A Meaningful Redefinition of the Decision Allegory
Several features of Figure 41 follow the larger pattern of revision in the program of C , including a change in the representational mode adopted in the analogous miniatures of A (Figs. 37 and 40). A precedent also exists for the decision allegory in the illustrations for Book VII (Figs. 35 and 36). Despite these precedents, Figure 41 is unique not only in its size and three-register format but also in the development of its theme. For the treatment of the content offers a decision allegory of a different type from that of Figures 35 and 36. In Figure 41 the scenes depicted do not involve a choice between personifications of competing abstract forces but a moral quandary based on conflicting social obligations. The father, son, and ransomer or friend of the man in the middle exemplify certain relationships or types of Friendship, while the moral dilemma centers on a particular situation of dramatic human crisis. If the ransom dilemma is timeless and applicable to many different conditions, it is more specific and concrete than the generalized moral conflict between Raison and Concupiscence treated in Figures 35 and 36. Another somewhat startling aspect of Figure 41 relates to its visual translation of Oresme's Question following Gloss 8 of Chapter 3. The textual source of this figure underscores not only the translator's role in inventing the program but also an increased intervention that resulted in changes affecting the physical structure of the manuscript. The addition of Figure 41 to the existing quaternion reflects the importance attached to the illustration by Oresme as a visual analogue of his personal views expressed in the Question. Figure 41 seeks to replicate in summary form the method of the Quaestio , a tool of scholarly discussion and open debates at the University of Paris called the Quodlibeta .[24] In his writings on miracles and marvels of nature, Oresme uses the Quaestio format to organize the structure of his inquiry.[25]
The transfer of the Quaestio to Oresme's translation of the Ethics follows naturally from the commentary tradition and the methods of scholastic philosophy. Harder to grasp is the transfer of this mode of argument to court circles. Yet, as mentioned above, Christine de Pizan writes that Charles V enjoyed intellectual disputation with the clerics in his entourage.[26] Moreover, as was noted in Chapter 4, the prologue of the Songe du vergier states that the king took pleasure in having selections from the Ethics read to him. It is possible that Charles V heard Oresme discuss the ransom question in one or the other of these situations and requested a visual aide-mémoire and summary of the translator's views. Perhaps the king's interest was stimulated after the execution of an earlier illustration for Book IX in MS C . Or, at the last minute, Oresme may simply have decided to change the
format of Figure 41. In any case, Figure 41 represents a full visual expression of Oresme's own mode of thought that alters the physical structure of the manuscript.
The patron's enthusiasm for the ransom question may first have arisen from the timeless human interest in the moral dilemma of an agonizing choice between competing loyalties. After the French defeat in 1356 by the English at the battle of Poitiers, Charles had the experience of securing the release from prison of his own father, King John the Good. As regent, Charles had to negotiate the payment of a hefty ransom, which necessitated the imposition of heavy taxation.[27] The continuing demands of raising funds for the ransom presented lasting problems for Charles V's administration. Monies were also required for dealing with brigands, former soldiers who ravaged France after the signing in 1360 of the treaty of Brétigny. Thus, for Charles V the decisions examined in Figure 41 about ransom, robbers or brigands, and obligations to one's father had both personal and political relevance. Oresme's association with his patron during and after the initial crisis of John the Good's imprisonment may have alerted him to Charles's particular interest in the ransom theme. The exceptional characteristics of Figure 41 may well reflect the high degree of interaction between Oresme and Charles V based on shared historical experience and intellectual understanding. Expressive of the translator's ingenious turn of mind, the riddle or puzzle aspect of Figure 41 would also have appealed to the king as a tribute to his mental acuity. Together with the extratextual inscriptions the illustration could certainly have furnished talking points and another occasion for the translator's explication of and dialogue with his patron regarding subtle moral issues.