Post on 22-Jan-2023
Preprint: New Evidence for the Date and Intellectual Milieu of the Early Middle English
Vices and Virtues
The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11061-014-9397-1
In 1888, Ferdinand Holthausen published for the first time the text of an incomplete early Middle
English religious dialogue surviving uniquely in London, British Library, MS Stowe 34 (olim
240), usually dated to the first quarter of the thirteenth century (as, e.g., in Kurath et al. 1954–
2001; Laing 1993).1 The extant portion of the work begins in the middle of a penitent soul’s
detailed confession of a number of conventional sins. There follows a reply from Reason (Ratio
in Latin, Scadwisnesse in English), whose instruction regarding the various Christian virtues is
punctuated by reactions and responses from the unnamed penitent’s soul and body. Given the
manuscript’s content and its present acephaly, one can hardly invent a better title for the work
than Holthausen’s: Vices and Virtues. By the time Holthausen’s notes and glossary to the text
appeared in 1921, three doctoral dissertations had been completed on various aspects of the
language of the manuscript (Schmidt 1899; Philipssen 1911; Meyerhoff 1913),2 and Joseph Hall
had published an important philological analysis (1920). Perhaps the thoroughness of these
works convinced Holthausen that his planned introduction to the edition, which presumably
would have treated issues of the text’s dialect and date, was no longer necessary. In any case, the
introduction never appeared, and Holthausen does not seem to have returned to the work during
the rest of his long career.
In his analysis of the Stowe Vices and Virtues, Schmidt (1899, pp. 67, 69) ultimately
concurred with a brief assessment given a few years earlier by Lorenz Morsbach (1896, p. 10)
that the work in its present form was written around 1200 in a Southeastern dialect influenced by
Kentish. Philipssen and Meyerhoff did not dispute these conclusions, though Philipssen (1911,
pp. 3–7) disagreed with Schmidt (1899, pp. 7–10) on the extent of the work’s reliance on texts
1 Sample images of the text and binding are now available through the British Library’s online catalogues at
(respectively) http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/record.asp?MSID=6508&CollID=21&NStart=34
and http://special-1.bl.uk/bindingsdiscovery/ui/LargeImage.aspx?RecordId=020-
000016466&ImageId=ImageId=55776&Copyright=BL (accessed Feb 8, 2014). The new catalogue entries are
useful, although both apply to the manuscript the old and misleading designation of “homilies,” found also in the
volume’s modern title and in earlier catalogues (Crawford 1986, p. v; Catalogue 1895–96, I, no. 34).
2 Crawford notes that Philipssen and Meyerhoff were “students working in Holthausen’s department at Kiel” (1986,
p. i). In fact, Holthausen supervised both of their dissertations.
1
from the Old English period. Hall made no absolute claims as to the date of Vices and Virtues,
stating only his belief that Stowe 34 was copied from its exemplar “after a considerable interval”
and that, “as a consequence, the language of VV is older than that current at the time when the
copy was made” (1920, II, pp. 443–44). He agreed with earlier scholars that the manuscript was
Southeastern, but believed that the scribe had adapted into his own language “a composition in
the dialect of the Middle or Western South” (Hall 1920, II, p. 444). Almost all later studies have
considered the work to be an original product of Essex or an immediately adjacent area (see
Utley 1972, p. 866). Judith Crawford, whose unpublished edition includes the best treatment of
the language of the Stowe Vices and Virtues since Hall, concludes that the work was originally
composed between 1150 and 1200 in western Essex, Middlesex, or London (1986, pp. xxxii–
xxxv).
The linguistic character of Vices and Virtues has received more scholarly attention than
the content of its instruction. In the relatively few studies devoted to the text, the question of the
degree of its dependence on Old English traditions, already a point of dispute in the dissertations
of Schmidt and Philipssen, has continued to loom large. An exaggerated view of the dialogue’s
continuity with Anglo-Saxon religious literature prevailed in the work of some earlier scholars,
finding a place in Bruce Dickins and R. M. Wilson’s influential anthology of early Middle
English texts (1951, p. 86; see also Wilson 1968, pp. 172–73).3 The conservative flavor of the
work is undeniable, and the author was probably familiar to some extent with the works of older
writers like Ælfric and Wulfstan (e.g., Holthausen 1888–1921, I, p. 27/25–27; II, p. 166).
Although identifiable textual borrowings have proved elusive, certain elements of the prose style
of Vices and Virtues are strongly reminiscent of Anglo-Saxon authors, especially Wulfstan.
Compare, for instance, the characteristically (though not exclusively) Wulfstanian rhetorical tag
“gyme se ðe wille” (see, e.g., Bethurum 1957, pp. 214/99, 218/188, 242/16, 254/84, 276/10) with
Vices and Virtues: “Nime ȝieme se ðe wile” (Holthausen 1888–1921, I, p. 11/19; cf. I, p. 5/4–5).4
Similar traces of Wulfstan’s stylistic influence in the early Middle English period have been
detected in the Orrmulum and Laȝamon’s Brut (Morrison 1995; Kleinman 2013).
3 A more measured treatment of the work’s place in the tradition of English prose can be found in Zeeman 1956.
4 A particularly relevant non-Wulfstanian example occurs in a text on the dates of movable feasts in Cambridge,
Corpus Christi College, MS 422: “þis is soð, gyme se ðe wylle” (Henel 1934, p. 46). Compare Vices and Virtues:
“Ðis is soð, neme ȝeme se ðe wile!” (Holthausen 1888–1921, I, p. 5/4–5). Citations of the text in this article will be
from Holthausen’s edition.
2
Really, however, the notion advanced in 1951 by Dickins and Wilson that Vices and
Virtues “might ... be the modernization of a work composed originally during the OE period” had
already been excluded by some of the parallels uncovered by Holthausen (1888–1921, II, pp.
169, 177 et passim) and Hall (1920, II, p. 444), which include works by Bernard of Clairvaux
and Hugh of St. Victor. Furthermore, the author is known to have made use of the influential
pseudo-Augustinian treatise De uera et falsa poenitentia, composed around 1100 (see Gunn
2012, p. 74). Such connections place Vices and Virtues firmly in a twelfth-century theological
context. Cate Gunn’s recent chapter—the first significant, published study of the text in over half
a century—fruitfully examines Vices and Virtues as a product of its time.5 In addition to
discussing the author’s adaptation of the traditional Cassianic list of eight cardinal sins, Gunn
demonstrates that the work shares a number of concerns with the late twelfth-century English
homilies surviving in London, Lambeth Palace, MS 487 and Cambridge, Trinity College, MS B.
14. 52, which also lie at the traditional boundary between Old and Middle English (2012, pp. 67–
70). One such concern, which likely motivated the work’s composition in the first place, is the
growing importance attributed to frequent sacramental confession, which gradually increased
during the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries until the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 made
annual confession obligatory for all Christians (Gunn 2012, pp. 68–69 et passim; cf. Millett
2007, pp. 48–50, 55, 63). Gunn (2012, pp. 75–76) also notes the author’s interest in the emergent
doctrine of purgatory, which Jacques Le Goff (1981) famously claimed was born in the twelfth
century.6 The Vices and Virtues author’s use of contemporary sources and his concern with
twelfth-century theological issues effectively rule out antiquarianism as a motive for the work’s
composition. As Gunn concludes, “This was a book intended, not for show, but to be used”
(2012, p. 84). As is the case also with the Lambeth and Trinity Homilies, the occasional
borrowings from or imitations of Old English prose show not that the author was unoriginal or
old-fashioned, but rather that both older and newer works were considered potentially valuable
for pastoral care in the milieu in which Vices and Virtues was composed.7
5 I am grateful to George Younge for alerting me to the existence of Gunn’s article.
6 See the criticisms of this argument with reference to medieval English religious literature in Kabir 2001; Forbes
2010. On purgatory in Vices and Virtues see also Pelle 2012, pp. 69–70 and n. 87.
7 Several authors have recently argued for the continuing vitality of English homiletic prose in this period. See, for
instance, the works of Mark Faulkner (2011; 2012), Bella Millett (esp. 2005; 2007), Mary Swan (e.g., 2007a;
2007b), and Elaine Treharne (most recently 2012).
3
Many details about this milieu, however, remain unclear. The book’s author alerts readers
to the compositional eclecticism8 of his work when he says in his conclusion that he has taken
material “of maniȝes haliȝes mannes ȝeswinkes” (“the efforts of many holy men”)9 (Holthausen
1888–1921, I, p. 151/17), but he only occasionally cites these sources. Holthausen’s notes, later
augmented by Crawford, are detailed and reliable, but many passages evidently rely on Latin
texts that neither editor was able to identify. In the remainder of this article I shall suggest
probable sources (or close analogues) for three of these passages. The identification of these
texts will not only provide important internal evidence for the dating of Vices and Virtues (dated
on linguistic and paleographical grounds to the period 1150–1200), but also give a better picture
of the intellectual environment in which the author worked and of the sources to which he had
access.
Self-will as God’s crown
Towards the end of its confession and following a section on impatience, the penitent soul of the
Stowe Vices and Virtues admits to exercising self-will, for which the author, as usual, gives both
the English and Latin terms: “Ðurh ðessere senne ic, unȝesali saule, fel in to an oðer senne, ðe is
icleped propria voluntas, þat is, auȝen-wille” (“Through this sin [impatience], I, wretched soul,
fell into another sin, which is called propria uoluntas, that is, self-will”) (Holthausen 1888–1921,
I, p. 13/29–30). No rational creature, the soul explains, should follow his or her own will over
against that of God or his ministers (emphasis mine):
Non scafte ðe is scadwis, al swo bieð angles and menn, ne aȝeð te hauen here
aȝen-will, forðan hie ne bieð, ne ne muȝen bien næure, riht-wise ne gode, bute hie
folȝin godes wille on alle wisen. Forðan we findeð on hali write: “Se mann ðe
wile folȝin his aȝen wille, he is aȝeanes gode, alswa is ðe mann ðe is aȝeanes ðe
kinge and wile his curune him benemen” (Holthausen 1888–1921, I, p. 15/2–8).
(No creature that is rational, as are angels and men, should have their own self-
will, because they are not and can never be righteous or good unless they follow
God’s will in all things. Therefore we find in holy scripture: “The man who
wishes to follow his own will, he is against God, just as a man who is against
the king and wishes to deprive him of his crown.”)
8 On this method in medieval Insular homiletics, see Tristram 1995, pp. 4–9, 16.
9 Translations appearing in this article are mine. Holthausen’s edition of Vices and Virtues contains a translation, but
it is marred by frequent flaws (often admitted and corrected in his notes).
4
The first sentence of this explanation does not appeal to any particular authority, and the idea
that no one can be holy without submitting to the will of God is so essential a tenet of
Christianity that one would search in vain for a specific source. On the other hand, the
subsequent comparison of self-will with depriving a king of his crown is a striking analogy, and
the author’s citation of “hali write” suggests that he is knowingly borrowing it from some other
text. The mind of the modern reader, seeing “holy scripture” cited as a source, naturally runs to
the Bible, but both Latin scriptura and Old/Middle English hali(g) (ge)writ could encompass a
much larger range of religious writings in the Middle Ages.10 Holthausen admits, “This is
certainly not a biblical quotation, but I am unable to say what is meant by the ‘hali write’”
(1888–1921, II, p. 158). Crawford was similarly unable to trace the reference (1986, 83).
The ultimate source of the crown analogy can be found in the Liber Anselmi
archiepiscopi de humanis moribus per similitudines, generally abbreviated De humanis moribus
or simply De moribus. “This treatise,” its editors say, “can best be described as a systematic
treatment of virtues and vices within the context of the religious life” (Southern & Schmitt 1969,
p. 4), and thus it is natural that the author of a work like the Stowe Vices and Virtues might look
there for inspiration. It is unclear whether the book is essentially the work of Anselm of
Canterbury himself (perhaps augmented or corrected by others after his death) or the work of a
reporter or reporters who collected and compiled the archbishop’s sayings on relevant issues, but
there is general scholarly agreement that the content of De moribus is genuinely Anselmian
(Southern & Schmitt 1969, pp. 6–8; Biffi et al. 2008, pp. 2–11). An enlarged text of the De
moribus, usually called De similitudinibus (PL 159, cols. 605A–708D), was edited to include
Anselmian material from other works and quickly eclipsed its source in popularity (Southern &
Schmitt 1969, pp. 12–15, 17–18). The De moribus was likely published around the time of
Anselm’s death in 1109, and its earliest extant manuscripts were written about 1130. Strangely,
these come from western England, and there is little evidence for the work’s circulation outside
of Gloucestershire and Herefordshire. The longer revision (De similitudinibus), however, which
was made sometime before 1130, achieved a much wider circulation, including eastern England
(Southern & Schmitt 1969, pp. 11–13). If, therefore, the author of the Stowe Vices and Virtues,
10 On the broad definition of “holy writings” in Old English homilies see especially Thompson 2002. A Latin
example can be found in Hugh of St. Victor’s De sacramentis Christiane fidei (discussed in more detail below),
where Hugh quotes as “scriptura” a proverbial expression on foolish vows, perhaps taken from Sedulius Scottus
(Berndt 2008, p. 476/17).
5
who lived in or near Essex, had direct access to the work, it was probably in the somewhat later
form represented by the De similitudinibus.
Anselm often discusses propria uoluntas in De moribus/De similitudinibus. In chapter
six, he gives his definition of the term: “Propria quippe voluntas est, quae dei voluntatem sibi
advocatam habere non potest, ut si requiratur cur hoc vel illud velit, respondere veraciter non
valet quia et deus vult ut hoc velit” (“Self-will is a will that cannot have the will of God as an
advocate for itself, since, in response to the question of why it wants this thing or that, it cannot
honestly respond that God also wishes that it should want this”) (Southern & Schmitt 1969, p.
40/20–23; cf. PL 159, col. 607A).11 This definition is followed closely by an argument that self-
will (apparently in a rather more neutral sense) is a privilege reserved for God alone; it is here
that we find the apparent source of the Vices and Virtues crown analogy:
8. Quod propria voluntas soli deo conveniat
Solus enim Deus, quidquid vult, debet velle propria voluntate, ita ut aliam, quam
sequatur, non habeat supra se. Cum igitur homo vult aliquid per propriam
voluntatem, deo aufert quasi suam coronam. Sicut enim corona soli regi
competit, sic propria voluntas deo soli. Et sicut regem aliquem inhonoraret,
qui suam coronam ei coronato [De similitudinibus coronato om.] auferret, sic
homo inhonorat deum, qui aufert ei propriae voluntatis privilegium, habendo
quod ille debet habere solum. Sed sicut propria voluntas dei fons est et origo
totius boni, ita propria voluntas hominis totius est exordium mali (Southern &
Schmitt 1969, p. 41/1–10; PL 159, col. 607B–C).
(8. Self-will is appropriate for God alone
For God alone ought to want whatever he wants with self-will, such that he has no
will to follow above his own. When, therefore, a man wants anything with
self-will, it is as if he deprives God of his crown, for just as the crown belongs
to the king alone, so does self-will belong to God alone. And just as someone
who would take away a crown from the king [once he had been crowned]
would dishonor him, so the man dishonors God who takes from him the
privilege of self-will, in taking possession of that which he alone ought to
possess. Moreover, just as God’s self-will is the fount and origin of all good,
man’s self-will is the beginning of all evil.)12
The Vices and Virtues author’s version of the analogy is more compact, and he avoids the
concepts of dishonor and privilege invoked by Anselm in favor of the simpler language of direct
11 The two edited versions are basically the same in the sections relevant to the present article.
12 For an Italian translation of the same passage see Biffi et al. 2008, p. 19.
6
opposition (“he is aȝeanes gode, alswa is ðe mann ðe is aȝeanes ðe kinge”), but the structure and
overall meaning of the two passages are similar enough to make obvious the existence of a
relationship between them. This analogy appears nowhere else to my knowledge, and, given the
esteem in which Anselm was held in England and the particular popularity that De
similitudinibus enjoyed, the most probable explanation for this similarity is that De
similitudinibus (or, less likely, its rarer source tract De moribus) was the “hali write” on which
the Vices and Virtues author depended here. This hypothesis is further strengthened by its
consistency with emerging trends in other English works of similar date and genre, several of
which—including Sawles Warde, Vespasian Homily 2 (whose opening is adapted from De
moribus/De similitudinibus), and Trinity Homily 29—also draw on Anselmian or pseudo-
Anselmian texts (Becker 1980, 1984; Hall 1920, II, p. 284; Millett 2010, p. 229; Pelle 2012, pp.
167–68).
Generosity of alms cannot atone for personal immorality
Reason begins her discourse on the virtues with discussions of faith, hope, and charity. In
accordance with I Cor 13: 13, the most space is accorded to charity. The author of Vices and
Virtues, however, is concerned that his audience not mistake the New Testament emphasis on the
importance of caritas as tacit license to give themselves over to luxury and lust, provided they
remain charitable towards others. To that end, he makes the following clarification:
... al swo sanctus Iohannes seið: Qui manet in karitate, in deo manet, et deus in
eo, “Se ðe wuneð on karite, he wuneð on gode, and godd on him.” Sume mis-
understondet (hier) ðis hali writt, weneð, ȝif he ȝifð bleðeliche to eten and to
drinken, and of his oðer eihte doþ for godes luue bleðeliche, and him self lið on
sume heaued-senne, ne ðo ne wile læten, ac hopeð te bien iboreȝen ðurh ðat he
dieð swa michel for godes luue. Hier aȝean seið god him self: Si recte offers, et
non recte diuidis, peccasti, “Gif ðu riht offrest and noht riht ne sciftst,13 ðu
senegest mare ðan ðu god do.” Ðu ȝifst ðine eihte gode, and ðe seluen ðe
dieule. Þat nis naht riht iscift; for ðan betere is an god saule, ðan all ðe
woreld mid all hire eihte (Holthausen 1888–1921, I, p. 37/11–23).
(... as St. John says: Qui manet in caritate, in deo manet, et deus in eo, “He who
dwells in charity dwells in God, and God in him” (I Io 4: 16). Some
misunderstand here the holy scripture and expect that if they gladly give to eat
and to drink, and give away their other property gladly for God’s love, while they
themselves lie in some cardinal sin and will not give it up, but they hope to be
13 Crawford’s edition (1986, 18) has scifst.
7
saved because they give so much for God’s love.14 Against this God himself
says: Si recte offers, et non recte diuidis, peccasti, “If you offer rightly and do
not divide rightly, you sin more than you do good” (Gn 4: 7).15 You give your
possessions to God and yourself to the devil. That is not rightly divided, since
one good soul is better than all the world with all its possessions.)
Holthausen (1888–1921, II, p. 171) and Crawford (1986, p. 92) both suggest that the final
sentence is an allusion to the first part of Mt 16: 26 (“quid enim prodest homini si mundum
uniuersum lucretur animae vero suae detrimentum patiatur” [≈ Mc 8:36/Lc 9:25]), and they are
probably right to some extent. However, as I shall demonstrate, other elements of this warning
against over-reliance on charity and almsgiving are drawn ultimately from Jerome, likely
through the mediation of a more contemporary Latin work.
Jerome’s Letter 66 (Ad Pammachium de dormitione Paulinae) is an attempt to console
and exhort the Roman nobleman-turned-monk Pammachius after his daughter’s death.
Pammachius earns praise from Jerome for his almsgiving and charitable works, but, like the
author of Vices and Virtues, Jerome cautions that these external works must be accompanied by
internal conversion: “Haec moneo, frater carissime, pietate, qua te diligo, ut non solum
pecuniam, sed te ipsum Christo offeras” (“I admonish you, beloved brother, through the affection
in which I hold you, not to offer money alone, but also yourself to Christ”) (Hilberg 1996, p.
662/12–13). The conclusion of this admonition is the ultimate source of the section of Vices and
Virtues highlighted above:
si offeramus Christo opes cum anima nostra, libenter suscipit; si autem, quae foris
sunt, deo, quae intus, diabolo demus, non est aequa partitio et dicitur nobis:
nonne, si recte offeras et non recte diuidas, peccasti? (Hilberg 1996, p. 663/11–
15).
(If we offer Christ our wealth along with our souls, he receives it gladly. If,
however, we give what is outside to God and what is within to the devil, this is
not an equitable division, and we are told, “Have you not sinned if you offer
rightly and do not divide rightly?”)
The English is somewhat differently ordered than the Latin, but the existence of some
relationship between the passages is evident from their citation of the same verse from Genesis
14 In translating this rather unwieldy sentence I have endeavored to be as clear as possible while retaining the
anacoluthon of the Middle English.
15 The reading, as Holthausen notes (1888–1921, II, pp. 170–71), is from the Vetus Latina. See Fischer 1951–54, pp.
82–83.
8
(in the Vetus Latina form) and from various other verbal and syntactic similarities (e.g., “Þat nis
naht riht iscift” / “non est aequa partitio”). This relationship, however, was likely indirect, since,
as we shall see, the relevant passage from Jerome was repeatedly borrowed and altered by
theologians closer in date to the probably composition of Vices and Virtues.
Jerome’s warning in Letter 66 seems to have enjoyed a particular currency among some
of the authors of the Augustinian abbey and school of St. Victor in Paris. The most distinguished
product of that school, Hugh of St. Victor (d. 1141), borrowed from Jerome’s letter in the second
book of his important work on sacramental theology, De sacramentis Christiane fidei, written in
or shortly after 1133 (Girolimon 1994; cf. Ehlers 1991). Hugh explains that, depending on the
situation, most vows and promises can be repaid (commutata) in terms other than those
originally stipulated; if one vows a pilgrimage, for instance, but circumstances subsequently
make travel difficult or impossible, one can fulfil the vow with alms instead (Berndt 2008, p.
478/23–28). A promise to the Lord of one’s soul, however, admits no commutatio:
Si uoues animam tuam.ʹ redde animam tuam. Noli putare quod reddere possis pro
anima tua pecuniam tuam. Hoc enim esset plus uouere. et minus reddere. et non
esset equa recompensatio. Si tua das deo. te ipsum zabulo. non est equa
particio. Nonne si recte offeras. et non recte diuidas peccasti? Plus [enim add.
var.] ualet anima. et minus pecunia (II.xii.5: Berndt 2008, p. 478/6–10; PL 176,
col. 523A).
(If you vow your soul, pay your soul. Do not think that you can pay your money
in exchange for your soul, for this would be to vow more and pay less, and it
would not be an equitable exchange. If you give what is yours to God and
yourself to the devil, it is not an equitable division. “Have you not sinned if
you offer rightly and do not divide rightly?” [For] the soul is worth more,
and money less.)
Hugh’s borrowing from Jerome was borrowed in turn by Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173) for two
of his Sermones centum (24 [PL 177, col. 947B] and 53 [PL 177, col. 1056C]) and his Liber
exceptionum (Châtillon 1958, p. 424/38–39).16 Richard’s adaptations are abbreviated and omit
the important citation of Gn 4: 7, and are thus not likely sources for the Stowe Vices and Virtues.
Hugh’s version, however, is a good candidate, as it contains verbal similarities to the English that
are lacking in Jerome. For instance, the English sentence, “Ðu ȝifst ðine eihte gode, and ðe
seluen ðe dieule,” is a much closer match to Hugh (“si tua das deo. te ipsum zabulo...”) than to
16 On the attribution of these works to Richard and the relationship between them, see Châtillon 1948.
9
Jerome (“si autem, quae foris sunt, deo, quae intus, diabolo demus...”). Furthermore, the
concluding English clause, “for ðan betere is an god saule, ðan all ðe woreld mid all hire eihte,”
lacks any parallel in Jerome, but is similar to Hugh’s “Plus [enim] ualet anima. et minus
pecunia” (likely with an ancillary influence from the Gospel verses suggested by Holthausen and
Crawford). Finally, just as several of Anselm’s works were used by writers of early Middle
English religious prose, there is evidence to suggest a growing Victorine influence on the genre
at this time. Mark Faulkner has recently shown that a Victorine sequence sometimes attributed to
Adam of St. Victor (d. 1146) is quoted in two of the Lambeth Homilies,17 and the Vices and
Virtues version of the so-called Four Daughters of God allegory has an important analogue in a
commentary by Hugh (Crawford 1986, p. 118).18 There is thus good reason to conclude that the
author of Vices and Virtues adapted this section of his work from De sacramentis Christiane
fidei or a closely related text.
The danger of exaggerated humility
After the section on charity, the penitent soul entreats Reason to continue her discourse on the
virtues (Holthausen 1888–1921, p. 47). Just as pride holds first place in many lists of vices, a
long discussion of humility precedes the other virtues in this part of the Stowe manuscript. The
end of this discussion cautions both against taking pride in one’s good works and against
affected or false humility. Here we find the following citation of an unidentified source:
It his ȝewriten: Nimi(a) humilitas (est)19 maxima superbia, ðat is, “ȝif ðu latst ðe
seluen oðerliker ðanne oðre gode eadmode menn, and tu ne hafst swa on ðine
herte swa ðu sceawest wiðuten, ðanne wite ðu te soðe ðat ðat is michel
modinesse” (Holthausen 1888–1921, p. 59/8–12).
(It is written: Nimia humilitas est maxima superbia, that is, “If you comport
yourself differently from other good, humble men, and you do not have in your
heart what you show externally, then know truly that that is great pride.”)
17 Faulkner makes this identification in his forthcoming monograph, Ignota lingua: English literatures in the long
twelfth century.
18 Crawford shows that Hugh is not the source of the English version, as Hall suggested (1920, II, p. 444).
19 “est” is apparently an addition. The a in “Nimi(a)” is a correction, but neither Holthausen nor Crawford (1986, p.
29/8) notes the original reading. It is similarly unclear whether these changes were made by the scribe, the
manuscript’s corrector, or its rubricator, all of whom contributed various improvements (see Crawford 1986, p. lv).
10
The author’s interpretation makes some interesting departures from his source quotation, but it is
the Latin sentence itself that I would like to focus on here.
Holthausen (1888–1921, II, p. 179) and Crawford (1986, p. 101) found no possible
source for the Vices and Virtues author’s quotation, “Nimia humilitas est maxima superbia.”
Close parallels, however, do appear in several texts emanating from the Paris schools and their
students in the later twelfth century. The earliest and most significant of these can be found in the
Policraticus of John of Salisbury (d. 1180), the renowned English churchman and philosopher,
who was educated in Paris in the 1130s and 1140s. David Luscombe describes the Policraticus,
completed in 1159, as “at once a work of political theory, a manual of government, a mirror of
princes, a moralizing critique of life at court; and also an encyclopaedia of letters and learning, a
storehouse of exempla and historiae, and a didactic philosophical and ethical treatise” (2004).
The conduct of the prince is the focus of book four, in which there appears the following passage
as a warning against the excess of certain good qualities:
Salomon quoque, noli, inquit, esse nimis iustus (Ecl 7: 17). Quid ergo nimium
prodest, si regina uirtutum in sui nimietate obest? Alibi quoque nimia humilitas
maxima pars superbiae est (IV.ix: Keats-Rohan 1993, p. 263/13–16).
(Solomon also said, “Do not be overly just.” Of what great benefit is it if the
queen of virtues becomes an obstacle through her own excess? Elsewhere also:
“Too much humility is a very great part of pride.”)
The structure of the sentence in which we find this warning against excessive humility suggests
that John believed he was citing a well-known source. Indeed, he quotes the Bible along with
several pagan authors, such as Horace and Cicero, in this chapter of his work.20 The text’s most
recent editor, however, while noting a distant parallel in the Nicomachean Ethics, is forced to
conclude that the sentence on humility draws on a “fons ignota” (Keats-Rohan 1993, p. 263), and
I have also been unable to trace its ultimate origin. It is probable that John learned it from one of
his teachers in Paris (among whom were such luminaries as Abelard, William of Conches,
Gilbert de la Porrée, and Robert Pullen), but we may never be able to identify which one.
In any case, the maxim’s currency in the Paris schools of the later twelfth century is
attested by a number of other sources. These include two of the revised versions of the Parisian
master Peter Cantor’s (d. 1197) Verbum adbreuiatum, a compendium of quotations, exempla,
20 See the apparatus fontium at Keats-Rohan 1993, p. 263.
11
and distinctions on various moral topics directed to the clergy, generally thought to have been
written sometime after 1187 (Manitius 1931, p. 160; Sanford 1943; Peppermüller 1993):
Est enim duplex [humilitas]; prudens et sancta humilitas omnium uirtutum
substratorium; est et subdola que est ypocrite de qua: nimia humilitas cognata
est superbie, sicut nimia simplicitas uicinatur fatuitati (Textus alter, cap. 11:
Boutry 2012b, p. 59/65–68; same passage present with minimal changes in the
Textus conflatus, I.11: Boutry 2004, p. 88/76–79).21
(There are two kinds of humility: a prudent and holy humility, which is the
foundation of all virtues, and also the deceitful humility of the hypocrite, about
which it is said: “Too much humility is akin to pride, just as too much
simplicity approaches stupidity.”)
Another important Paris theologian, Simon of Tournai (d. 1201), used the phrase in the eighth
part of his monumental Institutiones in sacram paginam, composed around 1170–1175. Here,
“nimia humilitas superbia est” functions as a pithy and apt response to the question of “whether
someone should knowingly confess a sin which he did not commit in order to show his humility”
(“an scienter quis confiteri debeat peccatum quod non fecit, ut se humilem exhibeat”)
(Heinzmann 1967, p. 87/237–39). The version used by Simon was familiar enough in England
by the early thirteenth century that Gervase of Melkley cited it in his Ars poetica (1215/1216) as
an example of the rhetorical device of antithetum (Gräbener 1965, p. 166/19; see Hallik 2007,
pp. 342, 349).
Of all the known versions of this maxim in Latin texts, the formulation of John of
Salisbury—“Nimia humilitas maxima pars superbiae est”— is verbally closest to the citation
appearing in Vices and Virtues—“Nimia humilitas est maxima superbia.” This similarity and the
fact that John was an Englishman make it tempting to conclude that the Policraticus was the
source of the English dialogue. This is certainly possible, but the motif’s apparent popularity in
late twelfth-century Paris (demonstrated through its use by Peter Cantor and Simon of Tournai),
combined with the growing number of English churchmen educated in Paris at this time
(Goering 1992, p. 29; Gunn 2012, pp. 68–69), suggests that the Vices and Virtues author might
also have encountered the idea in several other texts or heard it from a teacher or colleague. It
21 The second part of this version of the motif, regarding exaggerated simplicity, appears again in both later
revisions (Boutry 2012b, p. 456/35–36; Boutry 2004, p. 746/1–2), as well as in the Textus prior (Boutry 2012a, p.
617/32–33). Boutry’s apparatus fontium suggests a connection to a passage in Peter of Blois’s (d. ca. 1212)
commentary on Job: “est simplicitas quæ fatuitati cognata est, et est simplicitas quæ in Evangelio commendatur”
(PL 207, col. 797C).
12
remains notable, however, that the first written attestations of the expression eventually used in
the English dialogue date from the later part of the twelfth century, with its earliest known
appearance, in the Policraticus, datable to 1159.
Conclusions
The sources and analogues identified above allow an assessment based on internal evidence of
the usual dating of Vices and Virtues to ca. 1150–1200. The author’s familiarity with the
Anselmian De similitudinibus (composed before 1130) and Hugh of St. Victor’s De sacramentis
Christiane fidei (ca. 1133) prove that he could not have worked much earlier than the traditional
terminus a quo. In fact, there may be grounds for supposing that he worked closer to the end of
the accepted range. The most significant analogues to the author’s Latin quotation on humility in
the works of John of Salisbury, Simon of Tournai, and Peter Cantor can be dated to around 1159,
1175, and 1187, respectively. If the period suggested by these dates accurately represents the
early life of the motif, we might perhaps push forward the probable date of Vices and Virtues to
sometime in the last third of the twelfth century.
More important than the exact year of its composition, however, is the intellectual
background of Vices and Virtues. Here, too, the new evidence presented above is useful. To this
point, little could be said with certainty about the text’s creator, other than that he probably lived
in Eastern or Southeastern England in the later twelfth century; he was familiar with both
patristic and Old English exegesis and homiletics; and he had some knowledge of pastoral texts
composed as late as 1100 (like the pseudo-Augustinian De uera et falsa poenitentia). Now,
however, we can posit a good deal more. The author of the Stowe Vices and Virtues knew the
thought of Anselm on self-will and cited it for his own purposes. He was familiar with at least
one Victorine author, namely Hugh of St. Victor, and skillfully adapted material from one of his
most influential works. If not educated in Paris himself (a distinct possibility for a late twelfth-
century English cleric), his use of a maxim about humility popular among some of the greatest
products of the Paris schools suggests that he moved in the same circles as these men and was
conversant with their works. In short, our author was intelligent, well-educated, and fully versed
in contemporary theology. That a person of such considerable talents would choose to apply
them to the composition of a vernacular dialogue like Vices and Virtues, and that such a work
13
continued to be copied and read well into the thirteenth century, provide further proof of the
vitality and importance of the earliest Middle English religious prose.
14
References
Becker, W. (1980). The source text of Sawles Warde. Manuscripta, 24, 44–48.
Becker, W. (1984). The literary treatment of the pseudo-Anselmian dialogue De custodia
interioris hominis in England and France. Classica et mediaevalia, 35, 215–33.
Berndt, R. (Ed.). (2008). Hugonis de Sancto Victore De sacramentis Christiane fidei. Corpus
Victorinum: Textus historici 1. Münster: Aschendorff.
Bethurum, D. (Ed.). (1957). The Homilies of Wulfstan. Oxford: Clarendon.
Biffi, I., Granata, A., Marabelli, C., & Riserbato, D. (Eds.). (2008). Anselmo d’Aosta nel ricordo
dei discepoli: parabole, dette, miracoli. Milan: Jaca book.
Boutry, M. (Ed.). (2004). Petri Cantoris Summa quae dicitur Verbum adbreuiatum (textus
conflatus). Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaeualis 196. Turnhout: Brepols.
Boutry, M. (Ed.). (2012a). Petri Cantoris Summa quae dicitur Verbum adbreuiatum (textus
prior). Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaeualis 196A. Turnhout: Brepols.
Boutry, M. (Ed.). (2012b). Petri Cantoris Summa quae dicitur Verbum adbreuiatum (textus
alter). Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaeualis 196B. Turnhout: Brepols.
Catalogue of the Stowe Manuscripts in the British Museum. (1895–96). 2 vols. London: British
Museum.
Châtillon, J. (1948). Le contenu, l’authenticité et la date du Liber exceptionum et des Sermones
centum de Richard de Saint-Victor. Revue du Moyen Âge latin, 4, 23–52; 343–66.
Châtillon, J. (Ed.). (1958). Liber exceptionum: texte critique avec introduction, notes et tables.
Paris: J. Vrin.
Crawford, J. M. (Ed.). (1986). Vices and Virtues: re-edited from British Library MS Stowe 34.
Doctoral dissertation: University of Sheffield.
Dickins, B. & Wilson, R. M. (Eds.). (1951). Early Middle English texts. London: Bowes &
Bowes.
Ehlers, J. (1991). Hugo v. St-Victor. Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. V (cols. 177–78). Stuttgart:
Metzler.
Faulkner, M. (2011). Archaism, belatedness and modernisation: ‘Old’ English in the twelfth
century. The Review of English Studies, n.s. 63, 179–203.
Faulkner, M. (2012). Rewriting English literary history 1042–1215. Literature Compass, 9, 275–
91.
Fischer, B. (Ed.). (1951–54). Genesis. Vetus Latina: die Reste der altlateinschen Bibel, vol. II.
Freiburg: Herder.
Forbes, H. F. (2010). Diuiduntur in quattuor: the interim and judgement in Anglo-Saxon
England. The Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 61, 659–84.
Girolimon, M. T. (1994). Hugh of St. Victor’s De sacramentis Christianae fidei: the sacraments
of salvation. The Journal of Religious History, 18, 127–38.
Goering, J. (1992). William de Montibus (c. 1140 – 1213): the schools and the literature of
pastoral care. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.
Gräbener, H.-J. (Ed.). (1965). Ars poetica: kritische Ausgabe. Forschungen zur romanischen
Philologie 17. Münster (Westfalen): Aschendorff.
Gunn, C. (2012). Vices and Virtues: a reassessment of manuscript Stowe 34. In R. G. Newhauser
& S. J. Ridyard (Eds.), Sin in medieval and early modern culture: The tradition of the
seven deadly sins (pp. 65–84). Woodbridge: York Medieval Press.
Hall, J. (Ed.). (1920). Selections from early Middle English, 1130–1250. 2 vols. Oxford:
Clarendon.
15
Hallik, S. (2007). Sententia und Proverbium: Begriffsgeschichte und Texttheorie in Antike und
Mittelalter. Cologne: Böhlau.
Heinzmann, R. (1967). Die “Institutiones in sacram paginam” des Simon von Tournai:
Einleitung und Quästionenverzeichnis. Veröffentlichungen des Grabmann-Instituts: Neue
Folge 1. Munich: Ferdinand Schöningh.
Henel, H. (1934). Studien zum altenglischen Computus. Beiträge zur englischen Philologie 26.
Leipzig: B. Tauchnitz.
Hilberg, I. (Ed.). (1996). Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi epistulae. Pars 1: epistulae I–LXX (2nd ed.).
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 54. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Holthausen, F. (Ed.). (1888–1921). Vices and Virtues, being a soul’s confession of its sins with
Reason’s description of the virtues: a Middle-English dialogue of about 1200 A.D. Early
English Text Society os 89 and 159. London: Oxford University Press.
Kabir, A. J. (2001). Paradise, death, and doomsday in Anglo-Saxon literature. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Keats-Rohan, K. S. B. (Ed.). (1993). Ioannis Saresberiensis Policraticus: libri I–IV. Corpus
Christianorum Continuatio Mediaeualis 118. Turnhout: Brepols.
Kleinman, S. (2013). Frið and grið: Laȝamon and the legal language of Wulfstan. In R. Allen, J.
Roberts, & C. Weinberg (Eds.), Reading Laȝamon’s Brut: approaches and explorations
(pp. 391–417). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Kurath, H., Kuhn, S. M., & Lewis, R. E. (Eds.). (1954–2001). Middle English dictionary. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Laing, M. (1993). Catalogue of sources for a linguistic atlas of early Middle English.
Cambridge: D. S. Brewer.
Le Goff, J. (1981). La naissance du purgatoire. Paris: Gallimard.
Luscombe, D. (2004). Salisbury, John of (late 1110s–1180). Oxford dictionary of national
biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/14849. Accessed Feb
7, 2014.
Manitius, M. (1931). Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des Mittelalters: dritter Band, vom
Ausbruch des Kirchenstreites bis zum Ende des 12. Jahrhunderts. Munich: Beck.
Meyerhoff, E. (1913). Die Verbalflexion in den “Vices and Virtues.” Doctoral dissertation:
University of Kiel.
Millett, B. (2005). The discontinuity of English prose: structural innovation in the Trinity and
Lambeth homilies. In A. Oizumi, J. Fisiak, & J. Scahill (Eds.), Text and language in
medieval English prose: a Festschrift for Tadao Kubouchi (pp. 129–50). Frankfurt: Peter
Lang.
Millett, B. (2007). The pastoral context of the Lambeth and Trinity homilies. In W. Scase (Ed.),
Essays in manuscript geography: vernacular manuscripts of the English West Midlands
from the Conquest to the sixteenth century (pp. 43–64). Turnout: Brepols.
Millett, B. (2010). Change and continuity: the English sermon before 1250. In E. Treharne & G.
Walker (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of medieval literature in English (pp. 221–239).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morsbach, L. (1896). Mittelenglische Grammatik. Halle: Niemeyer.
Morrison, S. (1995). A reminiscence of Wulfstan in the twelfth century. Neuphilologische
Mitteilungen, 96, 229–34.
16
Pelle, S. (2012). Continuity and renewal in English homiletic eschatology, ca. 1150–1200.
Doctoral dissertation: University of Toronto.
Peppermüller, R. (1993). Petrus Cantor. Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. VI (cols. 1965–66).
Stuttgart: Metzler.
Philipssen, M. (1911). Die Deklination in den “Vices and Virtues.” Doctoral dissertation:
University of Kiel.
Sanford, E. M. (1943). The Verbum abbreviatum of Petrus Cantor. Transactions and
Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 74, 33–48.
Schmidt, G. (1899). Ueber die Sprache und Heimat der “Vices and Virtues”: ein Beitrag zur
mittelenglischen Dialektkunde. Doctoral dissertation: University of Leipzig.
Southern, R. W. & Schmitt, F. S. (Eds.). (1969). Memorials of St. Anselm. Auctores Britannici
Medii Aevi 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swan, M. (2007a). Mobile libraries: Old English manuscript production in Worcester and the
West Midlands, 1090–1215. In W. Scase (Ed.), Essays in manuscript geography:
vernacular manuscripts of the English West Midlands from the Conquest to the sixteenth
century (pp. 29–42). Turnhout: Brepols.
Swan, M. (2007b). Preaching past the Conquest: Lambeth Palace 487 and Cotton Vespasian A.
xxii. In A. Kleist (Ed.), The Old English homily: precedent, practice, and appropriation
(pp. 403–23). Turnhout: Brepols.
Thompson, N. (2002). “Hit segð on halgum bocum”: the logic of composite Old English
homilies. Philological Quarterly, 81, 383–419.
Treharne, E. (2012). Living through conquest: the politics of early English, 1020–1220. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Tristram, H. (1995). Early Insular preaching: verbal artistry and method of composition.
Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse 623 / Veröffentlichungen der
Keltischen Kommission 11. Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Utley, F. L. (1972). Dialogues, debates, and catechisms. In A. E. Hartung (Ed.), A manual of the
writings in Middle English, 1050–1500, vol. III (pp. 669–745). New Haven: Connecticut
Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Wilson, R. M. (1968). Early Middle English literature (3rd ed.). London: Methuen.
Zeeman, E. (1956). Continuity in Middle English devotional prose. The Journal of English and
Germanic Philology, 55, 417–22.