(Jessica Rosenfeld) Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

E T H IC S A N D E N JOY M E N T I N L AT E
M E DI E VA L POE T RY
Jessica Rosenfeld provides a history of the ethics of medieval

vernacular love poetry by tracing its engagement with the late medieval reception of Aristotle. Beginning with a history of the idea of
enjoyment from Plato to Peter Abelard and the troubadours, the
book then presents a literary and philosophical history of the medieval ethics of love, centered on the legacy of the Roman de la Rose.
The chapters reveal that courtly love was scarcely conned to what
is often characterized as an ethic of sacrice and deferral, but also
engaged with Aristotelian ideas about pleasure and earthly happiness. Readings of Machaut, Froissart, Chaucer, Dante, Deguileville,
and Langland show that poets were often markedly aware of the
overlapping ethical languages of philosophy and erotic poetry. The
studys conclusion places medieval poetry and philosophy in the
context of psychoanalytic ethics, and argues for a re-evaluation of
Lacans ideas about courtly love.
is Assistant Professor of English at
Washington University in St. Louis.

Alastair Minnis, Yale University

Zygmunt G. Baraski, University of Cambridge
Christopher C. Baswell, University of California, Los Angeles
John Burrow, University of Bristol
Mary Carruthers, New York University
Rita Copeland, University of Pennsylvania
Simon Gaunt, Kings College London
Steven Kruger, City University of New York
Nigel Palmer, University of Oxford
Winthrop Wetherbee, Cornell University
Jocelyn Wogan-Browne, Fordham University
This series of critical books seeks to cover the whole area of literature written in
the major medieval languages the main European vernaculars, and medieval
Latin and Greek during the period c.. Its chief aim is to publish and
stimulate fresh scholarship and criticism on medieval literature, special emphasis
being placed on understanding major works of poetry, prose, and drama in relation to the contemporary culture and learning which fostered them.

Edwin D. Craun Ethics and Power in Medieval English Reformist Writing
David Matthews Writing to the King: Nation, Kingship, and Literature
in England,
Mary Carruthers (ed.) Rhetoric Beyond Words: Delight and Persuasion in the
Arts of the Middle Ages
Katharine Breen Imagining an English Reading Public,
Antony J. Hasler Court Poetry in Late Medieval England and Scotland: Allegories
of Authority
Shannon Gayk Image, Text, and Religious Reform in Fifteenth-Century England
Lisa H. Cooper Artisans and Narrative Craft in Late-Medieval England
Alison Cornish Vernacular Translation in Dantes Italy: Illiterate Literature
Jane Gilbert Living Death in Medieval French and English Literature
Jessica Rosenfeld Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry:
Love after Aristotle
A complete list of titles in the series can be found at the end of the volume.
E T H IC S A N D E N JOY M E N T
I N L AT E M E DI E VA L
POE T RY
Love after Aristotle
J E S SIC A ROSE N F E L D

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore,
So Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo, Mexico City
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge , UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/
Jessica Rosenfeld
Th is publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception
and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published
Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data
Rosenfeld, Jessica,
Ethics and enjoyment in late medieval poetry : love after Aristotle / Jessica Rosenfeld.
p. cm. (Cambridge studies in medieval literature)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
---- (hardback)
. Poetry, MedievalHistory and criticism. . Pleasure in literature.
. Ethics in literature. I. Title.
.
.dc
---- Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or
accuracy of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in
this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is,
or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Contents
Acknowledgments
page vi
Introduction: love after Aristotle
Enjoyment: a medieval history
Narcissus after Aristotle: love and ethics in Le Roman de

la Rose
Metamorphoses of pleasure in the fourteenth-century

dit amoureux
Loves knowledge: fabliau, allegory, and

fourteenth-century anti-intellectualism
On human happiness: Dante, Chaucer, and the felicity

of friendship
Coda: Chaucers philosophical women
Notes
Bibliography
Index
Acknowledgments
This book had its beginnings in a conversation about Aristotle with Rita
Copeland, in a cafe on Rittenhouse Square. My work has been indelibly
shaped by her ideas and exemplary scholarship, and I remain indebted in
countless ways to her generosity and inspiration as my teacher, advisor,
and friend. I am also incredibly lucky to have been a student of David
Wallace; I am grateful to him for his knowledge and imagination, and for
making me an avowed comparatist and a condent scholar. Emily Steiner
and Kevin Brownlee were essential advisors, and I am enormously thankful for their instruction, expertise, and faith in this project. I would like
to thank Simon Gaunt for being a welcoming teacher and valuable reader
during a year spent at Kings College London and beyond. I continue to
be grateful to Denise Despres, who taught an undergraduate course on
medieval literature that showed me what an intellectually rewarding and
exciting eld of study it could be.
I would like to thank the two anonymous readers for Cambridge
University Press for their eminently sound suggestions, which markedly
improved the book. Frank Grady gamely read just about the whole thing
in various stages and dispensed a great amount of thoughtful criticism
with humor. Bruce Holsinger gave incisive comments on an early chapter and later gave me tough but welcome advice about the framing of the
book. Holly Barbaccia, Jane Degenhardt, Jennifer Higginbotham, and
Elizabeth Williamson were excellent writing companions during the dissertation years. Shane Duarte was and is an indispensable source of knowledge about ancient and medieval philosophy. Many others near and far
have given exceedingly helpful feedback on various portions of the manuscript and provided other important support; I especially want to thank
Jennifer Arch, Guinn Batten, Hans Bork, Lara Bovilsky, Kim Haddix,
Sean Keilen, Irit Kleiman, David Lawton, Robert Lerner, Mark Miller,
Allan Mitchell, Anca Parvulescu, Jean-Michel Rabat, Melissa Sanchez,
Julie Singer, and Alicia Walker.
vi
Acknowledgments
vii
Without Michelle Karnes as my cheerleader, critic, interlocutor, and

friend, my life as a medievalist would have far less enjoyment in it. Im
grateful to my family for their unwavering support, excitement, and constant nudging about when the book would be done already. And I am
thankful beyond measure to have Dillon Brown as my rst, last, and
sharpest reader and strict advocate of the happy life.
A slightly earlier version of Chapter was published as Narcissus
after Aristotle: Love and Ethics in Le Roman de la Rose in New Medieval
Literatures (): . Part of Chapter appeared in an earlier
form as The Doubled Joys of Troilus and Criseyde, in The Erotics of
Consolation: Desire and Distance in the Late Middle Ages, ed. Steven Milner
and Catherine Leglu (New York and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
), pp. , reproduced with permission of Palgrave Macmillan. I
thank the publishers for permission to reprint.
The story of the impact of the late medieval Latin translation of Aristotle
has been told and retold for the elds of medieval philosophy and theology. This book tells the story for the medieval English literature of
love. The existence of such a narrative might seem unlikely, given the distance between the discourses of a highly specialized, university-centered,
Latinate medieval philosophy and an entertainment-oriented, courtcentered, vernacular poetry, but it is the late medieval conguration of
ethics that brings these two worlds together. Medieval commentators
considered poetry to be an ethical genre, typically referring to poetrys
interest in human behavior and moral choices to justify this classication. As the eld of philosophy constituted by both practical and abstract
considerations of virtuous action, desire, and relationships, it is even now
not terribly controversial to claim that moral philosophy is involved with
the same kinds of human experience as poetry. Yet the medieval emphasis
on love as a central ethical concern meant that from the moment of the
birth of the vernacular literature of love philosophy and poetry were
yoked together in often surprising ways by a shared language of longing, despair, pleasure, and union. Vernacular poetry constituted a site for
thinking through ethical problems such as conicting loyalties, conicting emotions, and the necessity for self-sacrice within the larger context
of the pursuit of erotic enjoyment; clerkly ethical concerns with spiritual
culpability and love of God were transformed and given voice in a context
of pursuits of human justice, love, and happiness. Yet with the sudden
availability of Aristotles ethical writings in the mid thirteenth century
including the entirety of the Nicomachean Ethics vernacular love poetry
no longer oered the only space for the consideration of earthly happiness, and central ethical concepts of pleasure, love, and happiness were
subjected to reconsideration and redenition.
The full translation of Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics in particular
opened up a new framework for philosophical speculation about the
Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry
nature of and path toward the sovereign good, a framework that had
immediate and widespread eects owing to the centrality of Aristotle in
the arts curriculum of the medieval university. Aristotle was already an
authority on moral philosophy, with his ideas about moderation, virtue,
and habitus known through early, partial translations of the Ethics and the
writings of Boethius and Cicero. But his idea of happiness was typically
understood to pertain solely to practical, political happiness. With the
full translation of the Ethics by Robert Grosseteste (c.; revised by
William of Moerbeke c.), the connement of Aristotelian felicity
to the practical was dicult to sustain. The Ethics in its full form introduced a denition of felicity that would prove challenging to assimilate to
a Christian worldview, for its previously unavailable nal book describes
a life of perfect contemplative happiness that is theoretically attainable
in the mundane world. Early Christian theologians had certainly treated
happiness as a spiritual goal, but this happiness was typically only accessible in the afterlife or through experiences bestowed by Gods intervention. Absorbing a notion of self-reection and intellectual contemplation
as the highest human happiness would require a re-examination of central concepts in medieval ethics: action, love, pleasure, felicity, the good.
Human happiness thus became a valid starting point for ethical inquiry,
and earthly imperfect felicity a suitable moral goal. The new translation
of Aristotles Ethics oered an ethical goal imaginable within the space of
the narrative of a human life.
It was this earthly location of happiness that changed the way both
philosophers and poets thought about love. For beyond the diculty of
assimilating Aristotles notion of happiness as an earthly activity lay the
problem that this theory did not appear to include love. Aristotles definition of happiness as the most excellent activity of the most virtuous
person upon the best object recognizes pleasure as an integral aspect of
such action, but this pleasure accompanies, as a supervening end, the
activity of contemplation, not joy in the beloved object. Not only could
Aristotelian happiness no longer be explained away as purely active or practical, his contemplative ideal could not easily be assimilated to Christian
contemplation, or loving reection upon God. Medieval readers were left
to account for and justify what they understood as an omission in a variety
of ways, a project that began with the rst complete Latin commentary on
the Ethics, written by Albert the Great. Albert introduced the problem of
Aristotelian contemplations relationship to love, and proposed that, even
in Aristotle, contemplation must be oriented ultimately toward love of
God; his student Thomas Aquinas resolved that Aristotle must be speaking
about imperfect rather than perfect happiness. While this attribution of

imperfection to Aristotelian happiness may seem to be a willful misreading
of Aristotle, it had the eect of rendering human imperfection and incompleteness, not to mention unfullled desire, valid topics for philosophical
speculation and ethical consideration. Such shifts were deeply inuential,
for the relationship between happiness and love of God were hardly peripheral considerations, even outside Aristotelian science. Moral philosophy
of this period was already gripped with the challenges of dening pleasure
and love, usefulness and enjoyment, need and desire, lack and fulllment,
largely in the wake of Peter Lombards Sentences (required theological
reading for university students). Medieval philosophers debated whether
enjoyment ( fruitio) dened as love of an object for its own sake, and
the highest good was a function of the intellect or of the will, whether
pleasure (delectatio) always accompanied enjoyment, and whether it was
ever appropriate to talk about happiness in this world, and in what terms.
They asked questions about the proper object of love (dilectio), the relationship between love and pleasure, and the possibility that love might be
accompanied by despair (tristitia). They wondered about the relationship
between the intellect (intellectus) and the will (voluntas) as well as which
faculty was the seat of love and the noblest pleasure. Aristotle referred to
typically as the Philosopher (as Augustine was the Theologian) was
an important and constant reference point in these discussions.
Although I will focus largely on the Ethics in this study, Aristotles
ideas about the good, pleasure, happiness, friendship, and community were also newly available in the Politics, Rhetoric, De Anima, and
the pseudo-Aristotelian Economics. The Politics oered a way of thinking about communities that were oriented toward secular ends, as well
as a notion of a common good that was not dened solely in terms
of Christian morality. Like the Nicomachean Ethics, the Politics treated
life as an end in itself, nding solace and natural sweetness (solatio
et dulcedine naturali) in living for its own sake even despite hardship
and pain. Similarly, Aristotle observes that people form friendships and
communities because of an innate desire for company, not necessarily
or only because other people provide for specic needs. The Economics
describes marriage as a moral community; in an ideal partnership a husband and wife are agreed about the best things in life and their friends
follow suit. Unlike animals, the human male and female couple aims
not only at continued existence (esse), but a moral, happy life (bene esse).
The Ethics was not understood in isolation, but in the larger context of
other Aristotelian writings on the psychology of happiness and free will,
the role of the state, the nature of marriage, and the nature of pleasure, pain, and the emotions. Jean Buridan exemplies this context in
his commentary on the tenth book of the Ethics, which references the
Politics, Metaphysics, Posterior Analytics, Rhetoric, and De Anima alongside the writings of Cicero, Seneca, and others. In addition, as Matthew
Kempshall shows with respect to Giles of Romes De Regimine Principum,
a treatise largely on ethics and politics may be inuenced not only by
Aristotles Ethics and Politics, but by a text like the Rhetoric, which often
circulated with the latter works in the same manuscripts.
The new Aristotelian moral science did not conne itself to learned
Latin discourse; the philosophical debates and questions described above
are recognizable in the transformed contexts of vernacular literature, and
give new dimensions to what scholars have long recognized as the ethical
contexts and content of medieval poetry. As Judson Allen has illustrated,
the lines between ethics and poetry in the medieval period are indistinct at best. In the introduction to The Ethical Poetic of the Later Middle
Ages, Allen describes his search for the medieval category of the literary, only to nd the ethical. In a common medieval classication system
that divided knowledge into three branches logic, ethics, and physics poetry was quite consistently placed in the category of ethics. His
cataloguing of dozens of medieval commentaries on classical and medieval literature (Ovid, Statius, Boethius) led Allen to the conclusion that
poetry constituted a signicant part of ethical knowledge in this period,
and that ethics is itself enacted poetry. Allen argues that the ethical
aspect of poetry is revealed not only in commentaries, but in the way
medieval poetry itself functions. For the medieval subject to think ethically, he or she must behave as if in a story. One often nds characters
in medieval narratives comparing themselves to other literary gures as
ideals, or as dangerous examples to avoid. They embody and make explicit the notion that literature oers models and possibilities to embrace,
re-enact, or ward o. As John Dagenais describes the medieval practice of
ethical reading, texts reached out and grabbed the reader, involved him
or her in praise and blame, in judgments about eective and ineective
human behavior and invited readers to confront basic questions about
how one should behave with a view to greater happiness in this world and
the next. Of course, such thinking does not guarantee ethical behavior
or success. To call medieval poetry ethical is not to lose the subversive
or excessive, the rebellious or the strange; it is simply to acknowledge an
interest in telling stories about what we think we are like, what we think
we want, and what we think we are capable of.
Perhaps surprisingly, fourteenth-century moral philosophers similarly

acknowledged the literary dimensions of even academic ethical discourse.
By the same reasoning with which commentators determined poetry to
be part of the science of ethics, ethics was understood to have a poetic
logic. In the prologue to his commentary on Aristotles Nicomachean
Ethics, Jean Buridan explains that while the principal content of moral
philosophy is conveyed in the Ethics and Politics, the way of teaching ethics is communicated in the Rhetoric and Poetics. In fact, he claims, moral
philosophy requires its own special logic:
Since it is only in moral matters that appetite is inherently supposed to take
away the judgment of reason, and thus in other arts and sciences an unqualied logic suces for us, in moral matters we require a special logic. However
there are two parts of this moral logic, namely rhetoric and poetry, which dier
in this way: because rhetoric desires clear knowledge, it uses words retained in
their proper signication. Poetry endeavors to obscure knowledge delightfully
through metalepsis or by other means.
Rhetoric and poetry are necessary to the transmission of ethical knowledge because the audience for such teaching is the human subject conceived of as appetitive and emotional. As Buridan observes, a thing does
not seem the same to those who love as to those who hate (amantibus
et odientibus), and it is these aect-driven people with whom moral
philosophy is concerned. Poetry, as a part of moral logic, is a means
of conveying ethical knowledge by rst obscuring it delightfully. In
addressing the pleasures, desires, prejudices, and passions of the ethical
subject through rhetorical and poetic language, moral philosophy turns
the frailties of reason to its advantage. Thus Buridan, in his discussion
of certain thorny questions concerning happiness in Book of Aristotles
Ethics, advises that if he has not oered real solutions to these questions, they should nevertheless be received as dialectical and playful
(logice et lusive). He is not here giving up on the possibility of arriving
at ethical truths, and avers that it is clear that happiness consists in one
act toward which we must order all of our other actions. Yet the subject
of happiness admits of playfulness, and it is appropriate that Buridan
oers this mode of ludic argument when speaking about the way happiness might be thought of in the context of lived experience whether
happiness is compatible with old age, misery, ill fortune, or even sleep.
These narrative, experiential possibilities complicate the logical denitions of happiness, and thus open questions that can only rightfully be
answered dialectically, playfully, perhaps poetically.
The desiring, pleasure-seeking, loving, pain-experiencing ethical subject described above shapes both vernacular poetry and scholastic moral
philosophy. Nevertheless, while a great deal of scholarship has engaged
with medieval literature as an ethical discourse, there has been much less
attention given to the relationship between this literature and the ethical
conversations taking place in the context of the moral philosophy produced at the universities. Gestures toward such work have been made
more often by intellectual historians than by literary critics. In an essay
on late medieval theories of enjoyment, William Courtenay notes that
in the twelfth century both theologians and courtly poets were interested in seemingly parallel notions of pure love, a juncture that might
encourage one to seek other cross inuences between theological and
poetic discourse on desire and longing (cupiditas and desiderium), on
doubt, sadness, and despair (tristitia), and pleasure or joy of possession
(delectatio). Arthur Stephen McGrade proposes that, for the fourteenth
century, Ockham and his successors provided a framework for human
understanding which poets and others could have utilized in many concrete ways, both in understanding, for example, how poetry itself aects
us and in understanding or depicting the behavior of actual ctional
characters. Despite the acknowledgment of the ethical content of medieval literature, the question of the relationship between poetry and the
moral philosophy of Augustine, Abelard, or the scholastic philosophers of
later centuries remains largely open. My readings of vernacular poetry
in the chapters below show that poets were often markedly aware of the
overlapping ethical languages of clerkly philosophy and poetic depictions
of love. There is no question that ethical debates about the nature of
culpability, intention, virtue, desire, and pleasure su used the world of
courtly poetry, and it is the guiding thesis of this project that the philosophy and poetry of the later Middle Ages together formed a thriving
ethical discourse, particularly in response to the challenges of dening
pleasure and love, usefulness and enjoyment, need and desire, lack and
fulllment. These terms, in Latin as well as in the vernacular, are weighted
after the twelfth century with the burden of secular love poetry. With the
inuence of Peter Lombards Sentences and the assimilation of Aristotles
philosophy, enjoyment as an ethical, psychological, and theological phenomenon took on an increasingly central role in philosophical discourse.
Enjoyment thus emerges as the key term of this book, precisely because
it functions as a focal point and ethical goal for medieval moral philosophy and medieval poetry. It is a useful umbrella term because it conveys
the fundamental qualities shared by Aristotelian eudaimonia, vernacular
joy, Christian fruitio, and even Lacanian jouissance: it is desirable for

its own sake as an end goal, it is complete, and it includes pleasure.
Aristotles eudaimonia, usually translated as happiness, literally means
having a good genius (daimn), suggesting good fortune. For Aristotle,
happiness is the self-sucient and complete telos of life the best possible life; at the end of the Nicomachean Ethics he denes it as the most
excellent faculty of the human mind engaged in the most virtuous activity, with the best object. In discussing Aristotles concept of eudaimonia,
Latin writers such as Cicero and Seneca most often translate it as beata
vita, a phrase used also by Augustine to speak about the happiness of life
after death. For medieval Latin writers, beata vita or beatitudo are used to
talk about happiness as the goal of life, along with felicitas a word used to
translate eudaimonia in Aristotles treatises. Occasionally, these terms are
dierentiated, as Boethius uses felicitas to speak about earthly (false) happiness, and beatitudo to speak about true happiness outside the realm of
fortune. In later scholastic writings, felicitas and beatitudo are often used
interchangeably. Latin gaudium the inner joy that Thomas Aquinas
and others speak about as the inner joy infused by God is recognizable
as the root of vernacular joi. And yet the Latin term fruitio typically
translated as enjoyment is perhaps the location of the most dicult
terminological, theological, and ethical assimilation of Aristotles ideas
about pleasure and happiness. Augustine denes fruitio in De Doctrina
Christiana as inhering with love in something for its own sake a
denition that persists throughout the Middle Ages. Enjoyment, in
this view, is a self-sucient act of love, and the enjoyment of the beatic vision was understood to be the summum bonum of Christian life.
One might understand an Aristotelian life of ourishing (eudaimonia) to
be oriented toward a life of virtuous political or contemplative activity,
while the Christian life of ourishing (beata vita, beatitudo, or felicitas)
was oriented toward the enjoyment of God. The medieval reception of
Aristotelian ethics led to questions about how to understand an act of
fruitio that could be oriented toward felicity as an ethical goal for human
experience in this world. But Aristotle was also marshaled as an authority
regarding questions about the beatic enjoyment of God. The Aristotle of
medieval philosophy is both a source of knowledge about the possibilities
for ethical earthly pleasures and an authority on the relationship between
these pleasures and the love of and imitation of the divine. As Jacques
Lacan would observe in the twentieth century, Aquinas and other medieval theologians created an Aristotle who had a privileged understanding
of the obstacles to human desire, a philosopher who was above all a
theorist of love and pleasure. Lacans Aristotle seeks after the jouissance
of being itself, recognizing the way that we model the enjoyment of God
on our own enjoyment, and acknowledging that philosophical thought
is not only pleasurable, but a form of loving God. This Aristotle emerges
from the Latin authors who tried to reconcile an ethics oriented toward
human happiness in this life with a Christian ethics, largely Augustinian,
which tells us that the only object rightfully to be enjoyed is God.
Vernacular love poetry, with its simultaneous commitment to a sacricial ethics and a working out of happiness in a world of conicting desires,
was as shaken as theology by the advent of an ethical system that located
felicity and love in this world. Late medieval love poetry is interested in
what it might mean to love someone as another subject who is pursuing
his or her own happiness in the world, and especially what it might mean
to pursue such a love toward an enjoyment that acknowledges the overlap between the philosophical pursuit of happiness and the happiness
pursued by lovers. The post-Aristotelian courtly lover acknowledges his
narcissism, worries about her free will, talks about clerkly happiness, and
pursues his love not just to its ineable conclusion, but beyond. The scholarly Aristotelian discourse of happiness is both compelling and inadequate
for the subject of courtly love. As the narrator of Chaucers Troilus and
Criseyde comments, speaking about the bliss of the two lovers, Felicite,
which that thise clerkes wise / Comenden so ne may nought here suse
(.). Chaucers romance is a poem that is at least in part about
taking this clerkly intrusion into the bedroom seriously, asking what it
means for felicity to suce, and moreover what these clerks might have
to say about the pursuits of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century lovers, or
perhaps what lovers might be able to reveal to the clerks.
Many late medieval poets recognized that what was most radical in
Aristotle was not only that happiness is worth striving for on earth rather
than being deferred to the afterlife, but also the corollary insistence on
contingency as a component of love and happiness what the Middle
Ages refer to as fortune, and often personify and deify as Lady Fortuna.
This orientation toward earthliness and fortune ensured that the medieval reception of Aristotle begat a number of ongoing ethical discussions
and debates as to the ontological and ethical relationships between love
and pleasure, the propriety of loving earthly objects, the psychological
experience of love, and what, if any, happiness may be had on earth.
These debates, though necessarily in less formal terms, were equally the
stu of medieval love poetry. A fuller literary account of the reception of
Aristotelian ethics in the late medieval period, an age when poetry itself
was considered part of moral science, can help us to understand the ethical history of European medieval poetry, and to gain a richer and more
nuanced understanding of psychoanalytic and other modern ethical theories about love that root themselves in the birth of love as we know it
in the Western world.
This book examines the medieval history of enjoyment, the intellectual
context for the production of poetry in the thirteenth century, particularly the vastly inuential Roman de la Rose, and the resultant intellectual-erotic tradition. As moral philosophy and poetry moved closer
together in their central concern with love as an ethical problem, philosophy and poetry were brought geographically closer as Paris became a
center of university life and literary production. With its wide readership
and explicit intertwining of romance narrative and philosophical debate,
the thirteenth-century poem the Roman de la Rose played an inuential
role in the unication of intellectual and poetic discourses. In its unique
circumstance of a double authorship which took place on either side of
the reception of the full Nicomachean Ethics, the Rose oers remarkable
insight into the changing discourse of love and ethics. The philosophical
and literary history that follows after the Rose allows for a clearer picture of the questions at stake in late medieval ethical discourse: What
is the relationship between love and pleasure? Is human happiness possible or desirable? Is love an activity or a state of rest? Can one love without objectication? What are the dangers of deferred desire? Tracing the
asking, answering, and revising of these questions oers another way of
thinking about the intellectual and poetic history of medieval love and
the roots of modern amorous subjectivity.
The following chapters tell a story of enjoyment that traces the eorts
of both philosophers and poets to grapple with the new possibilities and
challenges wrought by the reception of Aristotelian ethics in a Christian
world. The rst chapter provides an intellectual history of enjoyment,
considering its meanings in the frameworks that existed before the Latin
translation of Aristotles writings on ethics. It traces the transformations
of pagan philosophical virtue into Christian love, followed by the development of Christian enjoyment as it breaks down into the various components intellect, pleasure, labor, and happiness that would become
particularly controversial in the wake of the full translation of Aristotles
ethical writings. Following these aspects of enjoyment from antiquity
through the twelfth century illustrates the way in which already-existing
tensions in the philosophical tradition were poised to emerge more forcefully with the Latin reception of Aristotle. The chapter further shows that
questions about enjoyment animated both philosophical discourse and

vernacular poetry in the period just prior to the full translation of the
Ethics, in texts such as Peter Abelards Dialogue between a Philosopher, a
Jew, and a Christian and the troubadour poetry of Guilhem IX, Bernart
de Ventadorn, and Jaufr Rudel. While providing a history of a key set of
terms associated with enjoyment, I argue that vernacular poetry with its
concerns about love, loss, and satisfaction was a natural, if not inevitable, space for the emergence of earthly enjoyment as an ethical problem.
Chapter explores the way in which the new Aristotle, the ood of
translation into Latin from Greek and Arabic in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, aected courtly poetry, by examining the famously bifurcated
Roman de la Rose. I argue that the poem is divided not only by a temporal
gap and a shift in authorship, but by the impact of the full translation of
Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics that takes place during that gap. Where
Guillaume de Lorris writes within an ideological framework in which neither the political nor contemplative lives are thought to oer any hope of
earthly perfection, Jean de Meun writes within a new, controversial context of Aristotelian contemplation, where contemplation provides the best
life for man on earth and therefore confers human happiness. I argue that
Jean was attracted to Guillaumes poem for its ethical exploration and
linking of the Narcissus myth, poetic activity, intellectual self-reection,
and physical labor. Jean thus asks what Guillaumes Narcissus might look
like in the new Aristotelian context, a context where self-reection might
inhabit a continuum including erotic love, intellectual contemplation,
and the beatic vision. Exploring the potential of self-reection through
art to bring happiness, madness, love, and hate, Jeans portion of the Rose
experiments with the assumption of Aristotles narrative ethical system,
where rational activity precedes love, self-knowledge determines love, and
happiness consists in labor rather than rest. The Rose in its widespread
inuence bequeathed vernacular poetry a distinctly intellectual erotics,
a discourse that would have lasting implications for the ethical engagements of late medieval poetry.
The following three chapters take stock of the repercussions of both
the new Aristotle and the Aristotelian aspects of the Roman de la Rose.
Chapter focuses on the way that Aristotelian denitions of pleasure are
disturbingly silent on one of the most pressing issues for Christian theologians: the motivation for pursuits of contemplative happiness. Do we
seek to know and love an object (God, in this context) because of the
promise of pleasure experienced when that object is possessed or loves
us in return? Or is pleasure somehow inextricable from the act of love,
rendering questions of causation ontologically if not ethically irrelevant?

The chapter examines scholars including William of Ockham, who imagined the possibility that God might withhold pleasure from the experience of enjoyment, thus preserving Gods freedom, and the Aristotelian
commentator Jean Buridan, who denied that true enjoyment could ever
exist without delight. Placing these philosophers in conversation with
vernacular poetry brings a ourishing, hitherto unexamined fourteenthcentury ethical discourse of pleasure into view. Froissart and Chaucer,
in their simultaneous reception of Guillaume de Machaut, each address
loves pleasure through the staging of ethical crises and the depiction of
ethical lovesickness that bring clerkly and erotic discourses together. I
conclude with a reading of Chaucers Book of the Duchess as an overtly ethical commentary upon the poetry of his French contemporaries, addressing precisely the moral ramications of an experience of love that elides
the dierences between pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow. In doing so,
Chaucer ultimately oers an ideal of love that places this elision not in
the confused, lovesick subject, but in the space of shared desire between
two lovers in the contingent world. Chaucers earthly solution to the
problem of the relationship between love and pleasure puts fortune in the
place of God, and allies his ethics with an Aristotelian-inected ideal of
love as courage in the face of destiny, happiness in the midst of contingency. All of these poets engagement with Ovids Metamorphoses, and
particularly the gure of Morpheus, allows them to imagine love in the
context of an Aristotelian whole life of ourishing.
Another key controversy in the reception of Aristotle concerned
the location of enjoyment: scholars debated as to whether, following
Augustine, enjoyment was seated in the faculty of the will, or whether,
following Aristotle, it was located in the intellect. Chapter argues that
even the inuential strand of voluntarism in the fourteenth century
operates within the tradition of courtly Aristotelian intellectualism. An
examination of the mounted Aristotle topos in sermons, fabliaux, and
visual art shows that this voluntarism was not solely invested in a return
to Augustine after the excesses of thirteenth-century intellectualism, but
also in an exploration of the erotics of intellectual inquiry. The chapter
uses the logics of both fabliaux and philosophical commentaries to reread
two poems often placed in an anti-intellectualist tradition: Guillaume
de Deguilevilles Plerinage de Vie Humaine and William Langlands
Piers Plowman. While both poems reject Aristotelian intellectualism as
a means to full knowledge about the metaphysical world, they nevertheless embrace Aristotelian ethics as a means toward understanding
human desire for the good, for knowledge, and for God. Deguileville
and Langland explore a fully intellectual and fully aective pursuit of
knowledge, yet emphasize the threat of excessive intellectual desire as
both material and sexual, in modes similar to the courtly versions of the
mounted Aristotle tales. In particular, I revise understandings of Piers
Plowman as an essentially ascetic poem that advocates an epistemology
of suering, arguing that the poem enacts a simultaneous epistemology of
pleasure. Langland ultimately transforms Deguilevilles images of insatiable desire voiced by Aristotle into an aective, imitative relationship
to Christs desire for mens souls a philosophical and poetic union of the
physical, intellectual, and volitional, of suering, delight, and beauty. For
Langland, God became man not, or not only, to save mankind, but to
save God, his knowledge, and therefore our love for him.
Chapter traces the possibilities for earthly happiness imagined in
Chaucers Troilus and Criseyde. Perhaps the largest controversy inspired by
Aristotles Ethics questioned whether happiness might be had on earth. The
association of Aristotle with twofold earthly happiness, both political and
contemplative, was widespread. Yet such a view challenged the position
of a Christian afterlife as the sole site of true happiness. In this chapter
I argue that fourteenth-century understandings of Boethius especially
those explored in the commentary tradition and in Dantes Convivio
complicate the prescription of otherworldly asceticism that medievalist
literary scholarship typically identies as Boethian in Chaucers poem.
The late medieval commentaries on Boethius Consolation of Philosophy
tend to emphasize Aristotelian doctrines such as the acquisition of knowledge through the senses, the educative power of empathy, and the impossibility of a stoicism that would require one to remain untouched by
worldly sorrow. These commentaries allow space for earthly happiness at
the same time that they acknowledge that true beatitude will only take
place in the afterlife. I argue that Chaucer explores the clerkly dimensions
of his lovers felicity as a way to think through the ethical intersections
of erotic and intellectual discourses, and thus to imagine a place for happiness in an unstable world. Happiness itself becomes unthinkable except
through the language uneasily shared by clerks and lovers, a language
that acknowledges human love as the experience that opens ethics toward
the variety, mystery, and inexorability of the fortune-tossed world.
I close the book by exploring the fact that Chaucers female characters
are often his most philosophical, the most given to exploring the vicissitudes of love in scholarly terms. I place this observation within the context of Lacanian psychoanalytic theories of jouissance fminine, which
I argue are rooted ultimately in Lacans evolving readings of medieval

Aristotelianism. The gures of Criseyde, Dorigen, and Alcyone express
their jouissance not through ecstatic or mystical discourse, but through
an intellectual and erotic commitment to mutuality, courage, and contingency a commitment now recognizable as an Aristotelian response
to the full range of medieval ethical experience. As such, these gures
oer a way to engage modern psychoanalytic critiques of the ethics of
courtly love so often deemed narcissistic, misogynist, and disabling.
In the uncovering of a vigorous premodern conversation about the ethics
of desire, pleasure, and happiness, I suggest, nally, that we might not
only look to medieval poetry for the unethical origins of our desires, but
for the ethical origins of our love; perhaps we need not break with the
medieval, but instead look to uncover its less easily seductive and more
bracing strands of aective life.

Although this books introduction emphasized the full translation of
Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics as a key moment in the transformation of
medieval denitions of enjoyment, these denitions evolved constantly
from antiquity forward. This chapter provides an intellectual history of
enjoyment, examining understandings of pleasure and love as goods
from the classical period up to the beginnings of the age of scholasticism
and the translation and reception of Aristotles works in Latin. This history is in some part the narrative of how Platonic virtue and Aristotelian
happiness became Christian love, though Christian theology never left
pagan philosophy behind. Enjoyment is in some ways a dicult idea to
track, as the classical period did not have a single dominant way of thinking about the achievement of the good, as would the medieval in the
wake of Augustines denitions of fruitio. I thus orient the following discussion of happiness, pleasure, love, and the summum bonum around the
idea of enjoyment not because this was consistently the term that classical
or medieval philosophers use to signify the highest good, but because it
was Augustines use of the term that would allow medieval philosophers
to dene, over time, the experience that is the goal of both the human life
and the eternal soul: loving God for his own sake.
Love, of course, was not something alien grafted onto the discourse
of ethics by Christian theologians, and classical philosophy developed its
own denitions of love. In Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic philosophy,
love was not only considered as itself a topic worthy of ethical consideration, but was also inevitably part of many discussions of the virtuous
good. Philosophers considered whether love was a component of the good
and whether the good could be properly pursued through love. Platos
Symposium is famously devoted to a series of encomia to eros in which the
speakers variously praise love as a route to civic virtue, a passionate desire
rooted in lack, and nally, with Socrates sharing of Diotimas wisdom, a

hierarchical route toward virtuous love of the divine form of the beautiful
itself. In the Latin translations of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle speaks
more often in terms of the pursuit of what is pleasing, rather than what
is loved, though even in Aristotelian philosophy enjoyment of a pursued
object shades into love. People nd pleasure in the things that they love,
as a horse-lover (amanti equum) is pleased by horses. Love itself is taken
up in the philosophers discussions of friendship in the Ethics, where he
denes philia as the love of someone else for his or her own sake wishing
good things to happen to him for no merely abstract or egoistic reason.
Gregory Vlastos argues that Aristotles concept of philia would more aptly
be translated as love rather than the more common friendship, as the
former word conveys more of the range of emotional bonds that Aristotle
describes. Despite the dierence between the two philosophers Plato
attributes love to God, while for Aristotle the unmoved mover is immutable, not being prone to the motion that desire/love implies both put
an abstract idea of the good at the heart of love. In Aristotles highest
form of philia, we love another individual because of the good that he
embodies; for Plato, when we love other people, we in fact love the image
of the good within them. Ideal love in Platos philosophy also contains
the notion of loving an object for its own sake, but this object is abstract
the Good or an individual imperfect instantiation of goodness. Each
philosopher variously lays the foundation for the transformation of the
highest good, and mans achieving of that good, into love and loving.
Christianity will unite the self-sucient good with the self-sucient love
for an object with God as the good loved alone above all others, for his
own sake.
Christian theologians acknowledge the classical lineage of Christian
thought about ethics and love; Augustine has the distinction of not only
writing this history, but making the most signicant contribution to
the Christian transformation of Greek and Roman ethical thought. The
eighth book of Augustines City of God elevates Plato and Platonic philosophy above all other pagan knowledge. The theologian accepts Platos
denition of philosophy as love of wisdom, redening wisdom as God
himself through scriptural authority, and asks, If Plato says that the wise
man is the man who imitates, knows, and loves this God, and that participation in this God brings man happiness, what need is there to examine the other philosophers? For Augustine, Aristotle is a worthy follower
of Plato (though not such a great literary stylist), as is Plotinus, and several other Platonists and Stoics are worth harvesting for the odd anecdote.
While Augustine does not hesitate to criticize Plato where necessary (on
the belief in multiple gods, for example), he uses the authority of Platonic
doctrine to underwrite and found an understanding of Christian morality. As Marcia Colish observes, one can see in Augustines writing the
harmonizing of a Stoic psychology of self-sucient happiness with neoPlatonic conceptions of the good as transcendent and eternal. Plato via
the translations and summarizations of later philosophers furnishes
Augustine with his key understandings of the relationships between practical and speculative philosophy, the division of philosophy as a whole
into moral, natural, and rational concerns, and his denition of moral
discourse as that which addresses enjoyment: the pursuit of the summum
bonum, sought for its own sake.
Ethical enjoyment is an evolving concept for Augustine, and his writing demonstrates his wrestling with a variety of philosophical categories:
love, virtue, contemplation, and the good. Virtue becomes for him an
intermediary good, and the self-suciency of the soul is necessarily
negated in the face of the necessity of Gods grace. Most signicantly,
the virtues as summum bonum are transformed into the perfect love of
God, and God becomes not merely an object of intellectual contemplation, but an object of love. As to what specic word we should use to
describe virtuous or divine love, Augustine ensures that all loves terms
are equal participants in ethical discourse. In addressing the question of
whether dilectio means something dierent from amor, he concludes that
pagan philosophy, secular literature, and divine Scripture each tells us
that charity (caritas), fondness (dilectio), and love (amor) all mean
the same thing. All words for love can be used properly to describe the
love of an individual for another person, for material objects, or for God;
a rightly directed will is love in a good sense, and a perverted will is love
in a bad sense. In this way, love begins to subsume other closely related
ethical terms. For example, happiness and pleasure are both subsumed by
love; a love seeking possession is desire, and a love which possesses is joy.
Enjoyment thus comes to encapsulate an ethical goal, the desire for that
goal, and the activity that achieves or comprises that goal. Happiness and
the true good for humanity, according to Augustine, are not in enjoyment
of the body, or the mind, but in the enjoyment of God ( fruitio Dei).
The highest good is the enjoyment of what one loves, and so happiness is
dened not in the loving, but in the enjoyment when making a distinction between desire and possession, enjoyment is disentangled from
love. Later, Augustine describes enjoyment, stating that For our Good,
that Final Good about which the philosophers dispute, is nothing else but
to cleave to him whose spiritual embrace, if one may so express it, lls the
intellectual soul and makes it fertile with true virtues. In De Doctrina
Christiana, we nd his nal formulation of fruitio as inhering with love
in something for its own sake. The latter denition was cited throughout the Middle Ages as the highest goal of the human subject; happiness,
enjoyment, and love thus coalesce in one perfected, eternal instance of
love for the divine object. Yet as much as this denition sought to harmonize these ethical goals that had been the subject of philosophical
debate for close to a millennium, medieval theologians did not hesitate to
separate the strands of enjoyment for continuous analysis.
The sections below describe the lineage of Christian ethical thought
about love, breaking down its reception of classical philosophy into a number of categories that mirror the concerns of this book as a whole: pleasure, intellectualism, labor, and human happiness. These categories were
not necessarily considered distinct, or controversial, by each philosopher
or theologian that I discuss, but these are the categories that were destabilized in a variety of ways by the reception of Aristotles moral philosophy in the later medieval period. Thus I cannot claim to give anywhere
near a full history of the Christian reception of classical ethics, but rather
oer a series of necessarily partial stories of particular ideas about enjoyment. In each case, I begin with Platonic and neo-Platonic ideas about
the supreme good that inuenced Augustine and his successors. I then
trace these terms up through Augustines discussions of use and enjoyment, Boethius discussions of human happiness in the Consolation of
Philosophy, and into the scattered discourse on enjoyment and the highest
good that nds its place in early medieval collections of sententiae and
elsewhere. There is no sustained or systematic treatment of ethics in what
we would recognize as a philosophical sense until the twelfth century,
though of course Christian moralists and theologians were consistently
concerned with dening virtue, vice, and the highest good.
This chapter leads us up through the poetry and philosophy of the
twelfth century, including Peter Lombards Sentences, a work which
became a standard university text and which produced many surviving
commentaries. The Lombards text rearmed the centrality of enjoyment by treating the topic in the rst distinction of the rst book of his
text; the foregrounding of questions of use and enjoyment in commentaries on the Sentences was thus ensured. Yet the text that most explicitly illustrates a twelfth-century engagement with classical philosophies
of enjoyment is Peter Abelards Dialogue between a Philosopher, a Jew, and
a Christian, dramatizing the points of agreement and dissent about love,
pleasure, and the highest good in the debate between the philosopher
and the Christian. Finally, I turn to a small corpus of troubadour poetry
composed in the early to mid twelfth century. These songs demonstrate
that vernacular love poetry was the location for a varied meditation on
the relationships between earthly passion and ethical understandings of
desire, pleasure, and goodness. From the compositions of the rst known
troubadour, Guilhem IX, this secular love poetry took joy both physical
and spiritual as its matter, formal inspiration, and subject of inquiry.

At rst glance, speaking of pleasure as an aspect of enjoyment appears
redundant. What is enjoyment if not pleasurable? And should we not
experience the achievement of a nal goal as the highest kind of pleasure?
Yet as Jacques Lacan observes in The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, thinkers in
the eld of ethics always return to the ethical problem of the relation of
pleasure to the nal good, whenever the guidance of human action from
a moral point of view is concerned. The basic ancient debates center on
whether pleasure is itself the goal of the ethical life, or whether it instead
supervenes upon the activity associated with the greatest good, occurring as a separate yet inextricably associated phenomenon. Ancient philosophers also consider whether pleasure should be understood in terms
of conventional goods (health, friends, material wealth) or in terms of
a transformed relationship to happiness whereby pleasure is experienced
through the practice of virtue alone. In their late antique reception, Plato
and Aristotle came to stand in for the two poles of the latter debate: Plato
was thought to hold consistently that virtue was self-sucient for happiness, while Aristotle stood for the notion that external goods are necessary
for happiness, thus dened in a much more intuitive or common manner. This polarity held despite Platos concern for metaphysical and political topics in the Republic topics which would suggest that the exercise
of individual virtue is not wholly self-sucient and despite Aristotles
emphasis in the tenth book of his Nicomachean Ethics on the desirability
and divinity of the contemplative life.
Pleasure is often unstable in Platos dialogues, with perhaps the only
stable pleasure being the pleasure of philosophical discourse. For the
interlocutors themselves, this pleasure is constant, and only compromised
by external misfortune, as when Phaedo describes his emotions visiting
Socrates at the end of his life. He remarks that the pleasure (oblectamentum) that he was accustomed to feel in philosophical discourse was mixed
with pain (tristicia), for he could not but reect that Socrates was soon to
die. Socrates begins his conversation with his friends on the last day of
his life by speaking about this mingling of pleasure and pain, two bodies attached to a single head. At the level of content, the Phaedo is a
dialogue that rejects earthly pleasure (voluptas), arguing that a true philosopher joyfully relinquishes the false pleasures of life for the unication
with his true love, wisdom, in death. These pleasures are rejected (along
with pain) as tools that rivet the soul to the body like a nail, rendering the
soul corporeal and subject to the bodys knowledge. Yet it would seem
that this dialogue acknowledges a third kind of pleasure: the pleasure of
a discourse that allows one to engage in an earthly pleasure so as to transcend it.
Plato discusses pleasure directly in the Protagoras, Gorgias, Republic,
Philebus, and Laws. In some of the dialogues, pleasure is characterized as
a spring from which one must learn to drink moderately and rationally
in order to achieve happiness. At other times, pleasure is never what the
virtuous person directly chooses, but rather a phenomenon that supervenes when one acts virtuously. These two ways of thinking about pleasure are dierent ways of responding to the apparent necessity of rejecting
the pleasure that people and all animals are understood to pursue
irrationally. The goal of virtue cannot, for Plato, be physical pleasure.
If we retain our intuitive understanding of the nature of pleasure, then
pleasure must simply accompany virtuous activity as an epiphenomenon,
thus appearing as though it might be our ethical goal, but in fact only
emerging as a side eect. If, however, we are interested in maintaining
the idea of pleasure itself as a natural pursuit, then it is pleasure itself that
must be redened. Pleasure is understood as a pleasure in being virtuous,
and thus virtue and happiness become almost synonymous. The Stoics
will push this denition of virtue further to claim that the noble man,
happy despite being tortured, experiences pleasure in his virtuous resistance, and yet this version of pleasure and happiness is not assimilable to
any common understanding of the terms.
A Platonic view of pleasure was most readily available to medieval
readers in Boethius Consolation of Philosophy, the story of Philosophias
painstaking education of the prisoner as to what constitutes happiness.
Modern scholars have read the text on a spectrum from didactic moral
treatise to dialogic exploration of a variety of philosophical issues to a
dramatization of the impossibility of resolving the conict between ones
earthly desires and divine aspirations. While no single medieval reading
of the text emerges, it is clear that Boethius text was a treasure trove
for Platonic, neo-Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic philosophy on free will,

the cosmos, and especially human happiness. As Philosophia explains
to the prisoner, nothing is miserable unless you think so, and on the
other hand a man who bears all with contentment, nds every state a
happy one. The seeming pleasantness of happiness based on earthly
fortunes is revealed to be wretched (misera) and therefore not pleasant
at all. Philosophia acknowledges that happiness is not subject to pain,
but the prisoner learns that he cannot seek joy through pleasures (laetitiam voluptatibus). His education in the good culminates in the realization that happiness is divine, and that happiness ultimately is God,
but to arrive at this point he must assent to counter-intuitive truths such
as the non-existence of evil and the true lack of pleasure in the seeming pleasures of fortune. Self-suciency is the guiding determination of
what constitutes happiness and the good, and Philosophia seeks to convince her pupil that the true good is only produced when they [things
that are sought as goods] are gathered as it were into one form which as
ecient cause makes that which is self-sucient thereby equivalent to
power, respect, fame and pleasure. Things that seem good and worthy
of pursuit are only good inasmuch as they participate in Gods suciency
and unity; suciency itself is pleasure. Philosophia attempts to lead the
prisoner on a path whereby he might understand that he should ultimately only desire virtuous suciency the other goods are simply ephemeral and incidental. Pleasure is thus maintained as an ethical goal, but its
nature has been transformed into the pleasure of the practice of virtue.
Aristotelian ethics, on the other hand, requires no such transformation
of basic understandings of pleasure or happiness as that which is incompatible with misfortune and pain. Aristotle denes happiness as the sovereign good because it is pursued on its own account, and is accompanied
by pleasure. On the question of hedonism, whether pleasure is an ethical
goal in itself, Aristotle remains intriguingly agnostic. What seems a fundamental question of ethical motivation is irresolvable, according to the
philosopher, and he states that whether we choose life for the sake of
pleasure or pleasure for the sake of life is a question we may dismiss for
the present. Indeed they seem to be united and not to admit of separation, since there is no pleasure without activity. While Aristotle did
not think it necessary to resolve this motivational ambiguity, the pursuit
of pleasure presents an important obstacle for Plotinus, outlined in the
section of the Enneads on beauty. He cites the contemplation of sensual
beauty as a starting point for the lifting of the soul toward higher things,
toward contemplation of the divine. But the mingled pleasure and pain
that beauty brings can also turn us away from the Good, toward a desire
for material objects. The problem for Plotinus narcissistic soul is thus not
love for self or image, but that the pleasure of such a love does not goad
one to higher things, trapping one in a cycle of earthly pleasures that cannot be escaped. Choosing life for the sake of pleasure here is a dangerous
mistake. In the late medieval reception of Aristotelian ethics, the problem
of pleasure as a motivating factor will re-emerge in debates about whether
pleasure is identical with love, a non-identical but necessary epiphenomenon, or wholly extricable from the experience of enjoyment.
In the texts that came down to the early Middle Ages, pleasure was
either transformed or denied as a valid ethical goal. Access to philosophers who defend the pursuit of pleasure was either lost, as with Aristotle,
or ltered through writers such as Cicero, who transmit their claims only
to critique them. In his Tusculan Disputations, for example, Cicero does
not allow for the possibility of an intellectual or spiritual pleasure, and
thus dismisses the morality of Epicurus pleasure. He understands (or at
least claims to understand) Epicurus joy of mind (mentis laetitiam) as
simply the hope of bodily pleasures. On such terms it is easy to dismiss
the idea of an ethical pursuit of pleasure out of hand. The necessity of
rejecting intuitive pleasures relegating them to instrumental value, if
any value at all permeates Augustines writings. Yet this rejection is no
easy task, and the theologian is perhaps most wrenching and most acute
about human nature when he discusses the necessity of exchanging physical for spiritual pleasures. In Book of the Confessions, Augustine speaks
of the tenacious hold that the pleasures of the ear have on him, confessing to being beguiled by the pleasures of the esh, but also asserting his
resistance to being captivated by them. Even pleasure in holy words
can be a sin if the enjoyment of the senses outruns reason in their stirring
by voice and song; this sin Augustine confesses to. When music secular
or holy is enjoyed for its own sake rather than for the sake of God (and
thus properly used ), this is the peril of pleasure ( periculum voluptatis).
Augustines sensitivity to music, to the beauty of forms and colors that
might possess his soul, even to the beauty of beguiling daylight, threatens that he will be miserably captured (capior miserabiliter) by external beauties. Even more perilous than physical pleasure, however, is the
pleasure of satisfying intellectual curiosity. Such pleasure often seems
antithetical to sensory pleasure, as it drives us to stare at mangled corpses
and monstrous humans, and to watch tragic theater. Desire to know the
courses of the stars is here equivalent to the desire to become sad and pale
in the face of real or performed death, and this critique of curiosity will
shadow the late medieval Aristotelianism that raises intellectual contemplation to the level of the highest virtuous activity and source of the highest pleasure. For Augustine, desiring knowledge for its own sake oers
only idle pleasures, and pleasure is allowed only insofar as it is subordinated to the goal of enjoying God.
The shifting ethical terrain created by Aristotles valorization of earthly
intellectual pleasure as an end in itself, a phenomenon inextricable from
both contemplative activity and virtuous life, raised a number of questions about the denition and role of moral pleasure. In his commentary
on Peter Lombards Sentences, William Ockham discusses the relationship
between enjoyment of intellectual pursuits and the intrusions of physical
or other pain, and posits the existence of earthly things that deserve to be
enjoyed for their own sake, if not as highest goods. Most controversially,
he oered an understanding of enjoyment of the highest good beatic
enjoyment that did not necessarily include pleasure, thus severing pleasure from its inherent relationship to the love of God. Philosophers had to
contend both with the Aristotelian location of enjoyment on an earthly
plane and with the unsettling notion that pleasure and the highest form
of love might not be so safely intertwined. Aristotle himself was disturbingly silent on the question of the motivation for pursuits of contemplative
enjoyment, and medieval theologians would have to supply answers that
articulated the relationships between earthly and divine pleasures, human
love and Gods will, and the pleasures of activity and contemplation.

Labor or practical activity is a category that threatens to subsume the
others. Is the experience of the highest good one of activity (operacio) or
one of rest (quies)? Is virtue itself an activity? Dening pleasure or virtue in terms of activity does not necessarily entail a placement of labor
at the center of these denitions, but a focus on activity nevertheless
has implications for literary language and larger understandings of ethics that subsume such philosophical denitions under the categories of
medieval ethical life. The relationship of activity to pleasure and virtue is
a topic discussed by every philosopher who addresses the highest good,
from Plato and Aristotle forward. The denition of this relationship has
everything to do with whether one takes virtue to be primarily intellectual (and thus associated with contemplative activity), whether one
locates happiness in the human sphere (and thus likely to be an activity
or process) or in an afterlife (and thus associated with a state of rest), and
how one describes the role of pleasure (an experience supervening on

enjoyment or a goal in itself).
In Platos Meno, the notion of virtue as action is revealed as a common and mistaken idea, locating virtue in its myriad eects rather than
in its unifying cause; knowledge of virtue should rather be thought of
as something like practical wisdom. In the Meno, Socrates interlocutors
are men who understand a virtue such as courage to be inherent in courageous acts, and he guides them toward a realization that these acts are
unied instead by an intellectual conception of good and evil allowing
for courage, thus redening virtue itself as a skill or expertise inhering in
recovered knowledge. Platos notion of virtue as knowledge and therefore something that can be taught is a precursor of Aristotles conception of habitus, where virtue is inculcated through education and practice
until it becomes an internal disposition of the soul. For Aristotle, like
Plato, virtue itself is not an activity; however, in the tenth book of the
Nicomachean Ethics he describes the way that the rational soul achieves
the highest good in performing the activity of contemplation. In this context the contrast between the active and contemplative lives is displaced
by the contrast between the active and resting intellect. For Aristotle,
happiness is a life given as much as possible to the most perfect activity [that] belongs to the best-conditioned faculty in relation to the most
excellent object falling within its competence; this activity is the rational
minds contemplation of truth and the divine. Happiness is thus not a
disposition, but a self-sucient virtuous activity.
Plotinus conception of contemplative activity is not far from Aristotles.
Contemplation is not antithetical to activity, but is a form of action chosen by the stronger intellect. His life of the mind is lled with endless
activity that nevertheless is unwearying:
Life, pure, is never a burden; how then could there be weariness There where
the living is most noble? That very life is wisdom, not a wisdom built up by
reasonings but complete from the beginning, suering no lack which could set
it inquiring, a wisdom primal, unborrowed, not something added to the Being,
but its very essence.
Here we nd a tension between Plotinus apophatic claim that the perfect

experience of fruition in God is not tied to the intellect and a nevertheless
persistent valuing of activity rooted in his Aristotelian anities. The life
of wisdom in some ways sounds much like Aristotles contemplative ideal,
but it is nally not built up by reasonings, leaving the reasoning mind
as we understand it behind.
The alternative to a conception of enjoyment as labor or activity, of

course, is enjoyment as an experience of rest. For Philo of Alexandria,
a Jewish theologian inuenced by Plato and himself inuential in early
Christian theology, the beatic vision includes a mind at rest, experiencing joy in the contemplation of Gods being in a prayer that is not in
any earthly or active sense a prayer at all. This experience is preceded
by an immense commitment to a mortication of the senses and strict
mental and moral discipline, a toiling upward that ends in rest. Yet this
moment of joy is not the achievement of ones own labors, but a moment
of grace, bestowed by God. The only thing truly enjoyable for Philo is
rest in God, and the greatest good is equivalent to undisturbed peace.
Likewise, for Augustine, we are understood to direct ourselves toward
God with love (dilectio), so that in reaching him we may nd our rest,
and attain our happiness because we have achieved our fulllment in
him. Whereas in Aristotelian ethics, rest and pleasure are almost always
understood as enabling further activity, in the Augustinian system we
engage in activity so that we might one day achieve rest. Such a contrast
has ramications for understandings of ethical motivation, and also for a
poetic tradition that will oscillate between a commitment to the endless
activity of loving and writing and a celebration of the beloved as source of
ones hertes reste. Nicole Oresme will later comment in his translation
of Aristotles Ethics that, in heaven, rest does not connote the complete
cessation of activity, for the blessed continually understand and will in
God (les beneurs ont ilecques continuelment operacion de entendement
et de volent en Dieu). When one speaks of repose in heaven, he avers,
one speaks of the cessation of sorrowful, painful, or laborious activity, not
of all activity. Oresmes comment captures some of the tensions inherent in speaking about enjoyment as either rest or labor labor is ethically
valuable but also always connotes pain, while rest might be a means to an
end or the end itself.
Later medieval theologians will discuss the virtuous activity and the
laborious or restful nature of happiness with an orientation dependent
upon whether they locate the intellect or the will as the primary seat of
the experience of fruition. If enjoyment is located in the intellect, then it
must be identical to intellectual activity: pleasure in the contemplation
and love of God. But if enjoyment resides ultimately in the will, or in the
will of God himself, then the hearts and desires rest through the attainment of the beloved object must constitute the highest bliss. The question of whether enjoyment is an activity, and whether the pleasure that
accompanies it is an activity or passion, is something that later medieval
philosophers will debate, with implications for understandings of free

will, grace, and charity. Love as labor becomes both a trope of lovers sorrows and a parody of lovers heroic sexual achievements. The Aristotelian
notion of the highest good as pleasurable contemplation challenges both
the Augustinian and the fourteenth-century emphasis on the will and a
poetic commitment to the pain inherent in labor, and in love.

The role of knowledge and the intellectual faculty in ethical activity and
pursuit of the good was controversial even within Platos dialogues. In
these texts and in the wider moral discourse that proceeded from them,
there were a number of ways of thinking about the intellect: as a site of
conict between the contemplative and the political life, as an aspect of
the practice of virtue, and as the mental site of experience of the highest good. The question of the primacy of the intellect in the pursuit of
the highest good remained a controversy throughout the Middle Ages
and into the fourteenth century. The very possibility of an intellectualist
understanding of ethics must be placed in the context of varying understandings of the components of the soul. In both classical and medieval
philosophy, the activity of the intellect is traditionally opposed both to
the activity of the body and to the activity of the will. Platos famous
and inuential division of the soul into three parts rational, spirited,
and appetitive led to questions of whether humans are ruled by desire
for pleasure or by reason, and further whether knowledge itself can be
vulnerable to desire, pleasure, or love. The Phaedrus enduring image of
the soul as two horses driven by a charioteer is another way of conceptualizing the relationship between reason and other aspects of the soul.
Such a self-alienated model of the soul is ultimately incompatible with
Stoic notions of harmonious integration and the suciency of virtue for
happiness.
Platos Protagoras addresses the intellectual conception of virtue, asking the linked questions of whether pleasure is the same as good, and
whether virtue can be taught. In this dialogue, Socrates moves toward
a version of hedonism whereby pleasure is indeed to be sought as
good, but knowledge is necessary in order that a person correctly calculate the pleasure that his actions will bring him over time. At the close,
Socrates imagines the conclusion of the text itself personied, exclaiming, You, Socrates, began by saying that excellence cant be taught, and
now you are insisting on the opposite, trying to show that all things are
knowledge justice, soundness of mind, even courage from which it

would follow that excellence most certainly could be taught. Here, as
in other of Platos early dialogues, the virtues threaten to collapse into a
single virtue that of knowledge. Such a collapse can be discerned in the
Stoics, who embraced a monistic psychology in which the soul is entirely
rational. If virtue is identied with knowledge, as it is for many of the
Stoics, then education should be sucient to render a person virtuous.
Socratic intellectualism thus raises a matrix of concerns that encompass
the division of the soul, questions of pedagogy (whether virtue can be
taught), and the relationship between pleasure and the good.
While Aristotle insisted on reason as the most noble, divine human
power, and therefore the part of our nature most singularly human, he
resisted the reduction of virtue to knowledge. With Aristotle, we must also
attend to the dierence between his actual writings and his post-classical
reception; this latter understanding of his position on knowledge and virtue was typically governed by the philosophers basic stance that intellectual virtues are not sucient for perfect happiness. Where late medieval
theologians were more interested in Aristotles claims about the felicity
found in intellectual contemplation, late antique philosophers focused
on the necessity of external goods. For these philosophers, Aristotles originality inheres in his acknowledgment of the eects of fortune on the
prospects for human happiness, as well as the necessity of conventional,
external goods for the exercise of practical virtues such as liberality and
justice. The Aristotelian version of the happy man needs health, moderate
wealth, and friends, though these are not sucient conditions for happiness. This practical model seems to be in tension with the contemplative
version of happiness described in the last book of the Nicomachean Ethics,
where perfect happiness is achieved through reection on truth. Yet the
practical, political life remains ethically valid, and Aristotelian contemplation while central to the achievement of the highest good available
to humans provides in itself no guarantee of happiness. While material
goods are by no means identical with happiness, Aristotle arms that
even the virtuous man, engaged in the contemplative life, will not be
happy if he suers misfortune.
In contrast to both Plato and Aristotle, the neo-Platonist philosophers
adapted a dierent model that placed the intellect at the center of ethical
experience: the model of intellectual ascent. This version of intellectualism takes up Platonic topoi such as the world of Forms, the unreality
of earthly life and matter, and mystical ascent to the divine. Plotinus
sketches this ascent in explicitly intellectual terms; the only route to
God is through the mind. The active life, if necessary as a pursuit for
those without sucient intellectual power, does not appear to be given
much ethical value. Plotinus compares those who choose to pursue crafts
or manual labor rather than study and speculation to dull children;
they love material rather than spiritual beauty. The soul who has not yet
rejected material beauty is likened to Narcissus, falling in love with its
reection in Matter. Yet the ethically valuable experience of loving the
beauty of Moral-Wisdom is not unlike that of Ovids Narcissus or a
courtly lover, seized, with what pang of desire ooded with awe and
gladness, stricken by a salutary terror. The object of such desire and wonder shifts, though experientially it is indistinct from love oriented toward
the material world. If the good requires a rst transformation from material beauty to moral beauty, it ultimately requires a nal transformation
whereby ones own intellect and love are subsumed by the divine, which
itself enacts fruition and union. In Plotinus, as in later neo-Platonists such
as pseudo-Dionysius, the intellect must nally be left behind in order to
truly nd the Good. Plotinus claims that all things strive after contemplation, looking to Vision [theoria] as their one end; this is true even
of unreasoning animals. Intellectual ascent is more than an ethical prescription, for it is also the origin of any creative or procreative act, and a
description of the telos of all created beings. Neo-Platonism bequeathed
medieval mystical discourse an intellectualism that emphasizes not education, but contemplation, and ultimately an intellectual contemplation
whose goal is to leave the intellect behind.
Outside this mystical tradition, experience of union with God was not
necessarily understood to transcend the intellect. Augustine although
he is typically associated with an emphasis on the primacy of the will,
and occasionally describes joy as an act of the will was clearly inuenced by both Plato and the Platonists who describe the highest enjoyment in terms of cognition, knowledge, and self-reection. For example,
the theologian describes our resemblance to the Trinity as inhering in
the fact that we exist, we know we exist, and we are glad of this existence
and this knowledge. Knowledge, self-reection on that knowledge, and
pleasure in that knowledge are the keys of divinity and thus of happiness. Yet any knowledge that partakes of an ultimate enjoyment will be
granted by God, and will inhere in the desire for knowledge of him; this
desire for knowledge is ultimately tantamount to love rather than a simple desire to understand. For Augustine, following Paul ( Corinthians
:), knowledge (scientia) is ultimately dierent from the wisdom (sapientia) bestowed by God; we have knowledge about human things, and
wisdom about the divine. Yet this distinction between knowledge and
divine sapience is often blurred, as Augustine cites descriptions of wisdom
in a writer such as Cicero, who praises contemplative wisdom at the end
of the Hortensius, and claims that the use of reason and zeal of inquiry
will ease the ascent to heaven.
The intellectualist approach to enjoyment created questions for the
theologian about the role of virtuous action as well as the role of the
will. In Christian doctrine, the question of the conict between the virtue of the contemplative and active lives is always urgent. Just as desire
for knowledge without love is ultimately empty, so is intellectual desire
without action. For Augustines teacher Ambrose (c.), the desire for
knowledge is a natural thing, and devotion to philosophical inquiry is
honorable, but knowledge without actions is a hindrance in achieving the
happy life. Isidore of Sevilles (d. ) inuential Sententiae describe the
happy life as equivalent to the understanding of divinity Beata vita
cognitio divinitatis est yet he does not espouse a strictly intellectualist ethical orientation. Rather, he is instructive in the ways that, in the
wake of Augustine, the distinctions between pursuits of virtue through
the intellect, virtuous actions, or love of God all tend to collapse. At the
beginning of the second book of his Sententiae, Isidore explains that the
understanding of divinity, the virtue of good work, and enjoyment of
eternity ( fructus aeternitatis) are all equivalent. In this way both practical virtue and the contemplative life are viewed as pursuing the same
goal: the love and enjoyment of God. These later writers speak of happiness or blessedness in terms of cognition when the subject is wisdom, and
in terms of love when the subject is love; there does not seem to be any
controversy surrounding the matter. These are simply dierent ways of
describing the same experience and goal. The Platonic and neo-Platonic
union of love and the intellect is thus easily assimilated to Christian ideas
of the role of cognition in the experience of beatitude. The later reception of the full Nicomachean Ethics will make this association controversial, for there the medieval philosophers found a description of felicity as
an avowedly intellectual experience, born of study and contemplation of
truth, the good, and the divine. As I will discuss in the following chapter, some thirteenth-century scholars were thus inspired to claim radically
that only a life of philosophical speculation could lead one to the supreme
good, but even unquestionably orthodox commentators such as Albert
the Great noticed that Aristotle, in the last book of the Ethics, does not
seem to leave any space for the love of God to participate in intellectual
enjoyment it appears to be irrelevant. In Chapter we will nd that this
absence and the varied ways it was addressed by medieval philosophers

and poets participated in the conicts over intellectualism and voluntarism in the fourteenth century.

Unlike pleasure, happiness is uncontested as an ethical goal for both
the classical and the medieval periods, and as Augustine remarks in his
Confessions,
Happiness itself is neither Greek nor Latin, but it is that which Greeks, Latins,
and men of all other languages long to attain. It is then known to all of them,
and if they could all be asked: Do you wish to be happy? they would without
doubt answer with one voice: We do.
This unanimity illustrates, for Augustine, that happiness must reside in

human spiritual memory a remembrance of the happy life (beata vita)
in God. The question for classical discussions of happiness did not concern its desirability, or its appropriateness as a pursuit, but whether it was
both desirable and possible on earth, or should instead be located in an
afterlife or beyond of life. Plato is again not consistent on this topic across
his dialogues. His emphasis in the Theaetetus and the Phaedo on imitation of the divine and on the irrelevance of worldly evil to the happiness
of the virtuous man is in conict with his insistence elsewhere that a life
of virtue does not release one from concern for others, from responsibility in the world. In the latter case, the relevance of earthly concerns to
the virtuous man does not mean that happiness on earth is achievable.
Accordingly, the ethical valorization of earthly activity does not in itself
indicate that a philosopher endorses a concept of human happiness. This
latter stance is perhaps taken to its extreme in Plotinus writing, where
the virtuous man will have civic virtues, but given his detachment from
the world will be extremely unlikely to practice them.
Just so, a validation of human happiness does not necessarily bring
with it a rejection of the divine or the otherworldly. It is, perhaps surprisingly, at the end of the Timaeus, in a section not available to most
medieval readers, that Platos recipe for the care of the soul contains a
recipe for happiness that is not unlike that which will be formulated by
Aristotle. He admonishes that the man engrossed in earthly appetites will
become fully mortal, while if a mans
heart has been set on the love of learning and true wisdom and he has exercised
that part of himself above all, he is surely bound to have thoughts immortal
and divine, if he shall lay hold upon truth, nor can he fail to possess immortality in the fullest measure that human nature admits he must needs be happy
above all.
Both Plato and Aristotle outline a version of human happiness that

demands a reaching toward the divine; both cite an element of the divine
within us that we should nurture and allow to ourish. This version of
the divinity of happiness is signicantly dierent from the version that
demands an escape from the world. In the Theaetetus, rather than pursuing justice, as evil can in any case never be conquered on earth, Socrates
advocates escaping from earth to heaven. Evil will always haunt human
life, and the only solution is to take ight, becoming as like God as
possible. Socrates tells an anecdote, already well known to his contemporaries, about the philosopher Thales who, while gazing at the stars,
fell into a well. Such tales of the star-gazing philosopher, oblivious to
his earthly surroundings, were quite popular in the later Middle Ages,
typically as evidence of the fallibility of the intellectual, a witness to the
fact that every mortal person is subjected to the obstinacy of the material world and of human desire; no one is above or immune to the natural
world. Yet in the version of this story in the Theaetetus, Thales is praised
as being above the derision of the servant girl who teases him. The ideal
philosopher fails to see his next-door neighbour, and this is no fault.
As Julia Annas notes, this philosopher oblivious to the world around
him, uninterested in his neighbor, incapable of making a bed seems an
impossible gure of admiration. Yet it is precisely the distance between
our common, intuitive identication with the servant girl and an admiration of the philosopher who has transcended earthly concerns that is the
point of the tale. The Phaedo oers a perhaps more convincing topos for
philosophers and theologians who wish to argue for the irrelevance of the
mutable earthly world to happiness the example of Socrates as the noble
man who either pursues or humbly acquiesces to death in the name of
virtue, or even in the name of happiness. As Philosophia will later remark
in the Consolation, if we know that many have sought the enjoyment of
happiness not simply through death but even through pain and suering,
how can this present life make them happy, when its being past does not
make them miserable?
Plato thus left a twinned legacy to later philosophers: a Stoic legacy
focused on divinity as a life according to reason, in full engagement with
the world, and a legacy in neo-Platonism, Judaism, and Christianity centered on the idea of becoming divine as a eeing from the world toward
the perfect, divine good, necessarily outside of human experience. As

Cicero summarizes the Stoic position, the chances of mortal life are to
be despised, death is to be disregarded, pains and toils are to be considered endurable. He cites Platos Gorgias in support of the dictum
that virtue is self-sucient for a happy life. In a Christian context,
the happy life does not signify even supremely virtuous mortal life, but
life in union with the divine after death. Aristotelian ethics was susceptible of both interpretations of the happy life. The philosopher emphasizes the achievability of perfect happiness in Book of the Nicomachean
Ethics, where happiness is dened as the activity of the highest aspect of
human nature in accordance with its proper virtue: the exercise of the
intellect in understanding the truth. Aristotle acknowledges that a life of
such happiness is extraordinarily dicult to achieve, but he nevertheless
contends that such is the goal of the ethical human life. This humanist
optimism is overshadowed by his emphasis in the rest of the Ethics and
in the other ethical treatises attributed to Aristotle in the Middle Ages
(the Eudemian Ethics and the Magna Moralia) on the eects of fortune
upon the chances for human happiness. While it is his theorization of the
possibilities of happiness on earth that caused such diculty for the late
medieval theologians, his realism about the importance of external goods
to happiness also made him a spokesperson for the near-impossibility of
earthly happiness.
Augustine directly addresses the question of whether we can rightly or
fruitfully pursue happiness on earth in Book of the City of God. Asking
whether man can have genuine felicity, despite his mortality, he admits
that this is a vexed question, and that various philosophers have given different answers; occasionally they argue that the wise person can achieve
happiness. He concludes, nally, that the more credible and probable
position is that all men, as long as they are mortals, must needs be also
wretched. This answer arms the Christian deferral of true blessedness
until the afterlife while also giving an additional reason for the necessity of Christs mediation between the mortal and the divine. If mortals
could become truly happy, participating in the blessedness of the divine,
they would logically serve as mediators, but as this is not the case, Christ
must serve this purpose. Plotinus, quoted rather freely, lends support
to Augustines judgment of the wretchedness of human life: We must
ee to our beloved country. There the Father is, and there is everything.
Where shall we take ship? How can we ee? By becoming like God.
Augustine retains an intuitive understanding of happiness, but relocates it
to the afterlife. Human happiness becomes instead the life of happiness
which follows death, and life itself is redened in a variety of ways as a

process of dying. Ambrose had similarly equated the happy life (vitam
beatam) with eternal life (vitam aeternam). Augustine concludes that as
the present life is still subject to death, deception, and distress, life will
only be truly happy when it is eternal, chiding the pagan philosophers,
who have wished, with amazing folly, to be happy here [on earth] and to
achieve bliss by their own eorts.
This rejection of human happiness informs the discourse of Philosophia
in Boethius Consolation of Philosophy, which might be read as a medieval
update of the narrative of a philosopher going virtuously if not wholly
contentedly toward his death. In the middle of Book , Philosophia
has already established that happiness is the highest good of a rational
nature and thus that happiness cannot be equivalent to the fortuitous
happiness of the body. By the end of book , she has persuaded the
prisoner to agree that true happiness must reside in the most high God
and that happiness ultimately is God. Therefore, every happy man is a
god, for he participates in divinity. Philosophia unies a Stoic moral
philosophy, whereby nothing mutable contributes to happiness, with a
Platonic and Aristotelian denition of happy life as a life that partakes of
the divine.
Such a rejection of the physical world as a route to happiness does not
mean, however, that one becomes unsusceptible to its beauties. Many of
Philosophias meters in the Consolation sing the praises of nature kept in
harmony by a love that is both cosmic and human. And in one of the
longest sections of the City of God, Augustine works toward a conclusion of the entire work by considering Gods blessings, marveling over the
beauties of the natural world and the artistic, architectural, and intellectual accomplishments of humankind. His deep appreciation for creation
emerges as he describes the variety of plant and animal life, the wonders
of ant colonies and of edible fruits, and oers a lyrical account of the
spectacle of the colors of the sea: putting on its changing colours like different garments, now green, with all the many varied shades, now purple,
now blue. Yet he nally judges that these are the consolations of mankind under condemnation, not the rewards of the blessed. Augustine
and Boethius together bequeath a model of reconciliation between love
for earthly beauty and rejection of earthly mutability this literary model
allows praise for the world once ones conversion away from the world has
been eected, and consolation that springs from both mutable fortune,
recognized as such, and a knowledge that a life beyond fortune exists
after death.
Such melancholy comforts have perhaps never gone out of fashion.

Yet in a philosophical context, morality that takes heavenly permanence
as its starting point was often bracketed if never entirely set aside
in the tradition of moral philosophy reinaugurated with full access to
Aristotelian ethical thought. In its complete form, Aristotles Ethics introduced a denition of the sovereign good that would prove dicult to
assimilate to a Christian worldview. Human happiness is the starting
point in this philosophy, a terrain of study in its own right. The tension
between lyric desire for the permanence of beauty and a pragmatic analysis of the ethical goals achievable in this life animates both philosophy
and poetry in the wake of the emergence of an earthly-oriented not to
say secular ethics. While, in a Christian context, this happiness can
never be allowed perfection, it can certainly be allowed investigation and
pursuit, in terms of both the intellectual and the political lives. Dening
the happiness achieved via self-reection and contemplation as the highest happiness on earth demanded that ethical concepts of action, love,
pleasure, felicity, and the good be re-examined and revised.

Ethical understandings of enjoyment began to emerge as key issues in the
twelfth century, as did philosophical and poetic discourses that treated
human ethics as a terrain unto itself. A shift forward to this period nds
the simultaneous beginnings of a systematic medieval treatment of ethics and the birth of vernacular love poetry. Early in the twelfth century,
the second and third books of Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics are translated into Latin (the Ethica Vetus) and they begin to generate commentaries. Although it is not clear that Peter Abelard had access to these
texts, his Ethics is unique and forward-looking in its treatment of ethical
concerns action, intention, religious culpability, and social justice in a
self-sucient manner. His approach to human behavior as a subject worthy of its own discrete investigation harks back to the classical period and
also looks forward to the reinvigoration of moral philosophy as a discipline
in the scholastic period. Abelards Dialogus inter Philosophum, Judeum, et
Christianum or Collationes can be seen as a snapshot of mid-twelfthcentury understandings of the relationship between pagan philosophy
and Christian theology as they pertain to enjoyment. Likewise, Peter
Lombards Sententiae, a text written only a generation later, would contribute to a renewed focus on dening enjoyment in its full ethical and
theological context.
Yet it is Abelards Dialogue that articulates what might be thought of

as a new version of the City of God for the late medieval period, in that
it addresses the Christian inheritance of classical thought. In this text, a
philosophical dream vision in which the narrator imagines himself as the
judge of two dialogues a Philosopher debating a Jew and Christian in
turn Abelard rethinks the relationship between pagan and Christian
understandings of the highest good. The legacy of classical philosophy
for Christian thought about aspects of enjoyment is rendered explicit in
Abelards dialogue he is most fascinating when he explores the way a
shared terminology masks crucial dierences in how philosophers and
Christians talk about ethics. Where Augustine sought to show that amor,
dilectio, and caritas all describe the same phenomenon turned to various
ends, Abelard is compelled to demonstrate that all understandings of caritas are hardly equivalent. Prodded by the questions of the Christian, the
Philosopher parses the dierences among the ancients regarding whether
the highest good should be dened as virtue or as pleasure, and what
these writers understood by pleasure. When the Christian turns to a discussion of dierences in ethical vocabulary between the pagans and the
Christians, the Philosopher at rst maintains that they largely agree, but
simply have dierent terms for the same things: Epicurus I think calls
this blessedness pleasure: your Christ calls it the kingdom of heaven.
The Philosopher tries to save philosophy by claiming that the pagan philosophers speak of the ultimate human good (summum hominis bonum)
but the Christian will allow no earthly good to deserve the name of
ultimate, when the divine clearly surpasses it. A logical distinction the
Christians criticism of the attribute ultimate being given to anything
that is not in fact nal reveals that, as the Christian concludes, our
purpose and merits are quite dierent from yours, and we disagree quite a
bit too about the ultimate good itself.
Abelards Philosopher is shown to stand in perfect agreement with
Christianity, but only after he is educated in the true meanings of his
terms. Early on in his portion of the dialogue, the Philosopher, invested
in maintaining agreement between the two discourses, insists that the
pleasure of the pagan philosophers is not carnal, but a tranquility of the
soul, and that philosophers are great despisers of earthly happiness. From
Abelards perspective, the demonstration that pagan philosophy nally
agrees with Christianity is the only way that the content of such philosophy can be saved, and the Christian uses the philosophical method
of logical disputation to critique the Philosopher. The Philosopher, for
his part, minimizes the dierences between those who would pursue
pleasure and those who would pursue virtue, arguing that they are basically the same: the blessed are understood to be strong in virtues, and the
virtuous are blessed with pleasure. It is on this point that the Christian
and Philosopher appear to part ways, for the Christian has not reoriented
his denition of blessedness so that it becomes synonymous with virtuousness. He cannot disregard the pleasure of the beatitude oered in the
afterlife, which will increase without an increase in virtuousness, while
for the Philosopher the afterlife is irrelevant. The Christian uses logical
treatises Aristotles Categories and Ciceros Topics as evidence for his
claim that even pagan philosophers agree that life on earth includes evils
and suering, and therefore cannot be the site of the ultimate good. He
quotes Aristotle that the contrary of a good is certainly evil, and Cicero
that if health is good, sickness is evil. The use of a logical example as
evidence in a moral argument is intriguing, and also perhaps telling of
the desire to marshal any ethical writings possible in an environment in
which not many texts are available. The Philosopher ultimately capitulates to the Christians line of reasoning, going so far as to recuperate
Epicurus by reasoning that when he said that the ultimate good is pleasure, he was referring to the pleasure of the afterlife. The desirability of
the afterlifes blessedness as the ultimate good, now analogized to warmth
after cold, clear skies after rain, has become plain truth.
The other aspect of shared vocabulary dissected by the Christian is the
common notion that the divine, or God, characterizes the ultimate good.
The Philosopher sums up: the ultimate good is God himself, or else his
blessednesss ultimate tranquility that nevertheless we do not regard as
anything other than him who is blessed from himself, not from something else. The Christians doctrine that God, the ultimate good, is also
the ultimate human good, is not unknown to philosophy, as its spokesperson acknowledges. The ultimate human good for the Philosopher,
however, is the perpetual repose or joy everyone receives after this life in
proportion to his merits, whether in the vision or cognition of God, as you
say, or however else it happens. This denition garners no response from
the Christian, and it appears that he accepts it. While the Philosophers
belief in the divinity of the ultimate good has not shifted, his location of
the human good as a participation in this ultimate good in the afterlife is
a distinct transformation in his system.
While the Philosopher will allow for this relocation of the good, his
agreement with the Christian cannot reach the same degree when it concerns the relationship between virtue and love this relationship appears
to be an insurmountable sticking point. The subsuming of both virtue
and reward under the category of love by Christianity is demonstrated

to cause diculty for the Philosopher. In the rst dialogue, the Jew and
Philosopher both agree that natural law can be eectively summarized
as the commandment to love both God and neighbor. The Philosophers
logical dissection of the Jews beliefs turns on the Jews claim that loves
perfection is enough to yield true blessedness alongside his simultaneous insistence on the need for external works. The Christian catches
the Philosopher in a trap very similar to the logical snare that the Jew
walks into: the Philosopher quite reasonably considers that if ones love
for God is virtuous, and is increased on account of being given the gift
of the divine vision in the afterlife, one should then merit further reward
in heaven for increasing ones virtue of charity. But according to the
Christian, human love is a necessary response to the payment of a prize
of heavenly understanding, and so any increase of love in response does
not turn the reward itself into a merit again. In other words, human
souls upon entering heaven do not become more meritorious what other
reward could they expect? The dialogue ends, apparently incomplete, in
the midst of a discussion about what things deserve to be called good,
and calling for any further points about the ultimate good to be brought
forward. The dreamer is never called upon to judge the victor in these
debates, but it hardly seems necessary, given the already determined outcome that Christianity will win (in fact has won, so far as Abelard is
concerned), and given his mastery of both Christian and philosophical
discourses. Yet the substance of the debate remains an illustrative example
of the way that Christian ethics can harness philosophical logical method
and content to its arguments, and the fact that philosophy can be won
over to Christian doctrine, but only through dialectic and not through a
simple claim that using the terms summum bonum, caritas, and beatitudo
in common marks a shared understanding of the ethical orientation of a
human life. Abelards dialogue also shows that there are points of tension
that are terribly dicult to resolve, if not irresolvable, between philosophical and Christian understandings of concepts such as virtue, love, and
the good. Classical ethics is both the origin of Christian ethics and in
some ways unassimilable to it.
Abelards student, Peter Lombard, did not address the topic of classical ethics in such a systematic fashion in his enormously inuential
Sententiae. However, within this summation of Christian doctrine on a
variety of topics, including vice, virtue, and the experience of the ultimate
good in the afterlife, Peter does address questions about the relationship
between intellectual contemplation and love of God, hierarchies of love
for the supreme good and lesser goods, and the levels of enjoyment of the
beatic vision. He treats enjoyment most directly in the beginning of his
book of Sentences; there we nd again Augustines denitions of use and
enjoyment. Peter discusses these denitions, which things are to be used
and which enjoyed, whether human beings and the virtues should be
enjoyed, and whether God uses or enjoys us. He reiterates the denition
of enjoyment in De Doctrina Christiana and emphasizes that the things of
this world are only to be used:
To enjoy is to inhere with love to some thing for its own sake; but to use is
to apply whatever comes to ones hand in order to obtain that which is to be
enjoyed Among all things those alone are to be enjoyed which are eternal and
unchangeable; as for the rest, they are to be used so that one may come to the
full enjoyment of the former.
He does not go on to elaborate at this point upon the vagaries of understandings of love, pleasure, fruition, or happiness. Yet later commentaries
several discussed in the chapters to follow give quantities of space to
discussing the controversies over enjoyment in their particular context.
In the preface to her magisterial two-volume study of Peter Lombard,
Marcia Colish remarks that a survey of the choices made by university
students as to what aspects of the Sentences to focus on in their commentaries could give us a striking comprehension of geographical and
chronological shifts in the history of speculative thought. As Colish also
notes, the theme of use and enjoyment, set out in the beginning, governs
the Sentences as a whole: everything else points to God as the supreme
being and supreme good to be enjoyed in and for himself. Although the
Lombard does not treat ethics systematically, he consistently addresses
vice, virtues, free will, and moral law.
As the Sentences became a set text in the university curriculum and
thus a consistent locus for debate about topics such as the psychology
and ethics of enjoyment of the greatest good, it also became a site where
Aristotelian philosophy was marshaled along with patristic doctrine to
solve these debates. As Abelards renewed synthesis of classical and
Christian ethics suggests, there was a continuing desire to repair the gaps
between these two discourses, and an awareness that a reckoning of these
dierences was crucial to the ongoing project of formulating a medieval moral philosophy. The scholars of the late thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries would take up the challenge of synthesizing the Lombards
Augustinian formulations of enjoyment with Aristotelian ideas about the
relationships between love and pleasure, and love and intellectual activity,
and about the place of enjoyment in human happiness. The focus on

enjoyment in the rst distinction of the Sentences ensured that it became
a set topic in the commentaries of many theologians. These commentaries discussed the dierence between the enjoyment to be had in this
life ( fruitio viae) and the enjoyment of the afterlife ( fruitio patriae) and
analyzed any number of other adjacent issues, including grace, charity,
and the relationship between the intellect and the will. In this context
the act of enjoyment ( fruitio) is structurally distinct from the resulting
pleasure (delectatio), and scholars debated whether or not the two terms
could be eectively distinguished. The thriving discourse of enjoyment
in commentaries on the Lombards text had its own inuence on commentaries on Aristotles Ethics. Debates about the identity or non-identity
of pleasure, love, and happiness were recounted in comments on Book
as background to philosophical understandings of both human and
divine happiness. In making pleasure and enjoyment common topics for
discussion, late medieval theologians took up issues central to a theorizing of both the ultimate heavenly good and a terrestrial human good,
wondering about the nobility of motivation through love or pleasure,
and where in the soul the ultimate experience of enjoyment might take
place. Such questions also animated another major ethical discourse of
the late Middle Ages poetry, and especially love poetry. The section
below begins a description of the joint poetic and philosophical discourse
of enjoyment that this book seeks to recover.

The story about the relationship between poetry and philosophy that this
book will tell is not a story about the unidirectional inuence of the latter upon the former, but rather a picture of a period during which both
poetry and philosophy together were addressing ethical questions about
love. The poems of the troubadours reveal the way that, even prior to the
full translation of Aristotles ethical writings, this matrix of love poetry
and philosophy created a space for thinking about secular ethical problems on their own terms. The Occitan poetry of the twelfth century has
long been recognized as a site for meditation on the relationships among
love, language, and joy. The troubadours penchant for repeated, common use of words such as joi (joy, enjoyment), lo mielh (the good), and
pretz (worth, nobility) not only builds an ethical and erotic vocabulary,
but also reveals a willingness to play with their own ethical systems.
The troubadours thus create, record, and constantly revise a courtly ethos
that intersects with both secular and religious questions about valor, loyalty, service, goodness, desire, and happiness. Below, I will discuss lyrics
by Guilhem IX (), Jaufr Rudel (c. c.), and Bernart de
Ventadorn (c. c.). These songs serve as material for exploring how
the discourse of troubadour poetry intersects with the philosophical concerns I have narrated above, as well as an illustration of one of the main
theses of this book, that vernacular love poetry takes the science of love
and the good as one of its primary concerns, not simply as an independent genre, but as a participant in a larger late medieval ethical discourse.
The troubadours were celebrated by early scholars for what was understood as a chaste version of courtship with its accompanying elaborate
codes and practices. This commitment to chastity has more recently
been exposed as a critical ction, though the troubadours are still often
noted for their creation of a mode of poetic desire that revels in desire
itself and its accompanying sacrices rather than its consummation.
While this construction of desire is clearly a marked feature of much
troubadour verse, and an important facet of the troubadour literary legacy, it is also clear that the question of the lyric subjects relationship to
his desire was in constant ux from the very beginning of the troubadour uvre. Troubadour poetry, considered as a whole, addresses many
aspects of medieval philosophical debate about enjoyment: the relationships between virtue and love, and love and intellectual contemplation,
denitions of pleasure and joy, and the possibilities of human happiness.
Guilhem IX of Aquitaine sings that when spring returns, Ben deu
cascus lo joi jauzir / Don es jauzens (each one should enjoy the joy /
About which he is joyful, ll. ). This song, which begins Pos vezem
de novel orir, is dedicated to the sentiment that love without enjoyment
is nens (pointless, l. ). The rst stanza, with its play on the many
grammatical forms of joy enjoying joy ( joi jauzir), receiving joyfulness
( jauzens) signals that the many ways to experience joy as an object of
desire, as something given or something actively enjoyed, or as an aspect
of the activity of loving itself are the subject of the poem. Guilhem
expresses the possibility of separating enjoyment from love as a conict
over his duty to praise love despite its granting him no joy. The fact that
the speaker, despite his advice to others, wants precisely what he cannot
have means that he will have less pleasure from love, as well as less knowledge: Per tal nai meins de bon saber / Quar vueill so que non puesc
aver (For this reason I have less good pleasure [knowledge] / Because I
want what I cannot have, ll. ). In Occitan as in Latin, the verb of
knowledge (saber, sapere) is the same as the verb of tasting, and thus of
enjoying in its range of senses. One often nds in troubadour poetry

this deliberate play among intellectual knowledge, erotic knowledge,
and intellectual and erotic enjoyment. The lyric subject might desire a
person, the persons body, the persons desire, or knowledge itself. The
beloved Lady is often described as wise as well as beautiful, and further
as a source of wisdom; in this sense she is part of a long tradition stretching back to Augustines praise of Sapientia and perhaps even the Platonic
form of Beauty itself.
Jaufr Rudel similarly remarks that Es amors bon ab bon saber (love
is good when it has ne wisdom [pleasure] on its side, l. ) in his poem
Quan lo rossinhols (When the nightingale). He laments that he
gains no wisdom (bon saber, l. ) from his ladys beauty despite the
fact that when he dreams of her he has joy meravelos / Per quieu la ab
joy jauzen (marvelous joy / Because I rejoice there rejoicing with joy,
ll. ) and Per quieu la jau jauzitz jauzen (rejoices joyfully on account
of the joy from it, l. ). Yet this love recedes the closer he comes to her;
his poem creates the same goal of union with his beloved as the poem of
Guilhem, and yet his goal appears in fact to be a goal of never arriving.
The last two stanzas narrate the speakers leave-taking of Love itself, parting joyfully, and apparently beginning a new pilgrimage to Bethlehem
(l. ). The lyric appears to exchange physical love for love of God, and
the bon saber that the speaker could not gain from his beloveds beauty
is nally achieved in the attendance of the segura escola (good school,
l. ) where Jesus teaches. In the context of this song, saber is moralized
and the lamented distance of his lover is revealed as insurmountable; the
singer gains more pleasure and wisdom by transferring his desire to God
himself.
It would be mistaken, however, to dismiss this or others of Jaufr
Rudels songs as simplistically didactic, as the exchange of physical love
for spiritual pilgrimage is collapsed in Jaufrs famous song Lanquan li
jorn son lonc en may (When the days are long in May), perhaps the
fullest exposition of his love from afar. The speaker in this song takes
joy in distant birds and departs sadly and joyfully from a distant love.
Yet rather than turning to God, we nd that the poet will be granted
the company of his distant love (who remains distant despite such conversation) through the Lord himself; God in fact fermet cest amor de
loing (fashioned this distant love, l. ) and the poets wish for pilgrimage would take him to his beloveds face, where mos fustz e mos tapis /
Fos pelz sieus bels huoills remiratz (my sta and mat were gazed on
by her lovely eyes, ll. ). Such claims in the context of the matrix of
troubadour song belie any simple notion that physical love might be sacriced for spiritual love, as there is always the chance that one might simply
hope that God would bring him or her to his earthly beloved. Both lover
and pilgrim desire to gaze upon and contemplate the beloveds beauty
and face. Guilhems and Jaufrs poetry thematize the slippery relationships among desires for intellectual, erotic, and spiritual knowledge while
attending to questions that were vital for medieval moral philosophy: the
relationship between pleasure and love, the nature of the highest enjoyment, and the location of ethical desire.
Questions about love, knowledge, and religion remain vital for the
later troubadours, though moral questions do not always address the gap
between secular and spiritual desire. Bernart de Ventadorns songs are
often taken up with earthly questions that come with adopting one of
two positions: the desiring subject or the object that is desired; this oscillation, it transpires, turns not on the alternation between the two poles
of singing lover and far-o beloved, but rather his shifting relationship
to other lovers and to himself. Can vei la lauzeta mover is one of the
most archetypal (and popular) troubadour songs, written by the archetype of the courtly troubadour. Bernart begins his song with a moment
of envy for the joys of others:
Can vei la lauzeta mover
de joi sas alas contral rai
que soblid e-s laissa chaser
per la doussor cal cor li vai,
ai, tan grans enveya men ve
de cui queu veya jauzion
meravilhas ai, car desse
lo cor de dezirer no-m fon.
(ll. )
(When I see the lark beat his wings for joy against the suns ray, until, for the
sheer delight which goes to his heart, he forgets to y and plummets down, then
great envy of those whom I see lled with happiness comes to me. I marvel that
my heart does not melt at once from desire.)
The poet watches a lark, Icarus-like, ying too high, forgetting itself in
the joy of the suns rays, and falling as a result of this intense emotion.
Bernart follows this observation with a cry that a great desire or great
envy takes hold of him when he sees any other joyful person, and he
cannot believe that his heart does not simply melt from desire. Bernart
tells us that he began to lose power over himself the moment he looked
into his ladys eyes, into a mirror (miralh, l. ) that pleased him
greatly. He claims to have lost himself just as Narcissus lost himself in

the fountain. Here looking is privileged again, but instead of the voyeuristic looking upon anothers pleasure that initiates the poem, the poet
gazes into a mirror that could reect his love object, the self, or an exemplary, ideal self. The myth of Narcissus complicates the earlier image of
envious gazing, for the lark of the rst line of the poem emerges more
clearly as a gure for the poet himself a songbird ying too close to
the unattainable object of desire. The poet seems not to suer out of
envy or jealousy, but from the universal Ovidian dilemma of narcissistic
desire: one is trapped by the too perfect possession of ones own self to
properly experience desire.
Bernart begins Ab joi with a meditation on the relationship between
joy and the good, between beginnings and endings, and actions and
reception:
Ab joi mou lo vers e.l comens
et ab joi reman e fenis,
e sol que bona fos las s,
bos tenh quer lo comensamens.
Per la bona comensansa
mi ve jois et alegransa;
e per so dei la bona grazir
car totz bos faihz vei lauzar al fenir.
(ll. )
(With Joy embarking I begin the verse, and with joy concluding it will end.
Only when the ending is good, do I nd the beginning good. In a good beginning, joy and happiness come to me, and so I shall welcome the good ending for
I see all good deeds applauded at their end.)
Bernart seems here to be invoking a notion of the unity of intention and

action, beginning and ending, in which joyful intentions will lead inevitably to good deeds. For Bernart, the end of the song confers meaning
(here, joy) upon the beginning, for only if the end is good will he nd
the beginning good. In wishing totz bos faihz (all good deeds, l. ) to
be applauded at the end of his song, he is allowed to receive joy and happiness in its beginning. Here goodness and happiness seem to bracket
his poem, sealing it o from the destructive forces of the outside world,
guaranteeing an unbroken chain of promises, actions, beginnings and
endings. Joy is demonstrated to be compatible with fear and anxiety
(paor e doptansa) about failing ones beloved; ones commitment to the
courtly virtues necessary to be a true lover brings pleasure but also fear
of failure. The fear of losing an ephemeral earthly good the fear that
compromises earthly happiness for Boethius and others here is transformed into a fear that the self will not live up to the ethical demands of
the beloved. Yet it is eminently compatible with the joy described by the
poet; any pure lover (n amansa) will experience this fear (ll. ). As
is often the case in troubadour lyrics, the poet demonstrates ambivalence
about his desire to keep his love secret, as he wishes that his beloved be
true to him quenemics, cai fatz denveya morir (so that I might make
my enemies die of envy, l. ). Thus the lady herself, Bel Vezers, does
not come into visibility until the sixth stanza, when Bernart mentions
her bela bocha rizens (beautiful smiling mouth, l. ) and her kisses
that slay him. Up to that point she has been either absent or an abstraction. It appears that when only the poets desire and intention are present,
happiness is possible. At the end of the poem, the promised happiness is
more akin to Guilhems claim that he must say good things about love;
Bernart dei aver alegransa (ought to be happy, l. ) because he loves
such a worthy woman. She has his esperansa and is an expert about
doing and saying pleasurable things. The broad claims about joy and
happiness in the beginning of the poem give way to a less sure claim to
happiness when an individual love object emerges. Bernarts poem dramatizes the conict between the vagaries of earthly fortune and the human
desire for stable happiness, as well as his ethical responsibility to praise
love and to actually feel happiness when it seems that his happiness is
compromised by anxiety about the desires of others and about his own
virtue. Is enjoyment comprised by good deeds? By love? By assent to an
ethical value system that praises love directed at a worthy object above
all other practical matters? Bernart seems to suggest that such a system
works well when considered in the abstract, but founders when it comes
into contact with the community of the court, or even the community of
two made up of the lover and his beloved.
The troubled relationship between self, desire, and other often
focused by an Ovidian lens will remain the way in which the medieval
poets work their way through the shared erotic and intellectual discourses
of contemplation, love, and pleasure. The lyrics above reveal that questions about enjoyment were already animating vernacular poetry. The
next century will witness a transformation in the textual environment
of moral philosophy with the translation of the full Nicomachean Ethics
along with many other texts in the Aristotelian corpus. In the Roman de
la Rose, as we will see in the following chapter, Ovidian tales of Narcissus
and Pygmalion function to allow the poets to explore the intersection of

intellectual and erotic desires, along a range of experiences from a reveling in wonder and objectless delight to an idealized union of the creative
and desiring impulses to a devastating and ironic critique of both courtly
and scholarly ideas about ultimate possession and fruition.
Narcissus after Aristotle: love and ethics

in Le Roman de la Rose
Narcissus was always after Aristotle, as my chapter title seems unnecessarily to remind us, but the succession was reversed for the Latin Middle
Ages, in which Ovid preceded the Philosopher by centuries, at least in
terms of textual reception. There are any number of reasons why we might
seek to nd out what happens to Narcissus Ovids Narcissus along with
his avatars, the self-reexive, self-sacricing protagonists of much love
poetry after Aristotle is fully returned to medieval discourse. Aristotle
was, after all, no critic of self-love. In the thirteenth century, both philosophy and poetry grappled with shifting understandings of earthly and
divine love, physical and intellectual pleasure, and human happiness.
The Aristotelianism that came to dominate scholastic discourse in this
period with the full translation and dissemination of most of the philosophers works into Latin did not leave medieval understandings of love
untouched. I concentrate below on the way that Aristotles ethical writings transformed both poetic and philosophical understandings of love,
taking as my focus the Roman de la Rose of Guillaume de Lorris and Jean
de Meun. An examination of thirteenth-century Aristotelianism in this
light will allow us to add another facet to our reading of Jeans transformation of Guillaumes Rose, to the poetic legacy of the conjoined text, and
also to our understanding of the developing traditions of vernacular love
poetry. The Roman de la Rose as a poem at the center of the intellectual
universe of the thirteenth century, and a poem that would immediately
become and remain central to the traditions of love poetry, dream vision,
encyclopedic narrative, personication allegory, and penitential and confessional narratives is thus at the center of this story.
The modern recontextualization of the Rose within its full intellectual
environment at the end of the thirteenth century is a project that began
with Grard Par more than fty years ago, and that remains uncompleted, though other critics besides Par have located Jean de Meun at the
heart of intellectual discourse and controversies. Alastair Minnis argues
for the similarity of Jeans texts and intellectual pursuits to those of the
thirteenth-century Parisian arts faculty, noting that Jean was writing his
Rose at the same time that Boethius of Dacia, the radical Aristotelian,
was active at the University of Paris. Jean seems to be remarkably interested in the new learning of the schools, an interest that invites speculation that Jean chose to work with the commentary of William of
Aragon to him a very recent, very Aristotelian text when writing his
translation of Boethius Consolation of Philosophy. There is also evidence
for an educated medieval audience for the poem: it was listed (as missing)
in the inventory of the Sorbonne library and manuscript evidence
points to readers who approached the poem with a wide range of perspectives and concerns. A mid-fourteenth-century manuscript (MS Bibl. Nat.
fr. ) demonstrates that at least one of its readers engaged with the
poem as a part of philosophical discourse. This reader glosses the poem
with references to Aristotle, among other learned writers, and specically
quotes the rst book of the Ethics in reference to the personication of
Reason: Primo ethicorum. Semper ratio deprecatur ad optimam (The
rst book of the Ethics. Reason always urges to the best, fol. r, v. ).
Sylvia Huot reminds us that for a fourteenth-century reader, there was
nothing strange about seeking points of contact between poetry, philosophy, theology, law.
I begin my examination of the Aristotelian aspects of the Rose with
Guillaume de Lorris, in order to investigate why his poem (c.)
might have provided such an attractive text for Jeans later experimentation (c.) with new ethical ideas. Below, I look at the way in which
the new Aristotle aected courtly poetry by examining this famously
bifurcated poem as a work divided not only by a temporal gap and a
shift in authorship, but by the impact of the full translation of Aristotles
Nicomachean Ethics which takes place during that gap. Most importantly, this translation brought with it Aristotles denition of contemplative activity as the highest human happiness, accessible in this life. This
understanding of ethics as bound to the human sphere, and as oriented
toward a good achievable in this life, would be particularly dicult for
medieval philosophy to absorb. In this context of debate, Jean de Meun
takes a poem already steeped in ethical categories of self-knowledge,
desire, and free will and exploits its ssures in order to explore the erotic
assumptions of both courtly poetry and scholastic philosophy. For Jean,
this is still a poem about love, but it is additionally a poem about how
the poetic expression of erotic desire must always also be about intellectual and spiritual desire. His renamed Rose, now the Miror aus Amoreus,
Love and ethics in Le Roman de la Rose
will ideally include all of the conicting contemporary sciences of love in

its polished surface.
:
V I T A A C T I VA
Jean de Meun does not choose to work upon what he sees as a naive, earlier
poem, but is interested in the rst Rose precisely because Guillaume de
Lorris seems to address Aristotelian ethical controversies avant la lettre
before the full translation of the Nicomachean Ethics into Latin (c.).
Operating within a framework prior to the dissemination of Aristotles
contemplative denition of human happiness, Guillaumes poem explores
the ethical implications of an erotic quest that remains rmly in a circular structure of desire and poetic activity, a structure that on its face does
not seem to trouble the distinctions that medieval philosophy maintains
between imperfect earthly goods and the perfect good reserved for divine
illumination. Instead the poem appears to adhere to conventional, ironic
parallels between the unattainable love object and the summum bonum of
the heavenly realm; in his dream vision Amant courts his inaccessible rose
by maintaining the commandments given to him by Amor, the God of
Love. It is Guillaumes exploration of erotic desire as expressed in a variety
of activities associated with contemplation that makes his poem so relevant to later thirteenth-century ethics. Despite the poems narrative form,
Guillaume maintains the lyric stasis of Amants quest through a collapsing of the distinction between productive and unproductive labor, especially with respect to the labors of self-reection and writing love poetry.
These terms will become key to medieval understandings of Aristotelian
contemplation as a pleasurable activity, esteemed in itself; Guillaumes
linking of the Narcissus myth, poetic activity, intellectual self-reection,
and physical labor will prove a fruitful nexus for his successor.
The protagonist-narrator Amants entry into the garden of delight
appears to be an entry into the perils not only of irrational desire, but
irrational poetic activity. He is rst welcomed by a gure named Oiseuse
who unlocks the wicket garden gate. Earl Jerey Richards has argued
convincingly that we should understand Guillaumes use of oiseuse as
continuous with the twelfth-century use of the word to connote verbal
folly or frivolity, a denition more encompassing than Idleness, given in
Charles Dahlbergs translation. Richards argues that in the twelfth and
early thirteenth centuries the term shifted away from its Latin etymology
(though he notes that the word otium is itself polyvalent) and did not
carry strong associations of either sinful idleness or the leisure necessary

for study. Amant recounts his rst impressions of Oiseuses paradise, full
of birds and their songs. In the midst of describing his past gratitude to
the gure who oered him entry, the speaker shifts persona to become
external narrator again, breaking into the present and future tenses to
remark to his reader that he will describe the appearance of the garden:
fui plains de grant jolivet
et lores soi ge bien et vi
quOiseuse mavoit bien servi,
qui mavoit en ce deduit mis.
Bien desse estre ses amis,
quant ele mavoit desferm
le guichet dou vergier ram.
Des or mes, si con je savrai,
tot lafeire vos conterai.
(ll. )
(I was lled with great joy and I saw that Oiseuse, who had placed me in the
midst of this delight, had served me well. My love was due to her when she
unlocked the wicket gate of the branching garden. From now on, I shall recount
to you, as well as I know, how I went to work.)
In Lecoys edition of the poem (based on MS Bibl. Nat. fr. ), the narrator promises to tell us about the afeire or disposition of the garden, while
Langlois edition has the narrator promising to tell us coment jovrai
(how I went to work, l. ). In either case, the status of work, loving,
and writing is immediately raised at this moment of entry and introduction; allegorically, Amant is allowed to enter the locus amoenus through his
engagement with oiseuse, and this engagement is linked to the work of narrative, now associated with verbal frivolity. Dreaming placed Amant in
this position, we understand, but the narrators poetic activity places him
there again so that we may witness his experience. The personied Oiseuse
suggests that Amants primary activity will be a verbal activity, a learning about love par parole that will be the subject of critique by Amor
himself. The verb ouvrer as an intransitive verb means simply to work,
but as a transitive verb ouvrer can mean to work materials, the material
of language in this context. Amants work and the aairs of the garden
are the work of falling in love, of pursuing the rose, and ultimately continuing this pursuit in the very writing of the Rose itself. We will hear not
only about Amants dream-work, but about the art of the narrator. Just
further on, the poem reveals the narrators work to be narrative itself, for
as he explains his task, he cannot convey the simultaneity of his experience
upon entering the garden, but must tot vos conter par ordre (tell you
everything in order, l. ), creating narrative out of a single moment of

experience. Claire Nouvet has read the poems conception of allegory as a
split between an ideal vision that encompasses everything at once and the
fallen, allegorical speculum that requires that we see things in a discrete,
temporal succession. Here the fate of fallen vision is coextensive with the
experience of both reading and writing love poetry. Amant has a simultaneous, comprehensive experience, but transferring that experience into verse
requires a fall into temporality and thus into oiseuse the verbal frivolity
associated with courtly delights and romance writing.
Given that the key emblem associated with this markedly active
Oiseuse is the mirror in her hand, it is tempting to take her as an ironic
gure for the contemplative life. In the appendix to his book The Roman
de la Rose John Fleming suggestively places a manuscript illustration of
Oiseuse with her comb and mirror next to an illustration from another
Rose manuscript of Christ with his mirror of wisdom both gures holding their reected faces in the same manner. Yet Fleming also states
rmly that while mirrors in general in the late Middle Ages mean many
things, including luxuria, self-knowledge, and the contemplative life,
Oiseuse is luxuria, and her mirror has nothing whatsoever to do with
the vita contemplativa. While it seems unlikely that Guillaume is satirizing the contemplative life as idle or cupidinous, it is possible to imagine
Oiseuse as a gently parodic gure of contemplation gone awry turned
to the vanity of her toilette and inviting Amant to engage in the irrational
activity of writing romance narratives rather than rational pleasures.
Within the ethical landscape of the garden, she contrasts strikingly with
Amor, whose commandments, and especially his proclamation that covient vivre / les amanz, quil lor est mestiers (lovers must live, for life is
their occupation, ll. ), add up to a recommendation that Amant
should choose the active life of loving rather than writing books about
love an irrational, unending project. For while up to this point the narrators work has appeared to be the work of narrative, at other moments
the work of romance writing is revealed to be denitively anti-narrative; it
appears to condemn one to continual stasis. Just before his recommendation of living as an occupation, Amor tells Amant that
Nes quem puet espuisier la mer,
ne poroit nus les maus damer
conter en romanz ne en livre.
(ll. )
(No more than one can empty the sea could any man recount in a romance or a
book the woes of love.)
Considering that the Rose itself is largely constituted by the woes and joys
of Amant, it appears that the poem is exactly the hopeless task that Amor
warns against undertaking. The endless nature of romance writing is perhaps one more reason for the seemingly unnished nature of the poem.
Rather than writing a romance for his beloved lady, the poet should be
living, according to Amor. At this moment the multiple subject positions of the narrator come to the fore again: as the character of Amant, he
follows Amors precepts, but as narrator and author gure he is engaged in
pointless labor. Whereas the personied gure of Oiseuse had melded the
notions of productive and unproductive activity by locating both loving
and writing in the garden of delight, Amor disentangles the two kinds of
activities. Writing love poetry becomes an idle task in a negative sense,
while loving itself is valorized, distinguished from merely participating
in a scene of courtly irtations and pleasures. Amor ethicizes this scene,
makes distinctions and demands a particular kind of productive activity.
With this contrast between Oiseuse and Amor, it appears that unfocused
desire allows for the free play of both physical and intellectual pleasure,
while focused desire brings with it a series of commandments and rules,
prescribing activity oriented toward a particular end; in this way the
recipe for the good, active (courtly) life comes into being. Guillaumes
Rose seems interested in illustrating how the genre of love poetry depends
upon a tension between deferred, specic desire that brings with it an
elaborate code of conduct and a diuse desire that remains objectless.
He might agree with many modern readers of troubadour poetry who
have understood the poets to be less in love with a particular person than
interested in perpetuating desire itself.
The poems unstable oppositions between productive and unproductive
labor, writing and loving, are most poignantly expressed in the episode of
Amant at the fountain of love. In recounting Amants gaze into the perilous mirror of Narcissus, Guillaume sets up a parallel between the experience of encountering an exemplum as mirror, and the physical, immediate
experience of self-reection. Suzanne Akbari has explored the way that
both Guillaume and Jean were deeply interested in the science of optics,
both writing in the midst of new translations of philosophical and scientic texts from the Greek and Arabic. She argues that Guillaume holds
out the possibility that seeing might allow for self-knowledge, though this
knowledge remains inaccessible to Amant. Akbari usefully traces the
optical theories that both poets of the Rose may have put to both poetic
and ethical purposes; these optical metaphors are also inherent in ethical discourse, with its emphasis on reection and self-knowledge. When
Amant comes upon the fountain, he does not immediately look in, but
instead reads the inscription on the encompassing stone, an inscription
written by Nature herself which reveals that the fountain was the site of
Narcissus death. The narrator then shifts to an extra-diegetic telling of
the Narcissus myth. In Guillaumes version of the tale, Narcissus does not
recognize himself (as he eventually does in Ovids Metamorphoses), but
rather mistakes his reection for that of a beautiful child. Overcome by
the fruitlessness of his desire, Narcissus loses his sense and dies. The narrator then oers a gloss on this exemplum, stating that Narcissus received
just punishment for having scorned Echo, and that all ladies should therefore take care not to neglect their lovers. The narrator refuses to nd his
own image (of himself as the young Lover) in the exemplum the moral
is instead thrust upon his beloved, in what is often read as a humorous
and ironic attempt to reinforce his plea that she should return his love.
Yet while the gloss may oer a moment of ironic humor, it is also a
trenchant illustration of the way that Amant takes on the roles of both
Echo and Narcissus. He is both Echo, the pursuer of the distant love
object, the rose/lady, and the lover Narcissus gazing at his own reection;
he is Amant at the fountain and the narrator gazing upon his prior self.
Not only does this version of Narcissus fail to recognize his own reection, but with the ill-tting gloss the narrator creates a textual precedent
that implicitly endorses Amants decision to gaze into the fountain and
nd his impossible object of desire. At the same time, he endorses his own
position as the subject of desire for the lady who deserves to be called
Rose outside the dream vision. His identication with both doomed
lovers renders Amants quest both super-determinedly unsuccessful and
universalized. As other scholars have argued, the narcissism exhibited
by Amant is not depicted as an avoidable pathology, but as a constitutive
aspect of human desire. Amant encounters the fountain of Narcissus,
the narrator encounters the myth of Narcissus, but each fails to see the
reection of his desire. The Narcissus tale as recounted in the Rose is an
illustration of the failure of a variety of modes of self-reection visual
art, narrative, contemplation to bring about self-recognition; the gloss
recapitulates this failure.
At other points in the poem, the theme of failed self-reection is claried as unproductive labor. In her rst words to Amant, the gure Raison
assimilates the perilousness of Narcissus mirror to the dangers of
oiseuse, especially when oiseuse is understood as improper contemplation.
Raison creates an equation between Oiseuse herself and the perilous mirror of Narcissus, telling Amant that,

Fox est qui sacointe dOiseuse;
sacointance est trop perilleuse.
(ll. )
(He who acquaints himself with Oiseuse is a fool; acquaintance with her is very
dangerous.)
In this context, the entry of Amant into the garden of delight and into
the hopeless task of recounting his narrative in romance is a peril that
pregures his gaze into the perilous fountain of Narcissus. Amants
acquaintance with Oiseuse has caused him to have folement ovr
(worked foolishly, l. ) according to Raison, who would rather have
him engaged in rational contemplation. Raison thus associates the madness of love with a loss of productivity:
Hons qui aime ne puet bien fere
ne a nul preu dou monde entendre:
sil est clers, i piart son aprendre;
et se il fet autre mestier,
il nem puet gaires esploitier.
(ll. )
(A man who loves can do nothing well nor attend to any worldly gain: if he is
a clerk, he loses his learning, and if he follows some other trade, he can hardly
accomplish it.)
Guillaumes Raison does not attempt to seduce Amant, as she does in

Jeans Rose, nor does she advocate fruitful procreation, but her emphasis
on work and productivity clearly points toward such later transformations. Amant responds to her critique, claiming that love itself is the only
worthy activity, and that Raison herself poriez bien gaster / en oiseuse
vostre franois (could waste her French in oiseuse, ll. ) arguing
with him. Having rejected Raison, Amant continues in his pursuit of the
rose, which, despite the narrators assurances to the contrary, he will not
achieve.
In fact, immediately after gaining an apparent triumph in kissing the
rose, the narrator swears that he will pursue tote lestoire, implying both
that there is a whole history that might be completed, and yet that it
might be possible to write this history perpetually. He breaks into the
narrative and swears:
Tote lestoire veil parsuivre,
ja ne mest parece descrivre,
por quoi je cuit quil abelise
a la bele, que Dex guerisse.
(ll. )
(I want to pursue the whole history, and I shall never be idle in writing it down
as long as I believe that it may please the beautiful lady may God be her
cure.)
For while Amor urges Amant to live rather than write, the narrator
seems to hold himself to an ethic of continuous writing. Here it seems
that the oiseuse of literary production will in fact defend him from
the more serious parece. Though Guillaumes poem contains a promise to continue writing so long as it is pleasurable for the narrators lady,
the poem remains unnished, breaking o about lines later. Ending
with a plea to Bel Acueil (Fair Welcome), expressing the woe and agitated desire of Amant, the poem is caught in just the position that Amor
warned against that of attempting to recount loves woes in a romance.
Perhaps the narrator believes that his lady has ceased to be pleased by
Amants history, or perhaps his desire has been accomplished, thus rendering the writing of the poem both superuous and obscene. These
possibilities remain unaddressed, and we are left with a poem about the
relationship between unproductive and productive labor, overlaid upon
physical and intellectual labor, explored through an erotic love that
encompasses all forms of work. The ethical precepts of Amor are an alternative to the pleasurable but unproductive oiseuse of the garden and the
non-amorous labor prescribed by Raison. Yet this version of the ethical,
active life proves inextricable from Amants narcissistic self-reection on
the one hand, and his inexhaustible writerly engagements on the other.
The diculty in disentangling productive from unproductive labor
and the association of labor with both objectless desire and desire for a
loved object are the key subjects of Guillaumes Rose. That ethicizing this
desire and labor makes these distinctions no easier to maintain is one of
its keener insights. The project of understanding intellectual and physical work via explorations of passionate and divine love and thinking
about love via explorations of work will become a central mode of the
reception of Aristotles ethical writings. The nexus of love and intellectual
activity is especially important for those writers concerned with the fact
that the philosophers investment in earthly happiness is constituted by
a version of contemplation that seems to have nothing at all to do with
love. Guillaume thus leaves Jean with a poem containing a set of meditations on productive and unproductive activity, lyric stasis and narrative work, writing and reection that will prove ripe for development in a
world seeking to come to terms with growing conicts over the nature of
human happiness and the sovereign good.

ETHIC S
Where Guillaume de Lorris writes within an ideological framework in

which neither the vita activa nor the vita contemplativa oers any hope
of earthly perfection, Jean de Meun writes within a new, controversial
context of Aristotelian contemplation, where contemplation is the best
life for man on earth and therefore confers human happiness. Suddenly,
the earthly, bodily ethics oered within courtly poetry has a philosophical counterpart. With the full translation of the Nicomachean Ethics by
Robert Grosseteste around , it became impossible to sustain earlier medieval understandings of Aristotelian contemplation as oriented
toward the love of God. In the nal book, previously unavailable in Latin,
the philosopher denes happiness as a life of contemplation a life of perfect happiness that is theoretically attainable in the mundane world. Prior
to the complete translation of the Ethics, medieval commentators on the
incomplete versions largely agreed that Aristotle spoke only of political
happiness, and not a nal true happiness, and read his ethical writings as strictly practical guides for the virtuous life. This version of the
ethical life as the active life harmonizes with the commentaries on the
twelfth-century versions of Aristotles Ethics, the so-called Ethica Vetus
and Ethica Nova. These texts, comprising only the rst three books of
the Nicomachean Ethics, where Aristotle denes happiness and the good,
habitus, the virtue of the mean, and voluntary action, were read as immediately practical guides for virtuous living. On its face, contemplation as
constituting happiness seems to be quite compatible with Christianitys
emphasis on turning ones intellect toward God; other writers had
explored the continuities between self-reection, contemplation, and the
beatic vision. And where commentators did address Aristotles theory
of happiness, they almost invariably dened perfect happiness as a state
of union with God, not the activity of contemplation. Philosophical
felicitas was equated with Christian beatitudo, and earthly happiness was
always held to be awed a judgment sustained by Aristotles own discussions of fortune. A commentary thought to be by Robert Kilwardby
is alone among the early commentaries in recognizing that Aristotles
philosophy restricts itself to earthly goods, and that his happiness is not
to be equated with beatitude. Subsequent commentators who had access
to the explicit denition of contemplative happiness on earth as the sovereign good in Book of the Ethics would shift from a denition of the
good that takes God as its starting point to one that takes the perfection
of human activity as its starting point. The choice that the Kilwardby
commentary presciently makes to focus on a separate, human happiness

becomes necessary with the reception of the complete Ethics.
Beyond the diculty of assimilating Aristotles notion of happiness
as an earthly activity lay the problem that this theory did not appear
to include love. Aristotles denition of happiness as virtuous activity
accompanied by supervenient pleasure does not allocate space for joy in
the beloved object. Medieval readers were left to account for and justify
this omission. Albert the Great wrote the rst complete Latin commentary on the full Nicomachean Ethics in the years almost immediately after
Grosseteste completed his translation (). In his commentary on
the tenth book of the Ethics, Albert must come to terms with Aristotles
denition of contemplation as the highest good for man, and the contemplative life as the happiest. In this section he addresses together the
problems that Aristotelian contemplation appears to be an end in itself
and that it does not appear to involve love for the object contemplated.
He introduces the objection that contemplation of wisdom is not estimable in itself, explaining that contemplation should be considered vain
if it were sought on account of nothing else. Further, Albert notes that
enjoyment is completed in love (fruitio completur in amore), and that
therefore contemplation must be ordered further toward love (ergo contemplatio ipsa ordinatur ulterius ad amorem). Albert resolves that the
contemplation of happiness is esteemed for its own sake, because it is
principal, that is to say it is the contemplation of God, which according
to the Theologian [Augustine] is the end of human life (contemplatio
felicitatis diligitur propter se, quia ipsa praecipua est, scilicet contemplatio
dei, quae est secundum THEOLOGUM nis humanae vitae). Albert
leaves the question of love unresolved, although God is reinstated as the
object of contemplation.
Albert acknowledges, however, that Aristotelian contemplation is dierent from theological contemplation. Where many of the earlier commentators on the Ethics had conated Aristotles denition of happiness with
Christian beatitude, Albert is careful to separate the two, making a strict
distinction between happiness in this life and the beatitude of heaven.
The theologian contemplates through light infused by God (per lumen
infusum a deo) while the philosopher contemplates through acquired
disposition of wisdom (per habitum sapientiae acquisitum). Where
philosophy relies upon rational demonstration of certainty, theology
rests upon truth without need of reason. Thus, Albert explains, wonder
is an indispensable aspect of theology, but not of contemplative philosophy. He ultimately avoids, however, confronting Aristotles elevation of
contemplative philosophy to the best life for man and the accompanying
orientation of moral philosophy toward knowledge rather than practiced
virtue. For Albert, Aristotelian ethics is still understood as having its scientic nature oriented practically toward making us good.
Alberts student Aquinas, however, is the rst of the commentators on
the Ethics neither to relegate Aristotles philosophy to the purely practical
nor subsume it to the theological. Other philosophers in the late thirteenth
century have even fewer reservations in embracing Aristotles denition of
the good, and even go beyond Aristotle himself by disregarding practical,
political considerations altogether, focusing on philosophical contemplation as the only way to happiness. Boethius of Dacia and Siger of Brabant
both courted censure by arguing that the supreme good is only accessible
to philosophers. A rational, rather than divine, authority for Aristotle
was espoused by certain members of the Paris arts faculty, and it was this
type of authority that led the Bishop of Paris to cite several Aristotelian
doctrines among the theses condemned in . The source for these
propositions is unclear, though they appear to correspond to the ideas of
some contemporary Aristotelians: No station in life is to be preferred to
the study of philosophy, and Happiness is to be had in this life and not
in another. Although Aquinas writings are occasionally grouped with
those of the radical Aristotelians by both medieval and modern critics, his commentary on the Ethics and the second section of his Summa
Theologiae (on ethics) are both more interested in harmonizing Aristotles
philosophy with Christian doctrine, while being true to the Philosopher.
Despite his assurance to his reader that Aristotle is speaking of happiness
such as can be ascribed to human and mortal life, and that perfect happiness is only possible in the afterlife, he clearly accepts, with Aristotle,
that ethics should take earthly happiness as its subject. Aquinas agrees
with Aristotle unreservedly that contemplation of the truth is the highest
good for man, the most virtuous of activities, and that contemplation of
a truth already known is more perfect than investigation, because possession is more perfect (complete) than pursuit. He states positively, Thus
it is clear that the person who gives himself to the contemplation of truth
is the happiest a man can be in this life. Because God himself exercises
all his activity in the contemplation of wisdom, the philosopher is accordingly the happiest, and the dearest to God. Yet, as in Guillaumes Rose,
there is no easy demarcation here between the active and contemplative
lives, between the quietude of contemplation and earthly labor; with an
Aristotelian understanding of happiness, both striving for the good and
experiencing the good itself are spoken of in the language of action. In
Aristotles discussion of the possibilities of earthly happiness, he states

that we must, so far as we can, make ourselves immortal, and strain
every nerve to live in accordance with the best thing in us, for the life of
the intellect is best and most pleasant since the intellect more than anything else is man. It is telling that rather than simply tending toward a
life of reason as the life that is most in accordance with the basic denition of humanity, we must stretch and do everything possible (omnia
facere) to live according to our optimal potential. For humankind, teleology is not a simple gravitational pull or tendency, but a terribly challenging ethical imperative. The oscillation or tension between tendency and
strain, teleology and desire, is a dening feature of the Latin reception of
Aristotle. For where in the Greek, the Ethics begins by stating that all
things aim at [ephiesthai] the good, Grossetestes Latin translation has
it that all things desire [appetunt] the good. Aquinas comments that
this very tendency to good is the desiring of good, rendering desire both
rational and teleological. The very attainability of Aristotles felicity is
ironically what makes it compatible with Christianity, which has no virtuous place for the desire of unattainable objects. Aquinas and Aristotle
share the same notion of ethical desire: it is nite, rational, and teleological. Innite and shifting desire for Aristotle is irrational; for Aquinas
it is also cupidinous.
This emphasis on telos, and the striving for an end, makes it necessary
that desire for the unattainable, even spiritual desire, be rendered ethically problematic. Aquinas states that a natural desire is nothing else but
an inclination belonging to things by the disposition of the First Mover,
and this cannot be frustrated Therefore, it is impossible that we should
proceed to an innity of ends. Aquinas idea of natural desire is the
inclinatio discussed in this case desire is constantly being redened
as divinely implanted rational telos. Both joy ( gaudium) and hope (spes)
are dierentiated from desire, which actually prevents one from attaining
pleasure and doing the good. Desire is dened by the unattainability of
its object, while hope implies that its object may be attained. In addressing Aristotles discussion of the problems of fortune, and thus whether
one can truly call a man happy in this life, Aquinas concludes Since a
natural desire is not in vain, we can correctly judge that perfect beatitude
is reserved for man after this life. A Christian understanding of rational
desire may demand that perfect happiness be reserved for the afterlife,
but it also simultaneously requires that imperfect human happiness be
rendered a natural object of desire. Aristotles discussion of rational contemplation and seeking after knowledge as the best life there is actually
allows the eld of moral philosophy to take a more optimistic view of

life on earth. Virtuous pleasure is not reserved for either the afterlife or
mystical experience, but is attainable, however imperfectly, in mundane
existence.
Thus in order for Aristotles emphasis on earthly ethics to be maintained in a Christian context, perfection must be exchanged for imperfection. Aquinas reconciles Aristotelian rational desire for attainable objects
with Christian refusal to valorize desire for temporal goods. For Aquinas,
Aristotles happiness is imperfect, but also continuous with the perfect
happiness reserved for the afterlife. Aquinas development of the concept
of imperfect mundane happiness is crucial to the reception of the complete Ethics; in both his commentary proper and in the sections of the
Summa that treat ethics, imperfect happiness is rendered a proper starting
point for moral philosophy replacing the ethical model which begins
with the perfect happiness that one experiences after death in the contemplation of God. A teleological, earthly narrative begins to replace
meditative lyricism as the way to approach the good, lending a new shape
to morality itself. In Aquinas commentary on the Ethics, he states that
we are looking for the happiness that is the end of human acts, therefore cautioning that In this work the Philosopher speaks of happiness as
it is attainable in this life, for happiness in a future life is entirely beyond
the investigation of reason. Thus while true, innite happiness is still
reserved for the afterlife, it has been neatly removed from the purview of
ethical knowledge. The pure, perfect good is bracketed so that Aquinas
may continue his investigation of an earthly ethics without danger of
heterodoxy. The ethical good is now active, pleasurable, and achieved
through a desire less assimilable to traditional ways of thinking about
either spiritual or physical love.
Like courtly poetry, the new Aristotle oered many late medieval
writers a challenge in thinking through the relationship between earthly
desire and pursuits of the divine. As Lacan puts it, Aristotles philosophy allowed Aquinas to invent a physical theory of love namely that
the rst being we have a sense of is our being, and everything that is for
the good of our being must, by dint of this very fact, be the Supreme
Beings jouissance, that is, Gods. For Aristotle, and for his commentators, contemplation is the best activity for man because it is closest to
God, and therefore the most loved by God. God loves what is most like
him, so the philosopher arms the medieval notion of a contemplative,
active God, taking pleasure in reecting upon his own image. Narcissus
is clearly not very far from Lacans mind, nor, arguably, from the minds
of medieval philosophers and poets. At the very end of his twentieth

seminar, Lacan refers to the mirage-like apprehension (apprhension
de mirage) that emerges when one imagines that the relation of being
to being is the harmony of either Aristotelian supreme jouissance or
Christian beatitude. Th is apprehension, in French as in English, is both
a feeling of fear and a perception; when one approaches an other, one
perceives and fears a deluding mirage. Both dread and understanding
are generated as true love approaches being itself, giving way to hatred. Such apprehension might well be felt by Narcissus gazing at the
mirage inside the perilous fountain, experiencing feelings of both love
and destruction for his love object and for himself. For Lacan, Aristotle
was instrumental in bequeathing medieval Christianity a God who
enjoys the same way that we do, thus allowing us to sacrice our jouissance for his. What Jeans Rose makes clear is that Aristotelian philosophy and the controversies it created were not so uniformly assimilated,
even within the composition of one poem. The second Rose experiments
with the ramications of love and happiness dened through activity,
with a love story that includes desire for an attainable object, with thisworldly and otherworldly locations of felicity, and with a poetic practice
that investigates the potential of self-reection through art to bring
happiness, madness, love, and hate.

Jean de Meun asks what Narcissus might look like in this new Aristotelian
context, a context where self-reection might inhabit a continuum including erotic love, intellectual contemplation, and the beatic vision. Jean
asks how a lover might experience well-ordered charity, and suggests
that charity might range from the narcissistic to the social, from distance
to possession, from mutuality to destruction. In Jeans Rose, questions of
self-reection, labor, and the good are taken up most extensively in the
sections of the poem devoted to the discourses of Nature and Genius.
These sections are overwhelmingly scholastic in content, and address
issues such as the conception of pleasure as the ultimate ethical goal,
the dangers of contemplation, and the relationship between labor, writing, and self-knowledge. Jean de Meun does not take up these issues in
a strictly Aristotelian context, but addresses them in a way that is clearly
inuenced by and engages in contemporary controversies surrounding the
denition of the good. The second part of the Rose experiments with the
assumption of Aristotles narrative ethical system, where rational activity
precedes love, self-knowledge determines love, and happiness consists in

labor rather than rest.
The exploration of the sovereign good in Jeans poem begins with the
confession of Nature, where self-knowledge is rendered a condition of free
will. In this section of the poem, Amant absents himself as an interlocutor, as love itself is thus pushed aside, only to return in the content of the
dialogue. In confessing to Genius, Nature recounts the story of Genesis
and describes the earth and other planets, going on to complain of the
sins of men, especially those who kill themselves or refuse to procreate.
Her confession is not a catalogue of sins, but the very narrative of the
earths creation and existence. The only sins recounted are in fact the
sins of mankind; Natures interest is the harmonious perpetuation of the
species, and mans refusal to cooperate in this goal is Natures greatest sorrow. Human shortcomings lead to her long discussion of free will, where
she acknowledges that some men believe that their premature deaths and
failures to procreate are destined. However, Nature argues that through
education and virtuous behavior, humans may exercise their free will and
obtain another result. Nature rehearses and rejects an argument in favor
of free will that argues that Gods foreknowledge does not confer necessity on human action, but rather that human actions and their results
are the cause of Gods foreknowledge. She rebels against the claim that
Gods foreknowledge could be subordinated to the actions of humankind
in such a manner. Instead, she argues that Gods foreknowledge is free,
complete, and self-sucient, while also not constraining human action.
Rather than using the traditional Boethian explanation for the coexistence of free will and divine omniscience, Nature focuses on the freedom
conferred by self-knowledge. Just as Gods foreknowledge is represented
by an eternal mirror in which he sees all, so human beings seem to be
granted the potential to reect on their own conditions and to predict
their own destinies. According to Nature, if a man knows himself well
(Sil est de soi bien connoissanz, l. ), and realizes that sin always
struggles for mastery over his heart, then he will be able to maintain his
free will (frans voloirs, l. ) and control his destiny. It is knowledge
of self that here trumps destiny and that allows for the expression of free
will in action.
She somewhat unexpectedly goes on to discuss the benets that could
fall to mankind if he were granted foreknowledge of events such as storms
or famine. According to Natures logic, it appears that the maintenance
of free will in the face of Gods providence might actually replace destiny.
Nature suggests, for instance, that if men could know that a harsh winter
lay ahead, they could provide for themselves ahead of time. Yet she nally
admits that only God could bestow such visions, and that free will, along
with the exercise of good understanding, is the key to controlling ones
destiny and living well. She states:
mieux donc et plus legierement,
par us de bon antandemant,
pourroit eschever franc voloir
quan que le peut fere douloir.
(ll. )
(Free will then, by the exercise of good understanding, could better and more
easily avoid whatever can make it suer.)
A man with knowledge of his birth and his current situation will not
need to concern himself with destiny, but can make his own fortune.
Yet immediately after this revelation, Nature makes a move that both
sweeps aside the conicts between free will and destiny and reveals their
underlying signicance. Following this discussion, Nature remarks:
Des destinees plus parlasse,
fortune e cas determinasse
et bien vossisse tout espondre,
plus opposer et plus respondre,
et mainz examples an desse;
mes trop longuement i messe
ainz que jesse tout n.
Bien est ailleurs determin.
Qui nou set a clerc le demande,
qui le lait et qui lantande.
(ll. )
(I would speak more about destinies, I would settle the subject of Fortune and
chance, and I would like very much to explain everything, to raise more objections, reply to them, and give many illustrations for them, but I would spend
too much time before I nished everything. The good is decided elsewhere. He
who does not know it may ask a clerk who had studied it and who may understand it.)
Natures statement raises the question of whether bien resides outside

a discussion of free will, or whether Nature herself simply does not want
to pursue a clerical question best discussed elsewhere, perhaps the university. Her refusal to bear out her discussion of fortune and chance may
be an indication that twelfth-century concerns with voluntas in terms of
ethical culpability have been superseded or at least joined by other, more
pressing concerns. Her wager that human self-knowledge can trump
destiny makes virtuous action contingent on knowing thyself, pointing toward such knowledge as the way to freedom, the good, and bringing the soul out of suering. In philosophical and moral terms, Gods
foreknowledge and human cupidity cease to be the prime obstacles to
freedom, replaced by the problem of being able to reect upon oneself. It
becomes clear that the poem, through Natures lengthy discussion of free
will and predestination, addresses the problem of the good while it explicitly claims to ward it o.
Although in the context of the poems plot the conversation between
Nature and Genius seems to be removed from the concerns of the desiring Lover, love re-emerges as a core concern of Natures confession. Free
will and the capacity to resist evil is preserved for the person who knows
himself entirely (se connoit antierement, l. ) and this knowledge
allows him to love wisely (aime sagement, l. ). Love and knowledge are placed in a causal relationship: full knowledge enables love. In
the Summa Theologiae Aquinas asks whether knowledge is a cause of
love, answering that
some knowledge of a thing is necessary before it can be loved. That is why
Aristotle says that sensory love is born of seeing a thing; and similarly, spiritual
love is born of the spiritual contemplation of beauty or goodness. Knowledge is
therefore said to be a cause of love for the same reason as is the good, which can
be loved only when one has knowledge of it.
Aquinas admits that perfect knowledge is not necessary for love, as one
may love a thing better than it is known (plus amatur quam cognoscatur), for instance rhetoric or God. But above all Aquinas gives us to
understand that spiritual love is caused by knowledge in the same way
that knowledge of physical beauty sparks love. Our understanding of
physical love allows us to understand spiritual love; one is the mirror of
the other and knowledge is a necessary condition of love for humans and
God alike. In contrast, Nature comments that dumb beasts are undoubtedly without self-knowledge (se mesconnoissent par nature, l. ). Yet
she hazards that if they were given speech and reason, they would immediately challenge the mastery of men, refusing to submit to mans rule.
Most interestingly in the context of her discussion of self-knowledge in
beasts and men, she appears to equate the acquisition of knowledge, especially self-knowledge, with the task of writing, or at least implies that the
obvious next step upon recognizing ones self is to realize the ability to
write. For if beasts were given reason, the monkeys and marmots among
them could work with their own hands (ouvreroient de mains, l. )
and rival humans in their craftsmanship; they could, Nature claims, be

writers (porroient estre escrivain, l. ), thus perhaps unexpectedly
completing the notion of working with ones hands with the work of
writing. The work that these newly rational animals would do is not
only the work of making clothing and armor (so as to protect themselves
against men), but the work of literary production. Writing is an imagined
weapon in the arsenal of these newly rational, rebellious creatures. The
result of self-knowledge for these animals is both a refusal of labor the
ox refuses the yoke and a turning of that labor toward the necessary
conditions of the exercise of free will: the destruction of humankind. The
beasts undertake this action in whatever way they are able, from the buzzing y to the writing marmot. Nature appears to subscribe to Aristotles
and others dictum that reason, more than anything else, is man. But to
reason she adds the important corollary of rational self-knowledge, the
capacity for self-reection, anticipating Genius by claiming writing as the
activity that a rational creature should most fruitfully be engaged in.
However, this association of rationality, self-knowledge, and writing is
complicated by Natures excursus on mirrors further on in her confession. This discussion of the fantastical characteristics of mirrors, showing both hidden truths and distorted realities, is the rst of a series of
episodes in which the poem appears to critique Aristotelian notions of
contemplation as the greatest good. The stable connections that she has
up to now created between rationality and self-reection are troubled by
her seeming digression on optical phenomena. For in her discussion of
optics, in which she defers to Aristotles book, mirrors become agents of
deception confusing distances, size, and the location of actual objects.
Even when mirrors reveal truths, they appear to do so only in aid of adulterous deception, as when Nature comments that if Mars and Venus had
possessed the right kind of mirror, they could have magnied Vulcans
net and escaped his snare. Also particularly striking is Natures discussion of the way that too much contemplation can create the appearance
of false images outside the mind, in much the same way as mirrors can
make images oat in the air:
voit lan de ceus a grant plant
de trop panser sunt curieus,
quant trop sunt melancolieus
ou pooreus outre mesure,
qui mainte diverse gure
se font parair en eus mesmes
autrement que nous ne desmes

quant des mirouers parlions,
don si briefmant nous passions,
et de tout ce leur samble lores
quil sait ainsinc por voir defores.
Ou qui, par grant devocion
en trop grant contemplacion,
font apparair en leur pansees
les choses quil ont porpansees,
et les cuident tout proprement
voair defors apertement.
(ll. )
(One sees a great number of people who [are] given to think too much in
an unregulated way when they are very melancholy or irrationally fearful; they
make many dierent images appear inside themselves, in ways other than those
we told about just a short time ago when we were speaking about mirrors. And it
seems to them then that all these images are in reality outside of them. Or there
are those who, with great devotion, do too much contemplating and cause the
appearance in their thought of things on which they have pondered, only they
believe that they see them quite clearly and outside themselves.)
Here contemplation is a form of melancholia, a residing inside the self

that results in the creation of false images. Thus rather than contemplation being dened as a rational thinking on the divine good, it becomes
a sort of fantasmatic preoccupation with false images. The mistaken idea
that an internal image is actually outside (defores) oneself appears to
be Narcissus failure. Successful self-reection demands a strict policing
of the boundaries between inside and outside, self and other. Love seems
to function here as a limit case of the usefulness of mirrors. Although
Nature opens up the possibility that self-knowledge may improve the life
of man on earth, confer freedom, enable love and the ability to write, she
also reveals the dangers inherent in such ideas. Artistic representations
may be deceitful, excess of contemplation may lead to harmful fantasms,
and a misguided sense of self will end in the acceptance of falsehoods
rather than access to truth and good.
Genius response to Nature similarly contains foregrounded moments
which appear to critique Aristotelian notions of the good, and further
presses the question of what is essential about humanity. The gure of
Genius would seem to be particularly apt to provide a denition of the
good life for man, given that as master of places, who sets all things at
work according to their properties (des leus iestes dex et mestres, / et
selonc leur proprietez / tretouz en euvre les metez, ll. ) he also
acts as a personication of human nature itself, and an embodiment of
the genius of humanness in an Aristotelian sense, this characteristic is
rational thought. In the Ethics Aristotle claims in several places, in various formulations, that contemplation is the highest operation, since the
intellect is the best element in us and the objects of the intellect are the
best of the things that can be known. The Rose s denition of genius
as master of place and property seems a comfortable t with Aristotles
teleological notion of human characteristics and the good. Yet Genius
speech points in multiple instances to the ways in which the notion of
the good can be misread, misappropriated, and misused by tyrants,
by their subjects, and ultimately by all humankind.
Genius takes the link between labor and writing foreshadowed by
Nature and makes it concrete, if slightly overdetermined. He preaches of
the duty men have to procreate, and speaks, following Alain de Lilles De
Planctu Naturae, in terms of the duty to write:
quant il nan veulent labourer
por lui servir et honourer,
ainz veulent Nature destruire
quant ses anclumes veulent fuire,
et ses tables e ses jaschieres
quel [tables] devandront toutes moussues
sel sunt en oiseuse tenues
(ll. )
(when they do not want to labor at serving and honoring Nature, but wish rather
to destroy her by preferring to ee her anvils, her tablets and fallow elds they
[the tablets] will become all rusty if they are kept in oiseuse.)
Here we see a shift in the meaning of oiseuse toward its more familiar definition of idleness, as the idle tablets are not turned toward verbal frivolity, but rather not used at all. Writing, as metaphor for procreation, is the
only way in which humankind might live forever everyone must write
so that all might continue to live. The oiseuse that Guillaume imagined
as the state of tension between the labors of loving and writing has been
transformed into a much starker alternative to writing and (re)production.
But then, Genius is a decidedly non-courtly gure, unsympathetic to the
lyric conventions of unfullled and non-procreative desire. For him, lyric
stasis is not a satisfactory mode of desire all should be for narrative and
resolution. Lyric time is not for this world, but only for that biaus parc
that one may hope to reach in the afterlife.
There has been much critical debate over whether Genius sermon is
to be taken ironically, and how to reconcile his priestly function with
his apparently cupidinous advice. I err on the side of taking Genius seriously, if not as a mouthpiece for an authorial viewpoint. His naturalism
may be read as a screen for exploring ideas of poetic labor and competing
ideas of the good. Accordingly, in Genius sermon the audience witnesses
a collision of two versions of the good, the courtly and the Christian.
He exhorts:
Pansez de mener bone vie,
aut chascuns anbracier samie,
et son ami chascune anbrace
pansez de vos bien confessier,
por bien fere et por mal lessier
Cil est saluz de cors et dame,
cest li biaus mirouers ma dame;
ja ma dame riens ne sest
se ce biau mirouer nest.
(ll. )
(Think of leading a good life; let each man embrace his sweetheart and each
woman her lover think of confessing yourselves well, in order to do good and
avoid evil, and call upon the heavenly God whom Nature calls her master He
is the salvation of body and soul and the beautiful mirror of my lady, who would
never know anything if she did not have this beautiful mirror.)
Genius denition of the bone vie here is certainly not Christian, and
even exceeds the courtly ethic with its emphasis on sexual procreation
rather than passion and play. Still, he presents it as the central message of
the lovely Romance of the Rose which, according to Genius, preaches
the gospel of sexual procreation so that one may enter heaven. In urging
his audience to confess he urges them to take Nature as a model, and
states that Natures own model is God himself, inverting the usual image
of Nature as Gods mirror. God here is at the service of Nature, imparting
knowledge much as the Miror aus Amoreus teaches its readers. Genius
asks his audience (and by extension the reader) not only to take in his sermon, but to memorize it the better to spread his gospel, which vient de
bone escole (comes from a good school, l. ). Playing the role of both
priest and scholar, Genius outlines a method of reading that literalizes
the notion that one should achieve self-knowledge through a self-reexive
relationship to literature. Genius audience should absorb and actually
become the text he has oered them, much as Nature creates an image in
imitation of Gods mirror.
While Genius preaches unreservedly the good of procreation, it
becomes clear that his naturalism does not condone selsh hedonism in
any way. Genius later discussion of sensual pleasure as the sovereign good
espoused by the tyrannical Jupiter seems to stage a critique of Aristotelian
ethics based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Aristotles terms.

After Genius description of the lyric space of the biaus parc that awaits
those who pursue the good (as procreation), he remarks that not even the
golden age knew a paradise so beautiful and pure. Yet the fall from the
golden age, occasioned by the castration of Saturn by Jupiter, ts neatly
with Genius thesis that procreation is the greatest good, and that any
strike against fertility is the greatest outrage. For in committing this sin
against Nature, Jupiter inaugurated an age of vice and sorrow. In Genius
telling, Jupiter signies an alternative denition of the pursuit of the
good the pursuit of individual pleasure:
car deliz, si conme il disoit,
cest la meilleur chose qui soit
et li souverains biens en vie
don chascuns doit avoir anvie.
(ll. )
(As he [Jupiter] said, delight is the best thing that can exist and the sovereign
good in life; everyone should desire it.)
Jupiter here espouses a vulgar understanding of pleasure as the

good: pleasure as delight in food and other bodily pleasures, not in
rational contemplation of the divine. Further, he has the relationship
between pleasure and desire backwards Aquinas, commenting on
Aristotles statement that the good is what all desire, arms the perhaps surprising conclusion that pleasure is good because all desire it; it
is not desired because it is good. For Aquinas, the good is convertible
with the movement of the appetite. He does not deny that some men
desire evil, but explains that they only desire evil because they believe it
to be good; the evilness of the object is therefore only incidental. The
force of teleology must come rst in the causality of Aristotelian ethics:
things naturally tend toward the good, people tend toward pleasure, and
therefore we see that pleasure is the highest good. Aquinas remarks that
Aristotle calls people in power tyrants because those who are occupied
with amusements do not seem to strive for the common interest but
for their own gratication Thus then happiness is said to consist in
pleasures of this nature because persons in power whom men consider
happy spend their time in them. Thus the corruption of the state
corrupts the very denition of happiness, rendering it impossible for men
to live good lives. The identication of the good with sensual pleasure is
a misunderstanding rooted in perversions of civic society when tyrants
are in power, the good is necessarily obscured.
Furthermore, Jupiters pursuit of his own pleasure is what leads to the

fall from the golden age, to the necessity for labor, and thus to the creation of the arts.
Ainsinc sunt arz avant venues,
car toutes choses sunt vaincues
par travaill, par povret dure,
par quoi les genz sunt en grant cure
(ll. )
(Thus have the arts sprung up, for all things are conquered by labor and hard
poverty; through these things people exist in great care.)
In Genius mythology, Jupiter denes pleasure as the highest good and a

sensual good, and thus creates the necessity for labor. In a fallen world,
the only way we have to overcome the excesses of tyrants and the obscuring of the good is through labor and art. It is not an accidental irony
that the very plowing that Genius was advocating earlier (on a literal
level) is here the result of tyrannical corruption. Genius dierentiates
between Jupiters unproductive pleasure on the one hand and the productive labor of the arts and reproduction. Such work unites productivity and pleasure, where pleasure both accompanies activity and serves
as its reward. If Genius followers procreate, they will deserve entry
into a revised version of Guillaumes garden of delight, where the false,
madness-inducing fountain of Narcissus is replaced by a health-giving,
clear fonteine de vie (l. ). Genius garden is both earthly paradise
and Christian heaven, but for all his protestations, it is also not unlike
Guillaumes courtly garden. Genius criticizes the queroles qui faillirent
(carols that will pass away, l. ) contained in the mundane garden of
love, but his heavenly park will contain people chantant en pardurablet
/ motez, conduiz et chanonnetes (forever singing motets, conducti, and
chansonettes, ll. ). The reward for all of this labor is a return to
the lyric stasis of the garden of Oiseuse, this time with guaranteed permanence. Genius paradise illustrates how close fallen desire is to divine
joy, and also captures some of the tensions between a traditional notion
of rest as labors reward and an Aristotelian ideal of continuous activity.
Genius thus leaves his audience with an ideal of literary self-reection,
earthly labor, and the nal reward of pleasurable activity disconnected
from productivity or the pursuit of a desired object. Such is precisely the
ideal one nds in Nicole Oresmes fourteenth-century translation and
commentary on the Ethics, where he describes heaven as a place where the
blessed experience continually the activity of understanding and willing
in God beneurs ont ilecques continuelment operacion de entendement et de volent en Dieu and where activity is released from its associations with painful labor.
Natures and Genius explorations of arts relationship to pleasure,
self-reection, and the contemplation of the good are recapitulated and
re-evaluated in the episode of Pygmalion. Where the Narcissus episode
and the discourse of Nature both emphasize the dangers of sight and
reection gone awry, Pygmalion perhaps embodies sight as it emerges in
Aristotles guiding metaphor for pleasure: an activity that is whole, complete, and grammatically perfect. Aristotles image of the complete, pleasurable act of seeing is an image of a Narcissus made good a gure that
several critics have seen to reside at the center of Jean de Meuns Rose. One
of the promises upon which Pygmalion delivers is the potential for art to
lead to self-recognition, and thus the potential for rational contemplation
to lead to virtuous pleasure in this life. Initially, there is no evidence to
support the idea that Pygmalions love for his statue is a love that is being
celebrated by the poem. Pygmalion himself cries that his love is horrible
and unnatural (mes ceste amour est si horrible / quel ne vient mie de
Nature, ll. ). We are further told that Love had stolen his sans
et savoir (l. ), leaving him completely bereft of comfort, and clearly
bereft of sense and rationality. However, Pygmalion recognizes himself in
the Narcissus myth, asking whether Narcissus did not love more foolishly
than he, falling in love with his own face (ama sa propre gure, ll.
). Pygmalion thus displays the capacity to recognize himself in
an exemplum if somewhat self-servingly and identify his desires with
those of the subject of the tale, learning from this example.
The reward of such identication is not immediate we witness the
way in which he uses literary precedent to justify the continuation of his
own clearly unnatural desires. He decides that he is better o than Ovids
lover, better o than other lovers who persist in loving though they are
never given even a single kiss, and continues the work of creation dressing the statue in ne clothing. It appears at rst as though Pygmalions
myth might serve to expose the ctions underlying conventional courtly
desire, illustrating that although courtly lovers may hold out hope for a
kiss and love returned, their far-o loves may as well be cold ivory statues
in Narcissus desire for his reection, in Pygmalions love for his statue,
and in the courtly poets love for his lady, the sexual relation does not
exist. The gods are not happy with the sculptor, not because he is insane
or perverse, but rather because the love is not mutual. Yet Pygmalions
renunciation of Chastity (chastity dened as an aspect of oiseuse by
Genius) convinces Venus to give life to the statue, transforming her into
the damsel Galatea. The narrator describes how Galatea gave Pygmalion
every pleasure and that he was nally happy. This pleasure is importantly
described as mutual, part of an ongoing exchange of happiness. The
closing of this tale oers both an erotic corruption of Aristotelian notions
of pleasure and felicity and a narrative that describes how artistic labor
might allow one to achieve self-knowledge and happiness.
For unlike Ovids Pygmalion, Jean de Meuns sculptor is not motivated
to escape corrupted women by taking refuge in his own pure creation;
rather he simply desires son grant angin esprouver (to prove his skill,
l. ). He thus works his greatest talent upon the most appropriate
and valuable material, creating beauty for its own sake. From this activity
and creation, love is born. Love or desire does not pre-exist, looking for a
suitable object, but rather is engendered through ones own dedication to
ones art. As Aristotle explains, since love resembles activity, it only makes
sense that love and the concomitants of love follow those who excel in
activity. The love of an artist for his creation is explored in Book of
the Ethics, as an explanation for the observed phenomenon that benefactors seem to love those they have beneted more than these beneciaries
love their benefactors in return. Aristotle explains that the same inequality happens with craftsmen, for each one loves his product more than he
would be loved by it were the product alive. Likewise, it occurs especially
with poets who love their own poems, doting on them as their children.
To this, Aquinas adds that poems partake of reason by which man is
man to a greater degree than other mechanical works. Pygmalions
love for his sculpture thus partakes in a natural and ethical state of aairs,
and it is only Galateas equal love once she is vivied that exceeds this
relationship. Rational activity, here aligned with artistic production, naturally leads to love; it is the love returned by the object itself that must
be supplied by the artistic imagination, an imagination happily supplied
by the poet. Jean de Meun, in his love for Guillaumes Rose, might thus
be fantasizing a moment where his poem might come to life, and might
love him equally in return. Such a fantasy might be seen to give shape
to feminine desire, to the subject of contemplation who is thus both loved
by God and loving, and to poetry as the optimal vehicle for experiencing
this love. This happy conclusion is shadowed by the possibility that this
returned love will always be a fantasy, and Jean thus dutifully follows
the lineage of Pygmalion and Galatea through to the incestuous romance
of Myrrha and Cynaras and the birth of Adonis. Whether the violent
ending to the Pygmalion digression, with Cynaras pursuing Myrrha in
a murderous rage, should give us pause in thinking about the relationship Pygmalion pursues with his own artistic creation, we are not given
time to consider, for we are returned quickly to the matter at hand. Yet
it is clear that Pygmalions love for his creation, considered from another
perspective, might return us to the problem of melancholic narcissism,
his love for Galatea another mistaking of inside for outside, and thus
aptly ending in murder and incest.
As he picks up his narrative directly after the Pygmalion digression,
however, Jean reinforces its positive emphasis on love and labor by emphasizing his own labor and the labor of his reader. He refers to his work
and compares his narration to plowing a eld:
Bien orroiz que ce senee
ainz que ceste euvre soit fenie.
Ne vos vuell or plus ci tenir,
a mon propos doi revenir,
quautre champ me convient arer.
(ll. )
(By the time you have nished this work you will know what it means. But
I wont keep you any longer on this subject; I should return to my story, since
I must plow another eld.)
Jean here takes Genius metaphor of writing and makes it his primary
meaning plowing here metaphorically points us to writing, although the
sexual connotation remains, and Jeans writing will include an involved
(somewhat laborious) metaphorical description of a sex act between
Amant and the rose. The reader must complete the work of reading the
poem ceste euvre as Jean himself must complete his plowing. One
might read Jeans address to the reader that he will understand what
the myth of Pygmalion or his lineage senee when he is done with
the work as a prescription for proper reading and self-recognition in a
narrative exemplum. Just as Pygmalions procreative, fruitful labor may
be contrasted with Narcissus folly, we might contrast the proper reading practices of both Pygmalion and the reader of the Rose with the rst
Lovers failed reading of the Narcissus myth.
Of course, the nal procreative labor of the poem is the consummation of the aair between Amant and the Rose. The sex act is compared
humorously with the labors of Hercules, and is in general represented as
a strenuous bit of work. And it concludes both productively, with the
apparent impregnation of the rose, and destructively, as Amant plucked
(cuelli) the rose from the rosebush. This fruitful and then ultimately
murderous union is both optimistic an imagining of earthly fulllment
of desire and fearful lled with the uneasy humor that overlays the
violence that such fulllment might wreak. And although the openendedness of Guillaumes poem is nally closed, both by the capture of
the rose and the waking of the dreamer, Jean does not oer a nal resolution of the question of the desiring subjects ethical relationship to pleasure, the good, or the self. On a fairly overt metaphorical level, Jeans poem
functions as a parody of Aristotelian theories of happiness, dissecting the
all too easily imagined results of an ethics based on pleasurable activity
as the achievable sovereign good. Yet if one reverses the metaphorical and
literal levels, a reversal common in Jeans poem, this parody becomes a
quite serious investigation of the ethical possibilities of the labor of reading and writing both acts of creation in the poem. Whereas explicit acts
of reading and writing in Guillaumes Rose typically express or perpetuate unattainable desire, creative labors bear fruit in Jeans continuation.
We might read this contrast not only as a result of Jeans parody of the
euphemisms of romance, but as an aspect of and further contribution to
the reception of the new Aristotle. The fruition reached through labor at
the poems end is both grammatically perfect and ethically awed an
apt representation of the good in a period trying to come to grips with
Aristotles moral philosophy. The irony of these aws, however, should
not obscure the very real possibilities for ethical reading that Jeans poem
holds out. This version of ethical reading does not seek a moral or even
a practical example of living well, but rather a reection upon oneself
and ones desires, bringing with it the pleasure that comes with the labor
of rational contemplation. The activity itself disposes one to love, and is
perhaps an act of love, though it is as both Nature and Lacan remind
us prone to give way to fantasm, misapprehension, and even hate. This
duality will become a distinctly late medieval way of thinking about
ethics, dependent upon a deliberate yoking together of love, intellectual
activity, and pleasure.
The questions raised in medieval Aristotelian commentaries and only
partially resolved (how can contemplation be valued for its own sake? how
can human happiness exist outside of love of God? what does it mean for
pleasure to be the greatest good?) are taken to a variety of extremes in
Jean de Meuns Rose. In the poems various conversations and narratives,
we witness self-sacricing desire, teleological drive toward possession, love
as action and love as rest, self-reection as madness, and self-knowledge
leading to love. Jeans Rose gets to the heart of late medieval questions
about how to understand the relationship between bodily and intellectual
pleasure, self-love, love of others, and love of God without resolution,
but resolutely on the side of working through the Aristotelian valorization

of labor, this-worldly desires and goods, and poetry that de-sublimes some
of loves most cherished metaphors. The new self-aware, active Narcissus
limned by Jeans poem may experience desire as mutually delightful
and productive or one-sided and destructive. Erotic desire shored up by
the new philosophical language of human happiness may open avenues
toward jouissance that need not be deferred, but these paths are fraught
with potential for misapprehension. What remains clear, however, is that
the Rose in its widespread and long-lasting inuence bequeathed vernacular poetry a decidedly intellectual erotics, creating a tradition that would
include Gowers confessing lover, framed by concerns for the common
good; Chaucers Troilus and Criseyde, wondering about freedom and
felicite while they romance; and Guillaume de Deguilevilles Plerinage
de Vie Humaine, where we nd an Aristotle intellectually unmanned
by Sapiences broken mirror. Fourteenth-century poetry continued to
speak in the shared vocabulary of lovers and clerks, and questions of how
one should dene and experience love, delight, pain, and desire continued to motivate all of the medieval discourses oriented toward human
happiness.
Metamorphoses of pleasure
in the fourteenth-century dit amoureux
With the translation of classical texts into the vernacular, the fourteenth century marks not only an increased dissemination of scholarly
and classical knowledge, but, as Claire Sherman has put it, the development of modern languages as instruments of abstract and scientic
thought. Nicole Oresmes translation of the Nicomachean Ethics,
commissioned by Charles V, alone coined dozens of words in French that
are still in current use, including abstraccion, contingentes, delectacion,
and sujet, and Oresme took care to include a table des moz divers et
estranges at the end of his translation. Even earlier, great portions of
the Nicomachean Ethics and Aquinas commentary were translated in a
treatise titled Li Ars dAmour, de Vertu et de Boneurt; the author included
a glossary of technical terms such as abis, ns, quidits, and philosophie
(dened as amours de savoir, de viertut ou de verit). The discursive
matrix of philosophy and poetry developed in thirteenth-century Paris
was thus perpetuated by a widening audience for scholastic texts and
by increasingly philosophical vernacular languages, an environment
that contributed to the intellectualization of erotic poetry alongside the
impact of the Roman de la Rose perhaps the most inuential medieval
vernacular poem after Dantes Commedia. As the vernacular and courtly
turned toward the intellectual, the concerns of the university were already
oriented toward love. An Aristotelian ethical focus on earthly life and
the curricular prominence of Peter Lombards Sentences generated concerns about the relationships between love and pleasure, and love and
loss, and about the nature of beatic enjoyment. William Courtenay
describes both English and Continental fourteenth-century philosophy
as working out a total analysis of human motivation and behavior that
would theoretically cover daily experience and interpersonal relations as
well as religious experience. While the reception of Aristotle was by no
means settled, monolithic, or uncontroversial by this period, Aristotelian
ethics had entered the mainstream of medieval philosophical thought,
The fourteenth-century dit amoureux
and Aristotelian denitions of pleasure and enjoyment were applied to

both earthly and heavenly experience. The dialectical investigation of
Aristotelian teleologies of pleasure and an opposing contingent notion of
happiness itself ultimately Aristotelian was one of the major projects
of fourteenth-century philosophy and poetry. The philosophers ask what
might happen if pleasure were disconnected from our experience of the
nal good, and how pleasure relates to our experience of intermediate,
worldly goods; the poets ask how philosophical understandings of love
and pleasure relate to an earthly realm ruled by the whims of fortune.
As philosophy used secular ethics to understand both earth and heaven,
poetry used the vocabulary of clerkly discourse to imagine the pleasure of
love both immanent and transcendent. Both discourses were concerned
with the nobility of the lover and the gap between natural and ethical
responses to love realized and love lost.
The narrative poetry of Guillaume de Machaut and Jean Froissart
oers perhaps the most conspicuous terrain for the intellectual and poetic
legacies of Jean de Meuns Rose. Certainly if one restricts oneself to the
genre of love narratives, it could equally be said of either poet that his
work is largely a commentary on Le Roman de la Rose. Both poets wrote
semi-allegorical dream visions about love and continued both Guillaume
de Lorris and Jean de Meuns experiments with narrative voice, clerkly
and courtly personae, Ovidian mythography, and realistic representation. These dits are still rarely read as philosophical poems, unless that
philosophy is descended from Boethius Consolation and concerns traditional questions about the loss of will in love, the ways of Fortune, or
the possible sources of comfort for a grieving lover. In arguing for the
relevance of philosophical discourse to Chaucers dream visions, Kathryn
Lynch admits that the visions clearest debts are to French love poetry
an admission that appears to assume the incommensurability of this tradition with philosophical thought. Yet surely the lingering earnestness
longing for moral clarity, [and] persistent ambiguity of meaning that
Lynch nds in Chaucer may also point to a tradition that reinvents itself
both intellectually and erotically with the Roman de la Rose. Jacqueline
Cerquiglini-Toulet places Machauts Voir Dit at a nexus of social, religious, moral, and philosophical crises of the fourteenth century including debates over nominalism arguing that the poet seeks a unied
approach to these crises via the perspective of erotic love. Sylvia Huot
associates Machaut with an intellectualization of love poetry, including
the eroticization of Boethian discourse and the creation of mythographic
models of the love experience and the love poet. More recently, Sarah
Kay has placed Machauts Jugement poems in the context of fourteenthcentury debates about knowledge of singular things and universals.
I argue in this chapter that such an intellectualization includes the
inheritance of the Rose s association of erotic consummation with philosophical understandings of human happiness, and the conation of artistic production and self-knowledge. In what follows I address a matrix of
fourteenth-century love narratives selected dits amoureux of Machaut
and Froissart along with Chaucers Book of the Duchess as seemingly
light, elegant tales of courtly love that nevertheless place themselves at
the center of fourteenth-century scholastic controversies about the relationship between pleasure and enjoyment. Machaut and Froissart do
not simply adapt the motifs of dreams, pleasure gardens, fountains, and
Ovidian lovers from the Rose, but also adapt and revise the questions the
poem raises about the relationship between poetic creativity and desire
for another person, about possibilities for earthly happiness, and about
the beauty and violence inherent in love poetry. Long recognized as a brilliant compilation and revision of his French contemporaries, Chaucers
Book of the Duchess may also be read as a commentary on the French
poets, an overtly ethical reading of the dits amoureux that contributes to a
ourishing philosophical discourse of pleasure in the fourteenth century.
Chaucers inheritance of the French tradition, on full display in The Book
of the Duchess, strikingly emphasizes how this tradition foregrounds the
way love can elide important dierences between joy and sorrow, and can
thus obscure the motivations of desire, as well as judgments about good
and evil.
As in the Rose, the fourteenth-century poets explored the ethics of
desire through a tradition of reimaginings of the narratives in Ovids
Metamorphoses. As John Fyler remarks in the opening of Chaucer and
Ovid, Ovid becomes the Freud of the Middle Ages, allowing medieval
poets to theorize the relationships among love, death, sublimation, and
joy. While Jean de Meun imagined Pygmalion as creator and lover of
a work of art that might then return his love, Machaut, Froissart, and
Chaucer all sustain an engagement with Ovidian love stories that resolutely follow their narratives beyond the moment of consummation and
toward inevitable loss in betrayal or death. After Jean de Meuns engagement with the radical notion of human happiness and perfection, the
poetry of intellectual eroticism begins to reckon more directly with conicts between earthly happiness and the contingencies of earthly existence.
Thus where Jeans idealization of the union of Pygmalion and Galatea
was haunted by possibilities of narcissistic projection and violence, the
later poets accept an ideal of mutuality while being troubled by its unsustainable nature. Such preoccupations lead to a series of transformations
of the Pygmalion gure; he is at times arrested in his role as lover of an
inanimate image, and at other times he is imagined not as a man whose
artistry begets love, but a man whose love begets his artistry. Concern for
the articulations of loss also animates the multiple retellings of the tale of
Ceyx and Alcyone a narrative found in Machaut, Froissart, Chaucer,
Gower, Deschamps, and elsewhere. The poets nd a trove of possibilities in the tale, especially as it describes the dream as a space where one
encounters both ones beloved and the knowledge of that beloveds loss.
The mutuality of the love between Pygmalion and Galatea emphasized in
the Rose is exchanged for the mutual love between Ceyx and Alcyone.
Yet this mutuality is importantly not the mutual delight of the artist and
his animate creation, but rather a sharing of experience and emotion that
encompasses both good and ill. As I discuss below, perhaps the most
compelling feature of the tale of Ceyx for fourteenth-century poets is the
gure of Morpheus a gure whose shape-shifting allows for the fantasy
that the dead king can tell his story, an impossible narrative of his own
death. Such an impossible perspective allows for this poetry to engage
in ethical questions about the relationships among love, pleasure, and the
shape of an entire human life. In the varied and focused attention given
to the narrative arc of desire, fruition, and loss and the attendant psychological responses to each state one nds strikingly parallel discourses
in fourteenth-century poetry and philosophy.
Even so, placing Chaucer and his French contemporaries in the midst
of contemporary intellectual debates remains more challenging than the
similar contextualization of Jean de Meun. The very notion of a project
that attempts to put Chaucers poetry into conversation with currents in
scholastic philosophy is up against some long-held skepticism. The subject
of Chaucer and philosophy continues to fascinate and to generate controversy, with some scholars arguing for the evident relevance of scholastic
discourse to Chaucers poetry and others (more often) noting interesting
parallels, but prescribing skepticism and cautioning that we not over-philosophize Chaucer. Yet even before William Courtenay invited scholars of Middle English literature to bring the world of Ockham together
with the world of Chaucer, there was energetic and wide-ranging activity
toward this goal. In the last several decades, critics began researching
the possible links between Chaucer and nominalist theories, thinking
about the ways texts such as The Clerks Tale might be inuenced by
William of Ockhams ideas about Gods absolute power, the contingency
of language and human experience, and epistemology. There has as yet

been no critical discussion of Chaucer and that area of medieval psychology that is closest in concern to medieval and modern ethics specically the fourteenth-century debates about enjoyment ( fruitio) and pleasure
(delectatio) as components of the sovereign good (summum bonum).
These debates centered on problems of ethical motivation whether we
love something for the pleasure it brings or for its own sake and questions about the very intelligibility of love and pleasure whether happiness or enjoyment can be understood or experienced without pleasure.
Pleasure, in both philosophical and poetic contexts, becomes central to
ethical, psychological, and epistemological concerns.
In a consideration of fourteenth-century ethical discourse about pleasure, we can speak about medieval literature and philosophy together
without demanding direct lines of inuence, reecting instead upon a
vigorous conversation about issues of particular urgency in the period.
While the previous chapter illustrated the way that the medieval reception of Aristotelian enjoyment expanded the concept to include love, this
chapter explores the way this expanded meaning radically destabilized
understandings of love itself. The inclusion of love as a component of
virtuous action and the enjoyment of virtuous objects made happiness
more comprehensible to the medieval subject, but loves long association
with suering and sacrice simultaneously made this happiness precarious and contradictory at its core. If love is the primary noble virtue, and
love often brings suering and loss, then happiness might comprehend
sorrow a medieval update of the classical image of the virtuous man,
happy despite tortuous pain. The twinned medieval images of the virtuous subject included the lover of God, graced with the beatic vision,
and the lover of a human paragon, continuing to love despite suering;
these two images had already begun to merge, from the very beginnings
of vernacular love poetry. This poetry begins to nd analogues for suffering love not only in discourses of theology and religious devotion,
but in Aristotelian-inuenced moral philosophy and psychology. In the
fourteenth century, both poetry and philosophy explored what the new
Aristotelian context of human happiness might mean for our experience
of and our very understanding of love and pleasure.

The last book of the Nicomachean Ethics is clear on the inextricability
of enjoyment and pleasure as a unied phenomenon, if not clear on the
exact relationship between the two: pleasure supervenes upon and

perfects activities in the way that beauty perfects youth (velud iuvenibus pulcritudo). For Aristotle, the activity equivalent with happiness
entailed the pleasurable contemplation of truth, especially when this truth
is knowledge possessed rather than sought. For medieval philosophers,
the pleasure of enjoyment is the pleasure of the act of knowing and loving
God. Without love, Ockhams objection that fruitio could persist without
pleasure is all but unintelligible. Yet the ethical motivation that informs
the psychology of the enjoying subject was less clear; the medieval reader
of Aristotle was left to ponder: Do we live or love to experience pleasure,
or does pleasure allow us to live and love? Aristotelian aporiae about
whether pleasure is an activity or a passion, and about whether love is a
component of enjoyment, complicated ethical, psychological, and theological understandings of love. The centrality of Aristotle in the universities meant that Aristotles works became a touchstone for any discussion
of ethics (along with a multitude of other topics) in theological as well as
strictly philosophical writing. The Sentences commentaries of the fourteenth century are peppered with references to Aristotle, and yet the philosophers writings are a source of tension as much as they are a source of
knowledge for medieval theologians.
Because Aristotle left open the question of whether we live for the
sake of pleasure, or pursue pleasure for the sake of life, questions of causality and motivation animated much ethical discourse in the wake of
the institutionalization and dissemination of the Ethics. The relationship
between desire and pleasure became a primary concern, especially inasmuch as it helped to illuminate the experience of the beatic vision, but
also as it helped in understanding less lofty pursuits such as study, virtuous behavior, desire for objects, and love for people. Are we motivated
to love by the pleasure that love promises and sometimes brings? Or do
we love most purely when we have no regard for pleasure? What could
it mean to imagine the highest love as lacking pleasure in its very fulllment? How does loss aect our love for a person or a thing? Such
questions themes that had long been the subject of vernacular love
poetry became equally the terrain of fourteenth-century philosophy.
As one can see in the discourse of Abelards Christian in his Dialogue,
the blissfulness of heaven a reward for earthly virtue and compensation
for earthly sorrow is a bedrock assumption of Christian doctrine. As
Augustine puts it, There is therefore nothing absurd in the assertion that
the nal complete happiness will be exempt from the spasms of fear and
from any kind of grief; he cites John :, There is no fear in love, in
support of his claim. Where earthly pleasures are always compromised

by their ephemeral nature, heavenly pleasures are complete and stable.
Yet as inuential a theologian as William Ockham claimed that love
even the highest love is not equivalent to pleasure, and Gods absolute
power necessitates the possibility that the pleasure accompanying such
love might be withheld. Ockham thus spends much time attempting to
reconcile his theories of the will, intellect, and happiness with those of
Augustine and other authorities. Both Ockham himself and the theologians who opposed the detachment of pleasure from love marshaled
Aristotle to support their denitions of love, pleasure, and the identity or
causality between the two.
The relationship between happiness and pleasure in Aristotles Ethics
was dissected in Albert the Greats rst commentary, beginning with the
question of whether pleasure is even an appropriate topic to discuss in
relation to contemplative happiness. Albert acknowledges that pleasure is
typically relevant to ethics in the context of moral decisions, and that morality requires one to ee pleasures, even according to Aristotle himself.
Yet, he concludes that pleasure is the measure of a human life, and those
lives that have good pleasures (bonas delectationes) are judged good,
while those that have shameful ones are shameful. Here he follows Book
of the Ethics, where Aristotle denes pleasure as the perfection of an
enjoyable and rationally virtuous activity. Thus it follows that the highest
pleasure would be the pleasure experienced upon the completion of the
activity of contemplating the good. And indeed, Albert asserts that the
Commentator Michael of Ephesus demonstrates that happiness cannot be understood [or discerned] without pleasure. In his commentary,
Michael further asserts that the happy life appears pleasurable, and that
this perfect life is lacking nothing and self-sucient, the highest and the
utmost, wherefore it is also the most pleasant. Pleasure well-chosen is
thus both the indicator of a well-lived life and the very condition for the
intelligibility of happiness. Happiness, as an experience or as an ethical
end of human life, cannot be fathomed without pleasure.
Aquinas also picks up on this question of motivation in both his
commentary on the Ethics and his discussion of pleasure in the Summa
Theologiae. For Aquinas, the greatest good, perfect happiness (beatitudo),
necessarily includes pleasure. On the question of whether pleasure (delectatio) diers from joy ( gaudium), Aquinas argues that joy is one species of
pleasure, as one experiences pleasure when one obtains an object of physical or rational desire, but one experiences joy from the actual exercise of
reason. Yet the question is also raised as to whether the ultimate end is
God himself (ipse Deus) or the enjoyment of God ( fruitio ipsius). Aquinas
acknowledges that one may equally say that the ultimate end of man is
God himself, or that it is the enjoyment of God, but makes the distinction that the enjoyment of God is the greatest of human goods (bona
humana). Aquinas thus gives us two contexts from which to consider
pleasure: from the perspective of the divine good, or from the perspective of the human good, where we encounter the problem of the priority of activity or pleasure. It is in a consideration of human happiness,
thus, that ethical questions about pleasure come to the fore. In his Ethics
commentary, the theologian addresses Aristotles inquiry into whether we
experience pleasure as a result of enjoyment, or whether perhaps we are
given pleasure so that we might continue the labor of enjoyment. Aquinas
restates the philosophers view of indeterminacy, and yet goes on to give
an answer: activity, not pleasure, is principal. He explains that pleasure
is a repose of the appetite in a pleasing object which a person enjoys by
means of activity. But a person desires repose in a thing only inasmuch as
he judges it agreeable to him. Consequently the activity itself that gives
pleasure as a pleasing object seems to be desirable prior to pleasure.
Aquinas thus explains in his Summa Theologiae that pleasure functions in
a similar way to sleep it refreshes our souls so that we can continue our
labors. Having settled this, Aquinas seems to give no further thought
to the problem of the priority of pleasure or activity. In discussing contemplation as the highest form of happiness, Aquinas accepts Aristotles
reasoning that contemplation of wisdom is loved for itself and not for
something else. At this point, happiness has been dened as necessarily mingled with pleasure, and the love of contemplation for the sake of
this mixture is not considered to be a conundrum of ethical motivation.
Pleasure is not something external that would hinder the formula that
such contemplation is loved for its own sake, and yet its status as somehow essential to happiness is not secure. The dissection of enjoyment
in the commentaries on Peter Lombards Sentences will zero in on this
uncertainty and begin to break down the unity between enjoyment and
pleasure.
The commentaries of both Albert and Aquinas remained inuential,
but the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries witnessed a transformation in the very terms of enjoyment. The focus on enjoyment in
the rst distinction of Peter Lombards Sentences ensured that it became
a set topic in the commentaries of many theologians. These commentaries discussed the dierence between the enjoyment to be had in this
life ( fruitio viae) and the enjoyment of the afterlife ( fruitio patriae) and
analyzed any number of other adjacent issues, including grace, charity,

and the relationship between the intellect and the will. In this context
the act of enjoyment ( fruitio) is structurally distinct from the resulting
pleasure (delectatio), and scholars debated whether or not the two terms
could be eectively distinguished. In the late thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries, questions about the identity or non-identity of pleasure and
enjoyment became common topics for discussion. It is clear, in Aristotle,
in commentaries on the Ethics, and on the Sentences, that dening pleasure brings into relief questions of ethical motivation, and makes urgent
the task of determining (or saving) the nobility of love for ourselves, for
others, and for God.
Dening enjoyment in terms of the relationship between love and
pleasure had long been a preoccupation of commentators on the Sentences.
John Duns Scotus (c.) maintained that enjoyment was indistinct from
pleasure, while Peter Aureoli (c.) determined that every love is pleasurable two approaches to love and pleasure that maintain their alliance,
and yet oer quite dierent understandings of the relationships between
the two phenomena. Either love and pleasure are somehow the same, or
love is simply guaranteed to be accompanied by pleasure. The writings
of William Ockham serve as a turning point in this conversation. In the
wake of his commentary on the Sentences (), which controversially
posited that enjoyment was distinct from pleasure, the question of the
possible non-identity of these two experiences came to the forefront.
Ockhams emphasis on voluntarism in terms of both the primacy of
Gods free will and the human faculty of the will had eects beyond
his theorization of Gods absolute freedom and the freedom and nobility
of the human will. Voluntarism importantly shaped his understanding
of both divine and human happiness, and particularly the relationship
between love and pleasure. For Ockham, the understanding of enjoyment
always returns to questions of cause, eect, and motivation; in life, the will
causes love, while in heaven, love is caused by God. He cites Aristotles
statement that happiness consists in activity and also that pleasure is
not activity but supervenes on activity, eectively separating pleasure
from happiness. This separation allowed Ockham to explore love both
mundane and beatic that might involve sorrow rather than pleasure. He
critiques the opinions of both Duns Scotus and Peter Aureoli, maintaining that love remains when pleasure is destroyed, and that this may be
true for both earthly love and love directed toward God. He oers that an
earthly, concupiscent desire such as revenge, for example, does not bring
pleasure, and yet the desire remains. Similarly, he claims that An intense
act of love can exist with distress regarding the same object, namely, when
someone is afraid of losing what he loves. In refuting Peter Aureolis
opinion that pleasure and enjoyment are identical, Ockham marshals not
only Augustine, but Aristotle, stating:
according to the Philosopher in Ethics X, supreme distress excludes not only the
pleasure opposite to it but also pleasure that is not opposed to it. For example,
someone supremely distressed about the loss of a temporal thing does not take
pleasure in investigating anything theoretical. But that distress does not exclude
all love of that investigation.
It is important to Ockham that love exists as an emotion and as a mental

action even when the positive eects of love are not experienced; enjoyment, whether earthly or divine, must include not simply virtuous activity or the possession of an object, but persistent love.
Even proper enjoyment of God for his own sake the highest vocation
of the will is not guaranteed to oer pleasure. For Ockhams belief in
Gods absolute power ( potentia absoluta) demands that he acknowledge
that God has the power to make even the experience of beatitude (beatitudo) a painful experience, replacing pleasure with distress. Ultimately,
these issues of denition become concerns about preserving the nobility of love. Ockham posits, provisionally, that the act of love is without
qualication nobler than pleasure. He takes it as unarguable that love
in this life is more perfect than pleasure in this life; therefore, love in
heaven is more perfect than pleasure in heaven, and consequently love
as a whole is more perfect than pleasure. Commentaries on Aristotles
Ethics become essential to this discussion, specically as they resolve the
question of whether we choose pleasure for the sake of activities or vice
versa. Ockham cites Michael of Ephesus comment on Ethics that we
pursue pleasure for the sake of activities and in order to live for however pleasant these [activities] are, it is not for the sake of pleasure that
they are eagerly engaged in. For we choose many virtuous activities even
though engaging in them is a cause of distress, labor, and grief.
After Ockham, disagreement persisted in the terrains of Sentences commentaries and commentaries on the Ethics. In the commentaries of both
Walter Chatton (c.) and Adam Wodeham (c.), enjoying love
is a pleasure. Wodehams lectures on the Sentences are prime examples
of the mobilization of Aristotle to argue both that enjoyment should be
distinguished from pleasure, and that it should not. In his sixth question
on the rst distinction of the Lombards text, Wodeham follows Ockham
in addressing the question of whether enjoyment is really distinguished
from pleasure. In the arguments for this distinction, Wodeham quotes

Augustine on the denition of enjoyment as love of an object for its own
sake and therefore an activity (operatio) and Aristotle on the denition
of pleasure as a passion (passio superveniens operationi). In this case,
Augustine gives us an understanding of enjoyment as an activity irreconcilable with Aristotles denition of pleasure as a passion: an activity and
a passion cannot be the same. Yet he later uses Aristotles statement that
the most pleasurable activity is the most perfect (delectabilissima operatio est perfectissima) to support the notion that enjoyment and pleasure are the same and not distinguished from each other (idem et non
distinguuntur). Aristotelian ideas about the nobility of spiritual pleasures and the particular pleasures of philosophical pursuits are given the
same space and consideration as Augustinian discussions of the joy of the
beatic vision. The Theologian and the Philosopher are demonstrated by
Wodeham to be in harmony with each other and ultimately to show the
harmony of enjoyment and delight.
The discussions of enjoyment in Sentences commentaries in turn had
their eect upon commentaries on Aristotles Ethics. Jean Buridan, in
his Quaestiones on the Ethics (c.), directs his attention less to the
relationship between love and pleasure than to the necessity of both for
the constitution of happiness. Discussing the question of whether human
happiness consists of one act or several, Buridan explicitly rejects the
notion that happiness might involve sorrow or hate, or that God might
detach love from the act of knowledge, and that this love could nevertheless constitute happiness. He oers a summary of the debate:
if you say that the most noble act that can exist in a human being is the clear
vision of God, then I prove that this would not be happiness essentially. For if it
were happiness essentially, then with it alone remaining and all other acts being
removed (as they could be by Gods absolute power, as some theologians say),
one would still be happy, as a stone would be white if whiteness remained in it
and all other accidents were removed. Yet that conclusion is false, namely, that
a human being who saw God clearly without any pleasure and without love of
God would be called happy. For happiness must be most pleasant, as Aristotle
says Those theologians say that God could form in Socrates soul, together
with a clear vision of God, an intense distress without pleasure and a hatred of
God without love. Would he then be happy? I am sure that I would not wish for
such happiness!
For Buridan, happiness requires both full understanding and full love
of God; knowledge and love are both equally necessary. Aristotles statement that happiness consists in perfect contemplation is glossed so that
contemplation of God is not knowledge of God without love or love

without knowledge but is made up of both. Contemplation itself is
said to connote just as the word happiness does, the presence of love
and pleasure naturally connected to that thought or vision [of God]. In
Buridans nal resolution, happiness signies a single holistic act that
connotes love of God, wisdom, perfect thought, prudence and moral virtues, and the virtues of the body and exterior goods. In this way, human
happiness encompasses Aristotelian practical virtue, Aristotelian contemplative happiness, and a Platonic/Boethian aggregation of all goods.
Buridan concludes that Our best act, therefore, is the same as our
most pleasant act and, nally, that by chief or primary purpose pleasure
is for the sake of activity and thus cannot itself constitute the nal good.
Therefore, God is the most pleasant object, and the perception of God
is the most pleasurable act, but it is the act that constitutes happiness
because pleasurable and not the pleasure. He thus gives us nally an
Aristotelian version of the Augustinian image of the beatic vision: the
blessed not only love and understand God, but they can understand
reexively, and they understand that they understand and love and take
pleasure. Buridan, as a member of the arts faculty, explicitly not writing as a theologian, neither approves nor rejects the statements that God
could preserve a vision of himself in a subject while taking away love and
every act of will. Yet he makes a key distinction between the pleasure
that necessarily accompanies the vision of God inseparable from the
apprehension of an object under the concept of the good, present, and
possessed and the pleasure that may very well be absent if one experiences love and volition without vision. Thus the act of the intellect is
nobler than the act of volition, because it is through understanding not
love that one immediately attains God.
While it may seem to be on very ne points that these scholars disagree, they point to an interest in the psychology of the loving subject
that is of great importance in fourteenth-century ethics. As we will
see below, Aristotelian-inuenced medical understandings of lovesickness also focused on the psychological and ethical ramications of being
in love. Such questions animate the poets writing in the wake of the
Rose: does love aim at possession? Does possession entail the reication of
the loved person? What happens when the distinctions between joy and
sorrow collapse? What motivations render the lover a noble lover? What if
forces beyond human will render all of these questions moot? By tracing
such questions and their multiple answers, we can recreate a picture of the
way that both philosophers and poets approached very similar questions
of motivation and causation as they searched for an ethical description of

what happens when we love.
-
Guillaume de Machaut (c.) established the tone, themes, and
generic spaces for the reception of the Rose in his century, and thus also
created the space for the investigation of the questions outlined above.
Machaut is one of the rst poets to theorize his poetry in the vernacular,
and, among the poets considered in this chapter, he is the most explicit regarding the relationship between joy, sorrow, and poetry. His love
narratives are playful, ironic, detached, and profoundly interested in the
interplay between poetry, song, authorship, material textual production,
and lived experience. This interplay might be understood within the categories of Musique, Rhetorique, et Sens; these gifts are the children
of Nature, given to the poet in his Prologue, a poem composed toward the
end of his career, and which served as an introduction to his poetic uvre
in manuscript compilations. Perhaps the signal ethical eect of his focus
on the uneasy split between narrator and author and the material modes
of writing resides in the way his poetry insists upon a recognition of the
several players involved in the production of meaning and the sharing
of emotion. In his Prologue, the poet sustains a dialogue with Love and
Nature, explaining that poetry is, by denition, joyous. For even if the
poet has triste matiere (sad matter, .), est joieuse la maniere / Dou
fait (the style of their treatment / Is joyful, .). Music itself creates
joy and is created from the pleasant memories of ones beloved. The possibility of composing in sadness is acknowledged, but dismissed as inferior to composition born of happiness; even Orpheus is brought in as an
example of the happiness music can bring, releasing Eurydice from the
underworld.
In such moments, Machaut redenes our understandings of poetic
joy itself. Much in the way that certain of Platos dialogues ask that we
understand the practice of virtue as tantamount to happiness, Machaut
asks us to understand poetry born of love and received in joy as equivalent to joy itself, never mind the sorrow of the composer. Machauts insistence on the superior quality of joyful music is shadowed by the barely
submerged acknowledgment that much poetry is (at least imagined to
be) born of sorrow and loss. In poetry, however, love is tantamount to
joy, even allowing for such loss. Several of Machauts poems address the
ethics of poetry created from grief and the consolations and knowledge
gained through dreaming. His masterpiece, Le Voir Dit (c.), is an

encyclopedia of poetic genres prose letter, verse narrative, lyric, dream
vision, mirror for princes, commentary as well as an ongoing representation of a psychomachia taking place within the narrators mind, a battle
between Hope and Desire. In a lay contained in the center of the poem,
the Lover describes how the Ladys sweet look Dardant Desir st un
dart / Et un dEsperence (Made one dart of burning Desire / And one
of Hope, ll. ). Desire is consistently a source of pain for the Lover,
while Hope brings comfort, here in the form of Plaisence / En ma iolie
sourance (pleasure / In my sweet suering, ll. ). While pleasure
in suering is a time-honored aect of the troubadours and other poets of
lovesickness, Machaut shifts the association of such pleasure with desire
to the much more ethically appealing emotion of hope. Hope allows the
sorrow of love unconsummated to be transformed into the pleasure of
suering so that poetry may take place. Even the joy of loves consummation seems to take the form of poetry, as the Lover, having achieved some
kind of union with his beloved (mes desirs fu acomplis, l. ) while
hidden in a cloud created by Venus, takes the opportunity to compose a
song (ll. ). The productive desire of the earlier love poets has given
way to an equally productive hope equivalent in suering and pleasure,
but oriented more fully toward a poetry that comprehends consummation and its aftermaths as well as perpetual longing.
In theorizing love, hope, and pleasure in this manner, Machaut opens
up the possibility of an engagement between philosophical and poetic
ideas about pleasure; for Machaut poetic pleasure is already philosophical. One sees that he does not take suering love for granted, but rather
like Ockham and his contemporaries dissects the relationships among
activity, pleasure, and the end goals of love. Love is preserved as a purer
place of nobility and pleasure, while suering is associated with imagining the future. One might attribute to Machaut an anity with Ockham
in that love and pleasure are separate entities that may or may not coincide, and yet also with an Aristotelian philosopher such as Buridan in
the insistence that the noblest activity in this case, poetry is always
pleasurable. Machaut also locates the ethical questions raised by love and
pleasure squarely in the relationships between people not only between
lover and beloved, but among lovers, poets, and readers of poetry.
Machauts Fonteinne Amoureuse (c.) thus begins by foregrounding the disjunction between the sorrow of a lovers seemingly spontaneous
lyric outpouring, and the delight that this performance gives to the narrator. We are told that the lover commena piteusement, / Et je lescri
joieusement (began piteously / While I wrote with pleasure, ll. ).

The Fonteinne in particular appears to be captivated by the transformation of emotions as they travel between people and into poetry. For
Machaut, and for Froissart and Chaucer after him, the understanding
of the relationship between love, pleasure, and pain is demonstrated to
be the product of a triangle of representation and reection constituted
by the person in sorrow or joy, an empathetic gure (the narrator/poet),
and a spectator (the audience/reader). It is this multi-layered circuit of
representation and response that allows for the intelligibility of emotions in love in fact creates their necessary conditions. As a poem that
explores the possibilities of transforming sorrow into aesthetically pleasing art, or physically and spiritually comforting dreams, it is no wonder
that Chaucer harvested some of the Fonteinne s central motifs, and especially its retelling of the Ovidian tale of Ceyx and Alcyone, for his poem
of consolation The Book of the Duchess (c.). Both poems center
their narrative and emotional energy on the scene of a grieving lover telling
his sorrows to another man.
Machauts version of the Ovidian narrative comes into view in a complaint inserted early in the Fonteinne Amoureuse; Machauts Lover reveals
his sorrow and the absence of his beloved; he laments that writing a letter
may not be ecacious, and sending a messenger might risk public revelation. He presents the tale of Ceyx and Alcyone as an alternative a tale in
which a queens hyper-vigilance over the absence of her king is rewarded
rst with dreaming news of his death at sea, then ultimately with a transformation of both lovers into seabirds. The Lover imagines that he might
entreat the Morpheus of the tale Ovids shape-shifting son of the god of
sleep to take on his form and present his cause to his beloved. The Lover
is sure that although Pygmalion created an ivory statue that he loved and
prayed to, il not pas si tres noble victoire / Ne tel er / Comme jaray,
se Morphes avoire / Ce que je tieng qui sera chose voire (his achievement was not as noble, / His luck was not the same / As I will have should
Morpheus persevere with / What I think should prove true, ll. ).
Pygmalion, in this poem and in the others I discuss below, is almost
always a sculptor, a man in love with an image, and almost never the lover
of a woman come to life. The transformative power of art so important in the Rose is denied to these later Pygmalions. Morpheus appears
instead to be the privileged gure an agent of metamorphosis and a
gure for the poet perhaps the reason that the Fonteinne Amoureuse
is alternatively known as The Book of Morpheus. In the Lovers rst
proposing that Morpheus take his form, followed by his request that the
narrator compose a complaint, the narrator takes on the role of Morpheus;

when the narrator presents his already made copy of the Lovers plaint,
he fullls the role of Morpheus metamorphosed into the shape of the
Lover himself. In this context, Morpheus and metamorphosis in general
become gures for identication as a mode of narrative and poetic production an appropriate role for Morpheus especially, as the craftsman
and simulator of human forms (articem simulatoremque gurae).
The twinning of Machauts two characters is reinforced when both men
fall sweetly asleep together and dream the same dream: the narrator with
the Lovers head in his lap, the narrators head soon falling into slumber
upon his companions head. They sleep by the fonteinne amoureuse,
of which both the marble bowl and the ivory pillar on which it sits are
attributed to Pygmalion and are carved with the histories of Narcissus
and the Trojan War. In their shared dream they are visited by Venus, who
tells the tale of the golden apple she is holding, and the Lady from whom
the Lover desires his comfort. After the dream, in which the Lover and
the Lady exchange ymages and rings, the Lover expresses gratitude to
Morpheus, who he is sure has visited the Lady in his shape. Any happiness here achieved is attributed to the capacity of Morpheus/the poet to
inhabit anothers subjectivity and shape.
The nal image of the poem portrays the Lover, setting o on the sea,
singing a rondel expressing desire to return to the country of his Lady.
The Lover appears to promise reparation for the tragedy of King Ceyxs
death at sea that would not demand otherworldly metamorphosis; he will
go on the sea in order to return to his beloved, not to nd his death in
her absence. Yet the reader is left wondering whether the Lover has perhaps unwittingly placed himself in the role of Ceyx, setting o to sea
with his other half, our narrator, remaining ashore as Alcyone. As is
often the case in Machaut, consolation in poetry is shadowed by the persistence of the possibilities of loss and sorrow, and this ending in particular raises questions about whether the privileged couple should be the
Lover and his lady, or the Lover-patron and the narrator-poet, and about
whether the sea of worldly fortune can ever prove a medium for uniting
two lovers. In other words, it is unclear whether poetic metamorphosis
ends up replacing the love relationship with a textual and social relationship, and whether either poetry or love are able to provide happiness in a
contingent world.
These are among the questions that Machauts poetry will encourage his
successors to address. Machaut leaves his successors a body of work that
articulates the relationships between love and poetic production, dreams
and consolation, sorrow and poetic joy, and love, loss, and transformation. The intrusions of fortune create sorrow, but also opportunities to
transform that sorrow into hope what Machaut terms iolie sourance.
Poetry thus oers a meta-perspective on fortune, a perspective most fully
embodied by the gure of Morpheus/Ceyx, narrating his own demise.
Such poetry is self-reective about the way that hope is often channeled
into the transformation of beloveds and love experiences into textual artifacts, and both Froissart and Chaucer will ask if this is the only mode of
possession allowed to the loving subject. These poets share the project
of rendering Machauts ethical poetics more explicit. The problem for
both philosophy and poetry is that preserving the nobility of love may
compromise the success of that love: one may arrive at a painful beatic vision, or pleasurably love only an idealized or reied object. Pleasure
for a reader or interlocutor may mean sorrow for the speaker-poet, and
the activity of poetry may replace the supposed sought-for pleasure of
union with the beloved. Aristotles contention that choosing life for pleasure or pleasure for life cannot be determined could not be left untested
and untried. Froissart will dissect his Machauldian inheritance through
an Ovidian invention that allies clerkliness with love and ethics, while
Chaucer will pursue the problem of the indeterminacy of joy and sorrow
as a route to the height of human love and happiness.
:

The Machauldian transformations of the Rose into a treasure trove for
thinking about poetic production are transformed again by Froissart and
Chaucer into spaces for thinking through the ethical diculties of composing poetry about consolation and metamorphosis. Active at the same
time and in the same court circles, both poets were heir to Machaut,
and especially to his use of the Rose to engage questions of consolation,
change, and shared emotion. In LEspinette Amoureuse (The Hawthorn
Bush of Love, c.), Froissart places himself squarely in the tradition
of the Roman de la Rose, writing a poem about love, roses, mirrors, and
dreams. He alludes to the Rose in claiming that Dreams are but vain
things (Songes nest fors que vainne cose, l. ) and plays upon the
earlier poems favorite rhyming association of menonge (lie, l. )
and songe (dream, l. ) in arguing that his experience is one of truth
(verite) and therefore not a dream at all. It is in this poem that Froissart
begins a poetic project of coming to terms with amorous and poetic desire
for possession that will culminate in an ethical transformation of the very

terms of creative metamorphosis.
Celebrated for its opening depiction of childhood play, the poem is
largely about the transformation of that elemental play (quite literally
elemental the narrator admits to having preferred mud to more sophisticated toys) into games of love. These games consist of reading romances
and exchanging lyrics, gifts, and gestures. The speaker is also the Lover,
in this poem, and the many lyric insertions represent the lover/speakers
own voice and, once, the voice of the lady. After realizing that a ballade the narrator has hidden in a romance, lent to his beloved, has been
returned apparently unread, the narrator composes a complaint. In this
song (ll. ), the narrator expresses his desire for the Lady, already
a esh-and-blood woman, to be turned into an object. After telling the
tale of Apollo and Daphne, the Lover cries,
Pleust or au Roi de lassus
Que ma dame, qui de refus
Sesbat a moi et fait ses jus,
Fust devenue
Uns biaus loriers vers et foillus!
(ll. )
(Now if it had only pleased the King above

That my lady, who entertains herself at my expense
With her refusals and plays her games,
Had become
A beautiful green and leafy laurel!)
He justies this desire by citing Pygmalions love of his sculpted image

and Candaces love of the portrait of Alexander in Le Roman dAlexander,
not mentioning that in these cases the image was a necessary or precursory substitute for a person. The narrator rationalizes that ni voi damage
(I see no harm, l. ) if his harsh beloved were turned into vredure
(greenery, l. ). Upon reection, however, the lover realizes his transgression, claiming, Jai dit, au regarder droiture, / Un grant outrage
(I realize that I have said, in truth, / An outrageous thing, ll. ).
The narrator begins to berate himself for having wished to turn his
lady into a fourme villainne (base form, l. ). He blames Fortune
for having made him express such a wish, but appears to rue the verbal
expression rather than the sentiment behind it. His wish to reify her continues to haunt what seem like conventional formulations: for example,
that his lady blance et vermelle / Est com la rose (is white and red /
Like a rose, ll. ). Comparing his beloveds coloring to a rose could
not be more traditional and courtly, and yet given the context of both the
Roman de la Rose and his stated desire to turn her into another plant, the
laurel, the comparison becomes slightly sinister, and even villainne. The
same image concludes the complaint, as the lover wishes his beloved lady
to advise him on his failed rhymes and embrace his pretty rhymes to her
red and white cheeks (ll. ).
The lover appears more satised by his ladys form when she is absent,
when he goes abroad and she gives him the gift of her mirror. Frustrated
that he can see only his own reection, rather than the image of the lady
that the mirror must have held many times, the lover takes consolation in
his own imagination. Through the powers of his own mind, the lover sees
a perfect impression of
ma dame et de sa gure
Qui se miroit ou mireoir
Et tenoit divore un trechoir
Dont ses cevels demi lons
Partissoit, quelle eut biaus et blons
(ll. )
(my lady and of her face

Which was reected in the mirror,
And she held an ivory comb,
With which she parted her long
Hair, which was beautiful and blonde )
His lady, viewed in the mirror through the power of his imagination,
looks like no one so much as the Oiseuse of the Rose. Yet while Oiseuse
held a mirror and comb, symbols of her vanity and her parodic contemplation, the lady appears to have fully entered the mirror and holds
only her ivory comb. She has lost her contemplative agency, now given
over to the lover who can determine the contents of the mirror with his
imagination. And yet the narrator leaves open the possibility that
the lady still gazes upon herself (se miroit) in the mirror the verb is
ambiguous as to whether she is passively reected, or whether she may
still somehow gaze upon herself, retaining some agency and contemplative power. She is simultaneously rendered a more passive object of
desire and yet exceeds the lovers attempts to make her wholly an object
of his imagination. Given the possibility of the ladys gazing upon herself in a mirror while the lover looks at her in another version of that
very mirror, the lover begins to appear rather concretely as a double
of the lady; her posture and gaze determine his, and yet her gaze is
directed beyond his reach.
It is thus nally the lady herself who accepts her role as laurel, attributing the role to her own imagination. The lover begs to hear his beloveds
voice, and she responds with a poem wherein she transforms the image of
the laurel tree into a symbol of constancy and faithfulness, claiming that
she is au lorier me gure / A tous bons grs (quite happy to / Imagine
myself as the laurel, ll. ). Upon the completion of her poem, the
lover sees her face disappear from the mirror, and wakes disconsolate,
blaming Morpheus for bringing false mercy (grasce vainne, l. ) in
his sleep. This version of metamorphosis of the beloved into an object
to be possessed is clearly dissatisfactory. The lovers frustration stands in
marked contrast to the sentiment of Froissarts earlier Le Paradis dAmour
(c.), which takes place almost entirely inside the dream of a suering lover, ending with the dreamers praise of Morpheus for having comforted him in sleep. Froissart seems to have traveled a path in which
the notion of consolation through dreams or the imagination becomes
increasingly hard to sustain; he appears in the end to demand that dreaming consolation have an eect in reality, or at least to acknowledge that
dreaming pleasure does not compensate for waking sorrow. Rather than
a representation of an uncomplicated source of consoling pleasures, the
dream becomes a vehicle for exploring the possibilities and limitations of
poetic metamorphosis and empathy for addressing loss.
This exploration reaches its climax in Froissarts Prison Amoureuse
(c.). In addition to a Machauldian exercise in dramatizing the
material modes of poetic production, this poem might be seen as a
meditation on the Ovidian poetics of desire present in Froissarts previous poems, bringing to bear an Aristotelian psychology in his descriptions of lovesickness. In the Prison Amoureuse, one nds an encounter
with Ovidian mythology that presents an exploration of the problems
inherent in love and creativity, carried out in the clerkly language of ethics. Froissart is concerned here not only with love as an ethical activity,
but with love as an emotion that allows or impedes ethical thought and
action. In this narrative of poetic exchange between a poet Flos and
his patron Rose, Froissart rewrites the Pygmalion myth along with the
myth of Pyramus and Thisbe as the tale of Pynotes and Neptisphel.
The narrator describes this pseudo-Ovidian tale as more amoureuse
and belle (l. ) than any other material. His hero Pynotes is notably more clerkly than chivalrous, having been de lettre fu moult bien
duis (well instructed in letters, l. ), having studied the seven liberal
arts, and being expert in lescripture (writing, l. ). He falls in love
with Neptisphel and with her enters a golden age garden in which they
have no use for such things as bowls and cups. After they have carried
on this innocent, Edenic love aair for moult lontainne saison (quite
a long time, l. ), Neptisphel is devoured by a erce lion. Pynotes
loss renders him melancholy and lovesick, as one might expect, but it also
specically leaves him unable to make ethical decisions. He dwells on the
contrast between his former self, a counselor and diplomat, and his present inability to counsel even himself; he fears the mockery of those who
would see that the wise poet qui savoit, sans lui marir, / Autrui consellier
et garir, / Ne sest sces garir lui mismes (who infallibly knew what / To
advise or how to cure everyone else / Didnt know how to solve his own
problems, ll. ). He is lost, unable to counsel himself or others, or
to protect or save (garir, l. ) himself. Although once without suffering (grever, l. ) he could tell right from wrong (le bien et le mal
dessevrer, l. ), now he has no way of discerning between the two.
Pynotes suering and his loss in love are repeatedly redescribed as suffering that proceeds from a loss of ethical knowledge.
In the redescribing of grief in love as an injured ethical sense, we can
see the intersection of Aristotelian psychology and ethics with medicine
emerging in the context of vernacular love poetry. Mary Wack has illustrated that the medical discourse of lovesickness, disseminated largely
via commentaries on the Viaticum of Constantine the African, was selfconsciously philosophical and inuenced depictions of love in a wide
range of literary texts. Wack notes that glosses such as those written by
Gerard of Berry in the late twelfth century already reveal intersections
between clerical university culture and vernacular literature. Medicine
was as inuenced by Aristotle as other disciplines, and thirteenth-century commentaries on the Viaticum used the terms of Aristotelian and
Avicennan faculty psychology to discuss the malady of amor hereos,
which was located by both Gerard and Peter of Spain (d. ) in the
virtus estimativa. The imaginations xation on a single object leads the
estimative faculty to overvalue it, judging it to be better, nobler, and
more desirable than any other object. Peter elaborates that while nonpathological love is seated in the heart, amor hereos aects the brain, as
it is a melancholic xation that consists in a disordered imagination that
disturbs self-control and governance. Thus lovesickness in both medical
literature and poetry could signify the ramications of passion in ethical
as well as physical terms. For Pynotes, love itself is not pathologized,
but rather the state of grief he inhabits after the loss of his love object.
Being in love is associated with right judgment and ethical counsel of
oneself and others, being able to tell le bien from le mal. The cure for
lovesickness, in the case of Pynotes, turns out to be a desire for knowledge and creative activity.
The bereaved lover nally decides that he will create what is essentially
a new Galatea, though he will pray to Phoebus rather than Venus, emphasizing the connections between love and knowledge over love and desire.
Furthermore, his recreation of Neptisphel with earth is art inspired by
love rather than Pygmalions art that inspires love. This Pygmalion gure is not out to prove his great skill, as in the Rose, but in the tradition
of Orpheus is seeking to remedy his lost love. Pynotes is in some ways a
manifestation of the refusal to sublimate desire through art; he consciously
recognizes that art is the imperfect solution to temporal loss. Imperfect,
because he does not expect his new Neptisphel to actually be the same
as the person he lost. And yet in this refusal he nds his solution: if art
is to repair loss it must be conceived in ethical terms. Thus in praying for
her to be granted the spark of life, Pynotes strikingly addresses Phoebus
rather than Venus. His prayer, before which he Une foelle de lorier prit /
Et ou rai dou solel le serre (took a leaf from the laurel tree / And holds
it up to the suns rays, ll. ), emphasizes through a reference to the
laurel crown of poets that his prayer is directed through poetry to Phoebus
Apollo, god of poetry and knowledge as well as the sun. His use of the
laurel leaf as a totem in prayer sheds some light on this choice. The lover
of the Espinette who desired outrageously that his beloved be turned, like
Daphne, into a laurel so that he might keep her in sight, is in some way
atoned for by this lover who wishes that Phoebus would kindle that same
leaf so that his inanimate creation might breathe. The real loss through
death that Pynotes suers appears to clarify the fact that love is not satised through possession alone. Pynotes rst doubts that this maiden can
be the same Neptisphel, for he has just shaped her with his own hands
(mes mains); he even wonders if the entire interlude of death and loss
was a dream. The poem forces Pynotes to realize that he will never be
sure that his experience of his beloved is not mediated by or even fully
created by his own shaping, but he nevertheless commits himself to seeing this love through. The maiden wakes from her slumber, desiring
to see her friends and family, and Pynotes himself. The narrator experiences the initial loss of his Lady as an ethical crisis, solved only by creation
in the service of a love that recognizes the other as a subject in a web of
social relations. Here it is the dream that is the space of loss and sorrow,
and reality that is a space of consolation and happiness. Yet what the
dream of loss seems to illustrate is that love allows for ethical decisions
and actions, and loss brings on an ethical malaise; art can repair this loss,
but it should be in the service of love, knowledge, and ethics. The true
amor hereos, for Froissart, is the disturbance of the ethical faculties that
idealization/reication and loss both engender. As a lover and a poet/artist, Pynotes asks for knowledge to be able to love properly; love is both
Edenic natural and simple and the product of study and intellect.
The subsequent playful double-glossing of this narrative by the narrator, Flos, and its generation of allegorical dreams for his interlocutor,
Rose, points to the way that this invented myth guides much of the rest
of the poem and also exceeds any single attempt to interpret its meaning. Rose dreams an allegorical social landscape in which Justice, Pity,
and Reason are left weeping a seemingly pointed commentary on current events. Those same virtues, along with Prudence, Moderation, and
Knowledge, crop up at the end of the poem in Flos nal gloss on the
Phaeton tale (part of Pynotes prayer): Phaeton, incarnation of wild
Desire, fails to live up to the model of rational Love represented by his
father Apollo. One might be tempted to think about the whole of the
Prison Amoureuse, with its context in consolation of the poets imprisoned
patron, as an exploration and a gesture of rational love the possibility of a love that would not disturb the minds judgment, but enhance
it. Such a love is not subordinate to creativity, but rather inspires and
guides it, allowing objects of love to be reanimated. The loving couple
turns outward, as does the revivied Neptisphel, to friends and family,
and society in general. In Froissarts examination of his debts to Machaut
and the trajectory of his own corpus of love narratives, the ethical stakes
of love and love poetry are nally shown not to be concerned with the
impossible pleasure of absolute possession, but with mutual consideration
of desire in the face of contingency. For Froissart and for Chaucer, as we
will see below the problem of identity or distinction between love and
pleasure is manifested as a revision of philosophical ideas about lovesickness. Absent or selsh love creates psychological disturbances that inhibit
proper judgment and counsel, while a full understanding of love and
pleasure allows for a sound mind and body the proper functioning of
the virtus estimativa, and a seemingly paradoxical experience of rational
passionate love.

THE BOOK OF THE DUCHESS
Reading Froissarts poem alongside Chaucers Book of the Duchess,

composed sometime between and , reinforces ones sense that
these poems are both engaged in a self-consciously ethical response to the

tradition of the Rose and the fourteenth-century amorous dream vision.
In many respects, the poem orients its narrative as a direct descendant
of the poetry of Machaut and Froissart. The poem opens with a portrayal of melancholy and sleeplessness, a rst-person account of sorrowful
unrest that is also a loose translation of the opening lines of Froissarts
Paradis dAmour. In allying his narrators sleeplessness with the insomnia of Froissarts poem, Chaucer raises the specter that insomnia is not
simply a physical malady, but an obstacle toward entering a state of
consolation and ethical exploration. As we have seen, sleep is not simply a physical necessity in the French dream vision, but a state conducive or necessary to exploring possible reparations for waking discontents.
Insomnia the refusal to embody others and represent their sorrows and
joys is fully realized in Chaucers poem as a disease akin to lovesickness
with devastating ethical consequences. In The Book of the Duchess we see
the full owering of Froissarts later version of amor hereos in the Prison
Amoureuse what one might call ethical lovesickness: the deadening
of the ethical senses brought on by loss. In Chaucers transformation of
Froissarts earlier poem, lovesickness becomes an intentionally indeterminate malaise. His narrator begins:
I have gret wonder, be this lyght,
How that I lyve, for day ne nyght
I may not slepe wel nygh noght;
I have so many an ydel thoght
Purely for defaute of slep
That, by my trouthe, I take no kep
Of nothing, how hyt cometh or gooth,
Ne me nys nothyng leef nor looth.
Al is ylyche good to me
Joye or sorowe, wherso hyt be
(ll. )
While Froissarts narrator quickly oers his reader a reason for his suering in the tenth line of his poem his memory of the beautiful woman
whom he loves Chaucers narrator never satises us with the cause of
his sickness, instead oering himself as the victim of a generalized ethical apathy. And where Froissarts speaker is a markedly active lovesick
subject he and his thoughts are constantly in a process of laboring/suffering (travellier), and his general state is one of painful eort (travel )
in Chaucers poem, thoughts are idle. Although his narrator claims to
be in sorowe (l. ), his overriding problem is the incapacity to distinguish between joy and sorrow all emotions are alike to the narrator
(ll. ). His sickness is thus manifested as an inability to participate in

ethical reasoning, to discriminate between bad and good, joy and sorrow,
and to know thereby what is best to doo (l. ). The Book of the Duchess
diagnoses the ethical anesthesia of the melancholic, a malady that will
be addressed through an exploration of various kinds of indistinction
between joy and sorrow. Throughout the poem, pain and pleasure coincide, rst in a kind of lovesickness, then in an immature subjectivity that
has yet to experience love, and nally in the heights of mutual romantic
love.
The identity of pain and pleasure as a pathology speaks both to moral
philosophical questions about the motivations of desire (Chaucers narrator is neither leef nor looth) and medical questions about the way
love can become a physical and spiritual malady. Constantines Viaticum
dened eros as an extreme form of pleasure (eros delectationis quedam
est extremitas), in opposition to loyalty, which is an extreme form of love
(dilectionis ultimitas). Aristotles Ethics speaks to the potential incompatibility of the experience of passionate pleasure and prudence, for while
it [sexual pleasure] is being experienced no one is capable of turning his
mind to anything. Aquinas glosses further that no one is capable of
exercising the act of understanding at the time of the act of pleasure.
The heights of erotic pleasure are understood to interfere with cognitive
reasoning, and yet Aristotles Politics claims that the response to pleasure
is part of what fundamentally makes human beings rational and political animals. Aristotle explains the nature of man as a political animal
by rooting the dierence between human and animal in the interpretation and communication of pain and pleasure. While all animals make
sounds that signify experiences of pain and pleasure to each other, human
speech alone communicates the transformation of that experience into
moral judgment. Aristotle explains that human beings are more suited to
political associations than bees and other animals because although all
animals use signs to express sadness and pleasure, human speech
serves to make clear what is benecial and what is harmful, and so also what
is just and what is unjust. For by contrast with the other animals man has this
peculiarity: he alone has sense of good and evil, just and unjust, etc. An association in these matters makes a household and a state.
Having lost his fundamental discernment between joy and sorrow, the
narrator of The Book of the Duchess cannot communicate properly with
others at a basic, animal level, let alone at the human level that transforms
sensory experience into a moral understanding of good and evil, and that
allows for the formation of relationships and communities.
In response to this state of aairs, the poem charts a movement from

aesthetic and thus ethical apathy to an understanding of the sovereign
good, moving from an alikeness marked by undierentiated emotions
and actions to an alikeness born of love and the good itself. Chaucers
narrator, driven almost mad by grief and lack of sleep, experiences an
insomnia that, in the context of medical, philosophical, and amorous discourse, is not simply a physical malady but a bar to the ethical exploration
of love. The political implications of the narrators numbness come to the
fore in a dream sequence in which he is unable or unwilling to connect a
mourning knights song with the knights aect. The re-establishment of
human community and communication via the interpretation of painful and pleasurable love experiences guides the trajectory of the dream
vision.
Chaucers poem likely written to commemorate the death of John of
Gaunts wife Blanche has inspired ongoing critical debate about the
consolation that the poem aords diegetically to the Black Knight, and
extra-diegetically to John of Gaunt, yet the narrator is the only character
within the ction of the poem who could truly be consoled. A possible
cure for the narrators malady is explored through his empathetic stance
to the Black Knights tale in his dream an alikeness born of a full relationship to the good and to another person. Several dierent forms
of alikeness emerge in relation to the poems notion of the good. The
Black Knight suered his own idle alikeness in his youth, a malady that
could be cured through composing lyrics:
For that tyme Yowthe, my maistresse,
Governed me in ydelnesse;
For hyt was in my rste youthe,
And thoo ful lytel good y couthe,
For al my werkes were yttynge
That tyme, and al my thoght varyinge.
Al were to me ylyche good
That I knew thoo; but thus it stood.
(ll. )
In his youth, the knight couthe little good he did not know the good
and had no mastery of the good as a skill. Like the narrator at the start
of the poem, the idle, restless thoughts of the knight thwart his capacity for fruitful work, and render all objects ylyche good. According
to the knights narrative, his ethical apathy is immediately broken when
he chances to see the object of his love he is inspired with the thought
that it were beter serve hir for noght / Than with another to be wel
(ll. ). Like Pynotes, the Black Knights service is more than a
conventional instantiation of the chivalric ethos, but carries the weight of

a variety of ethical discourses chivalric, courtly, medical, and philosophical. The nobility of his love resides in its desirability for its own sake, for
no pleasure or reward. In telling the narrator about his eorts to properly
worship his lady, he reveals that for to kepe me fro ydelnesse, / Trewly
I dide my besynesse / To make songes, as I best koude (ll. ). The
knight thus writes lyrics as best he knows how, his skill in composing and
singing remedying his earlier lack of skill in the good. In serving his
lady, he strives to act without pretence, without slouthe (l. ), and
in proper labor. It is this lady, White, whom the knight has described in
his rst lyric as not only fair, fresh, and fre, but So good that men may
wel se / Of al goodnesse she had no mete (ll. ). He describes her
superlative qualities in a lengthy blazon the alderfayreste (l. ) and
chef myrour of al the feste (l. ). If the knight chiastically embodies
and encompasses sorrow y am sorwe, and sorwe ys y (l. ) then
White seems to embody the sum of all goods. Thus while the knight has
the good in his sights he is able to labor fruitfully, but since its loss, the
very distinction between idleness and labor has collapsed: In travayle is
myn ydelnesse / And eke my reste (ll. ). The knights equation of
idleness, labor, and rest is part of a complete transformation of all goods
into their opposites. He laments, my wele is woo, / My good ys harm
(ll. ). The transformation of his fortunes seems to have endowed
him with the narrators lovesickness: unable to distinguish between good
and bad, all is ylyche to him.
An ethically positive version of alikeness is introduced through the now
familiar gure of Morpheus and the tale of Ceyx and Alcyone, the tale
of mourning love that the narrator reads before falling asleep. The narrative of Alcyones realization of the death of her lost husband a message brought to her in Chaucers version by Morpheus inhabiting Ceyxs
corpse sends the narrator himself o to sleep, and to dream of a similarly bereft gure. The mournful cry, To lytel while oure blysse lasteth!
(l. ), spoken by this dead but supernaturally animated King Ceyx to
his grief-stricken wife, functions as the poems rst linking of joy and
romantic love, of bliss with earthly happiness. The tale of the mournful
Alcyone both consoles the narrator and leaves him more sorrowful than
before he claims both that it saved his life and that it gave him such
pittee and such rowthe / To rede hir sorwe that, by my trowthe, / I ferde
the worse al the morwe / Aftir to thenken on hir sorwe (ll. ).
The tale itself prepares him for his own dreaming invention which will
help resolve his ethical dilemma, as his pittee and rowthe foreshadow
the routhe (l. ) he will feel for the loss of the Black Knight. As
in Machaut, there is comedy in the narrators mobile empathy and his
lighting upon the use factor of a tale that inspires him to pray to the
newfound god of sleep, Morpheus, for a cure for his insomnia. The narrators emphasis on the Morpheus gure is both comically utilitarian and
seriously invested in the fantasy of Morpheus power both to give voice
to the dead and to oer poetic models of metamorphic compassion. The
Black Knights tale of the loss of his great love parallels and expands upon
the brief tale of Alcyones woe, and the routhe to which it moves the
narrator is even more profoundly healing. The doubling of the narrator
as the dreamer of the tale and a sympathetic dream-listener reinforces the
link between reading/listening and creating, as well as the link between
compassion and poetic productivity. As the narrator moves from reading to thinking in the lines quoted above, he models a mode of literary
reception for Chaucers own narrative of sorrow.
This particular version of Ovids tale does the important work of linking dreams with narrative as well as with a reality obscured by daylight
and revealed through the animation of dead, mourned objects. Chaucer
signicantly alters several features of Ovids tale, but one of the most
striking is his description of Morpheus appearing not in the image of
Ceyx, but in his actual corpse. Rather than having Alcyone reunite with
Ceyxs body at the seaside, as in Ovid, Chaucer locates this physical
reunion in her dream, emphasizing the dreamscape and imagination as
a place of reality, embodiment and physical communication. It is Ceyxs
animated body that allows Alcyone, and thus the dreaming narrator, to
hear a particular truth that might console or kill the kings lament that
lifes bliss is too short. There is no question in Ceyxs speech that bliss is
located on earth, though ones response to this bliss is left open. In Ovids
tale, the brevity of this bliss is repaired in the metamorphosis of the two
lovers into seabirds, but, as many commentators have remarked, Chaucer
leaves out the metamorphosis in his tale of Ceyx and Alcyone a typically Chaucerian move that leaves us with a tragic narrative devoid of
comforting transformation or the metamorphosis that allows moralization in the Ovide Moralis. Without the seemingly deathless seabirds, we
are left only with a choice of how to respond to imperfect, brief, contingent earthly bliss. And without this nal metamorphosis, we are left only
with Morpheus as a model for the poetic ability to speak as another and to
oer a perspective on love and life that would otherwise be unavailable.
Yet it seems that Chaucer may not have entirely ignored the moralized
version of Ovids story. The French text tells us that the tragic nature of
the love story is inevitable, given the protagonists attachments to earthly

loves and pleasures. We should learn from the tale that all earthly love,
no matter how true or passionate, is doomed to loss at the hands of fortune. For the author of the Moralis, the Ovidian tale is another version
of the familiar tale of the vulnerable human as a ship in the sea of mortal
life (la troubleuse mer dou monde). Earthly, secular life (li siecle) is
full of pain and sadness, and to covet the little joy available is to commit
the sin of veine gloire. We must learn to cast o earthly delight for the
blessedness of heavenly clart. While these admonitions do not inspire
Chaucer to moralize Ovids tale, nor to make a similar moral clear in his
own tale of tragic romantic love to follow, I would argue that they do
inform Ceyxs cry that To lytel while oure blysse lasteth. This statement is an end in itself, a realization that is not followed by a recommendation of pursuit of a more lasting bliss. Instead, Chaucers poem focuses
on the best way to pursue and experience this earthly happiness, given
that it is so eeting, so rare, and so often ends in pain.
This refusal of transcendence may further account for the changes
Chaucer makes to Ovids narrative. As with Froissarts LEspinette
Amoureuse and La Prison Amoureuse, dreams are a place where loss is
experienced and recognized rather than a place of escape and consolation.
Chaucers Alcyone simply dies of grief three days after her dream. In order
to dramatize the narrators movement from numb despair at the vagaries
of fortune to a productive empathy and narrativity, Alcyone serves as a
useful foil. Chaucer telescopes all of the meaningful action of Ovids
tale so that it occurs within Alcyones dream vision. She grieves, realizes
Ceyxs death, reunites with Ceyxs body, and recognizes the brevity of
earthly bliss all in a single unied state. Her choice to respond to Ceyxs
command to let be her sorrowful life by dying rather than giving up
her sorrow is the interpretive choice an ethical and existential choice
that she makes after having this dream. Chaucers narrator will dream
again and interpret otherwise.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the tale told in the Ovide
Moralis, also conspicuous for its absence, is the desire on Alcyones part
for shared experience and emotion with Ceyx. In both Machauts and
Chaucers version of the tale of Ceyx and Alcyone, Alcyones long speech
asking Ceyx not to go alone over the sea is excised. The version of the
speech in the Ovide Moralis is thrice the length of the speech in Ovids
poem a result not solely of translation from Latin to vernacular, but of
dilation and repetition in Alcyones pleas and questions. Alcyone cautions
Ceyx about the power of the ocean and its winds, but ends her speech
with an appeal that he take her with him, for above all she wishes that
they share whatever good or bad fortune might bring:
Faite un poi de mes aviaux
Si men menez o vous, seviaux,
Si verrai lors que vous ferez
Et savrai de ce que arez
Bien ou mal, que que vous avaigne
Comme paronniere et compaigne
De tout ce que vous avendra:
Ensi si ne me convendra
Douter, fors tant que je verrai
Que je mesmes souerai,
Si serons compaignon et per
Ou de noier ou deschaper.
Ensamble irons par mer nagant.
(.)
(Undertake a portion of my desires; if you lead me with you, at least I will see
how you are and will know in what way you come to good or ill; I will see whatever happens to you as a partner and companion of all that befalls you: Thus it
will not be tting for me to fear, as long as I will see that I will suer in the same
way. Then we will be companions and equal whether we are killed or we escape.
Together we will navigate the sea.)
Alcyone repeats her desire that they be together and, if they must suer, at
least suer the same events. Ceyx, of course, rejects both her requests: he
cannot give up his voyage, and he cannot put his wife at risk. Her wish
to accompany her husband on his travels is not simply the desperation
of a pessimistic wife, but an ethical stance about what it means to be in
love. Her version of love and happiness is not one of unmitigated possession and pleasure, but rather a shared joy and sorrow with ones beloved,
experiencing the good and ill of fortune together. This love that admits
the contingency of pleasure, encompassing the possibilities of both joy
and sorrow, would not, in the end, be alien to the noble beatic love theorized by Ockham.
Although neither Machaut nor Chaucer represent Alcyones plea, her
desire for togetherness and shared suering re-emerges in The Book of the
Duchess rst in the terrible, numbing alikeness that the narrator suers
as a result of his insomnia, and later, transformed into the alikeness
shared by the Black Knight and his beloved White. The Black Knights
idle youth, as well as his idle grief-lled solitude, biographically bookend
an experience of joy and love that is placed at the very end of his narrative. In his description of his requited love for White, the alikeness that
is the keynote of his ethical apathy is transformed into the condition of

highest joy. The poem reaches its climax when the knight describes his
ladys gift of her mercy and her ring as rendering him Of al happes the
alderbeste, / The gladdest, and the moste at reste (ll. ). In this,
the conclusion of the knights tale, he claims that in being taken into his
ladys governance
Our joye was ever ylyche newe
Oure hertes wern so evene a payre
That never nas that oon contrayre
To that other for no woo.
For sothe, ylyche they sured thoo
Oo blysse and eke oo sorwe bothe;
Ylyche they were bothe glad and wrothe;
Al was us oon, withoute were.
And thus we lyved ful many a yere
So wel I kan nat telle how.
(ll. )
This joy is notably a joy that encompasses pleasure and sorrow, happiness
and anger it is the shared status of these emotions that makes them
equally joyous. The language of suering one bliss and one sorrow calls to
mind Alcyones desire that she suer the same bien ou mal as her husband. The compatibility between joy and sorrow recalls not only the long
tradition of loves paradoxes, but also ethical concerns about what constitutes earthly happiness, and what the relationship might be between
love, pleasure, and pain. The coexistence of enjoyment and pain that
Chaucer explores is not the pain inicted by a capricious God, acting
willfully outside the bounds of his potentia ordinata, but rather the love of
an object that is not love in exchange for pleasure.
Thus the knights maturation from callow youth to fullled lover is a
passage toward a particular understanding and experience of the good,
one that is rooted in an alikeness of will, whether that will encounters
joy or sorrow. It is a passage that the narrator must travel as well, one that
he halts at this specic point, for the lines quoted above are the last words
the knight speaks before the narrators question where is she now?
(l. ) breaks him out of his reverie. At this point the knight reveals that
White is dead, to which the narrator can only reply, Is that youre los? Be
God, hyt ys routhe! (l. ). And with that word the hart-hunting is
nished, all return home, and the narrator wakens with Ovids book in
his hand. Upon waking he marvels at his strange dream and commits to
writing it down be processe of tyme (l. ). Peter Travis persuasively
contends that the abruptness of this ending deliberately creates a sense
of discomfort and incompleteness, a way for the narrator to conclude his

talking cure by assimilating his own lack. I would argue further that
the rapid conclusion serves to focus the succession of narration, sympathy,
waking, and writing, thus encouraging the reader to consider the ecacy
of consolation and its relationship to poetry.
In waking with the book of Alcione and Seys the kyng (l. ) in his
hand, the narrator asks his audience to consider how the book they have
just heard or read will change their dreams and thoughts. And he returns
to the question of what Alcyone and Ceyx have to do with the poems
Black Knight, White, and dreaming narrator himself. Morpheus sends
the narrator to sleep to remedy an unspecied illness, and he encounters a gure mourning for a love relationship that embodies the empathetic, ethical opposite of the numbing alikeness between joy and sorrow
from which he and the narrator now both suer. The tale of Ceyx and
Alcyone reveals that fortune both demands an enjoyment that encompasses joy and sorrow and guarantees that this enjoyment will have an
end. We might understand the mourning knight as an incarnation of an
Alcyone who was granted her wish for a fully companionate existence,
but who nevertheless does not escape the fact that one cannot navigate
the seas of death with another person, no matter ones commitment to
courage in shared destinies. Morpheus, god of sleep and human metamorphosis, allows the narrator to experience the slow comprehension of
another persons alikeness through that persons narrative; the ending
of the poem reinforces Machauts insight that another name for shapeshifting sleep is poetry.
Ceyxs impossible narration of his own death begets a meditation on
his insight that our bliss on earth is but too brief. By exchanging the
metamorphosis of the two lovers for the metamorphosis of Morpheus as
he animates Ceyxs body, the poem chooses the corporeal and contingent,
yet nevertheless seeks a comprehensive perspective. Where in Jeans Rose
we cannot help but love and enjoy because we are creative beings, for
Machaut, Froissart, and Chaucer we cannot help but create because we
are loving beings. Art is at the service of love, and this love is sought not
for pleasure, nor for the promise of pleasure, but for the pure expenditure of enjoyment alone, preserving the nobility of fruitio in much the
same terms as Ockham love is still love without pleasure. In The Book of
the Duchess, pleasure and pain are the basis of shared experience that can
be interpreted by a political community that makes judgments regarding whether such pleasure should be leef [or] looth. Lovesickness is not
evidence that passion inhibits rational thinking, but a spur to imagining
possibilities for rational love. Love comes rst for the fourteenth century,
a period grappling with ways to preserve the intelligibility and integrity
of love while dissecting its very components. What philosophers from
Ockham to Buridan demonstrate is that any attempt to dene love in
simultaneously Aristotelian and Christian terms will inevitably bring
about a crisis of motivation and a disjunction within the very experience
of enjoyment up to now assumed to be a seamless experience of love and
pleasure. In the space between the integrity and coherence of the loving
subject and the integrity and coherence of the love experience two poles
now seemingly at odds the poets imagine subjects who acknowledge
that the impossibility of possession and the contingency of happiness
change our very understanding of love and pleasure. The experiences of
alikeness of two lovers, of narrator and interlocutor, of poet and reader,
of bliss and sorrow oered by this poetry provide moments where pleasure is inextricably bound up with shared experience and a shared moral
sense of the world. In these cases, choosing pleasure for the sake of life or
life for the sake of pleasure would indeed appear to be one and the same.
Loves knowledge: fabliau, allegory,

and fourteenth-century anti-intellectualism
Historians have traditionally credited the condemnations of

radically Aristotelian theses with marking a shift in focus in scholastic
philosophy at the close of the thirteenth century. Aristotles emphasis on
contemplation as the highest kind of happiness allowed for occasionally
dangerous-seeming claims about the role of the intellect as a privileged
faculty of the soul, or the superiority of the life of the philosopher. In
the wake of controversies surrounding the intellectualist understanding
of happiness, theologians debated the emphasis on reason, teleology, and
rational pleasure along with the relative roles of the will and the intellect
as seats of enjoyment. John Duns Scotus, William Ockham, and other
late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-century philosophers made reason the handmaiden of the will, questioned Aristotelian teleology, and
continued debates about the nature of enjoyment as the highest good.
While there is thus a true anti-intellectualist strain in the narrow sense
of the intellect as a mental faculty, however, the period is not at all antiphilosophical or anti-Aristotelian. And independent thinkers such as
Godfrey of Fontaines maintained an opposition to the condemnations of
, arguing for the superiority of the intellect over the will. Any resistance to overemphasis on the intellectual faculty may be described more
justly as a critique of radical medieval Aristotelians rather than a critique
of Aristotle himself.
A theologian directly aected by the condemnations denied his licentia docendi because of controversial claims in his commentary on the
Sentences Giles of Rome went on directly to produce one of the most
inuential works of political Aristotelianism, his De Regimine Principum
(c.). Matthew Kempshall observes that while Giles is careful to
restrict himself to a discussion of political happiness in his commentary
on Aristotles Rhetoric, he directly addresses contemplative happiness in
the De Regimine, recommending that a king should have both an active
and a contemplative life, so that he might rule his subjects by means of
the active life, and rule himself by contemplation, devotion, and love of
God. Giles nevertheless oers a modest critique of those who would
locate true happiness solely in contemplation. Book , Part begins by
dening felicity, citing it as the end of all action. Yet he judiciously
criticizes those who have said that speculation is enough for true perfect
felicity, for they placed contemplative life in pure speculation, which is
false, for one is never perfected in such a life, unless he has in him love of
God and charity.
Thus the basic equation between philosophical contemplation and happiness continued to be controversial and in vernacular literary texts
as well as in politics and theology. Questions about the unique claims of
the intellect may be found not only in scholastic discourse, but in secular
literature, with its often comical distrust of stargazing clerks. This intellectual comedy may be read not simply as lay resistance to the claims to
special knowledge made by university types though such resistance is
certainly present but as an investigation of the claims of the intellectual
faculty itself intellectualism in this narrow sense. Vernacular poetry has
its own questions to ask about the relationship between the intellect, the
will, and the individual or common good. Thus just as poetry and philosophy shared a discourse of loving pursuit of ethical and erotic ideals,
so too did they share a vocabulary for investigating the dangers of overreaching intellectualism and the multiplying mirrors of truth, love, and
narcissism.
The perils of an intellectual pursuit that might become a passion
became a common topos in a variety of medieval genres, and one telling way of mapping shifting attitudes toward contemplation is available through the medieval variants of the oft-told tale of Thales. In most
versions, the tale relates the fate of a philosopher who kept his mind so
focused on the pursuit of truth that he walked unnoticing into a well.
In Platos Theaetetus, Thales serves as an example of a man who successfully disregards his body and the material world so that he may pursue
the task of contemplation without distraction. Socrates presents Thales
as an admirable gure comical to the servant girl who laughs at his
misfortune, but, to the intellectually inclined audience, the philosophical ideal. In its medieval context a context where such an ideal comes
under critique from Christian, courtly, and popular perspectives the
tale becomes exceedingly exible, available in myriad versions. Thales and
his philosophical brethren may indeed signify the contemplative ideal,
or may demonstrate the unreliability of all sensory experience, the vulnerability of the male will to female seduction, the dangers of excessive
Fourteenth-century anti-intellectualism
intellectual curiosity, or the vulnerability of the intellect to the intrusions

of the material world. The tale appears to have oered its medieval audience a context for investigating the nature of the intellect itself and the
limits both earthly and divine that human reason encounters.
Later versions of the tale do not always include the laughing servant
girl; in Aesops earlier, but quite similar, fable of an unnamed astronomer,
the hapless man is scolded by an anonymous passer-by. Yet the girl
occasionally transformed into an old woman, as in Christine de Pizans
LAvision Christine often functions as a feminine, physical intrusion
into the raried world of the philosopher. The laughing, admonishing
woman stands for physicality, the material world, and the body in all its
comedy and demands. In an early modern version of the tale, in Michel
de Montaignes Apology for Raymond Sebond, there are additional details
that reinforce the connection between femininity, the material world,
and sexuality. In Montaignes version, Thales stumbles over a stone deliberately placed near the well by the girl. No longer an innocent, if gossipy, witness, the girl is now the agent of Thales fall, having attempted to
teach him a lesson about the importance of observing the world around
him before looking at the stars. Montaigne claims to
gladly acknowledge the Milesian girl, who, seeing the philosopher Thales constantly amusing himself in the contemplation of the celestial vault and always
keeping his eyes upward, put in his way something to make him stumble to
show him that it would be time to amuse himself with things in the clouds when
he had provided for those at his feet.
Distancing himself from the perspective of the girl, Montaigne uses this
anecdote to make a point about such seemingly transparent observation: we have no easier access to the observed world close at hand than we
do to the stars or more remote truths.
The tale of the stargazing Thales is told in a variety of manners in
medieval literature, and by no means do they indicate an increasingly
homogeneous attitude of skepticism. In Chaucers Millers Tale, the
tale is alluded to by the carpenter, John, who laments that the scholar
Nicholas feigning catatonia has lost his wits by paying too much
attention to the stars. He cries that
Men sholde nat knowe of Goddes pryvetee.
Ye, blessed be alwey a lewed man
That noght but oonly his bileve kan!
So ferde another clerk with astromye;
He walked in the feeldes for to prye

Upon the sterres, what ther sholde bifalle,
Til he was in a marle-pit yfalle;
He saugh nat that.
(ll. )
Johns brief parable points to the virtues of the simple man of faith over
the prying attempts of the clerks to understand divine mysteries. Yet the
Miller, in his Prologue, has already set up the parallel between Goddes
pryvetee, the secrets of Gods mysteries, and the pryvetee of a mans
wife signifying both her genitalia and the mystery of the way she parcels
out the gifts of her body and love. The tales irony here lies in the fact that
while John believes that Nicholas has been injured through his attempted
violation of Gods secrets, it is John himself who will be injured indeed
will fall because of his participation in Nicholas scheme to outwit the
supposedly impending ood. Nicholas will also be wounded not for
prying into Gods secrets, but in the process of carrying out his needlessly elaborate plans for adultery and the humiliation of Absolon. In
The Millers Tale, pryvetee comes to signify the object of an excess of
desire both intellectual and erotic; yet this very excess is what appears
to dene desire as experienced naturally by humankind. It is Alison alone
who seems to escape the trap in which one desires what one cannot have
and devalues what has been given.
In The Millers Tale, the single-minded philosophical pursuit of
truth takes on characteristics of the sexual drive. I would argue that this
implication is not so much Chaucers invention as his revelation of an
aspect of the tale of Thales that was always lingering under the surface,
the implicit underside of the servant girls critique: inquiry into the stars
is if not necessarily misdirected sexual energy energy that should be
directed toward concerns in the material world, and the body will inevitably have its desublimating revenge. In considering the discourse of antiintellectualism as it circulated in sermons and fabliaux, it becomes clear
that the stargazing philosopher is understood to tend inevitably toward
either a pit in the earth or the pit of desire. These critiques of intellectual pursuit are bound up with a humor rooted in the intractability of the
material world and sensuality. Whether that intractability is lamented, as
it often is in sermon or advice literature, or comically celebrated, as it is in
courtly contexts, it becomes clear that the intellect is not only vulnerable
to the passions, but is itself a kind of passion, and that the philosopher
hardly merits his position as limit case of mans invulnerability to material concerns or sexual desire a position we will see that he holds in the
imagination of the sermon exemplum. Rather, the philosopher becomes
a gure for the inherent susceptibility of the intellect and the intellectual,
and for the location of the virtuous person within the world, a dethroning
of Aristotle that Aristotle himself might well have predicted.
While the previous chapter explored the way that Aristotelian ethics
contributed to a poetic and philosophical engagement with enjoyment
that encompasses both joy and sorrow, the current chapter explores the
way that Aristotelian denitions of cognitive pleasure contributed to a
similar engagement with an enjoyment that encompasses both intellect
and will. Below I explore a tradition that seems to diverge from the strand
of courtly play with clerkly terminology and ideas that this book has
focused on thus far; the two texts that are my greatest concern here
Guillaume de Deguilevilles Plerinage de Vie Humaine and William
Langlands Piers Plowman are notable for their resistance to intellectualism, and in some instances their outright critique of Aristotelian
philosophy. Deguileville identies himself as a monk and writes a poem
interested in the ethical adventures of the human life, while Langland
similarly invests his poem with concerns for contemporary politics
and transcendent truth. Yet Deguileville, in his rst version of the Vie
Humaine, locates his inspiration in the Roman de la Rose, and both poets
engage with and transform the Rose s erotic discourse into a larger meditation on human desires. The eroticintellectual tradition that grew out
of the Rose thus exceeded its courtly context, inuencing poetry that was
neither of the court nor of the university, and the nexus of eros and intellect became a site for ethical speculation and exploration in poetry outside the contours of the genres of romance and dit.
I argue here that fourteenth-century poetry engaged with the Rose as
a way of exploring Aristotelian transformations of enjoyment as an ethical and volitional goal. Both Deguileville and Langland write about love
as a means to the ethical life while occupying two poles of late medieval critiques of intellectualism: one pole stresses the limits of the intellect
in the face of Gods wisdom, while the other stresses the vulnerability
of intellectual pursuit to the intrusions of sexuality and materiality. In
the imagination of vernacular poetry, these two modes of critique persistently serve to place both Gods grace and human sexuality outside
the purview of Aristotelian philosophy. Aristotelian rationality alienates
the Philosopher from both miraculous illumination and earthly eroticism and makes him vulnerable to seduction and critique from both divine and physical perspectives. Yet despite the overt attempts that both
Deguileville and Langland make to distance themselves from clerkly
pursuits of ontological and ethical knowledge, they nevertheless work
in the terms of both Aristotle and the Rose. Thus Deguileville critiques
Aristotle as not having access to the whole of wisdom, which includes
the miraculous and paradoxical truths enabled by the grace of God, yet
remains indebted to Aristotles knowledge about the natural world and
human ethics. Langland, on the other hand, is more interested in the way
that the intellect is limited by its susceptibility to eros and the material
world, and the possibility that intellect, will, and grace might be unied.
Both poets explore the ways in which the intellect alone will not tell the
abstract human will or embodied pilgrim about Gods truths or how to
do well. As we will see below, both scholastic philosophy and poetic
allegories were concerned that morality not be made a simply speculative
problem; the ability to do well must inhere in subjective desire as well as
in accurate judgment of proper action in a particular or general case. And
yet, of course, it is this same desire that provides the most intractable ethical challenges to living a good vie humaine. By making speculative reasoning an act of love and thus rendering love a rational act medieval
Aristotelian philosophy threatened the centrality of desire as the dramatic
site of sin, virtue, and alienation from or enjoyment of God. The erotic
mirror of love thus became a site for exploring the renewed battle between
the will and the intellect for the heart of human ethical experience.

The synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy with Christian love was reected
in the courtly literature of the thirteenth century, though in a much
more playful manner. The apparent disconnection between Aristotelian
philosophy and understandings of the human will begin to account for
Aristotles association with intellectualism, and thus for the fact that
he was transformed into a fabliau character at just about the same time
that he was entering the canon of medieval philosophy. While scholastic philosophers were translating and commenting on newly available
Aristotelian texts, Aristotle became a gure of fun and a symbol for the
power of erotic love, such that he could later be witnessed in a parade of
conquered men by the narrator of Gowers Confessio Amantis: Aristotle
Whom that the queene of Grece so / Hath bridled That he foryat al
his logique. This topos of the mounted Aristotle, bridled by the queen
of Greece, was deployed in all manner of contexts, but at least one strand
focused on the philosopher as a gure for the dominance of the intellect at the expense of both bodily and spiritual desire, with the seduction and humiliation of Aristotle functioning as revenge for intellectual
hubris. At possibly the same time that Guillaume de Lorris was writing
his Roman de la Rose (c.), Henri dAndeli was writing his popular Lai
dAristote (c.), a humorous tale of Aristotles seduction by the
paramour of his student, Alexander. An engagement with philosophical concerns is not surprising in the poetry of Henri, author of four dits
including the Bataille des Sept Arts, and one of the earliest of vernacular
Parisian poets. Writing in the milieu of the University of Paris, Henri has
been understood to respond to the new dominance of Aristotelianism in a
variety of ways. There is clear appeal to both an educated Parisian audience and a non-intellectual audience in a light-hearted story in which the
Philosopher himself is shown to disregard his own teachings and to fall
victim to the seductions of a beautiful woman; Henris tale appears to be
the rst textual version of the widely popular mounted Aristotle story.
In its various versions, Alexanders lover scorned because of the advice
given by Aristotle revenges herself by convincing the philosopher to let
her ride upon his back. Henris courtly tale was followed by versions told
in Latin sermons, where men tricked by women are made into exempla,
and in iconographic depictions of the bridled philosopher in sculpture,
tapestry, and manuscript decoration.
In these contexts, images and tales of the seduction of Aristotle were
often used to demonstrate the extreme sexual vulnerability of all mankind, made manifest by the fall of the archetype of the wise philosopher,
and also used to explore the vulnerability of the intellect itself as it ignores
the force of the physical world and human desire. While medieval moralists were drawn to a tale easily interpreted in terms of the dangers of
wily women and sexuality in general so dangerous that even Aristotle is
compelled to fall the poets were equally drawn to dissect the assumptions that allow us to accept that an intellectual should be considered least
vulnerable to such compulsion, or that human reason always functions
as a check to desire. The pursuits of the intellect are themselves already
rendered erotic through the tradition of vernacular love poetry, associated with the world of learning in the wake of Jean de Meuns Rose. The
mounted Aristotle thus oered the medieval reader and viewer a rich
topos for an investigation of the inherent connections between philosophy and eros, rather than a simple proof of the universality of masculine
weakness and feminine sexual treachery.
A focus on philosophy and eros is manifest in Henri dAndelis version
of the tale, which emphasizes the seductress manipulation of the philosophers narcissism. Aristotle, having advised Alexander to cast o his lover
and focus on more pressing matters, arrives at abashed self-knowledge
and knowledge about the ways of desire through the clever revenge of the
maiden. In the Lai dAristote, the philosopher falls in love with the beauty
of his pupils paramour, but he is particularly charmed by her evocation
of masculine desire as she sings. The rst moment of lyric seduction narrated by the poem, as Aristotle gazes at the girl in li vergers plains de
verdure (the garden full of greenery, l. ), oers him the spectacle of
a beautiful woman voicing the desire of a man gazing upon a beautiful
woman:
Cest la jus desoz lolive
Or la voi venir, mamie!
La fontaine i sort serie,
El glaioloi, desoz launoi
Or la voi, la voi, la voi,
La bele blonde! a li motroi!
(ll. )
(There beneath the olive tree, now I see her arrive, my sweetheart. There the
fountain ows gently, and the gladioli beneath the alder. Now I see her, I see her,
I see her, the beautiful blonde. To her I surrender myself.)
Placed in the traditional locus amoenus, this parodic lover gazes not into
the fountain beneath the olive tree, but at the lovely bele blonde. Yet
even without the conventional mirror-gazing evoked by the presence of
the fountain, the narcissistic structure of the desire awakened in the philosopher is inescapable: he falls in love by being presented with the lyric
image of his own desire. Anne Ladd observes that the rst two songs,
both from a mans point of view, are meant not to express emotion on the
part of the speaker, but to create an attitude in the listener, and the trick
is spectacularly successful. Aristotle exclaims, Ha! Diex quar venist
ore / Cist mirors plus pres de ci! / Si me metroie en sa merci (Ah, God,
[if] this mirror might come closer! I would place myself in her mercy,
ll. ). Aristotle has here, much like the troubadour poets or the Lover
in the Rose of Guillaume de Lorris, fallen prey to an idealized image of
his own desire one might say he has fallen for poetry itself. The mirror
of truth now holds an image of the sage in love, and Aristotle is inevitably
entranced.
Beyond the courtly pleasure in the performance of the pucele and
her lyrics, or the comic pleasure of the philosopher saddled by the girl
and paraded to the satisfaction of Alexander, the poem oers a variety of
ways to interpret the tale; its moral is oered and revised several times
by the poet. Aristotle himself oers the poems audience the rst lesson,
and one that will prove appealing for future moralists: he claims that if
his fall surely illustrates the diculty that the emperor of wisdom has
in escaping seduction and shame, so much more then should the youthful and lusty Alexander be wary of such a fate. Such a face-saving moral
oered by the shamed Aristotle, just having been dismounted by the
girl, is all too tempting to dismiss. The narrator voices the possibility of
cynicism at Aristotles moralizing, and gives us a second lesson in Catos
adage that Turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum (The teacher
is a fool when his guilt contradicts his teaching, l. ). Aristotles foolishness is compounded here, as we are reminded that he was not simply
seduced into acting the fool, but seduced after giving advice against love
that he himself could not follow. Finally, at the very conclusion of the lai,
the narrator, now identied in the third person as Henri, interprets his
tale as an illustration of the power of love: amors vaint tout et tout vaincra / Tant com cis siecles durera (love conquers all and all will conquer,
as long as time itself endures, ll. ). As love is a universal, natural,
inescapable phenomenon, lovers and their beloveds should thus be free
from blame. This nal conclusion leads Susan Smith to observe that the
Lai dAristote in contrast to other versions of the legend works as an
argument in favor of the courtly principle that love is all-powerful and
the source of happiness.
The poem thus oers a variety of readings, and several explicit interpretations of what the audience witnesses in the moment that Aristotle
falls for the pucele. He may be the universal male subject, his wisdom
cast aside in the moment that a beautiful woman appears. He may be
the foolish teacher, inevitably fated to engage in behavior opposed to his
advice. Or he may be a courtly lover, compelled by Nature and Love to
surrender to the love object who appears in the proper place the garden
with a fountain of love. Surely he may be all of these at once conquered
man, fool, and idealized lover for all of these gures inform the reception of the fallen Aristotle myth into the late medieval and early modern period. The strand I will follow here is the strand that associates the
compulsions of Nature and Love with Aristotle as an intellectual gure
a combination of the gures of the foolish teacher and the lover. This
Aristotle is not simply tricked despite his wisdom, but tricked because of
his wisdom; he is a gure for the notions that intellectual pursuit cannot work as a prophylaxis against desire, and that intellectual contemplation can in fact leave one vulnerable to the very physical world that one
attempts to transcend. Intellectual pursuit is all too easily transformed
into erotic pursuit or revealed to have been originally transformed from
erotic desire as these comic narratives reveal the sublimation at work in
the discourse and the material circumstances of homosocial philosophical study. The initial partnership of Aristotle and Alexander is eroticized
by its association with the tale of seduction that ensues; such a reading is
often encouraged by the depiction of the narrative in the visual arts, as the
knightclerk couple is shown to be disrupted by the maiden, who creates another visual pairing. Alexander might furthermore be understood
to top Aristotle via his proxy, the maiden, thus securing his continued
access to his own erotic pleasures. This critique combines courtly verities
(the power of love) with fabliau sensibilities and medieval Christian discomfort with the idea that one can reach any kind of truth through philosophy alone. As the Philosopher, Aristotle is an easy target for such
critique, though we might acknowledge that the inescapability of fortune
and the physical world are truths taught by the sage himself.
It is this wise Aristotle whom we nd rehabilitated in Jacques de Vitrys
sermon, which along with Henris lay was the earliest and best known
of the versions of the Aristotle legend. In Jacques de Vitrys narrative,
Aristotles face-saving moral if the most prudent of all mortals (prudentissimum inter omnes mortales) could be held captive, then so much
more should his pupil fear for his own seduction is judged acceptable
by Alexander and thus stands as the moral of the sermon itself. With
his wise words, the philosopher soothes the kings anger and closes the
sermons narrative. While in Henris tale the courtly appreciation of the
power of love wins out, Jacques sermon asserts the power of sexual desire
as a debilitating, feminizing, humiliating force. Yet this moral does not
critique the philosophers disdain for earthly concerns, but rather uses
Aristotle as an example of the wise man who should be least vulnerable to
physical seduction. In another Latin and later vernacularized version
of the tale, Aristotles status as philosopher is much more important.
The Lamentationes of Matheolus, translated by Jehan le Fvre (c.),
tells this tale of woman over wisdom and emphasizes the inversion of
grammar, logic, gender, and nature when a woman rode Aristotle.
The speaker, Matheolus, scornfully asks why nature, reason, and justice did not gallop to the philosophers aid, and nally wonders What
will philosophy say when the great master was tricked by the gure of
amphibology? In this instance, Aristotle does not stand for the weakness
of men or humankind in the face of sexual seduction, but for the weakness of philosophy itself in the face of feminine ambiguity, doubleness,
and sexuality. Matheolus avers that practitioners of the liberal arts are
in constant and perpetual confusion because of Aristotles actions. An
Aristotelian commitment to reason, justice, and the virtuous operations
of the intellect in no way insulates a man from the madness of passion.

Aristotles fall does not here demonstrate the fallibility of all men, but
rather the confusion wrought upon philosophers when sexual desire
turns their particular world upside-down, giving the lie to the idea that
the cultivated life of reason insulates one from the vagaries of the will.
Aristotelian philosophers, who privilege intellectual contemplation as the
best ethical life and the route toward truth about things both human and
divine, are particularly susceptible to such confusion.
With this very brief survey I do not pretend to have singled out a particularly dominant strand of interpretation of the mounted Aristotle
topos, but simply wish to point out a possibility that has not garnered
much attention in recent criticism. As Smith points out, the topos of the
mounted Aristotle has no single textual referent, no dominant univocal interpretation, and no stable context across religious, courtly, or
philosophical discourse. The Aristotle legend spoke to a variety of interests and anxieties that have been widely acknowledged the power of
women, the power of eros, the fallibility of wise men, and the conict
between secular and clerical values but it also spoke to a simultaneous
fascination with and skepticism about the power of the intellect. As we
saw in the Roman de la Rose, the erotic mirror and the speculative mirror
are linked by a spectrum of loving, narcissistic, and contemplative behavior, and the philosophers mirror is perhaps less immune to the dangers
of desire than one might expect. The intellect as vulnerable to the concupiscent will and, even more markedly, the intellect as itself an aspect
of overcharged sexual desire, are pointed concerns of fourteenth-century
poetic discourse.

Before turning to the critiques of intellectualism in the allegories of
Deguileville and Langland, it will be useful to turn to scholastic concerns about the integrity of intellectual enjoyment. A conict between
intellectualism and voluntarism, as the introduction to this chapter discussed, was a marked feature of fourteenth-century philosophy, meaning that many philosophers wrote about the aective or volitional versus
rational aspects of human nature, the active or free character of the will
with respect to reason, or the freedom of Gods will. Another hallmark
of voluntarism, and the one with which I am most concerned here, is the
notion that beatitude or happiness inheres more in the will than in the
intellect. This will the faculty that seeks the good and chooses to act
rightly or wrongly is distinctly not the sensual or concupiscent appetite,

but the rational or intellectual appetite. Much scholastic resistance to
intellectualism was rooted in the observation that people simply do not
always act with the good as a goal; we do not, as Aristotle would have it,
consistently orient ourselves toward some good, whether that good is
mistaken or not. Voluntarist philosophers were concerned with the seeming problem that if the only impediment toward moral action is a proper
intellectual understanding of the good, then all ethics becomes speculative. As Bonnie Kent summarizes, The desire for happiness is natural,
and reason enables us to pursue happiness in a suitably enlightened way,
but reason is not what makes us free, and even the rational pursuit of
happiness is not what makes us morally admirable. As with the concern for the motivations of love of God, discussed in the previous chapter, scholastic concern about the seat of enjoyment derives at least in part
from a concern for loves nobility. For a human being to love ethically, to
have a well-directed will, he or she must do more than act rationally; one
must choose among many competing desires, and choose God despite
the attractions of other competing objects. Choosing God out of clearsightedness is simply not as morally admirable as choosing God and all
attendant actions in a victory of the will that is pulled in many dierent
directions, not all of them good.
In inuential texts, such as Bonaventures Itinerarium Mentis in Deum,
concerns about the dominance of the intellect can seem like wholesale
anti-intellectualism. Bonaventure (c.) describes the seventh stage
of the minds journey as one in which all intellectual operations should
be abandoned, and the whole height of our aection should be transferred
and transformed with God. The Franciscan quotes pseudo-Dionysius
Mystical Theology advising that the seeker of God should abandon [his]
senses and intellectual operations. In a series of binary opposites that
sum up a mystical voluntarism, Bonaventure addresses his reader, advising If you should ask how these things come about, question grace, not
instruction; desire, not intellect; the cry of prayer, not pursuit of study;
the spouse, not the teacher; God, not man; darkness, not clarity
Bonaventure does not deny the importance of intellectual pursuit more
generally, but we are clearly a world away from Aristotles elevation of
philosophical reason as the key to the highest human happiness. John
Duns Scotus (c.) similarly held that happiness is an act of the
will, arguing that the will is the seat of virtues such as temperance, fortitude, and justice, as well as the location of the desire for happiness; the will
desires happiness in particular (in particulari) and not as a universal,
and so happiness is an object of the will rather than the intellect. Yet
while Scotus revises Aristotle, who locates temperance and fortitude in
the concupiscent appetite and justice alone in the will, he nevertheless
argues his case with support from the Nicomachean Ethics, Metaphysics,
and Physics quite easily alongside St. Pauls letters to the Corinthians and
Philippians. He takes pains to preserve the freedom of the will, arguing
that while the will of a pilgrim in this life (voluntas viatoris) mostly
wishes for happiness, he does not necessarily will it either in general or in
particular. As with the denitions of pleasure discussed in the previous chapter, most theologians sought to harmonize the Aristotelian and
Augustinian perspectives, and marshaled Aristotle in arguments for the
primacy of the will as well as the primacy of the intellect. As we will see
below, each philosopher works to recruit Aristotelian philosophy for his
way of understanding enjoyment, often in ways that render attempts to
summarize Aristotelianism nearly impossible.
Ockhams commentary on the Sentences explicitly attempts to reconcile
arguments for the primacy of the intellect versus the will. For Ockham,
enjoyment is a product of both awareness of God and love of God; he
emphasizes, however, that there is no pleasure without the operation of
the will i.e., love. Ockham presents Aristotles denition of enjoyment, lending support to the argument that enjoyment is an intellectual
act: Enjoyment [fruitio] is formally [the same as] blessedness, because it is
so called from fruit, which is something ultimate, and blessedness is like
this. But according to the Philosopher in Ethics [] and [, a],
blessedness is an activity of intellect. Therefore enjoying will be an activity of intellect. Against this idea, Ockham introduces Augustines definition of enjoyment as love, arming that love is solely an act of will.
Ockham sides with the voluntarist perspective, stating that enjoyment is
thus solely an act of will, and yet he saves the Aristotelian argument by
assuring us that
it is important to understand that when I say that enjoying is solely an act of
will, I do not mean to deny that properly speaking and in virtue of [the strict
meaning] of the terms [de virtute sermonis] enjoying is an act of the intellect, for
as I will show elsewhere intellect and will are entirely the same [thing]. Hence
whatever is in the intellect is in the will and conversely.
Still, enjoyment is not cognitive for Ockham, not an act of understanding

or knowing, but rather the showing of an enjoyable object to the will by
the intellect. In this life, the will actively responds to this beloved object,
while as regards the beatic act, the will is only passive. The freedom of
the will must be preserved, but so too the freedom of God, for ultimately
God alone is the eective cause of enjoyment, and this [is] because of
the nobility of blessedness itself. Medieval writers did not understand
this vision as standing in contrast to Aristotelian philosophy, but rather as
the necessary fruit of Christian love, Aristotelian felicity, and theoria.
Jean Buridans questions on the Ethics similarly situate enjoyment as
an act of both the intellect and the will. For Buridan, simply, these are
the two powers by which we understand and love God, respectively.
Buridans understanding of the Aristotelian suciency of happiness
demands that happiness consist in an act of the will and an act of the
intellect: happiness is not knowledge of God without love or love without knowledge but is made up of both. Speaking as an Aristotelian in
his commentary on the Ethics, Buridan is fully comfortable with happiness dened as an aggregate with many dierent connotations and
components. He works successfully to synthesize Boethius Platonic definition of happiness as a perfect condition consisting in the union of all
goods with Aristotles denition of felicity as the most excellent faculty
of the human mind engaged in the most virtuous activity, with the best
object. He arms that what is best is an act of thought regarding the
divine essence, but adds that this act should not be cut o from its connotations (connotationibus) of all good things that are prerequisite to
this act, nor the good things that follow from it. Buridans happiness
is thus dened primarily as a contemplative act of the intellect, though
it includes a contemplative act of the will. Buridan allies happiness with
self-reection, noting that the blessed not only love and understand God,
but they can understand reexively, and they understand that they understand and love and take pleasure. While enjoyment may be separated
into its component parts the clear vision of God (intellect) and loving
God (will) the happiness of the soul as a whole consists in this love and
vision combined. For Buridan, furthermore, this denition of happiness
as an act of knowledge and of love applies equally to the afterlife and to
this life on earth, and is as true for laypeople as it is for clergy dedicated
to the contemplative life.
Yet even in texts that are unqualiedly in concert with thirteenth-century Aristotelianism as in Nicole Oresmes translation and commentary on the Ethics, which takes much of its content from the commentary
of Aquinas there is a marked concern that intellectualism not lead to
an assumption that perfect knowledge is available to people during their
mortal lives. Oresme, who arms that parfaicte felicit est en speculacion, nevertheless warns his reader that this does not mean that mortals
should seek after divine truths. He echoes Aquinas gloss on Aristotles

statement that we should not follow those who advise us that homme
doit seulement sentir et savoir choses humaines, ne homme mortel ne doit
savoir fors seulement choses mortels (human beings should only understand and learn human things, and mortals should study only mortal
things), noting that such restriction was wrongly advised by Simonides
the poet. Aquinas only arms and explains Aristotles meaning. Yet
Oresme notes that it seems as though Simonides had a point, for Cato
says, Cum sumus mortales, quaesitum mortalia, and Ecclesiasticus :
advises Altiora te ne quaesieris (Do not seek after things that are too
high for you). He concludes that
il est a entendre que len ne doit pas enquerir des secrz de Dieu ne de choses
curieuses et lesquelles len ne pourroit savoir. Mais il est tres bon denquerir de
Dieu et des choses divines ce qui est possible a savoir en ceste vie.
(One must understand that one should not inquire about the secrets of God nor
about curious things and those things about which one cannot know. But it is
very good to inquire about God and divine things about which it is possible to
know in this life.)
Whether Oresme is warding o criticism or making his own intervention, it is clear that he saw the need to defend Aristotelian intellectualism from overstepping its bounds into the realm of curiosity. Assent to
reason as the highest human faculty, even the most divine of human faculties, and to speculation as the happiest of enterprises, does not mean
that one assents to the idea that such contemplation can grant access to
Gods secrets.
Thus, much like the scholastic discussions of pleasure, discussions of
the relative participation of the will and the intellect in enjoyment sought
to preserve the integrity, freedom, and nobility of both the pursuit and
experience of human and beatic happiness. While Aristotelian ethics
was committed to the primacy of the intellectual faculty, it was demonstrated to be not incompatible with voluntaristic understandings of
ethics and enjoyment. In their various attempts to understand the mental and spiritual location of bliss, philosophers clearly chose their sides in
the conict between wit and will oering greater nobility or controlling status to one faculty or the other but Aristotles philosophy was
saved by both sides. Such harmonizing was not necessarily the goal of
the vernacular literature that addressed the dangers and limits of intellectualism, though this literature is similarly invested in Aristotelian ethics. The comic appeal of the wayward Thales and the conquered Aristotle
intersected with earnest inquiries into the nature of the human mind and
soul, the desire for earthly and divine happiness, and the mind and will
of God himself.

Explorations of the composition of human desire and experience made
their way into vernacular literature in various guises, from allegorical
narratives of the conict between wit and will to the narrative of the
souls ascent to the beatic vision in Dantes Paradiso. These vernacular
poetic representations of the faculty of the will range from a stark contrast
between Witte e wise kyng and Wille e wick in the fourteenthcentury allegory The Conict of Wit and Will to an imagining of the will as
the site of the highest enjoyment, aided by the intellect. It is within such
a range of responses that we nd Guillaume de Deguilevilles Le Plerinage
de Vie Humaine, a poem that seems at rst glance to be fairly uncompromising in its dismissal of Aristotelian philosophy as a route to understanding
of the world or of the divine. Yet its dialogic structure in fact illustrates the
necessity of philosophical pursuit of the good. In its form a combination
of allegorical narrative and allegorical dialogue the poem exposes its
inheritance from the Roman de la Rose, an inheritance also explicitly
alluded to by the poet. The narrator tells us that while awake, he had
read, studied, and looked closely at the beautiful Romance of the Rose,
and that this poem was what moved him to have the dream he will
relate. The inuence of the Rose colors a poem that does not at all seem to
be a part of either the scholastic or the courtly world, nor is it interested in
the vagaries of erotic desire, but rather in the narrative of the human soul
as it struggles against temptation and seeks after virtuous living. The audience is quickly introduced to a recasting of the Roses garden of delight as
the high-walled and beautiful city of Jerusalem, seen from afar in a mirror,
large beyond measure. It is clear that this dream inspired by the Rose
will have a dierent path of desire in mind poverty is here a necessity
for entering the locus amoenus where in the Rose it was a certain barrier,
captured in a portrait on the outside of the garden wall yet Deguilevilles
poem is no less committed to the pursuit of a love object. Le Plerinage de
Vie Humaine does not invert the imagery of Guillaume and Jeans poem
simply to undermine its courtly, secular themes, but rather turns its compelling narrative of desire to heavenly ends.
As in the Rose, this narrative is a process of ethical self-knowledge, a
knowledge that occupies the space between the two poles of narcissism
and contemplation of divine truth. The centrality of self-knowledge to

Deguilevilles poem inheres not only in the image of the mirror but, as
Sarah Kay notes, in the consistently human dimension of the space of
the poem, as its spaces of action are identied most often with human
usage (house, hedge, ship, etc.). Deguileville thus redirects the energy of
the Rose s engagement with Aristotelian philosophy so that it might serve
to expose the dangers and the limits of human desire. The Lovers dream
that proved so productive for both Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de
Meun, allowing for an exploration of desire as it encounters other people,
received wisdom, courtly mores, linguistic boundaries, and creative possibilities, is here universalized, freed from courtly constraints and erotic
context. In this dream of everyman, desire is for metaphysical and ethical
knowledge, yet it is a desire no less threatened by the irrational, the passionate, and the philosophical.
An obvious episode in which one might investigate the poems attitude toward Aristotelian philosophy occurs in the character Grace Dieus
recounting of a debate about the Eucharist staged between Aristotle
acting as Natures clerk and Sapience. At rst glance, Deguilevilles
depiction of Aristotle seems to function as a dismissal of the philosopher,
a clearing away of all rational impediments to faith in the miracles of
Christianity. Aristotle overtly serves as a gure of stubborn rationality
in the face of the miracle of the Eucharist, yet his role as Natures clerk
opens up a dialogue about human desire in all its dimensions. Sapience
herself corrects the philosophers resistance to the notion that bread could
be composed of the body of Christ, or that the part of any substance
could be equal to or greater than the whole. She reminds him that she did
not in fact impart to him the whole of her art, but rather withheld some
of her knowledge, rendering Aristotles philosophy a discourse in which
wisdom may only be sought with the knowledge that some unidentiable
portion of art and science will always remain unreachable. It is not that
Aristotelian philosophy or, by extension, philosophy in general differs in kind from Christian wisdom, but that it diers only in its claims
to completeness. By introducing this lack into Aristotelian philosophy,
Sapience renders it irrational in Aristotles own terms, under which
rational, ethical desire must be for something that we can actually obtain.
In the poem, Aristotle accepts this description of his learning and proceeds to engage in debate about the relationship between the part and the
whole, and between the appearance and the substance of objects.
It is the dialectical space between intellectual pursuit identied with
Aristotle and wisdom identied with Gods grace that oers an
experience and understanding of both earthly creation and beatic enjoyment. In correcting Aristotles views on the relationship between the
inner and outer appearances of things, Sapience asks if he had ever seen
either outside or inside how big the human heart is? (Veis tu onques ne
hors ne ens / De cuer domme la quantite? ll. ), and what it would
take to ll or satisfy an organ so small that, as the philosopher admits, a
hungry bird would not nd it satisfying. Aristotle answers that if [the
heart] had the whole world at its command, that would not be enough to
ll it up and satisfy it (li sauoler, / Li remplir et assasier / Tout li mondes
pas ne pourroit, / Se tout a son vouloir lavoit, ll. ). Here Aristotle
redenes lack: it is not constitutive of the world, but rather constitutive of
human desire; one might possess everything it is possible to possess, and
yet remain wanting. His emphasis is not on the fact that the world is missing something, but that the heart by its very nature can never be lled.
Nevertheless, he claims a few lines later that one sovereign good will ll
it completely (l. ). Aristotles articulation of this paradox is used to
demonstrate the emptiness of his initial criticism of Sapiences eucharistic doctrine. Sapience may now argue that an object which exceeds the
world the sovereign good can nevertheless be contained in the small
space of a persons heart. This biau conte inspires the pilgrim with great
hunger, and he asks Grace Dieu if he might eat some of this bread Pour
mon vuit cuer assasier (To ll my empty heart, l. ).
What interests me about this exchange is that although Aristotle must
be schooled in the miracle of the Eucharist, his knowledge about human
desire and its relationship to the sovereign good goes unchallenged. It is
through the dialogue between the goddess, Sapience, and the Philosopher,
Aristotle, that the reader comes to an understanding of the insatiability of
human desire and the miraculous capacity for God, as sovereign good, to
satisfy this desire. In an example that takes us back to the opening of the
poem and the mirror that displays the object of human desire (Jerusalem,
a rose), Sapience further refutes Aristotles physical theories by pointing
out that the shards of a broken mirror each contain the complete reection of the whole. While the mirror itself has multiplied, its multiplicity
produces unity and singularity; rather than a singular mirror a fountain of love creating desire for a contingent object, these multiple mirrors contain one unchanging image. Yet while the shattered mirror may
metaphorically refute Aristotelian physics (as a smaller substance contains
the same amount as a larger substance), it harmonizes with Aristotelian
ethics every act and person seeks the good, and the sovereign good
may thus be seen in every mirror. Even after the debate ends, or rather
founders Aristotle admits that he can win nothing against Wisdom

herself Aristotelian philosophy, and particularly the Ethics, remains
a resource of wisdom about desire, pleasure, and the good. Grace later
points the dreamer to this book for an understanding of the ways that
not all things bring pleasure or use-value in the same way to everyone
(). In the famous ABC prayer of the third book, later translated
by Chaucer, the poet closes with an et cetera that claims
Ethiques savoie lu
Tout recorde et tout scu
Et aprez rien nen ouvrass.
(ll. )
(I have read the Ethics, and understood and remembered it all, but afterwards
did nothing about it.)
While the content of the Ethics may be irreproachable, book learning is

clearly not sucient for moral behavior; the narrator has done no work
(ouvrass) with the materials of the Ethics. Far from a rejection of Aristotle,
Deguilevilles poem demonstrates the ways that Aristotelian philosophy,
in dialogue with beliefs in Augustinian grace, can guide the human pilgrim in the good life.
Deguilevilles versions of Aristotle oer a way to keep the central
insights of Aristotelian ethics that self-knowledge is tied to pursuit of
the sovereign good, that desire for the changeable good is endless and
irrational, that virtuous action requires more than mere speculative understanding while maintaining space for grace and unknowable miracles.
Deguilevilles version of the mounted Aristotle in this case dialectically mastered and topped by Sapience herself gives us a mirror of intellectual desire, its revelations and its limits. Such is the desire we encounter
in Langlands Piers Plowman, a poem that also narrates a human pilgrimage in search of the good life, and yet this desire is not simply rebuked
and silenced but rather transformed the yearning for full intellectual
and volitional experience placed in a simultaneously human and divine
context through a meditation on the desires of God.
PI E R S PLOW M A N
Langlands allegorical protagonist, Will, has been taken by generations of

readers to be a representation of the author, an everyman gure, any number of dierent types of individuals, and the mental and/or spiritual faculty of the will; the poem gives encouragement at dierent moments for
all of these interpretations. While I am interested in the moments when
a psychological understanding of Will comes to the fore, I am also interested in the poems depictions of desire generally, and especially the desire
for knowledge. Like the Plerinage, Langlands poem critiques the intellect as an enactment of concupiscent desire for total knowledge, but also
pursues a notion of knowledge as love, an intellectual love tied to pleasure
that would look familiar to any medieval Aristotelian. James Simpson
has inuentially read Piers Plowman as demonstrating a movement from
rational to aective knowledge, and from scholastic to devotional modes
of inquiry and reading. In Simpsons narrative, Will is represented as
passing through the intellective faculties on his way to a more direct experiential knowledge of God, an experience seated in the will.
It is clear that Langland is interested in the conict between rationalist
approaches to understanding the world and God and an insistence on love
as either a mode of knowledge or an experience that supplants knowledge
from outside. Piers himself, according to the gure Clergie, has sette alle
sciences at a soppe save love one (..). In recent scholarship, however, accounts of this conict have been nuanced to take into account the
poems evident and continuous interest in philosophical discourse and in
the full range of mental activity engaged through learning, meditation,
and prayer.
In Piers Plowman, critical binaries such as will and intellect, sensualitas
and voluntas, love and study, monasticism and scholasticism, reason and
aect are often subtly destabilized. For as much as love is a science in
the poem, in some ways supplanting conventional or scholastic modes
of knowledge, it also transforms our understanding of science what
it means to know. Thus while Will may move cumulatively away from
reading practices of disputation and toward reading practices of devotional meditation, the role of the intellect and will in ones pursuit of the
good and God are not thereby resolved such questions exceed reading practices as much as they remain circumscribed by them. One might
claim that Wills rational powers are not exhausted ( pace Simpson) but
are rather transformed. The poem constructs a model of a rational will,
or combination of will and reason, that looks not unlike the models constructed by the scholastic philosophers, who were equally concerned to
preserve the centrality of love in ethical and spiritual experience. Masha
Raskolnikov privileges the gure Liberum Arbitrium as the most fully
developed alter ego of Will, emphasizing that he is a will with a resoun
(.). She notes Britton Harwoods suggestion that Liberum Arbitrium
represents a faculty which serves to account for choice by coming
between the reasons judgment of the good and the wills desire for the
good yet one composed of reason and will. In Piers Plowman we nd

an intricate investigation of what it might mean to pursue knowledge
through love, engaging both the will and the intellect.
The poem not only articulates the ideal of a fully intellectual and fully
aective pursuit of knowledge, but emphasizes the problem of excessive intellectual desire as a material and sexual excess, thus guring the
threat to intellectual pursuit in much the same manner as the mounted
Aristotle tales. As Andrew Galloway has noted, Will is swayed far more
by intellectual transgression than sensual indulgence, and I would add
that the poem accordingly imagines the intellect as itself a form of concupiscence. The threat to Will, understood as a personication of the mental faculty, is less a slippery slope between the rational and sensual wills
than a slide into passionate rationality an intellect in knowledge-hungry
overdrive. The poem presents a search for a mode of intellectual desire in
harmony with charity, a loving knowledge marked by union with God
rather than separation and suering. A focus on exactly how Langland
characterizes the operations of the intellect allows us to see that what is
at stake is also an understanding of desire for the sovereign good not as
an endlessly deferred experience earned through suering, but rather an
experience possible through an exemplary imitation of Gods unication
of will and pleasure. Rather than the most ascetic of the great didactic,
Middle English allegories, Piers Plowman might be understood as an
investigation of salutary pleasure, of a unication of desire and pleasure
modeled on Christ himself. Langland ultimately transforms Deguilevilles
images of insatiable desire voiced by Aristotle into an aective, imitative relationship to Christs desire for mens souls a union of the physical, intellectual, and spiritual, of suering, delight, and beauty.
This ideal, rather than being threatened by Nature as in Deguilevilles
poem is presented as itself natural, inasmuch as nature is a product of
the divine will. Where the French poet focuses on Natures overreaching impetus to complete knowledge, in conict with Sapience, Langland
allies the forces of nature and wisdom. Nature does not signify a desire
for total knowledge, or the domination of the world by rational, natural
science, for it is Will who acts unnaturally unkindly in the poems
vocabulary in desiring to know Alle the sciences under sonne and alle
the sotile craftes (..). Where Deguilevilles Grace Dieu relates the
story of Aristotles debate with Sapience in the context of the pilgrims
desire for knowledge about the Eucharist, thus warding o any attempt
at full wisdom without grace, Will is given no such pre-emptive narrative. Anima chides that perfect knowledge belongs only to Christ, and a
desire for such complete knowing is ayeins kynde (..). Kynde a

term that has a broad range of signication but typically refers in some
way to nature and innate experience, knowledge, and emotions here
has become a guarantor that humankind cannot overreach and make any
claims to full wisdom. Nature becomes a guardian of proper knowledgeseeking.
Nature is thus the boundary by which love is enabled to pursue knowledge in a proper, ethical manner. By allying Nature and Love, however,
Langland courts the possibility that kindness will not only guarantee
that Will renounces any claims to full knowledge, but might create a
situation where knowledge is devoured by natural passions. Nature
as limiter of human knowledge and keeper of the keys to knowledge of
sexuality emerges in the twelfth Passus of the poem. Here, the same barrier that prevents one from knowing why one of the thieves crucied
with Christ yielded rather than the other thief also prevents one from
knowing where the oures in the fryth (..) get their clear, bright
colors. The why of natural beauty is as dark to Clergy and Kind Wit as
the why of biblical history. Only Kynde knows the answers to these
questions because he himself is the cause of such characteristics and occurrences. As we are told, Kynde kenned Adam to knowe hise pryv membres, / And taughte hym and Eve to helien hem with leves (..).
The secrets of secrecy itself what should be hidden and why belong to
Kynde. Unlearned men may seek out clerks to ask why Adam did not
instead cover his mouth that shameful organ that ate the apple rather
than his thighs, but Kynde knoweth whi he dide so, ac no clerk ellis!
(..). The limits of learning and knowledge are thus gured as the
limits created by divine nature, and sexual desire the shame attached
to Adam and Eves privy members, the mating practices of birds is
emphasized as a realm where seeking after whys will come to nothing.
Dame Studie had predicted Ymaginatyfs response to Wills questioning,
stating that he will answer Wills purpose, and advise him as Augustine
did, Non plus sapere quam oportet (..a), reanimating the overlapping senses of sapere: to know, taste, and delight. Studie appears to
demand a similar tamping down of curiosity, recommending that those
who wish to wite the whyes of God almyghty should place his eighe
in his ers and his fynger after (..). Excessive intellectual desire
is itself gured as concupiscent, and its desired object is among other
things the mystery of concupiscent desires and practices. Ymaginatyf
might say, along with Chaucers Miller, that An housbande shal nat been
inquisityf / Of Goddes pryvetee, nor of his wyf (ll. ). For both
Ymaginatyf and the Miller, inquisitiveness is itself excessive and therefore

concupiscent, and the objects of its questioning are primarily gured as
sexual.
Yet in guring the very limits of knowledge, the mysteries of the divine will, Ymaginatyf oers a key to the ethical functioning of the desiring
intellect. In warning the dreamer that he should not ask why one thief
who was crucied with Christ yielded to faith, but not the other, he contends that the answer to the question Quare placuit? is simply Quia
voluit (..a). Why did it please him? Because he willed it. Here
the pleasure and will of the thief are shadowed by the pleasure and will
of God the line in the poem transforms the statement of Psalm :,
Whatsoever the Lord hath willed, he hath done (omnia quae voluit
Dominus fecit ), into a question and answer: Why did it please him?
Because he willed it so. The poem emphasizes that God was pleased (placuit ) in addition to carrying out his will (voluit ). Gods will, his pleasure, and his actions are unied by denition he does what is pleasing to
him and he is pleased by what he does and this unication yields what
should be intellectual satisfaction for the questioner. There is no why
beyond the unity of Gods will and pleasure this pleasure is tantamount
to knowledge. The poem invites us to think about how one might close
the gap between what one sees as good and takes delight in (placeo) and
what one wills and does, and even how ones intellect, delight, and volition might imitate that of God. While concupiscent intellectual desire
is rebuked by the poem, an experience of desire and action in which the
will, intellect, and pleasure are unied is said to belong to God himself.
The mysteries of beauty and desire thus allow us to rethink the poems
relationship to pleasure, and especially its interest in the possibility of
moving from delights to delights ( de deliciis ad delicias). The transition from sensual or even literary pleasures to higher pleasures is a path
that the poem continually marks out as a desired route, but one that
never seems to be traveled. We are reminded in the midst of Haukyns
confession in Passus that a pleasurable life on earth makes it all the
more dicult to ensure a pleasurable afterlife. Though the faint possibility of double hire and double rest for the rich if not the wicked is
held out by Patience (.. a ), the poem consistently arms that
de deliciis ad delicias is a dicult transition to make indeed. Yet the
poem encourages us to wonder even more than how to get into heaven
if one is cursed with earthly wealth how we might move from delights
to delights while still on earth, how to reject the pleasures of the gut and
the eye for the pleasure of the loving will. The satisfaction held out is not
perfect beatitude, but rather an earthly experience of well-directed love

and its associated pleasures.
Pleasure and love, however, hardly have an obvious and untroubled
relationship in Piers Plowman. At many moments in the poem, the science
of love appears to be a practice of suering love associated with Patience, a
suering of worldly poverty, of the sins of others, of all manner of injustice and pain. As Wit explains, Dowel is to drede God, and DoBet to
sure (..). Where doing well is to fear the law, and healing is provided by doing best, the love associated with Do-Better is equated with
suering. It is no accident, I think, that this equation is made by Wit, for
the pursuit of rational knowledge is a necessarily suering pursuit often
associated in the poem with frustrated desire, a disconnect between emotion and intellect, and the discipline of the schools. This desires constant frustration is what allies it with erotic, concupiscent desire. Reason
also instructs Will in the desirability of suering, asking Who sureth
moore than God? he sureth for som mannes good, and so is oure
bettre (..). He concludes that Holy Writ thus teaches men to
suer. Suering is both what we take on after having been instructed by
Scripture and a punishment for seeking too much knowledge. According
to Anima, God suered for us in example that we should suer also
(..). Yet the poem is careful to emphasize that a suering ideal is
not simply the taking on of pain, and does not demand a passive attitude
toward the world. The poem makes a distinction, though a slippery one,
between suering the patient bearing of worldly fortune and suering
for either the sacricial taking on of pain for the good of another or the
pain experienced in the pursuit of knowledge and pleasure. Simple suffering in the poem more resembles a stoic acceptance of external happenstance, although Langland certainly does maintain desire that earthly
poverty and injustice could be righted. The poem navigates the margin
between a subordination of earthly justice to heavenly reward and a deep
concern that the poor be taken care of, both physically and spiritually.
The prescription of suering applies to the steady suering of fortune or
misfortune, and being, like Griselda, as glad of a gowne of a gray russet / As of a tunycle of Tarse or of trie scarlet (..). One should
not covet earthly things, but should bear both good and bad fortune
mildly. Yet pleasure is as much a part of knowledge as pain may be, and
the poems epistemology of suering might be understood also to encompass not paradoxically an epistemology of pleasure. Learning is not
associated solely with suering, but with the pleasure of understanding
and of experience. The poem arms that pleasure and learning are allied
in that knowledge is gained through the experience of opposing states, an

experience which is also the key to pleasure.
In the most joyous and dramatic Passus of the B-version, Passus ,
suering as a path toward pleasurable, active knowledge is emphasized.
Readers have noted that Langland does not linger here over the details
of his narrative of Christs Passion, declining to engender an extended
aective, compassionate response in his audience. Rather than the compassion we should feel for Christs suering, it is Gods own compassion
that is emphasized. According to the gure Peace, it is because we cannot
understand happiness without experience of woe that God allowed Adam
to introduce suering into the world; suering allows Adam To wite
what wele was, kyndeliche to knowe it (..). And so it follows
that God became man:
And after, God auntrede hymself and took Adames kynde
To wite what he hath sured in thre sondry places,
Bothe in hevene and in erthe and now til helle he thenketh,
To wite what alle wo is, that woot of alle joye.
(..)
God becomes man to understand human experience, to undergo it bodily. Mans suering is identical to all of his experience, not only his pain.
God became man to understand what Adam suered in heaven, on earth,
and in hell. As Lacan contends in his twentieth seminar, the Incarnation
and Passion do not function to save man, but rather to save God, and
particularly to save his knowledge of hatred and love. A God ignorant of
hatred and pain is a terrically ignorant God. God imitates us in all our
human woe and lack we need not pursue additional pain. And as Amy
Hollywood has argued in another context, this way of understanding the
Incarnation renders the suering human condition itself a state of union
with God; passivity in the face of outside forces becomes an active pursuit of knowledge, and there is no need to demand still more suering
in the service of an ideal of imitatio Christi. The oft-repeated maxim of
the poems fourth vision, pacientes vincunt, thus loses some of its force
as a prescription that one should become like those suering ones
and gains more force as description. God as suering man conquered sin
and the devil; as humans, we suer by denition, and will also triumph.
Such a reading of the Incarnation and Crucixion demands a philosophy
of knowledge through bodily experience and empathy, and a pursuit of
knowledge through not only painful, but also pleasurable love.
Christ himself nally exemplies how one can transform bely joye
into a higher joy, the joy of love, to move from delights to delights. Christ
proclaims to the devil that he must drink the bitterness he has brewed,
while Christ imbibes love:
I that am lord of lif, love is my drynke,
And for that drynke today, I deide upon erthe.
I faught so, me thursteth yet, for mannes soule sake;
May no drynke me moiste, ne my thurst slake,
Til the vendage falle in the vale of Josaphat,
That I drynke right ripe must, resureccio mortuorum.
(..)
He thirsts endlessly for mens souls, but enjoys their sweet taste all the
while. This image of insatiable earthly desire, but one in which sensual goods are replaced by spiritual goods, with even deeper satisfactions, would seem to be the ideal way to pass from delights to delights.
The miraculous nature of the sovereign good, represented in the debate
between Aristotle and Sapience in the Plerinage de Vie Humaine, is here
rendered in Christs own voice. He endlessly thirsts for love, and can
never be sated, except that one drink of new wine (right ripe must),
the resurrection of the dead, will slake his desire.
Such a spectacular image of satisfaction, unity, and delight is revealed
to the dreamer at the end of this Passus. Peace reprises her theme of
knowledge through contraries, this time in song: the sun is brighter after
much cloud, love is brighter after hate, weather warmer after rain, friends
dearer after war:
Thanne pipede Pees of poesie a note:
Clarior est solito post maxima nebula Phebus;
Post inimicicias clarior est et amor.
After sharpest shoures, quod Pees, moost shene is the sonne;
Is no weder warmer than after watry cloudes;
Ne no love levere, ne lever frendes
Than after werre and wo, whan love and pees ben maistres.
Was nevere werre in this world, ne wikkednesse so kene,
That Love, and hym liste, to laughynge ne broughte,
And Pees, thorugh pacience, alle perils stoppede.
(..)
Deprivation or hardship here does not bequeath understanding, but

rather intensies pleasure or, rather, knowledge is here tied to pleasure. The experience of suering for, of undergoing pain so that one
can gain knowledge, is here transformed into a scene where pain gives
way to pleasure and understanding. We are not told that rain is colder
after a time of basking in the sun. Contrary experiences intensify sensory
experience, but also the aective experience of love and friendship. Here
loves mastery is manifested in the activity of simultaneous understanding and pleasure. Following Peaces piping of poesy, the elusive unication
of peace and justice, mercy and truth, is achieved; Truth sings in praise
of God, Love sings in praise of the goodness and delight of people united,
and amidst this festival of caroling and celebration, the dreamer wakes
up. At the end of this vision, faith in the miraculous and a commitment
to truth and knowledge are joyously reconciled, an image of a union that
Deguileville could not or did not want to dream of. Peace asks the group
that they let no one parceyve that we chidde (..), though it is
the chiding, of course, that makes the reunion that much more poignant
and sustaining.
While the poem admonishes that it is very dicult to move from
delights to delights, it is possible, perhaps, to move from suering love to
joyous love, and to have that movement not be temporal suering on
earth rewarded with joy in heaven but epistemological: human knowledge through suering replaced by knowledge through joy. The sovereign
good for Piers Plowman would appear to be the seemingly unreachable
ethical knowledge of how to reconcile mercy and truth. We leave the
poem with Will still searching for this knowledge, amidst a church and
society in crisis. Toward the end of the poem, he asks Kynde, what crafte
be best to lerne? Lerne to love, Kynde answers, and leef all othere
(..). The language of science has been replaced with the language of craft, a term that better captures the fact that Will is not searching for a unit of truth, but rather seeking a process, a skill, a way of life
that is both intellectual and physical, both an art and a practice. We
might then reread Dame Studies advice to Will: loke thow lovye as
longe as thow durest / For is no science under sonne so sovereyne for the
soule (..). Love is not a replacement for the intellect, but a way of
understanding ethical intellectual pursuit. Suering, pleasure, and knowledge all at once this love is without desire for complete possession, and
without the singleness of intellectual purpose that sent Thales into the
ditch. The recognition of the paradox of bottomless desire it cannot be
satised by the entire world, and yet one waits for one single miraculous
substance to fulll it allows Langland to give this desire to God, thus
oering humankind hope of relief from a monstrous burden.
Piers Plowman thus imagines what it might mean to possess an intellect and will that, in Ockhams terms, are entirely the same. Such a
model of the souls faculties brings the threat of concupiscent desire
for knowledge, a focus on natures mysteries that bespeaks a delight in
lingering amidst the pursuit of unknowable truths a pursuit of those

truths precisely because of their unknowability. But it also brings the possibility of a loving pursuit of knowledge, the loving contemplation that
the classical Aristotle does not quite arrive at. The medieval vernacular
poetry of love that distances itself from both the erotic and the intellectual still investigates its subject through the language of clerkly erotics
and erotic clerkliness. And it is both scholastic discourse and vernacular
romance that oer models the loving will, Christ the Lover-Knight, the
debating Aristotle and Sapience for an ethical experience of loving God.
Yet loves knowledge as both a science of love and a passionate experience remains both dangerously and delightfully close to the desire for a
maiden, a poem, or ones own mirror image.
On human happiness: Dante, Chaucer,

and the felicity of friendship
Chaucers Troilus and Criseyde famously begins with a statement of

purpose, The double sorwe of Troilus to tellen. Telling of sorrow, not
happiness, informs the activity of the poet, and Troilus double sorrow
structures the consolatory context of the poem as it is most broadly
read: Pandarus rst consoles his friend by conveying his loved object
to him, and the loss of Criseyde inaugurates another period of sorrow
that is consoled only in death. Yet despite the narrators initial foreboding announcement, and the fact that almost every medieval reader knew
precisely the trajectory of Troilus and Criseydes love aair, Chaucer
still allows for an experience of loves bliss at the center of his poem. In
Book , when the lovers are nally joined together, the narrator asks his
audience to consider erotic happiness in the terms of clerkly discourse.
Deliberately placing his words in the context of moral philosophy, he
speaks of the joy experienced by the two lovers:
This is no litel thyng of for to seye;
This passeth every wit for to devyse;
For ech of hem gan otheres lust obeye.
Felicite, which that thise clerkes wise
Comenden so, ne may nought here suse;
This joie may nought writen be with inke;
This passeth al that herte may bythynke
(.).
The joy experienced by Troilus and Criseyde is beyond the conceptual

capacities of writing, clerks, or the heart. Suddenly, clerkly happiness
appears not to be happiness at all, for it is not sucient. Still, although
the narrator nds the clerkly concept of Felicite somehow wanting as
a descriptor for the enjoyment shared between Troilus and Criseyde, he
does not attempt to nd any other discourse that would serve this function. On the contrary, it is the nexus of courtly and clerkly felicity that
animates the ethics of Troilus and Criseyde, revealing that what is at stake
for Chaucer is not the inadequacy of clerkly language to describe erotic
felicity, but the knowledge that clerks and lovers share a language, and
share a notion that pleasure and happiness constitute the end of human
desire, for good or ill.
According to the narrator, what places the lovers felicity in the context of and yet beyond the felicity of clerks is their unied desires.
The facet of Troilus and Criseydes joy that renders it beyond the grasp of
language to devyse is the way each person obeys the desires and pleasures of the other, such that their lust is indistinguishable ech of hem
gan otheres lust obeye. The elevation of this erotic unity would seem to
bring the poem into conict with the foundation of medieval Christian
ethics, which roots itself in the conviction that the things of this world
are unstable and ephemeral, and thus unworthy of desire. Happiness is
to be found not in goods governed by fortune, but in the stable, self-sufcient goods of heaven and divine union. While this orientation is scriptural in origin, its late medieval expression is often mediated by Boethius
Consolation of Philosophy, a dialogue in which Philosophia teaches the
speaker that true happiness is found in God and nowhere else: God and
verray blisfulnesse is al o thing, in Chaucers translation (Book , prose
, ll. ). The rejection of worldly desires as a route to happiness is
thus Boethian in medieval literature, as much as it is Christian, and it is
assumed that this ethic is itself immutable. It is perhaps inevitable, then,
that it is in Troilus and Criseyde, Chaucers most Boethian poem, that we
nd the poets most ambitious meditation on the felicity of erotic love.
Such a felicity is threatened simultaneously by earthly misfortune, which
impedes it, and heavenly stability, which renders it small and eeting by
comparison.
This chapter considers the ways that new approaches to Boethius dialogue new in both the fourteenth and the twenty-rst centuries can
help us to see that Chaucers Troilus explores fortune as the very ground
of earthly felicity, and philia as a route to human happiness. I ask below
what it might mean to take Chaucers narrators claims about the lovers
felicity seriously, investigating his suggestion that Troilus and Criseydes
felicity is relevant to a consideration of clerical discourse, and that this felicity might exceed the happiness of moral philosophy on its own terms. It
is important, in this context, that the narrator states that the felicity commended by clerks may not suse to speak about the bliss of the lovers.
In the language of Boethius and indeed all medieval discourse on moral
philosophy, it is not sucient, as any good must be. If clerkly language
does not suse to speak about all felicity, then it must not be an end in
itself, must either be ordered to some other end or require accompanying
Dante, Chaucer, and the felicity of friendship
goods to be desirable. It is erotic love, that missing element of the happiness described by clerkes wise, that renders this language insucient.
An ethics of felicity needs the two lovers as much as it needs Boethius and
Aristotle.
This emphasis on mutuality and compassion runs throughout the
Troilus and allows us to place the lovers erotic and ethical felicity in a
fourteenth-century philosophical as well as a contemporary critical context. Both contexts complicate what is typically taken to be the Boethian
trajectory of Troilus and Criseyde: the gradual rejection of earthly happiness as unstable, anxiety-ridden, and therefore self-contradictory at its
core. Co-feeling, between narrator, audience, and characters, between
lovers and friends, is at the heart of the poem, and this doubling of
feeling includes joy as well as sorrow. As Martin Camargo has observed,
Boethius Consolation oered not only thematic, but also dramatic substance to Chaucers poem, and through the gure of Pandarus, Chaucer
animates Philosophia as a friend. My reading of Troilus and Criseyde continues a long line of criticism that has been interested in Chaucers depiction of friendship in his poem between lovers, male and female friends,
niece and uncle and that reads this friendship in the light of Chaucers
relationship to Boethius book. I would like to add to this matrix the
ways that fourteenth-century readers of Boethius Latin commentators
and Dante see Boethius in the light of the new Aristotelian learning,
and give us a version of the Consolation that imagines the pursuit of philosophy as a pursuit of mutual love that is best enacted through educative
identication with friends pursuing happiness in the face of fortune. For
Dante, Philosophia herself is a friend in the highest sense. This version of
the happiness prescribed by Boethius book allows us to see that Chaucers
lovers are in harmony with a simultaneously Boethian and Aristotelian
ethic of friendship in their moment of mutuality, and it is the dissolution
of this ethic in the face of war and contingency that constitutes the dissolution the double sorwe of their love.

The clerkly context of Troilus and Criseydes felicity is generally taken
most immediately to be Boethius Consolation of Philosophy. Bernard
Jeerson argued over ninety years ago that Chaucers whole conception of this fundamental question of the end of life or of felicitee, as he
commonly terms it, is unmistakably and to a large degree inuenced by
Boethius he discusses the problem in Boethian language, and he
reaches the same conclusions which Boethius reached. Much the same
perspective informs Ralph Hanna and Traugott Lawlers remarks in their
introduction to Chaucers English translation of the Consolation, the
Boece: Chaucers understanding, not only of love but of human life itself,
seems to have been fundamentally Boethian. Yet if the term Boethian
once appeared transparent, this transparency and critical agreement no
longer hold. Recent scholarship, Mark Millers Philosophical Chaucer in
particular, has begun to question precisely what we mean by the term
Boethian, for Boethius Consolation also gives voice to the impossibility and undesirability of renouncing earthly attachments. The medieval Stoic tradition was beset not simply by the diculty of dealing with
earthly loss and its possibly inadequate consolations, but by the diculty
of experiencing and representing pleasure and plenitude in an environment where earthly pleasures are devalued on the level of normative discourse. One may understand that true, full happiness lies elsewhere, but
that knowledge does not in itself confer happiness, and it certainly does
not insulate a person from the desire for earthly delight, nor from the
unexpected, fortunate encounter with joy. Miller argues that rather than
containing an extractable set of philosophical doctrines, the Consolation
of Philosophy oers instead a dialogic exploration of human psychology
which reveals both the attractions of a normative rejection of worldly
happiness and the resistance to the self-dissolution that such a rejection
would demand. In the end, Miller claims, what is Boethian about
Chaucer is his understanding of the production of narrative as a paradigmatic site for fetishistic reication, of poetry as a medium in which
we attempt to historicize the sense of loss that accompanies subjectivity.
In other words, Chaucer is being Boethian when he refuses to validate
poetry as a place for the recuperation of a lost time when people were
not alienated from their desires, and when everyone naturally tended
toward the sovereign good. Narrative poetry may encourage us to create
such a nostalgic Former Age, an era prior to lack, but this creation, for
Chaucer, is always revealed as false, and even sometimes acknowledged
to be distinctly undesirable. The Boethianism of the Troilus may nally
involve a rejection of nostalgia and an ethical space for earthly pleasure.
This re-evaluation of the Consolation allows us a richer understanding of
Boethius dialogue, as well as of Chaucers engagement with it. We have
grown used to a Chaucer who is subversive of priestly absolutes, but in
the process may have grown too complacent in our certainty about the
absolutes he was subverting, and about who was voicing them. In moving
from an exegetical perspective on Chaucer as a vehicle for pious Christian
doctrine toward a Chaucer who resists that doctrine, or engages in a dialectic that shows its gaps, we may have missed an opportunity to think
about the spaces for subversive or at least unconventional thinking in
the writings of the men of gret auctorite who provide Chaucer with so
much fodder for thought.
Th is unexpected version of Boethianism is not just the province of
recent scholarship, but also a facet of the reception of the Consolation
in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Beginning in the late thirteenth century, the Consolation became the subject of Aristotelianizing
commentators who sought to bring the new learning of the schools
to bear on Boethius work. The extent to which late medieval commentators on Boethius, particularly Nicholas Trevet, departed from
the widely inuential commentary of the neo-Platonist William of
Conches has been exaggerated in past scholarship, but there is no
question that access to full translations of Aristotles Ethics, Politics,
De Anima , and Metaphysics had a transformative eect on the reception of Boethius. Aristotelian earthly happiness was complemented
by the reception of De Anima , which similarly demanded that greater
emphasis be placed on the sensible world. We come to knowledge, even
knowledge of concepts and greater truths, through our sensory contact
with earthly things. For medieval Aristotelians, we even learn to turn
our desires away from the earth and toward the divine through sensible
experience. The world of sense and the body thus gains a much more
central place in the pursuit of knowledge and the good. Felicity starts
to become a more earthly aair.
The eect of the new Aristotle on Boethian commentaries is seen
most readily in the way that Aristotles works were used to recalibrate the
reception of controversial Platonic ideas such as the doctrine of reminiscence, the world-soul, and the pre-existence of souls and primal matter.
In addition to correcting heterodox-seeming Platonic ideas, Aristotle
was also used to address less obviously controversial topics such as the
turning of human desires toward false or proper goods, the proper way to
consider fortune as it applies to happiness, and the way poetry and all arts
tend toward the good. It is these topics to which I will turn, for they are
the places where an assumed rejection of the sensible world and unstable
happiness are most deeply called into question, and are troubled in such a
way as to highlight the mutuality and compassion at the heart of Troilus
and Criseyde. The commentaries recourse to an Aristotelian ethical pedagogy of shared experience demonstrates the way that the changing context for denitions of human happiness had profound consequences for
an ethical understanding of the friendship and shared emotion at the

heart of consolation.
The happiness of Troilus and Criseyde appears contrary to the happiness dened by Philosophia, not only because it is of this world, but
because their mutual delight highlights the fact that her austere felicity is
not an emotion that another can participate in or empathize with. Both
Aristotelian philosophy and the Troilus itself characterize shared happiness
as sensory, earthbound, and mutable, and empathetic friendship as similarly sensible, mundane, and subject to fortune. For although Aristotle,
like Lady Philosophy, arms that happiness cannot be judged on the
basis of fortune, Aristotles ethics of friendship demands that instability
and shared happiness go hand in hand. Aristotles discussion of friendship
in the Ethics assumes conditions of shifting prosperity and adversity, and
the virtue of friendship depends on each friends response to these conditions: friendship is more necessary in adversity, but more honorable in
prosperity. He goes on to claim more broadly that Every man wishes
to share with his friends whatever constitutes his existence or whatever
makes his life worth living. As Jacques Derrida observes, there is a perhaps at the heart of friendship, for to love friendship, it is not enough to
know how to bear the other in mourning; one must love the future. And
there is no more just category for the future than that of the perhaps.
He remarks that in both Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, friendship
depends just as much on instability as on the stable or constant (bbaios).
Aristotle insists that perfect friendship is unchanging and enduring, but
the lastingness of any friendship is tested by the fact that men themselves
change. Lack and instability do not destroy friendship but form its foundation. Lest we imagine that this instability is essential solely to allow for
the sharing of misery and subsequent consolation, Derrida reminds us
that what makes the friend is Mitfreude and not Mitleiden, joy among
friends, shared enjoyment ( jouissance) and not shared suering. It is
in this spirit that Chaucers narrator tells his audience at the beginning
of Book that it is a part of the poets ethical responsibility to narrate
pleasure as well as sorrow. He vows that he must, though he may labor
a full year, speak about the gladnesse of the lovers as well as he has
spoken about their heavinesse (.). This vow to hard labor, and
his later failure of speech at the high point of Troilus and Criseydes joy,
point to the diculties inherent in such a project, but also to its importance. The narrators responsibility and challenge is to speak of a pleasure
that is present, full, and shared. Such pleasure is always threatened by the
perhaps of fortune, and yet constituted by it; a Boethian relationship to
future tyme (.) demands both an embrace of fortune as the condition of friendship and an acknowledgment that fortune imedles happiness with care and sorrow.
Thinking Boethius through Aristotle puts questions of earthly pain and
pleasure, shared emotion, and sensible experience into high relief. While
there is only one of these late medieval commentaries on Boethius that
we know Chaucer to have read that of Nicholas Trevet it is instructive to glance at the commentary of the arch-Aristotelian William of
Aragon. His commentary on the Consolation rehabilitates the sensory
world, departing in striking ways from the pre-Aristotelian tradition of
commentary on the text, oering original readings that often foreground
his critique of William of Conches Platonism. The later William uses a
variety of Aristotelian texts to reconcile both Boethius and Plato to a late
medieval Aristotelianism, so as to bring down the Platonic atmosphere
of Boethius text to the Aristotelian world of sense. He accomplishes
this descent in a number of ways, most importantly by linking mans
knowledge of intelligible goods to the sensual world. While Williams
commentary does not seem to have been spectacularly popular (only
ve manuscripts survive), it was certainly read by Jean de Meun, who
translated the prologue for his own French version, Le Livre de Confort de
Philosophie. This prologue was subsequently used in two other popular
French vernacular translations of the Consolation, giving Williams prologue, if not the body of his commentary, much greater exposure than the
number of surviving Latin copies would suggest.
His prologue, in which he explains why he a scholar of medicine
will be lecturing on the Consolation, underscores humanitys unavoidable immersion in sensible things, and emphasizes that so long as our
souls remain embodied, the only path toward intellectual knowledge
is through the senses. He begins with a citation of Aristotles Politics,
that all things seek the good, and proceeds to naturalize this dictum,
oering examples of plants turning toward sunlight and animals drawn
to kind owners. Human beings, however, pursue the good in a confused
and haphazard way. What makes human beings unique, in Williams
reading, is not their rational capabilities (though as a good Aristotelian
he would admit this as well), but that man alone, out of all other creatures, needs practice in acting and needs to be taught in the matter of
exercising his choice so that he may be brought closer to what is good
for him by a direct route and without deviation. The natural world in
this view is marked by a harmony with the good, rather than by a bestial pursuit of sensory pleasure. As in Wills vision of middle-earth in
Piers Plowman, William observes that while humans are the only creatures capable of cultivating habitus, they are also the only creatures that
require it. Humans need these habitual practices that inculcate virtue
and allow for the judicious choice of an appropriate good in a sensory
world where many felonious things appear good. However, William
does not advocate a turning away from the sensory world, but simply an
education of the senses that will allow for an understanding of intelligible as well as sensual goods. He thus acknowledges that the world of
sense is disordered and confusing, but he also maintains that it is the
only route by which people can come to an understanding of intelligible
goods. Philosophy is essential to ones education, but he insists that we
gain knowledge of the good rst of all through sensation. Man is
confused by the sensible world, but also nurtured (nutritur) by it for
a very long time.
Williams prologue also highlights the impossibility of simply denying
the attractions of earthly goods. Boethius dialogue, along with Aristotles
Ethics, can teach us that the truly good person withstands the blows of
fortune with strength and wisdom, but will never tell us that we should
be impervious (insensibilitatem) to worldly sorrow. We should not
ignore the delights and pains of the world, but learn how to sustain them
bravely. This version of Stoicism might not seem like such a dramatic shift,
but it runs counter to the usual notion that Boethius dialogue teaches
us to mortify our attachments to worldly objects. What William would
like us to avoid is the mental turmoil (turbatio animi) that the weak
mind suers when subjected to misfortune. The properly Boethian subject, according to William, keeps his teleological compass intact, pointing ultimately toward the sovereign good, even when he or she suers
a nite loss. That he will suer, however, is never in question. It is part
of the human condition to feel intensely, and grieve over, misfortunes
which occur in relation to those [sensible] goods. Aristotle remarks in
Book of the Ethics that although fortune is not identical with happiness, it is nonsensical to imagine that even the virtuous man remains
happy when overcome by misfortune. In Williams version of Stoicism,
then, we can learn to sustain grief wisely, but we cannot learn not to
grieve at all. His Aristotelianism appears to allow for a certain compatibility between the pursuit of the good and attachment to worldly objects,
and between consolation and lingering sorrow. Consolation in Williams
terms emphatically does not mean an absence of pain, though such relief
is clearly a deeply held desire for many other medieval and modern readers of Boethius book.
William of Aragons rejection of imperviousness allows him to develop

an empathic theory of human happiness in the context of his commentary on the Orpheus myth in Book , meter . Williams interpretation
of the rst two words, felix qui, plays on the double meaning of happiness as the sovereign good and as a stroke of luck or chance. William
notes various philosophers who have oered dierent paths toward perfect
happiness: discovering the causes of things, never experiencing prosperity,
caring not who rules the world all of these paths are contingent stances
or experiences that enable a person to better orient himself to the nal
good. William himself prefers the proverb, Happy is the man made
cautious by other peoples dangers or, as Pandarus might put it, wyse
ben by foles harm chastised (.). He explains that there are two ways
that men learn to be disposed toward the good: the rst through ones
own experience and the second through witnessing the experiences of
others. The latter, William tells us, is much more ecient. In this he echoes Aristotle who explains that happy men have need of friends not only
because solitary life is unpleasant, but because we can study our neighbors better than ourselves and their actions better than our own. The
recommended path toward happiness is thus followed in its most generous
sense not only by observing fools, but through friendship and empathy.
Williams emphasis on learning through the experiences of others points
to an Orpheus who might not only tell us about the danger of looking
back at earthly objects of desire, but also about the empathetic pleasure
of poetry, the virtuous aspects of earthly love, and the way that all of our
neighbors experiences of happiness and of its loss are worthy of sharing and essential to ones ethical education.
Nicholas Trevet, on the other hand, was a more conservative commentator, maintaining a respectful treatment of William of Conches work
while using Aristotelian philosophy to reconcile the earlier commentators Platonism to Christian doctrine. Trevets commentary was more
popular, and was a key source for Chaucer during his composition of
the Boece. But Trevet also highlights the workings of empathy in the
Consolation and in ethical life generally. His prologue makes compassion the central goal of the Consolation, giving particular power to poetic
form to rouse this emotion. His prologue suggests that Boethius begins
his book in meter because a planctus moves us to compassion more readily, for music is inherent in metrical language rather than prose, and it
is music that has the capacity to move us. For Trevet, one of the main
goals of Boethius book is to move us to compassion via poetic form
itself. The Aristotelian context of his commentary most often takes him
into concerns about precisely how Boethius book theorizes the way that
people learn or are moved. He cites the second book of the Metaphysics
as explaining that not everyone learns the truth in the same way (non
omnes recipiunt veritatem eodem modo) and that diverse natures and
education mean that some will learn through logical demonstration,
some through authoritative proof, and some through the veils of fabulous
narratives (per integumentum fabularum). While the notion of truth
veiled by fable is hardly new, Trevet places this standard justication of
ction within a context of education that is keyed to an individuals circumstances and character. He occasionally adds details to Boethius narrative that further highlight the variety of responses to a story or a song;
where Boethius Orpheus laments the cruelty of the gods after the death
of Eurydice, Trevet explains that Orpheus had attempted to soothe the
celestial gods with melodies (modulationibus deos superos placare sategit). When this did not work the cruel gods could not be moved he
took his songs to the underworld.
Trevets commentary emphasizes the workings of poetry both within
the Orpheus fable song has the capacity to move those susceptible to
such movement and in the workings of the Consolation itself. The banishing of the muses in the opening of the book tells us that Philosophia
desires only one kind of song that which will elevate our thoughts to
the divine. Yet through the earthbound concerns of the doomed Boethius
and the lovelorn Orpheus who must direct his music toward whoever will
receive it, our aections are often drawn in opposing directions. The simultaneous attractions of both celestial contemplation and human ethics
and love become central to even the most Platonic moments of the book.
Mark Gleason argues that Trevet develops an Aristotelian framework for
explorations of love in the Consolation, so that a Platonic expression of
cosmic love and creation such as Book , meter (O qui perpetua)
may also be read in terms of Aristotelian causes and understandings of
the sovereign good. For both Boethius and Trevet, human reason, will,
and moral intelligence are understood not as subjected to the greater force
of the divine will, but rather as operating within an ethical framework
founded on the premise of Gods love for the universe. Gleason concludes that the Consolation and Trevets commentary oered Chaucer
resources to explore how far the love that harmonizes the universe can
unite and harmonize human hearts when nature only is the guide.
Both Williams and Trevets commentaries thus make an ethical space
for poetry that imagines the compassion inspired by metrical language
and the educative possibilities of witnessing anothers experience either
in life or in fable. Bruce Holsinger has suggested that Chaucer made

up for his prosing of the Boece in his short Boethian poems, restoring lyric integrity to one of the great vernacularizing enterprises of
his career. One might imagine the poet engaged in a similar formal
enterprise in the Troilus, an investigation of the way meter moves us to
compassion and identication, and a probing of the ethical and aesthetic
limits of human encounters with others. Both Boethius dialogue and
Chaucers poem explore the possibilities of learning by example of happiness as well as sorrow. The Aristotelian commentaries on Boethius allow
us to speculate about the ways in which the shifting environment for
the reception of Boethius book made possible or even necessary by
the new Aristotle may have shaped certain possibilities for Chaucer
as a Boethian poet and his readers as Boethian subjects. Boethius
glosses Aristotle as much as Aristotle glosses Boethius. An Aristotelian
notion of the relevance of the sensual world to pursuits of both erotic
pleasure and the sovereign good allows for a revised approach to earthly
goods. The new Aristotle oered readers of Boethius an innovative context for thinking through not only obviously controversial topics such as
the pre-existence of souls or prime matter, but also topics that were not
so clearly orthodox or heterodox, yet were clearly essential to Christian
ethics: how to pursue the good in the context of both lived and read
experience. While neither William of Aragon nor Nicholas Trevet was
interested in exploring romantic passion as an ethical good, each insists
on an approach to the good as sensible and as perceptible through the
experience of others. Bringing the world of the intellect down to the
realm of the senses (or the senses up to the world of the intellect) allows
the compassionate education recommended by the Boethian commentators to take place. This context sharpens Troilus lesson learned in the
rst book of the poem, when he laments with an unmistakable air of
self-satisfaction that foolish lovers cannot learn from each others suffering: Ther nys nat oon kan war by other be (.). It is, of course,
Troilus who has not learned from others that he is just as susceptible
to love as they are. Having climbed the stairway of pride, Troilus must
descend to the realm of those made subject unto love. As both he and
Orpheus know, may no man fordon the lawe of kynde (.).

In Dantes writings we nd not only the exploration of Aristotelian theories of happiness, but also vernacular sites for the rereading of Boethian
felicity in the light of Aristotelian philosophy. Dante oers a fairly radical estimation of Aristotelian theories of earthly happiness in his Italian
Convivio, as well as in the Latin Monarchia. For Dante, Aristotle is the
supreme philosopher, and in his world the Peripatetic school of philosophy tiene questa gente oggi lo reggimento del mondo in dottrina per
tutte parti, e puotesi appellare quasi cattolica oppinione (at present holds
universal sway in teaching everywhere, and their doctrine may almost
be called universal opinion). In his treatise on government, Monarchia,
Dante gives Aristotle full authority on happiness, claiming that it is fruitless for anyone to write again on the topic, with the Philosopher having
already done so. Robert Lerner refers to Dante as having an integrally
Aristotelian position in the Monarchia, distinguishing between the nal
goal for each human life and for all of humankind. Dante writes that
divine Providence set before us two goals to aim at: i.e. happiness in this
life, which consists in the exercise of our own powers and is gured in the
earthly Paradise; and happiness in the eternal life, which consists in the
enjoyment of the vision of God (to which our own powers cannot raise
us except with the help of Gods light) and which is signied by the heavenly paradise. The rst end has been entirely revealed to us by the philosophers while the other has been revealed by the Holy Spirit, prophets,
and sacred writings. While at the end of the Monarchia Dante concedes
that mortal happiness is in some sense ordered toward immortal felicity, it seems clear that he denes human happiness as Aristotle denes
it an end in itself, constituted by philosophical contemplation. Lerner
argues that Dantes commitment to dual happiness may be found in the
Commedia as well, and observes that Dante reaches earthly Paradise in
the Purgatorio through a pilgrimage accomplished by means of philosophy, not theology. While this earlier journey pregures the later journey through Paradise, this parallel need not obviate the fact that there are
two paths. Olivia Holmes reads Dantes relationship to these two felicities
through the lens of erotic choice, but illustrates that they are unied in
a female love object; she notes, First in the Convivios Donna Gentile,
and later in the Commedias Beatrice, Dante embraces both meanings of
Philosophy, the secular/classical and the scriptural. For Dante, although
the fullness of both felicities cannot be experienced in this life, desire for
earthly happiness need no longer be dened by its frustrating and unfulllable nature.
Chaucer knew at least parts of Dantes Convivio the Wife of Bath
attributes the loathly ladys speech about gentilesse to Dante, and parts
of her meditation on nobility come from this text. Chaucer also seems to
quote the treatise in The Legend of Good Women (vertu is the mene, / as
Etik seith, F.), though the echo is decidedly brief. Although it is
possible that Chaucer was working with a fragmentary knowledge of the
Convivio, it is just as likely that he had knowledge of the full treatise. In
this unnished text, Dante theorizes the pursuit of philosophical knowledge as an erotic pursuit, placing it within a Boethian framework. In
the rst book, Dante allies himself almost incidentally with the author of
the Consolation, justifying his choice to speak about himself by observing that Boethius used the pretext of consolation to clear his name from
infamy. Such a motivation guides his commentary on the rst canzone,
revealing that virtue, not passion, moved its author. In the second book,
Dante identies himself far more closely with Boethius, revealing that
when he had lost lo primo diletto de la mia anima (the rst delight
of [his] soul), he read the Consolation alongside Ciceros On Friendship,
and through this reading discovered that Philosophy was a somma cosa
(great thing), and he began to imagine her fashioned come una donna
gentile (as a gentle lady, ..). The Donna Gentile of the Convivio is a
noble lady, a beloved, and Philosophia all at once. In taking the position
of the prisoner consoled by Philosophy, and yet placing that consolation
in the delight of human happiness experienced by friend, lover, philosopher Dante gives us a radically changed Boethianism. In the Convivio,
the pursuit of philosophy does not demand a turn from the world, but
rather an embrace of philia that gives consolation.
The Convivio denes philosophy by exploring the relationship between
the philosopher and his love object; happiness itself in its earthly form
is constituted by this relationship. Citing Book of the Ethics, Dante
denes the end of true friendship as delight in what is good, and the
end of philosophy as quella eccellentissima dilezione che non pate alcuna
intermissione o vero difetto, cio vera felicitade che per contemplazione
de la veritade sacquista (that most excellent delight which suers no cessation or imperfection, namely true happiness, which is acquired through
the contemplation of truth, ..). The Convivio is thus an allegory of
and commentary on love, friendship, and philosophy three categories
which collapse entirely by the end of the work. For Dante, a philosopher
is most importantly a friend of wisdom, a participant in a love aair that is
mutual, engendering good will on both sides (.). Following Aristotle,
the delight that accompanies true friendship and true philosophy is
rooted in stable truths rather than contingent, accidental desires, though
located in a world of contingency. Philosophy itself comes to be dened
through friendship, for Filosoa quando lanima e la sapienza sono fatte
amiche, s che luna sia tutta amata da laltra (philosophy exists when the
soul and wisdom have become such friends that each is wholly loved by
the other, ..). While Aristotles ideas of friendship proceed from his
denition of happiness, Dante turns this relationship inside out, showing his readers that philosophy is friendship, modeled on human relationships. While Dante is clearly imposing simultaneously courtly and
Aristotelian ideas onto Boethius incarnation of Philosophia, he may also
be drawing out an idea of philosophy as love/friendship that is latent in
Boethius own writings. Peter Dronke nds a parallel notion in Boethius
commentary on Porphyry, where he states that Philosophy is the love
and pursuit and in a sense friendship of Wisdom. Dante draws out the
implications of Boethius Philosophia, who was so easily transformed into
a courtly lady by late medieval readers.
Dante leaves no doubt that he speaks about happiness in this life,
emphasizing that when his canzone says quella gente che qui sinnamora
(those down here who fall in love, ..) such words signify that he
speaks of losoa umana (human philosophy) and those who fall in love
qui, cio in questa vita (here, that is, in this life, ..). While Dante
acknowledges in the fourth Book that the speculative intellect cannot
reach perfection in this life (..), it is nevertheless clear that he allows
for the pursuit of human happiness in its own right. For Dante, we rst
come to blessedness imperfectly, through the active life, but later nd it
almost perfectly in the exercise of the intellectual virtues (..). The
necessary qualication of almost and warnings about the impossibility
of intellectual perfection in this life do little to modify Dantes praise of
intellectual contemplation as the highest calling of human reason, oering its own delights, and a happiness that is proper to this world not
happy in that it partakes of some quality of the happiness of the afterlife,
but happy in that it fullls human earthly potentiality. Dante speaks not
only of friendship with wisdom, but of human need for companionship
in the social world. A life of happiness [vita felice], he observes, is not
attainable without the aid of someone else (..). While Aristotles theory of happiness allowed for the pursuit of perfect enjoyment in this life,
the transformation of contemplative happiness into imperfect earthly happiness was foundational for a medieval ethics of human felicity. Perfect
happiness might always be deferred until the afterlife, but human happiness could nevertheless be a true, real, and realizable activity.
Chaucer left Dantes Aristotelian material behind in building his discourse on nobility in The Wife of Baths Tale, seemingly uninterested
in the scholastic context of the Convivios discussions of virtue. Yet in
Troilus and Criseyde we nd an embodied, narrative version of Dantes

alliance of the pursuit of philosophy with the pursuit of a mutual love
and an engagement with philosophical questions made possible by falling in love and being in love. In the Convivio, Chaucer would have found
the collocation of delight, eros, happiness, and clerkliness that marks the
height of love in Troilus, Book . Dantes philia goes beyond the common or natural, does not hide itself from the loved one, manifests itself
in devotion or dedication, loves every part of the beloved, and exists both
between two people and between an individual and wisdom. Chaucer
does not go so far as Dante in locating perfect happiness on earth, and yet
he goes further. While Dante emphasizes love as a stable source of happiness amidst a world of turbulent change, Chaucer gives his lovers a contingent happiness that nevertheless transcends the felicity of the clerks.
And while Dante uses courtly models of human behavior and relationships to explain the felicities of philosophy, Chaucer uses a unied vision
of philosophical and courtly happiness to explore courtly love and friendship. All of the concerted power of philosophical and courtly discourses is
necessary to understand human relationships in Chaucers Troilus.

By placing Chaucers Troilus and Criseyde in the context of the Boethian
commentaries and Dantes Convivio, we may avoid the binary crux that
has so often guided interpretations of the lines with which I opened this
chapter, lines that describe the lovers joy against which clerkly felicity
appears insucient. With these lines, Chaucer leaves his audience wondering whether Troilus and Criseydes joy surpasses clerkly happiness,
or perhaps simply stands outside of it. Readers have typically wondered
about the narrators sincerity is he serious when he tells us that the
lovers erotic encounter exceeds the sovereign happiness commended by
clerks, and that it is in fact ineable? Such a question leads inevitably to
one of two options: either the narrator is sincere, and is an example of
someone who misidenties sensual pleasure as true happiness (or is reluctant to identify it as false), or the narrator is ironic, pointing out the vain,
misguided ways of the two lovers who mistake their brief delights for the
highest bliss. It is clear, however, that romantic happiness is one eld of
worldly felicity that Chaucer did not nd so easy to dismiss, and that he
consistently returned to the dicult relationship between erotic pleasure
and clerkly felicity. As in Dante, erotic, intellectual, and spiritual pursuits
of happiness manifest themselves in the same experience of philia, and are
thus not so easy to disentangle. The infamous clerks of the passage quoted
above make their appearance elsewhere in Chaucers poetry, as in The
Merchants Tale where the narrator explains that
Somme clerkes holden that felicitee
Stant in delit, and therfore certeyn he,
This noble Januarie, with al his myght,
In honest wyse, as longeth to a knyght,
Shoop hym to lyve ful deliciously.
(ll. )
In this instance, it is clear that January has either ignorantly or quite cleverly misunderstood the clerkly belief that felicity is equivalent to pleasure. The qualifying Somme at the beginning of the statement might
signal that Chaucer was aware of contemporary philosophical debates
as to whether enjoyment ( fruitio) was the same as pleasure (delectatio),
and thus whether happiness as a human summum bonum was necessarily constituted by pleasure. Contemporary philosophical allusion or no,
January transforms the delights of philosophical contemplation into the
delicious pursuit of voluptuous pleasure with a much younger wife. But
even January worries that he will have so part felicitee (l. ) in marriage that he will pre-emptively have his heaven on earth. Chaucer was
obviously delighted by the comic potential inherent in a clerkly discourse
that centered on the high moral pursuit of happiness and pleasure, but
he also took a genuine interest in the ethical and poetic implications of
a moral discourse that acknowledged the desirability of happiness and
pleasure, indeed judged the good by the very fact of its desirability, and
yet sought to discipline or even construct those same desires. Those who
identify either an unreliable or an ironic narrator in the Troilus have created a largely false choice, for both options deny the poet and the reader
an engagement with the complicated problems evoked in this stanza. In
drawing his comparison, Chaucer plays on the fact that lovers and moral
philosophers share a common understanding of happiness as the sovereign good. A knowing disregard for the lovers bliss would evade the basic
conuences and conicts between clerkly ideals of spiritual and intellectual happiness and the natural attractions of erotic love, which has its
own spiritual and intellectual involvements. Such disregard also denies
the poem a serious engagement with these philosophical denitions of
human happiness if we take it as obvious that the felicite so commended by clerks is the one we should desire, how exactly is it dened?
Who are these clerks who commend it so, and what is their relationship
to human happiness?
For a poet like Chaucer, interested in the relationship between human

love and loss and nal ends, the reconsideration of paths toward happiness opened up myriad possibilities for the poetry of epic romance.
Rather than a hymn to stability and self-suciency, the Troilus is better understood as an exploration of happiness in a world of instability
and contingency not in deance of clerkes and their prescriptions,
but as a poetic contribution to a larger inquiry into the nature of human
happiness and sensible pleasures. The poem asks its audience to share in
its lovers sorrows and joys, and to imagine an ethical response to their
shared delight. The narrator opens the poem by calling upon lovers that
bathe in gladnesse (.) to identify with the adversity that faces other,
less fortunate lovers, and claims that he himself will have compassion on
them as though he were their own brother (.). This plea for compassion in sorrow is nothing unusual, but it becomes more complicated in the
context of the shared joy at the center of the poem. The sharing of emotion is an ethical necessity, given Pauls command that we should gaudere cum gaudentibus ere cum entibus (rejoice with those who rejoice,
weep with those who weep, Romans :). The author of the pentitential
treatise Fasciculus Morum, speaking about the diabolical nature of envy,
extends Pauls statement beyond law and claims that Paul says it is human
nature (humanum est) to share joy and sadness. Sharing joy may thus
be read as anything from perfectly ethical to dangerously (because sexually) voyeuristic. Troilus and Criseyde raises many questions about the propriety of the witnessing both by Pandarus and by the audience of the
erotic bliss of its eponymous couple. Yet the narrator replaces questions of
propriety with larger ethical questions when he balks at describing their
consummation not because he is too polite, but because their joy exceeds
the summum bonum.
Placing the lovers consummation in the context of its potential relation to the highest good usefully shifts our relationship to the questions
of complicity and voyeurism that have long haunted readers perceptions
of the lovers happiness. Pandarus role in the poem often calls up questions of consent and propriety, and raises the possibility that our witnessing of the two lovers bliss is an act of voyeurism. His and Troilus desires
are at times virtually indistinguishable in the poem, and he shares in the
knights losses and triumphs, pains and joys. Pandarus vicariousness
invites readers to see themselves in the same terms, and thereby encourages
us to consider the ethics of our participation in the felicity and the sorrows of the two lovers. A. C. Spearing remarks on both the distance created by Chaucers narrator, ignorant in the ways of love, and the distance
bridged by Pandarus, who experiences vicarious sexual pleasure through

his machinations. The poem appears to slide very deliberately between
vicariousness and empathy, voyeurism and consolation. Lee Patterson
has argued for an ethical mode of identication with the lovers, recommending that the experience [of reading Troilus and Criseyde] should
be one not of moral superiority but rather complicity. Yet describing
the audiences response as complicit implies that we guiltily participate
in a crime or other transgression; instead the poem works to bridge the
gap between complicity and compassion by making mutuality a central
aspect of happiness. The question raised by the readers participation in
the lovers happiness is how such a partaking can be consonant with the
felicite learned through experience. If we are not soothed by Orpheus
song of grief, but rather witnesses to a song of joy, what response should
this provoke?
This question of how friendship should be understood as a mutual pursuit of happiness is refracted through each of Chaucers three protagonists. The most explicit advocate for the sharing of joy is Pandarus, whose
version of happiness and friendship is sensual, contingent, and shared. It
is perhaps for this reason that it is Pandarus who introduces the Orpheus
myth into the world of the poem. The question of compassion in relation to love poetry is essential to the tale of Orpheus in every version, as
Orpheus song of grief for Eurydice invariably soothes not only earthly
creatures but the denizens of hell. The tragic irony of Orpheus song in
Boethius Consolation is that though it subdues nature and relieves hells
tortures, it cannot soothe its master. We constantly take pleasure in the
well-rendered sorrows of others; such is perhaps a description of the better portion of poetry. Yet Pandarus, from whose mouth the allusions to
those conquered by Orpheus y fast in Book of the Troilus, would much
rather take pleasure in others happiness and do whatever he can to make
that happiness come about. And Pandarus will not, above all, allow his
friend to wallow in the lyric enjoyment of his suering. In this moment,
Pandarus appears to diagnose Troilus transgression of psychoanalytic
ethics Troilus has given up on his desire and prefers rather to enjoy his
pain; this pleasure in sacrice is precisely what Pandarus asks Troilus to
give up, exhorting him to Delyte nat in wo (.). The ever-optimistic
Pandarus is the poems problematic spokesperson for an earthly happiness
that might evade the Law of the Father, trick Fortune at her own game,
and might disturb our convictions that earthly happiness, because necessarily eeting, is a foolish or even impossible pursuit. That such questions
about the relationships among poetry, empathy, and happiness are raised
by the Orpheus myth would not surprise Albert the Great, who tells us
that in the opening lines of Book , meter (Felix qui potuit boni)
of the Consolation, we nd drawn together and grasped (trahitur et
tangitur) all of Book of the Nicomachean Ethics.
In a scene in Book that seems to deliberately parody Chaucers earlier foray into Boethian consolation, The Book of the Duchess, Pandarus
reports to Criseyde that he has encouraged his friend to tell him the cause
of his sorrow. Pandarus claims to have overheard Troilus in the palace
garden groaning and praying to God to have routhe upon [his] peyne
(.). Like the Black Knight, Troilus reportedly repents of his youthful
dismissal of love and beseeches God to demand his penance. And like the
Book s dreaming narrator, Pandarus pretends not to have heard Troilus
cries and allows him to feign a fresshe countenance, until he later nds
him weeping in his chamber and nally convinces him to reveal the
source of his grief. The ambiguity of The Book of the Duchess as to whether
Chaucers narrator understands the source of the Knights grief or not is
claried to comic eect in this episode of the Troilus; we might understand Pandarus as the answer to the Black Knights adamant assertion
that neither al the remedyes of Ovyde, / Ne Orpheus, god of melodye
(ll. ) could heal him. Troilus physician intentionally feigns ignorance as a ploy to gain his patients condence, encouraging him to reveal
his grief so that a cure might be found. In his conversation with Criseyde,
Pandarus rewrites Chaucers dream vision and creates a narrative path
toward a happy ending to be authored, naturally, by him. Consolation
arrives in the form of a condent procurer of happiness a possibility
that could not have been entertained by the earlier poem. Pandarus walks
a ne line between vicarious, intrusive pleasure and literal incarnation of
the Aristotelian ideal of the friend he shares with Troilus those things
that constitute his existence and make his life worth living. The poem
both raises the possibility that Pandarus is no more than a bawd, and
emphasizes that he acts selessly, for no hope of reward (.). He and
Troilus are mutually satised by the actions of the other, holding each
other wel apayed, or rewarded (.).
Troilus is not only a recipient of the benets of such friendship, for he
shares his joys with his friend, and his emotional response to love in the
aftermath of the aairs consummation exceeds the private space of the
loving couple. His renewed compassion appears at rst to render Troilus
the typical courtly lover, ennobled by love, but the poem emphasizes not
only his valor in war and his generosity, but his increased capacity for
friendship, and his sharing of his joy most of all with Pandarus. While
delighting in his love aair with Criseyde, Troilus lives In susaunce,

in blisse, and in singynges (.). He gathers about him a world of
folk, the best men and women that Troy has to oer. This Troilus in love
consoles those who are in sorrow, and lacks all envy, feeling only gladness
when others fare well (.). He takes Pandarus often into the garden to share his joy in Criseydes wommanhede and beauty, and sings
him a Boethian hymn to cosmic love. His song that begins Love, that
of erthe and se hath governaunce (.) praises Love in its capacity to
join people together while assuring harmonious change a world ruled
by love varies, but in such a way that it remains stable. Troilus may not
here be wrenching Boethius meter out of its proper context, but rather
celebrating its new context of Dantean courtly Aristotelianism. His song
is the embodiment of stable love in the face of instability necessary in
adversity and even more honorable in prosperity that Aristotle praises.
Like Troilus, Criseyde experiences love in relation to friends outside
the private couple, in the context of a homosocial community and in an
even more overt context of philosophical debate. Earlier in the poem,
we witness a Criseyde who is rst opened up to the possibility of love
through her relationships with her women. She is the gure most concerned about the brittleness of false happiness, and of the main gures
in the poem she emerges most explicitly as an ethical subject one who
expresses concerns about Fortune and freedom, right action and reputation, and is ever asking what fyn she is living for. As a widow, she
stands in the beginning as someone whose involvement in lifes tumult
is past, someone for whom the mooste stormy lyf (.) is something
to be avoided. The traditional moralizing voice (of the Ovide Moralis,
for instance) would recommend holding oneself aloof from the storms
of earthly life, safe in the boat of the church and of faith. Yet Criseyde,
for better or worse, plunges in. We rst witness Criseyde being brought
to love in Book when she witnesses her niece Antigones song. Criseyde
is naturally skeptical about the possibility of happiness through earthly
love, and she wonders aloud if there is actually such bliss among lovers
as they describe in their songs (.). Antigones song expresses the
notion that being in love will allow for a life consistently In alle joie and
seurte out of drede (.) while simultaneously acknowledging that the
most heartfelt possible wish for ones beloved is the wish for good fortune: Now good thrift have he, wherso that he be! (.). Criseyde
is silent in response, but we are told that she printed every word that she
had heard upon her heart, thus beginning to lose her fear of love, and to
grow somwhat able to converte (.). Rather than being swayed by
testimony or proof, Criseyde learns from the example of her friend, and is
moved by music. She resembles the reading subject of the Consolation, as
theorized by Nicholas Trevet: moved to compassion by musical language
and nally brought to knowledge via various modes example, logical
discourse, and fabulous narrative.
Of course, the possibility that Criseyde does not participate in the
felicitous mutual love (I love hym best, so doth he me) described by
the poem is repeatedly raised. For it is directly after Criseyde hears
Antigones song and becomes less fearful of love that she dreams of a
white eagle who rends her heart from her breast, an image that is echoed
later in the description of Criseyde as an innocent lark caught in the grasp
of the sparrow hawk (.). The felicity of the lovers is threatened
not solely by its avowed earthliness, but by the possibility that Criseyde
is an unwilling participant, that she is only an object to be enjoyed. This
anxiety both imedles their felicity and sharpens the readers belief in
the importance of mutuality, our desire to believe what the poem overtly
insists upon that Criseyde loves and experiences joy with Troilus. The
mutuality of the lovers delight is integral to the narrative, and is nally
the reason for the narrators loss of words. The union of the two lovers
a central lyric moment in the midst of a narrative punctuated by songs,
letters, and interior philosophical debate is a moment in which concerns
for the mutuality of the aair are meant both to dissipate and yet also to
heighten. The poems oscillation here in regard to the possibility of true
mutual consent appears tied to the consolations provided not only by sensory pleasures but by language itself. The audience is presented with a
moment of pre-symbolic bliss, where language need not, cannot enter. In
the face of the seamless union of Troilus and Criseydes wills and enjoyment, words fail. Still, at other moments the poem attempts to reverse the
Lacanian and Platonic understanding of language whereby words themselves signify lack. Chaucer fantasizes a space where language is for joy
fullled, not joy desired, where his lovers rehearse the history of their
courting in lines that sound quite a bit like the poem itself: how, and
whan, and where / Thei knewe hem rst, and every wo and feere / That
passed was (.). In this joyous retelling, both happiness and sorrow are recalled, but all hevynesse is turned to gladnesse and tales of
woe are broken by kissing. The two lovers recover bliss without a loss of
self or speech, implying that if we could only inhabit their bliss for this
instant, we might have our reading or listening experience transformed
into an experience of full, joyous language without lack, and compassion
without pain.
The couples process of falling in love and loving is a foray into the losoa umana that Dante describes; they are la gente che qui sinnamora
exploring the possibilities and limits of human happiness and friendship,
and the philosophical questions animated specically by an eroticization of that happiness and friendship. To what extent can one recognize
the will of another, and how much freedom can one discover in ones
own will? How can learning from others not only lead to happiness, but
in fact constitute happiness itself? For Aristotle, friendship is not simply a tool leading to greater virtue and happiness, but is an end in itself.
Community has its benets, but is pursued for its own sake, and people
desire to live together even when they have no need of help from one
another.
Thus when the sun rises and the world impinges on the lovers moment
of bliss, just as it will on their later moment of quiet, ineable mutuality, this turning of Fortunes wheel need not demonstrate that we should
never have enjoyed the poetic depiction of worldly happiness in the rst
place. Worldliness, in questa vita, is the substance of their philosophy.
And thus Criseydes betrayal is born not out of her ckle femininity, nor
necessarily out of political pragmatism, but out of a desire to keep her
worldly felicity stable, a refusal to accept the perhaps at the heart of her
and Troilus friendship and love aair. Criseyde ventriloquizes Boethius
when she asks how one can ever be truly happy, for if to lese his joie
he sette a myte, / Than semeth it that joie is worth ful lite (.).
Chaucers interest in Boethian discourses of consolation accords not only
with representations of sorrow in need of amelioration, but with representations of mundane joy that are unavoidably riddled with anxiety.
The Consolation gives voice to the fragility of such joy and to its uncertain ethical value. Philosophia consoles Boethius by encouraging him to
see that his earthly misfortune does not actually dilute his happiness, if
this happiness is only appropriately dened. As Aristotle explains in the
rst Book of the Nicomachean Ethics, we cannot determine the happiness of a man by the vagaries of fortune, as though he were a chameleon happy one moment and then unhappy the next. Such unstable,
insucient happiness is not happiness at all. This denition is the cornerstone upon which Lady Philosophy builds her pupils understanding of
the summum bonum as verray blisfulnesse. Secular happiness, worldly
selynesse, is simply not to be trusted either it is compromised by anxiety or it is only a phantom emotion. Yet Aristotles rejection of fortunebased understandings of eudaimonia are taken to a radical extreme by
Philosophia, who argues that fortunate circumstances do not contribute
to a full life of happiness in any meaningful way. For William of Aragon,

as for Aristotle, it is the human condition to feel misfortune deeply a far
remove from Philosophias insistence that bad fortune is to be embraced
as revealing a truth about the world. In her betrayal of Troilus, Criseyde
appears to oscillate between an Aristotelian acceptance of fortune bityde what bityde (.) and an acceptance of Philosophias denition
of happiness.
After their fortunes have turned, Criseyde comforts herself by looking forward to a time when in the feld of pite, out of peyne, / That
highte Elisos, shal we ben yfeere, / As Orpheus and Erudice, his feere
(.). The rhyme of yfeere and feere calls up an absent third
homonym, fear, suggesting the anxiety that underlies Criseydes Elysian
fantasy. She appears later to assent to earthly felicity, stating boldly that
she calls felicity her sussaunce (.), yet her earlier Orphic desires
betray her. Criseyde seems to have in mind the Orpheus and Eurydice
not of Boethius but of Ovid s Metamorphoses, where Orpheus death at
the hands of a horde of Thracian women allows him to reunite permanently with his Eurydice in the Elysian elds. In their shared afterlife the
couple stroll together, each occasionally leading the other, with Orpheus
able nally to look back safely at his love, without fear, loss, or pain. It
is the Criseyde who has removed her desire from the unstable, contingent
world who nally loses her resolve to pursue felicity through love. She
is not punished with loss for looking back at worldly goods, but rather
inicts loss by looking beyond the world to a static Elysium. Of course,
there is no Elysium for Troilus and Criseyde only war-wracked Troy.
Once Criseyde turns her gaze toward the Elysian elds, in an inversion
of the Orpheus myth, the serpent that bit the eeing Eurydice becomes
a simple thread that can nd no purchase in Criseydes breast both
Troilus and Troy slide knotteles through her heart (.).
The lovers who in fear and trepidation gave themselves up to mutual
bliss experience a felicity beyond words, beyond clerks, though not
beyond time. That they quickly lose this bliss points not only to the inexorable turning of Fortunes wheel, but to the diculty of maintaining
ones appreciation for the felicity wrested from this brotel worlde. Once
experienced, one cannot help but wish for eternal, Elysian bliss, though
not the way Lady Philosophy intended. Criseydes desire for stability and
constancy over anxiety-ridden worldly happiness is hardly a turn toward
the divine. Her knotless string will metamorphose once again to become
Diomedes hook and lyne (.). The poems palinode raises the possibility that Troilus has managed to make this happy turn, though his
laughter has traditionally demanded that Chaucers audience make a

choice that is the mirror image of the choice that the clerks of Book
seem to ask for an anti-Boethian irony or a Boethian sincerity. One
might persuasively dismiss the last stanzas of the Troilus as not a language for serious, moral, religious, or psychological inquiry, yet it is
precisely as commonplaces that they necessitate investigation.
Martin Camargo allies Troilus nal laugh with his earlier (and equally
conventional) laughing disdain for love and lovers, thus enacting a parody of the man that Lady Philosophy would like Boethius to become.
As the narrator tells us, thus bigan his lovyng of Criseyde, / As I have
told, and in this wise he deyde (.). Troilus laugh need not be
ironic or insincere, but he has been converted to the enjoyment of divine,
not human, happiness; such should well be his end in the afterlife, akin
to the turn in Dantes Paradiso, when the poet leaves Virgil behind for
Beatrice. We do not need the intervening story of Troilus and Criseyde,
or their songs, to arrive at the narrators exhortation to yonge, fresshe
folkes to give up worldly vanity, and that is what is so jarring, and thus
so important, about these commonplaces they do not accommodate
lived or shared experience. They are correct in a strict sense, though they
do not tell half the story, or any story. The Lord whom Chaucer addresses
in the nal stanza as uncircumscript, but which al maist circumscrive
does in fact encompass, circumscribe all of the experiences contained in
the poem, though that does not mean that he constrains them. From
the perspective of Philosophy, or from the perspective of God that she
attempts to show the prisoner of the Consolation, the world is entirely
harmonious and provident, no matter the experiences of any particular
individual. And yet, as Joel Relihan has argued, the Consolation nevertheless leaves the prisoner and the reader with a view of the world in all its
complexity, rather than a view of the heavens.
At the end of Troilus and Criseyde, we are given both perspectives: Troilus view of This litel spot of erthe (.) and the narrators
Dantean prayer to Thow oon, and two, and thre, eterne on lyve (.).
Troilus experiences pleyn full and perfect felicity, but it does not
compromise the felicite humaine of the earlier narrative. Whereas the
Consolation traces an oscillation between attachment to worldly goods
and individual desires and their transcendence, Troilus and Criseyde traces
a double trajectory toward imperfect human happiness and the full felicity of the afterlife. Troilus laughter, while an evolution from his earlier
scong, is not an evolution available to la gente che qui sinnamora.
The lovers felicity remains both twinned with and distanced from the
felicity of the clerks. The Aristotelian reception of Boethius brought the

happiness commended by clerks closer to worldly happiness in all its
mutuality and sensuality, but it cannot, of course, entirely collapse the
two. Chaucers Boethian characters, like the poet himself, cannot think
about happiness without thinking through the language uneasily shared
by clerks and lovers. This doubleness opens Chaucerian ethics beyond the
dicta of clerkes wise, both grounding and heightening his lovers doubled joy.
In giving us these Boethian lovers, and placing an Aristotelian and
Dantean philia between them, Chaucer locates happiness not in a single
individuals pursuit of the good, or of an object of love, but in the couple
variously formulated as heterosexual and homosocial. Troilus and Criseyde
is lled with conversations regarding the ethics of love between friends,
lovers, in letters, in response to song. In the poem, philosophy is love
and love is philosophy. In Dantes Convivio, contemplation is understood
through the categories of human friendship, while for Chaucer, actual
engagement with human friendship and love are the grounds of the pursuit of philosophy not as a vehicle or allegory for philosophical truths,
but as a route toward a philosophy that is nurtured by sensory experience,
animated by poetic compassion, and constituted by shared conversation
about the pursuit of the good. Such an understanding of love as philosophy does not guarantee the integrity or perfection of human happiness Troilus and Criseyde pursue felicity by loving the future together,
and then abandon themselves and their love by hoping for an Elysian or
impossible bliss. Human felicity suces precisely because it strives for
delightful mutuality in the face of earthly instability, for a goal that is
itself inchoate. As Aquinas, Dante, and Chaucers lovers remind us, the
tense of human happiness is always the imperfect.
Female characters such as Alcyone and Criseyde often make the strongest cases in Chaucers poetry for an ethical relationship to love, embodying what I have called erotic Aristotelianism. The course this book has
traced from Pygmalion to Criseyde begins to map a complicated terrain
that features the gendering of the subjects of ethical love, one in which
feminine characters are often the ones who take up the role of the amorous philosophical subject. We might not be surprised by this, given Jane
Burns observation that women in Old French literature create possibilities for a larger range of desiring experiences beyond the paradigm of
unrequited male desire and disrupt the binary structure of the conventional Western romantic love story. Both Burns and Simon Gaunt have
argued that feminine and queer subjects in medieval romance trouble
dominant modes of desire, sublimation, and sacrice, and thus oer ways
of critiquing the ethics of courtly love from within; as Burns puts it, we
can productively look back to those medieval heroines who broke the
rules but still stayed in the game. These women break the rules by neither remaining silent objects of desire nor inhabiting the subject position
of masculine desire for such a silent object. I would argue that in the wake
of the reception of Aristotelian ethics, such possibilities expand, and, as
we have seen in the gures of Pygmalion, Pynotes, Alcyone, the Black
Knight, and Criseyde, the subject of courtly Aristotelianism expresses
desire for shared fortune, for a lover who speaks, for an alikeness that
does not reduce the beloved to a mirror image. These desires are not often
fullled, or not for long, but their expression opens up a space for thinking about love that embodies an ethical relationship to the other, and a
new relationship to human happiness.
The privileged position of women in relation to the thought of love
is something that has been emphasized within post-Freudian psychoanalytic discourse. Alain Badiou argues that feminine truth is distinctive
because love is its condition; the feminine subject may approach truth
through science, art, or politics, but it is love that allows any of these
truth procedures to confer value on humanity. For the masculine subject, by contrast, each type of discourse confers value without reference to
the existence of the others. Badiou stresses that the loving subject does
not think itself love for him is not self-reexive but he suggests
that the woman in love inquires, she (or he) wanders and tells stories,
and her statements aim at ontological truth. Jacques Lacan also associates
feminine subjectivity with ontological truth, and his subject of feminine
jouissance is not only a philosophical subject, but an explicitly Aristotelian
subject. As I illustrate below, Lacans ideas about love grew out of his
study of medieval Aristotelianism, and his psychoanalytic ethics do not
so much critique courtly love as they make explicit the ethics of late
medieval poetry an earthly ethics of love between subjects at the mercy
of fortune, an ethics after Aristotle in all senses of the phrase.

An insistence upon the alliance of Lacanian jouissance fminine with
Aristotle may appear strange or even perverse, given that if Lacan tells us
anything about the ethics of psychoanalysis in his seminar on the topic, it
is that it constitutes a denitive break with Aristotelian ethics. For Lacan,
it is the continuing relevance of Aristotles morality that provides the foundation for the subversiveness of Freud; after Freud, he argues, Aristotle
is rendered incomprehensible. Lacans Freudian critique of Aristotle is
founded centrally on the notion that Aristotle situates sexual desire outside the moral register. Aristotles theory of virtuous love, with the highest form of love consisting of a shared pursuit of the good, does not at
rst seem to square with Lacans insistence on the irrationality, the contingency, and the narcissism of desire. According to Lacan, Freud oers
something completely new to ethical discussions of pleasure: a contingent notion of the good that roots happiness in a chance happening
rather than in an irrefutable teleology that guides rational man on the path
toward enjoyment. Yet Aristotle is never simply discarded by Lacan; the
ancient philosopher is a constant touchstone in his writings on ethics, and,
if anything, is not overturned but reinvented. As Lacan seeks to create an
ethics of psychoanalysis that will supersede Aristotelian ethics, he leaves
behind his exhortations not to give way on ones desire (ne pas cder sur
son dsir), and it appears that he leaves this delity to desire behind in
favor of an ethics of the real that is closer to an ethics of love an ethics
that has manifest connections with Aristotelian philia.
Lacans recasting of his seventh seminar, The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, as

a new Nicomachean Ethics for our time is not made explicit until his twentieth seminar on feminine sexuality. Lacan reminds his audience that In
dealing, a long time ago, a very long time ago indeed, with the ethics of
psychoanalysis, I began with nothing less than Aristotles Nicomachean
Ethics. He talks about the impossibility of reading Aristotle in French
translation, stating that the incomprehensibility of available editions
should not be attributed to the fact that we have but badly taken
notes. Lacan allies himself with the Greek philosopher by discussing
his own earlier seminar on ethics and the unauthorized version published
by an enthusiastic note-taker. Stating that he will rewrite and republish
this seminar, seemingly in hope of avoiding the fate of Aristotles Ethics,
Lacan nevertheless optimistically claims that reading the Nicomachean
Ethics in the French translation, you understand nothing in it, of course,
but no less than in what I tell you (vous ny comprendrez rien, bien sr,
mais pas moins qu ce que je dis), and thus it suces all the same.
Aristotle is distant and dicult, but no more or less comprehensible than
Lacans own discourse (ce que je vous raconte). In the end, Lacan allies
himself quite closely to Aristotle, at the same time as he insists upon the
philosophers strangeness, his blindness to sexuality, his misguided metaphysics of telos. It is thus both surprising and predictable when Lacan
unequivocally states, whatever else may be said, I prefer Aristotle to
Jaufr Rudel.
What does it mean for Lacan to prefer Aristotle to the twelfth-century
troubadour Jaufr Rudel, famous for his depictions of love from afar? One
might not want to take this rejection of Jaufr Rudel too seriously; after
all, his medieval Provenal biographer gives him credit for bons sons,
ab paubres motz (ne melodies, but poor words). But Lacan is surely
not making a purely aesthetic judgment here. Directly after he tells us
that courtly love is the only way to elegantly pull o the absence of the
sexual relationship elegant and fraudulent because we imagine that we
ourselves have erected barriers to impossible jouissance he tells us that
Aristotles work has more of a key to the obstacle than the courtly poet
Jaufr Rudel. Where, for Lacan, courtly poetry oers a way to exchange
self-shattering jouissance for the more easily domesticated delights of
words and meanings that endlessly circle the sublimed object ( jouis-sense),
Aristotelian philosophy oers wider possibilities for enjoyment. In this
seminar, Lacan speaks about a love that is horsexe (beyondsex), setting this love apart from the sacricial, narcissistic desire that he associates with courtly love. Narcissism is contrasted with a jouissance fminine
that is aware of the paradoxes inherent when one addresses oneself to

an Other who can never live up to ones demands and admiration; this
jouissance is allied with a version of Aristotelian philia that reaches out to
another person in his or her fragility and terror as she attempts to stand
in relation to precisely this same Other. This kind of love verges upon
an ethics of the real in Lacans terms, approaching the real behind the
knowledge not only that the Other does not exist, but also that we
nevertheless each construct our identities by desiring this non-existent
Other. He thus chooses Aristotles theory of the nstasis the instance
or obstacle over Jaufrs. Lacan describes the project of his twentieth
seminar, at least in part, as trying to integrate [his] four formulas
into Aristotles work. Ultimately, Aristotles philosophy can tell us more
about the jouissance of being, and about the possibilities of subjectivity
within language, than the poetry of the troubadours, or at least the most
conventional of troubadours the tenso of Arnaut Daniel quoted in the
seventh seminar, a poem that reveals the obscene emptiness of the Lady
of courtly love, would be an exception.
It becomes increasingly clear in his twentieth seminar that it was
Lacans reading of medieval Aristotelian philosophy mostly Aquinas
that allowed him to rediscover Aristotle as a philosopher of contingency
and love, as a philosopher of the real. Medieval scholasticism becomes a
place where supposed Aristotelian blindness to sexuality is transformed
into a learned discourse on eros, narcissism, and the imagination a discourse not unlike Lacanian psychoanalysis. At the end of the seminar,
Lacan describes love in the following terms:
Regarding ones partner, love can only actualize what, in a sort of poetic
ight, in order to make myself understood, I called courage courage with
respect to this fatal destiny. But is it courage that is at stake or pathways of
recognition? Th is recognition is nothing other than the way in which the
relationship said to be sexual that has now become a subject-to-subject relationship, the subject being but the eect of unconscious knowledge stops
not being written.
Lacans discussion of love makes it clear that the distinction between

desire and love is one of inevitability versus contingency, ceaselessness
versus the event, repetition versus transformation. His phrase of contingency, stops not being written, stands in contrast to the impossible sexual relationship which doesnt stop not being written and the necessary,
which doesnt stop being written. To stop not being written oers
the promise of a present-tense moment of love and recognition without
the numbing repetition of the necessary. Love is a moment of beginning

over, of contingent meeting and happening, with an impossible promise
that the sexual relationship could exist.
The contrast between contingency and necessity is precisely what
underwrites the distance between Freud and Aristotle, according to
Lacans seventh seminar, where Aristotles telos, the irrefutable attractions of the pleasurable good, is superseded by Freuds notion of a happiness that is an encounter, a happening, a bit of good fortune. And yet,
as Lacan must know, while Aristotles good is undoubtedly teleological,
Aristotle is also the philosopher of contingency and fortune. He disagrees
with the Stoics who would advise us to be impervious to the workings of
fortune and the material world, happy in our virtuousness; happiness, for
Aristotle, is a complicated pursuit that involves birth into a good family,
self-fashioning, physical well-being, good friends, and material sustenance in other words, a great deal of good luck. The best kind of happiness, contemplative happiness, requires leisure, but is hard work, and even
then it might be thwarted by any exterior event. Thus Lacans poetic
denition of love as courage, given above, has some close anities to his
restatement of Aristotles denition of philia in Seminar :
What Aristotle evokes with the term philia, namely, what represents the possibility of a bond of love between two of these beings, can also, manifesting the
tension toward the Supreme Being, be reversed in the way in which I expressed
it it is in their courage in bearing the intolerable relationship to the Supreme
Being that friends, philoi, recognize and choose each other. This ethics is manifestly beyondsex.
Aristotelian philia is here rewritten not as the love of the good manifested
in the other, but the recognition that both subjects are striving toward
a manifestation of that good, both desiring the love of an Other whom
they know does not exist. For Lacan, the relationship to the Supreme
Being, the Aristotelian unmoved mover, is not manifested in a participation in its goodness, but in a participation of radically Other feminine jouissance. Such a recognition is a love that is beyondsex not
the sexual relationship that doesnt stop not being written, but a relationship of love that has the potential to stop not being written to
cross the line of impossibility. As Slavoj iek observes in The Metastases
of Enjoyment, true love can emerge only within a relationship of partnership that is animated by a dierent, non-sexual goal Love is an
unforeseeable answer of the real: it (can) emerge(s) out of nowhere only
when we renounce any attempt to direct and control its course. For
Badiou, love is an encounter in which both masculine and feminine subjects escape the trap of narcissistic desire passing through desire to love
like a camel through the eye of a needle. His man and woman do not
recognize each other, but rather speak from a perspective in which the
impossible-to-conceive two has already come into being. In love, two
are not merged into one, but rather allowed to inquire into the world
from a perspective that Badiou calls post-evental: it is only from this
impossible position that one can inhabit the truth of sexual dierence,
which is not the same as knowledge of the other sex. It is ironically the
pursuit of this non-sexual goal that creates the possibility for the existence
of the sexual relationship a mutual pursuit of enjoyment that does not
reduce the other person to an object or mirror.
In reintroducing Aristotelian philosophy here not in its purely classical
version, but in the version given to us by thirteenth-century Christian
theologians, especially Thomas Aquinas, Lacan gives us an Aristotle who
is a Freudian philosopher of love. Aquinas and others created an Aristotle
who repaired the ignorance Lacan diagnoses in the antique tradition,
which covered jouissance over with knowledge, and did not recognize that
speech concerns enjoyment. Lacans Aristotle is after the jouissance of
being itself, recognizing the way that the enjoyment of God is modeled
on our own enjoyment, that philosophical wondering is not only pleasurable, but a form of loving God. This Aristotle emerges from the Latin
authors who tried to reconcile an ethics oriented toward human happiness in this life with a Christian ethics, largely Augustinian, that tells us
that the only object rightfully to be enjoyed is God.
It is in the beyond of jouissance where the love poetry of the late
Middle Ages reaches toward the contingency that Lacan describes in his
twentieth seminar. One wonders what Lacan would have made of the
ethical discourse of the fourteenth century, where he would have found
a congenial skepticism about the narcissistic reexivity of beatic enjoyment and ongoing struggles to understand the relationship between love
and pleasure in this life and the life beyond. I can only imagine that
Lacan would have the same delirious admiration for the poets and
philosophers of the new Aristotle as he did for Aquinas, that perhaps
their reinjection of contingency, fortune, knowing and ignorant narcissism, and philia into the book of courtly love might have him rolling on
the oor laughing at their audacity. And yet even without this explicit
encounter, Lacan appeared to move toward a synthesis of Aristotelian
logic, philia, and medieval poetry, claiming in his twenty-rst seminar
that contingent love, love beyondsex, love that becomes possible as one
ceases not to write it que lamour cest lamour courtois (that love is
courtly love).
The subjects of love in medieval poetry express a jouissance fminine
not through ecstatic or mystical discourse the locations Lacan highlights in his twentieth seminar but through an intellectual and erotic
commitment to mutual experience and emotion, courage, and contingency, a commitment now recognizable as an Aristotelian response to the
full range of medieval ethical experience. This is not to say that courtly
poetry has at this point renounced the idealization of the thoroughly conventional Lady as cipher beautiful, wise, grey-eyed, and slender nor
the attractions of suering love from afar. But these ideals and pleasures
are increasingly ironized and placed in the context of a newly world-oriented ethics. The love born of impossibility and contingency can never
cross into necessity, but the poetry of Chaucer and his contemporaries
gives witness to this desire and its discontents. Aristotelian ethics allows
medieval poets to explore the possibilities of a love that would evade both
the numbing necessity of the possible as well as the impossibility of the
sexual relationship; for Lacan, Aristotle opens up possibilities of love
rooted in contingency and happening happiness. In their intolerable
relationship to the stormy sea of life, Alcyone and Ceyx might choose
each other. Alcyones ideal of love as a facing of fortune together has clear
anities with Lacans idea of love, of courage courage with respect to
this fatal destiny. This courage is tantamount to Badious encounter in
which the couple faces the world from the perspective of two that do not
collapse into one; it is from this perspective that the sexual relationship
may be said to stop not being written to are into existence, even if
only for a moment. Alcyone thus embodies not the archetypal courtly
desire to encircle the impossibility of object-possession with sublime
poetry, but the formulation that we can recognize as both Aristotelian
and Lacanian: every man wishes to share with his friends whatever constitutes his existence or whatever makes his life worth living. As Lacan
remarks, in a particularly Aristotelian moment, In love what is aimed at
is the subject, the subject as such, insofar as he is presumed in an articulated sentence, in something that is organized or can be organized on the
basis of a whole life. One loves a person not as an image, and not in a
discrete moment, but as a being who can be imagined as having a past,
present, and future. Such love is dicult to sustain, and Badiou describes
the labor of love as an oscillation between a collapsing of the two back
into one, and an expansion of the two conducted via innumerable common practices, or shared inquiries about the world, without which love
has no scene of its own except as a sexual adventure. Love is both an

event that eetingly introduces into reality an impossible perspective and
a more mundane labor of sharing common practices and whatever constitutes ones existence.

This collocation of Aristotelian philia, psychoanalytic ethics, and the
feminine subject of love emerges vividly in Chaucers Franklins Tale a
narrative that might be understood to epitomize the themes of this book
in miniature. The tale ostentatiously oers amorous conict as a location
for considering ethics, famously ending with the question of who is most
fre. Although it appears that the Franklins heroine Dorigen is excluded
from the category of the fre, it is her actions and desires that drive the
narrative, and her internal meditations on love and fortune that occupy
the bulk of the tales attention. It is in fact Dorigen who creates the conditions under which men can be fre, and who speaks as a philosophical
subject of courtly philia. As Burns notes, Agency in these revised contexts is not something wielded by an empowered and dominant protagonist of either gender. As women open up the range of possibilities of
amorous congurations and subject positions, they shift the possibilities
for men as well. While Dorigen is not explicitly oered by the Franklin
as a fre subject, her resistance to and embracing of fortune, and her
registering of the conicts created by her desire to protect herself and her
husband from the vagaries of God and nature, are what set the tale and
its ethical quandaries in motion.
The Franklin introduces his Breton matter by describing what he
understands to be an ideal marriage, one without maistrye and lived
in quiete and in reste (l. ). He makes it clear that Dorigen and
Arveragus yet to be named at this point constitute the ideal couple,
loving each other without constraint, exhibiting patience and preemptive forgiveness in the face of the inevitability that the other will
dooth or seith somtyme amys (l. ). Dorigens happiness is troubled
only by her husbands absence, and she is something of a comic foil for
the Alcyone of Ovids tale. While Arveragus seeks honor overseas in
England, Dorigen mourns, weeps, and fasts, so desirous is she of her
husbands presence that she can care for nothing else in the world. Yet,
unlike Alcyone, she receives regular letters from her husband regarding
his welfare, and is eventually emprented (l. ) with the consolation
of her friends.
Dorigen is not so thoroughly consoled, however, that she does not fear
for Arveragus safe return, a fear compounded by the presence of grisly
feendly rokkes blake along the coast of Brittany. She laments their presence, manifesting a desire to control and domesticate Fortune. While
acknowledging that clerks may argue that al is for the beste (l. )
and she herself quotes the Aristotelian commonplace that In ydel, as
men seyn, ye [God] no thyng make (l. ) she nevertheless prays that
God would sink these rocks into hell. Dorigen acknowledges the possibility of clerkly discourse (specically Aristotelian discourse) as a source
of consolation and an ethical guide to how to encounter the world, and
the world of fortune, but she rejects it.
Her desire to remove any natural obstacles to Arveragus return informs
Dorigens pley with Aurelius in the episode that follows. After informing her ardent admirer that she will never be untrue to her husband, she
oers to grant him her love if he should remove every rock from the coast
of Brittany. She clearly imagines that she is secure in this play, for she
has set Aurelius an impossible task (this were an inpossible! he cries,
l. ), and yet there is something serious in her request. In her fear for
Arveragus life, the remover of the rocks would surely earn her love and
gratitude. Dorigen asks us, and Aurelius, to imagine a scenario in which
her husband is allowed to live only through the actions of her adulterous
lover; Dorigen would then be both true wife and betrayer, Aurelius the
savior of Arveragus and the agent of his cuckoldry.
The tale avoids this situation by rendering Aurelius task otiose;
Arveragus returns home safely, and only then does Aurelius succeed in
removing the rocks (or at least creating the illusion that they were removed).
The submerged rocks come to signify not the conquering of Fortune, but
the magical knowledge of the stars, moon, and tides the manipulation of natural knowledge to create the ction that nature has been
tamed. With Arveragus home safely (though conveniently out of town),
Dorigen suddenly desires to defend the process of nature, and laments
that it has been thwarted by her persistent suitor. She blames Fortune for
her woes, and laments her untenable situation. Again, we are witness to
her internal struggle, articulated in the terms of clerkly discourse this
time a hundred-line summary of Jeromes Adversus Jovinianum that oers
a catalogue of noble wives who have sacriced themselves either to maintain their honor and delity to their husbands, because they did not want
to live without their husbands, or for the sake of their husbands lives.
Dorigens lengthy interior debate, said by the narrator to last a day or
tweye (l. ), underscores the repetitive solution to any threat to wifely
honor death and conveys that these endless exempla do not oer a
solution to Dorigens plight. Dorigen intends to die, but her complaint
cannot bring itself to resolution; it is only Arveragus return that halts her
lamenting and cataloguing.
In her complaint, Dorigen appears to blame Fortune, but she in fact
belatedly accepts the Aristotelian wisdom that had earlier seemed so
empty: fortune and the natural world are hard facts, like endish rocks,
and are not to be manipulated by human beings. Dorigen, by continuing
to complain, survives and continues to live her story, accepting the world
as it is. Jill Mann accordingly reads Dorigens failure to kill herself as
indicative of human resistance to stasis, to nality. Dorigens commitment to story is, like patience, a commitment to movement, a commitment
to follow events rather than force them into a pre-determined shape.
As Susan Crane observes, other characters do not nd themselves so
swept along in the ow of events as are Dorigen and the narrator. She
is Badious woman, the she (or he) who makes love travel and who
desires that her speech constantly reiterate and renovate itself not the
mute and violent man, but the woman who gossips and complains.
Dorigens commitment to story, to wandering, gossiping, and complaining as a way of surance, is recognizable as the Franklins science of love,
expressed in his most Langlandian moment: Lerneth to sure, or elles,
so moot I goon, / Ye shul it lerne, wher so ye wole or noon (ll. ).
Dorigens desire for shared experience, and her constant confrontation
with a fortune that will not cooperate with her own desires, with her
designs on her future, lead her to despair and intellectual impasse, but she
persists in her story. It is in Dorigen that we most clearly see love as courageous, as an aventure.
In his seventh seminar, Lacan explains that Gods power inheres in his
capacity to advance into emptiness, to move into the pure realm of the
perhaps and create where nothing had existed before; it is in our understanding of the nature of this power that we realize that the recognition of
another reveals itself as an adventure (aventure), and this recognition
retains all of the accents of militancy and of nostalgia we can invest
in it. The recognition of another is, Lacan might well have said,
a medieval romance. It is in the adventure and contingency of love that
medieval courtly poetry nds its positive ethical legacy in the modern
period. J. Allan Mitchell has recently noted that Levinas nds medieval poetry a fertile ground for investigating the ethics of erotic fortune.
Levinas readings of medieval poetry lead to his conclusions that ethics originates in contingency, that fortune is the condition of human
ourishing, and that the insistent thwarting of the love relationship,

in its insistence that possession and union are never quite possible, is
an assurance that the ethical relation is about to happen. A modern ethics of fortune and friendship may thus not only be grounded in
Aristotle, but in the medieval romance, which is, as Mitchell points out,
a genre of adventure and fortune above all.
Lacans denition of love as contingent, coinciding with the logic of the
impossible, always about to be written, and never written, is nally
just as much Chaucerian, Froissartian, and Langlandian as Thomist or
Aristotelian. And thus we might look for an ethical legacy of medieval
love poetry that gives us not or not only Lacans elegant fraud, but
an elegant and searching examination of this very fraud. Love after the
medieval Aristotle is no less narcissistic, self-sacricing, and deferred, but
reaches toward shared experience, imperfection, and present bliss a sacrice of the sacrice, as iek has termed it. Late medieval philia is not
an innocent practice it may be selsh, coercive, and rejected altogether
when inconvenient. But it survives on its own terms, no longer simply a pale imitation of the heavenly face to face. No poet denies that
Alcyones pleas may go unanswered, or that Dorigen as a new Alcyone
might manage to jeopardize a love that seemed threatened only by the
unforgiving material world, yet these are nevertheless not women raised
to the dignity of the Thing, but women facing their fatal destiny,
making sure that their stories continue to be written.
Notes
:
See Fernand van Steenberghen, Aristotle in the West: the Origins of Latin
Aristotelianism, trans. Leonard Johnston (Louvain: E. Nauwelaerts, );
D. A. Callus, Introduction of Aristotelian Learning at Oxford, Proceedings
of the British Academy (Nov. ): ; Martin Grabmann, Methoden
und Hilfsmittel des Aristotelesstudiums in Mittelalter (Munich: Verlag der
Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, ); Maurice de Wulf, History
of Mediaeval Philosophy, trans. Ernest C. Messenger (New York: Dover,
; trans. of th edition, ); and Bernard G. Dod, Aristoteles
Latinus, in Th e Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy: from the
Rediscovery of Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism, ,
ed. Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, assoc. ed.
Eleonore Stump (Cambridge University Press, ), pp. . On the
reception of the Ethics in particular, see Georg Wieland, The Reception
and Interpretation of Aristotles Ethics, and Happiness: the Perfection of
Man, in Th e Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, pp.
and .
Wieland notes that the Nicomachean Ethics was not adopted as a regular
textbook in the arts faculties until the second half of the fourteenth century (Wieland, Reception and Interpretation, p. ), though several books
of the Ethics were granted six to twelve weeks of study at Paris in . See
P. Osmund Lewry, Robert Kilwardbys Commentary on the Ethica Noua
and Vetus, in L homme et son univers au Moyen ge: actes du septime congrs
international de philosophie mdivale, ed. C. Wenin, Philosophes mdivaux
(Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut suprieur de philosophie, ), pp.
(p. ); and Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. mile Chatelain and
Heinrich Denie (Paris: Fratrum Delalain, ), , n. , p. . The
Ethics was a subject of disputation examinations as early as the s in Paris,
and commentaries and lectures are documented at Oxford in the s (Dod,
Aristoteles Latinus, pp. ).
Cary J. Nederman, Aristotelian Ethics before the Nicomachean Ethics:
Alternate Sources of Aristotles Concept of Virtue in the Twelfth Century,
Parergon (): , and Nature, Ethics, and the Doctrine of Habitus:
Notes to pages
Aristotelian Moral Psychology in the Twelfth Century, Traditio ( ):

.
Dod, Aristoteles Latinus, includes a table of medieval Latin translations of
Aristotles works (including pseudo-Aristotelian and related works). Robert
Grosstestes translation survives in manuscript copies; the revision, now
accepted as the work of William of Moerbeke, in . For a history of the
debate about the authorship of the revision, and an argument for attribution to
Moerbeke, see Jozef Brams, The Revised Version of Grossetestes Translation
of the Nicomachean Ethics, Bulletin de Philosophie Mdivale (): .
Alastair Minnis argues for the inuence of the reception of the earlier books
of the Nicomachean Ethics and a positive, secular re-evaluation of the active
life. See Minnis, The Biennial Chaucer Lecture: I speke of folk in seculer
estaat: Vernacularity and Secularity in the Age of Chaucer, Studies in the Age
of Chaucer (): .
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, .. (b): Percit autem operacionem delectacio non sicut habitus que inest, set ut superveniens quidam
nis velud iuvenibus pulcritudo. References to the Nicomachean Ethics
will include book, chapter, and line numbers from the Aristoteles Latinus,
vol. , parts , fasc. , ed. R. A. Gauthier (Leiden and Brussels: Brill
and Descle De Brouwer, ), unless otherwise stated, along with the
page and line numbers from Immanuel Bekkers edition of the Greek text
(Berlin, ), the standard form of reference in most modern editions and
translations. Translations, with some emendations, are from C. I. Litzingers
translation of Thomas Aquinas Commentary on Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics
(Notre Dame, IN: Dumb Ox Books, ), which includes the Aristotelian
text (based on William of Moerbekes revision of Grossetestes translation);
I have also consulted Terence Irwins translation of the Ethics (Indianapolis,
IN: Hackett Publishing Co., ) and found the text and notes very helpful. Throughout the book, I quote from published translations where they are
available; unreferenced translations are my own.
The De Anima had been translated by James of Venice in the mid twelfth
century, but was revised by William of Moerbeke by (most surviving
manuscripts of are in this version); the Politics was not available
in Latin before William of Moerbekes translation c. ( mss), and the
Rhetoric had limited circulation ( mss survive from the mid thirteenth century) until Williams translation ( mss). The Economics were available in an
anonymous translation ( mss) and its revision ( mss) in the late thirteenth
century. See Dod, Aristoteles Latinus, pp. .
Matthew Kempshall explores the way that thirteenth- and fourteenthcentury theologians negotiated the introduction of the idea of a common
good that did not only mean moral goodness, but also a practical political
goodness that ensured the material security and peace that enable human
virtue. See The Common Good in Late Medieval Political Thought (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, ).
Notes to pages
Aristotle, Politics, Book , chapter , section (b); for the translation

by William of Moerbeke, see Aristotelis Polticorum Libri Octo cum Vetusta
Translatione Gulielmi de Moerbeka, ed. Franz Susemihl (Leipzig: Teubner,
). For both the Politics and Economics, I have followed the chapter and
section numbers of the Loeb editions: Aristotle, Politics, trans. H. Rackham
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, ); Aristotle, Metaphysics,
Oeconomica, and Magna Moralia, trans. G. Cyril Armstrong (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, ).
Aristotle, Politics, Book , chapter , section (b).
Pseudo-Aristotle, Economics, Book , chapter , ll. . Albert Menuts edition of Nicole Oresmes translation of the Economics also contains appended
the medieval Latin text; see Maistre Nicole Oresme: Le Livre de Yconomique
DAristote, Critical Edition of the French Text from the Avranches
Manuscript with the Original Latin Version, Introduction, and Translation,
ed. Albert Douglas Menut, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society,
n.s. . (): (p. ). No Greek exemplar of the third book of the
Economics is known, so it is not included in Bekkers edition.
Pseudo-Aristotle, Economics, Book , chapter , l. (b); in Menuts
edition.
Kempshall, The Common Good, p. ; see also J. J. Murphy, Aristotles
Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, Quarterly Journal of Speech (): .
Judson Allen, The Ethical Poetic of the Later Middle Ages: a Decorum of
Convenient Distinction (University of Toronto Press, ), pp. ; see discussion of divisio scientiae in Rita Copeland, Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and
Translation in the Middle Ages: Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts
(Cambridge University Press, ), pp. , .
Allen, Ethical Poetic, p. .
Ibid., p. .
John Dagenais, The Ethics of Reading in Manuscript Culture: Glossing the
Libro de Buen Amor (Princeton University Press, ), p. xvii.
Adam Phillips, Going Sane: Maps of Happiness (New York: Fourth Estate,
), p. xx.
Jean Buridan, Quaestiones super Decem Libros Ethicorum (Frankfurt:
Minerva, ; facs. Paris edition), Prologue, p. r, col. b: Cum igitur
non nisi secundum moralia sit innatus appetitus alienare judicium rationis,
hinc est, quod in aliis artibus et scientiis sucit nobis logica simpliciter, sed
in moralibus indigemus logica speciali. Huius autem moralis logice due sunt
partes, scilicet rhetorica, et poetria, que sic dierunt: quia rhetorica claram
scientiam desiderat, et verbis utitur in sua propria signicatione retentis.
Poetria vero scientiam delectabiliter obscurare nititur per verborum transumptionem vel alio modo.
Buridan, Quaestiones super Decem Libros Ethicorum, Book , q. , sect.
e, p. v, col. b, and Questions on Book X of the Ethics, in Ethics and
Political Philosophy, ed. Arthur Stephen McGrade, John Kilcullen, and
Notes to pages
Matthew Kempshall, Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical
Texts (Cambridge University Press, ), p. . For a discussion of these
lines in the context of whether Buridan espouses a nominalist ethics, see
James J. Walsh, Nominalism and Ethics: Some Remarks about Buridans
Commentary, Journal of the History of Philosophy . (Jan. ): (p. ).
On enjoyment and love as subjects of medieval scholasticism, see L. O.
Aranye Fradenburg, Amorous Scholasticism, in Speaking Images: Essays in
Honor of V. A. Kolve, ed. R. F. Yeager and Charlotte C. Morse (Asheville,
NC: Pegasus Press, ), pp. .
Recent work that explicitly treats medieval literature as an ethical discourse
includes J. Allan Mitchell, Ethics and Exemplary Narrative in Chaucer and
Gower (Cambridge: Boydell and Brewer, ), and Ethics and Eventfulness
in Middle English Literature (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, ); Hugh
White, Nature, Sex, and Goodness in a Medieval Literary Tradition (Oxford
University Press, ); L. O. Aranye Fradenburg, Sacrice Your Love:
Psychoanalysis, Historicism, Chaucer (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, ); Glending Olson, Literature as Recreation in the Later Middle
Ages (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, ); and Alcuin Blamires,
Chaucer, Ethics, and Gender (Oxford University Press, ). Fradenburg
treats Chaucers poetry from the perspective of psychoanalytic ethics; Olson
examines medieval commentaries on Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics in order
to discover medieval ideas about the pleasure of reading (pp. ). For an
examination of the moral imagination shared by philosophical and literary works in the early modern period, see Christopher Tilmouth, Passions
Triumph over Reason: a History of the Moral Imagination from Spenser to
Rochester (Oxford University Press, ), pp. .
William Courtenay, Between Despair and Love: Some Late Medieval
Modications of Augustines Teaching on Fruition and Psychic States, in
Augustine, the Harvest, and Theology (): Essays Dedicated to Heiko
Augustinus Oberman in Honor of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Kenneth Hagen
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, ), pp. (p. ).
Arthur S. McGrade, Enjoyment at Oxford after Ockham: Philosophy,
Psychology, and the Love of God, in From Ockham to Wyclif, ed. Anne
Hudson and Michael Wilks, Studies in Church History, Subsidia, (London:
Blackwell, ), pp. (p. ).
Recent work that addresses this intersection includes Nicolette Zeeman,
Piers Plowman and the Medieval Discourse of Desire (Cambridge University
Press, ); Sarah Kay, The Place of Thought: the Complexity of One in Late
Medieval French Didactic Poetry (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, ); and Steven Rigby, Wisdom and Chivalry: Chaucers Knights
Tale and Medieval Political Theory (Leiden: Brill, ).
Alastair Minnis observes a moment where moral philosophy takes note of
the relationship between Aristotelian love and the love described in secular
poetry: Nicole Oresme, fourteenth-century translator of Aristotle, acknowledges the mutual concerns with love in Aristotles Economics and Ovids
Ars Amatoria, though Oresme disingenuously describes Ovids book
Notes to pages
as concerning the same rational love that the philosopher describes. See
Minnis, I speke of folk in seculer estaat, p. , n. .
In Chapter , I explore scholastic considerations that enjoyment might
include pain, a possibility that brings it closer to Lacanian jouissance, as well
as to vernacular poetry.
Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A GreekEnglish Lexicon, revised
and augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of
Roderick McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). The entry for
contains several denitions, including god, goddess, the Divine power,
chance, and the power controlling the destiny of individuals. Denitions
of include prosperity, good fortune, opulence, and true, full
happiness.
See J. L. Ackrill, Aristotle on Eudaimonia, in Aristotles Ethics: Critical
Essays, ed. Nancy Sherman (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleeld, ),
pp. (pp. ).
See Matti Rissanen, In Search of Happiness: Felicitas and Beatitudo in Early
English Boethius Translations, Studia Anglica Posnaniensia ():
(). Felicitas and felix are also used to speak about true happiness when
Boethius is not concerned about making a distinction between the two
kinds of happiness. See also James McEvoy, Ultimate Goods: Happiness,
Friendship, and Bliss, in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Philosophy,
ed. A. S. McGrade (Cambridge University Press, ), pp. .
Indeed, in Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics, the words eudaimn (happy)
and makarios (blessed, or blessedly happy) are used interchangeably. See
Nicomachean Ethics, trans. Irwin, p. .
Adam Potkay follows the concept of joy from the Bible through the twentieth
century and explores the opposition between happiness and joy as an inheritance from classical philosophy an opposition between active human ourishing and passive joy; see The Story of Joy (Cambridge University Press, ),
pp. . As Potkay observes in his brief discussion of Aquinas, however, late
medieval theology sought to reconcile Christian joy with Aristotelian happiness in pursuit of a concept of the joy of the ethical life (p. ).
Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, ed. Joseph Martin, Corpus
Christianorum Series Latina (hereafter CCSL) (Turnhout: Brepols, ),
., ll. : Frui est enim amore inhaerere alicui rei propter se ipsam.
Jacques Lacan, Encore, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller (Paris: Seuil, ), pp. ,
and On Feminine Sexuality: the Limits of Love and Knowledge (Encore), ,
trans. Bruce Fink (New York: Norton, ), pp. .
Georey Chaucer, The Riverside Chaucer, gen. ed. Larry D. Benson, rd edn.
(Boston, MA: Houghton Miin, ). All subsequent citations of Chaucer
will refer to this edition, cited parenthetically by line number when the reference is clear.
Mitchell, Ethics and Eventfulness, examines fortune and contingency as the
grounds of ethics in medieval English poetry. He addresses the inuence of
Aristotle on late medieval ideas about fortune at pp. , .
Fradenburg, Sacrice Your Love, p. .
Notes to pages
:
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, .. (a). For a discussion of the relationship between the pursuit of an end and pleasure in that end, with reference to the pre x philo in the Greek, see also J. C. B. Gosling and C. C.
W. Taylor, The Greeks on Pleasure (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp. .
As Aristotle was available to medieval western European writers in Latin,
I give quotations based on the thirteenth-century Latin translations of his
texts. Where possible in this chapter, I give the medieval Latin versions of
texts originally written in Greek.
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, .. (b).
Gregory Vlastos, The Individual as Object of Love in Plato, in Platonic
Studies (Princeton University Press, ), p. . On translating philia, see also
David Konstans introduction to his translation of the Greek commentaries
on Books and of the Ethics: On Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics and
: Aspasius, Anonymous, Michael of Ephesus (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, ), pp. .
Plato, Timaeus: a Calcidio Translatus Commentarioque Instructis, ed. J. H.
Waszink (London and Leiden: Warburg Institute and Brill, ), pp.
(dc). Platos God in the Timaeus is motivated by a supreme goodness
and absence of envy, desiring to create a world in the likeness of himself.
Vlastos, Love in Plato, p. .
Augustine, De Civitate Dei, ed. Bernard Dombart and Alphonse Kalb,
CCSL (Turnhout: Brepols, ), ., ll. : Si ergo Plato Dei huius
imitatorem cognitorem amatorem dixit esse sapientem, cuius participatione
sit beatus, quid opus est excutere ceteros? Translations are from Augustine,
Concerning the City of God against the Pagans, trans. Henry Bettenson (New
York: Penguin, ).
Marcia Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages,
vols. (Leiden: Brill, ), vol. , pp. .
Augustine, De Civitate Dei, ..
Colish, The Stoic Tradition, vol. , p. .
Augustine, De Civitate Dei, ., ll. : Recta itaque voluntas est bonus
amor et voluntas perversa malus amor. Though cf. De Trinitate, ed. W. J.
Mountain, CCSL a (Turnhout: Brepols, ), ., ll. : atque
ita cupidi abusive dicuntur diligere quemadmodum cupere abusive dicuntur
qui diligunt (we misuse language when we say of those who covet that they
love and of those who love that they covet).
Augustine, De Civitate Dei, ., ll. .
Ibid., ., ll. : non se beatus putant amando, sed fruendo.
Ibid., ., ll. : Bonum enim nostrum, de cuius ne inter philosophos
magna contentio est, nullum est aliud quam illi cohaerere, cuius unius
anima intellectualis incorporeo, si dici potest, amplexu veris impletur fecundaturque virtutibus.
Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, ., ll. : Frui est enim amore
inhaerere alicui rei propter se ipsam.
Notes to pages
Some larger studies of this reception include Colish, The Stoic Tradition;
Terence Irwin, The Development of Ethics: From Socrates to the Reformation,
vols. (Oxford University Press, ), vol. ; Richard Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle
Transformed: the Ancient Commentaries and their Inuence (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, ); and Stephen Gersh, Middle Platonism and
Neoplatonism: the Latin Tradition (University of Notre Dame Press, ).
John Marenbon, Early Medieval Philosophy (): an Introduction, nd
edn. (London and New York: Routledge, ), p. .
Courtenay, Between Despair and Love, p. .
Jacques Lacan, L thique de la psychanalyse, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller (Paris:
Seuil, ), p. ; The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, , trans. Dennis
Porter (New York: Norton, ), p. .
Julia Annas, Platonic Ethics, Old and New (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, ), pp. .
Plato, Phaedo, ed. Laurence Minio-Paluello, Plato Latinus (London:
Warburg Institute, ), p. (a). Translations are from Phaedo, trans.
David Gallop (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ).
Ibid., p. (bc): velut ex una vertice counita duo existencia.
Ibid., p. (d): omnis voluptas et tristicia tamquam clavum habens acclavat ipsam ad corpus atque agit.
Plato, Laws, trans. A. E. Taylor (London: Dent, ), de; see also
Annas, Platonic Ethics, p. .
On the Stoic example of the man tortured within Phalaris bull, see Marcus
Tullius Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, trans. J. E. King (Cambridge, MA
and London: Harvard University Press and W. Heinemann, ), p. .
Boethius, The Theological Tractates and The Consolation of Philosophy, ed.
and trans. Stephen Tester (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, ),
Book , prose , ll. : nihil est miserum nisi cum putes contraque beata
sors omnis est aequanimitate tolerantis.
Ibid., Book , prose , l..
Ibid., Book , prose , ll. : Tum autem verum bonum eri cum in
unam veluti formam atque ecientiam colliguntur, ut quae sucientia est,
eadem sit potentia, reverentia, claritas atque jucunditas.
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, .. (a): Utrum autem propter
delectationem vivere eligimus vel propter vivere delectationem; dimittatur in
presenti; coniungi quidem enim hec videntur et separacionem non recipere.
Sine operacione enim non t delectatio.
Plotinus, Enneads, trans. Stephen MacKenna (Burdett, NY: Larson
Publications, ), .., Beauty, p. .
Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, p. .
Augustine, Confessionem Libri XIII, ed. Lucas Verheijen, CCSL (Turnhout:
Brepols, ), .. Translations are from Confessions, trans. Edward Pusey
(New York: Collier Books, ).
Ibid., ., l. .
Ibid., ., ll. .
Ibid., ..
Notes to pages
For Ockhams discussion of external distress disturbing the pleasure of

intellectual investigation (but not hindering love of that investigation),
see Quaestiones in Librum Quartum Sententiarum, in Opera Philosophica
et Theologica, ed. Rega Wood and Gedeon Gal (Bonaventure, NY: St.
Bonaventure University, ), Liber , Dist. , q. , p. ; Ockham refers
here to Nicomachean Ethics, Book (b). On the question of whether
anything other than God should be the object of enjoyment, see Quaestiones,
Liber , Dist. , q. , pp. . See Arthur S. McGrade, Ockham on
Enjoyment Towards an Understanding of Fourteenth-Century Philosophy
and Psychology, Review of Metaphysics ., issue (June ): ;
McGrade discusses desires that persist without pleasure at pp. and
weak enjoyings of earthly objects at pp. , .
Plato, Meno, ed. Victor Kordeuter, Plato Latinus (London: Warburg
Institute, ; repr. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus, ); see Annas,
Platonic Ethics, p. .
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, .. (b): Delectabilissima autem
perfectissima, perfectissima que bene habentis ad studiosissimum eorum que
sub ipsam; see also .. (a): huius operacio secundum propriam virtutem erit utique perfecta felicitas (Perfect happiness is the activity
[of the most divine part of the soul whether intellect or something else]
in accordance with its proper virtue); and again .. (b): Perfecta
autem felicitas quoniam speculativa quedam est operacio (Perfect happiness
is a form of contemplative activity).
Ibid., .. (b): Nullo enim indigens felicitas, set per se suciens
(Happiness lacks nothing and is self-sucient).
Plotinus, Enneads, .., Nature, Contemplation, and the One, p. .
Ibid., .., On the Intellectual Beauty, p. .
Philo of Alexandria, De Fuga et Inventione, in The Works of Philo: Complete
and Unabridged, trans. C. D. Yonge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishing,
), pp. ; cited in Henry Chadwick, Philo, in The Cambridge
History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, ed. A. H. Armstrong
(Cambridge University Press, ), pp. (p. ).
Philo, De Fuga et Inventione, p. .
Augustine, De Civitate Dei, ., ll. : ut perveniendo quiescamus, ideo
beati, quia illo ne perfecti.
Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde, ..
Nicole Oresme, Le Livre de thiques dAristote published from the text of MS
, Bibliothque Royale de Belgique, ed. Albert Menut (New York: G. E.
Stechert & Co., ), p. , n. : Et en ce ont repos a parler de repos pour
cessacion doperacion triste, penible et laborieuse et non pas de reposeront de
leurs labeurs.
See Annas, Platonic Ethics, chapter .
Plato, Protagoras, trans. C. C. W. Taylor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ),
pp. (aa).
Ibid., p. (b).
Notes to pages

See Colish, The Stoic Tradition, vol. , p. ; the Stoics also allowed that
becoming virtuous might be accomplished in a moment of understanding
and choosing to become good; in any case, virtue is not the result of anything like Aristotelian habitus.
The question of whether Aristotle has a unied position on happiness is still
a subject of controversy. See J. M. Coopers chapter Contemplation and
Happiness: a Reconsideration, in Reason and Emotion: Essays on Ancient
Moral Psychology and Ethical Theory (Princeton University Press, ) for a
relatively recent treatment of the problem, arguing for a coherent theory of
happiness in the Nicomachean Ethics. My own understanding accords with
that of Georg Wieland (Happiness), who states that Aristotle believes contemplation to be the best kind of happiness, and thus the best life for man;
political, active happiness is second best, but it is also in its own way a
highest good self-sucient and desirable for its own sake.
See A. H. Armstrong, The One and Intellect in The Cambridge History of
Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, pp. (p. ).
Plotinus, Enneads, .., Beauty, p. : is there not a myth telling in symbol of such a dupe, how he sank into the depths of the current and was swept
away to nothingness? So too, one that is held by material beauty and will not
break free shall be precipitated, not in body, but in Soul, down to the dark
depths loathed of the Intellective-Being, where, blind even in the LowerWorld, he shall have commerce only with shadows, there as here.
Ibid., .., p. .
Ibid., .., Nature, Contemplation, and the One, p. .
Augustine, De Civitate Dei, ., ll. .
Augustine, De Trinitate, ., ll. : rerum divinarum scientia sapientia
proprie nuncupetur, humanarum autem proprie scientiae nomen obtineat.
Ibid., ., ll. : in ratione et investigandi cupiditate.
Ambrose, De Ociis, ed. and trans. Ivor J. Davidson (Oxford University
Press, ), ..
Isidore of Seville, Sententiae, ed. Pierre Cazier, CCSL (Turnhout: Brepols,
), ...
Ibid.
Augustine, Confessionem Libri XIII, ., ll. : res ipsa [beata vita]
nec graeca nec Latina est, cui adipiscendae Graeci Latinique inhiant ceterarumque linguarum homines. Nota est igitur omnibus, qui una voce si
interrogari possent, utrum beati esse vellent, sine ulla dubitatione velle
responderent.
Plotinus, Enneads, .; see Annas, Platonic Ethics, p. .
Plato, Timaeus, c.
Plato, Theaetetus, trans. M. J. Levett (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing
Co., ), b.
Ibid., b.
Notes to pages
Boethius, Consolation, Book , prose , ll. : Quod si multos scimus

beatitudinis fructum non morte solum verum etiam doloribus suppliciisque
quaesisse, quonam modo praesens facere beatos potest quae miseros transacta non ecit?
Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, .: contemnendae res humanae sunt, negligenda mors est, patibiles et dolores putandi.
Ibid., .: virtutem ad beate vivendum se ipsa esse contentum.
Augustine, De Civitate Dei, ., ll. : Si autem, quod multo credibilius
et probabilius disputatur, omnes homines, quamdiu mortales sunt, etiam
miseri sint necesse est
Ibid., ..
Ibid., ., ll. : Fugiendum est igitur ad carissimam patriam, et ibi
pater, et ibi omnia. Quae igitur, inquit, classis aut fuga? Similem Deo eri.
See Plotinus, Enneads, ...
Augustine, De Civitate Dei, ., ll. : beata vita, quae post mortem futura
est; .
Ambrose, De Ociis, ..
Augustine, De Civitate Dei, ., l. : Tunc igitur beata erit, quando
aeterna erit; ., ll. : hic beati esse et a se ipsis beaticari mira vanitate voluerunt.
Boethius, Consolation, Book , prose , ll. , : beatitudo est summum naturae bonum ratione fortuitam felicitatem corporis.
Ibid., Book , prose , ll. : beatitudinem in summo deo sitam esse
necesse est.
Ibid., ll. : omnis igitur beatus deus.
Augustine, De Civitate Dei, ., ll. : cum sese diversis coloribus
velut vestibus induit et aliquando viride atque hoc multis modis, aliquando
purpureum, aliquando caeruleum est.
Ibid., ., ll. : haec omnia miserorum sunt damnatorumque solacia, non praemia beatorum.
Forty-eight manuscript copies of the Ethica Vetus survive, and forty of the
Ethica Nova (Book of the Ethics, translated in the early thirteenth century).
See Dod, Aristoteles Latinus, p. . Six fragmentary commentaries on the
partial texts of the Ethics survive, all produced by arts masters at Paris before
. On the reception of the Ethics, see Aristotle, Lthique Nicomaque,
ed. R. A. Gauthier and J. Y. Jolif, vols., nd edn. (Louvain: Publications
Universitaires, ), ., and Ethica Nicomachea: Praefatio, in Aristoteles
Latinus, vol. , fasc. , pp. . On the commentaries on the Ethica Vetus
and Nova, see Anthony J. Celano, The Understanding of the Concept of
Felicitas in the pre- Commentaries on the Ethica Nicomachea, Medioevo
(): (pp. ); and Irene Zavattero, Moral and Intellectual
Virtues in the Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics, in
Virtue Ethics in the Middle Ages: Commentaries on Aristotles Nicomachean
Ethics, , ed. Istvn P. Bejczy (Leiden: Brill, ), pp. .
Abelard, Dialogus inter Philosophum, Judaeum et Christianum, ed. Rudolf
Thomas (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag, ), p. ,
Notes to pages
ll. : Quam, ut arbitror, beatitudinem Epicurus voluptatem, Xpistus

vester regnum celorum nominat. Translations are from Ethical Writings:
Ethics and Dialogue Between a Philosopher, a Jew, and a Christian, ed. and
trans. Paul Vincent Spade and Marilyn McCord Adams (Indianapolis, IN:
Hackett Publishing Co., ).
Ibid., p. , ll. : nostra in hoc et vestra intentio quam merita sunt
diversa, et de ipso quoque summo bono non modice dissentimus.
Ibid., p. , ll. .
Ibid., p. , ll. .
Ibid., p. , ll. , : Contrarium bono quidem ex necessitate est malum Si bona est sanitas, mala est egritudo.
Sarah Kay, Courtly Contradictions: the Emergence of the Literary Object in the
Twelfth Century (Stanford University Press, ), discusses the fact that for
many medieval writers (e.g., Boethius) logical argument is oriented toward
ethical truths, while others pursued logical controversy and contradiction
for its own sake (pp. ).
Abelard, Dialogus, p. , ll. : summum bonum Deus ipse est vel
eius beatitudinis summa tranquillitas, quam tamen non aliud quam ipsum
estimamus, / qui ex se ipso, non aliunde, beatus est.
Ibid., p. , ll. : Summum autem hominis bonum illa est perpetua
quies sive letitia, quam quisque pro meritis post hanc vitam recipit, sive in ipsa
visione vel cognitione Dei, ut dicitis, sive quoquo modo aliter contingat.
Ibid., p. , ll. : dilectionis perfectio ad beatitudinem veram promerandam suciat.
Ibid., p. , ll. , : premii retributio rursum ipsum premium
convertamus in meritum?
See Marcia Colish, Peter Lombard (Leiden and New York: Brill, ),
pp. , , on contemplation of God and the ladder of love, respectively. See Philipp Rosemann, Peter Lombard (Oxford University Press, ),
pp. on the relationship between Peters understanding of the beatic
vision and the many mansions of the Fathers house described in John :.
Peter Lombard, Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae, tome , part , Books
and (Grottaferrata: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas,
), Book , Dist. , chapter : Frui autem est amore inhaerere alicui rei
propter se ipsam; uti vero, id quod in usum venerit referre ad obtinendum
illud quo fruendum est In omnibus rebus illae tantum sunt quibus fruendum est, quae aeternae et incommutabiles sunt; ceteris autem utendum
est, ut ad illarum perfruitionem perveniatur. Translations are from Peter
Lombard, The Sentences, Book I: The Mystery of the Trinity, trans. Giulio
Solano (Toronto: Pontical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, ).
Colish, Peter Lombard, p. . She also notes that the practical obstacles to
such a project are staggering.
Ibid., pp. .
Monika Asztalos describes the theological curriculum at Paris in the thirteenth century, noting that the only required texts for theological study
were the Bible and Lombards Sentences. See The Faculty of Theology, in
Notes to pages
A History of the University in Europe, vol. : Universities in the Middle
Ages, ed. Hilde de Ridder-Symoens (Cambridge University Press, ),
pp. (p. ). Partial commentaries and glosses on the Sentences survive from as early as the s, and it became the subject of formal commentary in the s.
The enjoyment of the proper goal of human nature (love of God) was a
prominent topic in the Sentences commentaries of Scotus, Ockham,
Durandus of St. Pourain, and Peter Aureoli. On the inuence of these
scholars throughout the fourteenth century, especially in England, see
William Courtenay, Schools and Scholars in Fourteenth-Century England
(Princeton University Press, ), pp. , . On the discourse surrounding enjoyment at fourteenth-century Oxford, see McGrade, Enjoyment at
Oxford.
See, for example, Leslie Topseld, Troubadours and Love (New York:
Cambridge University Press, ). Topseld reads the lo mielhs of Jaufr
Rudel as probably analogous to the omnium summum bonorum of
Boethius (p. ) and denes jois as supreme individual happiness; for him
the early generation of troubadours (Guilhem IX, Jaufr Rudel) places the
search for jois over the search for amors. Potkay reads troubadour joi as
these poets term for an exquisitely unsatised desire (The Story of Joy,
p. ), a kind of joy in a complex relationship both parody and enactment with Christian joy (p. ). Moshe Lazar suggests that Occitan joy
derives from both gaudium (joy) and jocus (play); he reviews the opinions of
other scholars who have argued, for example, that troubadour joy is identical with Augustinian delectatio; a sensual term derived from Greek paganism; or a wholly new sentiment. See Lazar, FinAmor, in Handbook of
the Troubadours, ed. F. Akehurst and Judith Davis (Berkeley: University of
California Press, ), pp. (p. ).
Laura Kendrick uncovers wordplay that points to an erotic, obscene, playful
interpretation in many troubadour lyrics restoring a level of gaiety to
the gaya sciensa in The Game of Love: Troubadour Wordplay (Berkeley:
University of California Press, ), pp. and passim.
This understanding was perhaps most inuentially formulated by C. S.
Lewis in The Allegory of Love (London: Oxford University Press, ).
All citations and translations of William IX are from The Poetry of William
VII, Count of Poitiers, IX Duke of Aquitaine, ed. and trans. Gerald A. Bond
(New York and London: Garland Publishing Co., ).
All citations and translations of Jaufr Rudel are from The Songs of Jaufr
Rudel, ed. Rupert T. Pickens (Toronto: Pontical Institute of Mediaeval
Studies, ).
In Love and Death in Medieval French and Occitan Courtly Literature:
Martyrs to Love (Oxford University Press, ), Simon Gaunt opens with a
discussion of Jaufrs pilgrimage poem, observing that the poem is ambiguous as to whether we should read it as an erotic charging of spiritual desire,
or a religious ennobling of an erotic or other earthly desire (pp. ).
Notes to pages
Topseld, Troubadours and Love, p. .

All citations and translations of Bernart are from The Songs of Bernart de
Ventadorn, ed. and trans. Stephen Nichols, John Galm, and A. Bartlett
Giamatti, with Roger Porter, Seth Wolitz, and Claudette Charbonneau
(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, ; rev. ).
D. Vance Smith reads the Narcissus myth as an exemplum for all experiences of possession in Arts of Possession: the Middle English Household
Imaginary (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, ), p. xviii.
Gaunt reads Can vei as an exemplary sacrice of jouissance for the pleasures of displeasure (Love and Death, p. ).
:
L E R O M A N D E L A R O S E
Boethius performed the earliest surviving Latin translations of Aristotles philosophy, but completed only the Categories, De Interpretatione, Prior Analytics,
Topics, and Sophistici Elenchi. For a narrative of translations of the Aristotelian
corpus into Latin, see Dod, Aristoteles Latinus, pp. .
Daniel Heller-Roazen makes this observation in Fortunes Faces: The Roman
de la Rose and the Poetics of Contingency (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, ), p. , as a prelude to his own consideration of the
poems depiction of Fortune in the context of Aristotelian philosophy
(pp. ). See Grard Par, Les ides et les lettres au XIIIe Sicle: Le Roman
de la Rose (Montral: Centre de Psychologie et de Pdagogie, ), and Le
Roman de la Rose et la scholastique courtoise (Paris and Ottawa: Publications
de lInstitut dtudes Mdivales dOttawa, ). Giorgio Agamben situates
the Rose in the context of thirteenth-century theories of imagination, lovesickness, and language in Stanzas: Word and Phantasm in Western Culture,
trans. Ronald L. Martinez (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
). Suzanne Akbari places both Guillaume and Jean, along with Dante and
Chaucer, in the context of scholastic interest in optics in Seeing through the
Veil: Optical Theory and Medieval Allegory (University of Toronto Press, ).
The Rose has more often been read in the context of twelfth-century neoPlatonism, as in Winthrop Wetherbee, Platonism and Poetry in the Twelfth
Century (Princeton University Press, ).
Alastair Minnis, Magister Amoris: The Roman de la Rose and Vernacular
Hermeneutics (Oxford University Press, ), pp. .
Minnis, Aspects of the Medieval French and English Traditions of the De
Consolatione Philosophiae, in Boethius: His Life, Thought, and Inuence, ed.
Margaret Gibson (Oxford: Blackwell, ), pp. (pp. ).
Sylvia Huot, The Romance of the Rose and its Medieval Readers (Cambridge
University Press, ), p. .
Described ibid., p. .
Ibid., p. .
Notes to pages
On the circularity of Amants quest in Guillaumes Rose, see David Hult,

Self-fullling Prophecies: Readership and Authority in the rst Roman de la Rose
(Cambridge University Press, ), p. .
Earl Jerey Richards, Reections on Oiseuses Mirror: Iconographic
Tradition, Luxuria, and the Roman de la Rose, Zeitschrift fr romanische Philologie . (): (p. ). Richards distinguishes his
approach to Oiseuse from D. W. Robertsons and John Flemings who both
caution against reading this gure as anything but idleness and the gateway to cupidity; see Fleming, The Roman de la Rose: a Study in Allegory
and Iconography (Princeton University Press, ), pp. ; and D. W.
Robertson, A Preface to Chaucer (Princeton University Press, ), pp. .
Agamben resolves the binary question as to whether Oiseuse means lechery
or leisure by interpreting her mirror and thus Oiseuse as imagination
itself, encompassing spiritual contemplation and false fantasy (Stanzas, p. ,
n. ). Frdric Godefroy gives a variety of denitions for oiseuse: oisivet,
lchet, paresse, chose oiseuse, inutile, parole vaine, futilit; see Dictionnaire
de lancienne langue franaise (Paris: F. Vieweg, ).
All internal references are to Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun, Le
Roman de la Rose, ed. Flix Lecoy (Paris: Honor Champion, ). I will
occasionally refer to Le Roman de la Rose, ed. Ernest Langlois (Paris: FirminDidot, ). The translations are from The Romance of the Rose, trans.
Charles Dahlberg (Princeton University Press, ), though I have silently
amended this translation in limited places, and have left the word oiseuse
untranslated.
Hult suggests that the birdsong (the songs of the oisiaus) directly before
this narrative intrusion calls up associations with poetic activity and thus
in eect calls the narrator/poet into being at this moment (Self-fullling
Prophecies, p. ).
Richards, Reections on Oiseuses Mirror, p. .
Claire Nouvet, An Allegorical Mirror: the Pool of Narcissus in Guillaume
de Lorris Romance of the Rose, The Romanic Review . (Nov. ):
(p. ). Nouvet cites Augustines Confessions on intellectual heaven (caelum intellectuale) as the place where the intellect is privileged to know all at
once (nosse simul, .).
Fleming, The Roman de la Rose, appendix images and : Pierpont Morgan
MSS M. , fol. v and M. , fol. v.
Fleming, The Roman de la Rose, pp. ; Richards notes in opposition
that the vice of luxuria was not typically depicted with mirror iconography in the thirteenth century, but more often with an image of a woman
whose abdomen has been set upon by toads or snakes (Reections,
pp. ).
For a reading of Guillaumes Rose as addressing the diculty of attaining
self-knowledge through gures of deceptive vision and mirrors, see Akbari,
Seeing through the Veil, pp. and chapter .
On the nishedness of Guillaumes poem, see Hult, Self-fullling
Prophecies, p. ; and Kevin Brownlee, Pygmalion, Mimesis, and the
Notes to pages
Multiple Endings of the Roman de la Rose, Yale French Studies ():

(p. ).
Here my reading of Oiseuse has some anities with Gregory Sadleks
interpretation; he argues that even more than leisure, nonproductivity is
the hallmark of [Oiseuses] character; see Idleness Working: the Discourse of
Loves Labor from Ovid through Chaucer and Gower (Washington, DC: The
Catholic University of America Press, ), p. .
Akbari, Seeing through the Veil, p. .
Ibid., p. .
Narcissus also recognizes himself in the twelfth-century French poem
Narcisus. Frederick Goldin discusses the importance of this recognition
scene in The Mirror of Narcissus in the Courtly Love Lyric (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, ), pp. .
Goldin argues that the dreamer escapes Narcissus fate because he knows the
Narcissus story, and has learned to see things besides his own image in the
fountain; for Goldin, Guillaumes poem narrates the progress of the dreamer
toward his ideal self (The Mirror of Narcissus, pp. ).
See, most recently, Mark Miller, Philosophical Chaucer: Love, Sex, and Agency
in the Canterbury Tales (Cambridge University Press, ), p. ; also
Sarah Kay, The Romance of the Rose (London: Grant & Cutler, Ltd., ),
p. ; and Hult, Self-fullling Prophecies, pp. .
In Hults reading, the translation of the allegory of Amant taking the castle would not be physical consummation, but the winning of the ladys good
graces (Self-fullling Prophecies, p. ).
Wieland, Reception and Interpretation, p. . See Wieland, Ethica, scientia practica: die Anfnge der philosophischen Ethik im . Jahrhundert (Mnster
Westfalen: Aschendor, ), pp. .
See, for example, Aelred of Rievaulx, De Speculo Caritatis, in Opera Omnia,
ed. A. Hoste and Charles H. Talbot, CCCM (Turnhout: Brepols, ).
Celano, The Understanding of the Concept of Felicitas.
Ibid., p. . See also Robert Lerner, Petrarchs Coolness Toward Dante: a
Conict of Humanisms, in Intellectuals and Writers in Fourteenth-Century
Europe, ed. Piero Boitani and Anna Torti (Tbingen and Cambridge: Gunter
Narr Verlag and D. S. Brewer, ), pp. (p. , n. ).
Celano, The Understanding of the Concept of Felicitas, p. . The attribution of the commentary on the Ethics to Kilwardby is uncertain. Lewry
argues for Kilwardbys authorship in Robert Kilwardbys commentary. See
discussion in Wieland, Ethica, scientia practica, pp. .
See Wieland, Reception and Interpretation, pp. and passim, and
Happiness; also, Don Adams, Aquinas on Aristotle on Happiness,
Medieval Philosophy and Theology, (): on the dierence between
Aristotles denition of contemplative happiness in Book and the denitions of happiness in the preceding books.
Albert later wrote a second commentary, c.; see Wieland, Reception
and Interpretation, p. .
Notes to pages
Albertus Magnus, Super Ethica, vols., in Opera Omnia, ed. Wilhelm Kbel,
tome (Monasterii Westfalorum: Aschendor, ), Book , lectio ,
section , p. .
Ibid.
On earlier commentators, see Wieland, Reception and Interpretation,
pp. , as well as Steenberghen, Aristotle in the West, pp. .
Albertus, Super Ethica, section , p. .
Ibid., Book , lectio , section , p. .
Ibid., Prologus, section , p. ; Wieland, Reception and Interpretation,
p. .
Boethius of Dacia, De Summo Bono, in Topica Opuscula, pars. , ed.
Niels Jrgen Green-Pederson, in Boethii Daci Opera, Corpus philosophorum Danicorum Medii Aevi (Hauniae: G. E. C. Gad, ); Siger of
Brabant, Quaestiones Morales, in crits de logique, de morale et de physique,
ed. Bernardo Bazn (Louvain: Publications Universitaires, ). Boethius is
careful to dene a philosopher as any man who lives according to the right
order of nature and who has acquired the best and ultimate end of human
life, a slightly tautological saving denition.
The introduction to this condemnation explicitly names the De Amore
of Andreas Capellanus, a work condemned along with books on witchcraft, necromancy, etc. The full text of the condemnation is found in the
Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, vol. , pp. , and translated
as Condemnation of Propositions by Ernest L. Fortin and Peter D.
ONeill in Medieval Political Philosophy: a Sourcebook, ed. Ralph Lerner and
Muhsin Mahdi (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, ), pp. . See also
Roland Hissette, Enqute sur les articles condamns Paris le Mars
(Louvain: Publications Universitaires, ), especially pp. on the
ethical articles.
Quoted in Wieland, Reception and Interpretation, p. : Chartularium
Universitatis Parisiensis, vol. , n. , Sent. : quod non est excellentior
status quam vacare philosophiae; Sent. : quod felicitas habetur in ista
vita et non in alia.
Thomas Aquinas, In Decem Libros Ethicorum Aristotelis ad Nicomachum
Expositio, ed. Raymund Spiazzi (Taurini: Marietti, ), Book , lectio ,
: qualis potest competere humanae et mortali vitae. Translations are
from Commentary on Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics.
Ibid., Book , lectio , .
Ibid., Book , lectio , : Sic ergo patet, quod ille qui vacat speculationi
veritatis, est maxime felix, quantum homo in hac vita felix esse potest.
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, .. (ba): Oportet in
quantum contingit immortalem facere, et omnia facere ad vivere secundum
optimum eorum que in ipso homini utique, quae secundum intellectum
vita, si quid maxime hoc homo, iste ergo felicissimus.
This aspect of the translation is noted in Summa Theologiae, vol.
(The Emotions, a ae ), ed. E. DArcy (Blackfriars and New York:
Notes to pages
McGraw-Hill, ), pp. , fn. c, in reference to Aquinas understanding

of the term appetitus.
Aquinas, Ethicorum Aristotelis Expositio, Book , lectio , : Ipsum autem
tendere in bonum, est appetere bonum.
Ibid., Book , lectio , : naturale desiderium nihil est aliud quam inclinatio inhaerens rebus ex ordinatione primi moventis, quae non potest frustrari.
Ergo impossible est, quod in nibus procedatur in innitum.
Ibid., Book , lectio , : Et quia non est inane naturae desiderium,
recte existimari potest, quod reservatur homini perfecta beatitudo post hanc
vitam.
Vivian Boland reconciles Aristotles notion of the good as attractive with
the neo-Platonist (pseudo-Dionysian) notion of the good as ecstatic by
suggesting that Aristotles ethical vision is of a human being searching for
what he has already received from the First Mover; see Thinking about
Good: Thomas Aquinas on Nicomachean Ethics I, Divine Names IVV and
De Ebdomadibus, New Blackfriars, . (): (p. ).
Aquinas, Ethicorum Aristotelis Expositio, Book , lectio , : Quaerimus
enim felicitatem, quae est nis humanorum actuum.
Ibid., Book , lectio , : Loquitur enim in hoc libro Philosophus de felicitate, qualis in hac vita potest haberi. Nam felicitas alterius vitae omnem
investigationem rationis excedit.
Aquinas biographer, Jean-Pierre Torrell, maintains that while Aquinas
sought to restrict himself to the intentio auctoris, this intention is always
placed within his larger apostolic purpose of seeking theological wisdom;
see Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. : The Person and His Work, trans. Robert
Royal (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, ;
rev. ), pp. .
Lacan, Encore, p. ; trans. Fink, p. ; Lacan derives the terminology of
physical and ecstatic love from Pierre Rousselot, Pour l histoire du problme de lamour au moyen ge (Mnster: Aschendorsche Buchhandlung,
), translated as The Problem of Love in the Middle Ages by Alan Vincelette
(Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, ). For Rousselot, physical
love is continuous with self-love while ecstatic love demands that the subject
stand outside himself or herself.
Lacan, Encore, p. ; trans. Fink, p. .
Par, on the other hand, contends that Jean de Meun was in harmony with
the contemporary Aristotelianism of the arts faculty at the University of
Paris, especially with reference to the doctrine of carnal love espoused by
Nature and Genius (which he attributes unironically to Jean); see Les ides et
les lettres, p. and passim.
Sadlek nds a strong, coherent work ideology in Jeans Rose, manifested
in the discourses of Reason, Nature, and Genius (Idleness Working, pp. ,
passim). While Sadlek reads this ideology as a valuing of primarily
manual work and a critique of the mendicant orders, I see Jeans largely positive attitude toward labor as a way of experimenting with theorizations of
Notes to pages
erotic desire, intellectual work, and art. Nicola Masciandaro places the Rose
in a tradition of late medieval texts that associate nobility with industriousness in The Voice of the Hammer: the Meaning of Work in Middle English
Literature (University of Notre Dame Press, ), p. .
Heller-Roazen marks this section of the poem as perhaps the most extended
chapter of the Roman de la Rose in which Jean de Meun invokes and develops
a subject drawn from the faculties of theology and philosophy of his time
(Fortunes Faces, p. ).
Alain de Lilles De Planctu Naturae, trans. James J. Sheridan (Toronto:
Pontical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, ), the main source for Jeans
description of Nature and Genius, also manipulates the binary of idleness
and labor. Alain begins the work by complaining of his grief in terms of the
labor of childbirth, and he later (prose ) describes the ruinous relationship
between Venus and Antigenius as being the result of Venus boredom with
repetitive toil and her desire for ease.
Hugh White argues that Natures engagement in the act of confession nevertheless undercuts her moral authority in Nature, Sex, and Goodness, p. .
Par hazards that Natures defense of free will is in part owing to Jean de
Meuns rejection of the fatalism outlined in the condemnations issued by
tienne Tempier in and in Les ides et les lettres, p. .
Paul Strohm nds a similarly optimistic view of the individuals relationship
to Fortune emerging in fteenth-century England: Fortune begins to be
understood as a collection of causes that more fully understood, might be
neutralized or even mastered altogether; see Politique: Languages of Statecraft
between Chaucer and Shakespeare (University of Notre Dame Press, ),
p. and passim.
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, a ae, q. , a. : amor requirit aliquam apprehensionem boni quod amatur. Et propter hoc Philosophus dicit quod visio
corporalis est principium amoris sensitivi. Et similiter contemplatio spiritualis pulchritudinis vel bonitatis, est principium spiritualis amoris. Sic igitur
cognitio est causa amoris, ea ratione qua et bonum, quod non potest amari
nisi cognitum.
Ibid.
In both Langlois and Lecoys editions of the Rose, the notes refer the reader
to Boethius (Book , prose ) on man becoming bestial if deprived of selfknowledge. A closer description of animal rebellion as the result of animal
reason may be found in Aelred of Rievaulxs De Anima, where he proves the
supremacy of reason to the body: Et ut scias in comparatione rationis quam
nihil possit corpus vel sensus, quis hominum unius muscae cavere posset
insidias, si ipsa, ut homo, ratione vigeret? Quis ea invita quiescere, vel tute
oculos posset aperire? Nonne congregatis in unum feris ac volucribus,
totum possent humanum genus delere, si aequales essent hominibus ratione?
(And in order that you know how the body or the senses are capable of nothing in comparison with reason, what human would be able to be safe from
the plots of one y, if this y ourished with reason as a human does? Who
Notes to pages
could rest against the ys will, or safely be able to open his eyes? If they
were equal to humans in reason, is it not the case that with the birds and
beasts all gathered as one, they could destroy all of humankind?) (Dialogus
de Anima, Book ., p. , in Opera Omnia). While Jean is known to
have translated Aelreds De Spirituali Amicitia, it does not appear that his De
Anima had any circulation on the Continent in the thirteenth century.
Jane Chance Nitzsche notes that art is described pejoratively throughout
Jeans Rose (especially falsity versus the truth of Nature). She contends that
This discourse on dreams, visions, and the artice of mirrors suggests
obliquely that literature itself, peopled by phantoms and images, is articial, and even deceptive in The Genius Figure in Antiquity and the Middle
Ages (New York: Columbia University Press, ), p. . Alan Gunn, on
the other hand, interprets Jeans depictions of such delusions as an attempt
to ward them o, part of his aim in creating a true and fruitful image
reected from the Mind of God; see The Mirror of Love (Lubbock: Texas
Tech Press, ), pp. . My reading falls somewhere in between; Jean
is not here making a pronouncement about the ultimate falsity or truth of
his art, or art in general, but rather exploring the possibilities and dangers of
imagination, especially when confronted with love.
Sarah Kay argues that the demarcation of inside and outside is one of the
key concerns of Guillaumes Rose, where the poet problematizes the limits of
the self; see Subjectivity in Troubadour Poetry (Cambridge University Press,
), pp. .
This distrust of contemplation may give support in a dierent context to
Winthrop Wetherbees claim that Jeans Nature seems scarcely to know herself, but rather views herself through human eyes; see The Literal and the
Allegorical: Jean de Meun and the De Planctu Naturae, Medieval Studies
(): (p. ). Nature would be subject to the same faulty possibilities in vision and reection as human beings.
Nitzsche, The Genius Figure, p. .
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, .. (a): Optima et enim hec
operacio; et enim intellectus eorum que in nobis et cognoscibilium circa que
intellectus.
Gerard Par, in Les ides et les lettres (p. , chapters and passim), takes
Genius as not only a serious gure, preaching the gospel of Aristotelian naturalism, but as the key to the entire poem. For Par, Genius reveals Jean
de Meuns anities with Averroists such as Siger of Brabant and Boethius
of Dacia who supposedly subscribe to notions such as the virtues of sexual
procreation outside marriage and the possibility of achieving perfect happiness in this life. John Fleming takes issue with Pars thesis, arguing for the
impossibility of Jeans embracing any morality at odds with Christian ethics
(The Roman de la Rose, pp. ). Fleming cites Rosemond Tuve for support, as she argues that Genius and Nature are held up as examples of the
domination of inadequate ideas concerning love and the good; see Allegorical
Imagery: Some Medieval Books and Their Posterity (Princeton University Press,
Notes to pages
), p. . Robertson understands Genius as merely the inclination of
created things to act naturally (Preface, p. ). Huot notes that medieval
readings often revolve around the question of whether Genius sermon can
be reconciled with Christian doctrine, without recourse to satire or parody
(Medieval Readers, p. ).
Aquinas, Ethicorum Aristotelis Expositio, Book , lectio , .
This teleology leaves open the question of how we can know which pleasure
is the ethical pleasure to be pursued. Jonathan Lear reads the opening of the
Ethics, where Aristotle introduces the idea of the single ultimate good, as an
inaugural instantiation whereby he injects the concept of the good into
our lives; see Happiness, Death, and the Remainder of Life (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, ), p. .
Aquinas, Ethicorum Aristotelis Expositio, Book , lectio , : Vocat
autem huiusmodi potentes tyrannos, quia non videntur communi utilitati
intendere, sed propriae delectationi, qui in ludis conversantur Sic ergo
felicitas in talibus consistit, propter hoc quod huiusmodi vacant illi, qui sunt
in potestatibus constituti, quos homines reputant felices.
See Nicole Oresme, thiques, p. .
Minnis calls Jeans Pygmalion the antithesis of Narcissus, this being part
and parcel of a systematic recapitulation and redirection of Guillaumes
major terms of reference in Magister Amoris, p. . On Pygmalion, see also
Roger Dragonetti, Pygmalion ou les piges de la ction dans Le Roman de
la Rose, in La musique et les lettres: tudes de littrature mdivale (Geneva:
Droz, ), pp. ; and Daniel Poirion, Narcisse et Pygmalion dans le
Roman de la Rose, in Essays in Honour of Louis Francis Solano, ed. Raymond
J. Cormier and Urban T. Holmes (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press, ), pp. .
Sylvia Huot, From Song to Book: The Poetics of Writing in Old French Lyric
and Lyrical Narrative Poetry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, ), p.
; see Brownlee, Pygmalion, for a discussion of the Pygmalion fable as
representative of the signifying power of ART, told successfully on Arts
own terms as dened by Jeans Rose (p. ).
Kay, focusing on the role of Venus in the digression, reads the tale as a derision of the inadequacy of masculine art, and masculine fantasy, when they
join forces to conne women in the role of object (Rose, p. ).
The reciprocal erotic encounter between Pygmalion and Galatea is discussed
by Brownlee, Pygmalion, pp. .
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, .. (a): Superexcellentibus
autem utique circa actum sequitur amare et amicabilia.
Ibid., .. (ba): omnis enim proprium opus diligit magis
quam diligatur utique ab opere animato facto; maxime autem forte hoc circa
poetas accidit, superdiligunt enim isti propria poemata, diligentes quemadmodum lios.
Aquinas, Ethicorum Aristotelis Expositio, Book , lectio , : Pomata
enim magis ad rationem pertinent secundum quam homo est homo, quam
alia mechanica opera.
Notes to pages
Douglas Kelly notes that Pygmalions desire for his art resembles Jean de
Meun working with Guillaumes material for the Rose in Internal Di erences
and Meanings in the Roman de la Rose (Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press, ), p. .
References to sex as labor or work are common euphemisms in medieval
Romance languages. Such euphemism is used not only by Genius, but by La
Vielle, who recommends that the couple, when they work (se seront mis
an leuvre, l. ), should work carefully so that each should have his or
her pleasure and strain toward the good (et santredoivent entratendre / por
ansamble a leur bonne tendre, ll. ). The emphasis on reciprocity
in both content and language (e.g., the repeated use of the pre x -entre)
pregures the reciprocal erotic encounter between Pygmalion and Galatea.
See also Dragonetti, Pygmalion, p. .
Noah Guynns reading of the allegory does not allow for any mitigation to
the violence of the plucking (cueillette) of the rose it is either force or outright rape, and the violence of the poems allegories more generally conrms
the rose as a silent female object at the mercy of the elite male subject (both
lover and poet). Guynns argument is undeniably persuasive, but does not
account for moments of mutuality such as are contained in the Pygmalion
fable. The violence of the poems ending may thus be read not necessarily or
only as a nal eruption of misogyny, but as an acknowledgment of the violence inherent in love and even in the desire for the animation of the love
object and her desire. See Allegory and Sexual Ethics in the High Middle Ages
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, ), pp. .

- D I T A M O U R E U X
Claire Richter Sherman, Imaging Aristotle: Verbal and Visual Representation
in Fourteenth-Century France (Berkeley: University of California Press, ),
p. .
Nicole Oresme, thiques, pp. ; see Menuts list of coined words,
pp. .
On the authorship, dating, and content of this treatise, see Guy Guldentops
and Carlos Steel, Vernacular Philosophy for the Nobility: Li Ars dAmour, de
Vertu et de Boneurt, an Old French Adaptation of Thomas Aquinas Ethics
from ca., Bulletin de Philosophie Mdivale (): . Guldentops
and Steel note that the quotations and summaries from Aristotle and Aquinas
collected together would comprise a near-complete Picardian French reconstruction of the Ethics along with Aquinas commentary and sections on ethics from the Summa Theologiae and Summa Contra Gentiles (p. ). Current
scholarship identies the author as Guy dAvesnes, Bishop of Utrecht from
. The treatise survives in three manuscripts, one of which has been
edited: Li Ars dAmour, de Vertu et de Boneurt, par Jehan le Bel, publi pour
la premire fois daprs un manuscrit de la Bibliothque royale de Bruxelles
par Jules Petit, vols. (Brussels: V. Devaux et cie, vol. ; vol. [without
Notes to pages
reference to Jehan le Bel] ). The glossary is contained in vol. , pp. xlvlvi.
Earlier, Brunetto Latini adapted and summarized the Ethics in his Livres dou
Tresor (c.), working from Taddeos translation of the Summa Alexandrina
Ethicorum, itself translated from the Arabic by Hermannus Alemannus. See
Menuts discussion in his introduction to Le Livre de thiques dAristote,
pp. .
Courtenay, Schools and Scholars, p. .
Robert Bossuat makes this remark of Machaut in Le Moyen ge, Histoire de
la littrature franaise (Paris: J. de Gigord, ), p. ; quoted in Katherine
Heinrichs, The Myths of Love: Classical Lovers in Medieval Literature
(University Park and London: Pennsylvania State University Press, ),
p. , n. .
Sylvia Huot, however, discusses Machauts Boethianism in an expansive
manner, arguing that Machaut recasts Boethian consolation as the capacity
of poetry to link love, desire, memory, and art; see Guillaume de Machaut
and the Consolation of Poetry, Modern Philology . (Nov. ):
(p. ). Huot argues that Machaut places hope of consolation in the replacement of the actual, individual love object with an image (of the sovereign
good) that can be possessed within the imagination and thus confer joy
(p. ).
Kathryn Lynch, Chaucers Philosophical Visions (Woodbridge: D. S. Brewer,
), p. .
Jacqueline Cerquiglini-Toulet, Un engin si soutil: Guillaume de Machaut et
l criture au XIV sicle (Paris: Champion, ), p. .
Huot, The Romance of the Rose, pp. .
Kay reads Machauts portrayal of the virtues and happiness in the Jugement
dou roy de Navarre as inuenced by the Nicomachean Ethics, and argues
ultimately that In addition to taking the Ethics into the domain of sexual
dierence, Machaut moves it beyond the pleasure principle (The Place of
Thought, p. and chapter passim). See also Margaret Ehrhart, Guillaume
de Machauts Jugement dou Roy de Navarre and Medieval Treatments of the
Virtues, Annuale Mediaevale (): .
John Fyler, Chaucer and Ovid (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ),
p. .
Fyler discusses several fourteenth-century uses of this myth (ibid.,
pp. ).
Fyler notes that Ceyx and Alcyone make up one of the few happily married couples in the Metamorphoses (ibid., p. ).
Laurence de Looze describes the tale as one in which Ceyx, given form by
Morpheus, narrates his own death; see Guillaume de Machaut and the
Writerly Process, French Forum . (May ): (p. ).
William H. Watts and Richard J. Utz, Nominalist Perspectives on
Chaucers Poetry: a Bibliographical Essay, Medievalia et Humanistica
(): . See also the introduction to Lynchs Chaucers Philosophical
Visions for a useful overview (though one arguing for the relevance of
Notes to pages
scholastic philosophy to Chaucer) of the literature on this subject, as well

as Erin Labbie, Lacans Medievalism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, ), p. and p. , n. . Also Alastair Minnis, Looking for a
Sign: the Quest for Nominalism in Chaucer and Langland, in Essays on
Ricardian Literature: In Honor of J. A. Burrow, ed. A. J. Minnis, Charlotte
C. Morse, and Thorlac Turville-Petre (New York: Oxford University Press,
), pp. ; Hugo Keiper, A Literary Debate Over Universals?
New Perspectives on the Relationships between Nominalism, Realism, and
Literary Discourse, in Nominalism and Literary Discourse, ed. Hugo Keiper,
Christoph Bode, and Richard J. Utz (Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, ), pp. ;
and Richard Utz, Negotiating the Paradigm: Literary Nominalism and the
Theory of Rereading Late Medieval Texts, in Literary Nominalism and the
Theory of Rereading Late Medieval Texts, ed. Richard Utz (Lewiston, NY:
Edwin Mellen Press, ), pp. . Mark Miller argues for a Chaucer who
is philosophical not only in his engagements with philosophical traditions
and dialectic, but in places where his characters and concerns appear a-philosophical or even anti-philosophical. See Miller, Philosophical Chaucer, p.
and passim.
Courtenay, Schools and Scholars, pp. xixii.
See Robert Stepsis, Potentia Absoluta and the Clerks Tale, Chaucer Review
(): ; and David Steinmetz, Late Medieval Nominalism and
the Clerks Tale, Chaucer Review (): . In his inuential
article, Chaucer and the Nominalist Questions, Russell Peck begins by
admitting that he could not nd any evidence that Chaucer was particularly
interested in nominalism per se, but does nd many points of concurrence
between Chaucer and Ockham on questions of language, human knowledge, and the will; see Chaucer and the Nominalist Questions, Speculum
. (Oct. ): .
Fradenburg discusses these debates in Amorous Scholasticism, pp.
and again briey in the introduction to Sacrice Your Love, p. .
Ibid., .. (a); see Chapter above, note .
See G. E. L. Owen, Aristotelian Pleasures, in Articles on Aristotle, ed.
Jonathan Barnes, Malcolm Schoeld, and Richard Sorabji (London:
Duckworth, ), pp. on conicting denitions of pleasure in the
Nicomachean Ethics.
Augustine, De Civitate Dei, ., ll.: Potest ergo non absurde dici
perfectam beatitudinem sine stimulo timoris et sine ulla tristitia futuram.
Albertus Magnus, Super Ethica, Book , lectio , section , ll. , p. :
see Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, . (b) and . (b).
Albertus Magnus, Super Ethica, Book , lectio , section , ll. , p. .
Ibid., Book , lectio , section , ll. , p. : Quod probat C,
quia felicitas non potest intelligi sine delectatione. References to the
Commentator occur throughout writings on Aristotle, referring to any of
the Greek commentators who were translated by Grosseteste along with the
Notes to pages
main text, as well as to Averroes. Michael of Ephesus commented on several
books of the Nicomachean Ethics. See Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, fasc. ,
.. (a): existimamusque oportere delectationem misceri felicitati;
in Moerbeke (fasc. ): Extimamusque oportere delectationem admixtam
esse felicitati.
Michael of Ephesus, The Greek Commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics of
Aristotle, vol. , ed. H. Paul F. Mercken (Leiden: Brill, ), Book , chapter , p. : Perfecta enim vita et indeciens et per se suciens optima et
extrema, quare et delectabilissima.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae (Pleasure, a ae ), q. , a. .
Ibid., a ae, q. , a. .
Thomas Aquinas, Ethicorum Aristoteles Expositio, Book , lectio , :
Nam delectatio est quies appetitus in re delectante, qua quis per operationem potitur. Non autem aliquis appetit quietem in aliquo, nisi in quantum aestimat sibi conveniens. Et ideo ipsa operatio, quae delectat sicut
quoddam conveniens, videtur prius appetibilis, quam delectatio.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, a ae, q. , a. ; see discussion in
Olson, Literature as Recreation, p. .
Thomas Aquinas, Ethicorum Aristotelis Expositio, Book , lectio , :
Hoc autem apparet in sola speculatione sapientiae, quod propter seipsam
diligatur et non propter aliud.
See Bonnie Kent, Virtues of the Will: the Transformation of Ethics in the Late
Thirteenth Century (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America
Press, ), p. .
The enjoyment of the proper goal of human nature (love of God) was a prominent topic in the Sentences commentaries of Scotus, Ockham, Durandus of
St. Pourain, and Peter Aureoli. On the inuence of these scholars throughout the fourteenth century, especially in England, see Courtenay, Schools
and Scholars, pp. , . On the discourse surrounding enjoyment at fourteenth-century Oxford, see McGrade, Enjoyment at Oxford.
Ockham discusses Aureolis opinion along with Scotus (implied by argumenta aliorum) in his commentary; see Quaestiones, Liber , Dist. , q. ,
pp. .
Ibid., Liber , Dist. , q. , p. : Utrum fruitio sit qualitas realiter distincta
a delectatione.
See McGrade, Enjoyment at Oxford, p. .
Ockham, Quaestiones, Liber , Dist. , q. , p. : felicitas consistit in operatione, delectatio autem non est operatio sed superveniens operationi; see
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, . (b); translations, where possible,
are from Using and Enjoying (from Commentary on Sentences) in Ethics
and Political Philosophy, ed. Arthur Stephen McGrade, John Kilcullen, and
Texts (Cambridge University Press, ) (p. ).
Ockham, Quaestiones, Liber , Dist. , q. , art. , p. : Conrmatur, quia
actus amoris intensus stat cum tristitia de eodem obiecto, scilicet cum aliquis timet perdere illud quod diligit; Using and Enjoying, p. .
Notes to pages
Ibid., Liber , Dist. , q. , p. : secundum Philosophum X Ethicorum,

summa tristitia excludit delectationem non sibi oppositam et oppositam
sibi, sicut qui summe tristatur de amissione rei temporalis non delectatur
de consideratione alicuius speculabilis. Sed illa tristitia non excludit omnem
amorem illius considerationis; Using and Enjoying, p. . See Aristotle,
Ethica Nicomachea, . (b).
Ockham, Quaestiones, Liber , Dist. , q. , art. , p. : habet dicere
consequenter quod de potentia Dei absoluta actus amoris potest stare cum
tristitia.
Ibid., Liber , Dist. , q. , art. , p. : actus amoris est simpliciter nobilior
ipsa delectatione; Using and Enjoying, p. .
Ibid., Liber , Dist. , q. , art. , p. : amor viae est perfectior delectatione
viae, ergo amor patriae est perfectior delectatione patriae, et per consequens
totaliter amor est perfectior delectatione; Using and Enjoying, p. .
Ibid., Liber , Dist. , q. , art. , pp. : propter operationes et propter
vivere si enim et quam maxime delectabiles sunt ipsae, sed non delectationis gratia studiose aguntur. Multas enim earum quae secundum virtutes operationes eligimus, quamvis tristitiae et laborum seu dolorum causas
exsistentes ; Using and Enjoying, p. .
See Walter Chatton, Reportatio Super Sententias, ed. Joseph C. Wey and
Girard J. Etzkorn, vols. (Toronto: Pontical Institute for Mediaeval
Studies, ), Dist. , q. , art. , vol. , pp. .
Adam Wodeham, Lectura Secunda In Librum Primum Sententiarum,
ed. Rega Wood, assisted by Gedeon Gl, vols. (St. Bonaventure, NY:
St. Bonaventure University Press, ), vol. , Dist. , q. : Utrum Fruitio
Realiter Distinguatur a Delectatione.
Ibid., Dist. , q. , section , ll. .
Ibid., Dist. , q. , section , ll. .
Buridan, Quaestiones super Decem Libros Ethicorum , Book , q. , section
b, p. r, col. b: Sed arguitur quod hoc sit impossibile quemcunque
illorum dicas. Quia si dicas quod actus nobilissimus qui potest homini
inesse sit clara dei visio, tunc probo quod ille non esset essentialiter felicitas. Quia si esset essentialiter felicitas tunc ipso manente, aliis actibus
ablatis sicut auferri possunt per potentiam dei absolutam (ut aliqui theologi dicunt) adhuc homo esset felix, sicut lapis esset albus manente in eo
albedine omnibus aliis accidentibus remotis; et tamen illud consequens
est falsum, scilicet quod homo clare videns deum sine alia delectatione
et sine amore dei diceretur beatus. Oportet enim felicitatem esse delectabilissimam, ut dicit Aristoteles. Ergo, etc. Et con rmatur fortius, quia
dicunt illi theologi quod in anima Sortis cum clara dei visione posset deus
formare intensam tristitiam sine delectatione, et odium dei sine amore; an
igitur esset felix? Constat mihi quod ego non vellem talem felicitatem;
Questions on Book X of the Ethics, p. . See Wieland, Happiness,
p. .
Buridan, Quaestiones super Decem Libros Ethicorum, Book , q. , section
b, p. r, col. b: felicitas ponitur consistere in perfecta dei contemplatione
Notes to pages
que nec est dei cognitio sine amore, nec amor sine cognitione, sed ex ambobus constituta; Questions, p. .
Ibid., Book , q. , section b, p. r, col. b: nomen contemplationis connotat, sicut nomen felicitatis, adiacentiam amoris et delectationis naturaliter
connexorum illi speculationi vel visioni; Questions, p. .
Ibid., Book , q. , section a, p. r, col. a; Questions, p. .
Ibid., Book , q. , section a, p. r, col. b: Idem est ergo actus noster
optimus et actus noster delectabilissimus; section b, thesis , p. v, col. b:
principali seu primaria intentione delectatio est pro[p]ter operationem;
Questions, pp. , .
Ibid., Book , q. , section b, thesis , p. r, col. a: beatus non solum
intelligit et amat deum: sed reexive potest intelligere et intelligit se intelligere et amare et delectari; Questions, p. .
Ibid., Book , q. , section b, thesis , p. r, col. b: objecti sub ratione
boni presentis et obtenti; Questions, p. .
McGrade argues for the importance of psychology to fourteenth-century
ethics in Enjoyment at Oxford, especially pp. , .
Guillaume de Machaut, Prologue, in uvres, ed. Ernest Hoepner, vols.
(Paris: Librairie de Firmin-Didot et Cie, ), vol. . Translations are from
The Fountain of Love and Two Other Love Vision Poems, ed. and trans. R.
Barton Palmer (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., ); all poems in
this section will be cited rst in footnotes and subsequently by line and/or
page number within the text. See discussion of Machauts Prologue in Ardis
Buttereld, Poetry and Music in Medieval France (Cambridge University
Press, ), pp. ; and Cerquiglini-Toulet, Un engin si soutil,
pp. .
Deborah McGrady explores the way that Machaut made reading a subject of
romance in Controlling Readers: Guillaume de Machaut and his Late Medieval
audience (University of Toronto Press, ), pp. , , and chapter , passim. She argues that, from Machauts perspective, individual, private reading
creates the conditions for greater authorial control (p. ).
Le Livre du Voir Dit, ed. Paul Imbs, revised and coordinated with an introduction by Jacqueline Cerquiglini-Toulet, index of proper names and glossary by Nol Musso (Paris: Librairie Gnrale Franaise, ); translation
from Le Livre dou Voir Dit, ed. Daniel Leech-Wilkinson, trans. R. Barton
Palmer (New York: Garland, ).
Aquinas states that hope and memory cause pleasure by rendering the loved
object present according to apprehension and possibility of attainment; see
Summa Theologiae, a ae, q. , a. .
Brownlee observes that the love experience is, as it were, transformed into
poetry before the readers eyes in Poetic Identity in Guillaume de Machaut
(Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, ), p. . Critics own diering
opinions as to whether any physical consummation takes place between the
narrator and Toute-Belle. Brownlee maintains that the poem leaves this question deliberately obscure, while William Calin concludes that Toute-Belle
Notes to pages
has not lost her virginity, in A Poet at the Fountain: Essays on the Narrative
Verse of Guillaume de Machaut (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky,
), pp. . Daniel Poirion reads the scene in terms of an elevation
of physical pleasure, and a fourteenth-century optimism about grounding
spirituality in sense experience, in Le pote et le prince: l volution du lyrisme courtois de Guillaume de Machaut Charles de Orlans (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, ), pp. .
Guillaume de Machaut, Fonteinne Amoureuse, in uvres, vol. ; translations from The Fountain of Love.
McGrady reads Froissart as celebrating the idea that poetry both incites and
results from a vibrant and vital exchange between authors and readers a
positive valuation that marks a conscious critique of Machaut (Controlling
Readers, p. ).
Douglas Kelly reads Machauts Lover as a Pygmalion in bono, reconciled to
his adoration of an image; see Medieval Imagination: Rhetoric and the Poetry
of Courtly Love (Madison: Wisconsin University Press, ), p. .
In the Voir Dit, Machaut refers several times to the Fonteinne Amoureuse,
typically as Le Livre de Morpheus; see, for example, the fourth letter to his
lady where he promises to copy lun de mes livres que jai fait darreinnement, que on apelle Morpheus (.f, pp. ) and tenth letter where he
sends mon livre de Morpheus, que on appelle La Fonteinne Amoureuse
(.b, p. ). In Ovids Metamorphoses (Book ), Morpheus is the son of the
god of sleep; his talent is for taking on human shapes in dreams. He comes
to take the place of the god of sleep himself in late medieval poetry.
Ovid, Metamorphoses, ed. and trans. Frank Justus Miller, vols. (Cambridge,
MA and London: Harvard University Press and W. Heinemann, ),
..
Calin reads the exemplum of Paris and the golden apple as a meditation on
the choice between love and wisdom in A Poet at the Fountain, p. . R.
Barton Palmer similarly reads Paris choice as demonstrating the dominance
of love, but also reads Venus as a bestower of both clergie and chevalrie; see
The Book of the Duchess and Fonteinne Amoureuse: Chaucer and Machaut
Reconsidered, Canadian Review of Comparative Literature (Fall ):
(pp. , ). Margaret Ehrhart reads the entire poem as an exemplum for rulers (though not specically directed at Machauts patron, Jean,
Duc de Berry) and the myth of Paris as a critique of the vie voluptueuse;
see Machauts Dit de la Fonteinne Amoureuse, the Choice of Paris, and the
Duties of Rulers, Philological Quarterly . (Spring ): (p.
and passim).
Calin reads the end of the dit as demonstrating the artistry of the Lover:
Love has made a poet of him (and of the Lady too, for that matter), so
that, in the course of the narrative, he also becomes a master of sapientia, a
devotee of Pallas as well as of Venus (A Poet at the Fountain, p. ).
On the points of contact between the two poets, see John Fyler, Froissart
and Chaucer, in Froissart across the Genres, ed. Donald Maddox and Sara
Notes to pages
Sturm-Maddox (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, ), pp.
(p. ).
Jean Froissart, LEspinette Amoureuse, ed. Anthime Fourrier (Paris: ditions
Klincksieck, ); translations are from An Anthology of Narrative and Lyric
Poetry, ed. and trans. Kristen M. Figg and R. Barton Palmer (New York:
Routledge, ).
Huot reads the narrators wish in terms of the writerly qualities of Froissarts
poem; see From Song to Book, pp. .
Douglas Kelly reads Froissarts representations of such images in terms of
his evolving relationship to the imagination itself; see Medieval Imagination,
pp. . Huot reads Froissarts continual exchange of real women for
images in his poetry (culminating in his mythography of the marguerite) as
his comment on the power and limitations of poetry: it can commemorate
beauty and desire, but will always embody absence and loss; see Huot, The
Daisy and the Laurel: Myths of Desire and Creativity in the Poetry of Jean
Froissart, Yale French Studies (): (p. ).
Jean Froissart, Le Paradis DAmour, LOrloge Amoureus, ed. Peter F.
Dembowski (Geneva: Droz, ); translations are from An Anthology of
Narrative and Lyric Poetry.
Jean Froissart, La Prison Amoureuse, ed. Anthime Fourrier (Paris: ditions
Klincksieck, ); translations are from La Prison Amoureuse, ed. and trans.
Laurence de Looze (New York and London: Garland, ).
In From Song to Book, Huot discusses the wide range of Ovidian references
in this tale not just Pyramus and Thisbe, but Orpheus, Apollo, Leucotho,
Coronis, and Aesculapius (p. ).
Mary Wack, Lovesickness in the Middle Ages: the Viaticum and its Commentaries
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, ); see pp. on the
cultural and literary reception of lovesickness.
Ibid., p. . See also Alastair Minnis on the physician vrart de Contys
commentary on the Eschez Amoureux, a poem heavily indebted to the Roman
de la Rose; vrart brings Aristotle to bear on his ethical advice regarding
passion, love, and marriage, directed toward a courtly audience (Minnis,
Magister Amoris, p. , n. , pp. ).
Wack, Lovesickness, p. .
Peter of Spain, Questions on the Viaticum (Version B), in Wack, Lovesickness,
pp. .
Claire Nouvet, Pour une conomie de la d-limitation: la Prison Amoureuse
de Jean Froissart, Neophilologus (): (pp. ).
Nouvet, ibid., argues that the status of the reality of the metamorphosis
remains unresolved by the poem (p. ).
Brooke Heidenreich Findley reads Neptisphels awakening as an instance
of female agency that threatens the autonomous creativity of the poet;
see Deadly Words, Captive Imaginations: Women and Poetic Creation
in Jean Froissarts Prison Amoureuse, French Forum . (Fall ):
(pp. ).
Notes to pages
The dream is a fairly general lament for a society in which the virtues have
been wronged. Scholars have argued that Rose should be identied as
Wenceslas of Brabant, Froissarts patron, and a prisoner captured at the battle of Baesweiler; some have further claimed that Wenceslas in fact wrote the
poems and letters attributed to Rose in the manuscripts, though Froissart is
now generally accepted as the author of the entire poem. See Kelly, Medieval
Imagination, p. . On the relationship between the tale of Pynotes and
Roses dream, see Kelly, Imitation, Metamorphosis, and Froissarts Use of
the Exemplary Modus Tractandi, in Froissart Across the Genres (Gainesville:
University Press of Florida, ), pp. (pp. ).
On the French inheritance of The Book of the Duchess in particular and
Chaucers poetry more generally, see James I. Wimsatt, Chaucer and His
French Contemporaries: Natural Music in the Fourteenth Century (University
of Toronto Press, ), and Chaucer and the French Love Poets: The Literary
Background of The Book of the Duchess (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, ).
The corresponding lines in Froissart, Le Paradis dAmour, are: Je sui de moi
en grant mervelle / Coument tant vifs, car moult je velle, / Et on ne poroit en
vellant / Trouver de moi plus travellant, / Car bien sachis que par vellier /
Me viennent souvent travellier / Pensees et merancolies / Qui me sont ens on
coer liies. / Et pas ne les puis desliier, / Car ne voel la belle oubliier / Pour
quelle amour en ce travel (ll. ) (I marvel greatly at how I stay alive, /
For I lie awake so many nights / And one could not nd any man / More
tormented in his sleepless plight; / For, you see, as I lie awake / There often
come to worry me / Heavy thoughts and melancholies / That are shackles on
my heart. / And I cannot undo them, / For I dont wish to forget the beautiful one / For whose love I began this suering).
The cause of what the narrator further on describes as his eight-year illness has been the subject of much discussion, as has his invocation of an
unspecied phisicien who can cure him; rather than pointing to Christ, a
paradigmatic courtly lady, or any other coded meaning, I would argue that
Chaucer here is invoking a purposely generalized ethical lovesickness. David
Lawton refers to the opening of the poem as a portrait of general numbness
in Chaucers Narrators (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, ), p. . See explanatory
note to ll. in Riverside Chaucer for a survey of scholarly solutions to the
identity of the illness and physician (God, sleep, Joan of Kent, Christ, etc.).
Johannes Aacius in his Liber de Heros Morbo diered, arguing that the
pathology of love proceeds from the choice of object, rather than from the
intensity of pleasure: loyalty is immoderate love for ones lord, while heros
is immoderate love for those one desires to possess sexually. See Wack,
Lovesickness, pp. , .
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, .. (b): Nullum enim utique
posse intelligere aliquid in ipsa.
Aquinas, Ethicorum Aristotelis Expositio, Book , lectio , : nullus in
ipsa delectatione actuali potest aliquid actu intelligere.
Notes to pages
Aristotle, Politics, Book , lectio (a): sermo autem est ad manifestandum iam expediens et nocivum, quare et iustum et iniustum. Hoc
enim est preter alia animalia hominibus proprium solum, boni et mali,
iusti et iniusti et aliorum sensum habere; horum autem communitas facit
domum et civitatem. As Trevor Saunders notes in his comment on these
lines in Politics: Books I and II (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp. ,
Aristotle seems to overstate the case for dierence between animals and
humans; animals too can make distinctions between benet and harm and
communicate them, and the philosopher attributes a kind of practical wisdom to animals in the Ethics and elsewhere. In John Trevisas translation
of Giles of Romes De Regimine Principum, these lines are quoted and commented on in the context of a discussion of the comynte (community) of
house and city; see Trevisa, The Governance of Kings and Princes, ed. David
C. Fowler, Charles F. Briggs, and Paul G. Remley (New York: Garland
Publications, ).
In Chaucers Legend of Good Women, he refers to a poem he wrote titled
The Deeth of Blaunche the Duchesse, allying the Book with the death of
John of Gaunts wife in . Internal evidence also suggests that the poem is
dedicated to John of Gaunt; lines , which mention A long castel with
walles white, / Be Seynt Johan, on a ryche hil are generally taken to refer to
Lancaster, Blanche, John of Gaunt, and Richmond (of which he was Earl).
For a survey of readings of the Book that focus on the issue of consolation, see Richard Rambuss, Process of Tyme: History, Consolation, and
Apocalypse in The Book of the Duchess, Exemplaria . (Fall ): ,
where Rambuss summarizes the debate between consolationist and
anti-consolationist critics. In Sacrice Your Love, Fradenburg reads the
narrator and knight as performing for each other the role of the other
through whom one can recognize oneself (p. ); Bernard Hupp and
D. W. Robertson, The Book of the Duchess, in Chaucers Dream Visions
and Shorter Poems, ed. William A. Quinn (New York: Garland, ),
pp. , argue for the Black Knights learning a moral lesson that
he should appreciate Whites enduring virtues rather than her temporal
physical presence. See also Robert Hanning, Chaucers First Ovid:
Metamorphosis and Poetic Tradition in The Book of the Duchess and The
House of Fame, in Chaucer and the Craft of Fiction, ed. Leigh Arrathoon
(Rochester, MI: Solaris Press, ), pp. , on the poems transformation of grief into poetry (pp. ).
On the consolation and education of the narrator, see Lawton, Chaucers
Narrators, pp. . Peter Travis, White, Studies in the Age of Chaucer
(): , reads the entire poem as a work of mourning, and as a salutary
movement from depression to mourning for the dreaming narrator.
The narrators apparent obtuseness and its possible oensiveness in regard
to the nature of the Black Knights loss has long been a critical crux in discussions of the poem. The problem of the narrators disregard in relation to the
Notes to pages
poems status as a possible oering to the mourning John of Gaunt and as an

elegy is discussed in Ardis Buttereld, Lyric and Elegy in the Book of the
Duchess, Medium Aevum . (): ; and Steven Davis, Guillaume
de Machaut, Chaucers Book of the Duchess, and the Chaucer Tradition,
Chaucer Review (): . Both critics discuss this problem in
the context of Chaucers relationship to his French contemporaries.
MED cnnen (v.)
For a reading of The Book of the Duchess in terms of idleness and work, see
also Lisa Kiser, Sleep, Dreams, and Poetry in Chaucers Book of the Duchess,
Papers on Language and Literature . (): . She discusses the hunt as
an antidote to idleness and notes that hunting manuals in the late Middle
Ages often endorse the sport as oering productive focus for the mind,
relieving it from idle tendencies to imagine eshly lusts and pleasures.
These lines are likely adapted from Machauts Le Jugement du Roy de
Behaigne (uvres, vol. ), in which a lady whose lover has died laments that
her pleasures have become grief-lled toils and [her] joys are bitter grief
(mes douceurs sont dolereus labours / Et mes joies sont ameres dolours, ll.
); see Le Jugement dou Roy de Behaigne and Remede de Fortune, ed.
and trans. James I. Wimsatt and William W. Kibler (Athens: University of
Georgia Press, ).
See J. Stephen Russell, The English Dream Vision (Columbus: Ohio State
University Press, ) for a reading of the Book that claims its subject to be
routhe.
Alastair Minnis claim that Chaucer ignored the moralization of Ovids
fable is certainly true in that Chaucer does not adopt the lesson that we
should take no regard for vain, earthly pleasures. But the eetingness of
earthly joys is certainly a subject that The Book of the Duchess meditates
upon. See Chaucer and Pagan Antiquity (Woodbridge, Suolk: D. S.
Brewer, ), pp. .
Ovide Moralis, ed. C. de Boer, vols. (Amsterdam: J. Mller, ),
Tome , .. Translations are my own.
Heinrichs also notes a parallel between Ceyxs statement and the concerns
of the Ovide Moralis (The Myths of Love, p. ).
Fradenburg discusses Alcyones death (in exchange for the narrators
life) as a symptom of elegiac misogyny in Voice Memorial: Loss and
Reparation in Chaucers Poetry, Exemplaria . (March ): .
The lady of Machauts Le Jugement dou Roy de Behaigne also recalls that her
heart and her lovers were of one accord, alike in will and desire: they felt
as one each good, each trial, each joy (Un bien, un mal, une joie sentoient
/ Conjointement, ll. ).
Travis, White, pp. .
See de Looze, Guillaume de Machaut and the Writerly Process, p. : I
might add that in the Fonteinne amoureuse to ask whether life is a dream is
tantamount to asking also whether life might be a poem.
Notes to pages
: , ,
- -
The condemnations have long played a central role in the intellectual history
of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, though their unied
eects have begun to be questioned, along with tienne Gilsons narrative
of a golden age of condence in the tools of philosophy as a means to gain
metaphysical truths giving way to suspicion; see The History of Christian
Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York: Random House, ), pp. .
Gordon Le similarly argues for the chilling eect of the condemnations
in Medieval Thought: St. Augustine to Ockham (Harmondsworth, Middlesex:
Penguin, ), p. ; Bonnie Kent discusses the dominance of this narrative
of conservative, anti-Aristotelian reaction in Virtues of the Will, pp. . With
Fernand van Steenberghen, she challenges the idea that the doctrinal conicts
of the late thirteenth century pitted Augustinians against Aristotelians, and
argues that they are better understood as struggles between dierent forms of
Aristotelianism (p. ). See Courtenay, Schools and Scholars, pp. on the
specic rejection of the Thomist view that enjoyment is an intellectual act; see
Wieland, Happiness, pp. on debates regarding the active and contemplative paths to happiness and the role of the will versus the intellect. For
recent scholarship on the condemnations and their immediate eects, see Jan
A. Aertsen, Kent Emery, Jr., and Andreas Speer (eds.), After the Condemnation
of (Nach der Verurteilung von ) (Berlin and New York: Walter de
Gruyter, ).
Kempshall, The Common Good, p. .
See Kent, Virtues of the Will, chapter ; and Steenberghen, Aristotle in the West,
p. .
Kempshall, The Common Good, p. . Giles notes that Aristotle seems to present two types of felicity, but simply makes note of this interpretive diculty
and avers that it is not for his treatise to determine whether the philosopher
ultimately has a unied position.
Giles of Rome, De Regimine Principum Librum III (Rome, ), Book ,
Part , chapter , p. v: Posuerunt etiam vitam contemplativam esse in pura
speculatione, quod est falsum. Nunquam enim quis in tali vita percitur, nisi
sit in eo amor dei, sive dilectio charitatis.
Plato, Theaetetus, ab.
Aesop, The Astronomer, in Fables, trans. Olivia and Robert Temple (New
York: Penguin, ).
Christine de Pizan, The Vision of Christine de Pizan, trans. Glenda McLeod
and Charity Cannon Willard (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, ), ., p. .
The old woman also appears in Diogenes Laertius life of Thales.
Michel de Montaigne, Apology for Raymond Sebond (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett,
), p. . For an antique Greek comic perspective, see Aristophanes The
Clouds; a student at Socrates school relates a story in which the philosopher
was gazing openmouthed at the stars at night when a gecko defecated on him.
Other references to the stargazing philosopher include Cicero, De Divinatione,
Notes to pages
.., and De Republica, .; Cento Novelle Antiche, ; and Philip Sidney,

Astrophil and Stella, .
For a discussion of Montaignes claim in relation to late medieval optical
and epistemological theory, see Dallas G. Denery II, Seeing and Being Seen
in the Later Medieval World: Optics, Theology, and Religious Lif e (Cambridge
Karma Lochrie reads the Millers pun on pryvetee as a means to equate
women with their genitals, their privacy, and all that is secret, and then to
expose them to public laughter; see Covert Operations: the Medieval Uses of
Secrecy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, ), p. .
E. D. Blodgett observes succinctly that pryvetee, like cupiditas, is wanting
what we cannot have and receiving what we do not want in Chaucerian
Pryvetee and the Opposition to Time, Speculum . (July ):
(p. ). In Lacanian terms, pryvetee might be understood as both the
deferred enjoyment of desire and the inescapable obscene enjoyment of the
drives. See also Mark Millers reading of Alison as the tales perfect exemplar
of the human who never erects articial barriers to pleasure (Philosophical
Chaucer, pp. ).
Alastair Minnis notes that the pseudo-Aristotelian Problemata contains the
assertions that all men who have become outstanding in philosophy, statesmanship, poetry or the arts are melancholic and further that the melancholic are usually lustful. He concludes that it requires little inference to
produce the proposition that the cleverest men have the strongest sex drives
(Magister Amoris, p. , n. ).
Aristotle entered vernacular literature in the twelfth-century tradition of
the Roman dAlexander. In the romances that adhere to the narratives available in Latin (such as the Anglo-Norman romance by Thomas of Kent,
c.), Aristotle is a relatively minor character, but in the vulgate version
by Alexandre de Paris (c.), Aristotle plays a larger role as Alexanders
childhood teacher and continuing mentor, advising him on his political
campaigns. Catherine Gaullier-Bougassas argues that in Alexandre de Paris
romance, Aristotle is presented in ambiguous terms, and that one can detect
a critique of the vanity of pagan philosophy, possibly in response to the dissemination of Aristotelian texts in the Parisian schools where Alexandre
may have studied; see Alexander and Aristotle in the French Alexander
Romances, in The Medieval French Alexander, ed. Donald Maddox and
Sara Sturm-Maddox (Albany: State University of New York Press, ),
pp. (p. ).
John Gower, Confessio Amantis, in The English Works of John Gower, vol. ,
ed. G. C. Macauley, vols. (London: for The Early English Text Society by
K. Paul, Trench, Trbner & Co., ), ..
The editor of the standard edition of the poem, Maurice Delbouille, dates
the poem to before , possibly before ; see his introduction to Le Lai
dAristote de Henri DAndeli (Paris: Socit ddition Les Belles Lettres,
), p. . Recent editor Alain Corbellari proposes a date of c. in his
Notes to pages
introduction to Les Dits dHenri dAndeli (Paris: ditions Champion, ),

p. , partially in order to place Henris uvre in relation to the rising dominance of Aristotelian philosophy in the university.
See Le Lai, ed. Corbellari, p. ; Le Lai, ed. Delbouille, pp. , ; Susan
L. Smith, The Power of Women: a Topos in Medieval Art and Literature
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, ), p. ; Michel Zink,
De Jean Le Teinturier Jean Bras-de-Fer: le triomphe des cuistres, in
Les voix de la conscience: parole du pote et parole de Dieu dans la littrature
mdivale (Caen: Paradigme, ), pp. , repr. from Milieux universitaires et mentalits urbaines au Moyen Age, ed. Daniel Poirion (Paris: Presses
de lUniversit de Paris-Sorbonne, ), pp. ; and George Sarton,
Aristotle and Phyllis, ISIS . (May ): (repr. Bruges: St. Catherine
Press, ), p. .
On the origins of the Aristotle tale, see Le Lai, ed. Delbouille, pp. ; for
analogues of tales of the seduction of a wise man in the Eastern tradition,
see Joseph Bdier, Les Fabliaux (Paris: Librairie Honor Champion, ),
pp. .
For an excellent discussion of the origins of the tale and its legacy, see Smith,
The Power of Women, pp. and throughout her third chapter, Tales of
the Mounted Aristotle.
All citations of Le Lai dAristote are from Delbouilles edition, cited above.
Translations are my own.
Anne Ladd, Attitude toward Lyric in the Lai dAristote and Some Later
Fictional Narratives, Romania (): (p. ). Gregory Stone
remarks that it is songs specularity that enchants Aristotle (p. ) and oers
an acute reading of the multiplicity of mirrors in the tale; see The Death of
the Troubadour: the Late Medieval Resistance to the Renaissance (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, ), pp. . Maureen Bolton observes
Aristotles misrecognition of himself in the girls later chanson de toile, a misrecognition that recalls the dreamers encounter with the Narcissus myth
in the Roman de la Rose; see The Song in the Story: Lyric Insertions in French
Narrative Fiction, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
), pp. .
On the ethical ambiguity of the tales ending, see Barbara Nolan,
Promiscuous Fictions: Medieval Bawdy Tales and their Textual Liaisons,
in The Body and the Soul in Medieval Literature, ed. Piero Boitani and Anna
Torti (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, ), pp. (p. ).
Smith, The Power of Women, p. .
An illustrative example is a fourteenth-century ivory box at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art in which a frame containing Aristotle and Alexander reading together is juxtaposed with an image of the maiden riding Aristotle,
with Alexander looking on. See Box with Aristotle and Phyllis [French]
(..ab,.), in Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History (New York: The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, ), www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/anti/
ho_..ab,..htm (October ). For a reading of the casket as a
Notes to pages
whole, and the Aristotle and maiden compartments in particular, see Paula
Mae Carns, Compilatio in Ivory: the Composite Casket in the Metropolitan
Museum, Gesta (): (pp. ).
Joachim Storost suggests that certain general aspects of the story were perhaps inspired by the Nicomachean Ethics, especially Book on the problem
of passion overcoming reason, in Femme chevalchat Aristotte, Zeitschrift
fr franzsische Sprache und Literatur (): (p. ). As Storost
acknowledges, however, the dating of the poem makes it unlikely that Henri
would have had any direct knowledge of the Ethics aside from the rst three
books.
Jacques de Vitrys sermon is dated c.. Bdier argues for the priority of Henris version in Les Fabliaux, pp. . Smith narrates the history of source study for the Western mounted Aristotle tales (The Power
of Women, pp. ); she herself argues persuasively for the inuence of a
group of twelfth-century poems (e.g., Altercatio Phyllidis et Florae) that
debate the greater suitability of knights or clerks as lovers.
Jacques de Vitry, Die Exempla aus den Sermones Feriales et Communes, ed.
Joseph Greven (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, ), sermon .
On the sermon staging a conict between two dierent orders of men the
clerical and the knightly see Smith, The Power of Women, p. .
The original Latin poem was written by Mathieu of Boulogne around ;
Le Fvre popularized the Latin poem, which also remained in circulation at
least through the fteenth century.
Jehan Le Fvre, Les Lamentations de Matheolus et le Livre de Leesce de Jehan
Le Fvre, de Resson, ed. A.-G. van Hamel, vols. (Paris: . Bouillon,
), ll. : que dira philosophie, / Quant gure damphibolie / A le
grant maistre dece?; ll. : Quid dicet philosophia / Cum sibi doctorem deceperit amphibolia?
Jehan Le Fvre, Lamentations, ll. : est advenue / Aux arciens continuele / Confusion perpetuele; l. : Pro quibus artistis confusion
perpetuator.
Smith notes in The Power of Women that the tale resisted permanent inscription within the discourse of the preacher (p. ) and further that Dierent
interpretations of the Aristotle tale coexisted at the same time, within the
same linguistic boundaries, and even within the connes of the same text
(p. ). On the tales inscription in discourses of erotic violence and mastery,
see Marilynn Desmond, Ovids Art and the Wife of Bath: the Ethics of Erotic
Violence (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, ), pp. .
Kent, Virtues of the Will, p. .
Ibid., p. .
Kent specically discusses the works of Peter Olivi (pp. ), Walter of
Bruges (p. ), and Richard of Middleton (p. ) in this context and discusses voluntarism generally in chapter of her book.
Ibid., p. .
Notes to pages
Bonaventure, Itinerarium Mentis in Deum, in The works of Saint Bonaventure,

vol. , ed. Philotheus Boehner and Sr. M. Frances Laughlin, vols. (Saint
Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, Saint Bonaventure University,
), .; translation from The Minds Road to God, trans. George Boas
(Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, ).
Ibid., ..
Ibid., ..
John Duns Scotus, Ordinatio ., suppl. dist. , qq. (Beatitudo)
in Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality, ed. and trans. Allan B. Wolter
(Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, ),
pp. (pp. ); see also Wieland, Happiness, p. .
Duns Scotus, Ordinatio, , pp. .
See McGrade, Enjoyment at Oxford, p. .
Ockham, Quaestiones, Liber , Dist. , q. , p. : fruitio est formaliter
beatitudo, quia dicitur a fructu quod est ultimum, cuiusmodi est beatitudo. Sed beatitudo est operatio intellectus, secundum Philosophum X et
I Ethicorum. Ergo fruitio erit operatio intellectus; Using and Enjoying,
p. .
Ibid., Liber , Dist. , q. , art. a, p. : Tamen intelligendum est quod quando
dicitur quod fruitio est actus solius voluntatis, non intendo negare quod proprie
et de virtute sermonis loquendo fruitio non sit actus intellectus, quia, sicut alias
ostendetur, intellectus et voluntas sunt omnino idem, et ideo quidquid est in
intellectu est in voluntate et e converso; Using and Enjoying, p. .
Ibid., Liber , Dist. , q. , art. b, p. ; Using and Enjoying, p. .
Ibid., Liber , Dist. , q. , art. bii, p. : solus Deus est causa eectiva, et
hoc propter nobilitatem ipsius beatitudinis; Using and Enjoying, p. .
Buridan, Quaestiones super Decem Libros Ethicorum, Book , q. , sect. b,
p. r, col. b.
Ibid., Book , q. , sect. b, p. r, col. b: Item, felicitas ponitur consistere
in perfecta dei contemplatione que nec est dei cognitio sine amore, nec amor
sine cognitione: sed ex ambobus constituta; Questions on Book X of the
Ethics, p. .
Ibid., Book , q. , sect. a, p. r, col. a: quod illud sic optimum sit actus
speculationis circa divinam essentiam; Questions, p. .
Ibid., Book , q. , sect. b, thesis , p. r, col. a: beatus non solum intelligit et amat deum: sed reexive potest intelligere et intelligit se intelligere et
amare et delectari; Questions, p. .
See ibid., Book , q. , sect. a, p. v, col. b, on the love of an old woman
pleasing God more than the knowledge of the cleric; Questions, p. ; see
Wieland, Happiness, p. .
Nicole Oresme, thiques, p. , n. .
Ibid., p. , n. .
On curiosity as a sin, see Richard Newhauser, Augustinian vitium curiositatis and its Reception, in Saint Augustine and his Inuence in the Middle
Ages, ed. Edward B. King and Jacqueline T. Schaefer, Sewanee Mediaeval
Notes to pages
Studies (Sewanee, TN: The Press of the University of the South, ),

pp. .
The Conict of Wit and Will, ed. Bruce Dickins (Leeds: Kendal, printed by
T. Wilson for members of the school for English language in the University
of Leeds, ), p. .
On the relationship between the two poems, see Steven Wright,
Deguilevilles Plerinage de Vie Humaine as contrepartie ediante of the
Roman de la Rose, Philological Quarterly . (): ; and Sylvia
Huot, Medieval Readers, chapter , Expos sur le Roman de la Rose:
rewriting the Rose in the Plerinage de vie humaine.
Guillaume de Deguileville, Le Plerinage de Vie Humaine, ed. J. J. Sturzinger
(London: Nichols and Sons, printed for the Roxburghe Club, ), l. ; all
subsequent references to the poem will be parenthetical.
Wright observes that allusions to the garden of the Rose are also present in
Deguilevilles description of the tonsured head of a monk (ll. ); see
Wright, Contrepartie Ediante, p. .
Kay, The Place of Thought, p. . She contends that the notion of place developed by Deguileville is ultimately intellectual rather than physical.
Kay notes that in this answer Aristotle shifts from the Physics to the Ethics,
a shift which conrms that the concept of place is now topological and
moral, rather than plotted with reference to physical location (The Place of
Thought, p. ).
Aristotles other works are also referred to as repositories of knowledge, as
at the very end of the poem, where Aristotle provides an explanation for the
way that blood is changed into milk through decoction giving a scientic
rationale both for the breast milk oered to the dreamer by Mercy and for
the nourishing nature of the blood of Christ (ll. ).
Chaucer leaves o the nal stanzas in his translation; see An ABC in
Riverside Chaucer.
John Burrow has argued for the direct inuence of Deguilevilles pilgrimage
trilogy on Langland; see Langlands Fictions (Oxford University Press, ).
On the inuence of Deguilevilles trilogy on medieval English literature, as
well as on Langland in particular, see Emily Steiner, Documentary Culture
and the Making of Medieval English Literature (Cambridge University Press,
), pp. , .
On the possibilities for Will as a personication of the will, see John
Bowers, The Crisis of Will in Piers Plowman (Washington, DC: The
Catholic University of America Press, ). David Lawton reviews critical interpretations of Will in The Subject of Piers Plowman, Yearbook
of Langland Studies (): , and proposes a new approach based
on modern theories of the subject. See also Anne Middleton, William
Langlands Kynde Name : Authorial Signature and Social Identity in Late
Fourteenth-Century England, in Literary Practice and Social Change in
Britain, , ed. Lee Patterson (Berkeley: University of California
Press, ), pp. .
Notes to pages
On the representation of faculty psychology in the poem, see Joseph Wittig,

Piers Plowman B, Passus IXXII: Elements in the Design of the Inward
Journey, Traditio (): ; and A. V. C. Schmidt, Langland and
Scholastic Philosophy, Medium Aevum (): . Wittig focuses
on the monastic, Schmidt on the scholastic, contexts of the poems psychological models. For a sustained treatment of fourteenth-century thought on
the will in relation to the poem, see Bowers, The Crisis of Will, especially
pp. . See also Zeeman, Medieval Discourse of Desire, pp. .
James Simpson argues that Langland conceives of theology in the sapiential tradition, a tradition in which the aective, the good, and the voluntary are prioritized over the speculative, the true, and the intellectual; see
From Reason to Aective Knowledge: Modes of Thought and Poetic Form
in Piers Plowman, Medium Aevum . (): (p. ). Simpson claims
straightforwardly that Langlands theology is voluntarist (p. ). Elsewhere,
he observes that the poem appears conservative, in that Will moves from
scholastic to monastic habits of reading; see Simpson, Desire and the
Scriptural Text: Will as Reader in Piers Plowman, in Criticism and Dissent
in the Middle Ages, ed. Rita Copeland (Cambridge University Press, ),
pp. (p. ).
Simpson, From Reason to Aective Knowledge, p. . He describes the
voluntarist tradition as eschewing Aristotelian logic in favor of movement
through example: scriptural literary metaphor, symbol, and parable.
References cited in-text are to William Langland, The Vision of Piers
Plowman: a Critical Edition of the B-Text Based on Trinity College Cambridge
MS B.., ed. A. V. C. Schmidt, nd edn. (London: J. M. Dent, ) and
to Piers Plowman: the C-Text, ed. Derek Pearsall (Exeter: University of Exeter
Press, ).
Zeeman, Medieval Discourse of Desire, argues that Wills intellectual failures should not be read as rebukes to the intellect itself, but as integral
human experiences, part of a spiritual and ethical education (pp. and
passim); see also Michelle Karnes, Wills Imagination in Piers Plowman,
Journal of English and Germanic Philology (Jan. ): . Daniel
Murtaugh earlier judged that the poems attitude toward Intellectualism,
pro- and anti-, is thus basically ambivalent in Piers Plowman and the Image
of God (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, ), p. . He observes also
that grace and learning are stated by the poem to have the same source
Christs love (p. ).
Masha Raskolnikov, Promising the Female, Delivering the Male, Yearbook
of Langland Studies (): (p. ); and Britton Harwood, Piers
Plowman and the Problem of Belief (Toronto and London: University of
Toronto Press, ), p. . See also Schmidt, Langland and Scholastic
Philosophy, pp. .
Andrew Galloway, Piers Plowman and the Schools, Yearbook of Langland
Studies, (): (p. ).
Notes to pages
James Paxson, Inventing the Subject and the Personication of Will in

Piers Plowman: Rhetorical, Erotic, and Ideological Origins and Limits in
Langlands Allegorical Poetics, in William Langlands Piers Plowman: a
Book of Essays, ed. Kathleen Hewett-Smith (New York: Routledge, ),
pp. (p. ).
See Mary Clemente Davlin, Kynde Knowyng as a Major Theme in Piers
Plowman B, The Review of English Studies, n.s. . (Feb. ): (p. ).
See Zeeman, Medieval Discourse of Desire, pp. , .
Nature is imagined as devouring knowledge in Henris Lai dAristote;
Aristotle defends himself by claiming that because he was in love, nature
bereft him of all knowledge gained from a life of learning and reading.
M. Teresa Tavormina observes that in attributing knowledge of the divine
mystery of sexuality to Kynde, an authoritative gure, the poem acknowledges the importance of the sexual dimension of experience; see Kindly
Similitude: Marriage and Family in Piers Plowman (Cambridge: D. S.
Brewer, ), p. . In the C-version of the poem, however, the sexual content of natural knowledge is excised. The mystery of Adam and Eves shame
over their privy members is replaced with the more abstract, though clearly
related, problem of why Kynde willed that evil should exist in the world
(..).
This passage is complicated by its possible allusion to the second recension of
Deguilevilles poem, in which Grace Dieu advises the pilgrim to remove his
eyes and place them in his ears so that he will be able to see his sta and
scrip. Under Grace Dieus logic, true understanding comes only through a
mode of vision that is mediated by what one has heard and learned; Studies
wish might then be read as a recommendation that the curious soul should
seek knowledge humbly through all possible senses and with all resources,
rather than solely through the eyes. As Karnes notes, Perceiving the spiritual
signicance of the natural world takes all the resources of the intellect and
the will (Wills Imagination, p. ). See John Lydgates translation, The
Pilgrimage of the Life of Man, ed. Frederick J. Furnivall, EETS e.s. , ,
(London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trbner & Co., ), ll. ; discussed in Susan Hagen, Allegorical Remembrance: a Study of The Pilgrimage
of the Life of Man as a Medieval Treatise on Seeing and Remembering (Athens:
University of Georgia Press, ), p. .
But see Zeemans argument that intellectual suering is productive, natural,
and even ethical in the poem. She discusses suering and deprivation as an
integral aspect of kynde itself in her fth chapter, Seeing and Suering in
Nature, in Medieval Discourse of Desire.
Fradenburg discusses the heroization of suering for as devalorizing actual
suering in Our owen wo to drynke: Loss, Gender and Chivalry in Troilus
and Criseyde, in And subgit be to alle poesie: Essays on Troilus and Criseyde,
ed. R. A. Shoaf (Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts &
Studies, ), pp. (p. ).
Notes to pages
On learning/loving through suering in Piers Plowman, see Harwood, Piers

Plowman, Fourteenth-Century Skepticism, and the Theology of Suering,
Bucknell Review . (): (p. ); and Davlin, Major Theme, p. .
See, for example, Bruce Harbert, Langlands Easter, in Langland, the Mystics
and the Medieval English Religious Tradition, ed. Helen Phillips (Cambridge:
D. S. Brewer, ), pp. ; David Aers, Christs Humanity and Piers
Plowman: Contexts and Political Implications, Yearbook of Langland Studies
(): ; and Mary Clemente Davlin, Devotional Postures in Piers
Plowman, with an Appendix on Divine Postures, Chaucer Review .
(): .
Davlin comments on the originality of this idea in Langland (Major
Theme, p. ), as does Elizabeth Kirk, Langlands Narrative Christology,
in Art and Context in Late Medieval English Narrative, ed. Robert R. Edwards
(Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, ), pp. ; see also Kirk, Who Sureth
More Than God?: Narrative Redenition of Patience in Patience and Piers
Plowman, in The Triumph of Patience, ed. Gerald J. Schi horst (Orlando:
University Presses of Florida, ), pp. (pp. , ) on patience
as an imitatio Christi that is active, part of a comic vision of the human
predicament.
Lacan, Encore, pp. , ; trans. Fink, pp. , . Lacan discusses the divinization of suering in L thique, p. ; trans. Porter, p. .
Amy Hollywood, Suering Transformed: Marguerite Porte, Meister
Eckhart, and the Problem of Womens Spirituality, in Meister Eckhart and
the Beguine Mystics, ed. Bernard McGinn (New York: Continuum, ),
pp. .
: , ,

I take this bliss literally, as a means of thinking about the relationship between
erotic and philosophical discussions of happiness, but I do not want to deny
that it is also circumscribed and complicated. David Aers reads Book as a
depiction of mutual love and happiness in Criseyde: Woman in Medieval
Society, Chaucer Review (): , but see Elaine Tuttle Hansens
critique in Chaucer and the Fictions of Gender (Berkeley: University of
California Press, ), pp. .
MED lust (n.). In Chaucers closest source for the poem, Il Filostrato, Boccaccio
speaks of ineable delight at the moment of the lovers consummation, but
this bliss is not linked to the lovers mutuality. See Barry Windeatts parallel
text edition of Il Filostrato and Chaucers poem: Troilus and Criseyde: a New
Edition of The Book of Troilus (London and New York: Longman, ).
J. Allan Mitchell argues that the narrative and moral shape of Troilus and
Criseyde is analogous to the wheel of Fortune, and considers the poem as an
erotic adventure of fortune that is also an ethical adventure; see Ethics and
Eventfulness, pp. and chapter passim.
Notes to pages
My question echoes the query made by Simon Gaunt with reference to

courtly interest in religion: Why is love in courtly texts made analogous to
a religion? Does this not imply a serious as well as an ironic mind-set? What
is the import of the use of Christian imagery in erotic contexts, and what
is its aective value? (Love and Death, p. ). With respect to Troilus and
Criseyde, David Wallace explores the juxtaposition of pagan and Christian
morality and beliefs, contending that Chaucer (with Boccaccio) seeks neither to integrate them nor to produce an ironic eect, but rather to explore
the uncertain space between them; see Chaucer and the Early Writings of
Boccaccio (Woodbridge, Suolk: D. S. Brewer, ), pp. .
Martin Camargo, The Consolation of Pandarus, Chaucer Review . ():
(p. ). See also Alan Gaylord, Friendship in Chaucers Troilus,
Chaucer Review . (): .
Bernard Jeerson, Chaucer and the Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius
(Princeton University Press, ), p. .
Riverside Chaucer, p. .
Other recent scholarship that questions ideas of the Boethian includes
Jennifer Arch, The Boethian Testament of Love, Studies in Philology .
(Fall ): ; and J. Allan Mitchell, Romancing Ethics in Boethius,
Chaucer, and Levinas: Fortune, Moral Luck, and Erotic Adventure,
Comparative Literature . (Spring ): . Scholars who consider
the possibilities for an ironic Boethius in the context of Menippean satire
include Anne F. Payne, Chaucer and Menippean Satire (Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press, ); Peter Dronke, Verse with Prose from Petronius
to Dante: the art and scope of the mixed form (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, ); and Joel Relihan, The Prisoners Philosophy: Life and
Death in Boethius Consolation, with a contribution by William E. Heise
(University of Notre Dame Press, ).
Miller, Philosophical Chaucer, p. ; on the resistance to Philosophias perspective, Camargo remarks that Lady Philosophy must always convert the
particular and unique into the general and typical, and that move is always a
reduction (The Consolation of Pandarus, p. ). Frank Grady reads the
poem as a series of dialogic situations in which the reader is positioned both
as a lover and as God/Lady Philosophy, and in which the foreknowledge of
the reader regarding the end of the narrative mimics the foreknowledge of
God; see The Boethian Reader of Troilus and Criseyde, Chaucer Review .
(): .
Miller, Philosophical Chaucer, p. .
David Aers, Chaucer, Langland, and the Creative Imagination (London:
Routledge, ), p. .
Alastair Minnis and Lodi Nauta, More Platonico loquitur : What Nicholas
Trevet really did to William of Conches, in Chaucers Boece and the Medieval
Tradition of Boethius, ed. Alastair Minnis (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, ),
pp. . See also Lodi Nauta, The Scholastic Context of the Boethius
Commentary by Nicholas Trevet, in Boethius in the Middle Ages, ed.
Notes to pages
Maarten Hoenen and Lodi Nauta (New York: Brill, ), pp. ; and
Mark Gleason, Clearing the Fields: Towards a Reassessment of Chaucers
Use of Trevet in the Boece, in The Medieval Boethius: Studies in the
Vernacular Translations of De Consolatione Philosophiae, ed. Alastair Minnis
(Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, ), pp. . For a discussion of Trevets
supposed radical Aristotelianism, see Pierre Courcelle, La Consolation de
philosophie dans la tradition littraire: antcdents et postrit de Boce (Paris:
tudes augustiniennes, ), pp. .
Joseph Owens, Faith, Ideas, Illumination, and Experience, in The
Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, pp. .
Lodi Nauta, Magis sit Platonicus quam Aristotelicus: Interpretations of
Boethius Platonism in the Consolatio Philosophiae from the Twelfth to the
Seventeenth Century, in The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, ), pp. .
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, .. (a): Necessarium magis
quidem enim utique in infortuniis Melius autem in bonis fortunis.
Ibid., .. (a): et quod aliquando est singulis esse vel cuius gratia eligunt vivere, in hoc cum amicis volunt conversari.
Jacques Derrida, The Politics of Friendship, trans. George Collins (London:
Verso, ; repr. ), p. .
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, .. (b): inpermutabilem et
mansivam.
Derrida, The Politics of Friendship, p. ; Derrida cites Nietzsche, Mitfreude,
nicht Mitleiden, macht den Freund (Human, All Too Human, para. :
Fellow rejoicing, not fellow suering, makes the friend).
Grady notes that future tyme is a Chaucerian neologism, and that Chaucer
is often cited as having introduced the word future into English in Boece
(Boethian Reader, p. ).
Minnis and Nauta, More Platonico loquitur, p. ; see also Nauta, Magis sit
Platonicus quam Aristotelicus, pp. .
Nauta, Magis sit Platonicus quam Aristotelicus, p. .
Minnis speculates that Jean was attracted to this text (while using a commentary by William of Conches in the body of his translation) because of its
apparent status on the cutting edge of Parisian scholasticism, in Aspects of
the Medieval French and English Traditions, pp. .
Ibid., p. ; and Copeland, Rhetoric, Hermeneutics and Translation,
pp. .
William of Aragon, Omnia appetunt bonum (Terbille, William of
Aragons Commentary, p. ; Scott, William of Aragon, p. ). William
of Aragons commentary is not currently available in a complete published
edition, though Carmen Olmedilla Herrero has an edition forthcoming in
the series Corpus Christianorum. Citations are of the most readily available versions of the commentary: Charles Terbille, William of Aragons
Commentary on Boethius De Consolatione Philosophiae, unpublished
Ph.D. thesis (University of Michigan, ); and Carmen Olmedilla Herrero,
Notes to pages
Commentaire de Guillaume dAragon sur De Consolatione Philosophiae

de Boce in L Orphee de Boce au Moyen ge: traductions franaises et
commentaires latins, XIIeXVe sicles, ed. J. K. Atkinson and A. M. Babbi
(Verona: Fiorini, ) (Book , meter only). The prologue and commentary on Book , meter are translated by A. B. Scott, William of Aragon,
Commentary on Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy: Prologue and
Exposition of Book III, metre xii, in Medieval Literary Theory and Criticism,
c., ed. A. J. Minnis and A. B. Scott, with the assistance of David
Wallace (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ), pp. . Where possible, I use
Scotts translation; unmarked translations are my own.
Scott, William of Aragon, p. ; Unde inter alia entia solus homo indiget
exercitio in agendo et doctrina in eligendo ut directe et sine errore in bonum
proprium moveatur (Terbille, William of Aragons Commentary, p. ).
Ibid., p. ; bonum hominis primo venit homo per sensum (Terbille,
William of Aragons Commentary, p. ).
Ibid., p. ; Terbille, William of Aragons Commentary, p. .
Ibid., p. ; unde humanum est valde sentire et dolere de infortuniis contingentibus circa ipsa (Terbille, William of Aragons Commentary, p. ).
Happiness proceeding from knowledge of the causes of things echoes
Virgil, Georgics, .: felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.
Scott, William of Aragon, p. ; Felix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum (Olmedilla Herrero, Commentaire de Guillaume dAragon, p. ).
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, .. (b): speculari autem magis
proximos possumus quam nosmet ipsos et illorum acciones quam proprias.
Minnis and Nauta, More Platonico loquitur, p. and passim.
Tim William Machan (ed., with the assistance of A. J. Minnis), Sources of
the Boece (Athens: University of Georgia Press, ).
Nicholas Trevet, Exposicio Fratris Nicolai Trevethi Anglici Ordinis
Predicatorum Super Boecio De Consolatione, ed. Edmund T. Silk,
unpublished edition (MS , Sterling Memorial Library Manuscripts and
Archives, Yale University), p. : tum quia incipit a planctu quo intendit
animum audientis movere ad compassionem. Musica autem, cuius proprietas
in metro et non in prosa observatur, est maxime motiva aectus, ut patet per
Boecium istum in prologo Musice.
Mark Gleason, Nicholas Trevet, Boethius, Boccaccio: Contexts of Cosmic
Love in Troilus, Book III, Medievalia et Humanistica (): .
Ibid., p. .
Ibid., p. .
Bruce Holsinger, Lyrics and Short Poems, in The Yale Companion to
Chaucer, ed. Seth Lerer (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ),
pp. (p. ).
Dante Alighieri, Il Convivio, ed. G. Busnelli and G. Vandelli, vols.
(Firenze: Felice le Monnier, ), ..; Dantes Il Convivio, trans. Richard
H. Lansing (New York: Garland, ).
Notes to pages
Dante, Monarchia, ed. Pier Giorgio Ricci (Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori

[Societ Dantesca Italiana Edizione Nazionale], ), ., ll. ;
Monarchia, trans. Prue Shaw (Cambridge University Press, ).
Lerner, Petrarchs Coolness, p. .
Dante, Monarchia, ., ll. (. in Shaws translation); see discussion in Peter Dronke, Dantes Second Love: The Originality and Contexts of the
Convivio (Exeter: Society for Italian Studies, ), p. .
Lerner, Petrarchs Coolness, p. .
Ibid., p. .
Olivia Holmes, Dantes Two Beloveds: Ethics and Erotics in the Divine
Comedy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ), p. .
Dronke, Dantes Second Love, p. .
Alastair Minnis, Dante in Inglissh: What Il Convivio really did for
Chaucer, Essays in Criticism : (April ): (p. ). John
Livingston Lowes argued for Chaucers knowledge of the full Convivio in
Chaucer and Dantes Convivio, Modern Philology . (May ): .
Lerner argues that the Convivio, as opposed to the Monarchia, is basically
Thomistic, and that the two felicities of the former treatise are transformed here
into the active life and contemplative life, both subordinated to otherworldly
felicity (Petrarchs Coolness, p. , n. ). I am less interested in proving
that the Convivio is radically Aristotelian than in showing that it harmonizes
Boethian and Aristotelian ideas about philosophy, friendship, and happiness.
Dronke, Dantes Second Love, p. .
Joel Relihan rightly cautions that, in its original context, Boethius
Consolation does not portray a courtly milieu, and thus we should not anachronistically read Boethius Philosophia as a courtly lady or translate her
name as Lady Philosophy (The Prisoners Philosophy, p. xiv). Yet Dantes
emphasis on philia picks up on a submerged strand in Boethius the association of love of wisdom with human models of friendship and love that is
not simply a late medieval imposition.
Joseph E. Grennen, Aristotelian Ideas in Chaucers Troilus: a Preliminary
Study, Medievalia et Humanistica (): . Grennen argues that
Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics was more inuential on Chaucer than has
been recognized, but he makes a disabling distinction between the new
scholastic learning (Aristotle) and old-fashioned Boethianism.
He would also have found a model for the assimilation of Boethius
Consolation to the world of courtly love in Machauts Remede de Fortune.
There, the lover is instructed by Esperence rather than Philosophia, and she
teaches him that in order to salve the stings of fortune and nd sovereign
happiness (benert souveraine, l. ), he must love loyally and love
in hope rather than in desire. On Machauts recasting of the Consolation in
the Remede and the Confort dAmi, see Sarah Kay, Touching Singularity:
Consolation, Philosophy, and Poetry in the Dit, in The Erotics of Consolation:
Desire and Distance in the Late Middle Ages, ed. Catherine E. Lglu and
Stephen J. Milner (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, ), pp. .
Notes to pages
See Patricia Margaret Kean, Chaucer and the Making of English Poetry
(London: Routledge, ), p. ; and Ida Gordon, The Double Sorrow of
Troilus: a Study of Ambiguities in Troilus and Criseyde (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, ), p. .
Fasciculus Morum: a Fourteenth-Century Preachers Handbook, ed. and trans.
Siegfried Wenzel (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press,
), ., l. .
A. C. Spearing, The Medieval Poet as Voyeur (Cambridge University Press,
), p. . Carolyn Dinshaw discusses the relationship between voyeurism
and masculine reading in Chaucers Sexual Poetics (Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press, ), p. .
Lee Patterson, Chaucer and the Subject of History (Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press, ), p. .
Boethius, Consolation, Book , meter , ll.: Nec qui cuncta subegerant / Mulcerent dominum modi.
Albertus Magnus, Super Ethica, Book , lectio , section , p. .
See Monica McAlpine, Criseydes Prudence, Studies in the Age of Chaucer
(): for a dierent reading of Criseyde as an ethical subject.
Ovide Moralis, ..
Fradenburg, Sacrice Your Love, pp. . Jill Manns reading of Pandarus
coercive intent is also relevant here, yet Pandarus attitude toward Criseyde
may also mark the dangers of too narrow identication with the desire of
another; see Mann, Feminizing Chaucer (Woodbridge, Suolk and Rochester,
NY: D. S. Brewer, ), pp. . While acknowledging Criseydes subjection to late medieval courtly ideology, Mitchell argues that she illustrates
the Levinasian idea that ethical choices can be as much a matter of passive discovery and acceptance as of positive self-determination (Ethics and
Eventfulness, p. ).
Aristotle, Politics, .. (b).
Ovide Moralis, .: En la piteuse compaignie / Trouva sa compaigne
et samie Or la resgarde il asser / Sans doute de nul mal er Sans
doute et sans perte et sans paine.
Aers, Chaucer, Langland, and the Creative Imagination, p. .
Camargo, The Consolation of Pandarus, p. . More strongly, Patterson
reads the poem as fending o a culturally prescribed transcendentalism,
ultimately sending a message of baement in the face of a world beyond
either comprehension or consolation (Chaucer and the Subject of History,
pp. , ). Richard Cook, Chaucers Pandarus and the Medieval Ideal of
Friendship, Journal of English and Germanic Philology (): ,
describes the poem as dramatizing how one lives and loves in a world one
must ultimately come to hate (p. ). See also E. T. Donaldson, The
Ending of Chaucers Troilus, in Early English and Norse Studies Presented to
Hugh Smith, ed. Arthur Brown and Peter Foote (London: Methuen, ),
pp. .
Relihan, The Prisoners Philosophy, p. .
Notes to pages
:
E. Jane Burns, Courtly Love: Who Needs It? Recent Feminist Work in the
Medieval French Tradition, Signs . (): (p. ).
Ibid., p. .
See Badiou, What is Love? in Sexuation, ed. Renata Salecl (Durham, NC
and London: Duke University Press, ), pp. (p. ), as well
as Kenneth Reinhards discussion in Toward a Political Theology of the
Neighbor, in The Neighbor: Three Inquiries in Political Theology, by Slavoj
iek, Eric L. Santer, and Kenneth Reinhard (Chicago University Press,
), pp. (pp. ). In Badious Logics of Worlds: Being and Event ,
trans. Alberto Toscano (London and New York: Continuum, ), love
does not have such a privileged status, but is presented as one truth among
several (math, politics, art) in the preface (pp. ).
Alain Badiou, What is Love? p. .
Lacan, L thique, p. ; trans. Porter, p. . In the same seminar, Lacan will
characterize Aristotles morality as founded on a tidied-up, ideal order
(p. ; p. ).
Ibid., p. ; trans. Porter, p. .
See Pierre-Christophe Cathelineau, Lacan, lecteur dAristote: politique, mtaphysique, logique (Paris: Association Freudienne Internationale, ).
In The Politics of Friendship, Derrida addresses the problem of the classical
legacy that situates philia between men; he proposes a love in friendship
(aimance) that might go beyond the homo-fraternal and phallogocentric
schema (p. ). Lacan insists that both men and women are subjects of
philia, though this love is often described as hommosexual a play on
homme and homosexual.
Ibid., p. ; trans. Fink, p. .
Les Chansons de Jaufr Rudel, ed. Alfred Jeanroy (Paris: Librairie Ancienne
Honor Champion, ), p. .
Erin Labbie discusses this shift from courtly love to Aristotle in Lacans
Medievalism, pp. , glossing Aristotles idea of the obstacle as inaction
or the performance of activities that are not inherently good. While Aristotle
does discuss fatigue and inaction as a barrier to continuous pleasure (Ethica
Nicomachea, . [a ]), I read Lacan as more interested in Aristotles use
of nstasis as a logical objection. Lacan goes on to argue that by positing an
innite set, one can maintain both that all jouissance is phallic and that
woman as not-whole ( pas-toute) can enjoy a radically other jouissance that
is not phallic, and that is nevertheless not an exception to that rule; this
feminine enjoyment is elsewhere akin to Aristotles idea of a pursuit of the
good by being the most being they can be (Encore, pp. , ; trans. Fink,
pp. , ).
Notes to pages
Lacan, Encore, p. ; trans. Fink, p. . Lacans four formulas may be

found on p. of the translated seminar, and had been presented earlier in
Seminars and . They signify the possible subject positions of a speaking being and the logical categories into which these positions fall (all, or
not all): two masculine positions (all jouissance is phallic; there exists
a jouissance that is not phallic) and two feminine (not all jouissance is
phallic; and there is not jouissance that is not phallic). The formulas are
glossed helpfully by Bruce Fink in Lacan to the Letter: Reading crits Closely
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, ), pp. . See the discussion of Lacans use of Aristotelian logic in Cathelineau, Lacan, lecteur
dAristote, pp. .
Sarah Kay remarks that medieval love poetry obligingly performs the analysis that Lacan himself is promoting, because it demysties law and desire
in favor of what lies beyond the pleasure principle (Courtly Contradictions,
p. ). See Bruce Holsinger, The Premodern Condition: Medievalism and the
Making of Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ), pp. for
a discussion of Lacans reading of Arnauts poem.
In French the linguistic, punning connection between le ncessaire and
the act that ne cesse pas de scrire (doesnt stop being written) is much
clearer.
It is one of Lacans famous gnomic pronouncements that the sexual relationship does not exist, meaning both that the real of sexual dierence
is never fully symbolized within language and that the subjects narcissistic
experience of sexual desire can never place him in a fully symmetrical relationship to another person.
For a discussion of the contingent and impossible as being on the side of
feminine logic, see Ellie Ragland, The Logic of Sexuation: from Aristotle to
Lacan (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, ), p. .
Slavoj iek, The Metastases of Enjoyment: Six Essays on Women and Causality
(London and New York: Verso, ), p. . On love as an experience of
truth and contingency, see Jean-Michel Rabat, Jacques Lacan: Psychoanalysis
and the Subject of Literature (New York: Palgrave, ); Rabat discusses
Alain Badious reading of Lacanian love as aiming at pure being, at the
surprise of an event, be it provided by a sudden passion or a renewed daily
occurrence (p. ).
Badiou, What is Love? p. .
Ibid., pp. , . Badiou describes the impossibility of speaking from
an external third position which would pronounce upon the disjunction
between the sexes; rather than fabricating an angelic imaginary outside
position, he theorizes love as an encounter that produces truth from the
point of the unknown (pp. ). For Badiou, desire is inherently homosexual (because narcissistic and thus desiring the same), while love even
love between two people of the same sex is principally heterosexual,
Notes to pages
acknowledging dierence (p. ). Love consists in two subjects who take
a logical (masculine) and ontological (feminine) perspective on truth. Lacan
claims that love beyondsex is hommosexual and that a woman who loves
must take up a masculine position; yet in the formulations discussed above,
the sexual relationship can come into existence via love, in an encounter
with everything that marks in each of us the trace of his exile not as
subject but as speaking his exile from the sexual relationship; in such an
encounter lies the point of suspension to which all love is attached (Encore,
p. ; trans Fink, p. ).
On the subject of Lacans Thomism, see Julia Kristeva, Tales of Love, trans.
Leon S. Rudiez (New York: Columbia University Press, ), p. . On
Lacans relationship to medieval literature and philosophy more generally, see Labbie, Lacans Medievalism; Holsinger, The Premodern Condition,
pp. ; and Kay, Courtly Contradictions.
Lacan, Seminar XXI: Les non-dupes errent (), unpublished typescript, January , . See discussion in Ellie Ragland, Psychoanalysis and
Courtly Love, Arthuriana . (): (p. ).
Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, .. (a): et quod aliquando est
in singulis esse vel cuius gratia eligunt vivere, in hoc cum amicis volunt
conversari.
Badiou, The Scene of Two, trans. Barbara P. Fulks, Lacanian Ink ():
.
Burns, Courtly Love, p. .
Ibid., p. .
The Aristotelian dictum that God and Nature make nothing in vain is
found in the Politics, Book , chapter . (a), and De Caelo Book , chapter (a) (Deus autem et natura nichil frustra faciunt) and is quoted in
a variety of medieval meteorological tracts and orilegia; see Edward Wilson,
An Aristotelian Commonplace in Chaucers Franklins Tale, Notes and
Queries (): . Wilson refers to H. Bonitz, Index Aristotelicus, ed.
O. Gignon, nd edn. (Berlin, ), col. b/.
Mann, Feminizing Chaucer, p. (emphasis original).
Susan Crane, The Franklin as Dorigen, Chaucer Review . ():
(p. ).
Badiou, What Is Love? p. .
Lacan, L thique, p. ; trans. Porter, pp. .
Mitchell, Romancing Ethics, p. .
Bibliography
Abelard, Peter. Dialogus inter Philosophum, Judaeum et Christianum, ed. Rudolf

Thomas (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Frommann Verlag, ).
Ethical Writings: Ethics and Dialogue Between a Philosopher, a Jew, and a
Christian, ed. and trans. Paul Vincent Spade and Marilyn McCord Adams
(Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., ).
Ackrill, J. L. Aristotle on Eudaimonia, in Aristotles Ethics: Critical Essays,
ed. Nancy Sherman (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleeld, ),
pp. .
Adams, Don. Aquinas on Aristotle on Happiness, Medieval Philosophy and
Theology (): .
Aelred of Rievaulx. Opera Omnia, ed. A. Hoste and Charles H. Talbot, CCCM
(Turnhout: Brepols, ).
Aers, David. Chaucer, Langland, and the Creative Imagination (London:
Routledge, ).
Christs Humanity and Piers Plowman: Contexts and Political Implications,
Yearbook of Langland Studies (): .
Criseyde: Woman in Medieval Society, Chaucer Review (): .
Aertsen, Jan A., Kent Emery, Jr., and Andreas Speer (eds.). After the Condemnation
of (Nach der Verurteilung von ) (Berlin and New York: Walter de
Gruyter, ).
Aesop, Fables, trans. Olivia and Robert Temple (New York: Penguin, ).
Agamben, Giorgio. Stanzas: Word and Phantasm in Western Culture, trans.
Ronald L. Martinez (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, ).
Akbari, Suzanne. Seeing through the Veil: Optical Theory and Medieval Allegory
(University of Toronto Press, ).
Alain de Lille. De Planctu Naturae, trans. James J. Sheridan (Toronto: Pontical
Institute of Mediaeval Studies, ).
Albertus Magnus. Ethicorum Libri X, in Opera Omnia, vol. , ed. Auguste
Borgnet (Paris: Vivs, ).
Questions on Book of the Ethics, in Ethics and Political Philosophy, ed.
Arthur Stephen McGrade, John Kilcullen, and Matthew Kempshall,
Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts (Cambridge
Bibliography
Super Ethica, vols., in Opera Omnia, ed. Wilhelm Kbel, tome

(Monasterii Westfalorum: Aschendor, ).
Alexander de Paris. The Medieval French Roman dAlexandre, ed. E. C.
Armstrong, D. L. Bu um, Bateman Edwards, and L. F. H. Lowe, vols.,
Elliott Monographs (Princeton University Press, ).
Allen, Judson. The Ethical Poetic of the Later Middle Ages: a Decorum of Convenient
Distinction (University of Toronto Press, ).
Ambrose. De Ociis, ed. and trans. Ivor J. Davidson (Oxford University Press,
).
Annas, Julia. Platonic Ethics, Old and New (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, ).
Aquinas, Thomas. Commentary on Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics, trans. C. I.
Litzinger (Notre Dame, IN: Dumb Ox Books, ).
In Decem Libros Ethicorum Aristotelis Ad Nicomachum Expositio, ed. Raymund
Spiazzi (Taurini: Marietti, ).
Summa Theologiae, vol. (The Emotions, a ae ), vol. (Pleasure, a
ae ), ed. E. Arcy (Blackfriars and New York : McGraw-Hill, ).
Arch, Jennifer. The Boethian Testament of Love, Studies in Philology .
(Fall ): .
Aristotle. Aristotelis Politicorum Libri Octo cum Vetusta Translatione Guilelmi de
Moerbeka, ed. Franz Susemihl (Leipzig: Teubner, ).
Ethica Nicomachea: Praefatio, Ethica Vetus, Ethica Nova, Liber Ethicorum
(Recensio Pura et Recensio Recognita), in Arisoteles Latinus, vol. , parts
, fasc. , ed. R. A. Gauthier (Leiden and Brussels: Brill and Descle
De Brouwer, ).
Ethics, trans. Terence Irwin (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co., ).
Lthique Nicomaque, ed. R. A. Gauthier and J. Y. Jolif, vols., nd edn.
(Louvain: Publications Universitaires, ).
Metaphysics, Oeconomica, and Magna Moralia, trans. G. Cyril Armstrong
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, ).
Politica III: Translatio Prior Imperfecta, in Aristoteles Latinus, vol. , part
, ed. P. Michaud-Quantin (Bruges: Descle de Brouwer, ).
Politics, trans. H. Rackham (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, ).
Politics: Books I and II, ed. and trans. Trevor Saunders (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, ).
Armstrong, A. H. The One and Intellect, in The Cambridge History of Later
Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, ed. A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge
University Press, ).
Asztalos, Monika. The Faculty of Theology, in A History of the University in
Europe, vol. : Universities in the Middle Ages, ed. Hilde de Ridder-Symoens
(Cambridge University Press, ), pp. .
Augustine. Concerning the City of God against the Pagans, trans. Henry Bettenson
(New York: Penguin, ).
Confessionem Libri XIII, ed. Lucas, Verheijen CCSL (Turnhout: Brepols,
).
Bibliography
Confessions, trans. Edward Pusey (New York: Collier Books, ).

De Civitate Dei, ed. Bernard Dombart and Alphonse Kalb, CCSL
(Turnhout: Brepols, ).
De Doctrina Christiana, ed. Joseph Martin, CCSL (Turnhout: Brepols,
).
De Trinitate, ed. W. J. Mountain, CCSL (Turnhout: Brepols, ).
Badiou, Alain. Logics of Worlds: Being and Event , trans. Alberto Toscano
(London and New York: Continuum, ).
The Scene of Two, trans. Barbara P. Fulks, Lacanian Ink (): .
What is Love? in Sexuation, ed. Renata Salecl (Durham, NC and London:
Duke University Press, ), pp. .
Bdier, Joseph. Les Fabliaux (Paris: Librairie Honor Champion, ).
Bernart de Ventadorn. The Songs of Bernart de Ventadorn, ed. and trans. Stephen
Nichols, John Galm, and A. Bartlett Giamatti, with Roger Porter, Seth
Wolitz, and Claudette Charbonneau (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press, ; rev. ).
Blamires, Alcuin. Chaucer, Ethics, and Gender (Oxford University Press, ).
Blodgett, E. D. Chaucerian Pryvetee and the Opposition to Time, Speculum
. (July ): .
Boethius. Th e Th eological Tractates and Th e Consolation of Philosophy , ed.
and trans. Stephen Tester (Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press,
).
Boethius of Dacia. De Summo Bono, in Topica Opuscula, pars. , ed. Niels
Jrgen Green-Pederson, in Boethii Daci Opera, Corpus philosophorum
Danicorum Medii Aevi (Hauniae: G. E. C. Gad, ).
On the Supreme Good; On the Eternity of the World; On Dreams, trans. John F.
Wippel (Toronto: Pontical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, ).
Boland, Vivian. Thinking about Good: Thomas Aquinas on Nicomachean
Ethics I, Divine Names IVV and De Ebdomadibus, New Blackfriars
. (): .
Bonaventure. Itinerarium Mentis in Deum, in The Works of Saint Bonaventure,
vol. , ed. Philotheus Boehner and Sr. M. Frances Laughlin, vols. (Saint
Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, Saint Bonaventure University,
).
The Minds Road to God, trans. George Boas (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill,
).
Bond, Gerald. The Loving Subject: Desire, Eloquence, and Power in Romanesque
France (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, ).
Bossuat, Robert. Le Moyen ge, Histoire de la littrature franaise (Paris: J. de
Gigord, ).
Boulton, Maureen Barry McCann. The Song in the Story: Lyric Insertions in French
Narrative Fiction, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, ).
Bowers, John. The Crisis of Will in Piers Plowman ( Washington, DC: The
Catholic University of America Press, ).
Bibliography
Brams, Jozef. The Revised Version of Grossetestes Translation of the

Nicomachean Ethics, Bulletin de Philosophie Mdivale (): .
Brownlee, Kevin. Poetic Identity in Guillaume de Machaut (Madison: University
of Wisconsin Press, ).
Pygmalion, Mimesis, and the Multiple Endings of the Roman de la Rose,
Yale French Studies (): .
Brownlee, Kevin and Sylvia Huot (eds.). Rethinking the Romance of the Rose:
Text, Image, Reception (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
).
Buridan, John. Questions on Book X of the Ethics, in Ethics and Political
Philosophy, ed. Arthur Stephen McGrade, John Kilcullen, and Matthew
Kempshall, Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts
Quaestiones super Decem Libros Ethicorum (Frankfurt: Minerva, ; facs.
Paris edition).
Burns, E. Jane. Courtly Love: Who Needs It? Recent Feminist Work in the
Medieval French Tradition, Signs . (): .
Burrow, John. Langlands Fictions (Oxford University Press, ).
Buttereld, Ardis. Lyric and Elegy in the Book of the Duchess, Medium Aevum
. (): .
Poetry and Music in Medieval France (Cambridge University Press, ).
Calin, William. A Poet at the Fountain: Essays on the Narrative Verse of Guillaume
de Machaut (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, ).
Callus, D. A. Introduction of Aristotelian Learning at Oxford, Proceedings of
the British Academy (Nov. ): .
Camargo, Martin. The Consolation of Pandarus, Chaucer Review . ():
.
The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy: from the Rediscovery of
Aristotle to the Disintegration of Scholasticism, , ed. Norman
Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg, assoc. ed. Eleonore Stump
(Cambridge University Press, ).
Carns, Paula Mae. Compilatio in Ivory: the Composite Casket in the
Metropolitan Museum, Gesta (): .
Cathelineau, Pierre-Christophe. Lacan, lecteur dAristote: politique, mtaphysique,
logique (Paris: Association Freudienne Internationale, ).
Celano, Anthony. The Understanding of the Concept of Felicitas in the Pre Commentaries on the Ethica Nicomachea, Medioevo ():
.
Cerquiglini-Toulet, Jacqueline. Un engin si soutil: Guillaume de Machaut et
l criture au XIV sicle (Paris: Champion, ).
Chadwick, Henry. Philo, in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early
Medieval Philosophy, ed. A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge University Press,
).
Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, ed. mile Chatelain and Heinrich Denie
(Paris: Fratrum Delalain, ).
Bibliography
Chatton, Walter. Reportatio super Sententias, ed. Joseph C. Wey and Girard J.
Etzkorn, vols. (Toronto: Pontical Institute for Mediaeval Studies, ).
Chaucer, Georey. The Riverside Chaucer, gen. ed. Larry D. Benson, rd edn.
(Boston, MA: Houghton Miin, ).
Troilus and Criseyde: a New Edition of The Book of Troilus, ed. Barry Windeatt
(London and New York: Longman, ).
Chenu, M.-D. Nature, Man, and Society in the Twelfth Century: Essays on New
Theological Perspectives in the Latin West, trans. J. Taylor and L. K. Little
(University of Chicago Press, ).
Christine de Pizan. The Vision of Christine de Pizan, trans. Glenda McLeod and
Charity Cannon Willard (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, ).
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Tusculan Disputations, trans. J. E. King (Cambridge,
MA and London: Harvard University Press and W. Heinemann, ).
Colish, Marcia. Peter Lombard (Leiden and New York: Brill, ).
The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, vols. (Leiden:
Brill, ).
Condemnation of Propositions, ed. and trans. Ernest L. Fortin and Peter
D. ONeill, in Medieval Political Philosophy: a Sourcebook, ed. Ralph Lerner
and Muhsin Mahdi (New York: Free Press of Glencoe, ).
The Conict of Wit and Will, ed. Bruce Dickins (Leeds: Kendal, printed by T.
Wilson for members of the school for English language in the University
of Leeds, ).
Cook, Richard. Chaucers Pandarus and the Medieval Ideal of Friendship,
Journal of English and Germanic Philology (): .
Cooper, John M. Reason and Emotion: Essays on Ancient Moral Psychology and
Ethical Theory (Princeton University Press, ).
Copeland, Rita. Rhetoric, Hermeneutics and Translation in the Middle Ages:
Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts (Cambridge University Press,
).
Courcelle, Pierre. La Consolation de philosophie dans la tradition littraire:
antcdents et postrit de Boce (Paris: tudes augustiniennes, ).
Courtenay, William. Adam Wodeham: an Introduction to His Life and
Writings, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Th ought ( Leiden: Brill,
).
Between Despair and Love: Some Late Medieval Modications of Augustines
Teaching on Fruition and Psychic States, in Augustine, the Harvest, and
Theology (): Essays Dedicated to Heiko Augustinus Oberman in Honor
of his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Kenneth Hagen (Leiden: Brill, ), pp. .
Schools and Scholars in Fourteenth-Century England (Princeton University
Press, ).
Crane, Susan. The Franklin as Dorigen, Chaucer Review . (): .
Dagenais, John. The Ethics of Reading in Manuscript Culture: Glossing the Libro
de Buen Amor (Princeton University Press, ).
Dante Alighieri. Il Convivio, ed. G. Busnelli and G. Vandelli, vols. (Firenze:
Felice le Monnier, ).
Bibliography
Dantes Il Convivio, trans. Richard H. Lansing (New York: Garland, ).

Monarchia, ed. Pier Giorgio Ricci (Milan: Arnoldo Mondadori [Societ
Dantesca Italiana Edizione Nazionale], ).
Monarchia, trans. Prue Shaw (Cambridge University Press, ).
Davis, Steven. Guillaume de Machaut, Chaucers Book of the Duchess, and the
Chaucer Tradition, Chaucer Review . (): .
Davlin, Mary Clemente. Devotional Postures in Piers Plowman, with an
Appendix on Divine Postures, Chaucer Review . (): .
Kynde Knowyng as a Major Theme in Piers Plowman B, The Review of
English Studies, n.s. . (Feb. ): .
de Looze, Laurence. Guillaume de Machaut and the Writerly Process, French
Forum . (May ): .
Denery II, Dallas G. Seeing and Being Seen in the Later Medieval World: Optics,
Theology, and Religious Life (Cambridge University Press, ).
Derrida, Jacques. The Politics of Friendship, trans. George Collins (London:
Verso, ; repr. ).
Desmond, Marilynn. Ovids Art and the Wife of Bath: the Ethics of Erotic Violence
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, ).
Dinshaw, Carolyn. Chaucers Sexual Poetics (Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press, ).
Dod, Bernard G. Aristoteles Latinus, in The Cambridge History of Later
Medieval Philosophy, pp. .
Donaldson, E. T. The Ending of Chaucers Troilus, in Early English and
Norse Studies Presented to Hugh Smith, ed. Arthur Brown and Peter Foote
(London: Methuen, ).
Dragonetti, Roger. Pygmalion ou les piges de la ction dans Le Roman de la
Rose, in La musique et les lettres: tudes de littrature mdivale (Geneva:
Droz, ), pp. .
Dronke, Peter. Dantes Second Love: the Originality and Contexts of the Convivio
(Exeter: Society for Italian Studies, ).
Verse with Prose from Petronius to Dante: the art and scope of the mixed form
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, ).
Duns Scotus, John. Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality, ed. and trans. Allan
B. Wolter ( Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press,
).
Ehrhart, Margaret. Guillaume de Machauts Jugement dou Roy de Navarre and
Medieval Treatments of the Virtues, Annuale Mediaevale (): .
Machauts Dit de la Fonteinne Amoureuse, the Choice of Paris, and the
Duties of Rulers, Philological Quarterly . (Spring ): .
Fasciculus Morum: a Fourteenth-Century Preachers Handbook, ed. and trans.
Siegfried Wenzel (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press,
).
Le felicit nel medioevo. Atti del convegno della Societ Italiana per lo studio del pensiero medievale (S.I.S.P.M.), Lecce, settembre , ed.
Maria Bettetini and Francesco D. Paparella, Textes et tudes du Moyen
Bibliography
ge (Louvain-la-Neuve: Fdration International des Instituts dtudes

Mdivales, ).
Filosoa in volgare nel medioevo. Atti del convegno della Societ Italiana per
lo studio del pensiero medievale (S.I.S.P.M.), Lecce, settembre
, ed. Nadia Bray and Loris Sturlese, Textes et tudes du Moyen ge
(Louvain-la-Neuve: Fdration International des Instituts dtudes
Mdivales, ).
Findley, Brooke Heidenreich. Deadly Words, Captive Imaginations: Women
and Poetic Creation in Jean Froissarts Prison Amoureuse, French Forum
. (Fall ): .
Fink, Bruce. Lacan to the Letter: Reading crits Closely (Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press, ).
Fleming, John. The Roman de la Rose: a Study in Allegory and Iconography
(Princeton University Press, ).
Fradenburg, L. O. Aranye. Amorous Scholasticism, in Speaking Images: Essays
in Honor of V. A. Kolve, ed. R. F. Yeager and Charlotte C. Morse (Ashville,
NC: Pegasus Press, ), pp. .
Our owen wo to drynke: Loss, Gender and Chivalry in Troilus and
Criseyde, in And subgit be to alle poesie: Essays on Troilus and Criseyde,
ed. R. A. Shoaf (Binghamton, NY: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and
Studies, ), pp. .
Sacrice Your Love: Psychoanalysis, Historicism, Chaucer (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, ).
Voice Memorial: Loss and Reparation in Chaucers Poetry, Exemplaria .
(March ): .
Froissart, Jean. An Anthology of Narrative and Lyric Poetry, ed. and trans. Kristen
M. Figg and R. Barton Palmer (New York: Routledge, ).
LEspinette Amoureuse, ed. Anthime Fourrier (Paris: ditions Klincksieck, ).
Le Paradis dAmour, LOrloge Amoureus, ed. Peter F. Dembowski (Geneva:
Droz, ).
La Prison Amoureuse, ed. Anthime Fourrier (Paris: ditions Klincksieck, ).
La Prison Amoureuse, ed. and trans. Laurence de Looze (New York and
London: Garland, ).
Fyler, John. Chaucer and Ovid (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ).
Froissart and Chaucer, in Froissart across the Genres, ed. Donald Maddox
and Sara Sturm-Maddox (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, ),
pp. .
Galloway, Andrew. Piers Plowman and the Schools, Yearbook of Langland
Studies (): .
Gaullier-Bougassas, Catherine. Alexander and Aristotle in the French Alexander
Romances, in The Medieval French Alexander, ed. Donald Maddox and
Sara Sturm-Maddox (Albany: State University of New York Press, ),
pp. .
Gaunt, Simon. Love and Death in Medieval French and Occitan Courtly Literature:
Martyrs to Love (Oxford University Press, ).
Bibliography
Gaylord, Alan. Friendship in Chaucers Troilus, Chaucer Review . ():

.
Gentili, Sonia. Luomo Aristotelico alle origini della letteratura italiana (Rome:
Carocci and Universit degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, ).
Gersh, Stephen. Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism: the Latin Tradition
Giles of Rome. De Regimine Principum Libri III (Rome, ).
Gilson, tienne. History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (New York:
Random House, ).
Gleason, Mark. Clearing the Fields: Towards a Reassessment of Chaucers Use
of Trevet in the Boece, in The Medieval Boethius: Studies in the Vernacular
Translations of De Consolatione Philosophiae, ed. Alastair Minnis
(Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, ), pp. .
Nicholas Trevet, Boethius, Boccaccio: Contexts of Cosmic Love in Troilus,
Book III, Medievalia et Humanistica (): .
Godefroy, Frdric. Dictionnaire de lancienne langue franaise (Paris: F. Vieweg,
).
Godman, Peter. Paradoxes of Conscience in the High Middle Ages: Abelard, Heloise
and the Archpoet (Cambridge University Press, ).
Goldin, Frederick. The Mirror of Narcissus in the Courtly Love Lyric (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, ).
Gordon, Ida. The Double Sorrow of Troilus: a Study of Ambiguities in Troilus and
Criseyde (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ).
Gosling, J. C. B. and C. C. W. Taylor. The Greeks on Pleasure (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, ).
Gower, John. Confessio Amantis, in The English Works of John Gower, vol. i, ed.
G. C. Macauley, vols. (London: for The Early English Text Society by K.
Paul, Trench, Trbner & Co., ).
Grabmann, Martin. Methoden und Hilfsmittel des Aristotelesstudiums im
Mittelalter (Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
).
Grady, Frank. The Boethian Reader of Troilus and Criseyde, Chaucer Review
. (): .
Grennen, Joseph E. Aristotelian Ideas in Chaucers Troilus: A Preliminary
Study, Medievalia et Humanistica (): .
Guilhem IX, Duke of Aquitaine. Poesie, ed. Nicol Pasero (Modena: STEM,
).
The Poetry of William VII, Count of Poitiers, IX Duke of Aquitaine, ed. and
trans. Gerald A. Bond (New York and London: Garland Publishing Co.,
).
Guillaume de Deguileville. Le Plerinage de Vie Humaine, ed. J. J. Sturzinger
(London: Nichols and Sons, printed for the Roxburghe Club, ).
Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun. Le Roman de La Rose, ed. Flix Lecoy
(Paris: Honor Champion, ).
Le Roman de la Rose, ed. Ernest Langlois (Paris: Firmin-Didot, ).
Bibliography
The Romance of the Rose, trans. Charles Dahlberg (Princeton University Press,
).
Guldentops, Guy and Carlos Steel. Vernacular Philosophy for the Nobility:
Li Ars dAmour, de Vertu et de Boneurt, an Old French Adaptation of
Thomas Aquinas Ethics from ca., Bulletin de Philosophie Mdivale
(): .
Gunn, Alan. The Mirror of Love (Lubbock: Texas Tech Press, ).
Guynn, Noah. Allegory and Sexual Ethics in the High Middle Ages (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, ).
Hagen, Susan. Allegorical Remembrance: a Study of The Pilgrimage of the Life of
Man as a Medieval Treatise on Seeing and Remembering (Athens: University
of Georgia Press, ).
Hanning, Robert. Chaucers First Ovid: Metamorphosis and Poetic Tradition
in The Book of the Duchess and The House of Fame, in Chaucer and the
Craft of Fiction, ed. Leigh Arrathoon (Rochester, MI: Solaris Press, ),
pp. .
Hansen, Elaine Tuttle. Chaucer and the Fictions of Gender (Berkeley: University
of California Press, ).
Harbert, Bruce. Langlands Easter, in Langland, the Mystics and the Medieval
English Religious Tradition, ed. Helen Phillips (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer,
), pp. .
Harwood, Britton. Piers Plowman and the Problem of Belief (Toronto and
London: University of Toronto Press, ).
Piers Plowman, Fourteenth-Century Skepticism, and the Theology of
Suering, Bucknell Review . (): .
Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of
Art, ), www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/anti/ho_..ab,..
htm (October ).
Heinrichs, Katherine. The Myths of Love: Classical Lovers in Medieval Literature
(University Park and London: Pennsylvania State University Press, ).
Heller-Roazen, Daniel. Fortunes Faces: The Roman de la Rose and the Poetics
of Contingency (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press,
).
Henri dAndeli. Les Dits dHenri dAndeli, ed. Alain Corbellari (Paris: ditions
Champion, ).
Le Lai dAristote de Henri DAndeli, ed. Maurice Delbouille (Paris: Socit
d dition Les Belles Lettres, ).
Hissette, Roland. Enqute sur les articles condamns Paris le Mars
(Louvain: Publications Universitaires, ).
Hollywood, Amy. Suering Transformed: Marguerite Porte, Meister Eckhart,
and the Problem of Womens Spirituality, in Meister Eckhart and the
Beguine Mystics, ed. Bernard McGinn (New York: Continuum, ),
pp. .
Holmes, Olivia. Dantes Two Beloveds: Ethics and Erotics in the Divine Comedy
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ).
Bibliography
Holsinger, Bruce. Lyrics and Short Poems, in The Yale Companion to Chaucer,
ed. Seth Lerer (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ), pp. .
The Premodern Condition: Medievalism and the Making of Theory (University
of Chicago Press, ).
Hult, David. Self-fullling Prophecies: Readership and Authority in the rst Roman
de la Rose (Cambridge University Press, ).
Huot, Sylvia. The Daisy and the Laurel: Myths of Desire and Creativity in the
Poetry of Jean Froissart, Yale French Studies (): .
From Song to Book: The Poetics of Writing in Old French Lyric and Lyrical
Narrative Poetry (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, ).
Guillaume de Machaut and the Consolation of Poetry, Modern Philology
. (Nov. ): .
The Romance of the Rose and its Medieval Readers (Cambridge University Press,
).
Hupp, Bernard and D. W. Robertson. The Book of the Duchess, in Chaucers
Dream Visions and Shorter Poems, ed. William A. Quinn (New York:
Garland, ), pp. .
Irwin, Terence. The Development of Ethics: from Socrates to the Reformation,
vols. (Oxford University Press, ).
Isidore of Seville. Sententiae, ed. Pierre Cazier, CCSL (Turnhout: Brepols,
).
Jacques de Vitry. Die Exempla aus den Sermones Feriales et Communes, ed. Joseph
Greven (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, ).
Jaufr Rudel. Les Chansons de Jaufr Rudel, ed. Alfred Jeanroy (Paris: Librairie
Ancienne Honor Champion, ).
The Songs of Jaufr Rudel, ed. Rupert T. Pickens (Toronto: Pontical Institute
of Mediaeval Studies, ).
Jeerson, Bernard. Chaucer and the Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius
Karnes, Michelle. Wills Imagination in Piers Plowman, Journal of English and
Germanic Philology (Jan. ): .
Kay, Sarah. Courtly Contradictions: the Emergence of the Literary Object in the
Twelfth Century (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, ).
The Place of Thought: the Complexity of One in Late Medieval French Didactic
Poetry (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, ).
The Romance of the Rose (London: Grant & Cutler, Ltd., ).
Subjectivity in Troubadour Poetry (Cambridge University Press, ).
Touching Singularity: Consolation, Philosophy, and Poetry in the Dit, in
The Erotics of Consolation: Desire and Distance in the Late Middle Ages, ed.
Catherine E. Lglu and Stephen J. Milner (New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
), pp. .
Kean, Patricia Margaret. Chaucer and the Making of English Poetry (London:
Routledge, ).
Keiper, Hugo. A Literary Debate Over Universals? New Perspectives on the
Relationships between Nominalism, Realism, and Literary Discourse, in
Bibliography
Nominalism and Literary Discourse, ed. Hugo Keiper, Christoph Bode, and
Richard J. Utz (Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, ), pp. .
Kelly, Douglas. Imitation, Metamorphosis, and Froissarts Use of the Exemplary
Modus Tractandi, in Froissart Across the Genres (Gainesville: University
Press of Florida, ), pp. .
Internal Di erences and Meanings in the Roman de la Rose (Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, ).
Medieval Imagination: Rhetoric and the Poetry of Courtly Love (Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, ).
Kempshall, Matthew S. The Common Good in Late Medieval Political Thought
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, ).
Kendrick, Laura. The Game of Love: Troubadour Wordplay (Berkeley: University
of California Press, ).
Kent, Bonnie. Virtues of the Will: the Transformation of Ethics in the Late
Thirteenth Century ( Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America
Press, ).
Keys, Mary M. Aquinas, Aristotle, and the Promise of the Common Good
Keyt, David. Intellectualism in Aristotle, in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy,
vol. , ed. J. P. Anton, George L. Kustas, and A. Preus (Albany: State
University of New York Press, ).
Kirk, Elizabeth. Langlands Narrative Christology, in Art and Context in Late
Medieval English Narrative, ed. Robert R. Edwards (Cambridge: D. S.
Brewer, ), pp. .
Who Sureth More Than God?: Narrative Redenition of Patience in
Patience and Piers Plowman, in The Triumph of Patience, ed. Gerald J.
Schi horst (Orlando: University Presses of Florida, ), pp. .
Kiser, Lisa. Sleep, Dreams, and Poetry in Chaucers Book of the Duchess,
Papers on Language and Literature . (): .
Konstan, David. On Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics and : Aspasius, Anonymous,
Michael of Ephesus (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, ).
Kristeva, Julia. Tales of Love, trans. Leon S. Rudiez (New York: Columbia
Labbie, Erin. Lacans Medievalism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
).
Lacan, Jacques. Encore, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller (Paris: Seuil, ).
The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, , trans. Dennis Porter (New York:
Norton, ).
L thique de la psychanalyse, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller (Paris: Seuil, ).
On Feminine Sexuality: the Limits of Love and Knowledge (Encore), ,
trans. Bruce Fink (New York: Norton, ).
Seminar XXI: Les non-dupes errent (), January , , unpublished
typescript.
Ladd, Anne. Attitude toward Lyric in the Lai dAristote and Some Later
Fictional Narratives, Romania (): .
Bibliography
Langland, William. Piers Plowman: The B Version, ed. George Kane and E.
Talbot Donaldson (London: The Athlone Press, ).
Piers Plowman: the C-Text, ed. Derek Pearsall (University of Exeter Press,
).
Piers Plowman: The C Version, ed. George Russell and George Kane
(London and Berkeley : The Athlone Press and University of California
Press, ).
The Vision of Piers Plowman: a Critical Edition of the B-Text Based on Trinity
College Cambridge MS B.., ed. A. V. C. Schmidt, nd edn. (London: J.
M. Dent, ).
Latini, Brunetto. Li Livres dou Tresor, ed. Spurgeon Baldwin and Paul Barrette
(Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, ).
Lawlor, John. The Pattern of Consolation in The Book of the Duchess,
Speculum . (): .
Lawton, David. Chaucers Narrators (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, ).
The Subject of Piers Plowman, Yearbook of Langland Studies (): .
Lazar, Moshe. FinAmor, in Handbook of the Troubadours, ed. F. Akehurst and
Judith Davis (Berkeley: University of California Press, ), pp. .
Lear, Jonathan. Happiness, Death, and the Remainder of Life (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, ).
Le Fvre, Jehan. Les Lamentations de Matheolus et le Livre de Leesce de Jehan
Le Fvre, de Resson, ed. A.-G. van Hamel, vols. (Paris: . Bouillon,
).
Le, Gordon. Medieval Thought: St. Augustine to Ockham (Harmondsworth,
Middlesex: Penguin, ).
Lerner, Robert. Petrarchs Coolness Toward Dante: A Conict of Humanisms,
in Intellectuals and Writers in Fourteenth-Century Europe, ed. Piero Boitani
and Anna Torti (Tbingen and Cambridge: Gunter Narr Verlag and D. S.
Brewer, ), pp. .
Lewis, C. S. The Allegory of Love (London: Oxford University Press, ).
Lewry, P. Osmund. Robert Kilwardbys commentary on the Ethica Noua
and Vetus, in L homme et son univers au Moyen ge: actes du septime
congrs international de philosophie mdivale, ed. C., Wenin Philosophes
mdivaux (Louvain-la-Neuve: LInstitut suprieur de philosophie,
), pp. .
Li Ars dAmour, de Vertu et de Boneurt, par Jehan le Bel, publi pour la premire
fois daprs un manuscrit de la Bibliothque royale de Bruxelles par Jules
Petit, vols. (Brussels: V. Devaux et cie, vol. ; vol. [without reference to Jehan le Bel], ).
Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A GreekEnglish Lexicon, revised and
augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones with the assistance of
Roderick McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ).
Lochrie, Karma. Covert Operations: the Medieval Uses of Secrecy (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, ).
Lottin, C. O. Psychologie et Morale aux XIIe et XIIIe Sicles, vols. (Louvain and
Gembloux: Abbaye du Mont Csar, ).
Bibliography
Lowes, John Livingston. Chaucer and Dantes Convivio, Modern Philology .

(May ): .
Lydgate, John. The Pilgrimage of the Life of Man, ed. Frederick J. Furnivall, EETS
e.s. , , (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trbner & Co., ).
Lynch, Kathryn. Chaucers Philosophical Visions ( Woodbridge: D. S. Brewer,
).
Machan, Tim William (ed., with the assistance of A. J. Minnis). Sources of the
Boece (Athens: University of Georgia Press, ).
Machaut, Guillaume de. The Fountain of Love and Two Other Love Vision
Poems, ed. and trans. R. Barton Palmer (New York: Garland, ).
Le Jugement du Roy de Behaigne and Remede de Fortune , ed. and trans.
James I. Wimsatt and William W. Kibler; music ed. Rebecca A. Baltzer
(Athens: University of Georgia Press, ).
Le Livre dou Voir Dit, ed. Daniel Leech-Wilkinson, trans. R. Barton Palmer
(New York: Garland, ).
Le Livre du Voir Dit, ed. Paul Imbs, revised and coordinated with an introduction by Jacqueline Cerquiglini-Toulet, index of proper names and glossary by Nol Musso (Paris: Librairie gnrale franaise, ).
uvres, ed. Ernest Hoepner, vols. (Paris: Librairie de Firmin-Didot et Cie,
).
Mann, Jill. Feminizing Chaucer ( Woodbridge, Suolk and Rochester, New York:
D. S. Brewer, ).
Marenbon, John. Early Medieval Philosophy (): an Introduction, nd edn.
(London and New York: Routledge, ).
Masciandaro, Nicola. The Voice of the Hammer: the Meaning of Work in Middle
English Literature (University of Notre Dame Press, ).
McAlpine, Monica. Criseydes Prudence, Studies in the Age of Chaucer
(): .
McEvoy, James. Ultimate Goods: Happiness, Friendship, and Bliss, in
The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Philosophy, ed. A. S. McGrade
McGrade, Arthur S. Enjoyment at Oxford after Ockham: Philosophy,
Psychology, and the Love of God, in From Ockham to Wyclif, ed. Anne
Hudson and Michael Wilks, Studies in Church History, Subsidia,
(London: Blackwell, ), pp. .
Ockham on Enjoyment Towards an Understanding of Fourteenth-Century
Philosophy and Psychology, Review of Metaphysics ., issue (June
): .
McGrady, Deborah. Controlling Readers: Guillaume de Machaut and his Late
Medieval Audience (University of Toronto Press, ).
Michael of Ephesus. The Greek Commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics of
Aristotle, vol. , ed. H. Paul F. Mercken (Leiden: Brill, ).
Middleton, Anne. William Langlands Kynde Name: Authorial Signature and
Social Identity in Late Fourteenth-Century England, in Literary Practice
and Social Change in Britain, , ed. Lee Patterson (Berkeley:
University of California Press, ), pp. .
Bibliography
Miller, Mark. Philosophical Chaucer: Love, Sex, and Agency in the Canterbury
Tales (Cambridge University Press, ).
Minnis, Alastair. Aspects of the Medieval French and English Traditions of the
De Consolatione Philosophiae, in Boethius: His Life, Thought, and Inuence,
ed. Margaret Gibson (Oxford: Blackwell, ), pp. .
The Biennial Chaucer Lecture: I speke of folk in seculer estaat: Vernacularity
and Secularity in the Age of Chaucer, Studies in the Age of Chaucer
(): .
Chaucer and Pagan Antiquity ( Woodbridge, Suolk: D. S. Brewer, ).
Dante in Inglissh: What Il Convivio Really Did for Chaucer, Essays in
Criticism . (April ): .
Looking for a Sign: the Quest for Nominalism in Chaucer and Langland,
in Essays on Ricardian Literature: in Honor of J. A. Burrow, ed. A. J. Minnis,
Charlotte C. Morse, and Thorlac Turville-Petre (New York: Oxford
Magister Amoris: the Roman de la Rose and Vernacular Hermeneutics (Oxford
More Platonico loquitur : What Nicholas Trevet Really Did to William of
Conches, in Chaucers Boece and the Medieval Tradition of Boethius, ed.
Alastair Minnis (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, ), pp. .
Mitchell, J. Allan. Ethics and Eventfulness in Middle English Literature (New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, ).
Ethics and Exemplary Narrative in Chaucer and Gower (Cambridge: Boydell
and Brewer, ).
Romancing Ethics in Boethius, Chaucer, and Levinas: Fortune, Moral
Luck, and Erotic Adventure, Comparative Literature . (Spring ):
.
Montaigne, Michel de. Apology for Raymond Sebond (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett,
).
Murphy, J. J. Aristotles Rhetoric in the Middle Ages, Quarterly Journal of
Speech (): .
Murtaugh, Daniel. Piers Plowman and the Image of God (Gainesville: University
Presses of Florida, ).
Nauta, Lodi. Magis sit Platonicus quam Aristotelicus: Interpretations of
Boethiuss Platonism in the Consolatio Philosophiae from the Twelfth to the
Seventeenth Century, in The Platonic Tradition in the Middle Ages (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, ), pp. .
The Scholastic Context of the Boethius Commentary by Nicholas Trevet,
in Boethius in the Middle Ages, ed. Maarten Hoenen and Lodi Nauta (New
York: Brill, ), pp. .
Nederman, Cary J. Aristotelian Ethics before the Nicomachean Ethics:
Alternate Sources of Aristotles Concept of Virtue in the Twelfth Century,
Parergon (): .
Nature, Ethics, and the Doctrine of Habitus: Aristotelian Moral Psychology
in the Twelfth Century, Traditio ( ): .
Bibliography
Newhauser, Richard. Augustinian vitium curiositatis and its Reception, in

Saint Augustine and his Inuence in the Middle Ages, ed. Edward B. King
and Jacqueline T. Schaefer, Sewanee Mediaeval Studies (Sewanee, TN:
The Press of the University of the South, ), pp. .
Nicole Oresme, Le Livre de thiques dAristote published from the text of MS
, Bibliothque Royale de Belgique, ed. Albert Menut (New York: G. E.
Stechert & Co., ).
Maistre Nicole Oresme: Le Livre de Yconomique DAristote, Critical
Edition of the French Text from the Avranches Manuscript with the
Original Latin Version, Introduction, and Translation, ed. Albert Douglas
Menut, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. . ():
.
Nitzsche, Jane Chance. The Genius Figure in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (New
York: Columbia University Press, ).
Nolan, Barbara. Promiscuous Fictions: Medieval Bawdy Tales and their Textual
Liaisons, in The Body and the Soul in Medieval Literature, ed. Piero Boitani
and Anna Torti (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, ), pp. .
Nouvet, Claire. An Allegorical Mirror: The Pool of Narcissus in Guillaume
de Lorris Romance of the Rose, The Romanic Review . (Nov. ):
.
Pour une conomie de la d-limitation: la Prison Amoureuse de Jean
Froissart, Neophilologus (): .
Ockham, William. Quaestiones in Librum Quartum Sententiarum, in Opera
Philosophica et Theologica, ed. Rega Wood and Gedeon Gal (Bonaventure,
NY: St. Bonaventure University, ).
Using and Enjoying (from Commentary on Sentences), in Ethics and
Political Philosophy, ed. Arthur Stephen McGrade, John Kilcullen, and
Texts (Cambridge University Press, ).
Olmedilla Herrero, Carmen. Commentaire de Guillaume dAragon sur De
Consolatione Philosophiae de Boce, in L Orphee de Boce au Moyen
ge: traductions franaises et commentaires latins, XIIeXVe sicles, ed. J. K.
Atkinson and A. M. Babbi ( Verona: Fiorini, ).
Olson, Glending. Literature as Recreation in the Later Middle Ages (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, ).
Osborne, Catherine. Eros Unveiled: Plato and the God of Love (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, ).
Ovid. Metamorphoses, ed. and trans. Frank Justus Miller, vols. (Cambridge,
MA and London: Harvard University Press and W. Heinemann, ).
Ovide Moralis, ed. C. de Boer, vols. (Amsterdam: J. Mller, ).
Owen, G. E. L. Aristotelian Pleasures, in Articles on Aristotle, ed. Jonathan
Barnes, Malcolm Schoeld, and Richard Sorabji (London: Duckworth,
), pp. .
Owens, Joseph. Faith, Ideas, Illumination, and Experience, in The Cambridge
History of Later Medieval Philosophy, pp. .
Bibliography
Palmer, R. Barton. The Book of the Duchess and Fonteinne Amoureuse:

Chaucer and Machaut Reconsidered, Canadian Review of Comparative
Literature (Fall ): .
Par, Grard. Les ides et les lettres au XIIIe Sicle: Le Roman de la Rose
(Montral: Centre de Psychologie et de Pdagogie, ).
Le Roman de la Rose et la scholastique courtoise (Paris and Ottawa: Publications
de l Institut d tudes Mdivales d Ottawa, ).
Patterson, Lee. Chaucer and the Subject of History (Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press, ).
Paxson, James. Inventing the Subject and the Personication of Will in Piers
Plowman: Rhetorical, Erotic, and Ideological Origins and Limits in Langlands
Allegorical Poetics, in William Langlands Piers Plowman: a Book of Essays,
ed. Kathleen Hewett-Smith (New York: Routledge, ), pp. .
Payne, Anne F. Chaucer and Menippean Satire (Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press, ).
Peck, Russell. Chaucer and the Nominalist Questions, Speculum . (Oct.
): .
Peter Lombard. Sententiae in IV Libris Distinctae, tome , part , Books and
(Grottaferrata: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventura ad Claras Aquas, ).
The Sentences, Book I: The Mystery of the Trinity, trans. Giulio Solano (Toronto:
Pontical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, ).
Phillips, Adam. Going Sane: Maps of Happiness (New York: Fourth Estate, ).
Philo of Alexandria. De Fuga et Inventione, in The Works of Philo: Complete and
Unabridged, trans. C. D. Yonge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishing,
).
Plato, Laws, trans. A. E. Taylor (London: Dent, ).
Meno, ed. Victor Kordeuter, Plato Latinus (London: Warburg Institute, ;
repr. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus, ).
Phaedo, trans. David Gallop (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ).
Phaedo, ed. Laurence Minio-Paluello, Plato Latinus (London: Warburg
Institute, ).
Protagoras, trans. C. C. W. Taylor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ).
Theaetetus, trans. M. J. Levett (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Co.,
).
Timaeus: a Calcidio Translatus Commentarioque Instructis, ed. J. H. Waszink
(London and Leiden: Warburg Institute and Brill, ).
Plotinus, Enneads, trans. Stephen MacKenna (Burdett, NY: Larson Publications,
).
Poirion, Daniel. Narcisse et Pygmalion dans le Roman de la Rose, in Essays
in Honour of Louis Francis Solano, ed. Raymond J. Cormier and Urban
T. Holmes (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, ),
pp. .
Le pote et le prince: l volution du lyrisme courtois de Guillaume de Machaut
Charles de Orlans (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, ).
Potkay, Adam. The Story of Joy (Cambridge University Press, ).
Bibliography
Rabat, Jean-Michel. Jacques Lacan: Psychoanalysis and the Subject of Literature

(New York: Palgrave, ).
Ragland, Ellie. The Logic of Sexuation: from Aristotle to Lacan (Albany: State
University of New York Press, ).
Psychoanalysis and Courtly Love, Arthuriana . (): .
Rambuss, Richard. Process of Tyme: History, Consolation, and Apocalypse in
The Book of the Duchess, Exemplaria . (Fall ): .
Raskolnikov, Masha. Promising the Female, Delivering the Male, Yearbook of
Langland Studies (): .
Reinhard, Kenneth. Toward a Political Theology of the Neighbor, in The
Neighbor: Three Inquiries in Political Theology, by Slavoj iek, Eric L.
Santer, and Kenneth Reinhard (University of Chicago Press, ),
pp. .
Relihan, Joel. The Prisoners Philosophy: Life and Death in Boethius Consolation,
with a contribution by William E. Heise (University of Notre Dame Press,
).
Richards, Earl Jerey. Reections on Oiseuses Mirror: Iconographic Tradition,
Luxuria, and the Roman de la Rose, Zeitschrift fr romanische Philologie
. (): .
Rigby, Steven. Wisdom and Chivalry: Chaucers Knights Tale and Medieval
Political Theory (Leiden: Brill, ).
Rissanen, Matti. In search of Happiness: Felicitas and Beatitudo in Early English
Boethius Translations, Studia Anglica Posnaniensa (): .
Robertson, D. W. A Preface to Chaucer (Princeton University Press, ).
Rosemann, Philipp. Peter Lombard (Oxford University Press, ).
Roudinesco, Elisabeth. Jacques Lacan, trans. Barbara Bray (New York: Columbia
Rousselot, Pierre. Pour l histoire du problme de lamour au moyen ge (Mnster:
Aschendorsche Buchhandlung, ).
The Problem of Love in the Middle Ages, trans. Alan Vincelette (Milwaukee,
WI: Marquette University Press, ).
Russell, J. Stephen. The English Dream Vision (Columbus: Ohio State University
Press, ).
Sadlek, Gregory. Idleness Working: the Discourse of Loves Labor from Ovid through
Chaucer and Gower ( Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America
Press, ).
Sarton, George. Aristotle and Phyllis, ISIS . (May ): (repr. Bruge: St.
Catherine Press, ).
Schmidt, A. V. C. Langland and Scholastic Philosophy, Medium Aevum
(): .
Scott, A. B. William of Aragon, Commentary on Boethius, The Consolation of
Philosophy: Prologue and Exposition of Book III, meter xii, in Medieval
Literary Theory and Criticism, c., ed. A. J. Minnis and A. B. Scott,
with the assistance of David Wallace (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ),
pp. .
Bibliography
Sherman, Claire Richter. Imaging Aristotle: Verbal and Visual Representation in

Fourteenth-Century France (Berkeley: University of California Press, ).
Siger of Brabant. Quaestiones Morales, in crits de logique, de morale et de physique, ed. Bernardo Bazn (Louvain: Publications Universitaires, ).
Simpson, James. Desire and the Scriptural Text: Will as Reader in Piers
Plowman, in Criticism and Dissent in the Middle Ages, ed. Rita Copeland
From Reason to Aective Knowledge: Modes of Thought and Poetic Form
in Piers Plowman, Medium Aevum . (): .
Smith, D. Vance. Arts of Possession: the Middle English Household Imaginary
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, ).
Smith, Susan L. The Power of Women: a Topos in Medieval Art and Literature
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, ).
Sorabji, Richard (ed.). Aristotle Transformed: the Ancient Commentaries and their
Inuence (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, ).
Spearing, A. C. The Medieval Poet as Voyeur (Cambridge University Press,
).
Steenberghen, Fernand van. Aristotle in the West: the Origins of Latin
Aristotelianism, trans. Leonard Johnston (Louvain: E. Nauwelaerts, ).
La Philosophie au XIIIe Sicle, nd edn., Philosophes mdivaux (Louvain:
Peeters, ).
Steiner, Emily. Documentary Culture and the Making of Medieval English
Literature (Cambridge University Press, ).
Steinmetz, David. Late Medieval Nominalism and the Clerks Tale, Chaucer
Review (): .
Stepsis, Robert. Potentia Absoluta and the Clerks Tale, Chaucer Review
(): .
Stone, Gregory. The Death of the Troubadour: the Late Medieval Resistance to the
Renaissance (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, ).
Storost, Joachim. Femme chevalchat Aristotte, Zeitschrift fr franzsische
Sprache und Literatur (): .
Strohm, Paul. Politique: Languages of Statecraft between Chaucer and Shakespeare
Tavormina, Teresa. Kindly Similitude: Marriage and Family in Piers Plowman
(Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, ).
Terbille, Charles. William of Aragons Commentary on Boethius De Consolatione
Philosophiae, unpublished Ph.D. thesis (University of Michigan, ).
Tilmouth, Christopher. Passions Triumph Over Reason: a History of the Moral
Imagination from Spenser to Rochester (Oxford University Press, ).
Topseld, Leslie. Troubadours and Love (New York: Cambridge University Press,
).
Torrell, Jean-Pierre. Saint Thomas Aquinas, vol. : The Person and His Work, trans.
Robert Royal ( Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press,
; rev. ).
Travis, Peter. White, Studies in the Age of Chaucer (): .
Bibliography
Trevet, Nicholas. Exposicio Fratris Nicolai Trevethi Anglici Ordinis Predicatorum

Super Boecio De Consolatione, ed. Edmund T. Silk, unpublished edition (MS , Sterling Memorial Library Manuscripts and Archives, Yale
University).
Trevisa, John. The Governance of Kings and Princes, ed. David C. Fowler, Charles
F. Briggs, and Paul G. Remley (New York: Garland Publications, ).
Tuve, Rosemond. Allegorical Imagery: Some Medieval Books and Their Posterity
Utz, Richard. Negotiating the Paradigm: Literary Nominalism and the Theory
of Rereading Late Medieval Texts, Literary Nominalism and the Theory
of Rereading Late Medieval Texts, ed. Richard Utz (Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellen Press, ), pp. .
Vlastos, Gregory. The Individual as Object of Love in Plato, in Platonic Studies
Wack, Mary. Lovesickness in the Middle Ages: the Viaticum and its Commentaries
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, ).
Wallace, David. Chaucer and the Early Writings of Boccaccio ( Woodbridge,
Suolk: D. S. Brewer, ).
Walsh, James J. Nominalism and Ethics: Some Remarks about Buridans
Commentary, Journal of the History of Philosophy . (Jan. ): .
Watts, William H. and Richard J. Utz. Nominalist Perspectives on Chaucers
Poetry: a Bibliographical Essay, Medievalia et Humanistica ():
.
Wetherbee, Winthrop. The Literal and the Allegorical: Jean de Meun and the
De Planctu Naturae, Medieval Studies (): .
Platonism and Poetry in the Twelfth Century (Princeton University Press, ).
White, Hugh. Nature, Sex, and Goodness in a Medieval Literary Tradition
(Oxford University Press, ).
Wieland, Georg. Ethica, scientia practica: die Anfnge der philosophischen Ethik
im . Jahrhundert (Mnster Westfalen: Aschendor, ).
Happiness: the Perfection of Man, in The Cambridge History of Later
Medieval Philosophy, pp. .
The Reception and Interpretation of Aristotles Ethics, in The Cambridge
History of Later Medieval Philosophy, pp. .
Wilson, Edward. An Aristotelian Commonplace in Chaucers Franklins Tale,
Notes and Queries (): .
Wimsatt, James I. Chaucer and His French Contemporaries: Natural Music in the
Fourteenth Century (University of Toronto Press, ).
Chaucer and the French Love Poets: the Literary Background of The Book of the
Duchess (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, ).
Wittig, Joseph. Piers Plowman B, Passus IXXII: Elements in the Design of
the Inward Journey, Traditio (): .
Wodeham, Adam. Lectura Secunda in Librum Primum Sententiarum, ed.
Rega Wood, assisted by Gedeon Gl, vols. (St. Bonaventure, NY:
St. Bonaventure University Press, ).
Bibliography
Wright, Steven. Deguilevilles Plerinage de Vie Humaine as contrepartie

ediante of the Roman de la Rose, Philological Quarterly . ():
.
Wulf, Maurice de. History of Mediaeval Philosophy, trans. Ernest C. Messenger
(New York: Dover, ; trans. of th edn., ).
Zavattero, Irene. Moral and Intellectual Virtues in the Earliest Latin
Commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics, in Virtue Ethics in the Middle
Ages: Commentaries on Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics, , ed. Istvn
P. Bejczy (Leiden: Brill, ), pp. .
Zeeman, Nicolette. Piers Plowman and the Medieval Discourse of Desire
Zink, Michel. De Jean Le Teinturier Jean Bras-de-Fer: le triomphe des cuistres, in Les voix de la conscience: parole du pote et parole de Dieu dans
la littrature mdivale (Caen: Paradigme, ), pp. ; reprinted
from Milieux universitaires et mentalits urbaines au Moyen Age, ed. Daniel
Poirion (Paris: Presses de lUniversit de Paris-Sorbonne, ), pp. .
iek, Slavoj. The Metastases of Enjoyment: Six Essays on Women and Causality
(London and New York: Verso, ).
Zupancic, Alenka. Ethics of the Real: Kant, Lacan (London and New York: Verso,
).
Index
Abelard, Peter, ,
Dialogue between a Philosopher, a Jew, and a
Christian, , , , ,
Ethics,
Ackrill, J. L., n
active life, , , , ,
Adams, Don, n
Aelred of Rievaulx, n, n
Aers, David, n, n, n, n
Aesop,
Agamben, Giorgio, n, n
Akbari, Suzanne, , n
Alain de Lille
De Planctu Naturae, , n
Albertus Magnus
commentary on Aristotles Nicomachean
Ethics, , , , , , n
Alexandre de Paris, n
Allen, Judson,
Ambrose, ,
amor hereos. See lovesickness
Andreas Capellanus, n
animals and reason, , , n, n
Annas, Julia, , n, n, n,
n, n
Apollo and Daphne, tale of
in Froissart, ,
Aquinas, Thomas, , , , n, n,
n
Ethics, , , , , ,
on pleasure,
Summa Theologiae, , , ,
Arch, Jennifer, n
Aristophanes, n
Aristotle
Categories,
De Anima , , , n, n
De Caelo, n
Economics. See Aristotle, PseudoEthica Nova , , n
Ethica Vetus, , n
Eudemian Ethics,
happiness,
unied position, n, n
in Deguileville, Plerinage de Vie Humaine,
, , n
late antique reception,
Magna Moralia. See Aristotle, PseudoMetaphysics, , , ,
mounted Aristotle topos, , , ,
, n, n
Nicomachean Ethics, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , n
commentaries, , , , , , ,
See also Albertus Magnus; Aquinas,
Thomas; Buridan, Jean; Kilwardby,
Robert; Michael of Ephesus; Nicole
Oresme
contemplation, , , ,
contemplative happiness, , , , ,
in Lacan,
love and creation,
on friendship, , ,
on perfect happiness, ,
on pleasure, , , , , ,
on reason, ,
on summum bonum,
reception, ,
translation of, , , , , , ,
Physics,
Politics , , , , , , n, n,
n, n
on pleasure,
Posterior Analytics,
Problemata. See Aristotle, PseudoRhetoric, , , , , n
Aristotle, PseudoEconomics , n, n
Magna Moralia ,
Problemata , n
Index
Armstrong, A. H., n
Arnaut Daniel,
Asztalos, Monika, n
Augustine, , , ,
City of God , , , ,
Confessions, , , n
De Doctrina Christiana , , ,
on enjoyment, , , , ,
on knowledge,
Aureoli, Peter, , n, n
Averroists. See radical Aristotelians
Badiou, Alain, , , , n,
n
beatic vision, , , , , ,
Bdier, Joseph, n, n
Bernart de Ventadorn, ,
Bible
Corinthians :,
Ecclesiasticus :,
Genesis,
John :,
Romans :,
Blodgett, E. D., n
Boccaccio, Giovanni, n
Boethius,
Consolation of Philosophy, , , , , ,
, , , , , n, n
commentaries on, , , ,
See also Trevet, Nicholas; William of
Aragon; William of Conches
in Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde, ,
in Dante, Convivio,
on beauty,
on happiness, ,
translations of Aristotle, n
Boethius of Dacia, , , n, n
Boland, Vivian, n
Bonaventure
Itinerarium Mentis ad Deum,
Bossuat, Robert, n
Boulton, Maureen, n
Bowers, John, n, n
Brams, Jozef, n
Brownlee, Kevin, n, n, n,
n
Brunetto Latini, n
Buridan, Jean, , , ,
Ethics, , ,
Burns, Jane, ,
Burrow, John, n
Buttereld, Ardis, n, n
Calin, William, n, n, n
Callus, D. A., n
Camargo, Martin, , , n
Carns, Paula Mae, n
Cathelineau, Pierre-Christophe, n,
n
Celano, Anthony, n, n, n, n
Cento Novelle Antiche, n
Cerquiglini-Toulet, Jacqueline,
Ceyx and Alcyone, tale of
in Chaucer, , ,
in Machaut, , , , n
in Ovide Moralis,
See also Ovid: Metamorphoses
Chadwick, Henry, n
Charles V,
Chatton, Walter,
Chaucer, Geo rey, , , , , ,
An ABC, , n
and nominalism, n
Boece, ,
Boethianism,
Book of the Duchess, , , , , ,
n, n
Clerks Tale,
Franklins Tale,
individual characters
Alcyone, , , , ,
Black Knight,
Criseyde, ,
Dorigen, , ,
Legend of Good Women, , n
Merchants Tale,
Millers Tale, ,
Troilus and Criseyde, , , , , , ,
,
Wife of Baths Tale, ,
Christine de Pizan
LAvision Christine,
Cicero,
De Divinatione, n
Hortensius,
On Friendship,
Republic, n
Topics,
Tusculan Disputations, , , n
Colish, Marcia, , , n, n
compassion, , , ,
condemnations of , , , n,
n, n
Conict of Wit and Will ,
contemplation, , , , , , ,
See also Aristotle: Nichomachean Ethics :
contemplative happiness
excessive,
parodic,
contemplative happiness, ,
contemplative life, , , ,
Index
Cook, Richard, n
Cooper, J. M., n
Copeland, Rita, n, n
Corbellari, Alain, n, n
Courcelle, Pierre, n
Courtenay, William, , , , n, n,
n, n
courtly love, , , , ,
Crane, Susan,
Dagenais, John,
Dante, , , ,
Convivio, , ,
Monarchia ,
Paradiso, ,
Purgatorio,
Davis, Steven, n
Davlin, Mary Clemente, n, n,
n, n
de Looze, Laurence, n, n
Deguileville, Guillaume de,
Plerinage de Vie Humaine, , , ,
, ,
second recension, n
Delbouille, Maurice, n, n, n
Denery II, Dallas G., n
Derrida, Jacques, , n
Deschamps, Eustache,
desire
natural,
versus hope,
versus teleology, , n
Desmond, Marilynn, n
Dinshaw, Carolyn, n
Diogenes Laertius, n
divisio scientiae, n
Dod, Bernard G., n, n, n, n
Donaldson, E. T., n
Dragonetti, Roger, n, n
Dronke, Peter, , n, n
Duns Scotus, John, , , , n, n
Durandus of St. Pourain, n
Ehrhart, Margaret, n, n
enjoyment, ,
as joy, , n
as knowledge,
debates about, , ,
denitions, ,
intellect versus will, ,
intellectual faculty, ,
jouissance, , , , n
jouissance fminine, , ,
knowledge of,
nobility of,
relationship to pleasure, , ,
vocabulary of, , n
envy, ,
Epicurus, , ,
ethics
motivation, , , , , , ,
narrative versus lyric mode,
nominalist ethics, n
poetry classied as, ,
psychoanalytic, ,
eudaimonia , ,
vrart de Conty, n
Fasciculus Morum,
felicity. See happiness
Findley, Brooke Heidenreich, n
Fink, Bruce, n
Fleming, John, , n, n
fortune, , , , , , , , , ,
, , n, n
and love,
in Roman de la Rose,
Fradenburg, L. O. Aranye, n, n,
n, n, n, n,
n, n
free will, ,
of God, ,
Freud, Sigmund, ,
friendship,
and happiness,
philosophy as friendship,
Froissart, Jean, , , , , , ,
Espinette Amoureuse, , ,
Paradis dAmour, , , n
Prison Amoureuse, , , , n
Fyler, John,, , n, n, n
Galloway, Andrew,
Gaullier-Bougassas, Catherine, n
Gaunt, Simon, , n, n, n
Gauthier, R. A., n
Gaylord, Alan, n
Gerard of Berry
glosses on Viaticum,
Gersh, Stephen, n
Giles of Rome, , , n, n
Gilson, tienne, n
Gleason, Mark, , n
Godefroy, Frdric, n
Godfrey of Fontaines,
golden age,
Goldin, Frederick, n, n
good, , , , ,
common,
summum bonum, ,
Gordon, Ida, n
Gosling, J. C. B., n
Index
Gower, John
Confessio Amantis, ,
Grabmann, Martin, n
Grady, Frank, n, n
Grennen, Joseph, n
Griselda,
Grosseteste, Robert, , , , , n
Guilhem IX of Aquitaine, , ,
Guillaume de Lorris, . See also Roman
de la Rose
Guldentops, Guy, n
Gunn, Alan, n
Guynn, Noah, n
habitus, , , n
Hagen, Susan, n
Hanna, Ralph,
Hanning, Robert, n
Hansen, Elaine Tuttle, n
happiness
Aristotelian, . See also Aristotle:
Nicomachean Ethics
as activity,
Augustinian,
earthly, , , , , , , , , ,
,
erotic versus clerkly, , ,
felicitas versus beatitudo, n
imperfect, , ,
in Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy,
in Greek language, n
perfect,
political,
Harbert, Bruce, n
Harwood, Britton, , n
hedonism, , ,
Heinrichs, Katherine, n, n
Heller-Roazen, Daniel, n, n
Henri dAndeli
Bataille des Sept Arts,
Lai dAristote, , n, n
Hermannus Alemannus, n
Hissette, Roland, n
Hollywood, Amy,
Holmes, Olivia,
Holsinger, Bruce, , n, n
Hult, David, n, n, n, n,
n
Huot, Sylvia, , , n, n, n,
n, n, n, n, n,
n, n
Hupp, Bernard, n
intellect, mental faculty of, , , ,
and curiosity,
and eros, , , ,
versus will,
intellectualism, , , ,
critique,
versus voluntarism,
Irwin, Terence, n, n
Isidore of Seville,
Jacques de Vitry, , n
James of Venice, n
Jaufr Rudel, , , ,
Jean de Meun, , , , n.
See also Roman de la Rose
Livre de Confort de Philosophie,
Jeerson, Bernard,
Jehan le Fvre
Lamentations, , n
Jerome,
Johannes Aacius
Liber de Heros Morbo, n
John of Gaunt,
Jolif, J. Y., n
joy. See enjoyment
Judaism,
Karnes, Michelle, n, n
Kay, Sarah, , , n, n, n,
n, n, n, n,
n, n, n, n
Kean, Patricia Margaret, n
Keiper, Hugo, n
Kelly, Douglas, n, n, n, n
Kempshall, Matthew, , n, n
Kendrick, Laura, n
Kent, Bonnie, , n, n, n,
n, n, n
Kilwardby, Robert
commentary on Aristotles Ethics, , n
Kirk, Elizabeth, n
Kiser, Lisa, n
Konstan, David, n
Kristeva, Julia, n
Labbie, Erin, n, n, n
labor
as rational,
aspect of enjoyment,
euphemism for sex, n
in Chaucer,
in Roman de la Rose, , , , ,
love as,
of writing poetry, , ,
Lacan, Jacques, , , , , , ,
, , n, n, n,
n, n, n, n
Index
Ethics of Psychoanalysis, , , ,
n
Ladd, Anne,
Langland, William
Piers Plowman, , , ,
Christs Incarnation and Passion,
Dame Studie,
daughters of God,
Haukyns confession,
Kynde/Nature, ,
Ymaginatyf,
Lawler, Traugott,
Lawton, David, n, n, n
Lazar, Moshe, n
Lear, Jonathan, n
Le, Gordon, n
Lerner, Robert, , n, n
Levinas, Emmanuel, , n
Lewis, C. S., n
Lewry, P. Osmund, n, n
Li Ars dAmour, de Vertu et de Boneurt, ,
n
Lochrie, Karma, n
love. See also philia
and happiness, ,
and knowledge, ,
as ethical activity, , , , , ,
as labor,
aspect of enjoyment,
from afar,
good, relationship to,
in classical philosophy,
in Lacan, ,
nobility of, ,
rational, , ,
relationship to pleasure, , , n
suering, . See also entry under suering
vocabulary of, ,
lovesickness, , , ,
as ethical problem,
as extreme pleasure,
Lowes, John Livingston, n
Lydgate, John, n
Lynch, Kathryn, , n
Machan, Tim William, n
Machaut, Guillaume de, , , , , ,
, , ,
Fonteinne Amoureuse, , n
Jugement dou roy de Behaigne, n,
n
Jugement dou roy de Navarre, n
Prologue,
Remede de Fortune, n
Voir Dit, , n, n
Mann, Jill, , n
Marenbon, John, n
Masciandaro, Nicola, n
Matheolus. See Jehan le Fvre
McAlpine, Monica, n
McEvoy, James, n
McGrade, Arthur Stephen, , n, n,
n, n, n
McGrady, Deborah, n, n
melancholia, ,
Menut, Albert, n
Michael of Ephesus, , , n
Middleton, Anne, n
Miller, Mark, , n, n, n
Minnis, Alastair, , n, n, n,
n, n, n, n, n,
n, n, n, n
mirrors,
divine,
in Deguileville, ,
in Froissart,
in Lai dAristote, n
in Roman de la Rose, , , , , ,
n
Mitchell, J. Allan, , n, n, n,
n, n
Montaigne, Michel de,
Morpheus, n
in Chaucer, , ,
in Froissart,
in Machaut, , , n
Murtaugh, Daniel, n
narcissism, , , , , , , , ,
n
Narcissus, , , n
in Machaut,
in Roman de la Rose, , , , , , ,
, n, n
Narcisus (twelfth-century poem), n
natural law,
Nauta, Lodi, n, n, n
Nederman, Cary, n
neo-Platonism, , , , , n, n
Newhauser, Richard, n
Nicole Oresme, n
translation of Nicomachean Ethics, , ,
, , n
Nietzsche, Friedrich, n
Nitzsche, Jane Chance, n,
n
Nolan, Barbara, n
Nouvet, Claire, , n, n
Index
Ockham, William, , , , , , , ,
, , ,
commentary on Sentences, , , ,
n
potentia absoluta ,
Olmedilla Herrero, Carmen, n
Olson, Glending, n, n
optics, , , n
Orpheus
in Boethius, ,
in Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde, ,
in Machaut,
Ovid,
Ars Amatoria , n
Metamorphoses, , n. See also entries
under individual myths or gures
Ceyx and Alcyone, , ,
Morpheus, , , , n
Narcissus, , , , ,
Orpheus,
Pygmalion, ,
Ovide Moralis, ,
Owen, G. E. L., n
Owens, Joseph, n
Palmer, R. Barton, n
Par, Grard, , n, n, n
Patterson, Lee, , n
Paxson, James, n
Payne, Anne F., n
Peck, Russell, n
Peter Aureoli. See Aureoli, Peter
Peter Lombard
Sentences, , , , ,
commentaries, , , , , n,
n. See also Aureoli, Peter; Chatton,
Walter; Duns Scotus, John; Durandus
of St. Pourain; Ockham, William;
Wodeham, Adam
Peter of Spain
glosses on Viaticum,
Phaeton, tale of
in Froissart,
philia , , , , , , n
Philo of Alexandria,
Plato,
Gorgias, ,
inuence on Augustine,
Laws,
Meno,
Phaedo, , ,
Phaedrus,
Philebus,
Protagoras, ,
Republic, ,
Symposium,
Theaetetus, , ,
Timaeus, , n
pleasure
and knowledge, ,
as the good,
aspect of enjoyment, , , , ,
identity with sorrow, , ,
in Machaut,
intellectual,
of afterlife,
of God,
of philosophical discourse,
relationship to virtue, , ,
spiritual versus carnal,
Plotinus,
Enneads, , , ,
in Augustines writing,
poetry, relationship to philosophy, ,
Poirion, Daniel, n, n
Potkay, Adam, n, n
pseudo-Dionysius, , , n
psychology, medieval, , , n
Pygmalion,
in Froissart, , ,
in Machaut, ,
in Roman de la Rose, , , , n,
n
Pyramus and Th isbe, tale of
in Froissart,
Rabat, Jean-Michel, n
radical Aristotelians, , n, n
Ragland, Ellie, n, n
Rambuss, Richard, n
Raskolnikov, Masha,
Reinhard, Kenneth, n
Relihan, Joel, , n, n
Richards, Earl Je rey, , n, n
Rigby, Steven, n
Rissanen, Matti, n
Robertson, D. W., n, n, n
Roman dAlexander, , n
Roman de la Rose, , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , ,
by Guillaume de Lorris, , , ,
Oiseuse, , , , n, n
by Jean de Meun, , ,
Genius,
Jupiter,
Myrrha,
Natures Confession, ,
inuence on Guillaume de Deguileville,
manuscripts,
Rosemann, Philipp, n
Index
Rousselot, Pierre, n
Russell, J. Stephen, n
Sadlek, Gregory, n, n
Sarton, George, n
Schmidt, A. V. C., n
self-reection and self-knowledge, , , , ,
, , , , , , , , n
Seneca,
Sidney, Philip
Astrophil and Stella , n
Siger of Brabant, , n
Simpson, James, , n, n
Smith, D. Vance, n
Smith, Susan, , , n, n, n,
n, n
Sorabji, Richard, n
Spearing, A. C.,
Statius,
Steel, Carlos, n
Steenberghen, Fernand van, n, n,
n
Steinmetz, David, n
Steiner, Emily, n
Stepsis, Robert, n
Stoic philosophy, , , , , , , ,
n
Stone, Gregory, n
Storost, Joachim, n
Strohm, Paul, n
suering,
love,
versus suering for,
summum bonum, , , ,
as God, ,
as God versus enjoyment of God,
relationship to pleasure,
Tavormina, M. Teresa, n
Taylor, C. C. W., n
Thales, , , ,
Thomas Aquinas. See Aquinas, Thomas
Thomas of Kent, n
Tilmouth, Christopher, n
Topseld, Leslie, n
Torrell, Jean-Pierre, n
Travis, Peter, , n
Trevet, Nicholas, , ,
commentary on Boethius, Consolation of
Philosophy, ,
Trevisa, John, n
tripartite soul,
troubadour poetry, , , .
See also Arnaut Daniel; Bernart de
Ventadorn; Guilhem IX; Jaufr Rudel
ethical and erotic vocabulary,
Tuve, Rosemond, n
universities, medieval,
arts curriculum, , n
theology curriculum, , n
University of Paris, ,
Utz, Richard J., n
Viaticum of Constantine the African, ,
Virgil, n
virtue
as activity,
as intermediary or sovereign good,
as knowledge,
courtly,
Platonic philosophy and,
vita activa. See active life
vita contemplativa. See contemplative life
Vlastos, Gregory,
voluntarism, , ,
versus intellectualism,
voyeurism, , n
Wack, Mary, , n
Wallace, David, n
Watts, William H., n
Wenceslas of Brabant, n
Wetherbee, Winthrop, n, n
White, Hugh, n, n
Wieland, Georg, n, n, n, n,
n, n, n, n, n,
n, n
will, mental faculty of, , ,
in Piers Plowman,
versus intellect,
William of Aragon, ,
commentary on Boethius, Consolation of
Philosophy, ,
William of Conches, , , ,
n
William of Moerbeke,
authorship of revised translation of the
Nicomachean Ethics, n
Wilson, Edward, n
Wimsatt, James, n
Wittig, Joseph, n
Wodeham, Adam
commentary on Sentences,
Wright, Steven, n, n
Wulf, Maurice de, n
Zavattero, Irene, n
Zeeman, Nicolette, n, n, n,
n, n
Zink, Michel, n
iek, Slavoj, ,
Robin Kirkpatrick Dantes Inferno: Diculty and Dead Poetry

Jeremy Tambling Dante and Dierence: Writing in the Commedia
Simon Gaunt Troubadours and Irony
Wendy Scase Piers Plowman and the New Anticlericalism
Joseph Duggan The Cantar De Mio Cid: Poetic Creation in its Economic
and Social Contexts
Roderick Beaton The Medieval Greek Romance
Kathryn Kerby-Fulton Reformist Apocalypticism and Piers Plowman
Alison Morgan Dante and the Medieval Other World
Eckehard Simon (ed.) The Theatre of Medieval Europe: New Research in Early
Drama
Mary Carruthers The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval
Culture
Rita Copeland Rhetoric, Hermeneutics and Translation in the Middle
Ages: Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts
Donald Maddox The Arthurian Romances of Chrtien de Troyes: Once and
Future Fictions
Nicholas Watson Richard Rolle and the Invention of Authority
Steven F. Kruger Dreaming in the Middle Ages
Barbara Nolan Chaucer and the Tradition of the Roman Antique
Sylvia Huot The Romance of the Rose and its Medieval
Readers: Interpretations, Reception, Manuscript Transmission
Carol M. Meale (ed.) Women and Literature in Britain,
Henry Ansgar Kelly Ideas and Forms of Tragedy from Aristotle to the Middle
Ages
Martin Irvine The Making of Textual Culture: Grammatica and Literary
Theory,
Larry Scanlon Narrative, Authority and Power: The Medieval Exemplum and
the Chaucerian Tradition
Erik Kooper Medieval Dutch Literature in its European Context
Steven Botterill Dante and the Mystical Tradition: Bernard of Clairvaux in the
Commedia
Peter Biller and Anne Hudson (eds) Heresy and Literacy,
Christopher Baswell Virgil in Medieval England: Figuring the Aeneid from
the Twelfth Century to Chaucer
James Simpson Sciences and Self in Medieval Poetry: Alan of Lilles
Anticlaudianus and John Gowers Confessio Amantis
Joyce Coleman Public Reading and the Reading Public in Late Medieval
England and France
Suzanne Reynolds Medieval Reading: Grammar, Rhetoric and the Classical
Text
Charlotte Brewer Editing Piers Plowman: the Evolution of the Text

Walter Haug Vernacular Literary Theory in the Middle Ages: The German
Tradition in its European Context
Sarah Spence Texts and the Self in the Twelfth Century
Edwin Craun Lies, Slander and Obscenity in Medieval English
Literature: Pastoral Rhetoric and the Deviant Speaker
Patricia E. Grieve Floire and Blancheor and the European Romance
Huw Pryce (ed.) Literacy in Medieval Celtic Societies
Mary Carruthers The Craft of Thought: Meditation, Rhetoric, and the Making
of Images,
Beate Schmolke-Hasselman The Evolution of Arthurian Romance: The Verse
Tradition from Chrtien to Froissart
Sin Echard Arthurian Narrative in the Latin Tradition
Fiona Somerset Clerical Discourse and Lay Audience in Late Medieval
England
Florence Percival Chaucers Legendary Good Women
Christopher Cannon The Making of Chaucers English: A Study of Words
Rosalind Brown-Grant Christine de Pizan and the Moral Defence of
Women: Reading Beyond Gender
Richard Newhauser The Early History of Greed: the Sin of Avarice in Early
Medieval Thought and Literature
Margaret Clunies Ross Old Icelandic Literature and Society
Donald Maddox Fictions of Identity in Medieval France
Rita Copeland Pedagogy, Intellectuals, and Dissent in the Later Middle
Ages: Lollardy and Ideas of Learning
Kantik Ghosh The Wyclite Heresy: Authority and the Interpretation of Texts
Mary C. Erler Women, Reading, and Piety in Late Medieval England
D. H. Green The Beginnings of Medieval Romance: Fact and Fiction
J. A. Burrow Gestures and Looks in Medieval Narrative

Ardis Buttereld Poetry and Music in Medieval France: From Jean Renart to
Guillaume de Machaut
Emily Steiner Documentary Culture and the Making of Medieval English
Literature
William E. Burgwinkle Sodomy, Masculinity, and Law in Medieval Literature
Nick Havely Dante and the Franciscans: Poverty and the Papacy in the
Commedia
Siegfried Wenzel Latin Sermon Collections from Later Medieval England
Ananya Jahanara Kabir and Deanne Williams (eds) Postcolonial Approaches
to the European Middle Ages: Translating Cultures
Mark Miller Philosophical Chaucer: Love, Sex, and Agency in the Canterbury
Tales
Simon Gilson Dante and Renaissance Florence
Ralph Hanna London Literature,
Maura Nolan John Lydgate and the Making of Public Culture
Nicolette Zeeman Piers Plowman and the Medieval Discourse of Desire

Anthony Bale The Jew in the Medieval Book: English Antisemitisms
Robert J. Meyer-Lee Poets and Power from Chaucer to Wyatt
Isabel Davis Writing Masculinity in the Later Middle Ages
John M. Fyler Language and the Declining World in Chaucer, Dante and Jean
de Meun
Matthew Giancarlo Parliament and Literature in Late Medieval England
D. H. Green Women Readers in the Middle Ages
Mary Dove The First English Bible: The Text and Context of the Wyclite
Versions
Jenni Nuttall The Creation of Lancastrian Kingship: Literature, Language and
Politics in Late Medieval England
Laura Ashe Fiction and History in England,
J. A. Burrow The Poetry of Praise
Mary Carruthers The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval
Culture
Andrew Cole Literature and Heresy in the Age of Chaucer
Suzanne M. Yeager Jerusalem in Medieval Narrative
Nicole R. Rice Lay Piety and Religious Discipline in Middle English Literature
D. H. Green Women and Marriage in German Medieval Romance
Peter Godman Paradoxes of Conscience in the High Middle Ages: Abelard,
Heloise and the Archpoet
Edwin D. Craun Ethics and Power in Medieval English Reformist Writing
David Matthews Writing to the King: Nation, Kingship, and Literature in
England,
Mary Carruthers (ed) Rhetoric Beyond Words: Delight and Persuasion in the
Arts of the Middle Ages
Katharine Breen Imagining an English Reading Public,
Antony J. Hasler Court Poetry in Late Medieval England and
Scotland: Allegories of Authority
Shannon Gayk Image, Text, and Religious Reform in Fifteenth-Century
England
Lisa H. Cooper Artisans and Narrative Craft in Late-Medieval England
Alison Cornish Vernacular Translation in Dantes Italy: Illiterate Literature
Jane Gilbert Living Death in Medieval French and English Literature
Jessica Rosenfeld Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry: Love after
Aristotle

(Jessica Rosenfeld) Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Jessica Rosenfeld) Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Jessica Rosenfeld) Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the focus of the book?

What is the focus of the book?

What time period and genres of literature does the book cover?

What time period and genres of literature does the book cover?

E T H IC S A N D E N JOY M E N T I N L AT E

Jessica Rosenfeld provides a history of the ethics of medieval

Introduction: love after Aristotle

Enjoyment: a medieval history

Narcissus after Aristotle: love and ethics in Le Roman de

Metamorphoses of pleasure in the fourteenth-century

Loves knowledge: fabliau, allegory, and

On human happiness: Dante, Chaucer, and the felicity

Coda: Chaucers philosophical women

Without Michelle Karnes as my cheerleader, critic, interlocutor, and

Introduction: love after Aristotle

Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

Introduction: love after Aristotle

about imperfect rather than perfect happiness. While this attribution of

Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

Introduction: love after Aristotle

Perhaps surprisingly, fourteenth-century moral philosophers similarly

Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

Introduction: love after Aristotle

joy, Christian fruitio, and even Lacanian jouissance: it is desirable for

Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

Introduction: love after Aristotle

Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

questions about enjoyment animated both philosophical discourse and

Introduction: love after Aristotle

rendering questions of causation ontologically if not ethically irrelevant?

Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

Introduction: love after Aristotle

I argue are rooted ultimately in Lacans evolving readings of medieval

Enjoyment: a medieval history

Enjoyment: a medieval history

rooted in lack, and nally, with Socrates sharing of Diotimas wisdom, a

Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

Enjoyment: a medieval history

Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

Enjoyment: a medieval history

Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

for Platonic, neo-Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic philosophy on free will,

Enjoyment: a medieval history

Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

Enjoyment: a medieval history

how one describes the role of pleasure (an experience supervening on

Here we nd a tension between Plotinus apophatic claim that the perfect

Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

The alternative to a conception of enjoyment as labor or activity, of

Enjoyment: a medieval history

philosophers will debate, with implications for understandings of free

Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

knowledge justice, soundness of mind, even courage from which it

Enjoyment: a medieval history

Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry

Enjoyment: a medieval history

absence and the varied ways it was addressed by medieval philosophers

This unanimity illustrates, for Augustine, that happiness must reside in

Ethics and Enjoyment in Late Medieval Poetry