Her byginnet . . . mennes byhove. The four-line incipit, though not part of the poem, is an adjunct to the poem’s prologue section in that it identifies the source of the poem and gives it a title. The incipit is a quatrain rhyming abab, as distinct from the poem, which is in rhyming couplets. (For discussion of the poem’s title, see the section Title of the Poem in the Introduction to this volume, pp. 3–4.) Dearnley’s study Translators and Their Prologues in Medieval England offers a detailed analysis of prologues in English translations, including a chapter focused on the four ME adaptations of the AN Chasteau d’amour to understand the development of prologues from French to English (pp. 63–96). Dearnley identifies eleven discrete tropes used in English prologues, including that of identifying sources, used here (p. 64). Prologues to English works in general (not just translators’ prologues) molded perceptions of the vernacular (for more on this topic, see explanatory note to lines 35–38, below); for examples and analysis of prologues from numerous medieval English works dating from 1280 to 1520, see the anthology edited by Wogan-Browne and colleagues, The Idea of the Vernacular.

That good thenketh . . . the beginnyng. Compare Matthew 12:35: “A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things,” and Luke 6:45: “A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth that which is evil. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Thomas Aquinas expounds on these issues of intention in Summa Theologica, “Of the Goodness of the Interior Act of the Will” (trans. Shapcote, ed. and rev. The Aquinas Institute, I–II, q. 19). Although not mentioned in Whiting, the MED identifies proverbial language in lines 1 (mouen [v.3], sense 2b [b]) and 3–4 (thought [n.], sense 6a).

God, Fader and Sone . . . in onhod. This passage states the doctrine of the Trinity, the idea that God comprises the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For an in-depth discussion of the Trinitarian doctrine as it developed at the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), see Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy. The poem’s articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the phrases o God art and Thrillihod / And threo Persones in onhod (repeated in variations throughout the poem) may be a direct allusion to lines from the Athanasian Creed: “unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur” [we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity] (ed. and trans. Schaff, Greek and Latin Creeds, p. 66, no. 3). Grosseteste’s language in Dictum 60 is similar, where he asserts that “the smallest and most insignificant object in the universe, a speck of dust” might be understood as “a mirror of the Creator in its unity and trinity” (trans. Southern, p. 216; see also Grosseteste, “Grosseteste’s Dicta,” ed. Westermann and Goering, Ordered Universe). Such Trinitarian statements stand against heresies that denied Christ’s divinity (see explanatory note to lines 559–60, below), as well as against those that were concerned with the unity of God and explicitly denied the Trinity. These included Adoptionism or Dynamic Monarchianism (which also denied Christ’s divinity) and Sabellianism, which held that God was not three Persons in one but rather “revealed himself in three ways, or modes” in succession (Boer, Short History of the Early Church, p. 112). Augustine’s treatise on the topic, De Trinitate, was influential in the Middle Ages (see Augustine, Trinity, trans. McKenna; Augustine, On the Trinity, ed. Matthews, trans. McKenna; Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity). The doctrine of the Trinity was an important topic among medieval theologians; for example, Thomas Aquinas, writing some thirty or forty years after the probable composition date of Le chasteau d’amour (but a century or more before the surviving ME adaptations), discusses the Trinity in Summa Theologiae I, questions 27–43 (trans. Shapcote, ed. and rev. The Aquinas Institute). For the development of medieval Christian thought on the Trinity in the century after Grosseteste’s death, see Friedman, Medieval Trinitarian Thought.

To Whom . . . we here iseoth. A paraphrase from Romans 11:36: “For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever.” Compare the Eucharistic doxology (said by the celebrant when raising the Host): “Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor, et gloria” [Through whom, and with whom, and in whom, be unto Thee O God the Father almighty, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honour and glory] (Botte and Morhmann, L’Ordinaire, quoted in Pickstock, After Writing, p. 243; trans. Pickstock, p. 243n52).

Alle we habbeth to help neode. I base my gloss, “We all need help,” on MED, ned(e) (n.1), sense 1d: “haven ~ of (on, to, unto), haven ~, to need (sth.).” Unfortunately, staining obscures much of the line in H (Alle we to h . . .), but Halliwell records the line as Alle we to have helpe we nede (p. 2), which, if correct, would support this interpretation (although it is problematic to accept Halliwell’s readings at face value; see explanatory note to lines 28–35, below). Sajavaara rejects the interpretation “we need help” (p. 374n20), glossing the phrase instead as “we must help,” based on the corresponding line in the AN poem, where he interprets mester to mean Modern French métier [job; work] (p. 374n19). Sajavaara seems to have misinterpreted, however. The AN verse reads, “Tuz avums mester de Deu aÿe” [We all have need of God’s help] (Appendix, line 15). The AN noun mester can mean “need,” (see AND, mester1 [n.], sense 3) and the phrase aver mester means “to need, to be in need” (AND, mester1, aver mester).

That we . . . derworthé Drihte. The prologue’s discussion of world peoples and languages sets up the later discussion of the purpose of translating the poem into English (lines 35–38) and the relatively low status of the English language (lines 71–82), topoi of anxiety about writing in the vernacular common in medieval literature (Wogan-Browne et al., Idea of the Vernacular, p. 19). See also explanatory notes to lines 35–38 and 71–82, below. The AN poem mentions only Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (“De ebreu, de greu, e de latin,” Appendix, line 18).

No monnes mouth . . . To serven his God. These lines, based on the AN poem (Appendix, lines 20–22), are an allusion to Esther 13:17: “shut not the mouths of them that sing to thee [i.e., God].”

As uche mon . . . mi resun schowen. The scribe for H appears to have had difficulty interpreting these lines, and the passage makes little sense in H. Below is the whole passage in H (brackets signify reconstructed portions, as some parts are illegible due to staining):

Uche mon awght with all is myȝt Each person ought; his might Loovyng to synge to good full ȝorne To sing love to God (or good); eagerly With syche speche a[s] he con lorne such; can learn Ne mones ay to [be]n adrede Nor people always; be fearful Ne his ledone shall not be hed speech; withheld (hid) To herien is god þat hym haþ wrowght praise his God; has made And made [þys] world of nowghte this; [out] of nothing On en[glysshe] I my reson showe. In English; argument explain

Weymouth suggests the difficulty of the passage stems from the copyist’s lack of familiarity with Loftsong from line 29, referring to the lines as “absolute nonsense” (“Robert Grosseteste’s Castle,” p. 52). Halliwell’s text might not accurately reflect the MS readings, however, since the first few pages were so damaged that he resorted to guesswork to supply the gaps (Weymouth, “Robert Grosseteste’s Castle,” p. 52n1). Previous editors may have accepted at face value portions of Halliwell’s transcription where the manuscript is now illegible, but Weymouth’s assessment of the scribe’s difficulty remains valid.

The ME text in V and A is closer to the corresponding AN passage, though the translator elaborated and rearranged the material, as is typical:

De bouche de chauntur, Ke ne seit close pur Deu loer E sun seint nun pronuncier; Ke chescun en sun langage Le conusse, sanz folage, Sun Deu e sa redempcion, En romance comence ma raysun. (Appendix, lines 20–26)

As regards the mouth of the singer, Let it not be blocked from praising God And His holy name proclaiming; So that each one in his language May know, without foolishness, His God and his redemption, In French I begin my narrative.

On Englisch . . . ischulle tellen him. The narrator announces the intention to make the poem accessible by writing in English for an unlearned audience unfamiliar with French and Latin. For discussion of this topic, see the section on Date, Audiences, and Language in the Introduction (pp. 5–12). The narrator revisits the topic in lines 71–82. The last line, On Englisch ischulle tellen him . . . , illustrates how the prologue “moves between discussion of the poem’s use of English and its subject matter” (Dearnley, Translators and Their Prologues, p. 92) For a detailed discussion of the prologues of the different English translations of the Chasteau d’amour, see Dearnley (Translators and Their Prologues, pp. 91–94).

the world was iwrouht . . . he. As Sajavaara points out, he in line 40 refers to world, which is grammatically masculine in French (p. 374n40).

His sustren. The “sisters” referred to here are the four virtues, Mercy, Truth, Justice, and Peace, personified in the poem as the Four Daughters of the King (i.e., God). See explanatory note to line 289, below.

to whuche a castel He alihte . . . That the Marie bodi wes. The idea of Mary’s body as a castle protecting Jesus is longstanding and originated in part from Jerome’s use in Luke 10:38 of castellum [village] in the Latin Vulgate Bible (Cornelius, “Figurative Castle,” pp. 37–38; Sajavaara, p. 91; Mann, “Allegorical Buildings,” p. 198). There is a more general allegory where the five senses guard the soul (see Cornelius’s chapter, “The Castle and the Wardens of the Soul,” pp. 20–36). Sajavaara discusses the allegory of the Castle of Love at length (pp. 90–101). The castle motif in medieval literature has been explored in depth by Cornelius, “Figurative Castle”; Mann, “Allegorical Buildings”; Wheatley, Idea of the Castle; and Whitehead, “A Fortress and a Shield” and Castles of the Mind. Boklund-Lagopoulou discusses additional uses of the castle or fortress and other metaphors in early ME religious works in “Yate of Heven” (p. 142). See the Allegory of the Castle of Love section in the Introduction to this volume (pp. 15–18) for further discussion.

That the Marie bodi wes. The phrase Marie bodi is an s-less genitive meaning “Mary’s body.” This form of the genitive is common in the poem, occurring at lines 113, hevene blisse; 164, hevene blis; 225, hevene Driht; 366, suster wilnyng; 378, Merci herte; 961, Merci bihove; 1343, Helle gates; 1430, Thomas misbilevenesse; 1569, hevyn blys. Sajavaara follows Mustanoja’s suggestion that this structure is due “to Latin influence” (Sajavaara, p. 375n55). Rosenbach, summarizing earlier research on this construction and offering examples from her own corpus, however, explains that this type of genitive was a regular occurrence alongside the s-genitive in ME and persisted into the Early Modern period (Genitive Variation in English, pp. 205–07).

Mihtful. Though the literal meaning is “mighty,” the sense here is “possessing supernatural powers.” See MED, mightful (adj.), sense 1a, where this line from the poem is cited.

And tellen . . . All theos nomen. The paraphrase is from Isaias 9:6: “For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.” See also lines 606–14. A good portion of the poem is structured around an extended discussion of how Jesus fits each of the qualities named in the biblical passage and how their significance should be understood. Southern (p. 226); Mackie (“Scribal Intervention,” p. 64); and Jahner (Literature and Law, p. 167) each discuss this aspect of the Chasteau, but the same organization holds true for the ME poem, save that the section describing the Counselor is missing (see explanatory note to line 938, below).

hony of the harde ston souken. An allusion to Deuteronomy 32:13: “[The Lord] set him upon high land: that he might eat the fruits of the fields, that he might suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the hardest stone.” Rhodes argues that the translator uses the allusion to show confidence “that English is an excellent medium for poetry and adequate for him to be able to communicate what is essential for an understanding of the Christian faith,” suggesting, “For the narrator, reading this poem becomes another form of sucking honey from a stone” (Poetry Does Theology, p. 54).

On Englisch . . . to His monhede. These lines loosely translate the Latin prologue included in some copies of the AN poem. The purpose is similar to a table of contents in that it gives an outline of the poem’s story of salvation history, a popular theme in the Middle Ages (see the Synopsis in the Introduction to this volume for more details [pp. 4–5]). The topical overview mentions God’s creation of the world (Genesis 1), which he gives to Adam (Genesis 2); the loss of the world through sin (Genesis 3); the debate over the “prisoner” (Adam) by the Four Daughters of God; Jesus’s redemption of humanity through the Incarnation, with specific mention of Mary’s body as a “castle”; Judgment Day; and what people will experience in heaven and hell.

Thorw . . . to His monhede. These lines are an interpolated passage added between lines 36–37 of the AN poem (see Appendix) and based on the Latin prologue included in most of the AN exemplars (Sajavaara, p. 374n47–82). For the Latin prologue, see the textual note to the AN rubric.

Thauh hit on Englisch . . . to His monhede. The translator’s comments about English in this section of the prologue form one of the “English prologue motifs” identified by Dearnley (Translators and Their Prologues, p. 64). For discussion of the issues about language raised in this passage and in lines 35–38, see the section on Date, Audiences, and Language in the Introduction to this volume (pp. 5–12).

Ofte ye . . . reste and ro. The narrator alludes to God’s creation of the world as detailed in Genesis 1.

then eni tonge mai telle. Proverbial, though not mentioned in Whiting, whose closest entry is “To be gladder than Tongue can tell” (T379). See explanatory note to lines 690–92, below.

Lucifer . . . to helle. The recounting of Lucifer’s fall due to pride is an allusion to Isaias 14:12–15; see also Luke 10:18. This does not have a counterpart in the AN poem, though the poem alludes slightly later to the fall of the angels (see explanatory note to lines 152–54, below, for details). Sajavaara notes the importance of the allusion in accounting for “the jealousy felt by the Devil (an addition by the translator)” (p. 376n97–100). The envy of the devils in hell is mentioned explicitly in lines 211–12; see explanatory note to lines 209–22, below.

And yit . . . the world forles. This passage paraphrases Isaias 30:26: “And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days: in the day when the Lord shall bind up the wound of his people, and shall heal the stroke of their wound.”

breer. The dog rose (rosa canina) or sweet briar or bramble is “a chiefly European wild rose” (MW, dog rose [n.]). The OF translation for the dog rose is eglantine, and the flower (along with roses in general) conveyed erotic symbolism in OF romance, especially the desirability of an inaccessible or unapproachable love object (Kendrick, Chaucerian Play, p. 149; see also Le roman de la Rose). The AN word appears in the AND as eglenter (n.). In Chaucer’s sendup of medieval romance, Sir Thopas, the description of the eponymous hero Thopas as “chaast and no lechour / And sweete as is the brembul flour / That bereth the rede hepe” (CT VII[B2] 745–47) plays on the usual erotic implications (Gordon, “Sensory Satires,” p. 196). See explanatory note to line 719, below.

valeye of Ebron; / Ther He made Adam. The Valley of Hebron is about thirty kilometers (about nineteen miles) south of Jerusalem (Sajavaara, pp. 376–77n126). Adam was commonly held to have been buried in Hebron, but the poem follows a lesser-known medieval tradition that also locates Adam’s creation there (Murdoch, Apocryphal Adam and Eve, p. 126).

Ther He made Adam . . . to helle. The poem discusses God’s creation of Adam and Eve and describes their idyllic prelapsarian lives (compare Genesis 2). For discussion of medieval ideas about the creation of Adam and Eve, see Murdoch, The Medieval Popular Bible and The Apocryphal Adam and Eve in Medieval Europe. Boulton notes that “the purpose of the creation of mankind was to make up for the gap in heaven caused by the expulsion of the fallen angels” (p. 63n9).

Othat of hem to . . . Lucifer adoun to helle. The idea is that Adam and Eve have so many descendants that they equal the number of angels that fell down to hell with Lucifer (as a result of his pride). Compare the AN poem, which in the corresponding lines does not directly mention Lucifer and the angels but instead alludes to them; when speaking of the hypothetical number of Adam’s descendants, the narrator explains that they would be as numerous “[c]ume furent kaun par folie / E par orguil del ciel cheïrent / E en enfern descendirent” [as were those (i.e., angels) that through folly / And through pride fell from heaven / And descended into hell] (Appendix, lines 98–100). See also explanatory notes to lines 97–100, above, and 209–22, below.

That on . . . lawe iset. The dichotomy in these lines is between natural law (innate moral feeling, arrived at through reason) and positive law (a law, whether divine or human, that is created and imposed). Romans 2:14–16 offers support for the idea of natural law: “For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” Grosseteste discusses natural and positive laws in detail in On the Cessation of the Laws (trans. Hildebrand; see especially 1.4–1.6, pp. 45–49). Grosseteste defines natural law as “actions that are intrinsically just,” where “every rational creature, when it is considered in the state of its first creation uncorrupted by sin . . . could, by a movement of right reason uncorrupted, know the whole natural law, inscribe it immediately on its own mind by reasoning without labor or delay, and retain it inscribed on the tables of the heart without forgetfulness”; in contrast, positive law, “the law of deeds,” is one that must “be dictated to the rational creature from the outside, for it could not know in matters that are indifferent what its Creator wants it to do unless he tells it” (Cessation of the Laws, trans. Hildebrand, p. 45). Grosseteste sees positive laws commanded by God as necessary, since “the fullest and most humble obedience consists in observing the law of deeds, or the positive law” (p. 47). In fact, Grosseteste holds that it is possible to act with perfect obedience only through the addition of positive law precisely because it cannot be arrived at rationally: “the rationality of testing and achieving perfect obedience consists in the observance of indifferent mandates that of themselves lack rationality” (p. 48). One such mandate is that mentioned in lines 174–76 of The Castle of Love: “Of the appel yow never ne et, / Of the tre that is forbode,” / So He seide (see explanatory note to lines 174–78, below). For an in-depth examination of the topic of natural law, see the edited collection by Jacobs, Reason, Religion, and Natural Law, particularly the sections on medieval Jewish philosophy (pp. 81–129) and medieval Christian philosophy (pp. 131–97). For contextualization of Grosseteste’s On the Cessation of the Laws, including other related works, his probable audience, and an outline of the work, see Hildebrand’s introduction to the translation (pp. 3–24). Hoskin discusses natural and positive law in relation to Grosseteste’s theories about pastoral work (Robert Grosseteste and the 13th-Century Diocese of Lincoln, pp. 71–78).

Of the appel . . . lyf forlete. These lines paraphrase Genesis 2:16–17: “And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death.” Grosseteste explains, “the Lord gave him [i.e., man] a positive law . . . namely, that he not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which was in the middle of paradise” (Cessation of the Laws, trans. Hildebrand, p. 47). The tre that is forbode (line 175) thus refers to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The biblical story in Genesis does not identify the fruit growing on the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Some early traditions favored the fig as the forbidden fruit, on the assumption that the fruit came from the same tree as the one from which Adam and Eve took leaves to cover their nakedness (Jager, Tempter’s Voice, p. 67). See Genesis 3:7: “And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.” Michelangelo, for example, depicted the fruit as a fig in the Sistine Chapel ceiling fresco. Genesis Rabba, a collection of rabbinic commentary on Genesis, reports a debate among rabbis who variously identify the fruit as grape, wheat, citron, and fig (Shoulson, “Embrace of the Fig Tree,” p. 885). (Genesis Rabba is the oldest extant collection, dating from the late fourth to early fifth centuries [Menn, Judah and Tamar, pp. 287–88]).

In ME the word appel (line 174) can refer, as in Modern English, to an apple (see MED, appel, -il, -ul [n.], sense 2), but appel also meant “[a]ny kind of fruit growing on a tree, shrub, or vine, such as an apple, crab apple, pear, peach, citron, banana, haw, berry, cucumber; also, a nut, a tuber” (MED, appel, -il, -ul [n.], sense 1a). Nevertheless, by the medieval period, the apple was the standard fruit visually (Jager, Tempter’s Voice, p. 67). Written narratives, whether Latin or vernacular, including the vernacular Bible, likewise identified the apple (Murdoch, Adam’s Grace, pp. 16–18). The overlap of the Latin words for “apple” (mālum) and “evil” (mălum) invited medieval wordplay on the two meanings (Jager, Tempter’s Voice, p. 182; Murdoch, Adam’s Grace, p. 16) and may have contributed to the long-term identification of the apple as the fruit in question.

And al the kynde . . . thulke dom. These lines have no equivalent in the AN poem.

Awei to sone . . . his owne gult. These lines describe the Fall of mankind (detailed in the Bible in Genesis 2–3) resulting from Adam’s disobedience to God by eating the appel (line 191), the action that broke both God’s laws, [t]he kuyndeliche and the set ek [the natural and the positive also] (line 193; see explanatory note to lines 169–70, above, for details about natural and positive laws). The Fall is framed in legal terms here as a loss of inheritance: Adam had the seisyn (line 185), or “seisin,” which refers to “possession in freehold, freq. indicated or established by actual or physical possession” (MED, seisine, sense 1a), and then hit forles [forfeited it] (line 188). Adam [w]as cast out of his heritage (line 198) and [o]ut of his heritage he is pult [exiled] / For synne and for his owne gult (lines 207–08). For detailed discussion of Grosseteste’s use of property and English law in relation to salvation history in the poem, see Jahner (Literature and Law, particularly pp. 161–74). The ME poem The Harrowing of Hell (ca. 1250) uses similar feudal and legal structures, especially as related to the household, to inform the argument between the Devil and Christ over Adam and his descendants (i.e., all the souls in hell at the time of Christ’s Crucifixion) (see Nelson, “Performance of Power,” pp. 60–64).

Lucifer gon wel . . . no forward breke. These lines in the ME poem are interpolated between lines 150–51 of the AN poem, which has no corresponding lines. Here, Lucifer, or the Devil, and his demon cohorts take pleasure that Adam has fallen thorw pruide (line 213), as they had been envious of Adam’s place in that blisful londe (i.e., paradise or Eden, line 212). The Fall additionally caused their power to grow until al the world moste after hem go [all the world had to follow their ways] (line 216), with the consequence that people had to go to hell when they died, no matter what good deed they did (lines 217–20); that was the promise God made to Adam, and God would not break a promise (lines 221–22). This view of the whole world having fallen due to Adam’s disobedience lays the foundation for Jesus’s redemption of humanity detailed later in the poem. See explanatory notes to lines 97–100 and 152–54, above.

God ne wrouhte . . . hard and strong. The difficulty in interpreting these lines stems in part from the ambiguous pronouns his (line 228) and him (line 229), which Sajavaara interprets as referring to God but I infer (from readings in H and the AN text) must refer to Adam. Differences between ME and Modern English grammar complicate the matter as well. The lines in H and the corresponding passage in the AN text are helpful in interpreting the passage. The AN text reads “Deu ne fist chose si haute / Ke ne abeschast par sa defaute” [God did not make a thing so high / That it was not cast down by his (Adam’s) default] (Appendix, lines 155–56). Compare the readings in V (original, unedited text) and H:

V: God ne wrouhte neuer þat þing Þat out les þorw his wonyng ffor nis no wone on him ilong Ȝif synne nere so hard and strong

[God never made that thing That lost something due to his failing For it is not his fault Save that sin is so harsh and powerful]

H: God whrowght neuer þat þyng But hit peyred þowrgh his wonnyng But for þe wonnyng of him hit was not long Nere þat synne was so harde & strong

[God never made that thing But it deteriorated due to his failing Save for the failing it was not due to him Were [it] not that sin was so harsh and powerful]

My emendation in line 228 (from That to But hit) attempts to solve the same problem Sajavaara addresses by replacing out with mihte (see textual note to this line for details); Sajavaara acknowledges the change “improves the line but does not restore the original sense” of the AN (p. 378n228). But the improvement from Sajavaara’s emendation is minimal, since out is a normal variant of the ME pronoun ought, with the phrase “out les” meaning “lost something.” See MED, ought (pron.), sense 1 (a), “Anything” and sense 3 (a), “Something.” The implication of the passage is that Adam’s failing causes the Fall of the whole world.

kynges court. The king’s court is “a court presided over by the king or by a judge appointed by him”; see MED, king (n.), sense 1b (d).

For sunne . . . thulke selve lay. In these lines, the poem connects Adam’s sin of disobeying God’s command and eating the forbidden fruit (lines 234–38) with a law enforced every day in the king’s court (lines 239–40). In line 233, which states that sunne and wone, al is on, the word wone is a “fault,” or “a lack of conformity to a law or legal requirement” (see MED, wane [n.1], sense 2b, which quotes this line). In the corresponding lines in the AN poem, the word used is defaute (Appendix, lines 160–64). See the sections Debate and Legal Language (pp. 20–22) and Relation between Le chasteau d’amour and The Castle of Love (pp. 22–26) in the Introduction for discussion of the idea of defaute in the AN poem and the English translator’s treatment of it.

Sunnes thral. The idea of being sin’s slave comes from the Gospel of John 8:34: “Jesus answered them: Amen, amen I say unto you: that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin.”

freore. The comparative of MED, fre (adj.), sense 1d: “out of the bondage of sin, not subject to the Devil.”

Thenne . . . withouten synne. Jesus Christ is the other whom Adam must seek to plead his case, as Jesus shares human nature but ne eete of the tre (line 260) and has kept [t]he threo lawen withouten synne (line 262).

threo lawen . . . sunne. The laws described as Thulke two of paradys refer to obedience to God (Thorw kynde to holden Godes heste, line 172) and abstaining from the apple (“Of the appel yow never ne et, / Of the tre that is forbode,” / So He seide, lines 174–76); the first is the natural law, the second the positive law (see explanatory note to lines 169–70, above). The third law, thulke of the Mount Synays / That to Moyses igiven was (lines 264–65), refers to the Ten Commandments, described in Exodus 20.

fulnesse. A theological concept, equivalent to the modern senses of “substance” or “being.” The MED, fulnes(se) (n.), sense 3b, glosses this as “totality, completeness; ?perfection.” The AN text uses the word “sustance” in this passage (see Appendix, line 212) and elsewhere where the English text has fulnesse. The AN word means “substance (of an entity), that which makes a being what it is; being, entity (of the Trinity)” (AND, substance [n.], sense 3), implying that in the ME poem fulnesse means something similar. Below are the lines in the English poem that use fulnesse with the corresponding lines containing “sustance” in the AN:

ME: He gaf a dole of His fulnesse (291) For of Thi fulnesse icomen ich wes (376) And of Thi fulnesse am I come (460) For We beoth on in one fulnesse (533) In one fulnesse and in no mo (564)

AN: Sun aferant de sustance (219) De ta sustance issui (296) Yssue de ta sustance (374) Un sumes nus en sustance (437) Une sustance e plus nun (466)

The AN poem includes two additional uses of the word “sustance” (Appendix, lines 223 and 224) that have no correspondence in the ME translation. Similarly, the ME poem includes one mention of folnesse (line 294) that has no parallel in the AN (see explanatory note to lines 294–95, below).

Of on wille . . . of on miht. These lines refer to the notion that the Father and Son are one. Compare John 10:30, where Jesus says, “I and the Father are one”; and John 14:9, “Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also.” See also John 1:1–2. The idea of the Father and Son having “one substance” (compare “une sustance” from line 212 of the AN poem) is expressed in the Nicene Creed: “Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father” (Percival, ed. and trans., “The Nicene Creed”). In arriving at this statement, “the First Nicean Council borrowed Origen’s term homoousios, that is ‘of the same substance,’ to underscore the truly divine nature of the Son,” but dispute over the term continued even after the Council, because “some asked if ‘of the same substance’ or ‘one in being’ referred to a numerical sameness or oneness or a generic similarity” (S. Brown, “Trinity,” 2:1339). Compare the AN text:

Tut autre tel cum fu le Pere E si est le Fiz en la manere: De un saver e de une pussance, De un voler e de une sustance. (Appendix, lines 209–12)

Fully just the same as was the Father Indeed so is the Son in nature: Of one knowledge and of one power, Of one will and of one substance.

Thorw the Sone . . . to ende bringe. These lines describe the Christian understanding of God’s process of creation. The idea that God the Father created everything through the Son (i.e., Jesus) is supported by numerous New Testament passages. See, for example, John 1:3, “All things were made by [i.e., through] him [i.e., the Son]: and without him was made nothing that was made”; Hebrews 1:1–2, “God . . . [i]n these days hath spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the world”; and Colossians 1:15–16, “[the Son] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him.” See also John 1:10, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and Romans 11:36. Compare lines 213–16 of the AN poem, which describes the process a little differently. For a more detailed discussion of the theological implications, see explanatory note to lines 559–60, below. The narrator also reiterates the idea in lines 531 and 650.

Foure douhtren. These Four Daughters of God are the personified virtues Mercy (Merci), Truth (Soth), Justice (Riht), and Peace (Pees). The Four Daughters’ dispute forms a significant section of the text (lines 275–520) and was a popular element. The idea of the Four Daughters is an elaboration of Psalm 84:11: “Mercy and truth have met each other: justice and peace have kissed” (see Sajavaara, p. 63; Boulton, p. 65n25). Traver examines the allegory at length in The Four Daughters of God, as does Sajavaara (pp. 62–90). Murphy’s overview of the tradition includes a list of ME texts with specific locations of the allegory in each work (“Four Daughters of God,” DBTEL). See the Allegory of the Four Daughters of God section in the Introduction to this volume (pp. 13–14) for discussion.

to uchone sunderlyng / He gaf a dole of His fulnesse. Line 290 is the only quotation attested for MED, sonderling (adv.). The idea of the Four Daughters inheriting from their Father (i.e., God) comes from English law, since “women in [Anglo-Norman] England could and did inherit estates that were often considerable” (Boulton, p. 65n26).

yit was al the folnesse on / That to Himself bilay. In other words, God’s completeness is undiminished and still “one,” or complete, even though he gives some of it to each of the Four Daughters. There is no corresponding passage in the AN text.

I beseche . . . isold to me. Mercy makes the case that the “wrecche prisoun” (i.e., Adam; line 331) only disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit because his enemies seduced him, causing him to sin; therefore, he should be delivered up to her. This rationale does not appear in sources or analogues to Grosseteste’s allegory, but Mercy’s speech follows Anselm’s position, which “den[ied] the Devil’s right of possession: humanity’s captivity was in itself just because of sin, while the Devil’s possession of the human race was in itself unjust because he had gained power through deception” (Marx, Devil’s Rights and the Redemption, p. 69).

That Riht hedde him idemet. The ME poem has Justice condemning the prisoner here, but in the AN poem, it is “Verité” [Truth] (Appendix, lines 294 and 298), even though the allegorical figure of Verité is speaking. In both poems the allegorical figures frequently speak of themselves in third person, making it sometimes difficult to distinguish allegorical uses from conceptual ones.

Ther beth rihte domes mitte. The word mitte is a contraction of mid thee, meaning “with you”; see MED, mid (prep.1), sense 7, where this line from the poem is cited as an example of ben mid the, “are in thee, come from thee, are characteristic of thee; etc.” Compare Apocalypse 16:7: “Yea, O Lord God Almighty, true and just are thy judgments.”

But eighte soulen . . . nas beleved more. The allusion is to the story of Noah’s Flood, detailed in Genesis 6–9, which God sent to punish the sins of mankind, though in this case the poem treats the Flood “as punishment for Adam’s sin” (Boulton, p. 67n32). The line But eighte soulen that weren iyemed (line 448) recalls 1 Peter 3:20: “a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.”

nis not worth an hawe. A proverbial expression meaning “worthless” (see Whiting H193). A haw is a hawthorn berry, signifying something of very little value; see MED, haue (n.2).

withouten gabbe. Literally: “without idle talk” or “without deception,” but the sense is “truly”; see MED, gabbe (n.), sense 1b.

Thi wisdam me clepeth Me. Compare 1 Corinthians 1:24: “Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”

al the world for Me Thou wrouhtest. The line reiterates the idea that God created everything through Jesus; see explanatory notes to lines 285–88, above, and 559–60, below.

Nimen Ichulle the thralles weden. This literal statement about putting on the slave’s clothes alludes to Christ’s birth as Mary’s son Jesus, where he “puts on” human flesh (and human nature). Compare Philippians 2:7: “[Jesus] taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man.” See explanatory note to lines 575–80, below.

alone Ichul holde the doom. This refers to Christ’s willingness to redeem humanity by receiving the punishment for Adam’s sin.

Pees and Riht cussen. An allusion to Psalm 84:11: “justice and peace have kissed” (see also explanatory note to line 289, above).

Withoute God . . . al thing wrouht. The belief that God the Father created everything [t]horw God the Sone (line 560) is stated in the opening of the Gospel of John, where the Word refers to Jesus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him [i.e., the Word]: and without him was made nothing that was made” (John 1:1–3). John 1:14 explains that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,” meaning that God’s spoken “Word,” which created everything, refers to Jesus Christ as God incarnate. The narrator restates this in line 650.

This idea became part of the Nicene Creed. Intended to combat early heresies that doubted Christ’s double nature as both fully man and fully God, the Nicene Creed was adopted in 325 CE at the First Council of Nicaea and revised in 381 at the Council of Constantinople, though the principal concepts are significantly older (G. Evans, Brief History of Heresy, pp. 29–30). The Arian heresy (from Arius) was one that both denied the Trinity and held that Jesus “was the first and highest of all created beings” but nevertheless a creation, who was neither divine nor fully human because “Jesus had a human body but not a human soul” (Boer, Short History of the Early Church, p. 114). The Apollinarian heresy (from Apollinaris), which similarly denied Jesus’s human nature, nevertheless affirmed his divinity; Apollinarianism was condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 381 (Boer, Short History of the Early Church, pp. 167–68). For a detailed discussion of the Council of Nicaea, see Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy. See also explanatory note to lines 285–88, above.

God the Holigostes miht. The Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. See explanatory note to lines 7–10, above.

The phrase alle threo beth on (line 563) refers to the Trinity; see explanatory note to lines 7–10, above. For discussion of the theological concept of fulnesse, or “substance,” “being” (line 564) in the poem, see explanatory note to line 283, above.

covryng. The meaning here is “deliverance from sin” or “redemption” (MED, coveringe, cover- [ger.2], sense 1b), with a play on “covering” as “clothing” (MED, coveringe [ger.1], sense 2b), alluding to Genesis 3:7, “And the eyes of them both (i.e., Adam and Eve) were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.” The wordplay here reminds readers that, although Adam and Eve can make clothing to cover their naked bodies, they cannot redeem themselves from sin through their own efforts.

Thenne moste nede . . . the world ibrouht. These lines emphasize the dual nature of Jesus as divine and human: God became man (line 576) and suffered death as a man before rising from the dead as God (lines 577–78) and redeeming humanity from the consequences of Adam and Eve’s disobedience (i.e., from the sin of eating the forbidden fruit). See Acts 5:30–31; Philippians 2:5–8. Compare line 547.

The ninti-nine . . . He is on. These lines refer to Jesus’s Gospel parable of the lost sheep (or good shepherd), where the shepherd leaves the ninety-nine sheep who have not wandered off in order to find the one that is lost (see Matthew 18:12–14, Luke 15:3–7, and John 10:1–16). Lines 587–88 explain that there is no other such Shepherd, nor a more merciful Lord than God.

lyk Himself wolde him make. A reference to God creating humanity in his image: “And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness” (Genesis 1:26).

To Abraham . . . Godes comynge wel. The poem lists a series of Old Testament prophets that Christian tradition interprets as having foretold various aspects of Jesus’s birth, life, death, and Resurrection: Abraham, Moses, Jonah, Habakkuk, Elijah, Daniel, Jeremiah, David, Isaiah, Elisha, and Samuel. Daniel was believed to have prophesied Christ’s birth, as well as the end times, including the Antichrist and Christ’s thousand-year reign on earth leading up to the Last Judgment (Martin, “Daniel,” DBTEL, p. 179; compare Apocalypse 20). Some of these figures were interpreted as “types” or “forerunners” of Christ, particularly Moses and Jonah. Beginning with the New Testament, Christian tradition sees Moses as prefiguring Christ (see Hebrews 3:1–6). Based on Matthew 12:38–41 (compare Luke 11:29–32), Jonah was likewise interpreted as a precursor to Christ, particularly in the Resurrection, as Jonah’s experience in the whale was connected by some church fathers to Christ’s Harrowing of Hell (Summerfield et al., “Jonah,” DBTEL, p. 409). See explanatory note to lines 1339–48, below, for more on the Harrowing of Hell.

Puer natus est nobis, filius datus est nobis. A paraphrase of the Latin Vulgate, “parvulus enim natus est nobis, filius datus est nobis” (Isaias 9:6), which translates as “a little one (i.e., a child) indeed is born to us, a son is given to us.”

Ac herkeneth . . . schal Him sen. A paraphrase of Isaias 9:6. See explanatory note to lines 57–66, above.

Of the Child . . . Wonderful. See explanatory note to lines 57–66, above.

soth God and soth mon. This refers to Jesus’s dual nature as “true God and true man.” See explanatory notes to lines 559–60, above, and 928, below.

And thorw Him is al thing iwrouht. For discussion of the idea that God created everything through Jesus, see explanatory notes to lines 285–88 and 559–60, above.

withouten Him is synne . . . wone . . . mighte lees. These three lines in the English poem are an expansion of a single line in the AN: “Kar defaute n’est pas fet” [Indeed sin (default) is not created] (Appendix, line 555), an expansion that reveals the sophistication of the translator’s insights into the AN poem. See the section Relation between Le chasteau d’amour and The Castle of Love in the Introduction (pp. 22–26) for discussion.

And yit . . . monnes kynde bifalle. These lines emphasize the theological position that Jesus was fully human. For details on this issue, see explanatory note to lines 559–60, above. The poem discusses Jesus’s perfect human nature but is careful to stress that he was completely human: Thulke schaft [nature] to underfonge withalle [take on completely] / That ouhte to monnes kynde bifalle (lines 661–62). The narrator also explains that withouten Him is synne evere, / For wone dude He nevere (lines 651–52). This lack of sin should be understood in light of Jesus’s fully human nature; the fact that he could sin but did not is the reason Jesus is able to redeem humanity from Adam’s sin of disobedience.

witen. Here, the verb witien, meaning “to protect” or “to defend” (see MED, witien [v.1], sense 1a).

thre bayles. The description of the castle is highly symbolic, even as it makes use of specific and real architectural features. “Bailey” can refer either to the wall surrounding a castle or keep, or to the courtyard within the wall (see MW, bailey [n.]). The meaning in this case is “[t]he wall surrounding a castle or fortified city” (MED, baille [n.2], sense 1a). Here there are three baileys, one inside the other, for added protection, which Whitehead explains symbolize “virginity, chastity, and matrimony” (Castles of the Mind, p. 94) and Wheatley likewise identifies as “the Virgin’s concentric virtues of maidenhood, chastity and holy marriage” (p. 95). For more on the general metaphor of Mary as a castle, see explanatory note to lines 53–55, above.

Ne may . . . ne mouth spelle. See also lines 99, 1158–60, and 1360–62. The idea that no tongue may tell nor heart think of something is a proverbial exaggeration occurring widely in both secular and religious writings. For example, in The Merchant’s Tale, Chaucer’s Merchant avows that he cannot speak of the “blisse” between husband and wife, for “[t]her may no tongue telle, or herte thynke” (CT IV[E]1340–41). Chaucer’s Parson uses almost the same phrase in his discussion of virginity: “she hath in hire that tonge may nat telle ne herte thynke” (CT X[I]949). Boulton identifies it as “an inexpressibility formula based on 1 Cor[inthians] 2:9” (p. 80n113). The passage in the AN text is “De biauté i ad plus asez / Ke lange ne put descrire, / Quer penser, ne bouche dire” [Of beauty it has much more / Than tongue can describe, / Heart conceive, or mouth tell] (Appendix, lines 592–94).

the carnels so stondeth upriht / Wel iplaned and feir idiht. The sense of crenels that stondeth upriht is that they “have the long axis perpendicular to” the ground (MED, upright [adv.], sense 1c); the next line describes them as “completely smoothed (or made even with the ground) and beautifully constructed.” Whereas the English poem describes the battlements with a sense of both function and beauty, the AN poem emphasizes the decorative aspects: “aurné de kerneyaus, / Bien poliz e bons et beaus” [adorned with crenels, / Well polished and fine and beautiful] (Appendix, lines 597–98); see AND, aurner1 [v.]). As with the thre bayles in line 687, the poem’s description of the castle is at once symbolic and dependent on descriptions of architectural features. For more on the general metaphor of Mary’s body as a castle, see explanatory note to lines 53–55, above.

Seve berbicans. A barbican is “an outer fortification of a city or castle; a fortified gate or bridge” (MED, barbican [n.], sense 1). The poem circles back to the seven barbicans in lines 823–27, where they are described as representing the seven virtues (see explanatory notes to lines 823–27 and 799–800, below). The extended metaphor of the castle or fortress symbolizing Mary’s body protecting Jesus relies on real architectural features. For more on Mary’s body as a castle, see explanatory note to lines 53–55, above.

raddore then evere eny rose schal. The castle’s illumination, which makes it seem as if it is burning, is described as “redder than any rose.” In comparing Mary’s body (the castle) to a rose, the poem evokes both the erotic implications of the rose in the courtly love tradition (discussed in explanatory note to line 123, above) and the metaphor of Mary’s heart as a rose. In a sermon on the Assumption of Mary, early thirteenth-century troubadour-turned-Cistercian-monk Hélinand of Froidmont describes Mary’s heart as a rose, whose “delicate whiteness near the roots of the rose’s leaves is the perpetual purity of the Virgin Mary’s heart,” explaining that “from the roots of the leaves [her heart] shields and defends the five corporal senses, an unassailable fortification from without, as well as guarding it always perfectly whole” (Hélinand of Froidmont, quoted in Rubin, Mother of God, p. 155).

a trone. According to the MED, the “throne” here is “a symbol of a virtue” (see MED, trone [n.2], sense 2c).

the Maydenes bodi. Mary’s body was considered the source of Jesus’s human nature, and the Virgin Birth was thought to have kept Jesus from inheriting original sin (Izbicki, “Immaculate Conception,” p. 396). The reference to Mary as the Mayden (Virgin) alludes to the belief that she remained a virgin through “divine intervention [whereby] Jesus was conceived not by man but by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Logan, History of the Church in the Middle Ages, p. 136). The doctrine of the Virgin Birth is based on the story of Jesus’s conception in the Gospels of Matthew (1:18–21) and Luke (1:26–35). As the doctrine developed, theologians came to agree that Mary’s virginity remained intact even after childbirth, an idea supported by apocryphal stories about Mary’s life, including “the independent testimony of the midwife that after the birth of Christ Mary remained virgo intacta” (Collette, “Chaucer’s Discourse of Mariology,” p. 130). Some theologians, including Ambrose, Augustine, and Gregory the Great, went even further, asserting “that Mary remained a virgin through the delivery of her son, which was effected ‘without opening the uterus,’ according to Gregory the Great” (Klapisch-Zuber, History of Women in the West, p. 26). Despite such definitive claims, the subject of Mary’s bodily integrity during the process of childbirth remained a subject of discussion and debate in the Middle Ages. For a detailed cultural history of Mary’s status as virgin, see Warner, Alone of All Her Sex. Boklund-Lagopoulou points out that religious lyrics conceptualize Mary’s body “in multiple metaphors, derived from centuries of patristic biblical hermeneutics,” and explains that whereas “many of the poems to the Virgin make use of the language of courtly love, they never catalogue the beauties of Mary’s body” (“Yate of Heven,” p. 139). For details on Mary’s body as a castle, see explanatory note to lines 53–55, above.

The Virgin Mary was an extremely popular figure in the Middle Ages, including in vernacular literature. Although she is a frequent figure in OE works, literary interest in her rises in the thirteenth century (when Grosseteste was active); this popularity continues throughout the period in medieval English carols and lyrics, legendary literature (e.g., the Gesta Romanorum [Deeds of the Romans]), and the Corpus Christi cycle plays (D. Jeffrey, “Mary,” DBTEL, pp. 491–93). For a comprehensive history of the figure of Mary, see Rubin, Mother of God (especially parts 3–4, pp. 121–82).

This is . . . hire above. This section of the allegory of the Castle of Love explains the meaning of the colors in the castle’s description. Panti notes that “The Castle of Love connects the symbolic use of light and colour with the traditional numerical symbolism that Grosseteste had used since the De Luce” but adds that “in the Castle . . . and other theological writings, [Grosseteste] uses numbers to indicate the Trinity, theological virtues and cardinal virtues, and employs light itself and colors to denote the redemptive action of God on man” (“Robert Grosseteste’s Cosmology of Light,” p. 74).

The thridde heuh . . . is hire above. The passage interprets the meaning of lines 719–20, which describe the castle alight as if it were burning. Here, that burning is unpacked as signifying Mary’s clere love and briht / That heo is al with iliht / And itent with the fuir of love (lines 793–95). Mary is ablaze with pure love and inflamed with the fire of love to serve God. The idea of the heart being inspired by the Holy Spirit to burn with the fire of love (charity) was a commonplace in medieval Christianity. See explanatory note to line 719, above.

me iseoth. Sajavaara identifies iseoth as intransitive here, citing the OED (p. 386n799). The verb isen (v.1), however, does not appear to have such a usage (see the MED entry). An intransitive usage of the related verb sen (v.1), meaning “appear” or “seem,” may be possible in ME, but it is rare and questionable; the MED cites only fifteenth-century examples with the caveat that they may be errors for semen (v.2) (MED, sen [v.1], sense 26).

Foure hed thewes . . . / Foure vertues cardinals. The four cardinal virtues are “the four chief virtues necessary to earthly life” (MED, cardinal [adj.], sense 1c), namely, prudence or wisdom, justice, temperance or restraint, and fortitude or courage (see explanatory note to lines 801–02, below). Additionally, there are three theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity (love); all three of the latter are mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13, which focuses on the superiority of charity. The two groups of virtues are sometimes grouped together as the seven virtues or the seven moral virtues (not the same as the seven vertues identified in line 827 that specifically counter the seven deadly sins).

Strengthe and Sleihschupe, / Rihtfulnesse and Worschupe. The MED quotes these lines as an example for the word warshipe (n.), sense 1b, “the moral virtue of prudence, the faculty of discernment or discretion” but the same lines are quoted in the MED under sleighshipe (n.), where this is the only quotation attested, and the only meaning given is “wisdom, prudence” (probably based on the meanings of sleighnesse [n.]). One of the words likely means “temperance” rather than “prudence,” given that this is a list of the four cardinal virtues. The corresponding lines in the AN text read, “Ceo est, Force e Temperaunce / E Justize e Prudence” [That is, Fortitude and Temperance / And Justice and Prudence] (Appendix, lines 705–06). Sajavaara interprets Sleihschupe to mean “skill” in his glossary (p. 428). In the marginal note to line 802, Horstmann-Furnivall identifies temperance in the AN poem as the word corresponding to Worschupe in the ME translation.

Mayden chast and weddet wes. The line refers to the idea prominent in medieval Christianity that Mary was married but remained a virgin. See explanatory note to line 761, above, for details.

seve berbicans . . . seven vertues. Here the poem again mentions the seven barbicans (outer fortifications) from line 697 but now explains that they represent seven virtues, which in subsequent lines are identified as those that counter the seven deadly sins. Boulton points out the symbolic nature of the number of barbicans, given that “[m]id-thirteenth-century castles had one or two” (p. 71n57). Wheatley notes Grosseteste’s use of “architectural symbolism . . . echoing the treatment of Biblical buildings, such as Ezekiel’s vision of the temple, with particular emphasis . . . on the numerological correspondences found in such examples” (p. 95). See explanatory notes to lines 799–800 and 801–02, above.

seven dedly sinne. The seven deadly sins, in the order mentioned in the poem, are pride, envy, gluttony, lechery (lust), covetousness (greed or avarice), wrath (anger), and sloth. I capitalize them in the poem to illustrate their allegorical nature. See explanatory note to lines 829–42, below, for more detail.

That is Pruide . . . thorw alle thinge. The concept that Pride is the root of all evil, expressed in the first two lines, is proverbial (see Whiting P389). To highlight the importance of this section on the seven deadly sins, the scribe of the Vernon MS placed pilcrows before the lines that mention each sin: Pruide (line 829), Envye (line 833), Glotonye (line 834), Lecherye (line 835), Covetyse (line 837), Wraththe (line 839); there is none at line 842 for Sleuthe. Though they became an important theological concept, the seven deadly sins are nevertheless not strictly biblical. For a wide-ranging look at these sins in medieval literature and culture, see the essay collection edited by Newhauser and Ridyard, Sin in Medieval and Early Modern Culture.

In these lines, the seven deadly sins are countered by seven opposing virtues, though normally sloth would be countered by diligence, not spiritual joy (Boulton, p. 73n72). Where the English poem has Sleuthe (line 842), the AN poem has la male Tristesce [wicked Melancholy (i.e., Sloth)] (Appendix, line 746). AND, tristesse (n.), defines the word in a theological context as “sadness, melancholy (as one of the seven deadly sins, traditionally referred to as ‘sloth’).” The idea of virtues opposing sins derives from Aurelius Clemens Prudentius’s allegorical Latin poem Psychomachia [Battle for the Soul] (ca. 410), which describes a battle between sins and virtues for the soul of the Christian; see Klausner’s Introduction to The Castle of Perseverance for more on the background of this theme (pp. 1–2).

the neddre on the tre. A neddre [serpent] (Modern English “adder”) is specifically associated with the Devil’s disguise as a serpent in order to tempt Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden (see Genesis 3:1–5). See MED, naddre (n.), sense 1c. See explanatory note to lines 1716–17, below.

al his hed todryve. An allusion to Genesis 3:15, where God says to the serpent (i.e., the Devil) who tempts Eve: “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” Early Christians saw the passage as a foreshadowing of Christ; in medieval Christian exegesis, as in this poem, the woman crushing the serpent’s head was understood as an allusion to the Virgin Mary.

the Rihtwys Sonne . . . schadewede on hire in wolde / And feirede hir. The metaphor of the sun overshadowing Mary and exalting her refers to God’s power (through the Holy Spirit) overshadowing Mary at Christ’s conception and alludes to part of the Annunciation in Luke 1:35: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Compare the Wycliffite Bible’s translation of Luke 1:35: “The Hooly Goost schal come fro aboue in to thee, and the vertu of the Hiyeste schal ouerschadewe thee; and therfor that hooli thing that schal be borun of thee, schal be clepid the sone of God” (Wycliffe, “John Wycliffe Bible”). The Annunciation refers to the event where the archangel Gabriel comes to Mary and announces that she will bear the son of God, conceived through the Holy Spirit (see Luke 1:26–38).

Thorw the faste gat . . . lette faste beo. These lines emphasize the idea that Mary remains a virgin even after she has conceived and born Jesus (the faste gat is Mary’s virginity). For more on the meanings of the faste gat, see the Allegory of the Castle of Love section in the Introduction (pp. 15–18). For more about Mary’s body as a protective castle housing Jesus, see explanatory note to lines 53–55, above; for more about Mary’s virginity, see explanatory note to line 761, above. Representing virginity as a gate was not only used in religious writings; for example, the idea appears in the thirteenth-century allegorical poem Le roman de la Rose [The Romance of the Rose] by Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun, where the attempt on virginity is represented as an assault on a castle. Whitehead outlines the two competing versions of the besieged castle in medieval literature: “the courtly castle of the flesh [that] is built to await violation,” and “the religious castle of unbroken virtue [that] only remains perfect to the extent that it remain[s] inviolate” (Castles of the Mind, p. 98; see also pp. 89–90 and 97–98). See also the section of the Introduction on Courtly Romance (pp. 19–20). For more contextualization of the representation of virginity in the Middle Ages, see Kelly and Leslie’s edited collection Menacing Virgins.

That gostliche beoth in herte povere. Compare the first beatitude: “Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3).

The Fend . . . , / The World, my Flesch. The reference to the World, the Flesh, and the Devil as the three conventional enemies of humanity or the soul is a commonplace in Christian tradition (see, e.g., MED, fend [n.], sense 5). For a detailed discussion, see Howard, Three Temptations (pp. 61–63). The theme was popular in medieval literature. Holy Church warns Piers against the three early in Piers Plowman (see Langland, Piers the Plowman, ed. Skeat, Passus 1, lines 39–40). (A version of the A-text of Piers Plowman appears in the Vernon MS, the base text of the first 1514 lines of this edition of The Castle of Love.) Chaucer-the-Pilgrim mentions “[t]he three enemys of mankynde — that is to seyn, the flessh, the feend, and the world” in his Tale of Melibee (CT VII[B2]1420[*2611]). A more prominent use of these traditional enemies is the personification of the three foes as characters in The Castle of Perseverance, a morality play that, like The Castle of Love, tells the story of salvation history.

The Fend . . . And my Flesch. These lines again mention the three traditional enemies of mankind: The Fend (line 898), The Worlde (line 901), and my Flesch (line 903). See explanatory note to lines 893–94, above.

Charité. As explained in the MED, charité (n.), sense 1a (a), refers to “[t]he supreme virtue of Love or Charity according to Christian doctrine, comprising affection, devotion, benevolence, kindness, mercy, gratitude as between God and man or man and man.”

Thorw this laddre, God . . . into eorthe alihte. Literally, the ladder refers to the Virgin Mary’s body. Theologically, the ladder symbolizes “communication between heaven and earth” (see MED, ladder[e] [n.], sense 2b). This idea most likely derives from the biblical Jacob’s ladder, which he saw in a dream: “And he saw in his sleep a ladder standing upon the earth, and the top thereof touching heaven: the angels also of God ascending and descending by it” (Genesis 28:12).

nom of hire His monhede. Literally, “took of her (Mary) His human nature,” but the broader sense is that he became incarnate.

the yard that bereth the flour. An allusion to the flowering of Aaron’s rod in Numbers 17:8, which was taken by Christians as an analogy to Christ’s birth, as “the budding rod is seen to prefigure the miraculous fecundity of the virgin birth of Jesus” (D. Jeffrey, “Aaron,” DBTEL, p. 2).

And thus . . . therfore. See explanatory note to lines 57–66, above.

two kuynden. This refers to the two natures of Jesus: divine and human. Whereas in lines 635–62, Grosseteste focuses on Jesus’s fully human nature, in lines 927–44 he emphasizes Christ’s dual nature as fully God and fully man.

That He is soth God and soth mon. After this line the translator skips over lines 847–914 of the AN poem (see Appendix). The AN lines include an explanation of how there was peace on earth due to the rule of Caesar Augustus, who is identified in the Gospel of Luke as emperor when Jesus was born (see Luke 2:1–7; Augustus established the so-called Pax Romana or Pax Augusta). The AN verses also include a theological discussion involving the technical philosophical terms natura naturans [God as the creator] and natura naturata [nature as the creation], as well as an account of Jesus as a true Counselor, who found humanity lost and cast out of paradise, and who will show the way to heaven. For further discussion, see the section Relation between Le chasteau d’amour and The Castle of Love in the Introduction (pp. 22–26).

In the section missing from the ME poem, the AN includes the lines “Loange e glorie al Tut Pussaunt!”/ E pes en terre est crié / A gent de bone volunté” [“Praise and glory to the Almighty!” / And peace on earth is proclaimed / To people of good will] (Appendix, lines 852–54), a paraphrase of Luke 2:14: “Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will.”

That thou aboute nouht fer se. The AN verse, “Ou circumscription n’est mie” [In which is no limitation at all] (Appendix, line 917), apparently confused some scribes, as the stemma that includes MSS B, O, and L has circumspection in place of circumscription (see textual note to line 917 of the AN poem). The ME translator appears to have had a manuscript with the word circumspection and interpreted it to mean something like “the action of seeing on all sides.” Compare OED, circumspection, sense 1a, which includes the literal action of “scanning of surrounding objections or circumstances,” a meaning obsolete in Modern English and not included in AND, circumspeccion (n.), “care, attention,” or MED, circumspeccioun (n.), “Careful consideration, or the ability to exercise it; prudence, providence.”

Mi yok . . . to beren. A paraphrase of Matthew 11:30: “For my yoke is sweet and my burden light.”

todreynen. This line is the only quotation attested for MED, todereinen (v.), “To maintain (someone’s right) by battle, champion.”

Forthi Lucifer . . . aftur him wende. This is the fourth mention of Lucifer’s fall into hell in the ME poem, and the only explicit mention of him in the AN poem (compare Appendix, lines 985–88). In both poems, the narrator expresses fear that worldly people who do not follow Jesus’s teachings will fall into hell like Lucifer. See explanatory notes to lines 97–100, 152–54, and 209–22, above, for discussion of the other references to Lucifer in the ME poem.

trewe love and cler. The AN text uses fin amur [true love] to describe the love God desires from humanity (Appendix, line 998) and again to characterize God’s love for humanity (Appendix, line 1376). This phrase has a dual resonance as a term for courtly love in lyric poetry as well as the perfect love of God in religious contexts (Boulton, p. 78n99) The phrase fyn amur also appears in Thomas of Hales’s Love Rune (line 91). See the section on Courtly Romance in the Introduction (pp. 19–20).

congraffet. This line is the only quotation attested for MED, congraffed (ppl.), “Written down, registered.” Perhaps coined from the AN cyrografez, past participle of AND, cirograffer (v.trans.), “to make duplicate or triplicate copies of a formal document in the form of a chirograph.”

Lest he hedde the miht of Gode . . . he hedde igete. These are subjunctive forms used to signify a counterfactual condition: literally, “For fear that he had the might of God”; “he had succeeded.” Modern English requires the modal “would” in these instances: “For fear that he would have the might of God”; “he would be successful.”

He ne oughte from wo disseysed be. Sajavaara emends He to I based in part on the AN poem: “Ne voil a tort estre deseisi” [I do not intend to be wrongly dispossessed] (Appendix, line 1060). Weymouth glosses the word disseysed as “delivered,” noting the line’s “mistranslation” of AN (p. 79). The MED likewise suggests the meaning is “to deliver (sb. from suffering)” (disseisen [v.], sense 2c), although this line is the only attested example for this meaning; the usual significance is “to deprive (sb.) of seizin,” “to dispossess (sb.) unlawfully (of land, goods, etc.)” (sense 1a), “to deprive (sb.) of authority, dominion, or privileges” (sense 2a), as in the AN poem. Note that the word still survives in Modern English as “to disseise,” that is, “to deprive especially wrongfully of seisin: dispossess” (MW, disseise [v.]). It seems likely the ME text reflects a corruption of the AN line due to some difficulty in comprehending its meaning. The reading in H (I wot not with whom I shuld desseysed be) likewise highlights the trouble translators, scribes, and readers apparently had in interpreting the line.

The Fend wondrede . . . itiyed fast. The dialogue between Jesus and the Devil is full of legal argumentation. The encounter alludes to the biblical account of Christ’s temptation in the wilderness, detailed in the Gospels of Matthew (4:1–11) and Luke (4:1–13) and mentioned in Mark (1:12–13). Marx includes a detailed discussion of the scene and its theological complexity in relation to the idea of the Devil’s rights theory of Christ’s redemption of humanity, which argued that “God was under an obligation to respect the Devil’s right to possess humanity and that humanity could be freed and reconciled to God only if the Devil abused his power, which he did by killing the sinless Christ” (Devil’s Rights and the Redemption, p. 1; see pp. 69–71 for Marx’s full argument). See the discussion of this topic in the Introduction (pp. 21–22 and p. 38).

As fisch that . . . hok itiyed fast. Proverbial; Whiting cites as an example of the proverb “The Fish is taken by the bait” (F230).

Atter heo Him dude to drinke, imeynt with eisil. The vinegar was mixed with something bitter; though I gloss atter as “gall” based on the account in Matthew (27:34); Mark says it was myrrh (15:23), and John (19:29) and Luke have just vinegar (23:36). The MED, atter (n.) says the word refers to something poisonous (sense 1) or bitter (sense 2).

H adds the following lines after 1152: The Iewes deden þis to him for gret vylny / Bote he suffred hit all pacyently. This view, that Jews participated in or were outright responsible for Christ’s crucifixion, reflects a common component of antisemitism present as early as the Gospel of Matthew (J. Edwards, “The Church and the Jews,” p. 88). The Jews were expelled from England in 1290, thus when the ME Castle of Love was written, Jews were no longer an active presence in English communities. During Grosseteste’s lifetime, however, there were still Jews living in Britain, including in Leicester, where Grosseteste was archdeacon until 1232, the year the earl of Leicester Simon de Montfort had the Jews permanently expelled (Goering, “Grosseteste and the Jews of Leicester,” p. 182). Grosseteste’s views on Jews are outlined in his Letter 5, addressed to Margaret, countess of Winchester, Montfort’s great-aunt, who gave the Jews of Leicester sanctuary after Montfort expelled them (Watt, “Grosseteste and the Jews,” p. 201). Letter 5 denounced the countess’s actions, and Southern proposes that Grosseteste might have instigated the Leicester removal (p. 246). For further discussion, see Goering, “Robert Grosseteste and the Jews of Leicester,” and Watt, “Grosseteste and the Jews.” For an edition of Letter 5, see Grosseteste, “Epistola Quinta,” ed. Luard; for a translation, see Grosseteste, “Epistola Quinta: An English Translation,” trans. Mantello and Goering (also available in Grosseteste, Letters, trans. Mantello and Goering, pp. 65–70). In a similar context but later in the poem, the AN witness used for the text in the Appendix includes a line accusing the Jews of striking Jesus. See textual note to line 1500 of the AN text.

otewyse werkes. The MED suggests otewyse is an error for odious (adj.) and quotes this line under sense 1d, “morally reprehensible, heinous,” but it seems that the word could equally be either a compound formed from out and wise, meaning something like “outward” or a version of MED, outwith (adj.), meaning “worldly.” The corresponding phrase in the AN poem reads, “E pur nos mauveys fez foreinz” [And for our wicked worldly deeds] (Appendix, line 1129); Boulton translates “mauveys fez foreinz” as “wicked outward deeds” (p. 80n112) and Mackie as “wicked, alien deeds” (p. 172). In the textual note, Weymouth offers an alternative translation for the AN: “And for our evil deeds which were not his own” (italics in original), further suggesting the original ME reading in V and A, as there anonden, “is evidently corrupt” and “ought to mean ‘as there imputed to him’, or ‘which were not his own’, or ‘which we were guilty of’” (line 1151).

Fore ure unwrestschupe . . . to the herte. This passage details Jesus’s suffering, Crucifixion, and death, called the Passion in Christian tradition. The events are related in the Gospels of Matthew (26–27), Mark (14–16), Luke (22–23), and John (18–19). The Crucifixion and Passion were popular topics in literature throughout the medieval period, particularly in devotional literature in OE and early ME; medieval lyrics; Langland’s Piers Plowman; and the Corpus Christi cycle plays of York, Towneley, Coventry, and Chester (Quinn and Donahue, “Passion, Cross,” DBTEL, pp. 584–85). In The Castle of Love, the narrator ties each of Christ’s sufferings, leading up to and including his Crucifixion, to specific sins humanity has committed; compare, for example, the Glossa Ordinaria [Ordinary Gloss], a medieval collection of commentaries or glosses on the Bible, which attributes Jesus’s suffering from the crown of thorns to humanity’s sins (PL 114.420, cited in D. Jeffrey, “Crown of Thorns,” DBTEL, p. 173). The crown of thorns, coroune of thornes on His hed (line 1146), is not specifically mentioned in Luke but is described in the other three Gospels: (see Matthew 27:29, Mark 15:17, and John 19:2).

No tongue . . . pyne and wo. Proverbial; see explanatory note to lines 690–92, above. Compare the AN poem, which reads, “Launge ne put taunt retrere, / Ne quer de home taunt penser, / Cum il pur nus se fist pener” [Tongue cannot so relate, / Nor the heart of man so conceive, / How He made Himself suffer for us] (Appendix, lines 1132–34).

vertue. The MED translates the word in this specific quotation as “the force or power which causes the functioning of the brain” (vertu [n.], sense 4a).

felynge. The AN verse has “le taster” (line 1153), which is a substantive infinitive that can be translated as either the “(act of) touching, feeling” or the “(act of) tasting”; see AND, taster1 (v.), (sbst. inf.), senses 1 and 2. I have translated the AN word as “touching,” following the ME translation.

tithelynge. The MED quotes this line as the sole example of tithelinge (n.), sense 1, “?A tenth part; ?a division into ten, decimating.” The context suggests the sense is of the division of the soul from the body. For comparison, the AN poem has “Nature ne put suffrir / Le alme einz del cors partir” [Nature cannot allow / The soul to separate from the body before that] (Appendix, lines 1155–56).

Ac the prophecye . . . ful bitter wounde. This passage refers to Luke 2:34–35: “And Simeon blessed them and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall and for the resurrection of many in Israel and for a sign which shall be contradicted. And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts thoughts may be revealed.”

Adam. Note that the AN poem reads “Eve” (Appendix, line 1205).

Architriclyn. From the Latin architriclinus, this refers to the master of the feast or chief steward at the wedding, but the scribe capitalizes the word here as a name, since in ME the word is often used as a proper name as well as a common noun; see MED, architriclin (n.). Compare the Latin Vulgate: architriclinus (John 2:9).

For atte neces . . . sothfast mon. Turning the water into wine at the wedding in Cana is the first miracle that Jesus performs, mentioned only in the Gospel of John (2:1–10).

That fyf thousend . . . ifulled ek. The miracle of the five loaves and two fishes, also referred to as “the feeding of the five thousand,” is the only miracle Jesus performs before his death that appears in all four Gospels: Matthew 14:13–21, Mark 6:31–44, Luke 9:10–17, and John 6:5–15. This is a separate miracle from the feeding of the four thousand, attested in Matthew (15:32–39) and Mark (8:1–9).

That foure dawes he leigh along / In the buriles, that he stonk. Compare John 11:39: “Jesus saith: Take away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith to him: Lord, by this time he stinketh, for he is now of four days.”

Of Lazar . . . arerede him also. John 11:41–44 attests the miracle of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead.

Persones threo in Thrillihod / And o God thaugh in onhod. A statement affirming the idea of the Trinity, repeated in variations throughout the poem here and at lines 9–10, 1241–42, and 1505–06. The repetition of concept and rhyme give the couplet the flavor of a refrain. See explanatory note to lines 7–10, above.

But as a mon the rynde fleth. The literal meaning of someone peeling away the bark can be understood metaphorically as going deeper than the superficial meaning or the literal sense. The AN text gives a different sense: “Mes cum en rimant l’escorce” [Except as if in coating the bark with hoarfrost], suggesting one can only tell of God’s power and strength superficially, like hoarfrost covering the bark of a tree (Appendix, line 1284). Although AND gives only one verb rimer, meaning “to put into rhyme, versify,” I base my translation on OF from Godefroy, rimer2 (v.), meaning in Modern French geler blanc [to freeze white, to frost, to rime]. Boulton translates rimant (from Murray, line 1292) as “scratch” (p. 82 and p. 82n124), and Mackie’s edition has rongant, translated as “scratching” (Mackie-Chasteu, line 1296; Mackie, p. 174).

A gret bite He bot, of helle nom. The ME translator’s metaphor of Jesus taking a bite out of hell comes from the AN, “A enfern fist un grant mors” [He took a great bite out of hell] (Appendix, line 1315) and is a reference to Osee (Hosea) 13:14: “O death, I will be thy death; O hell, I will be thy bite.” Based on this biblical allusion, the Sarum Use for Palm Sunday describes Jesus as “Mors mortis, inferni morsus” [Death of death, bite of hell] (Dickinson, Missale Sarum, col. 259). (The Sarum Use was practiced in Salisbury Cathedral during the Middle Ages.) In Sermo de symbolo [Sermon on the Creed], Augustine describes Jesus taking a bite of hell: “Partim momordit infernum pro parte eorum quos liberavit: partim reliquit, pro parte eorum qui pro principalibus criminibus in tormentis remanserunt” [He bit off part of hell for the portion of those whom he freed: he left part for the portion of those who remained in torment because of original sin] (chap. 7).

For thorw . . . with herte trewe. This passage refers to the Harrowing of Hell, the idea that Jesus descended into hell for three days, rescued those who had served God faithfully before Christ’s coming, defeated the Devil, and broke the gates of hell. An influential view of the topic was that of Augustine, who described the Harrowing of Hell in Sermo de symbolo [Sermon on the Creed]: “He descended into hell to free Adam the first man and the patriarchs and prophets and all the righteous, who were held there through original sin, and to call them, now released from the bonds of sin and redeemed by his blood, out of that same imprisonment and hellish place back to their homeland above and to the joys of eternal life” (Tamburr, trans., Harrowing of Hell, p. 15). For detailed discussion, see Tamburr’s The Harrowing of Hell in Medieval England.

He was enarmed . . . him binom. Compare Luke 11:21–22: “When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth. But if a stronger than he come upon him, and overcome him; he will take away all his armour wherein he trusted, and will distribute his spoils.” Weymouth’s note points out the connection to the verses in Luke but suggests that neither the English translator nor the AN scribe understood the intended allusion (line 1351).

His strengthe . . . His mihtful deden. Proverbial. See explanatory note to lines 690–92, above.

Othat . . . tobrek. The lines refer to Jesus’s Resurrection on the third day after death, on Easter Sunday, Erliche uppon a Sonenday (line 1408). The Resurrection specifically refers to Jesus’s bodily existence, not simply the spirit or soul returning from the dead. The Gospels and other books of the New Testament do not describe the Resurrection itself but rather the discovery of the empty tomb by Mary Magdalene and other women (except in the Gospel of John, where she is alone), and several subsequent appearances of Jesus to the disciples and other followers. See Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20.

Tho the niht fro the day tobrek, / So seide Seynt Austin tho he spek. Augustine calculates from the Gospels that the Resurrection took place at dawn (Trinity, pp. 142–43). The word spek can be understood as “wrote” since it refers to written works by Augustine; see MED, speken (v.), sense 10a: “To write; state or declare in writing; write (in a book, gospel, letter, etc.).”

To His disciples . . . eode and come. In Luke 24:36–43, Jesus appears among the disciples, who think they are seeing a spirit. In order to show that his body is real, Jesus shows them his wounds and eats in front of them.

For muche us dude sikernesse. Where the ME text uses sikernesse [certainty], the AN has avantance [advantage] (line 1403), which is the only attested example in the AND for avantance2 (n); the usual meaning is a pejorative one of “boasting, bragging,” or “arrogance” according to AND, avantance1 (n.). Note that in OF, the word avantance conveys the Modern French meanings avantage, profit [advantage, profit] are typical meanings, as well as vanité [vanity] (see Godefroy, avantance [n.]).

Longeus. Medieval tradition held that the name of the Roman soldier who pierced Jesus’s side on the Cross was Longinus of Caesarea, though he is not named in the Gospel account (John 19:34). “Longinus” was also conflated with the centurion who avowed with others at the Crucifixion, “Indeed this was the Son of God” (Matthew 27:54), and on this basis was thought to have converted to Christianity. The first example of the soldier’s name occurs in an illumination in a late-sixth-century manuscript (ca. 586), where the name is written above the soldier piercing Jesus’s side (D. Jeffrey, “Longinus,” DBTEL, p. 461). The name also appears in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, referring to both the soldier with the spear and the centurion who testified (Peebles, Legend of Longinus, pp. 7–8). According to some medieval traditions, Longinus was the blind dupe of Christ’s actual tormentors, as in the stage directions of a Corpus Christi play where, after piercing Jesus’s side, Longinus rubs the blood on his eyes and his sight is restored, signifying his salvation (Kolve, Play Called Corpus Christi, p. 219).

woundes grene. The meaning of grene as “unhealed” is given in MED, grene (adj.) 4b: “of a wound, pain, painful memory: recent, unhealed, bitter.” A similar meaning remains in use in Modern English in medical contexts, where a green wound is one “recently incurred and unhealed” (see MW, medical definition, green [adj.] 2).

Of Thomas . . . not sen. This scene with “doubting Thomas” comes from the Gospel of John (20:24–29). The incident was popular enough to inspire a number of apocryphal works attributed to Thomas, and popularity remained strong throughout the Middle Ages, with doubting Thomas appearing in works such as the Cursor Mundi [Runner of the World] (a biblical paraphrase) and various Corpus Christi cycle plays (D. Jeffrey, “Thomas,” DBTEL, pp. 766–67).

the Holygost, that glit of Hem bo. That the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son is a doctrinal statement. The concept is referred to in shorthand as filioque [lit., “and the Son”)] and was incorporated into the Nicene Creed beginning in 589 at the Third Synod of Toledo, causing a major rift between Eastern and Western Christianity (Oden, Classic Christianity, p. 521). Augustine, writing in the century before that, supported the idea, though he maintained a more significant role for the Father than the Son in describing the Holy Spirit’s procession (Dunham, Trinity and Creation in Augustine, p. 35). By the late sixth century, the idea of filioque had become accepted in the West (Siecienski, Filioque, p. 65). For further discussion of the history of how this doctrine developed and its effects on the division between East and West in the church, see Siecienski, Filioque. For a nuanced discussion of Augustine’s theology on the question of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son, see Ayres, Augustine and the Trinity (especially pp. 263–66).

iboren eft . . . eft ben ibore. The idea of being “born again” refers to baptism. See the Gospel of John 3:3–8 and explanatory note to lines 1464–66, below.

sume streon . . . gostliche streneth. The passage explains what is meant by being “born again.” The idea is that one must be begotten and born as a human being first before being born again spiritually (i.e., baptized) by Jesus through the water of vertu (line 1465). In the Bible, Jesus explains the process of being “born again” in the Gospel of John 3:3–8.

to hevene He steth, / On Holy Thoresday. The reference is to Jesus’s bodily Ascension into heaven forty days after the Resurrection (celebrated at Easter), described at length in Acts 1:9–11. See also Luke 24:51. The ME poem’s mention of Holy Thursday refers to Ascension Day. In contrast to the more oblique reference in the ME poem, the AN poem refers directly to the Ascension: “a ciel munta; / Ceo fu a la Ascensiun” [to heaven ascended; / This was at the Ascension] (Appendix, lines 1462–63).

skewes. The MED quotes this line for skeu (n.1), sense 1a, “The sky, heavens,” but sense 1b, “a cloud” (here, plural: “clouds”) more accurately translates the AN “nues” [clouds] (Appendix, line 1466).

With sothnesse and wey and lif. Compare John 14:5–6: “Thomas saith to him: Lord, we know not whither thou goest. And how can we know the way? Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.”

feire cumpanye . . . out of helle nom. The ME softens the AN poem’s almost violent description of Jesus’s action in carrying souls out of hell. Where the AN has “la bele proie . . . Ke de enfern avoit ravi” [the fair prey . . . whom He had carried off (lit., ravished) from hell] (Appendix, lines 1468 and 1470), the translation uses neutral language. Thus proie [prey] becomes cumpanye and the English word nom replaces ravi, despite the Romance cognate ravishen. Though AND, preie1 (n.), sense 4, “flock, company, group” fits with the ME translation, the use of ravir to describe the action suggests “prey” or “quarry” is the more likely intended meaning (see AND, ravir [v.trans.], esp. senses 1 and 3). The changes in the ME suggest a deliberate choice to moderate the language of spiritual ravishment the original poem offers.

Ysayes spelle . . . Prince of Pes. The poem again alludes to Isaias 9:6, though without paraphrasing the whole verse as in lines 57–65 and 606–14.

He shall ageyn come this world to juggen . . . To deme bothe queke and dede. These lines echo the Nicene Creed, an official profession of Christian faith first adopted in 325 (see explanatory note to lines 559–60, above, for more detail). Compare also 2 Timothy 4:1, “Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead.”

Christ’s judgment of the living and the dead is the central theme of the Last Judgment. Salvation history ends in a legal judgment, the same way it began, an idea that Shoemaker points out was particularly stressed in the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215; nevertheless, notably, this notion “elided an alternative possibility, contemplated but rejected by medieval theologians, in which the redemption of mankind from original sin and servitude to the devil might be accomplished through a simple exercise of divine power rather than judgment” (“Devil at Law,” p. 570).

Doomsday or the Last Judgment was a popular topic in the Middle Ages, favored in medieval works of all types, including poetry, drama, lyrics and carols, histories, as well as the more obvious sermons and other didactic and moral works (Emmerson, “Last Judgment,” DBTEL, p. 435).

Fourti cupetys heire. Forty cubits is equivalent to about sixty feet. The cubit is “A measure of length [orig., the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger]; usu. eighteen inches” (MED, cubite [n.], sense 1a).

And sey . . . ne syn. These lines detailing the appeal to the mountains and earth echo Luke 23:30: “Then shall they begin to say to the mountains: Fall upon us; and to the hills: Cover us” (see also Apocalypse 6:16). The lines occur in an earlier section of the poem in the ME translation than in the AN poem (lines 1525–28 in the AN poem). See explanatory note to lines 1525–1620, above.

Hevyn and erthe shull byn aleyde. Perhaps an allusion to Apocalypse 21:1: “the first heaven and the first earth was gone.” The MED has noted in the Supplemental Materials section of aleien (v.) that a new sense is to be added based on this line.

unteyede. This is the only quotation attested for MED, unteien (v.), sense 3.

Hevyn and erthe and all hit newe maken. Compare Apocalypse 21:1: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth.”

The fyftenethe day . . . weryn, iwys. These lines correspond to AN lines 1543–46.

shull in body and soule aryse. The line refers to the resurrection of the faithful at the Last Judgment, a core Christian belief. It is of theological importance that both body and soul are resurrected at the Last Judgment, for the doctrine of resurrection “has primary reference to bodies” and “is literally a ‘rising again,’” through “to judgment and transformation,” distinct from reincarnation, immortality, or simple raising of the dead (e.g., Lazarus) (Gooch, “Resurrection,” DBTEL, p. 663).

The angeles . . . ryght syde stonde. These lines correspond to AN lines 1547–52, whereas AN line 1553 (“A ceus dirra nostre Seignur” [To those our Lord will say]) matches ME line 1651 (And sey with mylde stevyn and swete).

But fyftene dayes . . . ryght syde stonde. As the opening two lines indicate (fyftene dayes before the Dome / Fyftene tokyns ther shull come), the passage includes a variant of The Fifteen Signs Before Doomsday (Sajavaara, p. 393n1525–1620), which listed all the terrible events that would take place in the fifteen days leading up to the Last Judgment, or Doomsday. The idea of the fifteen signs was “a popular [theme] both in medieval prose and poetry, which may find its origin on the apocryphal Apocalypse of Thomas” (Olson, “‘Earth and Sky Will Be Ablaze,’” p. 359). Heist discusses in more detail the adaptation in The Castle of Love (Fifteen Signs, pp. 145–49). For more about the Last Judgment, see explanatory note to lines 1522–24, above.

This section of nearly a hundred lines in the ME poem is mostly an interpolated passage that fits between lines 1494 and 1496 in the AN text (line 1495 in the AN does not appear to have a parallel line in the ME). Nevertheless, the AN text includes a similar, much shorter passage (detailing only that fire will purify the world before Jesus comes), which comes slightly later in the poem, beginning “Apres ceo tel signes verrunt, / Par laqueles tute gent murrunt” [After this they will see such signs, / By which everyone will die] (Appendix, lines 1529–30). This passage in the ME poem does include a few lines transposed from that later section of the AN poem: ME lines 1565–68 match AN lines 1525–28; ME lines 1609–14 correspond to AN lines 1543–46; and ME lines 1616–20 align with AN lines 1547–52. Because this portion of the poem survives only in H, it is unknown whether the scribe added the material or whether it was present in the exemplar for H.

Then shall . . . showe to us. The ME translation picks up at line 1496 of the AN poem at this point. See explanatory note to lines 1525–1620, above.

blod and watur. This detail of Jesus’s Crucifixion comes from the Gospel of John (19:34). Blood and water are not mentioned in the earlier passage that details Jesus’s sufferings in the Passion; there, the narrator only explains that me [people] His syde thurlede right to the herte (line 1156). The blood would signify Christ’s redemption of humanity, whereas water could refer to symbolic purification or perhaps baptism. Howes points out that medieval depictions of blood and water in Christ’s Passion “present the intermingling of the two fluids as a passageway to the divine” (Transformative Waters, p. 139); Howes’s chapter 5 of Transformative Waters is useful for its focus on the pairing of blood and water (pp. 137–68; of note is her contextualization of the cultural significance of these fluids in medieval medicine, pp. 142–48). See also explanatory note to line 1434, above.

Then shall . . . from his hert. These lines reiterate Jesus’s sufferings in the Passion. See explanatory note to lines 1145–56, above.

When I was hongry . . . I was seke. Compare Matthew 25:35–36: “For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.”

upreceyveng. This line is the only quotation attested for MED, upreceiveng (ger.), “The receiving of the dead into Heaven at the Last Judgment.

Then shull the blessed . . . laste evermore. These lines explain the division of the saved or blessed (line 1663) and the damned or cursede (line 1665) into heaven and hell, respectively, at the Last Judgment.

Ye, more joy . . . loved Him here. The passage paraphrases 1 Corinthians 2:9: “But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard: neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.” The poem includes somewhat looser and less complete paraphrases at lines 690–92, 1158–60, and 1360–62.

foure. This is the fourth sorrow; the ME lists the same sorrows as in the AN poem but does not number the first three; the AN numbers them as follows: the first is sorrow, the second darkness, the third fear, the fourth inextinguishable fire (Appendix, lines 1606–11).

byttur wormys . . . Neddris, snakys, and taddis. This menagerie is expanded from a single AN verse, “vermine de male plaist” [unpleasant worms (vermin)] (Appendix, line 1615). These slithering creatures can all be associated with the Devil or hell. Worms might refer to vermin or “any creature that slithers, creeps, or crawls” but might also be “any vile creature that torments souls in hell” (MED, worm [n.], senses 2a and 2b, respectively). Snakes in general, and naddres or adders in particular, were associated with the Devil, specifically with the temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden (see Genesis 3:1–5). Toads could represent “a malevolent, loathsome creature of hell, a creature of torment” and “a symbol of the devil” (see MED, tode [n.], sense 1b). See also explanatory note to line 860, above.

systere . . . brother . . . fremed . . . sybbe. The AN poem does not specify that strangers and relatives curse each other, as here, but simply says, “Li un al autre donc dira” [The one to the other then will say] (Appendix, line 1619).

forstyflyd. This line is the only quotation attested for MED, ?forstifled (ppl.). See the textual note to this line for further discussion.

Long is ever, and long is oo. The phrase is idiomatic, meaning “forever is a long time”; see MED, o (adv.), sense 2a, long is ai and long is ~. Compare similar lines from the anonymous lyric “Ubi sount qui ante nos fuerunt?” [Where are those who were before us?]: “Long is ay, and long is ho, / Long is wy, and long is wo” (Furnivall, ed., p. 762, stanza 4). The poem is also known by its first line: “Uuere beþ þey biforen vs weren” (see DIMEV 5215; IMEV/NIMEV 3310).

In gret sorewe . . . shull be ther. The narrator describes at great length the suffering sinners will experience in hell, a description that is slightly expanded from the corresponding section of the AN poem (Appendix, lines 1599–1638).

Pryns of Pes. From Isaias 9:6. The poem explains how Jesus fulfills this role.

Love, swetnesse, and pley, . . . hit neweth fro day to day. “Love, sweetness, and joy . . . begin anew from day to day.” An impersonal construction that cannot be translated literally into Modern English.

The blessed shall hit isyn, / The swete face of his Lorde. An allusion to 1 Corinthians 13:12: “We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face.”

His feyreship. Beauty is emphasized throughout the description of heaven, describing Jesus or God (lines 1757, 1843, 1862), heaven (line 1764), angels (lines 1768, 1769), those who have been saved (lines 1809, 1815), and the Virgin Mary (lines 1826, 1827, 1831,1840). See explanatory note to lines 1747–1862, above, for more discussion of this theme.

all the feyre company / Of angels. The AN poem more specifically mentions “[l]es nuef ordres des angeles” [the nine orders of angels] (Appendix, line 1659). The study of angels was considered scientific in the medieval period, and the “nine orders” mentioned in the AN poem refer to the organization of angels, arranged in “three hierarchies in nine choirs,” according to the Neoplatonic Christian philosopher Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite (also termed Pseudo-Dionysius) (ca. 500 CE), who ranks the angels from highest to lowest as follows: “seraphim, cherubim, thrones, dominations, virtues, powers, principalities, archangels, and angels”; the angels’ purpose was “the transmission of the primal light by degrees to all the receptive parts of creation” (McColley, “Angel,” DBTEL, p. 40).

And thei . . . may be lyft. These lines reflect some of Grosseteste’s ideas about the qualities of the resurrected body, which included clarity (light), agility (swiftness), subtlety (thinness), and impassibility (incorruptibility) (Biernoff, Sight and Embodiment, pp. 37–38). The description of people in heaven being so lyght and swyft more specifically evokes the ideas of clarity and agility. These two lines in the ME text paraphrase four AN lines (Appendix, lines 1671–74), and the translator leaves out a line from the AN poem that refers to subtlety: “tuz si sutils serrunt” [they all will be so insubstantial (lit., subtle)] (Appendix, line 1673).

He that . . . that joy here. Compare Isaias 30:26: “. . . the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days,” although here it is those in heaven who shull shyne seven sythe bryght then heo now is (line 1812). For more on the importance of light in this vision of heaven, see explanatory note to lines 1747–1862, above.

mony wonyngis. The allusion is to John 14:2: “In my Father’s house there are many mansions” (but see 14:1–3 for the broader context). Compare the AN: “taunt de mansions” [so many mansions] (Appendix, line 1703).

And ever beholde . . . in hyenesse. Here, “the joy of meditating on the Virgin is surpassed only by the beatific vision of God himself” (Boulton, p. 89n159).

Jhesu in hevyn . . . thenkyn owght? From this point to the end, the poem details all the joys that those who are saved will experience in heaven after the Last Judgment. The emphasis on joy coincides with a focus on brightness, light, clarity, and beauty.

It is no accident that the description of heaven in The Castle of Love emphasizes brightness, clarity, and light, since light was fundamentally connected to Grosseteste’s understanding of the nature of God and key to his concept of the Trinity (McEvoy, Robert Grosseteste, p. 93). Panti explains that for Grosseteste “light . . . is not at all something to be signified for its intrinsic physical ‘value,’ such as its being form, or energy or species or whatever else it is and does in the natural world, but something which has an intrinsic symbolic value, given that it is the best physical substance to represent God’s essence and action” (“Robert Grosseteste’s Cosmology of Light,” p. 74; italics in original). The vision of heaven in The Castle of Love does not focus solely on light, however, but also emphasizes beauty. Concepts of beauty in the medieval period relied on both proportion and light. Grosseteste’s interest in beauty privileged “the aesthetics of light” over those of proportion (McEvoy, Robert Grosseteste, p. 95). For more on medieval theories of beauty, see Umberto Eco, Art and Beauty in the Middle Ages (trans. Bredin), who includes chapters on “The Aesthetics of Proportion” and “The Aesthetics of Light” (pp. 28–42 and 43–51, respectively). See also explanatory note to line 1757, below.

Of interest in relation to the description of heaven in The Castle of Love is Grosseteste’s Letter 6, where he describes to Richard Marshall, earl of Pembroke, what he imagines heaven will be like (Letters, trans. Mantello and Goering, pp. 71–72; Boulton suggests the connection [p. 88n156]). Grosseteste begins his description of “the heavenly abode” in his letter by explaining that “the most precious thing will be a light combined with no shadows, interrupted by no changes, restricted by no boundaries, and defined by no limits” (Letters, p. 71). Light is also connected to good: “there will be the fullest possible possession of each and every good, as when several eyes look upon every part of the sun without its being divided up for them” (Letters, p. 72). In addition, light is linked to both God and truth: “In heaven our spirits will possess a knowledge of all truth without any ignorance, for in the light that is God we shall see the light of every creature of truth, just as the Psalmist says: In your light we shall see light [Ps 35:10]” (Letters, p. 72; italics and brackets in original).

Visions of heaven and hell, such as appear at the end of The Castle of Love, are common in medieval literature. The early Poema Morale (before 1200), for example, devotes more than half its lines to descriptions of hell and heaven (see Fein’s edition; for date, see ed. and trans. Fein, Poema Morale, p. 344). Although the narrator of Poema Morale is careful to note that he has not been to hell and therefore knows nothing about it firsthand (line 143), the genre encompasses not only descriptions based on imagination but also “an extraordinarily popular literary genre” of works that “purport to describe actual visions of the realm entered by souls after death” (Gardiner, Medieval Visions of Heaven and Hell, p. xv). Although focused on these alleged actual visions, Gardiner’s introduction to Medieval Visions of Heaven and Hell is nevertheless useful for an overview of the development, types, characteristics, and tropes of medieval descriptions of the afterlife, especially given the strong impact of this visionary literature on medieval literature of all kinds. For further analysis of medieval visions of heaven and hell, see Pollard’s edited volume, Imagining the Medieval Afterlife, which contains a useful section on theological views. For additional examination of medieval concepts of heaven, see Emerson and Feiss’s edited collection Imagining Heaven in the Middle Ages.

Of Goddis feyrenes thenkyn owght? The poem’s end here is most likely due to a missing portion of the MS (see the textual note to this line), leaving out the ending that would correspond to the final twelve lines of the AN poem. In the AN poem, these lines explain:

Mes kant glorifié serrum, Dunc apertement verrum Cum il est treis en Trinité E un soul Deu en unité, De ki, par ki, en ki sunt Tutes les joies ke en ciel sunt. Cil Prince de Pes les suens guiera, En joie e en pes tut tens serra. E Deu nus doint par sa merci Nostre vie mener ici E ses comandemenz si tenir Ke a cele pes pussums venir. Amen. (Appendix, lines 1749–61)

But then we are glorified, Then we will see clearly How He is three in Trinity And one single God in unity, Of Whom, by Whom, and in Whom are All the joys that are in heaven. This Prince of Peace will guide His own, In joy and in peace will dwell forever. And may God grant us by His mercy To lead our lives here And so uphold His commandments That we might come into this peace. Amen.

The idea of seeing clearly in line 1750 may allude to 1 Corinthians 13:12, “We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known.” The final lines of the AN poem illustrate the literary convention of ending a devotional work with a prayer. The shortened version of the ME poem that appears in the V and A MSS likewise ends with a prayer, which echoes the lines from the AN poem. In V and A, the lines begin with a fairly close paraphrase of lines 1757–60 of the AN poem and then move to a much looser and incomplete rendition of some of the ideas in lines 1749–56 (for example, in V and A the appended prayer does not mention the theological concept of the Trinity). For a transcription of the final lines in V and A, see the textual note to line 1514 of the ME poem.