hemisphere, on either globe. Dinteville’s additions have been printed in
_italic_ type, for convenience of comparison. In a few instances, where
the surface of the picture has been slightly damaged, portions of names
have become obliterated; but in all cases where the words do not form
part of Dinteville’s additions, the parent globe supplies the defective
letters.
LIST OF NAMES ON THE STEVENS GLOBE. LIST OF NAMES ON HOLBEIN’S GLOBE.
Insula Espaliola .....a .sp......
Antiglie Insule Antiglie Insul..
Accores Accores
Medera Medera
Canarie Canarie
S. Anthoni S. Anthoni
S. Jacobi S. Jacobi
Insule Hesperide Insule Hesperidū
S. Thome S. Thome
Brisilici terra Brisilici R.
Islandia Isl.....
Europa Europa
Angli Angli
Scocia Scocia
Ibernia Ibernia
Lisibono Portugal
Hispania Hispania
_Castil_
_Aragon_
_Navar_
_Grana_
Francia Francia
_Pritann_
_Norma..ia_
_Avern_
_Burgund_
_Languedoc_
_P..ris_
_Leon_
_Polisy_[455]
_Baion_
Italia Italia
_Roma_
Venetia Venecie
_Genua_
Maiorica Maiorica
Minorica Minorica
Corsica Corsica
Sardinia Sardinia
Sicilia Sicilia
Creta Creta
Rodis Rodis
Ciprꝰ Cipra
Germania Germania
Nurēberga Nurēberga
_Saxonia_
_Polonia_
_Servia_
Cōstāti Cōstāti
Prussia Prussia
Dacia Dacia
Russia Russia
Grecia Greci
Dalma Dalmacia
Cremani Cremania
Norbegia Norbegia
Scania Scania
Svetia Svetia
Lappia Lappia
Russia (second time) Russia (second time)
Desertū magnū Desertū m....
Naymano rum reg: N.... .....
Livonia Livonia
Moscovia Moscovia
Bulgaria Bulgaria
Tartaria Cumanie Tartaria Cumanie
Bisermino um terra Bisermino um terra
Tartaria Corasine Tartari.. Corasine
Tartaria Torqueste Tartaria Tor..ues..e
Cambera C..m....
Persarū reg: Persarū Reg..
Chaldea Chaldea
Nagai Nagai
Iberia Iberia
Turchia Turchia
Armenia Armenia
Georgia Georgia
Mosalia Mosalia
Mesopotamia Mesopotamia
Siria Syria
Jerosolima Jerosolima
Arabia Sterilis Arabia Sterilis
ᵒMecha ᵒM....
Arabia Felix et Leaman ...... ..... .. L..man
Aden Aden
Affrica Affrica
Barbaria Barbaria
Fessa Fessa
Getulia Getulia
Senega Senega
C. Viride C. Viride
Ginoia Ginoia
C. de palmis C. di Palmis
Libya Interior Libia Interior
Libya desertum Libie Desertum
Marmarica Marmarica
Egiptꝰ Egiptꝰ
Alexā Alexā
Habesch presbyter Joannes[456] Habesch ..esbiter ...nnes[456]
Ethiopia Ethiopia
Ethiopia sub Egiptꝰ Ethiopia sub Egiptꝰ
Seyla ...la
Orguene Regnū Orguene Regnū
Melli regnū Melli Regnū
Nubie regnū Nubi.. Regnū
Rio de Camareos Rio de Camareos
Rio de Gaban Rio de G.....
Angra das Aldas An... ... .....
(Seas, Gulfs, etc.)
_Sinꝰ Adriaticus_
Pōtꝰ Euxinꝰ Pōtꝰ Euxinꝰ
Hircanū et Caspiū.. mā Hircanū et Caspiū Ma..
Persicū et Bessara Si. Persicū et Bes...a Si..
Arabicꝰ Sinꝰ Arabicꝰ Sin...
(Rivers.)
Renꝰ (Rhine marked but not named)
Danubiꝰ Danubius
Neper Fl. Neper Fl.
Meroe Nilꝰ Fl. Meroe Nilꝰ Fl.
Troglodite Troglo....
Mãgi Congo Mãgi Congo
Tanais Tanais
(The Seine and Rhone are also
marked by Holbein, but unnamed)
(Divisional Lines, etc.)
Arcticꝰ Circulꝰ Arct.. ......
Tropicꝰ Cancri Tropicꝰ Cancri
Equinoctialis circulꝰ Æquinoccialis Circulꝰ
Tropicꝰ Capricorni Tropicꝰ Capricorni
Linea divisionis Castellanorū et Linea Divisionis Castellanorū et
Portugallen̄ Portugallen̄
CHAPTER II
THE LUTHERAN HYMN-BOOK—THE BOOK OF ARITHMETIC—THE GEOMETRICAL
INSTRUMENTS—THE MOSAIC PAVEMENT—THE LUTE—THE SEVEN LIBERAL ARTS—THE
SILVER CRUCIFIX—OCCULT SCIENCE—CONCLUSION
THE LUTHERAN HYMN-BOOK.—The introduction of a German Hymn-book on the
lower shelf of the table, near George de Selve, tends to confirm the
belief that the Bishop of Lavaur had already been sent to Germany in a
diplomatic capacity as early as 1529, and had there probably attended the
Diet of Spires.[457] Certainly, no two hymns could better exemplify his
views regarding religious reunion than those selected in the picture.
On the left-hand page is seen the “Veni Creator Spiritus” in Luther’s
German rendering: on the right, Luther’s “Shortened Version of the Ten
Commandments.”[458]
[Illustration: HYMN BOOK FROM THE PICTURE OF THE “AMBASSADORS.”]
Both these hymns are to be found in Johann Walther’s “Geystliche
Gesangbüchlein,” published at Wittemberg in 1524.[459] This, the first
Lutheran Hymn-book containing music as well as words which was used
in the Reformed Churches of Germany, was the basis of numerous later
editions, chiefly published in South Germany. A distinguishing mark
of Walther’s “Gesangbuch,” in which it is followed by all these South
German reproductions, is the preservation of the old word “Glast,”[460]
instead of the more modern “Glantz,” in the hymn “Kom Heiliger Geyst.”
This feature may be observed in Holbein’s copy. A slight difference in
the termination of each verse suggests that the example he had before
him may have belonged to one of the later editions referred to above. If
so, that edition must have followed the original very closely; for the
actual number XIX. placed by Walther over the second hymn, “Mensch wiltu
leben seliglich,” is copied into the picture. Either by inadvertence, or
because the first hymn, “Kom Heiliger Geyst,” was here intended to figure
only as an antiphon,[461] the number is however placed by the painter
over “Kom Heiliger Geyst,” instead of over “Mensch wiltu.”
The following is the exact text of the two hymns, as given in the
Chorale-book of the “Ambassadors”:
XIX.
KOm Heiliger Geyst Herregott
erfüll mit Deiner gnaden gut
Deiner gleubgē Hertz mut un̄ sin
dein brūstig lib entzūd in ihn.
O Herr durch Deines lichtes glast
zu dem glaubē versamlet hast
das volck aller Welt zungē
[das sey] dir Herzu lob gesungen gesungen.
[On the opposite page:]
Mensch wiltu leben seliglich
und bei Gott bliben e[wiglich]
Soltu halten die zehen gebot
die uns gebeut unser Gott unser [Gott]
D[ein]....[462]
Coming now to the setting of the two hymns, it is to be remarked that
while Walther preserved the old and familiar melody of “Kom Heiliger
Geyst,” the music of “Mensch wiltu leben seliglich” first appeared in the
“Gesangbuch” of 1524.[463] The melody of the former hymn is in the treble
part, that of the second in the tenor. As the book copied in Holbein’s
picture is a tenor part-book, only the counterpoint sung by that voice is
found to the hymn “Kom Heiliger Geyst”; while, to the second hymn, the
melody is given, which in this instance resided in the tenor.[464]
The reader who has followed the career of the Bishop of Lavaur through
the earlier pages of this volume will have seen how large a part the hope
of religious reunion between the Roman Catholic and Reformed Churches
played in his life. To find means to promote that end was the object of
his most earnest thought; to see it accomplished, the dearest wish of
his heart. The healing of the schism, so the bishop held, could only be
sought in a better endeavour, under guidance from above, to live in
conformity with the divine teaching. When therefore it is found that the
two hymns chosen in Holbein’s picture to emphasize this point are “Come,
Holy Ghost” and the “Ten Commandments,” it is evident that a more telling
selection could not have been made.
Had a Latin text of the “Veni Creator” and the Commandments been chosen,
in accordance with the use of the Roman Catholic Church, they would have
conveyed nothing to the spectator of the Lutheran schism and of efforts
towards reunion. But the German version at once emphasizes the desired
point.
The doctrine expressed by these two hymns belonged, moreover, to all
Christian bodies, orthodox or the reverse. They therefore appeared
singularly fitted to furnish the common ground so much desired.
The “Veni Creator Spiritus” was (and still is) the great hymn of
Christendom for all specially solemn occasions. Selve must have heard
it on the opening day of the Diet of Spires. Soon he would again listen
to its strains, on the occasion of his own consecration as bishop.[465]
In the Lutheran churches it was sung on all Sundays and Festivals.[466]
Thus, no hymn had a more universal character.
It has been plausibly suggested that some of the German objects
introduced into the picture may have been a loan from Nicolas Kratzer,
the astronomer. In the present instance, however, this idea does not
commend itself as probable. There does not seem any reason to suppose
that Kratzer, an orthodox Catholic, who had no professional relationship
with theology, was the possessor of a collection of Lutheran hymns.
If not the property of the Bishop of Lavaur, the book may easily have
belonged to Cranmer. Official ties had brought him into contact with the
Bailly of Troyes;[467] while the connections of the archbishop with the
Protestants of South Germany are well known.[468] But it is not necessary
to push the question further, for the channels were multitudinous, both
within and without the Steelyard, through which the Hymn-book might have
been obtained.
THE BOOK OF ARITHMETIC.—If a satisfactory reason is forthcoming for the
representation of the Hymn-book in the German tongue, what can be said to
account for the fact that the book of Arithmetic is couched in the same
language?
The question brings the reader to one of the _collective_ meanings of the
picture. The language of this book, significantly kept open by a square,
was probably a matter of indifference, being introduced, so far as can
be seen, only to symbolize Arithmetic as one of the Seven Liberal Arts.
The interest centred on the numbers, not on the nationality of the book.
Any well-known manual of arithmetic, in any language, would have attained
this object.
Some separate significance, which it has not been possible to fathom, may
of course attach to the book beyond the one here specified; many of the
objects of the _mise-en-scène_ being made to do duty two or three times
over, first singly, and then in varied combination.
It may be noted also that the Bailly of Troyes shared, to the fullest
extent, the love of his time and country for setting such riddles deep.
The whole picture is conceived in that spirit of the _devise_ which
was “assumed for the purpose of mystification” and contained “a hidden
meaning.” If the use of the German language, with which both ambassadors
were probably familiar, would complicate the problem of interpretation,
Dinteville would have been likely to prefer it for that very reason.
The “Merchant’s Arithmetic Book” selected to represent one branch of the
Seven Liberal Arts, was a widely disseminated manual at the period under
consideration, and was therefore eminently representative of the subject
of which it treats.[469] The exact title is: “Eyn Newe unnd wolgegründte
underweysung aller Kauffmannss Rechnung in dreyen büchern ... durch
Petrum Apianū von Leyssnick u. Astronomei zu Ingoldstat Ordinariū
verfertiget.” (A new and well-grounded Instruction in all Merchant’s
Arithmetic, in three books ... compiled by Peter Apian of Leisnig,
Astronomer in Ordinary at Ingoldstadt.) The colophon reads; “Gedrückt und
volendt zu Ingoldstadt durch Georgium Apianum von Leyssnick im Jar nach
der Geburt Christi 1527 am 9. tag Augusti.” (Printed and completed at
Ingoldstadt by George Apian of Leisnig, in the year after the birth of
Christ 1527, on the 9th day of August.)[470] The page copied by Holbein
is in Book III., Q 8, verso.[471]
This manual of arithmetic may have been borrowed from one of the
merchants of the Steelyard, or possibly from Kratzer.
SOME OF THE GEOMETRICAL INSTRUMENTS.—Several of these instruments are
repetitions of those introduced by Holbein into his portrait of Nicolas
Kratzer, painted in 1528.[472] Such are the compasses, seen on the lower
portion of the wooden stand; and the columnar dial, the astrolabe, and
the decagon, placed upon the upper shelf.
It has been suggested that the torquetum which occupies a conspicuous
position on the top of the table, represents an instrument invented by
Apian, of which an illustration is given by him in a book published this
very year (1533).[473] Variations of this instrument, however, are not,
it appears, uncommon at about this period. Nevertheless, the attribution
to Apian does not seem improbable, bearing in mind that he was also the
author of the book of Arithmetic and was a compatriot of Kratzer’s.
[Illustration: BOOK OF ARITHMETIC, FROM THE PICTURE OF THE “AMBASSADORS.”
(Reduced in scale.)
PAGE OF APIAN’S “MERCHANT’S ARITHMETIC” COPIED BY HOLBEIN. (Reduced in
scale.)]
A curious question arises in connection with the hands of some of the
instruments, the shadows from which fall perplexingly at cross-purposes,
pointing sometimes one way, sometimes another. The reader must please
himself in deciding whether this was done to bring out special numbers
and indicate definite, though now inexplicable meanings, or whether
it was merely the result of carelessness on the part of assistants
who probably executed some of the mechanical details. In the case of
the Death’s-head, the divergence of the shadow was too remarkable to
be attributed to accident, and was, moreover, accounted for by having
been painted from a reflection. But in the _minutiæ_ of some of the
mathematical instruments, such lapses from strict science may be due to
chance, and are not unknown to Holbein’s practice. In the series of the
Seven Liberal Arts, these instruments help to symbolize Astronomy and
Geometry.
THE MOSAIC PAVEMENT.—It is an easy step from these illustrations of
mathematical science to the further symbol of Geometry, the beautiful
floor of “Opus Alexandrinum,” unique in Holbein’s performance, and
perhaps in the annals of pictorial art. And it is surely a point of
high interest to observe that this design is an accurate copy of the
well-known mosaic pavement in the Sanctuary of Westminster Abbey, for
the construction of which marbles and workmen were brought from Italy by
Abbot Richard Ware in the reign of Henry III. Nothing brings the English
sojourn of the great painter more closely home to us, than to fancy
him wandering through the aisles of the venerable Abbey—venerable even
then—to sketch the outlines of the historic pavement trodden by so many
generations before and since that time.
[Illustration: DESIGN OF THE MOSAIC PAVEMENT IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY, WITH
DETAILS OF PATTERNS.
DESIGN OF THE MOSAIC PAVEMENT IN HOLBEIN’S PICTURE, WITH DETAILS OF
PATTERNS.]
The mosaic pavement of Westminster consists of a square centre filled
with interwoven circles, and flanked on either side by oblong strips,
which complete the width of the Sanctuary.[474] The square centre
contains the portion copied by Holbein in the floor of the “Ambassadors.”
Range upon range of beautiful patterns adorn the interlacing circles of
the Westminster mosaic. The reduced scale and perspective view necessary
for the picture, has obliged Holbein to simplify some of these to a
certain extent. Occasionally he has borrowed smaller patterns from the
narrower strips of mosaic on either side of the central figure. But in
several instances the patterns are copied with undeviating precision;
while the main lines of the great central figure itself, in reversed
order, are reproduced in the painting with the utmost fidelity. The
colouring is slightly varied to meet the exigencies of another art.
In the presence of so much that is accurate, one notable deviation
strikes the eye. The central circle of the Westminster mosaic is filled,
at the present day, with a plain round slab of marble, somewhat similar
to those which Holbein has placed in the angles of his reproduction.
The central circle of the mosaic of the “Ambassadors,” on the other
hand, contains a six-pointed star: that double triangle which in a
thousand applications played so large a part in the emblematic art of
the Middle Ages. A famous figure of Geometry, it was equally well known
as the symbol of the Trinity and as the mystical “Solomon’s Seal” of the
alchymists.
The first question that arises when considering this discrepancy is
whether any alteration has taken place in the central ornament of the
Westminster mosaic since the painter sketched it?
Probably this has been the case. The pavement has been much patched and
repaired at various times, and, in the judgment of the late Sir Gilbert
Scott, “the eye of the great centre circle has a very modern look.”[475]
If the six-pointed star once adorned that centre, Holbein’s picture
has preserved for us an interesting record of the appearance it then
presented.
If, on the other hand, the further surmise of Sir Gilbert Scott is
correct, that the centre was “probably originally occupied with an
engraved plate of brass,” an unsuitable subject for the painter, the
latter would not have had far to seek for the star he has introduced.
That ornament was to be seen in abundance, on a small scale, in the
mosaics of the Shrine of Edward the Confessor and elsewhere in the Abbey.
THE LUTE.—Balancing the terrestrial globe on the lower shelf of the
table, a ten-stringed lute divides the two books already described.[476]
Taken in its most obvious application, this instrument serves as an
illustration of Music in the Seven Liberal Arts.
Closer inspection reveals, however, that one string of the lute _is
broken_—a discovery which yields some further curious results.
It is hardly necessary to dwell on the universally accepted
interpretation of a broken string as an emblem of Death. In the lute we
have thus a further insistence on those melancholy symbols which play so
large a part in the composition of the picture.
But, beyond this, another more specialized meaning may perhaps have been
intended, which, remembering the political import of the terrestrial
globe and book of chorales, seems worth consideration.
In the first known edition of Alciati’s “Emblems,”[477] there is one
inscribed “Fœdera Italorum.”[478] It is composed, as usual, of two parts:
the pictorial device and explanatory text. In this instance the former
is a lute[479] and the accompanying Latin poem expounds the author’s
meaning in selecting that symbol. The significance is wholly political.
The latest commentator of Alciati believes that this emblem was composed
to commemorate the League of Cognac of 1526,[480] which, as already
explained, united the princes of Italy in a common bond with France and
England against the Emperor. Italian patriots anticipated from this
league a cessation of those internecine feuds by which their unhappy
country had been rent no less than by the intrigues and invasions of
foreigners. It was this hope of peace which inspired the choice and
composition of the emblem presented by Alciati to his sovereign, the Duke
of Milan.
“Hanc citharam a lembi quæ formâ halieutica fertur,
Vendicat et propriam Musa latina sibi,
Accipe Dux; placeat nostrum hoc tibi tempore munus,
Quo nova cum socijs fœdera inire paras.
Difficile est, nisi docto homini tot tendere chordas:
Unaque si fuerit non bene tenta fides,
Ruptave (quod facile est) perit omnis gratia concha
Illique præcellens cantus ineptus erit.
Sic Itali coërunt proceres in fœdera: concors
Nil est quod timeas, si tibi constet amor:
At si aliquis desciscat (uti plerumque videmus)
In nihilum illa omnis solvitur harmonia.”
“This lute, called ‘Fisher’ for its boat-like form,
And claimed by Muse of Latium for her own,
Lord Duke, accept; as welcome at this time,
When you are bent on new alliances.
’Tis hard, save for skilled hands, these chords to tune;
And be there one ill-tuned or broken string,
Easy mischance! all grace of music dies,
And disconcerted is the concert fair.
So, when the lords of Italy unite
In congress, fear not whilst good will stands firm,
But if (as chanceth oft) one start aside,
Dissolved is harmony, and comes to nought.”[481]
It is easy to see how striking is the application of this emblem to the
events which took place in the summer of 1533 at Milan, the actual centre
for which it was composed. Nothing could more aptly illustrate Alciati’s
metaphor of the broken string than the sudden secession of the Duke of
Milan from his alliance with France—an alliance which was a leading
feature of that very League to celebrate which the emblem is believed
to have been composed. The startling manner of Sforza’s defection,
proclaimed by the ruthless murder of the French envoy, Merveilles,
emphasizes the point.[482] The very hand in which Alciati had placed his
exhortation to peace had roughly snapped the string of the lute. In a
moment the face of French politics was changed. The clash of arms in the
near future seemed the only possible reply to the affront. The jangle of
discord was all that remained of the fair promise of harmony.
Viewed in this light, the lute of Holbein’s “Ambassadors” acquires
a meaning which well agrees with the important position assigned to
it in the picture and with the political significance of some of the
surrounding objects.
It is of course neither possible nor desirable to press an interpretation
of this kind too far. But, considering the enormous popularity of
Alciati’s emblems, and the practical certainty that Dinteville was
familiar with them, the suggestion can hardly be considered far-fetched
or improbable.
It seems likely enough, indeed, that the ambassador was personally
acquainted with Alciati. At the very time when the picture was being
painted, that great jurisconsult was filling the Chair of Law at
Bourges, which he held from 1529 to 1534. His fame was immense, and
hearers flocked to his lectures. Francis I. himself was occasionally
counted amongst his audience; and it seems tolerably certain that
Dinteville, whose life, when in France, was spent almost entirely at
Court, must have been present at one or other of these discourses.
Just at the same moment, the Augsburg edition of the “Emblems” was
achieving popularity by leaps and bounds. The woodcuts that it contained
were, however, very inadequate; and, anxious to remedy this defect,
Alciati was now occupied in arranging with the printer, Christian
Wechel, to bring out an improved and refined edition at Paris.[483] In
short, the threads which connected Alciati with France, and with the
familiar surroundings of the Bailly of Troyes, were numerous, and appear
to place beyond doubt the acquaintance of the latter with the “Book of
Emblems.”[484]
THE SEVEN LIBERAL ARTS occupy a considerable place in the scheme of the
picture. Having been frequently alluded to in detail, their collective
appearance shall now be briefly summed up.
It has already been stated[485] that these were divided into two parts.
The first group, comprising Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric, had to do with
the things of speech. The two ambassadors themselves, whose profession
at that period was largely dependent on the dialectic skill of the
negotiator, may be held to personify this division.
The second part was concerned with things of fact, and embraced Music,
Arithmetic, Geometry, and Astronomy.
Music is represented by the Lute, the Hymn-book, and the Case of Flutes.
Arithmetic is symbolized by Apian’s “Kauffmannss Rechnung.”
Geometry is illustrated by the various mathematical instruments,
including the Square and Compasses, and by the Mosaic Pavement.
Astronomy shares with Geometry many of the mathematical instruments, and
is further represented by the two Globes, celestial and terrestrial.
THE SILVER CRUCIFIX.—This is perhaps the most puzzling object of the
whole elaborate _mise-en-scène_. Pushed away in the upper corner of the
picture, as inconspicuously as possible, half-hidden half-revealed by
the green drapery of the background, the very fact of its mysterious
introduction in such varied surroundings announces some definite object
to be attained by its presence. Was it placed there in allusion to the
sacred calling of the Bishop of Lavaur? Was it intended as a further
indication of the only means by which, in his opinion, the divisions of
the Church could be healed and unity re-established?
The Crucifix hangs, however, above Dinteville, not above George de Selve.
But there is no doubt that the Bailly of Troyes and the liberal Catholic
party in France, led by the Du Bellay brothers, fully shared the bishop’s
views. Reunion on the basis of the common grounds of faith formed the
essence of their ecclesiastical policy—a policy which was just now
reaching its climax. In secular diplomacy, these efforts towards a better
understanding with the Protestants of Germany, corresponded with the
anti-Imperial alliances which Dinteville so fervently upheld, and which
he illustrated by his additions to the terrestrial globe.
THE OCCULT SCIENCES.—Whether the picture contains, besides its more
palpable meanings, any hint in the direction of alchemy and astrology,
would seem to be a moot point. Votaries of occult science would probably
claim the presence of the mystic “Solomon’s Seal” in the mosaic floor as
evidence in their favour, and might further be disposed to deduce many
things from the presence of the square and compasses, and from the choice
and arrangement of the numbers indicated by the various instruments. On
that abstruse path the writer cannot pretend to follow them.
It is a fact, however, that just at this period such pursuits were
at the height of fashion, not only in France, but throughout the
educated circles of Europe. Men of the highest intelligence, such, for
instance, as Pirkheimer, at Nuremberg, still believed in them and set
horoscopes;[486] whilst the subject of the transmutation of metals
claimed general attention. At the Court of France, where the protection
afforded by the king to humanistic studies made all branches of learning,
or _quasi_-learning, fashionable, the mediæval sciences were specially
in vogue. “On s’applique surtout aux fausses sciences,” says M. Decrue
de Stoutz, writing of the French Court at this period. “L’astrologie et
l’alchimie ont plus de crédit que l’astronomie et la chimie.”[487] The
peculiar fashion of the Maison de l’Aûmonier at Polisy seems to suggest
that the Dinteville brothers had not escaped some share of the general
infection.
At the outset of their career, when Jean received his first appointment
at Court, and his brother François was Almoner to Louise of Savoy, the
famous Cornelius Agrippa, the “Great Agrippa” of our nursery rhymes, was
physician to that princess. He soon lost his post at the French Court,
having favoured the enterprise of the Connétable de Bourbon. But the
Dinteville brothers were in all probability acquainted with his writings,
which had achieved enormous celebrity, as well as with other literature
of Hermetic art.[488] Their favourite sciences, geometry and astronomy,
were closely linked with occult science on their more abstract side.
Is any illustration of this obscure range of study to be found in the
accessories of the picture? It is difficult to answer this question with
any degree of certainty, the evidence appearing insufficient to afford
definite proof of such an intention. But if for a moment the hypothesis
be allowed, the presence of the Crucifix would gain additional point
as an indication that only the higher forms of these pursuits, such as
were countenanced by Churchmen, were here cultivated.[489] Cornelius
Agrippa, in explaining his Key to Occult Science, describes a mysterious
kind of Death to all worldly affections as a necessary preliminary to
the true understanding of philosophy. This was the common ground on
which dignitaries of the Church and men of his type could meet. Agrippa
specially illustrates his meaning by quoting the passage from St. Paul,
Colossians iii., verse 3. Whatever is to be found in books, says Agrippa,
concerning the virtue of magic, astrology, and alchemy, is false and
deceitful when literally understood. A mystical sense is to be sought in
those studies, and this sense can only be attained by means of the Death
above alluded to. “This precious Death,” he continues, “is granted but
a small number of people, beloved by God, or favoured with a propitious
influence of the stars, or supported by their own merits, and the secret
of the art.”[490]
Ideas such as these seem to harmonize not ill with the Device of Death
selected, in its more material sense, for representation in the picture,
when taken in conjunction with the presence of the Crucifix. But the
point leads into a region too abstruse to be further pursued here, and
with these few general remarks the reader must be left to decide as he
pleases on the presence or absence of intentional allusion to occult
science.
CONCLUSION.—Enough has been said here to prove, with tolerable certainty,
that while the general design and masterly realization of the whole
subject is due to the genius of the artist, the peculiar train of
thought expressed in the manifold details, is the outcome of the mind
of Jean de Dinteville. From the simply pictorial point of view, the
introduction and position of such objects as the foreshortened Skull
and half-hidden Crucifix could not be accounted for. An extraneous
influence has here been at work. The closer the examination of the
picture, the more this conviction is brought home to the attentive
spectator. The objects selected for illustration precisely represent the
pursuits and occupations most in vogue at the time in France. Geometry
and mechanics, the foundations of the builder’s art just then attaining
classical expression in the lovely creations of the French Renaissance;
Music, especially that of the lute, which was so fashionable that
every Frenchman of exalted position carried a lutist in his train; the
ingeniously contrived and artistically rendered _devise_; these, as the
literature of the period abundantly testifies, were among the favourite
studies and pastimes of the Court of France. When to these are added the
personal touches arising from the special career and idiosyncrasy of
each ambassador, the additions to the Terrestrial Globe, the choice of
the Lutheran hymns, and the other striking details already enumerated,
it becomes evident that only the active influence of the principal
sitter could have produced so perfect an epitome of the lives of the two
Frenchmen.
For, while the views of the Bishop of Lavaur receive their full meed of
attention in the picture, it may certainly be reckoned to the credit of
the Bailly of Troyes that such should be the case. The brief visit of
George de Selve terminated so early that little, if any, progress can
have been made with the _minutiæ_ of the great composition before he took
his leave.
To Jean de Dinteville, therefore, we owe a record, probably unique in the
domain of art, of the thoughts and studies, the hopes and fears, which
swayed his country and generation, and, through them, were reflected in
his individual life.
But it is to the magnificent skill of the painter, Hans Holbein, that
the preservation of that record is due in the interesting form we see
to-day; and it is to him alone that we are indebted for having wrought
the heterogeneous objects which accompany his noble presentment of the
two Ambassadors into the abiding unity of a great work of art.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
GEORG GYZE, OR GISZE
A letter written by Thomas Houth to the Earl of Kildare, Lord Deputy of
Ireland, shows that in 1533 Holbein’s sitter, Georg Gyze, was Deputy to
the Alderman of the Steelyard.
The portion of the document which here concerns us, in which recovery is
sought of a debt owed by one Wolff, in the employment of Kildare, to a
man named Peter Rych, runs as follows:
“Your servant Wolff is indebted to the bearer, as appears
by bills of Wolff’s son-in-law’s hand. I ascertained at the
Steelyard that the handwriting was his, _by the evidence of
George Gyes, the Alderman’s Deputy_....”[491]
The origin of the name of Gyze, and the variations in the mode of
spelling it, have been a considerable puzzle to students of Holbein.
It occurs several times over on the addresses of letters and other
accessories introduced into the portrait of this German merchant painted
by Holbein in 1532, and each time takes a different form. Perhaps the
most salient version is that placed in the portrait beneath the motto,
“Nulla sine merore voluptas,” where the name is variously read “G.
Gisze,” or “Gyze,” according to whether the second letter is taken to be
an “i,” followed by a long “s,” or whether the two strokes are combined
into one letter, and read as a “y.”[492]
Equal uncertainty appears to prevail as to the type of German used in the
various inscriptions. The catalogue (1891) of the Berlin Gallery, where
the portrait now is, spells “Gisze,” and says, “An der Wand Briefe mit
seiner Adresse in _hoch_deutscher Mundart.” (On the wall letters with
his address in _High_ German dialect.) Dr. Woltmann, in the first volume
of “Holbein und seine Zeit” (2nd German edition, 1874), writes “Gyze,”
and says (in his note, page 366), “Die Adressen auf den Briefen sind in
_nieder_-deutschen Sprache geschrieben.” (The addresses on the letters
are written in _Low_ German language.) In his second volume (1876,
“Verzeichniss der Werke von Hans Holbein d. J.,” No. 115), Dr. Woltmann
alters the spelling to “Gysse,” a form which adds another stroke to the
name and corresponds with no rendering given by Holbein.
Where authorities differ so widely a further suggestion may perhaps be
permissible.
It must be recollected that the merchants of the Hansa came from many
different localities, and brought a variety of dialects to the Steelyard
of London. At this time, when the spelling of proper names was, like
some of the languages to which they belonged, still in a fluid state,
and largely phonetic, the rendering of any given name was liable to vary
very considerably, according to local circumstances and the pleasure or
_provenance_ of the writer.
Whether we read Gisze or Gyze, the name was probably a variation
of that of Gueiss, which was one of the most distinguished of the
Steelyard, and frequently reappears in its annals. The family belonged
to Cologne. Albert von Gueiss was a representative of the Steelyard at
the conference held at Bruges in 1520 between England and the Hansa.[493]
He was Burgher-master of Cologne in 1523 and 1526.[494] As it is
recorded in the portrait of George Gyze by Holbein that the sitter was
in his thirty-fourth year in 1532, he may have been a younger brother
or possibly a son of this Albert von Gueiss. Further research in the
archives of Cologne would perhaps reveal his exact identity.
Besides the form already quoted, Holbein gives the name on the portrait
in several other versions: “Gisse” and “Ghisse,” and, in Latin, “...
Georgii Gysenii.” (See Berlin catalogue under “Holbein.”)
The name of Gueiss is also found in three different shapes in the records
of the Steelyard: “Albertum von Gueyss,” “Albert von Gueiss,” and “Albert
_Gissen_.”[495]
The third form “Gissen” is practically or wholly identical[496] with at
least one of Holbein’s renderings of the name; while Gueiss, Gisze, Gyze,
and Gyes are sufficiently nearly related to make it appear tolerably
certain that, in the loose orthography of the period, they represent the
same name, varied according to the fancy or nationality of the writer.
APPENDIX B
“PRESBYTER JOANNES” (PRESTER JOHN)
“The idea” (says Colonel Yule)[497] “that a Christian potentate of
enormous wealth and power, and bearing this title, ruled over vast tracts
in the far East, was universal in Europe from the middle of the twelfth
to the end of the thirteenth century, after which time the Asiatic
story seems gradually to have died away, whilst the Royal Presbyter was
assigned to a locus in Abyssinia; the equivocal application of the term
_India_ to the East of Asia and the East of Africa facilitating this
transfer. Indeed I have a suspicion, contrary to the view now generally
taken, that the term may from the first have belonged to an Abyssinian
Prince, though circumstances led to its being applied in another quarter
for a time.
“Be that as it may, the inordinate report of Prester John’s magnificence
became especially diffused from about the year 1165, when a letter full
of the most extravagant details was circulated, which purported to have
been addressed by this potentate to the Greek Emperor Manuel, the Roman
Emperor Frederick, the Pope, and other Christian sovereigns. By the
circulation of this letter, glaring fiction as it is, the idea of this
Christian Conqueror was planted deep in the mind of Europe, and twined
itself round every rumour of revolution in further Asia....”
The title of Prester John, borne by this semi-mythical Christian hero,
was transmitted to his successors in Africa; and at the time when Holbein
copied the name of his kingdom on to the globe of the “Ambassadors,” was
the common appellation of David, King of Abyssinia.
Lord Herbert of Cherbury[498] has a curious passage concerning this
personage. In his narrative of the meeting that took place at Bologna
between Charles V. and the Pope in the winter of 1532-33,[499] he says:
“During this interview I find in our records a Portuguez in the name
of David King of the Ethiopians (vulgarly called Prete Jan) presented
himself Ambassador to his Holiness; for authorizing which Charge he
brought with him not only Letters of Credence (translated out of the
Chaldee to the Italian and Portugal tongues) wherein the said King
declared himself to be descended from Queen Candace, mentioned in the
Acts of the Apostles, but a Crucifix of gold; the further effects of
his employment being to require some excellent artificers and 2000
Arquebusiers whom he would use in a war against the Turk in Egypt, when
his Holiness would compose the differences in Western Parts, and join all
Christian Princes for recovery of the Holy Land; pretending thereupon
in the name of that King to render obedience to the Pope as the true
successor of St. Peter. But this (as Augustino de Augustini, an Italian
there present, and sometimes servant to Cardinal Woolsey, hath it in his
letter to Cromwell[500]) made the rest suspected; and the rather that
other circumstances made it probable, that this Ambassador was suborned
partly by the Portugal to countenance his monopoly of spices towards
those parts (much grudged by his neighbour Princes), and partly by the
Pope to advance his authority and reputation.”
FOOTNOTES
[1] The terms right and left signify, throughout this study, the
spectator’s right and left.
[2] The picture was acquired, with two others, from the late Earl of
Radnor, for £55,000; of which £25,000 was contributed by the State, and
£30,000 by Messrs. Nath. Rothschild and Sons, Sir Edward Guinness, Bart.
(now Lord Iveagh), and Mr. Charles Cotes. (See Catalogue of the National
Gallery, under “Holbein.”)
[3] The husband of Mme. Vigée Le Brun, the painter.
[4] These measurements are incorrect. See note 4, page 9.
[5] Le Brun, “Galerie des Peintres Flamands, Hollandais et Allemands.”
Paris, 1792, vol. i., page 7.
[6] The following entries occur in the Account Books of Longford Castle:
1808, Feb. 18, Buchanan, Picture Dealer, on account, £100.
1809, June 24, Buchanan and his assignee Halden, £1,000.
As on a print of the picture at the British Museum a note is inscribed,
“sold by Buchanan for 1,000 guineas,” there can be no doubt that the
entries in question refer to “The Ambassadors.” These and other facts
relating to the Longford period in the story of the picture have been
kindly communicated to the writer by Lady Radnor.
[7] “Some account of the Life and Works of Hans Holbein,” by Ralph
Nicholson Wornum, London, 1867, chap. xiv., page 275.
[8] “Holbein und seine Zeit,” by Dr. Alfred Woltmann, second German
edition, vol. i., page 372, vol. ii., page 141.
[9] “Archæologia,” vol. xliv., part ii., pp. 450-455. (“Remarks on some
pictures of Quintin Matsys and Holbein in the Collection of the Earl of
Radnor at Longford Castle,” by John Gough Nichols, Esq., F.S.A.) In spite
of errors of fact and speculation, Mr. Gough Nichols’ treatment of the
subject was by far the most scientific it had met with up to that time.
[10] Amongst the Windsor drawings by Holbein there are two portraits of
Wyat. Several oil paintings also exist of this personage.
[11] Curiously enough, Mr. Gough Nichols actually cites the name of
George de Selve, Bishop of Lavaur, but rejects it, having examined it
only with regard to the left-hand figure, which obviously is not that of
a Bishop! So near did he come to the truth.
[12] “Times,” September, 1890. “Art Journal,” January, 1891.
[13] It seems unnecessary to record here the many interesting suggestions
put forward for the identification of Holbein’s sitters. An exception
should perhaps be made with regard to Mr. Sidney Colvin’s proposal
of Nicholas Bourbon, the poet, for the second figure; because, in
consequence of an article from his pen in the “Art Journal” for January,
1891, the idea was repeated in more permanent form, though merely as a
surmise, by Mr. Lionel Cust, in the “Dictionary of National Biography”
(art. “Holbein”). It is sufficient to say here that Mr. Colvin
immediately withdrew his suggestion when the real identity of the second
individual was made known. (“Times,” Dec. 10, 1895.)
[14] The seigneurie of Avaux in Champagne was raised to the rank of a
Comté in 1638, in favour of Jean Jacques de Mesmes, who had married the
heiress of that estate.
[15] See note relating to the sons of Jean de Selve, part iii.
[16] “Times,” May 15, 1894. Mr. Dickes had a different theory of his own
which his interesting find materially assisted to overthrow.
[17] The catalogue of the National Gallery (1898) gives the dimensions
as follows: “In oil, of ten vertical panels, 6 ft. 10 in. high, by 6 ft.
10¼ in. wide.” It is curious that while the catalogue of the Beaujon
sale makes the picture much wider than high, Le Brun’s description,
about five years later in date, exactly reverses those proportions. Le
Brun’s measurements are obviously the less incorrect of the two, as the
engraving in the “Galerie des Peintres Flamands,” etc., shows that the
picture, if represented in proportions that at all corresponded with the
original, was, in his time, much higher than broad; but both descriptions
must have been very inaccurate. Excessive carelessness on the part of the
French writers is probably the main explanation of the discrepancies.
[18] The spectator’s right.
[19] The signature and date have been recorded as existent or
non-existent at various times in the history of the picture, according
to the condition of the painting and of the light at the moment of
examination. In the excellent circumstances it now enjoys, both one and
the other are plainly visible.
[20] Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Estampes, Cote Yᵈ, 184;
and a second copy in the same library, Imprimés, V, 8201, 18. Catalogue
de tableaux ... après le décès de M. Beaujon ... redigé par P. Rémy et C.
F. Julliot, fils. Pp. 7 et 8, Ecole des Pays-Bas, Jean Holbein. In the
margin of the first copy named is a note in ink: “Prix de vente 602L. A
été vendu avec le No. précédent et pour la même somme.” The preceding
number (16) is under the same heading “Jean Holbein.” But as it is said
to represent “La Cour de François II.,” who began to reign in 1559, while
Holbein died in 1543, it is scarcely necessary to observe that, _if
rightly described_, it can have had nothing to do with this painter. The
sale began on April 25, 1787; the “Ambassadors” and its companion picture
were disposed of on May 5.
[21] “Revue de Champagne et de Brie,” vol. xxiv., page 318. M.
Lefèvre-Pontalis alludes to the same notice in his preface to the
“Correspondance politique d’Odet de Selve,” edited by him for the French
Foreign Office.
[22] The paragraph in brackets is in another writing. See facsimile,
facing page 12.
[23] Up to Easter (April 13), 1533, the year was still 1532 by the old
reckoning.
[24] “[Remarks on the subject of an excellent picture of the Sieur
d’Inteville Polizy, and George de Selve, Bishop of Lavour, showing the
offices they held, and the time of their decease.
“In this picture is represented, life-size, Messire Jean de Dintevile
chevalier Sieur de Polizy, near Bar-sur-Seyne, Bailly of Troyes, who
was Ambassador in England for King Francis I. in the years 1532 [O.S.]
and 1533 and since Governour of Monsieur Charles de France, second son
(_sic_) of the said King; the same Charles died at Forest Monstier in
the year 1545, and the said Sr. de Dintevile in the year 1555. Interred
in the Church of the said Polizy. There is also represented in the said
picture, Messire George de Selve, Bishop of Lavaur, a personage of great
learning and virtue, who was Ambassador with the Emperor Charles V.;
the said Bishop was the son of Messire Jean de Selve, Premier President
of the Parliament of Paris; the said Bishop died in 1541, having in the
above-mentioned year 1532, or 1533, gone to England by permission of the
King, to visit the said Sieur de Dintevile, his intimate friend, and also
of all his family; and they two having met in England an excellent Dutch
painter, employed him to make this picture, which was carefully preserved
at the said place, Polizy, up to the year 1653.”
This document is now the property of the Trustees of the National Gallery.]
[25] Possibly the writing of the docket might be identified by a person
conversant with the handwritings of the French antiquaries of the
seventeenth century, who did such good service by the preservation of
ancient manuscripts.
[26] “Gallia Christiana” (Lutetiæ, 1715), vol. xiii. (1722), page 344.
“Ecclesia Vaurensis,” No. xxi., Georgius de Selve.
[27] This deed, preserved at Villiers-par-Cerny, near La Ferté-Alais
(Seine-et-Oise), and never before published, was kindly placed at the
writer’s disposal by the Marquis de Selve. The Papal licence forms an
authoritative standard by means of which the many loose statements
regarding the bishop’s age, with which the printed notices of his life
abound, may be easily checked. Villiers was owned by Jean de Selve,
Premier President, father of the Bishop of Lavaur, at least as early as
1528.
[28] Joachim de Dinteville, the head of the elder line who resided at
Dinteville in Champagne, died in 1607. He was Lieutenant du Roi in that
province, and a man of great ability and reputation. His correspondence
has been published in the “Revue de Champagne et de Brie.” With his
demise the male line of the house of Dinteville became extinct in both
branches.
[29] Brother to Jean, the Ambassador.
[30] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Du Puy, 702 f. 147. Camusat to Du Puy.
Madame de Cessac was niece to the Bishop of Auxerre.
[31] Paris, Bibl. Nat. MSS. fr. nouv. acquisition, 6208 (“Corr. des
frères de Sainte-Marthe”), f. 74. Camusat to MM. de Sainte-Marthe,
Troyes, 21 August (probably 1607). “Je vous envoye une généalogie qui m’a
esté donnée par la dame de Sesac, laquelle est de la maison de Polizy
Dinteville....”
[32] “Meslanges Historiques,” part ii., p. 211 (Troyes, 1st ed., 1619).
[33] Not to be confounded with a distant connection, Louis de Castlenau,
Marquis de Cessac, a celebrated gambler, who is alluded to by various
writers of the time. John Evelyn mentions having paid this person a sum
of money owed to him by Lord Berkeley, which Castelnau immediately played
away. (“Diary,” Bray’s ed., vol. ii., p. 107.)
[34] Dubuisson-Aubenay, “Journal des guerres civiles,” edited by M.
Saige, vol. ii., pp. 65-73. The Dictionaries of Nobility, etc., mention
only the daughter, Charlotte-Marie, who survived.
[35] Imperial territory.
[36] Dubuisson-Aubenay, “Journal des guerres civiles,” vol. ii., pp.
65-73.
[37] Polisy was sold 1654, Deschenetz in 1656, the smaller properties no
doubt following suit as occasion offered.
[38] Memoir in explanation of three letters sent by Monsʳ. Camusat, Canon
of St. Pierre at Troyes, [touching a picture made in England of George de
Selve, Bp. of Lavaur, who had gone thither to visit the Bailly of Troies,
Sr. de Polizi, Jean d’Inteville, at that time the king’s ambassador].
There are two relating to the Bishop of Lavaur, George de Selve, son of
M. le Premier President de Selve, which Bishop had been invited by M. de
Polizy, bailly of Troyes, ambassador in England in the years 1532 [O.S.]
and 1533, to visit him in England, which he did, having first taken
leave of the king. And being in England, they had made the excellent
picture by a Dutch painter, Holben, which picture was preserved in the
House of Polizy, distant but one league from Bar-sur-Seine, a hundred
and forty [_sic_] years and more, as belonging to the Seigneur of the
place, Sʳ. de Sessac, until the year 1653, when he had it removed to
Paris, to his house near the parish of St. Sulpice; the said picture
representing the said Sr. de Polizy, Jean de d’Inteville, and the said
Bishop of Lavaur who was afterwards ambassador with Charles V.; the said
Bishop died in 1541. The said picture is considered the finest piece of
painting in France in the opinion of the best painters. M. le Maréchal du
Plessis-Praslain bought the estate of Polisy for three hundred thousand
livres from the said Sr. de Sessac.
M. de Vic, garde des sceaux, formerly said that it was the most beautiful
piece of painting in France.
M. George de Selve, and his brothers, worthily served France in various
embassies and legations.
[39] The portion between brackets is in another hand. See facsimile, on
opposite page.
[40] It will be remembered that these dates are reckoned in the old
style, _i.e._, the year beginning at Easter. Jean de Dinteville was
in England on this occasion from February to November, 1533. The
commencement of his sojourn would therefore belong to 1532, by the old
reckoning.
[41] The name “Holben” is inserted between the lines, but is in the
same hand and of the same date as the writing which surrounds it. See
facsimile, on opposite page.
[42] Obviously a slip of the pen for “cent vingt ans.”
[43] “Méri de Vic, sieur d’Ermenonville, président au parlement de
Toulouse, conseiller d’Etat, garde des sceaux (24 Dec., 1621), mort le 2
sept. 1622.” (Lalanne, “Dict. Hist. de la France.”)
[44] Paris, Bibl. de l’Institut, Collection Godefroy, Portefeuille 216,
f. 34.
[45] “... The said Bishop ... went to visit in England in 1532 [O.S.] an
intimate friend of his, Mr. de Polizy, Jean de d’Inteville, bailly of
Troyes, who was then ambassador with Henry VIII.; and then also the said
Bishop and Bailly of Troyes had made in England the excellent picture
which is now at Paris, in the dwelling of M. de Sessac, in which the said
Bailly and Bishop are represented life-size; the said picture is by the
hand of a Dutchman; the piece is esteemed the richest and best wrought
that is to be found in France.”
[46] Paris, Bibl. de l’Institut, Fonds Godefroy, p. 520, ff. 282 and
283. Mémoire de M. Camusat, chanoine de Troyes touchant les enfans et
descendans de Mr. le premr. président de Selves, etc. Dated 1654.
[47] Archives of Polisy, kindly communicated by M. Abrand, the
proprietor’s agent.
[48] Paris, Arch. Nat., Y 25, fol. 325.
[49] Berty et Tisserand, “Topographie Historique du vieux Paris” (Région
du Bourg St. Germain), pp. 155, 157, 159. (Paris, 1876.)
[50] In 1779 Carlos de la Traverse wrote from St. Ildefonse (Spain) to M.
d’Angeviller, proposing to him to buy some cartoons for tapestry designed
by Holbein. But the offer was declined on the ground that Holbein was
“_un peintre sec et demi-gothique_.” (“Nouvelles Archives de l’Art
français,” IIᵉ Série, t. i., 7th of the collection, pp. 258-262.) The
cartoons in question represented scenes from the Passion.
[51] In 1661 M. de Cessac signed a deed in the house “on pend pour
enseigne le Croissant,” Rue de Bourbon (Toulouse, Arch. de la Hte.
Garonne). In 1669, the date of his marriage with Anne Louise de Broglie,
he was in the Rue des Boucheries, Faubourg St. Germain. The marriage
contract reveals that he possessed at this time, in all, three houses in
Paris; the other two being situated in the Rue des “Viels” Augustins. He
had therefore parted with the “logis” in the Rue du Four. The contract
confers on him the power to sell, or exchange, in like manner, the three
houses now in question. Subsequent legal deeds show a series of further
changes.
[52] Archives du Var, B 197 (quoted by M. Dardenne).
[53] Milhars is situated in the Department of Tarn, on a rocky height
commanding the junction of the small river Cérou with the Aveyron. For
all the facts relating to the history of the Château, and for many of
those which concern its occupants, the writer is indebted to M. Henri
Dardenne, of Carcassonne, Trésorier-Général of the Department of Aude.
This gentleman, who is the author of an interesting (unpublished) history
of Milhars and its successive owners, based on original documents, most
kindly placed his manuscript at the writer’s disposal.
[54] Camusat himself possessed portraits of Guillaume, Seigneur
Deschenetz, and Gaucher, Seigneur de Vanlay, brothers of Jean the
Ambassador, as well as that of their cousin, Joachim de Dinteville, head
of the elder branch of the family, whose residence was at Dinteville in
Champagne. The two first-named portraits Camusat left by will (Paris,
Bibl. de l’Institut, Coll. Godefroy, vol. 308, f. 116), to D’Hozier,
author of the “Nobiliaire de Champagne”; that of Joachim de Dinteville,
to the Abbé Bonhomme, a well-known collector of the time at Troyes. (See
Bonnaffé, “Les Collectionneurs de l’ancienne France”). The indifference
displayed by the Marquis de Cessac to Dinteville records, in allowing
Camusat to acquire these portraits (either at the time of the sale of
Polisy, or earlier), brings into strong relief the value placed upon “The
Ambassadors,” which seems to have been the only picture retained. This
is the more striking, as M. de Cessac possessed, it appears, a “Cabinet”
of portraits of some interest, derived from the neighbourhood of his
family estates, Cessac and Cazillac. Two of these were reproduced for Du
Chesne’s “Hist. des Cardinaux François” (Paris, 1660, pages 426 and 521).
The two Cardinals in question belonged respectively to the dioceses of
Cahors and Limoges; proving sufficiently that the Marquis de Cessac who
owned their portraits was François de Cazillac, and not, as M. Bonnaffé
states (“Dict. des Amateurs français”), Louis de Castelnau, the notorious
card-player, whose property lay in quite a different part of the country.
(See also note, page 15.)
[55] The deed recording the attempted donation was drawn up at Milhars,
1st September, 1665. Roger de Guénégaud was the son of Henri Du Plessis
Guénégaud, Marquis de Plancy, the well-known Secretary of State and
Garde des Sceaux. This gentleman had married Isabelle (or Elizabeth) de
Choiseul, daughter of Charles de Choiseul, Marquis de Praslin, and of
Claude de Cazillac, aunt of M. de Cessac. As such, Roger de Guénégaud
descended, through his mother, in as direct a line from the Dinteville
heiress as the Marquis de Cessac himself. The latter lived on terms of
intimate friendship with these relations. Mme. de Sévigné records having
met M. de Cessac at Fresnes, the country place of Du Plessis Guénégaud.
(Letter to the Marquis de Pomponne, 1st August, 1667.)
[56] M. Aug. Vidal of Albi (Tarn) kindly made researches for the writer
on this point, both in the Archives at Toulouse and at the Château of St.
Géry, now owned by Madame O’Byrn, a descendant of the family of Rey de
St. Géry, who purchased Milhars from the Lamoignon family in 1765. This
lady, who has at St. Géry a large quantity of legal papers brought from
Milhars, was good enough to place them at M. Vidal’s disposition, but
unfortunately without result.
[57] Paris, Bibl. Nat., MSS. français, 28,998, f. 17a, De la
Roche-Fontenilles. At the end are the words: “Copie pour Monsieur
Voisin,” and the date 1685.
[58] See _ante_, page 15.
[59] Dardenne MS., p. 164, quoted from the Minutes Gaugiron, p. 51. These
are one of M. Dardenne’s most important sources. M. Gaugiron was a notary
of Milhars, with whom many of the legal documents of this period were
deposited.
[60] St. Simon (“Mémoires”), who has nothing but sarcasm for the family
of Mesmes in general, is full of admiration for the goodness, amiability,
and unaffected piety of Mme. de Fontenilles. This lady seems to have been
in every way a contrast to her husband.
[61] It will be seen later on, however, that the Voisin inheritance was
bequeathed elsewhere, so that on Mme. Voisin’s side the connection could
only have affected the fate of the picture by supposing that it was given
to, or purchased by, the Premier Président, before her death.
[62] Marie-Renée, who, owing to her quarrel with her mother and residence
in Champagne, probably knew nothing of the story of the picture, would
certainly have been none the wiser if this were the case.
[63] Perhaps no member of the Lamoignon race is better known to history
than this one. Born in 1735, Chrétien-François de Lamoignon, Marquis de
Basville et de Milhars, became a President _à mortier_ of the Parliament
of Paris in 1758. Mixed up in the political storms which preceded the
outbreak of the Revolution, he shared the exile of his party in 1772;
was recalled; appointed Garde des Sceaux in 1787; resigned the following
year, and died at Basville in 1789.
[64] Chrétien-François died, however, and his son fled, at the outbreak
of the Revolution, so the arrangement came to an untimely end.
[65] Nicolas Beaujon, a native of Bordeaux, had raised himself, not
always by the most creditable means, from a humble origin to a position
of great wealth and influence. He was Banker to the Court, and Treasurer
to the Order of St. Louis. Although society smiled at the eccentricities
of the _parvenu_, the magnificence of his house and collections made
it impossible to overlook their owner. His charities, moreover, were
immense. For these and the facts given in the text respecting Beaujon,
the writer is indebted to Dr. Charles Fournel, whose little work,
“L’Hôpital Beaujon depuis son origine jusqu’à nos jours” (Paris, E.
Deuter, 1884), gives the only correct information to be had respecting
the millionaire, being founded throughout on original documents. The
popular compendiums of biography bristle, as usual, with errors; not
excepting Jal, who, however, gives one authentic document.
[66] Now the Elysée, the residence of the President of the Republic.
[67] The letters and chronicles of the time are rich in local colouring,
and are preferable for the present object to the stately histories
written in a subsequent age. The immense stores of manuscripts preserved
in the public libraries of France, especially in the Bibliothèque
Nationale at Paris, fortunately facilitate the task to a great extent.
Among printed sources none are more valuable than the various series
of State Papers, published both in England and France, the “Meslanges
Historiques” of Camusat, and—for a contemporary French view of the events
of the time—the Memoirs of the Du Bellay brothers.
[68] Literally, “Des Chenets,” and often so written in early records. But
the name soon lost its original meaning and was corrupted into one word.
[69] Paris, Arch. Nat., X¹ᵃ 8611, dated Amboise, 4th Dec., 1516.
[70] Ph. de Comines, “Mémoires” (ed. by Mlle. Dupont for the Soc. de
l’Hist. de France), vol. ii., p. 436.
[71] Michelet, “Hist. de France au XVIᵉ̀ᵐᵉ siècle” (ed. 1855),
“Renaissance,” pp. 190, 191.
[72] A royal order of 1511 permits Gaucher de Dinteville to recover
certain moneys due to him from the heirs of Jean, Duc de Nemours, which
he had previously been unable to claim owing to absence from home. In
this deed he is called “Seigneur de Pollisy et bailli de Troyes.”
[73] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds fr. 7853.
[74] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Cab. des Titres, Pièces Orig., vol. 1004, No. 65,
Dossier Dinteville.
[75] Charrière, “Négociations de la France dans le Levant” (Doc. inéd.
sur l’hist. de France), vol. i., part ii., chap. i., “Premières Relations
de la France avec la Porte.”
[76] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fond fr. 5502, f. 50.
[77] Paris, Arch. Nat., X¹ᵃ 1523 (Rég. du Conseil, f. 33).
[78] Boutiot, “Hist. de Troyes,” p. 285.
[79] Marguerite, the widowed Duchesse d’Alençon, was married to the King
of Navarre in January, 1527.
[80] Blois.
[81] Louise of Savoy, the king’s mother.
[82] Génin, Lettres de Marguerite de Valois, vol. i., Lettre 56, p. 224.
Marguerite “à mon nepveu, M. le Grant-Maistre, de Gabarre, le 17 Octobre,
1527.”
[83] It was not the first, nor perhaps the second visit, which Anne de
Montmorency had paid to our shores. In 1519 he had been one of eight
hostages, four nobles and four commoners, sent to England in connection
with the cession of Tournay to France. He bore at that time the title of
La Rochepot, which has caused Du Bellay to confound him with his younger
brother, subsequently known by that name (see Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne
de Montmorency,” part i., p. 13, note 1). One of his fellow-hostages
in 1519 was Charles de Solier, Comte de Morette, later more than once
French ambassador in England, and the subject of the magnificent portrait
by Holbein now in the Dresden Gallery. Another was Antoine des Prez,
Seigneur de Montpesat, who also returned subsequently as ambassador (see
“Mémoires Du Bellay,” ed. Petitot, vol. i., p. 282). Hall is wrong in
saying that there were only four hostages altogether, but identifies
Montmorency correctly (see Ellis’s “Original Letters,” 3rd series, vol.
i., letter lxxviii., where the passage from Hall’s Chronicle is quoted).
[84] Lefèvre had previously been the instructor of Renée of France,
whose sympathies with the Reformers were well known. (Fontana, “Renata
di Francia,” vol. i., p. 275, where the further authority is cited:
Franz Blümmer, “Renata von Ferrara,” p. 24.) Jacques Lefèvre was born at
Etaples about 1455, and died at Nérac in 1537.
[85] Guillaume Budé was born at Paris in 1467. He was secretary to
Charles VIII.; was sent by Louis XII. on various missions to the Holy
See; was appointed Master of the King’s Library under Francis I., and
persuaded that sovereign to found the Collège Royal. His learning and his
proficiency in Greek brought him high reputation; he was also the author
of many works and translations on a variety of subjects. Budé died in
1540.
[86] Desiderius Erasmus was born at Rotterdam in 1467. Famous alike for
profound learning and biting wit, no one, perhaps, exercised greater
influence than he in preparing the way for the Reformation. Like many
of the humanists of his time, especially those of France, he was not,
however, prepared to go to the extreme length of secession from Rome,
and was therefore blamed by the Lutherans, rather unjustly perhaps, for
weakness and half-heartedness. His relations with England, especially
with Warham and More, and his portraits by Holbein, are too well known to
need more than a passing mention here. It was owing to his introduction
that Holbein first came to England, and was received into the house of
Sir Thomas More. Erasmus died at Basle in 1536.
[87] Roussel, another divine of Lutheran leanings, became confessor to
the Queen of Navarre, and subsequently Bishop of Oloron.
[88] Erasmus to Lefèvre, 24 March, 1527. Quoted by Ch. Schmidt, “Gérard
Roussel.”
[89] Ch. Schmidt, _ibid._, p. 74.
[90] Erasmus to Germain Brie, 21 September, 1528, quoted by Schmidt,
“Gérard Roussel.”
[91] This princess had been brought up by Madame de Châtillon, a lady
of high accomplishments, later secretly re-married, it was said, to the
Bishop Jean du Bellay.
[92] Daughter of Louis XII. and Anne de Bretagne.
[93] Boutiot, “Hist. de la ville de Troyes,” p. 432. (Paris, 1874.)
[94] Guillaume Du Bellay, Seigneur de Langey, was born at Glatigny, near
Montmirail, in 1491, and died 1543. He was Viceroy of Piedmont from
1537, and displayed high capacity in whatever work he undertook. He was
part-author of the well-known memoirs, completed by his brother Martin
Du Bellay.—Jean Du Bellay, Cardinal, was born 1492, and died at Rome in
1560. As statesman, churchman, ambassador, and author, his career was one
of the most distinguished of the reign of Francis I.
[95] Coxe, “Life of Melanchthon,” p. 371.
[96] _Ibid._
[97] That is, two hands clasped in each other.
[98] A third souvenir of the Dinteville, and record of their artistic
tastes, in the Church of Thennelières, is the beautiful but ruined white
marble figure of Louise de Coligny, wife of Gaucher the younger, who
inherited Thennelières from his father. It is apparently of Italian
workmanship, and was formerly recumbent. It now leans disconsolate in an
upright position against the wall of the church, despoiled of its black
marble base. See, for an account of the Church of Thennelières, and
illustrations of its curiosities, M. Charles Fichot, in the “Statistique
Monumentale de l’Aube.”
[99] Louis de Dinteville, Knight of Rhodes.
[100] Guillaume, fourth son of Gaucher, was brought up in the household
of Henry, Count of Nassau, who was attached to the Court of Charles V.
The Count of Nassau was related to the Dinteville family, and at his
death left to Guillaume a house in Paris. On this side the family had
both Spanish and German connections.
[101] François (II.), Bishop of Auxerre; Jean, Bailly of Troyes; and
Gaucher the younger, who was employed in the public service to carry
despatches, etc. All the brothers further held Court appointments.
[102] The following is a literal prose translation of the epitaph:
“The support of the good, Gauche de Dinteville
After having in the civil wars
Of France acquired the name of sage though young;
After having in the renowned expedition
Made by Charles to Naples and Rome,
Won the name of a brave gentleman;
After having, in the ancient city of Sienna,
Filled the post of head of the Republic;
After having been Bailly of Troyes
In Champagne, and seen born to him
Sons, by whom, in his lifetime,
Rhodes, Spain and France were served;
After having in the King’s house had the lot
Of a good Maître d’hostel in Ordinary,
And of First Maître d’hostel to M. le Dauphin:
Seeing his end at last approaching,
And knowing that happy none can be
Until he has put off this terrestrial robe,
He desired to give to his agèd eyes
That last happiness, of being closed by his own family;
The love and pity of whom have laid him here,
Full of years, honours, riches, and friends.”
[103] Paris, Arch. Nat., P. 164², côte 1494.
[104] Gaucher de Dinteville attended the coronation of Francis I. as a
Knight of St. Michael. (Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds fr. 32865, Chevaliers
de l’Ordre de St. Michel depuis 1515 jusqu’en 1560. This list is,
however, incomplete, being an early attempt to reconstruct the roll of
the Knights after the destruction of the original at the time of the
French Revolution. The MS. expressly states, with regard to Jean, that
the only documentary evidence at the disposal of the compiler was an
act of 1588, in which Jean is termed Chevalier de l’Ordre du Roi, and
the manuscript list of the Knights drawn up by D’Hozier, in 1660, which
gives him the same quality. D’Hozier, a famous genealogist, and author
of the “Nobiliaire de Champagne,” had every opportunity for obtaining
correct information, and had, of course, access to the roll which was
subsequently destroyed. Although the exact date of Jean’s admission to
the Order is unknown, the fact of his having been a Knight of St. Michael
is therefore incontestable.)
[105] Charrière, “Négociations de la France dans le Levant,” vol. i., p.
146, Villiers L’Isle-Adam to Montmorency.
[106] Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., p. 172.
[107] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Dupuy, 702, fol. 131.
[108] Lebeuf, “Mémoires concernant l’Eglise d’Auxerre,” pp. 138-199,
quoted by Sandret, “Revue Hist. et Nobiliaire,” xiii., 220.
[109] See illustration, Part II., chap. vii.
[110] Letters and Papers, For. and Dom., Henry VIII., vol. v., 1531-32,
No. 579.
[111] Gilles de la Pommeraye was a right-hand man of Montmorency. He
had previously been French ambassador at the court of the Archduchess
Margaret at Brussels.
[112] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” Letter of La Pommeraye to the Bishop of
Auxerre, March 10, 1532.
[113] ... “You are right to envy me being with so amiable a prince, for I
think that after the king our master, there has been none for two hundred
years past of greater intelligence or grace, or more magnanimous than
this one. And to speak frankly to you, the said king our master is under
an obligation to him for the good will he shows him, by which I profit
greatly, for I am treated here, not as an ambassador, but as a prince of
the country; lodged in the house of this said king, and, when I go to
see him, always eating at his table. So you must not wonder if I beg and
exhort you to uphold his quarrel.
“This prince has a great wish to chastise the priests of this country and
not to allow them to enjoy such great privileges as has been their habit;
which is caused by the wrong that is being done him at Rome, which is
so great that it could not be surpassed. It is a strange thing that the
Emperor should have so much power over the Pope as to prevent him doing
right and justice there where he knows them to be.”
[114] Bridewell Palace.
[115] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., p. 78b, La Pommeraye to the
Bishop of Auxerre, 20 March, 1532. The avowed object of La Pommeraye’s
mission was to support the king’s desire that his cause should be heard
in England and not at Rome. (Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. v.,
1531-32, No. 614, Chapuys to Charles V.)
[116] Balavoyne was the maternal uncle of Théodore de Bèze, the historian
of the French Reformation, whose uncle, on the paternal side, Monsieur de
Bèze the elder, an orthodox Catholic, died beneath the protecting roof of
the bishop’s house in Paris, during the absence of the latter in Rome.
Paris, Bibl. de l’Institut, Coll. Godefroy, p. 254, Nos. 23, 24.
[117] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coll. Dupuy, vol. 726, ff. 90, 91. Letter from
Berthereau to the Bishop of Auxerre.
[118] _Ibid._, vol. 728, f. 51.
[119] Paris, Bibl. de l’Institut, Coll. Godefroy, Letter of Balavoyne to
the Bishop of Auxerre, Nantes, 25 August, 1532.
[120] Du Bellay, “Mémoires,” ed. Petitot, vol. ii., p. 133. These were
certainly the only English subjects admitted to the French Order at this
period. The reason given by Du Bellay for the selection of the two dukes
sufficiently proves the high esteem in which the distinction was held.
[121] Camusat, “Meslanges Historiques,” p. 110. Traicté touchant la
contribution que le Roy et le Roy d’Angleterre doyvent faire pour la
deffension du Turc. See also p. 109, Double des traictés, etc.
[122] Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, vol. iv., 1527-33, No. 832.
Zuan Antonio Venier to the Signory, Oct. 31, 1532.
[123] See note 7, p. 42. Morette, another of the hostages, had already
been over on a short mission in the spring of 1528.
[124] Katherine of Aragon.
[125] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. v., 1531-32, No. 1579, Chapuy
to Charles V., Nov. 26, 1532. The “king’s house” in question was the
palace of Bridewell.
[126] Perhaps his unmarried sister at Polisy, or possibly his mother.
Married women were sometimes termed Mademoiselle, though in this case the
appellation would not have been strictly correct, the rank of Gaucher de
Dinteville entitling his widow to the name of Madame.
[127] Paris, Bibl. de l’Institut, Coll. Godefroy, portfolio 225, ff. 23,
24.
[128] “Besides this, the Grand Maître expressly charged me to write to
you that the moment they have left you can come away. I am sure it will
be quite right to say good-bye. But whatever remonstrances, on the score
of the king’s service or other things, are made, come away; and you will
be welcomed and well received, I assure you; not by me, for you will
not find me, as I leave to-morrow; and I hope, please God, that on your
arrival, you will find your appeals despatched.”
[129] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Dupuy, 726, f. 107. The Bailly of Troyes
to the Bishop of Auxerre, 26 Jan., 1533.
[130] “Be assured, at least such is my fancy, that they are not your
friends; but, also, the wisdom of a man is to sit firm in his great
encounters. I can tell you that you were in as good grace with the
master, when I left Court, as they. Continue as you have begun, and vary
nothing, no matter what they may say; and, so long as you speak the
truth, care nothing for the rest, for the patron is on your side and
three of the most valiant champions.”
[131] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., p. 115b. Gilles de la Pommeraye
to the Bishop of Auxerre at Rome. From La Morlaix, near Rennes (in
Brittany), 4 Dec., 1532.
[132] Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, vol. iv. (1527-1533), No.
188. Marco Antonio Venier to the Doge and Signory of Venice, London, 20
October, 1527.
[133] Whom Falier came to succeed as resident ambassador.
[134] Sir William Weston.
[135] Jean Du Bellay, at this time Bishop of Bayonne, was in 1528
resident French ambassador in London.
[136] Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, vol. iv. (1527-33), No. 380.
[137] Letters and Papers, For. and Dom., Henry VIII., vol. vi. (1533),
Nos. 768 and 1227, De Dinteville to Cromwell.
[138] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. v., 1531-1532, No. 627, Grant
18. Bridewell Palace has fared badly compared with some other houses of
the same date, for not only has every trace of it disappeared, but few
records or prints exist to give an idea of its appearance in Tudor times.
The early period at which it ceased to be a royal residence probably
accounts for this deficiency. Edward VI. converted it to benevolent
purposes as a kind of workhouse for vagrants; and this use, gradually
approaching the functions of a house of correction, was continued in
the new buildings erected after the Great Fire almost to the present
day. Nearly all the engravings of Bridewell refer to its later history.
There are, however, one or two exceptions, on a small scale, and on
these the above description is founded. Perhaps the most accurate idea
of the palace in Tudor times is to be obtained from the “View of London
and Southwark in 1543,” by Anthony Vanden Wyngrerde (Oxford, Bodleian
Library; a facsimile in pen-and-ink by N. Whittock may be seen at the
Guildhall, London). As certain details of this view agree with a later
drawing of about 1660, it is likely that it is more correct than the
intermediate version by Ralph Aggas, which shows variations not to be
found either in the earlier or later engraving mentioned (“Civitas
Londinum,” a map of London, Westminster and Southwark, surveyed by Ralph
Aggas about the year 1560, Guildhall Library). The view of 1660 may be
seen in “Bridewell Palace as it appeared about the year 1660” (Published
for the Proprietors by W. Herbert, Penlington Place, Lambeth, 1817). The
same work gives a vignette professing to represent Bridewell in the year
1540. As this view differs equally from that given by Wyngrerde (1543)
and that of 1660, it should probably be received with caution.
[139] State Papers, Venetian, vol. iv. (1527-1533), No. 374, Gerardo
Molza to the Marchioness of Mantua. So great was the throng that, in
leaving, some of the Italians actually lost their shoes.
[140] Subsequently known as Whitehall.
[141] Letters and Papers, For. and Dom., Henry VIII., vol. vi. (1533),
No. 1595, Grant 10, February 16, 24 Henry VIII.
[142] Mario Savorgnano, State Papers, Venetian, vol. iv. (1527-1533), No.
682, quoted from the Sanuto Diaries, 25 August, 1531. The whole letter
is of great interest, as is also No. 694 in the same volume (Report of
England made to the Senate by Ludovico Falier, 10 November, 1531). The
Venetians write with enthusiastic admiration of the country and capital.
[143] Old London Bridge; the only bridge London at that time possessed.
It was massively constructed on a large number of boat-shaped piers, and
covered with houses and shops. There was also a beautiful Gothic Chapel
upon it.
[144] St. Paul’s Cathedral and Westminster Abbey. The latter part of the
sentence alludes of course to Henry VII.’s Chapel.
[145] Westminster (in which York Place was now included) and Bridewell.
[146] Howard, Duke of Norfolk; Brandon, Duke of Suffolk; Fitzroy, Duke of
Richmond. (State Papers, Venetian, vol. iv., No. 682.)
[147] Grey, Marquis of Dorset; Courtenay, Marquis of Exeter. (_Ibid._)
[148] Apparently of the lesser citizens, apart from the palaces
previously described.
[149] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. iv. (1531-1532), pp. 310 and
316, March and November, 1529. The ambassador was one of Dinteville’s
predecessors.
[150] _Ibid._, vol. vi. (1533), No. 111, Montpesat to Montmorency.
[151] _Ibid._, vol. vi. (1533), No. 160, Chapuys to Charles V., London,
15 February, 1533.
[152] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” p. 4. Mémoire et Instruction a Monsieur le
Bailly de Troyes, etc., 27 January, 1533.
[153] Letters and Papers, vol. vi. (1533), No. 160, Chapuys to Charles
V., 15 February, 1533.
[154] _Ibid._, vol. v. (1532), No. 1545, Clement VII. to Henry VIII., 15
November, 1532.
[155] Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., pp. 207, 213,
where a list of authorities will be found.
[156] It is quite possible that Dinteville was acquainted with More
before the embassy of 1533. La Pommeraye, writing from England to the
Bishop of Auxerre in the summer of the previous year, says, “Mr. Morres,
_que vous congnoissez_, qui estoit Chancelier de ce Roy s’est desfaict,
ou l’on l’a desfaict, ne sçay lequel, de sa Chancellerie, & est demeuré
personne privée....” (Mr. Morres [note by Camusat: Th. Morus], _whom you
know_, who was Chancellor to this king, has resigned or has been deprived
of his Chancellorship, I do not know which, and has retired into private
life.) Camusat, “Meslanges Historiques,” p. 93, Gilles de la Pommeraye,
from London, to the Bishop of Auxerre at Rome, June 21st, 1532.
[157] Some of the instruments seen in the picture of the “Ambassadors”
are identical with those introduced into the portrait of Kratzer, and may
have been lent by him (see Part IV., chap. ii.).
[158] In 1533 George Gyze, or Gisze, the subject of Holbein’s fine
portrait now at Berlin, was the Alderman’s Deputy (see Appendix A.).
[159] On one occasion the king sent instructions to Cromwell to despatch
Barnes immediately in post, to Germany, with Deryk (or Diryk). (Foxe,
“Life of Melanchthon,” p. 385.) Holbein, as is well known, painted two
Dericks in 1533: Derick Born, whose portrait is now at Windsor, Derick
Tybis at Vienna. The latter certainly, the former probably, was a German
merchant of London. As the king’s servants were frequently spoken of by
their Christian names only (Holbein as “Haunce,” Kratzer as “Nicolas”),
either of these Dericks may have been the one sent on the diplomatic
mission. Augustus de Augustinus, a foreign agent in English pay, writing
to Cromwell from Ratisbon, incloses a copy of an Imperial decree,
presumably written in German, with the comment, “_Any of the Steelyard
merchants will interpret it to you_.” (Letters and Papers, vol. v.,
1532, No. 1027.) In 1538 Kratzer forwarded to Cromwell various papers
through the agency of Hans Holbein. It is well known that Kratzer never
acquired the English tongue. Had Holbein more success? (Ellis’s “Original
Letters,” 3rd series, vol. i., p. 230.)
[160] See the letter of the Bailly of Troyes to his brother, the Bishop
of Auxerre, p. 79.
[161] See the extract from Camusat’s memoir on the children and
descendants of the Premier Président de Selve, p. 20. Camusat there
states that the Bishop of Lavaur came over to England on a visit to
Dinteville in 1532; which year ended, according to the old French
reckoning, on Easter eve, 1533.
[162] See p. 79, Dinteville’s letter to the Bishop of Auxerre, 23 May,
1533.
[163] Selve had almost certainly been already employed in this capacity
by the King of France. See Part III.
[164] Part IV. of this study.
[165] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. vi. (1533), No. 465, Chapuys
to Charles V., 10 May, 1533.
[166] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” p. 128, Bailly of Troyes to Francis I., 23
May, 1533.
[167] “I have received your letter written from Sommevoyre, by which I
understand you to tell me that some time ago you said to the ambassadors
of this king [_i.e._, the King of England] when in Italy, that you had
heard the Pope say that, regarding the affair of this said king, the
marriage would be better made than to make. If this was so, it is a
thing which would be of great service to him [_i.e._, to the King of
England]. Pray let me know whether, in case the Pope does not desire to
take another course than the one mentioned respecting the affairs of
this country, I might inform this said king of what you told me; and
similarly, if things should become very threatening, whether you would
remind the Pope of the expressions he then used to you, telling him that
you at once communicated them to the ambassadors of this said king,
seeing the affairs of the king [of France] and his, to be but one. If
you please, send me your opinion on this matter, which you will do well
to discuss a little with our friends, and perhaps with Monseigneur the
Grand-Maître and the Bishop of Paris [Jean du Bellay], for the thing is
of considerable importance.
“For the rest, we thank you very much, M. de la Tournelle, my cousin and
I, for the branches of your yew-tree which you offer to us, but over here
we are well furnished with arquebuses and with bad archers, of whom I am
the worst.
“Pray send me a drawing of the oval compass of which you wrote; I cannot
at all understand the fashion in which it is made.
“I am growing very weary in this country, while awaiting the end of the
six months, which will expire on the 22nd July. The Grand-Maître promised
me that I should only remain here for the said six months. I pray God he
may keep his word. I have had tertian fever, but recovered from it long
ago. Please consult a little with M. de Paris about my return. I assure
you very earnestly that I am the most melancholy, weary and wearisome
ambassador that ever was seen.
“M. de Lavor did me the honour to come to see me, which was no small
pleasure to me. There is no need for the Grand-Maître to hear anything
about it.
“I have had letters from Scotland from M. de Beauvois. I hope the truce
will soon be concluded, for one year, between these two princes.
“The Duke of Norfolk will leave here in two or three days to go and join
the king [of France]. Pray make his acquaintance, for here his master
holds you in good esteem; he told me so within a week.
“As for the vultures [a species of hawk is here meant], I think it would
only be an expense to send them, for this king does not like falconry,
and this country is full of such birds.
“I cannot believe that if you go to Rome, it will only be for a short
time. If you will believe me, do your utmost to get the commission given
to somebody else. Pray attend well to your legal appeals. I cannot think
it well that you should leave them behind.
“I am longing to have news of you and to know what you say to the tower
and to the pictures. Sir, etc. From London this 23rd May.
“I shall have to go to great expense for this coronation. I have written
on the subject to the Grand-Maître, begging him to ask the king to give
me some money to meet it with. I should be very glad to hear something of
it. I also wrote to M. de Paris, who may mention it to you, and who can
help me a great deal about it.
“Your humble servant,
“THE BAILLY.”
[168] The family to which this gentleman belonged was a distinguished
one, but it does not appear which individual this was.
[169] The italics are the present writer’s.
[170] French ambassador in Scotland.
[171] The Kings of England and Scotland.
[172] “Evocation” was a legal term which signified the removal of a cause
from the jurisdiction of a lower tribunal to that of a higher one.
[173] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coll. Dupuy, vol. 726, f. 46. From the Bailly of
Troyes to his brother, the Bishop of Auxerre, 23rd May, 1533.
[174] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. vi. (1533), No. 465, Chapuys
to Charles V., May 10, 1533. Bonner returned from Rome in January, 1533.
See also Froude, “Divorce of Catherine of Aragon,” chap. xii.
[175] Paris, Arch. Nat., J. 962, No. 527. Pagny, 21 Dec., 1533.
[176] Camusat found it amongst the Polisy papers. See “Meslanges
Historiques,” part ii., p. 211.
[177] Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., p. 205.
[178] “The Queen of England left Greenwich on Thursday at about four
o’clock in the afternoon, and came by water in a flat barque, like a
brigantine, which was painted in her colours outside, and had several
flags flying from it; her ladies and maids of honour being with her.
There were besides a hundred or a hundred and twenty other similar
barques, which accompanied her, and were much decorated with banners and
standards. They had erected on the said barques small masts, slender and
very high, to which were attached a great quantity of ropes, as on a
large ship, these ropes being all dressed with little flags of taffetas,
and, in my opinion, of gold metal, for they shone strongly in the sun.
There were also many tambourines, trumpets, flutes, and hautbois. All
came in less than half-an-hour from Greenwich to the Tower, where the
artillery was very loud. It was very beautiful to see this arrival, for
besides the barques, there were, I think, more than two hundred small
craft following behind; the whole surface of the river was covered with
boats.
“On Friday the Queen did not leave her apartments.
“On Saturday at about five o’clock in the afternoon, the said Lady,
attired in her royal robes, which are in the fashion of those of France,
or nearly so, mounted a litter, covered within and without with white
satin. The litter was open, and above her was carried a canopy of cloth
of gold. Behind came twelve ladies on hackneys, who were all dressed in
cloth of gold, and their hackneys draped in the same. Then came twelve
young ladies on hackneys, all arrayed in crimson velvet. There followed
a chariot covered with cloth of gold, with trappings to match. In this
chariot were only the Duchess of Norfolk and the Queen’s mother. Then
came three gilt chariots, where sat various young ladies; and, behind
these, twenty or thirty others on hackneys draped with black velvet.
“Around the litter of the Queen were the Duke of Suffolk, who for that
day was High Constable, and the brother of the Duke of Norfolk, Lord
William, who was serving in the place of his said brother as Earl Marshal
and Lord Chamberlain, which offices are hereditary in this kingdom.
Before them went two men, called equerries, who had great bonnets lined
with ermine, almost similar to those of the Premier Huissier of Paris.
“After these came the Ambassador of France, accompanied by the Archbishop
of Canterbury.
“Afterwards, the Ambassador of Venice, with the Lord Chancellor.
“After these, several bishops, and then the rest of the great lords
and gentlemen of this kingdom, to the number, perhaps, of two or three
hundred.
“And, before all, went the merchants of France, clad in violet velvet,
having each one sleeve in the colours of the Queen; their horses
caparisoned in violet taffetas powdered with white crosses.
“At the cross-ways there were scaffoldings, where Mysteries were being
played, and fountains running wine; the streets were all lined with the
tradespeople, who were kept stationary....
“On Sunday morning, accompanied by all the said lords and gentlemen, the
Lady went on foot from her apartments to the church; the road by which
she walked was all covered with cloth, and might be of about the same
length as the garden of Chantilly. All the bishops and abbots went to
fetch the said Lady, accoutred in their mitres and pontifical ornaments,
and conducted her to the church; and after having heard a low mass, she
mounted on a daïs that had been arranged for her in front of the high
altar, which daïs was all covered with red cloth; and round the spot
where she sat, which was further raised by two steps, was laid a velvet
carpet. And in this place the Lady remained after having been crowned
by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who placed the crown on her head and
anointed her at the high altar, and then completed the office and mass of
the said coronation.
“The Duke of Suffolk, High Constable for that day, remained always near
the said Lady, with a great white staff in his hand; close by were also
the said Lord William and the Lord Chamberlain. Behind the said Lady were
various ladies; duchesses and countesses dressed in scarlet, with cloaks
lined with ermine, which are the robes of duchesses and countesses, and
their hats on their heads. Similarly the dukes and earls, with many other
knights, were dressed in robes of scarlet lined with ermine, almost of
the fashion of those of the Premiers Présidents at Paris, with their
hoods.
“When the coronation was over the Lady was conducted back as on arrival,
with the exception of the bishops, and taken to a great hall where dinner
was prepared....
“The hall is very large and was not crowded, for very good order was
kept. Beneath the queen’s daïs there were four great tables which filled
the whole length of the hall. At the upper end were those of this
kingdom who have charge of the Ports, and beneath them, at the same
table, various gentlemen: at the corresponding table, at the top and
side, were the Archbishops and Bishops, the Lord Chancellor, and several
Earl-Knights. At the two other tables on the other side of the hall, at
the upper one were the Mayor of London accompanied by the Aldermen; and,
at the other table, the ladies, Duchesses, Countesses, and other ladies
and young ladies.
“The Duke of Suffolk was gorgeously accoutred, with many stones and
pearls, on a courser caparisoned in crimson velvet: he rode about on
his horse, round the hall and amongst the tables. Lord William did the
same, looking after the service and keeping order. Both remained always
bare-headed, which you know is the custom of this country. The king was
in a place that he had had made for the occasion, whence he could see all
the ceremony without being seen; where he took with him the Ambassadors
of France and of Venice.
“At the door of the hall there were conduits spouting wine, anyone
who pleased might take some. Similarly there were kitchens to provide
food for anyone who came that day; it was a marvel how much was eaten.
Trumpets and hautbois sounded for every service, and heralds cried
largesse.”
[179] May 29 Anne Boleyn was fetched in state by the Mayor and
Corporation of London, and brought to the Tower, whence she returned
to Westminster on Saturday for her coronation on Whit Sunday, June 1.
(Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. vi. (1533), No. 601.
[180] The stepmother of the Duke.
[181] The Countess of Wiltshire.
[182] Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk.
[183] Lord William Howard, brother to the Duke of Norfolk, who, it will
be remembered, was now absent in France.
[184] Dinteville and Cranmer.
[185] Carlo Capello and Sir Thomas Audley.
[186] Peeress’s robes corresponding to those still worn by peers.
[187] Westminster Hall.
[188] The hall seems, in fact, to have been arranged much like a College
hall at the present day, with the high table across the top and the long
tables below placed at right angles to it.
[189] The Barons of the Cinque Ports.
[190] Knights of the Garter?
[191] Camusat, “Meslanges Historiques,” part ii., p. 17. Narration de
l’Entrée et couronnement de la Royne d’Angleterre Anne de Boulan à
Londres, le 2 (it should be, le 1) juin, 1533.
[192] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. vi. (1533), No. 707. Francis
wrote back a pacifying answer denying all knowledge of the rumours
referred to.
[193] The 22nd July. Dinteville’s embassy was reckoned from the 22nd
January.
[194] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., p. 130_b_, Mr. de Polizy, Bailly
of Troyes, to M. Du Bellay, Bishop of Paris, 7 June, 1533.
[195] See description of the Lute, Part IV.
[196] His name was really Maraviglia, but had become gallicized by long
residence in France.
[197] The subject, at a later period, when a young widow, of Holbein’s
beautiful portrait, now the property of the Duke of Norfolk.
[198] Ranke, “Zeitalter der Reformation,” vol. iii., p. 313. Decrue de
Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., p. 207.
[199] Decrue, etc., p. 213, where a list of authorities is given.
[200] Camusat, “Meslanges Historiques,” part ii., p. 135. Francis I. to
the Bailly de Troyes, 16 July, 1533. See also the following letter from
the same to the same, 12 August, 1533.
[201] Camusat, “Meslanges Historiques,” p. 139. The Bailly of Troyes to
Francis I., 3 September, 1533.
[202] “M. le Bailly, knowing well how long you have been over there, and
that it is very reasonable you should go to your home to put your affairs
in order, I have been willing to grant you leave to depart whenever it
may please you; and am sending to take your place the Sieur de Castillon,
a gentleman of my chamber, who is the bearer of this.”
[203] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., page 9. Francis I. to the Bailly
of Troyes, 6 Sept., 1533.
[204] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., page 142. The Bailly of Troyes to
the King of France, Greenwich, 2 Nov., 1533.
[205] Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., page 213.
[206] “Nota, that often the king after his tempers has said to me that he
esteems me such that I should neither say nor write anything to diminish
friendship between them, and that his Council have begged me to the same
effect.”
[207] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., pp. 19-21.
[208] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., No. 1481, Grant 10.
[209] _Ibid._, No. 1435, Castillon to the Bishop of Paris, London, 17
November, 1533.
[210] “I begged the Duke of Norfolk and others who seemed to be among
the principal members of the Council of this said king, to give the king
their master to understand ... that one may so press and worry a friend
as to become importunate.”
“... for I doubt if the gentlemen of his Council to whom I spoke will
dare to say such things to him as boldly as I shall say them.”
[211] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., p. 143. The Bailly of Troyes to
the Grand-Maître, 7th November, 1533.
[212] Claude Dodieu, Sieur de Vély, was repeatedly employed as French
ambassador to Charles V., and also to the Holy See. He was made Bishop of
Rennes in 1541, and died in 1558.
[213] Some of the most interesting of these letters are only known to
have existed by entries in catalogues, having been amongst the objects
of the thefts from French libraries perpetrated in the first half of the
present century. See “Dictionnaire des Pièces autographes volées,” etc.,
by MM. Lalanne et Bordier, Paris, 1851.
[214] Paris, Bibl. Nat., MSS. fr. 15629, No. 473.
[215] Sleidan, 132-135. Clairembault, 334, No. 4949; quoted by Decrue de
Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., p. 221.
[216] Boutiot, “Hist. de la Ville de Troyes,” p. 346.
[217] Documents inédits sur l’Histoire de France. Relations des Amb.
Vénétiens. Voyage de Jerôme Lippomano, Amb. de Venise en France, par son
sécrétaire.
[218] Clement VII. had died in September, 1534, and Cardinal Farnese
(Paul III.) had been elected Pope in his place.
[219] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coll. Dupuy, vol. 265, f. 239. Letter of Anne de
Montmorency to Cardinal Du Bellay.
[220] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. ix. (1535), No. 434. Chapuys
to Charles V.
[221] “Besides the charge which I gave you the other day on your
departure, to speak to the King of England on the subject of the
contribution, I wish you to say to him that if perchance the Emperor were
disposed to invade me, and that I had to arm and equip on a large scale
as might be the case, and that ... in order not to lose the occasion
and the said expenditure, I chose to employ it for the recovery of my
State and Duchy of Milan, Seigneurie of Genoa, and County of Asti, that,
in this case, the said King of England would be bound to contribute
up to the third portion of the expense I should have to incur for the
maintenance of my said army. And do not fail to uphold this stiffly, so
that the said king may accede to the terms above demanded.”
[222] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., p. 12v. Letter from Francis I. to
the Bailly of Troyes, from Esclarron, 29th Aug., 1535.
[223] _Ibid._, p. 84v. (Traicté entre les Roys de France et d’Angleterre.)
[224] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. ix., 1535, No. 420. Norfolk
to Cromwell.
[225] Anthoine de Castelnau.
[226] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. ix. (1535), No. 594. Chapuys
to Charles V.
[227] “... You know the tumult which occurred between her and her
governess when we went to see her little sister, and that we were told
that she was placed as though by force in her room, in order that she
might not speak to us, and that it was only possible to appease her and
keep her in her room when the gentleman who conducted us had told her
that the king her father had ordered him to say to her that she was not
to show herself while we were there.”
[228] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” p. 21, “autre memoire non datté,” etc.
Chapuys’ letter enables us to fix the date.
[229] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. ix. (1535), No. 595. Chapuys
to Charles V.
[230] _Ibid._, vol. ix. (1535), No. 443. Henry VIII. to Gardiner.
[231] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. x. (1536), No. 375. Gardiner
and Wallop to Henry VIII.
[232] _Ibid._, vol. x. (1536), No. 908. Chapuys to Charles V.
[233] The Bishop of Tarbes accompanied Dinteville to Court.
[234] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. x. (1536), No. 1069. Chapuys
to Charles V.
[235] _Ibid._, vol. xi. (1536), No. 304. Henry VIII. to Gardiner and
Wallop.
[236] _Ibid._, vol. xi. (1536), No. 1143.
[237] _Ibid._, vol. x. (1536), No. 1084. Cromwell to Gardiner and Wallop.
[238] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. x. (1536), No. 1084. Cromwell
to Gardiner and Wallop.
[239] _Ibid._, vol. xi. (1536), No. 52. Bishop of Faenza to Mons.
Ambrogio.
[240] _Ibid._, vol. xi. (1536), No. 228. Castelnau, Bishop of Tarbes, to
Cardinal Du Bellay.
[241] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coll. Dupuy, vol. 547, f. 308. Camusat, “Mesl.
Hist.,” part iii., p. 44.
[242] ... “The Pope, in Consistory, has created Legate, the Englishman,
Cardinal Poule (Pole), not only for England, but for every place which it
may suit him to pass through on his way thither ... with the intention,
in case the King of England will not return by peaceable means to the
obedience of the Roman Church and of the Holy See, of delivering to
the said Cardinal, through the merchants, a good sum of money, for the
purpose of assisting the people against the said king, in order to oblige
him to return to the said obedience by means of force....”
[243] Camusat, “Meslanges Historiques,” p. 13. Instruction au Bailli de
Troyes, etc., Moussi, 2 March, 1537.
[244] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. xii., part i., No. 817. Henry
VIII. to Gardiner, Westminster, 3 April, 1537.
[245] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. xii., part i. (1537). F.
Wyngfeld to Cromwell, Dover, 8 April, 1537.
[246] _I.e._ forestall.
[247] Flemish fishing-boats. The name is still in use.
[248] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. xii., part i. (1537), No.
884. Sir Francis Brian to Cromwell, Calais, 9th April. (These extracts
are given in the abridged form printed in the Letters and Papers.)
[249] The only source that the writer has been able to find for this
statement is contained in a paper on Polisy by M. Lucien Coutant,
published in the “Almanach de Bar-sur-Seine” for 1864. M. Coutant, as
a rule, is very unreliable; but in this instance the facts appear too
circumstantial to be entirely without foundation.
[250] Nearly all modern writers refer the disgrace of the Dinteville to
the accusation made by Montecuculli against Deschenetz at the time of
the Dauphin’s death. But this is obviously incorrect, for not only did
the accuser make “amende honorable” to the accused, but Deschenetz is
found after that time in full enjoyment of the confidence of the king and
Grand-Maître. It is quite possible, however, that his enemies made use
of that occasion as a basis for fresh insinuations against him, and as
a lever to stir up anew the king’s suspicions. The older writers merely
state that the accusation was one of high treason.
[251] Henri, formerly Duke of Orleans, was now Dauphin. Charles, Duke
of Angoulême, had succeeded to the title of Duke of Orleans when Henri
became Dauphin.
[252] Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., pages 398, 399.
[253] Ribier, “Lettres et Mémoires d’Estat,” vol. i., page 294. Gaulcher
de Dinteville, Seigneur de Vanlay, to the Dauphin, Venice, 20th Dec.,
1538.
[254] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Pièces Orig., vol. 1004, Dossier Dinteville, ff.
84, 85.
[255] Ribier, “Lettres et Mémoires d’Estat,” vol. i., page 373. The Duke
of Guise to the Connétable, Dijon, 10th Feb.—Whether the year was 1539,
1540, or 1541, makes no difference to the argument; but it was probably
the first of the three years named.
[256] Nephew of Vanlay’s mother, whose brother was Seigneur Du Plessis,
de Savonnières, d’Ouschamps and de la Perrine.
[257] Ribier, “Lett. et Mém. d’Estat,” vol. i., p. 294. Gaulcher de
Dinteville (Seigneur de Vanlay) to the Dauphin, Venice, 20 Dec., 1538.
[258] _Ibid._, vol. i., p. 301.
[259] Renée, daughter of Louis XII., married in 1527 to Ercole, son of
the Duke of Ferrara. See also _ante_, p. 45.
[260] Ribier, “Lett. et Mém. d’Estat,” vol. i., p. 449. Grignan to the
Connétable, 29 April, 1539.
[261] Ribier, “Lett. et Mém. d’Estat,” vol. i., p. 479. Grignan to the
Connétable, Rome, 21 Oct., 1539.
[262] Paris, Bibl. Nat., MSS. fr. 20440, pp. 81-84. Deposition of the
Bailly of Troyes in favour of his brother, the Bishop of Auxerre.
[263] Selve died in April, 1541.
[264] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Dupuy, 702, ff. 138-9. (A gold reliquary
set with precious stones; another of silver-gilt set with similar stones;
another reliquary of silver enamelled in blue, with a long and large
stone called lapis lazuli, engraved with the mysteries of the Passion.)
[265] “On the following day the said Damoyselle de Thelligny and Madame
de Brou, her sister, came to dine with me at the apartment of the late
Duke of Orleans. Which ladies both told me it would be necessary to
come to an agreement with the said Bishop of Lavaur, and that Madame
d’Estampes had become very angry when the said M. de Lavaur had come to
speak to her in the room where she was playing at cards, and had said
that we were not yet where we imagined.... Seeing which I recognized that
we should be obliged to take that course. And the next or the same day (I
do not remember which) I went to find the said Bishop of Lavaur in his
apartment, in a little low room, where was the Bailly of Dijon ... and
a few others ...; and I said these, or similar, words to the Bishop of
Lavaur:
“‘Sir, my friends have told me that Madame d’Estampes has in the last two
days spoken ill words of Monsieur d’Aucerre and of my brothers. For which
reason, sooner than to fall again into the king’s disfavour, we would
rather lose all we possess. You know that in past times we were friends.
You speak of wishing to have the bishopric of Aucerre; I beg and warn you
to content yourself with something else instead.’
“He insisted that he wished to have the Abbey of Monstier-aramey. I then
begged him to give up the said Abbey of Monstier-aramey. He continued to
insist, desiring it rather than that of Monstier-la-Celle. Nevertheless
I showed him that the said Abbey of Monstier-aramey was close to Polisy,
and that that of Monstier-la-Celle was of the same value, within six or
seven hundred livres, which was not a great sum. In the end, the said
Bishop of Lavaur agreed to this.
“He then made a great fuss about having the house of the see of Auxerre
at Paris, which I would not at all agree to, although, if he became our
friend, not only that one, but all others would be at his service....”
[266] Married women were called “Mademoiselle;” only those whose husbands
were knights had the right to the title of “Madame.” Decrue de Stoutz,
“La Cour de France au seizième siècle,” p. 74.
[267] Charles, Duke of Orleans, died in 1545, and this document, though
referring to 1542, was drawn up at a later date.
[268] _I.e._, to resign one of the abbeys.
[269] “... And it was agreed this should be put in writing. Which was
done on the following day in my room, at the apartment of the said late
Duke of Orleans; in the absence of the said Bishop of Auxerre, who
declined to be present.... And I truthfully certify that the resignation
of the said Abbey of Monstier-la-Celle, which was then made to the said
Bishop of Lavaur, and the receipts given for the furniture and revenues
of the bishopric of Auxerre, proceeded from the fear and dread lest
Madame d’Estampes should replace the said Bishop of Auxerre, and all
of us, his brothers, in the bad graces of the king; and lest it should
again be necessary to fly and remain out of the kingdom, as had been
done before; and in order that the said Madame d’Estampes and the said
Bishop of Lavaur might no longer prevent my brother from returning and
re-possessing himself of his houses and benefices.”
[270] The Bishop protested against this enforced resignation. See
Camusat, “Promptuarium sacrarum antiquitatem Tricassinæ diocesis,” p. 25.
[271] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Pièces Orig., vol. 1004, Dossier Dinteville, ff.
84, 85.
[272] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Dupuy, 702, f. 134.
[273] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Dupuy, 702, f. 134. Camusat,
“Promptuarium,” etc., pp. 26-28, June, 1542.
[274] “Bailly, having seen your basque here, I would not allow him to
return without sending you some news of me through him; which are, thank
God, very good, and such as you desire them to be; but they will be still
better when I hear that you have quite recovered your health, which I
beg you to take great care of; and, in return, I will tell you, bailly,
that I am doing all that is possible to reduce Ivoy, which I shall attack
to-morrow from another side; and by these and all other means, I hope to
take the place, with the aid of Him who is the giver of victory. For the
rest, I have had news from Longueval, who is only at two or three days’
march from here, with his troop, which I am told is as fine and resolute
a one as one could wish to see. I shall make him hang about the place
where he is with his said troop, pending the return of Iversay, whom I
have sent to the king to bring me back orders as to what it will please
him that I should do with the said troop, and also with that which is
with me here. Meanwhile, having nothing more to say at present, I will
end, recommending myself to you, and praying Our Lord, Bailly, that He
may give you as good health as I wish to you. Written from the camp
before Ivoy this 14th day of August, [1542].
“Your good master,
“CHARLES.
“To M. the Bailly of Troyes, one of my chamberlains.”
[275] The deceased Louis de Dinteville, Seneschal of Rhodes, also had
a Basque servant. This may have been the same one, or perhaps it was a
fashion of the moment to have a Basque attendant.
[276] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coll. Dupuy, vol. 726, f. 117.
[277] Brantôme, “Hommes Illustres Français,” Discours xlvi., Eloge du Duc
d’Orléans. Decrue de Stoutz, “La Cour de France,” etc., pp. 31, 32.
[278] Decrue de Stoutz, _ibid._, p. 23.
[279] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Pièces Orig., vol. 1004, Dossier Dinteville, f.
87a.
[280] Primaticcio designed for the house of the Connétable allegorical
figures of the cardinal virtues, which were executed in fresco by
Niccolò dell’ Abate. The house was situated in the Rue Sainte-Avoie, now
Rue du Temple. It was subsequently the Hôtel de Mesmes. See Félibien,
“Entretiens sur les Vies et les ouvrages des plus excellents peintres,”
tome i., p. 523, and Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., p.
419.
[281] Mrs. Mark Pattison, “The Renaissance in France,” vol. ii., p. 269.
[282] He may indeed have been acquainted with greater than they. In 1540
Benvenuto Cellini was in the service of the French Court, and twenty-one
years earlier, when the future Bailly was yet a boy, Lionardo da Vinci
died at the Château Cloux, near Amboise.
[283] The writer is indebted for nearly all the facts relating to
the artists of Troyes, and to the Italians employed by Dinteville,
to the very interesting paper by M. Albert Babeau (Secretary of the
Soc. Acad. de l’Aube), entitled, “Doménique Florentin, Sculpteur du
seizième siècle.” It was published in “Réunion des Sociétés savantes
des Départements à la Sorbonne, du 4 au 7 Avril 1877. Section des
Beaux-Arts.” Paris, Plon, Nourrit et Cie. 1890, part i., page 108.
[284] Archives de l’Aube, registre G. 66, fol. viˣˣ, xii, vᵒ. Quoted by
M. Babeau, _loc. cit._, who gives the detailed heading of the Latin act.
[285] This has since been filled in on one side. An old map, preserved at
Polisy, shows the original plan, which is partly indicated also in the
illustration, page 35.
[286] Page 35. See also his letter to the Bishop of Auxerre, May 23,
1533, page 81.
[287] They are seen in the long gabled front overlooking the river, in
the illustration, p. 35.
[288] Was this an allusion to the Bishop of Auxerre’s appointment as
almoner to the king and other royal personages? The repetition of the
date 1545, and the symbol of Fortune about to be explained, make it clear
that the house was built by him.
[289] In the _carrelage_ of Polisy the goddess is seen with both globe
and wheel, as well as with the horn of plenty, but without the wings.
The attributes varied in different versions. The sphere with the Hermes’
wings is sometimes interpreted as the rising sun, equally a symbol of
Fortune.
[290] “Christophori Longolii Lucubrationes. Lugduni, apud Seb. Gryphium,
1542.” The winged globe is here surmounted by the Gryphon, etc., which
formed the rest of the bookseller’s device; but these attributes do
not concern us here. The “Orations of Longolius” are bound up with the
“Epistles of P. Bunelli,” published in 1551 at Paris, by Ch. Etienne. The
volume is rare.
[291] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., p. 212.
[292] _Ibid._, at the end of the volume. The memoir has also been
reprinted in some of the French collections of famous memoirs.
[293] ... “as I did not wish to become a monk, she placed me with M. de
Polizy, Bailly of Troyes, head of the house of Dinteville, a personage
as accomplished and as adorned with all virtues and sciences as any
man of his time and quality; having been governour to M. d’Orléans and
ambassador for the king in England. But having become paralytic, and
helpless in all his limbs, and being unable for this reason to continue
at Court, and having therefore retired to his own home, he began for
his pleasure and entertainment to build this beautiful house of Polizy.
Which personage showed me such friendship that he would take the trouble
himself to instruct me in all the sciences of which my youth was capable;
and, when I had remained with him up to the age of fourteen or fifteen
years, wishing to form me better by the frequenting of society and the
exercise of arms, he gave me to M. Deschenetz, his brother, Chevalier
of the King’s Order, and captain of fifty men-at-arms, with whom I made
several journeys....”
At a later date Mergey fought for “la religion” (_i.e._, the reformed
religion), under La Rochefoucauld; but wishing to have, as he says,
“another string to his bow,” he did not forget to cultivate “Mr. de
Sesac” (a follower of the Guise), who had meanwhile become the husband
of Claude de Dinteville, the eldest daughter of Deschenetz and heiress
of Polisy. This was the lady with whom, in later years, Camusat was
acquainted, and through whom he learnt the story of Holbein’s masterpiece
(see Part I., p. 14). It will be perceived, therefore, how close was
the connection between Jean de Dinteville, uncle to this lady, and the
documents derived from Camusat which relate the history of the picture.
[294] It is probable that at the time of disgrace Jean de Dinteville
either resigned or was deprived of the Order of St. Michael, and that
Henri II., on his accession, made his special _protégé_ among the
Dinteville brothers, Guillaume, Seigneur Deschenetz, a knight of the
order in the place of Jean, whose health no longer allowed him to leave
home. Article XV. of the statutes of the order provides that any knight
can be deprived for treason, or for the accusation of treason. It further
lays down that if a knight be grievously wronged by his sovereign, and
cannot obtain justice after having requested it, and allowed due time
to elapse, that knight may return the collar and quit the order without
forfeiting his honour.
[295] “My nephew, I have received two letters from you, one dated the
4th October, the other the 23rd January last. You write to me that you
have received letters from my sister De Lyencourt and that it appears
to you that she is much pleased with the affair of Monstier la Scelle;
she may well be so; she is indeed bound and obliged to pray God to bless
Monseigneur d’Auxerre, as we all are, for the great benefit he has been
pleased to confer on Benjamin. My niece De Lyencourt, who is with Madame
la Connestable, wrote me word that the said Monseigneur d’Auxerre and
Monsr. Des Chenetz were at Fontainebleau. And since then Nicolas de la
Croix has written to me that the said Monseigneur d’Auxerre was about to
arrive at Paris. I had heard of the capture of Aspremont by the forces
of the Emperor. The same Nicolas de la Croix writes to me that wheat
has been sold at Paris for a hundred and seventeen _solz tournois_ the
_septier_, and oats for forty-eight, which is very dear.... I am sorry
to hear of the illness of Madame de la Mothe and her daughter, but as
they are mending, I hope it will be nothing. Those who come from Court
say that there is a great rumour that the king is to go to Germany; that
Duke Maurice of Saxony and other German princes are in arms against the
Emperor, and that they will take the side of the king and enter his
service; that the queen will be Regent in France, and will be at Rheims;
that Monsr. l’Admiral will remain with her; that Cardinal Tournon will
be the king’s lieutenant at Lyons; that the Grand Seigneur [the Turk]
is making great preparations for war in the present year, both by land
and sea. I expect you hear all these news better where you are than we
do here, for you can receive information from Messrs. d’Auxerre and des
Chenetz, who are at Court. I think that by the beginning of the month
of March I shall be able to leave this country to go to Lyons, taking
Grenoble on the way. When I am at Lyons, you shall have news of me, and I
will send you some seeds for your new garden.
“My nephew, etc.,
“From Montpellier, 20th February, 1551 (N.S. 1552).
“Your uncle and friend,
“DUPLESSYS.”
“To my nephew, M. de Pollisy, Bailly of Troyes.”
[296] Guillaume Du Plessis, Seigneur de Liancourt, was a younger
brother of Dinteville’s correspondent, Charles Du Plessis, Seigneur
de Savonnières, d’Ouschamps, and de la Perrine. Both were brothers of
Dinteville’s mother. Guillaume, Seigneur de Liancourt, died in 1550. The
lady mentioned in the text was his widow.
[297] The Bishop of Auxerre had presented the Abbey of Montier-la-Celle
to his first cousin, Benjamin, son of Guillaume, Seigneur de Liancourt.
[298] De Montmorency.
[299] Dinteville’s sister, Charlotte, had married Louis Raguier, Seigneur
de la Motte de Tilly.
[300] Henri II.
[301] Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS. fr. 20465, f. 299a.
[302] Le Beuf, “Mémoires concernant l’histoire ecclesiastique, etc.,
d’Auxerre,” page 588. The Bishop had a favourite painter, named Felix
Chrétien, whom he had raised from the position of simple chorister to
that of canon of the cathedral, on account of his delicacy of hand in
penmanship and painting. Chrétien possessed considerable talent, and
was the painter of a large triptych representing the “Martyrdom of Ste.
Eugénie,” which still hangs in the church of Varzy, in the diocese of
Auxerre (Dept. of Nièvres), though now in a terribly dilapidated state.
The portrait of the Bishop is introduced amongst a group in the central
panel of this picture. (See illustration, p. 56.) Chrétien reproduced
the features of the Bishop a second time, in a smaller work, which is in
every way inferior to the picture at Varzy. This is the “Stoning of St.
Stephen,” which now hangs in the north ambulatory of the Cathedral of
Auxerre. The Emperor Louis Napoleon offered a large sum, without success,
for the “Martyrdom of Ste. Eugénie,” which he wished to purchase for the
Empress. Being unable to obtain the picture, he had a copy made of it.
Varzy is a place which travellers should by no means pass by. The church
is of very beautiful thirteenth-century Gothic, and resembles a small
cathedral. The ancient inn was formerly a religious house, and with its
tower and court is strikingly picturesque. The same family has now owned
it for upwards of two hundred years.
[303] See illustration, page 110.
[304] Unless it may be assumed that the drawing in question was
executed by Holbein on one of his later journeys abroad, which would
give some additional latitude of time. On his way to “High Burgundy,”
for instance, in the summer of 1538, he would almost pass the gates of
Polisy, if the direct route across France were selected. (High Burgundy,
or Franche-Comté, was Imperial territory, and lay due east of French
Burgundy, in which Polisy was situated.) If the Bailly of Troyes sat
to Holbein for this drawing at about the time suggested, the days of
adversity which shortly fell upon the Dinteville family would explain the
fact that, so far as is known, no painting was ever made from it.
[305] Both hang in one room at the Dresden Gallery.
[306] The late Sir Frederick Burton was of this opinion, which is also
held by Mr. Sidney Colvin (see his letter to the “Times,” September,
1890).
[307] The authentic sources for the date of Selve’s birth are given Part
I., p. 13. None of the popular compendiums of biography, etc., so far as
the writer is acquainted with them, are to be trusted.
[308] Bayle denies this, and says the name in its original form is De
Salva, and is of Limousin origin (Dictionary, ed. 1739, Art. Selve).
[309] “Petri Bunelli Epistolæ,” Paris, 1551. Letter to Danès (1541), p.
95.
[310] “Educated where I am, both I and those belonging to me, by your
benefaction....”
[311] Of these all, excepting one, sooner or later served the king
as ambassadors. They are usually given in the following order: 1,
Lazare, Gentilhomme de la Chambre du Roi, ambassador in Switzerland; 2,
Jean-Paul, Bishop of St. Flour, ambassador (at a late date) at Rome; 3,
George, Bishop of Lavaur, the subject of this memoir; 4, Odet, Président
du Grand Conseil, ambassador in England, at Venice, and at Rome, where
he died; 5, Jean, Abbé de Saint Vigor; 6, François, ambassador at
Constantinople.
[312] Jacques Amyot, author of a famous translation of Plutarch’s
“Lives,” was born 1513, and died 1593. He was tutor to the sons of Henri
II., was sent on a mission to the Council of Trent, and was Bishop of
Auxerre from 1571 until his death.
[313] Probably a relation of Selve’s mother.
[314] All the confusion in popular sources as to the date of Selve’s
birth appears to have arisen from one misstatement or misprint, to the
effect that he was promoted to the episcopate in 1524. Coupled with the
unquestioned fact that he was made a bishop when in his eighteenth year,
it was therefore loosely inferred that he must have been born in 1506.
The facts given above show that the circumstances of his appointment to
Lavaur were such as to preclude all possibility of its having taken place
before 1526; even were the Papal licence (page 13) not proof positive as
to his age.
[315] The Cardinal of Lorraine, of the house of Guise, was made
Archbishop of Rheims in 1534, at nine years old.
[316] The originals of these letters are at the Château of Villiers near
La Ferté Alais, and belong to the Marquis de Selve, to whose courtesy
the writer is indebted for their use here. Copies are to be found in the
Bibl. Nat. at Paris (Carrés d’Hozier, vol. 579). They bear no date of
year in either series, but only of day and month. Those addressed to the
Cardinal-Legate must, however, have been written in the spring following
Selve’s appointment, _i.e._, in 1527. Two series of letters are mixed up
both in the originals and the copies, as at least one letter from the
Queen of Navarre was not written till after the death of the Président de
Selve, which occurred in 1529.
[317] “... for love of me, and at my request, to abandon your claim
to the said bishopric, resigning in favour of the son of the Premier
Président every right you may have or claim to the said bishopric.”
[318] “My cousin, you have already heard of the king’s desire, and mine,
that the son of Monsʳ. the Premier Président should be provided with the
bishopric of Lavaur; and as the king and I have not yet received a reply
from you which satisfies our intention, I have been moved, my cousin, to
write to you again about it, begging you very affectionately and as much
as I know how to beg for anything, that you would desist, at the request
of the said lord and of me, from your claim, and also would dispose to
the profit and in favour of the son of the said Premier Président of
all right that you may pretend to the said benefice; assuring you that
the said lord and I will recollect this favour in a thing of greater
consequence, in such a way that you will be satisfied. For the rest,
and in conclusion, you must know that the said lord and I will support
the son of the said Premier Président right through this affair, making
it our own; for which reason I earnestly beg you again, my cousin, to
be so good as to think over it, and to yield in this matter to the very
affectionate request made by the said lord and by me. And thus fare
well, my cousin, etc.... Written at St. Germain en Laye, 1st April.
(Postscript.) I pray you my cousin to oblige the king and me in the
matter above treated of, and you will find it to your advantage.
“Your good cousin,
“LOYSE.”
“To my cousin, Cardinal Clermont, Legate of Avignon.”
[319] “... have the thing so greatly at heart that I cannot sufficiently
write it to you.”
[320] “Monsr. de Lavaur, my friend, I have received the letter that you
wrote to me, and there is no need that you should thank me, for I am too
much and too old a friend of your father’s, and should wish to please
him and all his race. You, on your side, will consider whether there is
anything else I can do for you, and you will never fail to find me a good
brother, yet more in deeds than in words, and this I beg you to believe.
Which shall be the conclusion of this present, etc. From Avignon this
22nd June.
“Your best brother and friend,
“F. CARDˡ. DE CLERMONT.”
“To Monsʳ. de Lavaur.”