Well, my summer has most definitely been a summer break. Anyhow.
C.S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love. 1936. Amazing what a memory will conjure up.
This book is a tour de force through the history of allegory, starting about as early as it could (Greek and Roman writings) and continuing through Spenser's The Faerie Queene.
There are probably three centers where the book is of key importance or interest to me. The first is in its focused study of The Romance of the Rose. Here, Lewis is best at demystifying the process of allegory. Instead of looking at it as some sort of double-step, where an extra veil is drawn on one's eyes or an extra level of interpretation is required (as with a symbol), I should read working allegory as a story that functions on two levels of action - what literally happens, and what is represented by the action. The personifications are real versions of abstract qualities. For The Romance of the Rose, the characters can be regarded as figures of the lover, figures of the loved, or figures of both. Fair Welcome is a figure of the loved, as is the castle itself, and the other people there. My interest in Fair Welcome is partially relieved and partially revitalized. It isn't significant that the lover treats with Fair Welcome as a substitute for the Rose, because Fair Welcome is a part of that loved woman. I still think there is something going on with gender assignation, but it isn't as simple as, to use a quote I've overheard, "There's something gay going on there."
Two is the interstitial period, and particularly figures like Chaucer and Langland that tend to fill the middle line of allegory, where it develops and gets adapted to other genres (like the romance), or where it is developed enough to become a mere veneer for other work (rather like the 19th century Gothic architecture as compared to its 12th century roots). One point that is laughable here - how Lewis judges poems and poetry. Besides his other humorous disparagements and praises, he frequently draws the distinction between a poet and poetry (from Shelley or Wordsworth, for instance?). I think he struggles here with a form of the intentional fallacy that would soon emerge. What is best - a poet that realizes his talents and produces the greatest art intentionally, for intended meaning is more poignant (if not more meaningful) than accidental meaning. What many poets (and non-poets, in his parlance) produce - poetry, that which can delight and excite both the intellect and its sentiments, which has rhythm, structure, and intangible ectasy. I think I could learn from him how to judge quality in writing. At the same time, I see how silly such pursuits sound now. This is a day where we demonstrate the worth of a text through more subdued means. (I realized that the spots I observed were between poems and poetry, but both differences abound. His bias in the latter case is between what qualifies a full poem structurally, and the bits that strike him as good in any work.)
He reads the poets quite well, and I'll have to return to him when I'm done with Chaucer. He also gives a brief travel through the 15th century that is more a light skip, but which may be useful for summaries when I don't want to read a 24,000 line poem once, let alone twice.
Three is The Faerie Queene. He provides a diligent allegorical reading for each book, while being careful to distinguish those elements that do not cleanly fit his allegorical reading well. For Lewis, there is an allegorical core to every book, and then the spiraling adventures that can serve as examples or exemplars of the central theme but which cannot be read in the allegorical manner - they are fantasy, or romance, without much superstructure. Mutabilitie is the core without the dressings. Lewis is also good at distinguishing between the Italian epic tradition, with works like Ariosto's Orlando Furioso, where Spenser borrows obviously in great volume, and the English allegorical tradition, from which Spenser borrows a less provable mood and intention.
My discussion thus far must include one other factor, the role of courtly love. He traces that through ancient writing like Ovid, through early medieval Latin texts, and to Andreas Capellanus. Helen Cooper's criticism of Lewis here is fresh in my mind, of how he hallowed Andreas's exemplification of adulterous love as a rule by which to read other books by. I think, contrary to Lewis and with Cooper, that love can (and did) happen frequently in marriage in the romantic tradition, so that FQ, with its frequent marriages and the figure of amorous marriage, isn't the glorious exceptional endpoint to courtly love's common practice. At the same time, Lewis chose his texts well, and there seem to be these two parallel discourses of love, depending on whether one is reverent of or irreverent of marriage. Certainly marriage is no necessity for love, but the lack of it is not a necessity either.
Now for my notes:
(116) - Good explanation of allegory - the two realms of action here are the inner and the outer world. If I can distinguish between the two using the significatio, I can read the allegory.
(140) - The most relevant treatment of Fair Welcome in RotR. He depicts the breakdown in allegory, where Fair Welcome is treated as a young woman by the Old Woman, rather than a young bachelor as he appears. Lewis, typically, attributes this slip to clumsiness.
(142, 222, prior) typical places where poem/poetry dichotomy occur.
(163) A still relevant critique of Chaucerian study - we look too much to the "mocking" Chaucer, and not the serious Chaucer.
(185) He reads Criseyde spot-on here. Criseyde is driven by fear from the start, and seeks above all protection. All her actions can be read in this way, including her betrayal of Troilus.This makes her out to be a sympathetic character, one who ultimately fails the test of courtly love but gains pardon in a court of human emotion.
(220) tergiversation - the act of turning one's back on another.
(233-4) Lewis can only justify studying the 15th century by looking forward, though at points he shows that medievalist glint of really liking what he reads.
(247) He uses Occam's razor to determine that the author of a poem is a woman because the speaker is. While such a process is rather generous, it lies uneasily with me, because women will frequently write narratives for men (Marie de France the first to leap to mind), and men will write in women's voices (The Earl of Surrey the first to mind this time.) I suppose, if one must use an author's gender for any purpose, it is better that it is female?
(270) - Ah, this point made me wonder about age and bad intentions and gender. That's really all I have to say - why are aged women so often the evil party?
(297) Here's where the italian epic (in reference to FQ) comes up.
Showing posts with label The Romance of the Rose. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Romance of the Rose. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
The Romance of the Rose, Jean de Meun
I've taken a longer hiatus than I had hoped.
I have just finished reading Jean de Meun's version of the poem. I should call it an addendum. I'm still not quite sure what to make of it.
One fair point is that he uses the allegory differently. Guillaume de Lorris is not inclined to long speeches. His allegorical characters are significant in their dress, behavior, and how they act to each other. Jean de Meun keeps these aspects somewhat, but deluges them in the very long speeches that many of his figures (like Friend, Reason, Wealth, the Old Woman, Nature, and Genius) give. They speak for long periods of time, such that it becomes difficult to remember that it isn't just the narrator speaking. This leads to delightful confusions, like being confused about why the main character hates women so.
I needn't repeat the allegorical figures, since they are largely the same as Guillaume's, with shifts in their qualities. It is similarly difficult to summarize each speech, but I will attempt to do so.
We left Guillaume (hereafter the name of the speaker) when he was despairing over never entering the castle. He gives a fair summation of the current predicament. Then Reason comes along. In this version, she presents a separate allegory, featuring such figures as Youth, Old Age, Delight, Death, Travail, and Suffering. This leads into a long discussion on love, and particularly a debate between what loves are appropriate and inappropriate. The speaker is unconvinced, though, because the pure loves that Reason speaks of are irrecoverable after the fall. He misses the point of holding such a pure love, one outside of Fortune's domain, as an ideal. After a long turn into a debate about Justice, a concept that ties into Love through Christian theology, and then to Fortune and its mishaps at greater length, Reason abandons Guillaume.
Then Friend comes, again reflecting the order of the original. After his advice of ways to reach the rosebud, he then speaks at length about courtship. His main contention, which has several other parts, is that there is no such thing as a good woman. His contradictory advice vacillates between recommending that they should be avoided, and counseling him on how to handle women when the seemingly inevitable hitch occurs. Like Reason, Friend brings to mind a postlapsarian view of life in his own allegory, with Fraud, Sin, Misfortune, Pride, Covetousness, Avarice, Envy, Poverty, Larceny, Faint Heart, and Lady Laverna (goddess of thieves) overtaking Contentment. Quite a rabble. To the fallen men and women, little bits of good advice emerge, like not restraining women, correcting them kindly in the case of jealousy, and so on, pieces of advice that might double as willful but fortunate blindnesses.
Soon they assemble an army of Love. Again, they have the trouble of False Seeming and Constrained Abstinence (who will in the course of time have the Antichrist?!?). False Seeming, while convincing them that he should be there, delivers a sermon of his own that is duplicitous, though I don't recall the details. He marches a contingent to confront Evil Tongue, and after a debate between them, they fight and Evil Tongue is killed with all of his Norman soldiers. The tongue is cut out, and he is cast into a ditch. Perhaps the only way to quell the lashes of unfair rumors is to appear more virtuous than the tongue can attack, though such seeming will be false.
Then comes Old Woman, who gives plenty of advice as a woman who had once lived the life of a lady swindling her way through men. Fair Welcome and she have a discussion, as she urges him to wear the chaplet that Guillaume has given for him. He finally does, but she seems always to be egging him on to admit of some greater affection, one of the points that I suspect the work keeps male-male sexual tendencies uneasily alongside the allegory that places those affections as towards the rosebud. As for Old Woman's speech, she loved but one man, who swindled her. In the trading of gifts for the goods (if not the affection) of love, she emphatically preaches for trickiness and wariness in all dealings between the sexes. Her ultimate caution is to not wait too long - his youth will turn to age someday.
After the speech, Fair Welcome reiterates his honorable friendship with Guillaume, and they soon meet (with Pleasant Looks accompanying). Fear, Shame, and Rebuff prevent an extended reunion, and thus the assault on the castle picks up steam. At this point, the crux of battle, arround lines 15105 and 15165, Jean de Meun makes an important disclaimer. He doesn't want to offend men, or especially women by the following account. The words are intended only to instruct. His defense of his own conduct partly foists the blame on other authors that report the same thing, and (where it is true, I suppose) begs leave to tell truth for the sake of instruction. Talk about seeking suitors.
Then Nature and Genius come after the battle, and the account is nearly done. They talk between each other for a while, Nature then gives a confession in which she admits the power that she has and its one limitation towards the sinfulness of man. Genius hears the confession, absolves her, and excommunicates all of those who work against Nature's commands to procreate, in metaphors of plowing, writing, and so on.
Finally, Guillaume takes up his place, puts a staff in a hole, breaks the barrier in the aperture, and gains access to the rosebud. And by all that, I think it means they have sex. :P
Overall Observations
It's painfully obvious now why there is not a plot summary on Wikipedia. The introduction of this book attempts one, but acknowledges its own inadequate brevity. It is just not an easy thing to summarize, especially when many of the events happen twice, allegory depends on the details imparted to its characters, and much of the second part consists of speeches that often constitute stories and tangents of their own. Only a schematic plot description is possible if one wants to spend less than an entire day on doing just that.
I can imagine that this poem was read in installments on evenings to a particularly refined audience that would have been intimate witness to the contemporary allusions of Jean de Meun or Guillaume. Each poet's rendition perhaps appealed to its own time, but certainly Jean de Meun's work was only an addition rather than an adaptation based on how it occurs after Guillaume's in manuscripts. So Guillaume's version had not lost much if any currency. Instead, much like the new Star Wars movies did to the old, perhaps Jean's version capitalized on the first one's fame while itself appearing as a product of its time, with better special effects and the same dressings of the original wrapped in somewhat worse dialogue.
This is the classic example of medieval allegory. It does not descend into a simple allegory of virtues and vices. Wealth, Love, Shame, Jealousy, Reason, and False Seeming each have their own advantages and disadvantages, light sides and dark sides and rather gray sides that emerge in their actions. No post-Capellanus lover would argue that Jealousy was unnecessary to Love. No lover would argue that Love was always fair to them. The same with Reason, the Boethian complaint against some of Reason's attempted consolations foremost in my mind when Guillaume refused Reason's advice. This is an allegory that seeks to imprint itself in the bustle of things, amongst humanity, and the need to reproach men and women both for their behavior is a needed reproach against the subjects of such allegorical realism. Of course allegory appears prior to and after this, and not nearly always in this mode. But I think that religious and political allegories both owe something to this example. I wonder what those terms are.
I have just finished reading Jean de Meun's version of the poem. I should call it an addendum. I'm still not quite sure what to make of it.
One fair point is that he uses the allegory differently. Guillaume de Lorris is not inclined to long speeches. His allegorical characters are significant in their dress, behavior, and how they act to each other. Jean de Meun keeps these aspects somewhat, but deluges them in the very long speeches that many of his figures (like Friend, Reason, Wealth, the Old Woman, Nature, and Genius) give. They speak for long periods of time, such that it becomes difficult to remember that it isn't just the narrator speaking. This leads to delightful confusions, like being confused about why the main character hates women so.
I needn't repeat the allegorical figures, since they are largely the same as Guillaume's, with shifts in their qualities. It is similarly difficult to summarize each speech, but I will attempt to do so.
We left Guillaume (hereafter the name of the speaker) when he was despairing over never entering the castle. He gives a fair summation of the current predicament. Then Reason comes along. In this version, she presents a separate allegory, featuring such figures as Youth, Old Age, Delight, Death, Travail, and Suffering. This leads into a long discussion on love, and particularly a debate between what loves are appropriate and inappropriate. The speaker is unconvinced, though, because the pure loves that Reason speaks of are irrecoverable after the fall. He misses the point of holding such a pure love, one outside of Fortune's domain, as an ideal. After a long turn into a debate about Justice, a concept that ties into Love through Christian theology, and then to Fortune and its mishaps at greater length, Reason abandons Guillaume.
Then Friend comes, again reflecting the order of the original. After his advice of ways to reach the rosebud, he then speaks at length about courtship. His main contention, which has several other parts, is that there is no such thing as a good woman. His contradictory advice vacillates between recommending that they should be avoided, and counseling him on how to handle women when the seemingly inevitable hitch occurs. Like Reason, Friend brings to mind a postlapsarian view of life in his own allegory, with Fraud, Sin, Misfortune, Pride, Covetousness, Avarice, Envy, Poverty, Larceny, Faint Heart, and Lady Laverna (goddess of thieves) overtaking Contentment. Quite a rabble. To the fallen men and women, little bits of good advice emerge, like not restraining women, correcting them kindly in the case of jealousy, and so on, pieces of advice that might double as willful but fortunate blindnesses.
Soon they assemble an army of Love. Again, they have the trouble of False Seeming and Constrained Abstinence (who will in the course of time have the Antichrist?!?). False Seeming, while convincing them that he should be there, delivers a sermon of his own that is duplicitous, though I don't recall the details. He marches a contingent to confront Evil Tongue, and after a debate between them, they fight and Evil Tongue is killed with all of his Norman soldiers. The tongue is cut out, and he is cast into a ditch. Perhaps the only way to quell the lashes of unfair rumors is to appear more virtuous than the tongue can attack, though such seeming will be false.
Then comes Old Woman, who gives plenty of advice as a woman who had once lived the life of a lady swindling her way through men. Fair Welcome and she have a discussion, as she urges him to wear the chaplet that Guillaume has given for him. He finally does, but she seems always to be egging him on to admit of some greater affection, one of the points that I suspect the work keeps male-male sexual tendencies uneasily alongside the allegory that places those affections as towards the rosebud. As for Old Woman's speech, she loved but one man, who swindled her. In the trading of gifts for the goods (if not the affection) of love, she emphatically preaches for trickiness and wariness in all dealings between the sexes. Her ultimate caution is to not wait too long - his youth will turn to age someday.
After the speech, Fair Welcome reiterates his honorable friendship with Guillaume, and they soon meet (with Pleasant Looks accompanying). Fear, Shame, and Rebuff prevent an extended reunion, and thus the assault on the castle picks up steam. At this point, the crux of battle, arround lines 15105 and 15165, Jean de Meun makes an important disclaimer. He doesn't want to offend men, or especially women by the following account. The words are intended only to instruct. His defense of his own conduct partly foists the blame on other authors that report the same thing, and (where it is true, I suppose) begs leave to tell truth for the sake of instruction. Talk about seeking suitors.
Then Nature and Genius come after the battle, and the account is nearly done. They talk between each other for a while, Nature then gives a confession in which she admits the power that she has and its one limitation towards the sinfulness of man. Genius hears the confession, absolves her, and excommunicates all of those who work against Nature's commands to procreate, in metaphors of plowing, writing, and so on.
Finally, Guillaume takes up his place, puts a staff in a hole, breaks the barrier in the aperture, and gains access to the rosebud. And by all that, I think it means they have sex. :P
Overall Observations
It's painfully obvious now why there is not a plot summary on Wikipedia. The introduction of this book attempts one, but acknowledges its own inadequate brevity. It is just not an easy thing to summarize, especially when many of the events happen twice, allegory depends on the details imparted to its characters, and much of the second part consists of speeches that often constitute stories and tangents of their own. Only a schematic plot description is possible if one wants to spend less than an entire day on doing just that.
I can imagine that this poem was read in installments on evenings to a particularly refined audience that would have been intimate witness to the contemporary allusions of Jean de Meun or Guillaume. Each poet's rendition perhaps appealed to its own time, but certainly Jean de Meun's work was only an addition rather than an adaptation based on how it occurs after Guillaume's in manuscripts. So Guillaume's version had not lost much if any currency. Instead, much like the new Star Wars movies did to the old, perhaps Jean's version capitalized on the first one's fame while itself appearing as a product of its time, with better special effects and the same dressings of the original wrapped in somewhat worse dialogue.
This is the classic example of medieval allegory. It does not descend into a simple allegory of virtues and vices. Wealth, Love, Shame, Jealousy, Reason, and False Seeming each have their own advantages and disadvantages, light sides and dark sides and rather gray sides that emerge in their actions. No post-Capellanus lover would argue that Jealousy was unnecessary to Love. No lover would argue that Love was always fair to them. The same with Reason, the Boethian complaint against some of Reason's attempted consolations foremost in my mind when Guillaume refused Reason's advice. This is an allegory that seeks to imprint itself in the bustle of things, amongst humanity, and the need to reproach men and women both for their behavior is a needed reproach against the subjects of such allegorical realism. Of course allegory appears prior to and after this, and not nearly always in this mode. But I think that religious and political allegories both owe something to this example. I wonder what those terms are.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The Romance of the Rose
Guillaume de Lorris wrote the first 4000 lines of this poem between 1225 and 1230. Jean de Meun wrote the remainder, feeling perhaps that the poem was unfinished, between 1269 and 1278. In total, the poem is about 22,000 lines long. Jean de Meun had a lot to say. The poem is preserved in over 200 manuscripts. (More than The Canterbury Tales.) Chaucer produced a translation of this poem.
I've read Guillaume's portion today, and the allegory is quite tasteful and pleasant. It is easiest to go through if I give a catalogue of character, a brief summary of the plot, and then a few observations.
Characters
After citing Macrobius's commentary on Cicero's Dream of Scipio (rather like one of Chaucer's heroes, though that hero is actually reading it), the Dreamer falls asleep. He soon dreams of coming across a walled garden in May, and sees the images on the walls, perhaps intended to keep people away that are old, hateful, covetous, and hypocritical. Then he searches for a door and finds only a small one. After he knocks, Idleness answers and lets him in. After wandering through the garden for a bit, he witnesses a dance, and is soon asked to join by Courtesy. A cavalcade of characters follows (not to be misleading though it alliterates - no horses are mentioned), encompassing the positive qualities of the garden, including pleasure, wealth, largesse, love, and youth.
Eventually the Dreamer is encouraged to wander again, and he comes across the Spring of Love, prefaced by the story of Narcissus and Echo. The Dreamer looks, sees the rose bushes and the most beautiful rose bud, and is immediately stricken by the five arrows of Eros meant to inspire love. He is then hunted and taken captive, until the Dreamer swears fealty to the Lover, sealed with a kiss on the mouth. The Lover then gives his commandments, which amount to suffering Love with the few consolations given the Dreamer - to think on his love, to talk about his love, and to see his love.
Dreamer then approaches the bushes, and is greeted by Fair Welcome, who is content to allow him to rest near the bud. When he asks to take the bud away, he is refused, and soon Rebuff and his cronies come by and kick Dreamer out. Disconsolate, he seeks a Friend for the solace of Pleasant Conversation. The Friend counsels diplomacy, which with the intervention of Pity and Generosity of Spirit softens Rebuff enough that he allows the Dreamer back in. He sits with Fair Welcome, who soon allows the Dreamer to kiss the bud.
Upon doing so, Evil Tongue spreads rumors about Fair Welcome and Dreamer. Soon, Jealousy is in on the act, and proclaims that they ought to build a tower around the bud, and keep Fair Welcome at the center of it. Once armed, garrisoned (with Norman soldiers!), and kept, Dreamer despairs, loving from afar both the bud and Fair Welcome.
Thoughts
First, homosocial. There is clearly an implied relationship between Fair Welcome and the Dreamer, and the Dreamer's responses to his absence indicate that, though the allegations might be salacious, it is less a fabrication of what isn't there than a misconstruing of what is. Fair Welcome serves as the point of access to the bud, a benevolent Pandarus-type character who indulges Dreamer in return for the pleasure of having given welcome. The two are warm, and in the earlier sense of the word intimate. The concluding speech by Dreamer indicates that he misses Fair Welcome more than he does the bud. It is nearly as if the rosebud is the object of Dreamer's affections, but Fair Welcome is its agency, a male duenna who receives the poet's advances. He does not restrict access altogether, but makes sure that such access is appropriate, within the strictures of courtliness that Love must be constrained to serve. In my mind, such agency could easily collapse into a Cyrano-like situation, where the Dreamer ends up loving the agent more than the pretty face, Cyrano over Christian. Could such a flip have happened then? I must think it could, having no evidence to the contrary.
And that goes without mentioning the kiss on the mouth that passes between the God of Love and the Dreamer. Certainly, they would have been less picky about such gestures than we are today, as we have turned a kiss into something erotic all the time. In this story, it may be an allusion of the sex that is to come. It could also be a greeting, or a seal of fealty. I think that we have more of an issue of the ambiguity between those statuses than they did. Either (the traditional assumption) the umbrage of the kiss depended on the situation such that categories didn't blend together, or (the generous assumption) there was a little swearing of fealty and eroticism in any kiss, no matter the primary context. I incline towards the latter. To do otherwise would be to ignore a key part of the context; would even a medieval man kiss the God of Love and not feel a little erotic about it?
Second, details. It's so funny to see the parenthetical explanations in places where I would never suspect that one was needed. For example, when Joy is described next to Pleasure, the poet quickly adds, "Who did not hate him in the least, but had given him her love when she was no more than seven years old" (14). Oh. Okay. I suppose that this is a jibe against those that would claim that Joy (with its exalted refinement) and Pleasure (with its earthly tones) are separate in theological grounds. Bodily pleasure serves as a distraction to salvation or happiness, while joy is the place where happiness takes its rest. The Thomistic view would disagree with Guillaume on this point, and though I don't know enough about other scholastic movements at the time, I suspect others would too.
Also, the details like dress and surroundings fascinate me. Why does it matter that Wealth is wearing a stone that protects against toothaches? (I wonder if anyone has ever cross-referenced this with lapidaries of the time, which also record these weird traits.) Do the many spices in the garden (cloves, liquorice, fresh cardamum, zedoary, anise, cinnamon, and "many delicious spices good to eat after a meal") make it more lavish? What are those spices good to eat after a meal? All I can think of is "dessert" or "after dinner mint." Oh, how impoverished my understanding is. This early tendency towards making lists is masterful compared to many later medieval poems, which turn these brief descriptive interludes into indulgent and obsessive fights over who can do so most lavishly.
Third, Arthurian allusion. Just a note that it does occur, including the company of Largesse, and an allusion to Kay and Gawain where the former comes off horribly and the latter quite well in courtesy.
Protect me! Tomorrow I plan to put a big dent in Jean de Meun.
(Note - I've also been reading through The English Romance in Time by Helen Cooper and The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell. I'm nowhere near finishing either, but I might post on them too when I feel less long-winded.)
I've read Guillaume's portion today, and the allegory is quite tasteful and pleasant. It is easiest to go through if I give a catalogue of character, a brief summary of the plot, and then a few observations.
Characters
- Dreamer - Rather self explanatory.Soon falls into a dream vision.
- The Images on the Walls of the Garden
- Hate - (f) woman wild with fury
- Cruelty - (f)
- Baseness - (f) immoderate scandalmonger
- Covetousness - (f) take and give nothing in return
- Avarice - (f) give nothing
- Envy - (f) hates the best, tears down all who do good
- Sorrow - (f)tormented
- Old Age - (f) aged, wrinkled, cold
- Religious Hypocrisy - (f) fearlessly commits any crime, though appearing religious
- Poverty - (f) naked, but for a sack.
- The Dance in the Garden
- Idleness - (f) opens the door for the Dreamer - enjoys amusements
- Pleasure - (m) intimate friend of Idleness, owns garden and built its walls
- Courtesy - (f) invites Dreamer into the dance
- Joy - (f) Pleasure's sweetheart
- God of Love - (m) ruler of lovers, humbler of the haughty, owner of two bows with five arrows each
- Beauty
- Simplicity
- Generosity of Spirit
- Company
- Fair Seeming
- Pride
- Baseness
- Shame
- Despair
- Inconstancy
- Beauty - (f) resplendent lady
- Wealth - (f) lavish lady, wearing the most distinguished jewelry, stones with magical properties
- Wealth's lover, unnamed - a well-kept man
- Largesse - (f) giver of goods
- The accompanying knight from Arthur's court, courageous and strong in tournaments
- Generosity of Spirit - (f)whiter than snow
- Youth - (f) the 12 year old lover, with a boy of the same age constantly kissing.
- Pleasant Looks - (m) carrier of the God of Love's equippage
- Parable of the Fountain
- Narcissus
- Echo
- Gifts of Love - to soothe the aching lover
- Pleasant Thought
- Pleasant Conversation
- Pleasant Looks
- The Rosebud - the object of Dreamer's desire, yet unopen and keeping a fresh, aromatic scent
- Chastity - (f) the keeper of the Rosebud
- Venus - (f) Chastity's mortal enemy, mother of the God of Love (Eros), goddess or fairy in appearance
- Fair Welcome - (m) son of Courtesy, intimate friend to Dreamer
- Keepers of the Bud
- Rebuff - (m) grouch
- Evil Tongue - (m) slanderer, alleges inappropriate relationshp between Fair Welcome and Dreamer
- Shame (f) - daughter by Reason and Fiend, conceived when Reason looked on Fiend
- Fear (f) - daughter of Jealousy, sent when Reason sent Shame to Chastity to help guard the rosebuds
- Reason - (f) counsels that one should forget love, rebuffed
- Friend - (m) hears Dreamer's complaints (in accord with Pleasant Conversation), and counsels diplomacy and patience
- Aid from Heaven - both seek understanding from Rebuff
- Generosity of Spirit - (f)
- Pity - (f)
- Jealousy - (f) argues for building the tower enclosing the buds
- Lechery, Lust - (m) enemies mentioned by Jealousy
- Fortune - (f) the keeper of the wheel that casts the Dreamer down
After citing Macrobius's commentary on Cicero's Dream of Scipio (rather like one of Chaucer's heroes, though that hero is actually reading it), the Dreamer falls asleep. He soon dreams of coming across a walled garden in May, and sees the images on the walls, perhaps intended to keep people away that are old, hateful, covetous, and hypocritical. Then he searches for a door and finds only a small one. After he knocks, Idleness answers and lets him in. After wandering through the garden for a bit, he witnesses a dance, and is soon asked to join by Courtesy. A cavalcade of characters follows (not to be misleading though it alliterates - no horses are mentioned), encompassing the positive qualities of the garden, including pleasure, wealth, largesse, love, and youth.
Eventually the Dreamer is encouraged to wander again, and he comes across the Spring of Love, prefaced by the story of Narcissus and Echo. The Dreamer looks, sees the rose bushes and the most beautiful rose bud, and is immediately stricken by the five arrows of Eros meant to inspire love. He is then hunted and taken captive, until the Dreamer swears fealty to the Lover, sealed with a kiss on the mouth. The Lover then gives his commandments, which amount to suffering Love with the few consolations given the Dreamer - to think on his love, to talk about his love, and to see his love.
Dreamer then approaches the bushes, and is greeted by Fair Welcome, who is content to allow him to rest near the bud. When he asks to take the bud away, he is refused, and soon Rebuff and his cronies come by and kick Dreamer out. Disconsolate, he seeks a Friend for the solace of Pleasant Conversation. The Friend counsels diplomacy, which with the intervention of Pity and Generosity of Spirit softens Rebuff enough that he allows the Dreamer back in. He sits with Fair Welcome, who soon allows the Dreamer to kiss the bud.
Upon doing so, Evil Tongue spreads rumors about Fair Welcome and Dreamer. Soon, Jealousy is in on the act, and proclaims that they ought to build a tower around the bud, and keep Fair Welcome at the center of it. Once armed, garrisoned (with Norman soldiers!), and kept, Dreamer despairs, loving from afar both the bud and Fair Welcome.
Thoughts
First, homosocial. There is clearly an implied relationship between Fair Welcome and the Dreamer, and the Dreamer's responses to his absence indicate that, though the allegations might be salacious, it is less a fabrication of what isn't there than a misconstruing of what is. Fair Welcome serves as the point of access to the bud, a benevolent Pandarus-type character who indulges Dreamer in return for the pleasure of having given welcome. The two are warm, and in the earlier sense of the word intimate. The concluding speech by Dreamer indicates that he misses Fair Welcome more than he does the bud. It is nearly as if the rosebud is the object of Dreamer's affections, but Fair Welcome is its agency, a male duenna who receives the poet's advances. He does not restrict access altogether, but makes sure that such access is appropriate, within the strictures of courtliness that Love must be constrained to serve. In my mind, such agency could easily collapse into a Cyrano-like situation, where the Dreamer ends up loving the agent more than the pretty face, Cyrano over Christian. Could such a flip have happened then? I must think it could, having no evidence to the contrary.
And that goes without mentioning the kiss on the mouth that passes between the God of Love and the Dreamer. Certainly, they would have been less picky about such gestures than we are today, as we have turned a kiss into something erotic all the time. In this story, it may be an allusion of the sex that is to come. It could also be a greeting, or a seal of fealty. I think that we have more of an issue of the ambiguity between those statuses than they did. Either (the traditional assumption) the umbrage of the kiss depended on the situation such that categories didn't blend together, or (the generous assumption) there was a little swearing of fealty and eroticism in any kiss, no matter the primary context. I incline towards the latter. To do otherwise would be to ignore a key part of the context; would even a medieval man kiss the God of Love and not feel a little erotic about it?
Second, details. It's so funny to see the parenthetical explanations in places where I would never suspect that one was needed. For example, when Joy is described next to Pleasure, the poet quickly adds, "Who did not hate him in the least, but had given him her love when she was no more than seven years old" (14). Oh. Okay. I suppose that this is a jibe against those that would claim that Joy (with its exalted refinement) and Pleasure (with its earthly tones) are separate in theological grounds. Bodily pleasure serves as a distraction to salvation or happiness, while joy is the place where happiness takes its rest. The Thomistic view would disagree with Guillaume on this point, and though I don't know enough about other scholastic movements at the time, I suspect others would too.
Also, the details like dress and surroundings fascinate me. Why does it matter that Wealth is wearing a stone that protects against toothaches? (I wonder if anyone has ever cross-referenced this with lapidaries of the time, which also record these weird traits.) Do the many spices in the garden (cloves, liquorice, fresh cardamum, zedoary, anise, cinnamon, and "many delicious spices good to eat after a meal") make it more lavish? What are those spices good to eat after a meal? All I can think of is "dessert" or "after dinner mint." Oh, how impoverished my understanding is. This early tendency towards making lists is masterful compared to many later medieval poems, which turn these brief descriptive interludes into indulgent and obsessive fights over who can do so most lavishly.
Third, Arthurian allusion. Just a note that it does occur, including the company of Largesse, and an allusion to Kay and Gawain where the former comes off horribly and the latter quite well in courtesy.
Protect me! Tomorrow I plan to put a big dent in Jean de Meun.
(Note - I've also been reading through The English Romance in Time by Helen Cooper and The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell. I'm nowhere near finishing either, but I might post on them too when I feel less long-winded.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
