Grant Fishburn
Professor Berger
History 189H
7 December 2014
The Rise of the Bretons
Fortune had smiled upon the face of Frieda Lohengrin on that particularly slow day in the National Archives in Paris. After accidently kicking and causing the scattering of a bundle of papers that were serving as a doorstop, Lohengrin discovers that her blunder was truly a blessing in disguise. The documents told the story of the nation of Brittany, beginning with its union and extending to its consistent struggle against the kings of France in the 17th and 18th centuries. After peering over the documents for hours, Lohengrin hastily ran to the neighborhood café, the Petit Berry, to describe to her fellow American researchers what she had uncovered. Though
…show more content…
the task of devising a story from the assorted documents would be difficult, Lohengrin was certainly capable. She would have surely started her story with the history of Brittany, describing in detail its characteristics that set it apart from the other French provinces. A discussion regarding Brittany’s resilience against the French monarchy through the Parlement of Rennes would inevitably follow, outlining the parlement’s attempts of manipulating the monarchy into conceding sovereign power to the parlement. Finally, Lohengrin would end her story with the revival of the parlement to the forefront of the conflict between the parlement and the king following its original submission to him, setting the grounds for the French Revolution. Following the end of the ducal dynasty in 1515, France incorporated the province of Brittany into its own territory under an agreement that ensured the guarantee of preserving certain privileges it previously held (Document 1). Though it had become a part of France, Brittany refused to lose the rights it held under the ducal dynasty. The Bretons desired nothing more than to retain their rights, but the king revoked most of the important ones save for a substantial “right of the estates to give final consent to all levies of money in the province”. Ironically, however, though the Bretons sought to maintain their rights, “nowhere [in France] was the population more attached to the king,” who represented the force attempting to steal away these privileges they fought to maintain (Document 2). This attachment to the king would inevitably deteriorate quickly. In March of 1554, the Parlement of Rennes was established in Brittany. The parlement “was endowed with a real sovereign law court, independent of appeals to the parlement of Paris and armed with the rights of registry and remonstrance”, to the benefit of the Bretons, but would inevitably incite disputes between itself and the estates (Document 2). As an extension of the royal powers: The parlement considered itself absolutely independent of the estates … [and] viewed the estates, not so much as their natural allies, but rather as an institution with regard to which it was essential to maintain their superiority and to defend their prerogatives.
(Document 2)
However, these quarrels would be short lived with King Louis XIV’s rise to power in 1661, which put Brittany under the inevitable fate like the rest of France: absolutist policy. The Breton’s power they had fought so hard to keep was seized soon after King Louis XIV’s rise to power, reducing Brittany “to obedience and endless financial exploitation to serve the ends of an expensive policy” (Document 3). Any glimmer of light regarding the prevalence of Brittany’s sovereignty, along with that of any providence in France, dimmed immediately.
Following the death of King Louis XIV in 1715, the Bretons immediately launched measures to assemble an opposition to the royal absolutism. They did so gradually, attempting to regain their voice through the combination of releasing “an opinion against the papal bull Unigenitus in 1716” and its refusal to register the declaration of 1730 “which prescribed acceptance of the bull by all the clerics”. In response, King Louis XV exiled the attorney-general of Brittany, La Bédoyère, as punishment for this disobedience. However, King Louis’ action had not dampened the statement the Bretons made with their blatant defiance (Document
…show more content…
3). Further opposition began to rise under the newfound confidence of the Bretons. With taxes quickly on the rise, “in 1750 and 1752 the nobility began a campaign of obstruction which was destined to prolong indefinitely many of the sessions [of enforcing new taxes]. The royal power, however, held firm” (Document 4). The Parlement of Rennes, gaining much confidence and support, addressed King Louis with a remonstrance containing their grievances with his policies. The edict outlined demands and calls for action, claiming the king: … will be implored to consider that the excessive capitation paid by the province is in no way proportionate to the number and to the households of the taxpayers … that the corvées are ruining and crushing the farmworkers, … that the expenses imposed on the towns on the pretext of improving them are hopelessly ruining the citizenry although the owners of property taken by eminent domain are almost always insufficiently compensated and the financial position of the province is far from being favorably altered thereby. (Document 5) Certainly, King Louis could not tolerate such disobedience if he was to maintain absolute control over all of France. In response, King Louis traveled to Brittany personally to reply to the remonstrance in person. He told the parlement: I shall not tolerate in my kingdom the formation of an association which would cause the natural bond of similar duties and common responsibilities to degenerate into a confederation for resistance, nor the introduction into the monarchy of an imaginary body which could only upset its harmony. (Document 6) Following this response, King Louis exiled the entire Parlement of Rennes, effectively silencing Brittany completely. After the Parlement of Rennes was exiled in 1765, the rest of France began to raise opposition to the King just as Brittany had. Due to being in expensive wars consistently throughout the 18th century, France was falling apart financially by 1765. This consequently caused parlements to raise taxes substantially, to which the general populace rejected and fought relentlessly. At this point in the story, Lohengrin would surely incorporate arguably the most compelling of all the documents she discovered: an excerpt of Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws. With the French monarchy beginning to deteriorate, Lohengrin may quote Montesquieu’s view on the corruption of the principle of monarchy: Monarchy is destroyed when a prince thinks he shows a greater exertion of power in changing than in conforming to the order of things; when he deprives some of his subjects of their hereditary employments to bestow them arbitrarily upon others; when he is fonder of being guided by fancy than judgment. (Document 10) King Louis truly seems to be following the corruption that Montesquieu outlines, and, just as predicted, the country is in turmoil. The lower estate may see Montesquieu’s statement as a call for equality, with them being the victims of deprivation, while the nobles would see it as dangerous propaganda that threatens their current lavish lives. Gradually, King Louis begins to watch his absolutistic-monarchy crumble before his eyes. Though the Parlement of Rennes was exiled, the people of France have been instilled with the parlement’s goals. The Parlement of Paris follows Rennes’ progression, taking a stand and swiftly being exiled in response. King Louis manages to contain both parlements temporarily, but the people of France inevitably overwhelm his oppression. Following King Louis XV’s death, the people bully the weaker King Louis XVI into reinstating the Parlement of Paris. Regaining life, the Parlement of Paris “forcefully urged the king to establish the former Parlement of Brittany” (Document 13). Knowing he must exert his power to maintain his hold over his kingdom, King Louis attempts to pacify the parlements by establishing a universal tax. However, the Parlement of Paris responds with a remonstrance, stating: The first rule of justice, is to preserve for everyone what is due him, a fundamental rule of natural right and of civil government, and one which consists not only in upholding rights of property but in safe-guarding rights attached to the person and born of prerogatives of birth and estate … This order … takes its source in divine institutions … What dangers then there are in a project produced by an inadmissible system of equality, whose first effect would be to confound all orders in the state by imposing on them the uniform burden of a land tax! (Document 12) This, though, is not what the opposition had anticipated. Rather than defending the rights of the lower class and promoting equality, the Parlement of Paris has defended “safe-guarding” the rights of a person based on birth. With this, the Parlement of Paris loses its credibility with the revolutionaries. The discrepancy of the vision of the Parlement of Paris inevitably causes the spark for revolution.
As the monetary reserves of France deplete, the monarchy calls for the establishment of the Estates General, a representative body that is comprised of members from each estate. However, the nobles outnumber the Third Estate two votes to one, so the Third Estate advocates for additional representation. They are granted additional representation, but the vote count stays the same. Weeks of meetings pass and no progress is made, increasing the disgruntlement amongst the Third Estate. The Third Estate desires a voice while the nobles want to maintain their privileges. Finally, the Third Estate decides to take matters into its own hands. Sides are established, and the revolution
begins. Truly, the Bretons emerged as pivotal leaders in the build-up to the French Revolution, as shown throughout the documents discovered by Frieda Lohengrin. Attempting to maintain their original sovereignty before being acquired by France, Brittany is the first province to collectively oppose the absolutist-driven monarchy growing in France. A mixture of incredible determination and leadership pushed the Bretons to the forefront of the opposition to the monarchy, eventually spreading to the Third Estate, which took action when the nobles refused to comply.
King Louis nation had a massive reaction focused on the King’s plight and return. The Reaction was not only seen in Paris alone but also on the other provinces, where a widespread phobia caused by foreign invasion led to the utter news of the King’s escape. Nevertheless, Tackett identifies the royal family plight to flee France as one of the most critical moments in the history of the French revolution. The king’s flight opens a window to the whole of the French society during the revolution. The purpose of the Kings flight was to offer freedom of action in terms of power and this was in regards to the King’s power and rule. The royal couple together with their advisers had unclear political agenda for their nation. Similarly, it is in the vent of these unclear goals factored by the Kind’s technical knowhow of not making decisive decisions that led to the stoppage of the royal family at Varennes and thereafter their return to Paris. The consequence of their return to Paris was the onset of the constant possibility of the end of the Monarch reign. On the same case, it is as a result of the royal family escape attempt and failure necessitated the integrity of the King as a constitutional monarch. On a much more political notion, The King’s hope of survival is mitigated
The Edict of Nantes had given Protestants, or Huguenots, in France the ability to practice their religion without fear of violence or persecution. Enacted in the late 1500s in an effort to resemble France after the destruction of the French Wars of Religion, the Edict of Nantes served as a means to unite the French population and end the violence that often accompanied religious persecution. Louis’ decision to revoke such a peace-promoting edict, in an effort to homogenize his country and align his subjects with his own beliefs, clearly illustrates his giving of priority to his own agenda, as opposed to that which would best benefit his country. However, while the claim that the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes was detrimental to French society, seems to be disproven by Doc 6, which essentially asserts that the king’s revocation has resulted in the rapid conversion of “whole towns” and describes the king as “the invincible hero destined to… destroy the terrible monster of heresy”, the author’s inherently biased point of view must be addressed. This description, which could be used as evidence to support the fact that Louis did act in interest of the state, must be taken with a grain of salt as the author himself, a member of the Assembly of the Clergy, does not even have the best interest of the state in mind; rather, he is
Duc de Saint-Simon lived in the Palace of Versailles with King Louis XIV of France during the late seventeenth century. Louis did not move his court to Versailles until 1682, so it can be assumed that this document was written after. In his memoirs, he took detailed notes describing Louis’ attributes overwhelmingly positive, but seemingly accurate. This author creates a somewhat skewed look for the king of France with the immense positivity. Louis ruled with an absolute monarchy, Saint-Simon seems to be composing this to please the king and also for later to understand what life was truly like in the court and life at Versailles.
The reading depicted the surprising visit of King Louis XIV, together with six hundred nobles and thousands of court servants at Chantilly in 1671. The host Prince de Condé and his most trusted headwaiter Francois Vatel was given fifteen days to be prepared for the arrival of the gigantic royal party. A spontaneous event of mis-arrangements during the preparation has gradually built up the stresses on Vatel which ultimately broke down his stress threshold and led to his tragic ending. Madame de Sévigné who was a talented letter writer in 17th century decided wrote down the tragic story of a courtier in her letter, even though she was never there to see it in person.
...e clear that Richelieu was firmly on the side of the monarchy. This taints his advice to some degree: he does not take the complaints of the nobility into account and presents a decidedly one sided view of what makes a good king. This proves to be limiting; perhaps some of the unrest could have been avoided if reconciliation had been pursued instead of a power struggle. Richelieu’s Political Testament is an interesting case study in the political theory of the 17th century, and clearly served as a model for many kingships to come.
Many changes occurred in France during 1789 until 1799. This ten-year span, not only brought major upheaval to the government, but to social aspects within the country as well. Both, Edmund Burke’s, Reflections on the Revolution in France and Mary Wollstonecraft’s, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’, were published during this revolutionary time period. Although Burke and Wollstonecraft possess contradicting views, their works both include opinions about justice, equality and tradition. Burke’s conservative views persuade the reader to understand that the government follows a natural and cyclical path just as nature does.
...ded to amend the Edict of Nantes, in which they were not allowed to have their own armies and towns. Louis took this amendment one step further, by completely revoking the Edict of Nantes. Huguenots were then forced to leave France, as they were forebidden to worship or to have their own schools, and Huguenots were publically humiliated by Louis’ troops. Many Huguenots were tortured to get converts to catholicism. 1/5th of the Huguenots were able to escape France, many of which were skilled artisans, and brought their talents to Protestant friendly countries. Louis also surpressed a sect of Catholicism, the Jansenists, a group of Catholics that had a somewhat Calvinist ideaoligy. Louis believed that some of the Jansenists were at the center of the Frondes, so he took the center of Jansenists, Port Royal, and burned it to the ground.
Beginning in mid-1789, and lasting until late-1799, the French Revolution vastly changed the nation of France throughout its ten years. From the storming of the Bastille, the ousting of the royal family, the Reign of Terror, and all the way to the Napoleonic period, France changed vastly during this time. But, for the better part of the last 200 years, the effects that the French Revolution had on the nation, have been vigorously debated by historian and other experts. Aspects of debate have focused around how much change the revolution really caused, and the type of change, as well as whether the changes that it brought about should be looked at as positive or negative. Furthermore, many debate whether the Revolutions excesses and shortcomings can be justified by the gains that the revolution brought throughout the country. Over time, historians’ views on these questions have changed continually, leading many to question the different interpretations and theories behind the Revolutions effectiveness at shaping France and the rest of the world.
King Louis XIV's 72 year reign was incredibly influential in shaping French history. King Louis XIV’s childhood was traumatic because of “La Fronde” which was a noble rebellion against the monarchy. This experience taught King Louis XIV to distrust the nobles. It was for this reason that he eventually excluded nobility from the council and surrounded himself with loyal ministers whom he could control. He also separated the aristocracy from the people of France by moving the court to the Palace of Versailles. One of the most notable of King Louis XIV’s decisions was that he refused to appoint another Prime Minister after the death of Prime Minister Mazarin. Every decision, from the declaration of war to the approval of a passport, went through him personally. During his reign as king, France participated in several wars including the War of Devolution, in Anglo-Dutch War, and the War of the Spanish Succession. Another major action he took was the proclamation of the Edict of Fontainebleau, which revoked the Edict of Nantes, imposing religious uniformity through Catholi...
Some people like Emmanuel Sieyès, middle-class writer who was taken by the Enlightenment ideas, believed that all of French Society lay on the backs of the third estate. On the contrary, Robespierre, the monarch at the time, believed that the third estate did not have the power to do anything important to society. The third estate had to pay taxes like the Gabelle and Taille while the first and seconds estates did not have to pay any taxes to the king. Also, the third estates had less of a representation in voting. The first and second estate could outvote the third estate every time and this was a huge inequality. The condition of the third estate was horrible but a good portion of this third estate was the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie had some wealth and social class, so they influenced the rest of the third estate about their rights, while also inspiring some lower clergies and provincial nobles and thus led to a group of rebellious people to fight the monarchy. This fight for political representation and political rights was only one cause of the French Revolution. Another causes lies in the French Monarchs: Louis XlV, Louis XV, and Louis XVl. When Louis XlV was ruling, the monarchy had unlimited power and was known as a
Louis' reign brought large economic gain and severe economic recession. He was the first king to embrace mercantilism in his country as the form of economy. Unfortunately, Louis was a devout Catholic, and ruined his economy with one move. He revoked the Edict of Nantes, the document that said that Huguenots could worship Protestantism in peace. This infuriated the Huguenots, and they left with their skills. By the loss of 200,000 skilled workers and business leaders, France's income dropped.
Throughout the seventeenth century, political strife dominated each European country’s respective leadership. From the monarch’s perspective, he or she was entitled due to divine right, the worthiness to rule directly from the will of God. Instances of this could be seen through James I’s rejection of the Petition of Right, a major English constitutional document that sets out specific liberties of the subject that the king is prohibited from infringing, in 1628 before the English Civil War, or when King Louis XIV of France dominated his political domain through the weakening of nobles after replacing them with intendants, high-ranking officials who did not have the power to challenge the monarch. Concurrently, King James I stripped the
Over five hundred years ago, during the year 1407, France was governed by a manic king, Charles VI, and was torn to pieces by two factions: the Party of Burgundy, which was led by the Duke of Bedford, and the party of Armagnac. The Armagnacs supported the French model of government and the Dauphin, the rightful monarch of France, and the son of Charles VI. The Burgundians, meanwhile, were all for the English administrative methods. The two factions eventually divided town from town and village from village, while foreign English troops simultaneously took advantage of these disputes, and overran the land. For the next twenty-two years, the entire French nation was divided, and enveloped in great sorrow. Little did the wretched inhabitants of France suspect that God had appointed Jeanne d'Arc, a modest, devout girl from the southern town of Domremy, to redeem the country.
Power- something so potent, yet so easy to misuse. Not everyone can obtain power, however those who possess it often acquire arrogance. Louis XIV held total control of France, abusing his dominance. Louis called himself ‘the Sun King’, believing that everything revolved around him. His pompousness led him to making foolish decisions, as he considered himself to be superior. If you don’t use your brain, you will ultimately lose it, as Louis was beheaded by the determined citizens of France. Likewise, in Antigone, King Creon is the ruler of Thebes. Creon makes an arbitrary ruling, swearing the ‘disloyal’ Polyneices should never be buried. When Antigone goes against this, Creon is infuriated. Creon lets his arrogance take over, and continuously makes unwise decisions. Power simply creates narcissism, as Creon’s pride causes him to commit foolish actions.
An Analysis of the Absolute Monarchy of France in the 17th Century This historical study will define the absolute monarchy as it was defied through the French government in the 17th century. The term ‘absolute” is defined I the monarchy through the absolute control over the people through the king and the royal family. All matters of civic, financial, and political governance was controlled through the king’s sole power as the monarchical ruler of the French people. In France, Louis XIII is an important example of the absolute monarchy, which controlled all facts of military and economic power through a single ruler. Udder Louis XIII’s reign, the consolidation of power away from the Edicts of Nantes to dominant local politics and sovereignty