Piers Plowman and the Reinvention of Church Law in the Late Middle Ages

In his book Piers Plowman and the Reinvention of Canon Law in the Late Middle Ages, Arvind Thomas explores legal thought in William Langland’s Piers Plowman. Written in Middle English in the late 14^th century, Piers Plowman is an allegorical poem featuring virtues and vices as characters. Scholars have previously recognized that Piers Plowman incorporated elements of canon law in its verses, but Thomas argues that the poem goes beyond merely reiterating legal maxims. Instead, he posits that Piers Plowman reinvents the law. In Thomas’ view, the poem is firmly part of the legal discourse and sets forth a view of the law, as canonists did in their legal writings. As such, the line between poet and canonist is erased.

There are multiple extant versions of Piers Plowman. Traditionally, these texts have been classified as either A, B, or C. Thomas focuses on the B and C versions (A is largely a shorter version of B). While many have examined the relationship between the different versions, Thomas declines to weigh in. Rather, he is interested in how B and C diverge and converge when it comes to the law. Each version exhibits a different view of the law, and Thomas’ analysis suggests that C engages with legal texts more than B (20-21).

Thomas draws on canonistic treatises along with confessors’ manuals. The latter also set forth a view of the law, since confessors’ manuals were often composed by canonists in order to help parish priests with confession. Thomas’ choice of sources is well-informed. Along with the Corpus Iuris Canonicis, he chooses other important legal sources, such as Hostiensis’s Summa Aurea, William Lyndwood’s Provinciale, John of Freiburg’s Summa Confessorum, and John de Burgh’s Pupilla Oculi. These sources are notoriously difficult to interpret, yet Thomas wields them effectively. He uses them to help support his argument, and he presents their respective ideas in a way which is accessible to readers.

The monograph is thematically organized according to the penitential process: contrition, confession, restitution, and satisfaction. Each chapter introduces excerpts from the poem before comparing them to legal treatises and confessors’ manuals. In general, this is an effective method that helps the reader follow Thomas’s argument and understand how he reaches his conclusions. Thomas focuses on a single topic in each chapter, such as acts of contrition, usury, and the legal distinction between a rule and a law. For example, when Thomas focuses on how the B and C versions discuss usury, he begins by examining the excerpts from each version before turning to canonists. He demonstrates how the excerpts incorporated some aspects of legal thought while reformulating others to create something new. This is a logical organizational tool, although the abstractness of the concepts under discussion requires close attention.

This book is intended for specialists. Thomas does not provide an overview of the A, B, and C versions of Piers Plowman and assumes some prior knowledge on the part of the reader. This is a logical choice because Thomas wants to challenge the disciplinary bounds of law and literature constructed by scholars already familiar with Piers Plowman. Yet by avoiding an in-depth discussion on the interrelationship of the texts, Thomas is sure to draw the ire of some readers. Furthermore, examining two different versions of Piers Plowman requires the reader to pay close attention to which version is under discussion. Such a close examination of these texts encourages the reader to have a copy of both versions at hand. Overall, this is a book that will probably be read by two types of specialists: those studying Middle English literature and those studying medieval canon law.

Despite his intended audience, Thomas assists his readers by translating many Latin passages into English, always careful to place the original Latin near to the translation. For example, he gives a block quote from Raymond of Peñafort’s Summa de paenitentia and provides his English translation immediately afterwards (73). Medievalists, especially those in the field of medieval canon law, often include long Latin transcriptions without an accompanying translation, and Thomas’ decision to provide English translations makes his book more accessible and welcoming to non-medievalists. It is an accommodation that will hopefully become more common.  

In sum, Thomas successfully argues that Piers Plowman is “productive of, not just derivative from, the discourse of canon law” (10-11). Thomas creates a work that is both thought-provoking and challenging. Though Thomas is familiar with literary theory, he avoids falling into an overly theoretical discussion. He bases his conclusions on evidence drawn from medieval legal sources. As a result, his argument is far from unsubstantiated. He produces a work which is truly interdisciplinary, successfully engaging with both literature and law.  

Justin S. Kirkland earned a PhD in history from the University of Iowa.

Justin Kirkland

Date Of Review:

May 30, 2023