Why erthe loueth erthe wonder me thynke,
Or why that erthe for erthe swete wylle or swynke, &c.
with MS. Lamb. verse 8--
Whi þat erþe _to myche_ loueþ erþe, wondir me þink,
Or whi þat erþe for _superflue_ erþe _to sore_ sweete wole or swynk
and MS. Rawl. P. verse 11--
Or whi that erthe for the erthe
_Unresonably_ swete wol or swynke.
The exact date of the text in MS. Titus is indeterminate, but, as stated
above, it is evidently based on MS. Lambeth or its original, and might
be ascribed to c. 1450 or later. The text in MS. Harl. 4486 has been
added by some later owner of the MS. on the last leaves of a
fifteenth-century transcript of _Le Livre de Sydrac_. The handwriting of
_Erthe upon Erthe_ is also fifteenth century, but the exact date again
cannot be determined. The text, however, is far simpler and nearer to
the original than that of the other four MSS., and evidently represents
an earlier type than these, though the actual transcript may be later.
With the exception of these five MSS., it is not easy to group the
eighteen texts of the B version on any system based upon the additional
stanzas, since these fail to bear out any theory as to closer
relationship between individual MSS., though the connexion of ideas is
often close owing to the similarity of the theme. Thus the nine
additional stanzas in MS. Balliol contain a digression upon the nine
worthies with an interesting reference in verse 12 to the Dance of
Powlis, i.e. the Dance of Death formerly depicted outside St. Paul's
Cathedral (v. Notes, p. 36). It is in the Cambridge text alone that the
additional stanzas supply an interesting connexion with the A version,
which places this text, unfortunately corrupt and difficult to decipher,
in an important position as a link between A and B.
With regard to possible relationships dependent upon variations in the
order or arrangement of the lines in the seven common stanzas, it may be
pointed out that the first verse in MS. Egerton consists of three lines
only, the usual second line being omitted, and that both MS. Harl. 1671
and MS. Porkington omit the same line, though each of these supplies a
new and independent fourth line to fill the gap:--
(_MS. Egerton_ 1995)
Erthe owte of þe erthe ys wounderly wrought,
Erthe vppon erthe hathe sette hys thought
How erthe a-pon erthe may be hy brought.
(_MS. Harl._ 1671)
Erthe apon erthe ys waxyne and wrought,
And erthe apon erthe hathe ysette all hys thought
How that erth apon erth hye myght be brought,
_But how that erth scal to the erth thyngketh he noht_.
(_MS. Porkington 10_)
Erthe vppon erthe is woundyrely wrou[gh]te;
Erthe vppon erthe has set al his þou[gh]te
How erthe vppon erth to erthe schall be brou[gh]te;
_There is none vppon erth has hit in þou[gh]te._
Take hede!
Whoso þinkyse on his ende, ful welle schal he spede.
It is obvious that these new lines are an afterthought, especially in
the case of MS. Porkington, where the rime-word _þou[gh]te_ has to be
repeated. Possibly these three texts depend upon a common original in
which the usual second line _Erth hath gotyn vppon erth a dygnyte of
noght_ was lacking, or MS. Egerton may have been the original of the
other two. But MS. Harl. 1671 varies from the other two in the first
line also, using a version which is otherwise confined to the Cambridge
text--