No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
The present paper is intended to form a postscript to the last section of my study of the authorship of the Prick of Conscience, published in 1910. In the earlier article the traditional attribution of the poem to Richard Rolle, the hermit of Hampole, was attacked, and in conclusion a clue was followed which seemed to lead towards the Speculum Vitae, a similar Middle-English poem still unedited. A connection between the two poems had apparently been built up by J. Ullmann, in an elaborate analysis of similar stylistic peculiarities found in both, and he had used the evidence, thus apparently deduced, to urge the ascription (found in one copy of the Speculum) to Rolle, then always credited with the authorship of the Prick of Conscience. Ullmann's conclusion as to the common authorship of the two poems was used in the discussion as to the authorship of the latter by turning them about: since two other copies of the Speculum gave the work to William of Nassington, it was suggested, when Rolle's authorship of the Prick of Conscience seemed impossible, that the true author might be found in Nassington, who was possibly the author of the very similar Speculum. However, since the latter work was not in print, and had not at the time of writing been accessible to me in manuscript, the discussion as to the connection between the two works could only be incomplete and tentative.
1 Studies in English and Comparative Literature, Radcliffe College Monographs, No. 15, Boston and New York, pp. 115-170.
2 Englische Studien, vii, pp. 415 ff. The poem is described and the first three hundred lines are quoted.
3 The attribution runs as follows:
This ending is quoted from Reg. ms. 17 C. viii in Warton-Hazlitt, History of English Poetry, London, 1871, iii, p. 116, n. 2. Hatton ms. 19 gives substantially the same. Both manuscripts belong to the early fifteenth century. It may be noted that nine of the thirty-one manuscripts of the poem which I have examined are imperfect at the end, where an attribution would occur.
4 I wish to thank here the owners of the manuscripts described for the courtesy which I have everywhere received. I do not list the copies of the Speculum because a complete list will appear in the second part of the Register of Middle-English Poetry of Professor Carleton Brown (Oxford University Press, Pt. i, 1917). I wish to thank also the librarians of Syracuse, Cornell, and Columbia Universities, who have courteously allowed me access to their shelves at various times. The notes made from manuscripts have unfortunately not been read with the originals since they were taken in 1910 when I held the fellowship of the Association of Collegiate Alumnae. This paper was “read by title” at the meeting of the Association in 1914.
5 See A. G. Little, Initia operum latinorum, Manchester, 1904.
6 See Histoire littéraire de la France, xxv, pp. 179 f. Perhaps this is the Johannes Wellis, Monk of Ramsey, who was one of the bitterest opponents of Wycliffe. See Fasciculi Zizaniorum, Rolls Series, London, 1858, pp. 113 et passim, and Monumenta Franciscana, Rolls Series, London, 1858, p. 598. In the Fasciculi John de Waldeby is evidently confused with his brother, when he is called Archbishop of Dublin (p. 356).
7 The work is found with the same title in Corpus Christi College Cambridge ms. 317, and Laud Misc. ms. 296.
8 Catalogi Librum Manuscriptorum, Leipzig, 1830, p. 123.
9 The Catalogue of the Library of the Augustinian Friars, York, ed. by M. R. James, in Fasciculus J. W. Clark Dicatus, Cambridge, 1909. Several entries occur here of a Comment on the Pater Noster ascribed to Waldeby, some of which are followed by the same two pieces as in the Reg. ms.; but we have no means of knowing whether they all refer to the same work.
10 He is referred to as “Eboracensis” in Laud Misc. ms. 77.
11 Laud Misc. ms. 77 of the early fifteenth century may specially be pointed out as interesting for the study of Waldeby. Latin Sermones Dominicales are here followed by some English alliterative verses, and a set of stories for preachers. The whole is entitled Novum opus Dominicale. The date of composition is given as 1365. (I quote from the catalogue.) The title Novum opus is applied in the York catalogue to two works by Waldeby—a Doctrinale, and a work De Sanetis (p. 77). The catalogue was compiled in 1372.
12 Études d'histoire du moyen-âge, Dédices à Gabriel Monod, Paris, 1896, pp. 384 ff. He quotes from Caius Coll. ms. 334.
13 Dès la fin du XIIIe siècle, on avait commencé, selon l'expression du temps, à “desrimer” les anciens poëmes français (Histoire Littéraire, xxiii, p. 326).
14 Warton quotes prologues of prose works which declare that “Estoire rimee semble mensunge,” “Nuz contes rymes n'en est vrais,” (ii, p. 137), and Froissart is quoted in the same strain (Le Prince Noir, ed. F. Michel, London, 1863, p. x, n.). Professor G. L. Hamilton has kindly pointed out similar statements in the following works: a prose version of the Roman de Troie (A. Joly, Benoît de Sainte-More et Le Roman de Troie, Paris, 1870, i, pp. 422, 423, n.); a version of the Pseudo-Turpin (Romania, xvi, p. 61); a history of Philip Augustus (op. cit., vi, p. 495); a Bestiaire (Notices et Extraits, xxxiii, Pt. i, p. 22). He also points out the apology which the author of the Anglo-Norman Romanz de tute chevalerie (probably “Master Eustace”) feels it necessary to make for his use of verse (P. Meyer, Alexandre le Grand dans la littérature française du moyen âge, Paris, 1886, i, p. 221, v. 43). The reasons urged against the use of verse are generally its use by minstrels, and its addition of extra words. Master Eustace is an Englishman, but, aside from his work, the nearest analogy to be found in England is the following, from the Dialogue prefixed by Trevisa to his version of the Polychronioon. The Lord answers to the clerk, when asked whether he prefers a translation in rhyme or prose, “In prose, for commonly prose is more clear than rhyme, more easy and more plain to know and understand” (Fifteenth Century Prose and Verse, ed. A. W. Pollard, An English Garner, vol. xii, p. 207).
15 Innumerable examples of the same sort are to be found in Old French and Anglo-Norman works,—“Combien de fois n'a-t-on pas opposé les aventures des saints à celles des preux et des chevaliers !” (Petit de Julleville, Histoire de la langue et de la littérature française, Paris, 1896, i, p. 20). See for examples, Romania, xii, p. 147. xvi, p. 66, Angier, Dialogues de St. Grégoire, ed. T. Cloran, Strasburg, 1901, p. 14. English examples of the same kind are cited in Warton, ii, pp. 122,125. Similar comparisons are made in sermons,—see quotations from Robert de Sorbon and Gerald de Liège made by M. Ch. V. Langlois in his article, “L'éloquence sacrée au Moyen-Age” (Revue des Deux Mondes, Jan. 1893, p. 190; multi tamen compatiuntur Rolando et non Christo); and a Lollard tract in Camb. Univ. ms. Ii. vi. 26, f. 131,—“But summam sei
b, I prieie 
bee leeue b
ees spechis And telle me a mery tale of giy of warwyk, Beufiz of hamtoun, ei
ber of Sire (? ?), Robyn hod, ei
ber of summe wel farynge man of here condiciouns and maners.” The fact that Middle English literature simply perpetuates in such examples a fashion begun in Anglo-Norman appears from comparison of the thirteenth-century Passion of Our Lord (EETS, No. 49, p. 37) with the Josaphat of the almost contemporary Anglo-Norman Chardry (Altfranzösische Bibliothek, i, p. 74); or the Middle English Mirrur and the Anglo-Norman Miroir (see my article in Modern Philology, xiii, p. 741). These comparisons—like the prejudice against prose already mentioned—were doubtless part of the competition of monastic writers with writers of romantic fiction (as is noted by Miss Laura Hibbard, Romanic Review, iv, p. 183). A reason for their popularity can be found in the fondness that has been noted in the Middle Ages for all kinds of catalogues. From this point of view the present examples come very near to the second part of Sir Thopas, and our impression is confirmed that they represent an almost stereotyped form (see Chaucers Sir Thopas, by J. Bennewitz, Halle, 1879, p. 15).
16 A long tradition for such explanations existed in Old French, Anglo-Norman, and Middle English, as will be shown in another paper. Examples in which a Middle English work derived such an element from the Anglo-Norman are the Mirrur, already referred to, and the Lamentation of Mary (see Modern Philology, loc. cit., and xiv, pp. 255-6).
17 See my article on “the Manuscript Evidence for the Authorship of the Prick of Conscience,” now under preparation.
18 Les Traductions de la Bible en vers français au moyen âge, par J. Bonnard, Paris, 1884, p. 52.
19 Romania, xxix, p. 54.
20 Ll. i. 8, McClean 130 (at the Fitzwilliam Museum, formerly “MS. A” of Samuel W. Singer, as Brit. Mus. Addit. MS. 22, 558 is “MS. B”), and Bodl. MS. Eng. Poet. d. 5 (formerly the Corser MS.).
21 See infra, p. 156.
22 Cap. xxvii, Fol. lxxvii. This work, of which partial copies at least go back to the late fifteenth century (v. MS. Dd. iv, 54), was printed by W. Hopyl in 1510 in Paris at the expense of William Bretton, a London citizen. The work is confessedly designed primarily for the use of contemplatives, and it quotes largely from the English mystics. The author withholds his name, but it is given in the Catalogue of the Library of Syon Monastery (ed. Mary Bateson, Cambridge, 1898, p. 202) as “Adam, monachus Carthusiensis.” I wish to thank the librarian of Union Theological Seminary for the use of his copy—of which I learned through a reference by Professor T. F. Crane in the Romanic Review, vi, p. 220.
23 The relation of the two works is pointed out in the description of Addit. ms. 22, 283, in the catalogue of the manuscripts of the British Museum.—A Middle English prose version by a “knyght of Kyng henrye, conqueroure of Normandye,” writing in 1451, is found in the Bodl. ms. E. Mus. 23, with the curious title Auenture and grace, which is thus explained: “
ber as I was not perfecte of the langage of frensch by symple vndirstondyng of the langage, me-thowght it was vertues I adventured to drawe it in to englisch, and in many places ther I coude not englisch it, grace of the holy goste afe me englisch acordyng to the sentens, wich come of grace. So 
be ferste bygonn with aventure, and so folowid grace” (f. 261). Other English versions are noted in the preface to the Ayenbite of Inwit (EETS, No. 23).
24 For example, the account of the “miracles of the Devil” who sends a man into a tavern with his wits, and out without them (in the account of Gluttony, ms. Ii. i. 26, f. 88b., Romania, xxiv, p. 68).
25 See Radcliffe College Monographs, No. 12, The Sources of the Parson's Tale, by Kate O. Petersen, Boston, 1901, especially p. 80, n. 1: R. E. Fowler, Une Source française des poèmes de Gower, Macon, 1905.
26 The book is said to have been compiled in 1279, by Frère Lorens, of the Order of Preachers, Confessor of the King, Philip, at whose request the work was undertaken. Professor G. L. Hamilton has pointed out to me the interesting note in the Revue des langues romanes, lvi, pp. 20 f., which quotes the epitaph of Lorens. He is thereby proved to have been tutor of the King's children as well as confessor to the King, formerly Prior of the convent at Paris, and, apparently, a native of Orleans. A reference to his Somme seems to lie in the mention of his ethical teaching. His death is put between 1296 and 1300.
27 See Bulletin de la Société des anciens textes français, 1881, pp. 48-9; 1892, pp. 68 if.; Romania, xiv, pp. 532 ff., xxiii, pp. 449 ff., xxvii, pp. 109 ff. C. Boser made a valuable study of the Provençal texts in Romania, xxiv, pp. 56 ff., and planned an investigation of the Somme and all derivatives, but this enterprise was cut short by death (op. cit., xxv, p. 338).
28 Bulletin, 1892, Romania, xxiii.
29 Romania, xxiii, p. 454. He refers (p. 450) to the part on the Pater Noster—“ Qui par le style se distingue assez bien de ce qui précède, et de ce qui suit.” It does not seem that M. Meyer's arguments for the composite origin of the Somme are conclusive, since he nowhere points out a copy of a part which antedates the time of Lorens. There is no reason why the latter might not have collected his own work, originally published separately. The style of the Somme is in general so unusually vivacious for mediæval theology that a composite authorship is a little hard to accept.
30 Bulletin, 1892, Romania, xxiii. This work is in print, edited by Felix Chavannes, La Mireour du Monde, Lausanne, 1845, Mémoires et documents publiés par la Société d'histoire de la Suisse romande. The Somme of course is not in print, except in the Middle English translation, the Ayenbite of Inwit, but large excerpts from the original are published by R. W. Evers, Beiträge zur erklärung und textkritik von Dan Michel's Ayenbite of inwyt, Erlangen, 1888. Other studies of the relation between the Somme and Ayenbite are to be found in Englische Studien, i, pp. 379 ff., ii, pp. 98 ff. Harvard University possesses a manuscript of the Somme, which was given by Dr. Furnivall during his last illness, as a memorial to Professor Child.
31 M. Ch. V. Langlois writes in his Vie en France au moyen âge d'après quelques moralistes du temps, Paris, 1908, p. v.: “C'est à peine si les premiers travaux d'approche pour l'étude des sources de la célèbre compilation intitulée la Somme le roi . . . ont été exécutés.”
32 Fowler, op. cit., pp. 32 ff. It may be remarked that Joannes Wallensis, already mentioned, who was one of the most conspicuous figures in the theological world in both England and France during the thirteenth century, would be a most likely person to be the author of such a work. He is already known to be the author of several Summae, and A. G. Little, in his Grey Friars at Oxford (Oxford, 1892, p. 149), notes that an exposition on the Pater Noster is sometimes assigned to the Minorite.
33 Romania, xxiv, pp. 56 ff. This text begins with the Seven Deadly Sins. It introduces the De quinque septenis of Hugo of St. Victor to assist in forming the framework (p. 83).
34 See Bulletin, 1892, p. 70, n. 2.
35 Fowler, p. 21.
36 The general confusion can be illustrated by the case of the exem-plum regarding “Marion Torgan” used in the Speculum in the account of the Works of Mercy (f. 115b). This is not present in the tract on the Pater Noster, but it is found in the Somme (British Museum Addit. ms. 28,162, f. 108b.—“Marie doingines”), though not in the Miroir as printed. It is in the Mirror (f. 84).
37 Romania, xxvi, p. 109.
38 See Histoire littéraire, xxvii, p. 183, Romania, xxiv, p. 82.
39 Quoted from Bodl. ms. 446 as above by J. O. Halliwell, Thornton Romances, Camden Society, London, 1844, pp. xx f. The same note is found in Cambridge University ms. Ii. i. 36, and Caius College ms. 160.
40 It was accepted as authentic by C. H. Cooper (Annals of Cambridge, Cambridge, 1842-1908, I, p. 128; v, p. 260. I am unable to trace the reference to the “Cambridge Portfolio”), and it is, on his authority, made the basis of a statement in Old English Libraries, by E. A. Savage (“The Antiquary's Books,” London, 1911, p. 155).
41 Books written “in the time of John Wycliffe or since” were subject to examination, by the Constitutions of Archbishop Arundel in 1408 (see Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Britanniae, etc., London, 1737, iii, pp. 314-9; see also pp. 338, 365, 378).
42 The voiage and travaile of Sir John Maundeville, Kt., ed. H. O. Halliwell, London, 1839, pp. 314-5. This analogy was kindly pointed out to me by Mr. G. G. Coulton.
43 De Rebus a se Gestis, Bk. ii, chap. 16, Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, ed. J. S. Brewer, London, 1861, Rolls Series, i, p. 72.
44 See Coulton, Mediœval Garner, London, 1910, p. 268.
45 Knyghton under the date, 1382, says that half the population was Wycliffite (Chronicon, Rolls Series, London, 1895, ii, p. 185).
46 See Mullinger, The University of Cambridge from the earliest times to the Royal Injunctions of 1535, Cambridge, 1873, p. 258; see also p. 271.
47 R. M. Woolley points out the large number of episcopal institutions put out in England after this time (English Historical Review, xxx, pp. 285ff.).
48 Wilkins, i, pp. 51-61; also Gasquet, The Old English Bible and other Essays, 2nd edit., London, 1908, p. 170. Four times a year, in the vernacular, the Articles of the Faith, Ten Commandments, Two Commandments, Seven Works of Mercy, Seven Deadly Sins, “and their progeny,” Seven Virtues, and Seven Sacraments were to be preached. This statute is copied into many manuscripts, many of which are listed in Martin's edition of Peckham's Letters (Rolls Series, 1885, iii, pp. cxxiii ff.).
49 We find Roger de Weseham, “Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and principal favourite of Robert Grosseteste,” composing a treatise for the use of his clergy which follows much the lines of the later works (see Memoirs of the Life of Roger de Weseham, by Samuel Pegge, London, 1761, p. 57). Grosseteste had laid down much the same in 1237 (see Cobb, Alcuin Club Collections, xviii, p. 53, n. 3). Stengel lists Anglo-Norman examples (Digby ms. 86, Halle, 1871, pp. 1 ff.)
50 See the Speculum Christiani one of the most popular works of the fifteenth century (of which, as it may be useful to note, the New York Public Library possesses a copy in an early printed edition), and the sermon of “Gaytring,” compiled at the request of Archbishop Thoresby of York in 1359 (EETS, No. 118). It is altogether probable that other similar works were also inspired from above.
51 The Lollards put out treatises built on the traditional framework (see Arnold, Select English Works of Wyclif, Oxford, 1869-71, iii), and (though the question is of course uncertain because of the uncertain date of the pieces) it may be that here, as in other cases, they were availing themselves of an orthodox ordinance as a cloak.
52 See, for examples of such gifts, Savage, pp. 128 f. It may be noted that Queen Isabel of France ordered the Somme placed in a Paris church for the use of the people (Warton-Hazlitt, iii, p. 103).
53 Savage, p. 132. In the few examples which he chooses for quotation this book occurs four times.
54 Miss Mary Bateson states of the Pupilla, without giving her authority, that it “may be by Grosseteste, Peter de Limoges, Johannes or Jo. de Burgo” (op. cit., p. 191, n. 6). The four copies owned by Syon Monastery which she is describing are all anonymous, and this seems to be the case with most manuscripts of the work. Most writers on the subject accept the authorship of de Burgh, on the strength of the edition printed in 1510 in Paris for W. Hopyl, at the expense of Bretton (as was also the Speculum Spiritualium). The heading is quoted by Maskell as follows: “Pupilla oculi, omnibus presbyteris prsecipue Anglicanis summe necessaria: per sapientissimum divini cultus moderatorem, Johannem de Burgo, quondam almae universitatis Cantabrigien. cancellarium: et sacræ paginæ professorem, necnon ecclesiæ de Colingam rectorem; compilata anno a natali Dominico, M.ccc.lxxxv. In qua tractatur de septem sacramentorum administratione, de decem præceptis decalogi, et de reliquis ecclesiasticorum officiis, quæ oportet sacerdotem rite institutum non ignorare” (Monumenta Ritualia, London, 1847, iii, p. lxxix, n. 29). He notes another edition in 1514. The continued authority of this book appears also from the fact that it seems to have been used in the Rationale of 1540-3 (see edition by C. S. Cobb, already cited, p. 6, n. 1). Maskell notes that a “Pupilla” is referred to as early as 1311 (ibid.); Gasquet notes a Pars oculi by William Pagula or Walter Parker, of the middle of the fourteenth century (op. cit. pp. 170-3), and Savage refers to “several books of this title” (p. 252). A De Oculo Morali, given to Grosseteste in many manuscripts, is described by Martin (op. cit., pp. lxxxi f.), and a reference to the description of the same work given by Little (op. cit., p.151) makes it probable that it has been confused with the Pupilla by Miss Bateson. A treatise on Prayer, not hitherto noted, exists in ms. 1053, of Trinity College, Cambridge, with the title “Pupilla oculi interioris hominis.” It shows the influence strongly of Richard Rolle.—The Pupilla Oculi is quoted from frequently by Rock (Church of Our Fathers, ed. Hart and Frere, London, 1905). It would seem to offer, for parish clergy, a very suitable equivalent to what the Speculum offers for the direct use of the laity. If de Burgh is not the author of the Pupilla, it is possible that an approbation of the work by him may have been the cause of his connection. The authenticity of the heading of Hopyl is to some extent substantiated by the fact that it is certain that de Burgh became Chancellor of Cambridge in 1384 (see Cooper, i, p. 128).
55 Quoted in the Histoire of Petit de Julleville, ii, p. 182.
56 Recherches sur la librairie de Charles V, Paris, 1907, p. 236. He is commenting on the set of illustrations which accompany the Somme in many copies, and are an interesting sign of its currency among the rich.
57 Loc. cit.
58 It seems likely that this is an English production, though of course nothing definite can be arrived at on the subject. The six volumes of the Notices et extraits of B. Hauréau (Paris, 1890-3), probably the richest treasury available of information on such matters, contain no reference to this work, and no manuscript has turned up during a fairly extended perusal of catalogues of manuscripts in French libraries. M. Paul Meyer says (Bulletin, 1896, p. 43, n.) that there are several expositions of the Pater Noster in French, “surtout” that of La Somme, and that at the beginning of the Sermons of Maurice de Sully (on which see Romania, xxiii, p. 499). The Speculum uses an English proverb (“for men sayn on old englis,” f. 138), and refers to the King of England (f. 147). Such references, however, could easily be added in the translation, and do not necessarily mean anything as to the source.
59 It is probably due to the superior quality of the elements out of which the Speculum is compounded, rather than to any superior talent in the compiler, that the Speculum is a work of distinctly better quality than the Prick of Conscience.
60 The full intention operating in a work like the Speculum, with its—to us—over-elaborate connections, cannot be understood unless the mediaeval characteristic is understood which is signalised by M. Langlois in the following: “C'a été l'une des manies du moyen âge de croire fermement à la valeur des machines intellectuelles et d'en confectionner beaucoup: machines mnémotechniques, machines à penser, machines à prier, machine à prêcher” (L'eloguence 
sacrée p. 193).
61 Op. cit., p. 175. He apparently neglects to observe that the notes in Harl. ms. 1648. to which he refers (p 173), are the same work.
62 London, 1894, ii, p. 157.
63 The Somme and Miroir (p. 248) make a similar concatenation of subjects, but in the middle of the whole work. It should be noted that the present list by no means exhausts the subjects of the Speculum, for they include almost every category developed by mediæval schematicism. Some impression of its range may be gained by examination of its derivative, “The Desert of Religion” (Herrig's Archiv, cxxvii, pp. 388 f., where I point out the relation between the two works, and ibid., cxxvi, pp. 58 ff., where the text is given).
64 Part of this section of the poem was printed by Dr. Furnivall, Notes and Queries, 4th Series, iii, pp. 169, 189.
65 Fowler, p. 33.
66 Warton quotes a statute of Edward III (an. reg. 5) confirmed by Richard II (an. reg. 7) against “roberdesmen” and “drawlacches” (ii, p. 271, n. 3).
67 It may be noted that the unidentified French treatise found in a Christ Church fragment by F. Y. Powell (Modern Language Quarterly, ii, p. 21 f.) is the Somme or Miroir.—A word should be said in reference to the puzzling copy of the Speculum in Addit. ms. 22, 283 of the British Museum containing a couplet at the end giving the title “Prikke of Conscience,” which was quoted in my former article (pp 168-9). An examination of this manuscript and the Vernon ms. of the Bodleian, which seems to be its prototype, shows the source of the lines in question. In the Vernon ms. the couplet headed the Prick of Conscience, which there directly followed the Speculum. The scribe of the copy inserted a new piece between the two poems, and attached the rhymed title to the earlier, though it belonged to the later.