And Couetous of eyes called was the other
And couetise of eighes · called was þat other
& couvetyse off heyghtesG.12.14: The form resulting from this alteration (i.e. heyghtes for earlier heyghes) is the form regularly employed by the original scribe when "eyes" occurs in this particular phrase ("covetise of eyes" translating
"concupiscentia oculorum;" 1.John 2:16). See G.12.32, G.12.40 etc. However, the G scribe's usual form for "eyes" is ey(e)ne and it seems likely that the spelling found here and elsewhere in this passus results from a misunderstanding. The form
found in the scribe's exemplar was probably heyghes (or possibly, given the spelling at G.12.32 and the correction at G.12.52, heghes). Elsewhere in the text the scribe has, presumably, recognised this as a form of "eyes" and replaced it with his own usual
spelling. There is, after all, no possibility of confusion at, for instance, G.1.74 where heyghes appearing after "bleared their" could scarcely mean anything else. However, the expression "covetise of eyes," though common
in medieval pastoralia, may not have been so familiar by the sixteenth century, and there would then be nothing in the words
"covetise of" to suggest that "eyes" must follow. The scribe, both in his original transcription and here as the brown ink
corrector, appears to have interpreted the phrase as meaning something like "covetousness of rank or position"(see OED height, n., 7). called was the other
& þe seconde was RycchesseF.8.12: A space is left for the medial virgule. Ful deyntily a-rayed.F.8.12: F's line is unique. Bx reads instead: "And Coueitise of eiȝes ycalled was þat ooþer." F's revision of the name of the second damsel from Coueitise of eighes arises from his confusion of eighe with eighte, the Essex dialectal form of aughte (< OE ǣhte, "property, goods, wealth"). F's attention to this phrase can be seen in the eye-skip which has omitted KD11.46b-52a.
The confusion extends even to Elde's exclamation in 42, where Bx's "Allas eiȝe" has become "Allas Richesse." Such a misunderstanding suggests that the origin of this passage in 1 John 2:16
was lost on the redactor. Perhaps the Bx form eiȝe is the source of the confusion, since one other occurrence of the singular form (7.133) is also revised (to hond). The word caused no difficulty at 7.280.