The
Ranums'
Panat Times
Volume 1, redone Dec. 2014
Mémoires sur l'Établissement des Secrétaires d'Estat et des Clercs Notaires et Secrétaires du roy et Secrétaires des Finances
Go directly to the Mémoires sur l'Établissement des Secrétaires d'Estat
I should like to dedicate this informal edition to Donald Kelley,
a fine, most distinguished Humanist and historian.
In the first phase of my professional life, I sought to become a historian of administration. What does an office bring to the holder? What does the holder bring to the office?
In Foundations of Modern Historical Scholarship (New York, Columbia University Press, 1970), Donald Kelley briefly and learnedly explores the beginnings of Institutional History. Reaching from the study of law to the study of the history of law, and on to the study of institutions, Kelley finds that a new "legal genre" was created, namely the "handbook[s] dedicated to the systematic, historical analysis of French institutions" (p. 212). As we shall soon learn, this new genre also included results of research into ancient institutions, not only Greek and Roman but also Egyptian and Hebrew.
The first work that Kelley explores is by the jurist Vincent de la Loupe, whose very rare Origin of Dignities, Magistrates, Offices and Estates of the Kingdom of France appeared in 1551. De la Loupe's life and writings, although very interesting, will not be our concern here, though it should be mentioned that he also published a commentary on Tacitus. The point is important, since it sheds light on de la Loupe's frequent references to Roman history, as he explores French institutional history. The inspiration for this approach is Budé's, as Kelley shows. De la Loupe's Origin ... was reprinted by the editors of the Archives curieuses de l'Histoire de France, series 2, vol. IV (Paris, 1838), who used an edition of 1564 published by Guillaume Noir but did not compare it with the edition of 1551.
De la Loupe characterizes historically the dignities, magistrates, and offices of the realm: the dauphin, the regent, the maires du palais, the admiral, as well as peers, maréchaux, orders of knighthood, governors, heralds - and, of course, the royal household.
This is what he says about secretaries on page 425 of the Archives curieuses edition:
Les secrétaires signent tous édits, statuts, ordonnances et lettres du Roy, et sont appelez des Latin amanuensis ou scribae, et des Grecs upogrammatai, et de L'Empereur Justinien, en son code, primicerii. Le temps passé, n'y que soixante secrétaires, mais de présent sont six-vingts: desquels aucuns sont des commendemens et finances, et les autres simple secrétaires qui suivent la cour, ou la chancellerie qui est à Paris. Le collège desdits secrétaires a plusieurs prééminences, comme exemption des tailles, emprunts et subsides. Il n'y a doute que les Empereurs romains avoient des secrétaires qui signoient leurs edits et autres lettres. Du temps des Grecs et des Roys de Macédoine, leurs secrétaires estoient de leur conseil privé et entendoient leurs plus secrètes affaires, comme font encore de présent aucuns de ceux des Roys de France; et se trouve par escrit qu'un nommé Cardian, secrétaire de Philippe et depuis d'Alexandre, son fils disoit qu'il aimoit mourir que de faulser sa foy, qui estoit de révéler les secrets de son maistre.
We shall come back to this, but before doing so, note that in Book II he continues with the three estates, the royal councils, the chancellor, the masters of requests, the Parlement, the procureur général, the avocat du roy, and the Grand Conseil. In Book III may be found the royal domain, the treasurers of France, and such fiscal institutions as the taille (p. 452).
De la Loupe does not cite his sources. In his narrative he simply mentions Paul Émile, Gaguin, and the Budés, both father and son. His terms certainly derive from royal instruments; his turn of phrase reminds one of the legalese found in letters-patent about a particular office.
What surprises, perhaps, is the nearly complete absence of the names of office-holders. In the above passage about the secretaries, there is a reference to Cardian of Macedonia, secretary to Philip and Alexander, but not to the French holder of any type of secretarial office. This is the place simply to note this absence, not to explain it. In his Commentarii V. Lupani of 1553, de la Loupe expanded - or his translator expanded upon his characterization of the secretaries, "Des secretaires d'Estat, des Commandements & Finances du Roy, Maison & Couronne de France" (pp. 18-22):
Encores que le nom & tiltre de Secretaire du Roy soit general, & qu'il comprenne en soi tout le college, qui est en nombre de six vingts & plus: Neantmoins il est bien à presumer que la denomination a esté prise & tiree de la cause ou effect de ceux qui sont prés de la personne & de l'oreille du Prince, destinez pour entendre le secret de ses affaires, & de ses justes & royales pensees & deliberations; soit qu'elles procedent de la vive voix de sa Majesté, ou du Conseil d'Estat d'icelle: Aussi sont-ils /p.19/ dicts & nommez Conseillers du roy & Secretaires d'Estat, & non improprement des Commandemens: pource que, comme a esté dict cy devant, il y a plusieurs fonctions en la Majesté du Roy: Celle mesmement qui est accompagnee de plus de souveraineté, & qui n'a rien de commun avec les affaires, mais qui depend entierement du propre mouvement, seul pouvoir & auctorité Royale, comme d'octroyer graces, abolitions, privileges, estats, offices, pentions, dons, & autres telles expeditions, qui sont comprises sous le nom et tiltre de Commandement, qu'en faict le Roy au Secretaire, qui a l'honneur de le recevoir. Et quant à l'estat, il n'y a charge plus requise, plus necessaire, & importante apres celle de Monsieur le Chancellier & Garde des Sceaux de France, qui en a la principale surintendance, que celle des Secretaires d'Estat, qui ont la vraye & parfaicte intelligence & cognoissance de tout ce qui appartient au regime, gouvernement & police du Royaume, soit au dedans, ou dehors d'iceluy: Soit pour dresser les memoires & instructions des Ambassadeurs, ou les pouvoirs & commissions des Gouverneurs des Provinces, & autres /p. 20/ quelsconques qui sont employez pour le service du Roy & du public, leur escrire & faire entendre la volonté & l'intention de sa Majesté & du Conseil d'Estat, sur le faict de leurs charges & maniemens; & generalement pour faire toute [sic] autres lettres, commissions & expeditions commandees par le Roy, arrestees ou resoluës au Conseil d'Estat ou des affaires, soit qu'elles concernent le profit & utilité publique, ou particuliere, & privee d'un chacun: lesquelles le plus souvent est [sic] requis & necessaire de tenir secrettez, sans les divulguer ny manifester à personne: & en cela consiste la principale charge & fonction de l'estat de Secretaire: tellement qu'on en prend & tire sa propre denomination. Et si ce nom & tiltre de Secretaire s'estend encores plus largement qu'à l'endroit de ceux qui sont appellez aux affaires d'Estat, ou à recevoir les commandemens du Roy. Ce n'est pas sans occasion, pource que ayant sa Majesté communiqué une grande partie de son auctorité souveraine à Monseigneur le Chancellier & Garde des Sceaux de France, aux Cours de Parlement, Chambres des Comptes, & autres jurisdictions souveraines, qui au lieu du /p. 21/ Prince cognoissent & jugent souverainement de tous proces, affaires & differents des subjets de son Royaume, & au faict & raison de ses Finances: il est bien aussi requis & necessaire qu'il y aye des personnages suffisans & de la qualité requise pour entendre à recevoir les desliberations, advis & resolutions des Magistrats souverains, & pour en faire les Expeditions. A cette fin les Roys de France esleurent anciennement certains notables personnages de grande suffisance, vertu & Experience, de loüable renommee & tres approuvee cognoissance & estimation, qu'ils ordonnerent, creerent & nommerent leurs Clercs, Notaires & Secretaires de la Maison & Couronne de France, pour loyaument rediger par escript, & approuver par signature & attestation en forme deuë toutes les choses solennelles & authentiques qui seroint par eux faictes, commandees, ordonnees, constituees & establies: ensemble les arrests, sentences & jugemens de leur Conseil, des Cours de Parlement, ou d'autres, usans sous eux d'auctorité & jurisdiction souveraine, dont ils en appellerent aucuns auprés de leurs personnes sous le nom & tiltre de Secretaire d'Estat & des /p. 22/ Commandemens, pour escrire & signer & expedier leurs plus grands, plus secrets, & importans affaires: autres pour signer & expedier des commissions, roolles acquets & mandemens, concernant le faict & maniement de leurs Finances sous le nom & tiltre des Conseillers du Roy & Secretaire de leurs Finances: & les autres pour estre prés de mondit sieur le Chancellier Garde des Sceaux de France, ou les Cours du Parlement, grand Conseil, Chancelleries ordinaires, & autres usans d'auctorité souveraine pour expedier aussi & signer les arrests, jugemens, lettres, commissions & autres provisions qui sont par eux ordonnees ou decernees, conceuës & expediees, sans le nom & tiltre du Roy. Ils sont tenus & reputez pour domestique de sa Majesté, & ont plusieurs beaux privileges qui leur ont esté donnez et concedez par les Roys, lesquels encores pour plus grand ornement & decoration de leur college se sont voulus faire du nombre chefs & souverains d'iceluy.
From the first edition up to this one, there is not simply expansion and elaboration, there is a loss of the sense of specificity for each office, lacking the force in the names of offices so briefly but succinctly described.
Let us look at the text of another pioneering institutional historian mentioned by Kelley: Charles de Figon, whose Discours des Estats et Offices ... de France appeared in 1579. Figon's text is less concise than de la Loupe's. On occasion one wonders whether he becomes caught up in transcribing his sources, the result being somewhat sonorous prose. Jurisdictional thickets interest Figon, apparently, but his aim does not seem to be really specific about the rights and duties of offices. As Kelley has already noted, there are no references to antique official practices, at least among secretaries.
Figon's famous use of a natural metaphor - a tree - (Kelley, p. 186) to visualize the growth of royal institutions, almost inevitably brought him to envision the interconnectedness of offices, not their specificities; and though there is a legalese to his prose, at no point does one sense that he is almost transcribing a royal document. Pace J.H. Hexter. If de la Loupe is a splitter, Figon is something of a lumper, but as Kelley observes, he is more than that, he is working out the study of "a coherent native development...." (p. 213). The absence of the names of the Frenchmen holding these offices, however, is not unlike what we found in de la Loupe's earlier work.
The integration of the names of royal servants into the grand history of the Monarchy is a subject I have touched on before ("Services et désintéressement dans les histoires de la Monarchie française, 1630-1660, in La Monarchie absolutiste et l'Histoire en France, ed. F. La Planche and C. Grell, Paris: Paris-Sorbonne, 1986, pp. 99-112); but to my knowledge no one has explored this issue in the shorter, briefer genre of institutional history. What follows are preliminary findings and thoughts on the subject, put here as a preface to a manuscript history that actually names secretaries of state serving between 1547 and 1647.
BNF, Ms. Fr. 18236, marks something of a step toward the additions of names; Fauvelet du Toc's Histoire des Secrétaires d'État of 1668 not only integrates the big H word into the title (it is absent in the titles of de la Loupe, Duret, and Figon), but in a sense his book also becomes more a history of officers than of offices. The Comte de Luçay's Les secrétaires d'Etat depuis leur institution ..., of 1881, has as its principal subject the officials, their names, brief biographies, some parental affiliations, and dates of service. A shift from offices to officers? While this certainly appears to have been the case, it may be that the narrowness of the focus has resulted in our missing a much larger, more general shift in historical study.
The history of how a subject, in a little handbook, comes to be "treated" in a very large folio volume by Loyseau, and on and on, will not be our concern here; but two points must be made about it. Though brief, Loyseau's citations of royal legislation often include a reference to the official or the topic that prompted it. Kings and chancellors predominate in Loyseau's citations. Occasionally the names of the first holders of offices are also noted; but this said, Loyseau is still careful to keep his Traité ... centered on legal actions, not on the humans who prompted them or carried them out. The tradition of attributing all governmental action to the monarchy, personally, is thus present in the early history of offices - almost like a legal fiction. Those who acted in the king's name remained largely nameless. Pasquier and Fauchet should be searched for similarities and differences at this point, but a specific chronology of name insertion in institutional history is not what I am after.
Ralph Giesey's work and personal reflections to me about the shift from a monarchy of diffused powers to one of greatly enhanced personal power (let's suggest Charles VIII to Louis XIV) underlies the second aspect of the changes from de la Loupe to Loyseau. The sheer specificity of administrative law in Loyseau makes de la Loupe's brief characterizations seem superficial or insufficient. Is this simply anachronism, or are we faced with Tacitean brevitas and with de la Loupe's desire to be concise? The historians of offices up to circa 1600, and perhaps beyond, seem not to have sought to capture the shifts from "delegated" royal power to the "personal" power held by the monarch. There are exceptions to this generalization, some of which will be noted. But all this has to be raised in order to ponder if, or how, there is a relation between the rise of personal royal power and the inclusion of the actual names and biographies of royal office-holders. At this point it would be possible to turn directly to the 1647 text presented here, so that the names and actions of the secretaries, as persons, could be (partly) explored. But before doing so, there may be at least one further general issue to be raised.
De la Loupe's description of the secretaries is, in a sense, atemporal. It is descriptive, the only specific reference being to a secretary in ancient Macedonia. His atemporality might be called analytical, in that his general project is to characterize all the royal officials. His anonymous commentator stays with the characterizing, albeit more loosely and lengthily. Loyseau is more historical. The distinction between analytical and historical runs up and down Institutional History, with Oresme and de Seyssel being pioneers in the former, and Budé, in his De Asse, the latter. Let's quote at some length how these approaches were characterized in the 1840s.
In the preface to his Histoire de l'administration monarchique ... (Paris, 1855), Adolphe Chéruel narrates how he came to write his really quite learnedly brilliant book:
L'Académie des sciences morales et politiques avait mis au concours pour 1847 la question suivante: "Faire connaître la formation de l'administration monarchique depuis Philippe-Auguste jusqu'à Louis XIV inclusivement; marquer ses progrès; montrer ce qu'elle a emprunté au régime féodal; comment elle l'a remplacé.
L'ouvrage que je publie fut présenté pour ce concours et obtint une médaille à la suite d'un rapport de M. Mignet. M. le rapporteur y parlait de mon travail avec une bienveillance qui m'a encouragé à l'améliorer par de nouvelles recherches. A la fin de son rapport, M. Mignet exprimait le désir que mon mémoire fût publié, en même temps que celui de M. Cl. Dareste, qui avait obtenu le prix. Les termes dont se servait M. Mignet sont trop flatteurs et l'autorité d'un pareil juge trop imposante pour que je ne m'empresse pas de les citer. Ce sera la meilleure recommandation de mon livre. "L'Académie, disait M. Mignet, peut se féliciter d'avoir provoqué, par la question qu'elle avait mise au concours, deux savants mémoires, qui publiés sans doute, après avoir été retouchés et perfectionnés par leurs auteurs, deviendront deux excellents livres. [...]
Parlant du plan qu'on pouvoit adopter dans un ouvrage de cette nature, il s'exprimait ainsi: "Il y avait deux méthodes à suivre; la méthode historique et la méthode analytique. La première consistait dans l'exposition chronologique et raisonnée de la formation territoriale et administrative de la monarchie française; la seconde dans l'examen comparatif du mécanisme monarchique substituant ses ressorts complexes aux ressorts grossiers du mécanisme féodal. La première de ces méthodes était la meillieure. Seule, elle permettait de faire bien connaître la suite et la raison des changements. Par elle, on pouvait montrer l'ordre monarchique se dégageant peu à peu de l'ordre féodal pour l'utilité du pays, à l'aide de l'ambition intelligente des rois. Sans doute, les répétitions étaient à craindre dans un sujet qui embrasse tant de points divers, et se développe pendant plusieurs siécles. Mais il n'était pas impossible de les éviter et de grouper les établissements de la couronne avec assez d'art pour les offrir dans leur ensemble, sans altérer leur succession. L'autre méthode exposait trop à ne tenir compte ni des temps, ni des lieux, ni des desseins dans la formation générale de la monarchie, et à ne laisser qu'une part insuffisante à l'histoire dans le développement de chaque service particulier. Elle conduisait à traiter la matière presque abstraitement, à présenter des tableaux et non des révolutions.
The Académie des Sciences morales et Politiques opted for analysis over history. Mignet failed to convince his confrères. Perhaps the reverse would have happened in the Académie des Inscriptions, usually very favorable to historical erudition. I once looked at Dareste's book: it seemed unreadable. I should try again.
The manuscript
My familiarity with the various collections of documents about secretaries of state as really quite strong in 1960-61. It has declined immensely since, but more interesting are the changes in the ways I "frame" and interpret these documents. In 1960, I declined to draw on Henri-Louis Loménie de Brienne's Mémoires because they date from a generation after 1642; now, as we shall see, I view Loménie's firsthand recollections of his service as a revealing characterization of office and holder. Men leading state-service families had libraries filled with manuscript copies of diplomatic correspondence, memoranda, drafts of treaties, copies of administrative memoranda, and histories of offices. Before it was split up, Loménie's library (see L. Delisle, Le Cabinet des manuscrits, Paris, 1868, pp. 215ff) - now in the BNF - comprised, along with Séguier's (who was never a secretary), the virtually complete record of secrets of state for the 1640s. Colbert would have many of these materials copied for himself and his sons.
Brienne sank into "libertinism" and was in and out of prison, writing varioius memoirs right up to the time of his death. The brutal disgrace he underwent in March 1661 at the hands of Colbert and Lionne not only gave him time, it just might have prompted him to write Ms. Fr. 18236. He uses the first person more frequently in his personal memoirs than did most royal officials, and Ms. Fr. 18236 has a strong first-person presence. But this is no proof of authorship! Another doubt is prompted by the fact that several names of Loménies are left blank. We would think that Henri-Louis would surely have known these names. And why would he have stopped in 1647? This date must serve as a clue to further research. Some contestation or threat of disgrace prompted a high official who liked writing "history" (applied) to draft Ms. Fr. 18236. In 1547 Henri II had decreed that there be four secretaries. Does our author simply stop in 1647, out of respect for the chronological century?
Regarding Ms. Fr. 18236, here is what I wrote in 1961, Richelieu and the Councilors of Louis XIII (Oxford, 1963), p. 30, note 1:
Mémoires de l'establissement des secrétaires d'Estat, BNF, Ms. 18236, fol. 115v. This most important source for the history of the secretaries of state in the sixteenth century and to 1647 was probably the work of one author. To our knowledge, there are six copies of the manuscript in France. At the BNF, Mss. 18236 and 18237 from the library of Chancellor Séguier both contain copies. These, along with Ms. 136 in the special collection Cinq Cents Colbert in the same library, seem to be the oldest copies. BNF Ms. 18242 from the library of Louvois is late seventeenth century, while Ms. 4191 is an eighteenth-century copy made for Cangé, Secretary of State under Louis XV. Finally, the catalogue of manuscripts for the Bibliothèque of Bordeaux indicates another copy. Interstingly, Ms. 18236 and Ms. 136 in the Cinq Cents Colbert are in the same hand, although they came from two different private libraries. There are slight differences in the text, which appear to be due to errors of the copyist and which indicate that the two manuscripts were probably copied from another copy or the original text.
It is evident that I did not find out the author's name in 1961, and now I have no expertise left to do so. At the time, this source seemed to important that I asked Patricia Ranum to transcribe it with a view toward publication. This projection is finally going to happen now, 2005.
Moréri's article on Henri-Louis de Loménie quotes Père Le Long and Fontette, to say that Loménie left "mémoires" upon his death in 1698. By this he clearly means something different from the autobiographical memoirs we all know and that will be touched on later (Lelong, Bibliothèque historique ..., Paris, 1771, III, numbers 32623-96).
I shall not attempt to characterize each and every manuscript on the secretaries, but a couple must be mentioned. There are numerous accounts of the various départements, with Godefroy 310 of the Bibliothèque de l'Institut listing Chavigny and Sublet de Noyers in service, which means they were completed before mid-winter, 1643. The final sentence is "Qui a la marine?" An addition? There is another account in the same volume, beginning with fol. 182, that reveals how Servien was appointed and how he had Châteauneuf's backing. There followed:
... la disgrace de M. Servien arriva aparement à cause du démêlé qu'il eut publiquement chez M. le Cardinal avec M. de Boisrobert, mais en effet à cause de la jalousie que M. de Chavigny qui etait tendrement aimé de S.E.
Let's take another manuscript, BNF, Ms. Fr. 18243, with Louvois's arms on the binding. On folio 44v there is an "extraict d'un ancien registre qui s'est trouvé parmi les papiers du feu Sr Gassot, Sec. du Roy et de ses Finances, 1567." Folio 89 is a "Déclaration par laquelle le Roy concède à M. Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu, secrétaire d'Estat, la préséance au dessus les autres secrétaires d'Estat, 1616," and so forth. Folio 100 is entitled "Révocation de la Préséance de l'Evêque de Luçon, dernier avril 1617."
Biblithèque de l'Arsenal, Ms. 5298, is a manuscript on the secretaries salvaged by M. Monteil. Drafted for Seignelay by Nicolas-Joseph Foucault, it begins with secretaries in Antiquity. Foucault is identified as "secrétaire du conseil" - in fact a very famous royal servant, "recoverer" of manuscripts while on duty in Montauban and a curieux with one of the first gardens to include pieces of antique and medieval sculpture. I shall write elsewhere about that heroic Rouergat, Amans-Alexis Monteil.
In BNF Clairambault, Ms. 664, drafted at Colbert's request, we find that "M. de Laubespine le jeune, Sr de Hauterive, a été le premier qui a eu dans ses provisions la qualité de secrétaire d'Estat." Like BNF, Ms. Fr. 18236, this work was not written by a "historian," but by a researcher-secretary-commis. Unlike the handbook genre, these works are centered on the "paper trails" of historically valuable facts that might be useful for drafting letters in the royal service.
To conclude this part, let's look at how the learned Jacob-Nicolas Moreau, a historiographe de France, declined to search out the fact (or knew that the search for origins was fruitless) and drew on rhetorical devices to buttress an interesting first point about the mediocre origins of most royal offices (BNF, Collection Moreau, Ms. 362, p. 47):
La plus grande partie des plus belles charges du Royaume ont eu de commencement médiocres et ne sont rendues considerables que par la rencontre favorable des tems, et par la naissance, le mérite ou la faveur de ceux qui les ont possedées. Celles [de?] Secretaire d'Etat sont de cete qualité; et quoique leur origine n'ait rien que d'illustre, puisqu'elle est dans la maison et près la persone des Roix où tous les employs sont honorable, on ne peut pas nier qu'elles n'aient fait un merveilleux progrès, et que l'état où elles sont ne soit fort au dessus de l'Etat où elles ont été. Tout ce que l'on en peut dire jusqu'au regne de Henry II est tellement confondu avec les secretaires du Roy en général qu'il n'y a presque rien de particulier mais neantmoins comme les Roix prédecesseurs de celui là ont toujours fait choix de quelques un d'entre eux pour servir près de leurs persones et dans leur plus secretes affaires, et que c'est ce choix qui enfin a causé l'établissement de la charge de Secretaire d'Etat ....
* * *
In working through all the material I could find about the secretaries, 1635-42, nothing was found as revealing, as close-up, and as professionally explicit as Henri-Louis Loménie de Brienne's Mémoires. I include some key passages here, because they bring into written prose what had undoubtedly obtained from the beginning, namely the personal differences and abilities of each secretary of state in drafting official instruments.
The remarks about the different rates of speed in redacting documents provide some insight about the specific juncture between practical training, and learning, in the sense of a Humanist education. He also implies that although they were not competitors, secretaries would scrutinize one another and were aware of their colleagues' weaknesses and strengths:
Voilà en quoi consiste la science d'un secrétaire d'État chargé des affaires étrangères. Il ne s'agit pas là de composer seulement de longues écritures et pleines de pensées vaines et chimériques, telles qu'il m'en a passé souvent par les mains. Le point est de parler avec dignité des choses grandes, de bien démêler les vrais intérêts des princes et de marquer précisément aux ministres du Roi ce qu'ils ont à faire, afin qu'ils ne s'y méprennent pas. M. de Lionne écrivoit facilement, mais avec peu de politesse; M. de Pomponne, au contraire, écrivoit très purement, mais il enfantoit ses dépêches avec un travail et une peine inconcevables. De là vint sa disgrâce. Il faut qu'un secrétaire d'État ait l'esprit prompt et facile pour servir son maître à point nommé, et que, parmi cette activité continuelle, il conserve néanmoins le jugement en tout occasion, ce qui est rare, puisque les plus forts génies, témoins MM. de Villeroy et Pinart, sont sujets comme nous à perdre quelquefois la tramontane. M. Servien avoit cette facilité dont je parle au suprême degré. Jamais homme n'a mieux écrit d'affaires; mais il étoit un peu visionnaire et étoit sujet à prendre l'ombre pour le corps. M. d'Avaux, son collègue, avoit bien plus de jugement, et il ne sortoit rien de ses mains que ne fût dans la dernière perfection. Ses lettres latines sont aussi pures que celles de Cicéron, et ses dépêches en françois sont aussi polies et aussi éloquentes que les plus belles et les plus travaillées de Voiture et de Balzac. Cepandant, il n'y a personne qui ne juge, à l'inspection des pièces, que ces deux ministres ont composées l'un contre l'autre, dont nous avons le recueil imprimé, que M. Servien avoit l'esprit tout autrement vif que son adversaire, qui lui paroît si inférieur dans ses réponses qu'à peine y reconnois-je le grand d'Avaux. Tant il est vrai qu'en fait de disputes et de plaidoyers, celui qui a le génie le plus facile et le plus vaste est toujours le mieux écouté. (pp. 42-44)
In portraying himself as secretary, Brienne believes that his failure derived partially from his being perceived as a pedant. None, and I mean none, of the secretaries and chancellors of the period 1620-1650 was learned. See F. Bluche, "L'origine sociale des secrétaires d'État de Louis XIV (1661-1715)," XVIIe Siècle, 42-43 (1959), pp. 8-22. But Brienne suggests that there really was a hostility to learning that extended from the court to the secretaries:
Je ne prétends pas flatter mon portrait, chose tout à fait éloignée de mon humeur; mais je ne prétends pas aussi le changer et le barbouiller, pour ainsi dire, des plus sales couleurs. Je tâcherai qu'il soit fidèle et me ressemble, et, pourvu que j'en vienne à bout, ce tableau, quoique ébauché de ma main, ne me fera point de honte. J'avois donc quelque acquis quand j'entrai dans l'exercice de ma charge, beaucoup d'amour pour l'étude, assez de facilité à m'expliquer soit de vive voix soit par écrit. Je possédois assez parfaitement les langues allemande, italienne et espagnole. La latine même ne m'étoit pas tout à fait inconnu; heureux si je l'eusse moins aimée, ou au moins si j'eusse su cacher la familiarité que j'avois avec elle! Il étoit bon de la savoir; mais il ne falloit pas en faire de montre. Dès que je me fus érigé en auteur, on me regarda à la cour comme un pédant, quoique je ne le sois en manière du monde, et M. Le Tellier, mon patron, quoique mon confrère, ne put s'empêcher de m'en témoigner quelque chose. La faute étoit faite: il n'y avoit plus moyen de la réparer. (pp. 44-45)
Prior to these revelations about the office, Brienne gave a critique of mémoires as a genre, beginning with those of Commynes! He characterized his own in the following way:
Il suffit de savoir que parmi le récit de ma disgrâce, de mes exils et de mes prisons, se rencontrent les plus beaux faits d'armes de Louis le Grand, les motifs les plus secrets de ses hauts desseins et les ressorts les plus cachés de la politique espagnole et hollandoise. Tout parle en cette histoire, et j'ai tâché que chaque parole, à l'exemple de Tacite, renfermât quelque mystère, en un mot que chaque période fut pleine de quelque notable enseignement. C'est aux lecteurs à juger si j'ai bien ou mal exécuté un si noble et si hardi dessein. (p. 25)
His proposed readings were Marguerite de Valois's Mémoires, which he says he read twenty times (p. 27); Castelnau and Le Laboureur (see my introduction to Jean Le Boindre's Journal); and, of course, the Mémoires of Cardinal d'Ossat:
C'est là où j'ai puisé le peu que je sais de politique, et si j'eus autrefois quand j'étois en charge, la réputation de bien escrire et de bien faire parler le Roi, je n'en ai d'obligation à personne qu'au Cardinal d'Ossat, qui m'apprit l'art épistolaire dans le secret de mon cabinet, et la manière de dresser des dépêches et des instructions raisonnées, en un mot de ne rien dire que de nécessaire (p. 41)
With Brienne, the more human aspects of the office become quite evident. There may be biographical texts that do the same thing for earlier secretaries. I make no claim that Brienne was, or was not a pioneer. M. Antoine, N.M. Sutherland, Ted Dickerman, B. Barbiche may be inspired to correct and amplify this outline history of the early-seventeenth-century secretaires of state.
Not secrétaires du roi, nor de la chambre, but d'État. It is temping to perceive the emphasis on État as another step in the extension of depersonalized monarchical power, but it would be superficial to do so. The powers of the secrétaires d'État to sign the king's name on various state instruments, and then to countersign the document, constituted their official expression of powers. They wrote personal letters to royal officials, both abroad and at home, and to others as well; but advice rather than command generally characterized their legal strength, as least down into the 1650s.
In Robert Descimon's brillant study of Pierre Forget, the secrétaire d'État who negociated? redacted? the Edict of Nantes, the legal fiction that the king speaks (writes) everything himself, is so carefully respected that his state servant's role is unclear. ("L'homme qui signa l'édit de Nantes: Pierre Forget de Fresnes ...," Bulletin de la Société de l'Histoire du Protestantisme français, 144 [1998], pp. 161-174.)
Did the secretaries of state themselves actually practice copying the royal signature, or was this done only by their commis, the "staff" that copied and copied? Louis XIII was not consistent on the matter of letting the secretaries of state sign his name. In January 1642, he signed a special commission for Loménie de Brienne to sign in his absence (Ranum, Richelieu..., p. 3). As paradoxical as it may seem, the secretaries of state gained in powers of individual initiative during the very decades when Louis XIV's personal powers also appeared to be growing.
In conclusion, should I now present a close reading of the text? The temptation is great. But I recall the scholarly decorum of F.W. Maitland as a scholarly editor, my model. One point from the first paragraph of the text should be noted, because it brings us back to the theme of the whole project:
... il suffit de remarquer precisement le temp auquel ces charges sont montees a ce hault degré d'honneur auquel nous les voyons maintenant, estant constant que les charges de Connestable, de Chancelier, et des Secretaires d'Estat comme touttes les autres plus eminentes de la Couronne ont eu des commencemens foibles et peu cogneus, et ont esté rendus considerables plus par le merite de ceux qi les ont exercees que par le pouvoir qui leur a esté donné en leur premier establissement.
What does office bring to the person; what does the person bring to the office? Our author wrote mémoires. He was unconstrained by the genre of histoire as it was defined in the early-modern centuries. Jean de la Loupe took an occasional clue from Roman history and chose to work to make Tacitus better known to his contemporaries, but he seems not to have sought to imitate either the style or the senatorial perspective of the greatest Roman historian. Henri-Louis Loménie de Brienne did, and the personal, almost confessional dimensions of his Mémoires places him among a generation of great writers about themselves in politics: Retz, Richelieu, Goureau de la Proustière, and Goulas.
Postscript
As Patricia Ranum was retyping Ms. Fr. 18236 into the computer in December 2005, she noted the phrase:
Lordre pour l'expedition des lettres du sceau est remarquable l'on scelloit lors aucunes lettres que premierement elle n'eust rapporté au Conseil et accordee en iceluy, j'en parleray au long en mon traicté des Chancelliers ... (fol. 370).
Did we miss this clue to the author's identity back in the early 1960s? My memory is uncertain at this point, but I suspect I did, largely as a result of the ways I read this source. I probably read through it once for its subject, and then read particularly the parts about the secretaries I was working on. Take heed, reader! Do note the pitfall.
This clue to authorship does not lead to immediate identification. Research about the chancellors in the mid-seventeenth century produces several candidates! The learned and eloquent study by Hélène Michaud, La Grande Chancellerie ... au XVIe siècle (Paris, 1967), has a superb bibliography:
F. Du Chesne, Histoire des chanceliers (Paris, 1680)
J.
Le Feron, Histoire des connestables, chanceliers ... revue et
continué [sic] ... par Denis Godefroy (Paris, 1658)
A Tessereau,
Histoire chronologique de la Grande chancellerie ... (Paris, 1710);
the BN catalogue of printed books shows a first edition appearing in
1676.
The research material in the Bibliothèque de l'Institut by
the Godefroys, particularly Denis II, is very rich and might yield
information about Ms. Fr. 18236 after several weeks of work.
Michaud did not publish an exhaustive bibliography on the subject. David Sturdy cites J. Ribier, Mémoires et avis concernant les charges de Mess. les chanceliers, of 1629, in his The D'Aligres de la Rivière (London, 1986), which would seem too early; but R. Descimon, in his "Guillaume du Vair" (Actes du Colloque d'Aix-en-Provence, ed. by B. Petey-Girard and A Tarrête, Paris: Droz, 2005, pp. 17-77) notes that Ribier published a Discours as late as 1641, the same year he published the oeuvres of his ancestor, Du Vair. Descimon reaches brilliantly beyond the latter, to explore objects, tomb, and the texts the Ribiers published to enhance their own prestige through their links to Du Vair.
There would seem to be elements of a more general model here. Superficially, it might seem that secretarial families would not be interested in research and writing about chancellors; but in fact, the secretaries were an integral part of the Grande chancellerie. Hélène Michaud has some excellent pages on this subject (pp. 141-63). (See also her "Les registres de Claude Pinart ...," Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes, 120 [196], pp. 130-52.)
At this point, superficially, we have Henri-Auguste de Loménie de la Ville-aux-Clercs (1595-1666); François Du Chesne (1680); Denis II Godefroy (1658); A Tessereau (1676); and J. Ribier (1629) as possible candidates for the authorship of Ms. Fr. 18236! Further research in Barbiche, Mousnier, and Olivier-Martin yields Favin, La Peyre, and J. de Fonteney as candidates! The latter published Sommaire description de tous les chanceliers et gardes des sceaux ... in 1645.
The érudits Du Chesne, Godefroy, and Tessereau concentrate on offices, powers, and dates, with the biographical usually quite thin and scarcely anecdotal. Ms. Fr. 18236 is personal and very anecdotal, closer to the genre of its title ― Mémoires ― than to a more formal treatment characteristic of the history written by the humanist jurists. Manuscript 310 from the Collection Godefroy, Bibliothèque de l'Institut, contains fundamentally the same narrative as Fauvelet du Toc, in his Histoire des Secretaires d'Estat (Paris, 1668), though the latter is more hortatory and moralizing about the probity, fidelity, and prudence of the Loménies.
A Loménie also researched the chancellors. BN, Ms. Fr. 7544, from the Brienne library, is about the period 1560-1644. This may have been the work of Henri-Auguste: his father, Antoine, died in 1638, and his son, Louis-Henri, would have been too young in 1644 to have done so.
The narration of Henri-Auguste de Loménie's disgrace, in his Mémoires (Michaud and Poujoulat, 3rd series) contains some interesting and quite personal details that Ms. Fr. 18236 does not have. Remember that while he had little to do while Richelieu was Premier Ministre, after the latter's death pressure for Loménie's resignation increased, that is, during the first months of 1643. With everything settled, Loménie writes:
Je me crus cependant obligé de remercier Sa Majesté de la grâce qu'elle m'avoit accordée ... je le suppliai d'agréer que, quand je viendrois lui faire ma coure, je ne pusse pas traiter différemment de ce que j'avois été auparavant. Sa Majesté eut la bonté de me le permettre, et même de dire tout haut, afin que les officiers de sa chambre fussent informés de ses intentions. (p. 76)
In his Mémoires, Loménie de la Ville-aux-Clercs focuses on precisely the courtesies and negotations with the English. Adding a line about honorary degrees might have been considered too personal, not public enough to be mentioned.
An obscure poet, Sébastien Le Grain, is mentioned in Ms. Fr. 18236 (fol. 122v), but not in Loménie's Mémoires. Though both are mémoires, it could be argued that the de Loménie Mémoires have to do with general history from an individual royal officer's perspective, and that they are therefore more constrained and less en particulier (Merlin-Kajman, L'Absolutisme dans les lettres et la théorie des deux corps: passions et politique, Paris, 2000) than a mémoire about secretaries of state would be.
It would be interesting to know who was reading Le Grain, about whom Tallement des Réaux recounts:
Il y a un assez méchant historien nommé Toussaincts le Grain [Sébastien, according to Montgrédien] qui a mis, dans l'Histoire de la Régence de Marie de Médicis, que le Roy a dit à M. de Luçon, qu'il rencontra le premier dans la galerie après que le Mareschal d'Ancre eust esté tué: 'Voilà délivré de vostre tyrannie, M. de Luçon ...' (Historiettes, Paris: Garnier, s.d., II, p. 6).
There are numerous anecdotes about various persons fearing Richelieu well before he became Premier Ministre. There must have been something about his intelligence, speaking ability, and personal authority that scared the less intelligent and less well-spoken. Le point d'orgue of Ms. Fr. 18236 is the narrative of Richelieu's ministry, and the fate of Loménie de la Ville-aux-Clercs and Servien. Our author does not have any doubt that Richelieu refused to disgrace la Ville-aux-Clercs for fear it tarnish his future reputation; and that he disgraced Servien because he needed Bullion.
Whether from external or from internal evidence, at this point it
remains impossible to identify the author of Ms. Fr. 18236. In the long
line of historians of offices, from de la Loupe to Mousnier and Barbiche,
this mystery historian who lived at the heart of the highest sphere of
government, moved in the direction of a biographical complement to the
history of offices during the Ancien Régime. Was the author a commis who
worked for a secretary of state? Jean de la Barde, a relative and commis
of Chavigny, wrote De Rebus Gallicus historiarum libri decem an anno
1643 ad annum 1652 (Paris, 1671). Perhaps the classic question
about increasing personal royal power that was posed by Ralph Giesey may
best be framed in the history of Individualism, mémoire, and
even fictional writing and image-making, le machin qu'on appèle le
roi.
Orest Ranum