Transcriber's Note.
Textual notes in the original are not numbered but start with
the line number and the word(s) to which they apply, such as
4. Treschier sire] _wanting_ F.
indicating that those words do not appear in manuscript F. In
the transcription the line numbers have been placed in square
brackets and the pertinent word(s) in round brackets:
[l. 4] (treschier sire) _wanting_ F.
All notes have been placed at the end of each document. In a few
places the order of the notes has been silently corrected.
Words marked ~underlined~ are underlined in the original.
Corrections made are detailed at the end of this text.
A table of contents has been added.
The University of Chicago
FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER
The Epistles on the Romance of the Rose
and Other Documents in the Debate
A DISSERTATION
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY
OF THE
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF ROMANCE LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES
BY
CHARLES FREDERICK WARD.
1911
SECTION II., 1910.
TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA
VIII.--_The Epistles on the Romance of the Rose and other Documents
in the Debate._
By C. F. WARD, M.A.
(Communicated by the Rev. Dr. George Bryce, President of the Royal Society
of Canada, and read by title, 28 September, 1910.)
PREFATORY NOTE.
I am indebted for the subject treated in the following pages to
suggestions made in a course on the history of the French language at
the University of Chicago. I desire therefore first of all to express
my sincere gratitude for the encouragement of Professor T. A. Jenkins,
whose advice has been of inestimable value in the preparation of the
dissertation.
The little work owes much to several writings of M. Arthur Piaget,
particularly to his adjustment of the difficult question of the
chronology of the letters, and to the essay on Martin Le Franc.
I desire to thank also, for several timely hints and very valuable
suggestions, Professors W. A. Nitze, Karl Pietsch, P. S. Allen, and J.
W. Thompson of the University of Chicago. I am also indebted to the
late Professor John E. Matzke of the Leland Stanford, Jr., University.
C. F. W.
I.--INTRODUCTION.
From its first appearance the _Roman de la Rose_ enjoyed great vogue.
We observe in this connection the glowing tributes of contemporary and
succeeding writers, the numerous manuscripts, which compensate for
the art of printing not then invented, the translations into English,
Dutch, Italian, and other languages. Even the numerous paintings and
tapestries of scenes from the romance point to its great popularity.
Perhaps the remark of M. A. Coville crystallizes the general opinion:
“Parmi les livres du siècle précédent, un surtout fut lu de tous,
admiré des uns, ardemment discuté par les autres, c’est le _Roman de
la Rose_. La seconde partie avec sa science pédante, ses allégories,
ses artifices, devint une nouvelle Bible, et Jean Clopinel de Meun,
l’auteur, passa pour un véritable prophète. On retrouve son influence
surtout chez les poètes et les moralistes.”[1]
Naturally (and this is also an indirect testimony to the influence of
the _Roman de la Rose_) there were those who found matter for serious
complaint in the work of Jean de Meung, who in the second part placed
the work of Guillaume de Lorris on a basis of profound philosophical
import. As we shall see, Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris,
saw the danger to morals in the average man’s reception of a poem which
tended to free him from all restraint. Christine de Pisan, too, with a
much narrower range of thought, assails with singular energy and with
the courage of her convictions a book which contains so many attacks on
her sex.
If we analyse critically the influence of the second part of the _Roman
de la Rose_ we shall see that its fundamental purpose or idea (whether
altogether so intended by Jean de Meung or not does not matter) was
to disseminate in a popular form the philosophy of the Latin writers.
To Jean de Meung must be given credit for the manner of the work, the
handling of the material, but for the subject matter he is indebted
to Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Horace, Juvenal, etc., and especially to
the _De Consolatione Philosophiæ_ of Boethius, the _De Nuptiis_ of
Theophrastus, the _De Planctu Naturæ_ of Alain de Lille, and to the
_Ars Amatoria_ and _Metamorphoses_ of Ovid.[2] As a popular exposition
of the favorite doctrines of Latin philosophy, as an encyclopædia
of knowledge on almost every subject, good and evil, the nature of
government, the Church, society, morals, manners, women, etc., etc.,
the _Roman de la Rose_ was admired by the bourgeois, the average man.
At a time when learning was only for the favored few, it is not much
wonder that those who had formerly been excluded from the magic pale
treasured a work which opened wide for them the portals of mental
advancement.
It is this freedom of expression, so novel because so bold in the age
in which he lived, that makes him characteristically French; while the
objects to which it was directed, the attempt to be encyclopædic, and
the constant appeal to a clear and uncompromising reason, lead us to
agree (as far as such comparisons will hold) with Gaston Paris that
Jean de Meung is the Voltaire of the Middle Ages. In this sense, too,
he may be regarded as representing the _Aufklärung_ which was logically
required to prepare the way for the new and larger enthusiasm of the
Renaissance.
About twenty-five years after Jean de Meung finished his masterpiece,
another work was written which vehemently supported his attacks on
women and marriage. This was the _Lamenta_ of Matheolus, translated
into French about the middle of the fourteenth century by Jean le
Fèvre under the title _Les Lamentations de Matheolus_.[3] Matheolus
(or Mahieu as he was called in the dialect of his own district) looked
at marriage from the standpoint of one who had suffered much from that
institution. He was deprived of the privileges of the clerical order
because he had married a widow, and failed to find in the latter’s
society sufficient compensations for this sacrifice. The _Lamenta_,
inaccessible to the multitude, as had been indeed the sayings of the
great Latin writers before they were put into popular form by Jean
de Meung, became very widely read in the French translation made by
Jean le Fèvre. It is interesting for us to note as chief sources of
Matheolus’ work: the _De Nuptiis_ of Theophrastus, the _De Planctu
Naturæ_ of Alain de Lille, the collections of Exempla, and possibly the
_Roman de la Rose_ itself.
Jean le Fèvre, however, surprised at the success of the _Lamentations_
in strengthening the hold of the philosophy of life taught in the
_Roman de la Rose_, or feeling that this vivid presentation of the
evils of the married state was considerably overdrawn, tried to stem
the tide of feeling by writing a refutation of the _Lamentations_,
which he called the _Livre de Leesce_.[4] This praiseworthy attempt
failed completely, and the book against which it was directed, in spite
of the attacks of Christine de Pizan,[5] who saw its real character,
became more and more popular.
The influence of the _Roman de la Rose_ is evident in the _Roman de
Fauvel_[6] (which is likewise composed of two independent parts)
particularly in its satires on the different classes of society and in
its general pessimistic outlook upon life; and is still more strongly
seen in the _Registre_ of Gilles li Muisis.[7]
This Benedictine abbot was a great admirer of the famous romance, and
traces of the thought contained therein may be plainly seen in his long
arraignment of conditions then existing, as compared with the _ætas
dorea_, which to his old man’s fancy had existed when he was a youth.
Eustache Deschamps (1338?-1415) naturally belongs on the side of Jean
de Meung (whose disciple he may be said to be) with numerous _ballades_
and his long poem against marriage, _Le Miroir de Mariage_.[8] In
the works of Deschamps we find the epicureanism combined with the
gift of genuine satire that we notice in the work of his master. _Le
Miroir de Mariage_ is not mentioned here, however, because it had a
direct bearing upon our controversy. It seems not to have been known
to Christine de Pizan or to her allies. It does nevertheless afford
additional evidence of the far-reaching influence of the _Roman de la
Rose_.
We remark that up to this point the great popularity of the _Roman
de la Rose_ had carried everything before it. Its influence upon
literature was supreme. It was the masterly work which terminated the
middle ages. But there was to be a reaction against its doctrines and
we come now to the first public challenge of the work of Jean de Meung,
at the beginning of the fifteenth century.
Christine de Pizan was not the first woman to resent the insinuations
against the feminine sex contained in many parts of the _Roman de la
Rose_, if we are to believe the rather doubtful legend[9] concerning
the ladies of the court who were going to whip the author, but she is
certainly the first woman-writer to champion publicly the cause of
her sex, insulted, as she believed, by the ungallant Jean de Meung.
She is still as interesting to us by her character, her fate, and the
influence of her spirit on her time, says Wieland in a little known
essay,[10] as she once was to her contemporaries by her personal
qualities and her works. In 1399 she wrote her _Epistre au dieu
d’Amours_[11] (which for convenience of reference we call document I
of the debate) which asks, why is it that women, formerly so esteemed
and honored in France, are now attacked and insulted not only by the
ignorant and base, but also by the educated, the noble, the priestly
classes?
This poem naturally encountered opposition among the partisans of
Jean de Meung, but Christine found powerful allies in Jean Gerson,
Chancellor of the University of Paris, Guillaume de Tignonville,[12]
Prévôt de Paris, and Marshal Boucicault.
The last named, indeed, who had just returned from his successful
campaign in the East, founded in 1399 an order of knighthood expressly
for the defence of women, called “l’écu verd à la dame blanche.”[13]
A little later, February 14, 1400, St. Valentine’s day, a number of
great lords and poets assembled in the hôtel of the Duc de Bourgogne
in Paris and founded an extensive organisation called the “Cour
Amoureuse,”[14] to honor ladies and cultivate poetry. All classes
of society were represented in the six hundred members whose names have
come down to us.[15] We are perhaps especially interested in noticing
the names of Gontier Col, and his brother Pierre Col, probably the
foremost disciples (with Jean de Montreuil) of Jean de Meung.
One year to the day after the formation of the “Cour Amoureuse,”
Christine de Pisan wrote her _Dit de la Rose_[16] (document II). In
this she seems to be conscious (probably from support given her by the
“Cour Amoureuse” and by the queen) of having an established position as
a defender of her sex.
The controversy seems to have commenced,[17] as was very natural
considering the circumstances, with oral discussions between Christine
de Pizan, Jean de Montreuil,[18] and a third person, probably
Gerson.[19] Then Jean de Montreuil, wishing to convince Christine and
the third person before mentioned of the great value of the tenets of
Jean de Meung expounded in the _Roman de la Rose_, wrote, probably
in 1401, a treatise in the form of a letter (document III) now lost,
which he sent to his two opponents.[20] This correspondence with Gerson
(if it be he) is not improbable, as we have several other letters of
Jean de Montreuil addressed to him.[21] We subjoin herewith also three
undated Latin letters[22] from his pen, which bear on our subject.
Shortly afterward, Christine wrote a letter (document IV) to Jean
de Montreuil (whom she calls “maistre Jehan Johannes”) refuting his
arguments and again assailing the _Roman de la Rose_.
Gontier Col,[23] secrétaire du roi, having heard of this letter of
Christine’s, sent her, in order to convince her of the unsoundness
of her views regarding the poem, “un pou de trésor” (i.e., the work,
_Le trésor de Jean de Meung, ou les sept articles de la foi_)[24]
together with a request for a copy of her letter to Jean de Montreuil,
in order that he might be informed concerning her point of view. This
communication (document V) is dated September 13, 1401.
After his request had been promptly acceded to, Gontier Col hastened
to write to Christine (document VI, September 15, 1401). This letter
censures Christine sharply for her narrowmindedness regarding Jean de
Meung’s great work, and rather brusquely calls upon her to retract her
statements and sue for pardon.
Shortly afterward the authoress replied to this (in document VII). She
now not only refuses to abandon in the slightest degree the position
she had taken, but proceeds to adduce other reasons for condemning the
poem and to repeat some arguments already brought forward.
Christine went further still. With an impulse born of clever feminine
intuition, she assembled the documents of the debate and “la veille
de la chandeleur 1401” addressed one copy, with a dedicatory letter
(document VIII) to the queen, and the other, also with a letter
introducing the subject (document IX), to Guillaume de Tignonville,
prévôt of Paris. These two personages already favored her side of the
case, and Christine’s appeal to Cæsar, as it were, was well calculated
to prejudice further public opinion in her favor.
Doubtless Christine had already been confirmed in her attitude by the
support of Jean Gerson. The latter had written in 1399 a _Sermon contre
la luxure_, in one place in which, with all the authority he possessed,
he condemned the _Roman de la Rose_ to the fire: “Au feu, bonnes gens,
au feu!... C’est le remède meilleur.” Gerson’s condemnation of the work
was based on grounds somewhat different from those of Christine. He
saw in it a work subversive of private and public morality. Although a
humanist and a friend of humanists, he failed to see the real literary
and philosophical merits of Jean de Meung’s work, and endeavored to use
the great authority of the church to wipe it out of existence. On May
18, 1402, he wrote his _Tractatus contra Romantium de Rosa_,[25] which
we reprint here (document X). This is cast in an allegorical mould, in
the form of a “vision”--if he thought at all that he was borrowing a
form of composition established by his opponents, he probably regarded
it as fighting the devil with fire--and is a veritable _procès-verbal_
against the romance. He divides his work into eight articles, and
writes in a vivid, forceful, and conclusive style.
The quarrel seemed to be dying away, political events being presumably
responsible,[26] when, four months later, Pierre Col[27] wrote a
passionate letter (document XI) refuting both the _Tractatus_ of Gerson
and the letter of Christine to Jean de Montreuil. He sent copies to
Gerson and Christine. With the appearance of Pierre Col the real
position of the partisans of Jean de Meung becomes clear for the first
time, and it is this part of the controversy which is particularly
interesting to us now. Pierre Col undoubtedly recognized the lubricity
of parts of the Romance, though he attempted to gloss it over. His
share in the debate is virtually an eloquent defence of freedom of
thought and liberty of expression, an attitude which links him with
the representative writers and thinkers of France. Jean de Meung had
dared to be free in thought and speech, and his great disciple ardently
champions his right (and inferentially anyone’s right) to liberty in
the intellectual and moral world, which France always has allowed
more than other nations, and to which one eventful day she was to add
political liberty. To him the _Roman de la Rose_ was a precious public
possession, and he was determined to keep it such.
We reprint herewith the eloquent reply of Gerson: _Responsio ad scripta
cujusdam errantis_[28] (document XII) and publish for the first time
that of Christine (document XIII) dated October 2, 1402, in which
she adds no new arguments, though she reiterates and expands some
already put forth, and confesses her weariness of an apparently endless
struggle.
The indefatigable Pierre Col apparently did not intend to let the
lady have the last word. Unconvinced by either the learned eloquence
of Gerson or the feminine appeals of Christine, he concludes the
controversy by a reply to Christine’s letter (the one dated October 2,
1402), of which only a short fragment has been preserved (document XIV).
This, briefly, is the general course of the debate, which we shall be
satisfied to have outlined, preferring to let the documents speak for
themselves rather than to attempt further analysis here.