HOPKINS: CHARACTER AND OPINIONS OF WIM.IAM LANGI.AND. 271 



language might have been used by W^'clif, but there is no question 

 as to Langland's simple acceptance of the church's teaching. 



4. LANGLAND'S PHILOSOPHY. 



Langland's work was intended to have a moral significance only. 

 The efforts of the scholastics had been directed chiefly towards reduc- 

 ing the vast mass of theological doctrine and dogma to something 

 like system. We do not find that Langland is especially systematic; 

 but we do find some traces of scholastic methods, as well as of schol- 

 s<']iolnKti<-iMiti. astic conclusions. We might m fact say that the 

 •whole of the theological and religious teaching of which an exposition 

 has been given is scholastic, so far as it is systematic and rea- 

 soned out in all its parts. But what was scholastic in this respect 

 was common property, and not distinctive of Langland; in fact, in 

 his lack of system and in his belief that it is not possible to give rea- 

 sons for all one's beliefs, he was decidedly unscholastic. He ad- 

 vances many doctrines theological and doctrines religious, but as 

 to their bearing upon each other he cares little. The curious ques- 

 tions and conceits with which the mediaeval scholastics used to 

 amuse themselves would certainly have been condemned by him 

 (Page 269; C, XIL, 35 ff. ). But to tell how two persons of the 

 Trinity slew the third is irreverent rather than scholastic; and Lang- 

 land himself asks many of the questions which used to engage 

 their attention. Of such a nature perhaps are the questions. Why 

 did Lucifer attempt to establish a kingdom in the north (C, IL, 

 112)? Why was the Fall permitted (B, X., 105)? Why should men 

 now suffer for the transgression of Adam (B, X., iii)? If Scripture 

 be true, how can any rich man reach heaven (C, XIL, 200)? Why 

 did one thief upon the cross repent and not the other (C, XV., 

 154)? Are Solomon, Socrates, and Aristotle saved (C, XV., 

 193)? Are there not also traces of scholasticism, perhaps of sophistry, 

 in the doctor's argument (C, XVI., 172) with Patience; in the discus- 

 sion between Lucifer, Satan, Goblin, and Christ (C, XXL, 272); 

 and in the argument of Need (C, XXIL, 150)? In the latter case 

 Langland seems to adopt as his own the reasoning which he uses; in 

 the other case his attitude as shown by his placing the argument in 

 the mouths of those whom he has already satirized, and by the 

 formal remonstrance which he makes against empty discussions (C, 

 XIL, 35). This important passage is made more significant by the 

 fact that the remonstrance is made by Study, and is aimed at her 

 husband. Wit, who has nothing to say in self-defence. Hence we 

 may conclude that exercising speculation without the direction of 

 some safe guide, the Bible or the Fathers, is an indefensible thing. 



