lii
Chapter IV.—Genealogical History of the Texts.
distinct readings of AVHVR., proving beyond doubt the nearness of
the connection. To the differences between the texts could be added
those of a trifling character, showing that it is impossible for to
have been derived from R. and R must then form a class by
themselves, to be accounted for as representing a theoretical MS.
H1R not hitherto discovered.
§ 8. Agreement of Aft within the Group Z.
Common readings pointing to a relationship A1.R are as follows :
v. 8 bu om.~\ A1.R. 26 hem] om. 70 Alpere] Aller. 411
saipe] seide. 507 willen it] hit wolen. 518 pe] om. 563 wele]
it. 625 nyll] wole. 635 For (But)] And. 695 sinne] his sinne.
700 nyl] wole. 715 for lore] ilore. 759 I wrought] wrouht. 768
I schryue] shriue. 773 ifounde] founde. 815 euene (bidene)] ene.
876 pu] pat pu. Here may be included the large number of coin-
cidences, in which the only representative of group Y is the MS. D :
915, 916, 919—921, 924, 931—933, 937, 938, 939, 945—948, 951,
952, 954—956, 964,*969, 970, 973, 974, 977, 980, 983, 993, 995,
999, 1000, 1001, 1004, 1005, 1011, 1024, 1031.
AT is naturally not copied from R, the younger MS. Neither is
R a copy of Ar This truth is shown as follows :
R not from A1: v. 22 weye] lawe R. 102 hep noht gode] are
swithe. 116 sleupe] slownes. 124 anuied] fro mynde. 237 binomen
him] fro hym tane. See additional instances to the end of the
poem.
Considerable difference between Ar and R proves that R cannot
have been derived from the older MS. Ar It is equally impossible
that transcript (5) retaining correct readings transmitted to Jf and R
alike, but not reproduced in A1, be derived from A1- cf. 11. 179,
180; 551, 552; 644—646. The list of individual mistakes in A1,
where H1 and R preserve the correct reading, is sufficiently imposing
to corroborate the conclusion that neither R nor its source was
derived from Ar Hence it must be concluded, that A1 and R,
forming with a MSS. group, go back to a source now lost, but
represented by f (fifty.
Chapter IV.—Genealogical History of the Texts.
distinct readings of AVHVR., proving beyond doubt the nearness of
the connection. To the differences between the texts could be added
those of a trifling character, showing that it is impossible for to
have been derived from R. and R must then form a class by
themselves, to be accounted for as representing a theoretical MS.
H1R not hitherto discovered.
§ 8. Agreement of Aft within the Group Z.
Common readings pointing to a relationship A1.R are as follows :
v. 8 bu om.~\ A1.R. 26 hem] om. 70 Alpere] Aller. 411
saipe] seide. 507 willen it] hit wolen. 518 pe] om. 563 wele]
it. 625 nyll] wole. 635 For (But)] And. 695 sinne] his sinne.
700 nyl] wole. 715 for lore] ilore. 759 I wrought] wrouht. 768
I schryue] shriue. 773 ifounde] founde. 815 euene (bidene)] ene.
876 pu] pat pu. Here may be included the large number of coin-
cidences, in which the only representative of group Y is the MS. D :
915, 916, 919—921, 924, 931—933, 937, 938, 939, 945—948, 951,
952, 954—956, 964,*969, 970, 973, 974, 977, 980, 983, 993, 995,
999, 1000, 1001, 1004, 1005, 1011, 1024, 1031.
AT is naturally not copied from R, the younger MS. Neither is
R a copy of Ar This truth is shown as follows :
R not from A1: v. 22 weye] lawe R. 102 hep noht gode] are
swithe. 116 sleupe] slownes. 124 anuied] fro mynde. 237 binomen
him] fro hym tane. See additional instances to the end of the
poem.
Considerable difference between Ar and R proves that R cannot
have been derived from the older MS. Ar It is equally impossible
that transcript (5) retaining correct readings transmitted to Jf and R
alike, but not reproduced in A1, be derived from A1- cf. 11. 179,
180; 551, 552; 644—646. The list of individual mistakes in A1,
where H1 and R preserve the correct reading, is sufficiently imposing
to corroborate the conclusion that neither R nor its source was
derived from Ar Hence it must be concluded, that A1 and R,
forming with a MSS. group, go back to a source now lost, but
represented by f (fifty.