Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

THECOMMENTAIRESDEBLAISEDEMONLUC

INTHEHISTORIOGRAPHYOFTHE
FRENCHWARSOFRELIGION
DRKEVINGOULD
(NOTTINGHAMTRENTUNIVERSITY)
The memoirs and correspondence of commentators such as Thodore Agrippa
dAubign,JacquesAugustedeThou,ThodoredeBze,ClaudeHaton,Gaspardde
SaulxTavannes,andFranoisdelaNoue,offervaluableinsightsintothesectarian
conflictthatravagedthekingdomofFranceduringthesecondhalfofthesixteenth
century.Theirwritingsaddcolouranddepthtoourunderstandingofthetumultuous
periodnowknownastheWarsofReligion(15621598),andopenwindowsintothe
soulofFrancesfracturedcommunities.Yettheintenselypersonalnatureoftheir
workmakesmuchofthismaterialaminefieldofdeceitandmisinformation,withbias
andconfessional prejudiceendemic.OnehasonlytocomparesurvivingCatholic
wartimeaccountswithProtestantequivalentstonotethecontradictionsanddisparity
of factual descriptions inherent to each narrative; in some instances, the same
commonplacesandimagesareemployedtoimputecrimesandinjusticestotheother
party. As the historian Gabriel Daniel warns, caution should be exercised when
engaging with memoirs and accounts of civil wars, sources that are particularly
liable topartialityand animosity.This article willconsider the generalsense of
uneasefeltbyscholarswhendealingwithmemoirsandcorrespondencebyexamining
the contribution of one of the more controversial accounts of this period, the
CommentairesdeBlaisedeMonluc,tothehistoriographyoftheWarsofReligion.
The Commentaires de Monluc chronicle the military career of a Gascon
captain,frommeagrebeginningsasanarcherintheexpeditionaryforcesofFrancisI
inthe1520sthroughtopromotiontothehighofficeofMarshalofFranceinthe
1570s.Writtenbetween1570and1577,thetwilightofMonlucsprofessionallife,the
seven livres thatcomprisethe Commentaires areostensibly mmoiresetsouvenirs,
intendedtolaudthedeedsofaloyalcaptainbutalsotoserveasamilitarymanualfor
subsequentcommanderswithintheroyalarmy.Indeed,ClaudeGilbertDuboishas
shownthatextantearlymanuscriptversionsofMonlucstextwithintheBibliothque
Nationale in Paris are catalogued as Mmoires, with the first use of the title
Commentaires appearingonlyin1592,withFlorimonddeRaemondseditionthat
soughtpartlytodefertoMonlucsownaspirationsforhiswritingscequilirontces
Commentairesandpartlytoassociatethenewpublicationwithprestigioustexts
such as Julius Caesars Commentarii de bello gallico, the work of a military
commanderandcommentatorwhichwassimilarlyanhistoriographyandanapologia.
TheCommentaires deMonlucoffersavibrantnarrativeofservicewithinthe
royalarmy.ThefirstfourlivresconcentrateonnotableFrenchcampaignsagainstthe

imperialforcesofCharlesV:thecrownssuccessfuloperationsinPicardy,Naples,
andPiedmontduringthe1530sand40s;themuchpubliciseddefenceofSienain
1555, at which Monlucs garrison force held out for over eight months against
overwhelmingoddsresistancethatwonplauditsfrombothFrenchandimperial
commentators alike; and the French recovery of Thionville in 1558, which saw
Monluc promoted to colonelgnral of Frances infantry and secure a position
withintheclienteleofthepowerfulGuisefamily.Thefinalthree livres dealwith
Monlucs appointment to the office of lieutenant du roi for the southwestern
provinceofGuyenneintheearly1560s,andhissubsequenttravailsinattemptingto
maintainpeaceandstabilityinaregionstrugglingtocopewiththeviolentexpansion
ofReformevangelism.Withthecommunitiesofthesouthwestbearingthebruntof
confrontationsbetweenthefaithsduringhistenure,Monlucwaswellplacedtorecord
theseverityoftheserivalries.Hismemoirs,therefore,shouldstandasanimportant
sourceofevidencefortheseevents,aneyewitnessaccountoftroubledtimes.Yet
there is a reticence among the historical community to engage fully with the
Commentaires asanauthoritative,objectivedocument,aconventionpredicatedon
theprinciplethatthisisapolemicaltract,theworkofabiasedsectarian.Fourfactors
explain this hesitancy, and will be explored below: the contention over the
motivations behind Monlucs authorship; the question of the reliability of the
manuscriptandprintededitions;atendencyofscholarstodismisstextswhichare
brashandconfrontational,asMonlucsrhetoricoftenis;andsensitivityovergaps
withinthetimelineofhistestimony.
Thefirstconcernexpressedbyhistoriansrelatestothemotivationbehindthe
writing of the Commentaires. While Monlucs military career was long and
illustrious,itendedsomewhatignominiouslywithforcedretirementin1570the
general falling victim to accusations of corruption and malpractice from enemies
withinroyalandprovincialcircles.AsMonlucbegantocompilethecommentaryof
hislifesdeedsonlyafterthisepisode,scholarshavesuspectedthathiswritingsare
thereforeanattempttoextolavirtuouslife,answerhisdetractors,andvindicatea
onceproudreputation.Theimpartialityofhisaccountisthuscalledintoquestion,
especiallywhereeventsinvolvinghisadversariesarediscussed.Moreover,despite
thefactthatthefirstdraftofthe Commentaires wascompletedin1572,Monlucs
recalltofavourandsubsequentpromotiontoMarshalofFranceattheaccessionof
Henry III in1574 complicated matters further. Keen to repay the loyalty of his
former field commander, Monluc set about amending his text to strengthen its
condemnationofthosewhohadslanderedhim,andincludedlengthyeulogiestothe
newking.Numerouspassageswererewritten,andanumberoffreshsectionsadded,
with Monluc borrowing from the collected works of Guillaume and Martin du
Bellaywheneverhismemoryfailedorhisrecollectionbecameconfused.Itishardly
surprisingthathistorianshavefoundsuchatangledwritingprocessnonconduciveto
theproductionofbalancedevidence.
The second factor governing scholarly reticence concerns the complicated
pedigreeoftheCommentairesfrommanuscripttoprintedtext.Twoprintededitions

of the Commentaires are accepted as standard by the historical community: the


nineteenthcenturyfivevolumeseteditedbythebaronAlphonsedeRuble,thefinal
twovolumesofwhichcontainadditionaltranscriptionsofletterssentandreceivedby
Monlucduringhiscareer;andPaulCourteaultsedition,republishedin1964,which
features extensive notes and variants. It is apparent that Ruble and Courteault
compiledtheireditionsfromthreedistinctversionsoftheCommentaires:theextant
originalmanuscript;the1592text,publishedbyFlorimonddeRaemond;andalater
incompleteeditionheldbyMonlucsnephew,JeandeMonlucdeBalagny,which
featuresJeansadditionalnotesinthemargins.YetRubleandCourteaultadopted
quitedifferentapproachestocompilingtheirworks.RubleusesBalagnysmanuscript
asthebasis for hisedition,drawingontheother twosources tofillthegaps as
required.Althoughmuchofthecontentandorthographyoftheoriginalisretained,
Ruble corrects many of Florimonds alterations, and restores proper names
throughout.Courteault,ontheotherhand,preferstousetheoriginalmanuscriptas
hiscopytext,withFlorimondandBalagnystextscitedwherenecessary.Wherethe
different editions offer supplementary original information, Courteault supplies
multipleversions;somethingRubledoesnot,highlightingtextfromalternateeditions
bytheuseofitalics,parentheses,andfootnotes.Hecorrectsthepre1564calendar,by
whichNewYearbeganatEaster,tothemodernequivalent,anamendmentthatRuble
alsoignored.Infact,CourteaultisextremelycriticalofRubleseditorialmethod,
describingitasunamalgameperptuel,impossiblecontrler.ForCourteault,
Rubleinterchangedthedifferenttextstoooftenandtooreadily,withtheresultthata
lessthanauthenticcompositeworkiscreatedfromincompletematerials.Thevariety
incontentandeditorialstyleofthevariousmanuscriptandprintededitionsofthe
Commentairesmakethemsomethingofanenigma,andanotherreasonforhistorians
tohesitatebeforecitingitstextwithconfidence.
ThethirdissueconsideredhereisthecontentionsurroundingMonlucsroleas
Catholiczealot parexcellence andkeyplayerinthedefenceoforthodoxyinthe
southwestduringthe1560s.Inlate1561thecrownappointedMonlucaslieutenant
gnral to Guyenne in an attempt to quell the rising tide of sectarian violence
sweeping the region. Unfortunately, his unforgiving style of military governance
raisedthehacklesofProtestantcontemporaries,whoreviledthekingsbutcherfor
hisharshtreatmentofHuguenotcommunitiesandhissupportofCatholicmilitants.
This reputation for severity was cemented in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centurieswiththepublicationoftwoimportantProtestanthistoriesofthewars:the
Histoire ecclsiastique,andthe MmoiresdeCond.Bothberatethesavageryof
theMonlucoiseandaccusethegeneralofperpetratingmassacresagainstHuguenot
civiliansandsoldieryalike.Monlucdidlittletohelphiscausehere,ashisaccountsof
confrontationswithProtestantsofferstarkreading.AtSt.Mzard(February1562),
forexample,Monlucrelateshowhehadsummarilyexecutedfourringleadersofa
Protestantuprising,whileafifth,aCalvinistdeacon,waswhippedsobadlythathe
diedonlydayslater.Monlucremarksofthisevent:menmustbeginwithexecution.
Ifeveryonethathadchargeofprovinceshaddonethesame,theywouldhaveputout

the fire that has since consumed all. Protestant garrison forces were especially
vulnerabletoMonlucswrath.AtthesiegeofMontsgur(August1562),Monluc
orderedhisprisonerstobeexecutedtopreventthemescapingandreturningtothe
fightanactthatdrewinevitableparallelswithHenryVsdecisionatAgincourtin
1415,whileatLectoure(September1562),theexecutionofHuguenotdefenders,and
thedisposaloftheirbodiesintothecastlewell,wasrecordedasaverygoodendto
someveryevilmen.AtthesiegeofPenne(August1562),Spanishtroopssentto
augmentMonlucsforcesnotonlymassacredthedefeatedgarrisonbutalsokilledthe
womenshelteringinthecourtyard,claimingthemtobeLutheransindisguise.In
fact,Monlucwouldlatercapitaliseonthisevent,rousinghisSpanishcontingenton
theeveoftheBattleofVergt(October1562)withthewarningthat:thisisGods
quarrel;itisagainsttheLutherans,whowillcutyouintoathousandpiecesifyoufall
into their hands. The Commentaires contain numerous other examples which
confirmthemaximthatbrutalitywasanecessaryevilofleadershipduringthistime:
on receiving news of an assassination plot hatched by local Protestants, Monluc
resolvedtosellmyskinasdearasIcould[and]toexecuteallthecrueltythatI
could,especiallyagainstthosewhospokeagainsttheroyalmajesty;forIsawvery
wellthatgentlewayswouldneverreclaimthosecankeredandinveteraterascals.Ina
lettertothedukeofAlva,himselfnostrangertotheuseofextremeforcetoachieve
anobjective,MonlucnoteshisreservationsabouttheprogressofthewarinFrance:
ifeverybodyhadonlyfollowedmyexample[]tograntquartertonoone,all
wouldbeover now; whilehispursuitof theProtestant leader,Duras,alongthe
Dordogneisenteredasfollows:YoucanseetherouteItookbecausethevictimsare
foundonthetreesandalongtheroadside[]onemanhangedisworthonehundred
killedinbattle.
Thereislittledoubtthattheseverityofsuchcommentsservedtobrandthe
CommentairesaslittlemorethanCatholicpolemic.Yettheargumentisnotquiteso
simple.RublehighlightsthisdarksideofMonlucsreputation,butsetsitwithinthe
contextofthedualityofhischaracter:Terribleinwar,hedefendedProtestantrights
inpeacetime.Blamedforthe1572massacres,heissaidtohaveadvisedthekingto
considerreligioustoleration[]mercilessandhumane,violentandmeasured,ardent
andwise,crueltoexcess,moderatetothepointofclemency.Thisperspectiveis
supportedbyA.W.Evans,whosuggeststhatMonlucsbrutalitywasanecessary
expedientofleadershipduringtheseturbulenttimes:Hewasconstrained,contraryto
hisownnature,tousenotonlyseverity,butevensometimestobecruel.Evanssees
theconflictasadegeneratecivilwar,aworldturnedupsidedown,inwhichextreme
forcewassometimesrequiredovermoreconventionalgovernance.Indeed,Monluc
hintsatsuchinhismemoirs:thesewarsarenotlikeforeignwars,whereonefights
forloveandhonour;incivilwarsonefightsmastersandservantsalike,astheyshare
the same roof, and it is necessary to use harshness and cruelty, otherwise the
attractionofgainwillcausemanytocontinuethewartoanend.Certainly,few
contemporaries accused Monluc of failing in his wider duties, especially in his
obligationtoservethecrown.Infact,severalobserversreportthatquitetheopposite

wastrue.DarmesteterandHatzfeldassertthat:hisleastpraiseworthyactionswere
inspiredbyarespectforroyalauthority,whichhecarriestothelengthoffanaticism;
whileRubleremarksthat:aprofoundfeelingofloyaltybreathesinthepages,an
absolutedevotionthatsoughttoinspiretheFrenchmilitarynobilityintoservingthe
crownmoreconstructively.
Hastoomuch,then,beenmadeofMonlucsharshreputation?Incongruities
detected by Ruble within the texts of the various editions of the Commentaires
suggestthatthisisindeedthecase.Intheearlypublications,forexample, livre V
begins:Jemedlibrayduzerdetoutescruautis.However,the word cruautis
doesnotexistintheoriginalmanuscript,thesentenceactuallyreads:Jemedlibray
duzerdetouteslescraintes.Thedistinctionbetweencruautisandcraintes,cruelty
andfear,isanimportantone,asthereplacementofthewordcruautisforcraintes
crueltyforfearfundamentallyaltersthetoneofMonlucsargument,amodification
probablymadebylatereditorskeentospiceuptheCommentaires.Itispossible,too,
thatMonlucexaggeratedtheharshnessofmanyofhisdeedstosatisfyhisaudienceat
court;thenewking,HenryIII,hadheadedtheroyalarmyinFranceduringthelate
1560s, and so had been involved in many violent battlefield exchanges with the
ProtestantforcesoftheprinceofCond.
The reality, though, may lie somewhere between the two perceptions of
Monluc.Certainly,theviciousnatureofthewarfareinGuyenneproducedsituations
whereexperiencedictatedtheemploymentofexpedientmilitaryforceratherthan
conciliatoryapproaches,butsuchactioninvariablyleftacommanderopentoclaims
ofbrutalityevenwhenhewassimplyensuringvictoryinthefield.Butitisalso
pertinent to note that while scholars recoil at Monlucs colourful language, they
rarely question the accuracy of detail of the Commentaires. Pierre Michel, for
example,seesnoreasontodismissMonlucasanunreliablesource:Theobjectivity
of Monluc is remarkable [] Generally, historians and Protestant commentators
confirm his versions of events. Similarly, Paul Courteault, Monlucs biographer,
claimsthattheCommentaires:merittheirplaceonthetoprungofnarrativehistories
ofFranceduringthesixteenthcentury.ForCourteault,the Commentaires provide
importantinsightsintotheactivitiesofanddichotomiesfacingCatholiccommanders
duringthereligiouswars,andhefindslittletochallengetheveracityofthedetail
described:Monlucisnearlyalwayswellinformed,hisaccountsareexact,hisdetail
isaccurate,hisjudgementsaremoderateandcircumspect.Itisalsorelevantthat
whilethetwobehemothsofProtestanthistory,the Histoireecclsiastique andthe
MmoiresdeCond,revileMonlucasaCatholicbutcher,theydonotdisputethe
factualdetailofhistext.
Finally,itisevidentthatmissingmaterial,orwhattheauthordoesnotsay,
can often pose more of a dilemma for historians than inaccurate statements or
confessionalbias.Forexample,itisknownthatthecorrespondenceofThodorede
BzeandJeanCalvinweredoctoredupontheirdeathstoremoveanddestroycertain
compromisingdocumentsthatcouldhavebeenusedagainsttheCalvinistchurchata
later date. This was also the case with many Catholic Leaguers, whose personal

archivesweredeliberatelyexpungedofallreferencestomilitantbehavioursoasto
allowthefamilynametosurviveuncensoredundertheconciliatorygovernmentof
Henry IV after 1594. Monlucs Commentaires contain a similar lacuna in an
otherwisecomprehensivenarrativeofhiscareer.Historianshavenotedthatthisgap
inthetimeline,betweenlate1559tomid1561,coincideswiththemomentatwhich
Monluc is alleged to have flirted with membership of the fledgling Reform
movementinGuyenne,evenattendingseveralCalvinistservices,ifBzeistobe
believed. Sowas Monluc attemptingtoextirpatehis dalliancewithProtestantism
from the history books by omitting reference to these years within his own
testimony?IanRoybelievesso,andsuggeststhatthisiswhyProtestantswereso
angeredatMonlucssubsequentharshtreatmentoftheReformcommunitiesofthe
southwest.Afterall,Monluchadonceworshippedintheirfold,andso,formany,he
wasanapostateandabarbarian.
This study has shown that while memoirs and correspondence can offer
importantinsightsintohistoricalevents,theycanalsobecomplicateddocumentsthat
raise more problems than they solve. The Commentaires have proven especially
troublesomeastheyrevealinmicrocosmthedilemmasfacedbythoseattemptingto
accessthepastthroughpersonalrecollections:contentionoverthemotivationbehind
theauthorship;thereliabilityofthemanuscriptandprintededitions;andtheproblem
ofthemissingyearswithinthetestimony.Butthe Commentaires areespecially
controversial because of the key role played by their author in the sectarian
confrontationsofthe1560s.Monlucwasaniconicfigureinthesouthwest,laudedby
CatholicsanddespisedbyProtestants.Hisperceptionofthetroublesisdescribedin
brashandboastfultones,hisrhetoriciscolourfulandselfaggrandising,andherarely
shrinksfromelucidatingthelesssanguineaspectsofmilitarycommandduringthe
civilwars.Nevertheless,despitethesedisplaystheCommentairesremainconciseand
detailedchroniclesofthelifeofamilitaryofficerinsixteenthcenturyFrance,and
haveyettobeprovedfactuallyinaccurate.Sucharethedifficultiesfacedbythose
accessingpersonaldocumentsandhistoricalmemoirs.
PreGabrielDaniel,HistoiredeFrancedepuisl'tablissementdelamonarchiefranaisedansles
Gaules(Paris,1713),quotedinJ.Hritier,CatherinedeMedici(London,1963),p.122.
Blaise de Monluc, Commentaires 15211576, ed. Paul Courteault and J. Giono (Paris, 1964);
BlaisedeMonluc, CommentairesetlettresdeBlaisedeMonluc,marchaldeFrance,ed.A.de
Ruble,5vols.(Paris,18641872).
[Monluc],Commentaires15211576,p.21.
SeeClaudeGilbertDubois,LaConceptiondelHistoireenFranceauXVIeSicle(Paris,1977),p.
219.
ForfurtherdetailsofMonlucsmilitarycareer,seePaulCourteault,BlaisedeMonluc,Historien
(Geneva,1970).
See,forexample,DuboissdiscussionofauthenticitoudissimulationwithintheCommentaires.
Dubois,LaConceptiondelHistoireenFrance,pp.24448.ForrecentworkonMonluc,seethe
entryMonluc(Blaisede)(revisedbytienneVaucheret),inM.Simoninetal.,eds.,Dictionnaire
deslettresfranaises.LeXVIesicle,Encyclopdiesdaujourdhui,LaPochothque(Paris:Fayard,
2001). See also Kevin Gould, Catholic Activism in the Southwest of France, 15401570
(forthcomingwithAshgate,2005).

TheHistoireetDictionnairedesGuerresdeReligionnotesthatwhenMonlucoriginallydedicated
hissouvenirstoHenry,inearly1573,thisthirdsonofCatherinedeMediciwastitledthedukeof
Anjou,andwasheirtothethrone,notking(hiselderbrotherCharlesIXwouldstillreignfor
another year). As a final gesture, Monluc would add a second dedication to Henry, and it is
supposedthatonthecompletionofthe Commentaires,inFebruary1577,aprintededitionofthe
finishedmanuscript waspresentedtothekingandreadaloudbeforeaprivateaudience inthe
cabinet du roi. See A. Jouanna, J. Boucher, D. Biloghi, and G. Le Thiec, eds., Histoire et
DictionnairedesGuerresdeReligion(Paris,1998),p.1114.
SeeMartinduBellay,LesMemoiresdeMess.M.duBellay[...]contenanslediscoursdeplusieurs
chosesadvenuesauRoyaumedeFrance(Paris,1569);GuillaumeduBellay,Epitomedel'antiquite
desGaulesetdeFrance(Paris,1556).FortheinfluenceofGuillaumeandMartinduBellayonthe
text ofMonlucs Commentaires,andonhis desire forvindication, see RobertJ.Knecht, The
SwordandthePen:BlaisedeMonlucandhisCommentaires,RenaissanceStudies,9(1995),pp.
10418.
[Monluc],Commentairesetlettres;[Monluc],Commentaires15211576.
[Monluc],Commentaires15211576.
ForanonymouscomplaintsfromProtestantcommunitiesofCadillactothecrownaccusingMonluc
of being the kings butcher, see Anonymous to Catherine de Medici (11/13 April 1563),
BibliothqueNationaledeFrance,MSFranais,15879,fos.173,195.
ThodoredeBze,HistoireecclsiastiquedesglisesrformesauroyaumedeFrance,G.Baum
andE.Cunitz,eds.,3vols(Nieuwkoop,1974);Cond,MmoiresdeCond,ourecueilpourservir
lhistoiredeFrance,contenantcequisestpassduplusmmorabledansleRoyaume,6vols.
(Paris,1743).
[Monluc],Commentaires15211576,p.485.
[Monluc],Commentaires15211576,p.485.
[Monluc],Commentaires15211576,p.532.
[Monluc],Commentaires15211576,p.552.
[Monluc], Commentaires 15211576, pp. 53738. The Spaniards had apparently discovered a
deaconattemptingtoescapebydressingasawomanandhidingamongtheprisoners.
[Monluc],Commentaires15211576,pp.56465.
[Monluc],Commentaires15211576,p.482.
P.VanDyke,CatherinedeMdicis,2vols.(London,1923),I,p.261.
[Monluc],Commentaires15211576,p.529.
[Monluc],CommentairesetLettres,I,p.iv.
A.W.Evans,BlaisedeMonluc(London,1909),p.19.
[Monluc],Commentaires15211576,p.519.
QuotedinEvans,BlaisedeMonluc,p.29.
[Ruble],CommentairesetLettres,I,p.iii.
[Ruble],CommentairesetLettres,I,p.iv.
[Ruble],CommentairesetLettres,I,p.iv.
PierreMichel,BlaisedeMonluc(Paris,1971),pp.12829.
Courteault,BlaisedeMonluc,Historien,p.618.
Courteault,BlaisedeMonluc,Historien,p.619.
IanRoy,BlaisedeMonluc(London,1971),p.7.

Вам также может понравиться