Guillaume de Lorris

23. The Romance of the Rose by Guillaume de Lorris & Jean de Meun
translation and notes: from Old French by Frances Horgan (1994)
written: circa 1230/1275
format: 365-page Oxford World Classic paperback
acquired: January read: Mar 3 – Apr 7 time reading: 21:34, 3.6 mpp
rating: 4
genre/style: medieval literature theme: Chaucer
locations: mythological garden
about the author: Guillaume de Lorris (c. 1200 – c. 1240). He is named within as the author of the first 4,058 verses, otherwise nothing is show more known about him. Jean de Meun, author of the remaining 17,724 verses, lived c1240-1305.

There is a terrific review of the same edition of this book on this page by LT user baswood, from 2011. I'll have to leave you to his review to capture the essence.

This was a really influential work. Dante and Chaucer, in particular took this in. Chaucer translated it from Middle French to his own Middle English in the late 1300s. The book is a simple story - a youth, in a dream, stumbles upon a magical garden of dancing immortals. Pleasure, Joy, and so on, fulfil their names. Love is there too, with a quill of arrows. Our youth, firmly struck by five different of Love's arrows, falls deeply in love with a "rose". But when he kisses the rose immortals of very different leanings appear, Jealousy, Shame, Fear, etc, and they react in anger, send him away, and build a fortress around the rose. The youth, now lovesick, strives to find a way back to his rose and appeals to the god of Love.

The work has its own little story. One author, [[Guillaume de Lorris]], otherwise unknown, wrote a short incomplete opening in his own French. Then 40 years later another author, [[Jean de Meun]], associated with the Paris university, expanded and completed it, without changing any of the essential story elements. There is no documentary evidence of this origin story, other than that the work itself states this, and that it changes tone. It opens light, creative, and fun. Then the monologues become really really long. [[Jean de Meun]]'s section keeps the tone light, but he expands the monologues, touching on various philosophical ideas. It gets slow in places.

It's a playful work in several ways. There is, of course, the romance and sex. It gets very explicit, even if the wording is allegorical. But the philosophy is a game touching on serious stuff. The university in Paris was in some controversy at the time between, on one hand, devoutly religious strict scholars, and, on the other, liberal, lay, perhaps even atheist, scholars. There was real bitterness, with scholars getting excommunicated and exiled out of France. [[Jean de Meun]] was playing with some of the more serious ideas getting tossed about. But he's messing around. The references he cites are often misused, or not relevant. The ideas his characters work out get very convoluted, and it's hard to believe this wasn't made confusing by playful intent. In a way it was a Monty Python or Terry Pratchett of its own time - intelligent, fun, irreverent, and impudent.

The idea of tihs is wonderful. The execution will vary with the reader and their mood. I was ok with it but did not fall in love.

2023
https://www.librarything.com/topic/348551#8115253 show less

This was a best seller in its day. Perhaps the most widely read and controversial poem of the late middle ages and early renaissance. It was quarrelled over and moralised about; not surprising since its subject matter is amorous desire, but does it still have any relevance for the modern reader?

It helps that the version I read was the prose translation in English by Frances Horgan, which is accessible to the modern reader, but still maintains a feel for the medieval text. There appears to be show more no liberties taken with the language and no modern idioms jump out at you. It is one of the great allegorical dream visions of the middle ages started by Guillaume de Lorris in the middle of the 13th century and then enlarged and enhanced by Jean de Meun some forty years later. Part I opens with a twenty year old man dreaming that as he is walking along a river bank he comes across a walled enclosure. Idleness invites him inside to a beautiful garden owned by Pleasure. The dreamer is invited to join in with a group of dancers and then as he gazes into a clear stream he spots the reflection of a rosebud. At that moment he is shot by five arrows released by the God of Love and from then on he is the Lover with only one thought in his head: to pluck the Rosebud. He is helped initially by Fair Welcome, but Rebuff bellows at him to leave the garden. Sorrowful and lonely the Lover is counselled by Reason and then a Friend suggests he try again in the garden. He gets inside the garden and finds the Rosebud, but when he kisses her all hell breaks loose and Evil Tongue, Rebuff and Jealousy drive him back out of the garden. Jealousy then erects a castle around the roses and imprisons Fair Welcome. Jean De Meun then picks up the story in part II where the Lover is again counselled by Reason. He rejects her advice and again seeks advice from Friend. He fails in an attempt to get Wealth to help him, but finally the God of Love summons his barons to launch an attack on the castle. They have False Seeming and Constrained Abstinence now on their side and with the help of Old Woman liberate Fair Welcome from his prison. A pitched battle ensues with Jealousy and her minions and it is only with the help of Nature and Genius that the Lover gets to pluck the Rose.

Part I written by Guillaume De Lorris is a medieval romance based on the provisions of courtly love. In this version the Lover only manages to kiss the Rose and the feeling is that this is as far as he should go. It is a charming story written in the first person and has some beautiful descriptions of the garden and the dancers. It has a dream like quality, but there are some disquieting undertones which come to life with the appearance of the hideous Evil Tongue and the rough Rebuff. This part ends with a soliloquy as the Lover bemoans his fate in typical medieval fashion:

"love is so capricious that he robbed me of everything at once, just when I thought I had won. It is the same with Fortune, who fills men's hearts with bitterness but at other times flatters and caresses them. Her appearance changes swiftly, smiling one moment sad the next. She has a wheel that turns and when she wishes, she raises the lowest to the very highest place, while he who is at the top is plunged with one turn into the mud"

Part II written by Jean De Meun is five times longer and picks up the story where De Lorris left it. In De Meun's hands the charming tale of courtly love becomes something entirely different. It becomes a story of how a Lover will use all possible ways and means to get into bed with the Rose. The allegorical framework is preserved with the personifications introduced by De Lorris continuing to play their parts. This time however False Seeming and Constrained Abstinence play crucial roles. The innocence of the dream vision that was so much a part of De Lorris's tale has gone for good. The text becomes more wordy, less unified, there are now digressions, sermons and debates. De Meun starts his story with a long speech by Reason, who discourses at length on love in all its various forms (carnal desire, natural love, fellowship, friendship). Much of this is a re-write of Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy. Reasons advice is rejected and Friend launches on a long discourse on the subject of women. The Consolation of Philosophy is again used as source material but this time it is bent and warped out of shape. "I am not speaking of good women - there are none" says Friend and much of his speech appears misogynist, however much of what he says is ironical and even satirical:

" But if the women beats him or insults him, he should take care that his heart does not change. If he sees himself beaten or insulted, even if she should tear his living flesh with her nails, he should take no revenge, but rather thank her and say he would be happy to spend his whole life in such torment, provided that he knew that his service was pleasing to her, or even indeed that he would freely die there and then rather than live without her."

De Meun as is usual with medieval writers relies heavily on his sources. Apart from Boethius, Juvenal, Ovid, Horace and Plato are all heavily plundered. This together with his use of irony and the personifications allows him to present a number of different view points. There is no one "authority" here, but a number of them and the reader is never sure whose views are being expressed. De Meun can hide behind this to a certain extent and allows his text to be opened up for debate. It has the feel of being written for the universities where debate held centre stage: Does the Romance show how a rose can be plucked or does it show the moral degradation that such an activity suggests?

The poem continues to become more diversified as De Meun distances himself from the Lover. All sorts of stuff is crammed into the text: Aristotle's cosmology, a debate on chastity, women's hygiene, table manners, a condemnation of the mendicant friars and the right way to deal with premature hair loss. Much of life in medieval times is recorded here. It just about holds together with De Meun going back to his story of the Lover and the assault on the castle. Jealousy is finally put to flight and the Lover finally gets to his Rose, leaving the reader with little doubt as to what happens next:

"I can tell you that at last when I had shaken the bud, I scattered a little seed there. This was when I had touched the inside of the rosebud and explored all its little leaves, for I longed and it seemed good to me to probe its very depths."

The poem was written in the vernacular (13th century French) as opposed to Latin. French was just beginning to find acceptance in official circles. Jean De Meun was able to demonstrate the power of the written word as people were able to read into it just what they liked. There was something for everybody and it showed how a text was open to different interpretations. De Meuns use of irony and satire managed to keep his poem just the right side of propriety.

What relevance has the poem to readers today? Well, I think it is an essential read for anybody interested in medieval literature. One of the first and best allegorical dream visions. Frances Horgans prose translation opens it up for the more general reader, who may enjoy the dreamlike quality of Guillaume de Lorris. Jean De Meuns continuation where the poem leaps in all sorts of directions is full of interest. It has its longueurs, but I think there is enough here to delight, annoy and scandalise. What more do you want? show less

As its existence and history as a highly popular early medieval text, I enjoyed knowing I've read this looooong poem and taking a deeper look at how it reflects medieval attitudes and ideas on love and romance. The allegorical aspect was well done, if a little heavy handed from the view of a modern reader. I liked looking backwards from this text and seeing the influences from Ovid and Greek works, as well as looking forwards and seeing how writers like Chaucer took inspiration from this. show more

The worst part of this book (again, from a modern standpoint) was the fact that characters had monologues that went on for AGES. We're talking 50 pages here. It was incredibly tedious to get through at times! But I also understand that these detailed monologues were a new thing in developing medieval Western romance and would have been a novelty to hear read, so I don't completely dislike it. I'm just saying it's a read that you've gotta commit to or you're just gonna get lost in the pages and pages and PAGES of speeches.

Like I said, I'm glad I read it! I don't think I'll ever reread the entire poem cover to cover again, but I am going to take a few more zoomed-in looks at the more interesting passages. :) show less

At times hard to read lots of long speeches and discourses. I find allegories at times tiring. This one though has a goodly share of wisdom and insight in its pages. To read literature from the Middle Ages it is interesting to note the references they make and what they were familiar with. Lots of Greek, Roman and even Pagan myths were very well known, and of course the Bible.