[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 _La Cité des Dames_, as yet unpublished.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.