Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros37Marie de Guise and Cultural Trans...Religious Reform, the House of Gu...

Marie de Guise and Cultural Transfers

Religious Reform, the House of Guise and the Council of Fontainebleau: The French Memorial Service for Marie de Guise, August 1560

Réforme religieuse, la Maison de Guise et le Conseil de Fontainebleau : La célébration commémorative de Marie de Guise en France.
Amy Blakeway

Résumés

Au cours de l’été 1560, le pouvoir de la famille de Guise fut attaqué aussi bien en France qu’en Écosse. En Écosse, Marie de Guise, la mère de Marie Stuart, qui assura la régence au nom de sa fille à partir de 1554, venait d’être vaincue par les rebelles protestants et elle mourut peu de temps après. En France, l’influence de ses deux plus jeunes frères, Charles, le cardinal de Lorraine et François, duc de Guise, sur François II avait essuyé un feu roulant de critiques au moment où le gouvernement était également pressé de consentir des concessions aux huguenots.Le 12 août 1560, une cérémonie commémorative se déroula à Notre Dame de Paris. Cet événement n’a jamais été situé avec précision dans la vie politique française de la période et n’apparaît que comme épilogue à des études consacrées à la seule Marie de Guise. Cet article, qui s’intéresse particulièrement au sermon funèbre, analyse pour la première fois la manière dont ce service a été organisé et suivi ainsi que de son contenu. Intervenant huit jours avant le Conseil de Fontainebleau, le service commémoratif auquel assista un auditoire vaste et influent, par le biais d’un récit qui mettait en valeur la Maison de Guise, donna une excellente occasion à la famille de Marie de Guise non seulement de célébrer sa vie mais également de contrecarrer les critiques qui circulaient à leur encontre.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1 Amy Blakeway, “The Anglo-Scottish war of 1558 and the Scottish Reformation”, History, 101, 2017, p. (...)
  • 2 Éric Durot, “Le crépuscule de l'Auld Alliance: la légitimité du pouvoir en question entre Écosse, F (...)
  • 3 Éric Durot, François de Lorraine, duc de Guise entre Dieu et le Roi, Paris, Classiques Garnier, 201 (...)
  • 4 Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice [CSPV], VII, ed. Raw (...)

1The death of Marie de Guise on 11 June 1560 in Edinburgh castle had far-reaching ramifications. The last three years of Guise’s life were occupied largely by military conflict, first with England during the Anglo-Scottish war of 1558 and latterly against a rebellious group of Scottish Protestants, supported by English military back-up, in what we now call the Scottish Reformation Rebellion.1 Her death thus facilitated the development of peace negotiations between the Lords of the Congregation, as her Protestant opponents were known, their English supporters, and the representatives of her daughter and son-in-law, Mary, Queen of Scots and François II of France. This Protestant success in Scotland in 1559-1560 had provoked excitement amongst their French co-religionists: accordingly, during the summer of 1560 there was considerable concern amongst the Guise family in France surrounding these twin Protestant threats spreading across both Stuart-Valois kingdoms.2 Since the accession of François II in July 1559, Marie de Guise’s brothers, Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine and François, duke of Guise, had enjoyed significant influence at court on the basis of their kinship with the new Queen, Mary. However, in March 1560 discontent with this situation had grown so strong that a coup was planned by a group of dissident Protestants. These malcontents sought to remove the Guise brothers from influence by seizing the royal family at Amboise.3 The repercussions meted out against the conspirators provided fodder for anti-Guise propaganda, including the Tigre de France, probably penned by François Hotman.4 In May, the edict of Romorantin transferred powers to try heretics away from the Parlements, leaving this the exclusive jurisdiction of the Church courts; sedition, however, remained within the compass of the crown’s courts. This distinction between heresy and sedition, religious and civil dissent, contributed to a growing recognition, as the year progressed, that a change in policy towards the Protestants was necessary. In essence, this comprised a shift away from the emphasis on persecution evident at the close of Henri II’s reign, towards seeking concord and, potentially, answering some critiques of the Catholic church by a programme of reform from within.

  • 5 For the old view: J. H. M. Salmon, Society in Crisis, London, Benn, 1975, p. 118.
  • 6 S. Caroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 45; for an overview of the historiography: Stuart Ca (...)
  • 7 S. Caroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 119. B. C. Weber, “Council of Fontainebleau”, Archiv (...)
  • 8 Arlette Jouanna, “Les Guises et le Sang de France”, in Yvone Bellenger (ed.), Le Mécénat et l'influ (...)

2Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine, was at the forefront of this shift in emphasis. Once understood simply as an “ultra-Catholic”, the Cardinal of Lorraine has undergone a reassessment in recent years.5 The new consensus suggests that the Cardinal was in reality far from being a militant – coming from a family who were “perfectly capable of maintaining friendly, even warm relationships with individual Protestants”, the Cardinal himself moved beyond this position to advocate discussion and persuasion as a route to conciliation and preserving religious orthodoxy.6 This shift in thought surrounding how best to address France’s heresy problem was matched by a desire to see a Gallican Church council. The opportunity to discuss these concerns in a formal national setting arose with the Council of Fontainebleau, held from 20th to 28th August 1560, the agenda of which also included arrangements for the government of the kingdom.7 This latter topic was of particular importance for the Guise family in the light of the considerable resentment which their proximity to their nephew-by-marriage François II had provoked amongst the higher echelons of the French nobility. Since the Guises were not Princes of the Blood, but rather Princes Étrangers, their critics claimed they ought to be precluded from wielding power during a minority.8

  • 9 Rosalind K. Marshall, Mary of Guise, London, Collins, 1977, p. 262; R. K. Marshall, (2004, Septembe (...)
  • 10 S. Caroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 133.
  • 11 Verdun L. Saulnier, “L’Oraison Funèbre au XVIe siècle”, Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, 10 (...)
  • 12 Claude d’Espence, Oraison Funebre ès obsèques de très haute, très puissante et très vertueuse princ (...)
  • 13 Éric Durot, “Le Cardinal de Lorraine au Miroir de l’Ecosse” in J. Balsamo, T. Nicklas et B. Restie (...)
  • 14 For the critiques: E. Durot, François de Lorraine, op. cit., p. 554-556.

3Although the details of this story are well known, one notable event has hitherto escaped scholarly attention. On 12 August 1560 a memorial service was held for Marie de Guise in Notre Dame de Paris. This service was the last major gathering of the French political elite before the Council of Fontainebleau. Yet, it is accorded only passing significance in accounts of Guise’s life and career, or those of her daughter and the theologian who delivered it, and is entirely passed over in accounts of French politics in this period.9 This is a surprising omission, since the timing of the service provided the Guise family with an excellent opportunity to articulate a number of points in advance of the Council of Fontainebleau. The sermon was delivered by the “chief theologian” of the Cardinal of Lorraine’s household, Claude d’Espence. Although the sermon is not unknown to historians, the present article offers the first full discussion of the sermon or attempt to reconstruct the immediate context of its delivery. Many of the points d’Espence raised reflected positions which would be adopted by Lorraine or his associates at the council.10 As well as providing an opportunity to advertise Lorraine’s thinking on church reform in the run up to the Council, the sermon also offered an opportunity to counteract criticisms directed against the Guise family as a whole. First, and most obviously, funeral sermons contained, as standard, a description of the deceased’s family.11 The descriptions of Marie de Guise’s ancestors forced listeners to reflect on the lofty Guise lineage, and can be placed alongside Guise efforts during the 1540s and 1570s to trace their ancestry back to Charlemagne and Hugues Capet, although d’Espence omitted to draw the family tree back that far.12 This positioning of the Guise family in the sermon was reinforced by the adoption of royal practices in the memorial service, articulating a claim that Guise blood qualified them for rule. Secondly, the position of Marie de Guise in Scotland had direct parallels with those of her brothers in France – she and they both ruled on behalf of a young monarch, whilst facing resistance to their exercise of power based partly on religious grounds and partly on claims they had usurped their positions. Across France and Scotland, the Guise siblings shared a conviction that claims they were being resisted on religious grounds were a mere cover or “colour” for other motives.13 Since the criticisms of the Guises in France were directed against the ambition of, and excessive influence exercised by, the family as a whole, demonstrating that Marie had held power legitimately on behalf of a child monarch and conducted herself with probity whilst so doing suggested that other members of her family were well suited to handle a comparable situation.14

4For these claims to be effective, they required an audience. The first part of this article reconstructs the timing surrounding and, as far as we can tell, attendance at the memorial service. The level of detail here is considerable but necessary as a foundation from which we can examine the messages presented to this group during the service itself. Indeed, the very care afforded to planning the service and securing an illustrious company in attendance shows that this was a matter of importance. Having established that the timing of the memorial service was dictated by plans for the Fontainebleau Council and that an important domestic and international audience were present, the second part of the article argues that the service was organised on quasi-royal lines to frame the messages offered by d’Espence’s sermon to provide a favourable portrayal of Marie de Guise whilst treading a fine line between firmly denouncing heresy and sedition whilst hinting towards limited approval for certain religious reforms. Together, this served both as positive propaganda for the house of Guise-Lorraine and affirmed the positions Marie’s brothers would take in the forthcoming Council of Fontainebleau. Yet, for all the familial corporate identity of ‘les Guise’ there was an important distinction between the siblings: gender. For all these parallels to work, Marie de Guise had to be established as a legitimate ruler despite her sex. The final section of the article teases out how d’Espence dealt with this tension. Whilst Marie de Guise’s status as a widow helped considerably here, d’Espence was required to make a clear and cogent (although not, in the event, original) argument that women had and could rule legitimately.

Plans for the service

  • 15 Throckmorton to the Lords of the Council, 30 June 1560, London, The National Archives [TNA] SP70/15 (...)
  • 16 Throckmorton to Cecil 24 June 1560, TNA SP70/15 f. 85r; Throckmorton to Elizabeth, 30 June 1560, TN (...)
  • 17 This overview is based on the works cited in n.9 above.
  • 18 CSPV, VII, p. 225; Throckmorton to Cecil, 24 June 1560, TNA SP70/15 f. 85r.
  • 19 CSPV, VII, 234; Throckmorton to Elizabeth, 30 June 1560, TNA SP70/15 f. 106r.
  • 20 A. Ryrie, op. cit., p. 151.
  • 21 Throckmorton to Cecil, 24 June 1560, TNA SP70/15 f. 85r.
  • 22 CSPV, VII, 242; For more on the plots: R. M., Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religio (...)
  • 23 CSPV, VII, 243; Throckmorton to Elizabeth, 9 August 1560, TNA SP70/17 f. 41v.

5News of Marie de Guise’s death arrived in France by 18th June.15 It is unclear how this information spread within the French court - the English ambassador knew by 22nd June, the Venetian ambassador was aware two days later, but it was somehow kept secret from Mary, queen of Scots, until 28th June when Lorraine broke the news to his niece in person.16 Neither the English nor the Venetian ambassadors proffered an explanation for the delay in informing Mary of her mother’s death, speculatively, however, one might be found in the febrile atmosphere of the French court during the summer of 1560.17 A worrying outburst of religious violence had occurred in Rouen during a procession to mark Corpus Christi day.18 After issuing a proclamation which, the English ambassador Sir Nicholas Throckmorton explained, provided “that no man shall under a great penalty call one an other heretique nor papiste” the King eventually decreed punishment for those involved, but the matter took some time to resolve.19 Here, we see compelling parallels with the religious violence which broke out surrounding the September 1558 St Giles’ day procession in Edinburgh and proved so crucial in kickstarting wider religious resistance in Scotland: although this comparison was not explicitly drawn by contemporaries the similarities, had they occurred to anyone, would have been chilling.20 Immediately afterwards, Throckmorton observed, the King was being moved around so regularly that “no man knowyth over night where the King will lodge tomorrow”.21 This frenzied peripatetic activity took place against a backdrop of rumours of new plots “of worse quality than the Amboise conspiracy”.22 By 8th August plans were being made for the meeting at Fontainebleau on 20th August.23

  • 24 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris publié par les soins du service historiq (...)
  • 25 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 26.
  • 26 Alexandre Teulet, Papiers d’Etat, pièces et documents inédits ou peu connus relatifs à l'histoir (...)
  • 27 Bibliothèque Nationale de France [BNF], Dupuy MS 324; D. M. Félibien, L’Histoire de la Ville de Par (...)

6At exactly the time that the decision was made to summon the Princes of the Blood, Privy Councillors and Knights of the Order of St Michael to Fontainebleau, we see the first evidence of planning for the memorial service for the Dowager Queen of Scots. Royal letters of summons to the memorial service were penned to the Chambre des Comptes and Parlement de Paris on 6th August, whilst a summons to attend Guise’s pre-service vigil arrived at the Bureau de Ville on Friday 9th August.24 The particular date of 12th August may have been chosen because, as d’Espence explained in his sermon, it was the Feast of St Clare and Guise had spent part of her childhood in a convent of Poor Clares with her grandmother, Phillipa of Guelders, titular Queen of Sicily.25 Even though the day itself was appropriate, the coincidence of timing strongly suggests a causal relationship: in the month which had passed since the news of Guise’s death arrived in France there is no evidence that a memorial service was discussed, yet as soon as plans for the Council were in hand preparations for the service commenced. Nor can we explain this timing in terms of waiting for a corpse to bury: the fate of Guise’s body was not discussed in France until the arrival of Sir James Sandilandis of Calder, Lord St John, at the end of August.26 It was 1561 before she was finally laid to rest in the convent of St Pierre in Rheims, where her sister was Abbess. Cumulatively, this suggests that the Cardinal, whose response to queries reveals he was coordinating the service, developed these plans with the forthcoming Council in view.27 Whilst the feast of St Clare was an apt juncture in the ecclesiastical calendar to signal familial patterns of piety as well as to mourn this particular individual, the service was also timed to provide an opportunity for the political community to gather, and positioned them as a captive audience for the theatre of mourning, required to observe its heraldic and ecclesiastical pageantry and listen to a sermon, all of which reiterated the royal status enjoyed by Marie de Guise and, by association, her family, eight days before they would meet again to discuss the governance of the realm at Fontainebleau.

  • 28 S. Carroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 136-138; N. M. Sutherland, Princes, Politics and Re (...)
  • 29 S. Carroll, Martyrs and Murderers op. cit., p. 125.
  • 30 Throckmorton to the English Privy Council, 9 August 1560, TNA SP70/17 ff. 49r; Throckmorton to Eliz (...)
  • 31 Throckmorton to the Cardinal of Lorraine, 14 July 1560, TNA SP70/15 f. 36r; Cardinal of Lorraine to (...)
  • 32 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris, V, op. cit., p. 60.

7The Fontainebleau Council was a key moment in the repositioning of French royal policy towards Protestants. Much has been written about this but, in brief, the Council’s deliberations were tense and concluded with the emergence of plans for meetings of both civil and spiritual national political bodies, namely the Estates General and a General Council of the Church, although a range of views existed on the form the latter should take.28 In the meantime, however, persecution of Huguenots was largely to be set aside. In essence, government policy had become that heretical beliefs should only be punished when they provoked civil sedition or led to a rejection of established authority.29 We have seen that the Council also occurred at a time when the Guise were subject to intense criticism. Not only that, but the Treaty of Edinburgh (signed on 5 July 1560 by the Scottish Protestant Lords of the Congregation, who had rebelled against Guise, the English, and the French representatives of Mary and François) was not entirely welcome to the Guise family. Although the Cardinal of Lorraine would claim to Throckmorton that he was “right glad” to hear the news of the peace with England, Throckmorton noted Lorraine had received the tidings “with a displeased countenance”.30 His displeasure was no doubt heightened by the fact the news had reached France first by English, as opposed to French, agents.31 This, then, was a highly febrile situation in which Marie de Guise’s legacy as Regent was being destroyed and those who had rebelled against her incurred no punishment, whilst the rule of her brothers was being challenged alongside rumblings of the type of religious violence which had precipitated open rebellion in Scotland. The ceremonies afforded Marie de Guise “la feue Royne douarière, Régente d’Écosse, nostre belle mere”, as she was described in royal letters commanding attendance at the service, helped to bolster the position of her brothers by association and to tell an alternative narrative about their family to that offered by their critics.32

  • 33 Ibid.
  • 34 Laurent Bourquin, “Les fidèles des Guises parmi les chevaliers de l’ordre de Saint-Michel sous les (...)
  • 35 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris, V, op. cit., p. 61; E. Durot, François (...)
  • 36 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 25.

8The memorial service began with a vigil which commenced after vespers on Sunday 11th August, with the mass and service held the following morning. On 11th August various Parisian military companies gathered at the Hôtel de Ville before proceeding to Notre Dame, where alongside civic officials, “ilz trouverrent Messrs des Comptes, Messrs les Generaulx de Justice, les generaulx des Monnoys et le recteur de l’Université et ses suppostz”, in addition to “les Chevaliers de l’Ordre, la Court de Parlement, les evesques et chanoines de l’Eglise de Paris”, all carefully placed in order by the Master of Ceremonies, the Sieur de Chemaulx.33 The presence of the Knights of the Order of St Michael is worth remarking upon. Although four of the eighteen knights admitted in 1560 were Guise clients, the order as a whole was not yet monopolised by Guise supporters and its expanding membership stretched beyond its high aristocratic origins.34 Whilst family friends such as Charles de Bourbon, Prince de la Roche sur Yon, who had fought with the Duke of Guise when he retook Calais, attended the service, the presence of the knights of St Michael and members of important institutions ensured that the service was not merely the Guise affinity speaking to itself.35 This group of men were, although not all from the highest echelons of political life, cumulatively, significant. Had any of them heard anti-Guise mutterings, or perused a copy of the Tigre de France, they were poised to be presented with a strikingly different narrative about a family “issue de sang Imperial, Royal & Ducal, alliée de toutes les grandes maisons de la Chrestienté, specialement de la tres Chrestiéne de France”.36

  • 37 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris, V, op. cit., p. 60 n. 2; S. Caroll, Mar (...)
  • 38 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris, V, op. cit., p. 60 n. 2.
  • 39 CSPV, VII, 244.
  • 40 Hugues Daussy, “Le Cardinal de Lorraine vu par les Protestants en Europe”, in J. Balsamo, T. Nickla (...)
  • 41 He wrote three letters on 9 August with substantially similar content: Throckmorton to the Privy Co (...)

9Three prominent clerics sat to the right of the high altar; the first was another associate of the Cardinal, Charles Guillart, Bishop of Chartres.37 He was accompanied by Charles d’Angennes de Rambouillet, Bishop of Le Mans, and Joseph Foulon, the abbot of St-Geneviève. To the left sat five ambassadors, from the Pope, Portugal, Venice, Ferrara and Mantua, behind whom were two representatives of the Order of St Michael.38 The Spanish ambassador absented himself, as did those of England and Florence, the two latter “owing to questions of precedence between them and the Ambassadors of Ferrara and Portugal”.39 In view of the tensions between the English ambassador and the Guise family over Scotland it is tempting to dismiss this as an excuse, but the precedence of the English embassy was indeed a touchy issue at this juncture. Disputes had earlier arisen between the English and Spanish ambassadors regarding the location of their lodgings in Melun, where diplomatic representatives stayed whilst the court was in Fontainebleau – the Duke of Guise and Cardinal eventually settled this in favour of the Spanish ambassador. Despite Throckmorton’s attempts to stay on good terms with the Cardinal, his new lodgings lacked the “commodious gardens” which graced those appointed to his rival.40 Throckmorton does not mention the memorial service in his extant correspondence. No surviving letter from Throckmorton dates from between 9 August and 22 August, when he reported events from 17 August onwards: it is possible that an intervening missive was lost or that he conveyed the information orally by a messenger.41

  • 42 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris, V, op. cit., p. 60 n. 2.
  • 43 P. Ritchie, op. cit., p. 240.
  • 44 S. Carroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 108-109.
  • 45 Ibid., p. 138-139.
  • 46 A. Jouanna, art. cit., p. 34; Jacqueline Boucher, “Le cardinal de Lorraine, premier minister de fai (...)

10The chief mourners, unsurprisingly, comprised the Guises and close friends.42 Renée, Marquis d’Elbeuf, who had been mooted as a replacement Regent for Guise shortly before her death, appeared alongside the “princes de Joinville” – although Joinville was made a principality for François in 1552 the plural perhaps suggests the phrase stretched to encompass his brother Claude, Duke of Aumal.43 Marie de Guise’s first marital family were represented by Léonor d’Orléans, duke of Longueville, her dead son’s first cousin and heir. In 1559, ties between the families had been renewed when Léonor was betrothed to the Duke of Guise’s daughter, Catherine. His mother was open about her correspondence with Calvin; whilst Léonor kept his secret, his presence at the funeral would have served to remind those present that the Guise family was able to construct dialogue across the confessional divide.44 These close relatives were accompanied by François de Cleves, comte d’Eu and Nevers and Louis de Bourbon, dauphin of Auvergne (later duke of Montpensier). Nevers was another “old Guise friend”; indeed, during the summer of 1560 the Cardinal was also engaged in procuring the papal dispensations which would facilitate Nevers’s second marriage that October.45 Louis de Bourbon’s earlier struggles with the Guise family over issues of precedence (he, after all, was a Prince of the Blood, and head of the cadet branch of the Bourbons) obviously did not prevent him giving Marie de Guise the honour she was due – and he would later marry another Guise niece.46

  • 47 R. Marshall, Mary of Guise, op. cit., p. 262; R. Marshall, (2004, September 23). Mary [Mary of Guis (...)
  • 48 CSPV, VII, 243.
  • 49 For example: C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 74.
  • 50 R. E. Giesey, The Royal Funeral Ceremony in Renaissance France, Gèneve, Droz, 1960, p. 47-48.
  • 51 Throckmorton to the Council, 30 June 1560 TNA SP70/15 f. 108r; however less certainty about the loc (...)
  • 52 CSPV, VII, 243. For the febrility of Paris at this time more broadly: B. Diefendorf, “Prologue to a (...)

11Surprisingly, the Cardinal of Lorraine was not named in any of the descriptions of the main party. If he were absent, it must have been on exceptionally pressing business and he would almost have certainly been with the two other prominent absentees – Mary and François II. Rosalind Marshall claimed that Mary attended in person alongside other unspecified members of the court.47 In fact, the Venetian ambassador reported that neither Mary nor François attended but that instead “several personages” attended on their behalf.48 This report is corroborated by the fact that the King and Queen were mentioned nowhere in the plans sent to attendees and that d’Espence’s funeral sermon consistently addressed the audience only as “Messieurs”: not only did this suggest an entirely male company, but it is highly unlikely that either the reigning monarch or their consort would have been present but not named in an address to the audience.49 Reigning monarchs in France in this period were prohibited from attending the funeral of their predecessor as part of a broader attempt to use the ceremony to articulate the eternal nature of sovereign power.50 This, however, would not have restricted Mary in 1560 - Marie de Guise was not, after all, her daughter’s immediate predecessor as monarch. Therefore, Guise’s daughter and son-in-law were probably absent due to security concerns. Although in July the King had planned to attend his father’s “year’s mind”, a memorial service held a year after death, this was held outside Paris in St Denis: Notre Dame was in the heart of the capital.51 We have seen the anxiety about plots circulating in court – even four days before the service it was reported that the gates of Paris had been closed for three days as part of a number of measures to search for “Maligni, one of the chiefs of the Amboise conspiracy…who is suspected to have returned with more plots and designs than ever”.52

  • 53 BNF Dupuy 324 f. 109-110; Histoire de la Ville de Paris, III, op. cit., p. 662.
  • 54 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris, V, op. cit., p. 60-61.
  • 55 Ibid., p. 60, n.5. This suggests that the service took place on 11th, but it is clear this is a mis (...)
  • 56 S. Carroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 9-12; Mark Konnert, “Provincial Governors and Their (...)
  • 57 S. Carroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 132.
  • 58 Hierarchia Catholica Medii et recentioris aevi, III ed. K. Eubel et al, Munster, 1923, p. 143, 300.

12The choice of clerics who officiated the ceremony, with the exception of the Bishop of Paris in whose cathedral it took place, would have sent a clear signal to onlookers regarding the type of men whose views were acceptable to the Cardinal and his family. Frustratingly, sources disagree surrounding who said mass. The plans for the ceremony sent to the Chambre des Comptes anticipated that mass would be said by two Bishops, but named only one, Jérome Burgensis, Bishop of Châlons.53 A more complete version of the royal letters which survives in the Parisian city records suggests that Eustache du Bellay, Bishop of Paris, gave the requiem mass assisted by Châlons and Philippe de Lenoncourt, Bishop of Auxerre, who had recently been translated from Châlons.54 The registers of Notre-Dame, however, suggest that it was Louis Guillart, Bishop of Senlis who accompanied Auxerre.55 A close Guise client, Châlons would later be despatched on the advice of the Cardinal of Lorraine to reason with the Protestant congregation at Wassy, and his failure to convince them to return to the Catholic fold helped to create the circumstances for the Wassy massacre.56 Senlis too was an integral member of the Cardinal’s circle centred on his residence of Melun – and was known for his evangelical and “unorthodox” views.57 Potentially, it was planned that Châlons would assist but that he was for some reason prevented from doing so; however, Guillart was transferred from Châlons to Senlis in September 1560 so if this had been planned or discussed by early August it is also possible that it was he who was meant when the Bishop of either diocese was named.58 Although there is a lack of clarity it is nonetheless evident that, alongside the Bishop of Paris, Guise associates who included individuals engaged in dialogue with reformed ideas took on prominent roles in the ceremony. Even the choice of celebrants had been carefully managed to remind attendants that the Cardinal of Lorraine’s mind was far from closed to certain facets of religious debate. It is now time to explore the other messages to which these men were exposed.

Ceremonial and Sermon

  • 59 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris, V, op. cit., p. 60.
  • 60 R. E. Giesey, op. cit., p. 14-15 and 56-57.
  • 61 Ibid., p. 15.
  • 62 Ibid., p. 86.
  • 63 Registre des délibérations, V, op. cit., p. 60 n. 4.
  • 64 Edinburgh, National Records of Scotland [NRS] E21/52 f. 23v.
  • 65 R. E. Giesey, op. cit., p. 172. This otherwise most helpful account also omits to mention Marie de (...)
  • 66 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 25-6.

13François II had decreed that the “honneurs, pompes, et cerymonys deues en semblable cas” were to be observed for his mother-in-law.59 The “semblable cas” he had in mind was evidently something approximating a royal service: from the scrupulous concern to the seating arrangements, to the participation of the Bishop of Paris, to the overnight vigil in Notre Dame (which, for a royal funeral where effigy and body travelled together, would have been a precursor to its move to St Denis for burial), to the attendance of the Parlement de Paris, the spaces used by, timings of and participants in the ceremony reflected royal practice.60 Moreover, the mourners were provided with a visual and emotive focus which they would have encountered in previous royal funerals – namely, the chapelle ardente. These were impressive structures draped in cloth, topped by candles, and for royal funerals, usually centred on a coffin containing the body and surmounted by an effigy.61 For memorial services which took place without a body this might be replaced with an empty coffin topped by “some paraphernalia which ‘represented’ the deceased”, such as a coat of arms.62 The nineteenth-century editor of the Parisian municipal records, Alexandre Teuty, stated that Marie de Guise’s coffin was covered in cloth of gold and topped by a white satin cross, whilst heralds stood at the entry to the choir.63 Although Teuty did not provide a reference for his claim the suggestion is plausible and the white satin cross would have echoed provisions made for Guise in Scotland where the room in which her coffin lay was draped in black and grey whilst a white taffeta cross was displayed above her body.64 In 1550, the funeral of Claude, Duke of Guise had provided his sons with an opportunity to assert their family’s royal status as descendants of the King of Sicily.65 In 1560 the brothers reaffirmed this through the ceremonies afforded to their dead sister, dowager Queen of Scotland. In addition to the articulation of Guise’s personal royal status, her family’s royal lineage was explicitly discussed in the sermon, to which address we now turn.66

  • 67 V. L. Saulnier, art. cit., p. 130. Larissa J. Taylor, “Funeral Sermons and Orations as Religious Pr (...)
  • 68 L. J. Taylor, art. cit., p. 226-229. Marie de Guise’s sermon is strangely absent from this study.
  • 69 V. L. Saulnier, art. cit., p. 135; Claude d’Espence, Oraison Funebre es Obseques de feu Messire Fra (...)
  • 70 C. D’Espence, Oraison…Oliuier, p. 103-104.

14It is hard to over-emphasise the significance of sermons in early modern religious culture in general, and, in particular, in France during the religious wars sermons assumed especial importance.67 Using the life of the deceased and their part in ‘the very real war that was being waged on the faith by heretics’ as an example for others reached its apogee after 1562, but it was the 1550 funeral sermon of Claude, duke of Guise, replete with references to heretics and the Duke’s piety, marked an initial foray into the anti-heretical possibilities of the genre.68 Even so, in any study of sermons, the question of how far the printed text reflected the original needs to be addressed. Unusually, since few men gave more than one funerary sermon, Guise’s was the second which d’Espence delivered in 1560. In April he had preached in memory of François Olivier, the recently deceased Chancellor.69 The printed edition included a note from the author imploring readers “ne vous esmerueiller, y trouvans chose lors non dictes” in the printed book, whilst d’Espence also confessed he had omitted “les choses non necessaires”.70 Whilst d’Espence was evidently not afraid of editing his spoken word as it transitioned to print, he did not report any changes to Guise’s sermon. Nevertheless, it was bookended by two new pieces of writing. The first was a dedication to Mary, Queen of Scots. The sermon was followed by a section entitled “C’est le droit Que Dieu fait à la veufe & orphelin”, a compendium of biblical passages outlining the status of widows and orphans as protected by God. This reflected and extended the discussion of widowhood which proved a prominent theme in the discussion of Guise’s life. Between the delivery of the sermon in August 1560 and its publication in January 1561, Mary, Queen of Scots, had been widowed – as both orphan and widow this aspect of her mother’s life and the appended materials were, as the dedication made clear, now painfully apt for her circumstances.

  • 71 Alain Tallon (ed.), Un autre catholicisme au temps des Réformes? Claude d’Espence et la théologie h (...)
  • 72 Loris Petris, “Le theologien et le magistrate”, in A. Tallon (ed.), op. cit., p. 191-212.

15If the religious preferences of the Bishops who said mass offered a subtle signal, the man chosen to preach was selected in order to articulate his message loudly and clearly. Like his patron, d’Espence has been recently reassessed – in this case, twentieth-century characterisations of the cleric as a crypto-reformer based on polemical attacks by contemporaries have given way to a picture of a man who, for Alain Tallon, combined an emphasis on apostolic tradition with a recognition that reform of the Church was necessary.71 For Loris Petris, moreover, d’Espence’s characteristics of “érasmisme, moderation et gallicanisme” were shared with his patron, the Cardinal of Lorraine.72 After the Council of Fontainebleau, d’Espence would go on to participate in the Colloquy of Poissy as a leading advocate of the policy of concord favoured by the Cardinal himself. These characteristics shone through in his sermon for Marie.

  • 73 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 18. Judith is dead, for whom all the people mourned. Ma (...)
  • 74 R. Marshall, Mary of Guise, op. cit., p. 263.
  • 75 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 65, 103.

16D’Espence chose as his text “Defuncta est Judith, luxitque illam omnis populous”.73 Judith, a widow, saw her nation under both spiritual and military threat from the Assyrians. Frustrated by the incompetent men who surrounded her, she used her wit and cunning to behead the Assyrian general Holofernes. Having thus saved her nation, she ended her days as a chaste widow. For Marshall, this comparison was not only apt but the major point of the sermon and it indicated that “for the French, Mary was a warrior princess fighting for their cause” against a Protestant threat.74 The Judith motif certainly recurred throughout the sermon – Judith’s similarities to Marie were returned to at length when she appeared as the culmination of a list of politically active widows and she likewise appeared in the compendium of biblical commentary on the Biblically endowed rights of widows and orphans appended to the sermon in its published form.75 Whilst Judith’s story was a significant motif, her appearance needs to be contextualised amongst the numerous women worthies cited and the comments which d’Espence made on other topics. Given the recent reassessments of the Cardinal of Lorraine and d’Espence it is not plausible that the sermon straightforwardly eulogised a violent attack on heresy: this was neither Lorraine nor d’Espence’s preferred approach. We need to look beyond Judith to appreciate the complexity of the message for which the illustrious French and foreign mourners had been so carefully gathered to received.

  • 76 V. L. Saulnier, art. cit., p. 124-157; Ralph Houlbrook, Death, Religion and the Family in England 1 (...)
  • 77 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 25-40, 53-63.
  • 78 A. Wilkinson Mary, Queen of Scots and French Public Opinion, op. cit., p. 54; Jean-Marie Le Gall, “ (...)
  • 79 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 63-65.

17In both the French and the English language traditions, the primary function of a funeral sermon was to discuss the life and, above all, the death of the deceased, to hold them up as a mirror for the assembled congregation.76 The breakdown of d’Espence’s sermon was unusual in the low proportion of time devoted to Guise’s death, as such, an overview of the sermon’s structure offers a helpful point of departure. D’Espence opened by discussing the propriety of giving funeral sermons to women before turning to Marie de Guise’s life.77 This was interrupted by an interlude which explored the history of Scotland and its relations with France. As Alexander Wilkinson and Jean-Marie le Gall both note, this offered an opportunity to emphasise the important role Marie de Guise had played in preserving deep rooted Franco-Scottish bonds.78 A second diversion from the deceased’s life comprised a defence of female government.79 Moreover, this account of Guise’s life was unbalanced - it took d’Espence fifteen pages to cover Guise’s life as a young girl and Duchess of Longueville from her birth in 1515 until she arrived in Scotland in 1537; but only ten to cover her life as Queen Consort, Queen Dowager and Queen Regent from 1537 until her death in 1560. Possibly this explains why the preacher inserted an interlude on Scottish history – this avoided providing problematic details on Guise’s politically active life without disturbing the balance of the sermon. Only three pages touched on Guise’s death, and even within these the main focus was not a detailed discussion of her last hours but, rather, an extension of the comparison with Judith. Having killed Guise off a little over half-way through the sermon, d’Espence turned to the subject of heresy, concluding the section by reminding his audience that Guise’s death in Christ was a model for them to follow by renouncing heresy. This in turn served as the opening to a discussion of the history of and appropriate behaviour during mourning, ending the sermon by returning to Guise and encouraging the audience to use their reflection on her exemplary life as a prompt to pray for themselves. In rough percentage terms, Guise’s life took up 33% of the text, 21% was focused on the general tradition and practice of mourning, whilst 16% of the text discussed Scottish history. Guise’s death accounted for approximately 9%, roughly the same proportion devoted to the specific propriety of giving funeral solemnities to women and the rejection of heresy, with the remaining 3% concerned with female rule.

  • 80 R. Houlbrook, op. cit., p. 311, 317.
  • 81 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 67-68.
  • 82 CSPV, VII, 234.
  • 83 John Knox, History of the Reformation in Works, II, ed. D. Laing, Edinburgh, Woodrow Society, 1848, (...)

18These figures can only be broadly indicative since sections within the sermon were skilfully connected and overlapped, but they serve as a helpful point of comparison to other funeral sermons. Whilst the proportion of the sermon devoted to Guise’s life maps closely onto the ‘quarter of the sermon, but sometimes a third’ which Ralph Houlbrook suggests that English funeral sermons devoted to the life of the deceased, the small attention paid to Guise’s death stands in stark contrast to the fact that in Houlbrook’s study ‘nearly half or more than half’ of a sermon could be occupied by describing the deceased’s final hours, with their death constituting the “climax” of the sermon.80 Guise’s death, however, was passed over briefly. D’Espence explained that during the fight to defend her daughter’s rights Guise had retired to the castle of Edinburgh, where, he reassured his audience, she “tousiours esté recognue, seruie, & honorée comme Royne”.81 This cast a better light on Guise’s final days than the more accurate account circulating at court and recorded by the Venetian ambassador that Guise “retired thither [Edinburgh castle] after the war broke out…but only with her maids of honour and three or four of her most necessary servants, to avoid the peril and indignity of remaining besieged with the rest of the French in Little Leith”.82 Despite knowing Guise was in Edinburgh Castle, d’Espence was misinformed about the date of her death, which he gave as 6th June. At the actual hour of Guise’s death, moreover, d’Espence’s emphasis was not on her behaviour but on that of the Scots who were with her who, including her enemies, were “tous à genoules” and weeping a fact which, he noted, justified the comparison with Judith “que tout le peuple la pleura”. Writing many years after these events, Knox crowed over the fact that Guise had been harangued by Protestant clerics on the subject of the “vanitie & abominatioun of that idole the Mess” in her final hours, after which, she was denied burial with Catholic rites in Scotland.83 Focusing on the sorrow of her attendants allowed d’Espence to tactfully evade this hurtful reality.

  • 84 R. Houlbrook, op. cit., p. 151-152.
  • 85 Nicholas de Bris, Institution a porter les adversitez du monde patiemment, Paris, Jean Loys, 1542; (...)
  • 86 Constance Jordan, “Feminism and the Humanists: The Case of Sir Thomas Elyot's Defence of Good Women (...)
  • 87 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 63.

19The fact that there was no emphasis on contrition or penitence in her last hours dovetailed with the portrayal of a woman who had lived a godly life – having lived well, Guise had no need to repent. An instructive comparison can be drawn here with the month’s mind (a service held a month after a person’s death) sermon of Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII of England’s mother. Bishop John Fisher was able to portray Beaufort as ‘a woman whose exemplary life of abstinence, self-discipline, diligent religious observance, abundant charitable works, and numerous pious benefactions has well prepared her for the hour of death’.84 In Guise’s case, however, the evidence of a pious life well lived included a larger range of activities. These encompassed those appropriate to her gender and social standing - such as her charitable visits after her first marriage “pour y minister en personne” to the poor. Such piety manifested itself most poignantly when Guise suffered personal trials in the form of the loss of two husbands and her sons. The loss of her two sons by James V in quick succession had prompted the cleric Nicholas de Bris to dedicate his book on Christian patience to Guise, however, in the sermon these deaths allowed Guise to be shown as a pious influence on her husband as she “virilement & souuent auoit exhorté ce ieune Prince à soy patiemment conformer à la volonté du père Eternel”.85 This advice may have been conventional, but the adjective “virilement” points to a broader humanist discourse which praised female “virility”.86 This word choice was unlikely to be accidental, since Guise’s godly activities also extended to the unconventional, even manly, pursuits of ruling a country and directing military activities against a group of religious rebels, when she showed a “cœur viril en corps féminin”.87

  • 88 Ibid., p. 60.
  • 89 Stewart Carroll, Noble Power during the French Wars of Religion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Pr (...)
  • 90 Ibid, p. 26.
  • 91 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 107.
  • 92 Alain Dubois, “Claude d’Espence et la figure du prince”, in A. Tallon (ed.), op. cit., p. 99-123

20As we have already seen, religious reform was a key concern for d’Espence. Drawing a comparison with Martha, who went to meet Jesus as her sister stayed at home, he noted that Guise requested that “docteurs & gens sçavans, pour luy annoncer l’Evangile” should visit the Scots from France.88 Whilst Guise’s requests for craftsmen and miners to come to Scotland are well known, and Nicholas de Pellevé, bishop of Amiens, was despatched to Scotland in the context of the Reformation Rebellion “entrusted with the task of combating heresy”, the claim that Guise imported preachers as Queen Consort merits further research.89 Nevertheless, in claiming that Guise had sought to engage the Scots through preachers d’Espence suggested that she had undertaken exactly the type of behaviour advocated by the Cardinal of Lorraine. In order for preachers to be effective, however, they needed to be of high quality and therefore church reform might be necessary. D’Espence reminded his listeners of the fact Guise was brought up in a convent of Poor Clares by her grandmother, whose behaviour as a widow and a female monastic was exemplary. Whilst stating his approval of the monastic life, however, d’Espence sounded a note of caution “mais encore plus l’approuerois-je, si les monasters, comme les autres estates de Chrestienté estoitent reduictz et reformez à leur primitiue institution”.90 This introduced a number of biblical comparisons which provided the basis for a contrast between appropriate behaviour and “les abus” committed by d’Espence’s contemporaries. Nevertheless, d’Espence was clear that the correct person to implement such reforms was the prince: he emphasised the duty of a people to obedience in the printed appendix on the rights of widows and orphans.91 Guise’s funeral sermon thus took a firm line against rebellion whilst affirming the commitment of d’Espence and his patron the Cardinal to royally organised Church reform which reflected the positions outlined by d’Espence in his other writings.92

  • 93 Ibid, p. 70.
  • 94 Ibid, p. 71, 74.
  • 95 Ibid, p. 38.
  • 96 Ibid, p. 74.
  • 97 N. M. Sutherland, Princes, op. cit., p. 120; S. Carroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p.136-138 (...)
  • 98 N. M. Sutherland, Princes, op. cit., p. 123; B. C. Weber, art. cit., p. 43-62.

21Whilst reform within the Church was necessary, d’Espence was clear that schism was not the answer, setting himself the rhetorical challenge of disproving a hypothetical opponent who considered all those nations separated from Rome to be “blessed” and encouraged Germany, England and Scotland to advance with their reformations.93 Given the presence of known evangelicals in the audience d’Espence was practicing what he preached, as he preached. He rested his case on drawing a connection between diversion from the Catholic faith and civil strife, starting off with an attack on the degenerate character of the Greek Church and its members which were now “redigee soubs les Barbares Turcs”, before moving closer to home to consider the “deuersité de Religion” in Germany.94 This picked up on a theme he had introduced earlier, when listeners were reminded of the “moult grand tumulte & persecution” which had accompanied the religious changes in Henry VIII’s England.95 As he would with the topic of female rule d’Espence skilfully introduced a theme in a relatively neutral context, before returning to it more pointedly as the sermon advanced. Despite his pious desire that heresies and sects would be rooted out, d’Espence did not conclude that persecution was necessary. Instead, he suggested that to prevent any “accroissement du present schism” there remained the possibility of “publique réformation Conciliaire, ou autrement, que Dieu vueille”.96 Since March the Cardinal of Lorraine had been seeking a “gallican council under legatine direction” and by the summer had come to believe that such a venture was both “urgent and necessary”.97 At Fontainebleau, following a series of petitions submitted by Protestants, a range of options for the form that council might take were discussed. Whilst there is debate about the precise meaning of Lorraine’s response, it is clear that he arrived at Fontainebleau hoping for “a new, free, general council or failing that a gallican council” and maintained his commitment to conciliar reform throughout.98

  • 99 E. Durot, François de Lorraine, op. cit., p. 570.
  • 100 Peter Walter, “Claude d’Espence et Charles de Guise”, in J. Balsamo, T. Nicklas et B. Restie (eds), (...)

22D’Espence’s sermon had articulated the key aspects of his patron’s forthcoming position at Fontainebleau: commitment to the Catholic faith tempered by an emphasis upon concord; eschewing heresy and sedition whilst allowing for orderly reform led by a prince informed by a Church council. The parallels also held for the Duke of Guise who, although more taciturn than his brother, at Fontainbleau would “pose en défenseur de l’intérêt supérieur du royaume, avec la conservation de la foi et de la religion catholiques”.99 In this, the Duke followed the pattern laid out by his elder sister, Marie, as she had been portrayed by d’Espence eight days earlier. Equally, for d’Espence personally, as a man whose theology had been considered suspect, “l’honneur” of delivering this sermon provided an opportunity to distance himself from sedition and heresy whilst firmly restating his desire for reform.100 At a time when Guise’s brothers were subject to criticism for exercising power, this account of their sister’s life showcased the suitability of the whole family to serve as leading councillors and custodians of royal power during a minority. In order to argue that Marie de Guise held power legitimately, d’Espence was therefore constrained to engage in the debate on the place of women in political life.

Marie de Guise, Claude d’Espence and women’s rule

  • 101 A selection of the literature on Knox includes: Charlotte Ann Panofré, “Radical Geneva? The publica (...)
  • 102 A. Dubois-Nayt, “The ‘Unscottishness’ of Female Rule: an Early Modern Theory”, Women's History Revi (...)
  • 103 I am grateful to Armel Dubois-Nayt for bringing these debates to my attention and for the first two (...)

23Since the birth of women’s history in the 1970s the fierce early modern debates which surrounded the right of women to rule have been examined by an equally lively (though profoundly less misogynist) strain of scholarship. Central to this discussion has, of course, been John Knox’s famous diatribe against Marie de Guise, her daughter, and Mary Tudor, Queen of England.101 Recently, Armel Dubois-Nayt has drawn attention to Knox’s contemporary George Buchanan, demonstrating that his depiction of women, including Marie, amounted to a case that female rule ultimately constituted “a form of usurpation that leads to an abusive exercise of power”.102 In France such debates were inflected by the practice of Salic law: a concern which also emerged in the context of the Duchy of Lorraine.103 Since Marie de Guise wielded power as a Regent and in a country with no tradition in Salic law, however, this was not a factor at play for d’Espence.

  • 104 S. L. Jansen, op. cit., p. 67-78.
  • 105 François de Billon, Le Fort inexpugnable de l’honneur du sexe féminin, Paris, Jean Daillier, 1555, (...)
  • 106 Robert Wedderburn, Complaynt of Scotland, Paris, 1550?, p. 4. See also: Robert Wedderburn, Complayn (...)

24Turning to the defenders of female rulers, Sharon Jansen has shown how men who defended women’s rule both built on and departed from the ambivalent tradition of texts such as Boccacio’s Famous Women and Chaucer’s Legends of Good Women.104 Indeed, Marie de Guise had herself been described in one such work, by François de Billon. Billon asked his reader to consider “qu’en honneste & ciuille grace ilz [the Scots] ont été forméz puis n’agueres par la sage Princesse, a present leur Royne & Gouuernante, propre Soeur du vaillant Duc de Guise”.105 The Scot Robert Wedderburn meanwhile compared Marie’s behaviour favourably to that of “verteous” ladies already described by Boccacio and Plutarch and worthy of remaining “in perpetual memor”.106 Whether or not he was familiar with these attempts to raise Marie de Guise to the pantheon of female worthies, d’Espence would have had ample source material on which to draw when seeking evidence for his defence of women leading a politically active life.

  • 107 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 18-20.

25This defence of women taking a role in political life was gently introduced in the first minutes of the sermon. D’Espence opened with an explanation of the circumstances in which funerals were first afforded to women. Although prominent Greek and Roman men had long been praised on their deaths, women were allowed these obsequies after the Gaulish siege of Rome in the year 360 when the women of Rome had given “leurs propres ornemens” to the war effort.107 Opening with this story was a clever rhetorical move since the patriotic actions of the Roman matrons offered obvious parallels with Marie, who had died whilst participating in the defence of her adopted country. By demonstrating that women were first afforded funerary rites as a result of their service to Rome in war, d’Espence had implicated every man who chose to attend Marie de Guise’s funeral in a tacit acceptance that it had been similarly appropriate for Guise to participate in the defence of her adopted country. Having broached the subject of women’s involvement in political and military affairs at the beginning of the sermon, d’Espence returned to it more directly in the context of his account of Guise’s life.

  • 108 Ibid., p. 64.
  • 109 Jean de Beaugué, L'histoire de la guerre d'Escosse, traitant comme le Royaume fut assailly, & en gr (...)
  • 110 C. Jordan, art. cit., p. 192.
  • 111 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 64.
  • 112 Ibid. For Camilla, Queen of the Volsciens and Semiramis of Assyria see: Giovanni Boccacio, Famous W (...)
  • 113 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 64.
  • 114 A. Bouchard, op. cit., p. 36; S. L. Jansen, op. cit., p. 49, 157. Jansen anglicises the latter’s na (...)
  • 115 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 64-65.
  • 116 Ibid., p. 41. Hector Boece, Scotorum Historia, ed. D.F. Sutton http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/b (...)
  • 117 The earlier edition of 1529: USTC 158658.
  • 118 B. Chasseneux, op. cit., p. 46-47 for the material on exemplary women and funerals; see Part VII fo (...)

26D’Espence praised Marie de Guise’s rulership in time of war as “incroyable”, noting in particular her dedication to preserving the alliance between Scotland and France and the “harengues” she delivered to the soldiers in person.108 These speeches were indeed effective – Jean de Beaugue, a French soldier who penned a memoir of the campaign of 1547-50, vividly recalled how Guise’s speeches, as well as her liberal rewards, served to encourage soldiers.109 Guise’s willingness to take on the role of defender of her adopted nation might explain why d’Espence eschewed the many biblical verses which highlighted widows as enjoying God’s special protection, leaving these to the appendix to the printed edition. Nevertheless, participating in warfare and speaking in public were especially problematic activities for women in the eyes of many contemporaries.110 Having noted that some men “ne trouue pas bon les femmes se mesler de gouuernement publique, specialement de la guerre”, d’Espence’s refutation was centred on a list of classical and contemporary female rulers.111 Whilst many were Queens, widows or regents, one overarching commonality connected them: these women were warriors. D’Espence did not describe the activities of these women, simply listing their names, but many were familiar figures from the defence of women genre and he might reasonably have expected listeners to already know of their exploits and characters.112 The final woman ruler, Margaret of Norway, Sweden and Denmark, who died in 1412, was d’Espence’s most recent example and deserves some comment.113 Although absent from earlier Italian defenders of women, Margaret did feature in Aumary Bouchard’s French defence of women rulers as well as those penned by the Scots John Leslie and David Chalmers later in the sixteenth century.114 It is tempting to suggest she was selected by authors interested in Scotland and its Queens, such as d’Espence, as a result of the kinship ties between the Scottish and Danish royal families. After a more general nod towards “noz Regentes de France, de Flandres & de païs bas” who “tant en guerre qu’en paix” ruled during their children’s minorities, the list continued with a geographically pertinent example: in “ce païs la” Guise could have taken inspiration from Queen Vaoda.115 As d’Espence explained, during the invasion of the Romans under Vespian, Vaoda, a widow, headed an army of 5,000 maids to defend her country, a feat which placed her alongside the Spartans and Amazons as an example of a successful female warrior. This account does not tally with the version of Vaoda’s life offered by the Scottish historian Hector Boece, whom d’Espence cited.116 Nevertheless, the tale served to offer local colour before d’Espence returned to the well-known biblical Queens Deborah and Judith. Since so many of these examples were commonplace, it is hard to say which, if any, of the books written in defence of women he consulted whilst preparing the sermon. It is tempting to suggest, however, that he had perused a copy of Barthelemy Chasseneux’s Catalogus Gloriae Mundi, which had been printed for the second time in 1546.117 This text included seven of the ten examples cited (Semiramis and Cleopatra, Camilla, Tomyris, Valasca, Teuta and Amalasuntha, as well as the Amazons), material on the funerary honours accorded to women, and on the office of the Chancellor, a subject which we know he considered for the published version of his funeral sermon on Olivier.118

  • 119 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 64.
  • 120 S. L. Jansen, op. cit., p. 19.
  • 121 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 60.

27In relying on a list of examples drawn from, as he explained, “les Poëtes & Historiens”, to defend Guise’s behaviour d’Espence chose a technique which formed the cornerstone of many defences of women.119 Whilst such tangible precedents might puncture theoretical arguments that women should not rule, without a theoretical defence to complement it, an argument based on examples was easy to refute. Individual cases did not imply divine approbation or a general law; Knox, for instance, dismissed the example of Deborah on these grounds.120 Although the list was the only moment when d’Espence explicitly engaged with the question of female rule or participation in politically active life he alluded to these broader debates with his passing mentions of “la vie contemplative” and Marie’s contrasting choice to live “en l’active”, in, for instance, his comparison to the biblical Martha and Mary.121 This debate was therefore highlighted to listeners as a framing device for what they heard.

28Like many of the virtuous women cited by d’Espence and other defenders of women, it was Guise’s widowhood which provided the catalyst for and justification of her political power. The account of her second widowhood was separated from the earlier portion of her life by a lengthy digression on the topic of grief and, in particular, the poignancy of the grief felt for a dead spouse or child. Structurally, this demonstrated how Guise’s status as a widow marked a new phase in her life, setting her apart from other women. Nevertheless, this account of Guise’s earlier life, in particular, her decision to marry James V, offered d’Espence an opportunity to demonstrate to readers that she lacked ambition for herself. This was more than a pleasing show of female virtue – by implication it served to counter to the criticisms against the ambition of her brothers. D’Espence achieved this in two ways. First, by emphasising her reluctance to remarry, explaining that after the Duke of Longueville’s death, “elle ne voulut iamais partir de Chasteaudun” and that she had only consented to remarry following the express orders of François I. Guise, we learn from this, was an obedient and devoted subject who put service to her monarch before her own will: her second marriage, and all which followed from it, was therefore an act of loyalty and service to the French crown.

  • 122 “Introduction”, Foreign Correspondence with Marie de Lorraine, Queen of Scotland from the originals (...)
  • 123 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 60.
  • 124 Ibid., p. 53.
  • 125 Thomas Elyot deployed the same technique: C. Jordan, art. cit., p. 181-201.

29Secondly, Guise’s choice of James V as her husband demonstrated her virtuous, unambitious nature. Presented with the option of Henry VIII, who was rich and heretical, or James V, who, although comparatively poorer, was a Catholic who sought her hand on the grounds of her virtues, Guise chose James V. In making these claims d’Espence was departing significantly from the truth – Guise had already been selected by François I as a replacement for Princess Madeleine well before Henry VIII asked for her hand.122 Moreover, there is no evidence, as d’Espence claimed, that Guise refused Henry VIII on a second occasion after James V died: in the context of the sermon, however, this served neatly to reinforce the picture of Guise eschewing worldly gain in favour of defending her faith.123 Whilst married to James V, d’Espence explained, these characteristics had led to her being as loved in Scotland as Isis was in Italy of Ceres in Sicily, or, indeed, as loved as Scota, daughter of Pharo amongst the people who would be named after her.124 On one level, these three goddesses and Queens were carefully chosen for their specific resonances - although Isis and Ceres were standard examples, both appearing in Boccacio, for instance, drawing them together in this manner cleverly combined a nod to the origins of Guise’s natal family and their claim to be monarchs of Sicily, and the Egyptian origin myths of the Scots – something noted more explicitly in the unusual reference to Scota. On another, emphasising Guise’s conventional qualities and the love they had inspired also served to soften and render more legitimate the “virile” behaviour she exhibited as regent.125 Cumulatively, this could only reflect well on the position of her siblings as custodians of royal power during a minority in France.

Conclusions

30Guise’s position as a female ruler created a tension at the heart of d’Espence’s sermon. In order to use Marie as an advertisement for her family, he needed to craft an image of a virtuous prince – and to achieve this, he needed to explain away the anomaly of a woman holding power. The techniques he employed towards this end, such as contextually pertinent examples, emphasising her success as a ruler and a woman, and arguing she lacked personal ambition, were far from novel. However, we should not expect them to be: the purpose of the sermon was not to defend female rule, or even simply to eulogise one female ruler, but, rather, to disseminate particular messages about the living relatives of the dead Queen. The lack of interest in planning a memorial service until the council of Fontainebleau was conceived, combined with the rapidity with which plans were in motion once the council’s date was set, and the timing of the service eight days before the council met, strongly suggest that the two events were connected in the mind of the Cardinal of Lorraine, organiser of the memorial service, and the patron of the preacher and several of the clerics involved in officiating mass. Lorraine himself was absent – as were the King and Queen – but they did not need to receive the messages which sermon and service were designed to convey. Rather, a significant domestic audience, many of whom would attend the council but others of whom would have been exposed to anti-Guise propaganda, were accompanied by foreign dignitaries. These men were required to participate in a ceremony which articulated the royal lineage of the Guise family and hence their natural status as rulers – a message reemphasised in the sermon. Equally, d’Espence’s discussion of the history of mourning cleverly turned this very participation into a tacit acceptance of female political activities.

31This, however, was not the only purpose of the sermon. Accepting Marie and her family as princes whose qualities suited them for rule was only part of the story. The listener was also supposed to reflect on France’s religious problems, in the light of the awful knowledge of the religious rebellion which Marie had failed to put down. Without extensive discussion of the painful situation in Scotland, listeners were reminded of the dangers of religious schism and religious violence, even as they recalled that the Cardinal of Lorraine offered another solution. Through careful moral reform of the clergy (to meet the standards of Marie’s own grandmother) and summoning of a Church council to advise on this programme the twin evils of schism and a corrupt ecclesiastical establishment could be evaded.

32As we have seen, the memorial service and sermon have hitherto been absent from accounts of French politics in this period and interpreted in biographies of Marie de Guise, via an exclusive focus on the Judith motif, as straightforwardly anti-heretical, whilst misidentifying the audience to whom the sermon was directed. Stripped of these misapprehensions, d’Espence’s sermon offers us a new flash of insight into the febrile world of the French court in the summer of 1560. Acknowledging the careful arguments he constructed urges us to rescue the obsequies of Marie de Guise from the closing pages of her own biography, and to reinsert them into our understanding of the two most intractable political problems facing France in 1560: the move away from persecution of Protestants, and the anxiety surrounding her kin, the house of Guise.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Amy Blakeway, “The Anglo-Scottish war of 1558 and the Scottish Reformation”, History, 101, 2017, p. 201-224; Pamela Ritchie, Mary of Guise in Scotland, 1548-1560: A Political Career, East Linton, Tuckwell Press, 2002, p. 205-244; Alec Ryrie, The Origins of the Scottish Reformation, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2006, p. 139-195.

2 Éric Durot, “Le crépuscule de l'Auld Alliance: la légitimité du pouvoir en question entre Écosse, France et Angleterre (1558-1561)”, Histoire, Économie et Société, 26, 2007, p. 3-46, here p. 29; Stuart Caroll, Martyrs and Murderers: the Guise Family and the Making of Europe, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 119-124.

3 Éric Durot, François de Lorraine, duc de Guise entre Dieu et le Roi, Paris, Classiques Garnier, 2012, p. 518-538

4 Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice [CSPV], VII, ed. Rawdon Brown and G. Cavendish Bentinck, London, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1890, p. 221; J. H. M. Salmon, Society in Crisis: France in the Sixteenth Century, London, Benn, 1975, p. 125; Jean-Claude Ternaux, “Les excès de la maison de Lorraine dans l’épitre et la satire du Tigre (1560-1561)”, in Yvonne Bellenger (ed), Le Mécénat et l’influence des Guises, Paris, Honoré Champion, 1997, p. 381-404.

5 For the old view: J. H. M. Salmon, Society in Crisis, London, Benn, 1975, p. 118.

6 S. Caroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 45; for an overview of the historiography: Stuart Caroll, “The Compromise of Charles Cardinal of Lorraine: new evidence”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 54, 2003, p. 469-472.

7 S. Caroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 119. B. C. Weber, “Council of Fontainebleau”, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, 45, 1954, p. 43-62.

8 Arlette Jouanna, “Les Guises et le Sang de France”, in Yvone Bellenger (ed.), Le Mécénat et l'influence des Guises, Paris, Honoré Champion, 2000, p. 23-38, here p. 23; Katherine Crawford, Perilous Performances: Gender andRregency in Early Modern France, Cambridge Mass., Harvard University Press, 2004, p. 22-23 and p. 38-39.

9 Rosalind K. Marshall, Mary of Guise, London, Collins, 1977, p. 262; R. K. Marshall, (2004, September 23); Mary [Mary of Guise] (1515–1560), queen of Scots, consort of James V, and regent of Scotland. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2019, from http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-18250; Alexander Wilkinson, Mary, Queen of Scots and French Public Opinion 1542-1600, Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2004, p. 54; Peter Walter, “Claude d’Espence et Charles de Guise”, in Jean Balsamo, Thomas Nicklas et Bruno Restie (eds.), Un Prélat Français de la Renaissance: Le Cardinal de Lorraine entre Reims et l’Europe, Genève, Droz, 2015, p. 94-99; R. J. Knecht, Catherine de Medici, London, Longman, 1998, p. 59-72; D. Potter, The French Wars of Religion, London, Macmillan, 1997; R. J. Knecht, The French Religious Wars 1562-1586, Oxford, Osprey, 2002, p. 7-21; R. M. Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion in France, 1555-1563, Gèneve, Droz,1956, p. 74-75; N. M. Sutherland, Princes, Politics and Religion, 1547-1589, London, Hambledon Press, 1984, p. 55-125; N. M. Sutherland, The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition, London, Yale University Press, 1980, p. 62-119; J. Shimizu, Conflict of Loyalties, Politics and Religion in the Career of Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France, 1519-1572, Gèneve, Droz, 1970, p. 33-49.

10 S. Caroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 133.

11 Verdun L. Saulnier, “L’Oraison Funèbre au XVIe siècle”, Bibliothèque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, 10, 1948, p. 124-157, here p. 138.

12 Claude d’Espence, Oraison Funebre ès obsèques de très haute, très puissante et très vertueuse princesse, Marie,... royne douairière d'Escoce, prononcée à Nostre Dame de Paris, le 12e d'aoust 1560, Paris, M. de Vascosan, 1561, p. 25-26 and 36; A. Jouanna, art. cit., p. 32-33.

13 Éric Durot, “Le Cardinal de Lorraine au Miroir de l’Ecosse” in J. Balsamo, T. Nicklas et B. Restie (eds), op. cit., p. 94-99.

14 For the critiques: E. Durot, François de Lorraine, op. cit., p. 554-556.

15 Throckmorton to the Lords of the Council, 30 June 1560, London, The National Archives [TNA] SP70/15 f.107r.

16 Throckmorton to Cecil 24 June 1560, TNA SP70/15 f. 85r; Throckmorton to Elizabeth, 30 June 1560, TNA SP70/15 f.105v; Throckmorton to the Council 30 June 1560, TNA SP70/15 f.107r; CSPV, VII, p. 227, 234.

17 This overview is based on the works cited in n.9 above.

18 CSPV, VII, p. 225; Throckmorton to Cecil, 24 June 1560, TNA SP70/15 f. 85r.

19 CSPV, VII, 234; Throckmorton to Elizabeth, 30 June 1560, TNA SP70/15 f. 106r.

20 A. Ryrie, op. cit., p. 151.

21 Throckmorton to Cecil, 24 June 1560, TNA SP70/15 f. 85r.

22 CSPV, VII, 242; For more on the plots: R. M., Kingdon, Geneva and the Coming of the Wars of Religion, op. cit., p. 74-75.

23 CSPV, VII, 243; Throckmorton to Elizabeth, 9 August 1560, TNA SP70/17 f. 41v.

24 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris publié par les soins du service historique, V, ed. Alexandre Teutey, Paris, Imprimerie Nationale, 1892, p. 60-61.

25 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 26.

26 Alexandre Teulet, Papiers d’Etat, pièces et documents inédits ou peu connus relatifs à l'histoire de l'Écosse au XVIe siècle, tirés des bibliothèques et des archives de France, I, Edinburgh, Bannatyne Clube, 1851, p. 615

27 Bibliothèque Nationale de France [BNF], Dupuy MS 324; D. M. Félibien, L’Histoire de la Ville de Paris, III, Paris, Guillaume Despres, 1725, p. 660-662.

28 S. Carroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 136-138; N. M. Sutherland, Princes, Politics and Religion, op. cit., p. 123-124.

29 S. Carroll, Martyrs and Murderers op. cit., p. 125.

30 Throckmorton to the English Privy Council, 9 August 1560, TNA SP70/17 ff. 49r; Throckmorton to Elizabeth 19 July 1560 TNA SP70/15 f. 47v.

31 Throckmorton to the Cardinal of Lorraine, 14 July 1560, TNA SP70/15 f. 36r; Cardinal of Lorraine to Throckmorton 14 July 1560, TNA SP70/15 f. 38r; Throckmorton to Elizabeth, 19 July 1560, TNA SP70/15 f. 47v.

32 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris, V, op. cit., p. 60.

33 Ibid.

34 Laurent Bourquin, “Les fidèles des Guises parmi les chevaliers de l’ordre de Saint-Michel sous les derniers Valois”, in Y. Bellenger (ed.), op. cit., p. 96-99.

35 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris, V, op. cit., p. 61; E. Durot, François de Lorraine, op. cit., p. 401.

36 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 25.

37 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris, V, op. cit., p. 60 n. 2; S. Caroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 132.

38 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris, V, op. cit., p. 60 n. 2.

39 CSPV, VII, 244.

40 Hugues Daussy, “Le Cardinal de Lorraine vu par les Protestants en Europe”, in J. Balsamo, T. Nicklas et Restif, op. cit., p. 157; Throckmorton to the Privy Council, 9 August 1570, TNA SP70/17 f. 48r.

41 He wrote three letters on 9 August with substantially similar content: Throckmorton to the Privy Council, 9 August 1560, TNA SP70/17 f. 49-51r; Throckmorton to Elizabeth 9 August 1560, TNA SP70/17 f. 43-47; Throckmorton to Elizabeth, 22 August 1560, TNA SP70/17 f. 105-106; Throckmorton to Cecil, 9 August 1560, TNA SP70/17 f. 55-57.

42 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris, V, op. cit., p. 60 n. 2.

43 P. Ritchie, op. cit., p. 240.

44 S. Carroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 108-109.

45 Ibid., p. 138-139.

46 A. Jouanna, art. cit., p. 34; Jacqueline Boucher, “Le cardinal de Lorraine, premier minister de fait ou d’ambition”, in Y. Bellenger, op. cit., p. 295-310, here p. 303.

47 R. Marshall, Mary of Guise, op. cit., p. 262; R. Marshall, (2004, September 23). Mary [Mary of Guise] (1515–1560), queen of Scots, consort of James V, and regent of Scotland. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2019, from http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-18250

48 CSPV, VII, 243.

49 For example: C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 74.

50 R. E. Giesey, The Royal Funeral Ceremony in Renaissance France, Gèneve, Droz, 1960, p. 47-48.

51 Throckmorton to the Council, 30 June 1560 TNA SP70/15 f. 108r; however less certainty about the location of the ceremony is given in Throckmorton to Elizabeth, 30 June 1560, TNA SP50/15 f. 106r.

52 CSPV, VII, 243. For the febrility of Paris at this time more broadly: B. Diefendorf, “Prologue to a Massacre: Popular unrest in Paris 1557-1572”, The American Historical Review, 90, 1985, p. 1067-1091.

53 BNF Dupuy 324 f. 109-110; Histoire de la Ville de Paris, III, op. cit., p. 662.

54 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris, V, op. cit., p. 60-61.

55 Ibid., p. 60, n.5. This suggests that the service took place on 11th, but it is clear this is a mistake for 12th.

56 S. Carroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 9-12; Mark Konnert, “Provincial Governors and Their Regimes during the French Wars of Religion: The Duc de Guise and the City Council of Chalons-sur-Marne”, The Sixteenth Century Journal, 25, 1994, p. 823-840, here p. 828-829.

57 S. Carroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p. 132.

58 Hierarchia Catholica Medii et recentioris aevi, III ed. K. Eubel et al, Munster, 1923, p. 143, 300.

59 Registres des délibérations du bureau de la ville de Paris, V, op. cit., p. 60.

60 R. E. Giesey, op. cit., p. 14-15 and 56-57.

61 Ibid., p. 15.

62 Ibid., p. 86.

63 Registre des délibérations, V, op. cit., p. 60 n. 4.

64 Edinburgh, National Records of Scotland [NRS] E21/52 f. 23v.

65 R. E. Giesey, op. cit., p. 172. This otherwise most helpful account also omits to mention Marie de Guise’s funeral.

66 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 25-6.

67 V. L. Saulnier, art. cit., p. 130. Larissa J. Taylor, “Funeral Sermons and Orations as Religious Propaganda in Sixteenth-Century France”, in B. Gordon and P. Marshall (eds.), The Place of the Dead: Death and Remembrance in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 224-39 here p. 225. For an overview of the significance of sermons in a British Isles Context: The Oxford Handbook of the Early Modern Sermon, ed. H. Adlington, P. McCullough and E. Rhatigan, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011.

68 L. J. Taylor, art. cit., p. 226-229. Marie de Guise’s sermon is strangely absent from this study.

69 V. L. Saulnier, art. cit., p. 135; Claude d’Espence, Oraison Funebre es Obseques de feu Messire Francois Oliuier en son viuant Cheualier & chancellier de France, Paris, M. de Vascosan, 1561.

70 C. D’Espence, Oraison…Oliuier, p. 103-104.

71 Alain Tallon (ed.), Un autre catholicisme au temps des Réformes? Claude d’Espence et la théologie humaniste à Paris au XVIe siècle, Turnhout, Brepols, 2010, p. 7-13.

72 Loris Petris, “Le theologien et le magistrate”, in A. Tallon (ed.), op. cit., p. 191-212.

73 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 18. Judith is dead, for whom all the people mourned. Marshall wrongly translates this as ‘the light of all the world’, p. 262.

74 R. Marshall, Mary of Guise, op. cit., p. 263.

75 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 65, 103.

76 V. L. Saulnier, art. cit., p. 124-157; Ralph Houlbrook, Death, Religion and the Family in England 1480-1750, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 295-330.

77 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 25-40, 53-63.

78 A. Wilkinson Mary, Queen of Scots and French Public Opinion, op. cit., p. 54; Jean-Marie Le Gall, “Les pompes funèbres des souverains étrangers à Notre-Dame de Paris, XVI-XVIII siècles”, Revue d’Histoire Moderne & Contemporaine, 59, 2012-13, p. 96-123.

79 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 63-65.

80 R. Houlbrook, op. cit., p. 311, 317.

81 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 67-68.

82 CSPV, VII, 234.

83 John Knox, History of the Reformation in Works, II, ed. D. Laing, Edinburgh, Woodrow Society, 1848, p. 71, 160.

84 R. Houlbrook, op. cit., p. 151-152.

85 Nicholas de Bris, Institution a porter les adversitez du monde patiemment, Paris, Jean Loys, 1542; C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 54.

86 Constance Jordan, “Feminism and the Humanists: The Case of Sir Thomas Elyot's Defence of Good Women”, Renaissance Quarterly, 36, 1983, p. 181-201 here p. 182, 191.

87 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 63.

88 Ibid., p. 60.

89 Stewart Carroll, Noble Power during the French Wars of Religion, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998, p. 96.

90 Ibid, p. 26.

91 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 107.

92 Alain Dubois, “Claude d’Espence et la figure du prince”, in A. Tallon (ed.), op. cit., p. 99-123

93 Ibid, p. 70.

94 Ibid, p. 71, 74.

95 Ibid, p. 38.

96 Ibid, p. 74.

97 N. M. Sutherland, Princes, op. cit., p. 120; S. Carroll, Martyrs and Murderers, op. cit., p.136-138.

98 N. M. Sutherland, Princes, op. cit., p. 123; B. C. Weber, art. cit., p. 43-62.

99 E. Durot, François de Lorraine, op. cit., p. 570.

100 Peter Walter, “Claude d’Espence et Charles de Guise”, in J. Balsamo, T. Nicklas et B. Restie (eds), op. cit., p. 98.

101 A selection of the literature on Knox includes: Charlotte Ann Panofré, “Radical Geneva? The publication of Knox's First Blast of the Trumpet and Goodman's How Superior Powers Oght to be Obeyd in context”, Historical Research, 88, 2015, p. 48-66; J. E. A. Dawson, “The two John Knoxes : England, Scotland and the 1558 tracts”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 42, 1991, p. 555-576. Sharon L. Jansen, Debating Women, Politics, Power and Early Modern Europe, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, p. 11-34; Robert M. Healey, “Waiting for Deborah: John Knox and Four Ruling Queens”, Sixteenth Century Journal, 25, 1994, p. 371-386; W. S. Reid, “John Knox’s Theology of Political Government”, Sixteenth Century Journal, 4, 1988, p. 529-540; J. M. Richards, “To Promote a Woman to Bear Rule: Talking of Queens in mid-Tudor England”, Sixteenth Century Journal, 28, 1997, p. 101-21; Jane Dawson, John Knox, New Haven, Yale, 2016, p. 140-146.

102 A. Dubois-Nayt, “The ‘Unscottishness’ of Female Rule: an Early Modern Theory”, Women's History Review, 24, 2015, p. 7-22, 10.

103 I am grateful to Armel Dubois-Nayt for bringing these debates to my attention and for the first two of the following references: Augustin Calmet, Histoire de Lorraine, IV, Nancy, A. Lesevre, 1751, p. 384; Jacques Lelong, Bibliothèque Historique de la France, II, Paris, Herissant, 1769, p. 884; William Monter, A Bewitched Duchy: Lorraine and its Dukes 1477-1736, Geneva, Droz, 2007, p. 36, 100-105.

104 S. L. Jansen, op. cit., p. 67-78.

105 François de Billon, Le Fort inexpugnable de l’honneur du sexe féminin, Paris, Jean Daillier, 1555, p. 50.

106 Robert Wedderburn, Complaynt of Scotland, Paris, 1550?, p. 4. See also: Robert Wedderburn, Complaynt of Scotland, ed. A. M. Stewart, Edinburgh, Scottish Text Society,1979.

107 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 18-20.

108 Ibid., p. 64.

109 Jean de Beaugué, L'histoire de la guerre d'Escosse, traitant comme le Royaume fut assailly, & en grande partie occupé par les Anglois, & depuis rendu paisible à sa Reyne, & reduit en son ancien estat & dignité, Paris, B. Preuost, 1556, p. 34-5, 44, 81, 109-112. It is worth noting Guise was not actually regent during the campaign Beague was describing. See Marcus Merriman, The Rough Wooings: Mary, Queen of Scots 1542-1551, East Linton, Tuckwell Press, 2000.

110 C. Jordan, art. cit., p. 192.

111 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 64.

112 Ibid. For Camilla, Queen of the Volsciens and Semiramis of Assyria see: Giovanni Boccacio, Famous Women, trans & ed Virginia Brown, Cambridge Mass., Harvard University Press, 2001, p. 157, 19; Henricus Cornelius Agrippa, Declamation on the Nobility and Preeminence of the Female Sex, trans & ed Albert Rabil, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1993, p. 74, 85-86; F. de Billon, op. cit., p. 22; Aumary Bouchard, Angeliaci Sanctonum Praesidis, tēs gynaikeias phytlēs : aduersus Andream Tiraquellum Fontiniensem, Paris, Josse Bade, 1522, p. 46; Barthelemy Chasseneux, Catalogus Gloriae Mundi, Lyons, Georges Regnault, 1546, p. 47. For Tamyris, Queen of Sythia, and Artemisia of Caria see G. Boccacio, Famous Women, op. cit., p. 201, 237; A. Strozzi, La Defensione delle donne d'autore anonimo, trans. by Francesco Zambrini, Bologna, Gartano Romagnoli, 1876, p. 173, 136; C. Agrippa, op. cit., p. 73, 88; A. Bouchard, op. cit, p. 36-37; B. Chasseneux, op. cit, p. 47. For Hysicratea and Cleopatra: G. Boccacio, op. cit., p. 325, 363; A. Strozzi, op. cit., p. 131; C. Agrippa, op. cit., p. 73; F. de Billon, op. cit., p. 15; A. Bouchard, op. cit., p. 36, 68; B. Chasseneux, op. cit., p. 47. For Amalasuntha: C. Agrippa, op. cit., p. 84-85; Stephen Kolsky, The Ghost of Boccaccio: Writings on Famous Women in Renaissance Italy, Turnhout, Brepols, 2005, p.158; B. Chasseneux, op. cit., p. 47. For Valasca of Bohemia: C. Agrippa, op. cit., p. 86-87; A. Bouchard, op. cit., p. 36; B. Chasseneux, op. cit, p. 47. For Teuta, Queen of Illyria: B. Chasseneux, op. cit., p. 47. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/2*.html.

113 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 64.

114 A. Bouchard, op. cit., p. 36; S. L. Jansen, op. cit., p. 49, 157. Jansen anglicises the latter’s name for ‘Chambers’. For an English language account of Margaret’s life see: F. D. Scott, Sweden: the Nation’s History, Minneapolis St Paul, University of Minnesota Press, 1977, p. 79-86.

115 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 64-65.

116 Ibid., p. 41. Hector Boece, Scotorum Historia, ed. D.F. Sutton http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/boece/3eng.html#34. 0, accessed 14/6/2019. D’Espence also cited John Mair and the collaborators Paolo Giovio and George Lily, none of whom mentioned Vaoda. John Mair, A History of Greater Britain, trans A. Constable, Edinburgh, Scottish History Society, 1892, p. 57-60. Paulo Giovi, Descriptio Britanniae, Scotiae, Hyberniae et Orchadum, Venice, M. Tramezinum, 1548. Vespian appears at p. 57v but none of the other individuals are mentioned. For Lily and Giovio see: T.F. Mayer, “Lily, George (d. 1559), Roman Catholic ecclesiastic and cosmographer.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 23 Sep. 2004; Accessed 27 Apr. 2020. https://www-oxforddnb-com.ezproxy.st-andrews.ac.uk/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-16663.

117 The earlier edition of 1529: USTC 158658.

118 B. Chasseneux, op. cit., p. 46-47 for the material on exemplary women and funerals; see Part VII for the office of the Chancellor.

119 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 64.

120 S. L. Jansen, op. cit., p. 19.

121 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 60.

122 “Introduction”, Foreign Correspondence with Marie de Lorraine, Queen of Scotland from the originals in the Balcarres papers, 1537-1548, ed. Marguerite Wood, Edinburgh, Scottish History Society, 1923, p. ix.

123 C. D’Espence, Oraison Funebre, op. cit., p. 60.

124 Ibid., p. 53.

125 Thomas Elyot deployed the same technique: C. Jordan, art. cit., p. 181-201.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Amy Blakeway, « Religious Reform, the House of Guise and the Council of Fontainebleau: The French Memorial Service for Marie de Guise, August 1560 »Études Épistémè [En ligne], 37 | 2020, mis en ligne le 01 octobre 2020, consulté le 16 janvier 2022. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/episteme/7457 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/episteme.7457

Haut de page

Auteur

Amy Blakeway

Amy Blakeway is a lecturer in Scottish history at the University of St Andrews. She is the author of Regency in Sixteenth-Century Scotland and numerous articles on Scottish political history and diplomacy with England and France.

Haut de page
  • DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • OpenEdition Journals
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search