   
Orest Ranum:
The Vocabulary of Civil War
This paper was written for a conference organized
by John Pocock at
the Folger Shakespeare Library
May 18-20, 2000
The topic is the wars in the British kingdoms as they were heard about, read
about, and spoken about by "those involved in the French Monarchy" in the
mid-seventeenth century.
Before turning to sources that neither Ascoli1 nor Knachel 2
used — that is, the Journal of Debates in the Parlement of
Paris in 1648 by Le Boindre3; BN ms. fr. 25025; relations
from all over France that are multi-authored; and the secret letters to Christine
of Savoy by a Barnabite monk, Bailly4 — it will be useful
to revisit some of the familiar sources (notably the Gazette de France)
and later, to glance at elite theatrical writing. If there is time, a close
reading of Henrietta Maria's, Cardinal Retz's, and Jean Vallier's statements
on the topic would round out the choice of voices to be heard.
Knachel refers to the wars, the civil wars in the kingdoms beyond the Channel
as his principal topic; but in presenting the Gazette de France he
is more concerned by its reception and general content than the actual reports
on the war. What follows is a close reading from late 1647 down to Charles's
execution.
The words "civil war" would be used all the time to describe the military
clashes between the parties, words having a very emphatic and well established
semantic field in French. From London, Dec. 26, 1647, Charles's letter to
the Commons is reported — debate is postponed — the reporter states
that "division is greater than ever in this city," with cries of "Long live
the King" and "Long live the Parliament" and "Down with the Covenant and
the Presbyterians" being heard in its streets5 .
Removing the powers over the militia of Charles and his heirs baffles the
reporter; "What becomes of royal power? What becomes of the oath taken by
his Majesty at his coronation to maintain his subjects against the enemies
of the state?"
General Fairfax and his Council of War had been presented to the Parliament
on Dec. 17, 1647; the terms of payment including the following exact quotation:
"Finally, we desire that our army, or a part of it be permitted to
quarter in the said city of London, at the houses of those who have refused
to pay, and the impudents who against their vows have dared to present a
request to Parlement asking to be discharged of it [a special military
levy]."
In February and March the words sédition générale
and révolte are replaced by the single word, "war,"
guerre.6
Then on March, 12, 1648, it is reported that Fairfax wants to release his
guards, but "these have presented a plea which tells him that having been
established by the authority of the two houses, they can only receive their
congé from them."7 Also, a certain Clark, who had been
condemned to death by the Council of War for having torn his company's standard
and many other insolences, obtained his grace because he was brave.
While the identity of the author or authors of various reports from London
is not apparent, it is interesting to note how he/they backs away on occasion
from immediate reporting of current events, and in the first person observes
in late February of 1648:
"For six years the dissension between his Britannic Majesty exists
with the two chambers of Parliament over the militia, which is the power
on earth and at sea, and which has been the only subject of their quarrel.
His said Majesty and his predecessors — haven't they possessed the militia
since the beginning of time? The laws grant it to them, and they have always
used it for the benefit of their subjects; on the contrary this same militia
was never in the peoples' hands, and they have never asked for
it."8
A bit later there is news that Poyer is holding Pembroke for the king, and
that Colonel William Fleming appealed in the name of the Parliament to give
it up, but Poyer refused. There is news that there is a real possibility
of a war between England and Scotland.
While not always military civil war — and therefore called a "tumult"
— the reports about the attack by apprentices on the major and his soldiers
at Morefield, April 23, 1648, notes that after the troops were ordered to
fire on the apprentices, the apprentices fell as a crowd on the soldiers,
took some weapons and their standard, which they then preceded to parade
through the streets.9
Declarations and manifestoes are translated and published, such as those
of March 31, 1648, but the type used is much smaller than for an account
of events taking place in Turkey. Cross-channel events also have to compete
with news from Naples, Vienna, and Amsterdam. Readers are confronted by brief
articles up-dating the situation — July 2, 1648: "the town and castle
of Pembroke are still besieged by the Parliamentaires."10 Lists
of officers' names and ranks of this army are provided. There is an excerpt
from a letter from Manchester saying: "Everyone marvels what ever could have
obliged so many seigneurs, that is, the Parliament ...to maintain
a faction [read: the army] which is obviously apparently contrary to
them."11 The argument is also made that the king's cession of
his rights by force cannot be valid, as one of the parties did not sign the
act voluntarily, and all the more so if the person constrained ought to be
the freest of all in his states, a king who is the soul of the
law.12
On July 16, 1648, there is a solemn request by sixty militia officers to
join their troops to those of the city of London. The joining up of Buckingham
and Holland is also reported:
"Last night the Duke of Buckingham and Milord Francis, his brother,
accompanied by eight counts or barons, having secretly left this city with
a great number of persons of quality, went to Hampton Court, ten miles from
here, where they assembled up to 1500 horse and a great number of infantry,
which increases daily. They carry off everything that they can use but do
not pillage either money or furnishings or other things that could make the
people think badly of them."13
So is the siege of Colchester and the taking of Lincoln by the king's forces.
The "Parti Royal" in the North has not been defeated. A declaration of "all"
the officers in the navy comes in — with an oath of loyalty to York.
The skirmishes between Holland's and Scoop's army at S. Noeds (Surrey) are
not conclusive at the time they are reported. On July 27, 1648, Colchester
is holding on.
There is the set of proposals of July 30, 1648, beginning with the Three
Proposals: 1) that the king "cede" [powers] over the militia for ten years;
2) that he grant power to a Presbyterian governmen; and 3) that he revoke
all declarations [by the Crown] against Parliament."14 There is
also news that the Scots are invading England, and that they have been declared
enemies of the state. Hamilton's letter declaring why he is invading, and
Lambert's reply are here, translated in their entirety.
And Colchester is holding out, this, despite Fairfax's having thrown flyers
into it promising great advantages to surrender. When Colchester fell, it
is called a "fameux siège;" the articles of surrender and the
list of principal prisoners is provided.
On Dec. 24, 1648, there is news of the bad treatment of the Commons; about
40 are taken prisoner and locked up in two public houses. Others are not
permitted to take their seats in the House. Upon Cromwell's arrival the Speaker
(Orateur) thanks him for his services. He is considered the "first
motor" in all these designs.15 Major Brown is arrested by Fairfax.
He is quoted as saying:
"I will not accept guilt for a crime that would be so black as to
dishonor the office that has been bestowed on me, in conformity with the
laws of the country and the free votes of the community of London —
thus you should not expect from me either a reply or a defense, because in
making them I would appear to approve in you a power that I do not recognize,
and do not wish to recognize when it could cost me my life. I contend only
in the resolution to lose it to maintain the truth "16
Charles is moved to Windsor under heavy military escort. There are negotiations
with Fairfax for the liberty of the members of the Commons under arrest.
There is a proposal for raising a half-year levy to pay the army — in
order to relieve the people who are quartering soldiers.
News of the king's trial and execution are not given very high coverage by
the regular Gazette; there are special numbers and various other printed
accounts on a subject that shocked and fascinated Parisian readers. On March
25, 1649, there is news that the Crown jewels and forests are sold to pay
the army. There is a lengthy quotation of the last words by Hamilton, Holland
and Capel. Longhorne, Powel, and Poyer are accused, not
executed.17
On May 31, 1649, news of Fairfax's movements prompt Leveller armies to head
for Oxford. Fairfax took 900 prisoners at Burford. Thompson, Derkins, and
Dan are executed. Leaving the Gazette at this point it is important
to note that the only more reflective report is on the subject of the power
over the army. There is very little about religious division or "constitutional"
matters of church and state in the Gazette for the period of the Second
Civil War, so-called. There are also no predictive remarks, or even expressions
of surprise about the turn of events. If there were languages of civil war
in the British Kingdoms which enabled persons to anticipate, even rhetorically,
or to anticipate a next step, these languages seem not to have come across
in French. More on this after exploring Debates in the Parliament
of Paris in 1647-1649.
Turning to Le Boindre's Journal of the Debates in the Parlement in 1648,
it becomes quickly apparent that the interesting fact is that the terms civil
war or rebellion were never enunciated, either about events in England or
France. As the judges selected generals and authorized them to raise troops
in the name of the king and Parliament, assessed special taxes on the Parisians,
and proceeded to take over the Arsenal, words about "civil war" do not seem
to have been used. Reference to events in England turn on the financial distress
of Henrietta Marie, so the judges vote her 20,000 livres for firewood and
other necessities.18
The absence of the words "civil war" in the Frondeur debates should not surprise.
The Frondeurs were raising troops to assure the peace and order in Paris
and in the realm. Le Boindre was young, and a Frondeur — he proudly
recorded his "maiden speech" on behalf of "relief for the people" and he
noted that it had driven the debates toward action.
Calling a civil war a "civil war" — even in England — was not
logically-politically possible for the judges who were rapidly descending
into one. The words may have remained part of the verbal weaponry of the
court, but that is not our subject. Court- supporting judges — Omer
Talon is a good exampl — made specific allusions to the Wars of Religion,
and to violent events taking place in Paris in 1586.19 During
Talon's famous speech before the Queen Regent and the Parlement, the younger
judges from the Enquêtes stamped their feet to silence him or make
him stop drawing any historical parallels between 1586 and 1648, thus confirming
the semantic and historical constraints on the use of such words as "civil
war" and "rebellion" by judges in a court of law descending into civil war.
Similarly, no fears were expressed about the possibility that the generals
and troops they were raising might not always execute the Parlement's orders,
and this at a time when the judges were most certainly reading about
civil-military relations in Westminster, in the Gazette. A conseil
de guerre was appointed of senior and highly respected judges to meet
regularly with the generals, but the discourse remained explicit about defense,
not offense. Only the Duc de Beaufort, in a flamboyant manner, raised the
question of eventual offensive operations, a proposal dismissed by the senior
judges. Thanks to the computer it is possible to discover that in addition
to "defense" and "offense," the only other modifiers of the term "war" are
"disorders" and "men." "Desordres de la guerre" connoted all the negative
social and economic consequences of quartering, and the presence of troops
in a city; but clearly the disorders of war were not considered to be "civil
war." "Man of war" distinguished the paid fighter, the soldat, from
the militiamen. From Le Boindre's Journal it thus seems possible to
characterize how such a phrase as "civil war" could in itself become semantically
charged to the point that it could not be said by those about whom it was
most literally applicable.
Turning now to the manuscript journal of a militia colonel, Guillaume Tronson,20
it is interesting to note that he makes no references to events in England
or Scotland. He refers to the war going on in France between the court's
armies and the Parlementaire armies as being "little" — to distinguish
it from the "big" war going on between France and Spain. Tronson sees his
duty as keeping persons and property safe in his neighborhood. The one attempt
to mobilize the militia against Conde's troops turned into a complete rout.
Tronson regretted not having brought along more cash to buy back weapons
from the scalpers who were there to sell to the highest bidder. The absence
of allusions to the larger world beyond his neighborhood may be explained
partly by Tronson's legal training. He would only write about what he observed
himself, and the narrowing horizon so characteristic in persons during an
intense political debate such as the Fronde.
Albert Bailly was a Barnabite monk who served as a diplomatic agent in Paris
for Christine, Duchess of Savoy (sister of Henrietta Marie and Louis XlIl).
His references to conditions in England are usually meterological —
tempests, storms, etc. He associates Charles's trial with the possibility
that the end of the world is at hand. He cannot sympathize with the "praise"
given to Cromwell and Fairfax, presumably by those who see them as restorers
of order rather than as destroyers of monarchy.
In July 1649, after a long interview with John Berkley of Stratton, Bailly
characterizes the "Independenans [sic] and the
Egalistes,"21 as those who favor living according to one's instincts,
after which he sums up the political aims of each — without any reference
to civil war or civil-military regulations. He also refers to the
Nivelleurs, and characterizes their views. What is interesting here
is his direct translation of English party labels into French. By late 1649
he began to state categorically that the tempests and storms that came over
body politics were short, or brief, signaling confidence in a return to order
and a rejection of more apocalyptic views. He says that France is like the
sea. His understanding of the Fronde stresses the collisions of corporations
and orders, such as the mobility and the Parlement, not individuals acting
on the stage of history, or armies in conflict.
Turning now to the genre of hand flyers, relations, etc. and drawing on BN
Ms fr. 25025-25026 as a prime example of reports collected from all of France's
principal cities, references to the events in England are infrequent, and
very much along the lines already discerned. An exception occurred in mid-January
of 1649:
"One remarks that the disorders in England began in the same as we
see here, the King of England left London on January 5,1640, and as soon
as he arrived at Hampton Court the Thames overflowed, it becoming so great
that no one had seen it so, and it carried away a great many houses in London.
May God keep us from our divisions not corresponding to those of England
at the beginning." 22
The parallel was Anne's and Louis's departure on Epiphany night of 1649,
a flight from Paris to avoid becoming prisoners of the Frondeurs.
While the Regency Council may have occupied the high moral ground founded
on legitimacy and order, it does not seem to have castigated the Frondeurs
consistently as fomenters of civil war. Sources for council deliberations
are scarce except for Mazarin's letters, and he was not one to moralize about
order or civil war. The Cardinal frequently expressed disappointment and
frustration with Charles l's conduct of affairs of state, as early as 1639-40.
As Knachel and Portemer have noted, for Mazarin Charles's abandonment of
Thomas Wentworth, and his non-intervention in his trial, was an error beyond
measure. Mazarin asserted that once the minister is destroyed the people
would thirst for the king's blood.23 The Strafford-Mazarin parallel,
or non- parallel, became something of a general argument among court politicians,
with its predictive dimension giving it considerable force. While certainly
forceful, it did not prevent Anne from accepting the Cardinal's exile twice,
this after the Parlement had put a price of 50,000 livres on his head. Thus
the Strafford-Mazarin parallel functioned only somewhat effectively to maintain
the Cardinal in office, while the evocation of 1586 in the Parlement functioned
to imply that the Parlement was descending into rebellion and civil war.
Anne in her heart may have believed that Mazarin's exiles were not disgraces,
especially since she never allowed any law court to prosecute him or to really
remove him from office. Strafford's fate did not seem to impede Mazarin's
enemies on the royal council from doing their utmost to destroy him. They
seemed not to have feared for the life of the boy king.
In this context a single voice, both French and English, merits our attention,
namely Henrietta Marie's famous counsel to Anne through Madame de Motteville,
the Regent's lady in waiting. Henrietta did not understand the fate of the
English Monarchy in civil war terms. She stated:
"First of all she commanded me to fall on my knees next to her bed,
and honoring me by giving me her hand, with a thousand sobs that interrupted
her discourse, she commanded me to tell the Queen of the condition she was
in, and to tell her on her behalf of the king her lord (Charles I), that
he had been defeated because he had never known the truth, and that she
(Henrietta) counseled her not to irritate her peoples unless she had the
power to subject them completely; that the people are a ferocious beast that
can never be tamed, and that she prayed God that she would have more contentment
in France than they had had in England."24
Anne, so far as we know, never commented on the military aspect of the crisis
in England. From Mazarin's perspective the civil war in England knocked out
a potential ally for Spain as he grabbed strongly, too strongly for portions
of the Spanish Netherlands in the peace negotiations of 1646-48.
Before turning to other unused sources on this topic it is important to recall
that English history was, after Roman history, the most frequently selected
site for works for the stage. All through the years of civil war in Britain,
the French could attend one or another play about Mary Stuart, Essex, and
Thomas More in the more elite theaters.25
It would only be from the time of the Restoration that the more recent events
would be acted out, the martyrdoms of Charles being the prime example. It
is not evident that the French could make direct parallels between Tudor-centered
theater, and Stuart history. The mirror must have been quite dark, certainly
by comparison with Roman history in theater. The plays by Pierre Corneille,
Rotrou, and others are filled with the atmosphere of conspiracy, dvnastic
divisions, jealousy, over-mighty subjects, and civil war. As a reader of
Livy, Justin, Tacitus, and of course Lucan, Pierre Corneille would parallel
only obliquely present events in France through Roman political history.
Great playwright that he was, Corneille placed at the foundation of his plays
such themes as the relation between victory and legitimacy, conspiracy, benefits,
inequality of rank, and gratitude, and the management of lesser provincial
princes by Rome. Civil war as such, like murder, is kept off-stage, but it
is a constant presence. In 1642, in Cinna, Corneille offers a typology
of the political being, with Maximilian being a republican, Cinna an aristocratic
oligarch, and Augustus the princeps. In 1651, in
Nicomède, the proud regional king is confronted by a diplomat
from Rome charged with maintaining submission to Rome. Here Corneille was
interested in "management" in empire, with parallels about a proud Irish
clan chief in British history being out of reach, or at the most, only oblique.
Rebellion, civil war, popular tumult, overthrow of empire, such were the
canonical themes of French elite theater at the time of the civil wars in
Britain.
As a complement to this brief survey of comments on the events in the English
civil war, let us turn to two writers about civil war after the Fronde
experience. Writing in the 1670s, after having been a voracious reader and
frenzied political animal, at the heart of his Mémoires Cardinal
Retz put the question of how to turn an urban "emotion" into a civil war.
Retz had revealed his colors as a young man by adapting Mascardi's Fiesque
Conspiracy into a study of how an ambitious great noble creates a party
to assume complete control of a city. The English civil war would never deeply
fascinate him. Retz sought to perceive just the right occasion, thinking
that once Paris was in revolt the realm would become "inflamed." By late
February 1649, Retz now perceived the Parlement as an impediment to a general
civil war; he could not convince the judges to turn their defensive army
into an offensive one. Parallels with the 1580's came to mind, notably Bussy
Le Clerc's attack on the judges.26 Retz hoped that, by pamphleteering
and staged assassination attempts, he could arouse the Parisians to encourage
the Duc de Bouillon and Turenne (Bouillon's brother) to begin intimidating
towns here and there. Retz had no fear of disorder. His understanding of
Roman history was not profound; his reading of Machiavelli, if it was direct,
was also flawed: his two references to maxims attributed to the Florentine
cannot be found in the Prince or any other of the writings. And the
events in England clearly did not interest him sufficiently to prompt reflection.
By way of contrast, Jean Vallier, anti-Frondeur and Tacitean, ruminated at
length about the events in the kingdoms to the west, putting the seventeenth
century civil wars in a broader context:
"We have learned with horror from the histories of England and Scotland
the bloody and calamitous treatment that these islanders gave their sovereigns,
and one cannot ignore [the fact] that more than eighty persons of royal blood
perished in violent deaths in the less than hundred years that the factions
of white and red roses lasted...but one has never heard speak of the most
enraged fury of some subjects who reached excesses of barbarism and
ferociousness. Not content with bearing arms against their legitimate king,
without any apparent pretext of injustice or violence, forced him to leave
London...." 27
The narrative continues about Charles's fate, and without more reference
to the war the king lost, or to civil-relations in Westminister.
To conclude, only the regularly published Gazette provided coverage
of the civil war in the British Isles. The other commentators quickly turned
away from observing whether or not Colchester was still holding out to
ruminations about popular fury, and other descriptive bits of discourse drawn
from a vast array of antique sources. Davila's monumental history of the
Wars of Religion certainly narrated the various civil wars, negotiations,
and conspiracies that wracked France in the late sixteenth century, but it
too casts its understanding in a vision of human action in politics that
tends to reduce the importance of war as an actor in history. Put another
way, there would not seem to have been "a language of civil war" available
in seventeenth century France, but it is interesting to note that its semantic
force may have been such that "civil war" could not be publicly said by the
Frondeurs.
Notes
1 Ascoli, P., La Grande Bretagne devant l'opinion française
(Paris, 1930) 2 vols.
2 Knachel, P., England and the Fronde (Ithaca, 1967).
3 Le Boindre, J., Journal des Débats du Parlement de Paris pendant
la minorité de Louis XIV, ed. by R. Descimon, O. Ranum. and P.
Ranum (Paris. 1997).
4 Bailly, A., Correspondance, ed. by L. Giachine, P. Cifareili,
and A. Armatuzzi (Aoste, 1999) 3 vols.
5 Gazette de France, Dec. 26, 1647 (p. 33) Bibliothèque
Mazarine copy.
6 Ibid., 1648 (p. 358).
7 Ibid., 1648 (p.375).
8 Ibid., 1648 (p. 375).
9 Ibid., 1648 (p. 550).
10 Ibid., 1648 (p. 886).
11 Ibid.,1648 (p. 940).
12 Ibid., 1648 (p. 947).
13 Ibid., 1648 (p. 959).
14 Ibid., 1648 (p. 1034).
15 Ibid., 1648 (p.22) in the 1649 volume.
16 Ibid., 1648 (p. 22) in the 1649 volume.
17 Ibid., 1649 (p. 196).
18 Le Boindre, p. 317.
19 Mémoires, ed. by Michard and Poujoulat (Paris, 1839)
p. 237.
20 British Library, Mss Egerton 176; Mémoires de quantites
d'actions particulières..., to appear in 2001, ed. by R. Descimon
and O. and P. Ranum. in 2001.
21 Bailly, 11, p. 222. "Ils conviennent tous au fait de la religion,
qui est de vivre chacun selon son instinct...."
22 BN, ms. fr 25025, fol. 68.
23 Knachel, p. 47; M. Laurain-Portemer, Une Tête à
gouverner quatre empires (Paris, 1997) p. 226ff.
24 Mémoires, Madame Motteville as quoted by Ascoli,
1. p. 99.
25 Conway, J., Terres tragiques: l'Angleterre et l'Ecosse dans
la tragédie française au XVlIe siècle
(Tubigen and Seattle, 1999) Biblio 17, number 114.
26 Retz, P. Gondi de, Mémoires, ed. by S Bertière
(Paris, 1998) p. 440.
27 Vallier, J., Mémoires, ed. by H. Courteault (Paris,
1902) I, p. 231.
|
