Symbolism in Medieval Literature Author(s): Morton W. Bloomfield Source: Modern Philology, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Nov., 1958), pp.

73-81 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/435516 . Accessed: 02/10/2013 16:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Modern Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:21:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOVEMBER 1958

od

VOLUME LVI
NUMBER 2

SYMBOLISM

IN MEDIEVAL

LITERATURE

MORTON W. BLOOMFIELD

fashionabletoday in Is exceedingly the general intellectualflightfrom literaturesymhistoryto interpret bolicallyor,as it is often called, "allegorioffactand event cally." The particularity is passed over forthe general,the cyclic, and the mythical,which is presumably moreuniversaland moremeaningful. Unless the significance of a literarywork can be subsumedin a systemof interpretation-usually Christian,although not always-it is assumed to have no real meaning.1Parallel to this revolt against historyis a revolt against psychology, which is anotherfacet of the same disregardforthe unique. Those workswhich
1 Unless the system implied by them really gives meaning to the world and man, the general, the cyclic, and the mythical are no more meaningful than the particular, the unique, and the fact. This axiom is not always kept in mind by the "symbolists." The mere cycles of nature, for instance, are as meaningless as any unique fact unless one is satisfied by a purely biological vision of the world. I am indebted to Professor Phfllip W. Damon for several suggestions which I have used in this paper.
(MoDEaRN PmLOLOGY, November, 1958]

IT

Undein nullascientia, humana industria inventa, proprie loquendo, potest inveniri nisilitteralis sed solum in ista Scriptura, sensus; sanctus cujusSpiritus est auctor, homoveroinstrumentum.-THoMAs Quaestiones quodliAQUINAS, betales vii.a.16. may easily be interpreted symbolically, such as Melville'sMobyDick,have leaped into new favor, and the great classics of English and Americanliteratureare as faras is possible,beingreeverywhere, interpreted alongsymbolic, usuallyChristian, lines. Needless to say, this movementhas not left medieval literatureuntouched, forin the Middle Ages thereis at hand a fullyworked-out, even if contradictory, theoretical symbolicalsystem,especially in the works of the early Fathers. The awareness in medievalstudiesoutgeneral side theology and the history oftheology, at least in English-speaking of countries, the so-calledfouror threelevels ofmeaning theory which goes back chieflyto Origen2and Philo and the Alexandrine
2 For a recent treatment and defense of Origen's exegetical method see Henri de Lubac, Histoire et es-

logie: 4tudes publiees sous la direction de la Facult4 de Theologie S.J. de Lyon-Fourvire" [Paris, 19501); see, however, P. Th. Camelot, "La Theologie de

prit: l'intelligence de l'fcriture d'aprbs Orighne ("Thbo-

73

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:21:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

74

MORToN W. BLOOMFIELD

and ultimately to the Stoics,dates SchooPl3 fromthe publication of Harry Caplan's in article"The Four Senses of Scripture" in and H. Flanders of Dr. 1929 Speculum in MedievalThought Dunbar's Symbolism in the Divine Comeand Its Consummation
l'image

XL (1956), 453, n. 20, and 455, where the thbologiques, literalness of Origen's biblical exegesis is emphasized. 3 The Antiochene school, which emphasized the literal more than the spiritual sense (to use inexact but common terms for the sake of convenience), was, however, always opposed to Alexandrine flightsof fancy. Its influence, chiefly expressed through Theodore of Mopsuestia (although Ambrosiaster, John Chrysostom, and Junilius must not be neglected), never completely died in the Middle Ages and in the early period is to be found in Ireland and elsewhere, notably England and northern France. See M. L. W. Laistner, "Antiochene Exegesis in Western Europe during the Middle Ages," HTR, XL (1947), 19-31; Alberto Vaccari, "La Teoria esegetica della scuola antiochena," (reprinted from Biblica, 1920 and 1934); and the important article by Bernard Bischoff,"Wendepunkte in der Geschichte der lateinische Exegese im Frfihmittelalter," Sacris erudiri,V (1954), 189-281. The latter protests against the facile settingof Alexandria against Antioch in the early Middle Ages. He points out that even Bede, who did much to push the Alexandrine method, was essentially historical in his exegesis. In fact, the whole subject seems to be hopelessly confused. One thing is certain that, except for typology (the veiled prediction of Christ in the Old Testament), at no time did any biblical exegete repudiate the importance and often the primacy of the biblical letter. There are, however, degrees of emphasis. Even Augustine's De doctrina Christiana, which is supposed to have established the fourfoldmethod for Middle Ages, contains no referenceat all to it. In tfhe f ole point of that work as regards the Bible fact, th is that what is taught is clearly taughtf, and, if it is occasionally obscure, it is elsewhere in the Bible made very plain. Augustine does refer,it is true, to a fourfold method of interpreting the Bible in De utilitate credendi3 (PL, XLII, 68 if.) and De genesi ad litteram 2 (PL, XXXIV, 222), but the four meanings are history (the letter), etiology (normal explanation of diffia Christian), analogy (typolcult biblical passages fto ogy or agreement of the two Testaments), and allegory (figurative meaning, usually typology). The recognition of the figurative meaning of parts of the Old Testament is either typology as found in the New Testament itself or the normal application of a criterion of meaning to a written text. In practice, however, Augustine frequently does indulge in symbolic biblical exegesis. Gregory the Great by his practice did perhaps more to make the early Middle Ages pass over the literal for the figurative (usually moral) meaning of the Bible than anyone else. He had great influenceon Bede and Rabanus Maurus, the most important of the early medieval biblical commentators. For some recent discussions of Augustine's exegetical methods see Maurice Pontet, L'Ezxgkse de S. Augustin
Scritti di erudizione e di filologia, I (Rome, 1952), 101-42

de Dieu,"

Revue des sciences philosophiques

et

dy in 1929.4 Since that time, medieval scholars and literarystudents have increasinglyconcentratedon interpreting medievalliterature in terms oftheexegetical methodused in medievalbiblicalcriticism,at least in the earlierMiddle Ages.5 It seemsto me that thismethod, while not totallywrong, is essentially erroneous as a method of understanding most medieval literaryworkshistorically, and it is the purpose of this article to discuss the implications and limitsof this briefly methodin the study of medievalsecular literature, especiallyof the later Middle Ages. First of all, it must be admittedthat meaning is at least partially symbolic. A literarywork of any sort and of any periodalwayshas somesymbolic meaning. Beyond the fact that language itselfis a systemof sound and written symbols, whichis of littlesignificance to my main ofliterapoint,the substanceand figures turemuststandformorethanthemselves if they are to be fully meaningful. The unique has a meaningof a special sort.
predicateur("Theologie: 6tudes publi~es sous la direction de la Facult6 de Theologie S.J. de Lyon-Fourvi~re eParis,1944?i), and Allen A. Gilmore, "Augustine and the Critical Method," HTR, XXXIX (1946), 141-63. Neither Augustine, Gregory, nor Bede thought of a consistent and continuous multileveled interpretation of Scripture butf that the nature of the particular text determined the "level" desired. Bede, for example, gives as an example of tropology I John3 : 18, which he says must be taken literally, and of anagogy Matt. 5:8, which also must be tfakenliterally (see his De tabernacula i [PL, XCI, 410B-411B]). SThere are, of course, earliertreatmentsof the subject in English; e.g., Frederic W. Farrar, History of
Interpretation: Smith,

versity ofOxford...
Essays

Eight Lectures Preached in Biblical

(London, 1886), and H. Preserved

Interpretation (Boston,

before the Uni-

1921). 6 For a good summary of early Christian exegesis and a review of recent literature on the subject see Walter J. Burchardt, "On Early Christian Exegesis," Theological Studies, XI (1950), 78-116. The literature on patristic and medieval exegesis is too vast to be suitably summarized here. My comments in this paper should not, of course, be interpretedto mean that I do not believe that traditional biblical exegesis is not of great value in interpreting biblical allusions and symbols when used by medieval authors.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:21:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SYMBOLISM

IN MEDIEVAL

LITERATURE

75

If Hamlet is onlyHamlet,he is a primary natural-indeed, inevitable-than to see in secularliterature datum; but if he stands for man in a a Christiansententia were to have any deep or a ditherer, if that literature dilemma,or a truth-seeker, he has another dimension.Althoughits and important meaningat all. The Bible attention may be captured by it, the was, of course, in a class by itself,as of God throughvarious in the composition the singular humanmindcomprehends and gracedmento revealhis Truth intellec- gifted a specialway and not completely of hu- to all men. incidentally, tually-a limitation, What also could be morenaturalthan to medieval scholastiman creatureliness comesthrough that studentsshould be taughtthe letter cism.Meaningin literature and the sensusand the sententia7 ofa text. the unique but is not equivalentto it. In thissense,all literature has a nucleus Althoughwe do not use the terms,we is and conveyssententia.6 and a cortex This still do so today if the instruction work.However,then is no peculiarityof medieval literature morethan memory of course,me- as now,I suspect,the sensusand sententia and thought.Historically, dieval man tended to thinkin Christian got less emphasisin practicethan in thethe sen- ory. A glance at medievalcommentaries, categories,and most frequently tentiahe put into or discoveredin litera- especiallyof the earlierperiod,on secular on the Bible one. Indeed,no prop- worksand even occasionally turewas a Christian er understanding of medieval literature showsforthe mostpart an overwhelming is possible withouta good knowledgeof interestin the purely grammaticaland the Christiancategoriesof thoughtand rhetorical. beliefs.Yet medieval man was also the The first objection,then, to the symheir of late classical antiquity and of bolic approachis notthat it finds a Chrisin medieval literaturebut barbarian cultures,and their categories tian sententia of thought,their literarygenres,their that it assumesthatthissymbolic method is to the and that there of were also of his heritunique period points view, part is no He well aware of a tradiessential was secular difference between age. literary tionwhichhad notbeen completely trans- worksand theologicalor pastoral works. formed It misunderstands the natureof meaning by Christianity. of and It literature. to existence the concrete Christianity neglects gave meaning for medieval man, was the framework for the universal and assumes that the of his thoughtgenerally, and was backed concreteexists only for the universalin the state and societywith a strength a work of art,s which is not true even by and vigorno longerdisplayedtoday. The SAs at least John of Salisbury and Hugh of St. very formof the universe,with its hier- Victor put it (see Pare, Brunet, and Tremblay, p. 116). 8 ". .. All the senses are founded on one--the litin nature,in eral-from archy of being,as reflected which alone can any argument be drawn" society,in the church,and in the next (Thomas Aquinas, ST i, q.1, a.10). "He [Aristotle]has to do this [criticizethe obvious sense of Plato's words] world,supporteda view of a providential because Plato's method of teaching was faulty; he and ordered What couldbe more constantly used figuresof speech, teaching by symbols universe.
les gcoles et I'enseignement

net, and P. Tremblay, La Renaissance du XIIe siacle,

("Publications de 1'Institut

6 On the history of sententia,see G. Par6, A. Bru-

literal

and giving his words a meaning quite other than their

sense" (Aquinas, Commentary on De anima don, 1951], p. 107). Cf. Wyclif (De benedicta incarnacione iii, ed. Edward Harris [London: Wyclif Society,

i. 3, lectio 8, trans. K. Foster and S. Humphries [Lon-

d'etudes M~di~vales d'Ottawa," Vol. III [Paris and Ottawa, 1933]), pp. 267 if. Isidore of Seville interprets it to be an impersonal general dictum from which its general, but not only, medieval meaning of "meaning" or "truth" probably derives.

1886], pp. 37 if., esp. p. 40), who argues for the importance of the literal meaning of Scripture. This attitufde can be found everywhere in later Middle Ages (see below, p. 76).

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:21:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

76

MORTON

W.

BLOOMFIELD

in meaning explains some of the confusions in our unn Our recent awareness of this trend is largely due derstanding of what the Fathers mean by their comto the important work of Miss Smalley, The Study of ments on and practice of biblical exegesis. Yet Thomas the Bible in the Middle Ages (2d ed. rev. and enl.; Oxwrites: "Quamvis spiritualia sub figurisrerum corporalium proponantur, non tamen ea quae circa spiritua- ford, 1952). The author has emphasized the imporlia intenduntur per figuras sensibiles, ad mysticum tance of the exegesis of Andrew of St. Victor in the pertinent sensum, sed litteralem; qula sensus Ultteralis development of later medieval biblical study. Bonaventure writes: "Qui litteram sacrae Scripturae sperest qui primo per verba intenditur sive proprie dicta, nit ad spirituales eius intelligentias numquam assursive figurate" (In Job [Parma ed.i, XVIII, 6). get" (Breviloquium Prologue 6). o10 See Henri de Lubac, "Sur un vieux distique, La I See M. D. Chenu, "Theologie symbolique et doctrine du 'quadruple sens,' " Mglanges offerts au A. P. Ferdinand Cavallera ... d l'occasion de la quasibcles," Malanges exeghse scolastique aux XII-XIIIe rantiBmeannie de son professorat d l'Institut catholique Joseph de Ghellinck(Gembloux, 1951), II, 509-26; and (Toulouse, 1948), p. 352 n. Smalley, pp. 246 if.

of the Bible. It is as if one were to love a corresponding decline in the emphasis eternal put on the symbolicmethod in biblical a woman because she represented In fact, both movements beauty or eternalgood. Her particularity interpretation. -her figure,face, skin, and personali- may be viewed as manifestations of a in her "meaning." She change of attitude in Western man, a ty-is submerged is what Professor Wimsatt would call a new interestin the world of the senses "sign," not an icon. Thereis no "concrete and experience,which is seen in much in the Renaisuniversal"in the worldof the symbolists, else and whichculminated sance and the modernperiod. onlythe universal. The second objection is that the emThird,even in the periodofits greatest phasis on the symbolic as opposed to use the symbolicmethodwith its threethe literal9approach to the Bible is not or fourfold levels was nevermechanically of the later Middle Ages, or completely characteristic These applied to Scripture. whichare very levels shouldratherbe viewedas possible exceptperhapsin sermons, conservative and must,ofnecessity, stress ways of interpreting the manifoldmeanthe moral. Althoughthere are warnings ingsin the Bible. All meaningat any time earlier against neglect of the literal or is multiple.The cross, for instance,can historicalsense of Scripture,'0 for Jesus'sufferings, Chrisbeginning standtodayfor in the twelfth the symbolic meth- tianity, forthe church, forthe truth,for century od as applied to biblical exegesisunder- good as opposed to evil, and so forth. To went strong attacks, and in the later attempt to systematizevarious possible Middle Ages, exceptforcertainstandard meanings, what is withoutunderstanding dealing mainly with the involved,can lead only to a debased and interpretations of Jesusin the Old Testament mechanicalinterpretation of the highest prediction and the normalinterpretation of any tale mysteries.Such attemptsreveal a proor event, the literal sense was the one found misunderstanding of all historical In studyand, even thoughthe Middle Ages which receivedthe major attention.11 other words, at the time of the rise of loved systemtheoretically, medievalhisthe great vernacularliteratures, we find tory in particular.Besides, in effect, no one the can fourfold consistently apply e In the earlier period the word "literal" had a criterion terms much narrower meaning than it does in the later Midexceptto a fewhackneyed dle Ages or today. We include the sense of the "plain like Jerusalem. meaning of the text" in the term; to the early Middle One has only to look at the DistincAges "literal" tended to be limited to the form of the words. "Most of the Fathers considered the meaning thosesymbolic dictionaries chiefly tiones,12 behind a metaphor not a literal but a secondary of the twelfth to see that there sense" (R. E. Brown, The "Sensus plenior" of Sacred century, Scripture: A Dissertation . . . of St. Mary's UniverThe comwas no science of symbolism. sity, Baltimore . . . [Baltimore, 1955], p. 6). This shift

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:21:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SYMBOLISM

IN MEDIEVAL

LITERATURE

77

monest objects and animals embracea wide variety of meanings,oftencontradictory.'3The meaning could be interpreted only in context, if at all, and would even then multipleinterpretations be frequently possible.'4 that It was also at all timesrecognized the Bible could be taken symbolically Much in theOld Testament onlypartially. is literally binding on Christians, and mustbe metapartsoftheNew Testament Although some phoricallyinterpreted.'5 Old Testaand of the elements parts ment were usually interpreted symbolically, there is no evidence whatsoever for a consistentapplication of any level in Scripture. of meaning interpretation forthe truth One of the basic arguments of Jesus' claims is that he fulfils certain in Old Testamentprophecies and, general, sense to gives a profound(christological) ofdivinebooks. Typology, that collection as it is called, is foundin the New Testament itselfwhereOld Testamentprophnizes that one and the same thing (his examples are the lion, serpent, and bread) may have different and even opposing meanings; see also G. G. Coulton, Art 1953), Appendix 18, p. 554, who refersto the sixteen meanings for the peacock; and D. W. Robertson, Jr., Tradition (Princeton, 1951), pp. 5-6, who point to the seven meanings of dormitio. easy it is to misinterpretthe "sensum misticum."
'5

are applied to the fulecies and figures filmentin Christ.'6Certain other parts of the Bible tend to be morally interpreted.Babylon and Egypt,forexample, are always the supreme types of evil. is obvious and does This interpretation or method not requireany special insight beyond a normal intelligentreading of the text. schoolmakes Fourth,the polysemantic no difference between the Bible which was dictated by God in the formof the Holy Ghost and literaryworks written purely by sinfuland erringman. There is verylittleevidencethat the latterwere in writtento be interpreted consistently dea symbolic beyondthenormal manner, mands of literaryfigurative expression.'7
Leonhard Typos: Die typologische Deutung Goppelt, des Alten Testaments im Neuen ("BeitrBige zur Fijrde16For a study of the use of typology by the New Testament writers and its general background, see

13Augustine

(De doctrina Christiana

iii. 25) recog-

and

the Reformation

(2d

ed.;

Cambridge,

England,

and Bernard

F. Huppe,

Piers Plowman

and Scriptural

14 Dante

in De monarchia III, Essai

iv, 6, recognizes

how

toire (Paris, 1953), p. 211. "Si vero aperte fidempredicat vel bonos mores astruit, sive hoc sit ita quod vetat flagitiumvel facinus, sive sit ita quod utilitatem vel beneficentiam iubet, sive sit ita quod radicem omnium malorum exstirpat . . non est ad aliud refferendum quasi figurativedictum, quia per hoc vigor eorum eneruaretur" (Ulrich of Liber de bono summo i, tr. 2, cap. 11, ed. J. Strassburg, Daguillon [Paris, 1930], pp. 59-60). "We must discover firstof all, whether the [biblicall expression which we are trying to understand is literal or figurative" (Augustine De doctrina iii. 24,
trans. John J. Gavigan,

See Jean Dani~lou,

sur le mystkre de l'his-

rung Christlicher Theologie," ed. Schlatter and Althaus, Vol. II, No. 43 [Giitersloh, 1939]). St. Thomas Aquinas says that the literal is what the author intends, the spiritual what God intends. In the eyes of God the whole Bible is, however, clear and literal: "Quia vero sensus litteralis est quem auctor intendit, auctor sacrae Scripturae Deus est, qui omnia simul suo intellectu comprehendit: non est inconveniens . . . si etiam secundum litteralem sensum, in una littera Scripturae, plures sint sensus" (ST i, q.1, a.10, in c). This statement implies that only God composes polysemously. See below, next paragraph. 17"Auctor sacrae Scripturae est Deus in cujus potestate est ut non solum voces ad significandum accommodet (quod etiam homo facere potest), sed etiam res ipsas" (Aquinas ST i, q.1, a.10). Thomas specifically denies a spiritual sense in writings other than the Bible in Quodl. vii, a. 16, quoting Gregory the Great, Moralia 22. The whole point of the creed is that it is literally true on the authority of faith as interpreted by the church, unlike art, which is only metaphorically true. In one sense the Bible is not symbolic at all but completely literal, i.e., true. Cf. "In caeteris igitur scripturis solae voces significantur,in scriptura divina non solum voces, sed etiam res significativae sunt quamvis non in omnibus" (Conrad of G. Schepss [Wiirzburg, 1889], p. 75) and "sciendum est etiam quod in divino eloquio non tantum verba, sed etiam res significarehabent" (Hugo of St. Victor, PL, CLXXVI, 790). "In liberalibus disciplinis ubi non res sed dumtaxat verba significant, quisquis primo sensu litterae contentus non est, aberrare videtur mihi" (John of Salisbury, Polycraticus,ed. Webb, vii. 12, p. 144). I owe this last referenceto Jean Misrahi's excellent review
350. Hirsau, Dialogus super auctores sive Didascalon, ed.

New Translation [New York, 1947]). Gerald of Bologna in his Summa Q. XI, a.1, writtenin 1317, makes this same point (that the Old Testament is not always to be taken allegorically) (see Paul de Vooght, Les 425-26).
Sources de la doctrine chritienne . . . [Bruges, 1954], pp.

The Fathers of the Church: A

in Romance Philology, IV (1951),

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:21:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

78

MORTON W. BLOOMFIELD

To supposethat medievalman wouldpreThe medieval scholastics following sume to put himself on the level of God Aristotle gave, in general, a very low in the writingof literatureof whatever position in the soul to imaginationand sort is surelymost astounding.To think a verylow rankto poetry in the hierarchy that he would writeliterature, which to of the "sciences."'9To most,poetrywas him was both for sentenceand solace, a branch of logic, but the lowest and to conveyprofound truths weakestbranch. This createddifficulties, merely religious show: clothedin many-colored "allegory"seems as Thomas' remarks to me to involvea greatmisunderstanding The scienceof poetrypertains to those of that literatureand that man. I do things whichbecauseof theirlack of truth not denyan occasionalsymbolic it is reference cannotbe grasped by reason;therefore thatreasonbe almostbeguiled by based on standardbiblicalinterpretations,necessary Theology, however, pertains but to imaginea consistent and elaborate suchsimilitudes. which areabovereason, andso things systematicapplication of a multilayered to those the method is common to both as symbolic web of symbolism is unthinkable. neither is to reason sent. i. proportioned [In It is also true that certain classical prol.a. 5. 3]. works especially veneratedby the Middle Ages, the Aeneid,the Metamorphoses, Yet, havingquicklyremovedthe probfor example, were also occasionally in- lem of certain similaritiesbetween poThomas givesno more terpreted by the symbolicmethod.Even etryand theology, to this useless art. Those on the these special cases, however, did not pass thought defensive were the men who, like Bocwithout protest.'s No medieval writer felt that must defend the would ever think of himselfon a level caccio, they claims of and could do so only poetry with these masters,and the methodwas that it contained a "sentence." by arguing used to Christianize chiefly pagan writers. And no one ever maintainedthat Ovid Yet this argumentwas obviouslynever by the real thinkers or Virgil had put the symbolismthere taken very seriously of the Middle Ages, who were content himself. It must be remembered that the ad- to ignorethe so-called claims of poetry vocates ofsecularliterature in the Middle as beneath reason and the concern of Ages were on the defensive.The pagan rational men who did not need fictato and diworldlinessof much of it clashed with see the truth.Reason, authority, vine revelation were the to truth. ways Christian and thosewho otherworldliness, We have little evidence that the suploved the ancient poets were hard put to defend their poetry. The only way portersof poetry did in fact interpret out, as the accessus and glossesto many theirpoetryas symbolic,in spite of the of some of them. a classical and pagan work show, was theories Then commonsense must step in. In to argue strongly forthe utilitasof such a like Piers Plowman,as in many poem literature,and utilitas meant findinga medievalliterary the obvioustechworks, moralmeaning. 18See Par6, Brunet, and Tremblay, pp. 119-21. It not symbolism. nique is personification, was Macrobius who probably firstsuggested for the is what is abstract Personification making Middle Ages that the great classical poets consciously used "allegory" (see, on the allegorizing of Virgil, concrete.It cannot normally have more Pierre Courcelle, "Les Pores de l'6glise devant les enthan what it says. If Mercy fers virgiliens," Archives d'histoire doctrinale et litt4- meanings
raire du moyen &ge, XXII [1955], 5-74). Much earlier, of course, the Stoics and Alexandrines had "allegorized" Homer to their taste and no doubt set a pattern.
19 See Ernst Robert Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. W. R. Trask (London, 1953), p. 224.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:21:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SYMBOLISM

IN MEDIEVAL

LITERATURE

79

kisses Peace, what else does that mean the height of folly. This, of course, is works than that peace and mercy embrace?20 not to denythat in certainliterary in the case Symbolismis used but not in any wide -possibly the Divine Comedy, of which there is some evidence for the and consistent pattern. the assumption,although not totally above St. Eucher of Lyons is apparently only patristicauthor who admittedthat question-the multiplemethodmay have secular workscould have levels of mean- been used. It is, however,the task of ing.21All the otherFathersor theologians the historicalscholar who makes such I have been able to examine,when they a claim to substantiateit in each case. if it is an exception, do not tacitly assume its applicability The Divine Comedy, only to Scripture,reserve the method is almost the exceptionwhichprovesthe as Auerbachpoints rule. It is significant, forbiblical exegesis. exclusively If the purpose of scholarship is to de- out,22that Dante arrogatesto himself, termine the historicalcircumstances sur- against all precedence, polysemy-a speroundinga workof art and the probable cial missionin keepingwithhis highview intentionof the author in terms of his of himselfas poet and prophet. Even however,it is imbackgroundand the evidenceof the text in the Divine Comedy, fourfold itself,then the burdenof prooflies with possibleto workout a consistent The basic and imthose who would claim a religioussym- scheme of meaning.23 bolic multileveledmeaning for medieval portant meaning of the Divine Comedy If thisis not theaim ofscholar- exceptin thecase ofa fewobvioussymbols literature. ship,then,of course,thereis no objection is its literalmeaning.Individual symbols to finding any meaningor meaningsone are oftenused thereinin multiplesenses, wants in the literaryrelics of the past. but thisfactis not equivalentto discoverlevel The really serious reason for opposing ing a consistentfour-or threefold this procedure is the historical exactitude of meaning. And, as we have already all meaningis, at least to some which is claimed or implied. One can, admitted, if one chooses,interpret a workof litera- extent, symbolic. In every sin there is ture in any way whatsoever,provided See his "Figurative Texts Illustrating Certain that one does not claim to be thereby Passages of Dante's Commedia," Speculum, XXI (1946), 475, n. 5. Cf. "To claim to use the allegory of revealingthe conscious intentionof the the theologians (as Dante did in his letter to Can author. Grande) is to remove The Divine Comedy from the category of poetry as his contemporaries understood In view of the fact that the historical it" (Joseph A. Mazzeo, "Dante's Conception of Poetic trendwas movingaway fromthe heavy Expression," Romanic Review, XLVII [1956], 241; also his "Dante and the Pauline Modes of Vision," of Scriptureand see symbolicinterpretation HTR, L [1957], 275-306). Dante thought of himselfas that a secular traditionof entertainment prophet rather than poet, and perhaps on a level with Paul and Moses (see also Curtius, pp. 221 if. and 377: and literaturewas very much alive in ". .. Dante believed that he had an apocalyptic misthe Middle Ages, it seems to me that sion'"'). 28 A recent attempt is by Dorothy L. Sayers in Into believethat themedievalauthorwould troductory Papers on Dante (London, 1954), who prepresumeto write as God wrotethrough sumes at last to tell the simple truth. She finds most astoundingly that the allegorical (in its narrow meanhis chosen servantsin Holy Scriptureis ing of a level) sense has to mean the historical or politi22

20 See Robert Worth Frank, Jr., "The Art of ReadXX Personification ELH, ing Medieval Allegory," (1953), 237-50, for an excellent discussion of this point as well as other related ones.

21 See Andr6 P6zard, Dante sous la pluie de feu (Ende philosophie m6di6vale," fer, Chant X V) ("etudes Vol. XL [Paris, 1950]), pp. 382-84,

cal level of meaning (pp. 104-5) and gives us only a few generalized clues to this quadruple meaning that she claims to have found in the poem. A number of great Dante scholars have denied that there are systematic levels of meaning in the poem at all. I have never seen this fourfoldmeaning completely worked out in the case of any literarywork,including Dante's.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:21:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

80

W. BLOOMFIELD IMoRTON

of theirown of the sin of Adam; in every genreswhichhad traditions something back to classicalantiquity. of the Promised generally going goal there is something A work of literaturecannot have been Land. to expoundin BiNor do I mean to deny that in many written fundamentally These medieval works a Christianmeaning is ble-wisethe truthsof Christianity. or if not aimed at or assumed, but this need would be assumed by the writers, notimplytheacceptanceofa multileveled Christian themes were to be the main as in,say,Piers Plowman, whichin any case pointofa work, systemof symbolism, forthe mostpart did not exist.The Chris- these are openly discussed or at least tian meaning of medieval literatureis in a normalrhetorical manner.25 above all,themultileveled usually very clearly underlinedby the Fifth, system normalmeaningofthe words,as in Chau- of symbolism of corprovidesno criterion cer's Troilus and Criseydeor the Divine rigibility except,as in the case of biblical told by exegesis, wherewe are expressly Thereis no way,seeing tradition. Comedy, the authors what the poems mean in the wide varietyof symbolicinterpretaChristian moral, dogmatic, or mystical tions of the same thing,to correctany terms. At the most, particular interpretation. The multileveled cannot one might say a certain interpretation interpretation be consistently applied to any work,in- is not right,but of many alternateexcon- planations there is no way of deciding cludingthe Bible, withoutinvolving forsupporting texts tradictions,omissions,and denials. The whichone is correct, long historyof biblical exegesis proves fromthe wide variety of medieval and thisto thehilt.To assumethata medieval patristictheologycan be foundforeach authorwould be so proud and unpercep- one. Consistencyto some extent could, tive as to take a systemwhichis large- it is true,be used as a criterion of truth; ly the creationof modernsystematizing but, as the historyof Dante scholarship scholars and the mere repetitionof pa- abundantly shows, it is easy enough to tristicformulas and apply it to the com- work out a variety of consistentinteris most un- pretationsof at least cantos of a poem, positionof secular literature and, in most cases, there is no way of wise."24 Literaturehas ends of its own, and deciding betweenthem.It was thisstrong even if in a Christiansociety these are subjective element inmedievalsymbolism, misusedforvarious fundamentally Christian, theyare not ex- whichwas so patently in the later Middle Ages, interests clusivelyso. If the workis feltas litera- selfish ture, it would belong to one or more that, along with other factors,led to 24 An easily available fourteenth-centurydiscusthe strongattacks on and even repudiasion of the problem of multiple meanings (of Scription of the method fromthe thirteenth ture) may be found in the second article (pp. 43 ft., centuryon, and by the Reformers.In esp. pp. 46 fr.) of the recently published Quaestio de Sacra Scriptura et de veritatibus catholicis of Henry the fourteenth and fifteenth the centuries, Totting of Oyta (d. 1397), edited by Albert Lang gloss on a biblical text was frequently ("Opuscula et textus, series scholastica," ed. J. Koch and Fr. Pelster [Miinster i.W., 1953, editio altera]). treatedas a joke.26 Totting was much influencedby English thought of the
period-in particular by Scotus, Woodham, and Fitzralph. His discussion of the question is surprisingly modern; he is well aware of the difficulties. He struggles to preserve the validity of the symbolic approach to the Bible. This whole Quaestio reveals interestinglysome of the doubts raised in Totting's time about scriptural accuracy.
25 26

See above,

p. 78.

Cf. The words of the greedy friar in Chaucer's "Summoner's Tale," "Glosynge is a glorious thyng, certeyn, For lettre sleeth, so as we clerkes seyn" -Canterbury Tales, ed. F. H. Robinson (2d ed., III, 1793-94).

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:21:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SYMBOLISM

IN M/EDIEVAL

LITERATURE

81

Mere assertion and the quotation of a theological or pastoraltextare not satisfactoryproofs.One cannot perhaps adeofliteraquatelyproveany interpretation ture, but if the words of the text are taken as of primaryimportance,there is always a courtof appeal. With sixteen forthepeacock,whois to decide meanings betweenthem? Finally, the assumptionof the organized use of the symbolicmethodin medieval literature is essentially It simplistic. orderand system imposesa non-historical on what was in fact disordered and unsystematic.The theologiansof the high Middle Ages were saddled with a theory of levels of meaningsfromearly Christianity and had to give lip service to the principle, but actuallythere was never

any consistent applicationof that theory anywhereat any time, except for particularbiblical passages,in Christian medieval exegesisand, above all, in literary composition. I wouldlike to concludewiththewords of Roger Bacon: In sensu litterali jacettotaphilosophiae poinnaturis etproprietatibus rerum natutestas, artificialium et moralium; ut perconralium, etsimilitudines elicianvenientes adaptationes tursensus Ut sic simul sciatur spirituales. [socumtheologia ciatur?] philosophia ....7
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY

27Opus tertium,24, ed. Brewer, p. 81. Cf. "Freedom of thought was not repressed in the Middle Ages. It was fosteredby the allegorical method of interpretation, wherebythe philosopher could connect his private theory with established truth" (E. K. Rand, "Medieval Gloom and Medieval Uniformity," Speculum, I [1926], 267). Cf. also Erasmus' attacks on the method in his Praise of Folly.

This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 2 Oct 2013 16:21:51 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions