جزییات کتاب
This study examines the hypothesis according to which “for there to be a “story”, a novel, there needs to be an obstacle hindering the realization of [love]” (Pierre Gallais). The obstacles of the lovers’ (re)union reoccur in love stories from medieval times, as much in the Orient as in the Occident. These obstacles merit being brought to attention. To examine them through a comparative study between the French idyll Floire et Blanchefleur and its Arabo- Persian models – little known or studied, is to recall that the reading of anonymous French idyll invites us, at times, to compare it to two amorous plots: one being Persian (Varqe et Gulšāh), the other Arabic ('Urwa et 'Afrā’). The thematic affinities and the relationships of kinship between these related texts, do not extinguish in any circumstance the originality of each novel. It should be noted that stories are not created from fortunate love and that to love often drives one to expose himself to: others (the envious, rivals, and suitors), parental opposition and more generally to society. It shows love is only intensified with separation and suffering. It attempts to emphasize the paradox upon which these novels are based: the obstacle, which at first glance appears to worry the “aspiring couples” and condemn their romance/idyll, decisively proves an indispensable element of the romantic plot which serves only to celebrate the intrepidity of young lovers. It is demonstrated in these texts that none of the obstacles encountered succeed in separating the lovers: not the threat of misalliance (feminine or masculine), nor social or religious disparity; nor shackles of parental authority; nor jealousy; nor separation; nor others; nor abduction; nor threat of rape; not even destiny, fortune, (the) qa ā’ (fate) or (the) qadar (destiny). Finally, it shows how individual and collective conversions, which mark the outcomes of these studied idylls, finish by conferring a civilizing dimension to the texts, “an orientalizing tendency”, indeed “a Romanesque
‘Orientalism’”.