page 1160 note 1 The Allegery of Love (Oxford, 1936), pp. 111, 30-32 (“Chrétien can hardly turn to the inner world without, at the tame time, turning to allegory”), 112-116 (“ . . . allegory had been bon and perfected for the very purpoat to which Chrétien put it.” “In Chrétien Guillaume de Lorris found, on the one hand, fantastic adventure, on the other, a realistic account of imaginative passion . . . . It was the second that interested him. He conceived the idea that this, stripped of its Arthurian supports, might stand on its own feet and make the subject of a poem. As such a poem would concern itself exclusively with what the lovers felt, it would, of course, be allegorical.”). Cf. Karl Voretxsch, Einführung in das Studium der ⨿fransdsichen Literatur, 3d ed. (Halle, 1925), p. 420: “In allen diesen dich-tungen dienen allegorie und personifikation geistlichen oder wenigstens moralischen awecken. Aber auch die weltliche dichtung entwickelt solche stilformen, so wenn in den höfischen romanes und chansons ‘Amor’ personifisiert wind, wenn der dichter Vernunft und liabs in seinem hersen streiten ≤ast. . . . Hiermit wird die allegorie aus der religiösen in die weltliche sphere, speziell in die liebesdichtung übergeführt, was für den Rosenroman bedeutungsvoll wird”; Edmond Faral, “”Le Roman de la Rose et la Pensée Française au xiii Silcle,“ Reme des Denx Menées, xxxv (Sept 1926), 433: ”Il [Guillaume de Lorris] anime des entités psychologiques: l'exemple lui en avait été donné par Martianus Capella, par Raoul de Houdenc, par Huon de Méry.“

page 1161 note 2 See E. Langlois, ed. Le Remon de la Ross (Paria, 1914-24), i, 3-8, Lewis, Allegery of Lete, pp. 176-259.

page 1161 note 3 La Littérature Française au Moyen Age (Paris, 1888), par. 111.

page 1162 note 4 Orighs as Smmm de Roman de la Rose (Paria, 1891), pp. 66-67.

page 1162 note 5 Psychamachis, ed. & trans. H. J. Thomson, Loeb Classical Library (London & Cambodge, Mm, 1949), vv, 40-106.

page 1163 note 6 Georg Wimmer, ed. Ausgaben and Abhandlunges auz dem Gebiete der ⇛mmlachem Philelegis, lxxvi (Marburg, 1888). Here, as elsewhere, I cite names of penonificetions in the cas-régime unless no such form occurs in the text.

page 1163 note 7 Aug. Scheler ed., in Tromeres Beiges, nouvelle série (Louvain, 1879); see Peradis 461-607, Enfer 216-331.

page 1163 note 8 Lines 75-79. See also the references to what appear to be actual persons: 167, 189-201, 223.

page 1163 note 9 See the Faerie Quems, ed. J. C. Smith (Oxford, 1909), ii, 485 (letter to Sir Walter Ralegh).

page 1164 note 10 Jean Renart [?], Galer on do Bretagns, ed. Lucien Foulet, CFMA (Paris, 1925), vv. 2914-3016; cf. Romes da la Rose 3511-52. There are, of courte, differences of character, situation and emphasis. Since Galeran is supposedly much above Fresne in station, this looms largest in the Abbess' mind, and it is his bel acueil which she tries to banish by her reproaches. The Lady of the Raman is much less tough than Fresne; while the latter stands up well to the Abbess (Galeren 3788-3995), the former allows Honts and Poor to reawaken Dangier, and Jalosis to imprison Bel Acueil (Roman 3561-3754).

page 1164 note 11 The two may be profitably compared section by section, vix.: Jean Renart, La Lai de l'Ombrs [MS. E], ed. John Orr (Edinburgh, 1948), vv. 342-49, Roman de la Rose 2879-85; Led 350-67, 399-421, Roman 2686-2906; Lai 422-37, Roman 2907-19; Lai 438-47, Roman 2920-50.

page 1164 note 12 Roman da la Ross 3221-3356; cf. Amedas et Ydoine, ed. John Reinhard (Paris, 1926), vv. 1006-1140. The Amadas poet uses a few lines of allegory here; see below, p. 1177.

page 1165 note 13 See Alfons Hilka, Dis dirakis Roda als stilistisches Kunstmitted in dorn Romanen des Kristion von Troyes (Halle, 1903), pp. 71-92; Gunnar Biller, Etude sur la Style des premiers Romans français on Vers (1150-75), Göteborgs Högakolas →eskrift, xxii (Göteborg, 1916), pp. 160-165.

page 1165 note 14 Perhaps better defined, according to the locus of the action, as “psychic” and cosmic“

page 1165 note 15 Cf. Hilka, Dirable Roda, pp. 80-84.

page 1166 note 16 Significant examples of some stage of this technique may be found in 14 romances. I list them in roughly chronological order: Piramus et Tisbi, ed. C. de Boer (Paris, 1921); Norcisus, ed. Alfons Hilka, in Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, xlix (1929), 623-675; Emeus, ed. J-J. Selverda de Grave, CFMA, 2 vols. (Paris, 1925); Benoit de Sainte-Maure, Le Römern do Troie, ed. Léopoid Connuas, SATF, 6 vols. (Paria, 1904-12); La Remerts d'Athis el ≾ophilies, ed. Alfons Hilka, Gasellschaft für romantiche Literatur, xxix, xl (Dresden, 1912-16); Li Romans do Floire et Blaucheflor (Version i), ed. Felicitas Krüger, Romanische Studies, xlv (Berlin, 1938); Gautier d'Arras, Erado, ed. E. Löeeth, Œuvres do Gmotier d'→res, Vol. i (Paris, 1890); Chrétien de Troyes, Cliges, ed. W. Foerster, 2nd ed. (Halle, 1901); Hue da Rotelande, Ipomodes, ed. E. Köibing & E. Koschwitz (Breslau, 1209); Aimas de Varennes, Florimound, ed Alfons Hilka, Goselleskaft für romanische Literatur, xlviii (Göttingen, 1933); Guillaume de Palarne, ed. H. Michelant, SATF (Paris, 1876); (Jean Renart], L'Escoufie, ed. H. Michelant & P. Meyer, SATF (Paria, 1894); Yder, ed. Heinrich Gelzer, Gesellschaft für romanésche Literatur, xxxi (Dresden, 1913), vv. 5373-5402; Jean Renart, Galeron de Bretagne, ed. cit. Specific citations follow. Punctuation has been added in some quotations to make the fact of alternate voices clear. Cf. the Provencal romance Flamenco, ed. Paul Meyer, 2nd ed. (Paria, 1901), vv. 3992-4022, 4372-4462. On dialogue between personifications in the contemporary lyric, see Alfred Jeanroy, Los Origines do la Potsie lyrique en France on Moyen Age, 3rd ed. (Paris, 1925), pp. 54, 520; A. Jeanroy, La Poésie lyrique des Troubadours, 2 vols. (Toulouse and Paris, 1934), ii, 121-123, 150-151; Carl Appel, Dos Leben und die Lieder des Trobodor Peire Rogier (Berlin, 1182), pp. 13-16; A. Jeanroy, De Nostratious Metii Ami Poems (diss. Paria, 1889), pp. 98-99.

page 1166 note 17 G. W. F. Hegel, Verlosungen über dis Philosophie der Weltgeschickte, ed. Georg Lasson, Vol. iv: Die germanische Well (Leipsig, 1920), p. 850; cf. Eduard Wechseler, Daz Kulturproblem des Minnesangs (Halle, 1909), esp. Ch. vii, “Der Individualismus seit dem Ersten Kreuamg.” A broader picture of the cultural situation is provided by Friedrich Heer, Aufgang Europas, sine Studio au den Zusammenhanges ornisene persischer Raligieess, Frlmonighatizshil und den Werden Europas im 12. Jolurhundert, 2 vola. (Vienna & Zirka, 1949); are asp., with reference to the present topic, i, 19-19 (“ein Jahrhundert der inneren Streitgespräche”), 189 and n. to line 19, 211 (“Das Produkt aus Reformbewegung, spirittsalem Humanismus und ins Weltliche transaendierender geistlicher Schulkultur und Mystik ist die höfische Gesellschaft . . .”), 221-232 (“Neuer Humanismus,” “Individualismus und Peraonahamue,” “Die Geburt der Profanwelt”), 241-242 (“Flucht in die ‘Einsemheit’ ”), 230-232 (“Die Gebart des ‘modemea individaums‘”). Heer actually appnsrhes a mirrai historical definition of the two kinds of aufgory we have disetinguished: “Diase [Beraaedmi] Mystik formt in steter Amdineaderetag xit dar pelitica Rsligioaitat der Feudarwelt alten Stilo einen neuen Menschen; den Maischen des europechen Itaneszuens, sie wandelt das gottwekichem. Begriffe und Gehalte ×ikiach-chrinthichel Sakralaprache um in die neue Sprache persönlichen Erlebnisses im Iunearaum dar Seele! Der politisch religiöse Mensch alten Stils hatte auch die Schlachten seiner Seele immer noch irgendwie in den Feldern der Aussen weit geschlagen ... Ihr seelisches Ringen, die innere Zucht, war nur ein Teilkampfleid auf dem grossen Kriegsschaupiatz, auf dem die Getreuen des Gottkönigs gegen die Mannen des Teufehskönigs unter vielerlei susseren und inneren Gestalten au kämpfen hatten.—Nun erat gelingt die totale Inversion, die ganeheitliche Ein Verwandlung der Aussenwelt in das Innen; Die spirituale heilige Seele gleicht der Heerschar Gottes. In ihr steht die Schlachtreihe der Tugenden, in ihr tobt der Kampf gegen die Machte des Bösen. Da fahren Pharao und die grossen Herren des Höllenfürsten in ihren Streitwagen sum Kampf auf die malitia, die luxuria und die evarirta. Einer der führenden Streiter In dieser ŋpeditio, diesem Romaug des Teufelskaisera, ist die Superbia; ⇛hlreiche untergeordnete Ritter und Mannen umgeben sie.—Ist dies nicht dieselbe Allegorisierung der Laster und Tugenden, wie sie von Martianus Capella und Prudentius bis au Herrad von Landsberg und Hildegard von Bingen so beliebt war? Ja—und nein. Ja, weil auch, wie wir oft gesehen haben, in Bernhard noch die Fülle der poh tischen Religloait alten Stila lebt. Nein, weil die ≤idenschaitliche Spiritualität des grossen Zistersienaers sum ersten Male die Objectivitt aller Ordnungen in Reich und Gottesreich einverwandelt in das Erlebnis der neuen Personalitt : Himmel und Erde vergehen in der Begegnung der liebenden Seele mit ihrem Geliebten” (pp. 231-232). I am indebted to Professors Ludwig Edelstein and Morton W. Bloomfield for valuable advice in the preparation of this section of the essay.

page 1167 note 18 Wechssler, Kultur problem, passim; Heer, Aufgang Europes, see above, n. 17. Against the notion of direct influence of Christian mysticism on the courtly love of the Troubadours, see Etienne Gilson, La Theologie Mystique do Saint Bernard, Eludes do Philosophie medievale (Paria, 1947), xx, 193-215; A. J. Denomy, C. S. B., “An inquiry into the Origins of Courtly Love,” Mod. Stud., vi (1944), 188-193. But both authors recognise certain similarities between the two. Cf. Denomy, “Fin' Amors: the Pure Love of the Troubadours,” Med. Stud., vii (1944), 147. In the present essay the term “courtly love” is used more loosely, to embrace the variations of concept and principle found in the romances.

page 1167 note 19 Richard of St. Victor, Do Stolu Imorioris Hominis, i, eap. xix (in Migne, Patrologia Latina, cxcvi, col. 1130A). See Bernhard Geyer, ed. Friedrich Uebonoegz Grundries der Geschichte der Philosophie, Vol. ii, Dio patristiche und scholastische Philosophie, 11th ed. (Berlin, 1928), pp. 252-272; Pierre Michaud-Quantin, “La Classificstion des Puissances de l'Ame au xii Siècle,” Revue du Moyen Ago Letiss, v (1949), 15-34.

page 1167 note 20 On the love-religion see Lewis, Allegory of Lovs, pp. 18-22, 29. Cf. the opinion of Helmut Hatsfeld in Sym., ii (1948), 236: “the attitude [of the early troubadours is better explained] by a parodistic-cultural challenge on the part of the worldlings of Cistercian Mysticism.... ”; and see Myrrha Lot-Borodine, “Sur les Origines et les Fins du Servies d'Amour,” in Mélamgez ... Alfred Jeanroy (Paris, 1928), pp. 223-235.

page 1168 note 21 Cf. Isaac of Stella, De Anima, in Migne, PL, cxciv, col. 1878C, D; Richard of St. Victor, Benjamin Minor, cap. iii (in Migne, PL, cxcvi, col. 3); Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermo LXXIX in Cantica, 1 (in Opera Omnia, ed. J. Mabillon [Paria, 1839], i, col. 3153 B) : “O amor praeceps, vehemens, flagrans, impetuose, qui praeter te aliud cogitare non sinis, fastidia caetera, contemnis omnia praeter te, te contentusl Confundis ordines, dissimulas mum, modum ignoras; totum quod opportunitatis, quod rationis, quod pudoris, quod conailii judiciive case videtur, triumphas in temet ipso, et redigis in captivitatem.” But the principle “Contre Amor nen sit riens vertu” (Florimont 2507) is often held in the romances with a self-conatious wilfulness and low spiritual content that indicate the espousal of madness, lack of reason rather than transcendence of it. Thus Erscls 3651: “Ou face folie ou savoir, / Si vueil je qu'il soit mes amis.” On courtly love as a cult of the irrational, sec P. Zumthor, “Notes en Marge du Traité de l'Amour de André le Chapelain,” Zeitschrift für romanische Philolgie, lxiii (1943), 179-182.

page 1168 note 22 Plato, Thoeetatus 189E, Sophist 263E, quoted by Georg Misch, A History of Auto-biofraphy in Aniquity, 3rd ed. trans. G. Misch & E. W. Dickes (London, 1950), ii, 445, q.v.

page 1168 note 23 Misch, Autobiogrephy, ii, 448-450.

page 1168 note 24 See his Retractationes, i, cap. iv, 1 (in Benedictine ed. (Paris, 1836), i, col. 29A, B): “. . . me interrogans, mihique respondens, tanquam duo essemus, ratio et ego, cum sohis essem”; Soliloquiorum Libri Duo. ii, cap. vii (in ed. cit., i, col. 626C).

page 1169 note 25 See G. Paré et al., La Renaissance du xii Siècle: Los Ecoles et l‘Ěseirnement, Publications da l'Institut d'Etudes Meditsalos d'Ottawa, iii (Paris & Ottawa, 1933), 125-129, 281-289; Geyer, ed. Geschickte der Philosophie, ii, 272-281. Cf. Wechssler, Kulturproblem, pp. 400-401; Helmut Hatsfeld, ‘Literarisches Hochmittelalter in Frankreich,“ Tijdschrift voor Tool en Letteren, xxv (1937), 90-92.

page 1169 note 26 See Athis 656 (“otroie et nie”), 1197 (“tençon”), 3783 (“plet”); Flaire 1643 (“bataille en lui”); Ipomedon 955 (“a sei meiames . . . estrive”); Galeran 634 (“contraire”). On the conpictus among personifications see H. Walther, Das Streitgedicht in der lateinischen Literatur du Milleiallers, in Quellen und Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters, v (München, 1920), esp. pp. 105-122. On the vernacular lyric forms see Ludwig Seibach, Das Streitgedickt in der ⨿tprovensalischen Lyrik, A us gaben und Abhandlungen ems dem Gebiete der romanischen Philologie, lvii (Marburg, 1886), esp. pp. 35-46; sbove, n. 16, end. By the time of Chrétien, the interest In dialectic can stifle whatever psychological value the dialogue-in-monologue has. See Cligès 690 ff., where the second voice is set up as a foil for Alexander's complicated explanation of the paradox of the eye, the heart, and the arrow. Gaston Paris, Mélanges de Litttreture française du moyen Age (Paris, 1912), pp. 278-279, mistakenly took the alter ago addressed by Alexander (“Or vos reparlerai del dart,” 770) to be the audience. Dialogue-in-monologue is occasionally submerged in the general medieval tendency to put up learning in Socratic form; cf. Flrimons 8583-8679, where dialogue between the narrator and Cuor leads to the former's dissertation on natural and hypocritical love.

page 1169 note 27 Edmond Farai, Recherches sur les Sources latines des Contes et Romans courtois du moyen Age (Paris, 1913), pp. 150-154, cites the resemblances.

page 1170 note 28 See Biller, Ls Style des premier Romans, pp. 164-165; Hue de Rotelande, Prethesilaus ed. Frans Kluckow, Gersellschaft fü rememisch Literatur, xlv (Göttingen, 1924), vv. 2777-78; Geleron 2623-42; Cligès 475 ff.; Grillasme de Palerne 864-890, 1200-05; Raoul de Houdenc, Merongis von Portlesguez, ed. Mathies Friedwagner (Halle, 1897), vv. 1240-43, 4157-87.

page 1171 note 29 Cf. Eneas 8348-52, 8434-87, 8679-8742, 8961-9088, 9867-82; Narcisus 267-294, 353-390, 539-548. 597-613; Piramus et Tisbé 221-280.

page 1171 note 30 See Faral, Recherches, p. 154.

page 1171 note 31 See also Ensas 8348-52, 8434-37.

page 1172 note 32 See below, pp. 1175.

page 1174 note 33 The poet does not here appear to be making any material distinction between Amor, speaking in vv .679 ff., and li daus smer referred to in v. 681 (cf. 691).

page 1175 note 34 See Lewis, Allegory of Lovs, p. 121.

page 1175 note 35 Athis et ≾ophikas 3933-76. Cf. Ramm de Rove 3424-26, 3440-76.

page 1175 note 36 Cf. 3977-78, where the quality which restraint Gaiete from imaginarily embracing her lover is called Hom, and 4505-10, where Athis hedt to reveal his love for Geiete to ≾ophilias is attributed to Homte and Per.

page 1177 note 37 Lancdot, ed. Wendelin Foerster (Halle, 1899), vv. 369-381:

Met reisons qui d'amors se part

Li dit que de mooter te gart,

Si le chastie et si l'ansaingne

Que rien ne face ne n'anpraingne,

Don il et bonte ne reproche.

N'est pas el euer, met an la boche

Reisons qui ce dire li ose;

Mes amors est el cuer anclose,

Qui li comande et aemont

Que tost sor la charrete mont.

Amors le viaut, et il i saut;

Que de la honte ne li chaut

Puit qu'amort le comande et viaut.

Lewie, Allgory of Love, pp. 30-31, cites a number of other examples from Chrétien.

page 1177 note 38 See Ercle 3265-73; Gautier d'Arras, Ille et Goloron, ed. E. Löteth, Œcor de Geutie d'Arras, Vol. ii (Paris. 1890), vv. 4827-36; Partomopouz de Blois, ed. G.-A. Crapelet, 2 vols. (Paris, 1834), vv. 6335-38; Gautier d'Aupais, ed. Edmond Farai, CFMA (Paris, 1919), vv. 441-461; the form of Galeran 622-441, in which Neture and Honts in tum influence Gente's attitude, shows both narrative and dramatic traits.

page 1178 note 39 Of the major personifications in the Romans, I have been unable to find either Bel Acust, or Venus as a personification of the sexual appetite, or Jalaste in Guillaume's sense, actually named in the romances. The first two, as we have seen above, are crudely subsumed within Amor. Lewis, Allegory of Love, p. 122, n. 2, notes an example of bel acueil from the Provencal Guilhem de Peitieu. Jalosie (see above, p. 1164) is well illustrated, if not named, in Galeran. For the rest, see as follows (numbers in parenthesis indicate where the term is clearly used without personification): Amor is practically omnipresent in the romances; Arance: Florimont 8966 ff. (9008); Mane Sexahlns: Lancelet (1235). Ombre [MS. A], ed. Joseph Bedier (Paris, 1913), v. 432; Blauté: Eracle 3270; Chasteé: Partonopeus 6234 ff.; Cortoisie: Ombre (MS. A) 432; Caveithe: Florimont 8649, 8966 ff.; Dangler: Athis (3871), Chigs (458); Baris; Brock 3265-70, Goleron 1122; Fraachise: Amedas 1103, Ombre 499; Gentileese: Ombre 210, 498; Halne: Yvoin 602 ff.; Honte: Narcisus (275, 383, 409); Athis 3977 ff., 4124, 4508-10, Lancelot (373 ff.), Yvoin 1531, Esconfle 7601, Galeran (3020, 3689, 4505); Jonece: Amodos 884; Largece: Ftorimont 4118 ff., Ombre 210; Male Bouche: Cligès 5330, Galeren 1322 (“maie langue”), 2922 (“mau parler”); Peer: Piramus (286), Athis 4508-10, Portonopeus 6336-38, Amadas 1103 (on the side of Amor); Pitié: Ille 4803 ff., 4833 ff., Gautier d'Aupais 490, Amadas 1103, Ombre 197, 210, 452, 498; Porreté: Gautier d'Aupais 157; Raison (including Sen, Sapience, Savoir): Piromus 238, 622, Narcisus (410), Chrétien de Troyes. Philomena, ed. C. de Boer (Paris, 1909), vv. 477 ff., Athis 723 ff., 1195, 3783 ff., 3904, 3962-63, Floire 1603 ff., Lancelot 369 ff., Florimont 8949 ff., Eseoufle 3908 ff., 7600 ff., Ombre 599. In a number of passages considerable groups of qualities or personifications are discussed; see Eracle 3264 ff., 3720 ff., IBe 3579-3602, Partomopeus 6225-64, Meraugis (601 ff.), 998 ff. For personification in early Old French generally see Richard Herzhoff, Personificationen ≤blosqr Dinge in der allfransischen Litteratur des 10. bis 12. Jahrhunderts, Teil Ilt Personificatienen non Abstrakten (diss. Berlin, 1904); Hyacinthe Blnet, Le Style de la Lyrique courteise eu France au XII e XIII St (Paris, 1891), pp. 48-49, 52-54.

page 1178 note 40 Cf. the distinction between internai analysis and intenor monologue made by L. E. Bowling, “What is the Stream of Consciousness Technique?” PMLA, lxv (1990), 345.

page 1178 note 41 Ckr, despite his other virtues, does not appear to have seen the strong kinship between dialogue-in-monologue and psychological allegory sa instruments of analysis. Both, in his work, tend to degenerate into preciosity (see above, n. 26, and Lewis, Allegory of Love, p. 31) without coming together. On the ether hand, the daring passage in Y 1757-71 whers Y vain is imaginarily summoned up to the bar of Laudine's mason and speaks in his own defence, is structurally similar to dialogue-in-monologue, and, it could be argued, constitutes a colloquy between “reison” and “droit” (Yvoin 1755, 1774). Since Raoul de Houdenc is a moral egorist by virtue of other works, we might have expected him to apply this technique to romance. His Meraugis do Pe contains considerable dostrinal debate on lovs, full of defidtions of cerimirie, veonvt, muer, etc. (601 ff. 998 ff.), which sometimes appear to be looked on as personified. But these are not inner debates, and are not used in the interest of psycholegical analysis. Among several nsonoiogues, these is ěc daring use of two vetoes (3566-83), where Meraugis questions God conocning his inetanty to fad the Nameless City, and receives answers. But as with Chrétem, this sty osity does not lead the poet toward allegory.

page 1179 note 42 The same alternatives, raised to the proportions of “the two major branches of poetry,” the didactic and the mimetic, are discussed by Elder Q, “Wiliam Empson, Cootemporary Criticsm, and Poetic Diction,” in Oritics and Crionnem, Ancient and Modern, ed. R. S. Crane (Chicago, 1952), pp. 65-48 (“Reprinted from Modern Phology, May 1950”). Oe p. 66 Olson is concerned with the incompletemen of the seeding of cartain noral allegories as romances, prescription as plot. My concern here is just the reverse. If in the Foris Queme we have moral allegory superficiali y resembling romance, we have in the latter part of Guilhnime's Romon primarily romance, sanaceli, using ♂chinery resembling that of moral allegory.

page 1180 note 43 Stufar doctrine in lecture form, Romande la Rose 2077-2580; Eneas 7902-31, 7957-00; Athis 3430-92; Florimonl 2534-70, 2597-2622, 2751-2889; Amadaz 1227-61. Many other p, in their condlean and irrelevance of detail, have a primarily doctrinal t despite the pretense of narrative; see, e.g., Eneas 8063-8126.

page 1180 note 44 Cf. Lewis, Allegory of Lovs, p. 116. There is no doubt that Guillaume follows the older tradition in such features as the set introduction and elaborate portraiture of some per. Of the latter there is pactically nothing in the romances. But this is not much a question of “mechanism.”

page 1180 note 45 L C. LeComte ed., in MP, viii (1910-11), 63-86.

page 1180 note 46 W. Foerster ed. (Bonn, 1880). One may also doubt whether an attentiveness bred solely am the he tradition, with its multiple levels of meaning, or on certain versions of the notion of Man as microcosm, would yield a full, satisfactory reading of the poem. Both would tend to see it only in cosmic, “universal,” and therefore moral and doctrinal terms. For an example of a recent ŋegetical reading on the tropotogical or moral laval, see D. W. Robertson, Jr., “The Doctrine of Charity in Medieval Literary Gardens: A Topical Approach through Symbolism and Allegory,” Speculum, xxvi (1951), 40-43. On “cosmocentric microcosmism,” see Rudolf Allers, “Microcosmus,” Traditio, ii (1944), 322,348-351.

page 1181 note 47 See the discussion of Bernardus Silvertris' De Mundi Universitate and Abusas' Anti-cloudionus in Lewis, Allegory of Lovs, pp. 90-91,100-103. I need not mention the larga role of Ratio in medieval psychology and ©istemology.

page 1182 note 48 The recent study of the completed poem by Alea M. F. Gunn, The Mirror of Lovs, A R of “The Romance of the Rose” (Lubbock, Texas, 1952), is too voluminous to be considered in detail here. Let it suffice to say that Conn does not directly take up the question of the provenience of the form, but that such references as there are to allegory, e.g. as “the dominant poetic method of the thirteenth century” and as “the literary seethed of the age” (pp. 502-503), indicate that Guaa is not concerned with the structural I have discussed here. On the other hand, he sees the ětire poets as both d debate and psychological allegory (e.g., p. 449). In his imposing and enveloping treatment of the work of Guillaume de Lorria and Jean de Meun as an artistic unit—wherein the total achievement is in one sense the letter's—the perspective on the slender, earner part is so altered as to justify an emphasis on ita doctrinal elements. But no view, I think, en give the same value to Guns's simultaneous contention that the libel “psychological novel” “applies as well to Jean's contribution as to Guilkume's” (p. 175). In Jean's part the Lady, as a complex psychic entity, virtually disappears, and the Lover, already rather colorless in Guillaume, becomes a personiftoation of Youth. What we have at most in the allegorical sections of Jean's work is, as Gunn shows, a treatment of the progress of Youth to maturity (pp. 276-297), a narrative which “subserves” (p. 313) doctrinal exposition and debate on love.