Last updated 09/07/24: 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
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: 29 July 2016
When William Langland revised his poem Piers Plowman for the second time, he added a long, intricate analogy to the third passus. In all three versions of Piers, the dreamer, Will, finds himself in this early passus at a king's court and witnesses a debate between two figures, Lady Meed and Conscience, about the appropriateness of their possible marriage. The B text, the one scholars most often discuss, presents the would-be bride, Lady Meed, arguing that regardless of their nature the gifts she dispenses at court are integral to the smooth operation of society. These gifts, then, are honorable, and Lady Meed's nature need not prevent her marriage to Conscience. The reluctant Conscience, however, distinguishes between two kinds of meed, one holy and one corrupt. He holds that Lady Meed represents only the corrupt meed and so is intrinsically immoral. Her ‘gifts’ and ‘payments,’ he says, are not proportionate to desert, as she claims, but are instead bribes and payoffs. Rather than easing the functioning of society, they subvert it. On these grounds, Conscience refuses to marry Lady Meed. The king before whom Lady Meed and Conscience argue is initially torn about the nature of Lady Meed, as indeed readers of the poem have remained. In what appears to be an effort to clarify Conscience's argument, Langland adds almost a hundred lines to the debate in the C text.
1 The A text of Piers is very similar to B in the third passus. I will consider specifically only B and C in my discussion, but the issues are relevant to A as well. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from Piers are from Langland, W., The Vision of William Concerning Piers the Plowman (ed. Skeat, W. W.; Oxford 1886). I have chosen to use Skeat's edition rather than the more recent editions of Piers because Skeat's has indelibly marked readers' views of B 3 and C 4. More recent editions tend to follow Skeat closely here. I will, however, note throughout how the more recent editors treat crucial passages.Google Scholar
2 Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Latinam vulgatam versionem (Rome 1953).Google Scholar
3 In their edition, Piers Plowman: The B Version (London 1975 ), Kane, G. and Donaldson, E. T. avoid the possibility of confusion in Conscience's distinction. Their line B 3.246, the line analogous to Skeat's B 3.245, reads as follows: ‘There is [a] Mede mesurelees þat maistres desireþ.’ Their emendation serves the same function as the commas I suggest be inserted.Google Scholar
4 Those who view Lady Meed as evil include Robertson, D. W., Jr. and B. F. Huppé, ‘Piers Plowman’and Scriptural Tradition (Princeton, N.J. 1951 ); Kane, G., Middle English Literature: A Critical Study of the Romances, the Religious Lyrics, ‘Piers Plowman' (London 1951); Frank, R. W., Jr., ‘Piers Plowman’and the Scheme of Salvation: An Interpretation of Dowel, Dobet, and Dobest (New Haven, Conn. 1957); Vasta, E., The Spiritual Basis of ‘Piers Plowman' (The Hague 1965); Morgan, G., ‘The Status and Meaning of Meed in the First Vision of "Piers Plowman,”' Neophilologus 72 (1988) 449–63; and Hala, J., ‘"For She is Tikel of Her Tale": Word-Play in the Lady Mede Episode of Piers Plowman B,’ Proceedings of the Patristic, Mediaeval, and Renaissance Conference 14 (1989) 99–126.Google Scholar
5 Mitchell, A. G., Lady Meed and the Art of ‘Piers Plowman' (London 1965) 22. Murtaugh, D. M., ‘Piers Plowman’and the Image of God (Gainesville, Florida 1978) 41, adopts this view, stating that Lady Meed is ‘amoral rather than immoral.’ This reading of Lady Meed gains strength from the fact that in Passus 2, Theology angrily objects to the marriage of Lady Meed to Fals Fikel-tonge. Theology argues that because Meed's mother is Amends (B 2.118, C 3.120), God has ordained that Meed should not be married to Fals Fikel-tonge but to Truth. Readers may err, however, in automatically attaching great authority to Theology's statement. While Theology would seem to be a reliable spokesperson for the good, Langland's personifications are not always as simple as they might appear to be. As the dreamer learns in the Dowel section of the Vita, supposedly learned and trustworthy abstractions, such as Thought, Study, Clergy, and Scripture, often disagree, although each claims to state the truth. Furthermore, personifications that may, outside the context of the poem, appear to be good, may work in Piers for evil purposes, as Wit and Wisdom do in the Visio. Finally, Theology glosses over the fact that while Lady Meed's mother may be Amends, her father is Fals (B 2.25, or Favel in C 3.25). Given this circumstance, Lady Meed will always be ‘Fals Amends,’ no matter whom she marries.Google Scholar
6 Kirk, E. D., The Dream Thought of ‘Piers Plowman' (New Haven, Conn. 1972) 42.Google Scholar
7 Martin, P., ‘Piers Plowman': The Field and the Tower (New York 1979) 101. For other statements of this view, see Lawlor, J., ‘Piers Plowman': An Essay in Criticism (New York 1962) 30–34, 41–44, and Benson, C. D., ‘The Function of Lady Meed in Piers Plowman,’ English Studies 61 (1980) 193–205.Google Scholar
8 In his article ‘Piers's Pardon and Langland's Semi-Pelagianism,’ Traditio 39 (1983) 367–418, Adams, R. comes to conclusions of significance for the grammatical analogy. Mentioning the analogy only briefly, 398–401, Adams sees that Langland values measuredness and proportion in his view of salvation. Citing medieval theologians, such as William of Ockham, Thomas Aquinas, and Robert Holcot, as well as modern historians, such as H. Oberman, J. Pelikan, and W. Courtenay, Adams presents the theological context in which Langland wrote. He convincingly concludes that Langland's position on works and grace might well be called semi-Pelagian and argues that this view was widely accepted among fourteenth-century theologians.Google Scholar
9 Skeat, , op. cit. (n. 1 supra) II 50.Google Scholar
10 Skeat, , ibid.Google Scholar
11 Hall, T. D., ‘Was “Langland” the Author of the C-Text of “The Vision of Piers Plowman"?' Modern Language Review 4 (1908–9) 7.Google Scholar
12 Moore, S., ‘Studies in Piers the Plowman,’ Modern Philology 11 (1913–14) 192.Google Scholar
13 Kane, , Middle English Literature 185.Google Scholar
14 Donaldson, E. T., ‘Piers Plowman': The C-Text and Its Poet (New Haven, Conn. 1949, rpt. 1966) 80. Donaldson goes on, however, to defend the passage by comparing it to Wordsworth's Peter Bell, which seems to be a clear instance of damnation by faint praise.Google Scholar
15 Critics have usually referred to lines 335–409 as the ‘grammatical metaphor.’ It actually contains both metaphor and simile. For simplicity's sake, I will call the passage metaphoric but when discussing specific lines that are actually similes, I will refer to them as such. Google Scholar
16 The change of the first word in line 338 from ‘As’ to ‘Ac’ has manuscript support. As Skeat indicates, op. cit. I 88, a significant number of manuscripts have ‘Ac’ rather than ‘As’ here. Google Scholar
17 In addition to Skeat's text, three other editions of the grammatical metaphor exist. Carnegy, F. A. R., An Attempt to Approach the C-text of Piers Plowman (London 1934) 62–63, follows Skeat's punctuation with the exception of deleting the dash in line 340 (Skeat's numbering). Carnegy chooses ‘Ac’ rather than ‘As’ to begin line 338, but his failure to put the punctuation in line 340 leaves the referent of ‘hem’ unclear. Mitchell, op. cit. (n. 5 supra), includes an edition of the grammatical metaphor as an appendix to his essay on Lady Meed. Although his choice of punctuation varies slightly from mine, the meaning of the passage is the same. Pearsall, D. in his Piers Plowman: An Edition of the C-Text (Berkeley, Cal. 1979) essentially follows Skeat and concludes (see his note, 79) that meed is sometimes the direct relation and sometimes the indirect relation. His view has been influenced by Amassian, M. and Sadowsky, J., ‘Mede and Mercede: A Study of the Grammatical Metaphor in Piers Plowman C IV: 335–409;' Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 72 (1971) 457–476. Carnegy's and Mitchell's editions are little known, and critics have almost all used Skeat's edition.Google Scholar
18 Until recently, interest in medieval grammar was slight. Important older studies of theories of medieval grammar include Thurot, C., Extraits de divers manuscrits latins pour servir à l'histoire des doctrines grammaticales au moyen age (Paris 1869 ); Hunt, R. W., ‘Studies in Priscian in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries,' Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 1 (1941–43) 194–231, and ‘Studies on Priscian in the Twelfth Century II: The School of Ralph of Beauvais,’ Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 2 (1950) 1–56; and Robbins, R. H., Ancient and Medieval Grammatical Theory in Europe (London 1951). Middleton, A., ‘Two Infinites: Grammatical Metaphor in Piers Plowman,’ Journal of English Literary History 39 (1972) 169–188, examines medieval ideas about grammar comparatively briefly. Significant more recent work includes Alford, J. A., ‘The Grammatical Metaphor: A Survey of Its Use in the Middle Ages,' Speculum 57 (1982) 728–760; Huntsman, J. F., ‘Grammar,' in Wagner, D. L., ed., The Seven Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages (Bloomington, Ind. 1983) 58–95; and Ziolkowski, J., Alan of Lille's Grammar of Sex: The Meaning of Grammar to a Twelfth-Century Intellectual (Cambridge, Mass. 1985). These studies complement each other well. Alford surveys medieval writing, compiling examples of grammatical metaphors; Huntsman takes a linguistic approach; and Ziolkowski examines in detail the relation between grammar and ethics in Alan's De planctu naturae. See also my study, The Grammar of God: Grammatical Metaphor in ‘Piers Plowman’ and ‘Pearl' (diss., Columbia Univ. 1983) especially 1–85.Google Scholar
19 Scholars have tended to see medieval theorists divided into two groups different from the ones I posit here: those who view grammar as natural and those who view grammar as conventional. Seeing grammar instead in relation to the Fall describes the medieval texts better and it solves problems that arise in the nature/convention scheme. Alford, op. cit. 717, for instance, argues that Augustine vacillates between seeing grammar (and language) as natural and conventional. Recognizing that Augustine sees grammar as fallen means that there is no vacillation in his position. Google Scholar
20 Quotations from the Metalogicon are from Ioannis Saresberiensis Episcipi Carnotensis, Metalogicon Libri IIII (ed. Webb, C. C. J.; Oxford 1929).Google Scholar
21 This passage is quoted by Leclercq, J., O.S.B., ‘Smaragde et la grammaire chrétienne,’ Revue de moyen age latin 4 (1948) 16, from Smaragdus' Grammatica in an unedited manuscript in the Bibliotheque Nationale, lat. 13029.Google Scholar
22 Thurot, , op. cit. (n. 18 supra) 65.Google Scholar
23 This passage is quoted by Hunt, R. W., ‘Oxford Grammar Masters in the Middle Ages,' in Oxford Studies Presented to Daniel Callus (Oxford 1964) 176–77 from John of Cornwall's Speculum grammaticale.Google Scholar
24 Augustine, Augustine, De civitate Dei (CCL).Google Scholar
25 Thurot, , op. cit. (n. 18 supra) 131.Google Scholar
26 Standard editions of Donatus' and Priscian's grammars are in Grammatici latini (ed. Keil, H.; Leipzig 1855, 1859, 1864).Google Scholar
27 For examples of university curricula, see Thorndike, L., University Records and Life in the Middle Ages (New York 1944).Google Scholar
28 The first quotation is from Thomson, D., A Descriptive Catalogue of Middle English Grammatical Texts (New York 1979) 62. The second is from Meech, S. B., ‘Early Application of Latin Grammars to English,' PMLA 50 (1935) 1019.Google Scholar
29 Priscian's definition of the noun is in Keil, op. cit. II 56–57. Google Scholar
30 Thurot, , op. cit. (n. 18 supra) 166.Google Scholar
31 The passage is given by Michael, I., English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800 (Cambridge 1970) 91. See also Thomas of Erfurt's Grammatica speculativa (ed. and trans. Bursill-Hall, G. L.; London 1972).Google Scholar
32 Kurath, H., ed., Middle English Dictionary (Ann Arbor, Mich. 1952) V 500–512.Google Scholar
33 Kean, P. M., ‘Love, Law and Lewie in Piers Plowman,’ Review of English Studies NS 15 (1964) 241–261, discusses the ramifications of the word ‘lewte' in Middle English. While ‘lewte’ suggests a virtuous relationship as well as a steadfast one, ‘loyalty’ remains the best translation of ‘lewte.’Google Scholar
34 Lawior, , op. cit. (n. 7 supra) 43–44, discusses the metaphor in a footnote. He acknowledges here that the metaphor makes clear that God's reward is somehow merited, but the thrust of the argument in his book is otherwise. Kean, P. M., ‘Justice, Kingship and the Good Life in the Second Part of Piers Plowman,’ in Hussey, S. S., ed., ‘Piers Plowman': Critical Approaches (London 1969) 98, discusses the social aspects of the metaphor; and B. Raw, ‘Piers and the Image of God in Man,’ in Hussey, op. cit. 157, notes the metaphor's relation to the Biblical premise that people are created in God's image. Martin, , op. cit. (n. 7 supra) 103, describes the grammatical metaphor as a way of expressing the likeness between the divine and the human as well as a way of commenting on social relations but does not discuss the relevance of the metaphor to the poem's central issue of salvation. Alford, op. cit. (n. 18 supra), discusses what he calls a ‘fusion of law and grammar,’ 759, in the metaphor and adopts, with some variation in emphasis, the conclusions of Amassian, Sadowsky, and Murtaugh. Morgan, op. cit. (n. 4 supra), concludes his discussion of Lady Meed with a suggestive but clipped summary of the grammatical analogy, noting that for both ‘spiritual and temporal goods’ meed remains ‘corrupt reward’ and mercede becomes ‘due reward,’ 460, in C.Google Scholar
35 Amassian and Sadowsky, op. cit. (n. 17 supra) 457–476. Google Scholar
36 Although Murtaugh, op. cit. (n. 17 supra), another critic who discusses the C 4 metaphor in some detail, 43–49, uses Mitchell's edition of the passage, op. cit. (n. 5 supra), and so knows a punctuation of C 4.335–42 that makes the distinction between meed and mercede clear, he does not discuss these lines. Adopting Skeat's misleading punctuation of B 3.245, Murtaugh sees God's meed as immeasurable, rather than as the mercede of ‘mesure.’ In fact, mercede, in Murtaugh's reading, is only an earthly quality. Meed is the heavenly relation. Human tendencies to want unmeasured meed on earth are perverse because they stem from a desire of people to be gods. Mercede, for Murtaugh, is the proper earthly relation. It orders the family, the economy, and the government. Google Scholar
37 Overstreet, S. A., ‘"Grammaticus Ludens": Theological Aspects of Langland 's Grammatical Allegory,” Traditio 40 (1984) 253.Google Scholar
38 Ibid. 265 and 255 n. 13.Google Scholar
39 Coleman, J., Piers Plowman and the ‘Moderni' (Rome 1981) 70–107, recognizes that Langland's ideas about mercede and ‘mesure’ might well have been acceptable to medieval theologians, but she nonetheless sees Lady Meed as a possibly good figure and suggests that the Pardon-tearing scene qualifies the covenant established in Langland's grammatical metaphor. According to the moderni who influenced Langland, God is not limited by covenants, and so the proportionate relationship of ‘mesure’ Langland describes in the grammatical analogy cannot describe the relationship between God and humanity. God may or may not honor the covenant, and that uncertainty at least diminishes the covenant and probably renders it insignificant.Google Scholar
40 This pattern is stated many times in the Vita. See especially the passages including these lines: B 9.198; B 10.121; B 11.133, 204; B 12.70, 112, 192; B 13.256; B 14.18, 170, 186; B 15.416; B 16.241, 271; and B 17.248, 332. Google Scholar
41 While most accounts of the Trajan story (such as the one in the Middle English St. Erkenwald) suggest that the righteous heathen received baptism in the tears of the bishop that drop on his body, in Piers Trajan does not receive baptism. He is saved on the basis of his righteousness alone. Interestingly, Langland stresses that the thief who hung on the cross beside Jesus and was saved occupies the lowest place in heaven (B 12.212, C 15.152). The thief had no time to amend, but since he has the lowest spot, everyone else who aspires to heaven must do some righteous act in order to merit a higher place.Google Scholar
Whatley G., ‘The Uses of Hagiography: The Legend of Pope Gregory and the Emperor Trajan in the Middle Ages,' Viator 15 (1984) 25–63, and ‘Piers Plowman B 12.277–94: Notes on Language, Text, and Theology,’ Modern Philology 82 (1984) 1–12, shows that Langland's view of Trajan's salvation falls within the bounds of medieval orthodoxy. See also Doxsee E., ‘"Trew Treuthe” and Canon Law: The Orthodoxy of Trajan's Salvation in Piers Plowman C-Text,’ Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 89 (1988) 295–311.
