Wallace, David, ed. The Cambridge History of Medieval Eng-
lish Literature. Cambridge: University Press, 1999.
Candace Gregory-Abbott
CLEANNESS (PURITY) ANONYMOUS (14th
century) Preserved in MS Cotton Nero A.x in the
British Library, Cleanness survives along with three other
poems (PEARL, Patience, and SIR GAWAIN AND THE GREEN
KNIGHT) assumed to be written by the same poet. It is
part of the ALLITERATIVE REVIVAL. While the GAWAIN-POET’s
other poems follow strict stanzaic structures, Cleanness
is different. It is not divided into evident STANZAs
(although many editors have done this for clarity), nor
does the narration follow a very clear organization.
The poem’s homiletic style is clear to all its readers,
however. Cleanness consists mainly of exempla (see
EXEMPLUM), a series of retold biblical stories that, for
the most part, illustrate unclean or sinful behavior.
There are three major exempla that illustrate God’s
vengeance on sinners: Noah’s fl ood, the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah, and Belshazzar’s feast. These
are surrounded by shorter ones, such as the fall of
Lucifer and the biblical story of Lot. The exempla are
set up chronologically, demonstrating the scope of
human sins and God’s response to them. The poet
leads his readers through these stories as moral guide,
teaching about God’s abhorrence of uncleanness and
the virtues of “purity” (another title given to this poem).
Ultimately, the exempla are simply retellings of the
biblical stories; however, in the poet’s masterful hands
they are given shape and emotion absent from their
original form and read as if they are original stories,
detailed and emotional. They serve their purpose as
warnings against sin but also hold the reader’s genuine
interest in the process.
Cleanness opens with an introductory section prais-
ing “clannesse” as a virtue. This state of purity leads to
God’s greatest rewards: “If thay in clannes be clos, thay
cleche gret mede” (l. 12). The introductory section
closes with the parable of the Wedding Feast (Matthew
22:1–14), in which a noble man fi nally fi lls the feast
hall but then expels a man dressed in rags for not
showing proper respect. Similarly, humans garb them-
selves in sin instead of purity and cleanness, but they
still try to enter the kingdom of heaven. This analogy
of the kingdom of heaven to an earthly court is one
that the poet also draws on in Pearl.
Next, the fi rst exemplum, the fall of Lucifer, is intro-
duced. This is followed by another short one, the fall of
Adam. These two set up the fi rst major story of sin and
God’s retribution, Noah’s fl ood, showing God’s ven-
geance in chronological order. The exemplum of the
fl ood follows these fi rst two to give context to God’s
rage at the world and the sins within it. The poet pro-
vides a vivid description of the sinful behavior that
prompts God’s actions, citing the people’s reveling in
“fi lth of the fl esh,” describing how they evily worked
contrary to nature to slake their fi lthy, unnatural lusts.
Moreover, devils consorted with them, spurring the
people to greater acts of depravity (ll. 265–272). The
uncleanness is clearly sexual—immoral acts against
nature and devils coupling with human women.
God’s fl ood will exterminate humanity, except for
the good Noah and his family. The end of this fi rst
major section shows God telling Noah he will not enact
the same kind of sweeping vengeance again and the
poet reminding the audience that no one is without
sin, which should be washed away and cleansed.
Two minor exempla also precede the second major
one. First is the Old Testament story of God’s visit to
Abraham and Sarah, which results in the conception of
Isaac. This is followed by the second short exemplum,
the story of Lot and his disobedient wife, which is
interspersed with the section’s major exemplum, that
of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.
The poet describes the sexual sinfulness that perme-
ates through the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, result-
ing in God’s decision to destroy them. Some critics have
argued that the episode speaks to sexual uncleanness
generally, but the passages seem to imply that only
homosexual activity is unclean. The poet explains the
horrors of Sodom where men couple in “female fash-
ion:” “Uch male mas his mach a man as hymselven, /
And fylter folyly in fere on femmales wyse” [tangle sin-
fully in fear of feminine ways] (ll. 695–696). This is
contrary to God’s own plan (the poet continues), of
mutual heterosexual love as a kind of paradise (ll. 703–
705). Most surprisingly, the poet continues by saying
that this need not be limited to the state of marriage in
order to be pure; however, this position underscoresCLEANNESS 119