some imitative renderings, not under an hallucination of re-
producing the original poetry, but in the conviction that of
the elements composing literary connotation the most sug-
gestive in translation is the habit of rhythm. Passing from
translation through annotated extracts to the discussion of
original texts, I have sought to persuade my readers that
Middle English is not altogether beyond them, and that it
is too interesting and significant to be slurred.

The frontiers of literature are so broad that no single dis-
cussion, whatever its length, can hope to be exhaustive.
Though medieval literature is inseparable from medieval
theology and sociology, this larger view is hardly furthered
by presenting all three at once. The necessity of holding
to one aspect becomes a virtue in so far as it leads a stu-
dent of literature to begin with literature itself; not with
biography, nor even with history, but with that expression of
truth which has endured because of its beauty; not with the
poet, but with the poem. To such an approach we are fur-
ther invited by the scantiness of medieval biography. The
middle age apparently thought of biography as belonging
rather to men of action than to men of letters; and this
idea, in spite of our modern curiosity, is still suggestive of
due proportion. The necessity of beginning with Piers
Plowman itself, for lack of any certain knowledge of its
author, suggests a sound order of study. In another way
also my discussion is strictly limited. Many works are
deliberately omitted in order that the significant few may
stand out. For this book is meant to be neither a history
nor a directory, but a guide to the appreciation of medieval
literature.

My Columbia colleagues have given me unstinted time.
Professor Matthews, after entering sympathetically into
the original idea, took pains to reappraise the whole scope

-vi-