JEAN GERSON AND THE DEBATE ON THE ROMANCE OF THE ROSE

Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski

What was at stake in the debate on the Romance of the Rose? Why would a learned authoress, a famous theologian and a group of intel- lectual clerics spend untold hours either attacking or defending a work written in French that was at that point over a hundred years old? For the debaters nothing less was at stake than the function and power of literature in their society. Does vernacular literature have a moral responsibility toward its audience? This was one of the fundamental questions addressed by all the participants in the debate. Yet their opinions on the book’s value differed enormously. By its adversaries the Rose was seen as inciting husbands to domes- tic violence; as leading to bad morals and from there to heresy; as a book that destroys the very fabric of medieval society and should therefore be burned. By its supporters it was praised as a marvelous compendium teaching good morals and overflowing with the learn- ing of an almost divine theologian named Jean de Meun. Who was right, the rhodophiles or the rhodophobes?1 The Romance of the Rose was one of the most popular texts of the Middle Ages. Over two hundred manuscripts (many of them beau- tifully illuminated) and printed editions survive from the period between the thirteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Rose was also an infinitely rich work, open to almost as many interpretations as there were readers.2 Composed by two different authors, and Jean de Meun, the two quite distinct parts of the romance date from c. 1230 and c. 1270 respectively. While nothing is known about Guillaume, there is somewhat more information on Jean de Meun: he was the author of a Testament as well as a translator

1 These terms are the creation of Eric Hicks to designate the pro- and anti- Roman de la Rose factions. 2 For the number of manuscripts and editions see Sylvia Huot, The Romance of the Rose and its Medieval Readers: Interpretation, Reception, Manuscript Transmission (Cambridge, Engl., 1993), 7. The same work also examines the many ways of read- ing the Rose. 318 renate blumenfeld-kosinski into French of Vegetius’ treatise on the art of warfare, of ’ Consolation of Philosophy and of the letters of Abelard and Heloise.3 But his most famous work was of course his 18,000 verse addition to Guillaume de Lorris’ 4000 verse allegorical love poem. In the first part of the Rose the character of Amant, or the Lover, has an intricate in which he leaves his bed in town and arrives at an enclosed garden in the countryside, a locus amoenus, or enchanted place, hidden from view by a wall adorned with alle- gorical figures, such as Poverty, Avarice and Old Age, representing obstacles to the kind of love he will find in the garden.4 After get- ting past the garden’s gate keeper, Oiseuse (Idleness or Leisure), Amant comes upon a courtly dance in which personifications of various aspects of love, such as Courtesy and Wealth, participate. Also in the garden is the fountain of Narcissus—which could have a warning function for Amant, but does not—where he sees the reflection of a rose bush. Wounded by the god of love, Amant instantly falls in love with one of the buds and pledges his allegiance to the god. He then encounters the characters of Raison and Ami who become his counselors in the quest of the Rose. Raison wants to dissuade him from his foolish love, while Ami wants to further his amorous desires. Guillaume’s part of the poem ends with the Rose and her welcoming aspect, Bel Acueil, under lock and key in the Castle of Jealousy. This amorous impasse provides the starting point for Jean de Meun’s lengthy and involved second part of the Rose. Here any kind of linear plot soon gives way to seemingly endless discourses by char- acters such as Raison, Ami, Faux Semblant (False Seeming), La Vieille (Old Woman), the Jaloux ( Jealous Husband), Nature and Genius. These discourses provide fascinating insights into the ideas of the time. We learn about the respective merits of love and friend- ship, culled from Boethius by Raison, as well as about various myths through her learned expositions. We get Ami’s advice on gaining a woman’s love by tricks. We hear criticism of the mendicant friars and beguines, put into the mouth of Faux Semblant and can sam-

3 For biographical and bibliographical details see Sylvie Lefèvre, “Jean de Meun,” in Dictionnaire des lettres françaises, Moyen Age (Paris, 1992), pp. 817–19. Some of his translations are lost. 4 For a brief but comprehensive introduction to the Rose see Sarah Kay, The Romance of the Rose (London, 1995).