Microsoft Word - 5. Garrido.docx


From lexical collation to significant omissions and 
paraphrases: New evidence for refining relations within 
the Prick of Conscience Group-IV Manuscripts1 

Edurne Garrido Anes 
University of Huelva 

The Prick of Conscience is known to have survived in 97 manuscripts of the 
Main Version, 19 of the Southern Recension, and about 50 short extracts. An 
initial collation of one lexical item in the 97 extant copies of the Main Version 
and subsequent comparison of another 109 items in 54 of these copies allow 
for identifying parallel variant readings throughout the poem’s almost 10,000 
lines. Those variants often transcend the word level affecting the line, the 
couplet, or more extensive passages. This paper contributes to refining textual 
relations within the Group-IV family of the work by showing distinct variance 
common to Dublin, Trinity College, 157 (D.4.11) (MV 21), London, Sion College, 
Arc. L. 40. 2/E. 25 (MV 49), and Shrewsbury, School, III (Mus. III. 39) (MV 95). 
Apart from unfolding and expanding the extent of the relationship pointed 
out by Lewis & McIntosh (1982), this research also proves that the hitherto 
unsubclassified London, Lambeth Palace, 492 (MV 48) is another member of 
the subgroup. To illustrate how the proposed subset relates to a version closer 
to the presumed original and other Group-IV witnesses, readings from the 
following London, British Library manuscripts are also provided for reference: 
Cotton Galba E. IX (MV 27); Harley 4196 (MV 34); Egerton 657 (MV 29); 
Additional 22283 (MV 40). 

Keywords: Prick of Conscience; manuscript families; Group IV; textual relations; 
lexical collocations 

1 I am very grateful to María José Carrillo-Linares and Keith Williamson for their comments on 
earlier versions of this paper. 

Edurne Garrido Anes, Selim27 (2022): 114–165. 
ISSN 1132-631X / ISSN-L 2792-3878 / https://doi.org/10.17811/selim.27.2022.114-165 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 115 

1. The Prick of Conscience manuscript families 
 
The medieval popularity of the fourteenth-century spiritual poem Prick 
of Conscience (PoC) is attested to by a remarkable number of surviving 
copies. The revised list provided by Hanna & Wood (2013: 378–383) 
includes 97 manuscripts of the so-called Main Version (MV), 19 of the 
Southern Recension (SR), and 49 further copies containing fragments. 
Even though the MV texts have attracted more scholarly attention than 
the SR ones, more work is still necessary to satisfactorily overcome the 
multiple research challenges that their genealogical relations continue 
to present. Besides Morris’s (1863) first—and, for a long time, only—
edition of the poem, some of the most important contributions to our 
knowledge of the PoC are those by Britton (1979) and Lewis & 
McIntosh (1982).2 

Britton (1979: 329) provided a tripartite stemma of the Yorkshire 
manuscripts: (1) the a branch, to which A (MV 44) and W (MV 96) 
belong, with no known descendants; (2) the b branch, which is that of 
the general manuscript tradition, with L (MV 46), M (MV 5*), and—lower 
in the tree—S (MV 49*);3 and (3) the c branch, from which R (MV 83) 
and d—the exemplar of G (MV 27) and H (MV 34)—derive with no 
known further ramifications.4 In their updated edition of Morris’s work, 
Hanna & Wood (2013: lxx) slightly redefined Britton’s stemma of the b 
branch by moving up S (MV 49*) next to M (MV 5*) and by placing 
them both in a lower position than L (MV 46). Thus, b represents the 
common ancestor of L, e—the archetype of S and M—and f, from which 
virtually all the other known copies appear to descend.  

                                                
2 For bibliography of previous studies on the PoC, see Lewis & McIntosh (1982: vii–xvi), from whom 
the numeric nomenclature is adopted. The letters follow Britton’s sigla (1979). Morris’s edition is 
mostly based on MV 27 (G), but the almost identical MV 34 (H) supplies the missing lines. For an 
edition of MV 57, see Morey (2012).  
3 Contaminated or conflated manuscripts—as per Lewis & Mcintosh (1982)—are marked with an 
asterisk.  
4 Hanna & Wood consider that the absence of known descendants of the ac copies is due to the 
fact that they “appear to represent ‘private’ versions, relatively close to the author, but of quite 
local diffusion” (2013: lxvi). 



116 Edurne Garrido Anes 

McIntosh & Lewis (1982) improved and corrected earlier 
classifications based on Andreae’s (1888)5 and assigned the MV copies 
to at least one of four groups. The manuscripts closer to the original 
text are in Group I. These are MV 44 and MV 96 on the one hand; MV 
27, MV 34, and MV 83 on the other. A third subgroup within Group I 
includes MV 20, MV 60, and MV 5*,6 the latter being also related to MV 
46 and MV 49*.7 The overly similar MV 11 and MV 14 constitute a fourth 
minor group;8 MV 3, MV 9, MV 10, MV 87, and MV 90*9 form a fifth 
larger subclass connected with MV 24* in Books I and II.10 MV 52 and 
the so-called ‘erratic’ MV 13* have not been assigned to any of the 
subsets mentioned above.11 

In Group II, three subclasses are identified. The first one includes MV 
7, MV 19, MV 22, MV 53, and MV 85; the second one is the ‘Key of 
Knowing’ subgroup, with MV 8, MV 12*,12 MV 33*,13 MV 41, MV 58, MV 
64, and MV 86; and the third contains the ‘Lollard’ manuscripts: MV 
35*,14 MV 51, MV 56, MV 61, and MV 73. In turn, MV 42 and MV 92 
present similarities with both the ‘Key of Knowing’ and the ‘Lollard’ 
texts, whereas a few other Group-II copies—MV 5*, MV 13*, MV 24*, 
MV 32*,15 MV 39, MV 69 and MV 78*16—remain unsubclassified.  

                                                
5 Andreae’s classification (1888) was based on 18 British Library manuscripts. Subsequent studies 
by Bülbring (1891a, 1891b, 1897), D’Evelyn (1930), and Humphreys & Lightbown (1952) followed 
his groupings and added further identified manuscripts. See also McIntosh 1976 (1989). 
6 MV 5* is a Group-I text, but its Book II begins like the Group-II manuscripts (Lewis & McIntosh 
1982: 38). 
7 MV 49* is a Group-I text up to line 2,850 (Book IV), where it becomes Group IV (Lewis & McIntosh 
1982: 83). See more about this copy in Britton (1979) and Hanna & Wood (2013: xxx–xxxiii and 
lxiv). 
8 For more information about these two manuscripts, see Lewis & McIntosh (1982: 44). 
9 Lewis & McIntosh define MV 90* as “Group I until near the end of the text […]. In Epilogue 
appears to become a SR text, along with MV 76, and ends with a SR explicit” (1982: 123). 
10 MV 24* is Group IV from Book III onwards (Lewis & McIntosh 1982: 56). 
11 Lewis & McIntosh describe MV 13* as “appearing to shift relationships: Group II in Books II and 
IV, Group I in Book V, etc.” (1982: 46). 
12 MV 12* appears as a Group-II manuscript in Lewis & McIntosh (1982: 44–45), but Carrillo-Linares 
(2016) redefines it as mostly Group IV. 
13 MV 33* is Group II on ff. 23–129, and Group IV on ff. 1–22v (Lewis & McIntosh 1982: 66). 
14 MV 35* is Group II to Book III and Group IV thereafter (Lewis & McIntosh 1982: 68). 
15 MV 32* is Group III but Book II begins like the Group-II manuscripts (Lewis & McIntosh 1982: 
65). 
16 MV 78* is “Group III for Hands 1 and 2; Group II for Hand 3. No data for the exemplar of the 
text written by Hand 4” (Lewis & McIntosh 1982: 112). 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 117 

Group III comprises a series of 15 manuscripts never accounted for 
by preceding scholars. Lewis & McIntosh (1982) found resemblance 
between MV 26 and MV 32* and between MV 17 and MV 38. The rest 
of the manuscripts in the group are MV 1*,17 MV 15, MV 16, MV 55, MV 
66, MV 67, MV 74, MV 75, MV 76*,18 MV 78*, and MV 91. 

Finally, Group IV is divided into several subgroups, three of which 
are very closely interrelated. One includes the Vernon and Simeon 
manuscripts—MV 70 and MV 40—as well as MV 18, MV 31, MV 36, MV 
59, MV 77, and MV 82. Another one is the ‘Lichfield subgroup’, which 
may ultimately derive from MV 31. It includes MV 23, MV 45, MV 54, 
MV 57, MV 68, MV 88, and MV 89. The Vernon subgroup is also the 
ancestor of a third subdivision composed of MV 4, MV 24*, MV 63, and 
MV 72. As Lewis & McIntosh (1982: 8–9) pointed out: 

There are a number of other subgroups among the Main Version 
manuscripts that have not been studied as carefully […]. All of these 
subgroups need to be studied more thoroughly, and other new ones 
will doubtless come to light as scholars investigate the Main Version 
manuscript relationships further.  

Although Lewis & McIntosh (1982: 45) described MV 12 as a Group-
II manuscript, Carrillo-Linares establishes that it is, essentially, a Group-
IV text, as it is closely related to the copies that she called the ‘Northern 
subgroup’ (MV 28, MV 29, MV 35*, MV 43, MV 62, MV 93, and MV 94); 
her study concludes that MV 12 only runs parallel to the Group-II ‘Key 
of Knowing’ manuscripts in Book V (2016: 85), where the ‘Northern 
subgroup’ is similar to MV 40 (Lewis & McIntosh 1982: 61).  

Other connections observed—but not developed—are MV 6 with 
MV 76* and MV 81;19 MV 30 with MV 50; and MV 21 with MV 49* and 
MV 95 (Lewis & McIntosh 1982: 53). MV 1*, MV 25, MV 33*, MV 47, MV 
48, MV 65, and MV 71 are also Group-IV manuscripts. Nevertheless, 
their relations within the group have not been further explored. The 
last set of PoC copies comprises MV 37, MV 79, MV 80, MV 84, and MV 

                                                
17 MV1* “has characteristics of both Groups III and IV, perhaps a MS anterior to Group IV with 
additions supplied from a MS of Group III” (Lewis & McIntosh 1982: 34). 
18 MV 76* appears to be Group IV to the beginning of Book V. It is Group III in Books V–VII; in the 
Epilogue it becomes a SR text, along with MV 90 (Lewis & McIntosh 1982: 110). 
19 MV 76* is partly a Group-III and partly a Group-IV manuscript, which becomes a SR text in its 
Epilogue. This last feature is shared with MV 90 (Lewis & McIntosh 1982: 110).  



118 Edurne Garrido Anes 

97. Being just fragments that provide too little evidence, they also 
remain unclassified. 
 
 
2. Subgroup hypothesis and methodology 
 
2.1. The TLS1S2 subgroup 
 
The alleged connections between Dublin, Trinity College, 157 (D.4.11) 
(MV 21), London, Sion College, Arc. L. 40. 2/E. 25 (MV 49*), and 
Shrewsbury, School, III (Mus. III. 39) (MV 95) are here first explored and 
unfolded through vocabulary collation in the PoC’s rhyming couplets. 
The initial comparison of 11 couplets where the word dole occurs in 
the poem constitutes the starting point for the contrastive study of 
these three copies in the context of their manuscript transmission, and 
especially of Group IV.20 From this collation in all the available copies 
of the work, London, Lambeth Palace, 492 (MV 48) emerges as a 
possible addition to the—henceforth TLS1S2—subset.21 The subsequent 
comparison of textual representations of another 109 lexical items in 
54 of the manuscripts—ranging from Groups I to IV—helps isolate, 
clarify, and expand the connections between MV 21, MV 49*, and MV 
95 mentioned by Lewis & McIntosh (1982).  
 
 
2.2. Lexical collation 
 
The selection of the lexical items draws from the vocabulary realizations 
recorded for years for a Middle English lexical database at the 
University of Huelva.22 This work in progress includes searchable tables 
for 120 vocabulary items that were collected on the basis of their 
potentially dialectal nature, as they often show variation in the multiple 
extant copies of Middle English works. The Lay Folks’ Catechism was 
the point of departure for collecting the items. The collection was later 
                                                
20 For a dialectal study of the item DOLE in the 97 manuscripts of the MV of the Prick of Conscience, 
see Garrido-Anes (2019). 
21 Named after Trinity, Lambeth, Sion, and Shrewsbury. 
22 The database, not publicly available, is held at http://phpmyadmin.uhu.es. 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 119 

expanded to around 60 works.23 The database now contains more than 
66,000 occurrences altogether—including attestations, variants, and 
item omissions in parallel contexts—and it provides evidence from the 
different works’ extant manuscripts, most of which are localized on 
linguistic grounds. The PoC database section holds information for 110 
items24 so far collected for 54 out of the 97 extant manuscripts.25 The 
items were selected because they showed variation in the manuscripts 
of the work, and thus, they became a target for study. Although it is 
possible that, in some cases, the alternations were not dialectally 
induced, the items have become practical control elements. Carrillo-
Linares & Garrido-Anes’s database allows for identifying lexical variants 
and omissions throughout the almost 10,000 lines of the poem. Apart 
from its usefulness for the dialectal study of the Middle English lexicon, 
vocabulary collation also brings to light possible textual connections 

                                                
23 The works are the following: Alphabet of Tales; Ancrene Wisse; Arthur and Merlin; Avowing of 
Arthur; Babees’ Book; Benedictine Rule; Bevis of Hampton; Castle of Perseverance; Catholicon 
Anglicum; Chester Plays; Cursor Mundi; The Destruction of Troy; Dialogue between Vices and 
Virtues; Earth upon Earth; The Feast of Tottenham; Floris and Blaunchefur; Gawain Poet; Genesis 
and Exodus; Gesta Romanorum; Gospel of Nicodemus; Hali Meidenhad; Havelok the Dane; Helle 
Sterne; Juliana of Cumae; Katherine of Alexandria; King Alexander; King Horn; Lay Folks’ 
Catechism; Lay Folks’ Mass Book; Life of Cuthbert; Life of Saint Anne; Mandeville’s Travels; The 
Metrical Version of the Old Testament; The Mirror of Man’s Salvation; Morte D’Arthur; Northern 
Homily Cycle; Octovian; Ormulum; the Parliament of the Three Ages; Piers Plowman; Poema 
Morale; Prick of Conscience; Prose Alexander; Fire of Love; Sawles Warde; Seven Sages of Rome; 
Siege of Jerusalem; Siege of Troy; Sir Amadace; The Owl and the Nightingale; Thornton’s Medical 
Book; Towneley Plays; Wars of Alexander; William of Palerne; Wisdom; York Plays; Ywayn and 
Gawain; other homilies and lyrics. 
24 From the 120 database items, the 110 occuring in the PoC are the following: ALKIN, AND (HAND), 
ANHEDE, ASSETHE, AY, BANEN, BIGGEN, BIHING, BILIFE, BISEN, BLINEN, BRAIDEN, CASTEN, CLOMSEN, CLOT, COMLY, 
CRAG, CRIBBE, CUNNING, DALE, DALK, DASED, DEREN, DIGHT, DIN, DINGEN, DINTEN, DOLE, DOTEN, DREGHEN, 
DROVEN, EGGEN, EKEN, ERR, FEL, FELE, FELLE, FELLY, FERLY, FLAIEN, FLITEN, FON, FORLUKEN, FORSAKEN, FRAISTEN, 
FRETT, FROUNT, GILERY, GLOWEN, GOULEN, GRETEN, GRISELY, HELDEN, HENTEN, HIDE, HOUSIL, ILL, IRKEN, KENEN, 
KIRK, LAIKEN, LAINEN, LAITEN, LAKEN, LETTEN, LIFTE, LITHE, LITHER, LOPER, MERRRYNG, MIRK, MISTER, NEVEN, 
QUAINTISE, RAIKEN, ROGGEN, ROSYNG, ROUKEN, SAGHTEL, SAMEN, SANDE, SCULKEN, SELCOUTHE, SERE, SLAKEN, 
SLAVEREN, SLEGHT, SMORED, SONDEREN, SOUCHEN, STEDE, SWELTEN, SWINKEN, THARNEN, THOLEN, THRALLEN, 
THREPEN, TITE, TROWEN, UGLY, UNDERLOUT, WARN, WARNEN, WATHE, WERE, WLATSOME, WONEN, WONYNGE-
STEDE, YEMEN, YERNEN. The remaining 10 items are: BILOUKEN, DELVEN, FORHOUEN, FOSTREN, GEREN, 
HANKEN, METHE, SUNDREN, THEWE, WISSEN. 
25 The manuscripts so far included in the database are followed by (DB) in the list given under the 
heading ‘References’. 



120 Edurne Garrido Anes 

and effectively provides a general overview of the manuscript 
tradition.26 
 
 
2.3. Expanded collation: significant omissions and 
paraphrases 
 
After retrieving from the database the lines where the aforementioned 
lexical items occur in the PoC, a broader analysis of their parallel 
realizations—occurrences, omissions, or paraphrases—needs to be 
performed. MV 21, MV 48, MV 49*, and MV 95 are then carefully 
examined alongside other Group-I and Group-IV manuscripts.27 For a 
more reliable context, the aim is to expand the scope of the study 
beyond the word, the line, and even the couplet, by comparing the text 
surrounding the said lexical items. As Robinson states, one should 
initially “consider the manuscripts descending directly from a single 
node […]. If the manuscripts descended directly from this single node 
really share a common ancestor below the archetype, then one should 
be able to identify a set of variants likely to have been introduced into 
that shared ancestor, and then descending to those manuscripts” 
(2013: 13). 

Attention must be next drawn to the following types of variants: (1) 
those present in the copies derived from the shared ancestor; (2) those 
likely not to have occurred in the archetype; (3) and those rarely found 
in other manuscripts (Robinson 2013: 13). As Bordalejo and Robinson 
also indicate: “if we find a number of variants which are present, over 
and over again, in the same distinctive pattern of witnesses, then those 
variants are significant […] It is also a crucial tenet […] that we base our 

                                                
26 On the need to study the Middle English lexicon and word geography, see McIntosh 1973. For 
an extended explanation of the methodology and applications of their lexical database, see 
Carrillo-Linares & Garrido-Anes 2008, 2009, 2012. 
27 For granting me access to the manuscripts of the Prick of Conscience in microfilmed or digitized 
copies, special thanks are due to the following libraries: Edinburgh University Library, Dublin 
Trinity College Library, Oxford Bodleian Library, Lambeth Palace Library, and the British Library.  



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 121 

identification of what patterns of agreement are significant on the most 
complete collation possible (every word in every witness, or as close as 
we can manage) rather than any kind of sampling.” (2018: 37–38).28  

Combining the initial lexical collation with a contextual analysis 
of the words in question provides solid evidence to support the 
inclusion of MV 48 into the same subgroup as MV 21, MV 49* and MV 
95. Due to the massive amount of data recorded while comparing the 
lines and couplets that emerged from vocabulary collation, this analysis 
mainly focuses on significant patterns of common textual omissions 
and their related paraphrases throughout the poem.29  

The current study evinces that despite some idiosyncrasies in the 
hitherto unsubclassified MV 48, it is possible to link this copy to one 
specific set of manuscripts within the larger Group-IV family. The 
singularities of the TLS1S2 subgroup are here illustrated by showing 
them side by side with MV 40 and MV 29. These two copies serve as 
examples of two of the larger sets of other Group-IV manuscripts: the 
Vernon-Simeon manuscripts (VS), on the one hand, and the ‘Northern 
subgroup’ (N) on the other. Readings from MV 27 or MV 34—the base 
and supplementary text for Morris’s edition (1863) and Hanna & 
Wood’s revision (2013)—are also provided as sample referents for 
Group I and the wider context. Dates and manuscript localizations have 
been updated from E-LALME (Benskin, Laing, Karaiskos & Williamson 
2013), and line numbers correspond to Hanna & Wood (2013). 
 
 

                                                
28 As observed by Carrillo-Linares, “recent research in phylogenetics and cladistics could probably 
provide the tools to carry out a more systematic classification of the copies of the PoC. The task 
would require a team of specialised researchers in order to encode the transcriptions of all the 
manuscripts, discriminating and classifying all the possible variant types.” (2016: 81). See also 
Robinson (2016). 
29 Other shared or unique variants and minor omissions not associated with text abridgement 
have also been recorded. For reasons of space, though, they will be reserved for future discussion. 



122 Edurne Garrido Anes 

3. The manuscripts 
 
MV 21 is an early fifteenth-century manuscript written in Northern 
Middle English. It begins defectively at line 446 and presents an 
abridged and occasionally paraphrased version. MV 49* is a late 
fourteenth or early fifteenth-century conflated copy lacking a few 
leaves (lines 5,321–5,447 and 6,720–7,034). Written in three different 
northern hands, it presents a Group-I text to the beginning of Book IV 
(line 2,850) and then becomes Group IV. Hanna & Wood suggest that 
MV 49* must have drawn from at least “two different exemplars, put to 
use to allow simultaneous copying of the text by three hands” (2013: 
xxxiii). The late fifteenth-century MV 95—in the language of 
Northwestern Derbyshire—begins some illegible lines before 4,917 and 
ends prematurely at line 7,539 in a significantly damaged copy.  Lewis 
& McIntosh point out that MV 95 provides “little evidence to go on, 
but [is] probably Group IV” and seems “more a revision with lines 
omitted than a paraphrase” (1982: 128). About MV 21, Lewis & 
McIntosh highlight its “idiosyncratic readings” and its relationship with 
“MV 49* from line 2,850 on” and “to MV 95 in Books VI–VII” (1982: 53). 
They do not relate MV 48 to any other manuscript and categorize it, in 
very general terms, as “Group IV, though with a number of idiosyncratic 
readings” (1982: 82). This copy—with lines 5,868 to the end missing—
dates from the late fourteenth century and was written in the language 
of South East Norfolk.  

For reference to the broader tradition, readings from other late 
fourteenth-century manuscripts are also consistently given: MV 27 is 
the Northern English manuscript used as the base text by Morris (1863) 
and Hanna & Wood (2013); the also Northern MV 34 supplements MV 
27 in the transcription of some unexpected missing leaves containing 
lines 1,538–1,579 and 6,923–9,210. These two Group-I witnesses “likely 
reproduced features from the same exemplar” (Hanna & Wood 2013: 
xxi). From Group IV, MV 29 is localized to North Lincolnshire. This 
‘Northern subgroup’ text begins at line 608 and ends at 9,138. It is 
related, in Book V, to MV 40—the Simeon manuscript—, which was 
written in the language of North Worcestershire. MV 40 belongs to the 
‘Vernon-Simeon’ subgroup, to which the ‘Lichfield manuscripts’ and 
other Group-IV texts are also related (Lewis & McIntosh 1982: 61). 
 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 123 

 
4. Editorial policy 
 
The explanatory abbreviations and symbols below are used in Tables 
1–5 and in the manuscript quotations:  

1. N stands for ‘Northern subgroup’; VS is ‘Vernon-Simeon 
subgroup’, and ‘TLS1S2’ is the new subgroup. The same letter 
indicates the same reading; a different letter is a variant reading; 
• next to a letter shows variation within that reading.  

2. Minor word order changes (‘sall euen be’ vs ‘euen sal be’), minor 
omissions or additions (i.e. of ‘and’), and lexical equivalents are 
not considered different readings unless they entail semantic or 
syntactically relevant implications.  

3. N/A stands for ‘comparison non-applicable’ when the 
manuscript shows a Group-I text in that part; Ø = ‘lines missing’; 
OC = ‘omitted couplet’; OL = ‘omitted line’; PC = ‘paraphrased 
couplet’; PL = ‘paraphrased line’. 

4. […] stands for ‘illegible’, ‘damaged’ or ‘blurred part’.  
5. Bold type is used for the manuscripts of the proposed subset.  
6. Underlining highlights their shared distinct variants within 

Group IV.  
7. In Middle English quotations, italics are used to draw attention 

to the database vocabulary items and their different realizations. 
Italics are also given in Latin lines. Capitalization means editorial 
expansion of manuscript abbreviations;  

8. Single straight marks ` ´ indicate scribal insertion. 
9. Square brackets […] stand for illegible, damaged or blurred part 

of the text or blurred manuscript. Editorial reconstruction is only 
provided when the word is not entirely illegible or in case of an 
obvious spelling error. 

10. For MV 27/34, the transcription is faithful to that in Hanna and 
Wood (2013); Hanna and Wood’s punctuation and capitalization 
are adopted for the rest of the manuscripts. 

 



124 Edurne Garrido Anes 

 
5. Analysis 
 
5.1. Initial collation 
 
An initial collation based on the item DOLE alone seems to corroborate 
and expand the extent of the relationship suggested by Lewis & 
McIntosh (1982: 53). MV 21, MV 49*, MV 95, and—as here defended—
MV 48 stand out in the whole manuscript tradition by sharing a 
consistent pattern of particular variant readings and line omissions 
within Group IV. As Table 1 shows below, conflation and manuscript 
damage frequently prevent simultaneous comparison of the four 
manuscripts.  
 
Table 1. Collation based on DOLE 
 

 MANUSCRIPTS  
(GROUP-SUBGROUP) 

LINES 
(BOOK) 

MV 
27/34 

(I) 

MV 29 
(IV-N) 

MV 40 
(IV-VS) 

MV 21 
(IV- 

TLS1S2) 

MV 48 
(IV-

TLS1S2) 

MV 49* 
(I, IV- 

TLS1S2) 

MV 95 
(IV- 

TLS1S2) 

1,166–
1,167 

(II) 
A A A B OC N/A Ø 

1,840–
1,841 
(III) 

A B B OC OC N/A Ø 

2,922–
2,923 
(IV) 

A A A B B B Ø 

3,218–
3,219 
(IV) 

A B B A […] A Ø 

5,382–
5,383 

(V) 
A B B C C• Ø C 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 125 

6,107–
6,108 

(V) 
A A B A Ø A A 

6,709–
6,710 
(VI) 

A A A• A Ø A A 

6,873–
6,874 
(VI) 

A B B C Ø Ø B• 

6,883–
6,884 
(VI) 

A A A• A Ø Ø A 

6,889–
6,890 
(VI) 

A B B• C Ø Ø C• 

7,328–
7,329 
(VI) 

A B B C Ø C C• 

 
Although other witnesses of the work omit larger sections that include 
lines 1,166–1,167, MV 48 appears to be the only PoC copy skipping this 
couplet alone (MV 27: “And alswa a dyme dulful dale / Þat `es´ ful of 
sorow and bale”). At this point, MV 48 and MV 21 cannot be checked 
against MV 95, given that its first 4,916 lines are missing. MV 49* is a 
Group-I text up to line 2,850 (see Appendix: Quote 1). Within the known 
MV transmission of the PoC, the omission of the couplet in lines 1,840–
1,841 is exclusively shared by MV 21 and MV 48 (MV 27: “A doleful 
partyng es þat to telle, / For `þai´ luf ay togyder to duelle”). Whereas 
MV 49* still belongs to Group I in this part, the folio that could have 
contained the couplet is currently lost in MV 95 (see Quote 2).  

Lines 2,922–2,923 are part of a leaf that MV 95 lacks (MV 27: “Þat þe 
saul sal hafe wyth dole and care / Until þe dome be gyfen, how he sal 
fare”). MV 21’s deviant reading in this couplet is also present in MV 48 
and in MV 49*, which had turned a Group-IV manuscript 72 lines before 
this one (see Quote 3). As opposed to the reading shared by the other 
two Group-IV manuscripts, MV 21 and MV 49* do retain the original 
one in lines 3,218–3,219 (MV 27: “Grete dole þay mak somtyme and 



126 Edurne Garrido Anes 

sarowe, / For þai may nathyng begg ne borwe”). Due to MV 95’s lost 
leaves, its relationship with MV 21 from Books I to IV and with MV 49* 
in Book IV cannot be described. Unfortunately, this part is illegible in 
MV 48 (see Quote 4).  

In lines 5,382–5,383, MV 21, MV 48, and MV 95 share a particular 
reading involving the Group-IV omission of ‘and dole’, alongside the 
additional replacement of ‘aght’ with ‘shall’ (MV 27: “What dred and 
dole aght synful haf þan? / Þarfor þos says þe haly man”). MV 49* lacks 
some leaves in this section. No other manuscript in the whole MV 
transmission seems to contain this exact reading except for MV 90, a 
Group-I text dated to the early fifteenth century. ‘Sent Jerome’ is only 
mentioned in MV 48 (see Quote 5). MV 21, MV 49*, and MV 95 agree 
again in lines 6,107–6,108. Their readings and that of MV 27 (“Þe day 
of crying and of duleful dyn, / ‘Þe day of sorow þat never sal blyn”) are 
alike. MV 29 is similar, except for the lexical variant ‘murnynge’, a 
synonym for the original word. MV 40 reads ‘noyse’ instead of 
‘cryynge’; its wording differs from the others in the last half of the 
couplet’s second line. This section of the work is missing in MV 48, 
which ended at line 5,868 (see Quote 6). These manuscripts are virtually 
identical in lines 6,709–6,710 (MV 27: “Þis es on Inglys þus to rede, / Þe 
dede þam sal dolefuly fede”), except for MV 40’s inclusion of a subject 
pronoun instead of the noun phrase ‘Þe dede’. The five Group-IV copies 
additionally share the slightly altered word order (see Quote 7).  

MV 21 provides an idiosyncratic reading in the first half of the 
couplet in lines 6,873–6,874 (MV 27: “Þai sal duleful crying and sorow 
here, / For saynt Austyn says on þis manere”). Unfortunately, this 
wording cannot be compared with the incomplete text of MV 48 or 
with MV 49*, which lacks three leaves in this section of Book VI. Thus, 
it is impossible to determine whether the deviating part in MV 21 is 
unique or could have been inherited from a shared exemplar with MV 
48 and MV 49*. MV 95 is not related here, as it is more similar to MV 
29 and MV 40 (see Quote 8). In lines 6,883–6,884 (MV 27: “And þe 
sorow and dule þat þai sal make / Sal nevermare þar cees ne slake”), all 
the readings are alike, except for the word ‘deuel’ in MV 40, which may 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 127 

have resulted from misreading the source due to the similarities 
between the two words (see Quote 9).  

MV 21 and MV 95 are more related to MV 29 than MV 40 in the first 
line of the couplet in 6,889–6,890 (MV 27: “And þat þat heryng haf of 
duleful dyn / To eke þair payn for þair sin”). However, the two former 
deviate from the rest of the manuscripts in their second line. On the 
one hand, MV 21 and MV 95 share their phrasing of the last part of line 
6,890 – “neuer sall blyn”. On the other hand, MV 95 shows a unique 
reading in the first half: “That ey shall last” (see Quote 10). MV 21, MV 
49*, and MV 95 differ from MV 34, MV 29, and MV 40 in their almost 
identical deviant reading of the couplet in lines 7,328–7,329 (MV 34: “In 
helle salle be þan + dolefull dyn / Omang þe synfull þat sall dwell 
þarein”). Inherited or original eyeskip could have caused the omission 
of FULL in MV 95 (see Quote 11). 

Apart from the fact that MV 49* begins as a Group-I text, the missing 
lines in MV 48, MV 49*, and MV 95 prevent comparison of the DOLE 
lines in the four manuscripts simultaneously. However, the collation in 
groups of two or three out of the four manuscripts suggests that 
despite some unparalleled readings in MV 21, MV 48, and MV 95, the 
four manuscripts tend to follow a similar deviating pattern from Group 
I and the other Group-IV subgroups. Furthermore, MV 95 seems to also 
share group with the other copies in Book V and not only in Books VI 
and VII, as observed by Lewis & McIntosh (1982: 128). Nevertheless, a 
more exhaustive contrastive analysis of the four copies is necessary to 
refine the extent of their relationship and to confirm or discard the 
inclusion of MV 48 in the subgroup. 
 
 
5.2. Expanded collation 
 
Following the preliminary approach, the collation of another 109 lexical 
items—available in the database for 54 of the PoC manuscripts—eases 
the task of identifying potential points of agreement and divergence in 
the work’s transmission from beginning to end. After moving from the 



128 Edurne Garrido Anes 

word level of the database to that of the line, the couplet, and larger 
sections of the manuscripts themselves, the parts containing omissions 
that entail substantial abridgement are placed side-by-side in Tables 
2–5. As described below, those omissions often involve paraphrasing, 
which is sometimes used as an additional text reduction strategy. 

Table 2 displays the entire sequence of omissions found from line 1 
to 2,850. Given that MV 49* is a Group-I text in that part of the poem, 
this copy cannot be considered for the collation of Books I, II, and III to 
a portion of Book IV. MV 95 is also disregarded for the study of these 
lines, as it lacks the corresponding leaves. The comparison between MV 
21 and MV 48 is generally possible along this section, even if MV 48 is 
frequently blurred. 
 
Table 2. Books I–Book IV (lines 1–2,850) 
 

 MANUSCRIPTS  
(GROUP-SUBGROUP) 

LINES 
(BOOK) 

MV 
27/34 

(I) 

MV 29 
(IV-N) 

MV 40 
(IV-VS) 

MV 21 
(IV- 

TLS1S2) 

MV 48 
(IV- TLS1S2) 

MV 
49* 

(I, IV- 
TLS1S2) 

MV 95 
(IV- 

TLS1S2) 

632–
633  
(I) 

A A A• OC OC N/A Ø 

860–
863  
(I) 

A A• B 
1 OC 

+ 1 PC 
1 OC 

+ 1 PC 
N/A Ø 

1,086–
1,091 

(II) 
A B• B 3 OC 3 OC N/A Ø 

1,094–
1,095 

(II) 
A B B• OC OC N/A Ø 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 129 

1,186–
1,087 

(II) 
A A A OC OC N/A Ø 

1,358–
1,361 

(II) 
A B B 2 OC 2 OC N/A Ø 

1,472–
1,475 

(II) 
A B B 2 OC 2 OC N/A Ø 

1,500–
1,503 

(II) 
A A B 2 OC 2 OC N/A Ø 

1,786–
1,789 
(III) 

A B B 
1 OC  

+ 1 PC 
1 OC 

+ 1 PC 
N/A Ø 

1,804–
1,807 
(III) 

A A A• 2 OC 2 OC N/A Ø 

1,808–
1,817 
(III) 

A B B• 
3 PC 

+ 2 OC 
3 PC 

+ 2 OC 
N/A Ø 

1,820–
1,821 
(III) 

A B B• OC OC N/A Ø 

1,844–
1,851 
(III) 

A A A 4 OC 4 OC N/A Ø 

1,938–
1,841 
(III) 

A 
1 OC  

+ 1 PC 
1 OC  

+ 1 PC 
2 OC 2 OC N/A Ø 

1,974–
1,975 
(III) 

A A B OC OC N/A Ø 



130 Edurne Garrido Anes 

2,090–
2,099 
(III) 

A 
B 

OC  
(92–93) 

B• 
OC  

(92–93) 

5 OC  
> 1 PC 

5 OC  
> 1 PC 

N/A Ø 

2,206–
2,215 
(III) 

A 

A  
2 OC (8–

11) 
> 1 PC+1 

OC (14–15) 

A 
2 OC (8–

11) 
> 1 PC+1 

OC (14–15) 

5 OC 5 OC N/A Ø 

2,292–
2,297 
(III) 

A 
A 

2 OC  
(92–95) 

A• 
2 OC  

(92–95) 

2 OC  
+ 1 PC 

2 OC  
+ 1 PC 

N/A Ø 

2,350–
2,351 
(III) 

A B C OC OC N/A Ø 

2,430–
2,435 
(III) 

A 
A 

2 OC  
(30–33) 

A• 
2 OC  

(30–33) 

2 OC  
+ 1 PC 

2 OC  
+ 1 PC 

N/A Ø 

2,440–
2,453 
(III) 

A 
B 

1 OC  
(44–45) 

B 
2 OC  

(44–45; 
48–49) 

5 OC  
+ 2 PC 

5 OC 
 + 2 PC 

N/A Ø 

2,458–
2,467 
(III) 

A 

A• 
2 OC  

(60–61;  
66–67) 

A 
2 OC  

(60–61;  
66–67) 

5 OC 5 OC N/A Ø 

2,722–
2,729 
(IV) 

A 
B 

2 OC  
(22–25) 

B 
2 OC  

(22–25)  

B  
2 OC 

(24–27)  
> 1 PC 

B•  
2 OC (24–

27) 
> 1 PC 

N/A Ø 

2,746–
2,749 
(IV) 

A B B 
2 OC  

> 1 PC 
2 OC  

> 1 PC 
N/A Ø 

2,836–
2,837 
(IV) 

A B B 1 OC 1 OC N/A Ø 

 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 131 

In lines 860–863, both MV 21 and MV 48 share the omission of the first 
couplet (MV 27: “Als wa say, nathyng es swa ugly / Als here es a mans 
dede body. / And when it es in erth layd lawe, / Wormes þan sal it al 
tognawe”), a lexically idiosyncratic line 862, and the same paraphrasis 
in line 863. Notwithstanding their differing vocabulary variants—‘layer, 
loken’ vs ‘clay, closid’, which may have been dialectally conditioned—
the relationship between the Northern MV 21 and MV 48, from Norfolk, 
is evident (see Quote 12). 

Another agreement between MV 21 and MV 48 is found in lines 
1,786 to 1,789 (MV 27: “Of þe dede here men may thynk wonder, / For 
alle thyng it brestes in sonder / Als it sculkes by diverse ways. / Þarfor 
þe haly man in boke þus says”). Apart from their common omission of 
the first couplet, the two copies share the condensed reading by which 
1,787 and 1,788 merge. Both differ slightly from each other and the rest 
in their wordings of line 1,789. MV 21 bears some resemblance with 
MV 27/34, whereas MV 48 omits the reference to the ‘book’ in the 
manner of MV 29 and MV 40 (see Quote 13). 

From line 1,808 to 1,817 (MV 27: “And als yhe … þat `þan´assayles”), 
MV 21 and MV 48 present a matching paraphrasis of the first three 
couplets while excluding the fourth and fifth ones (see Quote 14). From 
2,090–2,099, whereas MV 29 and MV 40 differ from the Group-I version 
by only omitting lines 2,092 and 2,093, MV 21 and MV 48 display the 
same significant reduction of the whole section into a single couplet 
(MV 27: “God visites us … many a dede-thraw”, see Quote 15). Similarly 
to MV 29 and MV 40, MV 21 and MV 48 omit the first four lines in 
2,292–2,297 (MV 27: “And yhit sen … þai sal apere”). However, they both 
deviate further from the original and the other Group-IV reading by 
sharing an identical paraphrasis of the last couplet (see Quote 16). 

MV 21 and MV 48 differ from MV 29 and MV 40 in their wording of 
the only couplet that the Group-IV copies preserve from line 2,430 to 
2,435 (MV 27: “How þow has … þi tym wrang”). However, judging from 
the only two neat words in this section in MV 48, its paraphrasis does 
not seem identical to that in MV 21 (see Quote 17). The Group-IV 
manuscripts MV 29 and MV 40 omit the third couplet in the lines 



132 Edurne Garrido Anes 

running from 2,440 to 2,453 (MV 27: “Bot when thou ... syns and fele”). 
MV 40 additionally skips the fifth one. In turn, MV 21 and MV 48 
exclude a more significant portion of the text, as they both leave out 
the first five couplets while offering a paraphrasis of the last two. It is 
also apparent that MV 21 and MV 48 are alike, even though the latter’s 
lines are blurry (see Quote 18).  

MV 29 and MV 40 share the omission of the first two couplets in 
lines 2,722–2,729 (MV 27: “Wharfor þe payn … payns of purgatory”). By 
contrast, MV 21 and MV 48 retain the first two lines but condense the 
second and third couplets into just one (see Quote 19). In lines 2,746–
2,749, whereas MV 29 and MV 40 preserve the original first couplet and 
share a different reading of the second one (MV 27: “Bot in purgatori 
saules dueles stille / Until þai be clensed of alle ille, / And mare payn 
fele, als I understande, / Þan ever feled man here lyfande”), MV 21 and 
48 encapsulate the four lines into the same single couplet (see Quote 
20). 

From Book I to part of Book IV, MV 21 and MV 48 present an 
identical pattern of couplet omission and offer a more abbreviated 
recension than the Northern and Vernon-Simeon Group-IV 
counterparts. Additionally, their idiosyncratic readings often appear to 
be the same. Such systematic coincidences cannot be attributed to 
mere chance and must have been inherited from a shared exemplar. 
Interestingly, their unshared peculiar readings tend to occur in precisely 
the same contexts. 

Table 3 exhibits the data extracted from the rest of Book IV up to a 
portion of Book V, namely from line 2,850 to 4,911. Although MV 95 
still lacks this section, MV 49* is now available for comparison, as it had 
turned a Group-IV text in line 2,850. 
 
Table 3. Books IV-V (lines 2850–4,911) 
 

 MANUSCRIPTS  
(GROUP-SUBGROUP) 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 133 

LINES 
(BOOK) 

MV 
27/34 

(I) 

MV 29 
(IV-N) 

MV 40 
(IV-VS) 

MV 21 
(IV- 

TLS1S2) 

MV 48 
(IV-TLS1S2 

) 

MV 49* 
(I, IV- 

TLS1S2) 

MV 95 
(IV- 

TLS1S2) 

2,878–
2,879 (IV) 

A A A OC OC OC Ø 

2,898–
2,899  
(IV) 

A A A OC OC OC Ø 

2,902–
2,903 (IV) 

A A A OC OC OC Ø 

2,910–
2,917 (IV) 

A 

B  
3 OC 
(10–
13,  

16–17) 

B  
3 OC 
(10–
13,  

16–17) 

4 OC 4 OC 4 OC Ø 

2,920–
2,921 (IV) 

A B B OC OC OC Ø 

3,026–
2,943 (IV) 

A A B 9 OC 9 OC 9 OC Ø 

3,080–
2,087 (IV) 

A B B 4 OC 4 OC 4 OC Ø 

3,222–
3,223 (IV) 

A A A OC OC OC Ø 

3,258–
3,263 (IV) 

A 

A  
2 OC 
(60–
63) 

A  
2 OC 
(60–
63) 

3 OC  
> 1  PC 

3 OC  
> 1  PC 

3 OC  
> 1  PC Ø 

3,276–
3,285 (IV) 

A 

B 
3 OC 
(78–
83) 

B  
3 OC  
(78–
83) 

5 OC 5 OC 5 OC Ø 

3,500–
3,505 
(IV) 

A B B 
1 PC 

+ 2 OC 
1 PC 

+ 2 OC 
1 PC 

+ 2 OC Ø 

3,648–
3,649 (IV) 

A OC OC OC OC OC Ø 



134 Edurne Garrido Anes 

3,674–
3,677 (IV) 

A 2 OC 2 OC 2 OC 2 OC 2 OC Ø 

3,736–
3,739 (IV) 

A A A 2 OC 2 OC 2 OC Ø 

3,746–
3,761 (IV) 

A 

A  
1 OC 
(60–
61) 

A  
1 OC 
(60–
61) 

8 OC 8 OC 8 OC Ø 

3,768–
3,769 (IV) 

A B A OC OC OC Ø 

3,908–
3,925 (IV) 

A 

A  
1 OC 
(24–
25) 

A  
1 OC 
(24–
25) 

2 OC  
> 1 PC  
+ 7 OC 

2 OC  
> 1 PC  
+ 7 OC 

2 OC  
> 1 PC  
+ 7 OC 

Ø 

4,008–
4,011 (V) 

A Ø A 
1 OC 

+ 1 PC 
1 OC 

+ 1 PC 
1 OC 

+ 1 PC Ø 

4,027–
4,030 (V) 

A Ø B 2 OC 2 OC 2 OC Ø 

4,387–
4,388 (V) 

A A A OC OC OC Ø 

4,476–
4,477 (V) 

A A A 2 OL 2 OL Ø Ø 

4,891–
4,892 (V) 

A A A OC OC OC Ø 

4,899–
4,912 (V) 

A 

A  
2 OC 
(907–
910) 

A 
2 OC 
(907–
910) 

6 OC 
+ 1 PC 

6 OC 
+ 1 PC 

6 OC 
+ 1 PC Ø 

 
From line 3,258 to 3,263, MV 29 and MV 40 omit the last two couplets 
(MV 27: “And with stormes … God may wyn”). In MV 21, MV 48, and MV 
49*, however, an identical paraphrasis appears in place of the three 
original couplets (see Quote 21). Agreement between MV 21, MV 48, 
and MV 49* is observed again from line 3,500 to 3,505, where the three 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 135 

copies share their deviant reading. Not only do they provide the same 
paraphrasis of the first couplet, but they also coincide in the omission 
of the other two (MV 27: “Þe whilk most … les and mare”, see Quote 
22). In lines 3,908–3,925 (MV 27: “A party for penance … to pay þarfor”), 
MV 29 and MV 40 lack only the last couplet. By contrast, MV 21, MV 
48, and MV 49* leave out the first two and show a single paraphrased 
couplet instead. The three manuscripts omit the remaining lines in this 
section (see Quote 23).  

MV 29 lacks the leaf containing lines 4,008–4,011 (MV 27: “Wharfor 
we shuld make us redy here, / Als þe day of dome war command nere 
/ Crist disciples, þat yherned haf knawyng / Of sum takens agayns his 
last commyng”) and MV 40 presents some lexical variation. In turn, MV 
21, MV 48, and MV 49* omit the first couplet and agree on the 
paraphrasis of the second one (see Quote 24). From line 4,899 to 4,912 
(MV 27: “And als God … byfor Cristes commyng”), MV 29 and MV 40 
skip only two couplets. MV 21, MV 48, and MV 49* share a more 
shortened rendering, as they omit six out of the seven. These three 
copies retain the last couplet, whose first deviant line is unsurprisingly 
common to the whole subset (see Quote 25).  

In the juxtaposed parts of Book IV and Book V above, line omissions 
and associated paraphrases reveal a repeated distribution pattern that 
supports the connection between MV 21 and MV 48 and shows explicit 
parallelism with MV 49* with which they must have shared a previous 
exemplar. Common deviation from the archetypal Group-IV 
predecessor from which they inherit some but not all their 
abridgements is also quite apparent. 

Table 4 below presents the handful of lines where the four 
manuscripts under study can be simultaneously compared, although 
MV 49* lacks one leaf. In some parts of Book V (see 5,001–5,002, 5,048–
5,053, 5,199–5,200, 5,341–5,350 and 5,484–5,487), MV 95 tends to 
present a less abridged version than MV 21, MV 48, and MV 49*, which 
suggests that it must have drawn from a somewhat less concise 
exemplar than the one shared by MV 21, MV 48, and MV 49*. 
 



136 Edurne Garrido Anes 

Table 4. Book V (lines 5,048–5,539) 
 

 MANUSCRIPTS  
(GROUP-SUBGROUP) 

LINES 
(BOOK) 

MV 
27/34 

(I) 

MV 
29 

(IV-N) 

MV 
40 
(IV-
VS) 

MV 21 
(IV-TLSS) 

MV 48 
(IV-TLSS) 

MV 49* 
(IV-TLSS) 

MV 95 
(IV-TLSS) 

5,001–5,002 
(V) 

A B B 1 OC 1 OC 1 OC B• 

5,048–5,053 
(V) 

A B B 3 OC 3 OC 3 OC B• 

5,199–5,200 
(V) 

A A A OC OC OC A 

5,311–5,312 
(V) 

A OC OC OC OC OC OC  

5,341–5,350 
(V) 

A B B• 5 OC 5 OC 
Ø  

[321–
447] 

3 OC 
(343–
346;  
349–
350) 

5,368–5,369 
(V) 

A A A OC OC 
Ø  

[321–
447] 

OC 

5,484–5,487 
(V) 

A A A• 2 OC 2 OC 2 OC A 

5,518–5,543 
(V) 

A A A• 
2 OC 
(536–
539) 

2 OC 
(536–
539) 

2 OC 
(536–
539) 

13 OC  

 
In lines 5,341–5,350 (MV 27: “A, how mikel … never here blyn”), MV 95 
leaves out three—instead of five—couplets and represents an 
intermediate reading between MV 29 and MV 40 on the one hand and 
MV 21 and MV 48 on the other hand (see Quote 26). In lines running 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 137 

from 5,518 through to 5,543, MV 95 is the only manuscript with such 
an extensive omission of 13 couplets, probably due to eyeskip. 
However, starting a few lines below (from 5,368 to 5,369), textual 
associations can be established between MV 95, MV 21, MV 48, and 
MV 49*. Identical or related distinct readings were also registered for 
lines 5,382–5,383 in the collation of DOLE (see Table 1). 

In Table 5, MV 48 is discarded from the comparison, as its PoC ends 
at line 5,868. Contrastingly, MV 49* is generally undamaged from the 
last part of Book V to the end of this section, except for three missing 
leaves. While MV 21, MV 49*, and MV 95 agree on most omissions and 
nearby paraphrases in this part, MV 95 also shows a few extra 
omissions. Additional eyeskip, but also further intentional text 
suppression, may have led to occasional dissimilarity. 
 
Table 5. Books V–VI (lines 6,075–7,471) 
 

 MANUSCRIPTS  
(GROUP-SUBGROUP) 

Lines 
(BOOK) 

MV 
27/34  

(I) 
MV 29 
(IV-N) 

MV 
40 
(IV-
VS) 

MV 21 
(IV-TLSS) 

MV 
48 
(IV-

TLSS) 

MV 49* 
(IV-TLSS) 

MV 95 
(IV-TLSS) 

6,075–
6,076 (V) A A A• OC Ø OC OC 

6,117–
6,120 

(V) 
A B  B• 

1 OC 
+ 1 LO  
(120) 

Ø 
1 OC 

+ 1 LO  
(120) 

1 OC 
+ 1 LO  
(120) 

6,121–
6,124 (V) A 2 OC  2 OC 

2 OC 
> 1 PL  Ø 

2 OC 
> 1 PL 

2 OC 
> 1 PL 

6,303–
6,308 (V) A A• A• 

2 OC > 
4 misplaced 

lines 
Ø 

2 OC > 
4 misplaced  

lines 

2 OC >  
4 misplaced 

lines 

6,309–
6,322 (V) A 

A• 
1 OC 
(319–
320) 

A• 
1 OC  
(319–
320) 

6 OC  
+1 OC > 1 

PL 
Ø 

6 OC  
+1 OC > 1 

PL 

6 OC  
+1 OC > 1 

PL 



138 Edurne Garrido Anes 

6,323–
6,328 (V) A 

B 
2 OC 
(325–
328) 

B 
2 OC 
(325–
328) 

1 PC+311–
318  

misplaced 
+ 2 

OC  (325–
328) 

Ø 

1 PC+311–
318  

misplaced 
+ 2 

OC  (325–
328) 

1 PC+311–
318  

misplaced 
+ 2 

OC  (325–
328) 

6,367–
6,368 

(V) 
A A A 1 OC Ø 1 OC 1 OC 

6,389–
6,396 

(V) 
A 

B 
1 OC 
(395–
396) 

B• 
1 OC  
(395–
396) 

2OC > 1PC 
+2 OC Ø 

2OC > 1PC 
+2 OC 

2OC > 1PC 
+2 OC 

6,425–
6,436 
(VI) 

A B B• 
2 OC + 1 

PC + 
1 OC+ 1 PC 

+ 1 OC 
Ø 

2 OC + 1 
PC + 

1 OC+ 1 PC 
+ 1 OC 

2 OC + 1 
PC + 

1 OC+ 1 PC 
+ 1 OC 

6,495–
6.496 
(VI) 

A A A 1 OC Ø 1 OC 1 OC 

6,543–
6,546 
(VI) 

A B B A Ø A 2 OC 

6,583–
6,584 
(VI) 

A B B 1 OC Ø 1 OC 1 OC 

6,733–
6,736 
(VI) 

A B B 
A• (733–

734) 
+PC 

(735/36) 
Ø 

LM 
[6,716–
7,030] 

A (733) 
+PL+1 OC 

7,271–
7,291 
(VI) 

A 
B 

1 OC 
(280–
281) 

B• 
1 OC  
(280–
281) 

2 PC (271–
274) 

+4 OC 
(276–283)  
+ B  (284–

291) 

Ø 
6 OC  (271–

283)  
+ B  (284–

291) 

10 OC 
(271–291) 

7,312–
7,323 
(VI) 

A 
A 

1 OC 
(312–
313) 

A• 
1 OC 
(312–
313) 

3 OC+ B 
+ 1 OC 
+ 1 PC 

Ø 
3 OC + B 
+ 1 OC  
+ 1 PC 

5 OC 
+1 PC 

7,324–
7,327 
(VI) 

A 
A• 

1 OC 
(24–25) 

A• 
1 OC  
(24–
25) 

 
2 OC > 1 

PC 
  

Ø 2 OC > 1 
PC 

2 OC > 1 
PC 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 139 

7,334–
7,335 
(VI) 

A B C  1 OC Ø 1 OC 1 OC 

7,346–
7,349 
(VI) 

A 2 OC 2 OC 2 OC Ø 2 OC 2 OC 

7,354–
7,359 
(VI) 

A 3 OC 3 OC 3 OC Ø 3 OC 3 OC 

7,360–
7,365 
(VI) 

A B B A• Ø A• 3 OC 

7,378–
7,387 
(VI) 

A 
A• 

2 OC  
(378–
381) 

A• 
2 OC  
(378–
381) 

1 PL (379) 
+ 4 OC  

(380–387) 
Ø 

1 PL (379) 
+ 4 OC  

(380–387) 

1 PL (379) 
+ 4 OC  

(380–387) 
7,396–
7,401 
(VI) 

A B B• 
1 OC  

+ 1 PC+ 1 
OC 

Ø 2 PC  
+ 1 OC 

1 PC 
+ 2 OC 

7,460–
7,471 
(VI) 

A 
B 

3 OC 
(466–
71)  

B• 
3 OC 
(466–
71) 

6 OC Ø 6 OC 6 OC 

7,472–
7,491 
(VI) 

A B B• 5 OC 
(482–491) Ø 

5 OC 
(482–491) 10 OC 

7,494–
7,505 
(VI) 

A B B• 6 OC Ø 6 OC 6 OC 

7,524–
7,527 
(VI) 

A B B B• Ø B• 2 OC 

 
MV 29 and MV 40 omit the two couplets in 6,121–6,124 (MV 27: “Bathe 
gude and ille, mare and lesse; / Þan sal noght be done bot rightwysnes. 
/ He sal deme al men of ilka degre / Til ioy or payne þat demed sal be”). 
MV 21, MV 49*, and MV 95 provide, instead, a single line where 6,118 
and 6,124 merge, thus resolving the loose line—6,119—that had 
resulted from the omission of 6,120 (see Quote 27). From 6,303 to 6,308 
(MV 27: “Here may ilk man … fer and nere”), MV 21, MV 49*, and MV 
95 display the same distinctive line disposition. In the first place, the 



140 Edurne Garrido Anes 

three copies lack the first two couplets. Then, the similarity of lines 
6,307 and 6,319—with the words ‘mekill’ and ‘mercy’ in both—must 
have caused eyeskip in an ancestor common to MV 95 and the 
exemplar of MV 21, MV 48, and MV 49*. This unintentional movement 
led to the subsequently shared misplacement of 6,319 and 6,321—
merged—followed by 6,322, 6,323, and 6,324 (see Quote 28). 

In the section covering lines 6,309–6,322 (MV 27: “Þat alle þe syn … 
many syns sere”), both MV 29 and MV 40 omit the sixth couplet, 
whereas MV 21, MV 49* and MV 95 leave out 12 lines. The fact that 
they also replace the last couplet with a single line suggests that the 
four manuscripts must have inherited this reading from a shared 
predecessor (see Quote 29). MV 21, MV 49*, and MV 95 coincide with 
MV 29 and MV 40 in the omission of the last two couplets in lines 
6,323–6,328 (MV 27: “Als al þe men … þair syn pas”). However, the three 
manuscripts deviate, once more, from their other two Group-IV 
counterparts. Sharing the misplacement of lines 6,311–6,318 right after 
6,324 implies that this variant reading was also taken over from a 
common source (see Quote 30). By the end of Book V (lines 6,389–
6,396), MV 29 and MV 40 omit the last couplet (MV 27: “Ne nathyng sal 
… sal be oboute”). By contrast, MV 21, MV 49*, and MV 95 merge the 
first two couplets into an identical paraphrasis while omitting the rest 
(see Quote 31). 

From line 6,425 to 6,436 (MV 27: “For þe mynde … þat er þare”), the 
pattern of couplet omission and paraphrasis is recurrent in MV 21, MV 
49*, and MV 95. The three copies must have carried it over, from a 
shared antecedent: the omission of the first two couplets is followed 
by an identical paraphrasis of the third one, the skipping of the fourth, 
the paraphrasis of the fifth, and the omission of the last one (see Quote 
32). However, whereas MV 95 leaves out lines 6,543–6,546 (MV 27: “And 
yhit many other þat war dede / Has bene sumtyme at þat stede /And 
sene þar many hydus payne / And thurgh miracle turned til lyf agayne”), 
MV 21 and MV 49* do not. These types of omissions in MV 95 could be 
compatible with either eyeskip or scribal wish for further condensation. 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 141 

They may have first occurred in MV 95 or some unshared source (see 
Quote 33).  

The leaf where lines 6,733 to 6,736 should have appeared in MV 49* 
is missing. MV 21 and MV 95 are not only alike in the first half of line 
6,733 but also more similar to MV 27 (“Bot þe flaume of fire þai sal 
drynk, / Menged with brunstan þat foul sal stynk / And with smoke of 
fyre and wyndes blast / And with other stormes þat ay sal last”) than to 
MV 29 and MV 40. In the second half of the line, however, MV 21 and 
MV 95 differ. MV 95’s paraphrasis offers a peculiar reading, with ‘carion’ 
(‘corpse’) replacing ‘bronstane’ (‘sulphur’). This unique change may 
have been original in MV 95 or copied from a non-shared—
unidentified or lost—source. The second couplet, paraphrased in MV 
21, is omitted in MV 95 (see Quote 34). Unlike in the first part of Book 
V, MV 95 is now prone to provide a more abridged text than MV 21 
and MV 49*. Significant condensation occurs in MV 95’s omission of 
the 10 couplets—plus the Latin line—from 7,271 to 7,291. The Group-
IV copies MV 29 and MV 40 leave out only one couplet, whereas MV 
21 and MV 49* omit four (MV 34: “Bot þe synfull … hope of mercy”, see 
Quote 35). 

Although text reduction is more extensive in MV 95 from 7,312–
7,323 (MV 34: “Þat the synfull ... trey and tene), the similar paraphrasis 
of line 7,323 in MV 21, MV 49*, and MV 95 evinces textual connections 
(see Quote 36). Later on, whereas MV 29 and MV 40 omit the first 
couplet in lines 7,324–7,327 (MV 34: “Þare sall be wantyng of al[le] 
thyng / In whilk moght be any lykyng / And defaut of all thyng þat gud 
moght be / And of all þat ill es gret plente”), MV 21, MV 49*, and MV 
95 show a closer textual relationship by condensing the two couplets 
into a similar paraphrased one (see Quote 37). In lines 7,378–7,387 (MV 
34: “Bot þareto sall þai … fra þam oway”). MV 29 and MV 40 omit the 
first two couplets, whereas MV 21, MV 49*, and MV 95 retain line 7,378, 
offer a shared variant reading in line 7,379, and do not include the 
remaining four couplets (see Quote 38). Additional text reductions not 
shared with MV 21 and MV 49 occur in MV 95. That is the case of the 
three omitted couplets from 7,360 to 7,365 (see Table 5) and the 



142 Edurne Garrido Anes 

various degrees of text abridgement from 7,396 to 7,401 (MV 34: “And 
þe tyme ... sall say þus”, see Quote 39). In the remaining part of Book 
VI, although MV 21, MV 49*, and MV 95 are still related in their 
omission of the five couplets from line 7,482 to 7,491 and six other 
couplets from 7,494 to 7,505. However, MV 95 skips ten additional lines 
starting in 7,471 and two couplets from 7,524–7,527.  

Book VII (7,528–end). The PoC in MV 95 shows a tendency to further 
condensation as the text progresses and ends abruptly at line 7,539, 
soon after the beginning of Book VII. The relationship between MV 21 
and MV 49* continues till the end of their texts. MV 49* finishes at 
around line 9,217 and MV 21 at 9,471. In this last section, both copies 
still share most of their couplet omissions, although they occasionally 
differ in the lines they leave out, probably due to eyeskip. MV 21 is the 
only one omitting 8,064–8,065; 8,356–8,357; 8,452–8,455; 8,470–8,471; 
8,580–8,587; and 8,610–8,631. In turn, MV 49* lacks the folio containing 
lines 8,418–8,499 and omits 8,580–8,583, 8,608–8,619 and 8,622–8,631. 

 
 
6. Concluding remarks 
 
The research here presented builds on Carrillo-Linares & Garrido-Anes 
(2008, 2009). The methodology initially devised for studying the Middle 
English lexicon also proved to have stemmatological applications 
(Carrillo-Linares 2016). These can benefit from combining both the 
practical search options and rapid result-yielding returned by a 
database with the much slower—but always essential—philological 
reanalysis of the primary sources. In the attempt to establish 
manuscript connections, Robinson defends the use of database 
analysis to investigate the distributions of variants across the whole 
manuscript tradition of a given work. However, he claims that if the 
data are not carefully scrutinized and the software is “left to itself”, 
many of the resulting automated associations are unlikely to be 
accurate (2013: 12–13). Thus, Bordalejo & Robinson (2018:37–38) warn 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 143 

about the dangers of sampling and advocate for the most complete 
study possible of the selected manuscripts. 

The current paper began with a modest initial collation of one lexical 
item in all the available extant MV copies of the PoC. This first approach 
was then complemented with the analysis of a previously built 
database, which led to the retrieval of counterpart vocabulary 
realizations in multiple manuscripts. Lexical comparison throughout 
the almost 10,000 lines of the poem in as many witnesses as possible 
allowed to put together a massive amount of parallel data effectively. 
This process served to identify repeated patterns of divergence across 
a significant number of copies from the beginning to the end of their 
texts.  

The occurrences, variants, and omissions of DOLE in 11 couplets of 
the 97 manuscripts brought to light a few distinct lines, suggesting 
closer ties between a specific set of copies within the Group-IV family. 
Lewis & McIntosh (1982) pointed to—but did not develop—a near 
relationship between MV 21 and MV 49* and between these two and 
MV 95 in Books VI and VII. In the initial DOLE collation, MV 48—
unsubclassified within Group IV—appeared to stand out as well 
together with the other three manuscripts. For further evidence, the 
next step involved collating another 109 items in the 54 manuscripts of 
the PoC included in the lexical database. Once the parallel occurrences, 
omissions, and paraphrases were retrieved for a total of 110 vocabulary 
items—including DOLE—MV 21, MV 49*, and MV 95 stood out once 
more, and so did MV 48.  

Nevertheless, it is well known that shared variants of lexical items 
may also be purely coincidental in otherwise unrelated copies. Similarly, 
non-shared vocabulary variants or different word omissions do not 
always entail the absence of a close textual relationship, for this may 
have been disguised by dialectal or stylistically conditioned lexical 
replacements, by the intentional dropping of words, or accidental 
eyeskip. Thus, vocabulary collation was used as the basis for a broader 
purpose, namely the subsequent detection and alignment of larger 
parallel segments of the texts that would provide a more global picture 



144 Edurne Garrido Anes 

of systematic agreement and repeated divergent readings. By shifting 
the analysis from the database back to the manuscripts, the immediate 
and adjacent contexts of the lexical items retrieved were analysed. As a 
result, the scope of the study widened from the word level to that of 
the line, the couplet, and more extensive sections from the beginning 
to the end of the poem. 

MV 21, MV 48, MV 49*, and MV 95 unveiled an extraordinary 
amount of consistent patterns of shared omissions and common 
variant readings, as opposed to Group-I MV 27/34 and the other 
Group-IV copies, MV 29 and MV 40. For reasons of space, the focus was 
solely laid here on text abridgement. Side-by-side comparison of line, 
couplet, and more extensive text omissions with or without 
accompanying paraphrases helped to confirm the close connections 
between MV 21, MV 49*, and MV 95 not only in Books VI and VII—as 
previously thought—but also from around line 5,368 in Book V. 
Furthermore, the hitherto unsubclassified MV 48 emerged as an 
undoubted member of the subgroup. 

The idiosyncrasies that seemingly defined MV 21 and MV 48 
individually happened to be commonly shared by these two 
manuscripts. As a general rule, both tend to omit the same couplets, 
and they also provide, systematically, the same or very similar 
distinctive readings and condensing paraphrases. Despite being an 
earlier manuscript, MV 48 is at times ‘more advanced’ than MV 21 and 
MV 49*, in the sense that it contains one exclusive omission alongside 
several peculiar—though still related—readings, together with 
additional lexical variants, probably aiming to accommodate the 
language to the scribe’s linguistic repertoire and a likely non-northern 
audience. By the end of their texts, MV 21 and MV 49* differ more often 
than in earlier sections in several couplet omissions, but these are still 
compatible with scribal eyeskip or even with an individual wish for 
further abridgement in the final sections. 

In lines 7,396–7,401, MV 49* exceptionally shows a smaller text 
reduction than MV 21, and it also differs from MV 95, whose 
abridgement does not match either of the former. The scribe of MV 49* 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 145 

could have supplemented some of those lines with another exemplar 
at hand. The fact that the readings in the other two copies are 
somewhat divergent may also suggest that their common exemplar 
could have been illegible in that part. The three different scribes (or 
those of their sources) appear to have attempted to deal with a 
difficult-to-decipher section by means of omissions, paraphrasing with 
individual strategies, or using additional sources. When readings differ 
in otherwise almost identical manuscripts, a damaged or unclear 
exemplar containing challenging-to-read parts may have forced their 
scribes to either skip the passage or to add readings of their own or to 
copy from additional sources, thereby yielding different results.  

Despite occasional independent initiative or individual eyeskip 
leading to exceptional dissimilarities, most coincidental deviant 
readings between MV 21, MV 48 and MV 49* (from line 2,850 onwards) 
are very unlikely to have resulted by chance. They must have been 
inherited from a not-very-far-removed exemplar shared by the three 
copies. This exemplar could be traced back to a less abbreviated 
ancestor, from which MV 95—or its source—must have also 
descended. From its beginning at around line 4,917 to about line 6,874, 
MV 95 seems to offer an intermediate version between MV 29 and MV 
40 on the one hand and MV 21, MV 48, and MV 49* on the other. MV 
95 shows less condensation than the other three in that part, as it 
preserves some of the Group-IV lines also present in MV 29 and MV 40 
that were nonetheless omitted in the other three copies. By the end of 
its PoC text, however, the additional abridgement in MV 95 not 
common to the other three copies must have been original or carried 
over from a non-shared source. 

As Carrillo-Linares remarked: “The textual complexity of the poem 
makes it extremely difficult to establish a complete stemma involving 
all the surviving copies without having computerised assistance of a 
very specific kind” (2016: 81). The present study contributes to the 
general picture of the PoC by refining some of the manuscript relations 
within Group IV. It may not offer the exact position of each manuscript 
in the tradition, but it certainly discovers connections never considered 



146 Edurne Garrido Anes 

before. Figure 1 below shows a rough presentation of the findings 
discussed above. The Group-IV manuscripts not yet thoroughly 
examined have been left out of the chart. Further research into these 
and other copies will continue to enhance our knowledge of the work’s 
transmission. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Manuscript relations within Group IV 
 
Middle English works that survive in a large number of witnesses 
constitute a vast and complex field of study. They require long years of 
data collection and analysis, and researchers frequently need to work 
on segmented approaches that progressively reduce the original 
massive puzzle into more manageable ones. Current studies on the PoC 
undoubtedly owe to invaluable previous research. However, further 
scholarly work is still needed for a more accurate insight into the work’s 
versions, groups, subgroups, and numerous individual manuscripts. 
Additional collaborations and funding for further implementing 
phylogenetics and computational advances into manuscript research 
would also be desirable to supplement and optimize—though never to 
replace—philological work. 
 
 
 
References 

MANUSCRIPT SOURCES



 
Edurne Garrido Anes, Selim27 (2022): 114–165. 
ISSN 1132-631X / ISSN-L 2792-3878 / https://doi.org/10.17811/selim.27.2022.1-114-165 
 

MV 1: Aberystwyth, National Library of Wales, Porkington 20  
MV 2: Arundel Castle, Sussex, Library of His Grace the Duke of Norfolk, E. M. 
**MV 3: Beeleigh Abbey, Maldon, Essex, Foyle MS 
MV 4 (DB): Brussels, Bibliotèque Royal Albert I, IV 998 
MV 5: Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, McCLean 131 
MV 6 (DB): Cambridge, Gonville and Caius College, 386 
MV 7 (DB): Cambridge, Magdalene College, F.4.18 (18) 
MV 8 (DB): Cambridge, St. John’s College, 80 (D.5) 
MV 9 (DB): Cambridge, St. John’s College, 137 (E.34) 
MV 10 (DB): Cambridge, University Library, Dd.11.89 
MV 11: Cambridge, University Library, Dd.12.69 
MV 12 (DB): Cambridge, University Library, Ll.2.17 
MV 13: Cambridge, University Library, Additional 6693 
MV 14: Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Library, English 515 
MV 15 (DB): Canterbury Cathedral, Lit. D. 13 (66) 
MV 16 (DB): Charlottesville, Virginia, University of Virginia Library, Hench 10 
MV 17: Chicago, Illinois, Newberry Library, 32.9  
MV 18 (DB): Chicago, Illinois, Newberry Library, 33 (C. 19169) 
MV 19 (DB): Douai Abbey, Woolhampton, Berkshire, 7 
MV 20: Dublin, Trinity College, 156 (D.4.8) 
MV 21 (DB): Dublin, Trinity College, 157 (D.4.11) 
MV 22 (DB): Dublin, Trinity College, 158 (D.4.15) 
MV 23: Holkham Hall, Wells, Norfolk, Library of the Earl of Leicester, 668 
MV 24 (DB): Leeds, University Library, Brotherton 500 
MV 25: Leeds, University Library, Brotherton 501 
MV 26: London, British Library, Arundel 140 
MV 27 (DB) London, British Library, Cotton Galba E. IX 
MV 28 (DB): London, British Library, Cotton Appendix VII 
MV 29 (DB): London, British Library, Egerton 657 
MV 30: London, British Library, Egerton 3245 
MV 31 (DB): London, British Library, Harley 1205 
MV 32: London, British Library, Harley 2377 
MV 33 (DB): London, British Library, Harley 2394 
MV 34 London British Library, Harley 4196 
MV 35 (DB): London, British Library, Harley 6923 
MV 36 (DB): MV 40 London, British Library, Additional 22283 
MV 37: London, British Library, Sloane 1044, item 235 



148 Edurne Garrido Anes 

MV 38: London, British Library, Sloane 2275 
MV 39: London, British Library, Additional 11304 
MV 40: London, British Library, Additional 22283 
MV 41 (DB): London, British Library, Additional 24203 
MV 42 (DB): London, British Library, Additional 25013 
MV 43 (DB): London, British Library, Additional 32578 
MV 44 (DB): London, British Library, Additional 33995 
MV 45: London, College of Arms, LVII 
MV 46: London, Lambeth Palace, 260 
MV 47 (DB): London, Lambeth Palace, 491 
MV 48 (DB): London, Lambeth Palace, 492 
MV 49 (DB): London, Sion College, Arc. L. 40. 2/E. 25  
**MV 50: London, Society of Antiquaries, 288 
MV 51: London, Society of Antiquaries, 687 
MV 52 (DB): London, Longleat, Wiltshire, Library of the     Marquis of Bath, 31 
MV 53 (DB): Manchester, Chetham’s Library, Mun. A.4.103 (8008) 
MV 54: Manchester, John Rylands University Library, English 50 
MV 55: Manchester, John Rylands University Library, English 51 
MV 56: Manchester, John Rylands University Library, English 90 
MV 57: New Haven, Yale University Library, Osborn a 13 
MV 58 (DB): New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, Bühler 13 
MV 59 (DB): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole 41 
MV 60 (DB): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole 52 
MV 61 (DB): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole 60 
MV 62 (DB): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 99 
MV 63 (DB): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 14 
MV 64 (DB): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 87 
MV 65: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby 99 
MV 66 (DB): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 126 
MV 67: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 141 
MV 68: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 156 
MV 69: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Douce 157 
MV 70 (DB): Oxford, Bodleian Library, English Poetry a. 1  
MV 71 (DB): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Junius 56 
MV 72 (DB): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud Miscellaneous 
    486 
MV 73: Oxford, Bodleian Library, e Musaeo 76 
MV 74: Oxford, Bodleian Library, e Musaeo 88 
MV 75: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson A.366 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 149 

MV 76 (DB): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C.35 
MV 77 (DB): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C.319 
MV 78: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C.891 
MV 79 & MV 80: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson D.913 
MV 81: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson Poetry 138 
MV 82 (DB): Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson Poetry 
    139 
MV 83: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson Poetry 175 
MV 84: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Selden Supra 102 
MV 85 (DB): Oxford, St. John’s College, 57 
MV 86 (DB): Oxford, St. John’s College, 138 
MV 87 (DB): Oxford, Trinity College, 15 (E. 15) 
MV 88 (DB): Oxford, Trinity College, 16A (D. 16A) 
MV 89 (DB): Oxford, Trinity College, 16B (D. 16B) 
MV 90 (DB): Oxford, University College, 142 (D. 142) 
MV 91: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Library, English 1 
MV 92 (DB): Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, University of Pennsylvania Library, 
English 8 
**MV 93: Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Library, Taylor MS 
MV 94 (DB): San Marino, California, Huntington Library, HM 139 
MV 95 (DB): Shrewsbury, School, III (Mus. III. 39) 
MV 96: Wellesley, Massachusetts, Wellesley College Library, 8 
MV 97: Harfield House, Hertfordshire, Library of the Marquis of Salisbury, Deeds 
59/1, covers 
 
 
SECONDARY SOURCES 
 
Andreae, P. 1888: Die Handschriften des Pricke of Conscience von 

Richard Rolle de Hampole im Britischen Museum. Berlin: G. 
Bernstein. 

Benskin, M., Laing, M. Karaiskos, V. & Williamson, K. 2013: An Electronic 
Version of a Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English. Edinburgh. 
The University of Edinburgh. 
[http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/elalme/elalme.html]  

Bordalejo, B. & Robinson, P. M. W. 2018: Manuscripts with Few 
Significant Introduced Variants. Ecdotica 1: 37–65. 



150 Edurne Garrido Anes 

Britton, D. 1979: Unnoticed Fragments of the Prick of Conscience. 
Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 80: 327–334. 

Bülbring, K. D. 1891a: On twenty-five MSS. of Richard Rolle’s Pricke of 
Conscience, eighteen of them in the British Museum, Four in the 
Library of Trinity College, Dublin, the Corser MS., and Two in 
Lichfield Cathedral Library. Transactions of the Philological Society 
1888–1890: 261–283.  

Bülbring, K. D. 1891b: Über die Handschrift Nr. 491 der Lambeth-
Bibliothek. Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und 
Litteraturen 86: 383–392. 

Bülbring, K. D. 1897: Zu den Handschriften von Richard Rolle’s Prick of 
Conscience. Englische Studien 23: 1–30. 

Carrillo-Linares, M. J. 2016: Middle English Word Geography and 
Stemmatological Research: A Case Study in the Prick of Conscience 
Textual Tradition. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 117.1: 79–108. 

Carrillo-Linares, M. J. & Garrido-Anes, E. 2008: Middle English Word 
Geography: Methodology and Applications Illustrated. In M. 
Dossena, R. Dury & M. Gotti eds., English Historical Linguistics 2006. 
Geo-Historical Variation in English. In Current Issues in Linguistic 
Theory 297(3). Amsterdam / Philadelphia, John Benjamins: 67–89. 

Carrillo-Linares, M. J. & Garrido-Anes, E. 2009: Middle English Word 
Geography: External Sources for Investigating the field. In M. 
Dossena & R. Lass eds. Studies in English and European Historical 
Dialectology. Bern, Peter Lang: 135–156. 

Carrillo-Linares, M. J. & Garrido-Anes, E. 2012: Lexical Variation in Late 
Middle English: Selection and Deselection. In R. Dance & L. Wright 
eds. The Use and Development of Middle English. In M. Bator & J. 
Fisiak eds. Studies in English Medieval Language and Literature 38. 
Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, 
Peter Lang: 145–177. 

D’Evelyn, C. 1930: An East Midland Recension of The Pricke of 
Conscience. PMLA 45, 180–200. 

Garrido-Anes, E. 2019: Variation in Word Choice in the Textual 
Transmission of Middle English Works: the Case of ‘Dole’. In M. 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 151 

Stenroos, M. Mäkinen, K. V. Thengs & O. M. Traxel eds. Current 
Explorations in Middle English. In M. Bator & J. Fisiak. Studies in 
English Medieval Language and Literature 56. Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, 
New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, Peter Lang: 83–110. 

Garrido-Anes, E. 2022: A Lexical Comparison of Four Prick of 
Conscience Group-IV Manuscripts. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 
123.1: 79–108.  

Hanna, R. & Wood, S. 2013: Richard Morris’s Prick of Conscience. A 
Corrected and Amplified Reading Text. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press (EETS). 

Humphreys, K. W & Lightbown, J. 1952: Two Manuscripts of the Pricke 
of Conscience in the Brotherton Collection, University of Leeds. 
Leeds Studies in English and Kindred Languages 7-8: 29–38. 

Lewis, R. E. & MacIntosh, A. 1982: A Descriptive Guide to the 
Manuscripts of the Prick of Conscience. Medium Ævum 
Monographs. New Series XII. Oxford: The Society for the Study of 
Mediæval Languages and Literature. 

McIntosh, A. 1973: Word Geography in the Lexicography of Medieval 
English. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 211: 55–66. 

McIntosh, A. 1976 (1989): Two Unnoticed Interpolations in Four 
Manuscripts of the Prick of Conscience. Neuphilologische 
Mitteilungen 77: 63–78; repr. In M. Laing ed. Middle English 
Dialectology: Essays on Some Principles and Problems. Aberdeen, 
Aberdeen University Press: 123–135. 

Morey, J. H. 2012: Prik of Conscience. TEAMS Middle English Text Series. 
Kalamazoo (MI): Medieval Institute Publications. 

Morris, R. 1863: The Pricke of Conscience (Stimulus Conscientiae), a 
Northumbrian Poem by Richard Rolle de Hampole. Berlin: A. Asher 
& Co. for the Philological Society. 

Robinson, P. M. W. 2013: The textual tradition of Dante’s Commedia 
and the Barbi ‘Loci.’ Ecdotica 9: 7–38. 

Robinson, P. M. W. 2016: Four Rules for the Application of 
Phylogenetics in the Analysis of Textual Traditions. Digital 
Scholarship in the Humanities 3.3: 637–651. 



152 Edurne Garrido Anes 

 

 

Appendix. Manuscript quotes 

(1) MV 29: “And als a dyme and dolefule dale / Yat is fule of sorowe and bale,” 
MV 40: “And a dym deolful dale / Þat is ful of serwe and bale,” 
MV 21: “And alsua a dolefull dale / Bus be euer in bale,” 

 
(2) MV 29: “[A] dolefull pARtyng ys yat to telle, / [For] ay wolde yai togedyr duelle.” 

MV 40: “A delful partyng is þat to telle, / Ffor euER þei wolde togeder dwelle.” 
 
(3) MV 29: “[Yat] ye saule salle haue [w]yth dole and care / [Un]tille ye dome be gyuen, 

how it salle fare.” 
MV 40: “Þat soule schal haue wItH deol and care / Til dom beo ʒiuen, hou hit schal 
fare.” 
MV 21: “Ye secounde payne is dole and care / To ye dome be gyuen, how it sall 
fare.” 
MV 48: “Ye secunde peyne is sorow & care / To dome be ʒowene, how he schall 
ffare.” 
MV 49*: “Ye secunde payne es dole and kare / Tyl ye dome be gyuen, how yai sal 
fare.” 

 
(4) MV 29: “Grete dole yai make and mykylle sorow, / For yai may nothyng bygge no 

borow” 
MV 40: “Gret del þei make and muche sorwe, / Ffor þei may no þing begge ne 
borwe” 
MV 21: “Grete dole yai make som tyme & sorow, / Ffor yai may na thing beg nor 
borow” 
MV 49*: “Grete dole yai make some tyme and sorowe, / For yai may na thyng beg 
ne borowe” 

 
(5) MV 29: “[What] drede aght ye synfulle to haue yan? / [Yerfor] yus says ye 

holy man:”  
MV 40: “What drede ouʒte synfole habbe þon? / Þerfore seiþ þe holy mon:” 
MV 21: “What drede sall synfull man haue yan? / Ffor yus sais ye haly man:” 
MV 48: “What dred schall synful man haf þanne? / As seyth sent Jerome ye holy 
mane:” 
MV 95: “What drede shall synfull haue than? / For thus says ye holy man:” 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 153 

 
(6) MV 29: “[Ye] day of cryynge and of dolefulle dynne, / [Ye] day of murnynge yat 

neuer salle blyne,” 
MV 40: “Þe day of noyse deolful and dyn, / Þe day of mournyng wItHouten blyn,” 
MV 21: “Ye day of criyng and dolefull dyn, / Ye day of sorowes yat neuer sall blyn,” 
MV 49*: “Ye day of crying and duleful dyn, / Ye day of `sorow´ yat neuer sal blyn,” 
MV 95: “The day of crying & of delefull dynne, / The day of sorow that neuER shall 
blynne,” 

 
(7) MV 29: “Yis es in Inglisse yus to rede, / Ye dede dulfully sal yaime fede.” 

MV 40: “Þat is on Englisch þus to rede, / Þey schal deolfoliche hem fede.”  
MV 21: “Yis is on Inglis yus to rede, / Ye deede dolefully sal yaiM fede.” 
MV 49*: “Yis es in Inglisse yus to rede, / Ye dede dulfully sal yaime fede.” 
MV 95: “Thys ys on Yn[g]lyshe thus to rede, / The dethe dulfely shall them fede.” 

 
(8) MV 29: “Ffulle dolefulle cryyng salle yai here, / Als seint Austyn says one yis manere:” 

MV 40: “Fful delful cri schal þei here, / As seint Austin seiþ on þis manere:” 
MV 21: “Ye deuels sall dolefully make criyng sere, / Als saynt Austyn sais on yis 
manere:”  
MV 95: “A dulfull cryeng shall they here, / As sent Austen saise on thys manere:” 

 
(9) MV 29: “Ye sorow and dole yat yai salle make / Salle neuermore yere sese no slake;” 

MV 40: “Þe serwe and þe deuel þAt þei schal make / Schal neuErmore sese nor 
slake;” 
MV 21: “And sorow and dole yat yai sall make / Sall neuermare yare sees nor slake;” 
MV 95: “& sorow and dole that they schall make / Shall neuERmore seesse ne slake;” 
 

(10) MV 29: “And haue ay heryng of dolefulle dynne / To eke yaire payne yer for yat 
synne.” 
MV 40: “And euERe heryng þe deueles dinne / To eche heore peyne of heore sinne.” 
MV 21: “And haue heryng of dolefull dyn / To eke yaire paynes yat neuer sall blyn.” 
MV 95: “And haue heryng of dullfull dynne / That ey shall last & neuer shall blyne.” 

 
(11) MV 29: “Inne helle salle be fulle dolefulle dyne / Amonge synfulle and deuylls 

yereinne,” 
MV 40: “As helle schal be ful delful dinne / Among synful and deueles þERinne,” 
MV 21: “And yare sall be full dolefull dyn / Omange saules yat sall duell yarein,” 
MV 49*: “And yare sal be fulle dulfulle dyn / Omang saules yat sal duelle yarein,” 
MV 95: “And ther shall be dulfull dyn / Among sowles that shall dwell therin,” 

 



154 Edurne Garrido Anes 

(12) MV 29: “[A]lso he says is noght so vgly / [Al]s here is a mans dede body. [A]nd 
when it is in erth layd lawe, / Wormes salle it alle tognawe” 
MV 40: “No þing is here more grisly / þen is a monnes ded body.  
whon hit is in eorþe leyd lowe, / Wormes hit schal al tognawe” 
MV 21: “WheN he in layer is loken lawe, / Grisely wormes sall on him gnawe” 
MV 48: “Also in clay is closid fful lawe, / Gryssich wormes schall on him knawe” 
 

(13) MV 29: “Of ye dede may men thynk wondur, /Ffor al thyng it brostes in sondyr 
Als it skulkys be diuers wayes. / Ffor ye haly man yus says:” 
MV 40: “Of deþ men may þinke wonder, / Ffor alle þing hit bersteþ in sonder  
As hit sculkeþ bi diuerse weis. / Þerfore þe holi mon þus seys:” 
MV 21: “All thyng he wastes be diuERse wayes. / Als ye haly manN in his buke 
sayes:” 
MV 48: “Alle thing he wasteyt be diuerse weye. / As an holy man yus gun seye:” 
 

(14)  MV 27: “And als yhe may se and wate wele / Þat myrknes kyndly es noght to fele,  
Bot overalle whar na light es / Þar es properly myrknes,  
Right swa þe dede es noght elles / Bot a privyng of lyf, als clerkes telles. For 
wharswaever þe lyf fayles, / Þar es þe dede þat `þan´assayles. 
Þus þe dede þat men dredes mast / When þe lyf fayles, men byhoves tast.” 
MV 29: “And als men may wyte ryght wele / Yat myrkenes is noght kyndely to 
fele,  
Bot ouer alle where no lyght es / Yere is pROpyrly myrkenes, 
Ryth so dede is no thynge elles / Bot pryuyng of lyfe, as clerkys telles. 
Ffor whare so ye lyfe fayles, / Yere is dede yat yan assayles. 
Yere is dede yat yai drede maste / When ye lyfe fayles, men behouys to taste.” 
MV 40: “And as men mai wite wele / Merknes is not kuyndely to feele,  
Bot ouER al þer no liht is / Þat is pROpurly merknes, 
Riht so deþ is no þing elles / But pRyuiNg of lyf, clerkes telles. 
Ffor where so þe lyf fayleþ, / Þere is deþ þat þus assayleþ. 
Þus deþ þat men driʒe in hast / Whon lyf fayleþ, men mot tast.” 
MV 21: “And als ʒe se and wate full wele / Yat myrkenes here may menN noght 
fele,  
Right sua deede menN may noght se / Ne gratthely wit what it sulde be,  
It is departyng and noght elles / Of yis lyffe here als clerkes telles.” 
MV 48: “And als ʒe se and know fful wele / Yat derknes may no man ffele,  
Rythe so deth men may nouth se / Ne sykyrly wyten what he may be, 
[H]it is a partynge and nouʒt elles /Off yis liff here as grete clerkys tellys.” 
 

(15)  MV 27: “God visites us in ilka stede, / Whare we may fele takens of dede;  
And if we couthe understand wele, / Ilk day we may takens of dede fele.  



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 155 

Þarfor me thynk alle þis lif here semes / Mar dede þan lyf þus wys men demes,  
For þe boke says, als it beres wyttenes, / Þat a man, when he first borne es,  
Bygynnes towarde þe dede to draw / And feles here many a dede-thraw,” 
MV 29: “Godde vysyts vs in many stede, / Yare whe may fele takyns of dede;  
For yi me thynk yat yis lyfe semes / […] yan lyfe as clerkys demes, 
[…] alle so ye boke wytenes, / Yat fyrst when a man borne es, 
[…] begynnes he to dede to drawe / And felys many dedys thrawe,” 
MV 40: “God visyteþ vs in mony stede, / Þer we may feele toknes of dede; 
Þerfore me þiNkeþ þis lyf seemeþ / More ded þen lyf as clerkes demeþ, 
Ffor as þe bok forsoþe witnes, / Þat furst whon a mon boren is, 
He biginnneþ to deþ drawe / And feeleþ mony a deþes þrawe,” 
MV 21: “And firste whenN yat a manN is borne, / Ffele fayndynges he fyndes him 
beforne.” 
MV 48: “[…]ste whane a man is borne, / Many ffondynges he fyndeʒt befforne.” 
 

(16)  MV 27: “And yhit sen God hymself spard noght, / For at his dede þe devel til hym 
soght 
In his manhede for swa þan he walde, / Als men says þat er gret clerkes calde 
Þan er we certayn, withouten were, / Þat at our last ende þai sal apere.” 
MV 29: “[…] are whe certayn with outen were, / […] yai salle at oure laste ende 
apere.” 
MV 40: “Þus beo we certeyn out of weere, / Þat þei schule at vre ende apeere.” 
MV 21: “Yan may we be full cERtayn here, / At oure endyng yai sall apere.” 
MV 48: “Yanne may we be fful serten here, / Att ourE endynge yei schall apere.” 
 

(17)  MV 27: “How þow has here led þi lyfe, / And how þow has spendyd þi wittes fife, 
 Fra þe first day þat [þou] had witte / Unto þe last day þow shuld hethen flite.  

Þan sal walaway be þi sang, / For þou here dispended þi tym wrang,” 
MV 29: “Yan salle weleaway be yi sange, / For yow yi tym her spendyd wrange,” 
MV 40: “Weylawey schal be þi song, / Ffor þi tyme I spendet wrong,” 
MV 21: “Of sorow yan sall be yi sange, / Ffor you despendid yi wittes wrange,” 
MV 48: “[…] synge, / […] spendynge,” 
 

(18)  MV 27: “Bot when thou sese alle þi trespas, / Þan sal þou say ‘allas! allas!’ 
When alle þi life sal be thurgh-soght / Unto þe lest thyng þat ever þou wroght,  
Wheþer þou be lered or lewed, / Þi syns sal þan be many shewed  
Þat þow has done here in þi life, / Of whilk þou couthe þe never shrife. 
And þa sal be shewed byfor þe / Ful foule and ugly syns to se,  
Of whilk þou sal haf mare drede and awe / Þan of þa þat þaou mught here knawe. 
Yhit som dedys þat þe thoght here don wele / Þou sal þan se foul syns and fele; 
”   



156 Edurne Garrido Anes 

MV 29: “[An]d when yow ses alle yi trespas, / […] salt yow say ‘allas! alas!’ 
[Wh]en alle yi lyfe sal be thurgh-soght / [Un]to ye leste thyng yat euer yow 
wroght, 
[…] thynge yat yow dyde in yi lyue, / Ye wylk yow couth ye neuer schryue. 
[…] salle be schewed vnto ye / […] and vgly on to se, 
[…] ye whylk yow salt yan haue more aghe / […] of yat yat yow couthe here knaw. 
[…] sume dedys yat yow thoght done wele / […] synnes yat yow salle yen fele;” 
MV 40: “And þou seost al þi trespas, / Þen schalt þou seye ‘allas! allas!’  
Whon al þi lyf schal beo þorw souʒt / To þe leste þing þat euer þU wrouʒt, 
And þing þat þU dudest in þi lyue, / Of whuche þu dodest [..] neuer schryue. 
Of whuche þU schalt haue more awe / Þen of þo þou coudest euer knawe.  
And suMme dedes þAt þe þhouʒte don wele / Ffoule synnes þeNne þU schalt 
hem feele;” 
MV 21: “Yne sall be rekened on a rawe / Synnes yat yU couthe neuer knawe.  
And some yat ye thoght here done right / Sall be foule synnes yan to yi fight.” 
MV 48: “IN schall be reherced on a [trow] / Synnes yat yow […] nouth know.  
And sume […] rithe / Schall […] […]the.’ 
 

(19)  MV 27: “Wharfor þe payn þat þe saul þar hentes / Er mare bitter þan alle þe 
tourmentes  
Þat alle þe marters in erthe tholed / Sen God was for us boght and sold.  
For þe lest payn of þe payns þar sere / Es mare þan es þe mast payn here, 
Als says a grete clerk þus shortly / In a buke of þe payns of purgatory:” 
MV 29: “For ye leste of alle ye paynes sere / Es herder yan ye moste payne here, 
Als a grete clerk opunly / Spekys of ye payne of purgatory:” 
MV 40: “Ffor þe leste of heore peynes sere / Is hardore þen þe moste peyne here, 
As a gret clerk spekeþ openly / Of þe peyne of purgatory:” 
MV 21: “For yase paynes yat yaiM yare hyntes / Er mare harde yan ye tormentes, 
Yat martres had in erthe here / Sithen god dyed and boght vs dere, 
Als a grete clerk openly / Spekys of ye paynes of pURgatory:” 
MV 48: “For ye lestes peyne yar ye saule yer schall hente / Is more harder yanne 
alle yE turment 
Yar marters has in herth here / Sen God dyed and nouth vs here,  
Als a grete clerke telleth openly / And seyth yus off ye peyns of purgatory:” 
 

(20)  MV 29: “[A]nd in purgatory duelle ay stylle / [vnt]ylle yai be clensyd of alle yaire 
ille, 
[An]d have in a day als so grete paynes sere, / [As] a man myght haue here in a 
ʒere.”  
MV 40: “And in pURgatori dwelle þei stille / Til þei be clansed of al heore ille, 
Þei han o day as grete peynes sere, / As a mon mihte haue her a ʒere.“ 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 157 

MV 21: “In purgatory sall nane be sene / Langer yan yai be clensed clene.” 
MV 48: “In purgatory no man schall ben sene / Lenger yan he be clensed clene.” 
 

(21)  MV 27: “And with stormes of hayle, sharpe and kene; / Swylk stormes was never 
[nane] here sene  
Als þe sauls sal þar [fel]e and se. / Þus sal þai on sere wyse pyned be, 
Sum many wynter for þair syn, / Ar þai til þe sight of God may wyn.” 
MV 29: “Wyth stormys of hayle, smerte and kene; / [Sw]ylk stormes here were 
neuere sene” 
MV 40: “WitH stormes of haul, smart and kene; / Such stormes here weor neuer 
sene” 
MV 21: “Slike stormes here may na man se. / Als saules sall yare in pyned be,” 
MV 48: “Swich stormes herE may no man se. / Als saules schall yerE in pyned be,” 
MV 49: “Swylke stormes here may na man se. / Als saules sal yare in pynede be,” 
 

(22)  MV 27: “Þe whilk most be fordone clenly, / Outher here or in purgatory.  
Þarfor I rede ilk man, whyles he lyffes here, / Þat he use þa ten thinges sere  
Þat fordus, als I sayde are, /Alle veniel syns, bathe les and mare.” 
MV 29: “Ye wylke behoues be fordone clenly,/ Outhyr here or in purgatory. 
For yi ilk man aght yat lyves here, / Vse ilk day yis ten thyngys sere 
Yat for dose as I sayde are, / Alle venyal synnes both lese and mare.” 
MV 40: “Whuche mot be for don clanly, / Ouþer here or in purgatory. 
Þerfore vche moN ouʒte þAt liueþ here, / Vse vche day þe ten þinges sere 
Þat for don as I seide ore, / Al venial synne lasse and more.” 
MV 21: “Of ye whilke a manN buse be made clere, / Outhre in purgatory or elles 
here.” 
MV 48: “Off which ich mane schalle be mad clerE, / Outher in purgatory or elles 
bere.” 
MV 49: “Of whylk a man byhoue[s] be made clere, / Outher in purgatory or here.” 
 

(23)  MV 27: “A party for penance þat enioynt es / And es forgeten thurgh reklesnes.  
Alle þis may be cald þe remenand / Of þe dette of payn, als I understand,  
Þe whilk felle to be fulfylled haly, / Outher here or in purgatory. 
Bot alle þis dett may þar be qwytt / Thurgh large pardon, waswa has itt, 
In forgyvenes of alle penance soght, / Whethir it be here enioynt or noght. 
For swa mykel pardoun may a man / Purches here þat he may þan 
In purgatory qwyte alle þe dett / Þat hym fra blis may tary or lett. 
For swa large es Haly Kirkes tresor / Þat it es ynogh to pay þarfor  
And for alle þe paynes þat dett may be / Of alle þe men of Cristante.” 
MV 29: “A party for penaunce yat emoyned es / And is for getyn thurgh reklesnes. 
Alle yis may be callede ye remmlande / Of ye dette of penaunce, I vndyrstande, 



158 Edurne Garrido Anes 

[ylk] bus be filled haly, / […] here or in purgatory. 
Alle yis dede may be quyte / [..] large penaunce who so haues it, 
[…] mykylle perdouN haues a man / […] here yat he may yan 
[In pur]gatory quyte alle ye dette / [yat] [h]ym fro blys may tary or lette. 
[…]rge es haly kyrkes tresoure / […] es innogh to pay yerefore” 
MV 40: “A pARti for penauNce þat emoyned is / And forʒeten þorw rechelesnes. 
Al þis may be cald remenauNde / Of þe dede of penauNce, I vndurstande, 
þe whuche mot beo folfuld holly, / OþER here or in purgatori. 
And al þis dette mai beo quit / Þorw lage penauNce hose haþ hit, 
Ffor so muche pERdoun may a man / Purchase here þat he may þan  
In pURgatorie quite al þe dette / Þat him fro blisse may tarie no lette. 
So large is holi chirche tresore / þAt is inouʒ to paye þerfore” 
MV 21: “Or elles for forgetyn for reklesnes / ye remanant of penance yus 
pERdounes.” 
MV 48: “Or elles forʒeten yorow reklesnes / ye resessynge off penaunce yus 
pERdone es.” 
MV 49: “Or els forgeten turgh reklesnes / ye remendande of penaunce yus 
pERdounes.” 
 

(24)  MV 40: “Ffor whi we schulde be war heere, / As þe day of dom weore comynge 
nere. 
Ffor CRIstes disciples, wolde haue knowyng / Of suM token aʒeyn his laste 
comyng,” 
MV 21: “Cristes disciples askyd yat thyng / Ffor yai walde knawe of his coMmyng,” 
MV 48: “Crystes [discipulis] askyd yis yinge / Ffor yei wolde know off his 
cuMynge,” 
MV 49: “Crystes dyscyples hasked yis thyng / Ffor yai wald knawe of hys comyNg,” 
 

(25)  MV 27: “And als God byfor his first commyng / Wald here fordo, withouten lettyng, 
Alle þe world thurgh water anly / Agayn þe fyre of lychery, 
Right swa byfor his last commyng / He sal of þe world mak endyng 
Thurgh fire þat sal swa brinnand be / Agayn þe dasednes of charite.  
Þe wirkyng of þis fire swa brinnand / Sal conten[e] þir thre short + tymes passand, 
Þat es bygynnyng, mydward, and ende, / Als in þis bok es here contende.  
First þe fire at þe bygynnyng / Sal cum byfor Cristes commyng,” 
MV 29: “[…] godde before hys fyrst comyng / […]lde for do with outen lettyng, 
[…] ye werlde thurgh watyr anly / […]yn ye fyre of lychery, 
[…]ht so before hys laste comyng / […] ye werlde he salle make endyng 
[…]urgh fyre yat salle so byrnnand be / […]gayn ye deffens of charyte. 
[…] yis fyre at ye bygynyng / […]lle come before Crystes comyng,” 
MV 21: “Yis fire yat is so vggly thyng / Sall come bifore cristes coMmyng,” 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 159 

MV 48: “Yat ffirE yat is so dredefful thynge / Schall cume be fforne crystES 
cuMynge,” 
MV 49*: “Yis fyre yat es so vgly a thyng / Sal come byfore crystes comyng,” 
 

(26)  MV 27: “A, how mikel shenshep sal be / To þe synful þat alle þis sal here and se, 
Þe whilk til hym dus here na gude agayne / Þat for þam tholed swa mykel payne. 
And yhit noght þas þat dos na gud anly, / But oʒer þat er swa ful of felony,  
Þat ay dos yvel ogayn gude, / And ofte dos Godes Son on [þe] rode  
In þat þat in þam es thurgh syn, / Of whilk þai wille never here blyn.” 
MV 29: “Fulle mykyl schenschyppes salle yis be / To synfulle men yat salle it se, 
Ye wylk to hym dose noght agayne / Yat for yem suffyrd so mykylle payne. 
And noght ya yat dose na gode anly, / Bot oyere yat ere of felonny, 
[…] dose ille and no gode, / […] oft dose Goddys Sone on rode  
[…] At yat in yem es thurgh synne, / […]e wylk yai wille noght here blynne.” 
MV 40: “Muchel schendschipe schal þis be / To synful men þat hit schal se,  
Whuche to him do nouʒt aʒeyne / YAt for him suffrede so muche peyne. 
And not þo þAt doþ no good only, / But oþere þat are ful of feleny, 
Þei ay don euele and no goode, / And ofte don Godes Sone on þe roode 
In þat þAt in hem is wiþ synne,/ Of whuche þei wolde neuer blinne.” 
MV 95: ‘Full mykull shamechyp shall yIS be / […]o synfull maN yAt shall ytt see, 
[y]at ay doth yll & lytull gud / Oft doth godson on the roode. 
 

(27)  MV 21: “On ye setill of his maieste / And ye werlde deme sall he,” 
MV 49: “On ye settelle of hys maieste / And ye werld yan deme sal hee,” 
MV 95: “In the seyte of his maieste / All the world thaN deme schall he,” 
 

(28) MV 27: “Here may ilk man, if he wille, / Ha[f] mercy þat dus þat falles þartille;  
Þoghe he had done never swa mykel syn, / If he amended hym, he myght it wyn. 
For þe mercy of God es swa mykel here / And reches overalle, bathe fer and nere.” 
MV 29: “Yus may ilk man yf he wylle, / Haue mercy and do yar falles yeretylle; 
If he dyde neuere so mykylle synne, / [And] he amende hym, he may wynne 
Goddys mercy es so mykylle here / It rechys oueralle, both ferre and nere.” 
MV 40: “Þus mai vche mon ʒif he wil, / Haue merci and do þat falleþ þErtil; 
Þauʒ he dude neuER so muche synne, / And he amende hiM, he mai hit wynne. 
Godes merci is so muchel here / Hit recheþ ouERal, boþe fer and nere.” 
MV 21: “Bot ye mercy of God is sua mekill here / Yat if a man had done synnes 
sere 
Als many als in yis werlde er done / All myght his mercy fordo sone.” 
MV 49*: “Botte ye mercy of God es so mykel here / Yat if a man had done synnes 
sere 
Als many als in ye weld es done / Alle myght his mercy fordo sone.” 



160 Edurne Garrido Anes 

MV 95 : “Butt the mERcy of God ys soo mekyll here / That yff a maN haue downe 
synES sere 
As mony as in the world are done /All myght he fordon sone.” 
 

(29) MV 27: “Þat alle þe syn þat + man may do, / It myght sleken, and mare þarto. 
And þarfor says saynt Austyn þus / A gude worde þat may comfort us: 
Sicut scintilla igni in medio maris, / Ita omnis impietas viri ad misericordiam Dei. 
‘Als  a litel spark of fire’, says he, / ‘In mydward þe mykel se, 
Right swa alle a mans wykkednes / Unto þe mercy of God es’. 
Here may men se how mykel es mercy / To fordo alle syn and foly, 
Forwhy if a man had done here / Als mykel and als many syns sere,” 
MV 29: “Alle ye synne yat man myght do, / May yt slekkyn and mare yereto. 
And yerfor says seint Austyn yus / A gode worde yat may comforte vs: 
Sicut scintilla igni in medio maris, / Ita omnis impietas viri ad misericordiam Dei. 
‘Als a spARk of fyre’, says he, / ‘In mydwarde of ye mykylle se, 
Ryth swa al mans wykkydnes / Vnto ye mercy of Godde es’.  
Ffor yi yf a man hade done here / Als so grete and als so many synnes sere,” 
MV 40: “Al þe synne þat mon mihte do, / Mai hit slaken and more þerto. 
And þERfore seiþ seynt Austin þus / A good word þat mai cuMforten vs:  
Sicut scintilla igni in medio maris, / Ita omnis impietas viri ad misericordiam Dei. 
‘As a sparke of fuir’, seiþ he, / ‘In mydeward of þe grete se, 
Riht so al monnes wikkednes / Into þe merci of God is’. 
Ffor þi ʒif a mon hedde idon here / As grete and as mony synnes sere,” 
MV 21: “Yat if a man had done synnes sere,” 
MV 49*: “Yat if a man had done synnes sere,” 
MV 95: “That yff a maN haue downe synNIS sere,” 
 

(30) MV 27: “Als al þe men of þe werld has done, / Alle myght his mercy fordo sone.  
And if possibel whare, als es noght, / Þat ilk man als mykel syn had wroght, 
Als alle þe men þat in þe werld ever was, / Yhit mught his mercy alle þair syn pas.” 
MV 29: “Als alle ye men in ye werld haue done, / Alle myght goddes mercy for do 
sone. 
MV 40: “As al þe men in þe world haþ done, / Al mihte godes merci for done hit 
sone.  
MV 21: “Als many als in yis werlde er done, / All myght his mercy fordo sone.” 
MV 49*: “Als many als in ye werld es done, / Alle myght his mercy fordo sone.” 
MV 95: “As mony as in the world are done, / All myght he fordone sone.” 
 

(31) MV 27: “Ne nathyng sal growe þan, gresse ne tre, / Ne cragges ne roches sal nan 
þan be, 
Ne dale ne hille ne mountayne. / For alle erthe sal be þan even and playne 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 161 

And be made als clere and fayre and clene / Als any cristal þat here es sene. 
For it sal be purged and fyned withoute, / Als alle other elementes sal be oboute,” 
MV 29: “[þ]en salle growe neyere gyrse no tre, / No hylls no mountayns salle none 
be, 
No dales no rochs for certayne. /  […] alle erth salle be euen and playne 
[A]nd be made euen and clene / Als any crystalle yat euer ware sene.” 
MV 40: “Þenne schal neuer growe gras nor tre, / Ne hulles ne mouNtaynes schul 
noN be, 
Ne dales ne roches for certeyn. / But al eorþe schal ben euene and pleyn  
And ben al mad boþe feir and clene / As eny cristal þat euer was sene.” 
MV 21: “Nor nathyng sal growe gresse nor tre, / Bot all ye erth sall euen be,” 
MV 49*: “Ne nathyng sal grow gresse ne tre, / Botte alle ye erth euen sal be,” 
MV 95: “Ne noo thyng shall groue grasse ne tree / Butt all the erthe euen shall 
be,” 
 

(32) MV 27: “For þe mynde of þam myght men feer, / Swa bitter and swa horribel þai 
er.  
Bot forþi þat many knawes noght right / What kyn paynes in helle er dight  
Withouten ende for synful man, / Þarfor I wil shewe yhow, als I can,  
Aparty of þa paynes sere, / Als yhe may sone aftirward here.  
Bot first I wille shew whare es helle, / Als I haf herd som grete clerkes telle,  
And sythen wille I shew yhow mare, / And speke of þe paynes þat er þare.” 
MV 29: “And for yat many kennes yat noght ryght / Ye paynes yat in helle are 
dyght 
Withouten for synfulle man, / I salle schewe ʒow, als I kan, 
ApARty of ye paynes sere, /Als ʒe aftyrwarde salle here. 
Ffyrst I wille schewe ʒow where es helle, /Als I haue herde grete clerks telle, 
And seyen salle I schew ʒow whare, /And speke of paynes yat ere yare.” 
MV 40: “And for moni meN knowUS not riʒt / Þe peynes þat in helle are diht 
Wiþouten ende for synful mon, / I schal schewe ʒou suMme, as I con, 
A parti of þe peynes þere, /As ʒe her afturward may here. 
Furst wol I schewe on wher is helle, / As I haue herd grete clerkes telle, 
And siþen schal I schewen ʒou more, / And speken of peynes þat ben þore.” 
MV 21: “And I sall schew ʒow, als I can, / What paynes er yare for synfull man.  
And all thir firste, I will ʒow tell, / Whare als clerkes sais es hell.’ 
MV 49: “And I sal schewe yow, als I can, / What paynes es yare for synful man. 
And al yer first, I wille yow telle, / Whare als clerkes says es helle.” 
MV 95: “And I shall schue yow, as I can, / What peynIS are there for synfull maN.  
Also furst, I wyll yow tell, / Where al clarkIS sayne ys hell.” 
 

(33)  MV 29: “And many oyer yat were dede / Has bene sume tyme in yat stede  



162 Edurne Garrido Anes 

And sene yere many hydous payne / And thurgh myracle turnede agayne.” 
MV 40: “And mony oþere þat weren dede / Han ben suM tyme in þat stede/ 
And seʒe þer monye hidous peyne / And þorw miracle tURned aʒeyne.” 
MV 21: “And many othir yat war deede / Hase bene some tyme in yat stede 
And sene yare many hidous payne / And thurghe miracle to liffe turne agayne.” 
MV 49: “And many other yat ware deede / Has bene some tyme in yat stede 
And sene yare many hydouse payne / And thurgh myracle turned to lyue agayne.”  
 

(34) MV 29: “[ye] flawme of fyre salle be yere drynk, / [wt] byrnstone of fyre yat ille salle 
stynk 
With ryke of fyre and wynds blaste / And with stormys yat ay salle laste,” 
MV 40: “But [f]leome of fuir schal be heore drynk, / Wt Brumston þat foule schal 
stynk 
WItH smoke of fuir and wyndes blast / And wt stormes þat euer schal last,” 
MV 21: “And ye flawme of fire sall yai drynke / menged with bronstane yat it sall 
stynke  
With smoke of fire and many a blaste /And with stormes yat ay sall laste  
MV 95: “And flame of fyre schall they drinke / muche strong then carion shall ytt 
stynke” 

(35)  MV 34: “Bot þe synfull sall ay þare in payne be, / And na ded may þam sla bot ay 
þem fle,  
Als þe boke openly schewes us, / Whare we may fynd wryten þus: 
Mors fugiet ab eis. 
‘Þe ded’, þat here es strang and hard / ‘Sall ay þare fle fra þamward’. 
Þe payns of þe ded þai sall ay dreghe, / Bot þai sall nevermare fully deghe; 
Þai sall ay lyf in sorow and stryfe, Bot þair lyf sall seme mare ded þan lyfe. 
Þair lyfe inmydward þe ded sall stand, / For þai sall lyfe evermare deghand 
And degh evermare lyfand withall, / Als men dose þat we se in swowne fall. 
And forþi þat þai here mykell lufed syn / And thurgh over-mykell hope ay lyfed 
þarin 
And to leve þair syn had never will, / Þarfor it es gud, ryght, and skyll 
Þat þai be ay for þair foly / In hell withouten hope of mercy. 
MV 29: “Ye synfulle salle euer in payne be, / And dede salle ay fro yem fle, 
Als haly wrytte schewes tille vs, / Where whe may fynde wryten yus:  
Mors fugiet ab eis. 
‘Ye dede’, yat here es strange and herd / ‘Salle ay fle fro yemwarde’. 
Ye paynes of dede ay salle yai drye, / Bot yai salle neuer fully dye; 
Yer lyfe in myddes ye dede salle stand, / Ffor yai salle euer lyue dyand 
And dy euere lyuand withalle, / Als men yat sulde inne swonyng falle. 
And for yai here ay loued synne / And thurgh lyued yere inne 
And to leue it hade neuer wylle, / Ffor yi it es gode, ryght, and skylle 



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 163 

Yat yai be euere for yere foly /In helle with outen hope of mercy.” 
MV 40: “Þe synful schal euERe in peyne be, / And deþ schal euERe from hem fle, 
As holy writ scheweþ to vs, / Where we mai fynde I write þus: 
Mors fugiet ab eis. 
‘Deþ’, þat her is st[r]ong and hard / ‘Schal euER more fle from hemward’. 
Þe peynes of deþ schul þei euER drie, / But þei schul neuer fully dye; 
Ffor lyf in middes þe deþ schal stande, / Ffor þei schul euERe liue diande 
And die euer lyuynge wItHalle, / As men þAt schulde in swouʒnyng falle. 
And for here þei louede euer synne /And þorw ouer hope liuede þer inne 
And to leuen hit hedde þei neuer wil, / Ffor þi hit is god, riht, and skil  
Þat þei beo euere for heore foly / In helle wiþ oute hope of mercy.” 
MV 21: “Bot ye synfull sall euer in strange payne be / And ye deede sall yai neuer 
fle 
Als ye buke openly schewes vs / Whare we may openly fynde writen yus 
Mors fugiet ab eis.  
Ffor diande euer sall yai liffe all / And liffand euer mare dye yai sall 
And forthi yat yai here luffed syn / And thurghe euer hope ay liffed yare in  
And for to leue it had neuer will / Fforthi is it gude right and skill 
Yat yai be ay for yaire foly / In hell withouten hope or mercy.” 
MV 49: “Ffor deghand euer sal yai lyue alle / And lyfhand euermare deghe yai 
salle 
And for yi yat yai here brised synne / Yat thurgh ouer hoope ay lyued yare inne 
And forto leue it had neuer wille / Ffor yi it es gude right and skille 
Yat yai be ay for yaire foly / In helle withouten hope or mercy.” 
 

(36) MV 34: “Þat the synfull men þat sall wende / Till hell sall have withouten ende. 
Þe whilk payns and sorow sall never cees, / For þare sal never be rest ne pees, 
Bot travail and stryfe with sorow and care; / Full wa sall þam be þat sall dwell þare. 
Þai sall thynk on nathyng elles / Bot on þair payns, als som clerkes telles, 
And on þair syn þat þai here wroght; / Swa sall payns and sorow troble þar thoght. 
For þare sall be þan herd and sene / Alkyn sorow and trey and tene. 
MV 29: “Ye whilk payns salle neuer sese, / For yere salle be neuere reste no pese, 
B[u]t euer trauayle in sorow and care, / Fulle wo is yem yat salle be yare. 
Yai salle thynk on nothyng elles / Bot on yere paynes as clerkys telles, 
And on ye synnes yat yai haue wroght; / so salle ye paynes greue yere thoght.  
For yer salle be herde and sene / Alkyns sorow tray and tene.” 
MV 40: “Þe whuche peynes schal neuer ses, / Ffor þer schal neiþer be reste ne 
pes,  
But trauayle serwe and care, / Fful wo is hem þat schal be þare. 
Þei schal þenke on noþyng elles / But on heore peynes as clerkes telles, 
And on þe synnes þAt þei haue wrought, / So schal heore peynes greue heore 



164 Edurne Garrido Anes 

þouʒt. 
Also þer schal be herd and sene / Alle maner serwe and treþe and tene.“ 
MV 21: “Yai sall think on na thyng elles / Bot on yaire paynes als clerkes telles / 
Ffor yare sall be bathe herde and sene / Alkyn sorowe yat men may mene.” 
MV 49: “Yai sal thynk on na thyng elles / Bot on yaire paynes als clerkes telles 
Ffor yare sal be yare herd and sene / Alkyn sorowe yat men may mene.” 
MV 95: “For there shall be hard & seyne / All kynnES peynES that maN mey 
meyne.” 
 

(37)  MV 29: “And faute of alle yat gode sulde be / And of alle yat ille es grete plente.” 
MV 40: “And defaute of al þAt good schulde be / And of al þAt euel is gret plente.” 
MV 21: “Yare sall be of all thyng plente / And defaute of all yat gude shulde be.” 
MV 49: “Yare sal be al `ille´ thyng  grete plente / And defaute of alle yat gude 
sulde be.” 
MV 95: “There shall be all yll thyng plente / And defaute of all that gud shall be.” 
 

(38) MV 34: “Bot þareto sall þai haf no myght / For þe ded sall nevermare on þam lyght 
Full fayne þai wald þan ded be / Bot þe ded sall ay fra þam fle 
After þe ded þai sall yherne ilkone / Als in þe Apocalypse schewes saint Iohan: 
Desiderabunt mori, et / Mors fugit ab eis. 
‘Þai sall yherne’ he says, ‘To degh ay’/ And þe ded sall fle fra þam oway.” 
MV 29: “Aftyr ye dede yai salle ʒerne ilkone / Als in ye apocalypps schewes seint 
John. 
Desiderabunt mori, et / Mors fuget ab eis. 
Yai salle ʒerne for to dye ay / And dede salle fle fro yem away 
MV 40: “After þe deþ þei ʒerne vchon / As iN þe Apocalips witnesseþ seint Jon 
Desiderabunt mori, / & Mors fugiet ab eis. 
Þei schal ʒerne for to dye ay / And deþ schal fle hem away.” 
MV 21: “Bot yareto sall yai haue na myght / Ffor to endelesse dole er yai dyght.” 
MV 49: “Bot yareto sal yai haue na myght / Ffor to dule endles er yai dyght.” 
MV 95: “Butt yERto shall they haue no myght / For to peyne end[l]es are they 
dyght.” 
 

(39)  MV 34: “And þe tyme þat þou was born allswa, / For þi payne [t]yll me es sorow 
and wa. 
It pynes me and greves me sare, / Als mykell als myne awen payn or mare,  
For my payne it ekes and mase mare grevus. / Ilkane tyll other þan sall say þus.” 
MV 29: “And ye tyme yat ʒe were born als so, / For yi payne dose me als so mykylle 
wo.  
And pynes me and greuys sore, / As so mykylle as myn oune or more, 
For my payne it ekes and makys it greuens. / Ilkone tille oyer salle say yus.  



 From lexical collation to significant omissions and paraphrases 165 

MV 40: “And þe tyme þU weore boreN also, / Ffor þi peyne doþ me so wo. 
And pyneþ me and greueþ me sore, / As muche as myn oune and more, 
And my peyne hit echeþ and greues. / Vchone to oþER schal seye þus. 
MV 21: “It pynes and greues me yi syn als sare, / Als dose myne awen and mekill 
mare, ” 
MV 49: “And ye tyme yat you was born in syn, / Ffor yi payne duse me wa within. 
It pynes me and greyes me als sare, / Als myn awen duse and wele mare,” 
MV 95: “And ye tyme that thow wast borne in, / Ffor thi peyne doth me woo 
wiThin. 
 

Author’s address 
Departamento de Filología Inglesa 
Facultad de Humanidades 
Campus "El Carmen" 
Universidad de Huelva 
Avda. 3 Marzo s/n 
21071 Huelva (España) received: 24 June 2021 
e-mail: edurne.garrido@dfing.uhu.es revised version accepted: 3 September 2021