The
Ranums'
Panat Times
Volume 1, redone Dec. 2014
Jacques-Auguste de Thou: Taking off the Toga
II B: Searching for legal perspectives in the History,
Books I-LXIV
I - Taking off the Toga, Reflections
II A - Searching for Legal
Perspectives in de Thou's dedication to Henry IV
II B - Searching for Legal
Perspectives in de Thou's History, books I-LXIV
II
C - Hesitant findings
III - Brief bibliography
De Thou became a maître des requêtes only in 1584, and président à mortier in 1595. He was therefore not a participant in the stormy early decades of parlementaire history about which he writes. He says he has his father's materials; the sources lists (they deal with the early years but they were developed at a later date) contain only vague passages about some of the principal events involving the law and Parlement. Did de Thou's cultural outlook evolve away from the already not totally dominant legal mind-set, as religious divisions and civil war rained down on him for decades? Did the failures of the law and of legal institutions to keep the peace and social-mental order tend to strengthen the interiorization of his faith and the search for solace in his historical knowledge of the Word as he found it manifest in the Bible and in the primitive Church?
Note: In the citations that follow, the book number is shown first as a Roman numeral; it is the same for both the French and the Latin versions. Then, after a colon comes, the page in the 1734 French translation of Paris; and after a semicolon this is followed by the italicized page number of the Latin edition of London, 1733. The specific volumes are not given.
Legal expertise (that is, knowledge of the law, procedures, and jurisdictions) was central to the robin culture of the sixteenth century. On occasion, citing a brief fact can be every bit as revealing as a major summary or presentation of legal issues. I begin with de Thou's remark (II: p. 153; p. 90) about what amounted to the murder of the duc d'Enghien in 1545. After lamenting the prince's death (as he was resting in the courtyard, some courtiers dropped a bench on him from an upper window), de Thou adds that no interrogation was undertaken so that redress could be sought in accordance with the law; on occasions such as this, princes did not possess the rights of a particulier.
Far more lengthy is his praise for Chancellor Olivier, a survivor of the upheavals at court after the death of Francis I.
Superabat Franciscus Olivarius vit amplissimus et amplissimo magistratu dignus, qui integritate, ingenio, prudentia et eruditione sua tutus, cum aemulum nondum haberet, solus ex praecipuis Francisci ministris in comitatu. Henrici remansit. Is unus, dum ceteri fere in aula rebus privatis intenti erant, pro regni dignitate et publica utilitate excubabat, legibus pro tempore salutaribus promulgatis. (III: p. 189; p. 110)
The passage about Olivier's reforms is lengthy (Frankfurt ed., III, p. 110); and while de Thou does not praise or decry any of them, by praising Olivier he makes it evident that he approves of these initiatives. De Thou does not reserve his praise for the robins, but for them alone he turns to the terms of very high praise that the ancient Romans had developed for senators, consuls, generals, and the emperor. Remember, they were "pro regni dignitate et publica utilitate excubabat legibus pro tempore salutaribus promulgatis." He then turns to the king's lengthy effort to reduce the number of beggars in Paris, to oblige the bureau de ville to provide charity to the sick and the crippled, while the quartiers were to aid poor artisans, an effort that had to be watched carefully, because some will take advantage of the help and will stop working ( "... minus diligenter observatum, postremo praevalente licentia et civium negligentia penitus omissum est," III: p. 110).
Next came the new règlements for the Parlement (III: p. 189; p. 110). The number of conseillers created by Francis I now had to be reduced, and no one under thirty would be received into the Parlement. And the criteria for admission are specific: "quam de vita et moribus eorum inquisitum fit; et ipsi universo senatu convocato de doctrina periculum fecerint ....")
There were also rules prescribing the number of magistrates in the provinces, notably the apostolic notaries whose jurisdictions were also to be reduced. De Thou notes that the Chancellor also forbade avocats, procureurs, all the genus pragnati to stand for the offices of échevin that were so desirable at the time, although in the long run they lost their appeal. As factionalism increased, city fathers forbade books imported from Germany and other suspect places unless approved by the Sorbonne.
What we might consider of little importance, de Thou took very seriously. A prime example is the powers of papal legates in France, as determined by the Parlement (III: p. 191; p. 111). The Parlement wished the same rules to obtain that had been verified by the Parlement for Cardinals Farnese and Sadoleto. There follow more than a dozen specific terms stating what legates cannot do, the first being that they have "nullam jurisdictionem in regis subditos, ne ipsis quidem consentientibus, exerceat ..." (III: p. 111). The summary of these terms is succinct, juridical, and destined to inform readers about the specificities of Gallican parlementaire actions, with a view to limiting Rome's powers in France.
Less abstract, certainly, but no less juridical is de Thou's discussion of the Jarnac-La Châteigneraie duel (III: p. 198; p. 115). The king accepted that their quarrel be settled by a duel (a breach of the law!), an event with seconds that was attended by the court. Henri favored La Châteigneraie, Montmorency favored Jarnac.
What happened, asserts de Thou, did not depend on the protagonists' skill but on God's will. La Châteigneraie had sought the duel and was, in a sense, the aggressor. He paid for it with his life. Though Henry vowed that duels would henceforth not be permitted, the incident was interpreted by many, including de Thou, as a présage. The king had permitted something bloody, forbidden by law, and he himself was subsequently killed in a pleasure combat during public festivities!
The dispute between the monks of Saint-Germain-des-Prés and students from the Sorbonne in 1548, over the ownership of the Pré-aux-Clercs (V: p. 338; p. 183) would have become still more violent had the Parlement not established a commission selected from among its members, to examine all the claims and rights of both parties. The parties accepted the commission's judgments.
Far more grave was the revolt in Guyenne that same year. De Thou provides considerable detail about how the king and the Parlement of Bordeaux failed to end the revolt, despite attempts to do so by edicts, declarations, arrêts, and threats. The magistrates first called in Moneins and his troops, who quickly became embroiled in the revolt, to the point of being more the sources of disorder than of order. De la Chassagne, a president in the Parlement who was "fort aimé du peuple" ("et sui gratia apud plebem plurimum valebat") sought by negotiations to end the violence; he failed. De la Chassagne had assured Moneins that he would not be harmed, but he soon found that he could not keep his word. The constable and troops arriving from Languedoc put a quick and brutal end to the rebellion, leaving de la Chassagne defeated and languishing. The Parlement decreed laws that limited game-hunting and that drastically devalued the coinage. In addition, it decreed executions for rebellion. For example, a certain Jacques de Coucy, seigneur de Vervins, was tried and sentenced to death by commissaires (VI: p. 381; p. 205), and not in accordance with the rules of the Parlement. His son eventually had the decision reversed, but of course by then the father had been executed.
De Thou also recounts how the First President of the Paris Parlement, Pierre Lizet, was disgraced by the Cardinal of Lorraine at the behest of Diane de Poitiers (VI: p. 403; p. 217). The petty excuse involved courtesies about sitting or standing when before the Conseil du roi.
In that same book de Thou briefly describes that little prince, François, who died in 1549 at the age of three months. He moves on to the royal entry of Henry II, the games, and "what is called the lit de justice": "ce qu'on appelle le Lit de justice dans la Chambre dorée," "et in aurea camera justitiae lectisternium, quod vocant, celebravit" (VI: p. 380; p. 204). He does not deign to mention why the lit was convoked. He also notes renewed sumptuary laws and increased pay for the companies of gens d'armes who in turn are forbidden, under pain of death, to take things without paying for them ("poena capitis proposita en eos, qui quid ab aliquo sine pretis sumpsissent," VI: p. 387; p. 208).
The affable Jean Bertrandi (or Bertrand) replaced Olivier as first president of the Parlement. The next high-ranking official to suffer a similar fate was Olivier (now Chancellor, 1545-60). Bertrandi became first president, but only temporarily because he was soon promoted to keeper of the seals (1551-59) (VI: p. 404; p. 217). Though he kept his office, Olivier saw his duties assigned to Bertrandi. The latter accepted only after the Parlement had altered the status of the keepers of the seals, to protect Bertrandi from losing rights (and wealth) should he be disgraced.
Book I had evoked some lengthy reforms proposed by Olivier concerning office-holding. Then, in book XXII, l'Hospital's speech is given in extenso. After the Chancellor's address, de Thou also includes opening speeches from the three estates and gives la parole to the institutional body of the Monarchy (E. Kantorowicz). Quoting, rather than summarizing these speeches is an Atticist démarche. Obviously, it would be necessary to check de Thou's transcriptions with other sources.
Also in 1550, the Parlement undertook to limit the number and jurisdiction of apostolic notaries (VI: p. 408; p. 220). The Pope objected, of course, and none other than the great jurist-historian Pierre du Moulin would research the rights of Parlement over these officials and publish his findings. Gallicanism in action.
If it has not already been done, there is a need for a study of de Thou's account of the rise of the Waldensians and their persecution (VI: pp. 409ff; pp. 221ff). Understanding it to be a religious current rather than a narrowly-defined doctrinal matter, de Thou takes the time to go back to the tragic story of persecution in the High Middle Ages; then he expands his narrative around the 1540 arrêt by the Parlement of Aix-en-Provence. The stay against enforcement lasted as long as Chassané lived. His successor, Maynier d'Oppède, an "homme violent," "homo vehemens" (VI: p. 419; p. 225), unleashed new persecutions. The contradictions and the on-and-off enforcement on the part of the magistrates speak for themselves, more especially when the courts were exploited for personal ends. He visited Mérindol, which had been destroyed by royal order in 1540 (Vita, p. 735).
It was certainly intentional that de Thou singles out first presidents in various parlements for implicit praise or condemnation. He uses strong words to make emphatic his opposition to Maynier d'Oppède's violence. Have I been fair to de Thou's overall message regarding the tragic failure of the Crown and the regional magistracies to put aside the use of physical force? Obviously, the first presidents were often acting on orders from the Conseil du roi. The pages on the Monarchy's conduct toward the Waldensians over the centuries are a preview of what would come with the Protestants.
In Book VIII (p. 101; p. 285) there is a compliment for the greffier of the Parlement, Jean du Tillet, for his knowledge of the laws of the realm and more especially about the duties owed to popes. Reference is also made to an edict forbidding the export of money from the realm.
In 1551 the Parlement limited a legate's powers in France (VIII: p. 137; p. 303). Almost as an aside, de Thou remarks that Montmorency was elevated to a duchy-peerage to offset the powers of the House of Lorraine (VIII: p. 138; p. 303). In March of that same year the edict establishing présidiaux was sent to the parlements (VIII: p. 138; p. 303). The Parlement of Paris vigorously opposed its terms, but the edict was registered nonetheless. The initiative had been the Cardinal of Lorraine's, thus enabling him to have a royal court at Reims, where he was archbishop. De Thou thought that, nonetheless, the présidiaux benefitted public utility. The number of councilors was also increased in the Cour des aides -- about which de Thou laments, as wealth rather than merit obtains for these offices. Another edict required that a curé appointed in a walled city must hold a university degree; and another required that in their contracts merchants must use the term livre tournois instead of écu, a law that was supposed to diminish the export of gold from the realm but that, according to de Thou, had little effect.
Just as under the ancient Greeks and Romans, an edict that required that meat be sold in pounds (livres) did not give the intended relief to the people (VIII: p. 140; p. 304).
The divisions between the magistrates and the bourgeois of Metz in 1551 facilitated the taking of the city by the French (X: p. 226; p. 347) The entry into Toul is also described.
The new creations of financial offices in 1553 produced a lot of money for the Crown and at the same time exhausted the finances of the realm (XII: p. 381; p. 427). Guillaume de Marillac's mint did not long survive, because more attention was paid to the beauty of the coins than to their intrinsic value and weight (XII: p. 382; p. 428).
About the storm of religious persecutions of 1553, de Thou notes the fate of Servetus, and how Calvin came down in favor of using secular powers to prosecute heretics (XII: p. 384; pp. 428-29).
The attempt by the Parlement of Toulouse to legislate regarding the inpudicité of some clergy unleashed an appeal by the First Estate to the Conseil privé about jurisdictions. The clergy also attacked the same parlement over this issue, but its president, Jean de Merençal, defended the court. The Sorbonne published a critique of his defense. Merençal survived the attack, thanks to his good reputation and to favorable opinions of him. De Thou notes that this period of parlementaire history is "scarcely mentioned by historians." He adds that the registers of the Parlement say nothing about it (XIII: p. 471; p. 471). Did de Thou go back to the 1550s and consult the registers of the Parlement once he had become a parlementaire?
In 1555, a lieutenant criminel was established in each présidial court, and in some lesser courts as well; his gages were 600 francs, as compared to the 300 livres paid to a prévôt de robe courte. Many prévôts des maréschaux were eliminated, and additional prévôts de robe-courte and four archers were created. All were opposed by the Parlement. Overhangs on houses were ordered removed, not only in Paris but in other towns as well.
Four years earlier, in 1551, an edict reserving prosecution for Lutheranism had been enacted for the Parlement to enforce. Now, in 1555, at the instigation of the Cardinal of Lorraine, a new ordinance transferring the carrying-out of judgments to the ecclesiastical courts was then transferred to the governors. The Parlement objected; within quotation marks, de Thou provides the nearly three-page-long remonstrance.
In presenting the changes known as the semesters, 1554, de Thou gives a brief history of the Parlement and stresses that it had become sedentary in 1344 (XIII: p. 468; p. 470). The Parlement's powers and authority were greater than those in the royal council and court wished, for these individuals were always favorable to arbitrary power. De Thou names names, especially that of the Cardinal of Lorraine, who by caprice and a passion for innovation, advised the king to create the semesters and to deny épices to the magistrates. The real aim was not justice; as in the creation of the présidiaux, the aim was to sell more offices. Confusion reigned as the semesters were then abolished, leaving a greatly increased number of councilors. De Thou's narrative about the storm over the semestre is quite lengthy. He then notes the establishment of the Parlement of Rennes; the issuing of an edict that obliged the French in the western provinces to pay a gabelle; and the increase in the number of secrétaires du roi from 120 to 200.
Prior to recounting the origins of a venerable contest between the king and the de Brasse, dukes of Etampes, over the duchy of Brittany, de Thou notes that it was resolved without the Parlement's involvement (XVI: p. 642; p. 560).
De Thou does not claim that the list of Protestants put to death in 1556 is complete, but it would seem that he listed all the names he had learned about, a remarkable testimonial to his humanity. The judges were split, and de Thou briefly summarizes their actions. The divisions among the judges of the Tournelle resulted in the most severe option; thus, far from being favorable to the accused, as is the case in criminal cases, the cases were handled as if they were civil (XVII: p. 57; p. 601) The authority that de Thou assumes on this matter suggests his familiarity with legal procedure. His account of two deaths centers on the terrifying spectacle presented to the fleeing or escaping onlookers. The cases before the Parlements of Chambéry and Dijon are noted. The procureur général in Dijon was reprimanded by President Brisson.
De Thou extends his reflections by saying that fraud and licence had not yet increased to the point that they would eventually reach; and he adds that the magnates of the realm, attentive to enriching themselves in order to pay their expenses at court, profited cleverly from the accusations (XVII: p. 58; p. 602). With carefully selected details he narrates how the accused procureur général brought the Guises into the matter, which led to the involvement of Montmorency and the king. To satisfy Guise, the king asked Christophe de Thou, Caude Anjoran, and Jacques Viole to review the matter. Other high-ranking officials also became involved; the case went against the Guise client, the procureur général. All this increased tensions between the Guises and Montmorency.
The attack on the Protestants in the rue Saint-Jacques on September 4, 1557 (XIX: p. 181; p. 664) ended when a magistrate, Martines, ordered the Protestants imprisoned to avoid their being beaten by the "peuple." De Thou sums up the rumors and comments that no one dared defend these Protestants for fear of being accused of favoring them. The Parlement had several Protestants put to death, but a change of policy followed, because the king realized that he would need Swiss and other Protestants for the next military campaign (XIX: pp. 182 ff; pp. 664ff).
The Edict of 1557 against clandestine marriage resulted in part from marriage issues within the Montmorency family. In the edict to punish mothers who killed their children, the judges were once again divided. De Thou gives the arguments proposed by the more compassionate judges (XIX: p. 184; p. 665).
The edict requiring residence for bishops and curés was, says de Thou, the same as the edict promulgated by Louis XI in 1476. To fund the infantry, receveurs were created for all dioceses. Next came the creation of presidents for each présidial. And there is a complaint about venality of office (XIX: p. 185; p. 666).
The Estates were summoned for Paris in 1558, in order to "pull out sums of money." De Thou paraphrases the royal speech, which was followed by a speech by the Cardinal de Lorraine, bloated, diffuse, and full of flattery. Jean de Saint-André spoke on behalf of the Parlement and the magistracy, a fourth order distinct from the other three. There is more on the Estates and on ceremonies, but nothing on legal matters.
The narrative about the angry exchange between Henry II and Andelot, who promised his king everything but his soul (XX: p. 227; p. 689), does not include the legal proceedings that followed; but the consequences redounded favorably on Monluc and the Cardinal de Lorraine.
The material on the 1559 deliberations in the Parlement of Paris is very lengthy and included the role played by President Le Maître's strident and alarmist influence over Henry II that unleashed a storm that culminated in the exclusion of Protestant councilors and, of course, Anne du Bourg's moving synthesis of fidelity and Protestant belief. De Thou understands this violation of the Parlement as a result of the influence of bad councilors. There were magistrates who, in the royal presence and without fearing the death that threatened, "opined with the liberty of the ancient senators" who had spoken out against the manners and abuses of the Roman curia (XXII: p. 360; p. 758).
The challenge of being obliged to continue deliberating in the presence of the king, the Bourbon princes, Francis duc de Guise, Constable Montmorency (and with the Cardinals of Lorraine and Guise there, on the alert for wayward religious views), prompted some councilors to turn to biblical parallels to make their points. Such was the case with Councilor Louis Faur, who bravely pointed out that the disorders did not have religious origins, and that he feared he would have to give the answer that Elijah had given to Ahab, whom he reproached for inspiring the troubles (1 Kings 17; XXII: p. 361; p. 759). The narration of the royal order to arrest several councilors, including de Thou's friend and sometime protector Paul de Foix, would scandalize anyone familiar with the ways of Parlement. With Christophe de Thou's support, Paul de Foix was eventually exonerated. This harsh, short-sighted, and arbitrary way of ferreting out and, without procedures, finding parlementaires to be guilty, must be read in the context of de Thou's general portrait and moral assessment of Henry II (XXII: pp. 367-68; p. 762).
The elevated vision that de Thou presents of the changes in the court and the council after Henry II's death has about it a Tacitean irony and an attention to the small details on which great events turn. Diane de Poitiers was obliged to give up her jewels and Chenonceaux; worse, she was abandoned by all those who held high office owing to her favor (XXIII: p. 374; p. 767). Bertrandi was relieved of the seals, and Olivier returned to his duties as keeper of the seals; but in effect Olivier lost his liberty and "spent the rest of his days in a shameful slavery, the toy of the ambition of the grands" (XXIII: p. 375; p. 768).
The Parlement was dominated by the conseillers-clercs whose opinions were accepted by their secular colleagues in hopes of reward from the royal council. "Others kept silent out of fear, as they still remembered the Mercuriale that had ended all the liberty to vote, closing, as it were, the magistrates' mouths." (XXXIII: p. 376; p. 768).
Anti-Guise pamphlets prompted Jean du Tillet to write a retort on the subject of the king's majority. The argument involved royal rights to name councilors in 1559 (p. 395; p. 778). At about the same time, the Guises advised that a gallows should be built near Fontainebleau, partly to scare people seeking payment from the Crown. Book XXIII (pp. 399-405; pp.780-84) narrates du Bourg's trial and execution, as well as those of Eustache de la Porte and du Faur. The passage ends with an account of Christophe de Thou's objections to the irregular proceedings (XXIII: p. 403; p. 783). Paul de Foix and Fumée were exonerated. Several extraordinary tribunals were established consisting of parlementaires, for the purpose of prosecuting persons suspected of heresy.
At the beginning of his account of the Conspiracy of Amboise, de Thou briefly sums up the moral-legal debates about the right, or the absence of a right to revolt (XXIV: p. 467-68; p. 818). He quotes La Renaudie's discourse (p. 478) and tells how Lizet was disgraced and Olivier forced to leave his post. De Thou does not attempt to frame the entire incident from a legal perspective. The chancellor's subsequent role was very significant. There is a long paragraph about Chancellor Olivier's death (1560), Jean de Morvillier's refusal of the office, and the appointing of Michel de l'Hospital, "d'une naissance médiocre" (XXIV: p. 497; p. 833). Familiar with Bertrandi's just claims to the highest judicial office, l'Hospital waited until Bertrandi renounced his claims.
The Amboise Conspiracy prompted differences of opinion in the Parlement. Many praised the Guises and accepted that it had been a plot against the king. Worse, they gave Guise the title of Protector of the country, against custom. The trial over disputes between Boullainvilliers and the Rambures brothers was included, to illustrate still another split between the Guises and the Montmorencies, and their clients (XXV: p. 506; pp. 5-6). There is a brief summary of the fate (execution) of Martin l'Hommet, libraire, who possibly had played a role in printing and diffusing a pamphlet, the Tigre. There is also a lengthy discussion of de l'Hospital's reception by the Parlement. (XXV: p. 518; p. 9). There are some discussions of robin self-interestedness and pursuit of favors from the royal council.
De Thou's account of the Assembly of the Estates (August 21, 1560) moves through a series of speeches (the Chancellor was prolix!), the speech of the learned and eloquent Bishop of Valence receiving the longest coverage. One of de Thou's principal themes and beliefs -- that the early church fathers disapproved of using force against heretics (XXV: p. 529; pp. 18-19) - can be found in Valence's speech. Next came Marillac, bishop of Vienne, then Coligny, then the duc de Guise (again!) and the Cardinal de Lorraine. I see no discussion of subsidies.
In the Provençal revolts of 1559-1560, the fact that the Parlement of Aix supported the inhabitants of Draguignan in their attack on the Protestant, Paul de Mouvens, that unleashed mobilization on both sides, followed by a very complex series of posturings and attacks; but the Parlement did not seem to have played the role de Thou expected of it (XXV: p. 557; p. 34).
A fanatical preacher in Rouen receives a summary of his views and conduct: he fell down and rolled around, out of breath; he was arrested by the prévôt des maréchaux, tried, found guilty, and burned at the stake - to the pleasure of the Protestants as much as the Catholics, both groups feeling that their mutual hatred had been relieved at the sight of this fanatical Anabaptist (XXV: p. 559; p. 35). De Thou does not raise legal questions about the case.
The climate of suspicion during the summer and fall of 1560 resulted in heightened security measures. Eighteen years earlier, the Parlement had registered a formula about religious faith drafted by the Sorbonne. Those who did not conform risked losing their lives and their property (XXVI: p. 564; p. 40).
Condé's arrest may have been a violation of the king's sacred word that he would be safe. The arrest warrant was signed by Chancellor L'Hospital, who could not do otherwise (XXVI: p. 568; p. 42). The interrogation by commission (it included Christophe de Thou) was challenged by Condé, who claimed that he could only be judged by the king and his peers. De l'Hospital's address to the Queen Mother in Condé's defense is quoted. De Thou reports that his father advised the Cardinal of Lorraine to be moderate, and that he had "dared" to give advice on the subject of Condé's sentence. The prince was released early in the reign of Charles IX.
The Parlement registered an edict that restricted the rights of a wife to transfer properties inherited from her first husband to her second husband and the children born of this second marriage. What follows is a brief account of the trial of Arnaud du Tilh, the false Martin Guerre, before the Parlement of Toulouse (XXVI: p. 581; p. 49).
The passage on the Assembly of the Estates in Orléans in December 1560 begins with a long speech by Chancellor de l'Hospital, which de Thou quotes at length. The Cardinal of Lorraine wished to be named orator of the three estates, and this was accepted by the clergy but rejected by the Third Estate. Jean l'Ange, an avocat from the Parlement of Bordeaux, attacked abuses by the clergy. The speech of Jacques de Silly de Rochefort, spokesman for the Third Estate, is quoted more fully than is l'Ange's. One phrase may have echoed in de Thou's mind: "Justice alone distinguishes kings from tyrants" (XXVII: p. 12; p. 81).
In the account of Protestant activities in the "Vallées" and in Piedmont, de Thou puts some emphasis on attacks and responses by the authorities and the Protestants (XXVII: p. 30; p. 84).
The narrative of political backing and filling by the court and the Council centers on Condé's return and Montmorency's reconciliation with the Guises. De Thou describes the Assembly of Paris and the presence there of Protestants. He does not go on at length about the financial crisis, but he notes that it had been the reason for the Estates of Orléans. The dispute over the number of peers and princes of the blood, and their rights, occurred at the time of Charles's coronation. De Thou's account is peppered with strong views against the Lorraines, who are continually challenging the old order (XXVII: pp. 62-64; pp. 105-106). An arrêt of the Parlement declared Condé innocent. This arrêt led to a contestation between the Parlement and the procureur du roi.
De Thou sees the Parlement as being troubled by dissensions among the Grands over religion. There are pages and pages about the Parlement's attempts to settle these issues. The king, his councilors, and the Grands came to the Parlement; de l'Hospital stated that matters of religion should not be discussed until a national council had met to discuss them. Greffier de Tillet may not have counted the votes correctly for the edict of July 1561. There follow speeches by the three orders of the Estates and the debates over the clergy's wealth and its ability to pay royal debts. Summing all this up, de Thou comments that these proposals came from the "déchet de l'authorité du Pape en France" (XXVIII: p. 77; p. 115).
Catherine de Médici's letter to Pope Pius IX is extensively quoted, and de Thou approves of it, saying that it is written with "toute la liberté Françoise" (XXVIII: p. 81; p. 117). The Colloque de Poissy is presented at great length, as is the trial of Artus Didier, who had written an appeal to Philip of Spain to help repress the Protestants in France. De Thou gives his specific punishment, and does the same for Tanquerel (XXVII: p. 105; p. 129).
Noting that the July Edict and the Colloque de Poissy embittered, rather than calmed, de Thou tells of an assembly of parlementaires from all the parlements that was summoned to meet at Saint-Germain-en-Laye. He does not give the outcome, at least not at this point; instead, he turns to émeutes in Dijon and Paris. A commission was formed to establish what had happened in Paris, but in their report the magistrates disagreed: one may have been a Protestant, the others Catholic. A decree declared the Protestants guilty. De Thou takes the space to quote the reply to this decree, noting that among the presidents and councilors there was "a conjuration" to find the innocent guilty (Latin, book XXVIII: p. 132; p. 143).
He then returns to the Saint-Germain Assembly of January 1562, quoting extensively from de l'Hospital's speech, which is a deeply historical-contextual speech about the Crown's efforts to maintain peace. There are more political-philosophical aspects than religious ones. De Thou may have found interesting the treatment of different types of royal legislation; some laws must be obeyed or God will be offended, others need not be enforced but should not be abrogated. (XXIX, p. 157; p. 157). He summarizes the January Edict at great length but does not give his views. He sums up the Parlement's resistance to registering it and notes who supported it in the Council, all of them hostile to the Protestants. In a review of the debate over the role and use of images, de Thou notes that Beza opposed crucifixes on altars because this had not obtained until Constantine's time. There is no conclusion to this discussion. Only a few pages later comes a lengthy account of the Wassy Affair. De Thou's summary of the teeter-totter politics up to and including the establishment of the Triumvirate, say little about the chancellor's legal role. The Parisians riot, believing that the magistrates are involved in the Council's laxity toward heretics.
Pierre Ruzé is characterized very negatively, but de Thou wonders by what authority he was imprisoned (XXIX: p. 177; p. 166). As he recounts the beginning of civil war, he scarcely refers to it by name.
The Edict of January was renewed, this time centering on enforcement by lower magistrates. the Parlement of Rouen went out of the city as the Protestants took over. Condé's letter to the Parlement of April 11, 1562, and the reply, is described; it is as if de Thou believed that the exchanges could led to a settlement. Events escaped not only the magistracy but also the royal councilors.
Book XXX begins with edicts (May 26-27, 1562) establishing the terms on which Protestants would leave Paris. The arrêt of the Parlement that was promoted by the Duc de Montpensier and François le Roi-Chavigny (no date is given) transformed the Parisians' hatred of Protestants into a fury. The Parlement of Rouen, sitting in Louviers, promulgated an arrêt against the Protestants (August 26, 1562) that prompted a rejoinder from the latter, and an appeal to them king when he was declared major. The rest of this book narrates the war, and it is evident that the legal institutions of the Monarchy were completely dépassées.
Book XXXI extends the account of the war. De Thou notes (XXXI: p. 289; p. 225) that Baron des Adrets had sent an order to the Parlement of Grenoble, naming seditious persons (among them a president of the Parlement, a procureur du roi, and a consul) who were to be expelled from town because they were Protestants. A quarrel ensued, complicated by a challenge from Maregiron for power in the city. De Thou follows this with a history of the principality of Orange, beginning with an act by Bertrand des Baulx dated December 13, 1241. A lengthy account follows of the civil war in that region and in Provence. A precise history of Savoyard-Niçois history, beginning in 1388, is quoted (XXXI: p. 327; p. 244).
Book XXXII begins with the start of the Council of Trent and how the roles played by "our" bishops prompted the Pope to mobilize reinforcements from Italy. It is not immediately apparent whether de Thou perceived Lorraine as anti-Gallican at this point, or whether it be just corrupt with a revenue of 300,000 gold écus.
The narrative of massacres turns from the Protestants to the Catholics, from monks to peasants and women; but the massacre of the students studying law at Cahors under François Roaldes, whom de Thou admires for his knowledge of Antiquity, clearly upset him. Learning that they included the sons of prominent magistrates from Toulouse, the city fathers decided not to prosecute, but to write the parents and ask that their sons return home. Then Bishop Pierre Bertrandi (brother of the Cardinal de Sens and former keeper of the seals), in connivance with the chancellor of the University, unleashed horrible carnage upon the Protestants (XXXII: p. 369; p. 265). Chancellor Manfred de Cardaillac, born into one of the oldest noble families and relation and ally of all the nobility of the province, conducted himself ignominiously.
Two commissaires, Compain and Girard, prosecuted Cardaillac, found him guilty, and sentenced him to death (XXXII: p. 371; p. 266). Monluc brought in two parlementaires from Bordeaux to retry the guilty Chancellor, but before they had time to do it, a letter from the royal council arrived, evoking the case to its higher jurisdiction. Cardaillac had influence in the Council and did not hesitate to use it. De Thou does not, at this point, recount the final outcome. His narrative turns to the death sentences meted out to iconoclasts at Villefranche-de-Rouergue (XXXII: p. 373; p. 266). De Thou seems more interested in recent historians than in the fact that the ratio of forces between the Council and the Parlement had been upset. He makes harsh remarks against de l'Hospital's use of arbitrary powers to impose the councilors' will on the Parlement. There is little sense that he saw an equilibrium of powers as having definitively changed; but this may appear in his account of events, 1563-66.
Having very briefly recounted the religious divisions in Toulouse, and the attempts to enforce the Edict of Paris, 1564, he notes that the Parlement reduced but did not suppress the punishments meted out by the capitouls (XXXII: p. 376; p. 268). The Protestant plan to make Condé king, and their holding five capitouls hostage in the hôtel de ville, culminated in the ringing of the tocsin, which was followed by a popular uprising, the pillaging of booksellers, and which ended in a lengthy clash that took on the characteristics of a war rather than a riot. De Thou goes into particular detail on the Parlement's conduct after the émeute. He implies that there was weakness until Monluc's arrival in the city, which stiffened the judges' morale as they set to work promising immunity and financial rewards to people willing to give evidence against the perpetrators. About 200 persons were executed, among them a man who had not even left his house. The edict of Paris prompted the parlementaires to promulgate an even more stringent arrêt; this led to still more persecution. Jean de Coras and Armand de Chavagne appealed to Chancellor de l'Hospital; a royal lettre patente arrived, mitigating the earlier arrêt but not rescinding the punishments of the authors of the seditions. The civil war that followed escapes the juridical framework: Monluc took Villefranche-de-Rouergue, and the carnage at Gaillac was followed by Protestant revenge at Rabastens. I shall not further summarize these events, because they do not possess a juridical frame. De Thou possesses the narrative power to make a terrible war of terror seem historical.
Book XXXIII begins with the civil war in Guyenne. De Thou notes how the Parlement of Bordeaux ordered two ministers put to death and sought to avoid a clash.
After Rouen had been taken by royal forces, the Parlement returned from Louviers. De l'Hospital's conciliatory policy is described, as is Catherine's order that the Parlement suspend all proceedings until a list could be drawn up of all those who were to be excluded from "the king's grace." But the Parlement (pressed by either the Constable or by Guise) began proceedings against the city officials who had been imprisoned. Several were sentenced to death and executed. The Protestants of Orléans were so upset by the executions in Rouen that they attacked a French ambassador setting off on a mission. He survived, not because of his mission, but because his brother intervened on his behalf. The brother was in Condé's service. There is a very interesting paragraph about the excessive power of physicians in princely circles (XXXIII: p. 437; p. 300).
The eulogy of Gilles Le Maître is interesting, as it differs from de Thou's eulogy of Olivier: he was a very skillful magistrate ... and it was his skill that elevated him to this dignity. Christophe de Thou is made premier président; there is a eulogy stressing his moderation (XXXIII: p. 469; p. 315).
An espèce de tumulte occurred in Toulouse owing to the Parlement's decision to have a wall built near its place of assembly. Nostradamus had warned against this construction; despite an arrêt of the Parlement, the population rioted in order to prevent the wall from being built (XXXIV: p. 496; p. 329).
The account of Poltrot's execution includes his request to speak with Christophe de Thou, which was granted.
The Edict of Pacification of March 19, 1563, which gave seigneurs hauts-justiciers the right to practice their religion, includes numerous other clauses (XXXIV: p. 529; p. 344). The Edict is not described as a collaborative effort. After noting that it was promulgated throughout the realm, de Thou turns to an adultery case from a different century. Then he discusses commissions sent out to enforce the Edict, despite objections by the Parlement of Toulouse. The royal interpretive Declaration is carefully summarized (XXXV: p. 535; p. 348). When discussing the king's majority, de Thou begins by saying that, though aware of l'Hospital's views, she, Catherine, wished to govern alone. This is followed by a history of the law of majority all the way back to Charles V, plus numerous Old-Testament precedents. Charles's speech is quoted, as is de l'Hospital's, which ranges from royal rights to Calais, or the lack thereof, to very general questions regarding law enforcement. A discourse by First President Saint-Anthol, a "truly respectable magistrate," followed. The Parlement of Rouen's actions were unacceptable to the Parlement of Paris; a detailed account of the contestations between these two bodies follows. De Thou blasts Jean de Monluc, bishop of Valence, for being a "lâche adulateur" of what King Charles had begun. The Council's arrêt of September 24, 1563, offended de Thou (XXXV: p. 555; p. 357). He discusses the Guises and their desire to punish the late Duke's assassin through Coligny; and he provides much detail about the edicts about financial transactions, mining, printing, and the exemptions from quartering troops that were granted to Parisian curés. De Thou does not seem to know what to think about a legal reform that involved the right to litigate. Next comes a long document about the rules for priests being presented by the French ambassadors at the Council of Trent; it is a very important text, for it shows a reformist impulse on the part of the Crown (XXXV: pp. 560-65; pp. 360-62). De Thou tells who redacted the document, then writes pages about Trent. This account begins to assume a Gallican perspective. One senses that de Thou is presenting a "file" he had come upon: "I find another harangue that is much stronger and much harder...."
The Declaration of January 26, 1564, permitting the clergy to buy back and/or exchange alienated property was changed, thanks to the "crédit" of the clergy (XXXVI: p. 637; p. 400). A general royal règlement about legal procedures included beginning a year on January 1. It was opposed by the Parlement but accepted by the Chambre des Comptes. Most of its terms would eventually become law in the Edict of Moulins.
De Thou notes which court had imprisoned Charles du Moulin, and points out that Charles IX had him released. At issue was Charles's attitude toward Trent. The Council also took away the Parlement's power to intervene (XXXVI: p. 644; p. 404). Du Moulin was involved in the contestation over Antoine de Créquy's translation from Nantes to Amiens.
De Thou reviews Protestants' complaints and notes various royal declarations made with a view toward establishing peace. It was in the interest of the peace that the king decided not to promulgate all the articles of Trent and to enact its decrees separately.
Book XXXVII, for 1564-70, contains general syntheses about the origins of the Jesuits; it culminated in the conflict over their collège in Paris. Again, Charles du Moulin plays a role through publication of a text opposing the Jesuits and their planned foundation. De Thou notes that Étienne Pasquier had "plaidé" against the Jesuits on behalf of the University. He offers two interpretations as to why the Parlement authorized the collège.
After describing the League of the Grands of 1565, de Thou notes Montluc's advice to the king: break up the League, create a new one, and join it. De Thou questions the wisdom of the king's joining a league, because this, in effect, fosters factionalism. He ends his point with a question (XXXVII: p. 33; p. 434).
There is a very lengthy obituary and eulogy of Charles du Moulin, the avocat of the Connétable de Montmorency. Under the pretext of religious reform, du Moulin saw a spirit of licence and faction (XXXVIII: pp. 123-24; pp. 477-78).
De Thou lists all the great personages convoked for the Assembly of Moulins (Bourbonnais), provides extensive passages from de l'Hospital's discourse and raises the topic of whether the parlements should be sedentary. There is a lengthy summary of the ordonnance, beginning with the article about imprisonment for debt. The Parlement opposed its registration, but it became law (XXXIX: p. 183-84; p. 508).
The next sequence of "troubles" also escapes the legal framework, despite the Crown's attempts to contain them. Concerning a challenge in Pamiers, he comments: "At first they appeared to handle the affair by legal means," "On parut d'abord traiter l'affaire par les voies de droit" (XXXIX: p. 190; p. 512).
As we move along, there is frequently only a mention of royal legislation; he will begin a year with this, as he does for 1567, and will move on to the civil war or to eulogies. The Ordonnance of 1567 prevented properties from the paternal side from going to a childless widow, thereby leaving the patrilineal family. The Ordonnance was accepted by the Parlement of Paris, but not by the other parlements (XLI: p. 336; p. 584). The sponsorship had come from Monluc, bishop of Valence, who fear that if his nephew were to die, the Monluc estate would leave the family.
Book XLII begins with more Protestant troubles; the princes deliberate, and war follows. As events turned on which side would possess Meaux, Chancellor de l'Hospital vainly sought to stop the plans of the Cardinal of Lorraine. Having lost the argument, in the next year he would resign his high office, "cette première charge de la robe." De Thou gives de l'Hospital a brief eulogy (XLII: pp. 352-53; p. 593).
About the showdown of October 1567, de Thou describes royal and sovereign rights that subjects could not assume, and he lists the men-in-arms who had gone to Saint-Denis to defend the Crown, among them François Barbançon Cany, de Thou's brother-in-law (XLII: p. 360; pp. 596-97). Both sides prepared for war; the juridical frame was not strong enough to keep the peace. On to the Battle of Saint-Denis, with Barbançon Cany in Condé's army. The Edict of Orléans would be reinstated and obeyed by all parties after difficult negotiations conducted partly by Christophe de Thou, and with Catherine's and the Cardinal de Châtillon's help. The war continued until the Edict of Pacification of March 27, 1568, registered by the Parlement. It was effectively the same as the edict promulgated five years earlier. The Parlement of Toulouse arrested the royal messenger, Rapin, who was supposed to convince it order to accept the peace terms (XLII: p. 417; p. 625).
In 1568, the Pope worked to increase the powers of the Church, at the expense of the sovereigns across Europe. (See his Coena Domini bull, XLIV: p. 512).
The Protestants assert that liberty of conscience was assured only en apparence par l'Édit, but that it was removed too fast. Here again is the issue of respect for and enforcement of royal legislation. Indeed, social and military activities outside the law are a source of near depression for de Thou (XLIV: p. 517; p. 676).
De Thou lets the reader infer that Catherine had had enough of de l'Hospital and that when he went to his country estate, she sent Brulard to relieve him of the seals. They were given to Morvilliers. Having described Catherine's decision to have done with Protestants who declined to sign an oath, De Thou notes how the word politique is used negatively (XLIV: pp. 522-24; pp. 678-79).
Having noted that Blaise de Monluc is on campaign, de Thou takes the time to list "la license" and the enormous crimes being committed; disciplinary rules were not being respected in this impious civil war (XLIV: pp. 527, 549ff ; pp. 681, 692). The January Edict, says Charles, was only temporary; so the king lays claim to some Protestant towns and, by another edict, obliges any and all Protestants holding royal offices to resign them. De Thou is ironic about the Parlement's celebratory tone as it requires an oath of Catholicity for all officeholders (XLIV: p. 534; p. 685). De Thou takes a stand here: finally, after thirty years, this edict was revoked for the good of peace.
De Thou then mentions how de l'Hospital's approach had been abandoned, and that these new edicts, "par expérience," produced results that were the very opposite of what was intended. Here he specifically sustains the general theme he had announced in the Introduction.
Among Brisard's troops killed in or near Perigueux, was Jacques de la Châtre de Sillac, Claude's brother. "The young man, who had a mind cultivated by letters and a value that is hereditary in his House, was captain of the Duke of Anjou's guards" (XLIV: p. 544; p. 690). De Thou gives details about how he was killed. Condé, young Brissac, and Andelot were killed within a very short period.
The description of Procureur Général Bourdin's sentencing of Coligny, Ferrière, and Montgomery ("Mongommery") -- prices were put on their heads -- does not receive an approving phrase from de Thou (XLV: p. 627; p. 731).
There is a lengthy eulogy of Avocat Général Jean du Mesnil. Du Mesnil asks Augustin de Thou to keep him close to his intimate friend, de l'Hospital (XLVI, pp. 673-74; p. 756).
De Thou summarizes the terms of the negotiations with the Protestants, but he does not state them in legal language (LVII: p. 16; p. 292).
There is a short summary of the fate of seditious books, beginning with La Boétie's and then the Franco Gallia (LVII: p. 18; French, p. 294).
The king appointed a commission to question the Duc d'Alençon, Condé, et al. Christophe de Thou and Pierre Hennequin are members (LVII: p. 49; pp. 308-309).
De Thou explores generally the powers of a regent (LVII: p. 62; p. 315).
In a longer summary, de Thou notes that de l'Hospital had sought peace. He had died the previous year, leaving his supporters, Paul de Foix, Christophe de Thou, Christophe de Harlay, Jean-Baptiste du Mesme, and Pibrac. (LIX: p. 137; p. 353). Was de Thou a member of that party? Foix's speech in the Council is given in extenso.
Monbrun was arrested and tried for lèse-majesté (LX: p. 271; p. 417).
The lit de justice of August 1575 confirms rights pertaining to the duchy of Bar. The Parlement opposed it, but it was registered (LX: p. 272; p. 418).
Alençon flees. His manifesto includes an intention to restore laws to their first vigor (LXI: p. 286; p. 425).
There is a strong protest against the venality of offices in the Parlement (LXI: pp. 296-98; pp. 430-31).
Alençon wrote the Premier Président to justify his conduct and asked the Parlement to intervene. Christophe de Thou received letters from Alençon (he had been, or still was, his chancellor), but having informed the Parlement, he turned the letters over to the king, unopened (LXII: p. 405; p. 483).
De Thou gives the terms of settlement regarding Henri de Béarn (LXII: p. 415; p. 488).
A lit de justice was held on May 14, 1576; it granted Alençon huge pensions and rights. De Thou characterized them as a disorder that began with Catherine's grants to Charles IX (LXII: p. 418; p. 489).
Rather than settling matters, the litigation between the Montmorency-Thoré and the d'Humières embittered the parties (LXIII: pp. 425-26; pp. 494-95).
The manifest contraventions in enforcing an edict occurred because it had not been effectively diffused, and because the judges and the courts, both superior and inferior, had not been obliged to swear an oath to enforce it. There was also shameful condescension on the part of magistrates and seigneurs, as they sought out complicit councilors. (LXIII: pp. 434-35; p. 498).
In presenting the Estates of Blois, 1576, de Thou notes that Chancellor Birague lacked knowledge of the affairs of the realm. Birague's praise of Catherine in his opening speech was long and boring. The Third Estate, under League influence, proposed to disqualify some people, including some judges, because they were suspect (LXIII: p. 447-52; p. 504-506).
A certain David, an avocat, is criticized for the missive that the League addressed to the Pope. De Thou describes the path by which this letter was made public (LXIII: pp. 452ff ; pp. 506ff).
Jean Bodin, the deputy from Vermandois, whom de Thou describes as being so well-known as a result of his writings, plays a major role that de Thou supports. Bodin dared to say that a proposed declaration is directly contrary to a royal edict. Voisin de la Popelinière was a deputy for Condé (LXIII: p. 459-60; p. 509).
De Thou reports how a Dominican requests property rights for all mendicants, in conformity with the decrees of the Council of Trent (LXIII: p. 461; pp. 509-10).
Customarily the Sorbonne did not have representatives at an Estates General, but it did this time.
Nicolay, first president of the Chambre des Comptes, presented a report that could not be substantiated by the registers he had brought (LXIII: p. 464; p. 511).
The Estates appealed to Henry III to reduce to twenty-four the size of his conseil. De Thou remarks that it was Louis XI who was the first of our kings to arrogate absolute power to himself (LXIII: pp. 466, 475; p. 512). A stormy debate followed in which Bodin played a major role; he was effectively the president of the Third Estate, because the Parisian deputies were not present.
De Thou presents the Edict of Poitiers and its registration; also the Edict of 1577 on money (LXIV: p. 529; p. 540).
Morvillier, in death, is described as prudent and timid. He was the organizer of the Guise faction in the Parlement (LXIV: pp. 533-34; p. 542).