Six Hundred Years of Reform: Bishops and the French Church, 1190-1789 9780773572867

Citation preview

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF REFORM

MCGILL-QUEEN'S STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF RELIGION

Volumes in this series have been supported by the Jackman Foundation of Toronto. S E R I E S TWO / I n memory of George Rawlyk Donald Harman Akenson, Editor 1 Marguerite Bourgeoys and Montreal, 1640—1665 Patricia Simpson 2 Aspects of the Canadian Evangelical Experience G.A. Rawlyk, editor 3 Infinity, Faith, and Time Christian Humanism and Renaissance Literature John Spencer Hill 4 The Contribution of Presbyterianism to the Maritime Provinces of Canada Charles H.H. Scobie and G.A. Rawlyk, editors 5 Labour, Love, and Prayer Female Piety in Ulster Religious Literature, 1850-1914 Andrea Ebel Brozyna 6 The Waning of the Green Catholics, the Irish, and Identity in Toronto, 1887—1922 Mark G. McGowan 7 Religion and Nationality in Western Ukraine The Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia, 1867-1900 John-Paul Himka 8 Good Citizens British Missionaries and Imperial States, 1870-1918 James G. Greenlee and Charles M. Johnston 9 The Theology of the Oral Torah Revealing the Justice of God Jacob Neusner 10 Gentle Eminence A Life of Cardinal Flahiff P. Wallace Plait

11 Culture, Religion, and Demographic Behaviour Catholics and Lutherans in Alsace, 1750—1870 Kevin McQuillan 12 Between Damnation and Starvation Priests and Merchants in Newfoundland Politics, 1745-1855 John P. Greene 13 Martin Luther, German Saviour German Evangelical Theological Factions and the Interpretation of Luther, 1917-1933 James M. Stayer 14 Modernity and die Dilemma of North American Anglican Identities, 1880-1950 William H. Katerberg 15 The Methodist Church on the Prairies, 1896-1914 George Emery 16 Christian Attitudes Towards the State of Israel Paul Charles Merkley 17 A Social History of the Cloister Daily Life in the Teaching Monasteries of the Old Regime Elizabeth Rapley 18 Households of Faith Family, Gender, and Community in Canada, 1760—1969 Nancy Christie 19 Blood Ground Colonialism, Missions, and the Contest for Christianity in the Cape Colony and Britain, 1799-1853 Elizabeth Elbourne 20 A History of Canadian Catholics Gallicanism, Romanism, and Canadianism Terence J. Fay

21 The View from Rome Archbishop Stagni 's 1915 Reports on the Ontario Bilingual Schools Question John Zucchi, translator and editor 22 The Founding Moment Church, Society, and the Construction of Trinity College William West/all 23 The Holocaust, Israel, and Canadian Protestant Churches Haim Genizi 24 Governing Charities Church and State in Toronto's Catholic Archdiocese, 1850-1950 Paula Maurutto 25 Anglicans and the Atlantic World High Churchmen, Evangelicals, and the Quebec Connection Richard W. Vaudry 26 Evangelicals and the Continental Divide The Conservative Protestant Subculture in Canada and the United States Sam Reimer 27 Christians in a Secular World The Canadian Experience Kurt Bowen 28 Anatomy of a Seance A History of Spirit Communication in Central Canada Stan McMullin 29 With Skilful Hand The Story of King David David T. Barnard SERIES

30 Faithful Intellect Samuel S. Nelles and Victoria University Neil Semple 31 W. Stanford Reid An Evangelical Calvinist in the Academy A. Donald MacLeod 32 A Long Eclipse The Liberal Protestant Establishment and the Canadian University, 1920-1970 Catherine Gidney 33 Forkhill Protestants and Forkhill Catholics, 1787-1858 Kyla Madden 34 For Canada's Sake The Centennial Celebrations, Expo 67, and Religious Construction of Canada in the i g6os Gary R. Miedema 35 Revival in the City The Impact of American Evangelists in Canada, 1884-1914 Eric C. Grouse 36 The Lord for the Body Religion, Medicine, and Protestant Faith Healing in Canada, 1880-1930 James Opp 3 7 Six Hundred Years of Reform Bishops and the French Church, 1190-1789 J. Michael Hay den and Malcolm R. Greenshields

ONE

G.A. Rawlyk, Editor 1 Small Differences Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, 1815—1922 An International Perspective Donald Harman Akenson

3 An Evangelical Mind Nathanael Burwash and the Methodist Tradition in Canada, 1839-1918 Marguerite Van Die

2 Two Worlds The Protestant Culture of Nineteenth-Century Ontario William West/all

4 The Devotes Women and Church in Seventeenth-Century France Elizabeth Rapley

5 The Evangelical Century College and Creed in English Canada from the Great Revival to the Great Depression Michael Gauvreau 6 The German Peasants' War and Anabaptist Community of Goods James M. Stayer 7 A World Mission Canadian Protestantism and the Quest for a New International Order, 1918—1939 Robert Wright

16 Padres in No Man's Land Canadian Chaplains and the Great War Duff Crerar 17 Christian Ethics and Political Economy in North America A Critical Analysis of U.S. and Canadian Approaches P. Travis Kroeker 18 Pilgrims in Lotus Land Conservative Protestantism in British Columbia, 1917—1981 Robert K. Burkinshaw

8 Serving the Present Age Revivalism, Progressivism, and the Methodist Tradition in Canada Phyllis D. Airhart

19 Through Sunshine and Shadow The Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Evangelicalism, and Reform in Ontario, 1874-1930 Sharon Cook

9 A Sensitive Independence Canadian Methodist Women Missionaries in Canada and the Orient, 1881-1925 Rosemary R. Gagan

20 Church, College, and Clergy A History of Theological Education at Knox College, Toronto, 1844-1994 Brian J. Eraser

10 God's Peoples Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster Donald Harman Akenson 11 Creed and Culture The Place of English-Speaking Catholics in Canadian Society, ^SO-iQS0 Terrence Murphy and Gerald Stortz, editors 12 Piety and Nationalism Lay Voluntary Associations and the Creation of an Irish-Catholic Community in Toronto, 1850-1895 Brian P. Clarke 13 Amazing Grace Studies in Evangelicalism in Australia, Britain, Canada, and the United States George Rawlyk and Mark A. Noll, editors 14 Children of Peace W.John Mclntyre 15 A Solitary Pillar Montreal's Anglican Church and the Quiet Revolution Joan Marshall

21 The Lord's Dominion The History of Canadian Methodism Neil Semple 2 2 A Full-Orbed Christianity The Protestant Churches and Social Welfare in Canada, 1900-1940 Nancy Christie and Michael Gauvreau 23 Evangelism and Apostasy The Evolution and Impact of Evangelicals in Modern Mexico Kurt Bowen 24 The Chignecto Covenanters A Regional History of Reformed Presbyterianism in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, 1827-1905 Eldon Hay 25 Methodists and Women's Education in Ontario, 1836-1925 Johanne Selles 26 Puritanism and Historical Controversy William Lamont

Six Hundred Years of Reform Bishops and the French Church, j790-77#9 ]. M I C H A E L HAYDEN MALCOLM R. G R E E N S H I E L D S

McGill-Queen's University Press Montreal & Kingston • London • Ithaca

© McGill-Queen's University Press 2005 ISBN 0-7735-2893-8 Legal deposit fourth quarter 2005 Bibliotheque nationale du Quebec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% post-consumer recycled), processed chlorine free. McGill-Queen's University Press acknowledges the support of the Canada Council for the Arts for our publishing program. We also acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP) for our publishing activities.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Hayden, Michael, 1934Six hundred years of reform : bishops and the French church, 1190-1789 / J. Michael Hayden, Malcolm R. Greenshields. (McGill-Queen's studies in the history of religion; 37) Includes bibliographical references and index. I S B N 0-7735-2893-8

i. France - Church history. 2. Church renewal - Catholic Church - History. 3. Catholic Church - France - Bishops - History. I. Greenshields, Malcolm II. Tide. III. Title: Six hundred years of reform. IV. Series. 6X1529^39 2005

282.44

02005-904496-9

This book was typeset by Interscript in 10/12 Baskerville.

Dedicated to JOAN and BONNY

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

List of Tables, Graphs, and Maps / xi Acknowledgments / xix Introduction / 3 1 Mapping the Course of Reform: Discontinuity and Continuity in the History of Reform / 6 2 Reform in the French Church, 1190-1489 / 22 3 The First Catholic Reformation, 1490-1589 / 63 4 The First Phase of the Second Catholic Reformation, 1590-1689 / 103 5 The Second Phase of the Second Catholic Reformation, 1690-17897 147 6 Conclusion: Discontinuity and Continuity After 1690 / 176 Tables for Chapters 1-6 / 189 Graphs for Chapters 1-6 / 201 Key to Maps in Chapters 2-6 / 223 Maps for Chapters 2-6 / 224

x

Contents APPENDICES

List of Appendices / 251 1 Space and Time / 255 2 Synodal Statutes / 269 3 Pastoral Visits / 285 Graphs for Appendix 3 / 365 4 Bishops / 369 5 Methodology / 416 Tables for Appendix 5 / 440 Graphs for Appendix 5 / 495 Notes / 509 Bibliography / 575 General Index / 587 Index of Bishops / 593

List of Tables, Graphs, and Maps

TABLES

3. i

a-b Pastoral Visits - Categories, 1490-1589 / 190

3.2

The 49 Reform Topics, 1482-1589 / 191

4.1

a-b Pastoral Visits - Categories, 1590-16897 192

4.2

The 118 Reform Topics: Percentage of Total Possible, 1590-16897 193

4.3

The 118 Topics: Correlation Coefficients, 1590-1689 / 193

4.4

Pastoral Visits, France and Borders - Categories, 1590-1689 / 194

4.5

The 118 Topics, Correlation Coefficients - Borders, 1590-16897 195

4.6

The 118 Topics: Correlation Coefficients - France and Borders, 1590-16897 195

4.7

The 118 Topics: Percent of Total Possible - Borders, 1590-16897 196

5.1

a-b Pastoral Visits: Categories, 1690-1789 / 196

5.2

The 118 Reform Topics: Percentage of Total Possible, 1690-17897 197

5.3 a

The 118 Topics: Correlation Coefficients, 1690-1789 / 198

xii

List of Tables, Graphs, and Maps

5.3 b

The 118 Topics: Provincial Correlations with the National Pattern /ig8

5.4

Pastoral Visits, France and Borders - Categories, 1690-1789 / 199

5.5

The 118 Topics, Correlation Coefficients - Borders, 1690-1789 / 200

5.6

The 118 Topics, Correlation Coefficients, France and Borders, 1690-1789 / 200

MA. i

Synodal Statute Promulgation by "Natural" Periods, 1190-1789/440

MA.2

Synodal Statutes Promulgations per Province, 1190-1789 / 441

MA.3

Medieval Synodal Statute Promulgations by Period Groups / 442

MA.4

Coded Pastoral Visits: Categories by Period Groups, 1190-1489/443

MA-5a

Coded Pastoral Visits: Subcategories by Period Groups, 1190-1489/444

MA.5b

Coded Pastoral Visits: Subcategories Ranked, 1190-1489 / 445

MA.6

Pastoral Visits: Subcategories, 1450—1589 / 447

MA-7a

Pastoral Visits: Subcategories Ranked by Percentage Groups, 1450-1629/448

MA-7b

Pastoral Visits: Subcategories, Changes per Period, 1430-1609/452

MA-7C

Pastoral Visits: Subcategories - Percentage Change, 1450—1589 /455 Pastoral Visits: Subcategories, 1590-1689 / 458

MA.8 MA.ga

Pastoral Visits: Subcategories Ranked by Percentage Groups, 1610-1789/459

MA.gb

Pastoral Visits: Subcategories, Changes per Period, 1590-1709/462

MA.gc

Pastoral Visits: Subcategories - Percentage Change, 1590-1689 /4&4

MA.10

Pastoral Visits: Subcategories, 1690-1789 / 466

MA.I ia Pastoral Visits: Subcategories, Changes per Period, 1690-1789/467

List of Tables, Graphs, and Maps

xiii

MA. i ib Pastoral Visits: Subcategories - Percentage Change, 1690-1789 / 468 MA. 12

Episcopal Statute Promulgations and Visiting Activity, 1490-1589/470

MA. 13

Episcopal Statute Promulgation and Visiting Activity by Period, 1 49°-1589/471 Episcopal Statute Promulgations and Visiting Activity, 1590-1689/472

MA. 14 MA. 15

Episcopal Statute Promulgation and Visiting Activity by Period, 1590-1689/473

MA. 16

Episcopal Statute Promulgations and Visiting Activity, 1690-1789/474

MA. 17

Episcopal Statute Promulgation and Visiting Activity by Period, 1690-1789/475

MA. 18a All Visitors, 118 Visitors and the Twenty Reformers Compared / 476 MA.iSb The 118 Reform Topics: Percentages by Province - 20% +, 1590-1689/477 MA.iSc The 118 Reform Topics: Percentages by Province - o%, 1590-1689/479 MA.iSd The 118 Reform Topics: Percentage Ranges by Province, 1590-1689 / 481 MA.iSe The 118 Reform Topics: Percentages by Groups, 1590-1689 /4»2 MA. iga The 118 Reform Topics: Percentages by Province - Top 20, 1690-1789/483 MA.igb The 118 Reform Topics: Percentages by Province - 20% +, 1690-1789/485 MA.igc The 118 Reform Topics: Percentages by Province - o%, 1690-1789 / 487 MA.igd The 118 Reform Topics: Percentage Ranges by Province, 1690-1789/489 MA.ige The 118 Reform Topics Percentages by Groups, 1690-1789 / 490

xiv

MA.20

List of Tables, Graphs, and Maps

Summary of Episcopal Statue Promulgation and Visiting Activity, 1490-1789/491

MA.2ia Activity Indicators, 1450-1489 / 493 MA.2ib Activity Indicators, 1490-1589 / 493 MA.2ic Activity Indicators, 1590-1689/494 MA.2id Activity Indicators, 1690-1789/494 GRAPHS

1.1

Synodal Statute Promulgation, 1190-1789 / 202

1.2

Episcopal Visitation, 1190-1789 / 202

1.1

Synodal Statute Promulgation, France and Borders, 1190-1789 / 203

1.2

Synodal Statute Promulgation by Provinces, 1450-1789 / 204

1.3

Synodal Statute Promulgation in France, per year per 20 year periods / 205

1.4

Synodal Statute Promulgation in France, per year per 10 year periods / 205

i .5

Percent of Bishops Active by Period of First Appointment / 206

2.1

Synodal Statute Promulgation, 1190-1490 / 206

2.2

Synodal Statute Promulgation per year per period, 1190-1489 / 207

2.3

Synodal Statute Promulgation, Borders - 10 Year Periods / 207

2.4

Pastoral Visits - Percent of Dioceses Visited by Province/ 208

3.1

Synodal Statute Promulgation - France and Borders, 1470-1590/209

3.2

Promulgations and Visits Compared, Periods 13-22 (1430-1629) / 209

3.3

Pastoral Visits and Synodal Statutes - Comparison of Normalized Data, 1490-1590 / 210

3.4

The 49 Reform Topics - Percent of Total Possible Questions asked / 211

3.5

Borders - Promulgations and Visits Compared, Periods 13-22 (1430-1629) / 212

List of Tables, Graphs, and Maps

xv

4. i

Pastoral Visits and Synodal Statutes - Comparison of Normalized Data, 1590-1690 / 213

4.2

Promulgations and Visits Compared - Periods 18-27 (iSS0-1?^) / 21 4 Promulgations and Visits Compared - 10 Year Periods 35-54 (1530-1729) / 214

4.3 4.4

The 118 Reform Sub-Subcategories, 1590-1789 / 215

4.5

Statute Promulgation per Diocese, France and Borders 1590-1689 / 216

4.6

Promulgations and Visits Compared, Borders, Periods 18-27 1590—1689 / 217

5.1

Pastoral Visits and Synodal Statutes - Comparison of Normalized Data, 1690-1790 / 218

5.2

Promulgations and Visits Compared - 20 Year Periods 20-30 (1570-1789)7219

5.3

Promulgations and Visits Compared - 10 Year Periods 45-60 (1630-1789) / 219

5.4

Statute Promulgation per Diocese, France and Borders, 1665-1790 / 220

5.5

Borders - Promulgations and Visits Compared, Periods 35-60 (1530-1789) / 221

A.i

Percentage of Dioceses Visited per Period / 365

A. 2

Percentage of Years with Episcopal Visits / 366

A. 3

Percentage of Possible Visits per Dioceses per Year / 367

MA.I

Synodal Statute Promulgation by "Natural" Periods / 495

MA.2

Synodal Statute Promulgation, Comparison of Periods and Subperiods / 495

MA.3

Known Pastoral Visits in France by 20 Year Periods / 496

MA.4

Promulgations and Visits in France by 20 Year Periods / 496

MA.5

Percent of Dioceses with Episcopal Visits and/or Promulgations by 20 Year Periods / 497

MA.6

Synodal Statute Promulgation per Diocese by 10 Year Periods France and Borders / 497

xvi

List of Tables, Graphs, and Maps

MA.7

Percent of French Dioceses Visited by Bishops and Others 7 498

MA.8

Pastoral Visits - Percent of Total Visit Topics by Provinces / 499

MA.9

The Catholic Reformations - the 96 Major Visits Indicators / 500

MA.IO

Pastoral Visits - Demography, Periods 14-30 (1450-1789) 7501

MA. 11

Pastoral Visits - Practice of the Sacraments, Periods 14-30 (1450-1789) 7502

MA. 12

Bishops' Reform Activities by Period of Provisions Periods 13-20 (1430-1589) / 503

MA. 13

Bishops' Reform Activities by Period of Provisions Periods 19-26 (1550-1709) / 503

MA. 14

Bishops' Reform Activities by Period of Provisions Periods 24-30 (1650-1789) / 504

MA. 15 Church Furniture in Pastoral Visits - Periods 14-30 (1450-1789) 7505 MA. 16

Religious Art in Pastoral Visits - Periods 14-30 (1450-1789) 7506

MA. 17

Catechism in Pastoral Visits - Periods 14-30 (1450-1789) 7507 MAPS

i. i

The France of the Froeschle-Chopards 717

1. 2

The Dioceses and Ecclesiastical Provinces of Early Modern France

2. i

Identified Reforming Activity, 1190-1249 / 2 24

2.2

Identified Reforming Activity, 1250-1349 / 225

2.3

Identified Reforming Activity, 1350-1409 / 226

2.4

Identified Reforming Activity, 1410-69 / 227

2.5

Identified Reforming Activity, 1470-89 / 228

3.1

Synodal Statute Promulgation, 1490-1589 / 229

3.2

Identified Reforming Activity, 1490-1589 / 230

3.3

Identified Reforming Activity, 1490-15097 231

7 18

List of Tables, Graphs, and Maps

3.4

Identified Reforming Activity, 1510-29/232

3.5

Identified Reforming Activity, 1530-497 233

3.6

Identified Reforming Activity, 1550-69 / 234

3.7

Identified Reforming Activity, 1570-89 / 235

4.1

Synodal Statute Promulgation, 1590—1689 / 236

4.2

Identified Reforming Activity, 1590-1689 / 237

4.3

Identified Reforming Activity, 1590-1609 / 238

4.4

Identified Reforming Activity, 1610-29 / 239

4.5

Identified Reforming Activity, 1630-49 / 240

4.6

Identified Reforming Activity, 1650-69 / 241

4.7

Identified Reforming Activity, 1670-89/242

4.8

The Spread of the 118 Topics / 243

5.1

Synodal Statute Promulgation, 1690-1789 / 244

5.2

Identified Reforming Activity, 1690-17897 245

5.3

Identified Reforming Activity, 1690-1709 / 246

5.4

Identified Reforming Activity, 1710-297 247

5.5

Identified Reforming Activity, 1730-497 248

5.6

Identified Reforming Activity, 1750-69 / 249

5.7

Identified Reforming Activity, 1770-89 / 250

xvii

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgments

In Paris the staffs of the Bibliotheque Nationale, the Bibliotheque Ste. Genevieve, the Bibliotheque de 1'Arsenal, and the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes were particularly helpful, as were the archivist of the Archives Diocesaines de Sees and the librarians of the Bibliotheques Municipales of Avranches, Coutances, and Valognes. Staff members of departmental archives and municipal libraries throughout France provided information, microfilms, and photocopies. Peres Georges Couppey, JeanBaptiste Lechat, and Bernard Pasquet of the Archives Diocesaines de Coutances made us welcome over the course of several years and provided help and full access to their abundant resources. The interlibrary loan staffs of the Universities of Saskatchewan and Lethbridge were helpful, as was Dorothy Abernethy of the St. Thomas More College. David Snell and Zhen Yuan of the Division of Media and Technology of the University of Saskatchewan provided computer-related assistance and the maps. Funding came from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Universities of Saskatchewan and Lethbridge. Joan Hayden (1931-2002) and Bonny Greenshields provided encouragement and support. Margaret Anderson and, especially, Tom Hayden and Ruby Klassen-Frison spent many hours copying the CNRS codes into our database. Mike Hayden provided important assistance in database development. Tom Hayden helped with the statistics. Joan and Tom Hayden improved the style of many chapters. Aileen Hayden helped make time available for research and writing. The members of the History Department of the University of Saskatchewan asked pertinent questions. Joseph

xx

Acknowledgments

Bergin provided many very useful comments. Donald Akenson of McGillQueen's University Press was a strong advocate for this book. Joan McGilvray, our coordinating editor, provided immense and unfailing help. Imogen Brian was our very able copyeditor. Del Gradish provided significant help and constant encouragement during the last year of the project.

SIX HUNDRED YEARS OF REFORM

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

This book is an examination of six hundred years of episcopal reforming activity in France in all its geographical, chronological, and thematic variety. It is based on analyses of 2,553 synodal statutes, 10,464 pastoral visits, and the careers of more than 2,000 bishops. The story begins at the end of the twelfth century, the first period for which sufficient records have survived, and ends with the French Revolution, which changed the expectations of the world in which the French church had evolved.1 The course of the reforming impulse to regulate and purify the church between 1190 and 1789 is visible in graphs Li and 1.2 which provide an outline of the rise and fall of reforming energies. In a very real sense this book is an explanation of these depictions of synodal statute promulgation and episcopal visitation activity between 1190 and 1789. The graphs show that there was a dramatic increase in the number of both synodal statute promulgations and episcopal pastoral visitations from the late sixteenth century to the late seventeenth century. This time span coincides with the period traditionally called the French Catholic Reformation. We argue that this correspondence is not accidental and, further, that the patterns evident in both graphs indicate that there were, in fact, four cycles of reforming activity, each containing a time of particularly intense activity. Two of these intense periods occurred between the years 1190 and 1489, and two between the years 1490 and 1789. Analysis of the evolution of the content of synodal statutes and of changes in the questions asked by pastoral visitors confirmed the patterns in the two graphs. Further, the use of the same analyses in thirty-four dioceses located just beyond the borders of France revealed a very different pattern. We assert, therefore, that France had a different pattern of ecclesiastical reform than did its neighbours.2

4

Six Hundred Years of Reform

There are, of course, other types of activity, prominent in various periods, which indicate an interest in reform.3 Unfortunately, no one has assembled a catalogue of any of these activities in France. Our years of experience in sifting through the scattered remains of the archives of French dioceses have convinced us that such catalogues would be extraordinarily difficult to produce, unless hundreds of trained researchers were employed for a long period. This is not possible because funding for such projects has dried up. Even if such enterprises were possible the results would be much less representative of the original whole than are the catalogues of pastoral visits and synodal statutes. In addition and very importantly, since most of these other "reforming" activities were developed in the seventeenth century (and most often in the second half of that century) they are of no use in gauging the reform interests of bishops of earlier centuries.4 Pastoral visits and synodal statutes are the only sources available for the study of episcopal reform activity in France that are continuous for the period under study and thus are the only sources that permit accurate comparison of the levels and varieties of this activity across the whole time span. The nature of the available evidence led us to employ two types of analysis. We used qualitative analysis to identify and compare the contents of promulgated synodal statutes. We used quantitative analysis in several ways: to trace the changing volume of synodal statute promulgation and episcopal pastoral visitation, to show the changing content of visitation records, and to search out patterns of episcopal reforming activity. When relevant and possible, given the present state of research, we used quantitative analysis to compare the patterns of social status, education, and training of active and inactive bishops. The constraints of space necessitated the distillation of our research into a relatively brief interpretation of the results of our analyses in the text. Those who wish more information will find it in the notes. Our evidence is presented in the maps, tables, graphs, and appendices at the back of the book. Appendix 5 (the Methodological Appendix) is particularly important for those who want an in-depth discussion of our methodology, including the methods we developed to permit the valid use of series of documents, such as pastoral visit and promulgated synodal statute records, even though a significant number of the documents have disappeared. We also discuss the issues of chronology and French ecclesiastical geography to show why we developed the time periods and constructed the France we use throughout this book. All of the appendices will be of use to historians interested in a quantitative approach to history, as well as those who wish to use pastoral visit and synodal statute data in their historical research, and those interested in the history of reform or the activity of bishops. Almost all of the information in the appendices is unavailable in any other source, primary or secondary, printed or manuscript.5

Introduction

5

This book is an attempt to discern the shape of religious reform between 1190 and 1789, using the only continuous records available. While it is not a social history of religion in France, or a complete history of religious reform in the period, it will provide a solid and nuanced basis for such enterprises. More specifically, we present a new chronology and geography of religious reform in France. The book reveals the medieval origins of the Catholic Reformation in France; the French influence on its beginning; as well as the long-term success (1190-1689) and short-term, but signal, failure (16901789) of French bishops in adapting to intellectual, social, and economic change. In addition, we show that there was a significant period of reform in France in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (what we call the First Catholic Reformation); that a small group of French bishops triggered the seventeenth-century reform in France (what we call the Second Catholic Reformation) ; and that French bishops, while failing to adapt to the challenge of the Enlightenment, paradoxically and unwittingly helped to prepare the church to weather the storm of the French Revolution by developing a professional clerical corps. Finally, new information is provided about the role of the French monarchy in the creation and collapse of the Catholic Reformation, about the attitude of the peasant majority toward religion, and about the origins and influence of the Enlightenment.

1

Mapping the Course of Reform Discontinuity and Continuity in the History of Reform

Historians are often intrigued by discontinuity. Nowhere has this fascination been more evident than in the study of Christianity. The blood of martyrs during times of persecution, schism, and heresy may or may not have been the seed of the church, but these events have certainly inspired many histories of the church's evolution and transformation. The dramas of conversion and reformation and the self-critical impulse that have characterized Christianity from its inception have given its historians a natural appetite for crisis and change. In the study of western Christendom, this preoccupation with abrupt changes, while highly profitable, has also created prejudices (particularly in favour of the sixteenth century and the Protestant Reformation) that have unfairly privileged discontinuity. The historical importance of the advent of a highly defined religious pluralism in western Europe can scarcely be overstated. Nevertheless, the concentration of historians, especially in many parts of northern Europe and in North America, on the heroic age of Protestantism has created an imbalance that has obscured the reforming experience of the majority in western Christendom. One popular view of the religious history of the sixteenth century is that the medieval Catholic church was a failure which made the Protestant Reformation necessary, while the reforming initiatives within the early-modern Catholic church were a reaction, a counter-reformation, attempting to push back the advance of the new doctrines. At the other extreme is the tendency to ignore Protestantism and emphasize the extra-Protestant nature of the Catholic Reformation as a purifying impulse within the church. Yet another view sees Catholic reform as part of a process that was given a sharper focus

Mapping the Course of Reform

7

by the challenge of Protestantism. A fourth approach includes the Catholic Reformation as part of the general modern demand for religious change that issued in various Protestant and Catholic attempts to reform. Until the works by historians such as Jean Delumeau and John Bossy became known, many regarded the so-called counter-reformation as a movement that was confined to the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. H.O. Evennett and A.G. Dickens both saw it ending in the mid-seventeenth century, while the title of Marvin O'Connell's text implies that it reached only to 1610. B.J. Kidd's counter-reformation is among the briefest, ending about 1600. Other historians are now joining in the effort to extend chronological boundaries and show the diversity of Catholicism in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries. One of the important participants in this effort, the Jesuit scholar John O'Malley, has proposed a name that makes much sense: Early Modern Catholicism. This book will provide further evidence of the diversity within Early Modern Catholicism and will extend its chronological limits from the late fifteenth century to the end of the eighteenth century.* Even with all the nuances of evolving scholarship, a stubborn cultural myopia persists. For anyone whose mother tongue is English, German, Dutch, or one of the Scandinavian languages, reform is not a concept that springs immediately to mind when the words "French Church" appear, especially when they are associated with the word "bishop." In northern Europe, Britain, and some parts of western and central Europe, as well as in North America, Protestantism is still often considered to have triumphed over a fundamentally flawed Catholic church. The heroes of the continental reform are limited to Luther, Calvin, selected Anabaptists, and a few others such as Zwingli and Bucer. Even when Catholic reform is accorded more importance, another sort of ethnic or national preference emerges. The mainsprings of Catholic reform are considered to have been Italian and Spanish, the property of such leaders as Ignatius Loyola and Charles Borromeo. The Council of Trent is thought to have been the defining moment. Such views have characterized not only Italian and Spanish historiography, but the work of many French scholars as well. The latter are usually content to insist that in France there were important variations on this Hispano-Italian theme. In spite of all of these learned opinions, reform of the church has not been a discontinuous phenomenon limited to a few individuals in a few places during a few hundred years. Rather, it has been a continuous reality in the history of Christianity, preoccupying both clerics and laypersons for two millennia. That the notion of reform should have come to be associated so strongly with a few instances of change, no matter how powerful, is an accident of modern cultural power relations, and of the temporal and linguistic prejudices that attend them - an accident for which we are trying to compensate.

8

Six Hundred Years of Reform

Our study of the reforming impulse within the French church begins with the scattered, tentative efforts of bishops in a few dioceses in the ngos and ends with the feeble attempts at reform of the late 17805. Between those two dates, one can observe the ebb and flow of activity which slowly built a reforming tradition. This tradition received its greatest setbacks from natural and human disasters. Especially important were the Black Death, the Hundred Years War, the Avignon Residency, the Great Western Schism, and the Wars of Religion. But after each of these interruptions the reform movement was revived. Each new surge grew greater than the last until by the late seventeenth century, even the most laggardly of French ecclesiastical provinces was involved in religious reform. During the eighteenth century, however, the overall momentum of reform slowed significantly. Then came the French Revolution, another of those moments of dramatic discontinuity much loved by historians. While it could be argued that the Revolution was in a sense the most profound of modern ecclesiastical reforms, it was a reform from without and a sign of failure in the sense that it brought a curtailment rather than an extension of the church's purview. On its own terms, the movement for reform failed, as eventually do most, if not all, religious reform movements. In none of them do the results equal the vision of their founders. The movement we will describe in this book did not create a totally Catholic France with a magisterial church to which every inhabitant adhered and paid obeisance. But it had a profound effect on the shape of modern Catholicism. Two facts are central to understanding what happened. The first is the continuity of the reform process from the late twelfth century onward. The second is the consistency of the purposes of the reform movement throughout the six centuries involved, namely, the purification and universalization of doctrine and religious practice in France. In quantitative terms, episcopal reform efforts increased over time and became geographically more widespread through the seventeenth century. The declining zeal for reformation of eighteenth century bishops, contrasted with the persistence of some reformatory practices, such as pastoral visitation, may indicate a kind of form without substance. The turning away from the church by the people of France may indicate the influence of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution. It may also have come as a result of the attempt of Catholic Reformers to eradicate "popular" religion. BASIC DEFINITIONS

Words essential to this study are reform and reformation and they appear frequently, along with their adjectival companions. Here, as both noun and verb reform refers to the formal effort to encourage or compel the clergy and laity to adhere more strictly to the teachings of the Catholic church in

Mapping the Course of Reform

9

matters of doctrine, morality, liturgy, and pastoral practices, including financial accountability and maintenance of church buildings and property. In this book it generally applies to such efforts made by one or more French bishops or their delegated subordinates. Reformation refers to a more concentrated and influential series of efforts to improve conditions, or to the state of reforming or of being reformed. Modern usage has until recently made the word captive to the Protestant Reformation, but it has a wider usefulness and a clarity that encourage its adoption here with appropriate modifiers, as in the "First Catholic Reformation." Throughout this book we will often refer to the French church, a term for which there was no explicit definition during the medieval and early-modern eras. Nor could its structure and functions be described in a way acceptable to all its leaders, let alone all its members. The French church is understood here to be the pre-nineteenth-century French version of the Catholic church, often known as the Gallican church, though the latter term is open to a number of interpretations. To extend the description one could say that this French church was the church that throughout the years 1190-1789 maintained at least the nominal adherence of the great majority of the French population, obedient, in theory at least, to pope and king and led by the bishops. This definition excludes some French Christians, particularly French Protestants, though they might be considered in many senses, a part of the church.2 Bishops were the leaders of the more than 100 French dioceses. These men generally accepted that the king had a role in the leadership of the French church, particularly through the appointment of bishops. They also accepted the pope as the Vicar of Christ, but generally they did not see themselves as fully subject to him, even in religious matters. Popes held even less sway as political leaders of the episcopate. Bishops were primarily sovereigns in their own dioceses, though they also exerted influence as a collective body. Through provincial councils, as meetings of bishops of a particular region were called, bishops, in theory, could provide religious leadership to the French church. But provincial councils did not communicate with each other. After the mid-sixteenth century there were regular meetings of a national body known as the Assembly of the Clergy, but these meetings were often strongly influenced or controlled by the royal government and, in any case, they were mainly concerned with the financial demands of the royal government. In religious matters, individual bishops generally held sway, free to provide leadership in their own dioceses, especially through pastoral visitation and synods. It is on these two instruments of reform that we shall focus our attention. French bishops established in their reforming activities a procedural structure which over time became a tradition: the related but often discrete activities of visiting individual parishes and of holding synods and promulgating synodal statutes. The evidence indicates that some bishops preferred one

io

Six Hundred Years of Reform

activity over the other, while others favoured both; yet others, rarer as the church evolved, seem to have used neither. Certainly there were other forms of intelligence-gathering and persuasion available to bishops who ruled the thousands of subordinate clerics and parishes, but no other was as thorough nor left enough records to permit systematic analysis. Bishops did not work alone. They had a number of officials who helped them carry out their duties. In the context of this book the most important of these officials are those whom bishops specifically delegated to carry out pastoral visits. Throughout this book the words episcopal pastoral visit are used to describe a pastoral visit by a bishop or by someone specifically delegated by him.3 As one might expect of a book whose protagonists are bishops, the following pages contain relatively little concerning members of religious orders; this in spite of the various and sometimes important relations between bishops and the regular clergy and the importance of the latter to the French church in general. The reason for this is that during most of the years in question religious orders had little direct effect on the reform of the French church. Some future bishops received part of their education from members of religious orders and some read their writings and agreed with their ideas. Few French bishops, however, were members of religious orders. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of France during the years 1190-1789 were peasants in the care of parish priests, almost all of whom were not members of religious orders. Neither the peasants nor the parish clergy had much, if any, spiritual contact with monks, friars, canons regular, nuns, or other members of religious orders, though abbeys and priories were often landlords or holders of parish benefices. From time to time, peasants might meet a mendicant friar. But the nexus was usually financial - a matter of tithes, rent, salary or alms, not the advocacy of reform by the religious.4 The great exception to this rule occurred between the late sixteenth and early eighteenth centuries when members of some of the newer religious orders were influential in reform through their seminaries and parish missions. Also during these years a somewhat higher number than usual of members of religious orders, both old and new, were bishops in France.5 We describe the four eras of reform with terms that need to be defined. We call the first of the eras the Thirteenth-Century Reform, a term with which historians are familiar. We will argue, however, that this movement actually began in the very late twelfth century and reached its fullest development between the mid-thirteenth and mid-fourteenth centuries. The term Late Medieval Reform will be used to describe the heightened reform efforts of French bishops between the beginning of the second decade of the fifteenth century and the end of the 14605. Chapter 2 will discuss both of these movements.

Mapping the Course of Reform

11

Tradition demands that the last two reform eras we have identified be called Catholic. They were not Protestant, but are contemporary with and, in some ways, related to Protestantism. While there is considerable continuity from the medieval reforms to the two early-modern reformations, the latter are alike in their distinctiveness from earlier reforming activities. The existence of the First Catholic Reformation (at its height between the early 14908 and mid-15605) is a discovery that arose from our analysis of synodal statutes. It makes its appearance in chapter 3. What we call the Second Catholic Reformation is usually referred to as the Catholic Reformation. We have dated it, somewhat differently than is traditional, from approximately 1590 to 1789, with a peak between the 16405 and the 16905. The first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation (1590-1689) will be the subject of chapter 4, while the second phase (16901789) will be discussed in chapter 5. Chapter 6 will discuss the problems that beset the reform efforts of French bishops in the eighteenth century. SOURCES

Two sources will provide the bulk of the information used for the analysis of church reform patterns in France. The first is the corpus of 1,773 known synodal statutes promulgated by French bishops during or after diocesan synods between 1190 and 1789. These documents contain evidence of both the pattern and the character of the reforms. They will be compared with 780 known synodal statutes promulgated in thirty-three dioceses located just beyond the borders of France. The second major source consists of the records of the 8,483 known pastoral visits made in France between 1190 and 1789 and the 1,981 visits carried out in twenty-seven border dioceses during the same years. These records will make possible a fuller analysis of reforming activity.6 Why concentrate on these documents? Certainly it could be argued that at least since St. Paul first wrote to chide the Corinthians, "reformations" both personal and collective have produced myriad forms of expression that can be seen as evidence of reformatory aspirations and policies. Many of these forms are more dramatic and aesthetically exciting than synodal statutes and pastoral visit records: memoirs, episcopal and papal communications of various sorts, letters, spiritual exercises, sermons, music, art, and architecture. For a number of reasons we have found it more informative, however, to concentrate on synodal statutes and pastoral visits. These two means of reform were fundamental tools of improvement in the church and have a relatively consistent form throughout the 600 years under study. Further, changes in their volume and content can be measured and the measurements can be compared. Synodal statutes take precedence over pastoral visit records here for a number of reasons, three of which are crucial: record content, record survival, and

12

Six Hundred Years of Reform

historical method. In the first place, pastoral visits were often undertaken by local church officials as a means of keeping track of church property and taxes and their contents often reflect these preoccupations. In addition, the available catalogue of pastoral visits reports only the questions asked, not the answers given to them.7 Synodal statutes show a more concentrated interest in reform and present reformatory prescriptions that require less inference and enable more useful generalization. Second, in comparison with pastoral visit records, a significantly larger percentage of synodal statutes have survived because, from the late fifteenth century onward, they were most often printed and distributed widely. The records of each pastoral visit, on the other hand, remained in one manuscript copy subject to the ravages of time, nature, and human activity.8 The provenance of our two types of records helps to explain the differences between the two collections. The synods which were the source of synodal statutes were gatherings of the cures and perpetual vicars of a diocese presided over by its bishop. At these meetings, the bishop made law, gave counsel, explained and encouraged the maintenance of and obedience to the laws of the diocese, and gave directions for pastoral care. An early eighteenth-century commentator on canon law put it succinctly when describing the duties of the priests in charge of parishes: "Their principal dignities and prerogatives consist in a perfect union with their bishop at the synod which they are obliged to attend to be instructed and to receive the orders necessary for the direction of souls."9 To some extent, the bishop himself was obeying superior councils. Lateran Council IV (1215), the Council of Basel (1433), and the Council of Trent (1563) each ordered bishops to hold a diocesan synod every year. In fact, many French bishops held two synods a year, usually in the spring and the fall, a practice that became common from the thirteenth century onward. Frequently, one synod was an assembly of the officials in charge of the larger subdivisions of the diocese, while the other convoked all holders of benefices with care of souls. During or immediately after some synods the bishop officially announced, endorsed, and had propagated throughout his diocese statutes or series of regulations. We refer to this as a promulgation. At some times the promulgated statutes might be old or revised statutes, at others, new ones. In any event, they were to be used by parish priests to guide the conduct of their lives and their duties. The nomenclature can be somewhat confusing because after a synod bishops sometimes issued one or two regulations to deal with specific problems in a parish; these are at times referred to as synodal statutes. Pastoral visitors might also append "statuts" of admonition or correction at the end of the proces-verbal of a pastoral visit. In this book, the words "promulgated synodal statutes" refer to a list or collection of statutes

Mapping the Course of Reform

13

(new, revised, or old) that a bishop, during or immediately after a synod, officially announced, endorsed, and propagated throughout his diocese for the use of parish priests. This definition is important, because while there is no means to establish accurately the frequency of synods, the bishops who promulgated synodal statutes can legitimately be considered to have been the most serious about reform. Moreover, their activity can be quantified and analysed to determine the changing patterns of reform over time in France, its ecclesiastical provinces, and its individual dioceses.10 The first method used to study synodal statutes in the following chapters is a quantitative, chronological analysis of their promulgation to determine the pattern of religious reform in France. The analysis is based on the catalogue of synodal statutes compiled by Andre Artonne and others. This source has never been used for this purpose.11 The decision to use a chronological analysis of the promulgation of synodal statutes was the result of our discovery that a significant and lasting increase in promulgation identified not only the rise and decline of what historians have traditionally called the Catholic Reformation, but also pointed to an earlier movement which we have named the First Catholic Reformation. The existence of these two distinct eras of reformation was confirmed by reading the statutes. Changes in content appeared exactly where the analysis of volume of promulgation predicted. We used the same method to identify an overall pattern of two three-hundred-year-cycles. The first runs from 1190 to 1489, the second form 1490 to 1789. The second method we have employed to study synodal statutes is a qualitative analysis of the changes in content and style over time. We identified these changes by reading 70 per cent of the extant synodal statutes promulgated in France between 1190 and 1789, including all those available for the critical eras identified in the following chapters. As noted above, these statutes were compared not only with each other but with those from the dioceses bordering France.12 The content of the synodal statutes was analyzed qualitatively rather than quantitatively because of the nature of that content. The wide range of complex subject matter treated and the significant but at times slow and subtle temporal shifts in both subject and attitude precluded quantitative analysis that was not either hopelessly complex or mindlessly oversimplified. The move from medieval superstition to early-modern anti-superstition, from medieval relative indifference to the laity to early-modern spying on their actions, from thirteenth-century concern about clerical concubines to eighteenth-century worry about clerical wigs and snuff could not be meaningfully contained in one manageable list of topics. Pastoral visit reports are among the most abundant of the ecclesiastical records left to us from the Ancien Regime. They became more common as the parish became a stronger administrative unit in France, a trend confirmed

14

Six Hundred Years of Reform

by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). Awareness of the visit records owes much to the work directed by the Paris-based Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS) whose team members have catalogued the records of visits and identified the subjects with which visitors were preoccupied.13 The pastoral visit itself was an inspection tour of the parish during which the physical properties of the church, its personnel, and its parishioners passed under the scrutiny of the bishop or another official for a sometimes brief, sometimes extended, examination. The visitor might concentrate on the state of the parish church and churchyard; he might examine the condition of sacred vessels, images, or instruments; or he might show a particular interest in church finances. These examinations became so routinized that they appear regularly in the records across the centuries and seem almost like a landlord's inspection. However, the medieval visitor sometimes also asked questions about persons; lay, religious, and clerical "scandal" or immorality; and heresy. In later years, "impious" festivities, catechism, the sacraments (especially confession and communion), parish registers, the condition of parish schools, and the conduct of midwives also received the attention of visitors. The editors of the four-volume CNRS catalogue devised a set of numbers that enabled them to distinguish 309 aspects of a pastoral visit. Using this system, the questions asked by visitors were codified for 67 per cent of all known pastoral visits in the 113 dioceses identified as French in this book. This 67 per cent encompasses 80 per cent of all the known visits that contain information other than simply financial data for which records still exist. These coded visits form the principal data base for our analysis of pastoral visitation in France between 1190 and 1789-14 Visitors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries asked the widest variety of questions. In the seventeenth century the desire to achieve a thorough reform of the church inspired curiosity among visitors. One must beware of ascribing a constant value to such quantities, however. During the eighteenth century the average number of questions remained high because by then visitors often used printed questionnaires containing standard questions. Lest systematization be mistaken for thoroughness or fervour, it is well to note that these printed surveys were often distributed before the visit or, in some cases, in lieu of an actual visit by a bishop or his representative.15 While pastoral visits may have been important events in parish life, they often did not last long because the need to visit several villages a day often allowed only a cursory inspection that a clever priest or other sinner could survive relatively unscathed. The brief nature of very many individual visits is not, however, the major cause of their failure to take precedence over promulgated synodal statutes in our analysis. The immense collection of visits presents researchers with serious problems because of the significant lacunae in the series, the uncertainty about record survival, and the nature

Mapping the Course of Reform

15

of the pastoral visit catalogue. In spite of these obstacles, however, pastoral visits form a crucial part of the evidence for this study, and all known pastoral visits were entered into our data base. We will make extensive use of pastoral visit information because we have found that quantitative analysis of the changes in the content of pastoral visits provides important information about patterns of reformation. However, the problems created by missing records and the cataloguing methods employed by the CNRS made it impossible to use changes in volume of pastoral visits over time as an indicator of reform activity. An important exception to this rule is made possible by isolating the visits by bishops and their delegates.16 Our method of analysis of pastoral visits is set out in full in Appendix 5, parts A, B, G and K. Its most important aspect is related to the problem of missing data (part A) Unlike others who have used pastoral visits records, we express the rate of occurrence of a pastoral visit question in a particular place or time as a percentage of the total number of coded pastoral visits available for the place or time in question. Thus, if there are thirty extant coded pastoral visits available for Poitiers and ten of them contain a particular question, then we consider that question to have appeared in 30 per cent of the visits. Using this method it is possible to compare rates of occurrence of questions in different places or at different times.17 PREVIOUS

WORKS

The immense body of pastoral visit records left to historians has proved to be both seductive and daunting. The earliest interpreters of visit records, and many coming after them, concentrated on a circumscribed area, usually a diocese, and relied on qualitative analysis, reading the proces verbaux of visits, identifying content and changes in content, and writing reflectively about church reform. Some of these authors, whose work has provided illuminating insights, have used limited quantitative analysis, but they have not concerned themselves with the problem of missing data. Usually the corpus of pastoral visit records for one frequently visited diocese over an extended period is enough to overwhelm any scholar, while attempting to examine more than one diocese is almost beyond human endurance.18 The first historian to develop a thorough quantitative approach to pastoral visit records was Marc Venard. The application of his method appeared in his magisterial 1977 thesis, L'Eglise d'Avignon au XVF siede. Working without a computer, Venard devised a complex system for tabulating the questions asked by visitors. The most ambitious attempt to use pastoral visits to discover the pattern of religious reform, indeed the only attempt to do so for all of France, was the Atlas de la reforme pastorale en France, by Marie-Helene and Michel FroeschleChopard, published in 1986. Their study is based on the CNRS catalogue of

16

Six Hundred Years of Reform

pastoral visits, but is limited to the years 1550-1790. Though the FroeschleChopards had the advantage of computer-aided analysis, they adopted Venard's approach of analyzing only categories and subcategories (instead of also using the sub-subcategories), as well as some of his terminology. They presented their results in a series of stylized maps of France Unfortunately, problems of method, chronology, and geography render invalid many of their conclusions.19 Before the patterns of French episcopal reforming activity can be presented and discussed we must address several important technical issues connected with French ecclesiastical geography and chronology, measurement of the reforming activity of bishops, and means of comparing reforming activity in France and on its borders. This will be done in summary form in the final few pages of this chapter. For those who wish more detail, an extended discussion is presented in Parts C, D, E andj of Appendix 5. GEOGRAPHY

Producing an accurate working map of ecclesiastical France is crucial. One of the fundamental problems with the Froeschle-Chopards' analysis of pastoral visits is their geographic presentation of France. It is a i5o-diocese version of the "Greater France" of 154 dioceses presented by the editors of the CNRS pastoral visit catalogue (see map i.i). 20 The Froeschle-Chopard France, however, is not the France that actually existed between 1190 and 1789. In contrast, we analyse the reforming activities that took place in the 113 dioceses that actually existed within France during most of the years relevant to this study. The result, as seen in map 1.2, is a France that is almost a rectangle; a less traditional shape than the sacred hexagon, perhaps, but one that depicts the ecclesiastical France that really existed between 1190 and i^jSg.21 This ecclesiastical France comprises the dioceses over which the kings of France held sway from the sixteenth century until the French Revolution. The royal right to nominate bishops, accorded through the Concordat of Bologna of 1516 and geographically defined by the Contract of Poissy of 1561, set the limits of the ecclesiastical France which we use for the entire period 1190-1789 to allow comparisons of times and places and to show the development of French reform.22 The patterns of reformation provide further evidence of the existence of a ii3-diocese France. Synodal statute promulgation patterns and statute and pastoral visit contents in the thirty-six dioceses which we consider to be bordering dioceses are different from the patterns and contents found in the 113 dioceses designated as French in this book. As an example of the difference, graph 1.1 shows the differing patterns of synodal statute promulgation in France and the dioceses bordering France. While in France

Mapping the Course of Reform Map 1.1 The France of the Froeschle-Chopards

i?

i8

Six Hundred Years of Reform

Map 1.2 The Dioceses and Ecclesiastical Provinces of Early Modern France

Mapping the Course of Reform

19

there is a marked rise in promulgation between 1492 and 1564 and then again between 1591 and 1745, the two periods of significantly increased promulgation in the bordering dioceses are 1556-1618 and 1659-1700. This difference is due to the reform of the French church being interrupted by the Wars of Religion, while in the bordering dioceses the Thirty Years War (1618-48) was responsible for a hiatus in reform activities.23 From the tenth to the early fourteenth century France was divided into thirteen ecclesiastical provinces that followed the boundaries of the Roman provinces of Gaul. In later centuries three more were created. Toulouse was separated from Narbonne in 1317. In 1622 the ecclesiastical province of Paris was separated from Sens, while Albi was created from Bourges in 1687. Tracing the pattern of synodal statute promulgation and pastoral visit questions and reading the synodal statutes made it clear to us that each of the resulting sixteen provinces was a distinct region, at least in so far as reform of the French church was concerned (see graph 1.2). Therefore, in what follows France is considered to have been divided into sixteen provinces throughout the whole time under study.24 In addition to distinctive patterns of synodal statute promulgation and pastoral visit questions, there is another reason to study ecclesiastical provinces as entities. On a number of occasions, for example during the years 1485-1528 and 1581-90, meetings of provincial synods sparked reform in the dioceses of that province. This can be seen by comparing the resulting statutes from both levels.25 As indicated by the circled numbers i to 6 on map i. i, The FroeschleChopards ignored the boundaries of ecclesiastical provinces. Instead, they chose to divide France into six curious sections. The Southeast, Southwest, and Northeast are the key regions for the Froeschle-Chopard interpretation of the evolution of the Catholic Reformation. They have not only fatally mis-constructed these areas, they have rearranged the rest of France in a way that distorts significantly the pattern of the Catholic Reformation in France.26 Extensive testing of possible patterns led to our decision to treat France in four ways. The two principal ways are to present the pattern of reform in the country as a whole and in each ecclesiastical province separately. At times it makes sense to differentiate among regions. In those instances three principal regions will be used: North, Centre, and South. Provinces were assigned to regions primarily on the basis of geography, with similarities in reforming activity over the years 1190-1789 serving as a determinant in border regions. The North will be considered to include the ecclesiastical provinces of Tours, Rouen, Paris, Sens, and Reims. The Centre provinces in this book are Bordeaux, Bourges, Lyon, and Vienne. The other seven provinces are considered to make up the South. Particularly in the South, distinctions will be made

2O

Six Hundred Years of Reform

from time to time among sub-regions (e.g., Southwest and Southeast). During crucial periods important individual dioceses will be studied separately. In this way the overall pattern, regional differences, and individual peculiarities will be made clear. Analyzing provincial rather than diocesan patterns also provides a further partial solution to the problem of missing data. What may be missing for one or two dioceses in a province may be balanced by what exists for the others. Using provinces also prevents the few dioceses with a large number of extant synodal statutes from dominating the study. CHRONOLOGY

Having delineated the characteristics of space we must now deal with the question of time. The problem here was to find the most practical and revealing series of chronological divisions for the years 1190-1789. Any such division is, of course, arbitrary and to some extent distorting. But without a series of discrete periods it would be impossible to establish or compare times of reforming activity and inactivity or to show accurately the ebb and flow of the reforming impulse over time and space. The problem was to find a consistent chronological span that would capture the major changes, accommodate all types of reform evidence, and permit a clear explanation of the measurements involved. After experimenting with various chronological periods, we decided to separate the years 11901789 into thirty so-year segments beginning in 1190 (see graph 1.3). As can be seen in graph 1.4, ten-year periods reflect the jagged reality of the pattern of religious reform in France a little better than do twenty-year periods, but they do not correspond to the major changes as well as the twenty-year periods do. The twenty-year divisions show clearly the two major cycles, the two periods of reform in each cycle, the overall upward trend which peaked in the late seventeenth century, and the subsequent decline of reforming activity in the eighteenth century.27 BISHOPS AS REFORMERS

The realization of the importance of bishops to reformatory movements encouraged the development of two other measures of reform: the patterns of appointment and reform activity of the bishops. These measures provide the means of answering several questions: How many bishops were appointed in each twenty-year period? What percentage of them participated in.reform by either visitation or statute promulgation? How did they differ in their levels of activity, kinds of activity, and reforming preoccupations? We do not intend a prosopographical study of bishops, nor will we enter into the unfinished debate about changing episcopal social status. The relevant question here is about change in the amount and nature of

Mapping the Course of Reform

21

reforming activity. Graph 1.5 shows that the reforming activity pattern of French bishops follows the same general pattern as both synodal statute promulgation and episcopal pastoral visitation. There is no value-neutral method of establishing generations of bishops. Any such identification involves choosing both an arbitrary starting point and an arbitrary length of time for each generation. Therefore, in this and subsequent chapters the word "generation" will be avoided.28 In theory it would be interesting and valuable to compare the appointment and activity patterns of bishops with those of their delegates and other pastoral visitors Only intense studies of individual dioceses, however, could reveal the required information for most non-episcopal visitors. Unfortunately, even for the few dioceses where such studies have been carried out the results are disappointing. It is simply impossible to know enough about most early modern visitors to analyse their appointments and activities. WHAT IS TO COME

In the chapters ahead the patterns introduced above will receive more detailed attention. It is hoped that as the reader moves from the Middle Ages to revolutionary times in France the world of religious reform, with its array of continuities and discontinuities, will become more clearly visible. In chapter 2 we will discuss the two major movements of reform between 1190 and 1489. Chapter 3 shows why the reform movement of the years 1490-1589 deserves the title First Catholic Reformation. Most of what is traditionally called the Catholic Reformation is the subject of chapter 4, which covers the years 1590-1689. In the context of our Goo-year span of reform this becomes the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation. In chapter 5, which covers the years 1690-1789, the rest of the traditional Catholic Reformation is blended with the years leading up to the French Revolution and is called the second phase of the Second Catholic Reformation. This chapter shows how episcopal reform, seemingly poised to achieve true catholicity, became instead an automated activity and almost, at times, inconsequential. Finally, we will address the fate of the reform process in chapter 6. As will be seen, it is easy to say that the reform movements failed in their own terms. Nevertheless, we must also consider whether or not the bishops' reform efforts during the years 1190-1789 in some respects modernized the French church and inculcated a hardy ethos which could survive great material losses and paroxysms of civil and political change.29

2

Reform in the French Church, 1190-1489

The impulse to reform is as old as the church itself. One can find it already present in the Acts of the Apostles and in the pervasive Christian notions of human fallibility, transformation, and ultimate perfection. Within the boundaries of what became France, the first clear attempt at reforming the church seems to have been the meeting of bishops known as the Council of Aries of 314. The Carolingian reforms of the late eighth and early ninth centuries provide evidence of the same impulse. While efforts to improve the church with measures such as the organization and instruction of the parish clergy were to prove ephemeral because of the invasions of the ninth and tenth centuries, the efforts of Carolingian authorities had a lasting influence on French ecclesiastical geography. In the eleventh century, the Gregorian reform was influential through its attack on simony and lay investiture. It also played an important part in the long struggle against a married parish clergy. The latter movement would eventually have a profound effect on parish life, especially in rural areas. The twelfth century was an important era in the development of the reform process. The three ecumenical councils, Late ran I (i 123), Late ran II (i 139), and Late ran III (1179), not only contributed to an intensification of the Gregorian reform, but also encouraged renewed interest in diocesan synods. The emphasis in Lateran IV (1215) was clearly on the authority of annual provincial synods held for "correcting abuses and reforming morals." Equally clear, however, was the expectation of Canon 6 that "episcopal synods" were "to be held annually in each diocese." Episcopal visitations receive mention as well (in Canon 33). Their proper purposes were to be "preaching, exhortation and reform," although the main preoccupation of the canon was with visitors who charged ruinous fees.1

Reform in the French Church

23

Although it may be possible to chart the evolution of reform from the inception of the church itself, we have chosen 11 go as the starting point for discussion of the ebb and flow of reformation in France. The reasons for this choice lie both in the history of reform and in the practical problems of sources and their analysis. The year 1190 can be considered the symbolic beginning of the Thirteenth-Century Reform since for a long time scholars considered it to be the year in which the first statutes representative of that reformation in France were promulgated. Practically speaking, the use of the year 1190 has two advantages. The first is that the records of the two major methods of reform studied in this book - synodal statutes and pastoral visit documents - are available in quantities sufficient for meaningful analysis only from the late twelfth century onwards. The second is that periods containing even numbers of years make it easier to carry out quantitative analysis. Starting in 1190 produces a 6oo-year time span that ends in 1789 with the beginning of the French Revolution, which, of course, marked a decisive change in French religious history. The 600 years, in turn, are divisible into two 3OO-year cycles, the first embracing two medieval reform movements and the second two early-modern Catholic Reformations. In turn, the goo-year cycles are equally divisible into the twenty-year segments we chose to provide a satisfactory compromise between absolute accuracy and ease of use. The first 3OO-year cycle (i 190-1489), is the subject of this chapter. This period is much longer than the periods covered by subsequent chapters and the subject matter is also more diffuse. In addition, the availability of synodal statutes and, especially, pastoral visit records, is limited for the years 1190 through 1489. Finally, the two authors are early modernists, not medievalists. Therefore, the conclusions reached in this chapter are more tentative than those of later chapters. Nevertheless, to ignore the Middle Ages would lead to a misinterpretation of the reform movements of the following centuries because they grew out of and were built upon the medieval reforms. While the three centuries discussed in this chapter could arguably be the subjects of two or even three chapters, any such severing of the period would disguise or distort the reality of the reform process that, with all its setbacks and pauses, gained momentum throughout these three centuries. Moreover, the contents of synodal statutes and changes in the preoccupations of pastoral visitors do not point to firm chronological divisions within this formative period. Important elements of the Thirteenth-Century Reform continued to appear in the synodal statutes through the fifteenth century (and in some dioceses for many years afterward), even as a new reforming spirit gradually emerged with changing conditions in France and the French church. Some background is needed to set the scene for the years 1190-1489. A development crucial to the character of reform movements was the emergence of the structures and activities that gave shape and voice to reforming

24

Six Hundred Years of Reform

initiatives. At least as early as the latter half of the second century, bishops began to meet together to discuss the challenges presented by groups such as the Montanists. When the areas affected by the ideas of such groups grew, they naturally concerned more bishops, who in turn were more likely to attend the pertinent meetings. A crucial factor in the establishment of the legitimacy, extent, coherence, and influence of bishops' meetings was the imperial patronage of the emperor Constantine. The first meeting of bishops with a wide enough attendance to be considered a general meeting was convoked by Constantine at Nicea in 325. Subsequent meetings of this sort came to be known as general or ecumenical councils. These meetings became an important means of developing and implementing reform within the church. As the church hierarchy developed and a coherent system of governance spread, another type of meeting evolved. It was composed of an archbishop and the bishops of the dioceses located in his province and became known as a provincial council or synod. The Council of Nicea ordered that provincial councils should meet at Easter and in the autumn. As nation states developed in western Europe yet another meeting form developed, often referred to as a national council, made up of all the bishops of a kingdom.2 Diocesan synods and pastoral visits developed as parishes did. Before the fifth century priests typically lived in community with their bishop, an ideal proposed and exemplified by St. Augustine. As rural parishes developed in the fifth and sixth centuries, bishops periodically visited their priests or, more often, called them together to provide them with instruction, fellowship and, when necessary, discipline. The first known true diocesan synod, at least in the western church, was held in Auxerre France in 585. No one knows when the first pastoral visit took place, but the Council held in 516 at Tarragona in the northeastern Iberian peninsula ordered bishops to visit the parishes of their diocese every year and cited long-standing practice as its authority. Within what is now France the earliest legislation concerning pastoral visits dates to the Carolingian period.3 During ecumenical and national councils and provincial synods, the participating bishops could discuss matters and votes were taken, though the resulting legislation had to be approved by the pope. Diocesan synods, on the other hand, were controlled by the bishop of the diocese who told his priests what he wished them to hear and do. In practice, the words of the bishops were seldom subject to review by a higher authority. As diocesan synods slowly developed between the fourth and early thirteenth centuries they came to fill three roles. They were a conduit for making known to parish priests the decisions of popes, ecumenical councils, and provincial synods. They provided a means for a bishop to guide, teach, correct, and encourage his clergy, many of whom had very limited formal education. Finally, synods provided an indirect means of teaching and controlling the laity of the diocese.

Reform in the French Church

25

While bishops were free to decide on the times, places, and agendas of diocesan synods, the meetings gradually acquired seasonal rhythms and procedural traditions. Most French dioceses came to hold two meetings a year. The first was usually during the Easter season or shortly after Pentecost (fifty days after Easter) and the second near the feast of St. Luke (October 18), or All Saints (November i). A common practice was to invite all cures and perpetual vicars to one meeting and restrict the other to regional supervisors such as archdeacons. In some provinces, Rouen and Reims for example, synods were replaced or supplemented in some of the larger dioceses by calendes, a mixture of a pastoral visit and a synod in which the bishop travelled to each deanery in his diocese, met with all the parish priests in that jurisdiction at one time, gathered information from them and then presented them with general and sometimes very specific orders. DIOCESAN SYNODAL STATUTES AND THE REFORM OF T H E F R E N C H C H U R C H D U R I N G T H E M I D D L E A G E S

Synodal statutes provide the best means of tracing the history of episcopal reform in the medieval church in France. Little is known about the early history of pastoral visits. In fact, pastoral visit records for the period up to the mid-thirteenth century are extremely rare and there is generally a dearth of these records before the mid-fifteenth century. Diocesan synods in France, while rare under the Merovingians, grew more frequent in the Carolingian period and then subsided in the tenth and eleventh centuries. The Gregorian reform, however, encouraged the general re-emergence of the practice in the late eleventh century, a trend further strengthened by the three Lateran councils of the twelfth century. Lateran Council IV, as part of its thoroughgoing program of reform and tightening of the lines of ecclesiastical authority, ordered bishops to convoke a diocesan synod every year to make known the decisions of provincial synods concerning correction of violations of the commandments and the laws of the church. Perhaps it is an indication of the relative vitality and direct authority of the office of bishop compared to that of archbishop that diocesan synods flourished. The decree of the Council of Nicea regarding provincial synods was, in effect, applied to diocesan synods, which met with increasing regularity. By comparison, the provincial synod, which Nicea had intended to be the more influential institution, languished. In the province of Tours, for example, provincial synods are known to have met only about thirty times between 1200 and the second half of the fifteenth century.4 Over time a set of basic statutes, often referred to as the precepta communia, was adopted in many dioceses in France, England, and Germany. This set seems to have been a combination of extracts from episcopal decrees and provincial synods from the Carolingian era, combined with regulations

26

Six Hundred Years of Reform

developed over time by various bishops that attracted the attention of their confreres. The reform statutes of the Cistercian monks of 1134 and 1154 were also influential.5 MODELS

OF MEDIEVAL SYNODAL STATUTES

It is hard to overestimate the importance of the early synodal statutes. Within their seemingly chaotic provisions lies a template, not only for reform and, later, reformation, but also for much of medieval and indeed modern life. In struggling for regulation of the church and decorum in the parish, the bishops - authors of the statutes - set down boundaries between the sacred and the secular; established some outlines of the priestly calling; began to create models of manners and comportment; and codified a complex set of aspirations, phobias, sacred knowledge, and social power that would endure in some respects to the present day, even if only as ancient shibboleths to be destroyed. It is necessary, therefore, to spend some time exploring the nature of these seminal documents. Medieval synodal statutes in many French dioceses, especially north of the Loire, were significantly influenced by those of Eudes de Sully, who was bishop of Paris from 1196 to 1208. Evidence of the influence of these statutes is found from Salisbury in England to Athens in Greece. Traces of Sully's work could still be found in post-Council-of-Trent statutes promulgated in France.6 The most influential set of statutes promulgated during the Middle Ages, however, was a reworking and elaboration of Sully's work. Often referred to as the Synodal de I'Ouest, these statutes were influenced by the decrees of Lateran Council IV. They seem to have been first promulgated in Angers by Bishop Guillaume de Beaumont, probably between 1216 and 1219, but perhaps as late as 1224. These statutes spread quickly throughout western France, where in various forms they are found in most dioceses. They also spread northward. For example, they were adopted in both Le Mans and Cambrai within a decade and in Rouen not long after. Beyond the West and the North, the Synodal de I'Ouest influenced the statutes of Langres, Autun, Lyon, and Clermont among others. Their influence was also felt in southern France, appearing first in Sisteron (1241) as part of the political and religious attack on the Albigensians. In a more diluted form the Synodal de I 'Quest influenced much of the Centre and South through a series of refinements that will be described below.7 The style and substance of these two sets of medieval statutes mark a distinctive period in the history of the French church and also provide a basis for discerning continuity and discontinuity in the following centuries. Sully's statutes and the Synodal de I'Ouest studied together provide a means

Reform in the French Church

27

for understanding the synodal statutes of France during the first half of the thirteenth century and the development of French synodal statutes through the years 1190-1789. THE STATUTES OF E U D E S DE SULLY

Bishop Sully probably issued his statutes in three parts, the first of which appeared shortly after 1203, the last in 1206, and the second sometime between the two dates. While these statutes were partly a compilation of the precepta communia, they were also much more. They seem to have originated in the request of Pope Innocent III for a reformation of the clergy of the ecclesiastical province of Sens, which at that time included the diocese of Paris. They were certainly part of the effort to sort out and apply uniformly the rules and regulations of the church, a process that began in the early part of the second half of the twelfth century with the work of the canon lawyer Gratian. Central to Sully's work was the desire to establish reforms and conformity at the parish level. His aims were not unique; his contemporaries in the dioceses of York and Winchester undertook similar projects. In particular, Sully wished to implement a set of rules for the administration of the sacraments. In order to devise his regulations, Sully consulted various authorities and chose from among them what he regarded as the most suitable practices. His choices were quickly and widely accepted in France. As they appear in modern editions, Sully's statutes are divided into three parts, each representing one of the three promulgations. The first sixtynine articles are found in all surviving manuscripts and appear to have been the most widely influential.8 The first aspect of Sully's statutes that strikes the modern reader is what seems to be thematic and logical disorder. In the first section there are five articles devoted to synod rules, then forty-three concerned with the sacraments and, finally, twenty-three dealing with questions of morality and the actions of the clergy and laity. These last twenty-three statutes are the percepta communia. Part Two then returns in one article to the matter of synods, followed by one on the sacraments and three on accidents that might occur at the altar during Mass. Part Three first discusses attendance at synods in one article and then turns to the subject of the Mass for the next two. These are followed by twenty-seven rules for clerics, eight of which also place restrictions on the laity. What organization there is speaks of a historical accretion of statutes rather than any intent to guide the reader by unifying topics thematically. Given this sedimentary organization, it is still worthy of note that the regulation of synods receives pride of place in each section.9

28

Six Hundred Years of Reform

For the most part, the statutes address matters of priestly comportment. The pitfalls of attendance at the synod are made clear: the absence of the priest from his parish and the temptations available to the priest away from the watchful eyes of his people. Nevertheless, all priests responsible for the care of souls were to attend the synod. In cases of severe infirmity or other unavoidable necessity a priest could send his vicar in his place. The regulations also state that priests should prepare for a synod by making sure that someone would take care of their duties during their absence. Priests were told that they should travel to the synod without scandal. Once there, they should dress properly, fast, and not carry out any business other than that of the synod. This prohibition on extraneous business even extended to medical matters; priests were not allowed to undergo the medical therapy of bleeding when they were supposed to be attending synod meetings.10 Sully 's attempt to define and enforce ordiodoxy put great emphasis on the sacraments. His statutes dealt with all of them except holy orders. The sacraments were to be approached and celebrated with great reverence and honour; priests were exhorted to emphasize this point frequently to their parishioners. Celebrants must employ particular caution in pronouncing the words "in which reside all the virtue of the sacrament." This scruple about exact wording can be traced to St. Augustine of Hippo. Although it would diminish with the rise in influence of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, it reappeared in later periods in discussions of matters such as baptism. In the latter case, the words "I baptize you in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," spoken in Latin or in the vernacular, were crucial and their importance would receive emphasis in modern statutes as well. In cases of necessity, any Christian could baptize. Sully specifically included women among lay baptizers, perhaps because an ancient statute (Carthage, 436) had specifically forbidden baptism by women. Sully also emphasized the necessity of confirmation by a bishop, warning parents not to wait too long after baptism to present their children and admonishing priests that only bishops were permitted to administer this sacrament.11 Sully's statutes imply clearly that the altar was the holiest place in the sacred geography of Christendom and that the consecrated bread and wine were the most powerful elements. Once consecrated during the Mass, the host and wine, now revered as the body and blood of Christ, became sources of much concern and required great care. Whether on the altar, stored in the tabernacle, or in transport to the sick, they were prone to accidents and possible subsequent desecration. Sully provided solutions to many of these eventualities. A few examples suffice to show Sully's rigour in the matter of consecrated bread and wine. If consecrated wine fell on an altar cloth, the priest was to cut off the stained part of the cloth and preserve it as a relic. He had also to lick up any wine that fell on the floor. But many parish churches had

Reform in the French Church

29

earthen or wooden floors. Wood that had absorbed wine was to be planed and the shavings put into a special sink (piscine) near the altar which drained into the earth. Wine-soaked soil from an earthen floor was to be gathered up and disposed of in the same way as the shavings. If a fly or spider fell into consecrated wine, the priest was to burn the spider in die sanctuary and drink any of the wine that could be consumed without ill effect.12 The host was likewise to be revered and kept secure. Priests were to carry the host to the sick, allowing deacons to do so only in cases of necessity. In either case, it had to be kept in a firmly latched ivory container, thus preserved from touching the ground should there be an accident. A lantern should precede it and those in this small procession should recite the seven penitential psalms and the litany for the sick, adding other psalms and prayers if the journey took more time than did the required orisons. It was also the duty of priests to teach their parishioners due reverence to the host. Whenever it passed them, no matter where they were, the faithful were to kneel, clasp their hands together and pray. Under no circumstances was a priest permitted to give the host to children, even if it was unconsecrated. If any accident should befall the host, the priest should take corrective measures to prevent its dishonour. If a piece of the wafer fell on the altar cloth the priest was to soak the cloth with wine and consume the wine. If a sick person vomited the host, the priest was to collect the wafer, place it in the chalice and consume it with wine. The altar itself was to be kept clean and the vessels for the host, the wine, the chrism, and other sacred oils were to be without blemish. All were to be locked away if possible and the baptismal font as well was to be secured. Sully ordered priests to renew holy water, bread, and wine every week lest their staleness contribute to irreverence.13 The comportment of priests celebrating the Eucharist was a matter of importance in the statutes, so that no errant action would mar the proceedings. To keep their vestments clean, priests were to hang at the side of the altar a cloth for wiping their noses or mouths. After consuming the bread and wine, they were to refrain from spitting, but if they could not help it, they were to spit into the piscine "with delicacy and urbanity." The level of "urbanity" in medieval parishes is provided by the statute that forbade priests to celebrate mass without shoes.14 Sully devoted considerable attention to the sacrament of penance. Priests were to exercise care and diligence in inquiring into the sins of their parishioners during confession. Except in cases of illness and pressing necessity, all confessions were to take place in the church, in a place where both priest and penitent were publicly visible. The priest was to assume a modest air, listen patiently and avoid looking into the face of the penitent. Especially when hearing the confession of a woman, it was best for the confessor to keep his eyes lowered. Certain sins such as homicide,

30

Six Hundred Years of Reform

sacrilege, sins "against nature," incest, the violation of virgins, assaults on parents, and the breaking of vows were the province of the bishop. Three sins could be forgiven only by the pope or his designate. These were striking a priest or religious, arson, and simony. Priests were also warned to dispense penances carefully, with due regard for the nature of the sin and the condition of the penitent. If a person had committed theft or fraud the priest should not give absolution until restitution had been made. No priest was ever to reveal in any way the knowledge gained in confession, even if attacked or threatened with death.15 Besides serving as ministers of baptism in extraordinary circumstances, the only other active participation of the laity in administering, rather than receiving, the sacraments was in the case of marriage. It was the couple's words of consent that created the marriage. The statutes concerning marriage, however, clearly make the point that the institution was to be regulated by the church and that priests were to be vigilant in preventing any profane unions. Three banns were to be published before a marriage contract could be made and the mutually consenting couple had to exchange their vows in the presence of a priest and witnesses or suffer excommunication. The impediments to marriage were specified, including consanguinity, holy orders, differences of religion, and godparenthood, among others. Clandestine unions were forbidden. The priest was also warned to forbid publicly the entry of a married person into a religious order unless this had been approved by the bishop.16 In the case of extreme unction, the emphasis of Sully's statutes is on a necessary sacrament freely conferred. Priests were to be ready to confer it not only on the old, but also on any sick person who needed it, starting at age fourteen. The economic condition of the invalid was supposed to be of no importance. Indeed, priests were to ask for nothing from any one, rich or poor. They might, however, accept a gift freely offered.17 This last injunction touches on a recurrent theme throughout these and other statutes concerning the sacraments. The offence of simony, whether it involved the sale of sacraments, the acquisition of benefices, or the disposition of church property, was a general object of statutory attacks, papal censure, and lay suspicion. With regard to sacraments and religious ceremonies, the general rule was that a priest might accept a gift after the service had been performed, but he was not to exact or contract for payment in advance. The occasions to which Sully refers are baptism, marriage, and extreme unction. Tithes, willing gifts, and the fruits of church property were supposed to suffice for the maintenance of the clergy and their activities.18 The most important concerns in Sully's statutes were those regarding clerics and the clerical world and the rites exclusively performed by priests. Nonetheless, the laity figured in these statutes as well. After all, the only sacrament that excluded the laity entirely was holy orders, of which scant

Reform in the French Church

31

mention was made; most probably because only a bishop could confer orders. There were, therefore, many instances in which Sully made some mention of parishioners and it is interesting to consider these, especially as there was an increasing concern with the regulation of lay activities in later periods. According to Sully, faithful Christians, in addition to the mutual consent to marriage, the duty to baptize when necessary, the faithful attendance at mass and reception of the sacraments, had to know and recite three prayers: the Our Father, the Creed, and the Hail Mary.19 The profane world, as far as priests were concerned, was a source of constant danger. Even ministering to the faithful and acquiring the necessary sustenance were activities fraught with peril. Non-clerics were a temptation, a source of heresy, and a threat to the sanctity, reputation, and property of the church that cared for their souls. The indiscretion of a priest on his way to a synod could be cause of reproach for the entire clerical order and priests were warned in various places to conduct themselves with the proper reserve so as not to excite lay disapproval. As we have seen, the lure of simony was a subject of steady admonition by Sully. On the part of the laity, their participation in the array of sacraments could be a cause of blasphemy, sacrilege or, worse yet, sorcery. The primary fear was that consecrated bread or wine might fall into the wrong hands or be desecrated. Sully's statutes concerning marriage warned priests to emphasize the prohibition against sorcery and witchcraft. The baptismal font, another scene Of lay-clerical interaction, was to be locked to prevent the use of blessed water or oils in sorcery. At the other extreme from simony, sorcery, and the like was lay indifference. Those lay persons who were casual about ensuring the baptism of their offspring and slow to bring their children to be confirmed, were to be warned of the peril to souls that would result.20 The laity and the lay world also held dangers and temptations for the cleric. Priests might be tempted or cajoled into selling church property to the laity. The bodies of the faithful were snares and priests must particularly avoid private meetings with women. The church also feared the allure to the solitary cleric of a female housekeeper or houseguest who was not his mother or his sister. In the event that a priest did father a child, the child was forbidden to live in the presbytery. The purity and reputation of the priest's household was to be further maintained by a prohibition against the practice of keeping in it amusements such as draughts or games of chance. More generally, being in the presence of laypersons outside the precincts of the parish church could be a source of mischief and priests were prohibited from entering the homes of strangers. Contact with the lay world was to be restrained and decorous. Under no circumstances was a priest to play at dice, enter a tavern, or be present at a play or a dance. The ideally pacific nature of priests was further shored up by Sully's prohibition against priests carrying pointed knives. The intrusion of the profane into

32

Six Hundred Years of Reform

sacred matters and spaces was likewise to be restrained. Here one can observe attempts to tame the ebullience of popular culture during those events that included sacred celebrations, such as seasonal feasts, births, and marriages. Sully made a pointed prohibition against dancing in the church, in the cemetery, and in religious processions.21 In addition to the emphatic lines drawn between the lay and clerical worlds, there was a further border placed at the fringes of the Christian community, beyond which access by both clerics and lay persons was supposed to be severely restricted. Some business transactions with Jews, especially affairs that involved the ornaments of the church, were singled out for prohibition. Butchers were admonished on pain of excommunication not to allow Jews to cut meat for Christian consumption and winemakers were warned against the use of grapes cultivated by Jews. The other enemies occupying the zone beyond the border were the heretics. Not only were the faithful exhorted to combat the Albigensians, but they were also to avoid unauthorized preachers who might lead them into error. The community, through clerical eyes, was a flock prone to wander, a group of errant children in need of a father, but also a seducer whose power must be circumscribed and shunned. In his care of the souls of his parishioners, the priest must guard the orthodoxy of their minds and repel its enemies, exhort them to purity, generosity, and reverence, discipline their profane exuberance, and repel their intimacy.22 In Sully's ideal for the priest we can see in outline the model that was to be reiterated frequently in following years: sober and regular of habits, everpresent in the parish and knowledgeable about its goings on, but removed from its profane activities. The priest was to be interested in his parishioners, a sacramental expert always ready to guard the sanctity and the interests of the church; in the world, but not worldly. Nevertheless, admonitions such as those against priests in bare feet at the altar, spitting while saying mass, and keeping one's children in the presbytery, suggest that in the French countryside there was a promiscuity of the lay and clerical, from which it would have been difficult to extract the essence of Sully's ideal. THE

S Y N O D A L DE L ' O U E S T

The successor to Sully's work, the Synodal de VOuest, had three parts, according to Pontal. The first and by far largest part was a general collection of material on synods, sacraments, ceremonies, rules, and regulations, largely made up of Sully's statutes, often re-arranged and sometimes combined, supplemented by decrees of Lateran IV. The second was a penitential section. The third and shortest portion consisted of a series of directions for instructing the faithful.23

Reform in the French Church

33

Concerning the sacraments, the Synodal mentioned much with which a reader of Sully's work would be familiar, but usually at greater length and with more precision. The Synodal also included more elaborate specifications about cleanliness at the altar. To the single towel recommended by Sully, three others were added, each for a specific stage of the Mass, to clean the hands of the priest. Priests and deacons were also given more elaborate instructions for the cleaning and maintenance of the altar, altar cloths, corporals, and vestments. At the same time, the Synodal maintained Sully's preoccupation with accidents at the altar, spilled wine, and insects in the chalice. Problems surrounding the sacrament of marriage received considerable attention in the Synodal. The degrees of permissible affinity and consanguinity between bride and groom were specified, along with the impediments to marriage. A large article was devoted to clandestine marriage, including a set of prohibitions that were to be repeated in subsequent centuries. Clerical behaviour and clerical discipline were the subjects of more pointed prohibitions in some areas. The Synodal particularly increased the pressure on clerics who lived with women, reminding them that according to a decree of Lateran Council IV, such priests were to be excommunicated. Presumably these unholy unions were also considered a bad example to the laity, who were also forbidden to keep concubines publicly and not allowed to enter a church if they ignored these warnings. But even for the celibate, there were still problems. That the synodal statutes were written by and for (ideally) celibate clerics is evident in the preoccupation with "nocturnal pollution" and the criteria by which to judge its sinfulness.24 The greater precision of the Synodal in restrictions and prescriptions for priests is marked in matters of clerical dress, the necessity of residence in benefices, and control of itinerant preachers and religious beggars. Clerical drunkards were called to account along with sinners of other sorts. Priests were also clearly required to be able to read and they were forbidden to receive orders without prior tonsure. This juxtaposition of rudimentary standards for the priesthood with the minutiae of transgression provides fascinating evidence of a highly sophisticated institution grappling with the rude human clay of medieval rural society. The Synodal is particularly remarkable for its emphasis on sin. As in Sully's work, priests hearing confessions were instructed to conduct a careful inquiry into the exact nature of the sins of the penitent, but were not to ask for the names of others involved. The Synodal provided a similar but fuller catalogue of sins reserved to bishops for absolution. The list amounts to a score of misdeeds and it is interesting to consider the mixture of clerical malversations and serious offences that warranted episcopal intervention. The list begins by raising a recurrent theme in the statutes, that of

34

Six Hundred Years of Reform

parenthood, both spiritual and biological: to the bishop must go the cases of all those who had raised a hand against parents or clerics. The remainder of this long article covers a varied multitude of sins. Arson, simony, falsification of papal letters, incest, homosexuality, bestiality, and profanation of cemeteries and churches head the list. As is the case elsewhere, the principle of organization is not clear. The next paragraph seems to be dealing with offences against church unity and doctrine, heretics, schismatics, and sorcery using church sacraments, but the author then moves to abortionists and priests who have committed larceny. Following them are penitents who have obtained holy orders through some irregular means, those who have permitted or participated in a re-baptism, individuals who have received orders without tonsure or who have skipped a stage in receiving orders, murderers, and those procuring abortions. The seemingly disordered list concludes with the reservation to the bishop of the cases of penitents who had consented to, counselled, or assisted in murder or mayhem, priests who had performed divine services while suspended or excommunicated, and ministers whose negligence had caused irreverence towards the Eucharist.25 While many of the above preoccupations were elaborations of Sully, there is nothing in the Paris statutes like the penitential section of the Synodal, dealing with the specific nature of sins and their remedies. All seven deadly sins receive some mention, but the emphasis in the Synodal was heavily on sins of the flesh. Two failings widely ascribed to priests, and hence sins that were mainstays of popular anti-clericalism, were drunkenness and gluttony, each of which also received separate articles. While gluttony was simply defined as consumption of excessive food or drink, it was a complex sin and could be committed in several ways. Not only might one sinfully eat too great a quantity of food; a person could also err by seeking too keenly rich food or delicacies. Christians must also take care in their comportment and attitude to consumption, whatever the nature of the food or drink. Attacking a meal too greedily or allowing one's desire for food to gain hold were sins. The statutes even condemned eating before the appointed time, perhaps setting the template for modern French manners. Clerics were admonished to set an example in censuring gluttony and drunkenness, even to the threat of suspension of office and benefice. Drunkenness was clearly among the greatest dangers to the cleric, who must mete out wine according to his needs and avoid inviting others to drink because "on one hand drunkenness provokes exile of the mind, on the other it leads to intensive embracing of lust."26 While gluttony might result directly in a grave offence (as when a person, because of voracity or drunkenness, vomited after receiving communion) , it might also give free rein to carnal impulses that figured even more importantly in the medieval list of sins. Sexual desire, in its myriad expres-

Reform in the French Church

35

sions, received extensive attention in the penitential section of the Synodal de L'Ouest, dwarfing other concerns. Interestingly, in the surveys of sexual sins, the initial assumption was of a male sinner, and the number and status of women involved determined the gravity of the offence. For an unmarried man having intercourse with an unmarried woman, three years of fasting three days per week was recommended, while a man who slept with a widow must observe the same weekly regimen for four years. This rigorous penitential ideal was moderated, however, because of the "weakness of our times," presumably in contrast to an earlier heroic period of Christianity. Adultery was a more serious matter. A married man who violated his conjugal vows with an unmarried woman was to do seven years penance and his lover five. If both adulterous parties were married, then a more severe penance was required. A man who deflowered a virgin was obliged to marry her, or provide her with a dowry, or assist her in entering a religious order. He must, in addition, perform a more severe penance than that prescribed for simple fornication, having led an innocent into the path of carnal sin. The traditional penance for a woman who slept with her own cure or her confessor was to be particularly harsh; single women who slept with their "spiritual fathers" were to give all their goods to the poor and enter a convent for life. But this penance seems to have been too severe for the period and, because of "the weakness of the sex," confessors were advised to temper justice with mercy and diminish the sanctions. In the case of married women who committed this sin, the severity of penance was to be greater than that for single women. The confessor was also required to demand considerable detail from the penitent.2*7 Under the rubric of "unnatural relations," priests were to ask if a man had known a woman in "an illicit fashion." If the penitent asked what the priest meant, the latter was not to reply, but if the answer was "yes," then the priest was to elicit further details about technique and frequency. While the usual rationale for various sexual proscriptions was moral, only medical reasons were provided for the rules which forbade sexual intercourse with women recovering from childbirth, or with menstruating partners. Intercourse was forbidden in these conditions "simply because there is a corporal danger to the father," who risked contracting leprosy and because "physicians assure us" that such unions "almost always" result in a malformed fetus. The penances set for these acts were relatively light and applied only to the man, except in cases where women concealed their condition from their husbands. Pederasty was thought to be among the vilest of sexual sins, "worse than adultery," a vice that "makes of a man a monster." The Synodal, therefore, recommended a severe daily penance for seven years.28 Even married women who never committed adultery were dangerous. They were inherently unclean, not only because of menstruation, but also

36

Six Hundred Years of Reform

because of childbirth. After giving birth, women had to be "purified" through the ceremony known in the English-speaking world as "Churching." Bishop Sully warned his priests that women were not to be offered communion at this ceremony unless they expressly requested it and had gone to confession.29 While there was a certain obvious hierarchy of sins in order of gravity, according to the Synodal, sexual and other transgressions could be considered more or less offensive according to several factors. Time and space were both important in this regard. If sinful acts were committed in the church or a cemetery, they were all the more sinful, and the gravity of offences committed during holy days and holy hours was also aggravated. As we have seen in various cases, the persons involved were also important, not only to the definition of a sin, as in cases such as adultery, but also in deciding the degree of sinfulness within a particular type of sin. For example, confessors were to ask if a penitent had "looked at, desired, solicited, or caressed a woman other than his own wife, given her a lascivious kiss ... or touched the breasts or the sex of a girl." A layman who did so was to perform three days' penance, a cleric five. If the penitent was a priest or a monk, however, he was to be suspended from his ministry and do twenty days' penance.30 However important the other seven deadly sins may have been to the medieval mind, in the sections devoted to sin and penance per se, they received relatively slight mention. Theft, brigandage, rapine, fraud, usury, and vandalism seem to have been treated as evidence of greed (along with the avidity of the glutton mentioned earlier). Again, circumstances were important. A penitent who stole out of genuine need, hunger, or nakedness should do three weeks penance, but for one who had committed a major robbery or burglary the recommendation was seven years. For "one or two minor larcenies," one penitential year was thought sufficient.31 For the rest - anger, envy, pride, and sloth - there was little in the way of description or instruction. Anger received two articles, the others one each. Anger that resulted in obvious rancour or injury to another was most easily recognized. The penitent must repent whatever quarrel was involved and if ill-feeling had led to violence, those who had spilled blood must repent in proportion to their status: the laity for twenty days, clerics without major orders for thirty days, deacons for six months and priests for a year. The penalties were less specific for pride, envy, and sloth, each of which received a brief admonition.32 The flesh, constantly in the mind of the episcopal author of the statutes, was thus in several senses eminently corruptible, in need of cleansing and anointing. It was also a betrayer of the church. Like the church, whose purity must be re-established and protected, the flesh could be used in so many evil ways that each device of carnality had to be catalogued, described,

Reform in the French Church

37

and prohibited, so that the body might become a habitation fit for the soul. There was first to be a cordon sanitaire of rules surrounding the body of the cleric who, separate and untouched, was in turn to be a model of corporeal purity to the laity. The latter, in their necessary lust, were first to come to him for purification and a breath of the holy climate he inhabited. The sensual considerations of the statutes seem to have been an attempt to ensure that priests not be naive so that they might guard their own purity against temptations that could overpower them, yet be ready to assess the severity of the sins of their parishioners. The statutes therefore attempted a rudimentary sort of engineering that provided physical boundaries and made sure that the father of the parish would neither corrupt nor be corrupted by his children. It must be remembered that the statutes of the early thirteenth century were written during a period of struggle against widespread clerical marriage. The celibate authors of these statutes saw the physical, the visual, and the tactile as primary vehicles of sin. It made sense that their statutes would emphasize regulation of the flesh. In addition to confining the body, the Synodal prescribed instruction of the minds of the faithful and did so in far more detail than had Sully. The central requirement was faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation. Each Christian was to acquire a basic knowledge of the seven sacraments, the seven works of mercy, and the seven deadly or capital sins. Priests were enjoined to teach the laity about the days of fast and abstinence, as well as the forty-five major feast days when no work was to be done. Observing the boundaries of the flesh, the seasons of devotion, and the essential spiritual uses of the intellect, the parishioner was to pay attention to duty and obedience and not embark on vain intellectual inquiries.33 The duty of the laity was summed up in the third to last article of the Synodal de I'Ouest: It is necessary to say often to the laity that they must not search for proof of the articles of faith nor of the sacraments, because faith is so sublime that matters in its depths cannot be grasped by the intelligence; in consequence "faith has no merit when founded on the evidence of human reason." They must believe firmly and without hesitation all that the Catholic faith affirms, even if they do not understand it, giving a greater credence to the witnesses of the faith than to the eyes of the flesh that err.34 Other avenues the mind might travel in its examination of the sacred were perhaps even more perilous and received mention in the penitential section. The scriptures, the Our Father, as well as other sacred words and objects might be used in various kinds of predictions and incantations. Anyone found to be performing such rites and persons for whom they had

38

Six Hundred Years of Reform

been performed, were to do penance for three lenten periods. In general, as Article 106 warned, it was dangerous to seek occult wisdom in holy places: "Nobody should have the presumption to seek hidden knowledge or the future in the gospel or in a psaltry or elsewhere and if he has done so, shall do penance for forty days." In the event of serious acts of sorcery, "be it by invoking demons or offering them sacrifices," the case was to be sent to the bishop. Such admonitions were common in French synodal statutes through the fourteenth century.35 S O U T H E R N AND LATER M E D I E V A L STATUTES

Many French synodal statutes promulgated from the mid-thirteenth through the fourteenth century followed the general outline developed by Sully and elaborated in the Synodal de I'Ouest. Typically they begin with rules for priests to follow while coming to the synods, followed by rules for conducting the meetings. Next come fairly simple definitions of six of the seven sacraments with instructions on how to administer them and how to say mass. The sacrament of holy orders is always omitted. After this the order of topics varied and the text wandered among subjects. One section always dealt with the lives of clerics. For the most part this section repeated the statutes of Sully and Angers. Standard features were rules on dress, prohibition on involvement in business, and concern about priests living with women. The latter concern varied by place and time, but it is evident that it was seen to be a problem that was not going to go away by itself. In general, there was a growing effort to prevent at least clerics in major orders (subdeacons, deacons, and priests) from having what were called concubines, but were often, in fact, common-law wives. A section on the various types of sins was almost always included. Usually this section had a statement similar to the one quoted above, stating that the laity were to be told to believe all the church believed and not to try to use reason to understand these matters.36 One of the main differences between the statutes of the early thirteenth century and those of the later thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was the greater detail in the latter. Some of the major items with more detail were i) the precise duties of clerics, especially parish priests, including ceremonies, obligations, and forbidden activities; 2) regulations concerning administration of the sacraments, especially marriage; 3) benefice and church property regulations; 4) reasons for excommunication; 5) regulations for the lives of clerics and members of religious orders. A new element that began to appear in the second half of the thirteenth century and became progressively more prominent over the course of the fourteenth century was a concern to protect the perceived rights and privi-

Reform in the French Church

39

leges of the church, especially those possessed by clerics, from laymen in general and rulers in particular. Excommunication was the constant threat for those guilty of violating these rights.3*7 The later medieval statutes showed more concern with the laity. Formerly, the statutes had emphasized teaching the laity the basics of the faith and ensuring they occasionally received the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist. It now became common for statutes to warn parents about allowing infants to sleep in the same bed with them because of the fear of suffocation. Efforts were made to keep taverns closed on Sundays until after Mass. Sorcery was still a concern, but charivaris were becoming a worry to the bishops. Dancing in churches and cemeteries remained a concern in some dioceses.38 What disappeared from the later statutes were regulations concerning the Albigensians (except in the South where the concern to extirpate heresy colours all medieval statutes) and, to a lesser extent, Jews, as well as the worry about such things as spiders falling into chalices and the barefoot, spitting priests. Teaching the laity the articles of faith did not play as prominent a role in the north in the late thirteenth century as it had previously. Evidently, bishops there thought that the basics were now being taught.39 The statutes of Sisteron (1241) and Clermont (1268) show the influence of the statutes of Eudes de Sully. A few other southern statutes, like those of Aire of 1229, belong to the pre-Sully era. The statutes of many dioceses in southern France, however, belong to neither the pre-Sully nor the Sully families. At times the wording is very similar to the statutes we have been discussing. At other times, however, only the intent is similar, while the form is different. The southern family of statutes began to develop about thirty years after the Synodal de 1'Ouestwa.s first promulgated, at the time when the determination to stamp out heresy in Languedoc began to be replaced by a concern for pastoral reform. This group of statutes was probably influenced to a limited extent by the statutes of Albi of 1230 (which in turn show the influence of Sully's work, though the order of statutes is much more confused). Their primary source, however, was the set of statutes prepared by the canon lawyer Pierre de Sampson, promulgated by Bishop Raymond Amaury of Nimes in 1252 and copied in the same year in Beziers, Lodeve, and Uzes. Their influence is apparent in the statutes of Aries of 1260 and in various statutes promulgated in northern Spain and Italy.40 Sampson's statutes show a northern and western influence but the topics, particularly the articles on the sacraments, are far more developed and detailed. Fourteen of his fifteen chapters discuss three main topics in what we in the twenty-first century would call an organized fashion. The first topic is the administration of the sacraments, which Bishop Amaury set as the main

40

Six Hundred Years of Reform

purpose of his statutes, along with teaching priests how to undertake the direction of souls. The emphasis is on administration, not on definitions. Confession, its technicalities and difficulties, is discussed thoroughly. The sacraments of holy orders and confirmation are not treated at all, while extreme unction receives only one paragraph. Marriage is treated quite separately from the other sacraments and, in fact, is not referred to as a sacrament, but rather as a contract. Several other aspects of these statutes stand out, including baptism by immersion and confession of sins to a lay person if death is imminent. Consecrated bread and wine and the blessed anointing oils are to be treated with great respect, but the northern fear of magic and sorcery is not found in these statutes, nor is there the same concern for getting all of the words exactly right for fear that the sacrament would not otherwise be efficacious.41 The second major concern of the 1252 Nimes statutes is the clergy, including their instruction, the regulation of their lives and their relations with the laity. The third important topic is the jurisdiction of the church and the protection of its property. The prominence of this subject in the statutes shows that over the course" of the thirteenth century this concern was growing throughout France. As in the northern statutes, excommunication is discussed at great length. As was common in southern France, several paragraphs were devoted to the Jews. In line with the canons of Lateran Council IV, these statutes prescribed that Jews i) wear a disc on their chest in order to identify them, 2) not appear in public during Holy Week, 3) not employ Christian servants, 4) not sell meat or eat it publicly during Lent, and 5) not eat or bathe with Christians. The last chapter of the 1252 statutes is a catchall covering everything from rules about begging for alms to dress regulations for married clerics. In 1289 Bishop Raymond de Calmont of Rodez, probably with the help of one or more theologians, revised and enlarged the Nimes statutes. It was the Rodez version that then became the model for many other southern synodal statutes throughout the rest of the Middle Ages, appearing first in Cahors and Tulle (1317-18) and then in Albi (i34o).42 The Rodez statutes contained thirty-one sections divided into two parts, the first concerning dogma and the second, discipline. The part on dogma, which made up about half the length of the whole, was the work of Calmont or, more likely, his theologian. The rest came from Nimes.4 The first four sections concern the Catholic faith, the articles of faith, the seven gifts of die Holy Spirit and the ten commandments. These sections, which proceed carefully step by step through the basics of the faith, emphasizing local problems, were meant to prepare pastors to teach their parishioners. An example of the inclusion of local issues is the insistence on God's creation of the earth and on the bodily resurrection of Jesus. This emphasis, of course, was directed against Albigensian beliefs.

Reform in the French Church

41

The statutes of Rodez then move on to treat the sacraments. Though administration of the sacraments was of prime interest, these statutes, unlike those of Nimes, also present a developed sacramental theology. Like those of Nimes, the Rodez statutes seem more relaxed about exact sacramental phrasing than were the earlier northern statutes. All seven sacraments are discussed, but penance is given the most emphasis. Six sections are required to consider all the varieties of sins and the ways in which they are to be treated. While the influence of the statutes of Nimes and Paris is apparent in this section, the amount of detail was new, amounting to a confessor's manual. The second part of the statutes of Rodez treats the lives of clerics, last testaments, burials, feasts, the tithe, and other administrative matters in a way that was generally similar to the earlier northern and western statutes, except for its greater concentration on excommunication, which was common in later thirteenth century statutes throughout France. The same progression over time towards more detail, more threats of excommunication, and more insistence on the rights of the church and clerics are found in the later southern statutes just as they are in the northern ones during the same period. With the exception of the statutes of Nimes, Beziers, Lodeve, Uzes, Rodez, Cahors, and Tulle, along with a few others, especially those of Dax of 1283 and Mende of 1285, the southern statutes seem to modern eyes to be even more disorganized than those promulgated in the north and west.44 The seeming disorganization, north and south, belies evidence of a greater reorganization that was taking place. For behind the various provisions, the statutes were clearly marking out sacred symbols and space, defining the clerical profession and prescribing much that would be considered "decent," orderly habits among French Christians. The emphasis on sexual prescription, for example, tended to concentrate on the active male versus the passive female, the latter sinning usually as a temptress. The prescriptions for regularity in eating, loving, worshipling, celebrating, christening, and dying, as well as the early attempts to regulate the channels the imagination might travel and, the mysteries it must accept, all presaged a mental and social restraint and orthodoxy that modern social engineers would understand. PATTERNS OF REFORM

In considering the patterns of reform in medieval France one confronts a vast time span for which there is a relative poverty of documentation. The best evidence available is provided by synodal statute promulgation. The pattern of promulgation is depicted in graphs 2.1 and 2.2. The former shows the known synodal statute promulgations in France per year from 1190 to 1489. The latter emphasizes the five phases of reforming activity

42

Six Hundred Years of Reform

during those years by grouping the data into fifteen twenty-year periods. The first phase, between 1190 and 1249, embodies the slow beginning of the Thirteenth Century Reform. During the years 1250-1349 this reform movement reached its fullest development. A third phase, the sixty years between 1350 and 1409, saw a significant decline in reforming activity. But in the subsequent sixty years (1410-69) one can observe that the revival we call the Late Medieval Reform was underway. Finally, in the twenty years between 1470 and 1489 contradictory trends of declining promulgations and increased visitation announce a transition from medieval reform to the early modern reformation that will be discussed in the following chapter.45 When the peaks and troughs of the overall upward trend of reform for the years 1190-1489 are considered, they suggest a relationship to some of the major events of the period. While one can surmise that during these years there was a growing predisposition to reform among French bishops, it also seems likely that at least four well-known developments interfered with their efforts, particularly during the years 1346-1405: i) the financial demands of the papacy during the Avignon residency (1309—77); 2) the ravages of the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453); 3) the Black Death (1348-49) and the preceding poor weather and famine, as well as the aftershocks of recurring plague; and 4) the confusion caused by the Great Western Schism (1378-1417). On the other hand, the influence of the Councils of Constance (1414-17) and Basel (1431-49) and the end of the Hundred Years' War may well have encouraged increases in statute promulgation. The likelihood of a relationship between patterns of reform and these important movements is strengthened by the fact that there are no synodal statutes known to have been promulgated in France in 134849 and 1378-79, while very few were promulgated between 1379 and 1405. On the other hand, a significant number were promulgated year after year during the period from 1448 to 60. As might be expected, given the dangers of travel to outlying villages, the gap in pastoral visits during and immediately after the Black Death was even larger than the gap in synodal statutes. The changes in the questions asked in the pastoral visits which will be discussed below indicate that the major times of reform were the three twenty-year periods which began in 1250, 1330, and 1450 respectively, with some indications of similar activity in the periods that began in 1370 and 1410. The evidence from both pastoral visits and synodal statutes indicates that medieval reform was strongest during two time spans. The first of these extended from the midthirteenth to the mid-fourteenth century, while the second ran from about 1405 to the late i46os.46 To clarify the course of reform and to compensate for the relative sparsity of evidence between 1190 and 1489, we will divide these years into the five phases of reform evident in graph 2.2 which vary in length from twenty

Reform in the French Church

43

to one hundred years. Each of maps 2.1 through 2.5 show the geographic spread of reform in one of the five phases. Each of these phases will be discussed separately.47 PATTERNS OF REFORM I I THE THIRTEENTH-CENTURY

1190-1249, REFORM BEGINS

The years 1190 to 1249 were a time of slow growth of reform. During the first twenty of these years there are only three known promulgations of synodal statutes in France. One was that by Eudes de Sully. The other two predate his and were both of an older type (Coutances in the province of Rouen about 1193 and Orleans in the province of Paris in 1195). During the years 1210-1229 there was activity in the ecclesiastical provinces of Rouen, Sens, Tours, and Auch. For the years 1230-49 there were no promulgations in Sens, but in addition to the three northwestern provinces of Rouen, Paris, and Tours, bishops were also active in Aix, Albi, Bordeaux, and Narbonne.48 As seen in map 2.1, the strongest promulgation activity per diocese during the years 1190 to 1249 occurred in the northern ecclesiastical provinces of Tours, Rouen, Paris, and Sens. These were the years when the influence of Sully's statutes and, subsequently, the Synodal de I'Ouestwere established. There were, however, a few promulgations in the L-shaped area stretching from Bordeaux in the west centre to Aix in the southeast. Along the borders of France the bishops of the province of Avignon were the most active, but no clear pattern is evident.49 There are not many known pastoral visit records for the years 1190-1249 and even fewer were coded by the CNRS equipe. All these visits took place in the north, especially in the provinces of Rouen and Reims. The first known pastoral visit during these years took place in Beauvais in 1206. The next took place in the years 1222-23 - three in the diocese of Rouen and one in Langres. The three visits in Rouen, all to monasteries, are the first coded visits and, therefore, the first for which we have evidence of content.50 The next coded visits all come from the years 1230 to 1249. Three of the coded visits were to cathedral chapters: Beauvais in 1240 and 1246 and Meaux in 1246. The other two were to parishes in the diocese of Langres in 1233 and Rouen in 1249. Before the 12805 there are no known pastoral visits south of a line stretching from the diocese of Nantes in the province of Tours to that of Langres in the province of Lyon. The first two known visits below that line were those of Agen in 1284 and Albi in 1286.51 For the most part the visitors of the years 1190-1249 were preoccupied with the parish clergy and members of religious orders, especially with their identity and pastoral zeal. Considerable attention was also paid to the ceremonial aspects of visits. Parish churches, later to be the focus of the interest

44

Six Hundred Years of Reform

of pastoral visitors, raised no questions; nor did the issue of "dissidents" (heretics, Jews, libertines, and the excommunicated). The latter groups were only rarely the concern of visitors throughout the years 1190-1789. All of the coded pastoral visits for the years 1190-1249 were carried out by bishops. The records of these visits confirm what has been learned from reading the synodal statutes and charting their chronological and geographic distribution. During the years 1190-1249 the reform effort in France, led by bishops, began in the north and was largely focused there, but spread slowly and irregularly southward. This reform effort concentrated on clergy and religious as the means of reforming the whole church. Compared with later visits, the striking features of the visits of 1190-1249 are the limited range of the visitors' inquiries and the lack of questions about the parish church. In the 13305 visitors began to show interest in a dramatically greater variety of subjects and the parish church would almost always be the most frequent concern, appearing in at least 78 per cent of the coded visits in every twenty-year period thereafter.52 P A T T E R N S OF R E F O R M I I ! 1 2 5 0 - 1 3 4 9 , THE THIRTEENTH-CENTURY REFORM SPREADS

In the hundred years between the mid-thirteenth century and the spread of the Black Death in the late 13405, reforming activity spread from the north to every region of France. In fact, bishops are known to have promulgated statutes in every ecclesiastical province except Vienne in the southeast (see map 2.2). As the Thirteenth-Century Reform spread, the promulgations of statutes modelled on those of Paris and Angers were joined by those influenced by the Nimes-Rodez formulation discussed earlier. During the years from 1250 to 1349 the pattern of synodal statute promulgation in the bordering provinces was mixed. Promulgation was most frequent in the provinces of Cambrai and Avignon. There is nothing in the content of the synodal statutes of either province that distinguishes them from contemporary French statutes, but their different heritage is seen in the different order in which subjects were treated.53 Pastoral visitors were also more active between 1250 and 1349, although more in the North, West, and Centre than in the South, where only the bishops of Albi and Aix showed significant activity. The conclusions that can be drawn from the questions asked by pastoral visitors during the years 1250-1349 are restricted not only by the relatively few known visits, but also by the fact that only two bishops carried out almost half of them. These men were the Franciscan Archbishop of Rouen, Eudes Rigaud, and Archbishop Simon de Beaulieu of Bourges.54 The years 1330-49 are the first for which general visits (visits to each parish in a diocese) by bishops have been identified. This fits with the growth of reform indicated by the synodal statutes, with general visits being the logical

Reform in the French Church

45

next step after a significant time of growth of promulgations. Bishops were not merely saying what should be done or reacting to trouble in their dioceses, but instead undertook to instigate an improvement in the general condition of the church. Six general visits are known to have occurred between 1330 and 1349. Three of these visits have been coded: Grenoble in 1340 and Aix in 1340-43, and 1344-45. No other general visits are known before 1369; only five more took place in the fourteenth century and a total of twenty are known to have occurred between 1400 and ^Sg.55 The general visits of the bishops of Grenoble and Aix are striking in the context of the years 1250-1349 because of the wide range of questions surrounding the conditions of the parish church. In addition, the visits of Archbishop Armand de Narces of Aix stand out because of his interest in the practice of religion, while Bishop Jean II de Chisse of Grenoble was very inquisitive about all aspects of monastic life. Throughout the centuries, the bishops of both dioceses, especially Grenoble, usually asked far more questions during their visits than did their confreres throughout France. The catalogue of pastoral visits includes only twelve visits in the dioceses on the borders of France before 1390 and none of them have been coded. Therefore it is not possible to add anything about this area from pastoral visit evidence. The content of synodal statutes and, especially, the questions asked by pastoral visitors indicate that the Thirteenth-Century Reform was centred on the parish clergy and members of religious orders. The latter, as seen most clearly in the visits of Archbishop Rigaud of Rouen, were regarded as populating a world unto themselves that should be made more perfect as a means of providing both a good example and sound doctrine in the parishes under their control.56 Parish priests were the primary agents of the church and had to be taught to administer the sacraments properly and to teach the laity the essentials of the faith. The pastoral visits demonstrate these aims with particular force by their relative silence concerning various subjects. Questions about parish masses appear in only eight of the fifty-one coded visits; parish ceremonies in four; pilgrimages, reception of the sacraments, confraternities, and rites of passage in two each. Feast days were the subject of inquiry in only one visit, as were preaching, popular pastimes, and superstitions. No visitor inquired about the moral state of parishioners, their observance of the commandments of the church, their collective life, or sorcery, though synodal statutes showed a genuine concern about the last of these topics. Pastoral visit questions would begin to change after 1250 and all of these parishioner-centred issues would become of great interest to visitors during the early modern Catholic Reformation.57 The information gathered from the content of synodal statutes and pastoral visits, combined with the pattern of statute promulgation, suggest several characteristics of reform during the years 1250-1349. It seems clear,

46

Six Hundred Years of Reform

first of all, that the Thirteenth-Century Reform began in northern France and spread southward. Most, although not all, southern bishops seem to have been generally less interested in reform than their northern confreres. When interested, they preferred reform through the promulgation of synodal statutes rather than pastoral visitation. Later, the reverse would be true; visits became the preferred instruments of reform in the South. The overall pattern indicates a strong interest in reform in a corridor running from the ecclesiastical province of Rouen in the North through Paris, Tours, Bourges, Bordeaux, and Lyon to Albi in the South. In addition to Albi as an anomalous bastion of reform in the South, we might add the provinces of Narbonne and Aix, the first because of the number of statutes promulgated there and the second because of the general visits that took place. The reformation efforts of the French bishops is indicated by the spread of synodal statute promulgations beginning about 1230, increasing from the mid 12405, and becoming fully developed by about 1260. When the patterns revealed by a study of the contents of the pastoral visits are considered, it is possible to suggest that the visiting bishops were having a significant influence on the questions asked by other parish visitors at least by 1330 and perhaps at some point during the years 1310-29.5§ Before the Thirteenth-Century Reform could develop further the Black Death struck France. The last of the eighteen visits known to have taken PLACE DURING THE YEARS 1330-49 OCCURRED IN 1347.tTthe next known visit took place in 1356. In addition, there were no synodal statute promulgations in 1348 or 1349. The gap in both instances must be due, at least partially, to the effects of the plague, though France was suffering from the effects of other afflictions (such as bad weather, poor crops, and wandering bands of mercenaries) that made pastoral visitation difficult, to say the least. PATTERNS OF REFORM III: 1350-1409, T H E R E F O R M C O N T I N U E S AT A D I F F E R E N T PACE IN A D I F F E R E N T W O R L D

Those who think themselves to be fighting great evil are often also grappling with change. The French bishops of the years 1350-1409 had to deal with a complex set of conditions fostered by famine, plague, war, and massive dislocation. Even though Jean de Froissart's famous words, "a third of the world died," apply only to Europe, these were times of unimaginable trauma, and the resilience of ecclesiastical institutions in this period is remarkable, especially given the added problems created by the Avignon Residency and the Great Western Schism. Moreover, to clerical eyes, the crises of the period often magnified or gave an ominous aspect to developments already underway in the thirteenth century: the growing power of the

Reform in the French Church

47

monarchy; the slow development of capitalism; and the developing sense of individualism, the latter due not only to new political and economic structures, but also to Thomas Aquinas and the scholastic philosophers. There was also the unknowable effect on the religious belief and practice of millions who felt suddenly abandoned by much they had believed to be tried and true. These forces were beginning to shape a new world with new problems, though many bishops seem to have been unaware or unimaginative concerning these movements and tried to use traditional means to cure traditional problems rather than the new ones. The pace of statute promulgation abated during the sixty years after 1349, but the pattern was complex. Proportionate to the length of the period, though the number of promulgations decreased, the number of dioceses in which promulgations took place increased somewhat. In relative terms, the number of dioceses involved in promulgation rose in all but four provinces: Lyon and Bourges in the Centre and Toulouse and Albi in the South. As seen in map 2.3, the highest rates of promulgation were in western France, particularly in the provinces of Tours and Bordeaux. Narbonne fell back into the second highest rank, joining Paris and Bourges, which had been in this rank in the years 1250-1349, and Rouen, which advanced one rank. Lyon, on the other hand, fell from the first rank to the fourth. Unlike the case in the other four medieval phases of reform, there were promulgations in all sixteen French ecclesiastical provinces at some point during the years 1350-1409. On the basis of synodal statute promulgation it would seem that, though for the first time all France was involved in the reform movement, the North was still the area of strongest activity. Pastoral visit evidence, however, points to a different conclusion.59 The texts of the synodal statutes for the years 1350-1409 show the characteristics indicated earlier in the chapter as general throughout the Middle Ages. Most promulgations began with the renewal of existing statutes. In a few cases, such as Bordeaux in 1357, the promulgated statutes were simply copies of an earlier set. During these years emphasis was placed on adding details concerning the clergy, such as attendance at synods, obtaining and holding the position of cure, clerical clothing and conduct, prohibition of clerical concubines, and restrictions on or prohibition of the administration of sacraments by priests who were not from the diocese in question or who were members of religious orders. Other topics included papal authority, prohibition of clandestine marriages and other marriage regulations, and limitations on begging for alms. The latter was evidently a reaction to the increased efforts of mendicant friars to support themselves in difficult economic times. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and "freedoms" were stoutly defended against incursions from the growing power of secular authorities. Excommunication, a punishment that most people feared, was often the penalty stipulated for failure to observe the rules in the statutes.

48

Six Hundred Years of Reform

The years 1350-1409 were definitely a transitional period. Worries about using the prescribed words, when administering the sacraments, spiders in chalices, and similar concerns were found less often in the statutes than previously. Sorcery was still an issue, but was less often connected with blessed water and oil, though orders to lock the baptismal font were still common. While a complete change from a Latin to a French text would not begin in earnest until the mid-sixteenth century, for the first time bilingual statutes were promulgated, appearing in Tours and Troyes in the late fourteenth century. They provided a French translation along with the standard Latin text.60 Along the borders of France there was a decline in synodal statute promulgation similar to that within France. It began in both areas in 1346. On the borders there were no promulgations from 1349 through 1351. On a periodby-period basis the decline continued on the borders until the end of the fourteenth century, while within France there was a short-term revival during the 13605 and 13705. Graphs 1.4 and 2.3 show that a decisive revival of promulgations in both France and along its borders began in the years i4Oo-O9.61 As would be expected, given the problems created by the Avignon Residency and the Great Western Schism, promulgations fell most quickly and sharply in Avignon and, except for some activity in the 13605, would not recover until the 14405, on the other side of the Schism and its aftermath. Cambrai had the best record of promulgation between 1340 and 1409, but the number of promulgations was in continual decline. There was a small amount of activity in Trier in the North, Besancon in the Centre and Tarentaise in the South. The contents of the synodal statutes of the border regions were quite similar to what was found in France.62 Sixty-six pastoral visits in seventeen dioceses in ten of the sixteen ecclesiastical provinces have been identified for the years 1350-1409. Compared to the preceding one hundred years there was a slight increase in the annual rate of pastoral visitation. Thirty-one of these visits in twelve dioceses in nine provinces have been coded, a lower percentage than for the years 1250-1349. Four general visits are known and all are coded. Three of those visits were by Bishop Aimon de Chisse of Grenoble; the other was by Archbishop Jean de Talaru of Lyon. Both men asked far more questions than had been asked in the course of the general visits during the years 1250-1349. However, unlike two of the three earlier general visits, Archbishop de Talaru's visits did not inquire about members of religious orders. Bishop de Chisse's visits, however, contained questions on all major subjects. The only known previous visit with such a variety of questions had been carried out by his kinsman, Bishop Jean II de Chisse, in i34o.6s The geographical distribution of known visits in the years 1350-1409 was different from that of the preceding one hundred years and also from its

Reform in the French Church

49

own synodal statute promulgation pattern. Between 1350 and 1409 there was a huge area in the West and Centre of France encompassing the ecclesiastical provinces of Tours, Bourges, Bordeaux, Albi, and Auch, for which no visits are known. The provinces with significant known activity were Reims, Rouen, and Paris in the North, Lyon in the eastern sector of the Centre and Aix and Aries in the Southeast. There was a bit of activity in Sens, Toulouse, Narbonne, and Vienne. In other words, insofar as the geographic distribution of known visits is a gauge, the reforming activity was fairly evenly divided among North, Centre, and South, but only along the northern, eastern, and southern borders of the country. This, of course is almost the reverse of the pattern of visits in the years 1250-1349 and also opposite to the synodal statute promulgation pattern of the years 1350-1409. Given all of the evidence, including the unreliability of pastoral visit statistics, the most sensible conclusion would seem to be that the supposition of stronger reform activity in the North, reached on the basis of synodal statutes, needs modification. Evidently, the famines, the Black Death, and the Hundred Years' War made it particularly difficult to carry out pastoral visits in the large dioceses of western and central France, but in all areas of the country, there were some bishops who were trying to continue with their reform efforts in whatever way was open to them. This conclusion is strengthened when one compares the bishops known to have promulgated synodal statutes with those known to have carried out pastoral visits themselves or who delegated others to do this. Of the eighteen bishops known to have visited or delegated during the years 13501409 only one, Jean Braque of Troyes, issued a synodal statute during the same period. He visited in 1374 and 1375 and promulgated statutes in 1374. Only one other of the visiting bishops of 1350-1409, Aimon de Chisse of Grenoble, is known ever to have promulgated synodal statutes, which he did in 1415. Since Braque was one of the first bishops to provide a French translation of his statutes and Chisse was one of the few bishops known to have carried out general visits during these years, they may both be regarded as particularly devoted reformers. The other sixteen bishops who were visitors or who sent delegates and the other fifty-two who promulgated statutes during the years 1350-1409 evidently chose the method of reform that seemed most practical or necessary to them, given the troubled conditions of life in France. Though the state of the records makes it impossible to say anything with certainty, there were undoubtedly other reforming bishops in France during these years. Nevertheless, seventy bishops were definitely active reformers in forty-four dioceses located in all sixteen provinces. They represented about 10 per cent of the 730 bishops who held office, some for very short periods, during the years 1350-1409.

50

Six Hundred Years of Reform

Visitors in the wake of the Black Death and during the scattered turmoil of the Hundred Years' War showed a wider curiosity in their inspections than had their predecessors. The most striking change in visitors' interest occurred in questions concerning the parish church. The preoccupation with clergy and members of religious orders, so lively in the records of the century before 1350, now waned considerably as visitors turned to matters of church finances, parish religious practice, and the instruction of parishioners. When in the church, a visitor would now pay particular attention to liturgical books, altars and sacred vessels, the baptismal font, and holy oils. Significantly, visitors now solicited parishioners' views of the morality and pastoral zeal of the parish clergy. This interest would continue in subsequent periods. One cannot help but wonder whether lay opinion may have been not only solicited by visitors, but also forced upon them during what is usually reported to have been a time of widespread anti-clericalism. The new concern with parish religious life grew steadily during the years after 1350. As one looks more deeply at pastoral visit preoccupations, the issues of baptism and extreme unction, masses for the dead and Easter communion begin to appear during the first decades of the plague regime. By the turn of the century the major concerns of visitors varied widely to include the parish mass, devotions to the blessed sacrament and other devotions. The reform efforts of French bishops were definitely developing as they asked more and more questions about more and more areas of life.64 On the borders of France no coded visits exist before the years 13901409, during which time three visits are known to have taken place, one in Arras (1400) and two in Geneva (1402, 1403). The only coded visit was the one in Arras, but the only information available concerns the right of the bishop to visit the chapter of Notre Dame in Lens. The evidence provided by synodal statutes and pastoral visits definitely points to a continuation of the episcopal reform movement in France during the years 1350-1409, though at a reduced level and with an emphasis in the synodal statutes on trying to maintain the status quo or regain the imagined status quo of an earlier age, rather than on initiating new reforms. This activity continued despite the problems created by the financial demands of the Avignon papacy throughout the fourteenth century, the confusion associated with the Great Western Schism after 1378, the ravages of the Hundred Years' War in some parts of the country, and the new biological regime of plague after the arrival of the Black Death. Through it all, some bishops in all parts of the country, including the heretofore relatively inactive Southeast, were involved in reform efforts and those who were carrying out pastoral visits were broadening the range of their interests as they searched for the key to reforming the French Church in a changing world.

Reform in the French Church

51

PATTERNS OF REFORM IV: 1410-69, A N U N C E R T A I N R E V I V A L O F R E F O R M

In 1410 France was still involved in the chaos of the Hundred Years' War. In addition to the war, the famines and recurring plagues of the fourteenth century had seriously hurt its economy. The same forces had also contributed to a significant lowering of the educational and moral standards of the clergy and of the religious of both sexes. There were now fewer members of religious orders, but the number of clerics who had received the tonsure to gain status and protection from civil law, was growing rapidly.65 In addition to these developments, several other factors had conspired to weaken the attachment of the laity, and in some cases the clergy, to the church and its functionaries. These included the confusion created by the Great Western Schism, negative reactions to the money-grabbing tendencies of the Avignon papacy, the wealth of some members of the clerical bureaucracy, and the attempts of parish clergy to supplement their meagre incomes by finding roundabout ways of charging for masses and the administration of the sacraments. By 1469 France was beginning to recover from some of the political and social problems that had beset it in 1410. During the years 1410-69 the bishops of France were also at work trying to find solutions to the problems facing the church, though not yet with much success, neither in their own dioceses nor at the national level. The latter failure was made evident by the papal and royal manipulations of the reform provisions of the pragmatic sanction of Bourges of 1438.66 Despite (or perhaps because of) these troubles, episcopal reform efforts increased. Almost twice as many bishops visited or sent delegates to visit as had during the previous sixty years. The eighty-three bishops involved in promulgation and/or visiting presided over forty-one dioceses spread over all sixteen provinces and represented approximately 17 per cent of the bishops in office in France during the years 1410—69 (compared with loper cent during the years 1350-1409). These facts are particularly striking when one considers the traditional picture of a French church dominated by unworthy royal and papal appointees. The deleterious appointments were facts, but so were the episcopal reform efforts.67 One of the inspirations for attempts at reform at the diocesan level in the second half of the fourteenth century was the Council of Basel. A decree of this Council, of 26 November 1433, set out the duties of the synods and called for provincial councils to meet once every three years and diocesan synods to meet once or twice each year. In response to Basel, a series of provincial councils met in France shortly after the Council closed and the number of promulgated diocesan synodal statutes shot up in the 14505.

52

Six Hundred Years of Reform

In France the number of known synodal statute promulgations increased significantly during the years 1410-69, from eighty-five during the previous sixty years to 111, while the number of dioceses in which promulgations are known to have taken place fell from thirty-four to thirty-one. The years 1410-69 bear interesting similarities to the years 1250-1349. When adjustments are made for the difference in time involved, these two periods are almost identical in percentage of dioceses with promulgations and number of promulgations.68 In other words, the years 1250-1349 and 1410—69 were the times that showed the greatest synodal statute promulgation activity. The former time span was 40 per cent longer than the latter, which meant that the reforming activity was maintained longer; however, the reforming activity was more complex in structure during the years 1410-69.69 On the borders of France, the trend of promulgations was upward for the first half of the fifteenth century. The break in the rise of promulgations on the borders came in the 14508. The trend then recovered and continued upward through the 15208 except for an interruption in the 14905 (see graph 2.3.) The provinces where the number of dioceses with synodal statute promulgations increased during the years 1410-69 were in a block in the North and Centre, stretching from west to east (Tours, Bourges, Sens, and Lyon), along widi Toulouse in the South. The number of dioceses with promulgations remained the same in Paris and Rouen in the North and Aries, Vienne, and Embrun in the South. During the years 1410-69, the promulgation rate increased in five provinces (Tours in the West, Sens and Lyon in the East, Toulouse and Aries in the South), while it remained the same in two (Bourges and Vienne) and declined in the rest of France. Map 2.4 shows that Aries joined Tours in the highest promulgation rate range, with Sens and Lyon in the second range. Given the lack of promulgations in the ecclesiastical provinces of Albi and Aix and the fact that all the promulgations in the province of Aries were in the diocese of Aries, it is apparent that, insofar as synodal statute promulgation is concerned, the major reform activity in the years 1410-69 occurred in Tours, Sens, and Lyon, with Paris and Rouen to the north and Bourges to the south joining at a somewhat lower level to create a bloc stretching across France. South of that bloc there was significant but less activity in Aries and Embrun.70 It would seem that the spate of provincial councils held in France in response to the Council of Basel produced, in turn, an increase in synodal statute promulgation by the bishops. Reading the synodal statutes, however, reveals that though the number of promulgations was higher during the years 1410-69 than during the previous sixty years, the content had not changed much. Nevertheless, there were some differences; there was

Reform in the French Church

53

more insistence on forbidding people to work on Sundays and major feast days and more concern about magic and sorcery, as well as about dancing and playing games in churches and cemeteries. The statutes of Angers of 1423 provide an excellent example of the importance of these concerns. In the North, the order of subjects established by Eudes de Sully was still common in the statutes and in the South the influence of the 1289 statutes of Rodez was still apparent. In general, the bishops were fighting old battles with the old weapons of excommunication and threats of deprivation of income. The rights and privileges of the church remained a serious concern. The clergy were still the focus of reforming activity in the statutes, especially as their clothing and their concubines were concerned. Judging from the growing harshness of tone and punishments, the battle against concubines was not going well for the bishops. An abuse that was getting more attention from the bishops was non-residence in benefices that entailed the care of souls; but usually this offence did not evoke the intensity of condemnation that having concubines did.71 There were other changes here and there that are significant in the context of later reform efforts by the French bishops. While the statutes of the diocese of Rennes promulgated by Jacques d'Espinay in 1464 were in Latin, as were all other known statutes promulgated in France in this and earlier periods (with the exception of the few bilingual statutes noted earlier), his 1465 statutes were in French. This is the earliest known change from Latin to French in synodal statutes, though later bishops of Rennes would return to Latin. The 1431 statutes in Treguier noted that cures should know Breton. The 1465 statutes of Rennes also ordered cures to keep baptismal and death registers. The statutes of Dol of 1456 contained a similar requirement. This prescription would be a hallmark of the Catholic Reformation. Jean Leguise's 1427 statutes for Troyes contained practical advice for cures about how to control popular religion and what and how to teach their parishioners about the essentials of faith, both features of the statutes of the Catholic Reformation. Louis Raguier's 1465 statutes for Troyes continued in the same vein.72 Despite the hints in a few Breton dioceses and in Troyes, the Catholic Reformation and its program of reform were still far in the future. In the synodal statutes of the fifteenth century the old was far more present than the new. While the increase in promulgation of synodal statutes indicates increased reforming activity, it is not possible to say that there was a significant, serious change of tactics to meet contemporary problems, even in the most "modern" statutes. For example, Bishop Jean Rollin, in his statutes for the diocese of Autun in 1449 and 1468, expressed a mixture of concerns about popular religion, charivari, and old-fashioned sorcery connected with the baptismal font. In 1455, Bishop Jean Avantage of Amiens expressed his concern about the faults of the clergy by moving the section

54

Six Hundred Years of Reform

on their life and duties from its traditional place near the end of the statutes to the first chapter. The statutes concerning the clergy, however, were fairly standard: clergy could not be merchants or run or own a tavern, gamble or drink to excess, or have a concubine. Bishop Avantage did forbid taking payment for administering the sacraments and, in a later chapter, insisted on residence in benefices with the care of souls, unless excused by the bishop. The rest of the statutes of 1455, however, read like most synodal statutes promulgated in France since the late thirteenth century.73 As indicated above, there were no promulgations of synodal statutes in the ecclesiastical province of Avignon from 1367 to i44i.74 However, from the 14408 through the first two decades of the sixteenth century, Avignon's promulgations would far outstrip those in any of the other provinces bordering France. Between 1441 and 1452 the activity was mainly in the diocese of Avignon and after that in Carpentras. During the years 1410-69 there was consistent activity in Cambrai, mostly in the form of renewal of previous statutes and some in Besancon and Tarentaise, with a start of activity in Trier that would continue later.75 Marc Venard has studied the provincial and synodal statutes of the province of Avignon from the mid-fifteenth century through the sixteenth century. He considers the provincial Council of Aries of 1453 and the meeting of bishops from throughout Provence in 1457-58 as the origin of an attempt at reform that failed because it was not carefully thought out and was directed only at assorted clerical abuses. On the other hand, he states that the diocesan synods that were revived in the province of Avignon because of the influence of provincial councils dealt with new, local problems: specifically the lack of respect for churches and church services and the excesses of beggars. He cites later diocesan statutes as proof that these abuses had been eradicated.76 Louis Binz has traced the history of synods in the Diocese of Geneva from the thirteenth through the fifteenth centuries. He shows how the canons of the provincial Council of Vienne of 1289, which expressed very typical late thirteenth-century ecclesiastical concerns, served as the basis for the statutes. In 1431, Bishop Francois de Metz reorganized the Genevan statutes, choosing only what he thought relevant for his time and concentrating on the lives of clerics. In 1435 Metz promulgated statutes concerning the sacraments, based, knowingly or not, on those of Eudes de Sully. A sign that Metz was a serious reformer was that he later ordered parish priests to own and study a manual which discussed the nature and administration of the sacraments. Another sign of Metz's interest in reform was the one provision of the statutes of 1431 that set them apart from others of their time. This was an order, typical of the seventeenth century, that cures were to take a census of the parish and to send the bishop a list of those parishioners who did not confess their sins during the Easter season.77

Reform in the French Church

55

As might be expected, during some of the most desperate years of the Hundred Years' War, pastoral visitation virtually ceased. Between 1430 and 1439 there are known to have been only two pastoral visits in all of France. But with the abatement of hostilities, visitors began again to venture out. As peace returned there was a virtual explosion of visits -105 during the years 1450-69. Sixty-five percent of these visits occurred in the three provinces of Paris, Rouen, and Sens and these provinces dominate in the list of known visits in the twenty years after 1469. Significantly, these provinces would play an important role in the first Catholic Reformation. Paris and Sens, in particular, stand out because the years 1430-49 marked the beginning of a long era when half of the dioceses in Sens would be visited in every twenty-year period. The next of these periods (1450-69) marked the beginning of an even longer era during which three-quarters of the dioceses of Paris would be visited in every period. The only other province with a comparable record would be Vienne (see graph 2.4). Eighty-one of the pastoral visits in seventeen dioceses in twelve provinces have been coded for the years 1410-69.78 Six of the visits within these years were general visits, one more than during the previous sixty years. These took place in five dioceses in five provinces: Grenoble in 1410 and 1414, Therouanne in 1416, Rodez over the course of the years 1418-20, Aix in 1421, and Lyon in i46g-7o.79 The geographic pattern of known visits in the years 1410-69 could be described as filling in the holes in the 1350-1409 pattern. In place of the earlier C-shaped pattern running along the northern, eastern, and most of the southern boundary of France, pastoral visits are known to have taken place in all the ecclesiastical provinces except Auch and Narbonne during the years 1410-69. The provinces with the largest number of known visits were located in an area running from Reims through Paris and Sens to Bourges and Lyon. All in all, the pattern of synodal statute promulgation and pastoral visitation matched each other during the years 1410-69 as they had between 1250 and 1349 and would again in the years 1470-89. During the years 1410-69 greater attention was paid to all areas of inquiry (except members of religious orders) than had been the case during the previous sixty years. Generally, the variety of subjects into which visitors inquired was remarkable; indeed it was much broader than ever before. It should be noted, however, that these visits took place mainly in the diocese of Paris, with some in Grenoble and Rodez and a few others in Sens and Troyes. Nonetheless, the evidence of both synodal statutes and pastoral visits suggests that while, overall, there is a certain homogeneity in the character of the years 1410-69, here and there in France something different was beginning to happen after i45O.8° When visitors' questions are analyzed at a more detailed level it is clear that the visitors were addressing a broader range of subjects than ever

56

Six Hundred Years of Reform

before. There was a range of subjects in which visitors showed a stronger interest than they had in the preceding sixty years or would in the following twenty years; especially the costs of visits, the presbytery, and cemeteries. Less striking, but again appearing significantly more frequently than before or after the years 1410-69 were a number of other issues: lay and ecclesiastical authority, demography, patron saints, church furniture, religious art in the parish church, chapels, the identity and functions of auxiliary clergy, the material resources of members of religious orders, masses for the dead, parish devotions, and the moral state of the laity. Parish finances, rites of passage, and the commandments of the church were subjects of strengthened interest during the years 1470-89 as well as in 1410-69.8l With regard to the parish church, the aspects of greatest interest were sacred vessels, the tabernacle, the baptismal font, holy oils, and the bell tower. The visitors were more interested in parishioners' views of the morality and zeal of the clergy than previously. Easter communion and extreme unction received significant attention. Over the course of the years 1410-69 concern about masses for the dead declined and interest in midwives increased. Sunday preaching (appearing in 30 per cent of the visits) received more attention in the years 1450-69 than ever before or after. Among the precepts of the church, attendance at mass received the most attention, though abstinence from work on Sundays and major feast days grew in interest after 1450 and continued through the 14805. This mirrored a concern evident in the synodal statutes. During the years 1450-69 there was a sudden rise in visitors' interest in the leisure activities of the laity, unspecified sexual transgressions, and sorcery. The visitors' interest in all of these topics would decline in the twenty years after 1469. In the visits of 1450-69 hints of the coming Catholic Reformation appear in questions about Easter communion, religious art, ceremonies and pilgrimages, observance of Sundays and feast days, and surveillance of midwives. Overall, these hints were strongest in the provinces of Paris, Sens, and Vienne. The percentage of total known visits carried out by bishops declined significantly during the years 1450-69, but that statement is misleading. The total number of known visits increased sharply from twenty-nine between 1410 and 1429 and twenty-three between 1430 and 1449 to ninety-five between 1450 and 1469. Most of the increase was due to a much larger number of visits carried out by regional diocesan officials. A more accurate gauge of the activity of the bishops is the number of dioceses visited by bishops. Here the increase after 1450 was dramatic. Eight dioceses in seven provinces were visited by bishops during the years 1410-29 and six dioceses in five provinces during the following twenty years. Between 1450 and 1469 thirteen dioceses in ten of the thirteen provinces known to have had visits were visited by bishops.82

Reform in the French Church

57

For the years 1410-69 twenty-two visits are known to have been carried out on the borders of France. Sixteen of them are coded. Though the number is very small, the visits were spread out. Nine of the sixteen are from the diocese of Geneva in the province of Vienne, five are from the diocese of Carpentras which was part of the province of Avignon and one each came from Tournai in the province of Cambrai and the diocese of Verdun in the province of Trier. Only the Genevan visits of 1411-14 asked questions related to the moral state of parishioners or dissidents. Only five visitors asked questions connected with teaching and social services. Questions about parishioners' practice of religion appear in twelve of the sixteen coded visits. As was the case in France, the parish church attracted much attention, as did cemeteries. Unlike in France, ordinations and tonsure still played a significant role in the border visits. The Genevan visits of 1411-14 are striking because of the detailed questions Bishop Jean de Bertrand asked about all aspects of the lives of the parish clergy. While the intellectual preparation of just 9 per cent of the Genevan clergy was rated as excellent, only 14 per cent were rated as poorly prepared or ignorant. Only 8 per cent of the parish priests of the diocese of Geneva were described by their bishop as living a laudable life, but the lives of 51 per cent were described with the words "bone, honeste vite." and the lives of another 2 per cent were rated as satisfactory. The only fault that kept 28 per cent of the parish clergy out of the above categories was that of living with a woman on a permanent basis. Significantly, such living arrangements were not a recorded source of complaint from parishioners.83 The visits in the diocese of Carpentras in 1447 and 1448 concentrated on the parish church and its contents. The cure, masses for the dead, and hospitals received some attention. Confirmation and ordination were part of the visits when the bishop was involved. During the years 1410-69 the bishops of France, freed from the constraints imposed by the calamities of the years 1350-1409, intensified their reform efforts to an extent that this period can be labelled the time of the Late Medieval Reform. Most bishops, however, do not seem to have realized how much the world had changed; consequently their reform efforts consisted mostly in restating the reform programs of their predecessors. The questions that some of the visitors were asking indicate that these individuals were becoming aware of the people who lived in the parishes of their dioceses and of the corruption of clerical life flowing from the Avignon Residency and the Great Western Schism. However, the emphasis of the episcopal reform efforts in the years 1410-69, as expressed in the synodal statutes, was on protecting the privileges of the church and threatening excommunication for those who attacked them. This tactic worked for

58

Six Hundred Years of Reform

a time, but as pontifical and clerical abuses grew and episcopal fulminations increased the laity became less afraid of excommunication.84 PATTERNS OF REFORM VI 1470-89, THE REFORM IN TRANSITION

It is easy to describe what happened with synodal statute promulgation during the years 1470-89 - the rate dropped dramatically. Explaining why this happened is another matter. This is especially difficult to do because the number of extant pastoral visits rose so dramatically for these years that it is likely that the actual number also increased significantly. In general, conditions of life continued to improve throughout France during these years, so it does not seem that the reason for the decline in synodal statute promulgations can be attributed to these conditions. The inability of the bishops to understand the problems they faced may explain why they carried out so many pastoral visits. They may well have been trying to find out what was going on in their dioceses so that they could institute an effective program of reform.85 In both absolute and relative terms synodal statute promulgation was at a very low ebb during the years 1470-89 - the lowest for any twenty-year period since the years 1230-49, though the years 1390-1409 came close. During these years there were no known promulgations in nine of the ecclesiastical provinces of France (see map 2.5). In the V-shaped territory running southwest from Sens in the Northeast through Bourges and Bordeaux to Auch in the Southwest, and then east to the French border, the silence was interrupted only by limited activity in the provinces of Toulouse and Vienne. The highest rate of promulgation was in Lyon on the eastern border and Tours and Rouen in the Northwest. The bishops of Paris and, to a lesser extent, Reims were also involved in promulgations.86 In the years 1470-89 Tours and Lyon were joined by Rouen and to a lesser extent by Paris and Reims, as the centre of the reform movement again moved northward, where it would remain rooted in following years. Toulouse was a southern outpost of reform at the close of the fifteenth century, though not afterwards, while Vienne, where the interest in reform had been slowly growing since the mid-fourteenth century, would continue to be a centre of reform activity during the sixteenth century. Nineteen of the twenty-four promulgations took place in three provinces. In Tours there were ten promulgations in seven of its twelve dioceses, while bishops in two of Rouen's seven dioceses promulgated five synodal statutes and those in two of Lyon's five dioceses promulgated four. Paris, Vienne, Toulouse, and Reims produced one promulgation each. In relative terms there was an increase in the number of dioceses involved and the number of promulgations in Lyon, Rouen, Vienne, and Reims. In

Reform in the French Church

59

Tours, Paris, and Toulouse, the relative number of dioceses involved in promulgation increased, although the relative number of promulgations decreased in Tours and remained the same in Paris and Toulouse. The evidence suggests that the bishops of Tours and Lyon retained the strongest interest in reform, since bishops in eight of the ten dioceses with promulgations in the years 1410—69 promulgated statutes in the years 1470-89.87 The content of the statutes of the years 1470-89 was still overwhelmingly medieval and basically impossible to distinguish from the statutes of the previous sixty years. As in that period, there were a few glimmers of what would become the First Catholic Reformation, as, for example in the synodal statutes of Nantes in 1478 with their straightforward insistence on high standards of clerical morality and strict performance of religious duties. Most French bishops, however, either had not yet realized that to reform the church they had to do something other than repeat earlier statutes, insist on the rights of the church, and hurl threats of excommunication at their perceived enemies; or else were unable to identify what changes they should make.88 On the borders of France during the years 1470-89, the bishops of the province of Avignon continued to be by far the most active in the promulgation of synodal statutes, as they had been since 1430. Those in the provinces of Besancon and Trier were a distant second, but the rate of promulgation was moving upward. There was also a bit of promulgation activity in Cambrai and in the collection of dioceses included in the "Other" category, specifically in Geneva (1480) and especially in Liege (1484, 1485, 1486). Avignon was the only province in France and along its borders where all dioceses had a promulgation during the years 1470-89. Synodal statutes were promulgated in all four of its dioceses between 1472 and 1474. The only other statutes promulgated in the province during this time were in the Diocese of Carpentras (in April and October 1486 and most probably in 1487). The articles of the October 1486 statutes were still being included in seventeenth-century collections of statutes.89 In Geneva, the 1480 statutes of bishop Jean Louis de Savoie brought together those of his predecessors in two parts. The first of these contained mainly the statutes of 1431, while the second included statutes promulgated since that date. Initially printed in a handy size for distribution, preservation, and study by the clergy, the statutes of 1480 remained in force with few changes through many re-printings until the mid-sixteenth century.90 During the years 1470-89 the geographic spread of the 150 known pastoral visits combined the patterns of the two previous groups of periods.91 For these years it is worthwhile to count the number of visits by province. This is the first twenty-year period for which there is a large enough number of visits to allow meaningful analysis. The area of greatest activity ran on a diagonal from the provinces of Rouen and Reims through Paris and

60

Six Hundred Years of Reform

Sens to the province of Lyon, with an extension to Vienne. With the exception of Tours and Sens, whose positions were essentially reversed, this pattern matched that of synodal statute promulgation. In other words, while this was a time of low promulgation rates, the provinces with the most promulgations were almost always those with the most visits.92 Between 1470 and 1489 reform activity paradoxically displayed both vigour and uncertainty. For while bishops promulgated few synodal statutes, pastoral visitation reached unprecedented levels.93 When this is seen in the context of questions asked by visitors it seems reasonable to portray these years as a time of transition. The profusion of the lines of inquiry indicate an episcopate in search of the nature of the church and its people. The parish church was investigated in growing detail: its overall structure, chapels, oils, fonts, sacred vessels, and tabernacle, along with the adjoining presbytery and cemetery. The enumeration and identification of the parish clergy, their moral condition, and abilities, were companion to the more complete inquiry into the religious activities of the laity, their devotions, practice of the sacraments, and participation in rites of passage. The breadth of inquiry seems to have been a broad foundation for a more decisive and vigorous episcopal involvement-one which deserves the name reformation.^ On the borders of France there were not enough visits between 1470 and 1489 (eight visits of which seven are coded) to allow any definitive statements, but there do not seem to have been any of the glimmerings of modernity just described. The seven coded visits contained questions about religious orders, concentrating on buildings and the observance of the rule. None contained questions about the moral condition of parishioners and dissidents. Four of them asked questions in all the other major subject areas. These four were all from Geneva, part of the ecclesiastical province of Vienne, as was the diocese of Grenoble, also known for its wide range of visitation questions. This suggests that national boundaries did not interfere with similarities within ecclesiastical provinces. The remaining three coded visits took place in the province of Cambrai and were exclusively monastic. By contrast, the Genevan visitors seem to have been interested in all aspects of the parish church, masses for the dead, presbyteries, cemeteries, chapels, hospitals, and the identity and material condition of the clergy. Ordinations and tonsures also took place during these visits. But even in Geneva, where there had been proto-modern questions about clerics during the previous period, there was now no inquiry into clerical morality, pastoral zeal, or intellectual condition. CONCLUSION

The Thirteenth-Century Reform developed in northern France during the late twelfth century and the first half of the thirteenth century. The dominant

Reform in the French Church

61

interest, both in synodal statutes and pastoral visits, was the parish clergy, followed (in the visits only) by interest in members of religious orders. During the hundred years after 1250, as the Thirteenth-Century Reform spread southward, synodal statute promulgations and pastoral visits both concentrated on the parish clergy and members of religious orders. While very few pastoral visitors asked questions that dealt with the lives, beliefs, and welfare of parishioners, the variety of questions they posed was increasing and interest in the parish church was growing, especially during the years after 1330. Moreover, despite the "old-fashioned" nature of episcopal preoccupations, the medieval statutes were forming a template for belief and practice, attitudes and behaviour, regularity and restraint that would inform not only medieval but also modern life.95 In the early 13405 the reform movement seemed poised to enter into an even more vigorous era, but pestilence, famine, and war intervened. From the end of the 13405 through the first decade of the fifteenth century, as the French struggled with gargantuan problems, reform continued at a reduced level. Visitors' interest in the parish church reached a level that would be maintained until the French Revolution. In addition, for the first time, visitors asked a significant number of questions in all categories. Nevertheless, most bishops did not modify significantly the synodal statutes they had inherited from their predecessors. The Late Medieval Reform began in the second decade of the fifteenth century and lasted until the end of the seventh decade. During these years a significant number of French bishops became aware of the need for increased reform efforts, but generally the remedies they proposed were oldfashioned. The years 1410-29 and 1450-69 were times when significant episcopal reform efforts took place, as seen in the increased promulgation of statutes. Pastoral visitation became particularly frequent between 1450 and 1469. There was also a distinct change in pastoral visit content. There were more active reforming bishops in the years 1410-69 than in the preceding sixty years and a greater percentage of the episcopate was involved. The years 1350-1409 had seen reform activity in a few more dioceses, but twelve dioceses in eleven provinces experienced both visits and promulgations during the years 1410-69 compared to only five dioceses in nine provinces during the preceding sixty years. When content is considered it is apparent that the sixty years after 1409 contain more genuine reforming activity than the preceding six decades. The bishops of 1350-1409 had not figured out how to address new problems and were hindered by conditions around them in the years following the Black Death. The years 1470-89 were a time of transition. Interest in statute promulgation declined but visitors were seeking out information about the problems facing the French church. The number of promulgations plummeted, but the number of visits rose significantly. Evidently, a growing segment of the

62

Six Hundred Years of Reform

French episcopate was coming to realize that they lacked important information. Bishops had to find out what was wrong before they could undertake a program of reform. By the last years of the fifteenth century a number of French bishops had decided what must be done; their program of reform will be the subject of the next chapter.

3

The First Catholic Reformation, 49°-1589

Traditionally, the need to explain discontinuity has been one of the most important influences in the study of late medieval and early modern religious reform. Many historians believe there had to have been a deformation for there to have been a reformation. There must have been high levels of moral corruption and intellectual degeneration to explain the development of an unprecedented movement claiming purification and regeneration. In part, this tendency is a natural result of the failure to distinguish between the historical explanation of a movement and its moral justification. Especially if one is writing an apologetic or confessional account, there is an overriding, even if unconscious, need to justify the rending of the fabric of western Christendom. In religious matters, moreover, the moral explanation is the more satisfying; witness the legions of students of "western civilization" who write with vague certainty in their essays that "the people" were fed up with the corruption of the church and therefore supported a reformation of it. To a degree, they are distilling to their essence the more sophisticated renditions of some historians. The latter, in turn, have adopted the argument of early-modern dissidents themselves, an age-old assertion of purity over unity which, in the eyes of the established church, of course, becomes the argument of heresy against orthodoxy, licentious dissent over ecclesiastical discipline. The tyranny of discontinuity has overshadowed studies of attempts to reform the church in France from the late fifteenth through the first half of the sixteenth century. Some historians have noted that there were efforts to reform the church, but have characterized the individuals involved in these efforts as isolated and largely ignored harbingers of the Protestant

64

Six Hundred Years of Reform

Reformation. In other cases, they are considered to have been Protestant sympathizers, or, sometimes, lonely forerunners of the Catholic Reformation, which is said to have begun in Italy in the 15405 and reached France at some point in the second half of the sixteenth century. In each case, the overall picture of religious life in sixteenth-century France is usually one of intellectual degradation and moral corruption.1 There is no question that the French church of the late fifteenth century needed reform by its own standards, let alone those of its critics. The vast accumulation of church property; offices and methods of management developed by popes, kings, and bishops; not to mention the growth of anticlerical sentiment, required improvement. But one must not equate anticlerical with anti-religious or even anti-ecclesiastical. Recent research suggests that whatever the situation in the cities, the majority of people in France - the peasants - like their contemporaries in England and probably in many other parts of Europe, were basically satisfied with their version of Catholicism. It provided some protection against the forces of nature and a promise of a better life after death. In many cases, anticlericalism notwithstanding, they were also probably quite often satisfied with their local priests who not only ministered to them but lived with and like them. At the very least, the majority of French peasants were in no mood to change their religion, as was to become evident during the course of the Wars of Religion of the 15605 through the i58os.2 French bishops, however, saw a need for reform by the late fifteenth century and vigorous action was not long in coming. By tracing the pattern of episcopal reform in France, we will show in this chapter that from the 14805 through the 15805 more than 200 French bishops (approximately one-third of the total in office during those years), aided by their diocesan officials, engaged in serious reform activities. Despite the fact that a significant number of these reforming bishops were involved in matters of state and accumulated multiple benefices (or in some cases because of it), their corrective efforts had a distinct effect on French society and, especially, on the leaders of the First Estate, the bishops themselves. Certainly, their struggle deserves a better description than the usual label of "prereforme." In addition, we will propose that, though there were minor external influences, especially from the Low Countries and Rome, French reform activity in these years was essentially a French reaction to French problems, not a reaction to German problems, nor an import from Italy. Finally, we will argue that the French royal government played a significant role in starting this reform movement, despite its many contributions to ecclesiastical abuses, especially through episcopal appointment policies.3 Some of the bishops of fifteenth-century France had searched with limited success for a means to continue their predecessors' process of reforming the church in a changing world. Beginning slowly in the 14805 and

The First Catholic Reformation

65

expanding through the sixteenth century, a significant number of French bishops found those means and launched a new attempt to reform the church in France. Their efforts were not only a logical continuation of the reform efforts of the French bishops of the Middle Ages, but also a distinctive response to contemporary ecclesiastical problems. The year 1482 seems to have been the turning point.4 Unfortunately for these bishops, however, the world around them was changing. Influences were many: the ideas of the Renaissance; the political, economic, and intellectual impact of exploration; the development of capitalism; and the growing control by political leaders over the church which became most starkly evident in the Protestant Reformation. While these developments had a profound impact on the church from the fifteenth century onwards, it was not until the seventeenth century that many French bishops grasped the significance of these issues. Nonetheless, although often fighting in darkness, many of them had joined battle much earlier against what they saw as the vices of the church and society. We will call this struggle for reform the First Catholic Reformation, a phrase which not only accords it an appropriate significance, but also distinguishes it from both the corrective enterprise of the Middle Ages and the reforming heights reached in the seventeenth century. It is essential to remember, however, that the First Catholic Reformation flowed out of the medieval reforms and into those of the seventeenth century. The reform movement that started in the early 14808 began to founder in the 15605 as France entered a long and chaotic generation of civil war that lasted well into die 15905. The Wars of Religion seriously impeded the bishops' program of reformation. The changing nature of episcopal appointments and the controversy over the accession of Henry IV to the throne brought added complications. Despite these difficulties, however, both the earlier desire for reform and many of the methods adopted by French bishops survived. During the seventeenth century they were transformed into a more profound and far-reaching movement, traditionally called the Catholic Reformation, but which we will label the Second Catholic Reformation. As in the case of the medieval reforms, synodal statute promulgation patterns help us to discern the shape of the First Catholic Reformation. A striking example of the utility of this approach is found in the transitional period between 1470 and 1509. As seen in the previous chapter, the significant decline in number and geographic spread of synodal statute promulgations between 1470 and 1489, coupled with an increase in pastoral visitation, indicate that the French bishops were looking for new means of reforming the church. As will be seen in this chapter, the sudden increase in the number of promulgations and their geographic spread throughout most of France between 1490 and 1509 were important signs that the First Catholic Reformation had begun.

66

Six Hundred Years of Reform

Graph 3.1 shows that there was much more promulgation activity during the years 1490-1509 than there had been during the preceding twenty years. Appendix 2A presents the relative promulgation rates of the provinces and points to the importance of Tours, Paris, and Sens during the years 1490-1509. Graph I.i provides an even clearer picture of the years 1490-1509 and also shows the place of the First Catholic Reformation in the reform pattern of the years 1190-1789.5 Statute promulgation and pastoral visitation patterns, combined with analysis of the content of statutes and questions asked by visitors and with an analysis of episcopal activity patterns make it clear that reform of a more important order in dimension and content took place during the years 1490-1589. Because significantly more promulgated synodal statutes and pastoral visits are available for study than was the case with the Middle Ages, it is possible to discover more information at both the provincial and diocesan levels and to include comparisons among the questions raised by different types of visitors. There is also more information available about the bordering dioceses than was the case for the Middle Ages. Promising as the sixteenth-century record is, however, it does not equal the rich trove of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and one must still be cautious in drawing conclusions from it. To illuminate the context we must first consider several matters: i) the role of provincial councils in efforts to reform the French church; 2) the role of the kings and their bureaucrats in encouraging church reform; 3) the significance of the change from Latin to French in the texts of synodal statutes; and 4) the evidence of the so-called "plan methodique" statutes. Only after discussing these matters can we approach the complex issue of the origins in time and space of the Catholic Reformation. PROVINCIAL COUNCILS

The role of provincial councils has received relatively little attention from historians. Even the scholars who have discussed their influence on the Catholic Reformation of the seventeenth century have failed to appreciate their true extent and impact. As for the first half of the sixteenth century, the historiography of the period is generally silent about the crucial influence on reform of the ten provincial councils held in eight French ecclesiastical provinces between 1485 and 1557. As a result, neither their importance nor their geographical relation to the methods of episcopal reformation has received attention from historians.6 The provincial councils in question were held in the provinces of Sens (1485, 1521, and 1528), Rouen (1522), Lyon (1527), Bourges (1528), Reims (1528), Tours (1528), Narbonne (1551), and Vienne (1557). With

The First Catholic Reformation

67

the exception of Narbonne, Vienne, and the Albi portion of the province of Bourges, the provincial councils of the years 1485-1557 were held in the northern half of France, where the First Catholic Reformation developed first and most fully and where promulgation of diocesan synodal statutes was generally the preferred method of reform during the years 1490-1589.7 Given the influence of provincial councils in encouraging diocesan synods in the centuries before and after the First Catholic Reformation, it seems likely that the provincial councils of the years 1485-1557 played a similar role. This seems especially true for the northern half of France, even though documentary evidence is scarce.8 The Council of Sens held in 1485 is particularly noteworthy. While it was not a national council, it could be said to have served as a bridge between the late medieval and early modern efforts of the French bishops to reform the church. By order of King Charles VIII, this council was convoked by the archbishop of the province, Tristan de Sallazar.9 The canons of the Council of Sens were dated 23 June 1485. In many ways they are similar to those of the provincial councils of Lyon, Reims, Rouen, and Tours in the 14405 and 14505. The text of the statutes notes that the 1485 statutes confirmed the Sens statutes of 1460. Especially noticeable similarities are not only the absence of thirteenth-century concerns about teaching clerics the basics of the faith and administration of the sacraments, but also the reliance on the canons of the Council of Basel and concentration on reforming the lives and practices of clerics. What connects the 1485 canons to those of the councils of the 15205 is a concern for teaching the faith to ordinary people. This concern became even more pronounced in the canons of the councils of the 15205, though by then it was accompanied by the significant addition of warnings about the influence of the ideas of Luther.10 It is worth following the further progress of councils in Sens to observe the evolution of reform. There was a provincial council there in 1521 during the episcopate of Etienne Poncher who was a dedicated reformer, both as archbishop of Sens (1519-25) and earlier as bishop of Paris (1503-19). However, the most important canons for the province of Sens were prepared seven years later, during the episcopate of Cardinal Antoine Duprat (1525-35), a bishop who was not only an active participant in church reform, but was also the chancellor of France (1515-35) and played a significant role in negotiating the Concord of Bologna of 1516.11 The canons of the provincial council of Sens of 1528 present a fully developed program for the Catholic Reformation that was partly explicit, partly implicit, in the canons of the other French provincial councils of the time. The Sens canons called for bishops to be active in supervision of priests, both by holding synods and by visiting parishes. The priests themselves were to be held to a high standard by the bishops. They were to be

68

Six Hundred Years of Reform

well-educated and to reside in their benefices, where they were to live a holy life, dressing properly and avoiding undue social contact with the laity, especially women. As the exclusive performers of ritual, priests were to conduct all religious ceremonies with dignity and decorum and ensure that prayers and religious ceremonies arranged for by donors were performed. As teachers and guardians of the faithful, they were to preach orthodoxy to the people, discover heresy, and make sure that suspect books and organizations were banned. In short, the bishops of Sens in 1528 proclaimed the program of the Catholic Reformation long before the opening of the Council of Trent in 1545.12 While much of the program of the Catholic Reformation can be found in the canons of the provincial councils of the 15205, it would be a mistake to think that this Reformation suddenly appeared in France in fully developed form. As was evident in chapter 2, some of these themes had been developing for a long time. It would take yet more time for the Catholic Reformation to develop fully. Medieval elements continued to appear, not only in the canons of the provincial councils of the 15205, but also in those of Narbonne in 1551 and Reims in 1564, and throughout the 15808. Nevertheless, in the early sixteenth century, the bishops of France were developing their own program of reform to meet French problems.13 Given the high level of late medieval reformatory activity in the archdiocese of Sens and its suffragan see of Troyes, along with the work of the bishops of the same two dioceses discussed throughout this chapter, it is no surprise that the earliest full statement of the program of the Catholic Reformation in France came from the provincial council of Sens of 1528. The influence of French kings and their officials, beginning with CardinalChancellor Duprat, also played a part in the prominence of the province of Sens in the First Catholic Reformation and, hence, contributed to the origins and nature of the First Catholic Reformation. THE KINGS AND THEIR BUREAUCRATS

A commission for religious reform was convoked by Charles VIII at Tours in 1493. The papacy made several attempts at reform of members of French religious orders early in the sixteenth century, culminating in the appointment of Georges Cardinal d'Amboise as a papal legate. Neither of these efforts led to effective reform of either priests or religious, but they seem to have encouraged meetings of diocesan synods. In addition, the failure of the deputies to the Estates General of 1484 to gain the attention they sought for religious reform may well have led to Charles VIU's arrangement of a provincial council in Sens in 1485. Forty-two years later, Francis I, in return for a significant contribution from the clergy to help pay his ransom, agreed to allow provincial councils to meet in order to

The First Catholic Reformation

69

combat the ideas of Luther. This agreement led to the convocation of the five councils of 1527-8. Finally, requests from Henry II to the French bishops, connected with unfulfilled plans to call a national council, led to an unusually large number of pastoral visits in 1551. Henry's request may also have influenced the decision to finally hold a provincial council in Narbonne in i55i. 14 In addition to the ten provincial councils held between 1485 and 1557, there was another meeting of bishops that played a role in the development of the Catholic Reformation. Five archbishops and fifty-five bishops, along with representatives of various cathedral chapters and universities, as well as delegates from the Parlement of Paris met in Tours in 1510 and reconvened in Lyon in 1511. This assembly, organized by the royal government, was concerned mainly with the relationship between the powers of kings and those of popes. Nevertheless, the second session issued a series of reform regulations. These included provisions designed to limit the number of clerics (whose numbers were outstripping available positions, not only in France, but throughout Europe), to encourage better clerical education and more regular religious life, to forbid the sale of relics, and to limit the indulgences that could be publicly preached. There were also attempts to reinforce more traditional requirements limiting preaching by mendicants and enforcing proper dress for clerics. In addition, the Assembly endorsed the decrees of the Councils of Basel and Constance.15 There were other efforts to reform the church more or less connected with the royal government during the years 1484 to 1589. These included four meetings of the Estates General and the royal ordinances issued after these meetings. Church reform was only one item among many considered by the deputies and included in the ordinances, but it was always a significant concern.16 There is no concrete proof that either the complaints in the cahiers of the deputies to the Estates General or the reform provisions of the 151011 "council" had any direct effect on the reform of the French church. It must be remembered, however, that royal officials witnessed and participated in these meetings and developed the consequent royal edicts. Moreover, they and their wives had intimate daily personal contact with Catholicism as it was practised and mis-practised in late-fifteenth and sixteenth-century France. It does not seem coincidental that a significant number of the reforming bishops during the century from the 14805 through the 15805 were sons, grandsons, nephews, and grandnephews of the royal officials. Unfortunately, students of the French episcopacy of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, relying often on anecdotal evidence, have not discussed in a thorough and organized fashion the participation of bishops and their relatives in the governing of France through royal offices. They

70

Six Hundred Years of Reform

have not provided lists of the bishops involved in royal service or even detailed summaries of their careers. Rather, they have concentrated on the extent to which bishops were members of noble families. Since the authors involved used different criteria for determining membership in the old ("sword") and the new ("robe") nobility and the Third Estate, it is not possible to compare their studies to establish a comprehensive list of those bishops who were members of office-holding families.17 We have identified a group of 209 bishops who were active in church reform during the First Catholic Reformation in France in eighty-four of the 113 French dioceses located in every ecclesiastical province. Without undertaking a detailed study, as Professor Bergin has done for the seventeenth century, it is impossible to state with any precision what percentage of reforming bishops were royal officials or related to them. Nevertheless, use of the incomplete Dictionnaire de biographic franfaise, along with other standard secondary sources, provides convincing evidence that the 209 reforming bishops were much more likely to be royal officials and/or closely connected to royal bureaucratic families than were members of the episcopate as a whole. This is particularly true of what we label the "moderately active" and "more active" bishops.18 THE C O M I N G OF V E R N A C U L A R STATUTES

One of the most interesting reactions to the religious ferment of the early sixteenth century was the call in the provincial canons of the 15205 for frequent sermons in the vernacular. Although the use of the vernacular predated the Protestant Reformation, to the church, Lutheranism seems to have acted as both a modern threat and a modernizing influence. A growing preference for the use of the vernacular was also evident in synodal statutes, which more and more frequently instructed priests that the peoT pie should be taught in their own language. The decision made by a growing number of bishops to translate their statutes into French provides a means of tracking their growing desire for reform. The change from Latin to French in the statutes may also provide commentary on the educational level of the clergy. There is no evidence that this level had decreased in the course of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, but many sixteenth-century priests, especially the rural majority, probably knew little Latin outside what they memorized for church ceremonies. The change to the vernacular was the work of bishops who were adjusting the practices of their dioceses to this fact of clerical life. The widespread establishment of diocesan seminaries with organized curricula was still several generations in the future. Since the concerned bishops evidently did not know how to provide the education necessary for their priests to understand Latin, or could not afford to do so, they translated the diocesan statutes so that parish priests could understand them and follow their prescriptions.

The First Catholic Reformation

71

The three known examples of bilingual Latin-French statutes mentioned in the last chapter were the result of the endeavours of individual bishops and were not reiterated by their successors. Beginning slowly in the early sixteenth century, however, and becoming common in the seventeenth century, diocesan statutes began to appear only in French and to remain in that language in subsequent editions. In some instances in the years before 1560, there was a reversion to Latin, but the trend was definitely toward French.19 During the years 1490-1589, French language statutes were promulgated in thirteen French dioceses in nine ecclesiastical provinces. The first known instance was in 1515 in the diocese of Saint-Malo in the province of Tours. Others were soon to follow, particularly from the late 15505 onward. The trend gained more momentum in the 15905 and reached its peak in the 16705. It is interesting that promulgation of vernacular statutes was not limited to any particular stripe of prelate; their personal status included every sort of bishop from Calvinist sympathizers, such as Charles Guillard, to ardent Leaguers, such as Pierre de Epinac of Lyon, and included some bishops usually described as politicians, for example Charles de Guise, Cardinal of Lorraine. But one tendency among those who used the vernacular in their statutes was remarkable. At least nine of the thirteen bishops who promulgated the first French language statutes for their dioceses between 1515 and 1589 were royal officials or members of royal bureaucratic families. Given the encouragement for the use of French rather than Latin by the French royal bureaucracy during the sixteenth century, it seems possible that the introduction of French in synodal statutes is another example of the influence of the French royal government on the development of the First Catholic Reformation.20 PLAN METHODIQUE STATUTES

The appearance of statutes with a more "rational," or perhaps more "modern," organization was in keeping with the newly strengthened influence of royal government and the bureaucratic origins of some French bishops. In most French dioceses, on most occasions, bishops promulgated either a collection of statutes which had as its core a version of one of the model sets of statutes described in the last chapter, to which other statutes had been added piecemeal over the centuries by their predecessors, or a limited set of statutes designed to meet particular problems. A sign that a bishop was especially serious about the reformation of his diocese was a break with the past through the issuance of statutes in a form that the compilers of the pastoral visit catalogue called a plan methodique, what Odette Pontal described as "un veritable petit code," rather than the usual "promulgation ... sans ordre."21 As far as is known, seven plan methodique statutes were promulgated in France in the thirteenth century, five in the fourteenth century and four between 1421 and 1454. After that, the number grew rapidly from two

72

Six Hundred Years of Reform

between 1490 and 1509, to six during the years 1510-29, ten in the following twenty years, reaching a high of thirteen between 1550 and 1569. The following forty years saw a significant decline to a low between 1590 and 1609, after which the rate grew rapidly reaching a maximum of twenty-two during the years 1670 and i68g.22 As was the case with vernacular statutes, the promulgators of plan methodique statutes were varied in their allegiance. Among them were known active members of the Catholic Reformation such as Guillaume Duprat of Clermont and Robert Cenalis, Bishop of Vence and later Avranches. Odet de Chatillon, Archbishop of Toulouse, later Bishop of Beauvais, was one of at least four French bishops whose concern for reform seems to have led them to become Protestants. He promulgated this type of statute, as did strong opponents of Protestantism such as Laurent II Allemand of Grenoble and Claude de Sainctes of Evreux. Even three of the most enthusiastic pluralists, Louis de Bourbon, Hippolyte d'Este and Francois de Tournon, who between them controlled eleven dioceses and their revenues, were involved, though probably through the efforts of their vicars general. It is important to note in this context that throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries a significant number of bishops who were ardent reformers held multiple benefices.23 Almost all the bishops who promulgated plan methodique statutes and whose careers we have been able to trace were from families active in the royal bureaucracy. The information available about the 209 French bishops who are known to have been involved in reform activities during the years 1490-1589 and especially the 112 bishops we have described as "more active" and "moderately active" who were most involved, is highly suggestive. A significant number were either royal officials or members of families containing notable royal officers. This evidence, combined with that provided by the actions of the French government to encourage ecclesiastical reform described earlier in this chapter, as well as awareness of the identities of the promulgators of French language and plan methodique statutes, points to a connection that has not previously been recognized. An important number of reforming bishops in sixteenth-century France were members of a group of families prominent in the royal bureaucracy who evidently shared a significant interest in reforming the church. It seems highly likely that this interest in reform was in part a product of the collective mentality of the members of these families who, as they struggled to organize the French state from the fifteenth century onward, continually encountered problems created by the French church. Perhaps a further connection between reform and the bureaucratic sensibility is warranted, although at first it may seem trivial or absurd. The fact that the reformers of the First Catholic Reformation, in contrast to those of the Second Catholic Reformation, favoured the promulgation of synodal

The First Catholic Reformation

73

statutes over pastoral visits as a means of reforming the church may be related to their bureaucratic origins. What, after all, is more characteristic of bureaucrats than the issuance of memoranda stipulating the procedures to be followed by those subject to their authority? And is not a set of synodal statutes in essence a memorandum of just that nature? THE B E G I N N I N G OF THE FIRST CATHOLIC REFORMATION

The preceding discussion of provincial councils, the reform efforts of the kings and their bureaucrats, and vernacular and plan methodique statutes provides significant evidence for our thesis that the First Catholic Reformation began in the late fifteenth century. According to the Froeschle-Chopards, however, the signs of the arrival of the Catholic Reformation included changes in the ecclesiastical personnel who undertook visits, an increase in the number of visits, expansion of the geographic scope of visitation and a new preoccupation in the visits with pastoral work and lay devotion. With these characteristics and preoccupations, claim the Froeschle-Chopards, the Catholic Reformation began in southeastern France during the second half of the sixteenth century. It then spread to the Southwest at the end of that century, continuing to the rest of the South in the1 early seventeenth century and finally encompassing all of France between the years 1670 and 1730. The Froeschle-Chopard thesis presents several characteristics of the Catholic Reformation that require re-examination. At issue are questions concerning the identity of visitors, the geographic patterns and frequency of visits, and the thematic preoccupations demonstrated by visit records. In addition, it is necessary to decide whether or not the Froeschle-Chopards' evidential choices and, therefore, the interpretations that flow from them, need modification if we are to discover where, when, and how the Catholic Reformation began. We address these complex issues in part H of Appendix 5. Our conclusion is that because of a series of chronological, geographical, and topical choices, the Froeschle-Chopards missed both the pattern of the long-term continuing development of the Catholic Reformation in France and the leading role of the northern ecclesiastical provinces. They made a serious chronological mistake by ignoring the years before 1550 and after 1730. In addition, they chose a faulty geographical pattern by including dioceses that were not part of France at the relevant time. Their topical errors include equating breadth of questioning with reform, assigning special importance to too few pastoral visit questions and failing to notice the shifting interests of visitors. In addition, they ignored the important role of bishops' delegates in visits, the percentage of dioceses visited by bishops or their delegates and the percentage of years with visits by these individuals.

74

Six Hundred Years of Reform

Finally, they neglected the evidence provided by promulgation of synodal statutes and the appointment pattern of bishops. In the rest of this chapter we will argue that the First Catholic Reformation developed in northern France during the last years of the fifteenth century, beginning with the visitation and promulgation efforts of a group of bishops, many connected with the royal bureaucracy, who were appointed during the 14808. Prominent among these bishops were thirteen of the unusually large number of twenty-nine episcopal appointees of the years 1482-84. The First Catholic Reformation then blossomed during the years 1490-1549, first in the North and then spreading across the country, as the first group of reformers were joined by other bishops appointed during the first half of the sixteenth century, especially during the years 151029. During the reigns of Henry II (1547-59) and Charles IX (1560-74) proportionately fewer reforming bishops were appointed by the royal government as granting rewards to favourites and allies became more important to kings than church reform, particularly after the start of the Wars of Religion when the royal government was desperately seeking support.24 Because of the confusion caused by the Wars of Religion, reform activity declined from the 15605 through the 15808. Nevertheless, from the early 15705 through 1588 an increasing number of bishops who would eventually become leading reformers were appointed. Most of them, however, would not become active until after the end of the Wars of Religion, as the Second Catholic Reformation developed. Reasons for the change in quality of appointments during these years include the insistence of French bishops that better appointments be made and the refusal of the papacy to approve some of the more outrageous royal nominations.25 THE PATTERN OF THE F I R S T CATHOLIC REFORMATION

The first step in determining the pattern of the First Catholic Reformation is to establish the overall pattern of synodal statute promulgation and pastoral visitation by bishops and their delegates. There was some episcopal reforming activity in all sixteen French ecclesiastical provinces during the years 14901589. The levels of activity, however, varied considerably. In the province of Narbonne, as far as is known, there was only one episcopal visit in one diocese and no promulgation of synodal statutes during the First Catholic Reformation. At the other extreme, in the province of Paris, both forms of reforming activity were carried out in all of its dioceses during those years, with an average of eight promulgations and ten episcopal visitations per diocese. As one looks at all the provinces, it becomes clear that Narbonne was more the exception than Paris in reforming activity. During the First Catholic Reformation, all the dioceses experienced one or both forms of reform activity in the

The First Catholic Reformation

75

provinces of Lyon, Reims, Rouen, Sens, and Vienne, while 80 to 90 per cent did so in the provinces of Tours, Bourges, Aix and, Aries.26 A period-by-period analysis of episcopal reforming activity data provides a clearer idea of the overall pattern of the First Catholic Reformation. This is presented in graph 3.2. After the decline in promulgations between 1470 and 1489 there was a sharp rise in synodal statute promulgations during the years 1490-1509. The new level was maintained until the mid-sixteenth century, after which promulgations declined before rising sharply again as the Second Catholic Reformation began in the 15905. The number of dioceses visited rose from 1530 to 1569 and fell in the following twenty years, while there was a decline in the other two measures of activity in the years 1510 to 49, followed by a rise in the following forty years. As with promulgations, the years 1590 to 1609 saw a sharp rise as the Second Catholic Reformation got underway.27 The significance of the patterns traced in graph 3.2, as will be seen throughout this chapter, is that the First Catholic Reformation had its remote origins in the 14505 and 14605, developed very slowly between 1470 and 1489, burst forth in the years 1490-1509 and continued through to 1589, though with less vigour after the mid-i56os . During these years different approaches to reform were undertaken by what could be described as several chronologically distinct groups of bishops.28 Map 3.1 provides a summary of promulgation activity for the years 1490-1589 while map 3.2 combines this with the visitation activity of French bishops and their delegates for the same years. Maps 3.3-3.7, which follow, provide a period-by-period picture of the combined activity. Maps 3.1 and 3.2 point to several zones of reforming activity during the First Catholic Reformation. The most intense activity took place in the northern third of France, with Tours, Paris, and Sens the most active provinces. The Centre was the second-most active area and the South the least active. Except for the northern third of the country, the East was more actively involved in reform than the West. The least activity took place in the L-shaped territory stretching from Bordeaux in the west of the Centre, through Auch in the Southwest, to Toulouse, Albi, and Narbonne in the central portion of the South, along with Embrun in the Southeast.29 Between 1490 and 1589 the northern bishops, in general, favoured synodal statute promulgation over pastoral visits as a means of reformation. However, the bishops in the three most active ecclesiastical provinces made significant use of both means. The bishops of six provinces (Rouen, Lyon, Bourges, Bordeaux, Auch, and Embrun) favoured synodal statute promulgation, while those in four favoured pastoral visitation. The four (Toulouse, Vienne, Aries, and Aix) were all in the southern third of France and three of them were in the Southeast, where only Embrun was an exception to the predilection for visitation.

76

Six Hundred Years of Reform

During the years 1570-89 there were more provinces with promulgation rates above the mean of all provinces than in any period before the midseventeenth century. In other words, at the depth of the decline in promulgations, as France went through the worst years of the Wars of Religion, the way was being prepared for the Second Catholic Reformation when promulgation rates began a strong upward movement in the 15905 that would last until the end of the seventeenth century.30 Corroborating evidence for placing the start of the First Catholic Reformation in the late fifteenth - early sixteenth centuries is provided by Larisa Taylor's study of sermon printing in France during the sixteenth century. The number of editions of sermons printed rose sharply from one in i500 to ten by the middle of the second decade of the century. The years 15061522 were those with the most sermon printing activity of the whole century. This evidence coincides with that presented in graph 3.3, which shows the prominence of the years 1504-10 and 1519-25 in the pattern of pastoral visiting by bishops and their delegates.31 As seen in part three of graph 3.3, the promulgation rate was strongest from 1492 to 1543, weaker but still strong to 1564, after which it fell and then remained at a low level well into the 15905 (see graph 1.1) when the rise connected with the Second Catholic Reformation began. The most active times for episcopal visitation came during three spurts of activity: between 1484 and 1526, with some revival between 1547 and 1560 and again between 1572 and 1584. There was some stirring of activity in promulgations in the late 15705 and again in the late 15805, so the only major difference among the promulgation and visitation patterns occurred in the late 15205 and the 15305 when bishops and their delegates were much less active in visiting than in promulgating. Maps 3.3-3.7 and the appendices on which they are based provide a means of tracing the development of the First Catholic Reformation in detail from 1490 to 1589. For each of the five twenty-year periods involved we will discuss the pattern of promulgations and then find what episcopal visitation records can add to the picture.32 During the years 1490-1509 the ecclesiastical province of Tours stands out in synodal statute promulgations, not only relative to other provinces and to its own rate of promulgation in preceding periods, but in absolute terms. Paris and Rouen were close together in a distant second place. The importance of the reformation efforts of the bishops of the provinces of Paris and Rouen is underlined by their high standing in pastoral visitation efforts relative to other provinces. Pastoral visitation activity adds Sens and Vienne to the list of provinces with very active reforming bishops. At the opposite end of the scale, the lowest level of reforming activity in both relative and absolute terms was found in the provinces of Aries, Narbonne, and

The First Catholic Reformation

77

Toulouse. This pattern is shown in map 3.3 where the bishops of the northern provinces, along with Albi and Vienne are seen to be the leaders of reforming activity during the years 1490-1509.33 During the years 1490-1509 the highest rates of promulgation were in the three northwestern provinces of Tours, Paris, and Rouen. Between 1510 and 1529, however, Rouen faded, while Paris's promulgation rate increased and Sens and Bourges joined the list of provinces with an aboveaverage rate of promulgation as the Catholic Reformation spread south and east. There was also some increase in activity in the Southwest in the provinces of Bordeaux and Auch.34 Map 3.4 adds pastoral visitation activity to promulgations to show more fully the episcopal reforming activity during the years 1510-29. The provinces of Tours, Paris, and Sens in the North and Albi and Aries in the South dominated Reims, Bourges, and Lyon, located in the North, East, and Centre were in the second rank.35 Between 1530 and 1549 promulgations increased dramatically in Sens, which joined Paris and Tours in the first rank of promulgation activity relative to other provinces. Reims in the Northeast came second, while Rouen and Bordeaux remained in the third rank and were joined there by Lyon. This indicates that the First Catholic Reformation was firmly established in the northern two-thirds of France. There was some increase in activity along the eastern border of France from Reims through Lyon to Vienne and Aix. In the southern one-third of the country, five provinces had limited promulgation activity, but for Albi, Narbonne, and Aries there are no known promulgations. Visitation activity confirms the stirring in the East and adds Reims, Aix, and Vienne to the first rank of reforming provinces and Rouen to the second. As a result, as seen in map 3.5, it can be said that during the years 1530-49 the First Catholic Reformation was strongest in the northern third of France, followed by the Centre, and that reform was beginning to develop in the Southeast.36 During the years 1490-1549 the most intense reformation activity was found consistently in the five northern provinces of Tours, Rouen, Paris, Sens, and Reims, intermittently in Albi (especially in the diocese of Rodez) and Vienne (especially Grenoble), and occasionally in Aix and Aries. Nevertheless, with the exception of the province of Narbonne, all of the French ecclesiastical provinces joined in the First Catholic Reformation to some extent. During the years 1550-89 the pattern of the First Catholic Reformation becomes more complex. The number of promulgations declined during these forty years, while the number of dioceses with visits by bishops or their delegates declined significantly between 1570 and 89. In addition, there were no known episcopal pastoral visits in five provinces during these twenty years,

78

Six Hundred Years of Reform

presumably because the Wars of Religion made travel too dangerous for many French bishops. Despite this decline in activity, the First Catholic Reformation continued. The number of episcopal visits and the number of years with these visits both increased. During the years 1550-69 seven provinces were involved, especially Sens, Paris, and Tours. The following twenty years saw activity increase in six provinces: Paris, Tours, Aix, Reims, Rouen, and Vienne. As seen in map 3.6, during the years 1550-69 reforming efforts were strongest in Paris, Lyon, and Sens, with Tours and Albi showing strength in promulgations and Bordeaux, Reims, and Toulouse in episcopal visitation. In other words, reforming activity was moving eastward in the North and westward in the South. While the years 1570-89 saw continuing reform activity in northern and eastern France, especially in Paris and Tours (see map 3.7), the most striking features of the last period of the First Catholic Reformation are the patterns in the rest of the country. In the first place, reform activity almost disappeared in the huge area in the West, Center, and South covered by the provinces of Bourges, Bordeaux, Auch, Albi, Toulouse, and Narbonne. Secondly, for the first time the whole Southeast (Vienne, Aries, Aix, and Embrun) moved together into the very active category. In other words, what the Froeschle-Chopards identified as the beginning of the Catholic Reformation in the Southeast was actually the belated joining of the First Catholic Reformation by the bishops of the region.37 PATTERNS OF A P P O I N T M E N T AND A C T I V I T Y OF THE BISHOPS OF THE FIRST CATHOLIC REFORMATION

The pattern of the First Catholic Reformation is delineated by the work of the 209 bishops who during the years 1482 to 1589 are known to have promulgated synodal statutes, conducted pastoral visits, or delegated others to do so. They carried out their work in eighty-four of the 113 French dioceses located in all sixteen ecclesiastical provinces, though the South was under-represented. There were no years between 1482 and 1589 without either an episcopal pastoral visit or a promulgation somewhere in France. Such a level of activity was definitely something more than business as usual, especially in an era that was supposedly dominated by time serving, rapacious, and/or ambitious bishops.38 The available synodal statute and pastoral visit records reveal the reforming activities of the 209 bishops. It is not known how many other bishops may have been involved in the First Catholic Reformation. Nevertheless, the activities of the known episcopal reformers provide more than enough evidence to establish that there was a First Catholic Reformation. Further, the variety of means used to measure reform activity during the years 1482-1589 allow one to conclude that all of the significant episcopal participants in that reform have been identified.

The First Catholic Reformation

79

The 209 known active episcopal reformers of the First Catholic Reformation can be divided into three groups on the basis of reforming activity: the thirty-four more active, the seventy-eight moderately active, and the ninetyseven minimally active. These men were active throughout France throughout the years 1482 to 1589. Their dioceses were more often located in the North than in the South, especially before 1550. The reforming bishops were active in both synodal statute promulgation and pastoral visitation, but they favoured the former, especially before 155O.39 Five bishops among the forty-four with the longest known active reforming careers visited personally, delegated others to visit, and promulgated synodal statutes. These men could be considered the most active reformers of the First Catholic Reformation. They were all part of the group of thirtyfour more active bishops and were all from northern France. They were Etienne Poncher of Paris and Sens, Jaques Raguier of Troyes, Geoffroi Herbert of Coutances, Odet de Chatillon of Beauvais, and Pierre de Gondi of Paris. In addition to grouping bishops by the level of their activity, two other methods were used to cluster bishops in order to chart their reform activities: by the year they received papal provision of their office and by the year of initiation of reform activity. Both methods provide important information about the pattern of the First Catholic Reformation which adds to what was learned in the previous sections of this chapter. If the 209 known reforming bishops are grouped by year of receiving their papal provisions, seventy-one episcopal pioneers of the Catholic Reformation can be identified. Three began their episcopal careers before 1470, thirty-three between 1470 and 1489, and thirty-five between 1490 and 1509. The bishops who began their episcopal careers before 1490 were the most active visitors (44% were involved with an average total of 1.7 visits per bishop) and the second most active promulgators (72% involved with an average total of 1.8 each). These were the men who were responsible for the start of the First Catholic Reformation. The reformers who began their episcopal careers between 1490 and 1549 emphasized the promulgation of synodal statutes. This emphasis was most evident among the bishops who began their careers before 1509. Eighty-three per cent of these men promulgated statutes with an average total of 2.5 promulgations each. These two figures were the highest for any period between 1190 and 1789. The transition to the Second Catholic Reformation became apparent during the years 1550-89 as the average total and percentage of involvement in pastoral visitation began to rise, though neither came close to the totals and percentages of the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries.40 If the reforming bishops are grouped by the date of the start of their known reforming activity, fifty-four bishops stand out as pioneers of the Catholic Reformation in France. Eighteen of them first undertook reform activity in the form of synodal statute promulgation or pastoral visits before

8o

Six Hundred Years of Reform

1490. The other thirty-six began their reforming activity between 1490 and 1509. The eighteen earliest episcopal participants in the First Catholic Reformation included two bishops who had participated in the late medieval search for a means to reform the church in France. These men were Charles de Bourbon, active in the dioceses of Lyon and Clermont, and Miles dTlliers of Chartres. They were joined by sixteen bishops who assumed office during the years 1470—89. The latter group included seven bishops whose episcopal careers began in the 14703 and nine of the group of thirteen reforming bishops appointed between 1482 and 1484.41 Grouping the reforming bishops by date of appointment and date of the start of their reforming activity indicates that the First Catholic Reformation had three phases. The first began in the late fifteenth and extended into the early sixteenth century. Using 1482 as a beginning point reflects pastoral visit activity and questions, while 1494 is a more appropriate date for the change in synodal statute promulgation. While it is possible to divide this phase into two parts with 1494 as the dividing line, the whole period from 1482 to 1509 was when the First Catholic Reformation developed. The second phase covered roughly the first half of the sixteenth century. This was the core of the First Catholic Reformation. The third phase covered much of the second half of the sixteenth century and marked the transition to the Second Catholic Reformation. Of the fifty-four French bishops known to have been active between 1482 and 1509, thirty-five (65%) became bishops before 1490. Despite the widespread locations of the activities of the pioneers of the First Catholic Reformation (forty-two dioceses in fourteen provinces), according to the evidence provided by promulgation of synodal statutes, northern France dominated the early years of the First Catholic Reformation, with the East and South participating, but not rising above average performance until the years 1550-69. The importance of the North is confirmed when the dioceses that experienced both promulgations and episcopal visits during each decade are identified.42 Taken alone, each of the measures of reforming activity is imperfect because of missing records and missing activities. But when considered together the measures complement each other and produce a reliable and striking picture of the episcopal reforming activities during the years 1490 to 1589. They also reveal important information about the patterns of that activity which, when combined with the other evidence presented in this chapter, deepen our knowledge of the First Catholic Reformation. In chapter 4 the work of Joseph Bergin will make it possible to integrate information about the origins, education, and careers of the bishops of the years 1589-1715 with the data we have developed concerning episcopal reform activity during the Second Catholic Reformation. Unfortunately, the

The First Catholic Reformation

81

studies of Marilyn Edelstein, Frederic Baumgartner, and Michel Peronnet of the bishops of the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries do not provide sufficient information about individual bishops to make it possible to do the same for the First Catholic Reformation.43 The one exception is that reforming activity can be matched to noble status as defined by Baumgartner. He provides data on the bishops who began their episcopal careers between 1547 and 1610. Of the 209 French bishops we have identified as reformers between the years 1482 and 1589 only sixty-two (30%) are found in Baumgartner's list. This means that 70 per cent of the reforming bishops began their episcopal careers before 1547. This confirms the important role of the bishops of the late fifteenth and first half of the sixteenth century in the First Catholic Reformation. Baumgartner has identified two hundred and sixty-two bishops who began their episcopal career between 1547 and 1589. He states that 50 per cent of these men were from old noble families, 14 per cent were members of new noble families, i o per cent were commoners, 18 per cent were foreigners, and 8 per cent were of unknown social origins. These percentages do not vary significantly from those of the sixty-two of the 209 bishops found in Baumgartner's list, except that a smaller percentage of foreigners and a higher percentage of new nobles are found among the active bishops than among all bishops. However, when these sixty-two bishops are divided into groups on the basis of activity, the new nobles (those who received noble status through royal office) are found to dominate the more active category (40%), followed by foreign bishops (30%). This confirms the role of royal officials in the development of the First Catholic Reformation. The high percentage of foreign bishops is explained by the three men involved: Archbishop Canigiani of Aix and bishops Gondi of Paris and Caracciolo of Troyes.44 THE PROGRAM OF THE FIRST CATHOLIC REFORMATION -

THE EVIDENCE OF THE SYNODAL STATUTES

The emergence of the modern reforming ethos was gradual and uneven. Strong reminders of the Middle Ages are to be found in the synodal statutes of the sixteenth century. The content of some of the statutes, especially during the first part of the sixteenth century, is indistinguishable from that of the Middle Ages, but there were a growing number of differences. The theology found in many statutes after 1490 was more sophisticated than had previously been the case. This was especially noticeable in discussions of the matter and form of sacraments. The Latin used to express this theology was also more sophisticated. Plan methodique statutes appeared much more frequently. At the same time, French was beginning to appear more often in the statutes and emphasis was placed on encouraging clerical morality and

82

Six Hundred Years of Reform

pastoral zeal and on teaching the elements of faith and practice to the laity. Here the influence of Jean Gerson is clear: Priests should know their parishioners and their needs and preach simple sermons in the vernacular.45 The first five dioceses known to have received synodal statutes in the new spirit were Meaux and Macon (1493), Grenoble and Paris (1495), SaintBrieuc (1496), and Clermont (about 1496). Their location in the provinces of Paris, Lyon, Vienne, Tours, and Bourges is not surprising in light of the evidence in earlier sections of this chapter. The bishops responsible were respectively, Jean 1'Huillier, Etienne de Longwy, Laurent I Allemand, Jean Simon, Christophe de Penmarch, and Charles de Bourbon. Only two of them were not among either the thirty-four "more active" or seventyeight "moderately active" bishops. The spirit of the statutes is captured by Jean Simon's attack on the many "ignorant and helpless" priests of his diocese and Jean 1'Huillier's condemnation, not only of concubines as was traditional, but also of adulterers and the incestuous, combined with a sophisticated sacramental theology. Christophe de Penmarch's serious insistence on teaching the people the basics of their faith and Laurent Allemand's long but succinct list of all the things clerics and the laity were to do and not do similarly demonstrate a determination to change the way things were done in the French church. The first of the new statutes that were entirely reorganized were those of St. Malo (1501), Meaux (1511), and Paris (1515). The bishops responsible were Guillaume Briconnet, Louis Pinelle, and Etienne Poncher. The last was one of the "more active" and the first one of the "moderately active" bishops. Pinelle's statutes provide a good idea of what these men were concerned about. He instructed his priests to find out what their parishioners actually knew about their faith and its practice and to enlighten those whose knowledge or practice was found wanting.46 French synodal statutes promulgated during the first two phases of the First Catholic Reformation (1482-1549) ordinarily began with traditional medieval material. By comparison with medieval statutes, however, they were less concerned with sorcery. Nevertheless, illicit games, nocturnal vigils, and dances in churches and cemeteries continued to be important objects of censure. Later medieval statutes usually insisted on the necessity of keeping a register of the excommunicated in each parish. It now began to become more important to insist on the importance of keeping parish registers of baptisms, marriages, and burials, though the episcopal fascination with excommunications, suspensions, and interdicts did not disappear. Another significant feature of sixteenth-century statutes was that, unlike the medieval documents, many of them included a discussion of the sacrament of orders. This may have been the result of realizing that too many priests did not understand the sacrament, or a belief that the laity should be instructed about the nature of the priesthood as a defence against Protestant

The First Catholic Reformation

83

doctrine. There was also relatively more insistence that cures actually reside in their parishes, though it was not unusual to permit, with some reluctance, the appointment of vicars.47 In the statutes promulgated during the first phase of the First Catholic Reformation, a number of topics were introduced that are usually considered to be hallmarks of the Catholic Reformation of the seventeenth century. These include insistence on the maintenance of suitable chalices and other sacred vessels made of silver rather than pewter. The so-called Easter duty (confession and communion during the Easter season) was more often included in the statutes than previously. Cemeteries now appeared more often than in medieval statutes as holy places to be protected from commercial or recreational profanation. The intellectual preparation and suitable conduct of priests became a common early sixteenth-century subject of statutory exhortation, as did the provision of well-prepared teachers for children. Much more than was the case in the Middle Ages, pastors were enjoined to know their parishioners and to take care of their religious needs through saying Mass, administering the sacraments freely, teaching, and preaching simple sermons in the vernacular. All of these concerns would also be subjects addressed by pastoral visitors during the First Catholic Reformation. In a number of cases, pastors were encouraged to read and follow the pastoral advice of the French author, reformer, and Chancellor of the University of Paris, Jean Gerson (1363-1429). The provincial Council of Bourges of 1528 instructed priests who could not prepare a sermon based on the assigned texts for a Sunday to read Gerson to their parishioners. In some dioceses copies of Gerson's so-called Opus Tripartitum or Instruction of Cures for Teaching the Simple Peopk, were bound with the statutes. The Opus was a collection of three independent works concerned with the Ten Commandments, instructions for confession, and preparation for death.48 Modernity appeared gradually in synodal statutes even as they retained much of their medieval character. The statutes of Nantes of 1499, Angers of 1507, Sens of 1524, Bayonne of 1533, and Autun of 1534 are good examples of the slow change that was taking place in many dioceses. On the other hand, one can find what can only be described as medieval statutes promulgated not only early in the century, as at Reims in 1507, but also in Saintes in 1541 and Albi in 1553. Sometimes, as at Tours and Saint-Brieuc, one bishop would introduce "modern" statutes only to have his successor to return to a medieval format.49 Unlike the case of the provincial statutes, Luther was not mentioned in diocesan synodal statutes until quite late and only the earliest, Guillaume Briconnet of Meaux (1523) really understood the threat. The absentee archbishop of Auch, Francois de Tournon, made a rapid allusion to "haerticos et Lutheranos quasconque" in his very detailed statutes of 1542.

84

Six Hundred Years of Reform

There are only three other known allusions to Luther during the years 1490-1549. The first was in Tours in 1537. Bishop Antoine de La Barre considered Lutheranism to be only one of a number of public sins. He was much more worried about blasphemy than he was about Protestantism. The other two references occurred in Amiens and Troyes, both in 1546, and the remarks of both the bishops, Francois de Pisseleu and Louis de Lorraine, were laconic.50 The shift from medieval to modern continued in the third phase of the First Catholic Reformation during the years 1550-89. There were still bishops who reissued medieval statutes. Some of them may not have known the world was changing rapidly, but for others the insistence on old remedies was the natural response of men steeped in tradition who lived in a world where tradition was still revered by even the most "modern" people, such as Nicolas Copernicus and Michel de Montaigne.51 The statutes of Bourges of 1541 promulgated by Jacques Le Roy provide a good example of the influence of tradition. A more striking example is provided by Louis de Bourbon, Archbishop of Sens. He promulgated synodal statutes on eight occasions between 1536 and 1554 and was more aware of the problems facing the church than some of his episcopal colleagues, as seen in his anti-Lutheran speech at the Assembly of Notables of 1527. Yet he decided that the best solution to the problems facing the Catholic church in France was to issue a comprehensive plan methodique set of statutes in 1554 that, except for a few words in the preface and the dates of previous synods referred to here and there in the text, could be taken for medieval statutes.52 Sometimes, new concerns were simply tacked onto the medieval statutes. Nicole Le Maitre, however, has shown why a close reading of synodal statutes is necessary. The statutes promulgated by Cardinal Georges d'Armagnac for the diocese of Rodez in 1552 seem at first reading to be an example of new statutes being tacked onto a medieval collection. In fact, the Cardinal introduced subtle changes throughout the medieval text that maintained tradition while encouraging reforms, mixing the ideas of Jean Gerson with those of the French humanist Lefevre d'Etaples. Armagnac encouraged a better understanding of the Catholic faith, based on scripture and collective prayer.53 The scholar Robert Cenalis, Bishop of Avranches, set a high standard for the priests of his diocese by printing in his statutes of 1550 the following poem: BONUS SACERDOS

Primo debet esse alienus a pecatis Segregatus a populis: Rector, non raptor

Verax in sermone: assiduus in oratione: Humilis in congregatione: Virilis in tentatione,

The First Catholic Reformation

85

Speculator, non spiculator: Patiens in adversitate, Dispensator, non dissipator: Lenis in Prosperitatae. Pius judicio, Justus consilio: Dives in virtutibus Devotus in choro, stabilis in ecclesia Miles in bonis actibus: Sobrius in coena, prudens in laetitia: Sapiens in loquela, Castus in thoro, purus in conscientia. Securus in praedicatione. IN SUMMA

Hoc est nescire, sine Christo plurima scire. Si Christum bene scis, fatis est si caetera nescis.

Cenalis wanted his priests to avoid sin, live separately from their parishioners, be leaders not thieves stewards not spendthrifts. They should be devout, chaste, truthful in conversation and assiduous in prayer. Their virtues should include humility, patience and gentleness. They sould be wise in speech and fearless in preaching. The origin of the poem has not been discovered, but a version of it appeared earlier in the statutes of Bishop Jean Le Veneur of the nearby diocese of Lisieux promulgated at some point between 1505 and 1539-54 In a long section of his 1576 plan methodiquestatut.es entitled "De Officio Populi" Claude de Sainctes, Bishop of Evreux (in the ecclesiastical province of Rouen, as were Avranches and Lisieux) and translator into French of the canons of the provincial synod of Rouen of 1581, complemented the ideas of Cenalis and Leveneur by setting a high standard for the treatment of parishioners by their pastors. Jean Gerson would have supported what de Sainctes wrote, as would have Cenalis and Leveneur, but the words de Sainctes used to urge his priests to take care of his people would literally have been unthinkable for most medieval and many seventeenth century bishops.55 In the third phase of the First Catholic Reformation the tocsin warning of a new threat began to sound with increasing clarity. The faint references to heresy before the mid-sixteenth century gradually became louder in the statutes of the subsequent forty years. For example, in his statutes of 1565, Baptiste Tiercelin, Bishop of Lucon, warned that the clergy must work to "appease ... the ire of God" through processions, hymns, and psalms and must preach on Sundays because the "simple people" were not only following the bad example of their "superiors" by becoming avaricious and ambitious, but they are also falling victim to the "spiritual sickness" which was spreading everywhere with the result that "heresies and new ideas" were infecting artisans, such as cobblers and the makers of wooden shoes. What seems amazing in retrospect is how long it took for French bishops to realize what was happening. With the exception of the five statutes mentioned earlier, no mention of Luther or Protestantism has been found in synodal statutes before 1550, after which it begins to become common.

86

Six Hundred Years of Reform

This is perhaps a case in which we can see the profound contrast between the retrospective coherence and mythic importance accorded a religious movement by historians and the scattered awareness of contemporaries regarding current events. The first bishop to show concern about Lutheranism in the 15505 was Louis Guillard of Chartres. His successor and nephew, Charles Guillard, reacted even more strongly against Protestantism in his 1555 statutes. Eight years later, however, Charles was one of eight bishops formally charged with heresy by the Roman Inquisition. The earliest reference in a sixteenth-century French synodal statute to reforms expected from a general council is found in the statutes promulgated in Langres in 1538 by Claude de Longwy, Cardinal de Girvy. The two earliest references to the Council of Trent found in French synodal statutes were in Rodez in 1552 and in Beauvais in 1554. It seems likely, however, that neither Georges d'Armagnac of Rodez nor Odet de Chatillon of Beauvais actually understood what was happening at Trent. The next references to Trent were more informed. They are found in the statutes of Orange (1572), Troyes (1580), and Vienne (1593). However, it was only in the 16205, beginning in the province of Lyon (Lyon - 1621, Autun - 1622), that references began to appear with any regularity, long after this had become common on the borders of France. The French pattern is at least partly explained by the hostile attitude of the French monarchy toward the decrees of Trent (while, in fact, many of its provisions were being incorporated into the French royal ordinances of the second half of the sixteenth century), coupled with the acceptance of the decrees of Trent by the Assembly of the Clergy in i6i5- 56 Only during the years 1570-89 do the synodal statutes of the Southeast present the first definite evidence of the Catholic Reformation, as Embrun and Aries joined Aix in the above-average category. Though the statutes in these three provinces were not particularly "modern," they do show a strong commitment to reforming current problems. The statutes do not give any hint of influence coming from Italy. Nevertheless, Archbishop Canigiani of Aix (1576-91) is known to have worked to introduce the reforms of Trent, especially through the provincial council of Aix of 1585. More evidence of the influence of Trent in the Southeast will be found in the section of the chapter dealing with the questions asked by pastoral visitors.57 A good example of a fully developed set of statutes of the third phase of the First Catholic Reformation is that of Orleans of 1587. Written in a flowing Renaissance Latin, these statutes combined the medieval insistence on teaching the laity the absolute basics of the faith with subtler distinctions about the matter and form of sacraments. Bishop Germain Valliart de Gueles was worried about the effect of Protestantism, but he did not employ

The First Catholic Reformation

87

the hard-hitting attack on the moral and doctrinal laxity of clerics and laity that would be typical of his seventeenth-century successors. The most "advanced" of the statutes of the second half of the sixteenth century were those promulgated in 1585 by Pierre de Gondi, Bishop of Paris. The medieval form was gone. In place of the leisurely procession through rules for attendance at synods to a discussion of sacraments, then the duties of clerical life, and on to provisions for the protection of the privileges of the church, these statutes began with a curt order that "each and every" pastor must live in his parish and take care of the spiritual welfare of his "flock." The rest of this short document succinctly describes in twenty-four articles exactly how pastors are to accomplish this through teaching, preaching, the administration of the sacraments, regulation of confraternities, and the prevention of both popular practices that might lead to sacrilege or superstition and the intrusion of suspect doctrine by visiting preachers. The Second Catholic Reformation had arrived in Paris full force! Bishop Gondi was not alone. Between 1581 and 1585 six provincial councils were held that reflected the concerns of the Council of Trent. In 1586 seven bishops from dioceses throughout France issued a set of ninetysix Trent-inspired reform articles directed especially to their fellow bishops and to priests. Other signs of the movement from the First to the Second Catholic Reformation, including pressure for appointment of better bishops and official acceptance of the decrees of Trent will be presented below in this and the next chapter.58 One other feature of the sixteenth-century statutes should be mentioned. The fight against clerical concubines, a theme of French statutes throughout the Middle Ages, continued throughout the First Catholic Reformation and well into the seventeenth century before finally disappearing from statutes in the early eighteenth century as the effects of the Second Catholic Reformation finally took hold. A constantly recurring theme in the sixteenth century was that the children of a priest's concubine should not live with him and, especially, should not be allowed to assist the priest at Mass. Behind this prohibition was the reality of a significant number of priests in lasting relationships with women and the fear of the establishment of priestly dynasties in rural areas. Arnaud de Pontac, Bishop of Bazas in the far north of the province of Auch, was the most open about the problem, saying in his statutes of 1584 that he had heard that many clerics and laymen kept concubines openly. His opinion about what could be done realistically about the situation is revealed in his prescription. Rather than following the example of so many of his colleagues by fulminating and setting strict deadlines by which time all contact with any suspicious women or their children must cease, Pontac simply forbade anyone, cleric or lay, to keep a concubine publicly.59

88

Six Hundred Years of Reform

T H E C O N T E N T OF T H E F I R S T C A T H O L I C R E F O R M A T I O N -

EVIDENCE FROM THE PASTORAL VISITS

On the basis of the content of the synodal statutes, it could be said that the First Catholic Reformation began with the promulgation between 1493 and 1496 of a new type of statutes in the six dioceses (Meaux, Macon, Grenoble, Paris, Saint-Brieuc, and Clermont) in five ecclesiastical provinces (Paris, Lyon, Vienne, Tours, and Bourges) that stretch along a diagonal band across France from Brittany to Dauphine. On the basis of the same evidence, it could be said that the point of change from the First to the Second Catholic Reformation came with the promulgation of the statutes of the diocese of Paris of 1585. In general terms, the patterns of synodal statute promulgation and pastoral visits by bishops and their delegates confirm those dates, though the pattern of volume of pastoral visits combined with the appointment pattern of reforming bishops suggests a slightly earlier starting date. As will be seen in this section, the evidence of the content of the pastoral visits suggests the same time frame. There are more coded pastoral visits available for the First Catholic Reformation than for the Middle Ages, but they are minuscule compared to those for later centuries. For the years 1690-1789 there are ten times the number of coded visits available for the years 1490-1589. By the eighteenth century, however, the questions had become much more standardized and there was much less regional variation in content than was the case in the sixteenth century.60 Using the CNRS codes to analyze the questions asked by all types of pastoral visitors provides a nuanced sense of the character of the First Catholic Reformation. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that, unlike the case of synodal statutes, solid evidence is available for only nine of the sixteen ecclesiastical provinces.61 As seen in table 3.1 a, when one examines visitors' questions at the most general level (using the ten categories of the CNRS), there seems to be very little to distinguish the emphases of the visits of 1490-1589 from those of preceding and following periods, except that the First Catholic Reformation seems to have been distinguished by the ending of trends stretching back into the Middle Ages, rather than the beginning of something new. This reflects the fact that the First Catholic Reformation combined traditional and new concerns. When each twenty-year period is considered on its own, as seen in table 3-ib, the changing order of priorities makes it clearer that the Catholic Reformation had a halting start in the late fifteenth century, took on new life during the years 1490-1509 and reached full development in the years 1510-89.

The First Catholic Reformation

8g

Looking more closely at the years 1490-1589 at the category level it can be seen that though there was a sudden and significant change in both the volume and the content of synodal statutes in the years 1490-1509, the changes in content of pastoral visits was more striking during the years 1530-89 when the rank of category 2 (parish church) fell while that of category 4 (the parish clergy) rose. The latter reached its highest percentage of inclusion during the years 1550-69, with the preceding and following twenty-year periods close behind. This points to the influence of the ideas of Jean Gerson who concentrated on the reform of the parish clergy even more intently than did the reformers of the Second Catholic Reformation. The significant decline of interest in members of religious orders from the 15305 through the first decade of the seventeenth century may well be a result of the same influence. Another part of the Gersonian pattern is the increase of interest in teaching and social services during in the years 1510-69. In order to profit fully from the pastoral visit records one must move from the category level and examine the preoccupations of the visitors at the more detailed subcategory and sub-subcategory levels. When the years 1490-1589 are compared at these levels with the preceding and following hundred-year periods both the individuality of the years 1490-1589 and their role as a time of transition between the medieval and early modern church becomes clearer.62 At first glance it is the similarities that are most apparent. In each of the three hundred- year periods visitors placed most emphasis on five topics: the parish church, its altars, its baptismal fonts and holy oils, sacred vessels and ornaments, and the cure and his vicar; close behind in concern were liturgical books. These concerns with the basics of parish life ranked high with visitors from the Middle Ages to the French Revolution. This should not be a surprise. Despite religious reformations and intellectual and political revolutions, the parish church and its priests were the centre of the religious, social, and often the political, life of the vast majority of the inhabitants of Europe from the early Middle Ages at least through the midnineteenth century. Nevertheless, the areas of interest to the visitors varied. The differences among the three periods are found in degrees of interest in topics other than the basic ones. The visitors of 1490-1589 placed significantly more emphasis on the tithe, the identity and duties of parish clergy other than the cure, scheduling, and attendance at the parish mass than did those of 1390-1489, but about the same emphasis as those of 1590-1689. Topics that were less frequent in the years 1490-1589 than earlier or later include reception of the sacraments; preaching; and popular celebrations surrounding birth, marriage, and death. Based on frequency of visitors' questions, their major concerns (beyond the parish church, its contents and basic information about its clerics) during

go

Six Hundred Years of Reform

the years 1490-1589 were the financial accounts of the parish, the parish cemetery, the moral condition and pastoral zeal of the parish clergy, the ceremonies surrounding the pastoral visit, the presbytery, the state of rural and domestic chapels, the tithe, and the parish mass. This reinforces the theme identified earlier - that in the spirit of Jean Gerson the First Catholic Reformation was centred very strongly on the parish clergy. Between 1490 and 1509 there were 152 known visits of which ninetyfour are coded. During the first half of the 14905 pastoral visitors in three provinces in eastern France (Sens, Vienne, Reims) along with Albi asked a wide variety of questions that are characteristic of the First Catholic Reformation. In addition, during the same years visitors in the provinces of Bourges and Lyon in the early 14905 and in Tours slightly later asked some questions that suggest that these provinces also merit a place in the list of those involved in the beginning of the First Catholic Reformation.63 The pattern of questions asked by the visitors in the seven provinces just named did not spring out of nowhere. It will be recalled from chapter 2 that there was some evidence during the years 1450—89 of a new type of pastoral visit questions. Considered in the context of the decline in synodal statute promulgation between 1470 and 1489 we hypothesized that the bishops of France were searching for new answers to the problems facing the French church. This questioning began in the 14508, particularly in the provinces of Paris and Vienne and, to a lesser extent, in Sens, Albi, and Reims. During the years 1470-89 the visitors of Paris, Reims and Albi do not seem to have continued the effort (though there are many uncoded visits for Paris). The Vienne visitors, specifically the bishops of Grenoble who consistently asked more questions than visitors anywhere else in France, were joined in the 14805 by a wide range of visitors in Sens (especially in the diocese of Sens, but also in Troyes), including bishops, their delegates, and others. In the 14903 the number of dioceses with known visits increased, as did the frequency of visiting. More questions of a particular type were now being asked. These new questions included those about parish registers, the baptismal font, sacred vessels, statues, stained glass windows, the parish clergy other than the cure, the parish mass, baptism, confession, confraternities, school masters, and the morality and activities of parishioners. Bishops and their delegates were responsible for most of the visits in the provinces of Vienne, Tours, Aix, Albi, Aries, and Toulouse. Visitors representing cathedral canons did not dominate in any province, but they played a significant role in the dioceses of Chartres in the province of Paris, Le Mans in Tours, and a lesser role in the dioceses of Paris and Sens. Visitors who were not bishops, delegates, or representatives of canons (for example, the archdeacons) dominated the visiting in Bourges, Lyon, Rouen, and Reims. The visiting was shared by all four types of visitors in Paris and Sens and by all but canons in Bordeaux and Embrun.

The First Catholic Reformation

91

Significant information can be gained by comparing those of the 309 "possible" topics that either do not appear or do so only rarely with those that were always or frequently included among the visitors' questions. There were three questions that the visitors of the First Catholic Reformation most often asked. These were "Who is the parish priest?" "Are there proper sacred vessels available for Mass?" "Is the baptismal font in decent shape?" The second most frequent questions concerned the tabernacle, the general state of the parish church, and the identity of the other clerics in the parish. The third rank of questions concerned the state of the presbytery, the cemetery fence, the care of the holy oils, the presence of liturgical books, the parish financial officials (marguilliers), and the recipient of the tithe. At the other extreme are the questions in the CNRS list that appear never to have been asked between 1490 and 1589. No visitor is known to have asked about the presence of supporters of Gallicanism, nor did any wonder about the local social structure. Evidently, no visitor asked about vocations to the clerical or religious life. No questions are known to have been asked about Jews, doctors or wet nurses, though midwives attracted some interest and one visitor asked about libertines and another about hermits.64 There were some questions that first appeared in visits during the years 1490-1589 that would become common during the Second Catholic Reformation. These included a limited interest in penitent confraternities and popular games, school masters (appearing in the twenty years after 1490), catechism (first noted between 1530 and 1549), and colleges (after 1550). On the other hand, there were a few topics never mentioned between 1490 and 1589, or earlier, which became of interest during the seventeenth century. These included cooperation between parish priests and civil authorities in pastoral matters, the libraries of the cures, popular ceremonies surrounding birth, youth societies, and relations among social groups.65 Detailed study of the content of the pastoral visits points to two conclusions. The years 1550-69 were a time of particularly wide questioning both thematically and geographically (questions are recorded for a significantly larger number of dioceses than previously). Secondly, the difference between the First and Second Catholic Reformations was for the most part one of emphasis, rather than a thorough change in interests. The picture of the First Catholic Reformation can be brought into clearer focus by charting the combinations of questions used by visitors. Of the various possible combinations of topics that could be said to form the core of the First Catholic Reformation in a way that distinguishes it from both the Middle Ages and the Second Catholic Reformation, a set of four questions concerning the identity of the parish priest, his moral condition, his pastoral zeal as judged by the visitor, and the tabernacle of the parish church seem to be a good choice. When these four subjects are used as the

g2

Six Hundred Years of Reform

organizing principle for a table listing the place, time, and relevant contents of all 306 coded pastoral visits of the years 1490 through 1589 a clear spatial and temporal pattern emerges. The resulting table with its 98 columns and 293 rows is too large to reproduce here so it will have to be described with words.66 Two major conclusions can be drawn from study of the table. The first is that there were no temporal patterns of questions for France as a whole. The second is confirmation of the distinct, if sometimes complex, provincial patterns. These ranged from the very thorough set of questions asked by the visitors of Vienne to the very few asked by the bishops of Aries. The other relatively thorough sets of questions were employed by visitors in Aix and Albi in the South and Sens and Tours in the North. Reims and Lyon in the East fell into the middle. In some provinces, especially Reims and Sens, there were two separate patterns of visit questions.67 Much more information is provided by reducing the table to a set of topics chosen because of their relationship to reform during the First Catholic Reformation. Doing so makes it easier to isolate patterns of reform concerns by removing the "static" created by questions commonly asked in pastoral visits always and everywhere about the basics of parish property and life referred to above. Forty-nine reform topics were chosen that most distinguished the reform-minded visitors of the First Catholic Reformation from the reformers of both the Middle Ages and the Second Catholic Reformation. While many of these questions appear in the visits of earlier and later periods, the mix is characteristic of the First Catholic Reformation. First of all, there was a concern with the documentation of baptisms, marriages, and burials. In the church itself the reforming visitor concentrated on tabernacles, the font, sacred vessels, the pulpit, confessionals, statues, and the stained glass windows. This is a fascinating combination of metaphors for the traditional sacramental preoccupations and the instruments of a newly vigorous evangelism. While concerned with the mysteries and the intellect, the visitors of the First Catholic Reformation also gave importance to concrete, material concerns (although these were not without a kind of theological sub-text): parish finances, including the tithe, and the cemetery to which even the notable dead were increasingly consigned despite a popular attachment to burial near the altar. The final subjects among the forty-nine primary concerns of the First Catholic Reformation were particularly Gersonian: the clergy and parishioners. The visitors were particularly interested in the morals, pastoral zeal, and intellectual preparation of the clergy, as well as their preaching and saying of the parish mass. As for the laity, visitors inquired not only into their moral condition, but also into their direct interaction with orthodox religious practices, including their attendance at mass, reception of the sacraments, and attendance at catechism lessons. School masters were also the subject

The First Catholic Reformation

93

of inquiries. When these forty-nine topics are compared to see which appear together in the same visits a very clear pattern emerges that defines more clearly the geographical and chronological boundaries of the First Catholic Reformation and points to some of the individuals most responsible for its development.68 The differences in overall provincial patterns can be seen in graph 3.4 (percentage of total possible reform topics used). The provinces of Albi and Vienne stand out during the years 1490—1509, followed by Tours and Reims. The next twenty years were dominated by Albi, followed by all five northern provinces. These patterns accord with those discussed throughout this chapter, as does that of the years 1530-49, which points to the eastern ecclesiastical provinces, along with Aix. The entrance of the Southeast into the Catholic Reformation during the last forty years of the sixteenth century is quite apparent in graph 3.4 as is the continuing interest in reform in the northern provinces of Tours and Reims, as well as Lyon in the Centre.69 Within the topics that characterized the First Catholic Reformation, various combinations of issues appear. The concern for baptismal, marriage, and burial records, for example, appeared most often in visits that were concerned with parish finances, the morality and zeal of the parish clergy, and the parish mass. Interest in these types of parish records seem to have been exclusive to visitors in seven of the sixteen ecclesiastical provinces: three in the North, two in the Centre and two in the South. Visitors in the provinces of Paris, Sens, and Tours asked questions about all three types of registers. Those in the province of Aix inquired about baptismal and marriage registers, while those in Aries asked questions about baptismal and burial records. Baptismal records alone concerned visitors in the provinces of Lyon and Vienne. The keeping of registers of baptisms, marriages, and burials became a significant concern of the Second Catholic Reformation because of the growing interest in who was saved and who was not. It is also a sign of the arrival of the modern concern for counting and classifying. Curiously, during the First Catholic Reformation the related question of population estimates was found in all the eastern provinces except Lyon and Embrun, but almost never in conjunction with birth, marriage, and death registers. Rather, this concern often appeared in conjunction with questions about liturgical books and the fabrique and sometimes with clerical morality and zeal and the parish mass. Questions about pulpits and confessionals almost always appeared with questions about statues and stained glass windows, but the reverse was not true, even though the latter usually appeared with questions about the church, tabernacles, fonts, and the fabrique. Questions about pulpits and confessionals were rare, appeared early in the First Catholic Reformation, and only in a diagonal line stretching from Tours through Bourges and

94

Six Hundred Years of Reform

Albi to Vienne. Questions about statues and stained glass windows were found throughout the sixteenth century but almost exclusively in central France (Albi, Bourges, Lyon, and Vienne, with some in Tours and Sens). This seems likely to have been a reflection of wealth and settlement patterns that allowed for elaborate decorations. Cemeteries and their fencing were of great interest to visitors of the Second Catholic Reformation. During the sixteenth century, cemetery questions appeared in ten of the sixteen provinces. The missing provinces were located mostly in the Southwest and South (Bordeaux Auch, Narbonne, Toulouse) along with Bourges and Rouen. Along with concern for the sacredness of cemeteries, the scheduling of and attendance at parish masses were a concern of sixteenth-century visitors interested in reform. Questions of this sort have been found in nine ecclesiastical provinces located in the central and eastern parts of the South (Albi, Vienne, Aix, Aries, and Embrun), along with Toulouse, Paris, Sens, and Tours. Ignoring the Southwest, where so little reform interest has been found, and Rouen, for which only two coded visits exist, one is left wondering why parish masses were not a topic of interest in Bourges, Lyon, and Reims. Of the questions singled out as defining the First Catholic Reformation, two of the most important were clerical morality and pastoral zeal. Both were found in eleven of the sixteen provinces. Questions on these topics were never raised in Rouen and Aries. Bourges had questions about clerical morality but not zeal, while in Bordeaux the opposite pattern is found. These questions concerning clerical qualities are found most often in Albi, Aix, Vienne, and Embrun, with Toulouse in the top group in the case of zeal and Reims in the case of morality. Interest was slightly less intense but still strong in the three northern provinces of Sens, Paris, and Tours. In other words, concerns about what parish priests were like and what they did were widespread during the sixteenth century. As seen earlier, the tithe was a topic of particular interest to First Catholic Reformation Visitors. When this is investigated more carefully it is found that it was of particular interest in only four provinces: Reims (in 72 per cent of its visits, representing 59 per cent of all tithe questions), Albi (in 73 per cent of its visits making up 12 per cent of the total), Vienne (69 per cent of its visits; 12 per cent of the total) and Aix (57 per cent of its visits, representing 9 per cent of the total). The only other appearances were a few questions in Sens and Toulouse.70 Table 3.2 summarizes the interest of the visitors of all sixteen provinces in the forty-nine reform topics between 1482 and 1589 by indicating how often these topics appeared compared with how often they could appear. It also shows the periods when these visitors were active and which kinds of

The First Catholic Reformation

95

visitors were involved. When this information is considered along with graph 3.4, which covers the years 1490-1589, the conclusions are quite clear and support what has been discovered throughout this chapter.71 During the First Catholic Reformation 91 per cent of the 351 coded pastoral visits included at least one of the forty-nine reform topics. Sixty-seven percent of the coded visits included at least five of these reform topics. Pastoral visitors in five provinces - three in the Southeast, one in the centre of the South, and one in the Northwest (Albi, Vienne, Embrun, Aix, and Tours) - most often asked the greatest variety of questions typical of the First Catholic Reformation. The frequency with which the visitors of these five provinces asked these questions ranks above that for France as a whole, but the number of coded visits available for each is relatively small. The two provinces with the next highest ratings, both in the North (Reims and Sens), have the largest number of coded visits, are close to the mean and above the median in percentage of total possible reform questions. The bishops of these seven provinces could be considered to have been particularly interested in furthering the reformation through pastoral visits. Following not too far behind were the bishops of the provinces of Paris and Lyon, for both of which a relatively large number of coded visits is available. Paris ranks just above the median and Lyon just below.72 The fifth and sixth columns of table 3.2 indicate the twenty-five dioceses in which the forty-nine questions were most often asked and the periods during which they were asked. Graph 3.4 adds more information about levels of activity. The last four columns in table 3.2 indicate which types of visitors were responsible for asking the questions most typical of the First Catholic Reformation. The most important conclusion to be drawn from this data, when considered in the light of what has been discussed in this chapter, is that, while bishops dominated reform efforts during the First Catholic Reformation and favoured promulgation of synodal statutes as the means for that reformation, those bishops and their delegates who sought reform through pastoral visitation were joined by a significant number of other visitors in their search for a means to reform the French church. Overall, bishops and their delegates were responsible for 40 per cent of the visits that included the reform topics, while cathedral canons or their delegates were responsible for 9 per cent and other visitors 51 per cent. On a province-by-province basis there is no relationship to the pattern proposed by the Froeschle-Chopards. Bishops were responsible for all of the known visits that included the reformation topics in the four provinces of Aix, Albi, Aries, and Rouen, 94 per cent in Vienne, and more than half in Bordeaux and Toulouse. Canons and other visitors dominated in Lyon, Reims, Bourges, Tours, and Paris and were in the majority in Sens, while in Embrun the score for the two coded visits was even.73

g6

Six Hundred Years of Reform

Ninety bishops were involved in pastoral visitation during the years 1482— 1589. These ninety bishops were responsible for 293 (40%) of the 740 known visits of the years 1482-1589. The other 447 known visits were carried out by an unknown but far larger number of clerics. In other words, the bishops of France were the driving force of the First Catholic Reformation.74 Nevertheless, a significant number of visitors, who were neither bishops nor their delegates, asked questions that have been described as typical of the First Catholic Reformation. If the First Catholic Reformation is to be fully understood, historians need to study the lives of these men.75 Paris, followed by Reims and Tours and then by Rouen, Vienne, Sens, and Aix, led the other provinces in the rate of visitation by bishops. The rate of interest in reform topics by all visitors was highest in Albi and Vienne and in descending order in Embrun (though based on very slim evidence), Tours, Aix, Reims, Sens, Paris, and Lyon. Taken together the evidence points to the greatest involvement in the First Catholic Reformation through pastoral visitation being in the ecclesiastical provinces of Tours, Vienne, Reims, and Paris; followed by Albi, Aix, and Sens.76 THE SYNODAL STATUTES

AND PASTORAL

VISITS

OF THE B O R D E R I N G D I O C E S E S

There are significantly more known synodal statutes and pastoral visits available for the dioceses lying just beyond the borders of France during the sixteenth century than during the Middle Ages. As was the case with France itself, however, there is far more material available for the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.77 The dioceses surrounding France have been divided into seven groups. Six of these divisions are the provinces in which the dioceses concerned made up the total or majority of dioceses. These are Malines, Cambrai, Trier, Besancon, Tarentaise, and Avignon. The seventh division combines a set of dioceses which form part of other provinces. These dioceses stretched from Liege, part of the province of Cologne, to the north of France, around its northern and eastern borders, taking in bits of the provinces of Mainz and Milan, as well as the parts of the French provinces of Vienne, Embrun, and Narbonne that lay outside the country's borders and ended in the south in Urgel, part of the Spanish province of Tarragona.78 The overall pattern of synodal statute promulgation on France's borders is shown in graph 3.1. There were spurts of promulgation here and there from the late fifteenth century to the mid-15605, particularly during the first third of the sixteenth century, but reforming activity really began in the mid-i 5608 as the influence of the Council of Trent spread. This activity would last until interrupted by the Thirty Years's War after 1618.

The First Catholic Reformation

97

Between 1490 and 1589 the province of Avignon was by far the most active bordering province in synodal statute promulgation. In that province the dioceses of Avignon and Carpentras saw the most activity. The province of Avignon totally dominated the borders in synodal promulgation through the 15205, accounting for almost all of the activity between 1490 and i52g.79 The decrees of the provincial council of Avignon of 1509 are strikingly different from those of 1458 and show clearly that there were efforts afoot in the province to reform the church. A number of the topics are similar to those found in the First Catholic Reformation in France, but the late medieval concentration on excommunication was still quite evident in them. The statutes of 1509, however, were not a beginning of something new. Marc Venard has shown that reform efforts had been undertaken in the province of Avignon in the second half of the fifteenth century, but all but one of the synodal statutes of the first third of the sixteenth century were basically repetitions of earlier statutes and the reform movement was, in fact, almost dead. Further, as was happening in many places in Europe in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, the clergy of Avignon were resisting all change in the name of tradition. The bishops of Avignon, however, did not share the practice of a number of bishops on the eastern borders of France, for example in the provinces of Mainz and Constance, of allowing clerics, in effect, to buy exemptions from the church laws regulating their behaviour.80 During the trough in promulgations on the borders of France in the 15305 and '405, Trier was the leading province, though at a significantly reduced level. Activity picked up significantly in the following twenty years and then continued at a solid pace in the 15705 and '8os. The bishops of the province of Trier, specifically those in the dioceses of Toul and Verdun, remained the leaders in the 15505 and '6os, followed by the bishops of Cambrai and Avignon. In the following twenty years activity declined markedly in Trier and Cambrai and Avignon led, followed by Besancon. As noted earlier, there were very few vernacular and plan methodique statutes in the dioceses bordering France. The two known vernacular statutes were promulgated in the provinces of Trier (St-Die - 1568) and Avignon (Carpentras - 1571). Both plan methodique statutes were promulgated in the province of Trier (Verdun in 1507 and Toul in 1515). As was the case in France, the texts of the synodal statutes did not suddenly change once and for all. It was not only the Latin language that remained intact in some dioceses. Often change, when it did come, amounted merely to inserting references to the Council of Trent in traditional texts, as in Namur in 1570. At other times Trent assumed a much larger role in what became, essentially, a new set of statutes. The statutes promulgated in Cambrai in 1565 and Bruges in 1571 are examples of this trend.81

98

Six Hundred Years of Reform

The pattern of pastoral visits in the provinces bordering France is even more remarkable than that of synodal statute promulgation. For the three twenty-year periods between 1490 and 1549 there are, respectively, five, nine, and twelve known pastoral visits in the bordering dioceses. This number leapt to forty during the 15505 and '6os and fifty-eight in the following twenty years. The pattern is even more pronounced when only the visits of bishops and their delegates during each of the five twenty-year periods are considered. Even with the caveat that pastoral visit records are very incomplete, the way in which the pattern coincides with that of the synodal statutes, as illustrated in graph 3.5, confirms that on the borders of France there was only one Catholic Reformation and that it began after the midsixteenth century.82 The year-by-year progression of visits places the beginning of the reform movement on France's borders in 1566, three years after the closing of the Council of Trent. Consideration of the questions asked in the course of pastoral visits confirms these observations. It is only during the years 155069 that pastoral visitors on the borders of France began to ask a significant number of "Catholic Reformation" questions.83 Since it was part of the ecclesiastical province of Vienne, it is not surprising that the visitors of the diocese of Geneva were consistendy the broadest questioners. The visitors of Avignon and Carpentras were in second place. At the category level it can be said that French visitors showed more concern for parish finances, while those just beyond the border showed more interest in the practice of religion, teaching, and social assistance. The differences between the pastoral visits within France and on its borders appear more clearly at the subcategory level. The visitors in both areas agreed on the importance of questions concerning the parish church; its altars, fonts, and sacred vessels; and the parish clergy. In a second rank came questions about liturgical books, the cemetery, and the parish mass. After that the approach of the visitors in the two areas was different, with the borders sharing the southern French practice of including confirmations and ordinations with visits, but not the French concern for details about the presbytery and tithe, or pastoral zeal. On the borders there was also less concern for clerical morality. Relics, hospitals, and charities were of greater concern than in France, as were heretics (though less so in Avignon) and Jews.84 At the sub-subcategory level the slow change in pastoral visit questions on the borders of France during the second half of the sixteenth century is evident. What is also evident is the relative lack of emphasis on the state of the parish clergy. The ideas of Jean Gerson did not have the same influence on France's borders as they did within the country during the years 1490-1589. It is not just a matter of the lack of influence of Jean Gerson. There was, in fact, only one Catholic Reformation in the dioceses bordering France and it

The First Catholic Reformation

99

started after the Council of Trent. Venard has documented this carefully for the province of Avignon. Rapp has shown that there was no effective reform in the diocese of Strasbourg during the first half of the sixteenth century, while Binz has shown the same for the diocese of Geneva. The same situation is found in the dioceses of Maurienne and Tarentaise. The decrees of the provincial synods of the province of Cambrai of 1550, 1566, and 1586 show the progression of the Catholic Reformation there, while those of the provincial council of Mainz of 1549 show that, while too late for Strasbourg, a concerted effort to respond to the Protestant Reformation was beginning in its province/The old-fashioned medieval synodal statutes promulgated in the diocese of Ghent in the province of Malines in 1571 show that the pattern of implementation of the reforms of the Council of Trent was very uneven. The connections between the reforming movement in France and the dioceses on its borders will be discussed more fully in chapter 4-85 CONCLUSION

During the fifteenth century some French bishops searched with limited success for a way to continue the process established by their predecessors to reform the Catholic Church. Beginning slowly in the 14805 and then developing throughout the sixteenth century, a significant number of French bishops, especially in the North, launched a new attempt to reform the church in a changing society; we have called this the First Catholic Reformation. Their efforts, which spread throughout France, were not just words and theories, as some historians have claimed. Rather, they were the logical continuation of the reform efforts of the French bishops of the Middle Ages as well as a distinctive response to contemporary ecclesiastical problems such as clerical non-residence, lack of preaching, poorly maintained and furnished churches, and mismanagement of church revenues. Some external influences were introduced by those bishops who became familiar with the ideas of the Devotio Moderna of the Low Countries through the work of men like Jean Standonck or those few who had spent time in Rome or at the Council Trent and had observed the struggle for reform. Nevertheless, the First Catholic Reformation was essentially a French reaction to French problems. The major source of influence was the pastoral theology of a Frenchman, Jean Gerson, though the ideas of Bishop Guillaume Briconnet of Meaux and his associates, such as Jacques Lefevre d'Etaples, also had some influence.86 Between the early 14805 and the late 15805 at least 209 French bishops, often with help from diocesan officials, engaged in serious reform activities in all but twenty-nine of the 113 French dioceses. Twenty-four of the twenty-nine dioceses without known reforming activity were in the South. A significant percentage of the 209 bishops were members of or closely

i oo

Six Hundred Years of Reform

allied to the royal bureaucracy and had received their positions through royal intervention, both before and after the Concordat of Bologna of 1516. A considerable number of these men participated in current abuses of church property management, including the holding of multiple benefices (as would many of their successors during the Second Catholic Reformation).87 The First Catholic Reformation began with the encouragement of the French government. This was provided by episcopal appointments and several meetings of bishops held between 1485 and 1511, as well as through the visitation and promulgation efforts of a significant number of the bishops appointed by the royal government during the 14808. The reform movement blossomed between 1490 and 1549, as the first group of reformers was joined by other reforming bishops appointed by the kings of France. However, the efforts of these bishops were seriously impeded from the 15605 well into the 15908 by the chaos of the Wars of Religion, problems connected with that conflict (especially the changed nature of royal episcopal appointments), and the controversy surrounding the accession of Henry IV to the throne of France.88 The First Catholic Reformation preserved the French church and prepared it for further reform. Both the desire for reform and the methods devised by French bishops interested in reform during the first half of the sixteenth century survived. At the end of the Wars of Religion French bishops were able to begin a vigorous program of reform that became a model for the rest of Europe. During the seventeenth century the efforts of these bishops would be transformed into a much more radical reform effort, traditionally known as the Catholic Reformation, which will be discussed in the next chapter as the Second Catholic Reformation.89 As the significant variations in recorded activity (for example during the 15705 and '8os compared with the years from the 14908 through the 15205) show, the reforming activity of French bishops during the First Catholic Reformation was not a mirage resulting from the preservation of more documents for later periods. Further, their activity was neither accidental nor sporadic. It was consistent and involved almost one-third of the bishops appointed during the years 1482-1589. These men were active reformers in three-quarters of the French dioceses over that time span and in an average of slightly more than one-third of these dioceses in each of the five twenty-year periods involved. The First Catholic Reformation began in northern and central France in the ecclesiastical provinces of Tours, Paris, Rouen, Sens, and Vienne, and to a lesser extent in Albi and Reims. Over the course of the sixteenth century, in the North, the provinces of Tours, Paris, Sens, and Reims were the leaders of the First Catholic Reformation, followed by Rouen. Vienne led in the Centre, followed by Bourges and Lyon, with some participation

The First Catholic Reformation

101

in Bordeaux. In the South the province of Aix led, followed at some distance by Albi. Then came Aries, followed by Embrun and, finally, Auch. Little stirred in Toulouse and, as far as is known, nothing in Narbonne.90 The content of synodal statutes suggest that the First Catholic Reformation began between 1493 and 1496 with a new type of statutes which were promulgated in six dioceses in five ecclesiastical provinces in the North and Centre of France. On the basis of the same evidence, it could be said that the point of change from the First to the Second Catholic Reformation came with the promulgation of the statutes of the diocese of Paris of 1585. The pattern of pastoral visits combined with the appointment pattern of reforming bishops points to approximately 1482 as the starting date, but confirms the geographical area and end point. Based on frequency of the reforming visitors' questions, their major concerns during the years 1490-1589, beyond the parish church, its contents, and basic information about its clerics, were the financial accounts of the parish, the parish cemetery, the moral condition and pastoral zeal of the parish clergy, the ceremonies surrounding the pastoral visit, the presbytery, the state of rural and domestic chapels, the tithe, and the parish mass. On the borders of France there was only one Catholic Reformation. Visits and promulgations show the real movement began after the closing of the Council of Trent in 1563. As will be seen in chapter 4, the approach used was that encouraged by the Council. For all its problems, the French church of the sixteenth century was in better shape than the church in Germanic lands. Despite the stories retailed about the upper clergy by contemporary gossipers from Brantome to 1'Estoile, the complaints of the Assembly of the Clergy in 1579 about alienation of revenues and mismanagement in twenty-four of the 113 French dioceses, the many abbeys and priories controlled for profit by outsiders, the abuses described in synodal statutes and the accounts of historians based on these and other sources, the French church, though in definite need of reform, functioned relatively effectively. It did so in the sense that it tried to meet the religious needs of the majority of its members and made some serious efforts to discover and correct problems. In fact, recent research suggests that despite the situation in the cities, the peasant majority in France, England, Ireland, Spain, and perhaps elsewhere in Europe was basically satisfied with its version of Catholicism. The peasant laity was happy enough with the church, but the church was still not happy with the laity, peasant or otherwise. The reforms of the First Catholic Reformation did not seriously interfere with the semi-Catholic, semi-pagan religion of the peasant majority of France, nor with the popular religious practices of many city dwellers, thus avoiding a central problem of the Second Catholic Reformation. But avoidance and lack of understanding were allowing future problems to grow. For

io2

Six Hundred Years of Reform

example, the sixteenth-century reforms did not address sufficiently the concerns of the small but slowly and steadily growing number of literate townspeople. Influenced by the ideas of the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation and living in a complex, increasingly materialistic world, more and more people were asking questions about morality and wealth and the relationships among individual ambition, prosperity, and salvation.91 The bishops of late-sixteenth-century France did not know how to address these issues. Nevertheless, as a result of the reforming efforts of French bishops during the First Catholic Reformation, there existed in France a determined body of bishops ready to spring into action as soon as the Wars of Religion came to an end. Moreover, the sixteenth-century corps of reforming bishops was the nucleus of a modern and modernizing institution. Their varied preoccupations responded to the variety of parishes and problems, but their goals were the same: to form a literate, professional clergy which would provide service to an entire paying population who must be taught how to believe and behave. All of this was to be done using a vast array of well-managed and well-appointed properties. Suppression of the supposed defects of the religion as practised by the peasants would be a major goal of the Second Catholic Reformation, as the city and its concerns were brought to the countryside. In subsequent chapters we will argue that the attack on the religion of the peasants, combined with the failure of the leaders of the church to appreciate the full import of the questions raised in the towns, especially as the influence of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment spread, severely damaged the centuriesold efforts of the bishops of France to reform their church.

4

The First Phase of the Second Catholic Reformation, 1590-1689

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this chapter is not to add to the myriad details already known about what is usually called the French Catholic Reformation, nor to discuss all - nor even the majority - of the individuals involved. Rather, our goal is to reveal its complex pattern of continuity and discontinuity with the past and the future and to make clear the patterns of episcopal involvement in that complex movement. No reputable scholar any longer doubts that there was a movement, usually called the Catholic Reformation, which can be distinguished from the movement traditionally called the Counter Reformation. The latter was a political, economic, social, and religious effort to counteract and suppress the Protestant Reformation which began in the second half of the sixteenth century and was particularly prevalent in central Europe. The Catholic Reformation, on the other hand, was an attempt to reform the Catholic Church which began slowly in various places throughout Europe in the mid-fifteenth century, gained strength in the second half of the sixteenth century, and continued into the eighteenth century.1 Until now, historians have generally agreed that in France the Catholic Reformation began at some point between the close of the Council of Trent in 1563 and the end of the sixteenth century, and ended about 1730. We have shown that the French Catholic Reformation actually began in the late fifteenth century and that a series of events in the late 15705 and the 15805 marked the transition from what we have called the First Catholic Reformation to the Second Catholic Reformation. In this chapter we

104

Six Hundred Years of Reform

will discuss the development of the Second Catholic Reformation to 1689, by which time it had begun to change in intensity and spirit. In order to situate the Second Catholic Reformation, we will consider two questions about its context. The first is the state of the French church in 1589. The second is the extent to which that church had changed over the course of the First Catholic Reformation. An answer to the first question can be found in the three general cahiers prepared by the deputies to the Estates General of 1588. The second can be answered first by comparing the cahiers of 1588 with those of the Estates General of 1484, 1560, and 1576 and then by considering the changes in the canons of the provincial councils.2 ESTATES GENERAL

In 1588 the general cahiers of all three estates complained about multiple benefice holding, simony, and confidence (turning over the revenues of a benefice to someone other than the ostensible holder of it). They all called for a return to the election of bishops and abbots and for the provision of increased income for poor parish priests and theological education for the laity. The deputies of all three estates advocated acceptance of the decrees of the Council of Trent, as long as the rights of the Gallican church were protected. The First and Third Estates advocated parish visitation by bishops or their delegates and rejected the appointment of foreigners to benefices. The Third Estate wanted all benefice holders to be clerics and those with the care of souls to reside in their benefices. In addition, they complained about fees being charged for the administration of the sacraments and about poor preaching and clerical concubinage. The First Estate pointed to the importance of having trained parish clergy, a goal which could be achieved though the creation of a series of seminaries. The degree to which France changed during the century separating the meeting of the Estates General of 1588 from that of 1484 can be seen in the requests deputies made to the king. The section on the church in the single cahier prepared by all three estates in 1484 reminds a twenty-first century reader of a late medieval synodal statute. The major interest was in the rights and privileges of the church. Emerging from that concern, though, were several interrelated issues that were raised throughout the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries: bishops and abbots should be elected, benefice holders should be clerics, and the pope should not interfere in the choice or the revenues of benefice holders. The major differences between the cahiers of 1588 and those of 1560 are found in the First and Third Estate. In both cases the deputies of 1588 were better informed about church abuses and problems. Specifically, the First Estate in 1560 did not voice any concern about the lack of trained ca-

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

105

pable clergy, plurality of benefices, confidences, theological education in the parishes, or parish visitation. The Third Estate of 1560 was silent about plurality of benefices, simony, and confidence. The deputies in 1576 were generally more aware of the problems of non-clerics holding benefices and of non-residence than the deputies of 1588. This worry coincides with that of the Assembly of the Clergy of 1579 described below. Allied to it was a greater opposition to the appointment of foreign bishops and abbots. There was less discussion of theological education in the parishes in the cahiers of 1576 than in either 1560 or 1588. The Ordinance of Blois of 1579 pointed to many of the same abuses as did the cahiers, especially problems with multiple benefices, lack of residence, and parish visitation. In addition, the Ordinance reflected the worries of nobles and commoners about what they considered to be lax marriage regulations that were a threat to family property, as well as the concern of clerics that the church had lost too much of its wealth. The Ordinance showed even more concern than did the cahiers for the welfare of parish clergy, the state of parish churches, and on the need for frequent and dignified religious services and restrictions on non-religious activities of confraternities. These concerns were both more varied and more intense than those found in the texts of the Ordinance of Orleans of 1561. What remained the same in the two ordinances was the refusal of the royal government to even acknowledge the consistent request of deputies to the Estates General from 1484 through 1614 that bishops and abbots be elected. The king gained too much from such appointments to consider changing the system.3 Another document was prepared in 1579 to show both the extent to which the revenues of bishoprics were controlled by others than the supposed holders of the benefice and the number of vacant sees. This was the list of twenty-four dioceses, referred to in the previous chapter, which was prepared by the Assembly of the Clergy and presented to Henry III. This list was used to buttress the desire, evident in the cahiers of the Estates General, that bishops should be ordained, elected, resident, active, and supplied with sufficient revenue.4 Considering all of the evidence, it is apparent that there was a progression in awareness of the abuses in the French church between 1484 and 1588. It seems logical to posit that the First Catholic Reformation informed a growing number of people in France of these abuses, especially the bishops who dominated the First Estate and the bureaucrats who played a similar role in the Third Estate.5 Comparison of the cahiers of the Estates General of 1588 with those of the Estates General of 1614 shows that the awareness of abuses had increased even more by the latter date, but that the reform efforts had not

106

Six Hundred Years of Reform

yet brought sufficient changes, as far as many deputies were concerned. Nevertheless, as a result of the First Catholic Reformation, the bishops at the Estates General of 1614 felt much better prepared to take positive action than had their predecessors in the three preceding meetings of the Estates General.6 PROVINCIAL COUNCILS

Another gauge of the changes brought by the First Catholic Reformation is provided by comparing the canons of the provincial councils of 1485 and the 15205 with those of the 15805. As was the case with the First Catholic Reformation, a series of provincial councils signalled the beginning of the Second Catholic Reformation. Most of these councils were held after King Henry III agreed to encourage their convocation in lieu of acceding to the requests of French bishops, made during meetings of the Assembly of the Clergy and the Estates General of 1576, to accept the decrees of the Council of Trent for France or permit the holding of a national council.7 Ten provincial councils were held in France between 1557 and 1590, including two in the province of Reims. Ten archbishops were responsible for summoning them. Seven of these men were known pastoral visitors or promulgators of synodal statutes, all but two during the First Catholic Reformation: Pierre Palmier of Vienne, Charles de Guise of Reims, Guillaume d'Avancon of Embrun, Simon de Maille de Breze of Tours, Renaud de Beaune of Bourges, Alexandre Canigiani of Aix, and Francois de Joyeuse of Toulouse. Guise and Avangon had been at Trent and were the strongest supporters of its reform program in France during the 15705 and '8os. Beaune and Joyeuse were active only in the Second Reformation. The canons of these provincial councils and the cahiers of the Estates General of 1588 and 1614 show that one of the most important results of the First Catholic Reformation was the preparation of a significant number of bishops who began to take action to reform the French church as peace was restored to the kingdom. Further evidence of this will be provided below. Some historians have stated that the statutes promulgated at the provincial council held in Reims in 1564, shortly after the close of the Council of Trent, provide the first sign of the start of the Catholic Reformation in France. This council was convoked by the Archbishop of Reims, Charles de Guise, Cardinal of Lorraine. In fact, the statutes of the provincial council convoked in Vienne in 1557 by Pierre Palmier, several years before the end of the Council of Trent, were a fuller expression of the spirit of Trent than were those of Reims, since the latter concentrated almost solely on the duties of clerics. Palmier, who, unlike Guise, had not been at Trent, was one of the 209 French bishops known to have been active in the First Catholic Reformation.8

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

107

The provincial councils of the 15805 were held after the meeting of the Assembly of Clergy of 1579 where the bishops had produced a reform program based on the decrees of the Council of Trent. The first of these provincial councils was held in the archdioceses of Rouen in 1581 and the second in Embrun in 1582.9 In 1583 provincial councils were held in Bordeaux, Reims, and Tours. In 1584 Archbishop Renaud de Beaune called together the bishops of the twelve dioceses that then constituted the ecclesiastical province of Bourges for a council that has been described as particularly influential in France. The council assembled in Aix by Archbishop Canigiani took place in 1585, while the council in Toulouse was held in i5go.10 The program of the First Catholic Reformation, based on an awareness of French ecclesiastical problems and the pastoral counsels of Jean Gerson, was set out most clearly by the canons of the provincial council of Sens of 1528, while the canons of the provincial councils of the 15805 show that the program of the Second Catholic Reformation, based on the decrees of the Council of Trent, was beginning to be enunciated. Bit by bit this would become apparent in the diocesan synods during the Second Catholic Reformation. At one end of the spectrum of acceptance of Trent were the canons of the provincial council of Embrun (1582), followed by those of Rouen (1581), Bourges (1584), and Aix (1585). At the other end were the canons of the councils of Reims, Tours, and Bordeaux (all 1583) and Toulouse (1590) which combined some of Trent's concerns with an essentially medieval reform program. Archbishop Avancon of Embrun, who had participated in the Council of Trent was, along with the Cardinal of Lorraine, the most ardent French proponent of the reforms of that council. Archbishops Beaune of Bourges and Canigiani of Aix had not been at Trent, but both of them endeavoured to implement its reform program. While the canons prepared at the provincial council of Rouen, under the leadership of Cardinal Charles de Bourbon, were a mixture of Trent and the past, they merit special attention because they were published in Latin in 1581 and then in French in i'583. The French version, prepared by Claude de Sainctes, Bishop of Evreux, began with a short preface titled "Epistre au Lecteur Chrestien" which clearly indicates that Sainctes realized that there was opposition to reform in the spirit of Trent, but despite this he hoped for "quelque bon succes pour 1' execution de la main & esprit de Dieu, moyenant 1'aide & prieres de ges de bien ..."11 The First Catholic Reformation had raised awareness of the reforms that were needed in the Catholic Church in France. In addition, when the evidence gained from the comparison of the cahiers of the Estates General of the sixteenth century is combined with the evidence of improvement in episcopal appointments discussed in chapter 3 and later in this chapter, it

108

Six Hundred Years of Reform

becomes apparent that by 1588 the leadership of the French church was improving, though the years 1589-96 saw a partial regression. Finally, a number of regional studies indicate that reform was well underway in a number of individual dioceses.12 THE SECOND CATHOLIC REFORMATION: A DISTINCT DEPARTURE

The content of the canons of the provincial councils of Vienne of 1557 and Reims of 1564 as well as the increase during the 15503 and '6os in questions asked by pastoral visitors in the provinces of Tours, Sens, Vienne, Aries, Aix, and Embrun about what could be called "Catholic Reformation" topics (see graph MA.9) might seem to point to a much earlier starting point for the Second Catholic Reformation than has been proposed. Three facts preclude that conclusion. The first of the these is reflected in graph 3.4, which makes it clear that the questions being asked by pastoral visitors of the 15505 and 15605 in the dioceses just mentioned reflected the concerns of both the First and Second Catholic Reformations. These included topics such as parish registers, tabernacles, sacred vessels, and cemetery enclosures. Second, as seen in chapter 3, only twelve of the 209 bishops known to have been active in the First Catholic Reformation in France participated in the Council of Trent, whose decrees provided the foundation of what we call the Second Catholic Reformation. In addition, despite some vague references to the Council found here 'and there, Alain Tallon has shown that in France there was little real understanding of or support for the council and its work until the 15805, and that a significant number of the thirty-nine bishops who were at Trent did not further its aims when they returned to France.13 Third, one must consider the pattern of activity of the French bishops appointed in the sixteenth century who are known to have been reformers. Eighty-eight per cent of the 209 French bishops known to have been responsible for the First Catholic Reformation were appointed before 1570 and all but two of them had died or were too old to continue their reforming activities by i5go.14 THE B I S H O P S R E S P O N S I B L E FOR THE START OF THE SECOND CATHOLIC REFORMATION

Six French bishops are known to have participated in both Catholic Reformations. Of the twenty-five bishops who came to office between 1570 and 1589 and participated in the First Catholic Reformation, only five are known to have also taken part in the Second Catholic Reformation. On the other hand, twenty-two French bishops who received their papal provisions

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

109

between 1570 and 1589 are known to have been active reformers only during the Second Catholic Reformation. In other words, there was a definite break between the two reformations.15 The most senior of the bishops active in both reformations played a significant role in the First Catholic Reformation. This was Pierre de Gondi, who became a bishop in 1565, and whose known reforming activity, including both pastoral visits and promulgations, took place between 1570 and 1595. The statutes he promulgated in 1585 were the first known French diocesan statutes that clearly set out the goals of the Council of Trent. The least senior of the bishops active in both reformations, Charles Miron of Angers, would seem to have been appointed too late to be numbered among the more active participants in the First Catholic Reformation. However, despite the fact that he received his papal provisions only in 1588, he promulgated statutes in both 1588 and 1589, including the first French language statutes for his diocese. He continued his reforming activities until 1622. Of the four other bishops active in both reformations, two began their episcopal careers in 1571, one in 1573, and one in 1575. Renaud de Beaune became Bishop of Mende in 1575. He went on to become Archbishop of Bourges in 1581 and then of Sens in 1594. As far as is known, he was active as a reformer only between 1584 and 1603. Given his involvement in politics this is not surprising. Pierre Paparin was bishop of the diocese of Gap from 1571 until his death in 1600. He was active as a visitor and a promulgator of statutes between 1571 and 1599; among his statutes were the first in French for his diocese. Jean de Tulles, Bishop of Orange from 1572 to 1608 promulgated statutes in 1572 and was active as a visitor on at least six occasions between 1573 and 1601. Jean de L'Hostel was bishop of Viviers from 1575 to 1621. He or his delegates carried out pastoral visits in 1583, 1593, and 1599. While bishops Gondi, L'Hostel, Miron, Paparin, and Tulles and Archbishop Beaune all played roles in both the First and the Second Catholic Reformations, the majority of their contemporaries did not join them. During the years 1570-89, 114 bishops took office in France. As just noted, five of these men participated in both reformations, twenty only in the first, and twenty-two only in the second. Together, these forty-seven bishops comprised 41 per cent of the bishops who came to office during those twenty-years. Further proof that the First Catholic Reformation prepared the men who led the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation is found in the fact that this was a higher percentage than for any previous twenty-year period, combined with the fact that a lower percentage of the bishops who were appointed between 1570 and 1589 were involved in the First Catholic Reformation than bishops appointed in any of the twenty-year periods between 1470 and 1569. That the total percentage of participation for the

no Six Hundred Years of Reform

bishops appointed between 1570 and 1589 was significantly lower than in the immediately following twenty-year periods provides further proof that the Second Catholic Reformation began after i^Sg.16 In the case of Charles d'Escars, missing records may be involved. He became bishop of Poitiers in 1560 and then of Langres in 1569, but his only recorded reforming activity took place in 1603. The other twenty-one French bishops who entered office before 1590 and were active only in the Second Catholic Reformation all entered office during the years 1570-89. The majority of these men became bishops in the 15808 when Henry III began to respond positively to the complaints of both French bishops and of Rome about unworthy episcopal appointments. Yet their known reforming activity took place between 1597 and 1630. Who were these bishops and why did they wait until after 1589 to become active reformers? The reason they were not reformers before 1589 is obvious - all of them were very active in political and military affairs during the Wars of Religion. Some were royalists, some were politiques, some were Leaguers, some were royalists and politiques, and some were, successively (not simultaneously), all three. But they were all very busy until France settled down after the official conversion of Henry IV in 1594. The sudden surge of synodal statute promulgation and episcopal pastoral visitation after 1594, which is apparent in graph 4.1, was not accidental.17 It was a result of the release of the reforming energy of the group of bishops appointed between 1570 and 1589 who had been totally consumed by the political crisis of their country. These men played a crucial role in the start of the Second Catholic Reformation. A collective biography of the twenty-nine bishops consecrated before 1590 who were active in the Second Catholic Reformation, as well as of the archbishops not among the twenty-nine who convoked the provincial councils of the 15803 could provide important information about the origins of that movement.18 During the years 1590-1609, the first twenty-year period of the Second Catholic Reformation, fifty-four synodal statutes are known to have been promulgated in twenty-five dioceses located in all the ecclesiastical provinces except Aries. During the same period at least 123 visits were carried out by bishops or their delegates in forty-one dioceses in all the provinces except Bourges. Altogether during these twenty years, one or another of these forms of reform activity took place in half the dioceses of France located in all its ecclesiastical provinces. In the preceding twenty-year period four provinces had been without promulgations and eight without episcopal visits. In the twenty-year periods following 1590-1609 the rate and spread of both promulgations and visits would increase dramatically. There can be no question that the years 1590-1609 mark the beginning of the Second Catholic Reformation.

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

111

As a group, the twenty-nine pre-i5go bishops comprised 44 per cent of the sixty-six known active bishops during the years 1590-1609 and were responsible for 57 per cent of the promulgations and 33 per cent of the episcopal visits during that period. Not only did the pre-i59O bishops make a sizeable contribution to the first period of the Second Catholic Reformation, they quite literally started it since they were responsible for all thirteen promulgations and twenty episcopal visits in the years 1590 through 1597/9 None of the seven individuals who received their papal provisions between 1590 and 1595 are known to have been active reformers during their episcopates. Beginning slowly in 1596 and developing quickly thereafter, as Henry IV and Rome began to sort out the confusion created by rival claimants to 20 per cent or more of French sees, men who would become active episcopal reformers were appointed by Henry. As a group the bishops who received papal provisions between 1596 and 1609 had a higher activity level and a higher percentage of active years than both the other bishops active in the years 1590-1609 and the twenty bishops who received papal provisions during those years but are not known to have been active before i6io. 20 The eighteen reformers of 1596-99 comprised the unusually high percentage of 51 per cent of all French bishops who received papal provisions during those four years. The subgroup of seven bishops who received papal provisions in 1599 (39 per cent of that year's total) were by far the most active of the eighteen. The most outstanding of the seven were Archbishops Sourdis of Bordeaux and Hurault of Aix, followed by Bishops Dinet of Macon and Camelin of Frejus.21 THE PATTERN OF THE SECOND CATHOLIC REFORMATION - THEEVIDENCE OF PROMULGATIONS A N D V I S I T S , 1590-1689

We will use the promulgation rate of synodal statutes and the volume of pastoral visits by bishops and their delegates to uncover the basic pattern of reform in France between 1590 and 1689. Subsequent sections of this chapter will consider the implications of the appointment and activity patterns of bishops, the changing contents of synodal statutes, and the changing questions asked by the visitors, as well as the reforming activity in the dioceses along the borders of France. During the last twenty years of the First Catholic Reformation (157089), episcopal visitations are known to have taken place in only twenty-one of France's 113 dioceses, while promulgations have been identified in twenty-four dioceses. A total of thirty-six dioceses are known to have experienced one or the other of these reforming activities during these years, while nine dioceses experienced both. During the following twenty years

112

Six Hundred Years of Reform

(1590—1609), as France began to recover from three decades of chaos and the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation began, almost double the number of dioceses experienced a episcopal visitation as had during the previous twenty years. Synodal statute promulgations took place in at least twenty-five dioceses, while the number of dioceses with one or the other of these activities leapt from thirty-six to fifty-seven. The number of dioceses experiencing both episcopal visitations and synodal statute promulgations continued to increase through the 166os. During the years 1650—69 at least 87 per cent of French dioceses experienced an episcopal visitation or a promulgation and 40 per cent witnessed both. During the years 1670-89 the latter percentage held steady, but there was a slight decline in the former. The decline would continue in subsequent periods. This change marked the start of the second phase of the Second Catholic Reformation.22 Graph 4.2 shows that the rate of promulgations, after falling to a low between 1570 and 1589 that had not occurred since the mid-fifteenth century, rose somewhat in the following twenty years. There was then a sharp rise during the years 1610-29, a levelling during the next twenty years and then a sustained rise to 1689, after which a long decline began that lasted until the French Revolution.23 Graph 4.3 shows the same period divided into periods ten years in length. This graph clearly indicates the difference in the reform pattern in France and along its borders which will be discussed later in this chapter. Relevant here are the indications of changes not apparent in the twentyyear periodization. The Second Catholic Reformation began to take hold fully about the year 1600, after the official conversion of Henry IV in 1594 and the Peace of Vervins of 1598 began to have their effects.24 The visitation patterns in graph 4.2 show a more pronounced increase during the years 1590 to 1609, followed by the same pattern as promulgations through the period 1650 to 1669. While pastoral visits by bishops continued to increase through the first decade of the eighteenth century before falling during the next twenty years, dioceses and years with visits levelled off between 1690 and 1709 before falling in the period 1710-29. The evidence just presented points to a significant decrease in reformation activity that developed between 1680 and 1710 (and more likely earlier than later during that period). These patterns provide part of the rationale for dividing the Second Catholic Reformation' into two sections with a line drawn roughly at 1689-90. The final piece of evidence is the effect on the Catholic Reformation of the lack of episcopal appointments during the years 1683 through 1691, because of the papacy's refusal to approve any of Louis XIV's episcopal nominations and the change in the nature of appointments after that date.

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

113

Map 4. i presents a summary of the synodal statute promulgation activity during the years 1590-1689. When this map is compared with map 3.1 several features are immediately apparent. During the Second Catholic Reformation eleven provinces are in the active, very active, and most active categories, while only seven provinces had been in these categories during the First Catholic Reformation. The newly active provinces were in the Centre and the South. Further, there was promulgation activity in all provinces during the seventeenth century, while there had been none in Narbonne and very little in Toulouse during the sixteenth century. The movement southward is also reflected in the comparative rankings. The province of Bordeaux replaced Tours in the most active category and Lyon replaced Rouen in the very active category, while Paris dropped from most active to very active. Relative promulgation activity remained the same in Albi and Vienne, while it increased in the southern tier of provinces, except for Auch and Aries.25 A look at synodal statute promulgation during the whole 600 years of reform shows how powerful the reform movement was throughout France during the years 1590-1689. For both the whole period (1190-1789), as well as for the years 1490-1789, the five northern and four centre provinces were significantly more active in synodal statute promulgation than the eight southern provinces. During the years 1590-1689, however, Aix and Toulouse joined the most active provinces, Embrun was much closer to the national average than in other periods and the other southern provinces were more involved than usual, except for Aries and Auch, whose increases did not come until the period 1690-1789.26 During the years 1590-1689 pastoral visitation was definitely the preferred means of reforming activity for the bishops in eight provinces, including all those in the South except Toulouse, along with Vienne in the Centre and Reims in the North. The major change from the First Catholic Reformation was the significantly greater reliance on visitation relative to promulgation by reforming bishops throughout most of France, especially in the provinces of Embrun and Reims. The major exceptions were Toulouse, where relative reliance on visitation decreased, and Sens and Vienne where there was little change.27 Map 4.2 shows clearly how evenly reforming activity spread across France during the seventeenth century. Only the provinces of Albi and Auch were ranked less than active and both of them are in the moderately active category. No provinces were in either the minimally active or not active category in overall reforming endeavour. When reforming activity in each of the five twenty-year periods after 1589 is considered, the pattern of development of the Second Catholic Reformation becomes clear. Analysis of the years 1590-1609, for example,

114

Six Hundred Years of Reform

shows more markedly the southward movement of reform. Bordeaux was the leader in promulgations, followed closely by Lyon and Paris and then Tours. Embrun, Sens, and Vienne were in the next rank but Rouen, Toulouse, Aix, and Bourges were not far behind. Auch, Albi, Reims, and Narbonne lagged far behind, while only Aries had no known promulgation activity. The three southeastern provinces of Aix, Aries, and Vienne dominated in pastoral visitation by bishops and their delegates.28 Despite the southward movement of reform activity, the involvement of northern provinces continued. Paris and Tours alone remained in the most active category throughout the years 1590-1629, while between 1610 and 1629 Lyon, Vienne, Aries, and Aix rose to that level and Bordeaux leapt from inactive to most active. Rouen, Sens, and Embrun remained in the very active category. Reims was the only province in which relative reforming activity fell between the two periods 1570-89 and 1590—1609.2Q Comparison of maps 3.7 and 4.3 shows that the reforming activity that had stretched from Tours and Rouen through Paris and Sens to Lyon and south along the eastern border to the southeastern tip of France during the years 1570-89 increased during the years 1590-1609 and was complemented by new reforming activity along the western border. As a result during the years 1590-1609, the area of greatest reform activity formed an inverted U-shaped running from Toulouse north through Bordeaux and Tours to Rouen and then south through Paris, Sens, Lyon, Vienne, Aix, Embrun, and Aries. Only the provinces of Reims in the North, Bourges in the Centre, and Auch, Albi, and Narbonne in the South were not fully part of the surge in reforming activity and they are all ranked in the moderately active category. It was not only a case of the reforming activity spreading. The number of known synodal statute promulgations increased from forty-one during the years, 1570-89 to fifty-four during the years 1590-1609, more than doubled during the next twenty-years and, continued to rise through the i68os, by which time the number of promulgations per twenty-year period was four times greater than a hundred years earlier. The rate of synodal statute promulgation rose more rapidly than in any other twenty-year period between 1190 and 1789 and the rise in pastoral visitation was exceeded only by that of the following twenty years.30 During the years 1610-29 reform activity weakened in the North and the provinces with the greatest reform activity were located in the Centre and the South (see map 4.4). The leaders were Bordeaux and Lyon in the Centre, Toulouse in the Southwest, and Aries and Aix in the Southeast, followed by Tours and Reims in the North, Bourges in the Centre and Embrun in the Southeast. The least activity was in Albi with no promulgations and very litde visitation.31

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

115

The leading provinces in episcopal visitation during the years 1610-29 were Aix and Aries. In Aix bishops visited in five of the six dioceses during these years. What is most striking about the visits of 1610-29 *s how widely apart they were spread, even in the provinces of Auch and Narbonne. In the former at least four dioceses had an episcopal visitation, while in the latter bishops were active in at least three dioceses. Also evident is that the leadership of the Catholic Reformation was changing hands. The eleven most active bishops during the years 1610-29 took office after 1598.32 After the intense activity of the previous two decades there was an overall decrease in reforming activity during the years 1630-49, although it was accompanied by a contrasting revival in the North (see map 4.5). Reforming activity rebounded in Paris and Sens, remained steady in Reims and Tours, while Rouen rose to the most active category for the first time since the years 1490-1509 (and for the last time ever). It is apparent however, that overall there was a decrease in activity compared to the preceding twenty years.33 Graphs 4.1 and 4.3 show that this decrease was most pronounced in the 16305 and was followed in the 16405 by gradually increasing visitation activity and a level of promulgation activity exceeding that of the years 161029. Graph 4.2 shows that while the percentage of dioceses visited by bishops or their delegates increased during the years 1630-49, the percentage of visits per diocese per year remained the same and the percentage of years per province with visits decreased The period 1650-69 was the last twenty-year period before the French Revolution when all the indicators of reform showed an increase in activity. Map 4.6 shows the pattern of reform activity during the years 1650-69. This pattern is very similar to that of the years 1590-1609 with a U-shaped area of highest activity running north from Toulouse through Bordeaux, Tours, Paris, Rouen, and Reims and then south through Sens, Lyon, Vienne, Aix, and Embrun. The major differences in the two patterns is that during the years 1590-1609 there was more activity within the U pattern in Reims and Sens and less in Bordeaux, Tours and, especially, Vienne. Outside the U there was more activity in Bourges and Narbonne and less in Auch and Aries.34 The breadth of the reform is truly impressive. There were thirteen provinces in the top three categories of reform activity during the years 165069, significantly more than in any other twenty-year period. Only Albi and Aries were in the moderately active category, while Auch was alone in the minimally active list. In terms of absolute rather than relative activity, there was a decline in promulgations in only four provinces: Rouen, Sens, Bordeaux, and Aries. Of these four only Aries also fell in episcopal visitation. Toulouse and Tours also fell in visitation in absolute terms.

116

Six Hundred Years of Reform

All evidence points to the years 1650-69 as a period when bishops were very active in France. The number of promulgations was second only to those of 1670-89, while bishops promulgated statutes in more dioceses and visited a greater number of dioceses than in any twenty-year period between 1190 and 1789. The two most active provinces in promulgations during the years 1650-69 were Lyon and Paris. In the latter there was activity in three of the four dioceses. Only Paris was missing, not surprising since the archbishop, JeanFrancois de Gondi, Cardinal de Retz, spent most of the period either under arrest or in exile in Rome. Aix, Reims, and Sens were the leaders in episcopal visits during the years 1650-69. Only Riez among the six dioceses of Aix had no episcopal visits (or any other kind of visit, as far as is known), but fifteen of the thirty-one episcopal visits were the work of two vicars general of Aix (Jean-Nicolas de Mimata and Abbe Du Chaine) and the archbishop, Jerome de Grimaldi. In Reims there were episcopal visits in seven of the eight dioceses; only Reims itself was missing. Bishops in all four dioceses of the province of Sens were involved in visitation during these years, but Francois Malier de Houssay of Troyes was by far the most active.35 While the reform movement had spread throughout France between 1590 and 1669, the areas of strongest activity had shifted toward the Centre and South, then to the North, West, and extreme Southeast and finally to the Northeast, North Centre, and part of the Southeast. As seen in map 4.7 during the years 1670-89 the areas of greatest relative activity were Reims in the far Northeast; Bordeaux, Bourges, and Lyon in the Centre; and Vienne and Aix in the Southeast. The indices of reform are contradictory for the years 1670-89. The rate of synodal statute promulgation rose for the last time before the French Revolution, though the increase was much less pronounced than in previous periods. For the most part pastoral visitation held steady at the high level of the previous twenty years, although it appeared that a few bishops might have been finding staying in their episcopal palaces more attractive. While the percentage of total possible episcopal visits per diocese per year rose slightly, the number of dioceses visited by bishops or delegates remained steady and the percentage of years with episcopal visits declined somewhat. These indices provide an early warning that the Second Catholic Reformation was about to change.36 As seen in map 4.7, the southward movement of episcopal reform efforts during the years 1670—89 is emphasized by the decline in activity relative to other provinces in Rouen, Paris, and Sens and the increase in Aries and Narbonne. During the years 1670-89 four provinces ranked in the most active category in promulgations, while only two held that ranking in episcopal visitations.37

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

117

As for promulgations during the years 1670-89, only Bishop Barillon of Lucon stands out. Other dioceses with notable activity were Bourges, Grenoble, La Rochelle, and Limoges. Eight dioceses had episcopal visits in eight or more of these twenty years. Reims was the most frequently visited diocese with Montpellier close behind. Meaux came next with Louis XIV's court bishop, Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, leading the way, visiting in all but the first of the nine years he was bishop during this period. The only other diocese with an exceptionally large number of episcopal visits was Rouen, where Archbishop Francois Rouxel de Medavy shared the duties with his delegates. The other dioceses with episcopal visits in eight or more years were Agen, Auxerre, Clermont, and Grenoble.38 During the years 1690-1709, as will be seen in chapter 5, reform activity was concentrated in eastern France, with far fewer provinces ranking in the most active category, and a decline in promulgation of synodal statutes. There was also a significant increase in years per diocese with visits. But before we can understand the change that came in the last years of the seventeenth century much more must be explained about the years 1590-1689. The pattern of reform during the years 1590-1689 could be summarized as follows: episcopal reforming activity increased significantly between 1590 and 1629, levelled off during the years 1630-49, increased during the following twenty years and, then, began to fray after 1670. In geographical terms the centre of reform activity shifted with each twentyyear period, but overall was strong in thirteen of the sixteen ecclesiastical provinces of France. The bishops of four provinces were the most active reformers during these years: Lyon and Bordeaux in the Centre, Paris in the North, and Aix in the South. They were followed by their colleagues in the provinces of Aries, Vienne, Embrun, and Toulouse in the South; Reims, Sens, Tours, and Rouen in the North, and Bourges in the Centre. This list includes all five provinces of the North, all four in the Centre, and four of the seven in the South. Only Auch and Albi and, to a lesser extent, Narbonne, are missing from this list. THE PATTERN OF THE SECOND CATHOLIC REFORMATION - THE EVIDENCE OF EPISCOPAL A P P O I N T M E N T S A N D A C T I V I T I E S , 1590-1689

Three hundred and fifty bishops were the main actors in the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation. They promulgated statutes and conducted or delegated pastoral visits that expressed the spirit of reform during the seventeenth century. Together these men constituted almost two-thirds of the bishops in office in France during the years 1590-1689, more than double the percentage of active bishops in the First Catholic Reformation.39

118

Six Hundred Years of Reform

Seventy per cent of the 350 bishops of the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation visited personally, compared to 35 per cent of the 209 episcopal reformers of 1482-1589 and 83 per cent of the 390 reforming bishops of 1690-1789. The percentages for promulgations were 74 per cent for the First Catholic Reformation, 67 per cent for the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation, and only 49 per cent for the second phase (45% if only those who began their episcopal careers after 1689 are counted). The marked decline in promulgations during the eighteenth century was one of the important signs of the weakening of the Catholic Reformation. There are some bishops who deserve a higher rating than we have assigned to them, either because promulgation, or much more likely visitation, records no longer exist or because of their involvement in other reforming activities. These activities included the founding of seminaries, the holding of parish missions, the publication of catechisms, and the founding of schools. Unfortunately, there are no comprehensive statistics available for these activities. Nevertheless, it can be stated with confidence that the overwhelming majority of episcopal reformers are in our list and that the pattern of their activity is the pattern of the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation.40 As was the case in chapter 3, we grouped the reforming bishops according to the date of their papal provisions, the year in which their known reforming activity began, and the level of their activity. The levels are labelled minimally active, moderately active, more active, and very active.41 The grouping process reveals that three cohorts of bishops were particularly influential during the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation. The first of these was made up of the bishops who began their episcopal careers between 1570 and 1609. They were most active and influential during the last decade of the sixteenth and the first two decades of the seventeenth centuries. The second cohort was composed of the bishops of 1610—29. Their period of reform leadership overlapped with the first group, beginning about 1620 and lasting to roughly mid-century. The third cohort of bishops were those who began their episcopal careers during the years 1650-69. Their involvement in reform began in the early 16505 and their influence stretched into the eighteenth century. Because their activity extended over so many years and their numbers were relatively small, the bishops who began their episcopal careers from 1630 to 1649 and from 1670 to 1689 were never predominant.42 Comparison of the duration of the reforming activity of the 350 episcopal reformers of the years 1590-1689 with that of the reformers of the preceding and following 100 years is instructive. The average length of known reforming activity of the reformers of 1590-1689 was almost double that of their predecessors in the previous century. When the 146 leading

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

119

reformers are considered, their reforming careers were three times as long. The leading episcopal reformers who received their papal provisions after 1689 had significantly shorter reforming careers.43 The singularity of the period 1590-1689 is made even clearer when the 146 bishops whom we rank as either "very active" or "more active" are considered as a group. They were active in 78 per cent of French dioceses spread over all the ecclesiastical provinces. Almost all of them (94%) conducted visits personally and most (84%) promulgated synodal statutes and 78 per cent did both. A significant minority (24%) issued plan methodique statutes and 36 per cent of them were the first to promulgate French language statutes, while 11 per cent promulgated both. These percentages are far above those achieved by the most active reforming bishops of the preceding and following hundred-year periods. Further evidence of the decline in intensity of episcopal reforming activity during the eighteenth century is found when the bishops who were very active and more active during the two hundred years between 1590 and 1789 are considered as a group. Of the fifty bishops in the very active group, 68 per cent received their papal provisions before 1690; while 55 per cent of the bishops in the more active group received their papal provisions after 1689.44 What we learn from all these figures is that, despite whatever remains hidden because of missing records or incomplete measurements, what the bishops of the First Catholic Reformation started, the bishops of the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation perfected and applied throughout France, between 1590 and 1689, especially during the years 1640-80. As the most active reforming bishops of the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation died, they were replaced by bishops who were active, but less so, and in a way that became progressively less reliant on synodal statutes, especially revised and updated ones, and more reliant on what could be described as routine visitation. Joseph Bergin has shown in great detail how during the years between 1589 and 1661, because of changes in royal appointment, policies, the office of bishop became much less open to venality and the bishops were better and better educated and more prepared for their office. The new approach bore fruit until the early eighteenth century, but then something happened to the reforming spirit that will be discussed in chapter 5.45 EPISCOPAL ACTIVITY AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE

Before turning to the content of the statutes and visits to learn more about the nature of the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation, there is one more topic connected with the bishops themselves that should be discussed.

12O

Six Hundred Years of Reform

More can be said about the bishops appointed between 1589 and 1661 than those in any other period covered in this book because of the work of Joseph Bergin. The following paragraphs are based on our analysis of the information in his two books, especially in their biographical dictionaries.46 The most general statement that can be made about the differences between the active and inactive bishops who took office between the years 1589 and 1661 is that more of the active than the inactive bishops were appointed after 1625, tne midpoint of the period.47 The inertia of the early appointees was, perhaps, due to the fact that in the first part of his reign Henry IV had to deal with League appointments and various claims from those offering him needed support.48 There has been much debate about the Henry IV's motivation in making appointments, especially after 1598. As with his foreign policy, however, no one can prove what his motivations were because he left no record of his reasoning. One theory is that he had at first rewarded his followers and then reverted to the appointment policies of his predecessors. Another is that he was trying to win support from all sectors of society and, as a result, appointed an untypically higher percentage of commoners and newer nobles. He may have been looking for reformers and so chose bishops from the same group from which his government officials came, or he may have been making necessary compromises with families with strong local power bases. Given Henry's situation, personality, and general policies, he was most likely trying to do all of these things at once.49 Episcopal appointment policies varied significantly between the death of Henry IV in 1610 and the death of Cardinal Mazarin in 1661. The major point here, however, is that influential clerics, especially bishops who had been influenced by the Council of Trent, Cardinal Borromeo, Vincent de Paul, Jean-Jacques Olier, and others, slowly convinced leading government officials that bishops, no matter what their origins, should be well-educated, especially in theology or canon law, should have spent time in a seminary, should be ordained, and should have had significant experience within the ecclesiastical bureaucracy.^0 Over the period 1589-1661 the appointment of bishops who became active reformers were more numerous than were appointments of bishops who are not known to have been active. The years of the ascendancy of Cardinal Mazarin (1643-61) were those when the appointment of bishops who would become active was most pronounced. This is not surprising, given the evidence presented in this chapter about patterns of episcopal appointment and Bergin's conclusion that standards for episcopal appointments were tightened during those years. The underaged non-cleric in possession of a sinecure disappeared. Nevertheless, 71 per cent of the inactive bishops appointed between 1662 and 1715 began their Episcopal careers between 1692 and 1715.51

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation 121

121

When looking at the tenure of bishops, it is clear that active bishops generally held episcopal office longer than inactive bishops. On average the active bishops of the years 1589-1661 held episcopal office for about twelve years longer than inactive bishops (twenty-seven years vs fifteen years). A natural assumption would be that inactive bishops became bishops later in life. In fact, the average age at appointment of both categories of bishop over the seventy-three-year period was almost the same (30 for the active, 30.5 for the inactive), with a lower average age before 1630 than after that date. Though a longer episcopate provided more time in which to be active, fifteen years would not be considered an unreasonable period in which to carry out at least one visit or to promulgate one set of statutes.52 Social origin is a more vexing question. Bergin states that during the years 1589-1661 63 per cent of French bishops came from noble families and 27 per cent had commoner origins, while 6 per cent were of foreign origin and the background of 4 per cent is unknown. If the foreign and unknown bishops are ignored then it can be said that 70 per cent of the bishops were nobles and 30 per cent were commoners. For the years 16621715, 78 per cent of the bishops were nobles and 17 per cent were commoners, while the origins of 4 per cent was unknown or uncertain. The percentages of nobles and commoners changed significantly over time, moving from the pattern of concentration on appointment of men from noble families which had held sway throughout the sixteenth century and earlier, to the anomalous higher proportion of commoner bishops during the reigns of Henry IV and Louis XIII.53 The percentage of noble appointees was substantially higher in the period 1641-61 than it had been under Henry IV, and the proportion of commoners would continue to fall until the French Revolution. Despite oscillation over time, the majority of noble bishops came from older noble families (as defined by Bergin) throughout the period.54 Henry IV and Louis XIII appointed a far higher percentage of both commoner bishops and "not really old" noble bishops than did any of their predecessors in the sixteenth century or any of their successors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. This pattern and the additional fact that a significant number of the latter group of appointees had fathers who were employed in some form of governmental administrative work suggests the possibility of a plan on the part of the two kings and/or their ministers. This will be discussed further at the end of this section.55 A twenty-first century historian would be foolish to attempt to rank in an absolute manner the multitude of claims to status (qualite) that each individual with ambition possessed in early modern France. Even knowledgeable people at the time continually challenged each other's pedigrees. Though historians have been able to determine broad categories of equivalent qualite, attempts to distinguish between "old" and "other" noble families (more

122

Six Hundred Years of Reform

or less recently enobled), has produced more heat than light. Additionally, the words "noble and commoner" or "second and third estate" by themselves are not truly helpful, given their vagueness and the political preparation required of families wishing to establish offspring in episcopal careers. It is perhaps better to say that most bishops came from "notable" origins and that their families and/or patrons had some sort of claim to nobility or special service to the king or his government.56 Bergins's short biographies of the bishops of 1589-1715 often do not allow one to determine the precise social status he assigned to an individual bishop when he prepared his tables. Further, while it is certain that both the number of active bishops and the number of "noble" bishops grew over time during the seventeenth century, there is no proof that one of these trends was a cause and the other an effect. With these caveats in mind it seems that the years 1589-1661 active bishops were somewhat more likely than their inactive colleagues to come from families with claims to noble status and from families that had been unquestionably noble for many generations, while more inactive than active bishops came from solidly bourgeois families with no serious claim to nobility. For the years 1662-1715 the proportions were similar except that percentages of nobles in general and older nobles in particular among the active bishops had risen significantly, while the percentages of commoners had fallen proportionally. Enough is known about the social status of the bishops appointed between 1589 and 1715 who ranked in our highest reforming category to permit more precision that that provided in the preceding paragraph. Of the forty men in the "very active" category, 40 per cent were from the older nobility, 40 per cent were from the newer nobility, 15 per cent were commoners, and 5 per cent were foreigners. Only one of the six commoners was appointed after 1653. The two foreigners were appointed between 1647 and 1655. The appointment dates of the newer nobles were spread evenly over the reigns of Louis XIII and XIV. Most of the older nobles were appointed during the reign of Louis XIII and between 1664 and 1711. Bergin's biographies permit more precision when discussing the formative years of future bishops. During the years 1589-1661 active bishops were more likely than inactive ones to hold degrees (81 per cent vs 73 per cent) and less likely to be members of a religious order (9 per cent vs 16 per cent). Both sets of bishops included more holders of law degrees than theology degrees, probably because the former were easier to obtain. More active bishops that inactive ones held doctorates, but Bergin has shown how family wealth, as well as the place where, and time in career when, the degree was obtained skew these data. During the years 1662-1715, 97 per cent of the active and 98 per cent of the inactive bishops had degrees, while almost none of the bishops was a member of a religious order. In contrast to the years 1598-1661, 81 per cent of all bishops, active and inactive, had theology degrees and a majority had doctorates.

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

123

The unusually large number of commoner bishops during the reigns of Henry IV and Louis XIII, but not later, can be partially explained by the practice of families with close connections to the royal family using place holders; a practice that disappeared as the second phase of the Catholic Reformation gained strength. Another factor, especially during the early years of Henry IV, may have been that of rewarding followers and choosing loyal supporters. What else is involved is not certain, especially during the 16305 when the percentage of commoner bishops rose significantly. But it can be said with confidence that bishops who were the most serious reformers very often came from newer noble families which had significant administrative experience. As seen in chapter 3, this pattern dates back to the 14805. During Louis XIV's reign a growing number of bishops came to offive with administrative experience, but now it was more often experience as an ecclesiastical bureaucrat combined with university education and a degree the counted. This preference would become more pronounced in the eighteenth century. There is no reason to believe that this was an accident rather than a matter of choice by those who chose bishops. When the choosers wanted reform they tended to choose welleducated individuals with administrative experience or background. At first these qualites were most often found among the newer nobles, though a smaller but significant number of commoner clerics fit the pattern, especially during the 16305. As older noble families came to realize that the ecclesiastical world had changed and adapted to it, more and more of their sons were chosen as bishops. Unfortunately, as will be seen in chapter 5, during the course of the eighteenth century, noble, seminary-educated, and administratively trained bishops would lose contact with the realities of life as lived by the laity to the serious detriment of the centuries-old episcopal reform process. Whatever a bishop's origins, education, or experience, once he was in office the choice to be or not to be an active reformer was his to make. Nevertheless, health and time of death (and therefore length of episcopal career) must have had a significant influence, as would religious sensibility and concept of the nature of the office of bishop (a vocation or a means of acquiring or solidifying claims to status). Some insight into the reasons for the choices that were made can be found in the synodal statutes the reforming bishops promulgated and the questions they asked during their pastoral visits. In addition, analysis of the contents of the statutes and visit questions reveals much about the nature and development of the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation. T H E P R O G R A M OF T H E S E C O N D C A T H O L I C R E F O R M A T I O N — THE

E V I D E N C E OF THE

SYNODAL

S T A T U T E S OF 1590-1689

There is less evidence of reform activity in the ecclesiastical province of Auch than in any other French province throughout the first phase of the

124

Six Hundred Years of Reform

Second Catholic Reformation. Nevertheless, even there reform was stirring. The only known synodal statutes promulgated in all eleven dioceses of the province during the years 1590-1609 were those of Dax in 1600 and Comminges in 1608. Only the statutes of Bishop Jean-Jacques Du Sault of Dax are extant. He promulgated them after having conducted a visit of his diocese for which, unfortunately, no records remain. There are only five statutes spread over fifteen pages, but they were definitely in the spirit of the Catholic Reform. Four were straightforward, calling for residence of cures, use of the breviaries approved by the Council of Trent, adoption of the rules of Trent on marriage, and better management of the financial resources of parishes. The other was a heartfelt statement of the regret the bishop felt at the scandal priests were causing in the diocese. He demanded that within eight days all clerics "cogedier et reiecter toutes femmes mal nominees"; stay away from any place that might lead to sins of the flesh; and foreswear cabarets, drunkenness, dance and games, and wear their tonsure and cassock.57 The years 1590-1609 saw the start of a development in the subject matter of synodal statutes that lasted throughout the seventeenth century. The change from medieval to early modern statutes had been a slow process that stretched over the sixteenth century. Some medieval concerns still remained in the seventeenth century and the medieval choice and arrangement of topics showed up as late as 1664 in Orleans. Latin still hung on here and there; again Orleans in 1664 is an example. Usually, however, the arrival of the Second Catholic Reformation in a diocese was announced not only by references to the Council of Trent, but by a sudden switch to a new outline that put concerns about clerical conduct and performance first, ahead of the traditional topics such as synod ceremonial, followed by a lengthy discussion of the sacraments. Many of the concerns of the reforming bishops of the First Catholic Reformation were still present; the others were largely the result of the influence of the Council of Trent and Cardinals Borromeo and Bellarmine. In his statutes of 1640, Bishop Solminihac of Cahors made explicit what was implicit in many others, stating that they were summaries of Trent and Borromeo.58 The switch in topics in the synodal statutes not only came relatively quickly, it was also all-encompassing. There was a reform program and that program was modelled on the Council of Trent. Therefore there is much less diversity in the synodal statutes of the Second Catholic Reformation than there had been in those of the First Catholic Reformation. For that reason it does not take long to describe the promulgated synodal statutes of the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation. One still finds discussion of the sacraments and mass, but the old concern for accidents, such as spiders falling into the chalice during mass, had now almost completely disappeared. The widespread medieval worry that

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

125

sacred objects, such as blessed water and oils, might be stolen by sorcerers was also gone, but in its place was significantly more concern than had been shown in the sixteenth century about aspects of peasant religious practice that were now considered superstitious. There was a growing concern with cleanliness in the churches and protection of cemeteries from profanation by animals and revellers. Statues were to meet new standards of decency. Decency meant both no nudity and a depiction of the saint that respected what bishops like Sebastien Zamet of Langres called the saint's "dignity." Good records of all types were to be kept. Prohibition of clandestine marriages, of some concern before, was now emphasized. The items mentioned during the First Catholic Reformation, such as fitting sacred vessels and vestments, sacred art, walled cemeteries, and paschal duty, received more and more emphasis. The outline and content of the synodal statutes of the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation leave no doubt that this was a reformation directed by bishops whose duty it was to reform parish priests, who in turn were responsible for reforming parishioners. There was a growing concern that priests be trained in seminaries and that they live separately from the people, especially from women who could in any way be a temptation or a cause for scandal. In the first thirty or so years of the seventeenth century, the fight against the concubines of priests was particularly intense. An example of the struggle to reform priests at its fiercest is found in the synodal statutes of the diocese of Gap published in 1620 by Bishop Charles Salomon Du Serre, one of the "very active" reformers, though he came relatively late to orders and, perhaps, only because of the certainty of episcopal preferment. His statutes carried an unusual title: L'Edifice episcopal basti sur les sept colomnes des Sacremens de I'Eglise. The statutes are preceded by an introduction tided "Remonstrance to the clerics of our diocese to encourage them to understand their duties and exercise them with dignity" in which Bishop Du Serre, despite calling his priests "mes bien aymes" stated bluntly that "most priests are so ignorant and full of vice that they do not know, nor instruct, nor edify, nor say, nor do almost anything which corresponds to the obligations of their great and important duties." Further, Bishop Du Serre was having his statutes printed so that "none of you can any longer pretend to have any reason for not knowing those things which concern the leading of your flock and the actions of an exemplary life worthy of the rank which you hold in God's church, sublime in doctrine and truth." Du Serre provided a short summary of the duties of priests that would have been subscribed to by all the bishops of the Second Catholic Reformation when he set out the purpose of the statutes: You will learn how to keep your eyes open and on your flock to save them from the mouths of wolves, to instruct them in the law of God, to administer the sacraments

is6

Six Hundred Years of Reform

to them, to visit the sick, console the afflicted, correct sinners, punish the incorrigible and guide both the good and the bad to eternal salvation ... You will also verify what is forbidden to you: frequenting taverns or gambling places, the company of women and other debauched people who corrupt morals and give scandal to the weak ..."

Du Serre ended the preface by calling on all priests of his diocese to help him build "mon Edifice Episcopal, ou Pastoral" because he needed the help of the workers "whom it has pleased God to give me for the execution of the holy enterprise which the Prince of Pastors, Jesus Christ, has planned and started in the world to be brought to its final perfection by us, under His direction."59 In the statutes themselves Du Serre carried out the theme of building his edifice. A very elaborate creed that specifically mentioned beliefs denied by Protestants was presented as the foundation of the building. (Members of the bishop's extended family were Protestants, as he may have been at one time). The creed was to be recited by anyone who exercised any church office and its elements were to be taught to the people in sermons. The sacraments, which were discussed in detail, were the columns referred to in the title of the statutes. Du Serre made it clear that a pastor was to concentrate on saying mass, hearing confessions, preaching, teaching the catechism of Cardinal Bellarmine, and trying to prevent scandalous conduct by anyone who could influence his parishioners. Blasphemers, those who had concubines, usurers, those who did not observe Sundays and holy days, and drunkards were among those singled out for correction The duty of the laity was to attend church services, receive the sacraments and learn and benefit from all of these priestly activities. Priests, however, had additional duties. They were to continue their education by attending synods. In addition, they were to dress suitably; not engage in business; and avoid anything that could give scandal, especially through associating with women. Du Serre went further than other bishops, forbidding priests to have any female servants, no matter their age or relationship to the priest.60 Throughout the seventeenth century, synodal statutes were directed primarily toward the conduct and duties of priests, rather than toward their instruction in doctrine which had been a primary concern in the Middle Ages and had continued into the sixteenth century. As noted above, the duty of the laity was to attend mass, receive the sacraments, pray, listen, and learn. There were four other aspects of their lives that appear in the statutes. The first was adherence to marriage regulations, especially those forbidding clandestine marriages. The second was a concern that support be provided for the parish clergy, though priests were to make sure that the laity did not think they were paying for the reception of the sacraments. The third was

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

127

an admonition against drinking and gambling in taverns, especially while church services were in progress. The fourth concern - a determination to root out what were considered the pagan aspects of peasant life - was the most widespread. Diviners, magicians, and sorcerers, especially those who prevented the consummation of marriage, were to be driven out. Beliefs that certain days were better for marriage and that certain words were magic were to be debunked. Processions were to be regulated, especially those that involved sleeping in the fields away from home. Cures were to make sure that drinking and debauched dancing did not take place on holy days. Churches and cemeteries were not to be used for public celebrations. Bell ringing was to be strictly regulated, especially during the night between All Saints and All Souls Days.61 The evidence of the synodal statutes suggests that the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation got underway in many, if not most, dioceses at some point between the late 15905 and the mid-i63os. In a few dioceses the Catholic Reform truly took a long time to arrive. Probably the last was the diocese of Viviers in the province of Vienne. In 1734, after ten years as bishop, Francois de Villeneuve issued a set of statutes much like those promulgated elsewhere in the 15905. They were only partly in the spirit of the Second Catholic Reformation, with various medieval elements still present. Villeneuve said in the introduction to his statutes that his predecessors had been too busy fighting Calvinism to do much else. It is evident from the 1734 statutes that Bishop Villeneuve was still worried about Calvinists, though now they took the form of forced converts to Catholicism.62 The 1620 Gap statutes are an example, though somewhat extreme, of the statutes of the years 1610-29. There were variations over time in the list of reforms advocated by French bishops (especially the addition of the requirement that priests attend regularly scheduled conferences to study various pastoral problems) and at any given time there were distinct differences among dioceses in the arrangement of statutes, but there were no striking regional variations such as existed in the Middle Ages when different models were followed in different parts of France. In fact, the farther one goes into the seventeenth century the more complete and uniform the statutes become across the whole country.63 As seen earlier, the years 1630-49 saw a temporary pause in the development of the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation. The rate of increase in promulgations slowed down, but the level reached was higher than in any preceding twenty-year period and any period after 1709. This was also the first of four consecutive twenty-year periods during which there were promulgations in all sixteen French ecclesiastical provinces. A characteristic of the years 1030-49 was the promulgation of statutes that built on the work of past synods and fine-tuned them to address problems

128

Six Hundred Years of Reform

that had been overlooked to date. The statutes of the diocese of Cahors promulgated in 1638 and 1640 are good examples of this characteristic. Bishop Alain de Solminihac covered almost every imaginable topic in the 188 pages of text of the first and the 396 pages of the second. As was the case with many bishops, he based his new regulations on what he had learned while carrying out pastoral visits. In his efforts to close every loophole, the bishop devised one of the most carefully worded prohibitions on clerics living with women in the 1638 edition: "making very explicit inhibition and prohibition against [clerics] having in their homes any woman of any age, condition, or qualite that might be, either relatives or others, without our permission obtained in writing." It is doubtful that many such permissions were granted.64 The statutes of Perigueux of 1649 are an excellent example of the fully developed synodal statutes of the mid-seventeenth century. Bishop Philibert de Brandon covered all of the traditional topics such as the nature and administration of sacraments, care of the altar and church, clerical residence and dress, along with the newer concerns such as preaching and ecclesiastical conferences. He also gave one of the best short descriptions of the purpose of synods: [Synods exist to] unite in the same spirit and comfort those who do not have as much light or courage as they have good will; to revive the spirit which sleeps in our holy militia and to repress the licence of those who unworthily occupy the place of ministers of God, to make some rules as did the holy fathers and those who preceded us in our post.65

Though Bishop Brandon, like most bishops, explicitly forbade his clerics to have women, except those over fifty or who were close relatives, in their houses, he showed much more sympathy and understanding of the human problems involved than did any other bishop of his time whose statutes have survived. Bishop Francois Malier du Houssay of Troyes, in his statutes of 1647, showed perhaps the least sympathy among his episcopal colleagues, stating that any priest who had "lived and sinned" with a woman should immediately send her away, whatever her age, along with any children they had "in order to remove from his eyes all traces of his past incontinence." The reason for this severity may be that the situation of priests living with women was particularly prevalent in the diocese. The local cahiers prepared in the area around Troyes for the Estates General of 1614 definitely give that impression.66 In his statutes for the diocese of Chalons-sur-Saone in 1700, Bishop Henri Felix de Tassy provided an extreme but possible solution for priests who had a long-time relationship with a woman. "If you are living with a woman," he said, "resign your benefice." However, those who wished to re-

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

129

tain their parish (and livelihood) were told that they had to get rid of the women and send their illegitimate children out of the parish. If a priest tried to get around the problem by setting up separate quarters for the woman with whom he had been living and maintaining a relationship with her, he was reminded that anyone who had a concubine was automatically excommunicated. The years 1650-89 mark the high point of promulgation activity. The evidence from the texts of the statutes is that a number of bishops realized that their efforts at reform to date had not really taken hold. This realization seems to have produced redoubled effort.67 Between 1650 and 1689 there were 321 known synodal statute promulgations - over half of all the promulgations of the first phase of the Catholic Reformation and 18 per cent of the total for the years 1190-1789. Eleven of the sixteen provinces had an above-average promulgation rate in one or both of the two twenty-years periods involved.68 Two examples of the differing approaches taken in the synodal statutes promulgated during the years 1650-69 are those of Saintes of 1651 and Bayeux of 1662. The emphasis of Bishop Bassompierre of Saintes was on trying to beat down the resistance of those who were "wilfully" misinterpreting existing synodal statutes. His method was to republish the statutes of 1618 and 1635 and to add new ones, all backed by a series of ipso facto suspensions for those who ignored them. Bishop Francois de Nesmond of Bayeux, who was by far the more active reformer of the two, dealt with the problem by opening his statutes with a discussion of clerical "modestie" (grooming, dress, and inadmissible occupations and activities) and then moving on to a considered presentation of pastoral duties, concluding with very careful instructions for hearing confessions. In their efforts to make the Catholic Reformation work, a number of bishops from the late 166os onward recommended that their priests read the pastoral work of Charles Borromeo. Some even attached his instructions for cures to their statutes, as some bishops had attached the pastoral works of Jean Gerson to their statutes during the sixteenth century.69 Despite the influence of Trent, the pattern of reform was not the same everywhere in France. The case of Bishop Villeneuve of Viviers was mentioned earlier. Bishop Pavilion of Alet, in the province of Narbonne, well known for his partiality to Jansenism, described in the introduction to his statutes of 1670 how he had been working since 1640 to bring reform to his diocese. When he issued a new edition in 1674 he felt confident enough to relax his rule on clerics and women. He had previously forbidden priests to have any women in their houses. He now adopted a variation of the rule that was common in France and allowed close relatives who were female, especially those over fifty, to live with priests.

130

Six Hundred Years of Reform

The statutes of the 16705 and '8os were marked by their fullness and the attention paid to all aspects of life, especially that of the clergy. The fullest expressions of this tendency were the compilations of all known statutes published for the diocese of Angers (1680) and for the diocese of Bordeaux (1686). In the 937 pages of the Angers compilation, synods are presented chronologically, followed by a detailed index to enable searching by topic. The Bordeaux collection has 512 pages of statutes arranged by topic, followed by a short index.70 Not only was there great detail in the statutes of 1670-89, the bishops often gloried in providing it. In his statutes of 1675, Bishop Nicholas de Valavoire of Riez began with the following words: If the multitude of laws is a sure proof of the care and exactitude of the legislator who gives them, it is also sometimes a humiliation for those who receive them and are subject to the legitimate authority which the laws proclaim because they make known that a law, however holy, is not able by itself to control them, but that it takes many to destroy the blind jealousy that they have for their own liberty and often, unhappily, leads them to throw off or detest the yoke of the Lord.71

Bishop Valavoire goes on to assure his priests that he is promulgating so many statutes because he has "an indispensable obligation to make ecclesiastical discipline reign in our diocese" and that they should see the statutes as "rules to aid you in carrying out the functions of your sacred ministry rather than a yoke or a new servitude." Among the bishop's rules were the usual strict regulations prohibiting clerics from having a woman working for them or living in their house who was less than fifty years old (and, he added, had not lived with or worked for them when younger), except for close relatives with good reputations. He also added what was, perhaps, the first statute in France that forbade clerics to smoke tobacco or play tennis or boules (though the prohibitions applied only when the activities took place in public). The bishops of France during the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation were aware of and protective of their qualite in both the church and secular society. Most of them held multiple benefices with the care of souls attached, even though they were well aware that this was strictly forbidden by the Council of Trent; it was just something that was done. At the same time 73 per cent of them were active reformers who were very serious, indeed, about reforming their priests so that these priests could instruct the people and convince (or push) them to live good lives. As Bishop Valavoire said, it was God's mercy that made him bishop and it was now his duty to do everything he could to establish ecclesiastical discipline. Promulgation of synodal statutes was one means of carrying out a bishop's sacred duty; pastoral visitation was another.72

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

131

THE PROGRAM OF THE SECOND CATHOLIC REFORMATION - THE EVIDENCE OF THE PASTORAL V I S I T S , 1590-1689

There are 2,876 pastoral visit records available for the years 1590-1689, far more than for the preceding hundred years, and information from more than three-quarters of them is readily available. Although it is impossible to say how many pastoral visit records have disappeared, this record base is large enough to permit the extraction of valuable information about the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation.73 In addition to looking at the more general topics revealed by the categories and subcategories of the CNRS grid, we will search out the distinctive and specific concerns of the pastoral visitors, using a set of 118 questions at the sub-subcategory level that were most representative of reformers' preoccupations during the period. As seen in tables 4.1 a and 4. ib, even the most general survey provides evidence that the years 1590-1689 were the first phase of something new - the Second Catholic Reformation. A greater proportion of visit records contain more questions on a wider range of subjects than in the past. Overall, visitors continued to show a lively interest in the parish clergy and increased the level of questioning across France in a variety of areas: parish annexes and finances, teaching and social services, religious practice, the context of the visit, and the moral state of the parishioners. Only the lives of members religious orders seem to have been of less interest than previously. In the matter of dissidents and non-Catholics, visitors were almost exclusively interested in Calvinism, although that interest varied greatly according to period. The moments of greatest concern were the years immediately after the proclamation of the Edict of Nantes in 1598 and after its revocation in 1685. This concern did not last long and during the eighteenth century pastoral visitors were equally uninterested in members of religious orders as well as dissidents of all sorts. This oversight was one of a series of serious mistakes made by the leaders of the French Catholic Church during the century before the French Revolution of 1789. The more detailed list of questions at the subcategory level reveals visitors' interests more precisely. During the years 1590-1689 there was a strong interest in the state of the parish church building; its altars, tabernacle, baptismal fount, holy oils, ornaments, and vessels - an interest surpassing that of the sixteenth century. Questions about the identity of the cure remained importnt, but the other clerics of the parish elicited less and less interest as time went on. Cemeteries remained a concern. It was particularly important to visitors that they be well fenced so that the sacred space not be profaned by pasturing livestock, markets, or dances. This concern

132

Six Hundred Years of Reform

would grow in the eighteenth century. Parish finances and their management maintained an unevenly growing interest among visitors.74 Studying pastoral visits at the sub-subcategory level makes it abundantly clear that most pastoral visits were first and foremost visits by church authorities to a functioning parish and that the authorities were generally in agreement that it was their duty to inspect, ask questions about, and comment on what in today's jargon would be called the physical plant and human resources. In the opinion of the church authorities, then and now, there had to be a church building in good repair, supplied with clerics and suitably furnished with what was needed to carry out the religious ceremonies that constituted the life of the parish.75 The basic questions remained constant. Four aspects changed over time. The first was the relative emphasis placed on some aspects of the building and equipment, depending on what was considered most important at different times, be it the lock on the baptismal font in the Middle Ages or the confessional in the seventeenth century. The second aspect that changed was the level and extent of concern for the lives of the parish clergy. Presence in the parish was always important, but concern about morality, pastoral zeal, and intellectual preparation varied. The third aspect was parish finances. In the late Middle Ages protection of church goods from the encroachment of secular authorities was a serious issue. Later, administration of parish finances became a focus of visitors' questions. The final aspect was the life of the laity, the parishioners. In the Middle Ages they were simply assumed to be there and in need of instruction in the basics of the faith. Over the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there was a growing interest in more advanced teaching of the laity through catechism and in management of many aspects of the lives of parishioners. Because some matters were constant concerns, the proces-verbaux of the visits have a high percentage of questions dealing with them. The level of interest in the other concerns varied according to time, place, and type of visitor, with the result that the level of interest in them seems much lower than that directed toward the basics. That is not the case. It is in comparing the "other" concerns that one finds the changes that distinguish one period from another.76 One characteristic of the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation that needs to be stated clearly is that a study of the sub-subcategories makes it abundantly clear that the number of the 309 potential questions asked grew from period to period.77 Nevertheless, thirteen of the 309 questions devised by the CNRS equipe were not asked in any of the coded pastoral visits of the years 1590-1689. There were no questions about general clerical doctrinal tendencies, clerical quietism, the morals of the community as judged by persons other than the visitor or the clergy, excommunication for debts, lay Jansenism, quietism and Gallicanism, Jews, or interrogation or repression of Huguenots.

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

133

Questions about clerical and religious Jansenism have been found in only two instances during the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation. Only one visitor is known to have asked about vocations to the priesthood and one about schools of theology for priests. From the 16305 onward there were a growing number of questions about midwives and a few about doctors, but the first known questions about wet nurses came only in the 16705 and '8os. There would continue to be a few in each twenty-year period until the French Revolution. In order to map the extent in time and space of something so ethereal as the reforming impulse we must define the substance of this spirit and then follow it. A reasonable way to remain faithful to the spirit of the Second Catholic Reformation is to seek the topics agreed upon by historians as "Catholic Reformation" interests and combine these with a set of reform questions most characteristic of a representative group of twenty reforming bishops. When the duplications in the two lists are combined the result is a set of 118 "reform" questions.78 Graph 4.4 and table 4.2 present the provincial patterns of use of the 118 questions by measuring the percent of the total possible questions asked (all 118 questions in all coded visits equals 100 per cent). When we tune out the "static" created by the routine questions asked by most visitors, the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation acquires a distinct, though complex, character. While there is no regional pattern, there are provincial emphases, as well as favourite questions asked by different types of visitors, and questions that tend to appear in combination.79 Thirty-eight percent of visitors who asked at least one of the 118 reform questions asked about some aspect of clerical morality. Forty-two percent of the same group inquired about one or more aspects of pastoral zeal. Most impressively, 62 per cent of these visitors asked about some aspect of the parish cemetery. The status of the questioner affected the selection of questions. Bishops, their delegates, canons (and their representatives), and other visitors (usually local diocesan administrators), while sharing major concerns about the parish, tended also to emphasize distinctive areas of inquiry. Usually, bishops were more concerned about authority, parish management, the control of popular beliefs, and their own dignity and comfort. Both delegates and bishops were concerned that parishes function effectively and that outlying settlements not escape authority. Delegates had more concern about the life of the laity than did the bishops who sent them (except for the question of superstition), but not as much as did the "others" and, especially, the canons and their representatives. "Others" and canons also showed more concern for the lives and actions of the parish clergy. However, there was a subset of bishops who had a broad set of concerns for parish life.80

134

Six Hundred Years of Reform

While many of the pastoral visit questions are found in all periods, there is a mixture that is specific to the seventeenth century. Included among the 118 questions were those about registration of births, deaths and marriages, reliquaries, pulpits, seating boxes, statues and paintings, cemeteries, annexed churches, chapels, the moral and pastoral zeal of the parish clergy, Easter communion, and confraternities. In other words, the visitors involved wanted to make sure that the parish church had the essential equipment; that proper records were kept of the faithful, no matter where they lived, so that their lives could be monitored; that they were properly taught by worthy and energetic priests, were not tempted by superstitions connected with the saints, and did not get involved in "false" devotions and lewd celebrations in their organizations.81 All visitors were also least interested in the same questions (even though they are often of great interest to twenty-first century historians): the intellectual preparation of priests, pilgrimages, the teaching of catechism, wet nurses, youth societies, adultery, fasting, and abstinence. Though it appeared in only 11 per cent of the visits that contained one or more of the 118 reform topics, concern about superstition among the laity was a sign that the visitor had an interest in a thorough reform of the local church. Evidence for this statement is provided by both the type and the larger number of questions that these visitors asked. This sub-subcategory appeared in every province except Embrun, but outside Bordeaux and Toulouse rarely before mid-century. As seen above, bishops were more likely to ask this question than were other visitors.82 The questions most likely to appear in visits along with a question about lay superstition concerned sorcery and demonic possession, lay concubines, loose living in general, taverns, games, midwives, confraternities, catechism, preaching, statutes and paintings in the church, parish masses, cemetery enclosures, annexed churches, and the canonical condition of the parish clergy, along with pastoral zeal and morality. All in all, concern with superstition was a sign of the first phase of the Second Catholic Reformation in its fullest development, bent on imposing Tridentine Catholicism. Tables MA i8b-i 8c, in appendix 5, show that visitors individual questions vary greatly in both number and topic. Yet, when these questions are grouped together the differences are few. The northern provinces showed the least interest in the parish church and its furnishings. The greatest interest in this subject was found in provinces from the South and Centre, especially Bordeaux, Aries, Auch, Embrun, and Narbonne. A greater interest in the moral state of the laity was found in the North (except in the province of Reims), while concern with teaching and social services appeared more frequently in the South. Southern visitors asked fewer questions about the religious life of parishioners.83 Yet, when comparisons are conducted between each province between each province and France, a distinct pattern of similarities and differences

First Phase, Second Catholic Reformation

135

emerges. Table 4.3 presents a set of correlation coefficients that provide a means of comparing the patterns of usage of the 118 questions in each province and in all of France.84 Visitors in ten of the sixteen provinces asked questions in a pattern that generally correlated with the national pattern, while three others (Bordeaux and Bourges in the Centre and Paris in the North) came close. The patterns of Rouen in the North and Auch and Toulouse in the South were the only ones that showed no significant correlation with the national pattern or, as will be seen below, with any other province.85 Map 4.8 provides a picture of the correlations at the provincial level. The most striking aspect of the pattern revealed in this map is that the correlations connect nine provinces in eastern France and almost completely exclude the other seven provinces. The only eastern provinces whose pattern of questioning correlates with a western province are Sens and Narbonne. The pattern of questioning in Sens (which itself had only weak links with the rest of the East) correlates strongly with Paris and weakly with Bourges and Tours. Narbonne's pattern of questioning has a weak correlation with that in Bordeaux. The strongest correlations are found among seven provinces. They form a reversed L-shaped area in southeastern France, running from Lyon south to the Mediterranean and then west to Albi. The province of Aries provides the link between the two clusters of provinces that made up this group of seven. Aries' questioning pattern correlates strongly with those of Embrun and Vienne. Embrun's pattern, in turn, correlates strongly with Aix, while Vienne's does the same with Albi and Narbonne and Narbonne's pattern correlates strongly with that of Lyon. Within the group of seven, four provinces have more than one link. These are Aries, Embrun, Narbonne, and Vienne. These four provinces formed the core of the eastern pattern of visits, but none of them was the originating province of this pattern. When correlations are sought on a period-by-period basis and are compared with the correlations for 1490-1589 and 1690-1789 it becomes apparent that there were no significant correlations among question patterns during the First Catholic Reformation. The similarity in the pattern of pastoral visit questions among provinces began during the years 1610-29 an 560-6; 4) the promulgation in Reims (1393), Chalons-sur-Marne (1393), and Soissons (1403) all in Gousset, Actes, 2: 612-14, 614—17, 624—38; 5) Langres (1404) in Statuta synodalia edita et restituta et mandato D.D. Claudii deLongui. (Langres, 1556), 6) Troyes (1374) inLalore, Ancienneet nouvette discipline, 2: 11-169; 7) Vence (1382) in AD Alpes-Maritimes G 1285. 61 See appendix 2 B for promulgations along the borders of France. See appendix i B for the ten-year periods. 62 See the statutes of Metz of 1355 and 1356 in Sauerland, Vatikanische Urkunden, 139-44, 152~6, those of Avignon of 1365 and 1366 in Martene, Thesaurus, 4: cols. 571-84, the summary of the statutes of Geneva of 1394 in Binz, La Vie religieuse, 162-7, *74 and the extracts from the synods of Cambrai (1359) and Arras (1355 and 1375) in Gousset, Actes, 3: 87, 341-3. 63 Aimon de Chisse's visits asked questions that fall into all ten of the CNRS categories. The increase in pastoral visits per year was from .91 to 1.10. The decrease in coded visits was from 56 per cent to 47 per cent. For Jean II see the previous section. For the pastoral visits of Grenoble in the fourteenth century see Cheney, "The Diocese of Grenoble," 162-77 and Chevalier, Visites pastorales.

Notes to pages 50-1

521

64 During the years 1350-1409 there was an increase in percentage of questions asked in six of the ten CNRS categories. Categories with decreases were o (context of the visit), i (geographic and human milieu), 4 (clergy) and 5 (religious orders). The most striking increase occurred in category 2 (parish church), followed by categories 3 (church annexes and finances) and 7 (teaching and social services), then 6 (practice of religion) and 9 (dissidents) and, finally, 8 (parish morality) in that order. At the subcategory level (see appendix 3 E) the trend that had begun in the years immediately preceding the Black Death came to fruition. Questions about the parish church (category 2) dominated the visits. The building itself, its altars, ornaments and sacred vessels appeared in 58 per cent of the coded pastoral visits, while liturgical books appeared in 65 per cent and the baptismal font and holy oils figured in 48 per cent of the visits. The only other concerns that approached these matters in frequency were questions about the identity, age and canonical condition of cures and vicars (52%) and members of religious orders (48%). Questions connected with reform that appeared in 30 per cent to 45 per cent of the coded visits concerned hospitals and charities (39%), the morality (35%) and pastoral zeal (32%) of the parish clergy, practice of the sacraments (32%), and relics (35%). When visitors inquired into the state of the parish clergy, the major concerns beyond identity and canonical condition were, in descending order, moral condition, pastoral zeal, material condition, and intellectual condition (the last two both appeared in 23 per cent of visits). At the sub-subcategory level (see appendix 3 F) it is seen that the visitors' exploration of local religious practices varied in emphasis through the years 1350-1410. Baptism and extreme unction took pride of place in the years 1350-69, followed distantly by masses for the dead. During the years 1370-89 inquiries about masses for the dead and Easter communion dominated, followed by questions about confession. The years 1350-69 marked the beginning of interest in hospitals and charities. By the last decade of the fourteenth century, the major concerns were more widely varied and included the parish mass, devotions to the blessed sacrament, other parish devotions, and Easter communion. Questions about masses for the dead, though still a concern, appeared in fewer visits, as did questions about processions, devotions to the Blessed Virgin, feast days, confessions, and devotional confraternities. 65 For the status of male and female members of the first estate see Hayden, "States, Estates and Orders," 51-76. 66 For the background to the religious situation of the last half of the fifteenth century and for a bibliography for further reading see Martin, "Le Legs du MoyenAge," 13-83. 67 The best short descriptions of the problems created in the French church in the fifteenth century by appointments to benefices, especially episcopal sees, remain Renaudet, Prereforme et humanisms, 1-10 and Imbart de la Tour, La France

522

Notes to pages 52-3

Moderne, i: 93-110. Seven bishops stand out for their reforming activity during the years 1410-69. They are Siboud Allemand of Grenoble in the province of Vienne, Jean Leguise and Louis Raguier of Troyes in the province of Sens, Guy Bernard of Langres in the province of Lyon, Jean Coeur of Bourges and Jacques de Comborn of Clermont in the province of Bourges, and Guillaume d'Estouteville of Rouen. For details of the reforming activities of the bishops see appendices 4 A and 461. The methods used to record and rate reforming activity are explained in detail in partj of appendix 5. 68 The first, third, and fourth phases of medieval reform can be compared directly since each is sixty years long. As appendix 2 C shows, when the data is changed from "per period" to "per year" the promulgation rate in both the second and fourth phases was .0164 per year per diocese in France, while the number of dioceses promulgating per year in France was .0045 in the second group of periods and .0046 in the fourth. 69 The differences in promulgations between the two periods become clearer when one looks more closely at them in graph 1.4. During the years 1250-1349 promulgations rose and then held at a high level. There was a rise in promulgations beginning in the first decade of the fifteenth century which continued for another decade, but after thirty years of stability, there was a movement downward in the 14405, upward in the 14505, and then downward through the 14705, after which there was a revival of promulgations that lasted to the midsixteenth century. 70 In considering individual dioceses, the most striking case is that of Aries with fourteen promulgations. Aries had only two promulgations between 1250 and 1409 and would have none between 1470 and 1489. All but three of the fourteen were the work of Archbishop Jean de Brogny, between the years 1411 and 1422. Also standing out is the diocese of Langres in the province of Lyon with eight promulgations between 1421 and 1464. Five of these were the work of Bishop Guy Bernard. There had been three promulgations in the diocese between 1250 and 1349 and only one between 1350 and 1420. In Tours there continued to be a mix of dioceses and many bishops involved in promulgation. Of the twelve dioceses in this province, Saint-Malo, Nantes, and Treguier stood out with between eleven and fourteen promulgations each. The most active bishop in the province was Henri Le Barbu of Nantes who was responsible for fourteen promulgations between 1405 and 1416, but he is not known to have carried out pastoral visits. 71 The description of the contents of the statutes of the years 1410-69 is based on reading eighty-four of the 101 extant statutes from those years (ten others are not extant). The statutes read are all or most of those from the dioceses of Autun, Langres, and Lyon in the province of Lyon; Coutances, Lisieux, and Rouen in the province of Rouen; Angers, Dol, Nantes, Rennes, St-Malo, and Treguier in the province of Tours; Troyes in Sens; Paris; Amiens in Reims; Grenoble in Vienne; Poitiers in the province of Bordeaux; Auch; Beziers in Narbonne;

Notes to pages 53-6

523

Toulouse; Aries; Embrun and Vence in the province of Embrun. See Artonne, Repertoire des statuts synodaux, where sources and locations are given by diocese in chronological order. 72 For Rennes see Travers, Conciliaprovinciae Turonensis, 4: fols. 2ior-2ov. For Dol see AD Ille-et-Vilaine F 415. Treguier is in Martene, Thesaurus, 4: col. 1135. 73 For the Troyes statutes see Lalore, Ancienne et nouvelle discipline, 211-21, 268-75. Autun is in Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum, 32: cols 336-60. Amiens is in Gousset, Actes, 2: 685-726. 74 Artonne, Repertoire des statuts synodaux, 99 gives the wrong folio numbers for the 1367 statutes. They are AD Vaucluse G 433, fols. 25r-32v. The statutes Artonne dates only as falling between 1437 and 1474 are dated here as 1472, based on reading ibid., fols 33v~35r, though the copying errors in this MS noted by Artonne leave the question somewhat open. 75 For Cambrai see Gousset, Actes, 2: 667, 682-84 and Artonne, Repertoire des statuts synodaux, 71-2, 172, 448. 76 Venard L'Eglise d'Avignon, 121-6. These abuses may have been new in Avignon, but they were not unknown in France. See, for example, the statutes of Coutances of 1375 in Bessin, Concilia, 2: 564-5. 77 Binz, Vie religieuse, 143-59, 167-176. 78 This represents 53 per cent of all known visits, a percentage that falls between those for the second and third phases of medieval reform. Excluding visits for which only a mention of their taking place exists and those which present only financial information, 59 per cent of the known pastoral visits are coded for the fourth phase. 79 Part of Therouanne would become the diocese of Boulogne-sur-Mer in 1559. For the visits in the diocese of Rodez in the fifteenth century, see Lemaitre, Rouergue, 87-213, 594. For the general visit in Lyon see Lorcin, "Des commandes pour les orfevres," 21-43. 80 In the years 1450-69 the questions of the visitors concentrated far more on the lives of parishioners - their religious practices, instruction, social services, superstitions, and dissidents - than they had in the preceding forty years. In other areas directly concerned with the lives and practices of parishioners, the period ranked second highest. 81 The percentages for the third, fourth, and fifth phases of medieval reform are costs: 42%, 56%, 30%; presbytery: 23%, 58%, 38%; cemeteries: 23%, 51%, 36%. See tables MA.53 and 5b and appendices 3 E and F. 82 See appendix 3 G. The visits of regional diocesan officials made up 21 per cent of the visits in the years 1410-29 and 17 per cent in the years 1430-49, then leapt to 53 per cent of the total in the years 1450-69. The highest percentage of known visits by regional officials during the Middle Ages were during the years 1250-1349 and 1470-1489 (56%). The state of the records make it impossible to know the significance of these levels. Of the twenty French dioceses for which visit records are extant for the years 1450-69, 65 per cent were visited by

524

Notes to pages 57-9

bishops, 10 per cent were visited by delegates of the bishop, but not the bishop, and 25 per cent were visited only by others. In 35 per cent of the dioceses visits by both bishops, and regional officials took place. 83 Binz, Vie religieuse, 177-215, 444 ff., 496-7. 84 Excommunications became a source of visitors' questions in the years 1330-49 and then grew, reaching a peak between 1450 and 1469 (55 per cent of the visits) , after which it declined very sharply. 85 During the years 1470-89 there were twenty-three promulgations in fifteen dioceses in seven provinces by sixteen bishops and forty-three visits in fifteen dioceses in ten provinces by sixteen bishops or their delegates. Proportionate to the number of years involved in the fourth and fifth phases of reform, the same number of bishops were involved in reform activity in both, but the bishops of the latter carried out about 70 per cent more visits while promulgating 70 per cent fewer synodal statutes. 86 Compared with the years 1410-69, Sens disappeared from the most active cluster, however known pastoral visit activity increased significantly. Bourges, Embrun, and Aries disappeared from the Active cluster. 87 These were the dioceses of Lyon, Langres, Dol, Nantes, Rennes, Saint-Brieuc, Saint-Malo, and Treguier. The relative decline in Tours is deceptive since there were promulgations in seven dioceses in Tours in both periods. Appendix 2 C provides more details about the seven active provinces. 88 This paragraph is based on the contents of seventeen of the twenty-two extant synodal statutes (an additional two are not extant) for the years 1470-89. Langres (1479) in Sequuntur constitutiones edite per... Guidonem episcopum et ducem Lingonensen (Langres, 1556), fols. I27v-i56r; (Artonne gives a wrong pagination); Lyon (1476, 1485) in Statuta synodalia diocesis Lugdunensis (n.p., n.d [1485]); Rouen (1476) and Coutances (1479, 1481, 1487) in Bessin, Concilia, 2: 102-03, 567-74; Dol (1480) in AD Ille-et-Vilaine ^415; Nantes (1478, 1481, 1488) in Martene, Thesaurus, 4: 1013-17; Rennes (1483) in Travers, Con cilia provinciae Turonensis, 4: fols. 265-66.; Saint-Brieuc (1480) in Campion, Statuts synodaux; Treguier in Martene, Thesaurus, 4: cols. 117-1-73 (1485); Chartres (1489) MS copy of an incunabulum in Bibliotheque Ste-Genevieve C 4° 312 Inv; Grenoble (1472) in AD Isere G 202(43) and Toulouse (1481) in Peyronet, Jus sacrum, 2: 607. 89 On the dating of the 1472 statutes of Avignon see note 74 above. If the date is not 1472 then Avignon is still remarkable as the only province where 75 per cent of the dioceses had promulgations during the years 1470-89. For some information on the 14708 statutes in the dioceses of Cavaillon and Vaison see Venard. L'Eglise d'Avignon, 125-6. For Carpentras see Artonne, Repertoire des statuts synodaux, 182-3. 90 Binz, Vie religieuse, 170-3. 91 The C-shaped pattern of the years 1350-1409, when provinces with visits extended along the northern, eastern, and part of the southern, borders of France

Notes to pages 60-1

92 93

94

95

525

is discernible and the Centre is filled in, but more lightly than in 1410-69, since there was only one known visit in each of the ecclesiastical provinces of Tours, Bordeaux, and Bourges (though not Albi). There were also no known visits in the provinces of Auch and Embrun. Coded pastoral visits are dominated by the diocese of Sens (25 of the total of 61 visits), with Paris (9 visits) and Langres (8 visits) distantly second and third. The most active episcopal reformers of the years 1470-89 included three archbishops and one bishop. The former were Louis de Beaumont of Paris, Jean Coeur of Bourges, and Tristan de Sallazar of Sens. The latter was Jacques Raguier of Troyes. Among the episcopal visitors of the years 1450—89, those whose questions are known to have anticipated some of the questions of the Catholic Reformation came especially from the ecclesiastical provinces of Sens and Vienne. Particularly involved were Archbishop Sallazar of Sens (whose delegates and diocesan officials asked similar questions) and two bishops of Grenoble, Siboud Allemand and Laurent I Allemand. Unfortunately, for both of the twenty-year periods between 1450 and 1489 we do not know what questions were asked in a significant number of dioceses where visits took place. The changes in the reform efforts of the French bishops that become apparent after 1489, as the first Catholic Reformation developed, suggest that more individuals than those singled out above were asking new questions. At the category level all percentages dropped except for category o (context) which was virtually the same as in the preceding period. In categories 5 (religious) and 9 (dissidents) there was a particularly large drop. Combining the information at the subcategory level with that at the sub-subcategory level one finds that the major interests in the visits of the years 1470-89 (appearing in 50 per cent or more of the coded visits) were the general state of the parish church, the tabernacle, sacred vessels, missals, the baptismal font and holy oils, die financial affairs of the church, and the men entrusted with them, as well as the cures and vicars, especially their identity and canonical condition. This sounds like a classic visit by diocesan officials, as described by the Froeschle-Chopards. In fact, 56 per cent of all visits and 62 per cent of the coded pastoral visits were carried out by such individuals between 1470 and 1489, but, contrary to the Froeschle-Chopard description of their interests, these visitors asked questions in all the CNRS categories. When one looks at the next level of interest at the subcategory level (that is, questions appearing in 25 to 49 per cent of the visits) one finds questions about economic conditions, presbyteries, cemeteries, chapels, the moral condition and pastoral zeal of the parish clergy, members of religious orders and their buildings, financial aspects of the visit, and commandments of the church. Just below the 25 per cent mark were questions about parish masses and devotions and rites of passage, with practice of the sacraments not far behind. It is interesting to note which of the topics on the grid prepared by the CNRS researchers are not found in the pastoral visits of the Middle Ages. Questions were asked about heretics only in the diocese of Troyes in 1459 and 1466. Unlike the

526

Notes to pages 64-6

case with synodal statutes, the subject of Jews came up only once in the coded visits; in Lisieux in 1250 when Eudes Rigaud noted that the monastery of St. Pierre des Preaux owed money to "a certain Jew." As far as is known, no visitor asked about libertines during die Middle Ages. There were also no questions about social classes or professions, political life, or crosses placed at the wayside or in cemeteries. Questions were asked about schools only in Rouen in 1454 and one parish (Gentilly) in the diocese of Paris between the years 1458 and 1470. Colleges were mentioned only once (in Rouen in 1454). According to the pastoral visit catalogue, a question was asked about catechism on one occasion during the Middle Ages - in the diocese of Narbonne in 1404. CHAPTER THREE

1 The best known exception to this dreary picture is that of the diocese of Rodez in the province of Albi, as ably presented by Nicole Le Maitre in LeRouergue. Rodez, however, was not the only French diocese in which reform efforts were influential during the sixteenth century. Seejouanna, La France, 283-96 and Crouzet, La Genese. 2 See Le Maitre, Le Rouergue, Geoffrey Parker, "Success and Failure," 43-82, Galpern, The Religions of the People, and Duffy, The Stripping of the Altars. The basic satisfaction with the cure could disappear if he lived with a woman who tried to establish a special social status for herself. See, for example, the local cahiers of the area around Troyes for the Estates General of 1614 in Durand, Cahiers des paroisses du bailliage de Troyes, 56, 80, 88, 104. 3 For interesting insights into the historiography of the early Catholic Reformation see Collett, A Long and Troubled Pilgrimage, 1-23. 4 See appendix 4 A and B-i for details of the reforming activity of fifteenth century bishops. 5 Consideration of both the upper and lower levels of die rate of promulgation in graph I.i provides clear evidence of the existence of the First Catholic Reformation; not only were the highs significantly higher, but the lows were also distinctly higher than in the immediately preceding and subsequent periods. In the context of the years 1190-1789, the years widi the least reform activity saw promulgations in the 0-2 per year range. During the intermittent medieval reforms the range was 1-3 promulgations per year with some short bursts in the 4-5 range. The range during die First Catholic Reformation was between 2 and 5 with some activity in the 6-8 range. During the Second Catholic Reformation the range was 5-9 promulgations per year widi frequent bursts to 10, with a few above diat level. 6 For die Second Catholic Reformation Broutin (La Reformepastorale, 2: 7-16) discusses the roles of only the provincial councils of Aix (1585), Bourges (1584), and Bordeaux (1624). Marc Venard added Embrun with "Un concile provincial oublie," 625-44.

Notes to pages 67-9

527

7 Since the Province of Paris was not separated from Sens until 1621, and Albi from Bourges only in 1687, the ten councils could be said to have included the bishops of 63 per cent of the provinces and Go per cent of the dioceses in France. A provincial synod was held in Reims in 1564, but this was the precursor of the series of provincial councils of the 15808 that marked the start of the Second Catholic Reformation. 8 Significantly, the provincial councils in the southern provinces of Narbonne and Vienne were held much later than those in the other provinces just named. Almost no evidence of reform exists for the ecclesiastical province of Narbonne before the very late sixteenth century. For an example of the influence of the fifteenth century provincial councils see Statuta Synodalia secundum ritum... Macloviensis (Paris, s.d), fols. 74r, ff. 9 The council was attended by six of the eight bishops of the province of Sens. The Bishop of Orleans sent a delegate, while the Bishop of Paris refused to attend, evidently on the grounds that he should not be considered a suffragan of the Archbishop of Sens. This argument would continue until Paris became the archdiocese of a separate province in 1622. For the council see Renaudet, Prereforme et humanisme, 160-2 and Imbart de la Tour, Les Origines, 2: 489-91. The spelling of the names of French bishops used in this and following chapters is that found in the CNRS pastoral visits catalogue, unless compelling contrary evidence exists, most often that provided in Bergin, in the text, index and biographical dictionaries of Making of the French Episcopate and Crown, Church and Episcopate. 10 Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, 32:, cols. 25-34, 75~94> 93~8, 175-92, 407-34, 1071-8, 1095-1139, 1142-7, 1150-1202; 35: cols, 325-8. The canons of the provincial councils of Lyon (1527), Bourges (1528), and Sens (1528) specifically mention Luther. A greater-than-usual concern about the threat of heretical ideas is apparent in the others. 11 Only one visit survives for the years of Duprat's tenure in Sens, that of his vicar to ten religious houses in 1526. The coding indicates a concern for reform. Duprat also promulgated synodal statutes. 12 Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, 32: cols. 1150-1202, especially cols. 1187-1201. 13 Ibid., 33: cols. 1247-82. The canons of the Council of Narbonne of 1551 are the earliest we have discovered in a contemporary printed edition: Canones seu regulae ecclesiasticae (Bibliotheque Nationale [hereafter BN] 62293). The next known example is the canons of Reims of 1564 (BN 8456). The canons of Narbonne were quite medieval in character; those of Reims less so, showing the influence of Trent. Trent's influence is also apparent in the canons of Vienne of 1557. See Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, 33: cols. 1286-99 and chapter 4. 14 See Tillier, "La Pre-reforme a Angouleme," 262-65 and the sources cited therein, as well as Zeller, Institutions, 359-60, and Chevalier, "Le Cardinal d'Amboise," 111-21. For Francis I and the provincial councils see his letter to the canons of the diocese of Tours in Travers, Concilia, V, fols. 58v-6ir. For a comparison of the reforming activities of sixteenth century bishops see appendix 4D.

528

Notes to pages 69-74

15 Renaudet, Prereforme, 527-33; Imbart de la Tour, Les Origines, 2: 131-7. 16 For the many connections between the cahiers of the Estates General of 1484, 1560, 1576, and 1588 and the royal ordinances of 1561, 1563, and 1579, see Hayden, Estates General of 1614, 209-14. 17 Edelstein, "The Recruitment of the Episcopacy, "The Social Origins of the Episcopacy ," 377-92, and "Les Origines sociales," 239-47; Peronnet, LesEveques de I 'ancienne France; Baumgartner, Change and Continuity. 18 The terms "moderately active" and "more active" will be defined below. Of the seventy-eight "moderately active" bishops of the First Catholic Reformation, we have traced the careers of fifty-eight and have found that 62 per cent of them were royal officials or closely related to members of the royal bureaucracy. We have also traced the careers of twenty-six of the thirty-four "more active" bishops during the Catholic Reformation. Eighty-five per cent of these men fit into the same category. Of the thirty-three bishops whose activities were most responsible for the start of the First Catholic Reformation in the late fifteenth century, 57 per cent of the twenty-three whose careers we have traced were royal officials or closely related to them. For the bishops see appendix 46 i and 2. For the historians see note 17. 19 Appendix 2 G provides the complete list of the changes from Latin to French. 20 For information on the lives of the bishops discussed throughout this chapter see Gams, Series Epscoporum, Eubel, Hierarchia Catholica, Bietenholz, Contemporaries of Erasmus, the relevant volumes of Dictionnaire de biographic franc, aise and Gallia Christiana, the pastoral visit and synodal statute catalogues, Edelstein, "Recruitment of the Episcopacy," Baumgartner, Change and Continuity, and Bergin, Making of the French Episcopate. 21 Artonne, Repertoire, 12-13. 22 See appendix 2 H for a complete list of "plan methodique" statutes. As can be seen in that appendix, only thirteen plan methodique statutes are known for the dioceses surrounding France. As seen in appendix 2 G, vernacular statutes were promulgated in the dioceses along the borders of France on only nine occasions between 1190 and 1789, almost all during French occupation. 23 It is interesting to note that as late as 1554, Odet de Chatillon warned in his statutes that cures should be vigilant in order to prevent "heretical poison from creeping into their flock." The other three active episcopal reformers who became Protestants were Gabriel de Clermont of Gap, Antonio Caracciolo of Troyes, and Charles Guillard of Chartres. In addition, Jean de Montluc of Valence was one of the group of active French reformers accused of heresy, but he never actually became a Protestant. For the Huguenot bishops see Baumgartner, Continuity, 121-43. 24 However, during the very short reign of Francis II (1559-60) almost half of the eleven bishops who received papal provisions became reformers. See appendix 4 D. 25 See Serbat, Les Assemblies du Clerge, 273-310, Baumgartner (Change and Continuity, 43, 48, 205-07, and Benedict, Rouen During the Wars of Religion, 192. The last two authors misunderstand the context of the episcopal appointments.

Notes to pages 75-6

529

26 See appendices i D-i and 2. The average was roughly one quarter of the dioceses in each decade and 37 per cent in each twenty-year period. Twenty-five per cent of French dioceses located in 81 per cent of the ecclesiastical provinces experienced at least one episcopal visit and one synodal statute promulgation within a single decade between 1490 and 1589 compared with 8 per cent in the previous century and 66 per cent in the subsequent 100 years. 27 The thick line labelled ss traces the rate of promulgation of synodal statutes per period. The line labelled PV/YD-BD indicates for each period the number of episcopal pastoral visits per year per diocese in France known to have been made by bishops or their delegates. The line labelled DV-BD shows for each period the number of dioceses in France known to have been visited by bishops or their delegates. The line labelled YV/P-BD traces the number of years per province per period in which these visits took place. Graph 3.2 is based on the data provided in appendices 2A and 3C 10-12 (see also graphs A. i-A.3) and summarized in appendix i D 2. For the relationship of the data in graph 3.2 to the data for all thirty of our twenty-year periods, see graph MA./}.. Only one visit per year per diocese is counted to avoid over- counting because of the CNRS method of recording visits. 28 As explained in chapter i, the word "generation" as applied to chronological groups of bishops is not used in this book because it has been misused too often by other historians. 29 Map 3.2 is based on the column labelled "Combined" in table MA.I 2. Narbonne ranked last among provinces with no known reforming activity. It seems likely that this was the result of inactive absentee bishops rather than lost or destroyed records. The only known reform activity in the province during the years 1490-1589 was the provincial council of 1551 and even in that instance only the vicars general of the dioceses attended, not the bishops. 30 Ten of the sixteen French ecclesiastical provinces had an increase in synodal statute promulgation in the years 1490—1509 compared to the preceding twenty years, while there was a decrease only in the province of Lyon which, nevertheless, remained above the median during these years. There were no known synodal statutes in only three provinces, all in the South (Aries, Narbonne, and Toulouse). Further evidence that what was going on during the years 14901589 was, indeed, the First Catholic Reformation and neither a statistical accident nor the result of chance survival of records is that, as seen in the table MA. 13, all of the French ecclesiastical provinces except Auch and Narbonne ranked above the mean in combined rank during at least one of the twenty-year periods during the years 1490-1589. In addition, eleven provinces ranked above the mean in promulgations at least once during these years. Four of the five provinces for which this was not true were located in the Southwest. The other province was Vienne on the border between the Centre and the Southeast. In the episcopal pastoral visit columns of table MA. 13 only three provinces were not above the mean in at least one period. These were the southern provinces of Auch and Narbonne, along with Bourges in the Centre.

530

Notes to pages 76-7

31 Taylor, Soldiers of Christ, graph in frontispiece. Other periods of notable activity occurred between approximately 1535 and 1545 and 1555 and 1565. As will be seen below, these dates correspond well with the patterns of reform activity. See also Taylor, Heresy and Orthodoxy in Sixteenth-Century Paris. The data plotted in graph 3.3 are taken directly from our databases and are not presented in any appendix because of size considerations. In each case for each year the datum used is the total for the whole of France expressed as a percentage of the total possible. These data were then normalized to the mean for each of the thirty twenty-year periods between 1190 and 1789 (that is, each datum in each series is expressed as a percentage of the average of the data in that series) so that all four measures can be plotted on the same graph. This, of course, in no way affects the relationship of the groups of data internally or in relation to each other. PV/YD-BD (percentage of total possible pastoral visits by bishops or delegates per year per diocese) is not used because when counting on a year-by-year basis for all of France its pattern is almost identical to that of DV-BD (percentage of dioceses visited by bishops or delegates). 32 Appendices 2 A and 3 C 10-12 and the graphs accompanying appendix 3 present the actual promulgation and episcopal visitation activity of each province. Appendix 5, part I provides the relative ranking of provincial reforming activity. 33 See table MA. 13 and appendix 2 A. Five bishops were the most active reformers during the years 1490-1509. These were Christophe de Penmarch of St-Brieuc and Guillaume Briconnet of St-Malo, both in the province of Tours; Jacques Raguier of Troyes in the province of Sens; Laurent Allemand of Grenoble in the province of Vienne; and Francois d'Estaing of Rodez in the province of Albi. 34 Another striking change during the years 1510-29 concerned the province of Vienne. There are no known promulgations or episcopal visits in Vienne in that period, despite the fact that its bishops, especially those of the diocese of Grenoble, were usually very active reformers. This merits further investigation, especially since several neighbouring provinces also registered significant declines. The most striking was the case of Aix for which, quite unusually, there are also no known promulgations or episcopal visits. Bourges registered a significant decline in episcopal visitation and Lyon a less severe drop in promulgations. On the other hand, the other two neighbours of Vienne - Aries and Albi - registered increases in activity, especially in the case of Aries. Missing records may be a factor in the case of visits in the diocese of Grenoble, since the bishop for most of the period without known visits was Laurent II Allemand, one of the most active episcopal reformers of the sixteenth century. 35 Archbishop Jean Ferrier of Aries and Bishop Francois d'Estaing of Rodez in the province of Albi were the most active episcopal visitors during the years 151029. The vicars general of Archbishop Etienne Poncher of Sens were also quite active visitors, while the vicars general in the diocese of Angers of the Archbishop of Lyon, Francois de Rohan, were the most active promulgators of

Notes to pages 77-9

531

synodal statutes. Archbishop Rohan himself promulgated statutes in Angers five times during the years 1490-1509 and once in Lyon in the years 1510-29. 36 During the years 1530-49 two dioceses had the most years with episcopal visits. These were Beauvais in the province of Reims, and Rennes in Tours. In the latter most of the visiting was the work of Bishop Claude Dodieu. In the former, those responsible were the vicars general of Bishops Villiers de 1'Isle-Adam and Odet de Chatillon. The highest rate of promulgation was in Angers, where Bishop Jean Olivier and his successor, Gabriel Bouvery, were both very active. In the province of Sens, Archbishop Louis de Bourbon was the most active promulgator. The other province where activity was concentrated was Paris, where Louis Guillard of Chartres stood out. 37 During the years 1550-69 the leaders in episcopal visitation were Francois Bohier of St-Malo and Antonio Caracciolo of Troyes. The latter tried to combine his position of bishop with that of minister of the Reformed Church. Both churches rejected his plan and Catherine de Medici demanded his resignation at the end of 1561. Autun had the largest number of synodal statute promulgations during the years 1550-69. Four of these were the work of Bishop Philibert Dugny, while his successor, Pierre de Marcilly, was responsible for five. Gabriel Bouvery of Angers continued his work of the years 1530-49 with three promulgations and Charles Guillard of Chartres was responsible for the same number, the last of which appeared in 1564. At some point between 1564 and 1572 Guillard became a Protestant. Technically, he was removed from his see in 1566; he actually resigned in 1573. For Caracciolo and Guillard, see Baumgartner, Change and Continuity, 103, 113-14, 133-38, 140-43, Jouanna, LaFrance, 326-27 and Eubel, Hierarchia, 3: 153. During the years 1570-89 the leaders in episcopal visitation were found in four dioceses rather than the two of the preceding two twenty-year periods. The most active visitor of the period was Bishop Aymar Hennequin of Rennes, a member of a prominent robe family active in royal administration. The next most active episcopal visitors were Francois Thome, Bishop of St-Malo and Nicolas de Thou, Bishop of Chartres, followed by Claude Gouyne, the vicar general of Nicolas Fumee, Bishop of Beauvais, who himself visited parishes on occasion. Pierre d'Epinac of Lyon and Audiano Garidelli of Vence were each responsible for three promulgations of synodal statutes during the years 1570-89. The other thirty-five promulgations were spread thinly over twelve of the sixteen provinces. 38 See appendix 4 D. Together these men constituted approximately 30 per cent of the bishops who were in office in the 113 dioceses of France at some point during those years. Their episcopates account for approximately 37 per cent of the total possible years bishops served during the time in question. The formula for total possible bishop years is the number of dioceses multiplied by the number of years (113 dioceses x 108 years = 12,204 bishop years between 1482 and 1589). 39 Of the 209 known episcopal reformers during the years 1482-1589, 154 promulgated 343 synodal statutes in all but five of the 108 years involved, while

532

40

41

42

43 44

45

Notes to pages 79-82

seventy-four of them carried out one or more pastoral visits during ninety-one of those years. The thirty-four more active bishops carried out their reforming activities in twenty-eight dioceses in all the ecclesiastical provinces except Bordeaux, Narbonne, and Embrun. The seventy-eight moderately active bishops were active in fifty-eight dioceses. The ninety-seven minimally active bishops were active in fifty-six dioceses. The bishops in each of the latter two groups were active in all the provinces except Narbonne. The role of non-episcopal participants in the First Catholic Reformation will be addressed when the contents of the pastoral visits are discussed. There are fifteen bishops listed among the active whose only reforming activity came through their delegates. Two of these men should almost certainly be removed from the list of episcopal reformers. Jacques de Broullat of Aries was never ordained, never entered his diocese, eventually became a chaplain of the Prince of Conde, and then left for Germany in 1563 where he later married. Jean de Barbancon of Pamiers was never ordained, resigned in 1553, and later became a Huguenot captain. Credit for reforming activity most probably belongs to vicars general who acted on their own initiative. The relevant data for this and the following several paragraphs are in appendices 4 D - F. The methods of analysis are discussed in partj of appendix 5. See the data for the percentage involved and average totals in appendix 4 E for 1450-81, 1482-1589 and for the five twenty-year periods between 1490 and 1589, as well as the data in appendices 4 6 1 , 6 2 and F. See also graph MA. 12 in appendix 5. On the basis of the time they began their reforming activity, the 209 episcopal reformers of the First Catholic Reformation can be divided into three chronological groups. The first group can be divided in two subgroups both of which began their activity before 1509. The dividing line between the two could be before and after 1482 or before and after 1494. The second group is composed of those who began their activity between 1510 and 1549. The third group is made up of those who began their activity during the years 1550-89. Between 1482 and 1589 all but six of these forty-two dioceses were in the North or the Centre. The southern exceptions were the dioceses of Aix (twice), Cahors, Gap, Orange, Rodez, and Vence. See table MA. 13 and appendix i D-i. The work of Peronnet and Ravitch will make it possible to discuss these issues to some extent for the bishops of the late eighteenth century. As seen in appendix 4 D we have identified 263 bishops for this period, rather than the 262 identified by Baumgartner. The reasons for the difference are presented in that appendix. This section is based on the 223 synodal statutes known to have been promulgated in France between 1490 and 1549, plus the eight from the years 1484-89. Of the total of 231, 21 o are extant and we have read 189 (90%) of them. Details of titles, places of publication, etc. are in Artonne, Repertoire. The details concerning one statute not listed in Artonne, that of Rodez of 1529, are given in appendix 2E.

Notes to pages 82-5

533

46 All five bishops responsible for the first examples of the "new" statutes were active as reformers before 1500, as was Brigonnet from the second list. Of the other two on the second list, Poncher was one of those first active as a reformer between 1500 and 1509, and Louis Pinelle was a member of the group of bishops first active between 1510 and 1529. Most of the eight were closely connected with the royal bureaucracy. For the statutes of Meaux between 1493 and 1626 see Michel Veissiere, "La Vie chretienne," 71-80, and his earlier article "Un precurseur de Guillaume Briconnet," 7-40. The latter also has Poncher's 1506 Paris statutes (33-5). 47 For the importance of ordination and the priesthood to the Council of Trent see Ramsey, Liturgy, Politics and Salvation, 48-51. 48 Examples of the exhortation to read Gerson are the statutes of Meaux of 1511, those of Sens of 1524, and later in the century, Beauvais in 1554. Examples of statutes that included copies of Gerson's work were Paris (1506), Senlis (1522), Chartres (1526), Toulouse (1531), Poitiers (1544), and Cahors (1558). For Gerson's pastoral theology see Brown, Pastor and Laity, 79-167. See also Le Maitre, Rouergue, 434-7. 49 Compare the statutes of 1496 and 1506 in Saint-Brieuc and those of 1515 and 1537 in Tours. For an example of the continuation of old concerns in a traditional format see the statutes of the diocese of Rennes, 1464-1510, in Travers, Concilia, IV, fols. 2ior-3O5v- Even here, though, some hints of the new were appearing. See, for example, the regulations concerning baptismal and death (but not marriage) registers in the statutes of 1465, fols. 216 r-2Ov. 50 Pisselieu was accused of being supportive of Huguenots. For the slow response to the threat of Protestantism in the Diocese of Rouen, see Nicholls, "Inertia and Reform," 93-105. 51 This section is based on the 100 statutes known to have been promulgated in France between 1550 and 1589 (an average of 2.5 per year, compared with the 3.7 per year known for the years 1490-1549). Of the 100, eighty-six are extant and seventy-nine (92%) have been read. Details of titles, places of publication, etc. are in Artonne, Repertoire. 52 Curiously, the preface of the 1541 Bourges statutes is set in a standard latesixteenth-century typeface, but the text uses a much older gothic type. 53 La Rouergue, 428-33. 54 The last two lines do not appear in the statutes of Bishop (in 1533, Cardinal) Le Veneur and the beginning is also slightly different. Since Cenalis composed a number of hymns, he may be the author of the quoted lines. The two versions can be compared in Bessin, Concilia Rothamagensisprovinciae, 2:263, 487. The only complete copy of the Avranches statutes is in Archives de 1'Eveche de Coutances. For Cenalis, (sometimes called Ceneau) see Farge, Registre des conclusions, 2: 506; D.B.F. 8: col. 48 and Bietenholz, Contemporaries of Erasmus, i: 288. 55 Bessin, Concilia Rotomagensis, 2: 391-4-

534

Notes to pages 86-92

56 For the limited French knowledge of and reaction to the Council of Trent, see Tallon, La France, 517-53. For the 1615 Assembly of the Clergy see Blet, Le Clerge de France, i: 125—9. 57 Broutin, La Reformepastorale, 2: 7-16. For the unreformed state of ecclesiastical society in Aix, see Dolan, Entre tours et dockers. 58 The Councils were held in the provinces of Embrun (1583), Bourges (1584), and Aix (1585). For the reform articles see Martene, Thesaurus, 4: cols. 1191-1206. Two archbishops and five bishops signed the document mentioned in the text. The former were Alexandre Canigiani of Aix and Pierre de Villars of Vienne. The latter were Pierre de Villars of Mirepoix, Claude d'Angennes of Noyon, Antoine Ebrard of Cahors, Luc Alamani of Macon, and Guillaume Rose of Senlis. Only Canigiani had been active in the First Catholic Reformation. The others, except Ebrard would be active in the Second. Canigiani was dead by then. 59 Examples of fulminations include Frangois de Rohan (statutes of Angers, 1504, 1507) and Louis de Lorraine (Albi, 1553). For the very negative attitude toward concubines and the strict regulations decreed in the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges of 1438, the Concordat of 1516, and the Council of Trent see Jules Thomas, Le Concordat de 1516, 2: 158-80; 3: 344-6. 60 Out of a total of 662 known pastoral visits for the years 1490-1589, 306 are coded (46%). For 1590-1689 there are 1,795 coded pastoral visits out of a total of 2,876 known visits (62%). For 1690-1789 there are 4,462 known pastoral visits of which 3,306 are coded (74%). 61 The best evidence is available for Reims and Sens, followed at some distance by Lyon, Tours, Paris, Vienne, Albi, Aix, and Aries. Some evidence is available for the provinces of Toulouse and Bourges. There are hints for Bordeaux, Embrun, and Rouen. Nothing is known about pastoral visits during the First Catholic Reformation in any of the twenty-one dioceses of provinces of Auch and Narbonne. See appendix 3 C 2. 62 See appendices 3 E and tables MA.6 and MA.7a-7c for the data concerning subcategories. For sub-subcategories see appendix 3 F. 63 For complementary evidence see table MA. 12. The questions asked by the visitors of Bourges and Lyon over the course of the entire First Catholic Reformation were not typical of those of participants in that reformation in other provinces. 64 The libertine and hermit questions were both posed between 1550 and 1569. See note 95 in chapter 2 for the unasked questions of the Middle Ages. 65 The interest in baptismal, marriage, and burial registers discussed below began between 1470 and 1489. 66 Among the combinations of topics that can be considered interesting without revealing anything essential about the nature of the reformation of the church in France are the following. During the sixteenth century the economic state of parishes was evidently of concern only to the visitors in the provinces of Aix, Lyon, Paris, Sens, Tours, and Vienne. Concern with ecclesiastical authority

Notes to pages 92-4

535

appeared in nine provinces, especially in Reims. Most often this concern was matched with questions about lay authority, but ecclesiastical authority alone interested the visitors in the provinces of Embrun and Lyon, while only lay authority seems to have been of interest to the visitors in the province of Tours. Political life in parishes was evidently of interest to pastoral visitors only in the provinces of Paris in 1550, Tours in 1576, and Aix and Aries in 1582. Concern with climate, soil, and geography in general was limited to the diocese of Grenoble in the province of Vienne, but then the visitors of that diocese asked more questions than did the visitors anywhere else in France, if not Christendom. This statement about Grenoble is not an exaggeration. See, for example, Fincham, Visitation Articles and Injunctions, e.g., i: 6—13; 2: 116—22; Tolley, Pastors & Parishioners, 64-111 and Cloet, Itinerarium Visitationum, 1-10. 67 Unfortunately, there are too few coded pastoral visits available to permit a description of the visits of the other eight provinces. 68 The forty-nine sub-subcategories (with their CNRS codes) are the parish baptismal, marriage, and burial registers (132-34); the general state of the parish church (210); the tabernacle (220); the baptismal font (230); sacred vessels (25); the state of pulpits (270); confessionals (271); statues (281), and stained glass (282); the cemetery and its closure (31, 310); parish finances (36, 360, 361) and those responsible for them (362), the source and recipient of the tithe (380-381), the identity of cures, vicars, and other clerics in the parish (400, 403, 410, 420), their moral condition (44, 440-43) and pastoral zeal (45, 450-452) and intellectual condition (46, 460-461); the parish mass, its schedule, and attendance at it (60, 600, 601); the reception of the sacraments by the laity (650-53); preaching (70, 700); catechism (71); school masters (722); and the moral state of parishioners (80, 800-01). Codes that are closely related but not listed because they are not found in any of the pastoral visits of the years 1482 - 1589 are nos. 453, 465, 710-12, 802-04. 69 The data on which graph 3.4 is based is in appendix 3~H 4. There is no evidence of any interest in any of the forty-nine topics in the southern provinces of Auch and Narbonne because there are no coded visits available for the years 1490-1589, nor any in the Centre province of Bourges after the years 1510-29 (there is only one coded visit there during the relevant years). Interest in the topics appeared in Toulouse only during the period 1550-69. On the other hand, the modest interest in the topics in Bordeaux between 1510 and 1569 disappeared in the following twenty years, only to be replaced by a vigorous involvement in the early days of the Second Catholic Reformation. Since there are no known pastoral visits for the province of Bordeaux in the years 1570-89, lost or destroyed records may be involved. 70 The relevant figures are Reims (72% of its visits, representing 59% of all tithe questions), Albi (73% of its visits making up 12 per cent of the total), Vienne (69% of its visits; 12% of the total), and Aix (57% of its visits, representing 9% of the total).

536

Notes to pages 95-6

71 Two items that were not included among the combination of forty-nine are confirmation and ordination. Confirmations and ordinations were a fairly frequent part of visits in the South and the Centre, especially in the provinces of Albi, Aix, and Vienne. The first known appearance of either of these ceremonies as part of a pastoral visit in the North was during the years 1470-89 in the provinces of Paris, Rouen, and Sens. 72 In terms of pastoral visits, Langres is the exceptional diocese in the province of Lyon. It accounts for Lyon's changing place in lists of participants and nonparticipants in the First Catholic Reformation. For the First Catholic Reformation in the diocese of Lyon see Philip Hoffman, Church and Community, 7-70. For Langres see Marcel, Le Cardinal de Givry. 73 If only the 235 visits between 1482 and 1589 with five or more reform topics are counted, the pattern of responsibility shifts toward visitors other than bishops, delegates, and canons: bishops - 19 per cent, delegates - 13 per cent, canons 10 per cent, others - 58 per cent. 74 See appendix 4 B-2. 75 In a significant number of instances the names of visitors other than bishops are not given in the CNRS repertoire, evidently because the available records refer only to the title of the visitor. Examples from three dioceses where some certainty of identification is possible will give an idea of the differences in numbers of episcopal and non-episcopal visitors during the years 1482-1589: Reims 3 archbishops, 23 non-episcopal; Sens - 4 archbishops, 12 non-episcopal; Paris — 6 bishops, 16 non-episcopal. Unlike the case in the seventeenth century, even those visitors whose names are mentioned are known only through one or two visits. For several of these individuals, however, we know of a significant number of visits with five or more reform questions. They include one person in the diocese of Le Mans (Lezin Cheminard, the Grand Dean, active between 1495 and 1510); three in the archdiocese of Sens (Gabriel Nicolas Archdeacon of Etampes, active 1485-95; Francois Pichon, Dean of Melun, active 1485-93; and Louis La Hure Archdeacon of Provins, active 1491-1522); and three in the archdiocese of Reims (Amaury Le Taincturier, a priest of the Doyenne of Charleville, active 1502-36; Jean Ponsart, Dean of Cernay-en-Dormois, active 1548-62; and the Dean of Epernay, known only from his last name Feuillet, active 1555-73). 76 See table MA. 12 for the first sentence and table 3.2 for the second. 77 For the years 1490-1589 a total of 150 synodal statutes were identified by Artonne and his colleagues for twenty-eight of the thirty-three bordering dioceses in which statutes have been found. The 85 per cent level of participation ranks above that for France where 65 per cent of the dioceses had at least one promulgation during the First Catholic Reformation The CNRS equipe identified 124 pastoral visits for 1490-1589 in nineteen of the twenty-seven bordering dioceses where visits were sought. In France for the same time there are visits available for 54 per cent of the dioceses, while on the borders the percentage is

Notes to pages 96-9

78

79 80 81 82

83

84

85

86

537

70 per cent. In France 53 per cent of the 662 known visits are coded. On the borders 69 per cent of the 124 known visits are coded. It must be remembered that, taken together, the seven groups of bordering dioceses, though spread along the borders of France, do not form a natural geographic, political, or ecclesiastic grouping. Rather, they provide a contrast to what was happening in France. They were used because the same data was collected by the same groups for them as for the French dioceses. There are no other dioceses for which this is true, except Quebec and the Corsican dioceses, which were excluded for reasons set out in part C of appendix 5. See appendix 2 B and graph 3.1. For the provincial councils of Avignon see Martene, Thesaurus, 4: cols. 385-98. For the rest of the information on that province see Venard, Avignon, 126-37. Further examples of the development of the synodal statutes of the Catholic Reformation on the borders of France are given in chapter 4. During the years 1490-1589 Avignon was the leading province in known pastoral visits with an average of 12.75 per diocese. Cambrai was far behind with an average of 4.0 per diocese, followed by Trier with an average of 3.2, Other (2.75), and Besancon (2.67). The dioceses with the largest number of known pastoral visits were Carpentras with twenty-one, Avignon with sixteen, Geneva with twelve, St. Omer with nine, and both Cavaillon and Strasbourg with eight. See appendix 3 F. As is the case for France, the year-by-year data for promulgations and visits exist only in our databases since they would take up too much space in an appendix. For a description of visits at the subcategory level of the pastoral visits of the province of Avignon and some surrounding dioceses see Venard, Avignon, 550-8, 1847-53. For Avignon see Venard, Avignon, 513-842. For Geneva see Binz, La Vie religieuse, 157, 169-75. For Strasbourg see Rapp, Reformes et Reformation, 348-91. For the provincial synods see Bibliotheque Ste. Genevieve, 4° C 361-62. For the province of Constance see Gordon, Clerical Discipline. Only seven of the 209 known episcopal participants in the First Catholic Reformation were at the Fifth Lateran Council which met between 1512 and 1517. Only two of these (Denis Briconnet of Toulon and then St-Malo and Robert Guibe of Treguier and then Nantes) were among the seventy-eight moderately active participants in the First Catholic Reformation. Minnich, "The Participants," 157-206. Thirty-six French bishops were at one session of the Council of Trent, three were at two sessions (Antoine Filhol of Aix, Claude le la Guiche of Agde, then Mirepoix and Pierre Duval of Sees). Only twelve of the 209 known reformers were at Trent. Two of these were among the thirty-four more active reformers (Charles de Guise of Reims and Robert Cenalis of Avranches). Five were among the seventy-eight moderately active reformers (Filhol of Aix, Guillaume Duprat of Clermont, Francois Bohier of St-Malo, Gabriel Bouvery of Angers, and Louis de Breze of Meaux). The other five were Guillaume

538

Notes to pages 100-5

d'Avancon of Embrun, Duval of Sees, Jean Hangest of Noyon, Charles d'Espinay of Dol, and Gabriel Le Veneur of Evreux. See the list of French participants in Tallon, La France, 838-41. 87 The twenty-four southern dioceses without reforming activity were in seven provinces (Narbonne - 9, Auch - 5, Embrun - 3, Aix - 2, Albi - 2, Toulouse - 2, Aries - i); four inactive dioceses were in the Centre (Bordeaux - 3, Bourges - i); the one inactive northern diocese was in the province of Tours. The inactive dioceses amounted to 46 per cent of the fifty-two southern dioceses; 16 per cent of the twenty-five central dioceses and 3 per cent of the thirty-six northern dioceses. 88 For the response of the royal bureaucracy to Protestantism see William Monter, Judging the French Reformation. 89 Appendix 4 B-2, C and D show that of the bishops appointed between 1570 and 1589, nineteen were active in the First Catholic Reformation only, six were active in both the First and Second, while twenty-one were active only in the Second. Altogether 41 per cent of the bishops of the years 1570-89 were active reformers at some point in their career. This was the highest percentage for the sixteenth century. 90 Twelve of the twenty-four dioceses cited by French bishops in 1579 as being under the control of laymen or multiple benefice holders were in the provinces of Narbonne and Auch. See Serbat, Les Assemblies du Clerge, 383-5. It is shown in chapter 4 that the picture was not quite as black as the bishops claimed it was. 91 For the place of religion in the lives of the literate see, for example, the essays of Natalie Davis on Lyon in Society and Culture, Galpern, The Religions ofthePeopk, Ramsey, Liturgy, Politics and Salvation, and Collett, A Long and Troubled Pilgrimage. CHAPTER FOUR

1 In addition to the sources cited at the beginning of chapter i see Po-Chia Hsia, World of Catholic Renewal, Bireley, Refashioning of Catholicism', and Mullet, Catholic Reformation. 2 For the cahierof 1484 see Masselin,/ 65, 3°5 BIBLIOTHÈQUE MUNICIPALE DE COUTANCES MS 23 René Toustain de Billy, Histoire de Costentin and Histoire ecclésiastique du diocèse de Coutances. BIBLIOTHÈQUE MUNICIPALE DE NANTES

MSS 34-38 Travers, Nicholas, Conciliaprovinciae Turonensis, 5 vols. PRINTED

SOURCES

Adam, Paul. La Vie paroissiale en France au XIVe siècle. Paris: Sirey, 1964. Arnauld, Henri, éd. Statuts du diocèse d'Angers depuis environ l'an 1240 jusqu'en l'an 1679 recueillis par l'ordre de Henri Arnauld, évêque d'Angers. Angers: O. Avril, 1680. Artonne, André. Le Livre synodale de Lodève. Paris: Ecole de Chartes, 1950. - "Les Statuts synodaux diocésains français du XIIIe siècle au Concile de Trente." RHEF, 36 (1950): 168-181. - "Les Synodes diocésains d'Arles de 1410 à 1570." RHEF 4.1 (1955): 76-84. Aston, Nigel. Religion and Révolution in France, 1780-1804. Washington: Catholic University Press, 2000. Avril, Joseph. Les Conciles de la province de Tours (XIIF-XV siècles). Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1987. - Les Statuts synodaux Angevins de la second moitié du XIIIe siècle, vol. 3 of Les Statuts synodaux français du XIIIe siècle. Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1988. Baccrabère, G. "La Pratique religieuse dans le diocèse de Toulouse aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles." Annales du Midi 74 (1962) : 287-314. Barzun, Jacques. From Dawn to Décadence - 1500 to thé Présent - 500 Years of Western Cultural Life. New York: Harper Collins, 2000. Baumgartner, Frédéric J. Change and Continuity in thé French Episcopate: The Bishops and thé Wars of Religion, 1547-1610. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1986. Benedict, Philip. Rouen During thé Wars of Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Bergin, Joseph. "The Counter Reformation Churçh and its Bishops." Past and Présent, no. 165 (1999): 39~45- Crown, Churçh and Episcopate under Louis XIV. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004. - The Making of thé French Episcopate, 1589-1661. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996. Bessin, G. Concilia Rothamagensisprovinciae. Rouen: François Vaultier, 1717. Bietenholz, Peter, éd. Contemporaries ofErasmus, a Biographical Register of thé Renaissance and Reformation, 2 vols. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985-87.

Bibliography

577

Binz, Louis. Vie religieuse et réforme ecclésiastique dans le diocèse de Genève pendant le Grand Schisme et la crise conciliaire (1378-1450). Geneva: Alex. Julien, 1973. Bireley, Robert, SJ. The Refashioning of Catholicism, 1459-1750. Washington: Catholic University Press, 1999. Blair, John and Richard Sharpe, eds. Pastoral Care Before thé Parish. Leicester, UK: University of Leicester Press, 1992. Blet, Pierre. Le Clergé de France et la monarchie, 2 vols. Rome: Librairie éditrice de l'Université Grégorienne, 1959. - Les Assemblées du clergé de France et Louis XTVde 1670 à 1693. Rome: Università Gregoriana, 1972. Bonzon, Anne. L'Esprit de clocher. Prêtres et paroisses dans le diocèse de Beauvais (1535-1650). Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1999. Bossy, John. Christianity in thé West, 1400—1700. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1985Boulard, Fernand. Matériaux pour l'histoire religieuse du peuple français, XIXe-XXe siècles. Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1982, 1987. Bremond, Henri. Histoire littéraire du sentiment religeux en France depuis la fin des guerres de religion jusqu'à nos jours, 11 vols. Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1916-1933. Brian, Isabelle. Messieurs de Sainte-Geneviève: Religieux et curés de la Contre-Réforme à la Révolution. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 2001. Briggs, Robin. Communities of Belief: Cultural and Social Tensions in Early Modem France. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Broutin, Paul. La Réforme pastorale en France au XVIIe siècle. Recherches sur la tradition pastorale après le Concile de Trente, 2 vols., Tournai: Desclée, 1956. Brown, D. Catherine. Pastor andLaity in thé Theology ofjean Gerson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Brown, Sydney M., éd. The Register of Eudes of Rouen. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. Burguière, André. "The Charivari and Religious Repression in France during thé Ancien Régime." In Robert K Wheaton and Tamara K Hareven, eds., Family and Sexuality in French History, 84-110. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980. Campion, Louis. Statuts synodaux de l'église de Saint-Brieuc (1480-1507). Vannes: Lafolye frères, 1910. Canones seu regulae ecclesiasticae concilij provincialis Narbonensii. Toulouse, 1552. Catta, Etienne. "Les Evêques de Nantes de débuts du XVIe siècle aux lendemains du concile de Trente et aux origines de la 'Renaissance catholique'." RHEF 51 (i9 6 5) : 23-70Chaline, N.J. and A. Fouré, eds. Hier, une chrétienté"? Les Archevêques de Rouen visitent leur diocèse. Rouen: Société de l'Histoire de Normandie, 1978. Chartier, Roger. The Cultural Origins of thé French Révolution. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1991. Cheney, C.R. Episcopal Visitations of Monasteries in thé Thirteenth Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1931.

578

Bibliography

- "The Diocèse of Grenoble in thé Fourteenth Century." Spéculum 10 (1935): 162-77. Chevalier, B. "Le Cardinal d'Amboise et la réforme des réguliers." In B. Chevalier and P. Contamine, eds. La France de la fin du XV siècle. Paris, 1985. Chevalier, C. Visites pastorales et ordinations des évêques de Grenoble de la maison de Chissé (XIV-XV siècles). Lyon: A. Brun, 1874. Chevallier, Pierre. Loménie de Brienne et l'ordre monastique, 1766—1789, 2 vols. Paris: Vrin, 1959-60. Choux, Jacques. "Les Statuts synodaux des diocèses lorrains." Annales de l'Est, séries 5, 18(1966): 115-26. Claverie, Michel. Le Rapport des agents généraux du clergé à l'assemblée de 1765. Paris: Presses universaitaires de France, 1976. Cloet, Michel, éd. Itinerarium Visitationum Antonii Triest Episcopi Gandavensis (16231654). Leuven: Belgisch Centrum voor landeslijke geschiedenis, 1976. Collett, Barry. A Long and Troubled Pilgrimage: The Correspondence of Marguerite d'Angoulème and Vittoria Colonna, 1540-1545, vol. 6 of Studies in Reformed Theology andHistory. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Comerford, Kathleen M. and Hilmar M. Pabel, eds. Early Modem Catholicism: Essays in Honour ofjohn W. O'Malley, S.J. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001. Compère, Marie-Madeleine and Dominique Julia. Les Collèges français, i6e - i8e siècles, 2 vols. Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1984-88. Conférences ecclésiastiques du diocèse de Rouen depuis le mois de juillet 1715 jusqu'au mois dejuin 1717. Rouen, 1717. Conférences ecclésiastiques du dioceze de Perigueux sur l'usage des sacremens. Paris: François Muguet, 1683. Goulet, Noël. Visites pastorales, 2 vols. Turnhout: Brepols, 1977, 1985. Culot, André and François Jacques, eds. Visites archidiaconales de l'archidiaconé de Hainaut au diocèse de Liège (1698-1751). Brussels: Palais des Académies, 1978. Crouzet, Denis. La Genèse de la réforme française, 1520—1560. Paris: S.E.D.E.S., 1996. Dainville, François de, S.J. Cartes anciennes de l'église de France. Paris: J. Vrin, 1956. Davis, Natalie. Society and Culture in Early Modem France. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1965. Debar, François et al., eds. Les Catholiques en Basse-Normandie. Enquêtes et documents. Coutances, 1992. De Bascher, J. "La Chronologie des visites de Simon de Beaulieu, archevêque de Bourges, dans la première et la deuxième Aquitaine, à la fin du XIIIe siècle." RHEF^S (1972): 73-89. Décréta Synodi Provincialis habitae Ebrenduni anno domini MDLXXXII. Lyon, 1600. Décréta Synodi Provincialis habitae Rothomagi An. Do. 1581. Paris: P. L'Huillier, 1582, translated as Le Concile provincial des diocèses de Normandie tenu à Rouen l'an M.D.LXXI. Paris: P. L'Huillier, 1583. Delumeau, Jean. Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire. Trans. by Jeremy Moiser. London: Burns and Oates, 1977. Dickens, A.G. The Counter Reformation. New York: W.W. Norton, 1979.

Bibliography

579

Dictionnaire de biographie française, éd. J. Balteau et al, 18 vols, to date. Paris: Letouzey et Ane, 1934 - . Dinet, Dominique. "Les Visites pastorales du diocèse de Sens aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles."Annales de Bourgogne 59 (1987): 20—55. Dobiache-Rojdestvensky, Olga. La Vie paroissiale en France au XIIF siècle. Paris: A. Picard, 1911. Dolan, Claire. Entre tours et clochers: Les Gens d'église à Aix-en-Provence au XVF siècle. Sherbrooke: Les Editions de l'Université de Sherbrooke, 1981. Doucet, Robert. Les Institutions de la France au XVF siècle, 2 vols. Paris: A. etj. Picard, 1948. Dubois, Jacques, O.S.B. "La Carte des diocèses de France avant la Révolution." Annales, 20 (1965): 680-691. Du Bois, Louis. Maximes du droit canonique de France, Denis Simon, éd., 6th éd., vol. i. Paris: Michel et Jean Guignard, 1705. Duffy, Eamon. The Stripping of thé Altars: Traditional Religion in England c. 1400c.i^So. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992. Du Plessis, T. Histoire de l'église de Meaux, 2 vols. Paris: J.M. Gandouin et P.F. Giffart,

iTS 1 Durand, Yves, éd. Cahiers des paroisses du bailliage de Troyes pour les Etats Généraux de 1614. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1966. Edelstein, Marilyn M. "Les Origines sociales de l'épiscopat sous Louis XII et François I," Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine 20(1978) : 239-47. - "The Recruitment of thé Episcopacy under thé Concordat of Bologna in thé Reign of Francis I," Ph.D. diss. Columbia University, 1972. - "The Social Origins of thé Episcopacy in thé Reign of Francis I." French HistoricalStudiesS (1974): 377-92. Elias, Norbert. State Formation and Civilization, vol. 2 of The Civilizing Process, Edmundjephcott, trans, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982. Eubel, Conrad, et al Hierarchia Catholica medii [et recentoris] aevi, 7 vols. Munster: Libraria Regensbergianae, 1913-36. Evennett, H.O., The Spirit ofthe Counter Reformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Farge, James IL, éd. Registre des conclusions de la faculté de théologie de l'Université de Paris. Paris: Klincksieck, 1994. Fauchois, Yann. Religion et France Révolutionnaire. Paris: Herscher, 1989. Ferté, Jeanne. La Vie religieuse dans les campagnes parisiennes, 1622-1695. Paris: Vrin, 1962. Fincham, Kenneth, éd., Visitation Articles and Injunctions of thé Early Stuart Church, 2 vols. Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: Boydell Press, 1994, 1998. Flament, Pierre. "Les Moeurs des laiques au diocèse de Séez sous l'Episcopat de Mgr d'Aquin (1699-1710)." RHEF4.1 (1955): 235-281. - Deux mille prêtres normands face à la Révolution, ij8cj-i8oi. Paris: Librairie académique Perrin, 1989.

580

Bibliography

Forville, Raymonde. "Les Status synodaux et le renouveau pastoral du XIIIe siècle dans le Midi de la France": In Le Credo, la morale et l'Inquisition (Cahiers de Fanjeaux, no. 6), 119-28 Toulouse, 1971. Fougeron, J. "Statuts synodaux de Tours." Mémoires de la société archéologique de Touraine, 23, no. 2 (1873): 50-122. Froeschlé-Chopard, Marie-Hélène et Michel. Atlas de la réforme pastorale en France de 1550 à 1790. Paris: Editions de CNRS, 1986. Gallia Christiana, éd. Denis de Sainte-Marthe, et al., 16 vols., 1715-1865. Reprint Farnborough. UK: Gregg, 1970. Galpern, A.N. The Religions ofthePeopk in Sixteenth-Century France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976. Garns, Pius B. Séries Episcoporum Ecclesiae Catholicae. Ratisbon: J. Manz, 1873. Gazzaniga, Jean-Louis. "Le Parlement de Toulouse et la réforme des réguliers (fin du XVe siècle début du XVIe siècle). " RHEF 77 ( 1991 ) : 49-51. Gordon, Bruce. Clérical Discipline and thé Rural Reformation: The Synod in Zurich, 1532-1580. Bern: Peter Lang, 1992. Gouesse, Jean-Marie. "Assemblées et associations cléricales. Synodes et conférences ecclésiastiques dans le diocèse de Coutances aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles." Annales de Normandie 24 (1974) : 42-43. Gousset, Théodore, éd. Les Actes de la province ecclésiastique de Reims, 4 vols. Reims: L. Jacquet, 1842-44. Greenshields, Malcolm. An Economy of Violence in Early Modem France. Crime and Justice in thé Haute Auvergne, 1587-1664. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994. - "An Introduction to thé Pastoral Visit Project: Between Two Worlds, 15601720," Proceedings of thé Annual Meeting of thé Western Society for French History 15 (1988): 51-60. - "What Happened in Quibou? The Catholic Reformation in thé Village." Proceedings of thé Annual Meeting of thé Western Society for French History 18 (1991): 80-8 7. Guizard, Louis. "Recherches sur le texte des statuts synodaux d'Eudes de Sully, Evêque de Paris." Bulletin d'information de l'Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes 5 (1956): 53-59. Hayden, J. Michael. "Continuity in thé France of Henry IV and Louis XIII: French Foreign Policy, 1598-1615. " Journal of Modem History 45 (1973): 1-23. - France and The Estâtes General 0/1614. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974. - "Models, Mousnier and Qualité: The Social Structure of Early Modem France." French History 10(1996) : 375-398. - "States, Estâtes and Orders: thé Qualité of Female Clergy in Early Modem France." French History 8 (1994): 51-76. - "The Pastoral Visit Project Phase I: The Diocèses of Coutances and Avranches." Proceedings of thé Annual Meeting of thé Western Society for French History 15(1988) : 61-70.

Bibliography

581

- "The Social Origins of the French Episcopacy at the Beginning of the Seventeenth Century." French Historical Studies 10 (1977): 27-40. - "The Uses of Political Pamphlets: The Example of 1614-15 in France." Canadian Journal of History 21 (1986): 143-66. Hayden, J. Michael and Malcolm. R. Greenshields. "The Clergy of Early Seventeenth Century France: Self-Perception and Society's Perception." French Historical Studies 18 (1993): 147-51. - "Les Reformations catholiques en France: le temoignage des statuts synodaux." Revue d'histoire moderneet contemporaine48 (2001): 5-29 Hazard, Paul. The European Mind, 1680-1715), trans. J. Lewis May. London: Hollis and Carter, 1953. Hoffman, Philip. Church and Community in the Diocese ofLyon, 1500-1789. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1984. Imbart de la Tour, P. Les Origines de la Reforme, 2 vols., 2nd ed. Paris: Hachette, 1948. Isambert, Francois-Andre and Jean-Paul Terrenoire. Atlas de la pratique religieuse des Catholiques en France. Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1980. Isambert, Francois, ed. Recueil general des anciennes lois franfaises, 29 vols. Paris: Belin Le Prieur, 1821-33. Join-Lambert, M. "La Pratique religieuse dans le diocese de Rouen sous Louis XIV (1660-1715)." Annales deNormandie3 (1953): 247-74. Jouanna, Arlette. La France du XVF siecle, 1483-1598. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1996. Jouanne, Rene. "Les Enquetes paroissiales de Monseigneur d'Aquin eveque de Sees (1701-1709)," Le Pays Bas-Normand 53 (1960): 95-117. Joyeuse, Francois, Cardinal. Instruction de Monseigneur I'illustrissme et reverendissime Cardinal de Joyeuse Archevesque de Rouen servant aux archidiacres & visiteurs des Eglises de son diocese. Gaillon: Martin Verac, 1607. Julia, Dominique, J. Gadille, M. Venard. "Pour un repertoire des visiles pastorales." RHEF54 (1969): 50-67. Julia, Dominique, Marc Venard et al. Repertoire des visites pastorales de la France. Deuxieme serie. Dioceses Concordataires et post-concordataires (dpartir de 1801), 2 vols. Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1978-80. Jusselin, Maurice. "Statuts synodaux et constitutiones synodales du diocese de Chartres au XIV6 siecle (1355)." Revue historique de droit francais et Stranger 8 (1929): 69-109. Kay, Richard. "Romanus and Rouen: A Papal Legate's Tainted Visitation in 1227." Annales de Normandie 51 (2001): 111-118. Kidd, B.J. The Counter-Reformation, 1550-1600, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980. Lacger, Louis de. "Statuts synodaux inedits du diocese d'Albi au XIIP siecle." Revue historique de droit francais et etranger 6 (1927): 418—2 3. Lalore, Charles. Ancienne et nouvelle discipline du diocese de Troyes de 1785 a 1843, 3 vols. Troyes: Secretariat de 1'Eveche, 1882-83.

582

Bibliography

Lalourcé and Duval, eds. Receuil des cahiers généraux, 4 vols. Paris: n. pub., 1789. Langlois, Claude and Timothy Tackett. "A l'épreuve de la Révolution (17701830)," 239-320 in Lebrun, Histoire des Catholiques en France. Lawless, George. Augustine of Hippo and His Monastic Rule. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Lebrun, François, éd. Histoire des Catholiques en France, 2nd éd. Paris: Privât, 1980. Lebrun, François. "Le Traité des superstitions de Jean-Baptiste Thiers, contribution à l'ethnographie de la France du XVIIe siècle." Annales de Bretagne et des Pays de l'Ouest &$ (1976): 443-65. Lelong, Jacques. Bibliothèque historique de la France, 5 vols. Paris: Hérissant. 1768-78. Lemaître, Nicole. Le Rouergue flamboyant: Clergé et paroisses du diocèse de Rodez (14171563). Paris: Cerf, 1988. Lorcin, M.T. "Des commandes pour les orfèvres: la visite pastorale du diocèse de Lyon en 1469." Cahiers d'Histoire 24 (1979): 21-43. Luria, Kieth P. "'Popular Catholicism' and thé Catholic Reformation." In Comerford and Pabel, Early Modem Catholicism 114-30. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001. - Territories of Grâce: Cultural Change in thé Seventeenth Century Diocèse of Grenoble. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. McMahon, Derrin M. Enemies of thé Enlightenment: The French Counter-Enlightenment and thé Making of Modernity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. McManners,John. Church and Society inEighteenth Century France, 2 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. - The French Révolution and thé Church. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. Mansi, J.D. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vols. 32-33. 1902. Reprint Graz: Akademische Druk -u Verlagsanstalt, 1960. Marcel, L.E. Le Cardinal de Givry, évêque de Langres (1529-1561), n.p., n. pub., 1926. Manon, Marcel. Dictionnaire des institutions de la France aux XVIIe et XVTIF siècles. 1923. Reprint New York: Burt Franklin, 1968. Martin, Hervé. "Le Legs du Moyen Age (1450-1520)." In Lebrun, Histoire des catholiques en France 13-83. Martin, Victor. Le Gallicanisme et la réforme catholique. Paris: A. Picard, 1919. - Les Origines du Gallicanisme, 2 vols. Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1939. Martène, Edmond and Ursin Durand. Thésaurus novus anecdotorum, 4 vols. 1717. Reprint New York: Burt Franklin, 1968. Masselin, ]ean. Journal des Etats généraux de France... 1484. A. Bernier, éd. Paris: Imprimerie royale, 1835. Minge, J.P. Encyclopédie théologique, vols. 13-14. Paris: Minge, 1846-47. Minnich, Nelson. "The Participants at thé Fifth Lateran Council." Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, 12 (1974): 157-206. Minois, Georges. La Bretagne des prêtres en Trégor d'ancien régime, n.p.: Beltan, 1987. Mirot, Albert. Manuel de Géographie historique de la France, 2 vols. Paris: A. etj Picard,

195°-

Bibliography

583

Monter, William. Judging theFrench Reformation: Heresy Trials by Sixteenth-Century Parlements. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999. Mousnier, Roland. Les Institutions de la France sous la monarchie absolue, 2 vols. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1974, 80. Mullet, Michael. The Catholic Reformation. New York: Routledge, 1999. Munier, Charles, éd. Les Statuta Ecclesiae Antiqua. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1960. Nalle, Sara T. God in La Mancha: Religious Reform and thé People of Cuenca, 1500— 1650. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Nicholls, David. "Inertia and Reform in thé Pre-Tridentine French Church: thé Response to Protestantism in thé Diocèse of Rouen, 1520-1562." Journal ofEcclesiasticalHistory 23 (1981): 93-105. O'Connell, Marvin R. The Counter Reformation, 1599-1610. New York: Harper and Row, 1974. Odespunc de La Meschinière, Louis, éd. Concilia novissima Galliae a tempore Concilia Tridenti Celebrata. Paris: D. Bechet, 1646. O'Malley, John W. S.J. Catholicism in Early Modem History: A Guide to Research. St. Louis: Center for Reformation Research, 1988. - Trent and AU That: Renaming Catholicism in thé Early Modem Era. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. Palmer, Robert R. Catholics and Unbelievers in Eighteenth Century France. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1939. Parker, Geoffrey. "Success and Failure During thé First Century of thé Reformation." Past and Présent, no. 136 (1988): pp. 43-82. Pérouas, Louis. Culte des saints & anticléricalisme. Usel: Musée du Pays d'Ussel, 2002. - Le Diocèse de La Rochelle de 1648 à 1724. Paris: S.E.V.E.P.N., 1964. Péronnet, Michel. LesEvêques de l'ancienne France. Lille: Université de Lille III, 1978. Peyronet, Simon de. Jus sacrum ecclesiae Tolosanae ...,2 vols. Toulouse: Veuve A. Colomiez, 1669. Pister, Danielle, éd. L'image du prêtre dans la littérature classique (XVIIe - XVIIIe siècle. Bern: Peter Lang, 2001. Plongeron, Bernard. La Vie quotidienne du clergé français au XVIIF siècle. Paris: Hachette, 1974. Po-Chia Hsia, R. The World of Catholic Renewal, 1540-1770. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998. Pontal, Odette, Clercs et laïcs au Moyen Age d'après les statuts synodaux. Tournai: Desclée, 1990. - "Les Plus anciens statuts synodaux d'Angers et leur expansion dans l'ouest de France." RHEF46 (1960), 54-67. - éd. Les Statuts de Paris et le synodal de l'ouest, vol. i of Les Statuts synodaux français du XIIIe siècle. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1971. - éd. Les Statuts de 1230 à 1260, vol. 2 of Les Statuts synodaux français du XIIF siècle. Paris: Editions du CNRS, 1983.

584

Bibliography

- "Quelques remarques sur les statuts des synodes diocesains et leur imbrication." RHEF48 (1962): 80-85. Powicke, F.M. and C.R. Cheney, eds. Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, vol. II, pts. i and 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. Ramsey, Ann W. Liturgy, Politics and Salvation: The Catholic League in Paris and the Nature of Catholic Reform, 1540-1630. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 1999. Rapp, Francis. Reformes et Reformation a Strasbourg: Eglise et societe dans le diocese de Strasbourg (1450-1525). Strasbourg: Gap-Paris, 1975. Ravitch, Norman. Sword and Mitre: Government and Episcopate in France and England in the Age of Aristocracy. The Hague: Mouton, 1966. Renaudet, Augustin. Prereforme et humanisme a Paris pendant les premieres guerres d 'Italie (1494-1517), 2nd ed. Paris: Librairie d'Argences, 1953. Riley, Philip F. A Lust for Virtue: Louis XIV's Attack on Sin in Seventeenth-Century France. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001 Rothkrug, Lionel. Opposition to Louis XIV: The Political and Social Origins of the French Enlightenment. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. Sauerland, H., ed. Vatikanische Urkunden undRegesten, 2 vols. Metz: G. Scriba, 1901-05. Sauzet, Robert. Les Visiles pastorales dans le diocese de Chartres pendant la premiere moitie du XVIF siecle. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1975. - Contre-reforme et reforme catholique en Bas Languedoc. Le diocese de Nimes au XVIF siecle. Brussels: Nauwelaerts, 1979. - "Les Proces-verbaux des visiles pastorales du diocese de Chartres au XVIF siecle." Archives de Sociologie des Religions, no. 35 (1972): 45—56. - "Presence renovee du catholicisme (1520-1670): 85-164. In Lebrun, Histoiredes Catholiques en France. Schroeder, HJ. Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils. St. Louis: St. Louis University Press, 1937. Serbat, Louis. Les Assemblees du Clerge de France: Origines, organisation, developement (1561-1615). Paris: H. Champion, 1906. Somerville, Robert. The Councils of Urban II, vol. i of Decreta Claromontensia. Amsterdam: Adolph M. Hakkert, 1972. Tackett, Timothy. Religion, Revolution and Regional Culture in Eighteenth Century France: The Ecclesiastical Oath of ijcji. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986. Tallon, Alain. La France et le Concile de Trente (1518-1563). Rome: Ecole francaise de Rome, 1997. Taveneaux, Rene. Le Catholicisme dans la France classique, 2 vols. Paris: S.E.D.E.S., 1980. Taylor, Larissa. Heresy and Orthodoxy in Sixteenth-Century Paris: Francois Le Picart and the Beginnings of the Catholic Reformation. Leiden: EJ. Brill, 1999. — Soldiers of Christ: Preaching in Late Medieval and Reformation France. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Thiers, Jean-Baptiste. Traite des Superstitions selon I'Ecriture sainte, les decrets des conciles et les sentimens des saints Peres et des theologians. Paris: A. Dezallier, 1679.

Bibliography

585

Thomas, Jules. Le Concordat de 1516. Ses origines, son histoire au XVIe siècle, 3 vols. Paris: Picard, 1910. Tillier, J.C. "La Pré-réforme à Angoulême et les statuts synodaux d'Antoine d'Estaing (1506—1523)," Mémoires de la société archéologique et historique de la Charente. (1972): 262-65. Tolley, Bruce. Pastors and Parishioners in Wurttemberg During thé Late Reformation, 1581-1621. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995. Toustain de Billy, René. Histoire ecclésiastique du diocèse du Coutances. A. Héron, éd., 3 vols. Rouen: Société historique de Normandie, 1874-76. Van Kley, Dale K. The Religious Origins ofthe French Révolution, from Calvin to thé CivilConstitution, 1560-1791. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996. Veissière, Michel. "La Vie chrétienne dans le diocèse de Meaux entre 1493 et 1526 d'après les synodes diocesans. Continuités et innovations." RHEF 77 ( 1991 ) : 71-80. - "Un précurseur de Guillaume Briçonnet: Louis Pinelle, évêque de Meaux de 1511 à 1526." Bulletin de la société d'histoire et d'art du diocèse de Meaux 18 (1967) : 7-40. Venard, Marc and Dominique Julia. "Le Répertoire des visites pastorales. Premiers enseignements d'une enquête." ^^£^63 (1977): 213-33. Venard, Marc. L'Eglise d'Avignon au XWème siècle. Lille: Université de Lille III, 1980. - "Un concile provincial oublié: le Concile d'Embrun en 1583." Provence Historique, no. 170 (1992): 625-44. Viard, Georges. "Les Visites pastorales dans l'ancien diocèse de Langres. La réglementation épiscopale et sa mise en oeuvre." RHEF6% (1977): 235-72. Villars, Pierre de. Opuscules et divers traitez, sur plusieurs sujets & matières Ecclésiastiques, & mesmes des principaux, & plus nécessaires articles de reformation, ordonezpar le S. concile de Trente. Lyon, 1596. Vovelle, Michel. Piété baroque et décristianisation en Provence au XVIIIe siècle. Paris: Pion,

!973Welter, Louis. La Réforme ecclésiastique du diocèse de Clermont au XVIIe siècle. Paris: Letouzey, 1956. Whitelock, D., M. Brett and C.N.L. Brooke, eds. Councils and Synods with OtherDocuments Relating to thé English Church, vol I, pts. i & 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981. Wright, Gordon. France in Modem Times. Chicago: Rand McNally, c. 1960. Zeller, Gaston. Les Institutions de la France au XVIe siècle. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1948.

This page intentionally left blank

General Index

Aix: pastoral visits, 44-5, 49, 55, 75, 77-8, 90, 92-6, 115-16, 134-8, 143-5, 151-5. 169-70, 180, 477-81, 483-9, 5741131; reforming activity, 43, 45, 78, 100—i, 107, "S-1?. 153-5. i58. 180,470-5,491-4, 5741132; synodal statutes, 77, 113-14, 152-5 Albi: pastoral visits, 44, 55, 77, 90, 92, 94-6, 134-8, 143, 151-5, 169-70, 432, 477-81, 483-9; reforming activity, 43, 45, 77, 100i, 115, 117, 145, 153-5, i58. 180,470-5, 491-4; synodal statutes, 77-8, 113-14, 152-5 Alexander VIII, 149 altars, 27-9, 33, 128, 131, 136-7, 142, 162, 168 Arles: pastoral visits, 49, 55, 75, 77, 90, 92-5, i*5. 134-8, 143-5. 151-5. 169-70, 47781, 483-9; reforming activity, 76, 78, 100i, 115-17, 153-5. 158. 180,470-5,4914; synodal statutes, 52; 77, 113-14, 152-5 Assembly of thé Clergy, 9, 86, 101, 105, 107, 149, 185,424 Auch: pastoral visits, 94, 115, 134-8, 152-5, 169-70, 477-81, 483-9; reforming activity, 43, loo-i, 115, 117, 145, 153-5, 158' 180, 470-5, 491-4; synodal statutes, 75, 77. 113-14. 152-5 Avignon, 48, 54, 57, 59, 97-9, 142-4, 172-3, 180

Avignon Residency, 42, 46, 48, 50-1, 57 baptismal font, 29, 48, 50, 53, 56, 92, 131, 136, 162, 55on76 Baumgartner, Frédéric, 81, 51 in5 bénéfices: multiple, 64, 72, 100, 104-5, 13°! résidence in, 53—4, 83, 104—5 Bergin, Joseph, xix-xx, 80, 119-22, 159-60 Binz, Louis, 54, 99 biologsts, 552n85 births, illegitimate, 146, 170, 181 bishops: appointaient of, 74, 78-80, 110, 119-21, 123, 5i4n28, 54in2i; définition of 9-10; identity of, 370-408; measuring reform activity of 20-1, 78-81, 108-21, 145, 155-60, 168, 370-414, 434-6, 470-5, 4912; papal provisions of, 79, 434-5, 54in2i; social status of 70, 81, 119-23, 130,159-60, 415; of1190-1249, 44-7, 49-5°. 61. !?7; of 1250-1489, 51,57,61, 178-9,429-30; of1480-1590,78-81, 104-5, 179-80, 42930; of1590-1689,117-19, 125, 130, 1456,180-1, 429-30; of1690-1789, 149-50, 155-60, 168, 174, 181-2, 184-7; of168391, 112, 144, 148-50, 180, 183 Black Death, 42, 46, 49-50 Bordeaux: pastoral visits, 55, 78, 90, 94-5, 134-8, 151-5, 169-70,477-81,483-89; reforming activity, 43, 45, 100-1, 107, 115-17. 153-5. 158, 180, 437, 470-5,

588

General Index

491—4; synodal statutes, 47, 75, 77, 113— 14,145, 152-5 Borromeo, Charles, 7, 70-3, 120, 124, 129, 143 boules, 130 Bourges: pastoral visits, 44, 55, 77, 90, 93-5, 134-8, 152-5, 169-70,477-81,483-89; reforming activity, 45, 66, 100-1, 107, 115-17, 151, 153-5. 158, 18°' 47°-5. 491-4, 574n32; synodal statutes, 52, 75, 77,113-14, 151-5 bread, sacramental, 29, 31, 40

French, 16—20, 422—4; other, 572^3 discontinuity. See reform doctors, medical, 91, 133, 170 Easter duty, 12,56,83, 134, 137, 142, 163, 167-9, 181,431 ecclesiastical conferences, 128, 164, 182, 549n63 Edelstein, Marilyn, 81, 51105 Embrun: pastoral visits, 55, go, 93-6, 134-8, 143-4, 152-5. i69-70.477-8i,483-9. 574n3i; reforming activity, 78, 100—i, 107, 115, 117, 153-5, IS8, 180,437,4705, 491-4; synodal statutes, 52, 75, 113-14, 152-5 Enlightenment, 5, 8, 102, 147, 164, 174, 182-3, 185 Estates General, 68-9, 104-6 excommunication, 30, 32, 38-41, 47, 53, 57-9.82,97, 167

Calvinism, 127, 131-2, 174, 179, 182 catechism. See parish Catholic Reformation. See Reformation cemeteries, 53, 56, 60, 82-3, 92, 94, 108, 125, 127, 131-4. 141, H5. l68~9 Charles VII, 410 Charles VIII, 67-8, 410 Charles IX, 74, 410 feast days, reduction of, 161, 174 chronology, 20, 265-6, 424-6 First Catholic Reformation: beginning of, Church, French: definition of, 9, 183-4; re101, 160-1, 179, 428-33; defining interform in, 7, 22-3, 60-4, 160, 174, 176-87; ests of, 91-6, 101, 178; definition of, 11, rights and privileges of, 38-9, 41, 148-9 cities, inhabitants of, 184—6 13, 99, 178-80; description of, 63-102; clerics: duties of, 28, 30-3, 37-8, 40-1, 44, end of, 102-4, i°8; French nature of, 99102, 178-9; role of the Councils of Sens 47, 68, 82; in the 15th century, 51, 60; forin, 66—8; role of the French government eign, 423—4; national culture of, 148, in, 68-70, 100, 179 174-5, 1 79> l8 3> 187; relations with women, 30-3, 37-8, 40, 47, 53, 57, 68, 87, Four Gallican Articles, 149 Francis I, 68, 410 104-5, 124-6, 128-30, 162-3, l8 5> 5i7n4O, 526n2, 548n6o; in the i6th cenFrancis II, 410, 528^4 tury, 67-9; in the i7th century, 129-30; in French Revolution, 3, 5, 8, 23, 61, 131, 147the i8th century, 148, 182, 185-7, 56918 8, 154-5, i59-6o, 175, 177, 181, 184 Colbert, Jean-Baptiste, 161 Froeschle-Chopard, M.H. and M., 15-20, Concordat of Bologna, 51, 5i6n28 73-4, 78, 95, 4 l6 , 422-4, 428-33, confraternities, 45, 87, 90-1, 105, 134, 1365i9n52, 5721122 8, 142, 145, 168-9, !8i Gallicanism, 9, 91, 104, 133, 148, 166, 185 continuity. See reform councils, ecumenical: Basel, 12, 42, 51, 67, geography, 16-20, 256-61, 422-4, 426-7 69; Constance, 42, 69; Lateran I - IV, 12, Gerson, Jean, 82-3, 85, 89-90, 92, 99, 107, 14, 22, 25-6, 32, 34; Lateran V, 537n86; 129, 180, 429 Nicea, 24-5; Trent. See Trent, Council of Great Western Schism, 42, 46, 48, 50-1, 57 councils in France: national, 69, 106; provinHenry II, 69, 74, 410 cial, 22, 24-5, 51-2, 54, 66-8, 86, 106-8 Counter Reformation, 6-7, 103 Henry III, 105-6, 110, 410, 53gng cravats, 162 Henry IV, 65, 100, 110-12, 120-3, 179, 410 heretics, 32, 39-40, 44, 85, 98, 132, 140, 184, 525ng5 demography, 432, 503 dioceses: bordering, 16-20, 96, 101, 426-7; history, quantitative, 4, 416-507

General Index Hugo, Victor, 187 Huguenots. Ses Calvinism HundredYears' War, 42, 49-51 Innocent XI, Pope 149 Innocent XII, Pope, 149 James II of England, 55gn 17 Jansenism, 129, 132-3, 159, 166, 174, 182, 185-6, 544n35 Jesuits, 174, 182, 185 jews, 32, 39-40, 44, 91, 98, 132, 174, 186, 5261195 laity: activités of, 90, 92, 165, 431, 525094; changing interest of pastoral visitors in, 132, 185, 431; moral condition of, 60, 90, 92, 165; religious duties of, 31-2, 37-9, 60-1,82, 126-7, 163, 165, 431; views of, 50, 56, 61, 182—5 Late Médiéval Reform: définition, 42; description, 10, 51-61, 178 Le Maître, Nicole, 84, 526ni libertinage. See sexual sins Louis XI, 410 Louis XII, 410 Louis XIII, 121—3, 410 Louis XIV, 144, 148-50, 174, 180, 183,410 Louis XV, 410 Louis XVI, 164, 410 Luther, Martin, 67, 69, 83-5, 179 Lyon: pastoral visits, 48-9, 55, 77, 90, 92-6, 134-8, 143, 152-5, 169-70,431,477-81, 483-9; reforming activity 45, 58-9, 66, 100-1, 115-17, 153-5. !58> 180,470-5, 491—4; synodal statutes, 52, 58, 75, 113— 14, 116, 145, 151-5 mathematicians, 552n85 Mazarin, Cardinal, 120 methodology, 4, 416—507 midwives, 56, 91, 133, 168-9 missing data, 416—20 Narbonne: pastoral visits, 49, 94, 115, 134— 8, 143, 152-5, 169-70,477-81,483-9, 574n3i; reforming activity, 43, 45, 66, 68, 76, 100-1, 116-17, 153~5' 1 5^» 180,4705, 491-4; synodal statutes, 77, 113-14, 1 5*~5 nocturnal pollution, 33

5«9

papal provisions. Seebishops Paris: pastoral visits, 49, 55-6, 77-8, 90, 936, 134-8, 152-5, 169-70, 432, 477-81, 483-9. 574n3!; reforming activity, 43, 45, 58, 74, 100-1, 115-17, 151, 153-5. !58. 180, 470-5, 491-4; synodal statutes, 43, 52, 58, 76-7, 113-16, 145, 151-5, 432 parish activities: catechism, 91-2, 132, 1348, 141-2, 145, 167, 438, 507, 526ngs; finances, 50, 90. 92, 94, 132, 165, 169; practice of religion, 50, 56, 141, 523n8o; preaching, 56, 92, 134-8, 168-9; registration, 82, 90, 92-3, 108, 125, 134-8, 141, 168; teaching, 57, 89, 92, 142, 167 parish church: contents, 50, 56, 60, 89—90, 92, 125, 132, 134-8, 165, 168-9, !77. *79. 438. 5°5-6. 5211164; structure, 43-4, 50, 60-1, 89, 125, 132, 134-8, 165, 169,

!?7. 179. 55°n76

parish priests: changes in thé i8th century, 174, 185; duties of, 38, 45, 82, 87, 89, 125-7, 134~8, 165-6; identity of, 12, 60i, 131-2, 142, 55on76; income, 166, 179, 185; intellectual condition, 92, 132, 138, 166, 169, 174; moral condition, 50, 60, 8 9. 92. 94. !34-8. 142, 165-6, 168, 174, 179; pastoral zeal, 43, 50, 82, 89, 92, 94, 134-8, 142, 165-6, 168-9, 174, 431; and women, wclerics pastoral visits -général: cérémonies surrounding, 90, 142; définition, 3, 11, 14—15, 514^; général visits; 44-5, 48, 55, 430, 5^55; provincial différences in, 134-8, 170-1; rôle in reform, 9—11, 24—5 - analysis of: catégories, 322—3, 443; coded and uncoded, 14-5, 296-312, 417-18, 5 i8n5o; corrélations of data, 134-5, 1 37> 142-4, 170-1, 173; diocèses visited per province per period, 313—17, 365, 433—4; methods used, 14-15, 285-367, 420-2, 428, 436-8; pattern of, 43, 45, 48-9, 556,59-60,74-7,88,91, 131-8, 150-5, 181, 208, 431; percentage of possible visits per year, 320-1, 367, 433-4; provinces - percentage of years with visits, 318-19, 366, 433-4; subcategories, 323-7, 444-69; subsubcategories, 328-42, 345-6 - content: overview, 43-5, 48, 50, 55-7, 60, 88-96, 131-8, 164-71, 322-364; early igth century, 184; thé 49 topics of 1490-

59°

General Index

1589, 92-5, 357; on France's borders, 45, 50, 57, 60; 98-9, 141-4, 172-3; medieval, 43-5, 48, 50, 55-6, 61, 428, 443-6; the 96 Catholic Reformation Topics, 347-53, 431, 437. 55in78; the 36 questions, 355-6, 437-8; the 118 topics of 1590-1789, 13338, 142, 355-64, 476-90; question patterns, 1590-1689, 131-8; questions most asked 1590-1689, 132-3; questions most asked in the i6th century, 91; questions most asked, 1690-1789, 165-6; question patterns, 1690-1789, 164-71; questions unasked, 1590-1689, 132; questions unasked in the Middle Ages, 525^5; questions unasked in the i6th century, 91; questions unasked, 1690-1789, 166-7 pastoral visitors: identity of the visitor, 3434; bishops, 43-4, 46, 56, 95-6, 133, 1689, 428-9; others, 46, 56, 90, 95-6, 133, 168-9, 428-9, 525^4; the Twenty Reformers, 133, 351-6, 432, 437-8 peasants, 184, 186 period groups, medieval, 427-8, 443-6 periods, chronological, 20, 265-6, 424-6 Peronnet, Michel, 81, 159-60, 514^8 physicists, 552n85 Pontal, Odette, 32, 71, 5111111, 515^ popular religion, 5, 53, 64, 87, 89, 91, 1012, 125, 127, 134, 145, 148, 174, 179, 182, 184 Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, 51 protestantism, 7, 9, 85-6, 126, 140, 179, 186, 421 Protestant Reformation. See Reformation promulgation. See synodal statutes provinces, ecclesiastical, 17-20, 256-61, 433-4. See also Aix, Aries, Auch, etc. publications, religious, 76, 146, 181 Quietism, 166, 179, 185 reform: continuity and discontinuity of, 6—8, 63-4, 103, 176-87; definition, 8-9 Reformation: Catholic, 6-7, 103-4, 181-2; cycles of, 13, 21-3, 424-6; see also First and Second Catholic Reformations; Protestant, 6-7, 9, 63-4, 70, 99, 102-3, !79; role of religious orders in, 10, 145, 182 regale, 148-9, 183 Reims: pastoral visits, 43, 49, 55, 77-8, go, 92, 94-6, 116, 134-8, 143, 145, 152-5,

169-70,431-2, 477-81, 483-9, 574n3i; reforming activity, 58, 66, 68, 100-1, 1067, 115-17, 153-5. !58> l8°. 47°-5.4914; synodal statutes, 58, 113-14, 151-5, 432 religious communities: buildings, 142, 169; members of, 43, 45, 47, 51,61, 8g, 131, 142; role in reform, 10, 145, 182 Renaissance, 102, i7g Rouen: pastoral visits, 43-4, 49, 55, 77-8, go, 94-6, 134-8, 152-5, 169-70, 477-81, 483-9; reforming activity, 43, 45, 58, 66, 100-1, 107, 115-17, 153-5, X58, 180, 437, 470-5, 491-4; synodal statutes, 43, 52,58,75-7, 113-14, 151-5 sacraments, 28-30, 33, 39-41, 48, 50, 56, 57, 67, 82, 124-8, 134-8, 141-2, 165-7, !79. 432,5 0 2 Scientific Revolution, 102, 174, 182 Second Catholic Reformation: beginning, 100, 108-12, 160-1, 180, 548n62; definition, 11, 180; description of phase one, 103-46, 181-2; description of phase two, 147-75, 181-2; end, 147, 181-7; pattern of phase one, 111-17; pattern of phase two, 150-5; transition between phases, 112,116,118-19, 148-50, 183 seminaries, 104, 125, 145, 164, 182-3 Sens: pastoral visits, 49, 55-6, 77-8, 90, 926, 116, 134-8, 152-5, i6g-7o, 432, 47781, 483~g; reforming activity, 43, 66-8, 100-1, 115-17, 153-5. !58, 180,470-5, 4gi~4; synodal statutes, 43, 52, 75, 77, 113-14, 151-5,432 sexual sins (libertinage), 35-6, 41, 56, 170, 566n58 simony, 30-1, 51, 104, 126 snuff, 162 social services, 57, 8g, 52in64 sorcery and magic, 31, 37-40, 45, 48, 53, 56, 82, 125, 127, 134, 137, 162, 167, i6g, 170 spiders, 2g, 33, 39, 48, 124, 162 statisticians, 552^5 statues, 92-3, 125, 134, 136, 168 Synodal de 1'Quest, 26, 32-8 synodal statutes -general: definition, 3, 11-13, 514n3! French language, 48-9, 53, 70-1, 140, 281; on France's borders, 43-4, 48, 52, 54, 59, 96-8, 138-41, 171-2, 273-4; plan

General Index

59i

158, 180, 470-5, 491-4; synodal statutes, méthodique, 70-3, 140, 172, 282-4; relation to English statutes, 25-7, 51511115-6 43. 52, 58, 71. 75-7. 113-14. 145. 151-5. - analysis:i3, 269-84, 439; patterns of pro432, 439 mulgation, 41-4, 47, 52, 58-9, 75-7, 112- Toustain de Billy, René, 162 Trent, Council of: content, 12, 86, 104, 177, 17, 150-4, 181, 270-84, 439-43; promul429; French attendance at, 106, 108, gation, 12—13, 48, 526^ - content: of Eudes de Sully, 26-32, 39; of 537n86; influence of, 7, 86-7, 96-9, 103, 106-7, 124, 130, 136, 138, 140, 145, 148, Guillaume de Beaumont, 26, 32-8; médi160-1, 171, 179-80, 184, 527ni3 éval, 26-41, 47, 52-3, 58-9; 1480-1589, 58,74-7, 81-7, 161; 1590-1689, 123-30, Venard, Marc, 15-16, 54, 97-8, 143, 173-5, 161;1690-1789, 152, 160-4 synods, rôle in reform, 9—10, 24-43 421,519^2 vessels, sacred, 550^6 vicar, perpétuai, 13 tabernacles, 28, 56, 60, 92, 108, 131, 142, Vienne: pastoral visits, 45, 48-9, 55-6, 75, 55on76 Taylor, Larissa, 76 77-8, 90, 92-6, 134-8, 143-4, 152-5. 169-70,431-2,477-81, 483-9; reforming teaching. Seeparish tennis, 130 activity, 58, 66, 77-8, 100-1, 106, 115-17, Thirteenth Century Reform: définition, 10, 153-5. 158, 180, 470-5, 491-4; synodal 22, 42; description, 43-50, 60-1, 177 statutes, 52, 58, 113—14, 152—5 Thirty Years' War, 96 vocations, religious, 146, 181 tobacco, 130, 162 Toulouse: pastoral visits, 49, 55, 75, 78, 90, Wars of Religion, 8, 65, 74, 78, 102, 179 wet nurses, 133—4, 1^9 94-5. 134-8. 152-5. 169-70,477-81, 483-9; reforming activity, 58, 76, 100-1, wigs, 162 107, 115, 117, 151, 153-5, !58. 180,470- wills, 146, 181 wine, sacramental, 28, 31, 40, 5&8n5 5, 491-4; synodal statutes, 52, 58, 113-14, women: in pastoral visits, 28-31, 35-6, 41, 152-5 57; in synodal statutes, 30-8, 40, 47, 53, Tours: pastoral visits, 55, 77-8, 90, 92-6, 87, 124-6, 128-30; relations with clerics. 134-8, 152-5, 169-70, 432, 477-8i. 483See clerics 9. 574n3i; reforming activity, 43, 45, 589,66, loo-i, 107, 115, 117, 151, 153-5,

This page intentionally left blank

Index of Bishops

Abbadie, Jean-Pierre d', 392 Abbadie d'Arboucave, Bernard d', 406 Abelly, Louis, 392 Abzac de Mayac, GuillaumeJoseph d', 402 Adhémar, Guillaume, 374, 380 Ailleboust, Charles de, 380, 538n4 Alamani, Luc, 384, 534ns8 Albon, Antoine d', 380 Albret, Amanieu d', 380 Albret, Jacques d', 380 Albret de Luynes, Paul d',

Amaury, Raymond, 39—40 Amboise, Georges I d', 68,

Argouges, François d', 397 Argouges, Michel-Pierre, 406 Armagnac, Georges d', 84, 374. 378 Amboise, Georges II d', 380 86, 377 Arnauld, Henri, 354, 395 Amboise, Jacques d', 376, 378 544n35 Amboise, Jean I d', 374, 380 Aube de Roquemartine, Louis, 395 Amboise, Jean II d', 376, 380 Amboise, Louis d', 374, 378 Aubigné, Claude-Maur, 397, Amelot de Gournay, Michel, 558ni6 386 Aubusson de la Feuillade, Ancelin, Humbert, 402 Georges, 392 Audibert de Lussan, LouisAndigné de la Chasse, Joseph-François, 397 Jacques d', 397 Angennes, Claude d', 384, Aumont, Roger d', 392 Aussigny, Thibaut d', 370 534n58, 5421128 397 Angennes, Jacques, 388 Auvry, Claude, 392 Aleaume, Guillaume, 388 Allart, Théodore-Germain, Avançon, François d', 378 Anterroches, AlexandreAvançon, Guillaume d', 106— César de, 406 392 Anthelmy, Charles-LéonceAlleman, Louis, 370 7. 38°. 537-8n86, 53gng Avantage, Jean, 53, 370 Alleman de Montmartin, EnOcatvien d', 397, 55gni8 Apchon, Claude-MarcAvaugour, Henri d', 370 nemond, 406 Antoine d', 402 Allemand, Laurent I, 82, Baglion du Saillant, François374. 377. 525n93. 53°n33 Aquin, Louis d', 354, 402, Ignace, 406 Allemand, Laurent II, 72, 5571114 Aquin, Luc d', 395, 547n37 Balzac, Antoine de, 370 377 Arbaut de Bargemon, Bandello, Mathieu, 381 Allemand, Siboud, 370, Banne d'Avéjan, Charles de, 522n67,525H93 Antoine, 392 Arche, Guillaume d', 396, Amat de Voix, Antoine397 Bar, Charles de, 378 Joseph d', 402 5621132

594 Bar, Jean de, 370 Baradat, Henri de, 386 Baradat, Louis-Daniel de, 395 Barbançon, Jean de, 381, 532n39 Barberini, Antonio, 392 Barbier de la Rivière, Louis, 386 Bardonnenche, AntoineRené de, 402 Bareau de Girac, François, 397 Bargedé, Eduard, 406 Barillon, Henri de, 117, 396, 545n37 Barrai, Claude-MathiasJoseph de, 397 Barrai, Jean-Sébastien de, 402 Barrault,Jean de, 354, 386 Barthélémy de Grammont de Lanta, François, 386 Barthon, Jean de, 375 Barthon de Montbas, Jean, 37° Basin, Thomas, 370 Bassompierre, Louis de, 129, 392 Bastet de Crussol, Gérard, 370 Baudry de Piencourt, François-Placide, 396 Bauffremont, Claude de, 381 Bausset, Louis-François de, 406 Bausset de Roquefort, Joseph-Bruno de, 402 Bausset-Roquefort, Emmanuel-François de, 397, 56on20 Bauyn, Bonaventure, 397 Bazin de Bezons, Armand, 397 Bazin de Bezons, ArmandJean-Baptiste, 397 Beaulieu, Simon de, 44, 5!9n54 Beaumanoir de Lavardin, Charles de, 392 Beaumanoir de Lavardin, Jean-Baptiste, 395

Index of Bishops Beaumanoir de Lavardin, Philibert de, 392 Beaumont, Christophe de, 186, 406 Beaumont, Guillaume de, 26, 32-8 Beaumont, Louis de, 374, 377.525n93 Beaumont d'Autichamp, François de, 402 Beaune, Renaud de, 106-7, 109,381,384,538114 Beaupoil de Saint-Aulaire, Martial-Louis de, 406 Beauvais, Jean-BaptisteCharles-Marie, 402 Beauvau de Rivarennes, Gabriel de, 385 Beauvau de Rivarennes, Gilles de, 396 Beauvau de Rivau, RenéFrançois de, 397 Beauvillers de Saint-Aignan, François, 406 Becdelièvre, CharlesPrudent de, 402 Belleau, Jean de, 388 Bellegarde, Octave de, 386 Belloy, Jean-Baptiste de, 397 Belsunce, Henri-Xavier de, 406 Berger de Charancy, GeorgesLazare, 397, 55gn18 Berger de Malissoles, François, 397, 558ni6 Bèringhen, François de, 406 Bernage, Louis, 485 Bernard, Guy, 370, 522nn67, 70 Bertaut,Jean, 392 Bertier, Antoine-François de, 388 Bertier, Jean-Luis de, 386 Bertier, Pierre de, 389 Berlin, Charles-Jean de, 402 Bertrand, Jean, 378 Bertrand, Jean de, 57 Bertrand, Pierre, 381 Beschebien, Pierre, 370 Béthune, Armand de, 386 Béthune, Henri de, 385

Blitersvich de Montcley, Antoine-François de, 397 Blouet de Camilly, François, 406 Bochard de Champigny, Guillaume, 402 Bochart de Saron, François, 397 Bohier, François, 378, 53 in 37>537 n86 Bohier, Jean, 376, 381 Boissanade d'Ortie, Guillaume de, 389 Bologne, Antoine de, 392 Bologne, Raphaël de, 392 Bonal, François de, 397, 56on23 Bonal, Jean, 376, 381 Bonjean, Jean-Baptiste, 381 Bonneval, Foucalt de, 381 Bonnin de Chalucet, Armand-Louis, 397 Bonsi, Clément de, 389 Bonsi, Jean de, 392 Bonsi, Pierre de, 386 Bosquet, François, 386, 544n35. 545n38 Bossuet, Jacques-Bénigne, 117, 162, 177.395' 557ni4 Bossuet, Jacques-Bénigne, 397 Boucicault, Etienne le Meingre de, 386, 543^2 Boudet, Michel, 378 Bouhier, Claude, 397 Bouhier,Jean, 397 Bouille, Nicolas de, 406 Bouliers, François de, 136, 378 Bourbon, Charles I de, 80, 374. 377 Bourbon, Charles II de, 82, 375.38i Bourbon, Charles de, 82, 381 Bourbon, Charles de, 107, 54oni8 Bourbon, Jean de, 370 Bourbon, Louis de, 374, 377 Bourbon, Louis de, 72, 84, 377.53in36

Index of Bishops

595

Castellane-Saint-Maurice, Broullat, Jacques de, 378, Bourbon-Navarre, Charles Jean-Antoine de, 406 5321139 de, 392 Catelan, Jean de, 403 Bruc, Jean de, 370 Bourdeilles, HenriBrulart de Genlis, Charles, 394 Cato de Supino, Angelo, 374, Joseph-Claude de, 396 Brulart de Sillery, Fabio, 402 Bourges, Jérôme de, 378 378 Cauchon, Pierre, 370 Bueil, Hardouin de, 370 Bourgoing, Nicolas, 392 Buisson de Beauteville, Jean- Caulers, Jacques de, 375 Bourlemont, CharlesCaulet, Etienne, 385, Louis de, 397 François de, 389 Bullioud, Symphorien, 378 Bourlemont, Louis Anglure 544n35 Caulet, Jean de, 398, 5Ôon2O Bureau, Pierre, 370 de, 394 Buz, Jean de, 378 Cavalesi, Raymond, 384, Bourlon, Charles de, 386 Bours, Jean de, 381 538n4, 54°ni9 Caylus, Charles-GabrielCabanes, Claude de, 402 Boutault, Gilles de, 386 Daniel de Thurbières de, Cabanes de Viens, JeanBouthillier, Victor, 389 Bal thazar, 402 Bouthillier de Chavigny, 398, 5 6 2n29 Cenalis, Robert, 72, 84-5, Cadoeti, Pierre, 375 Denis-François, 161, 397, Cairol de Madaillan, Jean de, 377.537n86 559ni6 Chabannes, Joseph-Gaspard Bouthillier de Chavigny, 402 de, 403 Calmont, Raymond de, 40-1 François, 389 Cambon, François-Tristan de, Chabot, Jean-Baptiste de, Bouvery, Gabriel, 378, 402 531111136-7 4°3 Chalencon, Bernard de, 370 Camelin, Barthélémy, 111, Boyer, Antoine, 381 Boyer, Jean-François, 406 136, 386, 542^28, 543n32 Chamillart, Jean-François, 406 Champflour, Etienne de, Camelin, Pierre, 386 Boylesve, Gabriel de, 392 Bragelongne, Emery de, 389 Camus de Pontcarré, 398.559nl6 Champflour, Jean-Baptiste Jacques, 386 Brancas, Henri-Ignace de, de, 398, 55gni8 Canigiani, Alexandre, 81,86, 402 Champion, Guy, 389 Brancas, Jean-Baptiste106-7, 136,354.377. Champion de Cicé, JeanAntoine de, 162, 397 534n58 Brandon, Philibert de, 128, Baptiste de, 398, 55gni8 Canossa, Louis de, 381 Caracciolo, Antonio, 81, 377, Champion de Cicé, Jérôme389 Marie, 398 Braque, Jean, 49 528n23, 531^7 Chapelle de St-Jean de Caratto, Paul de 381 Breslay, René, 392 Jumilhac, Jean-Joseph, 398 Carbonnel de Canisy, Bretel, Louis de, 386 Chapt de Rastignac, LouisFrançois de, 402, 5571113 Brézé, Louis de, 378, 537n86 Jacques de, 403 Brichantau, Philibert de, 389 Caretto, Charles de, 381 Charpin de Genétines, Caritat de Condorcet, Briçonnet, Denis, 378, Antoine de, 403 Jacques-Marie de, 398 537n86 Charrier, Guillaume, 370 Carré, Pierre, 375 Briçonnet, Guillaume, 83, Chasteignier de la Casaubon de Maniban, 99» 377. 53°n33 Rocheposay, Henri-Louis, François-Honoré de, 396, Briçonnet, Guillaume, 82, 559ni8 375, 378 393 Chastenet de Puységur, Cassagnet de Tilladet, Briroy, Nicolas, 389 Jean-Auguste, 406 Michel, 406 Brisay de Denonville, Castellan, Jean-Marie de, 398 Chateauneuf de RocheJean-François de, 406 bonne, Charles-François Castellane, AndréjeanBroc, Pierre de, 386 de Broglie, Joseph-Amédée de, Baptiste-Dominique de, 402 > 398, 559ni6 Castellane, Joseph-Pierre de, Châtillon, Odet de, 72, 79, 406 398, 5ô8ni4 Brogny,Jean de, 370, 86, 377, 53ln36 Chauvigné, Christophe de, Castellane-Adhémar, 522n7o Jean-Joseph-Victor, 403 Brosse, Jean de la, 381 377

596 Chery, Eustache de, 393 Chevalier de Saulx, François, 403 Chevenon, Bertrand de, 370 Cheylus, Joseph-Dominique de, 403 Chissé, Aimon de, 48—9, 370 Chissé, Jean II de, 45, 48 Choart de Buzenval, Nicolas, 385, 544035, 54snn37-8 Choiseul, Gilbert de, 386 Choiseul, Leopold-Charles de, 406 Choiseul-Beaupré, ClaudeAntoine de, 162-3, 398> 559nni7-i8 Choiseul-Beaupré, GabrielFlorent de, 398 Chomel, Louis de, 403 Cibo, Innocent, 381 Cibo,Jean, 381 Clausse, Henri, 386 Clermont, Gabriel de, 378, 528023 Clermont de Chaste de Roussillon, Louis-Annet, 398 Clermont-Tonnerre, Anne-AntoineJules de, 406 Clermont-Tonnerre, François de, 398 Clermont-Tonnerre, François-Louis de, 398 Clermont-Tonnerre de Crussy, Antoine-Benoit, 389. 545n37 Coëtlogon-Méjusseau, François de, 406 Coëtlogon-Méjusseau, Louis-Marcel de, 403 Coëtquis, Jean de, 370 Coeur.Jean, 370, 522n67, 525n93 Coeuvert, Etienne, 370 Cohon, Anthime-Denis, 386 Colbert, André, 395 Colbert, Jacques-Nicolas, 398, 555n5> 557ni4 Colbert, Jean-BaptisteMichel, 394 Colbert, Nicolas, 386

Index of Bishops Colbert de Croissy, CharlesJoachim, 398, 558ni4 Colbert de Seignelay de Castle-Hill, Charles, 403 Colbert de St-Pouange, Michel, 389 Comborn, Jacques de, 370, 522067 Conen de Saint-Luc, Toussaint-François-Joseph, 403 Conflans, Godefroy-Maurice de, 403 Conzié, François de, 403 Corneilhan, Bernardin, 389 Corneillan, Jacques de, 378 Cornulier, Pierre, 389, 543n32 Cortois de Balore, PierreMarie, 406 Cortois de Pressigny, Gabriel, 406 Cosnac, Daniel de, 394, 55504 Cosnac, Danieljoseph de, 406 Cosnac, Gabriel de, 396 Cospean, Philippe, 389 Cosse, Arthur de, 378 Cosse, Phillipe de, 381 Couet du Vivier de Lorry, Michel-François, 398 Cous, Antoine de, 389 Créquy, Antoine, 378 Créquy, Antoine, 381 Créquy, François de, 381 Grillon, François Balbe de Berton de, 398 Grillon, Jean-Louis Balbe de Berton de, 398, 559018 Croixmaire, Robert de, 374, 381 Gros, Antoine de, 389, 542n28 Croy, Antoine de, 375, 381 Crussol d'Uzès, François de, 403 Crussol d'Uzès, FrançoisJoseph-Emmanuel de, 403 Cupif, Robert, 393 Daffis, Bernard, 389 Daffîs.Jean, 393

Damiani, Robert, 370 Dangu, Nicolas, 378 Delbène, Alphonse, 386, 544035 Des Alries de Roussel, LouisCharles, 403 Deschaux, Bertrand, 389 Desclaux de Mesplès, Dominique, 396 Desmarets, Vincent-François, 398, 558ni5 Desnos, Henri-Louis-René, 406 Despruets, Bernard, 387 Destrappes, Léonard de, 389 Dillon, Arthur Richard de, 406 Dinet, Gaspard, 111, 387 Dinet, Louis, 393 Dinteville, François de, 381 Dodieu, Claude, 378, 53in36 Donadieu, Barthélémy de Griet de, 354, 387 Donadieu, François, 389 Donadieu, François, 389, 543n32 Dondel, Jean-François, 403 Dony d'Attichy, Louis, 393 Douvrier, Hector, 387 Du Bec, Jean, 389 Du Bec, Phillipe, 377 Du Bellay, Eustache, 378 Du Bellay, Martin, 398, 560020 Du Bellay, René, 381 Dubouc,Jean, 371 Du Cambout de Coislin, Pierre, 354, 395 Du Chaffault, Pierre, 371 Duchaine, Louis, 389 Du Chastel, Christophe, 371 Du Chastel, Olivier, 381 Du Chastel, Olivier, 376 Du Chastellier, Jacques, 371 Duchemin,Jean, 384 Du Coëtlosquet, Jean-Gilles, 403 Dugny, Phillipe, 377, 531037 Du Laurens, Gaspard, 387, 543n32

Index of Bishops Du Lion, Pierre, 371 Du Lis, Eustache, 393 Du Louet, René, 389 Du Moulin, Denis, 371 Du Perron, Jean, 393 Du Plan des Augiers, Gaspard-Alexis, 155, 398, 56on2o Du Plessis d'Argentré, JeanBaptiste, 407 Du Plessis d'Argentré, LouisCharles, 398 Duprat, Antoine, 67-8, 379 Duprat, Guillaume, 72, 378, 537n86 Duprat, Thomas, 381 Durand, Guillaume, 517n44 Durfort, Raymond de, 399 Du Rosier, Bernard, 371 Du Sault, Jean-Jacques de, 124,389 Du Saussay, André, 140 Du Serre, Charles Salomon, 125-6, 136,385 Du Tillet, Guillaume-Louis, 399 Du Vair, Pierre, 387, 543^2 Duval, Pierre de, 381, 537n86

Estaing, Louis d', 387 Este, Hippolyte d', 72, 377 Estissac, Geoffroy d', 382 Estouteville, Guillaume d', 371,5221167 Estrades, Jean d', 393 Estrées, César d', 389 Estrées, Jean d', 387 Etampes de Valançay, Léonor d',387

Fabri, Alexandre, 389 Fagon, Antoine, 407 Farcy de Cuillé, AugusteFrançois-Annibal de, 407 Faure, François, 385 Félix deTassy, Henri, 128, 163, 395. 545 n 37>557 nl 3 Fenouillet, Pierre, 389 Ferrier, Jean I, 382 Ferrier, Jean II, 379, 530^5 Ferron de la Ferronays, JulesBasile, 399 Feydeau de Brou, Henri, 399-557 nl 3 Filhol, Antoine, 379, 537n86 Filhol, Pierre, 382 Fillastre, Guillaume, 371 Fillon, Artus, 379 Fitz-James, François de, 399, Ebrard, Antoine, 534^8 559m?. 563n36 Fléard, François de, 384 Eder, Guillaume, 381 Fléchier, Valentin-Esprit, Epinac, Pierre d', 71, 379, 399. 555IM 53in37 Fleuriau d'Armenonville, Escars, Anne d', 384 Louis-Gaston, 396, Escars, Charles d', 110, 384 558nni5~16 Escoubleau, Jacques, 381 Fleury, André-Hercule de, Esparbès de Lussan, Joseph, 162,399, 558ni6 393 Espinay, André d', 374, 382 Flisco, Nicolas de, 375 Floreau, Geoffroi, 371 Espinay, Charles d', 382, Florence, Dominique de, 371 538n86 Fogasses d'Entrechaux de la Espinay, Jacques d', 53, 371 Bastie, Jean-Joseph de, Espinay, Jean d', 375, 382 399, 56on20 Espinay, Robert, 374, 382 Foix, Jacques de, 379 Estaing, Antoine d', 382 Foix, Jean de, 376, 379 Estaing, François d', 376-7, Fontaine des Montées, 530111133, 35 Charles, 403 Estaing, Joachim d', 354, 385 Estaing, Joachim-Joseph d', Fontanges, Jean-BaptisteJoseph, 407 4°3

597 Forbin-Janson, Jacques de, 396 Forbin-Janson, Toussaint de, 395 Forbin-Maynier d'Oppède, Louis, 393 Forcoal.Jean, 390 Foresta de Colongue, Joseph-Ignace, 403 Forli, Pierre de, 379 Fortin de la Hoguette, Hardouin, 395, 555114 Foucquet, BernardinFrançois, 403 Fouquet, François, 390 Fouquet, Louis, 393 Fouquet de la Varenne, Guillaume, 390 Frémiot, André, 390 Frétât de Boissieux, Louis de, 407 Frétât de Sarra, JeanAugustin, 154, 403 Frézeau de la Frézelière, Charles-Madeleine, 403, 558nl4 Fromentières, Jean-Louis de, 393

Froullay, Charles-Louis de, 403 Froullay de Tessé, GabrielPhillipe, 390 Fumée, Nicolas de, 377 Fumel, Jean-Félix-Henri, 403 Gaillard, Jean de, 390 Galard de Terraube, Marie-Joseph de, 407 Gannai, Germain de, 382 Garidelli, Audiano, 379, 53in37 Gassion, Pierre, 390 Gault, Jean-Baptiste, 545n4O Gaume, Antoine, 384, 542n28 Gelas, Claude, 390 Gelas de Leberon, Charles, 384 Gelas de Leberon, CharlesJacques, 390 Gelas de Leberon, Pierre-André, 387, 542^8

598 Genoulhac, Louis de, 390 Gigault de Bellefond, Jacques Bonne, 399 Girard, Jean, 371 Glandève, Louis de, 371 Glandèves de Cuges, Toussaint de, 390 Godard de Belbeuf, Pierre-Augustin, 399 Godeau, Antoine, 385 Godet des Marais, Paul, 399 Gondi, Henri de, 390, 542na8 Gondi, Jean-François de, 116, 387 Gondi, Pierre de, 79, 81, 87, 109, 180,377,384, 542na8 Gondrin, Louis-Henri de, 387 Gorgues, Jacques-Joseph de, 399 Got, Raimond-Bertrand de, 5!9n54 Gouffier, Aymar de, 382 Gouyon de Vaudurand, Jean-Louis de, 399 Grammont, Antoine-Pierre de, 354 Grave, Pierre-François de, 4°3 Grenon,Jean, 382 Grignan, François de, 387 Grignan, Jacques d'Adhémar, 390 Grignan, Jean-Baptiste d'Adhémar de Monteil de, 399> 555n5 Grignan, Louis-Joseph d'Adhémar de Monteil de, 395 Grillié, Nicolas, 385 Grimaldi, Jean de, 375 Grimaldi, Jérôme de, 116, 385. 545n37 Grimaldi, Louis-André, 158 Grimaldi d'Antibes, Charles de, 399, 5Ôon2o Guémadeuc, Sebastien de, 393 Guérapin de Vauréal, LouisGuy, 399

Index of Bishops Guérin de Tencin, Pierre de, 399 Guibé, Michel, 374, 379 Guibé, Robert, 374, 379, 5371186 Guiche, Claude de la, 537n86 Guillard, Charles, 71,86, 379, 528n23, 53ln37 Guillard, Louis, 86, 377, 53ln36 Guise, Charles de, 71, 106-7, 377. 537"86 Guise, Louis de, 54on 18 Guron de Rechignevoisin, Louis de, 390 Hachette des Portes, Henri, 404 Hacqueville, Charles de, 393 Halle, François, 375 Hallencourt de Dromesnil, François-Charles d', 407 Hamon, François, 382 Hangest, Charles de, 376, 382 Hangest, Jean, 382, 538n86 Harcourt, Louis de, 371 Hardivilliers, Pierre, 390 Harlay de Césy, Roger, 390 Harlay de Champvallon, François de, 385, 544n33 Harlay de Champvallon, François II de, 394 Harlay de Sancy, Achille de, 387 Hay de Bonteville, MarieAnne-Hippolyte, 404 Hébert, François, 399 Hébert, Louis de, 382 Hébert, Roland, 393 Hennequin, Aymar, 377, 53in37 Hennequin, Jérôme, 384 Hennequin, Odard, 382 Henriau, Jean-Marie, 404, 558ni6 Herbert, Geoffroi, 79, 374, 377 Herbert, Phillipe, 374, 379 Hercé, Urbain-René de, 399

Hertault de Beaufort, PaulRobert, 404 Hervaut, Mathieu Isoré d', 404 Hervé, Charles-Bénigne, 395. 555n4 Hervilly de Devise, Augustin-César, 407 Heurtelou, Adam de, 385 Huet, Pierre-Daniel, 161, 399 Hugues, Guillaume d', 393 Huillier, Jean L', 82, 374, 379 Hurault de Cheverny, Jacques, 379 Hurault de l'Hospital, Guy, 393 Hurault de l'Hospital, Paul, 111,136,385, 542n28 Iharse, Sauvât d', 390, 543n32 Illiers, Miles d', 80, 374, 379 Illiers, Milon d', 379 Isnard, Octave, 390 Ithier, Dominique, 393 Jacquemet Gaultier, ClaudeAntoine-François, 407 Jarente de la Bruyère, Louis-Sextius de, 157, 404 Jarente, Nicolas de, 382 Jegou de Kervilio, Olivier, 399 Johanne de Saumery, Alexandre de, 404 Joly, Claude, 354, 385 Jouffroy-Gonssans, FrançoisGaspard de, 159,399 Joyeuse, Charles de, 375 Joyeuse, François de, 106, 136,354.384 Joyeuse, Louis de, 382 Juvenel des Ursins, Jacques, 37i Kerohet de Coetanfao, Roland, 404 La Barde, Denis, 393

Index of Bishops La Barre, Antoine de, 84, 382 Labatut, Hugues, 390 La Baume de la Suze, Louis-François, 387 La Baume de Suze, Anne-Tristan de, 404 La Baume le Blanc de la Vallière, Gilles, 390 La Beraudière, François, 393 La Bourdonnaye, Jean-Louis de, 396 La Broue de Vareilles, François-Henri de, 404 La Broue, Pierre, 399, 558nl4 La Brunetiére, Guillaume du Plessis, 407 La Corée, Simon-Pierre de, 407 La Croix de Castries, Armand-Pierre de, 404 La Croix de Chevrières, Jean de, 390 La Cropte de Bourzac, Jean-François, 404, 55gm8 Ladvocat-Billiard, Nicolas, 390 La Fare, Etienne-Joseph de, 399 La Fayette, François Motier de, 354, 387 La Ferté, Emery Marc de, 393 Lafitau, Pierre-François, 399 La Font de Savine, Charles de, 407 La Fruglaie de Kerver, François-Hyacinthe de, 399'559m8 La Garde de Chambonas, Charles-Antoine, 393 La Guesle, François, 393 La Madeleine de Ragny, Claude de, 393 La Marche, Jean-François de, 399 La Marthonie, Geoffroi, 384 La Marthonie, Jean de, 382 La Marthonie, Raymond, 390

599

La Valette, Gaspard de La Motte, Amaury de, 371 Thomas de, 404 La Motte-Houdancourt, La Valette, Louis de Nogaret Henri, 387 de, 387 La Motte-Houdancourt, La Valette, Louis de Nogaret, Jérôme, 387 Lancelot de Maniban de Ca354. 387 Laval, Gilles de, 375, 382 saubon, François-Honoré, Laval de Boisdauphin, Henri, 407 Langeac, Jean de, 382 385 Lavalle et Montfort, Pierre Langle, Daniel-Bertrand de, 400, 56on2o de, 374, 382 Lavergne de Monthénard de Langle, Pierre de, 400, Tressan, Louis, 390 558ni6, 563^6 La Vergne de Tressan, Louis Languet de Gergy, Jeande, 407 Joseph, 400, 56o-inni4,18 La Vieuville, CharlesLanjelier, Nicolas, 382 François, 390 La Poype de Vertrieu, La Vove de Tourouvre, JeanJean-Claude, 407 Armand de, 396, 563^6 La Roche-Aymon, Antoine Le Barbu, Henri, 371, 522^0 de, 399 Le Blanc, César, 400 Larchiver, François, 390, Le Blanc, Denis-Alexandre, 543n32 404 La Roche de Fontenilles, Le Boux, Guillaume, 390 Antoine-René, 404 Le Camus, Etienne, 354, La Rochefoucauld, Dominique de, 399 395. 558ni4 Le Clerc, René, 387 La Rochefoucauld, François Le Clerc de Juigné, Antoinede, 384 Eléonor-Léon, 400, La Rochefoucauld, FrançoisJoseph de, 407 564n49 Le Clerc de Lesseville, La Rochefoucauld, Eustache, 393 Pierre-Louis de, 407 La Roche-Taillé, Jean de, 371 Le Cornu, Nicolas, 385 Le Cririer, Augustin, 382 La Rue, Alain de, 371 Lefebvre de Caumartin, La Saussaie, Mathurin de, François, 393 379 Le Fèvre de Caumartin, Lascaris de Urfé, Louis, 396 Jean-François-Paul, 404 Lastic, Antoine de, 400 Lastic, Pierre-Joseph de, 400 Le Fèvre de Laubrières, Charles-François, 404, Lastic de Saint-Jal, François de, 404 559ni7 Le Fèvre du Quesnoy, La Tour, Guillaume de, 371 Jacques, 400, 5Ôon2O La Tour d'Auvergne, HenriLe Filleul de la Chapelle, Oswald de, 404 Charles-Alexandre, 407 Lau, Jean-Marie de, 404 Le Franc de Pompignan, L'Aubespine, Gabriel de, Jean-Georges, 404 390, 542n28 Le Gouverneur, Guillaume, L'Aubespine, Jean de, 385, 387,543n32 542n28 Le Goux de la Berchère, Laurents, Antoine-Joseph Charles, 400 des, 400

6oo

Le Gras, Simon, 387 Léguiséjean, 53, 371, 5221167 Lejay, Henri-Guillaume, 395 Le Loup, Jacques, 371 Le Maistre de la Garlaye, François, 400 Le Mault, Alain, 375 Le Moël, Raoul, 376, 382 Lennoncourt, Robert de, 375 Le Normand, Jean-Baptiste de, 407 Le Peletier, Michel, 400 Le Pileur, Henri-Augustin, 407 Le Porc de la Porte, André, 393

Le Quien de la Neufville, Charles-Augustin, 407 Le Roy, Jacques, 84, 379 Le Sauvage, René, 393 Lescot, Jacques, 391 Lescure de Valderiès, JeanFrançois de, 407 Lespervez, Alain de, 371 L'Espervier,Jean, 371 Le Sueur d'Esquetal, Payen, 382 Le Tellier, Charles-Maurice, 395> 545n37 Le Tellier, François, 354, 387 Le Tonnelier, Anne-FrançoisVictor, 407 Le Tonnelier de Breteuil, Charles, 404 Le Tonnelier de Breteuil, Claude, 390 Lettes, Jean de, 379 Lévis, Antoine de, 379 Lévis, Phillipe de, 371 Lévis, Phillipe de, 371 Le Veneur de Tillières, Gabriel, 382, 538n86 Le Veneur de Tillières, Jean, 85* 379 Leyssin, Pierre-Louis de, 407 Lezay de Lusignan, Paul-Phillipe de, 407 L'Hostel,Jean de, 109, 379, 384, 538n4

Index of Bishops Ligny, Dominique, 387 Lingendes, Jean de, 387, 544n35 Lionne, Artus de, 387 Litolfi-Moroni, Henri, 393 Lobière du Bouchet, Olivier-Gabriel, 407 Loménie, François de, 387 Loménie de Brienne, Charles-François, 161, 395 Loménie de Brienne, Etienne-Charles de, 164, 400 Longeuil, Antoine, 375 Longueil, Pierre de, 372 Longueil, Richard-Olivier de, 372 Longwy, Claude de, 86, 379 Longwy, Etienne de, 82, 375, 382 Lorraine, Jean de, 379 Lorraine, Louis de, 84, 382, 534n59 Lorrraine-Guise, Louis de, 394 Lort de Sérignan de Valras, Henri-Constance de, 400 Luxembourg, Charles de, 374. 382 Luxembourg, Gilles de, 379 Luxembourg, Louis de, 372 Luxembourg, Phillipe de, 374. 383 Luzech, Antoine de, 376, 379 Luzerne, César-Guillaume de la, 400, 560^3 Machault, Louis-Charles de, 407 Macheco de Prémeaux, Jean-Chrétien de, 404 Macheco de Prémeaux, Jean-François de, 404 Madot, François, 404 Mahyeuc, Yves de, 379 Maillé de Brézé, Simon de, 106, 383, 546n4o Mailly, François de, 400 Malestroit, Gabriel de, 372 Malestroit, Jean de, 372 Malézieu, Nicolas de, 404

Malide, Joseph-François de, 400 Malier du Houssay, François, 116, 128,387,544^5 Malier du Houssay, Marc, 394 Malvin de Montazet, Antoine de, 159, 396, 56on23, 563^6 Marafin, Guillaume, 374, 383 Marbeuf, Yves-Alexandre de, 155,400 Marca, Pierre de, 391 Marcilly, Pierre de, 379, 53in37 Marconnai, Melchior, 391 Marillac, Bertrand de, 379 Marion, Pierre, 391 Marmiesse, Bernard de, 391 Marnays de Saint-André de Vercel, Joseph, 400 Marquemont, Denis Simon de, 391 Marsillac, Sylvestre de, 354, 387,556ni2 Marthonie de Caussade, Jean-Louis de, 407 Martineau, Samuel, 391 Mascaron, Jules, 395, 558ni4 Massillon.Jean-Baptiste, 400, 56inni6, 18 Matignon, Jacques de Goyon de, 394 Matignon, Léonor de, 400 Matignon, Léonor I Goyon de, 385 Matignon, Léonor II Goyon de, 395 Mauclerc de la Muzanchère, Pierre, 400 Maugras, Nicolas, 374, 383 Mauléon, Vital de, 372 Maupas de Tour, Henri Cauchon de, 385 Maupeou, Augustin de, 404 Maupeou, Jean, 387 Maurel du Chaffaut, Joseph de, 404 Maytie, Arnauld-François, 394

Index of Bishops Mazarin, Michèle, 394 Méallet de Fargues, Joseph de, 396, 560111120, 23 Mehelle, Artaud de, 372 Méliand, Victor-Augustin, 391 Melun, Louis de, 372 Menou de Charnisay, Auguste-Roch de, 400 Mercy, Marie-Charles-Isidore, 404 Meriadec de Rohan, Ferdinand-Maximilien, 400 Mérinville, Charles-François des Monstiers de, 163, 396 Merly (Mellini),Jean, 372 Mesgrigny, Joseph-Ignace, 400, 55gni6 Metz, François de, 54 Michel, Jean, 372 Millet, Jean, 374, 383 Milon de Mesme, Alexandre, 404 Milon, Louis, 407 Miron, Charles, 109, 379, 384, 542n28, 543n32 Missy, Jean-Baptiste de, 400 Mole, Edouard, 394 Mongin, Edme, 404 Monluc, Jean de, 383, 528n23 Montano, Horace de, 394 Montbrun, Pierre de, 372 Montchal, Charles, 388, 544n33 Montesquiou, Henri-Jacques de, 408 Montfort, Guillaume de, 372 Montillet, Jean-François de, 400 Montjeu, Philibert de, 372 Montjoie, Guillaume de, 372 Montmorency, Phillipe de, 380 Montmorin, Armand de, 395.558ni4 Montmorin de Saint-Hérem, Gilbert de, 400, 55gni8 Montpezat de Carbon, Jean de, 391 Montpezat de Carbon, Joseph,388

Moreau, Gabriel-François, 401 Moret de Bourchenu, Flodard, 401 Moussaie, Raoul de la, 372 Nant, Jean de, 372 Narbonne-Lara, François de, 408 Narbonne-Pelet, ClaudeFrançois de, 408 Narcès, Armand de, 45 Nardogarsia, Mathieu de, 375 Néel de Christot, Louis-François, 401, 559~6onni8, 20 Nesmond, François de, 129, 395 Nesmond, Henri de, 405 Nettancourt de Vaubécourt d'Haussonville, François, 408 Netz, Nicolas de, 391, 544n33 Neufville, Ferdinand de, 388 NeufVille de Villeroy, François-Paul de, 401 NeufVille-Villeroy, Camille de, 385 Nicolai, Avignon, 372 Nicolay, Aymard-Claude de, 408 Noailles, Charles de, 391 Noailles, Gaston de, 162-3, 4 01 >557- 8nn i3> 15 Noailles, Louis-Antoine de, 401, 557—8nni4, 16 Noé, Marc-Antoine de, 408 Obeilh, Jean-Jacques d', 395 Olce.Jean d', 391 Olivier, Jean, 380, 53in36 Ondedei, Zongo, 388 Orléans, Jean d', 380 Orléans de la Motte, LouisFrançois-Gabriel d', 401, 5Ôon2O Ornezan, Bernard d', 377 Ornezan, Bertrand d', 372 Osmond, Charles-AntoineGabriel d', 408

601 Ossat, Arnaud d', 391 Pajot du Plouy, Séraphin, 401 Palmier, Pierre, 106, 383 Panisse, Agricola de, 375 Paparin, Pierre, 109, 136, 377. 384 Pardaillan de Gondrin d'An tin, Pierre de, 405 Paris, Nicolas-Joseph de, 163, 396 Partz de Pressy, FrançoisGaston de, 401, 56on2o Pas de Feuquières, Philibert-Charles, 405 Pavée de Villevielle, Etienne-Joseph de, 405 Pavillon, Nicolas, 129, 391 Penmarch, Christophe de, 82, 374, 380, 53on33 Percin de Montgaillard, Pierre-Jean-Fançois, 396 Péréfixe, Hardouin de Beaumont de, 391 Péricard, François, 394 Péricard, François, 384 Péricard, François, 388 Pérouse, Jean de, 372 Pérouse, Pierre-Annet de, 408 Perrochel, François, 388 Phélipeaux d'Herbault, Georges-Louis, 408 Phélypeaux, JacquesAntoine, 157-8, 405 Phélypeaux de la Vrillière, Michel, 388 Phélypeaux d'Herbault, Louis-Baltazar, 408 Piedru, Pierre, 372 Pierre de Bernis, FrançoisJoachim de, 401 Pinelle, Louis, 82, 383 Pisseleu, François de, 84, 383 Plantavit, Jean, 391 Plédran, Mathurin de, 376, 383 Ploeuc de Timeur, FrançoisHyacinthe, 405 Ploeuc, Jean de, 372

6O2

Poitiers, Charles de, 372 Poitiers, Jean de, 372 Polignac, Bertrand de, 375, 380 Polignac, Claude-JulesAppollinaire de, 408 Polignac, Melchior, 157-8, 405 Poncet de la Rivière, Mathias, 401 Poncet de la Rivière, Michel, 405 Poncet de la Rivière, Michel, 39i Poncet de la Rivière, Michel, 395 Poncher, Etienne, 67, 79, 82, 376-7 Poncher, Etienne, 380 Pontac, Arnaud de, 87, 383 Pontlevoy, Pierre de, 383 Popian, Simon de, 391 Potier, Augustin, 385, 543n32 Potier, René, 394 Potier de Gesvres, Etienne-René, 405 Potier des Gesvres, Léon, 408 Poudenx, François-Clément de, 395> 555n4 Pradel, Charles, 395 Prés-Montpezat, Jean de, 383 Prévost, Antoine, 54oni8 Prunières de Saint-Jean, François-Estienne de, 405 Puget, Etienne de, 394 Quiqueran de Beau] eu, Honoré, 405 Rabutin de Bussy, Michel-Roger, 408 Raffélis de Saint-Saveur, Charles-Joseph-Marius de, 405 Rageneau, Frédéric, 383 Ragueneau, Pierre, 380 Raguier, Jacques, 79, 374, 377. 525193. 53°n33 Raguier, Louis, 372, 522n67

Index of Bishops Raoul, Louis, 372, 522n67 Raoul, Jacques, 385 Raoul, Michel, 388 Rastel, Elezar de, 136, 380 Ratabon, Martin de, 405 Rebé, Claude de, 391 Reboul de Lambert, PierreFrançois-Xavier de, 401 Regnauld-Bellescize, JulesFrançois de, 408 Rely, Jean de, 375, 383 Revol, Antoine de, 391 Revol, François de, 405 Revol, Joseph de, 405 Ribeyre, Paul de, 405 Richelieu, Alphonse, 388 Richelieu, Armand-Jean, 391 Richier de Cerisy, JosephAntoine-Jacques, 405 Rieux de Sourdéac, René de, 383. 534n58 Rigaud, Eudes, 44-5, 526ngs Rochechouart de Faudoas, Jean-François-Joseph de, 405 Roger, Cosme de, 391 Roger, Robert, 372 Rohan, Armand-Jules de, 401 Rohan, Claude de, 383 Rohan, François de, 376-7, 53on35. 534n59 Rolland, Raoul, 372 Rollinjean, 53, 373 Rollin de Morel-Villeneuve, Joseph, 408 Roquette, Gabriel, 354, 395, 557nl3 Rosé, Guillaume, 383, 534n58 Rosmadec, Charles, 394 Rosmadec, Sebastien, 388 Rosset de Fleury, Henri de, 401, 5Ôon20 Rotoundis de Biscarras, Jean-Armand, 396 Rouci-Sissone, Charles de, 380 Rousseau de La Parisière, Jean-César, 405 Roussel, Raoul, 373

Roussel de Tilly, François, 405 Rôuvroi de Saint-Simon, Claude de, 408 Rouxel de Médavy, François 1.394 Rouxel de Médavy, François n 1]L » 7. 395 Rovere, Clément de, 375 Rovere, Leonardo délia, 375, 383 Roye de La Rochefoucauld, Frédéric-Jérôme, 163, 396, 559nl7 Royère, Jean-Marc de, 405 Rueil, Claude de, 388 Ruffïer, Claude, 388 Ruffo de Laric, Claude-Marie de, 408 Ruzé, Guillaume, 377 Sabatier, Pierre, 401, 558ni5 Sabaudia, François de, 375 Sainctes, Claude de, 72, 85, 107, 380 Saint-Bonnet de Toiras, Claude Caylar de, 394 Saint-François, Bernardin, 383 Saint-Gelais, Urbain de, 385 Saint-Georges, Claude de, 401 Saint-Sauveur, JeanAmédée-Grégoire de, 405 Saint-Sixte, Charles de, 136, 391 Sales, François de, 354, 5i3na6 Salette, Jean de, 391 Salette, Jean-Henri, 391 Salettes, Charles-François, 39i Salies, Jean de, 394 Salignac, Louis de, 385 Salignac de la MotheFénélon, François de, 394 Salignac de la MotheFénelon, Léon-FrançoisFerdinand, 408 Sallazar, Tristan de, 67, 374, 377.525n93

Index of Bishops Sanguin, Antoine, 383 Sanguin, Denis, 388, 544^35 Sanguin, Nicolas, 388 Sarcus, François de, 380 Sarret de Gaujac, François de, 401 Saulnier, Pierre, 384, 542^8 Saulx-Tavannes, NicolasCharles de, 162, 396, 558ni5 Savary, Mathurin, 405 Savoie, Jean-Louis de, 59 Scarron, Pierre, 388 Sclavanatis, Gabriel, 375, 380 Séguier, Dominique, 388 Séguier de la Verrière, Jacques, 388 Ségur, Jean-Charles de, 401 Sénaux, Bertrand de, 401 Serres, Juste de, 391 Serroni, Hyacinthe, 385 Servien, François, 391 Sévin, Nicolas, 388 Silly, Jacques de, 378 Simiane de Gordes, LouisMarie-Armand, 396 Simon, Jean, 82, 375, 380 Soanen, Jean, 401 Soderini, Julien de, 383 Solminihac, Alain de, 124, 128,388 Sorbin, Arnauld, 383 Souillac, Jean-Georges de, 401 Sourdis, François d'Escoubleau de, 111, 136, 386, 542ns8, 543n32 Sourdis, Henri I d'Escoubleau de, 384 Sourdis, Henri II d'Escoubleau de, 386, 544"33 Souvré, Gilles, 394 Spifame, Jacques, 53gni3 Sponde, Henri de, 386 Strozzi, Lorenzo, 383 Suarez,Jacopo, 391 Suarez d'Aulan, Louis-Marie de, 405 Sully, Eudes de, 26-32, 43, 176-7, 187

Surian, Jean-Baptiste de, 401 Talaru, Jean de, 48 Talaru de Chamazel, Ange-François de, 405 Talleyrand-Périgord, Alexandre-Angélique de, 154, 176,401 Thépault du Breignou, Hervé-Nicolas, 401 Thomassin, Louis de, 396 Thome, François, 380, 53in37 Thou, Nicolas de, 378, 53in37 Thyard de Bissy, Henri-Pons, 401 Tiercelin, Jean-Baptiste, 85, 380 Tinseau, Jean-Antoine de, 401, 5Ôon2o, 564^9 Tournon, François de, 72, 83, 380 Tournon, Gaspard de, 376, 380 Tournon, Jacques de, 380 Trousseau, Pierre, 373 Trudaine, François-Firmin, 4°5 Tubeuf, Michel, 392 Tulles, Jean de, 109, 378, 384, 542n28 Tulles, Jean II de, 388, 544n28, 543^2 Tulles, Jean-Vincent, 392 Turgot de Saint-Clair, Dominique-Barnabe, 401, 558m6 Turicella,Jacopo, 394 Turpin de Crissé de Sanzay, Christophe-Louis, 402 Ursins, Léon des, 380 Usson de Bonnac, Jean-Louis d', 402, 560^3 Valavoire, Nicolas de, 130, 162,392 Valernod, Pierre, 388 Valliart de Gueles, Germain, 86,383

603

Vallot, Edouard, 388 Vassé, Jean de, 380 Vaugiraud, Jean de, 408 Ventadour, Anne de Lévis de, 392 Ventadour, Louis de Lévis de, 388 Vény d'Arbouze, Gilbert de, 386 Verjus, François, 395, 555n4 Versé, Pierre, 375 Verthamon, Jeanjacques, 408 Verthamon de Chavagnac, Michel de, 405 Verthamon de Villemenon, Jean-Baptiste, 402 Vervins, Louis de, 392 Vesc, Aimar de, 375, 383 Vialart, Charles, 394 Vialart, Félix, 388 Vienne, Phillipe de, 373 Vieuville, Pierre-Guillaume de, 405 Vieuxpont, Jean de, 392 Vigne, Louis de, 392 Villars, Henri de, 392 Villars, Jérôme de, 394 Villars, Nicolas de, 136, 384 Villars, Pierre de, 384, 534n58> 54°nl8 Villars, Pierre de, 394, 534n58 Villazel, Etienne de, 546^0 Villemonté, François de, 394 Villeneuve, FrançoisReynaud de, 127, 129, 402 Villeneuve de Vence, Charles de, 408, 555n4 Villeneuve des Arcs, Modeste de, 392 Villeneuve-Thorenc, Scipion de, 388 Villers la Faye, Cyrus, 392 Villiers de l'Isle-Adam, Charles, 378 Villiers de l'Isle-Adam, Louis de, 375, 380 Villoutreix, Jean-BaptisteAuguste, 408 Vintimille, FrançoisMarie-Fortuné, 408

604

Vintimille du Luc, CharlesGaspard-Guillaume, 408 Viole, Guillaume, 383 Vivet de Montclus, LouisFrançois, 408

Index of Bishops Vocance, Louis-JacquesFrançois de, 402 Voyer d'Argenson, FrançoisElie de, 405 Voyer de Paulmy, Gabriel, 388

Yse de Saléon, Jean d', 402, 559ni8 Zamet, Sebastien, 125, 354, 386, 543H32