The Burgundy Circle's plans to undermine Louis XIV's “absolute” state through polysynody and the high nobility

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

1. According to the limited historiography on the Burgundy Circle, the list of members involved is rather wide-ranging. Ladurie includes prominent ministers such as Colbert's (Controller-General) nephew the marquis de Maillebois (1648–1721), plus another of Colbert's nephew Jean-Baptiste Colbert, marquis de Torcy (1665–1746), which explains why the group were also referred to as the ‘Minister's Cabal’ (‘cabale des ministres’); see Ladurie, Saint-Simon, 214–18. Other historians incorporate prominent theorists who opposed crown policies such as Pierre le Boisguilbert (1646–1714) and the Marshall of France, Marquis de Vauban (1633–1707), see Keohane, Philosophy and the State, 350–7; Mettam, Power and Faction, 317–18, and Jones, The Great Nation, 24. Such men had connections with members of the Burgundy Circle, but their work was not calculated to effect the reign of Bourgogne. This is also true of Henri de Boulainvilliers (1658–1722) whose association with the group was extremely tenuous, hence his exclusion here. Despite some similarities concerning ideas of aristocrat-led reform of government, the Circle distanced themselves from his views; see Ellis, Boulainvilliers, 64. On Boulainvilliers see Israel, Radical Enlightenment, 74–7, 565–74; Israel, Enlightenment Contested, 278–85; and Hammersely, The English republican tradition.

2. Bonney, Society and Government, xiii.

3. See Campbell, The Ancien Régime, 1–5; Henshall, The Myth of Absolutism, 3–4, and Swann, Provincial Power, 7–8. According to Campbell this view was greatly influenced by Alexis de Tocqueville's L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution (1856).

4. See Mousnier, “Exponents and Critics,”119; Mousnier, Les institutions. Tome I, 499–500; and Skinner, Foundations. Volume Two, 241–54, 290–3, 358.

5. Parker, Making of French Absolutism, 81, 84–7.

6. See Durand, “What is Absolutism?,” 23; Mettam, Power and Faction, 15–16; Henshall, “The Myth of Absolutism,” 40, 46; and Henshall, The Myth of Absolutism, 200–10.

7. Cuttica, “A Thing or Two,” 288.

8. Henshall, “The Myth of Absolutism,” 40.

9. Henshall, “The Myth of Absolutism,” 40, 47; and Henshall, The Myth of Absolutism, 3, 128–9.

10. Fox, “Louis XIV,” 129.

11. See Mettam, Power and Faction, 15; Burke, Fabrication of Louis XIV, 2, 5, 6–7, 152, 158; and Sommerville, “Early Modern Absolutism,” 117.

12. Mettam, Power and Faction, 18.

13. See Koenigsberger, Early Modern Europe, 189; and Ladurie, The Ancien Régime, 271–2.

14. See Hamscher, The Parlement of Paris, 134, 197–8; Koenigsberger, “Monarchies and Parliaments,” 204; and Beik, Louis XIV and Absolutism, 3–4.

15. Bonney, Political Change in France, 435.

16. See Bonney, Political Change in France, 438; Beik, Absolutism and Society, 339; Campbell, The Ancien Régime, 54; Lynn, Wars of Louis XIV, 17–18; and Swann, Provincial Power, 19. Alternatively, Ladurie argued that from 1661 Louis XIV's personal rule undertook a ‘minor administrative revolution’ which resumed developments extant during the Richelieu (Louis XIII) and even the Sully (Henri IV) periods; see The Ancien Régime, 130–1.

17. See Parker, Making of French Absolutism, 138; Bercé, The Birth of Absolutism, vii; and Hurt, Louis XIV, 196. Hurt argues that absolutism was achieved by Louis XIV via his subjugation of the parlements to his will through the 1673 edict.

18. See Bluche, Louis XIV, 124; and Parker, Class and State, 26.

19. See Major, “Crown and the Aristocracy,” 644–5; Bonney, Society and Government, 156; and Henshall, The Myth of Absolutism, 20–1.

20. Louis XIV, Mémoires, 24–5.

21. Mettam, Power and Faction, 20.

22. Hamscher, The Parlement of Paris, 202.

23. Bonney, Political Change in France, 432–3.

24. See Lossky, “The General European Crisis,” 195–6; Haley, “The Dutch,” 25; and Bosher, “The Franco-Catholic Danger.”

25. Jurieu, Les soupirs de la France esclave, 22–3.

26. Ibid., 18–19.

27. Mettam, Power and Faction, 72, 177, 179, 309.

28. See Chaussinand-Nogaret, The French nobility, 12; and Mettam, Power and Faction, 72.

29. Kettering, Patrons, Brokers, and Clients, 232–7.

30. Chaussinand-Nogaret, The French nobility, 13.

31. Ladurie, Saint-Simon, 92–3.

32. Swann, Provincial Power, 8.

33. Ladurie, Saint-Simon, 215.

34. Dupilet and Sarmant, “Prélude à la Polysynodie.”

35. Dupilet, La Régence Absolue, 49–50. Dupilet and Sarmant point to the use of polysynody in a number of European monarchies from the sixteenth century: such as the Spanish, Austrian, Swedish and Russian; see “Polysynodie et Gouvernement,” 56–60.

36. Dupilet, La Régence, 54–5.

37. Dupilet points to a number of similarities between the differing accounts of polysynody between Belesbat's proposals and that of Pontchartrain and the members of the Burgundy Circle; see La Régence, 55–60.

38. See Mousnier, Les institutions. Tome II, 86–7; Ladurie, The Ancien Régime, 224–5, 300; and Ladurie, Saint-Simon, 207–12.

39. Bluche, Louis XIV, 344. Bluche describes the Circle as “pacifists” and “plotters” (455–6, 574), who were dangerous because they would have acted as Bourgogne's councillors when king.

40. See Chaussinand-Nogaret, The French nobility, 14–15; Mettam, Power and Faction, 50, 316; Ladurie, The Ancien Régime, 217; and Ladurie, Saint-Simon, 279. All three of these authors see the Burgundy Circle as possessing a liberal reforming agenda designed to expand government and challenge the absolutism of Louis XIV.

41. See Keohane, Philosophy and the State in France, 345–6; Bluche, Louis XIV, 556–7; Ellis, Boulainvilliers and the French Monarchy, 61, 63–4; Parker, Class and State, 156; and Jones, The Great Nation, 11, 24–7. Dupilet has described the Burgundy Circle's ambition to restore the épée to government for the public good as an “aristocratic reaction”. In Saint-Simon's case, this looked back to the thirteenth-century Curia Regis, which relied on a mixture of vassal lords and clerics to advise the kings; see Dupilet, La Régence, 70–1.

42. See Mousnier, Les institutions. Tome I, 24–6, 27, 486–7; Campbell, The Ancien Régime, 10. Mousnier did believe that Saint-Simon's ideas were reactionary however.

43. See Kanter, “Archbishop Fénelon's Political Activity,” 324; Ladurie, Saint-Simon, 218–19; and Jones, The Great Nation, 23.

44. See Bluche, Louis XIV, 453, and Ladurie, Saint-Simon, 414.

45. See Janet, Fénelon, 51; and Carcassonne, Fénelon, 77.

46. See Rothkrug, Opposition to Louis XIV, 280–5; Keohane, Philosophy and the State, 332–3; and Rothband, “The Liberal Reaction,” 264.

47. See Fénelon, Dialogues des Mort, 474; and Télémaque, 108, 214.

48. Fénelon, Examen de conscience, 976–7.

49. Fénelon, Dialogues des Mort, 287, 328–30; and Télémaque, 132–3.

50. Fénelon, Télémaque, 68–9, 140–7.

51. Ibid., 290.

52. Fénelon, Dialogues, 319, 324, 403; and Télémaque, 59, 168, 290. Dupilet argues that Fénelon's polysynody was designed to strengthen the king's power rather than restrain it; see La Régence, 45–6. However, Fénelon very clearly targeted Louis XIV's perceived abuse of the monarch's power and prerogatives in order to restrain it, and prevent another Louis XIV undermining the public good.

53. Fénelon, Télémaque, 65, 293–6.

54. Fénelon, Examen de conscience, 984–5.

55. Fleury, History of the Origine, 1, 51–2, 105. This view of Gothic government can also be found in Boulainvilliers, Histoire des Anciens Parlements, 1, 12, 14–15, 103–4, 119.

56. Fénelon, Fables, 209; and Télémaque, 58, 159–60, 288.

57. See Riley, “Rousseau, Fénelon,” 82; Riley “Fénelon's ‘Republican’ Monarchism in Telemachus,” 78–91; Smith, Nobility Reimagined, 32–3, 34, 47; Hont, “The Early Enlightenment Debate,” 380–1; and Sonenscher, Sans-Culottes, 211, 214–15.

58. See Rothkrug, Opposition to Louis XIV, 243–5; and Rothband, “The Liberal Reaction,” 263.

59. Claude Fleury, “Réflexions sur Machiavel,” 564–5.

60. Sturdy, Louis XIV, 61–2. Aggressive mercantilism and preference for tariffs to enhance national wealth had been promoted in France since the early seventeenth century; see, Antoine de Montchrétien, Traicté de l'oeconomie politique, 35–9. It was opposed by an associate of the Circle, Pierre le Boisguilbert, who advocated free trade as a remedy; see Le détail de la France, 21–2.

61. See Rothkrug, Opposition to Louis XIV, 22–6, 61; Keohane, Philosophy and the State, 160–1; and. Clark, Compass of Society, 58–63.

62. Fénelon, Lettre à Louis XIV, 546–7. Bluche and Ladurie have accused Fénelon of exaggerating the impact of the war on the populace, and knowingly under-emphasising the effects of the climate on famine. They argue such indictments by Fénelon, and also in Saint-Simon's Mémoires, helped to denigrate Louis XIV's reputation; see Bluche, Louis XIV, xiii, 557; and Ladurie, The Ancien Régime, 266.

63. Fénelon disputed the idea that he was satirising the king in the educational works; see Oeuvres de Fénelon, Tome III (Paris, 1835), 654.

64. Fénelon's defence of the orthodoxy of Madame Guyon's (1648–1717) mysticism in the Maximes des Saints (1696) led the work to be condemned by the Inquisition in 1699. Fénelon yielded to Pope Innocent XII's judgment, and he was effectively banished by the king to Cambrai. Bourgogne instigated the renewed contact; see Bourgogne au Fénelon, (22 decembre 1701, Versailles), Correspondance, 214.

65. At this time Fénelon created a perpetual peace plan in the Supplément to the Examen de conscience – also known as Two Essays on the Ballance of Europe (London, 1720) – that encouraged a European pacifistic union bonded by (Christian) brotherhood, commerce and free trade. Furthermore, as preparations to the War of the Spanish Succession gathered pace in 1701, Beauvillier unsuccessfully presented as his own thoughts Fénelon's plan to avoid war (Mémoire sur les moyens de prévenir la guerre de la succession d'Espagne) to Louis XIV; see Bausset, Histoire de Fénelon, Tome Quatrième, 61.

66. Fénelon, Tables de Chaulnes, 1085.

67. Ibid., 1088.

68. The Languedoc provided an important example under Louis XIV because it enjoyed a great deal of independence in how its estates governed the province, while aristocratic landowners played a vital role; see Beik, Absolutism and Society, 336–7; and Durand, Jouanna, and Pélaquier, Des Etats dans l'Etat.

69. Fénelon, Tables, 1104.

70. Ibid., 1089.

71. Ibid., 1101.

72. Fénelon, Mémoire sur les mesures, 1107.

73. Ibid., 1112. This desire to use a regency council that voted and contained wider membership while also educating the young prince is similar to that of Pontchartrain, and appear to be independently created; see Dupilet, La Régence, 54–5.

74. Ibid., 1114–15.

75. Saint-Simon did not like Fénelon. Portraying him as an intelligent man whose ambition made him manipulative; see Saint-Simon, Mémoires, Vol. 1, 251.

76. Saint-Simon, Mémoires, Vol. 5, 469, 478–9.

77. Saint-Simon, Mémoires, Vol. 2, 878, 880–6.

78. See Mousnier, Les Institutions, Tome I, 24–7; and Ladurie, Saint-Simon, 183–4.

79. Saint-Simon, Mémoires, Vol. 4, 90–9.

80. Saint-Simon, Projets de Gouvernement, 36–9.

81. Ibid., 2.

82. Ibid., 5–9.

83. Ibid., 12.

84. Ibid., 13–14.

85. Ibid., 16.

86. Ibid., 55–6.

87. Ibid., 9–10.

88. Ibid., 64.

89. Ibid., 49–50.

90. Ibid., 98–9.

91. Dupilet, La Régence, 56, 60–1. Elements of Saint-Simon's Projet and that of Pontchartrain do overlap, and Dupilet speculates that ideas were shared between the Chancellor and Saint-Simon as members of the court.

92. See Ladurie, Saint-Simon, 473; and Jones, The Great Nation, 30–1.

93. Shennan, Philippe, Duke of Orléans, 35–7 and Ladurie, Saint-Simon, 418–19.

94. Perkins, “The Abbé de Saint-Pierre,” 73–4.

95. First published in 1712, Saint-Pierre completed a two-volume edition in 1713, another edition in 1717, and an Abrégé in 1729 as he attempted to perfect his Projet.

96. Saint-Pierre, Projet, i–ii.

97. See Drouet, L'Abbé de Saint-Pierre, 108 and Perkins, 74.

98. See Delmas, “La Réforme fiscal coeur du,” 125–43, and Hébert, “Économie, utopisme et l'abbé de Saint-Pierre,” 224–6, in Carole and Claudine, Projets de l'abbé Castel de Saint Pierre.

99. See Keohane, Philosophy and the State, 365–6 and Kaiser, “Abbe de Saint-Pierre,” 623–4, 627–8.

100. Saint-Pierre, Projet, 123–5.

101. Ibid., 239.

102. Ibid., 260.

103. Kaiser, “Abbe de Saint-Pierre,” 627–8.

104. Fénelon, Télémaque, livres III, VII, X and XVII.

105. Saint-Pierre's persistent promotion of the polysynody and attack on Louis XIV's reign in the Discours sur la Polysnodie (1718) offended Orléans, and he was expelled from the Académie français that year.

106. Saint-Pierre, Discours sur la Polysynodie (Londres, 1718), 44–8.

107. Ibid., 19–20.

108. Ibid., 18–19, 24–7. Dupilet and Sarmant argue that the Burgundy's Circles use of a contemporary polysynody meant their ideas were not backwards looking, and helped to usher in Enlightenment thought; see Dupilet and Sarmant, “Polysynodie et Gouvernement par Conseil,” 65. I would argue that due to the lack of public circulation of Fénelon and Saint-Simon's versions this is only really true of Saint-Pierre, and his discussion of rotated offices and widened government can be found in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Considérations sur le government de Pologne (1772), which later influenced the abbé Sieyès's plans for reformed French government.

109. Saint-Pierre, Polysynodie, 30–3.

110. Ibid., 38–41.

111. Kaiser, “The Abbe de Saint-Pierre,” 639–40; a view opposed by Keohane, Philosophy and the State, 370–1, and Spector, “Who is the Author,” 391–2.

112. Kaiser, “The Abbe de Saint-Pierre,” 637–8. See Boulainvilliers, Etat de la France, Tome Seconde, vi–vii.