2 Jeanroy, op. cit., tom. i, p. 91 n.
See Fauriel, Histoire de la Poésie provençale, 1846; E. Gorra, Origini etc. della Poesia Amorosa di Provenza (Rendiconti del Istituto Lombardo, &c. II, xliii. 14, xlv. 3), 1910–12; Jeanroy, La Poésie lyrique des Troubadours, 1934.
Jeanroy, op. cit., tom. i, p. 91 n.
Wechssler, Das Kulturproblem des Minnesangs, 1909, Bnd. I, p. 177.
Jeanroy, op. cit., tom. ii, pp. 109–13.
Ibid., p. 97.
Euripides, Medea, 630; Hippolytus, 529.
Aristotle, Ethics, 1162 A. είη λ’ άν καί λι’ άρετήν.
Ars Amatoria, ii. 223:
Iussus adesse foro, iussa maturius hora
Fac semper venias, nec nisi serus abi.
Occurras aliquo, tibi dixerit; omnia differ,
Curre, nec inceptum turba moretur iter.
Nocte domum repetens epulis perfuncta redibit—
Tunc quoque pro servo, si vocat illa, veni.
Rure eris et dicet, Venias: Amor odit inertes!
Si rota defuerit, tu pede carpe viam,
Nec grave te tempus sitiensve Canicula tardet,
Nec via per iactas candida facta nives.
Militiae species Amor est: discedite segnes!
Non sunt haec timidis signa tuenda viris.
Ars Amatoria, i. 403, et seq.; cf. 417 et seq.
In all questions of literary origin and influence the principle quidquid recipitur recipitur ad modum recipientis must be constantly remembered. I have endeavoured to point out above that ‘Ovid misunderstood’ explains nothing till we have accounted for a consistent misunderstanding in a particular direction. For the same reason I have said nothing of Aeneid IV, and other places in ancient poetry, which are sometimes mentioned in discussions of Courtly Love. The story of Dido provides much material that can be used, and was used, in courtly love poetry, after Courtly Love has come into existence: but till then, it will be read for what it is—a tragic and exemplary story of ancient love. To think otherwise is as if we should call classical tragedy the cause of the Romantic Movement because Browning and Swinburne, after Romantic poetry has arisen, can use classical tragedy for romantic purposes.
See Jeanroy in the Histoire de la langue et de la littérature française, 1896, tom. i, p. 372 n.; also Wechssler, op. cit., Bnd. I, cap. xviii.
Germania, viii. 2.
Chanson de Roland, 3705 et seq.
Ibid. 1054.
By W. Schrötter, Ovid und die Troubadours, 1908: severely reviewed in Romania, xxxviii.
Radulfus Cadomensis Gesta Tancredi, 61, ne verum taceam minus bellicosi; also the proverb Franci ad bella, Provinciales ad victualia. (Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Acad. des Inscriptions, tom. iii, p. 651.)
Jeanroy, op. cit., tom. i, pp. 83 et seq.
Fauriel, op. cit., tom. i, pp. 515 et seq.
‘Vernon Lee’, Euphorion, vol. ii, pp. 136 et seq.
See Fauriel, op. cit., tom. i, pp. 497 et seq. Cf. the wooing scene in Chrétien’s Erec quoted below.
Gregory to Augustine apud Bede, Eccles. Hist. I, xxvii (p. 57 in Plumer’s ed.). The authenticity of this letter has been questioned; but my argument does not depend on it.
Hugo of St. Victor, Sententiarum Summa, Tract. VII, cap. 2. (The traditional attribution of this work need not, for our purpose, be questioned.)
Ibid. cap. 1.
Ibid. cap. 3.
Pet Lomb. Sententiarum, IV, Dist xxxi, Quod non omnis.
Ibid., De excusatione coitus. For the real identity of Sextus (or Xystus) Pithagoricus, see Ueberweg, Hist. of Philosophy, vol. i, p. 222: Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. Sixtus II, &c.
Alb. Magnus In Pet. Lomb. Sentent. iv, Dist. xxvi, Art 7.
Alb. Magnus In Pet. Lomb. Sentent. iv. Dist. xxvi, Art 9, Responsio.
Ibid., Art II.
Contra Gentiles, iii. 123, 124.
Sum. Theol. Prima Pars Quaest. xcviii, Art 2.
Contra Gentiles, iii. 125. (The beasts come in 123.)
Sum. Theol. Prima Secundae, xxxiv, Art. I. The foregoing account confines itself to medieval authorities: a full explanation of the scholastic view would of course begin with its Dominical, Pauline, Augustinian, and Aristotelian sources.
Cant. Tales, B 4535.
Zeitscbrift für deutsches Altertbum, vii, pp. 150 et seq., lines 24–32:
Intromissis omnibus Virginum agminibus
Lecta sunt in medium Quasi evangelium
Precepta Ovidii Doctoris egregii.
Lectrix tam propitii Fuit evangelii
Eva de Danubrio Potens in officio
Artis amatoriae (Ut affirmant aliae)
Convocavit singulas Magnas atque parvulas.
Cantus modulamina Et amoris carmina
Cantaverunt pariter.
Ibid., lines 51 et seq.:
Amor deus omnium Quotquot sunt amantium
Me misit vos visere Et vitam inquirere.
Ibid., vii, pp. 160, 166, lines 216 et seq.:
Maneat Confusio, Terror et Constricio,
Labor, Infelicitas, Dolor et Anxietas,
Timor et Tristitia, Bellum et Discordia, . . .
Omnibus horribiles Et abhominabiles
Semper sitis clericis Que favetis laicis.
Nemo vobis etiam, Ave dicat obviam
(Ad confirmacionem Omnes dicimus Amen!)
For a discussion of its possible connexions with the mystical theology of St. Bernard, see E. Gilson, La Théologie Mystique de St. Bernard (Paris 1934), Appendix IV.
G. Paris, Le Conte de la Charette (Romania, xii). On the degree to which the new sentiment appears in the Romances of Eneas and Troie, and the influence which these works may have had on Chrétien, see Gustave Cohen, Chrétien de Troyes et son æuvre, 1931, pp. 38–73 et passim.
Yvain, 17 and 5394. The unrivalled position of Arthur’s court as the home of courtesy becomes so fixed in later romantic tradition that it is acknowledged to have surpassed that of Charlemagne even by the partisans of the ‘matter of France’. Cf. Boiardo, Orlando Innamorato, II. xviii, stanzas 1 and 2: ‘Fu gloriosa Bretagna la grande Una stagion’ . . . ‘Re Carlo in Franza poi tenne gran corte, Ma a quella prima non fu somigliante . . . Perche tenne ad amor chiuse le porte E sol si dette a le battaglie sante, Non fu di quel valore o quella stima Qual fu quell’altra.’
Cligés, 3145–154, 5259–62. (But Foerster treats the second passage as an interpolation.)
Lancelot, 26: Matiere et san l’an done et livre La contesse. v. G. Paris, op. cit., p. 523: also, the admirable tenth chapter of Vinaver’s Tristan et Iseut dans l’æuvre de Malory, 1925.
Yvain, 1497: ‘Don fust si granz biautez venue? Ja la fist Deus de sa main nue.’
For the probable chronology, see Cohen, op. cit., p. 87.
Erec, 450–665.
A soliloquy is overheard in Chrétien, but it is the resulting conversation which matters (Erec, 2515–83).
Erec, 3095–102.
Cligés, 2, 3.
Lancelot, 1919 et seq.
Lancelot, 364 et seq.
Ibid. 2620 et seq.
Ibid. 3975–89:
‘Sire, voir, mal l’a anploiié—
Ja par moi ne fera noiié
Que je ne l’an fai point de gre.’
Ez vos Lancelot trespansé,
Si li respont mout humblemant
A maniere de fin amant:
‘Dame, certes, ce poise moi,
Ne je n’os demander par quoi.’
Lanceloz mout se demantast
Se la rëine l’ecoutast;
Mes par lui grever et confondre
Ne li viaut un seul mot respondre,
Ainz est an une chanbre antree;
E Lanceloz jusqu’a l’antree
Des iauz et del cuer la convoie’.
Lancelot, 5641 et seq.
Ibid. 4670–1 (‘Car an nul cors saint ne croit tant’) and 4734 et seq.
Ibid. 1852 et seq.
But cf. the admirable conversation between Amata and Lavinia quoted from the Eneas by Cohen, op. cit., pp. 44 et seq.
Ibid. 369–81.
Lancelot, 2844–61.
Yvain, 6001 et seq.
Ibid., 2639 et seq. The Provençal parallels are mentioned by J. Morawski, Romania, liii, p. 187 n.
Cligés, 5855 et passim.
Ibid. 460, 770.
Cligés, 682, 941.
Yvain, 1444.
Cligés, 3865; Yvain, 16.
Ed. Trojel (Hauniae, 1892). For chronology v. G. Paris, op. cit.
The distinction made in De Arte Honeste Amandi, i. 69 (Trojel’s edition, p. 182) between purus amor and mixtus, leaves purus amor far from Platonic. Besides, the Lady rejects it as absurd (ibid., p. 184).
Ibid. i. 5 (p. 12 in Trojel’s edition).
De Arte Honeste Amandi, i. 5 (p. 13).
Ibid. i. 4 ‘amor reddit hominem castitatis quasi virtute decoratum’ (p. 10).
De Arte Honeste Amandi, ii. I (p. 241).
Ibid. i. 6 A (p. 28).
Ibid. i. 6 D (p. 81).
Ibid. i. 6 G (p. 181).
Ibid. i. II (p. 236). Cf. the very close parallel in Malory, iii. 3: ‘she told the King and Merlin that when she was a maid and went to milk kine, there met with her a stern knight, and half by force, etc.’
Ibid. ii. 7 (pp. 271–3).
Ibid. ii. 7 (p. 279).
De Arte Honeste Amandi, i. 6 c (p. 65).
Ibid. i. 6F (p. 153).
Ibid., pp. 141 et seq.
Even where a love affair, conducted hitherto on the courtly model, ends in marriage, later medieval feeling regards this as completely reversing the previous relations of the lovers; cf. Amadis of Gaul (Southey’s translation 1872, vol. iii, pp. 258, 259, bk. iv, c. 29). ‘O lady, with what services can I requite you, that by your consent our loves are now made known? Oriana answered, It is now, Sir, no longer time that you should proffer such courtesies, or that I should receive them. I am now to follow and observe your will with that obedience which wife owes to husband.’
Cf. Chaucer, Compleynt of Mars, 41: ‘She brydeleth him in her manere With nothing but with scourging of her chere’.
De Arte Honeste Amandi, p. 142.
De Arte Honeste Amandi, i. 6 E (p. 123).
Ibid. i. 6 D2, pp. 91–108. The parallels are collected by W. Neilson in Romania, xxix: he regards that found in the Lai du Trot as slightly earlier than Andreas’s version.
Ibid. i. 6 D2, p. 105: ‘Nostra tibi sunt concessa videre magnalia ut per te nostra valeat ignorantibus revelari et ut tua praesens visio sit multarum dominarum salutis occasio.’
Ibid. ii. 8 (pp. 295–312).
De Arte Honeste Amandi, i. 4 (p. 9).
Ibid. i. 8 (p. 222).
Ibid. i. 7 (p. 221), i. 6 G (pp. 186–8). He interprets the passage from the Gospel as meaning ‘Credendum est dictis clericorum quasi legatorum Dei, sed quia carnis tentationi sicut homines ceteri supponuntur, eorum non inspiciatis opera si eos contigerit aliquo deviare’.
Ibid. i. 2 (p. 7) ‘Quidquid natura negat amor erubescit amplecti.’ Also ii. 7, Jud. 7 (p. 279).
Ibid. i. 6 C (p. 68).
Ibid. i. 6 G (p. 162): ‘Credo tamen in amore Deum graviter offendi non posse; nam quod natura cogente perficitur facili potest expiatione mundari’. And p. 164.
Ibid., p. 159.
De Arte Honeste Amandi, i. 6 F (p. 147).
Ibid. i. 6 G (p. 161 et seq.): ‘Nec obstare potest quod Deum in amore narratis offendi, quia cunctis liquido constare videtur quod Deo servire summum bonum ac peculiare censetur; sed qui Domino contendunt perfecte servire eius prorsus debent obsequio mancipari et iuxta Pauli sententiam nullo saeculari debent adimpleri negotio. Ergo, si servire Deo tantum vultis eligere, mundana vos oportet cuncta relinquere.’
Ibid. iii. 1 (pp. 314 et seq.).
The double standard of values, with a worldly good equally distinct from mere ‘worldliness’ on the one hand, and from heavenly good on the other, which is indeed the origin of the idea of the gentleman, survived, of course, almost to our own times. In Wyatt’s Defence (‘I grant I do not profess chastity, but yet I use not abomination’) it has almost the air of the distinction between an Honours School and a Pass School. It is significant that the final abandonment of the double standard in Victorian times (with the consequent attempt to include the whole of morality in the character of the gentleman) was the prelude to the gentleman’s disappearance as an ideal; the very name being now, I understand, itself ungenteel and given over to ironical uses. Suos patitur manes.
It is perhaps worth noting that in one manuscript the rubric of Andreas’s Third Book runs Incipit liber remedii seu derelinquendi amorem (Trojel, p. 313 n. 1).
Medemnesse; cf. Goth. midjis, Skrt. madbyas. For the presence of both senses (‘middling’ and ‘good’) in OE., v. Bosworth and Toller, s.v. Medume.
See O. Barfield’s Poetic Diction (1928).
Hugo of St. Victor, De Sacramentis Fidei, lib. i, pars ix, c. ii: ‘Habet autem omnis aqua ex naturali qualitate similitudinem quamdam cum gratia Spiritus Sancti . . . et ex hac ingenita qualitate omnis aqua spiritalem gratiam representare habuit, priusquam etiam illam ex superaddita institutione significavit’ (Migne, tom. clxxvi, p. 318).
Dante, Vita Nuova, XXV. ‘Potrebbe qui dubitare persona . . . di ciò che io dico d’Amore come se fosse una cosa per sè, e non solamente sustanzia intelligente, ma sì come fosse sustanzia corporale; la quale cosa, secondo la veritade, è falsa; che Amore non è per sè sì come sustanzia, ma è uno accidente in sustanzia.’
Ibid. ‘Non sanza ragione alcuna, ma con ragione la quale poi sia possibile d’aprire per prosa . . . grande vergogna sarebbe a colui che rimasse cose sotto vesta di figura o di colore rettorico, e poscia, domandato, non sapesse denudare le sue parole da cotale vesta in guisa che avessero verace intendimento.’
The experienced reader may be surprised to find no mention here, and little mention below, of Philo, Origen, and the multiple senses of scripture. It must be remembered, however, that I am concerned much more to explain a taste than to record the steps by which it found its gratification; and that my subject is secular and creative allegory, not religious and exegetical allegory. If Dante is right in going back to the classics, and if I am right in detecting a nisus towards allegory in Paganism itself, it will follow that the exegetical tradition is less important for the understanding of secular allegory than is sometimes supposed. Certainly it will be difficult to prove that multiple senses played any part in the original intention of any erotic allegory. Dante himself, while parading four senses (Conv. II. i, and Ep. xiii = x in some editions), makes singularly little use of them to explain his own work.
For the nature of deities like Nerio Martis, &c., v. Aulus Gellius quoted by W. Warde Fowler (Religious Experience of the Roman People, p. 150). For Fides, &c., v. Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II. xxiii. 61: ‘Tum autem res ipsa in qua vis inest maior aliqua sic appellatur ut ea ipsa nominetur deus, ut Fides, ut Mens, quas in Capitolio dedicatas, videmus,’ &c. Cf. also Boissier, La Fin du Paganisme, tom. ii, p. 259.
Statius, Thebaid:
Te cupiant, tibi praecipites animasque manusque
Devoveant! Rape cunctantes et foedera turba! (iii. 232.)
Ibid.
Trepidantia corda
Implet amore sui. (423.)
Ibid.
Hic sterilis delubra notat Mavortia silvas
Horrescitque tuens, ubi mille Furoribus illi
Cingitur averso domus immansueta sub Haemo . . . (vii. 40.)
Digna loco statio; primis salit Impetus amens
E foribus caecumque Nefas Iraeque rubentes. (47.)
Statius, Thebaid:
Hyrcano in Sanguine pulcher. (69, 75.)
No doubt the beginning of this process can be traced already in the Aeneid: cf. H. W. Garrod in English Literature and the Classics, p. 164.
Statius, Thebaid:
Nec comitatus iners. Sunt illic Ira Furorque
Et Metus et Virtus et numquam sobrius Ardor
Succiduique gradus et castra simillima regi. (iv. 661.)
Iliad, A, 188 et seq.; Statius, Thebaid, ii. 682–90.
Statius, Thebaid, x. 632 et seq.
Ibid.
Urbe fuit media nulli concessa potentum
Ara deum. Mitis posuit Clementia sedem
Et miseri fecere sacram. Sine supplice numquam
Illa novo, nulla damnavit vota repulsa;
Auditi quicumque rogant. (xii. 481.)
Ibid.
Mentes habitare et pectora gaudet. (494.)
Statius, Thebaid:
Quid me, ait, ut saevis animantum ac saepe deorum
Obstaturam animis, princeps Natura, creabas? (xi. 465.)
Ibid.
licet alma Fides Pietasque repugnent
Vincentur! (98.)
Ibid. 482 et seq.
H. E. Butler, Post-Augustan Poetry from Seneca to Juvenal, 1909, p. 210. The chapter on Statius is perhaps the least sympathetic part of this interesting book.
Statius, Thebaid:
Terrarum leges et mundi foedera mecum
Defensura cohors, dignas insumite mentes
Coeptibus. Hac omnem divumque hominumque favorem
Naturamque ducem coetusque silentis Averni
Stare palam est. Illic Poenarum exercita Thebis
Agmina et anguicomae ducunt vexilla sorores. (xii. 642.)
Ibid. 561.
V. H. Jacobi’s article on ‘Brahmanism’ in the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.
Cicero, De Natura Deorum, II. xxviii. 71.
Aristotle, Ethic. Nicom. 1104 Β. ὁ μὲν γὰρ άπεχόμενος τῶν σωματικῶν ἡδονῶν καἰ αὐτῷ τούτῳ χαίρων σώφρων, ὁ δ᾽ ἀχθόμενος ἀκόλαστος.
Ibid. 1099 A. οὐδ᾽ ἐστὶν ἀγαθὸς ὁ μὴ χαίρων ταῖς καλαῖς πράξεσιν˙ οὔτε γἀρ δάκαιον οὐθεὶς ἃν εἴποι τόν μὴ χαίροντα τῷ δικαιοπραγεῖν, etc. 1104 Β. Σημεῖον δὲ δεῖ ποιεῖσθαι τῶυ ἔξεων τὴν ἐπιγινομένην ἡδονὴν ἤ λύπην τοῖς ἔργοις. The ‘intellectualism’ of which Aristotelian and (still more) Platonic ethics are so often accused is another aspect of the same tendency.
Epictetus, Diss. III. xxiv. 34.
Seneca, Epist. li. 6 ‘Nobis quoque militandum’, &c. My attention was first drawn to the importance of Seneca for our subject by S. Dill’s Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius. I am much indebted to it throughout this chapter.
Seneca, Epist. lxxviii. 16 ‘Nos quoque evincamus omnia’, &c.
Ibid. xc. 44 et seq. The whole letter is extremely beautiful and anticipates Milton in some points—spiritus ac liber inter aperta perflatus—prata sine arte formosa.
The obvious parallel is modern psycho-analysis and its shadowy personages such as the ‘censor’. At a different level, it might be argued that the application of psychological terms at all to the unconscious is itself a species of allegory. As Passions become People for the allegorist, so x (in the unconscious) becomes Passions for the analyst; or at least he can talk of them only as if they were ‘desires’, &c.—la quale cosa secondo la veritade è falsa. As the first century dived to the psychological by the aid of Personification the twentieth dives to the sub-soul by the aid of ‘Passionification’.
v. Cicero, op. cit. II. xxv. 64, 65 (where hoc sublime candens is a quotation from Ennius) and xxvi. 66.
Maximus Tyrius (quoted by Dill) Diss. x. i ποιητικὴν καὶ φιλοσοφίαν χρῆμα διττὸν μὲν κατὰ τὸ ὄνομα ἁπλοῦν δὲ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν. Ibid. 5 Пάντα μεοτὰ αἰνιγμάτων καί παρὰ τοίς ποιηταίς καὶ παρὰ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις. The attempts of the pagan revivalists to carry out the reconciliation of the One and the Many by means of allegory, hierarchical daemonism, emanations, and what not, are of course very various and complicated. I give only the barest outline.
v. A. Ebert, Allgemeine Geschichte der Literatur des Mittelalters im Abendlande (1874), Bd. I, pp. 133, 139.
Seneca, Epist. li. 6.
Ibid. 7 et seq. ‘Minus nobis quam illis Punica signa sequentibus licet’, &c.
Ibid. 13, ‘Satis diu cum Bais litigavimus, numquam satis cum vitiis’, &c.
Ibid.
Ibid. cvii. 2: ‘Longam viam ingressus es, et labaris oportet et arietes et cadas et lasseris et exclames “o mors!” id est mentiaris. Alio loco comitem relinques, alio efferes, alio timebis; per eiusmodi offensas emetiendum est confragosum hoc iter.’ Cf. lxxvii. 3. ‘Hoc etiam si senex non essem, fuerat sentiendum, nunc vero multo magis, quia quantulumcumque haberem tamen plus iam mihi superesset viatici quam viae.’
Apuleius, Metam. X. 30 et seq. The scene of this play is Mt. Ida, and the dramatis personae include Paris, Mercury, Juno (followed by Castor and Pollux), Minerva (followed by Terror and Metus), Venus (followed by Cupids, Hours, and Graces). It is not, of course, certain that Apuleius is describing the sort of performance that actually took place in his day. My attention was first drawn to this passage by A. Puech (Prudence, Paris, 1888).
Puech, op. cit., pp. 244 et seq.
Tertullian, De Patientia, cap. XV. 4.
Ibid., De Spectaculis, cap. xxix.
Augustine, Confess. VI. iii (p. 116 ed. Knöll in Corp. Script. Ecclesiast., vol. xxxiii).
Augustine, Confess. X. viii.
Ibid.
Ibid. X. xvii.
Ibid. VII. xxi.
Ibid. VIII. xi.
It is of course the χαρίεντες rather than the πολλοί who are specially likely to make this sort of mistake. Certain cultured contemporary verdicts on Gorboduc and Gondibert (we might add, on James Joyce and Gertrude Stein) naturally occur to the mind.
See Puech, op. cit., p. 240.
Prudentius, Psychomachia, 421:
Casus agit saxum medii spiramen ut oris
Frangeret et recavo misceret labra palato;
Dentibus introrsum resolutis lingua resectam
Dilaniata gulam frustis cum sanguinis implet.
Ibid. 43:
Adgreditur piceamque ardenti sulphure pinum
Ingerit in faciem pudibundaque lumina flammis
Adpetit et taetro temptat subfundere fumo.
Statius, Thebaid xi. 492–5:
Urget et ultro
Vitantem aspectus etiam pudibundaque longe
Ora reducentem premit astridentibus hydris
Intentatque faces.
Prudentius, Psychomachia, 125 et seq.
Ibid. 178 et seq.
Prudentius, Psychomachia, 276:
Os quoque parce
Erigit et comi moderatur gaudia vultu.
Ibid. 310 et seq.
The list took some time to settle into its medieval form. Prudentius’ seven enemies are: (1) Veterum Cultura Deorum, (2) Sodomita Libido, (3) Ira, (4) Superbia, (5) Luxuria (= Gula), (6) Avaritia, (7) Discordia (cognomento Heresis). Cassianus (A.D. 360–435) in his De Institutis Coenobiorum (Bks. V–XII) gives a list of eight: (1) Gastrimargia, (2) Fornicatio, (3) Philargyria, (4) Ira, (5) Tristitia, (6) Acedia, (7) Cenodoxia, (8) Superbia. He is dealing, of course, with monastic vices.
Prudentius, Psychomachia 320 et seq.
Ibid. 560:
ut candida palla latentem
Dissimulet rabiem diroque obtenta furori,
Quod rapere et clepere est avideque abscondere parta,
‘Natorum curam’ dulci sub nomine iactet.
Prudentius, Psychom. 644:
Dat signum felix Concordia reddere castris
Victrices aquilas atque in tentoria cogi.
Ibid. 740 et seq.:
Concurrent alacres castris ex omnibus omnes . . .
tentoria apertis
Cuncta patent velis, reserantur carbasa, ne quis
Marceat obscuro stertens habitator operto.
Cf. Piers Plowman, A, i. 103 et seq.; v. also D’Ancona, I Precursori di Dante (Florence, 1874), p. 105.
Prudentius, Psychom. 902:
Fervent bella horrida, fervent
Ossibus inclusa fremit et discordibus armis
Non simplex natura hominis.
Cf. Hamartigenia, 393 et seq.
Claudian, De Cons. Stilichonis, ii. 109:
procul importuna fugantur
Numina monstriferis quae Tartarus edidit antris.
Ibid. In Rufinum, i. 354 et seq.
Ibid. ii. 424 et seq.
Ibid. Epithal. de Nuptiis Honorii Augusti, 49 et seq.
Claudian, De Cons. Stil., 65:
Omnisque vicissim
Felix arbor amat; nutant ad mutua palmae
Foedera, populeo suspirat populus ictu
Et platani platanis alnoque adsibilat alnus.
Ibid. 77 et seq.
Sidonius Apollinaris (ed. Luetjohann, Mon. Germaniae Hist. tom. viii, p. 204) Carm. vii. 27, 32.
Sidonius, Carm. xi. 65 et seq. (p. 229): ‘Impenderet illi Lemnias imperium, Cressa stamen labyrinthi, Alceste vitam, Circe herbas, poma Calypso, Scylla comas, Atalanta pedes’, &c. Cf. Alanus de Insulis, Anticlaudian, Dist. ii, cap. vi. 34: ‘Ut Xeuxis pingit chorus hic, ut Milo figurat. Ut Fabius loquitur, Ut Tullius ipse perorat, Ut Samius sentit, sapit ut Plato’, &c. There are exactly 20 lines of it.
Ibid. xi. 14 et seq (pp. 227, 228).
Ibid. 72 (p. 229); cf. supra 61 et seq. (Amor is speaking): ‘Nova gaudia porto Felicis praedae, genetrix; calet ille superbus Ruricius.’
Ibid. Carm. xv:
Illicet hic summi resident septem Sapientes
Innumerabilium primordia philosophorum. . . . (42.)
Exclusi prope iam Cynici sed limine restant
Ast Epicureos eliminat undique Virtus. (124.)
Ibid. Carm. xi. 10, 34 (pp. 227, 228).
Ennodius, Carm. lib. I, iv. 1–4 (ed. Hartel in Corp. Script. Ecclesiast. vol. vi, pp. 512 et seq.):
Annus sole novo teneras dum format aristas
Natura in thalamis orbe tepente sedet.
Pingitur et vario mundus discrimine florum;
Una soli facies; gratia, cultus, amor.
Ibid. 29–52.
Ennodius, Carm. lib. I, iv. 84.
Martianus Capella, De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, ix. 336 G (ed. Eyssenhardt, Teubner, pp. 374, 375).
The distribution is as follows: Books I to II, Arrangements for the match and the apotheosis of Philology; Books III to VIII, Grammar, Dialectic, Geometry, Arithmetic, Astronomy; Book IX, Music, and a return to the story concluding with the nuptials.
Martianus, De Nupt. i. 6 G (p. 6). The comparison with Tasso’s stanza (G. L. xvi. 12) or Spenser’s (F. Q. II. xii. 71) is a very instructive example of the common element that may exist in a merely conceited and a genuinely poetic passage. Martianus runs: ‘Nemorum etiam sussurrantibus flabris canora modulatio melico quodam crepitabat appulsu. Nam eminentiora prolixarum arborum culmina perindeque distenta acuto sonitu resultabant. Quicquid vero terrae confine ac propinquum ramis adclinibus fuerat gravitas rauca quatiebat. At media ratis per annexa succentibus duplis ac sesquialteris nec non etiam sesquitertiis, sesquioctavis etiam sine discretione iuncturis, licet intervenirent limmata, concinebant. Ita fiebat ut nemus illud harmoniam, totam superumque carmen modulationum congruentia personaret.’
Ibid. i. 11 G (p. 12); cf. Alanus, De Planctu Naturae, Prosa II (pp. 445 et seq. in Wright’s Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets, 1872, vol. ii).
Ibid. i. 18 G (p. 20); cf. Gavin Douglas, Palice of Honour, iii, stanzas 24 et seq.
Ibid. ii. 34 G (p. 39); cf. Spenser, F. Q. I. i. 20.
Ibid. ii. 45 G (p. 50).
Odyssey, vi. 41 et seq. Lucretius, De Rerum Nat. iii. 18. No doubt a good classical scholar will be able to produce more passages, but the rarity, on the whole, of this note in ancient literature will hardly be disputed. Of course the numbers of such passages can be increased to any extent by skilful verse-translation in the romantic style.
Lucretius, vi. 68 et seq. Lucretius hits off with strange accuracy the highest function of the supernatural in romantic poetry:
‘Nec de corpore quae sancto simulacra feruntur
In mentis hominum divinae nuntia formae,
Suscipere haec animi tranquilla pace valebis.’
v. Comparetti, Vergil in the Middle Ages, trans. Benecke (London, 1895), pt. i, ch. viii, pp. 107 et seq.
Venantius Fortunatus (ed. Leo, Mon. Germ. Hist. tom. iv), lib. vi, c. I (pp. 125 et seq.).
Audradus Modicus, Carm. I (ed. Traube, Mon. Germ. Hist., Poet. Lat. Med. Aev. tom. iii, p. 73).
Sedulius Scotus, Mon. Germ. Hist. (Poet. Lat. Med. Aev. tom. iii, p. 231). An earlier specimen of the allegorical débat will be found in Alcuin’s (?) Conflictus Veris et Hiemis (ibid. ed. Duemmler, tom. i, p. 270).
Mon. germ. Hist. (Epist. Merowingici et Karolini Aevi, tom. i, pp. 252 et seq.)
See Raby, Secular Latin Poetry (Oxford, 1934), vol. ii, p. 8; also Miss Helen Waddell, The Wandering Scholars (London, 1927), p. 115, n. 1.
Geoffroi de Vinsauf, Poetria Nova, iii. A 225 (Faral, Les Arts Poétiques du XII6 et du XIII6 Siècles).
Ed. Barach and Wrobel, Bibliotheca Philosophorum Mediae Aetatis, i. (Innsbruck, 1876).
Bernardus Sylvester, De Mundi Universitate, I. i. 35:
Rursus et ecce cupit res antiquissima nasci
Ortu silva novo circumscribique figuris.
(Ed. Barach and Wrobel, Bibliotheca Philosophorum Mediae Aetatis.)
Ed. Barach and Wrobel, Bibliotheca Philosophorum Mediae Aetatis, I ii. 20 et seq.
Ed. Barach and Wrobel, Bibliotheca Philosophorum Mediae Aetatis, I. iii. 351.
Ibid. I. iii. 330:
Inter felices silvas sinuosus oberrat
Inflexo totiens tramite rivus aquae.
Arboribusque strepens et conflictata lapillis
Labitur in pronum murmure lympha fugax.
Hos, reor, incoluit riguos pictosque recessus
Hospes sed brevior hospite primus homo.
Ibid. I. iii. 213:
Cor fervens erexit equum, deiecit asellum
Segnities, animos praegravat auris onus.
Ibid. I. iii. 225:
Prodit ut ignoti faciat miracula visus
Lynx liquidi fontem luminis instar habens.
Ed. Barach and Wrobel, Bibliotheca Philosophorum Mediae Aetatis, I. iv. 97.
Ibid. II. iii. 24.
Ibid. II. xi.
Ibid. I. iii. 33 et seq.
Ed. Barach and Wrobel, Bibliotheca Philosophorum Mediae Aetatis, II. iv. 31:
Mens humana mihi tractus ducenda per omnes
Aethereos ut sit prudentior
Parcarum leges et ineluctabile fatum
Fortunaeque vices variabilis . . .
Corpore iam posito cognata redibit ad astra
Additus in numero superum deus.
Ibid. II. vii. 111.
Ibid. II. ix:
Divus erit, terrenus erit, curabit utrumque
Consiliis mundum, religione deos;
Naturis poterit sic respondere duabus
Et sic principiis congruus esse suis. (II. x. 19.)
Viderit in lucem mersas caligine causas
Ut Natura nihil occuluisse queat. (35.)
Omnia subiiciat, terras regat, imperet orbi,
Primatem rebus pontificemque dedi. (49.)
Ed. Barach and Wrobel, Bibliotheca Philosophorum Mediae Aetatis, II. xiv. 41:
Sol oculus mundi quantum communibus astris
Praeminet et caelum vendicat usque suum,
Non aliter sensus alios obscurat honore
Visus et in solo lumine totus homo est.
Ibid. II. xiv. 155:
Iocundusque tamen et eorum commodus usus
Si quando, qualis, quantus oportet, erit.
Saecula ne pereant decisaque cesset origo
Et repetat primum massa soluta chaos;
Cum morte invicti pugnant genialibus armis,
Naturam reparant perpetuantque genus.
Helen Waddell, op. cit. (London, 1927), p. 118.
I have used the text printed by Wright in his Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets of the Twelfth Century. The poem is also to be found in Migne’s Patrologia.
Anticlaudianus, Dist. II, cap. vi. 6 (Wright, p. 303):
Cogitat, exquirit, studet, invenit, eligit ergo
Quae via, quis callis, quae semita, rectius ipsam
Deferet ad superos arcanaque regna Tonantis.
Anticlaudianus, Dist. II, cap. vii. 3:
Ordinat, injungit, jubet, imperat, orat ut instans
Quaelibet illarum comitum, comitante Sophia
Corpore, mente, fide, studeat, desudet, anhelet,
Instet et efficiat ut currus currat ad esse. (Wright, p. 304.)
Ibid. Dist. I, cap. ii. 11:
Quae spargit opes, quae munera fundit,
Quam penes ignorat ignavam gaza quietem. (Wright, p. 274.)
Ibid. Dist. II, cap. iv. 6 (Wright, p. 297).
Ibid. Dist. IV, cap. v. 4 (Wright, p. 338); cf. Chaucer, Hous of Fame, ii. 930, 986.
Anticlaudianus, Dist. VI, cap. vi. 19: ‘Nam tua res agitur paries dum proximus ardet (Wright, p. 375). The daring theology of this never crossed the poet’s mind: a proverb was regarded as a rhetorical beauty.
Ibid. Dist. VII, cap. ii. 4 (Wright, p. 384.)
Ibid. Dist. VII, cap. vii (Wright, pp. 394, 395).
Ibid. Dist VII, cap. vi. 69 et seq. (Wright, p. 393, Succedens Pietas, &c.).
Ibid. Dist. I, cap. ii (Wright, p. 274).
Ibid.
Ibid. Dist. ix, Pauperies, cap. ii, Infamia, cap. 3, Senectus, cap. 4 (Wright, pp. 414, 416, 417).
Anticlaudianus, Dist. VIII, cap. viii. ix; Dist. VIII, cap. i, 2. (Wright, pp. 396–403.)
Ibid. Dist. VII, cap. vii. 28:
Quaerat cui possit se totum credere, velle
Declarare suum, totamque exponere mentem,
Cui sua committat animi secreta latentis. (Wright, p. 395.)
Ibid. Dist. VII, cap. iv. 26:
Nec petat impelli populari laude, nec ipsam
Respuat oblatam nisi sit velata colore
Hypocrisis verbo quaerens emungere lucrum:
Nam nimis austerum redolet qui despicit omnem
Famam. (Wright, p. 388.)
Ibid. Dist. VII, cap. iii. 32: (Wright, p. 387.)
Ne cultu nimio crinis lascivus adaequet
Femineos luxus sexusque recidat honorem,
Aut nimis incomptus iaceat, squalore profundo
Degener et iuvenem proprii neglectus honoris
Philosophum nimis esse probet.
Anticlaudianus, Dist. VII, cap. v. 7:
Ut vitium fugiat Naturam diligat, illud
Quod facinus peperit damnans, quod prava voluntas
Edidit, amplectens quidquid Natura creavit. (Wright, p. 389.)
Also in Wright, op. cit.
See App. I.
De Planctu, Prosa V. 40 et seq. (Wright, pp. 475 et seq.)
De Planctu Naturae, Prosa II. II ff. (Wright, pp. 445 ff.). A faintly sixteenth-century flavour seemed to me the only method of representing in English the quality of the original, which neither modern nor Chaucerian prose could reproduce. If an historical justification for my choice is demanded, I can claim that certain characteristics of Euphuism are already present in Alanus. The antithesis and the playing with words in the following are noteworthy: ‘Eius opus sufficiens, meum opus deficiens. Eius opus mirabile, meum opus mutabile. Ille mei opifex operis, ego opus opificis. Ille operatur ex nihilo, ego mendico ex aliquo. Ille suo operatur numine, ego operor illius sub nomine.’ (Prosa III, Wright, p. 455.) A complete translation of the Plaint has been published by Mr. Moffat (Yale Studies in English, 1908); it is greatly to be regretted that the limits of his book did not allow him to accompany it with a text and commentary.
De Planctu Naturae, Prosa III. 108 et seq. (Wright, pp. 452 et seq.)
Also in Wright, op. cit.
Cf. also the interesting anonymous poem quoted by Raby, op. cit., vol. ii, pp. 22, 23.
Architrenius, lib. i (Wright, vol. I, p. 251):
Quid faciam, novi: profugo Natura per orbem
Est quaerenda mihi. Veniam quacumque remotos
Abscondat secreta lares, odiique latentes
Eliciam causas et rupti forsan amoris
Restituam nodos.
v. Langlois, Origines et sources du R. de la Rose, 1890.
For the Altercatio v. The Oxford Book of Medieval Latin Verse, ed. Gaselee, 1928. For Langlois’ final view on Li Fablel v. his edition of Le Roman de la Rose (Société des Anciens Textes Français, 1914), tome i, p. 4 et seq.
Saintsbury, The Flourishing of Romance and Rise of Allegory, 1897, p. 307.
Happy Families (in Limbo, 1920).
Cf. the passage quoted from Andreas, supra, pp. 43–44.
Cf. E. K. Chambers, Medieval Stage, vol. i, pp. 91, 172; also Frazer, Golden Bough, ‘The Scapegoat’, p. 406 et passim.
Cf. specially Roman de la Rose, 10749 et seq.
v. Lancelot, 369–81.
Cf. Guilhem de Peitieu: . . . ‘Midons per son belb aculbir E per son belb plazent esguar’. Appel, Prov. Chrestomathie, p. 52.
v. Chaucer, Troilus, ii. 360–1.
Roman de la Rose, 3527.
The semantic development from Franc (= a Frankish invader > a freeman, as opposed to a Gallo-Roman villanus) to franchise as an ethical quality is almost exactly the same as that in the Greek ἐλευθερία.
Langlois, Origines et Sources, pp. 29, 30.
Roman, 2920–4.
See .
Cf. Roman, 637, 638.
Roman, 427 (435 in the English version in Skeat’s Chaucer, vol. I).
Ibid. 568 (English version 576).
Not only to a modern reader. The Middle Ages had the same feeling and a crude expression of it is to be found in Jean Molinet’s fifteenth-century ‘moralized’ version of the Roman. v. Langlois’ edition, tom. i, pp. 32 et seq.
The right interpretation is put beyond doubt by the following lines of Bernart de Ventadorn (v. Bartasch, Chrestomathie Provençale, 1904. 69) which may be the indirect source. ‘Anc non agui de mi poder Ni no fui meus des l’or’ en sai Que·m laisset en sos olhs vezer, En un miralh que mout mi plai. Miralhs, pos me mirei en te M’an mort li sospir de preon, Qu’aissi·m perdei cum perdet se Lo bels Narcisus en la fon.’
Roman, 2062 (English version 2154).
Roman, 2981 (English version 3199).
Ibid. 3000 (English 3222).
Ibid. 3071 (English 3303).
Ibid. 3199 (English 3477).
Roman, 3397 (English 3669).
Roman, 4004 (English 4378).
v. Langlois’ edition, tome i, p. 3. His statement that, at the point where Guillaume breaks off, the heroine ‘n’est plus séparée de lui [sc. l’amant] que par l’étroite surveillance de ses parents’ seems to me untrue. Her relatives (i.e. Jealousy) have indeed built the castle but they have enlisted Danger, Shame, and Fear among its wardens. In other words the girl has proved largely amenable to the scolding of her relatives and is now herself almost entirely on their side.
v. ibid., pp. 3 et seq.
Roman, 17059–874.
Roman, 8355–454 and 9517–678.
Ibid. 16083–112.
Ibid. 17885–18023.
Roman, 8467–9360.
Ibid. 12976–14546.
Ibid. 12678–735.
Roman, 5813–36.
Roman, 8451–54 and 9421–92.
Ibid. 7073.
Ibid. 6955–60.
Roman, 16233–44.
Ibid. 17989–99.
Roman, 20285–9.
Ibid. 20305–26.
Roman, 20010–16.
Ibid. 20351.
v. Langlois’ edition, tom. I, pp. 32 et seq.
v. N. K. Coghill, ‘The Character of Piers Plowman’, Medium Aevum, vol. ii, no. 2, pp. 108 et seq.
P. Plowman, C, Passus IX; Chaucer, C.T. Prol. 43 et seq.
The mention of Peres PlouƷman in John Ball’s Letter to the Peasants of Essex (v. Sisam, Fourteenth Century Prose and Verse, p. 160) may have misled some. In my opinion it is most probable that John Ball is not indebted for the name to Langland, but that both he and Langland are using a product of folk imagination. I suppose that Langland’s use of Piers as a symbol of Christ is his own; but the figure of Piers the honest ploughman may already have been as recognized as that of Tommy Atkins, John Bull, or Father Christmas.
Ibid. B, XV. 23 et seq.
Ibid. C, iv. 363.
Usk, Testament of Love, I. iii (Skeat, Chaucerian and other Pieces, p. 18, l. 153; v. p. xxvii).
P. Plowman, C, xxiii, 80 et seq.
Ibid. C, xiv. 135 et seq. I take it that Langland had read Alanus’ De Planctu Naturae.
Ibid. C, ii. 149 et seq.
v. Deschamps’ Ballade to Chaucer, lines 11 and 31.
Gower, Conf. Amantis, viii, 1st version, 2941; Usk, Testament of Love, III. iv (p. 123 in Skeat’s Chaucerian and other Pieces).
Hoccleve, Regement of Princes, 4978 (cf. ibid. 1973, Bookes of his ornat endyting That is to al this land enlumynyng); Lydgate, Troy Book, iii. 4237. ‘For he [sc. Chaucer] oure English gilt with his sawes, Rude and boistous firste be olde dawes That was ful fer from al perfeccioun Til that he cam.’
Book of the Duchesse, 985 et seq.
Compleynt of Mars, 1 et seq.
Ibid. 81 et seq.
Ibid. 240.
Ibid. 155 et seq.
Parlement of Foules, 527 et seq.
Compleynt unto Pite, 39 et seq.
v. C. L. Rosenthal, ‘A possible source of Chaucer’s Book of the Duchesse’, Mod. Language Notes, vol. xlviii, 1933.
Cf. Machaut, Dit dou Vergier, 1199 et seq., where the waking of the dreamer is convincingly managed: also Dit dou Lyon, 279 et seq.
v. J. Livingston Lowes, Geoffrey Chaucer, London 1934, pp. 94–9.
Book of the Duchesse, 775 et seq.
Ibid. 797 et seq.
Ibid. 839 et seq.
Ibid. 1236–57.
Ibid. 656.
Ibid. 670.
Book of the Duchesse, 948, 850, 919, 879.
Ibid. 749 et seq., 1042 et seq., 1127 et seq.
v. Skeat’s Chaucer, vol. i, pp. 64 et seq., and G. H. Cowling, ‘Chaucer’s Complaintes of Mars and of Venus’, Review of English Studies, vol. ii, No. 8, Oct. 1926.
Compleynt of Mars, 42.
Ibid. 218 et seq.
v. Skeat, Chaucer, vol. i, p. 75; E. Rickerts, ‘A New Interpretation of the Parlement of Foules’, Mod. Philology, vol. xviii, No. 1, May 1920; D. Patrick, ‘The Satire in Chaucer’s Parliament’, &c. Philological Quarterly, vol. ix, Jan. 1930; J. Livingston Lowes, op. cit., pp. 124 et seq.
v. Langlois, Origines et Sources, chap. ii.
Parlement, 183–96, Teseide, vii, stanzas 51, 52.
Ibid. 197–203, Tes. vii, stanza 53.
Ibid. 204–10
Roman de la Rose, 642, English version, 650.
Ibid. 20010 et seq.
Parlement, 225, Tes. vii, stanza 56.
‘What Chaucer really did to Il Filostrato’, Essays and Studies, vol. xvii, 1932.
Boccaccio, Il Filostrato, viii, stanza 30.
Troilus, v. 1835 et seq.
Filostr. i, stanza 23.
R. de la Rose, 1681 et seq.; Troilus, i. 204–66; Filostr. I, 25.
Ibid. 1798 et seq.; Troilus, i. 281–94.
R. de la Rose, 1899 et seq.; Troilus, i. 422 et seq.
Ibid. 932 et seq.
Ibid. 1072–85. Cf. R. de la Rose, 2077–264: specially 2087–108.
Troilus, i. 770–7 (not in Boccaccio); cf. R. de la Rose, 2779–86.
Troilus, i. 890–903 (not in Boccaccio), 974–80 (much altered); cf. R. de la Rose, 3125 et seq.
Troilus, ii. 332.
Ibid. 360.
R. de la Rose, 2787 et seq.
Troilus, ii. 1339.
R. de la Rose, 2876–920.
Troilus, ii. 484.
R. de la Rose, 3396 et seq. (English version, 3667 et seq.).
Troilus, ii. 1290 (not in Boccaccio).
R. de la Rose, 3285 et seq.; Troilus, ii. 1281, iii. 918, 1044 et seq.
Ibid. ii. 674 (not in Boccaccio).
Ibid. 1562, 1723.
Ibid. iii. 918, 920, 931.
Troilus, ii. 414, 418.
Ibid. ii. 746, 1592 et seq.
Ibid. iii. 869.
Ibid. 1690.
Troilus, iv. 794 (not in Boccaccio).
Ibid. 1416. (Not in Boccaccio, despite Chaucer’s ‘as writen wel I finde’. The statement that he is taking something from his source, is, in Chaucer, almost a proof that he is inventing.)
Ibid. i. 108.
Ibid. 110.
Ibid. ii. 123.
Ibid. 214–20.
Ibid. 302.
Troilus, 421.
Ibid. 425.
Ibid. 456.
Ibid. 466.
Ibid. 461, 462, 771–805.
Ibid. 708–14.
Ibid. iii. 479.
Ibid. v. 688.
Troilus, iv. 1261–1309.
Ibid. 936.
Ibid. v. 883.
Ibid. 1023 et seq.
Ibid. 701–7, 750–3.
Troilus, 1071.
Ibid. 1040 (the brooch), 1590–1631 (the letter).
Ibid. ii. 450.
Ibid. 1168.
Ibid. 151.
Ibid. 1615.
Troilus, I, 582, ii. 326, iii. 115.
Ibid. iii. 183.
Ibid. i. 752.
Ibid. 760.
Ibid. 656 et seq., 638 et seq., 890–966; ii. 1023–43.
Troilus, i. 813–19.
Ibid. 20, 246 et seq.; ii. 22–49, 666 et seq.
Ibid. iii. 964.
Ibid. 1135.
Ibid. 1555 et seq.
Troilus, iii. 737.
Ibid. 248–73.
Ibid. i. 3.
Ibid. v. 260, 616–27.
Ibid. ii. 23.
Confessio Amantis, Prol. 17.
Confessio Amantis, Prol. 881 et seq. Empedocles’ Love and Strife were known to the Middle Ages from Aristotle, Met. I. iv and elsewhere: cf. Dante, Inf. xii. 42.
The confession in the Roman de la Rose taught Gower nothing except, possibly, the name and office of Genius.
Confessio Amantis, ii. 2259.
Ibid. v. 83.
Ibid. vi. 1261.
Confessio Amantis, Prol. 141.
Ibid. iii. 1470.
Ibid. iii. 1829.
Ibid. v. 3739.
Ibid. vii. 1937.
Ibid. vii. 4967.
Ibid. viii. 861.
Confessio Amantis, iv. 1292.
Ibid. iv. 1321.
Ibid. viii. 2224.
Confessio Amantis, iv. 3208 et seq.
Ibid. ii. 836.
Ibid. vi. 2153.
Confessio Amantis, v. 3800.
Ibid. viii. 1928.
Ibid. iii. 981 et seq.
Ibid. iv. 3063.
Ibid. v. 3299.
Ibid. iv. 1633.
Ibid. i. 2992.
Ibid. vi. 1711.
Ibid. vii. 3951 et seq.
Confessio Amantis, V. 5789.
Ibid. iv. 2785.
Confessio Amantis, v. 3957 et seq.
Ibid. iv. 1321.
Ibid. v. 3282.
Ibid. vi. 1981. Spenser (cf. F.Q. V. vii. 13 et seq.) possibly owes something to this passage.
Ibid. vi. 1519–63.
Confessio Amantis, v. 919.
Ibid. vii. 1419.
Ibid. vii. 568.
Ibid. i. 852. Cf. vi. 1918.
Ibid. vi. 55.
Ibid. v. 6123 et seq.
Ibid. vii. 5116.
Ibid. ii. 3406–30.
Confessio Amantis, i. 2807.
Ibid. v. 1904.
Ibid. Prol. 959.
Confessio Amantis, iv. 2300.
Ibid. i. 718.
Ibid. v. 4542.
Ibid. iv. 1659, 1664.
Confessio Amantis, v. 7792.
Ibid. i. 742.
Ibid. ii. 491.
Ibid. ii. 465.
Ibid. vi. 226.
Ibid. iv. 2680.
Ibid. v. 5532.
Confessio Amantis, i. 188.
Ibid. viii. 2135.
Ibid. viii. 2369.
Confessio Amantis, v. 1374–83.
Confessio Amantis, viii. 2060.
Ibid. viii. 2146.
The great exception is devotional literature, on which see R. W. Chambers, On the Continuity of English Prose, Oxford University Press, 1932.
See Skeat, Chaucer, vol. vii, Chaucerian and other Pieces, p. xxv.
v. supra, p. 192.
See H. Bradley, Dictionary of National Biography, s.v. Usk; Skeat, op. cit.; Tatlock, Development and Chronology of Chaucer’s Works, Chaucer Society, Series II. xxxvii, pp. 20 et seq.; Ramona Bressie, ‘The Date of Thomas Usk’s Testament of Love’, Modern Philology, vol. xxvi, no. 1. (The case for the influence of Higden is here given.)
Testament of Love, I. iii, II. xii; Skeat, op. cit., pp. 16, 92.
Ibid. II. iv; Skeat, p. 58.
Ibid. II. iv, v; Skeat, p. 61.
Ibid. III. ix; Skeat, p. 145.
Ibid. III. i; Skeat, p. 103.
Skeat, pp. xxviii et seq.
Testament, III. ix; Skeat, p. 144.
Testament, I. i; Skeat, p. 5.
Ibid. III. i; Skeat, p. 105.
Ibid. II. ii; Skeat, p. 50.
Ibid. I. ii; Skeat, p. 12.
Ibid. III. vii; Skeat, p. 134.
Ibid. II. ix; Skeat, p. 78.
Ibid. I. ii; Skeat, p. 11. The closing words of this quotation would seem to be fatal to the theory (v. Ramona Bressie, op. cit.) that Margaret has a purely political significance. (I accept Skeat’s emendation Cesars swink.)
Testament, II. iii; Skeat, p. 56.
Ibid. I. v; Skeat, p. 21.
Ibid. I. ix; Skeat, pp. 40, 41.
Malory, XXI. xiii.
Testament, I. v; Skeat, p. 24.
Cf. Geoffroi de Vinsauf, Nova Poetria, 758: ‘Noli semper concedere verbo In proprio residere loco; residentia talis Dedecus est ipsi verbo.’
Cf. Testament, Prologue (Skeat, p. 1): ‘In Latin and French hath many soverayne wittes had greet delyt’, &c.
Ibid. II. xii; Skeat, p. 93.
Ibid. II. xiii; Skeat, p. 98.
Ibid. II. xiv; Skeat, p. 99. (Accepting Skeat’s emendation bankes.)
Testament of Love, II. vi, vii; Skeat, pp. 67, 70.
Ibid. II. ii; Skeat, p. 52.
Ibid. I. iii; Skeat, p. 18.
Ibid. I. iii; Skeat, p. 15.
Ibid. I. iii; Skeat, p. 15.
Ibid. I. iii; Skeat, p. 18.
Skeat, p. 77.
Testament, I. ix; Skeat, p. 39.
Kingis Quair, st. 10.
Ibid. st. 11.
Ibid. st. 41.
Ibid. st. 41.
Ibid. st. 40.
Kingis Quair, st. 58.
Ibid. st. 138, 142.
Regement of Princes, 109.
Ibid. 80.
Ibid. 277.
Ibid. 88.
Temple of Glas, 326.
Ibid. 701.
Ibid. 755.
Black Knight, 390.
Temple of Glas, 346.
Temple of Glas, 869.
Ibid. 1082.
Ibid. 393.
Ibid. 204.
Lydgate, Minor Poems, pt. ii, ed. MacCracken and Sherwood, E.E.T.S., 1934, ii. 425.
Skeat, Chaucerian and other Pieces, xviii. 29.
Skeat, Chaucerian and other Pieces, xvi. 1.
Ibid. 105–8, 137, 164, 246.
Ibid. 173 et seq.
Skeat, Chaucerian and other Pieces, xvi. 117 et seq.
Ibid. xx. 413.
Shown by the tenses 477–83, 536.
Ibid. 538.
Garland, 300.
Castell of Pleasure, 601–17, 626–33.
Ibid. 710–37. Line 736 contains a crux, which I suspect of being not a textual corruption but a tangle in the author’s mind. He has written in thoder, where we really need in thoder in an other, i.e. in the other case (love of conditions) if he found the same harvest in another (woman).
Ibid. 148.
Ibid. 15–21, 236–81.
Castell of Pleasure, 792.
Ibid. 908.
Ibid. 802
Castell of Pleasure, 98 et seq.
Court of Love, 253–66.
Ibid. 141.
Barnaby Googe, Eglogs, Epytaphes and Sonettes 1563, Arber’s Reprint, London, 1871, p. 124.
Ibid., p. 117.
Assembly of Gods, 554.
Assembly of Gods, 613.
Ibid. 1014, 1077, 1120, 1122.
Court of Sapience, 435.
Ibid. 759.
Ibid. 877.
v. Spindler, Court of Sapience, p. 100.
Court of Sapience, 430, 1591.
e.g. the argument used by the First Hierarchy, ibid. 624–37.
See Owst, Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England, specially cap. 2.
Lydgate, Pilgrimage, 574.
Ibid. 18986.
Ibid. 22665, 23607, 23687.
Ibid. 22725.
Ibid. 21717 et seq.; cf. 13134, 22121.
Ibid. 492 et seq. (the gate); 557 et seq., 586 et seq. (the other routes).
Ibid. 2084 (mentioned again 13200).
Ibid. 1496 (R.R. 2973).
Ibid. 2023 (R.R. 5796 et seq.).
Lydgate, Pilgrimage, 3448 et seq.
Ibid. 5528.
Ibid. 3344 et seq.
Ibid. 9995.
Ibid. 9455.
Lydgate, Pilgrimage, 22013 et seq.
Ibid. 23163.
Ibid. 4013, 6577.
Ibid. 8235–58.
Lydgate, Pilgrimage, 8203.
Ibid. 8835, 13111.
Ibid. 11960, et seq.; 15973–16211.
Ibid. 12741–21657.
Ibid. 14005; cf. 14025, 22723, 23576
Reson and Sensuallyte, 742 et seq.
Reson and Sensuallyte, 934 et seq.
Ibid. 970.
For the significacio of this—and, indeed, of the gods wherever they appear in medieval poetry—see the very important marginal gloss ibid. 1029: ‘Jubiter apud poetas accipitur multis modis; aliquando pro deo vero et summo sicut hic . . . aliquando capitur pro planeta, aliquando pro celo, aliquando pro igne vel aere superiori, aliquando eciam historialiter accipitur pro rege Crete’.
Ibid. 2254.
Reson and Sensuallyte, 3495.
Ibid. 4355 et seq.
Ibid. 3141–214.
I owe this metaphor to Conventry Patmore.
Reson and Sensuallyte, 4611 et seq.
Ibid. 4748 et seq.
Reson and Sensuallyte, 150.
Ibid. 357 et seq.
Pastime of Pleasure, ed. W. E. Mead, E.E.T.S., 1928, 48, 1163, 1373.
Ibid. 1389.
Ibid. 2985.
Ibid. 40.
Ibid. 260 et seq.
Pastime of Pleasure, 155.
Ibid. 326.
Ibid. 5618.
Ibid. 5748.
Ibid. 4648.
Ibid. 4499.
Ibid. 62.
Ibid. 116.
Ibid. 365.
Ibid. 1956.
Pastime of Pleasure, 4312.
Ibid. 4433.
Ibid. 603.
Ibid. 1857.
Ibid. 2203.
Ibid. 2368.
Ibid. 2298.
Ibid. 1768.
Pastime of Pleasure, 1583–1603.
Ibid. 5474.
Pastime of Pleasure, 5604.
Ibid. 5635.
Ibid. 5753.
Of Deth, Fame, Tyme and Eternitee in the conclusion of Hawes’ poem, it is worth remarking that these figures appeared, and in the same order, on a fyne paynted clothe in the house of Sir Thomas More’s father. The son’s verses over of every of those pageauntes will be found in the Workes (1557). I do not know how these English examples are related to Petrarch’s use of the same sequence in his Trionfi.
Example of Virtue, printed (with modernized spelling) in Arber’s Dunbar Anthology, London, 1901, pp. 217 et seq.
Ibid., st. 179.
Ibid., st. 182.
Example of Virtue, st. 192.
Ibid., st. 71.
Ibid., st. 70.
Ibid., st. 72.
Ibid., st. 160.
King Hart, i., st. 10.
Ibid., st. 1.
Ibid., st. 43.
Ibid. ii. 2.
Palice of Honour, iii, st. 71.
Ibid. i, st. 20.
Ibid. i, st. 68.
Palice of Honour, ii, st. 52.
Ibid. iii, st. 63.
Ibid. iii, st. 87.
Ibid. Prol., st. 12. The effect on the modern reader is, I take it, only partly due to our loss of impressio as a scientific term.
Ibid. i, st. 3.
Ibid. i, st. 15, 16.
Court of Venus, ed. The Rev. W. Gregor, Scottish Text Society, London, 1884, Prologue 279, and iv. 740.
Court of Venus, i. 641–929.
Ibid. i. 896.
Ibid. iii. 912.
Court of Venus, ii. 679.
Ibid. ii. 303, 309.
Ibid. ii. 194.
Ibid. ii. 566.
Ibid. ii. 384–470, 778 et seq.
Court of Venus, Prol. 285.
Ibid. ii. 148.
F.Q. III. iv; Pastime of Pleasure, 270.
See G. Maffei, Storia della Lett. Italiana, II. v.
Orl. Inn. III. v. 38 et seq.
Orl. Inn. II. xv. 42 et seq.
On this see D. E. Faulkner Jones, The English Spirit, 1935.
Orl. Fur. XLIII.
F.Q. III. iii. 10; Orl. Fur. iii. 10.
F.Q. IV. iv. 9; Orl. Fur. xx. 125.
Coleridge on Imagination, p. 215, London, 1934.
Orl. Inn. II. v. 40.
Ibid. III. iii. 12.
F.Q. II. xi. 20.
See Greenlaw, Osgood, Padelford, Works of Spenser, vol. i, Baltimore, 1932, p. 389.
Op. cit., ibid.
Op. cit., p. 395.
v. Owst, op. cit.
F.Q. I. viii. 36, and V. xi. 19, 20.
Ibid. V. xi. 9.
Ibid. I. xi. 12.
Ibid. I. v. 30.
Ibid. III. ii. 28.
F.Q. xii. 1.
Ibid. V. iv. 45.
Ibid. III. iv. 59.
Ibid. I. ii. 22, vii. 43, xii. 26.
Ibid. v. 21.
Ibid. III, Proem 2.
Ibid. I. v. 25.
F.Q. i. 5.
Ibid. IV. x. 34.
Ibid. I. v. 42.
Ibid. iv. 20, 23, 26, 29, 32, 35.
Ibid. v. 40.
Ibid. II. i. 3.
Ibid. I. ix. 54.
Ibid. III. x. 59.
Ibid. II. xii. 48.
Ibid. vi. 1.
Ibid. I. xi. 49.
Ibid. I. x. 30.
Ibid. III. v. 33.
F.Q. vi. 34.
Ibid. vi. 41.
Ibid. I. iii. 4.
Ibid. IV. iii. 43.
Ibid. I. viii. 40.
Ibid. II. ii. 3.
Ibid. IV. viii. 22.
Ibid. I. x. 17.
F.Q. IV. viii. 58.
Greene, Alphonsus King of Arragon.
Surrey, Of a Lady that refused to dance with him.
Arraignement of Paris, Act II, ad fin.
F.Q. V. viii. 1.
Ibid. I. ix. 51.
Ibid. V. vi. 27.
Ibid. V. iv. 31.
Ibid. iv. 49.
F.Q. VI. v, vi.
F.Q. II. v. 29.
Ibid. xii. 50.
Ibid. II. xii. 58.
Ibid. xii. 61.
F.Q. III. vi. 29.
Ibid. III. vi. 34.
Ibid. vi. 44.
Ibid. II. xii. 44, 45.
Ibid. III. vi. 45.
v. supra, p. 180. The fact that all the references to Art in the Bower are copied from Tasso does not invalidate my argument: the opposite passages in the Garden are not.
F.Q. II. ix. 50, 53. Perhaps Mutabilitie, vi. 8, should also be mentioned as an exception. I do not understand this passage and suspect astronomical or astrological meanings.
F.Q. III. i. 34 et seq.
Ibid. i. 33.
Ibid. xi. 29 et seq.
Ibid. IV. x. 6.
Ibid. 25–7.
Ibid. 42.
Ibid. 21, 22.
Ibid. 23, 24.
Ibid. VI. x. 5.
Ibid. I. v. 51.
Ibid. II. vii. 15.
Ibid. 45, 47.
Ibid. III. viii. 5.
F.Q. IV, Proem 2.
Ibid. III. ix. 28, x. 6, 8.
Ibid. III. xi. 28.
Ibid. V. iii. 3. Cf. Milton, P.L. ix. 33 et seq.
v. Dr. Janet Spens, Spenser’s Faerie Queene, p. 62, London, 1934.
F.Q. VI. Proem 5, 4.
Ibid. VI. ix. 6, cf. Tasso G.L. VII.
Ibid. III. vi. 36.
F.Q. Mutabilitie, vi. 35, vii. 15.
Ibid. II. xii. 63 et seq.; VI. x. 11 et seq.
Ibid. III. vi. 46.
F.Q. i. 36.
Ibid. II. v. 34.
Ibid. III. vi. 41.
Ibid. II. xii. 78.
Ibid. III. xii (First Version), 43–7.
Ibid. I. ix. 9–15.
Ibid. II. xii. 1.
F.Q. III. xii. 41, line 7; xi. 42. For the many narrative inconsistencies which tell the same tale see Spens op. cit., passim.
F.Q. I. ii. 12.
F.Q. VI. vii. 41.
Ibid. I. vii. 11.
v. Spens, op. cit., pp. 24 et seq.
Ibid., p. 85.
F.Q. I. vi. 20.
Ibid. III. vii. 29.
Spens, op. cit., p. 11.
F.Q. II. x. 71.
Ibid. II. vi. 1.
Ibid. II. vi. 12.
Ibid. II. vi. 4, 19.
Ibid. II. ii. 11.
Ibid. II. i. 7, 27.
Ibid. II. ii. 22, iii. 3, iv. 2, v. 3.
F.Q. IV. x. 26.
Ibid. IV, Proem. 1.
Ibid. IV. ix. 1.
Ibid. II. xii. 1.
F.Q. III. i. 31.
Ibid. III. i. 35.
Ibid. III. i. 39.
Ibid. III. i. 45, 46.
Ibid. III. i. 65.
Ibid. III. xi. 29.
Ibid. III. xi. 51.
Ibid. III. xii. 28.
Ibid. III. xii. 25.
F.Q. III. vi. 3.
Amoretti, viii.
Republic, 507 D et seq.
F.Q. III. vi. 12.
Ibid. III. vi. 11–25.
Ibid. III. vi. 49.
Ibid. IV. x. 42.
Ibid. III. vi. 28.
Ibid. III. vi. 4.
Ibid. III. vi. 52.
F.Q. IV. x. 21.
Ibid. IV. x. 51.
Ibid. IV. x. 6.
Ibid. IV. x. 12, 13, 17.
Ibid. IV. x. 53.
Ibid. IV. i. 3.
Ibid. III. xii (1st version), 46.
Ibid. IV. vii. 2.
Ibid. IV. vii. 12.
F.Q. IV. v. 19.
Ibid. IV. v. 3–6.
Ethics, 1156 B.
F.Q. III. ix. 28, 29, 30: X. 6, 7, 8.
Ibid. IV. i. 39.
F.Q. IV. x. 32.
Ibid. V. ii. 41.
Ibid. V. vii. 11.
F.Q. V. 23.
Ibid. IV. v. 9, vi. 5 et seq.
Ibid. V. xii. 26.
Ibid. IV. iv. 39.
Ibid. V. vii. 3.
Ibid.
Ibid. V. vii. 22.
F.Q. V. ix. 35.
Ibid. VI, Proem. 1.
Ibid. VI, Proem. 4.
Ibid.
Ibid. VI. ix. 3–6.
Ibid. VI. viii.
Ibid. VI. ii. 2.
F.Q. VI. x. 20.
Ibid. VI. x. 23.
Ibid. VI. x. 22.
Ibid. VI. vi. 42.
Ibid. VI. v. 38.
Ibid. VI. vi. 4.
F.Q. Mut. vii, Argument. On the influence of Giordano Bruno, see B. E. C. Davis, Edmund Spenser, pp. 232 et seq.
Ibid. Mut. vii, vi. 5.
F.Q. Mut. vi. 6.
Ibid. Mut. vi. 35.
Ibid. Mut. vii. 13.
Ibid. Mut. vii. 8.
Ibid. Mut. vii. 15.
F.Q. Mut. vi. 46.
Ibid. III. vi. 47.
Ibid. Mut. viii. 2.