¹ Hauréau, , Histoire de la philosophie scholastique (Paris 1872) I 521; Mâle, , L'Art réligieux du XIII ^e siècle en France (Paris 1902) 101.Google Scholar

² Huizinga, Johan, Über die Verknüpfung des Poetischen mit dem Theologischen bei Alanus de Insulis in Mededeelingen Akad. Amsterdam 74B (1932) 102, repr. in Huizinga's Verzamelde Werken (Amsterdam 1949) IV 12.Google Scholar

³ Lewis, , The Allegory of Love (Oxford 1936) 106; Raynaud de Lage, G., Alain de Lille, poète du XII ^e siècle (Paris-Montreal 1951) 95–96.Google Scholar

⁴ Cilento, , Alano di Lilla, poeta e teologo del secolo XII (Naples 1958); repr. (slightly altered) in Medio Evo monastico e scolastico (Milan-Naples 1961) 234–80; Vasoli, , ‘Studi recenti su Alano di Lilla,’ Bullettino dell' Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medio Evo 72 (1960) 78–89; ‘Le idee filosofiche di Alano di Lilla nel De planctu e nell' Anticlaudianus,’ Giornale critico della filosofia italiana 40 (1961) 462–98.Google Scholar

⁵ ‘Alan of Lille's De planctu naturae,’ Speculum 31 (1956) 649–74; ‘Alan of Lille's Anticlaudianus: Ascensus Mentis in Deum,’ Annuale Medievale 8 (1967) 3–16.Google Scholar

⁶ Alain de Lille, esp. 81–85.Google Scholar

⁷ Though I do not have occasion to refer to it at any specific point, a number of my ideas have been influenced by Richard McKeon's provocative analysis of twelfth-century attitudes toward poetry and its uses, ‘Poetry and Philosophy in the Twelfth Century: the Renaissance of Rhetoric,’ Modern Philology 43 (1945–46) 217–34; repr. in Critics and Criticism, Ancient and Modern (ed. Crane, R.S.; Chicago 1952) 297–318.Google Scholar

⁸ For the main lines of Robertson's position see ‘Some Medieval Literary Terminology,’ Studies in Philology 48 (1952) 669–92; A Preface to Chaucer (Princeton 1962) 52–137. The Preface, which includes an excellent discussion of ‘Christian Humanism’ (337–65), is less dogmatic than the earlier study, but the earlier rigidity returns with a vengeance in the introduction to the collaborative study Fruyt and Chaffe (with Bernard Huppé; Princeton 1964). A variety of responses to Robertson's work may be found in Bloomfield, M. W., ‘Symbolism in Medieval Literature,’ MP 56 (1958) 73–81; Critical Approaches to Medieval Literature , ed. Bethurum, Dorothy (New York 1959); Jordan, Robert M., Chaucer and the Shape of Creation (Cambridge, Mass. 1967) 10ff.Google Scholar

⁹ A rationale for this de-emphasizing of psychological and realistic elements is offered by Robertson, Preface 31ff. See the astute criticisms of his position in an excellent review of the Preface by Kaske, Robert E., ‘Chaucer and Medieval Allegory,’ ELH 30 (1963) 186ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰ See below, pp. 120–21.Google Scholar

¹¹ ‘In the De Planctu Naturae Alan chose to work as a philosopher and poet within a well-defined tradition of philosophical poetry and he made it clear that he was quite aware of the limits imposed by his choice’ (‘Alan's, De Planctu’ 653); cf. 649, 651, 656 et passim. Google Scholar

¹² Ibid. 653. Green is evidently thinking of Abelard's praise of Plato in the Introductio ad theologiam, which he cites on p. 659, but he says nothing of how such praise was interpreted by Abelard's contemporaries.Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid. 654.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid. 656 n. 16.Google Scholar

¹⁵ ‘Dante's “Allegory of Poets” and the Medieval Theory of Poetic Fiction,’ Comparative Literature 9 (1957) 118–28.Google Scholar

¹⁶ La Théologie au XII ^e siècle (Paris 1957) 159–90.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid. 160.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Ibid. 174–87.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Gregory, Tullio, Anima mundi: La filosofia di Guglielmo di Conches e la Scuola di Chartres (Florence 1955); Jeauneau, Edouard, ‘Macrobe, source du platonisme chartrain,’ Studi medievali 1 (1960) 3–24; idem, ‘Notes sur l’École de Chartres,’ Studi medievali 5 (1964) 821–65; Klibansky, Raymond, ‘The School of Chartres,’ in Twelfth-Century Europe and the Foundations of Modem Society, edd. Claggett, M., Post, G., Reynolds, R. (Madison 1961) 3–14. The ‘School of Chartres’ is of course only a convenient focal point for a body of ideas which were widely held in the twelfth century and later. For a broader view of twelfth-century natural philosophy see the excellent studies of Gregory, ‘Il Timeo e i problemi del platonismo medievale,’ in his Platonismo medievale: Studi e ricerche (Rome 1958) 53–150; ‘L'idea di natura nella filosofia medievale prima dell' ingresso della fisica di Aristotele,’ in La filosofia della natura nel Medioevo. Atti del Terzo Congresso Internazionale di Filosofia Medievale, 1964 (Milan 1966) 27–65.Google Scholar

²⁰ Glosae super Platonem, ed. Jeauneau, E. (Paris 1965) 60. For other instances of this idea in the twelfth century, see Javelet, Robert, ‘Image de Dieu et nature au XII^e siècle,’ La filosofia della natura nel Medieoevo 289–91.Google Scholar

²¹ Policraticus 7.5 (ed. Webb, C. C. J.; Oxford 1909; II 108).Google Scholar

²² See Gregory, , Platonismo medievale 73–121.Google Scholar

²³ Prologue to De sex dierum operibus (ed. Häring, N. M., ‘The Creation and Creator of the World according to Thierry of Chartres and Clarenbaldus of Arras,’ Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 22 [1955] 184).Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid. 186ff.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid. 193–94.Google Scholar

²⁶ Delhaye, Philippe, Le Microcosmos de Godefroy de St. Victor: Étude théologique (Lille 1951) 148.Google Scholar

²⁷ Timaeus 40D–47E.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. the glosses of Guillaume de Conches edited by Jourdain, Charles, ‘Des Commentaires inédits de Guillaume de Conches et de Nicholas Triveth sur la Consolation de la Philosophie de Boèce,’ Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale 20.2 (1862) 75–80.Google Scholar

²⁹ See de Conches, Guillaume, Glosae super Platonem 59.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Gregory, , Platonismo medievale 59–73.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid. 1 (cited from Oxford Bodleian MS Digby 23, fol. 54).Google Scholar

³² The Didascalicon of Hugh of St. Victor (New York 1961) 10–28.Google Scholar

³³ De Sacramentis 1. Prol., 2, PL 176.183; ibid. 1.1.28–29, PL 176.203–04; Expositio in Hierarchiam coelestem, 1.1 PL 175.923–28.Google Scholar

³⁴ In Ecclesiasten Homilia IV, PL 175.152; cf. Taylor, , Didascolicon 14–19.Google Scholar

³⁵ Expos. in Hier coel., 1.1, PL 175.928.Google Scholar

³⁶ In Ecclesiasten Homilia V, PL 175.156.Google Scholar

³⁷ In Eccl. Hom. X, PL 175.177.Google Scholar

³⁸ Expos. in Hier. coel., 1.1, PL 175.925.Google Scholar

³⁹ Didascalicon, 3.4, PL 176.768–69; trans. Taylor, , 87–89.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ ‘Hugh, though a voluminous commentator, has no commentary on texts other than scriptural or religious, and never recommends such texts …, or any commentary on them to his students’ (Taylor, , Didascalicon 21).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis, 1.2 17–18 (ed. Willis, James; Leipzig 1963; 7). See also Raby, F. J. E., Nuda Natura and Twelfth-Century Cosmology,' Speculum 43 (1968) 72–77.Google Scholar

⁴² See Jeauneau, Edouard, ‘L'Usage de la notion d'integumentum à travers le gloses de Guillaume de Conches,’ Archives d'histoire 24 (1957) 35 100, and below, n. 58.Google Scholar

⁴³ See Bernardus Silvestris' elaborate allegorization of Aeneas' approach to the cave of the Sibyl, Commentum … super sex libros Eneidos Virgilii , ed. Reidel, W. (Greifswald 1923) 31–37.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Metalogicon, 1.17–24, ed. Webb, C. C. J. (Oxford 1929) 42–58; Thierry, , Prologus in Eptateuchon , ed. Jeauneau, , Medieval Studies 16 (1954) 174–75.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Didascalicon, 3.4, PL 176.769; trans. Taylor, , 88.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Didascalicon 5.3, PL 176.790; trans. Taylor, , 121–22; De Sacramentis 1. Prol., 3–4, PL 176.184–85.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Didascalicon, 5.3, PL 176.790; trans. Taylor, 122.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Didascalicon, 1.6, PL 176.745–46; trans. Taylor, , 52–53; cf. pp. 14, 186 n. 42.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See the excellent analysis of de Bruyne, Edgar, Études d'esthétique médiévale (Bruges 1946) II 256–301, 334–43, 368–70, and Jordan, , Chaucer and the Shape of Creation, 10–43.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Chenu, , La théologie au XII ^e siècle , 174–78, 185–87; de Bruyne, , Études II 133–45, 204–42.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Cited by Haskins, C. H., Studies in the History of Medieval Science (Cambridge, Mass. 1924) 29, from Cambridge, Fitzwilliam MS McLean 165.Google Scholar

⁵² Elucidarium 1.12, PL 172.1117.Google Scholar

⁵³ See Bolgar, R. P. The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries (Cambridge 1954) 207–24; d'Andeli, Henri, La Bataille des vii ars , ed. Paetow, L. J. in Memoirs of the University of California IV (1914) 13–30.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ ‘In hoc ergo opusculo licet ad poemata introductorie non nihil tamen et philosophicis subservientes tractatibus utrasque fabularum species …, quantum se ad praesens facultas dederit, iuxta veterum maxime vestigia persequemur’ (Prologue to Alberici Poetria , ed. Jacobs, Freidrich and Ukert, F.A., Beiträge zur älteren Litteratur [Leipzig 1835] I 204). On the two kinds of fabula cf. Macrobius, , Comm. in Somn. Scip., 1,2, 13–14 (ed. Willis, , 7). Alberici Poetria is the compendium of the ‘Mythographus tertius’ edited by Bode, G. H., Scriptores rerum mythicarum (Celle 1834) I 152–56. The fascinating and difficult prologue of Albericus deserves careful study in its own right. On its attribution see Rathbone, Eleanor, ‘Master Alberic of London, “Mythographus tertius Vaticanus,”’ Medieval and Renaissance Studies I (1941–43) 35–38.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See Commentum super sex libros Eneidos 43–44, 51–60, 114–15, et passim. Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Ghisalberti, Fausto, ‘Arnolfo d'Orléans, un cultore di Ovidio nel secolo XII’ in Memorie del Reale Istituto Lombardo 24 (1932) 181.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Cited by de Gandillac, Maurice, ‘Le platonisme au xii^e et au xiii^e siècles,’ in Association Guillaume Budé, Congrès de Tours et de Poitiers, 1953 (Paris 1954) 273. Cf. Jourdain, , ‘Des Commentaires inédits’ 72–73, Taylor, , Didascalicon 16, and the references gathered by Chenu, , La Théologie au xii ^e siècle 109 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Jeauneau, , ‘Notes sur l’École de Chartres’ 856–57: ‘Genus doctrine [Martianae] figura est. Figura autem est oratio quam involucrum dicere solent. Hec autem bipertita est: Partimur namque eam in allegoriam et integumentum. Est autem allegoria oratio sub historica narratione verum et ab exteriori diversum involvens intellectum, ut de luctu Iacob. Integumentum vero est oratio sub fabulosa narratione verum claudens intellectum, ut de Orpheo. Nam et ibi historia et hic fabula ministerium habent occultum, quod alias discutiendum erit. Allegoria quidem divine pagine, integumentum vero philosophice competit’ (emphasis mine). On the term involucrum , see Chenu, , ‘Involucrum, le mythe selon les théologiens médiévaux,’ Archives d'histoire 22 (1955) 75–79; Jeauneau, , ‘L'usage de la notion d'integumentum’ 36–38; and for an excellent broad survey, de Lubac, Henri, Exégése médiévale II. 2 (1964) 125–262. The terms involucrum, integumentum and allegoria were used with widely varying degrees of precision, but we may see in Bernardus' careful formulation the twelfth-century tendency to distinguish the realm of higher inspiration from that of an author's conscious intention. Beryl Smalley has discussed a similar tendency in the exegetical works of Hugh of St. Victor, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (ed. 2; Oxford 1952) 100–06. The treatment of integumenta by Bernardus and the Chartrians, in acknowledging a ministerium occultum in poetic fable, gave rise to a new respect for the Latin poets which is reflected in the commentaries of Albericus, Arnulf of Orleans, and Bernardus himself as well as providing an invaluable precedent for the ambitious poets of the later-twelfth century.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Edd. Barach, C. S., Wrobel, J. (Innsbruck 1876). All references to the De mundi universitate will be to page and line in this edition.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid. 13.138ff; 24.315ff; 37.61ff.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid. 13.138ff; 45.190ff; 71.171–78.Google Scholar

⁶² ‘The Fabulous Cosmogony of Bernardus Silvestris,’ Modern Philology 46 (1948) 104–16.Google Scholar

⁶³ Silverstein's handling of this difficult problem has been criticized in the specific instance of the figure of Noys by d'Alverny, M.-Th., ‘Alain de Lille et la “Theologia,”’ in L'Homme devant Dieu: Mélanges Henri de Lubac (Paris 1964) II 121 n. 39. But Silverstein is talking about a figural technique rather than a theological interpretation, and his demonstration is convincing.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ See especially De mundi 10.47–78; 12.134ff. Cf. Timaeus 43–44, Chalcidius, , In Platonis Timaeum Commentarius 297ff. (ed. Wrobel, J.; Leipzig 1876; 325ff).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ As Vasoli justly remarks, ‘Se è impossibile avanzare un'interpretazione unitaria del pensiero di Bernardo, non e per questo meno valida la funzione storica di una cultura che mira a fondere tanti atteggiamenti e motivi della riflessione classica con atteggiamenti e idee cristiane, rinnovando in pieno xii secolo alcuni motivi fondamentali, della metafisica e della scienza antica’ (‘Le idee filosofiche di Alano di Lilla’ 465–66). On the philosophical problems which Bernardus' obscurantism may seem to raise, see Garin, Eugenio, Studi sul platonismo medievale (Florence 1958) 54–62.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ On the gradual merging of natura and anima mundi in Chartrian thought, see Gregory, , Platonismo medievale 122–50.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ So pervasive are the moral implications of Bernardus' cosmogony that it seems necessary to qualify the common argument that it was Alain who first elaborated the moral implications of Natura (de Lage, Raynaud, Alain de Lille 74–75; Chenu, , La Théologie 36; Gregory, , Platonismo medievale 148–50). Nature is essentially the same figure in the two Works, and, though her moral role is made more explicit in the De planctu, it is present in a profound form in the former work. See, e.g., De mundi 57–58 and Silverstein, , ‘The Fabulous Cosmogony’ 116.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ De planctu Naturae , ed. Wright, Thomas, Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets of the Twelfth Century [London 1872] II 430; PL 210.431. Subsequent references to the De planctu will be to page in Wright and column in the Patrologia. Quotations, except where noted, will be from Wright.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Cf. John's introduction of his theme, Metalogicon 1.1 (ed. Webb, p. 7): ‘Nam ratio, scientie uirtutumque parens altrix et custos, que de uerbo frequentius concipit et per uerbum numerosius et fructuosius parit, aut omnino sterilis permanaret aut quidem infecunda, si non conceptionis eius fructum, in lucem ederet usus eloqui…. Mercurio Philologiam inuidet… qui eloquentie preceptionem a studiis philosophie eliminat et quamuis solam uideatur eloquentiam persequi, omnia liberalia studia conuellit, omnem totius philosophiae impugnat operam, societatis humane fedus distrahit, et nullum caritati aut uicissitudini officiorum relinquit locum….’ Cf. Green, , ‘De planctu’ 661. Alain discusses the effects of the Fall in terms of the corruption of liberal studies in the prologue to his summa ‘Quoniam homines’ ; ed. Glorieux, P., Archives d'histoire 20 (1953) 119.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Wright 430; PL 210.432.Google Scholar

⁷¹ The corruption of mythology is at the root of Nature's ill-starred attempts to explain Venus and Cupid to the dreamer, and poses a problem which is finally solved only through the cosmic myth of the reunion of Nature and Genius (see below, pp. 106–09, 114–17). Alain's use of the conventions of courtly erotic poetry is harder to characterize, and deserves a study all to itself. Frauendienst is clearly an important factor in his conception of Natura, from the initial descriptio of the goddess, and the dreamer's response, to the final meeting with Genius (where the basia of the proem are clearly recalled; see pp. 115–17 below). Courtly convention is no doubt ‘redeemed’ in part for Alain by its association with Marian hymnody, where it is not infrequently associated with the conventions of the integumentum and ‘naturalistic’ allegory, as in the Marian poetry of Walter of Chatillon, and Alain's own rhythmus on the Incarnation (ed. d'Alverny, , Mélanges Henri de Lubac II 127–28). See also Krayer, Rudolf, Frauenlob und die Natur-Allegorese (Heidelberg 1960) 23–123, and pp. 118–19 below.Google Scholar

⁷² Wright 441; PL 210.437; cf. Boethius, , De cons. phil. 3, metr. 2, where Natura potens plies the reins herself. Alain's conception seems also to recall the common interpretation of Timaeus 41e in which the currus animarum were glossed as ratio and intelligentia. See Gregory, , Platonismo medievale 9–10, 100.Google Scholar

⁷³ Wright 445; PL 210.439.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Wright 445; PL 210.439–40.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Wright 449; PL 210.442.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Cf. the phrases ‘humanae speciei signaculo’ and ‘rationis impressi signaculum,’ Wright 450; PL 210.442–43. The terms signaculum, sigillum, imago, signum, apparently used with no strict consistency in the De planctu, are defined in Alain's Sermo in die sancti Michaelis (ed. d'Alverny, M.-Th., Alain de Lille: textes inédits [Paris 1965] 249–50): ‘Aliud est enim signaculum Dei, aliud sigillum, aliud ymago, aliud signum. Sigillum Dei Patris est Filius, quasi in omnibus signans illum, quia patri coequalis, coeternus, consubstantialis. Angelus vero est Dei signaculum quasi in aliquibus signans illum, quia in pluribus similis est Deo angelus, etsi non in omnibus. Unde et de Lucifero dicitur, secundum statum quem habuit ante casum: Tu signaculum similitudinis Dei. Sed Filius est sigillum Patris secundum unitatem essentie; angelus vero signaculum imitationis ratione. Homo vero dicitur ymago Dei, quasi imitago, quia non ita similis est expresse Deo sicut angelus. Quelibet vero creatura dicitur signum Dei, quia sui essentia, sui ordinatione, sui pulcritudine predicat Deum.’ Cf. Elucidatio in Cant. Cant. 8, PL 210.105. The passage just quoted is reproduced in the Liber sententiarum attributed to Alain (art. 29, PL 210.247).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Wright 449–50; PL 210.442–44. Cf. Javelet, , ‘Image de Dieu et Nature’ 293–95.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Wright 454–56; PL 210.444–46.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Wright 457; PL 210.446.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Wright 458; PL 210.447.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Wright 457; PL 210.446. Alain is recalling the preparation of Philologia for immortality in Capella, Martianus, De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii, 2.134–38 (ed. Dick, Adolfus [Leipzig 1925] 58–60).Google Scholar

⁸² Wright 463–64;PL 210.449–50.Google Scholar

⁸³ Secretarius seems to be used here in the sense of ‘repository’ or ‘keeper’ of a more or less sacred trust. Cf. the prologue to the ‘Quoniam homines’ (ed. Glorieux, 119): ‘… sicut olim philosophia cum familiari et secretario suo Boetio querimoniale lamentum deposuit….’ Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Wright 464–65; PL 210.451.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Wright 465; PL 210.451. For discussions of this passage — none of which, however, deals with its thematic function in the De planctu — see Green, , ‘De planctu’ 658–69; Robertson, , Preface 344ff; Chenu, , La Théologie 159–61.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Wright 466; PL 210.451. On indecent fabulae see Macrobius, , Comm. 1.2.2 (ed. Willis, , 6).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Bernardus' Noys is ‘fons luminis, seminarium vitae, bonum bonitatis divinae, plenitudo scientiae quae mens altissimi nominatur’ (De mundi 13.150–52). This passage is drawn almost verbatim from the anonymous Liber Hermetis Mercurii Triplicis de vi rerum principiis ed. Silverstein, , Archives d'histoire 22 (1955) 250; cf. ‘Fabulous Cosmogony’ 96 n. 25.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Wright 468; PL 210.453. Cf. Green, , ‘De planctu’ 652 n. 7.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ This passage is an excellent example of Alain's abiding preoccupation with ‘das zentrale Wunder der Erschaffung der Formen.’ See Huizinga's copiously illustrated discussion, Mededeelingen 142–53 (Verz. Werk. IV 43–51).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Wright 470; PL 210.454. On the digitus Dei cf. St. Augustine, , De spiritu et littera 16 (PL 42.218).Google Scholar

⁹¹ Wright 471; PL 210.455.Google Scholar

⁹² Wright 472; PL 210.455. Cf. Anticlaudianus I. 175–83 (ed. Bossuat, Robert [Paris 1955] 62).Google Scholar

⁹³ Wright 480; PL 210.459.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Wright 501; PL 210.471. The PL text reads libidinis for cupidinis. Google Scholar

⁹⁵ It seems to me that the inconsistencies in Alain's account of the careers of Venus and Cupid are deliberate; that we are to attribute both good and bad to a single figure in each case. Green's use of the mythographical theme of the ‘two Venuses’ to explain the difficulties of the De planctu seems to me difficult to reconcile with the reunification of human nature suggested by the introduction of Genius in the final scene. See also Vasoli, , ‘Studi recenti’ 82–85.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Regula 99, PL 210.673–74; cf. the passages from various sources cited by Javelet, , ‘Image de Dieu et nature’ 293–94, esp. Guillaume de St. Thierry, De natura corporis et animae, PL 180.714–15, 725–26; Thomas the Cistercian, Comm. in Cant. Cant, PL 206.249.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Wright 503; PL 210.472. The PL reading is very different here; for sacramentalem matrimoniae fidem it gives tabulam sacramentalem testimonii, finem matrimonii. On the sacramental status of marriage before the Fall, see Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis 1.8.12–13, PL 176.313–18.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ With his description (Wright 503–04; PL 210.472), cf. the opening poem of Martianus, De Nuptiis ed. Dick, 3).Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Wright 515; PL 210.478. Wright is clearly mistaken in assigning this speech to Largitas. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Like the arts of expression, which become corrupted when a sense of their higher rationale is lost, Largitas becomes barren prodigality when it ceases to be an emulation of the bounty of Natura. Thus in Alain's discussion of the use and abuse of wealth, the wisdom which frees the mind from the love of money is compared to philosophy and the Liberal Arts, and the image of the divine charioteer is opposed to meaningless prodigality; Wright 489–90, 493–94; PL 210.464–65, 466–67. Of course Largitas is by implication more a condition than a specifically moral attitude, but Alain seems to intend by it a sort of natural analogue to caritas. Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See d'Alverny, , Alain de Lille: textes inédits 167–80; Silverstein, , ‘Fabulous Cosmogony’ 112–14; John of Salisbury, Metalogicon 4.35 (ed. Webb 204–206).Google Scholar

¹⁰² See Klibansky, , ‘Plato's Parmenides in the Middle Ages and Renaissance,’ Medieval and Renaissance Studies I (1941–43) 282–83.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See the references gathered by de Lage, Raynaud, Alain de Lille 89–90; Lewis, , Allegory of Love 361–63; and note 137 below.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ De mundi 38.91–103.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ De mundi 70.157ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Lewis does not mention Bernardus' allusion to the genii of human procreation, and his survey suggests that the cosmic and the individual Genius remain distinct in post-classical literature until more or less accidentally conflated by Spenser. However, though their spiritual significance is left unclear, Bernardus seems to imply an association between his procreative genii and the cosmic bestower of form, and these are certainly united in the Genius of the De planctu. Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ De mundi 31.71–32.128.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ De mundi 71.171–78. See Dronke, Peter, ‘L'amor che move il sole e l'altre stelle,’ Studi medievali VI (1965) 414–16. Dronke sees clearly the relevance of the passage to the theme of the ‘battle against formlessness’ which unifies the De mundi, but because he does not acknowledge Bernardus’ religious perspective on his theme, his interpretation is overly naturalistic. For an impassioned statement of a view similar to Dronke's see the wonderful characterization of Bernardus' allegory in Waddell, Helen, The Wandering Scholars (ed. 7; London 1934) 115–22.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ See the gloss of Guillaume de Conches quoted by Jeauneau (‘L'usage de la notion d'integumentum,’ 46): ‘Genius est naturalis concupiscentia’; and ‘Mythographus tertius’ (ed. Bode 185): ‘Genio autem indulgere dicimus, quotiens voluptati operam damus.’ Robertson (Preface 199) cites these in support of his definition of the Genius of the De planctu and the Roman de la Rose as ‘natural inclination’ — a definition which, however, excludes cosmic and spiritual associations clearly intended by Alain in his characterization.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Wright 520; PL 210.481.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Wright 511;PL 210.476. Because of the many aspects of Genius' role, he is both superior and in a sense subordinate to Nature. Thus she speaks of him as a chaplain ‘qui mihi in sacerdotali ancillatur officio’ (Wright 510; PL 210.476), but also acknowledges the radical dependence of her existence on his: ‘ut omnino tecum sim, aut in tuo profecto proficiens, aut in tuo defectu aequa lance deficiens’ (Wright 511; PL 210.476). Ideally, of course, their relationship is one of perfect complementarity: ‘Quapropter circularis debet esse dilectio, ut tu talione dilectionis respondens, nostram fortunam facias esse communem’ says Nature (Wright 511; PL 210.476).Google Scholar

¹¹² Essentially this point is made by Vasoli (‘Le idee filosofiche’ 478).Google Scholar

¹¹³ Wright 515, 518; PL 210.478, 480.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ See Javelet, , ‘Image de Dieu et nature’ 291–92, and Alain, , Summa de arte praedicatoria 3, PL 210.118–19.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Wright 517; PL 210.479. See Green, , ‘De planctu’ 661–62.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Wright 518; PL 210.480. The terms informata and deformata are similarly used in Alain's Tractatus de virtutibus et de vitiis et de donis Spiritus Sancti (ed. Lottin, O., Psychologie et morale aux XII ^e et XIII ^e siècles VI [Gembloux 1960] 59). On the relation of truth and falsehood to right and left, cf. Summa de arte praedicatoria 3, PL 210.118: ‘Ut dicit philosophus, quaedam est species speculi, in qua sinistra videtur esse sinistra et dextera videtur esse dextera. Dextera in hoc speculo est ratio quae dictat dextera esse appetenda, id est coelestia, sinistra esse fugienda, id est terrena. Aliud vero est speculum in quo dexterae partes videntur esse sinistrae et sinistrae videntur esse dexterae; hoc est, sensualitas quae dictat terrena esse appetenda, et coelestia esse postponenda.’ 117 Wright 518; PL 210.480. Cf. Alain's highly imaginative description of the union of form and matter in the Sermo de sphaera intelligibili (d'Alverny, , Textes inédits 299–301), esp. the account of the ‘palace’ of the divine ychones (300): ‘In hoc palatio celebrantur nuptie Nature et nati, Forme et forme nati, proprietatis et subiecti. Forma etenim geniali inherentie osculo subiectum osculatur, ex quo varie prolis fecunditas propagatur.’ Cf. Anticlaudianus I.457, 459 (ed. Bossuat 70). On the relation of such conceptions in Alain's writings to twelfth-century ‘realism,’ and especially to the position of Gilbert de La Porrée, see Huizinga, , Mededeelingen 119–23 (Verz. Werk. IV 26–28); see also below, n. 136.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ De mundi 9.3–4. See Bennett, J. A.W., The Parlement of Foules (Oxford 1957) 108.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Cf. Elucidatio in Cant. Cant. 1 (PL 210.53), where the archetypal osculum of Canticles 1.1 is viewed as a symbol of the Incarnation, of the Holy Spirit, and of the imparting of Christian doctrine. With the implicit analogy between Hyle and the Virgin, cf. Richard of St. Victor, Liber exceptionum 2.2.8 (ed. Chatillon, Jean [Paris 1958] 226–27). See also the valuable remarks of Huizinga, Mededeelingen 136–38 (Verz. Werk. IV 38–39).Google Scholar

¹²⁰ De mundi 37.61–70; cf. Commentum super sex libros Eneidos 28; Macrobius, , Comm. 1.10.9–10 (ed. Willis, 43); Courcelle, Pierre, ‘Tradition platonicienne et traditions chrétiennes du corps-prison,’ Revue des études latines 43 (1965) 406–43.Google Scholar

¹²¹ Wright 520; PL 210.481.Google Scholar

¹²² Cf. with this elevation the description of the charioteer of Nature, ‘cuius vultus non terrenitatis vilitatem, sed potius deitatis redolebat arcanum’ (Wright 445; PL 210.439); and that of Veritas, in whose countenance ‘divinae pulchritudinis deitas legebatur, nostrae mortalitatis aspernata naturam’ (Wright 518; PL 210.480). Genius is now able to partake of this ideal quality, his priestly robes representing, as it were, a purified integumentum. Google Scholar

¹²³ Eluddatio 1, PL 210.59. A close association is maintained in the Elucidatio between the Virgin and the Church. On the creation and the Church, cf., e.g., Abelard, , Expositio in Hexaemeron, PL 178.770–71; Richard, , Liber exceptionum, 2.1.7–8 (ed. Chatillon, 226–27).Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Wright 431; PL 210.432. On tithing as a pre-scriptural sacrament, see Hugh, , De Sacramentis 1.11.1–4; PL 176.343–45. Cf. Nature's words in the Architrenius of Jean de Hanville (ed. Wright, , Anglo-Latin Satirical Poets I 384–85): Sanctio nostra virum sterili marcescere ramo Et fructum sepelire vetat, prolemque negantes Obstruxisse vias; commissi viribus uti Seminis et longam generis producere pompam Relligio nativa iubet….Google Scholar

¹²⁵ See the Expositio prosae de angelis (ed. d'Alverny, , Textes inédits 215–16), where the parables are glossed with reference to the standard interpretation of St. Gregory, In Evangelia Homilia XXXIV (PL 76.1246–59); see also Alain's Distinctiones, PL 210.765,776,841,887, 928. Of course it would be difficult to prove that any connection exists between these parables and the De planctu, though I think the comparison is illuminating. At best one may note the compatibility of Alain's narrative with such an interpretation.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ ‘De planctu’ 674.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ ‘Le idee filosofiche’ 478–82.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ Ibid. 469–71.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ ‘Studi recenti’ 79–85.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ ‘Le idee filosofiche’ 468.Google Scholar

¹³¹ See Chenu, , La théologie 289–308; Alain's role in the movement is well described by Vasoli, , ‘La “theologia apothetica” di Alano di Lilla,’ Rivista critica di storia della filosofia 16 (1961) 153–63.Google Scholar

¹³² Chenu, , La théologie 290. See also Baron, Roger, ‘Philosophie de structure et philosophie de concernement,’ in Miscellanea Medievalia, II: Die Metaphysik im Mittelalter (Berlin 1963) 225–31.Google Scholar

¹³³ Chenu, , La théologie 295.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Ed. Lottin 59: ‘… cum enim utimur naturalibus solo ductu nature, non informatione gratie, naturalia dicuntur. Cum vero eisdem caritate informatis utimur, gratuita nuncupantur.’ Cf. 65–66: ‘Si autem restitisset [Adam] temptationi diaboli, non hoc fecisset per gratuita, sed per naturalia, per quod reddidisset se dignum vita eterna, id est congruum ut conferrentur ei gratuita.’ Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Ibid. 86. Cf. Boethius, De arithmetica I, PL 63.1081–82; Bernardus, Commentary on Martianus Capella, cited by Jeauneau, , ‘Notes sur l'École de Chartres,’ 855–56. For the role of this concept in the thought of Hugh of St. Victor see Taylor, , Didascalicon 46–52, 178–80.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ See the excellent discussion of M^lle d'Alverny, , Textes inédits 163–80. A striking example of the appropriation of rationalist terminology is the anonymous Commentarius porretanus in primam epistolam ad Corinthios , ed. Landgraf, A. (Studi e testi 117 [Vatican City 1945] 27–28, esp. the definition of reason as motus animi totum ambitum nature et nati comprehendens; cf. note 117 above. Alain dwells on the subtle distinctions between ‘supercelestial ‘and’ subcelestial’ speculation, the former depending on a radical transformation of the resources of the Liberal Arts and philosophy, in the prologue to the Regulae (PL 210.621–23) and the ‘Quoniam homines’ (ed. Glorieux 119–22). For his terminology see the anonymous Expositiones super Ierarchiam caelestem cited and discussed by M^lle d'Alverny, Textes inédits 92–99. With Alain's more or less poetic use of ‘natural philosophy’ as a foil to his theological expositions cf. the use of Platonist cosmology by Hugh of St. Victor, discussed by Taylor, , Didascalicon 19–28.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ For this distinction see d'Alverny, , Textes inédits 95; Expositio prosae de angelis (ibid. 205). In the Hierarchia Alani (ibid. 228) Alain defines his terms: ‘Per substantificos genios, id est per substantiales naturas. Genius enim natura vel deus Deus nature dicitur. Hec autem manifestatio pertinet ad naturalem philosophiam que de rerum natura pertractat. Scientia autem non habetur de Deo per substantiales naturas…, sed per signa consequentia, id est, per effectus supreme cause…. Manifesta est ergo differentia inter philosophiam et theophaniam; et in hoc differunt quod naturalis philosophia ab intellectu incipit, et ad rei experientiam ex sensu descendit…. Theophania vero a sensu incipit, et ad intellectum tendit. Cum enim videmus, ut supra dictum est, rerum pulchritudinem, magnitudinem, ordinem, Deum intelligimus non plenarie sed semiplene: quod tamen imperfectum est modo in intelligendo perficietur in futuro….’ Cf. pp. 93–96 above. Alain's employment of the term genius to denote the principle of individuation and inner coherence in naturalia helps to explain the office of Genius in the De planctu ; cf. d'Alverny, , Textes inédits 205 n. 36.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ See Anticlaudianus IX 380–409 (ed. Bossuat, 196–97).Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Printed by Bossuat, , Anticlaudianus 199; see Green, , ‘Alan of Lille's Anticlaudianus,’ 10–11.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Anticlaudianus V 119–27 (ed. Bossuat 126–27). See Huizinga, , Mededeelingen 121–23 (Verz. Werk. IV 27–28). With lines 119–20 of the passage cf. ‘Quoniam homines’ (ed. Glorieux, 119): ‘Cum enim termini a naturalibus ad theologica transferuntur, novas significationes admirantur et antiquas exposcere videntur. Hoc ignorantes plerique iuxta naturalium semitam de divinis sumentes iudicium celestia terrenis conformant, quasi in terris bestialiter viventes, et non ad veram intelligentiam ingenii fastigium attollere valent.’ Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Anticlaudianus VII 208–11 (ed. Bossuat, 163).Google Scholar

¹⁴² See Chenu, , La Théologie 19–51.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ It is thus possible, I think, to see Alain as assimilating the sort of cosmic eroticism discussed by Dronke (‘L'amor che move il sole e l'altre stelle’ 410–17) to the more Christian amor broadly defined by Green (‘De planctu’ 666–69).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ Allegory of Love 104.Google Scholar