¹ An earlier version of this paper was read to the Middle English Division of the Modern Language Association in New York on December 27, 1976. All references to Piers Plowman will be taken from the B-version as edited by Kane, George and Talbot Donaldson, E. (London 1975).Google Scholar

² Plowman, Piers and the Scheme of Salvation (New Haven 1957) 113.Google Scholar

³ Especially see Szittya, Penn, “‘Caimes Kynde”: The Friars and the Exegetical Origins of Medieval Antifraternalism’ (diss. Cornell University 1971) 148–54; also Robertson, D. W. Jr., and Huppé, B. F., Plowman, Piers and Scriptural Tradition (Princeton 1951) 228; and Morton Bloomfield, who discusses the theme of temperance as it relates to Need in his Piers Plowman as a Fourteenth-Century Apocalypse (New Brunswick, N.J. 1961) 135–43.Google Scholar

⁴ Szittya, , “‘Caimes Kynde”’ 180.Google Scholar

⁵ This passage well exemplifies the allusive richness Langland finds in Scripture, or brings to it. That wise men were called is seen by the poet as a vindication of his own literary vocation. That friars were not invited proves false their frequent claims to learning. That ‘pastors’ were called has a twofold implication for him: (1) shepherds are the working poor, not the begging poor like friars; (2) pastors, i.e., secular clerics with parish responsibilities, were called, not newfangled interlopers without cures or episcopal warrants.Google Scholar

⁶ Any satisfactory discussion of the vicar would require a lengthy digression as difficult to justify in a note as it would be in the body of this article. I would recommend reading Thomas Aquinas's remarks on vices resembling prudence: ST 2a2ae.55. The vicar not only denounces guile, he exemplifies it, mixing half-truths with plain falsehood and with advice repudiated by the rest of the poem. The whole argument between Conscience and the vicar begins when the former refuses to feed certain slackers after the loyal have labored on the Barn of Unity. In doing this, Conscience is applying one of William of St. Amour's favorite passages (2 Thess. 3.10: 'si quis non vult operari, nec manducet') to the spiritual realm. The vicar objects to this stringency, citing Piers's earlier feeding of slackers in the half-acre and God's rain, which falls indiscriminately on the just and the unjust. What this specious argument glosses over is a widely recognized distinction between gifts of nature and gifts of grace. Wyclif, , who derived his doctrine of dominion from Richard Fitzralph, explains that God gives to just and unjust alike, to men and to beasts, the gifts of nature; but the gifts of grace (Conscience is distributing not just any meal but the Eucharist) are given only to just men: ‘Unde signanter dicit Scriptura quod Deus solem suum facit oriri versus malos et pluit super iniustos, sed non dicit quod aliquid donat eis.’ Tractatus de civili dominio 1.2, ed. Poole, Reginald Lane, Wyclif's Latin Works (London 1885–1904) II 1.11.Google Scholar

⁷ Nevertheless, Mary Carruthers, The Search for St. Truth (Evanston, Ill. 1973) 165–6, on the strength of her conviction that Need would mislead Will, proceeds to the forced conclusion that Need must therefore also be offering defective advice to Conscience. In arriving at this reading she seems to violate her own inductive principle for interpreting Langland's personifications, viz., that they can take on any shade of meaning associated with their names.Google Scholar

It must not be supposed that because Conscience relents and allows the friars entry he has thereby refused to heed Need's admonition. In fact, Need never denies the friars entry into Unity (he advises against giving them cures of souls), and the condition Conscience offers them (limiting their number and registering them) seems in harmony with Need's advice. Nor may Conscience's amusement at the terms of the advice be taken as a sign of disrespect. Need has just made a very funny, if grim, joke, and the chuckle from Conscience betokens endorsement of the moral point behind the joke, i.e., if they forsake their evangelical poverty, let them live on angels' food; that is, nothing.Google Scholar

⁸ In Quodcumque, the second of his London sermons of 1356–7, Fitzralph argues that Christ had original dominion or ownership over all earthly goods by virtue of his inheritance of Adam's rights but that this dominion could not be exercised under the conditions of His manhood. He insists that Christ accepted His poverty as necessary but did not choose it spontaneously. He then anticipates an objection: ‘Et si dixeris non igitur voluntarie sive spontanee pauper erat, et per consequens non meritorie pauper erat, imprudenter nimis id infers…. Et nihilominus debes advertere quod voluntarium et spontaneum non ex toto sunt idem in sensu, cum omne id congrue voluntarium affirmetur quod libertate conditionis libere potest fieri ac omitti aut libere exercitari. Spontaneum vero sive ultroneum id solum proprie appelletur quod, nullo artante sive impellante, peragitur. Verum est igitur quod conclusi quod Dominus Noster Iesus paupertatem lege iusta una aut pluribus ipsum artante nihilominus voluntarie et non modo praedicto spontanee observavit.’ ‘Richard Fitzralph's Four London Sermons Against the Mendicants.’ ed. Williams, Arnold (unpublished edition) 8. I am greatly indebted to Professor Williams for his kindness in lending me his unpublished MS.Google Scholar

Even though Fitzralph concedes that Christ was voluntarily poor, he would probably refuse to call him ‘wilfulliche nedy.’ As can be seen above, he is always careful to distinguish voluntarie from spontanee; in his Defensio curatorum Fitzralph repeatedly insists that Christ did not beg ‘spontanee’ (which Trevisa's English translation renders ‘wilfullich’). Cf. the Latin text in Goldast, Melchior, Monarchia (1612; repr. Graz, 1960) II 1406, with the English translation in Trevisa's Dialogus , ed. Perry, A. J. (London 1925) 83. Likewise relevant is the fact that ‘wilfullich’ as represented by the OED citations is a remarkably ambiguous word in Middle English. It can describe not only action taken voluntarily but also action taken perversely or in the teeth of common sense. Moreover, the word's homograph denotes action undertaken in a crafty or guileful way.Google Scholar

⁹ The Holy Bible… by John Wycliffe and his Followers, edd. Forshall, Josiah and Madden, Frederic Sir (Oxford 1850) II 732.Google Scholar

¹⁰ This tradition of exegesis begins with Rufinus but may also be seen in such comparatively late commentators as Hugh of St. Cher, and de Lyra, Nicolaus. Hugh has the air of restating a commonplace when he observes (on Job 40.24) that ‘diabolus prius vocatus est a Domino Behemoth, postea Leviathan.’ Somewhat later he adds a significant detail: ‘Descripto corpore Leviathan, redit Dominus ad caput, id est, Antichristum, ostendens qui per semetipsum extremo tempore sit acturus.’ Opera omnia in universum Vetus et Novum Testamentum (Lyon 1645) I fol. 457^r–v. Nicolaus's comments seem somewhat more rationalistic in spirit but differ very little in substance: '… doctores Catholici exponunt hoc de demone sub similitudine Elephantis & Ceti: qui est idem quod Leviathan: unde & positis proprietatibus Elephantis dicitur in littera. Ipse est principium viarum dei, quia tota natura angelica a principio fuit creatura in celo Empyrreo. Similiter positis proprietatibus Leviathan dicitur ipse est Rex super omnes filios superbie. Ex quibus satis patet quod deus sub similitudine illorum animalium loquitur de demone qui licet aliquando caderet per peccatum factus est inferior & cecidit quodamodo in bestialem monstruositatem.‘ Postilla super totam Bibliam (Rome: Sweynheym & Pannartz, 1471–2) II fols. 109^v–110^r. Nicolaus’ opinion carries great weight since, rightly or wrongly, he is often credited with effecting a shift away from the allegorization of Old Testament texts. Even such an eccentric commentator as Joachim of Fiore shares in this common exegetical tradition. See his Tractatus super quatuor Evangelia , ed. Buonaiuti, Ernesto (Rome 1930) 67, where Joachim identifies Herod with Leviathan and sees him as a type of Antichrist.Google Scholar

¹¹ Morris, Richard, ed. (EETS o.s. 66; London 1877) 1253.Google Scholar

¹² For example, Presbyter, Philippus, a disciple of St. Jerome whose commentary has often traveled under that greater name, tells us quite a bit about the swollen pride of the devil for which the strength of Leviathan's neck is a suitable figure; but concerning the latter half of the verse, ‘faciem eius praecedit egestas,’ he simply remarks that ‘hoc est quod ubi appropinquaverit diabolus, illico omnes sibi vitae atque animae vires exhauriatur, ac substantia consumatur’ (PL 26.792d).Google Scholar

¹³ In calling Gregory's Moralia the ultimate source for this episode, I do not intend to imply, of course, that every single line of Need's speech derives from Gregory's exegetical tradition. That is obviously not the case. For example, the statement that ‘nede hap no lawe’ is a scholastic commonplace (‘necessitas non subditur lege’) frequently cited by Aquinas (as in ST 2a2ae.66.7). Also, Langland's allusion to Christ's words on the Cross probably is drawn from a contemporary passion play (both the York and Wakefield cycles attribute the same words to Christ on the Cross). Nevertheless, it is Gregory's treatment of Need that ultimately determines the rhetorical impact of the whole scene.Google Scholar

¹⁴ PL 76.719c–720b.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The verb ‘specie’ in this phrase appears to carry a double meaning when viewed within the light of Gregory's comments. Its commonest usage in a transitive sense, as pointed out by Kaske, R. E., rev. of Piers Plowman as a Fourteenth-Century Apocalypse, by Bloomfield, Morton W., Journal of English and Germanic Philology 62 (1963) 207, is ‘provide for’; nevertheless, the word can also be used transitively to mean ‘promote or further (a matter).’ See OED, ‘Speed’ v. I.8. This ambiguity seems an intentional means for exploiting the difference between the appearance of prosperity brought by Antichrist and the spiritual indigence that actually results from his promotion of men's needs.Google Scholar

¹⁶ PL 76.720c–721a.Google Scholar

¹⁷ PL 76.660b–d.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Aquinas describes this dangerous possibility: ‘Alio modo potest esse temporalium sollicitudo illicita propter superfluum studium quod apponitur ad temporalia procuranda, propter quod homo a spiritualibus, quibus principalius inservire debet, retrahitur….’ ST 2a2ae.55.6. Cited from the Blackfriars edition, Gilby, Thomas, ed. (New York 1964) XXXVI 160. All succeeding references to the Summa Theologiae will be to this edition.Google Scholar

¹⁹ PL 76.662a–d.Google Scholar

²⁰ PL 75.592b–c.Google Scholar

²¹ PL 76.212d.Google Scholar

²² ST 2a2ae.l41.8. Bloomfield, , Fourteenth-Century Apocalypse (n. 3 above) 137, is aware of Thomas's remarks and the traditional viewpoint they represent. He confesses to being puzzled by Need's emphasis on temperance (but still is reluctant to believe that Langland is being ironic) and surmises, ‘Among some thinkers at least, although who they are I have not been able to discover precisely, temperance may have been given absolute preeminence among the cardinal virtues.’ Google Scholar

²³ The Holy Bible… by John Wycliffe III 9–10.Google Scholar

²⁴ Doctoris ecstatici D. Dionysii Cartusiani opera omnia (Montreuil 1896–1912) VII 46. It would probably be a mistake to infer from Denis's observation that Will is still seriously deficient after having awakened. St. Bernard's thirty-third sermon on the Song of Songs indicates that only the perfect, those who have overcome more carnal temptations, ever experience the temptation of the noonday demon (which Need represents, as is explained below). See Sermones super Cantica Canticorum 33.6.13, edd. Leclercq, J., Talbot, C. H., and Rochais, H. M., Opera (Rome 1957–72) I 242–3.Google Scholar

²⁵ The Holy Bible… by John Wycliffe III 49.Google Scholar

²⁶ Bonaventura, in commenting on Prov. 30.8–9, simply dismisses the passage as ethically outmoded: ‘Quare ergo haec dicta sunt? Haec in veteri destamento dicebantur, ubi multa ratio divitiarum habebatur, ubi paupertatis plurimus erat contemptus, ubi haec quidem maledicto erat, illud benedicto; sed nunc nequaquam ita est.’ Opera omnia (Quaracchi 1882–1902) VIII 325. More commonly, mendicant exegetes will insist that Solomon is adopting the persona of an imperfect man in this prayer. Thus, Hugh of St. Cher asks: ‘… quomodo rogavit Salomon Dominum, ut non daret sibi divitias, cum jam tot & tantas recepisset a Domino, ut legitur 3 Reg. 3. Solutio: In persona infirmorum loquitur, qui paupertatem timent, nec bene sciunt uti divitiis, sicut Paulus in multis locis loquitur.’ Opera omnia III fol. 64^v. Richard of Maidstone, one of Langland's contemporaries and a Carmelite, admits that ‘ex textu illo [Prov. 30.8–9]… sumitur argumentum contra fratres quod mendicitas sit mala de se.’ He agrees with Hugh as to how the passage should be read but then dares to beg the whole question: ‘Quia tamen fratres et omnes religiosi sunt in statu perfecto, ideo breviter dicitur quod textus iste Salomonis non est applicandus ad religiosos, quia de paupertate sua patienter sunt contenti.’ Protectorium pauperis , ed. Williams, Arnold, Carmelus 5 (1958) 147, 167.Google Scholar

²⁷ Trevisa's Dialogus (n. 8 above) 47, 89–92.Google Scholar

²⁸ Robertson, and Huppé, , Scriptural Tradition, passim, note the influence of William's De periculis but seldom offer detailed examples. That they do not may perhaps be attributed to the sheer mass of palpable data in favor of some such influence. So far, only Penn Szittya, “‘Caimes Kynde”’ (n. 3 above) 18–77, 182–96, has examined the matter with any thoroughness. Nevertheless, the evidence for Langland's indebtedness to several anti-mendicant authors of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries invites further study. Whenever such a study is made, I would guess that it will find more basic affinities between Langland and the Parisian seculars of the previous century than between Langland and Fitzralph. What mainly separates Langland from the front lines of the mendicancy debate as it existed in his own day and thrusts him into the heart of the earlier battle is his apocalyptic fervor. Perhaps the best explanation of the volatility of the earlier struggle as opposed to the predominantly juridical tone of the latter is the presence of this ‘fini mondisme.’ Only once in all the works of Fitzralph that I am familiar with does he ever wax apocalyptic (in Nemo, the fourth of the London sermons of 1356–7), and then only for a short passage where he is obviously borrowing material from his predecessors.Google Scholar

²⁹ Ch. 12, Opera omnia (Constance [for Paris] 1632) 49–50.Google Scholar

³⁰ Langland's major tenets concerning poverty may be summarized in a list of seven statements, all of which are either paraphrases or clear inferences from the B-version of Piers: Google Scholar

(a) Every Christian should live a life of charity and self-denial.Google Scholar

(b) The surest, safest form of this life is literal abandonment of all superfluous material possessions.Google Scholar

(c) If all men adopted this life, there would be no need.Google Scholar

(d) The Bible states repeatedly that all able-bodied persons should work for their sustenance whenever possible.Google Scholar

(e) God has provided and will provide for those who live righteously.Google Scholar

(f) Therefore, begging is only acceptable as a temporary measure for those in genuine need. This does not contradict (e) since God is the source of charity shown to beggars. Nor must it contradict Patience's claim that the best man is he who resigns his wealth and lives ‘as a beggar’ since this phrase, in the context of Patience's entire speech, apparently means no more than ‘from hand to mouth.’Google Scholar

(g) Even when legitimate, need is dangerous since, by definition, it causes one to act amorally. Furthermore, because need is impossible to judge objectively, it always tempts a man to act immorally, to exaggerate his needs and make his begging either perpetual or an expression of his merely selfish desires.Google Scholar

³¹ The best discussion of poverty in relation to canon law is Tierney, Brian, Medieval Poor Law (Berkeley 1959). Especially see 11, 58–9.Google Scholar

³² Wyclif himself abused all of the founders of religious orders from St. Benedict to St. Francis on the grounds that they had created private sects contrary to Scripture. Still, his philosophy of poverty bears many similarities to that of St. Francis and his immediate followers. See Leff, Gordon, Heresy in the Later Middle Ages (New York 1967) II 527–9, 545. On the other hand, a tract by one of Wyclif's disciples entitled‘ On the Leaven of the Pharisees’ illustrates the tactic of using Francis as a rod for beating his degenerate sons: ‘ʒif ϸei pursuen to ϸe deϸ pore freris serabitis [i.e., the Spirituals], pat kepen fraunseis reule and testament to ϸe riʒt vnderstondynge and wille of fraunseis wiϸ outen glose of antecristis clerkis; ϸei beren false wyttenesse aʒens here patron and ben caynis breϸren ϸat killyd his broϸer fore his goode lyuynge.’ The English Works of Wyclif , ed. Matthew, F. D. (London 1880) 12.Google Scholar

³³ Walsh, Katherine, ‘Archbishop FitzRalph and the Friars at the Papal Court in Avignon, 1357–60,’ Traditio 31 (1975) 239, notes the connection between Fitzralph's arguments and those of the rigorist mendicants.Google Scholar

³⁴ ‘And Seynt Fraunceys in his testament seiϸ in pis maner: & ich trauailed wiϸ myn hondes, & ich wole heiʒlich pat alle myn freres trauail in werkes ϸat longep to honeste, and ϸei pat kunnep nouʒt schal lerne noʒt for coueitise of mede & of huyre, but for ensaumple of good werkes & dedes, & forto put awey sleuϸe & ydelnesse. & whanne men ʒeuep hem nouʒt for her trauail, ϸan ϸei schul go to Goddes borde & axe almes from dore to dore.’ Trevisa's Dialogus 89. For the Latin, see Goldast II 1408. Barthélemy de Bolsenheim, one of Fitzralph's adversaries, attests to the force of this argument by the quibble to which he resorts in refuting it. He refers to a statement in St. Francis‘ Rule, which Fitzralph had also cited against the friars (‘Fratres illi, quibus gratiam Dominus dedit laborandi, laborent fideliter & devote’), insisting that a close analysis of Francis’ words will show that he did not command physical labor but only permitted it: ‘Unde non dicit: Fratres quibus Deus dedit potentiam laborandi vel scientiam laborandi, sed: quibus Deus dedit gratiam, quae includit voluntatem cum potentia.’ ‘La défense des ordres mendiants contre Richard Fitz Ralph, par Barthélemy de Bolsenheim O.P. (1357),’ ed. Meersseman, G.; in Archivum Fratrum Praedi-catorem 5 (1935) 163.Google Scholar

³⁵ It is probably not accidental that this mysterious spokesman for absolute poverty misquotes Prov. 30.8. Where the verse actually reads ‘Mendicitatem et divitias’ in the Vulgate (‘Neither beggary nor riches’), it is cited in Passus 11 as ‘Divicias nec pauperlates’ (‘Neither riches nor poverty’). This version was favored by the friars because it made the passage easier to explain away. Richard of Maidstone argues that Augustine's use of the paupertas form indicates his recognition that the two words refer to the same Biblical concept. The only alternative he can see, that one of the Fathers mistranslated the Scriptures, is unthinkable. Protectorium pauperis 147–8.Google Scholar

³⁶ See his Self-Consuming Artifacts (Berkeley 1972) 1–42.Google Scholar

³⁷ I owe this observation to Carruthers, Mary, Search for St. Truth 86–7.Google Scholar

³⁸ Modern discussions of this problem may be found in Bloomfield, , Fourteenth-Century Apocalypse 83–99 et passim; also in Frank, , Scheme of Salvation 17–18. Future work on the matter is bound to take account of Robert Lerner's recent discovery of an attenuated chiliasm, latent in exegeses of Daniel 12.12, throughout the Middle Ages. See his ‘Refreshment of the Saints,’ Traditio 32 (1976) 97–144.Google Scholar

³⁹ ‘St. Bernard and Eschatology.’ in Bernard of Clairvaux: Studies Presented to Dom Jean Leclercq (Cistercian Studies Series 23; Washington, D.C. 1973) 164–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ I think any distinction one could draw between poet and narrator here would be factitious.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Marcett, Mildred E., Uhtred de Boldon, Friar William Jordan, and Piers Plowman (New York 1938).Google Scholar

⁴² See n. 14 above.Google Scholar

⁴³ McGinn, , ‘St. Bernard and Eschatology’ 170–1, 184.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ PL 76.721b–c.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Dufeil, M.-M., Guillaume de Saint-Amour et la polémique universitaire parisienne, 1250–1259 (Paris 1972) 144 n. 205, rejects the traditional ascription in favor of Nicholas of Lisieux, a disciple of William. In fact, the style of the treatise is notably different from that of De periculis; nevertheless, Robert Lerner recently has questioned the grounds for the new ascription. See his ‘Refreshment of the Saints’ (n. 38 above) 125–6.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum historicorum… amplissima collectio, edd. Martène, Edmond and Durand, U. (Paris 1724–33) IX col. 1305c–d.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. col. 1313b–c.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Ibid. col. 1313e.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ The best accounts are Dufeil, M.-M., Guillaume de Saint-Amour 123–6, and Reeves, Marjorie, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford 1969) 59–70.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Any number of passages from Piers that seem, on first sight, unrelated to the secular polemics against the friars illustrate how thoroughly Langland has assimilated this material. For example, a superficial glance fails to reveal some of the polemical ramifications in Langland's use of Proverbs 22.9 (‘Victoriam et honorem acquiret qui dat munera; animam autem aufert accipientium’). In Passus 3, where Meed uses the first half of this verse to defend herself and Conscience supplies the remainder as his devastating reply, the question at issue seems quite general, something like: ‘To whom do the goods of this world rightfully belong?’ But a close familiarity with the polemics against mendicancy gives this text a sharper point, proving that the friars' abuses are never very far from the poet's mind. Thus Thomas Aquinas notes that Proverbs 22.7 (‘Qui accipit mutuum, servus est fenerantis’), a parallel of the verse Langland uses, is a favorite proof text of the seculars, who draw from it the following conclusions: ‘Multo magis ergo qui accipit datum, servus dantis efficitur, sed religiosos maxime decet esse liberos a servitudine saeculi, quia in libertatem spiritus sunt vocati…. Ergo non debent de eleemosynis vivere.’ Contra impugnantes Dei cultum et religionem in Opera omnia (Paris 1876) XXIX 56.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Veterum scriptorum… collectio IX col. 1384c.Google Scholar

⁵² Enarrationes in Psalmos 90.5–6 serm. 1.6–8, CCL 39.10.2.1260–1.Google Scholar

⁵³ McGinn, , ‘St. Bernard and Eschatology’ 174.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Avarice is sometimes associated in Bernard's writings and those of his contemporaries with hypocrisy as a characteristic of the Church's third age. See McGinn, , ‘St. Bernard and Eschatology’ 174, 178.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Veterum scriptorum… collectio IX cols. 1279d–81e, 1336d–40b.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ ‘Nam si insurgeret apertus haereticus, mitteretur foras & aresceret: si violentus inimicus, absconderet se forsitan ab eo. Nunc vero quem ejiciet, aut a quo abscondet se? Omnes amici, & omnes inimici; omnes necessarii, & omnes adversarii; omnes domestici, & nulli pacifici; omnes proximi, & omnes quae sua sunt quaerunt. Ministri Christi sunt, & serviunt Antichristo.’ Veterum scriptorum… collectio IX cols. 1280e–81a (with slight punctuation changes). Bernard, , Sermones 33.7.15, Opera I 244.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ch. 3, Opera omnia 29. Note also the fuller scheme of seven status Ecclesiae, derived from the opening of the seven seals in Apoc. 6–8.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Three Treatises by John Wycklyffe, ed. Todd, James H. (Dublin 1851) cxvi–cxvii.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ McGinn, , ‘St. Bernard and Eschatology’ 179.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Leclercq, Jean, Études sur St. Bernard et le texte de ses écrits (Rome 1953) 134.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Speculum ecclesiae (PL 172.1080d).Google Scholar

⁶² Fourteenth-Century Apocalypse 32.Google Scholar