THE MYTH OF PIERS PLOWMAN Addressing the history of the production and reception of the great medieval poem, Piers Plowman , Lawrence Warner reveals the many ways in which scholars, editors, and critics over the centuries created their own speculative narratives about the poem, which gradually came to be regarded as factually true. Warner begins by considering the possibility that Langland wrote a romance about a werewolf and bear-suited lovers, and goes on to explore the methods of the poem ’ s localization, and medieval readers ’ particular interest in its Latinity. Warner shows that the “ Protestant Piers ” was a reaction against the poem ’ s oral mode of transmission, reveals the extensive eighteenth-century textual scholarship on the poem by fi gures including the maligned Chaucer editor John Urry, and contextual- izes its fi rst modernization by a literary forger inspired by the 1790 s Shakespeare controversies. This lively account of Piers Plowman challenges the way the poem has traditionally been read and understood. la wren ce warn er is Senior Lecturer in Medieval English at King ’ s College London and Director of the International Piers Plowman Society. His book, The Lost History of Piers Plowman : The Earliest Transmission of Langland ’ s Work ( 2011 ), received Honorable Mention for the 2013 Richard J. Finneran Award of the Society for Textual Scholarship. CAMBRIDGE STUDIES IN MEDIEVAL LITERATURE g e n e r a l e d i t o r Alastair Minnis, Yale University e d i t o r i a l b o a r d Zygmunt G. Bara ń ski, University of Cambridge Christopher C. Baswell, Barnard College and Columbia University John Burrow, University of Bristol Mary Carruthers, New York University Rita Copeland, University of Pennsylvania Roberta Frank, Yale University Simon Gaunt, King ’ s College London Steven Kruger, City University of New York Nigel Palmer, University of Oxford Winthrop Wetherbee, Cornell University Jocelyn Wogan-Browne, Fordham University This series of critical books seeks to cover the whole area of literature written in the major medieval languages – the main European vernaculars, and medieval Latin and Greek – during the period c 1100 – 1500 . Its chief aim is to publish and stimulate fresh scholarship and criticism on medieval literature, special emphasis being placed on understanding major works of poetry, prose, and drama in relation to the contemporary culture and learning which fostered them. r e c e n t t i t l e s i n t h e se r i e s Antony J. Hasler Court Poetry in Late Medieval England and Scotland: Allegories of Authority Shannon Gayk Image, Text, and Religious Reform in Fifteenth-Century England Lisa H. Cooper Artisans and Narrative Craft in Late-Medieval England Alison Cornish Vernacular Translation in Dante ’ s Italy: Illiterate Literature Jane Gilbert Living Death in Medieval French and English Literature Jessica Rosenfeld Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry: Love after Aristotle Michael Van Dussen From England to Bohemia: Heresy and Communication in the Later Middle Ages Martin Eisner Boccaccio and the Invention of Italian Literature: Dante, Petrarch, Cavalcanti, and the Authority of the Vernacular Emily V. Thornbury Becoming a Poet in Anglo-Saxon England A complete list of titles in the series can be found at the end of the volume THE MYTH OF PIERS PLOWMAN Constructing a Medieval Literary Archive LAWRENCE WARNER University Printing House, Cambridge CB 2 8 BS , United Kingdom Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University ’ s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/ 9781107043633 © Lawrence Warner 2014 First published 2014 Printed in the United Kingdom by Clays, St Ives plc A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data Warner, Lawrence, 1968 – The myth of Piers Plowman : constructing a medieval literary archive / Lawrence Warner. pages cm. – (Cambridge studies in medieval literature ; 89 ) isbn 978 - 1 - 107 - 04363 - 3 (Hardback) 1 . Langland, William, 1330 ? – 1400 ? – Criticism and interpretation. 2 . Langland, William, 1330 ? – 1400 ? – Authorship. 3 . Langland, William, 1330 ? – 1400 ? Piers Plowman – Criticism, Textual. I. Title. pr2015 w37 2014 821 0 1 – dc 23 2013033226 isbn 978 - 1 - 107 - 04363 - 3 Hardback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. This version is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives licence. This licence allows the content to be redistributed, as commercial or non-commercial products, as long as it is unchanged and the entire content, and attribution credited to the original. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/ 3. 0 /. For my father, Seth L. Warner, and in memory of my mother, Emily Rose Warner Contents List of fi gures page viii Acknowledgments x List of abbreviations xiii A note on citations xiv Introduction: archive fever and the madness of Joseph Ritson 1 1 William and the werewolf: the problem of William of Palerne 22 2 Localizing Piers Plowman C: Meed, Corfe castle, and the London Riot of 1384 37 3 Latinitas et communitas Visionis Willielmi de Langlond 53 4 “ Quod piers plowman ” : non-reformist prophecy, c 1520 – 1555 72 5 Urry, Burrell, and the pains of John Taylor: the Spelman MS, 1709 – 1766 87 6 William Dupré, fabricateur: Piers Plowman in the age of forgery, c 1794 – 1802 106 Conclusion: Leland ’ s madness and the tale of Piers Plowman 129 Notes 141 Bibliography 187 Index of manuscripts, early printed books, annotated books, and portraits 209 General index 213 vii Figures 1 Ritson ’ s list of di ffi cult words and “ memorable particulars. ” Lehigh University Library 821 1 L 265 p 1550 [Endmatter 4 ]. Special Collections, Lehigh University Libraries, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA. 10 2 Ritson ’ s transcription of Harley 3954 ’ s fi nal lines. Lehigh University Library 821 1 L 265 p 1550 [Endmatter 6 ]. Special Collections, Lehigh University Libraries, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA. 11 3 Lines of transmission of the two C-text MS families. 41 4 Latin lines following on from the MS ’ s Piers Plowman Oxford, Bodleian MS Ashmole 1468 , p. 378 55 5 Latin lines from Piers Plowman transcribed in a Crowley. New Haven, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, ID L 26 550 c, sig. 4 v 70 6 “ Two monks ’ heads ” prophecy in The Winchester Anthology London, British Library, Additional MS 60577 , fol. 212 r © The British Library Board, ADD 60577 f 212 r. 73 7 Ownership inscription in The Winchester Anthology . London, British Library, Additional MS 60577 , end pastedown. © The British Library Board, ADD 60577 (back inside). 76 8 Another “ Davy the dykar ” poem. London, British Library, MS Sloane 2578 , fol. 27 r . © The British Library Board, Sloane 2578 f 27 r. 80 9 Ownership inscriptions at the opening of Piers Plowman . San Marino, Huntington Library, MS Hm 114 , fol. 1 r . This item is reproduced by permission of The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. 89 10 Urry ’ s reference to the Spelman MS in his transcription of Crowley ’ s preface. Oxford, Balliol College 525 .a. 1 , verso of title page. 90 viii 11 Urry ’ s comparison of Piers Plowman to Homer. Oxford, Balliol College 525 .a. 1 , sig. B.ii v 90 12 Burrell ’ s collations of Cr with the Spelman and Harley MSS. Oxford, Bodleian Library 4 Rawlinson 272 , sig. I.iv r 95 13 Burrell ’ s transcription of C 5 1 – 27 (omitting 21 ) from the Spelman MS. Oxford, Bodleian Library 4 Rawlinson 272 , fl yleaf after sig. E.iv v 97 14 Vertue ’ s engraving, taken from the Chandos portrait. London, National Portrait Gallery, NPG D 25488 . © National Portrait Gallery, London. 108 15 From Dupré ’ s modernization of Piers Plowman . Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Douce 323 , fol. i v 122 16 Douce ’ s notes on Dupré and the pilgrim. Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Douce 104 , opening at fols. 33 a v – 33 b r 126 ix List of fi gures ix Acknowledgments I begin by acknowledging three scholars I have met or corresponded with only in passing, but who in e ff ect created the fi eld to which this book contributes, and who, if I might wear my hat as Director of the Inter- national Piers Plowman Society for a moment, deserve the deepest grati- tude of the Langland community: John Alford, Vincent DiMarco, and Charlotte Brewer. The smallest of their contributions to this book were Professor Alford ’ s invitation for me to be respondent to the Piers Plowman Electronic Archive panel at the 1999 Asheville Langland conference, which changed my life; Professor DiMarco ’ s characteristically cheerful help regarding a small bibliographical problem; and Dr. Brewer ’ s generous responses to queries about, and provision of copies of, the editorial work on the poem in London in the 1920 s. Among those who responded to portions of this book in draft form, I am especially grateful to Emily Steiner, who read all of it just as she was completing Reading Piers Plowman . That is true dedication, and her deep knowledge of the poem, and ear for tone the equal of Brian Wilson ’ s, helped me improve it greatly. Others who provided generous feedback on portions of this book are A. S. G. Edwards, David Matthews, R. Carter Hailey (scholar and gentleman, who in many ways inspired me to undertake the second half of this book), and Simon Horobin, who also provided hospitality at Magdalen College and the University of Oxford, and urged me to continue looking into the identity of “ Mr. Dupré ” even after he had independently made his own initial inquiries. Over the years I have presented much of this material at conferences and seminars, and would like to acknowledge in particular, for their rigorous feedback and conversation, the audiences of the Piers Plowman Electronic Archive Seminar, Los Angeles, 2009 ; the London Old and Middle English Research Seminar, March 2011 (thanks to Ruth Kennedy and Cath Nall); and the Fifth International Piers Plowman Society conference, Oxford, April 2011 x For helping me fi gure out who all the people who populate this book were, and what they were writing, annotating, printing, and doing, thanks to a pleasingly diverse body of scholars: Michael J. Bennett, Tekla Bude, Megan Cook, Rebecca Davis, John H. Farrant, Alexandra Gillespie, Michael Johnston, Eileen Joy, Sarah Kelen, Paul Patterson, Tom Prender- gast, Macklin Smith, and Neil Vickers. Let me single out Ian Cornelius, who consulted all the Crowley and Rogers copies at Harvard and Yale on my behalf, and alerted me to Latin interests of one owner. And, again, Andrew Cole and Fiona Somerset have been the truest and best of Lang- land friends, both as co-editors of YLS and as wicked smart advisors and founts of learning. I am happy to record my thanks to the archivists and librarians who provided access to, images of, and advice about the many manuscripts and early printed books that feature here, in particular the sta ff s of: Balliol College Library, Oxford, especially Jeremy Hinchli ff and Seamus Perry; the Beinecke Library of Yale University; the Bodleian Library, Oxford; the British Library, especially Bevan Blanchard and Giles Mandelbrote; the Huntington Library, San Marino, especially Mary Robertson; Lehigh University Library, Pennsylvania, especially Lois Black and Ilhan Citak; and the National Portrait Gallery, London, especially Matthew Bailey; all of whom kindly granted permission to reproduce materials from their collections. I also quote from or refer to materials from other libraries: thanks to Magill Library, Haverford College, Pennsylvania, especially Ann Upton; the University of Michigan Library, especially Peggy Daub and Sarah Rentz; and the State Library of Victoria, Melbourne, especially Jan McDonald. Two owners of Crowley editions, Professor Toshi Takamiya and the collector who now owns the copy inscribed by Alexander Pope and Thomas Warton, were generous in sharing information. The University of Sydney Faculty of Arts and Department of English provided research support and study leave in 2011 , during which much of this book came together. I am especially grateful to Will Christie and Paul Giles, and, for advice and friendship, to all my colleagues there and across Australia, especially Dan Anlezark, Geraldine Barnes, Mark Byron, Margaret Clunies Ross, Louise D ’ Arcens, Stephanie Downes, Huw Gri ffi ths, Nick Riemer, the force of life called Stephanie Trigg, and Andrea Williams. I acknowledge the Menzies Centre for Australian Studies for awarding me an Australian Bicentennial Fellowship, which I spent at the English Department at King ’ s College London, spring 2011 . Clare Lees, not for the fi rst time, was a wonderfully supportive mentor at King ’ s; she joined Chair of Department Jo McDonagh, Sarah Salih, and Beatrice Acknowledgments xi Wilford in making me feel most welcome – so welcome that I returned permanently in 2013 . I acknowledge the Department of English and the School of Arts and Humanities of King ’ s for providing support of the production costs of this book. Among my new London colleagues I would like to thank Isabel Davis and Alfred Hiatt in particular for their friendship. Linda Bree, Anna Bond, Fiona Sewell, and Vania Cunha have been exemplary editors at Cambridge University Press, where, happily, my distant cousin and close friend Lynn Hieatt worked so long and well. I am also grateful to series general editor Alistair Minnis and to the two anonymous readers whose trenchant feedback was very helpful. A portion of the Introduction originally appeared in The La Trobe Journal , published by the State Library of Victoria Foundation; I am grateful to its editor John Arnold. Chapters 1 and 4 are heavily revised versions of essays originally published in Viator and The Yearbook of Langland Studies . Thanks to Simon Forde and Guy Carney of Brepols; Andy Kelly and Blair Sullivan of the UCLA Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies; and the anonymous readers of those earlier chapters (two of whom, John M. Bowers on Langland and William of Palerne and R. Carter Hailey on the sixteenth-century Piers Plowman , identi fi ed them- selves). Much of the Conclusion was published in The Chaucer Review 48 1 ( 2013 ): 113 – 28 ; I am grateful to the Pennsylvania State University Press for permission to reproduce it here. Janice Marjoribanks and the late Kevin Marjoribanks have been unstint- ingly supportive. I am in awe of Jan ’ s willingness to go along for the ride. My beautiful wife Genevieve and delightful children Sebastian and Eloise: I will always think of this as our London book, which we all lived together, and laughed about, from our Islington headquarters, waiting for a taxi to take us to the London Eye and to the rest of the world. (Sebastian, there are plenty of candidates in here for you to dress up as next Book Day. I ’ d go with the werewolf.) I love you forever. Finally, my deepest thanks go to my parents, Seth L Warner and the late Emily Rose Warner, for the enduring example, love, and support they have always provided. One of my cherished possessions is the copy of the hardback Riverside Chaucer they gave me to commemorate Kalamazoo, 1990 : an early sign that they would not mind seeing where this obsession with Middle English might take me. This book, which I dedicate to them, is a small way to repay them for everything. xii Acknowledgments Abbreviations BL British Library BP Joseph Ritson ’ s Bibliographia Poetica Cr 1 , Cr 2 , Cr 3 Robert Crowley ’ s fi rst, second, and third editions of The Vision of Pierce Plowman CUL Cambridge University Library EETS Early English Text Society ELH English Literary History JEGP Journal of English and Germanic Philology MÆ Medium Ævum MP Modern Philology N&Q Notes & Queries ODNB Oxford Dictionary of National Biography PMLA Publications of the Modern Language Association of America PPEA Piers Plowman Electronic Archive RES Review of English Studies YLS Yearbook of Langland Studies xiii A note on citations In citing Middle English and Latin, I standardize i/j and u/v and some- times silently depart from editorial punctuation. For sixteenth-century texts, I alter “ ye ” (i.e., thorn and e) to “ the ” silently, but for eighteenth- century texts I leave it as is. Quotations from editions of Piers Plowman are presented in what seems most likely to be its poet ’ s language: those from C are from George Russell and George Kane, eds., Piers Plowman: The C Version (London: Athlone Press, 1997 ); those from A and B adopt the substantive readings and follow the line numbering of George Kane, ed., Piers Plowman: The A Version , rev. edn. (London: Athlone Press, 1988 ), and George Kane and E. Talbot Donaldson, eds., Piers Plowman: The B Version , rev. edn. (London: Athlone Press, 1988 ), but present the language in the form of the text of the C edition. I do not reproduce editorial brackets. See my discussion in The Lost History of Piers Plowman: The Earliest Transmission of Langland ’ s Work (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011 ), xv – xvii. xiv Introduction: archive fever and the madness of Joseph Ritson “ We will always wonder what, in this mal d ’ archive , he may have burned ” : thus, in remarking on the e ff ects of Freud ’ s “ archive fever, ” does Jacques Derrida speak to the dilemma inherent in literary scholars ’ relationship with the concept of the archive. Freud was “ burning with the desire to know, to make known, and to archive the very thing he concealed forever ” : the archive is both the repository of those remnants of the past from which history can be written and an indelible reminder, precisely on account of its selectivity, of how much must be excluded, burned, if it is to exist at all. 1 Derrida points out that “ the meaning of ‘ archive, ’ its only meaning, comes to it from the Greek arkheion : initially a house, a domicile, an address, the residence of the superior magistrates, the archons , those who commanded, ” but that home is not open to all: “ The archons are fi rst of all the documents ’ guardians. They do not only ensure the physical security of what is deposited and of the substrate. They are also accorded the her- meneutic right and competence. ” 2 A pertinent question for modern literary scholars, says David Greetham, is whom we are to recognize as those Derrida calls the archons 3 Its pertinence derives in large part from the fact that the work of these guardians is the foundation for any concept of the author, on which so much literary research is still based. Michel Foucault famously pushed the question to the limit by imagining a limitless authorial archive: “ But what if, in a notebook fi lled with aphorisms, we fi nd a reference, a reminder of an appointment, an address, or a laundry bill, should this be included in his works? Why not? These practical considerations are endless once we consider how a work can be extracted from the millions of traces left by an individual after his death. ” 4 Foucault ’ s questions are intended to bring about recognition of just how fragile are the concepts at the heart of literary study. “ The Author ” and “ the Work ” are arbitrary fi gments, not securely identi fi able entities. And so they are. But if the exclusionary practices of the archive are the basis for such assertions, Middle English 1 scholars, at least, have more pressing worries. 5 Would that we had the laundry bills of William Langland, the address book of Margery Kempe! The Chaucer Life-Records volume is a substantial exception to the absence and loss that are our era ’ s most striking characteristics, yet it hardly leads anyone to fret over whether Troilus and Criseyde is a work, or Chaucer its author. 6 Medievalists tend to see themselves as guardians only, protecting from any further destruction what has survived the assaults of fi re, neglect, Cromwell, and so many other powerful forces. Yet this sense allows for a much more fi ne-tuned assessment of the forces behind the creation and maintenance of the literary archive at large, whether or not those forces entail the death drive and the pleasure principle, than do the archives of more modern eras. For Derrida ’ s diag- nosis of the “ trouble ” of the archive remains partial in its very gesture toward comprehensiveness: it is, he says, “ the trouble of secrets, of plots, of clandestineness, of half-private, half-public conjurations, always at the unstable limit between public and private, between the family, the society, and the State, between the family and an intimacy even more private than the family, between oneself and oneself. ” 7 This whole list might well ring true for students of modern, especially modernist, literatures. Scholars of Joyce ’ s life and works are always coming up against some powerful combination of these forces. Yet most medievalists would encounter only the fi nal item in this catalogue, by far the most important: those secrets at the unstable limit between oneself and oneself. This is the case because for the most part the medieval literary archive is relatively transparent and well de fi ned. A working de fi nition of the Langland archive as generally accepted, the focus of this book, would be the collection of the fi fty-plus extant manuscripts of Piers Plowman ; the history of the poem ’ s reception and criticism; and those more abstract beliefs that have attained the privileged status as near facts, external guarantees, as it were, of other interpretations, such as statements regarding the authorship, localization, and political valence of Piers Plowman . Once in a while, to be sure, the other forces Derrida identi fi es do come to the fore. An important early manuscript, formerly owned by the duke of Westminster, for instance, is now in anonymous private hands, and has been on deposit at the Univer- sity of York (Borthwick Institute for Archives, Additional MS 196 ) – but only on the strictest of conditions. This situation pushes the unstable limit of public and private to the breaking point. Yet the relative absence of such dramas from Langlandians ’ engagement with the medieval literary archive to date o ff ers them no promise of exemp- tion from the questions Derrida and others have raised, or modernists 2 The Myth of Piers Plowman exemption from considering the challenges of the medieval archive. For as The Myth of Piers Plowman will argue, this seeming tranquillity highlights our own role as the archive ’ s archons , those guardians of knowledge whose interpretations create rather than emanate from a study of the archive. Derrida himself recognizes, if at one remove, that it is in the modern confrontation with the distant past that the mal d ’ archive presents itself most acutely. His fi nal case study is a novel, Jensen ’ s Gradiva , contemporary with Freud, one indeed that fascinated him, but whose protagonist, Hanold, is an archivist trying to bring the ancient past to life via his occupation as classical archaeologist. Hanold, writes Derrida, dreams of “ reliving the singular pressure or impression which Gradiva ’ s step [ pas ], the step itself, the step of Gradiva herself, that very day, at that time, on that date, in what was inimitable about it, must have left in the ashes. ” In Derrida ’ s account, the dream turns out to be bibliographical in nature: He dreams this irreplaceable place, the very ash, where the singular imprint, like a signature, barely distinguishes itself from the impression. And this is the condition of singularity, the idiom, the secret, testimony. It is the condition for the uniqueness of the printer-printed, of the impression and the imprint, of the pressure and its trace in the unique instant where they are not yet distinguished the one from the other, forming in an instant a single body of Gradiva ’ s step, of her gait, of her pace ( Gangart ), and of the ground which carries them. 8 It does not take much of a stretch to see that Piers Plowman , too, fi ts this description, perhaps even more interestingly than Jensen ’ s novel does. Derrida obsesses over the pas ; Langland, over his poem ’ s passus , the same term, here denoting the “ steps ” that the dreamer, or the reader, takes en route to the conclusion. Hanold ’ s Gravida is Will ’ s St. Truth or Con- science ’ s Piers the Plowman, an elusive fi gure who leaves behind traces, impressions, footsteps. And as Emily Steiner has argued, “ Piers Plowman reveals the conditions of God ’ s contract with humanity as the unpacking or unfolding of an archive of redeeming texts ” : Meed ’ s charter, Truth ’ s pardon, Moses ’ s maundemaunt, and so forth. 9 The need for a contract between God and humanity, which is the need for Piers Plowman in its author ’ s mind, arises from the division of unity into plurality. This is what instills in Hanold and Will, and in their readers, the desire for that moment, that unique instant , in which the separation has not yet occurred. The fall generates the work in the fi rst place. The dilemma is replicated in more secular form in literary studies, especially of the pre-print era. Dozens of medieval manuscripts of Piers Introduction 3 Plowman survive, but they almost never provide the basis of literary studies of the poem. Critics instead opt for editions, reproducing them down to the letter, out of a desire, it would seem, to recreate that instant before the author ’ s words were distinguished from their representation by later scribes. More transparently with Middle English literature than anything later, the process of literary interpretation is the archaeological enterprise Derrida and Foucault, the latter in The Archaeology of Knowledge , pronounce it to be. Indeed, given its extraordinarily complicated textual history, Piers Plowman has a fair claim to be the work that most intensively puts the status of the archive to the test. What is the relationship between the texts attested in the surviving manuscripts and the author ’ s original? How many authors were there? How did original audiences respond to early forms of the poem, and how did the poet in turn revise the work? It would be di ffi cult to imagine any interpretative approach to Piers Plowman that is not somehow implicated, often quite deeply, in certain answers to these questions. And given the poem ’ s historical importance in its day, whether in the Rising of 1381 , its in fl uence on Chaucer, or engagement by the Lollards, certain interpretations of the Langland arch- ive underpin a substantial amount of scholarship into late medieval English culture, religion, and politics. When Derrida indulges in one of those lists intended to encompass everything – “ the trouble of secrets, of plots, of clandestineness, of half- private, half-public conjurations, always at the unstable limit between public and private, between the family, the society, and the State, between the family and an intimacy even more private than the family, between oneself and oneself ” – the “ work ” itself, say, Freud ’ s Delusion and Dream in Jensen ’ s Gradiva, is merely one of the constitutive items of that archive, rather than the contested product of its interpretation. The constitution of the Langland archive, then, is no less fraught and contested, and no less subject to the powers of the archons , than is, say, the Freud or Joyce archive. Major di ff erences lie in the facts that where the moderns might anguish over whether Joyce ’ s laundry bills would undermine Ulysses ’ s status as a “ work, ” medievalists almost never have access to any authorial document; and that the archons , who determine the de fi nition and users of the archive, are for Langlandians identical to those doing the inter- preting: there is no unstable limit to speak of between the public and private, between the individual researcher and the State or the estate. The most powerful archons of the Langland archive have been its editors, whose interpretation of the textual evidence as attesting three (or four) versions of Piers Plowman , A, B, and C (and possibly Z), all 4 The Myth of Piers Plowman