Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:25:48.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Source of Chaucer's Seven Deadly Sins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

Siegfried Wenzel
Siegfried Wenzel*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the following I offer a sequel to an earlier article on the source for the Remedia sections in Chaucer's Parson's Tale. There I presented extracts from a Latin treatise on the virtues referred to as Postquam, which treats seven virtues in the same order as the Parson's remedies against the Seven Deadly Sins and furnishes precise verbal parallels to a large portion of the relevant passages in the Parson's Tale, passages for which no convincing source had previously been suggested. I also noted that in several manuscripts Postquam is preceded by a similar treatise on the vices and that the latter provides interesting parallels to Chaucer's treatment of the Seven Deadly Sins. The relation between this Latin treatise and Chaucer's text, however, is unfortunately not as simple as it was in the case of the Remedia. It is complicated, first of all, by the fact that much material concerning the Seven Deadly Sins in the Parson's Tale derives — as has been known for some time — from Peraldus's Summa de vitiis. Hence, my pointing at a different Latin treatise on the vices and claiming for it a greater closeness to the Parson's Tale than Peraldus has will involve a comparison between this treatise and Peraldus in their relation to the Parson's Tale. In addition, the discussion grows even more complicated because of the fact that not one but two new treatises on the vices must be considered. I shall refer to them by their initial words, Quoniam and Primo respectively. They are both abbreviations of Peraldus's Summa de vitiis, clearly made in England in the third quarter of the thirteenth century. Quoniam rearranges the Seven Deadly Sins found in Peraldus (Gula — Luxuria — Avaritia — Accidia — Superbia — Invidia — Ira — Peccatum linguae) in the more normal order (Superbia — Invidia — Ira — Accidia — Avaritia — Gula — Luxuria, with several sins of the tongue distributed among other chief vices), selects material from Peraldus, and adds much material not found in Peraldus, including several English verses. Primo in its turn appears to be a revision of Quoniam. It reduces the Peraldian as well as the non-Peraldian material found in Quoniam. Despite slight changes in the wording, it contains no significant material which is not also present in Quoniam. The English origin of both works is shown by the English verses in Quoniam, by several references to England, and by an interesting exemplum against greed and the overly zealous pursuit of the law, which is preserved in both treatises.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 30 , 1974 , pp. 351 - 378
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘The Source for the Remedia of the Parson's Tale,’ Traditio 27 (1971) 433–453.Google Scholar

2 The basic study is Petersen, K. O., The Sources of the Parson's Tale (Radcliffe College Monographs 12; Boston 1901). Some modifications and additions were suggested by Dempster, G., ‘The Parson's Tale,’ in Sources and Analogues of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales , edd. Bryan, W. F. and Dempster, G. (New York 1941) 723-760.Google Scholar

3 ‘Socius meus, rector ecclesie de Caldecote, cum per plures annos audisset leges, tandem moriturus dixit fratri suo, militi Roberto le Bloy: “Nosti Stephanum clericum de Caldecote?” Cui frater respondit: “Tu es ille. Signa frontem tuam cruce.” Et ait Stephanus: “Non novi ilium clericum. Set quicumque ille fuerit, duo nigri monachi in angulo tulerunt sententiam contra ipsum, que numquam potent revocari.” Et hoc dicto statim exspiravit.’ Durham Cathedral MS B.I. 18 fol. 95v. In the manuscripts I have examined, the passage is missing in H, M, A (treatise incomplete). The initial words ‘socius meus’ are present in all manuscripts that contain the story except R1. Important variants: Caldecoche (F), de Bloy(e) (R2, J, F, Ha).Google Scholar

4 Liber exemplorum ad usum praedicantium, ed. Little, A. G. (British Society of Franciscan Studies 1; Aberdeen 1908) ix. Unique manuscript: Durham Cathedral MS B.IV.19.Google Scholar

5 After an introductory clause the compiler of Liber exemplorum interjects: ‘In Anglia siquidem sunt plures ville quarum nomen Caldecote appellatur. Set sicut invenimus, quidam Stephanus …,’ and the story follows as in Quoniam. Ed. cit., no. 65.Google Scholar

6 Cf. Wright, C. E., Fontes Harleiani (London 1972) 211.Google Scholar

7 The earlier date is a correction made by hand in the Jesus College Library copy of James, M. R., A Descriptive Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Jesus College, Cambridge (London and Cambridge 1895) 21. The manuscript comes from Durham Cathedral; see Raine, J., Catalogi veteres librorum Ecclesiae Cathedralis Dunelmensis (Surtees Society 7; Durham 1838) 24.Google Scholar

8 See Leclercq, J., ‘Textes et manuscrits de quelques bibliothèques d'Espagne,’ Hispania Sacra 2 (1949) 13. My attention was called to this and the following manuscript by Professor Bloomfield, M. W. I have not seen this manuscript.Google Scholar

9 See Meier, G., Catalogue codicum manu scriptorum qui in bibliotheca Monasterii Einsidlensis O.S.B. servantur I (Leipzig, 1899).Google Scholar

10 MS 207 in the booklist of 1389 of Dover Priory; cf. James, M. R., The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury and Dover (Cambridge 1903) 423 and 464-465. Probably MS 140 of the same list (ibid. 456) contained Primo as well. Another occurrence in the Durham booklist of 1395; see Raine, J., Catalogi veteres 67. Another copy in the catalogue of Boston of Bury; see. Bale, J., Index Britanniae scriptorum , ed. Poole, R. L. and Bateson, M. (Oxford 1902) 375; and Tanner, T., Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica (London 1748) xxxvii.Google Scholar

11 London, St. Paul's Cathedral MS 8 fol. 223r-225r (the final chapters on incontinentia clericorum, etc., to the usual explicit). I have also found shorter passages strongly reminiscent of Primo in MS Harley 7322 fol. 144r-v (the five species of detractio) and in Cambridge University Library MS Ii.I.30 fol. 126r (accidia harms man in all three states, here attributed to ‘Lincolniensis, Tractatu de venenis’).Google Scholar

12 MS New College, Oxford, 92 fol. 89v. For Bishop Sheppey (1352-1360) and his sermon collections, see Emden, A. B., A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A. D. 1500 (Oxford 1957-59) III 278.Google Scholar

13 The excerpts are taken from MS Du, which despite its curious make-up provides a less corrupt text than Ha. References to Primo are to MS F, which I had already chosen as the base text for Postquam in my article on the Remedia sections. The spelling of the excerpts is normalized, but I have retained medieval e for classical ae/oe. I am grateful to the Dean and Chapter of Durham for permission to reproduce sections of MS Du .Google Scholar

14 Chaucer's text is taken from Robinson, F. N. (ed.), The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer (2nd ed. Boston 1957). I acknowledge my gratitude to the publishers, Houghton Mifflin Company, for permission to quote from this edition.Google Scholar

15 Peraldus's text is taken from Peraldus, Guillelmus, Summae virtutum ac vitiorum II (Lyons 1668). See also Petersen, , The Sources (note 2 supra).Google Scholar

16 Aristotelem] philosophum, F. The reference may be to John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa 2.4, in Burgundio's translation (‘tristitia in alienis bonis’), the standard definition in later Scholastic discussions. Ed. Buytaert, E. M. (Franciscan Institute Publications, Text Series 8; St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1955) 121.Google Scholar

17 vicini, idest] initium idest, Ha, F, R1 (iniscium idest), R2 (inicium expuncted), J (inicium expuncted); inistium et, H (-s- erased?); ut quando quis, O; idest, A, M .Google Scholar

18 ‘Odium felicitatis aliene,’ Augustine, Sermo 353.1 (PL 39.1561); De Genesi ad litteram 11.14.18 (PL 34.436); Enarr. in Psalm. 104, 17 (PL 37.1399). ‘Livor felicitatis aliene,’ pseudo-Augustine, De septem vitiis (PL 40.1089).Google Scholar

19 The ‘sorrow at well-being, joy at harm’ distinction occurs in Peraldus later (349) as the two species of Envy.Google Scholar

20 peccatum] om., Du .Google Scholar

21 certa] creata, Du .Google Scholar

22 Several of these passages were not noticed by Petersen. Similar oversights or omissions occur throughout her parallel texts, especially in the section on Lechery. I have spotchecked the Peraldus text here used (Lyons 1668) against an earlier edition (Venice 1497) and find no substantial differences.Google Scholar

23 tristitiam] tristitia, Du .Google Scholar

24 F gives the complete quotation.Google Scholar

26 prolatis] prelatis, Du .Google Scholar

26 Cf. Paulinus of Aquileia, De salutaribus documentis 26 (PL 40.1056).Google Scholar

27 The image is hardly original with Chaucer, though. In Friar Grimestone's Commonplace Book occur the following Latin verses and their translation into English, under ‘Detractio’: Google Scholar

Si ‘nisi’ non esset, perfectus quilibet esset.Google Scholar

Sed non sunt visi qui caruerunt ‘nisi.’ Google Scholar

To eueri preysing is knit a knot.Google Scholar

pe preysing wer good ne wer pe ‘but.’ Google Scholar

I ne woth neuere wer it may ben founde Google Scholar

pat with sum ‘but’ it is i-bounde.Google Scholar

(Edinburgh, MS Advocates 18.7.21 fol. 45v). The Latin distich is proverbial and richly attested; see Walther, H., Proverbia sententiaeque latinitatis medii aeui (Göttingen 1963ff.) no. 28724.Google Scholar

28 quarta] octava, Du, Ha; but in proper order as the fourth species and duly followed by ‘ quinta species.’ Obviously the common exemplar of Du and Ha misread or miswrote the Arabic numeral 4 as 8.Google Scholar

29 pectore] corde, F .Google Scholar

30 Augustine, , De civitate Dei 14.15.2 (PL 41.424).Google Scholar

31 Aristotle, De anima 1.1; 403a. 29-b. 2. Cf. Aquinas, Thomas: ‘accensio sanguinis circa cor,’ Summa theologiae 1-2.22.2 ad 3; and De malo 12.2.7.Google Scholar

32 ignem] igneum, Du .Google Scholar

33 Cf. Isidore, , Etymologiae 17.7.35, ed. Lindsay, W. M. (Oxford 1911). Isidore, however, does not give this etymology.Google Scholar

34 aufer] aufert, Du .Google Scholar

36 Cf. Gregory, , Moralia in Job 5.45.78 (PL 75.723f.).Google Scholar

36 in pace factus] patefactus, Du .Google Scholar

37 Cf. Gregory, , Moralia in Job loc. cit .Google Scholar

38 In Primo the quotation is attributed to ‘Bernardus.’ See Thomas of Froidmont, Liber de modo bene viuendi 36.96 (PL 184.1258).Google Scholar

39 deseritur qui prius amoris vinculo colligebatur] O; defert ea que sibi prius amoris vinculo colligabantur, Du; deseritur amplius amoris vinculo colligatur, F .Google Scholar

40 delectationem] dilectionem, F .Google Scholar

41 For these definitions, see Wenzel, S., The Sin of Sloth (Chapel Hill 1967) 218 n. 17.Google Scholar

42 William of Saint-Thierry, Ep. ad fratres de Monte-Dei 1.8.21 (PL 184.321).Google Scholar

48 detestanda] damnabilis, F .Google Scholar

44 omnia facit] om., Du .Google Scholar

46 adiunctus] addictus, F .Google Scholar

46 quia] qui, Du .Google Scholar

47 Cf. Hugh of St. Cher, to Matt. 22.13: ‘Quia non potuerunt bene facere nec bene velle.’ Opera omnia in universum Vetus et Novum Testamentum (Venice 1732) 6 fol. 70va .Google Scholar

48 F adds: ‘idest abhominabiliter et longe proiciendus.’ Google Scholar

49 pati] om., Du .Google Scholar

50 In Peraldus the quotation is: ‘Rusticus duros habet nervos, fortes lacertos; exercitatio hoc fecit, sed cum torpore mollescit’ (175).Google Scholar

51 sceius] zelus, Du .Google Scholar

52 pauperi] pauperes, Du .Google Scholar

63 occurrit] om., Du .Google Scholar

54 Cf. Romanus, Pseudo-Clemens, Recognitions 5.4 (PG 1.1333).Google Scholar

55 negligit] F adds: ergo, etc.Google Scholar

56 perdit] perdidit, F.Google Scholar

57 iustificationis] visitationis, F.Google Scholar

58 Augustine, , De civ. Dei 14.15.2 (PL 41.424). Cf. ‘immoderata cupiditas habendi,' in Peter Lombard, Magna glossatura, to Eph. 5:3 (PL 192.209).Google Scholar

59 Hugh of St. Cher, to Rom. 1.29: ‘Avaritia est multa acquirere nec superflua pauperibus erogare’ (ed. cit. 7 fol. 16ra-b supra, n. 47).Google Scholar

60 rerum] om., Du .Google Scholar

61 scil. latriam] not in Primo .Google Scholar

62 Glossa ordinaria, PL 114.597.Google Scholar

63 This seemingly wrong quotation occurs also in Peraldus.Google Scholar

64 de illa specie] de eius specie, scil. illa, Du.; de illa eius specie, F .Google Scholar

65 etc.] F expands: ‘sed hominem homini culpa prefecit.’ Gregory, Regula pastoralis 2.6. (PL 77.34); and Moralia in Job 21.15.22 (PL 76.203).Google Scholar

66 Boethius, , De consolatione philosophiae, 3 met. 6.1-2, ed. Bieler, L. (CCL 94; Turnhout, 1957) 46. Du reads simile for simili .Google Scholar

67 et honesta] honesta alia inhonesta, Du .Google Scholar

68 hominibus] omnibus, Du .Google Scholar

69 donum] domum, Du .Google Scholar

70 estimat] existimabat, F .Google Scholar

71 ementes et vendentes] ementis et vendentis, Du .Google Scholar

72 emungit] emungunt, Du .Google Scholar

73 Gregory, , Hom. in Evangelia 1.4.4. (PL 76.1091-92).Google Scholar

74 Notice that Chaucer omits the first of these three ways of ‘hurting holy things,’ which has regard to a sacred person and would include beating up a friar.Google Scholar

76 immunitatem] tuitionem, F .Google Scholar

76 The same quotation, attributed to ‘Galenus,’ occurs also in Peraldus (6).Google Scholar

77 prima] H, R1, R2, J, M; secunda, Du, Ha, F .Google Scholar

78 Peraldus says, ‘vile sepulchrum est ebrietas,’ and attributes the definition to Rabanus (6).Google Scholar

79 veniale] venialem, Du .Google Scholar

80 ebetudo] ebes, Du .Google Scholar

81 Gregory, , Moralia in Job 30.18.60 (PL 76.556f.).Google Scholar

82 et nocet proprio subiecto, nocet proximo] om., Du .Google Scholar

83 possessioni] possessor, Du .Google Scholar

84 For the hexameter, see Walther, , Proverbia no. 31449a.Google Scholar

85 decipit] decepit, Du .Google Scholar

86 multitudinem] similitudinem, Du .Google Scholar

87 F adds: Sic diabolus de mercatione.Google Scholar

88 Glossa ordinaria to Lev. 18.24 (PL 113.348).Google Scholar

89 autem] ad, Du .Google Scholar

90 A very popular verse. Cf. Walther, , Proverbia no. 33819, and add Richard of Wetheringsett, Summa brevis (‘Qui bene presunt’), e.g., MS Bodl. Digby 103 fol. 17v .Google Scholar

91 nota supra] qui visu venenato interficit, F .Google Scholar

92 Bede, , Super Parabolas Salomonis 22 (PL 91.1004).Google Scholar

93 stulti] isti, F .Google Scholar

94 soluti] solutus, Du .Google Scholar

95 quia bene dictat] quod benedicat, Du .Google Scholar

96 aliter] alter, Du .Google Scholar

97 dei] om., Du .Google Scholar

98 meritum] om., Du .Google Scholar

99 Notice that, while Chaucer's text here follows Quoniam very closely (against Peraldus), Chaucer uses Peraldus's etymology for adulterium: ‘ad alterius thorum accessio,’ ‘approchynge of oother mannes bed,’ against the etymology given by Quoniam. The latter, however, fits its own and Chaucer's context better: cp. ‘ ad alteram … ad alias personas’ with ‘to othere persones.’ Google Scholar

100 adulterium] om., Du .Google Scholar

101 adultero] adulterio, Du .Google Scholar

102 speciali] speciali, J; spali, H, R1, R2; spuali, Du, F, M; principali, Ha .Google Scholar

103 eius] erit, Du .Google Scholar

104 eos] populum, F .Google Scholar

106 officii] officium, Du .Google Scholar

106 Belial] Hely, Du .Google Scholar

107 nescientes] nescites, Du .Google Scholar

108 Prima reduces the quotation: ‘Filii Belial nescientes officium sacerdotum ad populum nec scientes deum querebant carnes crudas, et quandoque tollebant vi.’ Google Scholar

109 Psalm 67.31.Google Scholar

110 que] qui, Du .Google Scholar

111 mutum] om., Du .Google Scholar

112 Cf. Jerome, , Adversus Jovinianum 1.49 (PL 23.293-294).Google Scholar

113 quo tempore aut qua hora] quo fine, F .Google Scholar

114 Rachel, Raphael], Du .Google Scholar

115 vitium] iniqtium, Du .Google Scholar

116 vitium] initium, Du .Google Scholar

117 Chaucer's dunghill image (for ‘immunda’) is not without parallels elsewhere, though it normally refers to an evil preacher or a sinful priest. For example: ‘Attendamus quod sol lucet in sterquilino sicut in prato. Sic verbum Domini pronuntiatur a malo ut a bono,’ de Montibus, William, Similitudinarius (Cambridge, MS Peterhouse 255 fol. 107v); 'Et sicut sterquilinium non coinquinat solis radium, sic sacerdotis vitium non maculat corporis Christi sacramentum.Google Scholar

As a donghille in resemblement

The Sonne not hurtith brizt on him shyning,

Nomore the glorious sacrament

Empeired is bi maculet lyuyng

Of any preest….'

(Cambridge University Library, MS Hh.III.13 fol. 112v).

118 Lines 912-914 are no exception. The Peraldian text printed by Petersen at that point has nothing to do with the Parson's subject, nocturnal pollution.Google Scholar

119 Particularly the Anglo-Norman Compileison and Frère Laurent's Somme le roy, discussed and quoted by Dempster, G. in Sources and Analogues 726ff.Google Scholar

120 Such evidence of authorial intelligence should not blind us to the fact that Chaucer's text contains several rather unintelligent blunders. The worst offense is line 867b, which, as it stands, admits only lechers to heaven.Google Scholar