Other variations of reading are less noteworthy. In the second line of verse 1, ten MSS., ranging from the early Thornton and Lambeth to the late Maitland and Reidpeth, read _dignite_, while the others vary between _nobley_ (MS. Brighton, cf. the Cambridge text), _nobul þyng_ (Billyng), _worschyp_ (Selden), and _an abbey_, perhaps an error for _nobley_ (Harl. 4486). The remaining three MSS. omit the line. In the fourth line of verse 2, the alliterative _piteous parting_ of MSS. Billyng, Egerton, Brighton, Harl. 4486, Lamb., Laud, Titus, and Rawl. P., is replaced by _hard parting_ not only in the Stratford text and in the later MSS. (Porkington, Balliol, Maitland, Reidpeth), but also in MSS. Thornton and Rawl. C., while other readings are _dolful_ (MS. Selden, cf. the Cambridge text) and _heuy_ (MS. Harl. 1671). It is difficult here to decide between _piteous_ and _hard_, but the preference should probably rest with the alliterative phrase. In the fourth line of verse 3, the alliterative _scharpe schowres_ is evidently the original reading, and it occurs in all texts except Stratford, Rawl. P., and Balliol.
In the first line of verse 4, _erthe goeth upon erthe as moulde upon moulde_ occurs in thirteen texts, and two others (Stratford and Balliol, cf. also the Cambridge text) keep the rime _mould_ while altering the line. The other two readings found, _colde opon colde_ (Rawl. C.), and _golde appone golde_ (Thornton), are obviously non-original, particularly the latter, which repeats the rime-word _gold_ in two successive lines.
Other variations and occasional transpositions of lines occur in individual MSS., but are unimportant.
It will thus be seen that the popular traditional version of the poem tended to become modified, and even corrupt, already in the fifteenth century, and that such modifications are usually more apparent in the later texts. It is also evident that individual transcribers felt themselves at liberty to expand the traditional version, and that many tried their hand at such variations on the original theme, but the striking absence of proof of relationship outside the seven stanzas of the normal version, as well as the frequent unimportant variations found in the common stanzas, seems to point clearly to the conclusion that the original was a popular poem of seven, or possibly only five, stanzas, widely known over England, and that the more simple and naïve of the seventeen texts extant are also more genuine, and nearer to the original.