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.
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:
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.
III.—BIBLIOGRAPHY.
In connection with my work I have consulted the following
works:
- Petitot, Collection des mémoires, 1717, V., p. 203.
- Boivin (Jean) de Villeneuve, Vie de Christine de Pisan et de
Thomas de Pisan son père, in the Mém. acad. inscrip. et Belles-Lettres,
1717, II., p. 762; 1736, II, pp. 704-14 (2a IV., pp. 465-80).
- Lebeuf, Dissert. hist. Paris, 1743, III., p. 89.
- Abbé Goujet, Bibl. franç., 1745, IX., pp. 422-25, x. p. 424.
-
Abbé Sallier, Notice sur Christine de Pisan, Mémoires de l’Académie
des Inscriptions, 1751, XVII., pp. 515-25.
- Marchand, Dict. hist., 1758, II., pp. 146-50.
- Lelong, Bibl. France, 1769, IV., 46870-71, 48148.
- La Croix du Maine et Du Verdier de Vauprivas, Bibl. Franç.,
Paris, 1772, I., pp. 127-28, III., pp. 319-20.
- Kéralio, Mlle. de, Collection des meilleurs ouvrages composés par
des dames, Paris, 1787, II.
- Fantuzzi, Scritt. Bologn., 1789, VII., pp. 54-59.
- Struve, Bibl. hist., 1795, VII., ii., pp. 111-12.
- Tiraboschi, Stor. lett. Ital., 1807, V., ii., pp. 447-49.
- Méon, M., Roman de la Rose, Paris, 1814.
- Thomassy, Raimond, Essai sur les écrits politiques de Christine de
Pisan, suivi d’une notice littéraire et de pièces inédites, Paris, 1838.
- Leroux de Lincy, in the Bibl. de l’Ec. de Chartes, 1840, A., I., pp.
374-88.
- Gautier, A., Notice sur Christine de Pisan, Actes acad. scien. de
Bordeaux, 1843, V., p. 555.
- Archæologia, 1847, XXXII., p. 401.
- Melzi, Dizionario di opere anonime e pseudonime di scrittori
italiani, 1848.
- Quicherat, Procès de Jeanne d’Arc, 1849, V., p. 3.
- Pougin, Paul, in Bibl. de l’Ec. de Chartes, 1857, D., III., pp.
535-55.
- Pougin, Paul, Christine de Pisan, sa vie et ses œuvres, Paris, 1857.
- Graesse, Trésor, 1859, I., p. 232, II., p. 137, IV., p. 69, VII., p.
180.
- Brunet, Manuel, 1860, I., 1855-58, S.I., 259; II., 1002.
- Carlo, in Miscell. stor. Ital., 1863, IV., pp. 591-600.
- Michel, F., Roman de la Rose, Paris, 1864 and 1872.
- Leroux de Lincy-Tisserand, Paris et ses historiens, 1867.
- Casati, Charles, in the Mém. soc. scien. de Lille, 1872, p. 447.
- Pugh, Annie Reese, Le Jugement du Roy de Behaigne de Guillaume
de Machaut et le Dit de Poissy de Christine de Pisan, Romania XXIII.,
pp. 581 sqq.
- Paris, G., Comptes rendus acad. Inscrip. et Belles-lettres, 1880-1,
D., VIII., 122-24; Rev. critiq., 1880, B., IX., 443-44.
- Püschel, Rob., Livre du chemin de long estude, 1881, i-xxii. Cf.
Archiv. f. das Stud. d. neueren Sprachen und Literaturen, 1882, LXVII.,
p. 327.
- Darmesteter, A., Rev. critiq., 1881, B., XII., pp. 350-51.
- Delisle, L., Le Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale,
1868-1881.
- Robineau, E. M. D., Christine de Pisan, sa vie et ses œuvres, St.
Omer, 1882.
- Thomas, A., De Joannis de Monsterolio vita et operibus sive de
romanarum litterarum studio apud Gallos instaurato, Carolo VI.
regnante, Paris, 1883.
- Skeat, Essays on Chaucer, pub. by the Chaucer Society V., 1884.
- Catalogue des livres composant la bibliothèque de feu M. le baron
James de Rothschild, Paris, 1884, II., pp. 185-86.
- Koch, F., Leben und Werke der Christine de Pizan, Goslar, 1885.
- Minto, W., Christine de Pisan, a Mediæval Champion of her Sex,
Macmillan’s Magazine, 1886, LIII., p. 264; Living Age, 1886,
CLXVIII, p. 730.
- Koch, F., Ueber die Werke der Christine de Pizan, in the Zeitschr.
für neufranzösische Sprach. und Liter., 1886, VIII., pp. 251-69.
- Müller, E., Zur Syntax der Christine de Pisan, Greifswald, 1886.
- Roy, Maurice, Oeuvres poétiq. de Christine de Pisan, in the Soc.
anc. textes franç., 1886-1896.
- Paris, G., Un poème inédit de Martin Le Franc, in Romania XVI.,
1887, pp. 382, sqq.
- Beck, F., Les Epistres sur le Roman de la Rose von Christine de
Pizan nach drei Pariser Hss. bearbeitet und zum ersten Mal veröffentlicht,
Neuburg, 1888.
- Piaget, A., Martin Le Franc, Lausanne, 1888.
- Langlois, E., Origines et Sources du Roman de la Rose, Paris, 1890.
- Paris, Gaston, La littérature française au moyen âge, Paris, 1890-1905.
- Heuckenkamp, Ferd., Le dit de la Rose von Christine de Pisan,
Einladungsschrift, Halle, 1891.
- Piaget, A., Chronologie des épistres sur le roman de la rose, in
Etud. rom. dédiées à Gaston Paris, 1891, pp. 113-120.
- Piaget, A., La Cour Amoureuse dite de Charles VI., Romania XX.,
p. 417, sqq. 1891.
- Toynbee, Paget, Christine de Pisan and Sir John Maundeville, in
Romania XXI., 1892, pp. 228-39.
- Hanscom, E. D., The Allegory of de Lorris’ Romance of the Rose
in Modern Language Notes, vol. VIII., 1893.
- Lenient, La Satire en France au Moyen Age, Paris, 1893.
- Rashdall, The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages, 1895.
- Julleville, Petit de, in Rev. des cours et conférences, 1895-1896,
II., pp. 440, 540.
- Copinger, Suppl. to Hain, 1895, I., 4985-88.
- Julleville, Petit de, Hist. de la langue et de la litt. fr., II. Chap.
III. Le Roman de la Rose (E. Langlois); IV., Littérature Didactique
(A. Piaget); VII. Les Derniers Poètes du Moyen Age (Petit de
Julleville).
- Delisle, Léopold, Notice sur les sept psaumes allégorisés de
Christine de Pisan, in Not. et Extraits d. mss., Paris, 1897, XXXV.,
pp. 551-59.
- Überweg-Heinze, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, 1898.
- Piaget, A., Le Chapel des fleurs de lys de Philippe de Vitry,
Romania XXVII, 1898, p. 72.
- Suchier, H., and Birch-Hirschfeld, A., Geschichte der Französischen
Litteratur von den ältesten Zeiten bis zur Gegenwart, Leipzig und
Wien, 1900.
- De Wulf, Histoire de la philosophie médiévale, 1900.
- Hentsch, Alice A., De la Litt. didactique s’adressant espécialement
aux femmes, Cahors, 1903.
- Haskins, Ch., The University of Paris in the sermons of the XIII.
century in American Historical Review, October, 1904.
- Warren, F. M., On the Date and Composition of Guillaume de
Lorris’ Roman de la Rose, in Publications of the Modern Language
Association of America, XXIII, 1908, pp. 269-284.
- Benedetto, L. F., Il Roman de la Rose e la Letteratura Italiana,
Halle, 1910.
IV.
CHRISTINE TO JEAN DE MONTREUIL.[30]
[fol. 88 verso b] Christine
Reuerence, honneur auec recommendacion a vous,
monseigneur5meurs, ameur de science, en clergie fondé, et expert de rethorique,
et de sentement legier, pour lesquelles choses vostre
sagece
aucunement n’ait en despris la petitece de mes raisons,
ains vueille supploier par la consideracion de ma femenine
10foiblece. Et comme il vous ait pleu de vostre bien (dont vous
mercy)
moy enuoier un petit traictié ordenné par belle rethorique
reprenant, comme il me semble, aucuns blasmeurs de la compilacion
du Romant de la Rose en aucunes pars et moult soustenant
15icellui, et approuant l’œuure et les aucteurs d’ycelle et
par especial Meun, je,
ayant leu et consideré vostre
dicte prose
et compris l’effect selons la legiereté de mon petit engin (combien
que a moy ne soit adreçant, ne response ne requiert, mais
meue par oppinion contraire a vos diz et acordant a l’especial
grace) a grant tort et sans cause donnez si parfaicte louenge a
celle dicte œuure, qui mieulx
puet estre appellé[e] droicte oisiueté
que œuure utile, a mon jugement; [fol. 89 a] et combien que
25moult reprenez les contredisans, et dites: “que grant chose est
d’ainsi comprendre”; “ce que un aultre
dit tesmoingne mieulx”
“a construit et mis sus par grant estude et a long trait,” etc,
aucteur si solennel et tant soubtil. Mais soit nottee la ferme et
30grant oppinion, qui me meut contre aucunes particularitez qui
ou dit [traictié] sont comprises. Et, au fort, chose qui est
dicte par oppinion et non de loy
commandee se puet redarguer
sans prejudice. Et combien que ne soye en science
aprise ne
stilee de language soubtil, dont sache user
de belle arrenge
35et moz polis bien ordenez qui mes raisons rendissent luisans,
pour tant
ne lairay a dire materielment et en gros vulgar
l’oppinion de mon entente, tout ne le sache proprement exprimer
en ordre de paroles aournees.
Mais pourquoy ay je
dit deuant que mieulx peust estre
40appellee oisiueté? Sans faille il me semble que toute chose
sans preu, non obstant soit traictie, faicte, et
acomplie a grant
de tant comme plus mal en ensuit. Et comme ia pieça pour
la grant renommee
commune du dit romans, desiray le veoir,
45apres que cognoiscence
m’ot un
peu fait entendre choses soubtilles,
le leus et consideray au long et au lé, le mieulx que le
coq sur brese; si ne l’ay planté veu. Neantmoins [fol. 89 b]
50demoura en ma memoire aucunes choses traicties en lui, que
mon jugement condempna moult, et encore ne puet approuer
pour contraire louenge
d’autre gent. Bien est vray que mon
petit entendement
y considere grant ioliueté; en aucunes pars
tressolennelement
parle de ce qu’il voult dire et par moult
55beaux termes et vers gracieux bien leonimez; ne mieulx ne
pourroit estre dit
plus soubtilment, ne par plus
mesurez trais,
de ce qu’il voult traictier.
60pars, et meismement ou parçonnage que il claime Raison,
Et ad ce que son oppinion soustenez, et communiquez que
que Dieu a faictes, n’a nulle laidure, et par consequent n’en
65doit le nom estre eschiué. Je dis et confesse que voirement
crea Dieu toutes choses pures et nettes venans de soy; n’adonc
en l’estat d’innocence ne eust esté laidure les nommer; mais
par la polucion de pechié deuint homme immonde, dont encore
nous est demouré pechié
originel, ce tesmoingne l’escripture
Lucifer bel sur tous angelz, et lui donna nom tressolennel et
bel, qui puis
fu par son pechié ramené a orrible laidece par
oyans pour l’impression de la personne.
75Encore proposez que Jhesucrist en parlant des pecherresses
les appella meretrix, etc. Et que il les appellast [fol. 89
de meretrix n’est mie deshonneste a nommer selon la vilté de la
chose; et plus vilment pourroit estre dit meismes en latin; et que
dont nature mesmes se hontoie. Je dis que (sauue la reuerence
de l’aucteur
et la vostre) grant tort commettez contre
la noble vertu de honte, qui de sa nature reffraint les goliardises
et deshonnestetez en diz et fais; et que ce soit grant
85vice et hors ordre de policie honneste et de bonnes meurs
appert en mains lieux
de l’escripture saincte; et que ne doye
estre repudié le nom ne que se[s] reliques fussent
nommées.
mais la chose fait le nom deshonneste. Pour ce selon mon
90foible auis en doit estre parlé sobrement, et non sans necessité
pour fin d’aucun cas particulier comme de maladie ou aultre
honnesteté necessaire. Et si comme naturelment les mucierent
noz premiers parens, deuons faire en fait et en parole.
95que l’office
de Raison, laquelle il mesmes dit fille de
Dieu,
doie mettre auant telle parole et par maniere de prouerbe,
comme ie ay nottee en ycellui chapittre la ou elle dit a l’Amant
que en la guerre amoureuse vault mieulz deceuoir que deceu
100Jehan de Meun, renia son pere a
celluy mot; car trop donna
que tous deux
fussent bons, qui ne puet estre.
Et je
tiens
par oppinion contraire que moins est [fol. 89 verso b]
105OR ALONS OULTRE en considerant la matiere ou maniere
de parler qui au bon auis de pluseurs fait a reprochier.
Beau Sire Dieux! quel orribleté! quel deshonnesteté! et
diuers reprouués enseignemens recordé ou chapitre de la
Vieille. Mais pour Dieu, qui y pourra notter fors enortemens
110sophistes tous plains de laidure et toute
vilaine memoire? Ha!
hay! entre vous qui belles filles auez et bien les desirez entroduire
de la Rose pour apprendre a discerner le bien du mal—que
dis ie—mais le mal du bien! Et a quel utilité ne a quoy profite
Puis ou chapitre de Jalousie,
pour Dieu, quelz grans biens
y peuent estre nottez? n’a quel besoing recorder les deshonnestetez
et laides paroles, qui assez sont communes en la bouche
des maleureux passionez d’ycelle maladie? Quel
bon exemple
des femmes! Dient pluseurs en lui excusant que ce
est le Jaloux
qui parle, et voirement fait ainsi comme Dieu, qui
parla par la bouche Jeremie. Mais sans faille quelsque
adicions mençongeuses qu’il ait adioustees,
ne peuent (Dieux
Faulz Semblans, et choses dissimulees en mariage et autre
estat que l’en
peut retenir d’ycellui traictié—certes je juge
du tout faillies, se il tant ne les eust recommandees.
Maispour Dieu! qui est cil qui me sceust declairier ou souldre a
quoy peut estre proffitable le grant procés plein de vitupere,
135qu’il appelle Sermon comme par derrision de saincte predicacion,
qu’il dit que fait cellui Genius, ou tant a de deshonnestetez
140ordre commun faillir ne puet; car se autrement fust, bon
seroit pour le proffit de generacion humaine trouer et dire moz
et termes atisans et enflamans pour inanimer homme a continuer
l’œuure. Encore plus fist
l’aucteur, (se bien en ay
memoire) dont trop ne me
puis merueillier a quel fin. Car ou
et puis conclut que tous entendent, hommes et femmes sans
espargnier, a perfurnir et exerciter les œuures de nature;
neen ce ne fait excepcion de loy, comme se il voulsist dire, mais
150dit plainement que ilz seront sauuez. Et par ce semble que
maintenir vueille le pechié de luxure estre nul, ains vertu, qui
que mains en ont laissié le monde, et entrés en religion, ou
155deuenus hermites pour celle saincte lecture, [fol. 90 b] ou retrais
de courage corrompu et abandonné a dissolucion et vice,
petit, en quelle maniere puet estre valable et
a bonne fin ce
que tant
et si excessiuement, impetueusement, et tresnonveritablement
il accuse, blasme, et diffame femmes
de pluseurs
tresgrans vices, et leurs meurs tesmoingne estre pleins de toute
165peruersité, et par tant de repliques et
aucques en tous parçonnages
ne s’en puet saouler? Car se dire
me voulez que ce face
a l’office de Genius, qui tant recommande et enorte que
l’en couche auecques elles sans delaissier l’œuure qu’il tant
170loue. Et cil mesmes dit sur tous parçonnages moult de
grans
vituperes d’elles; et dit de fait, fuiés, fuiez, fuiez le serpent
venimeux;
[33] et puis
si
dit que on les continue sans delaissier.
175mais puis que tant sont peruerses, ne les deust commander
iene scay
ou tous les deables
trouua tant de fatras et de paroles
180gastees, qui la sont arrengees par long procés.
Mais je
foy, qu’ilz [fol. 90 verso a] me sachent a dire quans ont veus
des grans desloyaultez et des grans deableries que il dit que
crismes peut
on accuser meismes les pires et qui plus deçoiuent?
200de l’argent de ta bourse, dont ne le t’emblent
ou
dis que tu en es assotés, si ne t’en assotes
pas. Te vont elles
en ton hostel querir, prier, ou prendre a force?
Bon seroit
205et laidement parla
des femmes mariees,
qui si deçoiuent
souspeçonneux et pou amans leurs femmes.
Dieux quelle
car d’aultres n’auoit cognoiscence. Et se seulement eust
les accuse. Mais se tant oultre les mettes de raison se chargia
l’aucteur d’elles accuser ou iugier non veritablement, blasme
aucun n’en doit estre imputé a elles, mais a cellui qui si loins
de verité dist la mençonge,
qui n’est mie creable comme le
complisses en ce cas l’eussent iuré, (a nul n’en soit grief)
il aesté, est et sera moult de plus
vaillans femmes plus honnestes,
mieulx moriginees, et meismes plus sauans et dont plus grant
doulcement [fol. 91 a]
et secretement, non obstant leurs
comme
Sarra, Rebecha, Ester, Judic, et autres
assez. Et
240d’Orliens, fille de roy de France,
la duchece d’Aniou, qui ores
Et
donc que fait a louer lecture qui n’osera estre leue ne
parleeen propre fourme a la table des roines, des princeces, et des
vaillans preudefemmes, a qui conuendroit couurir la face
de honte rougie?
scet on comment
les hommes habitent aux femmes naturelment?
plus courtois termes s’en fust passé, et qui
mieux plairoient
mesmes aux amans iolis et honnestes et a toute autre vertueuse
280personne.
plus estre prolixe en langage, non obstant que assés plus pourroit
estre dit et
mieulx, ne sçay considerer aucune utilité ou
dit traictié. Mais tant m’i semble apperceuoir que grant
285labeur [fol. 91 verso a] fu pris sans aucun preu,
non obstant
que mon iugement confesse maistre Jehan de Meun moult
grant clerc soubtil et bien parlant; et trop milleur œuure plus
profitable et de sentement plus hault eust sceu mettre sus s’il
s’y fust appliquié, dont fu dommage, mais ie suppose que la
290grant charnalité peut estre, dont il fu remply, le fist plus
habonder a volenté que a bien proffitable, comme par les operacions
pars; car il y a de bonnes choses et
de bien dictes sans faille,
295et de tant est plus grant le peril, car plus est adioustee foy au
et palier auec verité et vertus. Mais si comme dit son
prestre Genius: “Fuiez, fuiez femme, le mal serpent mucié
300soubz l’erbe”, puis ie dire, fuiez, fuiez les malices couuertes
305n’est digne que louenge lui soit imputee (sauue vostre bonne
grace) et grant tort faictes aux valables; car œuure sans
utilité et hors bien commun ou propre, poson[s] que elle soit
delictable, de grant labour et coust, ne fait a louer. Et comme
anciennement les Romains triomphans n’atribuassent louenge
310aucune ne honneur a chose quelconques, se elle n’estoit a
l’utilité de la chose publique, regardons a [fol. 91 verso b.] leur
exemplaire, se nous pourrons couronner cestui romant.
Mais je treuue, comme il me semble, ces dictes choses et assez
315de feu que couronne de lorier,
nonobstant que le claimez
miroir de
bien viure, exemple de tous estaz de soy politiquement
de vice, confortant vie dissolue, doctrine pleine de deceuance,
et mescreandise,
honte de pluseurs personnes, et puet estre
que on lui ramentoiue
le pié dont elle cloche pour plus droit
330viure et moralment sont trouuees en mains
autres volumes,
fais de philosophes et
docteurs de nostre foy comme
Aristote,
Seneque, Saint
Pol, Saint Augustin, et d’aultres (ce
sauez vous) qui plus valablement et plainement tesmoingnent
moult plaist au malade qui a grant soif, quant le medicin
lecherie du boire se donne a croire que ia mal ne lui fera.
Etautres—par la grace de
Dieu ramenez
a clarté et purté de
netteconscience, sans soilleure
ou pollucion de pechié ne entencion
fait cler veoir le secret de conscience et condempne propre
345voulenté), comme
iuge de verité, ferez aultre iugement
du Romant
de la Rose, et vouldriez peut estre que oncques ne l’eussiez
aucteur tant soubtil
et son œuure amenuisier de
