Gateway Chronicle 2021

32
disapproved of Jean de Meun’s work, many of her
own favourite rhetorical strategies (including the
dream-vision as a narrative device and the use of
allegorical personifications) derived from the tradition
of which the Rose was the pioneering text.
By 1401, the Rose had a profound influence, provoking
the intellectual Jean de Montreuil to pen an
enthusiastic praise of both work and author, specifically
Jean de Meun. While Christine’s disapproval
of the text was already established, owing it being
“one of the most notorious compendia of misogynist
lore available in the vernacular”, it was this
letter (no longer surviving) that provoked her to
lay out her arguments against the Rose and become
embroiled in an academic debate which, as a woman,
she had no place in. This
debate continued until
1404, involving many
of the most renowned
intellectuals of the day.
It would have perhaps
been forgotten, if not
for Christine’s extraordinary
step of compiling
the literature involved in
a manuscript which she
presented to the Queen,
thus turning a private
academic disputation
into a public event.
Throughout the Querelle,
Christine’s claims included
that the language
used by Jean de Meun
was vulgar; that several
of the allegorical figures
unjustly defamed
women as a whole; that
The Gateway Chronicle
as well as many of her later writings, have been
labelled ‘feminist’, there is difficulty to applying this
description to a woman of the fifteenth century.
Today’s definition of the term regarding the active
struggle for women’s legal and political equality did
not exist in medieval Europe, and Christine certainly
did not advocate for any reversal of the social
hierarchy. This is highly pertinent to the historiography
that assesses Christine’s defence of women;
while some have praised her for challenging the
dominant misogynist ideology of her age, others
have criticised her for failing to take a more radical
approach. Moreover, ‘feminism’ itself is tricky to
define in a historical context. While it appears to
have a clear meaning, the word itself can be controversial.
Many today who advocate for the equality
that it connotes would
refuse to define themselves
as ‘feminist’. It is therefore
more productive, and less
anachronistic, to employ
the terms proto-feminist
and anti-misogynist when
observing women of the
Middle Ages. Rather than
looking for advocacy of
equality, one should shift
the perspective to the promotion
of women’s intellectual
activity, the defence
of female moral equality
and the affirmation of
women’s contribution to
society. This change in
terminology and outlook
allows Christine, and women
like her, to be viewed in
the context and values of
her own time, allowing her
the conclusion was shameful; overall the work was
an offence to moral decency. Her involvement in
the debate would provide Christine with greater
visibility, some would say notoriety, as a champion
of women’s sensibilities and moral rectitude; her
subsequent works would increasingly take the form
of prose and follow these themes, leading to her
re-writing of women’s history in The City of Ladies.
Hult has thus seen the debate as a crucial staging in
her career, transitioning her from “disenfranchised
woman to female author”.
fundamentally conservative views not to detract, as
some have claimed, from her position as a defender
of women. While Christine’s voice in defence of
women is incredibly different from what we would
expect of a feminist today, it was in its time dissenting
and radical, and one which spoke with as much
urgency as that of any modern feminist.
Ms Hodson
While Christine’s contributions to the Querelle,