Ethical Adjacency in Piers Plowman

The chapter argues that the intellectual tradition that underlies medieval personification debate is Aristotelian and medieval logical teaching on ‘opposites’, the relationship by which opposed terms illuminate each other—available in Aristotle’s elementary logical works. This teaching has a special relevance to personification debate, where the heuristic drive is dramatized in speakers that represent opposed positions and phenomena, each of which is explored in the process of debate itself. This suggests why personification debate provides for over a thousand years one of the main tools with which allegory unpacks its structuring terms and reflects on its conflictual work. Aristotle’s teaching on opposites also enables us to query some aspects of the literary history of medieval debate literature; it suggests that a critical concern about resolution in debate, or its lack, fails to see where the real intellectual work of debate occurs. It also suggests that the critical distinction between supposedly open ‘horizontal’ debates and closed ‘vertical’ debates may be misguided. In fact, Aristotle’s subcategory of the ‘relative’ opposition (master and slave, artisan and tool) often involves a hierarchy. The chapter uses these materials to argue that personification debate can be formally unresolved and ‘vertical’, and yet also challenging and seriously investigative. This is illustrated with analyses of some debates, several hierarchical: ‘four daughters of God’, body and soul, Nature and Grace (Deguileville) and the Middle English Pearl.