Prologue, Paragraph 1

Religious sustir. MS begins at this point, with no title or rubric; all titles and rubrics are editorial.↩back to note source

festis. In MS the two central letters are concealed by nineteenth-century patching, making exact interpretation difficult. Since this statement is often treated as the title of the cycle, the letter-forms in question are a major interpretive crux. Barratt (Women’s Writing, p. 211) and Colledge and Chadwick (Flete, Remedies Against Temptations, p. 210) suggest feitis or faits, a reading that has been taken up by some subsequent writers. However, festes, the alternative proposed by Pollard (“Bodleian MS Holkham Misc. 41,” p. 48n7) and Koster (“Gender, Text, Critic,” pp. 234–35), seems likelier, given the mention of yowr festes in the first prayer, the absence of feit at any later stage in the cycle, and the fact that Pseudo-Bonaventure also describes key events in the life of Christ as “feasts.” The Incarnation, for instance, is the “foundation of all solemn feasts” (MLC, pp. 16–17). See the Holkham Introduction, p. 21, for fuller discussion.↩back to note source

Jhesu. MS uses the abbreviation Ihu here and throughout.↩back to note source

folwe. MS worn; the final two letters have partly flaked away.↩back to note source

usen. MS badly worn; a hole in the parchment has obliterated the final two letters, but the infinitive is required for sense.↩back to note source

meditacions. MS badly worn; a hole midway through the word makes the exact spelling uncertain, but the word itself is clear.↩back to note source

yef yt. MS worn; the letter-forms cannot be precisely identified.↩back to note source

techinges. MS worn and patched; the word can only be read by comparing the remaining traces of ink to the scribe’s characteristic letter-forms.↩back to note source

I hope my. MS worn; exact reading uncertain, but remaining ink traces enable a best guess.↩back to note source

man. MS badly worn; holes and patching cover the upper and lower parts of the characters.↩back to note source

grace. MS damaged, partly obscuring the central three letters.↩back to note source

from. MS torn and patched; only the final letter is intelligible, although the author’s biblical allusion makes a preposition likely.↩back to note source

Prologue, Paragraph 2

And I preye. MS torn, obscuring much of the first word.↩back to note source

preie my lord. MS: pie my lord. On the face of it, MS is nonsensical; however, it is likely that a suspension mark was placed over the initial letter of preie to show elision of re, and was subsequently erased by wear, damp or mold. The scribe routinely abbreviates similar syllables by setting a dot over the preceding letter, and MS is severely mildewed here.↩back to note source

Prologue, Paragraph 3

much as a. MS damaged; patching has obscured most of the first word.↩back to note source

Prologue, Paragraph 4

wrathe. MS: warthe; the scribe has mistakenly transposed the central letters.↩back to note source

Prayer 5, Paragraph 1

make me milde. MS omits me, although the pronoun is required for sense.↩back to note source

Prayer 7, Paragraph 1

the pope, and alle the cardinalis. An attempt has been made to delete the passage, probably by an early modern reader, although the text is still partly visible. See the Holkham Introduction, pp. 22–24, for fuller discussion.↩back to note source

Prayer 9, Paragraph 1

yowr vertues. MS: yow vertues. MS is evidently in error here, since the context requires a possessive rather than nominative pronoun.↩back to note source

so to love. so is largely unreadable in MS owing to patching.↩back to note source

Prayer 11, Paragraph 1

ye wer. MS may read yewe or yewr; the ink is worn and the end of the word covered by a patch. However, an auxiliary verb makes better grammatical sense than a lone pronoun.↩back to note source

Prayer 13, Paragraph 1

vertuousli. MS: utuousli. A suspension mark over the initial letter has likely been lost to mold, since the ink has flaked from the leaf in several places.↩back to note source

gostli. MS only partly readable owing to mold damage; goode may be another possibility, especially since the author uses both adjectives in her prologue when describing virtue.↩back to note source

Prayer 15, Paragraph 1

hereth. MS: herieth. Although MS makes some sense, using a common synonym for “praise” (see prayer 33), it is a poor fit for the prayer’s emphasis on language and teaching and is most likely a mistranscription. Since a line-break interrupts the word halfway through, it would be especially prone to scribal error.↩back to note source

Prayer 16, Paragraph 1

ye hadden. MS omits ye, but it has been added here for sense.↩back to note source

Prayer 20, Paragraph 2

weie. MS is damaged part-way through the word, which could read either weie or wele; however, the former gives the more logical reading.↩back to note source

Prayer 22, Paragraph 1

derkhed of defaute. MS: derkhed defaute. The two consecutive nouns must be an error. Barratt inserts the equally tenable and (Women’s Writing, p. 213).↩back to note source

Prayer 24, Paragraph 1

min sinnes. MS damaged; the initial two letters of sinnes have been almost entirely erased by mold, but can be approximated from context.↩back to note source

Prayer 25, Paragraph 1

she wepte. MS: ye wepte. The MS reading is clearly confused, and has probably been influenced by the second-person pronouns in the same sentence.↩back to note source

Prayer 26, Paragraph 2

Mercyful. A loop has been added to the final downward stroke of the initial letter; this stretches into the bottom margin before turning into a vertical column of u-shaped lines. As the ink is slightly paler than the main text, the design may be a reader’s doodle. Compare however the scribal ornamentation in the note to Epilogue.1, below.↩back to note source

Prayer 28, Paragraph 1

and accusid hem. MS damaged; mold has erased much of the word hem, but the syntax makes a repeated pronoun likely.↩back to note source

Prayer 29, Paragraph 1

magnifie. MS worn, causing ink to flake from several letters; however, the word is doubtless some form of the author’s usual introductory formula.↩back to note source

Prayer 29, Paragraph 2

defautes see. MS has no verb in this clause; see is a best guess added for sense.↩back to note source

Prayer 32, Paragraph 1

evil. MS: evid, an error probably induced by the initial of the following word.↩back to note source

Prayer 34, Paragraph 1

haddyn. MS badly worn; a hole has rendered the final few characters unreadable, but the context implies an infinitive.↩back to note source

worldli. MS: wordli, a clear slip, perhaps induced by ore [mouth] in the preceding sentence.↩back to note source

Prayer 36, Pararaph 1

youre precious body . . . MS breaks off here; an unknown number of folia are missing. See the Holkham Introduction, pp. 23–24, for further discussion.↩back to note source

Prayer 37, Paragraph 1

. . . nifie yow. The start of this prayer is missing, although it is most likely some variant of the formula I thanke and magnifie yow.↩back to note source

Prayer 40, Paragraph 1

thise. MS: thises. It is unclear whether the final letter is intended as a character or an otiose flourish. If the former, it is the only time the text pluralizes the pronoun in this way, and the hooked mark in question appears in MS only rarely.↩back to note source

Prayer 42, Paragraph 1

hem. MS: he. Since the accusative is required for sense, MS is either in error or a suspension mark has been lost to damp or mold.↩back to note source

Prayer 44, Paragraph 1

I may have. MS: I may have have, an obvious dittographic error.↩back to note source

Prayer 46, Paragraph 1

al that holi cumpanie. The word al was originally missing from MS and has been inserted in a different hand above the line, perhaps by a later reader, perhaps by the scribe or their supervisor. It is the only such correction in MS, but suggests that the text was compared to a second copy at some stage during its production or circulation.↩back to note source

spirituali. MS: sprituali, a simple misspelling.↩back to note source

Prayer 47, Paragraph 1

myhtili. MS damaged by mold; the central characters are only partly readable.↩back to note source

Prayer 49, Paragraph 1

Esterne. MS: Estene, a slip probably caused by a line-break occurring midway through the word.↩back to note source

Prayer 51, Paragraph 1

Thursday. MS: thusday or thurday; the third character is affected by mold, but both potential spellings are equally problematic and suggest the scribe has overlooked a letter.↩back to note source

riht. MS damaged, obscuring the final two letters, but the word can be inferred from context.↩back to note source

regnum a constitutione. MS: regnum constitutione. The scribe has omitted the preposition a, most likely due to eyeskip.↩back to note source

Prayer 52, Paragraph 1

never. MS damaged by mold; the word is only partly legible.↩back to note source

Prayer 53, Paragraph 1

frutes. MS mold-damaged, partially deleting the first three letters; the word can nonetheless be inferred from context.↩back to note source

Epilogue, Paragraph 1

that of his benigne. MS incorporates a curious design here, elongating the tail of the thorn of that into the bottom margin and intersecting it with five horizontal strokes. The purpose of this motif is unclear, and part of it may have been lost when the pages were trimmed by the nineteenth-century binder.↩back to note source

Epilogue, Paragraph 4

receyved. MS worn at the margin; the final two letters are unreadable, but the perfect tense is required for sense.↩back to note source

neythir. MS deteriorated; a hole has obliterated the initial letter, but the word is obvious from context.↩back to note source