The Piers Plowman Electronic Archive, Vol. XXXX: - San Marino, Huntington Library, MS 143 (X2)
author: William Langland
source date: late 14th or early 15th century
edition published: XXXX
language: lat; fre; ger
availability: Commercially available: XXXX copyright XXXX, by SEENET

In a somer[^a1][^1] sesoun whan softe[^a2] was þe sunne
Y schop[^a3][^2] me to[^a4] a schrobbe[^a5][^3] as y a schep[^a6] were
In habite of[^a7] an Ermyte vnholy of werkes
Wente[^a8] forth[^a9][^4] inþe in þe[^a10] world wondres

[^a1: somer (X2 all B- and most mss) | someres (HmG) | somerus (QSc)]

[^a2: softe (X2 A- and all most mss) | set (HmCr)]

[^a3: schop (X2 A- and most all mss) | shaped (La) | schep (Fc)]

[^a4: to (X2 D) | into (most mss) | in (EMaU) | vnder (Ha) | in (GYOC2CLMH) | into (FHmRW and all mss)]

[^a5: a schrobbe (X2) | forms of: (þe) schrobbes (AcEcFcMcNcPQRcScVc) | schregges (Ch) | a shroud (most mss) | shroudes (most XDcP2Uc)]

[^a6: schep (X2 A- and all x mss) | shepherde (p mss AcEcFcMcNcPQRcScVc)]

[^a7: of (X2 BoLMcRc) | as (and most mss)]

[^a8: Wente (X2 A- and most x mss) | Y wente (EHaJKRaUWa) | wente I (Ma) | wende I (V) | & wente (FH) | Wend (Cr1) | Y wente (AcDcFcNcPQRcScUcVc) | Wente i (Mc) | Ich wende (Ec)]

[^a9: forth (X2 most mss) | wyde (most mss) | wydene (V) | wide (all mss) | [defective] (Dc)]

[^a10: inþe in þe (X2 most mss) | in þis (A- and most mss) | into þe (Rc)]

[^1: X2.P.1: We transcribe somer. Nonetheless, we do detect an ambiguous mark which could be a suspension for -es, which would render someres, witnessed in B manuscripts HmG and C manuscripts QSc. The lack of any other word-terminal <r> in the fragment makes it impossible to determine with certainty whether the scribe had a habit of adding an otiose flourish to the letter.]

[^2: X2.P.2: In explaining the "shrub" variant in this line, which is the majority reading in C, Schmidt understands schop here in MED shapen, sense 6, "to betake oneself," as do we.]

[^3: X2.P.2: This corrupt variant, which is the dominant reading in the C manuscripts, also appears in the A tradition. Schmidt (2011) attributes its presence in A to contanmination "from a copy of the C family p (and also in B-Cr)" (p. 305, n. to line 2). One of the A witnesses to a form of "shrub" (K), is an AC splice, suggesting that Schmidt's assertion of C-text p branch contamination is more than speculation.]

[^4: X2.P.4: The reading forth appears only in C version manuscripts—strong evidence that this fragment belongs to the C tradition.]