SOURCE: "Critics of the Jeu," in The "Jeu de Saint Nicolas" of Jean Bodel of Arras: A Literary Analysis, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1954, pp. 3-14.

[In the excerpt below, Vincent provides an overview of critical scholarship on Jeu de Saint Nicolas, arguing that critics have focused on small aspects of the play at the expense of viewing it as a whole.]

The Jeu de saint Nicolas,¹ composed by Jean Bodel,² jongleur and poet of Arras, between the years 1199 and 1201, and therefore by many years the first vernacular French miracle play extant,³ was brought to the notice of the modern world from the sheltered obscurity of the library of the duc de la Vallière in 1779 by Pierre Jean-Baptiste le Grand d'Aussy.⁴ This ardent, but in this instance critically undiscerning, collector of fabliaux and contes of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries adjudged Bodel's play a precious monument in the history of the theatre, basing this high opinion, however, solely on what he considered its value as evidence of the earliest shaping of a truly dramatic form in the evolution of the French theatre from, as he believed, the medieval fabliau, declaring it, indeed, void of any intrinsic literary interest or merit. So satisfied was he with his appreciation of the play that he found it unnecessary to reproduce from the manuscript more than the list of dramatis personae and the Prologue, translated into modern French, before asserting: "On ne peut nier que ce ne soit là un prologue tres distinct et l'annonce d'une véritable pièce dramatique. Cependant comme cette pièce n'est en grande partie que le miracle du prologue un peu étendu, qu'elle est très longue et encore plus ennuyeuse, je crois suffisant d'en donner un court extrait" (p. 341). The short extract is in the form of a brief summary of the opening scenes, the major part of the drama being dismissed as their easily anticipated development, not, however, without the comment: "A travers tous les défauts on y remarque beaucoup de mouvement et d'action et surtout un grand spectacle" (p. 345); but this is not to the credit of the author who is accorded the same disparaging treatment as his work: "Un poëte ignorant … comme il ne sait point l'art de faire disserter ses héros il les fait agir. Voyez dans Shakespeare quel fracas d'action" (p. 346).

As might be expected, Le Grand d'Aussy promptly stifled with his summary dismissal of the Jeu de saint Nicolas any interest or curiosity his discovery might have aroused, thereby delaying for many years a truer appreciation of its worth. For this he was inevitably, although almost sixty years later, taken to task by Onésime Le Roy,⁵ who said of him: "Si ce laborieux explorateur s'était arrêté davantage sur tous les manuscrits qu'il voulait nous faire connaître il eût probablement remarqué d'abord le but du Jeu de saint Nicolas, bien dramatiquement exposé dès la fin de la première scène; il eût ensuite aperçu dans quelles circonstances mémorables, dans quel esprit religieux cet ouvrage a été composé et il n'eut point détourné si longtemps notre attention d'un aussi curieux monument" (p. 15).

For reasons vastly different from those of Le Grand d'Aussy did Le Roy praise Bodel's drama, describing it as "le premier monument dramatique dont puisse s'honorer la littérature francaise" (p. 15). He understood it as a reflection of the fierce crusading spirit which swept Europe and particularly France in the Middle Ages, as a deeply religious and fervently patriotic drama inspired by and artistically recording particular events of a glorious period in the history of France in her rôle of champion of Christendom against the Saracen. The particular events were the unsuccessful first crusade of Saint Louis which culminated in the glorious disaster of Mansoura in 1260, where fell so many of France's noble Knights, among them Robert, count of Artois (the Cresttens nouviaus chevaliers of the play) and the projected second expedition of Louis, the object of which was the conversion to Christianity of the king of Tunis. In short, in the Jeu de saint Nicolas is to be recognized the birth of French national tragedy (pp. iii-iv).

To substantiate this thesis it was necessary for Le Roy to dwell upon and exaggerate the crusading element at the expense of the hagiographical and realistic low-life elements which are scarcely consonant with the tone of epic grandeur with which Le Roy wished to invest the whole work. Although the subject of the play, the legend of St. Nicholas, according to this critic, is little more than a vehicle for a historical drama of the Crusades, appealing to the national fervor and Christian zeal of Bodel's contemporaries. The illustration of the powers of the saint is of much less consequence than the spectacle of the conversion of the king of Africa, the real object of the drama. The contribution of the scenes of Arras low life to the Jeu is minimized even more than that of the hagiographical element. These scenes occupy three-quarters of the drama, yet Le Roy considered them only insofar as they are essential to the development of the action of the crusading element. His interest in their inner character was limited to the brief remark that there is some poetry in the lines of Connart crying the tavern keeper's wine, but, far from making this a point of departure for a penetrating critical study, he dismissed this entire aspect of the Jeu with the implication of an incongruity better to be passed over without comment. There is an indication of the critical embarrassment felt by Le Roy when faced with the imposing bulk of these scenes of low realism in his uneasy explanation of the contrast of tones of lofty grandeur and less sublime gaiety. He suggests that a reconciling factor existed in the attitude of the Christian warrior to hardship and death: "Cette mort pour eux etait loin d'être triste: aussi l'auteur va-t-il passer au ton le plus gai, du milieu de scènes qui seraient lugubres pour nous" (pp. 25-26 and note).

The next major contribution to the study of the Jeu de saint Nicolas came, after the lapse of almost another fifty years, from Petit de Julleville,⁶ who did much to correct the biased view of Le Roy and to prepare the way for a more balanced understanding of the play. He himself was unable to achieve that understanding since, despite his unprejudiced approach and his attention to the multiplicity of interesting features of this drama, he was hampered partly by the obscurity of much of the dialogue but mostly by his determination to allow no personal enthusiasm to lead him into such gross errors of exaggeration as those of Le Roy. Consequently he curbed his enthusiasm too strongly and, remaining too literal and unimaginative in his appreciation of detail, he was unable to arrive at a moment of total comprehension. As a result, his study presents a series of accurate initial observations almost inevitably marred by subsequent deprecatory or contradictory comment.

As if about to discuss the significance of Bodel's use of the legend of St. Nicholas in the role of guardian of treasure, as a key to the appreciation of his Jeu, Petit de Julleville speaks of the popularity of the saint in Bodel's day, the importance of the occasion of his feast, the existence of the four Latin miracle plays of the Fleury manuscript, and the play of Hilarius, all with St. Nicholas for subject.⁷ But, according to Petit de Julleville, to write a miracle play was not Bodel's inspiration. Evidently ordered to furnish a play for St. Nicholas' Eve, he merely utilized the idea he found in the other plays mentioned above in order to introduce material more to his liking: "… le miracle n'est plus qu'un prétexte à d'ingénieux développements" (I, 98). Bodel's real interest, we are told, lay first in moving the audience with allusions to the struggles of the Crusaders with the Saracens, certainly a heartfelt interest of his contemporaries, and then to amuse them with lively and realistic scenes of Arras as they knew it. This observation might have led to an insight into the integrity of Bodel's creation but it is not developed and this premature false conclusion is drawn: "On était ainsi tour à tour ému et réjoui. Par quelle incohérence de moyens nous n'aurons pas besoin de le faire remarquer! Toute espèce d'unité est inconnue à Jean Bodel, et il use, avant Shakespeare, des plus grandes hardiesses de Shakespeare" (I, 98).

The crusading episode Petit de Julleville found admirable, equal to the best pages of the Roland and, dwelling upon its beauty, he makes the pronouncement: "IL y a là dans l'œuvre de Bodel des vers qu'on peut comparer aux plus beaux que le moyen âge ait écrits" (I, 99). He hastens to record his disagreement with Le Roy, neverthless, that the Nicolas is in any way tragédie nationale. He was correct, as subsequent research has shown,⁸ in questioning the direct reflection or recording of the particular events of history his predecessor claimed to see in this episode but again he tends to detract from the value of his initial opinion by attributing Bodel's sublime poetic treatment of these scenes to caprice or chance. More satisfactory is his statement that, despite their beauty, they must not be considered as giving import to the whole play, because the popular scenes take up three quarters of it. This obvious but new statement introduces yet another opportunity to enquire effectively into the real nature of the drama but the very statement which gives most hope of such an enquiry also betrays Petit de Julleville's unawareness of the opportunity; speaking of Bodel he says: "Son vrai domaine est la réalité exacte et vivante, mais peu poétique" (I, 102). The scenes of Arras low life thus characterized, despite his echoing of Le Roy's comment on the poetry of the crying of the wine, Petit de Julleville is unable to integrate them into the drama. He is disturbed by the transposition of the action from the Saracen court to an Arras tavern which is somehow still in the Orient. Saracens are out of place in the tavern scenes ("Les Arabes ne boivent pas de vin"), which despite their undoubted popular appeal, are, he considers, far too long.

Stepping back, as it were, to view the play as a whole, Petit de Julleville concludes his study with little praise for Jean Bodel, but, in keeping with the contradictory nature of his criticism, with every indication at the outset of giving anything but adverse comment: "Ce qui nous frappe avant tout dans le Saint Nicolas c'est l'originalité de l'œuvre. L'auteur nous a donné le premier, trois siècles et demi avant Shakespeare, six cents ans avant les Romantiques, je ne dis pas la théorie (en ce temps- là on ne faisait pas de théories littéraires) mais l'exemple du drame, tel que les modernes ont cru l'inventer vers 182T' (I, 104). In elaboration of this finding, Petit de Julleville indicates how Bodel anticipated the Romantics in all essentials. He fused the comic and the tragic, he treated national history and low life, he portrayed all classes and manners of characters, both human and divine, he felt no call to respect any unity of time or place. All this, however, is not to praise Bodel but to deflate the claims of the Romantics to originality. The violent juxtaposition of elevated and low themes seen in the Jeu de saint Nicolas was a bold and vigorous enterprise but, even if it were possible to carry out successfully, it was certainly not within the scope of Bodel, "poète sans génie et d'une âme commune" (I, 106).

Both Le Roy and Petit de Julleville were mainly concerned with a comprehensive study of the nature and development of the whole medieval French theatre and their shortcomings in respect of the one play under discussion must, therefore, be ascribed largely to the exigencies of this type of undertaking. An historical survey of this nature, concerned with tracing broad lines of development and presenting an overall view, must observe strict proportions and a certain economy in the treatment of detail and necessarily precludes intensive and exhaustive interpretation of individual works. When it fell to Otto Rohnstroem⁹ to reopen the enquiry into the Jeu de saint Nicolas, his was the greater chance of arriving at a truer interpretation, for although his attention was not turned to this work alone, his study embraced only the works of Bodel and he was able, therefore, to pursue his investigation into the nature and literary merits of the play with a new thoroughness. His treatment of this miracle play marked a great step forward in the long history of its clarification and his views have been substantially adopted by subsequent readers.

The main feature of Rohnstroem's study and his greatest contribution to the modern appreciation of it was the rehabilitation of the saint's legend as the principal motif. This, we are made to realize, is a genuine miracle play and the legend of the Iconia sancti Nicolai is not to be regarded as a mere pretext for a national tragedy, as Le Roy claimed, or for a more complex presentation of crusading and tavern scenes. It is, indeed, "le plus important des ouvrages francais qui traitent de la vie ou des actions de ce saint" (p. 45).

One half of the study is devoted to what might be called the Nicholas background to Bodel's Jeu. Introductory sections deal with the historical and legendary Bishop of Myra, his cult as a saint in the West in the eleventh and twelfth centuries and its expression in the liturgical drama. The particular legend utilized by Jean Bodel is then given special consideration in the form of a comparison with the relevant passage in the Legenda aurea of Jacobus de Voragine,¹⁰ which, although composed towards the end of the thirteenth century, reproduces legends current in Bodel's time, with the Iconia... miracle play from the Fleury manuscript, with Hilarius' ludus… and with the version of the same legend in the twelfth century Vie de saint Nicolas … of Wace. Allusions are also made to still other "Lives" both English and French. Rohnstroem's primary object is the establishing of a specific source of Bodel's drama, but in view of the close similarity of all the versions he discusses and the certainty of still others existing, so popular was this legend, he admits his inability to identify the model. Nevertheless, recalling Bodel's statement in the prologue: "Che nous content li voir disant / Qu'en sa vie trouvons lisant …," he elects the Vie of Wace as the probable source, basing this opinion upon the similarity of the two versions and on the literary reputation of Wace, whose works were no doubt familiar to the literary-minded people of Arras.

As Rohnstroem indicated, the Nicholas legend is the principal motif in Bodel's play as it was in the two earlier dramas and in Wace's poem. Bodel, however, developed and enriched it, considerably mitigating the uncouth and superstitious attitude towards the miracle shown by his predecessors, particularly Hilarius. From the earlier saint dramatically intervening in human affairs through base fear of, or because of, his statue's being badly treated, there emerges the figure of a loftier saint impelled by a desire to save his true believer and not only saving him but bringing about the conversion of a whole people to Christianity.

In considering the crusading episode the most interesting literary feature of the Jeu, Rohnstroem is essentially in agreement with Le Roy and the more temperate Petit de Julleville. To their comments on its merits, however, he adds the observation that the germ of this element is discernible in many of the versions of the legend which place the miracle in a setting of Christian and Saracen conflict, at the same time avoiding the appearance of detracting from Bodel's inventive genius for, as he insists, the scene in its development must be seen as the author's own creation. As with the earlier critics, Bodel's inspiration for these crusading scenes is attributed to the spirit of his times, the all-pervading atmosphere of religious and martial excitement giving rise to and attendant upon excursions against the Saracen, but whereas Petit de Julleville implies merely a happy choice of subject on the part of Bodel, calculated to accord with contemporary interests, both Le Roy and Rohnstroem emphasize the more subjective nature of the author's expression. Rohnstroem, particularly, not only dwells upon the spirit of Western Europe at the time of the Fourth Crusade, born of the emotional shock of the fall of the Holy Land at Tiberias in 1187, increased by the stirring events of the Third Crusade with its brilliant figures of Richard Cœur de Lion and Saladin and fostered by Pope Innocent III through such spokesmen as Foulque de Neuilly, but also indicates the personal enthusiasm of Bodel himself for the proposed expedition to recover the lost shrines from the pagans, as is shown by his moving expression of regret, in his poem Les Congés, of being unable to fulfill his Crusader's vows because of leprosy. Nevertheless Rohnstroem is far from agreeing with Le Roy that the Jeu de saint Nicolas merits the appellation of "tragédie nationale." Such an extreme comparison cannot be made but, even so, his work has great merit: "… on est pourtant en droit de regarder la scène de la bataille dans le Jeu de saint Nicolas comme l'expression fidèle du courage chevaleresque et de l'ardeur religieuse de son temps: la forte impression que font ces quelques couplets malgré leur brièveté et leur sécheresse, tient à leur caractère à la fois sincère et noble, vigoureux et simple" (p. 63).

Following the lead of Petit de Julleville, Rohnstroem elaborates the observation that the pious and heroic scene of battle does not set the tone of the whole play. The principal motif of the miracle of St. Nicholas runs through a series of lively and grotesque scenes, generally lacking in poetry, although not without a certain dramatic power and brisk, natural dialogue, notable among them the Arras tavern scenes of drinking, gambling, and quarreling; these, we are told, interested author and audience the most and it is to them that the play owes its character. Again is raised the question of the plausibility of Bodel's fusion of East and West, of Africa and Arras: "Dans les scenes de la taverne, il faut voir sans doute des tableaux de la vie dans la joyeuse ville natale du poète: I'auteur qui place le sujet de sa pièce en Afrique, qui fait même quelque effort pour lui donner une couleur exotique, oublie, dans la peinture des trois buveurs, qu'il se trouve en Afrique et nous transporte subitement du pays des sauvages Sarrasins dans la riche ville du nord de la France" (p. 63). Rohnstroem fails, as did Petit de Julleville, to meet the challenge of the apparently violent clash of the exotic and local of which this strange geographical juxtaposition is the main illustration. He attempts to explain it away, yet at the same time noting specific efforts on the part of Bodel to give touches of an oriental background, by having recourse to the commonplace that medieval writers disregarded "local color" as, for instance, in the Chansons de Geste where Christian and Saracen are indistinguishable the one from the other both in appearance and general behavior. The inadequacy of this explanation is underlined in the well-conceived analysis of Bodel's character drawing to follow. Previously little attention had been paid to this aspect of the Jeu, Le Roy alone singling out the King of Africa for lively appreciation in order to emphasize the climax, as he saw it, of the conversion of the pagan enemy to Christianity, a capital aspect of his understanding of the Jeu. Now, all the major characters are discussed and each is shown to be well developed and invested with a distinct personality. There emerges from this, however, to contradict the assertion that the Jeu is barren of local color, the realization that the Saracen characters are at least adequately portrayed as such and are readily distinguishable from the others. This is particularly true of the king: "Par sa cruauté et son despotisme le roi est bien un monarque oriental" (p. 64).

Apart from the considerable literary merit he discerns in Bodel's miracle play Rohnstroem distinguishes "ses contributions précieuses à l'étude des mœurs et de la civilisation de son temps" (p. 68). The tavern scenes are described as rich in popular expressions and allusions to such details of medieval life as the selling of wine, the "eskievins de la cité" as opposed to the "homes de le vile," town criers and their duties, gambling habits and the frequent invocation of saints and mention of their legends in ordinary conversation. Such allusions are to be found not only in the tavern scenes but elsewhere throughout the play. The portrait of the jailer gives an insight into the fate of criminal offenders of that time and even the action which unfolds in Africa is reminiscent of local Arras and perhaps general French practices of the period, as, for example, the African king's relationship to his subjects which suggests feudal Europe, his attitude towards his god, Tervagant, in ornamenting his statue with gold, which recalls certain Christian practices of the Middle Ages; and his calling of his subjects to arms by means of a crier to proclaim his "ban" which particularly bears the mark of contemporary French civilization.

These allusions and details do indeed throw a valuable light upon the customs of Bodel's day but their divorce from the literary evaluation of the play would not seem to be justified. They are profuse enough to contribute considerably to the play's general character, providing not only touches of "local color" to satisfy our curiosity concerning the daily aspect of medieval life, but undoubtedly adding vastly to the appeal of the drama to the contemporary audience. Moreover, the appearance of these allusions in what are properly Saracen scenes to which, as Rohnstroem says, Bodel sought to give an exotic atmosphere, adds to and complicates the very feature so far unsatisfactorily approached, the close intermingling of the far exotic and near realistic elements which is so dominating.

Let it be said of Rohnstroem, however, in conclusion to this analysis of his criticism that he was aware of the potential significance, although not realized, of the Jeu de saint Nicolas in the history of the early French theatre: "En effet, la France aurait bien pu voir sortir du drame de Bodel un théâtre national.… Mais les auteurs de miracles et de mystères après Bodel ne furent pas à la hauteur de la grande mission que le trouvère d'Arras leur avait imposée par son ouvrage si plein de germes féconds et remarquable: sous leurs mains inhabiles, le genre, vécut, comme les prisoniers de Durand, 'en mourant,' et la tragédie classique de la Renaissance, dans sa marche triomphale, ne trouva en France au XVI^e siècle qu'une littérature dramatique presque morte" (p. 68).

Rohnstroem's view of the Nicolas has essentially been that of more recent scholars.¹⁴ The prefaces to the most recent editions, those of Jeanroy and Warne, present the same pattern of discussion and adopt his conclusions, both noting the hagiographical motif and the appeal of the crusading scenes, dwelling most on the vividness of the realistic, low-life elements and characterization.

In this survey of the highlights of the critical appreciation of the Jeu de saint Nicolas from the date of its discovery to the present century, an attempt has been made to show that, although great progress has been made towards a worthy understanding of the first miracle play of France, the tendency has been and remains, to judge it on the merits of separate features, prominence being given in turn to the heroic, the realistic and the hagiographic elements as distinct component parts, with a notable absence of an attempt to present an underlying unity.¹⁵ On the contrary, critics have expressed, as we have seen, varying degrees of embarrassment at the apparent irreconcilability of such disparate but closely interwoven elements. With the benefit of these critical studies, however, no matter how incomplete or biased they may be, and with all the advantages of the availability of a text clarified by a succession of scholarly enquiries it appears possible to approach the Jeu afresh and, by amending or extending previous literary criticisms, progress from an appreciation of particular features to a balanced, all-embracing view of its total inspiration.

Notes

¹ Editions: L.-J.-N. Monmerqué, Mélanges publiés pourla Société des Bibliophiles français: VII (Paris, 1834), pp. 3-84.

L.-J.-N. Monmerqué et F. Michel, Théâtre français au moyen âge (Paris, 1839), pp. 157-207 (with a translation).

G. Manz, Li jus de saint Nicholas des Arrasers Jean Bodel. Text mit einer Untersuchung der Sprache und des Metrums des Stückes, nebst Anmerkungen und Glossar, Heidelberg diss. (Erlangen, 1904); reviewed by A. Schulze, ZRP, XXX (1906), pp. 102-8, and by A. Guesnon, MA, XXI (1908), pp. 67-8.

A. Jeanroy, Jean Bodel, trouvère artésien du XIII^thsiècle: le Jeu de saint Nicolas, CFMA (Paris, 1925); reviewed by A. Wallensköld, NM, XXVII (1926), 176; by A. Hilka, ZRP, XLVI (1926), p. 492; and C. Brunel, BEC, LXXXVII (1926), pp. 407-8.

F. J. Warne, Jean Bodel: le Jeu de saint Nicolas, Blackwell's French Texts (Oxford, 1951); reviewed by G. Frank, RR, XLII (Dec. 1951), pp. 282-4; and by D. McMillan, MLR, XLVII (Apr. 1952), pp. 237-40.

² For the few details known about the life of Jean Bodel and for his literary activity, see 0. Rohnstroem, Etude sur Jean Bodel, these pour le doctorat (Uppsala, 1900), pp. ix-xvi.

³Le Miracle de Theophile was written by Rutebeuf in or near 1265.

⁴ Pierre Jean-Baptiste Le Grand d'Aussy, Fabliaux ou contes du XII^e et du XIII^e siècle (Paris, 1779), I, 336-47.

⁵ Onésime Le Roy, Etudes sur les mystères (Paris, 1837), pp. 13-32.

⁶ L. Petit de Julleville, Les Mystères (Paris, 1880), I, 95-107.

⁷ The Fleury manuscript, so called from its origin in the monastery of Fleury (also known as Saint Benoit-sur-Loire), is a collection of Latin liturgical plays of the early twelfth century. Four of these plays treat different legends of St. Nicholas. The text of the ten plays was published by Monmerqué, Mélanges, pp. 91-213. See Otto E. Albrecht, Four Latin plays of St. Nicholas from the twelfth century Fleury play-book (Philadelphia, 1935). Hilarius' play, Ludus super iconia sancti Nicolai, in Latin with French refrains, also of the early twelfth century, was first published by J. J. Champollion-Figeac, Hilarii Versus et Ludi (Paris, 1838).

⁸ For the summary of opinions in the controversy over the chronology of Bodel's works and the establishing of the date of his death as in 1209 or 1210, which finally disproved the theory of the reflection in the Jeu of the events of St. Louis' crusade, see Rohnstroem, Etude, pp. X-Xii.

⁹ Rohnstroem, Etude, pp. 41-70.

¹⁰Jacobus, a Voragine, Legenda aurea vulgo historia lombardica dicta, ed. Th. Graesse (Dresden and Leipzig, 1846), pp. 22-29.…

¹⁴ The opinions of critics before Rohnstroem seem to be based upon the findings of Petit de Julleville, although not without reminiscences of Le Roy. Thus, for example, Gaston Paris, La littérature française au moyen âge (Paris, 1888), pp. 239-241, stresses the double aspect of the Jeu, seen in the crusading scenes and the scenes of low life, discounting the hagiographical element almost entirely; Léon Clédat, Rutebeuf (Paris, 1891), p. 148, praises the crusading scenes but deplores the play as a whole: "Suivant le goût du temps, les scènes les plus relevées et les épisodes les plus vulgaires se succèdent dans ce drame touffu et maladroitement construit …"; Eugène Lintilhac, Le théâtre sérieux du moyen âge (Paris, 1904), pp. 248-258, was impressed by the crusading scenes which he saw, however, as only an hors d'cuvre to those of Arras low life, which despite a certain vivacity and witty dialogue, are "démesurées" and of only a documentary value. He, too, condemns what he calls "la bigarrure des tons": "Cette bigarrure est simplement l'effet d'une insouciance complète de l'unité d'impression chez notre trouvère; et si le disparate tourne parfois à un effet de contraste intéressant, il ne l'a pas fait exprès" (p. 258). See also Marius Sepet, Origines catholiques du théâtre moderne (Paris, 1901), pp. 177-201.

¹⁵ An interesting exception to this might be claimed in the comment of Ida Del Valle de Paz, La Leggenda di S. Nicola nella tradizione poetica medioevale in Francia (Florence, 1921), pp. 96-107. Here, the Jeu is explained as an intensely lyrical work, not so much a miracle play as the record of the conflicting interests of an impressionable jongleur, addicted to the baser pleasures of life but not insensitive to higher spiritual calls. The contrasts and incongruities of the play are justified artistically (it is claimed) as accurate representations of the incongruities and contrasts of the emotions and interests of the author: "… e se da una parte riceviamo l'impressione dell' accozzo bizzarro dei toni piu disparati, tutto viene a spiegare col suo sorriso un po' tormentato, la strana, complessa figura di Jean Bodel, pellegrino e gaudente, esaltato de misticismo in mezzo ai tracorsi della sua fragila umanita" (p. 107).