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.

 

   [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:]

Go to Appendix 4: Some Features of Prosody and Versification

RICHARD MAIDSTONE, CONCORDIA: APPENDIX 3 FOOTNOTES

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 XII^a 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).]

RICHARD MAIDSTONE, CONCORDIA: APPENDIX 3 NOTES (TEXT)

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.