Logo DBNL
'A Romance of a Rose and Florentine: The Flemish Adaptation of the Romance of the Rose' (1992)

'A Romance of a Rose and Florentine: The Flemish Adaptation of the Romance of the Rose'

(1992)–Dieuwke E. van der Poel–rechtenstatus Auteursrechtelijk beschermd

Vorige

Dieuwke E. van der Poel

12. A Romance of a Rose and Florentine: The Flemish Adaptation of the Romance of the Rose+

The Roman de la Rose of Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun has been a very popular and influential work. Critics have noted the exceptionally great number of complete and fragmentary manuscripts that have come down to us, their profound influence on French and English literature, and the adaptations that were made in various languages: English, Italian, Dutch. These adaptations have not yet received the attention they deserve in international research. If the adaptations are considered as mere derivatives of the French text, one neglects the wealth of information they can provide about the reception of the Roman de la Rose. The attitude of the translating or adapting poet toward the original can be deduced from a comparison between original and adaptation. What he transmitted faithfully reflects what he appreciated and considered important; what he changed and the way that he changed it reflect what he felt had to be adjusted, either because he thought he could improve the text, or because he felt the text had to be transformed to suit the tastes of his own audience.1 The adaptation thus allows us to discern the poet's ideas about literature.

The above holds true for the two Middle Dutch adaptations of the Roman de la Rose. Both came into being at about the same time and the translators worked independently, though it is possible that one was acquainted with the work of the other. Both were made not long after the completion of the French text and can be regarded as contemporary reactions.2 These Middle Dutch adaptations are all the more interesting because of the differences between them. One, a fairly faithful translation, is called Die Rose. Only the first name of the author is known: Heinric.3 He executed his translation by approximately 1325, shortening the text consid-

erably: it consists of only 14412 lines (as opposed to 21780 lines in Langlois's edition of the French text). Most of the abridgments occur in the part by Jean de Meun. For example, the discourses of Nature and Genius are omitted entirely,4 as is the story of Pygmalion. Judging from the manuscript tradition, it is likely that this translation was rather widely known: the text survives in three complete manuscripts and in seven fragments, probably derived from five codices-a considerable number for a Middle Dutch text.

The other translation is preserved in nine extant fragments only, originating from two codices and forming a total of nearly 3000 lines. This text, dating from about 1290, was called the Tweede Rose (Second Rose) by its editor, but I prefer to use a more neutral designation: the Flemish Rose.5 The author's name is not known. Some portions of the text he translated faithfully, others he rewrote. He was a poet of exceptional stature, and he had a comprehensive overview of the entire Roman de la Rose, as is evident from the fact that he sometimes changed the sequence of episodes without, however, disturbing the logical coherence of the narrative. The most sensational change this adapter made concerns the allegorical framework. A complete survey of these two adaptations is far beyond the scope of this chapter.6 Here, I will concentrate on the Flemish Rose, and in particular on the modifications introduced in the allegorical structure of the poem.

Due to the fragmentary transmission of the text, the adaptation technique cannot be viewed in full: for most of the text, there is no way of telling how the adapter rendered the text in Middle Dutch.7 Another complicating factor is that the adapter used a copy of the Rose related to Langlois's B family, a group that includes some considerably shortened versions of the text.8 This means that in some cases it is not certain whether a given episode was omitted by the adapter or was already absent in the French text from which he worked. Nevertheless, it is possible to formulate a likely hypothesis about the adapter's treatment of those portions of the text now lost. The adapter of the Flemish Rose went about his work very systematically and deliberately. His interventions in the allegorical structure establish a certain pattern. On the basis of the transmitted fragments it seems likely that the allegory is changed only in those episodes that recount the Lover's adventures in the garden.

One of the most important changes is made right at the beginning of the text. In the Flemish Rose, the story has a totally new framework. The Roman de la Rose is introduced as the account of a dream the narrator had

five years earlier. The very beginning of the Flemish adaptation has not survived; from codicological data it can be inferred that the loss of text probably amounts to 300 lines at the most. Because of this loss, it is not absolutely certain that the format of the dream was dropped; but this seems likely to me. The introductory section of the Flemish Rose must have been far more extensive than that of its French source, consisting probably of 518 lines. The content of the story is as follows. A first-person narrator recounts his experience in a beautiful spot in the forest, with singing birds and flowers: a locus amoenus. There he sees a loving couple come riding up from the distance. They are a harmonious pair, both bedecked with chaplets of red roses, wearing the same splendid red clothing and together singing a song that expresses the perfect reciprocity of their love: ‘Lief ic bem dijn ende du best mijn / Nu doe met mi al dijn geuoech’ [Love, I am yours and you are mine, now do with me as you wish (Ab 1: 22-23)]. In his heart the narrator is jealous when he hears their song: how he wishes he could sing such a song with the lady he loves!

They exchange greetings. The narrator invites the lovers to join him for a short rest. He is struck by the resemblance in looks and manner between the lady he has just met and his own lady, who has refused him: ‘Checkmate!’ she said. A conversation ensues and after a while names are asked. The narrator introduces himself as ‘Minre met groter Quale,’ which literally means ‘Lover with a serious illness.’ The young man is named Jolijs, his lady Florentine. The Middle Dutch adjective jolijs indicates several qualities that characterize a successful lover: ‘cheerful,’ ‘good-humored,’ ‘chivalrous,’ ‘liable to love,’ ‘of amorous nature.’9 The name of each man epitomizes his position in the story: one is completely happy in love, the other disappointed; one is accompanied by his mistress, the other longs for his own lady-love, who is not well disposed toward him and who resembles the first lady closely.

Jolijs also explains that he and Florentine come from the realm of Cupid and Venus, the mighty divinities of Love. He served Cupid for seven years and suffered considerably before receiving Florentine as a reward. He adds that he does not want to bewail his suffering: from now on he will forever be happy with his beloved. He expresses the wish that every faithful lover would be rewarded as he was, for no one could wish for anything better. The narrator wants to know more about it: if Jolijs has served Cupid for so long, he must know the nature of love. He asks Jolijs whether he is willing to tell his story, as he hopes to learn what love is and

what its characteristics are, and how he must behave in order to become happy with his own beloved, whom he loves faithfully. Jolijs grants the request, having realized the extent of the narrator's lovesickness. He expresses the hope that his story will be beneficial, and begins his narrative: When he was twenty years old, he rose early one May morning and started walking until he arrived at a garden surrounded by a wall. Jolijs begins to describe the first of the ten personifications he saw depicted on the wall, namely Hatred. Here the first fragment of the Flemish Rose ends.

It is only when Jolijs begins to tell his story that there is an evident resemblance with the Old French Roman de la Rose. The account of the author's dream in the French Rose has become the story of Jolijs in the Flemish Rose; it is he, and not the narrator, who has all the adventures in the walled garden. Furthermore, the character of Florentine reappears in the story. In other manuscript fragments two important episodes of the love story of Jolijs and Florentine are transmitted.

The first of these episodes comes from the beginning of the story, where the ‘I’ falls in love with the Rose.10 In the Old French text, the protagonist saw rosebushes covered with roses reflected in the Fountain of Love, where Narcissus died. He drew near to the roses and singled out one particular bud, but was not able to approach it because of the hedge of thornbushes that surrounded it. Then Cupid shot five arrows through his eye and into his heart: the ‘I’ became the Lover.

In the adaptation, this story is rendered rather faithfully. Here the protagonist also falls in love with the Rose as in the French source. The lady from the frame narrative, Florentine, is mentioned but does not yet play an important part. There is a connection between her and the Rose, but it is quite vague. The first time the rosebushes appear, the adapter adds that Florentine and her friends look after the roses.11 The ‘I’ would like to pick a rose but does not. In the French text this is because he is afraid that he might provoke the wrath of the lord of the garden (Déduit); in the Flemish Rose, it is because he is afraid to disturb Florentine and her friends.12 The narrator also mentions that the lady is looking at the roses while standing behind the hedge and close to the Rose.13 In this manner, he suggests that there is a certain relation between Florentine and the Rose. He is, however, primarily interested in the Rose and not the woman. The Rose is presented unmistakably as a flower, as in the source.

Another fragment transmits an equally important episode of the love story: the section of the Roman de la Rose that follows the discourse of la

Vieille.14 The Lover entered the castle by a rear door and was finally able to meet with Bel Acueil, who made him welcome. Then the Lover spoiled it by stretching his hands toward the Rose. Dangier, Peor, and Honte ran out, pushed the hands of the Lover back, reproached him, and locked Bel Acueil up again.

This episode is reworked in the Flemish Rose: here, the Lover is welcomed by his lady, Florentine. Beginning with the initial exchange of greetings, the adapter added several details. In the original, Bel Acueil greeted the Lover and thanked him for the chaplet, received through the agency of la Vieille (vv. 14767-73). In the adaptation, Florentine and Scone Ontfange (the Middle Dutch Bel Acueil) greet the Lover together. The lady then takes him by the hand and leads him to her room, which is very beautiful. They sit down in front of her splendid bed and she thanks him for the chaplet (Bl 3: 59-76). In the Roman de la Rose, then, a friendly conversation between Bel Acueil and the Lover follows the greetings, while in the Flemish Rose the lady plays the part of Bel Acueil: she talks with her lover. The content of the conversation, however, is scarcely different.15

As the episode develops, the adapter introduces some interesting changes. When the Lover in the Roman de la Rose reached for the Rose, Dangier jumped up to grasp and abuse the Lover, assisted by Peor and Honte. In the adaptation, Florentine calls for the three guardians when the Lover takes her in his arms in order to seize the Rose. It is important to note that in this version the guardians go into action at her request: in this text, at any rate, they are apparently not enemies of the lady, but rather her helpers. In the French Rose the guardians explained to the Lover in great detail that he misunderstood Bel Acueil's kind words. This tirade occurs in the Flemish Rose as well, but a major part is delivered not by the guardians but by Florentine herself. The point where she begins to speak is not arbitrary: it is precisely where, in the source, the guardians begin to explain that the Lover misunderstood Bel Acueil.16 It is only when Bel Acueil is mentioned that Florentine explains that she did not mean anything dishonorable. In this manner the Middle Dutch adapter achieves a dramatic effect, which is supported by the lively language. Finally Florentine bursts into tears. The Lover cannot stand this: he falls on his knees in front of her and asks forgiveness. This plea is for the most part composed independently of the French source, where the Lover tries to soften the guardians after they have locked up Bel Acueil.

In this episode the lady thus assumes a central position in the narrative action, replacing especially Bel Acueil. Scone Ontfange is not removed completely but now appears only in the initial greetings. To some extent Florentine takes over the role of the guardians as well. But the lady cannot do without them entirely: in her defense, the guardians seize the Lover violently, and of course a lady cannot act so aggressively herself.

There are indications that Florentine also played the part of Bel Acueil in other episodes of the Flemish Rose that have not come down to us. The episode discussed above contains several references to earlier parts of the story. From the way in which these references are reproduced in the translation, we may infer that Florentine played an important part elsewhere as well. In the Roman de la Rose, Bel Acueil thanks the Lover for the chaplet he sent (v. 14773), and the guardians refer to the appeal of la Vieille to allow the Lover into the tower (vv. 14887-88). Both statements refer to the same episode, known only from the French source: la Vieille, on behalf of the Lover, presented the chaplet to Bel Acueil and asked whether he was willing to receive its donor (vv. 12541-739). Then la Vieille delivered her lengthy discourse to Bel Acueil, who finally agreed to see the Lover. In the Flemish Rose, as we have seen, it is Florentine rather than Scone Ontfange who thanks the Lover for the chaplet (Bl 3: 73-76), and later on she refers to the fact that the Quene [la Vieille] asked her to grant the Lover a meeting. From such allusions it may be argued that the entire exchange between la Vieille and Bel Acueil is revised in the Flemish Rose to take place between the Quene and Florentine.17 If this is true, then Florentine figures in a significant portion of the poem.

The above-mentioned conversation between the Lover and Florentine also reveals that there must have been at least one earlier encounter. This can be inferred from the motivation the narrator ascribes to the Lover's efforts to seize Florentine's Rose: he does so because he has the impression that she has changed her mind.18 Furthermore, in the Roman de la Rose, the guardians claim that the Lover means to cause Bel Acueil harm: ‘E vous tendez a son domage’ [and you are inclined to injure him (v. 14897)]. In the Flemish Rose, this is altered in a revealing manner: Florentine tells the Lover that he wants to do her harm as he tried before (Bl 3: 247-48). This and other allusions show that in the Flemish Rose, an earlier meeting of Florentine and the Lover took place, during which he also tried to seize her Rose.19

This episode of the Flemish Rose has not survived, but it is likely that

it was the adaptation of vv. 2779-970 of the Roman de la Rose, where the Lover met Bel Acueil and was allowed through the hedge in order to smell the roses. On that occasion the Lover requested the Rose; Bel Acueil was shocked, and Dangier intervened. Probably Florentine replaced Bel Acueil in this episode. Chances are that the second encounter in the Roman de la Rose between the Lover and Bel Acueil (vv. 3325-60) was recast as an encounter with Florentine as well. In the French source, this encounter ended with the imprisonment of Bel Acueil; in the Flemish adaptation, Florentine and Scone Ontfange become locked up together.

Indeed, it is most likely that Florentine plays the part of Bel Acueil throughout the Flemish Rose. The rose metaphor is not affected by this transfer, while at the same time a strong attachment is suggested between Florentine and her Rose; I shall return to this point below. This interpretation of the differences between original and adaptation sheds light on the episode I discussed above, in which the protagonist falls in love with the Rose. Here the adapter adopted the rose symbol unaltered. Bel Acueil does not figure in this episode, and therefore the lady does not yet play an important part. The allusion to her presence near the roses behind the thorny hedge can be regarded as preparation for a later episode: the adaptation of Roman de la Rose, vv. 2779-970. In the Old French text, Bel Acueil led the Lover through the hedge; in the Flemish Rose, Florentine probably does this.

That Florentine should take over the role of Bel Acueil is not surprising. Scholars have noted that Bel Acueil coincides with the beloved lady in large parts of the Roman de la Rose. Langlois, for example, speaks of ‘Bel-Accueil personnifié en un jeune et beau “vallet” [...], qui dispose de la rose convoitée et finit par être identifié avec la jeune fille aimée.’20 The Middle Dutch poet interpreted Bel Acueil in the same way and drew the obvious conclusion: he would make la jeune fille herself appear in the story.

As stated above, the rose metaphor is preserved: the Lover falls in love with the Rose, he wants to pick Florentine's Rose, and so on. The adapter evidently wants to exploit the rich and long-standing symbolism surrounding this flower: from an early time, the rose is associated with such qualities as virginity, beauty, love, and sexuality. In the Roman de la Rose, the entire range of meanings is present: in the part by Guillaume de Lorris, the Rose especially has connotations of love and of the virginity of the lady; with Jean de Meun, it increasingly becomes a sexual methapor. In the Roman de la Rose, a game of veiling and unveiling is played, a game in which it is often not possible to identify exactly what the Rose stands

for; precisely this enigma must have been one of the greatest attractions of the allegory. I would argue that the adapter wished to participate in this game revolving around the ambiguity of the Rose when he preserved the rose symbolism of his source. The symbol enabled him to portray the erotic side of the Lover's feelings for Florentine, without having to call a spade a spade. The need to speak in veiled terms about sexuality became all the greater now that the lady was explicitly present.

In short, the adapter of the Flemish Rose changed parts of the text radically, especially the narrative episodes in which the love story is recounted. However, the discourses of the allegorical characters were rendered more faithfully. Parts of the discourses of Amor, Ami, Richesse, and la Vieille have survived. These monologues were partly translated and partly adapted, and the Middle Dutch adapter did take many liberties with the source, but the changes were never as radical as in the narrative sections.

Why has the Flemish adapter changed the Roman de la Rose as he did? The alteration of the allegorical structure can be regarded as a reaction to the narrative method of the French text. The Roman de la Rose was an innovative text, the first major work in the vernacular in which an allegorical tale of love is recounted in the form of a dream-vision.21 The new framework of the Flemish Rose was probably added in order to introduce the allegorical mode to the audience and to arouse curiosity about the instructive story that will follow. In the extended frame narrative, one first gets to know the sympathetic, unhappy ‘I.’ He says in passing that he is of Flemish origin: he is one with his audience. The happy couple Jolijs and Florentine is seen through his eyes. Everything serves to make the audience share his admiration for Jolijs, the supremely successful lover, and to regard Florentine as the ideal woman. Jolijs and Florentine are highly favorable characters: they are aristocratic, behave in a courtly manner, and are perfectly happy in love.22 The narrator appeals to a public interest in love. In several instances, it is stressed that Jolijs can serve as a model for all lovers. Jolijs states that he has reached the very highest that lovers possibly can, and he expresses the hope that ‘alle die met trouwen minnen’ [everyone who loves faithfully (Ab 1: 187)] will be similarly rewarded. Minre met groter Quale too remarks that Jolijs has endured what ‘Elken man die wille ghewinnen / Ere ende vrome van siere minnen’ [every man who wants to derive benefit from his love (Ab 1: 197-98)] must endure. In this way the general validity of Jolijs's experiences is suggested: he can function as a model, not only for Minre, but for all lovers.

In this context the manner in which Minre asks Jolijs to tell the story of his love is significant. Minre says that he hopes to learn from the story:

 
Wat minne si ende hare maniren
 
Ende hoe jcse sal anthieren
 
Dat ick bliscap af gewinne
 
An hare die jc met trouwen minne.
 
(Ab 1: 203-6)
[What love is and what its characteristics are, and how I must act in order to obtain joy from her whom I love faithfully.]

I would suggest that these verses provide a subtle clue about how the story should be interpreted, or rather, how the allegorical form should be interpreted. From the story of these two ideal lovers not only can general lessons about love be deduced (‘what love is’), but also a working knowledge can be inferred (‘how I must act’). Before he begins his story, Jolijs says to Minre, and implicitly to the audience, ‘Nu vernemt mine tale / Jc hope het sal v wesen goet / Keerdi dar ane vwen moet’ [now listen to my story; I hope it will do you good if you adhere to it (Ab 1: 214-16)]. It seems that the Middle Dutch poet took the Roman de la Rose as an instructive text from which general and practical lessons about love could be derived.

In the frame narrative of the Flemish Rose, the interest of the audience is thus aroused by the introduction of the ideal lovers Jolijs and Florentine, with whom one can identify with great admiration. The character of the lady then reappears in the text. In this way one remembers the idyllic situation from the opening sequence while hearing or reading the text, and one keeps on wondering how Jolijs will win Florentine, in spite of all adversity.

Not all parts of the Roman de la Rose were modified to this extent: as I have said, the adapter did not introduce such sweeping changes in the discourses of the allegorical characters. From this it can be inferred that in the eyes of the adapter, the monologues of the various personifications were the most important part of the Old French text. The major discourses offered a wealth of information, being full of examples and citations of authorities. It was the duty of the adapter to make the learning contained in these discourses accessible to a new audience. He thus refrained from significantly altering the authoritative substance of the monologues, feel-

ing freer to introduce modifications in the narrative portions of the text. His free adaptation of the narrative serves to motivate the audience to take the didactic discourses to heart.

In sum, the poet of the Flemish Rose was an attentive and nearly contemporary reader of the Roman de la Rose. He saw the text as a story with a favorable protagonist, Jolijs. For his audience, a more lengthy introduction to the allegorical form was appropriate. And for this adapter, the most important parts of the poem were the discourses of the allegorical characters.


Vorige

Over het gehele werk

titels


auteurs