Attitudes towards Exempla in the Wycliffite Latin Sermon Cycles of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud misc. 200

ABSTRACT

This article examines the contradictory attitudes towards the use of exempla in the two Wycliffite Latin Sermon Cycles of Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud misc. 200. While the author of the sermons condemns exempla that are not scripturally derived, he in fact employs a range of examples, several of which are extra-biblical. There is thus a divide between his theory and practice. These sermons complicate our views of Wycliffite preaching theory, demonstrating that the debate for some dissenting preachers was about what was suitable material for exempla, rather than if exempla were in themselves appropriate for sermons.

KEYWORDS:

• Oxford
• Bodleian Library
• MS Laud misc. 200
• Wycliffite
• lollard
• exempla
• England
• heresy
• dissent
• Middle English
• Latin
• vernacular
• glossing

Wycliffites were typically explicit in their condemnation of sermon exempla. The author of a Wycliffite collection of Latin sermons, for example — to which Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud misc. 200 [hereafter Laud misc. 200] is the most complete witness¹ — repeatedly states that Christ ‘non dicit, predicate fabulas, ludicra aut sompnia, mendacia uel poemata, sed predicate Euangelium’ [‘did not say, preach fables, entertainment or fantasies, lies or poetry, but rather preach the Gospel’].² This statement aligns with other Wycliffite texts that warn of corrupt preachers who use fictitious, extra-biblical exempla to manipulate audiences for personal gain, often through scholastic subtleties and sophistry.³ Several Wycliffite writings condemn the use of exempla in preaching, especially by friars, and, as Anne Hudson established, the vast sermon cycle known as the English Wycliffite Sermons makes no use of them whatsoever.⁴ Nevertheless, the Laud misc. 200 sermons complicate our perception of Wycliffite approaches to exempla. They overtly employ scriptural narratives, extra-biblical allegories and similitudines, and in fact the author explicitly introduces some of them as exempla.

This study examines the condemnations of false fables, poetry and fantasies in Laud misc. 200 alongside the author’s own use of exempla to determine why the sermons seem to contradict themselves; why, that is, the author uses exempla to strengthen his pastoral aims while at the same time he repeatedly denounces their use by contemporary preachers. I argue that the author’s preaching theory did not always align with his practice. Yet by negotiating his theory and practice, the author of the sermons presents a model for the appropriate use of exempla. Instead of rejecting exempla outright, this Wycliffite preacher felt that they could in fact be applied in certain circumstances.

The term ‘exemplum’ is difficult to define. Claude Bremond, Jacques Le Goff and Jean-Claude Schmitt assert that the medieval exemplum was not simply a narrative illustration or ornament to a sermon. In fact, it defied a rigid classification.⁵ Part of the problem in defining the term is that medieval commentators were more interested in the function of an exemplum, particularly its rhetorical and didactic aims, than in setting out a clear definition.⁶ An exemplum is often treated in scholarship as a brief narrative within a sermon that is aimed at moral edification; it is frequently drawn from chronicles, hagiographies, bestiaries, personal experience and occasionally pagan myth and secular stories.⁷ Nonetheless, as Siegfried Wenzel explains in his study of the artes praedicandi, an exemplum need not specifically involve a narrative. For some preachers an exemplum ‘includes any example […] whether it forms a little story or not, and often seems to be no more than a synonym for similitudo’.⁸ An exemplum, therefore, often lacks a clear definition and is treated in some traditions as a broad term that subsumes the subtler distinctions between metaphor, allegory and similitudo. Even when preachers’ handbooks recognised a distinction between similitudines and exempla, it did not mean that there was a strict division in sermons.⁹ To confuse matters further, the exemplum was not a stable concept, but differed over time.¹⁰ In short, there was no set formula for an exemplum and there is no consensus on how the term can be defined.

While defining an exemplum as it was broadly conceived throughout the Middle Ages is a challenge, it is easier to understand how the particular Wycliffite author of the Laud misc. 200 sermons used the concept. The author seems to define exempla as narratives founded upon fiction and lies, designed to mislead audiences. But he does not condemn all exempla. For this author, some examples could be useful for explaining enigmatic passages of Scripture to audiences. In fact, he makes a key distinction between those examples that were based on Scripture and had a spiritually edifying component, and those that were taken from post-patristic or extra-biblical authors. Instead of drawing on the types of exempla included in popular collections such as John Bromyard’s Summa praedicantium,¹¹ the Laud misc. 200 sermons use allegory and extended scriptural narratives. Throughout, the author emphasizes that all preachers should draw their ‘exempla sacre scripture et pertinentis ueritatis, non de fabulis falsis aut poeticis uel sompniis ludicriis ut faciunt falsi fratres’ [‘exempla from sacred Scripture and of that which pertains to the truth, not from false fables or poetry or ludicrous fantasies as the false friars do’].¹² Here the author provides us with an overt theory for determining which exempla are appropriate for sermonizing, as he recognizes the benefit of those exempla based in Scripture and truth. In providing biblical examples, the author incorporates his attitudes towards scriptural glossing and interpretation into his rhetoric surrounding exempla and the appropriate times in which to use them.

Still, at certain points the author introduces extra-biblical examples that seem to contradict his self-prescribed standard that emphasized God’s Word as the sole source of authority. It seems, then, that this Wycliffite author understood the pertinent truth to encompass extra-biblical speculation. The author’s willingness to use these extra-biblical examples illustrates that his approach to preaching was not so different from contemporary, mainstream preachers who incorporated exempla from a range of sources. Despite what this author has to say about the pertinent truth, the Wycliffite use and refusal of exempla seems more closely related to the practice of their opponents than a stance of principle. In other words, perhaps what is acceptable to the Laud misc. 200 author is contingent on the theological or political leanings of a preacher — whether he is deemed an opponent or not — rather than the content, form or source of his exempla.¹³ As a consequence, Wycliffite engagement with exempla is varied, complex and changeable.

Kantik Ghosh has recently described a ‘methodological indeterminacy and slipperiness’ that is characteristic of the Sermones of John Wyclif,¹⁴ and the same holds true for the sermons of Laud misc. 200. Not only do the sermons employ a range of exempla, but they combine elements from the ancient and scholastic styles.¹⁵ Laud misc. 200 in fact contains two Wycliffite sermon cycles. The first (fols 2^r–158^r) is a de tempore cycle of forty-two sermons on the gospels and non-dominical feasts from the first Sunday in Advent to the first Sunday after Trinity, as well as five de sanctis sermons for the Advent and Christmas period. The second set (fols 162^r–207^v) is shorter, though it covers approximately the same time span, featuring thirteen de sanctis sermons from the feast of St Andrew to the Nativity of John the Baptist. Both sets employ a two-part structure. First, as is customary for ancient or homiletic sermons, the author provides a moral interpretation of the entire gospel reading. In some sermons the interpretation is glossed phrase by phrase, and in others the author gives a more discursive summary before analysing the passage in a sequential order. After this initial section, the author extracts two or three principalia from the lection and analyses them in a scholastic fashion, with subdivisions and proof texts that lead to the closing formula.¹⁶

Christina von Nolcken has suggested that this collection may have been ‘a storehouse of useful preaching material’ rather than a collection of sermons that were preached as they were written.¹⁷ The mixture of ancient and scholastic styles was likely an attempt to provide the reader with material that could be adapted for different audiences — the ancient style or homiletic approach primarily used for the laity and lower clergy, and the scholastic for clerical audiences.¹⁸ Von Nolcken’s reading is supported by the attitude of the author, who places an emphasis on delivering appropriate sermons for clerical and lay audiences: ‘Predicatores predicare suo auditorio tales ueritates quas possunt faciliter reportare, informando laicos modo conuenienti ad statum suum et noticiam, et clericos conuenienter ad eorum statum et capacitatem’ [‘Preachers can preach to their audience such truths as they are easily able to relate, informing the laity in a manner appropriate to its status and knowledge, and likewise the clergy according to their status and capacity’].¹⁹ The cycles are littered with passages such as this that direct preachers to appropriately address their audiences and thus to fulfil their pastoral duty.

This study is fundamentally concerned with ways of classifying Wycliffite sermons and preaching rhetoric. I challenge a long-held assumption that part of what characterized a Wycliffite sermon was the absence of exempla. For one thing, the rejection of stories within sermons was not unique to Wycliffites and was relatively common among medieval preachers. More conventional preachers were just as concerned as Wycliffites about elaborate imagery and exempla that had seemingly little to do with pastoral care or Scripture, focusing instead on entertainment. Yet even if a preacher expressed a distaste for exempla, he still might use them when he felt it was appropriate.²⁰ As von Nolcken explains, although the Laud misc. 200 author seemed to condemn those sermons designed to entertain, the author mixed in ‘exuberant allegory’ that would undoubtedly have ‘delighted audiences’.²¹ I contend that we cannot rely on a reluctance to employ exempla and an insistence on conveying the purity of Scripture to be a diagnostic tool for recognizing Wycliffite preaching standards. For many preachers, including the Wycliffite author of the Laud misc. 200 sermons, the debate was about what was suitable material for exempla rather than if exempla were in themselves appropriate.

Preaching ‘open’ sermons

Throughout the Laud misc. 200 sermon cycles, the author repeatedly insists that preachers should focus on the gospels and avoid fables, entertainment, fantasies, lies and poetry.²² This preacher praises those who maintain the purity of God’s Word in sermons and denounces those that rely on elaborate stories that have no scriptural basis. Despite his multiple warnings, the author does not explicitly state which types of exempla constitute these lies and fables or how to identify them. Defining precisely what this preacher objected to is imperative, as he, along with other Wycliffite authors, defines his own approach off against those whom he deemed to be untrue preachers. Before detailing the specific theory of the Laud misc. 200 sermons towards exempla, then, it is first necessary to consider the general attitude towards exempla in contemporary Wycliffite writings.

Several Wycliffite texts go into greater detail in their criticisms of specific exempla than the Laud misc. 200 sermons. The Opus arduum valde, for instance, complains that certain preachers ‘iactant se facturos tam bonam predicacionem de historia Hectoris Troye, Achilis aut unius talis pagani sicut de sanctissima hystoria ewangelica’ [‘boast that they have composed such a good sermon on the history of Hector of Troy, Achilles, or some other such pagan as if it concerned the most sacred Gospel history’].²³ The author of the Opus arduum does not wish to focus on Hellenistic mythology specifically, but to make a more general point about deviation from Scripture and patristic sources.²⁴ The inclusion of Hector of Troy and Achilles serves to illustrate the type of extra-biblical material that was so unpalatable to the Wycliffites. A similar claim is made in the Middle English Wycliffite tract ‘A dialoge as hit were of a wyse man and of a fole denyi[n]ge þe trewþe wiþ fablis’.²⁵ This dialogue is one of a number of such pastoral texts that Wycliffite authors produced on the subject of God’s Law and the Ten Commandments. These tracts were likely aimed at members of the laity and perhaps lower clergy, instructing them through the words of the Wise Man and dispelling the misguided beliefs of the Fool. Throughout the text, the Wise Man voices a concern that extra-biblical exempla and popular stories would replace the Word of God. The Fool requests: ‘I preie þee, leeue þees spechis, and telle me a mery tale of Giy of Wariwyk, Beufiȝ of Hamton, eiþer of Sire Lebewȝ, Robyn Hod, eiþer of summe welfarynge man of here condiciouns and maners’.²⁶ The Wise Man rebuffs the Fool, stressing that Scripture is more efficacious than secular stories because Scripture has an anagogical sense. Listening to Scripture was salvific for one’s soul and thus contributed to what Richard and Mary Rouse have described as the ‘near- or quasi-sacramental status’ of the sermon.²⁷ If a preacher delivered a sermon that was based solely on Scripture, then even a fool could benefit from being in the audience.

Not only did the Wycliffites complain of pagan myths and secular tales in sermons, but they also objected to stories of miracles for fear that they were fictitious, composed simply to mislead audiences. In his De eucharistia, John Wyclif recounts a story of a miracle he heard in a sermon in which the priest explained that the eucharistic wafer healed a man’s illness:

audivi quendam fingere quomodo hostia de altari paulatim descendit ad ventrem ecclesie et ingressum est cor cuiusdam infirmi qui devote et publice professus est sic inquiens: ‘Tu Deus nosti quod reverenter subducta infirmitate te sumerem, sed non infirmitas mentis, ymmo infirmitas corporis me retardat’. Hostia vero fisso pectore cum corde infirmi surrepsit in cordis ventriculum, et sic infirmus constitutus est subito totus sanus.²⁸

[I have heard a certain person tell a tale of how a host descended gradually from the altar into the centre of the church, and entered the heart of a certain sick man, who devoutly and publicly professed, thus saying: ‘You, God, have known that I reverently consume you to lift me out of illness, not a mental illness, but a bodily one that hinders me’. In truth the sacrament, with the chest and the infirm heart rent, crept into the ventricle of the heart, and thus the sick man immediately recovered total health].

Wyclif’s objection to the priest’s story did not pertain to its miraculous component, but rather to the fact that the priest boasted: ‘Os finxit […] hoc pulchrum mendacium’ [‘the mouth […] fabricated that pretty little lie’]. Had the miracle proved genuine, then Wyclif would have had no grounds to object to the story, yet the anecdote was related with a deceitful intention.²⁹ In accord with Wyclif’s scepticism towards miracles, Wycliffite sermons denounced such miracle stories because their authors suspected that most were fabricated or, at the least, unverifiable if they were not drawn from Scripture or the Church Fathers.

The Wycliffite preaching resource the Middle English Rosarium Theologie — a revision of the Floretum — outlines the reasons why fictitious exempla were so harmful to sermon audiences.³⁰ Under the headword ‘Fabulacion’ or ‘tale tellyng’, the compiler quotes Gratian’s Decretum in explaining:

Þai þat telleþ talez or fablez in holi cherchis doþ 3. yuelez. ‘First þei infectiþ þamself & þe puple and leseþ þe holy day & defouleþ þe place. Þe 2., þei waste and turneþ vp þe lawe of God & mandementis of holy chirche. Þe 3., in scornyng þe Lorde of þe holy day þai tresour to þamself & to þe puple ire of God into þe day of dome’.³¹

Not only are fictitious exempla a waste of time for the audience, but they sully the holiness of the church and the day on which they are preached. Yet in the source from which the compiler draws, Gratian did not dismiss all exempla (nor in fact does the compiler). So long as one’s exempla did not consist of tales and fables, they were to be tolerated. Under the headword ‘Exemplum’ in the Latin Floretum, the compiler explains that in the details of Christ’s life we have innumerable examples of how we should live in a charitable fashion.³² He stops short of stating that one should solely employ these biblical examples, but implies that biblical stories are all that are needed in sermons. The structure of the entries in the Floretum further suggests the rejection of contemporary exempla collections. The Wycliffite compilation includes biblical passages, extracts from the Manipulus florum, citations from Wyclif and modern masters such as Robert Grosseteste and Richard Fitzralph, and finally passages from canon law. Unlike popular compilations such as John Bromyard’s Summa praedicantium, the Floretum entirely forgoes the inclusion of exempla.³³

With these examples we can start to decipher which exempla the Wycliffites typically opposed and begin to identify the duties of the ‘true’ preacher as the Laud misc. 200 author defined him. A preacher had to avoid pagan myths, popular tales and fantastical miracles. As with other Wycliffite sermons, the author of Laud misc. 200 stressed the importance of preaching an ‘open’ and accessible sermon. The duty of the preacher in delivering a sermon was connected to the ways in which he was to interpret Scripture and the sources on which he relied. Perhaps the most important role was to clearly and accessibly preach the Word of God: ‘Predicatores debent aperte et distincte predicare et exponere domestice populo verbum Dei, et non abscondere ab illis ueritatem per scolasticas subtilitates’ [‘Preachers ought openly and distinctly to preach and set forth accessibly to the people the Word of God, and not to conceal the truth from them through scholastic subtleties’].³⁴ Wycliffites typically showed a distaste for contemporary scholastic modes of interpretation and glossing, though this did not mean that they disregarded these discourses altogether. Wyclif and his followers were very much products of their scholastic environment, and they used the intellectual tools and hermeneutical categories of university masters.³⁵

Nevertheless, the Wycliffites set up a bifurcation between their open, clear sermons and those in which ‘obscura est sapiencia per tenebras opinionum, mutatus est uerus color per fur[t]um verborum, dispersi sunt doctores ecclesie per uariacionem a scriptura sacra in capite omnium platearum [Lamentations 4. 1], quia quot capita tot sentencie’ [‘wisdom is obscured through darkness of opinions, the true colour is altered through the theft of words, the doctors of the Church are scattered through deviance from sacred Scripture at the top of every street, for there are as many heads as there are opinions’].³⁶ The opinions are those extracted from scholastic glosses, and the thieves are those who pick and choose opportunistically from the sources. As a consequence of using glosses, ineffective preachers spread a confusing array of opinions. However, if the preacher uses an open and accessible style, free of scholastic subtleties, then the audience will leave the sermon enlightened by the virtues of God’s Word. For the author of this sermon, to outline the subtle glossing and interpretive practices of those he denounces is fundamental in defining the true preacher, who is frequently presented in contrast to the practices of the one who deceives. Yet this objection to scholastic glosses does not mean the author of the sermons rejects glosses altogether. On the contrary, the Laud misc. 200 sermons are quite typical of late-medieval sermons in their glossing and interpretive practices.

Despite the criticisms of scholastic subtleties and praise of those sermons that rely on Scripture, we are left with little idea of what an ‘open’ sermon might look like. From the first sermon in Laud misc. 200, the first Sunday in Advent, the author characterizes the virtues of a true preacher in a lection on Matthew 21:

Aduentus Christi ad Bethphage primo significat quod sapientia legis divine primo uenit per bonam oris predicacionem et fidei ueram confessionem et deuotam orationem fidelium parentum et prelatorum. Nam Bethphage interpretatur domus oris et significat ueros predicatores qui sunt quasi os dei et ecclesie Christi Jer. 15. [19] Si separaueris preciosum a uili quasi os meum eris, per quorum ueram predicationem saluator intrat in personam audientis, et sicut locutus est deus per os sanctorum qui a seculo sunt prophetarum eius Luc. i. [70] Nam labia sacerdotis custodiunt scientiam [Malachi 2. 7].³⁷

[The arrival of Christ to Bethphage first signifies that the wisdom of the divine law first comes through the good preaching of the mouth and the true confession of faith and devout prayer of faithful parents and prelates. For Bethphage is interpreted as the house of the mouth and signifies the true preachers who are like the mouth of God and the Church of Christ: If you separate the precious from the vile, you will be as my mouth (Jeremiah 15. 19), through whose true preaching the saviour enters into the one who listens, and so God spoke through the mouth of the holy men who have been his prophets from the beginning (Luke 1. 70). For the lips of the priest shall keep knowledge (Malachi 2. 7)].

The author wastes little time going over the literal reading of the passage and jumps straight to the allegorical register in which the ‘ueri predicatores’ act as God’s mouthpiece. In becoming the ‘mouth of God and the Church’, the author gives the impression that he is offering his own interpretations of Scripture rather than relying on any gloss. Still, he makes the same interpretational moves as those glosses that he denounces. He interprets the passage according to the four senses of Scripture and adheres relatively closely to the reading offered by the Glossa Ordinaria.³⁸

The difference between the interpretative moves of the Wycliffites and contemporary preachers lay in the authorities they used. Wycliffites stuck closely to patristic sources and a small handful of more contemporary authorities such as Nicholas Lyra, Robert Grosseteste and Richard Fitzralph. They rejected all other moderni commentators.³⁹ The consequence of preachers relying too heavily on contemporary glosses for their interpretations was that the laity would not be spiritually enriched by their sermons. Enlightenment of the laity was a key role of the clergy, yet according to the Wycliffites they neglected their duties of pastoral care. The author explains the relationship between the laity and preacher in his interpretation of Bethphage:

Quia Bethphage est ad montem oliueti, significat quod predicatores et sacerdotes spiritualiter ultra laycos ad montem perfectionis et contemplationis habitarent. Quamuis autem duo discipuli missi Ierosolimam significent allegorice doctores actiuam uitam et contemplatiuam predicantes, moraliter tamen possunt duas potentias anime uoluntatem, scilicet, [et] rationem designare. Que quasi duo discipuli ingredientes secretum scabellum cordis et conscientie, corpus et animam tanquam asinam et pullum [Matthew 21. 2] soluerent a uinculis peccatorum.⁴⁰

[Because Bethphage is on Mount Olivet, this signifies that preachers and priests dwell spiritually beyond the laity on the mountain of perfection and contemplation. Although the two disciples that were sent to Jerusalem allegorically signify doctors who preach the active and contemplative life, morally they are able to designate the two powers of the mind, namely, will and reason. And just as the two disciples who step on the secret footstool of the heart and conscience, the body and soul, like the ass and the colt, are released from the chains of sin].⁴¹

Morally, the two disciples from the passage relate to the two powers that each faithful preacher possesses, namely will and reason, which lead the hearts and consciences of their congregations away from sin. The role of the true preacher, then, is to act as a mouthpiece for God and to preach contemplative sermons that focus on Scripture. After all, Scripture is the only source that offers anything spiritually nourishing to audiences. Contemporary glosses and exempla, on the other hand, typically strayed from Scripture and, according to the Wycliffites, were based on lies designed to manipulate audiences.

Biblical glosses and moral instruction

Instead of providing fictitious exempla or scholastic glosses that hide the meaning of Scripture, the Laud misc. 200 sermons provide the reader with extended scriptural narratives. These scriptural narratives and allegories are used as exempla — that is, to illustrate moral points connected to the central themes of the sermon. While these examples are centred on the actions of certain biblical figures, the narratives do not always adhere closely to Scripture. Kantik Ghosh has aptly characterized such examples as ‘creative meditative exegesis’ that filled in gaps in biblical stories. Ghosh demonstrates that the English Wycliffite Sermons at once denounce this type of exegesis, yet admit that certain passages remain enigmatic without a human interpreter. In the spirit of parsing scriptural allegory, a preacher enacting this form of creative meditative exegesis would extrapolate from his source material while maintaining that he acted as a transparent, open mediator between man and the divine.⁴² In providing these biblical narratives, the Laud misc. 200 author incorporates ideas about glossing and interpretation into his rhetoric surrounding exempla. Still, the sermons uphold a strict dichotomy between open and subtle scholastic glosses.

A sermon for the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross from Laud misc. 200 distinguishes true from subtle scholastic forms of glossing by defining the preparation of the good preacher. The author uses the birth of John the Baptist as an extended metaphor, treating John’s mother, Elizabeth, as mother Church and faithful preachers as her sons:

Et sicut Elizabeth habuit spacium concipiendi filium, et in utero gerendi, et tempus impletum pariendi, et sic peperit filium non monstrum uel feminam. Sic spiritualiter habebit ecclesia spacium concipiendi suos filios per uerbum dei, et spacium gerendi in utero per feruens studium et interiorem meditacionem legis diuine. Et deinde cum tempus impletum fuerit quod tales nascantur exterius per fructuosam predicationem tunc ecclesia parit talis in tempore oportuno et exterius mittit ad predicandum uerbum dei.⁴³

[And just as Elizabeth had room to conceive a son, and in her womb to bear him, and had time enough until he was due to be born, and thus bore a son, not a monster or a female. Thus spiritually the Church will have space to form its sons through the Word of God, and space to bear them in its womb through fervent study and interior meditation of divine law. And then when the time has come that such (sons) may be born externally through fruitful preaching, then the Church bears such (sons) for a suitable time and sends them out to preach the Word of God].

This passage draws on the tradition of the ‘transparent woman’ in which Mary and Elizabeth were depicted in medieval art with a transparent body, allowing the viewer to see Christ and John the Baptist, respectively, inside their wombs.⁴⁴ In late-medieval devotional texts, the tradition of the transparent woman treated Mary and Elizabeth as vessels, focusing on the importance of their tasks of bearing their sons. Similarly, mother Church bears her sons in her womb until such time that they can go out and preach, that is, after they have developed a keen sense of how to interpret Scripture faithfully. The sermon continues: ‘Elizabeth autem peperit masculum qui regeret populum uirga ferrea [Apocalypse 2. 27], scilicet, doctrina et correccione solida et fideli’ [‘Elizabeth, however, bore a male who would rule the people with an iron rod, namely, with doctrine and firm and faithful correction’].⁴⁵ The gestation period inside Elizabeth’s womb is fundamental for preachers to learn how to employ doctrine and faith as tools in their sermons. If the preacher leaves the womb of the Church before he has properly developed his skill and knowledge, he runs the risk of preaching in the wrong manner and acting as a monster (or female).

The assertion that Elizabeth did not produce a monster or a daughter may appear to be misogynistic and fundamentally concerned with excluding women from preaching. The exclusion of women is certainly one dimension of the sermon, as, apart from some notable exceptions, there is little evidence to suggest that all Wycliffites believed women should be permitted to preach.⁴⁶ Yet there was an important narrative reason for equating daughters and monsters. In stating that Elizabeth did not produce a monster or a daughter, the preacher attempts not only to play with the scriptural narrative in which John the Baptist is born, but also with the expectations of the audience. If a son was the ideal, then those who act in the opposite fashion to John the Baptist are the opposite of sons, namely daughters or monsters:

Et nota quod Elizabeth non peperit filium subito nunc, antequam tempus conueniens pariendi erat impletum, sed post temporis implecionem; sic spiritualiter predicatores non subito sine noticia scripture sacre predicarent, sed postquam eorum tempus fuerit impletum, per sancte ecclesie informacionem. Dicit enim beatus Jeronimus in epistola ad Paulinum, decimo capitulo: ‘scripturam sacram uniuersi presumunt, lacerant et docent antequam discant’ [Epistle 53. 7]. Ideo tales predicatores sunt quasi filii abortiui rumpentes uiscera matris et exeuntes ante tempus pariendi; aliqui predicatores sunt monstra ab ecclesia malignancium nata qui monstruose predicant fabulas mendacia et sompnia et cetera falsa dicta, de quibus apostolus admiratur.⁴⁷ Aliqui non sunt filii sed femine, scilicet, predicatores effeminati qui predicant propria uanam gloriam et cupiditatem terrenorum, et adulacionem diligunt et uecordiam ut mulieres.⁴⁸

[And know that Elizabeth did not bear a son right away, before the time that he was due to be born, but after the appropriate time; so spiritually, preachers do not preach at once without acquaintance with Holy Scripture, but after the fullness of time, through the conception of Holy Church. For as St Jerome says in his Epistle ad Paulinum: ‘one and all take sacred Scripture in hand, they mangle and teach it before they learn’. Therefore, such preachers are like abortive sons destroying the viscera of the mother and discharging before the time of birth; some preachers are monsters born from the Church of the wicked who monstrously preach fables, lies and fantasies and other false sayings, of which the Apostle is astonished. Some are not sons but daughters, namely, effeminate preachers who preach their own vainglory and cupidity of the earth, and they love adulation and silliness just like women].

The time the preacher spends in the womb is vitally important. Those who emerge from the womb prematurely and preach mangle Scripture because they have not taken enough time to properly learn the correct methods of exegesis and instead rely on contemporary glosses. Evil preachers are thus effeminate daughters who are rooted in vice and avarice rather than the spiritual and pastoral roles of the sons, who are born after the appropriate time.

Perhaps the most important characteristic of the effeminate preachers is their neglect of Scripture. The sermon compares effeminate preachers to Zacharias, who was mute until the birth of John the Baptist. It was not until Zacharias gained faith that he was able to speak, and by the same token, evil preachers are figuratively silent because they are unable or unwilling to preach the Word of God:

Et sicut Zacharias fuit mutus et non potuit loqui usque ad diem natiuitatis baptiste, et hoc propter incredulitatem eius; sic prelati qui non credunt quod deus uult mittere suos predicatores erga finem mundi ad predicandum euangelium Christi contra suum aduersarium antichristum permanent muti sine predicatione uerbi dei.⁴⁹

[And just as Zacharias was mute and could not speak until the day of the Baptist’s birth, and this was on account of his unbelief; so prelates who do not trust that God wills to send his preachers to the end of the world to preach Christ’s gospel against his adversary the Antichrist remain mute without preaching the Word of God].

The effeminate preachers are, then, those who cannot provide the Word of God in sermons, preaching nothing of value because they neglect Scripture in favour of fables and lies. In considering this alternative narrative in which Elizabeth produced a monster or daughter, the author elaborates on his exegesis, at once stressing the moral reading of the passage and providing an example for the audience. In the place of an exemplum drawn from an extra-biblical source, therefore, the author provides an extended scriptural narrative to illustrate his moral point about the duties of the true preacher.

Throughout the Laud misc. 200 sermons, the author provides numerous biblical examples that elaborate on his interpretation of particular passages. In a sermon for Good Friday, for instance, the author invokes the Virgin Mary as the Stella Maris. The commonplace role of Mary as the Stella Maris was linked to the interpretation of her name, which Rabanus Maurus proposed signified ‘light-bringer’ and ‘star of the sea’. Rabanus described Mary as a star that guided men on the stormy sea of life towards the haven of heaven. Continuing this tradition, in the early eleventh century Fulbert of Chartres claimed that Mary was etymologically derived from the phrase ‘star of the sea’, which, he suggested, was why sailors and fishermen prayed for her protection to find a safe passage home.⁵⁰

The author of the Wycliffite sermon uses the Virgin Mary, the Stella Maris, as a metaphor for the clergy and the ways in which they should interact with other members of society. He specifies that the three Marys of the Bible signify the standard description of the three estates:

Maria [Magdalena], Maria [Cleophe], Maria [beata Virgo], aut interpreta Stella Maris; et hec tres Marie significant tres status, scilicet, sacerdotalem, militarem, et laborant <e>m;⁵¹ igitur debent tamquam stelle habere aspectum ad mare tribulacionis huius mundi. Et sicut stelle gratis diffundunt suos radios tam ad unum quam ad alium, sic debent tres status in ecclesia, sibi inuicem proferre et reciproce, adiuuare. Et sicut dolente beata uirgine lugebant cetere mulieres, et ipsa gaudente post resurrectionem gaudebant […]. Gaudere cum gaudentibus, et flere cum flentibus [Romans 12. 15]. Quia quilibet status ecclesie tenetur gaudere de bono uirtutis alterius et de malo eius condolere.⁵²

[Mary (Magdalene), Mary (Clopas), and Mary (the blessed Virgin), or (as she is) interpreted the Star of the Sea; and these three Marys signify three estates, namely, the clerical, the knightly, and the labouring; therefore, (these estates) ought, just like stars, to have regard for the sea of tribulation of this world. And just like the stars freely pour forth their rays to one another, so the three estates in the Church, must bring forward one another and bring each other help reciprocally. Just like when the blessed Virgin suffered other women mourned, and when she rejoiced after the resurrection they rejoiced […]. Rejoice with those that rejoice, and weep with those that weep. Because any estate in the Church is bound to rejoice in the good of another’s virtue and to suffer from its evil].

Throughout the sermon, the preacher maintains that there is a disconnect between the clergy and laity that was not present in the apostolic Church. In the time of the apostles there was no ecclesiastical hierarchy and all the faithful rejoiced and wept with each other, just as other women wept and rejoiced with the Virgin. By the later Middle Ages there had been a significant degradation in the piety of the Church, and the clergy were no longer willing to interact with the laity in the same manner. The clergy separated themselves from society, and the spirituality of the other estates suffered as a consequence. Faithful members of the clergy, by contrast, were to act like the Virgin Mary, rejoicing and weeping with the laity in the sea of tribulation.

The Wycliffite passage on the three Marys is not clearly distinct from the types of elaborate examples that the preacher denounces. For one thing, the Stella Maris is not directly derived from Scripture but is drawn from an etymological glossing tradition. One is tempted to regard it as a scholastic subtlety. Still, this criticism is not entirely fair. While the Stella Maris tradition is not explicitly drawn from Scripture, it does not distract too much from the interpretation and is a relatively minor reference. In fact, the image of the Virgin as the star of the sea serves the purpose of the author well in maintaining the marine and celestial imagery associated with the suffering of the sea of tribulation. Above all, the example demonstrates a readiness to incorporate material from glossing traditions when it suited the author’s interpretative and moral points.

The sermon for the feast day of St John the Apostle presents a similar example of the ways in which the author drew on a glossing tradition. Following a reference to 1 Peter 2. 12 — ‘Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps’ — he compares Christ to a wounded stag that is tracked by hounds and hunters. The metaphor of Christ as a stag is not taken from one specific Bible passage; it derives from an exegetical tradition in which the stag was believed to be a symbol of rejuvenation. One of the most commonly evoked passages in relation to deer and spirituality was Psalm 42(41). 1: ‘As the hart pants after the water brooks, so my soul pants after you, O God’.⁵³ Rabanus Maurus interpreted the hart as the soul of the faithful who quench their spiritual thirst in the water of faith.⁵⁴ Rabanus makes a comparison between this Psalm and Song of Songs 2. 9, explaining that Christ is the roe begotten from his father who stands behind the wall and peers through windows and lattices.⁵⁵ Another key representation is found in Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies, where he maintains that the deer is able to rejuvenate itself when it is infirm. The deer uses the breath from its nostrils to draw a venomous serpent out from a crag in the rocks before eating it and turning its venom into a medicine.⁵⁶ Peter Lombard combined the image of the thirsty hart and the serpent-eating deer in his gloss of Psalm 42(41). 1, where he states that the deer is the catechumen who thirsts for the baptismal font after he or she has swallowed the poisons of earthly vice. This poisonous vice is turned into medicine by baptism and the catechumen is healed.⁵⁷ Other theologians brought the religious symbolism of the deer or stag into a courtly perspective through hunting metaphors. For example, Hugh of St Victor declares: ‘Cerva est casta et munda anima. Sagittae sunt desideria mala. Venatores sunt daemones; qui quoties […] sagittas mortiferas immittunt’ [‘The deer is the pure and clean soul. Arrows are bad desires. The hunters are demons, who often […] shoot deadly arrows’].⁵⁸ That the soul is able to rejuvenate is central to this metaphor. While the arrows of demons may inflict the wounds of sin, the soul, like a deer, may regenerate through the healing power of the sacraments.

The Laud misc. 200 sermon for the feast of St John the Apostle not only draws from the long tradition that linked the stag or deer to regeneration and spiritual purity, but also courtly imagery of hunting. Christ is depicted as a stag that has been wounded by an arrow and, in contrast to Hugh of St Victor’s rendering, the hunters are not demons but those that seek to follow Christ and be healed by his blood. The bloody footprints of Christ are at once markers of his suffering that invite the faithful to meditate on his Passion and symbols of the faithful themselves: ‘Aliqua et sunt uestigia Christi rubricata per pacienciam et penitenciam salutarem in sua passione’ [‘And in another way, they (the faithful) are the footprints of Christ made red through the suffering and wholesome penance in his Passion’]. Christ’s faithful preachers are then depicted as hunters who follow the trails of bloody footprints of suffering (uestigia sanguinea patiencia) to the wounded stag, who is struck by the arrow of penance. The hunters inform their hounds, the laity, that the stag has been wounded so that they can pick up on the trail of blood: ‘tunc canis, ad hoc informatus per uenatores, habebit sequelam sanguinis; quousque uenerit ad ceruum lesum de cuius sanguine poterit saciari’ [‘at this time the hound, having been informed of this by the hunters (that is, that the stag has been wounded), will pick up on the trail of blood; for how long will he approach the wounded deer by whose blood he can be satisfied’]?⁵⁹ The preacher concludes that Christ’s body and blood spiritually satisfy the penitential needs of the faithful and heal infirmities just as the stag was able to regenerate health. Nonetheless, this image of the stag, hunters and hounds does not remain stable. Directly following the passage on the faithful hunters and their hounds, the author compares Christ the wounded stag to Christ in the Passion. At this point in the sermon, the ‘uenatores’ are no longer the faithful, but those who executed and tortured Christ. While the image is malleable, Christ the stag is always a symbol of suffering. It is the role of mankind in relation to the quarry that differs, as men are at once the tormentors of the stag and those who follow his bloody footprints, suffering along with him in a penitential mood.

Some might deem the stag imagery as a contradiction to the author’s comments on preaching. For one thing, the imagery is not based in Scripture, but takes Christ out of a biblical setting and places him into a hunting scene. When confronted with examples concerning biblical figures that include details from a post-patristic tradition, the preacher might justify their inclusion by claiming that the examples serve as an extension of his scriptural interpretations. Yet there is little doubt that the Laud misc. 200 preacher deviates from his self-prescribed open and accessible style of preaching. The examples of the birth of John the Baptist, the Stella Maris and Christ the stag do not pertain to transparent, open interpretation, rather the author elaborates on the passages in creative ways to facilitate moral instruction. These examples reveal that the author of the sermons was willing to include elaborate, biblical examples and that he was not hampered in his use of exempla by his renunciation of false fables, lies and poetry.

Extra-biblical exempla

Through biblical narratives, this Wycliffite preacher connected his ideas on glossing and the proper interpretation of Scripture to his pastoral concerns. After all, even if the exempla did deviate from Scripture, they undoubtedly had a biblical basis that centred on revealing truth. For a Wycliffite, maintaining this strict focus on the authority of the Bible was key and any deviation was unacceptable. But while Wycliffites and other reformist preachers deemed attempts to bring extra-biblical stories into sermons as evidence of a degradation of piety, others may have felt this criticism to be too severe. The Fool of ‘A dialoge as hit were of a wyse man and of a fole denyi[n]ge þe trewþe wiþ fablis’, complains that sermons that focus on Scripture are not entertaining for audiences. Exasperated, the Fool asks:

What þanne be þi tale? We schulden neuere be merie but euer sory? For it semeþ þou woldist haue alle men to speken of Goddis lawe, and to þenke on peynes þat ben ordeyned for synners, and also of here eendynge, and þis wolde make hem die for sorowe.⁶⁰

The Wise Man’s answer to this objection is that sermons are not intended to be entertaining or to make the audience merry, but rather to impart the importance of a contrite attitude. This sober approach is reflected in many Wycliffite sermons. A comparison between most Wycliffite sermons and those of contemporaries such as John Mirk gives a clear impression of the differences in tone concerning the place of exempla. Where Mirk produces a wide variety of exempla drawn from a range of sources and themes, the Wycliffites were far more limited, generally sticking to scriptural narratives.⁶¹

The Laud misc. 200 sermons deal almost exclusively in scriptural interpretation and biblical narratives, yet in certain instances the preacher diverges from his self-prescribed rigid source base. In an Advent sermon, the preacher states that his discussion of penance and returning to sin brings three exempla to mind (‘Occurrit autem triplex exemplum ad detestandum hoc peccatum’).⁶² These three exempla are not drawn from Scripture, rather they are generic and nondescript scenarios that avoid details of place and time. The first exemplum invokes a father-son relationship that resembles not only a household with a paterfamilias, but also an interaction between a priest and a member of his congregation:⁶³

pater capiens filium suum aliquo delicto bis uel ter percipit ut iterum non committat idem; et filius eius clamans nunciam et promittit se non plus derelinquere in illo; et pater dimittit ei sub ista condicione quod non plus sic delinquat, monens eum, quod si plus sic fecerit punietur tam pro primo quam pro secundo. Sic residiuans delinquens enormiter contra deum, si fructuose penituerit deus dimittit ei suum peccatum sub ista condicione quam non plus delinquat tam enormiter. Et quia talis promittit in sua contricione se non plus cadere in tali crimine, et tamen contra suam promissionem uoluntarie cadit in eandem culpam; ideo peccat ipse peius postquam iterum residiuat quam prius peccauit, quia post residiuacionem habet nouam culpam et omnia alia peccata priora redeunt, et ideo est peior in fine quam fuit in principio.⁶⁴

[a father catching his son for some of his wrongdoings two or three times teaches him that he should not commit the same again; and his son crying out at last promises no longer to forsake him in this manner again; and the father sends him away under the condition that he no longer fails in this way, warning him that if he does this again he is to be punished for the second time as well as for the first. In the same way, if the re-offender, transgressing excessively against God, has done penance fruitfully, God forgives him his sin, under the condition that he will no longer offend so unrestrainedly. And because he promises so greatly in his own contrition no more to fall in such a sin, and yet against his promise he willingly falls into the same guilt, he therefore sins more after he relapses again than with his earlier sinning, because after relapsing he has fresh guilt and all other earlier sins return, and thus he is more evil in the end than he was in the beginning].

This exemplum is hardly a fable or a tale of miracles, but it is an extra-biblical story that draws on common themes invoked in sermons of the period. The exemplum is not presented as if it were drawn from a particular source and is in fact generic enough to be featured in any sermon, as is the moral point about confession and penance. Still, the Wycliffite position on auricular confession was distinctive. Throughout the Laud misc. 200 cycles, the author clarifies that auricular confession was not necessary for salvation. Yet the author did not condemn the entire sacrament, as he finds some value in the pastoral advice offered by a confessor.⁶⁵ Ultimately, this exemplum demonstrates that while a priest may chastise a penitent more and more after relapsing into sin, there comes a point where only God can amend his actions. In other words, the priest or confessor had a limited role in confession because only God could turn one towards contrition, forgive sins and cleanse a soul.

The second and third examples of the Advent sermon emphasize the same point about recidivism. The second exemplum explains that a spiritual wound worsens when one commits the same sins over again. Such an aggravated wound would require a stronger medicine than was previously administered, and consequently the penitent would suffer more from the effects of the increasingly severe treatments.⁶⁶ The third example continues the medical imagery, this time considering the effects of poison:

homo bibens uenenum et semel intoxiagatus, postea fuerit liberatus a ueneno per aliquam medicinam; quanto sepius postea resumit hoc uenenum, tanto peius intoxigatur, quia uenenum post uomitum est uilius et uiolencius ad occidendum, quam fuit per ante. Et si post resumpcionem non liberet se ab eo, est indubie mortuus. Sic homo bibens peccatum mortale et postea deliberans se per penitenciam; si postea redeat et resumat eundem uomitum est multo periculosius intoxigatus quam fuit per ante. Ideo talis assimilatur cani reuerto ad uomitum uel patet poena, etc. [cf. Proverbs 26. 11; 2 Peter 2. 22]. Et si talis non deliberet se a tali ueneno peccati ante mortem dampnabitur sine fine.⁶⁷

[a man who drinks poison and is at once intoxicated, is afterward liberated from the poison by some medicine; as often as he returns to this poison afterwards, he is all the more poisoned, because the poison after it has been vomited is more severe and more violently will it kill than it would before. And if after returning (to the poison) he does not liberate himself from it, he is undoubtedly dead. Just as a man who drinks mortal sin and afterwards resolves himself through penitence; if afterwards he returns and goes back to the same vomit, the poison is more dangerous than it was before. Therefore, he is much like a dog returning to vomit, or he is open to sin, etc. And if he does not resolve himself from such poisonous sin before death, he will be damned without end].

Preachers across late-medieval Europe commonly drew on the simile of drinking and vomiting sin. Not only was vomiting considered by physicians of the period to be a purgation for balancing the humours,⁶⁸ but priests used vomiting as a metaphor for the penitent confessing their sins, ridding their soul of the toxic element.⁶⁹ One could point to the imagery of a dog returning to its vomit as evidence of a scriptural basis for the exemplum because the author is clearly playing with some of the same images. However, the exemplum only includes a passing reference to the dog of the Book of Proverbs and the second Epistle of Peter. The central imagery used in this exemplum is generic, not specifically tied to one biblical passage or interpretation. Similarly, the message about recidivism is broad enough to be featured in dissident or more conventional sermons alike.

A Passiontide sermon in an unedited Middle English Wycliffite cycle uses the same imagery of vomiting in order to stress the necessity of confessing directly to Christ.⁷⁰ Throughout the sermon, Christ is portrayed as symbolically performing purgative and prophylactic medical treatments through his crucifixion. The second treatment involves purging of sin from one’s mouth:

The second purgacion þat clensethe mannus soule is uomyte of mouthe of euell metis & drynkes & that is full holesome þouȝ hit seme schamefull, for then a man casteþe out of hym mony foule corrupcions. Thus must the soule be purged with schameful schrefte of mouthe, & caste out þat foule fylthe þat þou with loue toke. It is boþe peynefull & schamefull for the tyme þat hit lasteþe, but man schall be hel[þ]yere longe tyme after, if he rule hym afterwyd frome suche foule exceses.⁷¹

Although the preacher explains that each penitent should undertake a ‘schrefte of mouthe’, perhaps suggesting auricular confession, it quickly becomes apparent that the author uses this phrase simply to maintain the vomiting imagery. The sermon continues that the clergy exploited the vulnerable and suffering through auricular confession and they were thus not to be trusted. Christ, on the other hand, is the only leche willing to lay down his life for humanity.⁷²

While the emphasis on Christ as one’s only confessor could be viewed as contentious, the purging imagery is conventional. In fact, the Wycliffite sermon shares this imagery, almost verbatim, with a Trinity sermon from a dominical cycle in Oxford, Bodleian Library, E Musaeo MS 180 that has no clear Wycliffite affiliations.⁷³ Both sermons compare Christ’s Passion to a series of medical purgatives, yet the theological conclusions made by the two authors differ. The Wycliffite version indicates that these purgations are part of a scheme of confession made directly to God, whereas Oxford, Bodleian Library, E Musaeo MS 180 links the treatments to conventional auricular confession made to an earthly confessor. It is unclear whether Oxford, Bodleian Library, E Musaeo MS 180 (composed in the late fifteenth century) lifted the imagery from the Middle English Wycliffite sermon or if the two sermons drew the imagery from a common source. Nonetheless, that dissident and more orthodox preachers could share imagery and exempla material further blurs the already hazy line between dissident and more conventional approaches to preaching.

Still, the question remains: why does the Laud misc. 200 preacher feel the need to make his point about penance through extra-biblical exempla? No clear answer can be discerned. His sermons fixate on the need to provide material suited to the different intellectual levels of the laity, lower clergy and more educated clerical audiences. The use of conventional exempla, such as a father chastising his son or a man returning to poison, may have been considered more accessible to lay audiences than, say, using the birth of John the Baptist to make a point about the correct forms of preaching. These examples would not, in fact, have been out of place in mainstream sermons of the period. There was, therefore, not an absolute disconnect between Wycliffite and more conventional attitudes towards the use of exempla. Yet by the author’s own criteria, extra-biblical exempla were out-of-bounds.

While there was certainly overlap with mainstream sermons, Wycliffite exempla were distinctive in their rigid source base. Many late fourteenth and early fifteenth-century sermons drew on a range of different examples, often derived from exempla collections that the Wycliffites denounced. Wycliffite sermons, on the other hand, focused chiefly on scriptural narratives and devised inventive additions to the passages. These scriptural narratives functioned as extensions of their glossing practices, at once elucidating enigmatic parts of Scripture and illustrating moral points tied to the central themes of the sermons. Since the Wycliffites did not trust many post-patristic authors, it makes sense that they employed examples that were grounded in the highest authority, Scripture.

Still, as we have seen, there were occasions where the author offered extra-biblical exempla. The distinction from those preachers that the Laud misc. 200 author condemns, is that he does not draw on miracle stories or fables. He never attempts to present his extra-biblical exempla as factual, but rather presents nondescript scenarios that lack specific details of time and place. Nonetheless, in offering these exempla, the author deviates from the Wycliffite ideal of providing ‘exempla sacre scripture et pertinentis veritatis’ [‘exempla from sacred Scripture and of that which pertains to the truth’].⁷⁴ At the least, this Wycliffite author seemed to accept that extra-biblical speculation could be part of that which pertains to the truth. If these types of extra-biblical examples were encompassed in the pertinent truth, then surely the Wycliffite definition of the scriptural and truthful exemplum appears somewhat arbitrary. The Laud misc. 200 author’s perspective is thus an important supplement to considerations of dissident preaching in England. The sermons demonstrate that preaching theory or ideology was sometimes out of kilter with practice. In fact, the Wycliffite position on exempla seemed, in many cases, to rely more on refuting the examples of their opponents than adhering to a rigid principle that governed their preaching. One should not, then, take Wycliffite denunciations of exempla as absolute because they did occasionally employ exempla under the right conditions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Patrick Outhwaite

Patrick Outhwaite ([email protected]) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of English Language and Culture at the University of Groningen.

Notes

1 The sermons of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Laud misc. 200 are labelled ‘L’ by Christina von Nolcken. Parts of the first cycle of Laud misc. 200 are preserved in five other fifteenth-century manuscripts. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C. 37 (R), fols 1^r–136^v includes the first thirty-four sermons; London, British Library, Harley 1615 (H1), fols 13^r–126^v includes the first twenty-nine sermons; London, British Library, Harley 3235 (H2), fols 148^r–206^v includes the first twenty-two sermons; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley 803 (B), fols 191^r–240^r contains sermons one to five and sermons twenty to twenty-seven and Manchester, John Rylands Library, MS Eng. 109 (M), fols 18^r–36^v contains sermons one to five and twenty to twenty-one. Each of these manuscripts end incomplete. For more and a concordance, see: Christina von Nolcken, ‘An Unremarked Group of Wycliffite Sermons in Latin’, Modern Philology, 83 (1986), 233–49 (esp. pp. 235–38 and Appendix pp. 247–48).

2 Laud misc. 200, fol. 134^v; Von Nolcken, ‘An Unremarked Group of Wycliffite Sermons’, 244.

3 A prime example is found within the English Wycliffite Sermons, ed. by Pamela Gradon and Anne Hudson, 5 vols (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983–96), ii (1987), 164 (Sermon 83): ‘herfore þei prechon þe puple fablus and falshede to pleson hem. And in tokne of þis chaffare þei beggon aftur þat þei han preched, as who sey, ȝif me þi money þat I am worþi for my prechyng’. For more on the distinction between sophistry and Wycliffite ‘common understanding’, see Kantik Ghosh, ‘After Wyclif: Philosophy, Polemics and Translation in The English Wycliffite Sermons’, in Before and After Wyclif: Sources and Textual Influences, ed. by Luigi Campi and Stefano Simonetta, Textes et Études du Moyen Âge, 97 (Basel: Fédération Internationale des Instituts d’Études Médiévales, 2020), pp. 167–86 (pp. 180–86).

4 Anne Hudson, The Premature Reformation: Wycliffite Texts and Lollard History (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988), pp. 269–70. For more, see: Fiona Somerset, Feeling like Saints: Lollard Writings after Wyclif (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014), pp. 137–40; Katherine C. Little, ‘Catechesis and Castigation: Sin in the Wycliffite Sermon Cycle’, Traditio, 54 (1999), 213–44 (esp. pp. 214, 217–25, 238).

5 Claude Bremond, Jacques Le Goff, and Jean-Claude Schmitt, L’exemplum, Typologie des sources du Moyen Âge occidental, 40 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1982), pp. 27–38. For more on the historiography of defining exemplum, see: Jacques Berlioz and Marie Anne Polo de Beaulieu, ‘Le groupe de recherches sur les exempla médiévaux’, Les Cahiers du Centre de Recherches Historiques, 11 (1993), 27–33 <https://doi.org/10.4000/ccrh.2765> [accessed 29 March 2023].

6 Larry Scanlon, Narrative, Authority, and Power: The Medieval Exemplum and the Chaucerian Tradition, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature, 20 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 27. Claude Bremond clarifies that there are certainly narrative and literary forms that are common to many exempla and exempla collections, but that this is not the defining characteristic, which instead is the rhetorical aspect. Claude Bremond, ‘L’exemplum médiéval: est-il un genre littéraire? I. Exemplum et littérarité’, in Les exempla médiévaux: nouvelles perspectives, ed. by Jacques Berlioz and Marie Anne Polo de Beaulieu (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1998), pp. 21–42 (pp. 21–28). Jean-Yves Tilliette similarly confirms that the distinctions modern scholars have tended to draw between rhetorical and homiletical exempla were not recognized in the Middle Ages, and in fact all exempla were rhetorical. Jean-Yves Tilliette, ‘L’exemplum rhétorique: questions de définition’, in Les exempla médiévaux: nouvelles perspectives, ed. by Jacques Berlioz and Marie Anne Polo de Beaulieu (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1998), pp. 43–65.

7 For general definitions of the different categories of exempla, see George Robert Owst, Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England: A Neglected Chapter in the History of English Letters and of the English People (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961), p. 156: ‘The best use of these terms that can be devised […] is to treat the word “Example” as the general all-inclusive term for any kind of homiletic simile or illustration, while reserving the “Narration” for stories of men and women, the “Fable” for animal tales, and the “Figure” for similitudes from natural objects’. These forms are slightly different than those presented by Claude Bremond, Jacques Le Goff, and Jean-Claude Schmitt, who describe exempla centred on historical events and legends (particularly classical mythology and saints’ lives), contemporary events and anecdotes, fables from popular traditions and descriptions or moralities that are consistent with bestiaries. Bremond, Le Goff, and Schmitt, L’exemplum, pp. 39–42.

8 Siegfried Wenzel, Medieval Artes Praedicandi: A Synthesis of Scholastic Sermon Structure, Medieval Academy Books, 114 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015), p. 111. For instance, Étienne de Bourbon in his Tractatus de diversis materiis praedicabilibus found a clear difference between similitudines, parabola, miracula, and exempla. Thomas of Wales’s De modo componendi sermones, by contrast, treated exempla and similitudines as synonyms. See: Bremond, Le Goff and Schmitt, L’exemplum, p. 31.

9 Peter von Moos, ‘L’exemplum et les exempla des prêcheurs’, in Les exempla médiévaux: nouvelles perspectives, ed. by Jacques Berlioz and Marie Anne Polo de Beaulieu (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1998), pp. 67–81.

10 For surveys on the distinctive features of exempla in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, see: Michael Menzel, Predigt und Geschichte: Historische Exempel in der geistlichen Rhetorik des Mittelalters (Köln: Böhlau, 1998), pp. 184–88; Jean-Thiébaut Welter, L’exemplum dans la littérature religieuse et didactique du Moyen Âge (Paris: Occitania, 1927), pp. 66–82; 410–52; Jacques Berlioz, ‘Le récit efficace: L'exemplum au service de la prédication (xiii^e–xv^e siècles)’, Mélanges de l'école française de Rome, 92 (1980), 113–46.

11 Joseph Mosher, The Exemplum in the Early Religious and Didactic Literature of England (New York: AMS Press, 1966), p. 65.

12 Laud misc. 200, fols 190^r–v; quoted in Hudson, Premature Reformation, p. 270. John Wyclif makes a similar point, that the clergy knowingly make arguments contrary to Scripture, and thus they destroy the true catholic or universal sense. John Wyclif, De veritate sacrae Scripturae, ed. by Rudolf Buddensieg, 3 vols (London, 1905–07), i (1905), 272–73 (cap. xii). This bifurcation between the true preachers and those against them, in this case the false friars, is one part of what J. Patrick Hornbeck identifies as a common aspect of Wycliffite writing and preaching in his What is a Lollard?: Dissent and Belief in Late Medieval England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 198.

13 Fiona Somerset makes much the same claim about Wycliffite use of narrative and allegory in her Feeling like Saints, pp. 137–65.

14 Ghosh, ‘After Wyclif’, p. 168.

15 Siegfried Wenzel, Latin Sermon Collections from Later Medieval England: Orthodox Preaching in the Age of Wyclif (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 93.

16 These sermons are not the only Wycliffite productions to incorporate the scholastic style, as demonstrated in the collection held in London, British Library, MS Add. 41321. See von Nolcken, ‘An Unremarked Group of Wycliffite Sermons’, 238 n. 31.

17 Von Nolcken, ‘An Unremarked Group of Wycliffite Sermons’, 238. The sermons are, then, similar to the Middle English sermons in Cambridge, Sidney Sussex College, MS 74 (a partial redaction of the cycle is copied in Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 95 and Shrewsbury, Shrewsbury School, MS 3), which combine material from different sources to create a compendium for the particular holy day. For more, see: Somerset, Feeling like Saints, pp. 25–31.

18 Von Nolcken, ‘An Unremarked Group of Wycliffite Sermons’, 238. Von Nolcken explains that these sermons were unlikely to have been delivered as they were written because they are too long. However, Wenzel contends that while the sermons are certainly lengthy, they are not overly long in comparison to other sermons of the period, especially those composed in the scholastic style. Wenzel, Latin Sermon Collections, p. 93.

19 Laud misc. 200, fol. 128^r; quoted in Hudson, Premature Reformation, p. 273.

20 Siegfried Wenzel, Preachers, Poets, and the Early English Lyric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), pp. 64–65; H. Leith Spencer, English Preaching in the Late Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 78–81.

21 Von Nolcken, ‘An Unremarked Group of Wycliffite Sermons’, 242–43.

22 Laud misc. 200, fol. 134^v; von Nolcken, ‘An Unremarked Group of Wycliffite Sermons’, 244.

23 Opus arduum valde: A Wycliffite Commentary on the Book of Revelation, ed. by Romolo Cegna, Christoph Galle, and Wolf-Friedrich Schäufele, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, 227/10 (Leiden: Brill, 2021), p. 465. See also Select English Works of John Wyclif, ed. by Thomas Arnold, 3 vols (Oxford: Clarendon, 1869–71), iii (1871), 147 l. 27: ‘þei schulden not preche cronyclis of þo world, as þo batel of Troye, ne oþer nyse fablis, ne monnis lawes founden to wynne hom þo money’. For more on preachers using classical authors and myths, see: Pietro Delcorno, ‘“Christ and the soul are like Pyramus and Thisbe”: An Ovidian Story in Fifteenth-Century Sermons’, Medieval Sermon Studies, 60 (2016), 37–61; and Sophia Menache and Jeannine Horowitz, ‘Rhetoric and Its Practice in Medieval Sermons’, Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques, 22 (1996), 321–50.

24 As Hornbeck shows, there was a general anxiety among the Wycliffites that there was too much of an entanglement of the secular and spiritual among preachers. The use of classical characters or myths was simply further evidence of this dilution of piety. Hornbeck, What is a Lollard?, p. 198.

25 For more on this text and a translation, see: Wycliffite Spirituality, ed. by J. Patrick Hornbeck, Stephen E. Lahey, and Fiona Somerset (New York: Paulist Press, 2013), pp. 248–68.

26 ‘Cambridge Tract xii: A dialoge as hit were of a wyse man and of a fole denyi[n]ge þe trewþe wiþ fablis’, in The Earliest Advocates of the English Bible: The Texts of the Medieval Debate, ed. by Mary Dove (Exeter: Exeter University Press, 2010), p. 134, ll. 162–64. For more on this passage, see: Somerset, Feeling like Saints, pp. 140–41.

27 Richard H. Rouse and Mary A. Rouse, Preachers, Florilegia and Sermons: Studies on the Manipulus Florum of Thomas of Ireland, Studies and Texts, 47 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1979), pp. 60–64.

28 John Wyclif, Iohannis Wyclif De eucharistia tractatus maior, ed. by Johann Loserth (London: Trübner, 1892), cap. i, pp. 19–20. References to this type of miracle involving the Eucharist were not uncommon. For instance, John Mirk draws on a similar example in his Festial sermon ‘De solempnitate Corpus Christi’, in which he describes the illness of ‘syr Auberk þat was erle of Venys’. Auberk could not swallow the host because he vomited anything that he ingested. Instead of eating the wafer, he instead placed it by his side and it miraculously entered his heart: ‘And þerwyth, in syȝt of al men, þe syde opened, and þe ost glode into þe body; and þen þe syde closet aȝen, hole as hit was before, and so sone aftir he ȝaf þe gost vp’. John Mirk, Mirk’s Festial: A Collection of Homilies by Johannes Mirkus (John Mirk), ed. by Theodor Erbe, Early English Text Society, 96 (Oxford: Trübner, 1905), p. 172.

29 Wyclif, De veritate, i, cap. i, pp. 195 and 386. For more on Wyclif’s preaching and exempla, see: Ian Christopher Levy, ‘Wyclif and the Christian Life’, in A Companion to John Wyclif: Late Medieval Theologian, ed. by Ian Christopher Levy (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 293–363 (pp. 302–16); Kantik Ghosh, The Wycliffite Heresy: Authority and the Interpretation of Texts, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature, 45 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 26, 160; Armando Comi, Verità e Anticristo: l'eresia di Jan Hus (Bologna: Pendragon, 2007), pp. 24–36.

30 As Christina von Nolcken explains, there are sections of the Laud misc. 200 sermons that closely resemble passages from the Rosarium and Floretum and it is likely that the author directly lifted from these resources. Christina von Nolcken, ‘Some Alphabetical “Compendia” and how Preachers used them in Fourteenth-Century England’, Viator, 12 (1981), 271–88 (pp. 276–77).

31 The Middle English Translation of the Rosarium Theologie: A selection ed. From Cbr., Gonville and Caius Coll. MS 354/581, ed. by Christina von Nolcken (Heidelberg: Winter, 1979), pp. 73–74. This section is a translation of the Wycliffite Floretum. See Prague, Národní knihovna, MS VIII.B.18, fol. 107^rb; Mikulov, Regionální muzeum v Mikulově, MS MIK 6373, fol. 85^ra–b.

32 Prague, Národní knihovna, MS VIII.B.18, fols 104^vb–105^rb; Mikulov, Regionální muzeum v Mikulově, MS MIK 6373, fols 82^vb–83^rb. The entry begins by quoting Exodus, explaining that one should follow the example shown on the mount, that is, by Christ and those who followed him: ‘Fac secundum exemplar quod tibi in monte id est Christo uel eius sequati monstratum est, Exo. 25. [40]’.

33 Von Nolcken, ‘Some Alphabetical “Compendia”’, 273–74.

34 Laud misc. 200, fol. 128^r.

35 As Kantik Ghosh explains in his Wycliffite Heresy, p. 2: ‘though Wyclif rebelled against the interpretative practices that he felt characterized the academic milieu of his times, he remained sufficiently embedded within that milieu to invoke its hermeneutic categories and use its intellectual tools. Indeed, his rebellion is not predicated on a simple and facile rejection of the premises and the superstructures of contemporary academic study of the Bible’. See also Andrew Kraebel, Biblical Commentary and Translation in Later Medieval England: Experiments in Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), esp. pp. 54–90.

36 Laud misc. 200, fols 34^v–35^r. Transcription slightly altered from Hudson, Premature Reformation, p. 274.

37 Laud misc. 200, fol. 2^r; London, British Library, MS Harley 1615, fol. 13^r; London, British Library, MS Harley 3235, fol. 148^ra. Note that in the two British Library manuscripts, ‘os dei et ecclesie Christi’ reads ‘os dei et ecclesie’.

38 Bibliorum Sacrorum cum Glossa Ordinaria, ed. by Paul Burgensus and others, 6 vols (Venice: [s.n.], 1603), v, cols 341–44.

39 See: Ghosh, Wycliffite Heresy, pp. 11–14; A. J. Minnis, ‘“Authorial Intention” and “Literal Sense” in the Exegetical Theories of Richard Fitzralph and John Wyclif: An Essay in the Medieval History of Biblical Hermeneutics’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, 75 (1975), 1–31 (pp. 4–5); von Nolcken, ‘Some Alphabetical “Compendia”’, 273–74.

40 Laud misc. 200, fol. 2^r; London, British Library, MS Harley 1615, fol. 13^r; London, British Library, MS Harley, fol. 148^ra–b.

41 Wyclif’s sermon on this lection differs in its phrasing, but essentially addresses the same subject, namely distinguishing the true disciples from those who would oppose them. In both Wyclif’s sermon and that in Laud misc. 200, the subject is preaching, though Wyclif is considerably less concerned with the rhetoric that a preacher uses: ‘Et moraliter scienciores de istis duobus discipulis [who are held to represent ‘presbyteri and seculares domini’] debent constanter dicere contra castellanos, hoc est, dotatos clericos qui sunt semper contra Christi discipulos’. Wyclif, Sermones, i. 2, ll. 34–36; quoted in Kantik Ghosh, ‘Genre and Method in the late Sermones of John Wyclif’, in Language and Method: Historical and Historiographical Reflections on Medieval Thought, ed. by Ueli Zahnd (Freiburg: Rombach, 2017), pp. 167–82 (p. 170).

42 Ghosh, Wycliffite Heresy, p. 115, see also p. 122.

43 Laud misc. 200, fol. 207^r.

44 Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Not of Woman Born: Representations of Caesarean Birth in Medieval and Renaissance Culture (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990), pp. 55–56.

45 Laud misc. 200, fol. 207^r.

46 While some Wycliffites such as Walter Brut advocated for women to be permitted to administer the sacraments and preach, John Wyclif himself invoked St Paul in stating that women should not preach publicly in a church (especially 1 Timothy 2. 12 and 1 Corinthians 14. 34–35). Wyclif’s position was generally accepted among Wycliffite preachers apart from well documented exceptions, see: Alastair Minnis, ‘“Respondent Walterus Bryth … ”: Walter Brut in Debate on Women Priests’, in Text and Controversy from Wyclif to Bale: Essays in Honour of Anne Hudson, ed. by Helen Barr and Ann M. Hutchinson, Medieval Church Studies, 4 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), pp. 229–49; Fiona Somerset, ‘“Eciam mulier”: Women in Lollardy and the Problem of Sources’, in Voices in Dialogue: Reading Women in the Middle Ages, ed. by Linda Olson and Katherine Kerby-Fulton (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), pp. 245–60; Shannon McSheffrey, ‘Women and Lollardy: A Reassessment’, Canadian Journal of History / Annales Canadiennes d’Histoire, 26 (1991), 199–223; Margaret Aston, ‘Lollard Women Priests?’, in her Lollards and Reformers: Images and Literacy in Late Medieval Religion, History Series, 22 (London: Hambledon, 1984), pp. 49–70; Alcuin Blamires and C. W. Marx, ‘Woman Not to Preach: A Disputation in MS Harley 31’, Journal of Medieval Latin, 3 (1993), 34–63.

47 Cf. 1 Timothy 4. 7 and 2 Timothy 2. 16.

48 Laud misc. 200, fol. 207^r.

49 Laud misc. 200, fol. 207^r–v.

50 Luigi Gambero, Mary in the Middle Ages: The Blessed Virgin Mary in the Thought of Medieval Latin Theologians, trans. by Thomas Buffer (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2005), pp. 68, 84; Sheila J. Nayar, ‘Dante’s Star of the Sea: The Narrative Constellation of Mary in the Divine Comedy’, Literature & Theology, 33 (2019), 1–24 (p. 4).

51 Note that Laud misc. 200 along with the other witnesses presents the genitive form ‘laborantium’ instead of ‘laborantem’. This is likely a scribal corruption.

52 Laud misc. 200, fol. 111^r–v.

53 For more see: Marcelle Thiébaux, Stag of Love: The Chase in Medieval Literature (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974), pp. 40–46.

54 Rabanus Maurus, Allegoriae in Sacram Scripturam, Patrologia Latina, 112 (Paris: Garnier, 1852), col. 893: ‘Cervus est anima fidelis, ut in psalmo: “Sicut cervus desiderat ad fontem aquarum,” quod anima fidelis abundantiam concupiscit spiritualium bonorum’.

55 This reading is likely drawn from Origen. Rabanus Maurus, Allegoriae in Sacram Scripturam, col. 893: ‘“Similis dilectus meus hinnulo cervorum,” quod natus est Christus ex carne antiquorum patrum’. Cf. Origen, Homélies sur le Cantique des Cantiques, ed. and trans. by Olivier Rousseau, Sources Chrétiennes, 37 (Paris: Cerf, 1953), pp. 98–99.

56 Isidore of Seville, Etymologiarum sive Originum Libri xx, ed. by W. M. Lindsay, 2 vols (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), ii. 12.1.18–19: ‘Hi serpentium inimici cum se gravatos infirmitate persenserint, spiritu narium eos extrahunt de cavernis, et superata pernicie veneni eorum pabulo reparantur’.

57 Peter Lombard, Commentarium in Psalmos, Patrologia Latina, 191 (Paris: Garnier, 1854), cols 415–16.

58 Hugh of St Victor, Opera Dogmatica, Patrologia Latina, 177 (Paris: Garnier, 1854), col. 575. Isidore also states that the deer is able to heal itself of arrow wounds when it feeds on dictamnus plants. Isidore of Seville, Etymologiarum, ii, 12.1.18–19: ‘Dictamnum herbam ipsi prodiderunt; nam eo pasti excutiunt acceptas sagittas’.

59 Laud misc. 200, fols 20^v–22^v; London, British Library, MS Harley 1615, fol. 41^r–v; London, British Library, MS Harley 3235, fol. 168^va.

60 ‘A dialoge as hit were of a wyse man and of a fole denyi[n]ge þe trewþe wiþ fablis’, p. 136, ll. 230–33.

61 For more see: Judy Ann Ford, John Mirk’s Festial: Orthodoxy, Lollardy, and the Common People in Fourteenth-Century England (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2006), pp. 18, 32–49, 116, 143–44; Alan Fletcher, ‘John Mirk and the Lollards’, Medium Aevum, 56 (1987), 217–22 (p. 218).

62 Laud misc. 200, fol. 88^v.

63 Shannon McSheffrey argues that lollards, in theory at least, reinforced the traditional roles of the family in which the father was authoritative because this was believed to be pleasing to God. This view certainly aligns with the narrative of the exemplum. McSheffrey, ‘Women and Lollardy’, p. 208.

64 Laud misc. 200, fol. 88^v; London, British Library, MS Harley 1615, fol. 113^v.

65 Laud misc. 200, fols 85^v–86^r; London, British Library, MS Harley 1615, fols 110^v–111^r: ‘Sed illa confessio non est necessaria quin homo potest saluari sine illa in multis casibus. […] Sic est confessio facta sacerdoti habenti claues sciencie et potestatis ualde utilis homini; ut in confessione petat consilium declinandi a peccato et faciendi bonum quamuis homo non posset saluari per consilium aliorum hominum’.

66 Laud misc. 200, fols 88^v–89^r; London, British Library, MS Harley 1615, fol. 113^v: ‘Sicut homo sepius uulneratus debilitatur per uulneracionem, et sic postquam fuerit sanatus a prioribus iterum uulnerat se in eisdem locis sicut prius, tunc peius leditur et difficilius sanatur quam prius sanabatur. Sic residiuans in peccatum prius sanatum plus debilitatur post quam ante, quia antiqua debilitas et ista noua lesio sunt grauiora quam antiqua per se; ideo nouissima hominis illius sunt peiora prioribus’. As Virginia Langum has shown with respect to surgical imagery, the Wycliffites sometimes employed bodily metaphors in relation to Christ’s life. ‘“The Wounded Surgeon”: Devotion, Compassion and Metaphor in Medieval England’, in Wounds and Wound Repair in Medieval Culture, ed. by Larissa Tracy and Kelley Devries, Explorations in Medieval Culture, 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), pp. 269–90 (pp. 285–88).

67 Laud misc. 200, fol. 89^r; London, British Library, MS Harley 1615, fols 113^v–114^r.

68 Carole Rawcliffe, Medicine for the Soul: The Life, Death and Resurrection of an English Medieval Hospital St Giles’s, Norwich, c. 1249–1550 (Stroud: Sutton, 1999), pp. 37–38.

69 Virginia Langum, ‘Discerning Skin: Complexion, Surgery, and Language in Medieval Confession’, in Reading Skin in Medieval Literature and Culture, ed. by K. L. Walter (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), pp. 141–60 (p. 149); Irven M. Resnick, ‘Good Dog/Bad Dog: Dogs in Medieval Religious Polemics’, Enarratio, 18 (2013), 70–97.

70 Cambridge, Sidney Sussex College, MS 74; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 95 and Shrewsbury, Shrewsbury School, MS 3. For more, see Somerset, Feeling Like Saints, p. 25 n. 1. This sermon collection is derivative of the larger English Wycliffite Sermon cycle, using the Wycliffite gospel commentaries as prothemata. However, the sermons also adapt exposition from more moderate reformist sources. Helen L. Spencer has studied the contents of the manuscripts and the structure of the cycle in detail in ‘The Fortunes of a Lollard Sermon-Cycle in the Later Fifteenth Century’, Mediaeval Studies, 48 (1986), 352–96. As Fiona Somerset demonstrates, the author of this sermon cycle was associated with the early Wycliffites who devised the more comprehensive English Wycliffite Sermon cycle. Somerset, Feeling Like Saints, esp. 27–31.

71 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 95, fol. 28^v.

72 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Bodley 95, fol. 11^v: a syke man schuld rather chese hym þat woll ley his lif for hym than a noþer þat woll nott butt ley a plastere to him takynge largely therfor profyte what he may’.

73 ‘Dominica xix^a Post Festum Sancte Trinitatis’, in A Late Fifteenth-Century Dominical Sermon Cycle, Edited from the Bodleian Library MS E Musaeo 180 and Other manuscripts, ed. by Stephen Morrison, Early English Text Society, 337–38, 2 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), ii, 362–64. See also a similar passage in Middle English Sermons Edited from British Museum MS. Royal 18 B. xxiii, ed. by Woodburn O. Ross, Early English Text Society, 209 (London: Oxford University Press, 1940), p. 240, ll. 3–7: ‘Neuerþeles it is tauȝth in fisike þat a vomyte is a profitabull medecyn to suche dronken men. And þis vomyte to oure porpose is þe sacrament of confession, to þe wiche I counceyll euery man þat is seke in anny maner þat I haue spoke of þat he draw to itt’.

74 Laud misc. 200, fol. 190^r–v.