New Historicism

 “France…surely provides the most widely influential model, in a European context at least, of the close bonding of literary culture and national spirit. Indeed, the blending of nationalism with the sanctification of literature is a central feature of French identity that has been exported with great success” (Hampton X). This quote by Thomas Hampton, in the preface to his 2001 critical text, “Literature and Nation in the Sixteenth Century,” describes the intricate but natural crosshatching of two important aspects of any culture. The idea of preserving one’s sense of nationalism within the bounds of creative literature was nothing new to sixteenth century France, as it can be seen in Classical works by Aristotle, Aristophanes, Sophocles, and many more like them. The literature of Renaissance era France harkens back to these Classics, in that many authors used their creativity to present their opinions of national politics to the masses. One of the most prolific of these was Marguerite de Navarre, whose life and works were undeniably connected to politics. As sister to the King of France, Duchess of multiple regions in the central and eastern part of the country, and Queen, by marriage, of the region of Navarre, Marguerite was deeply involved in the political system of France. Yet, she used her political astuteness and awareness as the basis for her creative endeavors. She was well educated, a rare thing for a women of her stature at that time, and used this knowledge to present the political landscape of the day.

A thorough and in-depth study of the life of Marguerite will reveal an undeniable vision of power and prestige that women, even in the modern times, still have trouble realizing. Born in 1492 to an affluent family, Marguerite was a disappointment to her parents, in that she was not a male. At the age of two, a brother was born and Louisa, Marguerite’s mother, brought him up as if she knew that he would one day sit on the throne and rule all of France. Marguerite was educated alongside her brother and acted as a second mother to François (Stephenson 3). This education, which included learning “Latin, Italian, Spanish, German, and later, Greek and Hebrew…” would become the cornerstone to many of her future accomplishments (Delahoyde).

Her own rise to political prominence began in 1509 when she married Charles, duc d’Alençon.  Six years later, François took the highest seat of rule in France, and granted Marguerite the title of the Duchess of Berry, a large region in central France (University Of Virginia). Alongside this title, she was also allowed ducal peerage, which gave her equality with the ruling Dukes of the other regions of the country (Stephenson 4). She became one of the King’s most trusted advisors, and was skillful in diplomatic affairs. When King François was captured in the Battle of Pavia in 1525, by the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, her diplomacy was the key to his safe return and to carving out the Treaty of Madrid. Marguerite’s husband was not as lucky as her brother, dying after sustaining severe injuries during the same battle. All of the territories that her late husband had acquired came under her rule, meaning that she had power in five different regions of France. After the death of Charles d’Alençon, she began a relationship with Henri d’Albret, King of the Navarre region of France, who was also a warrior in the Battle of Pavia. As he was eleven years her junior, it could be said that he was using her to gain a direct connection to the French throne. On the other hand, it could have been a power move for Marguerite, as well. By marrying Henri, she would be able to “establish her own court” thereby attaining even more power (Stephenson 5).

After their marriage in 1527, her focus became producing an heir. A daughter, Jeanne was born the following year. Jeanne would eventually become the mother of King Henry IV (University of Virginia). Three years later a son, Jean, was born, but lived only several months. Marguerite continued to believe that she would produce an heir, even until it was obviously no longer possible. Rumors abounded of miscarriages and problems within the marriage because of this, but all were denied. Soon after the death of her son, Marguerite’s mother passed away from a long illness, during which Marguerite was forced to care for the old, ailing woman (Stephenson 6-7).

The education that was given to François and Marguerite was a humanist education, the norm in that time and place. Therefore, the King paid little attention to religious matters. Marguerite, although Catholic, had become interested in the French Evangelical movement in the early 1520’s. An incident known as l’affaire des placards occurred in October of 1534, when men placed offensive placards around France’s largest city (Stephenson 7). Catholic citizens blamed Marguerite’s tolerance toward the evangelicals for the incident, causing turmoil not only within the country, but also between her and her brother. This turmoil forced her to leave the court for a while, but she returned in 1534.

Upon her return after the religious strife, she was bombarded by the uproar within the King’s court, relating to French foreign policy. The “factional politics” of the King’s court led to division, not only of the policy makers, but also of the ordinary citizens within the country. There were two sides to the issue of France’s relationship to the international sector. One side favored an alliance with Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, the other side suggested “weakening imperial power” of the Emperor with military force (Stephenson 8). Marguerite was a part of the latter faction. This brought about more disputes and quarrels between Marguerite and François, which ultimately dominated the relationship during the last ten years of François’ reign (Stephenson 8).

Marguerite’s literary works were first published in 1531, but her eloquent way with words was pivotal in her correspondence with numerous influential people of sixteenth century Europe. From people of political, social and spiritual importance, like John Calvin, Pope Paul III and Erasmus, to the creative geniuses of the Renaissance, such as Rabelais and Leonardo da Vinci, Marguerite wrote to more than 140 correspondents over the course of her life (Norton 2565; Stephenson 18).  Most notably, she wrote to illustrate her displeasure with the Catholic theological censorship against writers, such as Rabelais (Norton 2564).  Marguerite never claimed to be anything but Catholic, but she was tolerant. Some might even consider her an advocate of the Protestant upheaval in France at the time.  Such was the case when she fell victim to the strict leaders of the church. She put out her first recognized work, “Le Miroir de I'âme pécheresse,” or “Mirror of the Sinful Soul,” which was seen as heretical against the Catholic church.

As the years passed, she wrote more and more poetry, such as “Le malade,” “Inquisitor,” “La coche,” “Le trimphe de Paigneau,” “Trop, Prou, Peu, Moins,” “Marguerites de la Marguerite des Princesses,” and “Comédie sur le Trépas du Roi” (Hays). The topics of the poetry vary, but it is undeniable in its attention to the societal and political issues. “Comédie sur le Trépas du Roi” is a look at the death of François and the rise of his son Henry II to the throne. But none of her other writings compared to her prose work the Heptameron. This is a frame story following the bounds set by both Boccaccio in his “Decameron” and Chaucer in “The Canterbury Tales,” the premise being groups of strangers coming together at a single point in history, and finding ways to pass the time. In Marguerite’s version, we have a group of ten French travelers, brought together on the border of France and Spain by flood waters, bandits, and other natural and unpredictable causes. More specifically, they wound up in Navarre, on the border of the two nations. In order to entertain themselves as they wait for the floodwaters to recede, they devote their time to storytelling, ten stories per day, for seven days.

The posthumously published work has been both criticized and praised, but no one has ever been able to deny the deep insight that the work gives into the political, social and religious temper of Renaissance France. It has often been debated in modern times whether Marguerite actually wrote each story or whether she was really just a glorified editor, compiling stories and calling them her own. What is often forgotten is that this practice was very common in medieval and renaissance literature. Both Giovanni Boccaccio and Geoffrey Chaucer did this in their famous works, the latter even borrowing from the previous many times. But people with knowledge of literary genre also credit Marguerite’s work as a predecessor to the modern novel, more so than Chaucer or Boccaccio, because of the narrative structure of the Heptameron. Marguerite was much more successful in her attempts to hold the audience and therefore added to the coherency of the work.

    Above all, Marguerite’s work exists to explore the “vast labyrinth of human relations” (Tetel 64), but it is during the discussions carried on by the travelers in between the tales that allows the reader a glimpse into the political atmosphere of the setting. Just as in modern day politics, there seems to be three distinct components to the politics of the day. Religion, class, and gender are political hot-button themes that repeatedly creep into the debates and tales.

    The debate over separation of church and state rages on in modern day United States, but no such debate existed in Sixteenth Century France. Politics and the religious sector went hand in hand. This was a time that was on the border between the Protestant Reformation and continuing Catholic control. Marguerite understood that tolerance toward the reformers was undeniably important, and even she was not above criticizing the imperfections of the dominant religion.

     In the Heptameron, we see several descriptions of hypocritical and immoral religious figures. In the first tale of the fourth day, the character of Gerburon tells the rest of the travelers a tale of a promiscuous and murderous monk. This monk was unable to control his own lust for the wife of a patron, and because of this his desire became so strong that he was able to unblinkingly kill her servant. In the third story of that same day, the reader is informed of a priest who got his sister pregnant, lied about it, and convinced her to lie about it as well. The hypocrisy of this particular priest was meant as a commentary on the state of the church, as it was in that time. A final example of the trouble that surrounded and enveloped the Catholic Church at the time was the sixth tale of the sixth day, in which a friar of Padua tricked a widow by marrying her daughter off to another young friar, so he could become rich off of her dowry.

     Oisille, the oldest and most religious of all of the travelers said of the tale of the friar of Padua, “The tale we have heard is a convincing proof of…the wickedness of those whom we regard as better than the generality of men” (de Navarre 165). This could easily be seen as Marguerite inserting her own opinion of the religious men of the day. She was in continual conflict with the Catholic Church, often responding to their regulations and censorship of those who deviated from the strict Catholic doctrine. She did this through letters to the major leaders of the Catholic church, but was often ignored. This points to a cause for her satirical view of the leaders. It is known that her displeasure with the Catholic Church had an impact on her standing in the court after l’affaire des placards, yet she was still able to retain a place of prominence.

     The time in which Marguerite lived was a time when the feudal system was disappearing rapidly. There is not extensive discussion by the party of storytellers on the classes, nor on their personal feelings on the other classes. We see that this seems to be neutral territory amongst the characters, simply due to the fact that all ten of the tellers are members of the courts of aristocracy, al- beit to varying degrees. It makes sense that Marguerite would write what she knows, and, having never been forced to live in poverty, or even in the middle class, all she would know is nobility. Yet, there are minute insights into certain characters who had class bias. Ennasuitte, a well-educated noblewoman who loses her servants in a bear attack. Her actions in the text show little consideration for those of a lower class. Her servants did not have her status, and therefore she seems to think of their lives as less important than her own aristocratic life (Davis 41-43).

      Marguerite has often been considered an early feminist. Looking at her life, it is easy to see the truth behind that theory. She was the most powerful woman in her country, and in a position of prestige that most men would envy. But how is this presented in her famous text? According to critic Paula Sommer, Marguerite “combines the traditional emphasis on feminine patience with…feminine individuality” (12). Nowhere is this presented more perfectly than in the character of Parlemente, an aristocratic woman who is confident and intelligent and strong. Debatably the character is said to be the fictionalization of the author herself. Betty Davis supports this idea by saying that the character of “Parlemente speaks for Marguerite” (23). The name exudes strength as it purposely brings to mind the idea of the political seat of a country. On the other hand, some critics, like G. Mallary Masters, say that Marguerite’s words from all of the characters present her true voice (72). If this is true, then the reader cannot solely look to the character of Parlemente to find the authors voice. All of the travelers must be looked upon as a collective voice of Marguerite, and the reader must piece together her political views from all of the characterization in the story.

      The tales themselves are supposedly “true.” The question of what the idea of truth really means is one of the dominating themes throughout the Heptameron. The truth of Renaissance France, and ultimately the entire continent of Europe, was that there was an undeniable sense of political unrest. Marguerite picked the locale of Navarre, not only because it was her land, but also because it was a place of primary dispute between the French and the Spanish. At the time Marguerite married into that region, France only had power over the Southern section. Northern Navarre was at that time under the rule of Spain. Conflicts occurred up and down the boundaries between these two powerhouses for years during the Renaissance.

      It is this idea of boundaries that Thomas Hampton features in the article “Narrative Form and National Space: Textual Geography from the Heptameron to ‘Le Princessa de Cleves.’” In the beginning of the article, he notes that there is a “relationship between the borders of nations and the limits of literature.” The motif of boundaries, both literal and figurative, is littered throughout the text. It is seen in the outer frame of the story in obvious, literal ways. In the inner tales that are being told, the reader is presented with more figurative, personal borders.

      In the beginning, we see Spanish and French aristocracy at a spa in Navarre. There is a separation of the French and the Spaniards when the torrential rains start to fall. This signifies the peace, an “international harmony,” in Europe that preceded the hostility that these two groups had for one another during this time (Tetel 180). The Spaniards would rather risk their lives to a flood than go with the French to safety. This rain, or deluge as it is often referred to, is symbolic of the international unrest of the region, an unrest that the author knew all too well.

      The inner tales are filled with images of boundaries and borders, in every form and fashion. Hampton uses the tenth tale of the first day as the prime example of this. In this Medieval tale, Amadour, a romantic hero is the central figure of this tale, and he is a conqueror of boundaries. He falls in love with Floride, who is to be married to a man she does not love. This practice was common at the time, and therefore acceptable in this context. Amadour marries Floride’s lady in waiting in order to be near the object of his desire. He would not be considered an entirely noble character as his passion leads him to attempt to rape Floride. He comes to his senses before the actual crime is committed, but Floride feels as though it is her fault. In order to suppress his desire for her, she disfigures her own face so that he will no longer be tempted by her beauty. Amadour leaves for battle, never to return. Floride’s husband dies, and she enters a convent.

            Like the outer frame of the story, this tale occurs on the much-disputed border of France and Spain, again painting a picture of ongoing political discourse. The main character is not one to be trapped by borders, as he becomes an overcomer-of-boundaries. The reader cannot help but note that Amadour, a lower class warrior, is able to use his charms and manners to get his foot into the door of nobility. He continuously is crossing borders and boundaries that were so common in the politically turbulent regions, taking a place as a symbol of the desire that Marguerite had for peace.

        By looking at the life and work of Marguerite de Navarre, it is easy to see the undeniable correlation between the politics of religion, class and gender of the Sixteenth Century Renaissance France. This was a time of “rapid political transformation and extraordinary literary experimentation,” (Hampton2 518) and the works of this fascinating woman have survived almost five hundred year, allowing people through the ages to have an inside look into the reality of the time. By simply reading the words, her audience is transported into a time and place where fantasy intersects with reality and politics mesh with literature.