Geoffrey Chaucer As Witness

Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU

English Faculty Publications English Department

1993

Interpreting Guillaume de Lorris’ Oiseuse: Geoffrey Chaucer as Witness

Gregory M. Sadlek Cleveland State University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cleng_facpub

Part of the French and Francophone Language and Literature Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Publisher's Statement Copyright © 1993 The Johns Hopkins University Press. This article first appeared in South Central Review, Volume 10, Issue 1, 1993, 22-37.

Original Published Citation Sadlek, Gregory M. “Interpreting Guillaume de Lorris’ Oiseuse: Geoffrey Chaucer as Witness.” South Central Review 10.1 (1993): 2 2-37.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the English Department at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in English Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. InterpretingGuillaume de Lorris'sOiseuse: GeoffreyChaucer as Witness GREGORY M. SADLEK UniversityofNebraska at Omaha

Certes,the hevene is yevento hem that wol labouren,and natto ydel folk -Chaucer's Parson

Near the opening of theRoman de la Rose,Guillaume de Lorrisintroduces the firstallegorical character in Deduit's garden,the garden's gatekeeper. She is an attractiveyoung woman, picturedwith a mirror,whose carefree lifeincludes no morework than her own daily toilet.' The interpretation of this character,Oiseuse, presentsa textualcrux. The Old Frenchword "oisose" or "uiseuse" indicates"inaction," "leisure," "laziness," or "folly."2 Nevertheless,twentieth-century critics have been unable to agree on the character'sexact import. Two generalpositions have arisen. To one group of critics,Oiseuse representsa personalvice, perhaps lechery or idleness or laziness. Criticsholding thisview believe that Oiseuse is a reprehensible figure,justly condemned by Guillaume and all historicallyaware readers ofthe Roman. To the othergroup of critics, Oiseuse representsa virtue. She mightbe the aristocraticleisure necessary for the contemplationof beauty or even thepleasure of beauty itself. For themOiseuse is an attractivefigure and a necessarycondition for the practice of Courtly Love. Using the terms "courtly" and "clerkly"to identifythese schools is helpful.3However, in each of these camps one finds subtle differencesof interpretationand methodology. In thisarticle I hope to sortout the differencesof opinion on Oiseuse and advance our historicalunderstanding of this characterusing reception criticism.Specifically, I offerevidence on hermeaning from the writingsof GeoffreyChaucer, one of Guillaume's early and influentialreaders. Not only did Chaucer translatethe Romaninto Middle English, but he also commented-directlyand indirectly-on the Roman,its imagery,and its doctrine. Indeed, JamesWimsatt calls Chaucer the Roman's"most famous evangelist."4Chaucer's authorityas a translatorof French love poetrywas acknowledged by his French contemporary,Eustache Deschamps, who, afterpraising Chaucer forthe Romauntof the Rose, called him "grand trans- lateur"and senthim some ofhis own poetry.5Nevertheless, evidence from Chaucer's writings,important as it is, has not been given the systematic attentionitdeserves in the recent debate over Oiseuse's meaning. Withinthe clerkly and courtly schools, many different methodologies- lexicological,exegetical, iconographic, and formalist-have been used to decipherOiseuse's meaning. Moreover, critics have looked both into her literarypedigree and into her medieval reception. A fewkey interpretive assumptions,however, necessarily precede judgments on Oiseuse's meaning. Since both camps invoke contextas an importantjustifying element, the firstassumption concerns what the criticstake to be the centralmessage ofthe whole Roman.6The second followsfrom the first assumption: namely, the significanceof Deduit's garden. Fromthese followswhat is oftenthe key interpretiveassertion: the iconographicsignificance of Oiseuse's comb and mirror. The clerklyschool of readersis dominatedby the Exegetes. Finding the Romande la Rose to be neithera handbook of love nor an authoritative dream,they declare it to be a nightmareoffering an exemplumof a lover caughtin "idolatrouslechery." The nightmare,however, is only an "integ- ument," a covering,which hides the necessarilyChristian moral of the poem.7 Deduit's gardenis, then, a gardenof sinful pleasures. Oiseuse, the porterof thisgarden, is a vice. On the basis of Oiseuse's mirrorand comb, D. W. Robertson,Jr., underscores the strongiconographic links between Oiseuse and luxuria. JohnFleming and Charles Dahlberg take up and elaborate Robertson's arguments.8 Fleming argues that Oiseuse is not exactly luxuriabut Ovidian idleness "cognate with the capital vice of Sloth."9 Not all clerklyreaders are Exegetes,however. Throughan explorationof Guillaumede Lorris'sindebtedness to Ovid, MartaPowell Harleyfinds that the Romanis not a celebrationof CourtlyLove but "a statementof some consequence on the destructivenessof . . . obsessive passion."10 Harley argues that Guillaume's characterizationof Oiseuse is ultimatelyderived fromOvid's treatmentof Salmacisin theMetamorphoses because both char- acters carrycombs and mirrors."1Because of this link,Harley finds that Oiseuse represents"narcissistic lethargy."12 While clerklyreaders see the Romanas an ironicpiece of moral didacti- cism,courtly readers tend to see it as a handbook on the practiceof Courtly Love.13They tend to interpretwithout irony Guillaume's comment that the Romanis a book "ou l'art d'Amorsest tote enclose" [in which the whole art oflove is contained](38). Deduit's gardenbecomes, then, a secularParadise, whereinaristocratic lords and ladies practicea refinedcode oflove. Oiseuse is the aristocraticleisure necessaryto enjoy Deduit's garden.14Herbert Kolb, forexample, finds that, while a woman with a mirrorand combcould representluxuria, such a moralisticinterpretation would not be appropriate forthe keeper of the paradise of love. Kolb would rathertrace Oiseuse's pedigree to monasticotium, the leisure monksneeded to practicecontem- plation. Interpretedin this context,Oiseuse becomes the leisurenecessary for a "hofisch-weltlich. . . kontemplativenLebens," a secular, courtly contemplativelife.15 Othercourtly readers agree that Oiseuse is a virtuein the systemof CourtlyLove expoundedby theRoman. Sounding much like Kolb, Jean Batanyargues that Deduit's garden is a monasteryof love towhich Love's followersflee. Oiseuse is leisure,a "social-psychologicalforce" that makes CourtlyLove possible.16 Erich Kohler finds Oiseuse to be the "paradiesischenLebenslust im Lande ewigen Fruihlings und harmonischer Geselligkeitim Geiste suindefreier Liebe" [heavenly love oflife in theland of eternalspring and harmoniouscompany in the spiritof love without sin].17Shigemi Sasaki writes that Oiseuse, leisure, "est une valeuret une vertu que Guillaumeintegre a bon escientdans l'Fthique courtoise traditionnelle"[is a value and a virtuethat Guillaume advisedly integrates into the traditionalcourtly ethic]. She adds thatGuillaume's attitude towardaristocratic leisure is thataspect of the Roman to whichGuillaume referswhen he comments"La matireest et bone et nueve" [Its matter is good and new].'8 CarlosAlvar writes that Oiseuse, like Ovid's Venus,simply representsfeminine beauty.'9 Finally, Earl Jeffrey Richards believes that Guillaume'spersonification is a sensualand eroticfigure who signifies "verbalfolly." Although he, like Kolb, agrees that a womanwith mirror and combcould representluxuria, he arguesthat this would be a "marginal traditionin theoverall 13th-century iconographic tradition."20 Theseare the modem interpretations ofOiseuse. If one assumes that only a single,foundational meaning resides in thetext, such radically different and seeminglyincompatible interpretations ofOiseuse's character suggest thatwe mustabandon the interpretations ofeither the courtly or the clerkly readers. Oiseuse's meaning, however, does not simply reside in Guillaume'stext. As reception theorists have argued, her meaning is inpart constructedby Guillaume'sreaders.21 Thus, it is possiblethat both sets of criticsmay, at leastin part,offer historically valid interpretations. Specific commentaryabout Oiseuse by Guillaume'snear contemporariesoffers a valuablemethod of evaluatingthese conflicting interpretations. Indeed, criticsusing reception methodologies have already deepened our historical understandingof the Roman considerably. Nevertheless, important mate- rialsrelating to Oiseuse'smedieval reception still await exploration.2 Forall thereasons mentioned in myintroduction, Geoffrey Chaucer is a good readerto query. AlthoughChaucer's reading of Oiseuse does not necessarilygive us Guillaume'sunderstanding and althoughhe writes morethan 100 years after Guillaume, he was an importantmedieval translatorof the Roman. He knewthe Roman intimately, and it influencedhis poetryprofoundly. Moreover, because he was notFrench and his opinions antedatethose in the "Querellede la Rose,"his writingsoffer a fresh, outside perspective.Scholarship on Chaucerand theRoman is voluminous, but generallyChaucerians treat the Romanas a way to set the background for Chaucer's writingsrather than using Chaucer as a witness for the interpretationof the Roman.23F. N. M. Diekstra'srecent study is an excep- tionto therule, but, finally, it is less a receptionstudy than an interpretation of the Romanvia what Diekstratakes to be a Chaucerian perspective.24 Using Chaucer to clarifymeaning in theRoman is risky,of course, because interpretationsof his writingsare subjectto the same hermeneuticalcon- troversiesthat afflictinterpretations of Oiseuse. Chaucer's rich poetic complexityand artisticself-consciousness often render his textsopaque. Nevertheless,by overtlyreflecting on the meaning of the Romanand by having some ofhis characterscomment directly on Oiseuse, Chaucer seems to invitesuch a project.Chaucer's opinionson theRoman, even ifmediated through the reading of a twentieth-centurycritic, carry unquestionable authority. Evidence concerningChaucer's overall opinion of the Romanis a good place to begin for,as my briefsurvey of modem scholarshipon Oiseuse suggests, opinions on her significanceare often split along fault lines created by the larger question of the Roman'sfinal meaning. What did Chaucer thinkof thewhole Romande la Rose?In the prologue of the Legend of Good Women,Chaucer firstreviews and evaluates some of his earlier writings.Here, Chaucer returnsto the conventionsof dream-visionpoetry and depictshimself as a dreamer,wandering through a fieldof daisies. He is approached by the God of Love and the daisy, identifiedwith Queen Alceste. In a curiouspassage, the God of Love accuses Chaucer of treason against his religionbecause of two "translations":his Romauntof the Rose and Troilusand Criseyde.The Troilusis offensiveto Cupid because in it Chaucer tells the tale of an unfaithfulwoman, which "maketh men to wommenlasse triste."25This condemnationgives, of course,the ostensible raison d'etre of the Legend:Chaucer must write a legendaryabout good women to atone forhis "misjudgment"in writingabout a bad one. The reason for Cupid's condemnationof Chaucer's translationof the Roman,however, is less clear. Cupid says: "Thou hast translated the Romaunce of the Rose, / That is an heresyeayeins my lawe, / And makest wise folkfro me withdrawe"(F.329-31). Here the God ofLove seemsto take the of the position Exegetes:that the Romanis a satireon folamour.26 In a wonderful passage filled with humor at his own expense, Chaucer has Alceste seem to agree with Cupid's reading of the Romanbut attemptto mitigateChaucer's offenseby pleadinghis ignorance. She adds thathe has "maked lewed folk delyte/ To serve yow, in preysingeof your name" the (F.415-16). Among works in this categoryshe includes the Bookof the Duchess,the Parliament ofFowls, and theKnight's Tale. Chaucer However, reservesthe real defensefor his dreamer,who argues thatthe Romaunt and the Troiluswere meantto fostertrue love. Truelovers, he writes:

... oghterather with me for to holde Forthat I ofCriseyde wroot or tolde, Or ofthe Rose; what so mynauctour mente, Algate,God woot, yt was mynentente To forthrentrouthe in loveand ytcheryce, Andto ben warfro falsnesse and frovice Byswich ensample; this was mymenynge. (F.468-74)

Whatevermy author meant, he saysin lines470 and 471,God knowsthat at all timesit was myintent to furthertruth in love. Althoughthe dreamer is not readyto speculateon the intentsof Guillaumede Lorris,Jean de Meun, or "Lollius" (supposedly the author of Chaucer's source in the Troilus),he is preparedto arguethat his two "translations" are not heresy, that they are most properlyseen as supporting,not undercutting,the religionof love. While it is always dangerous to identifythe positionsof Chaucer'snarrators with those of the author himself, some recent commen- tatorstake this passage as a seriousdefense of Chaucer's own art.Y In any case, contraryto Fleming'sargument in "The Moral Reputationof the Romande la Rosebefore 1400," this passage suggests that disagreement on themoral character of the Roman de la Rose already existed before the French "Querelle."28The debate between the God ofLove and thedreamer in the Legendof Good Women makes it clearthat, at leastin Chaucer'sEngland, people were debatingwhether the Romanwas an inducementto worldly love or a satireof it. Anotherpassage in which Chaucer morally evaluates his poetry occurs in hisRetraction, found at theend ofthe Canterbury Tales.29 In theRetraction, Chaucerclassifies his works into two camps: works that are morally edifying and thosethat are "translacionsand endityngesof worldly vanitees" (10.1084).Among the edifying works he listshis translation of Boethius' De Consolationeand other"bookes of legendesof seintes,and omelies,and moralitee,and devocioun"(10.1087). Among the "worldly vanitees" are the Troilus,the Book of the Duchess, the Parliament ofFowls, and "manyanother book, ifthey were in [his] remembrance"(10.1086). The Romauntof the Rose is,unfortunately, not mentioned. One mightspeculate on whereit should have appearedin thefollowing way: In theRetraction, Chaucer seems to dividehis works on thebasis of theirliteral topics, not theirsupposed allegorical or hiddenmeanings. Thus,saints' lives and homiliesare categorizedas books of "moralitee" whileworks ostensibly on eroticlove are classedas "worldlyvanitees." Based on this criterionof classification,the Romauntclearly belongs in the lattercategory. After all, in the Legend of Good Women, both the God ofLove and thedreamer highlight the close connection between the Romaunt and theTroilus, a work that the Retraction specifically condemns. Following this logic,then, Chaucer would have judged the Romaunt a new artof love and, in Christianterms, a "worldlyvanitee." But this,finally, is mere speculation. The factis that Chaucer draws no such conclusion. Perhaps he genuinelyforgot about this translation,al- thoughit hardlyseems likely that he would have rememberedthe Boece but forgottenthe Rompunt. It is morelikely that either he was undecidedas to whereit properlybelonged or he thoughtthe veryact of classification impossible.This should not surpriseus. Fromhis surveyof otherfour- teenth-centuryinterpretations ofthe Roman, Pierre-Yves Badel concludes thatthe Roman was generallyread discontinuously,not withthe aim of findinga globalunity of theme or coherence.Furthermore, highlighting theRoman's encyclopedic character, he findsthat "le Roman de la Rose [6tait] une autorit6en matiereamoureuse oui chacun a puisel'enseignement qui lui convenait"[The Roman de la Rose[was] an authorityon thequestion of love fromwhich each person drew the teachingthat suited him].30 Chaucer'sapparent refusal to categorizethe work seems to givesupport to Badel'sargument. Although he toyedwith such a globalevaluation in the Legendof Good Women, his last word on thesubject is silence,a fittingtribute to theRoman's subtlety-from one ofits most subtle readers. Whileevidence from the Legend of Good Women and theRetraction does not yield a clearmoral judgment on the whole Roman,Chaucer refers specificallyto Oiseuse in otherparts of his oeuvre. Recentwork on the Romauntsuggests that it is a close,literal translation of the Roman.31 In the Romaunt,Oiseuse is translated"Ydelnesse," not "Vanitee,""Folie," or "Plesaunce"as the argumentsof Richardsor Kohlermight lead us to expect.32However, Middle English "ydelnesse" could mean "vanity" or "futility"as wellas "inactivity,""lack of employment," "sloth," "indolence," "relieffrom work or strain," "leisure time," and "rest."33 Thus, philologically speaking,the major twentieth-century lines of interpretation are consistent withthe word Chaucer chose to translate"Oiseuse." Outsideof the Romaunt, Chaucer refers to Ydelnesse at least twice in other works.First, in theCanterbury Tales the Second Nun refersto:

Theministre and thenorice unto vices, Whichthat men clepe in Englissh Ydelnesse, Thatporter of the gate is of delices. (8.1-3)

The identificationof Ydelnessewith the "porter of the gate . . . ofdeli- ces" suggestsa referenceto Guillaume'scharacter. The nun's interpretation,based on untaintedChristian morality, identifies Ydelnesse as a personalvice and, consequently, supports the Exegetes' interpretation.34 Anotherof the Canterbury Pilgrims, the Knight, mentions Ydelnesse in his descriptionof thewalls in thetemple of Venus, a passagefor which Chauceris heavilyindebted to Boccaccio's Teseida.35 After enumerating the personificationsdepicted on thewalls, the Knight says, "Nat was foryeten theporter, Ydelnesse" (1.1940). Although Ydelnesse appears in theTeseida, sheis notthere depicted as a gatekeeper.Nevertheless, the Knight, like the SecondNun, pointedly describes her as such. Thissuggests that Chaucer had Guillaume'scharacter in mind. In thispassage, the Knight stresses the enslaving,obsessive nature of love over its more appealingqualities. Venus, says the Knight,robs a person of "wysdom,""richesse," "beautee," and "hardynesse" (1.1947-49). Indeed, the story of the lovesickness of Palamon and Arciteis a superb exemplumof such effects. Although it is difficultto specifyYdelnesse's exact denotationhere, it seemsreasonable to conclude thatshe sharesin the Knight'sgeneral disapproval of Venus and her temple. At best, the Knight's Ydelnesse is but a symptomof lovesickness; at worst, she is a subcategoryof the Christianvice. Finally,in the Parson's Tale, under his treatmentof acedia,the Parson refersto idleness as "theyate ofalle harmes"(10.713). It is possible thatthis is a referenceto the gate of Deduit's garden,but idleness here is the gate, not the porter. It is unclear, then, whether Chaucer is referringto Guillaume's character.But theParson's attitudetoward idleness is farfrom unclear. An idle man,he says,is like a place withno walls, forthe devil may shoot himwith arrows of temptation from all sides. Idleness is a storehouse filledwith "jangles,trufles, and of alle ordure"(10.714). He concludes,in a verse appearingas thisarticle's epigraph, by statingthat heaven is reserved only forthose who labor (10.715). If we had only the evidence fromChaucer's Knight,Second Nun, and Parson,it would be evidentthat his understandingof Oiseuse matchedthat of the Exegetes exactly. One more source of evidence exists,however. In the Bookof the Duchess Chaucer makes several relevantreferences to the quality of idleness in a CourtlyLove setting.Scholars are in generalagreement that the poem was writtento commemoratethe death ofBlanche ofLancaster, who died ofthe plague in 1369. It was probablypresented at one of the annual memorial servicesat St. Paul's in London.36If thepoem is read as a secularelegy, then the characterWhite representsBlanche and the Black Knight represents Johnof Gaunt,Blanche's husband.37 Althoughidleness is not personifiedin the poem, Chaucer refersto the quality oftenin the course of the poem.38These referencesare significant because in a key passage Chaucer points directlyto the influenceof the Romanon the Bookof the Duchess. When the dreamerawakes intohis dream, he findshimself in a cheerybedroom, the walls of which "Were peynted, bothe textand glose,/ Of al the Romaunce of the Rose" (333-34). In fact,as Wimsatthas shown, the Romaninfluenced the Bookof the Duchess in two ways. First,the Romandirectly influenced the dream sequence preceding the elegy proper. Second, the Romaninfluenced the Bookof the Duchess indirectlyvia the laterFrench dits amoreux.39 The centerof the poem concernsthe Black Knight'swooing and winning of White. Throughmuch of it,the Black Knight'ssituation resembles that of the dreamerin the Roman.40An earlydevotee of love, he leads a lifeof idleness (797-804). He is soon strickenwith love, but afterhe presentshis love to White,she rebuffshim (1035-41,1236-44). Aftersuffering a long separation,he again offershis "servise,"this time with better results (1245- 66). His serviceleads to the giftof her mercy"al hooly,"and this,in turn, leads to a fully developed love relationship(1269-95). Thus, given the explicitreference to the Roman,both textand gloss, and given that the situationof the Roman'sdreamer is directlyrelevant to that of the Black Knight,the many references to idlenessin theBook of the Duchess are helpful pieces of evidence in reconstructingChaucer's interpretationof Oiseuse.41 The Black Knightmakes threecomments on idleness. First,after being questioned by the dreamer,he describes his sorrowfulcondition in the followingterms:

My songys turned to pleynynge, Andal mylaughtre to wepynge, Myglade thoghtes to hevynesse; In travayleys myn ydelnesse Andeke my reste. (599-603; emphasis added)

Here the Black Knightuses "ydelnesse"to suggest leisure,a stateparallel to "reste." In thispassage, he explainswhy his world is out of order:his leisureand even his sleep are overwhelmedwith his "travayle,"his mourning. If the Black Knight were an old man, no longer fit for love, his "ydelnesse"here would have nothingto do with Oiseuse. However, this is clearlynot the case. The Black Knightis "Of the age offoure and twenty yer"(455). Althoughno longeran immatureyouth, he looks young: "Upon hys berd [is] but lytelher" (456). It is not impossible,then, that the Black Knight's "ydelnesse" in this passage refersto Oiseuse. If so, the passage suggests thathe cannot yet reenterDeduit's garden because his idleness, his leisure,is presentlytaken up by mourning. A second referenceis moredirectly helpful, however. Describinghis state when he happened to meet White,the Black Knightrecounts how in his youthhe had chosen to studylove over all the otheruseful crafts:

Forthat tyme Yowthe, my maistresse, Governedme in ydelnesse; Forhyt was in myfirste youthe, Andthoo ful lytel good y couthe, Foral mywerkes were flyttynge Thattyme, and al mythoght varyinge. (797-802;emphasis added)

Here the Black Knight'ssimilarity to the dreamerentering Deduit's garden in the Romande la Rose comes out forcefully.In fact,the presence in this passage ofthe personified Yowthe, one ofDeduit's companions,offers even more evidence of the Roman's direct or indirect influence. If, then, "ydelnesse" here is meant to representthe same quality as Oiseuse, what can be said? First,"ydelnesse" here could again mean "leisure." The Black Knighthas timeto give himselfup to the studyof love. At the timehe was a tabula rasa, waitingto be filledwith his choice of artsor letters(775-84). He chose"love to [his]firste craft" (791) and became,through "plesaunce," love's"thral" (767). Theword "thral" and otherindications of the Black Knight's disapprov- ing tone,however, make it possiblethat "ydelnesse" denotes "vanity." Fromthe perspective of an older,grieving man, his youthful "werkes" were follybecause they were "flyttynge," impermanent. Thus, the moral context of thisjudgment could be eitherclerkly or courtly.Perhaps the Black Knightcondemns his "werkes" because they were directed at earthlyrather thanheavenly ends. It is also possible,however, that he condemnsthem becausethey were directed at many goals instead of just one, for he quickly adds, "Al were to me ylychegood / ThatI knew thoo" (803-04). The antecedentof "al" is unclear.It couldrefer to the"werkes" appearing in line801. However,if it refers to "women,"another, reasonable possibility, theBlack Knight would be admittingthat, as a youngknight, he had not yetlearned the constancy required of good courtlylovers.42 An argument forthe second interpretation could be madefrom the Black Knight's reflectionson his own processof maturation.It is clearthat the olderBlack Knightjudges his younger self immature. "Iwas ryghtyong," he says,"And fulgret nede I haddeto lerne"(1090-91). However, in his difficultpassage fromidle immaturity tomature happiness, he was forcedto pass the mastery ofhis life from Yowthe to White, a womanwho became the sole focus of his effortsin love (797,1286). Beforediscussing Chaucer's next reference to idleness,I notethat, while in manyways the story of the Black Knight is parallelto that of the Roman's dreamer,it also has strongparallels to thatof Troilus. Indeed, the Black Knight'stale involves a "doublesorwe," the sorrow of his early, unsuccess- fulcourtship and the sorrow of his subsequent loss of White (T&C 1.1).Both young men are somewhatgreen and timidin theirreactions to love. Troilus'sfirst words to Criseyde, "Mercy, mercy, swete herte," are very close to theBlack Knight's "Mercy" (T&C 3.98,BD 1219). Afterdifficult court- ships,both men find success in love,which, in turn,is takenfrom them by Fortune.Both fall into immoderate grief. Troilus finds consolation only afterdeath, but the Black Knight finds his consolationin thecourse of his conversationwith the dreamer.43 Two significantdifferences separate the stories of Troilus and theBlack Knight,however. One concernsthe way the two lose their loved ones: the BlackKnight loses White through death, but Troilus loses Criseyde through herinfidelity. Indeed, juxtaposing the two poems suggests the influence ofthe debate that underlies Machaut's LeJugement duroy de Behaigne: which is worse,losing a loverthrough death or infidelity? The second difference is moredirectly relevant to thematter at hand. The reactionsto thetwo knights'initial disappointments in love couldhardly offer more of a con- trast. Throughoutmost of the Troilus,Troilus is a captiveto despondency and passivity. Without the tireless effortsof Pandarus and the subtle complicityof Criseyde,Troilus could scarcelyhave moved past his first despairinginactivity. In fact,one could argue, as I have done elsewhere, thatChaucer used the medieval conceptionof acedia, sloth, as an important device in fashioningTroilus' character.44The Black Knight's character, however, is markedby personal courage, one of the antidotes to sloth.45 Afterhaving fallen in love, the Black Knight decides to offerWhite his service "Withoutefeynynge outher slouthe" (1100). Although he is first somewhattimid about revealinghis love,he resolves,after considering that such a perfectcreature could not be withoutmercy, to tell her of his pain (1186,1194-98)-all thiswithout the help of a go-between. Moreover,after the initialrejection and a period ofsorrow, the Black Knight independently triesagain to win White'slove. The second effortends in success. In short, courage and purposefulactivity in love are two of the importantcharacter traitsthat distinguishthe Black Knightfrom Troilus. Unlike Troilus,the Black Knightmoves quicklyfrom youthful idleness to determinedwork. In this context,then, it becomes doubtful that the third passage on idleness indicatesanything about Oiseuse. In it,the BlackKnight describes his activityduring the time that his love forWhite was unrequited.He says,

Butfor to kepe me fro ydelnesse, TrewlyI didemy besynesse To makesonges, as I bestkoude, Andofte tyme I songehem loude; Andmade songes thus a gretdel. (1155-59;emphasis added)

Once inside love's garden,the BlackKnight rejects idleness. Butwhat does "ydelnesse" signifyhere? It is certainlynot the Ovidian idleness, so often evoked the by clerklycritics, of which he wrote "Otia si tollas, periere Cupidinis arcus" [Ifyou take away idleness,you break Cupid's bow].46 In this passage the Black Knightseems to implythat idleness is a liabilityin the pursuitof love. Moreover,if "ydelnesse"refers to the Christianvice, then the Black Knight'sremedy, the makingof songs,is a curious one, for it is unlikelythat a strictChristian would considerthis kind of activityto be bona fide labor, as was the Second Nun's translatingof saints' lives.47 Therefore,it is mostlikely that "ydelnesse" here refersto a parody of the Christianvice sometimesfound in courtlyliterature, the aimless lack of activityof a slothfullover. In fact,the Black Knight'ssituation here looks forwardto thatof Amans in Book Four ofJohn Gower's ConfessioAmantis. When queried by Genius on whetherhe avoids idleness in love, Amans repliesthat he does, for

I serve,I bowe,I loke,I loute, Minyhe folweth hire aboute,

Andif it falle, as fora time Herliketh noght abide bime, Botbesien hire on otherthinges, Thanmake I othretariinges To drecheforth the longe dai.48

From a Christian moral perspective, these "tariinges," like the Black Knight'ssong making,hardly qualify as labor. Theyinclude makingsongs as well as playing with his lady's birds and dogs (4.1189,1191, 1210-17). Nevertheless,from the perspectiveof CourtlyLove, they are accepted as appropriatelabor. "Mi Sone," replies Genius, an authorityfigure in the poem, "bot thou telle wilt/ Oght elles than I mai now hiere,/ Thou schalt have no penance hiere" (4.1224-25). Thus, the work in which the Black Knightpartakes, an activitythat clearly sets him apart fromTroilus, is his purposefullabor in love and courtship. Idleness of BD 1155,then, could hardlybe what Guillaumemeant by makingOiseuse the porterof Deduit's garden. Nevertheless,if the passage does not tellus anythingdirectly about Oiseuse, it does suggestthat more than one interpretivecontext for judging idleness existedin Chaucer'sworld. Besides the contextof orthodox Chris- tianity,there was also the moral contextof CourtlyLove, whether one judges thatcontext to be serious or essentiallyrecreational. Chaucer's Black Knight,then, uses the word "ydelnesse" with several differentdenotations, two ofwhich are directlyhelpful in determininghis reactionto Oiseuse. He uses it to mean "leisure"and, perhaps,"vanity." Althoughnone of these referencesexplicitly links idleness to Guillaume's character,given Chaucer's directreference to theRoman, Guillaume's poem is clearlyan intertextualpresence. Thus, these referenceslend supportto the mainstreaminterpretations of the courtlycircle of critics. What can be learned about Oiseuse fromthe writingsof GeoffreyChau- cer,dedicated translator and readerof the Roman? First, Chaucer recognizes that characterswith differentsocial and moral agendas would interpret Oiseuse and, indeed, the entireRoman differently. Chaucer's writingsgive supportto no single theoryof the Roman'smeaning. In the Legendof Good Women,the God of Love claims thatthe Romauntis a heresy against the religionof love, but the Legend'sdreamer sees it differently.He calls the Romauntan endorsementof love and faithfulness.Moreover, in theRetrac- tionthe aged Chaucerrefuses even to classifythe moral import of the Roman. Withrespect to Oiseuse, Chaucer's Second Nun linksher directlywith the Christianvice of sloth. The Knightand the Parson of the CanterburyTales implicitlylink Oiseuse to sloth as well. The Black Knight,however, uses "ydelnesse" to denote leisure and, perhaps, vanity. On the whole, Chaucer's various referencessupport the findings of Badel and Huot: medievalreaders found in theRoman an authorityon love fromwhich each could draw a lesson suitable to his or her own needs. If criticsinsist on reducingOiseuse to a single denotation,they needlessly impoverish their historicalunderstanding of the character. It is one thingto argue thatmany of the various denotationsof "oiseuse" findsupport in the Chaucer canon; it is quite another,however, to suggest thatChaucer's overallattitude toward idleness was noncommittal.On the contrary,taken as a whole I find that his oeuvre conveys an attitudeof disapproval or, at least, distrust.In fact,one sees this distrustnot only in the commentsof those favoritesof the Exegetes,the Parson and the Second Nun, but also in thetreatment of his aristocraticknights-the "verray,parfit gentilknight" of the CanterburyTales, the Black Knight,and Troilus. Com- mentsby and about these threecharacters make the case most eloquently. In the Knight'sTale, the narrator'sdistaste for idleness is palpable, and the mature Black Knight in the Bookof theDuchess implies that,once a lover passes throughthe gate of Deduit's garden,he mustleave Oiseuse behind and work diligentlyat love's labor. Moreover,as I mentionedearlier, the Troilusis in part an exemplumof the enervatingeffects of sloth in love. Nowhere in Chaucer'sworks can one findsupport for the courtlyargument that Oiseuse is a virtueto be celebratedor a secular parallel to religious contemplation. On the whole, Chaucer's attitudetoward Oiseuse comes closestto thatof Marta Powell Harley:idleness emasculateslovers. Chaucer seemsto believe thatone should always be busy about something,whether the labor is physical,spiritual, or amatory.Like his Parson,he affirmsthat heaven, the heaven of the Christianreligion or the secular paradise of CourtlyLovers, is the rewardof laborersand not of idle folk.

NOTES

A summergrant-in-aid from the Universityof Nebraska at Omaha helped me furtherthe researchand writingof this article. I would liketo expressmy appreciation for this grant-in-aid and forthe advice given by the article'searly readers, Mark Allen,Thomas Coffey,and Sylvia Huot. 1. Guillaumede Lorrisand Jeande Meun, Le Romande la Rose,ed. F6lixLecoy, 3 vols. (Paris: Honor- Champion,1983), lines 523-616(1: 17-20). Quotations fromthe Romanare fromthis edition. Translationsof theRoman are takenfrom Charles Dahlberg, trans., The Romance of the Rose (1971; reprintedHanover: UniversityPress of New England,1986). 2. Althoughthese definitionsare takenfrom A.J. Greimas' Dictionnaire de l'ancienfranqais, 2nd ed. (Paris: Larousse, 1968),they are essentiallythe same as those foundin FredericGodefroy's Lexiquede l'ancienfranwais (Paris: Honor6 Champion,1964). 3. I take these termsfrom Sylvia Huot, "The Scribeas Editor:Rubrication as CriticalApparatus in Two Manuscriptsof the Romande la Rose,"L'Esprit Crdateur 27 (1987): 68. By examining rubricson earlymanuscripts, Huot shows thatthese termsindicate two broad categoriesof Romaninterpretation dating back to at least the fourteenthcentury. 4. Chaucerand theFrench Love Poets: The Literary Background of the Book of the Duchess (Chapel Hill: Universityof NorthCarolina Press, 1968), 5. 5. Chaucer:The CriticalHeritage, ed. Derek Brewer,2 vols. (Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978),1: 40. 6. Compare,for example, Exegete John Fleming's remark "Context is all" ("FurtherReflections on Oiseuse's Mirror," Zeitschriftfilr Romanische Philologie 100 [1984]: 29) with David Hult's comment:"Need we mentionthat these various figural interpretations seek to applya moralor religiouscontext that is scarcelyjustified in Guillaume'stext taken as a whole?" (Self-Fulfilling Prophecies:Readership and Authorityin theFirst Roman de la Rose [Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress, 1986], 222n. Of course, these writersemphasize two differentkinds of contextsin theiranalyses. For the Exegetes,the contextis ultimatelythe spiritof the Middle Ages,a spiritdominated by Christianity,whereas for New Criticsand manyothers in thecourtly camp,the contextis theself-enclosed work of literature.See Lee Patterson'shistorical analysis ofthe conflictbetween these two methodologies,Negotiating the Past: TheHistorical Understand- ingof Medieval Literature (Madison: WisconsinUniversity Press, 1987),3-39. 7. D. W. Robertson,Jr., A Prefaceto Chaucer(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962),90, 103,361. 8. Robertson,92-93. Fleming,The Roman de la Rose: A Study of Allegoryand Iconography (Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1969),73-81 and Dahlberg,"Love and the Romande la Rose,"Speculum 44 (1969): 581. 9. Fleming,"Further Reflections," 32. 10. Marta Powell Harley, "Narcissus, Hermaphroditus,and Attis: Ovidian Lovers at the Fontained'Amors in Guillaumede Lorris'sRoman de la rose,"PMLA 101 (1986): 335. 11. It should be noted thatcritics sometimes supply combs and mirrorsthat are not actually found in the texts. Ovid's Salmacis,for example, does not carrya mirror.Ovid says of her: "saepe Cytoriacodeducit pectine crines / et, quid se deceat,spectatas consulit undas" (Metamor- phoses,ed. Frank JustusMiller, 2nd ed., Loeb Classical Library [London, 1925], 4.311-12). Salmacisregards herself in the "spectatas . . . undas," the "glanced-atwaves." No mirroris mentioned. At the same timeGuillaume de Lorrisdoes not,in fact,mention Oiseuse's comb. Althoughhe mentionsthe mirrordirectly, he onlyimplies that she carriesa comb (555,566-68). 12. Harley,325. 13. See, forexample, Jean Batany,"Miniature, all6gorie, ideologie: 'Oiseuse' et la mystique monacale recuperdepar la 'classe de loisir,'"Etudes sur Le Roman de la Rose de Guillaumede Lorris,ed. JeanDufornet (Paris: Honor Champion,1984), 29. 14. Alan M. F. Gunn,The Mirror of Love: A Reinterpretationofthe Romance of the Rose (Lubbock: Texas Tech UniversityPress, 1952), 105. 15. "Oiseuse, die Dame mitdem Spiegel,"Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 15(1965): 145-46. 16. Batany,19-22. 17. "Lea, Matelda und Oiseuse," Zeitschriftfiir romanische Philologie 78 (1962): 467. 18. Roman,line 39. Sasaki,"Sur le personnaged'Oiseuse," Etudesde langue et litt&ature 32 (1978): 11-13,23. 19. "Oiseuse, Venus, Luxure:Trois dames et un miroir,"Romania 106 (1985): 117. 20. "Reflectionson Oiseuse's Mirror:Iconographic Tradition, Luxuria and theRoman dela Rose," ZeitschriftfiirRomanische Philologie 98 (1982): 300,306, 310-11. 21. Hans RobertJauss writes: "In the triangleof author, work, and publicthe last is no passive part, no chain of mere reactions,but ratheritself an energyformative of history. . . . A literarywork is not an object thatstands by itselfand thatoffers the same view to each reader in each period. . . . It is much more like an orchestrationthat strikes ever new resonances among its readers." (Towardan Aestheticof Reception,trans. TimothyBahti [Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press, 1982],19, 21). 22. Receptionstudies of the Romaninclude: Fleming,The Roman de la Rose:A Studyof Allegory and Iconography;Fleming, "The Moral Reputationof theRoman de la Rosebefore 1400," Romance Philology18 (1965): 430-35; Maxwell Luria, "A Sixteenth-CenturyGloss on the Romande la Rose,"Medieval Studies 44 (1982): 333-70; Pierre-YvesBadel, Le Romande la Roseau XIVe sikcle: Etude de la rdceptionde l'oeuvre(Geneva: Droz, 1980); and several importantarticles by Sylvia Huot: "The Scribeas Editor";"'Ci parlel'aucteur': The Rubricationof Voice and Authorshipin Romande la RoseManuscripts," SubStance 17 (1988):42-48; and "Medieval Readers ofthe Roman de la Rose:The Evidence ofMarginal Notations," Romance Philology 43 (1990): 400-20. None of these studies focuses specificallyon the question of Oiseuse, and all are based on the French receptionof the Roman. In The Roman de la Rose, Fleming studies the Roman's reception primarilythrough its illuminations.With respect to Oiseuse, he also citesinterpretations in theCanterbury Tales, the EchecsAmoureux gloss, and The Legends ofthe Saints in the Scottish Dialect of the Fourteenth Century to support the Exegetical interpretation(73-74, 79, 80n). Huot cites evidence on Oiseuse's receptionfrom the rubricsof two fourteenth-centurymanuscripts ("Scribe as Editor,"68-69, 74). Her evidence suggestsa lack of uniformityin the interpretationof thecharacter. 23. A selectbibliography of studies treatingthe Roman'sinfluence on Chaucer mightinclude such worksas Lisi Cipriani,"Studies in theInfluence of the Romance of the Rose upon Chaucer," PMLA 22 (1907): 552-95;Dean Fansler,Chaucer and theRoman de la Rose (1914; reprinted Gloucester,MA: Peter Smith,1965); Maxwell Luria,A Reader'sGuide to theRoman de la Rose (Hamden, CT: Archon,1982), 75-87; Charles Muscatine,Chaucer and theFrench Tradition (1957; reprintedBerkeley: University of CaliforniaPress, 1969); David Wallace, "Chaucer and the European Rose,"Studies in theAge ofChaucer 7 (1985): 61-67;and JamesWimsatt, Chaucer and the FrenchLove Poets. 24. "Chaucer and the Romanceof the Rose," EnglishStudies 69 (1988): 12-26. Diekstrabelieves that"Idleness . . . is carefullypresented so as not to call up associationswith the idlenessof the vices" (12). 25. TheRiverside Chaucer, ed. LarryD. Benson,3rd ed. (Boston:Houghton Mifflin,1987), F.333. Allreferences to Chaucer's worksare takenfrom this edition and citedin thetext by linenumber and, when appropriate,by fragmentnumber or version. 26. Noted by Luria,A Reader'sGuide, 77. 27. RobertWorth Frank, Jr., Chaucer and theLegend of Good Women (Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress, 1972),27-36 and Lisa J.Kiser, Telling Classical Tales: Chaucerand theLegend of Good Women (Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press, 1983),73-78. 28. Fleming,"Moral Reputation,"430. Huot believes thatthe Romanwas subject to different moral interpretationsbefore 1400. Her evidenceis takenfrom manuscript glosses and rubrics ("Scribeas Editor,"67). 29. A scholarlycontroversy exists over whetherin fact the Retractionis "an expressionof personal remorse." See SiegfriedWenzel's summaryof the controversyin the explanatory notes of Benson's edition(965). Whetheror not the Retractionrepresents a death bed repen- tance,no critic,to thebest ofmy knowledge, questions that it is a genuine partof the Chaucer canon,written near the end of the poet's career. 30. Badel, 135, 142-43. Huot's studyof the Roman'smanuscripts supports Badel's argument. She cautions that,while we need not abandon our quest fora single,continuous reading, we mustalways rememberits "proteannature" and resist"the sufficiencyof any one perspective to explainthe whole" ("Medieval Readers,"414-15). 31. CarolineD. Eckhardt,"The Artof Translationin TheRomaunt of the Rose," Studies in theAge ofChaucer 6 (1984): 46. The extantMiddle English textcould not be entirelyChaucer's work. Donald Sutherland,for example,concludes, "There is . . . no reason to doubt thatFragment A of theRomaunt, save fora fewrevisions, is Chaucer's genuinework. . . . [But]If Chaucer wrote Fragment A, then in all likelihoodhe was not responsiblefor the second translation,including Fragments B and C" (TheRomaunt of the Rose and Le Romande la Rose: A Parallel-TextEdition [Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1967], xxxiv). Similarly,Alfred David believes thatwhile FragmentsB and C could not be by Chaucer, "thereis no persuasiveevidence thatthe authorof A is notChaucer" (The RiversideChaucer, 1103). 32. Noted in Fleming,"Further Reflections," 31. 33. MiddleEnglish Dictionary, ed. Hans Kurathet al. (AnnArbor: University of Michigan Press, 1956-),"idelnesse," la, 2a, 2c. 34. The Second Nun's condemnationof Oiseuse is noted by both Robertson,A Prefaceto Chaucer,92 and Fleming,The Roman de la Rose,73-74. 35. Boccaccio's descriptionof Venus's templeis based on Statius'sdescription of the "House of Sleep"in the Thebaid. See DavidAnderson, Before the Knight's Tale: Imitation ofClassical Epic in Boccaccio'sTeseida (Philadelphia: Universityof PennsylvaniaPress, 1988), 160. However, Boccaccio expands Statius's treatmentso that Venus's temple representsthe concupiscible appetitewhile the templeof Mars representsthe irascible appetite. See Boccaccio's own commentsin his gloss: N.R. Havely,ed., Chaucer'sBoccaccio: Sources ofTroilus and theKnight's and Franklin'sTales (Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield,1980), 130-31. 36. D.W. Robertson,Jr., The Book of the Duchess, Companionto ChaucerStudies, ed. Beryl Rowland,rev. ed. (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1979), 403. 37. Althoughsome read the poem as a religiousvision, those who interpretthe poem as a secular elegy are also convincing. See JamesWimsatt, "The Book of the Duchess: Secular Elegy or Religious Vision?" Signsand Symbolsin Chaucer'sPoetry, ed. JohnP. Hermann and JohnJ. Burke,Jr. (University, Alabama: Alabama UniversityPress, 1981), 116-17and JamesDean, "Chaucer's Bookof the Duchess: A Non-BoethianInterpretation," MLQ 46 (1985): 236-37. 38. BernardF. Huppe and Robertsonnote the importanceof idlenessin the Bookof the Duchess. However,since theybelieve thatthe Black Knight is notJohn of Gauntbut the"sorrowing alter ego" ofthe dreamer,they emphasize the dreamer'sidleness and overweeningsorrow, tristitia, throughouttheir treatment (Fruyt and Chaf: Studies in Chaucer's Allegories [Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress, 19631,35, 52). 39. Wimsatt,Chaucer and theFrench Love Poets, 16. 40. Marc M. Pelen notes thissimilarity ("Machaut's Court of Love Narrativesand Chaucer's Bookof the Duchess," Chaucer Review 11 [1976]:142). 41. Fansler does not believe that"idelnesse" in the Bookof the Duchess is a directreference to Oiseuse (85). I agree thatthe personification itself is not presentin the Bookof the Duchess, but thisdoes not mean thatChaucer's referencesto idlenessin the poem tellus nothingabout his understandingof Oiseuse. 42. Chaucer took thispassage fromMachaut's Remedede Fortune:

De l'estatqu'innocence avoie, Que Jonnesceme gouvernoit Et en oyseuseme tenoit, Mes oeuvres estoientvolages; Variansestoit mes courages. (45-50; emphasisadded)

[when I was in the stateof innocence,when Youth governedme and keptme in idleness,my works were fleeting;my heart was changeable.]

(LeJugement du royde Behaigneand Remedede Fortune, eds. JamesI. Wimsattand WilliamKibler, The Chaucer Library[Athens, GA: Universityof Georgia Press, 1988], 171). The English translationis given on facingpages of this edition. One immediatelynotes that Chaucer's "ydelnesse"is a directtranslation of Machaut's "Oyseuse." This suggests that"ydelnesse" in BD, 797-802is indeedlinked, via Machaut's poem,to Oiseuse. Nevertheless,while a comparison of Chaucer's verses to those ofMachaut is helpful,it is not decisivein determiningChaucer's meaning.Machaut's narratorsays that"Tout m'estoitun quanque veoie,/Forstant que tousdis enclinoie/ Mon cuer et toutema pensee /Vers ma dame" [whateverI saw was the same to me, exceptthat my heart and all mythoughts were everon mylady] (lines 51-54). Chaucer translates a partof thispassage in BD lines 803-04,but he ignoresthe importantqualification expressed in Remedelines 52-54. He apparentlydoes so because at this pointhe is describingthe Black Knight'scondition before, not after,he metWhite. Thus, the importantqualification of lines 52-54could not applyto Chaucer's protagonist. The extensiveinfluence of Machaut's judgmentpoems and poems ofcomplaint and comforton theBook of the Duchess is fullytreated in James Wimsatt, Chaucer and theFrench Love Poets , 88-117. 43. Most criticsfind that some kindof consolation is offeredto theBlack Knight although they do notagree on thekind of consolation offered. Helen Phillipsoffers a good summaryof opinion up to 1981in "The Structureof Consolation in theBook of the Duchess," Chaucer Review 16 (1981): 107-18.Debate on the subjectcontinues, however. Especiallycontroversial is the influenceof Boethius's Consolationof Philosophy on the Bookof the Duchess. For two recentarguments from opposing camps,see Michael Cherniss,The Book of the Duchess, BoethianApocalypse: Studies in MiddleEnglish Vision Poetry (Norman: Pilgrim,1987), 169-92 and Dean, "Chaucer's Bookof the Duchess: A Non-BoethianInterpretation," 235-49. 44. I referto the privateTroilus here, not the publicwarrior. See Sadlek, "Love, Labor, and Sloth in Chaucer's Troilusand Criseyde"Chaucer Review 26 (1992): 350-68. 45. Chaucer's Parson says, "Agayns this horriblesynne of Accidie,and the branches of the same, theris a vertuthat is calledfortitudo or strengthe,"which "enhauncethand enforceththe soule, rightas Accidieabateth it and makethit fieble"(10.727, 729). Here I speak of the knight'scharacter as a lover,not as a mourner. The case has been made thatthe knight'slevel of grief is unnaturaland hence a formof sloth, tristitia. Pelen, for example, says thatthe mourning Black Knightrepresents sloth and lacksfortitude (147; see also Cherniss 177). Whateverthe meritsof thisargument, it does not necessarilycontradict my assessment of the Black Knight'scharacter as a lover. 46. Remediaamoris (line 139), in TheArt ofLove and OtherPoems, ed. J.H. Mozley, the Loeb Classical Library,2nd ed. (Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1979). 47. Indeed, Huppe and Robertsondo not considersong-making to be bona fide labor. "In recognitionof his lady's example,the Knightdid attemptto abandon his formermistress, idleness,"they write, "but in hisblindness, he succeeded onlyin goingfrom one kindof idleness to another. He spent his timemaking idle songs" (84). But note Lisa Kiser's interpretationof the passage: "The [Black]Knight implies that idleness and writingpoetry are nevercompatible. . . . Poets do not play at theircraft; rather, they labor at it" (Truthand Textualityin Chaucer's Poetry[Hanover: UniversityPress ofNew England,1991], 17). While Kiserinterprets the Black Knightas a laboringpoet, I see him as a laboringlover. I believe the differenceis only one of emphasis. 48. ConfessioAmantis, The English Works of John Gower, ed. G.C. Macaulay,2 vols.,Early English TextSociety, ES, 81-82(Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 1900), 4: 1169-70,1181-85. References to the Confessioare fromthis edition and citedin the textby book and line numbers.