Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:30:02.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Decline and Fall of the House of Guise as an Ecclesiastical Dynasty*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. A. Bergin
J. A. Bergin
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the eighteenth century Louis XV's minister, Cardinal Dubois, defended himself against papal criticism of his appetite for church benefices by ordering that a list of benefices held by his seventeenth-century counterparts be prepared and sent to Rome. It was his way of proving that he was much less voracious than they had been.His defence serves to remind the historian of the extent to which the ancien régime church was dominated by powerful families and ministers, who enriched themselves considerably by amassing wealthy benefices. However, none of these cardinal-ministers, from Richelieu to Dubois, succeeded in founding ecclesiastical dynasties capable of preserving intact after their death the ecclesiastical possessions they had acquired; dynasties of this type had practically vanished by the mid-seventeenth century, having fallen foul of both the crown and of church reformers. While drawing enormous incomes from their benefices, Richelieu, Mazarin and Dubois accepted that their benefices, like their other offices, should be at the king's disposal after their death. This had not always been the case. Had Dubois’ historical curiosity been more disinterested, he would have discovered that during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, ecclesiastical dynasties of varying importance and staying-power had flourished within the French church, characterized by their ability to acquire and transmit large numbers of wealthy and prestigious benefices to family members over several generations. The minimum require ment for success was the breeding of younger sons and daughters prepared to ‘enter the church’ in order to perpetuate dynastic control of benefices.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , December 1982 , pp. 781 - 803
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Paul, Denis, Richelieu et la réforme des monastères bénédictins (Paris, 1912),Google Scholar appendix no. 159. For Mazarin's benefices, cf. Daniel, Dessert, ‘Pouvoir et finance au XVIIe siècle: la fortune du cardinal Mazarin’, Revue d’ Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine, xxiii (1976), 177.Google Scholar

2 Imbart de La Tour, P., Les origines de la réforme (4 vols., Melun, 1946, 2nd edn), 11, 273ff.Google Scholar

3 There are no convenient lists of benefices held by the sixteenth-century Guises. The information used here comes mainly from the not always reliable columns of the Gallia christiana (16 vols., Paris, 1715–1870)Google Scholar and from Eubel, C., van Gulik, G.. Gauchat, P. (eds.), Hierarchia catholica medii et recenlioris aevi (Munich, 1913–68), vols. III–IV. Only in unusual instances have references to the Gallia christiana been given.Google Scholar

4 Knecht, R. J., ‘The concordat of 1516: a reassessment’, Government in Reformation Europe, ed. Cohn, Henry J. (London, 1971), pp. 91 ff.Google Scholar

5 Peronnet, Michel C., Les evêques de l’ancienne France (2 vols., Lille, 1977), 1, 477ff.;Google ScholarImbart de, La Tour, Origines, 11, 215–42.Google Scholar

6 Cf. Charvin, Dom G., ‘L’abbaye et l’ordre de Cluny de la fin du xv au début du xvii siècle, 1485–1630’, Revue Mabillon, XLIV (1954), 6ff., for details on Cluny and some other benefices.Google Scholar

7 Outram Evennett, H., The cardinal of Lorraine and the council of Trent (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 9–15.Google Scholar

8 The most notable of these clients were the Pellevé and Lenoncourt families.

9 enry III to Gregory XIII, 26 Dec. 1574, Michel, François (ed.), Lettres de Henri III, roi de France (Paris, 1959-, in progress), 11, no. 1178, pp. 85–6. Lorraine had died only that morning.Google Scholar

10 Letters from the papal nuncio, Salviati, to papal secretary Galli, 1574–5, Acta nuntiaturae gallicae (hereafter Acta), ed. J., Lestocquoyet al. (Rome-Paris, 1959-, in progress), XIII, nos. 446, 450, 451, 461, 538.Google Scholar

11 Henry III to French ambassador in Rome, d’ Abain, 29 Mar. 1578, Lettres de Henri III, 111, nos. 2887–90; Salviati to Galli, 30 July 1575, Acta, XIII, no. 523; same to same, 31 Mar. 1578. ibid., no. 810.

12 Charvin, ‘L’abbaye et l’ordre de Cluny’, 21ff. As head of an order, Cluny should not have been held in commendam, a clause contained in the concordat of Bologna.

13 He held the abbeys of Bec, St Martin d’Aumale and St Pierre-la-Vallée.

14 Henry IV to Clement VIII, 28 Dec. 1600, Bernard, Barbiche (ed.), Lettres de Henry IV concernant les relations du Saint-Siège et la France (Vatican City, 1968), no. 66, p. 47,Google Scholar writing to ensure that the abbey would remain in family hands. In 1591, when the see of Reims was vacant, the chapter there delegated some of its members to discuss with the abbess of St Pierre how it should be filled, Giroux, F., Un cardinal ligueur au xvi siècle, Pellevé archevêque de Sens et de Reims (Laon, 1905), p. 24.Google Scholar

15 Harding, Robert R., Anatomy of a power élite: the provincial governors of early modem France (New Haven-London, 1978), p. 222.Google Scholar

16 For example, Marmoutier, damaged in 1562, was surrendered soon afterwards to a Guise client, Jean de La Rochefoucauld; Tournus in Burgundy, having suffered heavily in the late 1560s, was given to the future cardinal de La Rochefoucauld in 1574.

17 Leo, Just, ‘Das Staatskirchentum der Herzöge von Lotharingen-Bar von 1445 bis 1633’, Archiv für mittelrheinische Kirchengeschichte, v (1953), 223—63;Google ScholarJacques, Lovie, Chambery, Tarentaise, Maurienne (Histoire des diocèses de France, XI, Paris, 1980), chs. 3–4.Google Scholar

18 Pearl, J. L., ’Guise and Provence: political conflict in the age of Richelieu‘ (unpublished Northwestern university Ph.D. thesis, 1968), ch. 1, esp. pp. 20ff.Google Scholar

19 Lebigre, A., La révolution des curés: Paris 1588–1594 (Paris, 1980), ch. 6;Google ScholarSalmon, J. H. M., Society in crisis: France in the sixteenth century (London, 1975), p. 245.Google Scholar

20 Gallia Christiana, XI, cols. 214–15, for the case of Fécamp.

21 Mayenne to Jacques de Diou, his agent in Rome, 23 and 28 Jan. 1591, Henry, E. and Charles, Loriquet (eds.), Correspondance du duc de Mayenne (2 vols., Reims, 1860–2), 1, nos. 233, 241.Google Scholar

22 Mayenne to de Diou, 16 April 1591, ibid. 11, no. 368.

23 Paris, Archives Nationales, Minutier Central (hereafter A.N., M.C.), Etude VIII, vol.407, notarial act of 15 June 1592.

24 Ibid. 408, procuration of 18 Jan. 1592.

25 Mayenne to de Diou, 16 April 1591, Correspondance de Mayenne, II, no. 368.

26 A.N., M.C., Etude VIII, 408, 18 Jan.

27 B., de Montesquiou-Fezensac (ed.), Le trésor de St Denis, inventaire de 1634 (Paris 1973), 1, 19–30, where the editor quotes extensively from the abbey's registers showing Bourbon's activities. The Guises’ doings are documented in A.N., M.C., Etude VIII, vols. 407–9.Google Scholar

28 Procuration from the duchess of Guise to inspect and lease the Fécamp properties, 13 July 1592, A.N., M.C., Etude VIII, 407; further procuration concerning leases, 17 Jan. 1594, ibid. vol. 409.

29 It was acquired by cardinal Joyeuse around 1600, who passed it to the Guises in 1615, Gallia Christiana, XI, col. 215. See below, pp. 11–12.

30 ‘Accord’ between duchess of Guise and the fermier of the abbey, 5 July 1595, A.N., MC., Etude VIII, 411.

31 Ibid. vol. 412, 18 Jan. 1596.

32 Procuration from the duchess for the inspection of St Rémy, the examination of its accounts etc., 27 April 1595, ibid. vol. 410. Pellevé was dead by then, and Henry IV had given St Rémy to someone else. But the Guises were clearly loath to part with it. Corbie was leased in 1592, ibid. 407, act of 30 June; and Ourscamp in 1595, ibid. 410, act of 6 Mar.

33 Salmon, Society in crisis, pp. 267–73, 291ff; Françoise Bayard, ‘Le secret du roi. Etude sur les comptants ès mains de roi sous Henri IV’, Bulletin du centre d’ histoire économique et sociale de la region lyonnaise, 1974, no. 3, pp. 7–8, 15.

34 ‘Articles de Monsieur le duc de Guise et son abolition, 1594’, Bibliothèque Nationale, manuscrit français (hereafter B.N., MS Fr.) 23039, fo. 103r; David, Buisseret and Bernard, Barbiche (eds.), Les oeconomies royales de Sully (Paris, 1970), 1, 531–2, 539–40, 549.Google Scholar

35 Oeconomies royales, 1, 541 ff. A confidentiaire was the nominal holder of a benefice, but who left its revenue and administration to someone else. The brevets containing the concessions to Guise are listed in B.N., MS Fr. 23039, fo. 105r.

36 Papal concern emerges clearly from the correspondence of successive nuncios from 1596 onwards, R., Ritter (ed.), Lettres du cardinal de Florence sur Henri IV et sur la France 1596–98 (Paris 1955)Google Scholar and Victor, Martin (ed.), Les négotiations du nonce Silingaroli relatives à la publication du concile de Trente en France 1599–1601 (Paris, 1919).Google Scholar

37 Henry IV to cardinal Aldobrandini, papal secretary of state, 17 August 1601, Barbiche, (ed.) Lettres de Henri IV, no. 77, pp. 54–5.Google Scholar

38 A.N., M.C. Etude VIII, 560, act of 20 Dec. 1602.

39 Gallia Christiana, XI, col. 650.

40 Papal provisions in Guillaume, Marlot, Histoire de la ville, cité et université de Reims (Reims, 1846), IV, 776.Google Scholar

41 Brevet granting St Rémy to Bouillon, 24 Oct. 1594, B.N., MS Fr. 15518, fo. 1.

42 On du Bec's career see Catta, E., ‘Les évêques de Nantes des débuts du xvi siècle au lendemain du concile de Trente’, Revue d’histoire de l’église de France, 51 (1965), 23–70;CrossRefGoogle ScholarRoman, d’Amat and Prevost, M. (eds.) Dictionnaire de biographie française, XI, col. 886.Google Scholar

43 Hierarchia catholica, IV, 295, art. Rhemensis, n. 3.

44 Savary de Breves, French ambassador in Rome, to Louis III de Guise, 16 Mar. 1612, B.N., MS Fr. 20473. fo. 363, referring to his previous letter of 22 Jan. announcing that the papal provisions had been delivered gratis.

45 See Pierre, de Vaissière, Messieurs de Joyeuse 1560–1615 (Paris, 1926).Google Scholar

46 Hierarchia catholica, III, 270, art. Narbonnensis, nn. 11–12.

47 Nuncio Del Buffalo to cardinal Aldobrandini, 22 Sept. 1604, Acta, iv, no. 819; Henry IV to Clement VIII, 13 Oct. 1604, Barbiche (ed.), Lettres de Henri IV, no. 163. The abbeys were Marmoutier and St Florent de Saumur.

48 Gallia christiana, XIII, col. 60, where the contradiction is apparent, although it escaped the author.

49 Marie de Medici to ambassador Breves, 13 Sept. 1611, B.N., MS Fr. 3542, fo. 36. Over a year later, she referred to Joyeuse's resignation of Toulouse ‘il y a près de trois ans’, but implied that he remained archbishop there until Rome approved of his decision, Marie to Breves, Ibid., fo. 40.

50 Pierre, Blet, Le clergé de France et la monarchie. Etude sur les assemblées générales du clergé de 1615 à 1666 (2 vols., Rome, 1959), 1, 76.Google Scholar

51 Marie de Medici to Breves, 16 June 1613, for Joyeuse's resignation of Rouen in favorem François de Harlay.

52 Vaissière, Messieurs de Joyeuse, pp. 331–2.

53 Among others: Cardinal Vicenza to Louis XIII, 31 August 1615, B.N., MS Fr. 18010, fo. 170; Cardinal Bonzi to Marie de Medici, 16 Sept., ibid. fos. 205–6. Marie's reply to an earlier request from Bonzi is in B.N., Cinq Cents de Colbert 89, fo. 279, 26 Aug. 1614.

54 Letter to Tresnel, ambassador in Rome, 3 Oct. 1615, B.N., Nouvelles acquisitions françaises 460, fo. 350.

55 Negotiations for La Vallette's succession to the abbeys had been in train as early as 1612, and had probably been completed well before Joyeuse's death: Louis XIII to ambassador Breves, 30 Sept. 1612, B.N., MS Fr. 3542, fo. 42.

56 Nuncio Ubaldini to cardinal Borghese, papal secretary of state, 2 June 1616, B.N., MS Italien 1269, fos. 359v–362r.

57 Borghese to nuncio Bentivoglio, 18 Feb. 1617, Archivio di Stato, Ferrara (hereafter ASF), fondo Bentivoglio 18/11, no. 21.

58 Houssaye, M., Le Père de Bèrulle et l’oratoire de Jèsus 1611–1625 (Paris, 1874), pp. 196–8;Google ScholarJean, Dagens (ed.), Correspondance du cardinal Pierre de Bérulle (Louvain, 1937–9), II, no. 224, p. 74, n. 2, for 3,000 livres used to assist the Jesuit college of Roanne.Google Scholar

59 Bérulle to Claude Bertin, his envoy in Rome, 10 Oct. 1618, Correspondance de Bérulle, II, no. 177.

60 Marquis de Coeuvres, ambassador in Rome, to Puysieux, 25 May 1619, B.N., MS Fr. 18013, fo. 258.

61 ‘Règlement donné à M. le comte de Rebé pour l’administration des affaires de Monseigneur de Fécamp’, 4 Mar. 1620, B.N., MS Fr. 22431, fos. I28r-132v. The quotation is at fo. I29r.

62 Declaration of 14 May 1613, registered by Mme des Essarts at the Châtelet, A.N., Y 154, fo. 224r.

63 Decree of the king's council, 8 Aug. 1606, A.N., E 11b, fo. 85; decree of 11 Aug. 1607, E 14a, fos. 275–6. I hope to return to this subject in a further study on the financial aspects of benefice-holding.

64 Bentivoglio to Borghese, 14 Feb. 1617, Luigi, di Steffani (ed.), La nunziatura di Francia di Guido di Bentivoglio (4 vols., Florence, 1863–70), 1, 92–6. This is a long report on the cardinal's dissolute behaviour; Pearl, ‘Guise and Provence‘, pp. 30ff., deals with the duke of Guise's activities at this time.Google Scholar

65 Puysieux to ambassador Tresnel, 19 April 1616, B.N., Nouvelles acquisitions françaises, 460, fo. 156V.

66 Bentivoglio to Borghese, 4 June 1617, Nunziatura di Bentivoglio, 1, 278.

67 Nuncio Ubaldini to Borghese, 26 July 1616, B.N., MS Italien 1269, fo. 388; Bentivoglio to Borghese, 11 April 1617, Nunziatura di Bentivoglio, 1, 191.

68 Letter to Borghese, 14 Feb. 1617, Nunziatura di Bentivoglio, 1, 92ff.

69 Bentivoglio to Borghese, 4 June 1617, ibid. 1, 278; Borghese's reply, ibid. 1, 395–6.

70 Undated minute of letter from Borghese to Bentivoglio, ASF, fondo Bentivoglio 18/26; avvisi of 5 July 1617, ibid. 18/38; Borghese to Bentivoglio, 13 Sept. 1617, ibid. 18/16, fo. 80v; to same, 17 Oct., ibid. 18/16, fo. 84; Bentivoglio to Borghese, 30 Aug. 1617, Nunziatura di Bentivoglio, 1, 457; to same, 13 Sept, ibid. 1, 497.

71 Avvisi of 10 Oct. 1617, ASF, fondo Bentivoglio 18/38, fo. 85; archbishop Marquemont of Lyon to Louis XIII, Rome 23 Oct., B.N., MS Fr. 18011, fo. 281. Marquemont had proposed Gifford for papal confirmation in consistory that morning.

72 Bentivoglio to Borghese, 29 Aug. 1618, Nunziatura di Bentivoglio, II, 553–4. Borghese, in his reply, approved the line taken by La Rochefoucauld and Bérulle, ASF, fondo Bentivoglio 18/12, no. 280, 8 Oct. 1618.

73 Venetian ambassador to Senate, 9 Mar. 1619, B.N., MS Italien 1773, p. 12; to same, 2 April, ibid. pp. 74–9.

74 Puysieux to Bentivoglio, 31 Mar. 1621, ASF, fondo Bentivoglio 18/28, fo. 12; to same, 30 May, ibid. fo. 27. Rome took exception to the imprisonment of a cardinal, but the government's view was that this was purely a matter for the king to decide.

75 Labatut, Jean-Pierre, Les ducs et pairs de France au xvii siècle (Paris, 1972), p. 168.Google Scholar

76 Ibid. 74–5.

77 Letter of 7 Aug. 1621, ASF, fondo Bentivoglio 18/28, fos. 61v-62r.

78 Corsini to Cardinal Ludovisi, papal secretary of state, 12 July 1621, Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Barberini latini (hereafter BAV, Barb, lat.) 8054, fo. 35.

79 Brevet of 21 July 1621, B.N., MS Fr. 15518, fo. 77r; confirmation of the gift, ibid. fo. 77r–v. The pension was also declared payable from 21 July.

80 Act of election, 28 Aug. 1621, ibid. fos. 244–6.

81 Corsini to Ludovisi, 13Sept. 1621, Rome, Biblioteca Corsiniana, MS 33/B/4, fos. 376v–377r.

82 Corsini to Ludovisi, 13 Sept, BAV, Barb. Lat. 8054, fo. 152.

83 Arnoux to the duchess of Guise, 23 (Sept. ?) 1621, B.N., MS Fr. 22222, fo. 8. The duke of Guise was not as yet directly involved, as he was in Provence.

84 The actual text of the avis has not survived, but can be pieced together from subsequent correspondence. The reference to ‘episcopaljurisdiction’ seems to concern mainly St Denis, many of whose dependent parishes were exempt from the bishop of Paris’ jurisdiction because the abbot there possessed equivalent rights, see Jeanne, Ferté, La vie religieuse dans les campagnes parisiennes 1622–95 (Paris, 1962), p. III.Google Scholar

85 ‘Consultation seconde au logis de M. le cardinal de La Rochefoucault, par commandement du roy, pour la nomination aux benefices vacans par le deces de feu M. le cardinal de Guyse’, Biblioteca Corsiniana, MS 713, fo. 235. This text is in the hand of one of La Rochefoucauld's secretaries.

86 Arnoux to La Rochefoucauld, undated, ibid. fos. 236–7.

87 La Rochefoucauld to Arnoux, 16 Nov. 1621, ibid. fos. 238–42.

88 Gaspar Segueran, the new confessor, to the duchess of Guise, 26 Dec, B.N., MS Fr. 20559, fo. 120; Corsini to Ludovisi, 22 Jan. 1622, BAV, Barb. lat. 8055, fo. 2.

89 Corsini to Ludovisi, 9 Feb. 1622, BAV, Barb. lat. 8055, fo. 57.

90 Corsini to Ludovisi, 9 Feb., ibid. fos. 61–2; he also refers to his instructions in an earlier letter, ibid. fo. 2; Venetian ambassador to Senate, 18 Mar. 1622, B.N., MS Italien 1778; p. 53.

91 Corsini to Ludovisi, 9 Feb., Barb, lat 8055, fo. 62; to same, 23 Feb., ibid. fo. 78.

92 They used Henry IV's gift of St Rémy to Bouillon in 1594 as a precedent. The allegations against the duchess were made in 1639–40 by a royal commissioner entrusted with administering the Guise benefices, B.N., MS Fr. 17588, fos. 211, 212–13.

93 Gifford to La Rochefoucauld, 22 June (1622), Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 3249, fo. 168.

94 B.N., MSFr. 15518, fo. 67.

95 Corsini to Ludovisi, 23 Feb. 1622, Barb. lat. 8055, fo. 78; draft of royal letter to Rome for confirmation, including a petition that the provisions be sent gratis on account of Cluny's poverty, B.N., MS Fr. 15518, fo. 242. Corsini supported this request, Barb. lat. 8055, fo. 142, letter of 22 Mar.

96 See my article, ‘The crown, the papacy and the reform of the religious orders in early seventeenth-century France’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XXXIII, no. 2 (1982).Google Scholar

97 Avis of 23 Mar. 1622, B.N., MS. Fr. 15518, fo. 81.

98 Corsini to Ludovisi, 9 Feb., 23 Feb., 29July, Barb. lat. 8055, fos. 61–2, 78, 283 respectively. Guise's unhappiness is also referred to in the Venetian ambassador's dispatch of 1 April, B.N., MS Italien 1778, pp. 284–5.

99 Letter to Ludovisi, 23 Feb., Barb. lat. 8055, fo. 78V.

100 Memorandum enclosed with Corsini's letter of 29 July, ibid. fos. 284–5.

101 Pearl, ‘Guise and Provence‘, pp. 75–6, passes over the episode rapidly. The king's offer to Guise is in B.N., MS Fr. 20473, fo. 303, no date, and the negotiations were followed closely by the resident diplomats: Corsini's letters to Ludovisi, 7 Mar., 22 Mar. and 4 April are in Barb. lat. 8057, fo. 176 and Biblioteca Corsiniana, MS 33/F/5, fos. I30v–33r and fo. 152 respectively; his letter to Puysieux, 21 Mar., ibid. fos. 116v-117r. The Venetian ambassador's report is in B.N., MS Italien 1778, p. 90, 1 April.

102 Papal resistance was expressed by Ludovisi to Corsini in letters of April (?) and 15 Aug. 1622, Vatican Archives, Nunziatura di Francia 301, fos. 216v, 278 respectively.

103 Paul Denis, Richelieu et la réforme des monastères bénédictins, p. 9ff, esp. 32; Charvin, ‘L’Abbaye et l’ordre de Cluny’, 124–6, assumes that Louis de Lorraine (sic) was coadjutor to d’Arbouze until his death in 1627, and that Richelieu drew a pension of 30,000 livres a year off Cluny as coadjutor abbot!

104 Jean Frizon to La Rochefoucauld, 11 April 1626, Bibliothèque Ste-Geneviève, MS 3249, fo. 287.

105 Hierarchia catholica, iv, 295, art. Rhemensis, n. 5.

106 In the letter quoted above, n. 104, Frizon wrote obliquely, ‘ioint que je ne crois pas que le Pape passe cette Coadiutorerie dans la forme que l’on pretend’; but he did not reveal what he was alluding to.

107 Pearl, ‘Guise and Provence‘, chs. 7–9.

108 Richard, Bonney, Political change in France under Richelieu and Mazarin 1624–61 (Oxford, 1978), pp. 287–8.Google Scholar

109 See Jean-Pierre, Brancourt, ‘La renaissance catholique en Champagne au xvii siècle’, Revue Historique de Droit Français et Etranger, LVII (1979), 389–403. For several years after 1629, Reims was administered by Bishop Clausse de Marchaumont of Chalons-sur-Marne, a suffragan diocese of Reims.Google Scholar

110 Arrêt of the parlement, 7 Sept. 1637, A.N., X1B 1377.

111 Richelieu to Chavigny, secretary of state, 6 Sept. 1638, Avenel, D. L. M. (ed.), Lettres, instructions et mémoires du cardinal de Richelieu (8 vols., Paris, 1853–77), VI, 151; Richelieu to Henri de Guise, 8 June 1639. Avenel's notes mention a warning from Louis XIII to Guise in November 1637, one for which the exiled duke warmly thanked Richelieu!Google Scholar

112 The text of the commission, dated 11 June 1639, has not been found, but is condensed in the commissioner, Jean Boucherat's, accounts.

113 Guise's hesitations can be seen from the letters of the papal nuncio, Ranuccio Scotti, to cardinal Barberini, papal secretary of state, during 1639–41, Acta, v, nos. 9, 58, 216,608,680, 760, 790.

114 Philippe Compagnon, Guise's argentier, to Claude Thevenin, Guise's vicar-general, 26 April 1641, B.N., MS Fr. 17588, fos. 231–2.

115 Ibid. fo. 232r.

116 On Etampes, see P. Blet, Le clergé de France et la monarchie, I, esp. 267ff; Robert, Sauzet, Les visites pastorales dans le diocèse de Chartres pendant la première moitié du xvii siècle (Rome, 1975), 29ff.Google Scholar

117 Information derived from Gallia Christiana.

118 Chavigny to Fontenay-Mareuil, ambassador in Rome, 24 Jan. 1642, B.N., MS Fr. 16066, fo. 175.

119 On this whole question see Norman, Ravitch, Sword and mitre. Government and episcopate in France and England in the age of aristocracy (The Hague, 1966), 69ff; Peronnet, Les evêques de l’ancienne France, 1, 623ff.Google Scholar