Does description of uniqueness arises out of a value placed on distinction, or simply out of clicked conventions of rhetoric? Michael Roberts has shown that the Latin literature of late antiquity featured a “jeweled style” which lavished description on exotic jewels and their settings in clothing, arms, and any other circumscribed surface. But this literature of late antiquity tends to emphasize geometric arrangements, glitter and colors, rather than novelty or uniqueness as seen in the example from Benoit.209 One might wonder, for example, about Richece’s robe in the Roman de la Rose, shown as unmatched for its beauty, richness, and lively design:
Richece ot d’une porpre robe, nu tenez ore pas a lobe, que je vos di bien et afiche qu’il n’ot si bele ne si riche el monde, ne si envoisie.210
Richece had a robe from a purple stuff,
- don’t take this as mere flattery - I tell you truly and I affirm that there was no other so beautiful or so rich in the world, nor one so stylish.
This passage, like many passages showing uniqueness, employs something related to what E. R.Curtius called the “inexpressibility topos,” a descriptive flourish dating from ancient times, seen often in Greek and Roman panegyrics, later used in saints’ lives and medieval Latin poetry. These passages also have something of the “outdoing” topos, in that Jason and Richece’s apparel implicitly outdoes that of anyone else.211 However, Curtius observed “outdoing” in panegyrics where the object of flattery outdoes the gods, when a poet surpasses his predecessors, or in descriptions of heroes’ strength, courage, wisdom, or similar qualities. Edmond Faral found that it is only in the twelfth century that description becomes the supreme object of poetry. It is a new fashion (“mode nouvelle”) in literature, first formulated in the rhetorical theory of Matthew of Vendome.212 We return again to the point that fashion does not exist without words, criterion 7. They create, perpetuate and strike down new styles, even as they can be consumed as fashion items themselves.
Read in the allegorical or narrative context, many instances where laudatory emphasis is placed on an object’s or a garment’s originality become part of a complex commentary on social mores. The twelfth-century French account of
Jason’s adventure at the court of Medea has resonances of the adventures of contemporary merchants and crusaders in the levant. Jason may be draped in cliches, but the author sensed that his audience would listen attentively to thirty verses amplifying the uniqueness of the hero’s attire. The robe of Richece, who signifies wealth, power and splendor in a way that is difficult to fully translate, speaks to how fine dye, weave, and cut were desirable and could make those with money magnets for those seeking influence as well as luxury. The robe is bought with power, illustrates power, enhances power, and proximity to it confers power.
Not all the courtly figures of the Rose's carole were described as having “indescribably unique” apparel. When it is mentioned, it serves as a form of distinction between the figures in that micro-society’s hierarchy of courtly values. Oiseuse (Leisure or Idleness) had unique hair accessories. Deduit (Pleasure) was unrivaled among young men for his beauty and agility (lines 800-1, 813-14). Leesce (Joy) had a chaplet finer than any other the narrator had seen worked in silk (lines 857-8). The gown, belt, and gold circlet of Richece were all special. Venus’ robe and accessories were also indescribable, due to space limitations, according to the narrator (lines 3414-18). In contrast, Biaute (Beauty), Largece (Generosity), Cortoisie (Courtliness), and Jonece (Youth) had no items categorized as unique or indescribable. The robe of Franchise (Generosity of Spirit or Openness) was cut to fit her perfectly, but this did not make its appeal inexpressible. only the figures representing fashion-related values - such as wealth to consume, power gained through appearance, and pleasure and seductiveness - are described as being fashionably distinctive, using the so-called “inexpressibility topos.” Richece and Oiseuse (line 582) were both associated in the poem with wealth, power, and thereby attraction. Burns has emphasized how Oiseuse “fashions herself” from the clothing and accessories which give her substance, sculpting an image both attractive to others and pleasing to herself.213 Deduit was associated with wealth and power as well, being proprietor of the garden; Leesce, his amie, would likewise be, by association. Fashion and consumption are associated in the poem with the leisure to indulge pleasures and to pay attention to seductive appearance (criterion 9), as is clear in both the narrator’s comments and Oiseuse’s words about herself.
Il paroit bien a son ator qu’ele estoit poi enbesoignie.
Quant ele s’estoit bien pignie et bien paree et atornee, ele avoit feste sa jornee.
Rice fame sui et poissanz, s’ai d’une chose mout bon tens
Que a nule rien je n’entens qu’a moi jouer et solacier et a moi pigner et trecier. ..214
It seemed clear from her appearance that she was hardly needy.
When she had arranged her hair well, dressed and adorned herself well, she was done with her day’s work.
I am a rich and powerful woman, and I especially enjoy one thing: there is nothing I like more than playing and indulging myself by combing and braiding my hair.
Leisure, social influence and wealth are shown as necessary elements in the enjoyment of fashions like personal grooming luxuries and inimitable appearance, as well as the positive sense of self they breed (criterion 4). Elsewhere, leisure, social importance and wealth are demonstrated in the sponsorship of pleasurable entertainment such as those for which Deduit (musicians, acrobats, dancers, lines 741-74) and Leesce (singing, lines 727-40) were responsible. Beauty, generosity, courtesy, openness of spirit and youth are not necessary for being fashionable. Such values have no need of improvement by fashionable consumption or display, being intrinsically attractive and rendering artifice superfluous.
In the allegorical context, description is not wasted on empty flourishes of merely rhetorical cliches. “Indescribable” objects are part of a larger system expressing a notion of a hierarchy of virtues as well as an ideal social order. They provide insight into the conception of fashion Guillaume de Lorris presents, which in turn provides insight into his idea of how society functions.
World History
