198 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 
The quarrel seemed to be dying away, political events being pre- 
sumably responsible,' when, four months later, Pierre Col? 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 interest- 
ing to us now. Pierre Col undoubtedly recognised 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 representa- 
tive 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 the 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* (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 

! The policy of the duc d’Orléans was opposed to that of the duc de Bourgogne 
not only in France, but also with regard to the empire as a whole. He took the side 
of Wenceslas, rival for the crown of the empire of Robert of Bavaria. He used this 
position to repair his losses in Italy by acquiring possessions and position elsewhere, 
and succeeded so well that he was able in 1402 to occupy part of Luxembourg. The 
danger of this new power became so great that in December 1402, the diet of Spires 
discussed means of minimizing it. (Cf. Lavisse, Histoire de France, t. 1V., p. 327-8). 
Then also the whole of christendom was split in two by the great schism in the 
church. Asif strife in the empire and within France itself were not sufficient, there 
was added the intrigues of two rival popes. The University of Paris intervened in 
the struggle, and we can imagine Gerson’s activity commencing with his famous 
address of January 6, 1391. 
In the struggle, in which so many differing interests were concerned, we can 
easily surmise the interest of Christine de Pisan with her whole being directed towards 
national unity, and of Gontier and Pierre Col with their political and ecclesiastic 
affiliations. 
? Pierre Col, brother of Gontier Col, chanoine de Paris et de Tournai. Cf. a letter 
of Nicolas de Clémanges to Gontier Col in Nic. de Clém. ed. Lydius, p. 307, Epist. 
ex.: “Ad Guntherum Colli, De Germani sui sospitate et reditu ex peregrinatione, 
gratulatio.” 
# Cf. Anvers edition, 1706, Vol. IIT, col. 293 sqq. 
