Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
30
LORiJ.wALTERS
Iauthor’,whetherornotitwasherhandthatactuallytranscribedeveryin-
stanceofhersignature.Asweshallsee,herpracticeintheQueen’sMScon-
frmswhatshesaysinthePrologue.Inthatmanuscriptsheallieshersignature
withthedivinesignature,inordertoimplythatshespeakswiththeauthority
ofadivinelyinspiredvoice.
Withherreferencetothemanuscript’spictures("histoires"4),werealize
thatshewantsherreaderstoseetheexerciseofhercontrolextendingeven
toits132miniatures.NoonebelievesthatChristineactuallyilluminatedthe
picturesherself.ThemajorityofthesearetheworkoftheMaistredelaCitédes
dames,theCitédesdamesMaster,or,morepreciselyspeaking,theworkshophe
supervised.WhatChristineclaimsinherPrologueisthatshemasterminded
andoversawtheproductionoftheentiretyofthisenormouscollection.Its398
foliosmakeitroughlytheequivalentofan800-pageprintedbook,eachfolio
havingarectoandaverso,afrontandaback.Allofthefunctionsassumed
byChristinecontributedtohereffortstocontrolthewaythatherimageas
theQueen’sadvisorandsecretarywastransmittedtoposterity.Oneplace
wherethatconcernisparticularlyapparentisintheEpistlesintheRoseDe-
bate,whichwillbemyfocusinthisessay.
IreturntoKevinBrownlee’swordsaboutChristine’stransformationof
theDebateEpistlesintoabookofwhichshewastheauthor.Iquote:"The
actofmakingthisbookwasitselfapolemical,publicgestureofappropria-
tionandcontrolonChristine’spart,withimportantimplicationsforthe
authorityofherpublicvoice"
5
.Iwillexpandupontheseinsightshereby
exploringChristine’screationofapublicpersonaforherselfinthecontext
ofanactualmanuscript,hermasterpiece,theQueen’sMS
6
.Theargument
IwillpursuehereisthatintheRoseDebateEpistlesChristinemarshalsthe
AllinformationabouttheQueen’sMS,aswellastranscriptionsoftextscontainedwithinit,will
betakenfromthesitededicatedtoit,http://www.pizan.lib.ed.ac.uk/.
4Asavisualrepresentation,amanuscriptilluminationisoneformthatanimagecantake.
SeeJean-ClaudeSchmitt,LeCorpsdesimages.EssaissurlaculturevisuelleauMoyenAge,Paris,
Gallimard,2002.IargueherethatChristinepointstothesimilitudebetweenherownsignature
andthedivinesignatureinordertotraceapathtoperfectvision,onethatshehasalreadytrod,
atleastinpart(cf.1Cor45,whereStPaulsuggeststhatinthislifeeventhemostenlightened
personiscondemnedtosee"throughaglassdarkly").Christineinscribeshersignatureupon
thematerialIbody’ofthebookasasignposttoguideherreaders,byappealingtotheQueen,
thefemalesymbolofthebodypolitic.
5KevinBrownlee,"DiscoursesoftheSelf:ChristinedePizanandtheRomanceoftheRose",in
RethinkingtheIRomanceoftheRose’:Text,Image,Reception,ed.KevinBrownleeandSylviaHuot,
Philadelphia,UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1992,p.234-261,atp.250-251.Reprintedfrom
RomanicReview,79,1988,p.199-221.
6SeetheAppendixdetailingChristine’suseofhersignatureandanagramsintheQueen’s
MS,foundathttp://www.pizan.lib.ed.ac.uk/waltersanagrams.html.ByconsultingthisAppen-
dix,wecanseethattheRoseDebateEpistleshavethesecondhighestnumberofoccurrencesof
Christine’ssignature;itismoveovertheonlytextthatdisplaysthethreeformsofthatsignature.
