Beyond Belief: Surviving the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in France

BEYOND BELIEF

9781611460779_Print.indb i

7/25/11 10:58 AM

9781611460779_Print.indb ii

7/25/11 10:58 AM

BEYOND BELIEF Surviving the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in France

Christie Sample Wilson

LEHIGH UNIVERSITY PRESS Bethlehem

9781611460779_Print.indb iii

7/25/11 10:58 AM

Published by Lehigh University Press Co-published with The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowmanlittlefield.com Estover Road, Plymouth PL6 7PY, United Kingdom Copyright © 2011 by Christie Sample Wilson All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wilson, Christie Sample, 1968– Beyond belief : surviving the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in France / Christie Sample Wilson. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 978-1-61146-077-3 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-61146-078-0 (ebook) 1. France. Edit de Nantes. 2. France—Church history—16th century. 3. France— Church history—17th century. I. Title. BR845.W55 2011 274.4'07—dc23 2011028437

™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States of America

9781611460779_Print.indb iv

7/25/11 10:58 AM

For Mark

9781611460779_Print.indb v

7/25/11 10:58 AM

9781611460779_Print.indb vi

7/25/11 10:58 AM

Contents

Map 1. France, ca. 1685

ix

Map 2. Dauphiné and surrounding region

x

Acknowledgments

xi

Introduction: A Different Take

1

1 2 3 4 5

Seeking to Live “Without a Note of Infamy” 1650–1679 A Confessionally Distinct Population The Pre-Revocation Years, 1650–1684 They Will Form a Cabal against Us The Experience of the Revocation As If They Were Living in Geneva Ongoing Challenges of Enforcing Catholic Conformity So What About Confessionalization? The Degree of Persistence of Confessionally Distinct Behaviors, 1690–1715

11 37 57 91 113

Conclusion: Beyond Belief

133

Secondary Sources

141

Primary Sources

149

— vii —

9781611460779_Print.indb vii

7/25/11 10:58 AM

viii

Contents

Appendix

153

Index

155

About the Author

163

9781611460779_Print.indb viii

7/25/11 10:58 AM

Map 1. France, ca. 1685. Courtesy of John V. Cotter, PhD.

9781611460779_Print.indb ix

7/25/11 10:58 AM

Map 2. Dauphiné and surrounding region. Courtesy of John V. Cotter, PhD.

9781611460779_Print.indb x

7/25/11 10:58 AM

Acknowledgments

I

T IS WITH GRATITUDE THAT I ACKNOWLEDGE THOSE WHO INSPIRED, prodded, and supported me through the many phases of this project. My deepest gratitude goes to Myron Gutmann whose encouragement, guidance, and friendship helped to inspire the project. Further, he helped me uncover the tools through which I could illuminate the behaviors and beliefs of these Protestants who stayed in France and survived. Through many conversations, drafts, and helpful critiques, he helped me to see the possibilities for a small town in Dauphiné. In my research in France I was graciously guided by the many able archivists and fellow researchers at the Archives départementales de la Drôme, Archives départementales de l’Isère, Archives communales de Loriol, Bibliothèque nationale, Bibliothèque de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français, and the Archives nationales. Their insights, knowledge of the sources, and help in opening doors were invaluable. The project received early critical support with a grant from the American Philosophical Society in 1999. My ability to pursue ongoing research and periodically sneak back to various archives was generously encouraged and supported by St. Edward’s University and Sister Donna Jurick, Marianne Hopper, and Brenda Vallance. The scope and analysis of the book have been deepened with the input of many scholars who read and commented on various aspects of my work, providing different perspectives and insights. I am grateful for the input of many from my years at the University of Texas, including Brian Levack, Neil Kamil, Ann Ramsey, Joe Potter, Howard Miller, and Carolyn Boyd, who taught me

— xi —

9781611460779_Print.indb xi

7/25/11 10:58 AM

xii

Acknowledgments

much about the crafts of history and demography. I am grateful for my colleagues from French Historical Studies, Sixteenth Century Studies, and the Western Society for French History who asked probing questions and encouraged me to continue with this project and to delve deeper. My friends and colleagues in history have indulged many lively discussions that have crystalized my thinking on the book and have made it inarguably richer. I am indebted to many for their willingness to turn over innumerable mealtime discussions to the tribulations and triumphs of French Protestants, as they listened, read, listened some more, and read some more, including Mity Myhr, Cindy Gladstone, and Jackie Woodfork. John Cotter helped to transform a vision into uniquely suited maps. I owe debts of gratitude to many others, including Carrie Chavez, Pat Perry, Julie Sievers, Regina Fuentes, Nikki Shepardson, all of whose insights and perspectives helped to refine the project. My colleagues in history and social sciences at St. Edward’s University have been amazingly supportive as I have worked to complete the project. I owe many thanks to all at Lehigh University Press for their support through the project. The readers’ comments on the manuscript were insightful and thorough and greatly helped to improve the book. Any errors that remain are mine alone; without the aid and support of family, friends, and colleagues, there would surely be more. The book would not have been possible without the boundless and patient support of my family. My parents, Tom and Susan Sample, taught me in every way that I could and should follow my dreams and that all things were possible. Through their example of dedication and excellence, I came to understand that the greatest value and deepest meaning comes from doing that which we love and believe to be true. My sisters and their families helped me stay grounded. My children, Thomas and Josephine, are endless sources of support and joy as they grew along with this book, and their heartfelt cheers helped bring it into being. My largest debt and most profound thanks are for my most steadfast supporter and guide, my life’s love, Mark. He has been part of the project from its inception and learned about all manner of things historical and things French, and was essential to the result. His willingness to endure numerous research trips and listen to the results, together with his impeccable ability to support, prod, gently critique, and question, make all things possible.

9781611460779_Print.indb xii

7/25/11 10:58 AM

Introduction A Different Take

T

HE REVOCATION OF THE EDICT OF NANTES in 1685 brought great suffering to the Protestants of France as they were forced from their temples into the Catholic Church, often as a result of violence or the threat of violence. The literature describing and analyzing the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes is littered with stories of horror and violence. Many tell of communities where royal troops came and lived “upon the Protestants on discretion. They were put under no restraint, but only to avoid rapes, and killing them…And… when all was taken from them, till they should change, and being required only to promise to reunite themselves to the Church, they, overcome with fear, and having no time for consulting together, did universally comply…”1 This suffering was chronicled by those who experienced it, and has been the subject of much study by historians, retellings and analysis that offer valuable insights. They do not, however, recount the only experiences of the Revocation. Not all Protestants experienced these horrors associated with the Revocation. This is the study of one such town, Loriol, in Dauphiné. Loriol was of reasonable size, located on a main transportation route. It was economically stable and the inhabitants were adequately faithful to the crown in the seventeenth century. They did their share to support the royal government. They paid their taxes with acceptable regularity and completeness, and they occasionally lodged the king’s troops. The town was also religiously divided, with a Protestant majority of about three-quarters. The experience of these Protestants and their Catholic neighbors was not like that described above. Loriol did not endure great brutality. All local Protestants were not forced by violence or threat thereof to renounce their

—1—

9781611460779_Print.indb 1

7/25/11 10:58 AM

2

Introduction

faith and embrace Catholicism. The community did not suffer the emigration of most of its skilled and wealthy citizens, and it did not devolve into vicious confessional violence or divisions. Instead, Loriol’s story is marked by coexistence and accommodation, the story of a community that found a path to survival. The experience of Loriol provides a counterbalance to the betterknown face of the Revocation. In 1598 Henry IV inaugurated an era of religious toleration in France, ending decades of civil war between Catholics and Protestants. With the Edict of Nantes Henry agreed to accept and protect Protestants. This document affected France at every level: royal decision making regarding foreign policy; the administration of French domestic government; the governing of small provincial communities; and the most basic decisions made by individuals concerning marriage and children. With the beginning of a new era of toleration, the minority population of French Protestants was granted the basic right to choose to follow the teachings of Calvin and to worship in Reformed temples, along with the right to participate in professions, be admitted to schools and public hospitals without prejudice, and hold public office.2 The edict declared these rights as perpetual and irrevocable. In additional secret provisions the edict guaranteed the Protestant population the right to defend itself and to maintain a designated number of fortress cities in the realm, paid for by the crown and subject to periodic renewal, unlike the official edict.3 The collection of articles provided for a degree of toleration in France and forged a compromise between Catholic and Protestant interests. Thus began the era of the Edict of Nantes, perpetual and irrevocable. This reign of religious toleration was, however, destined to be much shorter than the promised perpetuity, coming to an end less than a century later. From the day of its signing at Nantes until its revocation at Fontainebleau, no one was completely satisfied with the terms of the edict. The year 1598 marked the birth of an edict whose validity was constantly challenged, defined, and redefined until its ultimate revocation in 1685. The era of the Edict of Nantes provides insights into the growth and nature of confessionalism as well as that of absolutism. These early interactions between royal representatives and local notables highlight the role of community cooperation in the functioning of an absolutist government that would be seriously tested by the end of Louis XIV’s reign. In 1643 when Louis XIV ascended to the throne, the effects of the efforts of Louis XIII and Richelieu to reduce the power and presence of Protestants in France were visible. The military rights of Protestants were gone, and programs designed to draw people away from their Protestant faith were in place. The royal government was no longer an enforcer of policies to protect

9781611460779_Print.indb 2

7/25/11 10:58 AM

A Different Take

3

peaceful coexistence, instead it was committed to policies designed to diminish the power of Protestants within the realm and encourage them to convert to Catholicism. Protestants survived as a persecuted minority. These efforts reached a fever pitch by the 1680s with the rapid approach of the Edict of Fontainebleau that revoked the Edict of Nantes. The era of the Revocation was marked by profound coercion and violence as Protestants were pressured economically, personally, physically, and spiritually to abandon their Protestant faith and lives. Finally, in 1685, after several years of intense efforts to bring about the conversion of Protestants, they were forced to abjure their Calvinist faith and unite with the Catholic Church. Their forced conversion did not succeed in extinguishing Protestantism from France. It drove many into voluntary exile, brought others to their deaths at the hands of the king’s soldiers, and forced countless others to accept Catholicism, at least to all outward appearances. The Protestant faith survived underground when open practice of the religion was outlawed. The Désert, the period of time when the Protestant Church was outlawed, has received relatively little systematic attention by historians.4 This reflects the fact that the churches were underground and left very little evidence. Much of the historical writing on the era of the Désert was the product of nineteenth-century writers who wrote to glorify the great sacrifices of their Protestant forefathers.5 For the basic facts of the lives of the Protestants in different regions across France, these nineteenth-century writers provide an important source of information. They are, however, heavily biased and do not provide a complete picture of the experience of those Protestants who remained in France after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. Historians have studied Protestants before the Revocation as well as those who fled France, but the experience of those Protestants who remained in France after the Revocation is still somewhat obscure.6 If even the highest estimates of the numbers who fled are accurate,7 a majority of French Protestants remained in France, and they found some way to adapt to their new situation as converts to Catholicism who continued to receive discriminatory treatment for at least fifteen years after the Revocation.8 Around the time of the Sun King’s death in 1715, the former Protestants who remained in France began to organize themselves into underground churches. Loriol is a model for this community study.9 It was an agricultural town situated between the cities of Valence and Montélimar, on the banks of the Drôme River, just before the river’s junction with the Rhône, a major transportation route from the Mediterranean.10 Located on the western frontier of the province of Dauphiné, a mountainous province, Loriol is surrounded by Alpine foothills, but not secluded or protected by mountains. The town,

9781611460779_Print.indb 3

7/25/11 10:58 AM

4

Introduction

described as a “principle bourg” by the intendant, was easily reached by royal agents or the army, and was a stopover for the military that was used with reasonable regularity, making it an asset to the crown. 11 Local confessional differences make Loriol ideal for a study of how Protestants and Catholics functioned alongside one another in seventeenth-century France. The fact that Loriol was religiously heterogeneous allows for analysis of the interaction between the two religious groups during the years from 1650 to 1715. This community provides a picture of the ways in which both Protestants and Catholics responded to the changes wrought by the campaign against the Protestants and to the official end to their existence in France. At the time of the Revocation, the town had a population of over 1300 Protestants, compared to approximately 450 Catholics. Further, Loriol was situated in a strongly Protestant area, though Protestants did not compose a majority of this regional population. In the diocese of Valence, which included Loriol, Protestants accounted for approximately one third of the total population,12 and Protestants were a significant population throughout Dauphiné.13 A rich collection of local religious and civil records survives.14 Parish registers provide information about people’s actions at the time of baptism, marriage, and death that serve as indicators of belief. Though these records are a somewhat blunt instrument and do not cover the full breadth of religious behavior or the variety of religious perspectives, they do provide insight into the religious differences present in the community. The registers also allow for the detection of at least some of the changes after the Revocation, including the extent to which the former Protestants actually participated in the Catholic Church. In addition to the religious records, the municipal records for Loriol are rich sources of information of how the community was affected by the Revocation. Two primary types of documents survive: the lists of tax assessments made by the town council and a substantial sample of the minutes of town council meetings. Through these records we can create a picture of how the town worked prior to the Revocation, under more or less normal conditions. As the Revocation approached and passed, the records shed light on the intensity of the struggle between the two confessions, the degree of interference with outside governmental and religious forces, and how the community could and did discriminate against Protestants. Documents concerning diocesan, provincial, and national initiatives and concerns help to interpret local evidence, from the parish registers and the consular records. These documents show that the Protestant community of Loriol did not experience extreme harassment, either by fellow townsmen or by outside authorities. Taken together, the evidence indicates that the lack of involvement of the authorities in Loriol, compared to contemporary descrip-

9781611460779_Print.indb 4

7/25/11 10:58 AM

A Different Take

5

tions of forced mass conversions, and the descriptions of the nineteenth-century writers on the subject, did not mean that the community was unchanged by the experience. The ostensible goal of the Revocation was to create a France that was unified in religion, without distinction. When considered from the distance of the twenty-first, or even the nineteenth, century, it is clear that this was not achieved; France was not toute catholique. The evidence remains in the continued existence of Protestant churches and faithful followers. This failure to achieve an all-Catholic France was evident to some at the time of the king’s death, when Protestant assemblies came together to reorganize themselves, albeit clandestinely, and provide for their survival until the time that they could again legally worship according to their consciences. The Protestants of Loriol participated in the first synodal meeting in Dauphiné in 1716, and the town continued to be home to many who remained Protestant in their true religion. If the experience of Loriol merely represented an interesting look at a community that managed to survive, the importance of its experience would be limited. However, it also provides insight into larger issues surrounding the reign of Louis XIV and the impact of his religious policies on the people of France. It sheds light on some questions particular to French Protestants, including how so many managed to survive in France for the century during which Protestantism was outlawed; why more did not leave the realm; and how individual lives changed as a result of the Revocation. The experience of this community also illuminates larger issues of the changing nature of confessionalization and that of the government of Louis XIV. Confessionalization, the degree to which the two religious communities remained separate from one another and retained separate identities, is an important element of any study seeking to illuminate the nature of interaction between Catholics and Protestants in the seventeenth century or the nature of individual belief. It encompasses the extent to which people identified themselves as members of one confession or the other in a manner that shaped their behavior, either in terms of interaction with those of the other faith or in terms of personal choices. The issue of confessionalization has received a great deal of attention in recent work. The questions revolve around the issue of whether or not the phenomenon appropriately applies to the experience in France and, if so, what form it took. Evidence that people identified themselves as members of one or the other confession and that this identification had tangible consequences abounds, both in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. There are numerous community studies with a central focus on confessionalization, though there is no single confessional experience that emerges from these.15

9781611460779_Print.indb 5

7/25/11 10:58 AM

6

Introduction

The experience of the town of Loriol sheds light on both of these issues. Within this community we see members of two religious traditions that are clearly distinct. They, like others, exhibited behaviors that distinguished them from one another by the latter half of the seventeenth century. The confessional divide within the community was solid. The people of Loriol also exhibited a clear and nuanced understanding of the requirements and expectations of their faith, faced with the new realities that accompanied the era of persecution and forced integration. Prior to the Revocation the two confessions had predictably distinctive behaviors that set them apart from one another, making the degree of confessional difference clear. What happened to this confessional divide after the Revocation is a key question for understanding the nature of confessionalization in an environment where obviously distinguishing behaviors became difficult, if not dangerous. In Loriol the Revocation brought significant changes for people from both confessions. Catholics for their part altered their behavior to better reflect the expectations and requirements of their religion. Local Protestants adopted many of the same behaviors in the years following the Revocation, which seemed to erase the confessional divide. Closer examination reveals that this was not the case. The Revocation may have changed behavior, but it did not erase the adherence of the former Protestants to the faith of their fathers. In fact, it revealed the depths to which they understood that faith and the requirements that it placed on them. The experience of Loriol also sheds light on the limits of the power of the French state. The Revocation was an extreme expression of royal power, as it outlawed a long lived religious tradition, allowed by Louis XIV’s hallowed grandfather. William Beik argues in Absolutism and Society in SeventeenthCentury France that the extension and efficacy of royal power was not this straightforward. Even at the height of royal power under Louis XIV, the king required the cooperation and help of the provincial aristocracy.16 This thesis and the more general debate about the nature or existence of absolutism, has been nuanced, revised, and challenged since Beik’s publication in 1985. In addition to works specifically on the monarchy in the seventeenth century, the scholarship focused more on issues of religious policies also touches on the nature of royal power. It is clear in all of these that the king relied on his agents, whether they were intendants or archbishops, as well as other provincial elites in order to implement his policies throughout the realm.17 All of these forces were put into use in the efforts to enforce the Revocation, yet they failed to bring about true conversion to Catholicism or consistent obedience to the law. The experience of this one town reinforces the work of these scholars, as the royal government depended on provincial and ecclesiastical authorities to implement policies and police behaviors. However, it

9781611460779_Print.indb 6

7/25/11 10:59 AM

A Different Take

7

also demonstrates that the need for cooperation went beyond the elites of the region, even moving past the need for the cooperation of local elites. The effort to eradicate Calvinist belief and behavior required the help of local leaders such as the priest and the members of the town council. It required the enforcement of the prohibitions against converts having arms. It required acts of cooperation and obedience, such as family members notifying the priest in case of grave illness so that the sacraments could be administered. In other words, the community had to be willing to bring noncompliance to the attention of those who were in a position to impose the consequences laid out by the government. Such behavior could have disastrous consequences for the community, not just for those who were noncompliant. The meting out of economic penalties not only punished an offender, but risked that the family would be unable to meet other obligations, such as paying taxes. This would push the burden onto other members of the community or lead to a shortfall in tax collections, which could be devastating. The action and inaction of this community show that its members chose accommodation and peace over full compliance with the will and law of the king and his government. To outward appearances Loriol was the ideal all-Catholic community. Catholic records before 1715 make no mention of people who failed to participate in the sacraments; there was no overt evidence of significant resistance to the new religious order. Further, Protestants modified their behaviors, previously distinctive, so that in most religious matters they were indistinguishable from their Catholic neighbors. Even more, the behavior of the Catholic community in Loriol changed after the Revocation to be more closely in line with the expectations of the Catholic Church. There was no need for authorities to take interest in the town, much less send in forces that would enforce Catholic conformity. In the years following the Revocation both Protestants and Catholics in Loriol came to act more like good Catholic believers were expected to behave. When measured by the extent to which it brought about an outwardly unified Catholic France, the Revocation was, after all, a success in Loriol. This outward conformity masked the continuation of significant confessional boundaries. The goal of confessional unity remained unrealized, making the Revocation a failure. The outward conformity of the community is not, of course, the entire story. This community survived the Revocation largely intact; it avoided dealing with the worst, most brutal efforts of the royal government to make the Protestants submit. This survival was accomplished largely through the individual decisions of people within the community. A wide range of people made a series of accommodations that helped to ensure peace. The Protestants accommodated the new situation when it became necessary: they lost their positions of local power, they gave up their professions, they

9781611460779_Print.indb 7

7/25/11 10:59 AM

8

Introduction

abjured their faith, and they modified their behavior. These accommodations were reciprocated by those of the parish priest. He baptized their children and performed their marriages when they presented themselves, as was expected of good Catholics. Further, the priest did not record efforts, successful or otherwise, to convert those who refused to participate. Local authorities, represented in the town council, did not use their hold on political power to incite antagonisms with unjust burdens loaded onto the former Protestants. They, too, accommodated the new situation, allowing for a measure of calm within the town. These actions on the part of the community and the priest allowed Loriol to avoid attracting unwanted attention either from the bishop, the intendant, or the king. Through these accommodations, the peace of the town was protected. Notes 1. John Lough, France Observed in the Seventeenth Century (Boston: Oriel Press Stocksfield, 1985), 260–261. 2. Edict of Nantes, http://pailssy.humana.univ-nantes.fr/CETE/TXT/EDN/ EDNtxt.html (accessed February 12, 2007). 3. For a brief overview of the provisions of the Edict of Nantes, see Michel-Edmond Richard, La vie des protestants Francais de l’Édit de Nantes à la Révolution (Paris: Les Éditions de Paris, 1994), 14-16. 4. The Désert refers to the period during which Protestantism was “in the wilderness,” an illusion to the Biblical wilderness in which the Jews were stranded for forty years. Samuel Mours and Daniel Robert provide a good history of the political fate of the Protestants after the Revocation in the first six chapters of Le protestantisme en France du XVIIIe siècle à nos jours (1685-1970) (Paris: Librarie Protestante, 1972). For a more topical look at the lives of French Protestants during the period of the Désert, see chapters 8 through 13 of Michel-Edmond Richard’s La vie des protestants Français de l’Édit de Nantes à la Révolution (1598–1789) (Paris: Les Éditions de Paris, 1994). Both of these deal with broad issues affecting the majority of Protestants, but they do not examine the particulars of the lives of the individual Protestant in France during these years underground and how they worked to survive. 5. For the province of Dauphiné, the premier work of a nineteenth-century historian was that of Eugène Arnaud, Histoire des protestants du Dauphiné aux XVIe, XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, volume I, II, and II (Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970) and his Statistique des églises reformées et des pasteur de la province du Dauphiné aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles (Valence: Imprimerie de Chenevier et Chavet, 1874). His work is the most extensive source for information about the Protestants of Dauphiné. Another, more general work, is that of Henry M. Baird, The Huguenots and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, vol. 2 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895). The Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français was founded in the early nineteenth century as a major element of this tradition. For a full treatment of the development of the SHPF and its Bulletin see David

9781611460779_Print.indb 8

7/25/11 10:59 AM

A Different Take

9

Nicholls, “The social history of the French Reformation: ideology, confession and culture,” Social History 9, no. 1 (January 1984): 25–43. 6. Some works on the Revocation include that of Janine Garrison, L’Edit de Nantes et sa révocation: Histoire d’une intolérance (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1985); Samuel Mours, Le protestantisme en France au XVIIe siècle (1698–1685) (Paris: Librarie Protestante, 1967); Daniel Ligou, Le Protestantisme en France de 1598 á 1715 (Paris: Société d’édition d’enseignement supérieur, 1968), and local histories such as Samuel Mours, L’Eglise reformée de Montélimar: des origines à nos jours (Montélimar: Église reformée, 1957). For the demographic history of the Protestants in France under the Edict of Nantes, see Philip Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France, 1600–1685: The Demographic Fate and Customs of a Religious Minority (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1991). For information on the Huguenot migrants, see Bertrand Van Ruymbeke and Randy J. Sparks, Memory and Identity: The Huguenots in France and the Atlantic Diaspora (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 2003); Charles Baird, History of Huguenot Emigration to America (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1885); Jon Butler, The Huguenots in America: A Refugee People in New World Society (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983); Bernard Cottret, The Huguenots in England: Immigration and Settlement, c. 1550–1700 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991); and Robin D. Gwynn, Huguenot Heritage: The History and Contribution of the Huguenots in Britain (New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985). 7. Samuel Mours estimates that approximately 850,000 Protestants lived in France ca. 1660–1670. Philip Benedict revises this figure somewhat, placing the total Protestant population at just under 800,000 at the same time, Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France, 8–9. Estimates, contemporary and modern, placed the exodus at something in the vicinity of 10 percent of the Protestant population lost to voluntary exile. Paul F. Giesendorf, “Recherches sur les consequences demographiques de la révocation de l’édit de Nantes en Dauphiné,” Cahiers d’Histoire (1961): 246. 8. The Edict of Fontainebleau revoked the Edict of Nantes in October 1685. From that time until 1698 and 1699, when Louis XIV sent out detailed instructions to his intendants, commissioners, archbishops, and bishops, the Protestants who converted were considered nouveaux convertis, or N.C., and received discriminatory treatment and additional attention from officials and the church by virtue of their recent conversion. 9. For the history of Loriol, see A. Lacroix, Loriol, St-Jean-en-Royans et leurs environs (Paris: Res Universis, 1989) and Album Guillaume Farel, Le Dauphiné Protestant: Anciennes églises de cette province, (Paris: Librarie Protestante, XIXe siècle), 63–69. A copy of Farel’s work is available at the Bibliothèque de la société de l’histoire du protestantisme français, Ms. 657–661. 10. La Croix, 28. 11. In his memoire of 1698, Bouchu describes the Rhône River route from Valence to Provence as the principle route of the province, and one that was frequently used by the infantry. Jean-Etienne Bouchu, “État du Dauphiné en 1698,” ed. J. Brun-Durand, Bulletin de la Société départementale d’archeologie et de statistique de la Drôme 2 (1867): 361; 3 (1868): 5–6, 10. 12. Giesendorf, 248.

9781611460779_Print.indb 9

7/25/11 10:59 AM

10

Introduction

13. For a general history of Dauphiné, see Bernard Bligny, Histoire du Dauphiné (Toulouse: Edouard Privat, 1973). For the religious history of the province, Eugene Arnaud provides the most complete information. 14. The records for marriages and baptisms from the Protestant temple survive for all of the years from 1650 through the destruction of the temple in 1684. Burial records begin in 1664 and continue until 1684. For the Catholic parish, marriage records begin in 1660, while baptismal and burials records start in 1674. The records from the Catholic Church continue through 1715 and beyond. 15. For some of the recent scholarship on this topic, see Keith P. Luria, Sacred Boudaries: Religious Coexistence and Conflict in Early-Modern France (Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2005); “Cemeteries, Religious Difference, and the Creation of Cultural Boundaries in Seventeenth-Century French Communities” in Memory and Identity: The Huguenots in France and the Atlantic Diaspora, ed. Bertrand Van Ruymbeke and Randy J. Sparks (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003), 58–72; Philip Benedict, The Faith and Fortunes of France’s Huguenots, 1600–1685 (Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 2001); Raymond A. Mentzer, Jr. and Andrew Spicer, Society and Culture in the Huguenot World, 1559–1685 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002); and Raymond A. Mentzer, Jr., Blood and Belief: Family Survival and Confessional Identity among the Provincial Huguenot Nobility (West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press, 1994). 16. William Beik, Absolutism and Society in Seventeenth-Century France: State Power and Provincial Aristocracy in Languedoc (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985). 17. James B. Collins, The State in Early Modern France (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Andrew Lossky, Louis XIV and the French Monarchy (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1994), Robert Harding, Anatomy of a Power Elite: The Provincial Governors of Early Modern France (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1978); P. Gachon, “Le conseil royal et les Protestants en 1698: L’Enquète, la question de la messe et la rôle de Bâville,” Revue historique 86 (1904): 36–57, 225–241; Pierre Blet, Les assemblées du Clergé et Louis XIV de 1670 à 1693 (Rome: Università Gregoriana Editrice, 1972); Robert Sauzet, “Les eveques du Bas-Languedoc et la Révocation,” in La Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes et le protestantisme français: actes du Colloque de Paris (15–19 octobre 1685), ed. Roger Zuber and Laurent Theis (Paris: Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français, 1986), 75–86; and Robert Poujol, “Le role des intendants dans les preliminaries de la Révocation,” in La Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes et le protestantisme français: actes du Colloque de Paris (15–19 octobre 1685), ed. Roger Zuber and Laurent Theis (Paris: Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français, 1986), 87–112.

9781611460779_Print.indb 10

7/25/11 10:59 AM

1 Seeking to Live “Without a Note of Infamy” 1650–1679

I

1660 FATHER LALOE, THE PARISH CURÉ, needed help from the town council. The Catholic church was in a poor state, and he asked the community to bear a share of the financial burden of the repairs. In the discussions, the council determined to provide 150 livres for repairs to the maison curiale.1 After some deliberation, the council agreed that this amount would be matched by support for those of the Reformed church. Such support for religious work in this majority Protestant town was not guaranteed. Though Protestants constituted the majority of the population and represented economic and political power, at least in previous decades, their local power was waning in the second half of the seventeenth century. As the position of Protestants within the kingdom weakened, so did that of Protestants in Loriol. It did not erase the confessional divide within the community, however, which remained strong. The question of how confessional differences shaped an individual’s selfunderstanding and his or her relations with neighbors has been one of interest to scholars of the seventeenth century as they seek to define and describe confessionalization in the era of the Edict of Nantes. The situation of Catholics and Protestants has been the subject of work by Forster, Hanlon, and Luria, studying Speyer, Layrac, and Poitou respectively. Forster asserts that people living in close proximity with those of another confession responded to their situation by forming a strong identification with their own confession, coming to regard themselves not as simply Christians, but as Catholic Christians or Protestant Christians, whichever was the case.2 He found that by the eighteenth century the peaceful coexistence of Catholics, Calvinists, and N

— 11 —

9781611460779_Print.indb 11

7/25/11 10:59 AM

12

Chapter 1

Lutherans in the bishopric of Speyer of the sixteenth century had given way to separate hostile confessional cultures. Luria and Hanlon each find that on the level of the community, individuals were able to live together peacefully in spite of their religious differences. In his recent work on confessional divisions in Poitou, Luria presents a nuanced view of how confessional boundaries were constructed, from the blurred boundary that allowed for concerns such as social alliances and business needs to trump religious difference, to an absolute boundary that separated the confessions completely. The reality of coexistence was built on a foundation of negotiated settlements, locally crafted, though often supported by royal officials, which served to strengthen the identification of each group with its religion. Hanlon argues that while there were certainly issues of contention and awareness of confessional allegiance, the people of Layrac operated with a fair amount of cooperation and were generally at peace with one another during the seventeenth century, in fact demonstrating a degree of doctrinal indifference.3 While Benedict suggests that increasingly strong identification could lead to greater separation and demonization, this was not the case for all communities.4 In Loriol the decades from 1650 to 1715 reveal a community in which the two groups saw themselves as distinct and a clear confessional boundary is discernable, particularly in the years leading up to the Revocation. However, this clearly defined boundary did not result in significant acrimony between the groups; rather it was marked by a notable degree of cooperation that was locally crafted and protected. The distinct identity that Forster found, but not hostile confessionalization or doctrinal indifference, characterized Loriol. While not a porous divide, the confessional identity of the people of Loriol was strong, as was their interest in maintaining a peaceful community. This was especially noteworthy, given the rising tension of the era that was evident in other bi-confessional towns in the region and throughout the kingdom. Also, there was no discernable indifference to the dictates and expectations of each faith, as awareness of religious expectations grew with the approach of the Revocation, which will be clear in the analysis of demographic behaviors. In addition to its role in influencing relations within communities, confessionalization and perceptions of confessionalization shaped the policies and actions of those who sought to transform France into a kingdom in which the subjects were unified in the Catholic religion. Implementing these policies depended on the help of provincial authorities, who had their own challenges and priorities. The intendant of Dauphiné and his agents were faced with challenges of governance from Lyon, where Dauphiné’s intendancy was joined until 1673. They dealt with the issues that were most pressing, enlisting their own resources as well as those of ecclesiastical authorities in their efforts to bring confessional peace and unity to the province with some areas

9781611460779_Print.indb 12

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Seeking to Live “Without a Note of Infamy”

13

estimated at around a third of the population Protestant.5 Between 1650 and 1679 the use of royal authority to address the “problem” of Protestants and to try to bring about religious conformity proved to be a large task, especially in regions like the Drôme, where Protestantism was strong. While royal edicts were not systematically applied, the level of uniformity that was achieved required provincial and local cooperation. The degree to which such cooperation was forthcoming was determined, at least in part, by the extent to which authorities deemed it useful to serve their purposes. In Dauphiné many communities experienced significant confessional tensions and Protestant resistance that demanded the intervention of outside authorities. Other communities, like Loriol, seemingly avoided much outside interference (though certainly not all), as they did not have significant confessional conflict that required mediation, nor did they have serious ongoing resistance that demanded the attention of law enforcement. This peace came at the cost of lower levels of compliance with royal orders aimed at bringing about confessional unity. In addition to relatively peaceful coexistence, the community benefited from the relative absence of outside authorities in local affairs. The Protestants of Loriol were in good company, situated as they were in the Drôme River Valley, on the edge of Dauphiné. Though the number of French Protestants diminished over the course of the seventeenth century, partly due to the turbulence of the 1620s and 1630s, they remained an important segment of the population, especially in the southern crescent of provinces, where they were concentrated.6 Dauphiné was particularly densely populated with Protestants, second only to Languedoc in total numbers.7 The region of the Drôme was more profoundly influenced by the Reformation than other parts of the province.8 In his family history centered in the Protestant cities Crest and Die, Horndern concludes that the Drôme was one of the most important Protestant terroirs, though the history of Drômois Protestantism is not particularly well documented.9 Over the course of the 1650s, 1660s, and 1670s, their position and power were besieged by forces internal and external, secular and sacred. The decades preceding the Revocation saw a rise in confessional disputes, and the 1660s and 1670s were marked by royal oppression rather than royal protection, as had been the case at the start of the century. The conflict did not necessarily serve to reduce confessionalization where it was marked; in many instances it remained strong and even grew. Over the course of the seventeenth century, the Protestants of Dauphiné had reached beyond the limits set by the Edict of Nantes and established temples in places that were not allowed by the strict provisions of the edict. After 1650 this expansion, and the assertions that it had taken place through Protestant abuse of the tolerance of governors and royal power,10 contributed to growing tensions and the

9781611460779_Print.indb 13

7/25/11 10:59 AM

14

Chapter 1

destruction of some temples, including that in Cliousclat, which became an annex to that of Loriol after its destruction in 1645.11 The resolution of such conflicts often resulted in more peaceful relations, but did not necessarily serve to weaken the points of confessional difference. As would be expected, given the demographic strength of Protestants in Dauphiné and the region of the Drôme specifically, there were a number of notable Protestant families and Protestants often exercised substantial local authority and experienced varying degrees of conflict. In Montélimar, just south of Loriol, the dominant Protestant community experienced conflict with their Catholic neighbors over the issue of public burials, resulting in the provincial synod of 1654 forbidding any public prayer at burials.12 This served the dual functions of reducing a source of tension with Catholics and differentiating Protestants from Catholics. The synod and Protestant population of Montélimar, while trying to reduce tension in one area, were not above knowingly provoking the Catholic population, however, as they hung placards throughout town on the occasion of a synod meeting that read: “We maintain that our Discipline is more reasonable, more equitable, more clear and more Christian, than the ancient Discipline of the Churches, or of the Orient, or of Africa, or of Italy, or of the Gauls.”13 Though working to live peaceably in some respects, the Protestants of this town, belonging to one of the most important Protestant congregations in France in a city that was an important commercial center,14 did not automatically bow to the desires and preferences of the Catholic population or authorities. On a larger stage, the differences and conflict between Catholics and Protestants played out in the physical presence of each, as well as in polemical debates. In the province it was not unusual for churches and maisons curiales to be in poor states of repair, as such were the lasting legacies of the wars of religion. Many were described in the 1640s as existing in a state of ruin,15 and the church of Loriol still required repair in 1660. The physical deterioration of the Catholic church in heavily Protestant-populated areas was clearly evidenced in post-Revocation royal orders that allocated money for the building and substantial repair of churches throughout the region.16 Confessional conflict was also carried out in the realm of ideas, and the debates between theologians of each confession raged in Dauphiné. Polemical disputes broke out between those supported by the Assembly of the Clergy of France, such as Pascal and P. Meynier, as well as Protestant ministers who refuted their attacks in works including Les contre vérités de P. Meynier sur l’execution de l’Édit de Nantes, published in response to writings on the execution of the Edict of Nantes and the intentions of Henry IV.17 The Alpine town of Pont-de-Veyle illustrates the persistence of interconfessional tensions, as the community continued to dispute issues theoretically

9781611460779_Print.indb 14

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Seeking to Live “Without a Note of Infamy”

15

settled long ago by royal commissioners in the original imposition of peace after the Edict of Nantes. Even though the community “did not know notable aggravation,” according to Cadier-Sabatier, the visit of the royal commissioners in 1661 revealed a host of simmering grievances, some going back to the imposition of the Edict of Nantes and others more recent.18 These examples of religious tensions could invite intervention of secular or ecclesiastical authorities and bring unwelcome attention. Loriol was not immune to the changes and tensions experienced by many other Protestant communities, and here, too, internal political disputes by Protestant leaders invited outside attention. The religious settlement of 1599, drawn up by royal commissioners and solemnly signed by local leaders, was significantly changed by 1660. At the time of the Edict of Nantes, Loriol was approximately 75 percent Protestant and 25 percent Catholic.19 The settlement of 1599 granted Protestants dominance in town, while making room for the Catholic population, as was the express requirement of the Edict of Nantes. Along with establishing regulations for the use of the bell, the return of confiscated goods and revenues, the responsibility for instruction in the school, and for a new rectory for the hospital, the settlement divided political power. Protestants were guaranteed one consul position (the other was reserved for a Catholic consul) and six of nine places on the council.20 This was significant representation, but undervalued their numerical dominance in the population. Conflict between the confessions led to a redistribution of power in 1630, in an environment of growing pressure on Protestants throughout France. Several aspects of the settlement changed, forbidding Loriol’s Protestants to disturb Catholic services or Catholic worshipers going into church, elaborating new regulations on the use of the bell and the cemetery, and ensuring that the hospital rector was always Catholic and that Protestants were charged with the upkeep of the minister and the cost of the schoolteacher. Politically, the Protestants suffered a significant loss, as the order mandated that the first consul be Catholic and altered the confessional makeup of the council.21 The changes were communicated through order of the juge mage in Valence who presided over such official actions.22 These modifications were further solidified in the 1650s when Loriol’s Catholics demanded, and obtained, equal representation on the town council, by order of the Parlement of Dauphiné, which officially shifted the balance of power in town to the Catholic minority.23 The regulations were not, however, necessarily followed. In 1656 the conseil particulier still counted six Protestant councilors, but the number of Catholics had risen to four, bringing the total to ten, with one councilor from each confession designated as consul. In 1656 the conseil général, not defined by the agreement from 1599, was divided equally between the two confessions, with five members from each group.24

9781611460779_Print.indb 15

7/25/11 10:59 AM

16

Chapter 1

The relative power of each confession in the council can be inferred analyzing the taxes paid by council members. In 1656 there was great disparity between the Protestant and Catholic council members based on this crude estimate of wealth. Of the 291 livres paid by council members, the Catholics paid only 26 percent, while the Protestants paid 74 percent.25 Although this division roughly equals the proportions of each confession in the population, it did not parallel the division on the council, with eleven Protestants and nine Catholics. In 1664 the taille rolls still showed a great disparity in the taxes paid by members of a confessionally balanced council. Catholic councilors paid only 29 percent of 140 livres, compared to 71 percent paid by Protestants.26 These glimpses of the town council show a clear decline in the representation of Protestants in Loriol, though they were not excluded from local politics, and Protestant councilors retained much economic power. The loss of political power was significant and was potentially a seed from which distrust grew as the Revocation neared. Catholics achieved equality on the council, and possibly even precedence, due to their frequent control over the position of premier consul, while Protestants moved from a position of political dominance to one of equality with their Catholic neighbors. This descent paralleled changes throughout the kingdom, as the Protestant population decreased and their political position eroded disproportionately. As a whole, Protestants were dominant and important to local prosperity. They occupied professions at every economic level. There were several Protestant nobles and professionals, artisans, and laborers such as notaries, apothecaries, bread bakers, surgeons, tailors, weavers, and farm laborers.27 One natural result of this broad range of professions was that Protestants accounted for a large percentage of the taxes paid. The total amount of the taille owed by the community was divided among the inhabitants by the council. As happened throughout France, the amount of Loriol’s taille assessment rose fairly steadily and steeply throughout the period under study.28 In 1655, 2,865 livres were collected in Loriol. The levy increased to over 4,500 livres paid in 1680. Loriol evidently paid the assessment adequately, as there is no mention of penalties or problems with the provincial administration associated with taille collection. An adequate record of tax payments may have shielded Loriol somewhat from conflict with the crown. Locally, though, individual taille assessments and dispensation of other duties of the council brought the potential for conflict within the town. The council had a great deal of authority and numerous responsibilities: they managed the taille rolls; determined the distribution of extraordinary contributions, including housing troops or levies for their provisions; and coordinated different civic functions, such as the payment of teachers. Council

9781611460779_Print.indb 16

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Seeking to Live “Without a Note of Infamy”

17

decisions powerfully affected individuals and could be used to the advantage of one confession over the other, a possibility that can be measured as Protestant presence on the council diminished. How the council used its power in apportioning taxes indicates two things about the relative position of these groups in the community. First, taxes indicate wealth, so the tax burden borne by each confession suggests their relative economic power. Further, taxes give an indication of how the changes in consular membership affected the people of Loriol and show how they could potentially be a source of confessional tension. Protestants in the preRevocation years paid a proportion of the taxes roughly commensurate with their representation in the population, though their proportion of taxes paid dropped by the late 1670s.29 This happened as the total assessment for the population rose. Despite the drop in number of people on the taille rolls and the amount of taxes paid by Protestants relative to Catholics, the tax rolls indicate that Protestants maintained their economic prominence in Loriol throughout these years. After 1678 Protestants stopped carrying a proportionate amount of the tax burden. The leveling of control over the town council was not a reflection of a precipitous decline in their local economic importance, nor did it result in an unfair increase in their tax burden. Even considering the decline in 1678, Protestants remained important to the local economy as measured by their tax contributions. Economic pressures on Protestants as applied by outside authorities did not decimate those of Loriol. Civil records show that the experience in town, while not necessarily free from confessional tension, was not characterized by disruptive confessional divisions, either. Where decisions were controlled within the community there is no evidence that Catholics used increased local power as a tool to achieve religious unity and oppress the Protestant population. The professions that Protestants practiced also indicate the general ineffectiveness of the economic restrictions. The registers give no indication that the restrictions imposed by the royal government compelled Protestant professionals in Loriol to renounce either their religion or their professions. The Protestant registers still included references to Pierre Labori as a procureur in TABLE 1.1 Taille Assessment by Confession1 Year

Protestant

Catholic

Protestant Avg

Catholic Avg

1667 1674 1678

2500 (71%) 3600 (74%) 2800 (65%)

700 (20%) 1000 (20%) 1118 (26%)

7.0 livres 9.5 livres 7.5 livres

7.5 livres 9.5 livres 10.5 livres

1

This table does not include those whose confession could not be determined. Information on the taille from these years is all derived from ACL, CC 13; CC 14; CC 15.

9781611460779_Print.indb 17

7/25/11 10:59 AM

18

Chapter 1

Grenoble, Mr. Fayette as a surgeon, Jean Bouene as a notary, and Jean Eyraud as a lawyer at the Parlement of Dauphiné, all of whom should have converted in compliance with royal policy. The community was unwilling or unable to enforce the restrictions, nor did it invite scrutiny by provincial officials by highlighting the continued practice of these professions by local Protestants by lodging complaints. Such interference may have forced compliance, but could also bring unwanted attention to the entire population, not just Protestants. Another potential source of conflict came from fulfilling military obligations. The town, located on a major route for troop movements within France, was repeatedly called upon to supply and lodge royal regiments during the pre-Revocation years. This onerous duty was divided among the townspeople by the town council. Analysis of the way in which the council distributed the burden gives another rough indication of the level of confessional politics in Loriol. The crown required the people of Loriol to provide quarters, supplies, and money for royal troops on several occasions. The town council recorded the distribution of troops and the required contributions to support them. In 1659 Loriol lodged approximately thirty cavalliers from the Italian Regiment. The council, with a small majority of Protestants, assigned soldiers to people’s homes and determined the levies to help pay for their upkeep. They assigned most of the soldiers to Protestant homes, and a majority of those required to pay for their support was Protestant, including five Protestant council members. There were, however, some Catholics included, such as Guillaume Faure, the Catholic consul, who had the task of managing the money for the effort.30 Given the number and economic strength of the Protestants in Loriol, this distribution of the responsibility for and burden of these troops was equitable. In 1676 the town was again called upon to support the king’s troops. The intendant issued orders that Loriol pay for a month of supplies for a company of soldiers nearby in Étoile. In 1677 the town council, evenly balanced between the confessions at six each, levied an assessment on 120 people. Among those assessed were Catholics and Protestants alike, including Sr. Dansage, Sr. Faure, and Sr. Perreon, from some of the most active and prominent Catholic families, and Sr. Villard, Sr. de Vinay, and Mme. Boix, all of whom were leaders among Protestants in town. These were families that provided councilors and consuls to the community, served as godparents to many children, and practiced well-respected professions in Loriol. Also included were less prominent inhabitants.31 It was not reserved for the socially or confessionally weakened. The response of the council to orders to lodge and support troops gives no indication that the council used these burdens to coerce their neighbors or to further the confessional politics of the realm. The proportion of Protestants on the tax rolls in the early years also suggests that the distribution of troops

9781611460779_Print.indb 18

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Seeking to Live “Without a Note of Infamy”

19

was not a disproportionate economic burden on the Protestants. In both of these instances, as well as others during the pre-Revocation era, members of the council bore a portion of the burden of the troops, indicating the absence of bitter confessional politics locally during these years.32 That Loriol did not escape all notice of provincial authorities in these years was evident in the membership and leadership of the Protestant congregation. The Protestant temple came to include the Protestants from nearby Cliousclat, Mirmande, and Grane33 and had fairly stable clerical leadership. One pastor, Jean de la Faye, served the temple from 1636 until 1660. In 1663 his son, Theodore, took over the leadership of the congregation, which he retained until the temple’s demolition in September of 1684.34 Jean de la Faye did not leave the temple quietly; rather he fled on a wave of scandal. In 1661 his book, Anti-Moine, á Messieurs de la communion de Rome de la ville de Crest, provoked the wrath of the Parlement of Dauphiné, and ended his career in Loriol. The parlement condemned the pastor to life in the king’s galleys and levied a fine of 300 livres on the request of the maison de la propagation de la foi de Grenoble, with the charge that the book was “very scandalous, full of impiety and blasphemes.” The printer from Die who published the work was banished and fined 50 livres, and the book was to be burned before the palace. Extracts were sent to Rome to inform the pope of the zeal of the maison in protecting the church. None of the punishments against the participants was carried out, however. Rev. de la Faye made his way to safety in Switzerland, where he died in 1679, and the printer continued to work in Die.35 The congregation in Loriol did not experience lasting repercussions from the incident. They lost their pastor, but life at the temple seemingly returned to normal following the arrival of his son in 1663.36 For the remaining twenty-one years of its existence, there was no indication of serious problems for the temple or its pastor. The Catholic church in Loriol seemed similarly calm during the preRevocation years. There is no evidence that Loriol received special notice or responded to efforts of the government and clergy to rally Protestants to the Catholic Church. During the pre-Revocation years, the priest only recorded two conversions before 1680, one of which was a young woman who converted in order to marry a Catholic. Though things were far from perfectly tranquil, and some reports were made to provincial and royal authorities, the affairs of the people of Loriol did not stand out among those of surrounding towns, some of whom contributed to or suffered much more from confessional tension or posed a more immediate and credible threat to order and stability. The Protestants of Loriol, as was the case for Protestants throughout France, were in an increasingly difficult position as Louis XIV’s Personal Rule started in 1661. They were part of larger structures that worked within the

9781611460779_Print.indb 19

7/25/11 10:59 AM

20

Chapter 1

Protestant hierarchy alongside that of the Catholic Church and navigated the potentially treacherous and often-changing waters of relations with the royal government. The Protestant congregation of Loriol was part of the colloque de Valentinois, which met with the provincial synod of Dauphiné.37 The Catholic parish of Loriol was under the authority of the bishop of Valence, only 21 kilometers away over easy terrain.38 With regard to secular authority, Loriol was governed by the intendant and Parlement of Dauphiné in Grenoble and was in the jurisdiction of the juge mage of Valence, who reported directly back to the parlement. Valence was an important part of provincial administration as the seat of the présidial de Valence and a sénéchaussée.39 Part of all of these structures, Loriol was subjected to outside authorities and subject to their decisions and priorities. Their interaction with these layers of authority is evident in synodal meetings that sought to protect Protestant interests, advocate for Protestant causes, and preserve Protestant identity.

Protestant Positioning: Synodal Power From the point of its promulgation, the interpretation of the Edict of Nantes was challenged, as partisans worked to advance the claims of their constituency. By 1650, Protestants were seen by the Catholic hierarchy and royal government as challenges to the unity believed to be essential to a stable society. The pressure on Protestants to convert continued to mount.40 As advocates of religious unity, the royal government provided many tools to help accomplish this goal. For their part, Protestants in provincial and national synods tried to combat the argument that they represented a disloyal element in French society, citing their loyalty during the Fronde as well as their continuing devotion.41 In so doing, they did not shy away from citing incidents of violence or injustice that threatened their continued existence in France. Attempting to strike this balance made for delicate maneuvering for Protestant leaders. By the 1650s, meetings of the national synod of Protestants were stringently limited and overseen by royal officials of very high rank. The last national synod began in November 1659 in Loudun, where the tense relations between crown and confession were clear, as each stated their position and points of contention. The official report of the meeting reveals a Protestant organization that was not willing to concede on all issues, and addressed concerns of doctrine and practice that separated them from Catholics. From the start they expressed their devotion to the king and royal authority. Mazarin opened the meeting with a long, solemn speech that was met with silent respect. He assured his listeners of the king’s paternal affection and intention to observe the edicts of pacification. He reminded delegates that they

9781611460779_Print.indb 20

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Seeking to Live “Without a Note of Infamy”

21

were not to refer to the pope as “the anti-Christ” and Catholics as “idolaters” in sermons or writings, or do anything scandalous or injurious to the Catholic religion. Acquiescence would require changes in some elements of the confession of faith. He stated that they must avoid actions that could “move the spirits of subjects to sedition and alienate them from the affection” due to the king. He was especially concerned about the establishment of temples where they were not allowed by the Edict of Nantes (as had happened in Languedoc and Dauphiné) over the course of the century.42 The synod proved unwilling to agree to all of these requirements, including the admonition to stay away from the word anti-Christ and others in the liturgy, as they were part of their separation from the Roman Church. The distinctions between the confessions were important. The delegates also expressed continued concern about the violence against Protestants and their families in the provinces, more than authorized by the edicts.43 In some concessions they did agree that no books on religion, including sermons and treatises on religion or devotion, would be printed without permission of examiners commissioned by the provincial synods. In a closing letter to Mazarin, delegates reiterated their “fidelity and inviolable obedience” along with their complaints of abuse and violence against Protestants.44 Thus, even as royal pressure mounted on the national synod, Protestants expressed unfailing loyalty while maintaining their ideological positions. This insistence on remaining steadfast marked the choices of many Protestants in these decades. This position, however, ran the significant risk of royal intervention, as defiance exceeded the willingness and ability of those in power to tolerate them. On the provincial level, participants in the synod of Dauphiné also worked hard to demonstrate their loyalty. Meetings included clergy and laity, the pastor and one lay member of each temple invited to serve as delegates.45 The minutes from these synodal meetings are a rich source for understanding which royal policies affected the province and how the Protestants of Dauphiné saw their position in the province and the realm. Even in relatively calm years, the minutes from 1657, 1658, and 1661 reveal insecurity about the rights guaranteed to Protestants in the Edict of Nantes. The transcripts show this discomfort in 1657, before Louis assumed personal control of royal policy, but after the declaration of 1656, in which the rights of Protestants were “clarified.” While the declaration of 1656 confirmed the Edict of Nantes, it called for a new visit by royal commissioners to rule on the various legal battles borne of the edict and its application. Janine Garrison characterizes the document as a “declaration of war on heresy” and shows it as the source of later royal legislation.46 The delegates were concerned. In response to their oppression, they decided to gather publicly to ask for

9781611460779_Print.indb 21

7/25/11 10:59 AM

22

Chapter 1

repentance and to pray for continued peace and liberty. They elaborated on persecutions suffered in the synod, which they attributed to God’s wrath. In response to these wrongs, they sought relief through public prayer.47 Their response also had a very earthly, concrete dimension. The decision of the meeting to “remind” the provincial governor of their desire, indeed their right, to convene synods and colloques in the future reveals uncertainty about their future legal position.48 Their deliberations considered the threats posed by the policies of the crown toward them and how they should respond. In particular, the delegates expressed concern about the changing interpretation of the Edict of Nantes and related edicts that affected their position, as well as possible future changes, made likely with the declaration of 1656 and the expected arrival of commissioners of the Edict. Another area of concern addressed by the delegates was that of their sometimes uneasy relations with the Catholic community. The meeting of 1657 reports confessional conflict, particularly in conjunction with Catholic feast days. In Venterol Protestants were forced to leave town in order to attend their temple services. When they returned from worship one Sunday, they found the town gates closed. The Protestant congregation was forced to wait until the Catholic ceremonies concluded to reenter the town.49 The topic of relations with their Catholic neighbors continued in the synod of 1661. Throughout the minutes of the three meetings, discussion of problems with Catholics met with the advice to be cautious and not to provoke the Catholic faithful. Specifically, pastors were instructed to abstain from “injurious words,” and the faithful were not to listen to Catholic predicateurs because their presence might cause excitement and bring regrettable consequences. Above all else, Protestants must never find themselves in the presence of the Holy Sacrament, which might well provoke Catholics.50 Clearly this advice was an effort to minimize conflict; the advice was not to minimize differences, but to avoid confrontation. The confessional divide was quite evident in these proceedings, as was the desire to find means of coexistence that did not require abandonment of closely held principles. Resolutions from the national synod included continued attention to questions of faith, such as the doctrines of grace, election, and predestination, even as they faced ever-greater degrees of pressure against their institutions and the faithful.51 This pressure was brought to bear on multiple levels as Protestants lost local power, in Loriol and numerous other communities. Their ability to govern themselves was significantly diminished as the royal government withheld permission to hold national assemblies and provincial authorities limited provincial synods. The forces of the state were also brought to bear on Protestants, as they were under pressure to abandon their faith in favor of Catholicism, work in which both the government and the Catholic Church played a role.

9781611460779_Print.indb 22

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Seeking to Live “Without a Note of Infamy”

23

Institutions of Power: Secular and Sacred Efforts of the royal government to reduce the power of Protestants and eliminate the state within the state throughout the reign of Louis XIII served to eliminate major elements of Protestant strength and protection. By the time Louis XIV ascended to the throne, the powerful Protestant strongholds were destroyed in the royal attack on the fortified places provided in the secret articles of the Edict of Nantes, which were formally eliminated in the Peace of Alès.52 The demographic and economic strengths of the Protestant population were targeted in the 1630s, with enduring consequences. The methods employed to reduce remaining Protestant strength were a combination of pressure and incentives to convert. The so-called Richelieu Plan advocated the use of persuasion to gain adherents “by the paths of kindness, love, patience, and good examples,” while working to eliminate opportunities for Protestants to thrive.53 Together, Richelieu expected, these methods would lead to significant conversions. Of particular interest to Richelieu and his successors was securing the conversion of prominent Protestants with the expectation that their conversion would persuade others to do likewise. With this goal in mind, he differentiated between public conversion and those that were the result of secret professions of faith, as the latter had little chance of influencing others.54 Efforts to gain conversions waned under the leadership of Mazarin, who did not engage in projects to reunite the confessions, at least partly due to the loyalty of Protestants during the Fronde.55 This respite did not last, as royal pressure again mounted in the mid-1650s and was especially marked after Mazarin’s death in 1661. Royal efforts to obtain conversions are important context for assessing the impact of and reactions to the events of the years leading up to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Edicts, arrêts, and declarations emanating from the royal government shaped policies that sought to make France toute catholique. Further, the royal government was a major source of the funding expended to achieve this end.56 Conversion was not, however, solely, or perhaps even largely, the direct work of the royal government. The implementation of these policies and laws fell to provincial officials and their ecclesiastical counterparts. In turn, these authorities often depended on local leaders to identify defiance and enforce compliance. According to his memoir to the dauphin, written and revised in the 1660s, the king believed that the “best means to reduce gradually the number of Huguenots in my kingdom was, in the first place, not to press them at all by any new rigor against them.” This was followed with the pledge to give no further ground, but rather to interpret the Edict of Nantes as narrowly as

9781611460779_Print.indb 23

7/25/11 10:59 AM

24

Chapter 1

possible as “justice and propriety would permit.” Thus, the start of the 1660s brought new restrictions for Protestants.57 The edicts, arrêts, and declarations concerning Protestants grew in number and severity as the crown worked to restrict religious practice and regulate many aspects of everyday life. Education and provisions to limit activities such as public professions of faith were augmented by restrictions on professional activities of Protestants.58 In 1661 deputations of commissioners of the Edict set out to visit the provinces and hearing disputes between Protestants and Catholics concerning the execution of the Edict of Nantes. The Protestant commissioner was to be chosen by his Catholic counterpart, who was to choose among those who were moderate. The implementation of these orders caused a wave of destruction of temples throughout Dauphiné. Though the province was under the intendancy of Lyon, where it would remain until 1673,59 those acting on royal orders achieved the enforcement of royal policy with zeal. Their efforts were applauded by Daniel de Cosnac, bishop of Valence and Die, who would later distinguish himself as an ardent advocate for the use of force against Protestants in his dioceses. According to the narrowest reading of the Edict of Nantes, Protestant temples throughout the province were required to produce documentary proof of their legitimacy or face destruction.60 Many were destroyed on this basis. That temples could not meet this requirement was to be expected, Protestants argued, as almost all Protestant temples were built after the Edict of Nantes in places where worship was allowed by royal commissioners.61 In his nineteenth-century history of Protestantism in Dauphiné, Eugène Arnaud lists the number of temples, authorized annexes, and unauthorized annexes in the province as a whole and for each colloque.62 While the reasons for and response to unauthorized congregations were matters for debate, their existence was evident. The clergy were actively involved in this work of trying to bring about conversion through the destruction of temples. One motivation for these efforts was the widely held belief among Catholics that the main obstacle to the conversion of Protestants was that ministers, with their deceptive sermons, kept them from hearing the truth of Catholicism. Therefore, if the temples were gone, the sermons would end, making way for the truth.63 Some, like Bishop de Cosnac, were staunch advocates of the direct intervention of secular power to bring about the desired destruction of temples. The Jesuit Bernard Meynier sought to guide the work of the royal commissioners in Dauphiné when he sent a missive (which he also published) to the commissioners, claiming that in 1596 and 1597 there were only a few places in Dauphiné with established Protestant worship, which was the benchmark set by the Edict of Nantes, thus allowing temples only in these places. Others sought to support the commissioners’ efforts by enlisting the help of curés in identifying communities with

9781611460779_Print.indb 24

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Seeking to Live “Without a Note of Infamy”

25

Protestant congregations that violated the bounds of the Edict of Nantes (as defined by a lengthy set of questions).64 The Catholic Church was also involved in the less-confrontational efforts to gain conversions, including the use of clerical persuasion and monetary payments. As indicated in the instructions for the dauphin, charismatic priests were sent out to preach against heresy. They were often successful in bringing new converts into the Catholic Church through gentle means. However, their lesstalented counterparts were frequently unable to maintain these new converts in the faith once the charismatic priest moved on. Further, this method was slow and tedious, filled with the possibility of loss and restricted by the limited number of able priests.65 The clergy was also very involved in the use of monetary incentives to gain conversions. In this work the efforts of government authority combined with church representatives. Throughout the realm, the use of pensions to induce the powerful to convert predated the ascension of Louis XIV. Pensions were distributed to those believed capable of bringing in the conversion of others, such as that granted to a prominent minister by the Bishop of Sisteron in Provence in 1641, on the hope that he held significant influence. The interconnectedness of secular and ecclesiastical authority is clearly seen in the work of the Maisons de nouveaux et nouvelles catholiques, which worked to effect conversions and ensure the support of new converts. Their money came from royal sources, and they quickly outspent the money available to them for pensions.66 The success at all of these efforts to achieve conversions was spotty and marked by the possibility of relapse. Though some conversions were achieved in these ways, they were not significant in numbers and often did not affect entire communities with substantial Protestant populations, as that which seemed to be the case in Loriol. Other forms of pressure were also applied to make continued adherence to Protestantism less appealing. In some cases, intendants asked the clergy to work to bring about compliance of Protestants. Such was the case in 1671 when the intendant of Languedoc issued an arrêt for the general agents of the clergy to remove fleurde-lis and the royal arms from temples. A ban was also issued against Protestant royal judges, consuls, and town magistrates on wearing red robes and other marks of the magistracy and “walking in the streets with pomp.” Such symbols were problematic because the king was Catholic, therefore so was the state, and as these things were symbols of public power, those who used or wore them must be Catholic as well. To allow otherwise could injure royal authority. Protestantism was only tolerated in France, thus it was important not to do anything “exterior or to the public eye that could mark a free and open profession” of this religion.67

9781611460779_Print.indb 25

7/25/11 10:59 AM

26

Chapter 1

Each of these instances demonstrates the degree to which implementation of royal policy was a shared affair. It relied on the combined efforts and enforcement of the secular and ecclesiastical bureaucracies. Frequently, intendants explicitly relied upon bishops within their province for help in identifying communities or individuals in violation of the law, and for help in implementing new policies. As Bishop de Cosnac exemplified, this support was often enthusiastic. Many clergymen were willing participants in the efforts to eradicate Protestantism and, in fact, did not want to relegate this important work completely to the state and needed its monetary support to achieve their goals.68 For these policies to be effective, cooperation had to extend into communities. Local leaders, lay and clerical, were needed to help identify and verify if the reforms were to be fully implemented and their rigor enforced. That Loriol did not have significant abjurations and occupational changes to indicate the implementation and enforcement of royal policies suggests that this cooperation was not automatic. While Bishop de Cosnac, and other clergymen, wanted to gain converts more for their personal advancement and reputation with the king than “to establish the reign of God in souls,” at least according to a Jesuit detractor,69 many were concerned that the work of conversion be justly managed to ensure that the converts were properly instructed in their new faith, or at least that their children received such education. Some bishops, including Le Camus in Grenoble, denounced the use of violence to achieve conversions, preferring instead to bring about sincere change in the religious lives of Protestants through proper instruction, observance, doctrine, and attitude.70 Such leaders tried to establish missions and colleges, which was often difficult, and preach the truth of Catholicism while refuting Calvinist doctrine.71 Often clergymen insisted that the authenticity of a conversion be verified, especially for a convert who was to receive a pension, which could run counter to the goals and expectations of those who measured success in numbers of converts, rather than quality of conversion.72 Such verification and regular maintenance of new converts was the work of the local curé. The curé of Die, an overwhelmingly Protestant town, complained in his memoirs that after conversions gained through coercion, the people continued to live as they always had. All that was necessary to marry was to approach the sacraments and protest to the curé that this external action made one a good Catholic.73 Clearly, enforcement to achieve even minimal compliance required active participation by the parish clergy.

Protestant Resistance In the face of growing pressure to abandon their faith, Protestants reacted in various ways, including converting, appealing to reason and law, and resist-

9781611460779_Print.indb 26

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Seeking to Live “Without a Note of Infamy”

27

ing, passively and actively. The response of individuals and communities had the potential to attract the attention of religious and lay authorities, often with punitive results. In all of these actions save conversion, those involved continued to see the differences that divided the confessions and sought to reinforce them. By the 1660s the possibilities for legal remedies to confessional conflict diminished as official actions were increasingly favorable to Catholic interests, thus influencing Protestant resistance.74 While not completely compliant in these years, the Protestants of Loriol did not evidence sufficient resistance to warrant ongoing attention. What they did experience was overshadowed by the resistance of other communities in the region. As royal commissioners returned to Protestant communities in the 1660s to evaluate the application of the Edict of Nantes, they were likely to encounter simmering resentments and seek reasons for destroying temples. The commissioners who arrived in Pont-de-Veyle west of Geneva in 1661 received a list of grievances from each confession. For Catholics, these included a dispute dating back to 1618 over the school that was turned into a temple, the desire to reclaim the bell, on which was engraved “Ave Maria,” a request for a formal restriction on the number of Protestants who could attend funerals, and a request to require that the Protestant pastor live outside of town. Protestants, for their part, argued that worship, which had been halted after a fire in 1619, had not been allowed to resume as it should have, among other complaints. The commissioners did not give judgment on the Protestant complaints, but they did forbid any exercise of the Reformed religion, as the local seigneur was opposed to the temple and it was too close to the Catholic Church. The temple, they ruled, could be reestablished in another town. Other decisions as well were made in favor of the Catholic position.75 In Montauban in 1672 a dispute over Reformed artisans who blocked Catholic master artisans into the craft was decided in favor of these individual Catholics, and the ruling asserted that the king did not wish that they be excluded elsewhere.76 The climate changed decidedly in favor of Catholics after 1661 as the commissioners made their way through the kingdom and their rulings were implemented. As pressure mounted and temples disappeared, resistance grew. Luria recounts that a pastor in Poitou urged resistance, even by preaching on the remains of demolished temples and mounting armed resistance to the forces charged with their destruction.77 Such efforts were largely futile in the face of the determination to reduce Protestantism in France, but overt displays such as this were not uncommon. They served to bring the resistance of some individuals and communities to the attention of those enlisted in the work of enforcement. These forms of resistance were overt and posed a threat to order; they demanded a response from provincial authorities. Another form of resistance, especially in largely Protestant areas, was to defy conversion, despite the growing pressure and incentives. While some

9781611460779_Print.indb 27

7/25/11 10:59 AM

28

Chapter 1

conversions were achieved, a snapshot of conversions in the first half of 1679 suggests that these programs did not result in significant numbers of converts to Catholicism. Dioceses such as Nîmes, Crest, Montauban, and Montpellier only recorded 140, 178, 69, and 131 conversions, respectively.78 All of these dioceses were heavily Protestant, meaning that these figures represent a small to very small portion of the whole. In addition to resisting conversion, Protestants like the minister of Puylaurens, continued to support the Reformed Church with bequests enumerated in his testament, given in 1670. This support came in the form of monetary gifts to his church, for the ministry and the Reformed poor, and to temples served by family members and trusted colleagues. Further, he took this solemn occasion to emphasize the importance of godfathers in ensuring the education of their godchildren in the true religion, and the fear and love of God.79 Such gifts supporting ministry and poor relief could help sustain faithfulness among Protestants, even as efforts to increase the appeal of Catholicism abounded. Protestant leadership responded to restrictive royal actions, incentives, and pressure to convert with a respectful, though determined, resistance. In formal replies addressed to the king, which began by proclaiming their unfailing loyalty to the king and his government and good health, they offered a careful rebuttal of the new law at issue, based not only on the provisions of the Edict of Nantes, but also on more recent legislation relevant to the cause. In 1674 an arrêt concerning students and ministers at the Academy in Saumur in the Loire Valley was met with a rebuttal grounded in the promises not only of the Edict of Nantes, but also of an arrêt from April 1665.80 In 1669 their response to a new declaration concerning the age at which children could convert was the adamant assertion that to follow the new instruction would be to tear children away from their fathers, even before puberty, so that they could be baptized and confirmed and forced into Catholic schools. Such actions would be in violation of numerous earlier declarations, specifically those of 1663, 1665, and 1669, they insisted, as well as being contrary to “the principles of common reason and equity.”81 Some individual Protestants were singled out for overt challenges to authority that carried a much greater risk for those accused of the violations. In 1673 in Calais in the prefecture of Paris, a Reformed minister was accused of preaching against the state, in direct contradiction to the law. The instructions to the king’s lawyers, in which the charge was levied, stated that the hate speech was caused by his religion.82 Such overt resistance that could be framed in direct contradiction to the law was very dangerous, especially for a minister, as it threatened not only the individual, but his temple as well. In Alpine regions Protestants were reluctant to convert, as relatively few did in these decades. Many also undertook relatively passive means of resistance,

9781611460779_Print.indb 28

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Seeking to Live “Without a Note of Infamy”

29

in that they were not directly in violation of the law, but did go counter to its spirit. One such case took place in Pont-de-Veyle, where the Protestant temple had been pushed some distance outside of town. The Catholic population took over the temple in town and consecrated it for their use, a victory celebrated with an enormous procession. Protestants argued that the distance to the temple made travel difficult, in fact dangerous, especially for newborns and the old and infirm. They requested, and received, permission to baptize babies in their homes in cases of necessity. Therefore, after 1675 this exemption was “systematically applied” and baptisms were performed à domicile.83 In the dioceses of Valence and Die there was ongoing unrest. Temples were demolished, like that of Cliousclat, destroyed in 1645. This order followed the condemnation by the Parlement of Dauphiné of a Protestant book that claimed that the miraculous appearances of Mary Magdeleine and Lazarus in Provence, among many other miracles attributed to the region, were merely illusions or lies. The book, Marseilles sans miracles, was to be burned, and the author and printer given over for punishment. In 1652 participants in the synod of Die complained about the exclusion of Protestants from public office in many towns, particularly Die. Their exclusion, the authors argued, contradicted the express terms of the Edict of Nantes, which considered Protestants eligible for all charges and offices.84 The pastor of Crest was condemned by the Parlement of Dauphiné “to 10 livres fine . . . without a note of infamy” for holding prayers in a home outside of the place of his establishment.85 These complaints, and the attendant impressions of life under the Edict of Nantes after 1650, attest to substantial religious discontent among the people of Dauphiné. Such conflict and willingness of some to engage in overt resistance that could be interpreted as threatening to civic and religious order indicated that peaceful confessional coexistence was well on its way to breaking down after 1650. Throughout France and in Dauphiné, religious conflict abounded that had consequences for coexistence, with accusations of Protestant misconduct and lawbreaking and assertions of Catholic oppression. The examples included above make no attempt to be comprehensive; rather they provide a glimpse of the forms of resistance seen throughout the realm and in the region of Loriol in particular. These examples threatened the breakdown of coexistence in the community. This breakdown could come from within, as members of one confession launched accusations against those of the other confession. In other instances, that the position of Protestants deteriorated relative to their Catholic neighbors could result from the actions of outside authority such as the intendant and his subordinates. As the role of the royal government changed such that it threatened, rather than protected, confessional coexistence, the ways in which

9781611460779_Print.indb 29

7/25/11 10:59 AM

30

Chapter 1

officials intervened in local affairs also changed, with sometimes devastating consequences. These consequences were quite clear over the course of the 1660s and 1670s, as temples were destroyed and the defiant were sentenced to the galleys and fined heavily. The costs of overt defiance were evident, a lesson not lost on observers. The possibility for confessional coexistence was not lost either. The community of Loriol shows one way in which a bi-confessional population could navigate the era relatively unmolested, compared to the attention and punishment visited upon some of her neighbors. However, Loriol was not without conflict, given the confessional makeup of the council, nor did everyone avoid notoriety, as was the case with Reverend Jean de la Faye and his condemnation to the galleys. The town did, however, largely avoid community-wide conflict that could have invited significant unwanted attention. The inhabitants of Loriol did not invite a substantial amount of outside attention through overtly rebellious actions, or through significant ongoing confessional disputes. Loriol managed to go through these pre-Revocation decades with relatively little outside interference and a level of bi-confessional peace that did not overly punish one confession or the other and did not often necessitate mediation and intervention. The degree to which the town manifested peaceful confessional coexistence did not, however, necessarily mean that the confessional divide was unimportant or fluid. The decisions analyzed here address questions of the interaction between the individual and the community, and both of these with the institutions of power. They do not provide insight into how members of each confession saw themselves in relation to those of the other confession or the degree to which they understood the teachings and expectations of their own church. Members of each confession made life decisions that distinguished themselves from one another. These decisions were not recorded in the tax rolls or government edicts. They were recorded in the registers of the temple and the church at the most important passages in life: when people were born, when they married, and when they died. It was, perhaps, here that the people of Loriol showed the greatest differences attributable to their religions. It is here that we find a window into what people believed and held important. Notes 1. Archives communales de Loriol, BB 8 (hereafter ACL). 2. Marc Forster, The Counter-Reformation in the Villages: Religion and Reform in the Bishopric of Speyer, 1560–1720 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992), 1. 3. In particular, see Luria, Sacred Boundaries; Gregory Hanlon, Confession and Community in Seventeenth Century France: Catholic and Protestant Coexistence in Acquitaine (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993); and Forster.

9781611460779_Print.indb 30

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Seeking to Live “Without a Note of Infamy”

31

4. See Philip Benedict, “Confessionalization in France? Critical Evidence and New Evidence,” in Society and Culture in the Huguenot World, 1559-1685, ed. Raymond A. Mentzer and Andrew Spicer (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 44–61. 5. The colloque du Valentinois was probably around one-third Protestant ca. 1650, Giesendorf, 248. 6. Garrison, L’Édit de Nantes, 28. For a full discussion of the demographic experience of Protestants in the seventeenth century until the time of the Revocation, see Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France. Benedict revises the figures of Samuel Mours downward to just under 800,000 Protestants ca. 1660, Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France, 7-10. 7. Jean Orcibal, État present des recherches sur la répartition géographique des “nouveaux Catholiques” à la fin du XVIIe siècle (Paris: Librarie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1948), 23. For example, the chateau at Livron, just across the Drôme River from Loriol was destroyed in the 1630s. The twelve fortified places in Dauphiné were destroyed by 1660. Elisabeth Rabut, Le roi, l’église et le temple (Grenoble: Editions La Pensée Sauvage, 1987), 20. Bligny, 246–247. 8. Giesendorf, 247. 9. Francis Horndern, “Histoire d’une famille protestante drômoise du XVIe siècle au XIXe siècle: les Lombard-Latune,” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 113 (1967): 220–221. 10. Paul Dudon, “Les Jesuits dans le Diois, (1610–1763),” Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France 15, no. 66 (1929): 22. 11. Arnaud, Histoire, vol. 2, 260–262. 12. Mours, Montélimar, 84–85. 13. Mours, Montélimar, 87. 14. Mours, Montélimar, 82. 15. Dudon, 20. 16. Archives nationales, G 7 240 (no number): Ouvrages a faire pour la construction, augmentation ou reparation de plusiers eglises ou maison mcuriales de la province de Dauphine (hereafter AN). 17. Dudon, 20–22. 18. Sylvie Cadier-Sabatier, “Sur le chemin de la Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes: la communauté Protestant de Pont-de-Veyle de 1661 à 1685,” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 120 (1974): 33–35, 38–39. 19. Geisendorf, 248. In his work, Geisendorf estimates that approximately onethird of the population of the Drôme River region was Protestant. 20. Rabut, 100–102, Arnaud, Histoire, vol. 2, 260–261. 21. la Croix, 26. 22. ACL, BB 7. 23. Abbe A. Vincent, Notice Historique sur Loriol, ed. Marc Aurel (Valence: Imprimerie de Marc Aurel, 1854), 53. 24. ACL, BB 7. 25. ACL, CC 13; BB 9. 26. This figure does not include any tax for councilor Alexandre de Vinay, who did not appear on the tax rolls for this year. His family, however, paid a large

9781611460779_Print.indb 31

7/25/11 10:59 AM

32

Chapter 1

apportionment. The disparity is probably even greater than the figure indicates. ACL, BB 8; CC 14. 27. Similar detail about the professions of the Catholics is not available. The occupational information was recorded by Theodore de la Faye for most of the adult male participants in baptisms, marriages, and funerals. The curé did not do likewise for the Catholic parishioners. Catholics were not shut out of traditional power as there were at least two Catholic noble families. 28. Pierre Goubert, Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen, translated by Anne Carter (New York: Vintage Books, 1966), 119–124. Goubert explains that taxes doubled between the time of Richelieu and 1661, and that even the reform instituted by Colbert did not provide adequate relief for the French taxpayer. European wars continued to invade the treasury until 1679, when the coffers received some respite. For more information on the burden of the taille in the first part of the seventeenth century, see James Collins, Fiscal Limits of Absolutism: Direct Taxation in Early Seventeenth-Century France (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988). 29. For discussion of the method used to determine the confessional identity of the taxpayers, see the Appendix. 30. ACL, BB 8. 31. ACL, BB 11. 32. In 1664 Loriol received more troops into the town, along with a substantial levy for their upkeep. The pattern at this time was similar to that described in 1659 and 1677. ACL, BB 9. 33. Arnaud, Histoire, vol. 2, 260. The number of Protestants from Mirmande was quite small, but the majority of the population in Cliousclat was Protestant. 34. Arnaud, Statistique, 13. 35. Arnaud, Histoire, vol. 2, 78–79, Pierre Bolle, Protestantisme en Dauphiné (PoëtLaval, France: Curandera, 1983), 206, Adolphe Rochas, “Jean de la Faye,” Biographie du Dauphiné concernant l’histoire des hommes nés dans cette province, vol. 2 (Paris: Charavay, Librarie-Editeur, 1860), 19. 36. The transcripts of the synodal meetings indicate that in 1661, after the departure of Jean de la Faye, the representatives from Loriol were Paul d’Arbalestier and Pierre Beylien, elders from Loriol, in the absence of a pastor. The register for the temple was, however, maintained during the time when the pulpit was empty, with no precipitous changes in the number of events celebrated by the congregation, suggesting that it is sufficiently complete. 37. Arnaud, Histoire, vol. 2, 260–261. 38. Lacroix, 28. 39. Bouchu, 6 (1872): 404-406; 7 (1873): 7-8. 40. Collins, The State in Early Modern France, 104–105. 41. David Parker, “The Huguenots in Seventeenth Century France,” in Minorities in History, ed. A. C. Hepburn (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1979), 11–30; For discussion of the relationship between Protestants and the crown during and after the Fronde, see Solange Deyon, Du loyalisme au refus: les protestants français et leur depute général entre la Fronde et la Révocation (Villeneuve-d’Ascq: Universite de Lille III, 1976).

9781611460779_Print.indb 32

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Seeking to Live “Without a Note of Infamy”

33

42. “Le dernier synode national des églises Réformées avant la Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes, Rapport officiel du commissaire du roi au XXIXe et dernier synode national tenu à Loudun, 1659–1660,” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 8 (1859): 154–158. 43. “Dernier synode,” 200–203. 44. “Dernier synode,” 209–212. 45. For the manuscripts from these meetings, see Pierre Bolle, Le Protestant Dauphinois et le republic des synodes a la veille de la Révocation (Lyon: La Manufacture, 1985). The meetings were attended as follows: in 1657, sixty-five clergy, forty-nine lay members; in 1658, sixty-four clergy, thirty-seven lay members from seventy-two temples; and 1661, sixty-seven clergy, forty-eight lay members from seventy-one temples. One reason for the stronger representation of the clergy than the laity is the fact that clergy who did not attend, and who did not have sufficiently good reason, were censured by the synod, while lay attendance was more voluntary. Often the location of the meeting was a problem for some of the clergy who were from the perimeter of the province or who were isolated in the mountains. Also, the meeting was in a different diocese each time, which sometimes posed problems for those asked to travel great distances across difficult terrain. This factor, no doubt, also helps account for the lower attendance by the laity. 46. Garrison, L’Édit de Nantes, 120–121. 47. Bolle, 55. 48. Ibid., 64. 49. Ibid., 67. 50. Ibid., 172. The Holy Sacrament as a source of tension harkened back to the Wars of Religion when Protestants attacked consecrated hosts in acts of ritual violence. For more on host desecration, see Carlos M. N. Eire, War Against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 113, 121, 128, 138, and 146. 51. “Dernier synode,” 207. 52. Richard Bonney, Political Change in France under Richelieu and Mazarin, 1624–1661 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988), 389. For further detail concerning the sieges of the 1620s, refer to chapters four and five of Ligou. For a brief account of the sieges and the political concerns surrounding the royal policy, see chapter seven of G. R. R. Treasure, Seventeenth-Century France (London: Rivingtons, 1966) and A. Lloyd Moote, Louis XIII, the Just (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989). 53. Ligou, 101–102. Ligou quotes Richelieu in a text from 1627. This came along with his intense military campaign against Protestant strongholds of the late 1620s. For a full discussion of the Richelieu plan, see Pierre Blet, “Le plan de Richelieu pour la réunion des protestants,” Gregorianum 48 (1976): 100–129. 54. A. Cans, “La caisse du clergé de France et les protestants convertis (1598– 1790),” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 51 (1902): 234–235. 55. Ligou, 104–105. Bonney points out that the chambres de l’édit supported the cause of the government during the Fronde, 397. For a fuller treatment of the support of the Protestants during the upheaval of mid-century, see Deyon, Du Loyalisme au Refus.

9781611460779_Print.indb 33

7/25/11 10:59 AM

34

Chapter 1

56. Cans, 225–226. 57. Louis XIV, King of France and of Navarre, Mémoires for the Instruction of the Dauphin, Paul Sonnino, trans. (New York: The Free Press, 1970), 56. 58. Isambert, Decrusy, and Taillandier, Recueil général des anciennes lois françaises depuis l’an 420 jusqu’a la Révolution de 1789 (Paris: Belin-Leprieur, Librarie-éditeur, 1833), Tome XVII and XVIII. 59. Bligny, 290–293. 60. Arnaud, Histoire, vol. 2, 80–81. 61. Keith Luria, “Sharing Sacred Space: Protestant Temples and Religious Coexistence in the Seventeenth Century” in Religious Differences in France: Past and Present, ed. Kathleen Perry Long (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2006), 63–64. 62. Arnaud, Histoire, vol. 2, 213: Dauphiné had ninety-five churches, one hundred eighty-five authorized annexes, and eighty-nine unauthorized annexes. In the colloque of the Valentinois, which included Loriol, there were nineteen, twenty-one, and seventeen, respectively, 253. 63. Luria, “Sharing Sacred Space,” 67-68. 64. Ibid, pp. 81–85. Meynier had prepared a similar guide for the commissioners in Languedoc. 65. Jean-Robert Armogathe, L’Église catholique et la révocation de l’Édit de Nantes (Paris: O.E.I.L., 1985), 46–47. 66. Cans, 234–236. 67. AN TT 430 (43): Arrêt de d’Aguesseau, 29 decembre 1671. 68. Cans, 225–226. 69. Dudon, 23–24, 28. 70. This was characteristic of those sympathetic to Jansenism, like Le Camus, Bishop of Grenoble, who were concerned about the purity of the Catholic Church and those who participated in the sacraments, and they were loathe to risk this with hasty conversions. Keith Luria, Territories of Grace: Cultural Change in the SeventeenthCentury Diocese of Grenoble (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 7. 71. Luria, Territories of Grace, 4–5. 72. Cans, 232. 73. Dudon, 24. 74. For a discussion of these changes with reference to the building and destruction of temples, see Luria, “Sharing Sacred Space,” 51–72. See especially pages 65–72 for discussion of the years from 1661–1685. 75. Cadier-Sabatier, 33–36. 76. AN TT 430 (44/5): 31 aoust 1676, Au conseil de police tenu deant le lieutenant general de Montauban. 77. Luria, “Sharing Sacred Space,” 65–66. 78. AN TT 430 (57): Estat de ceux de la R. P. R. qui se sont convertis a la foy Catholique dans chaque diocese depuis le 1er janvier 1679 jusques’au dernier juin suivant. The Protestant population in some of these dioceses was reported by the intendant of Languedoc as approximately 75,500 in Nîmes and 13,000 in Montpellier, Garrison, L’Édit de Nantes, 181.

9781611460779_Print.indb 34

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Seeking to Live “Without a Note of Infamy”

35

79. Jean Bonafous, “Le testament de Jean Bonafous, ministre de léglise de Puylaurens,” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 11 (1862): 477–478. 80. AN TT 430 (51): Requete de ceux de la R. P. R. du royaume envoyée par Mr. de Ruvigny, 1675. 81. AN TT 430 (72): Remonstrance des sujets de la Religion pretendue reformée au roy, fevrier 1669. 82. AN TT 449 (5): Instructions des advocats conseils du roy, generalié de Paris, 1672. 83. Cadier-Sabatier, 36–37. 84. Arnaud, vol. 2, Histoire, 77–78. 85. Eugène Arnaud, Histoire des protestants de Crest en Dauphiné pendant les trois dernier siècles (Paris: Librarie Fischbacher, 1893), 39.

9781611460779_Print.indb 35

7/25/11 10:59 AM

9781611460779_Print.indb 36

7/25/11 10:59 AM

2 A Confessionally Distinct Population The Pre-Revocation Years, 1650–1684

T

between Protestants and Catholics had significant implications for the ability of a community to coexist. The degree to which this coexistence was established and remained peaceful could be influenced by the nature of confessionalization and the areas where accommodation was possible. As happened in countless other places in Western Europe, the people of Loriol had to learn to coexist, Catholic and Protestant, and function in the late-seventeenth-century world. Demographic differences that reflect doctrinal distinctions of the two confessions are evident in the behaviors of the people of Loriol. The ways in which these behaviors changed reveal accommodations without compromise of the core doctrines of the faith. Close examination of the behaviors of the people of Loriol reveals that they did behave in confessionally distinct manners. Their actions with regard to baptism, marriage, and illegitimacy show that the members of each community had internalized the basic tenets of their faith in ways that represented considerable differences between the two groups and that had significant implications for salvation. These behaviors were not static, as Luria showed in Poitou. They were influenced by changes in ecclesiastical leadership and by building pressure from outside of Loriol. As the Revocation approached, some of the confessionally distinct behaviors diminished among Loriol’s Protestants, but not in ways that contradicted the dictates of their faith. They were able to accommodate the changing situation in ways that minimized conflict with their neighbors and that helped to lower their profile to provincial and ecclesiastical authorities. HE NATURE AND CONSEQUENCES OF CONFESSIONAL DISTINCTIONS

— 37 —

9781611460779_Print.indb 37

7/25/11 10:59 AM

38

Chapter 2

Baptism Mary Arnaud, a draper, and his wife, Antoinette, took their first child to the temple to be baptized five days after he was born. In subsequent years, each of five more children was presented for baptism, sometimes a month or more after birth. A royal notary, Pierre Bouene, also took his children to the temple for baptism in the 1650s and 1660s, some time after each child was born, waiting three weeks with his first child. The less illustrious of the town’s Protestants did likewise as each of their children was born. Jacques Bruyere, a laborer, and his wife, Margueritte, took their first child to the temple for baptism a month after she was born. Five more children followed, each baptized a few days or weeks after birth.1 The Catholic neighbors of these families also brought their newborn children for baptism. A councilman, Jean Roueyre, and his wife, Catherine, were quite prompt in bringing their children to the church, presenting each of their three children born in these years for baptism within two days of birth. Vichatelain and town councilman Antoine Gagnat la Couronne and his wife, Elisabeth, waited as long as thirteen days before presenting one of their daughters to the church, but brought the other three children more quickly for the sacrament.2 These brief accounts illustrate some ways in which individual Protestant and Catholic believers acted with regard to their families. Their behavior at this important juncture in life was distinct and in line with the specific teachings and requirements of their religion. Religion made a difference in how people lived out their lives. It helped determine the choices they made for themselves and for their children. These families acted differently when choosing to present themselves and their children at the Protestant temple or the Catholic Church for baptism, each acting more or less in accordance with the teachings of their faith. Doctrinally, the differences between the two confessions were greater than the actions of these families indicate, while their actions indicate how individuals were influenced by their religious faith and the degree to which they understood the specific dictates of their confession and translated them into reality. The differences between the Protestant and Catholic confessions went much deeper than the believers’ positions in society and the building in which they worshiped. People based personal decisions on their beliefs and the teachings of their religion. The bases for the different behaviors were elaborated in the fundamental writings of each confession and were contained in catechisms with which young people were taught the beliefs and expectations of their religion. The intended effect of the teaching was that Protestants and Catholics heard and understood the precepts of their religion and acted upon

9781611460779_Print.indb 38

7/25/11 10:59 AM

A Confessionally Distinct Population

39

them. Because these were different in some cases, the actions would, naturally, be somewhat different. While there is no concrete way to determine what people actually believed without access to exceptional statements of belief by individuals, it is possible to deduce a basic understanding of the degree to which people internalized the teachings of their priest or pastor. The actions of parishioners serve as evidence of their beliefs concerning their duties at critical points in life, in particular the birth of a child and marriage. Thus, through the parish registers, there is an independent measure of John Bossy’s thesis that most individuals understood, and to some degree believed, the basic tenets of their faith.3 Further, the parish registers reveal patterns of behavior that divided these two confessional groups. Careful analysis of these registers reveals a wealth of information that suggests the degree to which Catholics and Protestants, in particular those who lived in Loriol, acted on the basis of their belief systems, and how their actions differed from one another. Nuanced understanding of their faith established parameters for accommodation in the changing environment from 1650 to the Revocation. Bringing an infant to the church for baptism was perhaps the most important act of a parent. It was expected of all parents, regardless of confession. The confessions shared two key points of agreement. First, both considered baptism a sacrament. Second, they agreed that babies should be baptized before they died. There were, however, differences in the choices made by new parents that could distinguish a Protestant believer from a Catholic believer. That people made individual and personal decisions in accordance with their beliefs and the concerns of their church is well documented, and the inhabitants of Loriol were no exception.4 In this act parents acted not primarily for the good of themselves, but for the good of their children. Their behavior surrounding baptism reveals glimpses of what the parents believed. Babies were baptized soon after birth, and the timing of the event was confessionally significant. Protestant behaviors reflect Calvinist understanding of the nature and role of sacraments, as explained in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. Calvin, like other Protestants, believed in two basic tenets upon which everything else rested. The first was that faith was based on a personal relationship between God and the individual. The second was that grace is a gift from God to God’s people, and it could not be earned through human actions. Both of these principles required that the individual have faith. With these two basic tenets of the faith established, Calvin set out guidelines for proper practice and explained the meaning behind different forms of religious expression. An important issue that required clarification was that of the sacraments: what ceremonies of the church were sacraments and what were their purposes? In the Institutes Calvin defined a sacrament as “. . .

9781611460779_Print.indb 39

7/25/11 10:59 AM

40

Chapter 2

an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men.”5 Therefore, sacraments, very important parts of the Christian life were, for Calvin and his followers, outward affirmations before God, oneself, and the community. They were not acts that created a relationship or a compact between an individual and God. A corollary was that the grace and mercy that God offers, symbolized in the sacraments, was fully understood only by those who heard and received them with faith. Understanding sacraments as affirmations rather than acts necessary to receive God’s grace shaped how Protestants responded to events such as the birth of a baby. According to Calvinist teaching, a baby did not have to be baptized to experience God’s grace and to therefore receive salvation. Baptism was not a starting point for a relationship with God; rather it was the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God. Moreover, the end for which God has given it . . . is, first that it may be conducive to our faith in him; and, secondly, that it may serve the purpose of confession among men . . . the knowledge and certainty of such gifts [ablution and salvation] are perceived in this sacrament.6

The Calvinist belief that baptism was a sign of something already in existence meant that its timing was not of critical importance for salvation. Protestant parents were absolutely expected to bring their infant children to the church for baptism, but the timing of this event was not of ultimate importance. Failure to have children baptized before they died did not negate their relationship with God. However, the role of the sacrament for the initiation into the fellowship of believers was vital. The catechism for the church at Geneva explained that failure to receive baptism did have a negative affect on a child. The catechism describes baptism as a visible seal, like circumcision, “and without it an injury was done to the child, they have diminished privileges.”7 These “diminished privileges” were not enumerated, nor was the nature of the injury done to the child described; the penalty for failure to be baptized was not damnation; rather, some undefined penalty remained for those who died without the benefit of baptism. Practically speaking, parents acted upon this doctrine, indicating their understanding of the nature of the sacrament as well as the implications with regard to its timing. They did bring babies to the church for baptism, but not always with great speed. However, when there was some danger of imminent death, a child often received baptism quickly after birth. Thus, Protestant parents demonstrated understanding of both the overall assertion that baptism was not necessary for salvation and the nuance that it was a positive good to a child.

9781611460779_Print.indb 40

7/25/11 10:59 AM

A Confessionally Distinct Population

41

The Catholic understanding of the importance and role of the sacrament of baptism was quite different. Two types of documents served as guides to Catholic belief in France. The first were the documents that emerged from the Council of Trent. These doctrines, which were not officially accepted in France, outlined the basic beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church and emphasized the difference between these beliefs and the heretical teachings of the Protestants.8 Catechisms also provide information on the teachings and beliefs of the church in France, such as that authorized by the Archbishop of Paris in 1726. In combination, these two sources provide a well-articulated outline of Catholic doctrine and teaching. The decrees of the Council of Trent contained fourteen canons concerning baptism. The most relevant for understanding the sacrament was the anathematization of those who maintained that baptism was not necessary to salvation.9 The catechism also described baptism as the sacrament that regenerated the faithful in Jesus Christ and gave the spiritual life of grace. Baptism made people children of God and of the church, saving them from original sin as well as any sins committed in their lives. It was not possible, even for infants, to be saved without the sacrament of baptism.10 Thus, according to Catholic doctrine, a child who died without baptism was deprived of salvation, not merely subjected to amorphous negative effects. In keeping with these doctrines and teachings of the church, Catholic parents were more likely to bring their children for baptism relatively quickly. They were particularly vigilant in the cases of obviously fragile infants. Parents’ behavior reveals a basic understanding of the expectation of their church and the consequences for their children as they related to baptism. Based upon these official explanations of the nature of sacraments, specifically that of baptism, Protestants and Catholics should act differently following the birth of a child. Protestant parents were expected to understand that baptism was important for both the child and the community, though not a requirement for salvation, and, therefore, needed to be done reasonably soon after birth, but not necessarily immediately. Catholic parents, in contrast, were expected to understand that baptism was an essential starting point for the relationship between their child and God, and therefore had to be obtained immediately after birth. The actions of the parents of Loriol showed that they understood these beliefs and teachings by the end of the 1670s. As the Revocation approached, differences between the two diminished as Protestants accommodated the changing situation, but they did so without compromising this core belief. These doctrines were not just the abstract writings of theologians; they were beliefs upon which people in the seventeenth century acted. The work of Philip Benedict addresses the question of the extent to which Protestants across France translated Calvin’s abstract principles about the nature and

9781611460779_Print.indb 41

7/25/11 10:59 AM

42

Chapter 2

role of the sacraments put into action. His study establishes that Protestants throughout the realm did act in a manner that suggests they understood the principles that Calvin outlined in the Institutes and the catechism. New parents regularly waited a week or more before presenting their infant to the temple to receive the sacrament of baptism. Protestant congregations in the years between 1600 and 1685 tended to act in accordance with these Calvinist principles concerning the timing of baptism of their children.11 The actions of Protestant parents in Loriol reveal that they too understood these abstract principles concerning their responsibility for the baptism and the attendant implications for the salvation of their children. Parish registers kept in the temple show that parents from this congregation consistently waited to bring their children for baptism, often coming to the temple several days or more following birth. Before the 1680s, when the Protestants of Loriol were relatively stable and free from interference from the state or the Catholic Church, the congregation was at liberty to follow the dictates of Calvinist teachings and of personal conscience. One result of this freedom was the late baptism of their children, relative to contemporary Catholic standards. In these years of stability, the majority of families who brought their children to the temple consistently waited a week or more to have their babies baptized. Throughout the pre-Revocation period, 60 percent of the children baptized were brought to the temple a week or more after their birth.12 Clearly, baptism was an important act for new parents. It was plainly stated in the Institutes and evident in the actions of Protestant congregations throughout France. That Loriol’s parents brought their children to the temple for baptism within the first few months of life, in almost every case, indicated their understanding of the sacrament of baptism as a vital part of Christian life on earth, and an important part of their duty as parents and congregants. The compression of the difference between the mean and the median delay TABLE 2.1 Protestant Delay between Birth and Baptism, 1650–1684 Years 1650–1659 1660–1669 1670–1679 1680–1684

Baptisms1

Mean Delay

Median

Mode

337 509 539 282

18.9 16.1 13.7 10.1

13 10 9 8

02 7 4 5

1

The baptisms for which a birth date was available, and which were used in the calculations are in the table. The total performed was 351 from 1650 to 1659, 524 from 1660 to 1669, 556 from 1670 to 1679, and 292 from 1680 to 1684. 2 For 1650–1659, while the largest number of baptisms took place the day of the birth, these were not necessarily common, only accounting for 7 percent of all births. The decade of the 1650s was a time during which the delay between birth and baptism varied widely, with over 14 percent of baptisms taking place over a month after birth.

9781611460779_Print.indb 42

7/25/11 10:59 AM

A Confessionally Distinct Population

43

over the decades indicates that the number of extremely long delays decreased while, on average, the whole population tended to wait a week or more to baptize their children.13 Despite the drop in the number of days that parents waited, they did still wait a considerable time before bringing their children for baptism, an indication of their internalization of the knowledge that the salvation of the child was not dependent on the sacrament of baptism. The importance of baptism was underscored in the case of the most vulnerable children. Parents whose children were the most fragile at birth, including the parents of twins, tended to bring their children to the temple almost immediately to receive the sacrament. When Mary and Antoinette Arnaud had their twins, Mary and Jean Reymond, they brought the infants to the temple the next day to be baptized.14 Another fragile child, Lucresse, was baptized the day following her birth and died two days after baptism. The immediate baptism of these children stood in contrast to the longer delays the Arnauds took with most of their other children, which ranged from four days to a month or more. Protestant parents were careful to secure the sacrament for those children believed to be at risk of imminent death, but they were not as anxious with those children who appeared more robust and likely to survive until they could get to the temple in the regular course of events. That baptism was important, but not necessary, is also clear from cases like that of the young son of Jacques Lamerie, and others like him. The baby boy was stillborn in May of 1668. His burial is listed in the burial register, but there is no corresponding entry in the baptismal register. This infant was buried, unnamed, without the benefit of baptism. Though these entries are not common, they appear in the burial register throughout the pre-Revocation period. There is no indication of a provisional baptism by a midwife, which speaks to the understanding that immediate baptism was not absolutely necessary for salvation, as was taught by their church. As Catholic doctrine dealing with baptism was quite different from Protestant doctrine, so were the expectations of the Catholic Church for parents. After the birth of a child, parents were expected to bring the infant almost immediately to the church for baptism, especially in the case of imminent death. Because of the ultimate importance of baptism for Catholics and the fragility of newborns, the church empowered properly trained midwives to administer baptism. They could not perform the entire sacramental ceremony, for they were not ordained priests, but they could do enough to secure the salvation of the child if the child should die before receiving the supplemental ceremonies from the priest. Midwives took a vow before the priest and were to be evaluated annually for professional competence as well as spiritual understanding.15 In Loriol, Catholic parents acted with greater haste to bring newborn children to the church to receive the sacrament than did their Protestant neighbors.

9781611460779_Print.indb 43

7/25/11 10:59 AM

44

Chapter 2

Their actions were not, however, always clearly in line with Catholic teachings. They did baptize their children earlier than Protestants, but not, on average, within the first three days of life as the church expected.16 Between 1674 and 1684, half of the Catholic parents in Loriol baptized their infants within three days of birth. Most other children were a week old or more before they were brought to the church for baptism. According to their church, this risked many souls—souls that could not be saved without the sacrament. The largest number of lengthy delays occurred in the first five years. Between 1680 and 1684 the average delay fell to only two and a half days, and there were no children baptized more than two weeks after birth, compared with fifteen baptized that late in the previous five years. Further, in the last five years most parents baptized their children the day they were born. Despite early divergence from the church’s requirements, Catholics in Loriol came much more closely into conformity after 1680. When death seemed imminent, Catholic parents also baptized their children immediately. The parish registers list no children who died before they received the sacrament of baptism. Only one of the 238 children in the baptismal record was baptized by a midwife and died before receiving supplemental ceremonies at the church, while nineteen received baptism at home by the midwife and lived to be baptized by the priest at the church.17 It was important to Catholic parents that those children who were at highest risk of dying in the first hours of life were baptized before they died. Thus, though Catholic parents and the curé seem somewhat lax in assuring the immediate baptism of all Catholic infants, they were diligent with those children whose lives were the most fragile. The pattern of delay among Catholics suggests that the curé was not vigilant with regard to this aspect of his parishioners’ lives. The Catholic leadership in Loriol was not effective in having people bring their children to the church to receive the sacrament immediately prior to 1679, because of a failure of enforcement or education. They understood and internalized the ultimate necessity of the sacrament, but not the requirement that it be administered immediately to all children. A new priest, Father Lamy, arrived in 1675. Perhaps he worked to improve the education of his parishioners and to improve the level of compliance in his parish. For both confessions the evidence with TABLE 2.2 Catholic Delay between Birth and Baptism, 1674–1684 Years 1674–1679 1680–1684 1

Baptisms1

Mean Delay

Median

Mode

103 90

8.4 days 2.5 days

4 days 2 days

4 days 0 days

These figures represent the number of baptisms with sufficient information to calculate the delay between birth and baptism. There were a total of 132 baptisms from 1674–1679 and 107 from 1680–1684.

9781611460779_Print.indb 44

7/25/11 10:59 AM

A Confessionally Distinct Population

45

regard to baptism reflects the beliefs of their respective faiths and teachings of their respective churches are the best predictors of behavior. Evaluation of the differences in behavior in light of economic status using taille assessments as a measure of wealth (an imprecise measure at best), showed that wealth was not predictive of delay between birth and baptism. These behaviors are most robustly explained in terms of confessional identity.18

Marriage Another area of conflicting teaching and importance for the two confessions was the institution of marriage. There was not agreement between Catholics and Protestants concerning the sacramental nature of the institution or the control that ought to be exercised by religious authority concerning its celebration. Further, there were distinct differences between the two groups in behavior—some explicable by religious teachings, others not. Calvinist doctrine firmly held that marriage was not a sacrament; rather, it was an institution of God, an “external ceremony appointed by God to confirm a promise.”19 Calvinists believed that marriage should be universal, which meant that it was available to the clergy20 and available without designated periods of abstinence. French Protestantism forbade marriages in a service where communion was celebrated during any liturgical season.21 Catholic doctrine about marriage differed on its importance and sacramental nature. The Council of Trent held that marriage was a true sacrament and anathemized those who maintained that it was superstitious to forbid marriages at certain seasons. The Catholic Church required abstinence, and therefore forbade marriage, during the holy seasons of Lent and Advent.22 The catechism of 1726 taught that marriage was a sacrament whose purpose was to produce children. It should be approached by people with pure hearts, free from all mortal sins, with the intention to serve God with their marriage so that they could receive the sacrament in virtue.23 The confessions agreed that sexual relations should occur only within the bounds of marriage, so abstinence outside of marriage was the expectation. In the Institutes, Calvin clearly stated that one reason for the institution of marriage was to prevent people from committing the sin of fornication. In addition, Protestants had a reputation for adherence to a strict moral code that strongly upheld the virtue of extramarital chastity.24 The Catholic catechism included a more general requirement that those being married must have purity and freedom from all mortal sins.25 Whatever the differences in emphases, in general, the actions of Protestants and Catholics throughout France were somewhat different with regard to extramarital sexual activity that could lead

9781611460779_Print.indb 45

7/25/11 10:59 AM

46

Chapter 2

to illegitimacy.26 While the behaviors of the people of Loriol did not necessarily fit with the general patterns throughout the realm, they were confessionally distinct and served as another means by which to distinguish members of one group from those of the other. The most visible difference between the confessions with regard to marriage was its seasonality. Protestants across France indicated that they understood the lack of prohibition as they showed little or no tendency to avoid marriages during Lent and Advent, which correlate approximately with the months of March and December.27 Protestant parish registers for Loriol show that the congregation acted as Protestants throughout the realm acted and married in all seasons of the year. Still, examination of Protestant marriages does reveal a seasonal pattern of ceremonies, though in it Loriol was not static or absolute. There were some definite ideas governing the timing of marriage among Protestants in Loriol. There was no suggestion of avoidance during Advent, in fact, it seems as if this may have been a preferred time of the year for marriage. There was, however, a lingering tendency to avoid marrying in March, though there was no true abstinence during this season.28 Further, there was no indication that Rev. de la Faye was opposed to performing the marriage ceremony at this time of year, or any other; the number of marriages was only depressed, not missing, and March was not consistently the month with the fewest marriages. Seasonal variation among Protestants is seen in their tendency to avoid marriage in the month of May, a phenomenon known as the creux de Mai, the belief that marriage during this month was unlucky and ought to be avoided.29 This pattern was fairly common in many parts of Europe, particularly in heavily Protestant regions, though it did not have any formal religious basis in spite of its appearance in Protestant communities, TABLE 2.3 Seasonality of Protestant Marriages, 1650–1684: Percentage of Marriages performed by Month Month January February March April May June July August September October November December

9781611460779_Print.indb 46

1650–1659

1660–1669

1670–1679

1680–1684

All Years

3.5 12.6 9.1 11.2 2.1 10.3 4.9 8.4 7.7 12.6 7.0 6.3

9.7 9.1 0.6 9.7 1.9 7.8 5.8 10.4 4.5 11.7 9.1 19.5

8.4 7.5 6.5 14.0 6.5 6.5 7.5 4.7 11.2 14.0 5.6 7.5

13.5 4.1 5.4 5.4 14.8 12.2 7.8 4.1 2.7 5.4 14.9 5.4

8.2 9.0 5.2 10.5 5.0 10.3 6.9 7.5 6.7 11.5 8.6 10.7

7/25/11 10:59 AM

A Confessionally Distinct Population

47

nor was it confined to Protestants. The significant fluctuations in the timing of marriage may indicate the large degree to which Loriol’s Protestants were able to choose the timing of marriage based on personal criteria, free from religious restrictions. The final decade and a half before the Revocation saw a decrease in March and December marriages. This brought the Protestants more closely into line with Catholic teachings concerning marriage, though not fully so. These were also the years when Protestant parents brought their children sooner, though not immediately, to the temple for baptism. These changes roughly coincided with increases in the amount of royal attention devoted to Protestants throughout France, and increased efforts to bring them into the Catholic Church. Similar to respecting the admonitions of the synod in 1661 to avoid arousing Catholic ire by being in the presence of the Holy Sacrament, these modifications of behavior indicate some effort on the part of Loriol’s Protestants to try to avoid behaviors that could bring unwanted attention and conflict from the local Catholic community as well as from royal and ecclesiastical authorities. These changes did not, however, go against fundamental beliefs or teaching of French Protestantism. Though the Catholic population of Loriol had a different doctrinal basis for their behavior concerning marriage, their actions did not vary remarkably from those of Protestants. The significantly smaller Catholic population celebrated, on average, almost four marriages each year between 1660 and 1684. Based on the relatively small number of pre-Revocation marriages, it is evident that Loriol’s Catholics were not acting strictly in accordance with the teachings of their faith with regard to seasons of abstinence. They did, however, mirror Protestants with regard to observance of the creux de Mai. TABLE 2.4 Seasonality of Catholic Marriages, 1660–1684 Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Total

9781611460779_Print.indb 47

Number of Marriages

Percent of all Marriages

9 14 9 8 1 14 5 9 8 8 9 1 95

9.5 14.7 9.5 8.4 1.1 14.7 5.3 9.5 8.4 8.4 9.5 1.1

7/25/11 10:59 AM

48

Chapter 2

Among Loriol’s Catholics, there were two pronounced low points in the seasonality of marriage. These were, interestingly, May and December, rather than March and December. There is no evidence of an overall tendency to avoid marriage during March, when the Catholic population prepared to celebrate the suffering and risen Christ at Easter. Closer examination reveals that all of the marriages during Lent and Advent were celebrated before the new register began in 1674. The change in practice may reflect the fact that a new priest, Father Lamy, arrived in 1675. It may have been he who enforced closer conformity with the teachings of the church, as the affinity for marrying during the season of Lent among Catholics stopped abruptly around the time of his arrival. The May marriage was in 1682, when the phenomenon had started to diminish among Protestants as well. The Catholic population of Loriol was not acting particularly in accordance with their religious tradition and had adopted some of the behaviors of the majority Protestant population. They were, however, distinct from their Protestant neighbors in their choices concerning marriage, following the arrival of Father Lamy in 1675. Timing of marriage could, of course, be controlled by the priest. He could simply refuse to celebrate the sacrament during forbidden seasons. The arrival of a new, stricter priest can explain the greater level of conformity. It also suggests that Father Lamy may have been the embodiment of the new reformed French priest. By the late seventeenth century the French church was reaping the benefits of Catholic reform. These benefits included priests with more education who consciously set themselves apart from their parishioners and worked to educate the laity about the teachings and requirements of the church.30 The changes of the pre-Revocation years were felt by the Catholic population as they began to fall more in line with the teachings of their confession at the same time that the Protestants were increasingly pushed to convert to Catholicism. Intermarriage is an important indicator of the rigidity of the confessional boundary. What information is available for these years shows that the boundary was quite solid in Loriol. The data on intermarriage is sparse at best for these years. The Protestant registers contain no mention of interconfessional marriages, and the Catholic registers only have one abjuration clearly linked to a subsequent marriage. In the absence of more longitudinal baptismal records, the family reconstitution necessary to validate the indication that the confessional boundary was solid is not possible. Though tentative, the data reinforces the picture that emerges from baptisms and marriages of a community in which the confessions were distinct and separate, even though some of the outward marks of differentiation diminish over time.

9781611460779_Print.indb 48

7/25/11 10:59 AM

A Confessionally Distinct Population

49

Illegitimacy People did not always act wholly in accordance with the teachings of their religion, whatever the particular teaching or doctrine in question may have been, as was the case with illegitimacy. The preference for children to be born within the bounds of marriage was supported by both Protestant and Catholic teachings. There were many reasons that led people to conclude that illegitimacy was undesirable, both for the community and the churches. Illegitimate children posed potential problems for the community that was responsible for their social welfare should the parents be unable or unwilling to care for them. From the point of view of the churches, whether an institution of God or a sacrament, marriage was important, and unions were to be sanctioned by religious authority. Fornication was considered a sin by Protestants and Catholics alike, and was most definitely to be avoided. As Calvin emphasized the role of marriage as the prevention of fornication, Calvinists emphasized the need to avoid the tradition of waiting to marry until a woman was pregnant; as it was important to postpone sexual relations until marriage. Again, the evidence collected by Benedict for Huguenot congregations across France suggests that, by and large, Protestants acted upon the belief that fornication was a sin to be avoided, and relatively few children were born as a result of sexual relations outside of marriage.31 Catholic teachings did not specifically emphasize the issue of fornication, and illegitimacy rates among French Catholics reflect this lack of specific concern. The church did, however, emphasize the ultimate virtue of chastity and did not sanction sexual relations between unmarried couples. There were, nonetheless, those children born to both Protestant and Catholic couples as a result of premarital sexual relations. The degree of fornication can be measured by the number of children born outside of wedlock and the number of children conceived outside of wedlock. Children born to unwed parents were duly recorded in the baptismal record for both confessions, listed as naturel (rather than legitime) in the entry. Frequently, the baptismal record for illegitimate children listed only the mother by name, though the name of the father was included if known and confessed. To measure the rate of illegitimate conception, one reconstructs families from the records, combining the records of marriages celebrated in the temple or the church with those of baptisms to measure the timing between marriage and the birth of the first child. These records used together indicate which women became pregnant before the date of their marriage, thus providing a measure of illegitimate conceptions.32 Throughout France Protestants had a relatively low number of children born and conceived outside of the bounds of marriage.33 This pattern held

9781611460779_Print.indb 49

7/25/11 10:59 AM

50

Chapter 2

true for the Protestant congregation of Loriol, though the rate was not as low as that of many other Protestant congregations. Of the births between 1650 and 1684 for which legitimacy was indicated in the parish register, only 1.3 percent of the children were illegitimate.34 Throughout the pre-Revocation period, this percentage remained fairly constant and low.35 The surviving pre-Revocation baptismal records from the Catholic Church reveal illegitimacy rates for this population that are substantially higher. Illegitimate children accounted for almost 7 percent of Catholic births.36 This rate was quite high compared to other Catholic towns during the seventeenth century, where 3.5 percent was high, and rates around 1 percent were not unknown.37 These rates set them apart from their Protestant neighbors. Analysis of illegitimate conceptions shows that there was a high level of abstinence before marriage by most parents who married in Loriol. Children born within seven months of their parents’ marriage were considered to be illegitimately conceived. The register contains no indication concerning the birth order of the child being baptized, so a five-year limit between time of marriage and baptism of the first child was adopted. This limit reduces the likelihood of including families who had earlier children baptized in some other location, for whatever reason. The percentage of illegitimate conceptions dropped significantly in the latter half of the period under study. Perhaps this was one effect of the change in leadership for the Protestants that took place when Theodore de la Faye took over in 1663. The higher rate of 4.2 percent between 1650 and 1667 fell to only 2.2 percent between 1668 and 1684. Either rate was quite low at 4.2 percent of premarital conceptions, which was similar to other French Protestants.38 Due to the size of the population and the late start of the registers, the numbers for the Catholics must be regarded with reservation. They do, however, suggest that perhaps local Catholics were acting on a different set of beliefs about premarital sexual relations. In contrast to the trend for illegitimate births in the Catholic community, there were no children conceived outside of marriage, among those for whom enough information was available. Only twenty couples met the criteria for consideration; however, none of these couples appears to have conceived their first child before their date of marriage. In this area, the Catholics of Loriol may have been quite different from their Catholic contemporaries. In the Catholic towns considered by Benedict, the rate of premarital conceptions was over 4 percent in every case, and as high as 15 percent in the case of BourgSaint-Andéol.39 The absence of premarital conception among the Catholics somewhat ameliorates the high rate of illegitimacy among the Catholics,

9781611460779_Print.indb 50

7/25/11 10:59 AM

A Confessionally Distinct Population

51

though the question of why both rates were so different from those of their Catholic contemporaries remains. We must, however, view these figures with reserve, as the numbers for the Catholics are small and the data available for only eleven of the pre-Revocation years.

Confessionalization? The people of Loriol exhibited elements of the experiences in other biconfessional communities, as laid out in the work on confessionalization. The members of the Protestant congregation acted more or less in accordance with the teachings of their faith, indicating that they understood Protestant doctrines. The Catholic population, while differentiated from Protestants in many aspects of their behavior, acted somewhat less closely in line with the teachings of their confession prior to the Revocation. The Protestants of Loriol made choices in their demographic behaviors, perhaps in response to their minority status in France.40 Though they were the majority in Loriol and were well represented in the region, they were a minority in France and received increasing persecution as the Revocation approached. The Protestants of Loriol, like those elsewhere, behaved in confessionally distinct ways. They delayed bringing their children to the church for baptism and they did not observe the seasonal prohibitions on marriage upheld by the Catholic Church. Their behavior distinguished them from their Catholic neighbors. There were, however, changes over time—changes that may indicate some response to the mounting pressure as the Revocation neared. During the later decades, the length of delay between birth and baptism receded by several days, and there was a more pronounced tendency to avoid marriage during Lent and Advent, particularly the latter. As the Revocation approached, Protestant and Catholic behavior changed to more closely match Catholic expectations. These changes were not absolute, nor can they be interpreted as an indication, of a breakdown in the confessional divide, as other indications such as the lack of interconfessional marriages and abjurations, suggest it remained strong. Lacking corroborating data, one can only speculate about the reasons for the changes. It may be that with the mounting pressure against Protestants in Dauphiné, they were less and less inclined to set themselves apart, and, consciously or not, curbed those behaviors that differentiated them. This seems a particularly likely explanation for the drop in marriages during the seasons of Lent and Advent: marriage ceremonies and their lively celebrations could invite unwanted attention. It is important to note that these changes did not mean that Protestants behaved in ways that were contrary to the teachings of

9781611460779_Print.indb 51

7/25/11 10:59 AM

52

Chapter 2

their faith; rather, they took actions that complied with the expectations of their religion while reducing potential points of conflict. The changes did not necessarily indicate success of the repressive policies, as Protestants did not abandon their faith, but rather modified their behavior. Conversely, the demographic behaviors of Catholics in Loriol may also be connected to their position relative to that of Protestants in French society. They were members of the dominant religious group and, therefore, may have felt little pressure to conform strictly to the doctrines of the church. Curés may have felt little pressure to enforce such practices as timely baptism of infants and seasonal prohibitions on marriage. Changes in behavior during the later years of the pre-Revocation era may reflect greater concern by the Catholic hierarchy on these matters. Though Loriol’s Catholics behaved differently from their more numerous Protestant neighbors, they did not act in strict accordance with the teachings of their religion. By the 1660s the Protestants of Dauphiné looked for ways to minimize conflict within their communities. In particular, they discussed the importance of avoiding unnecessary religious affronts to Catholics in their communities. These recommendations came as pressure against the Protestants in France increased. The measures suggested by the synod were in no way contrary to Protestant teachings nor did they represent compromise of important principles or doctrines. They were accommodations intended to minimize conflict within their communities, thus minimizing the potential for interference. The Protestants of Loriol seemed to carry this general notion of accommodation to a different level in the years approaching the Revocation. As tensions grew, they modified those behaviors that set them apart from Catholics. These changes were not contradictory to the teachings of Calvin and did not compromise their understanding of the nature of baptism and marriage. They did, however, move their behavior more closely into line with the expectations of the Catholic Church and minimized the potential for conflict over such things as boisterous marriage celebrations during the solemn season of Lent. In Loriol the Catholic population was steadily assuming a level of political control that was disproportionate to their numbers. It was prudent for Protestants to modify their behavior in ways that did not compromise their faith, but which minimized conflict as confessional tensions mounted. By so doing, the Protestants of Loriol worked to accommodate without compromising belief and to try to eliminate the need for interference from institutions outside Loriol itself. The process of accommodation had only begun. Further changes continued to be prudent, and necessary, as the Revocation neared and passed. The pattern continued of the community working, reasonably successfully, to minimize outside interference, in both politics and religion. These changes allowed

9781611460779_Print.indb 52

7/25/11 10:59 AM

A Confessionally Distinct Population

53

Loriol to survive the devastation of the Revocation intact, and comparatively unharmed, relative to the possibilities of brutality felt by so many Protestants.

Notes 1. All of the parish register information for Protestants in Loriol is in the Archives départementales de la Drôme, 6 E 19 (hereafter ADD). 2. The parish register information from the pre-Revocation Catholic Church in Loriol is in the ADD 4 E 1673. 3. John Bossy, Christianity in the West, 1400–1700 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985). 4. For further discussion of confessionalization and its impact on behavior, see Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France; Hanlon, Luria, Mentzer and Spicer. 5. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953), 491–492. 6. Calvin, Institutes, vol. 2, 513. 7. John Calvin, The Catechism of the Church of Geneva, transl. Rev. Elijah Waterman (Hartford: Sheldon Goodwin Printers, 1815), 95–96. 8. The Council of Trent was not published in France and was only received by the French clergy in 1615. Luria, Territories, 61. 9. L. F. Bungener, History of the Council of Trent, Summary of the Acts of the Council by John McClintick (New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1855), xxix. ˆ ˆc atholique, commissioned by the Archbishop of 10. Catechisme ou Abrégé de la foi Paris, 1726 (Baltimore; de l’imprimerie de S. Sower, 1786),18–19. 11. Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France, 25. 12. The baptisms included in the calculations of these figures include only those for which a date of birth and baptism were recorded in the parish register and were legible. Ninety-seven percent of Protestant baptisms for the pre-Revocation era meet these requirements. 13. The potential for a child dying unbaptized was great with these delays in a demographic situation in which approximately a quarter of children born died before their first birthday. Michael W. Flinn, The European Demographic System, 1500–1820 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981), 16. 14. These twins were, however, quite healthy for a multiple birth. There was no burial record for Mary, and Jean Reymond lived a full eight months. 15. Réné Taveneaux, Le Catholicisme dans la France classique, 2 vols. (Paris: Heracles, 1992), 339. 16. Ibid. 17. In the years under consideration such baptisms made up almost 8 percent of all Catholic baptisms. 18. The Catholic registers do not contain sufficient occupational data in the preRevocation years for more nuanced social comparison than what can be accomplished using taille records.

9781611460779_Print.indb 53

7/25/11 10:59 AM

54

Chapter 2

19. Calvin, Institutes, 647. 20. Ibid., 470. 21. Pierre Bels, Le marriage des protestants français jusqu’en 1685: fondements doctrinaux et practique juridique (Paris: Librarie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1968), 180. 22. Bungener, xxxvi. 23. Catechisme ou abrége, 34–35. 24. Benedict, 95–99. 25. Catechisme ou abrége, 34–35. 26. For discussion of this see Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France, 95–99. 27. Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France, 80. 28. Lent can begin in March and extend well into April, or it can end before the end of March. The general use of March as a month of abstinence provides an adequate and consistent measure for evidence that a population was observing Lenten abstinence despite the variation in the timing of the actual liturgical season. Further, it allows for comparison with Benedict’s work, which uses the month of March as an indicator of Lenten observance. 29. This disappearance of the phenomenon was shared by other French communities during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, see Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France, 87–90. 30. Jean Delumeau, Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire: A New View of the Counter-Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 179–189. 31. Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France, 96–97. 32. Because determination of illegitimate conception relies upon family reconstitution from parish registers, it is only possible to measure the degree of premarital abstinence for those couples who married in Loriol and who brought their children there for baptism. 33. Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France, 96–97. 34. Only children who were actually listed as naturel were considered illegitimate. There are some children for whom the marital status of the parents was not indicated. These children were not included in the divisor, to avoid underestimation of the percentage of illegitimate children born. 35. With 9 illegitimate births out of 75 total baptisms from 1650 (1.2 percent) and 13 out of 939 from 1668–1684 (1.4 percent) illegitimacy rates for Loriol’s Protestants were actually high compared to other Protestant communities. Of the Protestant communities evaluated by Benedict, none had an illegitimacy rate as high as that of Loriol. Most had less than 1 percent of all births that were illegitimate, and half were under 0.5 percent illegitimate, though there were other communities with similarly high rates. Also, Loriol’s rate of 1.3 percent was higher than almost all of the Catholic towns considered by Benedict, with most rates of 1 percent or less. Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France, 96. 36. Of 238 total baptisms, 231 indicated the child’s status. Of these 231, sixteen, or 6.9 percent, were illegitimate. 37. Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France, 96. Benedict uses the illegitimacy rates for Bayeux, Tourouvre au Perche, Serignan, Layrac, Coulommiers, Argenteuil,

9781611460779_Print.indb 54

7/25/11 10:59 AM

A Confessionally Distinct Population

55

and Rouen for comparison with several Protestant towns. Among these Catholic towns, only Rouen and Bayeux had illegitimacy rates higher than 1 percent, and Bayeux’s was only 1.2 percent. For France before the late eighteenth century, Flinn cites an illegitimacy rate of under 2 percent, Flinn, 19. 38. Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France, 97. Other communities ranged from 2 percent to 6 percent, with the exception of non-“notables” in Alençon. 39. Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France, 97. 40. Wrigley and Schofield show that the English parish registers continue to register a marked, though decreasing, trough of marriages in March and December (E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield, Population History of England, 1541–1871: A Reconstruction [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989], 299) and that the delay between birth and baptism increased slowly, only averaging a month in the late eighteenth century, 96. These data do not indicate that English Protestants acted contrary to Calvinist doctrine, but merely that they were less adamant about their divergence from Catholic practice, possibly at least partly due to the lack of direct pressure from a majority Catholic population and the government, and the reality that they were not a minority population in England.

9781611460779_Print.indb 55

7/25/11 10:59 AM

9781611460779_Print.indb 56

7/25/11 10:59 AM

3 They Will Form a Cabal against Us The Experience of the Revocation

B

ETWEEN 1679 AND 1680 LIFE FOR FRENCH PROTESTANTS CHANGED dramatically. The royal program against the Protestants turned increasingly toward violence, culminating in the legal destruction of French Calvinism in October of 1685. The new program, with its increased violence, reflected royal impatience with the continued toleration of this nonconforming minority; it was decreed by the king’s government and administered by the secular and religious bureaucracy, both nationally and regionally. Even with the extreme pressure exerted, local cooperation was required to achieve religious unity, whether in the form of outward conformity or true religious conversion. Local cooperation could not always be relied upon by national and regional authorities, as the experience of Loriol shows. The community found paths of outward compliance and local accommodation that resulted in neither full conformity nor threatening disobedience, allowing the town to avoid the worst repression of the 1680s. Historians offer many explanations for the dramatic and catastrophic changes in religious policies in the 1680s. The Treaty of Nijmegen in 1679 freed Louis from the need to consider the reaction of Protestant allies to his treatment of the Protestants in France.1 Internally, there was pressure to restore taxpayers to the active rolls as abjuration brought a tax break. There were also concerns about the relationship between the French Church and the Holy Office in Rome,2 and Louis’s deepening piety and increased concern with religion.3 The path taken by the royal government marked a departure from the approach of earlier years. The old inducements to convert were augmented with a new wave of repression. From 1680 to 1685 one-third of

— 57 —

9781611460779_Print.indb 57

7/25/11 10:59 AM

58

Chapter 3

the edicts, arrêts, and declarations issued by the crown dealt in some way with “those of the Religion Pretendue Reformée.”4 New edicts reiterated and strengthened the attack on professions, banning Protestants from a growing list of occupations that could be argued to affect the public good, while inducements to conversion remained.5 Edicts also sought to limit or eliminate the influence of Protestants through pressure on schools, meetings, and the freedom of movement of the clergy. New methods aimed to ensure that the numbers of Catholics grew, by both gaining new adult converts and making it easier for children to convert and be raised Catholic.6 The largest number of these edicts focused on ways to raise children of Protestant parents as faithful Catholics. The new restrictions had some effects, but they depended on oversight of authorities within the community. Further, they could not ensure conversion and were not likely to lead to many abjurations or be immediate, outcomes that were increasingly important. All of these outcomes are evident in Loriol. In December of 1681, almost two years after the king issued an edict requiring midwives to be Catholic, a local midwife, Elisabeth Debraine’s conversion was noted by the local curé. A new restriction drove Jean Bouene from his profession. A notary, he wrote most marriage contracts for the Protestant community during the late 1670s and early 1680s. An arrêt in June 1681 allowed him six months to forfeit his office, a date with which he more or less complied. The last contract accredited to him was written in February 1682, eight months after the edict.7 There is no record of a conversion for Sr. Bouene, and he continued to live in Loriol, but did not work as a notary.8 In these outward manifestations of compliance, we see that at least some of Loriol’s Protestants obeyed the new laws, if somewhat slowly, though few professions are as visible as that of notary. The compliance of Elisabeth Debraine and Jean Bouene suggests that others in the community may have at least modified their professional activity in the face of the emerging regulations, though rarely by abjuring Protestantism, which can be traced in the Catholic registers. Occupational pressure came from provincial authorities as well, as was the case when Sr. Brettoniere, juge mage of Valence, presided in Loriol to change the settlement that made the town council half Catholic and half Protestant. In 1680 the council became all Catholic, and Protestant consuls and councilors recommended Catholic replacements.9 After this time, each November a new council was elected, nominated by the members from the past year, the list of nominations preceded by a notation that all councilors must profess the “Catholic, apostolic, and Roman” religion. In 1681 and 1682 the councils contained only those who were already Catholic in 1680. Exclusion from local political power did not push Loriol’s Protestants to convert, as none of the

9781611460779_Print.indb 58

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

59

three adult men who abjured Protestantism before 1685 appear in the consular records as either councilors or nominees. Absent outside authority, the exclusion was not absolute. In 1684 and 1685, Daniel Bonnaventure, who was not an ancienne catholique, was the second consul, and Sr. Dominique de Serre, the cappitaine chastelain of Loriol, a Catholic, was there to confirm that the elections followed correct procedure.10 Sr. Bonnaventure was a prominent and wealthy young man who was raised in the Protestant faith. He brought his children to the temple for baptism in 1680 and 1682, and served as a godparent to other Protestant children. In the years after 1685, he was considered a nouveau converti,11 though there is no record of his conversion in the Catholic parish register, before or after 1685. He evidently had local economic and social advantages sufficient to override confessional barriers imposed by outside authorities. It is possible that Sr. Bonnaventure converted sometime between the baptism of his son Pierre in October of 1682 and his election to the council in November of 1683,12 although there is no record of his conversion. During the first half of the 1680s, conversions were sought after by the Catholic hierarchy. Certainly the conversion of such a wealthy and influential man would be an achievement worth noting. Further, he did not receive a tax exemption that new converts were promised, and he paid a significant sum in the taille in 1683.13 A more likely explanation for Sr. Bonnaventure’s presence on the council is that, absent outside interference in the form of the judge from Valence, he was elected by Catholic councilors on the basis of other criteria and in spite of his religion. On the surface, Loriol’s Protestants complied with the law. At least some of the town’s inhabitants responded to the new occupational restrictions. The governing body of the town was, according to its members, all Catholic. The legal changes seemed to have the desired effect: the community was beginning to conform, or at least they were not overtly resisting. However, these actions were more accommodations to the changing political reality than reflections of true changes in attitude or confessional identification. The people of Loriol did what they perceived to be best for their community, giving the outward face of conformity. These changes did not necessarily always indicate full conformity with the laws, and they usually did not include religious change, as was the goal of the new laws. That such change was slow and incomplete encouraged the use of other methods. In the 1680s laws were augmented by the use of the army, with a powerful impact on communities. Royal troops had to be quartered, a fact of life that took on ominous overtones for the Protestants after 1681. In that year Marillac, the intendant of Poitou, began to employ dragons in the campaign against Protestants. He took the worst among the royal soldiers and housed

9781611460779_Print.indb 59

7/25/11 10:59 AM

60

Chapter 3

them with Protestants, placing two or three times the number of soldiers that would normally be billeted with a family in each home. These soldiers received instructions to act as they pleased in order to obtain conversions. They were remarkably effective. In 1681 Marillac boasted 38,500 conversions in the province,14 which received accolades from Louvois: His Majesty has learned with much joy, the great number of persons converted in your district. His Majesty appreciates your endeavors to increase the number, and means which have hitherto succeeded. . . . His Majesty has commanded me to send, at the beginning of next November, a regiment of cavalry into Poitou, which will be lodged in the places you will be mindful to propose, before that time; and His Majesty will deem it right, that the greater part of the officers and horsemen should be lodged with Protestants: but he does not think that all should be lodged with them. That is to say, that when by strict distribution the Protestants would support ten, you can send twenty; and put them upon the richest among the Protestants.15

Though the violence of the dragonnades required some acclimation, the results were impressive to many. The ability of Marillac to pursue such a policy is indicative of the frustration with the pace of conversions using the methods of gentleness and persuasion preferred by many clerical leaders. Effectively, much of the missionary work devolved to the intendants, who generally did not share the tender concerns of the clergy.16 On the eve of the Revocation intendants were motivated to ingratiate themselves with the king through their actions, often without waiting for direct orders.17 The effects of the edicts and dragonnades could be serious, particularly with respect to the maintenance of order and collection of taxes. How intendants ensured that both of these were achieved and the law enforced varied greatly.18 Therefore, the effect of the efforts to control Protestants was impacted by the level of enforcement in the provinces and in individual communities, as well as by the letter of the laws coming from the royal government.19 Intendants were key to these enforcement efforts, and the use of dragons was often instigated by a request from the intendant. Louvois was well aware of the potential of the dragonnades, but he did not advocate their use against all Protestants in the realm. Louvois was responsibile for issues of military discipline and worked to control the level of violence.20 He would not send dragons into a province where he did not trust that the intendant would control them, nor would he call for the use of uncontrolled violence. Quelling disobedience was, however, another story— Louvois was quite willing to use these forces to end rebellion against the king and to punish those who participated in rebellion.21 Such was the case when they arrived in Dauphiné in 1683. Starting in May of that year and continuing through the summer, the Protestants of the Vi-

9781611460779_Print.indb 60

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

61

varais, the Cévennes, and Dauphiné organized armed resistance in response to the arrest of Protestants trying to assemble, forming the Campe de l’Eternel with thousands of armed men. This action necessitated royal response, and in August the dragons arrived in Dauphiné and set about punishing the rebels while also coercing many Protestants to convert.22 The provincial leadership was a willing ally in dealing with the rebellion. Administrators sent a host of letters to the royal government throughout the year reporting on the movement of Protestant mobs and some of their various infractions, including reports of meetings in places where Protestantism was forbidden, frequently on the ruins of an already destroyed temple;23 a forbidden meeting when the minister was out of town24; and a gathering of over 1,000 men, many of whom were gentlemen and most of whom were armed with swords and pistols.25 These letters give a sense of the nature and size of the trouble, revealing a detailed knowledge of events throughout the province as well as the location of the rebels. Furthermore, the letters show sensitivity to addressing real problems and punishing the true rebels. The president of the Parlement of Dauphiné reported in August of 1683 that Protestant peasants were being told by the leaders of the rebellion in Crest that the king did not disapprove of their assemblies, going so far as to have copies to that effect printed to mislead the people. The same letter reports that the neighboring towns of Nyons and Dieulefit asked for protection from the rebels. These situations called for an informed and just response, rather than the blunt use of force to procure abjurations. Louvois worked to identify the homes and temples of the guiltiest parties for destruction, while the rest were given amnesty.26 In another instance, the bishop of Valence empowered an intermediary to talk with the rebels at Cheateaudouble and procure a pardon for them.27 The interest in quelling the rebellion did not signify that the troops were not also used to bring about conversions. Such emphasis is evident in the experience of Saint-Paul-trois-Chateaux,28 which was visited by royal troops first in February of 1683. Blanche Gamond, an eighteen-year-old Protestant girl, recounted that the meanest soldiers were lodged with the pastor. These men were then sent to her father’s house, which they ravaged. The soldiers were not successful in their mission as they returned to their home in September, for they were “the most firm in [their] religion.”29 Such stories are often recounted in remembering the horrors meted out against Protestants. In 1683 the use of dragons was part of a move by the government against several forces of disorder, one of which was religious. These visits of dragons were in response to a provocation beyond the mere existence of a Protestant community. This requirement of an additional provocation would change by 1685. Loriol was not an active participant in the rebellion of 1683 and escaped the associated brutality. During 1683 Loriol was called upon twice to quarter

9781611460779_Print.indb 61

7/25/11 10:59 AM

62

Chapter 3

the king’s troops. There were, however, striking differences between the experiences described in other towns and the evidence of the military visits to Loriol. In January one lieutenant, one sergeant, and eight soldiers required housing. The council divided these ten men among ten different homes. Though the numbers per family certainly were reasonable, all but one of the families selected were Protestant. The only Catholic chosen was Isabeau Roueyre, a woman of somewhat modest means.30 In May there was a lieutenant, a sergeant, and ten soldiers for whom to provide. The council allocated the men to seven homes that belonged to Catholic families, and none that had been used in January.31 These billetings do not have the markings of the dragonnades. Nowhere in the council records that deal with the distribution of the soldiers are they described as “dragons.” The soldiers sent to Loriol did not come in large groups, as did the dragons seeking conversions.32 The groups sent to Loriol consisted of only ten and fourteen men respectively, rather than the two regiments that Die was forced to support in the dragonnade of 1683 as punishment for participation in the rebellion.33 These men were part of regiments from Provence, following the Rhône River Valley north. The soldiers were not lodged only with Protestants, and the Catholic parish registers do not contain any conversions among the “host families” during their stay, or any time soon afterwards. Though the passage of these troops coincides with the visitations of the dragons to Dauphiné, there is no indication that they were part of the terror aimed at the Protestants. If these troops were not part of the conversion force, were there others whose arrival was not coordinated by the town council? Certainly such a visit was possible; however, other signs of such a visit are also missing. Most importantly, there were not large numbers of conversions recorded in Loriol at this time, nor was there a precipitous drop in the number of baptisms, marriages, or funerals in the Protestant temple, with an attendant rise in numbers in the Catholic registers. In fact, there were no such dramatic changes in numbers at any time prior to the Revocation that point to the use of dragons, missionary priests, or any other means used to draw large numbers of Protestants into the Catholic Church. The evidence indicates that the people of Loriol escaped the terror of the dragons that visited their region prior to the Revocation. The Catholic and Protestant religious communities were not passive observers as royal pressure mounted. Many Catholic clergy supported and encouraged efforts to bring about conversion (though not all condoned the methods), while Protestant leaders worked to prepare themselves and their faithful for existing and impending persecution. As a body, the Catholic clergy consistently appealed to the king regarding actions designed to bring about conversions. By the assembly of 1682 the clergy was interested in gaining true

9781611460779_Print.indb 62

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

63

conversions and finding areas of shared belief with Protestants.34 The Avertissement Pastoral of 1682 stressed commonalities of both of confessions, such as a shared baptism and faith in Jesus. Many clergy believed that, upon hearing a letter read by Huguenot ministers, the faithful would become convinced to reunite with the Catholic Church.35 In 1685 the Assembly of the Clergy worked out a new profession of faith, one they hoped would be palatable to the new converts, and issued instructions to their clergy that they not argue against it.36 These efforts were ineffective, or at least inadequate. In the face of Protestant recalcitrance, the “war against the temples” continued. Some bishops were fully committed to the way of douceur and refused to have dragons in their dioceses. Two southern bishops, including Etienne Le Camus in Grenoble, refused this kind of pressure.37 On the other end of the spectrum, Bishop Daniel de Cosnac, in Valence and Die, actively sought the help of the dragons in pushing Protestants in his dioceses to conversion so that he could effectively argue for the destruction of temples.38 They helped bring about the conversions of many of the approximately 30,000 Protestants in his dioceses.39 In the face of this onslaught, Protestants prepared themselves religiously for the loss of whatever protections still remained of the Edict of Nantes. They worked to organize and prepare for the change in status from “a recognized minority to [that of] . . . an oppressed minority.”40 This preparation included organization for the move underground that would follow the Revocation and advocacy for the maintenance of the faith within the family, for many, if not most, did not intend to abandon their religion. Protestant assemblies continued despite the fact that they no longer received the approval required by the Edict of Nantes.41 The Protestants of Dauphiné, the Vivarais, and the Cévennes were involved in this preparation. In 1681 the synod of Bas-Languedoc met at Uzès, where the direction of future affairs was placed in the hands of six people. In that year, the Protestants of these three provinces began to communicate, clandestinely with this small group of leaders. The goal of this correspondence was to create some union among Protestant congregations in the area to provide a means by which worship could continue despite the destruction of temples and the end of the era of the Edict of Nantes.42 As before, this new organization of Protestants, loose and clandestine as it was, intended to confront and counteract the situation in the region, which was increasingly hostile to them, while maintaining an avenue for faithful Protestant observance. Momentum had definitely picked up by the start of 1685, and changes were discernable in the actions of the royal government. This year saw the grande dragonnade. Starting in May intendants received authorization to lodge sol-

9781611460779_Print.indb 63

7/25/11 10:59 AM

64

Chapter 3

diers with Protestants until they finally abjured. Previously dragons had been used to gain conversions in places where there were other problems, like the dragonnade in Dauphiné in 1683 that was in response to armed rebellion, though it also initiated many conversions. These justifications were not invoked in 1685, as the soldiers began their work among Protestants.43 They were “systematically sent into the most remote places of France to install themselves with the most obstinate and force them” to convert.44 In Dauphiné and surrounding provinces Protestant resistance was finally overpowered in the months surrounding the Revocation. Royal troops again arrived in the area, forcing large numbers of Protestants to abjure their faith. In September, almost the entire town of Montauban abjured. News of the arrival of the troops spread quickly through the southeast. Some towns panicked at the realization of the imminent arrival of the dragons, and Protestants abjured collectively before their arrival. In Castres, Puylaurens, Nîmes, Uzès, and Montpellier, pastors and laity alike came together to renounce their faith. These abjurations en masse continued through November and December.45 Though Le Camus in Grenoble rejected the use of dragons in his diocese, he was impressed with the progress in the fall of 1685. He wrote in October that almost all Protestants in Dauphiné had converted. He believed that “in three months there [would] remain neither exercise nor Huguenot, nor Calvin’s religion in France.”46 Furthermore, he recognized that conversions in his diocese had been brought about by the existence of dragons elsewhere, writing that he “profited from the occasion of dragons in the neighborhoods for encouraging [his] parishioners to return . . . through the ways of gentleness and persuasion.”47 Bishop de Cosnac, like many Catholic leaders, believed that Protestant congregations could not continue to exist without their temples, and proceeded to seek the destruction of temples throughout the region. By 1683, of the eighty temples in the dioceses of Valence and Die, “there remain[ed] no more than 10 or 12.”48 Loriol’s was among the surviving temples. However, by 1685, when the bishop had reduced the number of temples to no more than two,49 Loriol’s temple had been destroyed. On September 24, 1684, the Catholic priest entered the order to destroy the temple at Loriol in the parish register. The order was either carried out immediately or the destruction had already preceded its registration by the priest. Entries in the Protestant parish register came to an abrupt halt. Though still legal in France, Protestant worship in Loriol ended at this time, as it did through much of the region. The reaction to the destruction of the temple was not what the bishop had hoped for or expected. In spite of the loss of their temple, Rev. de la Faye’s congregation did not submit by abjuring their religion and streaming to the Catholic Church in 1684.

9781611460779_Print.indb 64

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

65

The Catholic parishes of Loriol and Cliousclat should have been inundated with new members with the destruction of the temple in September 1684. The volume of work for the parish priests would have grown fourfold for the curé in Loriol, and the increase for the curé in Cliousclat would have been even more overwhelming, for that town was almost entirely populated by Protestants. The curé in Loriol served a reasonably large parish. In the normal course of events he performed some conversion services, and in the years before the destruction of the temple he performed thirteen such services. The first was in 1681 and the last in December of 1683, nine months before the destruction of the temple. In the year between the destruction of the temple and the Revocation, there were only five abjurations in Loriol and one in Cliousclat.50 It was only the arrival of the Revocation that led many, though far from all, Protestants in Loriol to abjure. The number of sacramental ceremonies performed in Loriol’s Catholic church corroborates the impression that Protestants did not move to the Catholic church for their religious needs after the destruction of the temple. In 1683 the Loriol Catholic church performed twenty-seven baptisms. In 1684 the number was down to fourteen, ten of which preceded the destruction of the temple. By comparison, Rev. de la Faye performed an average of fiftytwo baptisms annually after 1680.51 Similarly, the numbers of marriages and funerals recorded in Catholic registers remained comparable to the average for the parish before 1680. Loriol’s Protestants did not turn to the Catholic Church to fulfill their religious needs in the absence of a temple; evidently, they met their religious needs through less formal avenues, including family worship at home. Up until the month of the Revocation, over a year after the destruction of the temple, the Protestant community as a whole remained faithful to its confession. The Catholic parish records remain largely silent on the “Protestant Question.” With the Revocation, the most obvious, measurable form of conformity was the abjuration of Protestantism and embracing of Catholicism. This was frequently not achieved until significant force or threat of force was applied. A year after the destruction of the temple, though Rev. de la Faye’s congregation had no house of worship, they were still Protestants. Some had jeopardized their jobs in order to maintain their faith, while a few had abjured their faith in order to safeguard their jobs. The Revocation was accompanied by more force. Starting in May 1685 and lasting through 1686, the government authorized the intendants to lodge soldiers in Protestant homes throughout the realm until they finally abjured. The lists of converts were long. In some cases Protestants found refuge in the homes of Catholics who pitied them for the horrors they were facing. There

9781611460779_Print.indb 65

7/25/11 10:59 AM

66

Chapter 3

were some reports that the violence made neighbors more fraternal, as Protestant and Catholic alike hoped to escape the consequences of the troops.52 In 1685 the Protestants of Loriol and Cliousclat were among those pushed to conversion by mounting pressure in the form of the dragons or the threat of their arrival. At the same time that inhabitants of many towns throughout the southeast panicked and converted, abjurations appeared in local Catholic parish records. Conversions only occurred in large numbers in the days and weeks preceding the Revocation, beginning in early October of 1685. In all, ninety-five people converted in Loriol before the Revocation.53 During the rest of the year, an additional forty-six Protestants converted in Loriol for 141 official nouveaux convertis by the end of 1685, including the thirteen people who converted before the destruction of the temple. In Cliousclat the conversions followed a similar pattern. They did not begin until early October, and the vast majority of conversions was finished by the end of that month. Of the 202 conversions recorded, the curé celebrated 188 of them on or before October 22, when the Parlement of Paris registered the Revocation. Thus, for both communities, more than 90 percent of those who would eventually convert had done so by the end of 1685. The converts were representative in terms of their occupations and demographic characteristics. The converts in both communities had a balance in terms of their sex and age distribution. In Loriol, the sex ratio of the converts was even, and 16 percent of the converts were age eighteen or under. In Cliousclat, over half of those who abjured were women and children. Those who converted covered the breadth of the occupational structure of each community.54 In Loriol, the converts ranged from farm laborers to noblemen. Of those whose occupation is known, almost a third were manual laborers or servants.55 Approximately half were drapers, cobblers, merchants, bakers, hat makers, or members of other such professions. Among the remainder were nobles, marshals, and attorneys. This occupational information, though not complete, reflects the great occupational diversity among Protestants in Loriol, who were part of a large and self-sufficient community. In Cliousclat, of converts whose occupation could be identified, almost three-quarters were manual laborers and servants. Of the remaining quarter, they were involved in the trades, which included masons, merchants, drapers, weavers, a tailor, a carder, and a cobbler, and one bourgeois. This relative monotony of occupations reflects the fact that Cliousclat was a smaller, more agricultural community, which relied on nearby towns, such as Loriol, for many of its commercial needs.56 Despite the representative nature of the converts, the lists of abjurations in the parish registers did not include the names of all of the Protestants living

9781611460779_Print.indb 66

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

67

in either town, though it was much more complete for Cliousclat. Loriol was a town of approximately 1750 people, approximately 1,300 of whom were Protestant in 1685.57 Here, only 141 people abjured, or about 10 percent of local Protestants. This figure is quite low, even when taking into account that children were not required to convert. Of the approximately 300 Protestants in Cliousclat, the 202 abjurations represent a substantial portion of Protestants old enough to require abjuration. Pressure to convert came through political channels, such as the dragonnades and caisse de conversions, and through religious channels, such as the lowered age at which one could convert. These efforts were all directed, and often executed, by lay and religious officials from outside of the community. In Loriol itself, evidence of systematic or extreme pressure to convert is limited. While Protestants elsewhere in France (and in the province and diocese) converted in large numbers, justifying the commendations heaped on Louvois, the Protestants in Loriol did not follow suit. In fact, the local evidence shows a population that was driven to some measure of accommodation, but still willing to act contrary to the orders of outside authority at times.

The Arrival of the Revocation In October 1685 Louis XIV signed the Edict of Fontainebleau, revoking the Edict of Nantes.58 This document was the official culmination of years of effort to end the toleration of the Huguenot community in France. As the momentum toward the Revocation mounted, both religious and secular efforts cleared the way for Louis to revoke the “perpetual and irrevocable.” The government worked to make the end to religious toleration both legally possible and religiously unnecessary, and it was quite successful by 1685. Internationally and domestically, Louis XIV was both heralded and reviled. Catholic leaders cheered him as the great destroyer of heresy, the champion of the true God, while Protestant writers attacked him as the great destroyer of freedom, the anti-Christ. The political motivations of the Revocation were great, as were its consequences. However, the act was one that deeply affected the lives of hundreds of thousands of French men and women by fundamentally altering the religious order, simultaneously destroying Protestant temples and enhancing Catholic churches. While the Revocation ended toleration of bi-confessional religion in France, and religious institutions and practices were undoubtedly altered, it did not mark the end of Protestantism in France. The edict clearly laid out the matters of concern for the crown with regard to the new Catholic order. As of October 1685, all practice of Calvinism in France and her possessions was forbidden.59 The Edict of Fontainebleau stopped just

9781611460779_Print.indb 67

7/25/11 10:59 AM

68

Chapter 3

short of legislating conscience. It was not forbidden to continue to believe as a Protestant, but it was forbidden to act upon such beliefs. Clearly this juridical solution did not create a French populace unified in the Catholic religion. Even among those who stayed in France and converted, with more or less sincerity, a distinction remained. After October the difference was between the anciennes catholiques and the nouveaux catholiques, or nouveaux convertis. The problems of religious dissent continued, and the flood of edicts designed to bring the dissident population under the control of both the government and the Catholic Church far from ended. The new era of supposed religious unity raised questions of the place of the nouveaux convertis in society. In short, the Revocation was a major turn in the relationship between France and her Protestant minority, but the journey continued on, with unity far from achieved. The issues of concern for the king and his government in the five years following the Revocation were, again, reflected in the laws promulgated during that time, including the flight of refugees and the fate of the family and property they left behind. In spite of the harsh penalties for those caught fleeing the realm, masses of Protestants sought refuge in Geneva, Germany, England, Holland, and elsewhere.60 Protestant flight greatly affected Dauphiné because of its very large Protestant population and its position as a border province, close to Geneva, the Protestant “homeland” and destination for many refugees. Predictably, Dauphiné lost a large number of her people to flight during these years, many of whom moved through Geneva to other places sympathetic to Protestants. In his memoirs, Bouchu, who replaced Le Bret as intendant of Dauphiné in 1686, estimated that around 10,300 Protestants fled Dauphiné by 1687. Arnaud, a nineteenth-century historian of the Protestants of Dauphiné, doubled this number to over 20,000.61 While these estimates come from sources with clear interests and biases, they nevertheless indicate the range within which the true number probably lies. Preventing flight from the realm was one of the primary responsibilities of the intendant of Dauphiné, and was keenly felt by both Le Bret and Bouchu. In September 1685 Colbert instructed Le Bret to do all he could to impede the flight of Protestants through Alpine passes to Savoy and Geneva. Le Bret was cautioned to be vigilant that gentlemen not provide sanctuary to those fleeing or to their furniture, under threat of having their chateaux or houses razed.62 Nonetheless, when Bouchu became intendant, there was “a veritable exodus of reformed highlanders” fleeing the province. Local officials were tipped off, by neighbors or perhaps the curé, to the plans of emigrants by suspicious activities such as selling livestock and furniture. The efforts to control flight, while the responsibility of the intendant, were the cooperative enterprise of all forms of authority, secular and clerical, and relied upon cooperation at all levels of society. 63 Not all communities experienced the same levels of emigration; some like Loriol did not experience large-scale flight, while others, like Clavans and La Grave,

9781611460779_Print.indb 68

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

69

lost their entire populations.64 The obvious answer to the puzzle of the missing abjurations in Loriol would be that those who did not convert fled the realm, as was in the case with thousands of others. In fact, Loriol was well situated for such flight, as it was in a border province along the route to Geneva, taken by many who fled the realm.65 In contrast to the statistics for the entire province, the evidence indicates that the drain of Protestants from Loriol was not substantial immediately following the Revocation. For example, the number of taxpayers remained fairly stable during these years. The explanations for this general failure of the Protestants to leave are numerous and circumstantial. It is clear, however, that the community did not hemorrhage Protestants in the wake of the persecution and destruction that befell many of their co-religionaires in Dauphiné. Information on the taille assessment is only available for 1689.66 In that year there was a special assessment imposed upon the nouveaux convertis. They had to pay 900 livres divided among 332 taxpayers in excess of the normal yearly assessment to support royal troops quartered at Gap.67 The roll indicated whose taxes were paid and by whom; if the person listed did not pay the assessment, the person who paid was specified along with those who did not pay the tax at all. That almost 79 percent of the total assessed paid their taxes themselves and only 8.5 percent had theirs paid by someone else indicates that a great majority of Loriol’s Protestants stayed through the 1680s. Interestingly, this special assessment, paid by 87 percent of those assessed, came the same year that provincial officials visited Loriol in order to evaluate her ability to pay taxes and to determine any local needs that existed for the tax money. This was part of a larger effort throughout the province that took place in the second half of the 1680s. In each community visited, provincial officials recorded the principal source of revenue, the number of householders, any situations that might impede the community’s ability to pay taxes, and any projects that required money. A lawyer commissioned by the election of Valence arrived in Loriol on August 14, 1689. At this time complaints about the cost of lodging troops were duly recorded, along with the claim that many were reduced to mendacity by the passage of men of war and the flight of many nouveaux convertis.68 The visits to other communities show that almost all of them reported some reason that they could not pay a full tax assessment, whether it was the recent inundation, crop failure, or the burden of feudal dues.69 While it is significant that the community chose these reasons for their supposed inability to pay their tax burden, the data from the taille registers do not bear out their claim to be impoverished and gravely diminished in number, though certainly the Revocation was a difficult blow. In addition to concern with refugees, was the concern with the regulation of religious behavior. The Revocation itself allowed for freedom of conscience, but not freedom of worship. Le Camus in Grenoble was concerned that if the nouveaux convertis did not participate in the Catholic Church, they would maintain

9781611460779_Print.indb 69

7/25/11 10:59 AM

70

Chapter 3

their Protestant devotion; he worried that there would be a lasting memory of the toleration under the Edict of Nantes.70 Edicts aimed to assure that everyone converted, that they actually practiced the Catholic religion, and that all practice of the Protestant religion remained suppressed. As far as religious observance and true faith were concerned, the children were the hope for the future, and efforts to ensure that the government protect their interests and provide for them so that they would remain Catholic were immediate and sustained. It was critical to provide strong clerical leadership and a place for new Catholics to worship. For many communities, the local Catholic church was inadequate, after decades of use by a diminished or nonexistent Catholic population. They needed funds to refurbish, enlarge, or build new Catholic churches; in the dioceses of Valence and Die alone, there were forty churches slated to receive almost 44,000 livres for such purposes, including money to build eleven new churches.71 Additionally, money was allocated to pay missionaries to be sent to Dauphiné to instruct the new converts and to pay for schoolmasters for the children to ensure that they were not secretly given a Protestant education.72 Letters between Colbert and Le Bret highlighted the concern that missionary priests properly instruct the new converts and bring them fully into the Catholic Church. Le Bret talks of the “great work” that awaits them, insisting that they have all of the “qualities necessary for the instruction and edification of these nouveaux convertis.”73 Le Bret suggested finding modifications that would make the transition easier for Protestants, including the distribution of New Testaments and the recitation of prayers in French.74 When a priest was unavailable, stop-gap solutions were offered, as in the case of a minister from Montauban who was chosen (carefully) to administer baptisms, as long as he did so in the presence of the Lieutenant Général of Montauban, without any preaching, exhortation, or other exercise of Protestantism.75 Secular and clerical leaders were determined to eliminate Protestant belief from the realm, though they were not always united in their approach to achieving this goal, and their results varied widely. Success was ultimately measured in the behaviors of individuals and the degree to which they conformed to the law and expectations of the Catholic Church. Achieving this conformity required the cooperation not only of the national, regional, and diocesan leaders, but also of community leaders and individuals. The case of Loriol shows that such cooperation was neither readily given nor was it simple and straightforward. Rather, it was balanced between a complex interpretation of individual and community interests and evaluations as to how to best achieve desired goals. Changes in communities serve as a measure of the effectiveness of royal policies, the level of provincial enforcement, and the ways in which individuals felt and responded to the increasing pressure. Loriol outwardly conformed to the new requirements in several ways. For the most part, however, this did not mean

9781611460779_Print.indb 70

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

71

that people abjured Protestantism or adopted Catholicism. Nor did it mean that they were unaffected by the violence and trauma of the era. The Revocation opened possibilities for persecution of nouveaux convertis by newly empowered Catholics. Financial burdens weighed heavily as some Protestants fled, leaving others to bear their share of the tax burden. The Revocation altered relationships between the confessions, which could have a significant impact on internal relations, and if they were acrimonious, included open rebellion, or resulted in failure to meet obligations, they could invite outside interference. During the years preceding the Revocation, the taille rolls indicate that the economic position of the Protestants weakened over the course of the decade. In 1680 Protestants constituted 74 percent of those who could be identified, and paid not quite 70 percent of the total. On average, they did not pay as much tax, per capita, as Catholics. In 1683 the shift of the tax burden toward the Catholic community was even more marked, when their portion of the total and average assessment further indicates declining economic position among the Protestants,76 confirming the trend from the 1670s. Considering that Catholics established control over the council beginning in 1680, it is unlikely that the diminished assessments resulted from confessional favoritism by the town council. While the Catholic population assumed political control in local affairs and Protestants suffered ever-tightening restrictions, Loriol’s Catholic community gradually assumed more of the town’s financial burdens. These tax rolls provide another interesting insight into the delicate confessional balance in Loriol. Theodore de la Faye received an assessment in the regular levy of 1689, but not in the special levy. As was consistent with his previous tax burdens, his levy was substantial. As a Protestant minister, he had the opportunity to leave the realm without penalty (which Bouchu reported he did),77 or to abjure and remain in France. If he remained, he was TABLE 3.1 Tax Assessment by Confessional Identity1 Anciennes Catholiques

Nouveaux Catholiques

Year

Total

Number

Per capita

Total

Number

Per capita

1678 1680 1683 16892

1,130 1,165 1,425 215

109 135 113 140

10.3 8.6 12.6 1.5

2,800 2,400 2,850 450

382 380 384 371

7.3 6.3 7.4 1.2

1 2

ACL, CC 17. This amount was substantially lower than the normal assessment of several thousand livres in other years. There is no indication of why the figure for 1689 was so low, nor is there record of another general levy, aside from that on the nouveaux convertis. The list does provide information concerning the taxes paid proportionally, however.

9781611460779_Print.indb 71

7/25/11 10:59 AM

72

Chapter 3

promised the continuation of his exemption from the taille and from lodging troops, in addition to a continuation of his salary at a reduced percentage.78 There is no record of his abjuration, yet he remained in town, or returned, and was included on the taille roll in 1689. His continued residence speaks to the existence of some level of community accommodation of his presence. The majority of adults in Loriol who were later considered nouveaux convertis and required to pay special tax in 1689 were not included on the lists of converts. Of the 331 individuals subject to the special tax levied on the nouveaux convertis, only nineteen have a conversion record in Loriol’s parish record.79 A large number of taxpaying Protestants were able to withstand the pressure to convert and remain in town, though they were later included in the category of new converts and were subject to special taxation. Of the sixteen assessments over ten livres, only one man, Jean Theophile Valantin, has a conversion record. Of the most highly taxed, only Timothee de Bares, who had the highest assessment, did not pay the tax himself, suggesting that he may have left town. The position of those who abjured stayed relatively steady on the tax list, indicating that a recorded abjuration did not have a significant impact in the form of tax relief and there was not a negative impact on those who did not abjure.80 In Loriol, many included among the ranks of the “unconverted” played important roles in the community. Perhaps the most notable was Daniel Bonnaventure, the lone Protestant council member in the final years before the Revocation. He does not have an abjuration recorded by the curé, but he was included on the special taille roll of 1689, as were many others, more and less notable, including many local leaders and former councilors. Those who did not convert represented a very substantial part of the taxpaying population, not just of Protestants, but of the entire population of Loriol. Richard suggests that it was probable that conversions were more numerous among aristocratic and bourgeois families than they were among members of the lower orders in society.81 While there were certainly such men on the lists of converts, many among Loriol’s economic and social elite are missing from the lists, notably members of the noble d’Arbalestier family and Daniel Bonnaventure. However true Richard’s generalization was for some communities, the suggestion was not borne out in the case of the Protestants of Loriol. What explains the absence of such prominent men and families in Loriol from the Catholic conversion register? It is possible that these people did, in fact, convert. For instance, Sr. Bonnaventure may have converted before his election to the council before the Revocation. These conversions may have been bought or recorded elsewhere. The “missing” conversions, if in fact they took place, may have been purchased through the caisse des conversions.82

9781611460779_Print.indb 72

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

73

If so, the motivation would clearly be financial and/or political gain. It was possible, though not probable, that such a conversion was not recorded in the Catholic register. The other means of payment for conversions came in the form of tax exemptions. No evidence of such exemptions appeared in the taille rolls. Moreover, the relative consistency in the number of taxpayers and the high rate of continuation from one roll to the next do not support this explanation in Loriol. Garrison mentions that in 1685 Protestants throughout France had their abjurations recorded by the local curé or notary.83 Perhaps the “missing” conversions were those who presented themselves to the notary rather than to the curé. Records for the three notaries active between 1682 and 1690 include no entries recording abjurations.84 Evidently Loriol’s Protestants did not even adopt this strategy for compliance with the spirit of the Revocation of abjuring Protestantism, even without joining the Catholic fold. The fact that there was not overt oppression in the allocation of the tax burden and incomplete abjurations did not necessarily indicate that Loriol was a completely harmonious community. In the midst of all of this turmoil, the council remained largely unchanged in its religious makeup. Daniel Bonnaventure left it in 1686, restoring the all-Catholic membership, as the community worked to adjust to the new, Catholic, order and population of nouveaux convertis. The fact that the anciennes catholiques remained in control of the town council was not a matter of chance. In November of 1685, after the election was over, the newly elected consuls, Arnoux Laloe and Bernard Raoust, appealed to the intendant, asking that nouveaux convertis be barred from the council. They feared that the converts might use the power of the council to unjustly punish the ancienne catholique population. Specifically, they charged that Protestants, if allowed on the council, would use the two-year exemption from lodging the king’s troops as a means of oppressing the anciennes catholiques of Loriol. They charged that the nouveaux convertis would “form a cabal to trouble the repose of the rest of the inhabitants” of Loriol, and therefore must be excluded.85 The Revocation brought uncertainty for the entire community that struggled to deal with the new situation it posed. The council, populated by anciennes catholiques and suspicious of the nouveaux convertis, still had the responsibility of allocating the burden of visiting dragons and other royal troops. Bands of soldiers continued to require lodging and money to pay for their daily needs. The council did not use the burdens solely as a tool to exert their authority over the nouveaux convertis of the town, despite their suspicion that nouveaux convertis on the council would do so to them if afforded the opportunity. They distributed the responsibility for the soldiers much as the council had done before the Revocation. While the nouveaux convertis bore the greatest part of the burden, it was not markedly out of proportion with their numbers in the community.

9781611460779_Print.indb 73

7/25/11 10:59 AM

74

Chapter 3

Twice in the second half of the decade, the people of Loriol were required to support financially dragons who were staying in the area. In 1686 residents made a voluntary loan of approximately one hundred livres from the taille to pay for the dragons, which was divided among fifty-eight inhabitants, including many prominent men from both confessions. Nouveaux convertis made up two-thirds of the list.86 Dragons came again in 1689 and stayed at Étoile, while Loriol again supplied money for their upkeep. Along with the extraordinary taille levy for the nouveaux convertis by order of the intendant, an additional seventy-two livres for dragons was divided among only thirty-four people, almost all nouveaux convertis. Among the few anciennes catholiques on the list, however, were some important men, including Jacques Roueyre, Michel Martin, and Bernard Raoust, all of whom served as councilors or consuls at one time.87 The causes for this relative peace are obscure during the early 1680s, given the size of the Protestant population and the geographical situation of the town. The government was not unaware of the sizeable Protestant population in Loriol. Over the course of a century, on several occasions Loriol incurred governmental interference related to religion. In 1652 the Catholics appealed for new rules concerning the confessional makeup of the town council, and in 1660 the Protestant pastor wrote a controversial book, for which he was fined and condemned to the king’s galleys. In 1684 the temple was destroyed, more than a year in advance of the Revocation. Nor was Loriol protected by mountainous geography. The town lies in the Rhône River Valley, situated on a tributary river among low, rolling mountains. Loriol was on the path of troop movement up the Rhône River Valley. Whereas the intendant was in Grenoble, some distance away, separated by mountains, Valence, the seat of the diocese and the responsible juge mage, and an important provincial city in its own right, was very close and over easy land. Despite the government’s awareness of the town’s confessional makeup and its lack of geographical protection, Loriol was not a target for the persecutions of the early 1680s. The troubles before the Revocation were addressed. By the 1680s they were dwarfed by the severity of Protestant resistance elsewhere. Situated in a region prone to resistance and even rebellion, Loriol was a relatively orderly and compliant community. However, life in Loriol in the 1680s was not perfectly calm and peaceful. The town experienced serious upheaval and was subjected to the scrutiny of military and religious authority. At times, scrutiny revealed confessional tension and failure to fully comply with royal edicts. In at least two instances, the nouveaux convertis of Loriol were included in reports of active resistance to royal policies. However, in both cases, their resistance was not as grave as that of those around them. Dupui chronicled the persecution

9781611460779_Print.indb 74

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

75

of nouveaux convertis in Dauphiné for Antoine Court, a minister of the Désert, for illicit assemblies and other activities throughout Dauphiné, enumerating specifics of the events and consequences meted out to the participants. In his lengthy treatment of events from 1683 to 1708, he mentions activity throughout the region, involving people from Romans, Montélimar, Dieulefit, Beaufort, Chalançon, and Poyols, among other towns. Included in his report was the case of a family from Loriol or Cliousclat whose house was burned in 1687 because family members had been found at an assembly. While the crime and penalty are certainly grave, they are not the gravest included in the account, in which many were executed or sent to prison in the Tour de Crest. In fact, the treatment of the family from Loriol stands out for the lack of detail provided compared to that for a large number of the instances included in the report.88 Another case occurred in January of 1688, when troops under the command of Larray came to the area looking for any seed of uprising and any indication that they might be disposed to imitate their neighbors in the Vivarais and rebel. Throughout the region Larray found signs of growing trouble. The troops stopped for a few days in Loriol. The report made to the commander about the situation was not particularly favorable. In Loriol he found two hundred people gathered with axes, scythes, and pitchforks. He reported that everywhere the nouveaux convertis “preached as in the time when they had temples,” often on the ruins of the temple. However, when Bouchu went to Valence to render judgments on those arrested and survey the situation, he did not find the dangers reported earlier. The assemblies that he found did not approach sedition, not because of an absence of rebellious intention, but because they did not have the arms for resistance. While Louvois was not fully convinced by Bouchu’s optimistic report, continued surveillance showed a diminution in assemblies. By April, Larray reported to Louvois that he no longer “heard any talk of assemblies.” In his estimation, even Die, a longtime center of heresy, showed more marks of Catholicism than the rest of Dauphiné so no retaliatory or punitive measures were deemed necessary.89 The lack of arms for resistance was in contrast to the full-fledged rebellion in the Vivarais. This episode demonstrates that perfect compliance was not necessary, rather reasonable acquiescence to the requirements of the law, coupled with the more threatening actions of those in the vicinity could buffer a community like Loriol from unwanted interference. Throughout the region and the realm the nouveaux convertis’ actions were restricted. They were often closely watched by local authorities in order to detect evidence of illegal gatherings and worship. Authorities sought to secure the children for the Catholic Church, and watched parents closely to ensure that children received appropriate Catholic education. Nouveaux convertis

9781611460779_Print.indb 75

7/25/11 10:59 AM

76

Chapter 3

continued to be singled out to bear onerous burdens: the brunt of military responsibility and paid taxes over and above the community’s normal assessment. With the support of provincial authority, they were excluded from local government and watched for any signs of rebellion. In many ways the nouveaux convertis lost power and influence in the community through the efforts of the royal, provincial, and local authorities. Though they lost political power locally, Protestants in Loriol did not suffer great discrimination at the hands of the local Catholic population. Overtly oppressive measures by the council that might possibly provoke the nouveaux convertis to some form of retribution, a reality of which the council was clearly aware, were not employed. Whatever the motivation for refraining from harshly discriminatory measures, whether fear of local retribution or outside interference, or both, the town survived the Revocation years with sufficiently little internal strife, thus avoiding outside interference. The legal and social situation for the Protestants and nouveaux convertis of Loriol was best characterized by a steady loss of power and control over the course of the 1680s. It was a time when the community learned to accommodate the new religious order. It was not a time of cataclysmic upheaval and brutality, as was the case in other areas, but the losses were real and significant. They, like Protestants throughout France, lost the right to worship. They lost economic and social standing in their community, and they lost some of their neighbors. The new situation even pushed them to the point of protest in defiance of authority. Their rebellion was not, however, dangerously armed, and it was not deemed significant enough to warrant intervention. Their losses, though real and painful, were not debilitating or complete, nor was their compliance.

A New Religious Life Technically, the Revocation allowed Protestants to maintain their beliefs personally without joining the Catholic Church. Despite this wording, the possibility disappeared with subsequent edicts requiring all former Protestants to participate faithfully in the Catholic Church. Compliance included participation in the sacraments, including the Eucharist, baptism, marriage, and extreme unction. Laws designed to enforce this level of participation were passed.90 Despite the fact that many Protestants did not actually convert, they were considered nouveaux convertis. After the mass conversions during the weeks surrounding the Revocation, some of Loriol’s Protestants began to participate in the Catholic Church, as they were expected to do. The number of baptisms performed in the Catholic Church rose almost immediately with the infusion of

9781611460779_Print.indb 76

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

77

the nouveaux convertis into the Catholic congregation. Though the experience of individual families shows evidence that many did move from the temple to the church to baptize their children, the data also suggest that there were Protestants who remained in Loriol, but who refrained from having their children baptized by the priest. 91 There were significantly fewer baptisms in the Catholic Church than should be expected based on the pre-Revocation experience.92 The marked increase in the number of baptisms celebrated by the curés shows that many did as expected, and it raises the question of motivation by these new Catholics. Though overt military coercion was not present in Loriol, dragons were in the region and other forms of pressure bore down upon the nouveaux convertis. By 1686 the actions of former Protestants received great scrutiny, particularly with regard to their participation in the Catholic Church.93 In this environment, women must have felt great pressure as they approached the birth of a child. To help make certain that the children of nouveaux convertis parents received the sacrament, the Revocation levied a fine of five hundred livres on those who failed to bring their children to the curé for baptism, and religious and civil authorities were involved in ensuring proper participation.94 But, there was still a deficit of baptisms in these years, compared to the pre-Revocation numbers, even allowing for a small degree of emigration. Many resisted participation in the Catholic Church at considerable economic risk. There is no evidence that failure to follow these laws was reported to civil or religious authorities, that fines were levied against the former Protestants in Loriol, or that they suffered in other ways for their failure to participate in the sacraments of the Catholic Church. In contrast to baptism, the need for weddings and funerals was not so clearly announced in advance to the entire community, and belief in their importance was not as universally shared; such ceremonies had a different status than baptism in the eyes of former Protestants. Protestant burials, in particular, were often very quick and not accompanied by a great deal of pomp and ceremony, so as to avoid any superstition.95 The number of marriages dropped precipitously. While some new converts did come to the Catholic church for marriage, the number of marriages performed was much lower than pre-Revocation levels. The Protestant congregation celebrated an average of seventeen marriages a year between 1680 and 1683. TABLE 3.2 Baptism, before and after the Revocation Loriol, Catholic Cliousclat, Catholic Loriol, Protestatnt Total

9781611460779_Print.indb 77

Pre-Rev. Average

Average, 1686–1689

24 2 56 82

45 12 NA 57

7/25/11 10:59 AM

78

Chapter 3

From 1686 to 1689 the curé only celebrated eleven marriages a year, less than two-thirds the average number of marriages celebrated in the Protestant temple and the Catholic Church prior to the Revocation. In Cliousclat, some nouveaux convertis celebrated their marriages at the Catholic church, and between 1685 and 1689, six marriages were performed by the local priest,96 compared to five in the seven years preceding the Revocation. The change in number of Catholic funerals performed was more dramatic. Before the Revocation, the curé performed twenty-one funerals a year on average. From 1686 to 1689 this average jumped to sixty-four. The Catholic parish was clearly serving the population of nouveaux convertis with their burials. The same pattern holds true in Cliousclat. There, thirteen people were buried between the Revocation and the end of 1689, compared with an average of two funerals a year in the pre-Revocation years. While data from four years allow only the most general of conclusions, the Catholic registers indicate that the number of funerals after the Revocation held steady compared to pre-Revocation averages.97 However, Protestants did not marry or baptize their children at the pre-Revocation levels. Accounting for the short period of time and the turbulence of these years, the data present a picture that is unclear at best, and can be explained in practical and spiritual terms. The relative stability in the number of burials may result from the fact that the years between 1686 and 1689 were particularly difficult, and more people died pushing the number of burials up to parity with pre-Revocation levels. Thus, a smaller population with higher mortality would resemble a larger population experiencing normal mortality. In towns that did not experience a great deal of migration, higher mortality could mask the effect in the parish registers of a smaller religiously active population. The number of marriages and births may have dropped off for the same reason that the number of deaths rose. The disruption of these years could easily inhibit the creation and increase of families. Also, though there is not evidence of large-scale flight, those who did flee were likely young people, young men in particular.98 A loss of a number of people in their childbearing years or a reduction in the number of young couples marrying could cause the kind of small drop in the number of births that the registers of baptisms suggest may have happened between 1686 and 1689. A final possible explanation lies in the difference between the ceremonies of baptism, marriage, and burial in the doctrine of the Protestants. Whereas under normal circumstances Protestants would not turn to the Catholic Church for any of these three activities, regardless of whether or not they were considered to be sacraments, the 1680s were far from normal. The ceremonies could have been celebrated privately by former Protestants. While this is a possibility, it is unlikely. Baptism was a sacrament for Protestants and Catholics alike, and both

9781611460779_Print.indb 78

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

79

asserted that a clergyman must perform the sacrament. In the Institutes, Calvin clearly stated that “it is improper for private individuals to take upon themselves the administration of baptism; for it . . . is part of the ministerial office.”99 Furthermore, the Protestant synods in France recognized the validity of baptism administered by a Catholic priest.100 As marriages were similar to burials in terms of their status as a rite, rather than as a sacrament, it was not as important to have a clergyman perform them. Increased mortality is the more plausible explanation for the scarcity of marriages and baptisms relative to funerals. Whatever the explanation, the sparse data for the 1680s reflect the difficulties of the age and provide no clear answers about the new behavioral patterns in the expanded Catholic congregations of Loriol and Cliousclat. After being without a place to worship and celebrate these sacraments and rites following the destruction of the temple, and later being forced into the Catholic Church, the nouveaux convertis of Loriol were somewhat reluctant to participate in their new church. The first four years after the Revocation reveal that the Catholic church in Loriol was changed, though all nouveaux convertis did not participate. The events of the 1680s very clearly affected the Protestants before 1685 and the nouveaux convertis after that date. While the effects of the changes wrought by the Revocation on Protestants were fairly obvious and devastating, there were also significant potential effects on old Catholics. What is to be said of the Catholic community in Loriol and their response to the great influx of converts into their midst? Some answers to these questions can be gleaned from the parish registers. Once again, the way in which people acted at the major rites of passage—baptism, marriage, and burial—provides hints about the attitudes and reactions of the participants. The timing of marriages for new and old Catholics in post-Revocation Loriol followed the general pattern of pre-Revocation Catholics. They avoided marriage in Lent and Advent and followed the popular tradition of avoiding marriage during May. The figures for the entire population reveal some change by nouveaux convertis, who had shown no marked tendency to avoid Lent and Advent. The fact that some marriages were performed in Lent and Advent indicates that the priest was not always able or willing to enforce the prohibition. Between 1686 and 1689, there were four March marriages (6 percent of all marriages). Of those marriages, one or both partners were Protestant in three of the couples, and the weddings were in 1688 and 1689, after the initial shock of the Revocation. The fourth March marriage, on March 1, 1685, involved one ancienne catholique and may have preceded the start of Lent.101 The nouveaux convertis who married before the curé did, however, change their behavior with regard to marriage during Advent. Between 1685 and 1689 the

9781611460779_Print.indb 79

7/25/11 10:59 AM

80

Chapter 3

curé only celebrated one December marriage, on December 29, after Advent ended on Christmas day. This was the same as the pre-Revocation Catholic experience, when only one marriage was performed in December between 1660 and 1684. In contrast, Protestants did not tend to avoid December marriage before 1685,102 making the abstinence between 1686 and 1689 a significant change. On the whole, those who married in the Catholic Church acted in accordance with its teaching about periods of abstinence. Avoidance of marriage during May continued, and even strengthened among nouveaux convertis, with only two May marriages from 1686 to 1689.103 The behavioral differences between the Catholics and Protestants before the Revocation were most marked with respect to the delay between birth and baptism. In April 1686 Father Lamy was replaced by Father Jauffret.104 From 1686 to 1689 only two baptisms took place more than eight days after birth, both in 1687. In every year most baptisms were celebrated within three days of birth, as mandated by the Church and the state. This percentage did, however, drop over time, from 100 percent in 1686 to 83 percent in 1689.105 The average delay for the nouveaux convertis and anciennes catholiques was just under two days, when three outliers are excluded from the calculation. Two of the three children baptized later were born to nouveau converti parents, while the confession of the parents of the third could not be determined. The fact that these were nouveau converti parents is significant, but the delays of twentyseven and twenty-three days that these children experienced were not typical. On the surface, Loriol showed a population, ancienne and nouveau catholique, behaving in accordance with the teachings and expectations of the church. Having recently been forced into the Catholic Church, and still feeling the pressure of the roaming bands of dragons in the region, nouveaux convertis were subjected to increased surveillance, or threat of surveillance, by authorities for whom baptism was particularly important. The pressure to bring children to the priest for baptism, and to do so in compliance with Catholic doctrine, was surely great. These changes in behavior came from a population that did not suffer the greatest horrors of the Revocation years, Protestants who were definitely wounded by the challenges of the era, but not fatally so. The changes represent some accommodations made by the nouveaux convertis who chose to remain in France. Many stayed in Loriol and participated in the Catholic Church to some degree. Further, they adapted their behavior to conform reasonably closely to the expectations of their new church. By doing so, former Protestants doubtless avoided some measure of trouble within the community, province, and realm. When they participated in the Catholic Church, they did so more or less properly, thus avoiding undue interference from civil and religious authorities.

9781611460779_Print.indb 80

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

81

The behavior of anciennes catholiques is not quite as straightforward. The most likely explanation is similar to that offered for nouveaux convertis. In these years surveillance was heightened, particularly in areas that had been heavily Protestant, like the Drôme River Valley. Anciennes catholiques also lived in an era of greater interest in their religious behavior. The Catholic Church was undergoing reform, and it was starting to achieve concrete results by the late seventeenth century.106 The clergy was ever more educated with the spread of seminaries; they were more and more willing and able to focus on and enforce the demands of true religion, and they became increasingly committed to teaching their parishioners the catechism and expectations of the faith. These expectations included baptizing a child within three days of birth; choosing appropriately religious godparents for a child; and fulfilling the Easter duties of confession, penance, and the Eucharist.107 As the state built churches with stone and mortar, priests worked to fill them with believing Catholics. These larger trends in French Catholicism were likely more pronounced in areas with many new parishioners to incorporate, with the hope of transforming unwilling converts into truly faithful believers. Fathers Lamy and Jauffret may have been products of the reform movement of the seventeenth century, benefiting from the growth in seminary education and increasing professionalism of the clergy. Changes in Catholic behavior in the last quarter of the seventeenth century suggest that those in Loriol were not immune to these changes and that they modified their behavior to fall more closely in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Another manifestation of these trends within Catholicism was the influx of Catholic religious materials into the country. A Jesuit, having returned from China, proposed that holy services be presented in the language of the people. Through the efforts of Pellisson, a million volumes of religious writings were distributed in France. More than 125,000 Psalms, written in French, were distributed in 1687, along with copies of Coquelin’s Interpretation of the Psalms and the New Testament. These were augmented by copies of The Imitation of Christ, psalters, and catechisms. Further, the bishops of the Midi asked that missionaries understand “the vulgar language” and that they read the epistle and the gospel in French.108 These developments echo the attempts of the Assembly of the Clergy to present Catholicism in a way that was more palatable to the Protestant believer to ease the move to the Catholic Church. While there is not evidence that Catholics in Loriol read these materials, the general increase in interest in religious observance and the wide availability of French-language material may have contributed to a greater awareness of Catholic teachings. Combined with the coercive forces brought to bear on communities of mixed confessional background and more effective priests, these forces could help align practice more closely with expectations.

9781611460779_Print.indb 81

7/25/11 10:59 AM

82

Chapter 3

Many within France were concerned about the ways in which mass conversions were achieved and were intent upon bringing the forced converts truly into the Catholic faith. To this end, instructions were issued to pave a way for the new converts to embrace their new faith in meaningful ways. In Languedoc the concern was to initiate a program that was peaceful yet rigorous, in case of resistance. It required choosing missionaries wisely, using the vulgar language, and working not to affront the sensibilities of nouveaux convertis.109 Along with a greater availability of written material, these efforts surely changed the experience of the Catholic Church for many French subjects, particularly those in areas with significant nouveau converti populations. In Loriol, inhabitants from both confessional backgrounds tended to conform more closely to the doctrines of the Catholic Church with regard to marriage and baptism in the final years of the 1680s. Whether out of fear, desire to set a good example, or increased awareness of the expectations of the priest and church, parents who came to the church did act more as the Church required with regard to baptism. In addition to the accommodations of the entire population to the new religious situation were the apparent accommodations of Father Lamy and Father Jauffret. Entries that did not appear in the parish records tell something about their response to their job of bringing the new converts into the Catholic Church. While they exercised some measure of control over those who came to the church for the sacraments of baptism and marriage, judging from the high degree of conformity, neither priest made mention in the register of those in the community who stayed away. Civil records and regional emigration figures indicate that a significant number of former Protestants in Loriol refrained from participation in the Catholic Church. Many were apparently content to maintain their faith at home, as was compatible with Calvin’s idea that each family is “a little church of God.”110 However, many did accept Catholic marriage and baptism in the new environment.111 This minimal level of compliance required some complicity from the community, particularly the curé. The priests evidently did not enforce faithful participation in the sacraments or fulfillment of Easter duties by people presenting themselves for marriage. They make no mention of efforts on their part to convince or coerce people to convert, for example, on their deathbed, though it was illegal to refuse the sacraments at the time of death. This failure to include mention of those who stayed away from the Catholic Church also served to portray Loriol in a favorable light by not highlighting whatever level of non-conformity existed, which could have invited interference from either lay or religious authorities. At the same time, it left room for the nouveaux convertis to accept Catholic belief as a matter of choice rather than coercion, a preference of many among the French clergy.112 Thus, through their careful actions, the priests likely contributed to the relative peace in the community during these years.

9781611460779_Print.indb 82

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

83

This behavior is consistent with the nature of the parish clergy in the seventeenth century. Despite changes taking place in the Catholic Church, parish priests were still very much part of and dependent upon the community. The bishop frequently did not choose a parish curé, but rather the curé was chosen by a local patron who had the right to name him with the agreement of the bishop.113 This may not have been the case in Loriol, with so many new converts, but it underscores the close relationship common between a curé and his parishioners. The ministry was only effective if a good relationship was maintained with parishioners, who often felt more allegiance to the curé than to the bishop, which frequently led to reluctance to report lapses to the bishop.114 The behavior of the curés in Loriol suggests a close relationship with the community, one which provided a layer of protection and presented the face of compliance. The turbulent decade of the 1680s wrought great changes in the social life of people throughout France. Some of these changes were obvious, such as the loss of great numbers of Protestants who sought refuge in other Protestant countries. Others were not so readily apparent. For those communities that retained large numbers of nouveaux convertis, life was different for everyone. People began to change the way they acted at pivotal points of life, especially when they interacted with the church. The new situation called for accommodation on the part of nouveaux catholiques, anciennes catholiques, and the Catholic Church. The ways in which each met the new demands in Loriol minimized the outward appearance of tension or division. The community looked as if the Revocation had indeed achieved its goals of producing religious conformity to Catholic ideals, as long as one did not look too closely. In spite of the new religious “unity” of France and the apparent unity in Loriol, differences remained, and new ones arose. What was a catastrophic change for the Protestants in France and Loriol may have furthered the process of a renewal and reformation for the anciennes catholiques, as they lived in an era of heightened awareness of religious duty, even if they were not the main objects of concern. Their behaviors and experiences in the final thirty years of Louis’s reign, both in their participation in the communal government and in the Catholic Church, indicate the degree and nature of permanent changes in Loriol. Compliance with the Revocation was not perfect, in Loriol or elsewhere. Loriol’s experience from the 1680s indicates that it was possible for a community to preserve itself in some measure through satisfactory compliance and cooperation from within. Despite tensions and incomplete participation in Catholic duties, the nouveaux convertis of Loriol participated adequately in the church, and did not or could not go far enough in their resistance to warrant intervention. Maintaining this balance was surely in the interests of the nouveaux convertis, but it served the interests of the entire town as well. The determination of provincial authorities that the dissention and resistance required neither

9781611460779_Print.indb 83

7/25/11 10:59 AM

84

Chapter 3

intervention nor the dispatch of troops to maintain order or force compliance helped to preserve the entire community, not just the nouveaux convertis.

Notes 1. Lossky, p. 217. 2. See Collins, State in Early Modern France, 101–102, for discussion of the controversy concerning the Four Articles of 1682; see Lossky, 195–196, 206–213, for a discussion of the controversy over the use of the regale to fund the caisse de conversions and ongoing battles over issues including Jansenism and ambassadorial immunity that ultimately led to Louis’s secret excommunication in 1687. 3. For discussion of the changes in France’s political situation, see Treasure, 256–259. For a summary of the possible explanations of Louis’s marked change in attitude, see Ligou, 242–246; Goubert, Chapter 8; Lossky, Chapter 9; Brian E. Strayer, Huguenots and Camisards as Aliens in France, 1598–1789: The Struggle for Religious Toleration (Lewiston, New York: The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd., 2001), Chapter 3. 4. That is, those of the “So-Called Reformed Religion.” This was the derogatory term applied by law to the Protestants in official documents, as well as the writings of Catholic polemicists. 5. Notary, attorney, process-server, midwife, among others were occupations affecting the public good. Financial ramifications of conversion were potentially great due to the three-year respite from repayment of debts, two-year reprieve from lodging royal troops, together with possible cash payments from the caisse de conversion and loss of income from occupational restrictions. 6. Penalties for conversion to Protestantism were increased to fines and perpetual banishment. The age for conversion to Catholicism was lowered so that a child of seven could abjure Protestantism. The government promised to support children in accordance with their social station. Recueil, tome XIX. 7. ADD, 6 E 19. 8. In April of 1683 Sr. Bouene was named the godfather of Mary Vasserot. His occupation was listed as notary, but there were no entries of his contracts in the marriage records after 1682. 9. ACL, BB 12. 10. Ibid. 11. Sr. Bonnaventure was on the list of nouveaux convertis subject to the supplemental taille in 1689. 12. The baptism of Pierre in 1682 was the last record of Daniel Bonnaventure in the Protestant parish records. In October 1685 he buried Pierre in the Catholic Church and was himself buried in the Catholic Church in 1702. The tax registers attest to his continued residence in Loriol: he was among the top twenty-five taxpayers in 1689, 1694, and 1697. 13. Sr. Bonnaventure also paid a significant tax in 1689, when he was also assessed the special tax levied on the nouveaux convertis which he paid himself. ACL, CC 16.

9781611460779_Print.indb 84

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

85

14. Richard, 124. 15. W. S. Browning, History of the Huguenots from 1598 to 1838 (Paris: Girard Brothers, 1839), 192–193. 16. Robin Briggs, Communities of Belief: Cultural and Social Tensions in Early Modern France (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 221. 17. Poujol, 92–94. Conversion did, however, conflict with a primary duty of intendants, ensuring tax collection. In 1681 those who converted were entitled to a tax abatement, which necessitated a reduction of the levy in Poitou, Poujol, 103. This consequence of widespread conversion would cause problems in the south in coming years, Lossky, 224. 18. Poujol, 95. 19. In Dauphiné, the intendancy was again located in Grenoble by 1680, Bliny, 290–293. 20. Andre Corvisier, Louvois (Paris: Fayard, 1983), 418–419. 21. Strayer, 211–212. 22. Their arrival coincided with the first Protestant uprising since before the Fronde. Garrison, L’Édit de Nantes, 207–209. 23. Such was the report on July 21, 1683, from Sr. de St. Andre, president of the Parlement of Grenoble, AN, TT 451: 82. 24. AN, TT 451: 69, letter from Sr. d’Herbigny on January 13, 1683. 25. AN, TT 451: 88, letter from Sr. St. Andre, president of the Parlement of Grenoble, August 14, 1683. 26. Corvisier, 408–409. 27. AN, TT 451: 95, letter from Sr. St. Andre, president of the Parlement of Grenoble, August 14 and 18, 1683. 28. Saint-Paul-trois-Chateaux is situated approximately fifty kilometers south of Loriol in the Rhône River Valley. The settlement is only twenty kilometers north of the principality of Orange, location of many illicit Protestant assemblies later in the century. France: Atlas routier, 23rd edition (Paris: Michelin, 1995), p. 32. 29. Richard, 125. 30. In 1683 Isabeau Roueyre paid five livres and ten sols in taxes. While this is not a negligible amount, it put her just over the 50th percentile in tax assessments for the year. 31. ACL, EE 15. 32. In 1682 Louis set the size of a regiment of dragons at forty soldiers, Recueil, tome XIX. 33. Bolle, Protestantisme en Dauphiné, 219. 34. An increasing doctrinal openness was emerging. This was seen in moves in the Catholic Church to concede on some issues of doctrine in order to bring unity as seen in Briggs, 218–220; Sauzet cites instructions by bishops to try to convince the nouveaux convertis of the truth of Catholicism by catechizing and giving books written in French, but instructed priests not to antagonize them by taking away their Geneva bibles, being careful not to push too hard, 76; Quéniart argues that the idea that one religion was true and the other false had diminished by the late seventeenth century, and rather that one’s Christianity was that of one’s parents, and generally seen to be

9781611460779_Print.indb 85

7/25/11 10:59 AM

86

Chapter 3

better than the other. Jean Quéniart, La Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes: protestantes et catholique en France du 1598 à 1685 (Paris: Desclee de Brouver, 1985), 81, and Elisabeth Labrousse find that the division between the churches was porous rather than impermeable in Conscience et conviction: etudes sur le XVIIe siècle (Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation, 1996), 105. 35. Blet, Assemblées, 433–437. 36. Ibid., 465. 37. Lossky, 222. 38. Blet, Assemblées, 438–439, and Pierre Bolle, “Deux eveques devant la Révocation: Étienne Le Camus et Daniel de Cosnac,” in La Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes et le protestantisme français en 1685: actes du colloque de Paris (15-19 octobre 1985), ed. Roger Zuber and Laurent Theis (Paris: Societe de l’histoire du protestantisme, 1985), 62–66. 39. Bolle, “Deux eveques,” 62–66. 40. Richard, 20. 41. Recueil, tome XIX. This declaration was issued October 10, 1679, and prohibited the meetings without the permission of the royal commissioner. 42. Ligou, 235. 43. Garrison, L’Édit de Nantes, 215–217. See also Ligou, 239–242 for discussion of the grande dragonnade. 44. Garrison, L’Édit de Nantes, 254. 45. Ibid., 236. 46. Quoted in Blet, Assemblées, 478-479. 47. Ibid., 483. 48. Daniel de Cosnac, Mémoires de Daniel de Cosnac, vol. 2 (Paris: Libraries de la Société de l’Histoire de France, 1852), 113. 49. Cosnac, vol. 2, 114. 50. These included three members of Andre Veye’s family. All parish register information from the Catholic church in Cliousclat is available on ADD 5 Mi 65 R1. 51. This number includes baptisms for families living in Cliousclat as well as other neighboring places, but the large majority of the Protestant congregants lived in Loriol, which illustrates that the Catholic parish should have expected a large increase in baptisms, rather than a decline. One of those celebrated in Cliousclat in 1684 was the illegitimate child of a Protestant father and a Catholic mother. 52. Garrison, L’Édit de Nantes, 230–236. 53. For the purposes of delineating those who converted before and after the Revocation, the date of its registration by the Parlement of Paris, October 22, 1685, was used. 54. The occupational information, when not listed in the record of conversion, was drawn from the notations in the parish registers of other events, which was abundant in the Protestant registers after 1660. For the adult men listed in the registers, occupational information is available for 78 percent of Loriol’s converts and 74 percent of those in Cliousclat. 55. Female servants were the only women included in the statistics. 56. No tax records are available for Cliousclat to provide further indications of the social standing and wealth of the residents, Protestant or Catholic.

9781611460779_Print.indb 86

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

87

57. Geisendorf, 248. 58. Édit du Roy, du mois d’Octobre 1685 Portant la révocation de celui de Nantes; et defenses de faire aucun exercice public de la R.P.R. dans son Royaume. The full text of the Revocation is in Leon Pilatte, ed, Édits, Déclarations et Arrests concernans la Religion Pretendue Reformée, 1660-1751 (Paris: Fischbacher, 1885), 239–245. 59. Pilatte, 239–245. 60. The need to control emigration is evident in the repetition of the consequences of flight. The abundance of edicts on this topic reveals the crown’s failure to control the flight of Protestants to more hospitable countries and the continued willingness of some to risk everything in search of refuge. The estimates of the number of refugees during the years surrounding the Revocation vary dramatically. Contemporary estimates ranged from the four to five million guessed by Saint-Simon, to between the 80,000 and 100,000 estimated by Vauban, Geisendorf, p. 246. Modern estimates argue that between 150,000 and 200,000 Protestants left France in the years surrounding the Revocation, out of a pre-Revocation total of 900,000. This would amount to over 22 percent of Protestants lost to emigration. Geoffrey Adams, The Huguenots and French Opinion, 1685-1787: The Enlightenment Debate on Toleration (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1991), 35; Francois Bluche, Louis XIV (Paris: Fayard, 1986), 603; Labrousse, La France protestante, 71. 61. Arnaud, Histoire, vol. 3, 17. 62. Colbert de Croissy, “Lettre à Le Bret du 20 septembre 1685,” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 34 (1885): 454–455. 63. M. Rey, Un Intendant de province á la fin du XVIIe siècle: Essai sur l’administration de Bouchu, intendant de justice, police et finances en Dauphiné et des armées de sa majesté en Italie, 1686–1705 (Grenoble: Imprimerie F. Allier pere et fils, 1896), 56; Orcibal, 68–69. 64. Samuel Mours, “Essai d’évaluation de la population protestante réformée aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles,” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 104 (1958): 17. 65. Charles Bost, “Les routes d’exil,” Bulletin de l’histoire du protestantisme français 47 (1898): 590. 66. ACL, CC 17. 67. Arnaud, Histoire, vol. 3, 82. The extraordinary tax was raised by the order of Bouchu, the intendant from 1686 to 1705, and was levied on the Protestants in sixty communities in Dauphiné. 68. ADD, C 924. 69. Ibid. 70. Blet, Assemblées, 483. 71. AN, G 7 240 (no number). 72. AN, G 7 240: 427: Missionaires pour instruction dans les diocese; 428: Maître ou maîtresse d’ecole. 73. Le Bret, Lettre à Colbert de Croissy du 29 octobre 1685, Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 34 (1885): 592-593. 74. Colbert de Croissy, “Lettre à Le Bret du 20 septembre 1685,” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 34 (1885), 454-455.

9781611460779_Print.indb 87

7/25/11 10:59 AM

88

Chapter 3

75. Daniel Benoit “Mesures de Louis XIV relatives au baptême des enfants protestants de Mantauban deux ans avant la révocation,” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 54 (1905): 118–120. 76. ACL, CC 16. 77. Archives départementales de l’Isère, 2 C 1000 (hereafter ADI). 78. Armogathe, Article 5, 167. 79. Two of these nineteen did not convert until 1686, months after the mass conversions of the Revocation. 80. ACL, CC 17. The assessment of Timothee de Bares was paid by Sr. Valantin. 81. Richard, 128. 82. No registers of this effort were located for Loriol. The failure of the parish registers to show a rise in the number of baptisms, marriages, and funerals performed indicates that this was not a long-term or effective means of achieving significant numbers of conversions, at least in this particular community. 83. Garrison, L’Édit de Nantes, p. 236. 84. The notarial records for this period begin in 1682. Those for one notary, Pierre Gagnat la Couronne, exist only for 1682–1683. Those for Pierre Rouveyre and Alexandre François Deserre, begin in 1682 and continue through 1700 and 1710, respectively. ADD 2 E 2895, 2 E 2312–2314, and 2 E 2896–2900. 85. ACL, CC 15. 86. ACL, BB 12. 87. Ibid. 88. “Mémoire de Dupui (1683–1708),” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 56 (1907): 414–423. 89. General Jacques Humbert, “Deux années de commandement militaire en Dauphiné,” Revue historique de l’Armée (1968), no. 3, 113–117. 90. Recueil, Tome XIX; See Mours and Robert, Le protestantisme en France du XVIIIe siècle á nos jours (1685–1670). Paris: Librarie Protestange, 1972, 32. 91. Due to the general upheaval and conversions that took place during 1685, these data have been omitted from the pre-Revocation calculations. The baptisms celebrated for people from Grane and Mirmande were very few. The large majority of the members of Rev. de la Faye’s congregation were from Loriol and Cliousclat, whose numbers are used in the comparison. 92. The possibility that the drop is best explained by emigration is unlikely, given the large numbers of nouveaux convertis who paid the special levy in 1689. 93. Richard, 129. 94. Mours and Robert, 23. 95. For a full discussion of Huguenot funerals, see Bernard Roussel, “‘Ensevelir honnestement les corps’: Funeral Corteges and Huguenot Culture,” in Society and Culture in the Huguenot World, 1559–1685, ed. Mentzer and Spicer (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 193–208. 96. Of these six marriages, four took place in 1686. The others were in November of 1685 and August of 1689. 97. From 1670 to 1684 the Protestant temple averaged fifty-six funerals per year, the Catholic church in Loriol averaged twenty-one, and that in Cliousclat averaged two, for an overall average of sixty-seven funerals per year for both communities.

9781611460779_Print.indb 88

7/25/11 10:59 AM

They Will Form a Cabal against Us

89

98. For example, in 1715 Jeanne Barracat married. The priest included a notation that Jeanne’s father had been in the king’s galleys for a long time because of his religion. While no systematic records of such imprisonments exist among the local records, this notation reveals that the town was not immune from such a loss due to failure to comply with the letter of the Revocation and subsequent laws. 99. Calvin, Institutes, vol. 2, 524. 100. Blet, Assemblées, 101; Garrison, L’Édit de Nantes, 201. 101. Protestants celebrated 5 percent of marriages in March in 1680–1684, and 6.5 percent between 1670 and 1679. The Catholic parish celebrated 14 percent of marriages in March, from 1660–1674, and none in the following ten years. 102. Between 1670 and 1679, 7.4 percent of Protestant marriages took place in December, and 5 percent between 1680 and 1684. 103. This compared to only one May marriage among Catholics in earlier years, but almost 14 percent of all Protestant marriages in the first half of the 1680s. 104. While most baptisms in Loriol included enough information to calculate the delay between birth and baptism, the registers from Cliousclat did not include information about the date of birth, and it is therefore not included in this discussion. 105. Of the 189 baptisms in the four years after the Revocation, in almost threequarters of cases the pre-Revocation confessional identity of the parents could be determined. Many of the unidentified parents are likely Catholic. Because of the relatively late start of the records from the Catholic parish, there is less information to use in identifying the parents. 106. Briggs, 364–372. 107. Delumeau, 179–196. 108. Armogathe, 94–95; Strayer, 324. 109. V. L. Bourrilly, “Au lendemain de la Révocation en Languedoc (Novembre 1685),” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantism français 69 (1920): 83–92. 110. François Méjan, Discipline de l’église réformée de France (Paris: Editions “Je sers”, 1947), 31. 111. Quéniart, 125. 112. Briggs, 218–220. 113. Taveneaux, 44. 114. Briggs, 261–262.

9781611460779_Print.indb 89

7/25/11 10:59 AM

9781611460779_Print.indb 90

7/25/11 10:59 AM

4 As If They Were Living in Geneva Ongoing Challenges of Enforcing Catholic Conformity

T

1680s did not bring an end to the problem of the nouveau converti in France. The 1690s were marked by continued attention to the behavior of the newly converted, as the king, his officials, and Catholic leaders tried to assure that they participated appropriately in their new church. The close of the seventeenth century brought the end of both the overt means of oppression and the official distinction between the anciennes and the nouveaux catholiques. The willing cooperation of officials working to eradicate Protestant belief from France was evident among provincial officials and in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. However, the cooperation of these secular and religious elites in furthering royal policies was undermined by the degree to which some local authorities and populations tolerated former Protestants who did not participate in the Catholic Church, and that to which they failed to marginalize them politically and economically. The relative lack of concern with the religious behavior of parishioners locally facilitated the maintenance of the faith through 1715. Though the hope of achieving confessional unity endured, signs that this was a fading possibility became clearer from 1690 to 1715. The royal government, regional authority, and leaders of the Catholic Church worked to transform those converted by force into faithful, active participants in the Catholic Church. There was success in changing the behavior of at least some among the nouveaux convertis. In addition, the behavior of anciennes catholiques was subjected to the increased attention paid to what constituted correct behavior for a believing Catholic. Despite these efforts, the final years of the reign of Louis XIV brought Protestant renewal in France. The Désert, HE CLOSE OF THE TURBULENT DECADE OF THE

— 91 —

9781611460779_Print.indb 91

7/25/11 10:59 AM

92

Chapter 4

1685 to 1787, when Protestant worship was outlawed, saw clandestine worship services held by the nouveaux convertis, the emergence of numerous charismatic Protestant predicants, and outright revolt in the name of religion. Louis’s reign ended on the eve of the organization of a formalized, though underground, Protestant Church. During these years religious violence in France sanctioned by the crown ended. Officially, the king decreed that all distinctions between the nouveaux convertis and the anciennes catholiques be erased. The government and the Catholic Church turned their attention even more fully to ensuring that people’s behaviors were in line with the expectations of the Church, and that they raised their children in the Church. These years brought overt defiance on the part of many nouveaux convertis. The Revocation brought about many things, but not true religious unity in the Catholic tradition. In this respect, the Revocation was a thorough failure, aided by the unwillingness or inability of local authorities to enforce its provisions.

National Concern with Religious Unity The complexity of the king’s problems with religion increased with the number of Catholics. Some former Protestants refused to participate at all in the Catholic Church. Others outwardly conformed to the religious dictates of the Church and the crown, but did not become truly Catholic. There continued to be a substantial population that, though officially Catholic, required attention as the decade of the 1690s witnessed ongoing concern over the former Protestants, particularly their obedience to the new laws and their religious observance. The acclaim that accompanied the Revocation had cooled somewhat by 1690. There were a few voices of compassion toward the minority population. Vauban, the king’s longtime servant and military advisor made an appeal on behalf of Protestants during the War of the League of Augsburg, which absorbed the king’s attention for nine years, during which he was not fully focused on questions of domestic religious policy. In fact, some argue that the king’s involvement in the war, and the attendant need for the service of his soldiers outside of the provinces, allowed a respite for Protestants that permitted many to escape and others to find means of accomodation.1 When letters written to Louvois, Vauban’s superior, did not reach the king, the minister appealed directly to Louis in April 1691, and again in June 1693. Vauban argued that the Revocation failed in its purpose of eradicating the Protestants from the realm through mass conversions. In fact, he argued, many places, such as La Rochelle and Nîmes, actually experienced an increase

9781611460779_Print.indb 92

7/25/11 10:59 AM

As If They Were Living in Geneva

93

in the number of Protestants as a result of tacit toleration of the king due to his preoccupation with the war.2 Though such arguments did not have their desired effect, his efforts revealed dissent among the intellectual and political leadership in France. Louis was not inclined to respond to the calls for toleration expressed by Vauban. The final twenty-five years of his reign were marked by varied attempts to make religious conformity a reality. Agents throughout France were used to enforce the royal will. However, there were changes in the preoccupation with religious issues and change in the objects of the government’s attention. The preponderance of attention devoted to the Protestants and nouveaux convertis during the 1680s ended after 1690. Of the edicts, arrêts, and declarations issued between 1690 and 1699, only about 4 percent related to the nouveaux convertis, compared to about a quarter of those during the previous decade. Further, the crown issued no edicts directed toward Protestants between February 1692 and June 1697.3 Despite the reduced number of edicts, much of their subject matter remained the same through the end of the seventeenth century. Many tried to enforce religious observance. Although the final article of the Revocation allowed for freedom of conscience in principle, the laws that followed its promulgation made such freedom difficult, if not impossible, to exercise. The state and the Church worked rather diligently to ensure that people conformed their behavior to the expectations of the Catholic Church, especially with regard to marriage and baptism, and to assure that families were obedient, so that children of nouveaux convertis grew up Catholic. In addition to addressing family issues were attempts to control the more secular behavior of adults, especially with regard to issues of arming the nouveaux convertis and flight from the realm. The edicts suggest that, through the 1690s, the nouveaux convertis continued to rebel against both the spirit and the letter of the Revocation. With evidence that the current course was not achieving its goals came major policy changes. After the conclusion of the Treaty of Ryswick in 1697, which ended the War of the League of Augsburg, two major directives outlined precisely what was expected of intendants and commissioners in the provinces with regard to the nouveaux convertis. The first was a declaration issued in December 1698 that provided for “the instruction of those who were returned to the bosom of the Catholic Church and of their children.” This declaration was very much concerned with ensuring appropriate behavior by the nouveaux convertis. It was different from declarations issued earlier in that the emphasis was not on the threatened punishment, but on the desired behavior. Through this declaration the king intended “to give again some new efforts . . . to bring [the nouveaux convertis] back solidly and truly into the bosom of the Catholic

9781611460779_Print.indb 93

7/25/11 10:59 AM

94

Chapter 4

Church, outside of which they cannot hope for salvation.”4 Given this goal, the instructions indicate dual concerns. First was the need to ensure that former Protestants respected and adhered to the law. Second, the instructions made expectations clear about efforts to bring about their genuine participation in the Catholic Church. The king reiterated the need for both provincial and diocesan leaders to be diligent in their efforts to ensure that those under their authority worked to bring about the success of the king’s policies. The instructions again forbade all of his subjects to participate in any form of worship of the “so-called reformed religion.” This prohibition applied to assemblies within the realm as well as in the independent principalities, such as Orange. Intendants were responsible for policing their provinces, preventing assemblies when possible, and prosecuting participants. The declaration expressly charged archbishops and bishops to inspire ecclesiastics, particularly local curés, who were primarily responsible for the care of the souls of their parishioners. In essence, religious leaders were to have their curés work to combat the persuasive sermons and writings, including the incendiary Lettres Pastorales by Jurieu, which circulated among the nouveaux convertis.5 They were also to ensure that the clergy reside in their diocese or parish. The king instructed archbishops and bishops to be mindful that parishes with many newly reunited subjects have curés capable of achieving success in creating true converts among the nouveaux convertis. There were growing concerns that new converts not merely outwardly convert, but that they have marks of true Catholicity, evident through participation in mass, confession, penance, and the Eucharist.6 Further, the instructions enlisted the participation of many in secular professions to work to bring about Catholic conformity. Professionals involved in various official aspects of life were to help ensure the proper religious observance of their clients. For example, doctors and other medical professionals were required to advise the curé when they deemed a patient’s illness to be life threatening, so the priest could administer the sacrament of extreme unction and convert those who had not yet done so. In order for an individual to receive any judicial charge or license, verification from the local curé of the “form and disposition of [his] good life and morals, along with attestation that [he] exercises the religion Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman” was now required.7 The remaining points that the king addressed to his subjects, particularly those newly reunited with the Catholic Church, concerned issues of proper religious observance and the proper education of children. Finally, the declaration enjoined everyone to live their lives well and with good morals, in accordance with the requirements of the Catholic Church. In January of 1699, one month after issuing the declaration, Louis issued a secret mémoire addressed to the intendants and commissioners in the prov-

9781611460779_Print.indb 94

7/25/11 10:59 AM

As If They Were Living in Geneva

95

inces, with the intention that it clarify and expand upon the declaration of the previous month. The mémoire was much more detailed in its description of what Louis believed to be the transgressions of the nouveaux convertis, and it outlined what, precisely, he wanted done in his name by his officers. While not abandoning the requirement to enforce the post-Revocation edicts and the declaration of 1698, it instructed the intendants and commissioners to eschew the violent means employed in the previous decade to gain and maintain control over the dissident population. It also stated the desire for common and uniform rules to apply to the nouveaux convertis as much as to the anciennes catholiques, without any differentiation, so that the nouveaux convertis would lose, little by little, the memory of their former separation.8 Having put forth these new parameters, the mémoire outlined the ongoing problems with the former Protestants, and the way in which to deal with them. It addressed wide-ranging issues, such as the false hope of many nouveaux convertis that some Protestant worship would be restored, the correct placement and education of a child whose nouveaux convertis parents were gone, and the treatment of those nouveaux convertis who tried to subvert the curé’s work at someone’s deathbed by convincing a person to die a Protestant. Much more detailed than the declaration of December 1698, the mémoire of 1699 provided the intendants and commissioners a specific guide to use in dealing with the newly converted people in their jurisdictions. The mémoire also provided a clear outline of the concerns and expectations with regard to the entire Catholic population, old and new.9 The text of the mémoire reveals a division in goals and expectations as well. While the king advocated douceur, “in the sense of the mémoires of Vauban,” the effort was to keep as many as possible in the realm by moderating the treatment of the nouveaux convertis, and to at least reach their children. In order to accomplish these goals, the zeal of some ecclesiastics had to be reined in, as some used extremely onerous measures to force their new charges to attend church and frequent the sacraments.10 At stake were the potentially conflicting goals of achieving external conversions, as required by royal decrees, and internal conversions, as desired by many religious leaders. For those who preferred the former, acquiescence to the dictates of the Revocation, as evidenced by adequately correct religious behavior would, hopefully, produce sincere converts in subsequent generations. For those who demanded the latter, requiring true conversion would not allow those ignorant of the significance of the sacraments (or contemptuous of them) to receive them. The mémoire and the declaration also raise the point that Protestants and nouveaux convertis were no longer the sole recipients of royal attention. The infusion of a large population of newly, and unwillingly, converted Catholics created many new difficulties and concerns for the Catholic Church in

9781611460779_Print.indb 95

7/25/11 10:59 AM

96

Chapter 4

France. Though the king’s concerns focused mainly on transgressions specific to the nouveaux convertis, they did, in fact, pertain to all of his subjects, as was evident in the text of the declaration. These two documents make clear that the goal was to ensure Catholic practice from of all of his subjects by specifically outlining the behaviors that marked an individual as a true Catholic. The demands on the resources of the Church were substantial. The king called not only for increased vigilance by bishops to ensure a resident clergy, but also for a more well-qualified and enthusiastic clergy in the parishes, particularly those with large populations of nouveaux convertis. The goal was that such measures would bring about changes of heart and ultimately result in true religious unity. In keeping with the spirit of eliminating the distinction among Catholics, the downturn in the amount of legislation directed toward nouveaux convertis continued through the remainder of Louis XIV’s reign, though it did not completely disappear. Though reduced in number, many laws from 1700 to 1715 continued to address issues of correct religious behavior, while some dealt with issues specific to the nouveaux convertis, in spite of the mémoire of 1699, which did away with all of the old confessional distinctions. The diminution of the anti-Protestant violence did not bring an end to all coercion against the nouveaux convertis, even officially. Those who defied the order to remain in France continued to be condemned to the galleys, and illicit assemblies were to be pursued even more vigorously than previously.11 However, the close of the century brought fundamental change in the treatment of nouveaux convertis. The government continued to try to achieve the long-standing goal of bringing the nouveaux convertis, and especially their children, truly into the fold of the Catholic faith. The final twenty-five years of the reign of Louis XIV saw a shift in focus to the practice of the Catholic religion in general, with some special attention for those newly reunited with the Church. The violence that marked the decade of the Revocation tapered off, at least officially. Such was royal policy. The responsibility for enforcing this policy and ensuring an acceptable level of conformity continued to lie primarily with provincial officials. In addition, the duties of the archbishops and bishops received new emphasis, as they were to provide parishes with priests capable of properly educating and supervising the newly converted.

Royal Agents: Provincial Enforcement The royal government counted on officials in the provinces to enforce the restrictions, often with enthusiastic efforts on the part of lieutenants and

9781611460779_Print.indb 96

7/25/11 10:59 AM

As If They Were Living in Geneva

97

intendants. Throughout these years official reports told of transgressions on the part of the nouveaux convertis, including details of illicit assemblies that were discovered and the arrest of participants, nouveaux convertis who were imprisoned for living scandalously, girls who did not pay appropriate respect to the Host by crossing in a solemn procession, and a request for girls to be sent to a convent as an example to their mothers and other nouveaux convertis.12 There were also requests for new priests capable of working to educate and truly convert those who had recently been brought into the church.13 Though not all provincial officials were so zealous in their pursuit of nouveaux convertis who defied royal edicts, such reports provide the impression of a bureaucracy working to enforce royal edicts. The result was not, however, conformity by the nouveaux convertis, even in areas where the administrators worked diligently in this regard. Reports from the intendants provide ample evidence of continuing dissent among nouveaux convertis. In Dauphiné Bouchu proved himself to be an active crusader against those who did not abandon Protestantism. After becoming intendant in 168614 he often reported illicit assemblies in the province and informed the king of the harsh punishments meted out for those arrested. His reports reveal that such religious meetings took place in Dauphiné throughout the last half of the 1690s, despite his active work to eliminate such forbidden activities. There were numerous arrests of participants in illicit Protestant assemblies in Dauphiné and the principality of Orange. In 1695 Bouchu arrested many people for participating in assemblies in various locations throughout the western part of the province, including Dieulefit, Poët Laval, and Taulignan.15 Through 1698 such assemblies filled Bouchu’s list of judgments. Provincial officials discovered meetings in places throughout Dauphiné, including one in Livron, just across the Drôme from Loriol, that led to the arrest of at least ten who were held in episcopal prisons in Valence. The punishments meted out in this case, as in the others, ranged from substantial fines to imprisonment, to strangulation by the gallows until the guilty expired in the center of a town close to their home.16 By the end of 1699 the intendant’s records included a great number of arrests for going to the principality of Orange without permission, without further mention of illicit assemblies. Those condemned of the offense of going to Orange were consistently identified as nouveaux convertis (contrary to the recent instructions), and they were condemned to payment of fines, imprisonment, service in perpetuity in the king’s galleys, or strangulation in the town square.17 Thus, though the charges against the former Protestants of Dauphiné changed around the time of the 1698 instructions, the preoccupation of the provincial administration with their behavior persisted, as did the intendant’s willingness to impose the most severe punishments.

9781611460779_Print.indb 97

7/25/11 10:59 AM

98

Chapter 4

The reality of a reasonably large number of meetings and illicit trips to Orange, some of which were discovered and dealt with by the intendant, raises the possibility that at least some local authorities were somewhat lax in their efforts to enforce the terms of the Revocation. Those who attended the meetings were willing to take the risk that their defiance of the law would be discovered by the intendant or his officers. Bouchu had a reputation for severe punishment of defiant Protestants, meted out without pity. The enforcement from Grenoble was hard and severe.18 Yet, under his rule, many nouveaux convertis were willing to act against the law and attend secret meetings to worship. The willingness of people to participate in such assemblies, many without prestige or status to protect them, suggests that they did not run a particularly great risk of punishment by the local authorities. In 1700 reports concerning affairs in the provinces were sent to the crown. These outline some of the ongoing issues in the province and their resolution at that point. These reports include such things as individuals being imprisoned for sending their children to Geneva for education and the need for a convent for young women in Mens.19 In the face of such challenges, provincial officials had to focus on significant needs and threats; they did not have the opportunity to take on every act of defiance if it did not directly challenge the law. Places like Loriol, which managed to avoid rising to this level of problem to provincial authority, stood a better chance of avoiding the attention of the intendant and the king.20

Clerical Enforcement in Dauphiné In addition to the intendants, the Catholic hierarchy constituted a second arm of enforcement for religious policy in the provinces. The declaration of 1698 and the mémoire of 1699 urged the clergy to take a greater role in the enforcement of royal religious policy. 21 In Dauphiné some bishops responded to this call for support and their reports attest to the attention given by the Catholic hierarchy to questions of the behavior of individuals. In many instances these reports give evidence of the vigilance of ecclesiastical leaders in working for religious unity. Bishops from throughout the province sent letters to their intendant concerning the behavior of their parishioners. In 1700 the bishop of Valence reported his policy of no tolerance for impudence on the part of the nouveaux convertis, noting that many were in prison for this offense. The bishop of Die stressed the need to deal with the haughtiness of the most obstinate, sometimes by taking their children away for proper religious instruction. The bishop of Valence and archbishop of Vienne reported success, attesting to the true conversion of one held in prison for eighteen months;

9781611460779_Print.indb 98

7/25/11 10:59 AM

As If They Were Living in Geneva

99

they wrote the intendant in support of his release. In another case, the bishop of Die asked for permission to send girls in his diocese to a convent, which disposed their parents to instruct their children in Catholicism.22 Some concerns from the years immediately following the change in royal policy indicate the degree to which the problem of unfaithful nouveaux convertis persisted, despite some successful efforts. The bishop of Die was concerned about the religious education of a half dozen girls in Mens and proposed putting them in a convent; Bouchu agreed to send two to the convent of Ste. Ursule de Die. The bishop also complained of a man from a good family who was introducing lies into places replete with nouveaux convertis and committing terrible acts. (He wanted this man sent to prison.) There were nouveaux convertis living scandalously who needed to be incarcerated in the Tour de Crest, and there were people throughout the province failing to live up to their Catholic duties. These reports were interspersed with reports of successes and a request for a Jesuit to help support the nouveaux convertis in their assimilation into the Catholic Church,23 in addition to a request for money to pay ancienne catholique schoolmasters in areas with many nouveaux convertis.24 Also evident was the reality that the vigilance of these leaders was not always reinforced by their subordinates serving individual parishes. The curés were the face of the Catholic Church to most people, and they were positioned to enforce the requirements of the Church. They were supposed to ensure that people married in their home parish and that godparents were appropriately knowledgeable about religious truths, among other things.25 Clandestine marriage had been and continued to be a problem. In the late 1690s the king was informed of people sneaking off to the valleys of the Piemont to marry, against the regulations of the church, and living in “veritable concubinage.”26 One town in the Viennois, Roybon, was so bad that it was “as if they were [living] in Geneva, without observing the ordinances of the king “because of the rate at which they married secretly in front of a Protestant notary, with the apparent acquiescence of the local curé.27 Pastoral letters that Bishop Jean de Catellan of Valence wrote to his curés reflect problems reported by himself and his colleagues throughout the province. The letters outlined in great detail instructions that were to be given to parishioners regarding proper Catholic observance. These concerns coincided closely with those addressed by the king. They also reflected a tension felt within religious circles. There was a strong desire to bring the nouveaux convertis faithfully into the Catholic Church. However, there were also many who had a powerful desire to protect the Church and the sacraments from abuse by people who were not faithful believers.28 Pastoral letters of the early eighteenth century show the bishop of Valence trying to address both of these matters.

9781611460779_Print.indb 99

7/25/11 10:59 AM

100

Chapter 4

In 1709 the bishop instructed curés regarding the marriage of the newly reunited Catholics in their parishes. He reiterated the expectation that the conduct of the priests be “full of gentleness and charity” toward the nouveaux convertis in their parishes, but warned of those who testified falsely to a sincere desire to submit fully to the Church. Those who did not at all exhibit such a desire could render the curé responsible, in addition to themselves, in the abuse of the sacraments.29 In particular, he reminded his clergy that the Church always regarded marriage as a sacrament, and that its dispensation demanded the highest levels of understanding and precaution on their part. Knowing these things, he advised that with regard to the nouveaux convertis, the priest must have proof of the bride’s and groom’s submission to the Church and be certain that those presenting themselves for marriage were true to God. Also, converts must be given time for self-examination, to see that their faith was truly in their hearts. Only then should the priest proceed with the marriage. These instructions came after the bishop learned that some of his curés administered the sacrament of marriage to all of the new converts without first requesting any proof of their religious sincerity, in the form of either from personal experience of the priest with the persons involved or by confirmation from the priest in their home parish, one of which had to be acquired in all cases before the publication of bans and the performance of the ceremony. The bishop’s instructions on marriage solely concerned the practices of the nouveaux convertis and the requirements of the clergy with respect to these parishioners, but his admonitions had clear implications for the entire Catholic community. The warning that nouveaux convertis must participate in the life and teaching of the Church to receive the sacrament of marriage surely served as a reminder for some of the parish priests of the requirements of the sacrament. The instructions demanded that the curé give a good deal of attention to the participation of his parishioners in the life of his parish. While an instruction to be mindful of the worship habits of the nouveaux convertis did not necessarily translate into greater attention by local priests, the bishop’s letter stands together with the instructions of the king in admonishing the clergy to be ever more attentive to the religious activities of all of their parishioners.30 Also in 1709, the bishop wrote a pastoral letter to the new Catholics of his diocese concerning the troubles in the Vivarais. Violence broke out in 1709 that would last for two years before peace was restored.31 In this appeal the bishop used extensive biblical references in an attempt to dissuade those under his care from revolting against the king, God, and their own party. In addition to attempts to persuade, Catellan also outlined the punishment for those who did revolt against their prince, again supporting his argument

9781611460779_Print.indb 100

7/25/11 10:59 AM

As If They Were Living in Geneva

101

with extensive biblical quotation.32 The diocese of Valence was very vulnerable in this time of troubles. It shared a border with the Vivarais, and some of the bishop’s parishioners had many ties with those living there. In Loriol it was not uncommon for a godparent of a child at its baptism, or the bride or groom at a wedding, to live in the Vivarais. In fact, some towns of the Vivarais were closer to Loriol than Valence and the bishop. On the whole, the nouveaux convertis of Dauphiné refrained from participation in the revolt in the Vivarais, though some were involved.33 This surely benefitted those who refrained from revolt, as participation would likely have invited interference from lay and religious officials, whatever the religious background and observance of the entire community. In 1712 the bishop again sent instructions to the clergy in his diocese, this time concerning the instruction of children of nouveaux convertis. He explained that a child’s baptism made that child a precious part of the Catholic flock, so priests must pay special attention to ensure that the children received proper instruction in the faith. In particular, those parishes with some nouveaux convertis demanded more exact and rigorous application of regulations concerning education of the children. The children must be carefully monitored because their parents, who “do not cease to inspire them” in secret, would teach them Protestant beliefs and lead them away from the Church. The bishop argued that the Catholic Church must not let these children be seduced into heresy, but must instruct them in Catholicism from the age at which they first have use of reason. The Church, the bishop insisted, must use the innocence that the children received at their baptism. In the battle for the children, the parents were the enemy whom the parish clergy must fight. The parish priest was the front line of defense of the children, and the bishop encouraged and instructed them in the struggle.34 The final pastoral letter in 1712 gave further instruction concerning marriages performed without the nuptial benediction. In this letter, Bishop de Catellan asserted that marriages contracted without the benediction of a pastor were invalid, illicit, and contracted against the laws of the Church, which had been in constant and uniform usage. People who entered into such marriages were subject to the most severe penalties of the Church.35 This letter reaffirmed the declaration of the king from 1697, which forbade the practice of contracting marriages solely before a notary, rather than going to the church. These four documents from 1709 and 1712 indicate the areas of interest to the bishop of Valence. They also intimate the ways in which he believed his parishioners expressed their resistance to the Catholic religious order. His letters show that twenty-five years after the Revocation, sufficient progress had not been made in key areas of concern. First, the bishop did not feel that marriages were properly monitored and executed in keeping with Church

9781611460779_Print.indb 101

7/25/11 10:59 AM

102

Chapter 4

requirements. As a major point of contact between a church and its parishioners, the sacrament of marriage was an ideal point for enforcing the religious requirements of the conversions of the nouveaux convertis and their children. Also, the bishop deemed that clergy were not adequately ensuring that children received a proper religious education. The influence of their parents, contrary to that of the Church, was undermining the purposes of the Catholic Church and of the Revocation. Judging from the concerns of the bishop, the hope to bring the children up as truly faithful Catholics and through them finally to erase traces of Protestantism was far from fulfilled. The bishop’s letters also indicate a rift between the goals of the Church on the diocesan level and the actions of the Church’s agents in communities. Several times in his letters, Bishop de Catellan suggested that the clergymen in his diocese were unclear on the requirements of the Church, or were otherwise not performing their duties with adequate vigilance. Parish priests were not protecting against the possibility that nouveaux convertis abused the sacraments and did not fulfill the promise of their conversions. As with the intendant’s enforcement of royal edicts and the continued defiance by nouveaux convertis, the bishop’s letters indicate that the parish clergy were not fully cooperative in efforts to bring them truly into the Catholic Church. The bishop’s concerns also indicate that the Revocation failed to achieve its general aims of creating a unified Catholic population. Twenty-five years after its issuance, the Church did not have sufficient control over young couples to assure that they married in the Church, nor had it secured the children for the faith. The defiance of nouveaux convertis with regard to marriage indicates that similar defiance might be expected from them as parents, thus exacerbating the problem of the children. The art of passive resistance was well honed by the early eighteenth century, making the work of the Church difficult, if not impossible. The failure to effect true conversions of the adults in 1685 may have closed the door to gaining the souls of their children and even their grandchildren.

Local Enforcement: Secular and Sacred Full realization of the changes sought by the policies of the end of Louis XIV’s reign required the participation of local authorities, lay and religious. In Loriol these years showed that the new converts were not completely subjected to the rigors of the laws, nor were they marginalized by the dominant Catholic population. Further, they were not subjected to oppressive oversight on the part of the local curé.

9781611460779_Print.indb 102

7/25/11 10:59 AM

As If They Were Living in Geneva

103

A wide range of decisions, including tax assessments, soldiers to be drafted, and lodging of soldiers, was made by the council in Loriol and recorded in the council’s minutes. When the decisions were controlled by the local council, there is little evidence of overt discrimination. Measures that singled out the nouveaux convertis for special burdens came from outside, though they were administered locally. These burdens included things such as extraordinary taille assessments that were required by the intendant, but allocated by the council. The situation of the nouveaux convertis in Loriol at the close of the seventeenth century is best described as ambivalent. The request of 1685 that the council be all anciennes catholiques was reinforced in 1689 with the reiteration of the requirement that nouveaux convertis not be allowed to serve as council members without certification from the curé that they had frequented the sacraments since their conversion.36 Yet, by 1691 the nouveaux convertis had a representative on the council. With no indication in the parish record or the council records of such a certification, one of the twelve people chosen for the conseil particulier and the conseil général was a nouveau converti, Mr. Jacques Chambon, who had no abjuration record, was assessed for the special taille in 1689, and was elected to the conseil particulier two years later.37 Nouveaux convertis held other positions of local authority by the eighteenth century.38 From 1707 through 1710, Jean Antoine Chambon, a man of Protestant heritage, was the receveur des tailles. He was the local official responsible for making payments to the curé from the taille collection and the précepteur de la jeunesse.39 In 1711 he was followed in this position by Jean Bonnaventure, another man of Protestant background. Mr. Bonnaventure held the position until at least 1715 when the record ends.40 Despite these examples, the majority of local leadership positions remained in the hands of the ancienne catholique population. The practical exclusion of nouveaux convertis from local power provided an opportunity for Catholics to apply pressure on nouveaux convertis, though to do so might have negative consequences. It could invite unwelcome attention from civil and ecclesiastic authorities that could threaten the well-being of the entire community, not just that of the former Protestants. Further, it could antagonize the majority Protestant population, raising the fear of a hostile cabal expressed in the letter written to the intendant in 1685. The financial burdens imposed on all Frenchmen became onerous by the end of the century. The treatment by the ruling Catholics in Loriol was ambivalent. Some discriminatory taxation against the nouveaux convertis continued. As had been the case in the 1680s, the order for these assessments came from the provincial administration rather than from the council.

9781611460779_Print.indb 103

7/25/11 10:59 AM

104

Chapter 4

Tax collection was a priority for royal officials, particularly as the cost of years of warfare mounted. During the 1690s, treasury receipts reached a seventeenth-century high at over 145 million livres, an increase of 26 million livres over the previous decade.41 This increase likely reflects improved efforts at collection, as well as general increases, both of which took their toll on the population. Exhausted from the almost incessant war that marked the end of the reign, the reserves of the French people were depleted just as famine struck the countryside.42 In 1694 France starved. With the possible exception of Brittany and the Mediterranean south, the country experienced a famine of great proportion, as did many other parts of Europe. Goubert states that at least 10 percent of the French population died between the summer of 1693 and that of 1694, while Marcel Lachiver estimated the loss was about one-quarter of the population. In Saint-Justen-Cevalet in the Vivarais, a priest reported that people “were found lying dead ‘in the fields with their mouths filled with grass.’”43 In addition to the potential demographic consequences of want and loss, there were economic consequences. The famine followed a string of increasingly disastrous harvests between 1691 and 1693, which sent prices soaring. Between 1688 and 1694 in most places prices rose to five or six times their previous level, or even more. The army exacerbated the problem of food shortage by purchasing large quantities at low prices before the harvest. The food that was available was too expensive for the poor throughout the country. The agricultural crisis, combined with the general increases in the taille during the previous years and accumulated taille arrears, made the situation in 1694 desperate for many in France.44 Loriol did not escape the calls for more taille revenue. In 1691 Bouchu demanded an additional seventy-five livres from Loriol. This levy was not specifically limited to the nouveaux convertis, though it fell almost exclusively on them. The only ancienne catholique assessed was Michel Martin, who was also the only person on the list to receive a levy under one livre, substantially smaller than his fair share of the burden based on his regular taille assessment.45 The inclusion of Mr. Martin is insufficient to make the extraordinary burden bi-confessional. In September of 1691 Bouchu ordered another special assessment on those in Loriol who professed the “so-called reformed religion” before September 1683, the time of the mass conversions that came with the first dragonnade in Dauphiné. The levy totaled over eighty-eight livres, paid by thirty-eight people, most of whom also were assessed in the extraordinary levy of 1689.46 Outside of such special levies, burdens imposed on the community were not consistently imposed on the nouveaux convertis, but were generally borne by the entire community.

9781611460779_Print.indb 104

7/25/11 10:59 AM

As If They Were Living in Geneva

105

In keeping with the trend of increased taxation, or at least increased tax assessments, Loriol’s taxes did rise in the earlier years of the decade. In 1694, the year of the famine, Loriol received a taille assessment of over 5,800 livres,47 an increase of over 1,000 livres from the assessment in 1691.48 Adding to the burden was the population loss indicated in the parish registers. While Loriol’s population was not decimated, the number of burials was substantially higher, approximately double that of more stable times.49 At this time of want, the temptation to shift the burden of taxes disproportionately onto the politically disadvantaged nouveaux convertis would be understandable. The tax rolls from 1694, therefore, provide an opportunity to detect discrimination against the nouveaux convertis in Loriol at the hands of members of their own community. Comparison of the tax assessments of the nouveaux convertis and those of the anciennes catholiques in 1691, 1694, and 1697 show this is not the case. Through the 1690s total assessments rose, as did the proportion borne by anciennes catholiques. The average assessment of anciennes catholiques was higher than that for the nouveaux convertis in Loriol in each year.50 The taille assessments from the 1690s suggest that although the nouveaux convertis experienced the loss of many rights in the previous decades, they were not disproportionately burdened with taxes by the mid- to late-1690s, nor were they completely devastated financially, though their financial strength was weakened by 1700. The drop in the proportion of the taille paid by the nouveaux convertis may have been affected by the economic decline that affected all of France, which some argue hit the Protestants particularly hard due to their weakened economic position and trials of the Revocation.51 The continued high assessments for the anciennes catholiques relative to those given to their nouveau converti neighbors in a time of famine support the notion of the economic decline of the nouveaux convertis, but not the idea that the ancienne catholique leadership used tax assessment as a tool of oppression. Between 1691, a normal year, and 1694, a year of famine, the proportion of the tax paid by the anciennes catholiques actually rose, as did their average assessment, and the confessional background of those with the highest assessments in the 1690s is similar to that from 1678 and 1689. TABLE 4.1 Taille Assessment by Confessional Background1

1

Year

Protestant

Catholic

Unidentified

Total

1691 1694 1697

3,513 (73%) 4,127 (71%) 4,951 (67%)

1,029 (19%) 1,350 (23%) 1,881 (26%)

238 (7%) 349 (6%) 516 (7%)

4,780 (100%) 5,826 (100%) 7,348 (100%)

ACL, CC 19.

9781611460779_Print.indb 105

7/25/11 10:59 AM

106

Chapter 4

In fulfilling their duty to provide for royal armies, the ancienne catholique population also bore its share of the burden. In 1690 Loriol was called upon to provide two young men for the army. The call came as Louvois was working to ensure that the nouveaux convertis in Dauphiné and the Vivarais were disarmed.52 In fulfilling this requirement, the council named three men, between twenty-three and twenty-six years old. It was well beyond the two years the law banned nouveaux convertis from military service after conversion, but given the concern with arming the nouveaux convertis, it is not surprising that all three were the children of anciennes catholiques. In May of 1696 the council ordered a dispersement to those in Loriol who had previously lodged cavalrymen, in the amount of eighteen deniers per day per soldier lodged. Though the nouveaux convertis made up the majority of those reimbursed, some anciennes catholiques were among the eleven who received payment, including Jean Roueyre and Jean Louis d’Arnoux, men from two influential families that provided council members, attorneys, and notaries for the community. The burden of lodging these soldiers was distributed among the population in approximately the same proportion as their presence on the taille rolls.53 Further evidence that the Protestant population was not overtly persecuted in Loriol was the continued residence of Reverend Theodore de la Faye in the town. The return of Protestant ministers to France was a problem recognized by the crown almost immediately. In 1686 Louvois wrote to the intendants to inform them of the resolve of many ministers who left the realm with the Revocation to return, “disguised as merchants and cavaliers in order to seduce the new converts” so that they would not embrace the Catholic faith. He urged the intendants to be attentive as they worked to discover and punish those who tried such a ruse and to oblige others to leave the realm immediately.54 If Reverend de la Faye was a participant in this plan of subterfuge, he did not work hard to hide. He returned to the town where he had long served as the Protestant minister. The tax rolls of the 1690s continue to include him among those assessed. His tax burden was substantial, though not overwhelmingly so. He was required to pay over eighteen livres in 1697, which put him among the top 20 percent of taxpayers, and was on par with his assessments in prior years.55 Further, Rev. de la Faye was not among the nouveaux convertis taxed in 1689, though he was included on the regular taille roll for that year and was subjected to the extraordinary levy paid by the nouveaux convertis in 1691. Though he likely left the realm, he returned to Loriol within the next few years. He was reported to have left the realm by Bouchu, supposedly taking the wealth of the consistory with him. In 1692 he was held responsible for the sum of 6,000 livres, which was quite substantial, relative to the amounts owed by most other places in Dauphiné.56 Samuel Mours includes

9781611460779_Print.indb 106

7/25/11 10:59 AM

As If They Were Living in Geneva

107

him among the refugees in Switzerland in his extensive study of pastors and the Revocation, not among the apostates who abjured their religion.57 Rev. de la Faye returned to live in Loriol during the 1690s and paid taxes, with no record of his abjuration of Protestantism and with a huge judgment against him on record in Grenoble. His situation not only attests to the lack of virulent confessional tension in the community, but also to the degree to which the community found its self-interest in neglecting to notify provincial officials of the situation. If indeed he was hiding from outside authority, he was hiding in plain sight with regard to his neighbors. Though opportunities arose to do so, the community did not take it upon itself to be the enforcers of royal policy toward the nouveaux convertis. The experience of Loriol shows that the effects of the Revocation were still felt in communities at the end of the seventeenth century. The nouveaux convertis in this community were still singled out for extraordinary burdens by provincial officials. However, when the council controlled the allocation of burden, there is little suggestion that the ancienne catholique population saw this as an opportunity to oppress their neighbors. While regional authorities continued to focus on the former Protestants, local officials showed little inclination to follow suit. The relative paucity of nouveaux convertis on the council is a reminder that confessional suspicions remained in Loriol. However, the distribution of taille assessments and military obligations indicate that this suspicion did not lead to overt or debilitating retribution against the nouveaux convertis by their neighbors, even when opportunities to do so were available. Despite the relative lack of oppression originating from local sources, the Revocation years clearly had a damaging effect on the nouveaux convertis of Loriol. By the turn of the century they had lost a great deal by any measure. The declining proportion of tax revenue from the nouveaux convertis speaks to the economic hardship the community endured over these years. Additionally, their political power was devastated and their social standing diminished. The Revocation years tell a story of a suffering community to be sure, but one in which the suffering had specific sources and which was less profound than that of some of their sister communities who felt the heavy hand of both secular and sacred agents bent on bringing about a France toute catholique.

The Failure of Enforcement Less than a month before his death, Louis affirmed that former Protestants who remained in the realm and their children had indeed embraced Catholicism. He argued that their continued presence in France was sufficient proof

9781611460779_Print.indb 107

7/25/11 10:59 AM

108

Chapter 4

of their sincerity.58 The king’s assumption was quickly proven wrong. Despite continued efforts to enforce a policy of unity in the Catholic Church, the death of the Sun King in September of 1715 coincided with the re-establishment of a formal Protestant hierarchy in France, albeit clandestine and illegal, when the celebrated pastor of the Désert, Antoine Court, conceived of a plan to reorganize French Protestantism. His work came seven years after the ministry of Jacques Roger began to revive Protestantism in Dauphiné in 1708. Under the direction of Roger and at the urging of a pastor in Dauphiné, the first provincial synod of Dauphiné convened on August 22, 1716. This meeting was among the first in France, following a meeting in Languedoc in August of 1715.59 The early convocation of such organized, though fairly passive, resistance indicated the strength both in numbers and of faith of Protestant believers who remained in Dauphiné, thirty years after the Revocation. At the meeting, participants, including several former ministers and predicants, outlined rules that would govern the churches of the Désert in Dauphiné. The synod called for ministers and proposants to travel the countryside, visiting a large number of churches and staying in the homes of their “parishioners.” They were to catechize those whom they could, and explain those things that the parishioners did not understand. The acts required that synodal meetings be held every six months with pastors, proposants, and elders of the synod in attendance. Finally, the synod exhorted “the elders and the faithful to watch over the safety of the predicateurs that Providence furnished to them, and to provide the things necessary to their proper upkeep.”60 The region of the Drôme River was one of the most heavily populated areas in France with churches of the Désert, as was the neighboring Vivarais.61 The Protestants of Loriol were well placed to participate in the life of the new synod. The town was a part of the colloque de la Plaine du Drôme and was visited by the famed Protestant predicateur, Jacques Roger, in 1715.62 Further evidence of the participation of Loriol in the Protestant revival of the 1710s was the clandestine assembly in the nearby valley of Bourdeaux in 1718, which brought some 5,000 Protestant faithful together.63 These events attest to the continued presence of Protestants in Loriol and the region. By this time the failure of the Revocation to bring about true religious unity was evident. Thousands of Protestants had fled the realm by the end of the seventeenth century. Nouveaux convertis continued to come together to worship at secret assemblies within France and in the principality of Orange. Though violence against Protestants ended and the king declared that all of his Catholic subjects were to be treated equally, there continued to be problems of conformity to Catholic doctrine on important issues of proper participation in the sacraments in dioceses that had significant populations of nouveaux convertis.

9781611460779_Print.indb 108

7/25/11 10:59 AM

As If They Were Living in Geneva

109

Many indicators pointed to the failure of the Revocation to eradicate the actual existence of two confessions in France. Simply removing the official existence of Huguenot worship in France and legislating participation in the Catholic Church was obviously not enough to achieve true religious unity. Much of the Protestant minority was poorly integrated into the Catholic Church. Though active resistance, such as participating in assemblies and deserting the realm, was an obvious indication of the failure of the Revocation, it did not involve the whole, or even a very substantial part of the population of nouveaux convertis in Dauphiné. Many nouveaux convertis did not actively subvert the mandates of the Catholic Church or the king by rebelling or secreting away to illicit worship services. The failure of the Revocation to bring about true conversion for many Protestants and, importantly, their children, was more subtle. The faith survived due to the efforts of these former Protestants in their homes and daily lives, rather than in the furtive meetings in Orange and elsewhere. This was part of the plan for reorganization spelled out prior to the Revocation, a plan that relied heavily on the maintenance of the religion in each household. Calvin noted that a family was a little church of God.64 His words took on great importance after 1685, when the family became a “little church . . . the preferred place where the flame was transmitted, . . . of the Huguenot faith.”65 The maintenance of this “little church” and resistance to integration into the Catholic Church was significantly aided by the willingness of those within their communities to tolerate a degree of passive resistance to the laws of the kingdom. Toleration allowed entire communities the possibility of remaining unmolested by the forces of the state or the Church looking for dissent. Compliance with the will of the crown depended on not just the cooperation of his administrators in the provinces, but also that of the local community. The experience of these years shows that this level of cooperation could not necessarily be relied upon. Though tensions continued, by the end of the reign there was some resolution of the troubles of the Revocation. Officials turned their attention to the regulation of individual behavior and eliminated official discrimination based on confessional background. It is clear that the influence of Protestantism far from disappeared in Loriol and its region, though the behaviors of many did change. These changes allowed the king to declare victory and allowed for the community to buy some measure of peace for itself and its Protestants.

Notes 1. Strayer, 269–275 and Ligou, 252. 2. Adams, 28–29.

9781611460779_Print.indb 109

7/25/11 10:59 AM

110

Chapter 4

3. Recueil, tome XX, 1686-1715. 4. Recueil, tome XX, Versailles 13 decembre 1698. Quotation from Pilatte, 372. 5. Adams, 24, 36–37. 6. Gachon, 259, Sauzet, 81. 7. Pilatte, 378. 8. Treasure, 366. 9. Pilatte, 239-250. 10. J. R. Armogathe and Ph. Joutard, “Bâville et la consultation de 1698, d’après sa correspondance avec l’évêque Fléchier et son frère, le Président Lamoignon,” Revue l’histoire et de philosophie religieuse 52 (1972), 158–159. This article also provides a detailed analysis of a complex of religious and political concerns surrounding the issue of the mémoire in 1698, including the particular situation in Languedoc, as well as the role of Jansenism and Molinism in shaping the debate over religious observance and the sanctity of the sacraments; it also addressses the concerns of some Jansenists and others with regard to incomplete or insincere conversions and their insistence on maintaining the purity of the sacraments through a distinction between assistance at the mass and participation in communion. 11. See Mours and Robert, Le protestantisme en France du XVIIIe siècle á nos jours (1685–1670). Paris: Librarie Protestange, 1972, 32. 12. AN, TT 448 (10): Extrait des registres du greffe criminal de la cour de parlement de Dauphiné, 22 decembre 1685; TT 435 (6): Bouchu, decembre 1698; TT 451 (488). 13. AN, TT 450 (78): Letter from Le Bret, September 17, 1685. 14. Bligny, p. 290. 15. ADI, 2 C 909. 16. ADI, 2 C 909. 17. ADI, 2 C 910. 18. Bligny, 302. 19. AN, TT 436: Affaires des religionnaires, Mémoire contenant analyses des Édits, declarations et arrest du conseil rendus contre les Religionnaires depuis la Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes, mai 1723. 20. In his official report on the state of the province in 1698, Bouchu made little mention of religious problems. He did include numbers of deserters in the section on population, citing the desertions as of 1687, and blamed the depopulation of the province on the toll of the recent war and the great mortality of 1693 and 1694 that brought more desertion of nouveaux convertis. Bouchu, 3 (1868): 399–401. 21. At least in some instances this responsibility was expressed in the form of more forced conversions, as in Vivarais in 1700, when the Protestants of the parish of Champis were forced to embrace the Catholic religion, even after the king’s declaration and mémoire. Charles Serfass, “Les abjurations forces en Vivarais (1700),” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français vol. 52 (1903): 141–143. 22. AN, TT 435 (3): May 1700, Report by Bouchu. 23. AN, TT 435 (4): Report of 18 decembre 1700, envoyée au roy 15 janvier 1701 par intendants et évêques; AN, TT 435 (5): Procurer general du parlement de Grenoble, 5 mars 1701. 24. AN, TT 435 (5).

9781611460779_Print.indb 110

7/25/11 10:59 AM

As If They Were Living in Geneva

111

25. Tavenaux, 340, 348. 26. AN, TT 430 (125): Bouchu, report de 1698. 27. AN, TT 457 (329): Sr. Antoine en Viennois, 13 mars 1697. 28. Queniart, 129, Briggs, 364–372. 29. ADD, 12 G 2. 30. ADD, 12 G 2. 31. Strayer, 312. 32. ADD, 12 G 2. The biblical quotations would be especially key for former Protestants with the strong scriptural emphasis of the religious tradition. 33. The text of the document reveals that while some participated, many of the bishop’s parishioners refrained from cooperating with those who were causing the trouble. 34. ADD, 12 G 2. 35. ADD, 12 G 2. 36. ADD, C 1/4. 37. ACL, BB 12. 38. The records for these years are incomplete, so the extent to which they regained local power cannot be determined. 39. ACL, CC 59. 40. ACL, CC 59–60. Jean Bonnaventure was not clearly identified in the council record. He was either the son of Daniel, the Protestant councilor in the 1680s, born in 1680, thus thirty-one years old at the time he took the position of receveur des tailles, or an older Protestant whose wife, Elisabeth, abjured in 1685, and whose daughter Elisabeth was baptized in 1670. 41. Philip T. Hoffman, “Early Modern France,” in Fiscal Crises, Liberty, and Representative Government, 1450–1789, ed. Philip T. Hoffman and Kathryn Norberg (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994), 238. 42. Goubert, 206–209. 43. Goubert, 215–217; the figure from Lachiver is quoted in Collins, Early Modern State, 150. 44. Goubert, 217–218. 45. ACL, BB 12. 46. ACL, CC 58. 47. ACL, CC 17. 48. ACL, CC 18. These compare to total taille assessments of 3,699 livres in 1680 and 4,554 livres in 1683, years before the outbreak of the war. The records of the assessment of 1689 are unusually low, at 589 livres for the regular assessment, so they do not likely represent all of the tax burden for the year. This figure does not include the extraordinary assessment levied on the nouveaux convertis, which totaled 884 livres. 49. The parish register recorded seventy-two deaths in 1694, while 1690 and 1693, relatively normal years, had thirty-six and thiry-one deaths, respectively, and sixtytwo in 1689. 50. ACL, CC 17. 51. Warren C. Scoville, The Persecution of Huguenots and French Economic Development, 1680–1720 (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1960), 156–209.

9781611460779_Print.indb 111

7/25/11 10:59 AM

112

Chapter 4

Scoville estimates the population loss for the Protestants in France at about 10 percent of their total strength, or 80,000 people. This magnitude of loss, often of the most economically sound Protestants, contributed to their vulnerability in bad economic conditions. Also of interest in a study of the economic fate of the Huguenots is Herbert Luthy, La Banque Protestante en France de la Révocation de l’Edit de Nantes à la Révolution, vol. 2 (Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1961). 52. Couvisier, 422. 53. ACL, EE 16. 54. Louvois, “Une lettre de Louvois (8 janvier 1686),” ed. Frank Puaux, Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 63 (1914): 249–250. 55. ACL, CC 19. In 1678 Rev. de la Faye paid almost ten livres, which put him into the top quarter of taxpayers, in 1674 he paid nine, which was in the top 20 percent, in 1689 he was in the top 20 percent, and in 1694 his assessment was among the top 15 percent. Clearly, he did not benefit from the tax exemption promised in the Revocation for former Protestant ministers. 56. ADI, 2 C 1000. 57. Samuel Mours, “Les pasteurs à la revocation de l’Édit de Nantes,” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 114 (1968): 311. 58. See Mours, Le protestantisme en France au XVIIe siècle (1598–1685). Paris: Librarie Protestante, 1967, 92. 59. Eugène Arnaud, Le plus ancien document synodal connu de l’époque du désert ou Actes du premier synode du Dauphiné du XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Grassart, LibrairieEditeur, 1885), 3–4. Treasure confirms that Court convened a synod in August 21, 1715, but does not specify where. 60. Arnaud, Actes du synode provincial, acte 11. The efforts to revive a formal organization were partly spurred by the desire of some Protestant leaders, including Court, to distance themselves from the prophetic nature of the revolt in the Cévennes. They wanted to reestablish a church that was dignified, orderly, and more masculine. For a full discussion of these issues, see Charles Bost, “Les deux premiers synodes du Désert, 21 aout 1715 – 13 janvier 1716,” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 65 (1916): 10–54. 61. Pierre Fanguin, Textes et documents sur l’histoire du protetantisme dans le Gard (Nîmes: Archives départementales du Gard, 1983), map, 160. 62. Farel, 69. 63. Geisendorf, 256. 64. Mejan, 31. 65. Mours, Protestantisme en France, p. 33.

9781611460779_Print.indb 112

7/25/11 10:59 AM

5 So What About Confessionalization? The Degree of Persistence of Confessionally Distinct Behaviors, 1690–1715

J

MAY OF 1730 to inform him of Margueritte’s death. His wife died without the benefit of last rites and was buried outside of sacred ground; the priest noted that she died outside of the Church.1 In a town that was overwhelmingly Protestant only forty-five years prior, this might not be terribly surprising, but the actions of Jacques and Margueritte had been appropriate, at least as told by the official records, up to this point. Margueritte Seguin and Jacques Boissonier had married in the Catholic Church in Loriol in June 1692. Both had been baptized in the Protestant temple, and neither had officially abjured Protestantism. They had four children, all baptized in the Catholic Church either on the day of their birth or on the following day. Based on these measures they appear to have become faithful Catholics, fulfilling the promise and hope of the Revocation. However, their failure to become true Catholics was obvious when Margueritte died. The experience of this one family is repeated in the parish registers for Loriol, illustrating that confessionalization continued to be a potent phenomenon in Loriol. People saw themselves as members of one religious group or the other, though ostensibly their behaviors changed to conform to Catholic teaching. The choices people made from 1690 to 1715 show that while behaviors did change in the face of the new religious world, confessionalization persisted. France was toute catholique in name only. After 1689 the religious situation in France was determined and the largest part of the anti-Protestant violence was past. Many Protestants had fled the realm, and those who remained were considered converted. During the next ACQUES WENT TO SEE HIS PRIEST IN

— 113 —

9781611460779_Print.indb 113

7/25/11 10:59 AM

114

Chapter 5

twenty-five years nouveaux convertis lived and participated in their communities as the means for continuation of Protestantism in Dauphiné were established with the convocation of a synod in 1716, and the formation of a formal, though underground, religious organization. The continuation of Protestant distinctiveness, however, was threatened by their forced inclusion in the Catholic community for thirty years before the new organization appeared. How effective could the little church of the family be over long periods of time without the benefit of clergy to guide and teach? Further, there was the longterm impact of the Revocation on the Catholic Church and population. The effects were certainly not those intended in 1685. Not all nouveaux convertis who remained in France became true Catholics. Many remained recalcitrant, resisting passively in some cases and aggressively in others. Further, the potential effects of bringing such unwilling communicants into the Catholic Church on those who were Catholic at the time of the Revocation were great. The experience of the Revocation altered the religious landscape, but did not erase confessional boundaries. The parish registers show some ways that the Revocation affected people, new and old Catholics alike. Some accommodation was necessary by everyone involved in congregations with new converts in order for peace to prevail after the turbulence of the 1680s. The congregation in Loriol reflected one means of such accommodation within a community that was predominantly Protestant in 1685, but whose old Catholic community retained political power. New and old Catholics changed their behavior individually even further after the Revocation, in efforts to accommodate the expectations of the Catholic Church. A community that reestablished a Protestant congregation relatively quickly after the Revocation shows ways in which communities and individuals could accommodate the new religious order. With the parish registers we can determine areas in which people altered their behavior to align more closely with Catholic doctrine and expectations, in addition to those ways in which they did not change their behavior. These behaviors provide an indication of the religious sophistication of the former Protestants, the ways in which they understood the demands of their faith and the subtleties of these requirements. Further, such analysis indicates the degree to which their distinction from the Catholic community was both desirable and practical in the post-Revocation years. The Revocation brought changes for everyone in Loriol on the level of personal religious observance. The continued accommodation of all to the dictates of Catholic teachings prevailed even though Protestantism was on the verge of reestablishing itself in the region. Modifications of sacramental behavior were not necessarily indicators of true conversion, as people altered their behavior to maintain their faith and peace at the same time. In fact, the nature of the modi-

9781611460779_Print.indb 114

7/25/11 10:59 AM

So What About Confessionalization?

115

fications indicates a sophisticated understanding of their faith, allowing them to project the appearance of adherence to Catholic doctrine while remaining true to the spirit of Protestantism, given the extreme situation.

The Sacramental Behavior of the Entire Parish As was the case in the immediate post-Revocation years, the behavior of the entire community came more closely into line with Catholic doctrine between 1690 and 1715 than had generally been the case before the Revocation. In terms of delay between birth and baptism, timing of marriage, illegitimate births, and illegitimate conceptions, the entire parish behaved more directly in line with the Catholic ideal than either group had before the large-scale forced conversions. The reduced number of baptismal and marriage ceremonies that marked the years immediately following the Revocation continued well past 1690. The number of ceremonies did, however, increase slightly over that of the 1680s. In terms of its religious life, the town did not recover its pre-Revocation vitality by 1715. The mean number of baptisms celebrated yearly in the Catholic churches at Loriol and Cliousclat between 1690 and 1699 was fifty-nine. Between 1700 and 1715 this average rose to almost sixty-two baptisms a year.2 While still well below the pre-Revocation average of almost eighty baptisms annually, these figures are slightly higher than the fifty-seven baptisms performed in the years between 1686 and 1689. The number of marriages remained fairly steady in the late seventeenth century. Father Valette celebrated, on average, almost fourteen marriages a year between 1690 and 1699, up from the mean of about eleven between 1686 and 1689. There was, however, a distinct drop after 1700 to about ten marriages per year in Loriol.3 The changes coincide with the arrival of Father Jauffret in Loriol in 1700.4 At this time, the number of baptisms rose, while that of marriages fell. Father Jauffret seems to have imposed some discipline on his parishioners, and he likely emphasized proper behavior by those who presented themselves to him for the sacraments. This could result in more parents bringing babies to the church for the sacrament and stricter verification that each marriage was the union of two faithful Catholics. He would ensure that they fulfilled their Easter duties and celebrated the mass. Concern among the clergy about diluting the sacraments by allowing those who were not true converts to participate was prevalent, and for many in the clergy, outward conformity was not enough.5 The enforcement of the requirements for marriage foreshadows the instructions of the bishop that would come in a few years. In fact, after 1700 the behavior of those who participated in the

9781611460779_Print.indb 115

7/25/11 10:59 AM

116

Chapter 5

Catholic Church moved even further away from the pre-Revocation patterns for both groups, and came to model the ideal Catholic behavior quite closely. The most visible confessional difference in Loriol disappeared by the early eighteenth century. The delays for children of nouveaux convertis parents baptized between 1690 and 1715 diminished such that the delay for the entire parish was just over a day and a half. This number was substantially lower for the years after 1700 after the arrival of a new priest, when it was quite a bit shorter than that of either the Protestant or Catholic community before 1685. In the final pre-Revocation years (1680–1684), the average delay between the birth and baptism of a child of Protestant parents was ten days, while Catholic parents waited an average of two and a half days. In these years 60 percent of Protestant children and 50 percent of Catholic children received the sacrament of baptism more than a week after their birth, compared to only one-half of 1 percent of all baptisms between 1690 and 1715. After 1700 practically everyone who participated in the church in Loriol complied with the Church’s expectations of baptism within three days.6 Another measure of compliance with Catholic doctrine among the people was the degree to which they respected traditional periods of abstinence. Between 1690 and 1714, the people of Loriol respected Lent and Advent and refrained from marriage and sexual activity to a greater degree than before the Revocation. Overall, marriages during the seasons of Lent and Advent were quite low, with only 2.5 percent and 1.8 percent of marriages respectively. This pattern also changed around 1700, when the priest celebrated only 2 percent of all marriages in March and no marriages in December.7 Seasonal restrictions were very closely enforced by the priest and observed by the entire community, and the numbers reflect an even closer adherence to the ideal.

TABLE 5.1 Average Delay between Birth and Baptism in Loriol Year 1670–1679 1674–1679 1680–1684 1680–1684 1686–1689 1690–1699 1700–1715

(Protestant) (Catholic) (Protestant) (Catholic)

Total Baptisms1

Average Delay

539 103 282 90 177 405 764

13.7 days 8.4 days 10.1 days 2.5 days 2.0 days2 2.2 days 1.4 days

1

This number includes only those baptisms for which there is information on both the date of baptism and birth. 2 This average includes two outliers of twenty and twenty-seven days of delay. When these two figures are excluded, the average delay drops to 1.7 days.

9781611460779_Print.indb 116

7/25/11 10:59 AM

So What About Confessionalization?

117

TABLE 5.2 Illegitimacy during the Post-Revocation Years Years

Total Baptisms

Illegitimate Births

1690–1699 1700–1715

430 803

17 (3.9%) 21 (2.6%)

The number of illegitimate births and conceptions also changed around 1700. Before the Revocation under 2 percent of Protestant babies were illegitimate, while Catholic registers recorded 7 percent of babies baptized as illegitimate. Thus, even the higher figure for the years between 1690 and 1699 represents a drop for the Catholic population, while it is relatively higher than that of the Protestant population prior to the Revocation. The rate from 1700 to 1715 was closer to that of the Protestant population before the Revocation. In contrast to the changes seen in the number of illegitimate births, the number of illegitimate conceptions in the years after the Revocation was similar to that of before 1685. Catholic registers indicate a reasonable level of abstinence before marriage among couples who did eventually marry. Only about 5 percent of first children were born seven or fewer months after their parents’ marriage, a rate of illegitimate conception that is high compared to that of the pre-Revocation population, Catholic and Protestant.8 The total illegitimacy rate, including all children baptized who were conceived or born outside of marriage, was just under 4 percent. These data show that the Revocation brought changes in the behavior of everyone in Loriol. After 1690 everyone who went to the church moved closer to compliance with the doctrines and teachings of the Catholic Church, approaching the ideal after 1700, when Father Jauffret arrived. This change also coincided with the change in the government’s policy toward the nouveaux convertis, and the end of officially condoned confessional violence and the official distinction between new and old Catholics, as well as a general increase in concern for issues of religious observance and participation. To determine whether or not these changes were driven by one confessional group or the other, or if they were common to the entire population, those of Protestant background must be differentiated from those of Catholic heritage, and the demographic patterns of each group examined. Many former Protestants in Loriol remained Protestant in their true religion, as demonstrated by the establishment of an underground Protestant Church in 1716, and the political and religious developments of this period show that the two groups, or at least some part of them, continued to be separated by religious belief. Further, many in Loriol died outside of the Catholic Church, without adequately participating in the sacraments, and their deaths were recorded as

9781611460779_Print.indb 117

7/25/11 10:59 AM

118

Chapter 5

such by the parish priest.9 Despite their overall failure to fully convert, many did marry and baptize their children in the parish, and the behavior of everyone deviated in many ways from the pre-Revocation patterns of either Catholics or Protestants. At the time of their death, the priest entered their names with the notation that they died “outside of the Catholic Church,” raising questions about the persistence of distinctive confessional behaviors. To determine the degree of persistence of confessional distinction in Loriol, the people who married and the parents of children baptized were identified by their confession before the Revocation. Those who participated in baptisms or marriages in the church or the temple prior to 1685 were marked as Catholic or Protestant, respectively. Those who were not active participants themselves were identified, when possible, by the confession of their parents. For the entire post-Revocation period, the confessional background of sixty-five percent of the parents who presented children for baptism could be identified. The proportion of anciennes catholiques among those families that could be identified probably underestimates their actual strength in Loriol’s population. Given the relatively short span of the Catholic parish registers before the Revocation, many of the 35 percent of couples who remained unidentified were likely of ancienne catholique heritage, but did not have baptisms in the existing records. The available data are sufficient to draw some conclusions concerning the persistence of confessionally specific behavior, but definitive conclusions are not possible. TABLE 5.3 Baptisms by Parental Confessional Background Confession All Protestant 1690–1699 1700–1715 All Catholic 1690–1699 1700–1715 Mixed 1690–1699 1700–1715 One Protestant 1690–1699 1700–1715 One Catholic 1690–1699 1700–1715 Unidentified 1690–1699 1700–1715

9781611460779_Print.indb 118

Number of Baptisms 92 (22%) 150 (20%) 22 ( 5%) 10 ( 1%) 29 ( 7%) 41 ( 5%) 106 (25%) 224 (30%) 29 ( 7%) 60 ( 8%) 145 (34%) 267 (36%)

7/25/11 10:59 AM

So What About Confessionalization?

119

TABLE 5.4 Delay between Birth and Baptism by Parental Confessional Background Year 1690–1699 Total Days Delayed Number Baptized Average Delay in Days 1700–1715 Total Days Delayed Number Baptized Average Delay in Days

Catholic

Protestant

Mixed

Unidentified

96 56 1.7

493 203 2.4

38 29 1.3

278 147 1.9

94 75 1.3

500 393 1.3

55 46 1.2

390 289 1.3

Whereas Protestant parents had consistently waited a week or more between the events before the Revocation, after its promulgation the delay dropped to several days for practically all parents in Loriol, a pattern that continued to change after 1690. The mean delay dropped even further after the turn of the century, when even the slight difference in the behavior of former Protestant and old Catholic parents before 1700 disappeared. Seasonal marriage patterns also changed in the years after 1690. As was the case with baptism, after the turn of the century, the timing of marriage for everyone who married in the parish church came quite close to meeting the ideal Catholic behavior. From 1690 to 1699 abstinence during the proscribed seasons was not absolute. In March four marriages took place, all of which involved at least one person of Protestant background, while only one of the eight participants was an ancienne catholique. In December, all of those who married during Lent were of Protestant or unidentified heritage. In the final fifteen years under study, only three marriages took place during one of these seasons. All three of these were in March, and two of them involved men of Protestant background who married a woman of undetermined confession. Thus, the few marriages during Lent and Advent involved those who were of Protestant heritage, rather than old Catholics. Observance of the creux de Mai by both Protestants and Catholics before 1685, had disappeared by 1690. Between 1690 and 1699, over 9 percent of all marriages took place in May, while over 6 percent were May marriages after 1700, as would be expected in a population that did not observe the old tradition. This compliance must surely be at least partly, if not largely, credited to the new priest. It supports the assertion that he was more active and more successful than his predecessors in teaching his parishioners of the expectations of the Church and compelling that they respect them. He may well have been more rigorous in upholding the requirement that everyone who presented themselves for marriage be in good standing with the Church, faithfully participating, which would surely have reduced the number of marriages.

9781611460779_Print.indb 119

7/25/11 10:59 AM

120

Chapter 5

Another indicator of the impact of the Revocation on the community, particularly on the degree of confessional separation within the community, is the number of marriages between people of different confessional backgrounds and their behaviors with regard to their conformity to the expectations of the Catholic Church. Mixed marriages posed certain potential problems for the Catholic Church. Marriage between a Protestant and a Catholic raised the possibility that the children of a good Catholic might be tainted by their Protestant parent. Given this danger, it was reasonable that the priest would be particularly interested in such couples. Loriol did not have a strong tradition of intermarriage. Intermarriage is recognized by historians as perhaps the most significant indicator of the degree of separation between the confessions.10 Prior to the Revocation, the confessional divide with regard to marriage appeared solid, with only one clear case of a mixed marriage.11 After the Revocation this changed somewhat. There was a greater willingness to enter into mixed marriages. On the whole, at the time of the marriage they conformed, like everyone, to the basic requirements of the Church. In later years, however, interconfessional couples did not all prove to be faithful participants in the Church. Their behavior, like that of the entire community, changed subtly around 1700. From 1690 to 1699, twelve interconfessional couples married in the Catholic Church, about 8 percent of all marriages performed in Loriol, and 18 percent of marriages in which both partners could be identified by confession. Between 1700 and 1715 there were thirteen mixed marriages, which was 7.5 percent of all marriages and 20 percent of those for which both partners could be identified. Interestingly, while the total number of marriages dropped after the arrival of Father Jauffret, the proportion of interconfessional couples among all who married held steady. At the point of marriage, the new priest did not mention evidence of true Catholicism in those whom he married, as was requested by the bishop. However, it is possible that he discouraged interconfessional marriages by requiring that both prove themselves good Catholics. In the short term these couples were faithful in their Catholic duties. In the areas of marriage and baptism, interconfessional couples acted much like everyone else in Loriol. Before 1700 the average delay for these couples was two days, as it was for Catholic couples, which was slightly lower than that for Protestants. After 1700 they, like everyone else, complied very closely to the expectations of the Church, avoiding marriages during Lent and Advent, and baptizing their children quickly after birth. For those who maintained their Protestant beliefs, Father Jauffret evidently discouraged intermarriage. One would expect that as time passed and the Revocation grew more distant, the rate of intermarriage would increase. By

9781611460779_Print.indb 120

7/25/11 10:59 AM

So What About Confessionalization?

121

1715 the partners in a young marriage would both have been born after the Revocation and spent their adult lives in a community that was basically at peace, albeit a somewhat uneasy peace. The inclination to intermarry would be stronger among those who were not particularly fervent in their Protestantism, even if they were unwilling to abandon it. Loriol’s nouveaux convertis had shown that they were willing to marry Catholics after 1685, indicating a somewhat more porous confessional boundary. The steadiness in the proportion of interconfessional marriages after 1700 suggests that many were unwilling to become good Catholics in order to do so. The priest seemingly required that those who presented themselves for marriage show evidence of true belief. Many nouveaux convertis were unwilling to fulfill the requirements to meet this new, higher standard. A contributing factor could be that the desire among the nouveaux convertis to intermarry had leveled off. As they moved closer to reestablishing their own church, they may have become less inclined to intermarry. Those who did intermarry had a mixed record of true conversion. Most of those who were part of an interconfessional marriage contracted after 1700 showed signs of true conversion, though this was not universally the case. Of the twelve interconfessional marriages in the 1690s, the parish register contains mention of the burial of nine of the individuals involved. Of these nine, six were ancienne catholique women who died in good standing. Of the three nouveaux convertis who had an entry, one was buried with no indication of receiving or not receiving the sacraments, while the other two men died outside of the Church. Of the twenty-six people involved in interconfessional marriages between 1700 and 1715, sixteen have burial records. Thirteen of these have records showing that they were faithful Catholics who died in the Church. The register indicated that three died outside of the Church, one of whom was the ancienne catholique partner in the marriage. The others acceptably participated in the sacraments at the time of their deaths. One had the note that she received the sacraments regularly, while another was the précepteur de la jeunesse. The data regarding intermarriage show a confessional boundary that may have been somewhat porous with regard to social choices, but which remained fairly solid on religious grounds. Some in Loriol showed themselves willing, though not overwhelmingly so, to marry across the social divide that confession created within the community. What the nouveaux convertis were evidently fairly unwilling to do was to go beyond perfunctory participation in order to marry in the Church. For those who had truly converted, there was not a serious division. Those who held to their Protestant faith, however, were generally unwilling to participate in the Catholic Church sufficiently to marry in it.

9781611460779_Print.indb 121

7/25/11 10:59 AM

122

Chapter 5

Another area of post-Revocation demographic change is in the realm of illegitimacy. The number of illegitimate births was fairly low during the last twenty-five years of the reign, only about 3 percent of all baptisms were recorded as illegitimate. Prior to the Revocation, the Catholic population had a high rate of illegitimacy (7 percent), while that of the Protestants was quite low (1.4 percent). Thus, the rate for the years between 1690 and 1714 was a little high for Protestants, yet quite low for Catholics, relative to their earlier experience. The confessional background of the mothers of the illegitimate children reveals something of a reverse of the pre-Revocation pattern. Before 1700, the Catholic Church baptized nineteen illegitimate children. These children constituted over 4 percent of all children brought to the church during that decade. All of the women whose confession could be identified were Protestants. In the next fifteen years about 2.5 percent of all births were illegitimate. The women whose confessional background was identified were Protestant, though relatively few could be identified. As with other measures of confessionalization, examination of illegitimate births in Loriol reveals that the behavior in the years after 1700 was much more closely in line with the teachings of the Church. In the case of illegitimacy, this fit with the teaching of both religions. As with the other demographic measures, those who were most clearly out of compliance with the teachings of the Catholic Church were of Protestant background. Unlike the other behaviors examined, with regard to legitimacy, the Protestants seem to have acted contrary to the teachings of their own religion, as well as those of the Catholic religion. This change is likely a reflection of the practical difficulties raised by the Revocation. The fathers of these children may have emigrated from Loriol to seek religious tolerance—or at least the right to practice their religion—or to flee persecution. The children may also have been the products of marriages that were not performed or recognized by the parish priest. Several of the women, including Elisabeth Faure and Genevieve Morier, had two illegitimate children, one in each period. The experience of such women suggests that there may have been a failure to recognize a marriage, an unwillingness to name one’s husband for reasons of potential retribution, or failure of the nouveaux convertis to meet the expectations or requirements of the priest, rather than flagrant violation of the norms of their own religion, as well as those of the Catholic Church. Another consideration is the loss of the Protestant temple. The faithfulness of believers to the teachings of the religion was surely tested by the loss of leadership and guidance from the regular meetings at the temple. But what of illegitimate conceptions? As we know, the number of illegitimate conceptions for the entire population was low, 5 percent of first chil-

9781611460779_Print.indb 122

7/25/11 10:59 AM

So What About Confessionalization?

123

dren baptized in Loriol between 1690 and 1715 were conceived before their parents’ marriage. Of these children, four were born before the turn of the century. The confessional background of their parents reveals that three of these children had one parent who was ancienne catholique, one was born to an interconfessional couple, and seven to a couple that had at least one member who was formerly Protestant. The rate of illegitimate conceptions among couples in Loriol remained low, though there were some among all groups in the post-Revocation population. Taken as a whole, the demographic data indicate that the people of Loriol were reasonably closely aligned with Catholic expectations concerning sexual relations between betrothed couples. Compared with other communities, Loriol continued to have a low rate of premarital conceptions. Benedict shows that among Protestant populations before the Revocation, a rate of at least 4 percent was normal, and only Meaux and Chalandos, considered together in the seventeenth century, had a rate much lower at 2 percent. Catholics in the seventeenth century experienced rates of illegitimate conceptions between 4 and 15 percent, with 4 percent being quite low. For the period from 1662 to 1715, Catholics in Bourg-Saint-Andéol had 15 percent rate of premarital conceptions.12 No such high rates prevailed among the population of Loriol, before or after the Revocation. Thus, despite the reasonably small increase in illegitimate conceptions among Loriol’s Protestants, the population continued to have a respectably low rate of illegitimacy. The demographic evidence indicates that the pre-Revocation patterns, which so clearly distinguished the two groups prior to 1685, were dramatically changed before 1700 and were largely gone after that date. What do these facts say about the experience of Protestants and the importance of their distinctive demographic customs when faced with the issue of survival? One explanation of the change in the demographic behavior of the former Protestants and anciennes catholiques alike after 1700 is that Loriol’s priests were finally able to exert their religious authority. Perhaps after the threat of violence passed, they could then work to bring converts truly into the fold of the Church, the ostensible goal behind the shift in royal policy in 1698. Removal of the political threat would enhance the ability of the Church, through her bishops and priests, to compel parishioners into proper religious observance. Further, the anciennes catholiques would receive some measure of this increased attention, which could explain the fact that they, too, fell more closely in line with the expectations of the Church. These factors may have been at work in communities like Loriol. However, the evidence from Loriol suggests that this form of clerical pressure was not overwhelming. There was, however, the potential for change brought with the arrival of a new parish priest, at approximately the same time, and possibly in response

9781611460779_Print.indb 123

7/25/11 10:59 AM

124

Chapter 5

to, the instructions of 1698. The missive called for particularly well-qualified priests to be sent to communities with many nouveaux convertis, and Loriol may have received Father Jauffret for this reason. The principal actors in marriages and baptisms were not wholly free from the influence of the parish priest. Father Jauffret had to agree to perform the sacrament. If the request was for a marriage in Lent or Advent, he had to be convinced that there was a compelling reason to violate the rules. One such circumstance would be an impending birth, in which case the child being illegitimate should outweigh the concern for the season. A pregnancy was not an easily concealed fact, and it would be hard to convince a priest who did not want to do so to marry a couple during a forbidden season, barring the existence of a pregnancy. The marriages in March and December do not fit this possibility, however. The couples who married in March and December were not the same couples whose first child was born within seven months of marriage. It seems as if Father Valette was simply somewhat willing to perform a marriage during these seasons for other reasons. Father Jauffret did not share this willingness. The priest was also active when a person was on his or her deathbed. At the time of death, the priest had his last chance to save a soul by persuasion or coercion. The priest could secure the salvation of a dying person who was not truly converted through a deathbed conversion. The laws even tried to ensure that priests were aware of those who were dying so that they could attempt such a conversion.13 Success at converting the dying would be duly recorded in the parish register. Contrary to the implications of these instructions, however, the priest in Loriol did not descend upon the dying in an attempt to extract a conversion. The lack of evidence of such conversions, or attempts to gain conversions, shows that the pressure to be truly Catholic was not overwhelming and pervasive. The priest may have been unaware of the impending deaths of his parishioners. Perhaps he did not get notifications from physicians or neighbors of those whose death was imminent. Father Jauffret may not have been active in the lives of many of his parishioners, particularly if they did not participate regularly in his church. Though pregnancy was hard to hide and marriage could be at the mercy of the willingness of the priest to perform the sacrament, one cannot assume that the almost complete alignment of the demographic behavior of the former Protestants, particularly in the years after 1700, was due solely to the activism of the priest.14 In addition to overt work for conversions by the priest, there was the long-standing risk involved in failure to participate in the Catholic Church. By deciding to stay in France, Protestants made a tacit agreement to participate in the Catholic Church as necessary. Failure to do so could bring personal penalties, as well as invite future difficulties for one’s

9781611460779_Print.indb 124

7/25/11 10:59 AM

So What About Confessionalization?

125

children. A child without a Catholic baptismal record could have difficulty entering a profession, such as the law, or marrying in the Church. Once the decision to stay and become Catholic, at least nominally, was made, Protestants minimized potential conflict and interference from the priest, as well as other authorities, by behaving as the Church expected, which included avoiding marrying in March and December and baptizing children immediately. Protestants who had been able to get by on the basis of modified behavior—such that they did not blatantly violate the requirements of the Catholic Church—were evidently unable to meet the threshold of proper participation set by the new priest. The increase in baptisms, the relative decrease in marriages, and the marked decline in mixed marriages suggest that Father Jauffret required that people do more than participate nominally. Presumably, regular attendance at services and receiving the sacraments became necessary, a level of participation that evidently proved unpalatable to the former Protestants who chose to live outside the Church.15 In addition to bringing many to closer adherence to the dictates of Catholicism, Father Jauffret may have pushed many nouveaux convertis out of the Church or not allowed them to participate.16 Not everyone who behaved as the Church expected was acting out of a need to conceal their true beliefs. The Revocation did not completely fail to convert the inhabitants of Loriol. There were those in the community who lived up to the spirit and the letter of their conversions, or at least whose children or grandchildren would be true Catholics.17 Not everyone was putting on a façade to avoid the consequences of revealing their true beliefs, but there was a significant portion of the population that was compromising in some respects while holding on to their Protestant beliefs. The fact that families came to meet the expectations of the Catholic Church with regard to the sacraments of baptism and marriage did not necessarily indicate that they experienced true conversion, nor did their behavior with regard to these two sacraments indicate that they participated in the others. Such people were not, however, easily differentiated from their neighbors. After 1700 the behavior of Catholics, either old or truly converted, was indistinguishable from that of Protestants, who remained committed to their forbidden religion. Testament to their existence remains in their absence from the lists of the defiant. Those who did defy the dictates of the Church, and did not participate in its sacraments, however, did not fall neatly into categories by which all others could be considered true Catholics. The degree of resistance to the new religious order is revealed by the number of people dying outside of the Church, even as the behavior of those who celebrated the sacraments was increasingly closely aligned with its teachings. A look at the experiences of some who died outside of the Church illustrates

9781611460779_Print.indb 125

7/25/11 10:59 AM

126

Chapter 5

the difficulty of defining true Catholics from those who remained Protestants in their hearts and in their homes, and the difficulty in differentiating the truly converted from the Protestant faithful. Many of those who died outside of the Church later in the eighteenth century acted according to Church doctrine in the years before 1715, including couples of mixed confessional background. For example, Louis Veye, a former Protestant, and Jeanne Chassagnes, an old Catholic, were married in October 1688. They baptized six children in the Church between 1699 and 1712, waiting an average of just over a day after birth before baptizing them. This couple acted very closely in line with the Church’s teachings: they married in October, a month free from religious prohibitions; their first child was born nine months after their marriage; and they brought each of six children to the church promptly to receive the sacrament of baptism. These behaviors showed them as evidence of success. By all appearances Louis had truly converted, the old confessional divisions put aside. This was not, however, the case, for when he died in 1728, he was buried outside of the Catholic Church because he had not participated in the Church’s sacraments. The example of this couple, and many others like it, shows that although much of the population of Loriol came to meet the expectations of the Catholic Church with regard to the sacraments of baptism and marriage, it did not necessarily indicate that they experienced true conversion. Nor did their behavior indicate that they even participated in the sacraments of the Church when it was deemed necessary. Many people in Loriol died outside of the Church. That they may have married in the Church, and likely baptized their babies in the Church did not make them true Catholics, despite the assertions and hopes of the king and the Church hierarchy. The two ceremonies of marriage and baptism may have been, in fact, the main, or even only, contact that many people had with the Catholic Church in Loriol.

The Fate of Confessionalization The data from this study, along with the work of such historians as Benedict, Luria, and Hanlon, show that in communities around France before the Revocation there were distinctive patterns, with confessionally based demographic patterns that differentiated Protestants from Catholics. The data for Loriol from the final twenty-five years of Louis XIV’s reign show that these marks of distinctiveness disappeared between those of Catholic and Protestant heritage. This disappearance did not, however, indicate an end to different beliefs with regard to religion. Nor did it signify that the nouveaux convertis had become true Catholics. Many of those who participated in the

9781611460779_Print.indb 126

7/25/11 10:59 AM

So What About Confessionalization?

127

Catholic Church when they baptized their babies did not continue to participate to a degree such that they were considered part of the Church at the time of their death. That so many people died outside of the Church underscores the resistance to conversion of at least part of the population of Loriol. The entire population of Loriol fully complied with Catholic doctrine regarding baptism and marriage after 1700. The changes in royal policy outlined in 1698 and 1699 may have been one cause of this. Further, the work of the bishops and archbishops, reflected in the desires of the monarchy expressed in the declaration and mémoire and the letters of the bishop of Valence in the early eighteenth century, may have influenced behavior through the creation of a clergy in sensitive towns such as Loriol. These sets of instructions tried to ensure that the parish priests had a better understanding of the requirements of the sacraments, and that they be prepared to coax proper observance out of their parishioners. The effect of the arrival of Father Jauffret suggests that these efforts were not fruitless when measured by proper participation. In Loriol, the entire community underwent a change in behavior. They lived in an environment of heightened religious awareness, with the presence of itinerant and illicit Protestant preachers such as Pierre Jurieu and Jacques Roger, and the influx of Catholic literature, all of which contributed to changed behavior from everyone. These changes were not, however, clearly the result of force. Loriol’s Protestants did not deal with much of the direct force that so much of the Protestant population in France faced, particularly in the 1680s. Nor were they forced into the church by particularly adamant priests, hovering over their deathbeds trying to coerce them into true conversion and salvation.18 The nouveaux convertis understood the expectations of Catholicism, their nominal religion, and with regard to baptism, marriage, and sexual relations outside of marriage, those who participated in the Church met these expectations. In so doing, they removed the outward marks of distinction between themselves and true Catholics, which was prudent, given the political situation. There were, however, areas of resistance. Obviously, many people who were baptized Protestant were still truly Protestant believers, though they may have married and baptized their children in the Catholic Church. The register of those who died outside the Catholic Church attests to this fact. Another indication of resistance was the drop in the number of marriages relative to the number of baptisms. While there is no certain explanation for this change, the fact that many prominent Protestants who married people from Loriol did not have a marriage recorded in the Catholic register suggests that they married somewhere else, perhaps in Geneva or Orange, where they could marry in the Protestant tradition, or had their vows solemnized by an itinerant preacher.19 Perhaps they heeded the teaching of Claude Brousson, who

9781611460779_Print.indb 127

7/25/11 10:59 AM

128

Chapter 5

railed that God would be angry at those celebrated marriages in the temple of idols.20 The evidence shows avoiding such an act was made easier by the acquiescence of the curé. It is likely that Andre de la Faye and Lucresse Faure had such a marriage. Andre, the son of Theodore, the former Protestant minister, and Lucresse were both baptized in the Protestant temple in Loriol prior to the Revocation. Though there is no marriage record for them, their first child, Isaac, was baptized in Loriol in 1696. Isaac was followed by five other children baptized by the parish priest in Loriol. Sr. de la Faye was from a family of some means, as indicated by the tax assessment of his father, Theodore. Further, he was a man who was very well aware of the expectations of Protestants, and likely aware of the opportunities for those who wished to participate in Protestant worship and ceremonies. Conversely, he likely received an added measure of attention from the Catholic clergy due to his family background. Despite his background and position in society, he married elsewhere, possibly in Geneva, and baptized his children in the Catholic church in Loriol, on average within two days of their birth. His marriage was recognized by the local curé, for his children were all listed as legitimate. The experience of his family, and that of many others, indicates the ways in which true Protestants were willing to alter their behavior in order to accommodate the new religious system, and the ways in which the Catholic clergy accommodated the large population of nouveaux convertis in Loriol. For their part, the Protestants were willing to comply with the doctrines regarding baptism and marriage; they were not, after all, in direct conflict with Protestant teaching. Calvin’s instructions merely indicate that baptism was an important sacrament and that parents should present their children to the church to receive it. There were no immediate time requirements imposed, and the pre-Revocation data illustrate that this was understood, as delays of more than a week were routine. However, it was in no way contradictory for parents to bring their children to the church for baptism immediately, and an earlier Protestant synod had allowed for the validity of baptism by a priest.21 Therefore, while not desirable, Catholic baptism was acceptable. Thus, as Loriol’s nouveaux convertis moved closer and closer to the Catholic ideal, and while they significantly changed their behavior, they were not acting contrary to the teachings of the Protestant confession. The case with marriage was similar. Protestantism imposed no seasons of abstinence, but abstinence during Lent and Advent, as the Catholic Church required, was not contrary to the religion’s teachings. These experiences suggest a willingness to compromise on the part of both the former Protestants and the local priest. They also show, however, that this willingness had limits. Protestants would adjust to the new realities with re-

9781611460779_Print.indb 128

7/25/11 10:59 AM

So What About Confessionalization?

129

gard to baptism and timing of marriage, but were unwilling to cross over into full participation in the Catholic Church in order to marry in it. For his part, Father Jauffret was willing to tolerate Protestants in his midst, but he worked harder to keep those who were Catholic in name only from marrying in the Church or dying in it. The behavior of the anciennes catholiques also changed during these years, resembling more and more that of their nouveau converti neighbors, until the two were indistinguishable by 1715. The concern with the religious behavior of his subjects and its nouveaux convertis following the Revocation brought about a reformation of the behavior of true Catholics. Those who had always been faithful to the Church began to act more as the Church instructed with regard to baptism and marriage. This was surely a product of some combination of two changes. Individuals in communities such as Loriol paid increased attention to sacramental behavior. Also, through the efforts of the crown and bishops, the clergy and the laity showed an increase in awareness of the expectations and teachings of the Catholic Church. As was the case with political and military coercion, there seems to have been little religious coercion behind the behaviors of the population of Loriol. At the same time that everyone in the community began to act in ways that more closely aligned with the teachings of the Church, the Protestants of the community were preparing to reestablish the formal organization of their confession in the region. The Revocation acted as a means of reforming behaviors, if not beliefs. The former was clearly within the power of the government, but the latter was beyond its reach. Further, the evidence from Loriol suggests that the marks of distinctiveness prior to the Revocation were not, in fact definitive for Protestants. The behaviors that set them apart from their Catholic neighbors were not necessary to defining themselves as Protestant, and the abandonment of these behaviors may have facilitated their move back into a formal, though illicit, Protestant congregation, by making them not so clearly distinguishable and by removing those potential bases for conflict with religious and civil authorities. Though the outward differences in behavior disappeared, the fundamental difference remained, for Loriol remained a community divided along confessional lines well after the Revocation. These changes in behavior surely masked true belief. They also made Loriol, in one sense, at least, toute catholique. Through their various accommodations, the people of Loriol brought about a unity of behavior that made them appear as true Catholics. They followed the dictates of the crown in this regard, and produced the desired result of a population that looked uniformly Catholic. Their experience highlights the difference between the goals of the state—conformity and unity—and those of the Church—true conversion and belief. The Revocation accomplished the first in Loriol, but the continuation

9781611460779_Print.indb 129

7/25/11 10:59 AM

130

Chapter 5

of the confessional divide, communal and individual, left the second far from accomplished.

Notes 1. All of the Catholic parish register data for Loriol for the years between 1690 and 1715 is located in ADD, 4 E 1673. 2. This average for the years between 1690 and 1699 does not include data for 1694, when there was only one entry for Loriol. Between 1700 and 1715 the average does not include 1705 to 1710, inclusive, since there are either no data or incomplete data for Cliousclat. 3. The number of marriages celebrated in Cliousclat was minimal. This, combined with the incompleteness of the registers, made their inclusion in these calculations inappropriate. A total of only eighteen marriages was recorded between 1700 and 1715, with a large gap between 1705 and 1710. 4. The new priest’s arrival was noted from the signatures in the parish registers following each entry. 5. Briggs, 231; Janine Garrison, L’Édit de Nantes: chronique d’une paix attendu (Paris: Fayard, 1998), 129, and the Armogathe and Joutard article “Bâville et la consultation des évêques en 1698” deal with this question extensively. 6. Taveneaux, 339. 7. In earlier years, over 3 percent of marriages were celebrated in March and almost 5 percent in December. 8. Nine children out of 179 fit this definition of illegitimate conception. 9. The priest kept a register of these deaths beginning in 1727. Those included in this register were many of the same people who married and baptized their children in the Catholic church in the period under study. 10. For some of the recent work in the growing literature on confessionalization, including discussions of interconfessional marriage, see Philip Benedict, Faith and Fortunes of France’s Huguenots, Hanlon, Luria, Sacred Boundaries, and Mentzer, Blood and Belief. 11. As the registers from the Catholic parish started very late for baptisms, family reconstitution was not possible that would lend certainty to assessments of rates of interconfessional marriage before 1684. 12. Benedict, The Huguenot Population of France, 97. 13. In 1698 doctors and apothecaries were required to inform the priest of any of their patients who were about to die so that they could approach such people concerning conversion. Pilatte, 377. 14. By contrast, the nouveaux convertis and priest in some communities had an actively hostile relationship, as in the parish of Saintonge, which César Pascal describes as characterized by “violent animosity” over the obstinance and passive resistance of the “pseudo-Catholics” in the parish, p. 424. For the full article on this parish, see César Pascal, “Sous la persecution en Saintonge au XVIIe siècle,” Bulletin de la Société

9781611460779_Print.indb 130

7/25/11 10:59 AM

So What About Confessionalization?

131

de l’histoire du protestantisme français 50 (1901): 393–444. Alternatively, the priest in Puy-en-Velay worked hard to get his nouveaux convertis parishioners to take the last rites, as late as 1715. One of his charges, on her deathbed, had never frequented the sacraments, despite his attempts and those of the vicars. He came to try to get her to convert truly and take the last rites, returning at least once to try again before giving up. She was one of many to obstinantly refuse his efforts. L. Cachard and S. Mours, “Persistance du protestantisme dans la region du Puy-en-Velay du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle,” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 120 (1974): 440–444. 15. Mentzer describes this phenomenon among the Lacger family in Blood and Belief, noting the importance of the degree of diligence on the part of the curé in requiring full participation in order to marry in the Church, 175–179. 16. Visitation records of the bishop of Valence to the parish in Loriol are not available for any information on the relationship between the bishop and curé or any reports on the faithfulness of the parishioners. Though they are listed in the indices of the departmental archives, they cannot be located by the archivists. 17. Bertrand Van Ruymbeke, “Minority Survival: The Huguenot Paradigm in France and the Diaspora,” in Memory and Identity: The Huguenots in France and the Atlantic Diaspora, ed. Ruymbeke and Randy J. Sparks (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003), 5. 18. Their experience stands in contrast to that of nouveaux convertis in CourcellesChaussy, for example, who were forced to renew their abjurations in order to rehabilitate their marriages and have their children registered as legitimate by the priest, who was evidently unwilling to tolerate tepid participation in the Catholic Church. His efforts did not necessarily result in a more staunchly Catholic population, but they do represent a different relationship between the curé and parishioners than registers show was the case in Loriol. Roger Mazauric, “Etude sur les consequences de la revocation de l’Edit de Nantes au pays messin: Un siècle de resonance dans le village de Courcelles-Chaussy,” Bulletin de l’histoire du protestantisme français 120 (1974): 267. 19. Adams, p. 36. This pattern of behavior was not available to nouveaux convertis throughout the realm. In Pont-en-Royans in Dauphiné parents who had celebrated marriages in Geneva were required by their curé to renew their abjuration, present themselves to confession, take instruction so that they could marry in the Catholic Church, and have their children baptized as legitimate upon their birth. Philippe Mieg, “Validation par le curé de Pont-en-Royans de trois marriages protestants déjà célébrés à Genève 21 (décembre 1699),” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 121 (1975): 551–553. 20. Claude Brousson, “Une letter circulaire inedited de Claude Brousson (8 octobre 1696),” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 83 (1934): 287. 21. Garrison, L’Édit de Nantes, 201.

9781611460779_Print.indb 131

7/25/11 10:59 AM

9781611460779_Print.indb 132

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Conclusion Beyond Belief

T

HE EXPERIENCE OF LORIOL WAS NOT THAT OF LEGEND. Protestant writers, contemporary and those of the nineteenth century, write of the horrors of the Revocation, the devastation of royal policies, the brutal visitations of the dragons, and the multitudes who preferred to row their lives away in the king’s Mediterranean galleys rather than abjure their religion. All of these things are part of the legacy of the Revocation in France. This legacy of brutality and horror was not, however, the only experience of the Revocation. The fact that the Protestants in Loriol did not directly experience the horror of the Revocation did not mean that they were unchanged by it. Some fled the realm, while those who remained were subject to temporary exclusion from local power and financial burdens on the basis of their religious background. On a personal level, they abandoned those behaviors that had clearly set them apart from their Catholic neighbors. By the time that a new church was founded following Louis XIV’s death, the Protestants in Loriol acted like Catholics with regard to the demographic customs specific to Protestants, which were based on an understanding of the teachings of their own religion. This disappearance of confessional divisions did not signal the abandonment of the faith of their fathers or the end of the confessional divide, however. Loriol remained a bi-confessional community. How it did this speaks to the level of cooperation needed to enforce royal policies such as the Revocation. It also reveals the depths to which Loriol’s Protestants understood their religion. They understood where it could bend in order to allow for accommodation of the political realities of the age, making peace and survival possible. Where they would not compromise, they relied upon a level of accommodation

— 133 —

9781611460779_Print.indb 133

7/25/11 10:59 AM

134

Conclusion

from their leaders and neighbors that helped to secure peace for the entire community. The experience of Loriol illuminates much about the ways in which the letter and the spirit of the Revocation modified the behaviors of many people. The thirty years following the Edict of Fountainebleu were ones of accommodation, a time during which people across France learned to live with the new system after almost a century of bi-confessional existence. Loriol was a place in which the accommodations made by the Protestants erased their demographic distinctiveness, yet allowed them to maintain a community of believers. Local political and ecclesiastical authorities also made accommodations to the Protestants in Loriol, allowing the town to remain reasonably stable and hopefully making it possible to avoid devastation, which was in the interest of everyone in town. The experience of the Revocation in Loriol highlights some limits on royal resources, if not the interests of the crown. The abjurations of Protestants in Loriol were secured without using the violent methods employed elsewhere. They were not completely left alone in their religion, but their experience was relatively tranquil in terms of their interactions with royal authority. There were two barriers to the full enforcement of the religious edicts. First, royal government had to rely upon the local community and its leaders to enforce its edicts, a level of cooperation not uniformly available. Without this local cooperation, the royal government might achieve outward marks of compliance, but it could not count on true obedience. Second, there were limited military and financial resources. Loriol was surrounded by Protestant communities that refused to acquiesce to the new order and some that rose up in armed rebellion. Though compliance of the nouveaux convertis in Loriol was incomplete and superficial, their defiance paled in contrast to that of neighboring communities. By adopting a mask of obedience, imperfect though it was, they were able to avoid most of the excesses of the era. The royal government did not have the resources or desire to use coercive methods to deal with every instance of resistance; those places that were less rebellious had a measure of security and peace. The lack of severe difficulty and of significant discrimination against Protestants locally is explained by their preponderance in Loriol. Their economic and numerical strength made it unappealing for the Catholic minority to make the lives of the nouveaux convertis particularly difficult. Crushing the Protestants could bring great problems down onto the entire community. Too thorough a job of diminishing the strength of the Protestants would bring even greater burdens down onto the shoulders of the ancienne catholique community. It could shift local responsibilities onto a reasonably small minority, and it could invite repercussions against the anciennes catholiques.

9781611460779_Print.indb 134

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Beyond Belief

135

The possibility of the nouveaux convertis causing problems by virtue of their numbers in the community was clearly understood by the leading Catholic figures in town, as evidenced by their plea to the intendant to keep the nouveaux convertis off of the town council, fearing that they might form “a cabal to trouble the repose of the rest of the inhabitants.”1 The absence of evidence of truly coercive measures against the Protestants and the restraint shown with those civic duties that could be used to punish them, such as tax levies and the distribution of military obligations, suggest that Catholic leaders wanted to maintain harmonious relations with the local nouveaux convertis, which was, after all, in everyone’s interest. This was at times an uneasy coexistence, accommodation by each confession of the other extended past political concerns to the realm of personal choices and behavior. Demographic customs that had separated the two groups prior to the Revocation changed with the Revocation. The nouveaux convertis modified their behavior to comply with Catholic requirements, as did the anciennes catholiques, so that by 1715 everyone who came to the church behaved as a good Catholic with regard to marriage and baptism. The impact of the Revocation was evident in both groups, each of which made some accommodation that allowed for peaceful coexistence, minimizing the need for interference from outside authorities, civil or religious. Prior to the Revocation, the two confessions had clearly distinct patterns of behavior recorded in the parish registers. They behaved differently when they interacted with their priest or minister, the proof of their differences duly recorded by each, in Loriol and elsewhere. They indeed differed from their neighboring Catholics, who did not act fully in accordance with the expectations of their Church. In Loriol these behavioral differences, between the two groups and between behavior and expectation, disappeared by the early eighteenth century. Their disappearance was not accompanied by the disappearance of confessional divisions, suggesting that they were distinguishing actions for Protestants, but that they were not defining behaviors. When the pressure on the Protestants finally built to the point that it could not be avoided or resisted, they acquiesced to conversion (or presumed conversion) and submission to the expectation of the state and the Catholic Church. In doing so, they forfeited their demographic distinctiveness—an accommodation of the religious regime after 1685. They no longer had protections from the Edict of Nantes. Overt defiance on their part could jeopardize the peace of the community, not to mention their personal safety. The new demographic behavior of the nouveaux convertis, many of whom continued to be true Protestant believers, reflect a nuanced understanding of the tenets of Protestantism, as had their behaviors prior to the Revocation. Though they did not want to be forced to baptize their children or marry in

9781611460779_Print.indb 135

7/25/11 10:59 AM

136

Conclusion

the Catholic Church, avoiding this often was not a viable option. Given the situation in which they found themselves after 1685, presumed converted, forced to participate in the Catholic Church, and facing potentially severe repercussions for failure to do so, Protestants changed their behavior. However, the ways in which they did so were not in direct contradiction to their beliefs concerning baptism and marriage. After the Revocation, Protestants abandoned the long delays between a child’s birth and baptism. Timeliness in bringing a child to the church was not required in Calvinism, which only required that a child receive baptism, which was not an assurance of, or a necessary prerequisite to, salvation. It did not contradict the Protestant understanding of the sacrament of baptism for parents to bring a child to the church for baptism quickly, rather than after waiting for a week or more after birth. Further, French Protestantism had previously accepted the validity of a baptism administered by a priest, if it was necessary. The relative high number of baptisms after the Revocation shows that the nouveaux convertis understood that they could accept Catholic baptism for their infants and still maintain their Protestant belief. Similarly, pre-Revocation Protestants in Loriol did not recognize any religious seasons of abstinence from marriage. However, there were no particular problems with avoiding marriage during certain seasons. This was clearly demonstrated with the observance of the popular tradition of avoiding marriage during May. The creux de Mai had no basis in religion, Protestant or Catholic, yet the population of Loriol generally observed it as a period of abstinence before 1685. Once the Revocation was a reality, however, nouveaux convertis had to have their marriages performed by a priest, if they were not willing to risk traveling to a Protestant haven for marriage, or if they could not afford to do so. Once the accommodation of marrying before a priest was made, there were no doctrinal reasons not to avoid marriages during Lent and Advent. However, marriage was not considered a sacrament by the nouveaux convertis, and it could be religiously valid within their religious tradition without a church ceremony. Underground Protestant preachers who roamed France ministering to the needs of the nouveaux convertis could solemnize marriages when they were available. The presence of such an option was likely more appealing to many Protestants than marriage in the Catholic Church. Consequently, there was a pronounced decline in the number of marriages performed, as it was not deemed necessary to participate in the church for this—it was not, after all, baptism. Their behavior prior to the Revocation indicates that Protestants understood the doctrines of their religion. After 1685 their willingness to alter their behaviors while not relinquishing their religious belief, further indicates that they grasped the essence of baptism and marriage, and how to accommodate their new situation while not compromising their beliefs.

9781611460779_Print.indb 136

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Beyond Belief

137

The behavioral changes by the Protestants made their continued presence in Loriol easier. In personal terms, behaving as the Church required was likely to protect the peace that had been established in town. In the new religious situation, the nouveaux convertis did not want marks of differentiation that could only invite discrimination. By complying outwardly with baptism and marriage, the nouveaux convertis in Loriol could follow the dictates of the state and the expectations of the Church, thereby increasing their chances of avoiding problems with both. Outward conformity masked their continued adherence to Protestantism. The former Protestants were not the only people who experienced changes in behavior after the Revocation. There was heightened concern that resulted from ongoing attention given to reform within the Catholic Church. This was surely augmented in places like Loriol that had the job of educating a huge new population of Catholics in the beliefs and requirements of Catholicism. The new behaviors can be credited to the increased attention of the parish clergy to the actions of his parishioners. As was the case before the Revocation, when the Catholic community acted more closely in accordance with the Church’s expectations after the arrival of a new priest in 1679, the population reformed even further after the arrival of a new priest at the turn of the century. The king’s request for more vigilant ministers for communities with large numbers of nouveaux convertis was met in the person of Father Jauffret after 1700. After this point there were virtually no further deviations from Church doctrine among those who participated in the sacraments. The Revocation reinforced the ongoing reformation within the Catholic Church. The influx of a mass of former heretics necessitated that the Church work on educating people, including adults, in its teachings. As the letters of the Bishop of Valence indicate, sometimes this education had to begin with the priests. Though efforts for education were directed toward the community of new converts, they spilled over and affected the entire community of people attending the Catholic church in Loriol. Educational efforts were combined with the appointment of a particularly strong priest in Loriol, who worked to alter the behavior of everyone in town. As a result of the needs of the community of nouveaux convertis, the entire community of Loriol received an education in Church doctrine, as well as a strong priest to lead them in proper Catholic worship and participation in the sacraments. The failure of the Revocation to make true Catholics out of much of the Protestant community in Loriol must be balanced by the fact that it helped to reform the behavior of those who came to the church. Changes in behavior, on the part of the old and new Catholics in Loriol, likely contributed to their ability to avoid the intervention of the crown. Not only was the community free from outbreaks of confessional tension, it was,

9781611460779_Print.indb 137

7/25/11 10:59 AM

138

Conclusion

on the surface, appropriately Catholic. The new behavioral patterns of the entire community made it look as if everyone conformed to the dictates of the crown and the Church, but compliance was superficial and balanced by clerical accommodation. While Father Jauffret demanded conformity of active parishioners, he balanced this by not demanding that everyone participate. He maintained purity within the Church while acquiescing to a reasonably high level of non-participation by part of many nouveaux convertis. The demographic customs of this “integrated” community suggest that the differences between the two confessions, with regard to their interaction with the church at crucial times of life, were not essential to the self-definition of the Protestants in Loriol. In a situation where they could follow their inclinations, and act on their own understanding of the requirements of those who were part of the community of the faithful, they were distinct. When the government and the Catholic Church subjected them to extreme pressure, they responded by gradually abandoning those behaviors that had once separated them from the Catholics in town. They still saw themselves as distinctly Protestant, though many outward signs of this identity disappeared. The disappearance of these distinct demographic customs does not, however, tell the entire story. Questions that fall beyond the scope of the invaluable, but limited, sources of the parish registers and official local records remain. These include changes that may have taken place in the ways in which people worshipped, indications of religious behavior in everyday life outside of the major events of birth, marriage, and death, and the economic interactions of people within the community. Answers to these questions cannot be found in the parish registers which record only these major events in a formulaic manner, and will further deepen and nuance our understanding of the ways in which people responded to the changes during the era of the Revocation, as well as the reasons behind the changes, going beyond the major changes in behavior that are evident in Loriol. The experience of Loriol in the years leading up to the Revocation and in its aftermath suggest that understanding the Revocation must accommodate a range of reactions on the part of the state, the Church, old Catholics, and former Protestants. As the motivations for and timing of the Revocation itself were complex, and were modified by the needs of the state and the limits of what was politically and militarily realistic, so was the implementation of the Edict of Fontainebleau modified by the realities of the local situation, either on the provincial, diocesan, or local level. Loriol shows how one town, whose population distribution favored the Protestants, accommodated itself to the new religious regime and did so without sacrificing the Protestant beliefs of many of its inhabitants. This accommodation did not, however, come without a price, for the Revocation exacted a toll on Loriol and her people.

9781611460779_Print.indb 138

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Beyond Belief

139

The horror stories of the Revocation—the tremendous loss of life, freedom, and property that were visited on some communities, and which are the legend of the era—were not the sole legacies of the Revocation. Loriol shows another facet to the story of repression. The Protestants lost their temple, their dominant role in local politics, a good measure of their economic power, and their outward marks of confessional distinction. They did not, however, lose most of their population of Protestant believers. The years between 1685 and 1715 were years during which the neighbors and local authorities worked to find ways to accommodate the new regime. Each confessional group changed in the wake of the Revocation and came to accommodate the other in new ways. These accommodations surely took different forms in different communities and were subject to varying degrees of interference and influence of the authorities, royal and ecclesiastical. The survival of some form of Protestant minority until 1787 attests to the fact that they did find ways of accommodation in many places throughout France. The path of Loriol was not the only possible path that could lead to relative peace, but it suggests the importance of balancing the needs and perceptions of the community and its leaders against the goals and will of outside authorities. The impact of these years on the ancienne catholique population is also important. It remains to be seen if their behaviors are most clearly linked to the ongoing Catholic reform efforts, or if they were also influenced by the efforts of the church to bring about true conversion of the former Protestants. Much work remains to more fully understand the Revocation and the complex range of reactions it inspired in parishes across France. Loriol shows one alternative to the extreme persecution and heroic resistance that characterizes the legend of the Revocation. The experience of this community simultaneously suggests some real limits on the authority of the state to bring about profound change on the local level, as well as within individuals. The cooperation of local authorities and individuals was essential for full enforcement of these laws, and often they had different criteria for determining what was in the best interests of the community. The survival of so many Protestant faithful in the century of the Désert strongly suggests that while this community’s decisions may have been uncommon (though perhaps not), other communities found their own paths to accommodation and survival. Their stories have yet to be told.

Note 1. ACL, BB 15.

9781611460779_Print.indb 139

7/25/11 10:59 AM

9781611460779_Print.indb 140

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Secondary Sources

Adams, Geoffrey. The Huguenots and French Opinion, 1685–1787: The Enlightenment Debate on Toleration. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1991. Armogathe, Jean-Robert. L’Église catholique et la révocation de l’Édit de Nantes. Paris: O.E.I.L., 1985. Armogathe, Jean-Robert, and Ph. Joutard. “Bâville et la consultation des évêques en 1698.” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 52 (1972): 157–184. Arnaud, Eugène. Histoire des protestants du Dauphiné aux XVIe, XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles. 3 vols. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1970. ———. Histoire des protestants de Crest en Dauphiné pendant les trois derniers siècles. Paris: Librarie Fischbacher, 1893. ———. Le plus ancien document synodal connu de l’époque du désert au Actes du premier synode du Dauphiné du XVIIIe siècle. Paris: Grassart, Librairie-Editeur, 1885. ———. Statistique des églises reformées et des pasteurs de la province du Dauphiné aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles. Valence: Imprimerie de Chenvier et Chavet, 1874. Baird, Charles. The History of the Huguenot Emigration to America. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Company, 1885. Baird, Henry M. The Huguenots and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. 2 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1895. Beik, William. Absolutism and Society in Seventeenth-Century France: State Power and Provincial Aristocracy in Languedoc. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Bels, Pierre. Le mariage des protestants français jusqu’en 1685: fondements doctrinaux et practique juridique. Paris: Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1968. Benedict, Philip. The Faith and Fortunes of France’s Huguenots, 1600–1685. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, 2001.

— 141 —

9781611460779_Print.indb 141

7/25/11 10:59 AM

142

Secondary Sources

———. The Huguenot Population of France, 1699-1685: The Demographic Fate and Customs of a Religious Minority. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1991. Benoit, Daniel. “Mesures de Louis XIV relatives au baptême des enfants protestants de Mantauban deux ans avant la révocation.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 54 (1905): 118–120. Bergeal, Catherine. Protestantisme et liberté en France au 17e siècle: de l’Édit de Nantes à sa révocation, 1598–1685. Carrièrres-sous-Poissy: La Cause, 2001. Beuzart, P. “Les fugitifs protestants devant le parlement de Flandre depuis la Révocation jusqu’a la mort de Louis XIV.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 73 (1924): 173–194, 331–340. Bizeul, Yves. L’identité protestante: Etude de la minorité protestante de France. Paris: Méridiens Klincksieck, 1991. Blet, Pierre. Les assemblées du clergé et Louis XIV de 1670 à 1693. Rome: Università Gregoriana Editrice, 1972. ———. Le clergé de France, Louis XIV et le Saint Siège de 1695 à 1715. Vatican City: Archivio Vaticano, 1989. ———. “Le plan de Richelieu pour la réunion des protestants.” Gregorianum, no. 48, 1976, 100–129. Bligny, Bernard. Histoire du Dauphiné. Toulouse: Edouard Privat, 1973. Bluche, Francois. Louis XIV. Paris: Fayard, 1986. Bolle, Pierre. “Deux eveques devant la Révocation: Etienne Le Camus et Daniel de Cosnac.” In La Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes et le protestants français en 1685: actes du Colloque de Paris (15–19 october 1685), edited by Roger Zuber and Laurent Theis, 59-72. Paris: Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français, 1986. ———. “Une paroisse réformée du Dauphiné à la veille de la révocation de l’Édit de Nantes: Mens-en-Trièves, (1650–1685).” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 111 (1965): 322–342. ———. Le Protestant Dauphinois et le republic des synodes a la veille de la Révocation. Lyon: La Manufacture, 1985. ———. Protestantisme en Dauphiné. Poët-Laval, France: Curandera, 1983. Bonnemére, Eugéne. Les dragonnades. Histoire des Camisards. 1877. Reprint, Nîmes: C. Lacour, 1996. Bonney, Richard. Political Change in France under Richelieu and Mazarin, 1624–1661. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988. Bonzon, Anne, and Marc Venard. La religion dans la France moderne XVIe–XVIIIe siècle. Paris: Hachette, 1998. Borello, Céline. Les protestants de Provence au XVIIe siècle. Paris: Honoré Champion Éditeur, 2004. Bossy, John. Christianity in the West, 1400–1700. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Bost, Charles. “Les deux premier synodes du Désert: 21 aout 1715–13 janvier 1716.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 65 (1916): 10–54. ———. “Les routes de l’exil.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 47 (1898): 561–693, 634–651.

9781611460779_Print.indb 142

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Secondary Sources

143

Bounelle, André. “Force et faiblesse du protestantisme en 1684.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 131 (1985): 131–136. Bourrilly, V. L. “Au lendemain de la Révocation en Languedoc.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 69 (1920): 83–92. Briggs, Robin. Communities of Belief: Cultural and Social Tensions in Early Modern France. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Browning, W. S. History of the Huguenots from 1598 to 1838. Paris: Girard Brothers, 1839. Bungener, Louis-Felix. History of the Council of Trent. Summary of the Acts of the Council by John M’Clintock. New York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 1855. Butler, Jon. The Huguenots in America: A Refugee People in New World Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983. Cachard, L., and Samuel Mours. “Persistance du protestantisme dans la region du Puy-en-Velay du XVIe au XVIIIe siècle.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 120 (1987): 438–444. Cadier-Rey, Gabrielle. “L’exode des Huguenots.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 133 (1987): 121–124. Cadier-Sabatier, Sylvie. “Sur le chemin de la Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes: la communauté Protestant de Pont-de-Veyle de 1661 à 1685.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 120 (1974): 33–47. Cameron, Keith, Mark Greengrass, and Penny Roberts, eds. The Adventure of Religious Pluralism in Early Modern France. Bern: Peter Lang, 2000. Cans, A. “La caisse du clergé de France et les protestants convertis (1598–1790).” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 51 (1902): 225–243. Chomel, Vital. “Parlement et intendance en Dauphiné. La surveillance des nouveaux convertis après l’édit de Fontainebleau.” Cahiers d’Histoire 40, no. 1 (1995): 25-46. Collins, James B. The Fiscal Limits of Absolutism: Direct Taxation in Early SeventeenthCentury France. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. ———. The State in Early Modern France. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Coquerel, Charles. Histoire des églises du Désert chez les protestants de France: Depuis la fin du regne de Louis XIV jusqu’a la Révolution Francais. Vol. 1. (Paris: Libraries Ab. Cherbuliez, 1841). Corvisier, Andre. Louvois. Paris: Fayard, 1983. Cottret, Bernard. The Huguenots in England: Immigration and Settlement, c. 1550– 1700. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Delumeau, Jean. Catholicism between Luther and Voltaire: A New View of the CounterReformation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977. Deursen, Arie Theodorus van. Professions et métiers interdits: un aspect de l’histoire de la Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes. Groningen: J. B. Wolters, 1960. Deyon, Solane. Du loyalisme au refus: Les protestants français et leur député général entre la Fronde et la Révocation. Arras: Imprimerie centrale de l’Artois, 1976. ———. “La Résistance protestante et la symbolique du Désert.” Revue d’Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine 18 (1971): 237–249. Dompnier, Bernard. Le venin de l’hérésie: Image du protestantisme et combat catholique au XVIIe siècle. Paris: Editions du Centurión, 1985.

9781611460779_Print.indb 143

7/25/11 10:59 AM

144

Secondary Sources

Donat, Jean. “Le mouvement protestant et l’Édit de Révocation à Saint-Antonin-deRouergue.” Annales du Midi 43 (1931): 292–305, 392–451. Dubief, Henri, and Jacques Poujol, eds. La France Protestante: histoire et lieux de mémoire. Paris: Les Éditions de Paris, 1996. Duchene, Roger, ed. La Conversion au XVIIe siècle: Actes du Colloque de Marseilles, 1982, 161–177. Marseilles: C.M.R. 17, 1983. Dudon, Paul. “Les Jesuits dans le Diois, (1610–1763).” Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France 66 (1929): 5–30. Eire, Carlos M. N. War Against the Idols: The Reformation of Worship from Erasmus to Calvin. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Emmanuelli, François-Xavier. “La fin des persécutions en Provence au XVIIIe siècle.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 121 (1975): 516-530. Fanguin, Pierre. Textes et documents sur l’histoire du protestantisme dans le Gard. Nîmes: Archives Départementales du Gard, 1983. Farel, Album Guillaume. Le Dauphiné Protestant: Anciennes églises de cette province. Paris: Librarie Protestante, XIXe siècle. A copy is available at the Bibliothèque de la société de l’histoire du protestantisme français, Ms. 657–661. Flinn, Michael W. The European Demographic System, 1500–1820. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981. Forster, Marc. The Counter-Reformation in the Villages: Religion and Reform in the Bishopric of Speyer, 1560–1720. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992. Fraissinet, J. “Protestants fugitives arrêtées et poursuivis devant le parlement de Grenoble: 1685–1687.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 8 (1859): 297–311. France: Atlas routier. 23rd ed. Paris: Michelin, 1995. Frêche, Georges. “Contre-Réforme et dragonnades (1610–1789): Pour une orientation statistique de l’histoire du Protestantisme.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 119 (1973): 362–383. Gachon, P. “Le conseil royal et les Protestants en 1698: L’Enquète, la question de la messe et la role de Baville.” Revue historique 86 (1904): 36–57, 225–241. Gaillard, Pol. “Vauban, la Révocation de l’Edit de Nantes et la dîme royale.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 121 (1975): 354-369. Galland, A., “Les pasteurs français Amyraut, Bochart, etc., et la royauté de droit divin, de l’Edit d’Alais à la Révocation (1629–1685).” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 77 (1928): 14–20, 105–134, 225–241, 413–423. Garrison, Janine. L’Édit de Nantes et sa révocation: Histoire d’une intolerance. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1985. ———. L’Édit de Nantes: Chronique d’une paix attendue. Paris: Fayard, 1998. Giesendorf, Paul F. “Recherches sur les consequences demographique de la Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes en Dauphiné.” Cahiers de Histoire (1961): 245–264. Golden, Richard, ed. Church, State, and Society under the Bourbon Kings. Lawrence, KS: Coronado Press, 1982. Goubert, Pierre. Louis XIV and Twenty Million Frenchmen. Translated by Anne Carter. New York: Vintage Books, 1966. Gwynn, Robin D. Huguenot Heritage: The History and Contribution of the Huguenots in Britain. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985.

9781611460779_Print.indb 144

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Secondary Sources

145

Hanlon, Gregory. Confession and Community in Seventeenth-Century France: Catholic and Protestant Coexistence in Acquitaine. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993. Harding, Robert. Anatomy of a Power Elite: The Provincial Governors of Early Modern France. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1978. Henshall, Nicholas. The Myth of Absolutism: Change and Continuity in Modern European Monarchy. New York: Longman, 1992. Hepburn, A. C., ed. Minorities in History. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1979. Hickey, Daniel. The Coming of French Absolutism: The Struggle for Tax Reform in the Province of Dauphiné, 1540–1683. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1986. Hoffman, Philip T. “Early Modern France, 1450–1700.” In Fiscal Crises, Liberty, and Representative Government, 1450–1789, ed. Philip T. Hoffman and Kathryn Norberg, 226–252. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994. Horndern, Francis. “Histoire d’une famille protestante drômoise du XVIe siècle au XIXe siècle: Les Lombard-Latune.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 113 (1967): 220–245. Humbert, Jacques. “Deux anées de commandement militaire en Dauphiné.” Revue historique de l’Armée, no. 3 (1968): 109–130. Krumenacker, Yves. “Les dragonnades du Poitou: Leur echo dans les mémoires.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 131 (1985): 405–422. Labrousse, Elisabeth. Conscience et conviction: etudes sur le XVIIe siècle. Oxford: The Voltaire Foundation, 1996. ———. Une foi, une loi, un roi? La révocation de l’Édit de Nantes. Paris: Payot, 1985. Lacroix, A. Loriol, St.-Jean-en-Royans et leurs environs. Paris: Res Universis, 1989. Léonard, Émile Guillaume. Histoire générale du protestantisme. 3 vols., 2nd ed. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1988. Letonnelier, Gaston. Histoire du Dauphiné. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958. Ligou, Daniel. Le protestantisme en France de 1598 à 1715. Paris: Société d’édition d’enseignement supérieur, 1968. Long, Kathleen Perry, ed. Religious Differences in France: Past and Present. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2006. Lossky, Andrew. Louis XIV and the French Monarchy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994. Lough, John. France Observed in the Seventeenth Century. Boston: Oriel Press Stocksfield, 1985. Luria, Keith. Sacred Boundaries: Religious Coexistence and Conflict in Early-Modern France. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005. ———. Territories of Grace: Cultural Change in the Seventeenth Century Diocese of Grenoble. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Luthy, Herbert. La Banque Protestante en France de la Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes à la Révolution. 2 vols. Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1961. Mazauric, Roger. “Etude sur les consequences de la Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes au pays messin: Un siècle de resonance dans le village de Courcelles-Chaussy.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 120 (1974): 259–281.

9781611460779_Print.indb 145

7/25/11 10:59 AM

146

Secondary Sources

McKee, Denis. “Les protestants de Sedan et la Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes: opposition, fuites et résistance.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 127 (1981): 219–254. Méjan, François. Discipline de l’église réformée de France. Paris: Editions “Je sers,” 1947. Mentzer, Raymond A., Jr. Blood and Belief: Family Survival and Confessional Identity among the Provincial Huguenot Nobility. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1994. Mentzer, Raymond A., Jr., and Andrew Spicer, eds. Society and Culture in the Huguenot World, 1559–1685. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Mieg, Philippe. “Validation par le curé de Pont-en-Royans de trois mariages protestants déjà célébrés à Genève (21 décembre 1699).” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 121 (1975): 551–560. Moote, A. Lloyd. Louis XIII, the Just. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989. Mours, Samuel. L’Église reformée de Montélimar: Des origins à nos jours. Montélimar: Eglise reformée, 1957. ———. “Essai d’évaluation de la population protestante réformée aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 102 (1956): 1–24. ———. “Essai sommaire de géographie du protestantisme réformé français au XVIIe siècle.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 111 (1965): 303–321. ———. “Essai sommaire de géographie du protestantisme réformé français au XVIIe siècle.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 112 (1966): 19–36. ———. “La vie synodale en Vivarais au XVIIe siècle.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 93 (1946): 55–103. ———. Le protestantisme en France au XVIIe siècle (1598–1685). Paris: Librarie Protestante, 1967. ———. “Les pasteurs à la Révocation de l’édit de Nantes.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 114 (1968): 67–105, 292–316, 521–524. ———. “Liste des églises réformées avec date de leur fondation.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 103 (1957): 35–59, 113–130, 200–216. Mours, Samuel, and Daniel Robert. Le protestantisme en France du XVIIIe siècle à nos jours (1685–1970). Paris: Librarie Protestante, 1972. Negroni, Barbara de. Intolérances: catholiques et protestants en France, 1560–1787. Paris: Hachette, 1996. Nicholls, David. “The Social History of the French Reformation: Ideology, Confession and Culture.” Social History 9, no. 1 (January 1984): 25–43. Orcibal, Jean. État present des recherches sur la répartition géographique des “nouveaux Catholiques” à la fin du XVIIe siècle. Paris: Librarie Philosophique J. Vrin, 1948. Parker, David. The Making of French Absolutism. London: Edward Arnold, 1983. Pascal, César. “Sous la persecution en Saintonge au XVIIe siècle.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 50 (1901): 393–444. Perry, Elisabeth Israels. From Theology to History: French Religious Controversy and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973.

9781611460779_Print.indb 146

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Secondary Sources

147

Quéniart, Jean. La Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes: Protestantes et catholiques en France du 1598 à 1685. Paris: Desclee de Brouver, 1985. Rabut, Elisabeth. Le roi, l’église et le temple. Grenoble: Éditions La Pensee Sauvage, 1987. Rey, M. Un Intendant de province á la fin du XVIIe siècle: Essai sur l’administration de Bouchu, intendant de justice, police et finances en Dauphiné et des armées de sa majesté en Italie, 1686–1705. Grenoble: Imprimerie F. Allier pere et fils, 1896. Ribard, Clément. “Un curé tolerant.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 15 (1866): 110–111. Richard, Michel-Edmond. La vie des protestants Français de l’Édit de Nantes à le Révolution (1598–1789). Paris: Les Éditions de Paris, 1994. Rochas, Adolphe. Biographie du Dauphiné concernant l’histoire des hommes nés dans cette province. Vol. 2. Paris: Charavay, Librarie-Editeur, 1860. Rothrock, George A. The Huguenots: A Biography of a Minority. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1979. Schickler, F. “Lambert de Beauregard: Une victime des dragonnades.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 22 (1873): 433–451. Scoville, Warren C. The Persecution of Huguenots and French Economic Development, 1680–1720. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1960. Sée, Henri. “The Intendants’ Mémoires of 1698 and their Value for Economic History.” Economic History Review 1, No. 2 (1928): 308–313. Serfass, Charles. “Les abjurations forcés en Vivarais (1700).” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 52 (1903): 141–143. Strayer, Brian. Huguenots and Camisards as Aliens in France, 1598–1789: The Struggle for Religious Toleration. Lewiston, NY: The Edwin Mellen Press, Ltd., 2001. Taveneaux, Réné. Le Catholicisme dans la France classique. 2 vols. Paris: Heracles, 1992. Treasure, G. R. R. Seventeenth-Century France. London: Rivingtons, 1966. Van Ruymbeke, Bertrand, and Randy J. Sparks. Memory and Identity: The Huguenots in France and the Atlantic Diaspora. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2003. Vincent, Abbe A. Notice Historique sur Loriol. Edited by Marc Aurel. Valence: Imprimerie de Marc Aurel, 1854. Wallace, Peter G. Communities and Conflict in Early Modern Colmar: 1575–1730. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1995. Wanegfflen, Thierry. L’Édit de Nantes: Une histoire européenne de la tolerance (XVIe– XXe siècles). Paris: 1997. Wrigley, E. A., and R. S. Schofield. The Population History of England, 1541–1871: A Reconstruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Zuber, Roger, and Laurent Theis, eds. La Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes et le protestants français en 1685: Actes du Colloque de Paris (15–19 october 1685). Paris: Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français, 1986.

9781611460779_Print.indb 147

7/25/11 10:59 AM

9781611460779_Print.indb 148

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Primary Sources

Archives départementales de la Drôme Administrations provinciales, C 1132. Administrations provinciales, C 1/4. Documents entrés par voies extraordinaires, 151 J 5. Notarial records, Pierre Gagnat la Couronne, 2 E 2895. Notarial records, Pierre Rouveyre, 2 E 2312–2314. Notarial records, Alexandre Francois Duserre, 2 E 2896–2900. Papiers de l’évêque de Valence, 12 G 2. Procès-verbaux, 1684–1689, C 924. Registres paroissales de l’église catholique de Loriol, 4 E 1673. Registres paroissales de l’église protestante de Loriol, 6 E 19.

Archives départementales de l’Isère Papiers de l’intendant Bouchu, 2 C 909. Papiers de l’intendant Bouchu, 2 C 910. Papiers de l’intendant Bouchu, 2 C 1000.

Archives communales de Loriol Arrêts du conseil d’état et du Parlement, 1630-1769, BB 13. Arrêts du conseil d’état, ordonnances du Roy, 1690–1789, EE 16. Arrêts du conseil d’état, ordonnances, etc., 1700-1713, CC 59. — 149 —

9781611460779_Print.indb 149

7/25/11 10:59 AM

150

Primary Sources

Arrêts, requêtes, etc., 1640–1661, CC 57. Arrêts, requêtes, etc., 1664–1698, CC 58. Délibérations consulaires, 1656–1658, BB 7. Délibérations consulaires, 1659–1662, BB 8. Délibérations consulaires, 1663–1666, BB 9. Délibérations consulaires, 1666–1669, BB 10. Délibérations consulaires, 1669–1676, BB11. Délibérations consulaires, 1679–1706, BB 12. Edit du Roy, arrêts, etc., 1714–1780, CC 60. Lançon de taille, 1696, rôles de tailles et impositions, 1692–1697, CC 18. Ordonnances du roy concernant logements, 1660–1686, EE 15. Rôles de tailles, 1648–1656, CC 13. Rôles de tailles, 1662–1669, CC 14. Rôles de tailles, 1671–1678, CC 15. Rôles de tailles, 1679–1683, CC 16. Rôles de tailles et impositions, 1684–1691, CC 17. Rôles de tailles, 1697–1699, CC 19. Rôles de tailles, 1692–1696, CC18. Rôles de tailles, 1699–1709, CC 20.

Archives nationales Lettres originales adressées au contrôleur général par les intendants des generalities, Dauphiné, 1684–1687, G 7 240. Mélanges concernant principalement les troubles causés par les procédures appliqués aux Religionnaires à la suite de la révocation de l’édit de Nantes, 1640–1790, TT 448. Mélanges concernant principalement les troubles causés par les procédures appliqués aux Religionnaires à la suite de la révocation de l’édit de Nantes, 1640–1790, TT 449. Mélanges concernant principalement les troubles causés par les procédures appliqués aux Religionnaires à la suite de la révocation de l’édit de Nantes, 1640–1790, TT 450. Mélanges concernant principalement les troubles causés par les procédures appliqués aux Religionnaires à la suite de la révocation de l’édit de Nantes, 1640–1790, TT 451. Mélanges concernant principalement les troubles causés par les procédures appliqués aux Religionnaires à la suite de la révocation de l’édit de Nantes, 1640–1790, TT 457. Mémoires et documents concernant les religionnaires, adressées à Saint-Florentin, 1700–1748, TT 435. Mémoires, pieces diverses “sur l’exercice de la Religion Prétendue Réformée,” 1585– 1724, TT 430.

Printed Sources Bonafous, Jean. “Le testament de Jean Bonafous, ministre de léglise de Puylaurens.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 11 (1862): 471–479.

9781611460779_Print.indb 150

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Primary Sources

151

Bouchu, Jean-Etienne. “État du Dauphiné en 1698.” J. Brun-Durand, ed. Bulletin de la Société départemental d’archéologie et de statistique de la Drôme, vol. 1 (1866): 196–211, 301–309. ———. “État du Dauphiné en 1698.” J. Brun-Durand, ed. Bulletin de la Société départemental d’archéologie et de statistique de la Drôme, vol. 2 (1867): 29–40, 120–133, 349–364. ———. “État du Dauphiné en 1698.” J. Brun-Durand, ed. Bulletin de la Société départemental d’archéologie et de statistique de la Drôme, vol. 3 (1868): 5–16, 399–404. ———. “État du Dauphiné en 1698.” J. Brun-Durand, ed. Bulletin de la Société départemental d’archéologie et de statistique de la Drôme, vol. 4 (1869): 139–142, 277–281. ———. “État du Dauphiné en 1698.” J. Brun-Durand, ed. Bulletin de la Société départemental d’archéologie et de statistique de la Drôme, vol. 5 (1870): 169–180. ———. “État du Dauphiné en 1698.” J. Brun-Durand, ed. Bulletin de la Société départemental d’archéologie et de statistique de la Drôme, vol. 6 (1872): 315–323, 404–421. ———. “État du Dauphiné en 1698.” J. Brun-Durand, ed. Bulletin de la Société départemental d’archéologie et de statistique de la Drôme, vol. 7 (1873): 5–20, 168–182, 259–274. ———. “État du Dauphiné en 1698.” J. Brun-Durand, ed. Bulletin de la Société départemental d’archéologie et de statistique de la Drôme, vol. 8 (1874): 5–49. Calvin, John, The Catechism of the Church of Geneva. Translated by Rev. Elijah Waterman. Hartford, CT: Sheldon Goodwin Printers, 1815. ———. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1953. ˆ cˆatholique. Commissioned by the Archbishop of Paris. Catechisme ou Abrége de la foi Baltimore: De l’imprimerie de S. Sower, 1796. “Contre feue Clauda Jouve, veuve de Jacques Chibolon, de Saint-Maurice-de-Roche (commune de Roche-en-Régnier), de la R.P.R., relapse.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 120 (1974): 441–444. de Cosnac, Daniel. Mémoire de Daniel de Cosnac. Tome second. Paris: Libraries de la Société de l’Histoire de France, 1852. de Croissy, Colbert. Lettre à Le Bret du 20 septembre 1685. Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 34 (1885): 454–455. “Le dernier synode national des églises Réformées avant la Révocation de l’Édit de Nantes, Rapport officiel du commissaire du roi au XXIXe et dernier synode national tenu à Loudun, 1659–1660.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 8 (1859): 145–219. Isambert, Decrusy, and Taillandier. Recueil général des anciennes lois françaises depuis l’an 420 jusqu’a la Révolution de 1789. Tome XVIII–XX. Paris: Belin-Leprieur, Librarie-éditeur, 1833. “Lettre de Claude Brousson ministre du Saint Evangille à tous ceux qui persévèrent en France dans leurs déréglemant ou dans leur infidelitté.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 83 (1934): 285–289. Le Bret. Lettre à Colbert de Croissy du 29 octobre 1685. Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 34 (1885): 592–593.

9781611460779_Print.indb 151

7/25/11 10:59 AM

152

Primary Sources

Louis XIV. Mémoires for the Instruction of the Dauphin. Paul Sonnino, translator. New York: The Free Press, 1970. “Mémoire de Dupui (1683–1708).” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 56 (1907): 414–423. Pilatte, Leon, ed. Édits, Déclarations et Arrests concernans la Religion Pretendue Reformée, 1660–1751. Paris: Fischbacher, 1885. “Resultat de l’assemblée qui s’est tenue chez monseigneur le cardinal de Bonsy, archevêque de Narbonne.” Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire du protestantisme français 69 (1920): 86–92.

9781611460779_Print.indb 152

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Appendix Identification of Tax Payers by Confession

T

O IDENTIFY PEOPLE ON THE TAX ROLLS by their confession required several different approaches. The first and most reliable means of identification was based on the use of the roll for the assessment of the new converts in 1689. This roll listed those who were required to pay the additional tax, and was a pared down version of the regular taille roll; that is, it was in roughly the same order. Obviously, there was not perfect correlation when one worked backwards in time. Over the course of time many people had left Loriol, married or otherwise combined households, or died by 1689 and were, therefore, not listed in the roll for that year. There were also those who were in Loriol in 1689 who were not on earlier taille rolls, either because they were not residents in the year under consideration, or they were not subject to the tax for reasons of age or economic status. The supplemental taille roll from 1689 remains, however, the logical starting place for identifying Protestant taxpayers in the pre-Revocation years. When a taxpayer for an earlier year, for example 1675, matched with a new convert from the 1689 supplemental taille roll, the column for confessional identification was marked with a “P” for Protestant. For the taxpayers who remained unidentified, the parish registers from both the Protestant and Catholic churches were used. An adult who was married in the church, buried in the church, or took a child to a church to be baptized was considered to be of that confession. For example, Daniel Fournier was not listed in the supplemental rolls for 1689. He was, however, on the roll for 1678. The parish register of the Protestant temple showed that he died in 1680 and his funeral was performed by the Protestant minister. Those people

— 153 —

9781611460779_Print.indb 153

7/25/11 10:59 AM

154

Appendix

who, like Mr. Fournier, were major participants in an act of either church were considered to be followers of that confession in which they participated. Where there were no conflicts, that is, the people mentioned were adults capable of being on the taille roll and there were not duplicate names in the register from the other confession, such people were marked with a “P” or a “C” in the taille roll, as appropriate. The remaining taxpayers were classified with somewhat more caution. A fair amount of certainty was given to designations of confession for those people who were listed as godparents in the registers. Part of the hesitation here was the lack of an indication of age in the registers for the godparents. The other reason for caution was that there were more questions of identity among the godparents. That is, there were more of the same names appearing in both Protestant and Catholic registers. For these reasons, taxpayers identified by their position as a godparent were marked with a “p” or “c,” to give an indication of the lower level of certainty surrounding the identification. When there were people with the same name appearing in both registers, preference was given to the preponderance of the evidence. The final means of tentative identification was based on surnames. There were some surnames that were exclusive to families of one confession or the other. Though this certainly does not characterize all of the town’s inhabitants, it was true for some. The names of taxpayers that had not been found in any of the above records were evaluated in this manner. These people were marked with “p1” or “c1” to indicate the lowest level of certainty about confessional identification.

9781611460779_Print.indb 154

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Index

abjurations en masse, 64; see also conversions Absolutism and Society in Seventeenth Century France (Beik), 6 abstinence periods and marriage, 45, 46–48, 79–80, 116, 119 accommodation in community (Loriol): by Catholics for new converts, 70, 81–82; Loriol experience, conclusions, 133–39; in marriage practices, 47; overview, 12; postRevocation, 80, 82–83, 128–29; pre-Revocation Loriol, overview, 51–53; shared beliefs, focus on, 63; see also belief vs. behavior Advent and marriage abstinence, 45, 46–48, 79–80, 116, 119 affirmations vs. acts and sacraments, 39–40 age distribution of conversions, 66 agricultural crisis, 104 Alès, Peace of, 23 amnesties, 61 anciennes catholiques, 68; and billeting of troops, 74; and control of town council, 73, 103; and

equalization with nouveaux convertis, 91–92, 95, 105; post-Revocation behavior, 81–83, 123, 129, 135–37; tax assessments on, 71–72, 105 anti-Christ reference, 21 Anti-Moine, á Messieurs de la communion de Rome de la ville de Crest (de la Faye, J.), 19 anti-pope sentiments, 21 armed resistance, 27, 60–61, 75 army. See troops, supplying and lodging Arnaud, Eugène, 24, 68 artisans/craftsmen, policies regarding, 27 assembly, bans on, 58, 61, 75, 96, 97–98; see also underground movement Avertissement Pastoral (1682), 63 baptism: à domicile exception, 29; delay prior to, 38, 39–45, 80, 116, 119; numbers of, 1680s, 65; postRevocation, 70, 76–79, 82, 115–16, 118–19; pre-Revocation practices, 38–45; see also illegitimacy Bas-Languedoc, synod of, 63 Beik, William, 6

— 155 —

9781611460779_Print.indb 155

7/25/11 10:59 AM

156

Index

belief vs. behavior: affirmations vs. acts and sacraments, 39–40; outward conformity, appearance of, 7, 38–39, 57, 59, 94; and persistence of confessionalism, 126–30, 133–39; see also accommodation in community bell, use of, 15, 27 Benedict, Philip, 12, 41–42, 49–50, 123 billeting. See troops, supplying and lodging births: and delay to baptism, 38, 39–45, 80, 116, 119; illegitimacy, 45–46, 49– 51, 117, 122–23; midwives, 43, 44, 58 books, 19, 21, 29, 74 Bossy, John, 39 Bouchu, Jean-Étienne (intendant), 68, 75, 97, 98, 104 Brousson, Claude, 127–28 burials: and deaths outside the Church, 43, 121, 125–26; doctrinal conflict regarding, 14, 77, 78, 79; funerals, 27, 65, 77, 78; increase in, famine years, 105; see also deathbed sacraments caisse de conversions, 67, 72–73, 84n2 Calvinist doctrine, 38–40, 41–43, 45, 49–50, 78–79, 82 Campe de l’Eternel, 61 Castres, 64 Catellan, Jean de (bishop), 99–102 Catholic doctrine, 38, 41–45, 43–45, 45–48, 49–50 Catholics: abstinence periods and marriage, 45, 46–48, 79–80, 116, 119; children, Catholic training of, 70, 75–76, 93–94, 101–2; churches, ruinous state of, 11, 14, 70; and conformity to Church requirements, 48, 51, 81, 94, 95–96; effect of Revocation on, 79–80; response to reform movements, 81–83, 129, 135–37; symbols, ban of Protestant use of, 25; see also anciennes catholiques Cévennes, 63

9781611460779_Print.indb 156

charismatic Catholicism in conversion attempts, 24–25 Chateaudouble, 61 children: Catholic training of, 70, 75–76, 93–94, 101–2; conversions of, 28, 58, 84n6; see also baptism; births civil records as source, overview, 4 clandestine communications by Protestants, 63; see also underground movement Clavans, 68–69 clergy: compromise and community accommodation, 8, 82–83, 128–29; freedom of movement of, 58; hostile relationships with, 130–31n14; increased professionalism of, 81; post-Revocation increase in vigilance of, 123, 124–25; see also ecclesiastical authority Cliousclat, 14, 29, 65, 66 Colbert de Croissy, 68, 70 colloque de Valentinois, 20 community cooperation in Loriol. See accommodation in community (Loriol) compliance. See conformity conception, illegitimate, 117, 122–23 confessional boundaries and community coexistence, 12, 14–15, 28–30, 37; see also accommodation in community (Loriol) confessionalization, definition, 5 confessionalization, persistence of (1690–1715): belief vs. behavior, conclusions, 133–39; belief vs. behavior, overview, 126–30; overview, 113–15; sacramental behavior, 115–26 confessionalization and accommodation, overview, 51–53; see also accommodation in community (Loriol) conformity: adequate level of, 82–84; of Catholics to Church requirements, 48, 51, 81, 94, 95–96; children,

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Index

Catholic training of, 70, 75–76, 93–94, 101–2; enforcement of, 92–96, 100, 115–16, 119, 121; mandated compliance post-Revocation, 76–77; of nouveaux convertis, 70–71; outward appearance of, 7, 38–39, 57, 59, 82, 94; religious training for converts, 69–70, 93–96; see also belief vs. behavior conscription, military, 106 convents, confinement to, 97, 98, 99 conversions: among aristocrats, 72; of children, 28, 58, 84n6; and clerical personal advancement, 26; deathbed, 82, 95, 124; forced by dragonnades, 59–60, 63–64, 65–66; mass, 5, 64, 76, 82; of midwives, 58; monetary incentives to, 25, 67, 72–73; peaceful policies for, 22, 23, 26, 63, 64, 100; post-Revocation, Loriol/Cliousclat, 65, 66–67; post-Revocation enforcement of and marriage, 100, 115–16, 119, 121; resistance to, postEdict, 26–30; Richelieu’s goals for, 23; through destruction of temples, 24–25; verification and maintenance of, 26; see also nouveaux convertis Council of Trent, 41, 45 Court, Antoine, 75, 108 Crest, 61 creux de Mai, 46–47, 47–48, 79–80, 119 Dauphiné: armed resistance in, 60–61, 64; clandestine movements in, 63; conflict post-Edict, 14, 28–30; description, 3; enforcement in, clerical, 98–102; flight of Protestants from, 68–69; illicit meetings in, 5, 63, 75, 97, 108, 114; intendancy of, 12–13; map of, x; pre-Revocation accommodation by Protestants, 52–53; Protestant demographics of, 3, 4, 13–14; Protestant hierarchy in, 19–20, 21; temples in, 24–25; see also Loriol

9781611460779_Print.indb 157

157

de Cosnac, Daniel (bishop), 24, 26, 63, 64 de Croissy, Colbert, 68, 70 de la Faye, Andre, 128 de la Faye, Jean, 19, 30, 46, 63, 64 de la Faye, Theodore, 19, 50, 71–72, 106–7 deathbed conversions, 82, 95, 124 deathbed sacraments, 82, 94, 113, 117– 18, 124, 131n14 deaths outside the Church, 43, 121, 125–26 Declaration of 1656, 21–22 Declaration of 1698, 93–96, 123–24 delay between birth and baptism, 38, 39–45, 80, 116, 119 Désert (1685–1787), 3, 91–92 Die, 29, 64, 75, 98–99 Dieulefit, 61 doctors, 94 doctrine: Catholic, 38, 41–45, 43–45, 45–48, 49–50; Protestant, 38–40, 41–43, 45, 78–79, 82 douceur, 63 dragonnades, 59–60, 61, 63; see also troops, supplying and lodging dragons. See dragonnades Drôme River Valley geography, 3, 74 ecclesiastical authority: connection with secular authority, 25–26; over Loriol, 15, 20; and postRevocation enforcement, 94–95, 98–102; royal dependence on, 6–7, 12–13, 23, 94; see also clergy economics; decline of France, 103–5; decline of Protestant power, 16; monetary incentives to conversion, 25, 67, 72–73; taxes paid as measure of power, 17; see also taxes Edict of Fontainebleau, 3, 67–68; see also Revocation of Edict of Nantes Edict of Nantes: Declaration of 1656, 21–22; implementation of, 2;

7/25/11 10:59 AM

158

oppression and dispute (1660s and 1670s), 13–15; secret articles of, 23; see also pre-Revocation (1650–1684) behavior; temples, Protestant emigration of Protestants, 3, 68–69, 86 England, 68 executions, 75, 97 exodus of Protestants from France, 3, 68–69, 86 external vs. internal conversion, 95 extreme unction, 82, 94, 113, 117–18, 124, 131n14 faith, Calvinist basis of, 39–40 family as “a little church of God,” 82, 109, 114 famine, 104 feast days, Catholic, 22; see also abstinence periods and marriage fines, 19, 30, 77, 84n6, 97 flight of Protestants from France, 3, 68–69, 86 Fontainebleau, Edict of, 3, 67–68; see also Revocation of Edict of Nantes food shortages, 104 fornication, 45–46, 49, 50 Forster, Marc, 11–12 France, ca. 1685 (map), ix French Catholics and Rome, 57 French language religious materials, 81–82 the Fronde, loyalty of Protestants in, 20, 23 funerals, 27, 65, 77, 78; see also burials galleys, sentencing to, 19, 30, 74, 89n98, 96, 97 Gamond, Blanche, 61 Gap, 69 Garrison, Janine, 21, 73 gender distribution of conversions, 66 Geneva as Protestant “homeland,” 68 godparenting, importance of, 28, 81, 99 grace, Calvinist basis of, 39–40 grande dragonnade, 63–64

9781611460779_Print.indb 158

Index

hangings, 97 Hanlon, Gregory, 12 Henry IV, 2 Holland, 68 Holy Sacrament, policies regarding, 22, 47 home as “a little church of God,” 82, 109, 114 idolatry issues, 21 illegitimacy, 45–46, 49–51, 117, 122–23 The Imitation of Christ, 81 imprisonment, 75, 89n98, 97, 98–99 infant death and baptism, 43, 44 Institutes of the Christian Religion, 39–40, 45, 79 intendancy of Dauphiné: Bouchu, Jean-Étienne (intendant), 68, 75, 97, 98, 104; Le Bret, Pierre Cardin (intendant), 68, 70; Marillac, René de (intendant), 59–60; overview, 12–13 interconfessional marriage, 48, 120–21, 126 internalization of beliefs vs. outward practices, 7, 38–39, 57, 59, 94–95 Interpretation of the Psalms, 81 Jansenism, 34n70, 84n2, 110n10 Jauffret, Father, 80, 82, 115, 119, 120– 21, 123–24, 125, 137 Jurieu, Pierre, 94 La Grave, 68–69 Lamy, Father, 44, 48, 80, 82 Languedoc, demographics of, 13, 82 last rites, 82, 94, 113, 117–18, 124, 131n14 Layrac, 12 Le Bret, Pierre Cardin (intendant), 68, 70 Le Camus, Étienne (bishop), 26, 63, 64, 69–70 Le Tellier, François Michel (Louvois), 60, 61, 75, 92 League of Augsburg, War of, 92, 93

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Index

legitimacy. See illegitimacy Lent and marriage abstinence, 45, 46– 48, 79, 116, 119 Lettres Pastorales (Jurieu), 94 levies. See taxes; troops, supplying and lodging “little church” concept., 82, 109, 114 Loriol: community experience of Revocation, conclusions, 133–39; description, 1, 3–4; post-Revocation resistance and compliance, 74–75, 76–84, 102–7; Protestant demographic of, 15; 1650–1679, overview, 11–20; 1690–1715, overview, 91–92; see also accommodation in community; Dauphiné Loudun, 20 Louis XIII, 23 Louis XIV: ascendance of, 2–3; death of, 107–8; Declaration of 1698, 93–96; ecclesiastical authority, royal dependence on, 6–7, 12–13, 23, 94; Personal Rule of, 19–20; provincial authority, royal dependence on, 6–7, 23, 26, 94, 96–98; secret articles of Edict of Nantes, 23; secret mémoire of (1699), 94–96; signing of Edict of Fontainebleau, 67 Louvois (François Michel Le Tellier), 60, 61, 75, 92, 106 loyalty to king, professions of, 20–21, 28 Luria, Keith, 12, 27 Marillac, René de (intendant), 59–60 marriage: and abstinence periods, 45, 46–48, 79–80, 116, 119; clandestine, 99, 101–2; contracts by notary, 48; creux de Mai, 46–47, 47–48, 79–80, 119; interconfessional, 48, 120–21, 126; number of, 1680s, 65; post-Revocation enforcement of conversion, 100, 115–16, 119, 121; post-Revocation numbers, 77–78, 79–80, 82, 115–16; pre-Revocation practices, 45–48;

9781611460779_Print.indb 159

159

Protestant, outside the realm, 127–28 Marseilles sans miracles, 29; mass conversions, 5, 64, 76, 82 May, avoidance of marriage in, 46–47, 47–48, 79–80, 119 Mazarin,Jules (cardinal), 20–21, 23 medical professionals, 94 meetings, illicit, 58, 61, 75, 96, 97–98; see also underground movement Mens, 99 Meynier, Bernard, 24 midwives, 43, 44, 58 military obligations, 106; see also troops, supplying and lodging military rights of Protestants, 2 “missing” conversions, 72–73 mixed marriage, 48, 120–21, 126 Molinism, 110n10 monetary incentives to conversion, 25, 67, 72–73 monetary support of Reformed Church, 28 Montauban, 27, 64 Montélimar, 3, 14 Montpellier, 64 mortality, increase in, 78, 79 Mours, Samuel, 106–7 municipal records as source, overview, 4 Nantes, Edict of. See Edict of Nantes; Revocation of Edict of Nantes national synod, pre-Revocation, 20–21 Nijmegen, Treaty of, 57 Nîmes, 64 notary profession, 58 nouveaux catholiques, 68; see also nouveaux convertis nouveaux convertis: definition, 9n8; enforcement of compliance of, 92–96; and equalization with anciennes catholiques, 91–92, 95, 105; exclusion of on council, 73; persecution against, 71, 75–76; position in Loriol (1690–1715),

7/25/11 10:59 AM

160

Index

102–7; special taxes on, 69, 71–72, 103–4 Nyons, 61 occupations. See professions Orange (principality), 97–98 outward conformity, appearance of, 7, 38–39, 57, 59, 94 pardons, 61 parish priests, accommodations by, 8, 82–83, 128–29 participation in Catholic traditions, enforced, 94 Peace of Alès, 23 peaceful conversion policies, 22, 23, 26, 63, 64, 100 Pellisson, Paul, 81 pensions as conversion incentives, 25 Personal Rule of Louis XIV, 19–20 Poitou, 12 Pont-de-Veyle, 14–15, 27, 29 pope, sentiments against, 21 pre-Revocation (1650–1684) behavior; baptism practices, 38–45; coexistence in Loriol, overview, 37; confessionalization and accommodation, overview, 51–53; illegitimacy, 49–51; marriage practices, 45–48; persecution, escalation of (1680s), 57–67 présidial de Valence, 20 printing of books, 19, 21, 29, 74 profession of faith, new (1685), 63 professions: bans on for Protestants, 58; of converts, 66; enlistment of to ensure conformity, 94; of Protestants pre-Revocation, 16, 17–18; requirements for nouveaux convertis, 94; restrictions on for Protestants, 24, 58; right to practice, 2 Protestant doctrine, 38–40, 41–43, 45, 78–79, 82 Protestant renewal, 91

9781611460779_Print.indb 160

Protestants: Désert (1685–1787), 3, 91–92; dominance of, regional, 14; loss of political power pre-Revocation, 16; population demographics, 3, 4; postRevocation dissent (1690–1715), 96–98; resistance to conversion preRevocation, 26–30; underground movement, 63, 108, 114, 117–18; see also Calvinist doctrine; temples, Protestant provincial authority, royal dependence on, 6–7, 23, 26, 94, 96–98; see also intendancy of Dauphiné provisional baptism by midwives, 43, 44 punishments: fines, 19, 30, 77, 84n6, 97; galleys, sentencing to, 19, 30, 74, 89n98, 96, 97; hangings, 97 Puylaurens, 64 rebellion, active, 61, 100–101 reform, Catholic response to, 81–83, 129, 135–37 refugees from persecution, 68, 83 regional dominance of Protestants, 14 religious instruction: of children, 70, 75–76, 93–94, 101–2; for converts, 69–70, 93–96 religious materials, 81 religious records as source, overview, 4 revival of 1710s, 107–9 Revocation of Edict of Nantes: adoption of, 3, 66, 67; failure of, 107–9; goal of, 5; immediate effects of, 67–76; see also pre-Revocation (1650–1684) behavior Rhône River, 3 Richard, Michel-Edmond, 72 Richelieu Plan, 23 robes, ban on wearing, 25 Roger, Jacques, 108 royal power. See Louis XIV Roybon, 99 Ryswick, Treaty of, 93

7/25/11 10:59 AM

Index

sacraments: baptism, 39–40, 41–43, 43– 45, 78–79; extreme unction, 82, 94, 113, 117–18, 124, 131n14; marriage, 45; and parish behavior (1690–1715), 115–26; vs. rites, 79 Saint-Justen-Cevalet, 104 Saint-Paul-trois-Chateaux, 61 salvation and baptism, 40, 41 sanctuary for refugees, 65–66, 68 schoolteachers, 15, 70 seasonality of doctrine and marriage, 45, 46–48, 79–80, 116, 119, 124 secret articles of Edict of Nantes, 23 secret meetings, 97–98; see also meetings, illicit secret mémoire of (1699), 94–96 sénéchaussee, 20 settlement of 1599 sex distribution of converts, 66 sexual relations and doctrine, 45–46, 49, 50; see also illegitimacy; marriage shared beliefs, focus on, 63 Speyer, 12 symbols, Catholic, 25 synods: 1681 Meeting, 63; influence preRevocation, 20–22; revival of 1710s, 5, 108, 114; see also assembly, bans on tax records as source, overview, 4 taxes: burdens of 1690–1715 in Loriol, 104–6; for church repair/ construction, 70; discriminatory assessments on nouveaux convertis, 69, 71, 72, 103–4; exemptions as conversion incentive, 73; paid by council members, 16; Protestant share of, 16, 17, 69, 71–72; shift of burden to Catholics, 71 temples, Protestant: appropriation of, 29; and condemnation of pastor de la Faye, 19, 64; destruction

9781611460779_Print.indb 161

161

of, 24, 29, 64–65; unauthorized, 13–14, 21, 24–25 timing of baptism, 38, 39–45, 80, 116, 119 Tour de Crest, 75, 99 town council: composition of by orders of (1630–1650s), 15; composition of by settlement of 1599, 15; composition postRevocation, 73, 103; exclusion of Protestants from, 58–59; meeting minutes, 4 travel, illicit, 97–98 Treaty of Nijmegen, 57 Treaty of Ryswick, 93 troops, supplying and lodging: assignments by town council, 18–19; assignments in Loriol (1690–1715), 106; to force conversions, 59–60, 61, 63–64, 65–66; post-Revocation, 73–74 underground movement, 63, 108, 114, 117–18; see also assembly, bans on use of force, 24, 60–61 Uzès, 63, 64 Valence, 3, 20, 29, 64, 98 Valette, Father, 115, 124 Vauban, Sébastien Le Prestre de, 92–93 Venterol, 22 violence upon Protestants: and dragonnades, 60, 65–66; increase in, pre-Revocation, 57; pre-Revocation, 21 Vivarais province, 63, 100–101 war and tax burden, 104 War of the League of Augsburg, 92, 93 wealth, concessions to, 59 weddings. See marriage

7/25/11 10:59 AM

9781611460779_Print.indb 162

7/25/11 10:59 AM

About the Author

Christie Sample Wilson is an associate professor of history at St. Edward’s University. She received her BA from Hendrix College in 1990 and her PhD from the University of Texas at Austin in 1997. Her research interests include popular culture, demography, and religious history, on which she has published. Dr. Wilson lives in Austin, Texas, with her husband and two children.

— 163 —

9781611460779_Print.indb 163

7/25/11 10:59 AM

9781611460779_Print.indb 164

7/25/11 10:59 AM