|
Description
|
[GUILLAUME de LORRIS, JEAN de MEUNG] - Roman de la Rose [and] [RABBI SAMUEL] - Epistola contra Iudaeorum errores. [France, 1300-1325 (I), after 1339 (II)]. French (I) and Latin (II) manuscript on vellum, c. 24,7 x 19 cm, 163 ff., written by at least two copyists (one each for I & II), in brown and black/brown ink. Preserved in a mod. conservation binding of overlapping pigskin, flat spine, mod. vellum endpapers; quires sewn; first and last ff. mounted.Contents:1. "Cest li dit de la roze" (f. 1r-v) : old vellum f. (not a part of the quires of the main texts) with French verses, totalling 118 ll. in double columns, titled Cest li dit de la roze : (Inc.) "Quant Dieu le monde composa | En paradis Adam posa" (as found in e.g. Paris, BnF, Ms. fr. 12483, f. 39v; 19138, f. 103v; 24436, f. 66-67b). Text not complete, and not identical with the similar poem by Christine de Pisan (1363-1430); line 12 "Salve Virgo rubens rosa" taken from the Motet "Ave lux luminum" (early 13th c.); 2. Le roman de la Rose (ff. 2r-149va);3. Epistola contra Iudaeorum errores (ff. 149vb-161r);4. Reader's (?) notes and drawings (ff. 161v-163v) : f. 161v : 2 pen drawn (notary-like) marks; ff. 162-163 : vellum bifolium (large part of f. 163 torn off) : f. 162r "faulx semblant ?" (proverb ?); f. 162v blank; f. 163r pen drawing of tower; f. 163v French medieval text in pale ink.Foliation : a. mod. pencil foliation "1-163"; b. old (16th-c.?) pen foliation : [1-10] 11-159, which was duplicated and continued with a modern pencil foliation c. earlier than a, and erroneous : [1]-151 as "1-151", 152-159 as "153-160", continued as "161-168" [= 152-167], then [2] ff. Conclusion : (at least) 6 ff. presently lacking at front, i.e. before f. 2 (= beginning of RdR), probably with French poems, comparable to the single preserved f. 1.Condition : very good and well-preserved : f. 149 loose; (faint) dampstain in blank bottom margin; minor defects to some edges (large part of f. 163 torn off; blank fore-edge margin (partly) cut off in f. 1, f. 106 (shaving a few letters), f. 151; pieces of fore-edge margin torn off in f. 6 (loss of a few letters), f. 94, f. 144, f. 152 (sm.), f. 156 (larger); pieces of blank bottom margin torn off in f. 7, ff. 54-55 (sm. def.), f. 114 (repaired with vellum); some edges sl. soiled as in f. 2 etc.; stains in ff. 57 etc., ff. 106-108; old tears (most sewn in repair) : f. 1 (lower margin), f. 10 (long), f. 36 (sm.), f. 69 (sm.), f. 93, f. 95 (partly sewn), f. 106, f. 107 (partly sewn), f. 116 (partly sewn), f. 120 (sm.), f. 126 (sm.), f. 152, f. 156, f. 158 (long); minor holes: f. 64 (sm.), 103 (sm.), f. 108 (2 sm.), f. 109 (sm.), f. 116 (2 sm.), f. 136 (sm.), f. 144 (larger), f. 159 (2 sm.), ff. 160-161 (sm.).
|
|
Lot Note
|
Roman de la RoseOne of the most popular works of medieval French literature, Le Roman de la Rose (The Romance of the Rose) survives today in some 300 manuscripts dating from the late 13th to early 16th century. Most of these manuscripts are in public libraries and copies as ours are hardly ever found on the market in present times. Widely read throughout Europe, the poem influenced much of the literary output of the Middle Ages and was enjoyed by poets such as Chaucer, Gower, Dante and Petrarch. Begun in c. 1225-40 and completed by c. 1270-7, it is an allegorical dream vision about love, in which a young man endeavours to possess the rosebud with which he has become enamoured. The text is attributed to 2 authors, its 1st 4,058 lines being the work of Guillaume de Lorris, and the remaining 18,000 lines composed by Jean de Meun, an early 14th century Parisian writer and intellectual. Written in Middle French in octosyllabic rhyming couplets, the poem is important for being the 1st example in French of both a sustained 1st-person narrative and of narrative allegory. Nothing is known about the writer of the 1st part of the poem, Guillaume de Lorris. His charming and lyrical section relates the story of the narrator's dream; it is a work of courtly love that has been praised for its perceptiveness in the expression of character through allegorical symbols. Set in the allegorical Garden of Delight (representing courtly society), the dreamer meets the god of love, and consequently falls in love with a rosebud that he sees while gazing into the fountain of Narcissus. The lover experiences a succession of hopes and despairs, but although he eventually manages to kiss the rose, his love is never truly consummated : his efforts are thwarted after Jealousy constructs a fortified tower around the rose. It is possibly at this point that the poem was meant to end.Jean de Meung continues the dream allegory but completely transforms the poem, expanding it to become a satire of contemporary society. In a thinly disguised allegory of sexual intercourse, his lover finally penetrates the inner sanctum of the rose and the poem ends with the narrator awakening at daybreak. Jean de Meung uses this plot as a means of conveying a mass of encyclopaedic information, discussing such diverse topics as language and signification, fortune and destiny, in a series of discourses by the main characters. Thus the poem becomes a vast store of information about medieval life and thought. It has been estimated that more than forty other literary works are imitated or incorporated into this 2nd part. However, Jean de Meung's digressions in fact brought fame and success to the poem : often outspoken and apparently fearless in attacking the abuses of his age, the contentious opinions expressed here were hotly contested by contemporaries and captured the imagination of the increasingly important bourgeois class.Much of the appeal of the Roman lies in the tantalising question of its allegorical meaning. Both poets promise to explain the meaning of the dream, but do not : the poem has consequently been subject to widely varying interpretations ever since it was written. These divergent readings are divided mainly between those who see the work as religious versus those who see it as secular. Christine de Pisan was so provoked by the subject matter of the poem that she famously initiated the "Querelle de la Rose" in the 15th century; she attacked the poem for defaming women, for justifying seduction and rape, and for bawdy language. Such debate established the cultural importance of the Roman as a focal point for many fundamental issues, and it remained popular throughout the 16th century. Although the poem fell into obscurity in the 17th century, it was rescued by the antiquarians of the 18th century and is now firmly established as a literary monument, still subject to constant revision and re-interpretation.(http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/exhibns/month/feb2000.html).Characteristics of the 'Rose' manuscript offered here :a. Codicology : 148 ff. (ff. 2r-149va), ff. 73rb-74 blank (end Pt. 1); in double columns of 37 ll.; last part on ruled ff.; corrections: occ. text corrections in hand of copyist, on f. 50rb a line skipped with text added in bottom margin. Composition : 18 quires of 8 ff. with matching catchwords + 1 quire of 8(-1) ff.; some ff. with large margins and still visible prickings; marks : a few old marginal notes (e.g. f. 8v), top margin of f. 112, in margin of f. 74v, Latin caption on f. 80r ("manus corporalis") but, as often, the drawing of a hand not added.b. Decoration : unillustrated (no miniatures or drawings), rubricated throughout; numerous 2-, 3-, 4-line initials ("Lombarden") with red or blue penwork often with extensions into the margin; 14 ff. with 3-line gilt initials on a blue/red background, often with extensions: f. 12v, 13r, 15r, 19r, 20v, 21v, 22r, 22v, 23v, 25r, 25v, 27v, 29r and 83v; 3 small drawings in margins (dragons ?) : f. 1r, 25r, 29r; 2 six-line gilt initials at beginning of 2 text parts (f. 1r gilt decoration, extending along inner/top/bottom margin with extra leaf-like extensions, and with a small drawing in top margin; f. 74r initial gilt on a blue background).c. Text : a textually complete manuscript, from the best 'family', and with very interesting variants, titled "le Roumant de la Rose : &c." (Expl. f. 149va). The incipit of f. 2r "Le vis et le nes escorchie" is not listed in Langlois' "Index des incipits des seconds feuillets" (pp. 228-231).The ms. definitely belongs to the basic group I of both Guillaume Lorris' and Jean de Meun's parts, as defined by Langlois : a. with the correct readings on f. 21ra of ll. 2833-37 and 2859-65: l. 2863 (before last line) reads "... garder iiij." thus stating the total of 4 guardians of the Rose (group I, whereas II has 3 guardians); b. it has ll. 8179-8180 (f. 57ra) without the 2 interpolated verses from Proverbs, that are typical of group II ("D'ailleurs, si les mss. qui n'ont pas les deux vers des Proverbes sont peu nombreux, en revanche, ce sont les meilleurs" - Langlois p. 352). A number of variants in the present ms. are close to the text family represented by e.g. Da, Ga, Ha and other mss. (see Langlois): "cuident" (l.1), "en mon lit" (l. 24), ll. 62-64 omitted, "Tant co(m)me il ont liuer eu" (l. 68, instead of "Tant comme il ont le froi eu"), "Alexandrins" for "Sarrasins" (l. 592), rhyme "saumuce | berruce" (ll. 3731-32), ll. 3345-46 omitted, no interpolation between ll. 4228-29, ll. 7841-42 not omitted, no long interpolation between ll. 11222-23, correct name "Ethna" (l. 17045) etc. A closer study of these and other variants should make it possible to identify the manuscript's proper place in the textual tradition.Some typical spellings or dialect forms: "folesche" (l. 13 ), "senefianche" (l. 16) "i roumans de la Rose" (l. 37), "chent" (l. 62), "forche" (l. 73) etc. Epistola contra Iudaeorum erroresf. 149vb : "I(n)cipit ep(isto)la Rabi samuel ? marochor(um). Missa rabi ysach ? translata de arabicho in latino [!] p(er) alfonssus [!] ? ordinis p(rae)dicator(um) qua(m) tra(n-slationem fecit anno d(omi)ni m.ccc. t(ri)gesimo nono sa(n)ctissi(mi) ac beatissimi Benedicti p(a)pe duodecimi pont(ificatus) anno q(ui)nto ?". Written in 47 columns of 40 ll., consisting of an introduction, 27 chapters (from "capitulo p[ri]mo" to "xxvij° & ultimo") and a conclusion.This is a widely disseminated medieval text by Rabbi Samuel in which he attempts to convert the Jews by reasoned argument, demonstrating that the Jews hope in vain for the coming of the Messiah, concluding with a most interesting, probably spurious, letter of Pontius Pilate to the Emperor Tiberius. The text is based on a 14th-century Latin version by the Spanish Dominican Alfonsus Boni Hominis (Buenhombre, d. 1353) of the 11th-century Arabic treatise "Ifham al-Yahud" (Confutation of the Jews) by the Muslim convert Samuel Abu Nasr ibn Abbas, son of Judah ibn Abbas of Fez. In his original version Samuel claimed to prove the prophetic character of Jesus and Mohammed and argued that too many laws were added to the Torah by the Mishnah and Gemara. Buenhombre adapted the tract to present it as a Christian rather than Muslim polemic and may well have drawn on other Arabic texts as well. "Alphonsus Boni Hominis claims only to translate the Epistola of Rabbi Samuel but it seems he himself was the author, drawing largely from another tract in Arabic" (Encyclopaedia Judaica). It was 1st printed in this trsl. at Mantua in 1475, about which Dibdin states in the "Bibliothecca Spenceriana" : "The work itself appears to have been concealed by the Jews for more than 230 years; and was translated into Latin in 1239. The work was written with the view of converting the Jews from the errors which they entertained of the advent of Christ". About 20 incunable editions survive, incl. translations into German, Italian and Spanish. The text maintained its popularity through the 16th and 17th centuries and was translated into most European languages, including Russian. An English version appeared at York in 1649 under the title of "The Blessed Jew of Morocco; or, the black Moor Made white".Provenance : to the best of our knowledge the manuscript offered here is not listed among the 300+ manuscripts mentioned by Langlois and the common database of the Sheridan Libraries of Johns Hopkins University and the Bibliothèque nationale de France (http://romandelarose.org), nor does any of the manuscripts listed there contain the present combination of the "Rose" with the "Epistola Rabbi Samuelis". This unique combination of 2 major medieval texts in good early versions greatly increases its research value and enhances its desirability for a collector of early manuscripts or medieval artefacts. Ref. E. Langlois, Les manuscrits du Roman de la Rose: description et classement (Lille-Paris 1910). Ora Limor, "The Epistle of Rabbi Samuel of Morocco: A Best-Seller in the World of Polemics" in "Contra Iudaeos. Ancient and Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews" (Tübingen 1996, pp. 177-194).French description on request.
|