1 Introduction
This chapter starts with the observation that the Franco-Spanish double marriage of 1612 and 1615, between the House of Habsburg and Bourbon, and the Anglo-German marriage of 1613, between the House of Stuart and Palatine, were intended as dynastic unions aimed at restoring the balance of power in Europe after the regicide of Henri IV in May 1610. Although Anglo-French relations at the time of the nuptial marriages have been studied before, a systematic comparison between the nuptial festivals has never been carried out.1 My emphasis is on the diplomatic position of the regency government of Marie de Médicis as it manoeuvred between Catholic and Huguenot factions on a domestic level, and between Catholic and Protestant rulers on an international level. As always, Franceâs diplomacy abroad strongly depended on its diplomacy at home, and vice versa.
I will argue that through the collaboration of divergent negotiating groups, and the mediation of festival accounts that gave an ideologically coloured interpretation of the proceedings, the wedding celebrations attempted, and were sometimes intentionally exploited, to accommodate the diplomatic agendas of a variety of stakeholders from Catholic and Protestant communities across Europe. Marie de Médicis used the French festivities for the Habsburg-Bourbon union to suggest to both domestic and international audiences that the Bourbon crown had finally succeeded in winning the support of its nobles. Her diplomatic strategy of bringing both loyal and mutinous nobles together in exercises of horsemanship and military discipline, as in the Parisian carousel of April 1612, or in social dancing between couples, as in the ball following Le Ballet du Triomphe de Minerve of March 1615, was strongly reminiscent of the efforts of her predecessor and kinswoman, Catherine de Médicis, to appease rivalling factions through theatrical entertainment.
2 Diplomatic Context
In the afternoon of 14 May 1610, Henri IV ordered a coach to take him to the Arsenal, where he had planned to confer with Maximilien de Béthune, duc de Sully (1560â1641), his chief finance minister.2 As he rumbled out of the Louvre into the crowded streets of Paris, the King reportedly drew back the leather curtains of his carriage to inspect the preparations for the impending ceremonial entry of his Queen Consort, Marie de Médicis.3 The brothers Francine, former hydraulic engineers and garden designers to Grand Duke Ferdinando I deâ Medici, had been assigned to decorate the streets with triumphal arches and other temporary monuments to celebrate Marieâs coronation as Queen of
Marie suddenly found herself regent to a minor King, her then-eight year-old son Louis XIII, and faced with the difficult task of winning the support of her subjects for helping France to recover from the civil unrest that the regicide had brought in its wake.6 Being a woman and a foreigner, Marie was generally perceived by her opponents as a weak and incompetent ruler.7 The so-called Malcontents, a loosely associated group of high-born nobles who had been successfully controlled by Henri IV, now hoped to exploit the Queen Motherâs fragile position and expand their influence at court.8 They were headed by the
In the months following the regicide, the Queen Mother was anxious to avert the outbreak of a new civil war by trying to keep both the rebel Princes and the Huguenots satisfied. Just like her predecessor and kinswoman Catherine
Although this edict is perpetual and irrevocable, and thereby need not be confirmed by a new declaration, so that our subjects may be assured of our benevolence, let us say and ordain that the said edict of Nantes, in all its items and articles, shall be maintained and inviolably protected.13
The reaffirmation of a supposedly irrevocable edict was in itself not new. After all, previous treaties of concord, such as the Edict of Longjumeau (23 March 1568) and the Edict of Union (16 July 1588), were also explicitely labelled âperpetual and irrevocableâ.14 The latter phrase nonetheless demands further explanation here, for why reissue an accord that was already intended to be universally valid? As Mario Turchetti has shown, the phrase was included in the original Edict of Nantes, as well as in subsequent renewals, to convince the Huguenot community that, despite fierce opposition from the French parlements, it would always be the crownâs genuine intention to observe the articles
Besides seeking to improve Franceâs domestic situation, the Queen Regent worked to safeguard the kingdomâs position in Europe and prevent its fragile political climate from disrupting the international balance of power. On 20 June, Marie confirmed two treaties in her sonâs name that Henri IV had signed with the Dutch Republic to facilitate the truce between the Calvinist rebels and the Habsburg rulers of Spain and the Southern Netherlands.17 The ceasefire had been ratified in Antwerp on 9 April 1609 and would become known as the Twelve Yearsâ Truce, given that it was set to expire on 9 April 1621.18 In
The first of the two accords that Marie renewed in support of the Dutch-Spanish truce had been signed on 23 January 1608. The original treaty, a so-called ligue générale (general league), was intended to commit both France and the Dutch Republic to intensive negotiations over a cessation of the latterâs conflict with Spain.22 In its renewed form, the accord required the Republic to continue to observe the ceasefire.23 It also stipulated mutual aid in the event of war: France agreed to assist the States-General with 10,000 soldiers, while the latter promised to send 5,000 auxiliary troops, either by land or sea.24 The second renewed treaty, a so-called ligue garantie (league of guarantee), had been signed on 17 June 1609 with the participation of England.25 The accord forbade the Dutch Republic to negotiate or conclude any alliance with the Habsburg
In addition to confirming existing alliances, Marie signed a new defensive and commerce treaty with England.28 It had already been prepared by Henri IV to counter the Habsburg powers that continued to encircle France, but the Kingâs premature death had left the task incomplete.29 The preface to the treaty, which was ratified in London on 29 August 1610, reads as follows:
[A]nd these said Kings [of France and England] have judged that nothing can be more salutary and beneficial, not only to their kingdoms, but also to the Christian Republic, than to reinstate and bring to a successful conclusion this Treaty of Alliance, and confirmation of mutual friendship, interrupted by this unfortunate death [of Henri IV].30
The accord committed France and England to mutual defence in times of war. The military support that both kingdoms agreed to offer consisted of 6,000 heavily armed soldiers on land and eight sizeable vessels at sea, each fully equipped for maritime warfare and capable of accommodating a total number of 1,200 men.31 The treaty furthermore protected the rights of merchants
Marie undoubtedly felt compelled to convince James of Franceâs good intentions, and to ensure friendly relations with the Huguenot community in England as well as elsewhere in Europe. Just like his predecessor, Queen Elizabeth of England, James was committed to protecting the interests of the Huguenot minority in France, many of whom occupied important positions at the Stuart court and considered it his duty to help resolve religious disunity among the Protestant states in Europe.35 Owing to an elaborate network of Huguenot diplomats, scholars, and political leaders, Jamesâs irenical ideas on Protestant unity were widely supported by co-religionists across the continent.36 After Henri IVâs death, the need to satisfy James became even more pressing, as the regicide had given rise to the rumour that it was part of an international Catholic conspiracy. Marieâs pro-Spanish inclinations, having favoured marriage
As seen in Chapter 2 and 4, matrimony was generally regarded by contemporaries as the capstone of any major diplomatic agreement. Rulers were therefore anxious to negotiate the most advantageous match for their children, often by offering tempting marriage proposals to multiple heads of state. During the two years following the regicide, Marie also used matrimony as a diplomatic bait. In July 1610, she began to explore the possibility of a Franco-Spanish marriage alliance, consisting of a double suit between Louis XIII and the Infanta Ana, and between Madame Ãlisabeth and Prince Felipe.38 Just like César de Bourbon and Françoise de Lorraine twelve years earlier, the future spouses were but young children whose marriages were exclusively intended to serve the diplomatic aims of the French and Spanish crown respectively.39 At the same time that Marie talked to Spain, she dangled before James the prospect of a match between her second daughter, Christine Marie (1606â1663), and the English heir apparent, Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales.40
The Queen Regent, however, eventually decided to press ahead with the Franco-Spanish double marriage. Similar to the defensive treaty with England, designs for a matrimonial union with Spain had already been proposed by Henri IV as a means to substantiate the Peace of Vervins.41 Marie wished to extend this line of policy to further stabilise Franceâs relationship with the Habsburg crown and put a definitive end to the mutual hostility that, as noted in Chapter 4, continued to pose a threat to the overall peace in Europe.42 Without the knowledge of James VI and I, the French Secretary of State, Nicolas de Neufville, seigneur de Villeroy, and the Spanish ambassador to France, Don
The Anglo-French match had already been brokered by the Oberpfalz (Governor) of the Upper Palatinate, Prince Christian von Anhalt-Bernburg (1568â1630), in the period between 1603 and 1606. Anhalt was the chairman of the military council of the Protestant Union, a coalition of radical German Protestant states that was founded in 1608 to repudiate Habsburg control in the Empire.46 As a key figure in uniting the forces of Protestantism, Anhalt was committed to bringing England into closer relations with members of the Union and particularly with Frederick V of the Palatinate, whom the Prince served as chief advisor.47 James, however, had always been reluctant to associate the Stuart crown with the Protestant militancy of the Union.48 He liked to think of himself as a Rex pacificus in the tradition of late Renaissance humanism. Rather than taking up arms, James preferred the use of words and diplomatic interaction, styling himself as a mediator of religious conflict and a promotor of international concord.49 Part of this self-fashioned political image
The Franco-Spanish marriage treaty of April 1611, however, was the game changer that forced James to reconsider his design for peace. To prevent England from isolating itself in Europe and playing second fiddle to Catholic influence, he agreed to the Palatine suit on 20 May 1612. The match came with a defensive agreement between England and the Protestant Union, which had been signed nearly two months earlier, on 28 March. Known as the Treaty of Wesel, it committed both sides to mutual aid in the Jülich succession crisis for the duration of six yearsââeither by Sea or by Landâ.50
In sum, the assassination of Henri IV in May 1610 had put into effect a series of international, as well as domestic, agreements that, far from being diplomatic breakthroughs, built upon existing accords and negotiations that dated back to the early seventeenth century. The formal conclusion of the marital alliances, however, had unintentionally stoked a stark confessional divide in Europe, with France and England as the new frontier states of international Catholicism and Protestantism. Modern historians often label the marriages as âCatholicâ and âProtestantâ respectively, but fail to mention that Marie and James never intended them to be outright statements of religious policy.51
The Malcontents, who were in favour of a limited monarchy, likewise framed the marital alliance with Spain as a âCatholicâ league. They were worried that Marieâs apparent commitment to the pan-Catholic cause would reduce their influence at court and give way to Spanish intervention in Franceâs domestic affairs. They were supported in this by the anti-Habsburg politiques who believed that the union would create unnecessary religious and political tension, abroad as well as at home. The kingdomâs Huguenot minority feared that the double marriage signalled the end of the crownâs relatively tolerant politics towards Protestants. Despite Marieâs declaration of May 1610 confirming the Edict of Nantes, they were not convinced of the peaceful intentions of the regency government. Their concerns were shared by Huguenot communities across Europe, especially by ultra-Calvinist parties in England. The court of Jamesâs son, Prince Henry Frederick, had become the focus of radical Protestant hopes in Europe. The Prince enthusiastically backed the marriage of his sister to Count Frederick of the Palatinate. Henry Frederick, and the Protestant European network that supported him, considered the union a watershed moment in the development of a Protestant bloc on the continent that would be powerful enough to compete with the supposedly Catholic imperium headed by France and Spain.
Meanwhile, the Franco-Spanish and Anglo-German marriages were celebrated with pomp across Europe. The engagement of Louis XIII and his sisters to the Spanish royal children was celebrated in Paris as early as April 1612
Artists, writers, and rulers of different religious and political backgrounds were keen to leave their mark on the festivals organised for the weddings, as they offered a platform to communicate their views and ambitions to the wider international community. Since each contributor was keen to serve their own diplomatic agenda or that of their ruler or patron, the entertainments often displayed slightlyâand sometimes distinctlyâdifferent diplomatic views on the marital alliances. This disparity, as will be shown, can be gauged especially from an examination of the English- and French-language accounts that were produced for the wedding celebrations. They were targeted at different diplomatic stakeholders in Europe: the general public in England and Scotland and the French-speaking Protestant community respectively.
3 Winning Support for the Franco-Spanish Double Marriage in Paris, 1612
As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the double engagement of Louis and Ãlisabeth to King Philip IIIâs children was celebrated with an equestrian carousel at the Place Royale in Paris, now the Place des Vosges, between 5 and 7 April 1612. The carousel is widely regarded by scholars today as one of the most sumptuous and artistically successful entertainments in the history of early modern French festival culture, not least because the event continued to be commemorated in print, as well as imitated and emulated in theatrical performance, throughout the seventeenth century, both within and outside France.59 Similar to the mixed reception of Le Paradis dâamour in August 1572, however, we may surmise that audiences of the carousel in April 1612, which included the international court elite and the Parisian populace, were divided over the diplomatic aims that underpinned the spectacle. Not only was the pageant intended to drum up support for largely unpopular marriages, it also clearly
We know that the carousel resulted from a collaboration between Marie and her most loyal supporters thanks to François de Bassompierreâs account of the preparations for the pageant.60 In it, the maréchal specified the tasks that Marie assigned to him and the other noblemen who helped organise the carousel: â[The Queen Mother] commanded M. de Guise [Charles de Lorraine], M. de Nevers [Charles III de Gonzague], and myself to be tenants [defendants], and gave us the camp [tournament ground], believing that, since she was committing this affair into our hands, we would spare no effort to make it [the equestrian spectacle] perfectly, as indeed it wasâ.61 The other defendants, not mentioned by Bassompierre but listed in the first official account of the carousel, were Claude, prince de Joinville and duc de Chevreuse, and André de Vivonne.62 According to Bassompierre, â[the Queen Mother] instructed M.
Although resented by Marieâs opponents, the non-elite citizens in the audience of the carousel may well have appreciated the participation of at least one of the pageantâs organisers. Charles de Lorraine enjoyed considerable popularity among the populace of Paris who had enthusiastically backed the armed opposition of his notorious father Henri, first duc de Guise, against the monarchy and the Huguenots in the 1580s. Marie probably realised that the public appeal of Henriâs son could be exploited for diplomatic purposes. Her diplomatic programme for France, aimed at creating peace and stability, required more than the backing of the traditional court society alone. Support from the urban population was just as crucial for preserving the authority of the Bourbon monarchy and keeping the peace. After all, there was a significant risk that Henri IVâs assassinationâcommitted by a civilian not directly associated with the courtâwould lead to the same kind of civil uproar and anarchy seen in 1588 and 1599 after the elimination of Henri de Guise.64 Rather than following the lead of his father, who, as seen in Chapter 2, strongly opposed the ideas of interfaith peace that underpinned the Valois-Navarre wedding and the ensuing nuptial festival in Paris, Charles had become the face of a mollifying diplomacy aimed at uniting the Bourbon crown with all of its nobles and common subjects, regardless of their religion. Marie, in turn, used the central presence of Charles de Lorraine at the carousel to suggest to the whole of France and Europe that, despite the rebellious past of Charlesâs family, the kingdomâs recent troubles could be put aside.
The Place Royale constituted a large public square covering more than a hectare in size. Its construction had begun in 1605 under Henri IV as part of his extensive building programme. Inaugurated with the equestrian carousel in April 1612, it was intended to replace the nearby rue Saint-Antoine as a place for
The Pavillon Royal for the French royal family, as seen from above. Detail from âLe carrousel donné à la place Royaleâ (Jan Ziarnko, 1612). Engraving. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, Département Estampes et Photographie, Reserve Fol-QB-201 (19).
Interestingly, a single tribune had been erected for Marguerite de Valois, the first spouse of Henri IV, who had been married to the King until 1599 (see Figure 8).68 Although no longer a member of the royal family, Marguerite still carried the title of Queen and remained on good terms with Marie, as well as with the late Henri during his lifetime, until her death in 1615. She presided over her own court at the Hôtel des Augustins on the west bank of the river Seine in Paris which had become an important centre for education and the arts.69 By putting Marguerite in the spotlight, Marie could demonstrate to the spectators at the Place Royale that the regency government continued to maintain
The ambitious three-day carousel was clearly designed to flatter Marie and the future King Louis. In this way, the noblemen who contributed to the spectacle undoubtedly hoped to further their own influence at court. The conceit of the pageant was to bring together respected noblemen in exercises of horsemanship and military discipline and was thus in line with Marieâs wider diplomatic aim of diffusing political tension among the French aristocracy. The strategy was reminiscent of Catherine de Médicisâs efforts to appease rival noblemen through entertainment, but also tied in with more recent equestrian traditions. Rather than a hard-fought contest, the seventeenth-century mock battle was a social game that required each participant to display noble conduct and self-control. Its main purpose was to encourage a form of aristocratic behaviour that would inspire obedience towards the crown and replace violence from the battlefield
The palace, which symbolised the marital happiness of the bridal couples, was a temporary building facing the royal pavilion on the north side of the Place Royale. According to the fiction of the performance, the palace had been erected by Henri IV, thus suggesting that the deceased King would have approved of the double marriage and that his legacy would live on through the marital alliance.72 Honoré Laugier de Porchères (1572â1653), author of the first official account of the carousel, noted that the Place Royale was the ultimate embodiment of Henriâs legacy: âBut either he [Henri] wanted to live on within [the Place Royale]; or for [the Place Royale] to live eternally through himâ.73 Not surprisingly, the Chevaliers de la Gloire who defended the palaceâand thus the continuity of the French monarchyâwere all supporters of Marieâs regency or had been favourites of Henri IV. Among them were some of the noblemen who had organised the carousel in close collaboration with Marie, namely Charles de Lorraine and his brother Claude, Charles III de Gonzague, André de Vivonne, and François de Bassompierre.74
Rather than pitting supporters of Marieâs regency against those who opposed it, the carousel attempted to unite all noblemen through a celebration of the French crown and the marriages that were supposed to protect its interests abroad and at home. The long processions on the first two days of the spectacle moreover allowed the grands to showcase their own chivalric pride by carrying personal devices and bringing along an impressive entourage of squires, footmen, and automated machines featuring rocks or mountains.76 On 5 April, the Chevaliers du Lis, headed by César de Bourbon, took this form of self-promotion one step further by displaying their equestrian skills in an approximately fifteen-minute-long âBallet on horsebackâ.77 Styled as a mini-combat, during which the horses of the Knights performed various kinds of leaps, jumps, trots, and gallops, the ballet ended with the reconciliation
However, similar to the divided audiences for Le Paradis dâamour, the main thrust of the carousel of April 1612 did not seem to have been accepted by all spectators at the Place Royale. We know, for example, that Prince Henry Frederick, in a manuscript now held at the British Library in London, had instructed his secret agent in Paris, who signed letters to King Jamesâs son under the pseudonym of âForboystâ, to attend the carousel in Paris and send him a detailed report.80 The Prince looked almost exclusively to Catholic Europe for artistic inspiration. France had always been a focus of interest for him. Three of Henry Frederickâs closest friends, namely Robert Devereux, third Earl of Essex (1591â1646), John Harington, second Baron Harington of Exton (1592â1614), and William Cecil, Lord Cranborne, later second Earl of Salisbury (1591â1668), had visited the court of Henri IV in the aftermath of the French civil wars and reported to the Prince in detail on court entertainments and architectural innovations.81 During his own stay in Paris, from February 1610 until Henri IVâs assassination three months later, Henry Frederick closely followed the French courtâs everyday use of pageantry, as can be gauged from the Princeâs travel journals.82
Aware of Henry Frederickâs interest in French festivals, âForboystâ described the carousel in close detail and devoted particular attention to the equestrian
On 8 September 1610, Gómez Suárez de Figueroa, third Duke of Feria (1587â1634), made his solemn entry into Paris as extraordinary ambassador to Philip III of Spain. He was sent to officially propose the double marriage to Marie. Parisians had eagerly flocked together to catch a glimpse of the ambassador and his impressive entourage of two hundred courtiers and servants. According to Jean Beaulieu, secretary to Thomas Edmondes (d. 1639), the English ambassador to Paris, the populace, rather than paying due respect, burst into laughter upon seeing the Spanish delegation riding mules, repeatedly crying âon mulesâ.85 Modern Spanish historians have, perhaps unsurprisingly, brushed over the extent to which the incident may have challenged Feriaâs ambassadorial honour. Rather than provoking laughter, they have claimed that the great number of mules of the Spanish delegation was a calculated attempt âto arouse the suspicion of the ambassador of Englandâ, that is, Edmondes, and had, in fact, duly impressed both Parisians and the French royal family, more so than the entourage of any other embassy in the past.86
It is clear that the incident had considerably damaged the reputation of Feria and, in turn, Philip III, whom the former was instructed to represent, for
The âforeignnessâ of the Spanish guests was apparently not only perceived by ordinary citizens, but also by at least one member from the diplomatic community in Paris. During Feriaâs entry in 1610, the Florentine ambassador Andrea Cioli (1573â1641), the later Secretary of State to Cosimo II deâ Medici (1690â1621), Grand Duke of Tuscany, described how the Spanish wore enormous, heavily starched ruffs, appearing âlike dwarfs, almost like Negroes and very uglyâ.95 The reasons for Cioliâs hostile reaction are unclear. Perhaps his racist description of the embassyâs penurious appearance, similar to the one given by Beaulieu above, can be explained on the basis of Spainâs poor financial resources. A substantial part of these resources had after all been drained during the kingdomâs
4 Celebrating the AngloâGerman Wedding in London, 1613
Just as the carousel of April 1612 was not masterminded by Marie de Médicis, but the product of a collaboration between noblemen drawn from different factions at the early Bourbon court, so also were the celebrations for the Stuart-Palatine festival in London not exclusively organised by King Jamesâs court. In fact, the only entertainment that was directly commissioned by the King was Thomas Campionâs The Lordsâ Masque, performed in the Banqueting Hall at Whitehall Palace on the evening of the wedding day (o. s. 14 /n. s. 24 February 1613).97 The masque fashioned James as Jupiter, the king of the gods from ancient Roman mythology, capable of transforming chaosârepresented by âpoetic furyââinto order through marriage. It strongly recalled the cosmological setting of Catherine de Médicisâs ballets de cour which, as observed in Chapter 1 and 2, attempted to communicate similar messages of harmony and concord. In these ballets, cosmic forces were often invoked to come to the aid of the monarchy. The Lordsâ Masque seemed to have borrowed this idea when at the beginning of the pageant the masquer lords, disguised as stars, descended from heavens to celebrate the Anglo-German marriage in a choral dance. The concept might have been broached by the masqueâs set designer, Inigo Jones
Jamesâs monarchical statement on the marriage, defined by peace and harmony, was to be complemented by two other masques: one by Prince Henry Frederick, on o. s. 16/n. s. 26 February 1613, and the other by Princess Elizabeth, for which we do not have a scheduled performance date. On o. s. 6/n. s. 16 November 1612, however, Henry Frederick died suddenly from typhoid fever. The two complementary masques were thus cancelled in turn: Henry Frederickâs because of the controversial diplomacy that underpinned itâa point to which I will return belowâand Elizabethâs because she might not have felt sufficiently empowered to stage her own masque next to that of her father.99 Although there is no surviving trace of Elizabethâs masque, we have a detailed script of Henry Frederickâs masque, unearthed by David Norbrook in a French-language account of the Stuart-Palatine festival.100 The Princeâs entertainment, dubbed by Norbrook as The Masque of Truth, celebrated all the aspects that Henry Fredericksâs late court was known for: ultra-Calvinist, anti-Habsburg, and strongly militant.101
Interestingly, Henry Frederickâs masque seemed to have taken its cue from one of the most spectacular entries of the Parisian carousel, namely that Henri I de Montmorency as Perseus, the son of Zeus from ancient Greek mythology who famously beheaded the Gorgon Medusa. As noted previously, Henry Frederick had gained first-hand knowledge about the spectacle through the account of his secret agent âForboystâ. Montmorencyâs entry featured a long procession of people drawn from various parts of the world, including the Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania, the Indian subcontinent, China, Persia,
The traditional explanation given for the cancellation of The Masque of Truth is that soon after Henry Frederickâs death his court at St Jamesâs Palace in London was dissolved.104 It seems more likely, however, that James deemed the overt ideology of the pageant too militant for his liking and thus unfit for an audience chiefly made up of foreign ambassadors. After all, Henry Frederick had been involved in the organisation of the public entertainments for the festival, which also included a firework drama and a mock naval battle on the Thames, staged on o. s. 11/n. s. 21 and o. s. 13/n. s. 23 February respectively. None of these entertainments were cancelled despite their militant, though, compared to The Masque of Truth, admittedly less imperialist overtones. James was notorious for censoring entertainments if they ran the risk of giving offence to diplomats or other dignitaries. This was especially the case with the Spanish ambassadors in London, as anti-Spanish sentiments were prevalent in many English plays at the time and shared by a large part of the English society, similar to the situation in Paris. Playwrights were therefore often obliged to conceal political messages or soften the anti-Spanish tone of their works.105
David Norbrook has suggested that Jocquet, about whose life is very little known, may have been introduced to English court circles by David Home, a Scottish minister of a Protestant church in Metz who had acted as an intermediary between Huguenot exiles and the Stuart crown. Alternatively, Jocquet could have been admitted to the English court on the recommendation of the French poet Jean de Schelandre (1585â1635), a staunch supporter of Henry Frederickâs, who had married a woman from Metz in 1611.107 In either case, Jocquet seems to have been part of an Anglo-French network of Calvinist artists, intellectuals, and diplomatic agents who had looked up to the late Henry Frederick as their beacon of hope for a pan-Protestant alliance in the Europe of the early seventeenth century.
Jocquet divided his account of the nuptial proceedings into three parts. The first part was a verse description of the journey of Count Frederick to England,
Jocquet began his verse narration of the Anglo-German match by pointing out how the sudden death of Prince Henry Frederick in November 1612 had tragically disturbed the happiness that surrounded the arrival of the Elector Palatine in England:110
In other words, god took away the Kingâs son, but gave back a formidable son-in-law, the latter substituting the former. Now that Protestant Europe had a new leader at its helm, happiness returned to the English court and preparations for the impending festival could begin. In the words of Jocquet, âEveryone worked to render him [Count Frederick] service / With every artifice [pageant] that they could inventâ.115
Jocquet further undermined Jamesâs design for peaceâand, hence, his royal authorityâby offering strongly ideologically coloured interpretations of the public entertainments at the festival. This held particularly true for the
Whether or not Jocquetâs account of the simulated combat should be considered reliable, it is clear that the Huguenot writer sought to exaggerate the rivalry between Protestant and Habsburg powers. By having the Spanish navy destroyed by the purportedly infidel Turk, Jocquet ridiculed the aggressive ambitions of the Habsburg crown which, even during the Twelve Yearsâ Truce, still liked to pride itself on the famous defeat of the Turkish fleet at Lepanto in 1571.119 Habsburg humiliation is complete when we read that the English freed the Spanish prisoners from the Turks. Only after the English rescue operation did the Basha, the chief commander of the Ottoman army, surrender himself to King James and Count Frederick.120 The last few lines of Jocquetâs poem described the surrender of the Basha and his forced conversion to (Protestant)
The Spanish ambassador in London, Don Alonso de Velasco (d. 1632), seemed to have anticipated the anti-Habsburg undertones of the naval spectacle, for he used illness as an excuse to remain absent from the event altogether, similar to Philip II of Spainâs instruction to his diplomat in Paris, Diego de Zúñiga, to feign illness if invited to the Valois-Navarre festival. The French ambassador in London, Samuel Spifame (d. 1632), sieur de Buisseaux, reported somewhat triumphantly how Velasco âeven [had] to find his way into someoneâs house to watch the opening festivities on the water as a private citizen who had not been invited to the solemnities on the waterâ.122
5 Celebrating the FrancoâSpanish Double Marriage in Paris, 1615
On 22 March 1615, Marie de Médicis organised an evening-long ballet in the grande salle of the Hôtel du Petit-Bourbon in Paris, entitled Le Ballet du Triomphe de Minerve, to mark the leave-taking of Madame Ãlisabeth from the capital in mid-August later that year.123 The Princess and her elder brother, now King Louis XIII, would be married by proxy in Bordeaux on 18 October 1615. At the opening of the ballet, a cloud machine brought forth the metaphorical clouds that had been cast over the troubled kingdom since the assassination of Henri
Night and his clouds then made way for the triumphal entrance of Ãlisabeth in the lead role as Minerva, the goddess of wisdom, law, and victory from classical mythology, who was destined to save France through her marriage with the Spanish Prince Felipe.125
The balletâs celebration of Marieâs diplomatic efforts was not appreciated by all spectators in the audience, similar to the divided reception of the carousel in April 1612. Among the dissatisfied spectators of the ballet were, of course, the aristocratic Malcontents, the anti-Habsburg politiques, and the Huguenot nobles. Several Malcontents had moreover left court in early 1614, including their titular leader, prince de Condé, and César de Bourbon, as well as Henri de Lorraine, duc de Mayenne (1578â1621), and Henri II dâOrléans, duc de Longueville (1595â1663).126 It is significant that Marie had nonetheless invited these aristocratic conspirators to Le Ballet du Triomphe de Minerve, having deliberately kept them away from recent meetings of the Estates General, a legislative and consultative assembly to the French crown of governmental delegations.127 Marieâs ballet was intended primarily to attract the nobles to court and bring them back into the folds of the Bourbon monarchy. She even went so far as to put at least two prominent rebels in the spotlight. In the grand ballet that followed after the performance, Marie had Condé and Ãlisabeth lead
The Queen Regent well understood that her ballet offered a unique opportunity to suggest to an international audience of ambassadors and political leaders that her work on the FrancoâSpanish union had finally paid off and restored the harmony between the crown and its nobles. The foreign diplomats who had been invited to the spectacle, in turn, were eager to defend the honour of their rulers on such a grand public occasion. A lengthy account of the event, written by one of the envoys present in the room, the Florentine agent Luca degli Asini, included rich details on the extent to which diplomats were prepared to snatch the superior seat in the audience so as to uphold the international standing of their heads of state.129 Sheila Barker and Tessa Gurney have shown that, by boasting about the international reputation of their rulers or distracting each other while taking the higher seat, the ambassadors present employed âthe same adroitnessâ that was demonstrated in the dancing of Marieâs ballet.130
Marieâs diplomatic strategy of pairing the malcontent Princes in couple dancing reminds us even more strongly of Catherine de Médicisâs efforts to appease rival nobles through theatrical entertainment. The carousel of April 1612 did so through horsemanship, among other performing arts, but Le Ballet du Triomphe de Minerve harked back to one of Catherineâs most important diplomatic instruments, namely dancing. Rather than departing from the cross-confessional diplomacy of Henri IV and the late Valois rulers, as modern historians have commonly believed, Marieâs use of pair-dancing demonstrates once again how dependent she was on the diplomatic and festive traditions of her predecessors.
Shortly after the performance of Le Ballet du Triomphe de Minerve, a defamatory chapbook entitled Cassandre Françoise (French Cassandra) was published in support of Condéâs interests.131 The anonymous writer of the pamphlet offered a critique of the perceived obsession of the French court with dancing and feasting, similar to the backlash that the late Valois monarchs had received, particularly among Calvinist circles.132 In the chapbook, the
It is interesting to note that the French Cassandra addressed her monologue to all people in the kingdom. Indeed, in 1615 the pamphlet was distributed on a wide scale, going through at least four different editions that same year.135 âFrenchmen, what are you doing?â, we read at the opening of the work, as the goddess demands an explanation for the ignorant behaviour of her compatriots.136 The anonymous supporter of Condé made such a broad appeal on purpose. As discussed earlier, Marie targeted her diplomatic programme for France at an audience that extended from the court to the local populace. The public character of the carousel was hitherto unseen in a France that had only recently recovered from its civil wars. As seen in Chapter 2 and 3, the late Valois and early Bourbon monarchy usually celebrated its diplomatic achievements indoors for fear that agitated Catholics and Huguenots, the Parisian mob, or otherwise unwanted visitors would disturb the proceedings. At the height of
6 Conclusion
The assassination of Henri IV on 14 May 1610 accelerated a series of marital negotiations between France and Spain that dated back to the early reign of the Bourbon King. Before the regicide these negotiations were hardly subject to controversy: talking about marriages was still a far cry from actually signing a marriage contract. When the contract for a Franco-Spanish double marriage was finally signed on 30 April 1611, however, it generated a significant international response that changed diplomatic relations in Europe. England clearly felt threatened by a marriage alliance that many European Protestants, as well as their Roman enemies, considered a Catholic ploy to exterminate heresy. On 20 May 1612, King James VI and I consented to a marriage between his daughter, Princess Elizabeth Stuart, and the Elector Frederick V of the Palatinate in an effort to counter the Habsburg-Bourbon double marriage. The opulent festivals that were staged for the two marital alliances bring into sharp relief how the competing diplomacies and political agendas from both Catholic and Protestant communities in Europe helped shape the public image of the marriages.
In this chapter, we have seen that the festivals for the Franco-Spanish and Anglo-German marriages were not singlehandedly staged by their respective monarchical organisers and thus did not communicate a uniform statement of policy. The authority of both Marie de Médicis and King James was challenged by competing nobles, factions, and even separate courts, as for example run by for example Jamesâs son, the ultra-Calvinist Prince Henry Frederick. Although those who fiercely opposed the marriages remained either absent or took up arms, as did Henri II de Bourbon, third prince de Condé, and his magnates, most competitors were keen to participate in the festival preparations themselves. Their primary aim was to augment their influence at the Bourbon or Stuart court or to exploit the marital alliances for their own diplomatic gain. The image that emerges from the various nuptial celebrations is therefore not one of thematic coherence, but one of political disparity and competitionâagainst the Bourbon or Stuart crown but also among courtiers themselves.
Simon L. Adams, âThe Road to La Rochelle: English Foreign Policy and the Huguenots, 1610â1629â, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, 22.5 (1975), 414â29; William Brown Patterson, âJames I and the Huguenot Synod of Tonneins of 1614â, The Harvard Theologival Review, 65.2 (1972), 241â70; James Michael Hayden, France and the Estates General of 1614 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1974), pp. 48â49, 63â64.
Both men had agreed to discuss the final preparations for the Kingâs campaign to the lower Rhine where his army would support the Protestant claimants in the succession conflict over the Imperial provinces of Jülich, Kleves, and Berg. See Roland Mousnier, LâAssassinat dâHenri IV, 14 mai 1610, Trente journées qui ont fait la France ([Paris]: Gallimard, 1964), p. 1; Alison Deborah Anderson, On the Verge of War: International Relations and the Jülich-Kleve Succession Crises (1609â1614), Studies in Central European Histories (Boston, MA: Humanities Press, 1999), p. 98; and my discussion of the succession crisis on p. 223 below.
The entry was scheduled for 16 May 1610.
Marieâs coronation had taken place the previous day at the Basilique de Saint-Denis. Thomas (1571â1651) and Alexandre Francine (d. 1648) entered the service of the French monarchy in 1598. Thomas, who was appointed Ingenieur de Sa Majesté (Engineer of His Majesty), also designed the theatrical machinery and scene changes for a number of court and civic entertainments, including Le Ballet du Triomphe de Minerve in 1615 andâpossiblyâthe equestrian carousel that was held at the Place Royale in Paris three years earlier. See McGowan, Lâart du ballet de cour, pp. 87, 89â92; Marina Longo, âTommaso Francini, ingegnere, scenografo, âhonorable hommeâ fiorentino alla corte di Francia (1598â1651)â, Teatro e Storia, 24.17 (2002), 377â426 (pp. 389, 391). Both pageants will be discussed on pp. 229â41 and 248â53 below.
Greengrass, France in the Age of Henri IV, p. 251. The episode is described in detail by Roland Mousnier in his LâAssassinat, pp. 1â6.
The Parlement de Paris declared Marie Régente de France (Regent of France) within hours of the regicide: Katherine Crawford, Perilous Performances: Gender and Regency in Early Modern France (Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2004), pp. 65â72). Marieâs regency ended on 2 October 1614 when Louis was declared legally sovereign at a lit de justice, a formal assembly of the Parlement de Paris to inaugurate new decrees or measures within the kingdom.
Jean-François Dubostâs revisionist monograph Marie de Médicis. La Reine dévoilée offers a comprehensive analysis of the French opposition to the regency government of the Queen Mother and highlights the misogynistic and xenophobic sentiments that fuelled it. Chantal Grell follows a similar approach but specifically focuses on the theatrical entertainments that Marie organised for the Franco-Spanish marriages: âFêtesâ, pp. 215â26.
Nicolas Le Roux, âA Time of Frenzy: Dreams of Union and Aristocratic Turmoil (1610â1615)â, in Dynastic Marriages 1612/1615: A Celebration of the Habsburg and Bourbon Unions, ed. by Margaret McGowan, European Festival Studies 1450â1700 (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), pp. 19â38 (p. 23). Note that the Malcontents under Henri IV, Marie de Médicis, and Louis XIII in the early seventeenth century were distinct from the Malcontents under Henri III in the mid-1570s. The latter group of moderate Catholics and Protestants was headed by Hercule-François (then known as duc dâAlençon), Henri I, prince de Condé, Henri de Navarre, and Henri I de Montmorency. They opposed the royal favouritism and the presence of foreign councillors at Henri IIIâs court and demanded greater power for the French nobility.
Among Condéâs magnates were the other two princes du sang: Charles de Bourbon, comte de Soissons (1566â1612), and François de Bourbon, prince de Conti (1588â1614). They were first cousins of Henri IV and sons of the prominent Huguenot leader and general Louis, first prince de Condé (1530â1569). Other Malcontents included Henri de Lorraine, duc de Mayenne (1578â1621), son of Charles de Lorraine, who was the military leader of the Ligue catholique from the late 1580s to the late 1590s, and Henri II dâOrléans, duc de Longueville (1595â1663), who became godson of Henri IV upon the death of his father Henri I dâOrléans (1568â1595), a military officer and grand chambellan de France (Grand Chamberlain of France). Three grands, both initial supporters of Marieâs regency, aligned themselves with Condé in late 1613, as they believed that their loyalty had not been sufficiently rewarded: Henri de La Tour dâAuvergne, maréchal de Bouillon, the Huguenot leader who had mediated between Henri IV and the Dutch ambassadors during the latterâs stay at Angers in 1598; Henri IVâs love child César de Bourbon, duc de Vendôme and Ãtampes; and Charles III de Gonzague, duc de Nevers and Rethel (1580â1637), whose military career had begun with the defence of Cambrai against Spanish troops in August-October 1595. For more on the opposition of Condé and his adversaries to Marieâs regency, see Katia Béguin, Les Princes de Condé. Rebelles, courtisans et mécènes dans la France du grand siècle, Epoques (Seyssel: Champ Vallon, 1999), pp. 23, 26â27; Caroline Bitsch, Vie et carrière dâHenri II de Bourbon, prince de Condé, 1588â1646: Exemple de comportement et dâidées politiques au début du XVIIe siècle, Bibliothèque dâhistoire moderne et contemporaine, 27 (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2008), pp. 119â68.
Le Roux, âA Time of Frenzyâ, pp. 21â24. Concini was greatly envied by the other nobles at court and by Condé in particular. After having joined Marie on her voyage to France, Concini quickly seized influence over her by marrying Marieâs favourite and lady-in-waiting, Léonora Dori (1571â1617), called âGaligaïâ. The regicide of Henri IV offered Concini the opportunity to further his ambitions. With the help of Léonora, he purchased the Marquisate of Ancre, the rank of premier gentilhomme de la Chambre du Roi (First Gentleman of the Kingâs Bedchamber), and several other honours. In 1613, Marie appointed Concini to the powerful position of maréchal de France. Both he and his wife served as chief advisors to the Queen Mother until their death in 1617. On Conciniâs rise to power, see Hélène Duccini, Concini. Grandeur et misère du favori de Marie de Médicis (Paris: Albin Michel, 1991).
Hayden, France and the Estates General, pp. 10â11, 17â18; Bitsch, Vie et carrière, pp. 121â22; Le Roux, âA Time of Frenzyâ, p. 23. However, most benefits were awarded to government officials and members of the lower nobility. Marie distributed an average of forty-one gifts a year until 1614. See Hayden, France and the Estates General, p. 13, n. 11.
Marie de Médicis cited in Charles Weiss, Histoire des réfugiés protestants de France depuis la révocation de lâédit de Nantes jusquâà nos jours, 2 vols (Paris: Charpentier; Geneva: Cherbuliez; London: Jeffs, 1853), I, p. 4): âmis un repos assuré entre ses sujetsâ. Marie confirmed the edict again in 1612, 1614, and twice in 1615: Greengrass, France in the Age of Henri IV, p. 257.
Marie cited in Weiss, Histoire des réfugiés protestants, I, p. 4: âEncore que cet édit soit perpétuel et irrevocable, et par ce moyen nâait besoin dâêtre confirmé par nouvelle declaration, néanmois, afin que nosdits sujets soient assurés de notre bienveillance, savoir faisons, disons et ordonnons que ledit édit de Nantes, en tous ses points et articles, sera entretenu et gardé inviolablementâ.
Turchetti, âReligious Concordâ, p. 23.
Turchetti, âUne Questionâ, pp. 61, 64â66. Turchettiâs article also discusses contemporary interpretations of the slogan.
In practice, the expression âperpetual and irrevocableâ simply indicated that the treaty could be revoked only by another registered decree. On this point, see Greengrass, France in the Age of Henri IV, p. 102.
Both treaties were confirmed by one declaration: Corps universel diplomatique du droit des gens;contenant un recueuil des traitez dâalliance, de paix, de treve, de neutralité, de commerce, dâéchange, de protection & de garantie; de toutes les conventions, transactions, pactes, concordats, & autres contrats, qui ont été faits en Europe, depuis le regne de lâEmpereur Charlemagne jusques à présent; avec les capitulations imperiales et royales; les sentences arbitrales & souveraines dans les causes importantes; les déclarations de guerre, les contrats de mariage des grands princes, leurs testamens, donations, renonciations, & protestations; les investitures des grands fiefs; les erections des grandes dignités, celles des grandes compagnies de commerce, & en général de tous les titres, sous quelque nom quâon les designe, qui peuvent servir à fonder, établir, ou justifier les droits et les interet des princes et etats de lâEurope. Le tout tiré en partie des Archives de la Très-Auguste Maison dâAutriche, & en partie de celles de quelques autres Princes & Etats; comme aussi des Protocolles de quelques Grands Ministres, des Manuscrits de la Bibliotheqque Royale de Berlin; des meilleures Collections, qui ont déjà paru tant en Allemagne, quâen France, en Angleterre, en Hollande, & ailleurs, sur tout, des Actes de Rymer; & enfin les plus estimés, soit en Histoire, en Politiques, out en Droit, ed. by Jean du Mont, 8 vols (Amsterdam: P. Brunel, R. and J. Wetstein, G. Smith, Henri Waesberge, and Z. Chatelain; The Hague: P. Husson and Charles Levier, 1726â1731), V (1728), pt. 1, pp. 138â41. The States-General of the Dutch Republic signed the declaration on 31 May: ibid., p. 141.
Existing literature on the negotiations over the truce is extensive, but see John Lothrop Motley, History of the United Netherlands: From the Death of William the Silent to the Twelve Yearsâ Truceâ1609, 4 vols (London: John Murray, 1860â1867), IV: 1600â1609, pp. 432â528; Petrus J. Blok, Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche volk, 3rd edn (Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff, 1923â1926), II [1924], pp. 346â64; Willem J. M. van Eysinga, De wording van het Twaalfjarig Bestand van 9 april 1609, Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, 66:3 (Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij, 1959); Luc Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety: Archduke Albert (1598â1621) and Habsburg Political Culture in an Age of Religious Wars (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), pp. 202â33; El arte de la prudencia. La Tregua de los Doce Años en la Europa de los pacificadores, ed. by Bernardo J. GarcÃa GarcÃa, Manuel Herrero Sánchez, and Alain Hugón, Leo Belgicus, 10 (Madrid: Fundación Carlos de Amberes, 2012).
Van Eysinga, De wording van het Twaalfjarig Bestand, pp. 95â155; Jean-François Dubost, âLa reina de la paz. Conservación, concordia y arte de la diplomacia bajo la regencia de Maria de Médicis (1610â1614)â, in El arte de la prudencia, ed. by GarcÃa GarcÃa, Herrero Sánchez, and Hugón, pp. 321â44 (pp. 326, 344); Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety, pp. 224â25. On Louis XIIIâs opposition to a renewal of the truce in 1621, see Kevin Dekoster, âEntre Huguenots et Valteline. La France, les Archiducs et la fin de la Trêve de Douze Ans, 1619â21â, European Review of History / Revue européenne dâhistoire, 25.6 (2017), 937â56.
Dubost, âLa reina de la pazâ, p. 326.
Ibid.
Motley, History of the United Netherlands, IV, pp. 432â33; Blok, Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche volk, II, p. 351; Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety, pp. 225â26.
Corps universel diplomatique, ed. by Du Mont, pt. 1, p. 138.
Ibid., pp. 139â40.
Together with France, England served as a mediator in the preparations for the ceasefire: Motley, History of the United Netherlands, IV, pp. 432â528; Blok, Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche volk, II, pp. 346â64; Van Eysinga, De wording van het Twaalfjarig Bestand, pp. 101, 95â155; Richard S. Christen, âEnglandâs Role in Negotiations Leading to the Twelve Year Truce, 1607â1609â (unpublished masterâs thesis, University of Montana, 1980); Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety, pp. 222â33.
Corps universel diplomatique, ed. by Du Mont, pt. 1, p. 141.
Ibid. On the stipulated militerary assistance, see Motley, History of the United Netherlands, IV, p. 526; Blok, Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche volk, II, pp. 395â96.
Corps universel diplomatique, ed. by Du Mont, pt. 1, pp. 149â53.
Sutherland, âThe Origins of the Thirty Years War and the Structure of European politicsâ, The English Historical Review, 107.424 (1992), 587â625 (pp. 601â02). The accord was completed by Antoine Le Fèvre de La Boderie (1555â1615) who served as French ambassador to England from 1606 to 1611. For his work on the treaty, see Ambassades de Monsieur de La Boderie en Angleterre: Sous le regne dâHenri IV. & la minorité de Louis XIII. depuis les années 1606. jusquâen 1611, [ed. by Paul Denis Burtin], 5 vols ([Paris]: [Paul Denis Burtin], 1750), I, pp. XXVIIIâXXXII.
Henri IV and Marie de Médicis, in Corps universel diplomatique, ed. by Du Mont, pt. 1, p. 149: â& pour ce lesdits Rois aient jugé rien ne pouvoir estre plus salutaire & profitable, non seulement à leurs Roiaumes, mais aussi à la Republique Chrétienne, que de reintegrer & mener à bonne fin ce Traité dâAlliance & confirmation dâamitié mutuelle & interrompu par cette malheureuse mortâ.
Ibid., p. 150. For details on infantry, see Articles 8 and 12, and Articles 10 and 14 for more on naval defence.
Ibid., pp. 150â5 (Articles 19 to 42).
William B. Patterson, King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom, Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 156.
Mousnier, LâAssassinat, p. 1; Anderson, On the Verge of War, p. 98.
Patterson, âJames Iâ; Hayden, France and the Estates General, p. 48; Adams, âThe Road to La Rochelleâ, pp. 418â20, 428â29.
Part of that network were the renowned classical scholar Isaac Casaubon (1559â1614), who helped spread Jamesâs ideas on the continent from 1610 until his death, pastor Pierre Du Moulin (1568â1658), with whom the King frequently corresponded about theological issues, and statesman Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1549â1623), whose aim it was to bring Franceâs Huguenot minority into closer contact with Protestant communities abroad. See Patterson, âJames Iâ.
Adams, âThe Road to La Rochelleâ, p. 416.
John H. Elliott, âThe Political Context of the 1612â1615 Franco-Spanish Treatyâ, in Dynastic Marriages 1612/1615: A Celebration of the Habsburg and Bourbon Unions, ed. by Margaret M. McGowan, European Festival Studies 1450â1700 (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), pp. 5â18 (p. 10).
In 1610, Louis was 9, Ãlisabeth 8, Ana 9, and Felipe 5 years old.
Hayden, France and the Estates General, pp. 47â49; Elliott, âThe Political Contextâ, p. 11. When Henry Frederick unexpectedly died in November 1612, his younger brother, Prince Charles (1600â1649), the future King Charles I of England, quickly replaced him as a prospective husband for Christine Marie.
Motley, History of the United Netherlands, IV, pp. 454â56, 464â67; François-Tommy Perrens, Les Mariages espagnols sous le règne de Henri IV et la régence de Marie de Médicis (1602â1615), Ãtudes sur le règne de Henri IV et la régence de Marie de Médicis (Paris: Didier et cie, 1869), p. 40; Hayden, France and the Estates General, p. 47; Duerloo, Dynasty and Piety, pp. 229â30.
Dubost, âLa reina de la pazâ, p. 324.
The treaty was negotiated with the help of Cosimo II deâ Medici (1690â1621), Grand Duke of Tuscany: Corps universel diplomatique, ed. by Du Mont, pt. 2, pp. 165â66.
Adams, âThe Road to La Rochelleâ, p. 416.
For a comprehensive account of Jamesâs matrimonial diplomacy in the early seventeenth century, see Nadine Akkerman, Elizabeth Stuart: Queen of Hearts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021), pp. 49â57.
Besides the Palatinate, the Union counted Ansbach, Kulmbach, Baden-Durlach and Württemberg among its member states. In 1609, they were joined by Brandenburg and Hesse-Kassel, as well as Pfalz-Zweibrücken.
Sara Smart and Mara R. Wade, âThe Palatine Wedding of 1613: Protestant Alliance and Court Festival. An Introductionâ, in The Palatine Wedding of 1613: Protestant Alliance and Court Festival, ed. by Sara Smart and Mara R. Wade, Wolfenbütteler Abhandlungen zur Renaissanceforschung, 29 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2013), pp. 13â60 (pp. 40â43).
Patterson, âJames Iâ, pp. 243â45; Smart and Wade, âPalatine Weddingâ, pp. 42â43.
James I by His Contemporaries: An Account of His Career and Character as Seen by Some of His Contemporaries, ed. by Robert Ashton (London: Hutchinson, 1969), pp. 203â27; Roy Strong, Henry, Prince of Wales and Englandâs Lost Renaissance ([London]: Thames and Hudson, 1986), p. 72; Malcolm Smuts, âThe Making of âRex Pacificusâ: James VI and I and the Problem of Peace in an Age of Religious Warâ, in Royal Subjects: Essays on the Writings of James VI and I, ed. by David Fischlin and Mark Fortier (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2002), pp. 371â87.
Corps universel diplomatique, ed. by Du Mont, pt. 2, p. 637: âsoit par Mer soit par Terreâ.
See Margaret M. McGowan, ââLes Triomphes de Jasonâ: A Myth Renewed in 1613â, in The Palatine Wedding of 1613: Protestant Alliance and Court Festival, ed. by Sara Smart and Mara R. Wade, Wolfenbütteler Abhandlungen zur Renaissanceforschung, 29 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2013), pp. 463â78. The edited volume in which McGowanâs chapter appears, although otherwise excellent, seems to interpret the âProtestant Allianceâ from its title as both a religious and a dynastic union, but often fails to clarify the distinction between the two. Only Nadine Akkerman, drawing on the work of David Norbrook and Kevin Curran, explicitely distinguishes between the two types of unions: âSemper Eadem: Elizabeth Stuart and the Legacy of Queen Elizabeth Iâ, pp. 145â68. She rightly argues that the Stuart-Palatine wedding was never intended by James VI and I as a religious alliance, meaning a radical expression of (Protestant) faith, but as a dynastically advantageous union that would help the King to stabilise relations between quarrelling Catholic and Protestant factions at the English court and contain the military ambitions of the Protestant Union. The latter, as noted above, was headed by the groom, the Elector Palatine, himself: ibid., pp. 146â49. âRather than inciting a religious conflictâ, as Akkerman points out, âJames wanted the match to secure domestic, and also continental, harmonyâ: ibid., p. 146. For Norbrookâs and Curranâs work on the marriage, see David Norbrook, ââThe Masque of Truthâ: Court Entertainments and International Protestant Politics in the Early Stuart Periodâ, The Seventeenth Century, 1.2 (1986), 81â110 <https://doi.org/10.1080/0268117X.1986.10555252>; Kevin Curran, âJames I and Fictional Authority at the Palatine Wedding Celebrationsâ, Renaissance Studies, 20.1 (2006), 51â67. To my knowledge, Frances A. Yates is the first historian to point out that âIt was not fully realized at the time that this view of the alliance [as a religious union] was not that of James himselfâ: The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972), p. 7.
Elliott, âThe Political Contextâ, p. 13; Le Roux, âA Time of Frenzyâ, p. 26.
André Stegmann, âLa Fête parisienne à la Place Royale en avril 1612â, in Les Fêtes de la Renaissance, Le chÅur des muses, 3 vols (Paris: Ãditions du centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1956â1975), ed. by Jean Jacquot and Elie Koningson, III, pp. 373â92; Van Orden, Music, Discipline, and Arms, pp. 266â67; Dynastic Marriages 1612/1615: A Celebration of the Habsburg and Bourbon Unions, ed. by Margaret M. McGowan, European Festival Studies 1450â1700 (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), there Marie Baudière, âThe Carrousel of 1612 and the Festival Bookâ, pp. 83â93; Monique Chatenet, âThe Carrousel on the Place Royale: Production, Costumes and Décorâ, pp. 95â113; and Paulette Choné, âThe Dazzle of Chivalric Devices: Carrousel on the Place Royaleâ, pp. 155â63; Bolduc, La Fête imprimée, pp. 41â98.
For more on this delay, see Elliott, âThe Political Contextâ, pp. 12â14.
Ibid., pp. 5â6; Dynastic Marriages, ed. by McGowan, there David Sánchez Cano, âFestivities during Elizabeth of Bourbonâs Journey to Madridâ, pp. 39â55; and Marie-Claude Canova-Green, âAmbivalent Fictions: The Bordeaux Celebrations of the Wedding of Louis XIII and Anne dâAutricheâ, pp. 179â99.
Maria Inès Aliverti, âCelebrations in Naples and Other Italian Citiesâ, in Dynastic Marriages 1612/1615: A Celebration of the Habsburg and Bourbon Unions, ed. by Margaret M. McGowan, European Festival Studies 1450â1700 (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), pp. 57â82.
Norbrook, ââThe Masque of Truthââ; Curran, âJames Iâ; The Palatine Wedding of 1613: Protestant Alliance and Court Festival, ed. by Sara Smart and Mara R. Wade, Wolfenbütteler Abhandlungen zur Renaissanceforschung, 29 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2013), there Iain McClure, âThe Sea-Fight on the Thames: Performing the Ideology of a Pan-Protestant Crusade on the Eve of the Palatine Marriageâ, pp. 267â88; Anne Daye, ââGraced with Measuresâ: Dance as an International Language in the Masques of 1613â, pp. 289â318; Marika Keblusek, âCelebrating a Union: The Festive Entry of Friedrich, Elector Palatine, and Princess Elizabeth in the Netherlandsâ, pp. 391â409; and Margret Lemberg, âHessen-Kassel and the Journey up the Rhine of the Princess Palatine Elizabeth in April and May 1613â, pp. 411â26. Nadine Akkerman has recently studied the nuptial festival in London from the perspective of Elizabeth Stuart: Elizabeth Stuart, pp. 70â88.
Keblusek, âCelebrating a Unionâ; Lemberg, âHessen-Kasselâ.
Stegmann, âLa Fête parisienneâ, p. 373; Marie Baudière, âLa Fortune gravée et imprimée du carrousel de 1612â, in Chroniques de lâéphémère. Le Livre de fête dans la collection Jacques Doucet, ed. by Dominique Morelon, Les catalogues dâexposition de lâINHA (Paris: Institut national dâhistoire de lâart, 2010), pp. 1â8 (p. 1); ead., âThe Carrouselâ; Chatenet, âThe Carrouselâ, pp. 112â13.
François de Bassompierre, âMémoires du maréchal de Bassompierreâ, in Nouvelle collection des mémoires pour servir à lâhistoire de France, depuis le XIIIe siècle jusquâà la fin du XVIIIe; Précédés de notices pour caractériser chaque auteur des mémoires et son époque; suivis de lâanalyse des documents historiques qui sây rapportent, ed. by Joseph F. Michaud and Jean J. F. Poujoulat, 2nd series, 32 vols (Paris: Firmin Didot, 1836â1839), VI: Bassompierre, dâEstrées, de Pontis (1837), 1â368. (p. 78).
Bassompierre, âMémoiresâ, p. 78: âElle commanda à M. de Guise, M. de Nevers et à moi dâêtre tenans, et nous donna le camp, croyant bien que, puisqueâelle commettoit cette affaire entre nos mains, nous nâépargnerions rien pour la rendre parfaite, comme elle le fut aussiâ. Randle Cotgraveâs French-English dictionary defined the French word âtenantâ, among other definitions, as âa defendant in a Just [joust], or Tournament; any one that withstands another, or holds, & makes good a place against himâ: A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongves, ed. by Randle Cotgrave (London: Adam Islip, 1611), not paginated, s.v. âtenantâ.
Honoré Laugier de Porchères, Le camp de la Place Royale ov Relation de ce qvi sy est passé les cinquiesme, sixiesme, & septiesme iour dâAuril, mil six cens douze, pour la publication des Mariages du Roy, & de Madame, auec Lâinfante, & le Prince dâEspagne. Le tout recueilly par le Commandement de sa Maiesté (Paris: Jean Micard and Toussaint du Bray, 1612), p. 2.
Bassompierre, âMémoiresâ, p. 78: â[Marie] ordonna à M. le connétable et à quatre maréchaux de France de donner lâordre nécessaire de nous ouvrir le camp, et dâêtre les juges du tournoi. Elle commanda à M. dâÃpernon de horder les barrières avec mille mousquetaires du régiment des gardes et cinq cents Suissesâ.
Rouland Mousnier discusses the regicide in a broader socio-political context and shows that a number of national and international stakeholders were sympathetic to the Catholic extremism of François Ravaillac: LâAssassinat, pp. 20â43.
The Rue Saint-Antoine had been used by the Valois rulers for the staging of most of their public tournaments: Chatenet, âThe Carrouselâ, p. 96.
Bassompierre, âMémoiresâ, pp. 78â79; François de Rosset, Le Romant des Chavaliers de la Gloire contenant plvsievrs havtes & fameuses aduentures des Princes, & des Cheualiers qui parurent aux Courses faictes à la Place Royale pour la feste des Alliances de France & dâEspagne. Avec la description de levrs Entrees, Equipages, habits, Machines, deuises, armes & blasons de leurs Maisons. Dedie a la Reine Regente (Paris: Pierre Bertaud, 1612), âLes chevaliers de la gloireâ, p. 50. Benoît Bolduc has examined the manifold âvoicesâ (âvoixâ) of these target audiences in the commemorative accounts of the carousel: La Fête imprimée, pp. 41â98.
Rosset, Le Romant, âLes chevaliers de la gloireâ, p. 50.
Ibid.
Hoogvliet, âThe Balet de La Reyne (1609)â, p. 72.
Porchères, Le camp, p. 32; Rosset, Le Romant, p. 40.
Sydney Anglo, âThe Barriers: From Combat to Dance (Almost)â, Dance Research, 25.2 (2007), 91â106. For more on the pre-history of the seventeenth-century mock battle, see Sydney Anglo, The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000), pp. 7â39.
François de Rosset, LâHistoire dv Palais de la Felicité contenant les aventvres des Cheualiers qui parurent aux Courses faictes à la Place Royale, pour la feste des Alliances de la France & de lâEspagne. Avec la svitte de ce qvi sâest passé sur ce subject depuis ces triomphes & ces magnificences, iusques à lâaccomplissement des deux Mariages, & retour de leurs Majestés en leur ville de Paris. Ov lâon pevt voir encores la forme des Entrées des Ioustes & des Tournois, les Equippages, les Habits, les Machines, les Deuises, les Armes & les Blasons des plus grand Seigneurs du Royaume. Dediee a levrs Maiestez Tres-Chrestiennes (Paris: François Huby, 1616), p. 34.
Porchères, Le camp, p. 27: âMais soit quâil ait voulu reuiure plus particulierement en elle; ou quâelle doiue viure eternellement par luyâ.
In November 1613, however, Charles III de Gonzague would join the Malcontent party of Henri II de Bourbon, third prince de Condé, as the Duke believed that his support for the regency government had not been sufficiently rewarded. In 1614, Charles participated in the revolt of the Malcontents against the crown. See David Parrott, âA Prince Souverain and the French Crown: Charles de Nevers, 1580â1637â, in Royal and Republican Sovereignty in Early Modern Europe: Essays in Memory of Ragnhild Hatton, ed. by Robert Oresko, Graham C. Gibbs, and Hamish M. Scott (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 149â87 (pp. 164â66).
Van Orden, Music, Discipline, and Arms, p. 267.
Porchères, Le camp, pp. 34â352; Rosset, Le Romant; id., LâHistoire dv Palais de la Felicité.
Porchères, Le camp, p. 133: âBalet à chevalâ.
Ibid., pp. 131â142; Rosset, Le Romant, âLâentrée des chevaliers dv lisâ, sig. 72râ73v; Patrice Franchet dâEspèrey, âThe Ballet dâAntoine de Pluvinel and The Maneige Royalâ, in Dynastic Marriages 1612/1615: A Celebration of the Habsburg and Bourbon Unions, ed. by Margaret M. McGowan, European Festival Studies 1450â1700 (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), pp. 115â36 (pp. 122â25).
Porchères, Le camp, p. 141; Rosset, Le Romant, âLâentrée des chevaliers dv lisâ, sig. 73v.
BL, Harleian MS 7015, âForboystâ to Adam Newton, first Baronet, Paris, 8 April 1612, fols. 263râ264r (263r). Newton (d. 1630) was the tutor of Henry Frederick from 1600 to 1610. The collection of letters by âForboystâ comprises Harleian MS 7015 fols. 240â384 and runs from February 1612 to the Princeâs death in November of that same year.
Strong, Henry, Prince of Wales, pp. 45â46.
William Cecil, Lord Cranborne, 29 July 1609â8 August and 20â30 October 1609, in HMC Hatfield, XXI, pp. 104â12, 237â49.
Horsemanship was one of the Princeâs major obsessions. For more on this, see Strong, Henry, Prince of Wales, pp. 63â66.
Harleian MS 7015, âForboystâ to Newton, fol. 263r.
Jean Beaulieu to William Trumbull, Paris, 29 July 1612, in HMC Downshire, p. 340: âaux asnesâ.
Miguel Ãngel Ochoa Brun, Historia de la diplomacia española, Biblioteca de la diplomacia española, 7 vols (Madrid: Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, 1990â2017), VIII (2006), p. 245: âpara despertar recelos del Embajador de Inglaterraâ. Ochoa Brun follows Julián Pazâs interpretation of Feriaâs entry: Julián Paz, Catálogo IV: SecretarÃa de Estado (Capitulaciones con Francia y negociaciones diplomáticas de los Embajadores de España en Aquella corte, seguido de una serie cronológica de éstos), Archivo General de Simancas (Madrid: Revista de archivos, bibliotecas y museos, 1914), p. 732.
Examples include Elizabeth of Aragon (1271â1336), Queen Consort of Portugal, Eleanor of Portugal (1328â1348), Queen of Aragon, and Queen Isabella I of Castile (1451â1504). Well known is the example of Catherine of Aragon (1485â1536), Queen of England from 1509 until 1533, who rode side-saddle on a mule during her first entry into London on 12 November 1501. I would like to thank Laura Fernández-Gonzalez for bringing the connection between mules and queenship on the Iberian Peninsula to my attention.
Papal nuncio Pietro Aldobrandini, for one, entered Florence in October 1600 on a mule: Aldobrandini, âRelationeâ, fol. 30r.
For more on the French and Italian origins of horsemanship, especially of the ballet de cheveaux, see DâEspèrey, âThe Ballet dâAntoine de Pluvinelâ; Iain Fenlon, âCompetition and Emulation: Music and Dance for the Celebrations in Paris, 1612â1615â, in Dynastic Marriages 1612/1615: A Celebration of the Habsburg and Bourbon Unions, ed. by Margaret M. McGowan, European Festival Studies 1450â1700 (London and New York: Routledge, 2016), pp. 137â53 (p. 145).
Fenlon, âCompetition and Emulationâ.
Beaulieu to Trumbull, Paris, 29 July 1612, in HMC Downshire, p. 340.
Beaulieu to Trumbull, Paris, 4 August 1612, in ibid., p. 345.
Dublin, Marshâs Library, K2.6.33, S. D. S. A., Discovrs svr ce qvi sâest passé à lâarriuee de Monsieur le Dvc de Pastrane Ambassadeur dâEspagne. Ensemble une resiouissance sur le bonheur des Alliances de France & dâEspagne, auec lâexplication dâune Prophetie de Nostra-Damus sur le mesme suject (Paris: Pierre Bertault, 1612), pp. 3â7.
Ibid., p. 5: âfleurons émaillezâ; âvelour rougeâ; âbroderie dâor & dâargentâ.
Andrea Cioli to Cosimo II deâ Medici, Paris, 12 September 1610, cited in Michel Carmona, Marie de Médicis (Paris: Fayard, 1981), p. 229.
Beaulieu to Trumbull, Paris, 9 September 1612, in HMC Downshire, p. 365.
Thomas Campion, Lordsâ Masque, in English Masques, ed. by Herbert Arthur Evans (New York: Charles Scribnerâs Sons, 1898), pp. 72â87. For more on the reception condition of The Lordsâ Masque, see Curran, âJames Iâ, pp. 60â67.
For more on Jonesâs visit to France, see Strong, Henry, Prince of Wales, pp. 111â12.
Akkerman, âSemper Eademâ, pp. 148â49.
Norbrook, ââThe Masque of Truthââ; see also Curran, âJames Iâ, pp. 57â59. The French-language account, which will be discussed in closer detail below, is D[avid] Jocquet, Les Triomphes, entrees, ceremonies, et avltres Magnificences, faites en Angleterre, & au Palatinat, pour le Mariage & Reception, de Monseigneur le Prince Frideric V. Comte Palatin dv Rhin [â¦] Et de Madame Elisabeth, Fille vniqve et Princesse de la Grande Bretagne [â¦] (Heidelberg: Gotthardt Vögelin, 1613). For the script of The Masque of Truth, see ibid., sig. H1r-[H4v], which is also reprinted in Norbrook, ââThe Masque of Truthââ, pp. 101â05. Norbrook surmises that Elizabethâs masque would have advanced a Protestant zeal similar to that of her brotherâs entertainment: ibid., p. 91. On this point, see also Akkerman, âSemper Eademâ; ead., Elizabeth Stuart, pp. 77â80.
Roy Strongâs Henry, Prince of Wales and Englandâs Lost Renaissance from 1986 remains an authoritative work on the Prince. For a more recent, revisionist study, see Prince Henry Revived: Image and Exemplarity in Early Modern England, ed. by Timothy Wilks (Southampton: Southampton Solent University Press and Paul Holberton Publishing, 2007).
Porchères, Le camp de la Place Royale, pp. 169â79.
Jocquet, Les Triomphes, sig. [H4râv].
Curran, âJames Iâ, p. 57; Akkerman, âSemper Eademâ, p. 149.
A well-known example is Ben Johnsonâs The Fortunate Isles (1625). See Jaroslav Miller, âThe Henrician Legend Revived: The Palatine Couple and Its Public Image in Early Stuart Englandâ, European Review of History / Revue européenne dâhistoire, 11.3 (2004), 305â31 (pp. 313â14) <https://doi.org/10.1080/1350748042000313733>.
They included the diplomat and poet Henry Wotton (1568â1639), the English ambassador in The Hague, Dudley Carleton (1573â1632), the diplomats Thomas Roe (1581â1644) and John Harrison, and later Francis Nethersole (1587â1659), Princess Elizabethâs secretary. See Miller, âThe Henrician Legend Revivedâ, p. 318.
Norbrook, ââThe Masque of Truthââ, p. 85.
Jocquet, Les Triomphes, sig. A1râ [D4v].
Ibid., sig. [A4r]: âLe Voyage et les Trivmphes de Iasonâ.
Count Frederick arrived at Gravesend on o. s. 16/n. s. 26 October 1612.
Jocquet, Les Triomphes, sig. B1r: âMais durant ceste joye, o bon Dieu quel malheur! / La Parque inexorable alla percer le cÅur / Du Prince le mieux né quâeust oncques lâAngleterre, / Et luy tranche ses jours Durant sa Prime-Vere, / Arrachant tout dâun coup lâespoir que sa Vertu / Promettoit aux Anglois, sâil eust encor vescuâ.
The propaganda campaign of identifying Prince Henry Frederick with Frederick V of the Palatinate became known as the âPalatine mythâ. For more on this, see Miller, âThe Henrician Legend Revivedâ; id., âBetween Nationalism and European Pan-Protestantism: Palatine Propaganda in Jacobean England and the Holy Roman Empireâ, in The Palatine Wedding of 1613: Protestant Alliance and Court Festival, ed. by Sara Smart and Mara R. Wade, Wolfenbütteler Abhandlungen zur Renaissanceforschung, 29 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2013), pp. 61â81.
Jaroslav Miller argues that it is âbeyond disputeâ that James himself was the initiator or even a supporter of the Palatine myth: âThe Henrician Legend Revivedâ, p. 318.
Jocquet, Les Triomphes, sig. B1r: âSi lâEternel mâa pris mon fils aisné, / Voicy quâen mesme instant sa faveur mâa donné / Vng grand Prince pour Gendre; & par ainsy sa grâce / En mâen retirant lâun, dâun aultre le remplace: / Me blessant dâune main, de lâautre il me guerit. / Ainsi ce sage Roy consoloit son Espritâ.
Ibid.: âChacun met en avant, pour luy rendre service / Tout ce que lâon sçauroit inventer dâartificeâ.
Strong, Henry, Prince of Wales, p. 95.
John Taylor, âHeavens Blessing and Earths Joyâ, in The Progresses, Processions, and Magnificent Festivities of King James the First, His Royal Consort, Family, and Court [â¦], ed. by John Nichols, 3 vols (London: J. B. Nichols, 1828), II, 527â32.
Jocquet, Les Triomphes, sig. B1vâB2r: âLe Galere Turquois/Y deffit lâEspagnol, mais LâAdmiral Anglois/Leur venant au secours avecq quinze pinasses, /Resta victorieux & prit leurs galeacesâ.
McClure, âSea-Fight on the Thamesâ, p. 268.
Basha (âBaschaâ in the original French) is derived from the Turkish âbaÅâ, meaning âheadâ, âchiefâ, or âleaderâ: A Dictionarie, ed. by Cotgrave.
Jocquet, Les Triomphes, sig. B2r: âle Bascha se va rendre/Tout confus prisonnier au Roy & à son Gendre: / Qui luy donnent sa grace à charge, que sa foy/Luy dira que le Christ est son Dieu & son Royâ. See also ibid., sig. E2vâE3r.
Samuel Spifame, sieur de Buisseaux, cited in Marie-Claude Canova-Green, ââParticularitez des Resjoyssances Publiques et Cérémonyes du Mariage de la Princesseâ: An Ambassadorial Account of the Palatine Weddingâ, in The Palatine Wedding of 1613: Protestant Alliance and Court Festival, ed. by Sara Smart and Mara R. Wade, Wolfenbütteler Abhandlungen zur Renaissanceforschung, 29 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2013), pp. 353â69 (p. 359): âpuisque trois jours durant il sâestoit laissé veoir par la ville, et mesme sâestoit comme personne privée et sans estre prié aux apparas néantmoins, trouvé en une maison pour veoir la première resjoyssance qui se fit sur lâeaueâ.
The pageant is also known as Le Ballet de Madame (The Ballet of Madame).
Anonymous, âDescription dv Ballet de Madame sÅvr aisnée dv Royâ, in Ballets pour Louis XIII: Danse et politique à la cour de France (1610â1643), ed. by Marie-Claude Canova-Green, Collection de rééditions de textes rares du XVIIe siècle, 30, 2 vols (Toulouse: Société de Littératures Classiques, 2010â2012), I, 27â64 (p. 34): âCar vostre beauté qui me luit, / Changeant mes ombres en lumiere/Me fait perdre moy-mesme & cesser dâestre Nuictâ.
On the political significance of Ãlisabethâs role as Minerva and the minor role of Louis XIII as an androgynous African tribe member, see Barker and Gurney, âHouse Left, House Rightâ, p. 151.
Le Roux, âA Time of Frenzyâ, pp. 29â30.
Ibid., p. 32.
The grand ballet, which took the form of processional dancing (âalla sfilataâ), is described in a recently discovered dispatch by a Florentine ambassador who was present in the audience. The dispatch is analysed, transcribed, and translated into English by Sheila Barker and Tessa Gurney, in âHouse Left, House Rightâ. The grand ballet is not mentioned in the pageantâs official livret: anonymous, Description.
See Barker and Gurney, âHouse Left, House Rightâ.
Ibid., p. 149.
Anonymous, Cassandre françoise ([n. p.]: [n. pub], 1615). On the historical background of the chapbook, see Elliott, âThe Political Contextâ, p. 18.
Anonymous, Cassandre françoise, p. 4.
Ibid.: âHenry le Grandâ.
Nanie Bridgman, âLâAristocratie et le ballet de courâ, Cahiers de lâAssociation Internationale des études françaises, 9 (1957), 9â21 <https://doi.org/10.3406/caief.1957.2096>. Over summer 1615, Condé and his magnates would take up arms, mobilising their troops in many of the Huguenot-ruled territories that Ãlisabeth, Louis XIII, Marie, and their entourage would cross on their progress to Bordeaux. See Le Roux, âA Time of Frenzyâ, pp. 34â35.
Roméo Arbour, LâÃre baroque en France: Répertoire chronologique des éditions de textes littéraires, Histoire des idées et critique littéraire, 229, 4 vols (Geneva: Droz, 1977â1985), IV: Supplément, 1585â1643, p. 261. The term âeditionâ refers here to the number of impressions (or prints) struck from the same matrix.
Anonymous, Cassandre françoise, p. 1: âFrançois, que faictes-vous?â.
Samuel Spifame, the French ambassador in London, reportedly noted in October 1612 that James âwas not master in his own houseâ: paraphrased in Barbara Kiefer Lewalski, Writing Women in Jacobean England (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 1993), p. 21.