Download the full version of the ebook at

https://ebookgate.com

Conscience and the Composition of Piers

Plowman 1st Edition Sarah Wood

https://ebookgate.com/product/conscience-and-the-
composition-of-piers-plowman-1st-edition-sarah-
wood/

Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookgate.com

 Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.

Reformist Apocalypticism and Piers Plowman 1st Edition

Kathryn Kerby-Fulton

https://ebookgate.com/product/reformist-apocalypticism-and-piers-
plowman-1st-edition-kathryn-kerby-fulton/

ebookgate.com

Situating Composition Composition Studies and the Politics

of Location 1st Edition Lisa Ede

https://ebookgate.com/product/situating-composition-composition-
studies-and-the-politics-of-location-1st-edition-lisa-ede/

ebookgate.com

The Penn Commentary on Piers Plowman Volume 1 C Prologue

Pass■s 4 B Prologue Pass■s 4 a Prologue Pass■s 4 1st
Edition Andrew Galloway
https://ebookgate.com/product/the-penn-commentary-on-piers-plowman-
volume-1-c-prologue-passus-4-b-prologue-passus-4-a-prologue-
passus-4-1st-edition-andrew-galloway/
ebookgate.com

The Neural Basis of Reading Piers Cornelissen

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-neural-basis-of-reading-piers-
cornelissen/

ebookgate.com
The Development and Structure of Conscience 1st Edition
Willem Koops (Editor)

https://ebookgate.com/product/the-development-and-structure-of-
conscience-1st-edition-willem-koops-editor/

ebookgate.com

Liberty conscience and toleration the political thought of

William Penn 1st Edition Murphy

https://ebookgate.com/product/liberty-conscience-and-toleration-the-
political-thought-of-william-penn-1st-edition-murphy/

ebookgate.com

Criminology 6th Edition Piers Beirne

https://ebookgate.com/product/criminology-6th-edition-piers-beirne/

ebookgate.com

Wood and Wood Products 1st Edition J. Paulo Davim

https://ebookgate.com/product/wood-and-wood-products-1st-edition-j-
paulo-davim/

ebookgate.com

Nikolay Myaskovsky The Conscience of Russian Music 1st

Edition Gregor Tassie

https://ebookgate.com/product/nikolay-myaskovsky-the-conscience-of-
russian-music-1st-edition-gregor-tassie/

ebookgate.com
 OX F O R D E N G L I S H M O N O G R A P H S

General Editors
h e l e n b a r r d av i d b r ad s h aw pau l ina k ewe s
h e r m io n e l e e l au r a m a rc u s d av i d n o r b ro o k
f i o n a s taf f o rd
This page intentionally left blank
Conscience and the
Composition
of Piers Plowman
SARAH WOOD

1
 1
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of
Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Sarah Wood 2012
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First edition 2012
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics
rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Data available
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by
MPG Books Group, Bodmin and King’s Lynn
ISBN 978–0–19–965376–8
 Acknowledgements

This book began as an Oxford D.Phil. thesis supervised by Helen Barr,

and it would not have been possible without the support I received from
the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s Doctoral Award Scheme.
I am also particularly grateful to my examiners, Thorlac Turville-Petre and
Charlotte Brewer, for giving me a new sense of purpose and a wealth of
suggestions. Both have since been enormously generous in offering help.
More recently, the two anonymous readers for Oxford University Press
have stimulated further improvements with their provision of copious,
sympathetic commentary. Ariane Petit at the Press has been most helpful
and efficient. I owe special thanks, too, to the original publishers of earlier
versions of materials in Chapters 3, 4, and 6 for permission to publish
these materials in revised form, and to Emily Steiner, Malcolm Godden,
and Nicholas Rogers for providing me with opportunities to present my
work in progress.
Many others have helped to guide me along the wikkede wey. Vincent
Gillespie survived the supervision of my M.St. dissertation and was kind
enough to take on a further term of supervisory duty in Michaelmas
2006. Anne Hudson responded generously to my requests for assistance.
Andrew Cole’s meticulous reading of an earlier version of Chapter 3 for
publication in The Yearbook of Langland Studies not only benefited that
material, but helped me to improve my whole dissertation. I also espe-
cially thank the dedicated staff of all the Oxford libraries that I have been
fortunate to use.
Ralph Hanna’s Oxford M.St. tutorials on Piers Plowman (co-taught
with his legendary canine sidekick, Cruiser) first inspired me to work on
this poem, and without his ongoing encouragement I would never have
completed the project. My late friend and my fellow student in those
M.St. tutorials on Piers, Debbie Marcum, was cruelly deprived by illness
of the opportunity to bring her own projects to fruition. The research
proposal which eventually turned into this work was written while I
stayed at her home during Christmas 2004, and she remains an inspira-
tion and example.
Most of all, I am grateful to have my wonderful family. I am confident
that this book will inspire none of them to read Piers Plowman.
This page intentionally left blank
 Contents
Acknowledgements v
List of Abbreviations ix
Note on the Text xi

Introduction: Conscience and Personification

in Piers Plowman 1
1. ‘Who May Scape þe Sclaundre’: Scandal, Complaint, and
Invective in B 3–4 20
2. Penitential Texts and Vernacular Conscience in B 13–14 45
3. ‘Ecce Rex’: Conscience and Homiletic Discourse in B 19 70
4. ‘To a Lord for a Lettre Leue to Haue’: Lordly Conscience and
the Friars in B 20 87
5. New Modes in the C Text: Clerical ‘Suffraunce’ and Vernacular
Counsel 107
6. Conscience in the Versions of Piers Plowman 134
Conclusion: Conscience and the Composition
of Piers Plowman 160

Bibliography 167
Index 181
This page intentionally left blank
 List of Abbreviations

BIHR Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research

BRUC Emden, A. B., A Biographical Register of the University of
Cambridge to 1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1963.
BRUO Emden, A. B., A Biographical Register of the University of
Oxford to A.D. 1500, 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon, 1957–59.
CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina
EETS Early English Text Society: e. s. Extra Series; o. s. Original
Series; s. s. Supplementary Series
EHR English Historical Review
ELH English Literary History
ELN English Language Notes
ES English Studies
EWW The English Works of Wyclif Hitherto Unprinted, ed. F. D.
Matthew, EETS o. s. 74. London: Trübner, 1880.
JEGP Journal of English and Germanic Philology
MED Middle English Dictionary, ed. Hans Kurath et al., 13 vols.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1952–2001.
MP Modern Philology
NM Neuphilologische Mitteilungen
NQ Notes and Queries
PL Patrologiae Cursus Completus . . . Series Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne,
221 vols. Paris: Migne, 1844–64.
PMLA Publications of the Modern Language Association of America
PQ Philological Quarterly
PROME The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, ed. and trans. Chris
Given-Wilson, Paul Brand, Anne Curry, Rosemary Horrox,
Geoffrey Martin, Mark Ormrod, and Seymour Phillips,
internet edition (www.sd-editions.com/PROME/home.html).
Leicester: Scholarly Digital Editions and The National
Archives, 2005.
RES Review of English Studies
SB Studies in Bibliography
SEWW Select English Works of John Wyclif, ed. Thomas Arnold, 3 vols.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1869–71.
SP Studies in Philology
x List of Abbreviations

SPCK Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge

TRHS Transactions of the Royal Historical Society
YLS The Yearbook of Langland Studies
 Note on the Text

Any study that attempts, as this does, to deal with the implications of
Piers Plowman’s existence as a series of versions inevitably faces certain
methodological issues, not least of which is the choice of an edition. Be-
cause it is the only edition to present the full corpus of variants, I have
adopted the Athlone Piers Plowman, and in general I have assumed the
accuracy of its representation of what Langland wrote (though I also note
some possible objections where these occur).1 Of course, any critical edi-
tion must be but one interpretation of the manuscript evidence, and any
conclusions about Langland’s processes of composition and revision based
upon it must therefore be provisional. But since the Athlone edition has
proved especially controversial, some of the particular difficulties associ-
ated with its use should be indicated briefly here.
The Athlone B text is especially problematic, because George Kane and
Talbot Donaldson’s belief that the B archetype is seriously corrupted led
them to extensive emendation by comparison with the other versions of
the poem. Kane had not admitted the testimony of the parallel readings
in the other versions when editing A, but by the time Kane and Donald-
son came to edit B they assessed, and frequently felt able to emend, its
archetypal readings against the parallel readings of A and C. Whilst in
theory an unobjectionable procedure, its practical consequence, as Robert
Adams shows, was that Kane and Donaldson were led to displace ‘many
strongly attested B manuscript readings’.2 Kane and Donaldson assumed
that agreement between A and C against B ‘sets up a presumption that no
revision occurred at that point’.3 But as Adams and others have pointed
out, the possibility cannot be entirely excluded that Langland changed his
mind when revising from A to B only to change it back again when revis-
ing B into C.4 As Thorlac Turville-Petre suggested in his review of the
Athlone B text, nor are all of B’s unique readings demonstrably inferior to

1
Piers Plowman: The A Version, ed. George Kane (London: Athlone Press, 1960); Piers
Plowman: The B Version, ed. George Kane and E. Talbot Donaldson (London: Athlone
Press, 1975); Piers Plowman: The C Version, ed. George Russell and George Kane (London:
Athlone Press; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997). Unless otherwise stated, all
references to Piers Plowman are to these editions. All translations from the Vulgate bible are
from the Douay Rheims Version, revised Bishop Richard Challoner (Rockford, IL: Tan
Books, 1989). Unless another source is given, all other translations are my own.
2
Adams (1992; 31).
3
The B Version, p. 76.
4
Adams (1992; 54) and cf. Brewer (1996; 390).
xii Note on the Text

those of AC.5 In cases where Kane and Donaldson emend on the evidence
of A alone, their B text is especially problematic. In numerous instances
where a reading rejected as scribal in Kane’s A text turned out also to be
the reading of the B archetype (and sometimes of C as well), Kane and
Donaldson emended in favour of the reading selected by Kane in editing
A, giving the Athlone B text the unfortunate appearance of having been
emended to protect Kane’s edition of A.6
The Athlone B text, in particular, is therefore not an unproblematic
choice as the basis of an investigation into the versions of Piers Plowman.
Kane and Donaldson’s belief that they could correct the presumptively
corrupt B archetype by collation against the A and C versions means that
their edition of B most likely under-represents the frequency of small-
scale revision between the versions where the three texts run in parallel.
However, this remains, I hope, a largely hypothetical problem here, since
my own argument tends in any case to focus on larger configurations of
character and action rather than the individual lection.
It should also be acknowledged here that the central hypothesis upon
which the Athlone Piers Plowman is based—that there are but three ver-
sions, composed in the order A, B, C by a single poet—commands major-
ity but not universal support. This traditional view of the number and
sequence of the versions I share with the Athlone editors, but I discuss
some of the opposing arguments as these arise.

5
Turville-Petre (1977).
6
See Adams (1992; 49–50) and Brewer (1996; 394–404).
 Introduction
Conscience and Personification
in Piers Plowman

Conscience has long attracted critical attention as one of the most inter-
esting figures in Piers Plowman. He plays a central role in some of the
most memorable scenes in the poem, from his debate with Meed in
passus 3, to his banquet with Patience and the corpulent Doctor of
Divinity in passus 13, all the way to the poem’s final scene in which he
presides over the collapse of Unity. He thus occupies an important posi-
tion in Langland’s exploration of major themes such as the relation of
labour and reward, the value of academic versus more pragmatic forms
of knowledge, the sacrament of penance and its contemporary abuses,
and the role and responsibilities of the secular and ecclesiastical powers.
He also engages interest in terms of the poem’s formal design. Like other
figures always perceived as central, Will and Piers, but unlike most of the
poem’s other personified figures, Conscience appears across passus and
vision boundaries; like Piers, he seems to transform as his role is devel-
oped and refined during the course of the poem, from the accuser of
Meed to the guardian of Unity. Moreover (unlike Piers), Conscience’s
role expands not only during the course of the narrative of the poem, but
also during the course of Langland’s revisions. Langland gives Conscience
a prominent place in several of his new poetic initiatives in the C text,
including his interpolation of the ‘autobiographical’ episode in C 5 and
the new passages on Hophni and Phineas in the Prologue and on gram-
mar in passus 3. In C especially, as Andrew Galloway has observed,
Conscience commands ‘a wide range of languages and levels of style, per-
haps . . . the widest of any figure in the poem’.1
Yet the very diversity of his appearances that makes Conscience such an
intriguing figure also manifests in particularly acute form the difficulties
attending any interpretation of Langland’s personified figures, and the

1
Galloway (2006; 127).
2 Conscience and the Composition of Piers Plowman

critical problems—and possibilities—Conscience presents have not been

fully answered in the literature. Many readers have sought to explain
Conscience’s place in the poem as an allegory for the operation of ‘con-
science’ as defined by scholastic moral/faculty psychology. But such read-
ings typically confine themselves to the first vision of the poem and
encounter difficulties in responding to what seems to be the rather differ-
ent presentation of Conscience in later parts of Piers Plowman. On the
other hand, some readers have abandoned ‘personification allegory’ alto-
gether as a useful mode of investigation, insisting that Conscience is no
different from any other kind of character, and indeed that he undergoes
a process of education or character development during the course of the
poem.2 This approach, however, raises obstacles of its own. As David
Lawton observes in his study of the first-person ‘subject’ (dreamer/narra-
tor/Will) of Piers Plowman, it in fact makes little difference whether one
sees a faculty (in Will’s case, voluntas) or a person whose psychological
development is traced through the text. Both approaches seek in the
poem’s figures a unity and continuity that is at odds with the common
critical perception of the work’s diversity and discontinuity.3
The outlines of the ‘faculty psychology’ approach to Conscience in Piers
Plowman were established in the 1930s by Greta Hort and T. P. Dunning,
and although some details have been modified by subsequent criticism, the
underlying assumptions have remained the same.4 Medieval thinking on
conscience inherited from Jerome’s Commentary on Ezekiel a distinction
between ‘synderesis’ and ‘conscientia’. Bonaventure and other Franciscan
writers defined conscience as an act of judgement directed towards behav-
iour, synderesis as a bias of the will towards the good. In the Dominican
camp, Aquinas described synderesis as a disposition of the practical reason
by which theoretical principles are known, and conscience as an actualisa-
tion, the application of knowledge of principles to particular cases.5 Critics
who have argued for the relevance to Piers Plowman of these scholastic
discussions have not always agreed on whether or not Langland intends to
maintain a distinction between synderesis and conscience. Nevertheless, a
general consensus may be observed. According to this consensus, Lang-
land’s personifications fit, as Gerald Morgan puts it, ‘within the bounds of
scholastic orthodoxy’,6 and they reflect specifically the Dominican view of
Aquinas rather than the Franciscan tradition exemplified by Bonaventure.

2
Mary Carruthers (Schroeder)’s well-known essay manages to combine both approaches.
See Schroeder (1970).
3
Lawton (1987; 1–2).
4
Hort (1938); Dunning (1980). Dunning’s first edition was published in 1937.
5 6
See Potts (1980; 1–60). Morgan (1987; 351).
 Introduction 3

So Hort argues, for instance, that Langland aligns himself with Aquinas’s
discussion in that ‘Conscience does not teach of itself, it is guided by
Reason’; hence Reason, not Conscience, preaches before the confessions of
the seven deadly sins in the second vision (although this particular argu-
ment will not of course hold for A, where Conscience is the preacher).7
More recently, Morgan has offered various modifications to the earlier dis-
cussions, but Langland’s Conscience remains in his account ‘the applica-
tion of knowledge to act . . . distinguished by Aquinas from synderesis’.8
One might raise some objections to this broad consensus, however, and
some indeed have been lodged in the past. Britton Harwood, for instance,
points out that the claim that Conscience represents an act of the practi-
cal reason seems hardly borne out by the action of the poem itself: in the
C-text version of the banquet scene in passus 15, Conscience continues to
act even when Reason disappears.9 One might also argue that since Lang-
land never uses the term ‘synderesis’ or a readily recognizable translation,
it is difficult to support the confidence with which Hort asserts that the
poem reflects ‘the Dominican view of synderesis, which makes it the high-
est principle of the cognitive part of the soul’, as opposed to the Francis-
can, which placed synderesis in the affective part of the soul, the will.10 As
David Aers suggested in his earlier work on Piers Plowman, Langland
perhaps had in mind at the end of the poem a discussion of conscience
such as that of Aquinas, in which conscience is both fallible and yet nev-
ertheless binding.11 Still, one must consider seriously the possibility that
scholastic moral psychology is entirely irrelevant to the depiction of Con-
science and Reason in passus 3–4 (that part of the poem most typically
read in the light of scholastic discussions), and perhaps more generally as
well. John Alford’s authoritative account of Reason demonstrates that
Conscience’s partner in the first vision denotes eternal law rather than the
faculty of reason or intellect (for which, according to Alford, Langland
prefers the term ‘wit’ or ‘kind wit’).12 Galloway’s recent discussion of

7
Hort (1938; 81–5). Dunning (1980; 24–7, 73) shares essentially the same view as
Hort. Morton Bloomfield (1962; 167–9) also argued that Langland’s Conscience was con-
sistent with scholastic discussions of the faculty, although he suggested that in the later
parts of the poem Langland turned to an older, monastic conception of Conscience.
8
Morgan (1987; 353–6).
9
Harwood (1992; 198, n. 3).
10
Hort (1938; 72, 82). For the suggestion that Langland in fact adopts the Franciscan
view of the faculty, see Clopper (1997; 187). I cite Bonaventure’s view of conscience in
connection with B 13 in Chapter 2, although without suggesting that Langland had neces-
sarily read or intended to allegorize it.
11
Aers (1980; 203–4, n. 69) and cf. Potts (1980; 54–60). In his more recent work, Aers
has retracted his reading of Conscience in the 1980 title as a ‘mistakenly individualist ac-
count of this power’, but Aquinas remains central to his reading of the figure. See Aers
12
(2004; 230, n. 138). Alford (1988b; 205).
4 Conscience and the Composition of Piers Plowman

Conscience likewise implies that the concepts of ‘reason’ and ‘conscience’

in legal discourse are probably more relevant to the first vision than Do-
minican moral psychology.13 Indeed, I shall argue in Chapter 1 that in
passus 3–4 Langland interrogates the meaning of ‘conscience’ as a
legalism.
But while one might want to question some of the particulars of the
Dominican ‘faculty psychology’ reading of Conscience, the assumptions
that lie behind such accounts present a more significant difficulty. One
might consider, to begin with, the only definitive discussion Langland
offers of the faculty of conscience. This discussion is the well-known cata-
logue of the various parts of the soul provided by Anima in B passus 15,
closely based on either Isidore of Seville’s Etymologies or the pseudo-
Augustinian Liber de spiritu et anima, and Englished as follows:14
And whan I deme domes and do as truþe techeþ
Thanne is Racio my riȝte name, reson on englissh;
...
And whan I chalange or chalange noȝt, chepe or refuse,
Thanne am I Conscience ycalled, goddes clerk and his Notarie.
(B.15.27–28, 31–32)
Typically, this passage has been cited in support of the view that Langland
intends, as elsewhere in the poem, to allegorize Dominican scholastic psy-
chology.15 But one must insist, first of all, upon the seemingly ad hoc
nature of this account of Conscience. As Joseph Wittig points out, Lang-
land himself adds to the material he would have found in Isidore and the
De Spiritu the descriptions of Amor and Conscientia.16 More importantly,
one should also notice that the language in which Langland couches the
English version of his (apparently improvised) Latin ‘dum negat vel con-
sentit’ (B.15.39a) is not the technical terminology of ‘habitus’ and ‘poten-
tiality’ and ‘disposition’ found in a scholastic discussion such as that of
Aquinas. ‘Chepe’ is merchant-talk, ‘To engage in bargaining (either as
buyer or seller)’.17 ‘Chalange’ is a legalism, ‘To accuse (sb), bring charges
against’ (a sense which chimes with the traditional view of Conscience as
a legal witness or accuser) or ‘To claim (sth.) as one’s right, due, privilege,
or property’.18 Both words, in fact, return to the teeming picture of

13
Galloway (2006; 103–4, 378).
14
See Wittig, J. (1972; 212–13). Walter Skeat first made the identification with the
passage from Isidore: see Skeat, Parallel Text, II, 215, n. 201.
15
See Dunning (1980; 73–74) and Morgan (1987; 351).
16
Wittig, J. (1972; 213, n. 9).
17
MED, s.v. ‘chepen’, 1. Cf. Haukin’s description of the activity at B.13.379.
18
Alford (1988a, s.v. ‘chalangen’). For Conscience as legal witness or accuser, see Alford
(1988a, s.v. ‘conscience’).
 Introduction 5

contemporary life in the Prologue of the poem, and indeed ‘challenging’

associates Conscience, God’s clerk, rather embarrassingly, with those
clerks who have gone off to the bright lights to serve the king, ‘and
his siluer tellen,/In Cheker and in Chauncelrie chalangen hise dettes’
(B.Prol.92–93).19
To seek in Langland’s poem merely an English translation of Latin
terminology from scholastic discussions of moral faculties is to lose,
then, much of the texture of the poem, and therefore much of its mean-
ing. Anima’s discussion of Conscience provides a notable instance of the
continuities Stephen Justice finds in Langland’s diction ‘between clerical
vocabularies and social experience’; this is a poet who ‘conferred on em-
pirical language a conceptual utility and a public force’.20 But in examin-
ing Langland’s Conscience one ought to beware of putting the conceptual
cart before the empirical horse. The case of Anima illustrates that Lang-
land grounds his representation of Conscience as much in ‘social experi-
ence’, in institutional practices (such as law), as in scholastic philosophy.
Ignoring the particular languages in which Langland composes Con-
science (which do not, in my view, in fact include scholastic discussions
of the faculty) estranges the poem from the historical and social situation
that rendered those languages mutually intelligible to Langland and his
audience.
My purpose here, then, is not to supply alternative sources or ana-
logues for Langland’s understanding of ‘conscience’ so much as to chal-
lenge the mode of reading that the accounts discussed above adopt.
Arguments based upon faculty psychology tend to flatten the texture of
Piers Plowman by assuming that pre-existing medieval discourse deter-
mines its meaning. These readings assume that Langland composes the
poem to illustrate an already-extant proposition and that he revises to
bring it more thoroughly into line with this prior formulation.21 Such a
procedure has received powerful critiques from readers such as Aers and
David Lawton.22 Nevertheless, this approach to reading Langland’s
personifications still regularly resurfaces, even where the unity and coher-
ence it would seek seem belied by what one might otherwise observe
about the form of the poem and the way personifications appear in it.

19
‘Deme domes’ in the description of Conscience’s companion in the first vision,
Reason (Ratio), is another legalism; see Alford (1988a, s.v. ‘demen’), ‘To preside over a
court . . . to judge’.
20
Justice (1996; 132, 137).
21
See Whitworth (1972; 4). Whitworth argues that Langland revised the three versions
of his poem to reflect his ‘increasing knowledge of and attention to theological
distinctions’.
22
Aers (1975; 78 and passim); Lawton (1987).
6 Conscience and the Composition of Piers Plowman

Similar assumptions about personifications underlie, for instance,

Nicolette Zeeman’s recent discussion of Will’s serial encounters with per-
sonifications in the poem’s third vision. Personifications in Zeeman’s ac-
count are paraphrasable—and by implication stable—units of meaning.
Clergy and Scripture, for instance, ‘refer primarily to “Christian teaching
and its texts” ’; Thought ‘represents the preliminary cogitative functions
of the soul’; Wit ‘is reason and represents the proper development of
thouȝt’. Zeeman’s method is one of concordance, collating analogues,
often references to Latin cognate terms (‘studium’ for Dame Study, for
instance). Her procedure implies that Langland’s personifications derive
their meaning primarily from their prior existence in other texts. The
‘eclecticism’ of Langland’s portrayal of ‘will’, volition/affect, for instance,
is ‘underpinned by an instability in the medieval distinction between the
rational will and less rational appetites and passions’.23
Robert Frank’s essay ‘The Art of Reading Medieval Personification-
Allegory’ articulates more explicitly the approach that Zeeman has re-
cently adopted.24 In Piers Plowman, Frank argues, personifications are
‘abstractions’ and ‘have only one meaning’.25 Personifications therefore
‘mean what their names say they mean’; ‘a personification cannot stand
for a concept or quality other than that expressed by the name of the
personification’; ‘The names of the characters are all-important, for it is
through them that the allegorist states a good part of his meaning. The
reader must therefore understand what a character’s name means, for
that will be the key to his speeches and actions’.26 Studies of the personi-
fications in Piers Plowman have, implicitly, followed Frank’s lead by pro-
posing ever more numerous alternative ‘meanings’ for the ‘names’,
without in general challenging these basic assumptions about reading
personification.27

23
Zeeman (2006; 132, 103, 105, 65–6). Compare also the approach of Harwood
(1990) and (1992; 91–2).
24
Frank (1953).
25
Frank (1953; 237).
26
Frank (1953; 243, 244, n. 23, 245). A more sophisticated account of the names and
naming of personifications may be found in Paxson (1994). While Frank is confident that
personifications ‘have only one meaning’, Paxson shows that Piers Plowman ‘explores ways
in which the name of a personification figure can work to represent a being that may be
more than a monolithic concept’ (1994; 131–3).
27
For notable exceptions see Griffiths (1985), esp. p. 59, and, more recently, Scanlon
(2007). Scanlon critiques the conventional view of allegory in which it ‘becomes the
stable signifier par excellence’ (p. 3). In Piers Plowman, he argues, ‘the allegorical and the
mimetic constantly converge, and the trope which most characteristically effects that con-
vergence is personification’ (p. 22). The figures in the poem are often personifications and
characters at the same time (p. 24)—not simply the allegorical ‘name’ which Frank
emphasizes.
 Introduction 7

As Lawton has noted in his discussion of the first-person subject of the

poem, the approach Frank represents—an approach that Lawton rejects
as an ‘economy of one voice per name’—tends inevitably to discover unity
and continuity even where readers are in other ways sensitive to the poem’s
apparent discontinuities.28 So Zeeman, for instance, emphatically rejects
the idea of ‘development’ in Piers Plowman as conventionally understood.
She favours a kind of via negativa of failure and loss. Yet she nevertheless
finds ‘a real sense of development and sequence as thouȝt leads to wit, the
rational power that will preside over the exploration of studie, clergie and
kynde’.29 The shape of Langland’s poem conforms, in her argument, to a
prior ontological reality.
Zeeman seems not to notice, though, that the sense of progression that
she identifies can only be projected onto the text retrospectively. Her ar-
gument about ‘development’ belies the disarming impression readers re-
ceive at many points in the poem that Langland is somehow making it up
as he goes along. One might cite, for example, the abrupt appearance, at
the beginning of a new passus, of Dame Study: ‘Þanne hadde wyt a wyf
þat hatte dame studie’ (A.11.1). This moment typifies many other simi-
larly abrupt arrivals, such as the unannounced appearance, head-first, of
Peace with the petition that turns the debate of passus 3 into the trial
scene of passus 4, or the first entrance of the poem’s title figure: ‘ “Petir,”
quaþ a plouȝman and putte forþ his hed’ (A.6.25). Whatever the actual
degree of Langland’s forward planning at the transition of A passus 10–11,
‘þanne’ as a connective introducing the next personification presents cog-
nitive ‘development’ or progression as mere narrative happenstance. One
might compare Langland’s use of ‘Thanne kam’ as the introduction of the
newly-inserted account of the ‘founding of the commonwealth’ in the
B-text Prologue (B.Prol.112). Commenting on Langland’s use of this
phrase, Galloway argues that it ‘suggests both a perpetual condition of
surprising arrivals or unpredictable changes of topic, and a continuous
processional movement to the whole . . . It is a form of dramatic parataxis,
requiring the reader to supply the syntax of interpretation, association
and connection to other moments in the poem’.30 As the introduction of
a new personification, the phrase as used at A.11.1 suggests that the proc-
ess of composition itself with its ‘continuous processional movement’ and
‘unpredictable changes of topic’ is as important to Langland’s personifica-
tions as any ontological reality. It implies that Langland’s personifications
can be understood only as the outcomes of the compositional process that
creates them, rather than by reference to any prior external formulation.

28 29
Lawton (1987; 2, 10). Zeeman (2006; 84).
30
Galloway (2006; 115).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 XV. FEJEZET.

Egy nap Abbáziában.

Az utolsó Frideczky öregségének egyik legboldogabb napját
töltötte Senkhy János szerkesztő urral az ivándi birtokon.
Csak hétfőn reggel mentek vissza a városba. A báró a lakásáig
fuvarozta Jánost, akit megölelt, mielőtt az autóból kilépett volna:
– Gyere fel a klubba, öcsém, sokszor gyere fel, hadd legyen egy
kis örömem az életemből!
János tiz forintot adott a soffőrnek. A báró látta ezt a kocsiból és
megelégedetten morogta magának:
– Uri ember, nagyszerü uri ember! Mikor János három nap mulva
ujra felnézett a klubba, Füredy gróf ezzel fogadta:
– Na barátom, maga megbolonditotta az öreget. Csak magáról
beszél. Egy negyedórahosszat előadást tartott a miniszterelnöknek a
maga kiválóságairól. Menjen, menjen, már várja!
János ez alkalommal is megtette Frideczkynek azt a szivességet,
hogy vesztett nála egy parti sakkot és nyert is tőle egyet.
Idejét egyébiránt a legszebb semmittevéssel töltötte, egyetlen
komoly tennivalója az volt, hogy mindennap levelet kellett irnia
Adélnak, aki ehhez a mindennapi levélhez abszolut ragaszkodott.
János, aki papiroson nagyon gyatrán tudta csak kifejezni gondolatait,
érzelmeit pedig majdnem sehogysem, arra szoritkozott, hogy
életének napieseményeit irta meg Brioniba. Viszont Adél meleg és
kedves leveleket irt, szerelmeseket, mint egy szerető, érdeklődőket,
mint egy feleség, gondoskodókat, mint egy anya. Adél levelei mindig
derüsek és jókedvüek voltak, betegségről, gyógyulásról az asszony
sohasem irt egyetlen igét sem.
Julius közepén Adél letáviratozta Jánost Abbáziába. János ment.
Nagyon meglepte, hogy az asszony már Fiuméban, a
pályaudvaron várt rá. Valósággal ugy ugrott a nyakába, hogy
megcsókolja:
– De Adél! – szólt szemrehányóan a fiu – mért jött ide?
– Jánoska, ne beszélj! Te ezt nem érted. Nem tudtam parancsolni
magamnak, hogy ne jőjjek, mert nem tudtam volna megállni, hogy
mikor meglátlak az abbáziai molón, meg ne csókoljalak. Ott nem
tehettem volna, mert ott mindenki ismer. Itt megtehettem, látod,
meg is tettem.
A hajóig az asszony apróra kikérdezte Jánost, ugy mintha nem is
leveleztek volna, mintha semmitsem tudna életéről.
– De ne arról beszéljünk – mondta János a hajón, mikor már
lélegzethez jutott. – Hanem magáról. Hogy van?
– Nagyszerüen, Jánoska! Nézz meg!
A hajó orrán álltak, merő napfényben. János megnézte az
asszonyt. Az arca-bőre sötét volt és fényes, a szeme szinte villogott
ebből a sötétségből. Most is nagyon szép volt, csak a vonásai
rajzolódtak határozottabban s a szemének volt erősebb tüze.
– Igazán jól? – kérdezte János.
– De mennyire igazán!
– Hát akkor mért marad még tovább is Brioniban?
– Az kell… hogy egészen meggyógyuljak.
 – Mért nem jön fel Abbáziába és mért nem jöhetek ide én is?
– Mert… mert azt még nem szabad Jánoska… Hogy igazán,
egészen meggyógyuljak.
És az asszony szeme fátylas lett. De vigyázott magára, a köny
csak ellepte a szemét, annyira megszaporodni nem engedte, hogy
lebuggyanjon, szeme héján tulra.
Az egész nap tengerparti kószálással telt el. Az asszony ragyogott
és beszélt s csak óvatosan hintette el azokat a mondanivalóit,
amikért Jánost Abbáziába hivta.
– Jánoska – mondta ebéd után, mikor a szines ernyő alatt itták a
feketét a terraszon. – A mandátum meglesz, de nehogy elhanyagolja
az öreg Frideczkyt. A gróftól is tudom, nemcsak a maga leveleiből,
hogy milyen nagy jó barátságban vannak.
– Ugyan! – nevetett János – az csak tréfa.
– Ne, ne, ne higyje, hogy tréfa. Majd meglátja, milyen jó az öreg
Frideczkyvel jóban lenni.
– De hiszen félretolt ember, Adélka, senkise törődik az öreggel.
– Az mindegy. Maga csak maradjon a barátja, majd én
visszakerülök Pestre, akkor én is bemutattatom magamat az
öregnek.
– Maga? Minek?
– Csak. Már régóta hallom, hogy milyen érdekes ember. Még
meghal, mielőtt megismerhetném. Vagy ő, vagy én.
– Mit mond?
– Csak tréfáltam, Senkike. Ne féljen. Ő hal meg, nem én!
Délután négykor az asszony hirtelen egyebet penditett meg:
 – Hatkor indul a hajóm, megyek vissza és még akartam mondani
valamit.
– Csak nem megy el?
– De elmegyek.
– Igy?
– Hogyan igy, Jánoska?
– Még nem voltunk egy percig magunk közt.
– Nem is leszünk, Jánoska. Nincs szerelem. Most láttam magát,
az nekem elég. Ebből megélek a nyár végéig. Több nincs, többnek
nem szabad lenni.
– Adél!…
– Azt akartam mondani, hogy maga azért ne tegye tönkre a
nyarát. Azt én nem engedem.
– Hát mit csináljak? Ha maga elkerget maga mellől!
– Tudja mit… menjen a Balaton mellé, az közelebb van hozzám
is. Ha hivom, hamarabb jöhet.
– A Balaton? Hova mehet egy magános ember a Balatonon,
hiszen tudja, hogy ott sehol egy tisztességes hotel. De ha
parancsolja…
– Nem, nem parancsolom, Jánoska. Ne menjen csak ugy… legyen
a vendége valakinek.
(Adél ugy tett, mintha keresgélne, hogy kihez is küldhetné
Jánost.)
– Senki se hivott.
– Nem? Csodálom. Pedig Gotthelfék mondták nekem, milyen
szivesen lehivnák magukhoz nyárra.
 – Nem hivtak.
– Hát akkor majd hivják.
– Nem hiszem.
– Hát ha majd hivják, menjen le hozzájuk.
– Unalmas emberek.
– Nem is olyan unalmasak, Jánoska. A lányok nagyon kedvesek.
– Alig ismerem őket.
– Arra lesz elég ideje nyáron. Igérje meg, hogy elmegy, ha
hivják.
János megigérte; meg volt győződve róla, hogy Gotthelfék ugyse
hivják.
Ahogy a hajó indulásának az ideje közeledett, Adél mind
csendesebb lett, az arcát elhagyta a fény, csak a szeme tüzelt még
jobban. A szeme-sarka néha idegesen összerándult.
– Jánoska, Jánoska, szivem! – szakadt ki a száján minden ok és
összefüggés nélkül. Aztán nagyon birkózott magával, legyőzte és
rendbehozta magát s elindultak a móló felé. A sürü-melegü
alkonyatban a levegő tele volt jószagokkal, renyheséggel,
kivánkozással.
– Szép, – mondta János, ahogy a kis parkból a tenger mellé
kiértek és végignéztek a Kvarneró szemsimogató kékjén.
– Brioni még szebb – mondta az asszony. – Még szebb! Ó de
nehéz, de nehéz…! – tette hozzá és nem fejezte be a mondatát.
Tikkadt bucsu következett, csók nélkül. Adél zsebkendőt
lobogtatott a hajóról. János a kalapját lóbálta. Mikor a hajó Lovrána
felé annyira megkisebbedett, hogy a lobogó zsebkendőt már ugy
sem lehetett volna látni, csak egy matróz látta, hogy az a nagyon
szép szőke hölgy lement a hölgyszalonba, ahol még senki sem volt
ilyenkor, hosszában elnyult a piros bársony ülésen és ugy sirt, olyan
rázkódó nagy sirással sirt, hogy a szőke haj lebomlott a fejéről.
(Vége az I. kötetnek)
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DOKTOR SENKI (1.
KÖTET) ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying
copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of
Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything
for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund
from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law
in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated
with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this
agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached
full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the
terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears,
or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning
of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or
expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or
a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original
“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must
include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in
paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive
from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt
that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project
Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for

the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3,
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR
NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR
BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK
OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL
NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF
YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving
it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or
entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide
a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation,

the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation,
anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with
the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or
any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission

of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many
small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to
maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.