¹ Murtaugh, Daniel M., P iers P lowman and the Image of God (Gainesville 1978) 44. All citations from the C-text, unless otherwise noted, refer to the edition by Derek Pearsall, P iers P lowman by William Langland: An Edition of the C-text (Berkeley 1979); citations from the A- and B-texts, to the Athlone Press editions: Piers Plowman: The A Version, ed. Kane, George (London 1960), and Piers Plowman: The B Version, edd. G. Kane and E. T. Donaldson (London 1975). Pearsall's numeration of passus in C, of course, differs from that of Skeat's edition by one.Google Scholar

² Skeat, Hall, and Moore, , cited by Donaldson, E. T., Piers Plowman: The C-Text and Its Poet (New Haven 1949) 79 n. 8.Google Scholar

³ Alford, John A., 'The Grammatical Metaphor: A Survey of Its Use in the Middle Ages,’ Speculum 57 (1982) 731–34.Google Scholar

⁴ Margaret Amassian and James Sadowsky, 'Mede and Mercede: A Study of the Grammatical Metaphor in “Piers Plowman” C: IV: 335–409,’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 72 (1971) 469. Google Scholar

⁵ Ibid. 465; A. G. Mitchell, 'Lady Meed and the Art of Piers Plowman,’ repr. in Robert J. Blanch, Style and Symbolism in P iers P lowman (Knoxville 1969) 184–87; Murtaugh, Image 48.Google Scholar

⁶ Pearsall, , ed. cit. 79 n. on 332–405.Google Scholar

⁷ Mitchell, , ‘Lady Meed’ 185.Google Scholar

⁸ 'Mede and Mercede' 463–65.Google Scholar

⁹ Meech, Sanford B., 'An Early Treatise in English Concerning Latin Grammar,’ in Essays and Studies in English and Comparative Literature (Univ. of Michigan Publications, Language and Literature 13; Ann Arbor 1935) 98–101.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Thurot, Thurot, Notices et extraits de divers manuscrits latines pour servir à l'histoire des doctrines grammaticales au moyen age (Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale … 23; Paris 1869, repr. Frankfurt a. M. 1964) 356. Grammarians after Peter Elias classified several more types of relatio. See Thurot, 356–72; also C. H. Kneepkens, ‘“Mulier Quae Damnavit, Salvavit”: A Note on the Early Development of the “Relatio Simplex,”’ Vivarium 14 (1976) 1–2.Google Scholar

¹¹ Notices et extraits 356.Google Scholar

¹² Meech, , ‘ME Treatise’ 99.Google Scholar

¹³ Langland ignores the required agreement of person. Google Scholar

¹⁴ Yunck, John A., The Lineage of Lady Meed (Publ. in Medieval Studies of the Univ. of Notre Dame 17; Notre Dame 1963) 93–96 et passim; Alford, ‘Grammatical Metaphor’ 728–60.Google Scholar

¹⁵ A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (NED), edd. James A. H. Murray et al. (Oxford 1888–1928) s.v. kind I 7 and II 10.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Grammatical treatise used Scriptural verses fairly often for their examples; however, none of the Biblical verses used here by Langland shows up in the extant Middle English treatises, which have been edited by David Thomson in ‘A Study of the Middle English Treatises on Grammar’ (diss. Oxford 1977). See also his Descriptive Catalogue of Middle English Grammatical Texts (New York and London 1979). Google Scholar

¹⁷ Robins, Robert H., Ancient and Medieval Grammatical Theory in Europe (London 1951) 75.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Leclercq, Leclercq, 'Smaragde et la grammaire chrétienne,’ Revue du moyen age latin 4 (1948) 15–22; for text of Smaragdus, see Aldo Marsili, ‘De Smaragdi opere quod “Liber in partibus Donati” vulgo inscribitur,’ Studi mediolatini e volgari 2 (1954) 71–96.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Bonaventure, Bonaventure, f.s.c. , 'The Teaching of Latin in Later Medieval England,’ Mediaeval Studies 23 (1961) 7–11.Google Scholar

²⁰ Balbus, Balbus, Catholicon (Mainz 1460; repr. Westmead 1971) s.v. homo; Br. Bonaventure, op. cit. 11–15; Thomson, Catalogue 35–47. The Catholicon of 1460 was among the first books printed by Gutenberg.Google Scholar

²¹ Brito, Brito, Summa Britonis, edd. Lloyd W. Daly and Bernadine A. Daly (Thesaurus Mundi 15; Padua 1975) I 191. Emphasis added.Google Scholar

²² Ibid. II 823.Google Scholar

²³ Pearsall, , ed. cit. (n. 1 supra) 80n.Google Scholar

²⁴ Durandus, Durandus, Rationale divinorum officiorum (Venice 1568) 88 ^v. The source is the Sermo de symbolo, PL 40.1190–91.Google Scholar

²⁶ Durandus, , Rationale 89 ^rb. He cites the pseudo-Augustinian Sermo de mysterio baptismatis, PL 40.1210, via Gratian's Decretum 3 ('De Consecratione') d.4 c.73 in Corpus iuris canonici, ed. von Friedberg, Emil A. (1879–81; Graz 1959) I 1387. On the attribution of this sermon, see Palémon Glorieux, 'Pour revaloriser Migne tables rectificatives,’ Mélanges de science religieuse (Lille 1952) 30. I have preferred the earlier edition of Durandus over that of Naples 1859, because of an apparently better reading at this point. The Naples edition reads, ‘dum in Ecclesia conversantes et Deum credimus’ (211). The reading ‘et in Deum credimus’ is supported by the Venice edition cited above, and by that of Nuremberg 1481 (54 ^vb); it accords better not only with the sense of the whole, but also with the versions in Gratian and the pseudo-Augustinian sermon.Google Scholar

²⁶ Balbus, Balbus, Catholicon s.v.Google Scholar

²⁷ NED s.v. kind II 13, a meaning attested in Guthlac and the Cursor mundi. Google Scholar

²⁸ Ibid. s.v. case 5.Google Scholar

²⁹ Meech, , ‘ME Treatise’ 101.Google Scholar

³⁰ Ludolph of Saxony, Vita Iesu Christi (Augsburg 1729) 640 ^a.Google Scholar

³¹ Glossa ordinaria, in Biblia Sacra cum Glossa interlineari, ordinaria et Nicolai Lyrani Postilla (Venice 1588) V 219 ^va.Google Scholar

³² Speculum sacerdotale, ed. Weatherby, E. H. (EETS 200; London 1935) 70, 120.Google Scholar

³³ I propose reading ‘nyme’ as parallel with ‘confourme’ and ‘coveyte’ (lines 397–98) rather than with ‘be kald’ (401), as Murtaugh assumes (Image 48). The former reading completes the pattern of gender, case, and number; the latter preserves a better parallelism with the possessive adjective 'oure.’ Neither would change the meaning much: one emphasizes man's activity of charity in the indwelling, the other emphasizes God's. Google Scholar

³⁴ Hugh of St. Cher, , Opera omnia in universum Vetus et Novum Testamentum (Lyon 1669) VII 353 ^v. Not all theologians shared the Sentence-Master Peter Lombard's view of strict identity between charity and the Holy Spirit, but those who disagreed saw a close correlation between the created grace of charity and the uncreated grace of the Holy Spirit. E.g., Nicholas of Lyra: 'Deus charitas est, scilicet increata. Et qui manet in charitate: creata, quae est quaedam participatio charitatis increatae, quae est Deus.’ — Biblia Sacra cum Glossa VI 233 ^vb. For an overview, see ‘Trinité (Missions et habitation …)’ DThC XV 2.1843–44.Google Scholar

³⁵ On Langland and the doctrine of deification, see Greta Hort, P iers P lowman and Contemporary Religious Thought (London 1936; repr. Folcroft, Pa. 1969) 81, 115; Donaldson, C-Text 186; Edward Vasta, The Spiritual Basis of P iers P lowman (The Hague 1965) 68–83.Google Scholar

³⁶ Amassian and Sadowsky, 'Mede and Mercede,’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 72 (1971) 452. Google Scholar

³⁷ Cf. the use of ‘rect’ at C 3.366. Google Scholar

³⁸ Also appended to this section on Unity is the completely different metaphor of agreement with God whereby ‘mankind’ becomes the substantive modified by Christ's deity, as in the phrase ‘Deus homo’ (lines 403–405). These lines have been adequately interpreted by Amassian and Sadowsky (op cit. 473–74) and again by Murtaugh (Image 48), who also notes how the metaphor grounds Christian charity in the Incarnation. Google Scholar

³⁹ Op. cit. 463–64; Meech, ‘ME Treatise’ 102.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ For the exception, see Thurot, Notices et extraits 365–66. Google Scholar

⁴¹ Brito, Brito, Quaestiones super Priscianum minorem, edd. Heinz W. Enders and Jan Pinborg (Grammatica speculativa 3; Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt 1980) II 248.Google Scholar

⁴² The same pairing of treuthe and unity surfaces later in one of Reason's admonitions to rich and poor in society — C 5.183, 189. Google Scholar

⁴³ In connection with this passage Joseph Wittig has similarly noted Langland's use of 'mutually illuminating and autonomous sets of realities, multiple-term metaphors in which tenor and vehicle are equally primary’: ‘“Piers Plowman” B, Passus IX-XII: Elements in the Design of the Inward Journey,’ Traditio 28 (1972) 228. Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Pearsall, , ed. cit. (n. 1 supra) 79 n. on 332–405.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ 8 (pr. 4). 83–87, 1 (met. 1). 18,10 (pr. 5). 43–57, ed. Häring, Nikolaus M., 'Alan of Lille, “De planctu naturae,”’ Studi Medievali ser. 3, 19 (1978) 835, 806, 846. Cf. M. N. K. Mander, 'Grammatical Analogy in Langland and Alan of Lille,’ Notes and Queries 26 (1979) 501–504.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Piers the Plowman in Three Parallel Texts, ed. Skeat, Walter W. (London 1886) I 91 (C 4.367 in Skeat's numbering).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Select English Works of John Wyclif, ed. Arnold, Thomas (Oxford 1869–71) II 323–24.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Line 367 is here given according to Skeat's line G 4.370. Pearsall: at is nat resonable ne rect to refuse my syre name, / Sethe y am his son and his servant sewe for his ryhte.’ Pearsall construes sewe as an infinitive, presumably an adjectival one modifying servant (ed. cit. 409). Such a use seems unlikely without to, for or for, to. Eugen Einenkel notes such an adjectival infinitive, formed perhaps from an originally adverbial infinitive by loss of an adjective, as in the Wife of Bath's Tale, 'That hath but oon [good] hole to sterte to'; however, none of the grammars lists such an instance without to or for, and the original adverbial infinitive is itself only rarely found without to — Einenkel, Streifzüge durch die mittelenglische Syntax (Münster 1887) 245–46; Tauno F. Mustanoja, A Middle English Syntax (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 23; Helsinki 1960) 538. One might alternatively construe the lines thus: 'It is not reasonable nor right to refuse my sire's name, / Since I am his son, if his servant should sue for his right.’ Although this reading avoids the problem of Skeat's line, that of viewing the son and servant as somehow identical, it raises another interpretive problem: when would the servant ever sue for the father's right, and how would his action affect the son's filial obligation? I have chosen Skeat's reading here because the Biblical passage cited above makes sense of the son/servant collocation, and relates it to the theological interests evident in the rest of the passage. Google Scholar

⁴⁹ P iers P lowman and Contemporary Religious Thought 130–55.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Collectanea in epistolas divi Pauli, PL 191.1439–40.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Hugh of St. Cher, , for example, writes, 'Item notandum est quod quidam timor est contra charitatem, ut mundanus et humanus, et quidam ad cbaritatem, ut timor servilis, quidam in charitate, ut initialis.’ — Opera VII 47 ^vb.Google Scholar

⁵² For another reflection on this theological commonplace of the believer's progress in the fear of the Lord, this time related to Dowel, Dobet, and Dobest, cf. B 9.95–100. Google Scholar

⁵³ Mitchell, , ‘Lady Meed’ 185.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Canterbury Tales IV (E) 1670, III (D) 489–90, in The Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, ed. Robinson, F. N. (2d ed.; Boston 1957) 119, 80.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Les Lamentations de Matheolus et le Livre de leesce de Jehan Le Fevre, ed. van Hamel, A.-G. (Bibliothèque de l'École des Hautes Études 95–96; Paris 1892–1905).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Matheolus 2329–3038; Le Fevre 3.1–1720.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Le Fevre 3.1784–96; cf. Matheolus 3060–65, and more widely, Le Fevre 3.1721–982, Matheolus 3039–145. Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Matheolus 3179–701; Le Fevre 3.2057–3185.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Le Fevre 2.2320–22; Matheolus 1594–98. Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ed. cit. (n. 1 supra) 348.Google Scholar

⁶¹ The Latin Poems Commonly Attributed to Walter Mapes, ed. Wright, Thomas (Camden Society 16; London 1841) 79–80.Google Scholar

⁶² Matheolus 284–310, 1872–79; Le Fevre 1.647–94, 2.2951–65.Google Scholar

⁶³ Mitchell, , ‘Lady Meed’ (n. 5 supra) 184–86.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Adams, Adams follows Mitchell in his view of C, with the same result of trying to classify the king's gifts as mercedes: 'Piers's Pardon and Langland's Semi-Pelagianism,’ Traditio 39 (1983) 400 n. 76.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Murtaugh, , Image 45.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibid. 46, 48.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁶⁸ 'Meed and Mercede' 461–65. Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ibid. 467.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Ibid. 468.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid. 465, 467.Google Scholar

⁷² Ibid. 465, 468–71.Google Scholar

⁷³ Image 43. Piers Plowman B 3.230–58 is the text in question.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Meed', Meed' 183.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Adams, , ‘Piers's Pardon’ 398–400. One main drawback of Adams' view of B here is that his notion of ‘mesurable’ meed as a ‘fitting’ or ‘suitable’ reward (see his n. 72) does not have the same degree of mesure as the strictly equitable exchange of wages or ‘mesurable hire.’ In other words, measurable meed and measurable hire would have to have two different types of 'mesure,’ the former a mere suitability, the latter a strict equivalence. But Langland nowhere in B hints at two such notions of measure, and even the idea of 'mesurable’ meed depends on one's emphasis in reading B 3.246.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ This paper owes a large debt to Professor Robert Adams of Sam Houston State University for the initial suggestion that congruent and condign merit might help explain the grammatical allegory. See his article ‘Piers's Pardon and Langland's Semi-Pelagianism’ (n. 64 supra). My disagreements with his view of Meed in the B-version I have indicated (n. 75 supra, n. 92 infra), but I am grateful for illuminating discussions, for astute criticisms, and for being able to read his article in manuscript; my debt to him is as that of a pupil to a teacher. Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Wyclif, , English Works II 323–24.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ ab Insulis, Alanus, Liber in distinctionibus dictionum theologicalium, PL 210.857, s.v. mereri. Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Augustine, , Epistola ad Sixtum 5.19, in Epistulae, ed. Goldbacher, A. (CSEL 57) 190.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ De articulis catholicae fidei, PL 210.608.Google Scholar

⁸¹ In secundum librum Sententiarum d.27 a.2 q.3, in Opera omnia (Quaracchi 1882–1902) II 667.Google Scholar

⁸² Innocent V (Petrus de Tarantasia), In II librum Sententiarum commentaria d.27 q.2 a.1 (Toulouse 1649; repr. Ridgewood, New Jersey 1964) 236–37; Ricardus de Mediavilla, Super quatuor libros Sententiarum 2 d.27 a.2 q.3 (Brescia 1591; repr. Frankfurt a.M. 1963) II 351–53; Aegidius Romanus, In secundum librum Sententiarum d.27 q.1 a.4 (Venice 1581; repr. Frankfurt am Main 1968) II 2.353–55; Thomas ab Argentina, Commentaria in IIII libros Sententarium 2 d.26–27 q.1 a.4 (Venice 1564; repr. Ridgewood, N. J. 1965) II 179^vb–180 ^ra.Google Scholar

⁸³ Commentum in librum II Sententiarum d.27 q.1 a.3, in Opera omnia, edd. S. E. Fretté and P. Maré (Paris 1889) VIII 366–67.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Hugh of St. Cher, , Opera VII 48 ^va.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Duns Scotus, John, Commentaria Oxoniensia 1 d.17 q.1–3 a.4 n.22, ed. Garcia, M. F. (Quaracchi 1912–14) I 816; Reportata Parisiensia 1 d.17 q.2 n.10, in Opera omnia (Paris 1894) XXII 212.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Wyclif, , English Works 324.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Merces as wages, Lk. 10.7, 1 Tim. 5.18, Jas 5.4, Jude 11; as reward generally, Mt. 5.46, 6 passim, Acts 1.8, Rom. 1.27, 1 Cor. 9.17–18, Heb. 2.2, 2 Pet. 2.13–15; as heavenly reward, Mt. 5.12, 10.41–42, Mk. 9.40, Lk. 6.23, 6.35, 1 Cor. 3.8. 3.14, 2 Jn. 8, Apoc. 11.18, 22.12. Merces as wages metaphorically representing heavenly reward, Mt. 20.8, perhaps Jn. 4.36; as wages specifically contrasted to heavenly reward, Rom. 4.4.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ De articulis, PL 210.608.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Summa Theologiae 1a2ae 114.1.1, in Opera omnia (Rome 1882ff.) VII 344.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Ibid. Google Scholar

⁹¹ C 3.304; ST 1a2ae 114.4.1 (ed. cit. VII 348). This usage of merces continues well through Langland's own day, so that in the late fifteenth century the Nominalist Gabriel Biel argues for the condign merit of eternal reward by citing four Biblical instances of the word and asserting that ‘Merces autem non est nisi respectu meriti precedentis’ — Epitome et collectorium ex Occamo circa quatuor Sententiarum libros 2 d.27 q.1 a.2 concl. 1 (Tübingen 1501; repr. Frankfurt a. M. 1965). Google Scholar

⁹² This identification of proportionate reward and merces with condign merit leading to eternal life vitiates some of Robert Adams' arguments about meed in the B-version. He contends that the heavenly meed of B is mesurable, identifying it with eternal life merited de congruo: 'It does not follow that both forms of pure reward, or mede, must be mesurelees simply because hire is labeled mesurable. After all, mesurable may designate that which is proportionate or appropriate as well as that which is literally equal' ('Piers's Pardon' 399). It will not do, though, to equate mesure and proportionality with congruent merit and appropriateness, for the theologians assign this proportionality to condign merit. Adams argues (n. 73) that the adjective mesurelees sets apart the meed of bribery from heavenly meed in B by its ethical connotation of immoderation. However, though the dictionaries do not attest mesurelees elsewhere than in Piers Plowman during this period, they do cite both ethical and neutral connotations for the related forms unmeasurable (NED), immesurable / immesurabli, and mesurable (Middle Engish Dictionary, edd. H. Kurath, S. M.Google Scholar

Kuhn, and J. Reidy; Ann Arbor 1956ff.). Similarly, the Wycliffite Bible uses ‘without mesure’ in both senses — negative, Ecclus. 30.15; positive, Ecclus. 16.17, 24.41, Baruch 3.25 (The Holy Bible, edd. J. Forshall and F. Madden; Oxford 1850). One might propose that in B Langland had in mind condign merit leading to eternal life (heavenly meed 'mesurable') and wages (mesurable hire) as opposed to the mede mesurelees of bribery; but if so, what is the distinctive feature of meed that moves Langland to use the term for both heavenly reward and bribery? In B, Langland names his terms as ‘Mede … at god of his grace gyve,’ 'mede mesurelees at maistres desire / To mayntayne misdoers …,’ and 'no manere Mede but a mesurable hire’ (B 3.231–32, 246–47, 255); rather than infer from a merely implied contrast with ‘Mede mesurelees’ of line 246 that God's meed is mesurable, one might more simply suppose that Langland distinguishes the two meeds by the uses to which they are put, contrasting hire with meed of any sort.

⁹³ Epistola ad Sixtum 3.9 (GSEL 57.183).Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Landgraf, Artur M., Dogmengeschichte der Frühscholastik (Regensburg 1952–56) I 1. 249–64.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Alexander of Hales, Summa Theologica 3 pars 3 inq. 1 tr.1 q.5 m.2 c.1 a.1 (Quaracchi 1948) IV 989–91; Bonaventure, In Sent. 2 d.27 a.2 q.2, ed. cit. II 665; Pierre de Tarentaise (Innoc. V), In Sent. 2 d.27 q.2 a.2, ed. cit. II 237; Egidio Colonna, In Sent. 2 d.27 q.2 a.1, ed. cit. II 2.346–47.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ In Sent. 2 d.28 a.2 q.1, ed. cit. II 682.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Scotus, Scotus, Reportata Parisiensia 2 d.28 q.1 n.9, ed. cit. XXIII 140.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Oberman, Heiko A., The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Cambridge, Mass. 1963) 131–84.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ For representative scholastic discussions of merit in the sacrament of penance, see Bonaventure, In Sent. 4 d.15 p.1 a.1 q.5, ed. cit. IV 356–57, and Aquinas, In Sent. 4 d.15 q.1 a.3 quaestiuncula 4 and solutio 4 (Fretté and Maré X 375–78). Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Line 351 follows Skeat's G 4.354; for the rationale, see n. 104 infra. Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Quaestiones disputatae 33.4.1, esp. nos. 90–91 (Bibliotheca Franciscana 19; Quaracchi 1960) 597.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Hugh of St. Cher, , Opera VII 49 ^va at Rom. 8.20–25. The source of the definition is Peter Lombard, Sententiae 3 d.26 c.1.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Robert of Melun, Summa (MS Bruges, Bibliothèque de la Ville lat. 191 fol. 234 ^v), cited in Landgraf, Dogmengeschichte I 1.268–69.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ The dual emphasis on congruent and condign merit may help adjudicate a textual question at line 351, where Pearsall's ‘holy herte’ corresponds to Skeat's ‘hoi herte’ (Skeat G 4.354). If by the phrase Langland would indicate an attitude of bold, preserving treuthe which underlies both congruent merit and condign, and which therefore can either precede or accompany the infusion of sanctifying grace, ‘hoi herte’ seems more likely, since a heart would only be holy after sanctifying grace was given. The controversy surrounding the notion of facere quod in se est may help account for the other reading. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ For Nominalist thought on this concursus generalis dei, see Oberman, Harvest 49–50, 138, 142–45. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Alexander of Hales, ST 3 pars 3 inq.1 tr.1 q.5 m.2 c.1 a.3 n.1, ed. cit. IV 991–92; Aquinas, ST 1a2ae 114.5.3, In Sent. 2 d.27 q.1 a.4 n.2; Bonaventure, In Sent. 2 d.27 a.2 q.1 n.1; Pierre de Tarentaise, In Sent. 2 d.27 q.2 a.2 quaestiuncula 2 contra 1; Egidio Colonna, In Sent. 2 d.27 q.2 a.1 n.2, ed. cit. II 2.345.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ In Sent. 2 d.27 a.2 q.1, ed. cit. II 662.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ ST 1a2ae 114.7 ad 3 (ed. cit. VII 351). Cf. Bonaventure, In Sent. 3 d.24 a.1 q.1 ad 4: 'Cum enim spes sit certitudo “proveniens ex gratia et meritis,” nullus sperat, se habiturum vitam aeternam, nisi cum praesuppositione meritorum; et quia efficacia meriti includit finalem perseverantiam: hinc est, quod in actu spei implicatur conditio perseverantiae finalis. Omnis enim, qui recte sperat, sic vitam aeternam exspectat, si usque in finem perseveraverit in gratia; … [ita] praescitus non exspectat vitam aeternam simpliciter, sed sub conditione' (ed. cit. III 511).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ De diversis quaestionibus 83 68.4, PL 40.72, cited by Adams, ‘Piers's Pardon’ 371 n. 12.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Janet Coleman has explored the relation between Piers Plowman and Nominalist theology, emphasizing the notion of facere quod in se est, in Piers Plowman and the Moderni (Rome 1981), a study which came to my attention after this article was written. Her treatment of the grammatical allegory (88–97), like Mitchell's ('Lady Meed,’ n. 5 supra), sees mercede as a ‘direct relation’ between rewards and deeds, and meed as indirect relation, a term reserved for bribery alone (although in the B-version she identifies heavenly meed with meritum de congruo). Though she offers good readings at various points (recognizing, for example, the theological analogy in the ‘son and servant’ exemplum, 95), her interpretation shares the shortcomings of Mitchell's, for it does not specify whether the example in C of the lord's ‘large zeftes’ represents meed or mercede (89–90) — if it is a ‘direct relation’ of mercede, why is it disproportionate and paid before the work? — and it fails to explain the sense of disproportion in the leel laborer's service to his master (91–92). Like Adams, Coleman identifies the heavenly meed of B with meritum de congruo (as distinct from the meed of C, which 'is understood entirely as bribery,’ 88); however, to support this view of B she cites the passage about Lawrence the Levite, which appears only in the C-version (78–79, 86).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Cf. Mossé, Fernand, A Handbook of Middle English, trans. Walker, James A. (Baltimore 1952) sec. 147.Google Scholar

¹¹² NED s.v. semblable, B 1 — 'absol. and quasi-sb… . Something that is like or similar.’Google Scholar

¹¹³ This reading makes equally good sense of the corresponding line of B, which in the archetype is substantially the same as in C. Kane and Donaldson, ed. cit. (n. 1 supra) 209, emend it on the basis of sense, believing ‘of treuthe’ to be dislocated, and identifying e bileve' as Trajan's non-Christian faith. However, the phrase ‘gret of (some virtue)’ is adequately attested in Middle English as meaning simply ‘full of or 'great in’ that virtue: ‘burgoigne … so gret of pryse'; 'Bojje e rote and e stalke [of the white rose of York] ben gret of honoure'; 'Wenynge anne to be gret of Reputacion … least schalbe theyre poure’ — Historical Poems of the 14th and 15th Centuries, ed. Robbins, R. H. (New York 1959) 30.4, 91.50, 93.69. ‘Sith of honoure thou [Mary] arte so grete / That next God in blis is thy sete’ — The Early English Carols, ed. Greene, R. L. (2d ed.; Oxford 1977) 195. 4.1. See also ibid. 175.A.4, where ‘gret of myght’ serves as a metrical variant for ‘of gret myght’ (175.B.3). The sense of treuthe as fidelitas rather than Christian fides certainly lies within the scope of Langland's usage, as does ‘e bileve’ in the sense of that same Christian fides. Even if Kane and Donaldson's emendation of B is correct (they acknowledge it as one of the two most speculative in their edition), it does not affect the reading of the C-version, because they view C as having been copied from the already corrupt B-archetype: thus, unless the forthcoming Athlone C-text presents independent evidence of corruption at C 14.213, the line stands secure as that of the C-reviser. Langland's treuthe emerges as a basic quality of good will or good faith, possible to both pagan and Christian, which expresses itself in good works — in short, the quality of him who facit quod in se est. Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Hugh of St. Cher in the passage quoted above (n. 84) cites the parable as an argument against strict condignitas in the merit of eternal life. Pierre de Tarentaise and Richard of Middleton both cite it as an argument that the augment of grace falls under condign merit, though Richard replies that the parable refers not to the augment of grace, but to the reward of eternal life — Pierre de Tarentaise, In Sent. 2 d.27 q.2 a.3 contra 3, ed. cit. II 238; Richard of Middleton, In Sent. 2 d.27 a.2 q.2 n.2 ad 2, ed. cit. II 351. Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ This reluctance perhaps explains Langland's failure to use the term mercede in any other reference to rewards. In C 16.1–18 he compares earthly wealth to a hire paid before the work and heaven to reward paid after, thus seeming to return to B's simple distinction between rewards in this life and in the next, though classing them more among wages than among meeds. Twice in C he refers to the heavenly reward of St. Lawrence as a meed, though in the first instance Conscience has not yet differentiated that term from mercede, so it may have a less precise meaning embracing both types of reward (C 2.129–37, 17.64–67). Mercede seems to be a concept brought forth for one occasion only. Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ I am indebted for criticisms, comments, and bibliographical help to Professors R. E. Kaske and T. D. Hill and to the graduate forum of medieval studies at Cornell University. Google Scholar