## The Project Gutenberg eBook of Holbein's "Ambassadors", the picture and the men

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Holbein's "Ambassadors", the picture and the men

an historical study

Author: Mary F. S. Hervey

Artist: Hans Holbein

Release date: December 4, 2025 [eBook #77401]

Language: English

Original publication: London: George Bell & Sons, 1900

Credits: deaurider and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HOLBEIN'S "AMBASSADORS", THE PICTURE AND THE MEN ***

[i]

# HOLBEIN’S “AMBASSADORS”
THE PICTURE AND THE MEN

[ii]

THE “AMBASSADORS.”

From the Picture by Holbein in the National Gallery, London.

Art Repro. Co.

[iii]

HOLBEIN’S
“Ambassadors”

THE PICTURE AND THE MEN

AN HISTORICAL STUDY

BY
MARY F. S. HERVEY

“...
Tes esprits courageux ne furent pas contans
Sans doctement conjoindre avec la peinture
L’Art de mathématique et de l’architecture.”
Ronsard

WITH NINETEEN ILLUSTRATIONS AND TWO FACSIMILES

LONDON
GEORGE BELL AND SONS, YORK STREET
COVENT GARDEN
1900

[iv]

CHISWICK PRESS: CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO.
TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

[v]

## PREFACE

It may appear a large demand upon the patience of the reader to devote an entire volume to subjects connected with one picture. So varied and fascinating, however, is the field of study opened up by Holbein’s “Ambassadors,” that what was originally intended to occupy but a few pages has developed to the present dimensions.

The value of a work of art, as such, must necessarily depend on purely æsthetic considerations. But it often happens that other and hardly less attractive points of view converge with the artistic aspect. The unique position occupied by the “Ambassadors” as an example of French cultivation in the early half of the sixteenth century is a case in point. Probably no other painting illustrates in the same measure the private life and pursuits of an educated Frenchman of the period, as well as certain remarkable points relating to public events.

The documents which at last re-established the identity of Holbein’s sitters will be found printed in extenso in Part I. of this volume, two of them for the first time; while all the facts bearing upon the history of the picture have been gathered together into a continuous narrative. A large part of the information [vi]given throughout the following pages is based upon hitherto unpublished manuscripts, and a variety of new circumstances has been brought to light respecting both the picture and the personages portrayed. Where letters or quotations are inserted in the original French, the old orthography has been strictly preserved, with the sole exception that the letter u, when it stands for a consonant, has been replaced by the more familiar v. In all cases where the old French seemed likely to present any difficulty to the modern reader, translations have been appended.

The fact that Holbein copied the floor of opus Alexandrinum depicted in the “Ambassadors,” from the grand old mosaic pavement of Abbot Ware in Westminster Abbey, may come as a surprise to the reader, and will, it is hoped, be as great a pleasure to him to learn as it was to the writer to discover.

The short notice in the Appendix respecting George Gyze or Gisze, showing the position held by him in the corporation of German merchants in London, now made clear for the first time, may also, it is believed, offer a point of interest to those acquainted with the fine portrait of him, by Holbein, in the Gallery at Berlin.

It remains for the writer to express her gratitude to all those who have assisted the researches of which the following pages are the result. Special thanks are due to Lady Radnor, for information kindly communicated respecting the history of the picture while at Longford Castle; to Mrs. Graham Harrison, for translations from the Latin letters of Pierre Bunel; to M. Dorlodot des Essarts, Marquis de Selve, for permission to reproduce the portrait of the Bishop of Lavaur preserved at Villiers, and for the use of a valuable unpublished Papal rescript which has formed part of the family archives since the sixteenth [vii]century; to Lord Francis Hervey, for the translation of Alciati’s Latin verses to accompany the emblem “Fœdera Italorum”; to the Astronomer Royal, for an opinion respecting the celestial globe painted by Holbein; to the late Mr. C. H. Coote, of the British Museum; to Mr. W. H. Rylands, G.A.D.C.; to M. Massif, Keeper of the Public Library at Toulouse; M. Auguste Vidal, Archivist at Albi (Tarn); the Abbé Cazès, Superior of the Seminary at Lavaur; M. Lefèvre-Pontalis, editor of the “Correspondance Politique d’Odet de Selve,” in the series of State Papers published by the French Foreign Office; M. Tausserat-Radel, editor of the “Correspondance de Guillaume Pellicier, Evêque de Montpellier,” in the same series; M. Dardenne, Trésorier-Général of the Department of Aude; Dr. Charles Fournel, author of the history of the Hospice Beaujon at Paris; M. F. Abrand, Régisseur at Polisy; to Mr. Morelli, for permission to use the photographs taken by him from the picture of the “Ambassadors”; to Messrs. Henry Stevens, Son and Stiles, for leave to reproduce the gores of the globe copied by Holbein; and to many others who have cordially done what lay in their power to promote the objects of this study.

The writer is also indebted to the keepers of various departmental and municipal collections of archives in France; to several Paris notaries who have kindly examined for her the ancient legal documents in their possession; and to M. Léon Pajot, for researches conducted amongst the MSS. preserved at Paris.

[viii]

[ix]

## CONTENTS

| PAGE
Introduction | 1
PART I THE HISTORY OF THE PICTURE
Chapter I. The History of the “Ambassadors” from 1533 to 1654 | 5
Chapter II. The History of the “Ambassadors” from 1654 to the present day. Chronology of the Picture | 18
PART II JEAN DE DINTEVILLE
Chapter I. The Early Life of Jean de Dinteville | 35
Chapter II. The First Mission to England of the Bailly of Troyes (1531), and the Calais Interview of 1532 | 50
Chapter III. The Bailly of Troyes, French Ambassador in England (1533) | 66
Chapter IV. Coronation of Queen Anne Boleyn and Termination of the Bailly’s Long Embassy to England | 83
Chapter V. Short Missions of the Bailly of Troyes to England in 1535, 1536, and 1537 | 99
Chapter VI. Disgrace and Return to Favour of the Dinteville family | 111
Chapter VII. The Building of Polisy and the Last Years of Jean de Dinteville. His Supposed Portrait at Windsor | 125[x]
PART III GEORGE DE SELVE
Chapter I. The Early Years of George de Selve and his First Diplomatic Employment | 143
Chapter II. The Bishop of Lavaur Ambassador at Venice and at Rome | 156
Chapter III. Repose at Lavaur, and Embassy to Charles V. | 169
Chapter IV. The Closing Days of the Bishop of Lavaur. His Portrait at Villiers | 184
PART IV THE DETAILS OF THE PICTURE
Chapter I. General Description of the Picture—The Death’s-Head—The Dagger—The Order of St. Michael—The Celestial Globe—The Terrestrial Globe | 197
Chapter II. The Lutheran Hymn-Book—The Book of Arithmetic—The Geometrical Instruments—The Mosaic Pavement—The Lute—The Seven Liberal Arts—The Silver Crucifix—Occult Science—Conclusion | 219
Appendix A. Georg Gyze or Gisze | 239
Appendix B. “Presbyter Joannes” (Prester John) | 241
Index | 243

[xi]

## LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

|  | PAGE
1. | The “Ambassadors,” from the picture by Holbein in the National Gallery, London (full-page) | Frontispiece
2. | Reduced Facsimile of document purchased from M. Saffroy (full-page) | 12
3. | Reduced Facsimile of document preserved amongst the Godefroy Papers, Bibl. de l’Institut, Paris (full-page) | 18
4. | The Château of Polisy, from an original drawing of the early seventeenth century, published by M. Lucien Coutant in the Almanach de Bar-sur-Seine (full-page) | 35
5. | Portrait of François II. de Dinteville, Bishop of Auxerre, from the Martyrdom of Ste. Eugénie, by Felix Chrétien, in the Church at Varzy (full-page) | 56
6. | Unnamed Drawing by Holbein in the Windsor Collection, supposed to represent Jean de Dinteville (full-page) | 110
7. | Arms of Jean de Dinteville, as still seen at Polisy (in the text) | 128
8. | Arms of the Bishop of Auxerre, from the tesselated pavement at Polisy (in the text) | 130
9. | Dormer Window of the Maison de l’Aûmonier at Polisy, showing the emblem of Fortune (in the text) | 131
10. | Mark of the printer Gryphe of Lyons, showing the emblem of Fortune (in the text) | 132
11. | The Cathedral of Lavaur at the present day (full-page) | 143
12. | Jean de Selve, Premier Président of the Parliament of Paris, from Bullart, “Académie des Sciences et des Arts” (full-page) | 154[xii]
13. | George de Selve, Bishop of Lavaur, from a posthumous painting at the Château of Villiers, Seine-et-Oise (full-page) | 170
14. | a. The “Arms of Death,” from Holbein’s Dance of Death. |
| b. The Death’s-head brooch in Dinteville’s cap (full-page) | 197
15. | a. Dinteville’s Dagger-sheath, from the picture of the “Ambassadors.” |
| b. Design for a Dagger-sheath after Holbein, at the Museum of Basle (full-page) | 206
16. | Celestial Globe, from the picture of the “Ambassadors,” reduced scale (full-page) | 210
17. | Terrestrial Globe, from the picture of the “Ambassadors,” reduced scale (full-page) | 214
18. | Gores of the Nuremberg Globe copied by Holbein, reduced scale (full-page) | ibid.
19. | Hymn-book, from the picture of the “Ambassadors” (full-page) | 218
20. | a. Book of Arithmetic, from the picture of the “Ambassadors.” |
| b. Page of Apian’s “Merchant’s Arithmetic,” copied by Holbein (full-page) | 224
21. | a. Design of the Mosaic Pavement in Westminster Abbey, with details of patterns (in the text) | 226
| b. Design of the Mosaic Pavement in Holbein’s picture, with details of patterns (in the text) | ibid.

[1]

## HOLBEIN’S “AMBASSADORS”
INTRODUCTION

Few pictures have attracted more attention than Holbein’s double-portrait of two Ambassadors, since its migration in 1890 from Longford Castle to the National Gallery. The great qualities which distinguish it as a work of art are too well known to need recapitulation here. In conception, scale, and elaboration, in all the elements characteristic of Holbein’s genius, the picture stands in the foremost rank of that painter’s achievement. Moreover, up to 1890, Holbein was unrepresented in the National Gallery, though much of his best work was executed in England, and for English patrons.

Besides its great and permanent merits, another cause contributed to draw notice to this work when it first appeared as national property: the identity of the two individuals represented had become lost. Good fortune has since restored to us their forgotten names. It is now possible to affirm, with complete certainty, that in the personage to the left⁠[1] is beheld the image of Jean de Dinteville, Seigneur of Polisy and Bailly of Troyes: in the robed figure to the right, that of George de Selve, Bishop of Lavaur. How, step by step, the history of Holbein’s masterpiece has been recovered it will be one of the objects of the following pages to show.

But the unusual character of the picture, the curiosity it has aroused, [2]the complex and fascinating setting in which the two friends are placed, seem to call for something more than a mere chronicle of its story. It is impossible to repress the question, what manner of men were these? or to resist the desire to know how far the actual circumstances of their lives explain the choice of the many striking objects with which they are seen surrounded. As a matter of fact, a closer acquaintance with the mental atmosphere they breathed, and with the relations in which they stood to contemporary thought and events, throws a flood of light on many points which, at first sight, appear obscure. In the history of their life and times is to be found the solution of any enigmas suggested by their entourage.

Returning to the picture with the insight derived from the study of their circumstances, it becomes clear that the composition is no less logical in thought than symmetrical in design. The varied features presented by it, many of which deserve close inspection on their own merits, assume new meaning and interest, whether taken separately or viewed in certain combinations. Some glimpse is thus obtained, though it may be but an imperfect one, of the intentions with which, more than three centuries and a half ago, artist and owner built up the intricate harmonies of their monumental work.

The subject thus falls naturally into four divisions. The first part will be devoted to the history of the picture; the second and third, to the lives of the men it represents; the fourth, to some analysis of its contents.

[3]

## PART I
THE HISTORY OF THE PICTURE

[4]

## THE HISTORY OF THE PICTURE

[5]

### CHAPTER I
The History of the “Ambassadors” from 1533 to 1654

When, in 1890, the picture of “The Ambassadors” was purchased for the national collection,⁠[2] nothing was known of its story prior to the last hundred years. The record began with the fact that it had been owned in the latter part of the eighteenth century by Jean-Batiste-Pierre Le Brun, a dealer and collector at Paris.⁠[3]

In 1792 Le Brun published the first volume of his “Galerie des Peintres Flamands, Hollandais et Allemands,” in which there appeared a very bad engraving of “The Ambassadors,” thus inscribed:

> “Tiré du Cabinet de M. Le Brun d’après l’original peint sur bois, hauteur 96 pouces, largeur 54.”⁠[4]

The engraving was accompanied by a biographical notice of Holbein which, after recording various points connected with his paintings, continues:

> “Celui dont on voit l’estampe offre les portraits de MM. de Selve et d’Avaux; l’un fut Ambassadeur à Venise, l’autre le fut dans le nord: ils sont accompagnés [6]des attributs des arts qu’ils cultivaient. J’ai depuis vendu ce tableau pour l’Angleterre, où il est maintenant; les figures sont de grandeur naturelle.”⁠[5]

It will be remarked that Le Brun offers no information as to where he had acquired his precious possession. In England it came into the hands of the dealer Buchanan, who sold it to Jacob, second Earl of Radnor, in 1808, or the following year.⁠[6] It remained at Longford Castle until purchased for the National Gallery.

During the Longford episode, guesses seemed to have rained as to the identity of the personages. Some critics favoured the French theory derived from Le Brun. Others drew into the service a variety of notabilities, ranging from Charles V., Emperor of Germany, downwards. The year 1826 seems to have been especially rich in surmise of this type. At last someone proposed Sir Thomas Wyat for the courtly personage to the left; and this name appears to have clung a little longer than was the case with some previous suggestions. At any rate, it was accepted without much reflection by the leading authorities on Holbein, Mr. Wornum⁠[7] and Dr. Woltmann,⁠[8] and so came to pass as current coin. Dr. Woltmann further suggested the name of Leland for the second figure.

But a paper by Mr. Gough Nichols, published in the “Archæologia” for 1873,⁠[9] easily disposed of these identifications. For one [7]thing, the “Ambassadors” bore no resemblance whatever to authentic portraits of the individuals they were now supposed to represent, those portraits, in Wyat’s case, being also by Holbein.⁠[10] Mr. Gough Nichols had no fresh theory to offer in the place of that which he demolished. Returning for a moment to the French title of Le Brun’s engraving, he proceeded to dismiss the claim to consideration of Selve and Avaux as summarily as that of Sir Thomas Wyat and Leland.⁠[11] Holbein’s sitters were left nameless. In 1890 there seemed to remain only the traditional title of “Two Ambassadors” (shorn of the faulty, but highly important corollary, “MM. De Selve et D’Avaux”), and such clues as the internal evidence of the picture might afford, to throw any light on the enigma.

It will be necessary now to dwell for a moment on this internal evidence, in order to show how completely it bears out the documentary testimony which at last came to light.

The only certain clues were, shortly, the following: 1. The signature (low down in the left-hand corner): Joannes Holbein pingebat, 1533. 2. The French Order of St. Michael worn by the personage to the left. 3. The words, AET. SVAE 29, inscribed on the dagger-sheath of the same gentleman. 4. A similar inscription, AETATIS SVE (sic) 25, on the leaves of the closed book which supports the elbow of the right-hand personage.

The best authorities united in the belief that Holbein spent the year 1533 in England. The Order of St. Michael of France worn by the individual to the left, pointed to the probability, but not certainty, of his being a Frenchman; scarcely any foreigners, except royal and a few other notable personages, being at that time admitted to the Order. The task, therefore, so far as the left-hand figure was concerned, was [8]to find a man who, having been in England in the year indicated, was at once an ambassador, a Knight of the Royal Order of France, and of the desired age. Further, it was likely that he would be a Frenchman.

Among the many candidates of varied nationality, the dates and circumstances of whose lives, so far as they could be ascertained, were investigated by the writer, one only, proposed, with happy insight, by Mr. Sidney Colvin,⁠[12] appeared to fit these conditions in every respect.

Jean de Dinteville, Seigneur of Polisy, Bailly of Troyes, and Knight of St. Michael, was French Ambassador at the court of Henry VIII. almost throughout the year 1533. He was born in September, 1504, and was therefore in his twenty-ninth year when he came to England in February, 1533. Moreover “Polisy,” the name of Dinteville’s seigneurie in Burgundy, was found to be marked on the terrestrial globe represented in the picture close to the principal personage. The word was, however, slightly damaged, which detracted from the certainty of the reading till further proof arose to confirm it. That proof was still lacking; while the presence of many rival theories, some of them highly ingenious, and each claiming to have some special feature in its favour, left the solution still doubtful.

The identity of the second personage remained meanwhile as obscure as ever. Many names were proposed,⁠[13] but none seemed to offer the substantial promise of success which lent cogency to the Dinteville theory. The claim of M. de Selve, whose name, as well as the title of “The Two Ambassadors,” proved in the end to be survivals of the true tradition, was curiously overlooked from the time when that of his supposed companion, M. D’Avaux, was found to be a myth. The two names had in reality nothing in common. The very fact [9]that they were not contemporary proved the arbitrary nature of their connection. While the title of Avaux did not exist till more than a hundred years after the picture was painted,⁠[14] five out of the six sons of Jean de Selve, the famous Premier Président of the parliament of Paris, were ambassadors during the sixteenth century and were born within a range of time that covered the desired date. Two of them were envoys at Venice, in exact accordance with the French tradition.⁠[15] The difficulty was to know which brother to select, and to find the precise information which would bring him into relation with Dinteville and Holbein in England. Much confusion prevails in the popular sources of information which deal with this family of diplomatists. This complicated the task of fixing their exact ages, necessarily the first step towards success. Where, however, so little evidence was forthcoming on which to base any kind of theory, the author thought it advisable not to reject an old and plausible tradition unless proved to be incorrect.

The rights of the Selve family now received a fresh impulse from another quarter. In 1894 the patient research of Mr. Dickes⁠[16] succeeded in tracing the story of the picture one step behind the ownership of Le Brun to the sale of the property of M. Nicolas Beaujon, a well-known French millionaire, who died in the winter of 1786. In the catalogue of that sale, which occurred in April and May, 1787, the following curious notice may be read:

> “16 bis. Un autre tableau de quatre pieds et demi ou environ de hauteur sur près de huit pieds de large;⁠[17] il représente deux ambassadeurs, MM. de [10]Selve et d’Avaux, l’un Ambassadeur à Venise, et l’autre dans les pays du Nord, avec le costume des nations chez lesquelles ils étoient envoyés; et les attributs des arts qu’ils aimoient. On voit aussi une tête de mort en perspective, à prendre de l’angle gauche du tableau,⁠[18] et qui a l’agrément de ressembler en face à un grand poisson. Le tableau est du même Holbein, mais la date de l’année n’y est pas.⁠[19] Il est du règne de François I. ou de Henri II. Ces deux tableaux sont à considérer.”⁠[20]

It now became clear whence Le Brun had drawn his information. He had merely repeated the already existing tradition. Notwithstanding the errors woven by a lively imagination into the substantial facts of the Beaujon catalogue, the importance of the fresh link in the chain of evidence was obvious. The new clue added force to the presumption, already strong, that the French tradition had a real foundation in fact; but that by some unexplained means the name of Avaux had in course of time been substituted for that of Dinteville.

Such was the state of things when, in 1895, a fortunate discovery came to confirm the probabilities thus evolved, and to raise them to the certainty of fact.

In the “Revue de Champagne et de Brie” for 1888, there was published a short notice of a picture formerly preserved at Polisy, containing the portraits of Jean de Dinteville and George de Selve!⁠[21]

[11]

Here then, at last, was the long-delayed solution: doubly satisfactory inasmuch as it exactly corroborated the results of so much previous research.

The paragraph in the “Revue de Champagne” was based on a catalogue published in March, 1888, by M. Saffroy, an antiquarian bookseller of Pré-Saint-Gervais, in which a seventeenth-century parchment, describing this picture, was offered for sale. The notice in the “Revue” first came under the present writer’s observation in 1895. The document there mentioned, which M. Saffroy happily still possessed after the lapse of seven years, was at once obtained, and furnished exactly the information which had so long been sought in vain. The following is its complete text:

> “[Remarques sur le suject d’un tableau excellent des Srs. d’Inteville Polizy, et de George de Selve Evesque de Lavour, contenant leurs emplois, et tems de leur deceds.]⁠[22]

> “En ce tableau est representé au naturel Messire Iean de DIntevile chevalier Sieur de Polizy pres de Bar-sur-seyne Bailly de Troyes, qui fut Ambassadeur en Angleterre pour le Roy Francois premier ez années 1532 & 1533⁠[23] & de puis Gouverneur de Monsieur charles de France second Filz diceluy Roy, le quel Charles mourut a forest monstier en l’an 1545, & le dict Sr. de DIntevile en lan 1555. Sepulturé en leglise du dict Polizy. Est aussi represente audict tableau Messire George de Selve Evesque de Lavaur personage de grandes lettres & fort vertueux, & qui fut Ambassadeur pres de LEmpereur Charles cinquiesme, ledict Evesque Filz de Messire Iean de Selve premier president au parlement de Paris, iceluy Sr. Evesque decedé en lan 1541 ayant des la susdicte année 1532 ou 1533⁠[23] passe en Angleterre par permission du Roy pour visiter le susdict Sieur de DIntevile son intime amy & de toute sa famile, & eux deux ayantz rencontrez en Angleterre un excellent peinctre holandois l’employerent pour faire iceluy tableau qui a esté soigneusement conservé au mesme lieu de Polizy iusques en lan 1653.”⁠[24]

[12]

The manuscript consists of an oblong piece of parchment which may have been cut at some time from an inventory. From the fact, however, that while containing the story of the picture up to the time when it left Polisy, it does not state where it was then taken to, it seems possible that it was attached to the painting as a label in the early days of its next sojourn. If fastened to the frame, it would be obviously superfluous to describe where the picture was actually hanging. The date of the document is in accordance with this supposition. On submission to the authorities at the British Museum, its authenticity was pronounced to be indisputable. The body of the manuscript, it was further stated, was written just after the middle of the seventeenth century, while the heading was added at a slightly later date. Whether originally a label or not, it appears early to have become separated from the picture and its proprietors, and to have fallen into careful hands, who then added the docket.⁠[25]

In 1888 the existence at the present day of the picture thus minutely placed on record was of course unknown. The writer in the “Revue de Champagne et de Brie” merely called attention to the notice in M. Saffroy’s catalogue as to an archæological curiosity connected with a name once famous in his province.

It is hardly necessary to point out that the dates and circumstances, [13]already related, of Dinteville’s life, are in exact accordance with the record of this document. With the new data now at command correct information was soon obtained with regard to his companion also.

REDUCED FACSIMILE OF DOCUMENT PURCHASED FROM M. SAFFROY.

The ecclesiastical rank of George de Selve, Bishop of Lavaur, gives him a place in the great work of the brothers Sainte-Marthe, “Gallia Christiana;” and this book furnishes a further point of comparison for the correctness of picture and document. Turning to the article on the diocese of Lavaur⁠[26] it will be found that George de Selve was appointed to that see in 1526, when he was in his eighteenth year, but was only consecrated in 1534, when he was in his twenty-sixth year. Recollecting that the painting inscribed 1533, and corroborated in this date by the Saffroy document, states him to be then in his twenty-fifth year, it follows that the agreement between these three authorities is without a flaw.

But still further evidence confirms these conclusions. In the Archives of the Château of Villiers, owned by the present representative of the Selve family, is a Motu proprio of the Pope in favour of George de Selve, son of the Premier Président, permitting him to hold several benefices “although only seventeen years old.” This Latin deed is dated from Rome, the 13th May, 3rd Clement VII. Now, as this Pope was elected in November, 1523, the month of May of the third year of his pontificate falls in 1526. This document therefore places beyond all possibility of doubt that George de Selve was in his eighteenth year in May, 1526, and consequently in his twenty-fifth year, exactly as recorded on the picture when painted by Holbein in 1533.⁠[27]

The identity of the “Ambassadors” was now fully established. So also was the history and location of the picture down to 1653; but there still remained a blank of a hundred and thirty-four years before the reappearance of the painting at the Beaujon sale in 1787. Where was it and who owned it during this period?

[14]

To answer these questions, so far as possible, the history of Polisy and its successive proprietors during the century which followed the death of Dinteville, the Ambassador, must first be traced.

Jean de Dinteville died unmarried in 1555, leaving all his property to his last surviving brother, Guillaume, Seigneur Deschenetz. The latter, whose death occurred only four years later, was, in default of heirs male, succeeded at Polisy by his eldest daughter, Claude de Dinteville. This lady married, in 1562, François de Cazillac, Baron de Cessac, the head of a distinguished family in the south of France, who owned large properties in Quercy and Languedoc. For more than ninety years from the date of this marriage, the Cazillac family remained in possession of Polisy.

Madame de Cessac, the last of the race of Dinteville,⁠[28] survived until 1619, outliving her husband many years. This lady was a friend of Nicolas Camusat, the antiquary; and as it is to him that the next step is due in the history of the picture, which he must often have seen, it will be well to consider for a moment his relations with Polisy.

Camusat was a canon of the cathedral at Troyes. He occupied himself with antiquarian research, and published valuable collections of the papers he amassed. His correspondences with the French savants of the day were extensive, consisting chiefly of genealogies and local lore intended for the literary works on which they were engaged. Amongst those to whom he imparted such information were the Godefroy family, Du Puy, D’Hozier, the Sainte-Marthe brothers, and other persons celebrated in the annals of French learning. He was also interested in art, and himself possessed a small collection of paintings.

A letter written by Camusat to Du Puy in which, speaking of [15]François de Dinteville, Bishop of Auxerre,⁠[29] he refers to a conversation that had taken place between “une sienne niepce” and himself, shows the intimate terms on which he stood with the family at Polisy.⁠[30] Madame de Cessac seems to have placed the archives of the Château at his free disposition. It is certain that she herself gave to him a genealogy of the Polisy branch of the house of Dinteville,⁠[31] probably the same that he inserted in his “Meslanges Historiques.”⁠[32] This book, which is a standard authority for the diplomatic relations of Francis I., owes its principal value to the access obtained by Camusat to the Dinteville papers and correspondence. It is, at the same time, one of the chief printed sources for the history of the family itself.

The connection of Nicolas Camusat with Polisy extended over nearly half a century. The earliest letters relating to that place are dated 1607; the last must have been penned shortly before his death, which took place in 1655. They ranged from the time of Mme. de Cessac, niece of the “Ambassador,” to that of her grandson, another François de Cazillac-Cessac, who removed the picture to Paris. The circumstances which probably led to this event must now be briefly recorded.

On the death, in 1619, of Madame de Cessac, Polisy passed to her eldest son Charles, who, by his marriage with Susanne d’Escar, left one son François, who succeeded him, and one daughter, Claude.

The daughter became the wife of Jean Jaques de la Roche-Fontenilles. Of their descendants more will be said hereafter.

The life of François de Cazillac, successively Baron, Vicomte, and Marquis de Cessac,⁠[33] forms a corner-stone in the story of the picture, [16]and must therefore be dwelt upon with some care. His wife was a lady of the Choiseul family; a race united to the Cazillac, and before them to the Dinteville, by frequent ties of intermarriage, in many generations. One son and two daughters were the offspring of this union.⁠[34] The eldest girl was destined to the veil; but hardly was she grown up when the death of her brother hurried her home from her convent to become the future heiress of her parents. Her return seemed the more urgent as the younger sister was so delicate that it was evident she could not long survive. On the fatal termination of her illness, the whole inheritance would devolve on the elder daughter. Perhaps this point of view may have struck a young captain of cavalry, the owner of a neighbouring château, Charles le Genevois, Marquis de Blaigny, serving with the Duke of Guise. At any rate, in May, 1651, he carried off the young lady, then twenty years of age, from her home at Polisy, where she was living with her mother during the absence of her father in Languedoc. A hue and cry of hot pursuit was at once raised. Royal despatches brought hasty orders to the Prince de Conti, Governour of Champagne, to turn out even the soldiery, in order to capture the runaway pair. But all the king’s horses and all the king’s men were of no avail. The young couple made good their escape over the frontier to Franche-Comté,⁠[35] and, in spite of every effort to stop the marriage, Charlotte-Marie de Cazillac became the wife of M. de Blaigny.⁠[36]

Annoyance at his daughter’s elopement with a man he detested, combined no doubt with grief at the untimely death of his other children, seems to have put the climax to M. de Cessac’s distaste for his northern home. His heart was in the southern country which had been the cradle of his race. In spite of their long residence at Polisy, the interests of the Cazillac-Cessac family still centred in the south. The [17]heads of the house, in succession, were constantly absent in Quercy and Languedoc. The elopement of Charlotte-Marie de Cazillac only afforded an additional proof of the difficulty of exercising simultaneous control in districts so remote from each other.

In the latter part of the sixteenth century, during the wars of religion, no part of France had suffered more severely than those southern provinces in which the Cazillac estates were situated. For reasons of safety, as well as from the fact that François I. de Cazillac (husband of the Dinteville heiress) filled the post of Governor of Troyes, Polisy may at that time have been considered a more desirable place of abode than any of the Châteaux in Quercy or Languedoc; though Polisy itself enjoyed no immunity from the troubles which lacerated all France. But in the middle of the seventeenth century the motives which, at an earlier date, had made residence in the north preferable had ceased to exist. Moreover, Charles de Cazillac had magnificently rebuilt the Château of Milhars, the chief residence of his family in the south. He had consequently left a somewhat embarrassed financial position to his son François, which did not improve as time went on. The proceeds which would accrue from the sale of the northern properties were therefore of great importance to their owner. Thus it came about that the next few years saw the sale of all the estates inherited from the Dinteville grandmother.⁠[37] Polisy became the property of the Maréchal Du Plessis-Praslin, and was shortly afterwards raised to the rank of a Duché-Pairie, with the title of Choiseul. Henceforth it drops out of the path of our investigation.

[18]

### CHAPTER II
The History of the “Ambassadors” from 1654 to the Present Day. Chronology of the Picture.

Meanwhile Camusat, ever active in the cause of archæology, carefully preserved the record of the famous Polisy Holbein, in letters addressed to his friends, the Godefroy brothers. Those letters themselves, with possibly one exception, have not been found. But the summary of their contents, drawn up by the Godefroy family, exists at the present day at the Bibliothèque de l’Institut at Paris; and shall here be given word for word:

> “Memoire⁠[38] pour l’intelligence de trois lettres envoyées par Monsʳ. Camusat, [19]chanoine de St. Pierre de Troyes [touchant un tableau faict en Angleterre de George de Selve, ev. de Lavaur qui y estoit allé visiter le bailly de Troies, sr. de Polizi, Jean d’Inteville, lors Amb. pour le Roy].⁠[39]

> “Il y en a deux de Monsr. l’evesque de Lavaur, George de Selve, fils de Mr. le premier president de Selve, lequel Sr. Evesque avoit este invite par Mr. de Polizy, bailly de Troyes, ambassadeur en Angleterre es années 1532 et 1533⁠[40] de le visiter en Angleterre, comme il feit, après en avoir pris congé du Roy. Et estans en Angleterre ils feirent faire l’excellent tableau par un peintre holandois, Holben,⁠[41] lequel tableau a esté conservé en la maison de Polizy, distant seulement d’une lieue de Bar-sur-Seine, cent quarante ans⁠[42] et plus, comme appartenant au seigneur du lieu, Sr. de Sessac, jusques en l’année 1653, qu’il l’a faict transporter à Paris, en sa maison proche la parroisse de St. Sulpice, ledict tableau représentant ledit Sr. de Polizy, Jean de d’Inteville et ledit Sr. Evesque de Lavaur qui fut depuis ambassadeur près de l’Empereur Charles Quint et mourut ledit evesque en l’an 1541. On tient ledit tableau la plus belle pièce de peinture qui soit en France, au jugement des meilleurs peintres. M. le Mareschal du Plessis-Praslain a nagueres achepté la terre de Polisy, trois cens mille livres dudit Sr. de Sessac.

> “On a autrefois entendu de Mr. de Vic,⁠[43] garde des sceaux, qui c’estoit la plus belle pièce de peinture qui fût en France.

> “Mr. George de Selve, et messieurs ses frères, ont dignement servy la France en plusieurs ambassades et légations.”⁠[44]

REDUCED FACSIMILE OF DOCUMENT PRESERVED AMONGST THE GODEFROY PAPERS, BIBL. DE L’INSTITUT, PARIS.

Three points in this document deserve special notice.

Firstly, the name of the painter, “Holben,” is given.

[20]

Secondly, it is stated that, on its removal from Polisy, the picture was taken to M. de Cessac’s house in Paris.

Thirdly, it is asserted that no less than three letters concerning it had been sent by Camusat to the brothers Godefroy.

With regard to the third point, it has been already stated that so far no trace of two out of the three letters in question has been found. But if the rather ambiguous phrase, “il y en a deux de Monsr. l’evesque de Lavaur,” may be interpreted “relating to the Bishop of Lavaur,” there is, in the Godefroy collection, a paper which may well correspond to the third. It is a copy, dated 1654, of a memorandum drawn up by Camusat, on the family and descendants of the Premier Président de Selve. At the risk of some amount of repetition, the passage in which the “Ambassadors” figure shall here be inserted. Referring to George de Selve, Bishop of Lavaur, we read:

> ⁠[45]“... Ledit Sr. Evesque ... fust visiter en Angleterre en 1532, un sien intime amy, Mr. de Polizy, Jean de d’Inteville, bailly de Troyes lequel estoit lors ambassadeur près du Roy Henry 8; et lors aussy lesdᵗˢ evesque et bailly de Troyes firent faire en Angleterre l’excellent tableau qui est à present a Paris, au logis de M. de Sessac, auquel iceux bailly et evesque sont representez au naturel; ledit tableau fait de la main d’un Hollandois; la pièce est estimée la plus riche et mieux travaillée qui soit en France.”⁠[46]

Thus we possess no less than three documents, all written shortly after the middle of the seventeenth century; all giving in the most explicit terms the history of the picture up to that date; and each corroborating the other in every particular.

The house in Paris to which Holbein’s masterpiece was conveyed [21]in 1653 can be identified with precision. On the last day of February, 1654, the deed was there signed by which the Maréchal Du Plessis-Praslin (subsequently Duc de Choiseul) became the owner of Polisy. After enumerating the titles of M. de Cessac in the usual way, the document describes him as “estant de present en cette ville de Paris logé faubourg Saint Germain des Prez, grande rue du Four”; and terminates with the words: “Fait et passé a Paris en la maison ou demeurent lesdits Seigneur et Dame de Cessac....”⁠[47]

Another deed, four years later in date, amplifies these details. In June, 1658, three years before her death, Madame de Cessac, née Marie de Choiseul, made her will. She is therein stated to be living “a St. Germain des Prez, Rue du Four, en l’un des corps de logis, et derrière de la maison, du Chappeaufort, parroisse St. Sulpice.”⁠[48]

The Rue du Four, it is scarcely necessary to add, still exists. The house of Chapeaufort was well known until quite recent times, and is described in histories of old Paris.⁠[49]

No further notice occurs of Holbein’s “Ambassadors” until the Beaujon sale of 1787.

Perhaps this is not surprising when it is considered that the vast majority of papers preserved in the archives of France are of legal nature; while not one of the documents containing a direct mention of the picture, which have hitherto guided us, have any connection with the law. They are exclusively derived from the learned antiquaries of the seventeenth century, bent on preserving to future generations the records of their day. But after the death of Camusat, which took place, at an advanced age, in 1655, none of his type remained, conversant with the history of the picture, to chronicle its further fate.

The difficulty of tracing the “Ambassadors” in the eighteenth century is enhanced by the fact that, in the earlier stages of its existence, that work never seems to have formed part of any well-known collection. [22]It was, and apparently remained, an isolated family picture of startling excellence, celebrated enough at various periods of its career, but tending to relapse into oblivion when its proprietors for the time being were engrossed in the pursuits of their own generation, or devoid of cultivated interests.

Moreover, many changes had come over French taste since the days when Méry de Vic had called the “Ambassadors” the most beautiful piece of painting in France. Holbein’s sober and restrained art was out of date.⁠[50] Who shall say through how many decades the picture may now have hung unheeded on the walls of some forgotten mansion!

The darkness which envelopes the story of Holbein’s great work from 1654 to 1787 is thus partially accounted for. A chance light will doubtless, some day, reveal its forgotten track. Yet, even now, it is worth while to dwell for a moment on the circumstantial evidence at our command.

Firstly, then, it must be borne in mind that the picture reappears in 1787, under the partially changed name of “Portraits de Deux Ambassadeurs, MM. de Selve et d’Avaux.”

The alteration seems to denote either that it was for a time owned by some member of the family of Mesmes, Contes d’Avaux, or was in some manner connected with them. Let us see, therefore, if any circumstance can be found to bring that family into relation with the heirs of the Marquis de Cessac.

More than one such link does, in fact, exist.

It has been noted that when first removed from Polisy in 1653, the picture was taken to M. de Cessac’s residence in Paris, in the Rue du Four; and that in 1658, when his first wife, Marie de Choiseul, made her will, he was still living in the same house. After her death, however, he seems never again to have had a permanent home in Paris. At [23]the time of his second marriage, to Anne Louise de Broglie, which took place in 1669, he was indeed in Paris, but at a different address, if not at a mere lodging;⁠[51] and the marriage contract specially designates the Château of Milhars in Languedoc as the “ordinary habitation” of the bridegroom.⁠[52] Milhars had been magnificently rebuilt by his father, Charles de Cazillac; and hither the Marquis de Cessac now brought his young bride.⁠[53] It was, perhaps, a rash experiment from the point of view of domestic felicity. He was now over seventy years of age, while she was about four-and-twenty. At the end of two years, unable to accustom herself to the seclusion of the country, after the gay life of the capital, she left the poor old man in dudgeon, and returned with her mother to Paris. M. de Cessac made her an allowance, and henceforth they lived separated. His daughter, Madame de Blaigny, now came to live at Milhars, and remained, though apparently without much cordiality on either side, with her father until his death, which took place in 1679.

What meanwhile became of the picture, when the Marquis de Cessac left Paris to take up his abode in the country?

The houses he owned in the capital seem to have been bought and sold as mere speculations, having no element of permanence. It is impossible to imagine the great family picture wandering from pillar to [24]post in this succession of changes. Some more stable home must surely have been found for it.

Neither does it appear likely that M. de Cessac sold the one picture he had been at pains to preserve, when he parted with Polisy, its home of generations.⁠[54]

The natural inference is that he took the “Ambassadors” with him to one of his residences in the south.

The three principal estates were Cazillac and Cessac in Quercy, and Milhars in Languedoc.

The Barony of Cazillac was sold as early as 1689 by the granddaughter of the Marquis de Cessac; and, after that date, falls out of the competition. Nevertheless, this place has a point of interest for the present investigation. In 1665 the Marquis de Cessac bestowed it upon his cousin, Roger de Guénégaud, with the condition that he should in future bear the name and arms of Cazillac. The estate was, however, too tightly entailed on the immediate heirs of M. de Cessac for the donation to take effect; and the result was merely to add one more to the crowd of litigants who put in claims to the various property on M. de Cessac’s demise. Had the intention succeeded, this would have [25]been an exceedingly likely quarter in which to seek the Holbein; even as it is, the question arises whether M. de Cessac may not have given the picture to the man whom he had wished to establish as the future head of the Cazillac family. But here again research has been unproductive of further result.⁠[55]

Cessac ultimately passed into the hands of another cousin of the Marquis de Cessac, François de la Roche, Marquis de Fontenilles, and owing to this circumstance enters into the lists with Milhars.

Notwithstanding the fact that the most minute search has failed to reveal any mention of the picture in the exclusively legal documents connected with the latter Château,⁠[56] it does not appear unlikely that Milhars was indeed the new home to which the picture was transported. It must be borne in mind, however, that we here enter the region of guess-work, and that the discovery of one little fact is apt to overthrow many pages of specious reasoning. The following indications are therefore given merely for what they are worth.

On the death of the Marquis de Cessac a lawsuit respecting the inheritance took place, in which the principal parties concerned were his widow, Annie Louise de Broglie, and his daughter, Charlotte de Blaigny. It is of some importance to our object to note that in the end the widow accepted a sum of money in lieu of all other claims; and that the entire property of the Marquis de Cessac was settled on his [26]granddaughter, Marie-Renée Le Genevois, the only child of Madame de Blaigny. This took place in 1681.⁠[57]

Unfortunately Charlotte de Blaigny now quarrelled with her daughter, who remained with her father in Champagne, while her mother continued to reside at Milhars. A designing relation, François de la Roche, Comte and Marquis de Fontenilles, took advantage of this state of things to induce Madame de Blaigny to disinherit her daughter and make a will in favour of himself and of his heirs.

François de la Roche-Fontenilles was the grandson of that Jean-Jacques de la Roche-Fontenilles who had married Claude de Cazillac, the only sister of the Marquis de Cessac.⁠[58] But for the existence of Marie-Renée, he would have been the nearest heir to the property. He now took up his abode at Milhars and drew his meshes closer and closer round the unhappy old lady who ruled there. No sooner was the will signed than he began to dismantle the Château before the very eyes of his aged cousin. Furniture and valuables were hastily removed to his house at Toulouse. Fortunately Charlotte de Blaigny did not long survive to reap the bitter results of her mistake. She died at Milhars in October, 1683, a month after the making of the momentous will.

The day after the funeral Fontenilles, in the double capacity he assumed of heir to the property and executor of the will, made a formal declaration to the effect that “tous les meubles de la dite hérédité sont au pouvoir et en la jouissance dudit Sr. Conte de Fontenilles, partie desquels ont été apportés du vivant de ladite dame [Charlotte de Blaigny] audit Toulouse; et prétend ledit Seigneur Conte y en faire apporter davantage.”⁠[59]

Holbein’s picture—if indeed the Château in Languedoc had become its home—now perhaps found its way with the rest of the valuables to [27]Toulouse. In any case, Milhars remained for some years in the hands of M. de Fontenilles.

Under the settlement of 1681, Madame de Blaigny, although certain rights may have been reserved to her, had no power whatever to disinherit her daughter and settle the property elsewhere. Immediately upon her mother’s death, Marie-Renée, now Madame Voisin, therefore instituted legal proceedings for the recovery of her inheritance.

The lawsuits dragged on, almost interminably, year after year. In 1686 M. and Mme. Voisin were indeed reinstated at Milhars, but only at the price of a ruinous pension to be paid annually to M. de Fontenilles. On the death of the latter, in 1693, his son and namesake, who now claimed the property, renewed his attacks time after time with implacable hostility. In 1697 Mme. Voisin was definitely confirmed in the possession of Milhars and of the other estates in Languedoc; but Cessac and all the remaining property in Quercy (Cazillac, we have seen, had been previously sold), had to be ceded to François de Fontenilles. Notwithstanding these sacrifices the claims for arrears of pension were still pending in 1700.

Bearing in mind that the picture reappears in 1787 under the partially corrupt title of “Portraits de MM. de Selve et d’Avaux,” it is somewhat startling to find that in the same year, 1683, in which M. de Fontenilles, the elder, seized Milhars, his son and successor, named above, became the husband of Marie-Thérèse de Mesmes,⁠[60] daughter, niece, and sister of a succession of Contes d’Avaux.

Her father, Jean-Jacques de Mesmes, Conte d’Avaux, was a President à mortier of the Parliament of Paris. Her uncle, Jean-Antoine de Mesmes, Conte d’Avaux, was one of a series of famous ambassadors of the name, and, dying unmarried in 1709, made Madame de Fontenilles his heiress. Her brother, another Jean-Antoine de Mesmes, Conte d’Avaux, was the well-known Premier Président of the Parliament of Paris, who died in 1723.

[28]

The connection of François de Fontenilles with the family of Mesmes seems to reveal a not improbable path by which the picture may have descended to modern times. Either the seizure of Milhars or the acquisition of Cessac, perhaps placed it in the possession of La Roche Fontenilles. If it remained in his hands, how easily might it have passed in later years for part of the property bequeathed to Mme. de Fontenilles by her uncle, Jean-Antoine, Conte d’Avaux, and the name of the supposed donor have crept into the title!

Mme. Voisin, now known as the Marquise de Milhars, had, however, other links with the Mesmes family, which forbid a too exclusive faith in one hypothesis. The niece of her husband, François Voisin, a daughter of Denis Feydeau de Brou, was the wife of the future Premier Président de Mesmes.

Here, then, are two distinct threads connecting the Contes d’Avaux with the only two persons, M. de Fontenilles and Mme. Voisin, who seem likely to have owned the picture at this period.⁠[61]

All that can be said, in the absence of direct testimony, is that we appear to breathe the atmosphere through which the “Ambassadors” passed. It would be rash to build too definitely on any particular theory; for other paths, which the picture may have taken, lie close at hand. Several of the great legal families of France, who were mixed up with the Cazillac or their descendants—the Mesmes, Voisin, Brou, Lamoignon—were connected by intermarriages; while the Broglie (the family of the second Marquise de Cessac) were thus related both to the Lamoignon and Voisin.

If we may for a moment suppose, however, that after the settlement of the disputes between Marie-Renée Voisin and François de Fontenilles, the picture returned, with other abstracted property—perhaps also with an altered name⁠[62]—to Milhars, another curious circumstance comes to light, which seems a possible guide to its history.

[29]

François Voisin, Marquis de Milhars, died in 1706; and Marie-Renée, left a childless widow, had to bethink herself of an heir. Her own nearest relation was the hated La Roche Fontenilles, who was, of course, out of the question. Her deceased husband’s next of kin were the children of his niece, the wife of the Premier Président. But this lady had died in 1705, leaving only two daughters; moreover, the terms of friendship which existed between them and La Roche Fontenilles must have been sufficient reason to look elsewhere.

One degree further removed in relationship, the eyes of Mme. Voisin fell upon the heir of a distinguished family, Chrétien de Lamoignon, whose mother had been Jeanne Voisin, first cousin to the Marquis de Milhars. In 1716 Marie-Renée made the will which constituted M. de Lamoignon her universal heir. In 1721 she died and he came into possession.

We may pass briefly over the first two generations of the Lamoignon family after they succeeded to Milhars. The new proprietors never resided at the Château in Languedoc. They owned considerable estates in the centre of France at Basville and Lamoignon, whence they derived their titles. But their real sphere lay at Paris, where from generation to generation they played conspicuous parts in the political events of their day. In course of time they probably removed whatever Milhars contained of value to one of their other homes.

The special point of interest in connection with this family is that Chrétien-François (II.) de Lamoignon,⁠[63] Marquis de Basville, who in 1765 sold Milhars to the family of Rey de St. Géry, was the intimate and lifelong friend of Nicolas Beaujon, at the sale of whose property, in 1787, the picture once more comes to the surface.

[30]

If the Polisy Holbein, notwithstanding stormy interludes, did actually descend from heir to heir of the house of Dinteville through this obscure period of one hundred and thirty-three years, Chrétien de Lamoignon de Basville is precisely the person in whose hands we should now expect to find it.

His intimacy with Beaujon gives curious point to these speculations. The French millionaire appointed “Monseigneur Chrétien-François de Lamoignon,” and his heirs, administrators in perpetuity of the famous Hospice (now Hospital) which he founded, and which still bears his name.⁠[64] He further begged M. de Lamoignon to be executor of his will, as a last proof of the friendship “dont il m’a toujours honoré;” and bequeathed to him a fine service of Sevres china.⁠[65]

Beaujon died on the 20th December, 1786. At the end of January, 1787, M. de Lamoignon, acting in his capacity of executor, caused an inventory to be drawn up of all the deceased gentleman’s property contained in his two palaces, the Hotel d’Evreux⁠[66] and the so-called “Chartreuse,” where he died. This inventory, which gives minute and interesting particulars of all the pictures constituting the galleries of those two residences, was drawn up by the notary Maigret, now represented by Maître Houel, in whose custody this document at present rests. At the writer’s request this gentleman kindly examined the inventory in question; but, strange to say, without success. No trace of Holbein’s “Ambassadors” is there to be found, although nothing [31]is more certain than that the picture was sold three months later at the Beaujon sale, and included in the catalogue of the millionaire’s property drawn up for that occasion.

The inference would seem to be that either “The Ambassadors” dwelt in some third residence belonging to M. Beaujon, the contents of which were not included in the inventory in question, or that, still owned by the executor, M. de Lamoignon, who was in chronic need of money, the picture was thrown by him into the sale and disposed of at the same time as the Beaujon collection.

How it now passed into the hands of Le Brun, thence to an English dealer who sold it to Lord Radnor, and finally to the National Gallery, the reader already knows.

A table of chronology is appended which sums up the salient points of the foregoing narrative.

#### CHRONOLOGY.

1533. Jean de Dinteville, French Ambassador in England, and George de Selve, Bishop of Lavaur, are painted in London by Holbein. Subsequently the picture is taken to Polisy, Dinteville’s home in Burgundy.

1562. Claude de Dinteville, niece of Jean the Ambassador and heiress of Polisy, marries François de Cazillac, Baron de Cessac.

1653. François II. de Cazillac, Vicomte, then Marquis de Cessac, grandson of the foregoing, moves the picture to Paris. Having sold Polisy, M. de Cessac spends most of the remainder of his life at Milhars in Languedoc.

1679. Death at Milhars of the Marquis de Cessac.

1681. Marie-Renée Le Genevois de Blaigny, granddaughter of the Marquis de Cessac, is declared sole heiress of all his possessions.

1683. Charlotte, Marquise de Blaigny, only daughter of the Marquis de Cessac, attempts to disinherit her daughter, Marie-Renée, in favour of her cousin, François de la Roche-Fontenilles, and of his son, François II. de la Roche-Fontenilles.

—— Marriage of the latter gentleman to Marie Thérèse de Mesmes, daughter, niece, and sister of a succession of Contes d’Avaux.

—— Marriage of Marie-Renée Le Genevois de Blaigny with François Voisin, Marquis de Bougueval, subsequently known as Marquis de Milhars.

—— Death of Charlotte de Blaigny.

> [A long series of lawsuits now ensues between François de Fontenilles, [32]who denudes Milhars, and Marie-Renée Voisin, the rightful heiress. Mme. Voisin at last obtains possession.]

1721. Death of Marie-Renée, who, being childless, leaves Milhars to her husband’s cousin, Chrétien de Lamoignon, Marquis de Basville.

1765. Chrétien-François II. de Lamoignon, grandson of the heir of Marie-Renée, sells Milhars to the family of Rey de St. Géry.

1786. Death of M. Nicolas Beaujon, Banker to the French Court, whose will appoints his intimate friend, Chrétien-François de Lamoignon, Marquis de Basville, to be his executor.

1787. Sale of M. Beaujon’s pictures, in the catalogue of which Holbein’s “Ambassadors” reappears after a silence of a hundred and thirty-three years. The picture now becomes the property of J. B. P. Le Brun.

1792. Publication of the first volume of Le Brun’s “Galerie des Peintres Flamands, Hollandais, et Allemands,” in which there is an engraving of the “Ambassadors.” Le Brun had previously sold the picture to a dealer in England.

1808 or 1809. Holbein’s picture is bought by Jacob, second Earl of Radnor, and taken to Longford Castle.

1890. The picture of the “Ambassadors” finds a permanent home in the National Gallery.

[33]

## PART II
JEAN DE DINTEVILLE

[34]

[35]

## JEAN DE DINTEVILLE

### CHAPTER I
The Early Life of Jean de Dinteville

In attempting to follow the career of Jean de Dinteville, and to read aright the picture by Holbein, which is, to so large an extent, the intimate expression of his mind, it is necessary to step back, in imagination, into the sixteenth century, and to see things, so far as possible, as an observer of that day would have beheld them. Passing events present themselves to contemporaries in proportions widely differing from those under which they appear to the student of a later day. Circumstances which, as they arose, assumed mountainous dimensions, have dwindled to molehills with the lapse of time. Other events, which had small beginnings, have subsequently acquired an importance undreamed of by lookers-on, in the story of the world’s progress. Again, a third category exhibits less divergence between the verdict of contemporary opinion and that of posterity. In such cases, it is a less arduous task to move into the place of the thinkers and actors of the past, and to mark with their eyes, uninfluenced by the knowledge of later developments, the scene that unfolded itself to their view.

Only by noting the facts of history in their relation to Dinteville’s character and career, rather than to their intrinsic importance,⁠[67] will it [36]be possible to obtain a distinct understanding of the man and of his work. Often, indeed, the two points of view will be found to converge.

THE CHÂTEAU OF POLISY, FROM AN ORIGINAL DRAWING OF THE EARLY SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, PUBLISHED BY M. LUCIEN COUTANT IN THE ALMANACH DE BAR-SUR-SEINE.

Jean de Dinteville was born on the 21st of September, 1504. He was the third son of Gaucher de Dinteville, Seigneur of Polisy, and of Anne Du Plessis.

The race of Dinteville was of ancient descent and allied to the best blood in France. It had originally been known as Jaucourt, but early in the fourteenth century an ancestor, Pierre de Jaucourt, adopted the name of Dinteville, which was that of his seigneurie in Champagne, by which the family was henceforth called. The elder line remained and flourished at Dinteville. The younger branch, founded by Jean de Dinteville, second son of Pierre, settled at Polisy shortly before 1321.

A glance at an old map of France, divided into provinces, shows that, at a certain point, the waving boundary between Champagne and Burgundy takes a sharp curve upwards, and, doubling back, makes the deepest of many indentures in the contour of the northern province. This narrow strip of land, surrounded on three sides by the territory of Champagne, formed, approximately, the ancient Comté of Bar-sur-Seine. Attached to Champagne, and consequently to France, in 1225 (long before the Dinteville family settled at Polisy), it passed to Burgundy early in the fifteenth century, returning to France with that Duchy in 1477. On this often-debated ground, just at the spot where the small river Laigne throws its waters into the Seine, stands the Château of Polisy—the chief home of that branch of the house of Dinteville with which we are here concerned.

The marriage of the first Dinteville, Seigneur of Polisy, with the heiress of Deschenetz⁠[68] (or Echenay, as it is now called) in Champagne, brought to the family another considerable fief, which, a century later, became the theatre of an exciting drama. A second Jean de Dinteville, [37]who held the office of Bailly of Troyes, now reigned there. On a dark night, when peace spread all around, the house of Deschenetz was treacherously attacked by one Fortespice, a vassal of the Comte de Vaudemont, who was the head of that powerful house which later succeeded to the Dukedom of Lorraine. The Comte de Vaudemont was Dinteville’s kinsman and supposed friend. Taken completely by surprise, the master of Deschenetz could offer no resistance. The house was sacked, while he himself was made a prisoner, and forced to buy his release by a large sum of money. Years later he challenged Fortespice to a duel in the fosse at Chablis, when both combatants fell mortally wounded.

His son and successor, Claude de Dinteville, entered the service of Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy. Claude attained a distinguished position as Surintendant de Finance to the Duke, and perished, fighting at his master’s side, at the battle of Nancy, in 1477. His body was brought back to Polisy for interment.

With the cession of the Duchy of Burgundy to France, which now took place, happier days dawned for the Dinteville family. All questions of divided allegiance ceased. The numerous sons of Claude de Dinteville entered French service, several of them rising high in their respective vocations. One of them, Jacques de Dinteville, was Grand Veneur of France under Louis XII., and was also employed as Deputy Governor of Paris during the absence of the Duke of Vendôme.⁠[69] Another son, François, became Bishop of Auxerre; Pierre was Seneschal of Rhodes, and fell while defending the island against the Turks in the memorable siege of 1522; and Gaucher, the father of Holbein’s “Ambassador,” was Bailly of Troyes, and was attached to the French Court, almost throughout his life, in many honourable capacities. He accompanied Charles VIII. to Italy, and was appointed Governor of Sienna during the French occupation of that city.⁠[70]

On his return to France, Gaucher de Dinteville settled at the [38]Château of Thennelières, near Troyes, and in 1496 married Anne Du Plessis, daughter of Jean, Seigneur of Ouschamps and La Perrine. Their eldest son, François, who ultimately succeeded his uncle as Bishop of Auxerre, was born in 1498; and from this date onwards the births of numerous children are recorded as having occurred at Thennelières or at Troyes. A few years later the family migrated to Polisy.

Gaucher’s tenure of the office of Bailly of Troyes coincides with an important period of French law. The Bailly was the Crown officer in whose name justice was administered throughout a certain district. Each Bailliage, or bailiwick, had its separate Custom, a system naturally resulting in much inequality and confusion. To remedy this state of things, Louis XII. took the first step towards the unification of the legal code, by ordering the publication of the Customs throughout the kingdom.⁠[71] The fulfilment of this edict was a work of time, to be accomplished only after years of labour. The Custom of Troyes was published in 1509, during the term of office of Gaucher de Dinteville, and under the immediate presidency of his brother the Bishop of Auxerre. The latter, like many of his ecclesiastical contemporaries, was equally versed in civil and canon law.

How large a share Gaucher himself had in this important undertaking is uncertain. The duties of the Bailly became in course of time almost nominal, and devolved upon his deputy, a professional lawyer; but this period had hardly yet arrived. In 1505, however, Gaucher was sent by the king to Switzerland, where his duties detained him on and off for several years.⁠[72]

Nothing is known of the childhood of Jean, the future ambassador, passed, it may be surmised, on the breezy plains of Thennelières, or amidst the wooded slopes which surround the Château of Polisy. His [39]two elder brothers, François and Louis, the latter of whom became a Knight of St. John, began their education at the College of Troyes, which at this time enjoyed a high reputation; and it is likely enough that in due course Jean followed in the same steps. Scholars were entered there from the early age of eight years. Again following his eldest brother, he may have pursued his later studies at the University of Paris, where the degree of Bachelor of Arts could be obtained at fifteen or sixteen years of age.

It may be useful to recall that the instruction imparted there, as at most of the older universities of Europe, was based in the first instance on the study of the Seven Liberal Arts. These were divided into two courses: the first, comprising Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric, was called the Trivium; the second, which embraced Music, Arithmetic, Geometry, and Astronomy, the Quadrivium. Dinteville’s education, wherever acquired, was doubtless laid on these familiar lines.

Destined to succeed to his father’s honours, and in due course to become the head of his house, he was early brought into contact with the French Court. Indeed, the whole family seems to have found exceptional favour there. A manuscript is still preserved⁠[73] which gives the names of those who were members of the royal household, and in this list the Dinteville family figures extensively. Jean de Dinteville first appears in attendance on the royal children between 1521 and 1524, when he holds the appointment of Echanson. His life from this time centred at the Court, where his father was now Premier Maître d’Hotel to the Dauphin François.

There were many links to connect Gaucher de Dinteville and his sons with the royal family of France. Besides the intrinsic merits and past services of the father, they possessed powerful friends. Anne de Montmorency, the great minister, was their cousin, and did much to shape the subsequent career of Gaucher’s sons. In early days, the intimate friendship of Madame de Montreuil, a sister of the Grand-Maître Boisy and of Admiral Bonnivet, played a large part in their advancement.

It is pleasant to lift for a moment the veil that conceals so much [40]of the private life of that remote period, and to contemplate a friendship which continued unbroken through two generations.

The Seigneurie of Montreuil was a dependency of Deschenetz, a possession of the Dinteville family which ranked second in importance only to Polisy, and which they, no doubt, often visited. It was, perhaps, partly through the accident of being neighbours in the country that the kindly feeling entertained for them by the Châtelaine of that estate ripened into the closest intimacy. Madame de Montreuil was governess to the royal children; and it was through her mediation that Gaucher received his early appointment in connection with them. It was again due to her influence that when the little Prince Charles, Duke of Angoulême, the youngest of the three sons of Francis I., outgrew her tender care, he was placed under the immediate charge of Jean de Dinteville, whom “she loved and trusted as her own son.”⁠[74]

Public events meanwhile were gradually ripening towards the great catastrophe which was to colour French policy for many years to come. In February, 1525, the news of the defeat of the French forces before Pavia, where Francis I. was taken prisoner, and the flower of the French nobility fell, sent a thrill of horror through France. The king was carried to Madrid, only to be released in the following year on the humiliating terms of sending his two eldest sons to replace him in captivity, pending the payment of a large ransom. From the time of the affront placed upon the national pride by this crushing misfortune, the main endeavour of French statecraft through a long series of years was to convert the enemies of Charles V. into the allies of France, and by a succession of skilful diplomatic combinations, open or secret, to form coalitions sufficiently powerful to resist the overwhelming might of the Empire. Already, during the king’s captivity, the regent, Louise of Savoy, had courted the friendship of Henry VIII., imploring him not to make war upon an imprisoned king. At about the same period, the first French emissary had been despatched to the Court of Solyman, forming the beginning of that series of negotiations [41]between the Most Christian King and the Turk which, avowed many years later, was to startle Europe.⁠[75] Sigismund, King of Poland, and John Zapolski, Waiwode of Transylvania, who was endeavouring to wrest the crown of Hungary from Ferdinand, the Emperor’s brother, were other objects of French solicitude; to whom, for convenience sake, may here be added the Protestant Princes of Germany, led by the Elector of Saxony, with whom an alliance was formed a few years later.

But the most conspicuous engagement entered into by France, in the early days succeeding the Spanish captivity, was the League signed at Cognac in May, 1526, by which Francis I., Clement VII., the Signory of Venice, and Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan, bound themselves in a common alliance against the Emperor Charles V.

How deep was the impression made by these events on young Dinteville, whose attendance on the royal children kept him in the vortex of French politics, may be actually seen in some details of Holbein’s picture, to which reference will be made later on. Nor was it surprising that this should be so. The League of Cognac was the definite public act by which Francis I. made plain his intention to repudiate that part of the Treaty of Madrid which involved the cession of the Duchy of Burgundy. Had the latter compact been observed in its integrity, Polisy would have become a fief of the Empire. The race of Dinteville had been French long ere they were Burgundian. At the close of the fifteenth century they had resumed with passionate loyalty their complete allegiance to the Crown of France. What wonder, then, if Jean de Dinteville gave himself heart and soul to the anti-Imperial policy expressed by the League of Cognac, which appeared to guarantee the continuance of his French nationality?

In February, 1527, he was appointed Captain and Governor of Bar-sur-Seine, on the resignation, probably caused by advancing years, of his father.⁠[76] As in the document which records these changes Jean is already described as Bailly of Troyes, Gaucher must previously have [42]resigned that office also, for the succession to which he had instituted his son by royal letters as early as 1520.⁠[77]

Later in the same year Gaucher de Dinteville visited Troyes to request the contributions of its inhabitants to the ransom of Francis I.⁠[78] The young Bailly was meanwhile kept almost entirely at Court, accompanying the royal family from Paris to Blois, and from Blois to Amboise, or the various other places to which duty or pleasure determined its movements.

The next glimpse obtained of him finds him in these surroundings. In October, 1527, Marguerite d’Angoulême, the sister of Francis I., and her husband, the King of Navarre,⁠[79] made a short stay at Blois on their journey to the south of France. Some point appears to have then been under discussion relating to the little Duke of Angoulême (the only one of the king’s sons at that time in France, his brothers being prisoners at Madrid), and to the young princesses, his sisters. Marguerite writes to Anne de Montmorency from Gabarre, a small town in the Landes:

> “... En passant dernierement a Blays,⁠[80] Madame de Montereul et M. le Bailly de Troyes, en me parlant du fait de Monsieur et de Mesdames, me prierent d’escrire a madite dame,⁠[81] ce que j’ai differe jusques a ce que fussiez de retour.”⁠[82]

Montmorency was absent at the moment on his way to England. Henry VIII. and Francis I. were becoming more and more deeply engaged in a common policy against Charles V. Earlier in the same year, Wolsey had been brilliantly received in France. Now the Grand-Maître was sent with Jean Du Bellay and the Chancellor of Alençon, at the head of a splendid train of gentlemen, to convey the Royal Order of St. Michael to the King of England. This was the expedition from which Marguerite awaited Montmorency’s return, before writing to the king’s mother.⁠[83]

[43]

It would be interesting to know what was the subject upon which Madame de Montreuil and the Bailly of Troyes sought to obtain the good offices of Louise of Savoy with regard to the children. That the question was not unimportant may be inferred from their anxiety to obtain such influential assistance, and from the hesitation of the Queen of Navarre to accede to their request without previously consulting Montmorency. Her desire to conciliate the minister shows the power he had already acquired in the internal relations of the French Court.

Was the question connected with religion? History offers no reply; but the suggestion awakens some interesting considerations.

In or about 1526, Francis I. had confided the education of the little Duke of Angoulême, perhaps by Dinteville’s advice, to Lefèvre d’Etaples,⁠[84] a celebrated professor of mathematics and philosophy. This learned man was one of the earliest and greatest of the French Reformers. He was the author of the first complete translation of the Bible into French; it is still in use in the Protestant churches of France. A correspondent of Budé⁠[85] and Erasmus,⁠[86] his name carries us into the [44]centre of that sphere of intellectual activity with which Dinteville was constantly brought into contact both at home and at Court.

In 1527 Francis I. ordered Lefèvre, in conjunction with Gérard Roussel,⁠[87] to translate into Latin the Homilies of Chrysostom on the Acts of the Apostles.⁠[88] The following year we find Lefèvre teaching the Psalms to the little Duke of Angoulême.⁠[89] But by September, 1528, both he and Roussel had left the Court to follow Marguerite of Navarre to the south of France, where Lefèvre was established in deep retirement at Nérac.⁠[90] The links which connected the Bailly of Troyes with such men as Lefèvre and Roussel were primarily, no doubt, on the side of learning rather than of religion; for the Dinteville family were staunch Catholics. But they appear, at any rate at this early date, to have belonged to the liberal Catholic group, and to have been averse to the extremes of the rigidly orthodox party. Their cordial relations with the Queen of Navarre, the Du Bellay, and other advocates of tolerance, point to this conclusion, no less than their love of learning and their intimacy with the eminent humanists patronized by the French Court. The bigotry of Montmorency, on the other hand, was well known. If, therefore, they desired to replace the services of Lefèvre by those of another teacher of liberal leanings, they did well to apply to the Queen of Navarre and her mother, rather than direct to the minister. On this point, however, we have no further light.

Persecuted by the Sorbonne and the extreme ecclesiastical zealots, the French Reformers were, at this time, upheld by an enlightened [45]section of the Roman Catholic party, who desired to see the discipline of the Church amended without pushing matters to a split with Rome. It still seemed possible to combine these objects, which the efforts of the humanists, and the general hatred entertained towards the monks, had rendered popular in high places. Louise of Savoy herself was, in early days, not opposed to the aims of the innovators. Marguerite of Navarre was, and remained, their ardent supporter, though without forsaking the communion of Rome.⁠[91] The lines of demarcation were not yet as tightly drawn as they were destined to be hereafter. Renée of France,⁠[92] who, married in 1527 to Ercole d’Este, became the mother of Tasso’s Leonora, was all her life the unflinching protectress of the advocates of a purified religion. At no time, perhaps, were the prospects of the Reformation brighter at the Court of France than in the years now under consideration. Francis I., cynical and indifferent himself, though not incapable of superstitious fear, alternately protected and persecuted the French Lutherans according to the influences which prevailed with him at the moment. But in her goodly band of learned men, supported by the liberal group in the Roman Catholic Church, France possessed a happy omen for the future.

The same revival of letters which had paved the way for the Reformation in Germany, had penetrated deeply into France. The humanists formed a compact group, almost independent of nationality, corresponding in Latin, and pursuing the same objects in each country. The union between the leading European nations in these respects was very close. In France the ranks of the law, more especially, were crowded with votaries of the new learning. Besides the study of classical literature, they bestowed eager attention upon mathematics, natural science and astronomy, which still included astrology, obtaining the newest instruments from Southern Germany, where they were principally made. Celebrated teachers were placed at the great provincial universities, specially famous for their schools of civil law, the [46]teaching of which was forbidden at the University of Paris. The lectures were ardently attended. Foreigners as well as Frenchmen gathered in large numbers round any well-known luminary. The lecturers themselves were not infrequently members of another nation. Thus Andrea Alciati, the famous Italian lawyer, taught successively at Avignon and at Bourges; while large numbers of Germans, such as Melchior Wolmar, Johann Sturm, subsequently rector of Strasburg University, Sleidan, the historian of the Reformation, André Melanchthon, a relation of his more famous namesake, helped to promote the cause of liberal instruction, and, in many cases, also of the doctrines of Luther. As the Reformation advanced in Germany, its influence permeated the ranks of the French humanists, hand-in-hand with the purely secular learning they had hitherto cultivated. Those who professed the new doctrines were known as “Luthériens.” The day of Calvin, who was to impress the final and definite stamp on French Protestantism, was yet to come.

The orthodox professors of the University of Paris viewed with distrust all this intellectual stir. They regarded the revival of classical learning, especially the study of Greek, which enabled people to examine the New Testament for themselves, as conducive to heresy. To free the path of knowledge from their bigoted restrictions, Guillaume Budé persuaded Francis I. to found a college for the special purpose of instruction in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, the “Three Languages” as they were then called; to which mathematics and other chairs were subsequently added. The scheme did not at once come to full maturity; but a variety of first-rate professors were engaged, who gave free lectures in their several branches, and assembled round them a large group of students of international character. Such was the nucleus of the famous Collège Royal.

The Bailly of Troyes was well acquainted with Budé, both at Court and in Champagne. The lifelong services of this eminent savant to a succession of French kings brought him into constant communication with the members of the royal households. As secretary to Charles VIII. and librarian to Francis I. he must have been well known to [47]Gaucher de Dinteville. In the second capacity, his influence may have been almost incalculable on Gaucher’s son. Budé, had, moreover, many connections at Troyes. He was related to the Raguier family, one of whom married a sister of the Bailly. The Raguiers were of German origin, and later, including Charlotte de Dinteville, embraced the reformed religion.⁠[93]

Troyes at this time inclosed within its walls several remarkable men, whose fame extended beyond these limits. Among them was Pierre Pithou, a celebrated advocate, and the father of yet more eminent sons. Pithou’s friendship with Lefèvre d’Etaples added another link to the chain. All these names, Budé, Raguier, and Pithou, became Protestant in the next generation. For the present things had not gone so far.

In the highest class of society there was, at this early stage, little thought of secession. On the contrary, the liberal-orthodox Frenchmen were prepared to strain every nerve to avert a schism. They occupied a middle position between the ultra-clerical party and the Reformers. Their whole energies were directed towards the re-establishment of ecclesiastical unity.

At the head of this little band of select intelligence stood the Du Bellay family. Guillaume Du Bellay, Seigneur de Langey, the eldest of the brothers, and Jean, successively Bishop of Bayonne and of Paris, and ultimately Cardinal, were equally conspicuous for their talents in peace and war, in religion and in diplomacy.⁠[94] No ambassadors were more frequently employed in the negotiations with England which marked the years of closest friendship between Henry VIII. and Francis I. Guillaume Du Bellay also made repeated visits to Germany in the interests of religious unity, an aim which, in a letter to his friend [48]and correspondent, Melanchthon, he terms “the most glorious on which mortals can be engaged.”⁠[95]

Jean Du Bellay had the same objects at heart. He too writes to Melanchthon, signing himself, “Yours from my very heart, Bellaius.”⁠[96] A statesman of conspicuous ability, and a leader of much that was best in French thought and aspiration at this time, he opened his doors freely and dispassionately to all whom learning, merit, or need of any kind, commended to his notice. Even Rabelais found a shelter beneath his hospitable roof; many of the lesser humanists he drew from obscurity to an assured position; he himself was an author of some pretension.

In politics the liberal Catholics were, as might be expected, the keenest adversaries of Spain. They supported the divorce of Henry VIII., and all the diplomatic combinations directed against Charles V. It is a striking fact that nearly all the French ambassadors sent to England during the years we now have to consider, belonged, in greater or lesser degree, to this group. Some of them, at a later period, when things had developed further, embraced the Protestant religion.

The extreme clerical party, on the other hand, which included Montmorency, upheld the Imperial alliance. But in the years which immediately succeeded Pavia, the susceptibilities of the nation were too deeply wounded to admit of any real cordiality between France and Spain. The policy of France necessarily took another direction in consequence. This coolness towards Spain gave the liberals their opportunity. The Grand Maître, realizing the position with his usual cold sagacity, held the strings of both parties firmly in his hands. He stood, indeed, on terms of friendship with such men as the Du Bellay, who, while protecting liberty of opinion and condemning the delinquencies of the clergy, were doing their utmost to prevent a rupture with Rome. The Papacy itself courted those whose aim was to draw back the Reformers into the fold of the Church. Starting from very different grounds, they were obviously playing the Pope’s game.

[49]

But for the out-and-out Lutherans, whose object was complete severance from Rome, Montmorency had no weapon but persecution. His hatred of the “heretics” only intensified when time made clear the impossibility of any compromise. As the years wore by, the shadows of the coming conflict crept onwards, ultimately forcing the party of mediation to make their choice between strict orthodoxy and secession. Slowly but surely the brilliant promise of an earlier date faded away. But that time had not yet come.

[50]

### CHAPTER II
The First Mission to England of the Bailly of Troyes (1531) and the Calais Interview of 1532

Four years had passed since the release of Francis I., when, in 1530, his two eldest sons were at last set free from their Spanish prison. This happy event was due in great measure to pecuniary assistance rendered by Henry VIII. towards the completion of the French king’s ransom. It was followed almost immediately by the marriage of Francis with Eleanor, Queen-Dowager of Portugal and sister of the Emperor, which took place in fulfilment of one of the clauses of the treaty of Madrid.

The following year, 1531, was a memorable one for the Dinteville brothers. It began with the death of their father, which took place in March, at the age of seventy-two. In accordance with the curious custom of the time, his body was buried at Polisy, his entrails at St. Jean-en-Grève at Paris, and his heart at Thennelières, where so much of his early married life had been passed.

A now solitary agricultural village, surrounded by blue plains which melt into the sky in uninterrupted expansion, Thennelières has little left to testify to the brilliant life of which it was once the scene. Of the Château formerly inhabited by Gaucher and Anne de Dinteville not one stone remains upon another, though the fosses still define the site on which it stood. But in the little thick-walled twelfth-century Church, the steeple and red roof of which rise at the end of the straggling village street, a few interesting relics of bygone days may yet be seen. [51]Let into the pavement before the altar of the north transept—both transepts are of the sixteenth century—is a square black and white tablet, in the centre of which is a “bonne-foi”⁠[97] of flesh-coloured marble. Above this are two intertwined hearts of deeper hue, bearing respectively the initials “G” and “A.” The tablet is inscribed, “Galtero de Dinteville, Anna du Plesseys, chara conjonx, 1531.” A leaden box beneath this plaque is said yet to contain the shrivelled heart of Gaucher de Dinteville.

On the opposite side of the church is a stained glass window, in which is represented a bishop, accompanied by his patron saint, St. Francis. This ecclesiastic is no other than Francis I. de Dinteville, Bishop of Auxerre (the same who took part in the publication of the Custom of Troyes), whose portrait was here erected in 1524 by his nephew and namesake, the brother of Jean the “Ambassador.” The window has been badly restored, and the portrait is consequently inferior now to that of another window of similar subject in the Church of Montmorency.⁠[98]

The tombs at Polisy have perished with the chapel that contained them. But a quaint epitaph, in rhymed doggerel, which was placed to the memory of Gaucher de Dinteville, survives in a copy preserved at the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris.

EPITAPHE DE FEU MONSIEUR DE POLISY.
L’Appuy des bons, Gauche de Dinteville
Apres avoir en la guerre civile
De France acquis le nom de jeune et sage
Apres avoir au renomme passage
Que Charles feit a Naples et a Rome
Gaigné le bruit de hardi gentilhome
[52]
Apres avoir a Senes ville antique
Esté le chef de la grand republique
Apres avoir de Troyes en Champagne
Esté bailly, et veu de sa compagne
Naistre des fils, dont il veit en sa vie
Rhodes,⁠[99] Espagne,⁠[100] et la France⁠[101] servie
Apres avoir chez le Roy eu loz tel
D’estre ordinaire et bon maistre d’hostel
Et le premier chez Monsr. le Dauphin
Se voyant là approcher de sa fin
Et sachant bien qu’heureux on ne peult estre
Sans despouiller cette robbe terrestre,
Volut donner a ces yeulx anciens
Ce dernier bien d’estre fermez des siens
Desquelz l’amour et pitié l’ont cy mis
Pleins d’ans, d’honneurs, de richesse et d’amis.⁠[102]

[53]

Immediately after the death of Gaucher de Dinteville, on the 26th March, 1531, his eldest son François, who had succeeded his uncle as Bishop of Auxerre, did homage in his own name, as well as on behalf of his mother, Anne du Plessis, and of his younger brothers and sisters, Jean, Guillaume, Gaucher, Charlotte, and Françoise, for the seigneurie of Lesches in Brie, which had formed part of the dowry of Anne du Plessis. All now inherited it jointly excepting Louis, the second brother, who was a Knight Hospitaller.⁠[103]

In his twenty-seventh year, Jean de Dinteville now found himself at the head of his house. His position at Court seemed to promise a brilliant future, which was further insured by the friendship of his cousin, Montmorency, the Admiral De Brion, the Du Bellay brothers, and other leaders of French politics. It is probable that at about this time he also succeeded to the Collar of St. Michael rendered vacant by the death of his father, who had been a Knight of the Order.⁠[104]

Nor were royal favours limited to Jean alone. The same edict that confirms his appointment as Governor to Charles, Duke of Angoulême, places his brother Guillaume, now Seigneur Deschenetz, in a like capacity about the person of the Dauphin, in succession to his father; and Gaucher, the youngest brother, Seigneur of Vanlay and [54]Thennelières, in a similar position towards Henry, Duke of Orleans. Thus each of the three sons of Francis I. was entrusted to the special care of a member of the Dinteville family.

But all was not unchequered prosperity. In the July following the death of Gaucher the elder, another heavy blow fell upon the brothers. Louis de Dinteville, the Knight of St. John, died at Malta, at the age of twenty-eight; not without having already given promise of distinction similar to that attained by his brothers. He had been early made a Knight Commander and Seneschal of Rhodes, probably in the place of his uncle, Pierre de Dinteville. After the conquest of Rhodes in 1522, the homeless Knights at length, after many vicissitudes, found a permanent refuge at Malta, granted to them by Charles V. The Grand Master of the Order, Philippe de Villiers l’Isle-Adam, who signs himself “uncle” to Montmorency, and was, like him, a cousin of the Dinteville family, made a journey to Spain during the captivity of Francis I., in order to confer with him and with the Emperor on the future of the Order. Whether Louis de Dinteville accompanied L’Isle-Adam on this occasion is not known; but it is certain that in the winter of 1529 to 1530, he was sent as Ambassador of the Order to the Emperor Charles V., and conducted the negotiations which terminated in the cession of Malta, afterwards reporting in person to Montmorency, and probably to the French king, the successful termination of his mission.⁠[105]

The Order of St. John of Jerusalem was divided into seven “languages,” as the branches in various countries were technically called. The English language was suppressed soon after the Reformation, but it will be seen that the only record preserved in England of Jean de Dinteville’s first visit to this country sprang from the connection of his family with this illustrious Order.

The death of the Knight of St. John was not the only misfortune which now befell the family. The high favour in which they stood had, no doubt, awakened jealousies; and there were enemies ready to take advantage of any opportunity that might occur, to undermine their [55]credit. Such an occasion shortly presented itself, and, unfortunately, in a shape which seems to have afforded some justification for the violent attacks made on the offender. The eldest brother, François, now Bishop of Auxerre, was accused of having inflicted a punishment of undue severity on a peasant belonging to his Abbey of Montierender, who had been guilty of poaching birds of prey suited to the favourite pastime of hawking. The Parliament of Paris, the first legal tribunal of the kingdom, was delighted to assert its authority in the teeth of the Crown, which had curtailed many of its ancient privileges, by attacking a man who owed his promotion to Court favour. The bishop was ordered to appear before it and to stand his trial, and things were beginning to look ugly when the powerful influence of Montmorency, combined with that of “Madame,” the king’s mother, to whom the bishop was chaplain, intervened on his behalf. The culprit was hurried away to the house of the Grand-Maître at Chantilly, and there kept in security until the storm blew over.⁠[106] It was settled by his protectors that he should be sent as ambassador to the Holy See in order to remove him for a time from the pursuit of his adversaries. The king, who had at first been very angry with his protégé, shortly afterwards issued a royal proclamation intended to give a milder complexion to the whole affair, and to serve as a preliminary to letting the proceedings drop.⁠[107] In the July following the bishop was despatched to Rome.

It is tempting to dwell for a moment on the personality of this prelate, perhaps the best known to history of all his family. Six years older than the Bailly of Troyes, the Bishop of Auxerre exerted a potent influence on the intellectual development of the younger brother. Nothing is more striking in the meagre records that have come down to us, than the constant proof they afford of the affection and community of tastes which united these two brothers. “Besides the liberal arts,” says the biographer of the bishop, “he was a connoisseur in mechanics, loving above all things painting, and having always some painters in his [56]house.”⁠[108] Involuntarily Holbein’s presentment of the Bailly of Troyes rises before the imagination, so exactly do these words describe it.

But while the career of Jean de Dinteville is unclouded by any hint of blame, that of the Bishop of Auxerre is of a chequered character, in which light and shadow are almost equally distributed. Hot-tempered, and failing often in tact and discretion, his mental parts were yet coupled, to judge by the warm friendships he inspired, with considerable personal charm. Deeply attached to learning, keenly sensitive to the beautiful, he was a typical churchman of the Renaissance, as much layman as ecclesiastic. His love of sport, especially his passion for falconry, then at the height of fashion, are as oddly contrasted to his exaggerated asceticism and frugal diet, as the mermaids of his coat-of-arms to his pastoral staff.⁠[109]

Having learnt grammar at the College of Troyes, François de Dinteville proceeded to the University of Paris. Here he was a member of the College of Navarre, which, as the only one at that time providing lectures in divinity outside the walls of the Sorbonne, was popular with theologians of moderate views. Thence, probably with the object of studying civil law, the future bishop was sent to Poitiers; and, finally, to complete his training in both branches of jurisprudence, to the University of Padua.

No doubt this residence in Italy, at the crowning moment of the Renaissance, gave a definite stamp to his tastes in more ways than one.

On his return to France he was made Almoner to Louise of Savoy. Shortly after he was appointed Bishop of Riez, and suffragan to his uncle; upon whose death, in 1530, he was promoted to the see of Auxerre. He appeared well fitted, therefore, for the arduous duties he was now called upon to undertake as French ambassador to the Vatican, at the difficult moment of the divorce suit of Henry VIII.

The same year, 1531, witnessed the first mission of the Bailly of Troyes to England. The friendship between Henry VIII. and Francis I. was now growing apace. Besides the resident ambassadors [57]at either Court, the coming and going of special envoys entrusted with messages it was not deemed prudent to commit to writing, had assumed great activity. Henry VIII. still clung to the hope of forcing Clement VII., through pressure from France, to annul his marriage with the Emperor’s aunt, Katherine of Aragon. The Pope, since the sack of Rome in 1527 more than ever the Emperor’s tool, caught at every straw to postpone a decision which must of necessity alienate from him one half of Europe or the other. Francis I., anxious for his own purposes to keep Henry at variance with the Emperor, saw in the divorce the most obvious means of doing so. He accordingly threw the whole weight of his influence on the side of the King of England.

PORTRAIT OF FRANÇOIS II. DE DINTEVILLE, BISHOP OF AUXERRE, FROM THE MARTYRDOM OF STE. EUGÉNIE, BY FELIX CHRÉTIEN, IN THE CHURCH AT VARZY.

Dinteville’s first visit to England, or the first of which we know, seems to have been a rapid errand of confidential nature. But, short as it was, it is likely that it formed the key to his future advancement, for the only English sentence relating to it which has been preserved has a decided flavour of success. It has been seen that an intimate connection existed between the Dinteville family and the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. Sir William Weston was at this time Prior of the English language. Dinteville, either now or later, was on friendly terms with a young Weston who had been at the University of Paris; but, in any case, seems to have been well known to the English knights of the Order when, in the late autumn of 1531, he arrived in London. On the 12th December Sir John Mablisteyn writes to Sir Giles Russell, “Mr. Tyntervile departed on the 3rd, having had good expedition with the king and his council.”⁠[110]

Meanwhile the Bishop of Auxerre, at Rome, was busily engaged in urging the cause of the divorce. Gilles de la Pommeraye, who was sent as resident ambassador to England within three weeks of the termination of the Bailly’s brief mission, supported it no less eagerly in London.⁠[111] La Pommeraye was on terms of intimacy with the Bishop of Auxerre; and the two friends agreed to communicate to each other, [58]if necessary in cipher, whatever of importance might occur in their respective spheres of duty.⁠[112]

It is clear that, apart from questions of expediency, some members of the liberal party in France frankly ranged themselves with the King of England on this thorny subject. They saw that the interminable delays of the Pope were dictated only by self-interest, unworthy of the high office he was called upon to exercise. For that office they had a profound respect; for the personality of Clement VII., to judge by scattered utterances in the correspondence of the time, their feeling bordered on contempt. Henry VIII. had, it was considered, a right to an answer, whatever the tenour of that answer might be.

From this point of view, and as showing the charm the king could exercise when such was his good pleasure, a letter written at about this time by La Pommeraye to the Bishop of Auxerre has its curious side.

> ⁠[113] ... “Vous avez raison,” he says, “de me porter envie d’estre avec un si gentil Prince, car je pense que apres le Roy nostre maistre ne s’en trouva passé à deux cens ans, un de meilleur esprit, de meilleure grace ny plus magnanime que cestuy cy: et, à vous parler franchement, le dit Roy nostre maistre est obligé a luy du bon vouloir qu’il luy porte, dequoy je me sens grandement, car je suis traicté icy, non pas comme Ambassadeur, mais comme Prince du pays, logé en la maison⁠[114] dudict Sieur Roy, et quand je le veois veoir, toujours mangeant à sa table; et pource, ne vous esmerveillez si je vous conforte et prie de porter sa querelle....

> “Mr. ce Prince a grand envie de chastier les Prestres de ce pays et ne leur [59]laisser jouir de si grans privilleges qu’ils ont accoustumé, dont est cause le tort qu’on lui faict à Rome, qui est si grand que plus ne peust: c’est chose estrange que l’Empereur ait tant de pouvoir avec le Pape, qu’il soit par ce empesché de rendre raison et justice là où il la cognoist.”⁠[115]

The private letters of the ambassadors and other public characters to each other form an interesting commentary on the political events of the time. The Bishop of Auxerre, who, in spite of detractors, stood in high repute for learning, love of art, and distinguished office, had many such correspondents. Among these, to mention only a few conspicuous names, were Lazare de Baif, a classical scholar of some celebrity, who was now French ambassador at Venice; the Marquis de Saluce, who, after enjoying high favour, later became a traitor to the French Crown; and Philippe Villiers de L’Isle-Adam, Grand Master of Rhodes. Of lesser correspondence, none throws more light on the fortunes of the Dinteville brothers at this period than that of Balavoyne, or Belle Avoine, the Bishop of Auxerre’s steward in France, who collected his revenues, and sent him news of his family, during his absence at Rome.⁠[116]

These letters and those of Berthereau, the secretary of Montmorency, enable us to follow with some precision the movements of the Bailly of Troyes and his brothers during the year 1532. In the summer Francis I. made a tour in Brittany, prior to the annexation of that province to the Crown of France, taking with him the Dauphin François. The latter selected from among his gentlemen, to be his special attendant on this occasion, Guillaume, Seigneur Deschenetz. Jean de Dinteville and his brother Vanlay meanwhile remained with their respective charges, the Dukes of Angoulême and of Orleans, at the Court of Queen Eleanor. The plan was to spend Easter at Tours, and later to [60]go to meet the king and dauphin at Nantes on their return from Brittany.⁠[117] The whole scheme was afterwards postponed for a few weeks, and came off with some modifications.

In May the Bailly had a slight attack of fever, an enemy that often troubled him, and consequently obtained leave to go home for awhile.⁠[118] He was keenly interested just now in a new tower and some pictures he was adding to Polisy, where his mother and unmarried sister resided with him. A little later he was staying at Plessis, the home, it will be remembered, of his mother’s family, when Fontaines, the page of the deceased Commander of Rhodes, Louis de Dinteville, was struck down with the plague. Happily, he recovered; but the Bailly and Vanlay, to avoid all risk of infection for the young princes, retired for a time to La Bourdaizière, the house of another connection of the family. Almost at the same moment, however, an illness which attacked the little Duke of Angoulême, but seems to have been only of passing severity, obliged Jean to leave his retreat and return to Court sooner than he had intended. Shortly after this, Balavoyne received from the Bailly casts of the features of the Dauphin and the Duke of Orleans, with the order to forward them to the Bishop of Auxerre. From these models their portraits were to be executed at Rome.⁠[119]

Thus the summer glided into autumn, which was to be distinguished by an event of unusual interest.

The meeting which took place at Calais between Henry VIII. and Francis I. in October, 1532, probably marks the culminating point of the friendship between the two kings. Though devoid of the excessive luxury which distinguished the interview of 1520, known as the Field of the Cloth of Gold, it was conducted with much pomp and magnificence. On the 21st October, Henry, from his town of Calais, and Francis, from the French territory of Boulogne, rode out to meet each other. Each king was followed by a splendid retinue. The [61]festivities lasted for ten days, in the course of which the King of England was received by Francis at Boulogne, and returned the hospitality by entertaining the French King at Calais. Much is recorded of the gorgeous robes, flashing with rubies and diamonds, worn by the two sovereigns; of music, dancing, and feasting, of bull and bear baiting, games and wrestling, the latter, curiously enough, undertaken, on the French side, chiefly by priests. Valuable presents were given and received on either side. But the most welcome feature to the King of France of all these courtesies must have been the gift of 300,000 crowns made by Henry VIII. to the young princes. This sum represented the residue of the loan advanced by him for their father’s ransom, which he thus gracefully abandoned. Small wonder that Francis hastened to exhibit his gratitude by conferring on the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, “comme aux deux estans plus près de la personne dudit roy d’Angleterre,” the royal order of St. Michael.⁠[120] Henry responded by bestowing the Garter on Montmorency and Brion.

But the main object of the meeting at Calais lay deeper than in the desire to exchange mutual civilities. Ostensibly for the purpose of concerting measures for the defence of Christendom against Solyman, and actually resulting in a treaty to that effect, it was planned, in the first place, to discuss a common line of policy directed against Charles V., in favour of the divorce and of certain objects that the French King had at heart. No doubt the “damned machinations and enterprises of the Turk”⁠[121]—with whom, be it noted, Francis I. stood on the most friendly terms at the very moment when these words were penned—served as an admirable cloak for these designs. No doubt also the Most Christian King was anxious to present to Clement VII. an appearance of devotion equal to that of his Imperial rival. The real purpose [62]of the interview is, however, sufficiently clearly shown by the fact that no ambassadors were allowed to be present excepting such as were subjects of the two kings. Chapuys, the Imperial envoy in England, displayed much chagrin at this decree. The treaty was, in fact, so much waste paper, except for the purpose of making dupes; to which account Francis promptly turned it in his next dealings with the Pope.

The Bishop of Auxerre had received instructions to come from Rome, in order to be present at the Calais meeting, and to report on the negotiations he had been conducting at the Holy See. Letters addressed to him, however, at Rome, immediately after the interview, show that for some reason this plan fell through. His place was taken, at the interview, by the Cardinals Tournon and Grammont, who were shortly to succeed him at the Papal Court, and who received detailed instructions from both kings as to the part to be played by them with regard to the King of England’s suit.

But if the Bishop of Auxerre was absent, it can hardly be doubted that all his brothers took part in the festivities, in attendance upon their respective charges, the three French princes. Henry VIII. had expressed a special wish to see at Calais the children whom his liberality had helped to release from their Spanish prison. The Duke of Angoulême accompanied his two elder brothers to the royal interview, and on first meeting the King of England, after the Dauphin and the Duke of Orleans had expressed their gratitude to the king, the little boy addressed him in another form, “so sweetly and sagely, according to report, that he spoke like an angel; so that the English king again embraced him alone, kissing him several times.”⁠[122] Indeed, Henry treated all three with marked kindness. More than once in the annals of the proceedings he is mentioned as playing at tennis with the young princes, and it has been seen that it was to them he cancelled the debt due to him from the King of France.

Early in November Henry VIII., accompanied by Anne Boleyn, [63]who, not yet queen, had shared the Calais fêtes as Marchioness of Pembroke, set sail for England. A new ambassador, Montpesat, returned with him, La Pommeraye’s mission being on the verge of conclusion. The fresh selection was probably made in consequence of Montpesat’s previous acquaintance with the country, and possibly, to some extent, with the language.⁠[123] At the outset he appeared hardly so successful as his predecessor. The reason of this, in the present temper of the king, was not far to seek. “Mons. de Montpesat, the French ambassador,” writes the indefatigable gossip, Chapuys, to his Imperial master, “has continually followed the king, and been in Court until yesterday.... The queen⁠[124] has been informed that the more La Pommeraye solicits the divorce, the more he (Montpesat) dislikes it. This is beginning to be perceived, for he has not obtained the favour of lodging in this town in the king’s house, which the other ambassador did.”⁠[125] It is, perhaps, rash to infer a recovery of royal favour from the gifts showered on the ambassador at his departure, which were probably a mere formality. In any case, his mission was of brief duration, and on its expiration Jean de Dinteville was appointed to take his place.

“The Bailly,” writes Balavoyne from Paris, on the 2nd December, 1532, to the Bishop of Auxerre at Rome, “has obtained leave of absence until Christmas, or if possible until Twelfth Night, by which time he must return to Court, and then immediately depart for England. Meanwhile he is going to visit Mademoiselle,⁠[126] and set his affairs in order.”⁠[127]

Just at the same time arrangements wee being made for the return of the Bishop of Auxerre. His enemies were again showing signs of [64]restlessness, and Jean was eager that he should come back to confront them and to end their intrigues. The brothers therefore hailed the termination of the bishop’s embassy with joy.

On the 26th January, 1533, the Bailly writes to convey to his brother the express permission of Montmorency for his departure from Rome. After telling him of the instructions given to the Cardinals, Dinteville continues:

> ⁠[128]“En oultre m’a enchargé ledit Sgr. grand maistre expressément vous escrire que incontinent parties pourrez vous en venir. Je croy bien qu’il sera honneste dire à Dieu. Mais quelques remonstrances, pour service du Roy, ny aultres choses, qu’ilz leur dient, venez vous en, et vous serez le bien venue et receu, je vous en assure, non pas de moy, car ne me trouveres, pour ce que demain m’en pars; et espere, au plaisir de Dieu, trouveres, a vostre arrivée, voz evocations depeschees.”⁠[129]

La Pommeraye meanwhile had written to inquire how the Cardinals were behaving to his friend.

> ⁠[130]“Soyez asseuré” so runs his letter, “aumoings c’est ma fantaisie, qu’ils ne sont pas voz amys; mais la sagesse d’un homme aussi est de se tenir ferme en ses grans heurts. Je vous advertis bien qu’a l’endroit du maistre quant je suis party de la Cour vous estiez en aussi bonne grace comme eux. Suyvez ce que vous avez commancé et ne variez poinct pour aucune chose qu’ils vous puissent dire; et, moyennant ce que vous direz soit véritable, ne vous souciez du demeurant, car le patron est pour vous et trois des plus vaillans Champions.”⁠[131]

[65]

The frank and manly tone of this letter is a refreshing contrast to the diplomatic subtleties of much of the official correspondence of the time. The “master” and “patron” was of course Francis I. The “three champions” may probably be correctly interpreted as Montmorency, Brion and the Bishop of Paris.

La Pommeraye’s feeling with regard to the Cardinals was no doubt correct. Though a devout son of his Church, and a strong opponent of the Lutherans, the Bishop of Auxerre belonged to the liberal, anti-Spanish party in France. Cardinal Tournon, on the other hand, was one of the most violent of the extreme Catholic section. As such the two men, agreed in dogma, were opposed in politics—a position likely enough to engender personal animosity.

[66]

### CHAPTER III
The Bailly of Troyes French Ambassador in England (1533)

On the 3rd of February, 1533, the Bailly had reached Boulogne on his way to England.

From Calais to Dover was then, as now, the more frequented passage; but Boulogne being French territory, it sometimes happened that Frenchmen selected that route in preference to the English one by Calais. On arriving at Dover the ordinary traveller proceeded on horseback by Canterbury and Rochester to Gravesend, whence the journey was generally continued by water to London.

Occasionally, however, as with Chaucer’s pilgrims in the opposite direction, the entire journey from Canterbury to London was accomplished by road. This was especially the case if an official reception was intended, when a cavalcade of notabilities would be sent out from London to meet the arriving stranger and escort him to the city. On important occasions the welcoming cortége went the whole way to Dover. Such was the case in 1527, on the arrival of the great embassy conducted by Montmorency, Jean Du Bellay, and the Chancellor of Alençon.⁠[132] But even when lesser magnates were expected, much ceremony was observed in their reception, if demanded by their office. Lodovico Falier, the incoming Venetian ambassador in 1528, “was [67]met first of all at a distance of eight miles from the city by the ambassador Venier⁠[133] and all the Venetians; then, a little in advance, by a knight privy councillor, with a good number of horsemen; and thirdly by another privy councillor, an LL.D.; who all, one by one, paid the usual compliments in Latin in the name of the King and Cardinal, on receiving him, and he performed the like office by them in reply.” He next met “the ambassadors from France, Milan, and Ferrara, and then the Grand Prior of St. John’s⁠[134] with a numerous retinue, he being a very great personage, the chief in London. They all accompanied him with very great honour to his lodging in the centre of the city, near that of the French ambassador,⁠[135] a very worthy person.”⁠[136]

If such was the reception bestowed upon the ambassador of Venice, it may be safely assumed that nothing less elaborate was prepared for Dinteville at a moment when Henry VIII. was specially anxious to show civility to France. It will be remembered, too, that the Bailly was already on friendly terms with the Weston family and with the Knights of St. John, which would add point to any part they might have to play in his official welcome.

Winding through the narrow streets and between the closely-constructed, gabled houses of the city of London, the cavalcade would presently reach the quarter where the high steeple of old St. Paul’s rose high above the surrounding buildings. But Dinteville’s journey was not yet ended. Like his friend, La Pommeraye, he had been given apartments in the royal palace of Bridewell.⁠[137] Passing through Ludgate and over the Fleet Bridge, the procession would now deflect southwards towards the Thames, and, descending by the western bank of the Fleet, in a line approximately represented by the modern Bridge Street, would draw rein before the castellated façade of Bridewell.

[68]

The palace stood a little back from the river, on the western angle formed by the junction of the Fleet with the Thames. The corresponding angle eastwards was occupied by the great monastery of the Black Friars. The city wall, which inclosed the latter, here curved abruptly to the north within the line of the Fleet, leaving that small stream and the royal house of Bridewell without its precincts.

Bridewell Palace was of long and irregular shape. The southern extremity, flanked by two corner towers, formed the main front towards the Thames; and was pierced by an entrance door abutting on the quay which separated the house from the river. The buildings ran back some distance along the western shore of the Fleet, and were divided into various groups by courts and gardens. The latter were of considerable dimensions, filling the opening on the east front overlooking the Fleet, and, on the other side, covering the whole space between the palace and the next street westwards running down to the Thames. The grounds had recently been greatly enlarged by a piece of land acquired from the Knights Hospitallers, containing no less than fifteen gardens, which were “thrown down and inclosed in the king’s great messuage or manor, called Bridewell.”⁠[138]

[69]

The original foundation was of very remote origin. The palace was built partly on the remains of an ancient castle, which in early days had formed the western bulwark of the city of London. Though occupied from time to time by various English sovereigns, from King John downwards, it had fallen much out of repair when Henry VIII, took it in hand and rebuilt it for the reception of Charles V. in 1522. After all, however, the Emperor occupied apartments in the adjacent monastery of the Black Friars. His suite only were lodged in the new palace, a covered bridge being thrown across the Fleet, and an aperture pierced in the city wall to give free access to the Emperor’s quarters.

Henry VIII. frequently resided at Bridewell, which is associated with several interesting historical events. Hither, in 1528, Cardinal Campeggio, ill with gout and fever, was carried through pouring rain, when deputed to hear the divorce case, Wolsey riding at his side. The palace on this occasion was “superbly decorated and filled with princes, prelates and noblemen.”⁠[139] The following year, 1529, Henry VIII. and Katherine of Aragon were again at Bridewell, when the same interminable question was being argued in the great hall of the Black Friars. After the fall of Wolsey and sequestration of his property, the king preferred York Place,⁠[140] the confiscated residence of the see of York, which was now incorporated with the Palace of Westminster. He could therefore well afford to place Bridewell at the disposal of any foreign ambassador to whom he desired to show peculiar favour.

It is amusing to find amongst Dinteville’s first proceedings on his arrival in England, the importation of “thirty tuns of Gascon wine,” the claret of to-day, which was conveyed to London by a ship called the “Edmund,” of Lynn.⁠[141]

[70]

Whether going westwards to visit the king at Westminster or eastwards to see him at Greenwich, the river was the high-road by which the Bailly of Troyes would reach his destination. The Thames was the main artery of the traffic of London. Its busy wharves, laden with merchandise, each with a flight of wooden steps descending to the water, the varied craft which plied upon its surface, the many signs which announced the great commercial centre, excited much interest in the minds of foreigners.

“London,” writes one of them,⁠[142] “... is the residence of the ambassadors and merchants; it is a very notable city situated on the Thames, a magnificent river navigable for vessels of any burden, sixty miles from the sea, and with a very strong tide. This river is convenient for trade, embellishing the city, and rendering it cheerful, and over it is a very large stone bridge.⁠[143] London contains many houses on either side of the river and two large churches of extreme beauty, in one of which the present king’s father is buried.⁠[144] In various parts of the city there are many palaces of divers citizens and merchants, but the larger ones and the most superb are on the river, the owners being the chief personages of the kingdom. Besides the two belonging to the king,⁠[145] and one to the queen, the three dukes,⁠[146] the two marquises⁠[147] and several bishops, have mansions there, each of them worth 12,000 crowns, with very delightful gardens.

“The population of London is immense and comprises many artificers. [71]The houses⁠[148] are in very great number, but ugly, and half the materials of wood, nor are the streets wide. In short, I am of opinion, all things considered, that it is a very rich, populous, and mercantile city, but not beautiful....”

When an ambassador was invited to court, the king’s bargeman was entrusted with the task of providing a boat, with eight or ten oars, at the king’s expense. The guest was thus rapidly conveyed “from Greenwich to York Place, Bridewell, and Westminster,” or whatever might be the point of destination on the Thames. The charges made on these occasions are still on record. One entry notes that “John Johnson, master of the king’s barge, for conveying the French ambassador from London to Greenwich and back in a boat of ten oars,” paid “each rower 8d., and the master 16d., with 12d. for the hire of the boat.”⁠[149]

The king had been eagerly expecting the arrival of the new ambassador, being anxious to hear the report of Cardinals Tournon and Grammont from Italy, before replying to a recently received Papal despatch. Montpesat, who was awaiting the Bailly before departing himself, was even urged to send a special messenger to hurry his successor.⁠[150]

Parliament was, in 1533, opened by the king on the 4th February. A state attendance followed at the House of Lords, to which several of the foreign representatives were bidden. A day or two later, the Papal Nuncio and the French ambassador were invited by the king to be present at a sitting of the Commons. This time Montpesat, who left a few days later, was accompanied by Dinteville, who had just arrived. On leaving the Commons, the two Frenchmen, the Papal Nuncio, and the Duke of Norfolk, with others of the Council, were “sumptuously banqueted” at the house of Sir William Fitzwilliam, Treasurer of the Household. After dinner the Nuncio had hoped to have audience of the king; but he was put off till the next day, in order that Henry might first hear what the Bailly of Troyes had to communicate.⁠[151]

[72]

No doubt the report given by the latter was satisfactory to the king. Early in January the two French Cardinals had joined the meeting at Bologna between Pope and Emperor. Dinteville had been instructed to inform Henry VIII. that their presence had produced an excellent effect. As a consequence of their persuasions, Clement had consented to come to an interview with Francis, planned by the two kings when at Calais. It was hoped that by this means some good conclusion might be arrived at in the affair of the King of England. For the present, however, his Holiness desired that the project might be kept secret. The prospect of an alliance between his niece and a son of the King of France had doubtless contributed to elicit these dulcet accents from the Pope. A further factor probably lay in his desire to draw both kings into an Italian league then forming, with the co-operation of the Emperor, against the Turk. To this, however, Francis declined his assent.⁠[152] Henry accordingly excused himself, in like manner, in the interview which now took place with the Nuncio.⁠[153] Venice, it may be added, at this moment allied with France and England, gave a similar reply.

Yet, at the very moment when the Pope appeared to be in so affable a mood he had but recently issued a brief threatening the King of England with excommunication in case he should persist in putting away his first wife and entering into a new contract.⁠[154] Meanwhile, in January, 1533, Henry had secretly wedded Anne Boleyn. The King of France, on his side, full of the project of marrying his second son, Henri, Duke of Orleans, to the Pope’s niece, Catherine de’ Medici, was absorbed in the achievement of his own ends. That marriage, and indeed the proposed interview itself, so Henry VIII. had understood, were to be held out as a reward to Clement only if he acted as the two kings wished in the matter of the divorce. The alliance of a Medici with a son of the King of France was considered a sufficiently tempting bait. But Francis saw in the bribe a means of drawing the Pope away [73]from the Emperor, and quietly pursued his plans without too much care for the real or supposed condition. To Clement, apart from the brilliancy of such a marriage for his niece, it offered a way of escape from all his difficulties, supposing he could slip out of the hampering condition relating to the King of England’s divorce, and thus avoid displeasure to the Emperor. Could he unite on his side both Francis and Charles, he would be released from the painful position he had so long occupied of a puppet tossed to and fro between the alternate threats and caresses of the two great continental powers. The danger of a schism in France would be averted. The friendship between England and France would be much modified, if not altogether broken. To accomplish all this, however, it would be necessary to offer a substantial inducement to the King of France, who was closely bound to the English king. Clement therefore entered into a secret agreement, as part of the marriage contract, by which Francis was to acquire, by cession or conquest, certain portions of Italian territory, including the Duchy of Milan—that Fata Morgana for whose possession so much French blood and treasure had already been expended in vain.⁠[155]

It will thus be seen that each party concerned was playing a double game, excepting the King of England. Whatever view be taken of his conduct, he at least made no attempt to shuffle the cards beneath the table.

Meanwhile, glad to avail himself of the apparently softened mood of the Pope to minimize the effect of the brief on his own subjects, Henry lavished attentions on the Nuncio in England, in order that all the world might see how amicable were his relations with the Papacy.

Such was the anomalous position of things when the Bailly of Troyes began his residence in England. The history of the period has been sifted and re-sifted by the most capable hands. It is not intended to dwell on it here at greater length than is indispensable to the good understanding of the public career of Dinteville, and of the task committed to his charge.

[74]

In the intervals of official business the French ambassador no doubt found plenty of time to cultivate his private tastes. It would be interesting to know how and where he first became acquainted with the works of Hans Holbein, and was fired by the desire to sit to that painter. The channels are numerous through which this may have taken place. Several of Holbein’s early patrons, such as Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Sir Henry Guildford, Comptroller of the Household, had indeed passed away since Dinteville’s first visit to England in 1531. But Sir Thomas More, the first and most conspicuous protector of the artist, yet remained. Nicolas Kratzer, too, the king’s astronomer, had been painted by him in 1528. In a small society, such as that of the Court of Henry VIII., it would have been difficult for anyone interested in art to overlook a painter of the merit of Hans Holbein. The Duke of Norfolk, and many others who ultimately sat to him, such as Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex, Sir William Fitzwilliam, and Dr. Buttes, the king’s physician, were acquaintances of Dinteville’s, and, though their portraits belong to a later date, any one of them may have been instrumental in bringing ambassador and painter together. Norfolk, especially, was on friendly terms with the Bailly. The Duke corresponded with Montmorency, the French statesman who found most favour in England at this period, and doubtless for this reason extended special kindness to the cousin and protégé of his French friend. Again, the Duke of Norfolk was intimately acquainted with Sir Thomas More, and a welcome guest at his house. More was now living in retirement at Chelsea, but it does not seem unlikely that by the Duke’s introduction, or otherwise, Dinteville may have known him.⁠[156] His house had long been the home [75]of that type of learning with which the ambassador was familiar through the French humanists. The fame of its hospitality extended far beyond the boundaries of England. As Roman Catholics, desiring liberal reforms of discipline but not of dogma, the two men would also have much in common. If the Bailly of Troyes saw at the house in Chelsea, not only the noble single portrait of More, but the great family group which formed a corner-stone of Holbein’s fame, he may well have been struck with the genius that could produce such works.

Nicolas Kratzer, again, may have been the medium of the introduction. The keen interest in mechanics and geometry displayed by the Dinteville family, their eagerness about every new instrument, would have been certain to draw the ambassador to the society of this interesting individual.⁠[157]

Since Holbein’s return from Basle in 1532 his principal patrons had been the German merchants of the Steelyard. The privileges granted by English kings, from very early times, to the Hanseatic merchants of London, had raised their ancient community to great wealth and influence. The large scale of their commercial operations, and the facilities they enjoyed for obtaining foreign news, lent additional importance to their position. They had the right to appoint their own alderman.⁠[158] Tradition tells a good deal of the garden in Cosins Lane where men of all classes met for business or recreation, discussing their affairs over the delicacies imported by the merchants and the Rhenish wine the latter were here licensed to sell. Sir Thomas More was said to be the author of one of the couplets inscribed over the central door of their guildhall. Kratzer, no doubt, was often here; Holbein, as we have seen, painted many of the members. But apart from the social tradition, the Steelyard had another aspect which has hardly been sufficiently thrown into relief by writers on the subject. In the time of Henry VIII., when the knowledge of German was very rare amongst [76]the English, the Hanseatic merchants were frequently called upon to take part in diplomatic negotiations as interpreters. Sometimes they were required to accompany an English envoy to the continent, sometimes to translate documents despatched to London. Insensibly they were thus drawn into the political sphere, in subordinate positions no doubt, but in a manner which accounts for the constant mention of their community in the historical papers of the time, and for a large measure of the consideration in which they were held. At a moment when it was the common policy of England and France to cultivate the friendship of the German Protestant princes, in opposition to the Emperor—princes who were fully as ignorant of foreign tongues as the English themselves—the services of the German merchants were naturally in special request. It is quite possible that here also there existed points of contact between Dinteville and the Steelyard.⁠[159]

But surmise grows wearisome even when based on evident probabilities. By whatever means the event was brought about, it is certain that the spring of 1533 found Dinteville and his “intime amy,” the Bishop of Lavaur, sitting to Holbein for the picture of the “Ambassadors.” George de Selve came over on a visit to the Bailly by the express permission of the King of France. For some reason his stay in England was to be concealed from Montmorency.⁠[160] It is therefore less than surprising that no notice of it occurs in any English records. [77]To keep all knowledge of the event from Montmorency would demand a good deal of circumspection. The coming and going of messengers between the Grand Maître and the French ambassador in England was incessant. The leading Englishmen also, such as the Dukes of Norfolk and Suffolk, stood in frequent relations with the French side of the Channel.

At some time between February and Easter George de Selve arrived in England;⁠[161] at some time before the end of May he departed again.⁠[162] Whether any political object lay behind his visit to this country does not appear. There is no evidence that it was inspired by other motive than that of private friendship.

That much time and thought was bestowed on the composition and details of the great picture for which the two ambassadors⁠[163] were now sitting is certain. Regarded in connection with the public and private career of both Frenchmen, its parts work out with the precision of a Chinese puzzle. As it is proposed to devote a special division to the details of the picture,⁠[164] it is unnecessary to dwell upon them in the present chapter, but it is interesting to observe that they must have been to a large extent suggested by Dinteville himself. The Bishop of Lavaur, who was but a bird of passage, left England before the picture could have been much more than begun. Presumably his portrait was completed, as was frequently Holbein’s practice, from a drawing taken from life. But the Bailly, who wearied of his protracted stay in this country, and whose delicate health suffered from the climate, found no doubt in the progress of this picture a constant source of entertainment and interest. Many an hour which might otherwise have passed tediously, must have been devoted to thinking out with the painter its [78]elaborate details. In no other way can the absolute harmony of its complex arrangements with the known life and tastes of the principal sitter be explained.

Early in May the French ambassador had a rather sharp attack of tertian fever. We hear of the Duke of Norfolk dining with him, and bringing the king’s physician, Dr. Buttes, to advise upon his case.⁠[165] Apparently the treatment prescribed was successful, for he soon shook off this particular illness.

Political events meanwhile were slowly progressing. The spring went by in negotiations relating to the settlement of the Scotch quarrel, to the proposed General Council, and, above all, to the coming interview between Francis I. and the Pope, where it was settled that the Duke of Norfolk should represent Henry VIII. The most important event which took place in England was the appointment of Cranmer to the see of Canterbury, and the king’s resolve that the English archbishop should now pass sentence on his case. The Bailly of Troyes implored Henry to keep this intention a secret until the Pope should have arrived at Nice. But this the king declined to do. He intended to have his new queen crowned with all the pomp of state at Whitsuntide, and wished the sentence made public at once.⁠[166]

The same courier who bore the despatch containing this information to the King of France, conveyed a letter from Dinteville to his brother, the Bishop of Auxerre. This document is so curious, both in its public and private aspect, that it shall here be given verbatim.

It seems that there was a question at this time of sending the Bishop of Auxerre on a second embassy to Rome, which explains the political commission the Bailly requests him to undertake. The case stood thus: Dinteville foresaw that the Pope would be very angry, and probably launch his thunderbolts at once against the King of England, on hearing that he had deliberately defied the Papal authority by causing sentence to be pronounced in England. If it could be said, however, [79]that the marriage with Anne Boleyn had taken place by Clement’s own advice, secretly tendered some time previously to the French ambassador at Rome, the sting of the Papal anathema would naturally be removed, and an understanding might yet be arrived at between England and Rome. Hence the ambassador’s solicitude upon this point. For private reasons, however, he was much opposed to his brother’s return to Rome, if it could be avoided. The rest of the letter is interesting from the allusion to Selve’s visit, and from the light it throws on the Bailly’s private pursuits.

> “Monsieur,

> ⁠[167]“J’ai receu vostre lettre escripte de Sommevoyre, par laquelle me semble que me mandez que autrefoys avez dit aux ambassadeurs de ce Roy, estans par de la, que aviez entendu aux propos de nostre Sainct Père, que pour l’affaire de ce dit Roy seroit meilleur le mariage fait que à faire. Si ainsi estoit, seroit une chose qui grandement luy pourroit servir. Je vous prie me mander, si d’adventure le pape ne se vouloit gouverner de ce costé de deça autrement que à point, si je pourroye bien advertir cedit Roy de ce dont m’en avez mandé, et si pareillement quand les choses viendront bien avant, vous luy vouldriez ramentevoir les propos qu’il vous en a tenu, en lui disant que des lors les communiquastez aux ambassadeurs de ce dit sieur Roy, voyant les affaires du Roy et les siennes n’estre que ung. S’il vous plaist sur cela me manderez vostre advis, lequel ferez bien de consulter ung petit avec nos amys, et par adventure, avec Monseigneur le Grant Maistre et Monsieur de Paris, car la chose est assés de consequence.

> “Au reste, nous vous mercyons bien fort, Monsr. de la Tournelle,⁠[168] mon [80]cousin et moy, des branches de vostre if, que nous soubhaittez, vous advisant que ceans sommes bien fourniz d’arcs de buttes et de maulvais archiers, et moy, pour le pire.

> “Je vous prie m’envoyer le portraict du compas auvale duquel m’avez escript; car je suis bien empesché à comprendre la façon de laquelle il est fait.

> “Je commence bien à me fascher en ce pays ycy, en attendant la fin des six moys, lesquelz escheurent le vingt deuxiesme juillet. Monsr. le grant maistre m’a promis que n’y demoureray que les dits six moys. Je prie à Dieu qu’il me tienne promesse. J’ay eu la fiebvre tierce et y a long temps qu’en suis guery. S’il vous plaist, divisez ung petit avec monsr. de Paris pour mon retour. Je vous advise bien que je suis le plus melancolicque fasché et fascheux ambassadeur que vistez oncques.

> “Monsr. de Lavor m’a fait cest honneur que de me venir veoir, qui ne m’a esté petit plaisir. Il n’est point de besoing que Mr. le grant maistre en entende rien.⁠[169]

> “J’ai eu des lettres d’Escoce de Monsr. de Beauvois.⁠[170] J’espère la trefve estre conclutte bien tost, et pour ung an, antre ces deux princes.⁠[171]

> “Monsr. de Northfolrc partira d’icy à deux ou trois jours pour s’en aller trouver le Roy. Je vous prie luy faire congnoissance, car par deça son maistre vous tient en bon estime et ancor le m’a il dit depuis huict jours.

> “Quant aux autours, de quoi me mandez, me semble, ne sera que despence [81]de les envoyer, car ce Roy n’ayme point la vollerie, et si en y a tout plain en ce Royaulme.

> “Je ne puis entendre que si allez a Rome que ce soit pour peu de temps. Et si vous m’en croyez, essayiez de tout vostre povoir faire que ung autre ayt la commission. Je vous prie, entendez bien à voz evocations.⁠[172] Je ne puis trouver bon que les laissez derriere.

> “Il me tarde de savoir de vos nouvelles et que direz de la tour et des tableaux.

> “Monsieur, je me recommande humblement à vostre bonne grace; prie à Dieu qui vous doint bonne vie et longue. A Londres, ce XXIIIᵉ. may.

> “Il me fault faire une grosse depense pour se couronnement. J’en ay escript à monseigneur le grand maistre, luy suplient me faire donner quelque argent par le Roy, pour y frayer. J’en scaurois voulontiers des nouvelles. J’en ai escript aussy a Monsr. de Paris qui vous en pourra dire quelque chose et me y peult beaucoup ayder.

> “Vostre humble serviteur

> “Le Bailly.”⁠[173]

Dinteville’s wish with regard to his brother was fulfilled. The bishop was not sent back as ambassador to Rome. What answer he made as to the Papal remark inquired about, does not transpire. But it is curious that Chapuys himself speaks of a report circulated some time previously, to the effect that the Pope had given a “tacit consent” to [82]Henry’s marriage with Anne Boleyn; and that, from the time of Dr. Bonner’s return from Rome, who was supposed to have been the bearer of this message, the Nuncio, had appeared indifferent to the cause of Queen Katherine.⁠[174]

The Bailly’s request for extra money to defray the expenses in which he was involved by the coronation, was acceded to. A French Treasury grant records a gift of 500 golden crowns made to Jean de Dinteville, to repay him for the extraordinary expenses incurred by him when ambassador with the King of England at the time of the coronation of Queen Anne Boleyn.⁠[175]

[83]

### CHAPTER IV
Coronation of Queen Anne Boleyn, and Termination of the Bailly’s long Embassy To England

That auspicious day was now rapidly approaching. The very date, May 23, which saw the despatch of Dinteville’s letter, just quoted, was also that on which Cranmer pronounced the sentence that declared Henry VIII.’s marriage with Queen Katherine to be null and void. Less than a week later, the coronation festivities were inaugurated.

The pomp and pageantry of Anne Boleyn’s coronation have been so often described that it would be superfluous to dwell on them here, were it not for one specially interesting circumstance. There can be little doubt that the unsigned account of the proceedings printed by Camusat in his “Meslanges Historiques”⁠[176] is the actual report drawn up by Dinteville himself for Anne de Montmorency. One little sentence gives us the clue to the whole. The Grand Maître had written to the Bailly of Troyes asking for details of the ceremonies.⁠[177] In describing the distance traversed on foot by Anne Boleyn on the morning of her coronation, the writer states that the road might contain in length “autant de fois que le jardin de Chantilly.” It is hardly necessary to point out that Chantilly was the famous château of Anne de Montmorency.

The interest of possessing the Bailly’s own narrative of that wonderful [84]scene, in which he himself played a conspicuous part, may perhaps be a sufficient excuse for glancing once again at its well-known details:

> ⁠[178]“La Royne d’Angleterre,” says the writer, “partit de Grenevich le Jeudy⁠[179] environ les 4 heures après midy, et vint par eauë dans une barque raze, en façon de brigantin, laquelle estoit paincte de ses couleurs par dehors, avec plusieurs bannieres sur le haut de ladicte Barque; et estoient ses Dames et Damoiselles avec elle. Outre il y avoit cent ou six vingts autres semblables Barques qui l’accompagnoient toutes à la flote ensemble, et fort garnies de banieres et estendars. Ils avoient dressé ausdites Barques de petits masts subtils et bien haults, ou estoient attachez des cordages en grande quantité comme a gros Navire, lesquels cordages estoient tous garnis de petites baneroles de tafetas, et a mon advis d’or clinquant, car cela reluysoit fort contre le Soleil; et y avoit force tambourins, trompetes, flustes, et hauxbois; et vindrent depuis Grenevich en moins de demie heure jusques à la tour de Londres, ou toute l’artillerie mena grand bruict. Il fit tres beau veoir ceste arrivée, car outres les barques, je croy qu’il y avoit plus de deux cents petits bots qui tous venoient à la queuë et estoit toute la riviere couverte de basteaux.

> “Le Vendredy la Royne ne bougea de son logis.

> “Le Samedy environ cinq heures apres midy, ladicte Dame vestuë de ses [85]habits royaux qui sont a la mode de ceux de France, ou peu s’en faut, monta en une litière couverte dedans et dehors de Satin blanc; laquelle estoit descouverte, et, dessus elle, l’on portoit un poisle de drap d’or; et apres venoient douze dames sur haquenées, lesquelles estoient toutes vestuës de drap d’or, et pareillement leurs dites haquenées garniës de mesme. Apres venoient douze Damoiselles sur haquenées toutes accoustrées de velour cramoisi. Apres venoit un Cheriot couvert de drap d’or avec son équipage de mesme. Audit Cheriot estoient seulement Madame de Norfort,⁠[180] et la mere de la Royne.⁠[181] Apres, trois Cheriots dorez ou estoient force Damoiselles; et derrière vingt ou trente autres sur haquenées vestuës de velouz noir. A l’entour de la Litière de la Royne estoit Mr. de Suffoc,⁠[182] qui pour ce jour là estoit Connestable [et le] frère de Mr. de Norfol Millor Grillam⁠[183] lequel servoit en la place de sondit frere de grand Mareschal et de grand Chambellan de ce Roiaume qui est office hereditaire. Devant eux marchoient deux hommes lesquels avoient deux grands bonnets fourrez d’hermines, quasi de la sorte du premier Huissier de Paris, lesquels l’on nommoit les Escuyers.

> “Apres estoit l’Ambassadeur de France accompagné de l’Archevesque de Canterbery.⁠[184]

> “Apres estoit celuy de Venise accompagné du Chancelier.⁠[185]

> [86]

> “Apres, plusieurs Evesques; et puis le reste des grands Seigneurs de ce Royaume, et Gentilzhommes, qui pouvoient estre environ de deux a trois cents.

> “Et devant tous, marchoient les Marchants de France vestus de velouz violet avec une manche des couleurs de la Royne, leurs chevaux encaparassonez de tafetas violet avec quelques croix blanches.

> “Par les carrefours il y avoit eschafaux ou jouoient quelques misteres, et fontaines jettans vin et par les ruës estoient tout les marchants arrangez sans bouger d’une place.”

In such procession the queen arrived at Westminster, where, after partaking of some wine, she retired to her apartments.

> “Le Dimanche, au matin,” continues the report, “accompagnée de tous lesdits Seigneurs et Gentilhommes, [ladite Dame] alla a pied depuis son logis jusques à l’Eglise; le chemin par ou elle marchoit estoit tout couvert de drap, et pouvoit contenir ledit chemin en longueur autant de fois que le Jardin de Chantilly. Tous les Evesques et Abbez allerent querir ladite Dame accoustrez de leurs Mitres et ornements Pontificaux, et la conduirent jusques a l’Eglise, et apres avoir oüy une petite Messe, elle monta sur un eschafaut que l’on lui dressa au devant du grand Autel, lequel eschafaut estoit tout couvert de drap rouge; et a l’entour du lieu ou elle estoit assize, qui estoit d’avantage eslevë de deux marches, estoit couvert de tapis veluz. Et là fut le lieu ou se tint ladicte Dame durant le service apres avoir esté couronnée par l’Archevesque de Canturbery lequel luy bailla la Couronne et la sacra tout contre le grand Autel, puis paracheva l’office et la Messe de ladicte Coronation.

> [87]

> “Et estoit pour ce jour-la Mr. de Suffoc grand Maistre, tousjours pres de ladicte Dame, avec une grande verge blanche en la main: aussi y estoient aupres ledict Milord Grillam et le grand Chambellan. Derriere ladicte Dame estoient force Dames, Duchesses et Comtesses vestuës d’escarlatte, avec manteaux fourrez d’hermines, qui sont manteaux de Duchesses et Comtesses;⁠[186] et leurs chapeaux sur la teste. Pareillement les Ducz et Comtes avec beaucoup d’autres Chevaliers estoient vestus de robes d’escarlate fourrées d’hermines, de la façon quasi des premiers Presidents de Paris, avec leurs chaperons.

> “Ladicte Coronation faicte, ladicte Dame fut conduitte comme ou venir, excepté des Evesques, en une grande salle⁠[187] qui estoit appareillée pour disner.”

There followed a long state dinner, served with great magnificence. The queen’s table was on a raised daïs. Cranmer alone, to whom she owed her final victory, is mentioned as having a seat at her table, though even he was placed “bien loing d’elle.” The greatest of the realm waited upon her in their furred robes.

> “La salle est fort grande et fut sans presse, car il y avoit fort bon ordre, Au dessoubz dudit parquet il y avoit quatre grandes tables qui contenoient la longeur de ladicte salle,⁠[188] ou du hault costé estoient ceux de ce Royaume qui ont la charge des ports,⁠[189] et au dessoubz d’eux à la mesme table force Gentilshommes: [88]a l’autre, aupres et du coste, les Archevesques, Evesques, le Chancelier, et plusieurs Comtes Chevaliers.⁠[190] Aux deux autres tables de l’autres coste de la salle, à celle du hault bout estoit le Maire de Londres accompagné de Messieurs les Eschevins: et à l’autre table estoient les Dames, Duchesses, Comtesses, et autres Dames et Damoyselles.

> “Mr. de Suffolc estoit gorgiaisement accoustré avec force pierreries et perles, sur un coursier encaparaçonné de velours cramoysi; lequel a cheval se pourmenoit par toute la salle et a l’entour des tables. Aussi pareillement faisoit le Millord Grillam, et prenoit garde au service et a l’ordre. Et estoient tousjours nuë teste comme scavez que est la coustume de ce pays. Le Roy se mist en un lieu qu’il avoit faict faire fort a propos, par ou il pouvoit veoir toute la ceremonie, et sans estre veu; ou il fit aller avec luy l’Ambassadeur de France et celuy de Venise.

> “A la porte de la salle y avoit conduicts jettents vin, et en prenoit qui vouloit. Semblablement y avoit cuisines a bailler viandes a tous venantz pour ce jour-la, et y eut une merveilleuse mangerye: trompettes et hault-boys sonnoient a chacun service, et heraulz cryoient largesse.”

The next day a grand tournament of eight against eight, conducted on the one side by Lord William Howard, on the other by Sir Nicolas Carew, Master of the Horse, terminated the festivities.⁠[191]

[89]

Such was the brilliant opening of Anne Boleyn’s short-lived triumph. But all was not so smooth as it appeared on the surface. On the 7th June, the king requested Dinteville to write to Du Bellay, as the ambassador did also to Francis I. and to the Grand Maître, to inform them of some intelligence he had received from Rome which had given him great annoyance. He had heard that it had been declared in open Consistory, on the part of the King of France, that the latter sovereign intended to resist the Lutherans in every way possible. Francis did, in fact, persecute them in his own kingdom, while making alliances, for political purposes, with their leaders in Germany. Henry declared to Dinteville that such a declaration in Consistory was sufficient to overthrow all the good intelligence they had established with Germany. In his opinion it was most ill-advised. He had but a short time before warned Francis to communicate to their common allies, the German princes, the project of the Papal interview, in order that its purport might not be mistaken. Dinteville wrote that he had never seen the king so angry.⁠[192]

Henry was in fact beginning to doubt the sincerity of the King of France. The Bailly assured him that, excepting the Medici marriage, of which Henry had been told long ago, Francis had no motive in wishing to see the Pope beyond the arrangement of the King of England’s great affair. Dinteville suspected, however, as he says in his interesting letter to the Bishop of Paris, that other causes had contributed to the king’s wrath. Henry had heard that further censures of the Church were in preparation for him. The common people of England were much attached to Katherine of Aragon; and Dinteville, like many foreigners, thought it likely they might break into open rebellion if encouraged by a Papal sentence of excommunication against the king. In his opinion, one of the wisest features of Henry’s rule was the cordiality he kept up with the leading personages of the realm. Thus, if things should come to extremes, the people would have none to lead them.

The health of the ambassador had been troubling him again, and [90]he ends his letter to Jean Du Bellay by a piteous appeal to the bishop to assist his departure from England. “Je vous promets sur ma foy,” he writes, “que si je y demores encore gueres, j’ai grand peur de y laisser la peau et les os. Jamais je ne y ai eu que huit jours de sante. Le 22 du mois qui vient⁠[193] mes six mois seront achevez, je voudrois bien qu’il pleust au Roy et a Monseigneur le grand Maistre penser et pourveoir un autre de ma place.”⁠[194]

On the last day of June he writes to announce to the King of France the death of the ex-queen Mary, sister of Henry VIII., widow of Louis XII., and wife of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk.

An event now took place which made a profound sensation at the Court of France, and threatened once more to disturb the peace of Europe. It forms but an incident, perhaps, in the long roll of history. But it echoed in the ears of contemporaries with a sinister roar, and the bitter indignation it aroused in France was not soon or lightly appeased. As a minor consequence, it probably had considerable influence on the composition of certain portions of Dinteville’s picture; and for this reason shall here be related in some detail.⁠[195]

Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan, had been one of the chief parties to the League of Cognac. That combination, it will be remembered, was directed against Charles V., and was called into existence by the French king in the first heat of his resentment, on his return from captivity. Some years later Sforza sent his Chancellor to propose to the King of France that a resident French agent should be secretly established at Milan. This step, so the Duke believed, would much conduce to the furtherance of their common interests. It was also suggested that the appointment should be bestowed on a certain Italian gentleman, named Merveilles,⁠[196] who for twenty-five years had been in the service of France, and was at present an equerry in the household [91]of Francis I. The advantage of this selection, if the matter was to be kept secret, was obvious. Merveilles, being of Milanese extraction, would not, it was thought, be an object of suspicion to the Emperor. To make security sure, however, the French emissary was to be provided with a double set of papers, in one of which the king was to recommend him to the good graces of the Duke, as though Merveilles were merely staying at Milan for the settlement of his private affairs. These papers could be shown to Charles V., should any difficulty arise. The marriage of Sforza with the Emperor’s niece, Christina,⁠[197] daughter of the King of Denmark, was just being negotiated. He was therefore doubly anxious to give Charles no cause of offence.

The Duke had probably imagined he could play off the rival sovereigns against each other. He hoped thus to strengthen the foundations of his tottering throne, on which, as he well knew, the jealous eyes of both potentates were always fixed. But he had over-calculated his strength. The Emperor got wind of the true position of Merveilles, and neither papers nor explanations sufficed to appease his wrath. Sforza was frightened, and learned too late that he could not serve two masters. Forced into a tardy choice, he sent a cynical message to the Emperor to the effect that the course of a few days would show whether his affections were fixed on France. He kept his word. Early in July the French Court was startled by the intelligence that Merveilles, on some trumped-up charge, had been thrown into prison and foully murdered at dead of night, by order of the Duke of Milan.

The King of France was furious. Did he consider, when raving over the treachery of Sforza, that, just as he had given Merveilles a double set of papers, with one of which it was intended to hoodwink the Emperor, so he had committed to the two Cardinals negotiating the Medici marriage a double set of instructions, one of which had for its object to wrest Milan from the hands of his ally, the Duke? For, as early as 1531, Francis had proposed to Clement VII., through Cardinal Grammont and the Duke of Albany, the reconquest of the [92]Duchy of Milan, as part of the secret stipulations of the marriage contract.⁠[198] These proposals had recently been repeated and accentuated, of course with the utmost secrecy, by Cardinals Grammont and Tournon at Bologna.⁠[199] The suspicions of Charles V. had been aroused by the evident eagerness of Francis for what appeared so great a mésalliance. Was Sforza made aware of the Emperor’s fears? Did he reward treachery with treachery? At any rate, the blow fell, and great was the fall of it.

Dinteville, at his post in London, must have shared the general quiver of indignation. Apart from the brutality of the crime, the insult to France in the person of her envoy, the danger of the precedent if the sacred position of ambassador could thus be lightly violated, the regret for the well-known and respected individual, were keenly felt. The King of France, by way of protest, sent despatches to all the Courts of Europe, including that of Charles V., to inform them of the outrage. The Emperor drily turned the tables on Francis by replying that he had seen the king’s letters which proved that Merveilles was only a private gentleman, and no ambassador. In due course he bestowed on Sforza, as arranged, the hand of his niece.

Thus ended in fierce hatred and discord, so far as the coveted Duchy of Milan was concerned, all that the League of Cognac, the Holy League as it had once been called, had in years gone by promised of peace and harmony. The League had indeed gone through vicissitudes enough since its formation in 1526. The Italian alliances were unstable as water, and waxed and waned with every moon. But the main trend of French policy, to keep the upper hand in Italy, and the Emperor at bay, by heading a powerful coalition of the Italian states, had remained unchanged. The compact just made between Pope and Emperor at Bologna, into which some other Italian states had been drawn, was a blow directed at French policy. But this the King of France hoped to parry by the Medici marriage. The murder of [93]Merveilles, by which the Duke of Milan definitely embraced the Imperial side, was a far more serious matter. “Je vous declare,” writes the King of France to the Bailly of Troyes, on the 16th July, “que je suis delibéré de m’en ressentir jusques au bout, et de sorte que la mémoire en demourera perpetuelle.”⁠[200]

Notwithstanding the entreaties of the Bailly of Troyes to be released from his post, his presence in England was still deemed too necessary to admit of his being replaced.

The interview of the King of France with the Pope was postponed from one month to another; the Duke of Norfolk was waiting about in France, losing his time; Henry VIII. was growing morose and distrustful. The French king, however, had no desire merely to exchange one set of allies for another. Though determined not to sacrifice his own objects with the Pope, he was ready, short of that, to do all in his power to conciliate Henry and retain his friendship. English sympathy had too often been useful to France to be lightly thrown overboard. Norfolk and his companions were therefore treated with the utmost honour. Francis proposed that they should remain at Lyons till the deferred interview could take place, and appointed to accompany them the Bishop of Paris, Vaulx, La Hargerie, and other gentlemen of standing.

In the midst of all this, urged by the Imperial party amongst the Cardinals, and unable, for his public credit, to pass over in utter silence the king’s defiance of his authority, the Pope pronounced the expected sentence of excommunication against Henry VIII. The step was taken with a faint heart, no doubt: Clement had played a double game, and was caught in his own trap. Just now, when forced to make the unwelcome move, he was especially anxious to give satisfaction to the King of France, whom he knew the step must displease. The Pope therefore hastened to soften the effect of the sentence, so far as possible, by promising that the censures should not come into force before the [94]approaching interview. On that occasion, it was hoped, some means of compromise might yet be devised. The King of England was profoundly irritated. The Dukes of Norfolk and Richmond, Lord Rochford, and other members of the party that had been sent to attend the interview, were immediately withdrawn. Had it been possible, Henry would have annulled the projected meeting of Francis and Clement altogether. The King of France once more filled the breach with soft words. He persuaded his English ally to substitute other ambassadors for those who had been recalled, urging that, for the advantage of the King of England’s cause, it was most desirable he should be represented. The Bishop of Winchester and Sir Francis Brian were appointed to attend the meeting. So well, indeed, did the French king succeed in pacifying the Duke of Norfolk, that, when the latter returned to England at the end of August, Dinteville was able to assure Francis that he had never seen the King of England in a mood of greater confidence and friendship.⁠[201] Henry’s good humour was not destined to be of long duration, but for the moment the sun shone again.

Domestic affairs just now claimed an unusual amount of his attention. On the 7th of September the future Queen Elizabeth was born at the palace of Greenwich. Much correspondence passed on this occasion between Dinteville and the King of France, who had promised to act as godfather had the child been a boy. Henry’s disappointment on this score was keen; doubly so because the position of the infant princess at once entered into competition with that of Princess Mary, the daughter of Katherine of Aragon. A question was thus raised which the birth of a son would have immediately disposed of.

At about the same time the French king sent a letter to convey to Dinteville the long-coveted permission to return to his own country.

“Monsieur le Bailly,”⁠[202] writes Francis, “congnoissant très-bien le [95]long temps qu’il y a que vous estes pardela, et qu’il est très-raisonable que vous faciez un tour chez vous, pour pourveoir et donner ordre a vos affaires, je vous ay bien voulu accorder vostre congé pour vous en venir quant bon vous semblera; et envoye en vostre lieu le Sieur de Castillon, gentilhomme de ma Chambre, porteur de ceste.”⁠[203]

As a matter of fact, however, the new ambassador, Castillon, did not arrive in England, and the letter was probably not delivered, until the second week in November. The period of the Papal interview was at last approaching; and it was, no doubt, thought desirable that Dinteville should remain at his post till that event had taken place. The blandishments with which Clement and Francis had endeavoured to pacify Henry would then be put to the severe test of fact. It would be seen how much the king might hope to reap of the promises which had been so freely sown. And Francis perhaps felt that the result was likely to put a very severe strain on the already weakened friendship between him and his “good brother.”

Dinteville, who was in favour with Henry VIII.—several of his letters at about this time are dated from Greenwich, where he was the king’s guest—was, no doubt, considered more likely to bring things to a good issue than a stranger coming fresh to so delicate a task.

Early in October he was able to inform the King of France that a truce had been concluded for one year between the Kings of England and Scotland. This was chiefly due to the efforts of the Bailly of Troyes, on the one hand, and of Beauvais on the other; and certainly reflected some credit on their diplomacy.

Before the middle of the month the Pope had at length arrived at Marseilles. He was received with all due ceremony by the King of France. Mutual efforts were made, by Francis on behalf of Henry VIII., by Clement on that of Charles V., to pave the way for a further understanding; but in each case without success. The Pope briefly [96]excused himself as to the King of England’s affair, by saying he had left the papers concerning it at Rome, and that it was therefore idle to discuss it further for the present.⁠[204] The main object of the meeting was in fact the marriage between Henri, Duke of Orleans, and Catherine de’ Medici. On neither side was there any intention of wrecking the policy of which that union was the expression by insistence on the demands of importunate friends.

The contract was drawn up on the 27th October. It contained an agreement that the Duchy of Milan should be reconquered by the French king at the end of eighteen months. Urbino was to be reduced at the joint expense of the contracting parties. Two hundred thousand crowns were to constitute the dowry, and the Pope was to cede to the French Parma and Piacenza.⁠[205]

It seems wonderful that it should have been worth while to go these lengths for such a bubble. Francis, whose practical astuteness was always outbalanced by his fervid imagination where Italy was concerned, no doubt saw himself already master of the Peninsula. The Pope had completely outwitted him.

The King of England entered an indignant protest against the proceedings at Marseilles. He told Dinteville to write and say that, whereas it had been agreed that the settlement of his affairs should take precedence of the Medici marriage, Francis had sacrificed him completely to the alliance with the Pope. The Bailly of Troyes felt that the relations between the two kings had now reached a pitch not far removed from breaking-point. On the repetition of Henry’s reproaches he therefore replied with some spirit that he had rather be the poorest gentleman in France than convey such expressions to the king his master; that he had not come to England to transmit words that would diminish friendship, and that he implored the king to carry such observations no further. These representations seem to have produced some effect, for Henry thereupon turned to Castillon, who had just [97]arrived, and had that day been presented at Court, remarking curtly that he was aware it was necessary each should endure the other.

Dinteville’s memorandum of this scene adds the characteristic postscript:⁠[206] “Nota, que souvent le Roy après ses coleres m’a bien dict qu’il m’estimoit tel que je ne dirois ny escriprois chose qui diminuast amitié entre eux, et souvent m’ont prié ceux de son Conseil de mesme.”⁠[207]

The term of his residence in England at length drew to a close. Two last letters he wrote early in November, respectively addressed to the king and Grand-Maître, begging to know what reply was deemed most suitable to Henry’s complaints and reproaches. In the absence of exact instructions, he could only continue to administer such soothing words as his ready wit might devise, which in the face of accomplished facts naturally lost much of their force.

On the 11th November, 1533, the grant is recorded which permitted “Mons. de Dintevilla, bailly de Troes, ambassador to the French king,” to “pass beyond sea, with his servants, baggage, etc., and to convey out of the realm horses, mules and mulettes, to the number of twenty-six.”⁠[208] A week later, on the 18th November, Dinteville set his face towards France.⁠[209]

Although the nature of the times was such that he left the alliance between England and France cooler than he found it, his official career as an ambassador was accounted a success. The fault did not lie at his door. Given the difficult and exacting temper of the king with whom he had to deal, and the slippery insincerity of his own master, it was creditable to have prevented an open rupture between the two sovereigns. Personally he was liked by Henry VIII., and the tact and skill with which he met the king’s surly moods caused him to be employed in England more than once subsequently on short diplomatic errands. His courage stood him in as good stead as his courtesy.⁠[210] “Je priay [98]audit Sieur de Norsfort et a aucuns qui me semblent estre des principaux du Conseil de cedit Sieur Roy,” he writes in his last letter to Montmorency from England, “qu’ils donnassent a entendre au Roy leur maistre ... que l’on peut bien tant presser et fascher son amy que l’on s’en fait importun.” Before leaving, he intends to declare these things to the king himself, “car je doubte que Messieurs de son conseil ausquels j’en ay parlé ne luy en osent dire si hardiment tel advis comme je feray....”⁠[211]

The gist of it all was that a political alliance can only last so long as the contracting parties are bound together by common interests. The friendship flickered on intermittently for some time. But the aims of England and France had now taken widely divergent paths.

It is not here possible to do more than touch upon the mass of letters written and received by the Bailly of Troyes during his stay in England. Besides the regular official correspondence with the King of France, the Grand-Maître, and the Bishop of Paris, much of which is printed in the collection of Camusat, he received friendly letters from the Queen of Navarre; from the young Duke of Angoulême (his special charge); from Philippe de Chabot, High Admiral of France; Beauvais, French ambassador in Scotland; Claude Dodieu, Sieur de Vély, who occupied a similar position at the court of the Emperor;⁠[212] Oudart du Biez, Governour of Boulogne, who forwarded his posts for him; Breton, secretary to Francis I., and doubtless many others whose names have not been preserved.⁠[213]

[99]

### CHAPTER V
Short Missions of the Bailly of Troyes to England in 1535, 1536 and 1537

On arriving in France, the Bailly of Troyes hurried to Lyons to join the king on his return from the interview with the Pope.⁠[214] Francis was on his way to Bar-le-Duc, there to meet the Landgrave of Hesse, and to conclude with him a treaty in support of the exiled Duke of Wurtemberg in opposition to the Emperor.⁠[215]

On the way north, the royal party, which consisted of the king and queen, the dauphin, the Duke and Duchess of Orleans, the Duke of Angoulême, the two young princesses, Madeleine and Marguerite, George d’Amboise, Cardinal Legate, the Chancellor Duprat, and other notabilities, made a triumphal entry into Troyes.⁠[216] Great festivities attended this function, conducted no doubt by the Bailly in his official position.

The city of Troyes was well suited to an occasion of the kind. A traveller, who described it later in the century, represents it as a clean and beautiful town, one of the most delightful in France; closely built within the fortified walls, yet having such wide straight streets that there was space to see on all sides its rich and splendid edifices, public [100]and private; amongst which the cathedral of St. Pierre was considered one of the finest churches in France.⁠[217]

Not long after these events Dinteville probably visited his cousin at Chantilly, in accordance with an invitation he had received from Montmorency shortly before leaving England. The records are silent as to his further proceedings in the interval which elapsed before his next visit to England. It is tolerably safe to infer that the larger part of it was spent at Court. Apart from his duties in connection with the Duke of Angoulême, the greater familiarity of tone in a letter addressed to him by Francis I. when on his next diplomatic errand, speaks clearly of increased intimacy and confidence.

The object of this mission, which took place in the autumn of 1535, was to convey to Henry VIII. the brief addressed to the French king by Pope Paul III.,⁠[218] in consequence of the execution of Fisher and More. In this letter Paul demanded that Francis should break off his friendship with the King of England, and be prepared to make war upon him at any moment the Pope might require. The King of France returned a temporizing answer to this peremptory request.⁠[219] Nevertheless, so urgent did he consider the case, that he despatched the Bailly of Troyes to England in all possible haste, bidding him dislodge at midnight and use extreme diligence. After all some delay occurred on the way, and Dinteville only landed in England after the middle of September.⁠[220]

The circumstances which led to this summary action on the part of the Pope were as follows:

John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas More, had been sent to the Tower for refusing to subscribe to the Act of Supremacy, passed in November, 1534. By this Act Henry VIII. was declared [101]Supreme Head of the Church in England, and the last vestiges of Papal authority in this kingdom were abolished. The new Pope, Paul III., had the indiscretion, at this delicate juncture, to bestow a cardinal’s hat upon the imprisoned bishop.

The fate of the two captives had been trembling in the balance. The Pope’s action immediately sealed it. The prisoners were once more called upon to subscribe to the Act, and, having again failed to comply, were condemned to death. The aged Fisher was led to the scaffold in June, 1535. The noble head of Sir Thomas More fell beneath the executioner’s axe early in the following month.

The news of these executions was everywhere received with horror and consternation. The infuriated Pope instantly prepared a Bull of deposition against Henry VIII., the publication of which was for the moment suspended by the intercession of the French king.

But Francis had no intention of bestowing his good offices gratis. Besides the communication of the brief, the Bailly was instructed to make various demands of the King of England, no doubt as the price at which the French king expected his mediation to be bought.

> “Bailly,” thus familiarly begins a letter addressed by Francis I. to Dinteville soon after the departure of the latter for England, “outre la charge que je vous ay dernièrement donnée à vostre partement, de parler au Roy d’Angleterre du faict de la contribution, je veux que vous lui teniez propos, que si d’adventure l’Empereur me vouloit courir sus, et me ayant faict armer et équipper grossement comme je pourraye estre, et ... pour ne perdre l’occasion et ladicte despence, je la veuille employer au recouvrement de mon Estat et Duché de Milan, Seigneurie de Gennes et Conté d’Ast ... que, en ce cas, ledict Sieur Roy d’Angleterre sera tenu de contribuer jusques à la tierce partie de la despence qui je seray contraint de faire pour l’entretenement de madicte armée. Et ne faillez de tenir royde cela,” continues this curious document, “en façon que ledict Sieur Roy vous accorde ce que dessus.”⁠[221]

[102]

In case Henry should ask what his share of the profit was to be if he consented to this arrangement, Dinteville was to reply that the principal cause which moved the King of France to assemble the said army was for Henry’s defence and preservation!⁠[222]

The “contribution” mentioned no doubt referred to the terms of a treaty aimed against Charles V., which had been signed by the two kings when La Pommeraye was ambassador to England, in the spring of 1532.⁠[223] They had thereby bound themselves, amongst other conditions, to supply a given number of men to each other’s armies, under certain contingencies. But no money aid was included in the stipulations of that treaty, and this was what Francis now sought to obtain.

Of those personal details which lend colour and variety to the monotonous narrative of official life, few have survived of the Bailly’s visit to England in 1535.

A glimpse we catch of him, in a letter written by his friend, the Duke of Norfolk, riding by way of Kingston and Cobham to Winchester, where the king was now staying to avoid the sickness which had broken out in London. Norfolk himself had been hastily summoned by Cromwell to join the deliberations at Winchester. Stephen Gardiner, bishop of that see, who was about to be despatched to France with the answer to Dinteville’s proposals, no doubt took part in them also.⁠[224]

An expedition, of which a few more details have been preserved, was undertaken jointly by the Bailly of Troyes and Bishop of Tarbes,⁠[225] now the resident French ambassador in England. The ostensible object was to see the little Princess Elizabeth. Queen Anne, it appears, had frequently invited Castelnau to pay this visit. He had hesitated, however, to fulfil the behest until encouraged by Dinteville, who urged it as a possible means of obtaining an interview with Princess Mary. This point the ambassadors had much at heart just [103]now. They were full of a scheme for marrying that princess to the Dauphin. To judge by a long paper of memoranda, apparently addressed to Dinteville to assist his memory when reporting in France, the Bishop of Tarbes was the originator of the plan.

The Frenchmen did not, however, succeed in their object of speaking to Princess Mary. They declared, which Chapuys records but did not believe, that the unfortunate princess was not only a captive in her chamber, but that the windows were nailed up through which she might have been seen. Chapuys thought she had voluntarily retired to her own room to conceal her annoyance at their visit to her sister, of the real explanation of which she was of course unaware.⁠[226] But the report of the Bishop of Tarbes, in the memoranda above referred to, is too circumstantial to admit of doubt that she was forbidden to speak to the ambassadors, although it says nothing of the excessive tyranny of closed-up windows.

> ⁠[227]“... Vous scavez le tumulte qui fut entre sa Gouvernante et elle,” so runs the minute, “quant nous fusmes veoir sa petite seur, et qu’il nous a esté dict qu’elle fust mise comme par force dans sa chambre, pour qu’elle ne parlast à nous, et qu’il ne fut possible de la rapaiser et contenir dedans sa chambre, que le Gentilhomme qui nous menoit ne luy eust premierement asseuré, que le Roy son pere luy avoit commandé de luy dire qu’elle ne se montrast point cepandant que nous serions la.”⁠[228]

In the second week of October the Bailly started on his return to France. He left not very well satisfied, apparently, with the results of his mission. Gardiner had not yet been despatched to France; and Dinteville was quite uncertain what measure of success might have been attained.

“Though he is very discreet,” says Chapuys, alluding to Dinteville, [104]“he forgot himself so far as to say that the question discussed at Paris, whether a prince could be deprived for heresy and infidelity, could apply to no one but the King of England; and he judged him deserving of deprivation according to the decision of the question.”⁠[229]

The horror aroused by the execution of such men as More and Fisher was in fact driving Henry’s best friends into the opposite camp. But neither in France had things stood still. The placards posted by the Reformers against Mass, in 1534, had been answered by a bloody persecution early in 1535, which was still fresh in men’s minds. The two parties in religion were dividing off. Those among the French Roman Catholics who had hoped to avert a schism by opening wide the arms of tolerance to the new opinions, were beginning to see that the foundations of the conflict lay deeper than they had expected. It was not enough, in France, to make common cause against dissolute monks. It was certainly not enough, in England, to measure the power of the Reformation by the matrimonial vagaries of Henry VIII.

Evidently the Bailly of Troyes had hoped to obtain the money contribution sought by Francis, in bare cash. But Henry, as can be seen from his instructions to Gardiner, only offered to deduct it from the pensions due to him from France, as part-payment.⁠[230] Of the projected marriage for Princess Mary, those instructions breathe not one word.

Another factor shortly arose, which once more shuffled the cards of European diplomacy. The death of Katherine of Aragon in January, 1536, removed the stumbling-block which had so long stood in the way of amicable relations between Henry VIII. and Charles V. The change of position was at once felt on both sides. It was now the Emperor’s turn, as a token of rapprochement, to hinder publication of the Pope’s Bull of Privation. On Henry’s part, the altered state of things was quickly apparent in his desire to act as a neutral, or even as a mediator, in the quarrel between France and the Empire. Those powers were now in a state of open rupture.

Early in the year 1536 the French forces invaded Piedmont, and [105]the Court moved to Lyons in order to be nearer to the seat of war. Here the English ambassadors, the Bishop of Winchester and Sir John Wallop, exchanged some diplomatic subtleties with the Bailly of Troyes on the delicate political situation which had arisen between England and France.⁠[231]

In April, 1536, the anxiety of the French king grew so great lest Henry should lend a willing ear to Imperial advances, that he once more despatched the Bailly of Troyes to England “to open unto us,” said Henry VIII., “the bottom of his heart.” The French were afraid that the King of England might back out of the half-hearted concessions of the previous year.

But Dinteville did not arrive as soon as was expected; and Henry, waiting to reply to proposals made by the Emperor, grew impatient. Excuses were proffered to him that the Bailly had fallen ill on the road, to account for the delay. In point of fact, the storm which preceded the trial and execution of Anne Boleyn had just burst; and Dinteville, judging this an unpropitious moment for the success of his mission, feigned illness to gain time.⁠[232] He was too experienced a diplomatist not to know the value of choosing his opportunity. At last postponement could be pushed no further, and he arrived in England on the 17th May, just in time to intercede in vain for his friend, young Weston, who was beheaded on the following day.

On the 19th Queen Anne Boleyn was executed within the Tower of London. A contrast, indeed, to the brilliant scenes at which Dinteville had assisted hardly three years before!

If Chapuys is correct in his account of a conversation between himself and Henry VIII. touching the demands made by the representatives of France,⁠[233] the Bailly had not been far wrong in believing that he should find the English king unfavourably disposed. “He could not well say,” so Henry is reported to have spoken, “for what [106]the Bailiff of Troyes had come, for his commission was so vain and ill-founded that it was a shame; and that he would engage that the Bailly could not tell distinctly what charge he had; and that formerly the Bailiff had appeared to him a man of good judgment and experience, but now he found him quite otherwise.”⁠[234]

To this Chapuys craftily replied that “he thought it might be the fault of the matter, and not of the person, that had given him such an opinion of the Bailiff.”

But Henry was not to be thus pacified. He insisted that both causes concurred; and added a good deal more to the same effect. A subsequent letter throws more light on the king’s meaning. The young Duke of Angoulême had now been substituted for the dauphin in the project of a marriage for Princess Mary. The plan was evidently near the Bailly’s heart, and he urged it with proportionate warmth. But the king “doubted whether he had any commission to speak” of it,⁠[235] and consequently met the overtures of the ambassador with much irritation. Nevertheless the pourparlers on the subject of this alliance continued for some months, with much earnestness on the French side. La Pommeraye was specially sent over in November to speed the cause. The Imperialists, meanwhile, were urging with equal eagerness a union between Princess Mary and Don Loys of Portugal.⁠[236]

A letter from Cromwell to the English ambassadors in France conclusively reveals, however, the first and paramount object of the Bailly’s mission of 1536. Cromwell classed its objects under two heads. The first, probably a mere pretext, related to the summoning of a general Council. The second—and this was the true aim—was to know the king’s determination concerning the desired contribution.⁠[237] Here then was the real gist of the matter. Did Henry mean to disappoint the hopes he had raised the previous summer? If so, how far was the Emperor responsible for the change? And if the good understanding [107]with Charles had really brought about this result, was it worth while for the King of France to exert himself further to maintain the fiction of friendship with England? Such questions were keenly exercising the minds of French politicians.

The answer of the King of England was extremely diplomatic. “As he perceived an inclination both in the Emperor and the French king to refer their quarrel to his arbitration, he thought the appointment of any such contribution at this time would make him an unmeet umpire between them.”⁠[238] With this reply the Frenchmen had to be content. On the 9th July Dinteville arrived in Lyons on his return from England.⁠[239] He had not left, however, until he had promised a pension to Cromwell, in the hope of attuning him favourably to French interests.⁠[240]

An event now took place which closely touched the Dinteville family, and perhaps was remembered against them unjustly when the days of their adversity fell upon them.

In the month of August, 1536, the Dauphin François met his death from the effects of drinking a glass of iced water when heated with a game of tennis. The idea that he had been poisoned at once arose, and suspicion fell on his Italian equerry, Count Sebastiano di Montecuculli. This unfortunate man was put to torture in order to extract from him the names of supposed confederates. In his agony, after first accusing of complicity the Imperial generals, he went on to state that he had communicated to Guillaume de Dinteville, Seigneur Deschenetz, both at Turin and at Susa, a further design to poison the King of France. Deschenetz, who was a gallant soldier, and had been employed by that king on various military duties in Italy, was happily able to clear himself. Indeed, most modern historians doubt the truth of the accusation against Montecuculli himself, which was supported by no vestige of evidence. The unhappy victim was, however, condemned [108]to a cruel death, which he suffered at Lyons in the month of October. But before the capital sentence was carried out he was ordered to make “amende honorable” to Deschenetz. Bareheaded and barefoot, clad only in his shirt, and holding in his hands a lighted torch, he was conducted round the square of St. Jean at Lyons, confessing in a loud voice that the accusation brought by him against the Frenchman was an untruth. Ten thousand livres were further awarded to the latter from the property of the Count, which was declared confiscated to the King of France.⁠[241]

The year 1537 was memorable in English history for the efforts made by Cardinal Pole to incite the people to rebellion in favour of the Pope. The insurrection which had blazed in the north of England had hardly been subdued, when the newly-made cardinal, armed with full Papal authority, made his way northwards from Rome to endeavour to rekindle its flames. How signal was Pole’s failure is well known. But as his machinations formed the occasion of the fifth and, so far as we know, the last mission of the Bailly of Troyes to England, it will be well just to touch upon them here. No words better sum up the situation of the moment than those used by Francis I. in the instructions delivered to the Bailly of Troyes “de ce qu’il aura a dire et declarer au Roy d’Angleterre”:

> ⁠[242] ... “Le Pape a crée en consistoire Legat, le Cardinal Poule, Anglois, non-seulement en Angleterre mais en tous les lieux ou il luy conviendra a passer pour y aller ... en intention que ou ledit Roy d’Angleterre ne se voudroit reduire par l’amyable à l’obeissance de l’Eglise Romaine et du Sainct Siege, de faire delivrer audict Cardinal par la voye des Marchans une bonne somme d’argent pour donner secours au peuple contre ledict Roy, affin de le contraindre de venir a la dicte obeissance par le moyen de la force....”

[109]

The King of France thinks it right to warn his good brother of this danger, and asks Henry to let him know privately whether he, Francis, can do anything for him or for the good of his affairs.⁠[243]

In reply, Henry VIII. begged Francis to arrest the Cardinal on his way through France. In case this should be refused, and that Pole should escape to the Netherlands, Gardiner, to whom the orders are addressed, is immediately to forward a similar request to the Queen-Regent of those countries.⁠[244]

The French king made answer that Pole had entered his dominions with a safe-conduct. He was still too uneasy, however, lest Henry should declare himself for the Imperial side to venture to thwart him completely. He therefore warned the Cardinal Legate to leave French territory within ten days. Expelled from France, Pole betook himself to Flanders, only to find that the Regent Mary, equally anxious to conciliate England, declined to receive him at her court. Finally he took refuge with Cardinal La Marck, at Liége; whence, after a useless sojourn of some months, the Pope recalled him to Rome.

The English Channel, owing to the war between France and the Low Countries, was at this time bristling with Flemish boats, on the look-out for any desirable French quarry that might pass between the two shores. Rumours had apparently got about of the Bailly’s approaching departure from England, for he was not allowed to make the transit without encountering an unpleasant adventure. Sir Francis Brian had been entrusted by Henry with the task of communicating to the French king his reply to the message brought by Dinteville; and it seems to have been arranged that Brian should cross the Channel slightly in advance of the departing Frenchman. At any rate, at six o’clock in the morning of the 8th of April, Sir Francis arrived at Dover; and, the tide being favourable a couple of hours later, he set sail for Calais. He intended to prepare the way for Dinteville though the English territory [110]in France by ordering him post-horses; these animals being just then scarce. But the Bailly, who had arrived at Dover on the previous day, had snuffed danger in the orders sent beforehand by Brian, that no man was to be allowed to cross the Channel until his arrival. What the motive of these orders was, it is impossible now to guess. Some intrigue seems to have been afoot, which made each envoy desire to be the first to gain the ear of the French king, who was close by in Picardy. But Dinteville was determined not to be outwitted, and took his own measures accordingly. A “busy friar,” one Jean du Pont, by his name a Frenchman, seems to have lent him a willing hand, to the acute chagrin of Thomas Winkfield, comptroller of the king’s works at Dover. A ship had been duly prepared for the Bailly of Troyes, but the start had been postponed in accordance with Brian’s orders. Du Pont thereupon “caused a boat to be made ready without knowledge of either the mayor, bailiff, or me” (so many dignitaries did it require in those days for an ambassador to put to sea!), “and before Mr. Brian was aboard the bailly of Troy was under sail for Boulogne.”⁠[245] Sir Francis Brian continues the story in a letter to Cromwell:

> “Seeing the said bailiff would not take the ship that was prepared for him, and as I suppose thinking by the waye to prevent me,⁠[246] he took thother passenger that lay in the Rode, and went straight to Bollene. When half-way across we saw two little pinckes⁠[247] come from the French coast towards the bailiff’s ship, one made north-east and the other north-west and so they chased him. Our mariners said they were Flemings who had waited there three or four days. Having no news of him, I fear he is taken.”⁠[248]

It is provoking not to hear the end of this exciting scene. But perhaps the very silence of the records points to the conclusion that Dinteville escaped his pursuers and made good his landing at Boulogne.

UNNAMED DRAWING BY HOLBEIN IN THE WINDSOR COLLECTION, SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT JEAN DE DINTEVILLE.

[111]

### CHAPTER VI
Disgrace and Return to Favour of the Dinteville Family

With the mission of 1537 the Bailly of Troyes vanishes from the arena of public affairs. How the following year and a half were spent, there is nothing to show. At the end of that time a cloud broke which for some years overwhelmed his fortunes and those of his brothers.

The chief offender seems to have been the youngest brother, Gaucher, Seigneur of Vanlay and Thennelières, though it is difficult to differentiate between him and Guillaume, Seigneur Deschenetz, who was implicated in the same disaster. What their crime was does not appear very clearly, beyond that they were accused of some form of high treason, involving, according to their enemies, a design upon the life of the king. That the whole story was a fabrication set afloat by evil-wishers, that at any rate against the Bishop of Auxerre, the Bailly of Troyes and probably also Deschenetz, there was no particle of incriminating evidence, seems more than probable, to judge by the course of subsequent events. But none the less it is certain that three out of the four brothers had to fly from France towards the end of 1538, and likely that even the Bailly was associated with the early stages of their flight. One account states indeed that the sentence of banishment issued by the angry king reached Jean de Dinteville at Polisy, and hardly allowed him time to get across the frontier within the prescribed interval, so stringent were its terms.⁠[249]

[112]

Almost every family document relating to the period of disgrace appears to have been intentionally destroyed. All that is known has to be gleaned from scattered allusions in State papers, or in documents of a later date, when fortune once more smiled upon the family at Polisy.⁠[250] From this fragmentary information it appears that Anne de Pisseleu, Duchesse d’Etampes, whose ascendency over Francis I. was now becoming more and more complete, was the avowed enemy of the Dinteville brothers, and permitted no opportunity to slip, by which she might hope to compass their ruin. The reason of her enmity was not difficult to gauge. The French Court was divided into two parties, each filled with bitter animosity towards the other. The King and Madame d’Etampes stood on one side; the Dauphin⁠[251] and Diane de Poitiers on the other.⁠[252] The Dinteville family, as we know, had been attached to the sons of Francis I. since their earliest youth. Deschenetz had been the governor of the new Dauphin; and Vanlay, although in early days connected with the deceased Dauphin François, had by his own words spent many years in the service of his successor.⁠[253] Francis I. was jealous of his heir, and harboured increasing suspicions of his son’s loyalty. It is easy to imagine how skilfully these cards were played by Madame d’Etampes, who saw in the Dauphin’s friends the party of the future, and, in their triumph, her own ultimate downfall.

[113]

The manœuvres of an ambitious and unscrupulous priest completed the catalogue of unfortunate circumstances that were made to tell against the brothers. This man, by name Pierre de Mareuil, used the influence he had obtained over the Duchesse d’Etampes to further his own unworthy objects. Just now he was endeavouring to secure his footing on the episcopal ladder by the overthrow of Francis, Bishop of Auxerre. The Bailly of Troyes, indeed, regarded Mareuil as the author of all the calamities which overtook his house.⁠[254]

Montmorency, whom, two years later, temporary eclipse was to befall from the same quarter and partially the same causes—for he also stood on friendly terms with the Dauphin—either could not or would not protect his cousins. He acted against them with a vehemence which suggests that he either shared the suspicions of their guilt or entertained fears for his own safety. So far as Jean de Dinteville was concerned, no reflection seems ever to have been made upon his loyalty to the throne. His past services had been too conspicuous and spoke for themselves. Besides this, his attachment to Charles, now Duke of Orleans, was well known; and as this prince was not on specially good terms with the Dauphin, it would have been absurd to suppose Dinteville capable of committing treason in favour of the elder brother. His flight was simply made necessary by the disgrace which had overtaken his relations. Three of the brothers certainly made good their escape to Venice, but whether the Bailly accompanied them as far as Italy seems doubtful. There is no hint in any authentic document of his presence there with them. Had he been permitted, when the first outburst of royal wrath had subsided, to return quietly to Polisy, there to await better days? It would almost seem so. A letter written by Claude de Lorraine, Duke of Guise, to Montmorency, from Dijon, probably in the early spring of 1539, speaks of only two brothers (obviously Deschenetz and Vanlay), whom, in deference to orders from the Connétable, he promises to arrest should they appear on French soil. He also thanks Montmorency for the gift “de la terre des [114]Chenets,” in case it should be confiscated.⁠[255] The letters of Grignan, French ambassador at Rome, tell the same story. Only the Bishop of Auxerre and his two youngest brothers are mentioned in them. Of the Bailly there is never one word.

As though exile were not bad enough, it was aggravated in the case of Vanlay with a deep additional sting. Before the storm had burst he had quarrelled with his cousin, Jean du Plessis, “the young Savonnières.”⁠[256] The latter had incurred Vanlay’s wrath by some slighting remark. According to Du Plessis’ account, Vanlay consequently repaired to his room early one morning, accompanied by five armed men, and forced Du Plessis to sign a paper by which he took back the insulting observation. Du Plessis, furious at this act of coercion, demanded the king’s permission to challenge Vanlay to a duel. It does not redound to the credit of a king who prided himself upon his chivalrous qualities, nor to that of the young Savonnières himself, that permission was only granted, perhaps only asked, at a time when Vanlay was forbidden, under penalty of death, to set foot on French territory. The king’s mandate, which accompanied Du Plessis’ challenge, signified that the duel was to be fought in the royal presence wherever the Court might be on the 1st January, 1539. No safe-conduct was offered to the exile. The choice therefore presented to Vanlay was either to put his head into the lion’s mouth by returning to France, a course probably tantamount to death, or to incur the deep stain to his honour of neglecting the challenge. He was thus caught in a complete trap. Perhaps the infliction of this mortification was the real object of the defiance, as it only reached him at Venice, forwarded by his mother from Polisy, eleven days before the date fixed for the combat. Under the best of circumstances it would have been difficult for him to get back in time.

In his despair Vanlay appealed to the Dauphin, setting forth in a [115]long letter the reasons which made it impossible for him to respond to the summons. He begs that a neutral place may be appointed where he can go in safety of his life. He will then thankfully accept the opportunity offered to him of clearing his honour.⁠[257]

In the end he retaliated by appointing his own rendezvous in Italy. On the non-appearance of Du Plessis he proceeded to bestow on the arms of the latter the same treatment which had been meted to his own in France. What that treatment was shall now be told.

On the appointed day the King of France, accompanied by the princes and princesses and lords and ladies of the Court, took up his position to await the spectacle of the combat. Vanlay having failed to appear, as was of course foreseen, the king ordered his arms to be torn from the pavilion on which they were emblazoned, and broken in pieces; after which they were dragged through the streets of Paris.⁠[258] Such was the vengeance wreaked by Francis on a banished servant, who had once enjoyed his highest confidence.

The Dinteville brothers had many acquaintances in Italy. The early sojourn of the Bishop of Auxerre at Padua, his subsequent residence at Rome, and the military missions of the two younger brothers to La Mirandola and other Italian centres, appeared to assure to them a sufficiency of friends in the land of their exile. The presence of a French princess at Ferrara, who made her Court the home of all needy countrymen, offered yet another refuge in case of necessity.⁠[259] They were not long permitted to enjoy these consolations. It is easy to gather from a letter from Grignan to Montmorency, written in April, 1539, the colours in which Vanlay had been painted to the French ambassador at Rome.⁠[260] He was reaping now the bitter fruit of having been unable to accept the French challenge, in addition to the harvest [116]of ignominy heaped upon him by the king. If, as seems probable, he was innocent of the capital charge, he was indeed an injured man.

Not content with the severe measures already taken against the brothers, Francis I. now procured their banishment from the dominions of the Emperor, and from Venice, Mantua, and Ferrara. The fugitives took refuge at Rome. Here again the king’s arm overtook them, and the Pope was angrily called upon to exile them in like manner. The Bishop of Auxerre had sought to interest several of the Cardinals on behalf of himself and his brothers, in order to obtain permission to remain on Papal territory. But Paul III. dared not, if he would, give displeasure to the King of France. The next notice, a few months later, shows that Deschenetz and Vanlay had been at Bologna, but had left it again; while the Bishop of Auxerre was reported to be at Naples.⁠[261]

And here the curtain falls on the movements of the exiles. Hunted from place to place, in danger of their lives had they risked showing themselves in any of the forbidden states, the only hope of these once prosperous men lay in silence and concealment. Where did they next seek shelter? There is no word to tell.

Three years pass away. Once more the curtain rises; and, if the opening scene is not without shadows, it shows at least a promise of brighter days. The facts to be related have the additional interest of resting on Jean de Dinteville’s own narrative.⁠[262]

In the summer of 1542, France being again at war with Spain, Charles, Duke of Orleans, undertook the conquest of the Duchy of Luxemburg. On his way thither he halted for about a fortnight at Joinville and at Montier-sur-Saulx. The Bailly of Troyes was in attendance upon the duke, who was a faithful friend to him. The king was also of the party; and Dinteville seized the opportunity to endeavour, through the mediation of Admiral de Brion, to obtain the restitution to his brother François of the see of Auxerre and of the abbeys [117]of Montier-la-Celle and Montier-Aramey. The revenue of these benefices had been seized three years before, when the bishop had been forced to fly. Pierre de Mareuil, who had become the unworthy successor of George de Selve in the bishopric of Lavaur,⁠[263] had, thanks to the influence of Madame d’Etampes, managed to get charge of the see of Auxerre during the bishop’s exile. He had appropriated or sold for his own benefit the costly furniture belonging to François de Dinteville; he had instituted his own creatures into various offices; he had taken possession of the rich abbeys held by the banished prelate. It was in vain that the Bailly of Troyes represented these facts. The ascendency of Madame d’Etampes over the king’s mind was too great to admit of any counter influence. Mareuil had secured that lady’s suffrage by presenting to her all or parts of a “chapelle d’or et argent doré, garnie de pierreries,” belonging to François de Dinteville, which Mareuil had removed from the Cathedral of Auxerre. Portions of this splendid “chapelle” had been seen by Madame Du Bellay and other friends of the Dinteville brothers in the possession of Madame d’Etampes. They comprised “ung reliquaire d’or garny de pierres precieuses; ung aultre d’argent doré garny de semblables pierres; ung aultre reliquaire d’argent emaillé de bleu, auquel y a une longue et grande pierre appelée lapis lazulli entaillée des misteres de la passion.”⁠[264] Reinstatement would of course mean restitution of stolen goods. Here, then, was motive enough for the lady’s antagonism, apart from all other causes.

Dinteville saw that the situation was too strong for him, and resolved to compromise. Such a man as the new Bishop of Lavaur could only be dealt with by a bribe. The Bailly of Dijon, Monsieur de Villiers les Potz, who was acting on behalf of Dinteville and Madame de Brion, advised him to sacrifice one of his brother’s abbeys. The Bishop of Auxerre, who had returned to France by the king’s permission, was at two leagues distance, “n’ousant s’approcher de la [118]court.” He was consulted on the point, but wished, before replying, to discuss the matter with the Admiral. A quick decision was, however, imperative. Mareuil, seeing his position imperilled, was again stirring up Madame d’Etampes. So well had he succeeded, that she had almost gone off then and there to speak to the king. Fortunately her purpose was frustrated by good friends of the Dinteville family near at hand. Mademoiselle de Théligny,⁠[266] the daughter of their old acquaintance Madame de Montreuil, was in the castle. A hurried note reached Dinteville, “Depeschez-vous d’appointer et contenter cest homme, car il a mis ceste femme en collere contre Monsieur d’Aucerre.” The rest of the story is so curious that it shall be told in Dinteville’s own words:

> ⁠[265]“... Le lendemain, ladicte Damoyselle de Thelligny et Madame de Brou sa seur, s’en vindrent disner avec moi au logis de feu⁠[267] monseigneur d’Orleans. Lesquelles toutes deux me dirent qu’il failloit s’accorder avecques ledict sieur de Lavaur, et que madame d’Estampes s’estoit fort courroucé lorsque ledict sieur de Lavaur vint parler à elle en la chambre ou elle jouoit, et disoit que nous n’estions pas encores ou nous cuydions.... Quoy voyant, je congneuz bien qu’il estoit force de passer par la.⁠[268] Et le lendemain ou le jour mesme (ne scay lequel) je m’en allay trouver ledict sieur de Lavaur en son logis, en une petite chambre basse, où se trouva ledict sieur bailly de Dijon ... et quelques aultres ...; et diz telz motz ou semblables audict Monsieur de Lavaur:

> [119]

> “‘Monsieur, mes amys m’ont faict entendre que ma dame d’Estampes a tenu depuis deux jours quelques maulvays propos de Monsieur d’Aucerre et de mes frères. Par quoy plus tost que de retourner et rentrer en la malle grace du Roy, nous aymerions mieulx perdre et quitter tous noz biens. Vous scavez que par le passé nous sommes esté amis. Vous tenez propoz de vouloir avoir l’evesché d’Aucerre; je vous supplie et advise de vous contenter d’aultre chose.’

> “Il insista d’avoir l’abbaye de Monstieraramey. Lors le priay de laisser ladicte abbaye de Monstieraramey. A quoy il fit instance, la voullant plus tost que celle de Monstier la Celle. Toutes foys, je lui remonstray que la dicte Abbaye de Monstieraramey estoit prochaine de Polisy et que celle de Monstier la Celle estoit a six ou sept cens livres près, la valleur de celle de Monstieraramey, qui n’estoit pas grand somme. A la fin, ledict sieur de Lavaur s’i accorda. Puis me fist grande instance d’avoir la maison d’Aucerre à Paris; ce que de tout je ne l’en vouluz accorder, bien que quand il seroit nostre amy, non pas ceste la seullement, mais que toutes les aultres estoient à son commendement....”

Gallantly spoken to this clerical cormorant! His greed for fat benefices was even now not appeased. There follows a whole string of minor demands, met by Dinteville with considerable skill, yielding here and declining there, according to the degree of importance of the point in question. At last an agreement was arrived at.

> ⁠[269] “... et fut conclud que l’on coucheroit par escript. Ce qu’il fut faict le lendemain en ma chambre, au logis de feu mon dict seigneur d’Orleans; absent [120]mon dict seigneur d’Aucerre qui ne s’i voulut trouver.⁠[270] ... Et certiffie pour verité que la resignation de la dicte abbaye de Monstier la Celle qui fut faicte lors audict sieur de Lavaur, et les quittances des meubles et fruitz de l’evesché d’Aucerre, fut par la peur et crainte que Madame d’Estampes ne remist mon dict sieur d’Aucerre et nous tous, ses frères, en la malle grace du Roy, par le moyen et credit que ledict sieur de Lavaur avoit avecques ma dicte dame d’Estampes; et qu’il ne fallust encor s’enfuyr et absenter de ce royaulme, comme on avoit faict; et affin que ladicte dame d’Estampes et ledict sieur de Lavaur n’empeschassent plus que mon dict frere s’en peust revenir et remettre en ses maisons et benefices.”⁠[271]

But not satisfied with the results so far obtained, the Bailly of Troyes went to see the Dauphin at Fontainebleau on the subject of his brother’s wrongs. In a curious record of the actual conversation which passed there, Dinteville elicits from the future king, in a series of cleverly posed questions, a complete exculpation of the Bishop. Henri acknowledges that “la retraicte et absence de ce royaume de l’évêque d’Aucerre” was for no crime of his own, either towards Francis I. or anyone else, but only for the disfavour which had fallen on his brothers. He encourages Dinteville to defend him in every possible way. Moreover, in an interview which the Bishop himself had with the Dauphin, whether simultaneously with the Bailly, or on another occasion, does not appear, Henri promises him that justice shall be done to him, even should it be necessary to call in the arm of the law.⁠[272]

It is perhaps not surprising to find the Dauphin graciously disposed, [121]in whose favour the imaginary conspiracy was supposed to have taken place. But a greater triumph effected by the Bailly was his success in bringing about a meeting between the bishop and Francis I. himself. On the return of the king from Burgundy, as he passed through Bar-sur-Seine and Joinville, François de Dinteville was granted an audience. In the course of this interview the king restored to him all his benefices and reinstated him in all his possessions.⁠[273] It shows the weakness of Francis that, notwithstanding this concession, the Bishop of Auxerre was unable to get the decree completely executed during the king’s lifetime. Madame d’Etampes, backed by Mareuil, succeeded in putting a spoke in the wheel with regard to a portion of the behest, although the bishop was able to resume possession of his see. It may here be stated, once for all, that on the accession of Henri II. in 1547, the Bishop of Auxerre instituted proceedings against Mareuil, and recovered everything of which he had been defrauded. The Dinteville family now returned to the highest favour, and henceforth their path was an unclouded one.

The latter years of the Bailly of Troyes were indeed saddened in another form. Always delicate, he was overtaken by complete paralysis, which obliged him to abandon his public career and to dwell in seclusion at Polisy. At what date this misfortune occurred is not known with precision. But it seems possible from the allusions to his health contained in a letter from Charles, Duke of Orleans, written in August, 1542, that the first symptoms of it may have appeared at about this time. This young prince, the most brilliant and fascinating of the sons of Francis I., was now twenty years of age. His genuine concern for the well-being of his former governour and lifelong friend, and his spirited description of the military operations on which he was engaged, give interest to his words.

[122]

> ⁠[274]“Bailly,” he writes, “aiant ici veu vostre basque,⁠[275] je n’ay voullu permettre s’en retourner, sans vous escripre, par luy, de mes nouvelles, qui sont graces à Dieu tres bonnes et telles que les desirez; et seront encore meilleures, quant j’entendray que vous aurez entierement recouvre vostre santé; à quoy je vous prie entendre bien soigneusement; et en recompense, je vous diray, bailly, que je faiz faire ce qu’il est possible pour la prinse d’Ivoy, que je feray demain commancer à battre d’un autre costé; et tant par cela que par tous autres moiens, j’espere l’emporter, moiennant l’aide de celluy qui donne les victoires. Au reste j’ay eu des nouvelles de Longueval qui n’est que à deux ou trois journées d’icy avec sa trouppe, autant belle et deslibérée que l’on scauroit veoir, ainsi qu’il m’a mandé. Je le feray temporiser au lieu ou il est avecques sa dite trouppe, attendant le retour d’Iversay que j’ay envoié devers le Roy pour me rapporter ce qui luy plaira me commander que je face de ladite trouppe et aussi de celle qui est icy avecques moy. Cependant n’aiant autre chose pour le present, feray fin de me recommander à vous et de priere à Nostre Seigneur, Bailly, qu’il vous doient aussi bonne santé que je la vous désire. Escripte au camp d’Ivoy ce XIIIJᵉ jour d’aoust.

> “Votre bon maestre

> “Charles.

> “A Monr. le bailly de Troyes, l’ung de mes chambellans.”⁠[276]

[123]

The Duke of Orleans was successful in his military undertaking. Ivoy, a small town in the Ardennes, was reduced, and the conquest of the Duchy of Luxemburg completed. But, restless as quicksilver to be off in another direction as soon as his object was achieved, he disbanded his troops too soon, and the Imperialists reconquered the country in the space of a few days.

This rash and impulsive temperament led the young Duke, a few years later, to an untimely end. The Court was at Forestmontier in Picardy. The plague was about, and Charles insisted on entering a house where a man had just died of it. Persuaded that the dreaded enemy could not assail a scion of the royal house of France, he rushed into the room whence the body had just been removed, and, from sheer bravado, struck the bed with his sword. The infected feathers flew up in all directions. The result may be imagined. The unfortunate prince sickened, and after a brief illness paid the extreme penalty of his rash act. This took place in 1545.⁠[277]

The memoirs of the time contain many anecdotes of this young prince, whose wild impetuosity was balanced by many lovable traits. When a little boy five years of age, we hear of him gravely receiving the English ambassador at Court, repeating with graceful courtesy his “Soyez le très bien venu, Monsieur l’ambassadeur!” when that dignitary, preoccupied with his business, was disposed to overlook the greeting of a small boy whom he had failed to recognize.⁠[278] A few years later, when Montmorency was ill, the little Duke sent to him his own physician and apothecary. Such little acts of kindness endeared him to many hearts. His courage, indeed, was of the maddest description, and often overstepped the line which divides fearlessness from folly. As he grew up and learned to wield the sword, he indulged in fighting adventures which were more than mere boyish pranks. But a certain chevaleresque grace surrounded all he did—in marked contrast to the cold taciturnity which distinguished the character of the Dauphin Henri.

[124]

It is easy to guess the sorrow that the death of the Duke of Orleans must have occasioned the Bailly of Troyes, to whom, through good report and evil, he had been a constant friend. The Dinteville brothers recorded their grief by the erection of a trophy to his memory at Polisy. This monument is described as having been decorated with the arms of all the persons from whom the Dinteville family had received kindness.⁠[279]

[125]

### CHAPTER VII
The Building of Polisy and the last years of Jean de Dinteville. His supposed Portrait at Windsor

It was during these years of leisure necessitated by ill-health, that the Bailly of Troyes rebuilt the Château of Polisy from the ground. The construction of the new house brings us to an interesting episode in his career, namely, his relations with the Italian artists employed by the King of France. The great architectural movement which marked the era of Francis I. could hardly have been lost on so keen an observer as Jean de Dinteville. One by one many of the palaces of the French Renaissance had risen before his eyes. His boyhood had witnessed the completion of Blois and Chenonceaux; later years had seen the growth of Chambord, Azay-le-Rideau, Fontainebleau, the curiously-named Château of Madrid, near Paris, and other important constructions. Ecouen, too, the magnificent abode of his cousin, the Connétable, was now rising from the ground. On all sides the spirit of the age was expressing itself in dwellings of surpassing beauty and luxury. Great men and small men built, each according to his means. Those who could not afford palaces contented themselves with houses of smaller dimensions indeed, but pervaded by the same sense of harmonious proportion, emphasized by graceful ornament.

From about the year 1530, when Il Rosso settled in France, a number of distinguished Italians were engaged in the royal service, especially at Madrid and Fontainebleau. The well-known predilections [126]of the king for Italian work set the stamp of fashion on the employment of these artists, and for many years the Italians occupied on the royal buildings were largely in request beyond the precincts of the Court. On the death of Il Rosso, in 1541, the Bolognese, Francesco Primaticcio, succeeded him as head of the works at Fontainebleau. He had already been employed by the king, after a first visit to France, to collect statues and other works of art for him in Italy. Enjoying a high reputation in his own country as the pupil of Bagnacavallo and Giulio Romano, the latter of whom he had assisted in the decorations of the Palazzo del Te at Mantua, Primaticcio soon rose to the first place among his fellow-countrymen in France. He was ultimately appointed director of all the royal works, including painting, architecture, and sculpture, and continued to fill this post until his death, which occurred in 1570.

Associated with Primaticcio in the decorations of Fontainebleau was his assistant, Niccolò da Modena, called Niccolò dell’ Abate. Both these men undertook many private commissions in addition to their work at Court. They were employed, for instance, by Montmorency to decorate his house in Paris.⁠[280]

Another Italian, Girolamo della Robbia, brought to France the famous secret of his family for the manufacture of glazed tiles. He executed extensive works at the Château of Madrid, and probably also at Ecouen.⁠[281]

With all these individuals Dinteville must have come into frequent contact before his retirement from Court.⁠[282] With another of the Italian artists in France, Domenico del Barbier, or, as he is commonly [127]called, Domenico Fiorentino, he stood in more immediate relations; for this man had early married and settled at Troyes, where he now occupied the leading position as architect, painter, engraver, and sculptor. For some time Domenico divided his attention between that city and Fontainebleau, where he worked successively under Il Rosso and Primaticcio. To illustrate the reputation he ultimately enjoyed, it suffices to add that many years later he was employed to execute the pedestal and vase of the famous group of the Three Graces by Germain Pilon, which formed part of Primaticcio’s design for the tomb of Henri II.

Situated between Burgundy and the Netherlands, the city of Troyes had early been subject to Flemish influences. These had doubtless had their effect in forming the taste of the family at Polisy. Their own Burgundian antecedents must not be forgotten. Gradually the permeating sway of the French Renaissance recast local traditions in a new mould; and when the Italian artists imported by Francis I. gave a further impetus to contemporary design, Troyes was found well prepared to receive it. How far the presence of Domenico Fiorentino contributed to produce this result, it is impossible to determine. But it is certain that a large number of the French assistants employed at Fontainebleau were natives of the city in Champagne.⁠[283]

Such being the state of things artistic in France, it is interesting to note that at the very time when Dinteville began to build his new house, Primaticcio and Domenico Fiorentino were his guests at Polisy.

The foundation-stone of the new Château was laid in 1544. On the massive central pillar of the great cellar of the castle, the inscription, in Gothic letters, may still be read:

> Lan de grace MDXLIIII Jehan de Dinteville bailly de Troies apres avoir achever la basse court feit comencer.

[128]

Just at this time the King of France bestowed on Primaticcio the Abbey of St. Martin-ès-Aires, at Troyes. The artist had, however, no thought of going in person to take possession of his benefice. He consequently issued a “procuration” dated from Polisy, and there witnessed by Domenico Fiorentino and Hubert Julyot (one of a well-known family of sculptors at Troyes), on the 15th December, 1544.⁠[284]

The new house was something more of a stronghold in the old style than the majority of dwellings now in fashion. The proximity of the Imperial frontier rendered it in fact necessary that the place should be capable of defence. War had again broken out between Francis I. and Charles V., and at the very moment when Dinteville set to work, the town of St. Dizier, not very far away, had been besieged and taken by the Imperial forces.

ARMS OF JEAN DE DINTEVILLE AS STILL SEEN AT POLISY.

At some period in the history of Polisy the waters of the small river Laigne, which flow into the Seine almost beneath the windows of the Château, had been diverted from their course to form a complete moat round its walls.⁠[285] A variety of towers contributed to the protection no less than to the picturesqueness of the place, while a substantial keep and drawbridge fortified the main entrance. Possibly some portion of these defences were a heritage from older times which the Bailly repaired and added to; completing them with the slender and graceful towers seen in the illustration.⁠[286] But the new dwelling which now arose within this circle of walls was entirely his own work, if certain details, due to his brother François, be excepted. Severely simple in aspect where the external [129]wall formed one link of the chain of defence, it was probably on the inner façade, overlooking the court, that the Bailly lavished those decorative effects for which the presence of Primaticcio and his fellow-labourers appears to vouch. What was the extent of their co-operation there are no means of judging, since that façade has been utterly swept away. The coat-of-arms which once adorned it, and a stone pediment which perhaps surmounted the principal entrance, are now built into a wall in the stable yard. The shield, bearing the arms of the Bailly of Troyes, still shows traces of colour. On a scroll beneath it are inscribed the words: “Jo. de Dinteville condebat.”

These objects were removed to their present position in this century, when the Château was completely modernized. Nearly all traces of former splendour, to say nothing of archæological interest, were at the same time blotted out. Much may have been previously destroyed by time and sieges; for Polisy seems to have borne a full share of the country’s misfortunes. The towers and machicolations which we know to have existed, the delicate Renaissance ornament which we surmise, have alike perished. The featureless modernity which has replaced them offers hardly a suggestion of the edifice once raised by the Bailly of Troyes.

The main walls towards the river are, however, still those of his construction,⁠[287] as well as several details of the interior. The immense thickness of those walls is shown in the deep bay-windows which look eastwards over the Laigne. A long series of apartments on the ground floor is surmounted by a corresponding suite above, from which a pleasant view is obtained over the green undulations of the surrounding country.

One of these rooms on the upper floor contains the chief remaining glory of Polisy, the famous carrelage, or tesselated pavement, placed there in 1545 by the Bishop of Auxerre, who owned a share of the estate.

This beautiful piece of Italian work, justly famed as one of the [130]finest pavements in France, was probably executed under the supervision of Girolamo della Robbia, whether designed by him or by Primaticcio. The symmetrical pattern in variously coloured tiles, shows a series of allegorical figures of the cardinal and theological virtues, inclosed in octagonal medallions, grouped round a central cross. These figures are connected by arabesque patterns, interwoven with smaller medallions containing emblems of war and of the chase. But the most interesting of the series, because it bears directly on the history of the Dinteville, who commemorated in the symbolism of this floor the Bishop’s return to favour, are the two medallions above and below the central cross. The first of these contains the figure of Fortune in her most smiling mood. On the white frame which surrounds the goddess may be read the motto of the house of Dinteville: ἡ τύχη ἀκολούθος ἔστι τῆς ἀρετῆς, Fortune the Companion of Merit. The second more important medallion displays the arms of the Bishop of Auxerre, round which the Dinteville motto again appears, this time in its more familiar Latin garb, Virtuti Fortuna Comes, accompanied by the date 1545.

ARMS OF THE BISHOP OF AUXERRE FROM THE TESSELATED PAVEMENT AT POLISY.

The bishop seems indeed to have appropriated the family motto just now to his special use; for these were not his only allusions to Fortune. In the garden of Polisy, just beyond the spot formerly bounded by the moat, a curiously-designed building catches the eye. This house, in close proximity to the church, still goes by the name of the “Maison de l’Aûmonier.”⁠[288]

[131]

The upper floor is finished by a dormer window, flanked by two thick columns. These are connected midway by a horizontal mullion, which divides the window in such a way as to form the letter H. The large columns are surmounted by two smaller ones, finishing in blunt points, to resemble miniature towers. The apex of the gable between these mock turrets is crowned by a third small column of similar design; and this last and most conspicuous turret springs from a pair of Hermes’ wings divided by a sphere. In the centre of the upper pane of stained glass is the date 1545.

DORMER WINDOW OF THE MAISON DE L’AÛMONIER AT POLISY, SHOWING THE EMBLEM OF FORTUNE.

What is the significance of this elaborate pile of symbolism? The printer’s device of a little book published at Lyons in 1542 by Sébastien Gryphe, or Gryphius, gives us the solution of at least a portion of it.

The sixteenth century repeated its favourite symbols over and over again. Alciati had made famous that form of emblem in which words and picture combine to form a single device. But in so doing he had merely given classical shape to a general taste. The better-known symbols were so familiar that they were readily understood without the explanatory text. Such was that adopted by the Bishop of Auxerre in the window of the Maison de l’Aûmonier.

The sphere with the wings of Hermes is an emblem appropriated by Fortune. Sometimes a youth, sometimes a maiden, with winged feet lightly poised on an ever-rolling globe, or wheel,⁠[289] the figure of the [132]deity was well known and popular in the sixteenth century. Derived from the antique, it had quickly leaped into favour on the revival of learning. There were many variations of the familiar allegory. Machiavelli had devoted a sonnet to it; Alciati had placed it among his emblems; it had been painted and carved, and all were acquainted with the symbols that gave it pictorial expression. When, therefore, the winged globe was abstracted from the whole subject and used as a separate emblem it was readily interpreted. But to guard against all possibility of misunderstanding, the printer Gryphius has added to the symbol the motto, Virtute Duce, Comite Fortuna. The meaning is identical with that of the Dinteville motto and conclusively proves the point.⁠[290]

MARK OF THE PRINTER GRYPHE OF LYONS, SHOWING THE EMBLEM OF FORTUNE.

This explanation exhausts, however, but a small portion of the symbolism of the window, and the rest is less easy to unravel. What is the meaning of the letter H?

The more obvious interpretation is that it stands for “Henri.” The Dauphin was the special protector of the Dinteville brothers, and to him, probably, the return of the smiles of Fortune was in large measure due. But this explanation omits the three columns which are too curiously original to be mere accidents of design. Some such symbols occur in various works dealing with the occult sciences. They suggest a relationship with Hermeticism, and an alternate interpretation of the letter H. The Hermes’ wings would gain additional point from this explanation, which seems likely to be the true one.

[133]

Beyond the Maison de l’Aûmonier is the Basse-Cour, which we know from Dinteville’s inscription in the castle cellar to have been completed before the new dwelling was begun. Entering one of the unpromising-looking doors which give access to the stable, the visitor is surprised by a beautiful vaulted undercroft of considerable dimensions. It is now used for lumber. Most likely it once supported upper apartments, perhaps occupied by the Dinteville family during the building of the house. If so, those rooms have entirely disappeared, and have given place to lofts of the commonest modern type. The Basse-Cour, it may be added, was once of far greater extent than it is at present.

On a slope by the road-side, about half a mile from the Château, is a high and slender cross of sixteenth-century workmanship. The origin of this interesting monument is veiled in darkness, but an old engraving shows more than one cross dotting the landscape around Polisy.

It is known that Jean de Dinteville built a chapel to serve as a sepulchre for himself and his family, and that he placed in it the epitaphs of those who had gone before him.⁠[291] He was himself laid to rest in it when his time came. But no similar monument was in turn erected to preserve his memory. Not even the site of the chapel, which has wholly disappeared, can now be identified with precision. Possibly it is represented in the illustration of Polisy by the building to the left pierced by three windows.

About the year 1547, a young relation, Jean de Mergey, came to Polisy to be brought up, or “nourished” as the phrase was, in the house of the Bailly of Troyes. Fortunately Mergey has left a short memoir of his life,⁠[292] which gives us a passing glimpse of Polisy during the four or five years of his stay there. Catherine de Mergey, née Dinteville, the mother of this boy, was cousin and governess to the daughters of Guillaume, Seigneur Deschenetz; and these relations, as well as François, Bishop of Auxerre, seem to have spent much of their time at Polisy. [134]Madame de Polisy, widow of Gaucher the elder, lived there until her death, which took place in 1545; and the sisters of the Bailly found a home there whenever they required one.

The picture drawn by Mergey is a pleasant one, and shall be given in his own words. He had begun his education early, having been placed at the College of Troyes at the age of eight years. Thence his mother transferred him to the Abbey of Montierender; but, says Mergey,

> ⁠[293]“... ne voulant estre Moyne, elle me mist avec Mr. de Polizy, Bailli de Troyes, chef de la maison de Dinteville, personnage accomply et orné de toutes vertus et sciences autant que homme de son temps et qualité; aiant esté Gouverneur de Monsieur d’Orleans et Ambassadeur pour le Roy en Angleterre. Mais estant devenu Paralitique et impotent de tous ses membres, et ne pouvant plus a cette occasion demeurer à la Cour, et s’estant retiré chez soy, se mist pour son plaisir et exercice à bastir cette belle maison de Polizy. Lequel me prist en telle amitié, qu’il prenoit bien la peine luy mesme de m’instruire en toutes les sciences desquelles mon jeune age pouvoit estre capable; et aiant demeuré avec luy jusques en l’aage de quatorze ou quinze ans, et me voulant mieux former par la fréquentation du monde et exercice des armes, me donna a Mr. Deschenetz son frère, Chevalier de l’Ordre du Roy,⁠[294] et Capitaine de cinquante hommes d’Armes, avec lequel je fis plusieurs voyages....”

[135]

A letter of 1552 (it is dated February, 1551, old style) shows us the master of Polisy for the last time. It is written by his uncle, Du Plessis Savonnières, the father of Vanlay’s bitter enemy. The cordiality of tone speaks well for both writer and recipient.

> ⁠[295]“Monsr. mon nepveu,” so it runs, “j’ay receu deux lettres de vous, l’une dattée du IIIJᵉ. jour d’Octobre, et l’autre du XXIIIᵉ. jour de janvier derniers passés. Vous m’escripvez qu’avez receu lettres de ma soeur de Lyencourt⁠[296] et qu’il vous semble qu’elle est bien contente de l’affaire de Monstier la Scelle; elle en a bien raison; elle est bien tenue et obligée à prier Dieu pour monseigneur d’Auxerre, et nous tous, du grand bien qu’il luy plaist faire à Banjamyn.⁠[297] Ma niepce de Lyencourt qui est avec Madame la connestable⁠[298] m’a escript que mondit seigneur d’Auxerre et monsr. des Chenetz estoient à Fontainebleau. Et depuys Nicolas de la Croix m’a escript que mondit seigneur d’Auxerre debvoit arriver à Paris. J’avois pieça entendu la prinse que les gens de l’empereur avoient [136]faicte d’Aspremont. Ledict Nicolas de la Croix m’escript que le bled a vallu à Paris cent dix sept solz tournois le septier, et l’avoyne quarente huit, qui est bien cher.... Il me deplaist de la malladie de ma dame de la Mothe⁠[299] et de sa fille, mademoiselle de Esmon; mais puys qu’elles sont en amandant j’espere que ce ne sera rien. Ceulx qui viennent de la court dient qu’il est grand bruict que le Roy⁠[300] doibt aller en Allemaigne; que le duc Maurice de Sax et autres princes dudict Allemaigne, en grand nombre, sont en armes contre l’empereur et qu’ilz doibvent tenir le party du Roy et estre en son service; que la Royne sera regente en France et qu’elle sera à Reyms; que monsr. l’admiral doibt demourer avecques elle; que monsr. le Cardinal de Tournon doibt estre lieutenant du Roy a Lyon; que le Grand Seigneur faict grands preparatifz pour faire la guerre la presente année, tant par terre que par mer. Je fais mon compte que entendez mieulx toutes ses nouvelles la que l’on ne faict par deça, car en pouvez estre advisé par Messrs. d’Auxerre et des Chenetz qui sont à la court. J’estime que au commancement de ce mois de mars pourray partir de ce pais pour aller à Lyon, passant toutesfois par Grenoble. Quant je seray à Lyon, vous feray scavoir de mes nouvelles et vous envoieray des graynnes pour vostre nouveau jardin.

> “Monsieur mon nepveu, je me recommande humblement à vostre bonne grace et prie Dieu vous donner en santé tres bonne et longue vie—De Montpellier, ce XXJeme. jour de fevrier, 1551.

> “Vostre oncle et amy

> “Duplessys.”

> “Monsr. mon nepveu, Monsr. de Pollisy, bailly de Troyes.”⁠[301]

[137]

Thus the last years of Dinteville’s life glided away.

Notwithstanding his ill-health, he survived all his brothers except Guillaume, Seigneur Deschenetz, whom he made his heir. Not one of the family attained the age of sixty.

Gaucher, Seigneur of Vanlay, died in 1550, and was buried at Thennelières, where he had resided.

The Bishop of Auxerre departed from the stage of this world in September, 1554. His death took place at the Château of Régennes, his favourite place of abode. It is said that he decorated this house, and others belonging to the see, with paintings executed by his own hand; art and mechanics being his most cherished recreations.⁠[302]

All the brothers had recovered their former prestige before the end came, and were honoured servants of the king.

The Bailly, obliged by the paralysis which had overtaken him to pass [138]his days in retirement at Polisy, found solace in the occupations he could cultivate at home: his building, his garden, his home circle, the education of his little cousin in the sciences that had been dear to him in his most prosperous days. In these tranquil surroundings we take leave of him. Of the last scene, beyond the barest record, we know nothing. How keenly he felt the death of the Bishop of Auxerre may perhaps be inferred from the silent fact that he survived his brother but a few months.

Jean de Dinteville died at Polisy, in 1555, in the fifty-first year of his age. Probably the event took place before the summer, as early in the same year Guillaume, Seigneur Deschenetz, was appointed Bailly of Troyes.

Thus ends the story of a typical Frenchman of the reign of Francis I. The varied incidents of his career, public and private, are vivid with the local colour of his date and nationality. The very contrasts are those of the age. Life marched with such a swing that there is hardly a pause between the heights of success and the depths of ignominy. No time for discussion as to deserved or undeserved: the king’s will is everything. Another turn of the wheel, and the branded fugitive is recalled to favour. The past is wiped out; and Life resumes her dancing gait as though no voice of the night had croaked of banishment and disgrace.

The intellectual aspect is marked by the same extremes. Old and new, mediæval and modern, were wrestling for supremacy. While, on the one hand, the revival of letters, the progress of science, the discoveries of the great navigators, had opened fresh horizons to the understanding, the paths of mystery that led back to the middle ages were still freely trodden. Astrology, alchemy, and kindred pursuits yet maintained their hold on minds permeated by the new learning. There was no proportion, no power of differentiation. All subjects were pursued with equal eagerness. All were illuminated by the same glow of the imagination, which flung its halo over past and present alike. It is this transforming quality which fuses into unity the strangely heterogeneous elements of the time, and gilds its mistakes no less than its successes.

[139]

In the joyous vitality of the age, the love of magnificence, the social bravura, the spirit of adventure, the same influence of the imaginative faculties is apparent. But it is in the passion for art that the distinctive note is sounded. Soldier and scholar, statesman and priest, all came beneath that sway, which was enhanced and intensified by influences derived through a thousand channels from Italy.

It is to be regretted that so little is known of the private friendships of the Bailly of Troyes. Some indications of the cordial feelings of which he was the object are indeed to be found, here and there, in the letters that have been noticed. But the most striking instance of the esteem in which he was held has been handed down to posterity by the genius of Hans Holbein. For the very fact of Dinteville’s friendship with the learned and saintly Bishop of Lavaur is a sufficient testimony to his own worth.

No second portrait is known for certain to exist of Jean de Dinteville. There is, however, an unnamed drawing by Holbein in the Windsor collection, the features of which show such considerable resemblance to those of the Bailly of Troyes that it has been thought to represent him at a later date. A reproduction of this drawing is here inserted⁠[303] that the reader may make the comparison for himself.

The chief difficulty in accepting this theory seems, at first sight, to lie in the marked difference of age between the two presentments.⁠[304] Dinteville was, as we know, in the twenty-ninth year of his age when painted by Holbein in 1533. His last visit to England took place in 1537, when he was in his thirty-third year. But there appears to be [140]more than four years’ interval between these two portraits, if they be held to represent the same man.

Yet, in spite of this objection, the mould of the rather peculiar type of countenance is so similar in both cases, that this drawing does, in all probability, represent Jean de Dinteville as a somewhat older man.

No one who, when visiting Dresden, has compared the original drawing of Morette by Holbein, with his splendid portrait of that envoy,⁠[305] can have failed to observe the happy knack by which, in the finished painting, the artist has slightly rejuvenated and refined the features of his sitter, without losing either likeness or character. Did we possess the original drawing of Dinteville, made for the picture of the “Ambassadors,” it might, in all likelihood, show less discrepancy with the Windsor drawing than is exhibited by the painting itself, where the same tendency to emphasize the more favourable aspect of the sitter has probably come into play.

Both these drawings—of Morette and of the supposed later Dinteville—once formed part of the Arundel collection, and were engraved at that time, in the shape of two small rounds, by Wenzel Hollar. One of these is inscribed “Mr. Morett”; the other is unnamed. But the fact of their having been engraved as pendants suggests the idea that the individuals portrayed were connected by tradition as members of the same nation and profession, thus further confirming the belief that the unnamed portrait represents the Bailly of Troyes.⁠[306]

[141]

## PART III
GEORGE DE SELVE

[142]

[143]

## GEORGE DE SELVE

### CHAPTER I
The Early Years of George de Selve, and his First Diplomatic Employment

The career of the Bishop of Lavaur, the ambassador de robe longue, forms an interesting contrast to that of the homme d’épée, or de robe courte, whose acquaintance has been made in Dinteville. In many respects each completes the other. Together they form a typical picture of the diplomacy of the day, in which churchmen and laymen played an almost equal part.

The political missions of George de Selve, taken alone, would give, however, a very inadequate idea of the man. In the case of the Bailly of Troyes the secular note is naturally dominant. With the Bishop of Lavaur outward events seem dwarfed by the depth and fervour of the inner life. His spiritual vocation was all in all to him. The services he rendered to diplomacy rather hinder than assist a just estimate of his character and attainments. They constitute, indeed, the chief outward landmarks of his existence. But in so far as they emphasize the mundane rather than the religious aspect of his life they disturb its true proportions.

THE CATHEDRAL OF LAVAUR AT THE PRESENT DAY.

George de Selve, Bishop of Lavaur, was the third son of Jean de Selve, Premier Président of the Parliament of Paris, and of Cécille de Buxi. He was born in the winter or early spring of 1508-9, probably about January or February.⁠[307]

[144]

The family of Selve was said to be of Milanese extraction,⁠[308] and had settled in France near Limoges. The first of its members to rise to eminence was Jean, the father of the future bishop. Hardly a name in French history is more celebrated in the early decades of the sixteenth century than that of this great lawyer and statesman; none stands higher for probity, political sagacity, and faithful service rendered to the Crown.

The young George must have had a varied childhood if the family accompanied Jean de Selve to his several spheres of duty. Having successively presided over the Parliaments of Rouen and of Bordeaux, Jean was sent to Italy, after the battle of Marignan, as Vice-Governour of the Duchy of Milan. The earliest associations of which George could have had much recollection thus centred in Italy. The sojourn in the south terminated in 1521, when the Imperial troops drove the French from the Milanese. Jean de Selve now returned to France and received the appointment of Premier Président of the Parliament of Paris. Henceforth the influences which moulded the youth of the future bishop were, so far as is known, derived from his native country.

The boy was now about twelve years old. The early age at which he subsequently obtained distinction favours the belief that he must have displayed extraordinary precocity in his studies. He himself tells us, as will presently be seen, that he received instruction in Greek and Latin from the famous scholar, Pierre Danès; indeed, if we may judge from a letter written at a later period by Bunel,⁠[309] Danès appears to have superintended the whole training of the young student. He could not have been in better hands, nor would it be easy to imagine two spirits more likely to be congenial than those of master and pupil. The relationship developed into a lifelong friendship.

Whether George de Selve subsequently attended the University of Paris is unknown. It appears improbable that he came under the influence of the Sorbonne. He was reared no doubt in a strict school of [145]Roman Catholic theology; for in later years he always showed himself an orthodox son of his Church. But the extreme type among the theologians of Paris, whose headquarters were at the Sorbonne, had at this time a holy horror of those classical languages in which Selve learned to excel under the guidance of Danès. The latter, indeed, was among the first professors appointed a few years later to the famous Collège Royal, founded to impart the very knowledge which the doctors of the Sorbonne would have withheld.

At the University of Paris only one of the two great branches of law essential to a public career was at this time taught. Instruction in civil law was forbidden, and had to be obtained elsewhere. Orleans, Poitiers, Bourges, possessed great schools for the secular arm. The universities of the provinces equalled that of Paris in efficiency, if not in size. Many young Frenchmen also went abroad to complete their studies, especially to Italy. It is highly probable that Selve was counted among their number, although there exists no positive evidence to that effect.

It is certain that he owed some part of his education to the liberality of Francis I. While still a youth, he translated eight of Plutarch’s “Lives” into French by order of the king; and in the prologue which he affixed to this work and addressed to his royal patron, he speaks of the obligations under which he is placed to the king, “eslevé ou je suis, et moy et les miens, par vos bienfaitz....”⁠[310]

The king’s kindness seems, by these words, to have extended also to the brothers of George de Selve. The family of the Premier Président was numerous, consisting of six sons,⁠[311] and no less than eight daughters. Jean de Selve can hardly have been a rich man, and the assistance afforded by Francis I. was doubtless welcome.

[146]

The translation from Plutarch’s “Lives” at once brought the name of George de Selve into prominence. He states indeed in his preface, with laudable modesty, that he could not have completed his work “without the aid of Maistre Pierre Danès.” Nevertheless, the achievement was considered a remarkable one for so young a scholar; and later writers mention Selve as the worthy precursor of Amyot.⁠[312]

The year 1525 saw the long negotiations between France and Spain which succeeded the defeat of Pavia, and led up to the release of Francis I. The Archbishop of Embrun, better known at a later date as Cardinal Tournon, Philippe de Chabot, Admiral de Brion, and Jean de Selve, Premier Président of the Parliament of Paris, were the three principal emissaries deputed by the Regent, Louise of Savoy, to represent France at the conferences held at Toledo. Montmorency joined them occasionally from Madrid, where he was in attendance on the captive king; while Gabriel de Grammont, Bishop of Tarbes, another future cardinal, was later on added to the list of negotiators.

Their efforts were crowned in January, 1526, by the signature of the Treaty of Madrid. The settlement was humiliating enough for the King of France, but it was due to the skill of the ambassadors that even such measure of success was obtained. At least, it restored him to his subjects, and enabled him, in the following March, to cross the Bidassoa on his way back to France.

The capacity displayed on this occasion by Jean de Selve, and the profound knowledge of constitutional law which lent force to his diplomatic skill, made a deep impression on the French Court. It was desired that the recognition of his great services should assume some practical form. Francis therefore determined to reward the father, who had already attained every honour that could be bestowed, in the person of his son. In the month of May following the king’s release, the Papal licence was penned with which we are already acquainted. At the end of October in the same year (1526), the see [147]of Lavaur fell vacant by the death of Bishop Pierre de Buxi,⁠[313] and George de Selve, now in his eighteenth year, was nominated by the king to succeed him.⁠[314]

For the present Selve could only undertake the administration of the diocese and enjoy its revenues and title. The Church forbade the consecration of a bishop before the completion of his twenty-fifth year.

The appointment of the new prelate was not however allowed to pass unchallenged. In 1616 the Concordat had been signed between Francis I. and Leo X., by which, in return for the payment of annates, the Pope conceded to the King of France the right to nominate to vacant benefices. The Gallican Church, which had previously enjoyed the privilege of electing its own dignitaries, protested vehemently against this innovation. Francis I., whose rule tended more and more towards absolute despotism, clung with tenacity to his usurped authority in clerical matters. But the local bodies from whom the ancient rights had been wrested equally illegally by king and pope, often set up a rival claimant, and disputed every inch of the way to the royal nominees. They had the more excuse for so doing, because, from the time the Concordat was arranged, the king overlooked all canonical rules as to age or fitness in the persons proposed,⁠[315] filling the vacant benefices merely according to his personal convenience and pleasure. It was due to good fortune rather than to any appropriate principle of selection, when the royal choice fell upon so eminently suitable a candidate as George de Selve. It seems by no means clear, however, in what way the relations of the king with the Gallican Church concerned the Legate of Avignon, Cardinal Clermont, or why this [148]prelate should now have intervened and endeavoured to quash the new appointment. The metropolitan see of Avignon, which was subject to papal authority, was governed by a Legate, who appointed to bishoprics within its area. But as Lavaur was not included in its jurisdiction, the interference of the Cardinal-Legate on this occasion seems difficult to account for. Possibly he had been promised the right to nominate to this particular vacancy. The fact, however, remains that Clermont laid claim to the see of Lavaur, and, to judge by the excitement his action aroused at the French Court, with some show of right on his side.

In a series of letters still extant,⁠[316] the various members of the French royal family urged the Legate to withdraw his claim. Francis I. begged him in a letter dated from St. Germain, on the 1st April,

> “pour l’amour de moy et de ma priere, vous desister de la poursuite dudict evesché, vous demettant au proffict du filz dudict premier president de tout le droit que pouvez avoir et pretendre audict evesché.”⁠[317]

The king’s mother, Louise of Savoy, whose right hand Jean de Selve had been during the period of her regency, writes with even more insistence:

> “Mon cousin, vous avez par cy devant entendu le désir que le Roy et moy avons que le filz de Monsʳ. le premier president soict pourveu de l’evesché de Lavaur, et pour ce que ledit seigʳ. et moy n’avons encore eu responce de vous qui en ce satisface a nostre intencion, j’ay esté meue, mon cousin, de rechief vous en rescrire, vous prient tres affectueusement, et autant que je sauroys jamais pour nulle autre chose, faire que vous veulhez à la requeste dudit sgʳ. et miene vous desister de la poursuite et aussi de metre au proffit et en faveur du filz dudit [149]premier president de tout le droict que vous pouves pretendre audit benefice; estant asseuré que le dit sʳ. et moy aurons memoire de ce plaisir en melheure chose, de sorte que vous en serez content, vous advisent au demourant et pour conclusion que ledit sʳ. et moy porterons tout outre le filz dudit premier president en cest affaire jusques en faire le nostre propre; pour ce je vous prie encores ung bon cop, mon cousin, que vous veulhez bien y pencer et en cest endroict obtemperer a la tres affectionnée requeste dudit sgʳ. et de moy. Et adieu, mon cousin, lequeilh je prie vous avoir en sa saincte garde. Escript a St. Germain en Laye le premier jour d’avril.”

A postscript follows in her own writing:

> “Je vous prie, mon cousin, que vous complezes au Roy et a moy du contenu cy dessus et vous vous en trouverez bien.

> “Vostre bonne cousine,

> “Loyse.”

> “A mon cousin le Cardinal de Clermont, legat d’Avignon.”⁠[318]

Montmorency, too, is pressed into the service by the royal family. His intervention had special point, because M. de Clermont, brother of the legate, was his deputy in the government of Languedoc, which the king had bestowed upon him in the previous year. Writing to the Cardinal on behalf of George de Selve, on the 3rd April, Montmorency [150]says that the king and his mother “ont la chose si très à cueur que ne le vous pouroys assez escripre.”⁠[319]

Remonstrance from such high quarters could not remain unheeded. The Cardinal withdrew his claim. Indeed, he had the wit not merely to accede to the wishes of the Court, but to do so with grace. On the 22nd June he writes to George de Selve in reply, it would seem, to an expression of gratitude on the part of the latter:

> “Monsʳ. de Lavaur, mon amy, j’ay receue la lettre que m’avez escripte, et n’est besoing user de remerciement en mon endroit car je suis trop et de tout temps amy de vostre pere, et luy vouldrois faire et a toute la rasse plaisir. Vous adviserez de vostre cousté si en autre chose me voulez emploier et ne me trouverez jamais autre que bon frere plus par effect que de parolle; et ainsi vous prie le croyre; qui sera la fin de la presente apres avoir prié le Createur vous tenir en sa saincte garde. D’Avignon ce XXIJᵉ de jung.

> “Vostre meilleur frere et amy

> “F. Cardˡ de Clermont.”

> “A Monsʳ de Lavaur.”⁠[320]

So the matter was settled, and the promotion of 1526 confirmed. But the cumbersome technicalities were so long in adjusting themselves, that nearly ten more months elapsed before George de Selve was able to take the oath of fidelity for the temporalities of the see of Lavaur.⁠[321]

The year 1529 saw the earliest employment of the Bishop of [151]Lavaur in a diplomatic capacity. The first edition of the “Gallia Christiana”⁠[322] states that George de Selve was sent as ambassador in this year to both Charles V. and the republic of Venice; while a manuscript biographical notice of the bishop, preserved at the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, confirms this information as regards the embassy to the Emperor.⁠[323] The mission to Venice appears also to derive confirmation from the wording of the Treasury grant of 1533.⁠[324]

The embassy of George de Selve to the Court of Charles V. in 1529 is of special interest to the student of Holbein’s “Ambassadors.” It makes it seem highly probable that the young Bishop attended the Diet of Spires as one of the representatives of France—a mission which assorts well with the presence of the Lutheran hymn-book placed near to him in Holbein’s picture. At the very outset of his career he is thus seen occupied with those ideas of religious reunion which absorbed so large a share of his attention throughout his life.

His youth is indeed a striking circumstance in connection with so important an occasion. But such were the Bishop’s precocity of mind and gravity of temperament that he seems usually to have produced the impression of a man considerably older than was actually the case.⁠[325]

Amongst the works of George de Selve, which were collected and published after his death, are two orations, or “Remonstrances,” [152]as he terms them, addressed to the Germans, with the object of recalling them to the obedience of the Church. Both these discourses were drawn up to be delivered at public Diets held in Germany for the promotion of religious unity. The second, as will presently be seen, was indited in response to a special invitation from Charles V. in the year 1540. The first in date, erroneously placed last in order by the editor of the collected “Œuvres,” is obviously the work of a very young man. A glance at its contents appears to confirm the surmise that it was composed for delivery before the Diet held at Spires in 1529.

After so many and exalted personages, says the youthful orator, who have here come forward in the hope of appeasing the dissensions of the Church, it would be great presumption on the part of anyone to attempt to intervene of his own accord. But it would be equally cowardly to hold back if called upon to take part in the deliberations. Therefore, finding himself summoned, at an hour when no such thing had entered his thoughts, by his king, whom it is the will of God that he should obey, to come hither and try to assist in the pacification of these great divisions; seeing also that his vocation is of those to whom are entrusted the salvation of souls; having, furthermore, long felt within himself exceeding pain at the calamity of the times and an extreme desire to see it remedied, even were it with the loss of all his possessions in this world, or even of something more besides; seeing all these things, he felt that, notwithstanding he is forbidden by ignorance and insufficiency, it was his duty to accept the office imposed upon him. He begs that nothing very high or speculative may be expected of him. Besides that his mind is incapable of such flights, as one who is a simple beginner in the profession of letters, the truth of things has not been so hidden that it is necessary to go beyond the judgment of the simplest.⁠[326]

It would seem that this discourse was divided into two parts, of which only the first has been preserved. The teaching contained in [153]that portion requires no minute analysis here. But while keeping well within the lines of Roman Catholic doctrine, it is remarkable that Selve already strikes the note which predominates in his later writings, basing all his arguments on the teaching of the New Testament. His references are always made direct to the Scriptures, and, in this instance, to the Epistles of St. Paul—a fact which is not without interest in the practice of a young Roman Catholic prelate at this period of history.⁠[327]

At the end of the year 1529 George de Selve lost his father. The Premier Président was buried in the church of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet at Paris, where a rhymed epitaph was placed to his memory,⁠[328] much in the style of that of Gaucher de Dinteville.

The death of Jean de Selve caused a real and profound sorrow in the royal circles of France. The reflection of this feeling is still apparent in a letter written in the following April (1530) by the Queen of Navarre to the Archbishop of Bourges. Marguerite recommends to his kindly notice the Bishop of Lavaur, who is the bearer of the letter. She begs him to continue the affection he bore to “feu monsieur le premier president,” towards “ses pauvres enffans.” The occupant of the archiepiscopal see at this time was no other than François de Tournon, who as Archbishop of Embrun had co-operated with Jean de Selve in the negotiations preceding the Treaty of Madrid. He was now on the eve of promotion to the rank of cardinal.

In a second letter, written a week later to Anne de Montmorency who was busy in the south with his duties as Governour of Languedoc, Marguerite performs a like kind office. She had been unwilling, she says, to allow the Bishop of Lavaur to leave for the south without [154]asking him to bear to Montmorency some news of the Court and of herself.⁠[329] But these words are merely a pretext for the warm expressions with which the queen recommends to her correspondent the bearer of her letter. “You know, as well as I do,” she continues, “the services of the father and the greatness of his merits; and what gratitude they deserve towards the members of his family.” It would seem from this that Montmorency was at this time not acquainted, or but slightly acquainted, with the young bishop.

Both these letters are dated from Blois, where Selve had doubtless paused to visit the Court on his way to Lavaur.

JEAN DE SELVE, PREMIER PRÉSIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT OF PARIS, FROM BULLART, ACADÉMIE DES SCIENCES ET DES ARTS.

Beyond such scattered hints there are no means of judging of his movements in the years which now elapsed.

In the month of November, 1532, another sorrow fell upon him in the death of his mother.⁠[330] The following spring saw him in England, the guest of his friend, the Bailly of Troyes.

The visit of the Bishop of Lavaur to this country began at some period before Easter, 1533,⁠[331] and terminated before the end of May. It is not necessary to repeat here the few facts concerning that event which have already been narrated in previous chapters.⁠[332]

In December of the same year he was appointed French ambassador at Venice. To judge by the wording of the Treasury grant which records the first payment made to him, he had already been sent on a short mission to that city at a previous time.⁠[333]

The grant is dated from Lyons, where the Court was now sojourning [155]on its way back from the interview with Pope Clement VII. Here the Bishop probably received his final instructions before setting out to take up his new task. Here, also, he must have met again his friend, the Bailly of Troyes, who just at this time arrived at Lyons after his long absence in England. It is to be presumed, however, that Selve made no long stay, as his salary was reckoned from the 12th December.

[156]

### CHAPTER II
The Bishop of Lavaur Ambassador at Venice and at Rome

At some time in the course of the year 1534, having completed the canonical age, George de Selve was consecrated bishop.⁠[334] Whether this took place in France before his departure for Italy, whether he visited Rome expressly for the purpose, or received consecration at Venice, there are no means of judging. Our next glimpse of him is as French ambassador in the last-named city.

It would be tedious to record in detail the minute variations of Italian politics which it was the duty of the Bishop of Lavaur to note and report to the French Court. During part of the time he spent at Venice, which extended over fully three years, George d’Armagnac, Bishop of Rodez, was associated with him as ambassador. Many of the despatches sent to France are jointly signed by the two prelates. They give a lively idea of the rival endeavours of Francis I. and Charles V. to secure the friendship of the Italian princes, and of the steps taken by the King of France on his part to achieve that desirable end. Every movement of the Italians, more especially of the Pope, was watched as a cat watches a mouse. Every hair’s-breadth of supposed deviation on their part to the Imperial side was made the subject of a report. The relations of Venice with the Turk, with whom [157]Francis I. was now on the verge of a definite alliance, is another point of interest. Again, in 1536, when war broke out between France and the Empire, details gleaned from Italian sources of the supposed projects of Charles for the conduct of the campaign form a considerable item in the despatches.

It would be more interesting, if it were possible, to follow the private pursuits, the friendships and correspondences of George de Selve during his stay in Italy.

The Aldine press, under the guidance of Paolo Manuzio, was in full swing. Learned men, lay and ecclesiastic, of all types and nations crowded the quays of Venice; and a further element of intellectual life was added by the constant intercourse with the neighbouring university of Padua. Moreover, Venice was the high road to the East; and, whether bent on the purchase of rare Greek manuscripts, or on some secret mission from the King of France to the Turk, or merely on the active exchange of rich merchandise, all passed by her port.

A scholar of high reputation himself, it would have been impossible for Selve to breathe such an atmosphere without in some degree imbibing its tone. He threw himself keenly into the learned interests by which he was surrounded, displaying special eagerness in the collection of classical manuscripts. Pierre Danès, to whom he was chiefly indebted for his brilliant acquaintance with the ancient languages, had accompanied him to Venice, where, says Thevet, “il n’y eut antiquité, cabinet ou rareté,” which Danès did not visit.⁠[335] Here, also, the Bishop attached to himself another savant, Pierre Bunel, who had long sojourned in the City of the Lagoons in the service of Selve’s predecessor, Lazare de Baif.⁠[336]

[158]

Other friendships which George de Selve contracted while in Italy are known principally from his letters. Reginald Pole,⁠[337] Cardinal Bembo,⁠[338] Sadoleto, Bishop of Carpentras,⁠[339] were counted amongst the most intimate of these. It might almost be thought, indeed, that Selve had taken the great and gentle Sadoleto for his episcopal model, so many are the points of resemblance between the two churchmen.

The first letter we possess written by the bishop himself from the beautiful city on the Adriatic is dated in February, 1534, and is [159]addressed to the Duchesse de Chartres.⁠[340] George de Selve expresses his delight at the prospect of shortly seeing that princess at Venice. The tone of this letter and of others indited by him to the same princess during his residence in Italy is one of genuine friendliness, notwithstanding the sympathies which Renée was well known to harbour for the Reformers.⁠[341] But at her Court at Ferrara all classes of her countrymen were sure of a welcome. Indeed, the partiality she evinced for them was regarded with small favour in the land of her adoption, where her path was often a thorny one.

A yet earlier indication of the presence of the Bishop at Venice exists in a letter addressed by Bunel to a younger brother of the new ambassador, Odet de Selve,⁠[342] who appears at this time to have been studying at Padua. Bunel had evidently become acquainted with the latter before the arrival of the Bishop of Lavaur, as he alludes in a friendly manner to a day recently spent with Odet at the university. The letter dilates in warm terms on the piety of the Bishop of Lavaur and on the courtesy and frankness of Pole, in which encomium Sadoleto is included. The writer adds a special note of admiration for the principles which, in his opinion, have enabled Pole to place spiritual objects above all mundane philosophy or temporal advantage.⁠[343] Some such estimate of the character of the future Cardinal seems to have been formed at this time by many of his friends in Italy, and explains the warm regard entertained for him by so unworldly a man as George de Selve. The intimacy with Pole became indeed one of the salient features of the Bishop of Lavaur’s stay in Italy, and there will often be occasion to revert to it.

In other letters addressed by Bunel to various correspondents [160]the striking impression made by Selve himself in his new sphere is vividly reflected. As soon, says the writer, as he, Bunel, had set eyes on him, concerning whose surpassing sanctity, learning, and benevolence he had heard such great things, and from so many persons, his one thought became to obtain permission to remain near him. Never did he receive holier nor sweeter counsel than from this bishop. Again, when, at a later date, Bunel wearied of Italy and desired to return to France, the single fact that lightened for him the term of waiting was that he dwelt with a patron “whose disposition and conduct, as they are of the most virtuous, so also are they gracious in a surpassing degree; to whose manner of life there could cling not the very shadow or suspicion of aught unseemly; in whose every word and deed is nought but gentleness....” He goes on to speak of the bishop’s “astounding sagacity in the transacting of business, which doth surpass both his years and the credence of all men, of his great learning in the Greek tongue, of his wonderful eloquence....”⁠[344] Such language may contain for modern ears a ring of exaggeration. But it is necessary to quote such passages in order to understand the extraordinary estimate of the character and abilities of George de Selve entertained by all his contemporaries.

What were his relations with the world of art? Was it possible to dwell at Venice when the fame of Titian was at its zenith, when the frescoes jointly executed by him with Giorgione on the Fondaco dei Tedeschi shone out in pristine freshness, undimmed, as yet, by the hand of time and decay, when the beautifying of outward life was a passion with all men, when most of those with whom the bishop lived in daily intercourse, private or official, were enthusiastic patrons of art,—was it possible, under such circumstances, to remain an uninterested spectator?

Indifferent so gifted and sensitive a man was surely not. But the ascetic tendencies implanted in him by nature and deepened by rigorous and persistent training, stood in sharp contrast to the luxurious vitality of Venice. Outside the limits of that religious vocation which absorbed [161]almost his whole soul, his love of literature and profound interest in the classics formed probably his nearest point of contact with the tastes of the fashionable dilettanti.

Towards the end of the year 1536 Pole was made a Cardinal, and the Bishop of Lavaur wrote to congratulate his friend on his new honour.⁠[345] In the following February (1537) Cardinal Pole was appointed Papal Legate to England,⁠[346] and started on the abortive expedition intended to raise the English people in rebellion against Henry VIII.⁠[347] Another letter from Selve addressed to him on this occasion shows how firm a root the friendship with Pole had taken in his heart. He has heard, he says, by letters which Danès has received, that Pole is about to make a journey through “our France,” and he offers him his house and fortune. He has also written to the Grand-Maître of France; not that he thought his letters would have more influence than the name of Legate and the fame of Pole’s virtues, but to satisfy his own mind. He incloses the letters to be delivered if Pole thinks fit.⁠[348] Of the political objects of Pole’s mission he makes no mention.

It is plain that the position of the Bishop of Lavaur must by now have assumed considerable importance, if he was able to send letters of recommendation of a Papal Legate to Anne de Montmorency. He was in fact rapidly advancing to the front rank of his profession. His success was due to sheer merit, for he detested the intrigues by which many ecclesiastics sought to obtain promotion. The capacity he had displayed for public affairs had gradually been pointing him out for a more conspicuous post; and at the very moment of Pole’s journey to the north, George de Selve was named French ambassador to the Holy See, in conjunction with Cardinal Mâcon. The payments for his new office began on the 20th February, 1537.⁠[349]

[162]

The mission to Rome seems at first to have been intended to last only till the summer.⁠[350] In point of fact, it extended over a very much longer time. It is probable, however, that in the autumn the Bishop was able to absent himself for some months from his post, as there is a gap in the letters dated from Rome, which extends from August to November.⁠[351] No doubt he took advantage of this interval to visit his diocese, as well as to report to the French Court the results of his diplomatic labours.

Throughout the period in which Selve was accredited to the Court of Rome, the long-deferred General Council, which was to settle the differences of religion, formed a constant subject of negotiation between the Powers. The Pope had actually fixed a date on which the Council was to assemble; but the war between Francis I. and Charles V. hindered the accomplishment of the plan. For this reason, amongst others, it was the urgent desire of Paul III. to bring about a peace between the rival sovereigns. So keenly did he feel upon this point, that at one moment he actually intended to hurl the thunders of the Church upon whichever of the contending parties might decline to assent to his proposals. The Cardinals were invited to pronounce upon this policy. But it was quickly seen that such a course would destroy the position of neutrality which the Pontiff desired to maintain; and the idea was therefore abandoned.⁠[352]

Early in the year 1538 Cardinal Carpi, the most intimate confidant of Paul III., was sent on a special mission to France, for the purpose of inducing the king to consent to make peace with his rival. While heartily concurring in the object proposed, the two French ambassadors at Rome had their doubts as to the trustworthiness of the Papal messenger. They sent a note of warning to Montmorency some weeks before the departure of the Cardinal, to bid him be careful in dealing [163]with this Legate, who was “the soul of the Pope.” Moreover, they suspected Carpi of a secret understanding with the Imperial party, and doubted the sincerity of his professed goodwill towards France. They were careful to add, however, that his overtures should be met with due cordiality, while recollecting caution.

It is a curious fact that at this time Paul contemplated, or pretended to contemplate, the re-establishment of peace between the rival sovereigns on the basis of the restitution of the Duchy of Milan to France. Whether this was merely a bait held out to catch the French king, and thus inveigle him into the peace so ardently desired by the Pope, it is impossible to say. It is certain that, at a later date, when Francis was still scheming to obtain that much-coveted possession, Paul expressed his conviction that the Emperor would never yield it up.

The spring of 1538 passed in inconclusive negotiations. The truce of ten months between France and the Netherlands, agreed upon at Bomy in July of the previous year, had been followed by the shorter suspension of arms in the southern campaign, arranged at the end of November. Both agreements were now drawing to a close. But such was the mutual distrust of the two monarchs, that no permanent peace had been arranged in the interval, as had been intended. The Pope resolved to take the matter in hand himself. Besides the assembling of the General Council, his heart was bent on a coalition scheme by which Francis and Charles should jointly oppose the Turk.⁠[353] To both objects the establishment of peace was a necessary preliminary. Paul therefore proposed a meeting between the two sovereigns, at which he would himself assist and endeavour to bring them to terms.

While the triple interview between the King of France, the Emperor of Germany, and the Pope, was impending, an intrigue had been set on foot at the Court of Rome which went far to justify the distrust felt by the French ambassador and his colleague⁠[354] for Cardinal Carpi. The [164]latter professed to have obtained possession, probably during his mission to France, of a copy of a letter written by Cardinal Mâcon and the Bishop of Lavaur to Cardinal Tournon,⁠[355] in which Carpi’s sincerity and the reasons of his journey were made the subjects of unfavourable comment. The letter, so Cardinal Carpi asserted, had come miraculously to his hands. He hastened to lay it before the Pope. Cardinal Tournon, who was at this time in Spain, vehemently denied the authenticity of the document as soon as news of the affair had reached his ears. He severely upbraided Cardinal Carpi, saying the letter was a hoax, and that the Cardinal, if he had not forged it himself, had been rash to show it.⁠[356]

Be that as it may, the manœuvre was sufficiently cunningly contrived to produce exactly the effect intended by its designer. In an indignant despatch addressed to Montmorency on the 1st May, Cardinal Mâcon and the Bishop of Lavaur beg to be instantly recalled, in order that they may explain by word of mouth the treatment to which they have been subjected. The Papal Court, accompanied by the two French ambassadors, was at this time at Piacenza, on the way to Nice, where the coming interview was to take place. The Frenchmen, so they related, were here suddenly summoned into the presence of his Holiness. Cardinal Trivulzi, a faithful servant of French interests at the Vatican, was sent for at the same time. Carpi then turned upon the French envoys, in the presence of the Pope’s relation, Cardinal Farnese, such a torrent of malevolent accusation that they could only feel their position as the representatives of France at the Holy See henceforth rendered impossible. The Legate had declared that, by their “méchans et deshonnestes offices contre sa Sainteté,” they had utterly frustrated the purposes of his mission to France. To justify his reproaches he had read aloud their supposed letter; declining, however, to let them see it, or to show their double signature, which it must have borne had it been genuine. For all their [165]asserted machinations, Cardinal Carpi threw the blame on Trivulzi, on whom he heaped yet more violent invective than on the ambassadors themselves.

On the same day Cardinal Carpi himself wrote to the French Court, protesting against the calumnies of the supposed letter and loudly asseverating the honesty of his intentions towards France.⁠[357]

A very pretty tangle on the eve of a meeting at which it was intended to proclaim general peace. The motive of Cardinal Carpi is tolerably clear. The intrigue was a clever attempt to undermine in the eyes of the Pope the credit of the three principal cardinals attached to the interests of France, Tournon, Mâcon and Trivulzi. That it took place immediately before the interview with the King and Emperor at Nice was no doubt a matter of subtle calculation. The French ambassadors had, it seems, not been far wrong when they suspected Cardinal Carpi of manœuvring in the Imperial interest.

The Nuncio in France, on his side, informed Montmorency of the events which were going forward at the Papal Court. The Connétable warmly espoused the cause of his countrymen, declaring that an offence offered to the kings ambassadors was an offence offered to the king himself. He wrote to the two envoys, telling them what had passed, and directing the Bishop of Lavaur to leave for France immediately in order to report upon the circumstances. Cardinal Mâcon was enjoined to use the greatest prudence while conducting affairs single-handed. Meanwhile the King of France would remain near Romans and Valence, postponing the meeting with the Pope and Emperor until Selve’s report had been first heard. So dangerous did Montmorency consider the position of Cardinal Trivulzi, that he adds an express message to him to beware of poison in his food, or of any other attempt against his person.⁠[358]

[166]

Selve reached Avignon on the 14th May,⁠[359] three days after his departure from Savona,⁠[360] having probably taken ship as far as Marseilles to accelerate his journey. In the conditions of those times and the bad state of the coast-roads of the Riviera, it would hardly have been possible to cover the distance by land in so short a period.

We are left in ignorance as to the results of the communication he had to make to his sovereign. The proposed meeting duly came off at Nice in the following month.⁠[361] But all the efforts of the Pontiff proved unavailing to effect a permanent treaty of peace. The most that could be achieved was a suspension of arms for ten years, known in history as the Truce of Nice.⁠[362]

Francis and Charles did not, in point of fact, see each other at all until the agreement was signed and the Pope had departed. They then arranged an interview at Aigues-Mortes which led to conversations of some apparent cordiality, and seemed to promise greater practical results.

The Duchy of Milan was, as usual, the central topic of discussion between the two sovereigns. A marriage had been discussed at Nice, to take place between the Duke of Orleans and the Infanta of Spain. Francis now parted from his rival at Aigues-Mortes persuaded that the fulfilment of this project would at last restore the Milanese territory to the House of Valois, as part of the dowry of the Emperor’s daughter.

The termination of the conference at Nice saw the conclusion of Selve’s mission to the Papal Court. Intrigue of the type which marked the final period of his embassy must have been peculiarly noxious to a man of his sternly upright disposition, who, at the best, bestowed his time on secular matters only from a sense of duty towards his sovereign, [167]and, as it were, under compulsion. His heart was in his diocese, whither he now joyfully turned his steps.⁠[363]

Curiously enough he thus left Italy but a few months before the Dinteville brothers fled thither as exiles. What a difference might have been effected by the presence there of so true a friend during their years of banishment! So few of the private letters of George de Selve have been preserved that little is known of the intercourse between the families during the period we are now considering. The year 1537, however, throws a chance light on the subject, the preservation of which is due to the official nature of the correspondence in which it is found.

The Count of La Mirandola, a descendant of the celebrated Giovanni Pico, was a firm friend of France, or, in other words, was probably in receipt of a French pension. His city and castle,⁠[364] situated in a fertile plain at about twenty miles from Modena, formed a valuable strategical point in the event of any outbreak of hostilities; and, early in 1537, Guillaume de Dinteville, Seigneur Deschenetz, was despatched to La Mirandola to strengthen and increase the fortifications.⁠[365] The Count meanwhile was absent in France, busy with the various arrangements rendered necessary by his alliance with the king.

These circumstances form the subject of two letters written by George de Selve from Italy. One, signed in conjunction with the Bishop of Rodez, was despatched to the French Court from Venice just before Selve’s promotion to Rome. The second is addressed a few months later to Deschenetz himself, and shows the good offices in which the ambassadors at Rome were engaged on his behalf with the Pope. The writers foretell honour and profit to him from his work at La Mirandola; [168]they have complained to the ambassador of the Duke of Ferrara of the animosity displayed by the duke towards Deschenetz; they have even obtained the permission of the Pope to write direct to the duke himself. In short, it is easy to read between the lines of the ambassadorial communication, the personal friendship which inspired its contents.⁠[366]

[169]

### CHAPTER III
Repose at Lavaur, and Embassy to Charles V

It is uncertain whether the Bishop of Lavaur spent in his diocese the whole of the fifteen months which elapsed between his return from Italy in the summer of 1538 and his next special appointment. A payment made to him subsequently, as a “gift” for services rendered at Venice, Rome, and “elsewhere with the Emperor,”⁠[367] seems to indicate that, besides his residence in those cities, some temporary mission to the Imperial Court may have occurred in this interval.⁠[368] But it is probable that the greater part of the time was quietly spent in the old Cathedral city. A letter to Pole is dated thence on the 1st January, 1539.⁠[369]

We may take advantage of this interval of repose to make further acquaintance with Selve in the sphere he loved best, and in which alone he felt truly at ease.

The contrast must indeed have been complete between the worldly pomp of the Papal Court, honeycombed by restless ambitions and political intrigue, and the rural seclusion of Lavaur.

Surrounded by the sunlit vineclad country of southern France, the principal charm of the quiet little provincial town is derived from [170]the beauty of its situation. Perched upon a rocky cliff overlooking the rushing river Agout, it commands a noble expanse of distant plain and hill. The full range of the view is obtained from a broad terrace beyond the apse of the Cathedral of St. Alain, which is finely placed on the brow of the declivity. The structure itself is of brick, a material often used in the churches of the south of France. Architecturally it shows considerable diversity of style. Nearly all the changes and additions were however made before the sixteenth century; so that the traveller who visits Lavaur to-day sees the cathedral much as it appeared in the lifetime of George de Selve.

The episcopal palace formerly stood in a line with the cathedral, and commanded the same fine view. Fancy conjures up a pleasant picture of the ancient residence of the Bishops of Lavaur in the days of its prosperity.⁠[370] Casements open to the soft and billowy southern country, silence unbroken by any sound but the lapping of the water far below, or the occasional clang of the cathedral bell, shady gardens where, in the spreading branches of ilex and mulberry-tree, the tiny green canary doubtless then, as now, found a happy home.

It was probably in these gentle surroundings that George de Selve indited the greater part of those pastoral letters and addresses through which we are chiefly acquainted with the current of his inner life. In some of them he displays a naive poetry of expression which seems to reflect the atmosphere in which they were composed; as, for instance, when he speaks of baptism as “la porte par laquelle nous sommes entrez au parc de Jesus Christ ou nous sommes maintenant, portants le nom et la marque de ses brébis.”⁠[371]

GEORGE DE SELVE, BISHOP OF LAVAUR.

FROM A POSTHUMOUS PAINTING AT THE CHÂTEAU OF VILLIERS, SEINE-ET-OISE.

The collected works of the Bishop of Lavaur comprise spiritual discourses suited to almost every occasion, from the great public [171]questions which were dividing the heart of Europe, down to admonitions addressed to his own household. In a few instances the titles of the various compositions give some clue to the period at which they were written. Such is the case with an exhortation “written on first arriving at his diocese, to a friend of his who had but just returned home to seek repose and leisure.”⁠[372] It is tempting to believe, nor does it seem in any way improbable, that the “friend” in question may have been Jean de Dinteville, returning to Polisy for a brief spell of “repose and leisure” after a long residence at Court. The warm tone of unconventional affection rings curiously through the pastoral admonition. “Il me semble en vous escrivant,” exclaims the writer, excusing himself for the length of his letter, “que je suis avec vous a deviser, qui m’est si grande consolation que ie n’en puis ou n’en veux trouver le bout.”⁠[373]

Placed immediately after this epistle is one addressed “to a friend grievously ill,” the language of which seems to indicate that it was intended for the same individual. The bishop writes in deep anxiety about the health of his friend. Were it not that he is detained by so many necessary causes, he would himself set out immediately to visit the invalid. “Plust a Dieu,” he exclaims, “que je peusse estre aupres de vous pour quelques iours!”

Another heading appears to denote, almost conclusively, that the discourse in question was addressed to Anne de Montmorency. The supposition is borne out by the beginning, “Monseigneur,” a mode of address which would only have been employed by the bishop towards a superior, and which was almost invariably that used towards the Connétable even by men who were themselves of high position. It is entitled: “Discours contenant le seul et vrai moyen, par lequel un serviteur favorisé et constitué en administration de son Prince, peut conserver sa félicité eternelle et temporelle, & eviter les choses qui lui pourroient l’une ou l’autre faire perdre.”⁠[374]

[172]

The doctrine inculcated in all these compositions is strictly that of the Church to which their author belonged, though there is a marked avoidance of controversial points and of any sort of exaggeration. On the vexed question of justification by faith, for instance, he points out how, if a preacher “parle au jourd’huy de vivre en obedience, ou de faire les oeuvres comme nécessaires pour la vie éternelle, une partie du monde crie après, et dict que e’est un Papiste, et un justiciaire. S’il presche le salut par Jesus-Christ, et la redemption des pechez, une autre partie du monde crie que c’est un Lutherien, et un seminateur de maulvaise doctrine....”⁠[375]

But the striking feature in all the bishop’s writings, and that which still, at the present day, breathes life and warmth into the old-world formulas, is the deep and glowing note of personal piety which rings through every line. Nowhere, perhaps, is this more apparent than in the prayers and contemplations intended for private use. The beauty of thought and fervour of expression here attained entitle these pieces to a high position in the ranks of devotional literature.

At about this time there arose a question of sending the Bishop of Lavaur to represent France at a Diet projected by the Emperor, to take place in Germany, for the pacification of religion. On some occasion, perhaps the mission of 1529, Charles appears to have been deeply impressed by the personality of Selve. He now made it an object of special request to the King of France that M. de Lavaur should attend this conference, at which the Emperor, on his part, was to be represented by the Bishop of Lunden.⁠[376]

[173]

The scheme progressed so far that Selve actually drew up part of an oration for delivery at the Diet. This fragment has been preserved to us. It is entitled: “Remonstrances adressentes aux Allemans, faictes et mises par escript par messire George de Selve, evesque de Lavaur, pour les prononcer publiquement en la diette qui se debvera tenir en Allemagne [quand il fust appellé du Roy très-chrestien a la requisition de l’Empereur pour y aller procurer la reunion d’iceulx Allemans avec l’ordre ecclésiastique].”⁠[377]

The contents of this discourse, so far as completed, exemplify once more the weight attached by the bishop to reformation of life and conduct, rather than of doctrine, as the true means of attaining religious reunion. Just as, six years before, in the “Hymns” selected for Holbein’s picture, the keeping of the Ten Commandments, aided by the guidance of the Divine Spirit, is indicated as the only path to temporal and eternal bliss, so now the same theme is reiterated with yet greater insistence. He does not, he says, desire subtle arguments, but will use simple words that the very populace can understand. Passions must be moderated, and only the divine honour thought of. Reunion must be sought in improved discipline, not in attacks upon dogma. The Papal supremacy, the body ecclesiastical, the doctrines of the Church must be upheld unimpaired. Every needful reform would certainly have come to pass had the holy examples of past times been followed in humility and sobriety. The sins of Churchmen, their avarice and ambition, have brought things to the present pass. Only by returning to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, and of the doctrines received and upheld by the common consent of the Universal [174]Church, can the true remedy be found for the dissensions which rend Christianity.

There follows an invitation to the Germans to return to the obedience of the Pope. But it is easy to read between the lines, even were we not told so explicitly in another composition to which there will be occasion to return later on, that, in the eyes of the Bishop of Lavaur, the chief responsibility for the divisions of the Church rested upon the shoulders of the Roman priesthood.

The scheme of despatching the Bishop of Lavaur to attend the Diet was abandoned, and the oration was left unfinished. Lazare de Baif, formerly French ambassador at Venice, was sent in his stead to Hagenau, where the conference ultimately took place. Subsequently a more important Diet was held at Ratisbon (1541), without however attaining any definite result.

The exact circumstances which led to the change of plan are not quite clear. But from a letter written by Pole to Cardinal Contarini, it would appear that the form of Diet at first proposed was regarded with disfavour in high quarters at Rome. It was considered an infringement of the Papal prerogative that the Emperor, and not the Pope, should have convened it.⁠[378] If this objection were hinted to the Bishop of Lavaur, through Pole or by other means, it would certainly have led him, as an obedient son of his Church, to renounce the execution of the plan.

Apart, however, from any motive of this kind, he seems to have had no desire for the new honour thrust upon him. He longed to remain in peace at Lavaur, after his absence in Italy, and to devote himself to the duties of his diocese.

A letter addressed by Bunel to Castelnau, Bishop of Tarbes, from Lavaur, in the spring of 1539, throws some further light upon the thoughts and plans of his protector. Castelnau, like some other acquaintances of the Bishop of Lavaur, seems to have attributed his [175]unwillingness to take advantage of so great an opportunity for worldly distinction to undue influence on the part of Bunel, who greatly favoured a life of retirement. The latter now sent to the Bishop of Tarbes a long and somewhat tart epistle in reply to these animadversions. “My patron” (says Bunel towards the end of this letter), “when, with the approval of all worthy persons, he returned to fill his office at Lavaur, bestowed on the general welfare of mankind a benefit far greater than would be the case if, by command of the king, he were now to set forth to Germany.” The bishop must indeed go thither, if the king command it; just as Castelnau must remain in Spain, if such be the king’s pleasure. Yet it is Bunel’s desire that the bishop and himself be suffered to dwell in tranquillity at Lavaur; and that Castelnau, in like manner, be permitted to return to his diocese as soon as may be.⁠[379]

The sentiments of this letter are those of George de Selve. For the moment his desire was fulfilled. His spell of leisure was however of short duration. In the autumn of 1539 the post of resident ambassador at the Imperial Court became vacant by the death of the Bishop of Tarbes. The Emperor had but recently given so striking a proof of the high esteem in which he held the Bishop of Lavaur, that the appointment of the latter to succeed Castelnau was a foregone conclusion. A Treasury grant of the 9th October, 1539, enables us to fix the exact date at which George de Selve entered upon his new duties.⁠[380]

The talk about the Diet had indeed sunk into a secondary position, so far as Selve was concerned. Charles V., on the invitation of Francis I., and, as it were, to emphasize in the sight of the world the friendship between the two sovereigns, was about to pass from one end of France to the other, ostensibly for the purpose of visiting his rebellious subjects at Ghent. For the moment this journey absorbed general attention.

[176]

On the 27th November, 1539, the Emperor crossed the Bidassoa. The wording of Selve’s appointment specially refers to “the journey which he is about to make to Spain.” It is therefore safe to infer that, from the outset, the Bishop was of the Imperial company. The Duke of Orleans met Charles on the Spanish side of the frontier; Montmorency and the Dauphin joined him near Bayonne; the King of France awaited him at Loches,⁠[381] and escorted him towards the frontier of the Netherlands as far as Saint-Quentin. From Spain to Flanders the journey was a triumphal progress. Towns were decorated, pageants initiated, honours heaped on the Imperial guest. The common people saw in his presence the ending of the wars which had brought so much misery in their train. But the king meant something more than this by the lavish welcome he bestowed upon his rival. It was expected that Charles, as a graceful acknowledgment of his brilliant reception in France, would take that opportunity to rivet the friendship by the cession previously promised of the Duchy of Milan. It had been specially stipulated before he responded to the invitation to pass through France that no advantage should be taken of his presence to discuss political matters. The journey was to be simply one of pleasure. Francis readily agreed. But he secretly hoped that the Emperor would yield spontaneously that which he thus bound himself not to extort. The negotiations for the marriage of the Duke of Orleans with the Infanta, which had preceded the journey through France, gave him some grounds for this expectation.

Never were hopes more completely deceived. Charles passed through the country from end to end, receiving a magnificent welcome at Paris on the 1st January, 1540, without uttering a single word on the subject so eagerly awaited.

The disappointment at the French Court was great. Hope was not yet extinguished, however; and, in anticipation of the desired utterance on the part of the Emperor, the relations between the two Courts continued to be of the most amicable nature.

The Bishop of Lavaur proceeded with the Imperial party to the [177]Netherlands. His first letter is dated from Mons, on the 27th January. It was expected that Francis would immediately pay a return visit to his recent guest. As a refinement of courtesy the King of France therefore signified to Charles that henceforth great expenditure in any visits they might mutually make to each other would be superfluous, and proposed that they should for the future come and go informally in each other’s dominions. The Emperor, so Selve reported, was ready to acquiesce in this suggestion, but added that after the manner of his reception in France he could not do otherwise, on the occasion of the king’s first visit, than follow the example that had been set to him.

At Brussels, Hellin, French resident at the court of the Queen-Regent,⁠[382] joined the diplomatic labours of the Bishop of Lavaur.⁠[383] For a considerable time the despatches sent to France were now signed by both negotiators.

Towards the middle of February the Imperial Court moved to Ghent. It was thought that, when the Emperor had settled the affairs of that city, he would have more leisure to devote to the interests of France. The French king and his suite hovered near the borders of Flanders, daily expecting that Montmorency would be sent for in order to bring the negotiations to the desired conclusion. No message came. Both Henry VIII. and Paul III.⁠[384] had expressed the conviction that Charles would never cede the Milanese. Francis himself was beginning to lose heart. His projected visit to the Netherlands dropped into the background.

Finally Charles moved. Early in March he sent for Bonvalot, his resident ambassador at the French Court, to impart to him further instructions for communication to the King of France.⁠[385] He now offered Burgundy and Flanders in substitution for the Duchy of Milan, as his daughter’s marriage portion.

[178]

On the 29th March, Selve left Ghent⁠[386] for Aumale, there to receive the king’s answer to the proposals made by the Emperor. Francis vehemently protested against the new scheme, laying stress on his rights to the Milanese territory and on the Emperor’s former promise to yield it.⁠[387] The instructions delivered to the Bishop of Lavaur on his return to Flanders relate to many other points besides that of the cession of Milan. But all knew that in this really lay the crux of the matter, and that upon it hung the success or failure of all the negotiations. Which way these were tending was abundantly evident. “As for France,” writes Wyat to Cromwell, soon after the return of the Bishop of Lavaur to Ghent, “things here are as cold as if the past were but dreams.” The changes, he continues, introduced by the Emperor into the original proposals for his daughter’s dowry have so “disdained” the French king that he is out of hope of further treating. They remind Wyat of the tale of the Welshman who, being in danger on the sea, vowed a taper as big as the mast; but when he came on land, paid a little candle to Our Lady, and “offered her to be hanged” if ever she took him on the sea again!⁠[388]

The witty Englishman had gauged the situation accurately. The negotiations dragged on for some weeks longer, each party in turn making proposals inacceptable to the other. But it soon became evident that nothing was to be gained by further prolonging them.

To the Bishop of Lavaur the coolness that ensued between the two sovereigns was a bitter disappointment. Keenly alive to the ills and sufferings that had been wrought by the long wars that had ravaged Europe, he looked to a good understanding between the King of France and the Emperor as the necessary preliminary to those ecclesiastical reforms which were the dearest object of his life. From the outset of his career his heart had been set on that reconciliation of [179]religious differences, beneath the ægis of a regenerated and purified Rome, which for a moment had appeared a not impossible dream. How deeply he had felt the iniquity and corruption of the body ecclesiastical, which he had been called upon to witness during his mission to the Papal Court, we shall shortly see. The prospect of the interview at Nice had then created hope of a permanent peace between the two great continental powers which should afford leisure for the consideration of the affairs of the Church. This hope was, as we know, raised only to be immediately dashed by the inconclusive results of that meeting. Again, the proposal for a marriage between the Duke of Orleans and the Infanta of Spain seemed to promise a happier era. Now this prospect also was rendered abortive by the refusal of the Emperor to surrender Milan. War seemed, to those looking on, to be once more within measurable distance.

Filled with the thoughts inspired by all these circumstances, it was during the term of his embassy to the Netherlands that the Bishop of Lavaur indited the ripest and most powerful of all the compositions included in his collected works. For what occasion it was intended, or whether it was ever delivered, is unknown. It is entitled, “Discours du vrai et seul moyen de faire une bonne et perpetuelle paix entre l’Empereur et le Roy tres chrestien: faict par George de Selve, Evesque de la Vaur, estant ambassadeur dudict Roy tres chrestien, vers ledict Empereur.”⁠[389]

It shows the bishop in the plenitude of his mental powers. He has shaken off the diffidence of early youth, and speaks with the full consciousness of the authority bestowed upon him by his sacred office.

Peace and war, he says, have already been several times between these two sovereigns. War has been very fertile of evil, but peace has been sterile of good. He proposes to demonstrate how, by the use of right means, peace can be made good and fruitful for all Christianity.

[180]

The cause of war has been that these princes, instead of first serving God, have preferred their private passions and personal interests. The worst result of this has been that the lives of ecclesiastics have come to such extremity of wickedness as would have been impossible had the wars of these two princes not prevented remedy, or rather, thrust the delinquents yet further into impiety.

The leaders of the Church have brought their position and dignity into derision, rather than abandon their vices, their covetousness, their ambition. The result has been that a great part of Germany has fallen away from the Church, and that other countries threaten to follow the same course. Yet all the negligence of which ecclesiastics have been guilty, has been accompanied by a pretence of good words, and of willingness to provide against these evils.

How far these professions were sincere, may be judged by the effects.

Popes, who condemned and pursued the Lutheran heretics, had in their private surroundings openly mocked Christ and the Christian religion. Others had showed in their lives that He to whom they gave least authority was the Blessed Saviour: of Whom they willingly occupied the place, but Whom they took good care not to resemble.

Besides the irreligion of the heads of the Church, which it would be impossible to detest sufficiently, it should be considered what harm is wrought by the nature and quality of all ecclesiastical promotions; which are such that it may be said that never did the devil invent, nor could he possibly invent, a more active venom with which to poison every part of Christianity.

The Cardinals, who should hold the place of Apostles, and be, as it were, the flower of the universal Church, for many years have only owed their promotion to Papal interests or to the protection of a prince. Except a very small number who are deserving, all have reached their position by purchase, or by ambition. Bishoprics are given to them that they never visit; and from this corrupt multitude the Pope is elected by a majority of votes, generally bought with money, or princes’ favour.

[181]

The promotion to bishoprics is just as illegal. Popes and princes bestow them with equal levity, simply by favour, on unknown or unfit persons, or on children. Of such stuff are those made who have the care of souls. Only to provide for the man is thought of, not for the diocese. And whereas the Apostles and their successors proceeded to the election of bishops with so great reverence, beseeching the divine assistance: to-day, bishops are made with raillery and light talk, and with far less reflection than would be bestowed if it were a question of placing a new cook in the kitchen.

The appointments to benefices are equally bad, if not worse. The Pope gives them to any unknown person, or to a courtier who does not pretend to be a priest and will never see his cure. The poor parishes are desolate and abandoned. A trade is made of benefices, which are treated as speculations, divided, and mortgaged.

Bishops who have themselves been so lightly promoted are yet more careless in the making of priests. The bishop being generally absent from the diocese, intrusts his charge to a substitute. Out of a thousand of these there is not one who does the work from devotion, or from a desire to serve; it is merely undertaken to gain a livelihood by repeating masses. Most of these men cannot even read; especially in France, where the priests, in their vulgarity, ignorance and irreverence, surpass those of all other countries. This corruption of ecclesiastics is the greatest wound of Christendom. It has been made much worse by the wars between the two princes, because, instead of taking measures to cure it, their only thought has been to avoid giving offence to the Popes, to whose party passions they pander for their own benefit. And the Popes have availed themselves of the wars to turn everything to their private advantage.

From all this the Lutheran heresy, due in great measure to the deformities of Churchmen, has gained force and vigour....

These wars have also encouraged the Turk....

Then, what sufferings to the poor have they not caused!—spiritual neglect, bloodshed, famine, and pestilence. The poverty of the small folk is incredible throughout the dominions of these two princes....

[182]

Again, the wars have produced miscarriage of justice....

The very princes themselves, seeking each his own profit, have not found it; on the contrary, each has become impoverished.

What then is the remedy for so many and great evils?

The only true and certain remedy is the acknowledgment and confession of sin; belief in the justice of God; confidence in His mercy; and the resolve to lead amended lives. Only by penitence can these two princes hope to avoid divine condemnation. Their actions have been such that their forces are weakened, their honour trodden in the dust, their consciences stained. The only means by which they may hope to avert eternal punishment is by sorrow, repentance, and amendment.

No peace made between them has ever gone to the root of the matter. To be permanent and effective peace must rest on good and not on evil.

A long and eloquent peroration concludes this remarkable composition, and sets forth in further detail the manner of arriving at the only true peace.

This powerful indictment of the vices of the Roman hierarchy shows very clearly to how great an extent Selve anticipated the conclusions of the Council of Trent with regard to matters of Church discipline. His chosen companions, Pole, Sadoleto, Contarini,⁠[390] belonged to the same small group among the ecclesiastics, whose influence, direct or indirect, did so much to bring about the Counter-Reformation. Had the life of the Bishop of Lavaur been prolonged, it appears highly probable that he would have been among the delegates summoned to [183]assist in the deliberations at Trent. As it was, his friend and later successor in the see of Lavaur, Pierre Danès, was twice appointed to attend that assembly as one of the representatives of France.⁠[391]

[184]

### CHAPTER IV
The Closing Days of the Bishop of Lavaur. His Portrait at Villiers

In the summer of 1540 the Bishop of Lavaur begged permission to resign his public career, for the future to devote himself wholly to the care of his diocese.

Meanwhile, following the court from place to place on the Emperor’s progress through Holland, the month of August found Selve at the Hague. An urgent letter to Montmorency, who, on the verge of disgrace,⁠[392] still had charge of the correspondence with ambassadors, shows the almost feverish anxiety which possessed the bishop to be released from his post. The “days are years” to him. “Vous supplions, Monseigneur, après m’avoir tant faict d’autres grâces, ne m’oublier point maintenant jusques là que de me laisser ici plus longuement.”⁠[393]

[185]

Yet the man who thus passionately implored release from a post which was the zenith of other men’s ambitions, was now only in his thirty-second year.

Ten days later he repeats the same request, but with a breath of relief, Montmorency having apparently answered in a manner not unfavourable to his desire. Probably the Connétable had consented to his departure so soon as a suitable substitute could be found; for Selve mentions several names of persons in his opinion specially fitted to replace him as ambassador with the Emperor.⁠[394] But, adds the bishop, with characteristic modesty, the number of those more capable than himself to fill the post is so great, that this point can present no difficulty.

He includes in his letter a request to Montmorency to remember his brothers, having regard to the services of their father and to their own ability. “What is asked for them,” he adds, with dignified simplicity, “is only that they should be put in the way of earning their living by work and by service.”

The explanation must have read curiously to Montmorency. The habit of the times had accustomed him to receive continual petitions for advantageous posts unaccompanied by any such suggestion of corresponding responsibility. The Connétable himself had not been unduly scrupulous in amassing his enormous wealth.

It would seem from the letter in question that Montmorency had sent to the Bishop of Lavaur some part of the arrears of his salary, the defections in which, combined with the expense of continual journeys with the Imperial Court, were putting him to serious straits. The irregularity with which these payments were made, and the distress of ambassadors who frequently saw themselves constrained to keep up an honourable appearance on their often slender private means, are chronic features in the diplomatic correspondence of the period.

The letters of the Bishop of Lavaur give a lively idea of the unhealthiness [186]of the cities of the Low Countries at the time of his mission. While at the Hague he reported that a third part of the Court had fallen ill, some of tertian, some of daily fevers. There had already been several deaths. His own house was full of sick people. Arrived at Antwerp, where he trusted to have found a cleaner atmosphere, he was told that in that city alone there were more than seven thousand cases of illness, and that the whole surrounding country was in a similar state.⁠[395]

The Emperor meanwhile, who was suffering from gout, had dispensed with the company of the ambassadors in his recent journeys. The Court, including the diplomatic circle, only met again at Brussels on the 1st September. On the same day the Bishop of Lavaur wrote to Montmorency, overjoyed at the news that he was at last to be relieved. M. de Vély had been appointed to succeed him.⁠[396]

The political facts recorded in the correspondence of the Bishop of Lavaur at this period are not of great moment. A kind of lull had fallen on everything since the fiasco of the negotiations for a closer union with France. Charles V., still lame from his last attack of gout, pale and feeble, hardly showed himself to the Court. Granvella displayed such reticence in his communications with the French ambassador that the latter no longer cared to question him.⁠[397] The Imperial party were, in fact, as disappointed on their side at the rejection of their proposals by the French king as Francis himself was at the tenour of those offers. To the practical intelligence of Charles V. it was impossible to understand the objection felt by the King of France to the substitution of Burgundy and Flanders for the Duchy of Milan, a far more valuable concession than the Italian territory would have been. In political sagacity, in cold clear grasp of a situation, the Emperor by a long way surpassed his rival. But, for that very reason, he failed to take into account the imaginative temperament of Francis, so far removed from his own, and the halo with which that king was [187]apt to invest the objects of his desire. Of these, Milan was the very essence, and was therefore clung to with corresponding obstinacy. Moreover, the aims of the two sovereigns in dealing with this subject were diametrically opposed. Charles sought to banish French influence from Italy, and was ready to pay a good price to effect his purpose. Francis wished by the acquisition of Milan to consolidate his position in the peninsula. Mutual disappointment could alone result from such diversity of character and aim.

Under these circumstances the breach between the two Courts, though still laboriously veiled by a show of friendship, necessarily widened from month to month.

Weakened by the rigorous abstinence which he habitually practised, as well as by the worries of his responsible position, the Bishop of Lavaur now fell a victim to a severe attack of the prevalent tertian fever. In his next letters he begs that, if ready to start, M. de Vély may be despatched instantly, for he, Selve, is unable to attend to the king’s business. As to his recovery, he resigns himself entirely to the Divine Will; but he fears it will be long and slow. Such has been the case with others who have sickened in the same way. Indeed, the Low Countries disagree with him to such a point that he thinks it impossible he should get well there; and a large part of those who accompany him are even more ill than himself.⁠[398]

The fever appears to have increased, for he shortly after “thanks God that he has passed one day without a fresh attack.” Nevertheless M. de Vély’s arrival was postponed from week to week, and instructions were continually sent to the bishop for communication to Granvella, in spite of the fact that he was so feeble as to be unable to leave his bed. The Emperor was to leave Brussels in three weeks’ time; and, as it was important that the business of the last despatches should be transacted before his departure, the sick man writes an urgent appeal to the King of France to despatch M. de Vély without further delay. Under such circumstances it can hardly cause surprise that he should have had relapse after relapse, which further undermined his [188]already enfeebled constitution. He now resolved to travel in a litter to France on receipt of permission to depart, sooner than remain a single day longer than necessary in the infected atmosphere.

Notwithstanding the severity of his fever he still continued to inform Montmorency of such public events as he could follow from his bed of sickness. The arrival of the Prince and Princess of Orange, the assembling of the Estates of the country in the presence of the Emperor and Queen of Hungary, the speech of the Imperial Chancellor, are amongst the intelligence thus transmitted.

At last, to his infinite joy, he received the tidings that M. de Vély had actually started. He gratefully acknowledges this piece of good news in a letter dated the 5th October, the last of the series. On the 10th of October M. de Vély arrived at Brussels. The French Court appears to have realized at last that the case was urgent; for the new envoy performed the journey by post, three days in advance of his suite.⁠[399]

Notwithstanding his arrival, Selve was kept at his post until the middle of the following month. A Treasury grant of the 12th November, 1540, still qualifies him “ambassador with the Emperor.” A second similar grant, however, dated on the 22nd of the same month, shows that his term of office at last expired on the 18th November.⁠[400]

Henceforth the bishop was free to return to his beloved flock at Lavaur. Henceforth he could give himself completely to his pastoral duties in the pure and peaceful atmosphere of the little southern diocese, for which he had so often sighed.

It is sad to think how short a time was left to him in which to fulfil this, his dearest wish. When he returned to Lavaur his health was broken, his days were numbered. The terrible fever which had prostrated him in the Netherlands still clung to his shattered frame, and refused to be shaken off.

His retirement was so complete that not even a passing mention [189]of his name occurs in the various series of documents in which, so short a time before, it had blazed in the full glare of publicity.

But a letter addressed at a later period by Bunel to Danès supplies the want, and gives some idea of the concluding scenes of the bishop’s life.⁠[401]

“On such days as the fever of the Bishop of la Vaur was not upon him,” says Bunel, “I often, since he had thus requested me, used to visit him. Ever did he discourse of things divine, and of good and holy living. At times he would lament that, being hindered by sickness, he was unable to take part in everything that occurred in his diocese.... On such occasions, when I would humbly beseech him for the present to set aside burdensome matters, and such as might increase his dejection, he would very cheerfully discourse to this effect: that never did he spend his time more happily than when engaged in the discharge of his duty.... He said furthermore that, although he was prevented by sickness from taking advantage of his high calling in order to exhort his flock to virtue, yet that even the risk of death could not and ought not to hinder him from the care of those things which pertained to the health of their souls. Wherefore he would fain learn of others such things as he could not himself know; not indeed that he might be the more severe on any in particular, but that he might make trial of every manner of remedy. By such meditations, which were most sweet, his melancholy, said he, was nowise increased, but rather diminished....”⁠[402]

Thus, intent to the last upon the welfare of his people, the bishop gently awaited his latter end. A few short months yet remained to him, in which to find solace in the society of his friend; to bask perhaps, on his less suffering days, in the sunshine of southern France, generous even in winter; above all, to provide for the spiritual needs [190]of the flock committed to his charge. But the burning spirit of the man who combined with the accomplishments of a scholar the ardour of an apostle, had too early consumed its earthly tabernacle. Slowly but surely his life was ebbing away.

The approach of death appears to have been very gradual. On the 19th March he made his will; after which he still lingered for several weeks. Then, when the first flush of spring was spreading in green waves over the southern landscape, George de Selve, twenty-first Bishop of Lavaur, sank to his last rest. Worn out in body, though not in mind, by the travail of things divine, he passed away on the 12th April, 1541, in the thirty-third year of his age.⁠[403]

His remains were laid to rest at Lavaur, in the cathedral which had so often witnessed his ministrations.⁠[404]

The monument raised to his memory perished at the time of the French Revolution. Not even the site of the grave is known at the present day. The curious epitaph, formed upon the letters of his name, together with the answer supposed to proceed from his spirit, once inscribed upon his tomb, have, however, been preserved for us by the editor of his collected works:⁠[405]

“G Grandement fortuné en toutes entreprises:
E Excellent en vertu, sa guide familière:
O Orné de contenance ensemble douce et fière:
R Riche de toutes parts à un Prelat requises:
G Gouvernant deuëment les ouailles comprises
E En tout son Evesché: du peuple la lumière:
S S’esloignant du forfaict: amy de vie entière:
D De touts costez conneu par ses vertuz exquises:
E Estimé et aimé des hommes vertueux:[191]
S S’humiliant à tous, mesmes aux vicieux:
E Et orné de tout ce qui accomplit un homme:
L L’Evesque de la Vaur cy git, qui à iamais
V Vivra, pour ses vertuz, en eternelle paix,
E Et pour autant, Passant, n’empesche point son somme.
L’Esprit dudict de Selve, aux Humains.
Ce n’est pas moy, c’est vous, qui n’estes point en vie:
Ce n’est pas vous, c’est moy, qui suis exempt de mort:
Ny moy, ny vous, mais Dieu est le puissant et fort:
Et vous, et moy, à lui avons l’ame asservie.”⁠[406]

The sorrow caused by the early death of the Bishop of Lavaur was deep and sincere. Bunel mourned for him as for a father. “There was never a good or wise man intimately acquainted with thy brother,” so he writes to Odet de Selve, “who did not desire to resemble him.”⁠[407] And to Danès he says, “I did fervently love and most deeply revere him.... I seem moreover to have noted this, that those who [192]have attained with unusual speed unto maturity seldom live to an advanced age. For what can years contribute unto men beside moderation, prudence, skill and experience in the most important matters! All these things this man possessed in so high a degree that first the Senate of Venice, then the Roman Pontiff, and finally the Emperor, to all of whom the King sent him to treat of the weightiest matters, marvelled at his surpassing virtue, his great experience in human affairs and his administrative skill.”⁠[408]

There can be no doubt that Bunel did not exaggerate the general opinion formed of George de Selve by his contemporaries. The reputation of his extraordinary gifts has indeed survived to the present day, and is reflected in every notice that has been printed of his life. A distinguished modern historian has paid a high tribute to the brilliant and precocious talents displayed by him on his various embassies, and records the impression everywhere produced by his learning.⁠[409]

It would appear that Odet de Selve proposed to Bunel to write a biography of the bishop. Bunel did not decline an undertaking which he himself had been the first to desire. But for some reason he was unable to devote himself to the task at the required moment,⁠[410] and the work was left undone. It is to be regretted that posterity should thus have been deprived of a contemporary account of so remarkable a man composed by one to whom it would have been a labour of love. Bunel suggested to Odet, however, that his brothers translations from the Greek, and discourses on the Christian religion, should be carefully preserved, and, at some future time, given to the world.⁠[411] This was done; the theological portion constituting those collected works which have been so freely quoted in the course of this sketch.

The portrait of George de Selve given in the illustration, page 170, [193]is taken from an oil painting in the possession of the Marquis de Selve at the Château of Villiers, near La Ferté-Alais, Department of Seine-et-Oise, and is reproduced here by the kind permission of the proprietor.

This portrait, which is life-size, on canvas, is the only one known to exist of the Bishop of Lavaur besides that of the “Ambassadors.” The coat-of-arms of the Selve family and the following inscription are painted on the background:

> GEORGE DE SELVE EVEQUE DE LAVAUR AMBASSADEUR A VENISE A ROME ET VERS LEMPEREUR CHARLE QUINT MORT JEUNE A SON DIOCESE EN MDXLI.

The picture is posthumous. It forms a pendant to the portrait of Jean-Paul de Selve, Bishop of Saint-Flour (brother of George), and was obviously painted at the same time and by the same hand. Jean-Paul de Selve was only made a bishop comparatively late in the sixteenth century, long after his brother’s decease, and, as both prelates are represented in episcopal dress, it is evident that the portrait of George de Selve can only have been painted many years after his death. The style of painting, which is highly mannerized, bears out these indications; if, indeed, it does not point to a yet later date.

The portrait of Jean-Paul de Selve has an inscription identical in orthography, and in shape and size of letters, with that on the portrait of George. If these inscriptions are contemporaneous with the painting, as appears to be the case, both portraits must be posthumous, as the wording records the date of death in each case. The demise of the Bishop of Saint-Flour occurred in 1570.

But the painter of these portraits, whoever he was, must have had something to go upon in producing them; probably, in the case of George, some old likeness which he generalized somewhat freely to bring it into line with the fashion of a later day. Family tradition, moreover, would have preserved the memory of the colouring and general appearance of so distinguished a bishop.

[194]

Here it is that the interest of the comparison with Holbein’s portrait comes in. The Villiers presentment of George de Selve shows the same dark eyes and hair, the same fashion of beard, that we are already acquainted with in the “Ambassadors.” The emaciated features of the later picture tell, indeed, of the effect that years of asceticism, combined with feeble health, had wrought upon the frame of the bishop. But, when every allowance is made, the resemblance between the two portraits is sufficient, it is thought, to show that they represent the same individual, and to lend interest to the examination of the Villiers picture.

[195]

## PART IV
THE DETAILS OF THE PICTURE

[196]

[197]

## THE DETAILS OF THE PICTURE

### CHAPTER I
General Description of the Picture—The Death’s-Head—The Dagger—The Order of St. Michael—The Celestial Globe—The Terrestrial Globe

Benvenuto Cellini, in his “Autobiography,” records an interesting conversation which took place between Francis I. and himself. The artist was submitting to his patron a drawing for a fountain at Fontainebleau.

“The king began by asking me,” says Cellini, “what I had meant to represent by the fine fancy I had embodied in this design, saying ... he knew well I was not like those foolish folk who turn out something with a kind of grace, but put no intention into their performances.” Cellini then addressed himself to the task of exposition, “showing the king that certain of his figures embodied those arts and sciences in which his Majesty took pleasure and which he so generously patronized. On the right hand was to be seen Learning, accompanied by emblems which indicated Philosophy, and her attendant branches of knowledge.” The Art of Design, Music, and Generosity followed in due place.⁠[412]

The design thus described is but a typical instance of the love of allegory which characterized the period. It would be idle to multiply examples, for their name is legion. Whether in the shape of personified qualities, such as are seen in the Polisy “carrelage” of 1545, or of inanimate emblems of learning, or of those minor forms of symbolism [198]expressed by the all-popular “devise,” they permeate art in every direction. Classical allegories, resuscitated from their grave of centuries, are met half-way by the heraldic symbolism, the badges and devices called into existence by the wars of chivalry. The various forms of the Dance of Death contribute their peculiar quota to the prevailing tendency. North and South foster, each in its own kind and degree, the love of expressing things by riddles, the sense of which, half-hidden and half-revealed, was intended to afford some play to the ingenuity of the observer.

THE “ARMS OF DEATH” FROM HOLBEIN’S “DANCE OF DEATH.”

THE DEATH’S-HEAD BROOCH IN DINTEVILLE’S CAP.

This was particularly the case with the “devise” or emblem now at the height of fashion, especially in France. The first edition of Alciati’s “Emblems,” which attained an almost incredible popularity, was published at Augsburg in 1531. But as early as 1522 a collection of one hundred emblems was made by him at Milan and privately circulated among his friends.⁠[413]

Beneath the level of finished elegance which had made Alciati’s emblems the classics of their domain, every amateur tried his hand upon these toys of the imagination. Every French nobleman, from the sovereign downwards, had his personal devise, or more often a series of them. Montmorency, for instance, had a variety of emblems of his own.

The publishers’ mark is among the few forms of this widely-spread taste which have survived to the present day. One such, that of the printer Gryphius of Lyons, has already enabled us to interpret the emblem placed by the Bishop of Auxerre on the Maison de l’Aûmonier at Polisy.

This tendency, so frequently exhibited in the art and literature of the sixteenth century, found its way naturally enough into Holbein’s picture of the two “Ambassadors.”

[199]

It is curious that while the emblems employed in sacred subjects (those, for instance, by which we recognize certain saints) are a matter of common knowledge, the symbolism used in secular art has been to a large extent neglected, and is occasionally treated as almost non-existent. Both branches were in reality expressions of the same spirit—a spirit that it is absolutely essential to take into account if we are to obtain any real grasp of the vein of thought illustrated in Holbein’s painting.

In the preceding chapters the origin of the picture has been traced, as well as a great part of its subsequent history. The lives of the two men whose outward and visible forms it has preserved for us have been followed in outline; and something has been seen of the circumstances which helped to mould them to the types presented by the painter. It now remains for us to examine in closer detail the work itself, and to ascertain what traces it bears, beyond the mechanical correspondence of dates and seasons, of the soil from which it sprang. The connection will be found to be even closer and richer than might have been anticipated. The picture reveals itself, in fact, as the exact logical outcome of the circumstances which produced it.

The very first thing which strikes the spectator, the contrast between the swordsman on one side and the gownsman on the other, is intensely characteristic of the era and profession of the two ambassadors.

Brantôme has an amusing passage which well illustrates this point. Himself a dashing swordsman, he inveighs with energy against the preference exhibited by Francis I. for the employment of “gens de robe longue” as ambassadors, rather than of those, in Brantôme’s opinion, far superior, “de robe courte.”⁠[414] He notes especially one occasion at Rome when, according to his ideas, the swaggering attitude of a swordsman would have better served the cause of the King of France than the tame verbosity which, in his view, constituted the only weapon of the man of the gown. The latter, in this instance, was doubly represented by the Bishop of Mâcon and Monsieur de Vély, with both of whom acquaintance has been made in the course of these pages.

[200]

> “Une chose voudrois-je bien scavoir,” he exclaims, “si ... il y eust eu quelque brave et vaillant chevalier de l’Ordre du Roy, ou un capitaine de gensdarmes, ou autre valeureux gentilhomme de main et de bonne espée et bravache, ... encor si l’Empereur se fust tant advancé en paroles, s’il n’eust pas songé deux ou trois fois, quand il eust veu l’autre parler à luy et respondre bravement, quelquesfois mettant la main sur le pommeau de l’espée, quelquesfois au costé pour faire semblant de prendre sa dague, quelquesfois faire une desmarche brave, quelquesfois tenir une posture altière, maintenant son bonnet enfoncé, maintenant haussé avec sa plume,⁠[415] ores au costé, ores au devant, ores en arrière, maintenant laisser pencher à demy sa cappe⁠[416] comme qui voudroit l’entortiller à l’entour du bras et tirer l’espée.... Au lieu que M. de Mascon et M. de Vely, encor qu’il respondit un peu bien pour son estat et profession, ne pouvoit tenir autre contenance, sinon quelquefois avec les doigts rabiller son bonnet carré, racoustrer, et entendre bien, avec ses deux mains serrées et les pouces étendus, sa cornette de taffetas, retrousser sa grande robbe de velours ou de satin sur les costez; tout cela ne pouvoit donner la moindre terreur du monde, ny a penser rien de peur dans l’âme.” ...⁠[417]

So far the pen of the vivacious Brantôme. Without necessarily endorsing his reasoning, it may be said that his words form a striking comment on the costumes exhibited to us by Holbein, whose work must now be examined in detail.

Description of the Picture.—The Bailly of Troyes stands to the [201]left, the Bishop of Lavaur to the right, of a solid wooden table, of two shelves, which occupies the centre of the painting.

Dinteville is richly clad in a slashed doublet of rose-coloured satin, a black jacket and surcoat. The latter is lined with ermine, with which the shoulder-puffs, further adorned with gilt tags, are piped. The oval medallion of the French Order of St. Michael is suspended from a gold chain worn round the neck. With the right hand he grasps a gold dagger, the elaborately-chased sheath of which bears the inscription: AET. SVAE 29. A large green and gold silk tassel, of surprisingly fine execution, hangs, with the dagger, from his girdle.⁠[418] The hilt of a sword, protruding from the surcoat, while its sheathed point may be seen in the shadow near the ground, shows that Dinteville followed the fashion, then almost universal in France, of wearing both dagger and sword.⁠[419] His left arm reposes on the upper shelf of the table: the tapering white fingers droop carelessly over its edge. The whole attitude bespeaks easy self-confidence. On his head a small black cap, worn jauntily on one side, is adorned by a diminutive silver skull placed on a fanciful shield.

The features of the Bailly of Troyes abound with vivacity and intelligence. The ample dark hair is cut square on the forehead, and worn full on either side of the face; the silky moustache and beard are [202]of a rich chestnut-brown. Brilliant dark eyes, surmounted by strongly marked brows, look straight at the spectator. A tinge of mockery hovers in their glance, as well as in the curves of the small, firmly-closed mouth. Notwithstanding vigour of type, and a certain effect of burliness, partly due to the width of costume then in vogue, signs are not wanting of the delicate health from which the Bailly so frequently suffered. The excessive transparency of the warm, brown skin, the almost hectic flush on the high cheek-bones, the refined, sharply-cut eyelids and prominent eyes, all of which are rendered with extraordinary skill by the painter, tell of a constitution the reverse of robust.

A marked contrast to Jean de Dinteville, the serious and somewhat heavy figure of George de Selve next claims our attention. Dressed in a long gown of chocolate-coloured brocade of large design, lined with brown fur, the Bishop of Lavaur leans his right elbow on a closed book, probably intended to represent some portion of the Holy Scriptures.⁠[420] On the leaves of this book, which rests on the top shelf of the double table, are the words: AETATIS SVE (sic) 25. The square Catholic cap crowns a head that is grave beyond its years. Like his companion, Selve has abundant dark hair and beard. But, in his case, their hue is deeper and colder; and the eyes which look out from beneath the thick dark brows are still and lustreless. Indeed, the contrast of vitality between the two figures is so great as to suggest the fact we already know, that the bishop’s stay in England was of limited duration, and that his portrait was probably not completed from life.

The table which divides the two friends is covered by a Turkish cloth and is littered with musical and mathematical instruments. A celestial globe, placed near Dinteville, a sundial, a decagon, and other geometrical paraphernalia, are scattered on the upper shelf. The lower one is occupied by a terrestrial globe; a lute with a broken string (the case of which is seen beneath the table); an open German hymn-book, in which words and music are plainly legible; a German book of [203]arithmetic, kept open by a square; a pair of compasses, and some flutes. The background of the picture is formed by a curtain of green damask, which half-conceals a small silver Crucifix, hung high up in the left-hand corner. The floor is a very beautiful one of coloured mosaic. But the most striking feature of all this remarkable mise-en-scène is a large oval object placed slanting-wise in the very centre of the foreground. Close examination reveals this to be a skull, or Death’s-head, distorted by reflection in a curved mirror.⁠[421]

The threads of this complex web are woven into each other with astonishing ingenuity. A few of the more interesting objects shall now be described separately, which will pave the way for some account of their significance in combination. The Death’s-head may serve as a starting-point; the conspicuous position assigned to it at once revealing its importance.

The Death’s-Head.—It has been pointed out by more than one observer, beginning with the late Dr. Wornum,⁠[422] that the composition of the “Ambassadors” bears striking resemblance to one of Holbein’s illustrations of the “Dance of Death.” The design in question is the last of the series, and is entitled “Die Wapen des Thotss” (“The Arms of Death”).⁠[423] On either side of a central erection culminating in an hour-glass and in a pair of skeleton arms in the act of projecting a huge stone, stand a man and a woman, symbolical no doubt of human life.⁠[424] In the foreground, corresponding exactly to the position occupied by the distorted skull of the “Ambassadors,” is a Death’s-head, displayed on a shield which resembles in general character the mount of the silver skull which Dinteville wears in his cap.

The repetition of the Death’s-head twice over in the picture of the “Ambassadors,” the singular resemblance of the composition to the [204]design just described, the name borne by the latter, “The Arms of Death,” solve at least one of the mysteries of the picture. Dinteville had apparently made acquaintance in England with the “Dance of Death” series, and had adopted the skull or Death’s-head—“die Wapen des Thotss”—as his personal badge or devise.

It can hardly be doubted that this is the true explanation of the repeated symbols of Death that appear in the picture. Moreover, it may be remembered that in one of the early sets of the “Dance of Death,” which Dinteville may have seen, the design called “die Wapen des Thotss” bears the alternative inscription: “Gedenck das end”—memento mori.⁠[425]

The gloomy thought, perhaps, coincided with the ambassador’s mood. He was often ill. The vision of Death hovered constantly before his eyes. He declares to his brother that he is “the most melancholy ambassador that ever was seen,”⁠[426] and implores the Bishop of Paris to procure his recall lest he leave in this country “his skin and his bones.”⁠[427] The murder of Merveilles⁠[428] at Milan probably accentuated his sinister forebodings and added to them the anticipation of a speedy renewal of war. Under such circumstances the choice of the “Arms of Death” for his devise seems but a natural outcome of his frame of mind.

Holbein’s “Dance of Death” was first published at Lyons in 1538. The composition of the series belongs, however, to a much earlier date, and was in fact completed before Holbein left Basle in 1526. The death of the engraver, Hans Lützelburger, which occurred in the same year, long delayed publication. But Holbein no doubt possessed proofs of the engravings produced up to that period, several sets of which still exist.⁠[429] There is therefore no difficulty in supposing that Dinteville saw them when he was in England in 1533.

“The device,” says a well-known writer on the subject,⁠[430] “was [205]assumed for the purpose of mystification—was, in fact, an ingenious expression of some particular conceit of the wearer containing a hidden meaning.” It was not to be “so plain as to be understood by all, nor so obscure as to require a sphinx to interpret.”

In exact accordance with the conditions thus laid down, the large Death’s-head in the picture of the “Ambassadors” is so ingeniously contrived that the real significance is not apparent until the spectator has discovered the proper spot from which to look at it. Then it stands revealed, at once and incontrovertibly.

The very shadow reflected in the glass has been painted in with the skull that throws it: thus adding to the mystification by making this shadow appear to fall in a different direction from the others of the picture. The painted reflection is indeed but the shadow of the shadow of Death; and, as such, not subject to the laws which govern things of solid substance. It is, in fact, an emblem; not a reality.

The Dagger.—Richly chased in arabesque fruits and foliage springing from the head and trunk of a satyr who occupies the centre of the sheath, the gold dagger clasped in Dinteville’s right hand is a highly characteristic specimen of Holbein’s design.

On the sheath, just above the bold and clear inscription: AET. SVAE 29, there is a confused appearance of further minute lettering. Although difficult or impossible to decipher now, it seems likely from their position and shape that these parallel strokes were once legible characters.⁠[431] Ornament of this form and in this place would be meaningless. Properly speaking, a devise was composed of two parts, emblem and motto; and here, if anywhere, the verbal half of the devise [206]of the Death’s-head would naturally be sought, as it was a common practice to introduce a motto upon some part of a weapon. Further, such a motto would be likely to appear in a small and, probably, much abbreviated form, in accordance with the rule that the motif of a device should be concealed as deeply as possible.

In addition to abbreviation, a barbaric compound of more than one language occasionally figures as the motto of a dagger, intentionally increasing the difficulties of interpretation. In the museum at Basle,⁠[432] there is a design after Holbein for the sheath of such a weapon, which, on a space corresponding to that which, on Dinteville’s dagger, shows his age, bears the mysterious inscription: MORQUNOT. It has been suggested that this strange conglomeration might be resolved into: MORTE QUIESCAT NOT; a hotch-potch of Latin and German which may be translated: “Death stills all ills.” Precedents are not wanting in favour of a polyglot reading of this kind. In this instance the meaning, if correct, would gain satirical point by its position on a death-dealing weapon.

Something of this kind, perhaps even this very motto in further abbreviated form, may once have been expressed by the miniature strokes on the sheath of Dinteville’s dagger. The two German books open before him bring the supposed German ending of the motto within the range of possibility. This reading is, however, purely hypothetical; though there is a strong inherent probability that the opening letters MOR of the Basle design, contain an allusion to Death.

It is not necessary, however, to pin our faith to any particular motto. The number of adages that referred to Death was very large. The often-repeated “Disce mori” (Learn to die) was the motto of Sadoleto, Bishop of Carpentras, whose acquaintance has been made as the friend of George de Selve. “La Mort n’y mord pas” was that of the poet Clement Marot. Innumerable other instances might be [207]quoted. The best known of them all, the familiar “Memento mori,” was, as has been seen, inscribed, in one set of engravings, over “The Arms of Death”; and through this circumstance comes into special consideration here.

DINTEVILLE’S DAGGER-SHEATH FROM THE PICTURE OF THE “AMBASSADORS.”

DESIGN FOR A DAGGER-SHEATH AFTER HOLBEIN, AT THE MUSEUM OF BASLE.

The Order of St. Michael.—This Order was founded in 1469 by Louis XI., and was composed of thirty-six gentlemen with the sovereign for their perpetual head. It was called the “Ordre du Roi,” and was a coveted distinction for nearly a century after being instituted. The Order of St. Michael was, in fact, the French equivalent of the Order of the Garter in England, and of the Fleece in Spain. Throughout the reign of Francis I., and for some time subsequently, it stood alone as the one great order of France.⁠[433] The roll of the knights was unfortunately destroyed during the French Revolution. But the names of a good many of those admitted to the order under Francis I. and his predecessors can be gathered from the pages of contemporary literature, and show them invariably to have been persons in high office or of distinguished family.

The Grand Collar of the order, from which was suspended the image of the Archangel, was composed of cockle-shells linked together by a complicated system of chain-work.⁠[434]

On certain occasions, carefully enumerated in the statutes, the knights were, however, exempted from the obligation of wearing the Collar. These exceptions shall be quoted in the words of the statutes. [208]After laying down the rule respecting the Grand Collar, article iii. continues:⁠[435]

> “... excepté en armes, où il suffira seulement porter ledict imaige saint Michel pendant a une chainette d’or ou lacet de soye, qui ainsi faire le vouldra. Et pareillement quand ledict Souverain ou l’un desdicts Chevaliers iront par pays ou seront en leurs maisons a privée, mesmes en chasse, ou en autres lieux ou ils n’auront aucune compagnie ou assemblée de gens d’estat, ne seront point astrains de porter ledict Grand Collier, fors seulement ledict imaige de l’Ordre en la façon que dict est.”⁠[436]

It will be noted how precisely Holbein’s representation of the Order coincides with the rules laid down in this extract for the “Petit Ordre,” which Dinteville wears in the picture.

This “Petit Ordre,” as it was called in opposition to the “Grand Ordre” with the Collar of scallop-shells, was worn daily by the knights. They were forbidden to part with the Order, or to discard its use in one of the two forms, on any pretence whatever, even were it to save their lives.⁠[437]

The treatment of the pendant image of the saint came to vary considerably as time went on. When worn with the Collar, it was occasionally a clear-cut figure, without encircling rim, similar to the English “George.” But the oval medallion of gold depicted by Holbein was no doubt the usual and more correct form. It is to be [209]seen in innumerable French portraits of about this date. Several instances may be found in the Louvre. In at least one of these—the portrait of Francis I., attributed to Clouet⁠[438]—the medallion, which here has a black enamel rim, is percé à jour in similar fashion to that worn by the Bailly of Troyes.

Another good example, because within a short time contemporary with the “Ambassadors,”⁠[439] is seen in the portrait of Alfonso I. d’Este, Duke of Ferrara, by Battista Dossi, which now hangs in the Gallery at Modena. Here the medallion of the order is wholly wrought in French colours, blue and gold. The border of the oval is of leaf-pattern worked in gold; while the figures, also in gold, of the Archangel and prostrate dragon are relieved upon a background of bright blue enamel.

Instances of these variations might, however, be multiplied indefinitely. Within certain general limits, a good deal of liberty was permitted to the designer. The forms of Archangel and fiend vary in every fresh instance. The one essential point was that the image should tell its story: that being given, individual taste settled the rest. Nothing could be more fallacious than to apply the standards of uniformity derived from an age of machine-work to the free fancy and unfettered pencil of the sixteenth century.⁠[440]

The Celestial Globe.⁠[441]—It has been a matter of some discussion whether or not this globe is meant to record an astrological observation. To settle the point, a photograph was submitted to the Astronomer Royal, who kindly gave as his opinion that it appeared to represent an ordinary celestial globe, which would also be used for astrological purposes, and [210]in much the same way. It would therefore be impracticable to tell from the picture whether an astrological, or simply an astronomical observation were intended.

Astrology apart, however, the central position awarded to “Galacia,” the cock, a very ancient device of France, appears to suggest a secondary meaning of another kind. The furious attitude of the game-bird, apparently directed against the falling and flying vultures, would surely be unnecessary, supposing a mere constellation to be represented. It seems to symbolize the onslaught of France upon her foes, and their ultimate downfall and flight.

The celestial globe also stands here for Astronomy as one of the Seven Liberal Arts.

It is not known from what original this globe was copied.

The Terrestrial Globe.⁠[442]—Much interest attaches to this instrument both on its own account and for its special relations with Dinteville’s life and career.

From the point of view of the geographer it is interesting to find that this hand-globe of small dimensions is a facsimile in size and contours of that discovered in 1885 by the late Mr. Henry Stevens of Vermont.⁠[443] As such, it affords a second example of a globe of which only Mr. Stevens’ copy had hitherto been known to exist. The gores purchased by him—for the globe was not found in finished form—gave rise to a lively dispute among special students of the subject. Mr. Stevens at once identified his find as the lost globe of Johann Schöner of 1523. This view was maintained and further elaborated by the late Mr. C. H. Coote of the British Museum, who, on the death, in 1886, of Mr. Henry Stevens, edited that gentleman’s notes on the subject, and added to them a valuable introduction.⁠[444]

CELESTIAL GLOBE, FROM THE PICTURE OF THE “AMBASSADORS.”

(Reduced in scale.)

[211]

The attribution to Schöner was not, however, allowed to pass unchallenged. Among other competent geographers who disputed the claim, Baron Nordenskiöld and, in his wake, Mr. Justin Winsor,⁠[445] asserted their conviction that the gores in question were those of a spurious Hartmann globe dating from about 1540. The discovery that it was painted by Holbein in 1533 of course put an end to this theory.

The date of the production of this globe is thus narrowed to a possible range of about ten years. The track of the first circumnavigation of the world by the Spaniards, laid down upon it, proves that it cannot have been designed until after the return of that expedition in 1522. The fact of its appearance in Holbein’s “Ambassadors” shows that it must have been published before 1533.

All authorities agree in the opinion that this globe was made at Nuremberg. Amongst other indications, the name of that city is marked conspicuously in the centre of Europe, and rendered with equal emphasis by Holbein.

A curious feature is the line of demarcation fixed by Pope Alexander VI. to divide the Spanish and Portuguese possessions of the new world. This line is explained in the original globe and in its copy by Holbein by the words: “Linea Division̄is Castellorū et Portugallen̄.”

Two little ships are to be seen on the Nuremberg gores. They [212]show the course of Magellan’s voyage, the line of which is traced all round the world. These two ships are reproduced by Holbein, one north, one south of the Equator, in about the same positions as those marked on the gores. But the line of circumnavigation is omitted, because Magellan’s voyage was not the point to which it was, in this case, intended to draw attention, nor the object for which the globe was depicted.

A careful comparison shows that the two globes have about a hundred names in common: identical save for one or two trifling variations of orthography.

A more striking divergence is seen in a number of names inserted in Holbein’s globe, which are not found upon the original. These additions are all in Europe, and principally in France and Spain. The writer is informed on highly competent authority⁠[446] that no professional map-maker would have crowded this quantity of names on to a hand-globe of small dimensions. All the extra words must have been added by an amateur for some special reason.

The truth of this observation is at once made manifest by the fact that “Polisy,” the name of Dinteville’s Château in Burgundy, is amongst the places marked in France.

A further curious point makes it doubly clear that the object was to invite the spectator’s attention to certain centres in Europe of peculiar interest to the ambassador. The position of the globe in the picture is such, handle downwards, that the names marked upon it, if copied exactly from the model, would naturally appear wrong side up. This is, in fact, the case with the large continent of “Affrica,” which had no connection with the purposes in view. But, in the continent of Europe, the names are placed by Holbein in reversed position, so as to be easily legible.⁠[447]

The places added, no doubt on Dinteville’s initiative, are nearly [213]twenty in number. They consist of five provinces⁠[448] and four towns,⁠[449] including Polisy, inserted in France; four provinces in Spain,⁠[450] two cities in Italy;⁠[451] Sinus Adriaticus; and the telling names, Servia, Polonia, and Saxonia.

The additions are precisely such as an acquaintance with Dinteville’s life and career would lead us to look for.

France is naturally the country where he has chiefly increased their number. His native Burgundy; his home at Polisy; Paris and Lyons, where he had spent so much of his life at Court; Bayonne, the seat of many important negotiations during the troubles with Spain; Brittany, recently incorporated with the French Crown; Languedoc, of which his cousin and protector Montmorency was the Governor: these are amongst the first names we should expect to find, and do find, inserted.

Spain ranks second in the proportion of places added—a fact sufficiently explained by the relations of France with Charles V., which dominated the whole tenour of her diplomacy. Moreover, Spain was familiar ground to Dinteville’s brothers, if not to himself. Vanlay had been employed to carry despatches between France and Spain during the negotiations which preceded the Treaty of Madrid. Deschenetz had been brought up in the household of Henry, Count of Nassau, at the Spanish Court.⁠[452] Louis de Dinteville had been sent thither as ambassador by the Knights of St. John.⁠[453] Here then were links enough to give that country a prominence second only to France in the estimation of the Bailly of Troyes. But it was probably the political aspect which he chiefly intended to emphasize. The key to Dinteville’s additions to the globe, outside France, is to be found in the course of French diplomacy between 1525 and 1533.

Rome, placed by her great position in the forefront of public affairs, seems an addition natural enough to the map of Italy. The recent [214]mission of the Bishop of Auxerre to the Holy See gave a touch of personal interest to the political importance of the name.⁠[454] Genoa, the second city added to Italy, was still claimed by the King of France as his rightful possession and included in his titles. Venice, the great emporium of South German commerce with the East, was already marked on the Nuremberg globe. Closely allied with France, the city of the Lagoons was the port through which all her secret negotiations with the Turk were conducted. Thence the various emissaries despatched by the French King traversed the Adriatic to reach the court of Solyman. It is therefore not surprising to find that Dinteville has included Sinus Adriaticus in his list of additions, and that Servia, whose capital, Belgrade, had been conquered by the ally of France, Solyman II., finds a conspicuous place among the countries of Southern Europe. Constantinople was already marked on the model globe.

Polonia and Saxonia are the two additions which remain to be considered. These names represent two further powers allied with France: Sigismund, King of Poland, and the Protestant princes of Germany, at whose head stood the Elector of Saxony.

Thus we have in Dinteville’s additions to the globe a kind of epitome of the foreign relations of France, in the period which immediately preceded the creation of the picture. It will presently be seen that the Lutheran Hymn-book, placed near the Bishop of Lavaur, is equally symbolical of her religious diplomacy.

The interpretation thus arrived at is the necessary corollary of the choice of names made by the Bailly for insertion upon the globe. To imagine those additions to be the result of pure chance would be to suppose an effect without a cause. The single fact among them of the word “Polisy” forbids such an idea. If it was worth while to insert them at all, they must have been the result of some principle of selection: a mere globe could have been simply copied from the model.

TERRESTRIAL GLOBE, FROM THE PICTURE OF THE “AMBASSADORS.”

(Reduced in scale.)

GORES OF THE NUREMBERG GLOBE COPIED BY HOLBEIN.

The following is a complete list of the names marked, in the given hemisphere, on either globe. Dinteville’s additions have been printed [215]in italic type, for convenience of comparison. In a few instances, where the surface of the picture has been slightly damaged, portions of names have become obliterated; but in all cases where the words do not form part of Dinteville’s additions, the parent globe supplies the defective letters.

List of Names on the Stevens Globe. | List of Names on Holbein’s Globe.
--- | ---
Insula Espaliola | .....a .sp......
Antiglie Insule | Antiglie Insul..
Accores | Accores
Medera | Medera
Canarie | Canarie
S. Anthoni | S. Anthoni
S. Jacobi | S. Jacobi
Insule Hesperide | Insule Hesperidū
S. Thome | S. Thome
Brisilici terra | Brisilici R.
Islandia | Isl.....
Europa | Europa
Angli | Angli
Scocia | Scocia
Ibernia | Ibernia
Lisibono | Portugal
Hispania | Hispania
| Castil
| Aragon
| Navar
| Grana
Francia | Francia
| Pritann
| Norma..ia
| Avern
| Burgund
| Languedoc
| P..ris
| Leon
| Polisy⁠[455]
| Baion[216]
Italia | Italia
| Roma
Venetia | Venecie
| Genua
Maiorica | Maiorica
Minorica | Minorica
Corsica | Corsica
Sardinia | Sardinia
Sicilia | Sicilia
Creta | Creta
Rodis | Rodis
Ciprꝰ | Cipra
Germania | Germania
Nurēberga | Nurēberga
| Saxonia
| Polonia
| Servia
Cōstāti | Cōstāti
Prussia | Prussia
Dacia | Dacia
Russia | Russia
Grecia | Greci
Dalma | Dalmacia
Cremani | Cremania
Norbegia | Norbegia
Scania | Scania
Svetia | Svetia
Lappia | Lappia
Russia (second time) | Russia (second time)
Desertū magnū | Desertū m....
Naymano rum reg: | N.... .....
Livonia | Livonia
Moscovia | Moscovia
Bulgaria | Bulgaria
Tartaria Cumanie | Tartaria Cumanie
Bisermino um terra | Bisermino um terra
Tartaria Corasine | Tartari.. Corasine
Tartaria Torqueste | Tartaria Tor..ues..e
Cambera | C..m....[217]
Persarū reg: | Persarū Reg..
Chaldea | Chaldea
Nagai | Nagai
Iberia | Iberia
Turchia | Turchia
Armenia | Armenia
Georgia | Georgia
Mosalia | Mosalia
Mesopotamia | Mesopotamia
Siria | Syria
Jerosolima | Jerosolima
Arabia Sterilis | Arabia Sterilis
ᵒMecha | ᵒM....
Arabia Felix et Leaman | ...... ..... .. L..man
Aden | Aden
Affrica | Affrica
Barbaria | Barbaria
Fessa | Fessa
Getulia | Getulia
Senega | Senega
C. Viride | C. Viride
Ginoia | Ginoia
C. de palmis | C. di Palmis
Libya Interior | Libia Interior
Libya desertum | Libie Desertum
Marmarica | Marmarica
Egiptꝰ | Egiptꝰ
Alexā | Alexā
Habesch presbyter Joannes⁠[456] | Habesch ..esbiter ...nnes⁠[456]
Ethiopia | Ethiopia
Ethiopia sub Egiptꝰ | Ethiopia sub Egiptꝰ
Seyla | ...la
Orguene Regnū | Orguene Regnū
Melli regnū | Melli Regnū
Nubie regnū | Nubi.. Regnū
Rio de Camareos | Rio de Camareos
Rio de Gaban | Rio de G.....
Angra das Aldas | An... ... .....[218]
(Seas, Gulfs, etc.)
| Sinꝰ Adriaticus
Pōtꝰ Euxinꝰ | Pōtꝰ Euxinꝰ
Hircanū et Caspiū.. mā | Hircanū et Caspiū Ma..
Persicū et Bessara Si. | Persicū et Bes...a Si..
Arabicꝰ Sinꝰ | Arabicꝰ Sin...
(Rivers.)
Renꝰ | (Rhine marked but not named)
Danubiꝰ | Danubius
Neper Fl. | Neper Fl.
Meroe Nilꝰ Fl. | Meroe Nilꝰ Fl.
Troglodite | Troglo....
Mãgi Congo | Mãgi Congo
Tanais | Tanais
| (The Seine and Rhone are also marked by Holbein, but unnamed)
(Divisional Lines, etc.)
Arcticꝰ Circulꝰ | Arct.. ......
Tropicꝰ Cancri | Tropicꝰ Cancri
Equinoctialis circulꝰ | Æquinoccialis Circulꝰ
Tropicꝰ Capricorni | Tropicꝰ Capricorni
Linea divisionis Castellanorū et Portugallen̄ | Linea Divisionis Castellanorū et Portugallen̄

[219]

### CHAPTER II
The Lutheran Hymn-Book—The Book of Arithmetic—The Geometrical Instruments—The Mosaic Pavement—The Lute—The Seven Liberal Arts—The Silver Crucifix—Occult Science—Conclusion

The Lutheran Hymn-Book.—The introduction of a German Hymn-book on the lower shelf of the table, near George de Selve, tends to confirm the belief that the Bishop of Lavaur had already been sent to Germany in a diplomatic capacity as early as 1529, and had there probably attended the Diet of Spires.⁠[457] Certainly, no two hymns could better exemplify his views regarding religious reunion than those selected in the picture.

On the left-hand page is seen the “Veni Creator Spiritus” in Luther’s German rendering: on the right, Luther’s “Shortened Version of the Ten Commandments.”⁠[458]

HYMN BOOK FROM THE PICTURE OF THE “AMBASSADORS.”

Both these hymns are to be found in Johann Walther’s “Geystliche Gesangbüchlein,” published at Wittemberg in 1524.⁠[459] This, the first Lutheran Hymn-book containing music as well as words which was used in the Reformed Churches of Germany, was the basis of numerous later editions, chiefly published in South Germany. A [220]distinguishing mark of Walther’s “Gesangbuch,” in which it is followed by all these South German reproductions, is the preservation of the old word “Glast,”⁠[460] instead of the more modern “Glantz,” in the hymn “Kom Heiliger Geyst.” This feature may be observed in Holbein’s copy. A slight difference in the termination of each verse suggests that the example he had before him may have belonged to one of the later editions referred to above. If so, that edition must have followed the original very closely; for the actual number XIX. placed by Walther over the second hymn, “Mensch wiltu leben seliglich,” is copied into the picture. Either by inadvertence, or because the first hymn, “Kom Heiliger Geyst,” was here intended to figure only as an antiphon,⁠[461] the number is however placed by the painter over “Kom Heiliger Geyst,” instead of over “Mensch wiltu.”

The following is the exact text of the two hymns, as given in the Chorale-book of the “Ambassadors”:

XIX.
KOm Heiliger Geyst Herregott
erfüll mit Deiner gnaden gut
Deiner gleubgē Hertz mut un̄ sin
dein brūstig lib entzūd in ihn.
O Herr durch Deines lichtes glast
zu dem glaubē versamlet hast
das volck aller Welt zungē
[das sey] dir Herzu lob gesungen gesungen.

[221]

[On the opposite page:]

Mensch wiltu leben seliglich
und bei Gott bliben e[wiglich]
Soltu halten die zehen gebot
die uns gebeut unser Gott unser [Gott]
D[ein]....⁠[462]

Coming now to the setting of the two hymns, it is to be remarked that while Walther preserved the old and familiar melody of “Kom Heiliger Geyst,” the music of “Mensch wiltu leben seliglich” first appeared in the “Gesangbuch” of 1524.⁠[463] The melody of the former hymn is in the treble part, that of the second in the tenor. As the book copied in Holbein’s picture is a tenor part-book, only the counterpoint sung by that voice is found to the hymn “Kom Heiliger Geyst”; while, to the second hymn, the melody is given, which in this instance resided in the tenor.⁠[464]

The reader who has followed the career of the Bishop of Lavaur through the earlier pages of this volume will have seen how large a part the hope of religious reunion between the Roman Catholic and Reformed Churches played in his life. To find means to promote that end was the object of his most earnest thought; to see it accomplished, the dearest wish of his heart. The healing of the schism, so the bishop held, could only be sought in a better endeavour, under [222]guidance from above, to live in conformity with the divine teaching. When therefore it is found that the two hymns chosen in Holbein’s picture to emphasize this point are “Come, Holy Ghost” and the “Ten Commandments,” it is evident that a more telling selection could not have been made.

Had a Latin text of the “Veni Creator” and the Commandments been chosen, in accordance with the use of the Roman Catholic Church, they would have conveyed nothing to the spectator of the Lutheran schism and of efforts towards reunion. But the German version at once emphasizes the desired point.

The doctrine expressed by these two hymns belonged, moreover, to all Christian bodies, orthodox or the reverse. They therefore appeared singularly fitted to furnish the common ground so much desired.

The “Veni Creator Spiritus” was (and still is) the great hymn of Christendom for all specially solemn occasions. Selve must have heard it on the opening day of the Diet of Spires. Soon he would again listen to its strains, on the occasion of his own consecration as bishop.⁠[465] In the Lutheran churches it was sung on all Sundays and Festivals.⁠[466] Thus, no hymn had a more universal character.

It has been plausibly suggested that some of the German objects introduced into the picture may have been a loan from Nicolas Kratzer, the astronomer. In the present instance, however, this idea does not commend itself as probable. There does not seem any reason to suppose that Kratzer, an orthodox Catholic, who had no professional relationship with theology, was the possessor of a collection of Lutheran hymns. If not the property of the Bishop of Lavaur, the book may easily have belonged to Cranmer. Official ties had brought him into contact with the Bailly of Troyes;⁠[467] while the connections of the archbishop [223]with the Protestants of South Germany are well known.⁠[468] But it is not necessary to push the question further, for the channels were multitudinous, both within and without the Steelyard, through which the Hymn-book might have been obtained.

The Book of Arithmetic.—If a satisfactory reason is forthcoming for the representation of the Hymn-book in the German tongue, what can be said to account for the fact that the book of Arithmetic is couched in the same language?

The question brings the reader to one of the collective meanings of the picture. The language of this book, significantly kept open by a square, was probably a matter of indifference, being introduced, so far as can be seen, only to symbolize Arithmetic as one of the Seven Liberal Arts. The interest centred on the numbers, not on the nationality of the book. Any well-known manual of arithmetic, in any language, would have attained this object.

Some separate significance, which it has not been possible to fathom, may of course attach to the book beyond the one here specified; many of the objects of the mise-en-scène being made to do duty two or three times over, first singly, and then in varied combination.

It may be noted also that the Bailly of Troyes shared, to the fullest extent, the love of his time and country for setting such riddles deep. The whole picture is conceived in that spirit of the devise which was “assumed for the purpose of mystification” and contained “a hidden meaning.” If the use of the German language, with which both ambassadors were probably familiar, would complicate the problem of interpretation, Dinteville would have been likely to prefer it for that very reason.

[224]

The “Merchant’s Arithmetic Book” selected to represent one branch of the Seven Liberal Arts, was a widely disseminated manual at the period under consideration, and was therefore eminently representative of the subject of which it treats.⁠[469] The exact title is: “Eyn Newe unnd wolgegründte underweysung aller Kauffmannss Rechnung in dreyen büchern ... durch Petrum Apianū von Leyssnick u. Astronomei zu Ingoldstat Ordinariū verfertiget.” (A new and well-grounded Instruction in all Merchant’s Arithmetic, in three books ... compiled by Peter Apian of Leisnig, Astronomer in Ordinary at Ingoldstadt.) The colophon reads; “Gedrückt und volendt zu Ingoldstadt durch Georgium Apianum von Leyssnick im Jar nach der Geburt Christi 1527 am 9. tag Augusti.” (Printed and completed at Ingoldstadt by George Apian of Leisnig, in the year after the birth of Christ 1527, on the 9th day of August.)⁠[470] The page copied by Holbein is in Book III., Q 8, verso.⁠[471]

This manual of arithmetic may have been borrowed from one of the merchants of the Steelyard, or possibly from Kratzer.

Some of the Geometrical Instruments.—Several of these instruments are repetitions of those introduced by Holbein into his portrait of Nicolas Kratzer, painted in 1528.⁠[472] Such are the compasses, seen on the lower portion of the wooden stand; and the columnar dial, the astrolabe, and the decagon, placed upon the upper shelf.

It has been suggested that the torquetum which occupies a conspicuous position on the top of the table, represents an instrument [225]invented by Apian, of which an illustration is given by him in a book published this very year (1533).⁠[473] Variations of this instrument, however, are not, it appears, uncommon at about this period. Nevertheless, the attribution to Apian does not seem improbable, bearing in mind that he was also the author of the book of Arithmetic and was a compatriot of Kratzer’s.

BOOK OF ARITHMETIC, FROM THE PICTURE OF THE “AMBASSADORS.” (Reduced in scale.)

PAGE OF APIAN’S “MERCHANT’S ARITHMETIC” COPIED BY HOLBEIN. (Reduced in scale.)

A curious question arises in connection with the hands of some of the instruments, the shadows from which fall perplexingly at cross-purposes, pointing sometimes one way, sometimes another. The reader must please himself in deciding whether this was done to bring out special numbers and indicate definite, though now inexplicable meanings, or whether it was merely the result of carelessness on the part of assistants who probably executed some of the mechanical details. In the case of the Death’s-head, the divergence of the shadow was too remarkable to be attributed to accident, and was, moreover, accounted for by having been painted from a reflection. But in the minutiæ of some of the mathematical instruments, such lapses from strict science may be due to chance, and are not unknown to Holbein’s practice. In the series of the Seven Liberal Arts, these instruments help to symbolize Astronomy and Geometry.

The Mosaic Pavement.—It is an easy step from these illustrations of mathematical science to the further symbol of Geometry, the beautiful floor of “Opus Alexandrinum,” unique in Holbein’s performance, and perhaps in the annals of pictorial art. And it is surely a point of high interest to observe that this design is an accurate copy of the well-known mosaic pavement in the Sanctuary of Westminster Abbey, for the construction of which marbles and workmen were brought from Italy by Abbot Richard Ware in the reign of Henry III. Nothing brings the English sojourn of the great painter more closely home to us, than to fancy him wandering through the aisles of the venerable Abbey—venerable even then—to sketch the outlines of the historic pavement trodden by so many generations before and since that time.

[226]

DESIGN OF THE MOSAIC PAVEMENT IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY, WITH DETAILS OF PATTERNS. | DESIGN OF THE MOSAIC PAVEMENT IN HOLBEIN’S PICTURE, WITH DETAILS OF PATTERNS.

The mosaic pavement of Westminster consists of a square centre filled with interwoven circles, and flanked on either side by oblong strips, which complete the width of the Sanctuary.⁠[474] The square centre contains the portion copied by Holbein in the floor of the “Ambassadors.” Range upon range of beautiful patterns adorn the interlacing circles of the Westminster mosaic. The reduced scale and perspective view necessary for the picture, has obliged Holbein to simplify some of these to a certain extent. Occasionally he has borrowed smaller patterns from the narrower strips of mosaic on either side of the central figure. But in several instances the patterns are copied with undeviating precision; while the main lines of the great [227]central figure itself, in reversed order, are reproduced in the painting with the utmost fidelity. The colouring is slightly varied to meet the exigencies of another art.

In the presence of so much that is accurate, one notable deviation strikes the eye. The central circle of the Westminster mosaic is filled, at the present day, with a plain round slab of marble, somewhat similar to those which Holbein has placed in the angles of his reproduction. The central circle of the mosaic of the “Ambassadors,” on the other hand, contains a six-pointed star: that double triangle which in a thousand applications played so large a part in the emblematic art of the Middle Ages. A famous figure of Geometry, it was equally well known as the symbol of the Trinity and as the mystical “Solomon’s Seal” of the alchymists.

The first question that arises when considering this discrepancy is whether any alteration has taken place in the central ornament of the Westminster mosaic since the painter sketched it?

Probably this has been the case. The pavement has been much patched and repaired at various times, and, in the judgment of the late Sir Gilbert Scott, “the eye of the great centre circle has a very modern look.”⁠[475] If the six-pointed star once adorned that centre, Holbein’s picture has preserved for us an interesting record of the appearance it then presented.

If, on the other hand, the further surmise of Sir Gilbert Scott is correct, that the centre was “probably originally occupied with an engraved plate of brass,” an unsuitable subject for the painter, the latter would not have had far to seek for the star he has introduced. That ornament was to be seen in abundance, on a small scale, in the mosaics of the Shrine of Edward the Confessor and elsewhere in the Abbey.

The Lute.—Balancing the terrestrial globe on the lower shelf of the table, a ten-stringed lute divides the two books already described.⁠[476]

[228]

Taken in its most obvious application, this instrument serves as an illustration of Music in the Seven Liberal Arts.

Closer inspection reveals, however, that one string of the lute is broken—a discovery which yields some further curious results.

It is hardly necessary to dwell on the universally accepted interpretation of a broken string as an emblem of Death. In the lute we have thus a further insistence on those melancholy symbols which play so large a part in the composition of the picture.

But, beyond this, another more specialized meaning may perhaps have been intended, which, remembering the political import of the terrestrial globe and book of chorales, seems worth consideration.

In the first known edition of Alciati’s “Emblems,”⁠[477] there is one inscribed “Fœdera Italorum.”⁠[478] It is composed, as usual, of two parts: the pictorial device and explanatory text. In this instance the former is a lute⁠[479] and the accompanying Latin poem expounds the author’s meaning in selecting that symbol. The significance is wholly political. The latest commentator of Alciati believes that this emblem was composed to commemorate the League of Cognac of 1526,⁠[480] which, [229]as already explained, united the princes of Italy in a common bond with France and England against the Emperor. Italian patriots anticipated from this league a cessation of those internecine feuds by which their unhappy country had been rent no less than by the intrigues and invasions of foreigners. It was this hope of peace which inspired the choice and composition of the emblem presented by Alciati to his sovereign, the Duke of Milan.

“Hanc citharam a lembi quæ formâ halieutica fertur,
Vendicat et propriam Musa latina sibi,
Accipe Dux; placeat nostrum hoc tibi tempore munus,
Quo nova cum socijs fœdera inire paras.
Difficile est, nisi docto homini tot tendere chordas:
Unaque si fuerit non bene tenta fides,
Ruptave (quod facile est) perit omnis gratia concha
Illique præcellens cantus ineptus erit.
Sic Itali coërunt proceres in fœdera: concors
Nil est quod timeas, si tibi constet amor:
At si aliquis desciscat (uti plerumque videmus)
In nihilum illa omnis solvitur harmonia.”
“This lute, called ‘Fisher’ for its boat-like form,
And claimed by Muse of Latium for her own,
Lord Duke, accept; as welcome at this time,
When you are bent on new alliances.
’Tis hard, save for skilled hands, these chords to tune;
And be there one ill-tuned or broken string,
Easy mischance! all grace of music dies,
And disconcerted is the concert fair.
[230]
So, when the lords of Italy unite
In congress, fear not whilst good will stands firm,
But if (as chanceth oft) one start aside,
Dissolved is harmony, and comes to nought.”⁠[481]

It is easy to see how striking is the application of this emblem to the events which took place in the summer of 1533 at Milan, the actual centre for which it was composed. Nothing could more aptly illustrate Alciati’s metaphor of the broken string than the sudden secession of the Duke of Milan from his alliance with France—an alliance which was a leading feature of that very League to celebrate which the emblem is believed to have been composed. The startling manner of Sforza’s defection, proclaimed by the ruthless murder of the French envoy, Merveilles, emphasizes the point.⁠[482] The very hand in which Alciati had placed his exhortation to peace had roughly snapped the string of the lute. In a moment the face of French politics was changed. The clash of arms in the near future seemed the only possible reply to the affront. The jangle of discord was all that remained of the fair promise of harmony.

Viewed in this light, the lute of Holbein’s “Ambassadors” acquires a meaning which well agrees with the important position assigned to it in the picture and with the political significance of some of the surrounding objects.

It is of course neither possible nor desirable to press an interpretation of this kind too far. But, considering the enormous popularity of Alciati’s emblems, and the practical certainty that Dinteville was familiar with them, the suggestion can hardly be considered far-fetched or improbable.

It seems likely enough, indeed, that the ambassador was personally acquainted with Alciati. At the very time when the picture was being painted, that great jurisconsult was filling the Chair of Law at [231]Bourges, which he held from 1529 to 1534. His fame was immense, and hearers flocked to his lectures. Francis I. himself was occasionally counted amongst his audience; and it seems tolerably certain that Dinteville, whose life, when in France, was spent almost entirely at Court, must have been present at one or other of these discourses.

Just at the same moment, the Augsburg edition of the “Emblems” was achieving popularity by leaps and bounds. The woodcuts that it contained were, however, very inadequate; and, anxious to remedy this defect, Alciati was now occupied in arranging with the printer, Christian Wechel, to bring out an improved and refined edition at Paris.⁠[483] In short, the threads which connected Alciati with France, and with the familiar surroundings of the Bailly of Troyes, were numerous, and appear to place beyond doubt the acquaintance of the latter with the “Book of Emblems.”⁠[484]

The Seven Liberal Arts occupy a considerable place in the scheme of the picture. Having been frequently alluded to in detail, their collective appearance shall now be briefly summed up.

It has already been stated⁠[485] that these were divided into two parts. The first group, comprising Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric, had to do [232]with the things of speech. The two ambassadors themselves, whose profession at that period was largely dependent on the dialectic skill of the negotiator, may be held to personify this division.

The second part was concerned with things of fact, and embraced Music, Arithmetic, Geometry, and Astronomy.

Music is represented by the Lute, the Hymn-book, and the Case of Flutes.

Arithmetic is symbolized by Apian’s “Kauffmannss Rechnung.”

Geometry is illustrated by the various mathematical instruments, including the Square and Compasses, and by the Mosaic Pavement.

Astronomy shares with Geometry many of the mathematical instruments, and is further represented by the two Globes, celestial and terrestrial.

The Silver Crucifix.—This is perhaps the most puzzling object of the whole elaborate mise-en-scène. Pushed away in the upper corner of the picture, as inconspicuously as possible, half-hidden half-revealed by the green drapery of the background, the very fact of its mysterious introduction in such varied surroundings announces some definite object to be attained by its presence. Was it placed there in allusion to the sacred calling of the Bishop of Lavaur? Was it intended as a further indication of the only means by which, in his opinion, the divisions of the Church could be healed and unity re-established?

The Crucifix hangs, however, above Dinteville, not above George de Selve. But there is no doubt that the Bailly of Troyes and the liberal Catholic party in France, led by the Du Bellay brothers, fully shared the bishop’s views. Reunion on the basis of the common grounds of faith formed the essence of their ecclesiastical policy—a policy which was just now reaching its climax. In secular diplomacy, these efforts towards a better understanding with the Protestants of Germany, corresponded with the anti-Imperial alliances which Dinteville so fervently upheld, and which he illustrated by his additions to the terrestrial globe.

The Occult Sciences.—Whether the picture contains, besides its more palpable meanings, any hint in the direction of alchemy and [233]astrology, would seem to be a moot point. Votaries of occult science would probably claim the presence of the mystic “Solomon’s Seal” in the mosaic floor as evidence in their favour, and might further be disposed to deduce many things from the presence of the square and compasses, and from the choice and arrangement of the numbers indicated by the various instruments. On that abstruse path the writer cannot pretend to follow them.

It is a fact, however, that just at this period such pursuits were at the height of fashion, not only in France, but throughout the educated circles of Europe. Men of the highest intelligence, such, for instance, as Pirkheimer, at Nuremberg, still believed in them and set horoscopes;⁠[486] whilst the subject of the transmutation of metals claimed general attention. At the Court of France, where the protection afforded by the king to humanistic studies made all branches of learning, or quasi-learning, fashionable, the mediæval sciences were specially in vogue. “On s’applique surtout aux fausses sciences,” says M. Decrue de Stoutz, writing of the French Court at this period. “L’astrologie et l’alchimie ont plus de crédit que l’astronomie et la chimie.”⁠[487] The peculiar fashion of the Maison de l’Aûmonier at Polisy seems to suggest that the Dinteville brothers had not escaped some share of the general infection.

At the outset of their career, when Jean received his first appointment at Court, and his brother François was Almoner to Louise of Savoy, the famous Cornelius Agrippa, the “Great Agrippa” of our nursery rhymes, was physician to that princess. He soon lost his post at the French Court, having favoured the enterprise of the Connétable de Bourbon. But the Dinteville brothers were in all probability acquainted with his writings, which had achieved enormous celebrity, as well as with other literature of Hermetic art.⁠[488] Their favourite sciences, geometry [234]and astronomy, were closely linked with occult science on their more abstract side.

Is any illustration of this obscure range of study to be found in the accessories of the picture? It is difficult to answer this question with any degree of certainty, the evidence appearing insufficient to afford definite proof of such an intention. But if for a moment the hypothesis be allowed, the presence of the Crucifix would gain additional point as an indication that only the higher forms of these pursuits, such as were countenanced by Churchmen, were here cultivated.⁠[489] Cornelius Agrippa, in explaining his Key to Occult Science, describes a mysterious kind of Death to all worldly affections as a necessary preliminary to the true understanding of philosophy. This was the common ground on which dignitaries of the Church and men of his type could meet. Agrippa specially illustrates his meaning by quoting the passage from St. Paul, Colossians iii., verse 3. Whatever is to be found in books, says Agrippa, concerning the virtue of magic, astrology, and alchemy, is false and deceitful when literally understood. A mystical sense is to be sought in those studies, and this sense can only be attained by means of the Death above alluded to. “This precious Death,” he continues, “is granted but a small number of people, beloved by God, or favoured with a propitious influence of the stars, or supported by their own merits, and the secret of the art.”⁠[490]

[235]

Ideas such as these seem to harmonize not ill with the Device of Death selected, in its more material sense, for representation in the picture, when taken in conjunction with the presence of the Crucifix. But the point leads into a region too abstruse to be further pursued here, and with these few general remarks the reader must be left to decide as he pleases on the presence or absence of intentional allusion to occult science.

Conclusion.—Enough has been said here to prove, with tolerable certainty, that while the general design and masterly realization of the whole subject is due to the genius of the artist, the peculiar train of thought expressed in the manifold details, is the outcome of the mind of Jean de Dinteville. From the simply pictorial point of view, the introduction and position of such objects as the foreshortened Skull and half-hidden Crucifix could not be accounted for. An extraneous influence has here been at work. The closer the examination of the picture, the more this conviction is brought home to the attentive spectator. The objects selected for illustration precisely represent the pursuits and occupations most in vogue at the time in France. Geometry and mechanics, the foundations of the builder’s art just then attaining classical expression in the lovely creations of the French Renaissance; Music, especially that of the lute, which was so fashionable that every Frenchman of exalted position carried a lutist in his train; the ingeniously contrived and artistically rendered devise; these, as the literature of the period abundantly testifies, were among the favourite studies and pastimes of the Court of France. When to these are added the personal touches arising from the special career and idiosyncrasy of each ambassador, the additions to the Terrestrial Globe, the choice of the Lutheran hymns, and the other striking details already enumerated, it becomes evident that only the active influence of the principal sitter could have produced so perfect an epitome of the lives of the two Frenchmen.

For, while the views of the Bishop of Lavaur receive their full meed of attention in the picture, it may certainly be reckoned to the credit of the Bailly of Troyes that such should be the case. The [236]brief visit of George de Selve terminated so early that little, if any, progress can have been made with the minutiæ of the great composition before he took his leave.

To Jean de Dinteville, therefore, we owe a record, probably unique in the domain of art, of the thoughts and studies, the hopes and fears, which swayed his country and generation, and, through them, were reflected in his individual life.

But it is to the magnificent skill of the painter, Hans Holbein, that the preservation of that record is due in the interesting form we see to-day; and it is to him alone that we are indebted for having wrought the heterogeneous objects which accompany his noble presentment of the two Ambassadors into the abiding unity of a great work of art.

[237]

## APPENDIX

[238]

[239]

### APPENDIX A
Georg Gyze, or Gisze

A letter written by Thomas Houth to the Earl of Kildare, Lord Deputy of Ireland, shows that in 1533 Holbein’s sitter, Georg Gyze, was Deputy to the Alderman of the Steelyard.

The portion of the document which here concerns us, in which recovery is sought of a debt owed by one Wolff, in the employment of Kildare, to a man named Peter Rych, runs as follows:

> “Your servant Wolff is indebted to the bearer, as appears by bills of Wolff’s son-in-law’s hand. I ascertained at the Steelyard that the handwriting was his, by the evidence of George Gyes, the Alderman’s Deputy....”⁠[491]

The origin of the name of Gyze, and the variations in the mode of spelling it, have been a considerable puzzle to students of Holbein. It occurs several times over on the addresses of letters and other accessories introduced into the portrait of this German merchant painted by Holbein in 1532, and each time takes a different form. Perhaps the most salient version is that placed in the portrait beneath the motto, “Nulla sine merore voluptas,” where the name is variously read “G. Gisze,” or “Gyze,” according to whether the second letter is taken to be an “i,” followed by a long “s,” or whether the two strokes are combined into one letter, and read as a “y.”⁠[492]

Equal uncertainty appears to prevail as to the type of German used in the various inscriptions. The catalogue (1891) of the Berlin Gallery, where the portrait now is, spells “Gisze,” and says, “An der Wand Briefe mit seiner Adresse in hochdeutscher Mundart.” (On the wall letters with his address in High German dialect.) Dr. Woltmann, in the first volume of “Holbein und seine Zeit” (2nd German edition, 1874), writes “Gyze,” and says (in his note, page 366), “Die Adressen auf den Briefen sind in nieder-deutschen Sprache geschrieben.” (The addresses on the letters are written in Low German language.) In his second volume (1876, “Verzeichniss der Werke von Hans Holbein d. J.,” No. [240]115), Dr. Woltmann alters the spelling to “Gysse,” a form which adds another stroke to the name and corresponds with no rendering given by Holbein.

Where authorities differ so widely a further suggestion may perhaps be permissible.

It must be recollected that the merchants of the Hansa came from many different localities, and brought a variety of dialects to the Steelyard of London. At this time, when the spelling of proper names was, like some of the languages to which they belonged, still in a fluid state, and largely phonetic, the rendering of any given name was liable to vary very considerably, according to local circumstances and the pleasure or provenance of the writer.

Whether we read Gisze or Gyze, the name was probably a variation of that of Gueiss, which was one of the most distinguished of the Steelyard, and frequently reappears in its annals. The family belonged to Cologne. Albert von Gueiss was a representative of the Steelyard at the conference held at Bruges in 1520 between England and the Hansa.⁠[493] He was Burgher-master of Cologne in 1523 and 1526.⁠[494] As it is recorded in the portrait of George Gyze by Holbein that the sitter was in his thirty-fourth year in 1532, he may have been a younger brother or possibly a son of this Albert von Gueiss. Further research in the archives of Cologne would perhaps reveal his exact identity.

Besides the form already quoted, Holbein gives the name on the portrait in several other versions: “Gisse” and “Ghisse,” and, in Latin, “... Georgii Gysenii.” (See Berlin catalogue under “Holbein.”)

The name of Gueiss is also found in three different shapes in the records of the Steelyard: “Albertum von Gueyss,” “Albert von Gueiss,” and “Albert Gissen.”⁠[495]

The third form “Gissen” is practically or wholly identical⁠[496] with at least one of Holbein’s renderings of the name; while Gueiss, Gisze, Gyze, and Gyes are sufficiently nearly related to make it appear tolerably certain that, in the loose orthography of the period, they represent the same name, varied according to the fancy or nationality of the writer.

[241]

### APPENDIX B
“Presbyter Joannes” (Prester John)

“The idea” (says Colonel Yule)⁠[497] “that a Christian potentate of enormous wealth and power, and bearing this title, ruled over vast tracts in the far East, was universal in Europe from the middle of the twelfth to the end of the thirteenth century, after which time the Asiatic story seems gradually to have died away, whilst the Royal Presbyter was assigned to a locus in Abyssinia; the equivocal application of the term India to the East of Asia and the East of Africa facilitating this transfer. Indeed I have a suspicion, contrary to the view now generally taken, that the term may from the first have belonged to an Abyssinian Prince, though circumstances led to its being applied in another quarter for a time.

“Be that as it may, the inordinate report of Prester John’s magnificence became especially diffused from about the year 1165, when a letter full of the most extravagant details was circulated, which purported to have been addressed by this potentate to the Greek Emperor Manuel, the Roman Emperor Frederick, the Pope, and other Christian sovereigns. By the circulation of this letter, glaring fiction as it is, the idea of this Christian Conqueror was planted deep in the mind of Europe, and twined itself round every rumour of revolution in further Asia....”

The title of Prester John, borne by this semi-mythical Christian hero, was transmitted to his successors in Africa; and at the time when Holbein copied the name of his kingdom on to the globe of the “Ambassadors,” was the common appellation of David, King of Abyssinia.

Lord Herbert of Cherbury⁠[498] has a curious passage concerning this personage. In his narrative of the meeting that took place at Bologna between Charles V. and the Pope in the winter of 1532-33,⁠[499] he says:

“During this interview I find in our records a Portuguez in the name of David King of the Ethiopians (vulgarly called Prete Jan) presented himself Ambassador to his Holiness; for authorizing which Charge he brought with him not only Letters of Credence (translated out of the Chaldee to the Italian and Portugal tongues) wherein the said King declared himself to be descended from Queen Candace, mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, but a Crucifix of gold; the further effects of his employment being to require some excellent artificers [242]and 2000 Arquebusiers whom he would use in a war against the Turk in Egypt, when his Holiness would compose the differences in Western Parts, and join all Christian Princes for recovery of the Holy Land; pretending thereupon in the name of that King to render obedience to the Pope as the true successor of St. Peter. But this (as Augustino de Augustini, an Italian there present, and sometimes servant to Cardinal Woolsey, hath it in his letter to Cromwell⁠[500]) made the rest suspected; and the rather that other circumstances made it probable, that this Ambassador was suborned partly by the Portugal to countenance his monopoly of spices towards those parts (much grudged by his neighbour Princes), and partly by the Pope to advance his authority and reputation.”

## FOOTNOTES

[1] The terms right and left signify, throughout this study, the spectator’s right and left.

[2] The picture was acquired, with two others, from the late Earl of Radnor, for £55,000; of which £25,000 was contributed by the State, and £30,000 by Messrs. Nath. Rothschild and Sons, Sir Edward Guinness, Bart. (now Lord Iveagh), and Mr. Charles Cotes. (See Catalogue of the National Gallery, under “Holbein.”)

[3] The husband of Mme. Vigée Le Brun, the painter.

[4] These measurements are incorrect. See note 4, page 9.

[5] Le Brun, “Galerie des Peintres Flamands, Hollandais et Allemands.” Paris, 1792, vol. i., page 7.

[6] The following entries occur in the Account Books of Longford Castle:

- 1808, Feb. 18, Buchanan, Picture Dealer, on account, £100.
- 1809, June 24, Buchanan and his assignee Halden, £1,000.

As on a print of the picture at the British Museum a note is inscribed, “sold by Buchanan for 1,000 guineas,” there can be no doubt that the entries in question refer to “The Ambassadors.” These and other facts relating to the Longford period in the story of the picture have been kindly communicated to the writer by Lady Radnor.

[7] “Some account of the Life and Works of Hans Holbein,” by Ralph Nicholson Wornum, London, 1867, chap. xiv., page 275.

[8] “Holbein und seine Zeit,” by Dr. Alfred Woltmann, second German edition, vol. i., page 372, vol. ii., page 141.

[9] “Archæologia,” vol. xliv., part ii., pp. 450-455. (“Remarks on some pictures of Quintin Matsys and Holbein in the Collection of the Earl of Radnor at Longford Castle,” by John Gough Nichols, Esq., F.S.A.) In spite of errors of fact and speculation, Mr. Gough Nichols’ treatment of the subject was by far the most scientific it had met with up to that time.

[10] Amongst the Windsor drawings by Holbein there are two portraits of Wyat. Several oil paintings also exist of this personage.

[11] Curiously enough, Mr. Gough Nichols actually cites the name of George de Selve, Bishop of Lavaur, but rejects it, having examined it only with regard to the left-hand figure, which obviously is not that of a Bishop! So near did he come to the truth.

[12] “Times,” September, 1890. “Art Journal,” January, 1891.

[13] It seems unnecessary to record here the many interesting suggestions put forward for the identification of Holbein’s sitters. An exception should perhaps be made with regard to Mr. Sidney Colvin’s proposal of Nicholas Bourbon, the poet, for the second figure; because, in consequence of an article from his pen in the “Art Journal” for January, 1891, the idea was repeated in more permanent form, though merely as a surmise, by Mr. Lionel Cust, in the “Dictionary of National Biography” (art. “Holbein”). It is sufficient to say here that Mr. Colvin immediately withdrew his suggestion when the real identity of the second individual was made known. (“Times,” Dec. 10, 1895.)

[14] The seigneurie of Avaux in Champagne was raised to the rank of a Comté in 1638, in favour of Jean Jacques de Mesmes, who had married the heiress of that estate.

[15] See note relating to the sons of Jean de Selve, part iii.

[16] “Times,” May 15, 1894. Mr. Dickes had a different theory of his own which his interesting find materially assisted to overthrow.

[17] The catalogue of the National Gallery (1898) gives the dimensions as follows: “In oil, of ten vertical panels, 6 ft. 10 in. high, by 6 ft. 10¼ in. wide.” It is curious that while the catalogue of the Beaujon sale makes the picture much wider than high, Le Brun’s description, about five years later in date, exactly reverses those proportions. Le Brun’s measurements are obviously the less incorrect of the two, as the engraving in the “Galerie des Peintres Flamands,” etc., shows that the picture, if represented in proportions that at all corresponded with the original, was, in his time, much higher than broad; but both descriptions must have been very inaccurate. Excessive carelessness on the part of the French writers is probably the main explanation of the discrepancies.

[18] The spectator’s right.

[19] The signature and date have been recorded as existent or non-existent at various times in the history of the picture, according to the condition of the painting and of the light at the moment of examination. In the excellent circumstances it now enjoys, both one and the other are plainly visible.

[20] Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des Estampes, Cote Yᵈ, 184; and a second copy in the same library, Imprimés, V, 8201, 18. Catalogue de tableaux ... après le décès de M. Beaujon ... redigé par P. Rémy et C. F. Julliot, fils. Pp. 7 et 8, Ecole des Pays-Bas, Jean Holbein. In the margin of the first copy named is a note in ink: “Prix de vente 602L. A été vendu avec le No. précédent et pour la même somme.” The preceding number (16) is under the same heading “Jean Holbein.” But as it is said to represent “La Cour de François II.,” who began to reign in 1559, while Holbein died in 1543, it is scarcely necessary to observe that, if rightly described, it can have had nothing to do with this painter. The sale began on April 25, 1787; the “Ambassadors” and its companion picture were disposed of on May 5.

[21] “Revue de Champagne et de Brie,” vol. xxiv., page 318. M. Lefèvre-Pontalis alludes to the same notice in his preface to the “Correspondance politique d’Odet de Selve,” edited by him for the French Foreign Office.

[22] The paragraph in brackets is in another writing. See facsimile, facing page 12.

[23] Up to Easter (April 13), 1533, the year was still 1532 by the old reckoning.

[24] “[Remarks on the subject of an excellent picture of the Sieur d’Inteville Polizy, and George de Selve, Bishop of Lavour, showing the offices they held, and the time of their decease.

“In this picture is represented, life-size, Messire Jean de Dintevile chevalier Sieur de Polizy, near Bar-sur-Seyne, Bailly of Troyes, who was Ambassador in England for King Francis I. in the years 1532 [O.S.] and 1533 and since Governour of Monsieur Charles de France, second son (sic) of the said King; the same Charles died at Forest Monstier in the year 1545, and the said Sr. de Dintevile in the year 1555. Interred in the Church of the said Polizy. There is also represented in the said picture, Messire George de Selve, Bishop of Lavaur, a personage of great learning and virtue, who was Ambassador with the Emperor Charles V.; the said Bishop was the son of Messire Jean de Selve, Premier President of the Parliament of Paris; the said Bishop died in 1541, having in the above-mentioned year 1532, or 1533, gone to England by permission of the King, to visit the said Sieur de Dintevile, his intimate friend, and also of all his family; and they two having met in England an excellent Dutch painter, employed him to make this picture, which was carefully preserved at the said place, Polizy, up to the year 1653.”

This document is now the property of the Trustees of the National Gallery.]

[25] Possibly the writing of the docket might be identified by a person conversant with the handwritings of the French antiquaries of the seventeenth century, who did such good service by the preservation of ancient manuscripts.

[26] “Gallia Christiana” (Lutetiæ, 1715), vol. xiii. (1722), page 344. “Ecclesia Vaurensis,” No. xxi., Georgius de Selve.

[27] This deed, preserved at Villiers-par-Cerny, near La Ferté-Alais (Seine-et-Oise), and never before published, was kindly placed at the writer’s disposal by the Marquis de Selve. The Papal licence forms an authoritative standard by means of which the many loose statements regarding the bishop’s age, with which the printed notices of his life abound, may be easily checked. Villiers was owned by Jean de Selve, Premier President, father of the Bishop of Lavaur, at least as early as 1528.

[28] Joachim de Dinteville, the head of the elder line who resided at Dinteville in Champagne, died in 1607. He was Lieutenant du Roi in that province, and a man of great ability and reputation. His correspondence has been published in the “Revue de Champagne et de Brie.” With his demise the male line of the house of Dinteville became extinct in both branches.

[29] Brother to Jean, the Ambassador.

[30] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Du Puy, 702 f. 147. Camusat to Du Puy. Madame de Cessac was niece to the Bishop of Auxerre.

[31] Paris, Bibl. Nat. MSS. fr. nouv. acquisition, 6208 (“Corr. des frères de Sainte-Marthe”), f. 74. Camusat to MM. de Sainte-Marthe, Troyes, 21 August (probably 1607). “Je vous envoye une généalogie qui m’a esté donnée par la dame de Sesac, laquelle est de la maison de Polizy Dinteville....”

[32] “Meslanges Historiques,” part ii., p. 211 (Troyes, 1st ed., 1619).

[33] Not to be confounded with a distant connection, Louis de Castlenau, Marquis de Cessac, a celebrated gambler, who is alluded to by various writers of the time. John Evelyn mentions having paid this person a sum of money owed to him by Lord Berkeley, which Castelnau immediately played away. (“Diary,” Bray’s ed., vol. ii., p. 107.)

[34] Dubuisson-Aubenay, “Journal des guerres civiles,” edited by M. Saige, vol. ii., pp. 65-73. The Dictionaries of Nobility, etc., mention only the daughter, Charlotte-Marie, who survived.

[35] Imperial territory.

[36] Dubuisson-Aubenay, “Journal des guerres civiles,” vol. ii., pp. 65-73.

[37] Polisy was sold 1654, Deschenetz in 1656, the smaller properties no doubt following suit as occasion offered.

[38] Memoir in explanation of three letters sent by Monsʳ. Camusat, Canon of St. Pierre at Troyes, [touching a picture made in England of George de Selve, Bp. of Lavaur, who had gone thither to visit the Bailly of Troies, Sr. de Polizi, Jean d’Inteville, at that time the king’s ambassador].

There are two relating to the Bishop of Lavaur, George de Selve, son of M. le Premier President de Selve, which Bishop had been invited by M. de Polizy, bailly of Troyes, ambassador in England in the years 1532 [O.S.] and 1533, to visit him in England, which he did, having first taken leave of the king. And being in England, they had made the excellent picture by a Dutch painter, Holben, which picture was preserved in the House of Polizy, distant but one league from Bar-sur-Seine, a hundred and forty [sic] years and more, as belonging to the Seigneur of the place, Sʳ. de Sessac, until the year 1653, when he had it removed to Paris, to his house near the parish of St. Sulpice; the said picture representing the said Sr. de Polizy, Jean de d’Inteville, and the said Bishop of Lavaur who was afterwards ambassador with Charles V.; the said Bishop died in 1541. The said picture is considered the finest piece of painting in France in the opinion of the best painters. M. le Maréchal du Plessis-Praslain bought the estate of Polisy for three hundred thousand livres from the said Sr. de Sessac.

M. de Vic, garde des sceaux, formerly said that it was the most beautiful piece of painting in France.

M. George de Selve, and his brothers, worthily served France in various embassies and legations.

[39] The portion between brackets is in another hand. See facsimile, on opposite page.

[40] It will be remembered that these dates are reckoned in the old style, i.e., the year beginning at Easter. Jean de Dinteville was in England on this occasion from February to November, 1533. The commencement of his sojourn would therefore belong to 1532, by the old reckoning.

[41] The name “Holben” is inserted between the lines, but is in the same hand and of the same date as the writing which surrounds it. See facsimile, on opposite page.

[42] Obviously a slip of the pen for “cent vingt ans.”

[43] “Méri de Vic, sieur d’Ermenonville, président au parlement de Toulouse, conseiller d’Etat, garde des sceaux (24 Dec., 1621), mort le 2 sept. 1622.” (Lalanne, “Dict. Hist. de la France.”)

[44] Paris, Bibl. de l’Institut, Collection Godefroy, Portefeuille 216, f. 34.

[45] “... The said Bishop ... went to visit in England in 1532 [O.S.] an intimate friend of his, Mr. de Polizy, Jean de d’Inteville, bailly of Troyes, who was then ambassador with Henry VIII.; and then also the said Bishop and Bailly of Troyes had made in England the excellent picture which is now at Paris, in the dwelling of M. de Sessac, in which the said Bailly and Bishop are represented life-size; the said picture is by the hand of a Dutchman; the piece is esteemed the richest and best wrought that is to be found in France.”

[46] Paris, Bibl. de l’Institut, Fonds Godefroy, p. 520, ff. 282 and 283. Mémoire de M. Camusat, chanoine de Troyes touchant les enfans et descendans de Mr. le premr. président de Selves, etc. Dated 1654.

[47] Archives of Polisy, kindly communicated by M. Abrand, the proprietor’s agent.

[48] Paris, Arch. Nat., Y 25, fol. 325.

[49] Berty et Tisserand, “Topographie Historique du vieux Paris” (Région du Bourg St. Germain), pp. 155, 157, 159. (Paris, 1876.)

[50] In 1779 Carlos de la Traverse wrote from St. Ildefonse (Spain) to M. d’Angeviller, proposing to him to buy some cartoons for tapestry designed by Holbein. But the offer was declined on the ground that Holbein was “un peintre sec et demi-gothique.” (“Nouvelles Archives de l’Art français,” IIᵉ Série, t. i., 7th of the collection, pp. 258-262.) The cartoons in question represented scenes from the Passion.

[51] In 1661 M. de Cessac signed a deed in the house “on pend pour enseigne le Croissant,” Rue de Bourbon (Toulouse, Arch. de la Hte. Garonne). In 1669, the date of his marriage with Anne Louise de Broglie, he was in the Rue des Boucheries, Faubourg St. Germain. The marriage contract reveals that he possessed at this time, in all, three houses in Paris; the other two being situated in the Rue des “Viels” Augustins. He had therefore parted with the “logis” in the Rue du Four. The contract confers on him the power to sell, or exchange, in like manner, the three houses now in question. Subsequent legal deeds show a series of further changes.

[52] Archives du Var, B 197 (quoted by M. Dardenne).

[53] Milhars is situated in the Department of Tarn, on a rocky height commanding the junction of the small river Cérou with the Aveyron. For all the facts relating to the history of the Château, and for many of those which concern its occupants, the writer is indebted to M. Henri Dardenne, of Carcassonne, Trésorier-Général of the Department of Aude. This gentleman, who is the author of an interesting (unpublished) history of Milhars and its successive owners, based on original documents, most kindly placed his manuscript at the writer’s disposal.

[54] Camusat himself possessed portraits of Guillaume, Seigneur Deschenetz, and Gaucher, Seigneur de Vanlay, brothers of Jean the Ambassador, as well as that of their cousin, Joachim de Dinteville, head of the elder branch of the family, whose residence was at Dinteville in Champagne. The two first-named portraits Camusat left by will (Paris, Bibl. de l’Institut, Coll. Godefroy, vol. 308, f. 116), to D’Hozier, author of the “Nobiliaire de Champagne”; that of Joachim de Dinteville, to the Abbé Bonhomme, a well-known collector of the time at Troyes. (See Bonnaffé, “Les Collectionneurs de l’ancienne France”). The indifference displayed by the Marquis de Cessac to Dinteville records, in allowing Camusat to acquire these portraits (either at the time of the sale of Polisy, or earlier), brings into strong relief the value placed upon “The Ambassadors,” which seems to have been the only picture retained. This is the more striking, as M. de Cessac possessed, it appears, a “Cabinet” of portraits of some interest, derived from the neighbourhood of his family estates, Cessac and Cazillac. Two of these were reproduced for Du Chesne’s “Hist. des Cardinaux François” (Paris, 1660, pages 426 and 521). The two Cardinals in question belonged respectively to the dioceses of Cahors and Limoges; proving sufficiently that the Marquis de Cessac who owned their portraits was François de Cazillac, and not, as M. Bonnaffé states (“Dict. des Amateurs français”), Louis de Castelnau, the notorious card-player, whose property lay in quite a different part of the country. (See also note, page 15.)

[55] The deed recording the attempted donation was drawn up at Milhars, 1st September, 1665. Roger de Guénégaud was the son of Henri Du Plessis Guénégaud, Marquis de Plancy, the well-known Secretary of State and Garde des Sceaux. This gentleman had married Isabelle (or Elizabeth) de Choiseul, daughter of Charles de Choiseul, Marquis de Praslin, and of Claude de Cazillac, aunt of M. de Cessac. As such, Roger de Guénégaud descended, through his mother, in as direct a line from the Dinteville heiress as the Marquis de Cessac himself. The latter lived on terms of intimate friendship with these relations. Mme. de Sévigné records having met M. de Cessac at Fresnes, the country place of Du Plessis Guénégaud. (Letter to the Marquis de Pomponne, 1st August, 1667.)

[56] M. Aug. Vidal of Albi (Tarn) kindly made researches for the writer on this point, both in the Archives at Toulouse and at the Château of St. Géry, now owned by Madame O’Byrn, a descendant of the family of Rey de St. Géry, who purchased Milhars from the Lamoignon family in 1765. This lady, who has at St. Géry a large quantity of legal papers brought from Milhars, was good enough to place them at M. Vidal’s disposition, but unfortunately without result.

[57] Paris, Bibl. Nat., MSS. français, 28,998, f. 17a, De la Roche-Fontenilles. At the end are the words: “Copie pour Monsieur Voisin,” and the date 1685.

[58] See ante, page 15.

[59] Dardenne MS., p. 164, quoted from the Minutes Gaugiron, p. 51. These are one of M. Dardenne’s most important sources. M. Gaugiron was a notary of Milhars, with whom many of the legal documents of this period were deposited.

[60] St. Simon (“Mémoires”), who has nothing but sarcasm for the family of Mesmes in general, is full of admiration for the goodness, amiability, and unaffected piety of Mme. de Fontenilles. This lady seems to have been in every way a contrast to her husband.

[61] It will be seen later on, however, that the Voisin inheritance was bequeathed elsewhere, so that on Mme. Voisin’s side the connection could only have affected the fate of the picture by supposing that it was given to, or purchased by, the Premier Président, before her death.

[62] Marie-Renée, who, owing to her quarrel with her mother and residence in Champagne, probably knew nothing of the story of the picture, would certainly have been none the wiser if this were the case.

[63] Perhaps no member of the Lamoignon race is better known to history than this one. Born in 1735, Chrétien-François de Lamoignon, Marquis de Basville et de Milhars, became a President à mortier of the Parliament of Paris in 1758. Mixed up in the political storms which preceded the outbreak of the Revolution, he shared the exile of his party in 1772; was recalled; appointed Garde des Sceaux in 1787; resigned the following year, and died at Basville in 1789.

[64] Chrétien-François died, however, and his son fled, at the outbreak of the Revolution, so the arrangement came to an untimely end.

[65] Nicolas Beaujon, a native of Bordeaux, had raised himself, not always by the most creditable means, from a humble origin to a position of great wealth and influence. He was Banker to the Court, and Treasurer to the Order of St. Louis. Although society smiled at the eccentricities of the parvenu, the magnificence of his house and collections made it impossible to overlook their owner. His charities, moreover, were immense. For these and the facts given in the text respecting Beaujon, the writer is indebted to Dr. Charles Fournel, whose little work, “L’Hôpital Beaujon depuis son origine jusqu’à nos jours” (Paris, E. Deuter, 1884), gives the only correct information to be had respecting the millionaire, being founded throughout on original documents. The popular compendiums of biography bristle, as usual, with errors; not excepting Jal, who, however, gives one authentic document.

[66] Now the Elysée, the residence of the President of the Republic.

[67] The letters and chronicles of the time are rich in local colouring, and are preferable for the present object to the stately histories written in a subsequent age. The immense stores of manuscripts preserved in the public libraries of France, especially in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, fortunately facilitate the task to a great extent. Among printed sources none are more valuable than the various series of State Papers, published both in England and France, the “Meslanges Historiques” of Camusat, and—for a contemporary French view of the events of the time—the Memoirs of the Du Bellay brothers.

[68] Literally, “Des Chenets,” and often so written in early records. But the name soon lost its original meaning and was corrupted into one word.

[69] Paris, Arch. Nat., X¹ᵃ 8611, dated Amboise, 4th Dec., 1516.

[70] Ph. de Comines, “Mémoires” (ed. by Mlle. Dupont for the Soc. de l’Hist. de France), vol. ii., p. 436.

[71] Michelet, “Hist. de France au XVIᵉ̀ᵐᵉ siècle” (ed. 1855), “Renaissance,” pp. 190, 191.

[72] A royal order of 1511 permits Gaucher de Dinteville to recover certain moneys due to him from the heirs of Jean, Duc de Nemours, which he had previously been unable to claim owing to absence from home. In this deed he is called “Seigneur de Pollisy et bailli de Troyes.”

[73] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds fr. 7853.

[74] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Cab. des Titres, Pièces Orig., vol. 1004, No. 65, Dossier Dinteville.

[75] Charrière, “Négociations de la France dans le Levant” (Doc. inéd. sur l’hist. de France), vol. i., part ii., chap. i., “Premières Relations de la France avec la Porte.”

[76] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fond fr. 5502, f. 50.

[77] Paris, Arch. Nat., X¹ᵃ 1523 (Rég. du Conseil, f. 33).

[78] Boutiot, “Hist. de Troyes,” p. 285.

[79] Marguerite, the widowed Duchesse d’Alençon, was married to the King of Navarre in January, 1527.

[80] Blois.

[81] Louise of Savoy, the king’s mother.

[82] Génin, Lettres de Marguerite de Valois, vol. i., Lettre 56, p. 224. Marguerite “à mon nepveu, M. le Grant-Maistre, de Gabarre, le 17 Octobre, 1527.”

[83] It was not the first, nor perhaps the second visit, which Anne de Montmorency had paid to our shores. In 1519 he had been one of eight hostages, four nobles and four commoners, sent to England in connection with the cession of Tournay to France. He bore at that time the title of La Rochepot, which has caused Du Bellay to confound him with his younger brother, subsequently known by that name (see Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., p. 13, note 1). One of his fellow-hostages in 1519 was Charles de Solier, Comte de Morette, later more than once French ambassador in England, and the subject of the magnificent portrait by Holbein now in the Dresden Gallery. Another was Antoine des Prez, Seigneur de Montpesat, who also returned subsequently as ambassador (see “Mémoires Du Bellay,” ed. Petitot, vol. i., p. 282). Hall is wrong in saying that there were only four hostages altogether, but identifies Montmorency correctly (see Ellis’s “Original Letters,” 3rd series, vol. i., letter lxxviii., where the passage from Hall’s Chronicle is quoted).

[84] Lefèvre had previously been the instructor of Renée of France, whose sympathies with the Reformers were well known. (Fontana, “Renata di Francia,” vol. i., p. 275, where the further authority is cited: Franz Blümmer, “Renata von Ferrara,” p. 24.) Jacques Lefèvre was born at Etaples about 1455, and died at Nérac in 1537.

[85] Guillaume Budé was born at Paris in 1467. He was secretary to Charles VIII.; was sent by Louis XII. on various missions to the Holy See; was appointed Master of the King’s Library under Francis I., and persuaded that sovereign to found the Collège Royal. His learning and his proficiency in Greek brought him high reputation; he was also the author of many works and translations on a variety of subjects. Budé died in 1540.

[86] Desiderius Erasmus was born at Rotterdam in 1467. Famous alike for profound learning and biting wit, no one, perhaps, exercised greater influence than he in preparing the way for the Reformation. Like many of the humanists of his time, especially those of France, he was not, however, prepared to go to the extreme length of secession from Rome, and was therefore blamed by the Lutherans, rather unjustly perhaps, for weakness and half-heartedness. His relations with England, especially with Warham and More, and his portraits by Holbein, are too well known to need more than a passing mention here. It was owing to his introduction that Holbein first came to England, and was received into the house of Sir Thomas More. Erasmus died at Basle in 1536.

[87] Roussel, another divine of Lutheran leanings, became confessor to the Queen of Navarre, and subsequently Bishop of Oloron.

[88] Erasmus to Lefèvre, 24 March, 1527. Quoted by Ch. Schmidt, “Gérard Roussel.”

[89] Ch. Schmidt, ibid., p. 74.

[90] Erasmus to Germain Brie, 21 September, 1528, quoted by Schmidt, “Gérard Roussel.”

[91] This princess had been brought up by Madame de Châtillon, a lady of high accomplishments, later secretly re-married, it was said, to the Bishop Jean du Bellay.

[92] Daughter of Louis XII. and Anne de Bretagne.

[93] Boutiot, “Hist. de la ville de Troyes,” p. 432. (Paris, 1874.)

[94] Guillaume Du Bellay, Seigneur de Langey, was born at Glatigny, near Montmirail, in 1491, and died 1543. He was Viceroy of Piedmont from 1537, and displayed high capacity in whatever work he undertook. He was part-author of the well-known memoirs, completed by his brother Martin Du Bellay.—Jean Du Bellay, Cardinal, was born 1492, and died at Rome in 1560. As statesman, churchman, ambassador, and author, his career was one of the most distinguished of the reign of Francis I.

[95] Coxe, “Life of Melanchthon,” p. 371.

[96] Ibid.

[97] That is, two hands clasped in each other.

[98] A third souvenir of the Dinteville, and record of their artistic tastes, in the Church of Thennelières, is the beautiful but ruined white marble figure of Louise de Coligny, wife of Gaucher the younger, who inherited Thennelières from his father. It is apparently of Italian workmanship, and was formerly recumbent. It now leans disconsolate in an upright position against the wall of the church, despoiled of its black marble base. See, for an account of the Church of Thennelières, and illustrations of its curiosities, M. Charles Fichot, in the “Statistique Monumentale de l’Aube.”

[99] Louis de Dinteville, Knight of Rhodes.

[100] Guillaume, fourth son of Gaucher, was brought up in the household of Henry, Count of Nassau, who was attached to the Court of Charles V. The Count of Nassau was related to the Dinteville family, and at his death left to Guillaume a house in Paris. On this side the family had both Spanish and German connections.

[101] François (II.), Bishop of Auxerre; Jean, Bailly of Troyes; and Gaucher the younger, who was employed in the public service to carry despatches, etc. All the brothers further held Court appointments.

[102] The following is a literal prose translation of the epitaph:

“The support of the good, Gauche de Dinteville
After having in the civil wars
Of France acquired the name of sage though young;
After having in the renowned expedition
Made by Charles to Naples and Rome,
Won the name of a brave gentleman;
After having, in the ancient city of Sienna,
Filled the post of head of the Republic;
After having been Bailly of Troyes
In Champagne, and seen born to him
Sons, by whom, in his lifetime,
Rhodes, Spain and France were served;
After having in the King’s house had the lot
Of a good Maître d’hostel in Ordinary,
And of First Maître d’hostel to M. le Dauphin:
Seeing his end at last approaching,
And knowing that happy none can be
Until he has put off this terrestrial robe,
He desired to give to his agèd eyes
That last happiness, of being closed by his own family;
The love and pity of whom have laid him here,
Full of years, honours, riches, and friends.”

[103] Paris, Arch. Nat., P. 164², côte 1494.

[104] Gaucher de Dinteville attended the coronation of Francis I. as a Knight of St. Michael. (Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds fr. 32865, Chevaliers de l’Ordre de St. Michel depuis 1515 jusqu’en 1560. This list is, however, incomplete, being an early attempt to reconstruct the roll of the Knights after the destruction of the original at the time of the French Revolution. The MS. expressly states, with regard to Jean, that the only documentary evidence at the disposal of the compiler was an act of 1588, in which Jean is termed Chevalier de l’Ordre du Roi, and the manuscript list of the Knights drawn up by D’Hozier, in 1660, which gives him the same quality. D’Hozier, a famous genealogist, and author of the “Nobiliaire de Champagne,” had every opportunity for obtaining correct information, and had, of course, access to the roll which was subsequently destroyed. Although the exact date of Jean’s admission to the Order is unknown, the fact of his having been a Knight of St. Michael is therefore incontestable.)

[105] Charrière, “Négociations de la France dans le Levant,” vol. i., p. 146, Villiers L’Isle-Adam to Montmorency.

[106] Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., p. 172.

[107] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Dupuy, 702, fol. 131.

[108] Lebeuf, “Mémoires concernant l’Eglise d’Auxerre,” pp. 138-199, quoted by Sandret, “Revue Hist. et Nobiliaire,” xiii., 220.

[109] See illustration, Part II., chap. vii.

[110] Letters and Papers, For. and Dom., Henry VIII., vol. v., 1531-32, No. 579.

[111] Gilles de la Pommeraye was a right-hand man of Montmorency. He had previously been French ambassador at the court of the Archduchess Margaret at Brussels.

[112] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” Letter of La Pommeraye to the Bishop of Auxerre, March 10, 1532.

[113] ... “You are right to envy me being with so amiable a prince, for I think that after the king our master, there has been none for two hundred years past of greater intelligence or grace, or more magnanimous than this one. And to speak frankly to you, the said king our master is under an obligation to him for the good will he shows him, by which I profit greatly, for I am treated here, not as an ambassador, but as a prince of the country; lodged in the house of this said king, and, when I go to see him, always eating at his table. So you must not wonder if I beg and exhort you to uphold his quarrel.

“This prince has a great wish to chastise the priests of this country and not to allow them to enjoy such great privileges as has been their habit; which is caused by the wrong that is being done him at Rome, which is so great that it could not be surpassed. It is a strange thing that the Emperor should have so much power over the Pope as to prevent him doing right and justice there where he knows them to be.”

[114] Bridewell Palace.

[115] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., p. 78b, La Pommeraye to the Bishop of Auxerre, 20 March, 1532. The avowed object of La Pommeraye’s mission was to support the king’s desire that his cause should be heard in England and not at Rome. (Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. v., 1531-32, No. 614, Chapuys to Charles V.)

[116] Balavoyne was the maternal uncle of Théodore de Bèze, the historian of the French Reformation, whose uncle, on the paternal side, Monsieur de Bèze the elder, an orthodox Catholic, died beneath the protecting roof of the bishop’s house in Paris, during the absence of the latter in Rome. Paris, Bibl. de l’Institut, Coll. Godefroy, p. 254, Nos. 23, 24.

[117] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coll. Dupuy, vol. 726, ff. 90, 91. Letter from Berthereau to the Bishop of Auxerre.

[118] Ibid., vol. 728, f. 51.

[119] Paris, Bibl. de l’Institut, Coll. Godefroy, Letter of Balavoyne to the Bishop of Auxerre, Nantes, 25 August, 1532.

[120] Du Bellay, “Mémoires,” ed. Petitot, vol. ii., p. 133. These were certainly the only English subjects admitted to the French Order at this period. The reason given by Du Bellay for the selection of the two dukes sufficiently proves the high esteem in which the distinction was held.

[121] Camusat, “Meslanges Historiques,” p. 110. Traicté touchant la contribution que le Roy et le Roy d’Angleterre doyvent faire pour la deffension du Turc. See also p. 109, Double des traictés, etc.

[122] Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, vol. iv., 1527-33, No. 832. Zuan Antonio Venier to the Signory, Oct. 31, 1532.

[123] See note 7, p. 42. Morette, another of the hostages, had already been over on a short mission in the spring of 1528.

[124] Katherine of Aragon.

[125] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. v., 1531-32, No. 1579, Chapuy to Charles V., Nov. 26, 1532. The “king’s house” in question was the palace of Bridewell.

[126] Perhaps his unmarried sister at Polisy, or possibly his mother. Married women were sometimes termed Mademoiselle, though in this case the appellation would not have been strictly correct, the rank of Gaucher de Dinteville entitling his widow to the name of Madame.

[127] Paris, Bibl. de l’Institut, Coll. Godefroy, portfolio 225, ff. 23, 24.

[128] “Besides this, the Grand Maître expressly charged me to write to you that the moment they have left you can come away. I am sure it will be quite right to say good-bye. But whatever remonstrances, on the score of the king’s service or other things, are made, come away; and you will be welcomed and well received, I assure you; not by me, for you will not find me, as I leave to-morrow; and I hope, please God, that on your arrival, you will find your appeals despatched.”

[129] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Dupuy, 726, f. 107. The Bailly of Troyes to the Bishop of Auxerre, 26 Jan., 1533.

[130] “Be assured, at least such is my fancy, that they are not your friends; but, also, the wisdom of a man is to sit firm in his great encounters. I can tell you that you were in as good grace with the master, when I left Court, as they. Continue as you have begun, and vary nothing, no matter what they may say; and, so long as you speak the truth, care nothing for the rest, for the patron is on your side and three of the most valiant champions.”

[131] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., p. 115b. Gilles de la Pommeraye to the Bishop of Auxerre at Rome. From La Morlaix, near Rennes (in Brittany), 4 Dec., 1532.

[132] Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, vol. iv. (1527-1533), No. 188. Marco Antonio Venier to the Doge and Signory of Venice, London, 20 October, 1527.

[133] Whom Falier came to succeed as resident ambassador.

[134] Sir William Weston.

[135] Jean Du Bellay, at this time Bishop of Bayonne, was in 1528 resident French ambassador in London.

[136] Calendar of State Papers, Venetian, vol. iv. (1527-33), No. 380.

[137] Letters and Papers, For. and Dom., Henry VIII., vol. vi. (1533), Nos. 768 and 1227, De Dinteville to Cromwell.

[138] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. v., 1531-1532, No. 627, Grant 18. Bridewell Palace has fared badly compared with some other houses of the same date, for not only has every trace of it disappeared, but few records or prints exist to give an idea of its appearance in Tudor times. The early period at which it ceased to be a royal residence probably accounts for this deficiency. Edward VI. converted it to benevolent purposes as a kind of workhouse for vagrants; and this use, gradually approaching the functions of a house of correction, was continued in the new buildings erected after the Great Fire almost to the present day. Nearly all the engravings of Bridewell refer to its later history. There are, however, one or two exceptions, on a small scale, and on these the above description is founded. Perhaps the most accurate idea of the palace in Tudor times is to be obtained from the “View of London and Southwark in 1543,” by Anthony Vanden Wyngrerde (Oxford, Bodleian Library; a facsimile in pen-and-ink by N. Whittock may be seen at the Guildhall, London). As certain details of this view agree with a later drawing of about 1660, it is likely that it is more correct than the intermediate version by Ralph Aggas, which shows variations not to be found either in the earlier or later engraving mentioned (“Civitas Londinum,” a map of London, Westminster and Southwark, surveyed by Ralph Aggas about the year 1560, Guildhall Library). The view of 1660 may be seen in “Bridewell Palace as it appeared about the year 1660” (Published for the Proprietors by W. Herbert, Penlington Place, Lambeth, 1817). The same work gives a vignette professing to represent Bridewell in the year 1540. As this view differs equally from that given by Wyngrerde (1543) and that of 1660, it should probably be received with caution.

[139] State Papers, Venetian, vol. iv. (1527-1533), No. 374, Gerardo Molza to the Marchioness of Mantua. So great was the throng that, in leaving, some of the Italians actually lost their shoes.

[140] Subsequently known as Whitehall.

[141] Letters and Papers, For. and Dom., Henry VIII., vol. vi. (1533), No. 1595, Grant 10, February 16, 24 Henry VIII.

[142] Mario Savorgnano, State Papers, Venetian, vol. iv. (1527-1533), No. 682, quoted from the Sanuto Diaries, 25 August, 1531. The whole letter is of great interest, as is also No. 694 in the same volume (Report of England made to the Senate by Ludovico Falier, 10 November, 1531). The Venetians write with enthusiastic admiration of the country and capital.

[143] Old London Bridge; the only bridge London at that time possessed. It was massively constructed on a large number of boat-shaped piers, and covered with houses and shops. There was also a beautiful Gothic Chapel upon it.

[144] St. Paul’s Cathedral and Westminster Abbey. The latter part of the sentence alludes of course to Henry VII.’s Chapel.

[145] Westminster (in which York Place was now included) and Bridewell.

[146] Howard, Duke of Norfolk; Brandon, Duke of Suffolk; Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond. (State Papers, Venetian, vol. iv., No. 682.)

[147] Grey, Marquis of Dorset; Courtenay, Marquis of Exeter. (Ibid.)

[148] Apparently of the lesser citizens, apart from the palaces previously described.

[149] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. iv. (1531-1532), pp. 310 and 316, March and November, 1529. The ambassador was one of Dinteville’s predecessors.

[150] Ibid., vol. vi. (1533), No. 111, Montpesat to Montmorency.

[151] Ibid., vol. vi. (1533), No. 160, Chapuys to Charles V., London, 15 February, 1533.

[152] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” p. 4. Mémoire et Instruction a Monsieur le Bailly de Troyes, etc., 27 January, 1533.

[153] Letters and Papers, vol. vi. (1533), No. 160, Chapuys to Charles V., 15 February, 1533.

[154] Ibid., vol. v. (1532), No. 1545, Clement VII. to Henry VIII., 15 November, 1532.

[155] Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., pp. 207, 213, where a list of authorities will be found.

[156] It is quite possible that Dinteville was acquainted with More before the embassy of 1533. La Pommeraye, writing from England to the Bishop of Auxerre in the summer of the previous year, says, “Mr. Morres, que vous congnoissez, qui estoit Chancelier de ce Roy s’est desfaict, ou l’on l’a desfaict, ne sçay lequel, de sa Chancellerie, & est demeuré personne privée....” (Mr. Morres [note by Camusat: Th. Morus], whom you know, who was Chancellor to this king, has resigned or has been deprived of his Chancellorship, I do not know which, and has retired into private life.) Camusat, “Meslanges Historiques,” p. 93, Gilles de la Pommeraye, from London, to the Bishop of Auxerre at Rome, June 21st, 1532.

[157] Some of the instruments seen in the picture of the “Ambassadors” are identical with those introduced into the portrait of Kratzer, and may have been lent by him (see Part IV., chap. ii.).

[158] In 1533 George Gyze, or Gisze, the subject of Holbein’s fine portrait now at Berlin, was the Alderman’s Deputy (see Appendix A.).

[159] On one occasion the king sent instructions to Cromwell to despatch Barnes immediately in post, to Germany, with Deryk (or Diryk). (Foxe, “Life of Melanchthon,” p. 385.) Holbein, as is well known, painted two Dericks in 1533: Derick Born, whose portrait is now at Windsor, Derick Tybis at Vienna. The latter certainly, the former probably, was a German merchant of London. As the king’s servants were frequently spoken of by their Christian names only (Holbein as “Haunce,” Kratzer as “Nicolas”), either of these Dericks may have been the one sent on the diplomatic mission. Augustus de Augustinus, a foreign agent in English pay, writing to Cromwell from Ratisbon, incloses a copy of an Imperial decree, presumably written in German, with the comment, “Any of the Steelyard merchants will interpret it to you.” (Letters and Papers, vol. v., 1532, No. 1027.) In 1538 Kratzer forwarded to Cromwell various papers through the agency of Hans Holbein. It is well known that Kratzer never acquired the English tongue. Had Holbein more success? (Ellis’s “Original Letters,” 3rd series, vol. i., p. 230.)

[160] See the letter of the Bailly of Troyes to his brother, the Bishop of Auxerre, p. 79.

[161] See the extract from Camusat’s memoir on the children and descendants of the Premier Président de Selve, p. 20. Camusat there states that the Bishop of Lavaur came over to England on a visit to Dinteville in 1532; which year ended, according to the old French reckoning, on Easter eve, 1533.

[162] See p. 79, Dinteville’s letter to the Bishop of Auxerre, 23 May, 1533.

[163] Selve had almost certainly been already employed in this capacity by the King of France. See Part III.

[164] Part IV. of this study.

[165] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. vi. (1533), No. 465, Chapuys to Charles V., 10 May, 1533.

[166] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” p. 128, Bailly of Troyes to Francis I., 23 May, 1533.

[167] “I have received your letter written from Sommevoyre, by which I understand you to tell me that some time ago you said to the ambassadors of this king [i.e., the King of England] when in Italy, that you had heard the Pope say that, regarding the affair of this said king, the marriage would be better made than to make. If this was so, it is a thing which would be of great service to him [i.e., to the King of England]. Pray let me know whether, in case the Pope does not desire to take another course than the one mentioned respecting the affairs of this country, I might inform this said king of what you told me; and similarly, if things should become very threatening, whether you would remind the Pope of the expressions he then used to you, telling him that you at once communicated them to the ambassadors of this said king, seeing the affairs of the king [of France] and his, to be but one. If you please, send me your opinion on this matter, which you will do well to discuss a little with our friends, and perhaps with Monseigneur the Grand-Maître and the Bishop of Paris [Jean du Bellay], for the thing is of considerable importance.

“For the rest, we thank you very much, M. de la Tournelle, my cousin and I, for the branches of your yew-tree which you offer to us, but over here we are well furnished with arquebuses and with bad archers, of whom I am the worst.

“Pray send me a drawing of the oval compass of which you wrote; I cannot at all understand the fashion in which it is made.

“I am growing very weary in this country, while awaiting the end of the six months, which will expire on the 22nd July. The Grand-Maître promised me that I should only remain here for the said six months. I pray God he may keep his word. I have had tertian fever, but recovered from it long ago. Please consult a little with M. de Paris about my return. I assure you very earnestly that I am the most melancholy, weary and wearisome ambassador that ever was seen.

“M. de Lavor did me the honour to come to see me, which was no small pleasure to me. There is no need for the Grand-Maître to hear anything about it.

“I have had letters from Scotland from M. de Beauvois. I hope the truce will soon be concluded, for one year, between these two princes.

“The Duke of Norfolk will leave here in two or three days to go and join the king [of France]. Pray make his acquaintance, for here his master holds you in good esteem; he told me so within a week.

“As for the vultures [a species of hawk is here meant], I think it would only be an expense to send them, for this king does not like falconry, and this country is full of such birds.

“I cannot believe that if you go to Rome, it will only be for a short time. If you will believe me, do your utmost to get the commission given to somebody else. Pray attend well to your legal appeals. I cannot think it well that you should leave them behind.

“I am longing to have news of you and to know what you say to the tower and to the pictures. Sir, etc. From London this 23rd May.

“I shall have to go to great expense for this coronation. I have written on the subject to the Grand-Maître, begging him to ask the king to give me some money to meet it with. I should be very glad to hear something of it. I also wrote to M. de Paris, who may mention it to you, and who can help me a great deal about it.

“Your humble servant,

“The Bailly.”

[168] The family to which this gentleman belonged was a distinguished one, but it does not appear which individual this was.

[169] The italics are the present writer’s.

[170] French ambassador in Scotland.

[171] The Kings of England and Scotland.

[172] “Evocation” was a legal term which signified the removal of a cause from the jurisdiction of a lower tribunal to that of a higher one.

[173] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coll. Dupuy, vol. 726, f. 46. From the Bailly of Troyes to his brother, the Bishop of Auxerre, 23rd May, 1533.

[174] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. vi. (1533), No. 465, Chapuys to Charles V., May 10, 1533. Bonner returned from Rome in January, 1533. See also Froude, “Divorce of Catherine of Aragon,” chap. xii.

[175] Paris, Arch. Nat., J. 962, No. 527. Pagny, 21 Dec., 1533.

[176] Camusat found it amongst the Polisy papers. See “Meslanges Historiques,” part ii., p. 211.

[177] Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., p. 205.

[178] “The Queen of England left Greenwich on Thursday at about four o’clock in the afternoon, and came by water in a flat barque, like a brigantine, which was painted in her colours outside, and had several flags flying from it; her ladies and maids of honour being with her. There were besides a hundred or a hundred and twenty other similar barques, which accompanied her, and were much decorated with banners and standards. They had erected on the said barques small masts, slender and very high, to which were attached a great quantity of ropes, as on a large ship, these ropes being all dressed with little flags of taffetas, and, in my opinion, of gold metal, for they shone strongly in the sun. There were also many tambourines, trumpets, flutes, and hautbois. All came in less than half-an-hour from Greenwich to the Tower, where the artillery was very loud. It was very beautiful to see this arrival, for besides the barques, there were, I think, more than two hundred small craft following behind; the whole surface of the river was covered with boats.

“On Friday the Queen did not leave her apartments.

“On Saturday at about five o’clock in the afternoon, the said Lady, attired in her royal robes, which are in the fashion of those of France, or nearly so, mounted a litter, covered within and without with white satin. The litter was open, and above her was carried a canopy of cloth of gold. Behind came twelve ladies on hackneys, who were all dressed in cloth of gold, and their hackneys draped in the same. Then came twelve young ladies on hackneys, all arrayed in crimson velvet. There followed a chariot covered with cloth of gold, with trappings to match. In this chariot were only the Duchess of Norfolk and the Queen’s mother. Then came three gilt chariots, where sat various young ladies; and, behind these, twenty or thirty others on hackneys draped with black velvet.

“Around the litter of the Queen were the Duke of Suffolk, who for that day was High Constable, and the brother of the Duke of Norfolk, Lord William, who was serving in the place of his said brother as Earl Marshal and Lord Chamberlain, which offices are hereditary in this kingdom. Before them went two men, called equerries, who had great bonnets lined with ermine, almost similar to those of the Premier Huissier of Paris.

“After these came the Ambassador of France, accompanied by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

“Afterwards, the Ambassador of Venice, with the Lord Chancellor.

“After these, several bishops, and then the rest of the great lords and gentlemen of this kingdom, to the number, perhaps, of two or three hundred.

“And, before all, went the merchants of France, clad in violet velvet, having each one sleeve in the colours of the Queen; their horses caparisoned in violet taffetas powdered with white crosses.

“At the cross-ways there were scaffoldings, where Mysteries were being played, and fountains running wine; the streets were all lined with the tradespeople, who were kept stationary....

“On Sunday morning, accompanied by all the said lords and gentlemen, the Lady went on foot from her apartments to the church; the road by which she walked was all covered with cloth, and might be of about the same length as the garden of Chantilly. All the bishops and abbots went to fetch the said Lady, accoutred in their mitres and pontifical ornaments, and conducted her to the church; and after having heard a low mass, she mounted on a daïs that had been arranged for her in front of the high altar, which daïs was all covered with red cloth; and round the spot where she sat, which was further raised by two steps, was laid a velvet carpet. And in this place the Lady remained after having been crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who placed the crown on her head and anointed her at the high altar, and then completed the office and mass of the said coronation.

“The Duke of Suffolk, High Constable for that day, remained always near the said Lady, with a great white staff in his hand; close by were also the said Lord William and the Lord Chamberlain. Behind the said Lady were various ladies; duchesses and countesses dressed in scarlet, with cloaks lined with ermine, which are the robes of duchesses and countesses, and their hats on their heads. Similarly the dukes and earls, with many other knights, were dressed in robes of scarlet lined with ermine, almost of the fashion of those of the Premiers Présidents at Paris, with their hoods.

“When the coronation was over the Lady was conducted back as on arrival, with the exception of the bishops, and taken to a great hall where dinner was prepared....

“The hall is very large and was not crowded, for very good order was kept. Beneath the queen’s daïs there were four great tables which filled the whole length of the hall. At the upper end were those of this kingdom who have charge of the Ports, and beneath them, at the same table, various gentlemen: at the corresponding table, at the top and side, were the Archbishops and Bishops, the Lord Chancellor, and several Earl-Knights. At the two other tables on the other side of the hall, at the upper one were the Mayor of London accompanied by the Aldermen; and, at the other table, the ladies, Duchesses, Countesses, and other ladies and young ladies.

“The Duke of Suffolk was gorgeously accoutred, with many stones and pearls, on a courser caparisoned in crimson velvet: he rode about on his horse, round the hall and amongst the tables. Lord William did the same, looking after the service and keeping order. Both remained always bare-headed, which you know is the custom of this country. The king was in a place that he had had made for the occasion, whence he could see all the ceremony without being seen; where he took with him the Ambassadors of France and of Venice.

“At the door of the hall there were conduits spouting wine, anyone who pleased might take some. Similarly there were kitchens to provide food for anyone who came that day; it was a marvel how much was eaten. Trumpets and hautbois sounded for every service, and heralds cried largesse.”

[179] May 29 Anne Boleyn was fetched in state by the Mayor and Corporation of London, and brought to the Tower, whence she returned to Westminster on Saturday for her coronation on Whit Sunday, June 1. (Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. vi. (1533), No. 601.

[180] The stepmother of the Duke.

[181] The Countess of Wiltshire.

[182] Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk.

[183] Lord William Howard, brother to the Duke of Norfolk, who, it will be remembered, was now absent in France.

[184] Dinteville and Cranmer.

[185] Carlo Capello and Sir Thomas Audley.

[186] Peeress’s robes corresponding to those still worn by peers.

[187] Westminster Hall.

[188] The hall seems, in fact, to have been arranged much like a College hall at the present day, with the high table across the top and the long tables below placed at right angles to it.

[189] The Barons of the Cinque Ports.

[190] Knights of the Garter?

[191] Camusat, “Meslanges Historiques,” part ii., p. 17. Narration de l’Entrée et couronnement de la Royne d’Angleterre Anne de Boulan à Londres, le 2 (it should be, le 1) juin, 1533.

[192] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. vi. (1533), No. 707. Francis wrote back a pacifying answer denying all knowledge of the rumours referred to.

[193] The 22nd July. Dinteville’s embassy was reckoned from the 22nd January.

[194] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., p. 130b, Mr. de Polizy, Bailly of Troyes, to M. Du Bellay, Bishop of Paris, 7 June, 1533.

[195] See description of the Lute, Part IV.

[196] His name was really Maraviglia, but had become gallicized by long residence in France.

[197] The subject, at a later period, when a young widow, of Holbein’s beautiful portrait, now the property of the Duke of Norfolk.

[198] Ranke, “Zeitalter der Reformation,” vol. iii., p. 313. Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., p. 207.

[199] Decrue, etc., p. 213, where a list of authorities is given.

[200] Camusat, “Meslanges Historiques,” part ii., p. 135. Francis I. to the Bailly de Troyes, 16 July, 1533. See also the following letter from the same to the same, 12 August, 1533.

[201] Camusat, “Meslanges Historiques,” p. 139. The Bailly of Troyes to Francis I., 3 September, 1533.

[202] “M. le Bailly, knowing well how long you have been over there, and that it is very reasonable you should go to your home to put your affairs in order, I have been willing to grant you leave to depart whenever it may please you; and am sending to take your place the Sieur de Castillon, a gentleman of my chamber, who is the bearer of this.”

[203] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., page 9. Francis I. to the Bailly of Troyes, 6 Sept., 1533.

[204] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., page 142. The Bailly of Troyes to the King of France, Greenwich, 2 Nov., 1533.

[205] Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., page 213.

[206] “Nota, that often the king after his tempers has said to me that he esteems me such that I should neither say nor write anything to diminish friendship between them, and that his Council have begged me to the same effect.”

[207] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., pp. 19-21.

[208] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., No. 1481, Grant 10.

[209] Ibid., No. 1435, Castillon to the Bishop of Paris, London, 17 November, 1533.

[210] “I begged the Duke of Norfolk and others who seemed to be among the principal members of the Council of this said king, to give the king their master to understand ... that one may so press and worry a friend as to become importunate.”

“... for I doubt if the gentlemen of his Council to whom I spoke will dare to say such things to him as boldly as I shall say them.”

[211] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., p. 143. The Bailly of Troyes to the Grand-Maître, 7th November, 1533.

[212] Claude Dodieu, Sieur de Vély, was repeatedly employed as French ambassador to Charles V., and also to the Holy See. He was made Bishop of Rennes in 1541, and died in 1558.

[213] Some of the most interesting of these letters are only known to have existed by entries in catalogues, having been amongst the objects of the thefts from French libraries perpetrated in the first half of the present century. See “Dictionnaire des Pièces autographes volées,” etc., by MM. Lalanne et Bordier, Paris, 1851.

[214] Paris, Bibl. Nat., MSS. fr. 15629, No. 473.

[215] Sleidan, 132-135. Clairembault, 334, No. 4949; quoted by Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., p. 221.

[216] Boutiot, “Hist. de la Ville de Troyes,” p. 346.

[217] Documents inédits sur l’Histoire de France. Relations des Amb. Vénétiens. Voyage de Jerôme Lippomano, Amb. de Venise en France, par son sécrétaire.

[218] Clement VII. had died in September, 1534, and Cardinal Farnese (Paul III.) had been elected Pope in his place.

[219] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coll. Dupuy, vol. 265, f. 239. Letter of Anne de Montmorency to Cardinal Du Bellay.

[220] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. ix. (1535), No. 434. Chapuys to Charles V.

[221] “Besides the charge which I gave you the other day on your departure, to speak to the King of England on the subject of the contribution, I wish you to say to him that if perchance the Emperor were disposed to invade me, and that I had to arm and equip on a large scale as might be the case, and that ... in order not to lose the occasion and the said expenditure, I chose to employ it for the recovery of my State and Duchy of Milan, Seigneurie of Genoa, and County of Asti, that, in this case, the said King of England would be bound to contribute up to the third portion of the expense I should have to incur for the maintenance of my said army. And do not fail to uphold this stiffly, so that the said king may accede to the terms above demanded.”

[222] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., p. 12v. Letter from Francis I. to the Bailly of Troyes, from Esclarron, 29th Aug., 1535.

[223] Ibid., p. 84v. (Traicté entre les Roys de France et d’Angleterre.)

[224] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. ix., 1535, No. 420. Norfolk to Cromwell.

[225] Anthoine de Castelnau.

[226] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. ix. (1535), No. 594. Chapuys to Charles V.

[227] “... You know the tumult which occurred between her and her governess when we went to see her little sister, and that we were told that she was placed as though by force in her room, in order that she might not speak to us, and that it was only possible to appease her and keep her in her room when the gentleman who conducted us had told her that the king her father had ordered him to say to her that she was not to show herself while we were there.”

[228] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” p. 21, “autre memoire non datté,” etc. Chapuys’ letter enables us to fix the date.

[229] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. ix. (1535), No. 595. Chapuys to Charles V.

[230] Ibid., vol. ix. (1535), No. 443. Henry VIII. to Gardiner.

[231] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. x. (1536), No. 375. Gardiner and Wallop to Henry VIII.

[232] Ibid., vol. x. (1536), No. 908. Chapuys to Charles V.

[233] The Bishop of Tarbes accompanied Dinteville to Court.

[234] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. x. (1536), No. 1069. Chapuys to Charles V.

[235] Ibid., vol. xi. (1536), No. 304. Henry VIII. to Gardiner and Wallop.

[236] Ibid., vol. xi. (1536), No. 1143.

[237] Ibid., vol. x. (1536), No. 1084. Cromwell to Gardiner and Wallop.

[238] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. x. (1536), No. 1084. Cromwell to Gardiner and Wallop.

[239] Ibid., vol. xi. (1536), No. 52. Bishop of Faenza to Mons. Ambrogio.

[240] Ibid., vol. xi. (1536), No. 228. Castelnau, Bishop of Tarbes, to Cardinal Du Bellay.

[241] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coll. Dupuy, vol. 547, f. 308. Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part iii., p. 44.

[242] ... “The Pope, in Consistory, has created Legate, the Englishman, Cardinal Poule (Pole), not only for England, but for every place which it may suit him to pass through on his way thither ... with the intention, in case the King of England will not return by peaceable means to the obedience of the Roman Church and of the Holy See, of delivering to the said Cardinal, through the merchants, a good sum of money, for the purpose of assisting the people against the said king, in order to oblige him to return to the said obedience by means of force....”

[243] Camusat, “Meslanges Historiques,” p. 13. Instruction au Bailli de Troyes, etc., Moussi, 2 March, 1537.

[244] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. xii., part i., No. 817. Henry VIII. to Gardiner, Westminster, 3 April, 1537.

[245] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. xii., part i. (1537). F. Wyngfeld to Cromwell, Dover, 8 April, 1537.

[246] I.e. forestall.

[247] Flemish fishing-boats. The name is still in use.

[248] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. xii., part i. (1537), No. 884. Sir Francis Brian to Cromwell, Calais, 9th April. (These extracts are given in the abridged form printed in the Letters and Papers.)

[249] The only source that the writer has been able to find for this statement is contained in a paper on Polisy by M. Lucien Coutant, published in the “Almanach de Bar-sur-Seine” for 1864. M. Coutant, as a rule, is very unreliable; but in this instance the facts appear too circumstantial to be entirely without foundation.

[250] Nearly all modern writers refer the disgrace of the Dinteville to the accusation made by Montecuculli against Deschenetz at the time of the Dauphin’s death. But this is obviously incorrect, for not only did the accuser make “amende honorable” to the accused, but Deschenetz is found after that time in full enjoyment of the confidence of the king and Grand-Maître. It is quite possible, however, that his enemies made use of that occasion as a basis for fresh insinuations against him, and as a lever to stir up anew the king’s suspicions. The older writers merely state that the accusation was one of high treason.

[251] Henri, formerly Duke of Orleans, was now Dauphin. Charles, Duke of Angoulême, had succeeded to the title of Duke of Orleans when Henri became Dauphin.

[252] Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., pages 398, 399.

[253] Ribier, “Lettres et Mémoires d’Estat,” vol. i., page 294. Gaulcher de Dinteville, Seigneur de Vanlay, to the Dauphin, Venice, 20th Dec., 1538.

[254] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Pièces Orig., vol. 1004, Dossier Dinteville, ff. 84, 85.

[255] Ribier, “Lettres et Mémoires d’Estat,” vol. i., page 373. The Duke of Guise to the Connétable, Dijon, 10th Feb.—Whether the year was 1539, 1540, or 1541, makes no difference to the argument; but it was probably the first of the three years named.

[256] Nephew of Vanlay’s mother, whose brother was Seigneur Du Plessis, de Savonnières, d’Ouschamps and de la Perrine.

[257] Ribier, “Lett. et Mém. d’Estat,” vol. i., p. 294. Gaulcher de Dinteville (Seigneur de Vanlay) to the Dauphin, Venice, 20 Dec., 1538.

[258] Ibid., vol. i., p. 301.

[259] Renée, daughter of Louis XII., married in 1527 to Ercole, son of the Duke of Ferrara. See also ante, p. 45.

[260] Ribier, “Lett. et Mém. d’Estat,” vol. i., p. 449. Grignan to the Connétable, 29 April, 1539.

[261] Ribier, “Lett. et Mém. d’Estat,” vol. i., p. 479. Grignan to the Connétable, Rome, 21 Oct., 1539.

[262] Paris, Bibl. Nat., MSS. fr. 20440, pp. 81-84. Deposition of the Bailly of Troyes in favour of his brother, the Bishop of Auxerre.

[263] Selve died in April, 1541.

[264] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Dupuy, 702, ff. 138-9. (A gold reliquary set with precious stones; another of silver-gilt set with similar stones; another reliquary of silver enamelled in blue, with a long and large stone called lapis lazuli, engraved with the mysteries of the Passion.)

[265] “On the following day the said Damoyselle de Thelligny and Madame de Brou, her sister, came to dine with me at the apartment of the late Duke of Orleans. Which ladies both told me it would be necessary to come to an agreement with the said Bishop of Lavaur, and that Madame d’Estampes had become very angry when the said M. de Lavaur had come to speak to her in the room where she was playing at cards, and had said that we were not yet where we imagined.... Seeing which I recognized that we should be obliged to take that course. And the next or the same day (I do not remember which) I went to find the said Bishop of Lavaur in his apartment, in a little low room, where was the Bailly of Dijon ... and a few others ...; and I said these, or similar, words to the Bishop of Lavaur:

“‘Sir, my friends have told me that Madame d’Estampes has in the last two days spoken ill words of Monsieur d’Aucerre and of my brothers. For which reason, sooner than to fall again into the king’s disfavour, we would rather lose all we possess. You know that in past times we were friends. You speak of wishing to have the bishopric of Aucerre; I beg and warn you to content yourself with something else instead.’

“He insisted that he wished to have the Abbey of Monstier-aramey. I then begged him to give up the said Abbey of Monstier-aramey. He continued to insist, desiring it rather than that of Monstier-la-Celle. Nevertheless I showed him that the said Abbey of Monstier-aramey was close to Polisy, and that that of Monstier-la-Celle was of the same value, within six or seven hundred livres, which was not a great sum. In the end, the said Bishop of Lavaur agreed to this.

“He then made a great fuss about having the house of the see of Auxerre at Paris, which I would not at all agree to, although, if he became our friend, not only that one, but all others would be at his service....”

[266] Married women were called “Mademoiselle;” only those whose husbands were knights had the right to the title of “Madame.” Decrue de Stoutz, “La Cour de France au seizième siècle,” p. 74.

[267] Charles, Duke of Orleans, died in 1545, and this document, though referring to 1542, was drawn up at a later date.

[268] I.e., to resign one of the abbeys.

[269] “... And it was agreed this should be put in writing. Which was done on the following day in my room, at the apartment of the said late Duke of Orleans; in the absence of the said Bishop of Auxerre, who declined to be present.... And I truthfully certify that the resignation of the said Abbey of Monstier-la-Celle, which was then made to the said Bishop of Lavaur, and the receipts given for the furniture and revenues of the bishopric of Auxerre, proceeded from the fear and dread lest Madame d’Estampes should replace the said Bishop of Auxerre, and all of us, his brothers, in the bad graces of the king; and lest it should again be necessary to fly and remain out of the kingdom, as had been done before; and in order that the said Madame d’Estampes and the said Bishop of Lavaur might no longer prevent my brother from returning and re-possessing himself of his houses and benefices.”

[270] The Bishop protested against this enforced resignation. See Camusat, “Promptuarium sacrarum antiquitatem Tricassinæ diocesis,” p. 25.

[271] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Pièces Orig., vol. 1004, Dossier Dinteville, ff. 84, 85.

[272] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Dupuy, 702, f. 134.

[273] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Dupuy, 702, f. 134. Camusat, “Promptuarium,” etc., pp. 26-28, June, 1542.

[274] “Bailly, having seen your basque here, I would not allow him to return without sending you some news of me through him; which are, thank God, very good, and such as you desire them to be; but they will be still better when I hear that you have quite recovered your health, which I beg you to take great care of; and, in return, I will tell you, bailly, that I am doing all that is possible to reduce Ivoy, which I shall attack to-morrow from another side; and by these and all other means, I hope to take the place, with the aid of Him who is the giver of victory. For the rest, I have had news from Longueval, who is only at two or three days’ march from here, with his troop, which I am told is as fine and resolute a one as one could wish to see. I shall make him hang about the place where he is with his said troop, pending the return of Iversay, whom I have sent to the king to bring me back orders as to what it will please him that I should do with the said troop, and also with that which is with me here. Meanwhile, having nothing more to say at present, I will end, recommending myself to you, and praying Our Lord, Bailly, that He may give you as good health as I wish to you. Written from the camp before Ivoy this 14th day of August, [1542].

“Your good master,

“Charles.

“To M. the Bailly of Troyes, one of my chamberlains.”

[275] The deceased Louis de Dinteville, Seneschal of Rhodes, also had a Basque servant. This may have been the same one, or perhaps it was a fashion of the moment to have a Basque attendant.

[276] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coll. Dupuy, vol. 726, f. 117.

[277] Brantôme, “Hommes Illustres Français,” Discours xlvi., Eloge du Duc d’Orléans. Decrue de Stoutz, “La Cour de France,” etc., pp. 31, 32.

[278] Decrue de Stoutz, ibid., p. 23.

[279] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Pièces Orig., vol. 1004, Dossier Dinteville, f. 87a.

[280] Primaticcio designed for the house of the Connétable allegorical figures of the cardinal virtues, which were executed in fresco by Niccolò dell’ Abate. The house was situated in the Rue Sainte-Avoie, now Rue du Temple. It was subsequently the Hôtel de Mesmes. See Félibien, “Entretiens sur les Vies et les ouvrages des plus excellents peintres,” tome i., p. 523, and Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., p. 419.

[281] Mrs. Mark Pattison, “The Renaissance in France,” vol. ii., p. 269.

[282] He may indeed have been acquainted with greater than they. In 1540 Benvenuto Cellini was in the service of the French Court, and twenty-one years earlier, when the future Bailly was yet a boy, Lionardo da Vinci died at the Château Cloux, near Amboise.

[283] The writer is indebted for nearly all the facts relating to the artists of Troyes, and to the Italians employed by Dinteville, to the very interesting paper by M. Albert Babeau (Secretary of the Soc. Acad. de l’Aube), entitled, “Doménique Florentin, Sculpteur du seizième siècle.” It was published in “Réunion des Sociétés savantes des Départements à la Sorbonne, du 4 au 7 Avril 1877. Section des Beaux-Arts.” Paris, Plon, Nourrit et Cie. 1890, part i., page 108.

[284] Archives de l’Aube, registre G. 66, fol. viˣˣ, xii, vᵒ. Quoted by M. Babeau, loc. cit., who gives the detailed heading of the Latin act.

[285] This has since been filled in on one side. An old map, preserved at Polisy, shows the original plan, which is partly indicated also in the illustration, page 35.

[286] Page 35. See also his letter to the Bishop of Auxerre, May 23, 1533, page 81.

[287] They are seen in the long gabled front overlooking the river, in the illustration, p. 35.

[288] Was this an allusion to the Bishop of Auxerre’s appointment as almoner to the king and other royal personages? The repetition of the date 1545, and the symbol of Fortune about to be explained, make it clear that the house was built by him.

[289] In the carrelage of Polisy the goddess is seen with both globe and wheel, as well as with the horn of plenty, but without the wings. The attributes varied in different versions. The sphere with the Hermes’ wings is sometimes interpreted as the rising sun, equally a symbol of Fortune.

[290] “Christophori Longolii Lucubrationes. Lugduni, apud Seb. Gryphium, 1542.” The winged globe is here surmounted by the Gryphon, etc., which formed the rest of the bookseller’s device; but these attributes do not concern us here. The “Orations of Longolius” are bound up with the “Epistles of P. Bunelli,” published in 1551 at Paris, by Ch. Etienne. The volume is rare.

[291] Camusat, “Mesl. Hist.,” part ii., p. 212.

[292] Ibid., at the end of the volume. The memoir has also been reprinted in some of the French collections of famous memoirs.

[293] ... “as I did not wish to become a monk, she placed me with M. de Polizy, Bailly of Troyes, head of the house of Dinteville, a personage as accomplished and as adorned with all virtues and sciences as any man of his time and quality; having been governour to M. d’Orléans and ambassador for the king in England. But having become paralytic, and helpless in all his limbs, and being unable for this reason to continue at Court, and having therefore retired to his own home, he began for his pleasure and entertainment to build this beautiful house of Polizy. Which personage showed me such friendship that he would take the trouble himself to instruct me in all the sciences of which my youth was capable; and, when I had remained with him up to the age of fourteen or fifteen years, wishing to form me better by the frequenting of society and the exercise of arms, he gave me to M. Deschenetz, his brother, Chevalier of the King’s Order, and captain of fifty men-at-arms, with whom I made several journeys....”

At a later date Mergey fought for “la religion” (i.e., the reformed religion), under La Rochefoucauld; but wishing to have, as he says, “another string to his bow,” he did not forget to cultivate “Mr. de Sesac” (a follower of the Guise), who had meanwhile become the husband of Claude de Dinteville, the eldest daughter of Deschenetz and heiress of Polisy. This was the lady with whom, in later years, Camusat was acquainted, and through whom he learnt the story of Holbein’s masterpiece (see Part I., p. 14). It will be perceived, therefore, how close was the connection between Jean de Dinteville, uncle to this lady, and the documents derived from Camusat which relate the history of the picture.

[294] It is probable that at the time of disgrace Jean de Dinteville either resigned or was deprived of the Order of St. Michael, and that Henri II., on his accession, made his special protégé among the Dinteville brothers, Guillaume, Seigneur Deschenetz, a knight of the order in the place of Jean, whose health no longer allowed him to leave home. Article XV. of the statutes of the order provides that any knight can be deprived for treason, or for the accusation of treason. It further lays down that if a knight be grievously wronged by his sovereign, and cannot obtain justice after having requested it, and allowed due time to elapse, that knight may return the collar and quit the order without forfeiting his honour.

[295] “My nephew, I have received two letters from you, one dated the 4th October, the other the 23rd January last. You write to me that you have received letters from my sister De Lyencourt and that it appears to you that she is much pleased with the affair of Monstier la Scelle; she may well be so; she is indeed bound and obliged to pray God to bless Monseigneur d’Auxerre, as we all are, for the great benefit he has been pleased to confer on Benjamin. My niece De Lyencourt, who is with Madame la Connestable, wrote me word that the said Monseigneur d’Auxerre and Monsr. Des Chenetz were at Fontainebleau. And since then Nicolas de la Croix has written to me that the said Monseigneur d’Auxerre was about to arrive at Paris. I had heard of the capture of Aspremont by the forces of the Emperor. The same Nicolas de la Croix writes to me that wheat has been sold at Paris for a hundred and seventeen solz tournois the septier, and oats for forty-eight, which is very dear.... I am sorry to hear of the illness of Madame de la Mothe and her daughter, but as they are mending, I hope it will be nothing. Those who come from Court say that there is a great rumour that the king is to go to Germany; that Duke Maurice of Saxony and other German princes are in arms against the Emperor, and that they will take the side of the king and enter his service; that the queen will be Regent in France, and will be at Rheims; that Monsr. l’Admiral will remain with her; that Cardinal Tournon will be the king’s lieutenant at Lyons; that the Grand Seigneur [the Turk] is making great preparations for war in the present year, both by land and sea. I expect you hear all these news better where you are than we do here, for you can receive information from Messrs. d’Auxerre and des Chenetz, who are at Court. I think that by the beginning of the month of March I shall be able to leave this country to go to Lyons, taking Grenoble on the way. When I am at Lyons, you shall have news of me, and I will send you some seeds for your new garden.

“My nephew, etc.,

“From Montpellier, 20th February, 1551 (N.S. 1552).

“Your uncle and friend,

“Duplessys.”

“To my nephew, M. de Pollisy, Bailly of Troyes.”

[296] Guillaume Du Plessis, Seigneur de Liancourt, was a younger brother of Dinteville’s correspondent, Charles Du Plessis, Seigneur de Savonnières, d’Ouschamps, and de la Perrine. Both were brothers of Dinteville’s mother. Guillaume, Seigneur de Liancourt, died in 1550. The lady mentioned in the text was his widow.

[297] The Bishop of Auxerre had presented the Abbey of Montier-la-Celle to his first cousin, Benjamin, son of Guillaume, Seigneur de Liancourt.

[298] De Montmorency.

[299] Dinteville’s sister, Charlotte, had married Louis Raguier, Seigneur de la Motte de Tilly.

[300] Henri II.

[301] Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS. fr. 20465, f. 299a.

[302] Le Beuf, “Mémoires concernant l’histoire ecclesiastique, etc., d’Auxerre,” page 588. The Bishop had a favourite painter, named Felix Chrétien, whom he had raised from the position of simple chorister to that of canon of the cathedral, on account of his delicacy of hand in penmanship and painting. Chrétien possessed considerable talent, and was the painter of a large triptych representing the “Martyrdom of Ste. Eugénie,” which still hangs in the church of Varzy, in the diocese of Auxerre (Dept. of Nièvres), though now in a terribly dilapidated state. The portrait of the Bishop is introduced amongst a group in the central panel of this picture. (See illustration, p. 56.) Chrétien reproduced the features of the Bishop a second time, in a smaller work, which is in every way inferior to the picture at Varzy. This is the “Stoning of St. Stephen,” which now hangs in the north ambulatory of the Cathedral of Auxerre. The Emperor Louis Napoleon offered a large sum, without success, for the “Martyrdom of Ste. Eugénie,” which he wished to purchase for the Empress. Being unable to obtain the picture, he had a copy made of it. Varzy is a place which travellers should by no means pass by. The church is of very beautiful thirteenth-century Gothic, and resembles a small cathedral. The ancient inn was formerly a religious house, and with its tower and court is strikingly picturesque. The same family has now owned it for upwards of two hundred years.

[303] See illustration, page 110.

[304] Unless it may be assumed that the drawing in question was executed by Holbein on one of his later journeys abroad, which would give some additional latitude of time. On his way to “High Burgundy,” for instance, in the summer of 1538, he would almost pass the gates of Polisy, if the direct route across France were selected. (High Burgundy, or Franche-Comté, was Imperial territory, and lay due east of French Burgundy, in which Polisy was situated.) If the Bailly of Troyes sat to Holbein for this drawing at about the time suggested, the days of adversity which shortly fell upon the Dinteville family would explain the fact that, so far as is known, no painting was ever made from it.

[305] Both hang in one room at the Dresden Gallery.

[306] The late Sir Frederick Burton was of this opinion, which is also held by Mr. Sidney Colvin (see his letter to the “Times,” September, 1890).

[307] The authentic sources for the date of Selve’s birth are given Part I., p. 13. None of the popular compendiums of biography, etc., so far as the writer is acquainted with them, are to be trusted.

[308] Bayle denies this, and says the name in its original form is De Salva, and is of Limousin origin (Dictionary, ed. 1739, Art. Selve).

[309] “Petri Bunelli Epistolæ,” Paris, 1551. Letter to Danès (1541), p. 95.

[310] “Educated where I am, both I and those belonging to me, by your benefaction....”

[311] Of these all, excepting one, sooner or later served the king as ambassadors. They are usually given in the following order: 1, Lazare, Gentilhomme de la Chambre du Roi, ambassador in Switzerland; 2, Jean-Paul, Bishop of St. Flour, ambassador (at a late date) at Rome; 3, George, Bishop of Lavaur, the subject of this memoir; 4, Odet, Président du Grand Conseil, ambassador in England, at Venice, and at Rome, where he died; 5, Jean, Abbé de Saint Vigor; 6, François, ambassador at Constantinople.

[312] Jacques Amyot, author of a famous translation of Plutarch’s “Lives,” was born 1513, and died 1593. He was tutor to the sons of Henri II., was sent on a mission to the Council of Trent, and was Bishop of Auxerre from 1571 until his death.

[313] Probably a relation of Selve’s mother.

[314] All the confusion in popular sources as to the date of Selve’s birth appears to have arisen from one misstatement or misprint, to the effect that he was promoted to the episcopate in 1524. Coupled with the unquestioned fact that he was made a bishop when in his eighteenth year, it was therefore loosely inferred that he must have been born in 1506. The facts given above show that the circumstances of his appointment to Lavaur were such as to preclude all possibility of its having taken place before 1526; even were the Papal licence (page 13) not proof positive as to his age.

[315] The Cardinal of Lorraine, of the house of Guise, was made Archbishop of Rheims in 1534, at nine years old.

[316] The originals of these letters are at the Château of Villiers near La Ferté Alais, and belong to the Marquis de Selve, to whose courtesy the writer is indebted for their use here. Copies are to be found in the Bibl. Nat. at Paris (Carrés d’Hozier, vol. 579). They bear no date of year in either series, but only of day and month. Those addressed to the Cardinal-Legate must, however, have been written in the spring following Selve’s appointment, i.e., in 1527. Two series of letters are mixed up both in the originals and the copies, as at least one letter from the Queen of Navarre was not written till after the death of the Président de Selve, which occurred in 1529.

[317] “... for love of me, and at my request, to abandon your claim to the said bishopric, resigning in favour of the son of the Premier Président every right you may have or claim to the said bishopric.”

[318] “My cousin, you have already heard of the king’s desire, and mine, that the son of Monsʳ. the Premier Président should be provided with the bishopric of Lavaur; and as the king and I have not yet received a reply from you which satisfies our intention, I have been moved, my cousin, to write to you again about it, begging you very affectionately and as much as I know how to beg for anything, that you would desist, at the request of the said lord and of me, from your claim, and also would dispose to the profit and in favour of the son of the said Premier Président of all right that you may pretend to the said benefice; assuring you that the said lord and I will recollect this favour in a thing of greater consequence, in such a way that you will be satisfied. For the rest, and in conclusion, you must know that the said lord and I will support the son of the said Premier Président right through this affair, making it our own; for which reason I earnestly beg you again, my cousin, to be so good as to think over it, and to yield in this matter to the very affectionate request made by the said lord and by me. And thus fare well, my cousin, etc.... Written at St. Germain en Laye, 1st April. (Postscript.) I pray you my cousin to oblige the king and me in the matter above treated of, and you will find it to your advantage.

“Your good cousin,

“Loyse.”

“To my cousin, Cardinal Clermont, Legate of Avignon.”

[319] “... have the thing so greatly at heart that I cannot sufficiently write it to you.”

[320] “Monsr. de Lavaur, my friend, I have received the letter that you wrote to me, and there is no need that you should thank me, for I am too much and too old a friend of your father’s, and should wish to please him and all his race. You, on your side, will consider whether there is anything else I can do for you, and you will never fail to find me a good brother, yet more in deeds than in words, and this I beg you to believe. Which shall be the conclusion of this present, etc. From Avignon this 22nd June.

“Your best brother and friend,

“F. Cardˡ. de Clermont.”

“To Monsʳ. de Lavaur.”

[321] St. Germain, 3rd May, 1528. Paris, Arch. Nat., P556¹, côte 710. Bibl. de l’Institut, Coll. Godefroy, Mémoire de M. de Camusat sur les enfants et descendants du Premier Président de Selve.

[322] “Gallia Christiana,” 1656, vol. iii., p. 1142. The notice there given respecting the missions of 1529 is omitted in the edition of 1715 (hitherto quoted in this work), where the article on George de Selve was rewritten and enlarged. This circumstance might appear to throw doubt on the accuracy of the information conveyed in the earlier edition. But as it receives confirmation from several other independent sources, it is probable that the facts of the previous edition are correct; but that the early diplomatic labours of the Bishop were thrown into shade by the more important work of his riper years dwelt upon in the later edition.

[323] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Cab. d’Hozier, vol. 304, f. 28.

[324] See note at the end of this chapter.

[325] Most observers will agree that the appearance of the Bishop of Lavaur in Holbein’s portrait bears out this remark.

[326] “Œuvres de Feu Révérend Père en Dieu, George de Selve, Evesque de la Vaur,” Paris, 1559. “Autres Remonstrances faictes par ledict De Selve auxdicts Alemans.”

[327] The Diet of Spires of 1529 was, as is well known, one of the most reactionary of the great assemblies held at the epoch of the Reformation. A large majority of those who attended it were partisans of Rome. Consequently, the resolutions passed were all in favour of the old order of things, and actually reversed many decisions advantageous to the Lutherans which had formerly been agreed upon. For a moment, the Reformation received a sharp check. As a result of the proceedings, the minority drew up the famous declaration which first gave rise to the name of “Protestants.”

[328] Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS. fr. 842, f. 122ᵇ.

[329] Archives of the Château de Villiers (Marquis de Selve); and Paris, Bibl. Nat., Carrés d’Hozier, vol. 579, f. 341. Marguerite, Queen of Navarre, to the Grand-Maître de Montmorency, Blois, 18th April.

[330] Paris, Bibl. de l’lnstitut, Coll. Godefroy, f. 414. Obsèques de la femme du premier président de Selve, 27th November, 1532.

[331] Easter fell in this year on the 13th April.

[332] See pp. 11, 19, 20, 77-78, 80.

[333] “A Mʳᵉ George de Selve, évesque de Lavaur, ... pour aller comme ambassadeur devers le duc et seigneurie de Venise, et illec ... devant ledit temps, pour leur communiquer les choses dont il lui a donné charge et celles qui adviendroient ci après.”—Lyons, 2nd December, 1533. Paris, Bibl. Nat., Cabinet d’Hozier, vol. 304 (Dossier Selve), f. 15, Extraits de Comptes, etc. See also page 151.

[334] “Gallia Christiana” (1715), vol. xiii. (1722), p. 344. Ecclesia Vaurensis, No. xxi., Georgius de Selve.

[335] Thevet, “Histoire des plus illustres Hommes,” etc., Paris, 1661, vol. viii., chap. ii., p. 25.

[336] Pierre Bunel, called by Bayle (“Dict.,” second edition, 1735) “one of the politest Latin writers that lived in the sixteenth century,” was born at Toulouse in 1499. He studied with much distinction at the University of Paris, and proceeded thence to Padua. He was three years in the service of Lazare de Baif at Venice (the friend, as we know, of the Bishop of Auxerre); afterwards entering that of George de Selve, with whom he remained until the death of that prelate. He then found himself plunged into poverty, from which he was rescued by the Du Faur family, one of whom sent Bunel to Italy as tutor to his sons. Bunel died of fever, at Turin, in 1546.

[337] Reginald Pole, the celebrated Cardinal, was born in 1500, and was the son of Sir Richard Pole and of Margaret Plantagenet, Countess of Salisbury. He was educated at Charterhouse and Oxford, after which he was sent by King Henry VIII. to study at Padua. He steadily opposed the divorce of the king, and in 1532 had drawn such a hornets’ nest about his ears in England that he asked permission to go abroad again to study theology. He now resided for some years at Padua, and either there or at Venice made acquaintance with Selve. Bembo, Longolius, Sadoleto, Contarini, Ludovico Priuli, were among the circle of his friends. The Pope employed him on a committee for reforming the discipline of the Church, but the greater part of his time was spent in endeavouring to raise the European powers against Henry VIII., with the view to re-establish the Papal authority in England. He was one of the Legates sent to the Council of Trent. On the death of Cranmer in 1557 Pole became Archbishop of Canterbury. He died on the same day as Queen Mary, November 17, 1558.

[338] Pietro Bembo, born at Venice in 1470, was one of the most celebrated Italian writers of the sixteenth century. After a varied existence he was appointed secretary to Leo X. in conjunction with Sadoleto. On the death of that Pope he retired to Padua, where his house became a centre of intellectual life. He was made a Cardinal in 1539, and subsequently Bishop of Gubbio and of Bergamo. He died, covered with honours, in 1547.

[339] Jacopo Sadoleto, Cardinal, in whom brilliant talents were united with extraordinary charm of disposition, was born at Modena in 1477. He studied at Ferrara at the same time as Bembo, which was the origin of their friendship, and was afterwards secretary to Leo X. Sadoleto never asked a favour for himself. He was appointed Bishop of Carpentras (a Papal see in the south of France, depending from Avignon) in 1517. Although reluctant to leave his diocese, such were his qualities of mind and character that he was frequently summoned to Rome on important commissions, and was made a Cardinal in 1536, without having in any way sought or coveted distinction. His gentleness, goodness, and moderation made him beloved by all; he even protected heretics, saying, “Je ne sais comment la nature m’a créé, mais je ne puis haïr parce qu’on ne partage pas mon opinion” (Guettée, “Hist. de l’Eglise de France,” vol. viii., p. 222). His correspondence with Calvin (from whose opinions he of course entirely differed) is well known. Melanchthon sent him every new work he published. After being employed in many high offices, Sadoleto died at Rome in 1547.

[340] Renée of France bore this title until her husband succeeded, as Ercole II., to the dukedom of Ferrara, which happened later in this same year (1534).

[341] Selve even tried to obtain for her the release of some of her French protégés who had been imprisoned on the accusation of heresy. (Bart. Fontana, “Renata di Francia,” vol. i., p. 344.)

[342] See note 2, p. 145.

[343] “Petri Bunelli Epistolæ,” p. 114. To Odet de Selve, from Venice, 16 January 1534.

[344] “Petri Bunelli Epistolæ,” pp. 30 and 45.

[345] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. xii., part i., No. 14, Geo. Selva, Bp. of La Vaur to Cardinal Pole. Venice, 3 Non. Jan. 1536 (Latin).

[346] “Dict. Nat. Biography,” Art. Pole.

[347] See p. 108.

[348] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. xii., No. 516, Geo. Selva, etc., to Card. Pole.

[349] Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS. Clairembault, 1215, f. 75. The payments for the post of ambassador at Venice expire February 19; those for Rome begin on the following day.

[350] Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS. Clairembault, 1215, f. 78.

[351] Ibid., MS. fr. 2968, f. 87; Ribier, “Lettres et Mémoires d’Estat,” vol. i., p. 66.

[352] Ribier, “Lettres et Mémoires d’Estat,” vol. i., p. 41. Cardinal Mascon and the Bishop of Lavaur to the King of France, Rome, 12th July, 1537. Ibid., p. 76. The same to the Grand-Maître de Montmorency, Rome, December, 1537.

[353] Ribier, “Lettres et Mém. d’Estat,” vol. i., p. 128, Card. Mascon and the Bp. of Lavaur to the Conn. de Montmorency, Rome, 14th March, 1538.

[354] Strictly speaking the Bishop of Lavaur alone was accredited as French ambassador to the Holy See, but throughout this period he and Cardinal Mâcon acted in concert.

[355] Letters and Papers, vol. xiii., part i. (1538), No. 972, Card. Tournon to Card. Carpi, Valentia, May 10.

[356] Ibid., same time and place.

[357] Ribier, “Lett. et Mém. d’Estat,” vol. i., pages 147 and 150. Mascon and Lavaur to the Connétable de Montmorency. Carpi to the same. Piacenza, 1st May, 1538.

[358] Ibid., page 150. The Connétable de Montmorency to Cardinal Mascon and the Bishop of Lavaur, 14th May, 1538.

[359] Letters and Papers, vol. xiii., part i., No. 1004, Montmorency to Castillon, Avignon, 14th May, 1538.

[360] “Monseigneur de Lavaur ... est parti ce jourd’huy matin en diligence, pour aller trouver le Roy....”—Ribier, “Lett. et Mém. d’Estat,” vol. i., page 154. Cardinal Mascon to the Connétable, Savona, 11th May, 1538.

[361] June, 1538.

[362] Which was broken at the end of four years (1542), when war was again declared between France and the Empire.

[363] The final payment he received as ambassador to the Holy See expired June 30, 1538.

[364] The shell of the castle of the Pico family still exists, though in a half-ruinous condition. A theatre has been established in one part of the building, which has lost all traces of former magnificence. The latter can only be guessed at from the great height of some of the apartments. The decision of the municipal authorities some years ago, to pull down the old city walls of La Mirandola, has fatally robbed the little town of poetry and picturesqueness, but it contains one or two interesting churches.

[365] Paris, Archives des Affaires Etrangères, Corr. politiques, Rome, vol. iii., f. 401ᵇ, La Mirandola.

[366] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Dupuy, vol. xliv., f. 27ᵃ, and Aff. Etrang., Corr. polit., Rome, vol. iii., f. 401.

[367] Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS. Clairembault, 1215, f. 78. Compiègne, 9th October, 1538.

[368] Perhaps it refers to 1529. There would be nothing surprising in the long postponement, as the ambassadors’ salaries were in chronic arrears.

[369] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. xiii., part i., No. 11. Geo. de Selve, Bp. of Lavaur, to Cardinal Pole.

[370] The episcopal palace was demolished in the present century by the person who had acquired it at the time of the French Revolution, who pulled it to pieces, and sold it stone by stone, lest the edifice should be claimed as ecclesiastical property. The grounds and site are now used as public gardens. Lavaur ceased to be a bishopric towards the end of the eighteenth century.

[371] “The gate by which we have entered into the park of Jesus Christ where we are now, bearing the name and mark of His sheep.”—“Œuvres de Feu Révérend Père en Dieu, George de Selve, Evesque de la Vaur.” Paris, 1559.

[372] “Œuvres de George de Selve,” etc.

[373] “It seems to me, when writing to you, that I am with you in conversation, which is so great a consolation to me that I cannot or will not find an ending to it.”—Ibid.

[374] “Discourse containing the only true means by which a servant favoured by his Prince and entrusted by him with the administration of affairs, may preserve eternal and temporal felicity, and avoid those things which might cause him to lose either one or the other.”—“Œuvres,” etc.

[375] “... speak to-day of living in obedience, or of doing good works as necessary to eternal life, one half of the world cries out that he is a Papist and an advocate of justification by works. If he preach salvation through Jesus Christ and the redemption of sins, the other half of the world exclaims that he is a Lutheran and a disseminator of false doctrine....”—Ibid. (Letter addressed to a certain “Frère François” who was preaching at Lavaur in the bishop’s absence.)

[376] Ribier, “Lett. et Pap. d’Estat,” vol. i., page 468. Relation of the Bishop-Elect of Avranches on his return from Spain in September, 1539. The Bishop-Elect of Avranches had been sent on a special mission to the Spanish Court, where Anthoine de Castelnau, Bp. of Tarbes, was now resident French ambassador.

[377] “Remonstrances addressed to the Germans, composed and put in writing by George de Selve, Bishop of Lavaur, to be publicly pronounced at the Diet which will be held in Germany [when he was summoned by the Most Christian King, at the request of the Emperor, to go thither in order to procure the reconciliation of the said Germans with the order ecclesiastical].”—“Œuvres de George de Selve,” and Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS. fr. 3114, f. 1. The portion of the title placed in brackets was evidently added as a docket in the customary manner by a later hand.

[378] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. xiv., part 1, No. 1090. Card. Pole to Card. Contarini, Carpentras, 8 June, 1539. (Pole had found a refuge near Sadoleto, at Carpentras, in the intervals between his diplomatic missions.)

[379] “Petri Bunelli Familiares Aliquot Epistolæ,” Lutetia, 1551, page 80. To the Bishop of Tarbes, French ambassador with the Emperor. (Latin.)

[380] Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS. Clairembault, 1215, f. 77.

[381] Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., pp. 376, 377.

[382] Mary, Queen-dowager of Hungary, regent of Flanders, sister of Charles V.

[383] Ribier, “Lett. et Mém. d’Estat,” vol. i., p. 353. Hellin had been appointed to that post on account of his intimate knowledge of the Flemish tongue.

[384] Ibid., vol. i., p. 449. Grignan, ambassador at Rome, to the Connétable, April, 1539.

[385] Decrue de Stoutz, “Anne de Montmorency,” part i., p. 383.

[386] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. xv. (1540), No. 448. Wyat to Cromwell, Ghent, 2nd April, 1540.

[387] Ibid., No. 457. Instructions given to the Bishop of La Vaur, etc. Aumale, 4 April, 1540.

[388] Ibid., No. 508. Sir Thomas Wyat to Cromwell. Wyat was at this time English ambassador at the Imperial Court.

[389] “Discourse upon the true and only means by which a good and perpetual peace may be made between the Emperor and the Most Christian King: composed by George de Selve, Bishop of la Vaur, when ambassador of the said King with the said Emperor.” (“Œuvres de G. de Selve,” etc.)

[390] Gasp. Contarini, born at Venice in 1483, was sent by that republic as ambassador to Charles V.; and, after the release of Clement VII. from the Castle of Sant’ Angelo, which Contarini had helped to bring about, filled a similar post at the Holy See. Paul III. made him a Cardinal in 1535. He was Papal Legate at the Diet of Ratisbon in 1540. Contarini urged upon Charles V. the desirability of restoring peace between the nations, and exhorted the bishops assembled at the Diet to renounce luxury, ambition, and avarice, to succour the poor, to stay in their dioceses, and to be careful to select worthy persons for ecclesiastical promotion; in all of which we see the counterpart of the opinions held by George de Selve. Contarini died at Bologna in 1542.

[391] Although convened in 1542, the first session of the Council of Trent was only opened in December, 1545; the final one, after many breaks, one of which lasted ten years, took place in 1563. A famous bon-mot is recorded of Danès when assisting at the conferences. As one of the French representatives was declaiming against the delinquencies of the Papal Court, the Bishop of Orvieto exclaimed scornfully, Gallus cantat. Instantly Danès replied, Utinam ad Galli cantum Petrus resipiscerat! (Quoted by Sismondi, “Hist. des Français,” tom. xi., page 380.)

[392] The collapse of the friendship with Charles V., and the failure to promote a marriage between the Duke of Orleans and the Infanta of Spain which should bring in its train the restitution of Milan to France, were the signal for the fall of the Connétable. Throughout his career attached to the Spanish alliance, the success of these negotiations would have placed the brightest jewel in his crown of fame. They failed; and the position of the great minister trembled in the balance. Madame d’Etampes, jealous of his good understanding with the Dauphin, used her influence against him. Finally, in October, 1540, the Emperor gave the coup-de-grâce to French aspirations by bestowing Milan on his son Philip. Henceforth that territory was lost to French ambition. Montmorency, shortly after deprived of all share in the management of public affairs, lived in complete retirement until the accession of the Dauphin (Henri II.), in 1547, restored to him position and importance.

[393] “Imploring you, Monseigneur, after having done me so many other favours, not to forget me so far as to leave me here any longer.”—“Correspondance de Guillaume Pellicier,” edited by M. Tausserat-Radel for the French Foreign Office. George de Selve to the Connétable, The Hague, 7th August, 1540.

[394] M. de Saveuse, formerly Bailly of Amiens, and M. de Castillon, late ambassador in England.

[395] “Corr. de Pellicier,” edited by M. Tausserat-Radel. George de Selve to the Connétable, Antwerp, 25th August, 1540.

[396] Ibid., 1st September, 1540.

[397] Ibid., Brussels, 8th September, 1540.

[398] “Corr. de Pellicier,” G. de Selve to the Connétable. Brussels, September, 1540.

[399] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. xvi. (1540-41), No. 161. Pate to the Privy Council, 14th October, 1540.

[400] Paris, Bibl. Nat., MS. Clairembault, 1215, f. 79.

[401] Bunel writes to justify himself from the accusation (see page 175), that he had influenced the bishop’s decision to retire to his diocese, thus cutting short a brilliant worldly career. It was also believed that Bunel had encouraged his patron to lead a life of exaggerated austerity, which had hurried him to a premature death.

[402] “Petri Bunelli Epistolæ,” Paris, 1551. To P. Danès. Tholosæ, 14 Calend. Sextil., MDXLI. (Latin).—Bayle’s “Dictionary,” Art. Bunel.

[403] Many authorities give the date of Selve’s death as 1542. The inscription on his portrait at Villiers, however (see page 193), and Bunel’s letters, place beyond dispute the fact that it occurred in 1541, as stated above. Several of Bunel’s letters dated in the summer and latter part of this year enlarge upon the grief caused by the bishop’s decease. Bayle’s “Dictionary” (Art. Bunel), the “Nouvelle Biographie Générale,” etc., also give the year correctly.

[404] “Gallia Christiana,” loc. cit.

[405] “Œuvres de feu révérend Père en Dieu,” etc.

[406] The following is a rough literal translation of the epitaph. It makes no pretence to finish or metre, being merely intended to give the meaning.

“G Greatly fortunate in every enterprise:
E Excelling in virtue, his familiar guide:
O Of countenance at once gentle and proud:
R Rich in all qualities required in a Prelate:
G Governing duly the flocks in his Bishopric
E Enclosed: the light of the people:
S Sin’s enemy: of blameless life the friend:
D Distinguished on all sides for his surpassing merits:
E Esteemed and honoured by virtuous men:
S Submissive to all, even to the undeserving:
E Endued with all that which becomes a man:
L Lieth here the Bishop of la Vaur, who by his
V Virtue will live for ever, in peace
E Eternal. And thus, O Traveller, disturb not his repose.
The spirit of Selve to those on earth:
It is not I, but you, who do not live:
It is not you, but I, who am exempt from death:
Nor I, nor you, but God, is the mighty and the strong:
And you, and I, are servants of His Will.”

[407] “Petri Bunelli Epistolæ,” page 94. To Odet de Selve—Tholosæ, prid. Calend. Januar., 1541. (Latin.)

[408] “Petri Bunelli Epistolæ,” page 95. To Peter Danès. Tholosæ, 14 Calend. Sextil., 1541. (Latin.)

[409] Sismondi, “Hist. des Français,” vol. xi., page 380.

[410] Poverty is the probable explanation of Bunel’s inability to give his time to the writing of his patron’s life. See note 2, page 157.

[411] “Petri Bunelli Epistolæ,” page 94. To Odet de Selve.

[412] “Benvenuto Cellini, Life,” translated by J. A. Symonds, vol. ii., p. 187.

[413] H. Green, “Andrea Alciati and his Book of Emblems,” London, 1872. Mr. Green believes that the collection of 1522 was never published, years of laborious research having failed to reveal a single copy. That it should have been reputed published shows, however, the wide fame the emblems at once attained. Pierre Bunel speaks of Alciati’s emblems in a letter dated from Venice in 1530 (“Petri Bunelli Epistolæ,” Lutetiæ, 1551). This must have referred to the Milan collection, as the first edition brought out at Augsburg by Steyner was only published in the following year.

[414] “Robe longue” was worn by lawyers and ecclesiastics; “robe courte” by laymen.

[415] Feathers were not yet as universal in 1533 as they became a few years later, when Brantôme wrote.

[416] The short cape also came into fashion at a rather later period.

[417] Brantôme, “Hommes Illustres François,” Discours xlv. (François I.), Digression contre les ambassadeurs de robe longue. “One thing I should like much to know; if there had been present some brave and valiant knight of the King’s Order, or a captain of gensdarmes, or any other valorous gentleman with a good sword and bravado, whatever the Emperor might have advanced in words, whether he would not have thought twice on seeing the other speak and reply to him bravely; sometimes putting his hand on the hilt of his sword, sometimes to his side as though to draw his dagger, sometimes making a defiant gesture, sometimes drawing himself up proudly, now with his cap drawn down, now raised up with its feather, now placed on one side, now forward, now backward, now letting his cape hang half-way as one who is about to twist it round his arm, in order to draw his sword.... Instead of which M. de Mascon and M. de Vely, although he (sic) replied fairly well for his calling and profession, could show no other front than to smooth his square cap from time to time with his fingers; to re-dispose his skull-cap of taffetas, to listen well, with his two hands clasped and his thumbs extended, to gather up the sides of his long gown of velvet or satin: all this could not inspire the smallest terror in the world, nor instil any thought of fear into any soul....”

[418] It may be pointed out that Dinteville’s costume shows many points of similarity with that of Morette, in the portrait by Holbein at Dresden.

[419] Besides the allusion already quoted from Brantôme, the literature of the time has many allusions to “la dague et l’épée,” the ordinary accoutrement at this period of the French gentleman. In 1530, when the children of France were released from captivity on the payment of their father’s ransom, it was ordered that the French and Spanish gentlemen who met on the Bidassoa to effect the exchange, were to be armed only with “dagger and sword,” i.e., to wear their every-day dress and not full armour, so as to forestall any possibility of treachery on either side. (Du Bellay, “Mémoires,” ed. Petitot, vol. ii., page 93.) See also for the mention of the same arms, the “Life of Benvenuto Cellini,” translated by Symonds, page 169. In pictures the double weapon is frequently seen: in England more especially among those representing persons who favoured Continental fashions. Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey, wears dagger, tassel, and sword in the well-known portrait at Hampton Court. Instances could easily be multiplied. Planché (“Cyclopædia of Costume,” vol. ii., page 159) states that Rabelais attributes the origin of this fashion to Spain.

[420] It was a common practice to represent ecclesiastics leaning on or holding a book; sometimes inscribed to show it was the Bible or other work connected with religion.

[421] It resumes normal proportions when viewed downwards from the right-hand side of the picture.

[422] “Some Account of the Life and Works of Hans Holbein.” By Ralph Nicholson Wornum, London, 1867, p. 180.

[423] See illustration, page 196.

[424] And not, as Dr. Woltmann, with singular absence of imagination, suggests, Holbein and his wife! (“Holbein und seine Zeit,” 2nd German edition, vol. i., p. 278.)

[425] Woltmann, “Holbein,” vol. i., p. 279.

[426] See ante, page 80.

[427] Page 90.

[428] Page 91.

[429] At the British Museum, Paris, Berlin, etc. See Woltmann, “Holbein,” vol. i., chap. xii., and vol. ii., pp. 174-179.

[430] Mrs. Bury Palliser, “Historic Devices, Badges, and War-cries,” page 4.

[431] The credit of having pointed this out belongs to Mr. C. L. Eastlake, late Keeper of the National Gallery. Mr. Eastlake thought he could discern the letters ASCU, or ASQU, preceded by a doubtful H. The writer confesses to inability to decipher these letters; but fully appreciates the value of the suggestion that some inscription was intended. An alternative reading to that suggested in the text would be that the lettering represents the name or initials of the goldsmith who wrought the sheath (supposing the design to have been actually executed). It was not unusual for armourers to sign any fine piece of work. In this case the letters might possibly be brought into relation with Hans von Antwerpen, a goldsmith residing in London, who had sat to Holbein in 1532, and is known to have executed some of his designs.

[432] Dr. Daniel Burckhardt, director of the Museum, has no doubt that this drawing, though not an original, is copied from one by Holbein, of whose style it indeed bears every mark. The writer is indebted to Dr. Burckhardt’s kindness for all the facts connected with this design. It is not the original of the dagger in the “Ambassadors,” as a glance at the illustration on the opposite page will show; but it furnishes an interesting point of comparison with the one in question.

[433] In 1560, François II., shortly before his death, bestowed the Order of St. Michael simultaneously on eighteen gentlemen, at the instigation of the House of Guise. Down to the death of Henri II., the royal order had always been held in very great esteem, the statutes limiting the number of knights to thirty-six. Continuing the precedent of François II., Charles IX. admitted so many to the order that it became despised and neglected. (See “Mémoires de Castelnau,” with the additions by Le Laboureur, vol. i., pages 11 and 355.) It was not till 1578 that Henri III. founded the Order of the Holy Ghost in consequence of the deterioration of that of St. Michael. The members nominated to the new order were received knights of St. Michael on the eve of their installation as knights of the Holy Ghost. Hence they were called “Chevaliers des Ordres du Roi.” (Lalanne, “Dict. Hist. de la France.”)

[434] Francis I. slightly altered the original arrangement of the connecting chain to make it simulate the rope of the Cordeliers, in allusion to his patron, St. Francis.

[435] “Excepting under arms, when it will suffice to wear only the said image of St. Michael suspended from a small gold chain or silk lace, whoever pleases to do so. And similarly when the said sovereign or one of the said knights shall be travelling, or at their houses in private, or hunting, or in other places where there is no company or considerable assembly, they shall not be obliged to wear the said Grand Collar, but only the said image of the Order, in the manner appointed.”

[436] “Statuts de l’Ordre de St. Michel,” Imprimerie Royale, 1725, article iii. This edition of the statutes was drawn up, as the preface informs us, by collation of all copies then available, whether printed or manuscript. Excepting in one or two trifling verbal details, these statutes are identical, as the writer has proved by comparison, with those contained in the “Livre des Ordonnances des chevaliers de l’ordre du treschrestien roy de france Loys XIᵉ a l’honneur de sainct Michel,” printed at Paris, in 1512, by Guillaume Eustace. The later edition has been quoted in the text only for the sake of the more modern orthography.

[437] Brantôme, “Hommes Illustres français,” Discours lxxxii., art. v., M. de Tavannes.—“Statuts de l’Ordre de St. Michel,” art. iv.

[438] No. 126. It is No. 109 in the Catalogue of the Louvre by M. Frédéric Villot (1880).

[439] Alfonso I. died in 1534; the portrait cannot therefore have been substantially later in date than the “Ambassadors.” He was the father of Ercole d’Este, who in 1527 married Renée of France.

[440] There are two interesting sketches by Holbein, for the Order of St. Michael, in the Basle Museum. They show far more freedom and spirit than the St. Michael of the “Ambassadors.” Possibly the latter was more or less a copy from the actual medallion worn by Dinteville; or it was put in by an assistant.

[441] See illustration, page 210.

[442] Compare illustrations, page 214. The gores found by Mr. Stevens are reproduced here by kind permission of Messrs. Henry Stevens, Son and Stiles.

[443] See the writer’s letter to the “Academy,” February 6th, 1892. The Stevens globe is now the property of Mr. Kalbfleisch of New York.

[444] “Johann Schöner. A reproduction of his globe of 1523, long lost.... By Henry Stevens of Vermont.... Edited by C. H. Coote. London, 1888.” Schöner was a distinguished mathematician, astronomer, and geographer. Born in 1477 at Carlstadt, his name is chiefly associated with Nuremberg, where, at various intervals, he spent long periods of his life. He corresponded with Copernicus; and Melanchthon contributed prefaces to several of his books. The latter, which are mainly concerned with astronomy and mathematics, and the then kindred subjects of astrology and medicine, also include treatises on the various celestial and terrestrial globes of which he was the author. Four of Schöner’s earth-globes, if we include that under consideration, have come down to the present day. A specimen of the earliest, dated 1515, is preserved at Frankfort; of the second (1520) in the Germanic Museum at Nuremberg; the gores found by Mr. Stevens are supposed to represent the third (1523); and the fourth (1534) may be seen in the Grand-Ducal Library at Weimar. Schöner died in 1547. Further information may be found, if desired, in the interesting book named above.

[445] See Mr. Coote’s article on Maximilianus Transylvanus, “Athenæum,” July 16th, 1892.

[446] The late Mr. C. H. Coote, British Museum.

[447] In the illustrations, p. 214, to facilitate comparison with the Stevens’ globe, Holbein’s copy has been placed in the same position as the original gores. To see Holbein’s globe as it is placed in the picture and described above, this book must be turned round, so as to present the globe handle downwards.

[448] Pritann. (Britannia), Norma..ia., Avern., Burgund., Languedoc.

[449] Paris, Leon, Baion, Polisy. The rivers Seine and Rhone are also laid down by Holbein, but left unnamed, probably through lack of space.

[450] Castil., Aragon., Navar., Grana.

[451] Roma, Genua.

[452] See page 52, note 2.

[453] Page 54.

[454] Page 55.

[455] The S in Polisy is partially effaced.

[456] See Appendix B.

[457] See ante, page 151.

[458] See illustration, page 218.

[459] They are there respectively numbered II. and XIX. In both cases the words in the form given are due to Luther: the first hymn being his translation of the ancient “Veni Creator,” the second his paraphrase of the Ten Commandments. The latter first received the title given to it by him, “Die zehen Gebot kürtzer gefasst” (“A shortened Version of the Ten Commandments”), in the Wittemberg “Gesangbuch” of 1529. In Walther’s “Gesangbuch” it is simply numbered “XIX.”

[460] Brightness, brilliancy.

[461] The first strophe of the “Veni Creator” was, in fact, used as an antiphon in the Roman Catholic Church. (Antiphon: “A short piece of plain song introduced before a psalm or canticle, to the tone of which it corresponds, while the words are selected so as specially to illustrate and enforce the evangelical or prophetic meaning of the text.”—Grove’s “Dictionary of Music and Musicians.”) The suggestion that an antiphon was intended in the picture gains some force from the fact that while a faint “D...” is seen beneath the second hymn (“Mensch wiltu”), pointing to the commencement of the second verse (“Dein Gott allein und Herr bin ich,” representing the First Commandment), no second verse is indicated in the case of “Kom Heiliger Geyst,” which is limited to one strophe. The opening of the “Veni Creator” was actually printed as an antiphon in the “Baseler Plenarium” of the year 1514, beneath a woodcut, by Hans Scheuffelin, representing the Descent of the Holy Ghost. (Winterfeld, “Dr. Martin Luther’s deutsche Geistliche Lieder,” Leipzig, 1840.)

[462] The words between brackets, where the surface of the panel has been injured, are supplied from Winterfeld, “Dr. Martin Luther’s deutsche geistliche Lieder” (Leipzig, 1840), where Walther’s hymns are reproduced. The only exception is in the last line of the second hymn, where the repetition of the word “Gott” is obviously intended. In Walther’s “Gesangbuch,” in place of the repetitions seen above, “Halleluia” is twice sung at the end of “Kom Heiliger Geyst,” and “Kyrioleis” once at the conclusion of the first verse of “Mensch wiltu.” (A stroke over a letter implies a suppressed consonant. Thus, for “gleubgē” read “gleubgen”; for “brūstig,” “brunstig”; for “un̄,” “und,” and so on.) For an English rendering of the first hymn the reader is referred to the numerous translations of the “Veni Creator,” all of which give the sense generally, not literally. The second hymn is a paraphrase of the Ten Commandments, opening with an admonition to obey the behests they contain.

[463] Winterfeld, “Dr. Martin Luther’s Geistliche Lieder.”

[464] See Mr. Barclay Squires’ letter to the “Times,” November 14, 1891. The information there given is based upon Dr. Kade’s reprint of Walther’s “Gesangbuch.”

[465] It will be recollected that this hymn still forms part of the services of the Church of England for the Ordering of Priests and for the Consecration of Bishops.

[466] Spangenberg’s “Kirchengesenge,” Magdeburg, 1545; quoted by Winterfeld, “Der Evangelische Kirchengesang,” p. 306.

[467] “Je receuz ces jours passez voz lettres du premier mars.... J’ay aussy eu le pacquet de celles que m’escripvoit Monsʳ l’Archevesque de Cantorberi auxquelles je faiz response.”—Claude Dodieu, Sieur de Vély, French ambassador with the Emperor, to the Bailly of Troyes. From Paris, 2nd May, 1533. (Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coll. Dupuy, vol. 263, f. 96.)—Throughout the period of Henry VIII.’s divorce and re-marriage with Anne Boleyn Cranmer had probably much to do with the Frenchmen. It will be remembered that in the procession for Anne Boleyn’s coronation he and Dinteville rode side by side. (See ante, page 85.)

[468] Cranmer’s second wife, whom he married in Germany in 1532, the year before he became Archbishop of Canterbury, was the daughter of Osiander, the Reformer.

[469] See illustration, page 224, for a comparison of the page painted by Holbein with the corresponding page of the original book.

[470] Peter Apian, or Bienewitz (of which name Apian is the Latinized form), born 1495 at Leisnig in Saxony, became Professor of Mathematics (which included astronomy, etc.) at Ingoldstadt in Bavaria, where he died in 1552. It appears probable enough that he may have been a friend and correspondent of Kratzer, who was himself a native of Munich.—George Apian, mentioned in the colophon, was evidently a member of the same family, and a printer.

[471] The facts given above are taken from a letter to the “Athenæum,” July 30th, 1892, in which the late Mr. C. H. Coote announced his very interesting discovery of a copy of this book in the British Museum, and the identification of the very page seen in the picture.

[472] Now in the Louvre.

[473] See Mr. W. Fred. Dickes in the “Magazine of Art,” November, 1891.

[474] It was formerly of much greater extent than at present, but a portion was removed, and other portions damaged, when “the new altar” was erected early in the eighteenth century. See Dart, “Westmonasterum, or History and Antiquities of the Abbey Church of St. Peter’s, Westminster,” 2 vols. fol., 1724.

[475] Sir G. G. Scott, “Gleanings from Westminster Abbey,” second edition, 1863.

[476] The Hymn-book and Book of Arithmetic.

[477] Published by Steyner at Augsburg in 1531, and reprinted by him in the same year, as well as in 1532, 1533, and 1534. Mr. Henry Green, in his authoritative treatise on “Andrea Alciati and his Book of Emblems” (London, 1872), has shown that in all probability the so-called first edition of Milan, 1522, existed only in manuscript.

[478] Mr. W. Fred. Dickes was the first to point out the probable connection between the lute in Holbein’s picture and this emblem (“Magazine of Art,” November, 1891). The plausibility of the suggestion is happily not invalidated by the fact that Mr. Dickes unfortunately failed to notice the broken string—a circumstance which, on Alciati’s own showing (see the poem cited in the text), exactly reverses the significance of the symbol. This oversight naturally led Mr. Dickes to a wholly fallacious interpretation of the emblem. Had that gentleman read Alciati’s explanation of the device in question, he could not have been so misled.

[479] Mr. Dickes says “a lute and two books” (“Magazine of Art,” November, 1891), which of course brings the emblem much closer to Holbein’s representation. Whether the manuscript collection of Alciati’s “Emblems” of 1522 (see above, note 1) contained “two books,” and whether that collection came under the notice of Holbein and his sitters, it is impossible to say; no copy of it being known to exist. But had Mr. Dickes carefully consulted the only version of Alciati’s “Emblems” which had been published up to 1533—namely, that issued by Steyner—he would have seen that the device there consists of a lute only. The two books first appear many years after the picture was painted.

[480] Green, “Andrea Alciati and his Book of Emblems” (London, 1872), pp. 12, 43-45. In later editions of Alciati’s “Emblems,” “Fœdera Italorum” was inscribed “Ad Maximilian Mediolani Ducem.” If it was indeed sent to Maximilian, it must have been composed many years earlier than here suggested, as Maximilian was dethroned on the conquest of the Duchy of Milan by the French, in 1515. It is noteworthy, however, that the name of Maximilian is only appended to this emblem at a considerably later date, when it may have been printed in error for Francesco, who was the reigning duke in 1526. Mr. Green, indeed, appears so satisfied that the League of Cognac gave birth to this emblem, that he excludes it from the possible list of emblems comprised in the Milan collection of 1522, as having been composed at a later date. Internal evidence proves that it was addressed to one of these two Dukes of Milan; to which of them is not very important. The same fair hopes of peace in Italy, which were evoked by the accession of Maximilian, were revived by the League of Cognac, under Francesco. The argument remains the same.

[481] The writer is indebted for this translation to the kindness of Lord Francis Hervey.

[482] See, for an account of all the circumstances, Part II., pp. 90-93. The picture had of course been begun earlier in the year, but it must have taken a considerable time to think out all the elaborate accessories, and still longer to execute them.

[483] This edition was subsequently translated into French by Jean Le Fèvre, a native of Dijon and Canon of Langres (in which diocese Polisy was situated), and was dedicated to the friend of the Dinteville family, Philippe de Chabot, Admiral de Brion.

[484] Andrea Alciati was born in the Milanese in 1492. He studied at Pavia and Bologna, and took his degree as Doctor of Laws in the twenty-second year of his age. In 1518 he was appointed to the Chair of Jurisprudence at Avignon. Returning to Italy in 1521, he remained at Milan till 1529, when he returned to France; this time to lecture on law at Bourges, where he stayed till 1534. He now resided at various Italian centres until his death, which took place in 1550. Erasmus and Paul Jovius were among his friends, and his society was sought on all hands. Charles V. and Francis I. alike protected him. The “Emblems,” which he composed as a recreation from his deeper studies, had extraordinary celebrity, and were printed and reprinted in innumerable editions and languages throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. One such was given to the world by the printer Gryphius at Lyons in 1548. It is curious that the motto of the Dinteville family, “Virtuti Fortuna Comes,” which, it has been seen, was also that of Gryphius in slightly altered form, was used by Alciati as early as 1522, in conjunction with the spread wings and other symbols of Hermes.

[485] See Part II., page 39.

[486] Hagen, “Deutschlands literarische und religiöse Verhältnisse im Reformations-Zeitalter,” vol. i., chap. vi.

[487] Decrue de Stoutz, “La Cour de France au XVIᵉ̀ᵐᵉ siècle,” page 159. Renée of France also cultivated these sciences at the Court of Ferrara. (Bart. Fontana, “Renata di Francia, Duchessa di Ferrara,” vol. iii., page 360.)

[488] It is a curious thing that Agrippa, whose name has descended to posterity as the incarnation of black magic, enjoyed for a time a European reputation for learning of the highest kind. Ecclesiastics such as the Archbishop of Cologne, Cardinal La Marck, and Cardinal Campeggio, were his special protectors. The freedom with which he expressed his opinion of the monks seems first to have drawn from his enraged enemies those accusations of meddling with black art which afterwards sullied his fame. His talents were universal. Secretary, soldier, knight, doctor of law, physic, and divinity, equally at home in France, Germany, England, and Italy, his life was as varied as the professions he undertook to exercise. But by some fault of tact or temper on his part his career always broke off just when apparently about to prosper, and ended in bitterness and disappointment. Agrippa died at Grenoble in 1535.

[489] As opposed to the black magic which was considered to emanate from the Evil One, and, as such, prohibited with the utmost rigour.

[490] Bayle’s “Dictionary,” ed. 1735, Art. Agrippa. The letters from which these passages are quoted were probably not published until a later date, but their purport appears to have formed the substance of that “Key” which Agrippa was in the habit of explaining to favoured persons.

[491] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. vi. (1533), No. 1170. Thomas Houth to the Earl of Kildare. In the index to the volume in question Gyes is erroneously identified with one Gee, an altogether different individual, as can be verified by reference to the letters, in the same volume, which refer to the latter person.—The Alderman at this time was probably Barthold Beckman, of Hamburg. (Lappenberg, “Urkundliche Geschichte des Hansischen Stahlhofes zu London,” p. 157.)

[492] In this second form perhaps equivalent to “Gijze.” The “z” would have a hissing sound similar to “ss.”

[493] Lappenberg, “Urkundliche Geschichte,” etc. Urkunden (No. clii., Aus dem Archive zu Cöln), p. 173. Sir Thomas More was one of the representatives of England on this occasion.

[494] Ibid., part i., p. 80, No. 11.

[495] Ibid., p. 81, Nos. 11 and 57, and part ii. (Urkunden), p. 173. Dr. Lappenberg adds a fourth version, which he brings under the same head: “Hans van der Biesen,” which stands, in his opinion, for “Hans van der Giesen.” (Ibid., p. 81, Nos. 39 and 40.)

[496] The entry occurs as “Albert Gissen Kammer” (Albert Gisse’s or Albert Gissen Room). If we may assume “Gissen” to be here in the genitive case, the nominative “Gisse” would show perfect identity with one of Holbein’s versions of the name.

[497] “The Book of Ser Marco Polo, the Venetian,” newly translated and edited, with notes, by Colonel Henry Yule, C.B., vol. i., p. 205, note 3.

[498] “Life and Reign of Henry VIII.” (1532-33, “Ambassador sent to the Pope from the King of Ethiopia”).

[499] See Holbein’s “Ambassadors,” p. 72.

[500] Letters and Papers, Henry VIII., vol. vi. (1533), No. 156.

[243]

## INDEX

[244]

[245]

### INDEX

- Abate, Niccolò dell’, 126.
- Act of Supremacy, 100.
- Agout, river, 170.
- Agrippa, Cornelius, 233, ibid., note 3, 234, ibid., note 2.
- Aigues-Mortes, 166.
- Albany, Duke of, 91.
- Alchemy, 138, 227, 232-234.
- Alciati, Andrea, 46, 131, 198, ibid., note 1, 228-231, 231, note 3.
- Alençon, Chancellor of, 42.
- Alfonso I. d’Este, Duke of Ferrara, see Este.
- Allegory, 197.
- “Ambassadors,” Holbein’s picture of the;
- purchased for the National Gallery, 1, 5, 31-32;
- personages represented, 1, 10, 11, 19, 20, 77, 200-202;
- owned by Le Brun, 5-6, 31-32;
- by Jacob, Earl of Radnor, 6, ibid., note 2, 31-32;
- documents showing history of picture, 11, 18, 20;
- notice in Beaujon catalogue, 9-10, 31-32;
- description of picture, 200-203;
- details of same, 203-236 (see also under each head).
- Ambassadors de robe longue and de robe courte, 143, 199-200, 199, note 1.
- Amboise, Château of, 42, 126, note 3.
- Amboise, George d’, Cardinal Legate, 99.
- Amyot, Jacques, Bishop of Auxerre, 146, ibid., note 1.
- Angeviller, Conte d’, 22, note 1.
- Angoulême, Charles, Duke of, see Charles.
- Angoulême, Duchesse d’, see Louise.
- Angoulême, Marguerite d’, see Marguerite.
- Anne Boleyn, Queen of England, 62, 72, 79, 82, 83-89, 102, 105.
- Antwerp, 186.
- Apian, George, 224, ibid., note 2.
- Apian, Peter, 224-225, 224, note 2.
- Aragon, Katherine of, see Katherine.
- Arithmetic, 223, 224, 225, 232.
- Arithmetic, Book of, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 203, 223-224.
- Armagnac, Georges d’, Bishop of Rodez, 156, 167.
- “Arms of Death” (design by Holbein), 203-204.
- Arms of François II., Bishop of Auxerre, 56, 130.
- Arms of Jean de Dinteville, 128-129.
- Arts, the Seven Liberal, 39;
- in picture of “Ambassadors,” 210, 223, 225, 228, 231-232.
- Arundel Collection, 140.
- Aspremont, 136.
- Asti, county of, 101.
- Astrology, 45, 138, 210, ibid., note 3, 233-234.
- Astronomy, 45, 210, ibid., note 3, 225, 232, 233-234.
- Audley, Sir Thomas, Lord Chancellor, 85, ibid., note 6.
- Aumale, 178.
- Auxerre, cathedral of, 117, 137, note 1.
- Auxerre, François I. de Dinteville, Bishop of, see Dinteville.
- [246]Auxerre, François II. de Dinteville, Bishop of, see Dinteville.
- Auxerre, Jacques Amyot, Bishop of, see Amyot.
- “Avaux, M. d’,” 5, 7, 8, 10, 22,
- see also Mesmes.
- Avaux, seigneurie in Champagne, 9, note 1.
- Avignon, 46, 148, 149, 166, 231, note 3.
- Azay-le-Rideau, 125.
- Baif, Lazare de, French Ambassador at Venice, etc., 59, 157, ibid., note 2, 174.
- Bailly, office of, 38.
- Bailly of Troyes, The, see Dinteville.
- Balavoyne, steward of Bishop of Auxerre, 59, ibid., note 2, 63.
- Barbier, Domenico del, see Domenico Fiorentino.
- Bar-sur-Seine, 11, 19, 36, 41, 121.
- Basle, 75.
- Basse-Cour of Polisy, 127, 133.
- Basville, see Lamoignon.
- Basville, seigneurie, 29.
- Bayonne, 176, 213.
- Beaujon, Hospice (now Hospital), 30, ibid., note 2.
- Beaujon, Nicolas, 9, 21, 29, 30-32, 30, note 2.
- Beauvais, M. de, French Ambassador in Scotland, 80, ibid., note 2, 95, 98.
- Belgrade, 214.
- Bellay, Guillaume Du, Seigneur de Langey, 35, note 1, 44, 47, ibid., note 2, 48, 53, 232.
- Bellay, Jean Du, successively Bishop of Bayonne and Paris, and Cardinal, 42, 44, 45, note 1, 47, ibid., note 2, 48, 53, 65, 66, 67, ibid., note 3, 80, 89-90, 98, 232.
- Bellay, Madame Du, 117.
- Bellay, Martin Du, 47, note 2.
- Bembo, Pietro, Cardinal, 158, ibid., note 2.
- Berthereau, secretary to Montmorency, 59.
- Bèze, M. de, 59, note 2.
- Bèze, Théodore de, 59, note 2.
- Bidassoa, river, 146, 176, 201, note 2.
- Biez, Oudart Du, Governour of Boulogne, 98.
- Black Friars, 68, 69.
- Blaigny, Charles le Genevois, Marquis de, 16, 26.
- Blaigny, Charlotte Marie de Cazillac, Marquise de, see Cazillac.
- Blaigny, Marie Renée Le Genevois de, see Le Genevois.
- Blois, Château of, 42, 125.
- Boisy, Grand-Maître, 39.
- Boleyn, Queen Anne, see Anne Boleyn.
- Bologna, 72.
- Bomy, Truce of, 163.
- Bonhomme, Abbé, 24, note 1.
- Bonner, Dr., 82, ibid., note 2.
- Bonnivet, Admiral, 39.
- Bonvalot, François, Abbot of St. Vincent of Besançon, Imperial Ambassador in France, 177.
- Bordeaux, 30, note 2, 144.
- Born, Derick, 76, note 1.
- Boulogne, 60, 61, 66, 98, 110.
- Bourbon, Connétable de, 233.
- Bourdaizière, La, 60.
- Bourges, Archbishop of, see Tournon, François de.
- Bourges, University of, 46, 145, 231, ibid., note 2.
- Brandon, Charles, Duke of Suffolk, 85, ibid., note 3, 87-88, 90.
- Brantôme, 199-200, 201, note 2.
- Breton, secretary to Francis I., 98.
- Brian, Sir Francis, 94, 109-110.
- Bridewell, Palace of, 58, ibid., note 3, 63, ibid., note 3, 67-71, 68, note 1.
- Brion, Madame de, 117.
- Brion, Philippe de Chabot, Admiral de, 65, 98, 116, 118, 146.
- Brittany, 59, 213.
- Brittany, Anne of, wife of Louis XII., 45, note 2.
- Broglie, Anne Louise de, second Marquise de Cessac, 23, 25, 28.
- Brou, Denis Feydeau de, 28.
- Brou, Madame de, 118.
- Brun, Le, see Le Brun.
- Brussels, 177, 186, 187, 188.
- Buchanan, picture-dealer, 6, ibid., note 2, 32.
- [247]Budé, Guillaume, 43, ibid., note 2, 46, 47.
- Bunel, Pierre, 144, 157, ibid., note 2, 159, 160, 174-175, 189, 190, note 1, 191-192.
- Burgundy, Charles the Bold, Duke of, 37.
- Burgundy, County of (High Burgundy or Franche Comté), 16, 139, note 2, 177, 186.
- Burgundy, Duchy of, 36, 37, 41, 121, 127, 139, note 2, 213.
- Buttes, Dr., physician to Henry VIII., 74, 78.
- Buxi, Cécille de, wife of Jean de Selve, 143, 147, note 1, 154.
- Buxi, Pierre de, Bishop of Lavaur, 147.
- Cahors, 24, note 1.
- Calais, 60-63, 66, 109;
- meeting of Henry VIII. and Francis I. at (1532), 60-63.
- Calvin, 46, 158, note 3.
- Campeggio, Cardinal, 69, 233, note 3.
- Camusat, Nicolas, Canon of Troyes, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 24, note 1, 134, note 1.
- Canterbury, Archbishops of, see Cranmer, Warham.
- Capello, Carlo, Venetian Ambassador in England, 85, ibid., note 6.
- Carew, Sir Nicolas, Master of the Horse to Henry VIII., 88.
- Carpentras, 174, note 1.
- Carpentras, Bishop of, see Sadoleto.
- Carpi, Ridolfo Pio, Bishop of Faenza, Cardinal, 162-165.
- Carrelage at Polisy (tesselated pavement), 129-130, 197.
- Castelnau, Anthoine de, Bishop of Tarbes, French Ambassador in England and with Charles V., 102-103, 105, ibid., note 3, 172, note 2, 174-175.
- Castelnau, Louis de, Marquis de Cessac, 15, note 5, 24, note 1.
- Castillon, Sieur de, French Ambassador in England, 95, 96.
- Catherine de’ Medici (Duchess of Orleans, subsequently Queen of France), 72, 96, 99.
- Cazillac, Charlotte-Marie de, Marquise de Blaigny, 16, 17, 23, 25-27, 31.
- Cazillac, Claude de, Baronne de Fontenilles, 15, 26.
- Cazillac, Claude de, Marquise de Praslin, 25, note 1.
- Cazillac, François I. de, Baron de Cessac, see Cessac.
- Cazillac, François II. de, Marquis de Cessac, see Cessac.
- Cazillac, seigneurie in Quercy, 24, 27.
- Cellini, Benvenuto, 126, note 3, 197.
- Cessac, Baronne de, see Dinteville, Claude de.
- Cessac, François I. de Cazillac, Baron de, 14, 17, 31.
- Cessac, François II. de Cazillac, Marquis de, 15-17, 19-21, 22-25, ibid., note 1, 26, 31.
- Cessac, Marquise de, see Broglie, Anne-Louise de.
- Cessac, Marquise de, see Choiseul, Marie de.
- Cessac, seigneurie in Quercy, 24, 25, 27, 28.
- Chabot, Philippe de, Admiral de Brion, 65, 98, 116, 146.
- Chambord, 125.
- Champagne, 14, note 1, 16, 24, note 1, 36, 46, 52, 127.
- “Champagne et de Brie, Revue de,” 10-12, 14, note 1.
- Chantilly, 55, 83, 100.
- Chapeaufort, Maison du, 21.
- Chapuys, Eustace, Ambassador of Charles V. in England, 62, 63, 103, 105-106.
- Charles VIII., King of France, 37, 51.
- Charles IX., King of France, 207, note 1.
- Charles V., Emperor of Germany, 6, 40, 41, 42, 48, 52, note 2, 57, 69, 72, 73, 76, 90-92, 95, 99, 101, 102, 104, 106, 107, 116, 128, 151, 152, 156, 157, 162, 163, 165, 166, 169, 172-182, 182, note 1, 184-188, 184, note 1, 193.
- Charles, Duke of Angoulême, subsequently Duke of Orleans, 40, 42, 43, 44, 53, 59, 60, 62, 98, 99, 100, 106, 112, note 2, 113, 116, 118, ibid., note 3, 119, 121-124.
- Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, 37.
- Chartres, Duchess of, see Renée.
- “Chartreuse,” The, 30.
- Châtillon, Mme. de, 45, note 1.
- Chelsea, More’s house at, 74, 75.
- Chenonceaux, 125.
- [248]Choiseul, Charles de, Marquis de Praslin, 25, note 1.
- Choiseul, Duché-Pairie, 17.
- Choiseul, family of, 16.
- Choiseul, Isabelle de, 25, note 1.
- Choiseul, Marie de, first Marquise de Cessac, 16, 21, 22.
- Chrétien, Félix, 137, note 1.
- Christina, Duchess of Milan, niece of Charles V., 91, ibid., note 1.
- Chronology of Holbein’s “Ambassadors,” 31.
- Cinque Ports, Barons of the, 87, note 4.
- Clement VII., Pope, 41, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 72, 73, 78, 79, 82, 91, 93, 95-96, 99, 100, note 2, 155.
- Clermont, Cardinal, Legate of Avignon, 148-150.
- Clermont, M. de, 150.
- Clouet, 209.
- Cloux, Château, 126, note 3.
- Cobham, 102.
- Cognac, League of, 41, 90, 92, 228, ibid., note 4.
- Coligny, Louise de, wife of Gaucher de Dinteville the younger, 51, note 2.
- Collège Royal (Coll. de France), 46, 145.
- Cologne, Archbishop of, 233, note 3.
- Compass, an oval, 80.
- Compasses, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 203, 224, 232, 233.
- Concordat, The, 147.
- Contarini, Cardinal, 158, note 1, 182, ibid., note 1.
- Conti, Prince de, Governour of Champagne, 16.
- Copernicus, 210, note 3.
- Cosins Lane, 75.
- Council, The General, 78, 106, 162, 163.
- Cranmer, Thomas, Archbishop of Canterbury, 78, 85-87, 222, ibid., note 3, 223, note 1.
- Croix, Nicolas de la, 135, 136.
- Cromwell, Thomas, minister of Henry VIII., subsequently Earl of Essex, 74, 76, note 1, 102, 106, 107.
- Crucifix, Silver, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 203, 232, 234, 235.
- Dagger, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 7, 201, 205-207, 206, note 1.
- Dagger-sheath, design for, after Holbein, 206, ibid., note 1.
- Dagger and sword, worn together, 200, 201, ibid., note 2.
- “Dance of Death,” Holbein’s, 203, 204.
- Dance of Death, The, 198.
- Danès, Pierre, 144, 145, 146, 157, 183, ibid., note 1, 189, 191.
- Dauphin François, The, see François.
- Dauphin Henri, The, see Henri.
- Death, Agrippa’s Mystical, 234-235.
- “Death, Arms of,” 203-204, 207.
- Death, Device and Emblems of, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 203-207, 228, 235.
- Death, Mottoes concerning, 206.
- Death’s-head Brooch, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 201, 203.
- Death’s-head, Distorted, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 10, 203-205, 203, note 1, 206, 225, 235.
- Derick, see Born and Tybis.
- Deschenetz (Echenay), seigneurie, 17, note 1, 36, 37, 40, 113-114.
- Deschenetz, Seigneur, see Dinteville, Guillaume de.
- Device of Death, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 204-207, 235.
- Device or Devise, 197-198, 204-207, 235.
- Diane de Poitiers, “Grande Sénéchale,” subsequently Duchesse de Valentinois, 112.
- Diet of Hagenau (1540), 172-173, 174.
- —— Ratisbon (1541), 174, 175.
- —— Spires (1529), 151-153, ibid., note 1, 219, 222.
- Dijon, Bailly of (M. de Villiers les Potz), 117-118.
- Dinteville, Charlotte de, wife of Louis Raguier, Seigneur de la Mothe, sister of Jean the “Ambassador,” 47, 53, 136, ibid., note 1.
- Dinteville, Claude de, Surintendant de Finance to Charles the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, uncle to Jean the “Ambassador,” 37.
- Dinteville, Claude de, wife of François I. de Cazillac, Baron de Cessac, niece of Jean the “Ambassador,” 14, 15, 17, 31, 134, note 3.
- [249]Dinteville, François I. de, Bishop of Auxerre, uncle of Jean the “Ambassador,” 37, 38, 51, 53, 56.
- Dinteville, François II. de, Bishop of Auxerre, brother of Jean the “Ambassador,” 15, 38, 39, 51, 53, 55-60, 62-65, 78, 79-81, 111, 113-121, 129-131, 133, 135-138, 214, 233.
- Dinteville, Françoise de, sister of Jean the “Ambassador,” 53, 63, note 4, 134.
- Dinteville, Gaucher I. de, father of Jean the “Ambassador,” 37-42, 47, 50-53, 53, note 2, 54.
- Dinteville, Gaucher II. de, Seigneur of Vanlay and Thennelières, brother of Jean the “Ambassador,” 51, note 2, 52, ibid., note 3, 53, 59, 60, 62, 111-116, 137, 213.
- Dinteville, Guillaume, Seigneur Deschenetz, brother of Jean the “Ambassador,” 14, 52, ibid., note 2, 53, 59, 107-108, 111-114, 116, 133-138, 167-168, 213.
- Dinteville, Jacques de, Grand Veneur de France, uncle of Jean the “Ambassador,” 37.
- Dinteville, Jean de, Seigneur of Polisy and Bailly of Troyes (subject of Holbein’s portrait).
- Birth and lineage, 36;
- position at French Court, 39, 40, 42, 52, ibid., note 3, 53, 59, 60, 62, 63, 99-101, 111-113, 116-121, 122, 134;
- Bailly of Troyes and Governour of Bar-sur-Seine, 41;
- Knight of St. Michael, 7-8, 53, ibid., note 2, 134, note 2, 201-208;
- first embassy to England (1531), 54, 56-57;
- second and longest ditto (1533), 66-98;
- third ditto (1535), 100-103;
- fourth ditto (1536), 105-107;
- fifth and last ditto (1537), 108-110;
- in disgrace with Francis I., 111-113;
- back at Court, 116-121;
- paralyzed, 121;
- builds Polisy, 125-133;
- death, 138.
- —— His portrait by Holbein (“Ambassadors”), 1, 10-11, 18-20, 31, 77-78, 200;
- see also under “Ambassadors.”
- —— Supposed portrait amongst the Holbein drawings at Windsor, 139.
- Dinteville, Jean de, son of Pierre de Jaucourt, ancestor of Jean the “Ambassador,” 36.
- Dinteville, Jean de, another ancestor, 36-37.
- Dinteville, Joachim de, Seigneur of Dinteville in Champagne, 14, note 1, 24, note 1.
- Dinteville, Louis de, Knight Commander of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, brother of Jean the “Ambassador,” 39, 53, 54, 60, 213.
- Dinteville, Pierre de, Seneschal of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, uncle of Jean the “Ambassador,” 37, 54.
- Dinteville, seigneurie in Champagne, 14, note 1, 24, note 1, 36.
- St. Dizier, 128.
- Dodieu, Claude, Sieur de Vély, French Ambassador with Charles V., 98, ibid., note 2, 186-188, 199-200, 222, note 3.
- Domenico Fiorentino (Domenico del Barbier), 126-128.
- Dossi, Battista, 209.
- Dover, 66, 109-110.
- Du Bellay, see Bellay, Du.
- Du Faur, see Faur, Du.
- Du Plessis, see Plessis, Du.
- Duprat, Chancellor, 99.
- Du Puy, see Puy, Du.
- Ecouen, Château of, 125.
- Eleanor, sister of Charles V., Queen-Dowager of Portugal, Queen of France, 50, 59.
- Elizabeth, Princess, daughter of Henry VIII. and Anne Boleyn, 94, 102-103.
- Emblems, Alciati’s Book of, 198, ibid., note 1, 228-231, 228, notes 1-4, 231, notes 1 and 2.
- Embrun, Archbishop of, see Tournon, François de.
- Epitaph of Gaucher I. de Dinteville, 51.
- Epitaph of George de Selve, 190.
- Erasmus, 43, ibid., note 3, 231, note 3.
- Ercole II. d’Este, see Este.
- Escars, Susanne d’, wife of Charles de Cazillac, Baron de Cessac, 15.
- Esmon, Mademoiselle de, 136.
- Este, Alfonso I. d’, Duke of Ferrara, 209.
- [250]Este, Ercole II. d’, Duke of Ferrara, 45, 115, note 3, 159, note 1, 168.
- Este, Leonora d’, 45.
- Etampes, Duchesse d’ (Anne de Pisseleu), 112-113, 117-121, 184, note 1.
- Evelyn, John, 15, note 5.
- Evreux, Hotel d’, 30, ibid., note 3.
- Falconry, 55, 56, 80.
- Falier, Lodovico, Venetian Ambassador in England, 66.
- Farnese, Alessandro, Cardinal, 164.
- Faur, Du, 157, note 2.
- Ferdinand, King of Hungary, 41.
- Ferrara, 67, 115, 116, 158, note 3, 159.
- Ferrara, Dukes of, see Este.
- Ferrara, Duchess of, see Renée.
- Fisher, John, Bishop of Rochester, 100-101, 104.
- Fitzwilliam, Sir William, Treasurer of the Household to Henry VIII., 71, 74.
- Flanders, 109, 176, 177, ibid., note 1, 178, 186.
- Fleece, Order of the, 207.
- Fleet, the river, 67-69.
- Flutes, Case of, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 203, 232.
- Fontainebleau, 120, 125, 126, 127, 135, 197.
- Fontaines, page of Louis de Dinteville, 60.
- Fontenilles, see Roche, De la.
- Forestmontier, 11, 123.
- Fortespice, vassal of the Comte de Vaudemont, 37.
- Fortune, emblems of, at Polisy, 130-132.
- Four, Rue du (at Paris), 21.
- France, Collège de, see Collège Royal.
- France, Kings of, see Charles, Francis, Henri, Louis.
- Franche-Comté, 16, ibid., note 2, 139, note 2.
- Francis I., King of France, 10, 11, 19, 40-47, 50, 52, 53, note 2, 54-62, 64, 65, 72, 73, 76, 78-81, 89-98, 99-102, 104, 105, 107-110, 111, 112, 114-122, 125-128, 134, 145-150, 156, 157, 162, 163, 165-167, 172, 173, 175-182, 186, 187, 192, 197, 199, 207, 209, 214.
- Francis II., King of France, 207, note 1.
- François, The Dauphin, eldest son of Francis I., 39, 40, 42, 50, 52, 53, 62, 103, 106, 107, 112, ibid., note 1.
- Gabarre, 42.
- Gardiner, Stephen, Bishop of Winchester, 102, 103, 105.
- Garter, Order of the, 61, 207.
- Gaucher de Dinteville, see Dinteville.
- Genevois, Le, see Le Genevois.
- Genoa, 101, 214.
- Geometry, 225, 227, 232, 233, 235.
- Germany, 41, 45-47, 89, 136, 172, 214, 219.
- St. Géry, Château of, 25, note 2.
- St. Géry, Rey de, see Rey.
- Ghent, 175, 177, 178.
- Globe, Celestial, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 202, 209-210, 232.
- Globe, Terrestrial, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 202, 210-218, 228, 232, 235.
- Godefroy family, The, 14, 18.
- Godefroy papers (Bibl. de l’Institut), 18, 20.
- Grammont, Gabriel de, Bishop of Tarbes, Cardinal, 62, 64-65, 71, 72, 91, 92, 146.
- Grand-Maître, see Montmorency.
- Grand-Seigneur (the Turk), see Solyman II.
- Grand Veneur de France, see Dinteville, Jacques de.
- Granvella, Cardinal (Nic. Perrenot, minister of Charles V.), 186-188.
- Greenwich, 70, 71, 84, 94-95.
- Grenoble, 136, 233, note 3.
- Grignan, French Ambassador at Rome, 114-115.
- Gryphe or Gryphius, printer of Lyons, 131-132, 198.
- Guénégaud, Henri Du Plessis, Marquis de Plancy, 25, note 1.
- Guénégaud, Roger de, 24, 25, note 1.
- Guildford, Sir Henry, Comptroller of the Household to Henry VIII., 74.
- Guise, Claude de Lorraine, Duke of, 113.
- Guise, Duke of, 16.
- Guise, The, 134, note 3.
- Gyze, Gisze, Gyes, George, 75, note 3;
- see also Appendix A, p. 239.
- [251]Hagenau, Diet of (1540), 174.
- Hague, The, 184, 185.
- Hargerie, Seigneur de La, 93.
- Hellin, French resident at Brussels, 177, ibid., note 2.
- Henri, successively Duke of Orleans, Dauphin, and Henri II., King of France, 10, 42, 54, 59, 60, 61-62, 72, 96, 99, 112, ibid., note 2, 113, 114, 120, 121, 123, 127, 132, 134, note 2, 136, ibid., note 2, 137, 184, note 1, 207, note 1.
- Henry VIII., King of England, 8, 20, 40, 42, 47, 48, 50, 56-58, 60-63, 67-74, 76, 78-82, 83, 88, 89-90, 93-98, 100-102, 104-109.
- Henry, Count of Nassau, Grand Chamberlain of Charles V., 52, note 2, 213.
- Hermes’ wings, 131-132, 231, note 2.
- Hermeticism (Hermetic Art), 132, 233.
- Hesse, Philip, Landgrave of, 99.
- Holbein, Hans, the Younger, 1, 5-7, ibid., note 1, 8, note 2, 9, 10, ibid., note 3, 11, 13, 19, ibid., note 3, 20-22, 26, 31-32, 35, 41, 43, note 3, 56, 74-78, 134, note 3, 139, 140, 198, 199, 202, 203-206, 208, 209, note 3, 211-212, 215-218, 220-221, 224-227, 230, 235-236.
- —— “Dance of Death,” 203-204.
- —— Design for the “Arms of Death,” 203-204, 207.
- —— —— for the Order of St. Michael, 209, note 3.
- —— —— after, for a Dagger-sheath, 206.
- —— Drawing at Dresden, of Morette, 140.
- —— —— —— Windsor, supposed to represent Dinteville, 139, ibid., note 2, 140.
- —— Engravings after, by Hollar, see Hollar.
- —— Portraits by:
- The “Ambassadors,” see under that head.
- Born, Derick, 76, note 1.
- Buttes, Dr., 74.
- Cromwell, Thomas, 74.
- Erasmus, 43, note 3.
- Fitzwilliam, Sir William, 74.
- Guildford, Sir Henry, 74.
- Gyze or Gisze, Georg, 75, note 2, Appendix A (pp. 239-240).
- Kratzer, Nicolas, 74, 75, note 1, 224, ibid., note 4.
- Milan, Christina, Duchess of, 91, note 1.
- More, Sir Thomas, 75.
- More family, 75.
- Morette, Comte de, 42, note 7, 140, 201, note 1.
- Norfolk, Duke of, 74.
- Steelyard Merchants, 75.
- Tybis, Derick, 76, note 1.
- Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, 74.
- Holland, 184.
- Hollar, Wenzel, 140.
- Holy Ghost, Order of the, 207, note 1.
- Hospice (now Hôpital) Beaujon, 30, ibid., note 2.
- Howard, Lord William, 85, ibid., note 4, 87-88
- Hozier, D’, 14, 24, note 1, 53, note 2.
- Humanists, the French, 45 et seq.
- Hungary, Ferdinand, King of, see Ferdinand.
- Hungary, John Zapolski, King of, see Zapolski.
- Hymn-book, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 151, 173, 202, 214, 219-223, 228, 235.
- Instruments, Geometrical, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 202, 224-225, 232, 233, 235.
- Italian artists employed in France, 125-127, 128, 129-130.
- Iversay, M. d’, 122.
- Ivoy, 122-123.
- Jaucourt, Pierre de, 36.
- John, King of England, 69.
- St. John of Jerusalem, Order of, 39, 53, 54, 57, 67, 68, 213.
- Joinville, 116, 121.
- Julyot, Hubert, 128.
- Katherine of Aragon, Queen of England, 57, 63, ibid., note 2, 69, 83, 89, 94, 104.
- [252]Kingston, 102.
- Kratzer, Nicolas, astronomer to Henry VIII., 74, 75, ibid., note 2, 222, 224, 225.
- Laigne, river, 36, 128, 129.
- Lamoignon (place), 29.
- Lamoignon, Chrétien de, Marquis de Basville, 29.
- Lamoignon, Chrétien-François (II.) de, Marquis de Basville et de Milhars, Président à mortier of the Parliament of Paris, Garde des Sceaux, 29, ibid., note 1, 30-31, 32.
- Langey, see Bellay, Guillaume Du.
- Languedoc, 14, 16, 17, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 150, 153, 213.
- Lavaur (Lavor, La Vaur), Bishops of, see Buxi, Danès, Selve.
- Lavaur, Cathedral of, 170.
- Le Brun, Jean-Batiste-Pierre, 5-6, 10, 31, 32.
- Lefèvre d’Etaples, Jacques, 43, ibid., note 1, 44, 47.
- Le Genevois, Charles, Marquis de Blaigny, 16, 26.
- Le Genevois, Marie Renée, wife of François Voisin, subsequently Marquise de Milhars, 26-29, 31-32.
- Leland, John, 6-7.
- Lesches, in Brie, 53.
- Liancourt, Madame de, 135, ibid., note 1.
- Liancourt, Seigneur de, see Plessis, Du.
- Limoges, 24, note 1, 144.
- Lionardo da Vinci, 126, note 3.
- L’Isle-Adam, Philippe de Villiers, Grand Master of the Knights of St John of Jerusalem, 54, 59.
- Loches, 176.
- London, 57, 63, 66-71, 75, 76, 92, 102;
- description of (1531), 70;
- Mayor of (Sir Stephen Pecock), 88;
- Tower of, 84.
- Longford Castle, 6, ibid., note 2, 32.
- Longueval, M. de, 122.
- Lorraine, Claude de, Duke of Guise, 113.
- Lorraine, Dukedom of, 37.
- Louise of Savoy, Duchess of Angoulême, mother of Francis I., 40, 42, ibid., note 5, 43, 45, 55, 56, 148-149, 233.
- Low Countries, The, see Netherlands.
- Lunden, Bishop of (John Vesalius, Archbishop of Linden), 172.
- Lute, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 202, 227-231, 232, 235.
- Luther, 46, 219, ibid., note 3.
- Lutheran Hymn-book in picture of “Ambassadors,” see Hymn-book.
- Lutherans (Luthériens), 45, 46, 49, 65, 89, 172, 181, 222.
- Lützelburger, Hans, 204.
- Luxemburg, Duchy of, 116.
- Lyencourt, see Liancourt.
- Lyons, 93, 99, 105, 107, 108, 131-132, 136, 155, 198, 204, 213.
- Mablisteyn, Sir John, 57.
- Mâcon, Charles de Hémard, Bishop of, Cardinal, 161-165, 163, note 2, 199-200.
- Madeleine, daughter of Francis I., subsequently Queen of Scotland, 99.
- Madrid, 40, 146.
- Madrid, Château of (near Paris), 125, 126.
- Madrid, Treaty of, 41, 50, 146, 213.
- Magellan, 212.
- Magic, 234, ibid., notes 1 and 2.
- Maison de l’Aûmonier (Polisy), 130-133, 130, note 1, 198, 233.
- Maison du Chapeaufort (Paris), 20, 21.
- Malta, 54.
- Mantua, 116.
- Manuzio, Paolo, 157.
- Maraviglia, see Merveilles.
- Marck, Cardinal La, 109, 234.
- Mareuil, Pierre de, Bishop of Lavaur, 113, 117-121.
- Marguerite d’Angoulême, successively Duchesse d’Alençon and Queen of Navarre, sister of Francis I., 42, ibid., note 3, 43-45, 98, 153-154.
- Marguerite, Princess, daughter of Francis I., 99.
- Marignan, Battle of, 144.
- Marseilles, meeting of Francis I. and Clement VII. at, 72, 78, 89, 93-94, 95-96, 99.
- Mary, ex-Queen of France, sister of Henry VIII., wife of Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk, 90.
- [253]Mary, Queen-Dowager of Hungary, Regent of the Netherlands, sister of Charles V., 109, 177, ibid., note 1.
- Mary, Princess, daughter of Henry VIII. and Katherine of Aragon, 94, 103.
- Mass, placards against, 104.
- Maurice of Saxony, 136.
- Mechanics, 55, 137, 235.
- Melanchthon, André, 46.
- Melanchthon, Philip, 46, 48, 158, note 3, 210, note 3.
- Mergey, Catherine de, 133.
- Mergey, Jean de, 133-134, 134, note 1.
- Merveilles or Maraviglia, French agent at Milan, 90-93, 90, note 4, 230.
- Mesmes, Jean-Antoine de, Conte d’Avaux, ambassador, 27, 28, 31.
- Mesmes, Jean-Antoine de, Conte d’Avaux, Premier Président of the Parliament of Paris, 27, 28, ibid., note 1, 29, 31.
- Mesmes, Jean-Jacques de, Conte d’Avaux, Président à mortier of the Parliament of Paris, 27, 31.
- Mesmes, Marie-Thérèse de, wife of François de la Roche, Marquis de Fontenilles, 27, ibid., note 1, 28, 31.
- Metals, transmutation of, 233.
- St. Michael, Order of (Ordre du Roi), 7-8, 42, 53, ibid., note 2, 61, ibid., note 1, 200, 201, 207-209, notes 207-209.
- Milan, city of, 198, ibid., note 1, 228, note 1, 230, 231, note 3.
- Milan, Duchy of, 67, 73, 90-92, 96, 101, 144, 163, 166, 176-179, 184, note 1, 186, 187, 228, note 4.
- Milan, Francesco Sforza, Duke of, 41, 90-93, 228, note 4, 229, 230.
- Milan, Maximilian, Duke of, 228, note 4, 229.
- Milhars, Château of, 17, 23, ibid., note 3, 24, 25, ibid., note 2, 26-29, 31-32.
- Milhars, Marquis de, see Voisin, François.
- Milhars, Marquise de, see Le Genevois, Marie Renée.
- Mirandola, La, 115, 167, ibid., note 2.
- Mirandola, La, Pico, Count of, 167.
- Modena, 167, 209.
- Modena, Niccolò da, 126.
- Mons, 177.
- Montecuculli, Count Sebastiano di, 107-108, 112, note 1.
- Montier-Aramey, abbey of, 117-119.
- Montierender, abbey of, 55, 134.
- Montier-la-Celle, abbey of, 117-121, 135, ibid., note 2.
- Montier-sur-Saulx, 116.
- Montmorency, Anne de, successively Maréchal, Grand-Maître, and Connétable de France, 39, 42, ibid., note 7, 43, 44, 48-49, 53, 54, 55, 59, 61, 64, 65, 77, 79, 80, 83, 97, 98, 100, 113, 115, 125, 126, ibid., note 1, 146, 150, 153, 154, 161, 162, 164, 165, 171, 176, 177, 184, 185, 186, 188, 198, 213.
- Montmorency, church of, 51.
- Montmorency, Madame de (Madame la Connétable), 135, ibid., note 3.
- Montpesat, Antoine des Prez, Seigneur de, French ambassador in England, 42, note 7, 63.
- Montreuil, Madame de, 39-40, 42-43, 118.
- Montreuil, seigneurie, 40.
- More, Sir Thomas, 43, note 3, 74, 75, ibid., note 1, 76, 100-101, 104.
- Morette, Charles de Solier, Comte de, French hostage, subsequently ambassador, in England, 42, note 7, 63, note 1, 140, 201, note 1.
- Mosaic Pavement, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 203, 225-227, 233.
- —— Westminster Abbey, 225-227.
- Motte de Tilly, De la, 136, ibid., note 1.
- See also Raguier.
- Motto of the Dinteville family, 130, 132, 231, note 3.
- Mottoes concerning Death, 206-207.
- Mottoes on weapons, 205, 206.
- Music, 197, 219, 221, 223, 229, 232, 235.
- Naples, 51, 116.
- [254]Nassau, Henry, Count of, 52, note 2, 213.
- National Gallery, The, 1, 5-6, 31-32.
- Navarre, College of (University of Paris), 56.
- Navarre, Henri d’Albret, King of, 42, ibid., note 3.
- Navarre, Marguerite d’Angoulême, Queen of, see Marguerite.
- Nérac, 44.
- Netherlands (Low Countries), 109, 127, 163, 176, 177, 179, 185, 186, 187, 188.
- Niccolò dell’ Abate, or, da Modena, 126.
- Nice, meeting of Francis I., Charles V., and Paul III. at, 164, 166, 179.
- Nice, Truce of, 166.
- Nichols, John Gough, 6, ibid., note 5, 7, ibid., note 2.
- Norfolk, Duchess of, 85, ibid., note 1.
- Norfolk, Thomas Howard, second Duke of, Lord Treasurer and Earl Marshal, 61, 70, note 5, 71, 74, 77, 78, 81, 85, ibid., note 4, 93, 94, 98, 102.
- Nuncio, the Papal, in England (Antonio de Pulleo, Baron de Burgo), 71, 73, 82.
- Nuncio, the Papal, in France, 165.
- Nuremberg, 210, note 3, 211, 214, 233.
- Occult Sciences, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 232-235.
- —— Agrippa’s Key to, 234, ibid., note 2.
- “Opus Alexandrinum,” see Mosaic Pavement.
- Orange, Prince and Princess of, 188.
- Orders of Knighthood, see Fleece, Garter, Holy Ghost, St. John of Jerusalem, St. Michael.
- Orleans, Dukes of, see Henri, Charles.
- Orleans, University of, 145.
- Ouschamps, Seigneur of, see Plessis, Du.
- Padua, University of, 56, 115, 157, ibid., note 2, 158, notes 1 and 2, 159.
- Paris, 15, 18-21, 22, 23, ibid., note 1, 27, 29, ibid., note 1, 31, 37, 42, 43, note 2, 50, 55, 115, 119, 125, 126, ibid., note 1, 143, 144, 146, 153, 176, 213.
- Paris, Bishop of, see Bellay, Jean Du.
- Paris, Premier Président of the Parliament of, see Mesmes, Selve.
- Paris, President à mortier of the Parliament of, see Lamoignon, Mesmes.
- Paris, University of, 39, 46, 56, 144, 145, 157, note 2.
- Parma, 96.
- St. Paul’s, old Cathedral of, 67.
- Paul III., Pope, 100, ibid., note 2, 101, 104, 108-109, 116, 156, 162-166, 168, 174.
- Pavement, Mosaic, see Mosaic Pavement.
- Pavement, tesselated, at Polisy, 129-130.
- Pavia, battle of, 40, 48.
- Pavia, University of, 231, note 3.
- Perrine, La, see Plessis, Du.
- Philip of Spain, 184, note 1.
- Piacenza, 96.
- Piedmont, invaded by the French, 104.
- Pirkheimer, 233.
- Pithou, Pierre, advocate of Troyes, 47.
- Plessis, Anne Du (Madame de Polisy), wife of Gaucher I. de Dinteville, mother of Jean the “Ambassador,” 38, 51, 52, 53, 60, 63, ibid., note 4, 114, note 2, 134, 135, note 1.
- Plessis, Benjamin Du, son of Guillaume, Seigneur de Liancourt, 135, ibid., note 2.
- Plessis, Charles Du, Seigneur of Savonnières, Ouschamps, and La Perrine, uncle of Dinteville the “Ambassador,” 135-136, 135, note 1.
- Plessis, Guillaume de, Seigneur of Liancourt, uncle of Dinteville the “Ambassador,” 135, note 1.
- Plessis, Jean Du, the elder, Seigneur of Ouschamps and La Perrine, maternal grandfather of Dinteville the “Ambassador,” 38.
- Plessis, Jean Du, the younger (“the young Savonnières”), 114-115, 135.
- Plessis, Le, seigneurie, 60.
- Plessis-Praslin, Maréchal Du, subsequently Duc de Choiseul, 17, 19, 21.
- Plutarch’s “Lives,” 145-146.
- Poitiers, Diane de, 112.
- Poitiers, University of, 56, 145.
- [255]Poland, Sigismund, King of, 41, 214.
- Pole, Reginald, Cardinal, 108-109, 158, ibid., note 1, 159, 161, 169, 174, ibid., note 1.
- Polisy, Château and Seigneurie of, 8, 10-12, 14-17, 18-21, 31, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 50, 60, 63, note 4, 111, 113, 121, 124, 125, 127-133, ibid., various notes, 134, 135, 138, 139, note 2, 171, 197, 198, 213, ibid., note 2, 214, 216, ibid., note 1.
- Polisy, Madame de, see Plessis, Anne Du.
- Polisy, M. de, see Dinteville, Jean de.
- Polonia, 213, 214.
- Pomponne, Marquis de, 25, note 1.
- Pont, Jean Du, a “busy friar,” 110.
- Potz, M. de Villiers les, Bailly of Dijon, 117-118.
- “Presbyter Joannes” (Prester John), 217;
- see also Appendix B, page 241.
- Primaticcio, Francesco, 126-130.
- Puy, Du, 14.
- St. Quentin, 176.
- Quercy, 17, 24.
- Rabelais, 48.
- Radnor, Jacob, second Earl of, 6.
- Radnor, William, fifth Earl of, 5, note 1.
- Raguier family, 47.
- Raguier, Louis, Seigneur de la Motte de Tilly, 136, note 1.
- Ratisbon, Diet held at (1541), 174.
- Reformers, French, 43-49, 104.
- Régennes, Château of (Diocese of Auxerre), 137.
- Renaissance, French, 127, 129, 235.
- Renée of France, successively Duchess of Chartres and of Ferrara, daughter of Louis XII., 43, note 1, 45, ibid., note 2, 115, ibid., note 3, 159, ibid., notes 1 and 2, 209, note 2, 233, note 2.
- Rey de St. Géry, family of, 25, note 2, 29, 32.
- Rhodes, Knights of, see St. John of Jerusalem, Knights of.
- Richmond, Henry, Duke of, 94.
- Riez, Bishop of (François II. de Dinteville), 56.
- Robbia, Girolamo della, 126, 129.
- “Robe courte” and “Robe longue,” 143, 199-200, 199, note 1.
- Robes of peers and peeresses, 87, ibid., note 1.
- Roche, François I. de la, Conte and Marquis de Fontenilles, 26, 27, 31.
- Roche, François II. de la, Marquis de Fontenilles, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31.
- Roche, Jean-Jaques de, Baron de Fontenilles, 15, 26.
- Rochepot, La, Anne de Montmorency, Seigneur de, 42, note 7.
- Rochepot, La, François de Montmorency, Seigneur de, 42, note 7.
- Rochford, George Boleyn, Viscount, brother of Anne Boleyn, 94.
- Rodez, Georges d’Armagnac, Bishop of, 156, 167.
- Romans, 165.
- Rome, 48, 49, 51, 55, 57, 59, ibid., note 2, 60, 62, 64, 79, 82, 89, 109, 114, 115, 116, 156, 158, note 3, 161, note 5, 162, 163, 169, 179, 199, 213.
- Rosso, Il, 125-126.
- Roussel, Gérard, 44, ibid., note 1.
- Russell, Sir Giles, commander of Battisford and Dingley, 57.
- Sadoleto, Jacopo, Bishop of Carpentras, Cardinal, 158, ibid., note 3, 159, 174, note 1.
- St. Alain, Cathedral of (Lavaur), 170.
- St. Dizier, 128.
- St. Géry, Château of, 25, note 2.
- St. Géry, Rey de, see Rey.
- St. John of Jerusalem, Order of, 39, 53, 54, 57, 67, 68, 213.
- St. Michael, Order of (Ordre du Roi), 7-8, 53, ibid., note 2, 61, ibid., note 1, 200, 201, 207-209, notes 207-209.
- St. Quentin, 176.
- St. Simon, 27, note 1.
- Sainte-Marthe brothers, 13, 14.
- Saluce (Saluzzo), Marquis de, 59.
- Saveuse, M. de, Bailly of Amiens, 185, note 1.
- Savona, 166.
- Savonnières, see Plessis, Du.
- [256]Saxonia, 213, 214.
- Saxony, Elector of, 41, 214.
- Schöner, Johann, of Carlstadt, 210, ibid., note 3, 211.
- Science, Occult, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 138, 232-235.
- Scotland (Escoce), 81, ibid., notes 1 and 2, 95, 98.
- Seine, river, 36, 128.
- Selve, François de, ambassador at Constantinople, brother of the Bishop of Lavaur, 145, note 2.
- Selve, George de, Bishop of Lavaur (subject of Holbein’s portrait).
- Birth and lineage, 143;
- education, 144-146;
- Bishop of Lavaur, 13, 147, ibid., note 2;
- Diet of Spires (1529), 151, ibid., note 2, 219, 222;
- visit to England (1533), 11, 19, 20, 77-80, 154, 202, 235-236;
- ambassador at Venice (1534-1537), 154, 156-161;
- at Rome (1537-1538), 161-166;
- interlude at Lavaur, 169-175;
- addresses and orations, 152, 170-174, 179-182;
- ambassador with the Emperor (1539-1540), 175-188;
- last days at Lavaur, 188-190;
- death, 190.
- —— His portrait by Holbein (“Ambassadors”), 1, 10-11, 19, 20, 77-78, 202;
- see also under “Ambassadors.”
- —— Posthumous portrait at Villiers, 192.
- Selve, Jean de, Premier Président of the Parliament of Paris, father of the Bishop of Lavaur, 9, 11, 13, 19, 20, 143-147, 148-150, 153-154.
- Selve, Jean de, Abbé of Saint Vigor, brother of the Bishop of Lavaur, 145, note 2.
- Selve, Jean-Paul de, Bishop of Saint-Flour, ambassador at Rome, brother of the Bishop of Lavaur, 145, note 2, 193.
- Selve, Lazare de, ambassador in Switzerland, eldest brother of the Bishop of Lavaur, 145, note 2.
- Selve, Odet de, Président du Grand Conseil, ambassador in England, at Venice, and at Rome, brother of the Bishop of Lavaur, 145, note 2, 159, 191, 192.
- “Selve, M. de,” 5, 7, 8, 22.
- Servia, 213-214.
- Sesac, see Cazillac.
- Seven Liberal Arts, The, see Arts, the Seven Liberal.
- Sévigné, Madame de, 25, note 1.
- Sforza, Francesco, Duke of Milan, 41, 90-93, 228, note 4, 229, 230.
- Sienna (Senes), 37, 52.
- Sigismund, King of Poland, 41, 214.
- Sinus Adriaticus, 213, 214.
- Skull in picture of “Ambassadors,” see Death’s-head.
- Sleidan, Johann, 46.
- “Solomon’s Seal” (double triangle), 227, 233.
- Solyman II., the Grand Turk, 40-41, 61, 72, 73, 136, 156-157, 163, 214.
- Sorbonne, The, 44, 144, 145.
- Spain (Espagne), 52, 164, 176, 201, note 2, 213.
- Spain, Infanta of (Mary of Castile, daughter of Charles V.), 166, 176, 177, 178, 179, 184, note 1.
- Spires, Diet of (1529), 151-153, ibid., note 1, 219, 222.
- Square, in picture of “Ambassadors,” 203, 232, 233.
- Steelyard, The, 75, 76, ibid., note 1, 224, Appendix A (239-240).
- Stevens, Mr. Henry, of Vermont, 210, ibid., note 3.
- Sturm, Johann, rector of Strasburg University, 46.
- Suffolk, Charles Brandon, Duke of, 85, ibid., note 3, 87-88, 90.
- Supremacy, Act of, 100.
- Switzerland, 38, 145, note 2.
- Tarbes, Bishop of, see Castelnau.
- Thames, river, 67, 68, 70, 71.
- Théligny, Mademoiselle de, 118.
- Thennelières, 38, 50, 51, note 2, 54.
- Toledo, 146.
- Tournelle, M. de la, 79, ibid., note 2.
- Tournon, François de, successively Archbishop of Embrun, of Bourges, etc., Cardinal, 62, 64-65, 71, 72, 91-92, 136, 146, 153, 164.
- [257]Tower of London, The, 84, 105.
- Transylvania, Waiwode of, see Zapolski.
- Trent, Council of, 182, 183, ibid., note 1.
- Trivulzi, Cardinal, 164-165.
- Troyes, 17, 38, 39, 42, 47, 51, 52, 56, 99-100, 127, ibid., note 1, 128, 138.
- Troyes, The Bailly of, see Dinteville, Jean de.
- Troyes, Baillies of, belonging to Dinteville family, 37-38, 41, 52, 138.
- Troyes, College of, 39, 56, 134.
- “Turk,” The, see Solyman.
- Tybis, Derick, 76, note 1.
- Urbino, 96.
- Valence, 165.
- Vanlay, Seigneur de, see Dinteville, Gaucher II. de.
- Varzy, 137, note 1.
- Vaudemont, Comte de, 37.
- Vaulx, Seigneur de, 93.
- Vély, Sieur de, see Dodieu.
- Venice, 9, 67, 72, 85, 154, 156-161, 167.
- Venier, Marco Antonio, Venetian ambassador in England, 67.
- Vic, Méry de, Garde des Sceaux, 19, ibid., note 5.
- Villiers-les-Potz, M. de, Bailly of Dijon, 117-118.
- Villiers-par-Cerny, Château of, 13, ibid., note 2, 148, note 1, 193-194.
- Voisin, François, Marquis de Bougueval, subsequently Marquis de Milhars, husband of Marie-Renée Le Genevois, 27, 28, 29, 31.
- Voisin, Marie-Renée, Marquise de Milhars, see Le Genevois.
- Waiwode, see Zapolski.
- Wallop, Sir John, English ambassador in France, 105.
- Walther’s “Gesangbuch,” 219-223.
- Ware, Richard, Abbot of Westminster, 225.
- Warham, William, Archbishop of Canterbury, 43, note 3, 74.
- Westminster Abbey, 70, ibid., note 3, 86, 225, 227.
- —— Mosaic Pavement of, see Mosaic Pavement.
- Westminster Hall, 87, ibid., notes 2 and 3, 88.
- —— Palace, 69, 70, 71, 86.
- Weston, Sir William, Prior of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem, 57, 67, ibid., note 2.
- Weston, Young, 57, 105.
- Whitehall, 69, note 2.
- Wiltshire, Countess of, mother of Anne Boleyn, 85, ibid., note 2.
- Winchester, 102.
- Winchester, Bishop of, see Gardiner, Stephen.
- Winkfield, Thomas, comptroller of the king’s works at Dover, 110.
- Wolmar, Melchior, 46.
- Wolsey, Cardinal, 42, 67, 69.
- Woltmann, Dr., 6.
- Wornum, Ralph Nicholson, 6.
- Wurtemberg, Duke of, 99.
- Wyat, Sir Thomas, 6, 7, ibid., note 2, 178, ibid., note 3.
- York Place (Whitehall), 69, 71.
- York, see of, 69.
- Zapolski, John, Waiwode of Transylvania, King of Hungary, 41.

CHISWICK PRESS: PRINTED BY CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO. TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.

[258]

## ERRATA

Transcriber’s Note: The errata have been corrected.

P. 11, note 3, line 4 from bottom, for “d’Intevile” read “d’Inteville.”

P. 36, line 7 from top, for “de Jaucourt” read “Jaucourt.”

P. 47, line 8 from top, for “these” (second time) read “them.”

P. 57, line 2 from bottom, for “De la Pommeraye” read “La Pommeraye.”

P. 72, lines 7 and 9 from bottom, for “Henry” read “Henri.”

P. 76, note 1, for “from Lucca, a letter consisting chiefly of foreign political news,” read “various papers.”

P. 78, note 2, for “Bishop of Troyes” read “Bailly of Troyes.”

P. 82, line 3 from top, dele “Campeggio.”

P. 96, line 4 from top, for “Henry” read “Henri.”

P. 96, line 5 from top, for “of Medicis” read “de’ Medici.”

P. 96, line 10 from bottom, for “France” read “Francis.”

P. 109, line 14 from top, for “Margaret” read “Mary.”

P. 125, line 13 from bottom, for “Chenonceau” read “Chenonceaux.”

P. 129, line 4 from bottom, for “tessellated” read “tesselated.”

P. 130, beneath illustration, ibid.

P. 145, line 3 from bottom, for “five” read “six.”

P. 174, line 13 from top, for “(1540)” read “(1541).”

P. 199, line 3 from top, for “study of symbols” read “symbolism.”

P. 233, note 3, for “de la Mark,” read “La Marck.”

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HOLBEIN'S "AMBASSADORS", THE PICTURE AND THE MEN ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

## THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

> This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”
- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.