  with a wips of firses .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> He miȝte neyther steppe ne stonde  er<expan>e</expan> he his staf hadde .</l>
<l> And þanne gan he go  liche a glwemannes bicche .</l>
R.5.360KD.5.347
<l> Sum<seg>-</seg>tyme a<seg>-</seg>syde  and sum<seg>-</seg>tyme arere .</l>
<l> As ho<seg>-</seg>so leith lynes  for to lacche foules .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> <app><lem>Ac</lem></app><note>R.5.362: <hi>Ac</hi> is unique to R; the other manuscripts read <hi>And</hi>. The <hi>A</hi> archetype seems to omit any connective here, but the <hi>C</hi> version agrees with F / beta.</note> whan he drouȝ to þe dore  þanne dymmed hys eyȝes .</l>
<l> He tremled<note>R.5.363: R's <hi>tremled</hi> is uniquely supported by L (M having been altered once more to conform to the typical beta reading—for which, see below); F reads <hi>tripplid</hi> while most betas offer the non-alliterating <hi>stombled</hi>. Among the <hi>A</hi> manuscripts, only Vernon offers a viable reading, <hi>þrompelde</hi>, while the others attest various forms of <hi>stombled</hi>. As for the <hi>C</hi> version, though a few opt for <hi>stumblet</hi>, the majority attest <hi>thromblede</hi>. Based on its alliterative pattern, this is presumably what Langland wrote originally, but the LR form is almost certainly what it became in <hi>Bx</hi>.</note> on þe threswolde  and threw to þe erthe .</l>
R.5.364KD.5.351
<l> Clement þe cobbler<expan>e</expan>  cauȝt hym by þe myddel .</l>
<l> For to lifte hym a<seg>-</seg>lofte  and leyde hym on his knowes .</l>
<l> Ac glotou<expan>n</expan> was a grete cherle  and a grym in þe liftyng .</l>
<l> And cowede vppe a caudel  in clementes lappe .</l>
R.5.368KD.5.355
<l> Is non so hungri hound  in hertford<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>schire .</l>
<l> Durst lape of þe <app><lem>leuyng</lem></app><note>R.5.369: Beta shows the plural form, <hi>leuynges</hi>, while F rewrites the a-verse beyond recognition. The <hi>C</hi> version agrees here with R's singular.</note>  so vnlouely <app><lem>it</lem></app> smauȝte .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> With alle þe wo of þis world  his wif and his wenche .</l>
<l> Baren hym <app><lem>to</lem></app><note>R.5.371: Beta reads <hi>home to</hi>; although three <hi>A</hi> copies (VHaN) agree with beta here, both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> concur with alpha's omission of <hi>hom</hi>.</note> his bed  and brouȝte hym þere<seg>-</seg>inne .</l>
R.5.372KD.5.359
<l> And after alle þis excesse  he hadde an accidie .</l>
<l> Þat he slepe seterday and soneday  til sonne ȝede to rest .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Þanne waked he of his wynkyng  and wiped his eyȝes .</l>
<l> Þe furst word þat he warpp<expan>e</expan>  was wher<expan>e</expan> is þe bolle .</l>
R.5.376KD.5.363
<l> His witt gan edewyte hym þo  how wikkedliche he leuede .</l>
<l> And repentance riȝt so  rebuked hym þat tyme .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> As þow with wordes and werkes  hast wrouȝt euele in þi lyue .</l>
<l> Schriue þe and be aschamed þere<seg>-</seg>offe  and schewe it with þi mouthe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.380KD.5.367
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> I glotou<expan>n</expan> q<expan>uo</expan>d þe gome  gulty me ȝelde .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Of</lem></app> þ<expan>a</expan>t<note>R.5.381: R's <hi>Of</hi> is unique; the other <hi>B</hi> witnesses begin the line with <hi>Þat</hi>. However, the <hi>C</hi> reading here is identical to R's.</note> I haue trespased with my tonge  I can nauȝt telle how ofte .</l>
<l> Sworen godes soule <app><lem>and his sydes</lem></app><note>R.5.382: Beta omits the entire R phrase for the end of the a-verse (<hi>and his sydes</hi>); F reads an abbreviated version, <hi>& side</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading is probably that of the X family (which agrees exactly with R's). The P family reading (<hi>& sides</hi>) agrees with F's omission of the possessive but with R's plural number.</note>  and so <app><lem>help me god & holy<seg>-</seg>dome</lem></app><note>R.5.382: Beta appears to reverse a key alpha phrase (the latter being more colloquial), rendering alpha's <hi>so help me god</hi> as <hi>so god me help</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading for the end of this b-verse is revised but its opening agrees exactly with alpha's phrasing, <hi>so helpe me god</hi>. Beta's motive for revision was probably metrical, but manuscript M somehow still agrees with alpha and displays a form that may explain both Langland's intention and the apparent lapse in alliteration. Alpha and M read the line as aliterating on /s/ (hence M's <hi>selpe</hi>) but beta judges that it must alliterate on /g/ and generates the aformentioned phrase reversal to highlight that possibility.</note> .</l>
<milestone>fol. 20rI</milestone>
<l> Þere no nede ne was  nyne hundreth tymes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.384KD.5.371
<l> <hi></hi> And ou<expan>er</expan><seg>-</seg>seye me at my soper  and <app><lem>sum<seg>-</seg>tymes</lem></app><note>R.5.384: R's <hi>-s</hi> form here is unique. The other <hi>B</hi> copies show <hi>some<seg>-</seg>tyme</hi>, a reading shared with <hi>C</hi>.</note> at nones .</l>
<l> Þat I glotou<expan>n</expan> gurt it vppe  ar I hadde gon a myle .</l>
<l> And I<seg>-</seg>spilt þat myȝt be spared  and <app><lem>spend</lem></app><note>R.5.386: R's <hi>spend</hi> is an alpha variant; cf. F's <hi>spend it</hi> and beta's <hi>spended</hi>.</note> on sum hungry .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Ou<expan>er</expan> delicatly<note>R.5.387: There is a gap in the parchment between <hi>de</hi> and <hi>licatly</hi> caused by a pre-existing tear; the same gap occurs on the other side at R5.417.</note> on fastyng<seg>-</seg>dayes  dronken and eten bothe .</l>
R.5.388KD.5.375
<l> And sat sum<seg>-</seg>tyme so longe þer<expan>e</expan><app><lem>and</lem></app> slep<note>R.5.388: R's <hi><hi>and</hi> slep</hi> is unique; beta appears to reflect <hi>Bx</hi> accurately with its <hi><hi>þat I</hi> slepe</hi>. Cf. F's <hi>þere<seg>-</seg>at y sleep</hi>.</note> and eet at ones .</l>
<l> For loue of tales in tau<expan>er</expan>nes  to <app><lem>ete</lem></app><note>R.5.389: R's <hi>ete</hi> is unique and redundant with the preceding line; cf. <hi>Bx</hi>'s <hi>drynke</hi>.</note> þe more I dyned .</l>
<l> And hied to þe mete er none  when fastyng<seg>-</seg>dayes were .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þis schewyng schrifte  q<expan>uo</expan>d repentance  schal be merite to þe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.392KD.5.379
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And þanne gan glotou<expan>n</expan> to grete  and <app><lem>muche</lem></app><note>R.5.392: R's <hi>muche</hi> is unique and may have been adopted to avoid the apparent repetition of the archetype, which reads <hi>grete</hi> here.</note> doel to make .</l>
<l> For his lither lif  þat he leued hadde .</l>
<l> And auowed<note>R.5.394: Most beta manuscripts read <hi><hi>to</hi> fast</hi>, as does F. GLM agree with R's omission of <hi>to</hi>. M's corrector adds <hi>to</hi> above the line. On the other hand, like the beta majority, the <hi>A</hi> version attests the presence of <hi>to</hi> in this phrase.</note> faste  for hunger or for thurst .</l>
<l> Schal neu<expan>er</expan>e fisch<expan>e</expan> on þe friday  defien in my wombe .</l>
R.5.396KD.5.383
<l> Til abstinence myn aunte  <app><lem>hath</lem></app><note>R.5.396: R's <hi>hath</hi> is the alpha form (shared exclusively with F); beta copies show <hi>haue</hi>, a reading shared with both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> <app><lem>Iȝeue</lem></app> me leue .</l>
<l> And ȝet haue I hated hire  al my lif<seg>-</seg>tyme .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þanne come sleuthe al by<seg>-</seg>slobred  with to <app><lem>slymed</lem></app><note>R.5.398: Beta reads <hi>slymy</hi>. A significant majority of <hi>C</hi> witnesses (XIP<hi>2</hi>PRcVcAcQScKcGc) agrees with the alpha reading.</note> eyȝes .</l>
<l> I most sitte seyde þe seg<expan>e</expan><note>R.5.399: R's <hi>seg<expan>e</expan></hi> is an unusual spelling of an old-fashioned word (= "man"). More commonly, the word appears in Middle English as <hi>segge</hi>, but this form is cited by <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>segge</hi>, in one manuscript of the <title>Awntyrs of Arthur</title>, Lincoln Cathedral Library 91: <hi>A knyghte salle...at carelyone be crownede for kynge; That sege salle be sesede at a sesone</hi> (289). The spelling is likewise attested in <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>segge</hi>, for the fourteenth through the sixteenth century, and a passage from Dunbar is cited.</note>  or elles schulde I nappe<note>R.5.399: There is a superfluous bar over the final <-pe> of <hi>nappe</hi>.</note> .</l>
R.5.400KD.5.387
<l> I may nouȝt stonde ne stoupe  ne with<seg>-</seg>oute <app><lem>stole</lem></app> knele .</l>
<l> Were I brouȝt a<seg>-</seg>bedde  but if my taylende it made .</l>
<l> Schulde no ryngyng do me rise  ere I were ripe to dyne .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> He bygan <foreign>b<expan>e</expan>n<expan>e</expan>dicite</foreign> with a bolke  and his brest knokked .</l>
R.5.404KD.5.391
<l> And roxede and rored  and rutte atte laste .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> What awake renk q<expan>uo</expan>d repentance  and rape þe to schrifte .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> If I schulde deye bi þis daye  <app><lem>q<expan>uo</expan>d he</lem></app><note>R.5.406: Beta omits <hi>quod he</hi>. The P family of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agrees with the alpha reading, but the X family agrees with beta and omits the phrase.</note>  me lest nouȝt to loke .</l>
<l> I can nouȝt p<expan>ar</expan>fitlyche my pat<expan>er</expan>n<expan>oste</expan>r  as þe prest it syngeth .</l>
R.5.408KD.5.395
<l> But I kan rymes of robyn hood  and randolf erl of chestre</l>
<l> Ac noþer of our<expan>e</expan> lor<note>R.5.409: R's clipped form for <hi>lord</hi> is unique among the <hi>B</hi> manuscripts both here and in R18.61. See Richard Jordan, <title>Handbook of Middle English Grammar: Phonology</title>, translated and revised by Eugene Joseph Crook (The Hague: Mouton, 1974): §199, remark 3.</note> ne of our<expan>e</expan> lady  þe leste þ<expan>a</expan>t eu<expan>er</expan>e was maked .<note>R.5.409: Here the scribe omits his customary line break before a new verse paragraph, presumably because the next line will be the final one of this side.</note></l>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I haue mad vowes fourti  and forȝete hem <app><lem>or</lem></app> morwe<note>R.5.410: This occurrence of <hi>or</hi> is unique; the full phrase in most <hi>B</hi> witnesses reads <hi>on (þe) morne</hi>. <hi>C</hi> has <hi>amorwen</hi>.</note> .</l>
d iiij
<milestone>fol. 20vI</milestone>
<l> I parforned neu<expan>er</expan>e penance  as þe prest me hiȝte .</l>
R.5.412KD.5.399
<l> Ne riȝt sori for my synnes  ȝet was I neuere .</l>
<l> And ȝif I bedde any bedes  but if it be in wrathe .</l>
<l> Þat I telle with my tonge  is to myle fro my herte .</l>
<l> I am ocuped vche a day  halyday and other .</l>
R.5.416KD.5.403
<l> With Idel tales at þe ale  and other<seg>-</seg>while in <app><lem>cherche</lem></app> .</l>
<l> Godes peyne and his passiou<expan>n</expan>  ful selde thenke I þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>on .<note>R.5.417: A repaired tear in the parchment (existing before its use by the scribe) partially obscures the loop from the <r> in <hi>þer<expan>e</expan>-on</hi> by which the following <e> is signified.</note></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> I visitede neu<expan>er</expan>e <app><lem>seke</lem></app><note>R.5.418: R's <hi>seke</hi> is a non-alliterating alpha variant; cf. beta's <hi>fieble</hi>, which is also the reading of the <hi>C</hi> version..</note> men  ne fetered folke in puttes .</l>
<l> I <app><lem>hadde</lem></app><note>R.5.419: Cf. alpha's <hi>hadde</hi> to beta's <hi>haue</hi>; alpha's reading is also that of the <hi>C</hi> version.</note> leu<expan>er</expan>e here an herlotrie  or a som<expan>er</expan> game of souteres .</l>
R.5.420KD.5.407
<l> Or lesynges to lawhe <app><lem>of</lem></app><note>R.5.420: R's <hi>of</hi> is an alpha variant; beta reads <hi>at</hi>, but <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha here.</note>  and bilye my neyȝbore .</l>
<l> <note>R.5.421: R uniquely omits a transitional word here in linehead position; cf. F's <hi>&</hi> and beta's <hi>Þan</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading agrees with beta's.</note> <app><lem>Al</lem></app> þat eu<expan>er</expan>e marke made  mathew Ioh<expan>a</expan>n and lucas .</l>
<l> And vigilies and fastyngdayes  alle <app><lem>þis I late</lem></app><note>R.5.422: Beta transposes this phrase as <hi>late I</hi>. F reads the entire phrase as <hi>y leet hem</hi></note> passe .</l>
<l> And ligge a<seg>-</seg>bedde in lente  and my le<expan>m</expan>man in myn armes .</l>
R.5.424KD.5.411
<l> Til matynes and masse be do  and þan go to þe freres .</l>
<l> Kome I to <foreign>Ite missa est</foreign>  I hold me I<seg>-</seg>s<expan>er</expan>ued .</l>
<l> I am nauȝt schriue su<expan>m</expan>time  but ȝif sekenesse it make .</l>
<l> Nouȝt twyes in to ȝere  and þanne vpe gesse I schriue me .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.428KD.5.415
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> I haue be prest and p<expan>er</expan>sone  passyng thretty wynter .</l>
<l> Ȝet can I neyther solue ne synge  ne seyntes lyues rede .</l>
<l> But I can fynde in a felde  or in a furlonge an hare .</l>
<l> Better þan in <foreign>beatus vir</foreign>  or in <foreign>beati om<expan>n</expan>es </foreign> .</l>
R.5.432KD.5.419
<l> Construe <app><lem>it clausemel</lem></app><note>R.5.432: R's <hi>it clausemel</hi> is an alpha variant; cf. beta's <hi>oon clause wel</hi>.</note>  and kenne it to my parochiens .</l>
<l> I can holde louedayes  <app><lem>or</lem></app><note>R.5.433: Beta reads <hi>and</hi>.</note> here a reues rekkenynge .</l>
<l> Ac in canon ne in þe decretales  I can nouȝt rede a lyne .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ȝif I begge and borwe it  but if it be I<seg>-</seg>tayled .</l>
R.5.436KD.5.423
<l> I for<seg>-</seg>ȝete it as ȝerne  and ȝif men me it aske .</l>
<l> Sixe sithes or seuene  I forsake it <app><lem>wit</lem></app><note>R.5.437: R's spelling of <hi>with</hi> here is unique among the <title>Piers Plowman</title> manuscripts and also fairly unusual in the Middle English corpus. The same spelling is found extensively in <title>Cursor Mundi</title>; it also occurs several times in the <title>Prose Alexander</title> (ca. 1440), once in <title>Sir Gawain and the Green Knight</title>, line 113 (where Andrew and Waldron emend it away), and once in <title>Havelok the Dane</title>, line 2489.</note> othes .</l>
<l> And þus <app><lem>I tene</lem></app><note>R.5.438: Beta transposes this phrase as <hi>tene I</hi>.</note> trewe men  <app><lem><sic>te</sic><corr>te[n]</corr></lem></app> hundreth tymes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And my s<expan>er</expan>uantes su<expan>m</expan><seg>-</seg>tyme  her<expan>e</expan> salarie is byhynde .</l>
R.5.440KD.5.427
<l> Reuthe is to <app><lem>her<expan>e</expan></lem></app> rekkenynge  when we schul rede acou<expan>n</expan>tes .</l>
<l> So with wikked wille and wrathe  my werk<seg>-</seg>men I paye .<note>R.5.441: R omits his customary blank line between strophes at the juncture of ll. 441-42, presumably because the latter is to fill the last line ruled for this side.</note></l>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ȝif <orig>anyman</orig><reg>any man</reg> doth me a benfeet  or helpeth me at nede .</l>
<milestone>fol. 21rI</milestone>
<l> I am vnkende aȝeyn his curteysie  and can nauȝt vndersta<expan>n</expan>de it .</l>
R.5.444KD.5.431
<l> For I haue and haue hadde  sumdel haukes maneres .</l>
<l> I am nauȝt lured with loue  but þere ligge auȝt vnder <app><lem>thou<expan>m</expan>be</lem></app><note>R.5.445: Here the beta manuscripts have a determiner, making the phrase <hi>þe thombe</hi>. This discrepancy is also apparent in the two major families of <hi>C</hi>: the P family here agrees with alpha and the X family supports beta.</note> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þe kendenesse þat myn euencristene  kudde me ferneȝer<expan>e</expan> .</l>
<l> Sixty <app><lem>sithe</lem></app><note>R.5.447: This R form is unique; both F and beta read <hi>sythes</hi>. Once more, the P family of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts here agrees with R and the X family supports beta (with F's collateral attestation).</note> I slewthe  haue foreȝete it setthe .</l>
R.5.448KD.5.435
<l> In speche and in sparinge of speche  I<seg>-</seg>spelt many a tyme .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Bothe flesch<expan>e</expan> and fisch<expan>e</expan>  and <app><lem>myn</lem></app><note>R.5.449: Cf. R's erroneous <hi>myn</hi> to F's <hi>fele</hi> and beta's <hi>many</hi>.</note> other vitailes</l>
<l> Bothe brede and ale  butter<expan>e</expan> melke and chese .</l>
<l> For<seg>-</seg>sleuthed in my s<expan>er</expan>uise  til it miȝte s<expan>er</expan>ue noman .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.452KD.5.439
<l> <hi></hi> I ran aboute in ȝouthe  and ȝaf me nouȝt to lerne .</l>
<l> And eu<expan>er</expan>e sitthe be beggere  for my foule sleuthe .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Heu michi <app><lem>q<expan>uo</expan>d</lem></app><note>R.5.454: This alpha variant is supported by BoCot, but beta reads <foreign>quia</foreign>. The <hi>C</hi> reading at this point agrees with alpha's.</note> sterilem  vitam duxi iuuenilem .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> <app><lem>Repentest</lem></app> <app><lem>þe</lem></app> nouȝt q<expan>uo</expan>d repentance  and riȝt<expan>e</expan> with þat he swhounede .</l>
R.5.456KD.5.442
<l> Til <foreign>vigilate</foreign> þe veile  fette water at his eyȝes .</l>
<l> And flatte it on his face  and <app><lem>on</lem></app><note>R.5.457: R uniquely omits the third stave; the other <hi>B</hi> manuscripts read <hi>and <hi>faste</hi> on</hi>.</note> hym cried .</l>
<l> And seyde war þe fram wanhope  wolde þe bytraye .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ich am sori for my synnes  sey so<note>R.5.459: Although most beta copies omit <hi>so</hi> and F reads <hi>now so</hi>, LM support R's <hi>so to</hi>. <hi>Cx</hi> shows the same reading as the beta majority. Among the <hi>A</hi> manuscripts, only EAH attest <hi>so</hi> in this phrase.</note> to þi<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
R.5.460KD.5.446
<l> And bete þi<seg>-</seg>selue on þe breste  and bidde hym of grace .</l>
<l> For is no gult here so grete  þat his goednesse is more .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Þanne sate sleuthe vppe  and seyned hym swythe .</l>
<l> And made a vow to<seg>-</seg>for god  for his foule sleuthe .</l>
R.5.464KD.5.450
<l> Schal no soneday be þis seuen ȝere  but ȝif sekenesse <app><lem>me</lem></app><note>R.5.464: R's <hi>me</hi> is unique; the other manuscripts read <hi>it</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> read <hi>(h)it make</hi>.</note> lette .</l>
<l> Þat I ne schal do me er daye  to þe dere cherche .</l>
<l> And heren matynes and masse  as I a monke were .</l>
<l> Schal non ale after mete  halde me thennes .</l>
R.5.468KD.5.454
<l> Til I haue euensonge herde  I be<seg>-</seg>hote to þe rode .</l>
<l> <app><lem>What I nam</lem></app><note>R.5.469: The defective opening phrase of R's a-verse (<hi>What I nam</hi>) may well reflect alpha accurately; cf. F's <hi>& what y have take to</hi> and beta's <hi>And ȝete wil I</hi>.</note> ȝelde aȝen  if I so muche haue .</l>
<l> Alle þat I wikkedliche wan  sitthen I witt hadde .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And þouȝ <app><lem>me</lem></app><note>R.5.471: R's <hi>me</hi> is unique among the <hi>B</hi> witnesses; the other manuscripts read <hi>my</hi>, which is also the reading of most manuscripts for the other two versions of <title>Piers</title>. However, manuscripts X and Yc in the <hi>C</hi> tradition, two of the most authoritative copies, agree at this point with R.</note> lyflode lakke  leten I nelle .</l>
<milestone>fol. 21vI</milestone>
R.5.472KD.5.458
<l> Þat vch man schal haue his  ar I hennes wende .</l>
<l> And with þe residue and þe remenant  by þe rode of chestre .</l>
<l> I schal seke treuthe  arst er I se rome .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Roberd þe robbere  on <foreign>reddite</foreign> lokede .</l>
R.5.476KD.5.462
<l> And for þere was nauȝt where<seg>-</seg>of  he wepe swythe sore .</l>
<l> Ac ȝet þe synful schrewe  seyde to hym<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
<l> Crist þat on caluar<expan>e</expan>  vppon þe croys deyedeste .</l>
<l> Þo <app><lem><sic>bymas</sic><corr>[d]y[s]mas</corr></lem></app><note>R.5.479: Kane-Donaldson commit a rare mistranscription here, rendering this R variant as <hi>bysmas</hi>.</note> my brother  by<seg>-</seg>souȝte ȝow of grace .</l>
R.5.480KD.5.466
<l> And haddest mercy on þat man  for <foreign>memento</foreign> sake .</l>
<l> So rewe on þis robber<expan>e</expan>  þat <foreign>redder<expan>e</expan></foreign> ne haue .</l>
<l> Ne neu<expan>er</expan>e wene to wynne  with craft þat I <app><lem>knowe</lem></app> .<note>R.5.482: For alpha's <hi>knowe</hi>, all but Cr among the beta copies read <hi>owe</hi>. However, both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> agree with alpha's reading.</note></l>
<l> But for thi michel m<expan>er</expan>cy  mitigac<expan>i</expan>on I be<seg>-</seg>seche .</l>
R.5.484KD.5.470
<l> Ne dampne me nauȝt at domes<seg>-</seg>day  for þ<expan>a</expan>t I dede so ille .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> What be<seg>-</seg>fel of þis felou<expan>n</expan>  I can nauȝt <app><lem>fare</lem></app><note>R.5.485: This form is unique and Kane-Donaldson treat it as a possibly substantive variant, but it is likelier to be merely an unusual spelling variation for standard <hi>faire</hi> found in the other <hi>B</hi> witnesses, as well as in <hi>Ax</hi>. Cf. <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>fair</hi> (adj.), where this spelling is documented, sporadically, for c. 13-15.</note> schewe .</l>
<l> Wel I wote he wepte faste  water with bothe his eyȝes .<note>R.5.486: Immediately after this line, the alpha tradition omits a line present in beta (and also present with slight differences in <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>): <lb/>
<hi>And knowleched his gult to cryst ȝete eftsones</hi>.
</note>
</l>
<l> Þat <foreign>penitencia</foreign> his pik  he scholde polsche newe .</l>
R.5.488KD.5.475
<l> And lepe with hym ouer londe  al his lif<seg>-</seg>tyme .</l>
<l> For he <app><lem>hath</lem></app><note>R.5.489: F omits this verb entirely and the beta copies render it in the past tense as <hi>had</hi>. Among the <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> manuscripts, only Vernon agrees with R's reading. The others support beta. Cf. the Introduction <xref>III.2.2.10</xref> regarding R's problematic tense marking.</note> leyne be <foreign>latro</foreign>  luciferes aunte .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And þanne hadde repentance reuthe  and redde he<expan>m</expan> alle to knele .</l>
<l> For I schal by<seg>-</seg>seche for alle synful  our<expan>e</expan> saueour<expan>e</expan> of grace .</l>
R.5.492KD.5.479
<l> To amende vs of oure mysdedes  and do m<expan>er</expan>cy to vs alle .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied><note>R.5.493: The rubricator failed to notice the "cc" paraph marker.</note> Now god <app><lem>q<expan>uo</expan>d</lem></app><note>R.5.493: R agrees with the beta manuscripts about most of this phrase but uniquely omits <hi>he</hi> at this point (F completely reworks the phrase as <hi>& seid god</hi>).</note> þat of þi goednesse  gonne þe worlde make .</l>
<l> And of nauȝt madest auȝte  and man most liche to þi<seg>-</seg>selue </l>
<l> And sitthen suffredest <app><lem>hym</lem></app><note>R.5.495: In place of alpha's <hi>hym</hi>, beta reads <hi>for</hi>, completely misconstruing the meaning of the preceding verb. The <hi>C</hi> reading is identical to R's form of the alpha phrase.</note> to synne  a sekenesse to vs alle .</l>
R.5.496KD.5.483
<l> And alle for þe best as I be<seg>-</seg>leue  what<seg>-</seg>euere þe boke telleth .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>O felix culpa . O <app><lem><sic>nessariu<expan>m</expan></sic><corr>ne[ce]ssariu<expan>m</expan></corr></lem></app><note>R.5.497: The correcting scribe marked the line for correction with a marginal <+>.</note> peccatu<expan>m</expan> <app><lem>ade</lem></app> .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> For thorȝ þat synne þi sone  sent was to þis erthe .</l>
<l> And bi<seg>-</seg>cam man of a mayde  man<seg>-</seg>kende to saue .</l>
R.5.500KD.5.486
<l> And madest þi<seg>-</seg>selue with þi sone  and vs synful I<seg>-</seg>liche .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Faciamus ho<expan>m</expan>i<expan>n</expan>em ad ymaginem & similitudinem n<expan>ost</expan>ram .</foreign></hi></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Et alibi  qui manet in caritate in deo manet & deus in eo .</foreign></hi></l>
<milestone>fol. 22rI</milestone>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And sitthe with <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.5.503: R's <hi>þe selue sone</hi> (= "the Son Himself") is unique and probably signifies nothing more than a casual error by the scribe for <hi>Bx</hi>'s <hi>þi<seg>-</seg>self sone</hi> ("Thine own Son").</note> selue sone  in oure seute dyedest .</l>
R.5.504KD.5.488
<l> On godefriday for mannes sake  at fulle tyme of <app><lem>day</lem></app> .<note>R.5.504: The other <hi>B</hi> witnesses read <hi>of <hi>þe</hi> daye</hi>.</note> </l>
<l> Þere þi<seg>-</seg>selue and<note>R.5.505: Only G agrees with R here; beta and F read <hi>ne</hi>.</note> þi sone  no sorewe in deth feledest . </l>
<l> But in oure secte was <app><lem>þat</lem></app><note>R.5.506: Beta reads <hi>þe</hi>.</note> sorewe  and þi sone it ladde .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Captiuam duxit captiuitatem .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.508KD.5.491
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Þe sonne for sorewe þer<expan>e</expan><seg>-</seg>offe  les siȝte for a tyme .</l>
<l> Aboute myddaye  whan most liȝt is  and mel<seg>-</seg>tyme of seyntes .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Feddest þo</lem></app><note>R.5.510: Beta omits <hi>þo</hi> while F transposes the phrase to <hi>Þo feddyst</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading here is identical to R's.</note> with þi fresch blode  oure forfadres in derkenesse .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Populus qui ambulabat in tenebris vidit lucem magnam .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.512KD.5.494
<l> <hi></hi> And thorȝ þe liȝt þat lepe oute of þe  lucifer <app><lem>it</lem></app><note>R.5.512: Beta reads <hi>was</hi> while F omits the word entirely. The <hi>C</hi> reading agrees with R's.</note> blent .</l>
<l> And blew alle þin blissed <app><lem>þennes</lem></app><note>R.5.513: Alpha's <hi>þennes</hi> (in F = <hi>þens boldely</hi>) is omitted by beta. However, in a revised version of this line, <hi>C</hi> includes it.</note>  in<seg>-</seg>to þe blisse of paradys .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Þe thridde day after  þow ȝedest in oure seute .</l>
<l> A synful marie þe seiȝ  er seynte marie þi dame .</l>
R.5.516KD.5.498
<l> And alle to solace synful  þow suffredest it so were .<note>R.5.516: There is an ink blot over the final <e> of <hi>were</hi>.</note></l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Non veni vocare iustos  sed peccatores ad penitenciam .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And alle þat mark hath I<seg>-</seg>mad  matheu Iohan and lucas .</l>
<l> Of þin <app><lem>douȝtyest</lem></app> dedes  were don in oure armes .</l>
R.5.520KD.5.500a
<l> <hi><foreign>Verbu<expan>m</expan> caro factu<expan>m</expan> est . & habitauit in nobis .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And by so m<del>.</del><add>y</add>che <app><lem>it</lem></app><note>R.5.521: <hi>Cx</hi> agrees with alpha.</note> semeth  þe <app><lem>sykerloker</lem></app><note>R.5.521: This is a unique form in R; F has <hi>sikere</hi> while beta reads <hi>sikerere</hi>; nevertheless, <hi>Cx</hi> agrees exactly with R's comparative, an odd form that appears restricted to texts from the West Midlands (as evidenced by citations from both <title>MED</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>sikerli</hi> [adv. 3], and <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>sickerly</hi>.)</note> we mowe .</l>
<l> Byde and bi<seg>-</seg>seche  if it be þi wille .</l>
<l> Þat art our<expan>e</expan> fader and oure brother<expan>e</expan>  be m<expan>er</expan>cyable to vs .</l>
R.5.524KD.5.504
<l> And haue <app><lem>mercy</lem></app><note>R.5.524: Cf. the beta variant, <hi>reuthe</hi>, which properly alliterates and agrees with the reading of the <hi>C</hi> version.</note> on þes ribaudes  þat repenten hem <app><lem>sore</lem></app></l>
<l> Þat euere þei wrathed <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.5.525: Beta here attests an additional phrase: <hi>in þis worlde </hi>.</note>  in worde thouȝt or dedes .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þanne hent hope an horn  of <foreign>deus tu co<expan>n</expan>u<expan>er</expan>sus viuificabis <app><lem>no<expan>s</expan></lem></app></foreign> .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>he</lem></app><note>R.5.527: Before this verb, R uniquely adds <hi>he</hi>; the <hi>C</hi> version reading agrees with the <hi>B</hi> majority in omitting the pronoun.</note> blew it with <foreign>beati quor<expan>um</expan> remisse sunt iniquitates</foreign> .</l>
R.5.528KD.5.508
<l> Þat alle seyntes in heuene  songen at ones .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Ho<expan>m</expan>i<expan>n</expan>es & iumenta saluabis que<expan>m</expan>admodu<expan>m</expan> multiplicasti m<expan>isericord</expan>iam tua<expan>m</expan> d<expan>eu</expan>s .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> A thousend of men þo  throngen to<seg>-</seg>gyderes .</l>
<l> Cride vppward to crist  and to his clene moder .</l>
<milestone>fol. 22vI</milestone>
R.5.532KD.5.512
<l> <app><lem>Grace to god</lem></app><note>R.5.532: This b-verse of this line appears to have been defective in <hi>Bx</hi>, but beta's version of the a-verse (<hi>To haue grace to go . . .</hi>) seems more likely to be original than either F (<hi>To graunte swich grace . . .</hi>) or R's truncated and semantically deficient <hi>Grace to god</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> version reading for the a-verse agrees with that of beta.</note> with hem  trewthe to seke .</l>
<l> Ac þere was wiȝt non so wis  þe weye þider coude .</l>
<l> But blostereden forth as bestes  ouer bankes and hilles .</l>
<l> Til late was and longe  þat þei a lede mette .</l>
R.5.536KD.5.516
<l> Apparayled as a paynym  in pilgrimes wise .</l>
<l> He bare a bordou<expan>n</expan> I<seg>-</seg>bounde  with a brode liste .</l>
<l> In a wythewyndes wyse  I<seg>-</seg>wonden aboute .</l>
<l> A <app><lem>bulle</lem></app><note>R.5.539: Beta reads <hi>bolle</hi> which is clearly the intended meaning. Alpha's form is not documented as a variant spelling for this word (= mod. <hi>bowl</hi>. The <hi>C</hi> reading agrees with beta's.</note> and a bagge  he bare by hys syde .</l>
R.5.540KD.5.520
<l> An hundred of ampulles  on his hat seten .</l>
<l> Sygnes of <app><lem>a<seg>-</seg>sise</lem></app><note>R.5.541: Cf. F's <hi>seyntys</hi> and beta's <hi>Synay</hi>. R's reading is supported by <hi>Cx</hi> and by several <hi>A</hi>-version manuscripts (including Bodley 851, i.e., Z). Most <hi>A</hi> copies agree with beta's reading.</note>  and schelles of gales .</l>
<l> And many cruche on his cloke  and <app><lem>þe</lem></app><note>R.5.542: The beta manuscripts do not attest <hi>þe</hi>. Both the <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> versions also omit this determiner.</note> cayes of rome .</l>
<l> And þe vernicle before  for men schulde <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>knowe</lem></app> .</l>
R.5.544KD.5.524
<l> And se by his seynes<note>R.5.544: <hi>Seynes</hi>, "signs."</note>  wham he souȝt hadde .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þis folke frayned hym furst : fro whennes he come .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Fram synay he seyde  and fram oure lordes sepulcre .</l>
<l> In bethlem and in babiloyne  I haue ben in bothe .</l>
R.5.548KD.5.528
<l> In ermony <app><lem>and in</lem></app><note>R.5.548: R's phrase, <hi>and in</hi>, is unique. Cr includes <hi>and</hi> but omits <hi>in</hi>; both F and the majority of beta copies omit <hi>and</hi>. The <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> reading here appears to agree with the F/beta lection.</note> alisaundre  in many other places .</l>
<l> Ȝe may se be my sygnes  þat sitten on myn hatte .</l>
<l> Þat I haue walked ful wyde  in wete and in drye .</l>
<l> And souȝte gode seyntes  for my soule helth .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.552KD.5.532
<l> <hi></hi> <hi>K</hi>nowest þow auȝt a corseint  þat men calleth treuthe .</l>
<l> Koudest þow auȝt wissen vs þe wey  <app><lem>þer<expan>e</expan></lem></app><note>R.5.553: R's <hi>þere</hi> is unique in the <hi>B</hi> tradition (LaAMaH among the <hi>A</hi> manuscripts agree with R); F and beta read <hi>where</hi>, which is also the reading of the <hi>A</hi> majority.</note> þ<expan>a</expan>t wyȝte<note>R.5.553: R's <hi>wyȝte</hi> agrees only with Cr; F and the beta majority read <hi>wy(e)</hi>, which is also the reading of the <hi>A</hi> version.</note> dwelleth .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Nay so me god helpe  seyde þe gome þanne .</l>
<l> I seyȝ neu<expan>er</expan>e palmer<expan>e</expan>  with pik ne with scrippe .</l>
R.5.556KD.5.536
<l> Axen after hym er<expan>e</expan>  til now in þis place .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> <hi>P</hi>eter q<expan>uo</expan>d a plowman  and put forth his hed .</l>
<l> I knowe hym as kendely  as clerk doth his bokes .</l>
<l> Consience and kende witt  kenned me to his place .</l>
R.5.560KD.5.540
<l> And deden me suren <app><lem>he<expan>m</expan></lem></app><note>R.5.560: R's <hi>hem</hi> is an alpha reading, shared exclusively with F, and the plural reference is presumably to the two figures mentioned in the previous line. By contrast, beta deploys a third-person singular accusative, presumably understanding <hi>treuthe</hi> as the referent. The P family of <hi>C</hi> witnesses supports the beta reading, but the X subarchetype appears to have omitted the pronoun altogether.</note> sikerly  to s<expan>er</expan>ue hym for eu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> Bothe to sowe and to sette  þe while I swynke miȝte .</l>
<l> I haue ben his folwar  al þis <app><lem>fourty</lem></app> wynter .</l>
<milestone>fol. 23rI</milestone>
<l> Bothe I<seg>-</seg>sowe his sede  and sued his bestes .</l>
R.5.564KD.5.544
<l> With<seg>-</seg>Inne and with<seg>-</seg>oute  I<seg>-</seg>wayted his profite .</l>
<l> I dike and I delue  I do þat <app><lem>he</lem></app><note>R.5.565: Beta reads <hi>treuthe</hi> for alpha's <hi>he</hi>.</note> hoteth .</l>
<l> Sum<seg>-</seg>tyme I sowe  and sum<seg>-</seg>tyme I thresche .<note>R.5.566: There is a superfluous bar over the final <e> of <hi>thresche</hi>.</note></l>
<l> In tayloures crafte <app><lem>in</lem></app><note>R.5.567: F omits this entire line, but beta reads <hi>and</hi> here.</note> tynkeres crafte  what treuthe ca<expan>n</expan> deuise .</l>
R.5.568KD.5.548
<l> I weue and I wynde  and do what treuthe hoteth .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> For þouȝ I seye it my<seg>-</seg>selue  I serue <app><lem><sic>hy</sic><corr>hy[m]</corr></lem></app> to paye .</l>
<l> Ich haue my huyre <app><lem>of hym</lem></app><note>R.5.570: Beta omits <hi>of hym</hi>, but both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> witness this alpha phrase.</note> wel  and otherwhiles more .</l>
<l> He is þe presteste payer  þat pore men knoweth .</l>
R.5.572KD.5.552
<l> He with<seg>-</seg>halt no <app><lem>men</lem></app><note>R.5.572: R's <hi>men</hi> is unique (cf. beta's <hi>hewe</hi> and F's <hi>man</hi>) and forces the following pronoun choice, <hi>here</hi>, shared by convergence only with Cot. At first glance, F's reading seems closer to alpha (<hi>man his</hi>), because of the pronoun agreement with beta, but the plural forms shared by R and F later in this line (R = <hi>þei ne haue it</hi>; F = <hi> þat þey haue it</hi>) indicate that R is probably, as usual, closer to their common parent. Either way, the beta phrasing, <hi>hewe his hyre þat he ne hath it </hi>, is almost certainly the original since it preserves the line's alliteration and exactly parallels the text of <hi>Ax</hi> (and of the a-verse of <hi>Cx</hi>).</note> her<expan>e</expan> huyre  þat <app><lem>þei</lem></app> ne <app><lem>haue</lem></app> it <app><lem>anone</lem></app> .<note>R.5.572: For R's <hi>anone</hi>, F has <hi>soone</hi> while beta reads <hi>at euen</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> support the beta reading.</note></l>
<l> He is as lowe as a lombe  and louelich of speche .</l>
<l> And if ȝe wilneth to wite  where þat he dwelleth .</l>
<l> I schal wise ȝow witterly  þe weye to his place .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.576KD.5.556
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Ȝe leue peres q<expan>uo</expan>d þes pilgrymes  and profered hym huyre .</l>
<l> For to wende with hem  to treuthes dwellynge place .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Nay by my <app><lem>soule perel</lem></app><note>R.5.578: R's <hi>perel</hi> is unique but may well represent <hi>Bx</hi>. The alliterative pattern is no more adequate than that of its only competitor, <hi>helth</hi> (= WCrGLM), but both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> attest R's lection.</note> q<expan>uo</expan>d peres  and gan for to swerie .</l>
<l> I nolde fonge a ferthyng  for seint Thom<expan>a</expan>s schrine</l>
R.5.580KD.5.559
<l> Treuthe wolde loue me þe lesse  a longe tyme þere<seg>-</seg>after .</l>
<l> Ac if ȝe wilneth to wende wel  þis is þe weye thider </l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Ȝe mote go thorȝ mekenesse  bothe men and wyues .</l>
<l> Til ȝe come in<seg>-</seg>to consience  þat crist wite þe sothe .</l>
R.5.584KD.5.563
<l> Þat ȝe louen oure lorde god  leuest of alle thynges .</l>
<l> And þanne ȝour<expan>e</expan> neyȝbores nexst  in none wise appaire</l>
<l> Otherwise þan þow woldest  he wrouȝte to þi<seg>-</seg>selue .<note>R.5.586: In the right margin, beginning here and written vertically up the page to R5.580, there is a signature which has been erased. It appears to be the same hand as on fol. 94r. Still discernible are traces of an initial and a surname in full.</note></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> And so bouh forth by a broke  be buxu<expan>m</expan> of <app><lem>þi</lem></app><note>R.5.587: R's <hi>þi</hi> (cf. F's <hi>þy<expan>n</expan></hi>) is not attested in beta nor in the <hi>A</hi> version.</note> speche .</l>
R.5.588KD.5.567
<l> Til ȝe fynden a forthe  ȝour<expan>e</expan> faderes honoureth .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Honora patrem et <app><lem>matrem</lem></app><note>R.5.589: R's Latin tag omits a final <hi>&c</hi> found in beta (also, cf. F's unique added phrase <foreign>ut sis longeu<expan>us</expan> sup<expan>er</expan> t<expan>er</expan>ra<expan>m</expan></foreign>). Most <hi>C</hi> witnesses agree on this point with beta.</note></foreign></hi></l>
<l> Wadeth in þat water  and wascheth ȝow wel þere .</l>
<l> And ȝe schul lepe þe lyȝtloker<expan>e</expan>  alle ȝour<expan>e</expan> lif<seg>-</seg>tyme .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.592KD.5.570
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And so schalt þow se swere nauȝt  but if it be for nede .</l>
<milestone>fol. 23vI</milestone>
<l> And namliche an Idel  þe name of god almiȝti .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Þanne schaltow come bi a crofte  but come þow nauȝt þer<expan>e</expan>Inne .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Þe</lem></app> crofte hate coueyte nauȝt  men<note>R.5.595: R uniquely omits a word after <hi>men</hi>, but the omission probably goes back to alpha. F rewrites by dropping <hi>men</hi> altogether and uniquely substituting the phrase <hi>neyþir maydins</hi>, while beta deploys a phrase that parallels <hi>Ax</hi> : <hi>mennes catel</hi>. The <hi>Cx</hi> phrase, <hi>menne catel</hi>, involves an unmarked genitive that might help account for the error in alpha.</note> <app><lem>ne</lem></app> here wyues .</l>
R.5.596KD.5.574
<l> Ne none of her s<expan>er</expan>uantes  þat nuyen hem miȝte .</l>
<l> Loke <app><lem>þow</lem></app> breke no bowes þere  but if it be <app><lem>on</lem></app><note>R.5.597: R's <hi>on</hi> is a unique addition.</note> ȝoure owen .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> To stokkes þere stondeth  ac stynte ȝe nauȝt þere .</l>
<l> Þei hatte stele nauȝt ne slee nauȝt  strike forthe by bothe .</l>
R.5.600KD.5.578
<l> And leue hem on þi left halfe  and loke nauȝt þere<seg>-</seg>after</l>
<l> And hold wel þin haliday  heye til euene .</l>
<l> Þan schalt þow blenche at a beruh  bere no fals wittnesse .</l>
<l> <note>R.5.603: Among the <hi>B</hi> witnesses, R uniquely omits the subject of this line, which is <hi>He</hi> in beta (as well as in most <hi>A</hi> manuscripts) and <hi>It</hi> in F. However, R's reading (with its ellipsis) is also attested in <hi>Cx</hi></note> <app><lem>Is</lem></app> frythed in with floreynes  and other fees manye .</l>
R.5.604KD.5.582
<l> Loke <app><lem>ȝe</lem></app> plukke no plante þere  for perel of <app><lem>ȝoure soules</lem></app><note>R.5.604: The plural pronouns in this line represent alpha readings, the first of which is also attested in F; cf. beta's <hi>Loke <hi>þow</hi></hi> and <hi><hi>þi</hi> soule</hi>. However, R's <hi>soules</hi> is a unique reading since F here goes his own way, rendering the final phrase of this line as <hi>þe heyward</hi>. Both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> agree with beta.</note> .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Þanne schal ȝe sei sothe  so it be to done .</l>
<l> In none maner<expan>e</expan> elles nauȝt  for no mannes byddynge .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Þanne schaltow come to a courte  as cler<expan>e</expan> as þe sonne .</l>
R.5.608KD.5.586
<l> Þe mote is of mercy  þe maner<expan>e</expan> aboute .</l>
<l> And alle þe walles ben of witt  to halden wille oute .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>Icarneled</lem></app> with cristendome  <app><lem>þat kende</lem></app><note>R.5.610: In the <hi>B</hi> tradition, R's <hi>þat kende</hi> is unique; both F and beta read <hi>mankynde</hi>. However, both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi> agree with R and verify that its reading is original.</note> to saue .</l>
<l> <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>buterased</lem></app> with by<seg>-</seg>leue so  or þow best nauȝt I<seg>-</seg>saued .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.612KD.5.590
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> And alle þe houses ben <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>hyled</lem></app>  halles and chaumbres .</l>
<l> With no lede but with loue  and lowe speche as bretheren .</l>
<l> Þe brugge is of bidde wel  þe bette may þow spede .</l>
<l> Iche pyler is of penau<expan>n</expan>ce  of preyeres to seyntes .</l>
R.5.616KD.5.594
<l> Of almesdedes aren þe hokes  þat þe gates hangen on .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Grace hatte þe gatewarde  a goed man for<seg>-</seg>sothe .</l>
<l> His man hatte amende ȝow  <app><lem>many</lem></app> <app><lem>man</lem></app><note>R.5.618: Most beta manuscripts read <hi>men</hi> here, but LM support alpha's singular, which also happens to be the reading of both <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> hym knoweth .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Telleth hym þis tokene  þat truthe wyte þe sothe .</l>
R.5.620KD.5.598
<l> I parfourmed þe penau<expan>n</expan>ce  þe prest me enioyned .</l>
<l> And am ful sori <app><lem>of</lem></app><note>R.5.621: Beta reads <hi>for</hi> here, which is also the reading of the <hi>A</hi> version; though a majority of <hi>C</hi> manuscripts also agrees with beta's preposition, some of the most reliable X family witnesses (XYcUcDc) agree with alpha's <hi>of</hi>.</note> my synnes  and so I schal euere .</l>
<milestone>fol. 24rI</milestone>
<l> Whan I thenke þere<seg>-</seg>on  þei I were a pope .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Byddeth amende ȝow meken hy<expan>m</expan>  to his meister ones .</l>
R.5.624KD.5.602
<l> To wayue vppe þe wykat  þat þe wo<expan>m</expan>man schette .</l>
<l> Þo adam and eue  eten appeles vn<seg>-</seg>rosted .</l>
<l> <hi><foreign>Per euam cunctis clausa est  & p<expan>er</expan> mariam virginem <app><lem>it<expan>er</expan>u<expan>m</expan></lem></app> <app><lem>&c<expan>etera</expan></lem></app><note>R.5.626: Beta omits <foreign>iterum</foreign> and finishes the citation with the phrase <foreign>patefacta est</foreign>. The <hi>C</hi> version includes both elements, reading <foreign>iterum patefacta est</foreign></note> .</foreign></hi></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> For he hath þe keye and þe clikat  þowe þe kynge slepe .</l>
R.5.628KD.5.605
<l> And if grace graunt þe  to go in þis wise .</l>
<l> Þow schalt se in þi<seg>-</seg>selue  treuthe sitte in þin herte .</l>
<l> In a cheyne of charite  as þow a childe were .</l>
<l> To suffre hym and to<note>R.5.631: R shares this repeated verbal particle solely with G, presumably by convergence.</note> <app><lem>segge</lem></app><note>R.5.631: Here R uniquely omits a word; most of the other manuscripts read <hi>segge <hi>nouȝte</hi></hi>. F rewrites the line but also omits the negative, suggesting that the error originated in alpha.</note>  aȝeynes þi sires wille .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.632KD.5.609
<l> <hi></hi> Ac be war þanne of wrathe þe  þat is a wikked schrewe .</l>
<l> He hath enuye to hym  þat in þin herte sitteth .</l>
<l> And <app><lem>pucketh</lem></app><note>R.5.634: In the beta tradition, as in many of the <hi>A</hi> manuscripts and in <hi>Cx</hi>, this phrase reads <hi>pukket forþ</hi>.</note> pruyde  to preyse þi<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
<l> Þe boldenesse of þi benefetes  maketh þe blynd þanne .</l>
R.5.636KD.5.613
<l> And þanne worstou driue<expan>n</expan> out as deuh  and þe dore <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>closed</lem></app> .</l>
<l> <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>cayed</lem></app> and <app><lem>I<seg>-</seg>clycated</lem></app>  to kepe þe with<seg>-</seg>oute<expan>n</expan> .</l>
<l> Happely an hundreth wynt<expan>er</expan>  ar þow efte entre .</l>
<l> Þus miȝtow lesen his loue  to lete wel by þi<seg>-</seg>selue .</l>
R.5.640KD.5.617
<l> And neu<expan>er</expan>e happeliche efte entre  but grace þow haue .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <del></del><supplied></supplied> Ac þere aren seuen <app><lem>ȝiftes</lem></app><note>R.5.641: The <hi>Bx</hi> reading here was <hi>sustren</hi> (as in <hi>Ax</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>), and alpha obviously was in error; cf. F's reading, <hi>seruauntys</hi>, which is probably a characteristic smoothing rather than the original alpha variant.</note>  þat s<expan>er</expan>uen treuthe eu<expan>er</expan>e .</l>
<l> And aren porteres <app><lem>ouer</lem></app><note>R.5.642: Cf. F's <hi>at</hi> and beta's <hi>of</hi>. The beta reading agrees with the predominant reading among <hi>A</hi> witnesses, while the reading of R is that of <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> þe post<expan>er</expan>nes  þat to þe place longeth .</l>
<l> Þat on hatte abstinence  and <app><lem>vmblete</lem></app><note>R.5.643: R's form here is obviously synonymous with the F/beta <hi>humilite</hi> (which is also the lection found in <hi>Ax</hi>). However, R's form is treated by <title>MED</title> and <title>OED2</title>, <hi>s. v.</hi> <hi>humblete</hi>, not as a spelling variant but as a different, rarer noun, derived from <hi>humble</hi> by suffixing. <title>MED</title> cites examples from manuscripts of Chaucer's <title>Physician's Tale</title>, <title>Parson's Tale</title>, and the <title>Tale of Melibee</title>. The P family of the <hi>C</hi> version agrees with the prevalent F/beta reading, but the X family shows the same rare form as R, suggesting that it may well have been the reading in both <hi>Bx</hi> and <hi>Cx</hi>.</note> an<seg>-</seg>other .</l>
R.5.644KD.5.621
<l> Charite and chastite  ben his chief maydenes .</l>
<l> Pacience and pees  miche poeple þei helpeth .</l>
<l> Largenesse þe lady  <app><lem>he</lem></app><note>R.5.646: <hi>He</hi>, "she."</note><note>R.5.646: Cf. L's <hi>heo</hi>; F and the majority of beta copies read <hi>she</hi> (though Cr omits any pronoun reference). The <hi>A</hi> and <hi>C</hi> manuscripts agree with Cr.</note> lete in ful manye .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Heo</lem></app> hath hulpe a thousend oute  of þe deueles pondfolde .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.648KD.5.625
<l> <hi></hi> <hi>A</hi>nd ho<note>R.5.648: <hi>ho</hi>, "who, whoever."</note> is sib to þis seuene  so me god helpe .</l>
<l> <app><lem>Heo</lem></app> is wonderlich welcome  and faire vnderfongen .</l>
<l> And but if <app><lem>þat</lem></app><note>R.5.650: R's <hi>þat</hi> is a unique addition to this phrase, which reads in <hi>Ax</hi> exactly as it does in beta.</note> ȝe be sib  to su<expan>m</expan>me of þis seuene .</l>
<l> It is ful hard be my hed q<expan>uo</expan>d peres  for eny of ȝow alle .</l>
R.5.652KD.5.629
<l> To geten Ingonge at any gate þer<expan>e</expan>  but grace be þe more .</l>
<milestone>fol. 24vI</milestone>
</lg>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Now be crist q<expan>uo</expan>d a cuttpurs  I haue no kynne þere .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> <app><lem>Ne</lem></app> I q<expan>uo</expan>d an apewarde  by auȝt þat I knowe .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Wite god q<expan>uo</expan>d a wafrester<expan>e</expan>  wiste I þis <app><lem>sothe</lem></app> .<note>R.5.655: F reads this b-verse as <hi>þat y wiste þe sothe</hi>. Beta has <hi>wist I þis <hi>for</hi> sothe</hi>. Obviously, R is closer to beta here, differing only in omitting <hi>for</hi>. <hi>Ax</hi> appears to have had the same reading as beta. <hi>Cx</hi> is uncertain (a major group of P manuscripts reading <hi><hi>þe</hi> soþe</hi>), but the X family clearly supports beta's version of the phrase.</note></l>
R.5.656KD.5.633
<l> Schulde I neuer forther<expan>e</expan> a foot  for no <app><lem>frere</lem></app><note>R.5.656: Among the <hi>B</hi> copies, R's <hi>frere</hi> is a unique reading, an unmarked genitive; many <hi>C</hi> witnesses agree with the <hi>B</hi> majority, but most of the X family reads this lection in agreement with R.</note> p<expan>re</expan>chynge .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> Ȝus q<expan>uo</expan>d peres þe plowman  and poked hem alle to goed .</l>
<l> Mercy is a <app><lem>mayde</lem></app><note>R.5.658: R's <hi>mayde</hi> is unique in the <hi>B</hi> tradition; all other witnesses attest <hi>maydene</hi>. However, witnesses in the <hi>C</hi> tradition are split on this reading, most of the X family agreeing with the <hi>B</hi> majority while most of the P family (as well as several of the X grouping) concur with R's form.</note> þere  hath miȝt ouer <app><lem>hem</lem></app> alle .</l>
<l> And sche is sib to alle synful  and hire sone alse .</l>
R.5.660KD.5.637
<l> And thorȝ þe helpe of hem to  hope þow non other .</l>
<l> Þow miȝt gete grace þere  <app><lem>be</lem></app> so þow go by<seg>-</seg>tyme .<note>R.5.661: There is an apparently random ink blot, partially erased, immediately below the punctus, giving it, at first glance, the appearance of a modern semicolon.</note></l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
<l> <hi></hi> By seint poule q<expan>uo</expan>d a pardonere  par<seg>-</seg>aunter I be nauȝt <app><lem>welcome</lem></app> .<note>R.5.662: Where the alpha manuscripts have <hi>welcome</hi>, the beta copies read <hi>knowe þere</hi>.</note></l>
<l> I wil go feche my box  with my breuettes  & a bull<expan>e</expan> with bisshop<expan>es</expan> l<expan>ett</expan>res .</l>
</lg>
<lb/>
<lg>
R.5.664KD.5.641
<l> <hi></hi> By crist q<expan>uo</expan>d a comune woman  þi company wil I folwe .</l>
<l> Þow schalt sey I am þi suster  <orig>Ine</orig><reg>I ne</reg> wote wher<expan>e</expan> þei by<seg>-</seg>come .</l>
</lg>
</div1>
MED