Chapter I. Notes

[1] Lavisse, _Histoire de France_, t. iv, p. 405.

[2] Cf. E. Langlois, _Origines et Sources du Roman de la Rose_, Paris, 1890, p. 130 sqq.

[3] Printed several times. Cf. _Le Livre de Matheolus, poème français du XIVe siècle_, par Jean le Fèvre, Brussels, A. Mertens et fils, 1864. M. A. Piaget quotes from the edition of Ol. Arnoullet, Lyons (Bib. Nat. Rés. Y, 4420). For a critical edition of both Latin and French texts cf. A. G. Van Hamel, _Les Lamentations de Matheolus et le Livre de Leesce de Jehan le Fèvre_, Paris, 1892-1905. Cf. also Ch.-V. Langlois, _La Vie en France au moyen-âge d’après quelques moralistes du temps_, Paris, 1908, and Ed. Tricotel’s analysis in the _Bulletin du Bibliophile_ 32e année, 1866, pp. 552 sqq. I have not been able to consult V.-J. Vaillant, _Maistre Mahieu, satirique boulonnais du XIIIe siècle_.

[4] Ed. Michel LeNoir, Paris, 1518 (Bib. Nat. Rés. Y. 4421).

[5] Cf. _La Cité des Dames_, as yet unpublished.

[6] Called the _Roman de Fauvel et Fortune_, dated 1314. Bib. nat. fr. 571. Published at St. Petersburg, 1888, by A. Bobrinsky and Th. Batiouchkof. Cf. C.-V. Langlois, _op. cit._, p. 277 sqq.

[7] _Poésies de Gilles li Muisis_, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, Louvain, 1882. The _Registre_ was written probably in 1350.

[8] Cf. _Oeuvres complètes d’Eustache Deschamps_, pub. by the Marquis de Queux de Saint Hilaire and Gaston Raynaud, Paris, 1878-1903.

[9] The same story is told of Guilhem de Bergedam, a Provençal poet who lived before Jean de Meung. Cf. F. Michel, _Roman de la Rose_, t. I., p. xv-xvi, and M. Méon, _Roman de la Rose_, t. II, p. 230 note.

[10] _Ueber Christine von Pisan und ihre Schriften_, in _Der Teutsche Merkur_, 1781, pp. 200-229.

[11] Ed. M. Roy, _Oeuvres poétiques de Christine de Pisan_ (in _Soc. des anc. textes franç._) t. II., p. 1 sqq.

[12] Counsellor and Chamberlain of Charles VI.--then prévôt of the City of Paris, 1401-1408--afterwards président de la chambre des comptes until his death (1414)--widely known on account of his execution of two clerks of the Université, guilty of assassination, whom he had hanged at night by torchlight and left attached to the gibbet for four months, when they were cut down and buried by Pierre des Essars (a creature of the duc de Bourgogne), who thus was able to infringe the commission of full power given Guillaume de Tignonville, June 21, 1401--of noble lineage, wise, a fine orator, and highly esteemed by the king--the translator, before becoming prévôt of Paris, of the _Dicta Philosophorum_ under the title _Livre des Philosophes_. (Cf. P. Paris, _Manuscrits français_, IV., pp. 92-97, 173.)

[13] Cf. M. Roy, _Oeuvres poétiques de Christine de Pisan_ (in the _Soc. des anc. textes franç._) t. II., p. IV.

[14] Cf. A. Piaget in _Romania_, XX, pp. 417-454.

[15] Cf. Mss. 5233 and 10469, Bib. nat. fr.

[16] Ed. by F. Heuckenkamp, Halle, 1891, and by M. Roy, _op. cit._, II. p. 29 sqq.

[17] Cf. for chronology of the letters A. Piaget in _Etudes romanes dédiées à Gaston Paris_, 1891, pp. 113-120.

[18] Jean de Montreuil (called maistre Jehan Johannes by Christine de Pizan), diplomat and secrétaire du roi, was one of the leading humanists of his time, and numbered among his friends many famous men. Cf. A. Thomas, _De Joannis de Monsterolio vita et operibus_, Paris, 1883, p. 1: “ut Petro de Alliaco, Joanni Gersoni, Nicolao de Clamengiis, sed etiam italicis, ut Colutio Florentino Leonardoque Aretino amicitia conjunctus est.” He studied at the University of Paris, though he did not attend lectures there by Gontier Col, whom he elsewhere calls his “praeceptorem.” He seems to have abandoned the church, for which he was originally intended, and to have gone into public life. In 1391 we find him secretary to Charles VI, and also to the duc de Bourgogne and the duc d’Orléans. He soon became chanoine de Rouen, and then prévôt de Lille, a title which he liked. He undertook many embassies for the king of France: to England and Scotland, 1394; to Germany and Italy; to Pope Benedict XIII. at Avignon, 1404; to Rome (Jean XXIII.), 1412 (where he learned to know Leonardo Bruni). In 1413 he went as ambassador of the king of France to the duc de Bourgogne. In the civil war he attached himself to the party of Orléans and refused to leave Paris, with the result that it cost him his life in the massacre, June 12, 1418, of the party of the Armagnacs, which effected for a long time a stifling of the first Renaissance.

From this we see that Jean de Montreuil was a man of action, but we know him also as a man of letters. He wrote _De Gestis et factis memorabilibus Francorum_, dedicated to Gerson, certain works in refutation of the claims of Edward III. to the French throne (circ. 1400), and a large number of letters. His latinity was above the average of his time, but he tried to treat Latin like a living language, _i.e._, as a means of expression for all his ideas.

He was charged with paganism because he inscribed the ten laws of Lycurgus on the portico of his house, and confessed that he preferred them to evangelical principles. This is in the spirit of the real Renaissance, divided between faith and reason. This dilemma, whatever may be said, separates the Middle Ages from the Renaissance, since each age gives a different answer to the question. Jean de Montreuil is already abandoning the ideas of the Middle Ages and recommending those of the Renaissance. Therefore in his way he is an innovator and a precursor of the new time. His attitude in this matter is inseparably connected with the quarrel concerning the _Roman de la Rose_ which, while it is a most ancient literary quarrel, is really moral and religious in nature. (Cf. Lavisse, _Histoire de France_, 1908, t. IV. (A. Coville), and A. Thomas, _op. cit._)

[19] Cf. document XI.

[20] Cf. A. Thomas, _op. cit._, p. 41-2.

[21] _Ibid._, p. 38.

[22] v. Appendix.

[23] For a brief sketch of the life of Gontier Col, cf. M. Roy, _Oeuvres poétiques de Christine de Pisan_, t. II., pp. V-VI.

[24] Cf. M. Méon, _Roman de la Rose_, t. III., p. 331 sqq.

[25] Cf. also Bib. nat. fr. 1563, fol. 180 a. sqq.

[26] The policy of the duc d’Orléans was opposed to that of the duc de Bourgogne not only in France, but also with regard to the empire as a whole. He took the side of Wenceslas, rival for the crown of the empire of Robert of Bavaria. He used this position to repair his losses in Italy by acquiring possessions and position elsewhere, and succeeded so well that he was able in 1402 to occupy part of Luxembourg. The danger of this new power became so great that in December 1402, the diet of Spires discussed means of minimizing it. (Cf. Lavisse, _Histoire de France_, t. IV., p. 327-8).

Then also the whole of Christendom was split in two by the great schism in the church. As if strife in the empire and within France itself were not sufficient, there was added the intrigues of two rival popes. The University of Paris intervened in the struggle, and we can imagine Gerson’s activity commencing with his famous address of January 6, 1391.

In the struggle, in which so many differing interests were concerned, we can easily surmise the interest of Christine de Pizan with her whole being directed towards national unity, and of Gontier and Pierre Col with their political and ecclesiastic affiliations.

[27] Pierre Col, brother of Gontier Col, chanoine de Paris et de Tournai. Cf. a letter of Nicolas de Clémanges to Gontier Col in _Nic. de Clém._ ed. Lydius, p. 307, Epist. cx.: “Ad Guntherum Colli, De Germani sui sospitate et reditu ex peregrinatione, gratulatio.”

[28] Cf. Anvers edition, 1706, Vol. III, col. 293 sqq.

II.--MANUSCRIPTS.

The first six letters:

IV. Christine’s letter to Jean de Montreuil;

V. Gontier Col’s first letter to Christine, requesting a copy of IV;

VI. Gontier Col’s second letter to Christine;

VII. Christine’s reply to VI;

VIII. Dedicatory letter of Christine to Queen Isabelle of Bavaria;

IX. Dedicatory letter of Christine to Guillaume de Tignonville

are contained in mss. A.B.C.D.E. (letter IV also in ms. F). They have been already edited by F. Beck (in 1888) from a comparison of A.D.E. only, but this edition contains a number of serious errors in the text, and of course, as the author says (p. V.), it is not a critical one.

The remaining letters, which have not been printed before, are found in mss. as follows:

XI. Pierre Col’s letter to Christine and Gerson; (Ms. F.)

XIII. Christine’s reply to XI; (Mss. A.B.F.)

XIV. Pierre Col’s reply to XIII--a fragment. Ms. F.

A brief summary of the manuscripts follows:

A. Paris, Bib. nat. fr. 835, fol. 87 a; B. London, Brit. Mus. Harl. 4431; C. Brussels, Bib. royale, 9561; D. Paris, Bib. nat. fr. 604, fol. 112 a; E. Paris, Bib. nat. fr. 12779, fol. 26 a; F. Paris, Bib. nat. fr. 1563, fol. 178 a (for IV); fol. 185 b. (for XI); fol. 190 vo. b (for XIII).

It has been impossible to determine accurately the date of these manuscripts. They almost certainly belong to the fifteenth century, very probably (with the possible exception of F.) to the first part of that century. They have already been described,[29] with the exception of C (9561 Brussels) and F (1563 Bib. nat.)

The filiation of the manuscripts cannot probably be determined with mathematical exactness. From internal evidence in the letters, however, I am able to suggest a genealogical tree which would seem to determine correctly the majority of variants.

In letter XIII, AB form a group as distinguished from F: l. 22 a cause de AB, puis (?) F; l. 83 a ceste question ... response A, aincois que question je ... response B, a cet demande que tu me disse F; l. 144 tu erres AB, tu ti tiens F; l. 183 que la chose peust AB, de la chose quelle peust F; l. 185 et plus AB, ou pour plus F; l. 193 mie _wanting_ F; l. 289 tel AB, ce F; l. 328 deffendi B, deffend A, descendy F; l. 345 comme AB, quant F; l. 360 faire _wanting_ F; l. 400 parles a voulenté AB, parles et de voulanté F; l. 447 que _wanting_ F; l. 466 dame Eloquence, qui parles de Fol Amoureux dont Meun parle _wanting_ F; l. 533 en voye de perillez A, en voye de periller B, en peril de perillier F; l. 546 les _wanting_ F; l. 651 Salomon _wanting_ F; l. 858 plus _inserted_ F; l. 878 maniere _followed by_ ains dit plainement et aluchie toutes pour tos et tos pour toutes F; l. 933 gloses AB, choses F; l. 996 cellui que elle aimeroit par amours AB, maistre Pierre Abalart F; _in subscription_, l. 1116 Christine AB, Christine de Pizan F; etc.

In letters IV.-IX. there seem to be two groupings, AB (confirming our investigation of the previous paragraph) and CDE. CDE again break up into two smaller groups, C and DE. For letter IV. F is available (though differing greatly from any other manuscript), making four groups, AB, C, DE, and F. As evidence, let us notice: IX., l. 54 lequel dit clerc meu de raison ACDE, lequel meu de raison B; l. 58 enuoya a la dicte Christine ycelle A, enuoya a la dicte Christine ycellui B, enuoya a elle icelle CDE; l. 59 Item comme Christine veu et consideré AB, Item comme la dicte veu et consideré CDE; IV., l. 12 de voz ditz fait en reprenant ACF + B (with reprouuant for reprenant), de vos diz faiz si comme il me semble en reprenant D + E (_omits_ si); l. 80 reboutee AB, deboutee CDE; l. 104 car trop est pire le vice de propre malice que cellui de simple ignorance _wanting_ CDEF; l. 112 et querez _wanting_ CDE; l. 115 tant ouir de laidures ABF, oir tant de laidures CDE; l. 200 ou tollent elles pas A + BF (tolent B, ilz F), ne tollent mie CD, ou tollent mie E, ne _wanting_ ABF; l. 206 estat ne pot AB, estat n’en pot CDE, _wanting_ F; l. 227 valables AB, vaillans CDEF; l. 262 honte et raison ABF, raison et honte CDE; VI., l. 27 ie ne mette en peine d’escripre AB, je me mette a escrire CDE; VII., l. 24 l’aucteur AB, l’acteur CDE; l. 32 bien soit de toy AB, soit bien de toy CDE; etc.

The following diagram, therefore, exhibits the relationship of the manuscripts as nearly as it is possible to determine it with the material which we have:

⊙ / \ ---- ---- / \ α β / \ / \ / \ / \ / e c d / / \ / / \ / / \ / / \ F Ⓐ B C D E

For the orthography, A, apparently the most reliable manuscript, has been followed, when available; _i.e._, for letters IV-IX and XIII. F is the only one containing letters XI and XIV. The text has been determined by a comparison of all the manuscripts according to the diagram above, _i.e._ of FAB with CDE. Where there was a deadlock of α and β, what seemed the better according to the context has been selected. When in the last case there was no preference, the reading of α has been arbitrarily chosen. Variant readings will be given as footnotes, as also occasional interesting differences in orthography. I have also modernized the punctuation and paragraphing.