And fulfylled hit in fayth to be fyrre ende. 1732 To teche be of Techal, þat terme þus menes: And Phares folges for pose fawtes, to frayst þe In Phares fynde I forsope pise felle sages: XIIIC. BELSHAZZAR'S END 1736 1740 Þe kyng comaunded anon to clepe bat wyse In frokkes of fyn clob, as forward hit asked. Þenne sone watz Danyel dubbed in ful dere porpor, And a coler of cler golde kest umbe his swyre. 1744 Þen watz demed a decre bi þe duk selven: 1748 1752 1756 1744 MS., M1 cloler; M. coler.-1746 MS. baltaza; M. Balta3a[r].— 1747 MS., M.1 alof; M.1 note aloft(?); M. a lof; Fi. al of. — 1759 MS., M. blykned; M. note blaykned(?), accepted by Fi. Morkenes þe mery weder, and þe myst dryves Þorz þe lyst of þe lyfte, bi þe log medoes. 1760 Uche hapel to his home hyzes ful fast, Seten at her soper and songen þerafter; Þen foundez uch a felagschyp fyrre at forb nagtes. 1764 Reche þe rest as hym lyst, he ros never þerafter. walles, [85b] 1768 1772 1776 Lyfte laddres ful longe and upon lofte wonen, 1780 And to be palays pryncipal þay aproched ful stylle. Blastes out of brygt brasse brestes so hyze, 1784 Uche hous heyred watz wythinne a hondewhyle; Baltazar in his bed watz beten to depe, Þat bope his blod and his brayn blende on pe clopes; 1788 The kyng in his cortyn watz kazt bi þe heles, Feryed out bi þe fete, and fowle dispysed, Þat watz so dozty þat day and drank of þe vessayl; 1776 MS., M. scaped, B. sca[1]ed.-1779 MS. myзt. 1792 For þe mayster of þyse Medes on þe morne ryses, Dere Daryous þat day dy3t upon trone, Þat cete seses ful sounde, and sagtlyng makes Wyth alle pe barounz peraboute, þat bowed hym after. 1796 And bus watz bat londe lost for be lordes synne, And be fylpe of þe freke þat defowled hade Þe ornementes of Goddez hous þat holy were maked. He watz corsed for his unclannes, and cached perinne, 1800 [86a] 1804 Þus upon þrynne wyses I haf yow pro schewed, Þat unclannes tocleves in corage dere 1808 Of þat wynnelych Lorde þat wonyes in heven, 1808 MS., M. telled; M. note telles (?). NOTES 1-4. 'He who could fittingly commend Purity, and recount all the arguments (in her praise) that are justly due her, might find fair themes to aid his discourse, but in (undertaking) the contrary (i. e. the praise of Impurity) he would find great difficulty and trouble.' For 'rekken up alle þe resounz,' compare Alex. C 1280, where Arestes, reporting to Alexander, 'rekens hym þe resons,' i. e. ‘gives him an account' of those that have been slain in battle. 5. þe Wy3 þat wrozt alle hinges. For similar periphrases in the poet's works, see Introd., pp. xvii ff. 7-16. This is the only passage in all the poet's works where he alludes to the vices of the clergy; and it should be observed that even here his condemnation of wicked priests is quite different from the violent denunciations of the author of Piers Plowman, since he is careful to contrast impartially the behavior and reward of righteous priests (12) with the sin of those who are vile and hypocritical. 9. Cf. Pat. 316: 'Efte to trede on by temple, and teme to by seluen,' and Erken. 15: 'He turnyd temples þat tyme þat temyd to be deuelle.' IO. reken wyth reverence. Cf. 1318, and Gaw. 251: 'And rekenly hym reuerenced.' 16. lobe. M. read bope, but this leaves God and his gere without any construction; a verb is obviously required, and the confusion of bo and lo elsewhere (e. g. borde, 452, 467) makes it certain that the scribe either intended lobe or mistook it for bope. The vile priests 'hate God and all that pertains to him, and (consequently) drive him to wrath.' 21. non scape lovied. The combination of negatives in this line is puzzling; it may be paraphrased, 'If he were not scrupulous in his abhorrence (of evil), and (if it were not true that he) loved no sin, it would be very strange.' 24. Cf. Pat. 11: ‘Azt happes he hem hygt, & vche on a mede.' With this whole passage (23-8) should be compared the lines on the beatitudes, Pat. 9-33. 25 ff. as Maþew recordez. Matt. 5. 8: 'Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt.' After paraphrasing this verse (27-8), the text on which the whole poem is based, the poet states it conversely in 29-30, since he is to develop and illustrate his theme by contraries, and intends to set forth, not so much the joys that await the pure in heart, as the terrible doom that falls upon those who violate purity. For the doctrine of the Beatific Vision, implied in these lines, see Osgood's note on Pearl 675. As Osgood notes, the poet alludes to it again and again (reverting naturally in Purity to his text); cf. Pur. 176, 178, 552, 576, 595, 1055, 1112, 1804-12; Pat. 24. 32. May not byde þat bur[n]e þat hit his body nezen. A difficult line. M. in his second edition thought that burre, not burne, was perhaps intended by the scribe, and paraphrased as follows: 'May not abide (suffer) that man (?blow), that it (?he) should approach his body.' The expression (a) byde þe bur occurs, it is true, Pat. 7, Gaw. 290 and 374, but it throws no light on the present passage. M. found difficulty in reading burne, because he considered it the antecedent of hit, and interpreted the second þat as a conjunction. It is really a relative pronoun, which, combined with his, is the usual means of expressing whose in ME., as in 1109: þus is he kyryous and clene þat þou his cort askes' (for pat his= whose, see Mätzner, Engl. Gram.2 3. 549; Kellner, Histor. Outlines of Engl. Synt., p. 66). Hit does not refer to burne, but to fylpe of the previous line. The difficulty of construing nezen still remains, and one must either supply an auxiliary verb, 'whose body it, i. e. filth, (may) approach,' or emend to nezes or neze. The whole becomes clear in the light of the context. The poet has just explained (29-30) that no one attains to the sight of our Lord who has any taint of impurity. He now gives the reason for this statement (31-32): 'For he þat flemus uch fylpe fer fro his hert,' etc., i. e. ‘Christ, who banishes everything vile far from himself, cannot endure the man whose body is stained with sin.' This idea that no sinner can approach the presence of the Lord because he is himself spotless in his purity is restated in 1109-12; cf. 17 ff. for periphrases similar to 'he þat flemus,' etc., see Introd., pp. xvii ff. 33-48. These lines lead to the introduction of the parable of the Wedding Feast, and anticipate the situation of the man without a wedding garment, recounted in due course in 11. 133-60. 40. traschez, defined by Morris (and Stratmann) as 'trousers,' was explained by Skeat in 1892 (Notes on Engl. Etym., p. 305) as the plural of trash, meaning simply 'rags.' NED. plausibly suggests, s. v. trash, that trasches may here mean 'old worn-out shoes,' as in modern dialects, though no other instance of this meaning has been found before 1746. 41. totez. Skeat in 1892 (see Notes, p. 303) gave the following explanation of this word: 'Dr. Morris says that totez is merely a form of 'toes,' which I cannot accept. The word is surely |