responsibility for the behavior of his wife, Reason passes on to the tutelage he owes his children. At 6.15–18, Pride will assert that her career began by disobeying her parents. Consequently, “unbuxomness” is associated with this vice and with the very origins of sin itself (cf. B 1.109–13, 2.87). The topic recurs later in this vision at 6.12–29, 7.213, 8.82–91.
Insistence upon paternal correction recalls Conscience’s discussion of Hophni and Phineas at Prol.109–17, although his actual moralization of that biblical anecdote is more relevant to lines 140–42 below. Wit will address the parental responsibility for “fauntokynes … þat fauten inwit” at 10.183–87. With the entire passage, cf. FM 88–90 on disobedient children; their faults are laid upon their parents “for lack of correction and chastising in their youth” (propter defectum correctionis et castigationis dum fuerunt iuvenes, 88/61). The author of FM, in his effort to provide other Franciscans with sermon material of the sort L here evokes, relies heavily on bits of proverbial wisdom; in addition to Prov. 13:24 (L’s text at 139L), he cites (90/76–83) Ecclus. 30:1, 22:3, 30:2, as well as “Hendyng’ ”s English proverb, “Lef chyld lore behoueth” (cf. B 5.38). Hanawalt associates (1986:182–83) such parental tutelage with ages four to six—at the end of which, the dreamer, ʓut ʓong 35, was sent to school; she includes references to the widespread ME literature of parental instruction. See further Owst’s sermon parallels (1961:461–68).
128 (B 5.26, A 5.26) purnele: The name is a vernacular derivative of Petronella, and the saint appears in B 6.275 (the parallel 8.296 reads Poul, as do nearly all B manuscripts). Mustanoja (1970:52) shows that purnele is a common typename for the flirtatious country girl of French pastourelles. But he also draws attention (74–75) to 6.367 and 17.72, where purnele is a (priest’s) whore (to which one might add Mum 1360–61 and perhaps 6.135–36). These underlie the eventual development into OED Parnel/Pernel (a loose woman).
130 (B 5.28, A 5.28) Tomme stoue … : Tom needs two staues to beat Felice for her misbehavior, which has landed her in the wyuene pyne, the cucking-stool (see 3.79n). Her name corresponds with that of a willful fair in the romance Guy of Warwick, mentioned at B 12.47–48, and of a woman (coupled with a Purnell) prideful of her apparel at RichR 3.156–60.
Like many details here, Tom may be a character from proverb-lore. At least, a similar figure appears in an early fourteenth-century sermon with English bits from Fountains (a Cistercian house in West Yorkshire); see Fletcher 1998:32–35. Initially introduced as “Thomas þe Thome” (empty/idle Tom, 29–30), this figure is subsequently reidentified, under the name “Tome Stouue” (Tom the [hewn-down] stump, short Tom, 58–80), with the flesh that chops down all virtuous works. But as husband, he should be the commanding soul, not subject to his wife, the flesh; the preacher cites a couplet, “4ar Thome Stouue es at ham, | God gif þe husband schame,” to indicate his mismanagement and status as evil neighbor.
133 (B 5.31, A 5.31) here hed: In Reason’s valuation, Watt’s wife outspends him for her headdress by twenty to one (half a mark = 6 s. 8 d., a groat = 4 d.) Contrast “Hicke þe hackenayman” (6.378), whose hood, precisely because valueless, generates social value in the tavern.
134–35 (B 5.32–33) bette, Betene: Skeat identifies the names as those of a man (Bat, from Bartholomew) and a woman (from Beatrice), respectively. Both occur elsewhere; see 2.114 and 6.353. Pearsall1 suggests that Betty is Bat’s daughter (and that the lines are thus linked with those that follow, rather than those that precede). On children’s contribution to the family economy, see Hanawalt 1986:156–68.
137 (B 5.35, A 5.33) Late no wynnynge forwanyen hem: The C version of this discussion looks suspiciously as if L revised from a B manuscript that had skipped from children 34 to the word’s repetition in line 40, forcing the poet to reconstruct the passage from memory.
This is the only use of MED forwēnen v. after the early thirteenth century. However, the sense is clear from the etymon, OE wenian “to train” (the modern “wean”); hence the compound implies “train disastrously,” that is, “pamper.”
139L (B 5.39L) Qui parcit … : Prov. 13:24 (He that spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes). B 5.39 provides an explicit gloss that explains 139 the wyse, a translation of the common Latin sapiens (“Solomon, author of biblical wisdom books”).
140–45 (B 5.41–47, A 5.34–39) Reason advises the clergy: All three versions include a brief general address; in it, Reason offers advice to two distinct classes of “clergy.” In all texts, the complaint is the rather generalized one enunciated in, e.g., the 1410 Lollard “Disendowment Bill” (Hudson SEWW 137/86–90), “they lyven nat now ne done the office of trewe curates … ne they helpe nat the pore comens with here lordeshippes … ne they lyve nat in penaunce ne in bodely travaylle as trewe religious shulden by here profession.”
Lines 140–42 address secular clergy, those having cure of souls in the world, the prelates and prestes of 140. Cf. Chaucer’s Parson and the emphasis upon his exemplary status, CT I.496–506, 527–28; and Mann 1973:65 and 237 n43. Contrasting figures occur ubiquitously in the poem, e.g., the hirelings of Prol.81–84 or the ignorant Sloth of 7.30–34. L here invokes the proverb “practice what you preach” (cf. Whiting P 358–62), as Recklessness will do at 11.233–35L. See further Lawler 2002.
In contrast, religioun comprises the regular clergy, those living according to a specific reule. L eventually specifies them in C (156, 170, 173) as the expected groups: monks, nuns, canons, and friars. For such individuals, the rule itself defines the status and acts appropriate to it, cloistered spiritual service to God and to the poor (although friars are not cloistered).
All three versions of Reason’s address agree in the same relatively moderate threat. If religious do not keep the rule, they will face discipline from the appropriate authority—not an ecclesiastical figure (e.g., episcopal visitation), but þe kyng and his consayl. Monastic performance is a matter of public policy.
In describing this chastisement/correction at 144–45 (A 5.38–39, B 5.46–47), L invokes (as he will more explicitly in the subsequent C expansion; see 163–67 et seq.nn) specifically English views of lay-monastic relationships. ʓoure comunes apayre literally refers to withholding food; cf. Prol.143, Piers at 8.167–68, or Donaldson’s rendition (1990:40/46), “curtail your rations.” But the word comunes stands by synecdoche for the whole complex of commonly held monastic possessions, as the resulting argument (e.g., lines 173–75) explains. This emphasis continues in the designation of king and council as a steward, the officer who controls domestic arrangements, both the master of festivities in a hall (cf. Reason as styward of halle 15.39) and the central administrative factotum in a great household, responsible for accounts, the movement of supplies, etc.
At this point, Reason asks religioun to see that it holds its temporal possessions in revocable trust. They came to religious establishments by gift from laypersons, and king and council can enforce proper behavior by rescinding their prior donations. Rather than letting religious beneficiaries act as their own trustees, lay figures will temporarily administer the properties as intended under the original grant.
Such a view relies upon English law and its common acceptation; see Plucknett 1949:92–93. Statute of Westminster II, c. 41 (1285; SR 1:91–92) builds upon earlier legislation designed to enforce payments or services due under a lease (see c. 4 at SR 1:48, c. 21 at 1:82–83). A lessee who fails to pay rent or provide services for two years can be sued for return of the property, and the action is heritable for both parties—successors in the lease and heirs of the lessor. Westminster II, c. 41 extends this right of recovery to include spiritual services, “But
