¹ Petersen, K. O., The Sources of the Parson's Tale (Boston 1901).Google Scholar

² See Dempster, Germaine, ‘The Parson's Tale,’ Sources and Analogues of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, ed. Bryan, W. F. and Dempster, Germaine (Chicago 1941) 723–60.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid. 724.Google Scholar

⁴ Moralia XXXI.xlv (Patrologia Latina LXXVI 621). The order of Peraldus’ Summa de Vitiis is gula, luxuria, avaritia, tristitia, superbia, invidia, ira, peccatum linguae. In Gregory the order of the sins in their descent from superbia is inanis gloria (later assimilated into superbia), invidia, ira, tristitia, avaritia, ventris ingluvies, luxuria. This relationship has already been observed by Mrs. Dempster (ibid. 727 n. 4). It is interesting to observe that it must also have been well known to Miss Petersen, since the source upon which she principally relies, St. Raymond, observes: ‘nota doctrinam quam tradit Gregorius super Job,’ and lists the sins in the Gregorian order (passage in question may be found reproduced by Mrs. Dempster 740). See also Petersen 26–27.Google Scholar

⁵ See Kellogg, A. L., ‘An Augustinian Interpretation of Chaucer's Pardoner,’ Speculum 26 (1951) 478 n. 25. One may also observe various other similarities. The divisions of the sins in the Parson's Tale are Gregorian, with some expansions. Compare, for instance, ‘superbia’ in Chaucer (Complete Works , ed. Robinson, F. N. [Boston 1933] 285) and ‘inanis gloria’ in Gregory (PL LXXXVI 621). Various phrases of Gregory, not followed by Peraldus in his rather different rationale, are also present. Chaucer: ‘Pride the general roote of all harmes.’ Gregory: ‘Radix quippe cuncti mali superbia est’ (Works 285; PL LXXXVI 621), etc.Google Scholar

⁶ It is unquestionably true that there are many passages in the Parson's Tale to which Peraldus’ Summa de Vitiis offers more accurate correspondences than any other work yet discovered. However, these correspondences may, I think, be explained as Peraldus’ partial use of an earlier tradition founded upon the very brief Seven Deadly Sins passage in the Moralia. As will be indicated further on in the present paper, treatises of this nature were not created de novo, but relied heavily upon earlier sources.Google Scholar

⁷ See article ‘Raymond de Penyafort,’ Dictionnaire de Thėologie Catholique XIII 1810. The indebtedness of English manualists to St. Raymond is demonstrated by the author of the Regimen Animarum (1343), who lists the ‘Summa Summarum Raymundi’ as a principal source for his work: Owst, G. R., Preaching in Mediaeval England (Cambridge 1926) 297 n. 5.Google Scholar

⁸ About Richard de Wetheringsett not much positive evidence is available, References in the Summa (or ‘Qui bene presunt’) indicate that he was a student of William de Montibus, Chancellor of Lincoln, (d. 1213), and that he was writing probably not later than 1235 (MS Tanner 110, f. 13^r; MS New College XCIV, f. 69^v; 94^v). He is variously confused with Richard Grant, Archbishop of Canterbury; William de Montibus, whose Summa forms the basis of his own; and Richard de Wetheringsett, chancellor of Cambridge a century later. In respect to the last of these, it is, however, quite possible that the same title, chancellor of Cambridge, applied to the earlier Richard de Wetheringsett, may have some basis, since he could have held this office at a time before 1230 when the earliest reference to a chancellor at Cambridge occurs. (Rashdall, H., The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, ed. Powicke, and Emden, [Oxford, 1936], III 278). In any case, the limitation of time references in the ‘Qui bene presunt’ to the first two decades of the thirteenth century, together with the absence of any indebtedness to Raymond of Penyafort, whose Summa was composed after 1222 (date set by Professor Kuttner; see discussion in Sources and Analogues 723 n. 3), indicate that the ‘Qui bene presunt’ is one of the very earliest English manuals for parish priests and that it was composed possibly before the Summa of St. Raymond, or more probably before its influence had been generally felt in England. On the whole problem of authorship, see Russell, J. C., Dictionary of Writers of Thirteenth Century England (London 1936) 124–25; 196–97. — The manuscript extracted in the present article is MS New College XCIV in the Bodleian Library. It is written in a fourteenth-century hand and contains English phrases pointing to West-South-West provenience (see below). For information concerning dialect area I am indebted to Professor E. Talbot Donaldson, Yale University; concerning problems of date to Father Leonard Boyle, Black-friars, Oxford. For indispensable assistance with the question of authorship I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. R. W. Hunt, Keeper of Western Manuscripts at the Bodleian Library, Oxford.Google Scholar

⁹ vv. 322–349. Parallels in the Summa Casuum Poenitentiae are collected by Miss Petersen 34, n. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The sources of a considerable number of these direct quotations from St. Augustine remain still unidentified. Although it is beyond the scope of the present article to attempt a general tracing of the Augustinian quotations in the Parson's Tale, the sources of two definitions of sin may be tentatively identified. At v. 368, the Parson says: ‘Deedly synne, as seith Seint Augustyn, is whan a man turneth his hrte fro God, which that is verray sovereyn bountee, that may nat chaunge, and yeveth his herte to thyng that may chaunge and flitte.’ A close parallel to this is to be discovered in the De Libero Arbitrio I. xvi: ‘omnia peccata hoc uno genere contineri, cum quisque avertitur a divinis vereque manentibus, et ad mutabilia atque incerta convertitur’ (PL XXXII 1240). The second definition at vv. 958–9: ‘Seint Augustyn seit:/ « Synne is every word and every dede, and al that men coveiten, agayn the lawe of Jhesu Crist… »’ would seem very definitely to come from the much cited statement by Augustine in the Contra Faustum Manichaeum XXII. XXVII: ‘Ergo peccatum est factum vel dictum vel concupitum aliquid contra aeternam legem’ (PL XLII 418). It is clear that both Augustinian texts have undergone some revision. In the latter (v. 958) a whole section ‘and this is for to synne in herte, in mouth, and in dede,’ etc. has been added. In a late printed edition like that of Anaclet Reiffenstuel (Theologia Moralis [1752] 71), the Augustinian definition is with very slight change printed in italics, and the later commentary: ‘Dicitur primo, dictum, factum, vel concupiturn, ad indicandum triplex peccatum, videlicet cogitationis, oris & operis’ is distinguished from it. That Chaucer knew where the Augustinian definition ended and the commentary began is not entirely clear.Google Scholar

¹¹ It is not my contention that Chaucer read and followed Richard de Wetheringsett. The Summa de Officio Sacerdotis is used only as an example, doubtless typical, of the reworking of Augustinian material by an English theologian.Google Scholar

¹² References to the Parson's Tale are from the Complete Works , ed. Robinson, F. N.; to St. Augustine from the Patrologia Latina; and to Richard's Summa from MS New College XCIV. To each extract from the Summa de Officio Sacerdotis folio reference is attached. Where dots follow the extract, readings are not consecutive; where no dots follow, the order of Richard is identical to that of Chaucer. The author is indebted to Dr. R. W. Hunt of the Bodleian Library for permission to publish, and to Professor Jacob Hammer and Father Edwin A. Quain, S.J. for checking the transcription.Google Scholar

¹³ ‘Sicut enim Paulus apostolus dixit, Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum, et per peccatum mors; et ita in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt’ (Rom. v.12) (Opus imperfectum contra Julianum I.cvi [PL XLV 1120]). Google Scholar

¹⁴ ‘Per unum hominem peccatum intravit in mundum… Ecce primus homo totam massam damnabilem fecit’ (Sermo CLXV. vii [Ibid. XXXVIII 907]).Google Scholar

¹⁵ ‘Alia erat illa immortalitas, ubi homo poterat non mori: alia est ista mortalitas, ubi homo non potest nisi mori’ (Op. impf. contra Jul. I. lxxi [Ibid. XLV 1096)]; ‘Omnes enim fuimus: n illo uno, quando omnes fuimus ille unus, qui per feminam lapsus est in peccatum’ (De Civiate Dei XIII. xiv [Ibid. XLI 386]).Google Scholar

¹⁶ The conclusion here of so extended a Biblical quotation (story of the Fall) is almost certainly attributable to Chaucer himself. Treatises of this type are generally tightly constructed, and the commentator will very rarely indeed give more than a short quotation with reference. Richard de Wetheringsett, for instance, though dealing with aspects of the same story, gives only fragmentary quotations (f. 45^v).Google Scholar

¹⁷ ‘Etiam nunc in unoquoque nostrum nihil aliud agitur, cum ad peccatum quisque delabitur, quam tunc actum est in illis tribus, serpente, muliere, et viro. Nam primo fit suggestio sive per cogitationem, sive per sensus corporis … quae suggestio cum facta fuerit, si cupiditas nostra non movebitur ad peccandum, excludetur serpent s astutia; si autem mota fuerit, quasi mulieri jam persuasum erit. Sed aliquando ratio viriliter etiam commotam cupiditatem refrenat atque compescit. Quod cum fit, non labimur in peccatum, sed cum aliquanta luctatione coronamur. Si autem ratio consentiat, et quod libido commoverit, faciendum esse decernat, ab omni vita beata tanquam de paradiso expellitur homo.’ De Genesi contra Manicheos II. xiv [Ibid. XXXIV 207]).Google Scholar

¹⁸ ‘Hinc post peccatum [Adam] exsul effectus, stirpem quoque suam, quam peccando in se tanquam in radice vitiaverat, poena mortis et damnationis obstrinxit: ut quicquid prolis ex illo … nasceretur, traheret originale peccatum’ (Enchiridion I. xxvi [Ibid. XL 245]). ‘sed jam natura erat seminalis, ex qua propagaremur: qua scilicet propter peccatum vitiata, et vinculo mortis obstricta, justeque damnata, non alterius conditionis homo ex homine nasceretur’ (De Civ. Dei XIII. xiv [Ibid. XLI 386]).Google Scholar

¹⁹ I have been able to find no accurate parallel for the statement: ‘And whan the soule is put in oure body, right anon is contract original synne.’ However, the latter part of the statement is apparently a development of the Augustinian definition of concupiscence: ‘ita concupiscentia carnis… et peccatum est … et poena peccati … et causa peccati’ (Contra Julianum Pelagianum v. iii [Ibid. XLIV 787]).Google Scholar

²⁰ ‘qui nascuntur in mundo, perituri nisi renascantur in Christo’ (Op. impf. contra Jul. IV. Lxxvii [Ibid. XLV 1383]); ‘Reatus ejus regeneratione solutus est, conflictus ejus ad agonem relictus est’ (Op. impf. contra Jul. I. lxxi [Ibid. XLV 1096]).Google Scholar

²¹ ‘omne quod inmundo est, sicut divinitus dictum est, concupiscentia carnis est, et concupiscentia oculorum, et ambitio saeculi (I Joan. ii. 16). Hoc modo tria illa sunt notata: nam concupiscentia carnis voluptatis infimae amatores significat; concupiscentia oculorum, curiosos; ambitio saeculi, superbos’ (De Vera Religione I. xxxviii [Ibid. XXXIV 153]).Google Scholar

²² ‘Video aliam legem in membris meis, repugnantem legi mentis meae, et captivum me ducentem in lege peccati, quae est in membris meis (Rom. vi 23). Ipsa est prima captivitas nostra, qua concupiscit adversus spiritum caro (Gal. v. 17)’ (Enarratio in Psalmum LXX [Ibid. XXXVI 891]). As St. Augustine points out, however, the flesh does not lust without the spirit: ‘Non enim caro sine anima concupiscit, quamvis caro concupiscere dicatur, quia carnaliter anima concupiscit’ (De Perfectione Justitiae Hominis [Ibid. XLIV 301]). Concupiscence, therefore, is not simply the ‘firste coveitise’ but involves all the appetencies of the spirit divided against itself by original sin at the Fall. ‘Concupiscence after the lawe of oure membres,’ was, however, as Richard's Summa indicates, the first desire which man experienced after the Fall. Hence it would seem that the comma which Robinson inserts after the word ‘concupiscence’ should be removed to read ‘concupiscence after the lawe of oure membres.’ Skeat's reading of this passage appears preferable to Robinson's, although perhaps somewhat overemphatic: ‘the firste coveitise, that is, concupiscence after the lawe of oure membres’ (Works, ed. Skeat, W. W. [Oxford 1894] IV 587).Google Scholar

²³ ‘Denique, ut breviter dicatur, in illius peccati poena quid inobedientiae nisi inobedientia retributa est?… Quid interest unde, dum tamen per justitiam dominantis Dei cui subditi servire noluimus, caro nostra nobis, quae subdita fuerat, non serviendo molesta sit’ (De Civ. Dei XIV. xv [Ibid. XLI 423–4]); ‘concupiscentia carnis … peccatorum matre multorum’ (De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia I. xxiv [Ibid. XLIV 429]). For ‘occasioun of synne,’ see above n. 19.Google Scholar

²⁴ It will be observed that up to v. 339, parallels to the Summa have on the whole been appreciably closer than those to the original St. Augustine. To vv. 339–41, however, the Summa fails to offer more than a general similarity of idea. Numerous statements of St. Augustine do nevertheless offer correspondences to this section: ‘Fatigati sunt quodam modo hostes nostri jam etiam per aetatem: sed tamen etiam fatigati non cessant qualibuscumque motibus infestare senectutis quietem’ (Sermo CXXVIII [Ibid. XXXVIII 719]); ‘Per Dei gratiam minuitur … necessitas nostra’ (Op. impf. contra Jul. III. lxxi [Ibid. XLV 1279]); ‘ipsa concupiscentia, cum qua nati sumus, finiri non potest quamdiu vi-vimus: quotidie minui potest, finiri non potest’ (Sermo CLI [Ibid. XXXVIII 817]).Google Scholar

²⁵ After v. 341, there are no further significant parallels in the Summa to the section of the Parson's Tale under discussion (vv. 322–49). Although St. Augustine makes frequent use of the texts from Paul translated in vv. 342–4 (Gal. v. 17; Rom. vii. 24), it has not seemed worth while to reproduce them. The texts in vv. 345–9 (St. Jerome; James i. 14; I John I. 8) are not typical of St. Augustine's discussions of concupiscence.Google Scholar