BIBLIOGRAPHY
There is no comprehensive discussion of the topic. Various
aspects are
treated in R. Allers, “Microcosmus from
Anaximandros to
Paracelsus,” Traditio,
2 (1944), 319-407; P.
Archambault, “The
Analogy of the 'Body' in Renaissance
Political Literature,”
Bibliotèque d'humanisme et renais-
sance,
29 (1967), 21-53; N. O. Brown, Love's
Body (New
York, 1966); A.-H. Chroust, “The
Corporate Idea and the
Body Politic in the Middle Ages,” Review of Politics,
9
(1947), 423-52; F. W. Coker, Organismic Theories of the
State: Nineteenth-Century
Interpretations of the State as
Organism or as Person (New
York, 1910); G. P. Conger,
Theories of Macrocosm and Microcosm in the History of
Philosophy (New York, 1922); O. Gierke, Natural
Law and
the Theory of Society, trans. E. Barker, 2 vols.
(Cambridge,
1934); idem, Political Theories of the
Middle Ages, trans.
F. Maitland (Cambridge, 1900); D. G. Hale,
The Body
Politic: A Political Metaphor in
Renaissance English Litera-
ture
(The Hague, 1971); E. H. Kantorowicz, The King's Two
Bodies (Princeton, 1957); E. Lewis, “Organic Tendencies
in
Medieval Political Thought,” American
Political Science
Review,
32 (1938), 849-76; H. de Lubac, Corpus Mysticum:
L'Eucharistie et l'église au moyen
âge (Paris, 1949); W.
Nestle, “Die Fabel
des Menenius Agrippa,” Klio,
21 (1927),
350-60; J. E. Phillips, The State in Shakespeare's Greek and
Roman Plays
(New York, 1940); E. M. W. Tillyard, The
Elizabethan
World Picture (London, 1943; New York, 1961).
DAVID G. HALE
[See also Class; Evolutionism; General Will; Health and
Disease;
Macrocosm and Microcosm; Myth; Nature; Or-
ganicism.]
