1010 and 1258. I suggest that the woodcuts from stock create visual connections
between the prints of Hawes’spoemandothernonfictional, instructional texts.
21. Machaut,ii, lines 797 , 2974 – 80 ; the translation is from Machaut,Le Jugement
du roy de Behaigne and Remede de Fortune, ed. James I. Wimsatt and William
W. Kibler (Athens, 1988 ), 332 , 334.
22. As a rhetoricalfigure,correctio“retracts what has been said and replaces it with
what seems more suitable”:Ad Herennium,iv, xxvi, 36. The gradation so
achieved is intended to heighten persuasive effect.
23. On the bond (“vinculum”) betweenratioandoratioestablished as afirst
principle of human society, see Cicero,De officiis, trans. Walter Miller, Loeb
Classical Library (Cambridge, MA, 1913 ; rpt. 1968 ), 52 – 54. On Lydgate’s own
association of rhetorical and political order, see Ebin,Illuminator, Makar,
Vates, 40 – 48.
24. Seth Lerer,“The Rhetoric of Fame: Stephen Hawes’s Aureate Diction,”
Spenser Studies 5 ( 1985 ), 169 – 84 ( 175 ). The episode is also discussed in
Williams,French Fetish, 142 – 49.
25. Spearing,Medieval to Renaissance, 255.
26. See Edward Wilson,“Local Habitations and Names in MS Rawlinson C 813 in
the Bodleian Library, Oxford,”Review of English Studiesn.s. 41 ( 1990 ), 12 – 44.
For a full edition of the MS, seeThe Welles Anthology: MS. Rawlinson C. 813 .A
Critical Edition, ed. Sharon Jansen and Kathleen Jordan (Binghamton, 1991 ).
For a provocative reading of its principles of compilation, see Lerer,Courtly
Letters, 129 – 43.
27. The manuscript’s Hawesian borrowings are discussed inWelles Anthology,
22 – 25 , and tabulated on 300 – 03.
28. Zeeman,“Verse of Courtly Love,” 223. See also Vitz’s comment that in the
Roman de la Rose,“the experience undergone by the hero is, in many respects,
extra-temporal...although at the outset rooted in time, the dream unfolds
along an indefinite and unreal time axis”:“Iof theRoman de la Rose,” 54.
29. J. A. W. Bennett, “Nosce te ipsum: Some Medieval and Modern
Interpretations,” The Humane Medievalist, and Other Essays in English
Literature and Learning, from Chaucer to Eliot, ed. Piero Boitani (Rome,
1982 ), 135 – 72 ( 150 ). See also Gray,Themes and Images, 172 – 75.
30. Pearsall,Old English and Middle English Poetry, 267.
31. C. S. Lewis,The Allegory of Love: A Study in Medieval Tradition(Oxford, 1936 ),
284 – 85.
32. See Gray,Themes and Images, 199 – 206 ; Woolf,English Religious Lyric, 19 , 88 –
89 , 92 , 312 – 26 , 354 – 55 , 401 – 04.
33. Tzvetan Todorov provides a succinct statement of this widely used distinction:
“The individual who saysIin a novel is not theIof the discourse, otherwise
called the subject of theénonciation. He is only a character and the status of his
utterances (the direct style) gives to them a maximum objectivity, instead of
bringing them closer to the subject of the actualénonciation. But there exists
anotherI,anIfor the most part invisible, which refers to the narrator, the
‘poetic personality,’which we apprehend through the discourse.”See Tzvetan
Notes to Pages 115 – 19 207