Campbell P. Power and Politics in Old Regime France, 1720-1745
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
NOTES
358
8 CONCLUSION TO PART 1: THE POLITICAL CULTURE OF COURT
SOCIETY
1 See N.Rubinstein, ‘The history of the word politicus in early-modern Europe’, in A.Pagden, ed., The
Languages of Political Theory in Early-modern Europe’, Cambridge, 1987.
2 G.Bock, Q.Skinner and M.Viroli, eds, Machiavelli and Republicanism, Cambridge, 1990.
3 L.Marin, ‘Pour une théorie baroque de l’action politique’, Introduction to G.Naudé, Considérations
politiques sur les coups d’état, Paris, 1988, p. 25.
4 E.Kantorowicz, ‘Mysteries of state: an absolutist concept and its late medieval origins’, Harvard
Theological Review, 48, 1955, pp. 65–91.
5 It would be fascinating to be able to trace in more detail the relationship between these discourses
and the mentalité of the elite, but the task is beyond the scope of this book.
6 B.Gracian, L’Homme de cour, maxim 13, in the translation of Amelot de la Houssaye, 4th edn, 1687,
pp. 12–13, cited by Marin in Naudé, Considérations, p. 15.
7 For an interesting set of reflections on political language, langue, parole and mentalité, see J.G.A.
Pocock, ‘The concept of a language and the métier d’historien: some considerations on practice’, in
Pagden, ed., The Languages of Political Theory, pp. 19–38.
8 On these aspects see G.Sabatier, ‘Representare il principe, figurer l’etat. Les programmes
iconographiques d’état en France et en Italie du XVe au XVIIe siècle’, in Genèse de l’état moderne:
bilans et perspectives, Paris, 1990, pp. 247–58; B.Guenée and F.Lehoux, Les entrées royales françaises de
1328 à 1515, (C.N.R.S.) Paris, 1968; R.Giesey, The Royal Funeral Ceremony in Renaissance France,
Geneva, 1960; S.Hanley, The Lit de Justice of the Kings of France. Constitutional Ideology in Legend, Ritual
and Discourse, Princeton, 1983; R.A.Jackson, Vive le Roi! A History of the French Coronation from Charles V
to Charles X, Chapel Hill, 1984; L.Marin, Le portrait du roi, Paris, 1980, for the Te Deums, see M.
Fogel, Les cérémonies de l’information dans la France du XVle au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1989. A.Boureau
underlines some of the complexities in ‘Les cérémonies royales françaises, entre performance
juridique et compétence liturgique’, Annales, E.S.C., 1991, no. 6, pp. 1253–64.
9 ‘Sa Majesté ne tient jamais contre les exemples qu’on lui cite de son bisaieul’: the marquis
d’Argenson, Mémoires et journal inédit, ed. Jannet, Paris, 5 vols, 1858, IV, p. 314.
10 G.P.Gooch, Louis XV. The Monarchy in Decline, London, 1956 and M.Antoine, Louis XV, Paris, 1989.
11 M.Antoine, Le conseil du roi sous le règne de Louis XV, Geneva, 1970, pp. 610–20, esp. p. 611 where he
quotes Luynes from August 1743.
12 Mme de Tencin to Richelieu, 22 June 1743, in O.Wormser, ed. Amours et intrigues du maréchal de
Richelieu, Paris, 1955, p. 670.
13 Ibid.
14 Besenval, Mémoires, ed. Diesbach (1987) pp. 369–70.
15 This may explain why he felt more comfortable with his ‘secret du roi’ in which he elaborated an
independent foreign policy through correspondence with the duc de Broglie.
16 ‘Mémoires dressez par ordre du edl Dubois, sur les fonctions de sa charge de premier ministre du
royaume de France’, B.N., Mss fr., 25135, fols 1–3.
17 The ‘day of dupes’ could be seen as an illustration of the way in which an individual without his
own faction would have to face conceited opposition from rivals.
18 For the development of the French court, see works referred to in the Introduction, esp. by R.
Asch, J.Boucher, R.Mettam, and J.-F.Solnon.
19 At village level this is illustrated by N.Rétif de la Bretonne, in La vie de man père, ed. G.Rouger, Paris, 1970.
20 This elite was often composed of magistrates and judicial officers, with strong ties of vertical
solidarity: see, for example, M.Gresset, Gens de justice à Besançon, 1674–1789, 2 vols, Paris, 1978, II,
Part III, Book III; M.Cubells, La Provence des Lumières. Les parlementaires d’Aix au XVIIIe siècle, Paris,
1984; J.Meyer, La noblesse bretonne, Paris, 1972.
21 See esp. W.Beik, Absolutism and Society in Seventeenth-century France, Cambridge, 1985 and S.Kettering,
‘Patronage in early modern France’, French Historical Studies, XVII, 1992, pp. 839–62; on
Burgundian connections to the governors, the ducs de Bourbon, up to 1740, see P.Lefebvre,
‘Aspects de la fidélité en France au XVIIe siècle: le cas des agents du prince de Condé’, Revue
historique, CCL, 1973, pp. 59–106. During the eighteenth century these links were no doubt
conceived of less in terms of clientage and more in terms of sociability, as expressed through
provincial academies, freemasonry, and philanthropic societies. More work is needed.
22 For studies of the administration of war and foreign affairs, all of which refer to the continued
NOTES
359
importance of patronage, see C.-G.Picavet, La diplomatie française au temps de Louis XIV (1661 1715):
institutions, mœurs et coulumes, Paris, 1930; C.Piccioni, Les premiers commis des affaires étrangeres au XVIIe
et au XVIIIe siécles, Paris, 1928; J.Rule, ‘The commis of the department of foreign affairs, 1680–
1715’, Western Society for French History, Proceedings, 8, 1980, pp. 69–80; D.C.Baxter ’Premier commis
in the war department in the later part of the reign of Louis XIV’, Western Society for French History,
Proceedings, 8, 1980, pp. 81–9.
23 Rory Browne, ‘The diamond necklace affair revisited: the Rohan family and court politics’, in
Renaissance and Modern Studies, XXXIII, 1989, pp. 21–40.
24 It was not unusual for the lieutenant-general of police to be ordered to confiscate and burn
incriminating private papers for ‘reasons of state’.
25 See J.Hardman, French Politics, 1774–1789, London, 1995.
26 Richer d’Aube, ‘Réflexions sur le gouvernement de France’, B.N., Mss fr., N.a.f., 9515, p. 39.
27 J.N.Moreau, Mes souvenirs, ed. C.Hermalin, 2 vols, Paris, 1898–1901, 1, p. 141. See also d’Argenson,
Mémoires, ed. Jannet, V.p. 160: ‘Le fond de caraetère des ministres est celui de premiers courtisans; le
bonheur du règne dépend de la volonté qu’aurait le monarque de les tirer de cet état; ce serait par un
discernement plus fin et une volonté ferme de les soutenir dans leurs véritables fonctions. Ils sont
essentiellement les censeurs de la cour, ce sont les juges et les courtisans de cette multitude de
courtisans et de valets qui la composent: comment veut-on qu’ils jugent et qu’ils commandent sur des
égaux qui peuvent les nuire? Ils les recherchent done et en dépendent; un ministre mal avec eux est
perpeluellement desservi auprès de son maître; il n’y a que la voix publique qui puisse le défendre;
mais personne à la cour no parle et ne stipule pour le public.’
28 D’Argenson, Mémoires, ed. Jannet, V, p. 350.
29 W.Doyle, ‘The parlements of France and the breakdown of the Old Régime’, French Historical
Studies, VI 1970- 1, pp. 415–58.
30 The latest study, by J.Swann, tends to confirm the importance of factional manœuvres: Politics and
the Parlement of Paris under Louis XV, Cambridge, 1995.
31 See Hardman, French Politics, op. cit. and M.Price, Preserving the Monarchy. The Comte de Vergennes,
1774–1787, Cambridge, 1995, Chaps 4–7.
32 See Fleury to Mme do Tencin, 15 June 1730, cited in G.Hardy, Le cardinal de Fleury et le mouvement
janséniste, Paris, 1925, pp. 208–9.
33 D’Argenson, Journal et mémoires, ed. Rathery, IV, p. 158.
34 Individual psychology was also perhaps less of an issue, as individualism was firmly subordinated
to the interests of the family and corps.
35 On the traditions or inclinations of the peerage families, see R.Mettam, ‘The role of the higher
aristocracy in France under Louis XIV’, PhD thesis, Cambridge University, 1967, part IV.
36 P.d’Estrée, La vieillesse de Richelieu (1758–1788), Paris, 1921.
9 THE PARTIJANSEN ISTE I N THE 1720s AND 1730s
1 Histoire générale du mouvement janséniste, 2 vols, Paris, 1922, I, pp. 316–17.
2 ‘The lawyers in the parlement were even fewer in number, and in a general way it can be forcefully
affirmed that there was never anything, between the world of the Jansenists and the world of the
parlementaires, that resembled an alliance, a secret understanding, or, if you will, a conspiracy’
loc. cit., p. 296.
3 See J.Carreyre, ‘Les luttes du jansénisme’, Revue d’histoire de l’église de France, X, 1924, pp. 441–60;
G.Hardy, Le cardinal de Fleury et le mouvement janséniste, Paris, 1925; J.Laporte, La doctrine de Port-Royal,
2 vols, Paris 1923; E.Préclin, Les Jansénistes du XVIIIe siècle et la constitution civile du clergé, Paris 1929,
J.Carreyre, Le jansénisme durant la Régence, 3 vols, Louvain, 1929–33. The best introduction to
eighteenth-century Jansenism remains J.Dedieu, ‘L’agonie du jansénisme, 1715–1790’, Revue
d’histoire de l’église de France, XIV, 1928, pp. 161–214, and the three articles, by Carreyre, ‘La
doctrine janséniste’, by Dedieu, ‘Le désarroi janséniste pendant la période de Quesnellisme’ and
by Préclin, ‘Conséquences sociales du jansénisme’, in V.Carrière, ed., Introduction aux études d’histoire
ecclésiastique locale, 3 vols, Paris, 1934–40, III, 1936, pp. 513–40, 541–91 and 592–620 respectively.
4 A neglected work: Madame de Moysan et l’extravagante affaire de l’hôpital général 1749–1758, Paris, 1954.
5 D.K.Van Kley, The Jansenists and the Expulsion of the Jesuits from France, 1757–1765, New Haven, 1975.
For the argument tracing the Jansenist debt in the 1750s back to conciliarism and the sixteenth-
century debate, see especially D.Carroll Joynes, ‘Jansenists and ideologues; opposition
NOTES
360
theory in the parlement of Paris, 1750–1775’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of
Chicago, 1981.
6 D.K.Van Kley, The Damiens Affair and the Unravelling of the Ancien Régime, 1750–1770, Princeton,
1984.
7 ‘The religious origins of the patriote and ministerial parties in pre-revolutionary France:
controversy over the Chancellor’s constitutional coup, 1771–1775’, Historical Reflections/Réflections
historiques, XVIII, no. 2, 1992, 17–63. This research by Van Kley must raise the question of how far
the pamphlets were a manifestation of a wider public opinion, an assumption that lies behind
recent work on the effects of the Maupeou coup, or a clever campaign by a tiny group of publicists
who may not have reflected Parisian opinion so accurately.
8 J.Swann, Politics and the Parlement of Paris under Louis XV, 1754–1771, Cambridge, 1995.
9 J.Egret himself was misled by Gazier’s assertions on the Jansenists and attributed the magistrates’
resistance to Unigenitus solely to gallicanism: Louis XV et l’opposition parlementaire, 1715–1774, Paris,
1970, pp. 17–33.
10 Egret, in the conclusions to his valuable synthesis of research published in 1970 (Louis XV et
l’opposition parlementaire), played down the constitutional significance of the religious debate and
divided the period to 1774 into three separate periods—see pp. 229–30.
11 E.Préclin, ‘Edmond Richer, sa vie, son œuvre, le richérisme’, Revue d’histoire moderne, V, 1930, pp.
241–69, 321–36.
12 On this process see especially M.-J.Michel, ‘Clergé et pastorale janséniste à Paris (1669–1730)’,
Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine, vol. XXVI, 1979, pp. 177–97.
13 Cited in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. A.Vacant and E.Mangenot, XIII
2
, col. 1460–1535,
idem, ‘Quesnel et le Quesnellisme’ by J.Carreyre, col. 1520.
14 E.Préclin, Les Jansénistes du XVIIIe siècle et la constitution civile du clergé. Le développement du Richérisme. Sa
propagation dans le has clergé 1713–1790, Paris, 1929. J.Dedieu however characterises this era as ‘the
period of Quesnellism’, although he refers to Préclin’s thesis: see his ‘Le désarroi janséniste
pendant la période du Quesnellisme’, in V.Carrière, ed., Introduction aux études d’histoire ecclésiastique
locale, III, 1936, pp. 541–89. L.Cognet in Le jansénisme, 1968, regards Duguet as the central figure of
the period after 1713: pp. 117–18.
15 B.Neveu, ‘Port-Royal à l’âge des Lumières. Les pensées et les anecdotes de l’abbé d’Etémare,
1682–1770’, Lias, IV, 1977, pp. 115–53; C.-L.Maire, Les convulsionnaires de Saint-Médard, Paris, 1985,
‘Agonie religieuse et transfiguration politique du jansénisme’, in Maire, ed., Jansénisme et Révolution,
special issue of Chroniques de Port-Royal, 1990, pp. 103–114, and her ‘L’Eglise et la nation: du dépôt
de la vérité au dépôt des lois. La trajectoire janséniste au XVIIIe siècle’, Annales, E.S.C., 1991, no.
5, pp. 1177–1205. I would like to acknowledge a particular intellectual debt to Dr Maire’s
investigation of the Figurist ecclesiology, because for me this was the link that led me to a fuller
understanding of the motivation behind the barristers and magistrates whose activities I had
already investigated.
16 Maire, ‘La trajectoire janséniste’, p. 1180.
17 The internal debates and disarray that characterised the movement in the mid-1730s prove that
several different tendencies remained strong: see Dedieu, ‘Le désarroi’, passim.
18 See G.Namer, L’Abbé Le Roy et ses amis, Paris, 1964.
19 The best guide to the complicated theological background is by H.Savon, ‘Le Figurisme et la
tradition des Pères’, in P.Sellier, ed., Le grand siècle et la Bible, 1989, pp. 757–85 and C.Maire, ‘Agonie
religieuse’.
20 Neveu, ‘Port-Royal à l’âge des Lumières‘, p. 132.
21 E.Mangenot, ‘Figurisme’, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, 1912–13, see also for discussion of the
principal themes, M.Caffiero, ‘La postérité du figurisme en Italic’, Jansénisme et Révolution, pp.
241–52.
22 Témoignage de la vérité dans l’eglise, Paris, 1714, 1718.
23 See, for example, Barbier, Journal, II, pp. 129–30; 250–1. D.Garrioch’s recent research
emphasises that churchwardens had considerable power in their parish, and credits their
involvement with the politics of Jansenism with something of a political apprenticeship: ‘The
revolution in local politics in Paris’, Renaissance and Modern Studies, XXXIII, 1989, pp. 53–68;
idem, ‘Parish politics, Jansenism and the Paris middle classes in the eighteenth century’, French
History, VIII, pp. 403–19.
24 Dedieu, ‘Le désarroi’, p. 572.
25 On the schools, see E.Préclin, ‘Conséquences sociales du jansénisme’, in Carrière, Introduction, pp.
NOTES
361
592 ff., esp. pp. 614–20, and A.Gazier, ‘Les écoles de charité du faubourg Saint Antoine, 1713–
1887’, Revue internationale de l’enseignement, 51, 1906, pp. 217–37, 314–26.
26 Dedieu, ‘L’agonie du jansénisme’.
27 B.Robert Kreiser, Miracles, Convulsions and Ecclesiastical Politics in Early Eighteenth-Century Paris,
Princeton, 1978, p. 66.
28 M.J.Michels, ‘Clergé et pastorale janséniste’: ‘Après 1720 les effectifs jansénistes diminuent…. Le
mouvement ne recrute plus guère après 1718—surtout le groupe de personnalités ne se renouvelle
pas’, p. 191.
29 W.Frijhoff and D.Julia, ‘Les Oratoriens de France sous l’ancien régime’, Revue d’histoire de l’église de
France, LXV, 1979, no. 175, pp. 225–65, esp. 258–65; idem, ‘L’Oratoire et le jansénisme.
L’Assemblée générale de 1746, Jansénisme et Révolution, pp. 25–45; D.Dinet and M.-C.Dinet-
Lecomte, ‘Les jansénistes du XVIIIe siècle d’après les recueils des actes d’appel de Gabriel-Nicolas
Nivelle’, Jansénisme et Révolution, pp. 47–63.
30 Michels, ‘Clergé et pastorale janséniste’, op. cit., p. 193. ‘En 1730, les refuges se limitent presque à
des “ghettos” sous l’autorité et la protection d’un curé ou d’un évèque anti-constitutionnaire’.
31 See Maire, Les convulsionnaires, pp. 127–34. Cf.Dedieu, who concluded from the identities of over
200 ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ that ‘C’est une erreur de croire. Comme le font M.Hardy et beaucoup
d’autres historiens, que [cette génération mystérieuse] était “populaire et de bas étage’” ‘L’agonie
du jansénisme’, p. 189 n. Brother Pierre was an avocat au parlement, Brother Hilaire [de Blaru] was
the comte de Tilly, Brother Noel was a count and Brother Etienne was a marquis. Of the
convulsionary sects he adds (p. 202 n) ‘II ne faut pas croire que ces sectes n’abritaient que des
“canailles” de la basse plèbe’: for the figurist and convulsionary activities of the Vaillantistes also
attracted some from the upper ranks of society. When persecution became more severe after 1735,
convulsionaries were aided and abetted by persons of distinction, in whose houses they were
sometimes arrested. At its height around 1732 the convulsionary movement may have attracted
hundreds of participants and three to four thousand followers.
32 Systeme du melange dans l’œure des convulsions, 1735 (BL699 i 14), p. 6.
33 See Kreiser, Miracles and Maire, Les convulsionnaires.
34 ‘De leur propre aveu, les anciens directeurs de l’Appel ont perdu, vers la fin de 1732, la direction de
leur parti.’ Dedieu, ‘L’agonie du jansénisme’, pp. 190–6.
35 Ibid., pp. 200–3.
36 This subject is the real strength of Kreiser’s excellent study.
37 Kreiser, Miracles, pp. 103–4.
38 Maire, ‘La trajectoire janséniste’, p. 1180.
39 Nouvelles ecclésiastiques, 1728, pp. 1–4.
40 Nouvelles ecclésiastiques, supplement to 1728.
41 See Dedieu, ‘L’agonie du jansénisme,’ p. 180, long note 36; Carrière, Introduction, pp. 513–621 and
F.Bontoux, ‘Paris janséniste au XVIIIe siècle. Les Nouvelles ecclésiastiques’, Mémoires de la
Fédération des Sociétés historiques et archéologiques de Paris et l’Ile de France, 7, 1955, pp. 205–20.
42 Hérault to Fleury, 16 October 1727, B.P.R., L.P, 431, no. 43.
43 There is evidence that a few lawyers were involved in the parlement’s protests in 1718 and 1720,
notably Prévost.
44 R.Taveneaux, ed., Jansénisme et politique, Paris, 1965, p. 41; Maire also speaks of ‘la jansénisation
massive de 1’ordre des avocats’, ‘La trajectoire janséniste’, p. 1184.
45 See Maire, ‘La trajectoire janséniste’, p. 1185 and D.A.Bell, ‘Des stratégies d’opposition sous Louis
XV: l’affaire des avocats, 1730–1731’, Histoire, economie et société, IX, 1990, pp. 567–90, list of 24
lawyers on pp. 571–2, esp. note 31.
46 B.P.R., L.P., 414, 511 passim.
47 Obituary, citing a letter to Colbert of Montpellier in 1733: LP 414, no. 5, extract from Nouvelles
ecclésiatiques, 1739, p. 200.
48 Aubry to Soanen, 30 January 1728, in J.-B.Gaultier, ed., La vie et les lettres de Soanen, 2 vols, Cologne,
1750, I, pp. 220–1.
49 L.-A.Le Paige, Lettres sur les lits de justice, 18 août 1756, n.p., n.d.
50 B.P.R., L.P., 17, and 460, no. 23.
51 On the lawyers, see esp. J.A.F.Gaudry, Histoire du barreau de Paris depuis son origine jusqu’à 1830, 2
vols, Paris, 1864; L.R.Berlanstein, The Barristers of Toulouse in the Eighteenth Century, Baltimore, 1975;
M.Gresset, Gens de justice à Besançon, 1674–1789, 2 vols, Paris, 1978; M.Fitzsimmons, The Parisian
Order of Barristers in the French Revolution, Cambridge Mass., 1987; D.Bell ‘Lawyers and politics in
NOTES
362
eighteenth-century Paris, 1700–1790’, PhD thesis, Princeton University, 1991 (published as
Lawyers and Citizens, New York, 1994) is of fundamental importance.
52 Henri-François d’Aguesseau, ‘L’indépendance de l’avocat’, pp. 171 and 177, Œuvres choisies, Paris,
1863.
53 The word ‘barrister’ could be used for all ‘avocats au parlement’, but since many never pleaded at
the bar their function was more often that of legal adviser or ‘lawyer’. This was all the more true
because only the grand’chambre of the parlement had oral pleading, all the other chambers working
from written records. In the text I have used ‘barrister’ when it is a question of consultations and
reserved ‘lawyers’ for less specific occasions, partly as a matter of accuracy and partly for variety.
54 Several historians have recently explored this phenomenon: see R.Darnton, ‘Trends in radical
propaganda on the eve of the French Revolution (1782–1788)’, PhD thesis, Oxford University,
1964; S.Maza, ‘Le tribunal de la nation: les mémoires judiciaires et l’opinion publique à la fin de
l’ancien régime’, Annales, E.S.C., XLII, 1987, 73–90, and D.Bell ‘Lawyers into demagogues:
Chancellor Maupeou and the transformation of legal practice in France, 1771–1789’, Past and
Present, 130, 1991, pp. 107–41, and his Lawyers and Citizens.
55 Fleury to the Pope, 23 October 1730, A.A.E., C.P., Rome, 715, fols 406–7. This letter is more
accessibly reproduced in its entirety in P.R.Campbell, ‘The conduct of politics’, PhD thesis,
London University, 1985, Appendix VII.
56 For example, Soanen, Lettres, I, pp. 166–71, 175, 217–19, 317–18, 347–50, 408–10, 458, 474, 489,
498–9, 508–9, 522, 526–8, 536–7, 568–9, 575–6 and Colbert, Œuvres, III, pp. 214, 455, 496, 549,
593, 601, 609, 683.
57 Consultation des avocats du parlement de Paris pour la cause de Monsieur l’Evêque de Senez, n.p., 1727.
58 Consultation de MM. les avocats du parlement de Paris au sujet du jugement rendu à Ambrun contre M.l’Evêque
de Senez, n.p., 1727.
59 E.J.F.Barbier, Chronique de la régence et du règne de Louis XV (1718–1763), ou Journal de Barbier, ed.
Charpentier, 8 vols, Paris, 1857, II, p. 32.
60 See Van Kley, The Damiens Affair, Chap. 3; Swann, Politics and the Parlement of Paris.
61 D.Bell has written a fine, detailed, account of this episode: ‘Des stratégies d’opposition sous Louis
XV: l’affaire des avocats, 1730–1731’, Histoire, économie et société, IX, 4, 1990, pp. 567–90. Other
accounts may be found in Gaudry, Histoire du barreau, II, pp. 138–47, Hardy, Le cardinal de Fleury, pp.
224–43, and Kreiser, Miracles, pp. 99–109.
62 Bell, ‘Lawyers and politics’, p. 157.
63 Mémoire pour les sieurs Samson cure d’Olivet, Couât curé de Darvoi, Gaucher, chanoine de jargeau, diocèse
d’Orléans et autres Ecclésiastiques de différents dioceses, intimés. Sur l’effet des Arrest des Parlemens, tant provisoires
que définitifs en matière d’appel comme d’abus des Censures Ecclésiastiques, Paris, 1730, pp. 1–3.
64 A full account of these by one of the four lawyers involved in settling the affair, J.-L.Julien de
Prunay, is document A.N., A.B.
XIX
3947.
65 In a letter to the First President on 7 April 1728 the bishop of Senez called the parlement ‘l’azyle
des…Papes dans leur disgrace et la ressource des Eveques dans leur oppression’—quoted in J.H.
Shennan, ‘The political role of the parlement of Paris, 1715–1748’, PhD thesis, Cambridge
University, 1963, p. 144.
66 In fact, their strategy was rather more subtle, as will be demonstrated below. The quotation is
from Dedieu, ‘L’agonie du jansénisme’, p. 193.
67 For the text of the edict, see L.Mention, Documents relatifs aux rapports du clergé avec la rayauté de 1682
à 1789, 2 vols, Paris, 1893–1903,1, pp. 113–27. For an extremely clear discussion of these complex
issues, see N.Ravitch, Sword and Mitre: Government and Episcopate in France and England in the Age of
Aristocracy, The Hague, 1966, Chap. 1.
68 For a different view see Van Kley, The Jansenists and The Damiens Affair, and K.M.Baker, Inventing the
French Revolution, Cambridge, 1990.
69 In alphabetical order, in the 1730s these Jansenists were L.B.Carré de Montgeron (1686–1754), of
the second enquêtes; abbé A.J.Clément (1684–1747) of the second enquêtes; the abbé P.Guillebault (c.
1660–1732), of the third chamber of enquêtes; P.Dupré de Saint-Maur (1697–1765) of the second
enquêtes; J.Delpech de Méréville (poss. died in 1737) of the grand’chambre; C.F. Fornier de Montagny
(1682–1742) of the first enquêtes until 1735 when he entered the grand’chambre; N.le Clerc de
Lesseville (c. 1658–1737), conseiller d’honneur, J.F.Ogier d’Enonviile (1703–1775) president of the
second enquêtes; J.N.de Paris (1695–1737), of the first enquêtes; the abbé R.Pucelle (1655–1745), of
the grand’chambre; L.Robert (166?–1745) a grand’chambrier, Jean-Baptiste Titon (169?–1768) of the
fifth chamber of enquêtes; N.L.de Vrévin (c. 1655–1733), of the grand’chamhre. The following three
NOTES
363
magistrates were prominent in the debates, definitely associated with the parti janséniste, but
perhaps more as fellow travellers, or ‘republicans’ than as Jansenists: L.Dupré (?–1754), of the
fourth enquêtes; L.Davy de La Fautrière (1700–56), in the third enquêtes; P.Thomé (1690–1752).
70 Barbier, Journal, II, p. 347.
71 Gazier wrote: ‘II n’y a pas de lien commun entre ces amis de la vérité; ils ne se connaissaient même
pas, ils ne prenaient pas parti à l’occasion les uns pour les autres; ils prouvaient ainsi une fois de
plus que 1’esprit de cabale n’a jamais quoi que l’on en dise, animé les jansénistes, même lorsqu’ils
étaient légion’—Histoire générale, I, pp. 318–19.
72 Barbier, Journal, II, 265–6.
73 Ibid., p. 298.
74 Ibid., p. 334.
75 Strictly speaking, the order of lawyers was not a corporate body, but it regulated itself and its
members behaved very much as if it were.
76 Barbier, Journal, II, 29–36, 103–4.
77 Ibid., II, pp. 109–10.
78 Ibid., II, pp. 130–6.
79 Ibid., III, p. 20.
80 Ibid., III, p. 42.
81 N.O.Keohane, Philosophy and the State in France: The Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Princeton, 1980.
82 L.Goldmann, Le Dieu caché. Etude sur la vision tragique dans les pensées de Pascal et dans le théâtre de
Racine, Paris, 1955. His interesting attempt at a socio-psychological explanation rests upon
insufficient evidence and the desire to explain the rise of ‘bourgeois’ opposition which is itself
a doubtful phenomenon at this stage. For a critique of his position see R.Taveneaux,
‘Jansénisme et vie sociale en France au XVIIe siècle’, Revue d’histoire de l’église de France, LIV,
1968, pp. 27–46.
83 Lettres historiques sur les fonctions essentielles du parlement, sur le droit des pairs et sur les loix fondamentales du
royaume, 2 vols, Amsterdam, 1753–4.
84 For a discussion and exposition of these ideas see, in general, R.Taveneaux, ed., Jansénisme et
politique, Paris, 1965; on the importance of conciliarism see, above all, D.Carroll Joynes,
‘Jansenists and ideologues; opposition theory in the parlement of Paris, 1750–1775’ PhD
thesis, University of Chicago, 1981 (which richly deserves publication), and his ‘Parlements,
peers and the parti janséniste: the refusal of sacraments and the revival of the ancient
constitution in eighteenth-century France’, Western Society for French History: Proceedings, 1981,
pp. 229–38.; Van Kley, The Damiens Affair, idem, ‘The Jansenist constitutional legacy in the
French prerevolution’, Historical Reflections/Réflections historiques, XIII, 1986, pp. 393–454;
C.Maire, ‘La trajectoire janséniste’; the thought of Le Paige’s successors, esp. Mey and
Maultrot is subtly dissected by A.Cocâtre-Zilgien, ‘Les doctrines politiques des milieux
parlementaires dans la seconde moitié du XVIIIe siècle, ou les avocats dans la bataille
idéologique pré-révolutionnaire’, Annales de la Faculté de Droit et Sciences économiques de Lille, 1963,
pp. 29–154.
85 The process would be similar to the one identified in England by B.Tierney in Religion, Law and the
Growth of Constitutional Thought, 1150–1650, Cambridge, 1982. Many of the sources cited in P.
Riley, The General Will Before Rousseau, Princeton, 1986, are authored by Jansenists, and the term
‘general will’ itself originally pertained to God’s will. The present writer’s current research on the
emergence of patriotic discourse in the 1750s suggests that there are strong links between these
patriote currents and the Jansenist debate: ‘The parti patriote in thought and action’, unpublished
paper delivered to the East-West Seminar, Naples, 1992. At the same seminar M. Valinsese
presented a valuable paper on the hierarchy of grace and the debt owed theology by modern
political culture.
86 Recueil des arrets, III, p. 42 about Instructions pour calmer les scrupules.
87 B.P.R., L.P., 17, fols 789–800.
88 Cited in M.Marion, Dictionnaire des institutions de la France aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Paris, 1923, p.
423.
89 Maire, ‘La trajectoire janséniste’, pp. 1190–2.
90 Ibid., pp. 1185–98.
91 The Spirit of the Laws, Bk 2, Chap. 4.
92 Bernis, Mémoires et lettres de François Joachim de Pierre, Fr. Masson, ed., 2 vols, Paris, 1878, I, p. 59.
NOTES
364
10 THE PARLEMENT OF PARIS
1 Before historians can have a clear picture of the nature of politics in this period and of the role and
effectiveness of government, a large number of detailed studies will have to be carried out but they
have yet to be started. As already noted, serious gaps in our knowledge remain: there are no
detailed studies of the Secretaries of State for this period, of their policies, nor of their respective
roles in the processes of government. An examination of the relations of the ministry with the
surviving provincial estates would be particularly interesting, and a study is badly needed of the
role of the high aristocrats who were provincial governors. Such tasks are vast and deserve studies
in their own right, because the evidence is often not only scattered among many archives and
private collections but is also rarely in sufficient concentration to permit sound conclusions for any
short period of history.
2 W.Doyle, ‘The parlements’, in K.M.Baker ed., The French Revolution and the Creation of Modern
Political Culture, I, The Political Culture of the Old Regime, Oxford 1987, pp. 157–67 is the best
expression of this view.
3 See M.Marion, Dictionnaire des institutions de la France aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Paris, 1923, art.
parlements; R.Mousnier, The Institutions of France under the Absolute Monarchy, 1598–1789, trans. A.
Goldhammer, 2 vols, Chicago, 1979–84, II, 1974–7.
4 Le Paige worked this view into a new constitutional history in the Lettres historiques sur les fonctions
essentielles du parlement, sur le droit des pairs, et sur les lois fondamentales du royaume, 2 vols, Amsterdam,
1753–4, but it predated his research. On Le Paige in context, see esp. D.K.Van Kley, The Damiens
Affair and the Unravelling of the Ancien Regime 1750–1770, Princeton, 1984, Chap. 4, ‘Damien’s
masters as theorists: constitutional thought from 1750 to 1770’.
5 Saint-Simon, Mémoires, ed. Boislisle, XXV, pp. 294 ff. described the parlement in 1718. For an
analysis of the symbolism, see S.Hanley, The Lit de Justice of the Kings of France. Constitutional Ideology
in Legend, Ritual and Discourse, Princeton, 1983.
6 A full description of the duties and strategies of a First President is ‘Sur les devoirs du premier
president’, B.N., N.a.f, 7981, fols 215–22, reprinted in P.R.Campbell, ‘The conduct of politics’,
PhD thesis, 1985, Appendix VIII.
7 See above, pp. 212–14.
8 D’Argenson, Journal et mémoires, ed. Rathery, 9 vols, Paris, 1859–67, II, p. 47.
9 For this account I have drawn heavily on J.F.Bluche, Les magistrats du parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle
(1715–1771), Paris, 1960, pp. 160–74; J. Flammermont, ed., Les remontrances du parlement de Paris au
XVIIIe siècle, 3 vols, Paris, 1888–98, I, Introduction, pp. LXXVIII-XCV, and I, pp. 651–713, as
well as on the accounts of debates from the 1730s to the 1750s.
10 See above, pp. 215–17. For an account revealing the surprising victory of Durey des Meinières’ avis
reopening the question of the status of the Bull Unigenitus in 1752, see Robert de Saint-Vincent,
‘Mémoires de Pierre-Augustin Robert de Saint-Vincent, 1725–1799’ (a typewritten copy of which
has been kindly put in the possession of Prof. D.K.Van Kley by M.Michel Vinot Préfontaine, in
whose archives is the original), pp. 130–5. The author would like to express his thanks to
Professor Van Kley and M.Michel Vinot Préfontaine for access to this important source. As a
president of the first enquêtes, Durey opined after the grand’chambriers.
11 See the explanation by Durey de Meinières, reprinted in Flammermont, Les remontrances, I, p. 701.
12 Durey de Meinières, ‘Detail très circonstancié’, in Flammermont, Les remontrances, I, pp. 651–713.
13 Saint-Vincent,‘Mémoires’, p. 122.
14 B.N., Mss fr., 10908, fol. 56. This appears to be the only occasion when the actual numbers of
magistrates present were recorded, for all other figures refer to the votes or ‘avis’ whose totals were
often recorded after allowing for consanguinity.
15 F.L.Ford, Robe and Sword: The Regrouping of the French Aristocracy after Louis XIV, Cambridge Mass.,
1953, p. 47, referring to B.N., N.a.f, 1313, fol. 55.
16 Bluche, Les magistrats, pp. 216–17. The most assiduous were Titon, Soullet, Nau and Le Clerc de
Lesseville, the first and last being Jansenists.
17 For a list of the personnel in the parlement in 1736, see the Etat de la France, 4 vols, chez Bauche,
Paris, 1736, IV, pp. 253–307.
18 See P.Bisson de Barthelemy, Les Joly de Fleury, procureurs-généraux au Parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle,
Paris, 1964.
19 Ibid.
20 In his meticulous study, Bluche has shown that 951 magistrates from 1715 to 1771 came from only
NOTES
365
590 families, 212 of which provided two or more counsellors: Les magistrats, pp. 121–30. Shennan,
The Parlement of Paris, summarises much of this work in Chapter 4.
21 For example, the diarist Barbier’s father was on the council of the due d’Orléans; La Vigne was
Chauvelin’s legal adviser, as was Normant; Fréteau was secretary for chancellor Daguesseau.
22 M.Fumaroli, L’Age de l‘éloquence, Geneva, 1980.
23 See, for example, B.Lamy, De l’art de parler, Paris, 1675; in the mid-eighteenth century P.L.C. Gin,
De l’eloquence du barreau, Paris, 1767, was particularly popular.
24 For example, see M.Levinger, ‘La rhétorique parlementaire du parlement de Rouen (1753–
1763)’, Annales, E.S.C., 1990, pp. 589–613. A more profound analysis of the uses of
eloquence is M.Fogel, Les Cérémonies de l’information dans la France du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle,
Paris, 1989.
25 ‘Quatrième mercuriale’, ‘La dignité du magistrat’, Œuvres choisies du chancelier d’Aguesseau, Paris,
1863, p. 42. Some other homilies focused on ‘the love of one’s condition’, ‘the morals of a
magistrate’, ‘love of the patrie’, on attention, bias, true and false justice, for example. Daguesseau’s
‘Instructions on the proper studies for the education of a magistrate’ of 1716 were widely used for
the next century.
26 Mercuriale of 1709: Œuvres choisies, p. 117.
27 Bernis, Mémoires et lettres de François Joachim de Pierre, cardinal de Bernis, 2 vols, ed., Fr. Masson, Paris,
1878, I, pp. 347–8.
28 See R.Bickart, Les parlements et la notion de souveraineté nationale au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1932;
A.Lemaire, Les lois fondamentales de la monarchie françaisé d’après les théoriciens de l’ancien régime, Paris,
1907.
29 This view has been widely held. M.Marion’s views are expressed in Machault d’Arnouville. Etude sur
l’histoire du contrôle générale des finances de 1749 à 1754, Paris, 1891, his Histoire financière de la France depuis
1715, 6 vols, Paris, 1927–31, I, pp. 181–225 and Le garde des sceaux Lamoignon et la réforme judiciaire de
1788, Paris, 1905; A.Cobban, ‘The Parlements of France in the eighteenth century’, History, 1950,
XXXV, pp. 64–80.
30 Louis XV, Paris, 1989.
31 The idea of an aristocratic reaction has found little favour with recent historians: see W.Doyle,
‘Was there an aristocratic reaction in pre-revolutionary France?’, Past and Present, no. 57, 1972, pp.
97–122.
32 Ford, Robe and Sword. Although Ford’s central thesis is doubtful, the book continues to
stimulate, as it contains a particularly sensitive description of the magistracy in the early
eighteenth century.
33 This view of course draws on Montesquieu, and is expressed by E.Carcassonne, Montesquieu et le
problème de la constitution française au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1927.
34 J.Flammermont, ed., Les remontrances du parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle, 3 vols, Paris, 1888–98.
Flammermont himself regarded the courts as an essential safeguard against despotism.
35 J.Egret, Le parlement de Dauphiné et les affaires publiques dans la deuxième moitié du XVIIIe siècle, 2 vols,
Grenoble, 1942; Louis XVet l’opposition parlementaire, 1715–1774, Paris, 1970.
36 F.Bluche, L’origine des magistrats, and his thèse, Les magistrats du parlement de Paris, 1960; J.H.Shennan,
‘The political role of the parlement of Paris, 1715–1748’, PhD thesis, Cambridge University, 1963,
and his book The Parlement of Paris, London, 1968.
37 Shennan, The Parlement of Paris, p. 250.
38 W.Doyle, ‘The parlements of France and the breakdown of the Old Régime’, French Historical
Studies, VI, 1970–1, pp. 415–58; J.M.J.Rogister, ‘Conflict and harmony in eighteenth-century
France: a reappraisal of the relations between the crown and the parlement of Paris 1730–1754’,
DPhil. thesis, Oxford University, 1971 (on the crisis of 1753–4, forthcoming, Cambridge, 1995);
‘The crisis of 1753–4 in France and the debate on the nature of the monarchy and of the
fundamental laws’, Studies Presented to the International Commission for the History of Representative and
Parliamentary Institutions, LIX, 1977, pp. 105–20; and A.N.Hamscher, The Paris Parlement after the
Fronde, 1653–1673, Pittsburg, 1976.
39 Cobban argued that ‘from the revival of its claims under the regency to the moment when it
brought the monarchy crashing down in a general destruction of the ancien régime, which it
shared, it conducted a running war with the Crown’—A History of Modern France, I, p. 67.
40 Quoted in Doyle, ‘The parlements of France and the breakdown’, p. 446.
41 J.M.J.Rogister, ‘New light on the fall of Chauvelin’, English Historical Review, LXXXIII, 1968, pp.
314–30. See G.-M.Sallier, Annales françaises, depuis le commencement du règne de Louis XVI, jusqu’aux Etats
NOTES
366
Généraux, 1774 à 1789, second edn, Paris, 1813; Robert de Saint-Vincent, ‘Mémoires’, a typed copy
of which is in the possession of D.K.Van Kley, covering the period 1748–74.
42 W.Doyle, The Parlement of Bordeaux and the End of the Old Regime, 1771–1790, London, 1974.
43 Hamscher, The Paris Parlement after the Fronde.
44 See especially A.N.Hamscher, ‘The Parlement of Paris and the social interpretation of early
French Jansenism’, Catholic Historical Review, LXIII, 1977, pp. 392–410.
45 G.Duby, ‘Histoire sociale et idéologique des sociétés’, in J.Le Goff and P.Nora, eds, Faire de l’histoire,
3 vols, Paris 1974, I, pp. 157–8.
11 THE CRISIS OF 1730–2: THE GENESIS OF THE CRISIS
1 J.Flammermont, Les remontrances du parlement de Paris au XVIIIe siècle, 3 vols, Paris, 1888–9, I, p. xv:
‘Le cardinal de Fleury, après avoir été l’un des plus fervents jansénistes, était devenu pour les
besoins de son ambition un fanatique partisan des jésuites et, comme tous les renégats, il était
dévoré d’une violente ardour de brûler ce qu’il avail adoré.’
2 F.Rocquain, L’esprit révolutionnaire avant la Révolution, 1715–1789, Paris, 1878, pp. 41–2.
3 J.H.Shennan, The Parlement of Paris, London, 1968, p. 306.
4 Ibid., p. 306. It seems fair to point out that, to judge from his various writings, Professor Shennan
seems to have modified his opinion over the years. Whereas in his doctoral thesis his
condemnation of the role of the ministry was rather cautious and criticism of the parlement
frequent, in his subsequent article he is much more severe on the ministry, while in the book he
arrived at the extremely unfavourable opinion quoted above.
5 E.Glasson, Le parlement de Paris, son rôle politique, 2 vols, Paris, 1901, II, pp. 78–126; J.Egret, Louis XV
et l’opposition parlementaire, Paris, 1970.
6 G.Hardy, Le cardinal de Fleury et le mouvement janséniste, Paris, 1925.
7 For a fuller discussion of this method, see pp. 215–16 above, and Appendix 2, on the parti janséniste.
8 In the absence of records of the council meetings in which policy was discussed, there are two
main sources for the opinions of the ministry in this period. The memoirs and letters written for
and by ministers during the crisis are very revealing, and so too are the replies to the arrêtés and
complaints of the parlement. Neither of these sources is comprehensive enough and they must be
supplemented by a study of the letters written by Fleury and his collaborators to the
constitutionnaire bishops and the Pope.
9 A.N., A.P., 257, carton 8, doc. 32.
10 A.A.E., C.P., Rome, 715, fols 400–9. The full text of this letter is quoted in P.R.Campbell, ‘The
conduct of politics’, PhD thesis, London University, 1985, Appendix VII. See also a letter of
Fleury to the bishop of Lodève, quoted in E.Appolis, ‘L’histoire provinciale du jansénisme au
XVIIIe siècle’, Annales, E.S.C., VII, pp. 87–92, p. 91. Another memoir of 1733 linked by analogy
the Molinist and Jansenist movements to the English situation in the seventeenth century. The
affair of the constitution was being exploited by the lower clergy, the writer argued, as a means to
discredit the higher clergy and the Holy See: ‘Considérations politiques sur l’état présent des anti-
constitutionnaires’, 1733, A.A.E., Mém. et Doc., France, 1283, fol. 196–211.
11 A.A.E., Mém. et Doc., France, 1271, fol. 175.
12 On the subject of one agent, see the interesting report in A.A.E., Mém. et Doc., France, 1268, Ibis
243–4, in which the story of a certain Morin de Franche-Comté, a printer, is recounted.
13 See Fleury’s letter to the Pope, quoted in Campbell, ‘The conduct of politics’, Appendix VII.
14 See Campbell, ‘The conduct of politics’, pp. 54–5.
15 Text in L.Mention, Documents sur les rapports du clergé avec la royauté, 2 vols, Paris, 1893–1903, II, pp. 62–9.
16 A detailed account of the reductions of the congregation of Saint-Maur is to be found in an article by
Dom P.Denis, ‘Le cardinal de Fleury, Dom Aleyson et Dom Thullier, documents inédits sur l’histoire
du jansénisme dans la congrégation de Saint-Maur (1729 1730)’, Revue Bénédictine, 1909, pp. 325–70.
17 E.Appolis, ‘A travers le XVIIIe siècle catholique. Entre jansénistes et constitutionnaires: un tiers
parti’, Annales, E.S.C., VI, 1951, pp. 154–71.
18 E.Appolis, Entre jansénistes et zelanti: le tiers-parti catholique au XVIIIe siècle, Paris, 1960. This book is
among the first to add significant nuances to the traditional picture of the conflict between
Jansenists and jesuits. Although not primarily concerned wilh Fleury (only in a peripheral sense)
and without discussing his policy in more than general terms, he has provided valuable letters
from the Vatican archives and given a new perspective to the debate.
NOTES
367
19 Appolis, Entre jansénistes, pp. 80–91.
20 On Bissy in this context, see J.-G.Gossel, ‘Henri de Thiard, Cardinal de Bissy, un essai d’action
commune de l’episcopat français’, Revue de l’histoire de l’église de France, II, 1911, pp. 539–52, 679–
701.
21 J.Sareil, Les Tencin: histoire d’une famille au XVIIIe siècle, Geneva, 1969, pp. 199–213.
22 The career of a prelate like Laon indicates that there is a need for fuller studies on the mentality of
the constitutionnaires. Much material for such a study is contained in the Maurepas collection in
the Archives Nationales, series A.P., 257. Cartons A.P., 257, 14–19, contain more than 200 letters
to Laon from 1726 to 1741, of which about 150 are from Fleury. They are especially revealing of
the constant efforts made by the ministry to exert a diplomatic control over the constitutionnaire
activities of Laon. Dr Nelson-Martin Dawson, who has worked on eighteenth-century catechisms,
has now begun work on Languet of Sens, perhaps, the leading constitutionnaire, whose extensive
correspondence must form a second important source for such a study.
23 Letters from Fleury to Laon, 23 January 1731 and 6 February 1731, A.N., A.P., 257, carton 14, fols
78 and 79–80 respectively.
24 12 July 1732, A.N., A.P., 257, 14, fol. 110. That the ministry appreciated the extent of the problem
caused by the over-zealous constitutionnaires is clear from the following memoir of 21 August
1731. ‘La bonne cause est soutenüe par le grand groupe des eveques attachés au chef de l’eglise;
mais les evêques ne sont pas uniformes dans leurs sentiments et moins encore dans leur conduite
avec les oposans; quelques uns portent trop loin leur zele et les prerogatives de l’episcopacy et
blessent 1’autorité Royale; il en est qui ne sont vifs que par ambition, qui esperent de trouver dans
la division et dans les malheurs de leur patrie des occasions de s’élever aux premieres dignités;
quelques uns sont disposes à faire des coups d’éclat; ils refusent de se prêter à la tranquilité de l’état
et bien loin d’attendre d’eux des facilités pour rétablir la paix, on est reduit à prevenir leurs
vivacités, et à adoucir l’amertume de leur zele’—A.A.E., Mém. et Doc., France, 1270, fol. 128–37.
Another memoir of May 1733 (A.A.E, Mém. et Doc., 1283, fols 157–9) makes the same point.
Interestingly enough, the author considers the calling of a national council because bishops submit
more easily to deliberations of the clergy than to orders from the court: ‘Mais aussi il faut estre
bien sûr des suffrages, avant que de former ces sortes d’assemblées’.
25 For example, the case of Laon in September 1731.
26 A.A.E., Mém. et Doc., France, 1267, fol. 155.
27 Ibid., 1283, fol. 87.
28 ‘Projet d’une lettre…’, 1 August 1732, A.A.E., Mém. et Doc., France, 1276, fols 174–87.
29 A.A.E., Mém. et Doc., France, 1270, fol. 128. See also the letter from Fleury to the Pope, in
Campbell, ‘The conductof politics’, Appendix VII.
30 On this distinction, and for a subtle definition of gallicanism at this time, see G.Frêche, Un chancelier
gallican Henri-François Daguesseau…, Paris, 1966.
31 Daguesseau to Fleury, 25 April 1729, A.A.E., Mém. et Doc., France, 1264, fols 59–60.
32 Ibid.
33 Fleury to Daguesseau, 24June 1729, A.A.E., Mém. et Doc., France, 1264, fols 219–20.
34 Fleury to Daguesseau, 24June 1729, A.A.E., Mém. et Doc., France, 1264, fols 288–9.
35 Ibid.: ‘la raison d’état doit être supérieure à toutes les autres’.
36 Luc Courchetet d’Esnans, ?–1776, was employed by Chauvelin to research in his library during
this period. He wrote a number of memoirs and letters on the affairs of the parlement. He was also
employed by Chauvelin in the bureaux des affaires étrangères. In the 1750s he wrote a number of
works on international affairs.
37 In 1730, the Nouvelles ecclésiastiques (in Flammerrnont, Les remontrances, I, pp. 628–37) claimed that
only about forty magistrates opined in favour of the declaration of 24 March 1730. The Gallican
majority does not, however, explain why the struggle was carried on for so long or so vehemently,
for the courts had rarely sustained their position in this way. For a further discussion of
parlementary Gallicanism, see below, pp. 250–1 and 269–72.
38 ‘Remontrances sur un arrêt du conseil cassant un arrêt de la Grand’ Chambre’, in
J.Flammermont, ed., Les remontrances, I, pp. 243–257.
39 See, besides the work of J.Orcibal, the article by P.Blet, ‘Louis XIV et le Saint-Siege’, Dixseptième
siècle, CXIV, 1979, pp. 137–54.
40 The Roman dimension was still important in politics, because the hostility of the papacy could still
give rise to considerable problems.
41 See Richer d’Aube, ‘Réflexions’, B.N., N.a.f, 9513, pp. 513–4: ‘il est vray aussi que le parlement