came to perceive more clearly that the true guide to God the Father, the true reformer of abuses, had already come to men in the person of Jesus, who must therefore be his true Piers. The first hint of this is given somewhat mysteriously in B. xiii. 123-132 (p. 394), with which compare C. xvi. 129-150 (p. 395). But shortly afterwards we are told explicitly who Piers really is. In B. xv. 190-206 (p. 448), when the dreamer is anxiously searching for the personification of Charity or Love, he is told that he can never see Charity without the help of Piers Plowman, who alone perceives the secret thoughts of men; in short, as he tells us, Petrus est Christus, i. e. Piers is Christ; see notes to C. xvii. 337 and B. xv. 206. In B. xvi. 17–53, Piers is seen by the dreamer in a vision, and almost immediately afterwards (B. xvi. 89) the same Piers is deputed by God the Father to do battle with the devil, and rescue from him certain fruit, i. e. the souls of righteous men then imprisoned in limbo. Hereupon Piers becomes incarnate in the form of Jesus (B. xvi. 94), and the dreamer beholds in succession (1) the preliminary Vision of Faith, Hope, and Charity, and (2) the Vision of the Triumph of Piers Plowman in the person of Jesus, who, after His crucifixion, descended into hell and brought thence the souls of the patriarchs, and afterwards arose from the dead (B. xix. 148) and ascended into heaven (B. xix. 186). He then deputed as his successor a new Piers, whose name was truly Petrus, or as we should now say, St. Peter the apostle (B. xix. 178, 196); and this Piers was again succeeded by the Popes of Rome, who were, in a spiritual sense, 'emperors of all the world' (B. xix. 425). And here William pauses to utter a reflection upon the very imperfect manner in which the pope' really represents the Son of God (B. xix. 426-434). The moral is one of the deepest importance for the history of mankind in all ages, and raises the very question which was of the most vital consequence in the progress of religious reformation. William goes to the root of the matter in thus endeavouring to make us see clearly that the popes were quite wrong in claiming to be merely the successors of St. Peter, inasmuch as St. Peter was, in himself and apart from Christ, of no account. They ought rather to have become the true successors of St. Peter's Master, who was the true Petrus, the very Rock upon which alone the church can abide firmly. It just made all the difference; for the spirit in which St. Peter acted was more than once at variance with the spirit of Jesus; and the history of the world would have been 1 See note to C. xxii. 183.

very different if the popes had always acted as followers of the latter. This then is the meaning of Piers Plowman; in the earlier part of the poem, he is a blameless ploughman and a guide to men who are seeking the shrine of Truth, whilst in the latter part of it he is the blameless carpenter's son, who alone can shew us the Father. The ambiguity is surely not very great, and the reader who once apprehends this explanation will easily remember that the true Piers Plowman was certainly not a Middle-English author.

Our author can hardly be considered responsible for the meaning which was assigned to Piers Plowman by other English writers; yet it is worth while to add that the former part of his work was better known than the latter part, so that his readers almost unanimously took up his lower conception of the character. Thus it was that Piers Plowman became an accepted synonym for a plain man who makes it his business to act with integrity and to guide others to a knowledge of truth. Hence, in the Plowman's Tale (once wrongly attributed to Chaucer), and in Pierce the Ploughman's Crede', the person thus designated is merely an honest ploughman who knows his Creed and Paternoster better than the friars do; and much the same conception of the character appears in other works, such as the Praier and Complaynte of the Ploweman unto Christe, Pyers Plowmans Ex[h]ortation, and A goodlye Dialogue and Dysputacion between Pyers Ploweman and a Popish Preest.

§ 10. THE AUTHOR'S NAME.

The MSS. inform us, over and over again, that the author's Christian name, or at any rate his assumed Christian name, was William. This appears in two ways. First, the titles and colophons frequently call him Willelmus; see vol. i. pp. 3, 251, 253. Secondly, the author repeatedly calls himself Wille; see A. ix. 118, A. xii. 99, 103; B. v. 62, viii. 124; C. ii. 5, vii. 2, xi. 71; and, in one remarkable passage (B. xv. 148) he says —

my name is longe wille,'

'I haue lyued in londe, quod I i.e. he calls himself Long Will, where 'long' means tall and alludes to his personal appearance; just as the poet Gascoigne was called 'Long George'; cf. note to C. xi. 68. Thirdly, we have the old

1 I have endeavoured to show that these poems were both written by the same anonymous author; see my Introduction to Pierce the Ploughman's Crede (E. E. T. S.).

note in MS. Dublin D. 4. 1, that his name was William de Langland, and his father's name Stacy de Rokayle1; and an old note in one of the Ashburnham MSS. to the effect that 'Robert or william langland made pers ploughman.' The latter note cannot be right in suggesting the alternative name of Robert; and it is probable that this mistake arose from misreading 'i robed' (p. 252, l. 1) as 'I Robert.' However, John Bale gave him the name Robertus Langlande, as appears from a MS. note in his handwriting in the same Ashburnham MS.; see also his work on the Illustrious Writers of Great Britain. Moreover, although Crowley printed his edition of Piers Plowman nine years earlier, I do not doubt that the unnamed person who gave him the same information was the same John Bale. Among the later authors who merely copy from Bale and Crowley we find Holinshed, Selden, J. Weever, David Buchanan (who coolly calls our author a native of Aberdeen !), Fuller, and Hearne. John Stow, confusing the mention of Malvern hills in the poem with the fact that there was a John of Malvern of some small note3, boldly asserts, without a tittle of evidence, that the author's name was John Malverne, a fellow of Oriel College, Oxford; and in this unwarrantable guess he is followed by Selden, who speaks doubtfully, and by Pits, who seems not to have doubted it at all; whilst Wood makes the singular statement that 'Robertus de Langland, Johan. Malverne

1 The note runs thus, in a handwriting of the fifteenth century:- Memorandum, quod Stacy de Rokayle, pater Willielmi de Langlond, qui Stacius fuit generosus, et morabatur in Schiptone under Whicwode, tenens domini le Spenser in comitatu Oxon., qui prædictus Willielmus fecit librum qui vocatur Perys Ploughman.' Schiptone is Shipton-under-Wychwood, 4 miles N. N. E. of Burford, Oxon. It is worthy of note that the poet himself tells us that, in his day, the son's surname was not necessarily the same as his father's. See note to C. iv. 369.

6

2 Robertus Langelande, sacerdos, ut apparet, natus in comitatu Salopiæ, in villa vulgò dicta Mortymers Clibery, in terra lutea, octavo à Malvernis montibus milliario fuit. Num tamen eo in loco, incondito et agresti, in bonis litteris ad maturam ætatem usque informatus fuit, certò adfirmare non possum, &c. . . . . Illud veruntamen liquido constat, eum fuisse ex primis Joannis Wiclevi discipulis unum, &c. . . . Complevit suum opus anno domini 1369, dum Joannes Cicestrius Londini prætor esset.'—Balei, Script. Illustr. majoris Britanniæ, Cent. vi. p. 474Basilex, apud Oporinum, 1559.

John de Malverne was prior of Worcester in 1395, and apparently died before 1415; see Wharton, Anglia Sacra, i. 549; Dugdale's Monasticon. A John Malvern wrote a continuation of Higden's Polychronicon; C.C.C. MS. 197; see Appendix I to Higden's Polychronicon, ed. J. R. Lumby, vol. viii. pp. 355-406. A John Malvern was present at the examination of W. Thorpe in 1407; see Arber's English Garner, vi. 51.

nonnullis appellatur.' We ought to set aside the names Robert and John, and be content with William; and in rejecting the name of John, we should reject the surname Malvern at the same time.

The author's surname is usually given as Langland, as we have seen. On the other hand, we have the curious note, in three of the C-text MSS., that the author's name was 'Willelmus W.'1; but the meaning of this 'W.' remains unknown2. A difficulty arises from the fact that, as Professor Pearson has pointed out to me, 'the only known family of Langlands has a very distinct history in connection with Somersetshire, Devonshire, and Dorsetshire, but never comes to view in the Midland Counties.' I find mention of Nicholas de Langgelonde and Radulphus de Langelande in the Wood MS. no. 1 (Bodleian Library), p. 195; Hugo de Langelonde, in Hearne's Johannes Glastoniensis, ii. 367, and other instances; especially in connection with the neighbourhood of East Brent, in Somersetshire, where there was a place specifically called Langlond; see Hearne (as above), ii. 323. See also MS. Addit. 5937, fol. 54 b, in the British Museum 3. On account of this difficulty, Professor Pearson, in an article in the North British Review, April, 1870, p. 244, suggested that the surname Langley is more probable; and I here quote the most material part of his argument for the reader's convenience. The Langleys of Oxfordshire have not yet, we believe, found place in any county history. But their pedigree is abundantly proveable. They emerge into history with Thomas de Langley, who gives King John a hundred marks and a palfrey in 1213 to replace Thomas Fitzhugh in the guardianship of Wychwood Forest (Rot. de Fin. 485). From that time the Langleys, William, Thomas, John, John, and Thomas successively, were wardens of Wychwood, and owned land in Shipton-under-Wychwood as early as 1278, and as late as 1362 (Rotul. Hundred. ii. 729; Inquis. post Mortem, ii. 252). But the last Thomas died before the thirty-sixth year of Edward III., and was succeeded by his cousin and heir, Simon Verney (Inquis. post Mortem, ii. 252, 290).' This is sufficient to connect the name of Langley with Shipton, but does not fully solve the difficulty, as the

1 In the Ilchester MS., at the end of Pass. x., we find-'Explicit visio Willelmi W. de Petro le Plowman.' So also in MS. Douce 104, fol. 39, back, and in MS. Digby 102, fol. 35.

• Professor Morley suggests that it means William of Wychwood. Observe that this 'W.' only occurs in the latest version.

3 There was also a place called Langland near Whalley, in Lancashire; see The Coucher Book of Whalley (Chetham Soc.), ii, 527, iv. 1070.

poet probably did not belong to so good a family. He might, however, have been named from the hamlet of Langley, which is situate in the very parish of Shipton-under-Wychwood above mentioned. There is also another place named Langley, near Acton Burnel, in Shropshire; adjoining which is the hamlet of Ruckley or Rokele, which might be identified with Rokayle, the alleged surname of the poet's father. Professor Pearson continues :-'We find in Shropshire that younger members of the Burnel family were occasionally known as Burnels de Langley (Inquis. post Mortem, i. 12, 253); that there were other Langleys on the estate in the employ of the Burnel family; and that even the name of Rokeyle may be traced in one instance with high probability to the Welsh border (Yearbook of 32 Edw. I. 298).... A William de Langley was a tenant of William Burnel in 1228 (Testa de Nevill, 57). A Robert de Langley receives fifty marks due to Robert Burnel, afterwards Chancellor, in 1272 (Exchequer Issues, 87). A Robert de Langley was instituted clerk of Rokesley chapel some time between 1311 and 1349 (Eyton's Shropshire, vi, 147). Again, Henry de Rokesley and Richard de Waleys, whose name indicates a Welshman, both claimed to descend from Robert Paytevin; and one of the few Paytevins who can be traced was a follower of Roger de Mortimer, the lord of Cleobury Mortimer (Parliamentary Writs, iv. 1269). Seemingly therefore there were two families, one of Langley and one of Rokesle, who lived in adjoining hamlets, attached to the same manor, and of whom one was connected with the service of the Burnels, the other more remotely with the Mortimers, as being related to one of their dependants. Here then we perhaps get a clue to the poet's birth at Cleobury Mortimer, which was a possession of the Mortimers (Inquis. post Mortem, i. 190, ii. 224). It remains to explain the connection with Shipton-under-Wychwood. Edward Burnel (born 1287, died 1315) married Alicia, daughter of Hugh de Despenser, of whom we only know that she survived him (Eyton's Shropshire, vi. 135). And a Hugh de Despenser died in 1349, seized of the manor of Shipton-under-Wychwood (Inquis. post Mortem, ii. 160; Kennett's Parochial Antiquities, ii. 102). Now, whether the poet's ancestor was a Langley or a Rokesle, it seems easy from what has gone before to understand why he first held a farm under the Mortimers and afterwards under the Despensers. In fact, there was a group of great families connected by birth or position in Shropshire and Oxfordshire, and a group of small families who were naturally linked with their fortunes.'