Middle English Literature

Enarratio
(Analysis and Exposition of Texts)
Enarratio, the analysis and exposition of texts, was part of the discipline of
grammar, itself one of the three major areas of study within the trivium
(grammar, rhetoric, and logic or dialectic). Medieval grammar encompassed
reading practices from simple grammar as we know it today to sophisticated
literary interpretation. Enarratio means literally to lift a linguistic unit – a
letter, syllable, word, or a longer passage – out of the narrative of a text and
to interpret it according to other received readings or one’s own ideas.
Medieval England did not differ from the rest of Europe in the Middle
Ages, which combined Greek and Classical with Christian ideas of literary
interpretation, but the appearance of Lollardy in the late fourteenth century
complicated the application of grammatical ideas in vernacular contexts (see
“Lollary Trials,” p. 59, and “Censorship,” p. 242).
Reginald Pecock (ca. 1390–ca. 1460), bishop of St. Asaph (1444–50)
and Chichester (1450–8), authored six books on religious and literary mat-
ters. Consistently anti-Lollard, he became subject to accusations of heresy
himself in 1447 and more seriously in 1457 because he suggested that reason
could be a better basis for judgment on religious matters than scriptural or
Church authority. Given the choice of being burned or recanting his claims,
he publicly abjured his writings, which were themselves burned before a
Enarratio
249

---

250
Textualities
large crowd. He wrote the Repressor between 1449 and 1455, which (in
typical scholastic style) presents Lollard arguments and then systematically
returns to them in order to refute them with multiple arguments and
examples.
Primary documents and further reading
Colish, M. L. (1983) The Mirror of Language: A Study in the Medieval Theory of
Knowledge, revd. edn. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Copeland, R. (1991) Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Irvine, M. (1994) The Making of Textual Culture: “Grammatica” and Literary
Theory, 350–1100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Minnis, A. J. and A. B. Scott (1991) Medieval Literary Theory and Criticism, c.1100–
c.1375: The Commentary-Tradition, revd. edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Morison, J. L. (ed.) (1909) Reginald Pecock’s Book of Faith: A Fifteenth-century
Theological Tractate. Glasgow: J. Maclehose.
Pecock, R. (1924) The Folewer to the Donet, ed. E. V. Hitchcock. EETS, o.s. 164.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scase, W. (1996) “Reginald Pecock.” In M. C. Seymour (ed.) Authors of the Middle
Ages 8. English Writers of the Late Middle Ages, vol. 3. Aldershot, Hampshire:
Variorum, 69–146.
Wogan-Browne, J., N. Watson, A. Taylor, and R. Evans (eds.) (1999) The Idea of the
Vernacular: An Anthology of Middle English Literary Theory, 1280–1520. University
Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Reginald Pecock. Cambridge University Library MS Kk.4.26. The Repressor of Over Much
Blaming of the Clergy. Ed. C. Babington. Vol. 1. London: Longman, Green, Longman, and
Roberts (1860), 5–100 (selections).
Language: English (Southeast Midland)
Manuscript date: ca. 1460
The firste of these thre trowingis, holdingis,
1
or opiniouns is this: That no
governaunce is to be holde of Cristen men, the service or the lawe of God,
save it which is groundid in Holi Scripture of the Newe Testament, as
summe of the bifore seid men holden, or namelich save it which is groundid
in the Newe Testament or in the Oold and is not bi the Newe Testament
revokid, as summe othere of hem holden. In this trowing and holding thei
ben so kete
2
and so smert and so wantoun that whanne ever eny clerk
1
tenets.
2
stubborn.

---

affermeth to hem eny governaunce being contrarie to her witt or pleasaunce,
though it ligge
3
ful open and ful sureli in doom of resoun, and ther fore
sureli in moral lawe of kinde, which is lawe of God forto be doon, yit thei
anoon asken, “Where groundist thou it in the Newe Testament?” or “Where
groundist thou it in Holi Scripture in such place which is not bi the Newe
Testament revokid?” And if thei heere not where so in Holi Scripture it is
witnessid, thei it dispisen and not receyven as a governaunce of Goddis
service and of Goddis moral lawe . . .
The secunde trowing or opinyoun is this: That what ever Cristen man or
womman be meke in spirit and willi forto undirstonde treuli and dewli Holi
Scripture, schal without fail and defaut fynde the trewe undirstonding of
Holi Scripture in what ever place he or sche schal rede and studie though it
be in the Apolcalips or oughwhere ellis, and the more meke he or sche be,
the sooner he or sche schal come into the verry trewe and dew undirstonding
of it, which in Holi Scripture he or sche redith and studieth . . .
The third trowing or opinioun is this: Whanne evere a persoon hath founde
the undirstonding of Holi Scripture into which he schal come bi the wey now
bifore seid of the second opinioun, he or sche oughte bowe away her heering,
her reeding, and her undirstonding fro al resonyng and fro al arguyng or
provyng which eny clerk can or wole or mai make bi eny maner evydence of
resoun or of Scripture, and namelich of resoun into the contrarie, though the
mater be such that it passith not the boondis neither the capacite of resoun
forto entermete
4
therwith and forto juge and geve kunnyng ther upon . . .
[Pecock says he will state thirteen “principal conclusiouns” against the first
opinion.]
[T]he firste is this: It longith not to Holi Scripture, neither it is his office
into which God hath him ordeyned, neither it is his part forto grounde eny
governaunce or deede or service of God, or eny lawe of God, or eny trouthe
which mannis resoun bi nature may fynde, leerne, and knowe.
[He then provides six arguments, a corollary, and proofs for this first
conclusion, of which two arguments and a corollary follow.]
The second principal argument into the first bifore sett and spoken
conclusioun or trouthe is this: Thilk thing is the ground of a governaunce,
3
lie.
4
be concerned.