Appendix 3: Dymmok on the Ricardian Extravagance


3-6 Cicero, De amicitia 23.88, in De senectute, De amicitia, De divinatione, ed. and trans. William Armistead Falconer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923), pp. 194-95: "Verum ergo illud est, quod a Tarentino Archyta, ut opinor, dici solitum nostros senes commemorare audivi ab aliis senibus auditum: si quis in caelum ascendisset naturamque mundi et pulchritudinem siderum perspexisset, insuavem illam admirationem ei fore, quae iucundissima fuisset, si aliquem cui narraret habuisset. Sic natura solitarium nihil amat semperque ad aliquod tamquam adminiculum adnititur, quod in amicissimo quoque dulcissimum est" ["True, therefore, is that celebrated saying of Archytas of Tarentum, I think it was - a saying that I have heard repeated by our old men who in their turn heard it from their elders. It is to this effect: 'If a man should ascend alone into heaven and behold clearly the structure of the universe and the beauty of the stars, there would be no pleasure for him in the awe-inspiring sight, which would have filled him with delight if he had had someone to whom he could describe what he had seen.' Thus nature, loving nothing solitary, always strives for some sort of support, and man's best support is a very dear friend"]. Maidstone's Determinacio begins similarly (ed. Edden, p. 121), with an anecdote from Plato.

9 Ricarde. Unidentified, but certainly not (ut puto) King Richard; see the Introduction, p. 33 and note 91.

11 Trenovantum. I.e., London; compare lines 18 ("Nova Troia"), 39 ("Troia"), 123 ("Troia Novella"), and 212 ("Pergama"). On these allusions, see Federico, "A Fourteenth-Century Erotics of Politics."

15-16 I.e., the year 1392.

17 soror. I.e., Diana, the Roman lunar deity. Counting from March (when the new year traditionally began), the moon had completed its monthly cycle (Phebo fuerat soror associata) six times (bis ter) by August.

19-20 I.e., 21 August.

22 Perfida Lingua. I.e., Male-bouche, a Roman de la rose-like personification, of a sort that Chaucer's early work (including the English verse translation of the Roman) had domesticated; compare line 41.

29 quot mortes. Probably a specific reference to the legal murders of various adherents of the king, including Robert Tresilian and Simon Burley, by the so-called Merciless Parliament in February and March 1388, in the aftermath of the Appellants' coup; see Saul, Richard II, pp. 191-94.

30 Quamque sit inultus. Evidently written before events of 1397 and left unrevised; see Barron, "The Tyranny of Richard II."

35 This claim is contradicted by the so-called Articles of Deposition of 1399; see Eberle, "The Politics of Courtly Style," especially p. 172.

45 Urbis custodem. Baldwin Raddington - a nephew of Richard's late lamented intimate Simon Burley, possibly alluded to at line 29 - was appointed warden of London by the king 22 July 1392, in succession to Edward Dallingridge, the first custos, who had been appointed 25 June 1392, as part of the royal takeover of the city; see Barron, "The Quarrel of Richard II," pp. 184 and 188, and, for Rad-dington's career, Tout, Chapters 4.196-99.

47 Regis in occursum vestri vos este parati. Compare Matthew 24:44: "Ideo et vos estote parati, quia, qua nescitis hora, Filius hominis venturus est" ["Wherefore be you also ready, because at what hour you know not the Son of man will come" - Douay-Rheims, Challoner rev.; all Biblical citations come from this edition]; possibly recalling Isaiah 40:3: "Vox clamantis: In deserto parate viam Domini, rectas facite in solitudine semitas Dei nostri" ["The voice of one crying in the desert: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the the wilderness the path of our God"].

52 trans vada vadat. I.e., cross the Thames, so leaving the city.

62 celum. I.e., canopy.

74 maior. Here equivalent to Modern English "mayor." In fact, the office was effectively suspended in the period 25 June 1392 to 13 October 1392, during the tenure of the custodes appointed by the king.

80 Secta. I.e., a suit of livery; compare line 95.

81-95 Though Maidstone uses various Latinized English and French terms in this list of London guilds, the more remarkable feature may be his frequent resort to terms from Plautine comedy (caupo, coqus, faber, merx, piscarius, pistor ["baker"], sutor ["cobbler"], textor, tonsor, zonarius). Maidstone's list was used as a source of vocabulary for Latham's Revised Medieval Latin Word-List from British and Irish Sources, from which the glosses below were mostly taken; other inferences are labeled probable. Also, it is noteworthy that Maidstone begins his list with the guilds that were the strongholds of merchant-oligarchic power, the goldsmiths, the fishmongers, the mercers, and the vintners, though in doing so he would probably only have been reflecting the order of the procession itself. The standard treatment of the history of these organizations remains Unwin, The Gilds and Companies of London. For various possible meanings of the demonstration of guild-solidarity that the procession represents, see Federico, "A Fourteenth-Century Erotics of Politics," especially pp. 150-51.

81 argentarius. Probably meaning "goldsmith," by extension (lit., "silversmith").

82 Mercibus hic deditus. Probably meaning "mercer."

83 apothecarius. Probably meaning "grocer" (lit., "apothecary").

85 scissor. I.e., "cloth-shearer."

86 mango. Probably meaning "haberdasher" (lit., "monger").

87 archifices. I.e., "bowyer."

91 streparius. Probably meaning "saddler," equivalent to sellarius (lit., "stirrup-maker").

93 This remark seems misplaced, coming mid-catalogue as it does here. Possibly some transposition of lines or other garbling occurred in transmission, helping to account also for what happens next: no pentameter follows to close the couplet begun in line 93, with the implication that at least a line of Maidstone's writing has been lost at this point; compare line 170.

"A" super "R." The letters probably were meant to stand for "Anna" and "Ric-ardus," though other explanations are possible. On King Richard's fondness for such badges of livery (and the menace they might represent), see Strohm, Hochon's Arrow, pp. 65 and 182-84, and especially Bowers, "Pearl in Its Royal Setting," pp. 136-41.

95 secta. Compare line 80.

115 cuntis. Equivalent to cunctis. Similarly spelled forms occur again at lines 139 ("cunta"), 426 ("cunta"), 453 ("cuntis"), and 469 ("cuntis"), though a form spelled cunct- occurs too, at line 427 ("cuncti").

121 re sit et Anna. Later in the poem (see line 434 ff. and corresponding explanatory note), Maidstone develops the etymological meaning of the queen's Christian name (from a Hebrew term meaning "grace"), and the sense of this remark also seems to depend on this meaning: the hope expressed is that the queen may prove to be as gracious in the event as her name suggests she might or should be.

150 reddere. A noun, meaning "surrender."

155 Sex quater. I.e., the twenty-four aldermen.

166 phalangis. I.e., "falding cloths."

170 No pentameter follows to close the couplet begun here, with the implication that at least a line of Maidstone's writing has been lost at this point, too; compare line 93.

183 Strata. I.e., "street."

205 ligios. I.e., "lieges."

212 Pergama. The Trojan citadel, used here to stand for the physical city of London (Nova Troia) itself, as distinct from the citizens (corpora) and their wealth (divicie), as part of Maidstone's representation of the city as a type of Troy; compare line 11.

223 imperatoria proles. Her father was the late emperor Charles IV (1316-78), on whom see Wallace, Chaucerian Polity, pp. 357-61.

229 deus huic dedit illam. The quasi-scriptural remark appears to liken Richard and Anne to God's originally perfect human creations, Adam and Eve, though there is no specific parallel: compare Genesis 2:22: "et aedificavit Dominus Deus costam, quam tulerat de homine, in mulierem et adduxit eam ad hominem" ["And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam"], and Genesis 3:12: "Dixitque homo: mulier quam dedisti sociam mihi, ipsa dedit mihi de ligno et comedi" ["And Adam said: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat"].

233-34 presentat equm vobis, licet hoc minus equo / Extiterit donum. The punning on n. equs ("horse") and adj. equs ("fair") (from Classical Latin aequus) is not possible to translate.

250 Pheton. I.e., Phaeton, the exemplary bad driver from Greco-Roman mythology: having begged his father Helios' permission to try driving the solar car, Phaeton lost control of it and was fatally struck down by Zeus before his incompetence could set the world on fire. The version of the story best known to someone like Maidstone may have been that of Ovid, Metamorphoses 2.1-328.

251 Femina feminea sua dum sic femina nudat. The pun depends on one or the other of the occurrences of femina in this line being construed as a nominative/accusative plural form of the neuter noun femor, -inis ("thighs"), the root syllable of which is short by nature, unlike the first syllable of femina, -ae, which is long by nature; the problem is that Maidstone's line requires both of its occurrences of femina to have a long first syllable.

264 Forum. I.e., Cheapside.

269 Bachum. I.e., Bacchus. Tetis: I.e., Tethys, a titan, wife of Oceanus and mother of the sea-nymphs and river-spirits. The terms are used metonymically for "wine" and "water" respectively.

289 ciphum. Equivalent to a form of scyphus ("communion cup") in medieval usage.

293 Materiam superavit opus. Ovid, Metamorphoses 2.5: "materiam superabat opus."

314 Obsequiis animos se quietasse suos. The translation reflects a strict construction of the grammar; suos might instead be construed as referring to the king and queen.

320 Angelici prefert ordinis effigiem. Though the remark is biblical in some sense, there appears to be no particular close verbal parallel.

325-26 The uncharacteristic tas (though see Appendix 4.4 for comparable occurrences) combines with the opacity of the phrase Extat ut est maior, sedibus inferior (none of the other accounts of the entry describes this part of the show at all instructively) to suggest that some corruption may afflict this couplet.

337-40 In this list too, Maidstone prefers ancient vocabulary (fistula, tibia, timpana, lira, etc.) to medieval terms that might have had more descriptive accuracy.

345 episcopus urbis. Robert Braybroke, bishop of London 1381-1404, a promoter of the cult of St. Erkenwald (compare line 348: "Erkenwaldi sancta sepulcra"). See Emden, Biographical Register of the University of Oxford 1.254-55.

351 in Lud quoque porta. The legend of Lud's construction of the city walls (and the derivation of the city's name from his) is recounted in Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain 3.20 (also 1.17), trans. Thorpe, pp. 106 and 74; compare lines 479-80, below.

361-68 For the tradition that such catalogues of trees and beasts represent, see Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, especially pp. 194-95.

372 Agnus et ecce dei. John 1:29 "Altera die vidit Johannes Jesum venientem ad se, et ait: Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccatum mundi" ["The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him; and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God. Behold him who taketh away the sin of the world"].

373 quia. Illogical, strictly, and so possibly corrupt.

397-98 Ricardi quod fuit ante / Nomen. I.e., Richard the Lion-hearted. On the accretion of quasi-legendary materials about this historical figure, see the still fundamental work of Paris, "Le roman de Richard Coeur de Lion," especially pp. 387-93, on the later fourteenth-century developments most nearly contemporary with Maidstone's writing. See also Broughton, The Legends of King Richard I, Coeur de Lion.

417 Rex et apum caret omnis acu. The notion would derive ultimately from the ancient science mentioned by the elder Pliny, Historia naturalis 11.17.52-53, though it would have become widely diffused in subsequent popular lore. Compare Thomas Hoccleve, The Regiment of Princes, lines 3375-81, where Hoccleve is probably drawing on some version of the Ludus scaccorum.

434 gracia. The (Hebrew) etymology was widely known; compare Bokenham, Legends of Holy Women, line 1498 ("Anne is as myche to seyn as 'grace'"), p. 41, or the Trinity College stanzaic Life of Saint Anne, line 211 ("The name of Anne to say hyt ys but grace"), in Parker, ed., The Middle English Stanzaic Versions of the Life of Saint Anne, p. 96. Forms of the term then recur throughout the rest of Maidstone's account of this exchange between queen and warden; for example, lines 436 ("Gracia"), 439 ("Grata"), and 451 ("grates").

439-44 Compare Esther, especially 7:3, "Ad quem illa respondit: Si inveni gratiam in oculis tuis, o rex, et si tibi placet, dona mihi animam meam, pro qua rogo, et populum meum pro quo obsecro" ["Then she answered: If I have found favour in thy sight, O king, and if it please thee, give me my life for which I ask, and my people for which I request"], and 8:5.

442 Irritat edicta. The verb is Irrtat ("invalidates") not irrtat, requiring the MS lection edicta, not dicta, as read by both Wright and Smith.

448 virum. I.e., "husband," Richard II.

454 Westquemonasterium. Equivalent to Westmonasteriumque. Compare Thomas Elm-ham, "On the Death of Henry IV," ed. Wright, Political Poems and Songs 2.122: "In Bethlem camera Westquemonasterio," also a pentameter line.

472 tibi. The shift of the queen's petition after this point, from such a singular form to the more formal second person plural (e.g., line 477 "velitis"), is not possible to translate.

479-80 The legends of Brutus and Arthur here alluded to also derive ultimately from Geoffrey of Monmouth, The History of the Kings of Britain 1.3-1.18 and 8.19-11.2 respectively, trans. Thorpe, pp. 54-74 and 204-61; compare line 351.

481 regi . . . morituro. I.e., with the exception of the Christ-King.

522 didicere. A preferable reading might be docuere ("taught").


In addition to the manuscript's headings and marginalia, this apparatus lists departures from the manuscript, enclosed in brackets [ ] in the edited text, excepting the marks of punctuation, which are editorial, and the expansion of manuscript abbreviations, which are supplied passively throughout the text. The apparatus also lists the substantive variants (i.e., neither the orthographical variants nor the typographical errors) of the editions of Wright = W (distinguishing Wright 1838 = Wa, and Wright 1859 = Wb as necessary) and Smith = S.

Interlinear heading (before line 1): Incipit concordia facta inter regem et civitatem Londonie.

8 sentis. W: senties (fortasse recte).

Interlinear heading (before line 45): Hic preparat se civitas in occursum regis.

79 H[o]s. MS: Hoos; compare line 177.

80 quemque. W: quaeque.

87 archifices. W: artifices.

88 lorimarius. W: lorinarius.

89 [Hic]. MS: Ibi; correction inserted in the margin.

92 avigerulus. W: anigerulus.

94 bursistaque. MS: -que is inserted above the line.

101 quater. W: quatuor.

Interlinear heading (before line 102): Hic occurrunt cives regi.

Interlinear heading (before line 130): Hic reddit se civitas domino regi.

Interlinear heading (before line 154): Hic veniunt cives ad reginam.

Interlinear heading (before line 160): Hic tendit rex cum tota cohorte versus urbem.

170 ille. W: iste.

176 servet. W: servat.

Interlinear heading (before line 177): De pluvia que tunc accidit.

177 T[u]nc. MS: Tuunc; compare line 79.

179 pluerat. W: pluebat.

Interlinear heading (before line 183): De venia data exuli in Southwerk.

190 tribuit. W: tribuat.

Interlinear heading (before line 191): Hic fuit regina coronata.

Interlinear heading (before line 197): Hic presentat civitas regi duos dextrarios per cus- todem.

209 [est]. Omitted in MS.

Interlinear heading (before line 221): Hic presentant regine palefridum.

235 leviter. W: leniter.

241 illa. W: iam.

Interlinear heading (before line 225): Hic progreditur rex cum tota cohorte versus Chepe.

Marginal notation (next to lines 250-52): de curru dominarum qui cecidit super pontem.

253 ille. W: iste.

Marginal notation (next to lines 258-60): de ornatu Chepe et aliarum platearum.

260 decus. W: pecus.

Interlinear heading (before line 269): Quomodo aqueductus dedit vinum et de ornatu eius.

270 ille. W: iste.

271 quasi. W omits.

Interlinear heading (before line 275): De turri mirabili in medio Chepe.

276 Cernit. Corrected from Cernunt in MS.

287 pendent. W: pendunt.

294 nova. Wa: novo.

296 el[o]quendo. MS: elequendo.

Interlinear heading (before line 297): Hic offert custos coronas regi et regine.

303 sensu. W: sensum.

omni. W: omne.

Marginal notation (next to lines 310-11): hic riserunt parum rex et regina.

312 ei. Wb: eis.

Interlinear heading (before line 317): De ornatu secundi aqueductus ad portam Pauli.

323 micant. W: micat.

330 celicas ille sedet. S: ille sedet celicas.

333 oculus . . . auris. W: oculos . . . aures.

Marginal notation (next to lines 335-36): de instrumentis organicis.

339 Zambuce. W: Zambuca.

Interlinear heading (before line 343): Hic intravit rex monasterium sancti Pauli equis relictis.

345 O[c]currunt. MS: Orcurrunt.

347 Concomitantur. W: Concomitatur.

Marginal notation (next to lines 351-53): De ornatu porte Lud.

355 hiique. W: hii quoque.

Interlinear heading (before line 357): De deserto et Iohanne Baptista ad Barram Templi.

Marginal notation (next to lines 361-62): De arboribus diversis.

364 Ulm[u]s. MS: Ulms.

Marginal notation (next to lines 365-66): de diversitate bestiarum.

Interlinear heading (before line 379): Hic dantur regi et regine due tabule preciose cum ymaginibus.

Interlinear heading (before line 393): De verbis custodis ad regem in dando tabulas.

407 [u]t. MS: et.

412 velit. W: vellet.

416 tamen. W: tantum.

Interlinear heading (before line 421): Hic tetigit rex tabulas aureas sibi datas.

Interlinear heading (before line 429): Hic dantur tabule domine regine eiusdem figure.

435 nam. W: num.

442 edicta. W, S: dicta.

Interlinear heading (before line 453): Hic progreditur rex versus Westmonasterium et cives sequntur.

458 Tam. W: Iam.

Interlinear heading (before line 463): Quomodo regina corruit ante regem pro civibus.

Interlinear heading (before line 467): Supplicacio regine pro eisdem civibus.

467 mi. S: me.

Interlinear heading (before line 493): Responsio domini regis ad reginam.

Interlinear heading (before line 499): Hic alloquitur rex cives et reddit libertates.

527 Sit. W: Sic.

Interlinear heading (before line 539): Congratulacio civium pro restitutione libertatum etrecessus eorum.

Postlinear notation (after line 546): Explicit concordia facta inter regem Riccardum secundum post conquestum et cives Londonie per fratrem Riccardum Maydiston Carmelitam sacre theologie doctorem anno domini millesimo CCC. nonagessima tertio.



1 Mathew, Court of Richard II, p. 151.

2 The textual history of the "Lollard Twelve Conclusions" is discussed in Anne Hudson, Selections from English Wycliffite Writings, pp. 150-51. Dymmok's response to the Lollards is discussed by Fiona Somerset, "Answering the Twelve Conclusions," pp. 52-76, reprinted in Somerset, Clerical Discourse, pp. 103-34. The import of the section on extravagance was noted by Eberle, "The Politics of Courtly Style," pp. 168-78; see also Bowers, "Pearl in Its Royal Setting," p. 120, and Saul, Richard II, pp. 355-57. For biographical infomation, see Dymmok, Liber, pp. xi-xv, and Emden, Biographical Register 1.617.

3 See below, p. 111 (compare lines 28-30 of the Latin text).

4 The following distinction appears, in fact, to come from Summa Theologica 2a2ae.32.6.

5 Though the presentation in Cronin's edition(pp. 295-301) is not clear on this point, the whole of the following chapters two through four - which is to say, over half of Dymmok's twelfth section, on extravagance, chapters one through six - including the scriptural and partristic quotations, is taken over wholesale from the section of Aquinas mentioned here: Summa theologica 2a2ae.169, with a few omissions and a verbal change or two (possibly verbal variations current in the textual tradition of St. Thomas). See Somerset, "Answering the Twelve Conclusions," p. 75n28 (reprinted in Clerical Discourse and Lay Audience, p. 121n29).

6 The remaining chapters of Part Twelve, chapters 7-12, consist of summary of the twelve Lollard conclusions and Dymmok's hortatory general conclusions. His summary of the twelfth conclusion is: "In XIIa autem et ultima politicam hominum communicacionem, statuum ac graduum varietatem impediunt, dum docent pene omnes artes mechanicas removendas, omnes homines modo consimili vestiendos, parique pastu pascendos, et sic in quadam conclusione homines ponentes universos distinctionem ecclesie ordinem decoremque confundunt" ("In the twelfth and final conclusion, they impugn men's civil intercourse and distinctions of rank and estate, in teaching that almost all the mechanical arts are to be done away with, and that all men should be clothed in the same manner and fed alike; thus, making men all the same, they would end by overturning the church's distinction, order, and decency" - Dymmok, Liber, p. 305).]


Lines 1-9: Which remarks are rendered in Latin as follows. The Twelfth Conclusion: The multitude of arts not needful to man in our church nourishes much sin, by way of superfluous curiosity and people's disfigurement with curious vestment. So much experience shows and reason proves, for Nature herself, with few crafts, suffices for humankind. The corollary comes from what the apostle Paul says: "And having food and raiment, let us be therewith content." It seems to us that goldsmiths and armourers, and indeed all manner of arts not needful for humankind, by the Apostle's criteria, ought to be utterly wiped out, for the sake of virtues' augmentation. Howbeit that the two arts here named were needful under the Old Law, the New Testament has yet voided these arts, as well as numerous others.

Chapter one.

Lines 10-23: By this their twelfth conclusion, these enemies of the truth mean to do away with the various crafts and arts, inasmuch as they assert that the most part of them are not needful for feeding and clothing humankind, and because - so they say - the crafts and arts, by their superfluous encumbrance, serve men up occasion for sinning, through means of the body's decoration and the fostering of pride thereby. Wherefore, for their better understanding, the following is to be taken into account. According to St. Thomas (2a2ae.151.8), "necessity," in respect of human life, can be understood in two ways. In the first place, it can be understood in the sense that that without which a something can by no means exist is said to be "necessary," as food is necessary for the animate. In this perspective, a small number of the crafts would indeed suffice, or would be "necessary," for humankind can be content with little. In the second place, something can be said to be "necessary" for human life, in the sense that that may be said to be "necessary" without which a something cannot exist properly; and in this perspective, given the diversity of human estates and degrees and achievements, very many crafts are "necessary" for humankind, inasmuch as it is needful for men to be ranked in order, by means of their victualing and clothing and their housing, according to the decency of their respective estates and the necessity of their respective ways of life.

Lines 23-38: It is right, for example, that kings, princes, and others who have been set up in states of social elevation should have their estates dignified, indeed magnificently, by the kind of buildings they live in, as the Philosopher himself has asserted (in Ethics 4): namely, it is necessary for such men to inhabit buildings that are sumptuous, grand, comely, and thoroughly well decorated, for the proper decoration of which are required a variety of artisans, namely, painters, carvers, glaziers, smiths, jewelers, and artisans of other sorts, too, which it would indeed take too long to enumerate. Furthermore, the Philosopher (Politics 6) has likewise proven that such is in fact obligatory for the kinds of lords whose job it is to rule peoples, in order that they might strike fear into their peoples, lest they rise up against their superiors too readily. For when peoples can see that the residences of their princes are wrought with such skill and power and magnificence, they will regard their rulers as wealthy and competent, and they will regard overthrowing them as a thing so far impossible, to just that degree that their princes are seen to stand above their peoples in power and wisdom. Moreover, not only is it right that they should be seen to stand above their peoples in the way that they are housed, but likewise in the way that they eat and drink. Since in fact all varieties of foodstuffs were created for the sustenance of humankind, as is clear in Genesis 2 and 9, it is consequently just that persons of greater dignity should be seen to stand above the rest, in respect of the richness of what they eat and drink and the skillful provisioning of it, for the preparation of which is required a manifold culinary art, in the absence of which humankind might not be sufficiently sustained, according to the argument I made above, about "necessity" of the first type.

Lines 38-60: Thus it is right that princes and nobles, in accord with the decency of their estate, be housed in greater magnificence and fed more sumptuously than the remainder of the population; just so, it is likewise right that such be also arrayed more lavishly than the rest, in raiment of varied ornament. For it is not accordant to reason that a servant be dressed as splendidly as a lord, or an ordinary knight as a prince, or a monk as a secular. Rather, just as persons are distinguished from one another in estate and dignity, so reason requires that they be distinguished from one another also by means of different styles of dress. Hence in the Secreta secretorum, Aristotle enjoined Alexander never to appear to his people in public except in appropriate, indeed in magnificent array, that by consequence thereof he would be held in greater esteem. Moreover, that humble dress causes personages to be held in the more contempt, in respect of the people, is clear from the life of the blessed apostles Simon and Jude, where we read that the esteemed counselors, called to their king, on catching sight of Simon and Jude, dressed as they were in the humblest of clothes, took to holding their persons in contempt. Additionally, that it is proper for persons of great dignity to stand above the people, not only in their sumptuous dwelling-places and in their more lavish food and drink, but also in the stateliness of their dress, is established well enough in 3 Kings 10:4-7, where we read:
And when the queen of Sheba had seen all Solomon's wisdom, and the house that he had built, and the meat of his table, and the sitting of his servants, and the attendance of his ministers, and their apparel, and his cupbearers, and his ascent by which he went up unto the house of the Lord, there was no more spirit in her. And she said to the king, 'It was a true report that I heard in mine own land of thy acts and of thy wisdom.'
From these remarks, it is clear that for a king to have sumptuous, beautiful palaces, culinary splendor, and decorous dress is right and proper, since the very wisdom of Solomon here stands commended by reason of such things, as could in no wise be accomplished except by great industry on the part of artisans, certainly not by the necessity of the bare requisites of feeding people sparingly and clothing them poorly.

Chapter two.

Lines 61-75: Albeit it is lawful for some to be set apart from others, lavishly and artfully, by their dwelling-places, as well as by their clothing and dietary practices, in keeping with their estates, yet it does occasionally happen that, in all such matters, there may be persons who pass beyond the bounds of virtue, as St. Thomas teaches (2a2ae.169): "There is no moral evil in the things we make use of, but only in the persons who use them immoderately." This immoderation can be seen to be twofold: in the first place, in respect of the customs of the persons among whom someone lives, whence Augustine says (Confessions 3): "While yet allowing for their diversity, outrages against accepted manners are to be avoided." In the second place, immoderation results from inordinate affection in the use of such things on the part of the person using them. By consequence, it sometimes occurs that a person makes use of such things excessively libidinously, whether in keeping with the customs of the persons amongst whom he lives or whether above and beyond those customs. Hence Augustine says (On Christian Doctrine 3): "Disorderly passion in the use of things needs be shunned, not only by abusing the customs of those amongst whom we live, but also often by going too far and displaying in shameful discharge the filth which before was hidden in the privy of received manners."

Lines 76-86: Inasmuch as it is a matter of excess, this kind of inordinate affection results from three things, in the first place, when by overmuch attention to matters of dress, particularly clothing and other things of the sort, pertaining to personal adornment, a person courts the glory of the world. Hence Gregory says, in one of his homilies:
There are those who believe that the cultivation of precious and costly clothing is no sin, but surely, if it were no sin, the word of God would by no means be so solicitous to make the point that Dives, subject to infernal torment, had dressed himself in purple and fine linen. No one uses ostentatious dress, namely, dress beyond what is appropriate for his estate, except for vainglory.
Secondly, inasmuch as their clothing is intended for bodily excitement, to that same extent persons use vestimentary fineries for pleasure. In the third place, inasmuch as what end can there be to excessive solicitude over vestimentary cultivation of the exterior, if not some sort of perturbation, at least to a degree?

Lines 86-95: On these accounts, Andronicus posits three principles for cultivation of the exterior, as follows. In the first place is humility, which precludes any intention of vainglory; and he says that this humility consists in a manner of self-presentation not superabundant in ornaments and preparations. Next comes sufficiency unto oneself, which precludes any intention of preciousness; and he says that sufficiency unto oneself consists in a manner of self-presentation that is content with what is proper, subject to determination by such things as pertain to sustaining life, in keeping with that remark of the Apostle (1 Timothy 6:8): "And having food and raiment, let us be therewith content." The third is simplicity, which precludes superfluities of solicitude; he says that simplicity consists in a manner of self-presentation that contents itself with whatever comes. It is on all such considerations that rests the matter of considerate vestimentary array, of whatever sort, proper to a person's estate, appropriately fit to circumstance, and without sin.

Lines 95-104: From the other perspective, vestimentary defect can be regarded as a two-fold perturbation, in some measure, depending on what causes it. On the one hand, it comes of neglect, on the part of a person who is more careless or heedless than is proper, when it comes to the maintenance of appearances. Whence the Philosopher says (Ethics 7) that it amounts to laziness, should a person trail his cloak in the dirt and not trouble about lifting it up. On the other hand, vestimentary defect is a perturbation to the degree that the very defect aims at vainglory. Whence Augustine says (On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount), "In bodily things not only dazzle and pomp but also dirt and drabness can be ostentatious, and all the more insidiously as deceiving under guise of service to God." And the Philosopher says (Ethics 10) that both superabundance and inordinate neglect amount to arrogance.

Lines 105-8: So, just as persons can lawfully array themselves sumptuously and artfully, in keeping with the proprieties of their estates, by the same token the artisans who make such adornment possible can lawfully pursue their crafts; moreover, such artisans are to be not done away with, but allowed or even encouraged, as needful collaborators for persons who would carry out their social and civic duties.

Chapter three.

Lines 109-17: Against the aforesaid, however, it can be argued as follows, for from such premises it seems to be entailed that women can adorn themselves, with the kind of adornments customary for women, without any mortal sin. But that such would be false is proven thus. In the first place, everything that is contrary to the precept of holy writ is mortal sin. Women's customary adornment, however, is contrary to the precept of holy writ, apparently, for we read (1 Peter 3:3): "Whose adorning, let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of the wearing of gold, or of the putting on of robes," where the Gloss echoes Cyprian's remark: "women who have put on Christ cannot put on purple and fine linen; women who decorate themselves with gold and jewelry and pearls have put aside their proper adornments of mind and body." But such cannot be, except by mortal sin. Therefore, this kind of adornment of women cannot be without mortal sin.

Lines 118-26: Elsewhere, in his work On the Dress of Virgins, Cyprian writes, "Not merely virgins and widows, but also wives and indeed all women should be admonished in no way to deface God's work and fabric, the clay that he fashioned, with the aid of golden cream, black shadow, and rouge, or by applying any cosmetic to alter the natural lineaments"; and he adds further on:
They lay hands on God when they strive to reshape what He has shaped. This is an assault on His handiwork, a distortion of the truth. Thou shalt not be able to see God, having no longer the eyes that God made, but the eyes that the devil unmade; with him shalt thou burn on whose account thou art made up.
But such cannot be, except by mortal sin. Therefore, women's adornment is not without mortal sin.

Lines 127-30: Moreover, just as it fits not a woman to use men's clothing, no more does it fit her to use excessive ornament. The former is a sin, for it is written (Deuteronomy 22:5): "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment." It appears here too, therefore, that women's superfluous adornment is mortal sin.

Lines 130-31: Contrary to this, however, is that it would seem that artisans manufacturing adornments of this sort should on this account sin mortally.

Lines 132-46: The response, in keeping with the remarks of St. Thomas (2a2ae.169.2), is that, although all the same considerations, applying generally in respect to exterior adornment, need be taken into account, when it comes to women's ornament, there needs to be additionally further special consideration taken, precisely because feminine adornment provokes men to lust, in accord with the words of Proverbs (7:10): "And behold there met him a woman with the attire of a harlot, and subtile of heart." A woman can yet lawfully put effort into such, in order to please her husband, lest he be fallen into adultery for contempt of her: "But she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:34). Therefore, should a wife adorn herself to please her husband for such a purpose, she can do so without sin.

Lines 140-53: On the other hand, such women as have no husbands, or want no husbands and are of such estate as not to have husbands, cannot without sin set about to please men's gazes to the point of inciting lust, for such is to give men incentive to sin. If any should adorn themselves with such an intention, in order to incite others' lust, they would sin mortally. If, on the other hand, for simple-minded light-heartedness or even plain vanity, namely, out of willful pride, should any do so, it is not always a mortal sin, but may be sometimes only venial; and the same rationale applies to men, too.

Lines 146-53: Hence Augustine writes, in the Letter to Possidius,
I should not wish you to make any impulsive regulation forbidding the use of jewelry or fine clothing, except that those who are neither married nor desirous of being married ought to be thinking about how to please God. But worldly people think of worldly things: if husbands, how to please their wives; if wives, how to please their husbands. However, it is not seemly for women, even married ones, to uncover their hair, since the Apostle commands them to veil their heads.
On this point, however, a woman may be excused from sin when without vanity she follows the prevailing contrary custom, although such a custom is not to be commended.

Lines 153-58: From all of which it follows, that married women, as well as women intending to marry, can lawfully use whatever adornment is used by women of their estate and is customary among them, provided that they do so, not with a perverted intention of seducing men to illicit lust, nor for pomp and glory, but only in order to please their husbands or husbands to be, or in order to conform themselves to what is customary amongst the persons with whom they must interact; and all the same points apply to men.

Chapter four.

Lines 159-74: In the first place, it must therefore be pointed out, as the Gloss says at the same point, that the wives of men who were in distress despised their husbands and, in order to attract other men, adorned themselves more pleasingly than usual; this the apostle Peter forbids. Of such a circumstance, Cyprian spoke, and the same practice is used by women even up to the present day. For when their husbands are away in distant parts, or are subject to difficulties of any sort, they ought not adorn themselves with pearls or other ornamental fineries of theirs. Lest occasion for sinning with other women be given them, the Apostle does not forbid spouses from pleasing their husbands. On this point, the Apostle teaches (1 Timothy 2:9): "I would that women pray adorned in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." By this remark is given to understand that, though grave and moderate vestmental ornament is not forbidden women, the excessive or the immodest or the shameless is, including all adornment that goes beyond what is appropriate to the woman's estate, and all adornment that she puts on to augment lust inordinately, or inordinately to incite to lust: thus much only is prohibited. So says the Gloss on this same apostolic text: "women ought not," it says, "to be found dressing themselves in finery," and so forth, and in all the like, above the mode and manner proper to their persons, with the intention of stirring lust, but rather they ought to put themselves forward in piety by means of good works.

Lines 175-86: In the second place, it must be pointed out that women's face-painting, of which Cyprian speaks, is a species of fiction, the kind of thing that cannot be without sin. Whence Augustine says, in the Letter to Possidius,
As to the practice of painting their faces to make them more pink and white, I doubt that even their own husbands care to be deceived, and husbands - actual or prospective - are the only men for whom women are allowed to deck themselves out, and that by indulgence, not command.
Nonetheless, such face-painting does not always entail mortal sin, but does so only when it is undertaken for purposes of lust or in contempt of God, in the instances of which Cyprian speaks. Yet it needs be understood that it is one thing to feign a beauty one does not have, and it is something else again to cover over a defect, born of any cause, illness, for example, or something else of the sort. For such is lawful, according to the Apostle (1 Corinthians 12:23): "And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour."

Lines 187-93: In the third place, it must be pointed out that, as has been said, exterior adornment must be appropriate to the person's condition, in keeping with established custom. Consequently, it is a vice, in and of itself, for a woman to dress like a man, and vice versa, especially inasmuch as such can be occasion for lust and is expressly prohibited in the Old Law, because the gentiles used such exchange of manners of dress by reason of idolatrous superstition. Nonetheless, such can at times be used without sin, whenever it is used by reason of necessity, by way of disguise from enemies, for example, or for a want of other clothing, and the like.

Lines 194-203: In the fourth place, it must be pointed out that, if there is any art used for making anything that men cannot put to use except in sin, the artisans do sin by consequence of the very act of making such, inasmuch as directly they provide others opportunity to sin, for example, were someone to fabricate idols or anything pertaining to an idolatrous cult; and in keeping with such reasoning all the forbidden arts are fit for destruction, such as, for example, divinations by earth, by air, by water, and by fire; necromancy; divining and the magical art notary; all forms of sorcery, amulet-tying, and spell-casting; the Platonic wand, the seal of Solomon, and the rest of the tokens used superstitiously in arts of this sort. All of them are condemned by the canon law (cap. 26); for men cannot put arts of this sort to use except in sin, and therefore all such arts are unlawful and fit for utter destruction.

Lines 203-14: On the other hand, if there be any art used for making things that men can put to use either for good or for ill - such as swords or arrows or the like - the employment of such arts is no sin, and such arts alone can be said to be lawful. Whence Chrysostom (On Matthew) says: "Only those that produce and contribute to the necessities and mainstays of life should be called arts." By way of contrast, if, as often enough happens, some make use of the products of an art for ill purposes, even if the products themselves be not unlawful per se, yet it falls to the duty of the prince to see to it that they be driven out of the city, according to the doctrine of Plato. Therefore, since women can lawfully adorn themselves, in order to safeguard the decencies of their estates, or can lawfully even add something to their beauty, in order to please their husbands, the conclusion is that the artisans who work the means of such adornment do no sin in the cultivation of their arts, unless perchance they work at anything superfluous or fantastic. Whence Chrysostom says, "Even the arts of the cobbler and the weaver need to be curtailed, for they have been drawn into lechery; the need for them has been corrupted, and art has been debased by artifice."

Chapter five.

Lines 215-23: From all such it follows that the law evangelical prohibits no art which was lawful under the old dispensation, unless perchance it be such arts as were used in the cults of the Jews and the rites of sacrifice of the old dispensation. All such arts, the products of which were capable of being put to use by men without sin, were lawful at that time, just as they are even now. On the other hand, such other arts, the products of which could not be put to use without sin, were condemned at that time, as is clear of the arts listed above (see also Deuteronomy 18, 1 Kings 28, and 4 Kings 23). Now too the same arts stand condemned, as is clear from the aforegoing. Additionally, as for those arts that men make use of for ill more often than for good, it fell then to princes, just as it does even now, to see to it that such be driven away, no matter that the arts themselves be not unlawful per se, because of the damage they do the commonwealth.

Lines 224-46: "Goldsmiths and armourers, however" - arts they say ought utterly to be done away with - are indeed "approved in the New Testament, just as they are in the Old." Such is clear in the case of goldsmiths, since Christ did not prohibit the use of coinage but gave it his approval, bidding "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" (Matthew 22:21), specifically, goldsmiths' products. Moreover, Christ himself kept money, for seeing to necessities (see John 13:29). Likewise, the Philosopher shows (Politics 1 and 3) that it is necessary that there be money, for making exchanges among men, of such things as are needful for human life: such could not take place absent the goldsmith's art and application. Furthermore, that the goldsmiths' art is not worthy to be cast out is clear also from the fact that the Lord himself taught, directly, that their art and numerous others were requisite, not only for providing the necessities of human life, but additionally for adornment of the divine worship and of such men as are set in estates of dignity (Exodus 31:2-5):
See, I have called by name Bezaleel, and I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, to devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in cutting of stones, and in carving of timber.
In the same biblical book, chapters twenty-five through thirty-one, he sanctions and ordains the fabrication of various ornaments, of linen drapery, of gold and of silver, the work of weavers, embroiderers, and featherers, as well as work at painting and carving, for the decoration of the temple and the adornment of the ministers thereof. Even unto the present day, men make use of these same arts for adorning their clothing, as do women, for adorning their whole persons, in silk, in gold and silver, and in gems, lawfully enough and without sin. Such arts are therefore prohibited neither in the New Testament nor by the Gospel, and for this reason above all, namely, that God himself gave them mandate; nor is there any adequate reason why arts of this sort ought now to be forbidden, any more than they were under the Old Law. Consequently, now just as then, such arts are to be permitted and approved. It is even written that St. Dunstan had been a goldsmith and had made many a vessel, skillfully, of gold and of silver.

Chapter six.

Lines 247-60: That arms-makers are needful and approved in the New Testament is apparent from the fact that soldiery is lawful and necessary amongst Christians, as is apparent from the remarks made above in Part Ten, and consequently it is right for them, namely soldiers, to have weapons of all types, both defensive and offensive. The several justifications for such a state of affairs I have adduced already: it is right for such arms to be produced though the industry of arms-makers, and consequently their art, far from being only tolerable amongst Christians, is rather indeed to be fostered and guarded with all due diligence. Vegetius, in The Military Affairs, and the Philosopher too, in The Politics 8, demonstrate that military acumen is indeed needful for governing realms and peoples. To such governance pertains familiarity with and knowledge of all arms of war and its sundry instruments, as well as supervision of arms-makers about their tasks, after the fashion of architects, or of a master in their art. By consequence, the art of arms manufacture is not only lawful but is moreover needful; by consequence, it is by no means to be done away with.

Lines 260-76: It is rashness of the most extreme sort, in fact, to assert that such things as God has provided men, for their needful employments to come, ought by rights to be done away with. Considerations of this sort have already been rehearsed, as St. Augustine makes clear, in The City of God 22.24, where he demonstrates that God endowed man with a rational soul, by means of which man should be able to grasp all the cardinal virtues and have great skill in discovering sundry, subtle arts, needful for human life, as in clothing and housing himself, agriculture and pottery-making, in catching and consuming fishes, fowls, and wild beasts, in dye-making, in music, in cookery, brewery, and spicery, painting and sculpture, and all the many other things there rehearsed - all of them, by God's provision, being helps to man's welfare and are put to use for just such a reason. Therefore, whoever attacks such things tries to abolish divine providence - the divine providence that provided humankind with such arts as might make good the defects of humankind, advance civil intercourse among men, and demonstrate God's wisdom in setting things aright, not only by means of men's natural operations, but likewise by means of men's artful discoveries and their bountiful manifestation of God's goodness therethrough. Deputing all the goods of nature to our disposal alone were not enough for the great bounty of God's goodness, had he not ordained too that such also be put more amply to use, for humankind's benefit, by application of the sundry arts.
Print Copyright Info Purchase

Appendix 3: Dymmok on the Ricardian Extravagance

In Gervase Mathew's view, "Richard's need for personal magnificence had probably always been combined with a ravaging extravagance."1 The king's excesses were widely criticized at the time, in such learned and official sources as Walsingham's historical writings and parliamentary petitions, including the "Record and Process" of Richard's deposition, as well as such relatively popular vernacular writings as the poems "On the Times," Richard the Redeless, and Mum and the Sothsegger. The Ricardian extravagance had an apologist, too: the Dominican Roger Dymmok, whose father and brother acted as royal champions of England. In about 1395, Dymmok answered the widely-circulated vernacular "Lollard Twelve Con-clusions" with his Latin tract Contra XII errores et hereses lollardorum.2 The twelfth and final section of Dymmok's work contains arguments justifying the royal extravagance, a subject that the Lollard "Conclusions" had touched on obliquely. Perhaps most notable among Dymmok's arguments is the claim that kingly magnificence was a needful counter-revolutionary measure given present circumstances: "In fact," Dymmok writes, "it is obligatory for the kinds of lords whose job it is to rule peoples, in order that they might strike fear into their peoples, lest they rise up against their superiors too readily."3 According to this line of thinking, the more excessive the extravagance the better.

Dymmok's literary procedure may seem initially disorienting, especially given the exigencies of representing his work in translation. Dymmok's tract is a compilatio, a more or less formal, scholastic response to an unscholastic and possibly even anti-scholastic piece of vernacular writing. The brief "Lollard Twelve Conclusions" -- only about twenty-three hundred words in length -- was published at first by posting copies of it up in public places. No text survives in such a form, however. The earliest witness is Dymmok's representation of the conclusions in his Contra XII errores et hereses lollardorum. Dymmok begins each of the twelve chapters of his book by quoting one of the Lollard conclusions in full, in the original Middle English. Next, he translates the Middle English conclusion into his own Latin ("Which remarks are rendered in Latin as follows," in the section translated below), sometimes introducing changes that become significant in the ensuing discussions. Finally, still in Latin, Dymmok treats various arguments for and against the particular conclusion, in the pro and contra form made standard by Thomas Aquinas, for example, whose Summa theologica Dymmok uses extensively for making his anti-Lollard compilatio.

The text provided here is that of the first six chapters of the twelfth section of Dymmok's tract (printed by Cronin, pp. 292-304), though modernized both in basic orthography (u/v and i/j, for example) and in the punctuation of quoted material. It is possible to amend Cronin's Latin text, particularly by reference to the sources that Dymmok was using; such corrections are enclosed in brackets "[ ]" in the text following. The Modern English translation incorporates the corrections tacitly.

Against the Twelve Errors and Heresies of the Lollards

Part Twelve

   [The Twelfth Conclusion distributed by the Lollards:]

   Þe XII. conclusiun is þat, þe multitude of craftis nout nedful usid in our Chirche norsschith michil synne in wast, curosite and disgysing. Þis schewith experience and resun provith, for nature with a fewe craftis sufficith to nede of man. Þe correlari is, þat sytthin seynt Powel seyth, we havende oure bodili fode and hilling we schulde holde us apayed, us thinketh þat goldsmethis and armoreris and alle manere craftis nout nedeful to man aftir þe apostle schulde ben distroyd for þe encres of vertu. For þou þese to craftis nemlid were michil more nedful in þe elde lawe, þe newe testament hath voydid þese and manie othere.

   [Dymmok's Latin translation of the Lollards' conclusion:]







   Que in Latinum transfertur in hunc modum. Duodecima conclusio: Multitudo artium
non necessariarum homini in nostra ecclesia multum peccatum nutrit in superflua
curiositate et disfiguracione hominum per vestes curiosas. Hoc ostendit experiencia et
racio probat, quia natura cum paucis artibus sufficeret humane nature. Correlarium:
Ex quo apostolus Paulus dicit, "Habentes victum et quibus tegamur, hiis contenti
simus," nobis videtur quod aurifabri et fabri armorum et omnia genera artium non
necessaria homini secundum apostolum destrui deberent propter augmentum virtutum.
Quia quamvis iste due artes nominate necessarie fuerunt in veteri lege, novum tamen
testamentum has artes cum multis aliis evacuavit.

    [Dymmok's response to the Lollards:] Capitulum primum.

   In ista XIIa conclusione intendunt isti veritatis adversarii varias artes mechanicas
adnullare pro eo, ut asserunt earum plurimas non necessarias ad victum et vestitum
humane nature, et quia hominibus, ut dicunt, occasionem prebent peccandi in superfluo
apparatu ad sui corporis decorem et superbie nutrimentum. Igitur ad intelligenciam
eorum, que sequuntur, est notandum secundum Thomam (Secunda Secunde, q. CLIa,
articulo VIIIo, ad secundum4): Quod necessitas humane vite potest attendi duppliciter;
uno modo, secundum quod est necessarium illud, sine quo res nullo modo esse potest,
sicud cibus est necessarius animali. Et isto modo valde pauce artes sufficerent sive
necessarie essent humane nature, quia natura humana paucis est contenta. Alio modo
dicitur necessarium aliquid humane vite, secundum quod dicitur illud, sine quo res
non potest convenienter esse et isto modo, presupposita diversitate statuum et graduum
et dignitatum hominum, valde multe artes sunt necessarie humane nature, secundum
quod necesse est hominibus in victu et vestitu et in edificiis ordinari, secundum sui
status decenciam et sue complexionis necessitatem. Oportet namque reges, principes
et alios in sublimitatibus constitutos in edificiis magnifice decorari, prout probat
Philosophus (in IIIIo Etichorum); scilicet necesse est eos habere edificia sumptuosa,
magna, pulcra et bene ornata, ad quorum ornatum varii artifices requiruntur, scilicet
pictores, sculptores, vitriarii, fabri, aurifices et alia genera artificum, que iam nimis
longum esset enarrare. Et quod hoc competit talibus dominis, qui populum habent
gubernare, ostendit Philosophus (VIo Politicorum), ad incuciendum metum populis, ne
nimis faciliter insurgant contra suos superiores. Cum enim talia subtilia et forcia populi
et pulcra prospiciunt edificia principum, ipsos opulentos et industrios reputabunt, et
tantum in potencia et sapiencia populum excellere, quod inpossibile reputabunt contra
eos prevalere. Non solum autem in edificiis oportet eos multum excellere, set eciam in
esculentis et poculentis. Cum enim universa genera ciborum facta sunt ad humane
nature sustentacionem, prout patet Gen. IIo et IXo, iustum est, ut persone digniores
ceteros precellant in sumptu ciborum et potuum et in ipsorum subtiliori apparatu, ad
que paranda ars multiplex coquinaria requiritur, sine qua eciam, quantum ad necessitatem
primo modo dictam, humana natura sufficeret sustentari. Et sic oportet principes ac
nobiles secundum sui status decenciam in edificiis et esculentis excellencius ordinari
delicaciusque nutriri quam residuum populi; ita eciam oportet ipsos amplius quam
ceteros diverso ornatu vestium decorari, non enim est congruum racioni, quod ita
splendide vestiatur servus ut dominus, simplex miles ut princeps, monachus ut secularis,
set sicud distinguntur homines in statibus et dignitatibus, sic racio exigit, ut diversorum
vestimentorum apparatu distinguantur. Unde in Secretis Secretorum mandavit Aristoteles
Alexandro, quod nunquam populo publice appareret, nisi in decenti habitu ac splendenti,
ut ex hoc in maiori apud eos reverencia haberetur. Quod autem habitus vilis facit
personas in maiori quoad populum haberi contemptu, patet in vita beatorum apostolorum
Symonis et Iude, ubi legitur, quod sapientes ad regis consilium vocati videntes eos,
Symonem scilicet et Iudam, vilissima veste indutos ceperunt in contemptu habere
eorum personas. Quod autem non solum licet personis magne dignitatis populum
precellere in sumptuosis edificiis, culcioribus cibis et potibus, set eciam vestium decoratu
satis ostenditur IIIo Reg. Xo, ubi sic: "Videns autem regina Saba omnem sapienciam
Salomonis et domum, quam edificaverat, et cibos mense eius et habitacula servorum
et ordinem ministrancium, vestesque eorum et pincernas ac holocausta, que offerebat
in domo Domini, non habebat ultra spiritum. Dixitque regi: Verus est sermo, quem
audivi in terra mea super sermonibus tuis et super sapiencia tua," etc. Ex quibus patet,
quod ad regem pertinet habere sumptuosa edificia et pulcra, cibaria lauta et decorem
vestimentorum, cum ex hiis sapiencia Salomonis vere extitit commendata, que nullo
modo fieri potuerunt absque magna industria artificum, non necessario requisitorum
ad victum parcum hominum et eorum abiectum vestimentum.

   Capitulum secundum.

   Et quamvis licitum sit hominibus secundum sui status congruenciam tam in edificiis,
quam in esculentis et vestibus, sumptuose ac subtiliter ordinari, tamen variis modis
contingit homines in hiis omnibus virtutis medium transcendere, sicud docet sanctus
Thomas (Secunda Secunde, q. CLXIX, articulo primo, in pede5) sic: "Quod in rebus
exterioribus, quibus homo utitur, non est vicium set ex parte hominis, qui immoderate
utitur eis, reperitur vicium." Que quidem immoderancia potest esse duplex; uno modo
quidem per comparacionem ad consuetudinem hominum, in quibus aliquis vivit. Unde
Augustinus dicit (in IIIo Confessionum): "Que contra mores hominum sunt flagicia pro
morum diversitate vitanda sunt." Alio modo potest immoderacio contingere in usu
talium rerum ex inordinato affectu utentis, ex quo quandoque contingit, quod homo
nimis libidinose talibus utitur, sive secundum consuetudinem eorum, cum quibus vivit,
sive eciam pr[e]ter eorum consuetudinem. Unde Augustinus dicit (in IIIo De Doctrina
Christiana): "In usu rerum abesse oportet libidinem, que non solum ipsa eorum, inter
quos vivit, consuetudine abutitur nequiter, set eciam sepe fines eius egressa feditatem
suam, que intra claustra morum omnium latebat, flagiciosissima erupcione manifestat."
Contingit autem illa inordinacio affectus tripliciter, quantum ad superabundanciam,
uno modo per hoc, quod homo ex superfluo cultu vestium hominum gloriam querit,
prout scilicet vestes et alia huiusmodi ad exteriorem pertinent ornatum. Unde Gregorius
dicit in quadam omelia: "Sunt nonnulli, qui cultum subtilium preciosarumque vestium
putant non esse peccatum, quod videlicet si culpa non esset, nequaquam sermo Dei
tam vigilanter exprimeret, quod dives, qui torquebatur apud inferos, bisso et purpura
indutus fuisset. Nemo quippe vestimenta precipua, scilicet excedencia proprium statum,
nisi ad inanem gloriam querit." Alio modo, secundum quod homo per superfluum
cultum vestium querit delicias, secundum quod vestes ordinantur ad corporis fomentum.
Tercio modo, secundum quod nimiam sollicitudinem apponit quis ad exteriorem vestium
cultum, eciam si non sit aliqua deordinacio ex parte finis; et secundum hoc Andronicus
ponit tres virtutes circa exteriorem cultum, scilicet humilitatem, que excludit intencionem
glorie, unde dicit, quod humilitas est habitus non superabundans in sumptibus et
preparacionibus; et per se sufficienciam, que excludit intencionem deliciarum, unde
dicit per se sufficiencia est habitus contentus, quibus oportet, et determinativa eorum,
que ad vivere contingit, secundum illud Apostoli (prima ad Thi. ult.): "Habentes alimenta
et quibus tegamur, hiis contenti simus"; et simplicitatem, que excludit superfluam
sollicitudinem, unde dicit, quod simplicitas habitus contentus est hiis, que contingunt.
Cum quibus omnibus stat quantumcunque solempnis apparatus vestium conveniens
statui hominis debitis circumstanciis usitatus absque peccato. Alio modo ex parte
defectus potest esse duplex deordinacio secundum affectum; uno modo ex necligencia
hominis, qui non adhibet studium vel diligenciam ad hoc, quod exteriori cultu utatur,
sicud oportet. Unde dicit Philosophus (VIIo Etichorum); quod ad molliciem pertinet,
quod aliquis trahat vestimentum per terram, ut non laboret elevando ipsum; alio modo,
secundum quod defectum ipsum vestium ordinat ad gloriam. Unde Augustinus (in
libro De Sermone Domini in Monte) dicit: "Non solum in rerum corporearum nitore
atque pompa, set eciam in ipsis sordibus luctuosis esse posse iactanciam, et eo
periculosiorem, quo sub nomine servitutis Dei deci[p]it"; et Philosophus dicit (Xo
Etichorum), quod superabundancia [et] inordinatus defectus ad iactanciam pertinet.
Et sicud homines se possunt licite secundum sui status congruenciam ornare sumptuose
et artificiose, ita artifices talium ornamentorum licite possunt suas artes exercere, et
tales artifices non sunt destruendi set permittendi et fovendi, ut necessarii coadiutores
hominum in conversacione eorum politica et civili.

   Capitulum tercium.

   Set contra predicta argui potest sic: Ex premissis enim sequi videtur, quod mulieres
absque peccato mortali se ornare possent cultu mulierum usitato; set quod hoc sit
falsum, arguitur sic: Primo, omne, quod est contra preceptum legis divine, est peccatum
mortale; set ornatus mulierum usitatus, ut videtur, est contra preceptum legis divine,
dicitur enim (prima Petri IIIo): "Quarum scilicet mulierum non sit extrinsecus, capillatura
aut circumdacio auri aut indumenti vestimentorum cultus," ubi dicit glosa Cipriani:
"Serico et purpura indute Christum non possunt induere, auro et margaritis ornate et
monilibus ornamenta mentis et corporis perdiderunt." Set hoc non fit, nisi per peccatum
mortale; igitur talis ornatus mulierum non potest esse sine peccato mortali.
   Item, Ciprianus dicit (in libro De Habitu Virginum): "Non virgines tantum et viduas
set et nuptas puto eciam esse omnes omnino feminas admonendas, quod opus Dei et
facturam eius et plasma nullo modo adulterare debent, adhibito flavo colore vel nigro
pulvere vel rubeo, aut quolibet alio vera lineamenta corumpere medicamine"; et postea
subdit: "Manus Deo inferunt, quando illud, quod ille formavit, reformare contendunt;
impugnacio illa Dei operis est, prevaricacio et veritatis. Deum videre non poteris, cum
oculi tibi non sint, quos fecit Deus set quos Diabolus infecit. De inimico tuo reperta
es, pariter arsura cum illo" -- set hoc non debetur, nisi peccato mortali. Igitur ornatus
mulierum non est sine peccato mortali.
   Propterea, sicud non congruit mulieri, quod veste virili utatur, ita nec ei congruit,
quod cultu inordinato utatur. Set primum est peccatum, dicitur enim (Deut. XXIIo):
"Non induatur mulier veste virili nec vir veste muliebri"; igitur videtur, quod eciam
superfluus ornatus mulierum sit peccatum mortale. Set contra hoc est, quod secun-
dum hoc videretur, quod artifices huiusmodi ornamenta preparantes mortaliter peccarent.
Responsio: Dicendum secundum Thomam (Secunda secunde, q. CLXIXa, articulo IIo, in
pede): Quod circa ornamenta mulierum sunt ead[e]m attendenda, que sunt communiter
dicta circa exteriorem cultum, et insuper quoddam aliud speciale, quia scilicet muliebris
cultus viros ad lasciviam provocat secundum illud Prov. VIIo: "Ecce mulier occurrit
ornatu meretricio preparata ad decipiendas animas." Potest tamen mulier licite operam
dare ad hoc, ut viro suo placeat, ne per eius contemptum in adulterium labatur (prima
ad Cor. VIIo): "Mulier, que nupta est, cogitat, que mundi sunt, quomodo placeat viro,"
et ideo, si coniugata ad hoc se ornet, ut viro suo placeat, potest hoc facere absque
peccato. Ille autem mulieres, que viros non habent nec volunt habere et sunt in statu
non habendi, non possunt absque peccato appetere placere virorum aspectibus ad
concupiscendum, quia hoc est eis dare incentivum peccandi. Et si quidem hac intencione
se ornent, ut alios provocent ad concupiscenciam, peccant mortaliter. Si autem ex
quadam animi levitate hoc faciant vel eciam propter vanitatem, scilicet propter quandam
animi iactanciam, non semper est peccatum mortale, set quandoque veniale, et eadem
racio, quantum ad hoc, est de viris. Unde Augustinus dicit (in Epistola ad Possidium):
"Nolo ut de ornamentis auri et vestis propriam habeas in prohibendo scienciam, ut in
eos, qui neque coniugati sunt neque coniugari cupientes, cogitare debere, quomodo
placeant Deo. Alii autem cogitant, quomodo placeant mundo, scilicet quomodo vel viri
uxoribus vel uxores viris, nisi quod capillos nudare feminas, quas eciam capud velare
Apostolus iubet, nec eciam decet maritatas." In quo tamen possunt alique a peccato
excusari, quando non fit ex aliqua vanitate set propter contrariam consuetudinem,
quamvis talis consuetudo non sit laudabilis. Ex quibus sequitur, quod mulieres nupte et
nubere disponentes possunt licite uti quibuscunque ornamentis usitatis a feminis sui
status et apud eas consuetis, dummodo hoc non faciant perversa intencione ad
alliciendum homines ad concupiscenciam illicitam, nec propter pompam aut iactanciam,
set tantum, ut placeant viris suis habitis vel habendis, seu ut aliorum, cum quibus
conversantur, moribus se conforment. Et idem per omnia de viris est dicendum.

   Capitulum quartum.

   Ad primum igitur dicendum est, quod, sicud Glosa ibidem dicit, mulieres eorum,
qui in tribulacione erant, contempnebant viros suos et, ut aliis placerent, se pulcrius
ornabant, et hoc prohibuit apostolus Petrus ibidem. In quo eciam casu loquitur Ciprianus,
et hoc usque in hodiernum diem a mulieribus observatur. Quando enim viri sui sunt in
partibus remotis aut in quacunque angustia constituti, non ornant se margaritis aut
aliis pulcris suis ornamentis. Non autem prohibet Apostolus coniugatis, ut placeant
viris, ne detur eis occasio peccandi cum aliis. Unde Apostolus (prima ad Timo. IIo)
docuit "mulieres in habitu ornato orare cum verecundia et sobrietate, non in tortis
crinibus aut auro aut margaritis aut veste preciosa." Per quod datur intelligi, quod
sobrius et moderatus vestium cultus non prohibetur mulieribus set superfluus et
inverecundus et impudicus, qualis est omnis ornatus statum mulieris excedens, et
adhibitus ei propter concupiscenciam augmentandam inordinate vel ad illam inordinate
excitandam, et solum talis. Unde Glosa super eodem textu Apostoli ibidem: "Non
sint," inquid, "mulieres ornantes se veste preciosa," etc., ut in hiis omnibus ultra
persone sue modulum et mores occasione movende concupiscencie studeant, set
pocius sint promittentes pietatem per opera bona.
   Ad secundum dicendum, quod mulierum futacio, de qua Ciprianus loquitur, est
quedam species fictionis, que non potest esse sine peccato. Unde Augustinus dicit (in
Epistola ad Possidium): "Fucari pigmentis, quo rubicundior vel candidior appareat,
adulterina fallacia est, qua non dubito eciam ipsos maritos se decipi nolle, quibus solis
permittende sunt femine ornari solis, scilicet viris habitis vel habendis, secundum
veniam, non secundum imperium." Non tamen semper talis futacio est cum peccato
mortali, set solum quando fit propter lasciviam, vel in Dei contemptum, in quibus
casibus loquitur Ciprianus. Sciendum est tamen, quod aliud est fingere pulcritudinem
non habitam, et aliud est occultare turpitudinem ex aliqua causa provenientem, puta,
egritudine vel aliquo huiusmodi. Hoc est enim licitum secundum Apostolum (prima ad
Cor. Xo): "Que putamus ignobiliora esse membra corporis, hiis honorem abundanciorem
   Ad tercium dicendum, sicud dictum est: Cultus exterior debet convenire condicioni
persone secundum communem consuetudinem, et ideo de se viciosum est, quod mulier
utatur veste virili aut econtra, et precipue quia hoc potest esse causa lascivie et specialiter
prohibetur in lege antiqua, quia gentiles tales mutaciones habitus utebantur ad ydolatrie
supersticionem. Potest tamen quandoque hoc fieri sine peccato, aliquando propter
aliquam necessitatem, vel causa occultandi ab hostibus, vel propter defectum alterius
vestimenti, vel propter aliquid huiusmodi.
   Ad quartum dicendum, quod, si qua ars est ad facienda opera aliqua, quibus hom-
ines uti non possunt absque peccato, per consequens artifices talia faciendo peccarent,
utpote prebentes aliis directe occasiones peccandi; puta, si quis fabricaret ydola vel
aliqua ad cultum ydolatrie pertinencia, et secundum istum modum sunt omnes artes
prohibite destruende, puta, geomancia, aeremancia, ydromancia, piromancia,
nigromancia, ars divinativa, ars notaria, omnia sortilegia, alligature, observancie, vacca
Platonis, sigillum Salomonis et cetere figure in talibus artibus supersticiose facte, que
omnia condempnantur in canone (cap. XXVI, per totum). Operibus namque istorum uti
non possunt homines absque peccato, et ideo omnes tales artes illicite sunt et penitus
destruende. Si qua vero ars sit, cuius operibus homines possunt bene et male uti,
sicud gladii, sagitte et huiusmodi, usus talium artium non est peccatum, et hee artes
licite sole sunt dicende. Unde Crisostomus (Super Math.): "Eas solas oportet artes
vocare, que necessariorum et eorum, que continent vitam nostram, sunt tributive et
constructive." Si tamen operibus alicuius artis, ut pluries aliqui male uterentur, quamvis
de se non sint illicite, sunt tamen per officium principis a civitate extirpande secundum
documenta Platonis. Quia igitur mulieres possunt licite ornare se, vel ut conservent
decenciam sui status, vel aliquid eciam superaddere, ut placeant viris, consequens est,
quod artifices talium ornamentorum non peccant in usu talis artis, nisi forte inveniendo
aliqua superflua et curiosa; unde Crisostomus dicit (Super Matheum), quod "ab arte
calceariorum et textorum multa absc[i]ndere oportet, etenim ad luxuriam deduxerunt,
necessitatem eius corumpentes arte mala arti commiscentes."

   Capitulum quintum.

   Ex quibus sequitur, quod lex evangelica nullas artes prohibuit, que licuerunt in veteri
lege, nisi forte illas artes, que observate sunt in ceremoniis Iudeorum et ritu sacrificiorum
veteris legis. Omnes enim artes, quarum opera fieri potuerunt ab hominibus absque
peccato, licuerunt tunc, sicud et nunc. Alie vero artes, quarum opera fieri non possent
absque peccato, tunc dampnate fuerunt, sicud patet de artibus prius recitatis (Deut.
XVIIIo et primo Regum XXVIIIo et IIIIo Regum XXIIIo). Nunc eciam eedem artes dampnantur,
sicud patet ex preallegatis. Artes vero, quibus homines sepius male usi sunt, quam
bene, fuerunt tunc, sicud et nunc, per principes a civitatibus expellende, quamvis de
se licite fuissent, propter nocumentum reipublice.
   Aurifabri vero et fabri armorum, quas artes dicunt penitus destruendas, et in novo
testamento approbantur equaliter sicud in veteri testamento. De aurifabris patet, quando
Christus non prohibuit nummismata, set ea approbavit mandando ea dari Cesari tanquam
sua, que per aurifabros fiunt (Mathei XXIIo); et ipsemet pecuniam habuit pro necessariis
emendis (Ioh. XIIo); et similiter Philosophus (primo et IIIo Politicorum) ostendit, quod
necesse est pecuniam esse propter commutaciones faciendas inter homines rerum
humane vite necessariorum, que absque aurifabri arte et diligencia non fiunt. Quod
autem ars aurifabrorum non sit abicienda, patet per hoc, quod Dominus per se et
immediate docuit artem illam et multas alias non solum ad necessitatem humane vite
requisitas, set eciam ad decorem divini cultus et hominum in dignitate constitutorum
(Exo. XXXIo): "Ecce vocavi ex nomine Bezeleel et implevi eum Spiritu Dei, sapiencia et
intelligencia et sciencia in omni opere fabre ad cogitandum quicquid fieri poterit ex
auro, argento et ere et marmore et gemmis et diversitate lignorum"; et in eodem libro
(a XXVo usque ad XXXI capitulum eiusdem libri) approbat et precipit fieri varia ornamenta
in pannis lineis, auro et argento, tam opere textario, polimitario et plumario, quam in
picturis et sculpturis ad decorem tabernaculi et ornatum ministrorum eius, quibus
artibus homines utuntur usque in hodiernum diem in ornamentis pannorum suorum et
femine in ornamentis capitis sui in serico, auro et argento et gemmis satis licite et
absque peccato. Igitur tales in novo testamento aut per evangelium prohibite non sunt,
et eo maxime quo Deus ipsas fieri mandavit; nec est aliqua racio sufficiens, quare
modo debeant huiusmodi artes prohiberi pocius quam in lege veteri. Igitur nunc, sicud
et tunc, tales artes sunt permittende et approbande. Legitur eciam sanctum
Dunstanum aurifabrum fuisse et multa vasa de auro et argento subtiliter fecisse.

   Capitulum sextum.

   Quod vero fabri armorum sunt necessarii et in novo testamento approbati, patet
per hoc, quod milicia licita est et necessaria inter Christianos, sicud patet ex hiis,
que dicta sunt in Xa parte, et per consequens oportet eos, scilicet milites, habere
omnia genera armorum tam defensivorum, quam invasivorum, cuius rei raciones
varias tunc adduxi, que arma fieri oportet industria fabrorum armorum, et per
consequens ars illa nedum est tolleranda inter Christianos, set eciam bona diligencia
nutrienda et servanda. Vegecius enim (De Re Militari) et Philosophus (VIIIo
Politicorum) ostendunt prudenciam militarem necessariam esse ad regni et populi
gubernacionem, ad quam pertinet eciam considerare et cognoscere omnia arma
bellica et instrumenta eius, artificesque armorum in suis operibus dirigere per
modum architectorum vel principantis in arte illa, et per consequens ars illa fac-
ture armorum non solum licita est set eciam necessaria, et per consequens nullo
modo destruenda. Nimia igitur temeritas est asserere illa destrui oportere, que
Deus providit hominibus ad usus necessarios profutura, cuiusmodi sunt prius
recitata, sicud patet per beatum Augustinum (libro XXIIo De Civitate, capitulo XXIIIIo),
ubi ostendit, quod homini animam dedit racionalem, qua mediante capax esset
omnium virtutum cardinalium et magnam habet industriam artes varias et
subtilissimas adinvenire humane vite necessarias, sicud in edificiis et vestimentis,
agricultura et fabricandis vasis, in capcione et edomacione piscium, volatilium et
ferarum, in pigmentariis, in musicis, in escis et potibus et salciamentis, picturis et
sculpturis et aliis multis ibidem recitatis, que, Deo cooperante, sunt invente et
hucusque ad hominum solacium usitate. Igitur qui ista impungnant, divinam
providenciam tollere conantur, qua nature humane de artibus illis providit in
supplecionem humane nature defectus, et promocionem politice conversacionis
inter homines, et ostensionem divine sapiencie in rebus disponendis, non solum in
naturali operacione set eciam disponendis, non solum in naturali operacione set
eciam in artificiali adinvencione et divine bonitatis multiplici communicacione.
Cuius immense bonitati non suffecit solum ad nostrum usum omnia naturalia
conferre, nisi eciam operacione arcium diversarum eas humanis profectibus applicari
accomodacius ordinaret.6

Go to Appendix 4: Some Features of Prosody and Versification