Jean Gerson, "Roman de la rose", and Christian Art Criticism

Roman de la Rose, or "The Romance of the Rose" was arguably the most read book in late medieval Europe. It is a courtly romance manifesting troubadour world view and suggestive of the erotic poetry of Decamerone. The French allegorical poem tells about the pursuit of a woman and the final enjoyment of her favors. The book has two authors. Guillaume de Lorris wrote the first part in twelfth century and Jean de Meun continued in the thirteenth century. Generally speaking, the first part is still innocent, but the stanzas written by Jean de Meun are more graphic in their sexual imagery. No wonder that Roman de la Rose alarmed church officials and aroused heated discussions.

When the chancellor of the University of Paris, Jean Gerson (1363-1429), one of the foremost theologians of his day, decided to enter into the discussion on Roman de la Rose in the beginning of the 15th century, the book had been around for a hundred years. Perhaps the book had not achieved an epidemic circulation until then. Nevertheless, Jean Gerson felt urgent need to react to this poem that heedlessly cherishes sensual love.

In many respects, Gerson's treatise on Roman de la Rose illustrates Christian art criticism at its worst. It is preoccupied with sexuality, showing no sense of humor, judging fictional characters as they were real. These are precisely the flaws of the Christian aesthetics. The puritans of all denominations have always been troubled by sensuous love. The very problem of drama and poetry for  some Tertullian was that one is thereby emotionally moved by fictional events. Playfulness and sense of humor are not generally reckoned among the Christian virtues.  The overall impression is that Gerson's strict morality prevents the aesthetic evaluation.

However, that is not the whole truth. Gerson exhibits some sense of literal style when he offers his response in the form of allegory, thus in the same mode as Roman de la Rose. He sets the stage in front of the holy Court of Christianity where Chastity makes her charges against Fol Amoureux, "The Fool of Love", the protagonist of the poem. The main charges are: The poem tries to banish Chastity from the earth. Accordingly, it attacks and despises marriage. The book uses "prurient" language and praises carnal acts even outside marriage. That the Fool has written about these things in an attractive and effusive way, is particularly perilous.

The defendant, Jean de Meun, is not present in the Court (being deceased long ago), but there are many who want to reply on his behalf. At the outset, they claim that Jean de Meun later regretted having written this poem. Does it not count for a repentance? Others say that he was an excellent speaker of French, "without any rival", and therefore he deserves some understanding. Moreover, they resort to the use of dramatic characters, that the Holy Scripture applies also: the Psalmist says in the person of the fool that there is no God! There is still a vague reference to verisimilitude as an artistic value: what harm is there in speaking with correct names, depicting life as it really is?

In our view, Gerson may appear as a less sympathetic, puritanical Christian who was strongly concerned with the expression of human sexuality (he is infamous for his interest to know whether the penitent had masturbated). Yet he should not be condemned along 21st century standards. As a pastoral theologian, he was deeply concerned with the moral guidance of his flock and did his best to give a fair response to Roman de la Rose. 

Theological Eloquence is presented as the attorney of  Lady Chastity. He starts with the same notion that the defenders had used: Jean de Meun had,  in his old age, repented his work. That is, however, not enough. "Repentance is not sufficient when one does not remove the occasions for one's own sins and those of others, insofar  it is in one's power." It is not the author's person but the literary work that is in question.

That the Romance has something good and beautiful in it, is not an argument. It is customary for false teachers (Gerson mentions Mohammed here) to attach good and pure teachings to evil things. They would not succeed otherwise. In addition to the Bible and Christian theologians, Gerson calls pagan philosophers (Seneca, Cicero, Aristotle, Pythagoras, Ovid) to witness that human reason and dignity detest the way the Romance speaks about love. "Vices and sins, believe me, are too easily learned. One does not need any masters." Undoubtedly there is some wisdom here: our sexual impulses need no further encouragement. They pretty much take care of themselves.

Gerson may exaggerate the vices of his opponent. Apparently, he makes the ill-fated suggestion to burning lascivious books as in Acts 9. This offends our sense of freedom of speech, but we can understand his position if we ask ourselves, what should be done with child porn material?

There are some points where Gerson touches upon perennial problems of art criticism. He disapproves the use of characters as an excuse. If someone insults a person under the disguise of a fictional character, he/she nevertheless is condemned as a slanderer. As for truthfulness, one could ask, whether nakedness (physical or psychological) warrants the authenticity of  portrayal
of a person.

(Treatise against the Romance of the Rose, in Jean Gerson: Early Works. Translated and introduced by Brian Patrick McGuire, Paulist Press 1998)