DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.61385#0060
liv Chapter IV.—Genealogical History of the Texts.
261. Both read \ou nolvt for^ete, instead of nis noht forget e, line
193. Both read in 265, They shulle take here, replacing He shal
fonge his. If and R supply Chastyse hem, line 181, for chasten of
Av Minor resemblances corroborate these conclusions :
v. 74 Bote] But ^yffe H2.R. 80 on] on a. 134 bi] with. 159
pis] ytte. 161 falle] be fall. 162 Jpat] om. 171 halt per mide]
holte pere with ry^t. 175 mot] mvste. 194 iwite] wete. 208 do]
yt doo. 263 nele] wyll. 293 Ac] Butt. 304 And] om. 318 Hap]
He bathe. 355 him sauh] sawe hym. 360 ibrent] brente. 385
wel] wel om. 389 Inwardliche] Inwardly. 432 Jjat] je. 817
Kindeliche] Kendefy.
The greater age of R removes it from the question of source for
If. The numberless independent readings vouched for by AZ,
(cf. § 1) make it evident that If is not copied immediately from
MS. R. It seems possible that the scribe of the transcript used by
H2 may have had knowledge of that employed by the scribe of R,
particularly since MS. D ascribed with If to a common source marks
also an indirect connection with MS. R.
§ 11. The MS. D.
The MS. I) united with the MS. H2 preserves traces of influence
binding it to the MS. R, as the accompanying illustrations will indi-
cate. Both D and R supply heme for the original text breme, line 383.
Both introduce the reading, line 893, es for no tone no for no instead
of nis for loue ne for (acord). D and R read syttes for is, line 908.
Other corrupt forms justify the same theory :
v. 33 he] per he D.R. 58 in] in a. 65 po] pen. 68 i wole]
he wold. 84 bi leue] leue. 165 low] ful lowe. ful] om. 174 do]
ido. 508 fonge] fonde.1
Lines 107, 133, 145, 149, 274, 289, 344, 549, 757, 771, 785,
857, 866, 885, 900 confirm these conclusions. That, however, MS.
D has no very intimate connection with MS. R, is indicated by the
number and quality of the readings preserved with A^ in opposition
to differences numerous in comparison with the instances of agree-
ment with R; cf. preceding section, and also lines 944, 963, 967,
978, 987, 990, 996, 1000, 1004, 1020, 1021.
1 The reading of 508 justified by rime and context seems to confirm the
hypothesis, that D and R correct mutilations of MSS. A1.A2.H1.R. by the form
intended by the poet.
261. Both read \ou nolvt for^ete, instead of nis noht forget e, line
193. Both read in 265, They shulle take here, replacing He shal
fonge his. If and R supply Chastyse hem, line 181, for chasten of
Av Minor resemblances corroborate these conclusions :
v. 74 Bote] But ^yffe H2.R. 80 on] on a. 134 bi] with. 159
pis] ytte. 161 falle] be fall. 162 Jpat] om. 171 halt per mide]
holte pere with ry^t. 175 mot] mvste. 194 iwite] wete. 208 do]
yt doo. 263 nele] wyll. 293 Ac] Butt. 304 And] om. 318 Hap]
He bathe. 355 him sauh] sawe hym. 360 ibrent] brente. 385
wel] wel om. 389 Inwardliche] Inwardly. 432 Jjat] je. 817
Kindeliche] Kendefy.
The greater age of R removes it from the question of source for
If. The numberless independent readings vouched for by AZ,
(cf. § 1) make it evident that If is not copied immediately from
MS. R. It seems possible that the scribe of the transcript used by
H2 may have had knowledge of that employed by the scribe of R,
particularly since MS. D ascribed with If to a common source marks
also an indirect connection with MS. R.
§ 11. The MS. D.
The MS. I) united with the MS. H2 preserves traces of influence
binding it to the MS. R, as the accompanying illustrations will indi-
cate. Both D and R supply heme for the original text breme, line 383.
Both introduce the reading, line 893, es for no tone no for no instead
of nis for loue ne for (acord). D and R read syttes for is, line 908.
Other corrupt forms justify the same theory :
v. 33 he] per he D.R. 58 in] in a. 65 po] pen. 68 i wole]
he wold. 84 bi leue] leue. 165 low] ful lowe. ful] om. 174 do]
ido. 508 fonge] fonde.1
Lines 107, 133, 145, 149, 274, 289, 344, 549, 757, 771, 785,
857, 866, 885, 900 confirm these conclusions. That, however, MS.
D has no very intimate connection with MS. R, is indicated by the
number and quality of the readings preserved with A^ in opposition
to differences numerous in comparison with the instances of agree-
ment with R; cf. preceding section, and also lines 944, 963, 967,
978, 987, 990, 996, 1000, 1004, 1020, 1021.
1 The reading of 508 justified by rime and context seems to confirm the
hypothesis, that D and R correct mutilations of MSS. A1.A2.H1.R. by the form
intended by the poet.