1 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the reception of the cross-confessional diplomacy that Catherine de Médicis and her son Charles IX sought to promote and implement at two festivals in summer 1572 at their residential court in Paris.1 The first festival was organised in honour of an extraordinary English embassy that visited Paris between 8 and 20 June to ratify the Treaty of Blois, a defensive-commerce alliance between Catholic France and Protestant England against the dominance of Spain. The pact ended the historic rivalry between the two kingdoms.2 The English embassy, headed by Edward Fiennes de Clinton, first Earl of Lincoln (1512â1585), was received with lavish banquets and theatrical entertainments organised by French nobles from both Catholic and Huguenot factions, ranging from light-hearted comedies to musical divertissements. The second festival was held in August for the controversial marriage of the Catholic Princess Marguerite de Valois, Catherineâs youngest daughter, and Henri de Bourbon, roi de Navarre, the nominal head of the Huguenots.3 Inaugurated
The court festivals for the Treaty of Blois and the Valois-Navarre wedding took place at a critical juncture in the history of the French Wars of Religion. On both sides of the Channel, their engineers regarded the events and the alliances they celebrated as the logical outcomes of improving relations between Catholics and Huguenots on the one hand, and France and England on the other. The signing of the Peace of Saint-Germain-en-Laye two years before, on 8 August 1570, had granted Franceâs Huguenot minority a substantial body of privileges, including liberty of conscience throughout the kingdom and free
Despite these favourable signs, which suggested that domestic and foreign peace for France was finally underway, summer 1572 would go down as one of the bleakest pages in the countryâs history. On 22 August, the Valois-Navarre festival was brought to a premature end owing to the failed assassination of Gaspard de Coligny. The chaos following the attempted murder of Coligny gave way to the infamous Saint Bartholomewâs Day Massacres two days later, on 24 August, during which at least 3,000 Huguenots were killed in Paris and an additional 7,000 were slain in the provinces over the next three weeks.10 Owing to this sudden outburst of violence, an official livret or recueil for the two court festivals never seemed to have been produced. I will therefore rely primarily on sources written by participants in the events, including English diplomats, Huguenot ministers, a Tyrolian university student, and a young French law graduate by the name of Jacques-Auguste de Thou, as well as on the accounts
This chapter focuses on the diplomatic strategies that the organisers and participants of the two court festivals used to negotiate difference between French and English visitors on the one hand, and Catholic and Huguenot visitors on the other. I will discuss three such strategies. The first strategy concerned actively negotiating a diplomatic compromise among the various national and religious groups to avoid a clash over cultural, religious, liturgical, and political difference in official ceremonies. The second strategy consisted of avoiding any overt discussion among organisers and participants over mutual difference, especially with regards to religious conflict, in favour of apparent a-political celebration and social relaxation. The third strategy, finally, involved addressing debates over religious conflict head on by dramatising confessional difference among participants in theatrical performance. As will be shown in more detail, the festival for the Treaty of Blois implemented the first two strategies throughout the event, while the festival for the Valois-Navarre wedding favoured diplomatic compromise for the nuptial ceremony and the dramatisation of religious difference in the ensuing theatrical entertainments, especially within the context of the combat-ballet Le Paradis dâamour.
I will contend that the aims of the festival organisers to negotiate diplomatic compromises and avoid controversy over confessional difference are part of what modern international relations theory has labelled âthe sparse or thin social contextsâ of diplomacy: the absence of shared beliefs and values among diplomatic stakeholders.12 Mark E. Warren and Jennifer Mitzen, for one, have argued that interaction among diplomats is ideally facilitated by âgood mannersâ or âetiquetteâ: ritualised practices of communication that are ânot morally weightyâ but â[hold] open the possibility of talkâ among participants who do not necessarily share the same cultural, political, or religious
Sasson Sofer, Paul Sharp, and Ole Jacob Sending, among other scholars of modern international relations, have shown that âthe thinner the social contextâ in diplomatic interaction the more urgent is the need among stakeholders to adhere to âprotocol, form, and recognition of differenceâ.17 Naturally, this need becomes especially critical âunder conditions of conflictâ, as is evidenced by the two festivals under consideration here, both of which borrowed their cue from and took place against the backdrop of great politico-religious strife.18 Of particular interest is the strategy of the organisers of the Valois-Navarre festival to openly address that strife in Le Paradis dâamour. Their aim in doing so had never been attempted at previous French court festivals and left spectators on both sides of the religious divide confused andâin some
Finally, this chapter is the first study to compare the festivals for the Treaty of Blois and the Valois-Navarre wedding by taking on board their theatrical entertainments and official ceremonies, as well as the diplomatic negotiations that took place behind the scenes. The festivities for the Anglo-French pact have not been discussed in detail before, apart from the edited and annotated edition of several English accounts of the festival that have appeared in Oxford University Pressâs collection of John Nicholsâs The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth I (1788â1823).21 The Valois-Navarre festival, by contrast, has received considerable attention in various publications, most of which, however, focus on individual pageants, especially Le Paradis dâamour.22 The
2 Diplomatic Context
Anyone rambling through Paris during the hot summer months of 1572 was likely to enter streets that brimmed with hope mingled with intense anxiety. On 18 August, Marguerite de Valois would finally marry Henri de Navarre at the cathedral of Notre-Dame.23 More than two years had passed since Catherine de Médicis first broached the match to the groomâs mother, Jeanne dâAlbret.24 Their back-channel negotiations over the matrimonial project were complicated and protracted.25 Jeanne was long opposed to the wedding. Being
The overall reception of the signed marriage contract diverged widely, both within and outside France. Domestic supporters of the wedding included the humanist moyenneurs or politiques, especially those associated with the Montmorency family. This family, established in central France, counted moderate religionists from both sides among its members.31 As seen in Chapter 1, the moyenneurs wished to reconcile the opposing religious factions and end the civil wars by peaceful means. They hoped that the interfaith Valois-Navarre
Domestic opposition to the match was mostly represented by the ultra-Catholic Guise family, headed by Charles, cardinal de Lorraine (1524â1574) and Henri I, duc de Guise (1550â1588). This family, whose properties lay in eastern France, was unwilling to see its political power at court diminish further. After the death of Catherineâs husband, Henri II (1519â1559), the Guises quickly seized influence over the young King François II, husband to their kinswoman Queen Mary Stuart of Scotland (1542â1587), but had increasingly lost power after the signing of the Peace of Saint-Germain-en-Laye. They believed that the Valois-Navarre marriage would only strengthen the position of the Huguenots at court.33
The most important supporters of the marriage outside France were the Protestant Queen Elizabeth I of England and the Dutch Prince Louis of Nassau (1538â1574). Louis was the younger brother of William of Orange (1533â1584), leader of the Dutch Revolt, and served as a personal advisor to Jeanne during the negotiation process.34 Both Elizabeth and Louis hoped that the union would boost Protestant influence in Europe and persuade France to join England
In correspondence with their allies and ambassadors abroad, Catherine and Charles were keen to represent the interfaith marriage as a necessary diplomatic instrument for peace and order, both within and outside France. Their justification of the union was thus clearly inspired by the conciliatory ideas of the moyenneurs for whom maintaining political stability was more important than protecting religious unification at all costs. In an attempt to rally the support of Catholic rulers, mother and son argued that the Roman Catholic Church actually stood to gain from the marriage. They suggested that domestic order would ultimately lead to the religious unification of France. When Catherine, for example, asked her cousin Cosimo I deâ Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1519â1574), to use his good relations with Pius V and support the dispensation, she insisted that ânothing can make us hope more for the overall rise of our religion and the universal repose of our kingdom than the marriage of my daughter and the Prince of Navarreâ.38 Charles, instructing his resident ambassador in Rome to recommend the marriage to Pius, stated that only âby means of reconciliationâ and âin friendshipâ could France extinguish its âfire of troubles and divisionâ and become âthe heart of Christendomâ once again.39 Interestingly, he compared his sisterâs wedding to the mixed union of Clovis, once a pagan warrior-leader, and Clotilde of Burgundy, a Christian Princess, in about AD 492â494.40 The implication of Charlesâs comparison was that Henri,
In the crownâs letters to Protestant rulers, which served as tools for public diplomacy to advertise the Valois-Navarre alliance, Catherine and Charles worked hard to maintain the âthinâ or âsparseâ context of the diplomatic interaction so as not to unnecessarily offend the addressee.42 Rather than openly discussing the confessional difference that existed between Marguerite and Henri or the civil strife that their match was believed to resolve, mother and son avoided references to Catholicism and Protestantism altogether. Instead, they discussed the mixed union in largely generic terms and with appeal to a generalârather than specifically Catholic or Protestantâgod. Writing to Queen Elizabeth in April 1572, for example, Catherine suggested that âGodâ not only condoned the match but had presided over the marital negotiations himself:
God, who continues to extend his graces and blessings in this kingdom more and more, has brought about the confirmation and ratification of peace through the marriage concluded and decreed between my dear and beloved Marguerite, and our very dear and beloved King of Navarre.43
Such generic symbolism and phrasing, instances of what Warren and Mitzen label âgood mannersâ or âetiquetteâ, enabled the Valois crown to publicise its cross-confessional diplomacy to Protestant rulers without actually having to address the contentious âsubstantive valuesâ that underpinned the alliance.44
Similarly, Catherine had instructed the humanist poet Jean Passerat (1534â1602) to write the mottos for the commemorative medals for the Valois-Navarre festival without explicit reference to Catholic or Reformed ideas. In this way, she hoped to win the support of both Catholic and Protestant visitors. The medals were then engraved and manufactured by Alexandre Olivier (1568â1607) at the Monnaie du Moulin before being distributed among
In addition to its role as a diplomatic instrument for peace and order, the impending marriage offered Catherine the opportunity to expand the dynastic influence of the House of Valois in France. The union held the attractive possibility that should Catherineâs sons fail to beget a legitimate heir, the Valois dynasty would be preserved through the offspring of Henri with Marguerite, given his position as first prince du sang. What is more, the match would enable Catherine to keep the Huguenot party under control, while at the same time balancing the Guise and Montmorency families against each other to
Whereas the Valois-Navarre alliance had been in the making for at least two years, the Treaty of Blois was a by-product of the failed negotiations over a marriage between Queen Elizabeth and Catherineâs eldest son, Henri, duc dâAnjou, the future King Henri III. Talks about the potential marriage, which Catherine officially opened in October 1570, had floundered on the issue of religious difference. Anjou was a zealous Catholic and heavily under the sway of the Guise family. There was no way by which he could justify to his followers a marriage with a âheretic bastardâ, as Catholic Europe called the English Queen, owing to her Protestant faith and alleged status as illegitimate child of King Henry VIII (1491â1547).49 In January 1572, when Anjou tried to sabotage his motherâs plans with a series of absurdly unrealistic demands, talks came
The English diplomats in France who had been instructed by Elizabeth to negotiate the defensive-commerce treatyâFrancis Walsingham (c. 1532â1590), the Queenâs resident ambassador in Paris, and Thomas Smith (1513â1577)âthus kept a close watch on the negotiations over the Valois-Navarre match.51 We know from a letter sent by Jeanne to her personal councillor on 1 March 1572 that Catherine âwas pressured by the English ambassadors to grant it [fair treatment] to me, having been charged by the Queen their Mistress [Elizabeth] to found the assurance of their negotiation and of the new league they are formingâ.52 Indeed, the so-called Treaty of Blois that resulted from the Anglo-French talks was only concluded by England on 19 April 1572, eight days after Jeanne had signed the contract for her sonâs marriage. In a letter on 4 June, Jeanne personally informed Elizabeth that she and Catherine had finally arrived at an agreement.53 The source provides evidence of the good diplomatic relations that existed between Elizabeth and Franceâs Huguenot
I [Jeanne] would not [â¦], Madame [Elizabeth], lose time in informing you of the event [the marriage between Henri and Marguerite], so that I may rejoice with you, who have so wisely foreseen how greatly this alliance may lead, not only to the prosperity and peace of this realm, a thing which interests Your Majesty greatly, but may also extend its real benefits to neighbouring states.54
3 The Ratification Ceremony for the Treaty of Blois, 15 June 1572
The court festival for the ratification of the Treaty of Blois took place in June 1572, two months before the Valois-Navarre wedding. On 8 June, the English delegation of the Earl of Lincoln was met just outside Paris by Charles IXâs representative, Artus, maréchal de Cossé (1512â1582).55 Instead of receiving a solemn entry into the capital, as was customary for representatives of an internationally respected monarch like Elizabeth, the ambassadors were conducted to St Denis âwhere there was a good dinner preparedâ.56 The breach of protocol was probably necessitated by the tense atmosphere that existed in Paris between religionists on both sides, as an increasing number of foreign Protestants were arriving there for the impending wedding of Henri and Marguerite.57 Since the entry would involve a long procession through the streets of
The direct cause for the change of plans, however, seems to have been the imminent death of Jeanne dâAlbret. Thomas Smith reported that â[a]fter dinner [at St Denis] news was brought that the Queen of Navarre [â¦] lay without hope of life in Paris, whom the Queen Mother [Catherine], the King, and all his brethren and sister had visited and departed from without any hope to see her againâ.59 A low-key reception may therefore have been considered more appropriate to the occasion than a pompous open-air celebration.60 At the same time, it meant a token of respect for the English who regarded Jeanne as an important representative of the Protestant faith in France.61 According to Ole
Over the next five days, the English diplomats took time to recover from their long journey by sea.63 On 11 June, they were visited by Claude Pinard (1525â1605), the Secretary of State, at their lodgings in the Louvre. When joined by maréchal de Cossé and the previous French ambassador to England, Jacques Bochetel, the English diplomats were informed that the ratification ceremony for the Treaty of Blois would take place at Saint-Germain lâAuxerrois on 15 June.64 Saint-Germain was the parish church of the Catholic kings of France and located opposite the Louvre. Pinard, Cossé, and Bochetel immediately began to discuss with Thomas Smith and Francis Walsingham, the other chief negotiator for England, the conditions under which their Protestant delegation would be willing to participate in a ceremony that was to be held at a Catholic church and conductedâat least partlyâaccording to Catholic rites and customs. These conditions had not been discussed prior to Lincolnâs arrival, as the protocol for complicated diplomatic ceremonies in late sixteenth-century France, especially those involving Catholics and Protestants, was often reviewed and negotiated on the spot, and closer to the date of their enactment, to avoid unnecessary conflict. Such last-minute negotiations sought to account for unforeseen political circumstances and to address politico-religious sensibilities among stakeholders.65
Interestingly, Thomas Smithâs detailed report of the parley reads like an early modern reflection on the minimal social context of diplomacy. In it,
Since the Reformed background of the English ambassadors forbade them to participate in Mass, negotiators on both ends stipulated that the delegation would conduct a Protestant service in a side chapel of Saint-Germain, while Charles IX and his entourage celebrated Mass in the churchâs nave. The envoys would join their French hosts for the ratification ceremony in the nave only after Evensong, the canonical hour of Vespers in the Catholic liturgy.69 In Smithâs words:
[Y]t was agreed yt [the conclusion of the treaty] should be at the end of Even song, tâavoid all offence that might chaunce on either party, rather then at Masse, and that we should accompany the King to his seate, & ther leave him to such ceremonies as was used in ther Romish Even song, retyring ourselves into a by chapell prepared for the nones in the same church.70
By allowing Lincolnâs embassy to retire into a side chapel, the Catholic and Protestant services were performed at a safe and considerable distance from each other. Clashes over religious difference could thus avoided: the English diplomats were free to practise their own religion until after Mass and the French hosts were not troubled by the sight of their guestsâ Reformed service.
The diplomatic solution that both parties found to the problem of managing confessional difference in a monoreligious space was unusual in late sixteenth-century Europe. As shown by Benjamin J. Kaplan, the Wars of Religion necessitated resident ambassadors to establish private chapels in their host country where they could freely exercise forms of Christianity deemed illegal there.72 Although such chapels only grew in number from 1600, and did not seem to have existed in the Paris of 1572, Francis Walsingham and his retinue would hold informal Protestant services at the resident diplomatâs house in the capitalâs suburb of Saint Marceau âwithout arousing too much attentionâ.73 Of course, foreign diplomats did not enjoy the same kind of freedom to worship in the public churches of their host state which were solely dedicated to the monarchâs, and thus the only legal, religion of the state. The relationship enacted between the English and French parties in Saint-Germain was therefore not as equal as initially suggested in Smithâs account of the ratification ceremony. Although Lincolnâs embassy was permitted its own private service in the church, the French negotiators insisted on including an act of deference on the part of the ambassadors that would demonstrate that the unusual arrangement was not a compromise towards the Protestant religion but a token of Charles IXâs gratitude. Smith reported that his delegation was instructed to accompany the King âto his seateâ before Mass and bring him âto the place wher the oth should be takenâ after the liturgy.74 The measure was unusual, as French monarchs were normally escorted to their seat at Mass by high-placed subjects
The crownâs breach from protocol can be understood as a tactical but decisive attempt to mark its own Catholic identity as different from, and superior to, the Protestant identity of the English diplomats. This is an example of what Dagmar Freist, in her work on religious difference between Catholics and Lutherans in the eighteenth-century German district of Ankum, has called âthe confessionalisation of public spaceâ.75 The phrase denotes the occupation of public spaces, such as highways, market squares, and places of devotion, by one ecclesiastical group to assert confessional supremacy âthrough religious objects, rituals or gesturesâ over others.76 By momentarily placing the Protestant English into the subservient position of escortsârather than guestsâto the King, the French monarchy used ritual to reassert its own Catholic identity, and that of Saint-Germain, over the Protestant identity of Lincolnâs delegation. At the same time, the crownâs âconfessionalisationâ of the church served as a tool for public diplomacy that communicated to the English embassy and the Huguenot nobles present at Mass, who were obviously not granted a private service, that Charles still recognised Catholicism as the only legitimate faith in the kingdom.77 It emphasised that neither his toleration of the Reformed service in the side chapel, nor the recently improved diplomatic position of the Huguenots, would lead him to accept Protestantism as a religion equal to that of his own.
The street procession following the ratification ceremony at Saint-Germain suggested that the presence of the Protestant English even helped to reinforce Charlesâs self-image as Roi Très Chrétien, or protector of the Catholic faith, both within and outside France. Smith reported how the King and his embassy walked out of the church while being cheered on by Parisians who had flocked together to catch a glimpse of the royal train. By looking at the locals and allowing them to look back at his retinue in return, Charles both enacted and reinforced the relationship between himself, his English guests, and his French subjects. In Smithâs words, âThe king both in the church & in the way, many tymes staying as it were to looke on the people, & that the people
Judging from his report on the ratification ceremony at Saint-Germain, Smith seemed to have interpreted the act of deference on the part of his embassy as a rather uncomfortable but necessary compromise to keep the French party satisfied: âThis was then thought to be best tâavoid all inconveniences, so that the Kinges pleasure were also that so it showld be doneâ.79 It was a compromise, moreover, which would have been largely acceptable to the English diplomats, given that they had been granted permission by rare exception to conduct liturgy in the otherwise monoreligious space of their French hosts. In other words, Smith understood that diplomacy was essentially âthinâ or âsparseâ: an act of reciprocation to keep parties on opposite ends sufficiently content about their involvement in the diplomatic interaction.80 To sustain amicability between those parties, then, each had to concede to a reasonable number of demands by the other.
4 Banquets and Theatrical Entertainments, 13â20 June 1572
During its stay in Paris, Lincolnâs embassy was met with lavish banquets and theatrical entertainments, including musical divertissements and a comedy
Examples of such pastime include a banquet at Catherineâs dairy, called La Vacherie or My-voye, in the forests of Fontainebleau on 13 February 1564; a comedy at the local château on that same day, known as La belle Genièvre (The Beautiful Genièvre), which was inspired on cantos four to six of Orlando Furioso by Ludovico Ariosto (1474â1533); a rustic-themed dinner at a river island in Bayonne on 24 June 1565 for which the French high nobility had dressed up as shepherds and shepherdesses; as well as a range of staged tournaments, aquatic spectacles, and social balls that were staged at intermittent stages of
In June 1572, the French monarchy was equally concerned to socially bond with its foreign guests. Hospitality, as will be explored at greater length in Chapter 3, was an important tool towards that end. It enabled the Valois crown to foster ties with diplomatic stakeholders, especially where this concerned representatives from different religious and political backgrounds, like the Protestant English. The hospitality awarded to Lincolnâs embassy, in the form of banquets, comedies, and privileged access to members of the royal family, helped to make up for the lack of shared religious or political values, as gastronomy, light entertainment, and personal attention could be potentially appreciated by all, regardless of oneâs confessional or ideological orientation.86 On 13 June, five days after the arrival of the English ambassadors in Paris,
While staying at the Kingâs private residence, Lincoln and Smith enjoyed direct contact with Charles. Such proximity was a valuable commodity in the context of the âhighly publicâ nature of the early modern court, where unrestrained access to the ruler was often difficult to obtain and reserved for their most important diplomatic contacts.91 After meeting Elisabeth of Austria on 13 June, Lincoln went on a private tour with Charles through the châteauâs gardens, watched him play jeu de paume, an early modern precursor of tennis, âin the fyldesâ with various noblemen, and conversed with him in his privy chamber.92 In this room, both men conversed âvearie pryvatlyeâ and enjoyed âsom
On 15 June, preceding the ratification ceremony at Saint-Germain, the English ambassadors dined with the King, his brothers, and Franceâs high nobility at the Louvre. Smith reported that âthe table was served very magnificallyâ, while he talked to âgentlemen & tall menâ which he had ânot sene here before accustomidâ.98 After the ceremony, supper was served in a maison de plaisance (pleasure palace) in the Tuileries Garden, next to the Louvre, which was fashionably equipped with âa pleasaunt fontayne or conduicteâ.99 The commedia dellâarte performers entertained the company throughout the evening with virginals on lutes and violins, which Smith believed to be âexcellentâ, as well as a light-hearted Italian comedy featuring ânotable supersaltes & through hoopesâ.100 In the last scene of that pageant, the acrobats performed a human pyramid, which Smith described as follows: â[B]est of all [was] the Antiques [antics], of carrying men one uppon an other which som men call labores Herculis [labours of Hercules]â.101 The scene, which involved various kinds of jumps over anotherâs body, was typical of the so-called lazzi: the âself-containedâ and âpre-rehearsedâ acrobatic sketches that members of a commedia dellâarte troupe could easily insert into any of their performances for mostly comic purposes.102
Before the dinner of that evening, Charles gave Lincoln a private tour through his motherâs newly established Tuileries Garden, a favourite pastime of
Although the festival did not explicitly refer to matters of religion, it inevitably served as the backdrop to more informalâindeed, back-channelâtalks between diplomats and statesmen, as well as among diplomats themselves. These talks were informal insofar as they were not part of an official ceremony but took place more or less spontaneously, for example over dinner or while attending a performance. It is obvious from Smithâs account of the festival that many such informal talks were subject to scrutiny by those attending the event, which often revealed the tension that existed between Catholics and Protestants in both national groups. Smith, for instance, reported that after dinner on 18 June the King and his brother Anjou âhad long & very familiar, &, as apperid, pleasaunt talkeâ with the Huguenot Admiral Coligny. Their conversation lasted uninterruptedly for âalmost an howerâ which, as Smith pointed out, âwas very comfortable to som, &, as suspicious & displeasant to otherâ.106 With âotherâ, the ambassador presumably referred to members of the Guise family, such as the familyâs head, Henri I, duc de Guise, and his uncle, Claude, duc dâAumale (1526â1573), who had also been invited for supper.
As observed in Chapter 1, diplomacy was seen by many early modern theorists not only as a secretive but also as a very public activity. Diplomats and statesmen knew that any form of interaction among them could be recorded, gossiped about at the courts of Europe, and ultimately determine their position
Coligny, too, would probably have been flattered by the royal attention. We know that, in the months prior to the festival for the Treaty of Blois the Admiral enjoyed a generally favourable reception at court.107 Catherine was acutely aware of the strong influence that Coligny exerted on Charles and of his unwanted attempt to lure Charles into a pan-Protestant war against Spain. By receiving Coligny with honours, the Queen Mother could keep the Admiral under her wings, while at the same time obtaining his support for the Valois-Navarre wedding. In other words, the conspicuous presence of Coligny at the dinner in the Tuileries Garden might have been arranged by Catherine herself in an attempt to contain the Admiralâs ambitions.108
5 The Nuptial Ceremony for the Valois-Navarre Festival, 18 August 1572
While the French crown had done much to avoid the thorny issue of religion during the celebrations for the Treaty of Blois, the public diplomacy advanced at the festival for the Valois-Navarre wedding explicitly supported themes of concord and faith. Whereas the festivities for Lincolnâs embassy opted for ritualised protocol and pageantry to keep the English and French parties sufficiently content, the nuptial festival advertised a âsubstantiveâ or âmorally weightyâ message, namely the humanist belief that kingdom-wide peace could be achieved through interreligious marriage.109 Despite the controversy that such a âsubstantive valueâ would have caused, given that the Valois-Navarre
The festival for the Valois-Navarre wedding attracted many international visitors to Paris. The influx of foreigners, however, made it difficult for the French crown to provide security to especially Protestant visitors. Charles IX had issued two brevets (royal proclamations) in advance of the festival which provide some insight into the controversy that the monarchy anticipated the event to have. The first warrant, published on 30 June 1572, forbade the molestation of foreigners and Protestants in particular, while the second warrant, circulated on 7 July 1572, prohibited the bearing of arms within the city walls. The latter proclamation stipulated not to use such arms in settling disputes of any kind.111 Lukas Geizkofler (1550â1620), a Tyrolian medical student who had come to Paris to witness the wedding ceremony, reported in his memoirs, entitled Historia (History), that âmore than 1500â students from various German states, including Silesia and the Margravate of Meissen, had also travelled to the city for the same purpose.112 As Jonas van Tol has shown, many German Protestant humanists took a keen interest in diffusing religious tension in France and hoped that the marital alliance between the Houses of Valois and Bourbon, among other diplomatic agreements, such as the Peace of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, would pave the way for this.113 Rather than staying in Paris, however, many of Geizkoflerâs travel companions moved to Bourges or
According to the Venetian deputies to France, Giovanni Michiel (1516â1596) and Sigismondo di Cavalli (1530â1579), Charles had decided not to invite any diplomats to the wedding ceremony: âThe ambassadors did not come, because [the King] knew that the [papal] nuncio would not come and, having doubts about the Spanish ambassador, preferred not to invite anyoneâ.115 The remark of the Venetian diplomats thus seems to hint at the public disgrace that the conspicuous absence of the papal nuncio, Antonio Maria Salviati (1537â1602), and the Spanish ambassador, Diego de Zúñiga (1525â1577), both of whom had done everything in their power to oppose the marriage, would cast on the Valois crown. However, Zúñiga offered a different interpretation of the events.116 He reported to Philip II that he stayed away from the nuptial ceremony, but that the representatives of Ferrara (one âMonsieur de Paradesâ), Florence (Giovanni Maria Petrucci, d. 1582), and Venice (Michiel and Cavalli) had nonetheless been present.117 We know, indeed, that the Spanish King had ordered Zúñiga to feign illness if invited to the ceremony and the ensuing festivities.118
Margaret M. McGowan believes that no foreign ambassadors were invited to the nuptial festival, because Charles IX wished to avoid arguments with the papal nuncio and the Spanish resident ambassador about the contentious
The Valois-Navarre festival began on 18 August with the official wedding ceremony at Notre-Dame. The ceremony was conducted by the Governor of Paris, Charles, cardinal de Bourbon (1523â1590), whose ties to both Catholic and Huguenot parties seem to have made him an ideal candidate for blessing the cross-marriage. For, the Cardinal was a Catholic by faith, while being an uncle to Navarre and Henri I de Condé (1552â1588), the Huguenot princes du sang.121 Both elite and non-elite spectators had flocked around a tapestried scaffold erected in front of the cathedral that enabled Navarre to participate in the nuptial blessing without actually having to enter the building himself. The construction served as a diplomatic solution to the problem of confessional
In the months preceding the nuptial festival, Jeanne was anxious to ensure the legality of the cross-marriage even if it was not celebrated before a Calvinist congregation but on a platform at the portal of Notre-Dame. At Mass, Navarre would be represented by Henri, duc dâAnjou. The Protestant ministers in the Parlement de Paris had debated the issue and come to an agreement as to how Navarre and his retinue of Huguenot nobles, among which were the aforementioned Henri I de Condé, as well as François de Conti (1558â1614), François de La Rochefoucauld (1554â1591), and Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, were supposed to participate in the nuptial ceremony.124 Their statement is recorded in
provided [that] he [Navarre] leaves [Notre-Dame] immediately before the customary service at the Roman Church [Notre-Dame] commences [â¦], taking his departure in as conspicuous a manner as possible in the sight of all, that it may at once be proven that he appeared there with no intention of assisting at Mass, or at any other ceremony whatsoever.126
The response of the Huguenot ministers nicely underscores the performative character of early modern diplomacy. Rather than accompanying the King to Mass, as the English ambassadors did before retiring into a side chapel of Saint-Germain to perform their own private liturgy, it was in the interest of the ministers to showcase publicly the decision of Navarre and his followers not to enter Notre-Dame. In this way, the Huguenot faction made clear that it was not selling out to the Catholic enemy. The beauty of the diplomatic compromise between the Huguenot camp and the French crown was that different parties could read their own political agenda into Navarreâs absence from Mass. They could interpret the Princeâs leave-taking as either a personally motivated decision (on the grounds of conscience) or as a mere diplomatic measure (meant to avoid offending Navarreâs Huguenot adversaries).127 The eyewitness account of Lukas Geizkofler, who had bought window space in one of the houses facing Notre-Dame to witness the marriage ceremony, suggests that this is precisely what happened. According to Geizkofler, Navarre ârefused to enter the cathedral of priestsâ.128 His use of the word ârefuseâ (ânit wolte geenâ), rather than the arguably more neutral phrase âtaking his departure in as conspicuous a manner as possibleâ (âse mettant aultant quâil pourraâ), as the Huguenot ministers put it, indicates that the student actually interpreted Navarreâs leave-taking as a statement of faith.
According to an anonymous wedding guest, a Huguenot sympathiser whose account of the festival appeared in the memoirs of the Genevan pastor Simon Goulart, the King, his two brothers (Anjou and Alençon), Navarre, and Admiral
The other Catholic princes and seigneurs were dressed in different colours and fashions, with so much gold, silver and precious stones that nothing more [was needed]; but as to the seigneurs of the religion [Protestantism], they were only dressed in ordinary clothes.131
What would Catherine and the politiques supporters of her public diplomacy have made of the stark difference in clothing between Catholic and Huguenot parties? Did the dark and sober attire of the Huguenot guests, some of whom would have accompanied Navarre during the nuptial ceremony, seek to advance their own public diplomatic programme by openly challenging the festivalâs ideal of religious reconciliation? Or would the difference in clothing have been acceptable for the French crown to allow for some freedom in cultural and religious expression? Such a diplomatic compromise may have helped to maintain the âsparseâ or âthinâ context of diplomacy.132 The impression of Huguenot resistance is nonetheless reinforced by indications of Goulartâs eyewitness and Geizkofler that Navarre and his magnates walked conspicuously up and down outside Notre-Dame for the whole duration of Mass.133 This performance of apparent impatience, combined with the noblesâ distinctly Protestant dress, may have seriously provoked the urban population waiting outside the church. There are no surviving sources that suggest the extent to which the incident may have exacerbated the social precarity of the diplomatic relations between the invited wedding guests.134
The third medal, finally, contained strong Christian references. Not described by Passerat and therefore possibly singlehandedly created by engraver Alexandre Olivier, it portrayed a lamb holding a cross linked by the Latin words âI proclaim peace for youâ.142 The inscription is similar to the first two lines from a Greek poem by Jean Dorat, member of the Académie de Poésie et de Musique and active supporter of Catherineâs cross-confessional diplomacy. The lines, which appeared on the back of the title page for Florent Chrestienâs 1589 translation of Aristophanesâs Pax (Peace) into Latin, read as follows: âAll Christians should remember Peace, / because Christ himself said: I am peaceâ.143 According to Ingrid A. R. De Smet, the poem sought to communicate a âuniversal Christian messageâ which she defines as âa Christianity that transcends the division between Catholics and Protestantsâ.144 The lamb depicted on the medal
However, the coin also seemed to have invited a much more controversial reading. Rather than brushing over religious difference to keep both parties happy, the medal may have referred to Desiderius Erasmusâs advice to Charles V, as discussed in Chapter 1. According to the Dutch humanist, only peace and love could help Charles to bring rivalling Catholics and Protestants together in common celebration of the same Christianâthat is, Catholicâgod. As outlined in his Institvtio principis Christiani, Erasmus believed that such a celebration would bring an end to religious infighting and restore the respublica Christiana of old, by which he referred to the imagined community of befriended Catholic nations as it was understood to exist before the Reformation of the mid-sixteenth century.146 Erasmus insinuated that a return to that community was only possible if Protestants converted to Catholicism, which he considered to be the only legitimate faith. Whereas the medal only vaguely hinted at Erasmusâs advice to Charles, the combat-ballet Le Paradis dâamour, performed at the Louvre on 20 August 1572, would take the Erasmian idea of allegiance to a universal, Catholic, god as its point of departure, much to the dismay of especially the Protestant spectators in the audience. The pageant, as well as other celebrations following the official wedding ceremony, will be discussed in the next section.
6 A Royal Dinner and Theatrical Entertainments, 18â21 August 1572
We have seen that the blessing on 18 August, although organised to unite the opposing religions in holy matrimony, was used by Huguenot factions to display their religious and cultural difference from the Catholic wedding guests.
Navarreâs apparent act of deference, then, became a tool for the Princeâs own public diplomacy. Rather than giving in to the demands of the Huguenot ministers in the Parlement or pleasing the Huguenot magnates who accompanied him during the nuptial ceremony, Navarre seemed to have targeted his public diplomatic performance at a largely royal and Catholic audience. It is likely that by doing so he anticipated minimal repercussion from his own followers, as the royal dinner was not open to the general public and would thus not have received the same kind of public scrutiny as the official wedding ceremony.
This holds especially true if we take into account that the student may have intended his memoirs to be circulated among like-minded Protestants. For instance, Geizkoflerâs famous nephew Zacharias (1560â1617) was Reichspfenningmeister (Councillor) to Rudolph II (1552â1612), Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, and thus had access to an impressive correspondence network which comprised of most German Protestant Princes.153 Historia, therefore, may very well have served as a tool for public diplomacy in its own right. Geizkoflerâs account of the celebrations, or the information given therein, could have been partly intendedâor used by the correspondents of the student and his nephewâas a testament to Catherineâs cross-confessional diplomacy at the nuptial festival and Geizkoflerâs involvement in it. As Gabriele Jancke has shown, German egodocuments from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries played an important role in the social networks of their authors. Rather than being mere testimonies to the authorâs personal life, they functioned as âindependent communicative action[s]â that helped shaping oneâs social reputation among befriended contacts.154 Although an extensive study of Geizkoflerâs correspondence network still remains to be done, Geizkofler was undoubtedly aware that his humanist account of the wedding celebrations would resonate strongly among members of his social network, as well as those of his family members, and thus advertise his own vision of, and engagement with, cross-confessional diplomacy in France.
Far from being referenced at the Valois-Navarre festival alone, representations of Mount Parnassus featured widely in theatrical entertainments at the late sixteenth-century French court. They were frequently meant to invoke the presumed harmony of an ancient past, yet untainted by war, or rather that of a blissful future, known as the âge dâor (golden age), in which religious difference had been finally resolved.159 Often represented by a large artificial rock, standing in for the entire mountain, âMount Parnassusâ was either part of the theatrical scenery or modelled into a pageant cart, such as the one described by Geizkofler. Representations of the mountain were both directly and loosely inspired by the ancient lore. Examples include the huge rock formation built for Henri IIâs entry into Rouen in October 1550, which featured the Muses and Orpheus playing the lyre, and the large moving rock in Le Ballet de Polonais, staged in the Tuileries Garden for the visit of a special Polish embassy in
Moving rock in Le Ballet de Polonais mounted by sixteen nymphs representing the sixteen provinces of France, in Jean Dorat, Magnificentissimi spectaculi a regina regum matre in hortis suburbanis editi, in Henrici regis Poloniae invictissimi nuper renunciati gratulationem, descriptio (Paris: F. Morel, 1573), not paginated (anonymous artist). Engraving. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich, P.o.lat. 1661 x.
Besides standing in for Mount Parnassus, I would like to propose the intriguing possibility that the rock chariots at the Valois-Navarre festival may have been a nod to La Rochelle, the most important military stronghold of the Huguenots, and thus to the late Jeanne dâAlbret, who had ruled the fortified town and the surrounding province of Guyenne since the early 1560s.161 The French crown had designated La Rochelle, which literally translates to âthe little rockâ, as a place of security for Huguenots by the Peace of Saint-Germain-en-Laye in August 1570. The rock carts may therefore have commemorated the restitution of the town, while showcasing the good will of the monarchy towards the religious minority and their recently deceased military leader.162 By celebrating this specific outcome of the Peace of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, the triumphal procession could arguably advertise the success of the French crownâs cross-confessional diplomacy towards a wider audience of Catholic and Protestant spectators.
Goulartâs eyewitness was especially keen to report on âthe mixture of those of the Religion with Catholicsâ in the triumphal procession.163 He noted, for example, that one float was shared by the Kingâs Catholic brothers (Anjou and Alençon), the Huguenot princes du sang (Navarre and Condé), and the ultra-Catholic Henri, duc de Guise. Other cars in the procession were occupied by professional theatrical performers employed by the French crown, including the castrato singer Estienne Le Roy, and an ensemble of five musicians whose varied instruments âproduced a great melodyâ.164 The spectatorâs emphasis on the melodic effects of the processionâs music is significant here for my discussion
The final chariot in the procession, made of gold and mounted by a seahorse, featured Charles IX. Our primary sources vary in detail on the representation of the King. Goulartâs eyewitness believed that Charles was disguised as Neptune, âwith his trident in hand [â¦] guiding the other gods his subjectsâ, while Geizkofler noted that the King impersonated Saturn, the ancient Roman god of cyclic renewal.167 The diplomatic significance of the Saturn disguise is similar to that of the previously discussed Ouroboros which was depicted on one of three medals thrown to the populace outside Notre-Dame after the wedding ceremony. Just like the tail-eating serpent, Charles-as-Saturn aimed to support Catherineâs public diplomacy. Both the Ouroboros and Saturn symbolised the eternal bliss that the marital alliance was supposed to bestow on France and advertised this diplomatic message to a wide audience of Catholics and Protestants alike. More than bolstering Catherineâs public diplomacy alone, the triumphal procession portrayed Charles as the powerful monarch who could reconcile the opposing religions, aligned to different factions, in order to bring peace and harmony to France. It thus invoked the medieval Gallican motto, discussed in Chapter 1, of un roi, une foi, une loi. But instead of
The idea was similar to the diplomatic message of Charlesâs public tour through Paris after the ratification ceremony of the Treaty of Blois at Saint-Germain two months before. On this occasion, the King was also eager to present himself as a hospitable and sovereign ruler who was generous towards his Protestant guests, as well as confident enough to respect and accommodate their confessional difference. During the customary ball following the triumphal procession, however, the wedding guests were once again reminded of the alleged difference between the opposing religions. Geizkofler reported that while the Catholics danced âtwo or three timesâ, the Protestants âwitnessed the dance without participatingâ.169 In this way, Protestant invitees probably wished to emphasise that dancing was a profane pastime (as many of their co-religionists believed), although Geizkofler hastened to add that the steps were executed âin all modesty and decencyâ.170 Although seemingly harmless, the incident demonstrates that at diplomatic events such as these it was often difficult, if not impossible, to keep all participants sufficiently happy and do away with âsubstantiveâ customs and practices altogether, given that dancing was such an inherent feature of the inherently Catholic festival traditions at the late sixteenth-century French court.171
The highlight of the Valois-Navarre festival was a combat-ballet known as Le Paradis dâamour, given on 20 August 1572 in the grande salle of the Hôtel du Petit-Bourbon near the Louvre.172 The pageant was organised by Charles,
In Hell, at the opposite end of the grande salle, devils, spectres, and other grotesque creatures âfull of brimstone and fireâ ran a diabolical wheel surrounded by bells.177 Between Paradise and Hell ran the river Styx on which Charon, the
In the first part of the combat-ballet, Navarre and his followers made assaults on Paradise in single combat but lost each confrontation to the royal brothers who chased them into Hell one by one âwhere they were dragged along by the heretic spiritsâ.181 After each assailant had been defeated, the messenger god Mercury, played by Estienne Le Roy, and Cupid, the god of love, descended from the heavens.182 Mercury was seated on a cockerel, one of the godâs attributes and symbol of France. Both deities from classical mythology then began to dance and sing verses which Henry Prunières believes to have been written by Ronsard.183 Two intertwined themes emerge from these verses. The first theme
This suspicion of Huguenot-exclusion was reinforced further by the second part of the pageant in which the three brothers and the nymphs performed âa very diverse ballâ in the centre of the hall, which may have been choreographed by Balthazar de Beaujoyeulx.192 According to Jacques-Auguste de Thou, it featured âseveral circular figures by new skillâ.193 Roy Strong and Kate van Orden believe that the inclusion of the ball prefigured the development of the ballet de cour.194 For the first time in the history of French court pageantry, a ball
Only after the ball, which lasted for no less than one hour, did the chevaliers free Navarre and his party from Hell.197 But rather than celebrating the peaceful reconciliation of Catholic and Protestant parties, the spectacle ended with indiscriminate combat in which all of the participating knights, seemingly not aligned to any camp, wielded lances.198 Their fighting was accompanied with much smoke and fire, which Roy Strong and Ivan Cloulas have identified as celebratory fireworks of the kind that customarily signalled the end of a court performance in France at the time.199 Perhaps the chaotic fighting of the last entrée functioned as a visual reminder of the transient nature of interreligious
What were the Protestant spectators, as well as the moderate Catholics in the room, supposed to make of the controversial public diplomacy of the pageant? In sharp contrast to the diplomatically âthinâ celebrations for the Treaty of Blois, Le Paradis dâamour made no secret of its âsubstantiveâ message that only Catholic subjects were admitted to the Paradise of Love, which the royal knights had brought about on earth themselves through their divinely-inspired dancing.201 The accounts that our historical sources provide of especially the second part of the pageant suggest that Franceâs Huguenot minority would only be accepted back into the Kingâs fold once its members had âserved timeâ in Hell and repetend their heretic past over the course of the one-hour ball. The royal policy that the combat-ballet advertised towards confessional difference was thus clearly informed by the diplomatic agenda of the cardinal de Bourbon, and inspired on the thought of Erasmus and Catherineâs former chancellor, Michel de LâHospital. Rather than advocating equal relations between Catholics and Huguenots, then, Le Paradis dâamour offered Protestant spectators a condition for reconciliation with the crown. It presented conversion to Catholicism as the only possible road to redemption and to solving Franceâs religious conflict.
Surprisingly, most scholars have brushed over the conversion diplomacy of the combat-ballet.202 They rightly point out that the first half of the pageant, in which Navarre and his followers made assaults on Paradise in single combat,
The same idea underpinned the cancelled mock siege, in which the royal party defended a castle against a squadron of Huguenot knights, and a course de bague that took place in the courtyard of the Louvre on 21 August, one day after the performance of Le Paradis dâamour. The quintain was reported by Jacques-Auguste de Thou who in August 1572 had only recently graduated from law school.210 He wrote that the tilting tournament pitted a Catholic party, including the King, his brothers, and Henri, duc de Guise and his entourage, who were disguised as Amazons, against the Huguenot squadron of Navarre and his followers, who were dressed in Ottomanised fashion, wearing turbans and long golden robes. The political significance of the pageant has been most fully discussed by Julia Prest who notes that the decision to have Navarre and his retinue appear as âTurksâ appears at first sight to be a rather âtactless choiceâ, given that Muslims were perceived as infidels by the French.211 She suggests that the decision âmay have been an innocent oneâ, however, as the French crown maintained good diplomatic relations with the Ottoman Sultan, Selim II (1524â1574), at the time.212 Furthermore, Charles IX had occasionally performed in Turkish-inspired fashion himself, for example in a mock naval battle at Marseille in 1564.213
I would like to argue, by contrast, that the Ottomanised dress of Navarre and his followers was, in fact, meant to draw attention to the squadronâs non-Catholic and thus Protestant makeup, just like their banishment to Hell in Le Paradis dâamour signalled the supposedly heretical nature of their beliefs. Rather than a âtactless choiceâ per se, the dress served to remind spectators, and Huguenot participants in particular, that Protestantism posed a threat to Catholicism and thus to the overall unity of the kingdom.214 Melinda Gough has persuasively argued that representations of âTurksâ in French court entertainments of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries alternately exhibited âadmirable qualities such as magnificence or valor, but in other instances, they serve as objects of condemnation and derisionâ.215 She explains the ambiguous attitude of such pageants towards Muslim Ottomans on the basis of French humiliation over King François Iâs forced alliance with Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1494â1566) in February 1536 as a means to counter
Although spectators of Le Paradis dâamour, and the ensuing course de bague, would surely have picked up on the conventionally playful nature of the simulated combats of both pageants, this does not mean, as most of the aforementioned scholars argue, that it was merely a well-tried âaesthetic interestâ of the festivalâs organisers and thus not immediately relevant to broader matters of state and diplomacy.219 Only Julia Prest has suggestedâas I do hereâthat especially Le Paradis dâamour proposed conversion to Catholicism as a solution to religious difference, but she does not connect this to the wider cross-confessional diplomacy of the French crown.220 Instead, Prest concludes that the pageantâs solution to Franceâs civil warsâ âthe absorption of Protestant difference into a Catholic paradigmââwas symptomatic of âthe ongoing dilemmaâ
As discussed in Chapter 1, LâHospital envisaged peaceful negotiations between the crown and the Huguenot representatives as means to keep the latter party sufficiently content and prevent further civil unrest. The occasional concessions that resulted from such negotiations, such as the Peace of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, served as reminders of the monarchyâs alleged goodwill towards Huguenots, which the crown undoubtedly hoped would eventually translate into the formerâs conversion to Catholicism. It was important therefore, as clearly happened in Le Paradis dâamour, to broadcast that hope to orthodox Catholic audiences. As Joseph Bergin has argued, many ardent Catholics suspected that the French royal family âwas somehow dabbling in âheresyââ, precisely because its members continued to open diplomatic negotiations with Huguenot leaders.223 Our combat-ballet thus also served to remind the more orthodox Catholics in the audience of the Kingâs faithful adherence to the religion royale.224 In conclusion, rather than hitting the wrong notes, Le Paradis dâamour was an instrument of the crownâs wider diplomatic strategy that involved tightrope walking between humanist toleration of Huguenots, on the one hand, and upholding religious orthodoxy, on the other.
Would the Protestant, and potentially the moderate Catholic, spectators in the grande salle have been antagonised by the pageantâs âsubstantiveâ public diplomacy? Surely, the combat-ballet would have pushed the âthinâ or âsparseâ social context of diplomacy to its very limits.225 The fêteâs organiser, cardinal de Bourbon, and the festivalâs superintendents, Catherine de Médicis and Charles IX, had made themselves vulnerable to critique and potentially opposition from Catholics and Huguenots alike. After all, this was the first time that a court entertainment in France had so openly reflected on the kingdomâs civil wars and
Rather than provoking outright protest from Protestant spectators, however, it appears that the combat-ballet puzzled its audiences. De Thou noted that âmany have interpreted that spectacle in different waysâ.230 The confusion stemmed from mixed signals. Many staunch Protestants, both within and outside France, hoped that the Valois-Navarre marriage would entail the conversion of the French royal family to Calvinism. This hope was also expressed by Geizkofler who discussed the rumours that he had heard in Paris about Charles IXâs alleged conversion to the Reformed faith.231 With these hopes in mind, Protestant spectators would certainly have been disappointed to see the King heading a Catholic squadron in a strongly antagonistic performance that depicted Huguenots as disloyal heretics, while celebrating Catholicism as the superior religion that would unite all French subjects to the crown. The intervention of Mercury and Cupid suggested that peace between the rival parties could be achieved through shared loyalty to the French crown and, thus, to Roman Catholicism, the religion that French kings were bound to defend and uphold by their coronation oath. The pageant thus suggested that Huguenots could be forgiven for their âhereticâ sins if they accepted the Kingâs Catholic faith. This type of practical settlement was typical of the cross-confessional
7 Conclusion
The court festivals organised for the Treaty of Blois and the Valois-Navarre wedding were clearly inspired by the humanist ideals of Catherine de Médicisâs cross-confessional diplomacy. By encouraging Catholic and Huguenot nobles to prepare and participate in both festivals side-by-side, the French crown appealed to the Académieâs belief that the performing arts could heal conflict and bring the rivalling religions closer together. The Valois-Navarre festival, in particular, drew inspiration from the humanist ideal that discord, in this case between Catholics and Huguenots, could be dissolved through interfaith marriage. By studying our two cases alongside each other, I have argued that the key strategy underlying the crownâs cross-confessional diplomacy at both festivals was to negotiate difference between the English and French participants on the one hand, and the Catholic and Huguenot guests on the other. This difference was not definitively resolved through the arts, as the Académie liked to believe, but rather suspended for the duration of a particular ceremony or pageant. Sometimes clear agreements were made between the crown and the different religious groups about how participation in the festival would be acceptable for both sides. This held especially true for the festivalsâ ceremonies which were carefully negotiated to accommodate the diplomatic agendas of Catholics and Protestants from different families or national groups.
Finally, this chapter has shown that the Valois crown was careful not to offend foreign ambassadors and stir controversy among delegates. The festival for the Treaty of Blois thus circumvented the issue of religious difference altogether. The light-hearted celebrations, which included Italian comedies and musical divertissements, were mostly designed to produce an atmosphere of amity and create the impression that France had definitively recovered from its Wars of Religion. The Valois-Navarre festival, by contrast, was more overtly âsubstantiveâ in its attempts to rally Huguenots with the French
Recent years have witnessed a surge of interest in cross-confessional diplomacy. See, for instance, Nexon, The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe, pp. 246â57; Daniel Riches, Protestant Cosmopolitanism and Diplomatic Culture: Brandenburg-Swedish Relations in the Seventeenth Century, The Northern World, 59 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013); Cross-Confessional Diplomacy and Diplomatic Intermediaries in the Early Modern Mediterranean, ed. by Maartje van Gelder and Tijana KrstÃc, special issue, Journal of Early Modern History, 19.2â3 (2015); Pirillo, âVenetian Merchants as Diplomatic Agentsâ.
Susan Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony: The Courtships of Elizabeth I (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), p. 127; Glenn John Richardson, âEngland and France in the Sixteenth Centuryâ, History Compass, 6.2 (2008), 510â28 (p. 518) <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2008.00514.x>. For the original documents relating to the Treaty of Blois, signed by both English and French parties, see BL, Add MS 24671, âOriginal treaty of alliance between England and France. Blois, 19 April 1572â.
For the original marriage treaty, see Bibliothèque de lâInstitut de France (BIF), Paris, MS Godefroy 301, fol. 75, âContrat de mariage: Henri de Navarre [Henri IV] et Marguerite de Valois; 7 août 1572â. It seems that the engagement ceremony was initially scheduled for 7 August (this is the date referred to in the official contract) but that it had to be postponed until 17 August due to the protracted negotiations and the sudden death of Henriâs mother, Huguenot leader Jeanne dâAlbret (1528â1572), earlier that summer. See Berdou dâAas, Jeanne III dâAlbret, p. 510; McGowan, Dance in the Renaissance, p. 87.
Henry Prunières is the first to call the pageant Le Paradis dâamour, adopting the title that Pierre de Brantôme gave to a different spectacle (a dramatic play) staged in the same grande salle of the Hôtel du Petit-Bourbon around presumably the same time. See Prunières, Le Ballet de Cour, p. 58, p. 73, n. 2. The eyewitness accounts discussed below never refer to the combat-ballet as such, but the title is nevertheless used in the modern academic literature on the pageant. I will follow suit here.
Prunières, Le Ballet de Cour en France, p. 70; Yates, The French Academies, p. 254.
Julia Prest discusses the intriguing possibility that Coligny feared the simulated battle would tip over into real violence: âPerforming Violenceâ, pp. 44â45.
For a transcription of the peace edict, see âÃdit de Saint-Germain en Layeâ, Ãcole nationale des chartes, ed. by Bernard Barbiche and others <http://elec.enc.sorbonne.fr/editsdepacification/edit_05> [accessed 22 September 2022]. On the broader diplomatic and political context of the edict, see James Westfall Thompson, The Wars of Religion in France, 1559â1576: The Hugenots, Catherine de Medici and Philip II (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1909), pp. 416â18; Holt, The French Wars of Religion, pp. 69â70; Knecht, The French Wars of Religion, pp. 40â1; Arlette Jouanna, La Saint-Barthélemy. Les Mystères dâun crime dâÃtat, 24 août 1572, Les journées qui ont fait la France (Paris: Gallimard, 2007), pp. 29â60.
Holt, The French Wars of Religion, p. 76; Knecht, The French Wars of Religion, p. 42. Interestingly, Ivan Cloulas suggests in passing that the Peace of Saint-Germain-en-Laye included a secret article that anticipated the marriage of Henri de Navarre and Marguerite de Valois: Catherine de Médicis (Paris: Fayard, 1979), p. 263. However, the secret article is not printed in âÃdit de Saint-Germain en Layeâ, ed. by Barbiche and others, and I have been unable to locate the source elsewhere.
Nancy Lyman, Queen of Navarre: Jeanne dâAlbret, 1528â1572 (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1968), p. 357.
Jouanna, Saint-Barthélemy, p. 10.
These sources will be introduced below.
Paul Sharp, âFor Diplomacy: Representation and the Study of International Relationsâ, International Studies Review, 1.1 (1999), 33â57; Ole Jacob Sending, âUnited by Difference: Diplomacy as a Thin Cultureâ, International Journal, 66.3 (2011), 643â59; id., âDiplomats and Humanitarians in Crisis Governanceâ, in Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, ed. by Ole Jacob Sending, Vincent Pouliot, and Iver B. Neumann, Cambridge Studies in International Relations, 136 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 256â83. Their ideas expand on Hedley Bullâs assertion that diplomacy centres around âthe minimisation of frictionâ and should thus reinforce shared interests and values among stakeholders. See Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, 4th edn (Basingstoke and London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012; original publ. 1977), pp. 165â66, 175â77, 303â05 (quotation on p. 175).
Mark E. Warren, âWhat Should and Should Not Be Said: Deliberating Sensitive Issuesâ, Journal of Social Philosophy, 37.2 (2006), 163â81 (quotations on pp. 174â75) <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2006.00325.x>; Jennifer Mitzen, âFrom Representation to Governing: Diplomacy and the Constitution of International Public Powerâ, in Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, ed. by Ole Jacob Sending, Vincent Pouliot, and Iver B. Neumann, Cambridge Studies in International Relations, 136 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 111â39 (pp. 117â18).
Warren, âWhat Should and Should Not Be Saidâ, pp. 174â78; Mitzen, âFrom Representation to Governingâ, p. 118 (quotations in ibid.).
Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ, p. 644.
Hennings, Russia and Courtly Europe, pp. 2â3 (quotations on p. 3).
Sasson Sofer, âThe Diplomat as a Strangerâ, Diplomacy and Statecraft, 8.3 (1997), 179â86 <https://doi.org/10.1080/09592299708406061>; Sharp, âFor Diplomacyâ (quotation on p. 50); Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ (quotation on p. 647); id., âDiplomats and Humanitariansâ.
Warren, âWhat Should and Should Not Be Saidâ, p. 175.
Sharp, âFor Diplomacyâ; Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ; id., âDiplomats and Humanitariansâ.
Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ, p. 644; Mitzen, âFrom Representation to Governingâ, pp. 118â119 (quotation on p. 118); Warren, âWhat Should and Should Not Be Saidâ, pp. 177â78 (quotation on p. 178).
Edmund Howes âThe Ratification of the Treaty of Blois, 26 May-5 July 1572â, in John Nicholsâs âThe Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth Iâ: A New Edition of the Early Modern Sources, ed. by Elizabeth Goldring and others, 5 vols (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), II: 1572â1578, pp. 9â13.
Pierre Champion, Charles IX. La France et le contrôle de lâEspagne, 2 vols (Paris: Bernard Grasset, 1939), II, pp. 60â77; Yates, The French Academies, pp. 254â55, 267; ead., The Valois Tapestries, pp. 62â63; Strong, Art and Power, pp. 111â13; Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis, pp. 284â85; Jacqueline Boucher, Deux Ãpouses et reines à la fin du XVIe Siècle. Louise de Lorraine et Marguerite de France (Saint-Ãtienne: Publications de lâUniversité de Saint-Ãtienne, 1995), pp. 12â29; Denis Crouzet, La Nuit de la Saint-Barthélemy. Un Rêve perdu de la Renaissance, Chroniques ([Paris:] Fayard, 1994), pp. 358â61; McGowan, Dance in the Renaissance, pp. 87â90; ead., âFêtes: Religious and Political Conflict Dramatised: The Role of Charles IXâ, in Writers in Conflict in Sixteenth-Century France: Essays in Honour of Malcolm Quainton, ed. by Elizabeth Vinestock and David Foster (Durham: Durham Modern Languages Series, 2008), pp. 215â38 (pp. 229â30); ead., âFestivities for the Marriage of Henri de Navarre and Marguerite de Valois (1572): Aesthetic Triumphs and Political Exploitationâ, in Court & Humour in the French Renaissance: Essays in Honour of Professor Pauline Smith, ed. by Sarah Alyn Stacey (Bern: Peter Lang, 2009), pp. 29â42; Van Orden, Music, Discipline, and Arms, pp. 107â10; Luisa Capodieci, Medicæa Medæa. Art, astres et pouvoir à la cour de Catherine de Médicis, Travaux dâHumanisme et Renaissance, 484 (Geneva: Droz, 2011), pp. 575â81; Prest, âPerforming Violenceâ, pp. 38â55; Ewa Kociszewska, âParadis dâamour: The Religious Drama of Cardinal de Bourbon on the Eve of the St Bartholomewâs Day Massacreâ, in Unity and Division. A Diplomacy of Ambiguity: Early Modern Festivals and European Politics / Entre Unité et division. Une Diplomatie de lâambiguité: Fêtes et cérémonies en Europe du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle, ed. Marie-Claude Canova-Green (Turnhout: Brepols, forthcoming). I thank Ewa Kociszewska for sharing her book chapter with me prior to publication.
The secular ceremony of betrothal took place at the Louvre Palace on 17 August 1572 when the bridal couple signed the marriage contract. The ceremony was followed by a wedding supper and an evening ball. By French royal tradition, Marguerite was then escorted by her family and various nobles to the Bishopâs Palace next to Notre-Dame where she spent the night. For an anonymous account of the fiançailles, see âDiscours des nopces du Roy de Nauarre & de la sÅur du Royâ, in Mémoires, ed. by Goulart, I, 353â57 (p. 353).
As early as 3 June 1569, Henry Norris (c. 1525â1601), the English ambassador to France, informed Queen Elizabeth that Catherine wished to offer Jeanne âMadame Margaret in marriage to the prince her sonâ: CSPF, IX, p. 83.
The matrimonial negotiations are most fully described in Roelker, Queen of Navarre, pp. 354â83; Knecht, Catherine deâ Medici, pp. 139â40, 144â45, 146â51; Bernard Berdou dâAas, Jeanne III dâAlbret: Chronique (1528â1572) (Anglet: Atlantica, 2002), pp. 419â501.
Knecht, Catherine deâ Medici, p. 140. On 8 March 1572, Jeanne wrote to Henri that â[Marguerite] is beautiful and discreet and graceful but raised in the most accursed and corrupted company that ever wasâ (â[Marguerite] est belle et bien advisee et de bonne grace mais nourrie en la plus maudite et corrumpue compagnie qui fut jamaisâ). Jeanne dâAlbret cited in Junko Shimizu, Conflict of Loyalties, Politics and Religion in the Career of Gaspard de Coligny: Admiral of France, 1519â1572 (Geneva: Droz, 1970), p. 151, n. 27.
Roelker, Queen of Navarre, p. 359; Knecht, Catherine deâ Medici, p. 147.
Shimizu, Conflict of Loyalties, p. 151.
The clauses of the marriage contract are concerned primarily with the inheritance of various lands and do not mention the difference of faith between the two partners: BIF, MS Godefroy 301, fol. 75.
BnF, MS fr. 4507, âCoppie du Testament de defuncte tres haute Vertueuse Dame & Princesse Jeanne par la grace de Dieu Royne de Nauarre Dame souueraine de Bearn, Duchesse Dalbret, de Beaumont & duchesse douairiere de Vandoumois 1572 le huitiesme Jour de Juinâ, fols. 143râ148r (fol. 144r): âla Vraye profission de la Vraye Religionâ. Jeanne is believed to have died from tuberculosis and an infection in the right breast. On the causes of her death, both real and imagined, see Roelker, Queen of Navarre, pp. 391â92; Berdou dâAas, Jeanne III dâAlbret, p. 508.
Roelker, Queen of Navarre, p. 354; James M. Osborn, Young Philip Sidney, 1572â1577, The Elizabethan Club Series, 5 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1972), p. 56.
Shimizu, Conflict of Loyalties, p. 150; Knecht, Catherine deâ Medici, pp. 140, 143.
Thompson, The Wars of Religion, pp. 416â18; Holt, The French Wars of Religion, pp. 69â70; Knecht, The French Wars of Religion, pp. 40â41; Jouanna, Saint-Barthélemy, pp. 29â60. As noted above, Jeanne dâAlbretâs attitude towards the marriage was more complex. Although she remained intransigent to the last, her obstinacy served as a negotiation strategy to expand Bourbon influence at court.
Roelker, Queen of Navarre, pp. 341, 369â79; Hugues Daussy, âLouis de Nassau et le parti Huguenotâ, in Entre Calvinistes et catholiques. Les Relations religieuses entre la France et les Pays-Bas du Nord (XVIe-XVIIIe siècle), ed. by Yves Krumenacker (Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2010) <http://books.openedition.org/pur/103697> [accessed on 22 September 2022] (para 7â10 of 15); Jonas van Tol, âWilliam of Orange in France and the Transnationality of the Sixteenth-Century Wars of Religionâ, BMGN/Low Countries Historical Review, 134.4 (2019), 33â58 (p. 55) <https://doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.10758>. For more on the diplomatic network that Louis of Nassau and William of Orange helped establishing between the Dutch rebels and the French crown since the late 1560s, see Pieter Johannes van Herwerden, Het verblijf van Lodewijk van Nassau in Frankrijk. Hugenoten en Geuzen, 1568â1572 (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1932); Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis, pp. 490â91; Marianne E. H. N. Mout, âHet intellectuele milieu van Willem van Oranjeâ, BMGN/Low Countries Historical Review, 99.4 (1984), 596â626 (pp. 619â22) <https://doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.2530>; Marie-Ange Delen, Het hof van Willem van Oranje (Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek, [2002]), pp. 224â227; Tol, âWilliam of Orange in Franceâ.
Roelker, Queen of Navarre, pp. 341â42, 379; Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis, pp. 271â75; Knecht, Catherine deâ Medici, p. 142; Berdou dâAas, Jeanne III dâAlbret, pp. 486â87. For Elizabeth, maintaining good relations with the Huguenot party at the Valois court became a central part of her foreign policy after the ardent Protestant Francis Walsingham was appointed English ambassador to France. On Walsinghamâs replacement of Henry Norris in August 1570, the Queen handed him her instructions: Compleat, pp. 1â5. In the words of her secretary and chief advisor, William Cecil, first Baron Burghley (1520â1598), Elizabeth asked Walsingham to report the following to the King and his Huguenot nobles:
We desire that the Accord [the Peace of Saint-Germain-en-Laye] betwixt the King our good Brother [Charles IX], and the Prince of Navarre [Henri de Bourbon], Prince of Condé [Henri I], and the Admirall [Gaspard de Coligny], with the rest of the Company, being the Kings Subjects, might be made as favourable for the reasonable contentation and surety of the said Princes and their party, as may be possible to the maintenance and continuance of them in the liberty of their Consciences for the cause of Religion (ibid., pp. 1â2).
Roelker, Queen of Navarre, p. 358; Knecht, Catherine deâ Medici, pp. 147â48. Henriâs Protestantism was obviously of greater concern to Rome than the Princeâs degree of kinship to Marguerite. For, Pius had accepted the marriage of Philip II of Spain and his first cousin Anna of Austria (1549â1580), the eldest daughter of the Kingâs uncle Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor (1527â1576), without much protestation in May 1570. See Baptista Platina, The Lives of the Popes: From the Time of Our Saviour Jesus Christ, to the Reign of Sixtus IV. Written Originally in Latine by Baptista Platina Native of Cremona, And Translated into English. And the Same History Continued from the Year 1471 to This Present Time; Where in the Most Remarkable Passages of Christendom Both in Church and State Are Treated of and Described, trans. and continued by Paul Rycaut (London: printed for Christopher Wilkinson, 1685), p. 163.
[Henri Estienne], Discovrs merveillevx de la vie, actions & deportemens de Catherine de Medicis Royne mere, Auquel sont recitez les moyens quâelle a tenu pour vsurper le govvernement du Royaume de France, & ruiner lâestat dâiceluy ([Geneva]: [J. Rivery], 1575), p. 44: âpour [â¦] rompre ce mariageâ. The quotation is from a widely distributed polemical pamphlet that was published three years after the Saint Bartholomewâs Day Massacres by the Huguenot printer and scholar Henri Estienne (1528â1598). It fiercely criticised the influence of Catherine on domestic affairs and accused her of instigating the massacres. For discussions of Cardinal Alessandrinoâs visit to Blois, see Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis, pp. 277â78; Roelker, Queen of Navarre, pp. 366â67; Knecht, Catherine deâ Medici, p. 148; Berdou dâAas, Jeanne III dâAlbret, pp. 474, 476.
Catherine to Cosimo, Blois, 8 October 1571, in Letters CdM, IV, p. 76: âCar rien ne nous peult faire espérer lâaugmentation entière de nostre religion et le repos universel de ce royaulme que le mariage de ma fille et du prince de Navarreâ. Catherine reiterated the argument when she retrospectively justified the marriage to Pius one day after the official wedding ceremony on 18 August 1572: âyou will judge this marriage necessary for the health and peace of the kingdomâ (âelle juegera cet mariage aystre nécessaire pour le salut et le repos dâicelui [ce royaume]â). Catherine to Pius, no place name given, 19 August 1572, in Letters CdM, IV, p. 110 (Portraits, trans. by Chang and Kong, p. 89). For more on Cosimoâs involvement in Catherine and Charlesâs efforts to obtain papal dispensation, see Roelker, Queen of Navarre, p. 357; Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis, p. 271; Berdou dâAas, Jeanne III dâAlbret, pp. 437, 461.
Charles to François Rougier, sieur de Malras and baron de Ferrals, no place name given, 31 July 1572, in Le Cabinet historique, ed. by Louis Paris, II, Part 1: Documents (1856), p. 233: âle feu des troubles et divisions [â¦] lequel [â¦] mâenseigne dâestendre et admortir par voye de reconciliation ès amityé comme ceste cy, [â¦], pour estre ce royaulme le cÅur de la chretientéâ. Rougier served the French crown in Rome from 1571 until his death in 1575.
Ibid., p. 232: âClovis, a heathen King, married to a woman of the faith by permission or tolerance of the Churchâ (âCâest assavoir, un Clovis, Roy infidèlle, marié à une fidèlle par permission ou tolerance de lâEgliseâ).
In other letters to Rougier, Charles explicitly referred to the likelihood of Henriâs conversion to Catholicism. See Roelker, Queen of Navarre, p. 358.
Sharp, âFor Diplomacyâ; Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ; id., âDiplomats and Humanitariansâ.
Catherine to Elizabeth, Blois, 22 April, 1572, in Letters CdM, IV, p. 98: âDieu continuant de plus en plus ses graces et bénédictions en ce royaulme y a apporté la confirmation et ratification du repos par le mariage conclu et arresté entre ma très chère et amée fille Marguerite et nostre très cher et amé filz le roy de Navarreâ.
Warren, âWhat Should and Should Not Be Saidâ, pp. 174â75; Mitzen, âFrom Representation to Governingâ, pp. 117â18; Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ, p. 644.
BnF, MS fr. 894, Jean Passerat, âRecueil de devises grecques, latines ou françaises, en vers et en proseâ, fols. 101râ102r. Frances A. Yates mentions the manuscript in passing: Valois Tapestries, p. 63. The document constitutes a rich source for the study of court festivals under the late Valois Kings, as it includes sketches and descriptions by Passerat of a wide range of devices (and some portraits), all of which were probably given to spectators of various entertainments. Pictures of the original medals, kept at the Département des monnaies, médailles et antiques of the Bibliothèque nationale de France, are printed in Josèphe Jacquiot, âMédailles et jetons commémorant la Saint-Barthélemyâ, Revue dâHistoire littéraire de la France 73.5 (1973), 784â93 (pp. 783â84).
MS fr. 894, fols. 101vâ102r: âæquatæ stabunt lancesâ; âLâheureuse flambeau dâuy royal mariage / Contre du Mars la fureur et la rageâ; âLa discorde et lâinimitié assoupir par le mariageâ. In the second quotation, âMarsâ refers to the ancient Greek and Roman god of war.
Knecht, The French Wars of Religion, p. 28.
Mack P. Holt, The Duke of Anjou and the Politique Struggle during the Wars of Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 22; Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, p. 120; Encyclopedia of Tudor England, ed. by John A. Wagner and Susan Walters Schmid, 3 vols (Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2012), I, p. 124.
Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, pp. 13â21, see especially p. 13. On 25 February 1570, Pius V excommunicated Elizabeth on precisely these grounds.
Catherine quickly proposed a new suitâthat of her youngest son, Hercule-François, duc dâAlençonâand both parties continued to employ matrimony as a diplomatic tool (see ibid., pp. 130â53, especially p. 130). Studies on the failed Elizabeth-Anjou match include Hector de La Ferrière, Les Projets de mariage de la reine Ãlisabeth, Bibliothèque contemporaine (Paris: Calmann Lévy, 1882), pp. 62â126; John E. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, The Bedford Historical Series, 1 (London: Cape, 1938), pp. 220â36; Mary Dewar, Sir Thomas Smith: A Tudor Intellectual in Office (London: Athlone Press, 1964), pp. 129â48; Roelker, Queen of Navarre, pp. 327â83; Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis, pp. 261â317; Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, pp. 99â129; Knecht, Catherine deâ Medici, pp. 138â65; Berdou dâAas, Jeanne III dâAlbret, pp. 419â69; Jouanna, Saint-Barthélemy, pp. 61â98.
See Francis Walsinghamâs letters to William Cecil, first Baron Burghley, from Paris: 31 January 1572, in CSPF, X, p. 15; 19 March 1572, in ibid., p. 60; 29 March 1572, in BL, Cotton MS Vespasian F. VI, fol. 1r, and an anonymous report entitled âOccurrents from Franceâ: 2 February 1572, in CSPF, X, pp. 49â50 (p. 49). CSPF also includes a copy of the marriage contract: ibid. p. 78. See Dewar, Sir Thomas Smith, pp. 129â48, for more on Smith and Walsinghamâs work on the Treaty of Blois.
BnF, MS fr. 2748, III, Jeanne dâAlbret to Louis de Goulard, sieur de Beauvoir and Governor of Henri de Navarre, Blois, 1 March 1572, fols. 119râ123r (fol. 119v): âelle est pressée par les ambassadeurs dâAngleterre de me laccorder, ayans charge de la Royne leur Maistresse de fonder lasseurance de leur negociation et de la nouuelle ligue quils fontâ.
BL, Cotton MS Vespasian F. VI, Jeanne dâAlbret to Queen Elizabeth of England, Blois, 5 April 1572, fol. 9.
Ibid.: âJe nâay voullu faillir, Madame, vous en advertir et mâen resjouir avecq vous comme avecq celle qui fait et a sagement préveu combien ceste alliance peult servir non simplement au bien et repos de ce royaulme auquel vous estes sy affectyonnée, mays que cest heur estandra ses branches jusques aus voysinsâ (Roelker, Queen of Navarre, p. 382).
Artus was the cousin of François de Montmorency who, together with Paul de Foix, headed a special French embassy to England in June 1572. The English delegation in France and the French entourage in England were instructed to ratify the Treaty of Blois around the same time. See Doran, Monarchy and Matrimony, pp. 130â37; Howes, âThe Ratificationâ.
Thomas Smith to William Cecil, first Baron Burghley, Paris, 7 June 1572, in CSPF, X, p. 124. On the French monarchical custom of receiving foreign dignitaries with a solemn entry, see Monique Chatenet, âThe Kingâs Space: The Etiquette of Interviews at the French Court in the Sixteenth Centuryâ, in The Politics of Space: European Courts, ca. 1500â1750, ed. by George Gorse, Marcello Fantoni, and Robert Malcolm Smuts, Europa delle corti, 142 (Rome: Bulzoni, 2009), pp. 193â207 (p. 193).
On 30 June, Charles issued a royal proclamation that expressly forbade the molestation of foreigners and followers of Henri de Navarre who had travelled to Paris that summer (see pp. 00 below). One foreign traveller, the Tyrolian medical student Lukas Geizkofler, whose description of the nuptial festivities will be discussed below, was forced to change his lodgings with a Huguenot supporter (the printer and bookseller André Wechel, d. 1581) for lodgings with a Catholic priest (one M. Blandis) on account of the violent incidents. See Lukas Geizkofler, Historia vnd beschreibung Lucasen Geizkoflers von Reiffenegg Tyrolensis, herkomen, geburt, leben, studieren, raisen, diensten, fürnembliche verrichtung thuen vnd wesen, biβ auf sein in Augspurg Anno. 1590. beschechene verheüratung vnd folgends weiter, biβ auf das. 1600. Jar., in Manfred Linsbauer, âLucas Geizkofler und seine Autobiographieâ, 2 vols (unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Vienna, 1978), I, pp. 164â373 (p. 202). For a French translation of Geizkoflerâs memoirs, see Mémoires de Luc Geizkofler, Tyrolien (1550â1620), trans. by Edouard Fick (Geneva: Fick, 1892).
On 15 June, the diplomats nonetheless joined the King in an open-air cavalcade to the Louvre Palace after they had ratified the Treaty of Blois at the church of Saint-Germain lâAuxerrois (see my discussion on pp. 91â92 below). The procession, however, was much shorter than a solemn entry into the capital would have been: the church was located opposite the Louvre.
CSPF, X, p. 124. Nancy Roelker believes that the royal familyâs visit to Jeanne took place on 6 June: Queen of Navarre, p. 388. Jeanne passed away three days later, in the morning of 9 June.
The mourning period that followed after Jeanneâs death on 9 June lasted until 18 August, the day on which Henri and Marguerite officially married at Notre-Dame. In her memoirs, Marguerite wrote that on her wedding day âthe king of Navarre and his suite had exchanged their mourning for very rich and precious clothesâ (âle Roy de Nauarre & sa trouppe y ayants laissé & changé le dueil en habits tres-riches & beauxâ): Les Memoires de la Roine Margverite (Paris: Charles Chappellain, 1628), bk. 1, p. 48. Although Navarre, together with the royal brothers and Condé, indeed seem to have worn richly decorated attire on the day of the wedding, Marguerite is probably wrong to assume that her husbandâs retinue had done the same. As discussed on pp. 104â05 below, the other Huguenot nobles wore dark and sober clothes to mark their difference from the splendorous appearance of the Catholic guests. Margueriteâs mistake, however, is understandable, given that she wrote her memoirs more than fifty years after the event. See also Jouanna, La Saint-Barthélemy, p. 94 and especially p. 325, n. 102.
Queen Elizabeth had instructed Lincoln to visit Jeanne during his embassy in Paris and ârejoyce that she hath so wisely and honourably considered of the marriage of the Prince her Son with the daughter of Franceâ: Compleat, pp. 210â11, emphasis in original.
Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ, p. 647, 649; Mitzen, âFrom Representation to Governingâ, p. 118; Warren, âWhat Should and Should Not Be Saidâ, p. 175.
Thomas Smith to William Cecil, first Baron Burghley, Paris, 8 June 1572, in Original Letters, p. 12.
Ibid. Jacques Bochetel, sieur de La Forest, was appointed resident ambassador to England from 1566 until 1568 after which he was succeeded by Betrand de Salignac de La Mothe Fénelon.
William Roosen, âEarly Modern Diplomatic Ceremonial: A Systems Approachâ, The Journal of Modern History, 52.3 (1980), 452â76 (pp. 469â72). The special Dutch embassy that travelled to Paris in January 1585 had received no instructions from their French hosts on the manner of their reception, and the kind of protocol it would involve, until very shortly before their arrival in the capital. As shown in Chapter 3, Henri III meant to wait for the diplomatically most opportune moment to receive the delegation.
Smith to Cecil, in Original Letters, p. 12.
Warren, âWhat Should and Should Not Be Saidâ, p. 174.
The treaty itself was ratified by the oath of alliance which both Charles IX and Lincoln were supposed to take. The ceremony was traditionally carried out during Mass as Smith explained himself to William Cecil: Original Letters, p. 14.
This side chapel might have been the Chapelle de la Vierge, the oldest chapel in the church of Saint-Germain.
Ibid., p. 12.
Ibid., p. 16.
Benjamin K. Kaplan, âDiplomacy and Domestic Devotion: Embassy Chapels and the Toleration of Religious Dissent in Early Modern Europeâ, Journal of Early Modern History, 6.4 (2002), 341â61 <https://doi.org/10.1163/157006502X00185>; id., âFictions of Privacy: House Chapels and the Spatial Accommodation of Religious Dissent in Early Modern Europeâ, The American Historical Review, 107.4 (2002), 1031â64 (pp. 1052â54) <https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004353954_009>. For more on the embassy chapel, see Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, pp. 280â81.
John Cooper, The Queenâs Agent: Francis Walsingham at the Court of Elizabeth I (London: Faber and Faber, 2011), p. 62. We know that the English embassy on the Quai des Bernardins in Paris included an embassy chapel by the early seventeenth century. Tom Hamilton references a visit to the chapel by Pierre de LâEstoile on 3 August 1608: Pierre de LâEstoile and his World in the Wars of Religion (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 186â87.
Smith to Cecil, in Original Letters, p. 14. Smith mentioned that after Evensong his embassy was invited to enter the churchâs nave by âone of our religionâ, namely the prominent nobleman Henri, duc de Bullion: ibid., p. 16.
Dagmar Freist, âCrossing Religious Borders: The Experience of Religious Difference and its Impact on Mixed Marriages in Eighteenth-Century Germanyâ, in Living with Religious Diversity in Early Modern Europe, ed. by C. Scott Dixon, Dagmar Freist, and Mark Greengrass (Farnham, 2009), p. 215. I thank Sarah Wolfson for introducing me to Freistâs work.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Smith to Cecil, in Original Letters, p. 17, my emphasis. On the reciprocal act of looking between the early modern ruler and their subjects during royal entries and theatrical entertainments, see Pascal Lardellier, âMonuments éphémères. Les Entrées royalesâ, Les Cahiers du médiologie, 1.7 (1999), 239â45 (p. 243) <https://doi.org/10.3917/cdm.007.0239>; id., Les Miroirs du Paon. Rites et rhétoriques politiques dans la France de lâAncien Régime, Ãtudes et essais sur la Renaissance, 44 (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2003), p. 21; Watanabe-OâKelly, âEarly Modern European Festivalsâ, pp. 16â19.
Smith to Cecil, in Original Letters, p. 14.
Sharp, âFor Diplomacyâ; Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ; id., âDiplomats and Humanitariansâ.
BL, Cotton Vespasian F. VI, Edward Fiennes de Clinton, first Earl of Lincoln, to William Cecil, first Baron Burghley, Paris, 28 June 1572, fols. 95râ96r (fol. 95r); Thomas Smith to William Cecil, first Baron Burghley, Paris, 28 June 1572, in Original Letters, pp. 14â15; 18â21; Howes, âThe Ratificationâ, pp. 9â13. The Italian players may have belonged to either a troupe from Milan, called I Gelosi, whose members were appointed by Charles IX as âcomédiens du Royâ (âcomedians of the Kingâ) around March 1572, or a travelling company from Mantua, led by Zan Ganassa (pseudonym for Alberto Ganassa), which is known to have contributed to the Valois-Navarre festival in August 1572 with various comedies. See Armand Baschet, Les Comédiens italiens à la court de France sous Charles IX, Henri III, Henri IV et Louis XIII dâaprès les lettres royales, la correspondance originale des comédiens, les registres de la trésorie de lâépargne et autres documents (Paris: E. Plon, 1882), p. 35; Raymond Lebègue, âLa Comédie italienne en France au XVIe siècleâ, Revue de Littérature Comparée 24.5 (1950), 5â24 (p. 13); McGowan, Dance in the Renaissance, pp. 234, 236. On the popularity of professional Italian comedy at the Valois court, see Baschet, Les Comédiens italiens, pp. 2â95; Lebègue, âLa Comédie italienneâ; McGowan, Dance in the Renaissance, pp. 234â42.
Sharp, âFor Diplomacyâ; Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ; id., âDiplomats and Humanitariansâ.
Yates, The Valois Tapestries, p. 54. See also ead., The French Academies, pp. 251â54.
The royal progress has been most extensively studied in Victor E. Graham and William McAllister Johnson, The Royal Tour of France by Charles IX and Catherine deâ Medici: Festivals and Entries, 1564â6 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1979), which also reprints the commemorative books for the event. The banquet and comedy at Fontainebleau are mentioned on page 75, in a reprint of Abel Jouanâs Recueil et discours du voyage du Roy Charles IX (Paris: Jean Bonfons, 1566), and the dinner at Bayonne is discussed on pages 378â80, in a reprint of Recueil des choses notables qui ont esté faites à Bayonne (Paris: Vascozan, 1566). On the supper at La Vacherie or My-voye, see Meredith Martin, Dairy Queens: The Politics of Pastoral Architecture From Catherine deâ Medici to Marie-Antoinette, Harvard Historical Studies, 176 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011), pp. 63â4. For more on La belle Genièvre, see Jacques Madeleine, âLa belle Genièvre, première en date des tragi-comédies françaisesâ, Revue de la Renaissance, 4 (1903), 30â46; Virginia Scott, âAriostoâs Orlando Furioso: Performance at the Valois and Bourbon Courtsâ, The Court Historian, 8 (2003), 177â87 <https://doi.org/10.1179/cou.2003.8.2.002>; Virginia Scott and Sara Sturm-Maddox, Performance, Poetry and Politics on the Queenâs Day: Catherine de Médicis and Pierre de Ronsard at Fontainebleau, Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama (London: Routledge, 2017), pp. 133â50.
Welch, A Theater of Diplomacy, pp. 11â32 (quotations on p. 23). Welch, for example, argues that the island banquet at Bayonne, which featured regional dances from across the kingdom, did not merely serve as an innocent pastime, but sought to boost the Valois familyâs claim to French territory. According to her, an anonymous Spanish eyewitness failed to comprehend the political purpose of the event, since they described the supper âas a generic pastoral affairâ: ibid., p. 23.
Welch arrives at a similar conclusion in her analysis of the gastronomic entertainments at Bayonne in June 1565: âThese gustatory events appealed to all guests regardless of rank or nationalityâ (ibid., p. 24).
Cotton Vespasian F. VI, Lincoln to Cecil, fol. 95r; Smith to Cecil, in Original Letters, p. 15; Howes, âThe Ratificationâ, pp. 10â11.
Ibid., p. 11.
Cotton Vespasian F. VI, Lincoln to Cecil, fol. 95r.
Léon Emmanuel S. J. Laborde, Le Château du Bois de Boulogne, dit Château de Madrid, Ãtude sur les arts au seizième siècle (Paris: Dumoulin, 1855), p. 1; Monique Chatenet, Le Château de Madrid au Bois de Boulogne. Sa Place dans les rapports franco-italiens autour de 1530, De Architectura (Paris: Picard, 1987), pp. 30â31; 88â89. According to Monique Chatenet, the English delegation is the only foreign embassy that Charles IX reportedly invited to Madrid: ibid., p. 30.
Welch, A Theater of Diplomacy, p. 30. For more on princely access, see The Key to Power? The Culture of Access in Princely Access, 1400â1750, ed. by Dries Raeymaekers and Sebastiaan Derks, Rulers & Elites, 8, (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016), especially the chapters by Neil Murphy (âThe Court on the Move: Ceremonial Entries, Gift-Giving and Access to the Monarch in France, c.1440-c.1570â, pp. 40â64) and Jonathan Spangler (âHolders of the Keys: The Grand Chamberlain, the Grand Equerry and Monopoly of Access at the Early Modern French Courtâ, pp. 155â77). I have discussed the concept of princely access in relation to the public and private considerations of Dutch and English ambassadors in late sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century France: Van Leuveren, âPerceptions of Privacyâ.
Cotton Vespasian F. VI, Lincoln to Cecil, fol. 95r. Besides creating an informal atmosphere through friendly competition, the âtennisâ match probably also functioned to show off the physical prowess of Charles and thus of the kingdomâs body politic. See Chatenet, Le Château de Madrid, p. 88. On the popularity of jeu de paume among the early modern French elite, see Jean Jules Jusserand, Les Sports et jeux dâexercice dans lâancienne France (Paris: Plon, 1901), pp. 240â65; Jeu des roi, roi des jeux. Le jeu de palme en France, ed. by Yves Carlier and Thierry Bernard-Tambour (Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 2001). On the diplomatic significance of garden tours at the early modern court, see Robert W. Berger and Thomas F. Hedin, Diplomatic Tours in the Gardens of Versailles under Louis XIV (Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 2008); Roberta Anderson, âMarginal Diplomatic Spaces During the Jacobean Era, 1603â25â, in Early Modern Diplomacy, Theatre and Soft Power: The Making of Diplomacy, ed. by Nathalie Rivière de Carles, Early Modern Literature in History (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp, 163â82 (pp. 163â65); Van Leuveren, âPerceptions of Privacyâ.
Cotton Vespasian F. VI, Lincoln to Cecil, fol. 95r.
Smith to Cecil, Original Letters, p. 14.
Ibid. For more on Renée de France, see Emmanuel Rodocanachi, Une Protectrice de la Réforme en Italie et en France. Renée de France, duchesse de Ferrare (Paris: P. Ollendorff, 1896); Charmarie Jenkins Blaisdell, âRenée de France between Reform and Counter-Reformâ, Archiv für Reformationgeschichte, 63 (1972), 196â226 <https://doi.org/10.14315/arg-1972-jg11>; Anne Puaux, La Huguenote. Renée de France, Collection Savoir: Lettres (Paris: Hermann, 1997); Eleonora Belligni, Renata di Francia (1510â1575). Unâeresia di corte (Turin: UTET, 2011).
Cotton Vespasian F. VI, Lincoln to Cecil, fol. 95r.
Pierre Nevejans, âLe Corps souffrant et ses enjeux diplomatiques. La Maladie du prince face à la Renaissanceâ, Bulletin du Centre de recherche du château de Versailles, (2016), Articles et études <http://crcv.revues.org/13693> [accessed on 22 September 2022], par. 21: âune forme dâhonnêtetéâ.
Smith to Cecil, in Original Letters, p. 15; cf. Cotton Vespasian F. VI, Lincoln to Cecil, fol. 95r; Howes, âThe Ratificationâ, p. 11. Smith admitted in a letter to his wife, Lady Philippa, that Valois hospitality made him feel like âa young princeâ or âa Dukeâ: cited in Dewar, Sir Thomas Smith, p. 133. Smith sent the letter on 9 January 1572 from Paris where he negotiated the articles for the Treaty of Blois.
Smith to Cecil, in Original Letters, p. 18. Jean-Marie Pérouse de Montclos, Philibert De lâOrme. Architecte du roi (1514â1570), Librairie de lâarchitecture et de la ville (Paris: Mengès, 2000), p. 237; Margriet Hoogvliet, âPrincely Culture and Catherine de Médicisâ, in Princes and Princely Culture, 1450â1650, ed. by Martin Gosman, Alasdair MacDonald, and Arjo Vanderjagt, Brillâs Studies in Intellectual History, 1 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), pp. 103â30 (p. 115).
Smith to Cecil, in Original Letters, pp. 19â20.
Ibid., p. 20. McGowan, Dance in the Renaissance, pp. 231â39 (see especially p. 236 for a brief discussion of Smithâs account of the acrobatic performance).
M. A. Katritzky, âHippolytus Guarinoniusâ Descriptions of Commedia dellâArte Lazzi in Padua, 1594â97â, Quaderni Veneti, 30 (1999), pp. 61â126 (pp. 74â81; quotations on p. 74). See ibid., pp. 90â91, for a contemporary instruction on how to perform the various jumps of the labores Herculis. I am grateful to the author for sending me their article. On the cultural significance of the lazzi in a late sixteenth-century French context, see McGowan, Dance in the Renaissance, p. 234.
Berger and Hedin, Diplomatic Tours.
Pérouse de Montclos, Philibert De lâOrme, pp. 233â37; Hoogvliet, âPrincely Cultureâ, p. 15.
Smith to Cecil, in Original Letters, p. 15.
Smith to Cecil, in Original Letters, p. 18. The English ambassador Henry Middelmore (d. 1592) similarly reported on a private conversation he had with Coligny, an old acquaintance of his, after supper at the Admiralâs house on June 10. They talked primarily about the current situation in the Dutch Provinces and the recently proposed match of Hercule-François, duc dâAlençon, to Queen Elizabeth of England. The occasion seemed to have been kept mostly private indeed, for it was not referenced in other contemporary sources on the festivities in Paris. Other members of the French court or Lincolnâs embassy (save for Arthur Champernome) were not invited to the supper. See BL, Cotton MS Vespasian F. VI, Henry Middelmore to William Cecil, first Baron Burghley, Paris, 18 June 1572, fol. 89.
Nicola M. Sutherland, âThe Role of Coligny in the French Civil Warsâ, in Actes du Colloque: Lâamiral de Coligny et Son Temps (Paris, 24â28 Octobre 1972) (Paris: Société de lâhistoire du protestantisme français, 1974), pp. 323â39; Holt, The Duke of Anjou, p. 19; Knecht, The French Wars of Religion, p. 43.
On 16 June, the Admiral had also been in charge of preparing âa noble, magnificall, & sumptuous supperâ at his private château: Smith to Cecil, in Original Letters, pp. 18â19.
Warren, âWhat Should and Should Not Be Saidâ, p. 174.
Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ, p. 644.
Geizkofler, Historia, p. 201.
See ibid.: âmore than 1500 German studentsâ (âvber die 1500 Teütsche scholarnâ). For more on Geizkofler, his Historia, and other work, see Adam Wolf, Lukas Geizkofler und seine Selbstbiographie, 1550â1620 (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1873); Manfred Linsbauer, âLukas Geizkofler und seine Selbstbiographieâ, Veröffentlichungen des Tiroler Landesmuseums Ferdinandeum 60.35 (1980), 35â84; Florian Schaffenrath, âDer Humanist Lucas Geizkofler zwischen Innsbruck und Augsburg. Seine Trauerrede auf Matthias Schenckâ, in Humanismus und Renaissance in Augsburg. Kulturgeschichte einer Stadt zwischen Spätmittelalter und DreiÃigjährigem Krieg, Frühe Neuzeit, 144, ed. by Gernot Michael Müller (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2010), pp. 157â84.
Jonas van Tol, Germany and the French Wars of Religion, 1560â1572 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2019), especially pp. 125â58.
Geizkofler, Historia, p. 201.
Giovanni Michiel and Sigismondo di Cavalli, Paris, 22 August 1572, cited in Champion, Charles IX, II, p. 75, n. 1: âLes ambassadeurs ne sont pas venus, car on savait que le nonce ne viendrait pas et ayant des doutes au sujet de lâambassadeur espagnol, on a préféré nâinviter personneâ.
Arlette Jouanna has noted the doubts that still exist about the official attendances at the Valois-Navarre festival by magistrates and the diplomatic corps: La Saint-Barthélemy, p. 94.
Ibid. If Zúñiga is right about this, we may surmise that Francis Walsingham, English ambassador to France, would also have attended the nuptial festival. According to Pierre Champion, Walsingham, together with the deputies of Ferrara, Florence, and Venice, had accepted the Kingâs invitation to watch a course de bague, taking place in the courtyard of the Louvre on 21 August 1572, from behind a window (see also p. 124 below). Champion states that some of the foreign ambassadors (possibly Zúñiga and Salviati) declined the invitation. He does not discuss or provide further evidence for this point. See Champion, Charles IX, II, p. 75.
Philip II to Diego de Zúñiga, Madrid, 10 June 1572, cited in La Ferrière, Saint-Barthélemy, p. 90: âIf you are invited [to the Valois-Navarre festival], accept, but, a few days before, pretend to be indisposed; in no way does it suit you to attend this ceremonyâ (Si lâon vous y invite, acceptez; mais, quelques jours auparavant, feignez dâêtre indisposé; dâaucune façon, il ne convient que vous assistiez à cette cérémonieâ).
McGowan, Dance in the Renaissance, p. 87; ead., âFestivalsâ, p. 30. For a similar argument, see Hector de La Ferrière, La Saint-Barthélemy (Paris: Calmann Lévy, 1892), p. 90.
Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ, p. 644.
Eugène Saulnier, Le Rôle politique du Cardinal de Bourbon (Charles X), 1523â1590, Bibliothèque de lâécole des hautes études (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1912), pp. 63â66; Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis, p. 171; Jean-Louis Bourgeon, Charles IX devant la Saint-Barthélemy, Travaux dâhistoire éthico-politique, 55 (Geneva: Droz, 1995), pp. 126â27. The Cardinal, of course, expected that Navarre would convert to Catholicism. See Saulnier, Le Rôle politique, pp. 62, 69, and my discussion of Le Paradis dâamour on pp. 115â28 below.
The diplomatic function of the scaffold was apparently so effective that it was also used for the wedding-by-proxy of Henrietta Maria (1609â1669), a Catholic Princess, to Charles I (1600â1649, a Protestant King, at Notre-Dame on 11 May 1625. See anonymous, A True Discourse of all the Royal Passages, Tryumphs and Ceremonies, obserued at the Contract and Marriage of the High and Mighty Charles, King of Great Britaine, and the most excellentest of Ladies, the Lady Henrietta Maria of Burbon, sister to the most Christian King of France (John Haviland: London 1625), p. 7. For more on the use of the scaffold in the 1625 wedding ceremony, see Erin Griffey, ââAll Rich as Invention Can Frame, or Art Fashionâ: Dressing and Decorating for the Wedding Celebrations of 1625â, in The Wedding of Charles I and Henrietta Maria, 1625: Celebrations and Controversy, ed. by Marie-Claude Canova-Green and Sara J. Wolfson, European Festival Studies, 1450â1700 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2020), pp. 131â51 (p. 139).
Catherine had promised Pius V that Navarre would convert to Catholicism after marrying her daughter. See Saulnier, Le Rôle politique, p. 64. According to Julia Prest, it is unclear if Catherine actually expected Navarre to do so: âPerforming Violenceâ, p. 51, n. 10.
The members of Navarreâs retinue at the ceremony are listed by Geizkofler, in Historia, p. 208, and de Thou, in Historiarum, III, bk. 52, p. 118.
BnF, MS Dupuy 591, âAduis sur les ceremonies du Mariage de Monsieur le Prince de Nauarre et de Madame soeur du Roy en la convocation des Ministresâ, fols. 41râ42v.
Ibid., fol. 42r-v (Roelker, Queen of Navarre, p. 381): âquil sorte incontinent et devant que le service accoustumé dâestre faict en lâEglise Romaine commence, [â¦] se mettant aultant quâil pourra ala vue dâun chacun, à ce que tous sachent quâil ny est entré pour assister ala messe ou aultre ceremonieâ. I have slightly expanded Roelkerâs translation to stay closer to the French original.
As is well known, discussions about the sincerity of Navarreâs actionsâwhether motivated by politics or personal considerationsâresurfaced in July 1593 when he publicly converted to Catholicism. See also Chapter 4 below.
Geizkofler, Historia, p. 207: âder König von Nauarra in Pfäffische Thuem Kirchen nit wolte geenâ.
Anonymous, âDiscoursâ, p. 354: âenrichie de perles & pierreriesâ.
Jouanna, La Saint-Barthélemy, p. 94: âen signe de fraternitéâ.
Anonymous, âDiscoursâ, p. 354: âLes autres Princes & Seigneurs Catholiques estoyent vestus de diuerses couleurs & façons, auec tant dâor, dâargent & pierreries, que rien plus: mais quant aux Seigneurs de la Religion ils nâestoyent vestus que de leurs habits ordinairesâ. De Thou also observed the richly decorated attire of the royal family and the Catholic nobles, but did not comment on the ordinary clothes of the Huguenot guests: Historiarum, III, bk. 52, p. 118. Geizkofler ignored the issue altogether: Historia, pp. 208â09.
Sharp, âFor Diplomacyâ; Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ; id., âDiplomats and Humanitariansâ.
Anonymous, âDiscoursâ, p. 354; Geizkofler, Historia, p. 208.
It is significant, in this respect, that during Mass for the wedding of Henrietta Maria at Notre-Dame on 11 May 1625 the groomâs Protestant party, headed by Claude, prince de Joinville and duc de Chevreuse (1578â1657), the proxy of Charles I (1600â1649), was instructed to retire into the nearby Episcopal Palace, the residence of the archbishops in Paris, thus removing themselves from public sight: anonymous, A True Discourse, p. 16.
Geizkofler, Historia, pp. 208â09. For more on the distribution of commemorative medals at royal weddings and other public events in sixteenth-century France, see Marie Veillon, âMédailles des rois de France au seizième siècle. Représentation et imaginaireâ, The Medal, 44 (2004), 13â25 (pp. 19â22); ead., Médailles des rois de France au seizième siècle. Représentation et imaginaire (Paris: Beauchesne, 2018), pp. 83â134. Luisa Capodieci briefly comments on two of the medals discussed below (the first and third type): Medicæa Medæe, p. 579.
Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ, p. 644. See MS fr. 894, fols. 101râ102r, and Jacquiot, âMédailles et jetonsâ, pp. 783â84, for pictures of the original medals. I have not been able to locate the objects in the Département des monnaies, médailles et antiques of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.
MS fr. 894, fol. 102r: âsecuritas pacis, constricta hoc discordia vinculaâ. Geizkofler also described this medal, but did not mention the other two jetons discussed above: Historia, p. 209.
Ibid., fol 101r. On the Ouroboros, see Nicholas Vernot, âUn Serpent dans le cÅur. La Symbolique de lâex-libris de Philippe II Chifflet, abbé de Balerne (1597â1657)â, in Autour des Chifflet. Aux Origines de lâérudition en Franche-Comté. Actes des Journées dâétude du Groupe de recherche Chifflet, ed. by Laurence Delobette and Paul Delsalle, Les Cahiers de la MSH Ledoux, 6; Transmission, identité, métissage, 1 (Besançon: Presses Universitaires de Franche-Comté, 2007), pp. 63â87 (pp. 65â67). For more on the relationship between ancient Greek and Egyptian thought in early modern French and European syncretism, see Yates, The French Academies, pp. 2â3; 90â91, 131â32; 147â48; Claudie Balavoine, âDe la Perversion du signe égyptien dans le langage iconique de la Renaissanceâ, in LâÃgypte imaginaire de la Renaissance à Champollion. Colloque en Sorbonne, ed. by Chantal Grell, Mythes, critique et histoire (Paris: Presses de lâUniversité de Paris-Sorbonne, 2001), pp. 27â48; Capodieci, Medicæa Medæa, pp. 142â45; 508â12.
MS fr. 894, fol. 102r: âæterna quæ mundaâ.
Hilarion de Coste, Les Eloges et les vies des reynes, princesses, dames et damoiselles illvstres [â¦] (Paris: Sebastien Cramoisy, 1630), p. 437.
Veillon, âMédaillesâ, p. 17.
De Coste, Les Eloges, p. 437: âvobis annuncio pacemâ.
Florent Chrestien, In Aristophanis Irenam vel Pacem Commentaria Glossemata: Vbi aliquot veterum Grammaticorum aliorúmque auctorum loci aut correcti aut animaduersi. Cum Latina Græci Dramatis Interpretatione Latinorum Comicorum stylum imitata, & eodem genere versuum cum Græcis conscripta (Paris: Fédéric Morel, 1589), title verso page: âÎá¼°Ïήνην δεῠΧÏιÏÏιανοá¿Ï μεμενá¿Ïθαι á¼ÏαÏιν, / εἰμι Î³á½°Ï Îá¼°Ïήνη κâ αá½Ïá½¸Ï á½ Î§ÏιÏÏá½¸Ï á¼Ïηâ.
Ingrid A. R. De Smet, âLivres, érudition et irénisme à lâépoque des Guerres de religion. Autour de la Satyre ménippéeâ, in Between Scylla and Charybdis: Learned Letter Writers Navigating the Reefs of Religious and Political Controversy in Early Modern Europe, ed. by Jeanine De Landtsheer and Henk Nellen, Brillâs Studies in Intellectual History (Leiden: Brill, 2010), pp. 185â201 (pp. 195â96).
See p. 82 of this chapter.
Erasmus, Institvtio principis Christiani, p. 218 (id., Education of a Christian Prince, trans. by Cheshire and Heath, p. 108).
Anonymous, âDiscoursâ, pp. 354â55; Geizkofler, Historia, p. 209; de Thou, Historiarum, III, bk. 52, p. 119. De Thou reported that the wedding ceremony was first followed by a âmealâ (âprandiumâ) at the Episcopal Palace next to Notre-Dame: ibid., 118â19. Geizkofler noted that the Parlement de Paris had temporarily moved to the Augustinian Convent on the Kingâs orders: Historia, p. 209.
Anonymous, âDiscoursâ, pp. 354â55; de Thou, Historiarum, III, bk. 52, p. 119. The Chambre des Comptes was primarily concerned with matters of public finance; the Cour des Aides dealt with ordinary and extraordinary finances. For more on the grande salle of the Palais de la Cité, see Herveline Delhumeau, Le Palais de la Cité. Du Palais des rois de France au Palais du Justice (Paris: Cité de lâArchitecture et du Patrimoine, 2011), pp. 57â61.
Geizkofler, Historia, p. 209.
Ibid.: â[Navarre] ist bey dem Tisch neben dem König gestanden, alβ wann Er Jme ehrn halber auβ diemuet aufwarteteâ.
On the humanist and moderate religious views of Geizkofler, see Wolf, Lucas Geizkofler, pp. 1â8; Linsbauer, âLukas Geizoflerâ, pp. 80â84; Schaffenrath, âDer Humanistâ.
Geizkofler, Historia, p. 209.
Wolf, Lucas Geizkofler, pp. 191â98. The manuscript of Historia survives in the handwriting of Zacharias. See Schaffenrath, âDer Humanistâ, p. 162.
Gabriele Jancke, âAutobiographische TexteâHandlungen in einem Beziehungsnetz. Ãberlegungen zu Gattungsfragen und Machtaspekten im deutschen Sprachraum von 1400 bis 1620â, in Ego-Dokumente. Annäherung an den Menschen in der Geschichte, Selbst Zeugnisse der Neuzeit, 2, ed. by Winfried Schulze (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1996), pp. 73â106 (p. 75): âeigenständigen kommunikativen Handelns [Handlungen]â. Adam Wolf offers a contrary view: Lucas Geizkofler, p. 143. He argues that Historia was not intended to be made public and should thus be seen as a âhouse or memorial bookâ (âHaus- und Gedenkbuchâ), meant to preserve Geizkoflerâs familial history.
In contrast to de Thou and Goulartâs eyewitness, Geizkofler claimed that the royal dinner was held only after the triumphal procession had taken place: Historia, p. 209.
Ibid.: ânach altem Römischen gebrauchâ.
Ibid.; anonymous, âDiscoursâ, p. 355; de Thou, Historiarum, III, bk. 52, p. 119.
Geizkofler, Historia, p. 209. Geizkofler did not mention the names of the courtiers on this particular float.
Harry Levin, The Myth of the Golden Age in the Renaissance (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), especially pp. 112â38; McGowan, Ideal Forms, p. 66; Bietenholz, Historia and Fabula, p. 207; Elinor Myara Kelif, LâImaginaire de lââge dâor à la Renaissance, Ãtudes Renaissantes ([Turnhout]: Brepols, 2017), especially pp. 285â307, 436â43.
Anonymous, Câest la dedvction du sumptueux ordre plaisantz spectacles et magnifiqves theatres dresses, et exhibés par les citoiens de Rouen ville Metropolitaine du pays de Normandie, A la sacrée Maiesté du Treschristian Roy de France, Henry second leur souuerain Seigneur, Et à Tresillustre dame, ma Dame Katharine de Medicis, La Royne son espouze, lors de leur triumphant joyeulx & nouuel aduenement en icelle ville, Qui fut es iours de Mercredy & ieu dy premier & second iours dâOctobre, Mil cinq cens cinquante, Et pour plus expresse intelligence de ce tant excellent triumphe, Les figures & pourtraictz des principaulx aorne mentz dâiceluy y sont apposez chascun en son lieu comme lâon pourra veoir par le discours de lâhistoire ([Rouen:] Robert le Hoy, 1551), pp. 69â70, 72; Dorat, Magnificentissimi spectaculi, âScenæ descriptioâ, not paginated.
David Bryson, Queen Jeanne and the Promised Land: Dynasty, Homeland, Religion and Violence in Sixteenth-Century France, Studies in Intellectual History, 97 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 121â71.
Ibid., pp. 260â61.
Anonymous, âDiscoursâ, p. 355: âle meslange de ceux de la Religion auec les Catholiquesâ. See also McGowan, âFestivitiesâ, p. 32.
Anonymous, âDiscoursâ, p. 355: ârendoyent une grande melodieâ.
Yates, The French Academies, p. 49; Boucher, âLe Royâ. According to Henry Prunières and Frances A. Yates, the Academy first contributed songs and verses to Le Paradis dâamour. See Prunières, Le Ballet de Cour, p. 70; Yates, The French Academies, p. 254.
Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ, p. 644.
Anonymous, âDiscoursâ, p. 355: âauec son trident en main [â¦] guidant les autres dieux ses suietsâ; Geizkofler, Historia, p. 209. Denis Crouzet does not seem to perceive the various attributions as a difference of interpretation but takes Geizkoflerâs âSaturnâ as yet another disguise for Charles IX: La Nuit de la Saint-Barthélemy, pp. 358â61, especially p. 360.
See van Orden, Music, Discipline, and Arms, p. 109, and McGowan, âFestivitiesâ, pp. 229â30, for more on Charlesâs role at the festival, especially with respect to Le Paradis dâamour.
Geizkofler, Historia, p. 209: âman [hat] zwey od[er] dreymal [â¦] getanzt, welchem tanz auch die Hugenothen zuegesehen, aber nit getanztâ.
Ibid.: âgar zichtig vnd beschaidenlichâ. Our eyewitnesses reported that the following day, around 3 p.m., Anjou hosted a meal at the Hôtel dâAnjou, a residence near the Louvre: anonymous, âDiscoursâ, p. 261; Geizkofler, Historia, pp. 210â11; de Thou, Historiarvm, III, bk. 52, p. 119. De Thou wrote that âfrom [t]here, once [more] dances had been performed, people gathered in the early evening at the Louvreâ (âunde choreis agitatis sub vesperam Luparam concediturâ): ibid.
Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ, p. 644.
Anonymous, âDiscoursâ, p. 261â62; Geizkofler, Historia, p. 211; de Thou, Historiarvm, III, bk. 52, p. 119. According to Margaret M. McGowan, Le Paradis dâamour was the first occasion on which the grande salle of the Hôtel du Petit-Bourbon was used: Dance in the Renaissance, p. 88. Other ballets that were performed in the room include Le Ballet comique de la Reine (1581) and Le Ballet du Triomphe de Minerve (1615), which will be discussed in Chapter 5, pp. 248â52. For more on the grande salle, see Barker and Gurney, âHouse Left, House Rightâ, pp. 143â44, n. 28.
For more on the Cardinalâs diplomatic agenda for the match, see Saulnier, Le Rôle politique, pp. 62, 69. Ewa Kociszewska discusses the aristic patronage of cardinal de Bourbon and his involvement in the organisation of Le Paradis dâamour in a forthcoming book chapter. See Kociszewska, âParadis dâamourâ.
Van Orden, Music, Discipline, and Arms, p. 108.
Günter Berghaus, âTheatre Performances at Italian Renaissance Festivals: Multi-Media Spectacles or Gesamtkunstwerke?â, in Italian Renaissance Festivals and Their European Influence, ed. by J. R. Mulryne and Margaret Shewring (Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), pp. 3â55 (pp. 11â16); id., âNeoplatonic and Pythagorean Notionsâ; Graham Pont, âPlatoâs Philosophy of Danceâ, in Dance, Spectacle, and the Body Politick, 1250â1750, ed. by Jennifer Nevile (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2008), pp. 267â81 (p. 269).
Prest, âPerforming Violenceâ, p. 40.
De Thou, Historiarum, III, bk. 52, p. 119: âsulphure et igne plenisâ. The phrase âbrimstone and fireâ is a biblical expression that de Thou invoked here to illustrate the volcanic odour that issued from Hell and its devilish creatures in particular.
Only Goulartâs eyewitness mentioned the presence of Charon, but did not refer to the characterâs actions in the combat-ballet again: âDiscoursâ, p. 362.
De Thou, Historiarum, III, bk. 52, p. 119: âfere Protestantesâ. Julia Prest rightly argues that â[e]ven if there were a small number of Catholics among the âchevalier[s] erransâ, the division is still highly suggestive of Protestant versus Catholicâ: âPerforming Violenceâ, p. 52, n. 21.
Ibid., pp. 49â50.
Anonymous, âDiscoursâ, p. 362: âou ils estoyent trainez par ces diablesâ.
Ibid., p. 362.
Prunières identifies âCartel contre lâamourâ (âCartel against loveâ), âAutre cartel pour lâamourâ (âAnother cartel for loveâ), âPour le Roy habillé en Hercule, et Pluton traîné devant luyâ (âFor the King dressed as Hercules, and Pluto surrendered in front of himâ), âDialogue pour une mascarade: Amour et Mercureâ (Dialogue for a masquerade: Love and Mercury) and âMonologue de Mercure aux Damesâ (Monologue of Mercury to the Ladiesâ) as the poems by Ronsard which may have been performed in Le Paradis dâamour, but also admits the difficulty of ascertaining this: âRonsard et les fêtes de courâ, p. 41, n. 1. The aforementioned poems of Ronsard are printed in Åuvres complètes, ed. by Jean Céard, Daniel Ménager, and Michel Simonin, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, 46, 2 vols ([Paris]: Gallimard, 1993), II, pp. 254â56, 256â59, 260, 262â63, 263. Margaret M. McGowan and Julia Prest have briefly commented on the significance of Ronsardâs poems for advancing the plot of Le Paradis dâamour: McGowan, âFestivitiesâ, pp. 33, 39â40; ead., Dance in the Renaissance, p. 89; Prest, âPerforming Violenceâ, p. 42.
Prest, âPerforming Violenceâ, p. 42.
Ronsard, Åuvres complètes, pp. 256â59.
The phrase âa wild Scythianâ (âun Scythe sauvageâ) is a racist nod to Central Asian peoples. Early modern Europeans often called inhabitants of Central Asia âScythiansâ. The word technically referred to the tribe of nomadic warriors who lived in the Eurasian region of Scythia, now southern Siberia, from approximately 900 to 200 BC. See Margaret Meserve, âFrom Samarkand to Scythia: Reinventions of Asia in Renaissance Geography and Political Thoughtâ, in Pius II âEl più expeditivo pontificeâ: Selected Studies on Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini (1405â1464), Brillâs Studies in Intellectual History, 117, ed. by Zweder von Martels and Arjo Vanderjagt (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003), pp. 13â39 (especially p. 16).
Ronsard, Åuvres complètes, pp. 256â57 (lines 1â4, 11â14): âLâhomme qui nâaime est un Scythe sauvage, / Vivant sans cÅur, sans ame et sans courage: / On ne sçauroit se passer de lâAmour / Non plus quâon fait du Soleil et du jour [â¦] Or cest Amour qui gouverne les cieux, / Comme esloigné de lâhomme et de ses yeux, / Visiblement ne se donne à cognoistre / Au sens humain: car il est trop grand maistreâ.
Ibid., pp. 262â63; quotation on p. 262 (line 8): âla troupe des humainsâ.
Ronsard referred here to the Catholic knightâs aim to rescue the nymphs from the Elysian Fields.
Ronsard, Åuvres complètes, pp. 262â63 (lines 13â24): âMercure: Quelle contrée a produit ce bon-heur? / Qui mettra fin à si haute entreprise? / Qui est celuy que le ciel favorise / Sur tous les trois, de proüesse et dâhonneur? / Amour: Je te diray le pays et le nom / De ce guerrier qui a tant de puissance: / Charle[s] est son nom, son pays est la France, / Dont les vertus surpassent le renom. / Mercure: Câest assez dit: tu me donnes la loy, / Je vais partir, il faut que jâobeysse, / Il faut, Amour, quâon te face service, / Les plus grands Dieux obeyssent à toyâ.
Prest, âPerforming Violenceâ, p. 48â49. Prest suggests that âloveâ functioned here as âa thin veil for the wish that they [Charlesâs subjects] would in reality worship the same, Catholic Godâ: âPeforming Violenceâ, p. 42. I have argued in the above that besides signifying the affection of the French King for his Catholic subjects and, by implication, the marital love between Marguerite and Navarre, the combat-ballet envisaged âloveâ (embodied by Cupid) to be the world-soul that was understood to propel both heaven and earth.
Anonymous, âDiscoursâ, p. 363. Frances A. Yates refers to the financial records of the French crown for August 1572 which specify that Beaujoyeulx was paid five hundred livres tournois on the 31st of that month. She argues that this may have indicated that the dance master was indeed employed for choreographing Le Paradis dâamour. See Yates, The Valois Tapestries, p. 63. I consulted the microfilm of the royal financial records for August 1572: BnF, Clairambaut, 233, fols. 3509vâ3510r. For more on Beaujoyeulxâs possible contribution to the combat-ballet, see Prunières, Le Ballet de cour en France, p. 71.
De Thou, Historiarum, III, bk. 52, p. 119: âvarios gyros novo artificio reflexaeâ; anonymous, âDiscoursâ, p. 363.
Strong, Art and Power, pp. 112â13; Van Orden, Music, Discipline, and Arms, p. 108.
On the argument that Le Balet comique de la Reine is the first full-grown ballet de cour, see McGowan, LâArt du ballet de cour, p. 23; Yates, The French Academies, pp. 236â37; Franko, Dance as Text, p. 33. Yates speculates that Le Paradis dâamour may have been qualified as the first ballet de cour if a livret or recueil for the event had survived: The French Academies, p. 267.
Jouanna, La Saint-Barthélemy, p. 98: âmodeler la réalité par le pouvoir incantatoireâ. Following Jouanna, Julia Prest concludes that Le Paradis dâamour was meant to be âtherapeuticâ and âcatharticâ in the Aristotelean sense of the word, to the extent that the combat-ballet sought to purge unresolved tensions between Catholics and Huguenots: âPerforming Violenceâ, p. 49. I argue here that the pageant, and especially the dancing of the royal brothers and the nymphs, was in the first place intended as a ritualistic celebration of the (exclusively Catholic) respublica Christiana of old, and thus did not afford an equal process of trauma rehabilitation, as is implied in Prestâs interpretation of the event as âtherapeuticâ for both religious groups.
De Thou, Historiarum, III, bk. 52, p. 119; anonymous, âDiscoursâ, p. 363.
Ibid.
Strong, Art and Power, p. 113; Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis, p. 284.
McGowan, Dance in the Renaissance, p. 158. Julia Prest suggests that the indiscriminate fighting âmay also have hinted at an uneasy messageâ, insofar as it emphasised Charlesâs military valour at the expense of the peaceful overtones of the ball and Mercury and Cupidâs deliverance of Ronsardâs love poetry: âPerforming Violenceâ, p. 53, n. 30.
Sharp, âFor Diplomacyâ; Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ (quotation on p. 644); id., âDiplomats and Humanitariansâ.
Yates, The Valois Tapestries, pp. 61â63; ead., The French Academies, p. 255; Strong, Art and Power, p. 112â13; Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis, p. 284; Crouzet, La Nuit de la Saint-Barthélemy, pp. 358â61; McGowan, Dance in the Renaissance, pp. 87â90; ead., âFêtesâ, pp. 229â30; ead., âFestivitiesâ; van Orden, Music, Discipline, and Arms, pp. 107â10; Capodieci, Medicæa Medæa, pp. 579â81. Prest, âPerforming Violenceâ, and Kociszewska, âParadis dâamourâ, make explicit mention of the balletâs conversion message (for a discussion of Prestâs interpretation, see below).
Yates, The Valois Tapestries, p. 255; Strong, Art and Power, p. 112â13; McGowan, âFêtesâ, p. 230â31; Prest, âPerforming Violenceâ, pp. 46â47. Cf. van Orden, Music, Discipline, and Arms, p. 108; McGowan, âFestivitiesâ, p. 37; Capodieci, Medicæa Medæa, pp. 579â80.
McGowan, âFêtesâ, p. 231.
Nevile, The Eloquent Body, p. 44.
Ibid.
Yates, The French Academies, p, 255; Strong, Art and Power, p. 113. See also Yates, The Valois Tapestries, pp. 61â63; Cloulas, Catherine de Médicis, p. 284; McGowan, Dance in the Renaissance, pp. 87â90; ead., âFêtesâ, pp. 229â30; ead., âFestivitiesâ; van Orden, Music, Discipline, and Arms, pp. 107â10; Capodieci, Medicæa Medæa, pp. 579â81.
Yates, The Valois Tapestries, p. 54; cf. ibid., p. 62. See also ead., The French Academies, pp. 251â54.
Strong, Art and Power, p. 113. McGowan makes a similar point: âFestivitiesâ, p. 37.
De Thou, Historiarum, III, bk. 52, p. 120.
Prest, âPerforming Violenceâ, pp. 43â4 (quotation on p. 43).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Gough, Dancing Queen, p. 105.
Ibid.
Gilles Veinstein, âLes Capitulations Franco-Ottomanes de 1536 sont-elles encore controversables?â, in Living in the Ottoman Ecumenical Community: Essays in Honour of Suraiya Faroqhi, ed. by Vera Constantini and Markus Koller, The Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage, 39 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008), pp. 71â88 <https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004165755.i-496.25>; Abdul Ghaffar Mughal and Larbi Sadiki, âShariâah Law and Capitulations Governing the Non-Muslim Foreign Merchants in the Ottoman Empireâ, Sociology of Islam, 5 (2017), 138â60 (pp. 139â40, 153â54) <https://doi.org/10.1163/22131418-00503006>; Radu Dipratu, Regulating Non-Muslim Communities in the Seventeenth-Century Ottoman Empire (London: Routledge, 2021), pp. 27â67 <https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429340185>; Gough, Dancing Queen, p. 105.
It is telling, in this regard, that European Catholics and Protestants often associated each other with Ottoman Muslims: Ania Loomba, ââDelicious Traffickâ: Alterity and Exchange on Early Modern Stagesâ, Shakespeare Survey, 52 (1999), 201â14 (see especially p. 206, n. 24) <https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521660742.016>.
McGowan, âFestivitiesâ, p. 37.
Prest, âPerforming Violenceâ, pp. 42, 48â50.
Ibid., pp. 48â49.
Ibid., p. 49.
Joseph Bergin, The Politics of Religion in Early Modern France (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015), p. 33.
On the notion of religion royale, see ibid., p. 6
Sharp, âFor Diplomacyâ; Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ; id., âDiplomats and Humanitariansâ.
Although de Thouâs account of Le Paradis dâAmour is very detailed, it does not necessarily imply that he was present. However, De Thou was probably allowed inside Notre-Dame after the wedding ceremony and Mass on 18 August: Historiarvm, III, bk. 52, pp. 118â19.
Ibid., p. 119: âYet others suspected that it portended something ominousâ (âidque sinistri aliquid etiam alii portendere ominabanturâ).
Ibid.: âsive mali praesagus, sive [â¦] a maris jactatione nauseabundusâ.
See note 00 above.
De Thou, Historiarvm, III, bk. 52, p. 119: âspectaculum illud multi aliter atq[ue] aliter interpretati suntâ.
Geizkofler, Historia, p. 211.
This strategy will also be discussed in the context of Henri IVâs attempts to reconcile his Catholic and Protestant allies in the period between 1598 and 1600 (see Chapter 4 below).
Sharp, âFor Diplomacyâ; Sending, âUnited by Differenceâ; id., âDiplomats and Humanitariansâ.