¹ All references to Piers Plowman in the present article are to the edition of Skeat, W. W. (Oxford 1886).Google Scholar

² See Kellogg, A. L., ‘Satan, Langland, and the North,’ Speculum 24 (1949) 413–414; D. Robertson, W. and Huppé, B. F. Piers Plowman and the Scriptural Tradition (Princeton 1951) 44 n. 52. The attribution to Origen is to be found in two Oxford manuscripts, the Septuplum (MS Oxford, Univ. Coll. 71, fol. 29^r) and a Tractatus de septem viciis principalibus (MS Oxford, Bodl. Laud Misc. 549, fol. 9^r). The former reads: ‘Origenes enim ait quoniam omnis elatus filius elati qui dixit “Ponam sedem meam ad aquilonem, et ero similis altissimo.” ’ If this attribution were accepted, the ultimate source would obviously be Origen, for the unknown writer on whom the two manuscripts depend seems to state quite clearly that it was Origen (i.e., his Latin translator, Rufinus) who put the words ‘Ponam … altissimo’ n the mouth of the ‘elatus,’ Satan. However, the attribution seems to be without foundation. The passage in Origen alluded to actually reads (in the Latin of Rufinus): ‘Et iterum dicit elatus hic et superbus: “Ascendam in coelum, supra sidera coeli ponam thronum meum, sedebo in monte excelso supra montes altos, qui sunt ad aquilonem, adscendam supra nubes, et ero similis altissimo” … Omnis ergo, qui elatus est et superbus, vel filius est elati huius vel discipulus et imitator’ (In Numeros homilia XII [Origines Werke, ed. Baehrens, W. A., VII (Leipzig 1921) 105]). From the above, it is apparent that Origen has quoted the two verses of Is. 14.13–14 nearly entire, while the text in question merges one part of each into a single whole; moreover, in verse 13 Origen reads ‘ponam thronum meum’ instead of ‘ponam sedem meam.’ In the Vetus Italica, ed. Pierre Sabatier (Rheims 1743, Paris 1751) II 543, one may find listed numerous early readings of Is. 14.13–14, several of them showing a tendency to compress the two verses. It appears, however, that the earliest occurrence of the form ‘Ponam sedem meam ad aquilonem, et ero similis altissimo’ is in Augustine. There seems, therefore, to be every reason for taking Augustine as the source of the compressed form Langland used.Google Scholar

³ Robertson and Huppe, loc. cit., attribute the reading ‘pedem’ to a scribal confusion of p and s rather than to an intentional alteration by Langland. However, the confusion of p and s seems most unlikely from a paleographical point of view, and Langland's rephrasing of ‘Ponam pedem’ in the lines immediately following, ‘hus fote for to sette’ (C II 119), shows that ‘pedem’ was not an error but the reading intended. The possibility of such a confusion having occurred before Langland is also remote. As the subsequent discussion will indicate, there is no evidence of such a reading before Langland. Google Scholar

⁴ ‘ Pes animae recte intelligitur amor: qui cum pravus est, vocatur cupiditas aut libido; cum autem rectus, dilectio vel charitas’ (Enarrat. in Psalm. 9.15 [CCL 38 (1956) 66; PL 36. 124]). ‘Ad ambulandum et proficiendum et ascendendum charitas movet; ad cadendum superbia movet’ (Enarrat, in Psalm. 120.5 [PL 37.1608]).Google Scholar

⁵ ‘ Non veniat mihi pes superbiae … Sub umbraculo alarum tuarum sperabunt filii hominum, et inebriabuntur ab ubertate domus tuae. Cum coeperit quisque isto fonte uberius irrigari, caveat ne superbiat … Quare illum [amorem sui] pedem dixit? Quia superbiendo Deum deseruit, et discessit: pedem ipsius, affectum ipsius dixit. Non veniat mihi pes superbiae’ (Enarrat. in Psalm. 35.17 [CCL 38.334; PL 36.353–354[).Google Scholar

⁶ ‘Ne des ad movendum pedem meum … Sed prius attende unde motus est [pes] illi qui erat inter Angelos, et moto pede cecidit, et de angelo factus est diabolus: moto enim pede cecidit. Quaere unde cecidit: superbia cecidit … Ad ruinam non movet pedem [animae] nisi superbia’ (Enarrat. in Psalm. 120.5 [PL 37.1608]). Google Scholar

⁷ Confessions 13.9.10. The translation followed is that by Bourke, Vernon J. (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation 21; New York 1953). For a brief discussion of the conception of ‘pondus,’ see Étienne Gilson, Introduction à l'étude de saint Augustin (Paris 1943) 173–174. See also Patch, H. R., ‘Consolatio Philosophiae, IV, m. vi, 23–24,’ Speculum 8 (1933) 41–51.Google Scholar

⁸ ‘ Benedicite gentes Deum nostrum, et auditam facite vocem laudis eius, qui posuit animam meam ad vitam, et non dedit in commotionem pedes meos, id est, affectus et amores meos; sed illud commune Augustini, Pes meus, amor meus, illo feror quocumque feror’ De causa Dei, ed. Henry Saville [London 1618] 481). There is of course the possibility that St. Augustine himself applied the same language to ‘pes’ as to ‘pondus,’ but I have been unable to find any example of it. It is perhaps more probable that ‘foot’ had become as well known a symbol for love as ‘weight’, and that this circumstance effected an interchange between the two images. Se Wetheringsett: ‘pede amoris’ (Summa, fol. 49^r; full citation below n. 39); Ludolf of Saxony: ‘pedem, id est … affectum mentis’ (Vita Christi, c. xxii); Anselm of Laon: ‘pedem, id est affectum mentis’ (Enarrat. in Matth. 4 [PL 162.1274B]); Radulphus Ardens: ‘in pedibus, id est, in affectibus’ (Homil. 44 [PL 155.2101C]); St. Bruno: ‘pedes, id est, affectiones’ (Expos. in epist. Pauli ad Ephes. 6 [PL 153.349C]).Google Scholar

⁹ Guido de Columnis, Historia destructions Troiae, ed. Griffin, N.E. (Cambridge, Mass. 1936) 96.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Enarrat. in Psalm. 1.4, 35.17 (CCL 38.2–3, 334; PL 36.68–69, 353).Google Scholar

¹¹ The bestiary is MS Oxford, Bodl. Ashmole 1511, fol. 41^v The excommunication is that of Henry IV by Gregory VII in 1080. Gregory says of Henry that in his pride he imitates his spiritual father, ‘qui dixit, “Ponam sedem meam ab aquilone et ero similis Altissimo.” ’ The record here cited is actually that of the publication of the excommunication ‘Delectis fratribus et coepiscopis per Principatus et Apuliam et Calabriam constitutis,’ rather than the excommunication itself (Das Register Gregors VII, ed. Erich Caspar [Berlin 1920] 522). Examples of the same Satanic speech are to be found in Scriptural commentaries (Cassiodorus: PL 10.279); in treatises on the sins (Peraldus, Summa de vitiis [Lyons 1500] fol. 102^r; Septuplum, MS Oxford, Univ. Coll. 71, fol. 29^r; Tractatus de viciis, MS Oxford, Bodl. Laud Misc., fol. 9^r; in chronicles (Guido de Columnis, loc. cit. [supra n. 9]). For the citation from Gregory VII, I am indebted to Miss Beryl Smalley, St. Hilda's College, Oxford. Google Scholar

¹² Cursor Mundi. ed. Richard Morris, EETS OS 57 (lines 457–459); ‘On the Trinity,’ lines 394–395, in William of Shoreham's Poems, ed. Konrath, M., EETS ES 86.143.Google Scholar

¹³ Rupert of Deutz says: ‘Olim ascensorem istum “In coelum ascendam,” dicentem, “et supra astra Dei exaltabo solium meum” (Isa. XIV), [Dominus] detraxit et projecit in istum aerem caliginosum’ (In Exodum comment. 2.37 [PL 167.645]). Google Scholar

¹⁴ B II 161–165. Google Scholar

¹⁵ B II 179–182. It is not entirely easy to make out what is happening in these lines. It would appear, however, that there are two carts here described. The first is that pulled by the commissary, the business of which is to bring back easy money (see Skeat's note to C III 191). The second, into which Liar is dramatically stretched, is directed by Civil to ‘lede alle these othere.” Whether this means ‘to draw in a cart all these others,’ or simply ‘to precede’ is not clear. However, since the same word ‘lede,’ as used two lines above in conjunction with the commissary, clearly means ‘draw’ and since pictorial representations of what the present writer takes to be comparable carts of sin show the forces of evil being transported in long carts (see n. 29 below), the first reading seems to him preferable. Google Scholar

^{16 ‘} Equum et adscensorem proiecit in mare … omnes, qui in carne nati sunt, figuraliter equi sunt, sed hi habent adscensores suos. Sunt equi, quos Dominus ascendit, et circumeunt omnem terram, de quibus dicitur: “et equitatus tuus salus” (Habac. 3.8). Sunt autem equi, qui adscensores habent diabolum et angelos eius. Iudas equus erat, sed donec adscensorem habuit Dominum, de equitatu salutis fuit … sed ubi se diabolo substravit … adscensor ipsius effectus est Sathanas, et illius habenis ductus, adversus Dominum et Salvatorem nostrum coepit equitare … Quadrigas Pharaonis, et exercitum eius proiecit in mare, electos adscensores, ternos statores demersit in rubrum mare, Pharao velut potentior in malitia et regnum nequitiae tenens “quadrigas” agit … Sunt alii “electi adscensores” … sed iam de adscensoribus supra diximus; nunc etiam qui sint “terni statores” videamus … Isti ergo “terni statores” sunt angeli nequam de exercitu Pharaonis’ (In Exod. hom. 6.2–3 [Werke VI (Leipzig 1920) 193–195]). The Biblical text used by Rufinus in his translation is a form of the Old Latin close to the version printed by Sabatier (I 164) from a Rheims Psalter manuscript. On the term ‘terni statores’ cf. 4 Kings 7.2 and see Souter, A., Glossary of Later Latin (Oxford 1949) 387. Baxter, J. H. - Johnson, C., Medieval Latin Word List (Oxford 1934) 427, define the word (in the form ternistator) as ‘title of wicked angel.’ It would appear likely that it was Origen's exposition of Exod. 15.1–4 or something similar that gave to ternistatores the meaning adduced by Baxter-Johnson. In arriving at his conclusion that the ‘ternistatores’ are ‘angeli nequam’ Origen plays insistently upon the three-element in the Biblical term.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Bede, , Expl. in Exodum 15 (PL 91.311–12); Rabanus Maurus, Comm. in Exodum 4 (PL 108.67–75).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Psychomachia 310 -343 (in Prudentius, trans. Thomson, H. J., I [Cambridge, Mass. 1949] 300–302).Google Scholar

¹⁹ Katzenellenbogen, Adolf, Allegories of the Virtues and Vices in Medieval Art (London 1939); Bloomfield, Morton W., The Seven Deadly Sins (Lansing 1952).Google Scholar

²⁰ Moralia in Job 31.45 (PL 76.620).Google Scholar

²¹ For bibliography and discussion, see Bloomfield's excellent and extremely useful index under ‘Psychomachiae.’ Google Scholar

²² Sermones in Cantica 39 (PL 183.977–981). I have not translated ‘equitatus’ in the customary fashion as ‘company of horsemen’ because I am unable to find that St. Bernard interpreted his text in that fashion. Actually the usage of ‘equitatus’ about the time of St. Bernard identified it more or less with ‘exercitus’ (see Du Cange, Glossarium), and Bernard seems to observe this equivalence (op. cit. 4): ‘Sed vide iam similitudinem de Pharaone et exercitu eius, et de Domini equitatu. Non inter ipsos exercitus similitudo data est’ (PL 183.978).Google Scholar

²³ One notices that such an interpretation offers certain grammatical difficulties, since ‘in curribus Pharaonis’ does not accord particularly well with the idea of battle against Pharaoh's chariots. Stephen Langton (discussed below) seems to have felt this difficulty, and in his own Glossa in Cantica is at pains to show that God is fighting with the ‘equitatus’ against the ‘currus,’ and modifies the grammatical form to fit: ‘ego [Deus] militabam veluti in curribus, id est, in currus Pharaonis’ (MS Oxford, Bodley 87, fol. 153^r). Google Scholar

²⁴ ‘ Luxuriae vero currus quadriga nihilominus volvitur vitiorum, Ingluvie videlicet ventris, Libidine coitus, Mollitie vestium, otii soporisque Resolutione. Trahitur equis aeque duobus, Prosperitate vitae, et rerum Abundantia; et qui his praesident duo, ignaviae Torpor, et infida Securitas’ (PL 183.980). I have translated ‘auriga’ as ‘postillion’ rather than as ‘charioteer’ because the arrangement here alluded to would seem to be that of a principal driver, in this case the ‘vitium principale,’ and the postillions governing the individual horses. Illustrations of this method are to be found in the Bible Moralisée (cited below n. 29) and in the Hortus deliciarum, plate 5 (ed. Canon Joseph Walter [Strasbourg 1952]), where the postillion of the chariot of the sun is labelled ‘auriga.’Google Scholar

²⁵ In Cant. Cant. 2 (Werke VIII [Leipzig 1925] 151).Google Scholar

²⁶ ‘ Quot enim sunt vitia, tot sunt et currus, quibus diabolus fertur’ (PL 164.265).Google Scholar

²⁷ The phrase ‘principalia vitia’ occurs repeatedly in Gregory's description of the seven deadly sins in Moralia 31.45: ‘septem principalibus vitiis,’ ‘septem nimirum principalia vitia,’ etc. Google Scholar

²⁸ It is to be observed that Origen uses the reading ‘quadriga’ in referring to Pharaoh's chariots, and shows that he is using the term in its classical sense by having the ‘quadriga’ drawn by four horses (In Exod. hom. 6.3 [Werke VI 194]). St. Bernard, however, evidently understood ‘quadriga’ and ‘currus’ as both referring to a four-wheeled vehicle. Thus he says: ‘Habet namque Malitia currum suum rotis quattuor consistentem … Trahitur autem duobus admodum pernicibus equis … Tunc namque quadriga ista Malitiae’ (PL 183.980). The same terminology is used in describing the four-wheeled cart of Luxuria (see n. 24 above). St. Bernard is here doubtless following established usage. In antiquity ‘currus’ had meant a four-wheeled wagon as well as a chariot, and in England in 1238 one finds ‘currum cum quattuor rotis’ (Calendar of the Liberate Rolls, Henry III: 1226–1240 p. 333). ‘Quadriga’ was apparently also used in this sense in St. Bernard's time. Baxter and Johnson print ‘Quadriga’ as meaning a four-wheeled wagon in about the year 1160 (Medieval Latin Word-List 342). Google Scholar

²⁹ The ‘longa caretta’ seems to have been a well recognized form of military transportation. From its great length, it must, like the ‘currus,’ have had four wheels. Henry III maintained ten of these carts in each of the principal castles of Winchester, Bristol and Gloucester. In 1227, he gave orders for their construction, and in 1229 for their repair (Calendar of Liberate Rolls, Henry III: 1226–1240, pp. 19, 140). The carts were clearly intended for military use. Thus in the Bible Moralisée (Paris 1911) I plate 48, one may see Pharaoh advancing into the Red Sea in his long cart filled with soldiers and drawn by postillion-mounted horses. The Hortus Deliciarum of Herrad von Landsperg, discussed below, offers a similar illustration. For information relative to ‘currus’ and ‘longa caretta’ I am indebted to Dr. E. Jope, M. Google Scholar

³⁰ The bejewelled cart, Luxury herself, and five of the cart's armed passengers, locus, Petulantia, Amor, Pompa, Voluptas, all go back to the original Psychomachia (310–444). The label ‘principale vicium’ seen near Luxuria's head, is due ultimately to Gregory the Great (see above n. 27), while three of the passengers, Immundicia, Turpiloquium (scurrilitas), and Mentis Excecatio (caecitas mentis), are also due to him (PL 76.621). From the later Psychomachiae further mailed passengers are drawn. Alcuin furnishes Lascivia (Liber de virtutibus et viciis [PL 101.634]) and the De conflictu vitiorum et virtutum provides Ignavia (PL 40.1092). The four-wheeled cart, the ‘principale vicium’ as driver of the cart show immediate and doubtless controlling indebtedness to St. Bernard (see above n. 28). The illustration is reproduced from the edition of the Hortus deliciarum by Straub, Canons A. and Keller, G. (Strasbourg 1879–1899), plate 47.Google Scholar

³¹ MS Oxford, Trinity College 65, fols. 110^v-111^v. The hand is English and dates from about the second quarter of the thirteenth century. For this information I am indebted to Ker, N. R., Esq., Reader in Paleography, Oxford University. For the date of composition of the commentary and for checking my transcriptions I am indebted to Miss Beryl Smalley of St. Hilda's College, Oxford. All future references to Langton are to this manuscript.Google Scholar

³² In Exod. hom. 6.4 (Werke VI 194).Google Scholar

³³ ‘Currus Pharaonis, etc … super hoc dicit Glosa: ‘Quos videris in luxuria turpiores, in crudelitate seviores, in avaritia deteriores, scito esse quadrigas diaboli’ (fol. 111^r). Google Scholar

³⁴ St. Bernard had said only that Satan equipped his three princes with carts: ‘his suis principibus Pharao praeparavit currus’ Serm. in Cant. 39.6 (PL 183.980). Langton, however goes considerably further and quotes Bernard as identifying princes and carts: ‘Nota quod Pharao habet currus, habet et principes duces exercituum. Super hunc locum vero in Canticis Canticorum, “Equitatui meo assimilavi te in curribus Pharaonis,” assignat Sanetus Bernardus qui sint currus Pharaonis et appendicia eorum. Sic Pharao est diabolus, qui est, ut dicit Dominus ad Job, rex super omnes filios superbie (Job 41.25). Tres eius principes sive currus sunt hec tria vicia: Superbia, sive Malicia, Avaricia, Luxuria’ (fol. 111^r). Google Scholar

³⁵ Having identified both sinners and sins as carts, Langton is now ready to show that demons are the riders. Thus he says: ‘Electi principes, etc. Principes, ut habemus, sunt vicia principalia vel demones eis presidentes’ (fol. 111^v). This makes clear that the demon is the rider or driver and sin the conveyance. I do not find, however, that Langton has specifically shown the comparable relationship between demon and sinner. He would seem to be interested in harmonizing the two main elements of each tradition: the sin-cart of St. Bernard and the demonic rider of Origen. In this solution he is very close to the earlier interpretation of St. Bruno, to aspects of which St. Bernard is himself perhaps indebted (see above n. 26). Google Scholar

³⁶ Langton begins by mentioning Malicia as an equivalent for Superbia, but after making this initial equivalence, he makes no further mention of Malicia at all. Thus: ‘Superbia sive Malicia … Primus ergo est currus Superbie,’ etc. (fol. 111^r). The lines quoted are a continuation of the passage reproduced above n. 34. Google Scholar

³⁷ ‘ tria principalia vitia, scilicet, concupiscentia carnis, concupiscentia oculorum, et superbia vite’ (fol. 111^v).Google Scholar

³⁸ It will be observed that the devil is here the driver and the vice the cart. In St. Bernard, the vice is the driver and the cart is made up of subdivisions of the vice. Satan is nowhere treated as the driver of the vice, nor in St. Bernard is there a ‘currus Superbiae’ (see above n. 34). Google Scholar

³⁹ ‘ Currus diaboli potest dici superbia, cuius quattuor sunt rote: contemptus Dei, et proximi, et proprie subjectionis, et ecclesiastice institutionis ’; ‘Item carnis concupiscentia est quasi palefridus diaboli, et avaricia quasi runcinus, superbia quasi dextrarius’ (MS Oxford, New College 94, fol. 49^r, 47^v). For a brief discussion of Richard de Wetheringsett and the Summa de officio sacerdotis or Qui bene presunt, see Kellogg, A.L., ‘St. Augustine and the Parson's Tale, Traditio 8 (1952) 425 n. 8.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ A II 150, 135, 148. For examples of the ‘runcinus trotans’ as a common type of rouncy, see Du Cange, Glossarium, s. v. runcinus.) Google Scholar

⁴¹ In addition to the examples already discussed, see Rupert of Deutz: ‘exercitum eius [Sathanae] tam vitiorum quam daemonum’ (PL 167.647). In this he is followed by Gerhoh of Reichersperg, Expos. in cant. Moysis I (PL 194.1021). Google Scholar

⁴² I have not been able to find any hint of Langland's solution except in Langton's Commentary on the Pentateuch. Here the demons are manifestly of higher position in Satan's army than the sins, as the phrase ‘demones eis [viciis] presidentes’ indicates (cf. n. 35 above). However, if the ‘electi principes’ are both the ‘principalia vicia’ and the demons driving them, the relationship of demon and vice remains indefinite. This indefiniteness is continued in Langton's identification of ‘adversarios’ (Exod. 15.7) as ‘demones et vitia’ (fol. 112^r). One suspects that Langton was more interested in the possibility of viewing Satan's army from two different points of view than he was in establishing a precise Satanic chain of command. Google Scholar