The Theme of Government in Piers Plowman by Anna Baldwin, and: The Figure of Piers Plowman by Margaret E. Goldsmith (review)

REVIEWS ANNA BALDWIN, The Theme of Government in Piers Plowman. Cam­ bridge: D.S. Brewer, 1981. Pp. vi, 107. £12.00. MARGARETE. GOLDSMITH, TheFigureofPiersPlowman. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1981. Pp. viii, 128. ,£12.00. These two monographs are harbingers of a new series of Piers Plowman Studies to be published by D. S. Brewer. Both volumes share high stan­ dards of production and clarity of style. Likewise, both books are rather old-fashioned but comfortably sane in their literary-critical approaches. There is, then, much to be hoped from succeeding volumes in this series. Nevertheless, despite the technical excellence of both, the unevenness between the books remains striking, with Anna Baldwin's book seeming notably superior to Margaret E. Goldsmith's in at least three important aspects: the value and freshness of the information provided, the co­ herence of the argument, and the relevance and validity of sources of evidence. Although neither book can lay claim to being that rara avis, the completely convincing, definitive treatment, Baldwin's book will surely provoke even the seasoned Piers scholar to some thoughtful reconsidera­ tion of settled opinions. More frequently, however, it will succeed in simply informing one of details of medieval English governmental prac­ tices and their relevance to Piers Plowman about which one could have had, in one's ignorance, no prior opinion at all. Baldwin's investigation ofthe theme ofgovernment focuses on what she sees as an apparent paradox in Langland's outlook: "How can the absolutist ideal of monarchy embodied in the Visio king be made compatible with the more merciful, even democratic ideal practised by Piers, Conscience, and Christ?" As Baldwin sees it, Langland envisions three possible answers to the question of " 'how much power should the king have?' " These alternatives she designates a "theocratic" theory, a theory of "limited monarchy,"and an "absolutist" theory. Although theterms seem unhappy in their potentially deceptive connotations, few would quarrel with Bald­ win's opinion that, ultimately, Langland favors a king directly administer­ ing equity through the counsel of his own reason and conscience (the "absolutist" theory) as opposed to a king creating justice ex nihtlo by fiat (the "theocratic" theory) or a king fettered by the precedents ofcommon law ("limited monarchy"). Baldwin sees similarities with Wyclif's views 141 STUDIES IN THE AGE OF CHAUCER (e.g., pp. 10-11, 51) in Langland's advocacy of such "absolutist" mon­ archy. Although she seems to overinterpret the Goliard's speech in B Prologue 141-42 as one advocating "limited monarchy" (whereas he is commonly understood to be opposing only the admonitions toward mercy offered by the angel and the lunatic), most would accept her contention that Langland's use of the rat fable carries "absolutist" implications. Especially convincing is Baldwin's analysis ofchanges from B to C toward "a clearer statement of 'absolutism"' (though she sometimes appears to forget, as onp. 3, that C represents not only a clearer statement ofmaterials in A and B but also a more conservative stage in the development of the author's ideas and therefore is sometimes different in conception as well as expression from the earlier recensions). Baldwin's second and third chapters (an analysis of the arrest of Meed and the dispute of Peace with Wrong) form essential reading for anyone working with these parts of Piers Plowman in the future. So far as I am aware, no one has explicated so thoroughly the satiric ramifications of Meed's allegorical procession toward London insofar as these touch on the specific corruptions ofregional and local government. Even more valuable, however, is the discussion of the relationship between these episodes and the evolution and functioning of the royal "prerogative courts." Baldwin considers the point of Meed's arrest and the trial of Wrong as being that "the king had used his absolute power to enforce justice when law had failed." Assuming that this interpretation has been amply established, Baldwin next pursues the other side of the paradox she has perceived, viz., that Langland depicts several "subject-kings" in his narrative (most notably Piers and Conscience) who, though leading the folk with a kind ofcharis­ matic authority, never assert royal authority in their own behalfand act...