Gerson, Jean. - Theologian and chancellor of the University of Paris, born on 14 Dec. 1363 in the hamlet of Gerson (from which he took his name) in the village of Barby (county of Réthel, diocese of Reims), died at Lyon on 12 July 1429.
The eldest son of a peasant from Champagne, in 1377 he entered the Collège de Navarre in Paris as a bursar. Having obtained the degree of magister artium in 1382, G. began his theological studies under masters such as Laurent de Chavanges, Gilles des Champs, Henri d’Oya, Henri de Langenstein, and Pierre d’Ailly, who took him under his protection. His public activity began on Septuagesima Sunday 1388, when he displayed his oratorical talent with a notable Latin sermon at the Collège de Navarre. From May to July 1388 he was part of the university embassy led by Pierre d’Ailly, which at Avignon before Clement VII sought the condemnation of Jean de Montson, who had declared the Immaculate Conception contrary to the faith. Later, on 8 Dec. 1401, G. delivered an important French sermon, Tota pulchra es, in favor of the Immaculate Conception and took an interest in the reinstatement of the Dominicans at the University in 1403.
For G., mystical experience was rather the normal crowning of a structure with secure foundations. If, by its very nature, the intellectual path helps one to enter into intimate contact with God, it is the affective path that introduces one to this contact. The difficulties he encountered at the beginning of his office may have contributed, through the Bruges visions, to hasten an evolution determined by other causes. Yet, as matters now stand, it seems that G. was above all a theologian concerned to synthesize and to place at the service of all souls the doctrine of the great contemplatives.
During the first quarter of 1399, G. doubtless sent to a Carthusian of Herinnes, Barthélemy Clantier, a letter of guidance on the De ornatu spiritualium nuptiarum by Jan van Ruysbroeck, whose work, once published in the Opera omnia, would later provide a fundamental document in the centuries-old controversy between theologians and mystics. But for its author, this text did not have such importance. On 27 March, most likely, G. delivered in Paris, in the cycle of his university sermons for Holy Thursday, a discourse important for his cosmic mysticism. From 4 June 1399 to 21 Sept. 1400 he stayed in Bruges, where he composed for his sisters several French booklets, including La mendicité spirituelle and La montagne de contemplation. He began to comment on the Pseudo-Dionysian De caelesti hierarchia, drew up plans for reform regarding the teaching of theology, and while intending to resign from his office fell ill. After recovering, he returned to Paris, where in 1401 he composed the De distinctione verarum visionum a falsis, and in 1402 his De parvulis ad Christum trahendis, a work of capital importance for the history of pedagogy. His French preaching then turned to the people, though he did not become curé of Saint-Jean-en-Grève until 1408. In his sermon Videmus of 21 May 1402 he invited these simple listeners to the contemplative life. Three days earlier he had, in his famous Vision contre le Roman de la rose, put this naturalistic doctrine on trial, refraining from any direct allusion to works or persons. This episode, well known to the general public, has been partly distorted. It is now certain that in the controversy opposing Christine de Pizan to Gontier Col and Jean de Montreuil, G. was not the notable cleric of the early conversations referred to by Christine. The intervention of Pierre Col, a canon of Paris, in favor of the Roman de la rose, led G., in Oct. 1402, to issue a private warning. Faced with the obstinacy of this ecclesiastic, on 24 Dec. in his fourth sermon Poenitemini he insisted on a formal condemnation, which had been more laconic on the 17th. Yet this condemnation struck only the final part of the Roman, for, as a poet, G. had not been insensitive to the beauty of the whole. This intervention seems to have borne fruit in Jean de Montreuil himself, who was by no means a rebel who despised any possible narrowness of spirit in G. Nourished on classical works, the chancellor was in fact regarded as a master by this humanist and by many others. The fact is rich in historical significance. Clearly placing himself in the tradition of the Ciceronian theme already modified by St. Augustine—Vir Christianus dicendi peritus—G. adapted it in a wholly original and meaningful way to the spirituality of his age: Vir Christianus in sacris litteris eruditus. This new formula directed the evolution of French humanism during the 15th and 16th centuries to the point that, through a clear line of dependence, it would find its surest demonstration in the work of Guillaume Budé.
The period 1402–1403 is marked by intense activity. On 8 Nov., the two Lectiones contra vanam curiositatem in negotio fidei define G.’s position regarding technical problems of the school. Faithful to the spirit of St. Bernard, the chancellor sought to bring speculative intemperance, which was infecting the University of Paris, back to the sobriety of Christian faith. Between Oct. 1402 and the end of March 1403 the Trilogus in materia schismatis developed the thesis of the return to obedience. Simultaneously he completed the third part of his trilogy on the spiritual life: the De mystica theologia speculativa.
Gerson, Jean - G. in his study. French miniature from the late 15th or early 16th century, serving as the frontispiece to a manuscript of the Imitatio Christi, entitled as follows: Incipit Liber primus Johannis Gersonii, cancellarii Parisiensis, de Imitatione Christi - Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, Nouvelles acquisitions latines, 3024, f. 2°.
Whose 41st consideration grants the nihil obstat to Ruysbroeck’s mysticism. With the first Sunday of Advent 1402 he also began the continuous series of French sermons Poenitemini et credite evangelio, of great moral density (thirteen of these remain), as well as the great French Passion for Good Friday, Ad Deum vadit, which crowns them.
A new and important phase in the life of G. began with his renewed act of obedience to Benedict XIII, which was celebrated by the chancellor in Paris on 4 June 1403. On 9 November, at Marseilles, he offered the Pope the homage of the penitent University. On 19 January 1404, at Tarascon, he set forth a programme of reforms that was not lacking in subtlety. Having been admitted to the Chapter of Notre-Dame in Paris on 28 January 1404, he defended the honour of the University against Charles of Savoy on 19 July. On 7 November 1405, before the royal court—though the sick King was absent—he delivered the most celebrated of his discourses, the *Vivat rex*, directed in part against the tyranny of the Duke of Orléans.
It is, however, incorrect to suppose that G. ever entertained ideas which justified rebellion or prepared the way for tyrannicide and then later repudiated them. The *Decem considerationes principis utilissimae*, upon which reliance has long been placed, is an apocryphal and tendentious work. G. was too moderate a man to embrace the revolutionary theories of an Ockham or of Marsilius of Padua.
During 1407 he devoted himself chiefly to affairs connected with the schism. Having been designated, together with Pierre d’Ailly, to take part in the embassy charged with negotiating the projected meeting of the two Popes at Savona, he delivered in French at Notre-Dame on 18 March a farewell discourse, the *Vade in pace*, in which he gave useful advice to the embassy. This mission achieved no result either at Marseilles or in Italy. Withdrawing to Genoa, the chancellor composed between September and November the practical portion of his treatise *De mystica theologia*, which was published in its entirety about Easter 1408. Responding to the appeal of the archbishop of Reims, he opened on 4 May the Council of that province and delivered two sermons on the duties of prelates and priests in general.
Meanwhile, on 23 November 1407, at Paris, John the Fearless had caused the assassination of the Duke of Orléans. On 8 March the criminal found an apologist in the theologian John Petit. Since G. did not clearly condemn the theory of tyrannicide advanced by Petit until 1413, this delay has been severely judged; but there are reasons which may excuse II.
The sermon *Veniat pax* concluded the fourth assembly of the French clergy. G. had shown himself very moderate, though, disappointed by the recent policy of the Popes, he had well noted the strong reaction in French circles against Benedict XIII, who had excommunicated Charles VI. In this period of French neutrality he avoided every extreme measure and every excessive argument. He did not attend the Council of Pisa, but in 1409 he began to compose his treatise on the unity of the Church. Between 5 June and 8 July he completed it with the tract entitled *De auferibilitate papae ab Ecclesia*, in which, fearing that the schism could not be overcome, he expounded his conciliarist theories. From 31 July to 5 August G. made his last visit to Bruges; he was relieved of his office on 30 June 1411. Shortly before 25 December 1409 he preached at Paris before the King the sermon *Pax hominibus* in favour of the return of the Greeks, a discourse which bears witness to his concern for the unity of the Church. In the same year, after studying the *Passions de l’âme*, he composed a pamphlet *Sur la méditation*.
The next three years seem to be a blank; G. was very ill during this period. The rising of 1413 applied and enforced the theory of tyrannicide with summary justice. G. himself was threatened in person and estate. The victorious return of the Armagnacs to Paris at length enabled him, on 4 September, to insert into his French discourse *Rex in sempiternum* the seven famous propositions drawn from John Petit’s discourse of 1408. He demanded their condemnation. It cannot be believed that G. wavered in defence of his personal interests between the Burgundian and Armagnac parties. There is no contradiction between the doctrine of the *Vivat rex* of 1405 and that of the *Rex in sempiternum* of 1413. G. showed himself above all a Frenchman, devoted to the person of his King and defender of Christian doctrine; yet even in these politically favourable circumstances opposition remained strong, as is shown by the reactions of the Council of Faith held at Paris from 30 November 1413 to 19 February 1414, which on 23 of that month arrived at an episcopal sentence of condemnation. As in the controversy over the *Roman de la rose*, G. would have wished to reduce the whole discussion to a doctrinal trial. In reality, however, there took place a trial of individuals which, over four years, embittered the chancellor’s life and finally forced him into exile. Martin Porée, bishop of Arras, an implacable opponent of G., attributed to the latter exaggerated expressions, which historians have wrongly accepted as true.
On 21 February 1415 G. arrived at the Council of Constance, of which he was not, as has been said, the guiding spirit but rather the victim. The persistence of the schism and his own deep zeal, which sought to forestall the disorders caused by crimes and heresies, inspired in him ineffective expedients and truly erroneous theses (v. CONCILIARISM), which were later misused by the Gallicans of the 17th century as though they were abstract rather than occasional theories. Moreover, apocryphal treatises have been attributed to him, especially the *De modis uniendo* of Dietrich of Niem. In his sermon of 21 July, *Prosperum ita faciet*, G. subordinates the exercise of the Pope’s sovereign power to certain restrictions, while he firmly maintains that the Council cannot in any way diminish the absolute power of the papacy conferred by Christ, far less impair II.
At Constance, Martin Porée and Pierre Cauchon also defended John the Fearless against the charge of heresy, and though on 6 July 1415 only the first thesis denounced by G., *Quilibet tyrannus*, was condemned (a decision which satisfied no one), on 15 January 1405 the judgment of the Council of Paris was annulled. G. then gave an increasingly spiritual direction to his conciliar activity. Already on 26 April 1415 he had delivered an admirable discourse on prayer, and on 3 August, in examining the canonization of St Bridget, he was led to publish his *De probatione spirituum*. On 7 and 8 September 1416 he wrote or spoke on the cult of St Joseph, one of G.’s deepest and most original devotions, in favour of which he had already sent a letter to all the churches on 17 August 1413. Of 17 January 1417 is a sermon and a treatise on the union of Christ and the Church; of 3 April 1418 the treatise *Sur la véritable religion et perfection*, in which he defended, against the Dominican Matthew Grabow, the religious movement which had arisen in the Low Countries and was known as the *devotio moderna*.
The bloody reconquest of Paris by the Burgundians on 28 Dec. 1418 condemned G. to exile. His first stop was Ratterburg (Inn), where between August 1419 and the following August he composed his great work *De consolatione theologica*. The last ten years of his life were marked by intense spiritual and literary activity. At the abbey of Mölk (Austria) he wrote his major heroic poem *Josephina*. After refusing an offer of a chair at the University of Vienna, in 1419 he accepted the hospitality of his brother Giovanni, prior of the Celestines in Lyon. In 1425 he took up residence in Lyon at the Collegiate Church of St Paul, where the archbishop assigned him lodging and an income. During this period G. revised his earlier works and composed new ones, mainly of a moral and contemplative character, many of them substantial; a mere enumeration would already be lengthy. Suffice it to recall his *De concordia metaphysica cum logica*, completed on 24 Dec. 1426; the *Collectorium super Magnificat* of 1426–27, of great importance for spiritual doctrine, parology and Eucharistic theology; and his *Consultation en faveur de Jeanne d’Arc* of 14 May 1429, which was his swan song.
On biography: M. J. Pinet, *La vie ardente de G.*, Paris 1929; H. Dacremont, *G.*, ibid. 1929; E. Vansteenberghe, *G. à Bruges*, in *Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique*, 31 (1935), pp. 5–52; P. Glorieux, *L’année universitaire 1932–33 à la Sorbonne à travers les notes d’un étudiant*, in *Revue des sciences religieuses*, 19 (1939), pp. 429–82.
On his works: *Opera omnia*, 5 vols., ed. E. Dupin, Universa 1706. Editions or re-editions by E. Vansteenberghe in *Revue des sciences religieuses*, 13 (1933), pp. 165–85, 393–424; 14 (1934), pp. 191–218, 370–95; 15 (1935), pp. 532–66; 16 (1936), pp. 33–46, 441–73; 19 (1939), pp. 24–47; ed. A. Pons, *Les sept Heures de la Passion*, Paris n.d.; ed. A. Thomas, *Jean G. et l’éducation des dauphins de France*, ibid. 1930; ed. I. B. Monnoyeur, *Le traité de Jean G. Initiation à la vie mystique*, ibid. 1943 (*La montagne de contemplation*, *La mendicité spirituelle*). Fragments of works have been critically edited by A. Combes, *Essai sur la critique de Ruysbroeck par G.*, I: *Introduction critique et dossier documentaire*, ibid. 1945, pp. 615–869. For the *Commentaire inédit des Sentences* attributed to G., cf. E. Longpré in *Archivum Franciscanum historicum*, 23 (1930), pp. 251–2 (without reservation) and A. Combes in *Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge*, 12 (1939), pp. 365–85 (raising the question without reaching a conclusion). As regards the original French manuscripts of some sixty French sermons by G. and the partial editions produced after Dupin, cf. L. Sorrento, *Discorsi francesi del G. Il problema dei manoscritti*, in *Medievalia*, Brescia 1943, pp. 287–316; L. Mourin, *L’œuvre oratoire française de J. G. et les mss. qui la contiennent*, in *Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge*, 15 (1946), pp. 225–61. The Passion *Ad Deum vadit* has been the subject of a non-critical edition by Dom G. Frénaud, Paris 1947, which, unlike the earlier so-called critical edition by Carnahan, takes account of the entire manuscript tradition. Ten French sermons have been critically edited and studied from doctrinal, literary and linguistic viewpoints by L. Mourin, *Six sermons français inédits de Jean G.*, Paris 1946; *Le sermon «Prier natus est nobis »*, in *Les lettres romanes* (Louvain), 2 (1948), pp. 315–24; 3 (1949), pp. 31–43, 105–45; *Le sermon «Factum est proelium »*, in *Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale*, 16 (1949), pp. 99–154; the sermons *Ave Maria* and *Suscipimus*, in *Scriptorium* (Brussels), 2 (1948), pp. 221–40; 3 (1949), pp. 59–68.
On philosophy, dogmatic theology and moral theology: in addition to general works, W. Dress, *Die Theologie Gersons*, Gütersloh 1931, should be consulted with caution; it has been greatly corrected by I. B. Monnoyeur, *La doctrine de G. augustinienne et bonaventurienne*, in *Etudes franciscaines*, 46 (1934), pp. 690–97.
On mystical theology: M. I. Pinet, *La montagne de contemplation. La mendicité spirituelle. Étude...*, Ligne 1927; I. Stelzenberger, *Die Mystik des Johannes G.*, Breslau 1938; P. Pourrat, *J. G. et l’appel à la contemplation mystique*, in *Revue apologétique*, 49 (1929), pp. 427–38; J. B. Monnoyeur, *G. et l’appel à la contemplation*, in *La vie spirituelle*, 23 (1930), pp. 49–68; A. Combes, *L’authenticité gersonienne de l’«Annotatio doctorum qui de contemplation »*, in *Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge*, 12 (1939), pp. 291–364; id., *Jean G. commentateur d’idées*, Paris 1940; id., *G. et Pomerins*, in *Archives...*, 14 (1945), pp. 394–590; id., *Essai*, op. cit., I, supplemented by *Sur la date des sermons universitaires de G. Pour la fête du Jeudi-Saint*, in *Archives*, 15 (1946), pp. 331–482; id., *Essai*, op. cit., II, *La première critique gersonienne de «De ornatu spiritualium nuptiarum »*, Paris 1948.
On political theories: A. Coville, *Jean Petit. La question du tyrannicide au commencement du XVe siècle*, Paris 1932; C. Schaffer, *Die Staatslehre des J. G.*, Cologne 1935.
On the Great Schism and ecclesiological theories: cf. N. Valois, *La France et le grand schisme d’Occident*, 4 vols., Paris 1896–1902, and the additions and corrections in A. Combes, *Jean de Montreuil et le chancelier G. Contribution à l’histoire des rapports de l’humanisme et de la théologie en France au début du XVe siècle*, 1914; H. Jedin, *Storia del Concilio di Trento*, Brescia 1949, p. 15 and passim.
On G. and French literary history: for the controversy over the *Roman de la rose* cf. A. Combes, *Jean de Montreuil*, op. cit.; id., *G. et la naissance de l’Humanisme*, in *Revue du moyen âge latin*, 1 (1945), pp. 259–84; L. Mourin, *Sermons français de G.*, op. cit.; F. Simone, *Rassegna di studi sul Quattrocento francese*, in *Rivista di letterature moderne*, 2 (1947), pp. 152–69.
Andrea Combes – Luigi Mourin – Franco Simone