Similar satire on fashion appears in the discussion of Wat’s wife. Women’s headdresses provide a definitive example of their concern for frivolous externals, and satiric accounts are epidemic in vernacular antifeminism, thus in analyses of this gender-based status. See Mann 1973:121 and Owst’s sermon examples 1961:390–404. The most notorious ME examples are the Wife of Bath (CT I.453–55; see Mann 1973:267 n91) and the Prioress’s wimple (and what it does not cover) (CT I.151, 154–56; Mann 1973:129–30). Robbins, in his notes (323–24) to HP no. 53, itself an example of the commonplace, cites a variety of vernacular parallels, to which one can add Brown XIII, no. 74/31–35 (a Harley lyric).
Tom Stowe introduces a series of injunctions to fathers/husbands to discipline their families. Most commentators have cited (with not a little relish) evidence that medieval husbands were expected to whip their wives into subservience. This assumption of female wantonness, and of the consequent need for male correction, has been present in the poem, together with the discourse of antifeminist satire that underlies it, since Meed’s appearance. The argument over Meed’s proper husband (cf. 2.17, where L introduces the premise that she must “belong to” someone) is, after all, simply the question, “Under what stable (because masculine) control should she belong?” Cf. 3.121–24 and Mann’s perception (1973:121) that women are often characterized in estates literature by their marital status. And charges against Meed routinely allege that she is only a wanton female; cf. 3.57, 162–71, 188–90L, 4.158–61.
But for a more normative view, see Hanawalt’s discussion of this topic (1986:206–8, 213–14), which insists that the medieval marriage necessarily had as ideal a domestic partnership. However, within this model, wives were to be obedient and husbands responsible for their correction, should they err badly. Following on his perception of a sin-filled world, Reason describes as if normative situations in fact extreme; Felice, for example, is “a wikkede wyf þat wol nat be chasted” (19.303–4).
From a husband’s responsibility for the behavior of his wife, Reason passes on to the tutelage he owes his children. At 6.15–18, Pride will assert that her career began by disobeying her parents. Consequently, “unbuxomness” is associated with this vice and with the very origins of sin itself (cf. B 1.109–13, 2.87). The topic recurs later in this vision at 6.12–29, 7.213, 8.82–91.
Insistence upon paternal correction recalls Conscience’s discussion of Hophni and Phineas at Prol.109–17, although his actual moralization of that biblical anecdote is more relevant to lines 140–42 below. Wit will address the parental responsibility for “fauntokynes … þat fauten inwit” at 10.183–87. With the entire passage, cf. FM 88–90 on disobedient children; their faults are laid upon their parents “for lack of correction and chastising in their youth” (propter defectum correctionis et castigationis dum fuerunt iuvenes, 88/61). The author of FM, in his effort to provide other Franciscans with sermon material of the sort L here evokes, relies heavily on bits of proverbial wisdom; in addition to Prov. 13:24 (L’s text at 139L), he cites (90/76–83) Ecclus. 30:1, 22:3, 30:2, as well as “Hendyng’ ”s English proverb, “Lef chyld lore behoueth” (cf. B 5.38). Hanawalt associates (1986:182–83) such parental tutelage with ages four to six—at the end of which, the dreamer, ʓut ʓong 35, was sent to school; she includes references to the widespread ME literature of parental instruction. See further Owst’s sermon parallels (1961:461–68).
128 (B 5.26, A 5.26) purnele: The name is a vernacular derivative of Petronella, and the saint appears in B 6.275 (the parallel 8.296 reads Poul, as do nearly all B manuscripts). Mustanoja (1970:52) shows that purnele is a common typename for the flirtatious country girl of French pastourelles. But he also draws attention (74–75) to 6.367 and 17.72, where purnele is a (priest’s) whore (to which one might add Mum 1360–61 and perhaps 6.135–36). These underlie the eventual development into OED Parnel/Pernel (a loose woman).
130 (B 5.28, A 5.28) Tomme stoue … : Tom needs two staues to beat Felice for her misbehavior, which has landed her in the wyuene pyne, the cucking-stool (see 3.79n). Her name corresponds with that of a willful fair in the romance Guy of Warwick, mentioned at B 12.47–48, and of a woman (coupled with a Purnell) prideful of her apparel at RichR 3.156–60.
Like many details here, Tom may be a character from proverb-lore. At least, a similar figure appears in an early fourteenth-century sermon with English bits from Fountains (a Cistercian house in West Yorkshire); see Fletcher 1998:32–35. Initially introduced as “Thomas þe Thome” (empty/idle Tom, 29–30), this figure is subsequently reidentified, under the name “Tome Stouue” (Tom the [hewn-down] stump, short Tom, 58–80), with the flesh that chops down all virtuous works. But as husband, he should be the commanding soul, not subject to his wife, the flesh; the preacher cites a couplet, “4ar Thome Stouue es at ham, | God gif þe husband schame,” to indicate his mismanagement and status as evil neighbor.
133 (B 5.31, A 5.31) here hed: In Reason’s valuation, Watt’s wife outspends him for her headdress by twenty to one (half a mark = 6 s. 8 d., a groat = 4 d.) Contrast “Hicke þe hackenayman” (6.378), whose hood, precisely because valueless, generates social value in the tavern.
134–35 (B 5.32–33) bette, Betene: Skeat identifies the names as those of a man (Bat, from Bartholomew) and a woman (from Beatrice), respectively. Both occur elsewhere; see 2.114 and 6.353. Pearsall1 suggests that Betty is Bat’s daughter (and that the lines are thus linked with those that follow, rather than those that precede). On children’s contribution to the family economy, see Hanawalt 1986:156–68.
137 (B 5.35, A 5.33) Late no wynnynge forwanyen hem: The C version of this discussion looks suspiciously as if L revised from a B manuscript that had skipped from children 34 to the word’s repetition in line 40, forcing the poet to reconstruct the passage from memory.
This is the only use of MED forwēnen v. after the early thirteenth century. However, the sense is clear from the etymon, OE wenian “to train” (the modern “wean”); hence the compound implies “train disastrously,” that is, “pamper.”
139L (B 5.39L) Qui parcit … : Prov. 13:24 (He that spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes). B 5.39 provides an explicit gloss that explains 139 the wyse, a translation of the common Latin sapiens (“Solomon, author of biblical wisdom books”).
140–45 (B 5.41–47, A 5.34–39) Reason advises the clergy: All three versions include a brief general address; in it, Reason offers advice to two distinct classes of “clergy.” In all texts, the complaint is the rather generalized one enunciated in, e.g., the 1410 Lollard “Disendowment Bill” (Hudson SEWW 137/86–90), “they lyven nat now ne done the office of trewe curates … ne they helpe nat the pore comens with here lordeshippes … ne they lyve nat in penaunce ne in bodely travaylle as trewe religious shulden by here profession.”
Lines 140–42 address secular clergy, those having cure of souls in the world, the prelates and prestes of 140. Cf. Chaucer’s Parson and the emphasis upon his exemplary status, CT I.496–506, 527–28; and Mann 1973:65 and 237 n43. Contrasting figures occur ubiquitously in the poem, e.g., the hirelings of Prol.81–84 or the ignorant Sloth of 7.30–34. L here invokes the proverb “practice what you preach” (cf. Whiting P 358–62), as Recklessness will do at 11.233–35L. See further Lawler 2002.
In contrast, religioun comprises the regular clergy, those living according to a specific reule. L eventually specifies them in C (156, 170, 173) as the expected groups: monks, nuns, canons, and friars. For such individuals, the rule itself defines the status and acts appropriate to it, cloistered spiritual service to God and to the poor (although friars are not cloistered).
All three versions of Reason’s address agree in the same relatively moderate threat. If religious do not keep the rule, they will face discipline from the appropriate authority—not an ecclesiastical figure (e.g., episcopal visitation), but þe kyng and his consayl. Monastic performance