s.xv1. Joseph Hunter, in his 1838 catalogue of the Lincoln’s Inn manuscripts, reports that Lincoln’s Inn MS 150 is written in “a hand of the fourteenth century”.Hunter, , 143; Hunter, , 399. N. R. Ker dates the manuscript to the second half of the fourteenth century, and Ker’s dating is cited in the linguistic profile.Ker, , 1:135; LP 4037. Editors of the poems have tended to prefer a date around the turn of the fifteenth century: G. V. Smithers proposes the late fourteenth century; Eugen Kölbing, Mary Barnicle and Maldwyn Mills the late fourteenth or early fifteenth; and George Kane and A. V. C. Schmidt the first quarter of the fifteenth; only O. D. Macrae-Gibson gives a later date of c.1450, citing Samuel Moore, Sanford Brown Meech, and Harold Whitehall’s .Smithers, , 2:3; Kölbing, “Vier romanzen-handschriften,” 194-5 (Kölbing’s edition of was published in 1890); Barnicle, , x; Mills, , 4; Kane, , 11; Schmidt, , 2:3; Macrae-Gibson, , 2:40-41; Moore, Meech and Whitehall, , 54. Other recent studies of this manuscript agree on an early fifteenth-century date. Gisela Guddat-Figge, Simon Horobin and Alison Wiggins, Nicole Clifton, and Ralph Hanna all date the manuscript either to the early fifteenth century, or to the first quarter of the fifteenth century; Hanna has recently proposed a more precise date “shortly after 1400”.Guddat-Figge, , 228; Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 31; Clifton, “Early Modern Readers,” 77; “Anthony Foster,” 77; Hanna, , 39; , 16.

The manuscript contains the following texts:

The texts of , , and are incomplete; see I.5 “Collation and Foliation” below.

The first four items in this manuscript are in Middle English; is predominantly in Middle English but with many lines in Latin and a few phrases in French. has a Latin rubric (“Bellum Troianum”), added in a later hand.

The manuscript comprises 4 modern paper flyleaves + 1 parchment flyleaf + 125 parchment folios + 1 parchment flyleaf + 2 modern paper flyleaves. Lincoln’s Inn MS 150 is a tall, thin book: the folios, which vary slightly in size, measure approximately 310 x 130 mm, and the writing frame measures approximately 270 x 95 mm, leaving margins of approximately 20 mm on the left and right, 10 mm at the top, and 25 mm at the bottom. The writing frame has been ruled in brown ink; prick marks (variously cuts or holes) can be seen in the four corners of most pages. No ruling is visible for individual lines within the writing frame. In 1972, the manuscript was “re-backed”: the quires were attached to five double raised bands on a hollow spine, and placed in a new binding that preserved the existing boards; the modern paper flyleaves were also added at this time. The manuscript is now quite stiff; editors who consulted it before 1972 were able to see text that is now hidden in the gutters.

The manuscript was apparently left unbound for a period of time before it was placed in its early modern binding and has sustained significant damage at the start and at the end, including the loss of several leaves (see I.5, “Collation and Foliation”). Fols. 1r and 125v, which formed the outer leaves during this period, are damaged and badly stained to a point where the text is only partially legible. Slits have been made near the outside edge of the page half way down fol. 1, at the top of fol. 125, and running the full length of the back flyleaf; these have been repaired with white thread. Damage on other pages includes orange stains on fols. 110r, 110v, 121r, 121v, 122r, and some rubbing and fading from fol. 124r to the end of the manuscript. The hole in the parchment at fol. 117, and the deformed edge of fol. 109, predate the copying of the text.

The parchment flyleaf at the front of the manuscript is blank on the recto, with pen trials and line drawings on the verso. The drawing on the left is indistinct, possibly a seated figure, and the drawing on the right depicts the head and upper body of a speaking person in profile. The parchment flyleaf at the back is part of a document dated 7 November 1384 that records an indulgence granted to the master and brothers of the hospital of St John in Beverley, Yorkshire and its papal confirmation. According to Smithers, the document preserves the names of John Peccham, the notary who drew it up, and three other notaries who witnessed it: Robert, William Horcelle of the diocese of Ely, and Thomas Lawe; these names are now largely hidden in the gutters.Smithers, , 2:4.

On the front pastedown, there is a note in pencil by “H. I. W., librarian” (Harry Isaac Whitaker, librarian of Lincoln’s Inn from 1920 to 1927), dated December 4th 1926, which describes the extent of the manuscript and lists its contents. The third modern paper flyleaf is a stub, to which a sheet of lined notepaper has been attached; on the notepaper, in ink, another hand adds a note on the missing and incorrectly ordered leaves in the first two quires (see I.5, “Collation and Foliation”). A third hand, “R. W.” (Roderick Walker, librarian of Lincoln’s Inn from 1972 to 1985), adds a supplementary note to this sheet, explaining that the order of the surviving leaves was “corrected 1972 when re-backed”. Photocopied excerpts from Joseph Hunter’s catalogue entry for this manuscript are pasted onto the fourth modern paper flyleaf.

The word “Poems” is written in an early modern hand, now quite indistinct, on the fore-edge of the manuscript. The top of the initial P coincides roughly with the edge of fol. 18, and the bottom of the letters with the edge of fol. 29; the word could thus have been written before the leaves of the first two quires became disarranged (see I.5, “Collation and Foliation”), or during the period when they were out of sequence.

The collation of the manuscript is as follows:

There are catchwords on fols 25v, 37v, 49v, 61v, 73v, 85v, 97v, 109v, and 121v.

The manuscript originally contained twelve quires, each of twelve leaves. The first two quires are now defective, lacking ten leaves of and one leaf of . Only four leaves of the final quire remain, containing A.7.41-8.157 (La.7.42-La.8.155). Kane calculates that a complete final quire of twelve leaves could easily have accommodated the rest of the A text, including passus 12.Kane, , 10-11.

While the manuscript was unbound, the surviving leaves of the first two quires became disarranged, so that the manuscript began with one leaf containing stanzas 125-135, followed by two leaves containing ll.115-340, and then continued at stanza 19 of , with corresponding gaps later in these texts where the displaced material was originally located. The leaves remained in this order when the manuscript was placed into its early modern binding, and when modern pencil foliation was added. They were restored to their proper position when the manuscript was “re-backed” in 1972, with the result that the modern foliation now runs as follows: 4r-9v, 1r-1v, 10r-13v, 2r-3v, 14r-125v. The displaced leaf of , which was the outer front leaf while the book was unbound and sustained significant damage during this period, now follows fol.9v.

In addition to the modern foliation, page numbers have been added in pencil for , beginning at quire iii, and for . Thus, fols 15r-27r () are numbered 2-15 (fol. 14r may also have been numbered 1, but this is no longer legible), and fols 28r-90r () are numbered 1-LXIII, switching from Arabic to Roman numerals after 9. A total of 63 folios is noted in pencil on fol. 90r at the end of . Line numbers have also been added in pencil to and Kyng Alisaunder at intervals of 10 lines, beginning at the start of quire iii for ; a row of pencil crosses above the first line of fol. 14r indicates the place where this numbering begins.

All the items in Lincoln’s Inn MS 150 have been copied in a single hand. The hand is larger in than in the other items, however, and the spaces between the words are more compressed. Kane describes the hand as “expert but unpretentious,” and compares it to the hands found “in late fourteenth- and fifteenth-century provincial guild or corporation documents and private correspondence”.Kane, , 11. Horobin and Wiggins refer to the scribe as “a proficient, practised copyist”.Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 31.

The scribe employs an Anglicana script with some cursive features: minims are written continuously, so that distinctions between m, n, and u have to be inferred; e is formed with a single, circular stroke. i is distinguished with a c-shaped tittle, while y is dotted. Other characteristics include: a double-compartment a, where the upper compartment stands slightly taller than the surrounding lower-case letters; d with a triangular loop on the ascender that often extends back over the previous letters; a closed, “8-shaped” g (in final position, a long descender is added to the ear on the upper compartment); h with a triangular loop on the ascender and a long tail on the limb that often extends back beneath the previous letters; long r in all positions (in final position, the shoulder of long r ends with an additional, scooped upward stroke); “z-shaped” r in medial and final positions after o (but not eo), with a curved, otiose stroke below the line; sigmoid s in initial and final positions and sometimes in medial positions after a; long s in medial positions; loops on two strokes of w that often stand as high as the ascenders on d, h and l; y with a curved tail looping back beneath the graph (in final positions, the end of the tale sometimes extends above the graph to form the dot). Latin text is written in the same script, but using larger letters than the surrounding English text. The loops on l, h, and w are frequently blotted with ink.

The only punctuation in this manuscript occurs in . When Latin and English appear together in a single line, a raised point or a punctus elevatus is sometimes used to mark the transition between languages. Examples are found at La.1.51 (fol. 110v), La.3.56 (fol. 114r), La.4.124 (fol. 117v) La.7.68 (fol.122r) and La.7.69 (fol. 122r) (raised point); and at La.1.176 (fol. 111v), La.7.123 (fol. 123v) and La.8.3 (fol. 124r) (punctus elevatus).

The scribe has corrected the text of by deleting or adding letters or words on 44 occasions. Deleted text has been lined through on 19 occasions (with additional subpunction in one case), erased on 6 occasions, and blotted on 6 occasions (on five of these, the blotting deletes a single letter). On two occasions, where mistakes were identified during the initial process of copying, the correction follows the deleted text in the same line; on one occasion, where the scribe formed only part of a letter before realising his mistake, the correction follows in-line but the incomplete graph is not deleted. A whole line has been lined through on fol. 117v (La.4.112) and a corrected version of the same line follows immediately below. Other corrections were supplied after copying was complete: omitted words and corrections for erased words are supplied in the margins on 7 occasions and above the line on 7 seven occasions, usually with chevrons to indicate where they should be inserted into the corrected lines. On fol. 112r, the scribe draws a box around a correction supplied in the margin for La.2.39, so that it looks like the end of a wrapped line.

Not every error in the text of La has been corrected. In the present edition, I annotate 16 instances of misspelled words that the scribe did not correct, one case where a marginal correction introduces a new error (La.1.40), and two occasions where a word repeated in error is not deleted (La.3.67, La.5.86; another probable instance at La.3.166 is partly obscured by damage). Some unique readings where La omits a word found in other A-text manuscripts may also be uncorrected errors, either by the La scribe or imported from his exemplar (e.g. om. pees, La.4.52; om. bet, La.5.215). On two occasions in La, the same line is copied twice, once out of sequence and once in its usual place (La.2.66 and La.2.69; La.7.219 and La.7.223); these, too, presumably originated as errors.

On fol. 120v, selected words from La.6.31 and La.6.34 and the entirety of La.6.32 have been overwritten in darker ink. In these cases, the overwriting was apparently intended to compensate for the faint first application of ink, and not to correct errors in the text. Kane describes this overwriting as the work of another hand, not the original scribe.Kane, , 302, note to K.6.32.

At the start of , the scribe leaves a space the height of three lines of verse for an initial “I” that was never executed. Similar spaces are found with guide letters at the start of (fol. 28r) and (fol. 90v). An initial h in green ink has been executed in the space at the start of (fol. 13v). , , and also include spaces the height of two lines of verse for decorative initials that would mark structural divisions in the narrative, but no such spaces appear in the text of .

There are no rubrics or headings in the text of . However, a series of guide marks suggests that a scheme of decoration was originally planned to indicate both passus and paragraph divisions, and to mark other important moments in the text. There are 52 cc-marks in the margins of , apparently made by the original scribe. These are found at the beginning of passus 1, and throughout the text at points where new paragraphs might begin. The uneven distribution of these marks, which appear frequently on some pages and not at all on others, suggests that the work of annotating paragraphs was left incomplete. From passus 2 onwards, the scribe uses double oblique strokes to indicate the beginning of each new passus (except passus 8, which has no annotation), and to mark other important moments in the narrative: double oblique strokes appear at La.2.58 (fol. 112r), where the text of the document describing Mede’s proposed marriage settlement begins; La.4.86 (fol. 117r) when Peace calls on the king to have mercy; La.5.119 (fol. 119r) when Covetousness describes joining the drapers; La.5.141 (fol. 119r) when Glutton’s confession begins; La.7.36 (fol. 121v, now very faint) when the knight thanks Piers for his instruction; La.7.68 (fol. 122r) where Piers recalls the words of Truth; La.7.153 (fol. 123r) where Wastour refuses to work; La.7.172 (fol. 123r) where Hunger impels the faytours to work; La.7.240 (fol. 123v) where Piers asks Hunger how to cure the labourers’ stomach pains; La.8.20 (fol. 124v) where merchants appear in the margins of the pardon; and La.8.91 (fol. 125r) where a priest demands to read the text of the pardon. By passus 7, double oblique strokes are more common than cc marks, and double oblique strokes are the only guide marks in the surviving portion of passus 8.

The guide marks in La correspond closely with the much more complete and elaborate scheme of paragraphing found in V and in the early part of its genetic partner Ha. Sarah Wood has argued that V and Ha preserve a scheme of paratextual annotation that was transmitted with the earliest copies of A and that may derive from paragraphing in the archetype.Wood, , 74-6. For the argument that the B text archetype contained paraph signs, see Burrow and Turville-Petre, , introduction (IV.3) The guide marks in La supply evidence for the later transmission of this paratextual scheme, albeit in an incomplete and degraded form. Horobin and Wiggins have shown that the guide marks in the Lincoln’s Inn correspond with decorated initials in the other long text of this poem, which suggests that here, too, the scribe was copying a scheme of paragraphing from his exemplar.Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 46. Guide marks in La correspond with an initial letter or a paraph in V at the following points:

La.P.1, La.P.55, La.P.65, La.P.73 [K.P.72], La.P.80, La.P.84, La.P.90, La.1.1, La.1.10, La.1.23, La.1.56, La.1.120 [K.1.119], La.1.150 [K.1.149], La.1.160 [K.1.159], La.2.1, La.2.15, La.2.22, La.2.33, La.2.39 [K.2.38], La.2.58 [K.2.57], La.2.81 [K.2.79], La.2.125 [K.2.122], La.2.157 [K.2.154], La.2.172 [K.2.172], La.3.1, La.3.19, La.3.34, La.3.85 [K.3.82], La.3.93 [K.3.90], La.3.107 [K.3.103], La.3.161 [K.3.157], La.3.230 [K.3.225], La.3.236 [K.3.231], La.4.1, La.4.64, La.4.74, La.4.100, La.4.146 [K.4.148], La.5.1, La.5.20 [K.5.21], La.5.35 [K.5.34], La.5.73, La.5.82 [K.5.85], La.5.102 [K.5.107], La.5.119 [K.5.123], La.5.141 [K.5.146], La.5.217 [K.5.220], La.6.1, La.7.1, La.7.23, La.7.36 [K.7.35], La.7.140 [K.7.139], La.7.153 [K.7.152], La.7.172 [K.7.171], La.7.240 [K.7.237], La.8.20, La.8.91 [K.8.89].

Minor disagreements are found at La.1.106 [K.103], where both La and V are corrupt; in a cluster of instances from late in passus 3 (La.3.188 [K.3.184], La.3.204 [K.3.200] and La.3.221 [K.3.217]); and at La.4.34, La.6.25, La.6.46, and La.7.68 [K.7.67]. In all these instances, the guide mark in La is no more than three lines from the capital or paraph mark in V. Only at La.4.86 does the scribe include a guide mark with no apparent counterpart in V.

If the La scribe was copying the paragraph marks in his exemplar, the introduction of double oblique strokes from passus 2 onwards, and the later preference for double oblique strokes over cc-marks, suggests that he changed his mind more than once about the levels of annotation that would be required as he worked on the manuscript. The paratextual scheme in V distinguishes different kinds of paragraph (Wood describes “a loose hierarchy of regular paragraphs and those marked with coloured initials”), but there are no persistent correspondences here with the two kinds of guide mark used in La.Wood, , 77.Cc-marks and double oblique strokes appear as guide marks in the other texts in Lincoln's Inn MS 150: there are five cc-marks in the margins of and two in the margins of , while double oblique strokes occur on ninety-one occasions in the margins of , and on twenty-four in , but only employs both types of guide mark in combination.

Catchwords are enclosed in a box, drawn in the same ink that was used for the text, with the exception of the catchwords on fols. 25v and 49v which are undecorated. The left edge of the box around the catchword on fol. 97v is embellished with a triangular pattern. Wrapped text, which only occurs in , is written below the line it continues, and distinguished from the adjacent text by an ink line that curves down from the left and runs underneath. Exceptions occur on fols. 109r and 118v where wrapped text is written above the line it continues; on fol. 109r the placement is dictated by the deformed edge of the page.

The scribe supplies explicits for , , , and ; the explicits for and are enclosed in boxes embellished with similar three-leaf clover designs. The explicit to has been partially overwritten in a later hand, and supplemented with notes in this later hand and two other hands; the third of these hands also supplies an incipit for . Another later hand adds the titles “Bellum Troianum” to and “Plowman Piers” to . A title and explicit are supplied in pencil for (“Alysaunder”, fol. 28r; “[finish],” fol. 90r) in the same hand that adds the pencil line numbers (this hand writes “to here” at the top of fol. 41r and “Continue here to end of Poem” at the top of fol. 73r to track the progress of the line numbering).

Lincoln’s Inn MS 150 was often described as a “minstrel manuscript” in nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century scholarship, although the evidence for this claim is extremely tenuous, and more recent studies have rejected it emphatically. Andrew Taylor, who describes the emergence of the “minstrel manuscript” as a “tenuous … codicological category” in twentieth-century scholarship, points to a great deal of “wishful thinking” in the scholarship linking Lincoln’s Inn MS 150 with minstrelsy.Taylor, “Myth of the Minstrel Manuscript,” 43; discussion of Lincoln’s Inn MS 150 at 55-58; and see Rastall and Taylor, , 243. Two surviving manuscripts contain inscriptions that suggest they were once owned by minstrels: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 302 (the poems of John Audelay) which belonged to William Wyatt of Coventry, and Cambridge, University Library, MS Additional 5934, a religious miscellany that belonged to “hennyngis harper”; Taylor, “Myth of the Minstrel Manuscript,” 65-7. James Wade has recently identified the poems in the first booklet of National Library of Scotland, Advocates’ MS 19.3.1 (the Heege manuscript) as the work of a minstrel; “Entertainments from a Medieval Minstrel’s Repertoire Book”. The manuscript is first identified with minstrels in Hunter’s catalogue description: Hunter argued that Lincoln’s Inn MS 150 was owned and used by the fraternity of minstrels who were associated with Beverley Minster, citing as evidence the document referring to the hospital of St John in Beverley that serves as the final parchment flyleaf.Hunter, , 401-2. Barnicle, who challenged Hunter’s claim that the manuscript was associated with Beverley, nevertheless endorsed his view of it as “a minstrel book”.Barnicle, , xiv. Barnicle argued that the tall, thin shape of the manuscript, its so-called “holster book” format (see I.4, “Physical Description”), would make it suitable to be held in a minstrel’s hand or carried in his saddle bag.Barnicle, , xxxvi, xiv. Smithers echoed Barnicle’s assessment, noting that the shape of the manuscript “may have been meant to fit the pocket of an itinerant minstrel”.Smithers, , 2:12. Kane, like Barnicle, rejected Hunter’s claim that the manuscript was linked to Beverley, partly on the grounds of its dialect and partly because there is no evidence to show that the manuscript and the flyleaf originated in the same place; he also challenged the claim that the book was made for a minstrel, noting that many different kinds of books employed the same tall, thin format.Kane, , 11. See also Rastall and Taylor, , 57-60 Horobin and Wiggins expand on this point, noting that “long, narrow books seem to have been in general use for a range of purposes” and that “manuscripts adopting this format have a range of textual contents, not solely romances or other works generally associated with minstrels”.Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 31-2. Taylor, meanwhile, has queried the assumption that tall, thin books were designed to fit in holsters at all, noting that “no one has actually produced an example of saddle-bags of this shape”.Rastall and Taylor, , 244.

Lincoln’s Inn MS 150 contains a number of inscriptions that attest to its later ownership. The name of “Anthony Foster de Trotton” is written in a sixteenth century hand on the final parchment flyleaf in the space between the two parts of the document relating to Beverley minster. Under this name, another hand writes “myn cosyn”, then “myn” again (Smithers misread this annotation as “John Cosyn”).Smithers, , 2:4. On fol. 72r, the name “John” is written in the right margin, at 90 degrees to the text so that the top of the letters aligns with the edge of the page. On fol. 103v, the name “Jamys” is written twice in the right margin, and very faint letters higher up the page might be a third inscription of this name; the name Jamys also appears in the same hand, but smudged and partially obscured, at the foot of fol. 111v.Clifton, “Anthony Foster,” 85, writes that both “John” and “Jamys” are written in “cursive italic hands of the sixteenth or later centuries”. Macrae-Gibson also notes “what may be a proper name, only partly legible,” at the foot of fol. 16v.Macrae-Gibson, , 2:42.

The name and identity of Anthony Foster have been deciphered by stages in successive studies of this manuscript. Hunter transcribed the name “Anthony Foster” on the final flyleaf, and Kölbing offered a partial transcription of the place name that follows it: “de Trott …”.Hunter, , 144; Hunter, , 401; Kölbing, “Vier romanzen-handschriften,” 194. Barnicle offered a complete, but inaccurate, transcription of the place name, which has had significant ramifications for later scholarship. Barnicle read the place name as “Trofford,” which she identified as the Cheshire village of Wimbold’s Trafford, a possession of the Fitzalan family who also held extensive lands in Shropshire. She concluded that the signatory was the same Anthony Foster who purchased the manor of Little Wenlock in Shropshire from the crown in 1545, and hypothesised that the manuscript may have come to him from Wenlock Priory, which was dissolved in 1539.Barnicle, , xii-xiii. Kane queried Barnicle’s transcription of the place name and the identification of Anthony Foster that followed from it, noting that the place name was more likely “Trotton” than “Trofford”.Kane, , 11. A. I. Doyle, too, read the place name as “Trottan”, rather than “Trofford”, in an assessment cited by Guddat Figge.Guddat-Figge, , 231, n. 6. As Clifton explains, Barnicle had misconstrued the double t in the place name as a double f, and the letter she saw as a d at the end of this word is in fact a capital A (practice for the A of “Anthony”), separated from the end of the word by a space.Clifton, “Anthony Foster,” 85. See also Clifton, “Early Modern Readers,” 78. As Clifton points out, however, many subsequent studies of Lincoln’s Inn MS 150 have proceeded as though Barnicle’s reading was accurate, despite the issues raised by Kane and Doyle.Clifton, “Anthony Foster,” 81. Thus, cites Barnicle’s discussion of the flyleaf signature to corroborate its localisation of this manuscript to Shropshire, while Hanna, citing and Barnicle, proposes that the manuscript was originally produced for the Fitzalans in Shropshire, and then later came into possession of “the Fitzalan dependant Anthony Foster of Wimbold’s Trafford” in the neighbouring county of Cheshire.Hanna, “Two New (?) Lost Piers Manuscripts (?)”, 170-71; , 16. Horobin and Wiggins endorse Hanna’s account of the manuscript’s provenance; “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150”, 31, and see also Wiggins, “Middle English Romance and the West Midlands”, 243 n. 8. These arguments are not defensible, however; the only evidence that links this manuscript to Shropshire is the dialect of the scribe (see IV.1, “Dialect”).

Clifton has identified the Anthony Foster who signed his name on the flyleaf as the son of Thomas Foster and Constance Lewknor, who inherited the manor of Trotton in West Sussex in 1634, and held the position of Sheriff of Sussex in 1638.Clifton, “Early Modern Readers,” 78; “Anthony Foster,” 87-88. Clifton identifies Foster’s signature in the 1642 Protestation Returns for Sussex, and shows that this signature and the signature on the manuscript flyleaf are in the same hand, although the signature in the Returns uses a later, italic script.Clifton, “Anthony Foster,” 88-89. Clifton also demonstrates that the marginal annotations in the manuscript are in Foster’s hand, establishing for the first time that the man who signed the flyleaf of this book also read the poems it contained (see I.11, “Marginalia”). Foster’s marginal annotations display a mixture of the secretary forms found in the manuscript signature and the italic forms found in the signature from the Protestation returns.Clifton, “Anthony Foster,” 89-90.

Lincoln’s Inn MS 150 has been thought to have been owned by Sir Matthew Hale, who donated his manuscripts to Lincoln’s Inn when he died in 1676 (the library received this bequest in 1678); for this reason, some studies and editions refer to the manuscript as MS Hale 150.Cromartie, Alan. “Hale [Hales], Sir Matthew [Mathew]”, “Hale [Hales], Sir Matthew [Mathew]”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. However, the manuscript is not included in the schedule to Hale’s will, which itemises the other manuscripts he gave to Lincoln’s Inn, and the catalogue compiled by Henry Powle suggests that it was already in the library at the time of his bequest.Baker, , 2:12. J. H. Baker locates the source of this misattribution in a misreading of the catalogue compiled by Philips Stubbs after 1691, which did not clearly distinguish the Hale manuscripts from the others in the library.Baker, , 2:8-9, and see Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150”, 53 n. 47; Clifton, “Anthony Foster,” 113. Clifton argues that the manuscript was probably given to Lincoln’s Inn by a member of Anthony Foster’s family. Several of his younger relatives had connections to the inns of court, including Thomas Mill of Trotton, the great-grandson of Foster’s aunt Catherine, who entered Lincoln’s Inn in the 1620s.Clifton, “Anthony Foster,” 114.

Anthony Foster of Trotton read and annotated at least three of the poems in this manuscript. There are 11 notes in Foster’s hand in the margins of , over 200 in the margins of , and a further 12 in the margins of . Foster’s notes on are transcribed by Macrae-Gibson; they include comments on Vortigern’s coronation, the travels of Uther, the battle between Vortigern and Uther, and the privileges granted to Winchester.Macrae-Gibson, , 2:267, and see Clifton, “Early Modern Readers,” 78-9; Clifton, “Anthony Foster,” 97. Clifton has discussed Foster’s extensive marginal notes to Kyng Alisaunder, which display a similar concern with “kingship, battles, travel, and numbers of fighting men,” and also reveal an “interest in letters and speeches”.Clifton, “Early Modern Readers,” 78. See also Clifton, “Anthony Foster,” 97-105. Foster’s notes on Piers Plowman are as follows:

The majority of these marginalia identify the personification who is speaking in the annotated passage, or abstract a moralising injunction from the text; exceptions are fol. 118r “monk,” which glosses an injunction to “religioun” in Reason’s sermon, and fol. 121r “covetise,” which glosses the “crofte” called “coueite not no mannes catell” in Piers Plowman’s itinerary to Truth. On fol. 118r, Foster also draws a vertical line that runs from 5.35 to 5.46 in the left margin.

The manuscript also contains a variety of non-verbal annotations made either by Foster, or by one or more other readers. Clusters of dots are used to mark individual lines in and . These appear on fol. 46v (, ll. 1949, 1957, 1977, 1987), fol. 51v (, ll. 2482, 2486), and fol. 110v (, La.1.93). has been annotated with 23 small crosses, including one embellished with four dots (fol. 24r; l.1606) and another embellished with two dots (fol. 26r, l. 1781); there are also drawings of a four-leaf clover (fol. 13v); an acorn and oak leaf (fol. 3r); a three-leaf clover beside an underlined line (fol. 15r); and two pointing hands (fol. 21r). Similar marks appear independently elsewhere in the manuscript. A cross is found in the margins of on fol. 93v (l. 368). A drawing of a dog (only the hind legs and tail are now visible) in a similar style and ink to the acorn and oak leaf on fol. 3r appears on fol. 9r in the margin of . On fol. 27v, a drawing of a man with a large hat, holding a staff (perhaps with a cross, now faded) appears in red ink at the foot of the page under the explicit to . Trials of the letter a and a drawing of a face in brown ink appear beside it. There are scribbles and pen trials on fols. 13r, 16r, 21r, 51v, 52v, 58v, 60v, 61v, 116v and 121v.

Horobin and Wiggins have argued that the drawings in the margins of were made by the scribe himself, as a way to track his own revisions to the text; this argument has implications for since, for Horobin and Wiggins, it supports the hypothesis that the scribe was also responsible for the revisions in , too.Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 39-40. As Clifton has shown, however, the crosses and drawings in were more likely made either by Foster or some other reader as a guide to the main events of Merlin’s life, and do not seem to be the work of the original scribe.Clifton, “Early Modern Readers,” 78-80.

Writing in 1838, Hunter described the manuscript bound in a “very mean cover of ordinary leather” which he dated to “early in the reign of Elizabeth”.Hunter, , 401. The manuscript was “re-backed” in 1972, preserving the brown leather boards and spine from this earlier binding. The boards measure 318 x 145 mm, and the spine is 45 mm deep. The text on the spine reads “ENGLISH METRICAL ROMANCES,” then “M. S. 150,” with the Lincoln’s Inn crest at the bottom.

A digital facsimile of Lincoln’s Inn MS 150 is now available at the website.

In his analysis of the surviving witnesses to the A text, Kane identified one well-established variational group, comprising {<[(T H2) Ch] D> Ra U}; two well-established pairs (V Ha) and (Wa N), the latter only until the start of passus 10, when Wa changes exemplar; and a final group (E A Wa Ma H), which includes Wa for passūs 10-11 only. La, along with J and K, could not be located securely in any of these groups, in Kane’s view.

In his analysis of the A-text variants, Kane described La in 17 agreements with E and in 16 agreements with Ha.Kane, , 72 (E and La), and 74 (Ha and La). (One of the agreements between La and Ha arises from a transcription error, however, and should thus be excluded from the list; see textual and codicological notes to La.4.95; one further La E agreement, not noted by Kane, is found at La.1.126). Kane concluded that these few agreements were insufficient to argue for a variational group in either case. Moreover, the persistent association of Ha with V and of E with A Wa Ma H, meant that agreements between La and Ha and between La and E would seem to place La in two conflicting groups. Kane concluded that these few agreements were most likely to be the result of convergent variation.Kane, , 82.

Kane argued that the proliferation of conflation and convergent variation in the A tradition made it impossible to construct a stemma for the purposes of recension, or to create a hierarchy of manuscripts wherein some could be treated as more authoritative witnesses to the text than others; the Athlone A text is thus established through a case-by-case analysis of all variant readings. In his parallel-text edition, however, Schmidt does propose a stemma for A. Schmidt describes two families, r and m, which descend from Ax, the archetype that descends in turn from the poet’s holograph. The first of these families, r, divides into two subfamilies: r1, which comprises Kane’s {<[(T H2) Ch] D> Ra U}, and r2, which includes the two well-established pairs V Ha and Wa N (Wa up until the change of exemplar), along with La, J and K, and Z, which Schmidt reads as a witness to the A text for part of passus 8. The second of these families, m, comprises Kane’s final group (E A Ma H Wa) (Wa after the change of exemplar).

Schmidt acknowledges that the status of the r2 group, which contains La, is less certain than that of the others. The manuscripts in this group attest r-type readings not found in m, and they lack the agreements in error that serve to establish r1 as a coherent group, but the case for treating them as descendants from an exclusive common ancestor is “largely inferential”.Schmidt, , 2.96. The situation is further complicated because so many texts in this group are incomplete: Ha and La have sustained losses at the end, while N becomes a C text after A, passus 8, line 184, Wa is an m witness until the start of passus 10, and Z is only a witness to A for 73 lines of passus 8. Nevertheless, Schmidt identifies eleven variants that can be postulated as indicative r2 sub-family readings, five of which are present in the surviving portion of La (see textual notes to La.5.71, La.7.12, La.7.129, La.7.161, and La.7.283).See Schmidt, , 2:96 for the full list of postulated r2 subfamily variants. Schmidt writes later that La contains only four of these, listing those that appear in passus 7 (, 2:98), but the indicative variant at La.5.71 is also present in La.

Schmidt reconsiders the agreements between La and Ha and between La and E noted by Kane. He argues that only two agreements between La and E and two between La and Ha can be described as major agreements, and that all four of these can be explained as coincidental errors. Thus, agreements with E do not present a difficulty for locating La in the r2 group, and agreements with Ha do not provide grounds for a closer association of these two witnesses within the r2 group.

Schmidt describes La as the sole witness to two Ax readings that are not found in other A-text witnesses but which have support from Z and from BC. These are: La.7.190 (K.7.189) best beo] is best; La.7.255 (K.7.253) hodes] hood. Kane rejected both these La readings in his edition of A; the Athlone editors accept “best be” as the correct reading in B and C (cf. KD.6.204, RK.8.209), but continue to prefer “hood” for “hoodes” in all three texts (cf. KD.6.269, RK.8.290).

La preserves a highly distinctive text of Piers Plowman A, with many unique readings. Some of these may result from scribal error, while others seem likely to be intentional revisions to the text. La adds lines that are not attested in any other witness to the A text, and omits others that are present in most or all other witnesses; elsewhere, single lines are replaced with alternate versions, variously described as “corrupt” or “substitute” lines in Kane’s apparatus, individual lines are expanded to form two or even three lines, and pairs of lines are compressed to form single lines. There are also many unique readings at the level of individual words and phrases; these take many characteristic forms, although perhaps the most striking are those that add new alliterating staves to the line as attested in other witnesses. Each of these phenomena are discussed in this section.

Schmidt posits at least one generation of lost copies between r2 and La that would account for some of these variants.Schmidt, , 2.98. Horobin and Wiggins have argued that the La scribe himself was responsible for the interpolated lines, and for those revisions that add new alliterating staves to existing lines, but, as we have seen, this argument relies in part on supporting evidence from , where Horobin and Wiggins misconstrue later annotations as notes by the scribe drawing attention to his own revisions (see I.11, “Marginalia”).Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 39-41.

On a few occasions, corrections to the text in Lincoln’s Inn MS 150 might offer evidence of the La scribe revising the text of his exemplar, although if this is the case, then the exemplar in question is now lost. At La.P.19, the scribe lines through “tec” and supplies the unique “wilnyth,” producing a fourth alliterating stave in the line (perhaps his exemplar had “techeth,” a variant not found in other witnesses). In the second half of La.1.129, the scribe writes “I may hit ay fynde,” before correcting “fynde” to “knowe”; this half line is itself a variant only attested in La, but the correction from “fynde” to “knowe” restores a third alliterating stave to the line, as though improving on an exemplar. At La.1.154, the scribe writes “wordus”, a variant not attested in any other witnesses, before correcting to the alliterating “tongus”, a variant also found in KDRa (the majority reading is the singular “tongue”). In each case, of course, it is possible that the scribe is correcting an error he had introduced himself, rather than copying text from an exemplar only to cancel and improve on it. Also of note is La.5.32, a line that is unique to La, where the scribe begins to write “hyghely” before cancelling “hy” and writing “hood hyghely,” perhaps suggesting that the line was copied from an exemplar, rather than his own composition.

II.2.1 Interpolated and omitted lines:

On 10 occasions, La interpolates additional lines that are not attested in any other manuscript of ; these interpolations amount to 14 lines of text in all.Kane, , 47. Kane identifies 12 interpolations, including La.2.194: “And when he had dwelled wiþ heom on half ȝere”; and La.5.31-2: “ffor hit passed a pound þe pletes weore so monye / And his hood hyghely yholde hit worth a grote”. In the present edition, however, La.2.193 and La.2.194 are described as two lines elaborated from a single line found in other witnesses, while La.5.30-32 are described as three lines elaborated from a single line found in other witnesses. The interpolated lines are as follows:

Setting aside passus 12, this is the largest number of unique, interpolated lines in any surviving witness of the A-text, except for Ha which has a remarkable 29 instances, amounting to 44 lines of text. For comparison, H2, which preserves the A-text from the Prologue to passus 11, has 7 interpolated passages, amounting to 12 lines of text; J (Prologue-passus 12, line 88) has 4 instances, amounting to 5 lines of text; R (Prologue to passus 12) has 2 instances, amounting to 3 lines of text.

In addition to these interpolations, there are two occasions where the La scribe repeats the same line, once in its usual position, and once interpolated elsewhere: one line appears as an interpolation at La.2.66 and in its usual place at La.2.69, while another appears as an interpolation at La.7.219 and in its usual place at La.7.223. These repeated lines presumably originated as errors (see I.8, “Corrections”).

La also omits a number of lines that are found in other witnesses to the A text and were likely part of Ax. La lacks Athlone A.1.106 (also lacking in V and Ha); A.4.113-4; A.5.39 (also lacking in A); A.5.78-79 (also lacking in Ha); A.5.80 (also lacking in Ha and J); A.5.87 (also lacking in V Ha J K N T H2 Ch D Ra U, but part of Ax according to Kane and Schmidt); A.5.90; A.5.175 (also lacking in Ha and K); A.5.176 (also lacking in K); A.5.177 (also lacking in K and A); A.7.241; A.7.260; and A.8.137.

II.2.2 Corrupted and substituted lines:

La contains many lines that Kane describes as either substituted for or corrupted from the lines attested in other witnesses. Examples of substituted lines that replace a single line in other witnesses are found at La.1.106, La.1.107, La.2.12, La.3.150, La.3.216, La.5.39, La.5.69, and La.7.36. Examples of corrupted lines that replace a single line in other witnesses are found at La.2.36, La.2.118, La.3.212, La.4.12, La.4.125, La.4.149, La.5.183 and La.5.189.

On six occasions, La has two lines in place of a single line found in other witnesses: La.1.74-5, La.2.193-4, La.3.96-7, La.5.107-8, La.5.169-70, and La.5.251-2. In some cases, the lines in La are clearly derived from the single line in other witnesses, as at La.1.74-5, where La has “Owgh segg heo saide þou aghtest me to knowe / ffor ych am holy chirche & cheosed þe ones” for “Holi churche Icham quaþ heo þou ouhtest me to knowe” (V). In others, La substitutes new material, as at La.3.96-7, where La has “And on hire kneoes heo kneoled when heo þe kyng sygh / Bote he hire tok vp by þe hond & hailsed wel faire” for “Corteisliche þe kyng cumseþ to telle” (V). There are four occasions where La has a single line in place of two lines found in other witnesses: La.1.111, La.5.125, La.5.150, and La.7.68. At La.1.111, the single La line substitutes new material for the lines found in other witnesses, while La.5.125 and La.5.150 compress two lines into one; at La.5.125, this is achieved by conflating the a- and b- verses from the two lines found in other witnesses. La.7.68 presents a Middle English line and a Latin line as a single line of verse.

One just one occasion, at La.5.30-32, La derives three lines from the single line found in other witnesses. On one further occasion, not noted by Kane, but recovered for this edition using multispectral imaging (see III.1.1, “Damaged and Overbound Text”), La derives three lines (La.8.147-149) from the two lines attested in most other witnesses.

II.2.3 Individual words and phrases:

La contains many unique readings involving individual words or phrases. Some of the most notable of these introduce new alliterating staves, or otherwise alter the pattern of alliteration in a given line; these are discussed in more detail below (see II.2.3.1, “Alliteration”).

A significant number of unique La readings involve transpositions that invert the word order in a particular phrase. Examples include La.P.48 tales wyse] wyse tales; La.1.44 him-seolf saide] seyde hymseluen; La.1.100 trouþe euer to serue] to serue treuþe euere; La.2.13 wiþ gold rebended] irybaunt with gold; La.2.175 to þeo freres fledde] fleih to þe ffreres; La.3.2 to þe kyng ybroghte] ibrouht to þe kyng; La.3.175 may y] I may; La.3.281 ȝet schal kynde wit come] kuynde wyt schal come ȝit; La.4.67 euer was a schrewe] was a schrewe euere; La.4.122 my grace geten] gete my grace; La.5.41 ȝou sauen] sauen ow; La.5.175 scholde fulle þe coppe] þe cuppe schuld fille; La.6.39 hit hath] haþ it; La.7.30 holi chirche þou kepe] þou kepe holi chirche; La.7.246 somwhad dyne] dyne sumwhat. Relatedly, other unique La readings involve the transposition of paired terms, like “gotte” and “gost” in La.1.34, “chauncellery” and “chekere” in La.4.26.

On several occasions, unique La readings have to do with numbers, either changing one number to another, or replacing a reference to a specific number with some other, non-numerical measure. Examples include La.1.102 foure skore] ffyue score; La.2.193 to þe worldis eynde] halue a ȝere & elleuen dayes; La.3.172 mony feole] enleue; La.3.255 multitude] milions; La.5.106 twenty] twelue; La.5.182 to galons] a Galoun.

Horobin and Wiggins argue that some of the unique La variants introduce “conventional alliterative formulae […] which are a staple of romances and alliterative works”.Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 42. They draw attention to La.P.18 makid vppon molde] þe mene and þe riche; La.1.117 his pompe & his pruyde] pruide þat he put out; and La.2.116 graunt mercy þey gradden] gret was þe thankyng. Horobin and Wiggins propose that these revisions were intended “to align the text of Piers” with the romances in Lincoln’s Inn MS 150.Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 42.

II.2.3.1 Alliteration:

La contains many unique readings that embellish or otherwise alter the pattern of alliteration. Kane observes that, while variants like this are widely attested in the A-text tradition, the phenomenon is “most strikingly illustrated in the variants of [La],” and appears “to a lesser extent but markedly, in the other manuscripts”.Kane, , 141-2. Tomonori Matsushita provides detailed metrical glosses on the entire text in the transcription that accompanies his facsimile edition. Horobin and Wiggins, too, observe that revisions designed to enhance and adapt the poem’s alliterative structure are “extremely frequent” in La, and constitute a “large-scale” programme of editorial adaptation, distinct from the more infrequent, less systematic changes found in other surviving witnesses.Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 41.

Kane provides a list of 53 examples taken from the Prologue and the first two passūs of La.Kane, , 141-42. Horobin and Wiggins, too, confine themselves to the Prologue and passūs 1 and 2 in their analysis.Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 41. It should be noted that these passūs are not wholly representative of La, however. While variants affecting the pattern of alliteration are certainly found throughout the surviving text, they are particularly concentrated in the earlier sections: for example, I count 18 instances of variant readings that produce a fourth alliterating stave in the 109 lines of the La Prologue, but only 2 in the 123 lines of La passus 6. Horobin and Wiggins, who attribute the metrical changes in La to the scribe of Lincoln’s Inn MS 150, contend that these “‘improvements’ […] might well be designed to enhance an oral performance of the poem,” although they also concede that some of the more elaborate alterations produce “tongue-twisting” lines that would be challenging to read aloud.Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 41.

Most commonly, the La readings introduce a fourth alliterating stave to lines where other witnesses have three. As Horobin and Wiggins observe, this is often achieved by replacing the final blank stave in a line with an alliterating stave, producing an aa/aa line from an aa/ax line.Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 41. (In the following examples, I compare readings from La with those attested in the next manuscript in the order of sigla (see III.3.2, “Treatment of Textual Variants”); this is usually V, except in instances where lines in V are themselves corrupt or missing):

Occasionally, blank staves in other positions are replaced with an alliterating stave:

Elsewhere, the La text adds extra syllables to produce new alliterating staves. Horobin and Wiggins draw attention to La.P.45, where La has “Sory slep & slouthe euer heom sywith” for “Sleep and sleuȝþe suweþ hem euere” (V), adding syllables to the start of the line, and to La.P.50, where La has “Ermytes on an hep wiþ hoked staues hyeden” for “Ermytes on hepys with hokyd stauys” (J), adding syllables to the end, as well as to La.2.17, where La has “And lakked lodlich my lore to lordes aboute” for “Ad [sic] Ilakked my lore to lordes aboute” (V), adding syllables in the middle of the line. Other examples are found later in the text:

Some unique La readings result in lines with five or even six alliterating staves. These sometimes occur in lines where other witnesses already have four or more alliterating staves, and it may be that the unique readings in La respond to pre-existing moments of metrical virtuosity in the reviser’s exemplar. Examples include the following La lines with five alliterating staves:

and the following La lines with six alliterating staves:

Elsewhere, however, La lines contain five or more alliterating staves where other witnesses have only the regular three:

Other unique La readings supply a third alliterating stave for lines where other witnesses have only two. Here, perhaps, the La scribe or the scribe of his lost copy text was compensating for perceived deficiencies in an exemplar:

La contains several unique readings that change the pattern of alliteration in the line, rather than increasing the number of alliterating staves. Several of these result in an aa/bb line where other witnesses have aa/ax. Horobin and Wiggins note examples at La.P.3, where La has “In abite as an hermyte vn-worthy of werkes” for “In habite of an hermite vnholy of werkes” (V); La.P.47, where La has “Forto seche seynt Iame & rerykes [sic] at rome” for “For to seche seint Jeme and seintes at Roome” (V); and La.1.82, where La has “þat y myght worchen his wille þat to mon me made” for “þat Ich his wille mihte worche þat wrouhte me to mon” (V).Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 41. Other examples are found elsewhere in the text:

Elsewhere, the La reading results in an ab/ab line. Examples include La.3.220, where La has “Now is mede worthy þe maistry to welde” for “Meede is worþi muche maystrie to haue” (V), and La.6.8, where La has “An hundred of saumples on his hat seten” for “An hundred of ampolles on his hat seeten” (V).Kane notes that La and E share the variant reading that produces the extra alliterating stave in La.6.8: VI 8 ampollis] saumples L; ensaumples E. Kane, , 72.

Against these examples, it should also be noted that some unique La readings result in the loss of alliterating staves found in other witnesses:

While the majority of these variants are most likely intentional revisions, either by the La scribe, or in the textual tradition he inherited from his exemplar, at least one may result from error: at La.5.29, La has “he warned watte witerly his wife was to wite” for “He warned watte his wyf was to blame” (V), the final “wite” could be a result of dittography, catching from the interpolated “witerly” earlier in the line.

II.2.4 Unique La readings shared with B and C:

La contains a number of readings that are unique in the A-text tradition, but which find counterparts or close parallels in B and C, or in the variants of these traditions. In the following list, line references to B and C are to the Athlone editions, and the order of sigils for minority readings in B and C also follows Athlone, although using the revised PPEA sigils in each case. PPEA Bx agrees with Kane B on all the Bx readings cited in this list.

Prologue La.P.4 into] B.P.4 into R; La.P.14 ytymbred] B.P.14 ytymbred F; La.P.16 to] B.P.16 to F; La.P.27 heouene to huyre] cf B.P.27 have to hyre heuynryche blysse F; La.P.29 court] C.Pr.31 courtes D; La.P.39 La Bote Qui] B.P.39 But Qui W; La.P.45 Sory slep] cf. B.P.45 sori sleuthe later in this line Bx; La.P.51 To wende] cf. C.Pr.49 Wenden Nc; La.P.58 þey construen] B.P.61 þei construe F; La.P.66 La mony bysschopes] B.P.69 many byshoppes WHmCrGH; La.P.71-2 transposed] B.P.74-5 transposed Hm; La.P.95 chauncellery] cf. B.P.93 In cheker and in chancerye Bx; C Pr.91 In Cheker and in Chancerye, Cx; La.P.99 And eken wollen] cf. B.P.220 & also wolle F; La.P.105 grys … gees] B.P.227 gris … gees Bx, C.P.231 grijs … gees Mc; La.P.106 told treoweliche] cf. B.P.228 trewely tolden W

Passus 1 La.1.22 hem om.] B.1.22 hem om. F; La.1.23 þe furste] B1.23 þe furste F; La.1.34 La gost] C Pr.34 gost J; La.1.55 holdeth boþe] C 1.53 holden boþe M; La.1.58 þat ȝe me wolde telle] cf. B.1.60 ȝee me telle F; La.1.78 lelly me] B.1.78 lely me RF; La.1.101 propurlich] B.1.100 properly F; La.1.157 ȝou sent] B.1.182 yow sent Bx; C 1.178 ȝow sent XCotBmBoDcGc; La.1.158 messes] C 1.179: massus FcNc; La.1.160 Iuggeth] C 1.181 iugeth XIP2CotBmBoUcDcEcRcVcAcQSc; La.1.167 oþir] cf. C.1.189 oþer crystene Nc; La.1.175 gospel] B.1.200 gospel Bx; La.1.178 þat arn combred] cf. B.1.203 þat is acumbred F, C 1.198 þat ben acombred Nc

Passus 2 La.2.12 Of riche rubies wel rede and oþir feole stones] cf. C.2.13 And thereon rede rubies and othere riche stones Cx; La.2.19 fadir] cf. B.2.25 Fals was hire fader Bx, C.2.25 Oon fauel was here fader Cx; La.2.22 worth] cf. C.3.42: Tomorwe worth mede ymaried Cx; La.2.110 signes of notories] C.2.159 signes of notaries Cx; La.2.178 in om.] C.2.226 in om. Fc; La.2.179 deseyue] C.2.227 serue altered to deceyve another hand P2; La.2.189 þat he wolde] B þat he wolde F

Passus 3 La.3.6 wyhe] B.3.6 wyȝe F; La.3.13 of þe] B.3.13 of þe F; La.3.16 La morne ȝe] B.3.16 mourne ye Cr, C.3.17: morne ye Rc; La.3.17 we om.] B.3.17 we om. Cot; La.3.23 menest] C.3.25 menest Fc; La.3.50 wel siker] B.3.50 wol sekyr H; La.3.64 dole deles] cf. B.3.71: dele doles WG, delen doles HmHm2CrYOC2CBLMR; La.3.99 Womman vn-wittely] B.3.104 womman vnwittyly F, C.3.134 woman vnwittiliche EcRcVcAcQSc; La.3.121 Enpoiseneth] C.3.165 enpoiseneþ Mc; La.3.122 þer is not] B.3.129 þer is nawht F, C.166 Þer ys nouȝt Gc, cf. Þer nys nouȝt Mc; La.3.125 othir] cf. C.3.169 to oþer Nc; La.3.184 And þou] cf. B.3.193 & also þou F; La.3.266 hit] B.3.284 hit F, it H; C.3.437 it Fc

Passus 5 La.5.16 segges] cf. B.5.17 ȝe segges Bx, C.5.119 segges X; La.5.24 werke] cf. B.5.25 of werkys F; La.5.46 oure lord] oure lord FH, C.6.4 owre lord Gc; La.5.60 semeth] B.5.77 semyth H; La.5.163 a galon (cf. also E Wa)] cf. B.5.318 a galoun F, C.6.375 galonus Fc; La.5.175 fulle þe coppe] C.6.390 fulle þe coppe Gc; La.5.181 wel murie] cf. B.5.338 merye songis F; La.5.216 is þer] cf. B.5.447 þer is F, C.7.61 ther ys RcVcAcQScFcKcGcNc

Passus 6 La.6.28 him om.] B.5.540 hym om. Cr23YOC2CB, C.7.185: hym om. P2; La.6.67 at] C.7.227 atte Fc

Passus 7 La.7.8 in þe mene] B.6.8 in the meane Cr; La.7.30 holi chirche þou kepe] B.6.27 holy chirche þou kepe F; La.7.63 maner of (cf. also Ha)] C.8.69 maner P2; La.7.67 tolde me hit (cf. also V)] B.6.74: tolde me it Cr23; La.7.86 hit him] B.6.93 it hym HmCrGYOC2CLR; La.7.190 best beo] B.6.203 best be Bx, C.8.209 best be Cx; La.7.202 abate] B.6.215: abate WHmCrGYOC2CBLMRF, C.8.225: Abaite P2; La.7.227 him om.] B.6.241 him om. L; La.7.255 hodes] B.6.269 hodes WHmGYCLMR, C.8.290 hodes XYcIP2UcPEcRcVcAcQKcGcNc; La.7.262 þou] B.6.277 þou Cr12

Passus 8 La.8.7 availe] B.7.7: helpe] auaille WHmCrGYOC2CBLRF auaillen M, C.9.8 auayle (Cx); La.8.11 in] B.7.11 in M; La.8.28 men to] cf. C.9.30 men Cx; La.8.82 þus lyuen] cf. C.9.174 þus liueþ P2; La.8.117 in] B.7.132 in Cr23

Many of these correspondences are the likely result of convergent variation. However, the 14 agreements and the further 8 close correspondences between readings unique to La in the A-text tradition and readings unique to F in the B-text tradition might merit further investigation.

Schmidt has established that F is contaminated with A-text material, noting five occasions where F interpolates “corrupt reflexes of parallel A lines”.Schmidt, , 2.143-44 Robert Adams, in his PPEA edition of F, identifies “a significant number of whole lines, phrases, and even omissions … that appear to reflect A-version influence” and that may result from correcting the primary exemplar against an A-text copy, perhaps related to V Ha, or to M.Adams, , Introduction (II.2.4). John Burrow and Thorlac Turville-Petre agree with Schmidt’s conclusions in their PPEA edition of Bx, adding that the final portion of passus 1, from around line 177 to the end, shows a high degree of A-text influence in F.Burrow and Turville-Petre, , Introduction (III.10) Of the interpolated A-text passages that Schmidt identifies in F, only the first is present in the surviving portion of La; the La version of this line contains a unique variant that is not paralleled in F, and may in fact reflect the La scribe’s knowledge of B or C (F.1.89, “& summe be Clerkis of þe kyngys bench / þe cuntre to shende”; La.Pr.95, “And beon clerkes of þe chauncellery þe contreys to schende”; cf. B.P.93 In cheker and in chancerye Bx; C Pr.91 In Cheker and in Chancerye, Cx). Even so, correspondences such as the following might suggest that the F redactor was correcting his B-text against a copy of A from the r2 tradition, containing readings that are now only preserved in La:

La.P.14 ytymbred] B.P.14 ytymbred F; La.P.16 to] B.P.16 to F; La.P.27 heouene to huyre] cf. B.P.27 have to hyre heuynryche blysse F; La.P.58 þey construen] B.P.61 þei construe F; La.P.99 And eken wollen] cf. B.P.220 & also wolle F; La.1.22 hem om.] B.1.22 hem om. F; La.1.23 þe furste] B1.23 þe furste F; La.1.58 þat ȝe me wolde telle] cf. B.1.60 ȝee me telle F; La.1.78 lelly me] B.1.78 lely me RF; La.1.101 propurlich] B.1.100 properly F; La.1.178 þat arn combred] cf. B.1.203 þat is acumbred F; La.2.189 þat he wolde] B þat he wolde F; La.3.6 wyhe] B.3.6 wyȝe F; La.3.13 of þe] B.3.13 of þe F; La.3.99 Womman vn-wittely] B.3.104 womman vnwittyly F; La.3.122 þer is not] B.3.129 þer is nawht F; La.3.184 And þou] cf. B.3.193 & also þou F; La.3.266 hit] B.3.284 hit F; La.5.24 werke] cf. B.5.25 of werkys F; La.5.163 a galon] B.5.318 a galoun F; La.5.181 wel murie] cf. B.5.338 merye songis F; La.7.30 holi chirche þou kepe] B.6.27 holy chirche þou kepe F

The following abbreviations and suspensions are expanded in this edition:

In two places, common abbreviations are misapplied: at P.51, the superscript brevigraph for <ra> is used to indicate <a> in walsyngham, and at 1.138, a loop through the descender of <p>, which should indicate p(ro), is used instead for p(re) in preche. These are expanded in the edition as given in the manuscript, but marked as errors with editorial corrections supplied.

Capitals are used to represent both capital letters, ff at the beginnings of words, and the enlarged lower-case letters that sometimes appear at the beginnings of lines. The scribe employs identical forms for þ and w whether these letters appear at the start of a line or in the middle of a line; accordingly, these letters are not capitalized in the transcription. The transcription does not distinguish the allograph forms long r and “z-shaped” r, and long s and sigmoid s (see I.6, “Handwriting”). It does preserve the very limited punctuation that appears in this text (see I.7, “Punctuation”).

The word-division of the manuscript has been retained in the Diplomatic view (see III.2, “Style Sheets”). In the Scribal and Critical views, editorial hyphens link the component parts of individual words that are divided by a space in the manuscript (“by-heold”, “in-to” P.13). Spaces are inserted where two words are run together in the manuscript, a phenomenon that often occurs with pronouns and articles (“Isagh” > “I sagh”, “atour” > “a tour” P.14). Words and letters that have been deleted by the scribe in the course of correcting the manuscript are visible in the Diplomatic view, while his supplied corrections are visible in all views. Scribal misspellings are retained and annotated in the Scribal and Diplomatic views, and corrected (with emendations shown in square brackets) in the Critical view.

III.1.1 Damaged and Overbound Text

The last surviving page of the manuscript, fol. 125v, has sustained extensive damage that makes the final portion of the text difficult to recover (see I.5, “Collation and Foliation”). In the apparatus to the Athlone A-text, Kane notes that La is “badly faded” from line 8.108 (K.8.106; the top of fol. 125v), and from line 8.130 (K.8.126) he includes only secure readings in his list of variants (“[La is] badly faded [from this point]; henceforth to be taken into consideration only when named”). In the transcription that accompanies his facsimile edition of La, Tomonori Matsushita presents an almost complete text for fol. 125v, but from K.8.126 large parts of this text are apparently conjectural, and many of the readings do not agree with the readings recovered for the present edition.

For this edition of La, Eugenio Falcioni at the British Library Imaging Services department prepared multispectral images of the damaged final page (fol. 125v), and of other pages where smaller portions of the text have been lost to damage: fols 122r, 123r, and 125r. Using the ultraviolet images, in particular, it has been possible to recover readings that were not visible to Kane, and that are not collated in the Athlone A-text. These include a number of unique and minority readings, a line division shared only with V at 8.140, and a distinctive three-line version of Athlone 8.143-4 at La.8.147-9.

Lincoln’s Inn MS 150 was “re-backed” in 1972, with the result that the manuscript is now quite stiff (see I.4, “Physical Description”). This is a particular issue in Piers Plowman, where lines often extend to the right edge of the frame and beyond. In the present edition, overbound text is supplied where possible from Kane’s apparatus in the Athlone edition, which was first published in 1960; when Kane transcribed La, he was evidently able to see text that his now hidden in the gutters.

III.2 Style sheets:

The present edition employs three style sheets, allowing the reader to select a Scribal, Diplomatic, or Critical view, or a view that displays features of all three in combination.

The Scribal style sheet represents as closely as possible the readings and features of the manuscript text. Guide marks supplied by the original scribe and later annotations by Anthony Foster of Trotton are also visible in this view. Corrections and errors by the original scribe are annotated in this view, as are unusual word divisions. Unique and minority readings are tagged and highlighted, and textual and codicological notes draw attention to points of interest.

The Diplomatic style sheet presents the text alone, with guide marks but no other marginalia, and no editorial apparatus apart from the textual and codicological notes.

The Critical style sheet represents the text as it was intended to appear after correction. In this view, irregular word divisions are silently corrected, and Italics are used for words and phrases in Latin and French. Unique and minority readings are highlighted in this view, and textual and codicological notes are available. In this view, line numbers for the Athlone editions are available for comparison.

The final, ‘All’ view displays the full content of the XML markup, combining the annotations from all three style sheets.

III.3.1 Annotations:

Two sets of annotations are provided: codicological notes, marked with a C, which draw attention to physical features of the manuscript, and textual notes, marked with a T, which supplement the information about textual relationships that is supplied in the XML tags.

III.3.2 Treatment of textual variants:

Unique La readings and minority readings shared with up to six other manuscripts are noted in the XML tags. Minority readings shared with more than six manuscripts are shown in cases where the La reading corresponds with multiple witnesses from Schmidt’s r2 group.

Where unique and minority readings are noted in the tags, the majority reading from other A-text witnesses is also supplied. The majority reading is given from the first manuscript in the order of sigils, usually V. In the majority readings, word division has been silently regularised. Where other minority readings parallel some aspect of the La reading without reproducing it exactly, this is recorded in the textual notes as a supplement to the XML tags.

Manuscript sigils in the XML tags are presented in the following order: La V Ha J K Wa N T H2 Ch D Ra U E A Ma H. This order derives from Schmidt’s A-text stemma, except that in the present edition La comes first, followed by the other r2 witnesses, then r1, then m. This is a departure from the order of sigils used in the Athlone A text, which Kane adopted for convenience from Chambers and Grattan.Kane, , 64-5. Some A-text witnesses contain repeated lines wherein different variant readings are attested; where these appear in a list of sigils in the tags, they are distinguished with x1 and x2 following the sigil (for example, Ux1 and Ux2). Where La lacks a line found in other A-text manuscripts, or substitutes a unique alternative line, the missing line is supplied from V, or from the next manuscript in the order of sigils, in the textual notes.

locates Lincoln’s Inn MS 150 near Much Wenlock in Shropshire. This localisation is based on an analysis of , , and . The linguistic profile for this manuscript, LP4037, can be supplemented with the following items, which are found in but not recorded in the three poems that were surveyed:

þo ‘those’; eyr ‘air’; by-neoþe ‘beneath’ (adv.); brugges ‘bridges’; chosen, chesen ‘chosen’; don ‘done’; est ‘east’; felaus ‘fellows’; fulle ‘fill’; flesch ‘flesh’; fruytes ‘fruits’; groweth ‘grows’; helle ‘hell’; hulles ‘hills’ (pl.); holy (holi) ‘holy’; lawe ‘law’; lowe ‘low’; sechith ‘seek’ (pres.); seche, sechen ‘seek’ (inf.); south ‘south’; what (whad) ‘what’; whide- ‘whither-’; with-oute ‘without’ (adv.); worscipe, worschipe ‘worship’ (vb.); ȝeres ‘years’.

The following features in the text of La are consistent with a West Midlands dialect, and in some cases support a more precise localisation in Shropshire:

The text of La also contains forms that appear to originate in the East Midlands or London. Horobin and Wiggins point to hem (IV.3.2.2.3), bysy (IV.2.1.14), kynde (IV.2.1.15), and synne(s) (IV.2.1.14) as examples.Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 47. Macrae-Gibson explained the combination of western and eastern forms in this manuscript as the result of a London scribe copying from a West Midlands exemplar.Macrae-Gibson, , 2:63-5. As Horobin and Wiggins have shown, however, it is more likely that the West Midlands forms represent the dialect of the La scribe, while the eastern forms derive from his copy texts: West Midlands forms greatly outnumber eastern forms; eastern forms are preserved for rhyme words in the romances; in Piers, West Midlands forms appear in the lines unique to La.Horobin and Wiggins, “Reconsidering Lincoln’s Inn MS 150,” 47. This account is consistent with Hanna’s argument that the romances in this manuscript were most likely copied from London exemplars.Hanna, “Two New (?) Lost Manuscripts (?)”, 170-71; Hanna, , 16.

IV.2.1 Vowels

IV.2.1.1 OE, ON /a/: <a> caste (x2); happe etc (x3); lappes 7.278

IV.2.1.2 OE, ON /a/ before a nasal: <o> ~ <a> fro(m) (x22); mon (x22) ~ man etc. (x8); mony(e) (x23) ~ many(e) (x8); wan (x3)

IV.2.1.3 OE, ON /a/ before lengthening consonant groups: <o> ~ <a> hond(es) (x9) but cf. handled 2.102 and handy dandy 4.61; honge etc. (x4) ~ hang(e) etc (x4); lond(e) etc. (x11) ~ land (x2 including Roteland 2.77); long(e) (x17); stonde etc. (x8 including vndurstonde 7.50) ~ stande 7.38

IV.2.1.4 OE, ON /a/ in an open syllable: <a> ~ <o> name (x8) ~ nome 3.49; schame etc (x3 including aschamed 4.203)

IV.2.1.5 OE, ON /a/ + <-nk>: <o> ~ (a) banke P.8; thonk 7.36 ~ Ithanked 7.117

IV.2.1.6 OE, ON /a:/: <o> fro (x13) ~ from (x9); lore (x2); lowe etc (x12); roper (x2); sore (x6); stones (x1)

IV.2.1.7 OE, ON /a:/ + w: <ow> ~ (<ou>) blowe 5.17; knowe etc (x25 excluding damaged kno::: 1.129); nowher 2.181; soule(s) (x22).The form sowle, listed in the linguistic profile for this MS, is not attested in La.

IV.2.1.8 OE, ON OF /o/: <o> cros (x4); folk (x11); god (x59)

IV.2.1.9 OE, ON /o/ + lengthening consonant group: <o> borde (x2); gold(e) (x11); molde (x8); word (x9) ~ wordes (x13) ~ wordeden 4.33.

IV.2.1.10 OE, ON /o:/ <o> ~ (<oo>) boke(s) (x4 including cancelled bokes 5.7) ~ book 3.235; cokes 3.72; dome 8.19; doth (x3) ~ doþ 1.90; fote (x3); gode(s) x8

IV.2.1.11 OE, ON, OF /u/: <u> ~ <o> ydronke 7.264; ful (adj.); ful P.20 ~ fol 2.15 (adv.); pulled(en) (x2); sonne (x8);The form sunne, listed in the linguistic profile for this MS, is not attested in La. wolle(n) (x6)

IV.2.1.12 OE, ON, OF /u/ with lengthening: <o> ~ <ou> dore(s) (x4) and cf. dore-naill 1.162; ground(e) (x2); houndes 7.201; morne(d) (x2); torn (‘torn’) 5.111 and cf. tornors P.100; torned (‘turned’) 5.18

IV.2.1.13 OE, ON /u:/: <ou> ~ <ow> aboute (x19) ~ abowte (x3); adoun 4.79; cloude 3.184; coroune 2.10; how (x12); now (x21); þou (x89) ~ þow 7.240; etc.

IV.2.1.14 OE, ON /y/: <u> ~ <i> ~ <y> ~ (<eo>) bisy 1.6 ~ bysy (x3); bugge(n) (x6); chirche(s) (x16); fulle (‘fill’) (x2); hulles (x4); mury(e) (x5) ~ murie(r) (x2) ~ meory 2.121; murthe(s) (x4); kyn (x4); synne(s) (x13) ~ synnen (x2); etc.

IV.2.1.15 OE, ON /y/ before lengthening group: <y> blynd(e) (x6); kynde (x13); mynde 7.87; etc.

IV.2.1.16 OE, ON /y:/: <uy> ~ <y> ~ <u> ~ <i> fuyr 7.206 ~ fure 3.90;The form fure is not listed in the linguistic profile for this MS. furst (x2) ~ furste (x8); fuste 5.67; huyre (x6) ~ Ihuyred 7.101 ~ hyre 7.61 ~ hyred 7.107; litel (x7); pruyde (x4) ~ pryde (x2); etc.

IV.2.1.17 OE, ON /i/: <i> ~ <y> bitter 5.94; nyme(th) (x2); wydowes 3.118; wight (x2); etc.

IV.2.1.18 OE, ON /i/ plus lengthening group: <i> ~ <y> child(e) (x2); wylde 8.76; etc

IV.2.1.19 OE, ON /i:/: <i> ~ <y> blithe 2.125 ~ blythe 3.26; chide(n) (x3) ~ chyde(n) (x2); knyf 5.62; lif (x24) ~ lyf (x2) and cf. liflode (x11); riden (x3) ~ ryden (x2); wise (n.) (x.6) ~ wyse 6.6; wys(e) (adj.) (x3) ~ wise 1.71 and cf. wiselich 4.33; etc.

IV.2.1.20 OE, ON, OF /e/: <e> ~ (<y>) do-wel (x2); rykene 1.22 ~ rykeneth 5.135; web 5.87 and cf. webbesters P.99; wreche 4.134 ~ wrecches; :::echede (adj.) 1.37

IV.2.1.21 OE, ON, OF /e/ before lengthening clusters: <e> ~ <ei> bestes x7; elde 3.93; eynde(n) x10 ~ ende 7.43; feild (x3) ~ feld (x3); hende 2.53 ~ hendelich(e) (x2) ~ hendely 8.6; seild P.20 ~ seilden 5.100; streynthe (x2);The forms streynþe, streyngh and strenþe, listed in the linguistic profile for this MS, are not attested in La. etc.

IV.2.1.22 OE, ON, OF /e:/: <e> ~ <eo> beches 5.18; beodes 5.7; beodmon 3.46; deme(st) (x4); fede P.93; feet (x4); hed x8;The form heued, listed in the linguistic profile for this MS, is not attested in La. kepe etc (x20); mede (x66); etc.

IV.2.1.23 OE /æ/: <a> ~ (<e>) ~ (<o>) apples 7.278; bak (x4) ~ bake(s) (x2); hadde (sg.) (x20) ~ had (x15) ~ hade 3.192; hadest (2p sg.) 5.235; haden (pl.) (x5) ~ hadde (x4) ~ had (x2); masse(s) (x5); wassche 6.55 ~ wosschen 2.185; water (x8) ~ watres 2.189; etc.

IV.2.1.24 OE /æ:/: (1) & (2): <e> ~ <a> ~ (<ee>) clene (x4) ~ clanliche 3.21; dred(e) (x3); er (x16) ~ ar (< ON ār) (x8);The form ar is not listed in the linguistic profile for this MS. let (x12) ~ lete 6.102 ~ leten 7.255 ~ lette (x5) ~ leteth (x2) ~ lettyng 7.7 ~ lat (x8); slepe(n) (x3) ~ sleped 5.4 ~ slepte 5.196 ~ slepyng (x2) ~ slepestow 1.5; seed (x2) ~ fenelsed 5.150; teche (x2) ~ techeth (x10) ~ techeþ 8.22; etc.

IV.2.1.25 OE /ea/: <a> ~ <eo> barn 2.3 ~ barnes 3.145

IV.2.1.26 OE /ēa/: <e> ~ (<ee>) bred (x7) and cf. bredful P.41; ded (x3); lef 5.113 ~ leef 7.241; red 2.13; etc.

IV.2.1.27 OE /eo/, /ēo/: <eo> ~ (<e>) cheorles 3.253; creopen 1.171; deop(e) (x3); eorþe (x5) ~ eorthe (x10);The form eorthe is not listed in the linguistic profile for this MS. freond 5.79 ~ freondes 5.77 ~ freondis 7.90 ~ frendes 7.213; feole (x5) ~ feol (x2) (<OE ‘fela’, ‘feolo -u -a’);The form feola, listed in the linguistic profile for this MS, is not attested in La. heorte (x17) ~ heortes (x3) ~ heortis (x1) and cf. Peornel proudhert 5.45; leod(es) (x3); seo(n) (x7); seoluer (x11);The forms seoluir and seluer, listed in the linguistic profile for this MS, are not attested in La. sweord 1.97; þeose (x14) ~ þis (x10).

IV.2.1.28 OE /ue/: <eo> meouen P.88

IV.2.2 Consonants

IV.2.2.1 OE /hw/: <wh> ~ (<w>) <wh-> is by far the most common spelling for reflexes of OE /hw/. There are two instances of wich for ‘which’ (2.27, 2.74) against one of which 8.156.

IV.2.2.2 OE, ON <þ> and <ð>: <þ> ~ <th> There are 1351 instances of word-initial <þ-> to only 39 instances of word-initial <th->, and 393 instances of word-terminal <-th> to 62 instances of word-terminal <-þ>. The definite article is always spelt with <þ>: þe (x498) ~ þeo (x49). lists þeo as the majority form, but þe is more commonly attested in La.

IV.2.2.3 OE /š/: <sch> ~ <ssch> bisschop (x2) ~ bysschop P.75 ~ bischopes (x4) ~ bisschopes (x2) ~ bysschopes P.66; fisch 5.207 ~ fysch 7.294; flesch (x5); punyschen 3.70 ~ vn-punyssched 4.121; schame 4.28 ~ schamed 3.181 ~ aschamed 5.203; schep P.2; schoppes 2.178; scholde(st) (x2); wyssche 5.87 ~ wissched 5.192

IV.2.2.4 OE, ON /sk/: <sk> ~ (<x>) ~ (<sc>) asken (x2, not including damaged as::: 4.90) ~ asked (x3) ~ asketh (x2) ~ askith (x2) ~ axeth 1.34 ~ axed 7.280; boskeden 3.14; sclole (sic.) 8.34.

III.2.2.5 OE /xt/: <ght> ~ (<ȝt>) almighty 6.58; fyghte 4.39 ~ fyghteth 4.43 ~ foghten P.42 ~ yfoughte 7.140; right (adj.) (x2); right (adv.) (x5) ~ ryght 8.94 ~ riȝt 6.42

IV.2.3 Other significant forms

IV.2.3.1: Forms of ‘but’: bote (x119).The form ac, listed in the linguistic profile for this MS, is not attested in La.

IV.2.3.2: Forms of ‘each’: vche (x7) ~ vche-a (x2).The forms eche, ilke-a, vch, ilk(e), ilka, vchon and ylk-a, listed in the linguistic profile for this MS, are not attested in La.

IV.2.3.3: Forms of ‘evil’: eouel (x3).The form euel, listed in the linguistic profile for this MS, is not attested in La.

IV.2.3.4: Forms of ‘ne’: no (x19) ~ ny (x5) ~ neo (x4).

IV.2.3.5: Forms of ‘since’: sithen (x3) ~ seothen (x2) ~ sethen (x2) ~ seothe 4.15 ~ sithe 5.37 (adv.);The forms sithen, seothe, and sithe are not listed in the linguistic profile for this MS; the forms siþþe, seoþen, suþþe, seþin, seþþe, seþenis and siþen, listed in , are not attested in La. seothe 5.228 ~ sen P.61 ~ sithen 8.62 (conj.).The forms sen and sithen are not listed in the linguistic profile for this MS; the forms siþþe, seþ, and sythen, listed in , are not attested in La.

IV.2.3.6: Forms of ‘though’: þagh (x15) ~ þaugh (x4).The form þaugh is not listed in the linguistic profile for this MS; the forms þouȝ, þauȝh, þouȝh, þauhȝ, and þauȝ, listed in , are not attested in La.

IV.3.1 Nouns

IV.3.1.1: Genitive singular forms are <(e)s> ~ (<is>) ~ (nil)

bischopes 8.159; clergyes, 3.15; harlotes 4.104; leautees 4.96; liers 2.25; lordes 3.228; lucifers P.39; lukes 1.92; mannes 6.60; peornels 4.102; perkyns 4.102; pharaoes 8.152; pilgrymes, 6.4; ruggebones 5.184; salamons, 8.128; wrethewyndes 6.6; ȝeres 7.43, etc. Ending <is>: worldis 2.193; and without ending: frere 6.118; heouen 3.50; Iudas P.35; mary 2.2

IV.3.1.2: Plural forms are <(e)s> ~ <is> ~ (<us>) ~ <en> ~ (nil)

chekes 5.65; floryns 3.51; heortes 3.190; knyghtes 4.105; ladies 4.101; lettres 4.113; louedayes 3.152; pilgryms 6.43; porters 6.105; seyntes 5.40; soules 1.122; spices 5.148; werkes P.3; wordes 1.41; ȝiftes 1.103, etc. Ending in <is>: clerkis (x3); destreris, 2.140; heortis, 6.50; iewelis, 3.149; kingis (x2); knyȝ(/gh)tis (x3); pleyntis, 2.142; seyntis, 6.19; thyngis, 2.71; werkis (x3); wordis 1.175. Ending in <us>: wordus (canc.), 1.154; tongus, 1.154. Ending in <en>: breth(e)ren (x2); children (x7); eyghnen (eyȝnen, ygh-nen, eygnen) (x7, but see also eyne 5.203); Iewen 1.66 (gen. pl.). Plurals without endings include: good 1.157; grys (x3); parysch P.81; wynter (x6). Mutated plurals are: feet (x3); gees (x3); men (x52); ~men (x7); wym(m)en (x4).

IV.3.2 Pronouns

IV.3.2.1: Singular:

IV.3.2.1.1: First person: nom. I (x132) ~ y (x112) ~ ich 3.114 ~ ych 1.75; acc. and dat. me (x98); gen. my (x104) ~ myn (x21) ~ myne (x2).

IV.3.2.1.2: Second person: nom. þou (x 89) ~ þow 7.240; acc. and dat. þe (x47/8);‘þe’ could be either a pronoun or the definite article in the unique and partially-legible line 5.151. gen. þy (x54) ~ þi 7.213 ~ þyn (x7); ‘þyn’ appears once before a vowel at 6.62 (‘þyn owne’), and before h in all other instances; there is one instance of ‘þy’ before h (‘þy harpe’, 1.138).

IV.3.2.1.3: Third person, masculine: nom. he (x145); acc. and dat. him (x146) ~ hym (x2); gen. his (x221) ~ hise 5.203.

IV.3.2.1.4: Third person, feminine: nom. heo (x54);heo is the only form of ‘she’ in La; the other forms listed in are not attested. acc. and dat. hire (x39) ~ here 3.44; gen. hire (x29) ~ here 1.10.

IV.3.2.1.5: Third person, neuter: hit (x120)

IV.3.2.2: Plural:

IV.3.2.2.1: First person: nom. we (x19); acc. and dat. vs (x29); gen. oure (x20/21)

IV.3.2.2.2: Second person: nom. ȝe (x69); acc. and dat. ȝou (x28) ~ ȝow (x2) ~ ow (x5); gen. ȝoure (x14) ~ ȝour (x2) ~ oure (x13/14).The form oure is not listed in the linguistic profile for this MS, while the form ȝowre, listed in , is not attested in La.

IV.3.2.2.3: Third person: nom. þey (x.66) ~ þay (x7) ~ they (x4) ~ heo (x2) ~ þei (x2); acc. and dat. heom (x147) ~ hem (x2, plus 1 cancelled at 3.28); gen. heore (x.105) ~ here (x2) ~ heor P.28

IV.3.2.3: personal pronouns with “self”: my-seolf (x7) ~ my-seolue 2.18 ~ my-seoluen (x2); þy-seolf (x4) ~ þy-seolue 1.132 ~ þy-seoluen (x4); him-seolf (x9) ~ him-seolue P.67 ~ himself 1.146 ~ him-seoluen (x5) ~ his-seoluen 1.63; hire-seolf 3.141; or-seolue 6.52 (2p. dat. pl.); heom-seolf 4.28 ~ heom-seoluen (x6)

IV.3.3 Adjectives and adverbs

IV.3.3.1: In adjectives of one syllable ending in a consonant, <-e> is often used to mark the definite declension, and sometimes to distinguish it from the indefinite declension (cf, for example, ‘A deop dale’ P.15 and ‘deope dyches’ P16; ‘rubies … rede’ 2.12 and ‘red scarlet’ 2.13). These distinctions are not maintained consistently, however. All singular adjectives of one syllable used with the definite article have final <-e>; most plural adjectives of one syllable have final <-e>, but not all (see, for example, chast 1.165; fals 7.205). Adjectives ending in <-ous(e)> are sometimes spelt with final <-e> and sometimes without (cf. couetouse 5.111; perilouse 7.44; pytouse 7.116 with couetous 3.61; merueilous P.11; likerous P.30; lykerous 7.252), but here the endings do not serve to distinguish definite from indefinite forms.

IV.3.3.2: Comparatives and superlatives Comparatives: <-er> ~ (<-re>) ~ (<-or(e)>) ~ (<-ur>): balder 4.94; doghtier 5.80; febler 1.161; forther 6.118; hygher 5.30; lower, 8.144; murier 1.108; sadder 5.4, etc. Ending <-re>: bettre (x19); herre 2.21. Ending <-or(e)>: lengor 1.184; lewedore 1.164; ending <-ur>: hardur 1.166. Superlatives: <-est(e)>: bronneste 7.291; dotest 1.130; leouest (x2); lowest 1.116; menest 3.23; presteste 6.38; puyrest 2.9; rycheste 3.199; sannest 1.69; triedest 1.127 Irregular forms include: good(e) (x15), better (x2), best(e) (x20); muche(l) (x9), more (x32), most(e) (x8); wors(e) (x4)

IV.3.3.3: Adjectives and adverbs in <-ly>: <-ly> ~ <-lich> ~ <-liche>. Ending in <-ly>: dedly 1.133; fetosly 2.133; hendely 8.6; softely 3.37; treowely 3.77, etc. Ending in <-lich>: apertelich 3.243; kyndelich 6.26; lodlich 2.17; menskelich 2.86, etc. Ending in <-liche>: clanliche 3.21; crafteliche P.24; godliche 1.157; rightfulliche 8.10; treuliche, 8.66, etc. There is one instance of the comparative form lythtloker 6.56.

IV.3.4: Verbs

IV.3.4.1: Non-finite forms:

IV.3.4.1.1: Infinitive: <-e> ~ <-en> ~ (<-on>) ~ (<-n>) ~ (nil) to amende 8.30 ~ to amenden 1.143; brynge 4.79 ~ bryngen 3.145 ~ to brynge 5.74; to construe 4.131; to loke 2.189 ~ to loken 7.174; to loue, 1.132, 1.78 ~ to louen 3.29; seruen 6.104 ~ to serue P.91; stonde 7.104 ~ stonden 3.48; worchen 1.120 ~ to worche 7.197 ~ to worchen 3.27, etc.; ending <-on>: to stondon 5.187; ending <-n>: to sayn 1.135, 3.246; without ending: to fleo 3.132; to mordre 4.42

IV.3.4.1.2: Gerund: <-yng> byddyng 6.71; bollyng 7.202; clothyng P.24; grauyng 3.53; knowyng 2.192; lacchyng 1.101; prechyng 6.118, etc.

IV.3.4.1.3: Present participle: <-yng> (<-ynge>) kneolyng 3.105; lybbyng 8.63; mountyng P.64; prechyng P.56; weopyng 5.252; weylyng 5.252, etc.; ending <-ynge>: laghynge 1.185; lourynge 5.65, etc.

IV.3.4.1.4: Weak past participle: <-ed> ~ (<-t>) (with or without <y-> or <i-> prefix) amaistred 2.121; atached 2.198; y-blessed P.75; botened 7.178; y-clyketed 6.100; clothed 2.8 ~ yclothed 1.3; icoped 3.35; famed, 3.177; y-graunted 8.8; plight 5.112; recreyed 3.244; yserued 5.176; weyed 1.153, etc.

IV.3.4.1.5: Strong past participle: (with or without <y-> prefix): bore 1.61; ybroghte 3.2; ydronke 7.264; yhoten 1.62; soght 8.70 ~ ysoght 4.109; y-wroghte 3.21, etc.

IV.3.4.2: Finite verb forms

IV.3.4.2.1: Present indicative:

Present 1st singular: <-e> ~ (nil) crie 5.84; dar 5.80; graunte 2.65; haue, 5.150; holde 3.123; lyue 5.93; praye 2.114 ~ pray 7.240; rede 1.150; say 1.124 ~ sey 4.118; seo 4.117; swere 5.137; trowe 2.100, etc.

Present 2nd singular: <-est> ~ (<-st>) ~ (nil) kepest, 5.151; kennest 7.23; knowest 6.20; lyuest 2.92; saist 7.215; wistest 7.197; wost 3.171; wrathest 3.174, etc.

Present 3rd singular: <-eth> (<-th>) angereth 5.92; breketh 8.78; defendeth 6.81; graunteth 2.24; holdeth 1.55; knoweth 6.83; lereth 8.114; loketh 5.103; loueth 6.35; saith 2.165 ~ seith 8.116; teoneth 3.117; weneth 7.232, etc.

Present plural: <-en> ~ (<-n>) ~ (nil) buggen 3.75; comforte 2.118; construen P.58; ȝeuen P.73; helpen 6.108; hold 1.9; kepe 1.8; leren 5.37; lyggen 7.14; preyen 7.118; sayn, 7.122; senden 2.188; seon 8.64; take 3.231; witen 2.96; worchen 7.193, etc.

IV.3.4.2.2: Subjunctive:

Singular: <-e> ~ (nil) amende 7.70; breke 6.62; dyote 7.254; entre 6.101; faile 7.258; facche 4.7; graunte 6.92; kepe 7.30; kulle 3.254; mad 2.26; mote 3.153; multeplie 7.119; plukke 6.69; teone 7.40; wite 6.49, etc.

IV.3.4.2.3: Imperative:

Singular: <-e> ~ (nil) bryng 7.58; choppe 3.247; congeye 4.4; deme 7.73; eschewe 7.49; facche 7.34; hate 7.46; helpe 7.228; knowe 2.29; mysbeode 7.44; mordre 3.255; Red 4.100; reherce 1.22; reowe 5.241; say 5.218; wend 3.252, etc.

Plural: <-eth> ~ (<-e>) ~ (<-en>) ~ (<-ith>) ~ (nil) kasteth 7.15; loketh 7.13; Sesseth 4.1; gurdeth 2.163; Loketh 7.13; nymeth 7.14; spareth 7.11; Spynneth 7.11; wadyth 6.55; wynneth 7.303, etc; ending in <-e>: apaire 6.51; helpe 7.22; ending in <-en>: witen 2.58; witnessen 2.58; ending in <-ith>: sechith 5.41; without ending: stryk 6.64.

IV.3.4.3: Preterite forms

IV.3.4.3.1: Weak verbs:

Preterite 1st singular: <-ed> ~ (<-de>) counseiled 3.178; frayned 1.56; hadde 5.4; halsed 5.79; kneoled 1.79; lened P.9; leorned 5.113; loked P.9; rendred 5.121; saide, 1.181; serued 6.36; waked 5.3, wolde 5.81, etc.

Preterite 2nd singular: <-est> ~ (<-st>) broghtest 1.177; conceiledest 3.197; demest 3.179; draddest 3.180; hast 2.91 ~ hadest 5.235; robbedest 3.186; wendest 3.183; wraghtest 3.100, etc.

Preterite 3rd singular: <-ed> ~ <-de> ~ <-te> ~ (nil) attached 2.206; carped 3.109; hoted 6.33; kulled 3.257; loked 5.230; pissed 5.183; proued 5.12; rauyssched 4.46; trembled 2.205; nuyed 3.180; wasted 5.24, etc; ending <-de>: bledde 7.168; hadde, 5.195; made, 3.85; radde, 5.38; saide 4.48, etc; ending <-te>: soghte 4.49; slepte 5.196; weopte 5.231 etc; without ending: barst 7.164; beot 7.164; quod 1.12; wax 2.20

Preterite plural, weak verbs: <-en> ~ (<-ed>) ~ (<-te>) ~ (<-de>) broghten 7.278; feynen P.36; hobleden, 1.114; laghten 3.24; lowreden 2.188; saiden 1.49; senden 2.188; worthen 8.76, etc: ending <-ed>: annuyed 2.134; konned 8.44; plaied P.20; ending <-te>: fette 7.277; garte 7.286; ending <-de>: herde 5.185

IV.3.4.3.2: Strong verbs:

Preterite 1st singular: drogh 5.119; gat 4.65; lay P.9; tolde 2.26; sagh P.14 ~ saw 7.221 ~ say P.109 ~ sygh P.22; wok 8.131, etc. Preterite 2nd singular: toke 3.100; crope 3.182. Preterite 3rd singular: bad 7.58; bar 6.7; drogh 5.191; tok 3.97; spak 5.198. No strong verbs in the preterite plural are attested in La.

IV.3.4.3: Forms of the verb ‘to be’:

Infinitive: beo ~ beon; present 1st singular: am; present 2nd singular: art (x3) ~ bes 6.76; present 3rd singular: is; present plural: beon ~ arn ~ bee 6.112;The form bee is not listed in the linguistic profile for this MS (under 17. ‘are’); the forms buþ and beoþ, listed in , are not attested in La. present subjunctive: beo; preterite 1st singular: was; preterite 3rd singular: was ~ weore (x7); preterite plural: weore ~ weoren (x3) ~ were (x3); preterite subjunctive: weore ~ were (x.3) ~ where P.2.The forms were and where are not listed in the linguistic profile for this MS (under 18. ‘where’); the forms wore, waren, ware and ware, listed in , are not attested in La.

A Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Ashmole 1468 (S. C. 7004). D Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 323. E Dublin, Trinity College, MS 213, D.4.12. Ha London, British Library, MS Harley 875, (olim A's H). J New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, MS M 818 (the Ingilby manuscript). La London, Lincoln's Inn, MS 150 (olim A's L). Ma London, Society of Antiquaries, MS 687 (olim A's M). Pa Cambridge, Pembroke College fragment, MS 312 C/6 (olim A's P). Ra Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson Poetry 137 (olim A's R). U Oxford, University College, MS 45. V Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Eng. poet. a.1 (the Vernon MS).

C Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, MS Dd.1.17. C2 Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, MS Ll.4.14. Cr1 (London, 1505 [1550]). STC 19906. Cr2 (London, 1550). STC 19907a. Cr3 (London, 1550). STC 19907. F Oxford, Corpus Christi College, MS 201. G Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, MS Gg.4.31. Hm, Hm2 San Marino, Huntington Library, MS 128 (olim Ashburnham 130). Jb Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS James 2, part 1. L Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 581 (S. C. 987). M London, British Library, MS Additional 35287. O Oxford, Oriel College, MS 79. R London, British Library, MS Lansdowne 398; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Rawlinson Poetry 38 (S. C. 15563). S New Haven, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Takamiya MS 23 (from the collection of Toshiyuki Takamiya; olim London, Sion College MS Arc. L.40 2/E) Sb London, British Library, MS Sloane 2578. W Cambridge, Trinity College, MS B.15.17. Wb Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Wood donat. 7. Y Cambridge, Newnham College, MS 4 (the Yates-Thompson manuscript).

Ac London, University of London Library, MS S.L. V.17 (olim C's A). Ca Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College 669/646, fol. 210. Da Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Douce 104 (olim C's D). Ec Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud Misc. 656 (olim C's E). Fc Cambridge, University Library, MS Ff.5.35 (olim C's F). Gc Cambridge, University Library, MS Dd.3.13 (olim C's G). Hc The fragment, olim Cambridge, John Holloway, a damaged bifolium, presently in the private collection of Martin Schøyen, Oslo, Norway (olim C's H). I London, University of London Library, MS S.L. V.88 (the Ilchester manuscript, olim C's I or J) Kc Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 171 (olim C's K). Mc London, British Library, MS Cotton Vespasian B.xvi (olim C's M). Nc London, British Library, MS Harley 2376 (olim C's N). P San Marino, Huntington Library, MS Hm 137 (olim Phillipps 8231). P2 London, British Library, MS Additional 34779 (olim Phillipps 9056). Q Cambridge, University Library, MS Additional 4325. Rc London, British Library, MS Royal 18.B.xvii (olim C's R). Sc Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, MS 293 (olim C's S). Uc London, British Library, MS Additional 35157 (olim C's U). Vc Dublin, Trinity College, MS 212, D.4.1 (olim C's V). X San Marino, Huntington Library, MS Hm 143. Yc Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 102 (olim C's Y).

H London, British Library, MS Harley 3954 (olim A's H3 and B's H).

Ch Liverpool, University Library, MS F.4.8 (the Chaderton manuscript). H2 London, British Library, MS Harley 6041. K Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Digby 145 (olim A's K and C's D2). N Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, MS 733B (olim A's N and C's N2). T Cambridge, Trinity College, MS R.3.14. Wa In anonymous private hands; on deposit at the Borthwick Institute as MS Additional 196 from April 2006 to April 2013; olim the Duke of Westminster's manuscript. (olim A's W and C's W). Z Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 851.

Bm London, British Library, MS Additional 10574 (olim B's Bm and C's L). Bo Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 814 (S. C. 2683) (olim B's Bo and C's B). Cot London, British Library, MS Cotton Caligula A.xi (olim B's Cot and C's O). Ht San Marino, Huntington Library, MS Hm114 (olim Phillipps 8252).