3730228

Christine de Pizan: An Author's ProgressAuthor(s): J. C. LaidlawReviewed work(s):Source: The Modern Language Review, Vol. 78, No. 3 (Jul., 1983), pp. 532-550Published by: Modern Humanities Research AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3730228 .Accessed: 25/02/2012 01:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Modern Humanities Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Modern Language Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3730228?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

CHRISTINE DE PIZAN AN AUTHOR'S PROGRESS

In 1410 or I41 Queen Isabelle of France received from Christine de Pizan the large collected manuscript of her works in verse and prose which the Queen had commissioned. From a literary and an artistic point of view that collection (today London, British Library, Harley MS 4431) represents the culmination of Christine's career; the presentation copies prepared under her supervision between 1411 and 1418, when she retired to a convent, were shorter and less ambitious.1 A comparison of the Queen's MS with the two earlier collections which Christine had prepared in 1402-1405 and in 1407-1408 gives some insight into the way in which Christine wrote and into her role in the production of the manuscripts which she presented to her patrons. It will be seen that the preparation of a new collection provided her with an opportunity to correct and revise what she had written, a process which is so extensive on occasion that certain works can be said to have gone through successive editions. Authors do not change; like her counterparts in any age, Christine knew the tyranny of the deadline and could never be entirely satisfied with anything that she had written.

The first part of the discussion which follows is centred on Christine's ballades and rondeaux. In the development of her lyric poetry three stages can be distinguished, which are associated with the preparation of the three collected manuscripts. There is advantage in beginning with her shorter poems, for they can be examined in detail to see what changes were made and to assess the purpose and the effect of these alterations. The lyric poems are a convenient starting-point, for the additional reason that the only copies known are those in the three collections; the alterations made to a particular ballade or rondeau can thus be traced more easily than the development of a longer work which may be copied both in separate and in collected manuscripts. While modern critics have been aware that the collections of lyric poetry included in successive manuscripts are not identical, they have concentrated their attention on problems of selection and order. Thus F. Lecoy has shown that the Autres Balades were rearranged and enlarged by Christine, who deleted certain poems and added others; the only occasion when he discusses changes within the texts is when he shows that two of the new poems ultimately depend on ballades which were not included in the remodelled collection.2 Neither Lecoy nor the editors of Christine's lyric poetry have examined the way in which she corrected and revised her poems.3

That Christine's longer works were subject to a similar process of revision will be seen from examination of the Epistre Othea, the Mutacion defortune, and the Avision Christine. Although some of her critics and editors have distinguished between different editions of the work with which they were concerned, others either have not

1 For example, Brussels, Bibliotheque Royale (hereafter, Brussels MS) 10366, which contains the Livre de la paix, completed towards the end of I413, or Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, fonds francais (hereafter BN, f. fr.) 24786, which contains the Epistre de la prison de vie humaine, completed on 2oJanuary 1418.

2 Felix Lecoy, 'Note sur quelques ballades de Christine de Pisan', in Fin du Moyen Age et Renaissance: Melanges de philologiefranfaise offerts a Robert Guiette (Antwerp, I96i), pp. 107-14. The article is almost entirely concerned with the Autres Balades. Lecoy uses the numbering of Roy's edition (see note 3), and shows that Ballade 25 depends distantly on 28, and Ballade 44 on 45.

3 (Euvres poitiques de Christine de Pisan, edited by Maurice Roy, 3 vols (Paris, 1886-96), vol. i; the edition is based on the collection of 1407-1408. Christine dePisan's Ballades, Rondeaux, and Virelais: an Anthology, edited by Kenneth Varty (Leicester, I965); the Queen's MS is chosen as base.

J. C. LAIDLAW

done so or have not given full effect to their conclusions.4 The difficulties faced by an editor are the greater because he is generally concerned with a single work and may not be aware that the variations between the copies on which he is working have their parallel in other texts by Christine. Recent work on the manuscripts of Christine de Pizan has considerably increased our knowledge, but much remains to be done. Particularly lacking is a comprehensive study of the presentation copies which were prepared under her supervision.5

The first collection of the works of Christine de Pizan is extant in three copies, Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, fonds francais 604 and 12779, and Chantilly, Musee Conde 492-93.6 MS I2779 and the Chantilly MS were copied under Christine's

supervision. MS 604 is later, dating from the first third of the fifteenth century and after I407(0.s.); it was copied from the Chantilly MS or a manuscript very similar to it, as is indicated by the lay-out and the present contents of MS 604, together with the readings which it contains.7 A table of contents found in the Chantilly MS and also in MS 604 shows that preparation of the collection was begun in 1399 and was completed on 23June 1402:

Cy commencent les rebriches de la table de ce present volume fait et (f. MS 604) compile par Christine de Pizan, demoiselle. Commenci6e 'an de grace mil.ccc.iiij".xix. Escheve et escript en l'an mil. Quatrecens et deux, la veille de la nativit6 SaintJehan Baptiste.8

Twenty-one works are listed in the table, the first being the Cent (Bonnes) Balades and the last the Quinzejoyes de Nostre Dame rimees. Immediately after that work MS 12779 reads as follows:

Explicit le livre de Cristine. Deo gracias.

(fol. 156c)

An erasure at the equivalent point in the Chantilly MS suggests that it may have contained a similar explicit; if so, it was doubtless removed when the manuscript was subsequently enlarged to include five additional works by Christine dating from

4 See below, pp. 544-49. 5 The same point is made forcibly in Gilbert Ouy and Christine M. Reno, 'Identification des

autographes de Christine de Pizan', Scriptorium, 34 (1980), 221-38. Reno is preparing a new edition of the Avision Christine.

6 For detailed descriptions and bibliographies, see Christine de Pisan,Jean Gerson,Jean de Montreuil, Gontier et Pierre Col: Le Debat sur le Roman de la Rose, edited by Eric Hicks (Paris, 1977), pp. lxx-lxxiv; see also Gianni Mombello, La Tradizione Manoscritta dell' 'Epistre Othea' di Christine de Pizan, Memorie dell' Accademia delle Scienze di Torino: Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche, Serie 4a, N? 15 (Turin, 1967), pp. 9-13, 63-70, io6-i6.

7 In his edition Roy dismissed those three manuscripts as copies of a lost original and dated them all from the middle of the fifteenth century ((Euvres poetiques, i, xviii-xx). In recent years the importance of these manuscripts has been increasingly recognized, and several critics have raised the question whether Christine may not have been involved in the production of them, but without giving a definite answer. See Mombello, Tradizione Manoscritta, pp. 66, I I -I 2;James Douglas Farquhar and Eric C. Hicks, 'Christine de Pizan's "Dit de la Pastoure" in Baltimore: membra disjecta', Scriptorium, 30 (1976), 192-200 (pp. 199-200); Hicks, Dibat sur le Roman de la Rose, p. lxx; Ouy and Reno, 'Identification des autographes', p. 227.

A more detailed discussion of these three manuscripts and their relation to the later collections must await a separate article.

8 The rubric is quoted from Chantilly MS 492-93, fol. iv, with a variant from BN, f. fr. 604, fol. iv. That MS 604 dates from after I407(o.s.) is shown by two letters from the Debat sur le Roman de la Rose, which are wrongly dated Candlemas Eve 1407(8) and Tuesday, 13 September 1407 (ff. I i2b and 1I3); the year should be 1401 in both cases.

533

534 Christine de Pizan

between June I402 and November I405. The same five additional works were almost certainly all copied in MS 604 before it was mutilated.9 One work, the Dit de la pastoure dating from the latter part of I403(o.s.), has been added at the end of MS I2779.

The second collection of Christine's works was acquired by the Duke of Berry in I408 or early in 1409, when it was listed as an accession to his library.0l The collection survives not as a single volume but in a number of separate parts. The generally accepted view has been that the original collection was subsequently divided into four parts, now BN, f. fr. 835, 66, 836, and 605; however, it has recently been suggested that BN, f. fr. 607 forms the fifth and final part of the volume prepared by Christine."1 Equally contentious has been the question whether the collection was prepared for the Duke of Berry or was acquired by him after the murder of the Duke of Orleans on 23 November 1407 had made it impossible to present the volume to the patron for whom it had been intended.12 A detailed examination of these matters must be the subject of a separate article. For present purposes it is enough to stress that BN, f. fr. 835, which contains the collections of Christine's ballades and rondeaux, has always been considered to constitute the first part of the second collection of Christine's works.

In the discussion which follows the three collections will be referred to respectively as L (le Livre de Christine), quoted here from LI, the Chantilly MS; as D (Collection du duc); and as R (Collection de la reine). There is no generally agreed system for describing the manuscripts of Christine: thus, the copies of the Book have been described by earlier critics now as BI, B2, and B3, now as Ai, A2, and A3, while the Duke's and Queen's MSS have been referred to now as AI and A2, now as B2 and B3.13 Quot critici, tot sigla. The possible confusion which results from using a new set of abbreviations is more than outweighed by the advantage of a system which is unambiguous and readily comprehensible.

Les Cent Balades The Cent Balades are copied at the very beginning of the three collections.14 While all the manuscripts contain the same hundred poems in the same order, four poems are copied without an envoy in some manuscripts and with an envoy in the others. When Christine was writing, it was not yet obligatory to conclude the ballade in that way; some eighty of the Cent Balades have no envoy. Of the four which vary in length, Ballades I I and 72 lack an envoy in L, but are copied with one in D and R. Only R contains an envoy for Ballade 45; on the other hand, Ballade 86, which has no envoy in R, is copied with one everywhere else. When he edited the collection, Roy considered that these discrepancies resulted from scribal carelessness; the envoys in question had been omitted, just as had been single lines or even whole stanzas on

9 Hicks, Ddbat sur le Roman de la Rose, p. lix. 10 M. Meiss, with S. Off, 'The Bookkeeping of Robinet d'Estampes and the Chronology of Jean de

Berry's Manuscripts', Art Bulletin, 53 ( 97 ), 225-35 (p. 228). 11 Maureen Cheney Curnow, 'The Livre de la Cite des Dames of Christine de Pisan: a Critical Edition' (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1975), pp. 360-7I. 12 Millard Meiss, French Painting in the Time ofJean de Berry: the Limbourgs and their Contemporaries (London, I974), PP 37-38. 13 (Euvres poetiques, I, v-xxv; Hicks, Debat sur le Roman de la Rose, pp. lv-lxxxiii; Mombello, Tradizione

Manoscritta, pp. 343-45. 14 (Euvres poetiques,, I, i-Ioo. LI, ff. 2a-22d; D, ff. Ia- 6d, i8a-d (quire 3 misbound); R, ff. 4a-2 ib.

J. C. LAIDLAW

occasion.15 However, closer examination of the four ballades indicates that the envoys in question were added or deleted; Christine, preparing her poetry for later editions, had stylistic reasons for making these and other alterations.

Ballade I, 'Seulete suy et seulete vueil estre', is a very well-known poem which is included in many modern anthologies. Something of a tour deforce, it consists entirely of variations on the theme of loneliness; in the earlier version 'Seulete suy' makes up the first hemistich of every line but one. Repetition is counterbalanced by variation, for Christine seeks to find for the second half of every line a phrase which is sufficiently distinct and evocative to guard against monotony. The addition of an envoy to the poem introduces a different perspective. The opening line, 'Princes, or est ma doulour commenciee', breaks the insistent rhythm, takes the reader or listener outside the poet's inner world for a moment and emphasizes the link between her loneliness and the grief which stretches unending before her. That line stands out the more since the other three lines of the envoy revert to the pattern previously established, and introduce further variations on the main theme.

The subject of Ballade 45 is Rumour. The first two stanzas, describing its effect in general terms, tell how quickly Rumour works, how it brings good and bad news. The third stanza is more particular; the lady grieves because her lover has gone off to the wars and, Rumour has it, has taken another love. The point of the poem lies more in the picture of the lady than in the earlier generalities, and yet in the first version of the ballade the generalities have more space. The addition of an envoy, in which the narrator can elaborate her grief, goes some way to redress the balance, and improves the shape of the poem. Intriguingly, the envoy, which is found only in R, is there copied twice. The first copy is in lighter ink than the surrounding text, and was added in space left blank at the foot offol. I Id, the end of the first quire. The second copy was written on fol. I 2a, in a new quire, and was subsequently scored out. That repetition indicates that some miscalculation occurred when R was being prepared.

Ballade 72 presents a lover who is at a loss to understand his lady's coldness towards him. The lover's bewilderment is admirably conveyed by the intermingling of different themes, as he protests his loyalty, speculates on the reasons which lie behind his lady's change in attitude, and forecasts how dire will be his fate if she should persist in her coldness or, worse still, reject him for another. The envoy, added in D and R, allows that last point to be underlined and gives the poem a more emphatic conclusion. That is not the only alteration made to the text. The penultimate line of each stanza has been recast; lines 13 and 20 have been remodelled, and in line 6 the rhyme has been enriched.

What of Ballade 86, which has an envoy in L and in D, but is without one in R? The envoy was at first omitted or not included in D but the mistake or omission was noticed and the envoy was then added in the margin in a second hand:

22 Pour ce, princes et princepces Doivent amer et savoir

24 D'amours tous[sic] les adresces, Se les flables[sic] dYent voir.

While the absence of the envoy from R may also be due to nothing more than scribal carelessness, there are two other possible reasons. The envoy forms a somewhat

15 Ballade 29 lacks lines 12 and 21 in L. In D, Ballade 67 has no second stanza and Ballade 95 lacks line 2I. In R, the second stanza of Ballade 28 is lacking ((Euvres poetiques, i, 29, 30, 68, 95).

535


inappropriate conclusion to a poem dealing with the loves of the Classical gods and goddesses. More important, perhaps, the envoy could have been indelicate in a manuscript addressed to a Queen whose private life had been the subject of comment.

There are changes in other poems in the collection. The second and third stanzas of Ballade 69, copied in one order in L, are transposed into a more satisfactory order in D and R; none the less Roy prints the earlier arrangement. For Ballade 80 alternative texts are available for the third stanza which forms the conclusion to the poem, there being no envoy. D reads as follows:

Au moins s'un pou vous daignast souvenir I6 Du dueil amer qu'il me fault pour vous traire,

Pourquoy vous pleust, quant me voiez venir Vous dire ce dontje ne me puis taire, Que me feissiez de vostre doulz viaire

20 Un doulz semblant. Mais quant ne suis rescoux, Voulez vous donc queje muire pour vous?

The text in R, characterized by repeated questions and by a more open ending, provides a much better conclusion:

Quant tout mon fait et tout mon maintenir i6 N'est autre part et ne veez le contraire,

Ne vous deust il quelquefoiz souvenir Du mal quej'ay pour vous que ne puis taire? N'a il piti6 quelconque en vostre affaire?

20 Me lairez vous finer en tel courroux? Voulez vous dont queje muire pour vous?

The new version has been copied, in space left blank for the purpose, by a second hand. Smaller changes, affecting single lines, phrases, or individual words, are found in

many other ballades, for example 34, 5 , 62, 89, and 98. Closer examination of the

readings found only in R reveals a small number which are especially interesting. These readings have been copied over an erasure either by the scribe or, more often, by the second hand; in some cases the space available does not match the space needed for the new readings. Among the examples which can be cited are: 79:5 (Mes paroles); 85:17 (whole line), I8 (et pour me); 9I: 8 (maintien); 93:23 (ou suprascript); 96:1 (les suprascript, sont), 12 (et suprascript). These changes must have been made at a very late stage in the preparation of the manuscript and are the medieval equivalent of

changes in proof.

Rondeaux The collection ofrondeaux in D and R differs in several respects from that in L. The size of the collection has been increased, from sixty-five poems to sixty-seven: four rondeaux, 59, 62, 63, and 64 in Roy's edition, are entirely new; two, 54 and 69, have been omitted.16 Some poems have been substantially remodelled, and in others single lines have been recast.

Rondeau 60 is a particularly striking example of the types of change which have been made. The lady, having roundly told her suitor that he is wasting his time, gives her reasons: she has been won over by another and her heart is pledged to him alone; it is right that one love should be sufficient for her:17 16 (Euvres poetiques, I, 147-85. Li, ff. 4ib-47b; D, ff. 25b-3 Ia; R, ff. 28d-34b. 17 The full version of the refrain is given here, whereas earlier editors generally print the shorter form. On

the refrain, see Marcel Francon, 'Sur les rondeaux de Christine de Pizan', Studi Francesi, 6 ( 1972), 68-70.

J. C. LAIDLAW

Li Vous n y pouez, la place est prise. Sire, vous perdez vostre peine De moy prier; c'est chose vaine,

4 Car un seul m'a du tout acquise.

Toute m'amour ay ailleurs mise. J'aime un autre d'amour certaine. Vous n y pouez; la place est prise.

8 Sire, vous perdez vostre peine.

C'est raison q'un seul me souffise. Plus n'en vueil, folz est qui s'en paine. Mais ne m'en tenez a vilaine

I2 Carje vous dy qu'en nulle guise Vous ny pouez; la place est prise. Sire, vous perdez vostre peine De moy prier; c'est chose vaine,

16 Car un seul m 'a du tout acquise.

Changes in D and R

Car un bel et bon m 'a acquise

Et c'est droit q'un seul me souffise. Plus n'en vueil, folz est qui s'en peine.

Toute m'amour ay en lui mise Et l'ameray d'amour certaine

Car un bel et bon m'a acquise.

What were Christine's aims in altering these two stanzas and the last line of the refrain? Line 5 in the first version follows unhappily on line 4, for ailleurs is liable to be misinterpreted, at least on initial reading. The last line of the refrain has been recast so that the lover's qualities, albeit traditional and unspecific, become the reasons why a single love must be sufficient for the lady. The rondeau had originally been dominated by that theme, as can be seen from the use of repetition: un seul (1. 4), un autre (1. 6), and again un seul (1. 9). Christine has refashioned her material in order to concentrate the theme of a single love in lines 5 and 6; an advantage of that change is that the lady's declaration of her love can be postponed to stand separate and gain emphasis. Taken together, these alterations have a profound effect on the rhythm of the poem: whereas the different sections had been discrete, there is now enjambement between the refrain and the first stanza; there is also a less clear break in sense between the partial refrain and the second stanza.

Rondeau 40 contains similar changes, which affect the two stanzas but not the refrain. The alteration to line o introduces a touch of wry humour:

Li Se m'amour voulsisse ottroyer? Ja piefa m'a este' requise, Maisj'ay ailleurs m'entente mise.

4 On vendroit trop tart au proyer, Sire, et pour tantje vous avise, Se m 'amour voulsisse ottroyer, Ja piefa m 'a este requise.

8 Car maint dient que par loyer La devroyent avoir acquise, Si l'aroyeje ailleurs assise18 Se m 'amour voulsisse ottroyer;

12 Ja piefa m 'a este requise Maisj'ay ailleurs m'entente mise.

Changes in D and R

Et pour tant bienje vous avise,

Si fusse ailleurs pieca assise

18 Ja in Roy ((Euvres poetiques, I, 169).

537


Elsewhere in the collection it is more common to find that amendments have been made to individual lines.19 Sometimes simple correction is involved, as in 2:6, 5:8, or

34:9, where the text given in L is irregular. In other cases a line has been reshaped to

give a different emphasis or rhythm. Thus in 3: I the second hemistich is altered from '(En dur estat) je me suis embatue' to '(En dur estat) ma fortune embatue'. In

4:3 the whole line has been changed, 'Je suis d'accort que le mal me confonde'

becoming 'Viegne la mort qui du mal me confonde'. Other alterations of this type include: I6: I; 24:3, 6; 43:9; and 47:5.

With certain rondeaux the situation is more complicated, for three versions can be

distinguished of a line or even an entire poem. The most striking examples are Rondeaux I4, 45 and 49, the first of which will now be examined.

Li M'amour, mon bien, ma dame, ma princesse Tremontaine, qui a bon port m'adresse, De quanquej'ay, souveraine maistresse,

4 Estes dame, confort de ma destresse.

Je vous doy bien appeller ma deesse, Mon doulz espoir, mon mur, ma forteresse, M'amour, mon bien, ma dame, ma princesse

8 Tremontaine, qui a bon port m'adresse,

Car plus belle vous estes que Lucresse,

Plus prisee que Peneloppe en Grece, Semiramis vous passez en noblesse,

12 Si vous doy bien dire par grant leesse: M'amour, mon bien, ma dame, ma princesse Tremontaine, qui a bon port m'adresse. De quanquej 'ay souveraine maistresse,

16 Estes dame, confort de ma destresse.

Changes in D and R M'amour, mon bien, ma dame et ma princesse (R)

Estes dame et confort de ma leesce. (D) Estes dame, m'esperance et leesse. (R)

Mon doulx tresor, mon mur, ma forteresse (R) M'amour, mon bien, ma dame et ma princesse (R)

Car si belle ne fut oncques Lucrece, (D) Car de beaute oncques tant n'ot Lucresse, (R) Ne prisiee tant Peneloppe en Grece, (DR)

Si vous doy bien dire par grant humblesse: (DR)20 M'amour, mon bien, ma dame et ma princesse (R)

Estes dame et confort de ma leesce. (D) Estes dame, m'esperance et leesse. (R)

The rhyme-words have been rearranged, altering line 12 and thus the way in which the final refrain is introduced. In declaring his joy so emphatically the lover had

apparently struck the wrong note; his tone is humbler in the second version. Moving from its position at the rhyme in line I 2, leesse now assumes that function in the last line of the refrain. The amended line reads oddly, and it is no surprise to find a further version of the line in R which, although a little clumsy, makes better sense. The lady having now become the lover's hope as well as his joy, a different epithet had to be introduced in line 6 and tresor is there substituted for espoir. There is a second alteration to the refrain in R; the addition ofet in the first line prepares better for the enjambement. A further change to that opening line may have been

contemplated but in the end rejected: in R, mon bien, ma dame et has been copied over an erasure.

The Classical comparisons which emphasize the lady's beauty, worth, and

nobility in the second stanza gave Christine more difficulty. The first version is

straightforward, but a little flat. The remedy tried in D is to make the comparisons

19 The references in this paragraph are to Roy ((Euvres poetiques, I, I47-85), where the refrains are not printed in full. The variant in 43:9 is said by Roy to be in line 8. 20 In D, fol. 26c, the last letter of doy and the rest of the line are copied over an erasure.

J. C. LAIDLAW 539

less direct by putting them in the negative. But Christine was still not completely satisfied and so a third version of line 9 is introduced in R. Line Io, which should have been adjusted at the same time, has been left unaltered; the resulting lack of sequence is further evidence that the manuscript was prepared with some haste.

The alterations to Rondeau 45 are equally far-reaching: Li Changes in D and R

Souffise vous Bel Acueil, Sire, trop me requerez. Trop de choses requerez (R) Tout perdrez se tout querez,

4 Car plus donner ne vous vueil Plus donnerje ne vous quier (D) A present, mais esperez. Souffise vous Bel Acueil, Sire, trop me requerez Trop de choses requerez (R)

8 Et toudiz plus plus que ne sueil Toudis plus queje ne sueil (D) Mieulx vous fais queje ne sueil (R)

Vous donne; et plus acquerez, Mais tant plus y acquerez, (R) Et de tant plus me querez. Et tant plus me surquerez. (D)21

Et tant plus me requerez. (R)

Souffise vous Bel Acueil, I2 Sire, trop me requerez. Trop de choses requerez. (R)

Tout perdrez se tout querez.

A fifteenth-century reader or listener could be assumed to be familiar with the Roman de la Rose; characters like Dangier or Bel Accueil had become an accepted part of poetical language. A mention of Bel Accueil is enough to evoke the earlier romance, the essence of which will be crystallized in the rondeau. The lady, having encour- aged her suitor, risks being overwhelmed by his advances, risks seeing the love affair develop farther and move faster than she would like. In the earliest version the opening refrain runs on into the first stanza and there is likewise no break between the partial refrain and the second stanza; in that way Christine underscored the lady's breathless alarm and her fear that one thing might lead to another. The alterations to lines 4 and 8 in D restore the traditional divisions within the poem, making refrains and stanzas stand separate.22 Line I has been reshaped to introduce a new rhyme-word, surquerez 'you make excessive demands', and to bring the second stanza to an emphatic conclusion.

The third version of the rondeau occupies an intermediate position, so far as the divisions within the poem are concerned. The original form of line 4 has been restored, with the result that the opening refrain and the first stanza again form a unit. Line 2 has been remodelled and Sire removed, a change which recalls a similar alteration in Rondeau 40, line 5. Another alteration in line 2 seems to be associated with a revision of line o. Neither of the two previous versions of that line satisfied Christine, apparently, and now requerez has been substituted for surquerez. Since that alteration would have meant the same part of requerir (une personne) occurring twice as a rhyme-word, the second line of the refrain has been adjusted to allow the use of requerir (des choses) and the creation of an acceptable but unremarkable rime equivoque.

21 Both quier, in line 4, which gives an incorrect rhyme, and surquerez are copied over erasures in D, fol. 2ga, and perhaps in a second hand. 22 The change in the rhyme-word of line 4 in D is presumably a scribal error.


The alterations to the second stanza are more important and more successful, for

they give to it a sharper and clearer beginning; the removal of plus from line 8 allows the relational statement in lines 9-i0 to be given more emphasis.

Exceptionally, the length of Rondeau 49 varies from one manuscript to another. In D the refrain is six lines long and the first stanza three, making a regular rondeau of twenty-four lines; the version in R is eight lines longer, for there the refrain contains eight lines and the first stanza four. Part of the reason for the discrepancy seems to lie in the text given in L, which is irregular; the second stanza is of eight lines, two lines longer than the refrain, and not of the same length, as it should be. It is interesting to note that the scribe first copied that over-long stanza into D but that the last two lines were subsequently erased; it is impossible to say when.

Li Changes in D and R Vous en pourriez exillier Un millier Des amans par vo doulz eil23

4 Senz orgueil,24 Qui ontfait maintfretillier Et veillier,

8

Belle, qui bien traveillier Et pillier Savez cuers a vostre dueil.25

12 Vous en pourriez exillier Un millier Des amans par vo doulz ceil.

I6

Et bien savez peu baillier Et taillier Moins dejoye et plus de dueil

20 Sur le sueil, Pour musars entortillier, Conseillier. Par vostre attrayant acqueil

24 En requeil

Vous en pourriez exillier Un millier Des amans par vo doulz oeil

28 Senz orgueil, Qui ontfait maintfretillier Et veillier

32

Des amans par vos(?) doulz eil D Plains d'esveil, R

Je m 'en sens plus que ne sueil R Et m'en dueil, R

Savez cuers a vo doulz vueil D En recueil. R

Plains d'esveil.R

Mais bien savez pou bailler R

En recueil, D26

[Line erased D]27 [Line erased D] Sans orgueil R

Des amans par vos(?) doulz eil D Plains d'oeil R

Je m 'en sens plus que ne sueil R Et m'en dueil. R

23 (Eil must be taken as a collective or a plural, as the reading in D seems to suggest. 24 This line is given both by L and D; it is listed by Roy as a variant from D only (aEuvres poetiques, I, I 74). 25 Vueil in Roy ((Euvres poetiques, I, 175). 26 The line is written over an erasure in D; the original almost certainly read Sur le sueil. 27 As Roy suggested ((Euvres poetiques, I, 175), the two lines erased in D were probably the same as in L.

The spaces have been left blank.

J. C. LAIDLAW

The different stages through which the poem has passed cannot be determined precisely.28 Thus, it is impossible to say whether lines 7 and 8, which are found only in R, were added to the poem when the collection was prepared or whether they formed part of the original version which had been wrongly transcribed in previous collections. Some limited conclusions can be drawn, however. The versions of lines 4, i I, and 20 in D indicate that some revision of the rondeau took place when that collection was prepared. The presence of lines 23 and 24 in the text which was first copied in D shows that the scribe was working from an exemplar akin to L and, like it, irregular. The text in R depends not on D but on L, as is shown by lines I I and 20, where the earlier versions are restored. Some rearrangement of the trisyllabic lines has taken place in R, involving the insertion of a new version of line 4 (and thus lines I6 and 28) and consequential changes: the original version of line 4 has become line 24 and the line which it has replaced has in its turn been transposed to become line 20. That line in fact occupies a different place in each of the three stages of the development of the rondeau.

Autres Balades The Autres Balades show, perhaps more clearly than the collections discussed hitherto, that the revision of the texts was carried out in stages.29 When R was copied the scribe used as his exemplar a revised text, incorporating most of the amendments which Christine wished to make; there is nothing in the manuscript which draws attention to these new readings. Once the poems had been copied, they were checked to ensure that they were accurate. Occasional instructions can still be read in the margins, pointing to mistakes which were to be corrected; the not infrequent erasures in the margins are silent witnesses to the same operation. A number of readings found only in R replace portions of text which have been erased. These alterations are the more noticeable on occasion since the ink may be of a different shade, or there may be a change of hand, or the new reading may be too long or too short for the space available. Particularly clear examples of such revisions, in addition to those which will be discussed later, are at I7:I7, 26:25, 37:19, and 43:9. When these corrections were being made, the opportunity was no doubt taken to fill spaces which had previously been left blank. Generally a word or phrase is involved, for example, 13:22 (Devant elle)30 or 14: I 2 (Vers le rebours), but exceptionally a group of lines, for example, 25:20-25, or an entire poem has been added later; Ballade 45, which is found only in R, is copied in a different ink, in space left for it.

A closer look at three of the Autres Balades will show the effect of some of these changes. Three separate stages can be distinguished in the composition of Ballade I, the subject of which is goodness, as lines 3, 6, and the refrain make clear. Christine was anxious to underline the theme, and in the earliest version the second stanza began:

Et bonte est si haultement merie.

28 For convenience the line numbering is based on R. 29 (Euvres poetiques, I, 207-69. Li, ff. 27b-34d; D, if. 34b-44d; R, ff. 37c-48a. The collections in D and R

have been substantially enlarged and rearranged; see Lecoy, 'Note sur quelques ballades de Christine de Pisan', pp. 107-14. 30 The story does not end there. Once Devant elle had been copied in different ink in the space left blank,

there was perhaps a change of mind, for Present, the reading of all the other manuscripts, is written faintly above Devant, either to indicate that a correction needed to be made or as a reminder that the new reading must be confirmed. Roy does not discuss the matter, nor does he list the possible variant.

54I

Christine de Pizan

In D and R the line is recast; bonte is now a specific act, rather than the general quality, and the line has a clear caesura:

Et bonte faite est haultement merie.

The second hemistich of line 23 has gone through three versions. '(Des biens qu'il a) ou grant tresor amasse', the first version, is unsatisfactory because amasse had previously been used as rhyme-word in the same sense in line 2. In D the hemistich is adjusted to read 'dont grant tresor on masse', the much rarer verb masser being introduced.31 The version in R, 'soit large en deue place', has been completely refashioned. Although it provides a better introduction for the refrain which follows, it has the same disadvantage as the first version, the repetition of a rhyme-word: place had already been used in line 13. In R the opportunity has also been taken to remove an inelegance which had earlier gone uncorrected: whereas both lines 4 and II had previously begun 'Acquiert honneur', line 4 is altered to 'Conqueste honneur'. This last correction had been made in the scribe's exemplar. The second half of line 23, on the other hand, has been copied over an erasure, which suggests that the alteration was made at a late stage and in haste.

The revisions made in Ballade 15 are concentrated in the second stanza. Christine asks God to take pity on her, subject as she is to poverty and to Fortune. In the earliest version the second stanza begins:

9 Ne puet avoir pour peine n'amitti6 Ce qui est sien: charite endormie

I Treuve partout ...

and lines I4-I5 refer to her inability to sustain 'son feible estat'. In D and R the stanza begins differently:

9 Ne peut avoir, tant ait nul accointie, Son las d'argent: charit6 endormie

I Treuve en chacun ...

and later we read of 'son povre estat'. After the death of her husband in I390 Christine found herself in straitened circumstances and was involved in innumer- able law-suits. The oldest version of the ballade seems to date from that period in the I390S when Christine felt alone and friendless, and thought that advantage was being taken of her frailty. In I407 or 1408, when D was being copied, these references were perhaps less appropriate, and it is Christine's poverty which is emphasized. The only alteration in the third stanza affects the rhyme-word in line 23, which in the earliest version had been endure. In D, endure becomes demeure, giving an unsatisfactory rhyme. Endure is restored in R, but it is written in later in a space left blank.32

In Ballade 49 Christine criticizes the boldness and presumption shown by those who dare to defame the country's rulers, and pretend that they do so for disinterested reasons. The poem is found only in D and R, being inspired by the political troubles which beset France in the 40oos. In the opening lines of the ballade the critics justify their actions and Christine then describes the turmoil which results. D reads as follows:

31 Godefroy (v, Ig6b) and Tobler-Lommatzsch (v, 1234) list the same unique example. 32 In line 22 the copyist of R wrote Vueillez a memoire, which is given by Roy as a variant. A small and

rather faint b and a show that the correct order is A memoire vueillez, as in L and D. Roy has also not noted that in the third refrain the copyist has replaced la by me in error (CEuvres poetiques, i, 224-25).

542

J. C. LAIDLAW

4 ... disant que on puet blasmer Tout viccieux, maudire et non amer; Mais l'inutille Parolle qui puet mettre en une ville

8 Noise et contens, trayson et deffait, Destruccion en contree fertille, Je dy que c'est pechie a qui le fait.

Christine continues: Pour ceulx le di, qui par destraccion

12 Osent blasmer princes, pour enflamer Puepple contre eulx par grief commossion .. .33

The political climate worsened between I408 and I410 and the outlook had become very black at the time when R was being prepared. The crisis had prompted Christine to write the Lamentacion sur les maux de la guerre civile which she sent to the Duke of Berry on 23 August I4I0. The alterations made to Ballade 49 in R show how much the situation had deteriorated. Puet (line 4) has become doit; Rebellion has been substituted for Destruccion in line 9; the first hemistich of line I2 has been changed to Vont diffamant to give more immediacy. It is noteworthy that all these changes have been copied over an erasure, suggesting that they were made at a late stage in the preparation of the collection and perhaps under the pressure of events.

The preceding discussion has shown that Christine never lost interest in her collections of ballades and rondeaux. Although the Cent Balades remained super- ficially the same collection of poems copied in the same order, individual ballades underwent considerable transformation during the years between I402 and I4 I. When the number of rondeaux or Autre Balades was enlarged in the later collected manuscripts, the opportunity was taken to refashion some of the poems which had formed part of the original collections. Some of the alterations were intended to correct errors or irregularities which earlier had gone unremarked, some brought poems up to date. The majority, however, were made for stylistic reasons; they show how much skill went into the fashioning of theformesfixes. Christine now modifies the rhythm of a poem, now varies the relationship between the different sections which make up the complete ballade or rondeau. Now she alters the tone, now changes the emphasis to highlight a particular detail. She shows that she has a sense of shape and proportion, and an eye for detail; more important, an awareness of the need for part and whole to combine and complement one another. In almost every case, the alterations constitute improvements, creating more varied rhythms, making her poems more allusive, more open-ended, and thus more likely to catch the reader's interest and stimulate his imagination.

From Christine's lyric poetry it is time to turn to her longer works to see whether they underwent a similar process of revision when new copies were prepared. This further examination takes in the Epistre Othea, the Mutacion defortune, and the Avision Christine. It extends the scope of the investigation since it involves additional manuscripts prepared under Christine's supervision. Whereas Christine's lyric poetry is preserved only in the three collections just discussed, works like the Epistre Othea and the Mutacion defortune are copied both in the collected manuscripts and in

33 In D the second et in line 8 is lacking, probably as the result of an error. Although its absence does not necessarily make the line irregular, it creates an awkward hiatus and an unsatisfactory rhythm.

543


separate copies, some of which were presented by Christine to her patrons. The Avision Christine, on the other hand, exists only in separate copies; it does not seem ever to have been included by Christine in a collection of her works.

L'Epistre Othea

Although no critical edition exists of the Epistre Othea, there are two important modern studies of the text. In I924, in his work on the sources used by Christine, P. G. C. Campbell distinguished between two redactions of the Epistre Othea, citing the L manuscripts as his example of the first, and D and R as examples of the second. The first redaction was thought to date from I402, following the rubric in Li and L3. Campbell considered that the second redaction dated from 1405 to 1406, when D had been prepared and copied.34 The whole question was next examined in 1967 by G. Mombello in his monumental study of the manuscript tradition which is a preliminary to a critical edition. He singled out three manuscripts as being of fundamental importance, BN, f.fr. 848, D and R. MS 848 is one of the earliest manuscripts of the work, if not the earliest, and probably dates from I400 or 40I . D contains the earliest extant copy of the second redaction which can be dated with accuracy. Some further changes were made to the Epistre Othea before it was copied in R; these alterations are relatively few and do not constitute a radical revision ofthe text in D. Since these further amendments, though small in number, were made by Christine herself, Mombello concludes that R contains the definitive text of the Epistre Othea, 'la versione definitiva nella quale la scrittrice licenzio il suo lavoro' (Tradizione Manoscritta, p. 23).

Mombello also points out the existence of intermediate versions of the Epistre Othea, which stand between the first and second redactions. These versions are contained in other presentation copies of the text and perhaps also in the L manuscripts. They are intermediate in the sense that although the texts which they contain are substantially of the first redaction, they also include readings characteristic of the second redaction, and to a varying extent (Tradizione Manoscritta, pp. 292, 302-308, 316-18, 327-28). MS 848, the earliest known copy, is dedicated to the Duke of Orleans and that dedication is also found in L, D, and R. Other copies ofthe Epistre Othea were presented by Christine to the Dukes of Berry and Burgundy and to a king, whom Mombello identified as Charles VI of France but who is in fact Henry IV of England; Christine composed a separate dedication for each of them.35 The four dedications are not wholly independent from one another, but can be divided into two groups. There are considerable similarities between the dedication to the Duke of Orleans, which is 68 lines long, and that to the king, which contains 54 lines; 29 whole lines and several half-lines occur in both. The dedications used in the Berry and Burgundy copies are almost entirely new; the only differences between them are the four lines in which the respective Dukes are named.

While MS 848 may well be the copy presented to the Duke of Orleans, the copies prepared for Christine's other patrons have not survived, with the result that information about them must be gleaned from later copies. The textual evidence

34 P. G. C. Campbell, L'Epitre d'Othea: etude sur les sources de Christine de Pisan (Paris, I924), pp. 18-23. BN, f. fr. 604 is hereafter described as L3. 35 Gianni Mombello, 'Per un'edizione critica dell' "Epistre Othea" di Christine de Pizan', Studi Francesi,

8 ( 964), 401- 7 and 9 ( 965), I-I 2; these articles contain the texts of the four dedications. J. C. Laidlaw, 'Christine de Pizan, the Earl of Salisbury and Henry IV', French Studies, 36 (1982), I29-43 (pp. 38-40).

J. C. LAIDLAW 545

which they present indicates that, after the first copy had been given to the Duke of Orleans, the next presentation copy was that made for Henry IV (Mombello, Tradizione Manoscritta, pp. 306-309, 316-I8, 327). The copy was sent to England with other manuscripts of Christine's works, in the hope that these gifts might persuade the King to allow Christine's son, Jean de Castel, to return to France. Her son had gone to live in the household of the Earl of Salisbury late in 1398 or early in 1399, and had to remain in England, a virtual prisoner, after Henry IV had seized the throne and after Salisbury's murder inJanuary I400o.Jean was back in France in the first half of 1402, having spent three years away from home. Christine attributed his release in part to the books which she had sent: 'et de mes livres me cousta'.36 Mombello has suggested i January 1401 as a likely date for the presentation of the Epistre Othea to the Duke of Orleans. For Henry IV's copy to have been sent to him in the course of 1401 fits in with the events just described. Soon afterwards a further copy was made for the Duke of Burgundy, perhaps in I403, as suggested by Mombello; the Duke certainly received it before his death on 27 April 1404 (Tradizione Manoscritta, pp. 306-309, 3 6-i 8).

It is much more difficult to determine the date of the copy made for the Duke of Berry. As Mombello has indicated, the similarity.between the dedications used in the Berry and Burgundy copies of the Epistre Othea suggests that the manuscript presented to Berry was prepared soon after the copy given to his brother. The Berry copy must have been the later of the two, since it contained a version of the second redaction close to but not identical with that in D. Since Mombello had dated D as 1405 or 1406, he considered that Berry's copy was probably prepared in 1404, the year in which Christine had also given the Duke a copy of the Mutacion defortune.37 The precise date and status of the L manuscripts proved equally difficult to determine. The rubric in LI and L3 indicated that they had been copied under Christine's supervision, and the intermediate version which they contain of the Epistre Othea, incorporating corrections and amendments, lent support to that view. On the other hand, even LI, the best manuscript of the three, contains some careless errors. If it dated from 1405 or 1406, as seemed to be the case, it was surprising that it did not contain the second redaction. All things considered, Mombello concluded that the L manuscripts were later copies of an original prepared under Christine's supervision (Tradizione Manoscritta, pp. 66, I I 1-12, 303-306, 327-28).

A different time-scale and a difference of approach will help to resolve those problems. It was seen earlier that a distinction must be drawn between the Book (L), completed on 23 June 1402, and the enlarged version or versions of it, which date at the earliest from the latter part of I 403(o.s.). As Meiss has shown, D was completed, not in 1405 or 1406, but in I407 or 1408. When the time-table is revised to take account of these dates, it can be seen that successive versions of the Epistre Othea were produced between 1400 or 1401, the date of MS 848, and 14 I o or 141 , when R was completed. The first version was that prepared for the Duke of Orleans, perhaps on I January 140I, and was followed by the copy sent to Henry IV later that year. The version in L probably came next, being completed before 23June 1402, and then the copy presented to the Duke of Burgundy, perhaps in 1403 and certainly before his

36 Lavision-Christine, edited by Sister Mary Louis Towner (Washington, 1932), p. i66. Laidlaw, 'Christine, Salisbury and Henry IV', pp. 129-35. 37 Tradizione Manoscritta, p. 317. See also above, p. 546.

21


death on 27 April I404. The Duke of Berry's copy was later than that given to Burgundy, and earlier than D.38 Christine prepared a further and definitive version of the text for inclusion in R. Since so many of the different versions of the Epistre Othea are now known only from later copies often of poor quality, the successive alterations made to the text by Christine can no longer be ascertained with absolute precision. For that reason Mombello rightly emphasizes the importance of MS 848, D, and R.

To talk of two redactions of the Epistre Othea and of intermediate versions is to underemphasize the extent to which the text gradually evolved over time. Its evolution did not follow an absolutely regular rhythm: limited changes were made when each new presentation copy was prepared; a more radical revision coincided with the preparation of the Duke of Berry's copy. It could therefore be said that there were not two redactions of the Epistre Othea but several. If the situation is described in that way, however, there is a risk of exaggerating the extent of the changes made at each stage; Mombello has pointed out that the alterations which distinguish the first redaction from the second are limited in number and importance (Tradizione Manoscritta, pp. 30I-303).

The character and extent of the changes made to the Epistre Othea are very similar to those made in the collections of ballades and rondeaux. All these texts were refined and polished during the decade which separates the first and third collections. To portray the relationship between the manuscripts with which they were concerned, both Roy and Mombello used a classic stemma with branches going back to one original.39 A linear diagram would have conveyed the evolution of the text more accurately. In Christine's eyes her works were ever perfectible and never perfect. As new copies of the Epistre Othea were prepared, she made adjustments to the rubrics, corrected references and points of detail, removed metrical irregularities, and made those stylistic and syntactic changes which few authors can resist making.40

La Mutacion defortune The manuscripts of the Mutacion de fortune are of particular interest from both a textual and an artistic point of view. Suzanne Solente, whose critical edition of the work was published between 1959 and 1966, chose as her base text Brussels MS 9508 (B), which had been presented to the Duke of Burgundy on I January I403(4). Closely linked to B are two other copies, The Hague, Royal Library 78 D 42 (H), given by Christine to the Duke of Berry in March 1403(4), and Chantilly, Musee Conde 494(C), almost certainly another presentation copy. Li and L3, copies of the enlarged Book, stand in the same tradition as those three manuscripts but at a little distance from them. A second family of manuscripts is made up by Munich, Staatsbibliothek, cod. gall. Io (E) and BN, f. fr. 603 (F), both of which are probably copies presented to patrons by Christine. E and F have very many readings peculiar to themselves and have in common a number of omissions and additions. Solente knew of a further manuscript (S), then owned by Sir Sidney Cockerell and later

38 For details of two lost manuscripts of the Epistre Othea, the first of which belonged to the Duke of Berry and the second perhaps to the Duke of Burgundy, see Meiss, French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry, pp 439-40 (n. 135). 39 (Euvres poetiques, i, p. xx; Mombello, Tradizione Manoscritta, p. 326. 40 See also Mombello, Tradizione Manoscritta, pp. 301-303.

J. C. LAIDLAW 547

bought by Pierre Beres, but she was unable to consult it.41 At a late stage in the preparation of her edition, a short fragment of the Mutacion defortune, BN, n. a. fr. I4852 (V), came to light which seemed to stand somewhere between the two families of texts, being closest to F but also having clear links with H (Solente, IV, 97-99).

When he discussed the iconography of the poem, Meiss also linked B, C, and H, and included S in the same group. He considered that all four had been produced in the Epitre atelier: 'All these manuscripts have the same cycle of miniatures and similar iconography as well as a related redaction of the poem, and they were probably produced within a period of a year or two. There are, nevertheless, signs of a stylistic development within them.' Li may also form part of the same group in Meiss's view; while it is not mentioned in the account which has just been summarized, it is included in a later table which contrasts those five manuscripts with E and F, the two members of Solente's second family of manuscripts. Both were copied shortly after I4I0, in Meiss's opinion, and were illustrated by the Cite des dames workshop. When he stated that E and F 'derive from a revised version of the text of the Mutacion', Meiss made explicit a conclusion which Solente had hinted at but had not developed.42

An examination of the variants in her edition shows that in the revised version contained in E and F, the rubrics and layout of the poem have been altered and a significant number of lines have been recast; some couplets have been omitted, by the author and not by the scribe, and some new couplets have been added. Lines 5 i-66, in which Christine introduces herself and begins to describe how Fortune has transformed her life, will show how one passage has been revised. The changes improve the rhythm of the lines but scarcely alter their sense:

B Changes in E and F or vueil compter une aventure,

52 Qui semblera, par avanture, A plusieurs impossible a croire; Mais, quoyqu'aucuns veulent mescroire, Mais pourtant fut ce chose voire Si est ce verite prouvee, Et fine verite prouvee,

56 Evident et toute esprouvee, Et a moy proprement avint, Et a moy meismes propre avint, Cinq ans d'aage avoie avec .XX. Cinq ans avoii avec .XX. Ou environ; ne fu pas songe

60 Quant ce m'avint, et, sanz menconge, Je raconteray grant merveille, Mais pourtant nul ne s'en merveille, Mais ja nul ne s'en esmerveille, Car Fortune, qui tout desguise

64 Et fait et deffait a sa guise, Fist toute la mutacion Dontje feray ci mencion ...

(Solente, I, 9)

Solente drew attention to seven couplets or groups of couplets which in her view had been omitted from E and F, and to five couplets which had been added to them (Solente, i, cxl). When those omissions and additions are examined, where appropriate in conjunction with variant readings in adjacent lines, they can be seen to be

41 Le Livre de la mutacion defortune par Christine de Pisan, edited by Suzanne Solente, 4 vols (Paris, I 959-66), I, xcix-cxlii. For convenience two sixteenth-century manuscripts are excluded from this discussion. The sigla used by Solente have been retained, with the exception ofLI and L3, here substituted for M and 0. 42 Meiss, French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry, pp. 9-I0, 291. F contains two works, both by Christine;

the first is the Livre desfais d'armes et de chevalerie, which she completed in I410.


deliberate; in some cases their effect is to remove unnecessary details or asides, in others they give added emphasis. Only one of the cases cited, lines 3377-86, appears to be a genuine omission.

The textual tradition of the Mutacion de fortune is more complicated than either Solente or Meiss has suggested. To speak of two families of manuscripts or of two versions of the text is to oversimplify, for it suggests that Christine revised the poem only once. The Mutacion defortune appears to have been revised more often than that, the preparation of each new presentation copy providing an opportunity to polish the text further. Thus between January and March I404, when B and H were respectively presented to the Dukes of Burgundy and Berry, some amendments were made to the layout of the text; these alterations, although significant, were much less far-reaching than those found in E or F. H and (more particularly) LI and L3 seem to occupy an intermediate place or places between B on the one hand and E and F on the other.43 In fine, it should be noted that the texts given by E and F, while related, are far from being identical.

The text of the Mutacion de fortune was progressively changed in very much the same way as those of the ballades and rondeaux, and the Epistre Othea. The use of a stemma to depict the relationship between the copies of the poem is as inappropriate as it was in the earlier cases (Solente, I, cxli). The textual tradition of the Mutacion de fortune merits a more detailed examination than is possible here; such a study would be the more valuable since so many more of the presentation copies have survived than was the case with the Epistre Othea. However, it can already be seen that, by choosing to base her edition of the poem on B, the copy presented to the Duke of Burgundy, Solente published an authoritative text of assured provenance, but one which is far from being the author's last word.

Having been acquired by Beres, S was later sold in London at Sotheby's on 13 July 1977. The excellent description in the sale catalogue focused attention on the corrections in the text and on the identity of the scribe.44 The latter question had been discussed before, notably by Charity Cannon Willard who in 1965 argued that there was good reason for thinking that Christine had on occasion acted as her own scribe; in particular, the contents of a rondeau at the end of the copy of the Epistre a la Reine Isabelle in BN, f. fr. 580 led her to believe that the text in that manuscript could well have been copied by Christine herself. Willard instanced other copies of Christine's works, including the then Beres MS and parts of R, which seemed to have been either copied or corrected in the same hand.45 The Sotheby's cataloguer returned to the question and pointed out that not only was the 'Christine hand' responsible for the rubrics which had been added to the manuscript after the poem had been copied, but it had also made a number of corrections to the text itself.

L'Avision Christine Similar questions had been discussed in I932 by Sister M. L. Towner when she edited the Avision Christine, which was written in I405(o.s.). A close comparison of

43 Solente's description of the fragment V (Solente, Iv, 97-99) suggests that it occupies a similarly intermediate position. 44 Catalogue of Western Manuscripts and Miniatures (Sotheby's, I3 July 1977) (London, I977), pp. 37-39; the

catalogue contains two plates of the manuscript. 45 Charity Cannon Willard, 'An Autograph Manuscript of Christine de Pizan?', Studi Francesi, 27 (1965),

452-57.

J. C. LAIDLAW 549

the only two manuscripts then known, BN, f. fr. 1176 and Brussels MS I0309, convinced Towner that both were in the same hand, a hand which had moreover also copied the dedication in R; there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Christine and the scribe were necessarily the same person.46 The two manuscripts of the Avision Christine, although copied by the same scribe and laid out and decorated in the same way, do not contain identical texts. Towner wrote of the Brussels MS that it contains 'a second, or revised edition for which Christine herself is responsible' (Towner, p. 69). In that second edition words have been deleted or added for stylistic reasons, obscurities have been removed and mistakes corrected.

More recently a third manuscript of the Avision Christine, almost certainly a presentation copy like the other two, has come to light. Formerly part of the Phillipps collection, it was sold in London at Sotheby's on 21 November 1972, and is now in a private library in France. There are important differences between the Phillipps MS and the other two, as the catalogue points out:

Phillipps manuscript 128 is the only one of the three to contain a preliminary Gloss giving an interpretation of the allegories in the first part, of particular interest for an understanding of the contemporary political allusions; e.g. (f. 6) 'Item au propos de France ce puet segnefier le roy Charles vi.e d'icellui nom, qui a present regne, le bien qui est en ses nobles condicions et la pitie de sa maladie, et le temps qu'elle lui prist; et avec lui Monseigneur le duc d'Orlians son frere'. The Gloss was therefore written in Charles VI's reign (he died in 1422), but its author -evidently not Christine herself- is unknown. An early owner has added some explanatory notes in the margins as far as f. 17 (a note in the margin of f.39b has been erased). The text has been carefully corrected. The headings in Part II vary considerably from those in the other two MSS.47

The Gloss precedes the text and is copied in a separate quire, but is in the same hand as the rest of the manuscript. It has recently been identified by Gilbert Ouy and Christine Reno notjust as the work of the author herself, but as a copy written in her own hand. They also point out that the reference to the Duke of Orleans in the Gloss shows that the manuscript dates from before 23 November I407, when the Duke was murdered. Their very detailed study of the Phillipps MS is exceedingly important for an understanding of the manuscripts of Christine de Pizan and, more particularly, the hands in which they are copied. One of the other two known copies of the Avision Christine, BN, f. fr. 11 76, was apparently also copied by Christine, whereas Brussels MS 10309 was copied by the scribe R, but with rubrics and additions in the hand of Christine.48

It is clear thatjust as different versions must be distinguished of the ballades and rondeaux, the Epistre Othea, and the Mutacion defortune, so there were also revised editions of the Avision Christine. For Towner the Brussels MS represented a second and revised edition; the changes in the headings and the presence of the Gloss in the Phillipps MS indicate that it contains a third edition of the work.

46 Towner, pp. 55-59 (p. 59). One of the sections in R which Willard tentatively assigned to the 'Christine hand' was the dedication. 47 Bibliotheca Phillippica, Medieval Manuscripts: New Series: Part vii (Sotheby's, 21 November 1972) (London, 1972), pp. 61-62 (p. 6 ); the catalogue includes one plate of the manuscript. Punctuation has been added to the quotation and the capitals have been altered. 48 Ouy and Reno, 'Identification des autographes', pp. 221-38 (pp. 232-36). Towner considered that the

Brussels and Paris MSS were both in the same hand.


Conclusion A more detailed comparison of the different versions of Christine's works than is

possible here would provide us with a better insight into the way in which Christine wrote. However, it is beyond doubt that, as new manuscripts of her works were prepared, she revised the texts which were to be included. Extensive revisions coincided with the preparation of D in I407 or I408 and of R in I410 or I41 I. To help her in that task Christine doubtless had available her own personal copy of her works, the equivalent of the 'livre ouje met toutes mes choses', which had been kept earlier by Guillaume de Machaut.49 By the end of her life her own collection must have been considerably larger than the 'environ .lxx. quayers de grant volume' to which she referred in the Avision Christine of 1405(0.s.) (Towner, p. I64). It will be especially important to try to gain a clearer picture of that collection and to discover how it was kept up to date. As the above discussion has shown, Christine might sometimes try out an alteration in D and then, having decided that her first thoughts had been best after all, go back to the reading in L and incorporate it into R.50 All writers know what it is to seek the perfect expression of an idea and not to find it. Christine was no exception.

This examination of the collected manuscripts of Christine de Pizan shows that much work remains to be done. Hitherto scholars have tended to look at a single manuscript or at the manuscripts of a particular work rather than the manuscripts as a whole. Only when the latter approach is adopted will it be possible to understand more clearly how they were prepared and put together and the extent to which Christine herself copied or corrected them. It is essential that critical editions of the works of Christine de Pizan be based on the latest version known to have been copied under her supervision. For many of her works, R, the Queen's MS, will therefore be of fundamental importance. Although that manuscript, as has been seen, shows evidence of haste and is not free from errors or omissions, it is none the less the last collection prepared by Christine de Pizan herself. For very many of her works it represents her last word.51

J.C. LAIDLAW UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN

49 Sarah Jane Williams, 'An Author's Role in Fourteenth Century Book Production: Guillaume de Machaut's "Livre ouje met toutes mes choses"', Romania, 90 (1969), 433-54. 50 See, for example, the discussion of Rondeaux 45 and 49, and of Autre Balade 15. 51 I would like to express my sincere thanks to my wife and to Dr Ruth Morse for their very helpful

comments on earlier drafts of this article.

3730228

Documents