Introduction

I. Description of the Manuscript: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson Poetry 137

I.1 Date:

England (S.W. Sussex), s. xv med.

I.2 Physical Description:

The manuscript is comprised of 41 numbered vellum leaves assembled in 5 quires of 4 nested bifolia, with a singleton added at the end of the fifth quire. There are catchwords (by the main scribe) at the end of the five quires: 8v, 16v, 24v, 32v, and 40v. The last folio is without a conjugate and its stub is found between fols. 32 and 33 (i.e., at the meeting of quires 4 and 5); it was therefore presumably stitched with the four bifolia of the last quire.

The folios are, overall, in the range of 220-45 x 140-45mm.

The manuscript is reasonably well preserved, in something approximating its original form. There is little sign, for instance, that its pages have been cropped at any point, and the pricking that allowed the definition and lineation of the writing space is regularly visible in the margins. Only a single signature (aiij, quite faded) can still be seen: in the bottom right corner of fol. 3r. Other signatures may have been lost as a result of fading or abrasion.

Pages are quite regularly ruled (in drypoint or ink) to define a writing area of 185-90 x 100mm. There are 31 or 32 lines marked on each folio, 5-6mm apart. The second quire has almost exclusively 32-lines-per page; subsequent quires have almost always 31.

The area ruled for writing is framed by lines on all four sides which extend nearly to the edges of the bifolium. The marks for these lines are particularly strong at the inner and outer side margins; in the writing space they are less strongly apparent.

While the majority of the folios therefore provide a simple rectangular box containing the lines in a single column, the two outer bifolia of the first quire (fols. 1,2,7,8) are lined for four columns (of varying widths, 6-10mm) to the left of the main text column,N but these columns are not employed in any way by the scribe, who simply begins his line of text at the edge of the second column, with the result that the writing area in these folios is about 6mm wider than the rest of the manuscript. Only at the opening line of the Prologue, on the recto of the first folio, does the first column appear to be at all used: that is where the anomalous large-initial <I> for the first line is placed.

The first quire is nearly evenly distributed between 32 and 31 lines per page. There are three instances where only 30 lines of text appear, and two of these appear in the first quire: on fol. 3r the last line in filled with a red wavy design; on 3v the last line is left unfilled. (The third is the unique blank line appearing, for no apparent reason, in the middle of 10v.) There is a single instance of a page with 34 lines of text: the writing space at the bottom of fol. 32v appears to have been scraped and relined to accommodate seven narrower lines of text on this last verso of the fourth quire. Five lines are squeezed into space defined by four pricking marks, and the final two lines at the bottom of the page are not accompanied by any prickings in the margin.

A rectangle of approx. 100 x 35mm has been cut from the bottom margin (outer portion) of fol. 23. It may not be be purely coincidental that a later, somewhat smaller paper tab (78 x 12-16mm) has been pasted to the outer edge of fol. 24r (whose upper margin contains the early-sixteenth-century signature of "Rychard barnard").

I.3 Contents:

Ra contains an (extended) A version of Piers Plowman, beginning (fol. 1r):

and ending on fol. 41v:

I.4 Collation:

The 41 leaves are numbered in dark ink, probably contemporary with the main text, in the upper center (on fols. 1r-5r) or upper right (on the remainder) margin of the recto.

Quiring, foliation, and textual divisions are as follows:

• i: 6 (+2), ff. 1-8; Ra.P.1 - Ra.2.63
• ii: 8, ff. 9-16; Ra.2.64 - Ra.4.101
• iii. 8, ff. 17-24; Ra.4.102 - Ra.7.74
• iv. 8, ff. 25-32; Ra.7.75 - Ra.10.10
• v. 8, ff. 33-40; Ra.10.11 - Ra.12.59
• vi. 1, f.41; Ra.12.60 - Ra.12.113

While the manuscript has not been unbound for examination or for production of the images provided by the Bodleian Library, stubs are also visible between fols. 4 and 5, and 5 and 6. Because the manuscript is tightly bound there may be other irregularities in the quiring, but it appears that folios 4 and 5 are each singles, with the first quire's foliation being as follows: 1 (conjugate with 8), 2 (conjugate with 7), 3 (conjugate with 6) 4, stub (5), 5, stub (4), 6, 7, 8. While it is the case that the large displacement of text from Passus 7 into Passus 1 begins on fol. 5v (1/3 of the way from the top of the page), there is little reason to think that we should infer some direct connection with the appearance of the singletons at this point.

It may, however, be worth noting that it is after fol. 5 (the second singleton) that the folio numbers, which had been up to that point inscribed in the center of the upper margin, now regularly are placed in the upper right corner. Clearly, at an early stage of the manuscript composition, some revision or rearrangement occurred here in the middle of the first quire. This reinforces the inference that the folio numbering in the top margin was contemporary with the original writing, or composition of the quires, of this manuscript.

I.5 The Scribe:

Simon Horobin ("Scribe," YLS 2005) has identified the scribe as Thomas Tilot (surname spelled variously Tolyte, Tholyte, Tholite, Tulit in other records) on the basis of the signature in this manuscript and that in a manuscript of the Prick of Conscience, now University College, Oxford, MS D.142, which is in the same hand. The signature in D.142 offers a variant of the form used in Ra: Nomen scriptoris thomas plenus amoris.

As a result of Horobin's research, we know some details of Tilot's ecclesiastical career. In 1406 Thomas Tholite, a clerk of Chichester, was assigned a canonry and cursal prebend at St. David's Cathedral in Wales. Thomas Tholyte, ordained deacon in September 1410, and priest in December, was probably born no earlier than 1380, and very likely in Chichester. His ordinations were sponsored by the Austin canons of Wardham Priory in west Sussex. At some point before 1415, Thomas Tolyte became a vicar of Chichester Cathedral, and in 1430 Thomas Tulit, chaplain, was installed as rector of West Thorney (on Thorney Island in Chichester Harbor) by the archdeacon of Chichester and Edmund Lacy, Bishop of Exeter (in whose diocese West Thorney stood, though it is only about eight miles west of Chichester). Six years later (13 May 1436), Thomas Tolyte, exchanged this benefice with John Reston, parson of Denton (perhaps the village of that name located just east of Newhaven in east Sussex). Further documentation of the career of Thomas Tolit has not yet come to light.

In LALME, the two manuscripts ascribed to Tilot are both assigned to southwest Sussex, where they appear (LP 5690 and LP 5680) side by side in the map of that region (1:243). The proximity to the locales associated with the career of Thomas Tilot is striking.

I.6 Handwriting:

The text of Ra is by a single scribe (Thomas Tilot) presented in what Simon Horobin terms "an idiosyncratic scribal hand, comprising a mixture of textura and anglicana features"N. In the introduction to his edition, George Kane calls it an "English bastard hand" which he dates "[f]rom handwriting and general appearance only, mid-fifteenth century."N

Tilot has a competent, if individual, amateur hand, showing rather irregular distribution of his various letter-forms: his work is not characterized by a professional regularity in his forms, nor in their hierarchy.

The graphs in Rawlinson 137 may be summarized as follows:

Most lower-case forms fall in the range of common anglicana: <e>; <l>; <m>; <o>; <p>; <q>; <t>; <u>; <v>; and <x>.

While these lower-case letters are for the most part consistently well-formed, others take multiple forms: <a> (e.g., apostata: Ra.1.101; and a-gast: Ra.2.170); <d> (e.g., myldelyche mede: Ra.3.19); <r> (e.g., irremuneratu(m): Ra.4.119; and more: Ra.1.197 [=K.7.88] -- and cf. for: Ra.1.199 [=K.7.90]); and <s> (e.g., three distinct forms appear in Ra.P.33). His choices among the forms are by no means fully predictable: not, for example, consistently determined by their location in a word, or their appearance next to particular letters.

The greatest irregularity in his graphs, however, lies in his choice among a number of line-initial and/or upper-case letter forms, or litterae notabiliores. Tilot uses no clearly consistent hierarchy of scripts in his line-initial graphs: some are distinctly capital forms; some differ to a degree (in size and shape) from his usual lower-case forms: and yet others cannot be differentiated from his ordinary textual lower-case forms. For some letters—e.g., <A>, <B>, <S>, <T>—he has at least two distinct capital forms, and none is employed with consistency. There is variation between bastarda, textura, and secretary forms for no discernible reason. Some sense of his variety can be seen in the series of line-initial <a>s in Ra.2.139-43.

There are also a number of letters—for example <w> and sigma <s>—where there is no dramatic distinction between lower- and upper-case, and the variable forms of some letters may even suggest a trinary rather than binary distinction between lower- and upper-case. This is particularly apparent at the beginning of lines, since the variability in forms is somewhat greater there, and the "quatrain" capitals tend to be more regularly distinctive, even if not consistently in the same form.

Tilot aligns his Latin lines with the left margin and for these the scribe uses something approximating an anglicana textura or fere-textura, only slightly larger than his English script. Much of the Latin is in red ink; some is in the main text's ink with red underlining; and some is indistinguishable from the vernacular text.

The brownish ink varies considerably in darkness and evenness of distribution, suggesting that the pen or ink may not be of "professional"-level quality, and perhaps that the scribe engaged in touching up the text. See, for example, fols. 3r and 6v and 16r. In some cases--e.g., Ra.1.186 (=K.7.77); Ra.3.55; Ra.3.69; Ra.3.94; Ra.3.173; Ra.8.138; Ra.11.267--the change of nib/ink suggests the beginning of a new stint of copying.

Tilot provides very few flourishes/otiose strokes at the end of words, and the extended stroke at the end of final-<d> barely qualifies as a flourish. In a few folios—e.g., 4v-9r, 12v-13v—the ascenders of <h> and <b> on the top line are elaborated with flourishes. Finally, there is arguably some sign that in the course of copying he moves to a more fluid, cursive style, apparent in some forms, such as his <d> or his abbreviations for quod.

A useful selection of his variant letter forms (taken from a single page: fol. 11r) can be accessed on the Late Medieval English Scribes website. The entry for Ra (though the scribe is identified as "Unknown") is found here: https://www.medievalscribes.com/index.php?browse=hands&id=511&location=Oxford&library=Bodleian%20Library&msid=428&nav=off

Since Tilot's graphs are irregularly formed, and are not always categorizable within the standard hands of his era, a brief inventory of his other lower-case forms may prove useful:

<a> appears in (at least) three forms, the most common a double-chambered <a> with an upward-slanting shape to the left-hand unit (a reversed <3>): the first <a> in a-gast (Ra.2.170). There is also a single-chambered, secretary form, as in the second <a> in the same word. It is frequent following the long <r>, or letters (like the <g> here, or <t> or <f> that have a horizontal bar that more often than not is connected to it. A third lower-case <a> is regularly used in Latin words, whether rubricated or not: e.g., the last two <a>s in apostata (Ra.1.101). As seen above, the second and third forms also appear in line-initial positions.

<b> resembles the modern form with a curving stroke at the top of the ascender (as is common in this hand). The final downward stroke of this curve swings to the left, and at times connects with the lower chamber of the letter: e.g., beter(e) (Ra.4.75).. At the other extreme, the downward stroke does not make any such connection, as in betere three lines below: Ra.4.78.

<c> is regularly distinct from <t>, and <cc> from <tt>.

<d> appears in two forms and seems to shift from the simpler single-chambered form with a slanting ascender to the double-chambered form somewhere near the beginning of Passus III. The long diagonal stroke in the earlier form often has a slight curve, or loop, to the right at its upper extremity. In the later form, the downward diagonal continues to the right, and often leads into the following letter. The various forms can be seen clearly in close proximity in Ra.3.19-21.

<f> has a firmly upright stem (like the long <s>), usually with a slight right-ward curve at the tapering bottom. Tilot regularly avoids connecting the top of the <f> to the downstroke of a following <t>--and thus distinguishing his <f> from his <s>.

<g> has a horizontal stroke to the right; its lower lobe opens to the left (as in secretary): e.g., Ra.1.43 and at times it gives the appearance of closing the circle: e.g., tellyng (Ra.7.89 [=K.7.232]).

<h> has a horizontal (slightly curved) top stroke connected to the ascender. At the base of the ascender is a rightward hook, which often connects with the descender, whose leftward tail is tucked under. In some instances, however, the hook at the base is barely suggested.

<i> is relatively undistinguished: a simple minim with a slight onset stroke at the upper left and a tail at the lower right. When two (or more) <i>s appear in series, the last takes the extended form of a ModEng <j>.

When an <i> appears in a series of minims, it is frequently marked with a short diagonal, or s-shaped, mark above (and usually to the right): e.g., t(ri)nite. This is most often done in cases where the run of minims--e.g., <ni>, <im>, <mi>, <ini>, or <iui>--might be confusing, especially in unusual (or Latin) words: e.g. vernicle (Ra.6.10) and iniq(ue) (Ra.11.23). In a few places a v-shaped mark is used: e.g., in notorijs (Ra.2.129). A striking instance is found in iniquitates (Ra.3.229), which shows three distinct forms of the mark.

<k> like the <h>, it has a horizontal top stroke and a slight hook; its right-hand element shows a raised <z>- or <2>-shaped series of strokes.

<n> is made up of two minims. The shapes of <n> and <u> are not clearly distinguished: dyuyn (Ra.P.92), cuntre (Ra.P.97), enuye (Ra.5.53, 58). In some instances the uncertainty may affect meaning: e.g., seyneth or seyueth (Ra.1.66) and sent or seut (Ra 1.122).

<r> comes in three forms: long <r> is used initially and medially, and frequently is joined to the following letter, as in freres and orderes (Ra.P.67); pore (Ra.P.83). It also appears finally, most often when there is a suspension mark attached: fore (Ra.3.173) and wederes (Ra.7.162 [=K.7.306]); after (Ra.3.174; Ra.5.56, 58) and for (Ra.3.180). The short <r> is used medially and finally: pore and departyn (Ra.P.81); for (Ra.P.60, 62). The 2-shaped <r> after <o> is infrequent: e.g., more (Ra.1.197 [=K.7.88]). On a single occasion, the short and long forms appear next to each other: e.g. irremuneratu(m) (Ra.4.119).

<s> comes in three forms. Long <s> is used initially and medially, as in Ra.P.33: su(m)me. (Tilot regularly connects the top of the <s> to the downstroke of a following <t>, and thus distinguishes his <s> from his <f>. He less regularly refrains from connecting the crossbar of the <t> to the ascender of the <s>.) HIs two other forms include an 8-shaped <s> and a sigma-<s>: both of these appear in the middle and at the end of words. All three can appear in close proximity, as in Ra.P.33, the second line of fol. 1v. In the later parts of the text final <s> is nearly exclusively the sigma form, except for the more formal Latin lines, which favor the 8-shaped form.

<w>: The third element is double-chambered and the first two vertical strokes are sometimes straight, sometimes slightly angled, with a slight loop at the top, more pronounced in the first: e.g., With swyche wise wordes (Ra.11.8).

<y>: The forms of <y> and <þ> are quite distinct, since <y> has a curved descender and <þ> an upright (at times left-ward leaning) one: see þy lyfþe (Ra.2.5). The correction of Ra.1.36--where alþer presumably ought to be a lyer--may offer a slight indication that Tilot's exemplar may not have clearly distinguished the forms of <y> and <þ>.

<ȝ> is of a fairly standard, simple form. In its two unambiguous appearances the letter <z> is indistinguishable from the scribe's <yogh>: both occur in "foreign" words: baptizatus (Ra.11.235), sarzynes (Ra.11.236).

Like these lower-case forms, Tilot's capitals also appear in a number of distinct forms:

<A> has three forms: e.g., Ra.8.164; Ra.8.172; and Ra.5.93.

<B> varies: e.g., Ra.P.13; Ra.P.5; and Ra.P.93. The form of the rubricated <B> is quite distinct.

<C> is fairly straightforward: e.g., Ra.P.53—cf. Ra.3.9, 21.

<D> comes in two forms: e.g., Ra.1.29 and Ra.1.25.

<E> appears in two main forms: e.g., Ra.5.5 and Ra.5.209. A variant of the latter appears at Ra.11.192.

<F> The common capital <ff> looks little different from the ordinary <ff>, although the capital tends to have a noticeable left-ward trailing curve at the bottom. A variant evidences a more boldly squared top.

<G> comes in two forms: e.g. Gentely (Ra.3.13), and Grace (Ra.6.81).

<H> has a wavy horizontal line to the left at the top of the main stem, but otherwise is little different from the lower-case form.

<I> comes in two main forms. The usual <I>, such as the first-person singular pronoun, regularly takes an elongated form, not unlike the ModEng <j>: e.g., Ra.5.141. In red-ticked line-initial capitals, a more elaborate form is used: e.g., Ra.6.41.

<K> like the <H>, it has a wavy horizontal line to the left at the top of the main stem, but otherwise is little different from the lower-case form: e.g., Ra.3.105.

<L> also has a wavy horizontal line to the left at the top of the main stem: e.g., Ra.2.5.

<M> rounds the first and third strokes: e.g., Ra.1.198 (=K.7.89) or Ra.2.184; or simply, in line-initial position as a slightly larger version of the lower-case, ticked with red: e.g., Ra.1.33.

<N> appears in four distinct forms: e.g., Ra.7.125, Ra.7.120, Ra.1.1, and Ra.1.206.

<O> appears in two forms: Of (Ra.3.73) and Of (Ra.3.77).

<P> comes in five forms, in two basic shapes: one with a dot in the rounded cell: e.g., Ra.1.77, Ra.5.133, Title to Ra3; and the second with an empty cell: e.g., Ra.6.24 and Ra.11.131.

<Q> only appears in Latin words, and has two basic forms, distinguished by their left-hand element: e.g., 1) Ra.P.39 and Ra.3.222; and 2) Ra.5.42 and Ra.8.160.

<R> is more often a simpler form: e.g., Ra.4.65; a more elaborate form appears less frequently: e.g., Ra.9.34 and Ra.1.49.

<S> appears in three distinct forms: e.g., Ra.9.18, Ra.P.23, and Ra.9.17.

<T> appears in three forms: e.g., Ra.9.38, Ra.9.42, and Ra.9.54.

<V> appears only once: Venym at Ra.5.69.

<W> is larger and more obliquely angled and looped than <w>: e.g., Ra.P.109 or Ra.3.95.

<Y> is distinguished from its lower-case form only by the presence of red ticking: e.g., Ra.P.4.

<Þ> is not distinguished in form from the scribe's small_thorn; the only thing that distinguishes it is the red ticking that is regularly employed for line-initial capitals: e.g., Ra.6.101. In those folios in which all line-initial graphs are ticked with red, we have only identified as capitals those which also correspond to the regular capitals that mark the start of a quatrain.

<Ȝ> is barely distinct from its lower-case form: e.g., Ra.1.45 (with a slightly more elaborate final curving stroke; others lack this feature, and are made capitals only by the presence of red ticking: e.g., Ra.5.153.

I.7 Textual Presentation and Decoration:

Each of the passūs in Ra is headed by a flush-left Latin incipit in a red textura. There is no additional space before or after these rubricated titles.

The first passus heading denominates it (uniquely in the extant manuscripts of Piers) as prologus (fol. 1r). Beginning with Passus 1 the form of the incipit is Passus N de visione, from primus through octavus. At the end of Passus 8, there is a more elaborate marking of the larger division of the poem into a visio (Prologue through Passus 8) and vita (Passūs 9 through 12): Explicit hic visio willelmi de petro ⁊c Et hic incipit vita de dowel . do bet . ⁊ dobest . secundum wit ⁊ resoun (bottom of fol. 29r). There is no specific passus title here, where we might well expect prologus to designate Passus 9 (as is the case in two other A manuscripts: Ma and Wa), since the subsequent three concluding passūs follow in the style Passus N de do wel.

Ra along with U and J are the only witnesses to what Ra titles Passus tercius de do wel, and Ra is the unique witness to what we may call the complete Passus XII: its final 29 lines (Ra.12.85-113) are followed by Explicit do wel, and Tilot's signature: Nomen scriptoris . tilot plenus amoris.

In passus headings, the Latin is regularly in red ink. Aside from fairly regularly inscribing complete lines of Latin in red ink, there is no fully consistent practice in regard to the marking of Latin words and phrases that appear within the body of the poem. When Latin appears within the text, it is most often also in red ink (e.g., Ra.1.49-50; Ra.3.54, 85; Ra.7.91; Ra.8.47, 94-5; Ra.10.35, 82; Ra.11.23, 148; Ra.12.51, 53, 57-8); but at times it is only underlined in red (e.g., Ra.P.39; Ra.1.174, 187; Ra.7.66, 68, 74; Ra.8.122; Ra.10.7-8, 51; Ra.11.315; Ra.12.80); and in other cases it is entirely unmarked (e.g., Ra.1.83, 101; Ra.3.240, 260; Ra.5.42, 212; Ra.8.3, 21, 134; Ra.10.63; Ra.11.9, 236).

In the single instance (besides various Notae) where Latin words (a line omitted from the body) appear in the margin, they are in red ink (Ra.2.84).

In the unique case where the catchword is a Latin phrase (bottom of fol. 24v) it is (though underlined in red ink) otherwise undistinguished from English catchwords, in ink or letter form (with the exception perhaps of the upper-case <I>).

This irregularity in the treatment of Latin extends in a few cases to the treatment of English words in lines containing Latin: e.g., Ra.1.49-50; Ra.4.118-19. In 4.118, the initial for is underlined with red; in 119 and bad is written in red (and in textura) along with the Latin in this line. Compare also the red for (Ra.10.91); and the entire line of English (Ra.1.206 [=K.7.97]). Finally, the manuscript's last catchword (fol. 40v) also provides red underlining for þe ferste ferly.

In addition to the incipits, each passus begins with an ornamental capital. On fol. 1r this capital <I> is in black, 6 lines tall. Other capitals are smaller, 2 lines tall, and in red ink. The sole exception is the <yogh> that begins Passus 2: indistinguishable from the lower-case form, it is one-line tall, in the dark ink of the main text, but touched with red. Except for the capital in the margin of fol. 1r, all are located in the main writing area. This is also the case with the few scattered instances of red single-line initials of English words we find: Ra.5.145 and 211; Ra.6.24 and 113; and Ra.9.54. No obvious rationale suggests itself for these somewhat anomalous rubricated capitals.

The spaces left for rubricated capitals were usually marked in two ways at the time of inscribing the main text: guide letters provided by the main scribe, and (usually, but not always) a vertical boundary line defining the end of the space allocated for the capital. In some instances (Ra.5.1, Ra.8.1; Ra.9.1) these guide letters are not apparent (though the vertical boundary lines are present): they were either omitted or else have been completely overwritten and obscured by the rubricated capital.

Tilot also touches with red ink letters in line-initial position. In some instances the red-ticking is applied to all line-initial letters on a page, lower- and upper-case, as on fols 1r, 1v, 2r, and 25r (the beginning of the fourth quire). On fol 41r, the singleton at the end of the manuscript, red ticking marks the start of nearly half the lines.) And, of course, from simple visual inspection it is impossible to determine whether Tilot provided every instance of red-ticking; they may be later additions. As we will now see, however, some should be attributed to him.

Quatrains

A distinctive feature of Ra's presentation of its text of Piers is the regular marking of the text into "quatrains." This is accomplished by using distinctive capital letters (regularly ticked with red) at the beginning four-line groups, and the quatrains are further delineated by the use of alternating punctuation marks at the ends of successive two-line pairs. The lines of the quatrains are marked as follows: the first line has a red-ticked capital and no end-of-line punctuation; the second concludes with a punctus elevatus; the third is unmarked; and the fourth ends with a raised punctus. The capitals and punctuation are in the original hand; the red-ticking would arguably be also. There is no reason to question that these were intentional features of the original inscription of the lines.

The presence of quatrains in fourteenth-century alliterative verse has been known (and argued about) since Max Kaluza's ground-breaking article in 1892. While his argument for the appearance of larger strophic groupings has been rejected—see especially Day and Duggan 1976-77; and cf. Duggan and Turville-Petre, xix, xxii-xxiv—the case for quatrains has been confirmed by the presence of marginal marking in poems such as Patience, Cleanness, The Wars of Alexander, and The Siege of Jerusalem. For the first two, oblique double lines in the left margin (which mark stanzas of Gawain and Pearl in MS Cotton Nero A.x.) regularly mark the first lines of four-line units: see Anderson, p. 3; and Andrew and Waldron, pp. 48. For manuscript evidence regarding Siege, see Day; Kölbing-Day, viii-x; and Hanna and Lawton, xix-xxvi, lxx-lxxviii. While in some cases such paratextual marks may have been mechanically supplied, there is ample evidence for what Day called "the tradition of a four-line stanza" (p. 245). That these quatrains function as "syntactic devices" has been persuasively argued by Lawton 1980, 615; and see also Hanna and Lawton, lxxvii-viii, and Andrew and Waldron, pp. 49 ("a basic four-line syntax"). Finally, Vaughan 1979-80 has made a case for quatrains being signaled by patterns of extended alliteration in Morte Arthure.

While the appearance of quatrains is a distinctive feature of Tilot's copy of Piers, he does not follow this practice in his other identified scribal product: the copy of the Prick of Conscience in University College, Oxford MS 142. Admittedly, this is a poem in rhyming couplets rather than unrhymed alliterative lines. Without further evidence, therefore, we can only speculate about Tilot's practice in Ra and whether perhaps his exemplar for Piers had some indication of the poem's being presented in four-line segments. In any event, his mode of marking quatrains in Ra differs from those employed in some other manuscripts of alliterative poetry, and the rationale behind the quatrains in Ra, furthermore, is neither fully consistent with syntax. But it is at least clear that it is not simply a mechanical afterthought, but an idea that shapes his inscription of the poem.

In his discussion of punctuation of verse--classical, Biblical and medieval--Parkes comments on medieval scribal practices that may be pertinent in this case: "Since in many instances the pointing does not coincide with either a sense or syntactical break, the scribes seem to have been providing an extra signal of what they perceived as a prosodic unit" (p. 102). When he goes on to discuss the range of scribal practices in the layout and marking in mansucripts of the Psalms (pp. 103-7), he may well be pointing us to a potential source for Tilot's practice: he was, after all, from 1415 a vicar at Chichester Cathedral and would, as Horobin, "Scribe," reminds us, have had as his "chief role ... singing in the choir during services, and .... [be] expected to learn the psalter ... by heart .... [and] obliged to attend daily and nightly hours" (pp. 13-14).

There are some scattered departures from the regular quatrain pattern, especially in the regularity of alternating end-line punctuation (e.g., Ra.6.57-60), and an extended interruption of this from the middle of fol. 27r to the top of fol. 28v, and again (with a very few exceptions) from the middle of fol. 32v to the end of the manuscript. Finally, the regular quatrain-based pattern of red-ticked line-initial capitals is obscured (or ignored) in Passus 12, where a large number of line-initial graphs are likewise red-ticked.

I.8 Punctuation:

As we have seen above, Tilot employs both a punctus and a punctus elevatus at line ends in a quite regular pattern. In addition, the final line of a passus is also usually marked by a punctus, but this passus-end punctuation is missing from the ends of passus 5, 7, and 10.

In addition, he regularly marks the mid-line caesura with a (raised) punctus. We have noted the absence of such mid-line marks (e.g., Ra.1.49, 51, 53; Ra.11.59, 167). A few mid-line caesurae are instead marked by a punctus elevatus: e.g. Ra.6.113, Ra.8.95.

The raised punctus also appears in a few other situations: e.g., after line-initial Contra (Ra.9.16, Ra.11.233); before ⁊c (Ra.7.91 [=K.7.234], Ra.8.134; Ra.10.35; Ra.11.299); after mala in the continuous two lines of Latin (Ra.8.101). It is also used to separate items in a series (as with vsure . auarice . and oþes in Ra.8.40), and with .a.b.c. in Ra.8.119; and in a few other irregular instances (e.g., in Ra.3.38; Ra.6.32; Ra.8.168; Ra.10.48).

In a number of instances, Latin lines are marked with a punctus elevatus in mid-line (e.g., Ra.8.94, 95, 101), and a couple of English lines are likewise (Ra.2.129; Ra.6.113). Elsewhere the punctus elevatus is limited to marking certain line-endings.

As noted in the preceding section (I.7), there is considerable evidence that Tilot, in a practice unusual in manuscripts of Piers, has presented his verse lines in four-line units, marking the beginning of the quatrain with a red-ticked littera notabilior (or capital). This practice is regularly coordinated with the alternation of distinctive line-end punctuation: at the end of the second line of the "quatrain" he inscribes a punctus elevatus, and at the end of the fourth line he uses a (raised) punctus. There are some divergences from this practice but the overwhelming evidence is that this regular pattern of line-end punctuation was intended to indicate that the lines were conceived as being parts of a four-line unit.

I.9 Marginalia:

The brevity of most entries makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the number of hands involved. There appear, however, to be at least five distinct groups of entries, which may be noted:

Hand 1:

There are scattered corrections of the text within the writing space (overwriting, erasure and insertion, inline and superscript insertions), and virtually all of these may be associated directly with the main scribe, Thomas Tilot. It would be logical, also, to attribute to him the few intances of marginal corrections. In two instances, lines had been copied originally in incorrect order, and the insertion of <b> and <a> (in forms that are consistent with Tilot's script) in the left margins of fols. 14r and 36v are supplied to identify the proper reordering of the lines (Ra.3.198-199; Ra.11.116-117).

Tilot also inserted at the end of Ra.2.83-85 the Latin text that in other manuscripts regularly follows the first of these lines: Dignus e(st)/op(er)ari(us) m(er)cede.

In the right margin of fol. 28r (at Ra.8.106) there appears a lightly inked "X" that arguably could be Tilot's signal to himself to come back to make the correction obvious in that line. Alternatively, of course, it could be a later reader's noting the need for correction. (The supplied letters over the erasure may not be Tilot's.) In favor of Tilot's involvement here, however, may be the mark (obscured by later erasure) in the left margin of fol. 24v that may have signalled the need for the correction that is supplied in the scraped and rewritten second half-line of Ra.7.63.

In addition to these, we may confidently attribute to the main. scribe the catch words that regularly appear at the end of each quire, and the explicit and signature on fol. 41v.

Hand 2:

A number of characters' names are noted in the margins of the Lady Mede episode. These appear to be in a hand somewhat later than Tilot's, later-fifteenth century perhaps: these appear in fols. 8r (mede (2x), false, favel), 8v (symony), 9r (theologye, syuyl), 10v (lyer(?e)).

Hand 3:

A second hand that looks to be still later, sixteenth- (?or even early seventeenth-) century, provides another set of characters' names in the same sections, along with some paraphrases of the lines (with and without pointing fingers): e.g., 8r fall(es) favell; 10v ffallsnis ffly/eth to the ffrey/ers ⁊ gyll to/marchantt(es); lyer(es) fferd to/p(ar)donar(es); and he is also the probable source of the underlining of lechys . and lettres below [Ra.2.181]); 11r med ys worshy/pyd at weste/mynstre—this accompanied by the underlining of justyce (Ra.3.13); and 14v mede off the/molde.

Hand 4:

There are a number of signatures by Richard Barnard: Rychard, Rychard h; Rychard barnard, Rych: 17r, 24r, 31r.

John Norton-Smith calls the Rychard barnard on 24r "a young man's signature (early sixteenth century)" (William Langland, p. 132, n.2 (to Chapter Two).

Hand 5:

A much later (?19th-century) scholar (clearly, on the basis of handwriting, not W. W. Skeat) noted in Passus 1 the beginning (Ra.1.179 [=K.7.70]) and end (Ra.1.321 [=K.1.180]) of the dislocated lines from Passus 7 (5v: + / fol 32 print + / post. f. 24. b.; and with a <+> on 7v). The same hand indicated the proper position of these lines, with a <+> between Ra.7.69 and Ra.7.70 (=K.7.213), on fol. 24v, preceded by the following marginal comment: Ant. f. 4.b. This, however, misidentifies the folio of the earlier text as 4v instead of 5v.

The page numbers (Arabic, in dark ink) that appear in the center of the top margin of the recto page for the first five folios, and subsequently in the upper right corner of rectos, may also be the work of this hand.

Finally, this same hand may also be responsible for two further marginal corrections: Luke (fol. 4r) and daniel (fol. 28v). The "incorrect" names in the verses (jamys and david) are underlined, presumably by the same hand.

Hand X:

Marginal marks which look like 'cc' appear at a number of points and are presumably meant to be n[otae]: 6v (at Ra.1.253), 7r, 16v, 17r, 24r, 30v. It is not clear whether these are by the same hand(s). Those on 6v and 17r are arguably by the same hand. It is not clear what thes marks are calling attention to (except perhaps in the case of 16v). The one at Ra.1.253 may call attention for the need of the inserted word make in the next line. The one on 24r is, uniquely, in red ink. (The two marks in the margins of 7r and 24r are not, unfortunately, visible in the Bodleian images provided.)

There are, in addition, other Notae: four instances (fols. 6v (at Ra.1.248), ?7r, 12v, 39v), all of which seem unique.

Another hand—possibly Rychard Barnard—sets out to copy the letter-forms of the first words at the top of various pages, a number of which are subsequently blotted out: S Saue me (11r); but suffre (33r); Penitet me fecis (34r); And ask (40v). Though not located immediately above, tyl seynthar (17r) fits this same pattern of copying from the main text.

There are six pointing hands/fingers, which fall into three types: one (with an elaborate cuff) appears on 8v (the marriage charter), on 16v (next to a <cc> paraph), and on 18r. The one on 12v (with an accompanying No(ta)) has a particularly bulbous finger. The other two pointing fingers (10v and 16r) are focused on falseness and wrong (which is also underlined). Since that on 10v accompanies the four-line marginal summary above, we may assign this (tentatively) to Hand 3. (The marginal hand on 16r is not visible in the provided image, except for the very tip of the finger.)

A pyramided three lobes (Ra.2.15; not visible in the images provided) also seems to be one reader's way of calling attention to a particular line.

I.10 Binding:

The present binding is not the original. The remains of an earlier cover (currently contained as fols 86-89 in Rawlinson MS D.913, a compilation of varied fragments) show signs of having been pasted, probably to earlier boards. The gummed edges of the bifolia would confirm some such use. Skeat said the two bifolia "probably formed part of an old cover"N. Although Skeat knew of them as part of Rawlinson Poet. 137, according to Madan, the bifolia were "missing [from Ra] Feb 1877."N They would appear, therefore, to have been relocated to their place in D.913 sometime in the very late 1860s or early 1870s, and it is perhaps at about this same time that Ra gained its current binding.

I.11 Provenance:

Part of Richard Rawlinson's large bequest, Rawlinson Poetry 137 entered the collection of the Bodleian Library in 1755.N The pair of bifolia (referred to above, I.10) were originally numbered as fols. 42-45 (i.e., consecutive with the numbering of the body of Ra), and contain fragments of a thirteenth-century French Gui de Warewic. The two sheets, comprising three-quarters of two bifolia, contain lines of the verse romance written in two-column format, of which only three columns remain in each bifolium. They now are part of the literary miscellany Rawlinson D.913, appearing as its fols. 86-89 (which correspond, consecutively, with 45, 42, 43, and 44 in the earlier numbering). On the verso of 42 (=87), in the center margin between its two columns, and at a 90-degree angle to the verse text is the following: hoc Volumen conceditur ad Vsum fratrum minorum/de observantia cantuarie, which Doyle (1962, p. 58) would date "after 1498." This would, presumably, have been visible on the inside front cover of Rawlinson 137. On the Canterbury Franciscan friary, see Horobin "Scribe," pp. 23-26.

I.12 Previous Descriptions:

• George Kane, ed., Piers Plowman: The A Version (London, 1960), p. 14.
• Schmidt, Parallel-Text Edition, 2.2.
• Horobin, "Scribe," pp. 3-4, et passim.

II. The Text and Its Correctors

II.1 Corrections:

There are relatively few signs of correction in the manuscript, and most of those (letters inserted in the line, overwriting, writing in a scraped portion of the page, supralinear words/letters—generally signaled with a infralinear caret mark) are, arguably at least, in the hand of the main scribe.

A very few instances of erasure by scraping are obvious: a) Ra.1.245 (fol. 6v) <-e> is erased from the end of Leste; b) at Ra.2.138 (fol. 10r) my(n), written in the space of a longer erased word; c) quartus in the title of Passus IV (fol. 15r) is in a smudged space not much larger than that required; d) at Ra.5.156 (fol. 20r) the initial <g> of glotou[n] is over a scraped and smudged letter; e) the reforming (by overwriting) of <h> into <g> is accompanied by scraping at Ra.5.193 (fol. 20v); f) the second half-line of Ra.7.63 (fol. 24v) is over the scraping of the previous half-line; g) the substitution of <d> for <t> in the initial Got (Ra.7.93 ([K.7.236]) (fol. 25r) may have some signs of scraping; and h) the <yne> at the end of peyne (Ra.8.106) is added over the scraped erasure of a longer word (Kane suggested "penauns (?)"). The faint "X" in the right margin may have been the scribe's (or a reader's) signal to make the correction, which possibly betrays another hand at work. (There may have been a similar mark, now scraped away, in the margin at Ra.7.63, at a point where an extensive correction was made in the second half-line.)

Corrections by deletion (primarily by overwriting, sometimes with scraping) may be safely attributed to the main scribe; the three instances of subpunction probably may also be attributed to Tilot. The single diagonal strikethough of the unnecessary <a> in Ra.5.9 (fol. 17v) is possibly in the ink of Hand 3.

The difference in ink (and nib) in at least one case (Ra.8.43) suggests that Tilot came back later to add wollene choþes (corrected quickly to cloþes) at the end of the line.

As noted above (under I.9 Marginalia) we can attribute to the main scribe the two instances where the ordering of lines has been corrected by the use of marginal <b> and <a> on fols. 14r and 36v, which identify the proper reordering of the two pairs of lines (Ra.3.198-199; Ra.11.116-117).

We attribute to Hand 5 the group of marginal corrections (identified above) which correct the location of lines of Passus VII dislocated to Passus I which should properly be inserted between Ra.7.69 and Ra.7.70. We also attribute to that editor two further marginal corrections: luke (for jamys on fol. 4r: Ra.1.88) and daniel (for dauid on fol. 28v: Ra.8.136). The "incorrect" names in the verses (jamys and david) are underlined, presumably by the same hand.

There is nothing that we can see in the corrections that suggests the presence of any supervisor, or later corrector, who has any desire to regularize the orthography of Thomas Tilot.

II.2 Classification of the Text:

While previous editors of the A Version (since Skeat) agree in using as their base text Trinity College, Cambridge, MS R.3.14 (sigil T), they also recognize Ra's importance, and not only as the sole witness to the "complete" Passus 12. This led me, in my own recent edition of A (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011) to choose Ra as the base text for that edition.

The classification and affiliations of Ra's text has been examined in detail by Knott-Fowler, Kane, and Schmidt, the last of whom provides a detailed description of the two families of A manuscripts (vol. 2, pp. 92ff.). Any fuller discussion must await further progress on the editions of A manuscripts for the PPEA.

Closely related to University College, Oxford, MS 45 (sigil U), Ra also has some striking agreements (such as RaU's displacement of some 144 lines from Passus 7 into Passus 1, and the anomalous second half of the first line of the Prologue) with Trinity College, Dublin, MS 213 (sigil E). These correspondences with E may require us to reconsider Kane's (and more recently Schimdt's) alignment of the two manuscripts into quite distinct branches of the A family of manuscripts, and to reexamine the views of Knott-Fowler (see Vaughan, "Filling the Gap", esp. pp. 89-91). Finally, the Ingilby manuscript, Pierpont Morgan Library MS M 818 (sigil J), joins Ra and U as a third (partial) witness to Passus 12.

III. Editorial Method

III.1 Transcription of the Manuscript:

The various letter forms employed by the scribe are regularized to their modern forms. Likewise, we use modern graphic versions of thorn (þ), yogh (ȝ), paraph mark (or pilcrow)(¶). In the case of the Tironian et, we have chosen to represent the two forms which appear in Ra—one with (⁊̃) and the other without (⁊) a superior tilde. It is not clear what, if any, distinction is being made by the variants, but we depart from previous PPEA practice and have (hyper)conservatively differentiated between them. Under the Critical View stylesheet, these are translated into ampersands.

We have not, however, sought to distinguish allographic forms, such as the various forms of <s> and <r>, or the single- and double-lobed forms of <a>. For some scribes these forms (especially the first two) are location-dependent: i.e., depending on where in the word they appear and their neighboring graphs. Their distribution in Ra is not entirely regular in these respects, but in only a very few cases does the choice of one over the other impinge on decisions about word-division and similar issues.

The scribe does not employ a large number of abbreviations/suspensions, and those he does use are quite conventional and our transcription expands them accordingly. Tilot draws no substantive distinction in their use between English and Latin words. In views other than "Critical," resolved abbreviations appear in italics, or as roman characters where italics are used for the main script. Unlike some of his contemporaries, the main scribe does not use many flourishes, loops or curls, at the ends of letters/words, so the few that do appear (such as transverse bars on the stem of <l> and <ll>) are clearly significant marks of suspension/abbreviation.

SUPERSCRIPT LETTERS

A superscript <a> indicates <ra>N: g(ra)uyng (Ra.3.53), bet(ra)ye (Ra.5.214). When either form appears above <q>, it is <ua>, and at times it is placed above the following <m> rather than the <q>: e.g., q(ua)m (Ra.11.75). When either suspension mark is placed above <m> following <h>, however, as in walsyngh(a)m (Ra.P.51; Ra.5.143) and bokyngh(a)m (Ra.2.71), we interpret it as a simple <a>.

A superscript <e> with <þ> is the more frequent form of þe, for both the definite article (Ra.1.149) and accusative of the second-person singular pronoun (e.g., Ra.2.26): for both of these our transcription essentially ignores the superscript nature of the vowel, not differentiating between it from those instances where the <e> follows on the line.

A superscript <i> normally stands for <ri>: p(ri)de (Ra.1.115).

In Latin words, a superscript <i> above <q> (in Latin) signals an omitted <ui>: loq(ui)t(ur) (Ra.P.39), q(ui)d (Ra.3.54), and q(ui) (Ra.3.85). A single instance of a superscript <i> above <h> is an abbreviation for hic (in the explicit at the bottom of fol. 29r).

A superscript <o> stands for <ro>: dist(ro)ye (Ra.7.29), pet(ro).

A superscript sigma <s> above <h> or <þ> indicates an omitted <i>: h(i)s or þ(i)s.

A superscript <s> appears (or is inserted later) a couple of times at the end of words: k(n)yȝthy(s) (Ra.2.40) and skynny(s) (Ra.2.159).

A superscript <t> regularly is used in w(i)t(h) (Ra.1.64), þ(a)t (Ra.1.43), and h(i)t (Ra.1.91).

A superscript <u> with <þ> is the more frequent form of þou (e.g., Ra.1.148).

OTHER MARKS OF ABBREVIATION/SUSPENSION

A distinctive <q>-like form appears in the single instance where <con> is abbreviated: conseyued (Ra.10.142).

A hooked backward loop on final <r> is regularly use for a suspended <e>, as in wer(e) (Ra.P.77) and vestur(e) (Ra.1.23).

<er> is commonly indicated by an s-shaped mark above the preceding letter, as in bet(er) (Ra.P.90), and often continued by a thin loop, as in malu(er)ne in the same line. Above a <p> the same sign can also indicate <re>, as in p(re)sent (Ra.4.80). The same sign, however, is best interpreted as an <e> when it appears above final <g>: blessynge. With a long <s>, <er> is indicated by a curving, slanting line through the main upright, as in s(er)uyn (Ra.2.132).

The more common mark for <es> (or <is> or <ys>) is a p-like looped descender at the end of the long <r>, <t>, <d>, <k>, <g>, or <c> is regularly a suspended <es>: begger(es) and bydder(es) (Ra.P.40).

While <es> is the more usual form in this manuscript's spelling of the genitive singular and the nominative/accusative plural of nouns, in the earlier folios of Ra there are a number in <ys>, and a few in <is>. On this basis we have preferred to expand the suspended forms as <es>, except in one instance where the universal spelling of the complete form elsewhere in the text is <ys>: e.g., kok(ys) (Ra.3.68).

A horizontal bar through final <-l> or <-ll> similarly marks the suspension of <es>: as in trienal(es)/tryenal(es) (Ra.8.154, 164, 167), menstral(es) (Ra.3.207, and Ra.11.91), samuel(es) (Ra.3.242), isral(es) (Ra.3.245), forstall(es) (Ra.4.43), hull(es) (Ra.6.2), and eight other words. Again, as with the previous mark for <es>, we have opted to expand the mark as <es>. In the single case involving the word that most frequently appears in this category, ell(ys) (Ra.3.271 et al.), we have however chosen that <ys>-form since it appears in thirteen (of the fourteen) instances where the word is fully articulated (the single elles spelling is at Ra.6.102).

<ur> is indicated by a sigma-like superscript: t(ur)ned (Ra.5.19).

A 9-like superscript substitutes for <us>: e.g., þ(us) (Ra.4.141), religio(us) (Ra.8.35).

A number of distinct suspension marks are associated with <p>: two dots on either side of its descender or a horizontal bar, represents either <ar> or <er>, as in p(ar)alyde (Ra.P.23), emp(er)our(es) (Ra.3.200) and p(ar)formed (Ra.6.94). The two forms appear in close proximity in the same word p(ar)dou(n) on fol. 27v (Ra.8.85 and Ra.8.88) and again on fol. 28v (Ra.8.151 and Ra.8.156). There is no obvious reason for the variation. The presence of a loop to the left of the descender indicates <ro>, as in p(ro)fered (Ra.4.80); and the s-shaped sign (seen as standing for <er> above) has a different meaning when used with <p>, as in p(re)sent in the same line (Ra.4.80): stands in for <re>.

A macron (line) over a vowel indicates nasalization (and is interpreted as <n> or <m> as appropriate): e.g., co(m)maunded and comou(n) (Ra.1.20). When a macron appears (rarely) above <p>, it indicates the elision of <s> or <su>, as it does with Latin teip(su)m (Ra.11.243); ip(s)i (Ra.11.308).

<qd'>, for quod in Latin and English (in the latter case it is a variant for "quoth"), appears with an elaborate suspension mark, which is simplified beginning toward the end of Passus 3, and later (Ra.4.16, 84, 149; Ra.5.151 and consistently from Passus 6 to the end) without any suspension mark. (The more elaborate suspension mark shows up once more at Ra.5.113.)

While the word is never spelled out as quod, examples in quath (Ra.1.128), quaþ (Ra.5.153), qwaþ (Ra.3.50, 215; Ra.4.72, 81), and qwat (Ra.3.162) do appear. Neverthless, since there appears to be no standard spelling, for consistency's sake we have chosen to expand the abbreviation (in whatever form) as quod. The abbreviation is used a couple of times for Latin q(uo)d (e.g., Ra.12.53, 58). And in a handful of instances the abbreviation takes the form of a <q> with an s-shaped diagonal stroke through the descender: Ra.1.40, 43, 49, 72; Ra.7.94.

The brevigraph Ihu (with a macron over the <u>) appears four times and has been transcribed as Iesu: Ra.3.145; Ra.11.27, 85; Ra.12.29.

WORD-DIVISION

The word-division of the manuscript is quite "modern" and while the spacing of letters and words is not as minutely regular as in modern printing, the scribe's intentions are fairly easy to determine. In cases where the scribe introduces a space between two syllables of a word that we would normally combine we use a shadow-hyphen to connect them in the transcription: e.g., a-boute, by-twyn, hym-self, in-to, to-gedere, with-oute, y-come. Likewise, in the cases of hyphenated compounds of phrases, we supply the hyphen: e.g., deþ-day (Ra.1.117), broke-legged (Ra.1.287), lyf-dawes (Ra.3.140), byter-browed (Ra.5.108). In cases of doubt or ambiguity, we follow the conventions of the OED.

We have treated proper nouns as English unless they have a Latin inflection or have been particularly highlighted by the scribe, who variously uses red ink or a different script for foreign words, and/or introduces underlining (in red ink) to mark Latin words, at times accompanying the underlining with a preceding and/or following diagonal stroke. Some foreign words are, however, treated as English: thus nominative sesar (Ra.1.45, 48, 49) is not given special treatment by the scribe, and is not tagged in our transcription, but since the scribe rubricates Reddite sesar(is) (which we correct to sesari) in Ra.1.49, sesar has been tagged as Latin. There are other cases where the decision is more arbitrary: for example deus caritas (Ra.1.83), memento (Ra.5.235), and a pena ⁊ a culpa (Ra.8.3, 21) are not rubricated or underlined by the scribe, but they are clearly Latin words and we have inserted a <foreign lang="lat"> tag to mark them.

Scribal misspellings have been recorded with a sic tag and corrected with a corr tag.

III.2 Transcription of Corrections and Erasures:

Wherever possible we have attempted to distinguish between the text as originally written and as subsequently corrected by the main scribe or another hand. Where we are reasonably confident that we can read the erased letters, they are recorded within deletion tags. When erased text is illegible, we have indicated each with one punctus per deleted character up to six characters. When longer stretches of text are involved, we indicate deletions with "...?..." and deletions longer than a half line with "...?...?...".

We have not marked as a correction the corrected punctuation in the middle of the line unless it is written over an erasure. It is clear that in many cases the punctus elevatus is a conversion of an original punctus, but only occasionally can we be certain that this is so in any individual case.

III.3 Textual Apparatus:

Apparatus tags record unique and shared readings which shed light on Ra's relationship to other manuscripts, and may eventually permit a more complete classification of the text than we provide above (II.2 Classification of the Text.) It must be emphasized that these have been supplied selectively, in cases we judged to be significant in one way or another. They were added at the suggestion of the General Editor (Duggan) and are, at present, intended to offer little more than some assistance to those readers of the documentary text of Ra who may be interested in comparing its text with those found in Knott-Fowler, Kane, or Schmidt. They do not in any sense constitute a complete listing of variant readings nor anything beyond a first step in establishing the relationship of Ra to other manuscripts. They may imply that Ra's reading is not that of the A archetype, though we reserve all judgments about Ax until a later stage of our work on the A text manuscripts, not yet near completion.

These tags provide, then, an unsystematic interim statement that will be of limited or no use once the A archive is complete and the variant listings can be electronically generated. The information for these notes has been derived from the listing of variants in the Kane and Knott-Fowler editions, which we have checked in some few instances against images of the manuscripts available in the David C. Fowler Papers in the University of Washington (Seattle) Archives. We have also diverged from Kane's revised practice (in the later Athlone volumes) and in some instances reported spelling variations in cases many would judge non-substantive or insignificant. Such spelling variations may prove more significant than they usually have been considered.

Since it is not at this stage relevant which of the witnesses share the majority reading against Ra's unique variant, the majority readings are where possible presented in very simplified form, usually with the designation "other A witnesses" or "most other manuscripts" or "all others." It is true that in most cases this may point to Ax, but it is important not to prejudge the issue.

IV. Linguistic Description

Summary:

A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English (LALME) places Ra [LP 5690] in S.W. Sussex, near Arundel (about 10 miles east of Chichester, where LALME locates Tilot's other manuscript [LP 5680]). Both locales are consistent with the biographical information produced by Horobin. The correspondence of independent linguistic and biographical data is close and striking, and the corrections and additions we can make to LALME's linguistic inventory do nothing to alter the usefulness of LALME's more selective evidence. We have confirmed most of its findings, and can supply a few minor corrections and refinements. As with his letter-forms, Tilot's orthography is quite irregular, evidencing a range of dialectal/regional spellings that may reveal his text's place in a long line of transmission whose layers are difficult to articulate with complete confidence at this point.

On Tilot's own dialect, Horobin (2005: 4) has usefully summarized the characteristic features in Ra as follows: "hure 'her'; hy 'they' (alongside frequent þey, þei); moche 'much'; beþ, beth 'are'; or 'ere'; ȝut 'yet'; wordle 'world'; goud 'good'; hure 'hear'."

This list should be modified, at least in one important respect: while hy appears a number of times in Tilot's version of the Prick of Conscience, there is only a single instance of it in Ra (Ra.8.44). Otherwise his form is þei (ca. 100x), or þey (ca. 30x), with, at line-initial position, Thei in 3 cases (Ra.5.173 and Ra.10.136, 194), and They in one (Ra.7.69).

Other items on Horobin's list are worth discussing further. Because of our access to the complete digital transcription, we may supplement LALME's less thorough account of the distribution of these forms as follows:

For LALME's "HER" and "THEY" see below, respectively, IV.2.2.2.3 (and IV.2.2.3.3) and IV.2.2.4.3.

For "MUCH" LALME reports all of Ra's forms: in addition to moche (10x), which has wide distribution in Southern dialects, there appear four other spellings: mechel (3x); muche (2x); mekel (Ra.5.9); and mykel (Ra.7.99 [=K.7.242]), the last two of which are distinctly Northern in their distribution, while muche has a noticeable concentration in W and SW Midland areas.

On the other hand, for "ARE" LALME reports only "are (beþ)", but in fact the manuscript shows a wider range of forms: in addition to beþ (29x), are (8x), and ar(e) (9x), we also find: ben (29x) and be(n) (12x), be (17x), arn (10x), as well as single instances of aren (Ra.1.82) and ar (Ra.1.67).

For "ERE" (conj.), LALME lists four forms: "ere, or, er (or-þen)." We find ere (11x), er (9x), or (7x), or þen. (Ra.1.70), and (not noted in LALME) a single instance of ar (Ra.1.244)

For "YET", Ra has nearly twice as many ȝut spellings (14x) as ȝit (8x).

For "WORLD", LALME gives "wordle (world, word)". The forms are correct, although the relative distribution is not accurate: word is the most common (10x: in Passus 4-11), followed by wordle (8x: in the Prologue, Passus 1 and 11), and a single instance of world (Ra.11.295).

For "GOOD", LALME is quite accurate: goud (11x), good (5x), and gode (5x).

Finally, for "HEAR", hure appears only once (Ra.P.4) while here appears 6 times.

While we share the skepticism expressed by Duggan and Hanna in their discussion of relicts in their PPEA edition of MS L (Section III.1), it is difficult to identify which of Ra's forms point clearly back to the authorial original, because like all the extant witnesses of the A Version it has passed through a long line of transmission and was likely further subjected to influence from the texts of widely dispersed later versions. The variety of spellings for even common words in Ra may in part attest to this complicated manuscript heritage and render problematic even identifying the characteristic features of Tilot's own dialect.

Little in Ra would directly challenge the widely held view that the underlying forms of Piers point to the South-West Midlands, and particularly to S.W. Worcestershire: see M. L. Samuels, "Langland's Dialect," Medium Ævum 54 (1985), 232-47, with corrigenda provided in Medium Ævum 55 (1986), 40. The essay is reprinted in corrected, slightly revised form in Smith, 70-85, and may be supplemented from the same author's "Dialect and Grammar," in Alford Companion, 201-21. For recent revisions and qualifications of these assumptions, see John Burrow and Thorlac Turville-Petre's comments on the language of the B archetype: section IV.1 in their PPEA edition of Bx.

With these qualifiers, a few features of Tilot's text may nevertheless have genuine claim to be authorial relicts, or at least to be consistent with what we might generally agree to be S.W. Worcestershire forms. We offer the following as tentatively possible relict forms and usages: the frequent appearance of <-ys> ending (and a few in <-us>) for Genitive Singular and Nominative/Accusative Plural nouns; the <-yn> ending for various parts of verbs (instead of <-e(n)>); the use of <-eþ> for the ending of the third-person plural of the present indicative. Also, four instances of feminine pronoun he appear: three of them in Ra.3.129-32, and another in Ra.5.130 (in no case bearing alliteration). Finally, a few individual lexemes may also qualify for similar relict status: ȝut "yet" and hure "hear" (at Ra.P.4), both of which Horobin, as we saw above, identifies as a characteristic features of Tilot's dialect.

A fuller inventory of the linguistic features of Ra would include the following:

IV.1 Phonology:

IV.1.1 Vowels:

IV.1.1.1 Quantity:

Vowel length of <e> and <o> is sometimes marked by doubling:

IV.1.1.2 Quality:

IV.1.1.2.1 OE, ON /a/: <a>

IV.1.1.2.2 OE, ON /a/ before a nasal: <a> ~ <o>

IV.1.1.2.3 OE, ON /a/ before lengthening consonant groups: <a> ~ <o>

IV.1.1.2.4 OE, ON /a:/: <o>

IV.1.1.2.5 OE, ON /a:/ + w: <ow> ~ <ou>

IV.1.1.2.6 OE, ON, OF /o/: <o>

IV.1.1.2.7 OE, ON /o/ + lengthening consonant group: <o>

IV.1.1.2.8 OE, ON /o:/: <o> ~ <oo> ~ <ou>

IV.1.1.2.9 OE, ON, OF /u/: <u> ~ <o>

IV.1.1.2.10 OE, ON, OF /u/ with lengthening: <o> ~ <ou> ~ <u>

IV.1.1.2.11 OE, ON /u:/: <ou> ~ <ow>

IV.1.1.2.12 OE, ON /y/: <y> ~ <u> ~ <i> ~ <e>

IV.1.1.2.13 OE, ON /y/ before lengthening clusters: <y> ~ <i> ~ (<e>)

IV.1.1.2.14 OE, ON /y:/: <y> ~ <i>

IV.1.1.2.15 OE, ON /i/: <y> ~ <i> ~ <e> ~ <o> ~ <u>

IV.1.1.2.16 OE, ON /i:/: <y> ~ <i>

IV.1.1.2.17 OE, ON, OF /e/: <e>

IV.1.1.2.18 OE, ON, OF /e/ before lengthening clusters: <e>

IV.1.1.2.19 OE, ON, OF /e:/: <e>

IV.1.1.2.20 OE /æ/: <a>

IV.1.1.2.21 OE /æ:/ <e> ~ (<ee>)

IV.1.1.2.22 OE /ea/: <a>

IV.1.1.2.23 OE /ea:/: <e>

IV.1.1.2.24 OE /eo/: <e>

IV.1.1.2.25 OE /eo:/: <e> ~ <o>

IV.1.2 Consonants:

Most consonants in Middle English correspond fairly directly with their Modern English descendants, as also with their earlier antecedents. Some, however, deserve notice; and attention particularly to their varied representation in Ra is worthwhile. At least some of the forms may point to dialectal features in the various stages in transmission of the text of Piers that is contained in Ra. Others may well be idiosyncratic to Ra's scribe, Thomas Tilot.

IV.1.2.1 OE /hw/: <wh> ~ <w>

The regular scribal spelling is <wh>: whan, what, where, while, etc. But ho-so (Ra.5.172, 182, 194; and cf. 1.101) appears along with who-so (11x). There is a single instance of wanne "when" (Ra.1.253 [=K.7.144]).

IV.1.2.2 OE, ON <þ> (or <ð>): <þ> ~ <th>

The scribe uses <þ> ~ <th> without clear patterning, but with a clear preference (2+x) for <þ>.

IV.1.2.3 OE /š/: <sch> ~ <sh> ~ <ssh> ~ <ssch>

The most common spelling is <sch>, followed closely by <sh> in all three positions: initially, medially, and finally. On the other hand, <ssh> and <ssch> appear only medially:

IV.1.2.4 OE, ON /sk/: <sk> ~ <sc>

IV.1.2.5 OE /x/: <y> ~ <ȝ> ~ <yȝ> ~ <w> ~ <h> ~ (<gh>)

IV.1.2.6 OE /xt/: <ȝt> ~ <ȝth> ~ <ght> ~ <tth> ~ <tt> ~ <t>

IV.1.2.7 Final <ȝ>

There is some ambiguity in the proper phonological representation for the the scribe's <ȝ> in word-final positions, particularly when it follows <t>.

As we saw above in IV.1.2.5 (with nehebour [Ra.5.73], alongside neyȝbores [Ra.6.50]) a simple <h> may alternate with <ȝ>. A persuasive argument, therefore, may also be made that in those cases where a word-final <ȝ> follows <t>, it would be more reasonable to interpret it as simply representing <h> rather than <z>. This is particularly appropriate in instances of the Third Singular Present Tense of verbs (IV.2.4.1.8), where we find conceylytȝ (Ra.10.99) appears alongside counseyleþ (Ra.11.223); gynnytȝ (Ra.10.129) alongside gynnyþ (Ra.5.59); seytȝ (Ra.4.13) alongside seyþ (18x) and seyt (2x) "say"; and thinkytȝ (Ra.12.5), alongside 6 instances with a <þ> ending (and one with a final <s>: thinkes [Ra.9.19]). To these, then, we may add other similar verbs, such as crauytȝ (Ra.3.209); grypytȝ (Ra.3.230); suffretȝ (Ra.9.86); a-risetȝ (Ra.10.124); and tynytȝ (Ra.11.239).

This in turn opens up for consideration potential cases of metathesized <ȝt>, such as dureȝt (Ra.7.50), steryȝt (Ra.9.43), meuyȝt (Ra.11.71). (A reverse instance also can be seen in thoutȝ [Ra.9.66: presumably for thouȝt].) It is not clear whether these (and others) are genuine instances of metathesis, or are they quite acceptable spellings. If they are, then of what forms of the verb? They do not in these instances make sense as preterite participles (which may have that ending).

Among nouns a case for substituting final <h> for <ȝ> might also be found in mowtȝ (Ra.11.58, 309), which appear alongside mouþe (3x), mouþ (Ra.9.72), and mowthe (Ra.11.24). In turn, this would suggest that mouȝt (Ra.P.91) should corrected to moutȝ, the form that appears at Ra.11.297. Also, lytȝ (Ra.3.191) would fit in this category.

Another noun, feytȝ (Ra.4.13), appears to be a hapax, and the near identity with the preceding seytȝ suggests the scribe is erroneously reading his exemplar, which likely read, as most manuscripts do, freke. There is, however, the possibility that it is a unique spelling of fitz, with the <ȝ> representing <z>, as it does in a couple of other foreign words: baptizatus (Ra.11.235) and sarzynes (Ra.11.236). However, the <ey> would be a highly unusual, and perhaps unacceptable, allograph for <i>, but the MED offers a few examples s.v. fighting(e (ger.) and fish (n.); and it also reports (s.v. fitz) what may be a more pertinent entry: i.e., William fyȝht Elie, from the English Register of Oseney Abbey, ca. 1460.

In a single, quite anomalous case of final <ȝ> following a vowel (i.e., letyyȝ [Ra.3.126]), the proper interpretation is not at all clear: is it letyth? The MED gives letyyz (presumably from this appearance in Ra) as a variant under leten).

Since there is some support in Ra for <s>-endings for a few 3rdSPresInf verbs (see below, IV.2.4.1.8) one might argue in favor of interpreting of <ȝ> as the spirant <z>. However, there is not a single instance in Ra of any <ts> ending, for those verbs, or for plurals or possessives of nouns. And in only two (or possibly three) instances (mentioned above) where <z> is clearly intended, the words are "foreign": baptizatus (Ra.11.235), sarzynes (Ra.11.236). (The third instance, feytȝ, is clearly more problematic; and I leave aside moutȝ (Ra.P.91), also mentioned earlier.) As a consequence, in all but the two "foreign" instances, we have followed the scribe's own practice and retain the <ȝ> form, leaving it to readers to provide their own "translation" if that is required.

IV.1.2.8 Initial <h>

Initial <h> is irregularly dropped or added:

IV.2 Morphology:

IV.2.1 Nouns:

IV.2.1.1 Nominative/Accusative Singular: nil

IV.2.1.2 Genitive Singular: <-es> ~ <ys> ~ <is> ~ (<js>) ~ (<-s>) ~ (nil)

With <-e>: berne (Ra.4.44); cherche (Ra.7.28); heuene-ryche (Ra.P.27); Marye (Ra.2.2) ~ Marie (Ra.3.188); mydmorwe (Ra.2.37); soule (Ra.6.18); whete (Ra.3.39). This form is ascribed to the influence of Latin feminine genitives by Tauno F. Mustanoja, A Middle English Syntax, Part 1: Parts of Speech (Helsinki, 1960), p. 72.

IV.2.1.3 Object (Singular) of Preposition: <-e> ~ nil

IV.2.1.4 Nominative/Accusative Plural: <-es> ~ <ys> ~ <-is> ~ <js> ~ <-s> ~ <us>

With <-en> ~ <yn> ~ <-n> :

Mutated:

Without ending:

IV.2.1.5 Genitive Plural: <-es> ~ <ys> ~ <-s>

With <-ene> ~ <-en>:

Without ending: wynter (Ra.1.98, Ra.5.110)

IV.2.1.6 Object (Plural) of Preposition: <-es> ~ <ys> ~ <-s> ~ <-is> ~ <us> ~ <js>

With <-en> ~ <ne> ~ <yn> ~ <-n> :

Mutated: wymman (2x)

Without ending:

IV.2.2 Pronouns:

IV.2.2.1 Nominative Singular:

1st Person: I ~ y

The form y occurs a handful of times: Ra.P.4; Ra.1.68; Ra.2.20; Ra.6.84; Ra.10.187.

2nd Person: þou

The predominant form (~ 6:1) is of <þ> with a superscript <u>; only about 20 are spelled out fully.

þow ~ thow is only used for "though".

3rd Person:

Masculine: he

Feminine: sche ~ she

sche is favored over she about 2:1.

There are four cases where Ra has he (Ra.3.129-32; Ra.5.130) in lines in which other manuscripts have heo ~ sche ~ she. If the first three are not conscious re-attributions of the actions to falce (rather than to Mede), they may be relicts of SW he(o). The form in Ra.3.129 is shared by T and H2 and those in 131-132 by H2 alone. In all three instances a later corrector has prefixed an <s> to those forms in H2. In the case of Ra.5.130, the feminine antecedent wynnestre (or spynnestre) clearly requires it to be the feminine pronoun.

Neuter: hit

The spelling it appears a single time, at Ra.5.191.

IV.2.2.2 Accusative and Dative Singular:

1st Person: me

2nd Person: þe

3rd Person:

Masculine: hym ~ him

These two forms are fairly evenly divided, with a preference for hym in the first half of the poem, for him in the second.

Feminine: hure ~ (hire) ~ (here)

The preferred form is hure. The form hire appears only a handful of times: Ra.2.46, 47; Ra.3.91 (2x), 123; and here appears once as a direct object (Ra.10.24) and twice as the object of prepositions (Ra.4.129; Ra.10.7). hirre appears instead of hure (Ra.4.3).

Neuter: hit ~ (it)

All instances are direct objects (accusative); it appears only once, at Ra.11.176.

IV.2.2.3 Genitive Singular:

1st Person: my ~ myn

myn occurs before vowel or <h>, both singular and plural. The single exception is my<n>-self (Ra.2.138), where the my<n> is written in a space after an erasure. A single instance of mi is at Ra.12.78.

2nd Person: þi ~ þy ~ þin ~ þyn

þi appears nearly twice as often as þy (49:26), before both singular and plural nouns, and never before a vowel or <h->. þin and þyn (six times each) only appear before <h-> or a vowel, in both singular and plural nouns.

3rd Person:

Masculine: his ~ hys

The regular form is his used with singular and plural nouns. hys appears twice (Ra.4.32 and Ra.1.235 [=K.7.126]).

Feminine: hure ~ (hire) ~ (here) ~ (her)

hure is by far the most common (24x), while hire is slightly more common (5x) than here (3x); her appears only once (Ra.3.43; and cf. he [presumably for her] at Ra.4.95).

Neuter: his (Ra.7.104 [=K.7.248]) is the sole arguable instance of a neuter possessive.

IV.2.2.4 Nominative Plural:

1st Person: we

2nd Person: ȝe

The scribe's form is ȝe throughout.

3rd Person: þei ~ þey ~ þai ~ (Thei) ~ (They) ~ (hy)

The predominant spelling is þei (ca. 100x), which appears more than three times as often as þey (ca. 30x); hy appears but once: Ra.8.44. The three instances of Thei (Ra.5.173; Ra.10.136, 194) and one of They (Ra.7.69) all appear at the beginning of verse lines involving capitalization.

There are two uncorrected errors: þe (for þei: Ra.7.13), and h(it) (for hy: Ra.1.302 [=K.7.193]).

In about nine instances þo functions pronominally: i.e., "they," "those ones"—in both nominative and accusative situations.

IV.2.2.5 Accusative and Dative Plural:

1st Person: vs

vs is the regular form, with a single instance of v(us) (Ra.3.47).

2nd Person: ȝou ~ (ȝow)

The spelling ȝow only appears as direct object twice (Ra.1.51; Ra.10.199), and once as the object of a preposition (Ra.11.179).

3rd Person: hem

There are two cases of hym where we would expect the regular hem (Ra.3.14, 224).

IV.2.2.6 Genitive Plural:

1st Person: oure ~ (our)

our appears in only four instances: Ra.P.89; Ra.3.224; Ra.11.67, 309

2nd Person: ȝour ~ (ȝoure) ~ (ȝowre) ~ (ȝore)

There are only four instances of ȝoure (Ra.1.227 [=K.7.118]; Ra.3.30, 63; Ra.12.84), and one each of ȝowre (Ra.1.52) and ȝore (Ra.P.75).

There are two instances where ȝut is obviously a misspelling (for ȝur): Ra.1.36, 73.

3rd Person: here ~ her ~ (hire)

here appears nearly twice as often as her, while hire appears only twice: Ra.8.16, 44.

IV.2.3 Adjectives and Adverbs:

IV.2.3.1 Adjectives:

The scribe of Ra does not appear to make any consistent distinctions in the endings of his adjectives, for case or number. Some—like blynd, fals, ȝong, hot, and wys—appear to distinguish these singular forms from a plural with final -e. But most of the other adjectives for which we have any formal differences of that sort do not maintain that s/pl distinction: e.g.,

Others, such as lene and mylde have only a single form for both singular and plural.

A few other apparently regular distinctions are worth noting. While both fals(e) and wys(e) seem to observe the s/pl distinctions, their alternate spellings, falce and wise do not. And while manye is invariably plural, many can also be, though it is likewise singular, as in a many a .

IV.2.3.2 Adverbs:

Adverbs with the same forms as their related adjectives do not regularly display the final <-e>: e.g., fayn, ful, furst, good ~ goud, hard, hey, most, newe and stille. In a very few instances, however, such as longe, and possibly harde and lowe, the two may be so distinguished.

IV.2.3.3 Comparative:

IV.2.3.3.1 Adjectives: <-ere> ~ <-er>

IV.2.3.3.2 Adverbs: <-ere> ~ <er> ~ (<re>) ~ (<nil>)

IV.2.3.4 Superlative:

IV.2.3.4.1 Adjectives: <-est> ~ <-este> ~ <-yste> ~ <-yst>

IV.2.3.4.2 Adverbs: <-st> ~ <-ste> ~ <-xte> ~ <-xt>

best is always spelled without <-e>—except in the phrase þe beste (16x).

IV.2.3.5 Adjectives and Adverbs in <-ly>:

IV.2.3.5.1 Adjectives:

There are a very few adjectives with the ending <-ly>: dedly; fleschly; lordly; louely ~ lufly; vn-comly.

IV.2.3.5.2 Adverbs in <-ly>:

The adverbial ending <-ly> varies with <-lyche> (in a ratio of about 4:1). There are two instances of <-liche> (heyliche and soueraynliche) and a single <-lich> (spedelich). There are no examples of <-li>, <-lych>, <-lye> or <-lie>.

The comparative ending is <-likere> (frendlikere; mistlikere) and, once, <-lyere> (lyȝtlyere).

IV.2.4 Verbs:

IV.2.4.1 Present Tense:

IV.2.4.1.1 Infinitive: <-e> ~ <-en> ~ <-yn> ~ <-n> ~ (<-in>) ~ (<-ne>) ~ (nil)

The regular form of the infinitive ends in <-e>, with various <-n> forms as alternatives.

Endings derived from OE <-ian> verbs are frequently but not always preserved; hence the following infinitive forms with <-i-> or <-y->:

According to M. L. Samuels, "Dialect and Grammar," p. 217, this is a feature of southern and southwestern dialects.

IV.2.4.1.2 Gerund: <-yng(e)> ~ <-ing(e)>

In both the gerund and the present participle the predominant ending is <-yng(e)>, though <-ing(e)> is not uncommon.

IV.2.4.1.3 Present participle: <-yng(e)> ~ (<-ing(e)>)

There is a single <-ande> (lurkande (Ra.2.174) and a single <-ant> (þrobbant [Ra.12.50])

IV.2.4.1.4. Imperative Singular: nil ~ <-e> ~ <-eþ> ~ (<-yþ>)

The scribe does not always maintain the distinction more regularly observed elsewhere, between the singular, without <-þ>, and the plural with it. In some cases the plural form is used for a polite singular: e.g. telleþ (Ra.1.42).

IV.2.4.1.5 Imperative Plural: <eþ> ~ nil ~ (<yþ>) ~(<-e>) ~ (<d>) ~ (<-t>)

The evidence for Ra is rather confusing: the form with <-e> or without ending is used before a subject pronoun. Compare the two forms in Ra.6.54: wadeþ in þat water . and ways ȝou þer-inne. Also: Loke (Ra.6.61).

IV.2.4.1.6 Present 1st Singular: <-e> ~ (nil)

With ending derived from OE <-ian> verbs: erye (Ra.1.234 [=K.7.125]); louie (Ra.3.31) (but loue (Ra.11.143).

IV.2.4.1.7 Present 2nd Singular: <-est> ~ <-yst> ~ <-st> ~ (nil)

IV.2.4.1.8 Present 3rd Singular: <-eþ> ~ <-yþ> ~ <-eth> ~ <-es> ~ <-ys> ~ <-t> ~ <-th(e)> ~ <-(y)n> ~ <-tȝ> ~ (<-ȝt>) ~ (<-þ>)

OE preterite-present verbs without inflection in the present 1st and 3rd sg. are, e.g.: can/kan, dar, may, s(c)hal, shal, wot.

IV.2.4.1.9 Present Plural (and Present Subjunctive Plural): <-e> ~ <yn> ~ <-en> ~ <-eþ> ~ <-th> ~ <-es> ~ <-yþ>

Plural forms in <-eþ> ~ <-th> ~ <-yþ> ~ <-es> are not uncommon. As Samuels points out, the <-th> plural forms are very rare in the London English of Chaucer, but are retained in Southern and Southwestern areas until after Langland's death ("Dialect and Grammar," 216). The forms in Ra are therefore likely relicts of antecedent S.W. Midland usage.

He also comments on the form ar(e)n in alliterating position as evidence for Langland's West Midland dialect (209).

Some of the <-e> ~ <-en> forms will historically be subjunctives since they occur in contexts where a subjunctive might be expected.

The plural forms of preterite-present verbs are, for example, cunne ~ counne ~ konne ~ kunne; s(c)hul ~ s(c)hulle ~ s(c)hal ~ sculle ~ shole.

IV.2.4.1.10 Present Subjunctive Singular: <-e> ~ (nil)

IV.2.4.2 Preterite: Weak Verbs:

IV.2.4.2.1 Preterite 1st Singular: <-ed> ~ <-de> ~ <-te> ~ <-ede> ~ <-yd> ~ (<þe>) ~ (<the>) ~ (<-id>) ~ nil

IV.2.4.2.2 Preterite 2nd Singular: <-dest> ~ <-test> ~ (<-þest>) ~ (nil)

IV.2.4.2.3 Preterite 3rd Singular: <-ed> ~ <-ede> ~ <-de> ~ <-te> ~ <-t> ~ <-the> ~ <-yd> ~ <-þe> ~ <-þ> ~ (<-th>)

Most of the forms are of course the same as those for the 1st singular.

IV.2.4.2.4 Preterite Plural: <-ed> ~ <-ede> ~ <-de> ~ <-yn> ~ <-te> ~ <-den> ~ <-yd> ~ (<-yt>) ~ (<-ten>) ~ (<-ene>) ~ (<-th(e)>) ~ (<-id>) ~ (<-þ(e)>)

IV.2.4.2.5 Preterite Subjunctive Singular:

IV.2.4.2.6 Past Participle: <-ed> ~ <-d(e)> ~ <-yd> ~ ~ <-t(e)> ~ (<id>) ~ (<(e)þ>) ~ nil (with or without <y-> prefix)

IV.2.4.3 Preterite: Strong Verbs:

IV.2.4.3.1 Preterite 1st Singular: <-e> ~ nil

IV.2.4.3.2 Preterite 2nd Singular: <-e>

IV.2.4.3.3 Preterite 3rd Singular: <-e> ~ nil

The forms are of course the same as those for the 1st singular.

IV.2.4.3.4 Preterite Plural: <-e> ~ <-yn> ~ <-en> ~ nil

IV.2.4.3.5 Preterite Subjunctive Singular: <-e>

IV.2.4.3.6 Past Participle: <-e> ~ <-en> ~ <-t> ~ (<-yn>) ~ nil (with and without <y-> prefix)

As in the Present series, there is an exceptionally wide range of preterite forms for the preterite-present verbs: e.g.,

The preterites of so-called anomalous verbs include the following:

V. List of Manuscript Sigils

The following list of sigils of the manuscripts of Piers Plowman differs in some respects from the traditional sigils used since Skeat's edition. To a degree the inconsistencies in the sigils reflect the sequence of discovery of the relationships among them. If we were to use the traditional sigils, we would court ambiguity in an electronic text with identical sigils representing different manuscripts and different sigils identifying single manuscripts. British Library Additional 10574, for instance, has no sigil for A, is B's Bm, and C's L. We have, therefore, chosen to represent each manuscript with a unique sigil.

For descriptions of the A manuscripts see George Kane, ed. Piers Plowman: The A Version, Will's Visions of Piers Plowman and Do-Well: An Edition in the Form of Trinity College Cambridge MS R.3.14, Corrected from Other Manuscripts, with Variant Readings., rev. ed. (London, Berkeley and Los Angeles: The Athlone Press, 1988), 1-18; A. I. Doyle, "Remarks on Surviving Manuscripts of Piers Plowman," in Medieval English Religious and Ethical Literature: Essays in Honour of G. H. Russell, ed. G. Kratzmann and James Simpson (Cambridge, 1986), 35-48; and A. V. C. Schmidt, ed. William Langland, Piers Plowman: A Parallel-Text Edition of the A, B, C and Z Versions, 2 vols. (London/New York: Longman, 1995; Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2008), 2.1-9.

IV.1 A Manuscripts

V.2 B Manuscripts

IV.3 C Manuscripts

IV.4 AB Splices

IV.5 AC Splices

IV.6 ABC Splices

VI. Bibliography

1. Editions

Anderson, J. J., ed. Patience. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1969.

Andrew, Malcolm, and Ronald Waldron, eds. The Poems of the Pearl Manuscript: Pearl, Cleanness, Patience, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. Fifth edition. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2007.

Bale, John. Index Britanniae scriptorum quos ex variis bibliothecis non parvo labore collegit Ioannes Baleus, cum aliis. John Bale's Index of British and other writers. Ed. Reginald Lane Poole with the help of Mary Bateson. Anecdota Oxoniensia: Mediaeval and Modern Series, 9. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902.

Beadle, Richard, and Jeremy J. Griffiths, eds. St. John's College, Cambridge, MS L.1. Facsimile Series of the Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, 3. Norman, Oklahoma: Pilgrim Books, 1983.

Bennett, J. A. W., ed. Piers Plowman: The Prologue and Passus I-VII of the B Text as Found in Bodleian MS. Laud Misc. 581. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.

Brewer, Charlotte, and A. G. Rigg, eds. Piers Plowman: A Facsimile of the Z-Text of Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Bodley 851. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1994.

Burrow, J. A., ed. Thomas Hoccleve's Complaint and Dialogue. EETS, OS 313. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Burrow, John, and Thorlac Turville-Petre, eds. The B-Version Archetype. The Piers Plowman Electronic Archive, Vol. 9. SEENET Series A.12.Society for Early English & Norse Electronic Texts, 2014. <http://piers.chass.ncsu.edu/Bx>.

Covella, Francis Dolores, S.C. Piers Plowman: The A Text; An Alliterative Verse Translation. Introduction and notes by David C. Fowler. Medieval and Renaissance Texts & Studies. Binghamton, N.Y.: CEMERS, 1992.

d'Ardenne, S. R. T. O., ed. Þe liflade ant te passiun of Seinte Iuliene. EETS, OS 248. London: Oxford University Press, 1961 (for 1960).

Duggan, Hoyt N., and Ralph Hanna, eds. Piers Plowman Electronic Archive. Vol. 4, Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Laud misc. 581 (S.C. 987) (L). SEENET Series A.6. Society for Early English & Norse Electronic Texts, 2004; web edition, 2014. <http://piers.chass.ncsu.edu/L>.

Duggan, Hoyt N., and Thorlac Turville-Petre, eds. The Wars of Alexander. EETS, SS 10. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Hanna, Ralph, and David Lawton. The Siege of Jerusalem. EETS, OS, 320. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Kane, George, ed. Piers Plowman: The A Version: Will's Visions of Piers Plowman and Do-Well, An Edition in the Form of Trinity College Cambridge MS R.3.14 Corrected from Other Manuscripts, with Variant Readings, rev. ed., London: Athlone Press, 1988.

Kane, George, and E. Talbot Donaldson, eds. Piers Plowman: The B Version: Will's Visions of Piers Plowman, Do-Well, Do-Better and Do-Best. An Edition in the Form of Trinity College Cambridge MS B.15.17 Corrected and Restored from the Known Evidence, with Variant Readings, rev. ed. London: Athlone Press; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988.

Knott, Thomas A., and David C. Fowler, eds. Piers the Plowman: A Critical Edition of the A-Version. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1952.

Kölbing, E., and Mabel Day. The Siege of Jerusalem. EETS, OS, 188. London: Humphrey Milford, 1932.

Manly, John M. and Edith Rickert, eds. The Text of the Canterbury Tales. Vol. 1, Descriptions of the Manuscripts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1940.

Ogilvie-Thomson, S. J., ed. Richard Rolle: Prose and Verse, Edited from MS Longleat 29 and Related Manuscripts. EETS, OS 293. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Pearsall, Derek, ed. Piers Plowman: A New Annotated Edition of the C-text. Exeter Medieval English Texts and Studies. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2008.

Piers Plowman Electronic Archive. Society for Early English & Norse Electronic Texts, 2000–. <http://piers.chass.ncsu.edu>.

Rigg, A. G., and Charlotte Brewer, eds. Piers Plowman: The Z Version. Studies and Texts 59. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1983.

Robertson, Elizabeth, and Stephen H. A. Shepherd, eds. Piers Plowman. Norton Critical Edition. New York: Norton, 2006.

Russell, George, and George Kane, eds. Piers Plowman: The C Version: Will's Visions of Piers Plowman, Do-Well, Do-Better and Do-Best. An Edition in the Form of Huntington Library MS HM 143, Corrected and Restored from the Known Evidence, with Variant Readings. London: Athlone Press; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997.

Scase, Wendy, and Nick (Nicholas B.) Kennedy, eds. A Facsimile Edition of the Vernon Manuscript: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Eng. Poet. A.1. Oxford: Bodleian Library, 2011. (CD-ROM)

Schmidt, A. V. C., ed. The Vision of Piers Plowman: A Critical Edition of the B-Text Based on Trinity College Cambridge MS B.15.17. London, Melbourne, and Toronto: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.; New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1978; 2nd ed. London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd.; Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1995.

—, ed. William Langland, Piers Plowman: A Parallel-Text Edition of the A, B, C and Z Versions. 2 vols. London/New York: Longman, 1995; Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, 2008.

Skeat, W. W., ed. The Vision of William Concerning Piers Plowman, Together with Vita de Dowel, Dobet, et Dobest secundum Wit and Resoun, by William Langland .... The "Vernon" Text; or Text A. EETS OS 28. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1867.

—, ed. The Vision of William Concerning Piers the Plowman, in Three Parallel Texts Together with Richard the Redeless by William Langland (about 1362-1399 A. D.). 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886.

Turville-Petre, Thorlac, and Hoyt N. Duggan, eds. Piers Plowman Electronic Archive. Vol. 2, Cambridge, Trinity College, MS B.15.17 (W). SEENET Series A.2. Society for Early English & Norse Electronic Texts, 2000; web edition, 2014. <http://piers.chass.ncsu.edu/W>.

Vaughan, Míċeál F., ed. Piers Plowman: the A Version. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011.

Whitaker, Thomas Dunham, ed. Visio Willi de Petro Plouhman, item visiones ejusdem de Dowel, Dobet, et Dobest. 2 vols. London: J. Murray, 1813.

Wright, Thomas, ed. The Vision and the Creed of Piers Ploughman, Edited from a Contemporary Manuscript, with a Historical Introduction, Notes and a Glossary. 2 vols. London: Pickering, 1842; Second and Revised Edition. London: John Russell Smith, 1856.

2. Studies

Adams, Robert. "Editing and the Limitations of Durior Lectio." Yearbook of Langland Studies 5 (1991): 7-15.

Alford, John A., ed. A Companion to Piers Plowman. Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 1988.

—. Piers Plowman: A Glossary of Legal Diction. Cambridge: Brewer, 1988.

—. Piers Plowman: A Guide to the Quotations.. Medieval and Renaissance Texts & Studies. Binghamton, N.Y.: CEMERS, 1992.

Baldwin, Anna. "The Historical Context." In Alford, Companion. Pp. 67-86.

Bennett, J. A. W. "The Date of the A-Text of Piers Plowman." PMLA 58 (1943): 566-72.

—. "The Date of the B-Text of Piers Plowman." Medium Ævum 12 (1943): 55-64.

Benskin, Michael, and Margaret Laing. "Translations and Mischsprachen in Middle English Manuscripts." In So Meny People Longages and Tonges: Philological Essays in Scots and Mediaeval English Presented to Angus McIntosh, ed. Michael Benskin and M. L. Samuels. Edinburgh: Middle English Dialect Project, 1981. Pp. 55-106.

Benson, C. David, and Lynne S. Blanchfield with acknowledgements to the work of Marie-Claire Uhart. The Manuscripts of Piers Plowman: The B-Version. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1997.

Bowers, John M. "Piers Plowman's William Langland: Editing the Text, Writing the Author's Life." Yearbook of Langland Studies 9 (1995): 65-90.

Brewer, Charlotte. Editing Piers Plowman: The Evolution of the Text. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Burnley, J. D. "Inflexion in Chaucer's Adjectives." Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 83 (1982): 169-77.

Cable, Thomas. The English Alliterative Tradition. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.

—. "Progress in Middle English Alliterative Metrics." Yearbook of Langland Studies 23 (2009): 243-64 .

Calabrese, Michael. An Introduction to Piers Plowman. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2016.

Campbell, Alistair. Old English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1959.

Cargill, Oscar. "The Langland Myth." PMLA 50 (1935): 36-56.

Cole, Andrew, and Andrew Galloway, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Piers Plowman. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Davis, Norman. "Notes on Grammar and Spelling in the Fifteenth Century." In The Oxford Book of Late Medieval Verse and Prose. Ed. Douglas Gray. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Pp. 493-508.

Day, Mable. "Strophic Division in Middle English Alliterative Verse." Englische Studien 66 (1931-32): 245-48.

Doyle, A. I. "Books Belonging to R. Johnson." Notes and Queries 197 (1952): 293-94.

—. "Remarks on Surviving Manuscripts of Piers Plowman." In Medieval English Religious and Ethical Literature: Essays in Honour of G. H. Russell. Ed. Gregory Kratzmann and James Simpson. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1986. Pp. 35-48.

—. [review of Kane, ed. Piers A]. English Studies 43 (1962): 55-59.

—. "The Copyist of the Ellesmere Canterbury Tales." In The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. Ed. Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward. San Marino, California: The Huntington Library, and Tokyo: Yushodo, 1995. Pp. 49-67.

—. "Paleographical Introduction." In The Canterbury Tales: A Facsimile and Transcription of the Hengwrt Manuscript, with Variants from the Ellesmere Manuscript. A Variorum Edition of the Works of Geoffrey Chaucer 1. Ed. Paul G. Ruggiers. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1979. Pp. xix-xlix.

—, and M. B. Parkes. "The Production of Copies of the Canterbury Tales and the Confessio Amantis in the Early Fifteenth Century." In Medieval Scribes, Manuscripts and Libraries: Essays Presented to N. R. Ker. Ed. M. B. Parkes and Andrew G. Watson. London: Scolar Press, 1978. Pp. 163-210.

Duggan, Hoyt N. "The Authenticity of the Z-Text of Piers Plowman: Further Notes on Metrical Evidence." Medium Ævum 56 (1987): 25-45.

—. "Langland's Dialect and Final -e." Studies in the Age of Chaucer 12 (1990): 157-91.

—. "Notes on the Metre of Piers Plowman: Twenty Years On." In Approaches to the Metres of Alliterative Verse. Ed. Judith Jefferson and Ad Putter. Leeds Texts and Monographs, n.s. 17. Leeds: University of Leeds, School of English, 2009. Pp. 159-86.

—. "Notes Toward a Theory of Langland's Meter." Yearbook of Langland Studies 1 (1987): 41-70.

—. "Review of C. David Benson and Lynne S. Blanchfield, The Manuscripts of Piers Plowman: the B-Version." Speculum 77 (2002): 870-72.

—. "Strophic Patterns in Middle English Alliterative Poetry." Modern Philology 74 (1976-77): 223-47.

Dunning, T. P. Piers Plowman: An Interpretation of the A Text. Dublin: Talbot, 1937.

—. Piers Plowman: An Interpretation of the A Text. 2nd ed. Revised and edited by T. P. Dolan. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.

Eyler, Joshua R. and C. David Benson. "The Manuscripts of Piers Plowman." Literature Compass 2 (2005): 1-11.

Fowler, David C. Piers the Plowman: Literary Relations of the A and B Texts. University of Washington Publications in Language and Literature 16. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1961.

Galloway, Andrew. The Penn Commentary on Piers Plowman. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.

Hailey, Robert Carter. "Giving Light to the Reader: Robert Crowley's Editions of Piers Plowman (1550)." Dissertation, University of Virginia, 2001.

Hanna III, Ralph. The Index of Middle English Prose, Handlist 1: A Handlist of Manuscripts Containing Middle English Prose in the Henry E. Huntington Library. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1984.

—. "Notes toward a Future History of Middle English Literature: Two Copies of Richard Rolle's Form of Living." In Chaucer in Perspective: Middle English Essays in Honour of Norman Blake. Ed. Geoffrey Lester. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Pp. 279-300.

—. "On the Versions of Piers Plowman. In Pursuing History: Middle English Manuscripts and their Texts. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996. Pp. 203-42.

—. "Review of C. David Benson and Lynne S. Blanchfield, The Manuscripts of Piers Plowman: the B-Version." Review of English Studies 50 (1999): 74-75.

—. "Studies in the Manuscripts of Piers Plowman." Yearbook of Langland Studies 7 (1993): 1-25.

—. "Two New (?) Lost Piers Manuscripts(?)." Yearbook of Langland Studies 16 (2003): 169-77.

—. "The Versions and Revisions of Piers Plowman. In Cole and Galloway, Companion. Pp. 33-49.

—. William Langland. Authors of the Middle Ages: English Writers of the Late Middle Ages 3. Aldershot: Variorum, 1993.

Hasted, Edward. The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent. Classical County Histories. 1797-1801. (Reprint: Ilkley, Yorkshire: Scolar Press, 1972.)

Horobin, Simon. "Langland's Dialect Reconsidered." In Horobin and Nafde. Pp. 63-75.

—. The Language of the Chaucer Tradition. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2003.

—. "Manuscripts and Readers of Piers Plowman." In Cole and Galloway, Companion. Pp. 179-97.

—. "The Scribe of Rawlinson Poetry 137 and the Copying and Circulation of Piers Plowman." Yearbook of Langland Studies 19 (2005): 3-26

Horobin, Simon, and Aditi Nafde, eds. Pursuing Middle English Manuscripts and their Texts: Essays in Honour of Ralph Hanna. Texts and Translations, Volume 7. Turnhout: Brepols, 2017.

Hudson, Anne. "The Variable Text." In Crux and Controversy in Middle English Textual Criticism. Ed. A. J. Minnis and Charlotte Brewer. Cambridge: Brewer, 1992. Pp. 49-60.

Hunt, R. W. A Summary Catalogue of the Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library at Oxford 1: Historical Introduction and Conspectus of Shelf Marks. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953.

Huppé, Bernard F. "The A-Text of Piers Plowman and the Norman Wars." PMLA 54 (1939): 37-64.

—. "The Date of the B Text of Piers Plowman." Studies in Philology 38 (1941): 34-44.

Jefferson, Judith A. "The Hoccleve Holographs and Hoccleve's Metrical Practice." In Manuscripts and Texts: Editorial Problems in Later Middle English Literature. Ed. Derek Pearsall. Woodbridge, Suffolk: D. S. Brewer, 1987. Pp. 95-109.

Jones, Charles. An Introduction to Middle English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.

Jordan, Richard. Handbook of Middle English Grammar: Phonology. Trans. and revised Eugene J. Crook. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1974.

Kaluza, Max. "Strophische Gliederung in der mittelenglischen rein alliterirenden Dichtung." Englische Studien 16 (1892): 169-80.

Kane, George. "An Open Letter to Jill Mann about the Sequence of the Versions of Piers Plowman." Yearbook of Langland Studies 13 (1999): 7-34.

—. Piers Plowman: The Evidence for Authorship. London: Athlone Press, 1965.

—. "The Text." In Alford, Companion. Pp. 175-200.

Ker, N. R. Medieval Libraries of Great Britain: A List of Surviving Books. Second Edition. London: Royal Historical Society, 1964.

Kirk, Elizabeth. The Dream Thought of Piers Plowman. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972.

Knott, Thomas A. "An Essay toward the Critical Text of the A-Version of 'Piers the Plowman'." Modern Philology 12 (1915): 389-421.

Lawton, D. A. "Larger Patterns of Syntax in Middle English Unrhymed Alliterative Verse." Neophilologus 64 (1980): 604-18.

Lawler, Traugott. "A Reply to Jill Mann, Reaffirming the Traditional Relation between the A and B Versions of Piers Plowman." Yearbook of Langland Studies 10 (1996): 145-80.

Macray, William Dunn. Annals of the Bodleian Library. Volume III. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895.

Madan, Falconer. Summary Catalogue .... Second Edition. London: Royal Historical Society, 1964.

Manly, J. M. "The Lost Leaf of 'Piers the Plowman'." Modern Philology 3 (1906): 359-66.

Mann, Jill. "The Power of the Alphabet: A Reassessment of the Relation between the A and B Versions of Piers Plowman." Yearbook of Langland Studies 8 (1994): 21-50.

McIntosh, Angus, M. L. Samuels and Michael Benskin, with the assistance of Margaret Laing and Keith Williamson, eds. A Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English. 4 volumes. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1986.

McKisack, May. The Fourteenth Century, 1307-1399. Oxford History of England 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959.

Megna, Paul. "Dread, Love, and the Bodies of Piers Plowman A.10, B.9, and C.10." Yearbook of Langland Studies 29 (2015): 61-88.

Middleton, Anne. "Making a Good End: John But as a Reader of Piers Plowman." In Medieval English Studies Presented to George Kane. Ed. Edward Donald Kennedy, Ronald A. Waldron, and Joseph S. Wittig. Wolfboro, N.H.: Brewer, 1988. Pp. 243-66.

—. "The Prologues and Ends of Piers Plowman A."." In Horobin and Nafde. Pp. 199-224.

Mossé, Fernand. A Handbook of Middle English. Trans. James A. Walker. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1952.

Mustanoja, Tauno F. A Middle English Syntax. Part I: Parts of Speech. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 23. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, 1960.

Norton-Smith, John. William Langland. Medieval and Renaissance Authors 6. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973.

Ormrod, W. M. The Reign of Edward III: Crown and Political Society in England, 1327-1377. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990.

Parkes, M. B. Pause and Effect: An Introduction to the History of Punctuation in the West. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993.

Pearsall, Derek. "Langland's London." In Written Work: Langland, Labor, and Authorship. Ed. Steven Justice and Kathryn Kerby-Fulton. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997. Pp. 185-207.

—. "The Text of Piers Plowman: Past, Present and Future." Poetica: An International Journal of Linguistic-Literary Studies 71 (2009): 75-91.

Prendergast, Thomas A. "John But and the Problem of Langlandian Authority." In Yee? Baw for Bokes: Essays on Medieval Manuscripts and Poetics in Honor of Hoyt N. Duggan. Ed. Michael Calabrese and Stephen H.A. Shepherd. Los Angeles: Loyola Marymount University Press, 2012. Pp. 67-86.

Samuels, M. L. "Some Applications of Middle English Dialectology." English Studies 44 (1963): 81-94. Reprinted in Middle English Dialectology: Essays on Some Principles and Problems by Angus McIntosh, M. L. Samuels and Margaret Laing, edited and introduced by Margaret Laing. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1989. Pp. 64-80.

—. Linguistic Evolution with Special Reference to English. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 5. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

—. "Chaucer's Spelling." In Middle English Studies Presented to Norman Davis in Honour of His Seventieth Birthday. Ed. Douglas Gray and E. G. Stanley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. Pp. 17-37. (Reprinted in Smith, ed. The English of Chaucer. Pp. 23-37.)

—. "Langland's Dialect." Medium Ævum 54 (1985): 232-47. (Reprinted in revised form in Smith, ed. The English of Chaucer. Pp. 70-85.)

—. "Corrigenda: Langland's Dialect." Medium Ævum 55 (1986): 40.

—. "Dialect and Grammar." In Alford, Companion. Pp.201-21.

Scase, Wendy. "'First to reckon Richard': John But's Piers Plowman and the Politics of Allegiance." Yearbook of Langland Studies 11 (1997): 49-66.

—. Literature and Complaint in England, 1272-1553. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

—, ed. The Making of the Vernon Manuscript: the Production and Contexts of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Eng. poet. a. 1. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013.

—. "Piers Plowman" and the New Anti-Clericalism. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Smith, Jeremy J., ed. The English of Chaucer and his Contemporaries: Essays by M. L. Samuels and J. J. Smith. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1988.

— "The Language of the Ellesmere Manuscript." In The Ellesmere Chaucer: Essays in Interpretation. Ed. Martin Stevens and Daniel Woodward. San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library, and Tokyo: Yushodo, 1995. Pp. 69-86.

Studer-Joho, Nicole. "The Transmission of Alliterative Poetry: Scribal Practice in the A Text of William Langland's Piers Plowman." Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 113 (2012): 85-104.

Turville-Petre, Thorlac. "Putting it Right: The Corrections of Huntington Library MS Hm 128 and BL Additional MS 35287." Yearbook of Langland Studies 16 (2002): 41-65.

Vaughan, Míċeál F. "Consecutive Alliteration, Strophic Patterns, and the Composition of the Alliterative Morte Arthure." Modern Philology 77 (1979-80): 1-9.

—. "The Ending(s) of Piers Plowman A." In Suche Werkis to Werche: Essays on Piers Plowman In Honor of David C. Fowler. Ed. Míċeál F. Vaughan. East Lansing: Colleagues Press, 1993. Pp. 211-41.

—. "Filling the Gap in Piers Plowman A: Trinity College, Dublin, MS 213." In Yee? Baw for Bokes: Essays on Medieval Manuscripts and Poetics in Honor of Hoyt N. Duggan. Ed. Michael Calabrese and Stephen H.A. Shepherd. Los Angeles: Loyola Marymount University Press, 2012. Pp. 87-106.

—. "Where is Wille Buried (Piers A, Passus 12, line 105)?" Yearbook of Langland Studies 26 (2012): 131-36.

Warner, Lawrence. "John But and the Other Works that Will Wrought (Piers Plowman A XII 101-2)." Notes and Queries, n.s., 52 (2005): 13-18.

—. The Lost History of Piers Plowman: The Earliest Transmission of Langland's Work. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.

—. The Myth of Piers Plowman: Constructing a Medieval Literary Archive. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

Yunck, John A. The Lineage of Lady Meed: The Development of Mediaeval Venality Satire. Publications in Mediaeval Studies XVII. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1963.