Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
Professor G. R. Owst has called attention to the fact that the fable of the rat parliament, which forms a striking addition to the B-version of Piers Plowman, was also employed with reference to contemporary political conditions in a sermon preached at just this time by Thomas Brunton, Bishop of Rochester. Bishop Brunton, in an unsparing denunciation of corruption in the English government, praised Parliament for its action in bringing the conditions to light, but warned that vigorous steps must be taken to punish the guilty. Otherwise, he continued, Parliament would be like the assembly of rats and mice in the fable which decreed that a bell be hung about the cat's neck yet provided no one to carry the plan into execution. Father F. A. Gasquet, who was the first to point out this passage in Brunton's sermons, conjectured that the parliament in question was the “Good” Parliament and consequently suggested that the sermon was preached sometime in 1376. The interest which the document holds for both the historian and the student of Piers Plowman gives the question of its origin a peculiar importance. Detailed study of the manuscript arrangement of Brunton's collected sermons makes it possible, I believe, to arrive at a clearer understanding of the circumstances which inspired the sermon and even to determine the very day on which it was delivered.
1 “The'Angel' and the ‘Goliardeys’ of Langland's Prologue,” M.L.R., xx, 270–279.
2 British Museum, MS. Harley 3760, fol. 187b: “… ne parliamentum nostrum comparetur fabuloso parliamento murium et ratonum, de quibus legitur quod cum in parliamento suo precipue ordinassent quod campanella cato cuilibet ad collum imponeretur vt mures ad campanelle sonitum premuniti ad sua possent confugere foramina satis tute, cuidam muri de parliamento reuertenti rato antiquissimus obuiauit. Cui noua inquirenti, cum mus veritatem negocij intimasset, intulit ille rato, ‘Ista ordinacio est optima si quis in parliamento est consitutus vt sit tanti negocij executor.‘ Et ille respondisset hoc non fuisse in parliamento diffinitum, et per consequens inualidum erat et inane.”
3 Father Gasquet translated selections from several of Brunton's sermons in a chapter, “A Forgotten English Preacher,” in his Old English Bible and Other Essays (London, 1908). Concerning the date of the sermon which uses the fable of the rats he remarks: “It is most probable, as I have said, that the sermon was preached during the time when the sitting of the ‘Good Parliament’ had led men of honesty and uprightness to hope, through the powerful support of the Black Prince, for an improvement in the government, and to insist on the removal of the King's evil counsellors, and the wretched courtesan, Alice Perrers, who had obtained supreme influence over him.” (p. 64)
Mr. Owst, (loc. cit., p. 274), accepts without further evidence the date suggested by Father Gasquet: “Now Dr. Gasquet, apparently without any thought of the Plowman's Vision in his mind, has himself identified one sermon of the Brunton Manuscript with the period concerned, when the Good Parliament meets in April of the year 1376.”
4 Sister Mary Aquinas Devlin in her unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Date of the C-Version of Piers the Plowman (University of Chicago, Dec. 1925), discusses Brunton and refers to his use of the fable. An abstract of this dissertation is printed in Univ. of Chicago Abstracts of Theses, Humanistic Series, iv (1925–26), 317–320. A typewritten copy is available at the library of the University. After most of my work on this sermon had been completed, I learned through correspondence that Sister Devlin intends to publish the much needed edition of all Brunton's sermons with an introductory discussion of their relation to Piers Plowman. Since, however, our investigations were wholly independent, it seemed worth while to offer my fragmentary results.
5 A complete facsimile of this manuscript has been prepared as No. 58 of the Modern Language Association's Rotographs of Manuscripts and Rare Printed Books. Copies are available at both the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library.
6 See Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers, relating to Great Britain and Ireland, edited by W. H. Bliss and J. A. Twemlow (London, 1902), Papal Letters, iv, 25 for the following dispatch dated “7 Kal. Dec.,” 1366 (4 Urban V) at Avignon: “To the dean of St. Agricolus, Avignon, and the sacristans of Narbonne and Bourges. Mandate to cause two gold florins a day to be supplied by ecclesiastics, secular and regular, to Nicholas Lebrehon, an Augustinian frair, S.T.P. papal pentitentiary and nuncio, and to Thomas de Brynthon, a Benedictine, doctor of canon law, of the diocese of Norwich, papal penitentiary and nuncio, bearers of these presents.”
The statement is usually made that Brunton spent these years at Rome, cf. Tanner, Dugdale, the D.N.B. etc. Since, however, the papal court was at Avignon during this period and since an important duty of a papal penitentiary was to hear confessions in the principal church of the town where the pope was in residence (cf. Cambridge Medieval History, vii, 275), it seems probable that he was actually at Avignon.
7 Wharton, Anglia Sacra (London, 1691), i, 378.
8 Ibid., p. 379.
9 Brunton's activity as a preacher after he became bishop is well established. Walsingham (Historia Anglicana, edited by H. T. Riley, Rolls Series [London, 1863], i, 338–9) gives a summary of the sermon which he preached in connection with the coronation of Richard II in 1377. The present collection seems to correspond with the “Sermones solemnes li. i” concerning which Bale (Index Britanniae Scriptorum, edited by R. L. Poole and M. Bateson [Oxford, 1902], p. 51) had a note from the Monastery at Norwich. His preaching while at the papal court was probably covered by the “Sermones coram pontifice Romano factos, lib. i” which Bale (ibid., p. 433) mentions upon the basis of another note from the same source. That information about Brunton should have been preserved at Norwich is logical in view of the fact that he began his career as a monk there.
10 This group begins with Ash Wednesday or possibly (see note 12 below) with Quinquagesima Sunday. Brunton was not installed as bishop until the third Sunday in Lent, 1373. There is, however, no reason why he should not have begun to preach before his formal assumption of the new office. If he left Avignon shortly after his appointment, he could easily have reached England by Quinquagesima (Feb. 27). It will be noted that Sermon 23, which comes in this group, is headed “apud Roffam” in the manuscript.
11 Although the number of sermons in each of the groups is approximately the same, it will be observed that not more than seventeen are included within the limits of a single year. This, however, is what one would expect in the case of a bishop, who not having the responsibilities of a parish priest would preach only on special occasions.
12 Here is an obvious error. The sequence would be much improved if No. 17 and No. 27 were interchanged. The former, assigned to the 24th Sunday after Trinity, would then come in a group belonging to the Sundays after Trinity instead of in mid-winter. The latter, for Quinquagesima Sunday, which is now so badly out of place among the Trinity sermons would come properly just before Ash Wednesday. That there has been some confusion in placing No. 17 is further indicated by the fact that in the manuscript, although this sermon is called No. 17 in the running title, it is numbered 27 at the beginning of the text. It seems probable, therefore, that in some way No. 17 and No. 27 have been reversed. The dislocation, however, must have occurred before or during the copying of this manuscript for it is not shown by the original foliation.
13 The Carmelite house at Aylesford was founded 1242 by Richard de Grey, Lord of Cudnor. As late as 1492 a member of the Grey family was buried there. See The Victoria History of the Counties of England, Kent (London, 1926), ii, 201 ff.
14 This group is less satisfactory than the others because, after a break caused by the insertion of two sermons which belong to the summer season and one headed simply Ad Clerum, there is a sermon for the fifth Sunday in Lent. In 1377 March 25 was the Wednesday in Passion Week and were the sequence perfect the sermon for the Annunciation would follow that for the fifth Sunday in Lent. The irregularity is doubtless accounted for by the confusion caused by the intruding sermons. In Group VI the sermon for Holy Thursday is obviously misplaced since it comes before that for the fourth Sunday in Lent.
15 See The Anonimalle Chronicle 1333 to 1381 from a MS. Written at St. Mary's Abbey, York, edited by V. H. Galbraith, Publications of the University of Manchester clxxv, Historical Series xlv (Manchester, 1927), p. 77: “Mesme celle an mille cccxxiiii (a scribal error for ccclxxiiii) comensast le quart pestilence en plusours villes en Engleterre devers le south pais et endurrast par longe temps. En quel pestilence murrerent en lan apres graunt noumbre des citisaunz de Loundres de les meliours et pluis riche de toute la cite et plusours vaillaunt clerkes de la Chauncelrie et de le Commune Bank et del Eschequer.”
16 MS. Harley 3760, fol. 190a:“rex et filij”;“regi et filijs.”
17 In the fall of 1376, to be sure, the reforms instituted at this session were swept aside by the king who dissolved the advisory committee appointed by Parliament and restored Alice Perrers and several of the banished officials. By that time, however, John of Gaunt had personally assumed a dominant place in the government, and there seems little doubt that Brunton's attack on official corruption, if made at this later period, would have taken a very different direction.
18 MS. Harley 3760, fol. 187a: “Set numquid est scitum et quasi vndique predicatum quomodo singulares persone non virtuose set vicôse et scandalose per multa tempora habuerunt priuose regimen huius regni?”
19 Ibid., fol. 190b: “Nec est decens vel tu tum quod ad vnius vxoris cingulum pendere debeant omnes claues.”
20 Ibid., fol. 190a: “ Apparetne vobis regnum equitatis si rex et filij per consiliarios ita sunt ducci quod ipsi sunt pauperes et erumpnosi prae gradu et ipsi duccores ita habundant pecunijs?”
21 Ibid., fol. 190b: “Rex autem Anglie, licet habeat consiliarios et officiarios prudentes et fideles, tum in arduis per vnius consilium. …”
22 Ibid., fol. 187b:“Tacent domini temporales quod timent offensam regis, trepidantes vbi non est verisimiliter trepidandum, quod si creduliter veritas diceretur, ita est traccabilis et duccilis quod talia in regno nullatenus pateretur.”
23 Ibid., fol. 187a: “Primo inter opera cetera in regno Anglie a retroactis temporibus attemptata, iam pendet in manibus opus arduum et excellens ex eo quod ad parliamentum sunt vocati prelati, domini, et communes ad traccandum et declarandum de regimine bono regni. Set quid proderit puncca parliamenti traccare et facca transgressorum publice declarare nisi post declaraccionem sequitur penalis execucio debita in hac parte, cum frustra sint iura, nisi sint qui iura debite exequuntur? … (fol. 187b) Non sic, domini reuerendi, set ne parliamentum nostrum comparetur etc. … (fol. 188a) Amore Christi et ob defensionem regni in tanto discrimine constituti, non simus tantum locutores set faccores.”
24 The calendar dates in column three are those supplied by Professor Galbraith. Concerning this chronology T. F. Tout (Chapters in the Administrative History of Medieval England [Manchester, 1928], p. 291 note) makes the following comment: “Fortunately we now have in the Anonimalle Chronicle of St. Mary's, York, admirably edited by Mr. V. H. Galbraith, a new source, which makes absolutely clear the chronology of at least its (i.e. the Good Parliament's) early proceedings. …”
25 Cf. Nos. 12, 43, 46, 108.
26 Owst, loc. cit., p. 278. MS. Harley 3760, fol. 60b: “… predicando, et precipue post curam nostram Londonijs predicando, quia est civitas Anglie principalis. … Item quia ibi est maior deuocio et capacior populus et ideo presumitur maior fruccus. Item quia quilibet episcopus Anglie habet Londonijs subditos vel parochianos, igitur ibi docens quasi predicat suis et ceteris ecclesiis Anglicanis, vt ista in effectu faciendo.”
27 “L'Evesq de Roucestre” is listed in the account of the Good Parliament preserved in the Rotuli Parliamentorum (ii, 322) among the “Hearers of Petitions for Gascony and the Other Lands beyond the Sea.”
The Chronicon Angliœ (edited by E. M. Thompson, Rolls Series [London, 1874], p. 69) includes the Bishop of Rochester among the peers chosen by the commons to advise with them. Unfortunately his presence on this second committee is not confirmed by the other extant lists. That in the Rotuli Parliamentorum (ii, 322) substitutes the Bishop of St. Davids; that in The Anonimalle Chronicle (p. 91) the Bishop of Bath. Could we be certain that Brunton served in this capacity, the interest of No. 69 would be even greater than it is.
28 Gasquet, op. cit., p. 64: “It is even possible that the discourse, spoken evidently to the clergy, may have been delivered at the meeting of Convocation, which at this time (during the session of the Good Parliament) insisted that William of Wykeham must be allowed to take his place at their deliberations, although he had been disgraced and deprived of the resources of his See of Winchester through the influence and misrepresentations of those who held the old King in their power.”
There is some confusion here. The Convocation which demanded the restoration of William of Wykeham was that which met in conjunction with the “Bad” Parliament of 1377. He was not disgraced until the fall of 1376 and his downfall at that time was in large measure due to his activity as a member of the Good Parliament.
29 Since Skeat's edition of the B-Text for the Early English Text Society, Original Series xxxviii (London, 1869), it has been the concensus of opinion that the poem reflects the Good Parliament. M. Jusserand, Piers Plowman, A Contribution to the History of English Mysticism (London, 1894), stresses this particularly.
30 Odo of Cheriton, edited by Hervieux, Fabulistes Latins, ii, 633. Nicholas Bozon, Les Contes Moralisés de …, edited by L. T. Smith and P. Meyer, (Paris, 1889), p. 144 and p. 212.—Brunton probably got the fable from a source of this kind. The use of exempla, especially fables, was a consistent part of his preaching technique. The present fable is treated in his usual manner; cf. MS. Harley 3760, fol. 61.
31 Although our investigation thus confirms Professor Owst's general hypothesis as to the source of the fable in the B-prologue, it seems impossible to accept his interpretation of the allegorical figures in this part of Piers Plowman as allusions to actual persons prominent at the time of the Good Parliament. The theory that Brunton himself was the historical prototype of the “angel of heuene” who spoke “in the eyre on heigh” (B, Prologue, l. 128) is particularly unconvincing. The phraseology of the passage is more or less conventional, and the warning spoken by an angelic voice is a literary commonplace. It seems to have grown up in connection with the story of the divine disapproval of the Donation of Constantine which was a favorite with Wyclif and which is introduced, without this particular phrase, in another part of the B-text (xv, 519 ff.). See 1. John of Paris (ca. 1290): “… audita est vox angelorum dicentium in aere,” De Pot. Reg. et Pap., xxii (cited by Skeat, Piers Plowman, Notes, EETS 67 [London, 1877], p. 367). 2. Wyclif: “vox audita est in aere angelica,” Dialogus iv, 18 (cited by Skeat, op. cit., p. 367). “þer was herde a voyce in þe eyre …”; “þbe awngelle of god, aperynge in þe eyre in þe tyme of doynge of þis wickid dede, saide þes wordis,” The Clergy May not Hold Property, edited by F. D. Matthews, The English Works of Wyclif (London, 1880), p. 374 and p. 380. 3. Gower:
“Ly Rois du gloire celestin
Amont en l'air de son divin
Par une voix q'estoit celestre
Faisoit crier …,“
Mirour de L'Omme, l. 18640 ff., edited by G. C. Macaulay, The Complete Works of John Gower, i, The French Works (Oxford, 1899);
“Hec vox angelica, que nuper in ethere Romam
Terruit …“,
Vox Clamantis, iii, 283 f., edited by Macaulay, iv, The Latin Works (Oxford, 1902);
“Anon as he hath mad the yifte,
A vois was herd on hih the lifte,
Of which al Rome was adrad,“
Confessio Amantis, ii, 3486 ff., edited by Macaulay, ii, The English Works (Oxford, 1901). 4. Pecock's Repressor: “a voice of an aungel was herd in the eir,” p. 323 (cited by Skeat, op. cit., p. 367).
