This is a modern-English version of Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies. Vol 2., originally written by Brantôme, Pierre de Bourdeille.
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
Transcriber’s Note
Transcription Note
See end of this document for details of corrections and other changes.
See end of this document for details on corrections and other updates.
Lives of
Fair and Gallant Ladies
Lives of Fair and Bold Ladies
VOLUME II
Volume 2

Marguerite of Valois
From an old engraving.
Marguerite of Valois
From a vintage engraving.
Lives
Of
Fair and Brave Ladies
By
The Seigneur De Brantôme
By
The Lord De Brantôme
TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL
TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL
VOLUME II
VOLUME 2
The Alexandrian Society, Inc.
London and New York
1922
The Alexandrian Society, Inc.
London and NYC
1922
Copyright, 1922, by
Copyright, 1922, by
THE ALEXANDRIAN SOCIETY, Inc.
THE ALEXANDRIAN SOCIETY, Inc.
printed in the united states of america
printed in the United States of America

CONTENTS
|
PAGE PAGE |
||
Introduction. By Georg Harsdörfer Introduction. By Georg Harsdörfer |
vii | ||
FIFTH DISCOURSE Fifth Talk |
|||
Telling How Fair and Honorable Ladies Do Love Brave and Valiant Men, and Brave Men Courageous Women Describing How Fair and Noble Women Love Brave and Valiant Men, and Brave Men Courageous Women |
3 | ||
SIXTH DISCOURSE SIXTH TALK |
|||
Of How We Should Never Speak Ill of Ladies, and of the Consequences of So Doing About Why We Should Never Speak Ill of Women, and the Consequences of Doing So |
91 | ||
SEVENTH DISCOURSE SEVENTH DISCOURSE |
|||
Concerning Married Women, Widows and Maids: to Wit, Which of These Same Be Better Than the Other to Love About Married Women, Widows, and Singles: Specifically, Which of These Is Better to Love |
151 | ||
Article | I. | Of the Love of Married Women On the Affection of Married Women |
156 |
Article | II. | Of the Love of Maids Of Maidens' Love |
171 |
Article | III. | Of the Love of Widows On the Love of Widows |
203 |
Notes Notes |
335 |
[vii]
[vii]

INTRODUCTION

The Mondragola of Machiavelli, which reflects Italian morals at the time of the Renaissance, is well known. Lafontaine has later made use of this motif in one of his humorous stories. In the fourth chapter Liguro arrays in battle order an officer, a valet and a doctor, for a humorous love expedition. Liguro says: “In the right corner we shall place Callimaque; I shall place myself in the extreme left corner, and the doctor in the middle. He will be called St. Cuckold.”
The Mondragola by Machiavelli, which represents Italian morals during the Renaissance, is quite famous. Lafontaine later used this theme in one of his funny stories. In the fourth chapter, Liguro sets up an officer, a servant, and a doctor in battle formation for a humorous romantic mission. Liguro says: “We’ll put Callimaque in the right corner; I’ll take the far left corner, and the doctor will be in the middle. He’ll be called St. Cuckold.”
An interlocutor: “Who is this Saint?”
An interlocutor: “Who is this Saint?”
“The greatest Saint of France.”
"The greatest saint of France."
This question and the answer given are delicious. Brantôme might have made this witticism even in his time. Perhaps he merely did not write it down, for after all he could not make too extensive use of his favorite play with the word “cocu.”
This question and the answer provided are delightful. Brantôme might have made this joke even in his time. Maybe he just didn't write it down, since after all, he couldn't use his favorite wordplay on "cocu" too often.
“The cuckold, the greatest Saint of France”; this might have been the motto of the “Dames Galantes.” Philarete Chasles would have denied this, of course. He always maintained that Gaul was pure and chaste, and that if France was full of vice, it had merely been infected by neighboring peoples. But this worthy academician was well informed merely regarding Italian influence. He was extremely unaware of the existence of the cuckold in the sixteenth century. He even asserts in the strongest terms (in his preface to the edition of 1834) that all of this had not been so serious; the courtiers had merely desired to be immoral in an elegant fashion. He even calls Brantôme “un fanfaron de licence,” a braggart of vice. Indeed he would feel unhappy if he could not reassure us: “Quand il se plonge dans les impuretes,[viii] c’est, croyez-moi, pure fanfaronnade de vice.” Who would not smile at this worthy academician who has remained so unfamiliar with the history of his kings? His “believe me” sounds very well. But the best is yet to come. The book of the “Dames Galantes” was by no means to be considered merely a frivolous collection of scandalous anecdotes, but a “curious historical document.”
“The cuckold, the greatest Saint of France”; this could have been the motto of the “Dames Galantes.” Philarete Chasles would have disagreed, of course. He always claimed that Gaul was pure and chaste, and that if France was filled with vice, it was only because of neighboring cultures. However, this esteemed academic was only well-informed about Italian influence. He was completely unaware of the existence of the cuckold in the sixteenth century. He even insists quite strongly (in his preface to the 1834 edition) that it wasn't really that serious; the courtiers just wanted to be immoral in a stylish way. He even describes Brantôme as “un fanfaron de licence,” a braggart of vice. In fact, he would be distressed if he couldn’t assure us: “Quand il se plonge dans les impuretes,[viii] c’est, croyez-moi, pure fanfaronnade de vice.” Who wouldn’t chuckle at this worthy academician who is so out of touch with the history of his kings? His “believe me” sounds great. But there’s even more to come. The book of the “Dames Galantes” should not be seen as just a light collection of scandalous stories, but as a “curious historical document.”
There will probably always be a difference of opinion regarding Brantôme’s position in the history of civilization. It will probably be impossible to change the judgments of the ordinary superficial reader. But we do not wish to dispose of Brantôme as simply as that. It is very easy for a Puritan to condemn him. But we must seek to form a fairer judgment. Now in order to overcome this difficulty, it is, of course, very tempting simply to proclaim his importance for the history of civilization and to put him on the market as such. This would not be wrong, but this method has been used altogether too freely, both properly and improperly. Besides, Brantôme is too good to be labelled in this manner. He does not need it either, he is of sufficient historical importance even without its being pointed out. The question now arises: From what point of view are we then to comprehend Brantôme? We could answer, from the time in which he lived. But that, speaking in such general terms, is a commonplace. It is not quite correct either. For in spite of the opinions of the educated we must clearly distinguish between Brantôme as an author and Brantôme as a man—and we shall hear more of this bold anarchistic personality, who almost throws his chamberlain’s key back at the king. This is another striking case where the author must by no means be identified with his book. These events might have passed through another person’s mind; they would have remained the same nevertheless. For Brantôme did not originate them, he merely chronicled them. Now it usually happens that things are attributed to an author of which he is entirely innocent (does not Society make an author pay for his confessions[ix] in book-form?). He is even charged with a crime when he merely reports such events. The responsibility which Brantôme must bear for his writings is greatly to be limited. And if our educated old maids simply refuse to be reconciled with his share we need merely tell them that this share is completely neutralized by his own personal life.
There will likely always be differing opinions about Brantôme’s role in the history of civilization. Changing the views of the average, casual reader will probably be impossible. However, we don’t want to reduce Brantôme to just that. It’s easy for someone with a Puritan viewpoint to condemn him. But we need to strive for a more balanced perspective. To tackle this challenge, it's tempting to just declare his significance to civilization and promote him as such. While this wouldn’t be incorrect, it has been done too often, both appropriately and inappropriately. Plus, Brantôme is too remarkable to be simplified this way. He doesn’t need it; his historical significance stands on its own. So, the question is: how should we understand Brantôme? We could say it’s relative to the time he lived in, but that’s a generalization and not entirely accurate. Despite what educated people might think, we need to clearly differentiate between Brantôme as a writer and Brantôme as an individual—and we'll hear more about this bold, anarchistic character, who almost tosses his chamberlain’s key back at the king. This is another clear example of how the author should not be conflated with their work. These events could have come from someone else's mind; they would have remained unchanged regardless. Brantôme didn’t create them; he simply documented them. Often, things are wrongly attributed to an author, leaving them completely innocent (doesn't society make authors pay for their confessions in book form?). He’s even accused of wrongdoing when he’s merely reporting such occurrences. The responsibility Brantôme carries for his writings should be considerably limited. And if our refined individuals refuse to accept his involvement, we just need to point out that his personal life completely negates that involvement.
Brantôme undoubtedly considered himself an historian. That was a pardonable error. There is a great difference of opinion regarding the historical value of his reports, the most general opinion being that Brantôme’s accuracy is in no way to be relied upon, and that he was more a chronicler and a writer of memoirs. To be sure, Brantôme cannot prove the historical accuracy of every statement he makes. Who would be able to give an exact account of this kaleidoscope of details? But the significance, the symbolic value is there.
Brantôme definitely saw himself as a historian. That’s a forgivable mistake. There’s a lot of debate about the historical value of his accounts, with the general consensus being that Brantôme’s accuracy can’t really be trusted and that he was more of a chronicler and memoirist. Of course, Brantôme can’t verify the historical accuracy of every statement he makes. Who could possibly provide a precise account of such a whirlwind of details? But the meaning and symbolic value are present.
In order to substantiate this sharp distinction between the book of Fair and Gallant Ladies and the supposed character of its author, I must be permitted to describe France of the sixteenth century. Various essayists have said that this period had been quite tame and pure in morals, that Brantôme had merely invented and exaggerated these stories. But when they began to cite examples, it became evident that their opinion was like a snake biting its own tail. Their examples proved the very opposite of their views.
To back up this clear difference between the book of Fair and Gallant Ladies and the supposed character of its author, I need to describe France in the sixteenth century. Some essayists claim that this time was pretty tame and morally pure, suggesting that Brantôme just made up and exaggerated these stories. However, when they brought up examples, it became clear that their opinion was self-contradictory. Their examples ended up proving the opposite of what they thought.
Brantôme’s book could only have been written at the time of the last of the Valois. These dissolute kings furnished material for his book. Very few of these exploits can be charged to his own account, and even these he relates in an impersonal manner. Most of them he either witnessed or they were related to him, largely by the kings themselves. No matter in what connection one may read the history of the second half of the sixteenth century, the dissolute, licentious and immoral Valois are always mentioned. The kings corrupted this period to such an extent that Brantôme would have had to be a Heliogabalus in order to make his own contributions felt.
Brantôme’s book could only have been written during the time of the last Valois kings. These indulgent rulers provided the material for his writing. Very few of these acts can be credited to him, and even those he presents in a detached way. Most of them he either witnessed or were told to him, mainly by the kings themselves. Regardless of how one approaches the history of the second half of the sixteenth century, the dissolute, reckless, and immoral Valois always come up. The kings so deeply corrupted this era that Brantôme would have had to be a Heliogabalus to make his own impact felt.
[x]
[x]
At the beginning of this period we meet with the influence of the Italian Renaissance. Through the crusades of Charles VIII., France came into close contact with it. These kings conducted long wars for the possession of Milan, Genoa, Siena and Naples. A dream of the South induced the French to cross the Alps, and every campaign was followed by a new flood of Italian culture. If at the beginning of the sixteenth century France was not yet the Capital of grand manners, it approached this condition with giant strides during the reign of Francis I. For now there was added an invasion of Spanish culture. Next to Rome, Madrid had the greatest influence upon Paris. Francis I., this chivalrous king (1515–1547), introduced a flourishing court life. He induced Italian artists such as Leonardo and Cellini to come to Blois and try to introduce the grand Spanish manners into his own court. For a time France still seemed to be an imitation of Italy, but a poor one. With the preponderance of the Spanish influence the Etiquette of Society approached its perfection.
At the start of this period, we encounter the influence of the Italian Renaissance. Through the campaigns of Charles VIII, France came into close contact with it. These kings waged long wars for control of Milan, Genoa, Siena, and Naples. A longing for the South inspired the French to cross the Alps, and every military campaign brought a new wave of Italian culture. By the early sixteenth century, while France had not yet become the hub of sophistication, it made significant progress during the reign of Francis I. An influx of Spanish culture also began. After Rome, Madrid had the most significant impact on Paris. Francis I, this gallant king (1515–1547), fostered a vibrant court life. He invited Italian artists like Leonardo and Cellini to come to Blois and tried to bring the grand Spanish style into his own court. For a while, France still appeared as a second-rate imitation of Italy. However, with the rise of Spanish influence, the standards of social etiquette began to refine significantly.
Francis I. therefore brought knighthood into flower. He considered a nobleman the foremost representative of the people and prized chivalry more than anything else. The court surrendered itself to a life of gaiety and frivolity; even at this period the keeping of mistresses became almost an official institution. “I have heard of the king’s wish,” Brantôme relates, “that the noblemen of his court should not be without a lady of their heart and if they did not do as he wished he considered them simpletons without taste. But he frequently asked the others the name of their mistresses and promised to help and to speak for them. Such was his kindness and intimacy.” Francis I. is responsible for this saying: “A court without women is like a year without a spring, like a spring without roses.” To be sure, there was also another side to this court life. There were serious financial troubles, corruption in administration and sale of offices. The Italian architects who constructed the magnificent buildings of Saint[xi] Germain, Chantilly, Chambord and Chenonceaux were by no means inexpensive. Great interest was also taken in literary things. A more refined French was developed at this period. In Blois a library, Chambre de Librarye, was established. All of the Valois had great talent in composing poetic epistles, songs and stories, not merely Marguerite of Navarre, the sister of Francis I., who following the example of her brother was a patroness of the arts. To be sure, mention is also made of the “terrifying immorality” in Pau, even though this may not have been so bad. Brantôme is already connected with this court life in Pau. His grandmother, Louise of Daillon, Seneschal of Poitiers, was one of the most intimate ladies-in-waiting of the Queen of Navarre. His mother, Anne of Bourdeille, is even introduced in several stories of the Heptameron. She is called Ennasuite, and his father Francis of Bourdeille appears as Simontaut. Life in the Louvre became more and more lax. Francis I., this royal Don Juan, is even said to have been a rival of his son, without our knowing, however, whether this refers to Catherine of Medici or to Diana of Poitiers. Another version of the story makes Henri II. a rival of his father for the favor of Diana of Poitiers. But the well known revenge of that deceived nobleman which caused the death of Francis I. was entirely unnecessary. It is said that the king had been intentionally infected. He could not be healed and died of this disease. At any rate, his body was completely poisoned by venereal ulcers, when he died. This physical degeneration was a terrible heritage which he left to his son, Henri II. (1547–1550).
Francis I, therefore, brought knighthood to life. He viewed noblemen as the main representatives of the people and valued chivalry above all else. The court embraced a life of joy and frivolity; at this time, having mistresses became almost an official norm. “I’ve heard the king’s desire,” Brantôme reports, “that the noblemen at his court should always have a lady they love, and if they didn’t, he saw them as fools without taste. He often asked others about the names of their mistresses and promised to help and speak on their behalf. Such was his kindness and closeness.” Francis I. is responsible for this saying: “A court without women is like a year without spring, like a spring without roses.” However, there was another side to court life. There were serious financial issues, corruption in administration, and the selling of offices. The Italian architects who built the stunning structures of Saint[xi] Germain, Chantilly, Chambord, and Chenonceaux were quite costly. There was also a strong interest in literature. A more refined version of French developed during this time. In Blois, a library, Chambre de Librarye, was founded. The Valois had great talent for writing poetic letters, songs, and stories, not just Marguerite of Navarre, the sister of Francis I., who, like her brother, was a patron of the arts. Of course, there are mentions of “terrifying immorality” in Pau, though it may not have been as bad as claimed. Brantôme was already involved in this court life in Pau. His grandmother, Louise of Daillon, Seneschal of Poitiers, was one of the closest ladies-in-waiting to the Queen of Navarre. His mother, Anne of Bourdeille, even appears in several stories of the Heptameron. She is referred to as Ennasuite, and his father, Francis of Bourdeille, appears as Simontaut. Life in the Louvre became increasingly relaxed. Francis I, this royal Don Juan, is said to have even rivaled his son, although it’s unclear whether this concerns Catherine of Medici or Diana of Poitiers. Another version of the tale suggests Henri II. rivaled his father for Diana of Poitiers’ favor. However, the well-known revenge by the deceived nobleman that led to Francis I.’s death was completely unnecessary. It is alleged that the king was intentionally infected. He couldn’t be cured and died from the illness. At any rate, his body was fully poisoned by venereal ulcers at the time of his death. This physical deterioration was a tragic legacy that he left for his son, Henri II. (1547–1550).
The latter had in the meantime married Catherine of Medici. Italian depravities now crossed the Alps in even greater numbers. She was followed by a large number of astrologers, dancers, singers, conjurors and musicians who were like a plague of locusts. She thus accelerated the cultural process, she steeped the court of Henri II. as well as that of his three sons in the spirit of Italy and Spain. (The numerous citations of Brantôme indicate the frequency and closeness of[xii] relations at this time between France and Spain, the classical country of chivalry.) But her greed for power was always greater than her sensual desires. Though of imposing exterior, she was not beautiful, rather robust, ardently devoted to hunting, and masculine also in the quantity of food she consumed. She talked extremely well and made use of her literary skill in her diplomatic correspondence, which is estimated at about 6,000 letters. She was not, however, spared the great humiliation of sharing the bed and board of her royal husband with Madame de Valentinois, Diana of Poitiers, the mistress of Henri II. In this difficult position with an ignorant and narrow-minded husband who was moreover completely dominated by his favorites, she maintained a very wise attitude. Catherine of Medici was, of course, an intriguing woman who later tried to carry out her most secret purposes in the midst of her own celebrations.
The latter had meanwhile married Catherine of Medici. Italian decadence was now pouring over the Alps in even greater numbers. She was followed by a large crowd of astrologers, dancers, singers, magicians, and musicians who were like a swarm of locusts. She accelerated the cultural shift, infusing the courts of Henri II and his three sons with the spirit of Italy and Spain. (The numerous citations from Brantôme highlight the frequent and close relations at this time between France and Spain, the classic land of chivalry.) However, her desire for power always outweighed her sensual cravings. Though she had a commanding presence, she wasn't beautiful—more robust, deeply into hunting, and quite masculine in the amount of food she consumed. She spoke exceptionally well and used her literary talents in her diplomatic correspondence, estimated to be around 6,000 letters. Nevertheless, she faced the great humiliation of sharing her royal husband’s bed with Madame de Valentinois, Diana of Poitiers, Henri II’s mistress. In this tough situation with an ignorant and narrow-minded husband, who was also completely under his favorites’ control, she maintained a very wise demeanor. Catherine of Medici was, of course, a cunning woman who later tried to pursue her deepest ambitions amid her own celebrations.
Henri II. had four sons and a daughter, who were born to him by Catherine of Medici after ten years of sterility. In them the tragic fate of the last of the Valois was fulfilled. One after the other mounts the throne which is devoid of any happiness. The last of them is consumed when he has barely reached it. The blood of the Valois would have died out completely but for its continuation in the Bourbons through Marguerite, the last of the Valois, who with her bewitching beauty infatuated men and as the first wife of Henri IV. filled the world with the reports of her scandalous life. There is tragedy in the fact that the book of Fair and Gallant Ladies was dedicated to Alençon, the last and youngest of the Valois. Of these four sons each was more depraved than the other; they furnished the material for Brantôme’s story. The book of Fair and Gallant Ladies, therefore, also seals the end of the race.
Henri II had four sons and a daughter, born to him by Catherine of Medici after ten years of being unable to have children. In them, the tragic fate of the last of the Valois was realized. One after another, they took the throne, which was devoid of any happiness. The last of them was consumed by it before he barely even reached it. The bloodline of the Valois would have completely died out if not for its continuation in the Bourbons through Marguerite, the last of the Valois, who captivated men with her stunning beauty and, as the first wife of Henri IV, filled the world with tales of her scandalous life. It's tragic that the book of Fair and Gallant Ladies was dedicated to Alençon, the last and youngest of the Valois. Each of these four sons was more corrupt than the other; they provided the material for Brantôme’s story. Thus, the book of Fair and Gallant Ladies also marks the end of this lineage.
The line began with Francis II. He mounted the throne when he was a boy of sixteen. He was as weak mentally as he was physically. He died in 1560, less than a year later, “as a result of an ulcer in the head.” Then Catherine of[xiii] Medici was Regent for ten years. In 1571 the next son, Charles, was old enough to mount the throne. He was twenty-two years old, tall and thin, weak on his legs, with a stooping position and sickly pale complexion. Thus he was painted by François Clouet, called Janet, a famous painting which is now in possession of the Duke of Aumale. While a young prince, he received the very best education. His teachers were Amyot and Henri Estienne, with whom he read Plotin, Plato, Virgil, Cicero, Tacitus, Polybius and Machiavelli. Amyot’s translation of Plutarch’s Lives delighted the entire court. “The princesses of the House of France,” Brantôme relates, “together with their ladies-in-waiting and maids-of-honor, took the greatest pleasure in the sayings of the Greeks and Romans which have been preserved by sweet Plutarch.” Thus literature came into its own even in this court life. But they did not merely do homage to the old classical literature, all of them were also versed in the art of the sonnet, and were able to rhyme graceful love songs as well as Ronsard. Charles IX. himself wrote poetry and translated the Odes of Horace into French. His effeminate nature, at one moment given to humiliating excesses and in the next consumed by pangs of conscience, was fond of graceful and frivolous poetry. But there was also some good in this movement. Whereas the French language had been officially designated in 1539 as the Language of Law, to be used also in lectures, Charles IX. now gave his consent in 1570 for the founding of a Society to develop and purify the language. But even in this respect the honest de Thou denounced “this depraved age” and spoke of “the poisoning of women by immoral songs.” This worthy man himself wrote Latin, of course. A time of disorder was now approaching, the revolts of the Huguenots were sweeping through France. But these very disorders and dangers encouraged a certain bold carelessness and recklessness. Murder was slinking through the streets. It was the year of St. Bartholomew’s Eve. The Duke of Anjou himself relates that he feared to be stabbed by his own brother king, Charles[xiv] IX., and later when he himself mounted the throne his brother Alençon was in conspiracy against him. The Mignons and the Rodomonts, the coxcombs and braggarts, were increasing at this depraved court. Soon it was able seriously to compete with Madrid and Naples. Indeed the people down there now began to look up to France as the centre of fashion. Brantôme was the first to recognize this and he was glad of it. Indeed he even encouraged it. Even at that time the Frenchman wished to be superior to all other people.
The line started with Francis II. He took the throne when he was just sixteen. He was as weak mentally as he was physically. He died in 1560, less than a year later, “due to an ulcer in the head.” After that, Catherine of[xiii] Medici served as Regent for ten years. In 1571, the next son, Charles, was old enough to take the throne. He was twenty-two, tall and thin, unsteady on his legs, with a slouched posture and a sickly pale complexion. This is how he was portrayed by François Clouet, called Janet, a famous painting now owned by the Duke of Aumale. As a young prince, he received a top-notch education. His teachers were Amyot and Henri Estienne, with whom he studied Plotinus, Plato, Virgil, Cicero, Tacitus, Polybius, and Machiavelli. Amyot’s translation of Plutarch’s Lives delighted the whole court. “The princesses of the House of France,” Brantôme writes, “along with their ladies-in-waiting and maids of honor, greatly enjoyed the sayings of the Greeks and Romans preserved by sweet Plutarch.” Literature flourished even in court life. But they didn’t just pay tribute to classical literature; they were also skilled in the art of the sonnet and could rhyme lovely love songs just like Ronsard. Charles IX. himself wrote poetry and translated Horace's Odes into French. His effeminate nature, prone to indulgent excesses one moment and gripped by guilt the next, had a penchant for elegant and light poetry. But there was some good to come from this movement. Although the French language had been officially declared the Language of Law in 1539 and used in lectures, Charles IX. approved the founding of a Society in 1570 to enhance and purify the language. However, the honest de Thou criticized “this corrupt age” and spoke of “the poisoning of women by immoral songs.” This respectable man himself wrote in Latin, of course. A time of chaos was looming, as Huguenot uprisings were raging across France. But these disasters and threats fostered a certain bold recklessness. Murder lurked in the streets. It was the year of St. Bartholomew’s Eve. The Duke of Anjou himself said he feared being stabbed by his own brother, King Charles[xiv] IX., and later, when he ascended the throne, his brother Alençon conspired against him. The Mignons and the Rodomonts, the arrogant and boastful, were growing in number at this corrupt court, soon able to rival Madrid and Naples. Indeed, people there began to look to France as the center of fashion. Brantôme was the first to notice this and was pleased about it. He even encouraged it. Even back then, the French wanted to be seen as superior to everyone else.
The king was completely broken by the results of St. Bartholomew’s Eve. His mind wandered back and forth. He became gloomy and vehement, had terrible hallucinations, and heard the spirits of the dead in the air. By superhuman exertions he tried to drown his conscience and procure sleep. He was constantly hunting, remaining in the saddle continuously from twelve to fourteen hours and often three days in succession. When he did not hunt he fenced or played ball or stood for three to four hours at the blacksmith’s anvil swinging an enormous hammer. Finally, consumption forced him to stay in bed. But even now he passed his time by writing about his favorite occupation, he was composing the Livre du Roy Charles, a dissertation on natural history and the deer hunt. When he reached the twenty-ninth chapter death overtook him. This fragment deserves praise, it was well thought out and not badly written.
The king was utterly devastated by the events of St. Bartholomew’s Eve. His mind was restless and unfocused. He became withdrawn and intense, experienced terrible hallucinations, and heard the voices of the dead in the air. With immense effort, he tried to silence his conscience and find sleep. He was always hunting, staying in the saddle for twelve to fourteen hours a day, often for three days straight. When he wasn’t hunting, he fenced, played ball, or spent three to four hours at the blacksmith’s forge, swinging a massive hammer. Eventually, illness forced him to stay in bed. But even then, he occupied his time by writing about his favorite pastime; he was working on the Livre du Roy Charles, a dissertation on natural history and deer hunting. When he reached the twenty-ninth chapter, death caught up with him. This fragment deserves praise; it was well thought out and quite well written.
It is always unpleasant to say of a king that he had more talent to be an author than a king. It is unfortunate but true that the Valois were a literary race. But France itself in 1577 was in a sorry state. Everywhere there were ruins of destroyed villages and castles. There were enormous stretches of uncultivated land and cattle-raising was greatly diminished. There were many loafing vagabonds accustomed to war and robbery who were a danger to the traveller and the farmer. Every province, every city, almost every house was divided against itself.
It’s always a shame to say that a king had more talent as a writer than as a ruler. Unfortunately, it’s true that the Valois family was a literary one. But France in 1577 was in a bad state. Everywhere there were ruins of destroyed villages and castles. There were huge areas of uncultivated land, and cattle farming had decreased significantly. There were many idle vagabonds used to war and theft, posing a threat to travelers and farmers. Every province, every city, almost every home was divided against itself.
Francis of Alençon, the fourth of these brothers, who felt[xv] himself coming of age, the last of the Valois, had already begun his agitation. Charles IX. despised him and suspected his secret intrigues. His other brother, Henri, had to watch his every step in order to feel secure.
Francis of Alençon, the fourth of these brothers, who felt[xv] he was maturing, the last of the Valois, had already started his restless behavior. Charles IX. looked down on him and doubted his hidden schemes. His other brother, Henri, had to keep a close eye on him to feel safe.
Henri III. (1574–1589), formerly Henri of Anjou, was barely twenty-five years old when his strength was exhausted. But his greed of power which had already made him king of the Polish throne was still undiminished. He was the most elegant, the most graceful and the most tasteful of the Valois. It was therefore only to be expected that he would introduce new forms of stricter etiquette. D’Aubigne relates that he was a good judge of the arts, and that he was “one of the most eloquent men of his age.” He was always on the search for poetry to gratify his erotic impulses. A life of revelry and pleasure now began in the palace. Immorality is the mildest reproach of his contemporary chroniclers. Although well educated and a friend of the Sciences, of Poetry and the Arts, as well as gifted by nature with a good mind, he was nevertheless very frivolous, indifferent, physically and mentally indolent. He almost despised hunting as much as the conscientious discharge of government affairs. He greatly preferred to be in the society of women, himself dressed in a feminine fashion, with two or three rings in each ear. He usually knew what was right and proper, but his desires, conveniences and other secondary matters prevented him from doing it. He discharged all the more serious and efficient men and surrounded himself with insignificant coxcombs, the so-called Mignons, with whom he dallied and adorned himself, and to whom he surrendered the government of the state. These conceited young men, who were without any redeeming merit, simply led a gay life at the court. In his History of France (I, 265), Ranke relates: “He surrounded himself with young people of pleasing appearance who tried to outdo him in cleanliness of dress and neatness of appearance. To be a favorite, a Mignon, was not a question of momentary approval but a kind of permanent position.” Assassinations[xvi] were daily occurrences. D’Aubigne severely criticized the terrifying conditions in the court and public life in general. A chronicler says: “At that time anything was permitted except to say and do what was right and proper.” This frivolous, scandalous court consumed enormous sums of money. Such a miserable wretch as Henri III. required for his personal pleasures an annual sum of 1,000,000 gold thalers, which is equivalent to about $10,000,000 in present values, and yet the entire state had to get along with 6,000,000 thalers. For this was all that could be squeezed out of the country. Ranke says (page 269): “In a diary of this period, the violent means of obtaining money and the squandering of the same by the favorites are related side by side, and it shows the disagreeable impression that these things made.” Then there was also the contrast between his religious and his worldly life. At one time he would steep his feelings in orgies, then again he would parade them in processions. He was entirely capable of suddenly changing the gayest raiment for sackcloth and ashes. He would take off his jewel-covered belt and put on another covered with skulls. And in order that Satan might not be lacking, the criminal court (“chambre ardente”) which was established at Blois had plenty of work to do during his reign. It was also evident that he would never have any children with his sickly wife.
Henri III (1574–1589), formerly Henri of Anjou, was barely twenty-five when he wore himself out. However, his thirst for power, which had already made him king of Poland, was still strong. He was the most stylish, graceful, and tasteful of the Valois kings. It was only natural that he would introduce new, stricter rules of etiquette. D’Aubigne notes that he had a good eye for the arts and that he was “one of the most eloquent men of his age.” He was constantly on the lookout for poetry to satisfy his romantic desires. A life of parties and indulgence began in the palace. Immorality was the mildest criticism from chroniclers of his time. Even though he was well-educated and a friend of Science, Poetry, and the Arts, and naturally gifted with intelligence, he was quite superficial, indifferent, and lethargic both physically and mentally. He almost looked down on hunting just as much as he did on the serious business of governance. He much preferred being in the company of women, often dressing in a feminine style, with two or three earrings in each ear. He usually knew what was right and appropriate, but his desires and comforts got in the way. He dismissed all the more serious and competent men and surrounded himself with trivial flirts known as the Mignons, with whom he hung out and adorned himself, handing over the running of the state to them. These vain young men, having no redeeming qualities, simply enjoyed a carefree life at court. In his History of France (I, 265), Ranke writes, “He surrounded himself with young people of attractive looks who tried to outshine him in how clean and neat they dressed. To be a favorite, a Mignon, was not just a matter of momentary favor but a kind of permanent role.” Assassinations were a common occurrence. D’Aubigne harshly criticized the shocking state of the court and public life. One chronicler stated, “At that time, anything was allowed except saying and doing what was right and proper.” This frivolous, scandalous court spent vast amounts of money. A pathetic figure like Henri III needed an annual sum of 1,000,000 gold thalers for his personal pleasures, which is about $10,000,000 in today’s money, while the entire state had to manage with 6,000,000 thalers—this was all the country could provide. Ranke notes (page 269): “In a diary from this time, the harsh methods used to collect money and their wastefulness by the favorites are mentioned together, highlighting the negative impression these actions created.” Then there was the stark contrast between his religious and worldly life. One moment he'd indulge in wild parties, and the next he'd showcase his piety during processions. He could easily switch from the most extravagant outfits to wearing sackcloth and ashes. He would take off his jewel-encrusted belt and don another decorated with skulls. And to ensure that even the devil was present, the criminal court (“chambre ardente”) established in Blois had plenty of work during his reign. It was also clear that he would never have children with his sickly wife.
This same Henry III. while still Duke of Orleans tried to gain the favor of Brantôme, who was then twenty-four years old, and when he entered upon his reign appointed him his chamberlain. This appointment took place in 1574. At the same time, however, Francis of Alençon sought his favor. Subsequently Brantôme entered into very intimate relations with him.
This same Henry III, while still Duke of Orleans, tried to win over Brantôme, who was then twenty-four years old. When he became king, he appointed Brantôme as his chamberlain in 1574. At the same time, Francis of Alençon also sought his favor. Eventually, Brantôme developed a very close relationship with him.
Alençon is described to us as being small though well built but with coarse, crude features, with the temper and irritability of a woman and even greater cowardliness, likewise unreliable, ambitious and greedy. He was a very vain, frivolous person without political or religious convictions. From his youth[xvii] up he was weak and sickly. His brother Henri despised and hated him and kept him a barely concealed prisoner as long as he could. Then Alençon revolted, gathered armies, founded a new Ultra-Royal party and moved on Paris. He even wished at one time to have his mother removed from the court, who was still carrying on her intrigues throughout the entire kingdom. They were obliged to negotiate with him and he succeeded in extorting an indemnity which was almost equal to a royal authority. He received five duchies and four earldoms and his court had the power of passing death sentences. He had a guard and a corps of pages in expensive liveries and conducted a brilliant court. We must try and picture him as Ranke describes him, “small and stocky, of an obstinate bearing, bushy black hair over his ugly pock-marked face, which, however, was brightened by a fiery eye.”
Alençon is described to us as small but well-built, with rough, crude features, a temperament and irritability reminiscent of a woman, and even more cowardly. He is also seen as unreliable, ambitious, and greedy. He was a vain, frivolous person without any political or religious beliefs. Since his youth[xvii], he was weak and sickly. His brother Henri despised and hated him, keeping him as a barely concealed prisoner for as long as he could. Then Alençon revolted, gathered armies, formed a new Ultra-Royal party, and headed toward Paris. At one point, he even wanted to have his mother removed from the court, where she was still engaging in intrigues throughout the kingdom. They had no choice but to negotiate with him, and he managed to extort an indemnity that was almost equal to royal authority. He received five duchies and four earldoms, and his court had the power to pass death sentences. He had a guard and a group of pages in lavish uniforms and conducted a grand court. We need to picture him as Ranke describes, “small and stocky, with a stubborn demeanor, bushy black hair over his ugly pockmarked face, which was, however, brightened by a fiery eye.”
The book of Fair and Gallant Ladies is dedicated to Alençon, but he did not see it any more. Brantôme, however, must have begun it while he was still living. Alençon died in 1584 at the age of thirty-one.
The book of Fair and Gallant Ladies is dedicated to Alençon, but he never saw it. Brantôme, however, must have started it while he was still alive. Alençon died in 1584 at the age of thirty-one.
Five years later Henri III. was stabbed by Jacques Clement. Thus the race of Henri III., which was apparently so fruitful, had withered in his sons. The remaining sister, who was inferior according to the Salic Law, was also extremely immoral.
Five years later, Henri III was stabbed by Jacques Clement. So, the line of Henri III, which seemed so promising, had died out with his sons. The surviving sister, who was considered inferior according to Salic Law, was also very immoral.
Her husband, Henry IV., entered a country that was completely exhausted. The state debt at the time he entered upon his reign clearly showed the spirit of the previous governments. In 1560 the state debt was 43,000,000 livres. At the end of the century it had risen to 300,000,000. The Valois sold titles and dignities to the rich, squeezed them besides and were finally capable of mortgaging anything they could lay their hands upon. In 1595 Henri IV. remarked in Blois that “the majority of the farms and almost all the villages were uninhabited and empty.” This mounting of the state debt clearly indicates the extent of the depravity of the court. During the reign of Charles IX. and Henri III., that[xviii] is between 1570 and 1590, the dissoluteness reached its height and this made it possible for Brantôme to collect such a large number of stories and anecdotes. Catherine of Medici, who outlived her race by a year and whose influence continued during this entire period, does not seem to have been a saint herself. But the last three of the Valois were the worst, the most frivolous and lascivious of them all. It was during their reign that the rule of mistresses was at its height in the Louvre and the royal castles which furnished Brantôme with his inexhaustible material. Such were the Valois.
Her husband, Henry IV, entered a country that was completely worn out. The state debt when he began his reign clearly reflected the attitudes of the previous governments. In 1560, the state debt was 43,000,000 livres. By the end of the century, it had skyrocketed to 300,000,000. The Valois sold titles and honors to the wealthy, squeezed them for every penny, and ultimately ended up mortgaging anything they could get their hands on. In 1595, Henri IV noted in Blois that “most farms and almost all villages were deserted and empty.” This rise in state debt clearly indicates the depth of corruption in the court. During the reigns of Charles IX and Henri III, from 1570 to 1590, decadence reached its peak, allowing Brantôme to gather numerous stories and anecdotes. Catherine of Medici, who outlived her family by a year and whose influence persisted throughout this period, didn’t seem to be a saint herself. However, the last three Valois rulers were the worst, the most frivolous and lascivious of all. It was during their reigns that the dominance of mistresses was at its peak in the Louvre and the royal castles, providing Brantôme with his endless material. Such were the Valois.
This is the background of Brantôme’s life. We should like to know more about him. He has written about many generals and important women of his age, but there are only fragments regarding himself.
This is the background of Brantôme’s life. We want to know more about him. He has written about many generals and influential women of his time, but there are only bits and pieces about his own life.
The family Bourdeille is one of the most important in Perigord. Like other old races they sought to trace their ancestors back into the times of Gaul and Rome. Charlemagne is said to have founded the Abbey Brantôme.
The Bourdeille family is one of the most significant in Perigord. Like other ancient lineages, they tried to trace their ancestors back to the times of Gaul and Rome. It's said that Charlemagne founded the Abbey Brantôme.
Brantôme’s father was the “first page of the royal litter.” His son speaks of him as “un homme scabreaux, haut a la main et mauvais garçon.” His mother, a born Châtaigneraie, was lady-in-waiting of the Queen of Navarre. Pierre was probably also born in Navarre, but nothing is known as to the exact day of birth. Former biographers simply copied, one from the other, that he had died in 1614 at the age of eighty-seven. This would make 1528 the year of his birth. But now it is well known that Brantôme spent the first years of his life in Navarre. Queen Marguerite died in 1549 and Brantôme later writes of his sojourn at her court: “Moy estant petit garçon en sa court.” Various methods of calculation seem to indicate that he was born in 1540.
Brantôme’s father was the “first page of the royal litter.” His son describes him as “a scandalous man, high-handed and a bad boy.” His mother, who was from Châtaigneraie, served as a lady-in-waiting to the Queen of Navarre. Pierre was probably also born in Navarre, but we don't know the exact date of his birth. Earlier biographers just copied from one another, claiming he died in 1614 at the age of eighty-seven. That would put his birth year at 1528. However, it's now widely accepted that Brantôme spent his early years in Navarre. Queen Marguerite died in 1549, and Brantôme later reminisced about his time at her court: “I was a little boy in her court.” Various calculations suggest that he was born in 1540.
After the death of the Queen of Navarre—this is also a matter of record—Brantôme went to Paris to take up his studies. From Paris, where he probably also was a companion of the enfants sanssouci, he went to Poitiers to continue them. There in 1555, while still “a young student,”[xix] he became acquainted with the beautiful Gotterelle, who is said to have had illicit relations with the Huguenot students. When he had completed his studies in 1556 he as the youngest son had to enter the church. He also received his share of the Abbey Brantôme from Henri II. as a reward for the heroisms of his older brother. This young abbot was about sixteen years old. His signature and his title in family documents in this period are very amusing: “Révérend père en Dieu abbè de Brantôme.” As an abbot he had no ecclesiastical duties. He was his own pastor, could go to war, get married and do as he pleased. But nevertheless, this ecclesiastical position did not suit him, and so he raised 500 gold thalers by selling wood from his forests with which he fitted himself out and then went off to Italy at the age of eighteen: “Portant L’coquebuse a meche et un beau fourniment de Milan, monte sur une haquenee de cent ecus et menant toujours six on sept gentils hommes, armes et montes de meme, et bien en point sur bons courtands.”
After the death of the Queen of Navarre—this is also a documented fact—Brantôme went to Paris to continue his studies. From Paris, where he likely spent time with the enfants sanssouci, he traveled to Poitiers to further his education. There, in 1555, while still “a young student,”[xix] he met the beautiful Gotterelle, who was rumored to have had affairs with Huguenot students. After completing his studies in 1556, as the youngest son, he was expected to enter the church. He also received his share of the Abbey Brantôme from Henri II as a reward for his older brother's heroics. This young abbot was about sixteen years old. His signature and title in family documents from this time are quite amusing: “Révérend père en Dieu abbè de Brantôme.” As an abbot, he had no church responsibilities. He was his own pastor, could go to war, get married, and do as he pleased. However, this ecclesiastical role didn’t suit him, so he raised 500 gold thalers by selling wood from his forests, outfitted himself, and then set off to Italy at the age of eighteen: “Portant L’coquebuse a meche et un beau fourniment de Milan, monte sur une haquenee de cent ecus et menant toujours six on sept gentils hommes, armes et montes de meme, et bien en point sur bons courtands.”
He simply went off wherever there was war. In Piedmont he was shot in the face by an arrow which almost deprived him of his sight. There he was lying in Portofino in these marvellously beautiful foothills along the Genoese coast, and there he was strangely healed: “Une fort belle dame de la ma jettait dans les yeux du lait de ses beaux et blancs tetins” (Vies des Capitaines français, Ch. IV, 499). Then he went to Naples with François de Guise. He himself describes his reception by the Duke of Alcala. Here he also became acquainted with Madame de Guast, die Marquise del Vasto.
He just went wherever there was a war. In Piedmont, he got shot in the face by an arrow that nearly took away his sight. There he was, lying in Portofino in those stunning foothills along the Genoese coast, and strangely enough, he was healed: “Une fort belle dame de la ma jettait dans les yeux du lait de ses beaux et blancs tetins” (Vies des Capitaines français, Ch. IV, 499). Then he went to Naples with François de Guise. He describes his reception by the Duke of Alcala. While there, he also met Madame de Guast, the Marquise del Vasto.
In 1560 he left Italy and took up the administration of his estates which heretofore had been in the hands of his oldest brother, Andre. He joined the court in Amboise, where Francis II. was conducting tournaments. At the same time the House of Guise took notice of him. In recollection of his uncle, La Châtaigneraie, he was offered high protection at the court of Lorraine. From this time on he was at the court[xx] for over thirty years. At first he accompanied the Duke of Guise to his castle. Then after the death of Francis II. he accompanied his widow, Mary Stuart, to England in August, 1561, and heard her final farewell to France.
In 1560, he left Italy to take over the management of his estates, which had previously been overseen by his older brother, Andre. He joined the court in Amboise, where Francis II was hosting tournaments. At the same time, the House of Guise began to take notice of him. In memory of his uncle, La Châtaigneraie, he received strong support at the court of Lorraine. From then on, he was at the court[xx] for over thirty years. Initially, he accompanied the Duke of Guise to his castle. After Francis II's death, he traveled with his widow, Mary Stuart, to England in August 1561 and witnessed her final farewell to France.
Although Brantôme could not say enough in praise of the princes of Lorraine, the Guises, he did not go over to their side. Once at a later period when he was deeply embittered he allowed himself to be carried away by them. At the outbreak of the civil wars, Brantôme, of course, sided with the court. He also participated in the battle of Dreux. If there happened to be no war in France he would fight somewhere abroad. In 1564 he entered into closer relations with the court of the Duke of Orleans (later Henri III.). He became one of his noblemen and received 600 livres annually. (The receipts are still in existence.) In the same year he also took part in an expedition against the Berbers on the Coast of Morocco. We find him in Lisbon and in Madrid, where he was highly honored by the courts. When Sultan Soliman attacked Malta, Brantôme also hurried thither. He returned by way of Naples and again presented himself to the Marquise de Guast. He thought that at last he had found his fortune but he felt constrained to continue his journey. He later denounces this episode in the most vehement terms. “Toujours trottant, traversant et vagabondant le monde.” He was on his way to a new war in Hungary, but when he arrived in Venice he heard that it was not worth while. He returned by way of Milan and Turin, where he gave the impression of being greatly impoverished, but he was too proud to accept the purse of the Duchess of Savoy.
Although Brantôme had nothing but praise for the princes of Lorraine, the Guises, he didn't actually join their side. Later on, when he was really bitter, he got swept up with them. When the civil wars broke out, Brantôme, of course, supported the court. He even fought in the battle of Dreux. If there wasn’t a war in France, he would find a fight abroad. In 1564, he got closer to the court of the Duke of Orleans (who later became Henri III.). He became one of his nobles and received an annual income of 600 livres. (The receipts still exist.) That same year, he took part in an expedition against the Berbers on the Coast of Morocco. We find him in Lisbon and Madrid, where he was highly esteemed by the courts. When Sultan Soliman attacked Malta, Brantôme rushed there too. He returned through Naples and presented himself to the Marquise de Guast. He thought he had finally found his fortune but felt compelled to keep moving. He later condemned this episode in the strongest terms. “Always trotting, crossing, and wandering the world.” He was heading to a new war in Hungary, but when he arrived in Venice, he heard it wasn’t worth it. He returned through Milan and Turin, where he seemed to be in pretty rough shape, but he was too proud to accept the Duchess of Savoy's money.
In the meantime, the Huguenots had forced the king to make greater and greater concessions. Prince Condé and Admiral Coligny had the upper hand. The Huguenots, who heard that Brantôme had reasons to be displeased with the king, tried to induce him to commit treason. But Brantôme remained firm. He was given the title Captain (“Maître de camp”) of two companies even though he only had one—but[xxi] that is typical of the French. This company (enseigne) was under his command in the Battle of St. Venis (1567). In the following year, 1568, Charles IX. engaged him as a paid chamberlain. After the Battle of Jarnac in the following year he was seized by a fever, as a result of which he had to spend almost a year on his estates in order to recover.
In the meantime, the Huguenots had forced the king to make more and more concessions. Prince Condé and Admiral Coligny had the advantage. The Huguenots, knowing that Brantôme was unhappy with the king, tried to persuade him to betray. But Brantôme stood his ground. He was given the title of Captain (“Maître de camp”) for two companies even though he actually had just one—but that’s typical of the French. This company (enseigne) was under his command during the Battle of St. Venis (1567). The following year, 1568, Charles IX hired him as a paid chamberlain. After the Battle of Jarnac the next year, he was struck by a fever, which forced him to spend almost a year at his estate to recover.
As soon as he was well again he wished to go off to war somewhere. He complained that it had been impossible for him to participate in the Battle of Lepanto. His friend, Strozzi, was now getting ready an expedition to Peru, which was to recompense him. But some misunderstanding caused his separation from Strozzi shortly afterwards. The preparations for this expedition had, however, kept him away from St. Bartholomew’s Eve, even though later he cursed them for personal reasons.
As soon as he felt better, he wanted to go off to war somewhere. He grumbled that he had missed the chance to take part in the Battle of Lepanto. His friend Strozzi was now organizing an expedition to Peru, which was supposed to reward him. But a misunderstanding led to his separation from Strozzi shortly after. However, the preparations for this expedition had kept him away from St. Bartholomew’s Eve, even though later he regretted it for personal reasons.
Brantôme was not religious. He cannot be considered a good judge in affairs of the Huguenots, for he was more than neutral in religious matters. He took an indifferent attitude towards the League. For as a secular priest, he had the very best reasons for being neither in favor of the League nor of the Huguenots. He speaks with great respect of Coligny. They frequently met and the admiral was always friendly. Brantôme disapproved of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Eve and considered it entirely reprehensible and purposeless. This good warrior would have greatly preferred to have seen these restless spirits engaged in a foreign war. He says of this bloody eve: “Mort malheurse lu puis—je bien appeller pour toute la France.” To be sure, in the following year he was present at the Siege of La Rochelle, the White City.
Brantôme wasn't religious. He can't be seen as an unbiased judge in the matters of the Huguenots because he was more than just neutral regarding religion. He had an indifferent stance toward the League. As a secular priest, he had every reason not to support either the League or the Huguenots. He spoke highly of Coligny, noting that they often met and the admiral was always cordial. Brantôme condemned the Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Eve, viewing it as completely unjustifiable and pointless. This honorable warrior would have much preferred to see those troubled souls engaged in a foreign conflict. He remarked about that bloody night: “Mort malheurse lu puis—je bien appeller pour toute la France.” Indeed, the following year he was at the Siege of La Rochelle, the White City.
He was at the court when Charles IX. died. He accompanied the corpse from Notre Dame to St. Denis and then entered the services of Henri III., who finally bestowed some favors upon the brothers Bourdeille and gave them the Bishopric of Perigneux.
He was at court when Charles IX died. He escorted the body from Notre Dame to St. Denis and then joined the service of Henri III, who eventually granted some favors to the Bourdeille brothers and gave them the Bishopric of Perigneux.
Then this restless soul was driven to approach Alençon,[xxii] the youngest of the Valois. Bussy d’Amboise, the foremost nobleman of Alençon, was his friend. Alençon overwhelmed him with kindness and Brantôme had to beg the angry king’s pardon for his defection.
Then this restless soul was compelled to approach Alençon,[xxii] the youngest of the Valois. Bussy d’Amboise, the top noble of Alençon, was his friend. Alençon showered him with kindness, and Brantôme had to ask the furious king for forgiveness for his departure.
But now an event occurred which almost drove Brantôme into open rebellion. In 1582 his oldest brother died. The Abbey had belonged to both of them, but his brother had appointed his own heir and the king was helpless against this. Brantôme became very angry because he was not the heir. “Je ne suis qu’un ver de terre,” he writes. He now desired that the king should at least give his share of the Abbey to his nephew, but he was unsuccessful in this as well. Aubeterre became Seneschal and Governor of Perigord. This fault-finder could not control his anger: “Un matin, second jour de premier de l’an ... je luy en fis ma plainte; il m’en fit des excuses, bien qu’il fust mon roy. Je ne luy respondis autre chose sinon: Eh bien, Sire, vous ne m’avez donne se coup grand subject de vous faire jainais service comme j’ay faict.” And so he ran off “fort despit.” As he left the Louvre he noticed that the golden chamberlain’s key was still hanging on his belt; he tore it off and threw it into the Seine, so great was his anger.
But then something happened that nearly pushed Brantôme into outright rebellion. In 1582, his oldest brother passed away. The Abbey had belonged to both of them, but his brother named his own heir, and the king couldn’t do anything about it. Brantôme was furious because he wasn’t the heir. “I am but a worm,” he writes. He wanted the king to at least give his share of the Abbey to his nephew, but he failed at that too. Aubeterre became the Seneschal and Governor of Perigord. This critic couldn't contain his rage: “One morning, on the second day of the new year... I made my complaint to him; he apologized to me, even though he was my king. I replied with nothing more than: Well, Sire, you didn’t give me this major reason to ever serve you as I have done.” And so he stormed off “very upset.” As he left the Louvre, he saw that the golden chamberlain’s key was still hanging from his belt; he ripped it off and threw it into the Seine, so intense was his anger.
(When Aubeterre died in 1593 these posts were returned to the family Bourdeille.)
(When Aubeterre died in 1593, these positions were returned to the Bourdeille family.)
(Other reasons which angered Brantôme were less serious. Thus he could not bear Montaigne because the latter was of more recent nobility. He himself has shown that a man of the sword could very well take up the pen to pass the time. But he could not understand that the opposite might happen, and a sword given to a man of the pen. He was appointed a knight in the Order of St. Michael. But this did not satisfy his ambition very much when he looked around and saw that he had to share this distinction with many other men. He wished to have it limited to the nobility of the sword. Now his neighbor, Michel de Montaigne, received the same order. Brantôme writes regarding this: “We have seen councillors[xxiii] leave the courts of justice, put down their robe and their four-cornered hat and take up a sword. Immediately the king bestowed the distinction upon them without their ever having gone to war. This has happened to Monsieur de Montaigne, who would have done better to remain at his trade and continue to write his essays rather than exchange his pen for a sword which was not nearly so becoming.”)
(Other reasons that angered Brantôme were less serious. He couldn’t stand Montaigne because he came from a more recent noble background. Brantôme himself demonstrated that a man of the sword could easily pick up the pen to pass the time. But he couldn’t comprehend that the reverse could also occur—someone with a pen taking up a sword. He was made a knight in the Order of St. Michael. However, this didn’t fulfill his ambition much when he looked around and saw many others sharing this honor. He wanted it to be exclusive to the nobility of the sword. Now his neighbor, Michel de Montaigne, received the same order. Brantôme writes about this: “We have seen councillors[xxiii] leave the courts of justice, set aside their robe and four-cornered hat, and take up a sword. Immediately, the king granted them the honor without them ever having fought in a war. This has happened to Monsieur de Montaigne, who would have been better off sticking to his trade and continuing to write his essays rather than swapping his pen for a sword that didn’t suit him at all.”)
Henri II. pardoned him his unmannerly behavior, but the king’s rooms were closed to him. Then the Duke of Alençon wished to gain his allegiance and appointed him chamberlain, thereby rewarding him for the intimate relationship which had existed between them ever since 1579. The duke was the leader of the dissatisfied and so this fault-finder was quite welcome to him. The book of Fair and Gallant Ladies is the direct result of the conversations at the Court of Alençon, for we hear that Brantôme soon wrote a few discourses which he dedicated to the prince. Brantôme sold himself to Alençon, which is almost to be taken literally. Then Alençon died. Brantôme’s hopes were now completely crushed.
Henri II forgave him for his rude behavior, but the king’s rooms were off-limits to him. Then the Duke of Alençon wanted to win his loyalty and made him chamberlain, rewarding him for their close relationship that had started in 1579. The duke was the leader of the dissatisfied, so this critic was more than welcome to him. The book of Fair and Gallant Ladies is a direct result of conversations at the Court of Alençon, as we learn that Brantôme quickly wrote a few essays that he dedicated to the prince. Brantôme practically sold himself to Alençon, and that’s almost literal. Then Alençon died. Brantôme’s hopes were now completely dashed.
What was he to do now? He was angry at the king. His boundless anger almost blinded him. Then the Guises approached him and tried to induce him to swear allegiance to the enemies of the Valois. He was quite ready to do this and was at the point of committing high treason, for the King of Spain was behind the Guises, to whom he swore allegiance. But the outbreak of the war of the Huguenots, which resulted in a temporary depreciation of all estates, prevented him from carrying out his plans immediately. He could not sell anything, and without money life in Spain was impossible. But this new state of affairs gave him new energy and new life. He walked about with “sprightly vigor.” He later described his feelings in the Capitaines français (Ch. IV, 108): “Possible que, si je fusse venu an bout de vies attantes et propositions, J’eusse faut plus de mal a ma patrie que jamais n’a faict renegat d’Alger a’la sienne, dont J’en fusse[xxiv] este mandict a perpetuite, possible de Dieu et des hommes.”
What was he supposed to do now? He was angry at the king. His overwhelming anger nearly blinded him. Then the Guises approached him and tried to persuade him to swear loyalty to the enemies of the Valois. He was quite ready to do this and was on the verge of committing high treason since the King of Spain was backing the Guises to whom he pledged his loyalty. However, the outbreak of the Huguenot wars, which temporarily devalued all estates, stopped him from executing his plans right away. He couldn’t sell anything, and without money, life in Spain was impossible. But this new situation gave him fresh energy and new perspective. He walked around with “sprightly vigor.” He later described his feelings in the Capitaines français (Ch. IV, 108): “Maybe if I had come to the end of waiting and proposals, I would have caused more harm to my country than any renegade from Algiers has ever done to his, for which I would be forever cursed, possibly by God and men.”
Then a horse that he was about to mount, shied, rose up and fell, rolling over him, so that all his ribs were broken. He was confined to his bed for almost four years; crippled and lame, without being able to move because of pain.
Then a horse he was about to ride startled, reared up, and fell, rolling over him, breaking all his ribs. He was stuck in bed for almost four years; disabled and limping, unable to move because of the pain.
When he was able to rise again the new order of things was in full progress, and when the iron hand of Henri IV., this cunning Navarrese and secret Huguenot, swept over France, the old court life also disappeared. Brantôme was sickly and when the old Queen-mother Medici also died (1590) he buried himself completely in his abbey and took no interest henceforth in the events of his time.
When he was finally able to get up again, the new order of things was already in full swing, and when the iron grip of Henri IV, this sly Navarrese and secret Huguenot, took hold of France, the old court life disappeared too. Brantôme was weak and when the old Queen-mother Medici passed away (1590), he completely withdrew into his abbey and stopped caring about the events happening around him.
“Chaffoureur du papier”—this might be the motto of his further life. Alas, writing was also such a resignation for Brantôme, otherwise he would not have heaped such abuse upon it. But we must not imagine that his literary talent only developed after his unfortunate fall. Naturally he made quite different and more extensive use of it under these conditions than he otherwise would have done. Stirring up his old memories became more and more a means of mastering the sterile life of that period. Literature is a product of impoverished life. It is the opium intoxication of memory, the conjuring up of bygone events. The death-shadowed eyes of Alençon had seen the first fragments of the book of Fair and Gallant Ladies. The Rondomontades Espagnoles must have been finished in 1590, for he offered them to the Queen of Navarre in the Castle of Usson in Auvergne. But beginning in 1590 there was a conscious exchange of the sword for the pen. He knew himself well. On his bed of pain the recollections of his varied life, his sufferings and the complaints of his thwarted ambitions became a longed-for distraction. He died July 15, 1614, and was buried in the Chapel of Richemond.
“Chaffoureur du papier”—this could be the motto for his later life. Unfortunately, writing was also a kind of surrender for Brantôme, or else he wouldn’t have spoken so harshly about it. But we shouldn’t think that his literary talent only emerged after his unfortunate downfall. Naturally, he used it in a much different and broader way under these circumstances than he would have otherwise. Rekindling his old memories became increasingly a way to cope with the barren life of that time. Literature is born from a life of struggle. It’s the opiate of nostalgia, bringing back memories of past events. The sorrowful eyes of Alençon had seen the first drafts of the book of Fair and Gallant Ladies. The Rondomontades Espagnoles must have been completed in 1590, as he presented them to the Queen of Navarre at the Castle of Usson in Auvergne. But starting in 1590, he consciously traded his sword for a pen. He understood himself well. On his bed of pain, his memories of a varied life, his sufferings, and the echoes of his frustrated ambitions became a much-needed escape. He died on July 15, 1614, and was buried in the Chapel of Richemond.
His manuscripts had a strange fate. They were the principal care of his last will and testament. This in itself is a monument to his pride. “J’ai bien de l’ambition,” he writes,[xxv] “je la veux encore monstrer apres ma mort.” He had decided elements of greatness. The books in his library were to remain together, “set up in the castle and not to be scattered hither and thither or loaned to anyone.” He wished to have the library preserved “in eternal commemoration of himself.” He was particularly interested in having his works published. He pretended to be a knight, and a nobleman, and yet he prized most highly these six volumes beautifully bound in blue, green and black velvet. His books, furthermore, were not to be published with a pseudonym, but his own name was to be openly printed on the title-page. He does not wish to be deprived of his labors and his fame. He gave the strictest instructions to his heirs, but he was constantly forced to make additions to the will, because his executors died. He outlived too many of them and had made his will too early. The instructions regarding the printing of his books are very amusing: “Pour les faire imprimer mieux a ma fantaisie, ... y’ordonne et veux, que l’on prenne sur ma lotate heredite l’argent qu ’en pouvra valoir la dite impression, et qui ne se pouvra certes monter a beaucoup, cur j’ay veu force imprimeurs ... que s’ils out mis une foys la veue, en donneront plusoost pour les imprimer qu’ils n’en voudraient recepvoir; car ils en impriment plusierus gratis que no valent pas les mieux. Je m’en puys bien vanter, mesmes que je les ay monstrez au moins en partie, a aueuns qui les ont voulu imprimer sans rien.... Mais je n’ay voulu qu ils fussent imprimez durant mon vivant. Surtout, je veux que la dicte impression en soit en belle et gross lettre, et grand colume, pour mieux paroistre....” The typographical directions are quite modern. The execution of the will finally came into the hands of his niece, the Countess of Duretal, but on account of the offence that these books might give, she hesitated to carry out the last will of her uncle. Then his later heirs refused to have the books published, and locked the manuscripts in the library. In the course of time, however, copies came into circulation, more and more copies were made, and[xxvi] one of them found its way into the office of a printer. A fragment was smuggled into the memoirs of Castelnau and was printed with them in 1659. A better edition was now not far off. In 1665 and 1666 the first edition was published in Leyden by Jean Sambix. It comprised nine volumes in Elzevir. This very incomplete and unreliable edition was printed from a copy. Speculating printers now made a number of reprints. A large number of manuscripts were now in circulation which were named according to the copyists. In the 17th and 18th centuries these books were invariably printed from copies. The edition of 1822, Oeuvres completes du seigneur de Brantôme (Paris: Foucault), was the first to go back to the original manuscripts in possession of the family Bourdeille. Monmergue edited it. The manuscript of the book of Fair and Gallant Ladies was in the possession of the Baroness James Rothschild as late as 1903. After her death in the beginning of 1904, it came into possession of the National Library in Paris, which now has all of Brantôme’s manuscripts, and also plans to publish a critical revised edition of his collected works.
His manuscripts had an odd fate. They were the main concern of his last will and testament. This alone is a testament to his pride. “I have a lot of ambition,” he writes,[xxv] “I want to showcase it even after my death.” He had decided on elements of greatness. The books in his library were to stay together, “kept in the castle and not scattered around or loaned to anyone.” He wanted his library preserved “in eternal memory of himself.” He was particularly keen on having his works published. He pretended to be a knight and a nobleman, yet he valued most highly these six volumes beautifully bound in blue, green, and black velvet. Furthermore, his books were not to be published under a pseudonym; his own name was to be clearly printed on the title page. He didn’t want to lose his work and his fame. He gave strict instructions to his heirs, but he constantly had to add to the will because his executors kept dying. He outlived too many of them and had made his will too early. The instructions about printing his books are quite amusing: “To have them printed to my liking, ... I order and want that they take from my inherited estate the money that could be worth the said printing, and which certainly would not amount to much, for I have seen many printers ... that if they have once seen them, will offer more to print them than they would ever want to receive; for they print several for free that aren’t worth the best. I can boast a bit, especially since I have shown them at least in part to some who wanted to print them without anything.... But I want them to be printed only after my death. Above all, I want that the said printing be in beautiful, large letters, and a big column, to stand out better....” The typographical directions are quite modern. The execution of the will finally fell into the hands of his niece, the Countess of Duretal, but because of the offense these books might cause, she hesitated to carry out her uncle's last wishes. Then his later heirs refused to have the books published and locked the manuscripts in the library. Over time, however, copies began to circulate, more and more copies were made, and[xxvi] one of them found its way into the office of a printer. A fragment was smuggled into the memoirs of Castelnau and printed with them in 1659. A better edition was now on the horizon. In 1665 and 1666, the first edition was published in Leyden by Jean Sambix. It consisted of nine volumes in Elzevir. This very incomplete and unreliable edition was printed from a copy. Speculative printers now made several reprints. A large number of manuscripts were now circulating, named after the copyists. In the 17th and 18th centuries, these books were invariably printed from copies. The 1822 edition, Oeuvres completes du seigneur de Brantôme (Paris: Foucault), was the first to return to the original manuscripts held by the Bourdeille family. Monmergue edited it. The manuscript of the book of Fair and Gallant Ladies was still in the possession of Baroness James Rothschild as late as 1903. After her death in early 1904, it came into the possession of the National Library in Paris, which now holds all of Brantôme’s manuscripts and also plans to publish a critically revised edition of his collected works.
The two books, Vies des Dames illustres and Vies des Dames galantes, were originally called by Brantôme Premier and Second Livre des Dames. The new titles were invented by publishers speculating on the taste of the times, which from 1660 to 1670 greatly preferred the words illustre and galante. The best subsequent edition of the Fair and Gallant Ladies is that printed by Abel Ledoux in Paris, 1834, which was edited by Philarete Chasles, who also supplied an introduction and notes. On the other hand, the critical edition of his collected works in 1822 still contains the best information regarding Brantôme himself, and the remarks by the editor Monmergue are very excellent and far superior to the opinions which Philarete Chasles expresses, poetic as they may be. The crayon-drawings and copper-cuts of Famous and Gallant Ladies of the sixteenth century contained in Bouchot’s book, Les femmes de Brantôme, are very good; Bouchot’s text,[xxvii] however, is merely a re-hash of Brantôme himself. Neither must one over-estimate his reflections regarding the author of the Fair and Gallant Ladies.
The two books, Vies des Dames illustres and Vies des Dames galantes, were originally titled by Brantôme as Premier and Second Livre des Dames. Publishers came up with the new titles to match the tastes of the times, which between 1660 and 1670 strongly favored the terms illustre and galante. The best later edition of the Fair and Gallant Ladies is the one printed by Abel Ledoux in Paris, 1834, which was edited by Philarete Chasles, who also provided an introduction and notes. On the other hand, the critical edition of his collected works from 1822 still offers the most accurate information about Brantôme himself, and the comments by editor Monmergue are excellent and far better than the views expressed by Philarete Chasles, no matter how poetic they may be. The crayon drawings and copper engravings of famous and gallant ladies from the sixteenth century found in Bouchot’s book, Les femmes de Brantôme, are quite good; however, Bouchot’s text,[xxvii] is merely a rehash of Brantôme’s work. Additionally, one should not overestimate his reflections on the author of the Fair and Gallant Ladies.
There is a great difference between the two Livres des Dames. What is an advantage in the one is a disadvantage in the other. Undoubtedly Brantôme’s genius is best expressed in the Dames Galantes. In this book the large number of symbolical anecdotes is the best method of narration. In the other they are more or less unimportant. Of course, Brantôme could not escape the questionable historical methods of that period, but shares these faults with all of his contemporaries. Besides, he was too good an author to be an excellent historian. The devil take the historical connection, as long as the story is a good one.
There is a big difference between the two Livres des Dames. What is an advantage in one is a disadvantage in the other. Clearly, Brantôme’s talent shines the most in the Dames Galantes. In this book, the numerous symbolic anecdotes serve as the best storytelling method. In the other book, they are largely insignificant. Of course, Brantôme couldn't avoid the questionable historical practices of his time, but he shares these flaws with all his contemporaries. Besides, he was too good of a writer to be a great historian. Who cares about the historical accuracy, as long as the story is engaging?
The courtier Brantôme sees all of history from the perspective of boudoir-wit. Therefore his portraits of famous ladies of his age are mere mosaics of haphazard observations and opinions. He is a naïve story-teller and therefore his ideas are seldom coherent. The value of his biographical portraits consists in the fact that they are influenced by his manner of writing, that they are the result of scandal and gossip which he heard in the Louvre, or of conversations in the saddle or in the trenches. He always preserves a respectful attitude and restrains himself from spicing things too freely. He did not allow himself to become a purveyor of malicious gossip, he took great care not to offend his high connections by unbridled speech, but his book lost interest on that account.
The courtier Brantôme views all of history through a lens of boudoir wit. As a result, his portrayals of famous women of his time are just random collections of observations and opinions. He’s a simple storyteller, so his ideas are often lacking clarity. The value of his biographical sketches comes from his unique writing style, shaped by the scandals and gossip he picked up in the Louvre or during conversations while riding or in the trenches. He always maintains a respectful demeanor and holds back from adding too much spice. He didn’t let himself become a source of malicious gossip, taking care not to offend his high-status connections with careless words, but this restraint made his book less engaging.
If we wish to do justice to Brantôme as the author of Fair and Gallant Ladies, we must try and picture his position in his age and in his society. It is not to be understood that he suddenly invented all of these stories during his long illness. Let us try and follow the origin of these memoirs. At that time the most primitive conceptions of literary work in general prevailed. The actual writing down of the stories was the least. An author laboriously working out his stories[xxviii] was ridiculous. The idea and the actual creative work came long before the moment when the author sat down to write. None of Brantôme’s stories originated in his abbey, but in Madrid, in Naples, in Malta before La Rochelle, in the Louvre, in Blois and in Alençon. Writing down a story was a reproduction of what had already been created, of what had been formed and reformed in frequent retelling and polished to perfection. The culture of the court was of great aid to him in his style, but his own style was nevertheless far superior.
If we want to give Brantôme his due as the author of Fair and Gallant Ladies, we need to consider his position in his time and society. It shouldn't be assumed that he came up with all these stories during his long illness. Let's trace the origin of these memoirs. Back then, the most basic ideas about literary work were dominant. Actually writing down the stories was the least important part. An author painstakingly crafting his tales was seen as absurd. The ideas and the creative process came well before the author actually sat down to write. None of Brantôme’s stories were born in his abbey; they originated in Madrid, Naples, Malta before La Rochelle, the Louvre, Blois, and Alençon. Writing down a story was simply reproducing something that had already existed, something that had been shaped and reshaped through many retellings and refined to perfection. The court culture greatly influenced his style, but his own style was nonetheless far superior.
For decades Brantôme was a nobleman of his royal masters. He was constantly present at the court and participated in all of the major and minor events of its daily life, in quarrels and celebrations. He was a courtier. He was entirely at home in the halls and chambers of the Louvre, but even though he stopped to chat with the idle courtiers in the halls of the Louvre he never lowered himself to their level. He could be extremely boisterous, yet inwardly he was reserved and observant. He was the very opposite of the noisy, impetuous Bussy-Rabutin. His intelligence and his wisdom made him a source of danger among the chamberlains. His was a dual nature, he was at the same time cynical and religious, disrespectful and enthusiastic, refined and brutal, at the same time abbot, warrior and courtier. Like Bernhard Palissy he ridiculed the astrologers, yet he was subject to the superstitions of his age. His temperament showed that his cradle had not been far from the banks of the Garonne, near the Gascogne. There was combined with his bold, optimistic, adventurous and restless spirit, with his chivalrous ideas and prejudices, a boundless vanity. A contemporary said of him: “He was as boastful as Cellini.” Indeed he believed himself far superior to his class, he not only boasted of himself and his family, but also of his most insignificant deeds. He was irreconcilable in hate, and even admonished his heirs to revenge him. His royal masters he treated with respect tempered by irony. As a contemporary of Rabelais, Marot and Ronsard, he was an[xxix] excellent speaker. If Rabelais had a Gallic mind then Brantôme’s was French. His cheerful and lively conversation was pleasing to all. He had a reputation of being a brilliant man. But he was also known as a discreet person. Alençon, who was a splendid story-teller himself and liked to hear love stories more than anything else, preferred conversation with him to anyone. His naïveté and originality made friends for him everywhere. He had a brave and noble nature and was proud of being a Frenchman, he was the personified gentilhomme français.
For decades, Brantôme was a nobleman to his royal masters. He was always at court, taking part in both the big and small events of daily life, in arguments and celebrations. He was a courtier, completely at home in the halls and chambers of the Louvre. However, even though he would stop to chat with the idle courtiers in the Louvre, he never stooped to their level. He could be very loud, yet inside he was reserved and observant. He was the complete opposite of the noisy, impulsive Bussy-Rabutin. His intelligence and wisdom made him a threat among the chamberlains. He had a complex personality, being both cynical and religious, disrespectful and enthusiastic, refined and brutal, all at once an abbot, warrior, and courtier. Like Bernhard Palissy, he mocked the astrologers, even though he was swayed by the superstitions of his time. His temperament showed that he had roots near the Garonne River in Gascogne. Along with his bold, optimistic, adventurous, and restless spirit, and his chivalric ideals and biases, he also had immense vanity. A contemporary noted, “He was as boastful as Cellini.” He truly believed he was far superior to his class; he didn’t just boast about himself and his family, but also his most trivial accomplishments. He was unwavering in his hatred and even urged his heirs to seek revenge for him. He treated his royal masters with respect, laced with irony. As a contemporary of Rabelais, Marot, and Ronsard, he was an excellent speaker. If Rabelais had a Gallic mind, then Brantôme’s was distinctly French. His cheerful and lively conversation was enjoyable for everyone. He had a reputation for being brilliant but was also known to be discreet. Alençon, who was a great storyteller himself and loved hearing love stories above all else, preferred talking to him over anyone else. His naïveté and originality made him friends wherever he went. He had a brave and noble nature and was proud to be French; he embodied the true gentilhomme français.
And thus his book originated. He must have taken up his pen quite spontaneously one day. Now from the great variety of his own experiences at court and in war, he poured forth a remarkable wealth of peculiar and interesting features which his memory had preserved. It is a book of the love-life during the reign of the Valois. These stories were not invented, but they were anecdotes and reports taken from real life. He was able to evade the danger of boredom. There is style even in his most impudent indiscretions. He only stopped at mere obscenities. On the other hand, he never hesitated to be cynical. As this age was fond of strong expressions, a puritanical language was out of the question. Not until the reign of Louis XIV. did the language become more polite. Neither was Brantôme a Puritan, how could he have been? But he had character. He took pleasure in everything which was a manifestation of human energy. He loved passion and the power to do good or evil. (To be sure he also had some splendid things to say against immoderacy and vehemence of passions. So he was a fit companion of the Medici and the Valois.)
And that's how his book came to be. He must have picked up his pen one day on a whim. Drawing from the wide range of his experiences at court and in battle, he shared a fascinating mix of unique and interesting stories that his memory had kept alive. It's a book about love during the time of the Valois. These stories weren’t made up—they were anecdotes and accounts from real life. He managed to avoid being boring. There’s a certain style even in his bold indiscretions; he only shied away from outright obscenity. However, he never hesitated to be cynical. Since this era liked strong language, puritanical speech was out of the question. It wasn’t until Louis XIV’s reign that language started to become more refined. Brantôme wasn’t a Puritan; how could he be? But he had a strong character. He enjoyed everything that showed human energy. He loved passion and the ability to do good or evil. (Of course, he also had some great points to make against excess and intense emotions. So, he was a fitting companion to the Medici and the Valois.)
There is not much composition in his books. His attention wandered from one story to the other. Boccaccio, the foremost story-teller of this period, is more logical. An academical critic says of Brantôme: “He reports without choice what is good and bad, what is noble and abominable, the good not without warmth, but the bad with indestructible cheerfulness.”[xxx] There is neither order nor method in his writing. He passes on abruptly, without motif, without transition. A courtier, unfamiliar with the rules of the school, he himself confesses (in the Rodomontades Espagnoles): “Son pen de profession du scavoir et de l’art de bien dire, et remet aux meux disans la belle disposition de paroles eloquentes.” Because of the variety his stories have unusual charm. In these numerous anecdotes the graceful indecencies of the ladies-in-waiting at the court of the Valois are described as if they had happened openly. His reports of the illicit relations are rendered in a charming style. Even though his sketches and pictures are modelled entirely on the life at the courts, nevertheless he adds two personal elements: an amusing smile and a remarkable literary talent. The following may even have been the case. In the beginning Brantôme may have taken an entirely neutral attitude towards the material at hand, but took no greater personal interest in them than he would, say, in memoirs. But when we can tell a story well, then we also take pleasure in our ability. We permeate the story with our own enjoyment, and in a flash it turns out to be pleasure in the thing itself. The light of our soul glows upon them and then the things themselves look like gold. Brantôme rarely breaks through his reserve. He usually keeps his own opinions regarding these grand ladies and gentlemen in the background, he leaves it to the competent “grands discoureurs” to judge these things. To be sure, if one wished to get information regarding the court of Henri II. and Catherine of Medici, one ought not exactly to read Brantôme, who creates the impression as if the court were a model of a moral institution. “Sa compaignie et sa court estait un vray paradis du monde et escole de toute honnestate, de virtu, l’ornement de la France,” he once says somewhere in the Dames illustres (page 64). On the other hand, L’Etorle in May, 1577, gives us a report of a banquet given by the Queen-mother in Chenonceaux: “Les femmes les plus belles et honnestes de la cour, estant a moitie nues et ayant, les cheveux epars comme espousees,[xxxi] fuient employees a faire le service.” Other contemporaries likewise report a great deal of the immorality prevailing at the court. Thus we have curious reports regarding the pregnancy of Limeuil, who had her birth-throes in the queen’s wardrobe in Lyon (1564), the father being the Prince of Conde. Likewise, Johanna d’Albret warns her son, later Henri IV., against the corruption of the court. When she later visited him in Paris she was horrified at the immorality at the court of her daughter-in-law, later Queen Margot, who lived in the “most depraved and dissolute society.” (Brantôme pretended that he was a relative of hers, and pronounced a panegyric upon her in his Rodomontades which was answered in her memoirs dedicated to him.) He did not feel it his mission to be a Savonarola. To his great regret this “culture” came home to him in his own family. He had more and more cause to be dissatisfied with his youngest sister, Madeleine. The wicked life of this lady-in-waiting filled him with fury. He paid her her share and drove her from the house.
There isn't much structure in his books. His focus shifts from one story to another. Boccaccio, the leading storyteller of this time, is more coherent. An academic critic describes Brantôme: “He reports indiscriminately what is good and bad, what is noble and despicable, conveying the good with warmth and the bad with unyielding cheerfulness.”[xxx] His writing lacks order and method. He transitions abruptly, without motive or connection. As a courtier, unfamiliar with scholarly rules, he admits (in the Rodomontades Espagnoles): “My profession is the knowledge and art of good expression, and I leave the beautiful arrangement of eloquent words to those who are better at it.” Due to the variety, his stories hold a unique charm. In these many anecdotes, the graceful indecencies of the ladies-in-waiting at the Valois court are described as if they occurred openly. His accounts of illicit relationships are conveyed in a delightful style. Although his sketches and images are entirely based on court life, he adds two personal touches: a humorous tone and notable literary talent. It's possible that initially, Brantôme took a completely neutral stance towards the material, showing no more personal interest than he would in memoirs. But when we can tell a story well, we also enjoy our talent. We infuse the story with our own enjoyment, and suddenly it becomes pleasure in the thing itself. Our spirit shines on them, making the things themselves appear golden. Brantôme rarely breaks his reserve. He usually keeps his thoughts on these grand figures hidden, leaving it to the capable “great speakers” to judge these matters. However, if one seeks information about the court of Henri II and Catherine of Medici, Brantôme is not the best source, as he presents the court as if it were a model moral institution. “His company and his court was a true paradise of the world and a school of all virtue, the ornament of France,” he says somewhere in the Dames illustres (page 64). Conversely, L’Etorle in May 1577 gives us an account of a banquet hosted by the Queen Mother in Chenonceaux: “The most beautiful and respectable women of the court, being half-naked and having their hair loose as if married,[xxxi] were employed to serve.” Other contemporaries also report on the rampant immorality at court. We have curious accounts of Limeuil's pregnancy, where she gave birth in the queen’s wardrobe in Lyon (1564), the father being the Prince of Condé. Johanna d’Albret also warns her son, later Henri IV, about the court's corruption. When she visited him in Paris, she was appalled by the immorality at her daughter-in-law's court, later Queen Margot, which was surrounded by “the most depraved and dissolute society.” (Brantôme claimed to be a relative of hers and praised her in his Rodomontades, which she acknowledged in her memoirs dedicated to him.) He didn’t see it as his mission to be a Savonarola. Sadly, this “culture” affected him in his own family. He grew increasingly dissatisfied with his youngest sister, Madeleine. Her wicked lifestyle as a lady-in-waiting infuriated him. He confronted her and expelled her from the house.
Certain Puritans among the historians find fault with Brantôme for having uncovered the “abominations” at the courts of the Valois. His vanity may have led him to make many modifications in the events, but most of these are probably due to his desire to be entertaining. In his dedication to the Rodomontades Espagnoles he addresses Queen Margot as follows: “Bien vous dirai-je, que ce que j’escrits est plein de verite; de ce que j’ay veu, je l’asseure, di ce que j’ay seen et appris d’autray, si on m’a trompe je n’en puis mais si tiens-je pourtant beaucoup de choses de personnages et de livres tres-veritables et dignes de foy.” Nevertheless, his method was very primitive. In his descriptions of personalities, he had a thread on which he could string up his recollections, so that there was at least some consistency. In the book of Fair and Gallant Ladies the individual fact is of less importance and has more of symbolic value. They are pictures of the time composed of a confusing multitude of anecdotes.[xxxii] Perhaps the subject-matter required this bizarre method. The Heptameron of Marguerite of Navarre was altogether too precise. Brantôme was a man of the sword and a courtier, but a courtier who occasionally liked to put his hand on his sword in between his witticisms. In this state of mind, he was an excellent story-teller, and his anecdotes and stories therefore also have the actuality and the vigorous composition of naïvely related stories.
Certain Puritans among historians criticize Brantôme for revealing the “abominations” at the courts of the Valois. His vanity may have caused him to alter many events, but most of these changes likely stem from his desire to be entertaining. In his dedication to the Rodomontades Espagnoles, he addresses Queen Margot as follows: “I will tell you that what I write is full of truth; I assure you of what I have seen, and what I have learned from others; if I have been deceived, there’s not much I can do about it, but I still hold on to many things from very true and credible people and books.” Nevertheless, his approach was quite basic. In his descriptions of personalities, he had a thread to string together his memories, providing at least some consistency. In the book of Fair and Gallant Ladies, individual facts matter less and hold more symbolic significance. They are snapshots of the era, made up of a chaotic mix of anecdotes. [xxxii] Perhaps the topic demanded this unusual method. The Heptameron by Marguerite of Navarre was far too precise. Brantôme was a man of the sword and a courtier, but a courtier who sometimes liked to rest his hand on his sword between his jokes. In this frame of mind, he was a fantastic storyteller, and his anecdotes and stories thus carry the immediacy and dynamic style of naturally told tales.
The book of Fair and Gallant Ladies still contains much of historical value. Almost all the old noble races are mentioned; there is information regarding Navarre, Parma, Florence, Rome and Toulouse. The Huguenots likewise appear, and St. Bartholomew’s Eve (1572), which was far back, still sheds its gloom over these pages. The trenches before La Rochelle play an important part; Brantôme always fought against the Huguenots. Perhaps this was the reason why he was no longer in favor with the Bourbon Henri IV. However, one cannot charge him with animosity. Perhaps the frank and open methods of reforming had affected him. Without taking interest in religious quarrels, he probably also hated the monks and priests. Thus one would be inclined to say to the Puritans who condemn Brantôme: If one may speak of guilt and responsibility, then it is his age which must bear them. Brantôme merely chronicled the morals of his times. The material was furnished to him, he merely wrote it down. He is no more responsible for his book, than an editor of a newspaper for the report of a raid or a bomb attack. Ranke once said regarding the times of Henri II.: “If one wishes to know the thoughts and opinions of France at that period, one must read Rabelais” (History of France, Ch. I, 133). Whoever wishes to become familiar with the age of Charles IX. and Henri III. must read Brantôme.
The book of Fair and Gallant Ladies still holds a lot of historical significance. Almost all the old noble families are mentioned; there are insights about Navarre, Parma, Florence, Rome, and Toulouse. The Huguenots are also included, and the shadow of St. Bartholomew’s Eve (1572), which happened a long time ago, still casts a gloom over these pages. The trenches outside La Rochelle play a significant role; Brantôme consistently fought against the Huguenots. This might explain why he fell out of favor with the Bourbon Henri IV. However, he shouldn't be blamed for hatred. It's possible that the straightforward and open methods of his time had an influence on him. Without taking part in religious conflicts, he likely also disliked the monks and priests. Thus, one might tell the Puritans who criticize Brantôme: If we talk about guilt and responsibility, then it’s his era that should carry them. Brantôme simply chronicled the morals of his time. The material was provided to him; he just recorded it. He is no more accountable for his book than a newspaper editor is for reporting on a raid or a bombing. Ranke once said about the time of Henri II.: “If you want to understand the thoughts and opinions of France during that period, you must read Rabelais” (History of France, Ch. I, 133). Anyone wishing to learn about the era of Charles IX. and Henri III. should read Brantôme.
Georg Harsdörfer.
Georg Harsdörfer.
(Translated from the German.)
Understood. Please provide the text for modernization.
LIVES OF FAIR AND
GALLANT LADIES
LIVES OF BRAVE AND
NOBLE WOMEN
[3]
[3]

FIFTH DISCOURSE
Telling how fair and honourable ladies do love brave and valiant men, and brave men courageous women.[1*]
Describing how beautiful and honorable women love courageous and strong men, and how brave men love fearless women.[1*]
1.
1.

It hath ever been the case that fair and honourable ladies have loved brave and valiant men, albeit by natural bent they be cowardly and timid creatures. But such a virtue doth valour possess with them, as that they do grow altogether enamoured thereof. What else is this but to constrain their exact opposite to love them, and this spite of their own natural complexion? And for an instance of this truth, Venus, which in ancient days was the goddess of Beauty, and of all gentle and courteous bearing, being fain, there in the skies and at the Court of Jupiter, to choose her some fair and handsome lover and so make cuckold her worthy husband Vulcan, did set her choice on never a one of the pretty young gallants, those dapper, curled darlings, whereof were so many to hand, but did select and fall deep in love with the god Mars, god of armies and warlike prowess,—and this albeit he was all foul and a-sweat with the wars he had but just come from, and all besmirched with dust and as filthy as might[4] be, more smacking of the soldier in the field than the gallant at Court. Nay! worse still, very oft mayhap all bloody, as returning from battle, he would so lie with her, without any sort of cleansing of himself or scenting of his person.
It has always been true that beautiful and noble women have loved brave and courageous men, even though they’re naturally often cowardly and timid. But these men possess such a virtue in their valor that the women become completely smitten with them. What else is this but forcing their exact opposite to love them, despite their own natural tendencies? To illustrate this truth, Venus, who in ancient times was the goddess of Beauty and all things kind and courteous, wanted to choose a handsome lover in the skies and at the Court of Jupiter to cuckold her worthy husband Vulcan. She didn’t select any of the charming young men, those well-groomed darlings, who were plentiful, but instead chose and fell deeply in love with Mars, the god of war and military might—despite him being all dirty and sweaty from the wars he had just fought, covered in dust and filthy as could be, looking more like a soldier in the field than a courtly gentleman. Worse still, he would often show up all bloodied, returning from battle, and lie with her without bothering to clean himself up or freshen his scent. [4]
Again, the fair and high-born Penthesilea, Queen of the Amazons, having learned of fame concerning the valour and prowess of the doughty Hector, and his wondrous feats of arms which he did before Troy against the Greeks, did at the mere report of all this grow so fondly enamoured of the hero, that being fain to have so valiant a knight for father of her children, her daughters to wit which should succeed to her kingdom, she did hie her forth to seek him at Troy. There beholding him, and contemplating and admiring his puissance, she did all ever she could to find favour with him, not less by the brave deeds of war she wrought than by her beauty, the which was exceeding rare. And never did Hector make sally upon his foes but she would be at his side, and was always as well to the front as Hector himself in the mêlée, wherever the fight was hottest. In such wise that ’tis said she did several times accomplish such deeds of daring and so stir the Trojan’s wonder as that he would stop short as if astonished in the midst of the fiercest combats, and so withdraw somewhat on one side, the better to see and admire this most valiant Queen doing such gallant deeds.
Once again, the beautiful and noble Penthesilea, Queen of the Amazons, heard about the fame of the brave Hector and his incredible feats in battle against the Greeks at Troy. She became so infatuated with him, eager to have such a courageous knight as the father of her future daughters who would inherit her kingdom, that she set off to find him in Troy. There, as she watched him and admired his strength, she did everything she could to win his favor, not just through her beauty, which was exceptionally rare, but also through her own brave acts in battle. Whenever Hector charged into battle, she was right by his side, as fearless as he was in the thick of the fight. It’s said that she performed such remarkable acts of bravery that Hector would sometimes pause in the heat of battle, astonished, just to watch this incredible Queen accomplish such heroic deeds.
Thereafter, we leave the world to suppose what was the issue of their love, and if they did put the same in practise; and truly the result could not long be doubtful. But any way, their pleasure was to be of no great duration for the Queen, the better to delight her lover, did so constantly rush forth to confront all hazards, that she[5] was slain at last in one of the fiercest and fellest encounters. Others however say she did never see Hector at all, but that he was dead before her arrival. So coming on the scene and learning his death, she did thereupon fall into so great grief and such sadness to have lost the goodly sight she had so fondly desired and had come from so far a land to seek, that she did start forth to meet a voluntary death in the bloodiest battles of the war; and so she died, having no further cause to live, now she had failed of beholding the gallant being she had chosen as best of all and had loved the most.[2]
After that, we let the world guess what happened with their love and whether they actually put it into action; and honestly, the outcome couldn't remain uncertain for long. However, their happiness was not meant to last, as the Queen, wanting to please her lover, constantly threw herself into danger, which eventually led to her being killed in one of the fiercest battles. Others, however, claim she never even saw Hector, suggesting he was dead by the time she arrived. So when she came on the scene and found out he had died, she was overcome with such deep sorrow for losing the beautiful sight she had longed for and traveled so far to find that she rushed into the bloodiest battles of the war, seeking a voluntary death; and thus she died, having no reason to live now that she could no longer behold the brave man she had chosen as the best of all and loved the most.[5]
The like was done by Thalestris, another Queen of the Amazons, who did traverse a great country and cover I know not how many leagues for to visit Alexander the Great, and asking it of him as a favour, or as but a fair exchange of courtesy, did lie with him in order that she might have issue by him of so noble and generous a blood, having heard him so high rated of all men. This boon did Alexander very gladly grant her; and verily he must needs have been sore spoiled and sick of women if he had done otherwise, for the said Queen was as beautiful as she was valiant. Quintus Curtius, Orosius and Justin do affirm moreover that she did thus visit Alexander with three hundred ladies in her suite, all bearing arms, and all so fair apparelled and of such a beauteous grace as that naught could surpass the same. So attended, she did make her reverence before the King, who did welcome her with the highest marks of honour. And she did tarry thirteen days and thirteen nights with him, submitting herself in all ways to his good will and pleasure. At the same time she did frankly tell him how that if she had a daughter by him, she would guard her as[6] a most priceless treasure; but an if she had a son, that she would send him back to the King, by reason of the abhorrence she bear to the male sex, in the matter of holding rule and exercising any command among them, in accordance with the laws introduced in their companies after they had slain their husbands.
The same was done by Thalestris, another Queen of the Amazons, who traveled a vast distance and covered I don't know how many leagues to visit Alexander the Great. She asked him as a favor, or simply as a nice exchange of courtesy, to spend the night with him so she could have a child from such noble and generous blood, having heard how highly regarded he was by everyone. Alexander gladly granted this request, and he must have been quite spoiled and exhausted by women if he hadn’t, because the Queen was as beautiful as she was brave. Quintus Curtius, Orosius, and Justin also confirm that she visited Alexander with three hundred ladies, all fully armed, who were dressed so beautifully and with such grace that nothing could surpass it. With such an entourage, she made her respectful greeting to the King, who welcomed her with the highest honors. She stayed with him for thirteen days and thirteen nights, submitting herself in every way to his wishes. At the same time, she candidly told him that if she had a daughter, she would protect her like a priceless treasure; but if she had a son, she would send him back to the King because of her strong dislike for males in positions of power and authority, due to the laws established after they had killed their husbands.
Herein need we have no doubt whatever but that the rest of the ladies and attendant dames did after a like manner, and had themselves covered by the different captains and men of war of the said King Alexander. For they were bound in this matter to follow their mistress’ example.
Here, we can have no doubt that the other ladies and accompanying women did the same thing, getting themselves protected by the various captains and warriors of King Alexander. They were obligated in this matter to follow their mistress’s example.
So too the fair maiden Camilla, at once beautiful and noble-hearted, and one which did serve her mistress Diana right faithfully in the woodlands and forests on her hunting parties, having heard the bruit of Turnus’ valiance, and how he had to do with another valiant warrior, to wit Aeneas, which did press him sore, did choose her side. Then did she seek out her favourite and join him, but with three very honourable and fair ladies beside for her comrades, the which she had taken for her close friends and trusty confidantes,—and for tribads too mayhap, and for mutual naughtiness. And so did she hold these same in honour and use them on all occasions, as Virgil doth describe in his Æneid. And they were called the one Armia, a virgin and a valiant maid, another Tullia, and the third Tarpeia, which was skilled to wield the pike and dart, and that in two divers fashions, be it understood,—all three being daughters of Italy.[3*]
So too the beautiful and kind-hearted maiden Camilla, who served her mistress Diana faithfully in the woodlands and forests during her hunting trips, after hearing the rumors of Turnus’ bravery and how he was in conflict with another brave warrior, namely Aeneas, who pressed him hard, chose her side. She then sought out her favorite and joined him, accompanied by three very honorable and beautiful ladies, who she had chosen as her close friends and trusted confidantes—and perhaps for more intimate relationships as well. She held them in high regard and utilized them on all occasions, as Virgil describes in his Æneid. Their names were Armia, a virgin and a brave maid; Tullia; and the third, Tarpeia, who was skilled in handling the pike and dart in two different ways, just so it’s clear— all three being daughters of Italy. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
Thus then did Camilla arrive with her beauteous little band (as they say “little and good”) for to seek out Turnus, with whom she did perform sundry excellent feats[7] of arms; and did sally forth so oft and join battle with the doughty Trojans that she was presently slain, to the very sore grief of Turnus, who did regard her most highly, as well for her beauty as for the good succour she brought. In such wise did these fair and courageous dames seek out brave and valiant heroes, succouring the same in their ways and encounters.
Thus, Camilla arrived with her beautiful little group (as they say, “small but mighty”) to find Turnus, with whom she performed various impressive feats in battle. She charged out so often and fought courageously against the brave Trojans that she was ultimately killed, causing great sorrow to Turnus, who held her in very high regard for both her beauty and the valuable support she provided. In this way, these strong and fearless women sought out brave and valiant heroes, helping them in their quests and battles.
What else was it did fill the breast of poor Dido with the flame of so ardent a love, what but the valiance she did feel to be in her Aeneas,—if we are to credit Virgil? For she had begged him to tell her of his wars, and the ruin and destruction of Troy, and he had gratified her wish,—albeit to his own great grief, to renew the memory of such sorrows, and in his discourse had dwelt by the way on his own valiant achievements. And Dido having well marked all these and pondered them in her breast, and presently declaring of her love to her sister Anna, the chiefest and most pregnant of the words she said to her were these and no other: “Ah! sister mine, what a guest is this which hath come to my Court! Oh! the noble way he hath with him, and how his very carriage doth announce him a brave and most valiant warrior, in deed and in spirit! I do firmly believe him to be the offspring of some race of gods; for churlish hearts are ever cowardly of their very nature.” Such were Dido’s words; and I think she did come to love him so, quite as much because she was herself brave and generous-hearted, and that her instinct did push her to love her fellow, as to win help and service of him in case of need. But the wretch did deceive and desert her in pitiful wise,—an ill deed he should never have done to so honourable a lady, which had given him[8] her heart and her love, to him, I say, that was but a stranger and an outlaw.
What else could have filled poor Dido’s heart with such intense love, if not the courage she saw in Aeneas—if we’re to believe Virgil? She had asked him to share stories of his battles, the destruction of Troy, and he obliged her—though it caused him great sorrow to revisit those memories, and in doing so, he talked about his own heroic deeds. Dido took note of everything he said and reflected on it, soon revealing her feelings to her sister Anna. Among the most significant things she said were these: “Oh, sister, what a guest we have in my palace! Just look at how noble he is, and the way he carries himself shows he is a brave and valiant warrior, both in action and spirit! I truly believe he must be the descendant of some godly lineage; for selfish hearts are naturally cowardly.” Those were Dido’s words; and I believe she fell for him, partly because she was brave and kind herself, and her instincts pushed her to love someone like him, in hopes of gaining his help if needed. But the scoundrel betrayed and abandoned her in a heartbreaking way—an unforgivable act he should never have committed against such an honorable woman, who had given him her heart and love, especially considering he was just a stranger and an outlaw.
Boccaccio in his book of Famous Folk which have been Unfortunate,[4] doth tell a tale of a certain Duchess of Forli, named Romilda, who having lost husband and lands and goods, all which Caucan, King of the Avarese, had robbed her of, was constrained to take refuge with her children in her castle of Forli, and was therein besieged by him. But one day when he did approach near the walls to make a reconnaissance, Romilda who was on the top of a tower, saw him and did long and carefully observe him. Then seeing him so handsome, being in the flower of his age, mounted on a fine horse and clad in a magnificent suit of mail, and knowing how he was used to do many doughty deeds of war, and that he did never spare himself any more than the least of his soldiers, she did incontinently fall deeply enamoured of the man, and quitting to mourn for her husband and all care for her castle and the siege thereof, did send him word by a messenger that, if he would have her in marriage, she would yield him up the place on the day their wedding should be celebrated.
Boccaccio, in his book Famous Folk Who Have Been Unlucky,__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ tells a story about a Duchess of Forli named Romilda. After losing her husband, lands, and possessions—all of which were stolen by Caucan, the King of the Avarese—she was forced to take refuge with her children in her castle in Forli, which he besieged. One day, when he came close to the walls to scout, Romilda, who was on top of a tower, spotted him and carefully observed him for a while. Seeing how handsome he was, in the prime of his youth, riding a magnificent horse and wearing impressive armor, and knowing about his courageous feats in battle, she quickly fell deeply in love with him. Forgetting her grief for her husband and disregarding her worries about the castle and the siege, she sent a messenger to him, saying that if he wanted to marry her, she would surrender the castle on the day of their wedding.
King Caucan took her at her word. Accordingly the day agreed upon being come, lo! she doth deck herself most stately as a duchess should in her finest and most magnificent attire, which did make her yet fairer still to look on, exceeding fair as she was by nature. So having come to the King’s camp for to consummate the marriage, this last, to the end he might not be blamed as not having kept his word, did spend all that night in satisfying the enamoured duchess’s desires. But the next morning, on rising, he did have a dozen Averese soldiers of his called,[9] such as he deemed to be the strongest and most stalwart fellows, and gave Romilda into their hands, to take their pleasure of her one after other. These did have her for all a night long so oft as ever they could. But then, when day was come again, Caucan having summoned her before him, and after sternly upbraiding her for her wantonness and heaping many insults upon her, did have her impaled through her belly, of which cruel treatment she did presently die. Truly a savage and barbarous act, so to mishandle a fair and honourable lady, instead of displaying gratitude, rewarding her and treating her with all possible courtesy, for the good opinion she had showed of his generosity, valour and noble courage, and her love for him therefor! And of this must fair ladies sometimes have good heed; for of these valiant men of war there be some which have so grown accustomed to killing and slashing and savagely plying the steel, that now and again it doth take their humour to exercise the like barbarity on women. Yet are not all of this complexion, but rather, when honourable ladies do them this honour to love them and hold their valour in high esteem, they do leave behind in camp their fury and fierce passions, and in court and ladies’ chambers do fit themselves to the practise of all gentleness and kindness and fair courtesy.
King Caucan took her at her word. When the agreed day arrived, she dressed herself up like a duchess in her finest and most impressive outfit, making her even more beautiful than she already was by nature. So, when she arrived at the King’s camp to complete the marriage, he, wanting to avoid any blame for breaking his promise, spent the whole night fulfilling the desires of the lovestruck duchess. But the next morning, after waking up, he called for a dozen of his strongest soldiers and handed Romilda over to them, allowing them to take advantage of her one after the other. They had her for the entire night as often as they could. Then, when day broke again, Caucan summoned her before him, harshly scolding her for her promiscuity and hurling insults at her, and he had her impaled through her belly, which caused her to die immediately from the cruel treatment. Truly, it was a savage and barbaric act to mistreat a beautiful and honorable lady instead of showing gratitude and treating her with courtesy for her good opinion of his generosity, bravery, and noble courage, along with her love for him! Fair ladies should take note of this, for some of these valiant warriors have become so accustomed to killing and violence that they occasionally unleash the same brutality on women. However, not all are like this; when honorable ladies choose to love them and hold their valor in high regard, they often leave their fury and fierce passions behind in camp and choose to practice gentleness, kindness, and courtesy in court and ladies’ chambers.
Bandello in his Tragic Histories[5] doth relate one, the finest story I have ever read, of a certain Duchess of Savoy, who one day coming forth from her good town of Turin, did hear a Spanish woman, a pilgrim on her road to Loretto to perform a vow, cry out and admire her beauty and loudly declare, how that if only so fair and perfect a lady were wedded to her brother, the Señor de Mendoza, which was himself so handsome, brave and valiant, folk[10] might well say in all lands that now the finest and handsomest couple in all the world were mated together. The Duchess who did very well understand the Spanish tongue, having graven these words in her breast and pondered them over in her heart, did anon begin to grave love in the same place likewise. In such wise that by this report of his merits she did fall so passionately in love with the Señor de Mendoza as that she did never slacken till she had planned a pretended pilgrimage to St. James of Compostella, for to see the man for whom she had so suddenly been smit with love. So having journeyed to Spain, and taken the road passing by the house of de Mendoza, she had time and leisure to content and satisfy her eyes with a good sight of the fair object she had chosen. For the Señor de Mendoza’s sister, which was in the Duchess’ train, had advised her brother of so distinguished and fair a visitor’s coming. Wherefore he did not fail to go forth to meet her in gallant array, and mounted on a noble Spanish horse, and this with so fine a grace as that the Duchess could not but be assured of the truth of the fair report which had been given her, and did admire him greatly, as well for his handsome person as for his noble carriage, which did plainly manifest the valiance that was in him. This she did esteem even more highly than all his other merits, accomplishments and perfections, presaging even at that date how she would one day mayhap have need of his valour,—as truly in after times he did excellently serve her under the false accusation which Count Pancalier brought against her chastity. Natheless, though she did find him brave and courageous as a man of arms, yet for the nonce was he a recreant in love; for he did show himself so cold and respectful toward her as to try never an[11] assault of amorous words, the very thing she did most desire, and for which she had undertook her journey. Wherefore, in sore despite at so chilling a respect, or to speak plainly such recreancy in love, she did part from him on the morrow, not near so well content as she had come.
Bandello in his Tragic Histories[5] tells the finest story I've ever read about a certain Duchess of Savoy. One day, when she was leaving her beloved town of Turin, she heard a Spanish woman, a pilgrim on her way to Loreto to fulfill a vow, exclaim and admire her beauty. The woman loudly declared that if such a fair and perfect lady were married to her brother, Señor de Mendoza, who was himself handsome, brave, and valiant, people might say that the most beautiful couple in the world was united. The Duchess, who understood Spanish well, took these words to heart and began to fall in love with Señor de Mendoza. So much so that she soon planned a fake pilgrimage to St. James of Compostela in order to see the man for whom she had suddenly developed feelings. After journeying to Spain and passing by the house of de Mendoza, she had the opportunity to behold the handsome object of her affection. Señor de Mendoza’s sister, who was in the Duchess's company, had informed her brother about the distinguished visitor. Therefore, he came out to meet her dressed gallantly and riding a fine Spanish horse, presenting himself so gracefully that the Duchess was convinced of the truth of the praises she'd heard, and admired him greatly for both his good looks and noble demeanor, which clearly showcased his bravery. She valued this even more than all his other qualities, anticipating that one day she might need his valor—just as he later proved himself when he defended her against the false accusations made by Count Pancalier regarding her honor. However, despite recognizing him as brave and courageous, he was timid in matters of love; he remained so cold and respectful towards her that he made no attempt at romantic words—the very thing she desired most and for which she had embarked on her journey. So, feeling frustrated by such chilling respect, or to speak plainly, his cowardice in love, she parted from him the next day, feeling far less satisfied than when she had arrived.
Thus we see how true ’tis that ladies do sometimes love men no less which are bold in love than they which be brave in arms,—not that they would have them brazen and over-bold, impudent and self-satisfied, as I have known some to be. But in this matter must they keep ever the via media.
Thus we see how true it is that women sometimes love men who are bold in love just as much as those who are brave in battle—not that they want them to be shameless and overly confident, as I have seen some be. But in this matter, they must always maintain the via media.
I have known not a few which have lost many a good fortune with women by reason of such over-respectfulness, whereof I could tell some excellent stories, were I not afeared of wandering too far from the proper subject of my Discourse. But I hope to give them in a separate place; so I will only tell the following one here.
I have known quite a few who have lost great opportunities with women because of their excessive respectfulness. I could share some really interesting stories about this, but I’m afraid of getting too far off topic in my discussion. I plan to tell those stories elsewhere, so I'll just share this one here.
I have heard tell in former days of a lady, and one of the fairest in all the world, who having in the like fashion heard a certain Prince given out by repute for brave and valiant, and that he had already in his young days done and performed great exploits of war, and in especial won two great and signal victories against his foes,[6] did conceive a strong desire to see him; and to this end did make a journey to the province wherein he was then tarrying, under some pretext or other that I need not name. Well! at last she did set forth; and presently,—for what is not possible to a brave and loving heart?—she doth gain sight of him and can contemplate him at her ease, for he did come out a long distance to meet her, and doth now receive her with all possible honour and respect, as was[12] meet for so great, fair and noble-hearted a Princess. Nay! the respect was e’en too great, some do say; for the same thing happened as with the Señor de Mendoza and the Duchess of Savoy, and such excessive respectfulness did but engender the like despite and dissatisfaction. At any rate she did part from him by no means so well satisfied as she had come. It may well be he would but have wasted his time without her yielding one whit to his wishes; but at the least the attempt would not have been ill, but rather becoming to a gallant man, and folk would have esteemed him the better therefor.
I’ve heard about a lady from long ago, one of the most beautiful in the world, who, upon hearing rumors about a certain Prince known for his bravery and valor—who had already achieved great military feats at a young age, especially winning two significant victories against his enemies—developed a strong desire to meet him. To this end, she traveled to the province where he was staying, under some pretext I need not mention. Finally, she set out; and soon enough, because what is impossible for a brave and loving heart?—she caught sight of him and was able to observe him comfortably, as he came a long way to greet her, honoring and respecting her as was fitting for such a great, beautiful, and noble-hearted Princess. However, some say the respect was even **too** much; it was similar to what happened with Señor de Mendoza and the Duchess of Savoy, where excessive respect only created disdain and dissatisfaction. In any case, she parted from him not as satisfied as she had hoped. It's possible he would have just wasted his time without her giving any consideration to his desires; still, the attempt wouldn’t have been bad, but rather appropriate for a gallant man, and people would have thought better of him for it.
Why! what is the use of a bold and generous spirit, if it show not itself in all things, as well in love as in war? For love and arms be comrades, and do go side by side with a single heart, as saith the Latin poet: “Every lover is a man of war, and Cupid hath his camp and arms no less than Mars.” Ronsard hath writ a fine sonnet hereanent in the first book of his “Amours.”[7*]
Why bother having a bold and generous spirit if it doesn’t show up in everything, in love as well as in battle? Love and war are companions that go hand in hand with a united heart, as the Latin poet says: “Every lover is a warrior, and Cupid has his camp and weapons just like Mars.” Ronsard wrote a beautiful sonnet about this in the first book of his “Loves.” __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
2.
2.

However to return to the fainness women do display to see and love great-hearted and valiant men,—I have heard it told of the Queen of England, Elizabeth, the same which is yet reigning at this hour, how that one day being at table, entertaining at supper the Grand Prior of France, a nobleman of the house of Lorraine, and M. d’Anville, now M. de Montmorency and Constable of France, the table discourse having fallen among divers other matters on the merits of the late King Henri II. of France, she did commend that Prince most highly, for that he was[13] so brave, and to use her own word so martial a monarch, as he had manifested plainly in all his doings. For which cause she had resolved, an if he had not died so early, to go visit him in his Kingdom, and had actually had her galleys prepared and made ready for to cross over into France, and so the twain clasp hands and pledge their faith and peaceable intent. “In fact ’twas one of my strongest wishes to see this hero. I scarce think he would have refused me, for,” she did declare, “my humour is to love men of courage. And I do sore begrudge death his having snatched away so gallant a King, at any rate before I had looked on his face.”
However, to get back to the fondness women have for seeing and loving great-hearted and brave men—I've heard a story about Queen Elizabeth of England, who is still reigning at this time. One day, while at dinner with the Grand Prior of France, a noble from the house of Lorraine, and M. d’Anville, who is now M. de Montmorency and the Constable of France, the conversation turned to various topics, including the qualities of the late King Henri II of France. She praised that prince very highly for being so brave and, in her own words, such a martial monarch, which he clearly showed in all his actions. For this reason, she had decided, if he hadn't died so young, to visit him in his kingdom. She even had her ships prepared and ready to cross over into France so they could shake hands and pledge their faith and peaceful intentions. “In fact, it was one of my greatest wishes to see this hero. I hardly think he would have turned me down because,” she stated, “I have a thing for courageous men. And I really resent death for taking away such a gallant king, especially before I could see his face.”
This same Queen, some while after, having heard great renown of the Duc de Nemours for the high qualities and valour that were in him, was most eager to enquire news of him from the late deceased M. de Rendan[8] at the time when King Francis II did send him to Scotland to conclude a peace under the walls of Leith,[8] which was then besieged by the English. And so soon as he had told the Queen at length all the particulars of that nobleman’s high and noble deeds and merits and points of gallantry, M. de Rendan, who was no less understanding in matters of love than of arms, did note in her and in her countenance a certain sparkle of love or at the least liking, as well as in her words a very strong desire to see him. Wherefore, fain not to stay her in so excellent a path, he did what he could to find out from her whether, if the Duke should come to see her, he would be welcome and well received. She did assure him this would certainly be so, from which he did conclude they might very well come to be wed.
This same Queen, some time later, having heard a lot about the Duc de Nemours and his impressive qualities and bravery, was very eager to ask the recently deceased M. de Rendan for news about him when King Francis II sent him to Scotland to negotiate a peace deal near the walls of Leith, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ which was then under siege by the English. As soon as he told the Queen all the details of that nobleman's great deeds, merits, and acts of bravery, M. de Rendan, who was just as knowledgeable about love as he was about warfare, noticed a certain spark of affection, or at least fondness, in her expression, as well as a strong desire in her words to meet him. Therefore, wanting to encourage her feelings, he tried to find out from her whether the Duke would be welcome and received well if he came to see her. She assured him that he certainly would be, leading him to conclude that they could very well end up getting married.
Presently being returned to the Court of France from[14] off his embassy, he did report all the discourse to the King and M. de Nemours. Whereupon the former did command and urge M. de Nemours to agree to the thing. This he did with very great alacrity, if he could come into so fine a Kingdom[9*] by the means of so fair, so virtuous and noble a Queen.
Currently, as he was returning to the Court of France from his mission, he reported all the discussions to the King and Mr. de Nemours. In response, the King urged Mr. de Nemours to agree to the proposal. He was very eager to comply if it meant he could enter such a beautiful Kingdom by the grace of such a fair, virtuous, and noble Queen.
As a result the irons were soon in the fire. With the good means the King did put in his hands, the Duke did presently make very great and magnificent preparations and equipments, both of raiment, horses and arms, and in fact of all costly and beautiful things, without omitting aught needful (for myself did see all this) to go and appear before this fair Princess, above all forgetting not to carry thither with him all the flower of the young nobility of the Court. Indeed Greffier, the Court fool, remarking thereupon did say ’twas wondrous how all the gay pease blossom of the land was going overseas, pointing by this his jape at the wild young bloods of the French Court.
As a result, plans were quickly underway. With the resources the King provided, the Duke immediately made grand and lavish preparations, including clothing, horses, arms, and indeed all sorts of expensive and beautiful items, making sure to include everything necessary (since I saw it all myself) to present himself before this lovely Princess. He also made sure to bring along all the finest young nobles from the Court. In fact, Greffier, the Court fool, noted how astonishing it was that all the fashionable young people from the land were heading overseas, using this joke to refer to the wild young elites of the French Court.
Meantime M. de Lignerolles, a gentleman of much adroitness and skill, and at that time an high favourite with M. de Nemours, his master, was despatched to the said fair Princess, and anon returned bearing a most gentle answer and one very meet to content him, and cause him to press on and further hasten his journey. And I remember me the marriage was held at Court to be as good as made. Yet did we observe how all of a sudden the voyage in question was broke off short and never made, and this in spite of a very great expenditure thereon, now all vain and useless.
Meanwhile, Mr. de Lignerolles, a gentleman with great skill and charm, who was then a favorite of Mr. de Nemours, his master, was sent to the lovely Princess. He soon returned with a very kind response that pleased him and encouraged him to continue and speed up his journey. I remember that the marriage was practically arranged at Court. Yet, we noticed how suddenly the trip was called off and never happened, despite a significant amount of money spent on it, which now seemed completely wasted.
Myself could say as well as any man in France what ’twas did lead to this rupture; yet will I remark thus much only in passing:—It may well be other loves did[15] more move his heart, and held him more firm a captive. For truly he was so accomplished in all ways and so skilful in arms and all good exercises, as that ladies did vie with each other in running after him. So I have seen some of the most high-spirited and virtuous women which were ready enough to break their fast of chastity for him.
I could say as well as anyone in France what led to this breakup, but I’ll just mention this in passing: other loves might have touched his heart more and kept him captive longer. He was truly skilled in every way and an expert in combat and all good activities, so much so that women competed with each other to chase after him. I’ve seen some of the most spirited and virtuous women who were more than willing to lose their chastity for him.
We have, in the Cent Nouvelles of Queen Marguerite of Navarre, a very excellent tale of that lady of Milan,[10*] which having given assignation to the late M. de Bonnivet, since that day Admiral of France, one night, did charge her chamber-women to stand with drawn swords in hand and to make a disturbance on the steps, just as he should be ready to go to bed. This they did to great effect, following therein their mistress’ orders, which for her part did feign to be terrified and sore afraid, crying out ’twas her husband’s brothers which had noted something amiss, and that she was undone, and that he should hide under the bed or behind the arras. But M. de Bonnivet, without the least panic, taking his cloak round the one arm and his sword in the other hand, said only: “Well, well! where be they, these doughty brothers, which would fright me or do me hurt? Soon as they shall see me, they will not so much as dare look at the point of my sword.” So saying, he did throw open the door and sally forth, but as he was for charging down the steps, lo! he did find only the women and their silly noise, which were sore scared at sight of him and began to scream and confess the whole truth. M. de Bonnivet, seeing what was toward, did straight leave the jades, commending them to the devil, and hying him back to the bedchamber, shutteth to the door behind him. Thus did he betake him to his lady once more, which did then fall a-laughing and[16] a-kissing of him, confessing how ’twas naught but a trick of her contriving, and declaring, an if he had played the poltroon and had not shown his valiance, whereof he had the repute, that he should never have lain with her. But seeing he had proved him so bold and confident of heart, she did therefore kiss him and frankly welcome him to her bed. And all night long ’twere better not to enquire too close what they did; for indeed she was one of the fairest women in all Milan, and one with whom he had had much pains to win her over.
We have, in the Cent Nouvelles of Queen Marguerite of Navarre, a great story about a lady from Milan, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ who, having arranged a meeting with the late M. de Bonnivet, who later became Admiral of France, instructed her maids one night to stand ready with drawn swords and create a commotion on the stairs just as he was about to go to bed. They executed her orders effectively, while she pretended to be terrified and scared, shouting that it was her husband's brothers who noticed something was wrong and that she was doomed, urging him to hide under the bed or behind the tapestry. However, M. de Bonnivet, without a hint of fear, wrapped his cloak around one arm and took his sword in the other hand, simply replied, “Well, well! Where are these brave brothers who think they can scare me or harm me? Once they see me, they won’t even dare to look at the tip of my sword.” Saying this, he threw open the door and stepped out, but as he was about to charge down the stairs, he found only the women, who were scared silly at the sight of him and began to scream and confess the whole truth. M. de Bonnivet, realizing what was happening, left the women behind, cursing them, and hurried back to the bedroom, shutting the door behind him. He then turned to his lady, who began to laugh and kiss him, admitting it was all just a trick she had planned. She declared that if he had acted cowardly and not shown the bravery he was known for, he would never have slept with her. But since he had proven himself so bold and confident, she welcomed him to her bed with kisses. And all night long, it’s better not to ask too closely what they were doing; for she was indeed one of the fairest women in all of Milan, and he had put in a lot of effort to win her over.
I once knew a gallant gentleman, who one day being at Rome to bed with a pretty Roman lady, in her husband’s absence, was alarmed in like wise; for she did cause one of her waiting women to come in hot haste to warn him the husband was hunting round. The lady, pretending sore amazement, did beseech the gentleman to hide in a closet, else she was undone. “No, no!” my friend made answer, “I would not do that for all the world; but an if he come, why! I will kill him.” With this he did spring to grasp his sword; but the lady only fell a-laughing, and did confess how she had arranged it all of set purpose to prove him, to see what he would do, if her husband did threat him with hurt, and whether he would make a good defence of his mistress.
I once knew a brave gentleman who, while in Rome, spent the night with a lovely Roman lady in her husband's absence. He was suddenly alarmed when she sent one of her maids in a rush to warn him that her husband was out hunting nearby. The lady, pretending to be very distressed, begged the gentleman to hide in a closet, or she would be ruined. “No, no!” my friend replied, “I wouldn’t do that for anything; but if he comes, I’ll kill him!” With that, he jumped up to grab his sword, but the lady just burst out laughing and admitted that she had planned the whole thing on purpose to test him, to see what he would do if her husband threatened him and whether he would defend his mistress well.
I likewise knew a very fair lady, who did quit outright a lover she had, because she deemed him a coward; and did change him for another, which did in no way resemble him, but was feared and dreaded exceedingly for his powers of fence, being one of the best swordsmen to be found in those days.
I also knew a very beautiful woman who completely rejected a man she loved because she thought he was a coward. She replaced him with another man who was nothing like him, but was greatly feared for his fencing skills, being one of the best swordsmen of that time.
I have heard a tale told at Court by the old gossips, of a lady which was at Court, mistress of the late M. de[17] Lorge,[11] that good soldier and in his younger days one of the bravest and most renowned captains of foot men of his time. She having heard so much praise given to his valour, was fain, one day that King Francis the First was showing a fight of lions at his Court, to prove him whether he was so brave as folk made out. Wherefore she did drop one of her gloves in the lions’ den, whenas they were at their fiercest; and with that did pray M. de Lorge to go get it for her, an if his love of her were as great as he was forever saying. He without any show of surprise, doth take his cloak on fist and his sword in the other hand, and so boldly forth among the lions for to recover the glove. In this emprise was fortune so favourable to him, that seeing he did all through show a good front and kept the point of his sword boldly presented to the lions, these did not dare attack him. So after picking up the glove, he did return toward his mistress and gave it back to her; for the which she and all the company there present did esteem him very highly. But ’tis said that out of sheer despite at such treatment, M. de Lorge did quit her for ever, forasmuch as she had thought good to make her pastime of him and his valiance in this fashion. Nay! more, they say he did throw the glove in her face, out of mere despite; for he had rather an hundred times she had bid him go break up a whole battalion of foot soldiery, a matter he was duly trained to undertake, than thus to fight beasts, a contest where glory is scarce to be gained. At any rate suchlike trials of men’s courage be neither good nor honourable, and they that do provoke the same are much to be blamed.
I’ve heard a story told at Court by the old gossipers about a lady who was at Court, the mistress of the late M. de[17] Lorge,__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, a good soldier and one of the bravest and most famous infantry captains of his time when he was younger. She had heard so much praise for his bravery that one day, when King Francis the First was showcasing a lion fight at his Court, she wanted to test if he was as brave as people claimed. So, she dropped one of her gloves in the lion's den while they were at their most aggressive and asked M. de Lorge to retrieve it for her, if his love for her was as great as he always said. Without a sign of surprise, he took his cloak in one hand and his sword in the other, and boldly stepped out among the lions to get the glove. Fortune favored him in this venture, as he maintained a strong stance and kept his sword pointed at the lions, which made them hesitate to attack. After picking up the glove, he returned to his mistress and handed it back to her, earning high regard from her and all those present. However, it is said that out of sheer spite from her treatment of him, M. de Lorge left her for good because she had thought it amusing to toy with him and his bravery in this way. Furthermore, they say he threw the glove in her face out of pure anger because he would have preferred she had asked him to break up an entire battalion of soldiers, a task he was trained for, rather than engage in such a ridiculous fight with beasts, where glory is hard to achieve. In any case, such tests of a man's courage are neither good nor honorable, and those who provoke them are to be greatly criticized.
I like as little another trick which a certain lady did play her lover. For when he was offering her his service,[18] assuring her there was never a thing, be it as perilous as it might, he would not do for her, she taking him at his word, did reply, “Well! an if you love me so much, and be as courageous as you say, stab yourself with your dagger in the arm for the love of me.” The other, who was dying for love of her, did straight draw his weapon, ready to give himself the blow. However I did hold his arm and took the dagger from him, remonstrating and saying he would be a great fool to go about it in any such fashion to prove his love and courage. I will not name the lady; but the gentleman concerned was the late deceased M. de Clermont-Tallard the elder,[12*] which fell at the battle of Montcontour, one of the bravest and most valiant gentlemen of France, as he did show by his death, when in command of a company of men-at-arms,—a man I did love and honour greatly.
I like another trick that a certain lady played on her lover. When he was offering her his services, assuring her that there was nothing too dangerous for him to do for her, she took him at his word and replied, “Well! If you love me this much and are as brave as you say, stab yourself in the arm with your dagger for my sake.” The guy, who was madly in love with her, immediately drew his weapon, ready to hurt himself. However, I held his arm and took the dagger away from him, arguing that he would be quite foolish to try to prove his love and bravery that way. I won't name the lady, but the gentleman involved was the late M. de Clermont-Tallard the elder, who fell at the battle of Montcontour, one of the bravest and most valiant gentlemen in France, as demonstrated by his death while commanding a company of men-at-arms—a man I deeply loved and respected.
I have heard say a like thing did once happen to the late M. de Genlis, the same which fell in Germany, leading the Huguenot troops in the third of our wars of Religion. For crossing the Seine one day in front of the Louvre with his mistress, she did let fall her handkerchief, which was a rich and beautiful one, into the water on purpose, and told him to leap into the river to recover the same. He, knowing not how to swim but like a stone, was fain to be excused; but she upbraiding him and saying he was a recreant lover, and no brave man, without a word more he did throw himself headlong into the stream, and thinking to get the handkerchief, would assuredly have been drowned, had he not been promptly rescued by a boat.
I've heard that something similar happened to the late M. de Genlis, during the time he led the Huguenot troops in the third of our wars of Religion in Germany. One day, while he was crossing the Seine in front of the Louvre with his mistress, she purposefully dropped her rich and beautiful handkerchief into the water, telling him to jump in to get it. Not knowing how to swim, he was reluctant to do so, but she criticized him, calling him a coward and saying he wasn't a brave man. Without another word, he jumped into the river, thinking he could retrieve the handkerchief, but he would have certainly drowned if he hadn't been quickly rescued by a boat.
Myself believe that suchlike women, by such trials, do desire in this wise gracefully to be rid of their lovers, which mayhap do weary them. ’Twere much better did[19] they give them good favours once for all and pray them, for the love they bear them, to carry these forth to honourable and perilous places in the wars, and so prove their valour. Thus would they push them on to greater prowess, rather than make them perform the follies I have just spoke of, and of which I could recount an infinity of instances.
I believe that such women, through these experiences, want to gracefully get rid of their lovers, who may be wearing them out. It would be much better if they offered them their support once and for all and asked them, because of the love they have for them, to go forth to honorable and dangerous places in war to prove their courage. This way, they would inspire them to achieve greater feats, instead of making them do the foolish things I've just mentioned and of which I could share countless examples.
This doth remind me, how that, whenas we were advancing to lay siege to Rouen in the first war of Religion, Mademoiselle de Piennes,[13*] one of the honourable damsels of the Court, being in doubt as to whether the late M. de Gergeay was valiant enough to have killed, himself alone and man to man, the late deceased Baron d’Ingrande, which was one of the most valiant gentlemen of the Court, did for to prove his valiance, give him a favour,—a scarf which he did affix to his head harness. Then, on occasion of the making a reconnaissance of the Fort of St. Catherine, he did charge so boldly and valiantly on a troop of horse which had sallied forth of the city, that bravely fighting he did receive a pistol shot in the head, whereof he did fall stark dead on the spot. In this wise was the said damsel fully satisfied of his valour, and had he not been thus killed, seeing he had fought so well, she would have wedded him; but doubting somewhat his courage, and deeming he had slain the aforesaid Baron unfairly, for so she did suspect, she was fain, as she said, to make this visible trial of him. And verily, although there be many men naturally courageous, yet do the ladies push the same on to greater prowess; while if they be cold and cowardly, they do move them to some gallantry and warm them up to some show of fight.
This reminds me of when we were preparing to lay siege to Rouen during the first war of Religion. Mademoiselle de Piennes, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, one of the distinguished ladies of the Court, was unsure whether the late M. de Gergeay was brave enough to have killed the late Baron d’Ingrande, one of the most valiant gentlemen of the Court, all by himself. To test his bravery, she gave him a favor—a scarf that he tied to his helmet. Later, during a reconnaissance of the Fort of St. Catherine, he charged fearlessly at a group of soldiers that had come out of the city, fighting valiantly before getting shot in the head, which killed him on the spot. This proved to the lady that he was indeed brave, and had he not died, she would have married him since he had fought so well. However, she questioned his courage and suspected he had unfairly killed the Baron, so she felt it was necessary to put him to this test. Indeed, while many men are naturally brave, women tend to inspire them to greater feats; if they are timid, women can encourage them towards heroism and motivate them to show some courage.
We have an excellent example hereof in the beautiful[20] Agnes Sorel,[14] who seeing the King of France Charles VII.[14] deep in love with her, and recking of naught but to pleasure her, and slack and cowardly take no heed for his kingdom, did say to him one day, how that when she was a child, an astrologer had predicted she would be loved and served of one of the most valiant and courageous kings of Christendom. Accordingly, whenas the King did her the honour to love her, she did think he was the valorous monarch which had been predicted for her; but seeing him so slack, with so little care of his proper business, she did plainly perceive she was deceived in this, and that the courageous King intended was not he at all, but the King of England,[14] which did perform such fine feats of war, and did take so many of his fairest cities from under his very nose. “Wherefore,” she said to her lover, “I am away to find him, for of a surety ’tis he the astrologer did intend.” These words did so sorely prick the King’s heart, as that he fell a-weeping; and thenceforward, plucking up spirit and quitting his hunting and his gardens, he did take the bit in his teeth,—and this to such good effect that by dint of good hap and his own valiance he did drive the English forth of his Kingdom altogether.
We have a great example of this in the beautiful[20] Agnes Sorel,[14] who, seeing that King Charles VII of France was deeply in love with her and cared for nothing but pleasing her, was neglectful and cowardly regarding his kingdom. One day, she told him that when she was a child, an astrologer had predicted she would be loved and served by one of the most valiant and courageous kings in Christendom. So, when the King honored her with his love, she initially thought he was the brave monarch the astrologer had predicted for her. However, noticing his lack of ambition and care for his own affairs, she realized she had been mistaken and that the courageous King meant was not him at all, but the King of England,[14] who achieved great military feats and took many of his finest cities right from under his nose. “So,” she said to her lover, “I am going to find him, because I am sure he is the one the astrologer was talking about.” These words pierced the King’s heart so deeply that he began to weep; and from that point on, he gathered his courage, abandoning his hunting and gardens, and took charge of his kingdom. This led to such success that, through a combination of good fortune and his own bravery, he drove the English out of his Kingdom completely.
Bertrand du Guesclin[14] having wedded his wife Madame Tiphaine, did set himself all to pleasure her and so did neglect the management of the War, he who had been so forward therein afore, and had won him such praise and glory. But she did upbraid him with this remonstrance, how that before their marriage folk did speak of naught but him and his gallant deeds, but henceforth she might well be reproached for the discontinuance of her husband’s fair deeds and good repute. This she said was a[21] very great disgrace to her and him, that he had now grown such a stay-at-home; and did never cease her chiding, till she had roused in him his erstwhile spirit, and sent him back to the wars, where he did even doughtier deeds than aforetime.
Bertrand du Guesclin__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ married his wife, Madame Tiphaine, and dedicated himself to making her happy, which led him to neglect his responsibilities in the war, where he had previously been so active and earned great praise and glory. However, she criticized him, reminding him that before their marriage, people talked only about him and his brave actions, but now she would be blamed for the decline of her husband’s accomplishments and reputation. She argued that it was a huge embarrassment for both of them that he had become such a homebody. She continued to scold him until she reignited his former spirit and sent him back to battle, where he performed even braver deeds than before.
Thus do we see how this honourable lady did not love so much her night’s pleasures as she did value the honour of her husband. And of a surety our wives themselves, though they do find us near by their side, yet an if we be not brave and valiant, will never really love us nor keep us by them of good and willing heart; whereas when we be returned from the wars and have done some fine and noble exploit, then they do verily and indeed love us and embrace of right good will, and themselves find the enjoyment most precious.
Thus we see how this honorable lady didn't love her nighttime pleasures as much as she valued her husband's honor. Surely our wives, even when we're close by their side, will never truly love us or keep us with them wholeheartedly if we're not brave and valiant. However, when we return from battle and have achieved something great and noble, then they truly love us and embrace us willingly, finding that experience incredibly precious.
The fourth daughter of the Comte de Provence,[15*] father-in-law of St. Louis, and herself wife to Charles, Count of Anjou, brother of the said King, being sore vexed, high-spirited and ambitious Princess as she was, at being but plain Countess of Anjou and Provence, and because she alone of her three sisters, of whom two were Queens and the third Empress, did bear no better title than that my Lady and Countess, did never cease till she had prayed, beseeched and importuned her husband to conquer and get some Kingdom for himself. And they did contrive so well as that they were chose of Pope Urban to be King and Queen of the Two Sicilies; and they did away, the twain of them, to Rome with thirty galleys to be crowned by his Holiness, with all state and splendour, King and Queen of Jerusalem and Naples, which dominion he did win afterward, no less by his victorious arms than by the aid his wife afforded him, selling all her rings and jewels[22] for to provide the expenses of the war. So thereafter did they twain reign long and not unpeaceably in the fine kingdoms they had gotten.
The fourth daughter of the Comte de Provence, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ father-in-law of St. Louis, and herself married to Charles, Count of Anjou, who was the brother of that King, was a very ambitious and spirited princess. She was deeply troubled by the fact that she held the simple title of Countess of Anjou and Provence, while her three sisters held grander titles—two as Queens and one as Empress. Determined to change her status, she constantly urged her husband to conquer a kingdom for himself. Together, they managed to gain the favor of Pope Urban, who appointed them as King and Queen of the Two Sicilies. They went to Rome with thirty galleys to be crowned by him with all the glory and ceremony of King and Queen of Jerusalem and Naples. He later achieved this dominion not only through his victorious campaigns but also thanks to the support of his wife, who sold all her rings and jewels to fund the war expenses. After that, they ruled peacefully for a long time over the beautiful kingdoms they had acquired.
Long years after, one of their grand-daughters, issue of them and theirs, Ysabeau de Lorraine to wit,[16*] without help of her husband René, did carry out a like emprise. For while her husband was prisoner in the hands of Charles, Duke of Burgundy, she being a Princess of a wise prudence and high heart and courage, the Kingdom of Sicily and Naples having meantime fallen to them in due succession, did assemble an army of thirty thousand men. This she did lead forth in person, and so conquer all the Kingdom and take possession of Naples.
Long years later, one of their granddaughters, Ysabeau de Lorraine, who was their descendant, carried out a similar venture without her husband René's assistance. While her husband was held captive by Charles, Duke of Burgundy, she was a princess known for her wisdom, bravery, and courage. With the Kingdoms of Sicily and Naples having come to them through rightful succession, she gathered an army of thirty thousand men. She personally led them and successfully conquered the entire Kingdom, taking control of Naples.
3.
3.

I could name an host of ladies which have in suchlike ways done great and good service to their husbands, and how being high of heart and ambition they have pushed on and encouraged their mates to court fortune, and to win goods and grandeur and much wealth. And truly ’tis the most noble and most honourable fashion of getting of such things, thus at the sword’s point.
I can name a lot of women who have done great and good things for their husbands in similar ways. With their strong spirit and ambition, they have inspired and encouraged their partners to seek success, to achieve greatness, and to acquire wealth. And truly, this is the most noble and honorable way to attain such things, by fighting for them.
I have known many men in this our land of France and at our Courts, which really more by the urging of their wives than by any will of their own, have undertaken and accomplished gallant exploits.
I have known many men in our land of France and at our Courts, who, more because of their wives’ encouragement than their own desire, have taken on and achieved brave feats.
Many women on the other hand have I known, which thinking only of their own good pleasures, have stood in their husbands’ way and kept the same ever by their side, hindering them of doing noble deeds, unwilling to have[23] them find amusement in aught else but in contenting them at the game of Venus, so keen were they after this sport. I could tell many a tale hereof, but I should be going too far astray from my subject, which is a worthier one for sure, seeing it doth handle virtue, than the other, which hath to do with vice. ’Tis more pleasant by far to hear tell of such ladies as have pushed on their men to noble deeds. Nor do I speak solely of married women, but of many others beside, which by dint of one little favour bestowed, have made their lovers to do many a fine thing they had never done else. For what a satisfaction is theirs! what incitement and warming of heart is greater than when at the wars a man doth think how he is well loved of his mistress, and if only he do some fine thing for the love of her, what kind looks and pretty ways, what fair glances, what kissings, delights and joys, he may hope after to receive of her?
I have known many women who, only thinking of their own pleasures, have stood in their husbands’ way and kept them close, preventing them from doing noble things because they didn’t want them to find joy in anything but satisfying them in the game of love; they were so obsessed with this sport. I could share many stories about this, but I would stray too far from my main topic, which is certainly more deserving, as it deals with virtue rather than vice. It’s much more enjoyable to hear about women who have encouraged their partners to achieve great things. And I’m not just talking about married women, but many others who, with just a small token of affection, have inspired their lovers to accomplish amazing feats they would have never attempted otherwise. For what a satisfaction is theirs! What greater motivation and warmth of heart can there be than when a man, at war, thinks about how much his mistress loves him? If he does something brave for her sake, just imagine the kind looks, sweet gestures, loving glances, kisses, delights, and joys he can hope to receive from her!
Scipio amongst other rebukes he did administer to Massinissa, when, all but bloody yet from battle, he did wed Sophonisba, said to him: how that ’twas ill-becoming to think of ladies and the love of ladies, when at the wars. He must pardon me here, an if he will; but for my own part, I ween there is no such great contentment, nor one that giveth more courage and emulation to do nobly than they. I have travelled in that country myself in old days. And not only I, but all such, I do firmly believe, as take the field and fight, do find the same; and to them I make appeal. I am sure they be all of my opinion, be they who they may, and that whenas they are embarked on some good warlike emprise, and presently find themselves in the heat of battle and press of the foe, their heart doth swell within them as they think on their ladies, the[24] favours they do carry of them, and the caresses and gentle welcome they will receive of the same after the war is done, if they but escape,—and if they come to die, the sore grief they will feel for love of them and thought of their end. In a word, for the love of their ladies and fond thoughts of them, all emprises be facile and easy, the sternest fights be but merry tourneys to them, and death itself a triumph.
Scipio, among other criticisms he directed at Massinissa when he had just come from battle and married Sophonisba, told him that it was inappropriate to think about women and love while at war. He must forgive me if he can, but for my part, I believe there’s no greater pleasure or source of courage and ambition to act nobly than women. I’ve traveled in that region myself back in the day. And not just me, but I firmly believe that anyone who goes to war and fights feels the same way; I appeal to them. I’m sure they share my opinion, no matter who they are, and that when they're engaged in a noble military endeavor and find themselves in the heat of battle against the enemy, their hearts swell as they think of their ladies, the tokens they carry from them, and the affection and warm welcome they will receive from them after the war is over, if they make it back. And if they do die, they will feel deep sorrow for their love and the thought of their end. In short, for the love of their ladies and sweet thoughts of them, all endeavors become easy, even the toughest battles feel like joyful tournaments, and death itself becomes a triumph.
I do remember me how at the battle of Dreux the late M. des Bordes,[17*] a brave and gentle knight if ever there was one in his day, being Lieutenant under M. de Nevers, known at the first as the Comte d’Eu, a most excellent Prince and soldier, when he had to charge to break up a battalion of foot which was marching straight on the advanced guard where was the late M. de Guise the Great, and the signal to charge was given, the said Des Bordes, mounted on a grey barb, doth start forward instantly, adorned and garnished with a very fine favour his mistress had given him (I will not name her, but she was one of the fair and honourable damsels and great ladies of the Court), and as he gave rein, he did cry: “Ha! I am away to fight valiantly for the love of my mistress, or to die for her!” And this boast he failed not to fulfil; for after piercing the six first ranks, he fell at the seventh, borne down to earth. Now tell me if this lady had not well used her favour, and if she had aught to reproach her with for having bestowed it on him!
I remember how at the battle of Dreux, the late M. des Bordes, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, a brave and kind knight, was serving as Lieutenant under M. de Nevers, who was initially known as the Comte d’Eu, a truly great Prince and soldier. When it was time to charge and disrupt a battalion of foot soldiers advancing on the front line where the late M. de Guise the Great was positioned, Des Bordes, mounted on a grey horse, instantly surged forward, proudly displaying a beautiful token his mistress had given him (I won't name her, but she was one of the lovely and respected ladies of the Court). As he spurred his horse, he exclaimed, “Ha! I'm off to fight bravely for the love of my mistress, or to die for her!” And he certainly kept that promise; after breaking through the first six ranks, he fell at the seventh, brought down to the ground. Now tell me, did this lady not use her favor well, and does she have anything to regret for choosing to give it to him?
M. de Bussi again was a young soldier which did as great honour to his mistresses’ favours as any man of his time, yea! and the favours of some I know of, which did merit more stricken fields and deeds of daring and good sword thrusts than did ever the fair Angelica of the[25] Paladins and Knights of yore, whether Christian or Saracen. Yet have I heard him often declare that in all the single combats and wars and general rencounters (for he hath fought in many such) where he hath ever been engaged, ’twas not so much for the service of his Prince nor yet for love of success as for the sole honour and glory of contenting his lady love. He was surely right in this, for verily all the success in the world and all its ambitions be little worth in comparison of the love and kindness of a fair and honourable lady and mistress.
M. de Bussi was a young soldier who earned great honor from his mistresses’ affections, just like any man of his time. In fact, some I know deserved even more thrilling battles and courageous acts than the fair Angelica of the[25] Paladins and Knights of the past, whether Christian or Saracen. I’ve often heard him say that in all the duels and wars and major skirmishes (and he fought in many of them), he was motivated not so much by service to his Prince or the desire for victory, but solely for the honor and glory of pleasing his lady love. He was certainly right about this, for truly, all the success in the world and all its ambitions pale in comparison to the love and kindness of a beautiful and honorable lady.
And why else have so many brave Knights errant of the Round Table and so many valorous Paladins of France in olden time undertaken so many wars and far journeyings, and gone forth on such gallant emprises, if not for the love of the fair ladies they did serve or were fain to serve? I do appeal to our Paladins of France, our Rolands, Renauds, Ogiers, our Olivers, Yvons and Richards, and an host of others. And truly ’twas a good time and a lucky; for if they did accomplish some gallant deed for love of their ladies, these same fair ladies, in no wise ingrate, knew well how to reward them, whenas they hied them back to meet them, or mayhap would give them tryst there, in the forests and woodlands, or near some fair fountain or amid the green meadows. And is not this the guerdon of his doughtiness a soldier most doth crave of his lady love?
And why else have so many brave Knights of the Round Table and so many valiant Paladins of France in the past taken on so many wars and long journeys, and gone out on such bold adventures, if not for the love of the beautiful ladies they served or wished to serve? I call upon our Paladins of France, our Rolands, Renauds, Ogiers, our Olivers, Yvons, and Richards, along with many others. And truly, it was a great and fortunate time; for when they achieved some noble deed for the love of their ladies, those same lovely ladies, far from being ungrateful, knew exactly how to reward them when they returned to see them, or perhaps would arrange to meet them in the forests and woodlands, or near some lovely fountain or in the green meadows. And isn’t this the reward that a soldier most desires from his lady love?
Well! it yet remains to ask, why women do so love these men of valiance? First, as I did say at the beginning, valour hath in it a certain force and overmastering power to make itself loved of its opposite. Then beside, there is a kind of natural inclination doth exist, constraining women to love great-heartedness, which to be[26] sure is an hundred times more lovable than cowardice,—even as virtue is alway more to be desired than vice.
Well! It still needs to be asked, why do women love these brave men so much? First, as I mentioned at the beginning, bravery has a certain strength and commanding presence that makes it appealing to its opposite. Additionally, there is a natural tendency that drives women to love greatness of spirit, which is definitely a hundred times more admirable than cowardice—just as virtue is always more desirable than vice.
Some ladies there be which do love men thus gifted with valour, because they imagine that just as they be brave and expert at arms and in the trade of War, they must be the same at that of Love.
Some women out there do love men who are brave because they believe that just as these men are courageous and skilled in battle and warfare, they must also be the same when it comes to love.
And this rule doth hold really good with some. ’Twas fulfilled for instance by Cæsar, that champion of the world, and many another gallant soldier I have known, though I name no names. And such lovers do possess a very different sort of vigour and charm from rustics and folk of any other profession but that of arms, so much so that one push of these same gallants is worth four of ordinary folk. When I say this, I do mean in the eyes of women moderately lustful, not of such as be inordinately so, for the mere number is what pleaseth this latter sort. But if this rule doth hold good sometimes in some of these warlike fellows, and according to the humour of some women, it doth fail in others; for some of these valiant soldiers there be so broken down by the burden of their harness and the heavy tasks of war, that they have no strength left when they have to come to this gentle game of love, in such wise that they cannot content their ladies,—of whom some (and many are of such complexion), had liever have one good workman at Venus’ trade, fresh and ground to a good point, than four of these sons of Mars, thus broken-winged.
And this rule really applies to some people. For example, it was true for Cæsar, the champion of the world, and many other brave soldiers I’ve known, though I won't name names. These lovers have a different kind of strength and charm compared to rustic folks and those in any profession other than arms; in fact, one of these gallants is worth four ordinary people. When I say this, I mean it in the eyes of women who have a moderate amount of desire, not those who are excessively so, as the latter are pleased by sheer numbers. However, while this rule sometimes holds for some of these warriors and depending on the mood of certain women, it doesn't apply to others; some of these brave soldiers are so worn down by the weight of their armor and the heavy demands of war that they have no strength left when it comes to the gentle game of love, and as a result, they can't satisfy their ladies—many of whom would prefer to have one good craftsman in the art of love, fresh and skilled, rather than four of these broken-down sons of Mars.
I have known many of the sex of this sort and this humour; for after all, they say, the great thing is to pass one’s time merrily, and get the quintessence of enjoyment out of it, without any special choice of persons. A good man of war is good, and a fine sight on the field of battle;[27] but an if he can do naught a-bed, they declare, a good stout lackey, in good case and practice, is every whit as worth having as a handsome and valiant gentleman,—tired out.
I’ve known many people like this, who have this kind of humor; after all, they say the main thing is to enjoy life and get the most out of it, without being picky about who you’re with. A good soldier is valuable and looks impressive on the battlefield;[27] but if he’s no good in bed, they say a sturdy servant, fit and experienced, is just as worthwhile as a handsome and brave gentleman—only worn out.
I do refer me to such dames as have made trial thereof, and do so every day; for the gallant soldier’s loins, be he as brave and valiant as he may, being broken and chafed of the harness they have so long carried on them, cannot afford the needful supply, as other men do, which have never borne hardship or fatigue.
I’m talking about those ladies who have experienced this themselves, and I do so every day; because the courageous soldier, no matter how brave or valorous he is, with his body worn out and chafed by the armor he’s carried for so long, can’t provide the same support that other men can, who have never faced hardship or exhaustion.
Other ladies there be which do love brave men, whether it be for husbands or for lovers, to the end these may show good fight and so better defend their honour and chastity, if any detractors should be fain to befoul these with ill words. Several such I have seen at Court, where I knew in former days a very great and a very fair lady[18] whose name I had rather not give, who being much subject to evil tongues, did quit a lover, and a very favourite one, she had, seeing him backward to come to blows and pick a quarrel and fight it out, to take another[18] instead which was a mettlesome wight, a brave and valiant soul, which would gallantly bear his lady’s honour on the point of his sword, without ever a man daring to touch the same in any wise.
Other women out there love brave men, whether as husbands or lovers, because these men can fight well and better defend their honor and purity if anyone tries to slander them with nasty comments. I've seen several of these women at Court, including a very well-known and beautiful lady[18] whose name I won't mention. She was often the target of cruel gossip and decided to break up with a lover who was quite popular, because he was too hesitant to stand up and fight. Instead, she chose another man who was bold, brave, and ready to defend her honor with his sword, ensuring that no one would dare to disrespect her.
Many ladies have I known in my time of this humour, wishful always to have a brave gallant for their escort and defence. This no doubt is a good and very useful thing oftentimes for them; but then they must take good heed not to stumble or let their heart change toward them, once they have submitted to their domination. For if these fellows do note the least in the world of their pranks and fickle changes, they do lead them a fine life and rebuke[28] them in terrible wise, both them and their new gallants, if ever they change. Of this I have seen not a few examples in the course of my life.
I've known many women who always wanted a brave gentleman to escort and protect them. This is often a good and useful thing for them; however, they need to be careful not to stumble or let their feelings change once they've submitted to their control. If these guys notice even the slightest change in their behavior or moods, they make their lives difficult and scold both them and their new suitors if they ever switch allegiances. I've seen quite a few examples of this throughout my life.
Thus do we see how suchlike women, those that will fain have at command suchlike brave and mettlesome lovers, must needs themselves be brave and very faithful in their dealings with the same, or at any rate so secret in their intrigues as that they may never be discovered. Unless indeed they do compass the thing by some arrangement, as do the Italian and Roman courtesans, who are fain ever to have a bravo (this is the name they give him) to defend and keep them in countenance; but ’tis always part of the bargain that they shall have other favoured swains as well, and the bravo shall never say one word.
So, we can see that women who want to have strong and daring lovers must also be brave and very loyal in their interactions with them, or at the very least, be so discreet in their affairs that they remain hidden. Unless they manage it through some arrangement, like the Italian and Roman courtesans, who always want to have a bravo (that’s what they call him) to protect and support them; but it's always part of the deal that they can have other favorite lovers too, and the bravo must never say a word.
This is mighty well for the courtesans of Rome and their bravos, but not for the gallant gentlemen of France and other lands. But an if an honourable dame is ready to keep herself in all firmness and constancy, her lover is bound to spare his life in no way for to maintain and defend her honour, if she do run the very smallest risk of hurt, whether to her life or her reputation, or of some ill word of scandal. So have I seen at our own Court several which have made evil tattlers to hold their tongues at a moment’s notice, when these had started some detraction of their ladies or mistresses. For by devoir of knighthood and its laws we be bound to serve as their champions in any trouble, as did the brave Renaud for the fair Ginevra in Scotland,[19] the Señor de Mendoza for the beautiful Duchess I have spoke of above, and the Seigneur de Carouge for his own wedded wife in the days of King Charles VI., as we do read in our Chronicles. I could quote an host of other instances, as well of old as of modern[29] times, to say naught of those I have witnessed at our own Court; but I should never have done.
This is great for the courtesans of Rome and their tough guys, but not for the noble gentlemen of France and elsewhere. However, if an honorable lady is committed to her principles and steadfastness, her lover must be willing to put his life on the line to protect and defend her honor if she faces even the slightest risk of harm, whether to her life or her reputation, or if there's any chance of scandalous gossip. I've seen several instances at our own Court where men silenced gossipers in an instant when they spoke ill of their ladies or mistresses. According to the code of chivalry and its laws, we are obliged to serve as their champions in any trouble, just like the brave Renaud did for the beautiful Ginevra in Scotland, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, the Señor de Mendoza for the lovely Duchess I mentioned earlier, and the Seigneur de Carouge for his own wife during the reign of King Charles VI., as we read in our Chronicles. I could list many other examples, both ancient and modern, not to mention those I've witnessed at our own Court; but I would never finish.
Other ladies I have known which have quitted cowardly fellows, albeit these were very rich, to love and wed gentlemen that did possess naught at all but sword and cloak, so to say. But then they were valorous and great-hearted, and had hopes, by dint of their valiance and bravery, to attain to rank and high estate. Though truly ’tis not the bravest that do most oft win these prizes; but they do rather suffer sore wrong, while many a time we behold the cowardly and fainthearted succeed instead. Yet be this as it may, such fortune doth never become these so well as it doth the men of valour.
Other women I've known have left cowardly guys, even though those guys were really rich, to fall in love with and marry men who only had their swords and capes, so to speak. But these men were brave and noble, and they hoped that through their courage and boldness, they could rise to a higher status and wealth. However, it's often not the bravest who win these rewards; instead, it’s usually the cowardly and faint-hearted who succeed. Still, regardless of that, such good fortune never suits them as well as it does the brave men.
But there, I should never get me done, were I to recount at length the divers causes and reasons why women do so love men of high heart and courage. I am quite sure, were I set on amplifying this Discourse with all the host of reasons and examples I might, I could make a whole book of it alone. However, as I wish not to tarry over one subject only, so much as to deal with various and divers matters, I will be satisfied to have said what I have said,—albeit sundry will likely blame me, how that such and such a point was surely worthy of being enriched by more instances and a string of prolix reasons, which themselves could very well supply, exclaiming, “Why! he hath clean forgot this; he hath clean forgot that.” I know my subject well enough for all that; and mayhap I know more instances than ever they could adduce, and more startling and private. But I prefer not to divulge them all, and not to give the names.
But honestly, I'd never finish if I tried to explain in detail all the reasons women love men with bravery and heart. I'm confident that if I really wanted to expand this discussion with plenty of reasons and examples, I could fill an entire book. However, since I don’t want to focus on just one topic and prefer to cover various subjects, I’ll stick with what I’ve said. Although some will probably criticize me for not including more examples and elaborate explanations, saying things like, “Wait! He completely forgot this; he completely forgot that.” I know my topic well enough, and I might even have more examples than they could come up with, and they would be more surprising and private. But I'd rather not share them all or reveal any names.
This is why I do hold my tongue. Yet, before making an end, I will add this further word by the way. Just[30] as ladies do love men which be valiant and bold under arms, so likewise do they love such as be of like sort in love; and the man which is cowardly and over and above respectful toward them, will never win their good favour. Not that they would have them so overweening, bold and presumptuous, as that they should by main force lay them on the floor; but rather they desire in them a certain hardy modesty, or perhaps better a certain modest hardihood. For while themselves are not exactly wantons, and will neither solicit a man nor yet actually offer their favours, yet do they know well how to rouse the appetites and passions, and prettily allure to the skirmish in such wise that he which doth not take occasion by the forelock and join encounter, and that without the least awe of rank and greatness, without a scruple of conscience or a fear or any sort of hesitation, he verily is a fool and a spiritless poltroon, and one which doth merit to be forever abandoned of kind fortune.[20*]
This is why I keep quiet. But before I finish, I want to add one more thought. Just as women love men who are brave and bold in battle, they also appreciate those who are similar in love; a man who is cowardly and overly respectful will never earn their affection. It's not that they want someone so arrogant and bold that he would force them onto the floor; instead, they seek a certain brave modesty, or perhaps a modest bravery. While they are not exactly promiscuous and won't push a man to pursue them or directly offer their affections, they definitely know how to stir desire and attract attention in a way that encourages him to take initiative. If he fails to seize the moment without worrying about status, without guilt or fear, then he is truly a fool and a spineless coward, deserving to be forever forsaken by luck.
I have heard of two honourable gentlemen and comrades, for the which two very honourable ladies, and of by no means humble quality, made tryst one day at Paris to go walking in a garden. Being come thither, each lady did separate apart one from the other, each alone with her own cavalier, each in a several alley of the garden, that was so close covered in with a fair trellis of boughs as that daylight could really scarce penetrate there at all, and the coolness of the place was very grateful. Now one of the twain was a bold man, and well knowing how the party had been made for something else than merely to walk and take the air, and judging by his lady’s face, which he saw to be all a-fire, that she had longings to taste other fare than the muscatels that hung[31] on the trellis, as also by her hot, wanton and wild speech, he did promptly seize on so fair an opportunity. So catching hold of her without the least ceremony, he did lay her on a little couch that was there made of turf and clods of earth, and did very pleasantly work his will of her, without her ever uttering a word but only: “Heavens! Sir, what are you at? Surely you be the maddest and strangest fellow ever was! If anyone comes, whatever will they say? Great heavens! get out!” But the gentleman, without disturbing himself, did so well continue what he had begun that he did finish, and she to boot, with such content as that after taking three or four turns up and down the alley, they did presently start afresh. Anon, coming forth into another, open, alley, they did see in another part of the garden the other pair, who were walking about together just as they had left them at first. Whereupon the lady, well content, did say to the gentleman in the like condition, “I verily believe so and so hath played the silly prude, and hath given his lady no other entertainment but only words, fine speeches and promenading.”
I heard about two honorable guys who were friends, and two very respectable ladies, who were definitely not from a humble background, met up one day in Paris to walk in a garden. Once they arrived, each lady went off separately with her own gentleman, each in a different path of the garden, which was so nicely covered with lush branches that sunlight barely filtered through at all, making the coolness of the spot quite refreshing. One of the guys was bold, knowing their outing was meant for more than just a walk and fresh air, and noticing his lady's flushed expression, indicating she wanted more than just the muscat grapes hanging on the trellis, along with her passionate and wild talk, he quickly seized the opportunity. He grabbed her without any formality and laid her down on a little couch made of grass and dirt, proceeding to have his way with her, while she only managed to exclaim, “Oh my! Sir, what are you doing? You must be the craziest and weirdest guy ever! If anyone comes, what will they think? Good heavens! Get off!” But the gentleman, unfazed, continued what he started, and they finished together, feeling so satisfied that after strolling a bit down the path, they started again. Shortly after, they stepped into another, more open path and spotted the other pair, still walking together just as they had left them. The lady, feeling pleased, said to her gentleman in the same situation, “I honestly believe that guy has played the fool and offered his lady nothing but pretty words, smooth talks, and walking around.”
Afterward when all four were come together, the two ladies did fall to asking one another how it had fared with each. Then the one which was well content did reply she was exceeding well, indeed she was; indeed for the nonce she could scarce be better. The other, which was ill content, did declare for her part she had had to do with the biggest fool and most coward lover she had ever seen; and all the time the two gentlemen could see them laughing together as they walked and crying out: “Oh! the silly fool! the shamefaced poltroon and coward!” At this the successful gallant said to his companion: “Hark[32] to our ladies, which do cry out at you, and mock you sore. You will find you have overplayed the prude and coxcomb this bout.” So much he did allow; but there was no more time to remedy his error, for opportunity gave him no other handle to seize her by. Natheless, now recognizing his mistake, after some while he did repair the same by certain other means which I could tell, an if I would.
Afterward, when the four of them came together, the two ladies started asking each other how they were doing. One of them, who was quite happy, replied that she was really well; in fact, she couldn’t be better at that moment. The other lady, who wasn’t happy, said that she had dealt with the biggest fool and the most cowardly lover she had ever encountered. Meanwhile, the two gentlemen could see them laughing as they walked and shouting: “Oh! What a silly fool! The shameful coward!” At this, the successful suitor said to his friend: “Listen to our ladies, who are mocking you and laughing at you hard. You’ll find you’ve gone too far with your prude act this time.” He admitted this much, but there was no time to fix his mistake, as he had no other chance to approach her. Nevertheless, realizing his error, after a while he made up for it in other ways that I could explain, if I wanted to.
Again I knew once two great Lords, brothers, both of them highly bred and highly accomplished gentlemen[21] which did love two ladies, but the one of these was of much higher quality and more account than the other in all respects. Now being entered both into the chamber of this great lady, who for the time being was keeping her bed, each did withdraw apart for to entertain his mistress. The one did converse with the high-born dame with every possible respect and humble salutation and kissing of hands, with words of honour and stately compliment, without making ever an attempt to come near and try to force the place. The other brother, without any ceremony of words or fine phrases, did take his fair one to a recessed window, and incontinently making free with her (for he was very strong), he did soon show her ’twas not his way to love à l’espagnole, with eyes and tricks of face and words, but in the genuine fashion and proper mode every true lover should desire. Presently having finished his task, he doth quit the chamber; but as he goes, saith to his brother, loud enough for his lady to hear the words: “Do you as I have done, brother mine; else you do naught at all. Be you as brave and hardy as you will elsewhere, yet if you show not your hardihood here and now, you are disgraced; for here is no place of ceremony and respect, but one where you do[33] see your lady before you, which doth but wait your attack.” So with this he did leave his brother, which yet for that while did refrain him and put it off to another time. But for this the lady did by no means esteem him more highly, whether it was she did put it down to an over chilliness in love, or a lack of courage, or a defect of bodily vigour. And still he had shown prowess enough elsewhere, both in war and love.
Again I knew two great lords, brothers, both of them highly bred and accomplished gentlemen, who loved two ladies, but one of these ladies was of much higher quality and more esteemed than the other in every way. Both entered the chamber of this great lady, who was in bed at the time, and each withdrew to entertain his mistress. One spoke to the high-born lady with all possible respect, humble greetings, and kisses on her hands, offering words of honor and grand compliments, without ever trying to get too close or force the situation. The other brother, without any elaborate words or fancy phrases, took his lady to a window nook, and boldly made his intentions clear (for he was very strong), quickly showing her it was not his style to love “à l’espagnole,” with just looks and gestures, but in the genuine way every true lover should desire. Once he finished his task, he left the chamber, but as he walked out, he said to his brother, loud enough for his lady to hear: “Do like I have done, brother; otherwise, you’re not achieving anything at all. You may be as brave and bold as you want elsewhere, but if you don’t show your courage here and now, you’ll be disgraced; for this is not a place for ceremony and respect, but one where you see your lady before you, who is just waiting for your approach.” With this, he left his brother, who, for the time being, held back and decided to wait for another occasion. But because of this, the lady thought no more of him, whether she considered it a coldness in love, a lack of courage, or a flaw in his physical strength. Still, he had shown plenty of bravery elsewhere, both in battle and in love.
The late deceased Queen Mother did one day cause to be played, for a Shrove Tuesday interlude, at Paris at the Hôtel de Reims, a very excellent Comedy which Cornelio Fiasco, Captain of the Royal Galleys, had devised. All the Court was present, both men and ladies, and many folk beside of the city. Amongst other matters, was shown a young man which had laid hid a whole night long in a very fair lady’s bedchamber, yet had never laid finger on her. Telling this hap to his friend, the latter asketh him: Ch’avete fatto? (What did you do?), to which the other maketh answer: Niente (Nothing). On hearing this, his friend doth exclaim: Ah! poltronazzo, senza cuore! non havete fatto niente! che maldita sia la tua poltronneria!—“Oh! poltroon and spiritless! you did nothing! a curse on your poltroonery then!”
The late Queen Mother once had a fantastic comedy performed for a Shrove Tuesday interlude at the Hôtel de Reims in Paris, created by Cornelio Fiasco, Captain of the Royal Galleys. The entire court, both men and women, along with many citizens, were in attendance. Among other stories told, there was a young man who had hidden all night in a beautiful lady's bedroom but had never touched her. When he shared this experience with his friend, the friend asked him: Ch’avete fatto? (What did you do?), to which he replied: Niente (Nothing). Upon hearing this, his friend exclaimed: Ah! poltronazzo, senza cuore! non havete fatto niente! che maldita sia la tua poltronneria!—“Oh! coward and heartless one! You did nothing! A curse on your cowardice!”
The same evening after the playing of this Comedy, as we were assembled in the Queen’s chamber, and were discoursing of the said play, I did ask a very fair and honourable lady, whose name I will not give, what were the finest points she had noted and observed in the Comedy, and which had most pleased her. She told me quite simply and frankly: The best point I noted was when his friend did make answer to the young man called Lucio, who had told him che non haveva fatto niente (that he had[34] done nothing) in this wise, Ah poltronazzo! non havete fatto niente! che maldita sia la tua poltronneria!—“Oh! you poltroon! you did nothing! a curse be on your poltroonery!”
The same evening after the play of this Comedy, as we were gathered in the Queen’s chamber and discussing the play, I asked a very beautiful and respectable lady, whose name I won’t disclose, what her favorite moments were that she had noticed and enjoyed in the Comedy. She told me quite simply and honestly: The best moment I noticed was when his friend responded to the young man named Lucio, who had said to him that he had done nothing, like this: “Oh! you coward! you did nothing! curse your cowardice!”
So you see how this fair lady which did talk with me was in agreement with the friend in reprobating his poltroonery, and that she did in no wise approve of him for having been so slack and unenterprising. Thereafter she and I did more openly discourse together of the mistakes men make by not seizing opportunity and taking advantage of the wind when it bloweth fair, as doth the good mariner.
So you see how this fair lady who spoke with me agreed with my friend in condemning his cowardice, and she definitely did not approve of him for being so lazy and unambitious. After that, she and I talked more openly about the mistakes men make by not seizing opportunities and taking advantage of favorable moments, just like a good sailor does.
This bringeth me to yet another tale, which I am fain, diverting and droll as it is, to mingle among the more serious ones. Well, then! I have heard it told by an honourable gentleman and a good friend of mine own, how a lady of his native place, having often shown great familiarities and special favour to one of her chamber lackeys, which did only need time and opportunity to come to a point, the said lackey, neither a prude nor a fool, finding his mistress one morning half asleep and lying on her bed, turned over away from the wall, tempted by such a display of beauty and a posture making it so easy and convenient, she being at the very edge of the bed, he did come up softly, and alongside the lady. She turning her head saw ’twas her lackey, which she was fain of; and just as she was, her place occupied and all, without withdrawing or moving one whit, and neither resisting nor trying in the very least to shake off the hold he had of her, did only say to him, turning round her head only and holding still for fear of losing him, “Ho! ho! Mister prude, and what hath made you so bold as to do this?” The lackey did[35] answer with all proper respect, “Madam, shall I leave?”—“That’s not what I said, Mister prude,” the lady replied, “I ask you, what made you so bold as to put yourself there?” But the other did ever come back to the same question, “Madam, shall I stop? if you wish, I will go out,”—and she to repeating again and again, “That is not what I say, not what I say, Mister prude!” In fact, the pair of them did make these same replies and repetitions three or four times over,—which did please the lady far better than if she had ordered her gallant to stop, when he did ask her. Thus it did serve her well to stick to her first question without ever a variation, and the lover in his reply and the repetition thereof. And in this wise did they continue to lie together for long after, the same rubric being always repeated as an accompaniment. For ’tis, as men say, the first batch only, and the first measure of wine, that costs dear.
This brings me to another story, which I’m happy to include, as entertaining as it is, among the more serious ones. So, I’ve heard from a respected gentleman and good friend of mine, how a lady from his hometown, having often shown great affection and special attention to one of her chamber attendants, who only needed the right moment to act, found him one morning while she was half asleep and lying on her bed, turned away from the wall. Tempted by such beauty and an inviting position, since she was right at the edge of the bed, he quietly approached and lay down beside her. She turned her head and saw it was her attendant, whom she welcomed; and just as she was, without moving or resisting at all, she simply said to him, looking over her shoulder and staying still to avoid losing him, “Hey! Hey! Mister prude, what made you so bold to do this?” The attendant replied with all due respect, “Madam, should I leave?”—“That’s not what I said, Mister prude,” the lady replied, “I want to know what made you so brave to put yourself here?” But he kept coming back to the same question, “Madam, should I stop? If you want, I can leave,”—and she kept repeating, “That is not what I’m saying, not what I’m saying, Mister prude!” In fact, they exchanged the same responses three or four times, which amused the lady much more than if she had simply told her lover to stop when he asked her. So, it suited her to stick to her original question without changing it, while he kept replying and repeating himself. And in this way, they lay together for a long time, the same routine echoing back and forth. For, as people say, it’s only the first batch and the first glass of wine that comes with a high cost.
A good lackey and an enterprising! To such bold fellows we must needs say in the words of the Italian proverb, A bravo cazzo mai non manca favor.
A good servant and an ambitious one! To such bold guys, we must definitely say, in the words of the Italian proverb, A bravo cazzo mai non manca favor.
Well, from all this you learn how that there be many men which are brave, bold and valiant, as well in arms as in love; others which be so in arms, but not in love; others again, which be so in love and not in arms. Of this last sort was that rascally Paris, who indeed had hardihood and valiance enough to carry off Helen from her poor cuckold of a husband Menelaus, but not to do battle with him before Troy town.
Well, from all this you learn that there are many men who are brave, bold, and courageous, both in battle and in love; others who are brave in battle but not in love; and others who are in love but not in battle. Of this last group was that scoundrel Paris, who certainly had the guts and courage to take Helen from her poor cuckolded husband Menelaus, but not to fight him before the city of Troy.
Moreover this is why the ladies love not old men, nor such as be too far advanced in years, seeing such be very timid in love and shamefaced at asking favours. This is not because they have not concupiscence and desires as[36] great as young men, or even greater, but because they have not the powers to match. And this is what a Spanish lady meant, which said once: how that old men did much resemble persons who, whenas they do behold kings in their magnificence, domination and authority, do covet exceedingly to be like them, yet would they never dare to make any attempt against them to dispossess them of their kingdoms and seize their place. She was used further to say, Y a penas es nacido el deseo, cuando se muere luego,—“Scarce is the desire born, but it dies straightway.” Thus old men, when they do see fair objects of attack, dare not take action, porque los viejos naturalmente son temerosos; y amor y temor no se caben en un saco,—“for that old men are naturally timid; and love and fear do never go well in one pack.” And indeed they are quite right; for they have arms neither for offence nor defence, like young folks, which have youth and beauty on their side. So verily, as saith the poet: naught is unbecoming to youth, do what it will; and as another hath it: two sorry sights,—an old man-at-arms and an old lover.
Furthermore, this is why women aren’t attracted to older men, or those who are significantly advanced in age. Such men tend to be very timid in love and shy about asking for favors. This isn’t because they lack desire and passion, which can be as strong or even stronger than that of younger men, but because they don’t have the energy to back it up. A Spanish lady once remarked that old men are much like those who, when they see kings in their splendor, power, and authority, long to be like them but would never have the courage to challenge them for their thrones. She also used to say, Y a penas es nacido el deseo, cuando se muere luego,—“Scarcely is desire born before it dies right away.” Thus, when old men see attractive targets, they don’t dare to act, porque los viejos naturalmente son temerosos; y amor y temor no se caben en un saco,—“because old men are naturally timid; and love and fear don’t mix well together.” And they are correct; they lack the means for offense or defense, unlike young people, who have youth and beauty on their side. As the poet says: nothing is inappropriate for youth, whatever it may do; and as another puts it: two sad sights—an old warrior and an old lover.
4.
4.

Well! enough hath been said on this subject; so I do here make an end and speak no more thereof. Only will I add somewhat on another point, one that is appertinent and belonging as it were to this, to wit: how just as fair ladies do love brave men, and such as be valorous and great-hearted, in like wise do men love women brave of heart and noble-spirited. And as noble-spirited and courageous men be ever more lovable and admirable than others,[37] so is the like true of illustrious, noble-hearted and courageous dames,—not that I would have these perform the deeds of men, nor yet arm and accoutre them like a man,—as I have seen and known, as well as heard tell of, some which would mount a-horse-back like a man, carry their pistol at saddle-bow, shoot off the same, and generally fight like a man.
Alright! Enough has been said on this topic; so I’ll wrap it up and not discuss it any further. I would just like to add something on another point, one that relates to this: just as fair ladies love brave men—those who are courageous and big-hearted—men also love women who are brave and noble-hearted. And just as noble and courageous men are always more lovable and admirable than others,[37] the same is true for illustrious, noble-hearted, and courageous women—not that I want these women to perform the deeds of men, nor to arm and equip themselves like men—I have seen and heard of some who would ride like a man, carry their pistol at the saddle, shoot it, and generally fight like a man.
I could name one famous instance at any rate of a lady which did all this during the recent Wars of the League.[22*] But truly suchlike disguisement is an outrage to the sex. Besides its being neither becoming nor suitable, ’tis not lawful, and doth bring more harm and ill repute than many do suppose. Thus it did work great hurt to the gentle Maid of Orleans, who at her trial was sore calumniated on this very account, and this was in part cause of her sore and piteous downfall and death. Wherefore such masqueradings do like me not, nor stir me to any great admiration. Yet do I approve and much esteem a fair dame which doth make manifest her courageous and valiant spirit, being in adversity and downright need, by brave, womanly acts that do show a man’s heart and courage. Without borrowing examples from the noble-hearted dames of Rome and of Sparta of yore, the which have excelled herein all other women in the world, there be others plain enough to be seen before our very eyes; and I do choose rather to adduce such modern instances belonging to our own day.
I can definitely mention a well-known example of a lady who did all this during the recent Wars of the League.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ But honestly, such disguises are an insult to women. Besides being unflattering and inappropriate, it's not legal, and it causes more harm and bad reputation than many realize. It brought significant harm to the noble Maid of Orleans, who was harshly slandered at her trial for this very reason, and this contributed to her tragic downfall and death. Therefore, I don't like such masquerades and they're not something I admire much. However, I do appreciate and greatly respect a woman who shows her brave and strong spirit in tough times and dire need through courageous, feminine actions that demonstrate a man's heart and courage. Without needing to draw on the noble-hearted women of ancient Rome and Sparta, who excelled above all others in the world, there are plenty of modern examples readily visible in our own time, and I'd prefer to point out those contemporary instances.
The first example I shall give, and in my eyes the finest I know of is that of those fair, honourable and doughty dames of Sienna, at the time of the revolt of their city against the intolerable yoke of the Imperialists (Ghibellines). For after the dispositions had been fixed for the[38] defence, the women of the city, being set aside therein as not apt for war like the men, were fain to make a display of their mettle, and show how that they could do something else than only ply their female tasks of day and night. So, to bear their part of the work of defence, they did divide them into three bands or companies; and one St. Anthony’s day, in the month of January, they did appear in public led by three of the fairest ladies, and the greatest and best born, of all the city, in the Great Square of that town (and it is a very noble one), with their drums and ensigns.
The first example I’ll give, and in my opinion the best one I know of, is that of the brave, honorable women of Sienna during the revolt of their city against the oppressive rule of the Imperialists (Ghibellines). After plans were made for the defense, the women of the city, who were considered unfit for war like the men, wanted to prove their courage and show that they could do more than just handle their domestic duties day and night. So, to contribute to the defense, they divided themselves into three groups. On St. Anthony’s Day in January, they appeared in public led by three of the most beautiful and noble ladies in the city, in the town's Grand Square (which is quite impressive), with their drums and banners.
The first was the Signora Forteguerra, clad in violet, her ensign of the same colour and all her company in like array, her banner bearing this device: Pur che sia il vero (Let the truth prevail). Now all these ladies were dressed in the guise of nymphs, with short skirts which did best discover and display the fine leg beneath. The second was the Signora Piccolomini, clad in scarlet, and her company and ensign the same, with a white cross and this device: Pur che no l’habbia tutto (Let him not have it all). The third was the Signora Livia Fausta, clad all in white, and her company in white and a white ensign, whereon was a palm, and for device: Pur che l’habbia (Let him have it, then!).
The first was Signora Forteguerra, dressed in violet, with her group in matching outfits, her banner displaying the motto: Pur che sia il vero (Let the truth prevail). All these ladies were dressed like nymphs, wearing short skirts that highlighted their lovely legs. The second was Signora Piccolomini, dressed in scarlet, with her crew and banner in the same color, featuring a white cross and the motto: Pur che no l’habbia tutto (Let him not have it all). The third was Signora Livia Fausta, dressed entirely in white, accompanied by her group in white and a white banner, marked with a palm and the motto: Pur che l’habbia (Let him have it, then!).
Round about and in the train of these three, which did seem very goddesses, were a good three thousand other women, both gentlewomen, citizens’ wives and others, all fair to look upon, and all duly clad in their proper dress and livery, whether of satin, taffety, damask, or other silken stuff, and each and all firm resolved to live or die for freedom. Moreover each did carry a fascine on her shoulder for a fort which was a-building, while all cried[39] out together, France, France! With this spectacle, so rare and delightsome an one, the Cardinal of Ferrara and M. de Termes, the French King’s Lieutenants, were so ravished, as that they did find no other pleasure but only in watching, admiring and commending these same fair and honourable ladies. And of a truth I have heard many say, both men and women, which were there present, that never was seen so fine a sight. And God knoweth, beautiful women be not lacking in this city of Sienna, and that in abundance, and without picking and choosing.
Around these three, who truly seemed like goddesses, were about three thousand other women, including gentlewomen, wives of citizens, and others, all beautiful and dressed appropriately in their proper attire, whether satin, taffeta, damask, or other silks. Each one was determined to live or die for freedom. Additionally, each carried a fascine on her shoulder for a fort that was being built, while they all shouted together, France, France! The spectacle was so rare and delightful that the Cardinal of Ferrara and M. de Termes, the French King’s Lieutenants, were so captivated that they found no other pleasure than to watch, admire, and praise these beautiful and honorable ladies. Indeed, I have heard many, both men and women who were present, say that such a remarkable sight had never been seen before. And God knows, there is no shortage of beautiful women in this city of Siena, and certainly not in small numbers or by selective preference.
The men of the city, which of their own wishes were greatly set on winning their freedom, were yet more encouraged to the same by this noble display, unwilling to fall below the women in zeal. In such wise that all did vie with one another, Lords, gentlemen, citizens, trades-folk, artizans, rich and poor alike, and all did flock to the fort to imitate the example of these fair, virtuous and honourable dames. So all in much emulation,—and not laymen alone, but churchmen to boot,—did join in pushing on the good work. Then, on returning back from the fort, the men on one side, and the women likewise ranged in battle array in the great square before the Palace of the Signoria,[23*] they did advance one after other, and company after company, to salute the image of the Blessed Virgin, patroness of the city, singing the while sundry hymns and canticles in her honour, to airs so soft and with so gracious an harmony that, part of pleasure, part of pity, tears ’gan fall from the eyes of all the people present. These after receiving the benediction of the most reverend Cardinal of Ferrara, did withdraw, each to their own abode,—all the whole folk, men and women[40] alike, with fixed resolve to do their duty yet better for the future.
The men of the city, who were very eager to win their freedom, were even more motivated by this noble display, not wanting to fall behind the women in their enthusiasm. Everyone competed with one another—lords, gentlemen, citizens, tradespeople, artisans, the rich and the poor. They all gathered at the fort to follow the example set by these noble, virtuous, and honorable women. In this spirit of healthy competition—joined by both laypeople and clergy—they all contributed to the good cause. Then, after returning from the fort, the men on one side and the women on the other formed a line in the large square in front of the Palace of the Signoria, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, moving forward one by one, and group by group, to greet the image of the Blessed Virgin, the city's patroness. They sang various hymns and songs in her honor, to soft melodies and beautiful harmonies that made tears of joy and sorrow fall from the eyes of everyone present. After receiving blessings from the most reverend Cardinal of Ferrara, they each returned to their homes, all men and women alike, determined to fulfill their responsibilities even better in the future.
This sacred ceremony of these ladies doth remind me (but without making comparison ’twixt the two) of a heathen one, yet goodly withal, which was performed at Rome at the period of the Punic Wars, as we do read in the Historian Livy.[24*] ’Twas a solemn progress and procession made by three times nine, which is twenty-seven, young and pretty Roman maids, all of them virgins, clad in longish frocks, of which history doth not however tell us the colours. These dainty maids, their solemn march and procession completed, did then make halt at a certain spot, where they proceeded to dance a measure before the assembled people, passing from hand to hand a cord or ribband, ranged all in order one after other, and stepping a round, accommodating the motion and twinkling of their feet to the cadence of the tune and the song they sang the while. It was a right pretty sight to see, no less for the beauty of the maids than for their sweet grace, their dainty way of dancing and the adroit tripping of their feet, the which is one of the chiefest charms of a maid, when she is skilled to move and guide the same daintily and well.
This sacred ceremony of these ladies reminds me (not to compare the two) of a pagan one, yet still quite beautiful, that took place in Rome during the Punic Wars, as we read in the historian Livy. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ It was a solemn procession made by twenty-seven young and pretty Roman maidens, all virgins, dressed in long dresses, though history doesn't tell us their colors. After their solemn march and procession, these lovely maidens stopped at a designated spot, where they danced in front of the gathered crowd, passing a cord or ribbon from hand to hand, all arranged in order and stepping in a circle, matching the movements and twinkling of their feet to the rhythm of the tune and the song they sang. It was a truly charming sight, not only for the beauty of the maidens but also for their sweet grace, their delicate dancing, and the skillful tripping of their feet, which is one of the greatest charms of a maiden when she knows how to move and guide them gracefully and well.
I have oft pictured to myself the measure they did so dance; and it hath brought to my mind one I have seen performed in my young days by the girls of mine own countryside, called the “garter.” In this, the village girls, giving and taking the garter from hand to hand, would pass and re-pass these above their heads, then entangle and interlace the same between their legs, leaping nimbly over them, then unwinding them and slipping free with little, dainty bounds,—all this while keeping rank[41] one after other, without once losing cadence with the song or instrument of music which led the measure, in such wise that the thing was a mighty pretty thing to see. For the little leaps and bounds they gave, the interlacing and slipping free again, the wielding of the garter and the graceful carriage of the girls, did all provoke so dainty a smack of naughtiness, as that I do marvel much the said dance hath never been practised at Court in these days of ours. Pleasant ’tis to see the dainty drawers, and the fine leg freely exhibited in this dance, and which lass hath the best fitting shoe and the most alluring mien. But truly it can be better appreciated by the eye than described in words.
I often imagine how they danced; it reminds me of a performance I saw in my youth by the girls from my hometown, called the “garter.” In this dance, the village girls would pass the garter from hand to hand above their heads, then weave it between their legs, leaping over it with agility, unwinding it, and slipping free with little, graceful jumps. All this while, they stayed in line, one after another, perfectly in sync with the song or music leading the dance, making it a delightful sight. The little leaps and bounds, the interweaving and slipping free again, the handling of the garter, and the graceful posture of the girls all conveyed a playful naughtiness, which makes me wonder why this dance isn’t performed at Court these days. It’s delightful to see the lovely skirts and the fine legs on display in this dance, and which girl has the best-fitting shoes and the most captivating look. But honestly, it’s something that’s better seen than described.
But to return to our ladies of Sienna. Ah! fair and valiant dames, you should surely never die,—you nor your glory, which will be for ever immortal. So too another fair and gentle maid of your city, who during its siege, seeing one night her brother kept a prisoner by sickness in his bed and in very ill case to go on guard, doth leave him there a-bed and slipping quietly away from his side, doth take his arms and accoutrements, and so, a very perfect likeness of her brother, maketh appearance with the watch. Nor was she discovered, but by favour of the night was really taken for him she did represent. A gentle act, in truth! for albeit she had donned a man’s dress and arms, yet was it not to make a constant habit thereof, but for the nonce only to do a good office for her brother. And indeed ’tis said no love is like that of brother and sister, and further that in a good cause no risk should be spared to show a gentle intrepidity of heart, in whatsoever place it be.
But back to the ladies of Siena. Ah! beautiful and brave women, you should never die—nor should your glory, which will be forever immortal. Likewise, another lovely and kind girl from your city, during its siege, one night saw her brother, sick in bed and unable to keep watch. She left him there and quietly slipped away from his side, took his armor and gear, and showed up with the guard looking just like him. She wasn’t discovered, and thanks to the night, she was truly mistaken for her brother. What a noble act! For although she wore a man’s clothes and armor, it was not to make a habit of it, but just to do her brother a favor. Indeed, it’s said that no love compares to that of a brother and sister, and furthermore, that in a noble cause, no risk should be spared to show a brave heart, no matter the circumstances.
I ween the corporal of the guard which was then in[42] command of the squad in which was this fair girl, when he wist of her act, was sore vexed he had not better recognized her, so to have published abroad her merit on the spot, or mayhap to have relieved her of standing sentry, or else merely to have taken his pleasure in gazing on her beauty and grace, and her military bearing; for no doubt at all she did study in all things to counterfeit a soldier’s mien.
I think the corporal of the guard who was in charge of the squad that included this beautiful girl was really annoyed with himself for not recognizing her sooner. He could have praised her right then and there, or maybe even let her take a break from standing guard, or simply enjoyed looking at her beauty and grace, along with her military demeanor. There's no doubt she worked hard to mimic a soldier's appearance in every way.
Of a surety so fine a deed could scarce be overpraised, and above all when the occasion was so excellent, and the thing carried out for a brother’s sake. The like was done by the gentle Richardet, in the Romance, but for different purpose, when after hearing one evening his sister Bramante discourse of the beauties of the fair Princess of Spain, and of her own love and vain desires after her, he did take her accoutrements and fine frock, after she was to bed, and so disguiseth himself in the likeness of his sister,—the which he could readily accomplish, so like they were in face and beauty. Then presently, under this feigned form he did win from the said lovely Princess what was denied his sister by reason of her sex. Whereof, however, great hurt had come to him, but for the favour of Roger, who taking him for his mistress Bramante, did save him scatheless of death.[25]
Surely, such a fine deed could hardly be praised enough, especially given the excellent occasion and that it was done for a brother’s sake. A similar act was performed by the noble Richardet in the Romance, but for a different reason. One evening, after hearing his sister Bramante talk about the beauty of the fair Princess of Spain and her own love and unfulfilled desires for her, he took her clothes and fancy dress after she went to bed and disguised himself as her. He was able to do this easily since they looked so much alike. Then, in this fake form, he managed to win over the lovely Princess what was denied to his sister because of her gender. However, he suffered greatly as a result, if not for the favor of Roger, who mistook him for his mistress Bramante and saved him from certain death.A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
Now as to the ladies of Sienna, I have heard it of M. de La Chapelle des Ursins, which was at that time in Italy, and did make report of this their gallant exploit to our late King Henri II. of France, how that this monarch did find the same so noble, that with tears in his eyes he took an oath, an if one day God should grant him peace or truce with the Emperor, he would hie him with his galleys across the Tuscan sea, and so to Sienna, to see[43] this city so well affected to him and his party, and thank the citizens for their good will and gallantry, and above all to behold these fair and honourable ladies and give them especial thanks.
Now, about the women of Siena, I heard from M. de La Chapelle des Ursins, who was in Italy at the time, that he reported their brave actions to our late King Henri II of France. This monarch found their deeds so noble that, with tears in his eyes, he swore that if God ever granted him peace or a truce with the Emperor, he would journey with his galleys across the Tuscan Sea to Siena. There, he wanted to see this city that was so loyal to him and his party, thank the citizens for their goodwill and bravery, and especially honor these beautiful and noble ladies, giving them his sincere thanks.
I am sure he would not have failed so to do, for he did highly honour the said good and noble dames. Accordingly he did write them, addressing chiefly the three chief leaders, letters the most gracious possible, full of thanks and compliments, the which did pleasure them greatly and animate their courage to yet an higher pitch.
I’m sure he wouldn’t have let them down, because he held those good and noble ladies in high regard. So, he wrote to them, mainly addressing the three main leaders, with the most gracious letters possible, filled with thanks and compliments, which greatly pleased them and boosted their spirits even more.
Alas! the truce came right enough some while after; but meantime the city had been taken, as I have described elsewhere. Truly ’twas an irreparable loss to France to be deprived of so noble and affectionate an ally, which mindful and conscious of the ties of its ancient origin, was always fain to join us and take place in our ranks. For they say these gallant Siennese be sprung from that people of France which in Gaul they did call the Senones in old times, now known as the folk of Sens. Moreover they do retain to this day somewhat of the humour of us Frenchmen; they do very much wear their heart on their sleeve, as the saying is, and be quick, sudden and keen like us. The Siennese ladies likewise have much of those pretty ways and charming manners and graceful familiarities which be the especial mark of Frenchwomen.
Unfortunately, the truce did come eventually, but by that time, the city had already been captured, as I've described elsewhere. It was truly a significant loss for France to be without such a noble and loyal ally, one that, aware of its ancient roots, was always eager to ally with us and stand alongside us. They say these brave Siennese are descended from that group of French people known as the Senones in ancient Gaul, now referred to as the people of Sens. Moreover, they still show some of the characteristics of us French; they wear their hearts on their sleeves, so to speak, and are often quick, impulsive, and sharp like us. The ladies of Siena also possess many of those charming traits, delightful manners, and graceful familiarity that are a distinctive mark of Frenchwomen.
I have read in an old Chronicle, which I have cited elsewhere, how King Charles VIII., on his Naples journey, when he did come to Sienna, was there welcomed with so magnificent and so triumphal an entry, as that it did surpass all the others he received in all Italy. They did even go so far by way of showing greater respect and as a sign of humbleness, as to take all the city gates from[44] off their hinges and lay the same flat on the ground; and so long as he did tarry there, the gates were thus left open and unguarded to all that came and went, then after, on his departure, set up again as before.
I read in an old chronicle, which I've mentioned elsewhere, how King Charles VIII, during his journey to Naples, was welcomed in Sienna with such a grand and triumphant entry that it surpassed all the ones he received throughout Italy. They even went so far as to show more respect and humility by taking all the city gates off their hinges and laying them flat on the ground. While he stayed there, the gates were left open and unguarded for everyone coming and going, and afterward, they were reinstalled as before.
I leave you to imagine if the King, and all his Court and army, had not ample and sufficient cause to love and honour this city (as indeed he did always), and to say all possible good thereof. In fact their stay there was exceeding agreeable to him and to all, and ’twas forbid under penalty of death to offer any sort of insult, as truly not the very smallest did ever occur. Ah! gallant folk of Sienna, may ye live for ever! Would to heaven ye were still ours in all else, as it may well be, ye are yet in heart and soul! For the overrule of a King of France is far gentler than that of a Duke of Florence; and besides this, the kinship of blood can never go for naught. If only we were as near neighbours as we be actually remote from each other, we might very like be found at one in will and deed.
I’ll let you imagine if the King, along with his Court and army, didn’t have plenty of reasons to love and honor this city (which he truly did at all times) and to say all good things about it. In fact, their time there was very pleasant for him and everyone else, and it was strictly forbidden under penalty of death to insult anyone, as not even the smallest offense ever occurred. Ah! brave people of Sienna, may you live forever! If only you were still ours in every other way, as you are in heart and soul! The rule of a King of France is much gentler than that of a Duke of Florence; besides, blood relationships can never be meaningless. If only we were as close as we are far apart, we might well be united in thought and action.
In like wise the chiefest ladies of Pavia, at the siege of that town by King Francis I. of France, following the lead and example of the noble Countess Hippolita de Malespina, their generalissima, did set them to carrying of the earth-baskets, shifting soil and repairing the breaches in their walls, vying with the soldiery in their activity.
In the same way, the leading ladies of Pavia, during the siege of their town by King Francis I of France, followed the lead and example of the noble Countess Hippolita de Malespina, their commander, by carrying earth baskets, moving dirt, and fixing the breaches in their walls, competing with the soldiers in their efforts.
Conduct like that of the Siennese dames I have just told of, myself did behold on the part of certain ladies of La Rochelle,[26] at the siege of their town. And I remember me how on the first Sunday of Lent during the siege, the King’s brother, our General, did summon M. de la Noue to come before him on his parole, and speak with[45] him and give account of the negotiations he had charged him withal on behalf of the said city,—all the tale whereof is long and most curious, as I do hope elsewhere to describe the same. M. de la Noue failed not to appear, to which end M. d’Estrozze was given as an hostage on the town, and truce was made for that day and for the next following.[27*]
I witnessed behavior similar to that of the Siennese ladies I just mentioned, from certain women of La Rochelle, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ during the siege of their town. I remember how on the first Sunday of Lent during the siege, the King’s brother, our General, summoned M. de la Noue to come before him on his word of honor, to discuss the negotiations he was in charge of for the city. The whole story is long and quite fascinating, which I hope to describe elsewhere. M. de la Noue did not fail to show up, for which M. d’Estrozze was given as a hostage for the town, and a truce was established for that day and the next following.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
This truce once concluded, there did appear immediately, as on our side we too did show us outside our trenches, many of the towns-folk on the ramparts and walls. And notable over all were seen an hundred or so of noble ladies and citizens’ wives and daughters, the greatest, richest and fairest of all the town, all clad in white, the dress, which did cover head as well as body, being all of fine white Holland linen, that ’twas a very fair sight to see. And they had adopted this dress by reason of the fortification of the ramparts at which they were at work, whether carrying of the earth-baskets or moving the soil. Now other garments would have soon grown foul, but these white ones had but to be sent to the wash, and all was well again; beside, with this white costume were they more readily distinguished among the rest. For our part we were much delighted to behold these fair ladies, and I do assure you many of us did find more divertisement herein than in aught else. Nor were they the least chary of giving us a sight of them, for they did line the edge of the rampart, standing in a most gracious and agreeable attitude, so as they were well worth our looking at and longing after.
Once the truce was finalized, many townsfolk appeared immediately, as we too revealed ourselves outside our trenches. Notably, around a hundred noble ladies and the wives and daughters of citizens— the richest, most prominent, and most beautiful in the town—were all dressed in white. Their attire, which covered both head and body, was made of fine white linen, making for a lovely sight. They had chosen this dress because they were assisting in fortifying the ramparts by carrying earth-baskets or moving soil. Other clothing would have quickly become dirty, but these white garments just needed a wash to look perfect again; plus, the white costumes made them easier to distinguish from the rest. We were quite pleased to see these beautiful ladies, and many of us found more enjoyment in their presence than anything else. They weren't shy about showing themselves, as they lined the edge of the rampart, standing in graceful and pleasing poses, making it worth our while to look at and yearn for them.
We were right curious to learn what ladies they were. The towns-folk did inform us they were a company of ladies so sworn and banded together, and so attired for[46] the work at the fortifications and for the performing of suchlike services to their native city. And of a truth did they do good service, even to the more virile and stalwart of them bearing arms. Yea! I have heard it told of one, how, for having oft repulsed her foes with a pike, she doth to this day keep the same carefully as ’twere a sacred relic, so that she would not part with it nor sell it for much money, so dear a home treasure doth she hold it.
We were really curious to find out who those ladies were. The townsfolk told us they were a group of women who had committed themselves to come together, dressed for the work at the fortifications and to perform similar services for their city. And indeed, they provided good service, with some of the more robust ones carrying weapons. Yes! I've heard stories about one in particular who, after often fighting off her enemies with a pike, still keeps it like a sacred relic. She wouldn’t sell it for a lot of money; it’s a treasured possession to her.
I have heard the tale told by sundry old Knights Commanders of Rhodes, and have even read the same in an old book, how that, when Rhodes was besieged by Sultan Soliman, the fair dames and damsels of that place did in no wise spare their fair faces and tender and delicate bodies, for to bear their full share of the hardships and fatigues of the siege, but would even come forward many a time at the most hot and dangerous attacks, and gallantly second the knights and soldiery to bear up against the same. Ah! fair Rhodian maids, your name and fame is for all time; and ill did you deserve to be now fallen under the rule of infidel barbarians![28*] In the reign of our good King Francis I., the town of Saint-Riquier in Picardy was attempted and assailed by a Flemish gentleman, named Domrin, Ensign of M. du Ru, accompanied by two hundred men at arms and two thousand foot folk, beside some artillery. Inside the place were but an hundred foot men, the which was far too few for defence. It had for sure been captured, but that the women of the town did appear on the walls with arms in hand, boiling water and oil and stones, and did gallantly repulse the foe, albeit these did exert every effort to gain an entry. Furthermore two of the said brave ladies did wrest a pair[47] of standards from the hands of the enemy, and bore them from the walls into the town, the end of all being that the besiegers were constrained to abandon the breach they had made and the walls altogether, and make off and retire. The fame of this exploit did spread through all France, Flanders and Burgundy; while King Francis, passing by the place some time after, was fain to see the women concerned, and did praise and thank them for their deed.
I have heard the story from various old Knights Commanders of Rhodes, and I’ve even read it in an old book, about how, when Rhodes was besieged by Sultan Soliman, the beautiful ladies of that place did not hold back their lovely faces and delicate bodies, instead choosing to endure the hardships and stresses of the siege. They would step forward many times during the most intense and dangerous attacks, bravely supporting the knights and soldiers in their defense. Ah! fair Rhodian maidens, your name and reputation will last forever; you truly did not deserve to come under the rule of infidel barbarians! A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ During the reign of our good King Francis I, the town of Saint-Riquier in Picardy was attacked by a Flemish gentleman named Domrin, an Ensign of M. du Ru, who was accompanied by two hundred men-at-arms and two thousand infantry, along with some artillery. Inside the town, there were only a hundred foot soldiers, which was far too few for an adequate defense. It surely would have been captured if it weren't for the women of the town who appeared on the walls with weapons in hand—boiling water, oil, and stones—and bravely fought off the enemy, even as they made every effort to break through. Furthermore, two of these brave ladies managed to seize a pair of standards from the enemy and brought them back into the town. In the end, the attackers were forced to abandon the breach they had made and retreat entirely. The news of this deed spread throughout all of France, Flanders, and Burgundy; and when King Francis passed by later, he wanted to meet the women involved and praised them for their courageous actions.
The ladies of Péronne[29] did in like gallant wise, when that town was besieged by the Comte de Nassau, and did aid the brave soldiers which were in the place in the same fashion as their sisters of Saint-Riquier, for which they were esteemed, commended and thanked of their sovereign.
The women of Péronne also acted heroically when the Comte de Nassau laid siege to their town, supporting the brave soldiers who were inside just like their counterparts in Saint-Riquier. Because of their actions, they were valued, praised, and thanked by their ruler.
The women of Sancerre[29] again, in the late civil wars and during the siege of their town, were admired and praised for the noble deeds they did at that time in all sorts.
The women of Sancerre[29] once again, during the late civil wars and throughout the siege of their town, were admired and celebrated for the brave actions they took during that time in every possible way.
Also, during the War of the League, the dames of Vitré[29] did acquit them right well in similar wise at the besieging of the town by M. de Mercueur. The women there be very fair and always right daintily put on, and have ever been so from old time; yet did they not spare their beauty for to show themselves manlike and courageous. And surely all manly and brave-hearted deeds, at such a time of need, are as highly to be esteemed in women as in men.
Also, during the War of the League, the women of Vitré did quite well during the siege of the town by M. de Mercueur. The women there are very beautiful and always dress elegantly, and have done so for a long time; yet they didn't hold back their beauty to show themselves as brave and courageous. Indeed, all courageous and noble acts, in such times of need, are just as commendable in women as they are in men.
Of the same gallant sort were of yore the women of Carthage, who whenas they beheld their husbands, brothers, kinsfolk and the soldiery generally cease shooting at the foe, for lack of strings to their bows, these being all[48] worn out by dint of shooting all through the long and terrible siege, and for the same cause no longer being able to provide them with hemp, or flax, or silk, or aught else wherewithal to make bow-strings, did resolve to cut off their lovely tresses and fair, yellow locks, not sparing this beauteous honour of their heads and chief adornment of their beauty. Nay! with their own fair hands, so white and delicate, they did twist and wind the same and make it into bow-strings to supply the men of war. And I leave you to imagine with what high courage and mettle these would now stretch and bend their bows, shoot their arrows and fight the foe, bearing as they did such fine favours of the ladies.
In the past, the women of Carthage were just as brave. When they saw their husbands, brothers, relatives, and the soldiers stop shooting at the enemy because their bowstrings had worn out from the long and brutal siege, and because they could no longer supply them with hemp, flax, silk, or anything else to make new bowstrings, they decided to cut off their beautiful hair, their fair and flowing locks, which were their pride and beauty. With their own delicate hands, they twisted and wove their hair into bowstrings for the warriors. Just imagine the courage and determination these men must have felt while stretching and bending their bows, shooting their arrows, and fighting the enemy, bearing such lovely tokens from the women.
We read in the History of Naples[30] how that great Captain Sforza, serving under the orders of Queen Jeanne II., having been taken prisoner by the Queen’s husband, James, and set in strict confinement and having some taste of the strappado, would without a doubt ere much longer have had his head cut off, but that his sister did fly to arms and straight take the field. She made so good a fight, she in her own person, as that she did capture four of the chiefest Neapolitan gentlemen, and this done, sent to tell the King that whatsoever treatment he should deal to her brother, the same would she meet out to his friends. The end was, he was constrained to make peace and deliver him up safe and sound. Ah! brave and gallant-hearted sister, rising so superior to her sex’s weakness!
We read in the History of Naples __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ how that great Captain Sforza, serving under Queen Jeanne II., was captured by the Queen’s husband, James. He was held in strict confinement and faced the torture of the strappado. Without a doubt, he would have been executed soon, but his sister took up arms and immediately went to battle. She fought valiantly and personally captured four of the top Neapolitan gentlemen. After this, she sent a message to the King, warning him that whatever he did to her brother, she would do the same to his friends. In the end, he had no choice but to make peace and release him unharmed. Ah! Brave and courageous sister, rising above the weaknesses expected of her gender!
I do know of certain sisters and kinswomen, who if but they had dared a like deed, some while agone, might mayhap have saved alive a gallant brother of theirs, which[49] was undone for lack of help and timely succour of the sort.
I know some sisters and female relatives who, if they had only dared to act similarly some time ago, might have saved a brave brother of theirs who was lost due to a lack of help and timely support of that kind. [49]
5.
5.

Now am I fain to have done with the consideration of these warlike and great-hearted dames in general, and to speak of some particular instances of the same. And as the fairest example Antiquity hath to show us, I will adduce the gallant Zenobia[31] only, to answer for all. This Queen, after the death of her husband, was too wise to waste her time, like so many others in like case, in mere lamentation and vain regrets, but did grasp the reins of his empire in the name of her children, and make war against the Romans and their Emperor Aurelian,[31] at that time reigning at Rome. Much trouble did she give these foes for eight long years, till at the last coming to a pitched battle with his legions, she was vanquished therein and taken prisoner and brought before the Emperor. On his asking her how she had had the hardihood to make war against the Emperors of Rome, she did answer only this: “Verily! I do well recognise that you are Emperor, seeing that you have vanquished me.”
Now I’m eager to wrap up discussing these brave and strong-hearted women in general and to highlight some specific examples. As the best illustration from history, I’ll mention the courageous Zenobia[31] to represent them all. This Queen, after her husband passed away, was too smart to waste her time, like many others in similar situations, in mere sorrow and pointless regrets. Instead, she took control of his empire for the sake of her children and waged war against the Romans and their Emperor Aurelian, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, who was ruling in Rome at that time. She caused them a lot of trouble for eight long years until, finally, she faced his legions in a big battle. She was defeated, captured, and brought before the Emperor. When he asked her how she had the nerve to go to war against the Emperors of Rome, she simply replied: “Indeed! I recognize that you are Emperor, since you have defeated me.”
So great content had he of his victory, and so proud thereof was he and exalted, that he was fain to hold a triumph over her. So with an exceeding great pomp and magnificence did she walk before his triumphal car, right gorgeously put on and adorned with much wealth of pearls and precious stones, superb jewels and great chains of gold, wherewith she was bound about the body and by the hands and feet, in sign of being captive and[50] slave of her conqueror. And so it was that by reason of the heavy weight of her jewels and chains she was constrained to make sundry pauses and to rest her again and again on this march of triumph. A fine thing, of a surety, and an admirable, that all vanquished and prisoner as she was, she could yet give the law to her triumphant conqueror, and thus make him tarry and wait her pleasure till that she had recovered breath! A great instance too of good feeling and honest courtesy on the part of the Emperor, so to allow her breathing space and rest, and to suffer her weakness, rather than unduly to constrain or press her to hurry more than she well could. So that one doth scarce know which to commend the more, the honourable courtesy of the Emperor, or the Queen’s way of acting,—who it may well be, did play this part of set purpose, not so much forced thereto by her actual weakness of body and weariness, as for to make some show of pride and prove to all how she would and could gather this little sprig of respect in the evening of her fortunes no less than she had done in the morning-tide of the same, and let them see how the Emperor did grant her this much privilege, to wait on her slow steps and lingering progress.
He was so proud of his victory that he wanted to hold a triumph over her. So with great pomp and splendor, she walked in front of his triumphal chariot, dressed beautifully and adorned with wealth from pearls, precious stones, and stunning jewelry, with heavy gold chains binding her body, hands, and feet, symbolizing her status as the captive and slave of her conqueror. Because of the heavy load of jewels and chains, she had to pause frequently to rest during this triumphal march. It was remarkable that, even as a defeated prisoner, she could still assert some authority over her triumphant conqueror, making him wait until she could catch her breath! It also showed a commendable sense of decency and courtesy on the part of the Emperor to give her that space to breathe and rest, rather than pressuring her to hurry more than she could manage. It's hard to say which deserves more praise: the honorable courtesy of the Emperor or the Queen's behavior—who might have been intentionally playing this role, not just due to her physical weakness and fatigue, but also to showcase a bit of pride and demonstrate that she could still command respect in the latter part of her fortunes just as she had in their peak, allowing everyone to see how the Emperor respected her enough to wait for her slow steps and lingering pace.
Much was the Queen gazed at and admired by men and women alike, not a few of which last had been but too glad to resemble so fair an apparition. For truly she was one of the most lovely of women, by what is said of the historians of these events. She was of a very fine, tall and opulent figure, say they, her carriage right noble, and her grace and dignity to match; furthermore her face very beautiful and exceeding pleasing, her eyes dark and piercing. Beside her other beauties, these writers do[51] give her fine and very white teeth, a keen wit and a modest bearing, a sincere and at need a kind and merciful heart. Her speech was eloquent and spoke with a fine clear voice; moreover she was used always to express her ideas and wishes herself to her soldiers, and would many a time harangue the same publicly.
The Queen was admired by both men and women, many of whom were eager to emulate such a stunning figure. Truly, she was one of the most beautiful women, according to historians of these events. She had a tall and impressive stature, a noble presence, and matched grace and dignity. Her face was very attractive, and her eyes were dark and piercing. In addition to her other charms, these writers noted her lovely, very white teeth, sharp intelligence, and modest demeanor, as well as a sincere and, when needed, kind and merciful heart. Her speech was eloquent and delivered in a clear voice; moreover, she always made it a point to communicate her thoughts and desires directly to her soldiers and often addressed them publicly.
I ween he did so show her to best advantage, thus richly and gracefully attired in women’s weeds, no less than when she was armed in all points as the Warrior Queen. For sex doth always count for much; and we may rightly suppose the Emperor was fain to display her at his triumph only under guise of her own fair sex, wherein she would seem most beauteous and agreeable to the populace in all the perfection of her charms. Furthermore, ’tis to be supposed, so lovely as she was, the Emperor had tasted and enjoyed her loveliness, and was yet in the enjoyment thereof. So albeit he had vanquished her in one fashion, yet had she,—or he, if you prefer it so, for the two be as one in this,—won the victory in another.
I think he showed her off to her best advantage, dressed so richly and gracefully in women's clothing, just as much as when she was fully armed as the Warrior Queen. Because gender always matters; we can assume the Emperor wanted to present her at his triumph only as a woman, where she would seem most beautiful and appealing to the crowd, showcasing all her charms. Moreover, considering how lovely she was, the Emperor must have appreciated and enjoyed her beauty, and he was still enjoying it. So even though he had defeated her in one way, she— or he, if you prefer, since they are one in this— had won a victory in another.
Mine own wonder is, that seeing the said Zenobia was so beautiful, the Emperor did not take her and keep her for one of his mistresses; or else that she did not open and establish by his permission, or the Senate’s, a shop or market of love and harlotry, as did the fair Flora in the same city, for to win wealth and store up much gear and goods, by the toil of her body and shaking of her bed. For to such a market had surely resorted all the greatest men of Rome, one vying with other in eagerness; seeing there is no contentment ’twould seem, or satisfaction in all the world like that of a man’s taking his will of a Royal or Princely person, and enjoying of a fair Queen, or Princess or a high-born Lady. As to this I[52] do appeal to such men as have embarked on these voyages, and made such good traffic there. Now in this fashion would Queen Zenobia have soon grown rich out of the purse of these great folks, as did Flora, which did receive no others in her place of commerce. Had it not been far better for her to make of her life a scene of merry-making and magnificence, of money getting and compliments, than to have fallen into that need and extremity of poverty she did come to? For she was constrained to gain her bread a-spinning among common work-women, and would have died of hunger, but that the Senate, taking pity of her in view of her former greatness, did decree her a pension for her maintenance, and some trifling lands and possessions, which were for long after known as “Zenobia’s Lands.” For indeed and indeed is poverty a sore evil; and whosoever can avoid the same, no matter what transformation be taken to that end, doth well and right, as one I wot of was used to declare.
My wonder is why, seeing that Zenobia was so beautiful, the Emperor didn’t take her as one of his mistresses; or why she didn’t, with his permission or that of the Senate, open a brothel like the lovely Flora did in the same city to earn money and gather wealth by using her body. Surely all the most powerful men of Rome would have flocked to such a place, each competing with the others in eagerness; for it seems that nothing brings satisfaction quite like being with a royal or noble person and enjoying the company of a beautiful queen, princess, or high-born lady. I appeal to those who have engaged in such pursuits and profited from them. If Queen Zenobia had followed this path, she would have quickly grown rich from the wealth of these powerful men, just like Flora, who only allowed specific clients into her business. Wouldn’t it have been better for her to live a life of enjoyment and opulence, making money and receiving compliments, than to fall into such dire poverty? She was forced to make a living spinning among ordinary working women and would have starved if not for the Senate, which, moved by her past greatness, granted her a pension for her support and some small lands and possessions that were later known as “Zenobia’s Lands.” Truly, poverty is a terrible affliction; and whoever can avoid it, no matter the sacrifices made to do so, is wise and right, as someone I know used to say.
Thus we see how Zenobia did not carry her high courage to the end of her career, as she should,—and as folk should ever persist in every course of action to the last. ’Tis said she had had a triumphal car constructed, the most magnificent ever seen in Rome, to the end she might, as she was often used to say in her days of high prosperity and glorying, hold triumph therein at Rome. For her ambition was to conquer and subdue the Roman Empire! Alas! for her presumption; for it did all fall out quite otherwise, and the Emperor having won the day, did take her car for himself, and use it in his own triumph, while she did march a-foot, and did make as much triumph and ceremonial over her as if he had vanquished a puissant King,—and more. Yet be sure, a victory won[53] over a woman, be it gained how it may, is no very great or famous exploit!
So we can see how Zenobia didn't maintain her strong courage until the end of her journey, which she should have — and how people should always stick with their actions to the very last. It’s said she had the most magnificent triumphal chariot ever built in Rome so that she could, as she often claimed during her glorious times, hold a triumph in Rome. Her ambition was to conquer the Roman Empire! Unfortunately for her arrogance, things turned out quite differently, and the Emperor, having claimed victory, took her chariot for himself and used it in his own triumph while she marched on foot, making as much of a spectacle of herself as if he had defeated a powerful king — and even more. But remember, a victory over a woman, no matter how achieved, isn't really a significant or impressive accomplishment!
After a like fashion did Augustus long to triumph over Cleopatra; but he got no success in this. She did forestall him in good time, and in the same way which Aemilius Paulus did signify in what he said to Perseus,[32] when in his captivity he did beseech him to have pity on him, answering him he should have seen to that beforehand, meaning that he ought to have killed himself.
After a similar fashion, Augustus wanted to defeat Cleopatra; however, he was unsuccessful in this. She anticipated his moves and, just like Aemilius Paulus indicated when he spoke to Perseus, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ during his captivity, he asked for mercy. Paulus replied that Perseus should have considered that earlier, implying that he should have taken his own life.
I have heard say that our late King Henri II. did long for no other thing so sore as to be able to take prisoner the Queen of Hungary, and this not to treat her ill, albeit she had given him many causes of offence by her devastations of his territory, but only to have the glory of holding this great Princess captive, and to see what bearing and countenance she would show in her prison, and if she would then be so gallant and proud-spirited as at the head of her armies. For in truth there is naught else so fine and gallant as such a fair, brave and high-born lady, when she hath will and courage as had this same Princess, which did much delight in the name the Spanish soldiers had given her; for just as they did call her brother the Emperor el padre de los soldados, “the father of the soldiers,” so did they entitle her la madre, “the mother,” of the same. So in old days, in the times of the Romans, was Victoria or Victorina known in her armies by the name of “the mother of the camp.” Of a surety, an if a great and beautiful lady do undertake an exploit of war, she doth contribute much to its success and giveth much encouragement and spirit to her folk, as myself have seen in the case of our own Queen Mother, Catherine de Medici, which did often visit[54] our armies, and so doing did greatly animate their courage and rouse their ardour. The same is done at this present by her grand-daughter, the Infanta[33] in Flanders, which doth take the lead of her army, and show herself a valorous chief of her fighting men,—so much so that without her and her noble and delightful presence, Flanders could never have been retained, as all men allow. And never did even the Queen of Hungary herself, her grand-aunt, make so fair a show of beauty, valour, great-heartedness and graceful bearing.
I've heard that our late King Henri II longed for nothing more than to capture the Queen of Hungary, not to harm her—though she had given him many reasons to be upset with her for her destruction of his lands—but just for the glory of having this great princess as his prisoner and to see how she would hold herself in captivity, and whether she would be as proud and bold as she was leading her armies. Because honestly, there’s nothing more admirable than a fair, brave, and noble lady who has the will and courage like this princess, who took great pleasure in the name the Spanish soldiers gave her. Just as they called her brother the Emperor el padre de los soldados, “the father of the soldiers,” they titled her la madre, “the mother,” of the same. In ancient times, during the Roman era, Victoria or Victorina was known in her armies as “the mother of the camp.” Indeed, when a great and beautiful lady undertakes a military endeavor, she significantly contributes to its success and greatly inspires her people, as I have seen with our own Queen Mother, Catherine de Medici, who often visited[54] our armies, greatly boosting their courage and igniting their zeal. The same is true today with her granddaughter, the Infanta, in Flanders, who leads her army and shows herself as a valorous leader among her troops—so much so that without her and her noble and charming presence, Flanders could never have been held, as everyone agrees. Even the Queen of Hungary herself, her grand-aunt, never showcased such beauty, valor, bravery, and elegance.
In our histories of France we do read of how much avail was the presence of the noble-hearted Comtesse de Montfort,[33] when shut up and besieged in Hennebon. For albeit her men were brave and valiant, and had quit themselves in battle and withstood the enemy’s assaults as well as ever any folk could, yet did they at the last begin to lose heart and talk of surrendering. But she did harangue them so eloquently, and did re-animate their courage with such good and intrepid words, inspiriting them so finely and so well, as that they did hold out till the succour, so long and eagerly desired, did arrive, and the siege was raised. Nay! she did better still; for whenas the enemy were set on the attack and were all busied therewith, seeing their tents to be all left empty and unprotected, she did make a sally, mounted on a good horse and with fifty good horses to follow her. In this wise doth she surprise the camp and set it a-fire, the result being that Charles de Blois, deeming himself to be betrayed, did straight abandon the assault. On this subject, I will add yet another little tale:
In our histories of France, we read about the significant impact of the noble-hearted Comtesse de Montfort when she was besieged in Hennebon. Although her men were brave and had fought valiantly, holding their own against the enemy’s attacks, they eventually started to lose hope and talked about surrendering. But she gave them an inspiring speech, reigniting their courage with her strong and fearless words, encouraging them so effectively that they held out until the long-awaited rescue finally arrived, and the siege was lifted. But she did even more; when the enemy was focused on their attack and their tents were left empty and unguarded, she made a daring move, riding a sturdy horse with fifty soldiers following her. This way, she surprised the camp and set it on fire, causing Charles de Blois to think he was betrayed and abandon the attack. On this topic, I will share another little story:
During the late Wars of the League, the Prince de Condé, since deceased, being at Saint-Jean, did send to[55] demand of Madame de Bourdeille,[34] then a widow of the age of forty, and a very handsome woman, six or seven of the wealthiest tenants of her estate, the which had taken refuge in her castle of Mathas at her side. She did refuse him outright, declaring she would never betray nor give up these unhappy folk, who had put themselves under her protection and trusted to her honour for their safety. On this he did summon her for the last time, informing her that unless she would deliver them up to him, he would teach her better obedience. She did make reply to this (for myself was with her by way of rendering help) that, seeing he knew not himself how to obey, she did find it very strange he should wish to make others do so, and that so soon as he should have obeyed his King’s orders, she would obey him. For the rest, she did declare that for all his threats, she was afraid neither of his cannon nor of his siege, and how that she was descended from the far-famed Comtesse de Montfort, from whom her folk had inherited the place, and herself too, and therewith some share of her gallantry. Further that she was determined to defend the same so well as that he should never take it, and that she should win no less fame herein than her ancestress, the aforesaid Countess, had done at Hennebon. The Prince did ponder long over this reply, and did delay some days’ space, without further threatening her. Yet, had he not presently died, he would assuredly have laid siege to her castle; but in that case was she right well prepared in heart, resolution, men and gear, to receive him warmly, and I do think he would have gotten a shameful rebuff.
During the late Wars of the League, the late Prince de Condé, while at Saint-Jean, sent a message to [55] request that Madame de Bourdeille,__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, a forty-year-old widow and a very attractive woman, surrender six or seven of her wealthiest tenants who had taken refuge in her castle of Mathas. She flatly refused, stating she would never betray or abandon those unfortunate people who had put themselves under her protection and trusted her to keep them safe. He then summoned her for the last time, telling her that unless she turned them over, he would teach her to obey. She replied (since I was with her to assist) that, given he didn't know how to obey himself, it was odd for him to expect others to do so, and that as soon as he followed his King's orders, she would comply. Moreover, she declared that despite his threats, she feared neither his cannons nor his siege, and that she was descended from the renowned Comtesse de Montfort, from whom her family inherited the place, along with some of her bravery. She was determined to defend it so well that he would never take it, and she would achieve no less renown in doing so than her ancestor, the aforementioned Countess, had at Hennebon. The Prince pondered over her response for a long time and delayed his threats for several days. However, had he not died soon after, he would surely have laid siege to her castle; but in that case, she was well prepared in spirit, resolve, manpower, and resources to welcome him fiercely, and I believe he would have received a humiliating defeat.
Machiavelli, in his book On the Art of War, doth relate how that Catherine, Countess of Forli, was besieged[56] in that her good town fortress by Cæsar Borgia, aided by the French army, which did make a most gallant resistance to him, yet at the last was taken. The cause of its loss was this, that the said strong town was over full of fortresses and strongholds, for folk to retire from the one to the other; so much so that Borgia having made his approaches, the Signor Giovanni de Casale (whom the said Countess had chose for her helper and protector), did abandon the breach to withdraw into his strongholds. Through the which error, Borgia did force an entrance and took the place. And so, saith the author, these errors did much wrong the high-hearted courage and repute of the said gallant Countess, which had withstood an army the King of Naples and the Duke of Milan had not dared to face; and albeit the issue was unfortunate, yet did she win the honour she so well deserved, and for this exploit many rhymes and verses were writ in Italy in her honour. This passage is one well worthy the attention of all such as have to do with the fortifying of places of strength, and do set them to build therein great numbers of castles, strongholds, fortresses and citadels.
Machiavelli, in his book On the Art of War, recounts how Catherine, Countess of Forli, was besieged[56] in her fortified town by Cæsar Borgia, aided by the French army. Despite making a strong defense, the town eventually fell. The reason for its loss was that the stronghold was overly filled with fortresses and strongholds, allowing people to retreat from one to another. As a result, when Borgia advanced, Signor Giovanni de Casale (whom the Countess had chosen as her helper and protector) abandoned the breach to fall back into the strongholds. This mistake allowed Borgia to break in and capture the town. Therefore, the author notes, these errors seriously harmed the brave spirit and reputation of the gallant Countess, who had stood against an army that neither the King of Naples nor the Duke of Milan dared confront. Although the outcome was unfortunate, she earned the honor she richly deserved, and for this feat, many poems and verses were written in Italy to celebrate her. This passage is particularly relevant for anyone involved in fortifying strongholds, especially those who aim to construct numerous castles, strongholds, fortresses, and citadels.
To return to our proper subject, we have had in times past many Princesses and high-born ladies in this our land of France, which have given excellent marks of their prowess. As did Paule,[35*] daughter of the Comte de Penthièvre, who was besieged in Roye by the Comte de Charolais, and did there show herself so gallant and great-hearted as that, on the town being taken, the Count did grant her very good conditions, and had her conducted in safety to Compiègne, not suffering any hurt to be done her. So greatly did he honour her for her valour,—and this albeit he felt deep resentment against her husband,[57] whom he held guilty of having tried to work his death by black arts and sundry evil devices of images and candles.
To get back to our main topic, there have been many princesses and noblewomen in our land of France who have displayed remarkable bravery in the past. For example, Paule,__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, the daughter of the Comte de Penthièvre, was besieged in Roye by the Comte de Charolais. She proved to be so courageous and strong-hearted that when the town fell, the Count offered her excellent terms and ensured she was safely taken to Compiègne, without allowing any harm to come to her. He honored her greatly for her bravery—even though he held a deep grudge against her husband,[57] whom he believed had tried to kill him through dark magic and various evil schemes involving images and candles.
Richilda,[36] only daughter and heiress of Mons in Hainault, and wife of Baldwyn the Sixth, Count of Flanders, did make all efforts against Robert the Frisian, her brother-in-law, appointed guardian of the children of Flanders, for to take away from him the duty and administration of the same, and have it assigned to herself. To which end she did take up arms with the help of Philip, King of France, and hazarded two battles[36] against Count Robert. In the first she was taken prisoner, as was likewise her foe, the said Count Robert, but afterward were the twain given back in exchange one of the other. A second battle followed, which she lost, her son Arnulphe being slain therein, and was driven back to Mons.
Richilda,[36] the only daughter and heiress of Mons in Hainault, and wife of Baldwyn the Sixth, Count of Flanders, made every effort against her brother-in-law Robert the Frisian, who was appointed guardian of the children of Flanders, to take away his responsibilities and have them assigned to herself. To achieve this, she took up arms with the help of Philip, King of France, and fought two battles[36] against Count Robert. In the first battle, she was captured, as was her enemy, Count Robert, but they were later exchanged for each other. A second battle followed, which she lost, resulting in her son Arnulphe being killed, and she was forced to retreat to Mons.
Ysabel of France, daughter of King Philippe le Bel, and wife of Edward II.[36] of England, and Duke of Guienne, was ill looked on of the King her husband, through the intrigues of Hugh le Despenser, whereby she was constrained to withdraw to France with her son Edward. Afterward she did return to England with the Chevalier de Hainault, her kinsman, and an army which she did lead thither, and by means of which she did presently take her husband prisoner. Him she did deliver up into the hands of men which did soon bring about his death; a fate that overtook herself likewise, for by reason of her loves with a certain Lord Mortimer, she was confined by her own son in a castle, and there ended her days. She it was that did afford the English pretext to quarrel with France to the sore hurt of the same.[58] Yet surely we have here a piece of base ingratitude on her son’s part, who all forgetful of great benefit received, did so cruelly treat his mother for so small a fault. Small I call it, for that ’twas but natural, and an easy thing, that after dealing long with men of arms, and grown so accustomed to go in manly guise with them amid armies and tents and camps, she should do the like also a-bed.
Ysabel of France, daughter of King Philippe le Bel, and wife of Edward II.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ of England and Duke of Guienne, was not favored by her husband due to the schemes of Hugh le Despenser, which forced her to flee to France with her son Edward. Later, she returned to England with her cousin, the Chevalier de Hainault, and an army that she led, with which she quickly captured her husband. She handed him over to men who soon caused his death; a fate that also befell her, as she was imprisoned by her own son because of her relationship with a certain Lord Mortimer, and there she spent her final days. She was the one who gave the English a reason to quarrel with France, resulting in great harm to it.[58] Yet it was surely a cruel act of ingratitude on her son’s part, who, forgetting the great benefits he had received, treated his mother so harshly for such a minor fault. I call it minor because it was only natural and straightforward that after spending so much time with soldiers and getting used to behaving in a masculine way among them in armies, she would do the same in bed.
This is a thing oft times seen to happen. For example I do refer me to our Queen Léonor,[37*] Duchess of Guienne, which did accompany her husband over seas and to the Holy Wars. By dint of much frequenting of men at arms and troopers and such folk, she did come to derogate very gravely from her honour,—so far as that she did have dealings even with the Saracens. For the which the King her husband did put her away, a thing that cost us very dear. We can but suppose she was fain to try whether these worthy foes were as gallant champions in a lady’s chamber as in the open field, and that mayhap ’twas her humour to ever love valiant wights, and that one valiance doth ever attract another, as virtue doth to virtue. For verily he saith most true, which doth declare virtue to be like the lightning, that pierceth through all things.
This is something that often happens. For example, I refer to our Queen Léonor, Duchess of Guienne, who accompanied her husband overseas and to the Holy Wars. By spending so much time with soldiers and such people, she ended up seriously damaging her honor—so much so that she had dealings with the Saracens. Because of this, her husband, the King, sent her away, which cost us dearly. We can only assume she wanted to see if these noble enemies were as brave in a lady’s chamber as they were in battle, and perhaps it was her nature to always be drawn to courageous men, as one act of bravery attracts another, just as virtue appeals to virtue. For truly, it is said that virtue is like lightning, piercing through everything.
The said Queen Léonor was not the only lady which did accompany her husband to these same Holy Wars. But both before her day, and with her, and after her, no few other Princesses and great ladies did along with their lords take the cross,—not that they did therefore cross their legs, but did rather open these and stretch them right wide, in such wise that while some did remain there for good and all, others came back from the wars most[59] finished harlots. So under pretext of visiting the Holy Sepulchre, amid all that press of arms they did much amorous wantoning; for verily, as I have observed afore, arms and love do well accord together, so close and congruous is the sympathy betwixt these twain.
Queen Léonor wasn't the only lady who accompanied her husband to these Holy Wars. Both before her time, during her era, and after, many other princesses and noble ladies took the cross with their husbands—not that they crossed their legs, but rather opened them wide, so that while some stayed there permanently, others returned from the wars as nothing more than finished harlots. So, under the guise of visiting the Holy Sepulchre, amid all that military action, they engaged in a lot of flirtation; truly, as I've noted before, arms and love go well together, for there is a strong and fitting connection between the two.
Suchlike dames ought surely to be esteemed, loved and treated like men,—not as the Amazons did of old, which proclaiming themselves daughters of Mars, did rid them of their husbands, pretending marriage was sheer slavery; yet desire enough and to spare had they to go with other men, for to have daughters of them, but killing all the male children.
Such women should definitely be valued, loved, and treated like men—not like the Amazons of old, who proclaimed themselves daughters of Mars, got rid of their husbands, and claimed that marriage was pure slavery; yet they had plenty of desire to be with other men to have daughters with them, while killing all the male children.
Jo. Nauclerus, in his Cosmography,[38*] relates how, in the year of Christ 1123, after the death of Tibussa, Queen of the Bohemians, she who did first close in the town of Prague with walls, and who did very greatly abhor the power and domination of men, there was one of her damsels, by name Valasca, which did so well gain over the maids and matrons of that land by her fair and alluring promises of liberty, and did so thoroughly disgust and set them against their servitude to manfolk, as that they did slay each her man, one her husband, another her brother, another her kinsman or next neighbour, and so in less than no time were mistresses of the realm. Then having taken their husbands’ harness of war, they did make such good use thereof, and grew so valiant and skilled in arms, fighting after the Amazon fashion, as that they soon gat them several victories. Yet were they presently, by the conduct and cunning wiles of one Primislaus, husband of Tibussa, a man she had raised up from low and humble state, routed entirely and put to death. This was sure God Almighty’s vengeance for so heinous[60] an act and dread attempt, no less indeed than to destroy the human race itself.
Jo. Nauclerus, in his Cosmography, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ describes how, in the year 1123 AD, after the death of Tibussa, Queen of the Bohemians—who first enclosed the town of Prague with walls and strongly disliked the power and control of men—there was a young woman named Valasca. She successfully influenced the other women and matrons of the land with her attractive promises of freedom, causing them to grow completely disillusioned with their subservience to men. In a short time, they ended up killing their husbands, brothers, or male relatives, becoming the rulers of the realm. After taking their husbands’ armor, they effectively used it and became brave and skilled in battle, fighting like Amazons, achieving several victories. However, they were soon defeated and killed by Primislaus, the husband of Tibussa, a man she had raised from a lowly status, through his clever tactics and schemes. This was certainly God's anger for such a dreadful act and terrifying attempt, no less than an effort to eradicate humanity itself.
6.
6.

Thus did these Amazonian dames find no other fashion of showing forth their gallant spirit for fine, bold and manly exploits but only by these cruel deeds we have named. On the contrary, how many Empresses, Queens, Princesses and other high-born Ladies, have done the like by means of noble acts, both in the governance and management of their dominions, and in other excellent ways, whereof the Histories be so full that I need not recount the same. For the desire of holding sway, of reigning and ruling, doth lodge within women’s breasts no less than in men’s, and they be just as eager after domination as the other sex.
So these Amazonian women found no other way to demonstrate their brave spirit through impressive, bold, and courageous actions except for the cruel deeds we've mentioned. On the other hand, how many Empresses, Queens, Princesses, and other high-born ladies have accomplished similar things through noble acts, both in leading and managing their realms and in other remarkable ways, which are so well-documented in histories that I don't need to recount them. The desire for power, to reign and rule, resides in women's hearts just as much as in men's, and they are equally as eager for dominance as the other gender.
Well! now I am about to speak of one that was unsullied of this ambition, to wit Vittoria Colonna,[39] wife of the Marquis de Pescaire. I have read of this lady in a Spanish book, how that whenas the said Marquis did hearken to the fine offers made him by Hieronimo Mouron on the Pope’s behalf (as I have said in a previous passage) of the Kingdom of Naples, if only he would enter into the league with him, she being informed of the matter by her husband himself, who did never hide aught from her of his privy affairs, neither small nor great, did write to him (for she had an excellent gift of language), and bade him remember his ancient valour and virtue, the which had given him such glory and high repute, as that these did exceed the fame and fortune of the greatest[61] Kings of the earth. She then went on: non con grandeza de los reynos, de Estados ny de hermosos titulos, sino con fè illustre y clara virtud, se alcançava la honra, la qual con loor siempre vivo, legava a los descendientes; y que no havia ningun grado tan alto que no fuese vencido de una trahicion y mala fe. Que por esto, ningun deseo tenia de ser muger de rey, queriendo antes ser muger de tal capitan, que no solamente en guerra con valorosa mano, mas en paz con gran honra de animo no vencido, havia sabido vencer reyes, y grandissimos principes, y capitanes, y darlos a triunfos, y imperiarlos,—“not by the greatness of Kingdoms and of vast Dominions, nor yet of high and sounding titles, but by fair faith and unsullied virtue, is honour won,—the virtue that with ever living praise doth go down to all descendants. And there is never a rank so exalted but it were undone and spoiled by treason wrought and good faith broke. For such a prize she had no wish to be a King’s wife, but had rather be a simple Captain’s such as he, which not alone in war by his valiant arm, but in peace likewise with the honour of an unbroken spirit, had been strong to vanquish Kings, great Princes and mighty Captains, to triumph over the same and master them.” High courage and virtue and truth did all mark this lady’s words; for truly to reign by ill faith is a very evil and sorry thing, but to give the law to Kings and kingdoms by honesty and worth a right noble one.
Well! Now I'm about to talk about someone who was free from this ambition, namely Vittoria Colonna, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, wife of the Marquis de Pescaire. I read about her in a Spanish book, describing how when the Marquis listened to the enticing offers made to him by Hieronimo Mouron on behalf of the Pope (as I mentioned earlier) regarding the Kingdom of Naples, if he would just join the league with him, she was informed of this by her husband, who never kept anything from her about his secret dealings, whether small or large. She wrote to him (for she had a remarkable way with words), urging him to remember his ancient courage and virtue, which had brought him such glory and high regard, surpassing even the fame and fortune of the greatest Kings on earth. She continued: not by the greatness of Kingdoms, vast Territories, or grand titles, but by noble faith and unblemished virtue is honour attained,—the virtue that with everlasting praise passes down to all descendants. There is no rank so high that it can't be undermined by treachery and broken trust. Therefore, she had no desire to be a King's wife; she would rather be the wife of a captain like him, who not only in battle with his valiant hand but also in peace with the honour of an unbroken spirit had managed to conquer Kings and great Princes and captains, to triumph over them and command them. High courage, virtue, and truth characterizes this lady's words; for indeed, to rule through deceit is a truly wicked and pitiful thing, but to establish authority over Kings and kingdoms through honesty and worth is a truly noble achievement.
Fulvia, wife of Publius Clodius, and in second wedlock that of Mark Antony, finding but small amusement in her household tasks, did set herself to higher business, to manage affairs of State that is, till she did win herself the repute of ruling the Rulers of Rome.[40*] And indeed[62] Cleopatra did owe her some gratitude and obligation for having so well trained and disciplined Mark Antony to obey and bend him under the laws of submission.
Fulvia, who was married to Publius Clodius and later to Mark Antony, found little enjoyment in her domestic duties. Instead, she turned her attention to more ambitious goals, managing state affairs until she earned a reputation for ruling the leaders of Rome.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ In fact, [62] Cleopatra owed her some gratitude and recognition for successfully training and disciplining Mark Antony to submit to her authority.
We read moreover of that great French Prince Charles Martel, which in his day would never take nor bear the title of King, as ’twas within his power to do, but liked better to govern Kings and give orders to the same.
We also read about the great French Prince Charles Martel, who in his time refused to take or accept the title of King, even though he had the power to do so. He preferred to rule over Kings and give them orders.
However let us speak of some of our own countrywomen. We had, in our War of the League, Madame de Montpensier, sister of the late Duc de Guise, who was a great Stateswoman, and did contribute much, as well by the subtile inventions of her fine spirit as by the labour of her hands, to build up the said league. And after the same had been now well established, playing one day at cards (for she doth well love this pastime) and taking the first deal, on their telling her she should well shuffle the cards, she did answer before all the company: “I have shuffled the cards so well, as that they could not be better shuffled or combined together.” This would all have turned out well, if only her friends had lived; on whose unhappy end however, without losing heart at all at such a loss, she did set herself to avenge them. And having heard the news when in Paris, she doth not shut herself in her chamber to indulge her grief, as most other women would have done, but cometh forth of her house with her brother’s children, and holding these by the hand, doth take them up and down the city, making public mourning of her bereavement before the citizens, rousing the same by her tears and piteous cries and sad words which she did utter to all, to take up arms and rise in fierce protest, and insult the King’s[41] house and picture, as we have seen done, and I do hope to relate[63] in his life, and deny all fealty to him, swearing rank rebellion to his authority, all which did presently result in his murder. As to which ’tis well enough known what persons, men and women, did counsel the same, and are properly guilty thereof. Of a surety no sister’s heart, losing such brothers, could well digest such deadly venom without vengeance of this foul murder.
However, let’s talk about some of our own women. During our War of the League, we had Madame de Montpensier, the sister of the late Duc de Guise, who was a remarkable stateswoman. She contributed significantly to building the league, both through her clever strategies and hard work. Once the league was established, she was playing cards one day (as she really enjoyed this pastime) and during her first deal, when told to shuffle the cards well, she confidently replied in front of everyone, "I’ve shuffled the cards so well that they couldn’t be shuffled or mixed any better." Everything could have turned out well if her friends had survived. However, when they met an unfortunate end, instead of succumbing to despair as most women would have done, she resolved to avenge them. After hearing the news while in Paris, she didn’t lock herself in her room to grieve; instead, she came out with her brother’s children, holding their hands. She walked them around the city, publicly mourning her loss in front of the citizens, urging them to take up arms and protest fiercely. She stirred them with her tears, pitiful cries, and sorrowful words, leading them to confront the King’s house and image, as we have witnessed, as well as to reject all loyalty to him, swearing open rebellion against his authority, which ultimately resulted in his murder. It is well known who—both men and women—advised this action and are rightly implicated. Surely, no sister could endure the heartache of losing such brothers without seeking vengeance for this awful crime.
I have heard it related how after she had thus put the good folk of Paris in so great a state of animosity and dissatisfaction, she did set her forth to ask of the Duke of Parma his help toward her vengeance. So thither she maketh her way, but by such long and heavy stages as that her coach horses were left so wearied out and foundered, stranded in the mire somewhere in the very midst of Picardy, that they could not go another step either forward or backward, nor put one foot before another. As chance would have it, there did pass that way a very honourable gentleman of that countryside, which was a Protestant, and who, albeit she was disguised both as to name and in dress, did recognize her well enough. But yet, ignoring all the hurts she had wrought against his fellows in religion, and the hatred she bare them, with frank and full courtesy, he did thus accost her: “Madam, I know you well, and am your most humble servant. I find you in ill case, and beg you, an if you will, come to my house, which is close at hand, to dry your clothes and rest you. I will afford you every convenience I can to the very best of my ability. Have no fear; for though I be of the reformed faith, which you do hate so sore in us, I would fain not leave you without offering you a courtesy you do stand much in need of.” This fair offer she did in no wise refuse, but[64] did accept very readily; then after that he had provided her with such things as were needful, she doth take the road again, he conducting her on her way two leagues, though all the while she did keep secret from him the purport of her journey. Later on in the course of the war, by what I have heard, she did repay her debt to the said gentleman by many acts of courtesy done him.
I’ve heard that after she stirred up so much animosity and dissatisfaction among the good people of Paris, she set out to ask the Duke of Parma for help with her revenge. She made her way there, but her coach horses were so worn out and stuck in the mud somewhere in the middle of Picardy that they couldn’t move a step forward or backward. By chance, a very honorable gentleman from that area, a Protestant, passed by. Even though she was disguised in both name and appearance, he recognized her easily. However, despite the harm she had done to his fellow Protestants and the hatred she held for them, he approached her with genuine courtesy: “Madam, I know you well, and I am your humble servant. You seem to be in trouble, and I kindly invite you to my house, which is nearby, to dry your clothes and rest. I will offer you every convenience I can to the best of my ability. Don’t worry; even though I follow the reformed faith, which you despise, I wouldn’t want to leave you without a kindness you obviously need.” She didn’t refuse this generous offer but readily accepted it. After he provided her with what she needed, she continued on her journey, with him guiding her for two leagues, all while keeping the purpose of her trip a secret from him. Later in the war, as I’ve heard, she repaid her debt to this gentleman with many acts of kindness.
Many have wondered at her trusting of herself to him, being Huguenot as he was. But there! necessity hath no law; and beside, she did see him so honourable seeming, and heard him speak so honestly and frankly, that she could not but believe him disposed to deal fairly with her.
Many have questioned her trust in him, given that he was a Huguenot. But there you go! Necessity knows no rules; and besides, she saw him as so honorable and heard him speak so honestly and openly that she couldn’t help but believe he intended to treat her fairly.
As for Madame de Nemours, her mother, who was thrown into prison after the murder of her noble son’s children, there can be little doubt of the despair and desolation she was left in by so intolerable a loss; and albeit till that day she had ever shown herself of a gentle and cold humour, and one that did need good and sufficient cause to rouse her, she did now spew forth a thousand insults against the King, and cast in his teeth a thousand curses and execrations, going so far (for verily what deed or word could ever match the vehemence of such a loss and bitter sorrow?) as always to speak of him by no other name but this, that Tyrant. Later, being come somewhat to herself, she would say: “Alas! what say I,—Tyrant? Nay! nay! I will not call him so, but a most good and clement King, if only he will kill me as he hath killed my children, to take me out of the wretchedness wherein I am, and remove me to the blessedness of God’s heaven!” Later again, softening still further her words and bitter cries, and finding some surcease of sorrow, she would say naught else but only, “Ah! my[65] children! my poor children!”—repeating these same words over and over again with floods of tears, that ’twould have melted an heart of stone. Alas! she might well lament and deplore them so sore, being so good and great hearted, so virtuous and so valorous, as they were, but above all the noble Duc de Guise, a worthy eldest son and true paragon of all valour and true-heartedness. Moreover she did love her children so fondly, that one day as I was discoursing with a noble lady of the Court of the said Madame de Nemours, she told me how that Princess was the happiest in all the world, for sundry reasons which she did give me,—except only in one thing, which was that she did love her children over much; for that she did love them with such excess of fondness as that the common anxiety she had of their safety and the fear some ill should happen them, did cloud all her happiness, making her to live always in inquietude and alarm for their sake. I leave you then, reader, to imagine how grievous was the sorrow, bitterness and pain she did feel at the death of these twain, and how lively the terror for the other,[42*] which was away in the neighbourhood of Lyons, as well as for the Duke her husband, then a prisoner. For of his imprisonment she had never a suspicion, as herself did declare, nor of his death neither, as I have said above.
As for Madame de Nemours, her mother, who was thrown into prison after the murder of her noble son’s children, there’s no doubt she was overwhelmed with despair and devastation from such an unbearable loss. Although she had always maintained a gentle and reserved demeanor, only reacting when provoked, she now unleashed a torrent of insults against the King, hurling curses and accusations at him, resorting to calling him nothing but that Tyrant. Later, once she had calmed down a bit, she would say, “Alas! What am I saying—Tyrant? No! I won't call him that; he's a good and merciful King, if only he would end my life as he did my children's, to lift me from this misery and take me to the blessedness of God’s heaven!” Eventually, softening her bitter cries and finding moments of relief from her sorrow, she would say nothing more than, “Ah! my[65] children! my poor children!”—repeating those words over and over, with tears flowing that could soften even the hardest of hearts. It was truly heartbreaking for her to mourn them so deeply, given their goodness and bravery, especially the noble Duc de Guise, who was a remarkable eldest son and a true example of valor and loyalty. She loved her children so dearly that one day, while talking with a noble lady from the Court about Madame de Nemours, she mentioned how this Princess was the happiest person in the world for various reasons, except in one regard—her excessive love for her children. This overwhelming concern for their safety and fear that something bad might happen plagued her happiness, forcing her to live in constant anxiety for their sake. So, dear reader, you can imagine how intense the sorrow, bitterness, and pain she felt at the death of these two was, and how vivid the terror she experienced for other, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ who was nearby in Lyons, as well as for her husband, the Duke, who was then in prison. She had no inkling of his imprisonment or death, as she herself stated, nor as I mentioned earlier.
When she was removed from the Castle of Blois to be conveyed to that of Amboise for straiter confinement therein, just as she had passed the gate, she did turn her round and lifted her head toward the figure of King Louis XII., her grandfather, which is there carven in stone above the door, on horseback and with a very noble mien and warlike bearing. So she, tarrying there[66] a little space and gazing thereon, said in a loud voice before a great number of folk which had come together, with a fine bold look which did never desert her: “An if he which is there pourtrayed were alive, he would never suffer his granddaughter thus to be carried away prisoner, and treated as she is this day.” Then with these words, she did go on her way, without further remonstrance. Understand this, that in her heart she was invoking and making appeal to the manes of that her great-hearted ancestor, to avenge her of the injustice of her imprisonment. Herein she acted precisely as did certain of the conspirators for Cæsar’s death, which as they were about to strike their blow, did turn them toward the statue of Pompey, and did inwardly invoke and make appeal to the shade of his valiant arm, so puissant of old, to conduct the emprise they were set on to a successful issue. It may well be the invocation of this Princess may have something aided and advanced the death of the King which had so outraged her. A lady of high heart and spirit which doth thus brood over vengeance to come is no little to be dreaded.
When she was taken from the Castle of Blois to be moved to Amboise for stricter confinement, just as she passed through the gate, she turned around and lifted her head toward the statue of King Louis XII., her grandfather, which is carved in stone above the door, on horseback and looking very noble and warlike. So, pausing there[66] for a moment and gazing at it, she said loudly in front of a large crowd that had gathered, with a confident look that never left her: “If the man depicted there were alive, he would never allow his granddaughter to be taken away as a prisoner and treated as I am today.” Then, with these words, she continued on her way, without further protest. Understand that in her heart, she was invoking and appealing to the spirit of her brave ancestor to avenge the injustice of her imprisonment. In this way, she acted just like some of the conspirators in Julius Caesar's death, who, just before they struck, turned toward the statue of Pompey and inwardly called upon the spirit of his legendary strength to help them succeed in their plan. It’s possible that this Princess's invocation may have contributed to the death of the King who had so wronged her. A lady with such high spirits who dwells on vengeance to come is certainly to be feared.
I do remember me how, when her late husband, the Duc de Guise, did get the stroke whereof he died, she was at the time in his camp, having come thither some days previously to visit the same. So soon as ever he did come into his quarters wounded, she did advance to meet him as far as the door of his lodging all tearful and despairing, and after saluting him, did suddenly cry out: “Can it be that the wretch which hath struck this blow and he that hath set him on (signifying her suspicion of the Admiral de Coligny) should go unpunished? Oh God! an if thou art just, as thou must needs[67] be, avenge this deed; or else ...,” but stopping at this word, she did not end her sentence, for that her noble husband did interrupt her, saying: “Nay! dear heart, defy not God. An if ’tis He which hath sent me this for my sins, His will be done, and we should glorify him therefor. But an if it come from other, seeing vengeance is His alone, He will surely exact the penalty without you.” Natheless, when he was dead, did she so fiercely follow up her revenge, as that the murderer was torn to pieces of four horses,[43*] while the supposed author of the crime was assassinated after the lapse of some years, as I will tell in its proper place. This was due to the instruction she did give her son, as myself have seen, and the counsel and persuasion she did feed him withal from his tenderest years, till at the last final and complete vengeance was accomplished.
I do remember how, when her late husband, the Duc de Guise, suffered the stroke that led to his death, she was there in his camp, having arrived a few days earlier to visit him. As soon as he came into his quarters injured, she rushed to meet him at the door of his room, all tearful and desperate. After greeting him, she suddenly cried out: “Could it be that the scoundrel who struck this blow and the one who sent him (indicating her suspicion of Admiral de Coligny) will go unpunished? Oh God! If you are just, as you must be[67], avenge this act; or else ...,” but stopping there, she did not finish her sentence, for her noble husband interrupted her, saying: “No, my dear, don’t defy God. If He sent this to me for my sins, His will be done, and we should glorify Him for it. But if it comes from someone else, since vengeance belongs to Him alone, He will surely exact the penalty without you.” Nevertheless, once he was dead, she pursued her revenge with such fierceness that the murderer was torn to pieces by four horses, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, while the one believed to be behind the crime was assassinated years later, as I will explain in due time. This was due to the lessons she instilled in her son, as I have seen myself, and the advice and encouragement she provided him from his earliest years, until final and complete vengeance was achieved.
7.
7.

The counsel and appeal of great-hearted wives and loving mothers be of no small avail in such matters. As to this, I do remember me how, when King Charles IX. was making his Royal progress about his Kingdom, and was now at Bordeaux, the Baron de Bournazel was put in prison, a very brave and honourable gentleman of Gascony, for having slain another gentleman of his own neighbourhood, named La Tour,—and, so ’twas said, by dint of much traitorous subtlety. The widow did so eagerly press for his punishment, as that care was taken the news should reach the King’s and Queen’s chambers, that they were about to cut off the said Baron’s head. Hereon did the[68] gentlemen and ladies of the Court of a sudden bestir themselves, and much effort was made to save his life. Twice over were the King and Queen besought to grant his pardon. The High Chancellor did set him strongly against this, saying justice must needs be done; whereas the King was much in favour of mercy, for that he was a young man, and asked for naught better than to save his life, as he was one of the gallants frequenting the Court, and M. de Cipierre[44] was keen in urging the same course. Yet was the hour of execution now drawing nigh, without aught being done,—to the astonishment of everybody.
The advice and influence of strong wives and caring mothers can really make a difference in these situations. I remember when King Charles IX was traveling through his Kingdom and was in Bordeaux, the Baron de Bournazel, a very brave and honorable gentleman from Gascony, was thrown in prison for killing another local gentleman named La Tour. It was said he did this through a lot of treacherous cunning. The widow pushed so hard for his punishment that news reached the King’s and Queen’s chambers that they were about to execute the Baron. This caused the gentlemen and ladies of the Court to spring into action, making great efforts to save his life. The King and Queen were begged twice to grant him a pardon. The High Chancellor strongly opposed this, insisting that justice must be served, while the King leaned towards mercy, noting that he was a young man who only wanted to save his life. Since he was one of the prominent figures at Court, M. de Cipierre__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ urged the same approach. Yet, as the execution hour drew closer, nothing had been done—much to everyone's surprise.
Hereupon did M. de Nemours intervene, which loved the unhappy Baron, who had followed him gallantly on sundry fields of battle. The Duke went and threw himself at the Queen’s feet, and did earnestly beseech her to give the poor gentleman his life, begging and praying so hard and pressing her so with his words as that the favour was e’en given him at the last. Then on the instant was sent a Captain of the Guard, which went and sought the man out and took him from the prison, just as he was being led forth to his doom. Thus was he saved, but in such fearful circumstances that a look of terror did remain ever after imprinted on his features, and he could never thereafter regain his colour, as myself have seen. I have heard tell how the same thing did happen to M. de Saint-Vallier, which did have a fine escape by the interest of M. de Bourbon.
Then M. de Nemours stepped in, as he cared for the unfortunate Baron, who had bravely followed him into battle on several occasions. The Duke went and fell at the Queen's feet, earnestly begging her to spare the poor man’s life, pleading and pressing her with his words until she finally agreed. Immediately, a Captain of the Guard was dispatched to find the man and take him out of prison, just as he was being led to his execution. He was saved, but the terrifying experience left a look of fear permanently etched on his face, and he could never regain his color, as I have witnessed myself. I've also heard that the same thing happened to M. de Saint-Vallier, who narrowly escaped thanks to the influence of M. de Bourbon.
Meantime however the widow was not idle, but did come next day to intercept the King as he was going to Mass, and did throw herself at his feet. She did present him her son, which might be three or four years old,[69] saying thus: “At the least, Sire, as you have given pardon to this child’s murderer, I do beseech you grant the same to him now at this moment, for the time when he shall be grown up and shall have taken his vengeance and slain that wretch.” And from that time onward, by what I have heard said, the mother would come every morning to awake her child; and showing him the bloody shirt his father had on when he was killed, would repeat to him three times over: “Mark this token, well, and bear well in mind, when you be grown up, to avenge this wrong; else do I disinherit you.” A bitter spirit of revenge truly!
Meanwhile, the widow wasn't just sitting around; she showed up the next day to confront the King as he was heading to Mass and fell at his feet. She presented her son, who looked to be about three or four years old,[69] saying, “At least, Sire, since you've pardoned this child's murderer, I beg you to grant the same for him right now, for the time will come when he grows up and seeks revenge by killing that scoundrel.” From then on, from what I've heard, the mother would come every morning to wake her child; and showing him the bloody shirt his father wore when he was killed, she would tell him three times, “Remember this well, and keep it in mind when you grow up: avenge this wrong; otherwise, I will disinherit you.” A truly bitter desire for revenge!
Myself when I was in Spain, did hear the tale how Antonio Roques, one of the most brave and valiant, cunning, cautious and skilful, famous and withal most courteous, bandits ever was in all Spain (’tis a matter of common knowledge), did in his early years desire to enter religion and be ordained priest. But the day being now come when he was to sing his first mass, just as he was coming forth from the vestry and was stepping with great ceremony toward the High Altar of his parish Church duly robed and accoutred to do his office, and chalice in hand, he did hear his mother saying to him as he passed her: Ah! vellaco, vellaco, mejor seria de vengar la muerte de tu padre, que de cantar misa,—“Ah! wretch and miscreant that you are! ’twere better far to avenge your father’s death than to be singing Mass.” This word did so touch him at heart, as that he doth coldly turn him about in mid progress, and back to the vestry, where he doth unrobe him, pretending his heart had failed him from indisposition, and that it should be for another time. Then off to the mountains to join the brigands,[70] among whom he doth presently win such esteem and renown that he was chose their chief; there he doth many crimes and thefts, and avengeth his father’s death, which had been killed, some said, of a comrade, though others declared him a victim of the King’s justice. This tale was told me by one that was a bandit himself, and had been under his orders in former days. This man did bepraise him to the third heaven; and true it is the Emperor Charles could never do him any hurt.
When I was in Spain, I heard a story about Antonio Roques, one of the bravest, cleverest, most cautious and skilled, famous yet gracious bandits in all of Spain (it’s common knowledge). In his early years, he wanted to join the church and become a priest. But on the day he was supposed to perform his first Mass, just as he was leaving the vestry and stepping ceremoniously toward the High Altar of his parish church, dressed and ready to do his duties with a chalice in hand, he heard his mother say to him as he passed: Ah! vellaco, vellaco, mejor seria de vengar la muerte de tu padre, que de cantar misa—“Ah! wretch and miscreant! It would be far better to avenge your father's death than to be singing Mass.” Her words struck him deeply, and he coldly turned around in mid-step, went back to the vestry, undressed, pretending he was too unwell to go on, and that he would do it another time. Then he headed off to the mountains to join the bandits, where he quickly gained such respect and fame that he was chosen as their leader. There, he committed many crimes and thefts, avenging his father’s death, which some said was caused by a fellow bandit, while others claimed it was a victim of the King’s justice. This story was shared with me by someone who was a bandit himself and had served under his command in the past. This man praised him to high heaven, and it’s true that Emperor Charles could never harm him.
But to return once more to Madame de Nemours, the King did keep her in prison scarce any time, whereof was M. d’Escars in part the cause. He did soon release her, for to send her on a mission to the Ducs du Maine and de Nemours, and other Princes members of the League, bearing to all words of peace and oblivion of all past grievances:—dead men were dead, and there an end; best be good friends as aforetime. In fact, the King did take an oath of her, that she would faithfully perform this said embassy. Accordingly on her arrival, at first accost ’twas naught but tears and lamentations and regrets for all their losses; then anon did she make report of her instructions, whereto M. du Maine did reply, asking her if this were her own advice. She answered simply: “I have not come hither, my son, to advise you, but only to repeat to you the message I am charged withal and bidden give you. ’Tis for you to think whether you have sufficient cause to do so, and if your duty points that way. As to what I tell you, your heart and your conscience should give you the best advice. For myself, I do but discharge a commission I have promised to fulfil.” Natheless, under the rose, she knew well enough how to stir the fire, which did long burn so fierce.
But to go back to Madame de Nemours, the King didn’t keep her in prison for long, and part of that was due to M. d’Escars. He quickly released her to send her on a mission to the Dukes du Maine and de Nemours, along with other Princes in the League, bringing messages of peace and letting go of all past grievances: the dead are dead, and that’s the end of it; it’s better to be friends like before. In fact, the King made her promise that she would faithfully carry out this mission. When she arrived, there were only tears and laments and regrets for all their losses; then she went on to report her instructions, to which M. du Maine asked her if this was her own advice. She simply replied, “I didn’t come here, my son, to advise you, but only to convey the message I was given to share with you. It’s up to you to decide if you have enough reason to do so and if your duty points in that direction. As for what I’m telling you, your heart and your conscience should guide you best. As for me, I’m just fulfilling a promise I made.” Nonetheless, secretly, she knew just how to fan the flames, which burned fiercely for a long time.
[71]
[71]
Many folks have wondered greatly, how the King, that was so wise and one of the most adroit men of his Kingdom, came to employ this lady for such an office, having so sorely injured her that she could have had neither heart nor feeling if she had taken therein the very least pains in the world; but there, she did simply make mock of him and his instructions. Report said at the time this was the fine advice of the Maréchal de Retz, who did give a like piece of counsel to King Charles, namely to send M. de la Noue into the town of La Rochelle, for to persuade the inhabitants to peace and their proper duty and allegiance. The better to accredit him to them, he did permit him to play the eager partisan on their side and on his own, to fight desperately for them, and give them counsel and advice against the King,—but all under this condition that when his services should be claimed by the King or the King’s brother, which was his Lieutenant General, and he ordered to leave the place, he would obey. This he did and all else, making fierce enough war, and finally quitting the place; yet meanwhile he did so confirm his folk and sharpen their spirit, and did give them such excellent lessons and so greatly encouraged them, as that for that time they did cut our beards to rights for us.[45*] Many would have it, there was no subtlety in all this; but I did see it all with mine own eyes, and I do hope to give full account of these doings elsewhere. At any rate this was all the said Maréchal did avail his King and country; one that ’twere more natural surely to hold a charlatan and swindler than a good counsellor and a Marshal of France.
Many people have really wondered how the King, who was so wise and one of the most skillful men in his kingdom, ended up employing this lady for such a position, especially after he had harmed her so badly that she could have had neither heart nor feelings if she had put in even the slightest effort. Instead, she simply mocked him and his instructions. It was said at the time that this was the brilliant advice of the Maréchal de Retz, who gave similar counsel to King Charles, suggesting that he send M. de la Noue to the town of La Rochelle to persuade the locals toward peace and their proper duty to the King. To make him more credible to them, he allowed him to act as a passionate supporter on both their side and his own, fighting fiercely for them and giving them advice against the King—but all on the condition that when the King or his brother, the Lieutenant General, requested his services, he would comply. He did do this and everything else, waging a fierce war and ultimately leaving the place; meanwhile, he strengthened their spirits and provided them such excellent training and encouragement that, for that time, they really stood up to us. Many would say there was nothing clever about all this; but I saw it all with my own eyes, and I hope to provide a full account of these events elsewhere. At any rate, this was all that the Maréchal did for his King and country; it would certainly be more fitting to consider him a fraud and a swindler than a good advisor and a Marshal of France.
I will tell one other little word of the aforesaid Duchesse de Nemours. I have heard it said that at the time they[72] were framing the famous League, and she would be examining the papers and the lists of the towns which did join it, not yet seeing Paris figuring therein, she would ever say to her son: “All this is naught, my son; we must have Paris to boot. If you have not Paris, you have done naught; wherefore, ho! for Paris city.” And never a word but Paris, Paris, was always in her mouth; and the end of it all was the barricades that were seen afterward.
I’ll share one more little story about the Duchesse de Nemours. I’ve heard that when they were putting together the famous League, she would look over the documents and the lists of towns that had joined, but when she saw Paris wasn’t on the list, she would always say to her son: “This is useless, my son; we need Paris too. If you don’t have Paris, you haven’t accomplished anything; so, let’s go for Paris.” And she never stopped talking about Paris; it was always on her lips, and in the end, it led to the barricades that were seen later.
8.
8.

In this we see how a brave heart doth ever fly at the highest game. And this doth again remind me of a little tale I have read in a Spanish Romance called la Conquista de Navarra, “The Conquest of Navarre.”[46] This Kingdom having been taken and usurped from King John of Navarre by the King of Aragon, Louis XII. did send an army under M. de la Palice to win it back. Our King did send word to the Queen, Donna Catherine, by M. de la Palice which did bring her the news, that she should come to the Court of France and there tarry with his Queen Anne, while that the King, her husband, along with M. de la Palice was making essay to recover the Kingdom. The Queen did make him this gallant answer: “How now, Sir! I did suppose the King your master had sent you hither for to carry me with you to my Kingdom and set me again at Pampeluna, and for me to accompany you thither, as my mind was made up to do and my preparations made. Yet now you bid me go stay at the Court of France? Truly a poor hope and ill augury for me! I see plainly[73] I shall never set foot in mine own land again.” And even as she did presage, the thing fell out.
In this we see how a brave heart always aims for the highest challenges. This reminds me of a little story I read in a Spanish romance called la Conquista de Navarra, “The Conquest of Navarre. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ This kingdom was taken and usurped from King John of Navarre by the King of Aragon. Louis XII sent an army led by M. de la Palice to reclaim it. Our king sent a message to Queen Donna Catherine through M. de la Palice, informing her that she should come to the Court of France and stay with Queen Anne while her husband, the king, along with M. de la Palice, attempted to recover the kingdom. The Queen responded gallantly: “What’s this, Sir? I thought the King your master sent you here to take me back to my kingdom and restore me in Pampeluna, which I planned to do and was all set for. Yet now you want me to stay at the Court of France? Truly, that’s a disappointing hope and a bad sign for me! I can see clearly[73] I will never return to my own land.” And just as she predicted, that’s how it turned out.
It was told and commanded the Duchess de Valentinois, on the approach of the death of King Henri II., when his health was now despaired of, to retire to her mansion in Paris, and go no more into his chamber,—to the end she might not disturb him in his pious meditations, and no less on account of the hostility certain did bear her. Then when she had so withdrawn, they did send to her again to demand sundry rings and jewels, which did belong to the Crown and which she must give back. At this she did on a sudden ask the worthy spokesman: “Why! is the King dead then?”—“No! Madam,” replied the other, “but it can scarce be long first.”—“As long as there is one breath of life left in his body, I would have my enemies to know I fear them not a whit, and that I will never obey them, so long as he shall be alive. My courage is still invincible. But when he is dead, I care not to live on after him, and all the vexations you could inflict on me would be but kindness compared with the bitterness of my loss. So, whether my King be quick or dead, I fear not mine enemies at all.”
It was reported to the Duchess de Valentinois, as King Henri II. was nearing death and his health was in serious decline, that she should retreat to her home in Paris and no longer enter his chamber—so she would not interrupt him in his prayers and also because of the animosity some felt towards her. Once she had withdrawn, they sent for her again to collect various rings and jewels belonging to the Crown that she was expected to return. At this, she suddenly asked the messenger, “What! Is the King dead then?”—“No, Madam,” he replied, “but it can’t be long now.” “As long as there is a single breath left in him, I want my enemies to know that I do not fear them at all and that I will never obey them as long as he lives. My courage remains unshakeable. But when he is gone, I have no desire to carry on without him, and any troubles you could throw my way would be nothing compared to the pain of my loss. So, whether my King is alive or dead, I do not fear my enemies at all.”
Herein did this fair lady show great spirit, and a true heart. Yet she did not die, ’twill be objected of some, as she did say she would. True! yet did she not fail to experience some threatenings of death; beside, she did better to choose rather to live than to die, for to show her enemies she was no wise afeared of them. Having erst seen them shake and tremble before her, she would fain escape doing the same before them, and did wish to show so good a face and confident look to them as that they never durst do her any displeasure. Nay! more than this;[74] within two years’ space they did seek to her more than ever, and renewed their friendship with her, as I did myself see. And this is the way with great lords and ladies, which have little solid continuance in their friendships, and in their differences do readily make it up again, like thieves at a fair, and the same with all their loves and hatreds. This we smaller folks do never do; for either we must needs fight, avenge and die, or else make up the quarrel by way of punctilious, minutely ordered and carefully arranged terms of agreement. So in this we do play the better part.
In this, the fair lady showed great spirit and a true heart. Yet, some might argue that she didn’t die as she said she would. True! However, she did face some real threats of death; still, she decided it was better to live than to die to prove to her enemies that she wasn't afraid of them. After having seen them shake and tremble before her, she was determined not to show the same fear in front of them and wanted to present such a strong and confident face that they would never dare to disrespect her. Moreover, within two years, they sought her out more than ever and renewed their friendship with her, something I witnessed myself. This is often the case with powerful lords and ladies, who have fleeting friendships and quickly resolve their disputes, just like thieves at a fair, and their loves and hatreds are no different. We, in our smaller circles, don’t behave like this; we either have to fight, take revenge, and die, or come to an agreement with carefully structured terms. In this regard, we play the better role.
We cannot but admire this lady’s conduct and behaviour; and truly these high-born dames which have to do with affairs of State, do commonly act in a grander way than the ordinary run of women. And this is why our late King Henri III., last deceased, and the Queen, his mother, did by no means love such ladies of their Court as did much trouble their wits with matters of State and put their nose therein and did concern them to speak of other matters near touching the government of the Kingdom. ’Twas as if, their Majesties were used to declare, they had some great part therein and might be heirs of the same, or just as if they had given the sweat of their bodies and force of their hands to its management and maintenance, like men; whereas, for a mere pastime, talking at the fireside, sitting comfortably in their chairs or lying on their pillows, or their daybeds, they would discourse at their ease of the world at large and the state of the Country, as if they did arrange it all. On this point a certain great lady of fashion, whom I will not name, did one time make a shrewd reply, who taking on her to say out all her say on occasion of the first meeting of the[75] Estates at Blois, their Majesties did cause a slight reprimand to be given her, telling her she should attend to the affairs of her own house and her prayers to God. To this being something too free in her speech, she did answer thus: “In days of yore when Princes, Kings and great Lords did take the cross and hie them over-seas, to do so noble exploits in the Holy Land, insooth ’twas allowed us women only to fast and pray, make orisons and vows, that God might give them a successful journey and a safe return. But nowadays that we do see them do naught better than ourselves, ’tis surely allowed us to speak of all matters; for as to praying God for them, why should we do so, seeing they do no more heroic deeds than ourselves?”
We can’t help but admire this lady’s actions and behavior; and truly, these high-born women involved in State affairs usually act in a more impressive way than average women. This is why our late King Henri III, who has passed away, and his mother, the Queen, did not particularly like such ladies at Court who troubled themselves with political matters and felt it necessary to speak about issues related to the governance of the Kingdom. It was almost as if their Majesties used to say that these women thought they had a significant role in it and might inherit some responsibility, or as if they had invested their effort like men in managing and maintaining it, while in reality, for mere leisure, they would sit comfortably in their chairs or lounge on their pillows or daybeds, discussing the world and the state of the Country as if they controlled it all. On this topic, a certain prominent lady, whose name I won’t mention, made a clever remark once when, during the first meeting of the[75] Estates at Blois, their Majesties had her given a mild reprimand and told her to focus on her household matters and pray to God. Feeling a bit too free in her speech, she responded: “In the past, when princes, kings, and great lords took the cross and went overseas to perform noble deeds in the Holy Land, it was allowed for us women to only fast and pray, to make prayers and vows, hoping God would grant them a successful journey and a safe return. But nowadays, seeing them do nothing more impressive than we do, surely we are allowed to discuss all matters; as for praying to God for them, why should we do so, considering they don't perform any more heroic acts than we do?”
This speech was for sure too bold and outspoken, and indeed it came very nigh to costing her dear. She had all the difficulty in the world to win pardon and excuse, which she had to ask for right humbly; and had it not been for a certain private reason I could tell, and if I would, she had received dire pains and penalties therefor, and very signal punishment.
This speech was definitely too bold and outspoken, and it almost cost her dearly. She had an incredibly tough time trying to win forgiveness and had to ask for it very humbly; if it weren't for a certain private reason I could share, she would have faced severe consequences and significant punishment.
’Tis not always well to speak out a sharp saying such as this, when it cometh to the lips. Myself have seen not a few folk which could in no wise govern their wit in this sort, but were more untamed than a Barbary charger. Finding a good shrewd gibe in their mouth, out they must spit it, without sparing relations, friends or superiors. Many such I have known at our own Court of France, where they were well called Marquis et Marquises de belle-bouche, “Lords and Ladies of Frank Speech;” but many and many a time did their frank speech bring them in sore trouble.
It’s not always a good idea to blurt out a sharp comment when it pops into your head. I’ve seen quite a few people who can’t control their wit this way and are wilder than a Barbary horse. Once they have a clever jab ready, they just have to say it, without holding back on family, friends, or superiors. I’ve known many such people at our own Court of France, where they were rightly called Marquis et Marquises de belle-bouche, “Lords and Ladies of Frank Speech;” but time and again, their straightforward remarks got them into serious trouble.
[76]
[76]
9.
9.

Having thus described the brave and gallant bearing of sundry ladies on sundry noble occasions of their life, I am fain now to give some examples of the like high qualities displayed at their death. Without borrowing any instance of Antiquity, I will merely adduce that of the late deceased Queen Regent[47] mother of our noble King Francis I. In her day this Princess, as I have heard many of mine acquaintance say, both men and women, was a very fair lady, and very gay and gallant to boot, which she did continue to be even in her declining years. And for this cause, when folk did talk to her of death, she did exceedingly mislike such discourse, not excepting preachers which did hold forth on this subject in their sermons. “As if,” she would cry, “we did not all of us know well enough we must one day die. The fact is, these preachers, whenas they can find naught further to say in their sermons, and be at the end of their powers of invention, like other simple folk, do take refuge in this theme of death.” The late Queen of Navarre, her daughter, did no less than her mother detest these same harpings on death and sermonizings on mortality.
Having described the brave and noble manner of various ladies during significant moments in their lives, I now want to share some examples of the same admirable qualities displayed at their death. Without referring to any instances from ancient times, I'll simply mention the recently deceased Queen Regent __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, mother of our noble King Francis I. In her time, as I’ve heard many acquaintances say, both men and women, she was a very beautiful lady, full of life and grace, which she maintained even in her later years. Because of this, when people talked to her about death, she strongly disliked such conversations, including sermons from preachers discussing the topic. “As if,” she would exclaim, “we didn’t all know that we must die someday. The truth is, these preachers, when they can't think of anything else to say in their sermons and have run out of ideas, like other simple folks, keep returning to this theme of death.” The late Queen of Navarre, her daughter, equally detested these constant reminders about death and sermons on mortality.
Well, being now come near her fated end, and lying on her deathbed, three days before that event, she did see her chamber at night all lit up by a brilliant gleam shining in through the window. She did hereupon chide her bedchamber women, which were sitting up with her, asking them for why they did make so big and bright a fire. But they did answer, that there was but a small[77] fire burning, and that ’twas the moon which did shine so bright and cause the illumination. “Why!” she did exclaim, “there is no moon at this time of the month; it hath no business to be shining now.” And of a sudden, bidding open her curtain, she did behold a comet, which shone right on her bed. “Ah, look!” she cried, “yonder is a sign which doth not appear for persons of common quality. God doth show it forth only for us great lords and ladies. Shut the window again; ’tis a comet, announcing my death; we must prepare therefor.” So next morning, having sent to seek her confessor, she did perform all the duty of a good Christian, albeit the physicians did assure her she was not yet come to this. “Had I not seen the sign of my death,” she said, “I should believe you, for indeed I do not feel me so far gone,” and thereon did describe to them all the appearance of the comet. Finally, three days later, leaving all concerns of this world, she did pass away.
Well, now that she was nearing her destined end and lying on her deathbed, three days before that moment, she saw her room at night lit up by a bright light streaming in through the window. She then scolded her ladies-in-waiting, who were staying up with her, asking them why they had made such a big and bright fire. They replied that there was only a small fire burning and that it was the moon shining so brightly and causing the illumination. “Why!” she exclaimed, “there’s no moon at this time of the month; it shouldn’t be shining now.” Suddenly, pulling back her curtain, she saw a comet that was shining directly over her bed. “Ah, look!” she cried, “that is a sign that doesn’t appear for ordinary people. God shows it only for us great lords and ladies. Close the window again; it’s a comet, announcing my death; we must get ready for it.” The next morning, after sending for her confessor, she fulfilled all the duties of a good Christian, even though the doctors assured her she wasn’t near that point yet. “If I hadn’t seen the sign of my death,” she said, “I would believe you, for I really don’t feel that close to dying,” and then she described to them all the details of the comet. Finally, three days later, leaving behind all the concerns of this world, she passed away.
I cannot but believe but that great ladies, and such as be young, beautiful and high-born, do feel greater and more sore regret to leave this world than other women. Yet will I now name some such, which have made light of death, and have met the same with a good heart, though for the moment the announcement thereof was exceeding bitter and hateful to them. The late Comtesse de La Rochefoucault,[48*] of the house of Roye, in my opinion and that of many beside, one of the fairest and most charming women in all France, when her minister (for she was of the Reformed Faith, as everybody is aware) did warn her she must think no more of worldly things, and that her hour was now come, that she must presently away to God which was calling her, and leave all worldly vanities,[78] which were naught as compared with the blessedness of heaven, she said to him thus: “This is all very well, Sir Minister, to say to women which have no great contentment and pleasure in this world, and which have one foot in the grave already; but to me, that am no more than in the bloom of mine age and my delight in this world and my beauty, your sentence is exceeding bitter. And albeit I have more cause to hug myself in this world than in any other, and much reason to regret dying, yet would I fain show you my high courage herein, and do assure you I take my death with as good will as the most common, abject, low, foul old crone that ever was in this world.” So presently, she did set her to sing psalms with much pious devotion, and so died.
I can't help but think that great ladies, especially those who are young, beautiful, and of high birth, feel a deeper and more painful regret about leaving this world than other women do. Yet, I will now mention some who have faced death bravely, even though the news was initially very bitter and unpleasant for them. The late Comtesse de La Rochefoucauld, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, from the house of Roye, is, in my opinion and that of many others, one of the most beautiful and charming women in all of France. When her minister (as everyone knows, she was of the Reformed Faith) warned her that she needed to let go of worldly things because her time had come and she had to go to God, who was calling her, and leave behind all worldly vanities, which were nothing compared to the blessings of heaven, she replied: "It’s easy for you, Sir Minister, to say this to women who find no great joy or pleasure in this world, and who are already close to death; but for me, who is still in the bloom of my youth and can find joy in this world and in my beauty, your words are extremely hard to bear. Although I have more reason to cherish my life than to anticipate any other, and I have every reason to regret dying, I want to show you my courage in this matter, and I assure you that I accept my death as willingly as the most ordinary, miserable, lowly old woman who ever lived." Then she began to sing psalms with great devotion and thus passed away.
Madame d’Espernon,[49*] of the house of Candale, was attacked of so sudden and deadly a malady as that she was carried off in less than a week. Before her death, she did essay all remedies which might cure her, imploring the help of men and of God in most fervent prayers, as well as of all her friends, and her retainers male and female, taking it very hard that she was to die so young. But when they did reason with her and inform her she must verily and indeed quit this world, and that no remedy was of any avail: “Is it true?” she said; “leave me alone then, I will make up my mind to bear it bravely.” These were the exact words she used. Then lifting up her two soft, white arms, and laying her two hands one against the other, with an open look and a confident spirit, she made her ready to wait death with all patience, and to leave this world, which she did proceed to abjure in very pious and Christian terms. Thus did she die as a devout and good Christian should, at the age of twenty-six, being[79] one of the handsomest and most charming women of her time.
Madame d’Espernon,__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ from the house of Candale, was struck by a sudden and lethal illness that took her life in less than a week. Before she passed away, she tried every remedy that might save her, desperately praying to both men and God, as well as reaching out to all her friends and attendants, feeling deeply upset that she was dying so young. But when they reasoned with her and told her that she truly had to leave this world and that nothing could help her, she responded, “Is it true? Then leave me be; I will prepare myself to face this with courage.” These were her exact words. Then, raising her two soft, white arms and laying her hands together, looking calm and determined, she got ready to meet death with patience and to leave this world, which she renounced in very heartfelt and Christian language. Thus, she died as a devout and good Christian should, at the age of twenty-six, being[79] one of the most beautiful and charming women of her time.
’Tis not right, they say, to praise one’s own belongings; on the other hand what is at once good and true should not be kept hid. This is why I am fain in this place to commend Madame d’Aubeterre,[50] mine own niece and daughter of my elder brother, who as all they that have seen her at Court or elsewhere will go with me in saying, was one of the fairest and most perfect ladies you could see, as well in body as in mind. The former did plainly and externally show forth its excellence in her handsome and charming face, her graceful figure, and all her sweet mien and bearing; while for the mind, ’twas divinely gifted and ignorant of naught it were meet to know. Her discourse was very fit, simple and unadorned, and did flow right smoothly and agreeably from her lips, whether in serious converse or in merry interchange of wit. No woman have I ever seen which, in my opinion, did more resemble our Queen Marguerite of France, as well in her general air as in her special charms; and I did once hear the Queen Mother say the same. To say this is by itself commendation enough, so I will add no more; none which have ever seen her, will, I am well assured, give me the lie as to this. Of a sudden it befell this lady to be attacked by a malady, which the physicians did fail to recognize rightly, merely wasting their Latin in the attempt. Herself, however, did believe she had been poisoned; though I will not say in what quarter. Still God will avenge all, and mayhap the guilty in this matter will yet be punished. She did all she could in the way of remedies,—though not, she did declare, because she was afeared of dying. For since her husband’s death, she had lost all fear of this, albeit[80] he was for sure in no wise her equal in merit, nor deserving of her or of the tender tears her fair eyes did shed after his death. Yet would she have been right glad to live on a while longer for the love of her daughter, the which she was leaving a tender slip of a girl. This last was a good and excellent reason, while regrets for an husband that was both foolish and vexatious are surely but vain and idle.
It’s not right, they say, to praise your own belongings; on the other hand, what is good and true shouldn’t be hidden away. That’s why I’m eager to share my admiration for Madame d’Aubeterre, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, my own niece and the daughter of my elder brother, who, as anyone who has seen her at Court or elsewhere would agree, was one of the fairest and most perfect ladies you could meet, both in appearance and in character. Her beauty was evident in her lovely and charming face, her graceful figure, and her overall sweet demeanor; while her mind was divinely gifted and knowledgeable about everything it should be. Her speech was appropriate, simple, and clear, flowing smoothly and agreeably from her lips whether in serious conversation or playful banter. I’ve never seen a woman who, in my opinion, resembled our Queen Marguerite of France more, in both her general presence and her unique charms; I once heard the Queen Mother say the same. Just mentioning this is a compliment enough, so I won’t add more; no one who has seen her, I'm sure, would disagree with me. Suddenly, this lady fell ill with a malady that the doctors failed to properly diagnose, merely wasting their Latin in the process. However, she believed she had been poisoned; though I won’t say by whom. Still, God will take care of justice, and maybe the guilty in this matter will be punished. She did everything she could in terms of remedies — though she claimed it wasn’t out of fear of dying. Since her husband’s death, she had lost all fear of it, even though he certainly wasn’t her equal in merit and wasn’t deserving of her or the tender tears her beautiful eyes shed after he passed. Yet she would have been very happy to live a little longer for the sake of her daughter, who was just a delicate young girl. That was a good and valid reason, while lamenting for a husband who was both foolish and troublesome is surely pointless and empty.
Thus she, seeing now no remedy was of avail, and feeling her own pulse, which she did herself try and find to be galloping fast (for she had understanding of all such matters), two days before she died, did send to summon her daughter,[51] and did make her a very good and pious exhortation, such as no other mother mayhap that I know of could have made a finer one or one better expressed,—at once instructing her how to live in this world and how to win the grace of God in the next; this ended, she did give her her blessing, bidding her no more trouble with her tears the sweet easefulness and repose she was about to enjoy with God. Presently she did ask for her mirror, and looking at herself very fixedly therein, did exclaim, “Ah! traitor face, that doth in no wise declare my sickness (for indeed ’twas as fair to look on as ever), thou art yet unchanged; but very soon death, which is drawing nigh, will have the better of thy beauty, which shall rot away and be devoured of worms.” Moreover she had put the most part of her rings on her fingers; and gazing on these, and her hand withal, which was very well shaped: “Lo! a vanity I have much loved in days gone-by; yet now I do quit the same willingly, to bedeck me in the other world with another much fairer adornment.”
So, realizing there was no remedy left and feeling her pulse, which she could tell was racing (because she understood all these things), two days before she passed away, she called for her daughter, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ and gave her a heartfelt and wise pep talk, something no other mother I know could have expressed better—teaching her how to live in this world and how to earn God's grace in the next. When she finished, she blessed her, telling her not to cry anymore and to let her enjoy the peace and comfort she was about to find with God. Then she asked for her mirror, and after looking closely at herself, she exclaimed, “Ah! Betraying face, you don’t show my illness at all (for you still look as beautiful as ever); but soon death, which is approaching, will take away this beauty, which will decay and be consumed by worms.” Also, she had put most of her rings on her fingers, and looking at them and her well-shaped hand, she said, “Look! A vanity I once cherished; yet now I willingly let it go, to wear a far more beautiful adornment in the next world.”
Then seeing her sisters weeping their eyes out at her bedside, she did comfort them, exhorting them to take in[81] good part, as she did, what God was pleased to send her, and saying that as they had always loved each other so well, they should not grieve at that which did bring her only joy and contentment. She did further tell them that the fond friendship she had ever borne them should be eternal, beseeching them to return her the like, and above all to extend it to her child. Presently seeing them but weep the harder at this, she said once more: “Sisters mine, an if ye do love me, why do ye not rejoice with me over the exchange I make of a wretched life for one most happy? My soul, wearied of so many troubles, doth long to be free, and to be in blessed rest with Jesus Christ my Saviour. Yet you would fain have it still tied to this miserable body, which is but its prison, not its domicile. I do beseech you, therefore, my sisters, torment yourselves no more.”
Then, seeing her sisters crying their hearts out at her bedside, she comforted them, urging them to accept, like she did, what God had decided for her, and saying that since they had always loved each other so much, they shouldn’t be sad about something that only brought her joy and peace. She also told them that the deep friendship she had always felt for them would last forever, begging them to feel the same way in return, and especially to extend that love toward her child. When she saw them crying even harder, she said again: “My sisters, if you truly love me, why don’t you rejoice with me over my exchange of a miserable life for one full of happiness? My soul, tired of so many troubles, longs to be free and to find blessed rest with Jesus Christ, my Savior. Yet you want it to remain tied to this miserable body, which is just its prison, not its home. So, I ask you, my sisters, please stop tormenting yourselves.”
Many other the like words did she prefer, so pious and Christian as that there is never a Divine, however great could have uttered better or more blessed,—all which I do pass over. In especial she did often ask to see Madame de Bourdeille, her mother, whom she had prayed her sisters to send fetch, and kept saying to them: “Oh! sisters, is not Madame de Bourdeille coming yet? Oh! how slow your couriers be! they be really not fit to ride post and make special speed.” Her mother did at last arrive, but never saw her alive, for she had died an hour before.
She preferred many other similar words, so pious and Christian that no Divine, no matter how great, could have spoken better or more blessed words—all of which I’ll skip over. In particular, she often asked to see her mother, Madame de Bourdeille, and kept telling her sisters, “Oh! Sisters, isn’t Madame de Bourdeille coming yet? Oh! Your messengers are so slow! They really aren’t fit to ride post and hurry.” Her mother finally arrived, but she never saw her alive, as she had died an hour earlier.
She did ask earnestly too for me, whom she ever spake of as her dear uncle, and did send us her last farewell. She did beg them to have her body opened after death, a thing she had always strongly abhorred, to the end, as she said to her sisters, that the cause of her death being more evidently discovered, this should enable them and her[82] daughter the better to take precautions and so preserve their lives. “For I must admit,” she said, “a suspicion that I was poisoned five years agone along with mine uncle de Brantôme and my sister the Comtesse de Durtal; but I did get the biggest piece. Yet would I willingly charge no one with such a crime, for fear it should prove a false accusation and my soul be weighted with the guilt thereof,—my soul which I do earnestly desire may be free of all blame, rancour, ill-will and sinfulness, that it may fly straight to God its Creator.”
She earnestly asked about me, whom she always referred to as her dear uncle, and she sent us her final goodbye. She pleaded with them to have her body examined after her death, something she had always detested, so that, as she told her sisters, the cause of her death could be more clearly identified, allowing them and her daughter to take better precautions to protect their lives. “I must admit,” she said, “I suspect that I was poisoned five years ago along with my uncle de Brantôme and my sister, the Comtesse de Durtal; but I ended up getting the worst of it. Still, I don’t want to accuse anyone of such a crime, for fear that it might turn out to be a false accusation and my soul would carry that guilt—with a soul that I desperately wish to be free of blame, bitterness, ill-will, and sin, so that it can rise directly to God, its Creator.”
I should never have done, if I were to repeat all; for her discourse was full and long, and such as did show no sign at all of an outwearied body or a weak and failing spirit. As to this, there was a certain gentleman, her neighbour, a witty talker and one she had loved to converse and jest withal, who did present himself and to whom she said: “Ha, ha! good friend! needs must give in this fall, tongue and sword and all. So, fare you well!”
I should never have done if I were to repeat everything; because her conversation was extensive and lively, showing no signs of fatigue or a weak spirit. In this regard, there was a certain gentleman, her neighbor, who was clever with words and someone she enjoyed chatting and joking with. He approached her, and she said, “Ha, ha! good friend! I have to surrender this time, tongue and sword and all. So, take care!”
Her physician and her sisters did wish her to take some cordial medicine or other; but she begged them not to give it her, “for these would merely,” she said, “be helping to prolong my pain and put off my final rest.” So she did ask them to leave her alone; and was again and again heard to say: “Dear God! how gentle sweet is death! who had ever dreamed it could be so?” Then, little by little, yielding up her spirit very softly, she did close her eyes, without making any of those hideous and fearsome signs that death doth show in many at the supreme moment.
Her doctor and her sisters wanted her to take some kind of soothing medicine, but she begged them not to give her any, saying, “It would just prolong my pain and delay my final rest.” So she asked them to leave her alone, and she was often heard saying, “Dear God! How gentle and sweet is death! Who would have ever thought it could be like this?” Then, little by little, as she quietly let go of her spirit, she closed her eyes without showing any of the horrifying and scary signs that often accompany death at that final moment.
Madame de Bourdeille, her mother, was not long in following her. For the melancholy she did conceive at the death of this her noble daughter did carry her off in[83] eighteen months, after a sickness lasting seven months, at one time giving cause for good hope of recovery, at another seeming desperate. But from the very first, herself did declare she would never get the better of it, in no wise fearing death, and never praying God to grant her life and health, but only patience in her sufferings and above that He would send her a peaceful death, and one neither painful nor long drawn out. And so it befell; for while we deemed her only fainted, she did give up her soul so gently as that she was never seen to move either foot or arm or limb, nor give any fearful and hideous look; but casting a glance around with eyes that were as fair as ever, she passed away, remaining as beautiful in death as she had been when alive and in the plenitude of her charms.
Madame de Bourdeille, her mother, didn't take long to follow her. The sadness she felt at the loss of her noble daughter took her away in[83] eighteen months, after a seven-month illness that at times gave hope for recovery and at other times seemed hopeless. But from the very beginning, she declared that she would never overcome it, fearing death in no way, and never asking God for life and health, but only for patience in her suffering and that He would grant her a peaceful death that was neither painful nor prolonged. And so it happened; for while we thought she had simply fainted, she left this world so gently that she was never seen to move a foot, arm, or limb, nor did she show any fear or distress. Instead, she cast a look around with eyes as beautiful as ever and passed away, remaining as lovely in death as she had been in life, full of her charm.
A sore pity, verily, of her and of all fair ladies that die so in the bloom of their years! Only I do believe this, that Heaven, not content with those fair lights which from the creation of the world do adorn its vault, is fain, beside these, to have yet other new stars to still illumine us, as erst they did when alive, with their beauteous eyes.
It's really a shame for her and for all the beautiful women who die so young! I truly believe this: Heaven, not satisfied with the lovely lights that have decorated its sky since the beginning of time, wants to have even more new stars to continue shining on us, just like they did when they were alive, with their beautiful eyes.
Another example, and then an end:
Another example, and then finally an end:
You have seen in these last days the case of Madame de Balagny,[52*] true sister in all ways of the gallant Bussy. When Cambrai was besieged, she did all ever she could, of her brave and noble heart, to prevent its being taken; but after having in vain exhausted herself in every sort of defensive means she could contrive, and seeing now ’twas all over and the town already in the enemy’s power, and the citadel soon to go the same road, unable to endure the smart and heart’s pang of evacuating her Principality[84] (for her husband and herself had gotten themselves to be called Prince and Princess of Cambrai and Cambrésis,—a title sundry nations did find odious and much too presumptuous, seeing their rank was but that of plain gentlefolk), did die of grief and so perished at the post of honour. Some say she did die by her own hand, an act deemed however more Pagan than Christian. Be this as it may, she deserveth but praise for her gallantry and bravery in all this, and for the rebuke she did administer her husband at the time of her death, when she thus said to him: “How can you endure, Balagny, to live on after your most dismal fall of Fortune, to be a spectacle and laughing stock to all the world, which will point the finger of scorn at you, thus falling from great glory whereto you had been elevated to the low place I see awaiting you, and if you follow not my example? Learn then of me to die nobly, and not survive your misfortunes and disgrace.” ’Tis a grand thing thus to see a woman teaching us how to live,—and how to die. Yet would he neither obey nor believe her; but at the end of seven or eight months, quick forgetting the memory of this gallant lady, he did re-wed with the sister of Madame de Monceaux,[53] no doubt a fair and honourable damosel,—manifesting to all and sundry how that to keep alive was his one thing needful, be it on what terms it may.
You’ve seen in recent days the story of Madame de Balagny, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, a true sister in every way to the brave Bussy. When Cambrai was under siege, she did everything in her power, with her courageous and noble spirit, to prevent its capture; but after exhausting every possible means of defense to no avail, and realizing it was over with the town already in enemy hands, and the citadel soon to follow, she couldn't bear the pain of abandoning her Principality[84] (for her husband and she had claimed the titles of Prince and Princess of Cambrai and Cambrésis—titles that many found distasteful and excessively presumptuous, considering they were just ordinary folks), she died of grief, perishing at her post of honor. Some say she took her own life, an act seen as more Pagan than Christian. Regardless, she deserves nothing but praise for her bravery and courage, and for the reprimand she gave her husband at the time of her death when she told him: “How can you, Balagny, go on living after your terrible fall from Fortune, becoming a spectacle and laughingstock for everyone, who will point and sneer at you, witnessing your great glory turned to the low fate I see awaiting you if you don’t follow my lead? Learn from me to die with honor, rather than live on in shame and misfortune.” It’s remarkable to see a woman teaching us how to live—and how to die. Yet he neither obeyed her nor believed her; but after seven or eight months, quickly forgetting the memory of this brave lady, he remarried the sister of Madame de Monceaux, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, certainly a fair and noble lady—showing everyone that staying alive was his top priority, no matter the terms.
Of a surety life is good and sweet; natheless is a noble death greatly to be commended, such as was this lady’s, who dying as she did of grief, doth appear of a contrary complexion to that of some women, which are said to be of an opposite nature to men, for that they do die of joy and in joy.
Surely life is good and sweet; however, a noble death deserves high praise, like that of this lady, who died from grief. This is quite different from some women, who are said to have an opposite nature to men, as they die from joy and in joy.
[85]
[85]
10.
10.

Of this sort of death I will allege only the instance of Mlle. de Limueil, the elder, which did die at Court, being one of the Queen’s maids of honour. All through her sickness, whereof she died, her tongue did never leave off wagging, but she did talk continuously; for she was a very great chatterbox, a sayer of very witty and telling scoffs, and a very fine woman withal. When the hour of her death was come, she did summon her chamber valet to her; for each maid of honour hath her own. He was called Julian, and did play excellently on the violin. “Julian,” saith she to him, “come take your violin and go on playing me the Défaite des Suisses (Switzers’ Rout)[54] till I be dead, and play it as well as ever you can; and when you come to the words, Tout est perdu (“All is lost”), play the passage over four or five times as pathetically as you may.” This the other did, while she joined in with her voice; and when ’twas come to Tout est perdue, she did repeat it over twice. Then turning to the other side of the bed, she cried to her friends: “Yes! all is lost this bout, and for good and all,” and so died. Truly a death we may call gay and pleasant! This tale I have of two of her companions, persons of credit, who saw the mystery played out.
Of this kind of death, I will only mention the case of Mlle. de Limueil, the elder, who died at Court as one of the Queen’s maids of honor. Throughout her illness, which led to her death, she never stopped talking; she was quite the chatterbox, known for her witty and sharp remarks, and she was a beautiful woman besides. When the time of her death approached, she called for her personal valet, as every maid of honor has one. His name was Julian, and he was an excellent violinist. “Julian,” she said to him, “take your violin and play the Défaite des Suisses (Switzers’ Rout __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__) until I die, and play it as beautifully as you can; and when you reach the words, Tout est perdu (“All is lost”), play that part four or five times as tragically as possible.” He did as she requested while she sang along; when it got to Tout est perdu, she repeated it twice. Then, turning to the other side of the bed, she cried out to her friends: “Yes! all is lost this time, and for good,” and then she died. Truly, we can call this a cheerful and pleasant death! I got this story from two of her companions, trustworthy people who witnessed the whole scene.
If then there be women which do die of joy and in joyous wise, no less are men to be found which have done the like. Thus we read of that great Pope, Leo X., how he did die of joy and delight, when he beheld us Frenchmen driven out altogether from the State of Milan; so sore a hate he bare us!
If there are women who die from joy and in a joyful way, there are also men who have done the same. For example, we read about the great Pope, Leo X., who died from joy and delight when he saw us Frenchmen completely driven out of the State of Milan; he hated us that much!
[86]
[86]
The late Grand Prior, M. de Lorraine, did one time conceive the wish to send a pair of his Galleys on an expedition to the Levant under the command of Captain Beaulieu, one of his Lieutenants, of the which I have spoke somewhat in another place. Beaulieu went readily enough, being a brave and valiant sailor. When he was toward the Archipelago, he did fall in with a great Venetian ship, well armed and well found, which he set him to fire upon. But the ship did return his salute to some purpose; for at the first volley she did carry clean away two of his banks of oars, galley-slaves and all. Amongst other sore wounded was his Lieutenant, a man named Captain Panier (“Basket”) and a good fellow enough, which had time to cry out this word only before he died: “Good-bye baskets all, the harvest is done,”—a merry and a pleasant jest to enliven his death withal! The end was, M. de Beaulieu had to retire, this big ship proving beyond his power to overcome.
The late Grand Prior, M. de Lorraine, once had the desire to send a couple of his galleys on a mission to the Levant led by Captain Beaulieu, one of his lieutenants, which I mentioned briefly before. Beaulieu set out eagerly, being a brave and skilled sailor. While approaching the Archipelago, he encountered a large Venetian ship, well-armed and equipped, which he began firing upon. However, the ship responded effectively; in the first volley, it completely destroyed two of his banks of oars, along with the galley-slaves. Among the many wounded was his lieutenant, a man named Captain Panier (“Basket”), who was a decent fellow. He managed to utter only this phrase before he died: “Good-bye baskets all, the harvest is done,”—a light-hearted joke to lighten the moment of his death! Ultimately, M. de Beaulieu had to retreat, as this formidable ship proved too much for him to handle.
The first year King Charles IX. was King, at the time of the July edict when he was yet residing in the Faubourg St. Germain, we did see the hanging of a certain gallows-bird in that quarter, which had stolen six silver goblets from the kitchen of the Prince de La Roche-sur-Yonne. So soon as he was on the ladder, he did beg the hangman to grant him a little space for a dying speech, and did take up his parable, remonstrating with the folk and telling them he was unjustly put to death, “for never,” said he, “have I practised my thievings on the poor, on beggars and the vulgar herd, but only on Princes and great Lords, which be greater thieves than we, and do rob us every day of their lives; and ’tis a good deed to recover again of these folk what they do rob and filch from us.” Much[87] more diverting nonsense of the sort he did utter, the which ’twere but wasted time to repeat. Presently the priest which was with him at the top of the ladder, turning to the people, as we see done, did call upon them: “Good sirs! this poor criminal doth recommend himself to your prayers; we will say all together for him and his soul’s peace a Pater noster and an Ave Maria, and will sing a Salve.” Then just as the folk were answering, the said poor criminal did drop his head, and fixing his eyes on the priest, did start bellowing like a calf, and making mock of the priest in the most absurd fashion; then lending him a kick, did send him flying from the top of the ladder to the bottom, so big a leap that he brake a leg. “Ah, ha! Sir priest!” cried the fellow, “God’s truth, I knew I should shift you. Well! you’ve got your gruel now, my fine fellow.” Hearing him groan, he did set up a loud and hearty guffaw; then this ended, did jump off the ladder of his own motion and set himself a-swinging into space. I dare swear the Court did laugh merrily at the trick, albeit the poor priest had done himself a serious hurt. A death, in good sooth, that can scarce be called grave and melancholy!
The first year King Charles IX was on the throne, during the July edict while he was still living in the Faubourg St. Germain, we witnessed the hanging of a certain criminal in that area, who had stolen six silver goblets from the kitchen of the Prince de La Roche-sur-Yonne. As he was on the ladder, he begged the hangman for a moment to make a dying speech, and he began to lecture the crowd, claiming he was unjustly executed. “For never,” he said, “have I robbed the poor, beggars, or the common people, but only Princes and great Lords, who are bigger thieves than we are and rob us every day of their lives; and it’s a good deed to take back from them what they steal from us.” He spouted much more entertaining nonsense, which would be a waste of time to repeat. Just then, the priest who was with him at the top of the ladder turned to the crowd, as is usual, and called out: “Good sirs! This poor criminal asks for your prayers; let’s all together say a Pater noster and an Ave Maria, and we’ll sing a Salve.” Just as the crowd was responding, the unfortunate criminal dropped his head, staring at the priest, and began bawling like a calf, mocking the priest in the most ridiculous manner; then, giving him a kick, he sent him tumbling from the top of the ladder to the ground, such a big fall that he broke a leg. “Ah, ha! Sir priest!” the guy yelled, “By God’s truth, I knew I’d get rid of you. Well! You’ve got your comeuppance now, my fine fellow.” Hearing the priest groan, he burst into a loud and hearty laugh; after that, he jumped off the ladder on his own and swung into space. I bet the Court had a good laugh at the stunt, even though the poor priest had seriously hurt himself. A death, indeed, that can hardly be called grave and mournful!
The late deceased M. d’Estampes had a fool called Colin, a very diverting fellow. When his death was now nigh, his master did enquire how Colin was doing. They told him, “But poorly, my Lord; he is going to die, for he will take nothing.”—“Come now,” said M. d’Estampes, who was at the moment at table, “take him this soup, and tell him, an if he will not take somewhat for love of me, I will never love him more, for they inform me he will take naught.” The message was delivered to Colin, who, death already ’twixt the teeth of him, did make[88] answer, “And who be they which have told my Lord I would take naught?” Then being surrounded by a countless cloud of flies (for ’twas summer time), he began to hunt them with his hand, as we see pages and lackeys and children do, a-trying to catch them; and having taken two with one swoop, he cried, making a funny gesture more readily imagined than described, “Go tell my Lord,” said he, “what I have taken for love of him, and that now I’m away to the kingdom of the flies,” and so saying and turning him round to the other side of the bed, the merry rascal did expire.
The recently deceased M. d’Estampes had a jester named Colin, who was quite a funny character. As his death drew near, his master asked how Colin was doing. They replied, “Not well, my Lord; he's going to die because he won't eat anything.” “Well then,” said M. d’Estampes, who was at the table at that moment, “bring him this soup and tell him if he won’t eat something for my sake, I’ll never love him again, because I hear he won’t take anything.” The message reached Colin, who, already near death, replied, “And who are these people telling my Lord I won’t eat anything?” Surrounded by a swarm of flies (since it was summer), he started swatting at them with his hand, just like pages, servants, and children do, trying to catch them. After catching two in one swipe, he exclaimed, making a funny gesture that’s easier to imagine than describe, “Go tell my Lord what I’ve eaten for his love, and now I’m off to the land of the flies,” and with that, he turned to the other side of the bed and passed away.
As to this, I have heard sundry philosophers declare that folk do very often at the moment of death remember them of those things they have the most loved in life, and tell of these; so gentlemen, soldiers, sportsmen, artisans, all in fact, very near, according to their former occupation, do say some word thereof when a-dying. This is a fact often noted no less in past time than at the present day.
As for this, I've heard various philosophers say that people often think of the things they loved most in life when they are dying and talk about them; so gentlemen, soldiers, athletes, and workers, really anyone, tends to mention something related to their previous work when they are on their deathbed. This has been noted frequently both in the past and today.
Women in like wise do often out with a similar rigmarole,—whores just as much as honest dames. So have I heard speak of a certain lady, of very good quality too, which on her death-bed did exult to spit out all about her divers intrigues, naughtinesses and past pleasures, to such purpose that she told more thereof than ever folk had known before, albeit she had always been suspected as a desperate wanton. This revelation she may have made, either in a dream possibly, or else because truth, that can never be hid, did constrain her thereto, or mayhap because she was fain so to discharge her conscience. Anyhow, she did actually, with clear conscience and true repentance, confess and ask forgiveness for her sins, detailing[89] them each and all, dotting i’s and crossing t’s, till all was as clear as day. Verily, a curious thing, she should have found leisure at that supreme hour so to be sweeping her conscience clean of such a muckheap of scandal,—and with such careful particularity.
Women also often go through a similar routine—prostitutes just as much as respectable women. I've heard about a certain lady of good standing who, on her deathbed, felt the urge to confess all her various affairs, misdeeds, and past pleasures, to the point where she revealed more than anyone had ever known, even though she was always suspected to be quite promiscuous. She may have done this in a dream, or perhaps the truth, which can never be hidden, forced her to do so, or maybe she simply wanted to relieve her conscience. Regardless, she did indeed, with a clear conscience and true remorse, confess and ask for forgiveness for her sins, detailing each one meticulously, until everything was as clear as day. It's truly remarkable that she found the time at such a crucial moment to clear her conscience of such a pile of scandal— and with such careful attention to detail.
Another good lady I have heard of which was so apt to dream every night, as that she would tell out by night everything she did by day, in such wise that she did bring sore suspicion of herself on her husband’s part, who did presently set himself to listen to her talking and prattling and pay heed to her dreams, whereby an ill fate did later on befall her.
Another woman I’ve heard about was so prone to dreaming every night that she would recount everything she did during the day. This aroused serious suspicion from her husband, who immediately began to listen to her talking and babbling and pay attention to her dreams, which ultimately led to her downfall.
’Tis no long while since a gentleman of the great world, belonging to a province I will not name, did the same thing on his death-bed, publishing abroad his loves and lecheries, and specifying the ladies, wives and maids, which he had had to do with, and in what places, and how and under what circumstances. All this he did confess loud out, asking God’s pardon therefor before everybody. This last did worse than the woman just mentioned, for whereas she did bring disrepute on herself only, he did blacken several fair ladies’ good name. A fine pair of gallants truly!
It wasn’t long ago that a gentleman from the high society, hailing from a province I won’t name, did something similar on his deathbed. He openly shared his romantic escapades and affairs, naming the women—both married and single—with whom he had been involved, detailing where it happened, how it unfolded, and under what circumstances. He confessed all this loudly, asking God for forgiveness in front of everyone. This was worse than the woman mentioned earlier, because while she only tarnished her own reputation, he sullied the good names of several respectable ladies. What a pair of characters, indeed!
’Tis said that misers, both male and female, have likewise this trick of thinking much, in the hour of death, on their hoard of crowns, forever talking of the same. Some forty years agone there was a certain lady of Mortemar,[55*] one of the richest ladies in all Poitou and one of the most moneyed, which afterward when she came to die had never a thought for aught but her crowns that were in her closet. All the time of her sickness, she would rise from her bed twenty times a day to go visit her treasure. At[90] the last, when she was now very nigh her end and the priest was exhorting her to think of the life eternal, she would make no other reply nor say any other word but only this: “Give me my gown; the villains are robbing me.” Her one thought was to rise and visit her strong-room, as she did sore strive to do, but the effort was beyond the poor lady. And so she died.
It's said that misers, both men and women, tend to fixate on their stash of coins in their final moments, always talking about it. About forty years ago, there was a woman from Mortemar,__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, one of the wealthiest ladies in all of Poitou, who, when she was near death, cared for nothing but the crowns in her closet. During her illness, she would get out of bed twenty times a day just to check on her treasure. At the end, when she was very close to dying and the priest was urging her to think about eternal life, she replied with nothing but this: “Give me my gown; they’re robbing me.” Her only thought was to rise and visit her vault, which she desperately tried to do, but the effort was too much for her. And so she died.
I have let myself toward the end wander a little away from the first intention of my present Discourse; but we should bear in mind that after preaching and tragedy, farce ever cometh next. With this word, I make an end.
I’ve let myself drift a bit from the original purpose of my current discussion, but we should remember that after serious topics like preaching and tragedy, farce always follows. With this note, I conclude.
Of how we should never speak ill of ladies, and of the consequences of so doing.
This is a reminder that we should never talk badly about women and understand the consequences that come from doing so.
1.
1.

One point there is to be noted in these fair and honourable dames which do indulge in love, to wit that whatsoever freedom they do allow themselves, they will never willingly suffer offence or scandal to be said of them by others, and if any do say ill of them, they know very well how to avenge the affront sooner or later. In a word, they be ready enough to do the thing, but unwilling it should be spoken about. And in very sooth ’tis not well done to bring ill repute on an honourable lady, nor to divulge on her; for indeed what have a number of other folks to do with it, an if they do please their senses and their lovers’ to boot?
One thing to note about these fair and honorable women who engage in love is that no matter how much freedom they allow themselves, they will never willingly tolerate offense or scandal from others. If someone speaks ill of them, they know exactly how to take revenge on that slight, whether sooner or later. In short, they are more than ready to act on their desires but don't want any discussion about it. And truly, it is not right to tarnish the reputation of an honorable lady or to gossip about her; after all, what business do others have with it if it pleases their senses and those of their lovers?
The Courts of our French Kings, and amongst others, those of later years in especial, have been greatly given to blazon abroad the faults of these worthy dames; and I have known the days when was never a gallant about the Palace but did discover some falsehood to tell against the ladies, or at least find some true though scandalous tale to repeat. All this is very blameworthy; for a man[92] ought never to offend the honour of fair ladies, and least of all great ladies. And I do say this as well to such as do reap enjoyment of ladies’ favour, as to them which cannot taste the venison, and for this cause do decry the same.
The courts of our French kings, especially in recent years, have been quick to spread gossip about these esteemed women. I have seen times when every dashing man at the palace had some rumor to share about the ladies, whether it was a lie or a true but scandalous story. This behavior is completely unacceptable; a man should never tarnish the reputation of beautiful women, especially those of high status. I say this to both those who enjoy the favor of women and to those who cannot partake and therefore criticize them.
The Courts of our later Kings have, I repeat it, been overmuch given to this scandal-mongering and tale-bearing,—herein differing widely from those of earlier Sovereigns, their predecessors, alway excepting that of Louis XI., that seasoned reprobate. Of him ’tis said that most times he would eat at a common table, in open Hall, with many gentlemen of his privy household and others withal; and whoever could tell him the best and most lecherous story of light women and their doings, this man was best welcomed and made most of. Himself, too, showed no scruple to do the like, for he was exceeding inquisitive and loved to be informed of all secrets; then having found these out, he would often divulge the same to companions, and that publicly.[57] This was indeed a very grave scandal. He had a most ill opinion of women, and an entire disbelief in their chastity. After inviting the King of England to Paris on a visit of good fellowship, and being taken at his word by that Prince, he did straight repent him, and invented an alibi to break off the engagement. “Holy Christ!” he said on this occasion, “I don’t want him coming here. He would certainly find some little smart, dainty minx, that he would fall over head and ears in love with, who would tempt him to stay longer and come oftener than I should at all like.”
The courts of our later kings have been, I must say, way too into gossip and backstabbing—very different from those of earlier monarchs, except for Louis XI, that notorious rascal. It’s said that he often dined at a common table in a public hall with many members of his inner circle and others; whoever could tell him the best and most scandalous story about loose women was the most welcomed and favored. He had no qualms about doing the same, as he was extremely curious and loved to hear all the secrets; once he learned them, he would often share them with his friends, and that publicly. This was truly a serious scandal. He had a very low opinion of women and completely doubted their chastity. After inviting the King of England to visit Paris as a gesture of friendship, he quickly regretted it and came up with an excuse to cancel. “Holy Christ!” he said at the time, “I don’t want him coming here. He would definitely find some charming little flirt who would make him fall head over heels, tempting him to stay longer and come more often than I’d be comfortable with.”
Natheless of his wife[57] he had a very high opinion, who was a very modest and virtuous lady; and truly she had need be so, for else, being a distrustful and suspicious[93] Prince if ever there was one, he would very soon have treated her like the rest. And when he died, he did charge his son to love and honour his mother well, but not to be ruled of her,—“not that she was not both wise and chaste,” he declared, “but that she was more Burgundian than French.”[58*] And indeed he did never really love her but to have an heir of her; and when he had gotten this, he made scarce any account of her more. He kept her at the Castle of Amboise like a plain Gentlewoman in very scanty state and as ill-dressed as any young country girl. There he would leave her with few attendants to say her prayers, while himself was away travelling and taking his pleasure elsewhere. I leave you to imagine, such being the opinion the King held of women, and such his delight in speaking ill of them, how they were maltreated by every evil tongue at Court. Not that he did otherwise wish them ill for so taking their pleasure, nor that he desired to stop their amusements at all, as I have seen some fain to do; but his chiefest joy was to gird at them, the effect being that these poor ladies, weighed down under such a load of detraction, were often hindered from kicking of their heels so freely as they would else have liked to do. Yet did harlotry much prevail in his day; for the King himself did greatly help to establish and keep up the same with the gentlemen of his Court. Then was the only question, who could make the merriest mock thereat, whether in public or in privity, and who could tell the merriest tales of the ladies’ wantonings and wriggles (this was his phrase) and general naughtiness. True it is the names of great ladies were left unmentioned, such being censured only by guess-work and appearances; and I ween they had a better time than some I have seen in the days of[94] the late King, which did torment and chide and bully them most strangely. Such is the account I have heard of that good monarch, Louis XI., from divers old stagers.
Regardless of his wife__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ he thought very highly of her, as she was a modest and virtuous lady; and honestly, she needed to be, because otherwise, with him being such a distrustful and suspicious[93] Prince, he would have quickly treated her like the rest. When he died, he did instruct his son to love and respect his mother, but not to be controlled by her—“not that she wasn't both wise and virtuous,” he insisted, “but that she was more Burgundian than French. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ In reality, he never truly loved her, only wanting an heir from her; once he got that, he hardly valued her any longer. He kept her at the Castle of Amboise like an average lady with very little status and dressed as poorly as any young country girl. There, he would leave her with few attendants to pray while he was away traveling and enjoying himself elsewhere. I’ll let you imagine, given the King’s views on women and his enjoyment in speaking poorly of them, how they were treated by every malicious tongue at Court. Not that he wished them any harm for enjoying themselves, nor did he want to stop their fun at all, as I’ve seen some try to do; his greatest joy was making fun of them, which led to these poor ladies being burdened by such criticism that they often couldn’t enjoy themselves as freely as they would have liked. Yet, immorality thrived during his reign; for the King himself significantly contributed to supporting and promoting it with the gentlemen of his Court. Then the only question was who could make the funniest joke about it, whether in public or in private, and who could tell the funniest stories about the ladies’ antics and wriggles (that was his term) and overall misbehavior. It’s true that the names of high-born ladies were rarely mentioned, as they were only judged by speculation and appearances; and I suspect they had a better time than some I’ve seen during the reign of[94] the late King, who tormented, scolded, and bullied them quite strangely. That’s the account I’ve heard about that good monarch, Louis XI., from various old-timers.
At any rate his son, King Charles VIII., which did succeed him, was not of this complexion; for ’tis reported of him now that he was the most reticent and fair-speaking monarch was even seen, and did never offend man or woman by the very smallest ill word.[59] I leave you then to think of the fair ladies of his reign, and all merry lovers of the sex, did not have good times in those days. And indeed he did love them right well and faithfully,—in fact too well; for returning back from his Naples expedition triumphant and victorious, he did find such excessive diversion in loving and fondling the same, and pleasuring them with so many delights at Lyons, in the way of tournaments and tourneys which he did hold for love of them, that clean forgetting his partisans which he had left in that Kingdom, he did leave these to perish,—and towns and kingdom and castles to boot, which yet held out, and were stretching forth hands of supplication to him to send them succour. ’Tis said moreover that overmuch devotion to the ladies was the cause of his death, for by reason of a too reckless abandonment to these pleasures, he did, being of a very weakly frame of body, so enervate and undermine his health as that this behaviour did no little contribute to his death.
At any rate, his son, King Charles VIII, who succeeded him, was not like that; it’s said that he was the most reserved and eloquent monarch ever seen, and he never offended anyone with even the smallest harsh word. A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ I leave it to you to think about how the fair ladies of his reign and all the joyful lovers of the time didn’t have good times back then. Indeed, he did love them very well and faithfully—perhaps too well; for upon returning triumphantly from his expedition to Naples, he found such immense pleasure in loving and cherishing them, and entertaining them with so many delights at Lyons, through tournaments and competitions held for their love, that he completely forgot about his allies he had left in that kingdom, leading them to perish—and towns, kingdoms, and castles too, which were still holding on and reaching out for his help. It’s also said that his excessive devotion to the ladies was the reason for his death, as his reckless indulgence in these pleasures, combined with his frail constitution, weakened his health and significantly contributed to his demise.
Our good King Louis XII. was very respectful toward the ladies; for as I have said in another place, he would ever pardon all stage-players, as well as scholars and clerks of the Palace in their guilds, no matter who they did make free to speak of, excepting the Queen his wife, and her ladies and damosels,—albeit he was a merry[95] gallant in his day and did love fair women as well as other folk. Herein he did take after his grand-father, Duke Louis of Orleans,—though not in this latter’s ill tongue and inordinate conceit and boastfulness. And truly this defect did cost him his life, for one day having boasted loud out at a banquet whereat Duke John of Burgundy, his cousin, was present, how that he had in his private closet portraits of all the fairest ladies he had enjoyed, as chance would have it, Duke John himself did enter this same closet. The very first lady whose picture he beheld there, and the first sight that met his eyes, was his own most noble lady wife, which was at that day held in high esteem for her beauty. She was called Marguerite, daughter of Albert of Bavaria, Count of Hainault and Zealand. Who was amazed then? who but the worthy husband? Fancy him muttering low down to himself, “Ha, ha! I see it all!” However, making no outcry about the flea that really bit him, he did hide it all, though hatching vengeance, be sure, for a later day, and so picked a quarrel with him as to his regency and administration of the Kingdom. Thus putting off his grievance on this cause and not on any matter of his wife at all, he had the Duke assassinated at the Porte Barbette of Paris. Then presently his first wife being now dead (we may suspect by poison), and right soon after, he did wed in the second place the daughter of Louis, third Duke of Bourbon. Mayhap this bargain was no better than his first; for truly with folks which be meet for horns, change bed-chamber and quarters as they may, they will ever encounter the same.
Our good King Louis XII was very respectful toward women. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, he would always pardon all stage actors, as well as scholars and clerks of the Palace in their guilds, no matter who they made bold to talk about, except the Queen, his wife, and her ladies and maids. Even though he was a merry gentleman in his day and loved beautiful women just like everyone else, he took after his grandfather, Duke Louis of Orleans, though not in this latter’s nasty tongue and excessive pride and boastfulness. Sadly, this flaw cost him his life. One day, at a banquet where his cousin Duke John of Burgundy was present, he boasted loudly about having portraits of all the most beautiful ladies he had been with in his private chamber. As fate would have it, Duke John himself walked into this same chamber. The very first lady whose portrait he saw there was his own noble wife, who was highly regarded for her beauty at that time. Who was shocked? None other than the unfortunate husband himself. Imagine him mumbling to himself, “Ha, ha! I see it all!” However, making no fuss about the problem he had, he hid his feelings while plotting revenge for later, and so he picked a fight with him over his regency and administration of the Kingdom. Thus, blaming his grievance on this issue and not on any matter involving his wife at all, he had the Duke assassinated at the Porte Barbette of Paris. Then, after his first wife died (we can suspect poison), he quickly married the daughter of Louis, the third Duke of Bourbon. Maybe this new deal was no better than the first; because truly, for those who are meant for betrayal, no matter how they change their partners and surroundings, they will always encounter the same situation.
The Duke in this matter did very wisely, so to avenge him of his adultery without setting tongues a-wagging[96] of his concerns or his wife’s, and ’twas a judicious piece of dissimulation on his part. Indeed I have heard a very great nobleman and soldier say, how that there be three things a wise man ought never to make public, an if he be wronged therein. Rather should he hold his tongue on the matter, or better still invent some other pretext to fight upon and get his revenge,—unless that is the thing was so clear and manifest, and so public to many persons, as that he could not possibly put off his action onto any other motive but the true one.
The Duke handled this situation very wisely, managing to take revenge for his cheating without drawing attention to his own issues or those of his wife. It was a clever act of deception on his part. In fact, I’ve heard a prominent nobleman and soldier say that there are three things a wise person should never make public if they are wronged by them. Instead, he should stay quiet about it, or better yet, come up with a different reason to fight and seek his revenge—unless, of course, the situation is so obvious and known to many that he couldn’t possibly disguise his actions with anything other than the real reason.[96]
The first is, when ’tis brought up against a man that he is cuckold and his wife unfaithful; another, when he is taxed with buggery and sodomy; the third, when ’tis stated of him that he is a coward, and that he hath basely run away from a fight or a battle. All three charges be most shameful, when a man’s name is mentioned in connection therewith; so he doth fight the accusation, and will sometimes suppose he can well clear himself and prove his name to have been falsely smirched. But the matter being thus made public, doth cause only the greater scandal; and the more ’tis stirred, the more doth it stink, exactly as vile stench waxeth worse, the more it is disturbed. And this is why ’tis always best, if a man can with honour, to hold his tongue, and contrive and invent some new motive to account for his punishment of the old offence; for such like grievances should ever be ignored so far as may be, and never brought into court, or made subjects of discussion or contention. Many examples could I bring of this truth; but ’twould be over irksome to me, and would unduly lengthen out my Discourse.
The first situation is when someone accuses a man of being a cuckold and claims his wife has been unfaithful; the second is when he is accused of buggery and sodomy; and the third is when it's said that he is a coward who has shamefully fled from a fight or battle. All three accusations are extremely disgraceful when associated with a man's name; he will fight against them, sometimes believing he can successfully clear his name and show that the claims are false. However, once these matters become public, they only create more scandal; the more they are talked about, the worse they smell, just like a horrible stench gets stronger the more it's disturbed. That’s why it’s usually best, if a man can manage it honorably, to stay silent and come up with a new reason for his punishment related to the old offense; such grievances should always be minimized and never brought to court or become subjects of debate or conflict. I could provide many examples to support this truth, but it would be too tedious for me and would unnecessarily lengthen my discussion.
So we see Duke John was very wise and prudent thus to dissimulate and hide his horns, and on quite other grounds[97] take his revenge on his cousin, which had shamed him. Else had he been made mock of, and his name blazoned abroad. No doubt dread of such mockery and scandal did touch him as nigh at heart as ever his ambition, and made him act like the wise and experienced man of the world he was.
So we see Duke John was very smart and careful to hide his true feelings and, for other reasons, get back at his cousin who shamed him. Otherwise, he would have been laughed at, and his name would have been publicized. Without a doubt, the fear of such ridicule and scandal affected him as deeply as his ambition and made him behave like the wise and experienced person he was.
Now, however, to return from the digression which hath delayed me, our King Francis I., who was a good lover of fair ladies, and that in spite of the opinion he did express, as I have said elsewhere, how that they were fickle and inconstant creatures, would never have the same ill spoke of at his Court, and was always most anxious they should be held in all high respect and honour.[60*] I have heard it related how that one time, when he was spending his Lent at Meudon near Paris, there was one of the gentlemen in his service there named the Sieur de Brizambourg, of Saintogne. As this gentleman was serving the King with meat, he having a dispensation to eat thereof, his master bade him carry the rest, as we see sometimes done at Court, to the ladies of the privy company, whose names I had rather not give, for fear of offence. The gentleman in question did take upon him to say, among his comrades and others of the Court, how that these ladies not content with eating of raw meat in Lent, were now eating cooked as well,—and their belly full. The ladies hearing of it, did promptly make complaint to the King, which thereupon was filled with so great an anger, as that he did instantly command the archers of the Palace guard to take the man and hang him out of hand. By lucky chance the poor gentleman had wind of what was a-foot from one of his friends, and so fled and escaped in the nick of time. But an if he had been caught, he would[98] most certainly have been hanged, albeit he was a man of good quality, so sore was the King seen to be wroth that time, and little like to go back on his word. I have this anecdote of a person of honour and credibility which was present; and at the time the King did say right out, that any man which should offend the honour of ladies, the same should be hanged without benefit of clergy.
Now, to get back from the digression that delayed me, our King Francis I, who was a great admirer of beautiful women, despite expressing his opinion, as I've mentioned elsewhere, that they were fickle and unreliable, didn’t allow anyone to speak ill of them at his Court. He was always very eager for them to be held in high respect and honor. I've heard it recounted that once, when he was spending Lent at Meudon near Paris, there was a gentleman in his service named the Sieur de Brizambourg from Saintogne. As this gentleman was serving the King food, and he had permission to eat, his master asked him to carry the rest, as is sometimes done at Court, to the ladies of the private company, whose names I prefer not to mention to avoid causing offense. The gentleman then boldly remarked among his fellow courtiers that these ladies, not satisfied with eating raw meat during Lent, were now eating cooked meat as well, and were quite full. When the ladies heard this, they promptly complained to the King, who became so furious that he immediately ordered the palace guards to take the man and hang him on the spot. Luckily, the poor gentleman got wind of what was happening from one of his friends and fled just in time. But if he had been caught, he would almost certainly have been hanged, despite being a man of good standing, as the King was extremely angry at that moment and unlikely to change his mind. I heard this story from a reputable person who was present, and at that time, the King stated explicitly that anyone who offended the honor of ladies would be hanged without the benefit of clergy.
A little while before, Pope Farnese[61*] being come to Nice, and the King paying him his respects in state with all his Court and Lords and Ladies, there were some of these last, and not the least fair of the company, which did go to the Pope for to kiss his slipper. Whereupon a gentleman did take on him to say they had gone to beg his Holiness for a dispensation to taste of raw flesh without sin or shame, whenever and as much as ever they might desire. The King got to know thereof; and well it was for the gentleman he did fly smartly, else had he been hanged, as well for the veneration due to the Pope as for the respect proper to fair ladies.
A little while ago, Pope Farnese__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ arrived in Nice, and the King paid his respects with all his Court, including Lords and Ladies. Among them were some of the most beautiful women, who went to kiss the Pope's slipper. A gentleman remarked that they had approached His Holiness to request permission to enjoy raw meat without sin or shame, whenever they wanted. The King found out about this, and the gentleman was lucky he escaped quickly; otherwise, he would have been hanged, both for the respect owed to the Pope and for the reverence due to the lovely ladies.
2.
2.

These gentlemen were not so happy in their speeches and interviews as was once the late deceased M. d’Albanie. The time when Pope Clement did visit Marseilles to celebrate the marriage of his niece with M. d’Orleans, there were three widow ladies, of fair face and honourable birth, which by reason of the pains, vexations and griefs they suffered from the absence of their late husbands and of those pleasures that were no more, had come so low, and grown so thin, weak and sickly, as that they did beseech M. d’Albanie,[99] their kinsman, who did possess a good share of the Pope’s favour, to ask of him dispensation for the three of them to eat meat on prohibited days. This the said Duke did promise them to do, and to that end did one day bring them on a friendly footing to the Pope’s lodging. Meantime he had warned the King of what was a-foot, telling him he would afford him some sport. So having put him up to the game, and the three ladies being on their knees before his Holiness, M. d’Albanie took the word first, saying in a low tone and in Italian, so that the ladies did not catch his words: “Holy Father, see here before you three widow ladies, fair to look on and very well born. These same for the respect they bear toward their dead husbands and the love they have for the children they have borne to these, will not for aught in all the world marry again and so wrong their husbands and children. But whereas they be sometimes sore tempted by the pricks of the flesh, they do therefore humbly beseech your Holiness for leave to go with men without marriage, whenever and wherever they shall find them under the said temptation.”—“What say you, cousin?” cried the Pope. “Why! ’twould be against God’s own commandments, wherefrom I can give no dispensation.” “Well! the ladies are here before you, Holy Father, and if it please you to hear them say their say.” At this one of the three, taking the word, said: “Holy Father! we have besought M. d’Albanie to make you our very humble petition for us three poor women, and to represent to your Holiness our frailty and our weakly complexion.”—“Nay! my daughters,” replied the Pope, “but your petition is in no wise reasonable, for the thing would be clean against God’s commandments.” Then the widows, still quite ignorant of what M. d’Albanie[100] had told the Pope, made answer: “At the least, Holy Father, may it please you give us leave three times a week, without scandal to our name.”—“What!” exclaimed the Pope, “give you leave to commit il peccato di lussuria (the sin of lasciviousness?). I should damn mine own soul; I cannot do it!” Hereupon the three ladies, perceiving at last ’twas a case of scampishness and knavery, and that M. d’Albanie had played a trick on them, declared, “’Tis not of that we speak, Holy Father; we but ask permission to eat meat on prohibited days.”—Hearing these words, the Duc d’Albanie told them, “Nay! I thought ’twas live flesh you meant, ladies!” The Pope was quick to understand the knavery put on them, and said with a dawning smile, “You have put these noble ladies to the blush, my cousin; the Queen will be angered when she doth hear of it.” The Queen did hear of it anon, but made no ado, and found the tale diverting. The King likewise did afterward make good mirth thereof with the Pope; while the Holy Father himself, after giving them his benediction, did grant them the dispensation they craved, and dismissed them well content.
These gentlemen weren't as happy in their speeches and interviews as the late M. d’Albanie once was. When Pope Clement visited Marseilles to celebrate the marriage of his niece to M. d’Orleans, there were three widows, beautiful and of honorable birth, who, due to the pain, worries, and sadness they experienced from the absence of their late husbands and the joys that were gone, had become so thin, weak, and sickly that they pleaded with M. d’Albanie, their relative who had the Pope’s favor, to ask him for permission to eat meat on prohibited days. The Duke promised to help them, and one day he brought them casually to the Pope’s residence. In the meantime, he had informed the King of what was happening, telling him he would provide some entertainment. So, after setting up the scenario, and with the three ladies kneeling before his Holiness, M. d’Albanie spoke first, quietly and in Italian, so the ladies wouldn't hear him: “Holy Father, here before you are three beautiful widows of good lineage. Out of respect for their deceased husbands and love for the children they bore, they will not remarry, which would betray their husbands and children. However, since they are sometimes tempted by the desires of the flesh, they humbly request your Holiness to allow them to be with men outside marriage, whenever and wherever they encounter such temptation.” “What do you say, cousin?” exclaimed the Pope. “Well! That would go against God’s commandments, and I cannot grant any dispensation for that.” “Well! The ladies are here before you, Holy Father, and it would please you to let them express their wishes.” One of the three then spoke up: “Holy Father! We have asked M. d’Albanie to humbly petition you on behalf of us three poor women, to express our weakness and frailty.” “Nay! my daughters,” replied the Pope, “your request is not reasonable at all, for it would be completely against God’s commandments.” The widows, still unaware of what M. d’Albanie had said to the Pope, responded: “At the very least, Holy Father, please allow us to have permission three times a week without bringing shame upon our names.” “What!” the Pope exclaimed, “you want permission to commit il peccato di lussuria (the sin of lasciviousness)? I would damn my own soul; I cannot do that!” At this point, the three ladies finally realized they were the victims of a prank, that M. d’Albanie had tricked them, and declared, “That’s not what we mean, Holy Father; we only ask for permission to eat meat on prohibited days.” Hearing these words, the Duc d’Albanie said to them, “No! I thought you meant live flesh, ladies!” The Pope quickly understood the trick played on them and said with a growing smile, “You have embarrassed these noble ladies, my cousin; the Queen will be upset when she hears about this.” The Queen soon found out but didn’t make a fuss and found the story amusing. The King also later shared a good laugh with the Pope about it; meanwhile, the Holy Father himself, after giving them his blessing, granted them the dispensation they requested and sent them away content.
I have been given the names of the three ladies concerned, namely: Madame de Chasteau-Briant or Madame de Canaples, Madame de Chastillon and the Baillive de Caen, all three very honourable ladies. I have the tale from sundry old frequenters of the Court.
I have been given the names of the three ladies involved, specifically: Madame de Chasteau-Briant or Madame de Canaples, Madame de Chastillon, and the Baillive de Caen, all three very reputable ladies. I've heard the story from various long-time attendees of the Court.
Madame d’Uzès[62] did yet better, at the time when Pope Paul III. came to Nice to visit King Francis. She was then Madame du Bellay, and a lady which hath from her youth up always had merry ways and spake many a witty word. One day, prostrating herself at his Holiness’ feet, she did make three supplications to him: first, that he[101] grant her absolution, for that when yet a little maid, in waiting on the Queen Regent’s majesty, and called by the name of Tallard, she did lose her scissors while sewing of her seam, and did make a vow to St. Allivergot to perform the same, an if she found them. This she presently did, yet did never accomplish her vow, not knowing where the said Saint’s body lay. The second petition was that he give her pardon forasmuch as, when Pope Clement came to Marseilles, she being still Mlle. Tallard, she did take one of the pillows of his Holiness’ bed, and did wipe herself therewith in front and in rear, on the which his Holiness did afterward rest his noble head and face. The third was this, that the Sieur de Tays, because she did love the same, but he loved not her, and the man is accursed and should be excommunicated which loveth not again, if he be loved.
Madame d’Uzès__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ did even better when Pope Paul III visited King Francis in Nice. At that time, she was Madame du Bellay, a lady who had always been lively and full of witty remarks since her youth. One day, as she knelt at his Holiness’ feet, she made three requests: first, that he grant her absolution because, when she was just a young girl serving the Queen Regent, known as Tallard, she lost her scissors while sewing. She vowed to St. Allivergot to honor him if she found them. She did find them but never fulfilled her vow, not knowing where St. Allivergot’s body was buried. The second request was for forgiveness because, when Pope Clement visited Marseilles, she, still Mlle. Tallard, took one of his Holiness’ pillows and wiped herself with it, front and back, on which his Holiness later rested his noble head. The third request concerned the Sieur de Tays, the man she loved, who did not return her feelings, and she said that anyone who does not love back when loved is accursed and should be excommunicated.
The Pope at first was sore astonished at these requests, but having enquired of the King who she was, did learn her witty ways, and laughed heartily over the matter with the King. Yet from that day forth all she did was found admirable, so good a grace did she display in all her ways and words.
The Pope was initially very surprised by these requests, but after asking the King who she was, he learned about her clever ways and shared a good laugh with the King. From that day on, everything she did was seen as admirable, as she showed such grace in all her actions and words.
Now never suppose this same great monarch was so strict and stern in his respect for ladies, as that he did not relish well enough any good stories told him concerning them, without however any scandal-mongering or decrying of their good name. Rather like the great and highly privileged King he was, he would not that every man, and all the vulgar herd, should enjoy like privileges with himself.
Now, don’t think that this great king was so strict and serious about respecting women that he didn’t enjoy good stories about them, as long as they weren’t gossip or damaging to their reputation. Like the important and privileged king he was, he didn’t want just anyone, especially the common people, to have the same advantages he had.
I have heard sundry relate how he was ever most anxious that the noble gentlemen of his Court should never be[102] without mistresses. If they won none such, he did deem them simpletons and empty fools; while many a time he would ask one Courtier or another the name of the lady of his choice, and promise to do them good service in that quarter, and speak well of their merits. So good-natured a Prince was he and an affable. Oftentimes too, when he did observe his gentlemen full of free discourse with their mistresses, he would come up and accost them, asking what merry and gallant words they were exchanging with their ladies, and if he found the same not to his liking, correcting them and teaching them better. With his most intimate friends, he was no wise shy or sparing to tell his stories and share his good things with them. One diverting tale I have heard him tell, which did happen to himself, and which he did later on repeat. This was of a certain young and pretty lady new come to Court, the which being little skilled in the ways of the world, did very readily yield to the persuasions of the great folks, and in especial those of the said monarch himself. One day when he was fain to erect his noble standard and plant the same in her fort, she having heard it said, and indeed begun to note that when one gave a thing to the King, or took aught from him and touched it, the person must first kiss the hand for to take and touch it withal, did herself without more ado fulfil the obligation and first very humbly kissing her hand did seize the King’s standard and plant it in the fort with all due humbleness. Then did she ask him in cold blood, how he did prefer her to love him, as a respectable and modest lady, or as a wanton. No doubt he did ask her for the latter, for herein was she more able to show herself more agreeable than as a modest woman. And indeed he soon found out she had by no[103] means wasted her time, both after the event and before it, and all. When all was done, she would drop him a deep curtsy, thanking him respectfully for the honour he had done her, whereof she was all unworthy, often suggesting to him at the same time some promotion for her husband. I have heard the lady’s name, one which hath since grown much less simple than at first she was, and is nowadays cunning and experienced enough. The King made no ado about repeating the tale, which did reach the ears of not a few folks.
I’ve heard various people say how he was always very concerned that the noble gentlemen in his Court should never be without mistresses. If they didn't have one, he thought they were simpletons and fools; often, he would ask one Courtier or another about the name of the lady they liked, promising to help them out in that area and to speak highly of their qualities. He was such a good-natured and friendly Prince. Many times, when he saw his gentlemen engaged in lively conversations with their mistresses, he would approach them and ask what cheerful and charming words they were exchanging. If he didn’t like what he heard, he would correct them and teach them a better way. With his closest friends, he was never shy about sharing his stories and good fortune with them. One amusing story I heard him tell, which happened to him and that he later shared again, was about a young and pretty lady who had just come to Court. She was inexperienced in the ways of the world and easily influenced by the powerful, especially by the King himself. One day, when he was eager to raise his noble standard and plant it in her territory, she had heard it said—and had begun to realize—that when one gave something to the King or took something from him and touched it, the person must first kiss his hand to do so. Without hesitation, she fulfilled this requirement, humbly kissing her own hand before seizing the King’s standard and planting it in the fort with all due humility. Then, she asked him coolly how he preferred her to love him, as a respectable and modest lady, or as a wanton. No doubt, he asked for the latter since it allowed her to be more agreeable than as a modest woman. And indeed, he soon discovered that she hadn’t wasted her time, both before and after the event. When it was all over, she would drop him a deep curtsy, respectfully thanking him for the honor he had bestowed upon her, which she deemed herself unworthy of, often suggesting at the same time some advancement for her husband. I’ve heard the lady’s name, one that has since become much less naive than she was at first; she is now savvy and experienced enough. The King had no problem repeating the story, which reached the ears of quite a few people.
This monarch was exceeding curious to hear of the love of both men and women, and above all their amorous engagements, and in especial what fine airs the ladies did exhibit when at their gentle work, and what looks and attitudes they did display therein, and what words they said. On hearing all this, he would laugh frank and free, but after would forbid all publishing abroad thereof and any scandal making, always strongly recommending an honourable secrecy on these matters.
This king was very curious to hear about the love lives of both men and women, especially their romantic affairs. He was particularly interested in the charming ways the ladies presented themselves while they were engaged in their activities, as well as the expressions and postures they displayed, and the words they used. After hearing all this, he would laugh openly, but then he would forbid anyone from spreading it around or creating any gossip, always strongly advising to keep these matters confidential and respectful.
He had for his good follower herein that great, most magnificent and most generous nobleman, the Cardinal de Lorraine. Most generous I may well call him, for he had not his like in his day; his free expenditure, his many gracious gifts and kindnesses, did all bear witness thereof, and above all else his charity toward the poor. He would regularly bear with him a great game-bag, the which his valet of the bed-chamber, who did govern his petty cash, never failed to replenish, every morning, with three or four hundred crowns. And as many poor folk as he met, he would plunge his hand in the game-bag, and whatsoever he drew out therefrom, without a moment’s thought, he gave away, and without any picking or choosing. ’Twas[104] of him a poor blind man, as the Cardinal was passing in the streets of Rome and was asked for an alms, and so did throw him according to wont a great handful of gold, said thus, crying out aloud in the Italian tongue: O tu sei Christo, o veramente el cardinal di Lorrena,—“Either you are Christ, or the Cardinal de Lorraine.” Moreover if he was generous and charitable in this way, he was no less liberal toward other folks as well, and chiefly where fair ladies were concerned, whom he did easily attach to him by this regale. For money was not so greatly abundant in those days as it hath nowadays become, and for this cause women were more eager after the same, and every sort of merry living and gay attire.
He had as his loyal follower the great, magnificent, and generous nobleman, Cardinal de Lorraine. I can truly call him generous because there was no one like him in his time; his lavish spending, countless gifts, and acts of kindness spoke for themselves, especially his charity toward the poor. He would always carry a large game bag that his valet, who managed his petty cash, would refill every morning with three or four hundred crowns. Whenever he met poor people, he would reach into the game bag and, without a second thought, give away whatever he pulled out, without any selection. One time, a poor blind man asked him for charity as he was walking through the streets of Rome, and the Cardinal threw him a large handful of gold. The man exclaimed in Italian, O tu sei Christo, o veramente el cardinal di Lorrena—“Either you are Christ, or the Cardinal de Lorraine.” Besides being generous and charitable in this way, he was also very liberal with others, particularly with beautiful women, who he easily won over with his gifts. Money was not as plentiful back then as it is now, which made women more eager for it, along with all kinds of fun and fashionable clothing.
I have heard it said that ever on the arrival at Court of any fair damsel or young wife that was handsome and attractive, he would come instantly to greet the same, and discoursing with her would presently offer to undertake the training of her. A pretty trainer for sooth! I ween the task was not so irksome an one as to train and break some wild colt. Accordingly ’twas said at that time, was scarce dame or damsel resident at Court or newly come thither, but was caught and debauched by dint of her own avariciousness and the largesse of the aforesaid Cardinal; and few or none have come forth of that Court women of chastity and virtue. Thus might their chests and big wardrobes be seen for that time more full of gowns and petticoats, of cloth of gold and silver and of silk, than be nowadays those of our Queens and great Princesses of the present time. I know this well, having seen the thing with mine own eyes in two or three instances,—fair ladies which had gotten all this gear by their dainty body; for[105] neither father, mother nor husband could have given them the same in anything like such wealth and abundance.
I've heard that whenever a beautiful young woman or attractive wife arrived at the Court, he would immediately come to greet her, and while chatting with her, he would quickly offer to take her under his wing. What a charming trainer, right? I believe this task was much less challenging than taming a wild colt. At that time, it was said that there was hardly a woman or girl at the Court, whether she had been living there or was newly arrived, who wasn't caught up and seduced by her own greed and the generous gifts from that Cardinal; and very few—if any—of those women emerged from that Court with their chastity and virtue intact. Their closets and large wardrobes were filled with dresses and petticoats made of gold, silver, and silk, far more than those of our current Queens and great Princesses. I know this well because I've seen it myself in a couple of instances—beautiful ladies who acquired all this finery through their alluring looks, as their fathers, mothers, or husbands couldn’t have provided them with such wealth and abundance.
Nay! but I should have refrained me, some will say, from stating so much of the great Cardinal, in view of his honoured cloth and most reverend and high estate. Well! his King would have it so, and did find pleasure therein; and pleasure one’s Sovereign, a man is dispensed of all scruple, whether in making love or other matters, provided always they be not dishonourable. Accordingly he did make no ado about going to the wars, and hunting and dancing, taking part in mascarades, and the like sports and pastimes. Moreover he was a man of like flesh and blood with other folk, and did possess many great merits and perfections of his own, enough surely to outweigh and cloak this small fault,—if fault it is to be called, to love fair ladies!
No! But some might say I should have held back from saying so much about the great Cardinal, considering his respected position and high status. Well! His King wanted it, and took pleasure in it; and pleasing one's Sovereign frees a man from any hesitation, whether it's in matters of love or anything else, as long as they aren't dishonorable. So, he had no hesitation in going off to war, hunting, dancing, taking part in masquerades, and other similar sports and pastimes. Besides, he was just like everyone else, and he had many great qualities and talents of his own, surely enough to outweigh and cover this small fault—if it can even be called a fault—to love beautiful women!
I have heard the following tale told of him in connection with the proper respect due to ladies. He was naturally most courteous toward them; yet did he once forget his usual practice, and not without reason enough, with the Duchess of Savoy, Donna Beatrix of Portugal. Travelling on one occasion through Piedmont, on his way to Rome on his Royal master’s service, he did visit the Duke and Duchess. After having conversed a sufficient while with the Duke, he went to find the noble Duchess in her chamber for to pay his respects to her; arrived there and on his coming forward toward her, her Grace, who was haughtiness itself, if ever was such in the world, did offer him her hand to kiss. The Cardinal, loath to put up with this affront, did press forward to kiss her on the mouth, while she did draw back all she could. Then losing all patience and crowding up yet nearer to her, he takes[106] her fairly by the head, and in spite of her struggles did kiss her two or three times over. And albeit she did protest sore with many cries and exclamations both in Portuguese and Spanish, yet had she to endure this treatment. “What!” the Cardinal cried out; “is it to me this sort of state and ceremony is to be used? I do kiss right enough the Queen of France my Mistress, which is the greatest Queen in all the world, and I am not to kiss you, a dirty little slip of a duchess! I would have you to know I have bedded with ladies as fair as you, and as good to boot, and of better birth than ever you be.” And mayhap he spoke but the truth. Anyway the Princess was ill-advised to make this show of haughtiness toward a Prince of so high an house, and above all towards a Cardinal; for there is never one of this exalted rank in the Church, but doth liken himself with the greatest Princes of Christendom. The Cardinal too was in the wrong to take so harsh reprisals; but ’tis ever very irksome to a noble and generous spirit, of whatever estate and calling, to put up with an affront.
I’ve heard a story about him that relates to the proper respect owed to ladies. He was naturally very polite toward them, but he once forgot his usual manners, and for good reason, with the Duchess of Savoy, Donna Beatrix of Portugal. While traveling through Piedmont on his way to Rome for his royal master’s business, he visited the Duke and Duchess. After chatting with the Duke for a while, he went to find the noble Duchess in her chamber to pay his respects. When he approached her, her Grace, who was the epitome of arrogance, offered him her hand to kiss. The Cardinal, unwilling to accept this insult, pushed forward to kiss her on the mouth, and she recoiled as much as she could. Losing all patience and closing the distance, he took her by the head and, despite her struggles, kissed her two or three times. Even though she protested loudly in both Portuguese and Spanish, she had to endure it. “What!” the Cardinal exclaimed. “Is this how I’m supposed to be treated? I kiss the Queen of France, my Mistress, who is the greatest Queen in the world, and I’m not supposed to kiss you, a little arrogant duchess! Let me remind you that I’ve been with ladies as beautiful as you, just as good, and of better birth than you’ll ever be.” He may have spoken the truth. In any case, it was a mistake for the Princess to display such arrogance toward a Prince of such a high rank, especially toward a Cardinal; for none of these high-ranking Church officials see themselves as anything less than the greatest princes of Christendom. The Cardinal was also wrong to respond so harshly, but it’s always frustrating for a noble and generous spirit, no matter their status, to endure an insult.
Another of the same rank, the Cardinal de Granvelle, did likewise well know how to make the Comte d’Egmont feel his displeasure on the same account, and others too whose names be at the tip of my pen, but whom I will pass over for fear of confusing my subject overmuch, though I may return again to them later. I do now confine myself to our late King Henri le Grand, which monarch was exceeding respectful to the ladies, whom he was used to treat with all reverence, and did alway hate gainsayers of their honour. And when so great King doth so serve fair ladies, a monarch of such puissance and repute, very loath for sure be all men of his Court to open mouth for[107] to speak ill of the same. Beside, the Queen mother did exert a strong hand to guard her ladies and damsels, and make calumniators and satirists feel the weight of her resentment, when once they were found out, seeing how she had been as little spared by such as any of her ladies. Yet ’twas never herself she did take heed for so much as others, seeing, she was used to declare, how she did know her soul and conscience pure and void of offence, and could afford to laugh at these foul-mouthed writers and scandal-mongers. “Why! let them say their worst,” she would say, “and have their trouble for nothing”; yet whenever she did catch them at it, she knew how to make them smart soundly.
Another person of equal rank, Cardinal de Granvelle, also knew how to make Comte d’Egmont feel his disapproval for the same reasons, along with others whose names I can easily recall, but I’ll skip them to avoid complicating my topic too much, though I might come back to them later. Right now, I’ll focus on our late King Henri le Grand, who was very respectful to women, treating them with great reverence and always disliking those who spoke against their honor. When such a great king serves fair ladies, a monarch of such power and reputation, everyone in his court is certainly hesitant to speak ill of them. Plus, the Queen Mother was very protective of her ladies and young women, making sure that those who spread slander and satire felt her wrath when they were caught, especially since she had been targeted in the same way as her ladies. However, she mostly cared more for others than for herself, as she used to say that she knew her soul and conscience were clear and free of wrongdoing, and she could afford to laugh at those foul-mouthed writers and gossipmongers. “Let them say their worst,” she would say, “and have their trouble for nothing”; yet whenever she caught them in the act, she knew how to make them pay dearly.
It befell the elder Mlle. de Limeuil, at her first coming to Court, to compose a satire or lampoon (for she had the gift of witty speech and writing) on the Court generally, not however so much scandalous in its matter as diverting in form. Be assured the King’s mother did make her pay for this well and feel the whip smartly, as well as two of her comrades which were in the secret to her majesty, through the house of Turenne, which is allied to that of Boulogne, she would have been chastised with every ignominy, and this by express order of the King, who had the most particular and curious dislike of such writings.
At her first arrival at Court, the older Mlle. de Limeuil wrote a satire or lampoon (since she had a knack for clever speech and writing) about the Court itself, which was not really scandalous but rather entertaining in style. You can be sure that the King’s mother made her pay for this dearly and felt the sting of it, along with two of her friends who were in on the secret with her, through the house of Turenne, which is connected to that of Boulogne. If not for that connection, she would have faced all sorts of disgrace, and this was by the King’s direct order, as he had a very particular and intense dislike for such writings.
I do remember me of an incident connected with the Sieur de Matha,[63*] a brave and gallant gentleman much loved of the King, and a kinsman of Madame de Valentinois, which did ever have some diverting quarrel and complaint against the damsels and dames of the Court, of so merry a complexion was he. One day having attacked one of the Queen’s maids of honour, another,[108] known by the name of “big Méray,” was for taking up the cudgels for her companion. The only reply Matha did vouchsafe her was this: “Go to! I’m not attacking you, Méray; you’re a great war-horse, and should be barded!”[64] For insooth she was the very biggest woman, maid or wife, I have ever seen. She did make complaint of the speech to the Queen, saying the other had called her a mare and a great war-horse to be barded. The Queen was so sore angered that Matha had to quit the Court for some days, spite of all the favour he had with his kinswoman Madame de Valentinois; and for a month after his return durst not set foot in the apartment of the Queen and her maids of honour.
I remember an incident involving Sieur de Math, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, a brave and gallant gentleman who was much beloved by the King and related to Madame de Valentinois. He always had some amusing quarrel or complaint about the ladies of the Court because he had such a cheerful disposition. One day, he confronted one of the Queen’s maids of honor, and another maid, known as "big Méray," decided to defend her friend. Matha’s only response to her was, “Go away! I’m not attacking you, Méray; you’re a big war horse and should be barded! __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ In fact, she was the largest woman, whether maid or wife, I had ever seen. She complained about the comment to the Queen, claiming that Matha had called her a mare and a big war horse to be barded. The Queen was so outraged that Matha had to leave the Court for several days, despite the favor he had with his relative, Madame de Valentinois. For a month after his return, he didn’t dare step into the Queen's apartment or the company of her maids of honor.
The Sieur de Gersay did a much worse thing toward one of the Queen’s maids of honour, to whom he was ill-disposed, for to avenge him upon her, albeit he was never at a loss for ready words; for indeed he was as good as most at saying a witty thing or telling a good story, and above all when spreading a scandal, of which art and mystery he was a past master; only scandal-mongering was at that time strongly forbidden. One day when he was present at the after dinner assembly of the Queen along with the other ladies and gentlemen of her Court, the custom then being that the company should not sit except on the floor when the Queen was present, de Gersay having taken from the pages and lackeys a ram’s pizzle they were playing with in the Office Court of the Palace, sitting down beside her he did slip the same into the girl’s frock, and this so softly as that she did never notice it,—that is not until the Queen did proceed to rise from her chair to retire to her private apartment. The girl, whose name I had better not give, did straight spring up, and as[109] she rose to her feet, right in front of the Queen, doth give so lusty a push to the strange plaything she had about her, as that it did make six or seven good bounces along the floor, for all the world as though it were fain of its own accord to give the company a free exhibition and some gratuitous sport. Who more astonished than the poor girl,—and the Queen to boot, for ’twas well in front of her with naught to prevent her view? “Mother of God!” cried the Queen, “and what is that, my child; what would you be at with that thing?” The unhappy maid of honour, blushing and half fainting with confusion, began to cry out she knew not what it was, that some one who did wish her ill had played this horrid trick on her, and how she thought ’twas none other but de Gersay which had done it. The latter waiting only to see the beginning of the sport and the first few bounces, was through the door by now. They sent to call him back, but he would never come, perceiving the Queen to be so very wroth, yet stoutly denying the whole thing all the while. So he was constrained for some days to fly her resentment, and the King’s too; and indeed had he not been, along with Fontaine-Guérin,[65*] one of the Dauphin’s prime favourites, he would assuredly have been in sore straits, albeit naught could ever be proven against him except by guess-work, and notwithstanding the fact that the King and his courtiers and not a few ladies could not refrain them from laughing at the incident, though they durst not show their amusement in view of the Queen’s displeasure. For was never a lady in all the world knew better than she how to startle folk with a sudden and sore rebuke.
The Sieur de Gersay did something much worse to one of the Queen’s maids of honor, with whom he had a grudge. To get back at her, he, although never short of clever words—he was quite good at saying something witty or telling a good story, especially when it came to spreading gossip, a skill he had mastered—was aware that gossiping was strictly forbidden at that time. One day, while he was at the Queen's after-dinner gathering with the other ladies and gentlemen of her court, and the custom was that everyone had to sit on the floor when the Queen was present, de Gersay took a ram's pizzle that the pages and servants were playing with in the Office Court of the Palace. Sitting down next to her, he quietly slipped it into the girl’s dress without her noticing—until the Queen stood up to leave for her private chambers. The girl, whose name I’d rather not mention, immediately sprang up, and as she rose right in front of the Queen, she pushed the unusual object she had, making it bounce six or seven times along the floor as though it was eager to entertain the guests with a little show. Who was more shocked than the poor girl—and the Queen too, since it was right in front of her without anything blocking her view? “Mother of God!” exclaimed the Queen, “what is that, my child; what are you doing with that thing?” The embarrassed maid of honor, blushing and nearly fainting from humiliation, started to shout that she didn’t know what it was, that someone who wanted to harm her had played this terrible trick on her, and she thought it was none other than de Gersay who had done it. De Gersay, having only stuck around to see the start of the fun and the first few bounces, was out the door by then. They sent for him to come back, but he never did, seeing how upset the Queen was, while he firmly denied any involvement. So, he had to avoid her anger, and the King’s too, for several days; if he hadn’t been, with Fontaine-Guérin, one of the Dauphin’s closest favorites, he would’ve surely been in big trouble, even though nothing could ever be proven against him except by speculation. Still, the King, his courtiers, and quite a few ladies couldn’t help but laugh at the incident, although they dared not show their amusement in front of the Queen. No lady in the world was better at startling people with a sudden and severe rebuke than she was.
A certain honourable gentleman of the Court and a[110] maid of honour did one time, from the good affection they erst had with one another, fall into hate and sore quarrel; this went so far that one day the young lady said loud out to him in the Queen’s apartment, the twain being in talk as to their difference: “Leave me alone, Sir, else I will tell what you told me.” The gentleman, who had informed her in strict confidence of something about a very great lady, and fearing ill would befall him from it, and at the least he would be banished the Court, without more ado did answer back,—for he was ready enough of speech: “If you do tell what I have told you, I will tell what I have done to you.” Who more astonished than the lady at this? yet did she contrive to reply: “Why! what have you done to me?” The other did reply: “Why! what have I told you?” Thereupon doth the lady make answer: “Oh! I know very well what you told me.” To which the other: “Oh! and I know very well what I did to you.” The lady doth retort, “But I’ll prove quite clearly what you told me;” and the other: “And I’ll prove clearer still what I did to you.” At long last, after sticking a long while at this counterchange of reply and retort in identical form and almost the same words, they were parted by the gentlemen and ladies there present, albeit these got much diversion from the dispute.
Once, a certain honorable gentleman at Court and a lady-in-waiting, who used to have a good relationship, ended up in a bitter fight. It escalated to the point where, one day in the Queen’s apartment, the young lady exclaimed loudly during their argument, “Leave me alone, Sir, or I’ll reveal what you told me.” The gentleman, who had shared something in strict confidence about a very important lady, was afraid of the consequences and worried he might be banished from Court. Without hesitation, he replied—he was quick with his words: “If you reveal what I told you, I’ll expose what I’ve done to you.” The lady was taken aback, yet she managed to reply, “What have you done to me?” He responded, “What have I told you?” In turn, the lady replied, “Oh! I know exactly what you told me.” To which he said, “Well, I know exactly what I did to you.” She shot back, “But I can clearly prove what you told me;” and he said, “And I can prove even clearer what I did to you.” After a long back-and-forth of replies and retorts using nearly the same words, they were finally separated by the gentlemen and ladies present, though everyone found great amusement in the argument.
This disputation having come to the Queen’s ears, the latter was in great wrath thereanent, and was fain at once to know the words of the one and the deeds of the other, and did send to summon them. But the pair of them, seeing ’twas to be made a serious matter, did consult and straight agree together to say, whenas they did appear before the Queen, how that ’twas merely a game their so disputing with each other, and that neither had[111] she been told aught by the gentleman, nor yet had he done aught to her. So did they balk the Queen, which did none the less chide and sore blame the courtier, on the ground that his words were over free and like to make scandal. The man sware to me twenty times over that, and if they had not so made it up and agreed in a tale, and the lady had actually revealed the secret he had told her, which might well have turned to his great injury, he would have resolutely maintained he had done his will on her, challenging them to examine her, and if she should not be found virgin, that ’twas himself had deflowered her. “Well and good!” I answered, “but an if they had examined her and found her a maid, for she was quite young and unmarried, you would have been undone, and ’twould have gone hard but you had lost your life.”—“Body of me!” he did return, “that’s just what I should have liked the best, that they should have examined the jade. I was well assured of my tale, for I knew quite well who had deflowered her, and that another man had been there right enough, though not I,—to my much regret. So being found already touched and soiled, she had been undone, and I avenged, and her good name ruined to boot. I should have got off with marrying her, and afterward ridding me of her, as I could.” And these be the risks poor maids and wives have to run, whether they be in the right o’t or the wrong!
This argument reached the Queen's ears, and she was really angry about it. She wanted to immediately hear both sides and ordered them to come in. However, seeing it was getting serious, the two of them decided to agree that when they faced the Queen, they would claim their arguments were just playful banter and that neither had told the other anything inappropriate, nor had anything happened between them. They managed to mislead the Queen, who still criticized and blamed the courtier for being too bold with his words and risking a scandal. He swore to me repeatedly that if they hadn’t coordinated their story, and if the lady had actually revealed the secret he had entrusted to her—which could have caused him serious trouble—he would have confidently stated that he had gotten his way with her, challenging them to examine her, and if she wasn’t found to be a virgin, he would claim he had deflowered her. “Okay,” I replied, “but if they had examined her and found her to be pure, since she was young and unmarried, you would have been ruined, and it would have been a real struggle for you to keep your life.” “By God!” he returned, “that’s exactly what I would have wanted the most, for them to check the girl. I was confident in my story because I knew who had deflowered her, and I was aware that another man had been there too, although not me—much to my regret. So since she was already tainted, I would have been avenged, and her reputation would be ruined. I could have married her and then found a way to get rid of her later.” And this is the kind of risk that young women and wives have to face, whether they're in the right or wrong!
[112]
[112]
3.
3.

I did one time know a lady of very high rank which did actually find herself pregnant by the act of a very brave and gallant Prince;[66] ’twas said however the thing was done under promise of marriage, though later the contrary was ascertained to be the case. King Henri was the first to learn the facts, and was sore vexed thereat, for she was remotely connected with his Majesty. Any way, without making any further noise or scandal about the matter, he did the same evening at the Royal ball, chose her as his partner and lead her out to dance the torch-dance[66] with him; and afterward did make her dance with another the galliard and the rest of the “brawls,” wherein she did display her readiness and dexterity better than ever, while her figure had all its old grace and was so well arranged for the occasion as that she gave no sign of her bigness. The end was that the King, who had kept his eyes fixed on her very strictly all the time, did perceive naught, no more than if she had not been with child at all, and did presently observe to a great nobleman, one of his chief familiars: “The folk were most ill-advised and spiteful to have gone about to invent the tale that yonder poor girl was big with child; never have I seen her in better grace. The spiteful authors of the calumny have told a most wicked falsehood.” Thus this good King did shield the noble lady and poor girl, and did repeat the same thing to his Queen whenas he was to bed with her that night. But the latter, mistrusting the thing, did have her examined the next morning, herself being present, and she was found to be six months gone in pregnancy;[113] after she did confess and avow the whole truth to the Queen, saying ’twas done under pretence of marriage to follow. Natheless the King, who was all good nature, had the secret kept as close as ever possible, so as not to bring shame and scandal on the damsel, though the Queen for her part was very wrathful. Any way, they did send her off very quietly to the home of her nearest kinsfolk, where she was presently brought to bed of a fine boy. Yet was the lad so unfortunate that he could never get him recognized by his putative father; the trial of the case did drag out to great length, but the mother could never get aught decided in her favour.
I once knew a woman of very high status who found herself pregnant by a brave and gallant prince;[66] however, it was said that this happened under a promise of marriage, although later it was confirmed that this was not the case. King Henri was the first to learn the details and was very upset, as she was distantly related to him. Anyway, without making a fuss or causing a scandal, he chose her as his dance partner that evening at the Royal ball and led her out to dance the torch dance __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__; afterward, he had her dance the galliard and other “brawls,” where she showed her skill and grace better than ever, concealing her pregnancy perfectly for the occasion. The King, who kept a close eye on her, noticed nothing at all, as if she wasn't pregnant, and remarked to a prominent nobleman, one of his closest friends, “People were really misguided and malicious to spread the rumor that poor girl was pregnant; I've never seen her look better. The malicious sources of this slander have told an outrageous lie.” Thus, this kind King protected the noble lady and poor girl, repeating the same to his Queen when they went to bed that night. However, the Queen, suspicious about the situation, had her checked the following morning, with her present, and it was discovered that she was six months pregnant;[113] afterward, she confessed everything to the Queen, stating it was done under the pretense of marriage to follow. Nevertheless, the King, being kind-hearted, kept the secret as tightly as possible to avoid bringing shame on the girl, although the Queen was very angry. In any case, they quietly sent her to her nearest relatives, where she soon gave birth to a fine boy. Yet the child was unfortunate in that he could never be acknowledged by his supposed father; the legal proceedings dragged on for a long time, but the mother could never get a ruling in her favor.
Now good King Henri did love merry tales as well as any of his predecessors, but he would never have scandal brought on ladies therein nor their secrets divulged. In fact, the King himself, who was of amorous complexion enough, when he was away to visit the ladies, would ever go thither stealthily and under cover all ever he could, to the end they might be free of suspicion and ill-repute. But an if there was any that was discovered, ’twas never by his fault or with his consent, but rather by the fair dame’s doing. So have I heard of one lady of the sort, of a good house, named Madame Flamin,[67*] a Scotswoman, which being gotten with child by the King, did make no sort of secret of it, but would say it out boldly in her French Scotch thus: “I hae dune what I could, sae that the noo, God be thankit, I am wi’ bairn by the King, whilk doth mak me an honoured and unco happy woman. And I maun say the blude Royal hath in it something of a more douce and tasty humour than the ordinar, I do find myself in sic gude case,—no to speak of the fine bits o’ presents forthcoming.”
Now, good King Henri loved a good story just like any of his predecessors, but he would never allow any scandal involving ladies or their secrets to be revealed. In fact, the King himself, who was quite the romantic, would always sneak away to visit the ladies as discreetly as he could, so they could remain free from suspicion and disgrace. If anyone ever found out, it was never his fault or consent, but rather due to the lady's own actions. I've heard about one lady like this, from a respectable family, named Madame Flamin', __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ a Scotswoman, who got pregnant by the King and didn’t hide it at all; she would boldly say in her French-Scots: “I’ve done what I could, and thank God, I’m pregnant by the King, which makes me an honored and truly happy woman. I must say the Royal blood has a sweeter and tastier quality than ordinary, I find myself in such good spirits—not to mention the lovely gifts that are coming my way.”
[114]
[114]
Her son,[68*] that she had presently, was the late Grand Prior of France, who was killed lately at Marseilles,—a sore pity, for he was a very honourable, brave and gallant nobleman, and did show the same clearly at his death. Moreover he was a man of property and sense, and the least tyrannical Governor of a District of his own day or since. Provence could tell us that, and beside that he was a right magnificent Seigneur and of a generous expenditure. He was indeed a man of means, good sense and wise moderation.
Her son, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ was the late Grand Prior of France, who was recently killed in Marseilles—a real tragedy, because he was an honorable, brave, and chivalrous nobleman, and he demonstrated that clearly even at his death. Additionally, he was a wealthy and sensible man, and the least tyrannical governor of his district both in his time and afterward. Provence could attest to that, and on top of that, he was a truly magnificent lord with generous spending habits. He was, in fact, a man of means, good judgment, and wise moderation.
The said lady, with others I have heard of, held the opinion that to lie with one’s Sovereign was no disgrace; those be harlots indeed which do abandon their bodies to petty folk, but not where great Kings and gallant gentlemen be in question. Like that Queen of the Amazons I have named above, which came a journey of three hundred leagues for to be gotten with child by Alexander the Great, to have good issue therefrom. Yet there be those who say one man is as good as another for this!
The lady in question, along with others I’ve heard about, believed that being intimate with one’s Sovereign was not shameful; those are the real harlots who give themselves to commoners, but not when it comes to great Kings and noble gentlemen. Like that Queen of the Amazons I mentioned earlier, who traveled three hundred leagues to conceive a child with Alexander the Great, hoping for a worthy offspring. Yet some people claim that one man is just as good as another for this!
After King Henri came Francis II., whose reign however was so short as that spiteful folks had no time even to begin speaking ill of ladies. Not that we are to believe, if he had enjoyed a long reign, that he would have suffered aught of the kind at his Court; for he was a monarch naturally good-natured, frank, and not one to take pleasure in scandal, as well as being most respectful toward ladies and very ready to pay them all honour. Beside he had the Queen his wife and the Queen his mother, and his good uncles to boot, all of which were much for checking these chatterers and loose-tongued gentry. I remember me how once, the King being at Saint-Germain en Laye, about the month of August or September, the[115] fancy took him one evening to go see the stags in their rut in that noble forest of Saint-Germain, and he did take with him certain princes, his chief familiars, and some great ladies, both wives and maids, whose names I could very well give, an if I chose. Nor was there lacking one fain to make a talk of it, and say this did not smack of his womankind being exactly virtuous or chaste, to be going to see these lovemakings and wanton ruttings of beasts, seeing how the appetite of Venus must heat them more and more at sight of such doings. In fact, so sore will they be longing to taste, that sure the water or saliva will be coming to their mouth, in such wise that no other remedy will there be thereafter for to get rid of the same except only by some other discharge of saliva, or something else. The King heard of this speech, and the noblemen and ladies which had accompanied him thither. Be well assured, an if the gentleman had not straightway decamped, he had fared very ill; nor did he ever again appear at Court till after that King’s death and the end of his reign. Many scandalous pamphlets there were put forth against them which were then in direction of the Government of the Kingdom; but there was never an one that did so hurt and offend as a satire entitled The Tiger[69]—modelled on the first invective of Cicero against Catiline,—especially as it spake freely of the amours of a very great and fair lady, and a great nobleman, her kinsman. An if the gallant author had been caught, though he had had an hundred thousand lives, he had surely lost them every one; for the two great folks, lady and gentleman, were so exceeding vexed and angered as that they did all but die of despair.
After King Henri came Francis II., whose reign was so short that spiteful people had no time to start speaking poorly of ladies. Not that we should believe, if he had ruled for a long time, that he would have tolerated any of that at his Court; he was naturally good-natured, straightforward, and didn’t enjoy scandal, as well as being extremely respectful towards ladies and always eager to honor them. Plus, he had his queen wife, his queen mother, and his well-meaning uncles, all of whom kept those gossipers and loose-tongued individuals in check. I remember one time, when the King was in Saint-Germain-en-Laye, around August or September, he had a whim one evening to go see the stags during their rut in that magnificent forest of Saint-Germain, and he took along several princes, his close friends, and some distinguished ladies, both wives and maids, whose names I could easily provide if I wanted to. There was certainly someone eager to gossip about it, saying that this didn't reflect very well on the virtue or chastity of his female companions, as they were going to witness the love-making and wild rutting of animals, considering how the sight of such things must stir their desires even more. In fact, they would be longing to experience it themselves, that surely the sight would make their mouths water, so much so that there would be no way to relieve the feeling except through some other sort of release, or something similar. The King heard this talk, along with the noblemen and ladies who had accompanied him. Let me assure you, if the gentleman had not quickly left, he would have faced serious consequences; he never showed up at Court again until after the King’s death and the end of his reign. Many scandalous pamphlets were published against those in charge of the Kingdom at the time; however, none were as damaging and offensive as a satire titled The Tiger[69]—modeled after Cicero’s first invective against Catiline—especially since it openly discussed the love affairs of a very prominent and beautiful lady and a great nobleman, who was her relative. If the bold author had been caught, even if he had a hundred thousand lives, he would surely have lost every single one; for the two prominent individuals, the lady and the gentleman, were so incredibly upset and angry that they nearly died from despair.
This King Francis II. was not subject to love like his[116] predecessors; and truly he would have been greatly to blame, seeing he had to wife the fairest woman in all the world and the most amiable. And when a man hath such a wife, he doth not go seeking fortune elsewhere as others use, else is he a wretch indeed. And not so going, little recks he to speak ill of ladies, or indeed to speak well either, or to speak at all about them, except always of his own good lady at home. ’Tis a doctrine I have heard a very honourable personage maintain: natheless have I known it prove false more than once.
This King Francis II was not prone to love like his predecessors; and honestly, he would have been badly judged for it, especially since he was married to the most beautiful and kindest woman in the world. When a man has such a wife, he doesn't go searching for affection elsewhere like others do; otherwise, he is truly unfortunate. And by not doing so, he hardly cares to speak poorly of women, or even to speak positively about them, or to discuss them at all, except always about his own good lady at home. It’s a belief I’ve heard a very respected person uphold; however, I’ve seen it prove false more than once.
King Charles came next to the throne, which by reason of the tenderness of his years, did pay no heed at the beginning of his reign to the ladies, but did rather give his thoughts to spending his time in youthful sports and exercises. Yet did the late deceased M. de Sipierre his Governour and Tutor,[70*] a man who was in my opinion and in that of every one else, the most honourable and most courteous gentleman of his time, and the most gentle and respectful toward women, did so well teach the same lesson to the King his master and pupil, as that he was as ready to honour ladies as any of the kings his predecessors. For never, whether as boy or man, did he see a woman, no matter how busied he was in other matters, whether he was hurrying on or standing still, on foot or on horse-back, but he would straight salute the same and most respectfully doff his cap. Whenas he came to an age for love, he did serve several very honourable dames and damsels I have known of, but all this with so great honour and respect as that he might have been the humblest gentleman of the Court.
King Charles ascended to the throne at a young age, initially paying little attention to women, as his focus was on youthful sports and activities. However, his late governor and tutor, M. de Sipierre, a man who was considered by me and everyone else to be the most honorable and courteous gentleman of his time, as well as gentle and respectful toward women, taught him the importance of honoring ladies. As a result, the King became as eager to honor women as his predecessors were. No matter whether he was a boy or a man, busy with other things or standing still, on foot or horseback, he would always greet women with a respectful nod and remove his cap. When he reached an age to fall in love, he served several very honorable ladies that I am aware of, always doing so with such great honor and respect that he could have been the humblest gentleman at court.
In his reign the great lampoonists did first begin their vogue, and amongst them even some very gallant gentlemen[117] of the Court, whose names I will not give, did strangely abuse the ladies, both in general and in particular, and even some of the greatest in the land. For this some of them have found themselves entangled in downright fierce quarrels, and have come off second best,—not indeed that they did avow the truth, for they did rather always deny they had aught to do with it. If they had confessed, they had had heavy payment to make, and the King would certainly have let them feel the weight of his displeasure, inasmuch as they did attack ladies of over high a rank. Others did show the best face they could, and did suffer the lie to be cast in their teeth a thousand times over, conditionally as we may say and vaguely, and had to swallow a thousand affronts, drinking the same in as sweetly as though they had been milk, without daring to retort one word, else had their lives been at risk. ’Tis a thing which hath oft given me great surprise that suchlike folks should set them to speak ill of their neighbours, yet suffer others to speak ill of themselves so sorely and to their very face. Yet had these men the repute of being gallant swordsmen; but in this matter they would aye endure all but the extremest insult bravely and without one word of protest.
During his reign, the famous satirists first started their trend, and among them were even some very brave gentlemen from the Court, whose names I won't mention, who seriously disrespected women, both in general and specifically, including some of the most prominent in the country. Because of this, some of them found themselves caught up in intense arguments and ended up losing, although they never admitted it; instead, they always denied having anything to do with it. If they had confessed, they would have faced serious consequences, and the King would surely have made them feel his anger since they had insulted women of a very high status. Others tried to maintain a good appearance and took the insults thrown at them countless times, as we might say dubiously, and had to endure numerous affronts, swallowing it as if it were sweet milk, without daring to respond, or else their lives would have been in danger. I’ve often been surprised that such people would speak poorly of their neighbors but let others insult them directly to their faces. Yet these men were known as great fighters; still, when it came to this issue, they would quietly endure all but the most extreme insults without saying a word.
I do remember me of a lampoon which was made against a very great lady, a widow, fair and of most honourable birth, which did desire to marry again with a very great Prince, a young and handsome man.[71] There were certain persons, (and I have accurate knowledge of the same), who disliking this marriage, and to dissuade the Prince therefrom, did concoct a lampoon on her, the most scandalous I have ever seen, in the which they did compare her to five or six of the chiefest harlots of Antiquity, and[118] the most notorious and wanton, declaring how that she did overtop them each and all. The actual authors of the said satire did present it to the Prince, professing however that it did emanate from others, and that themselves had merely been given it. The Prince, having looked at it, gave the lie to its statements and hurled a thousand vague and general insults at them which had writ it; yet did they pass all over in silence, brave and valiant men though they were. The incident however did give the Prince pause a while, seeing the lampoon did contain several definite revelations and point direct at some unpleasant facts; natheless after the lapse of two years more was the marriage accomplished.
I remember a satire that was directed at a very prominent lady, a beautiful widow of noble birth, who wanted to marry a powerful young and handsome prince. There were some people (and I know this for sure) who opposed the marriage and tried to dissuade the prince by creating a scandalous mockery of her, the most shocking I've ever seen, in which they compared her to five or six of the most notorious prostitutes from history, claiming she surpassed them all. The actual authors of this satire presented it to the prince, claiming it was from someone else and that they had just received it. The prince, after looking at it, rejected its claims and threw out countless vague insults at the writers; however, they remained silent, brave and valiant though they were. Still, the incident gave the prince some hesitation, as the satire contained specific revelations and pointed out some unpleasant truths; nonetheless, after two more years, the marriage went ahead.
The King was so great-hearted and kindly that he was never inclined to favour folks of this kidney. To pass a spicy word or two with them aside, this he did like well enough; but he was always most unwilling the common herd should be fed on such diet, declaring that his Court, which was the best ennobled and most illustrious by reason of great and noble ladies of any in all the world, should never, such being its high repute, be cheapened and foully aspersed by the mouth of suchlike reckless and insolent babblers. ’Twas well enough to speak so of the courtesans of Rome, or Venice, or other the like places, but not of the Court of France; it might be permitted to do the thing, it was not permitted to speak thereof.
The King was so generous and kindhearted that he never leaned toward favoring people like that. He enjoyed exchanging a few spicy words with them on the side, but he was always very reluctant to let the general public be exposed to such talk. He insisted that his Court, which was the most prestigious and distinguished because of the great and noble ladies in the world, should never, given its high reputation, be tarnished and insulted by the words of such reckless and arrogant gossipers. It was one thing to speak that way about the courtesans of Rome, Venice, or similar places, but it was entirely different when it came to the Court of France; it might be acceptable to do it, but it was not acceptable to talk about it.
Thus do we see how this Sovereign was ever respectful toward ladies, nay! so much so that in his later days when some I know of were fain to give him an evil impression of certain very great, as well as most fair and honourable dames, for that these had intermeddled in some highly important matters of his concern, yet would he never[119] credit aught against them; but did accord them as good favour as ever, dying at the last in their very good graces and with many a tear of their shedding to wet his corpse. And they did find good cause to say so too, so soon as ever King Henri III. came to succeed him, who by reason of sundry ill reports he had been told of these ladies when in Poland, did not make near so much of them as he had done aforetime. Both over these and over some others that I know of, he did exercise a very strict censorship, and one we may be sure that made him not more liked; and indeed I do believe they did him no little hurt, and contributed in part to his evil fortune and final ruin. I could allege sundry special facts in proof hereof, but I had rather pass them over,—saying only this much, that women generally are keen set on taking vengeance. It may be long in coming, but they do execute it at the last.[72*] On the contrary many men’s revenge is just the opposite in its nature, for ardent and hot enough at its first beginning to deceive all, yet by dint of temporising and putting off and long delays it doth grow cool and come to naught. And this is why ’tis meet to guard against the first attempt, and take time by the forelock in parrying the blows; but with women the first fury and attempt, and the temporising and delay, do both last out to the end,—that is in some women, though hardly many.
So we can see how this Sovereign was always respectful toward women, so much so that in his later years, when some people tried to give him a negative view of certain important, beautiful, and honorable ladies because they had gotten involved in significant matters concerning him, he would never believe anything bad about them. Instead, he treated them with the same favor as before, ultimately dying in their good graces, with many tears shed for him at his passing. They had good reason to speak this way as soon as King Henri III. took over, who, because of the various negative reports he heard about these ladies while in Poland, did not treat them as well as his predecessor had. He imposed a very strict censorship over them and a few others I know about, which certainly did not endear him to them; in fact, I believe it hurt him significantly and contributed to his misfortune and eventual downfall. I could provide several specific examples to support this, but I would rather skip them, only saying that women generally are very intent on taking revenge. It may take a while to come, but they do carry it out in the end. On the other hand, many men’s revenge is quite the opposite, starting off strong and passionate enough to fool everyone, but through delay and hesitation, it cools off and fizzles out. This is why it’s wise to defend against the initial threat and act quickly to ward off the blows; but with women, both the initial fury and the delay can last until the end—for some women, although not many.
Some have been for excusing the King for the war he made on women in the way of crying them down, by saying ’twas in order to curb and correct vice,—as if the curb were of any of the slightest use in these cases, seeing woman is so conditioned of nature as that the more this thing is forbid her, the more ardent is she after the same, and to set a watch on her is just labour lost. So in actual[120] fact myself have seen how, for all he could do, they were never turned out of their natural road.
Some have tried to justify the King for his war on women by claiming he did it to curb and correct their behavior, as if trying to control them would actually work. The truth is, women are naturally inclined to pursue whatever is forbidden to them even more intensely, and trying to monitor them is a waste of effort. In fact, I've seen it myself—despite all his efforts, they never strayed from their natural path.
Several ladies that I wot well enough, did he love and serve with all due respect and very high honour,—and even a certain very great and fair Princess,[73] of whom he had fallen so deep in love before his going into Poland, that after he became King, he did resolve to wed the same, although she was already married to a great and gallant Prince, but one that was in rebellion against him and had fled to a foreign land to gather an army and make war upon him. But at the moment of his return to France, the lady died in child-birth. Her death alone did hinder the marriage, for he was firm set thereon. He would certainly have married her by favour and dispensation of the Pope, who would not have refused him his consent, being so great a Monarch as he was, and for sundry other reasons that may be readily imagined.
Several ladies that I knew quite well, he loved and served with all due respect and great honor—and even a certain very beautiful Princess, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, whom he had fallen deeply in love with before going to Poland. After he became King, he decided to marry her, even though she was already married to a brave Prince who was in rebellion against him and had fled to another country to gather an army and fight against him. But at the moment of his return to France, the lady died during childbirth. Her death was the only thing that prevented the marriage, as he was determined to go through with it. He would have definitely married her with the Pope's favor and dispensation, who wouldn’t have refused his consent, being such a great Monarch and for many other obvious reasons.
Others again he did make love to only for to bring the same into disparagement. Of such I wot of one, a great lady, in whose case, for the displeasures her husband had wrought him, and not able otherwise to get at him, the King did take his revenge on his wife, whom he did after publish abroad for what she was in the presence of a number of folk. Yet was this vengeance mild and merciful after all, for in lieu of death he did give her life.
Others he seduced just to bring them down. I know of one case, a great lady, where, because of the troubles her husband caused him, and unable to reach the husband directly, the King took his revenge on her. He publicly exposed her for what she was in front of many people. Yet, this revenge was actually mild and merciful, for instead of death, he gave her life.
Another I wot of, which for overmuch playing the wanton, as also for a displeasure she did the King, the latter did of set purpose pay court to. Anon without any vast deal of persuasion, she did grant him an assignation in a garden, the which he failed not to keep. But he would have naught else to do with her (so some folk say, but be sure he did find something to do with her right enough)[121] but only to have her so seen offering herself in open market, and then to banish her from the Court with ignominy.
Another person I know of, who was overly flirtatious and also offended the King, was pursued by him on purpose. Without much persuasion, she agreed to meet him in a garden, which he definitely showed up for. However, he didn't want anything else to do with her (some people say otherwise, but trust me, he found something to do with her). He just wanted her to be seen openly offering herself, and then he intended to banish her from the Court in disgrace.[121]
He was anxious and exceeding inquisitive to know the life of all and every fair lady of his Court, and to penetrate their secret wishes. ’Tis said he did sometimes reveal one or other of his successes with women to sundry of his most privy intimates. Happy they! for sure the leavings of suchlike great monarchs must needs be very tasty morsels.
He was eager and extremely curious to know about the lives of every beautiful lady in his Court and to understand their secret desires. It’s said that he would sometimes share his successes with women with a few of his closest friends. Lucky them! Surely, the scraps from such powerful kings must be delightful treats.
The ladies did fear him greatly, as I have myself seen. He would either reprimand them personally, when needful, or else beg the Queen his mother so to do, who on her part was ready enough at the work. ’Twas not however that she did favour scandal-mongers, as I have shown above in the little examples I have there given. And paying such heed as she did to these and showing so great displeasure against them, what was she not bound to do others which did actually compromise the good name and honour of her ladies?
The women were really afraid of him, as I’ve seen myself. He would either reprimand them directly when necessary or ask the Queen, his mother, to do it, and she was more than willing to help out. However, it wasn’t that she supported gossip, as I’ve mentioned in the earlier examples. Considering the attention she paid to those issues and her strong disapproval of them, what was she expected to do about others who truly threatened the reputation and honor of her ladies?
This monarch again was so well accustomed from his earliest years, as myself have seen, to hear tales of ladies and their gallantries (and truly myself have told him one or two such), and to repeat them too,—yet alway in secret, for fear the Queen his mother should learn thereof, for she would never have him tell such stories to any others than herself, that she might check the same,—so well accustomed was he to all this, that coming to riper years and full liberty, he did never lose the habit. And in this wise he did know how they did all live at his Court and in his Kingdom,—or at the least many of them, and especially the great ladies of rank, as well as if he had frequented them every one. And if any there were which[122] were new come to Court, accosting these most courteously and respectfully, yet would he tell them over such tales as that they would be utterly amazed at heart to know where he had gotten all his information, though all the while denying and protesting against the whole budget to his face. And if he did divert himself after this fashion, yet did he not fail, in other and more weighty matters, to apply his visit to such high purpose as that folk have counted him the greatest King which for an hundred years hath been in France, as I have writ elsewhere in a chapter composed expressly upon this Sovereign.[74]
This king was so used, from a young age, to hearing stories about women and their romantic escapades (and I’ve shared a couple of those stories with him myself), and he would even repeat them—in secret, of course, because he feared his mother, the Queen, would find out. She only wanted him to tell those stories to her so she could put a stop to them. He got so accustomed to this that when he grew older and had more freedom, he never lost that habit. This way, he knew how everyone lived at his court and in his kingdom—or at least many of them, especially the high-ranking ladies—almost as if he had spent time with each one of them. And when new people arrived at court, he greeted them very politely and respectfully, yet he would share tales that made them wonder where he had learned everything, even while they insisted they didn’t believe him. And even while engaging in this amusement, he never neglected to focus on more significant matters, using his visits to such noble purposes that people have regarded him as the greatest king to have ruled France in a hundred years, as I’ve written elsewhere in a chapter specifically dedicated to this Sovereign. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
Accordingly I do now say no more about him, albeit it may be objected to me that I have been but chary of examples of his character on this point, and that I should say more, an if I be so well informed. Yea! truly, I do know tales enough, and some of them high-spiced; but I wish not to be a mere chronicler of news whether of the Court or of the world at large. Beside, I could never cloak and cover up these my tales so featly but that folk would see through them, and scandal come therefrom.
Accordingly, I won't say anything more about him, even though some might argue that I've been a bit sparing with examples of his character in this regard and that I should elaborate if I'm so well informed. Yes, truly, I know plenty of stories, and some of them are quite scandalous; however, I don't want to be just a chronicler of gossip, whether from the Court or the broader world. Besides, I could never disguise these stories well enough to prevent people from seeing through them, which would lead to drama.
Now these traducers of fair ladies be of divers sorts. Some do speak ill of women for some displeasure these have done them, though all the while they be as chaste as any in all the world, and instead of the pure and beauteous angel they really resemble do make out a picture of a devil all foul and ugly with wickedness. Thus an honourable gentleman I have both seen and known, did most abominably defame a very honourable and virtuous lady for a slight affront she had put upon him, and did sorely wreak his displeasure on her. He would say thus: “I know quite well I am in the wrong, and do not deny the lady to be really most chaste and virtuous. But be[123] it who it may, the woman which shall have affronted me in the smallest degree, though she were as chaste and pure as the Blessed Virgin herself, seeing I can in no other way bring her to book, as I would with a man, I will say every evil gallows thing I can think of concerning her.” Yet surely God will be angered at such a wretch.
Now, these critics of fair women come in many forms. Some talk badly about women because of some offense these women have caused them, even though they are as pure as anyone in the world. Instead of recognizing the pure and beautiful angels they truly are, they paint a picture of them as devils, ugly and wicked. I once knew a respectable man who horrifically slandered a very honorable and virtuous lady for a minor insult she had given him, taking out his anger on her. He would say things like, “I know I am in the wrong and I don’t deny that the lady is truly chaste and virtuous. But whoever she is, if she has offended me in the slightest, even if she’s as pure as the Blessed Virgin herself, since I can’t confront her as I would a man, I will say every vile thing I can think of about her.” Surely, God must be angry at such a person.
Other traducers there be, which loving ladies and failing to overcome their virtue and get aught out of them, do of sheer despite proclaim them public wantons. Nay! they will do yet worse, saying openly they have had their will of them, but having known them and found them too exceeding lustful, have for this cause left them. Myself have known many gentlemen of this complexion at our French Kings’ Courts. Then again there is the case of women quitting right out their pretty lovers and bed favourites, but who presently, following the dictates of their fickleness and inconstancy, grow sick again and enamoured of others in their stead; whereupon these same lovers, in despite and despair, do malign and traduce these poor women, there is no saying how bitterly, going so far even as to relate detail by detail their naughtinesses and wanton tricks which they have practised together, and to make known their blemishes which they have on their naked bodies, to win the better credence to their tale.
Other slanderers exist who, in their obsession with lovely ladies, can't overcome their virtue to gain anything from them. Out of sheer spite, they call them public harlots. Moreover, they go even further, claiming openly that they have had their way with them, but after experiencing them and finding them too excessively lustful, they leave them for this reason. I have known many gentlemen like this at the courts of our French kings. Then there are women who suddenly abandon their charming lovers and bed partners, only to later, driven by their fickleness and inconsistency, become infatuated with others. In response, these same lovers, in spite and desperation, malign and slander these poor women in ways that are hard to measure, even going so far as to recount in detail their misdeeds and scandalous acts they shared, and to reveal their flaws on their naked bodies to make their claims more believable.
Other men there be which, in despite because ladies do give to others what they refuse to them, do malign them with might and main, and have them watched and spied upon and observed, to the end they may afford the world the greater signs and proofs of their true speaking.
Other men exist who, out of spite because women give to others what they refuse to them, actively criticize them, keeping a close watch and spying on them, all to show the world clearer signs and evidence of their honesty.
Others again there be, which, fairly stung with jealousy, without other cause than this, do speak ill of those men whom women love the most, and of the very women[124] whom they themselves love fondly until they see their faults fully revealed. And this is one of the chiefest effects of jealousy. Yet are such traducers not so sore to blame as one would at first say they were; for this their fault must be set down to love and jealousy; twin brother and sister of one and the same birth.
Others, stung by jealousy, often speak poorly of the men whom women love the most and of the very women they themselves deeply admire until they see all their flaws. This is one of the main effects of jealousy. However, those who slander are not as blameworthy as one might initially think; their fault can be attributed to love and jealousy, which are like twin siblings born from the same source.[124]
Other traducers there be which are so born and bred to backbiting, as that rather than not backbite some one or other, they will speak ill of their own selves. Now, think you ’tis likely ladies’ honour will be spared in the mouth of folks of this kidney? Many suchlike have I seen at the Courts of our Kings, which being afeared to speak of men by reason of their sword play, would raise up scandal around the petticoats of poor weak women, which have no other means of reprisal but tears, regrets and empty words. Yet have I known not a few which have come off very ill at this game; for there have been kinsmen, brothers, friends, lovers of theirs, even husbands, which have made many repent of their spite, and eat and swallow down their foul words.
Other gossipers are so accustomed to talking behind people's backs that rather than not gossip about someone, they will speak poorly of themselves. Now, do you really think that ladies' honor will be safe in the mouths of people like this? I've seen many such individuals at the courts of our kings, who, fearing to speak about men because of their fighting skills, would create scandals about helpless women, who have no way to fight back but with tears, regrets, and empty words. Yet I have known several who suffered greatly from this behavior; for there have been relatives, brothers, friends, lovers, even husbands, who made many regret their malice and take back their harsh words.
Finally, did I but tell of all the diverse sorts of detractors of ladies, I should never have done.
Finally, if I were to list all the different types of critics of women, I'd never finish.
An opinion I have heard many maintain as to love is this: that a love kept secret is good for naught, an if it be not in some degrees manifest,—if not to all, at the least to a man’s most privy friends. But an if it cannot be told to all, yet at the least must some show be made thereof, whether by display of favours, wearing of fair ladies’ liveries and colours, or acts of knightly prowess, as tiltings at the ring, tourneys, mascarades, fights in the lists, even to fights in good earnest when at the wars.[125] Verily the content of a man is great at these satisfactions.
An opinion I’ve often heard about love is this: that keeping love a secret is pointless, and if it’s not obvious in some way—if not to everyone, then at least to a man's closest friends. But if it can't be revealed to everyone, it should still show itself in some form, whether through displays of affection, wearing the colors and symbols of a lady, or through acts of bravery, like jousting, tournaments, masquerades, or even real battles when at war.[125] Truly, a man's satisfaction comes from these expressions.
For to tell truth, what would it advantage a great Captain to have done a fine and signal exploit of war, if not a word were said and naught known thereof? I ween ’twould be a mortal vexation to him. The like would rightly seem to be the case with lovers which do love nobly,—as some at any rate maintain. And of this opinion was that prince of lovers, M. de Nemours, the paragon of all knighthood; for truly if ever Prince, great Lord or simple gentleman, hath been fortunate in love, ’twas he. He found no pleasure in hiding his successes from his most privy friends, albeit from the general he did keep the same so secret, as that only with much difficulty could folk form a judgment thereanent.
To be honest, what good would it do a great captain to achieve a remarkable and notable military feat if no one spoke of it and no one knew? I think that would be incredibly frustrating for him. This also seems to apply to lovers who love genuinely—as some would argue. The famous lover, M. de Nemours, the ideal of all chivalry, held this view; after all, if anyone has ever been lucky in love, it was him. He took no joy in hiding his successes from his closest friends, even though he kept them so secret from the public that it was only with great difficulty that people could form an opinion about it.
In good sooth, for married ladies is the revealing of such matters highly dangerous. On the other hand for maids and widows, which are to marry, ’tis of no account; for that the cloak and pretext of a future marriage doth cover up all sins.
In truth, for married women, discussing such matters is very risky. On the other hand, for young women and widows who are about to marry, it doesn't really matter; because the promise of a future marriage hides all their wrongdoings.
I once knew a very honourable gentleman at Court,[75*] which being lover of a very great lady, and finding himself one day in company of a number of his comrades in discourse as to their mistresses, and agreeing together to reveal the favours received of them to each other, the said gentleman did all through refuse to declare his mistress, and did even feign quite another lady to be his dear, and so threw dust in their eyes,—and this although there was present in the group a great Prince, which did conjure him to tell the truth, having yet some suspicion of the secret intrigue he was engaged in. But neither he nor his companions could draw anything more out of him, although[126] in his inmost heart he did curse his fate an hundred times over, which had so constrained him not to reveal, like the rest of them, his success and triumph, ever more sweet to tell of than defeat.
I once knew a very honorable gentleman at Court, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ who was in love with a very great lady. One day, while hanging out with some comrades and discussing their mistresses, they all agreed to share the favors they received from them. However, this gentleman flat-out refused to reveal his mistress and even pretended that another lady was his sweetheart, thus deceiving them. This was despite the fact that a great Prince was present in the group, urging him to tell the truth, having his own suspicions about the secret affair he was involved in. But neither the Prince nor his companions could get anything more out of him, even though deep down, he cursed his fate a hundred times for forcing him not to share, unlike the rest of them, his success and triumph—always sweeter to talk about than defeat.
Another I once knew, and a right gallant gentleman, by reason of his presumption and overmuch freedom of speech in proclaiming of his mistress’ name, the which he should have held sacred, as much by signs and tokens as by actual words, did come parlous near his death in a murderous attack he but barely escaped from. Yet afterward on another count he did not so escape the assassins’ swords, but did presently die of the hurt they gave him.
Another man I once knew, a truly gallant gentleman, nearly met his end due to his arrogance and excessive talk about his mistress—something he should have kept sacred, both in signs and words. He came alarmingly close to death in a murderous attack he barely survived. However, later on, in a different incident, he wasn't so lucky with the assassins’ swords and ultimately died from the wounds they inflicted on him.
Myself was at Court in the time of King Francis II. when the Comte de Saint-Aignan did wed at Fontainebleau with young Madame la Bourdaisière.[76] Next day, the bridegroom having come into the King’s apartment, each and all of the courtiers present did begin to vent their japes on him. Amongst others a certain great Lord and very gallant soldier did ask him how many stages he had made. The husband replied five. As it fell out, there was also there present an honourable gentleman, a Secretary, which was then in the very highest favour with a very great Princess, whose name I will not give, who hereupon declared,—’twas nothing much, considering the fair road he had travelled and the fine weather he had, for it was summer-time. The great Lord then said to him, “Ho! my fine fellow, you’ld be for having birds enough to your bag, it seems!”—“And prithee, why not?” retorted the Secretary. “By God! why! I have taken a round dozen in four and twenty hours on the most fairest meadow is in all this neighbourhood, or can be anywhere in all France.” Who more astounded than the said Lord,[127] who did learn by these words a thing he had longwhile suspected? And seeing that himself was deep in love with this same Princess, he was exceeding mortified to think how he had so long hunted in this quarter without ever getting aught, whereas the other had been so lucky in his sport. This the Lord did dissimulate for the moment; but later, after long brooding over his resentment, he had paid him back hot and strong in his own coin but for a certain consideration that I prefer not to mention. Yet did he ever after bear him a secret grudge. Indeed, an if the Secretary had been really well advised, he would never have so boasted of his bag, but would rather have kept the thing very secret, especially in so high and brilliant an adventure, whereof trouble and scandal were exceeding like to arise.
I was at court during the time of King Francis II when the Comte de Saint-Aignan married young Madame la Bourdaisière at Fontainebleau. The next day, after the groom entered the King’s apartment, all the courtiers there began to joke around with him. Among them was a certain high-ranking Lord and a very gallant soldier who asked him how many stages he had completed. The husband replied five. It just so happened that an honorable gentleman, a Secretary, was also present. He was very favored by a prominent Princess, whose name I won’t mention, and he remarked, “It’s not that impressive considering the nice road he traveled and the lovely weather he had, since it was summertime.” The Lord then said to him, “Well! It seems you think you’ve bagged quite a few birds!” To which the Secretary responded, “And why not?” “By God! I’ve caught a dozen in just twenty-four hours in the prettiest meadow around here, or probably anywhere in France.” Who was more shocked than that Lord, who realized from these words something he had long suspected? Seeing that he was deeply in love with this same Princess, he felt extremely mortified to think how he had spent so much time pursuing her without any success, while the other had been so lucky. The Lord pretended not to care at the moment, but later, after mulling over his anger, he got back at the Secretary intensely but for a certain reason I’d rather not mention. Still, he always held a secret grudge against him. Indeed, if the Secretary had been truly wise, he would never have bragged about his luck; he should have kept it very private, especially in such a high-stakes situation where trouble and scandal were likely to emerge.
What should we say of a certain gentleman of the great world, which for some displeasure his mistress had done him, was so insolent as that he went and showed her husband the lady’s portrait, which she had given him, and which he carried hung at his neck. The husband did exhibit no small astonishment, and thereafter showed him less loving toward his wife, who yet did contrive to gloze over the matter as well as she could.
What can we say about a certain gentleman from high society who, due to some offense caused by his mistress, had the audacity to show her husband the lady's portrait that she had given him, which he wore around his neck? The husband was quite shocked and afterward became less affectionate toward his wife, who did her best to smooth things over.
Still more to blame was a great Lord I wot of, who disgusted at some trick his mistress had played on him, did stake her portrait at dice and lose it to one of his soldiers, for he was in command of a large company of infantry. Hearing thereof, the lady came nigh bursting with vexation, and was exceeding angered. The Queen Mother did presently hear of it, and did reprimand him for what he had done, on the ground that the scorn put on her was far too extreme, so to go and abandon to the chance of[128] the dice the portrait of a fair and honourable lady. But the Lord did soon set the matter in a better light, declaring how that in his hazard, he had kept back the parchment inside, and had staked only the box encasing the same, which was of gold and enriched with precious stones. Myself have many a time heard the tale discussed between the lady and the said Lord in right merry wise, and have whiles laughed my fill thereat.
Even more to blame was a nobleman I know of, who, disgusted by a trick his mistress had pulled on him, gambled her portrait in a game of dice and lost it to one of his soldiers, since he was in charge of a large infantry unit. Upon hearing this, the lady was nearly bursting with anger and was extremely upset. The Queen Mother soon found out and reprimanded him for his actions, arguing that the disrespect shown to her was far too much, as it was wrong to leave the portrait of a beautiful and honorable lady to the whims of chance at dice. However, the nobleman quickly cleared things up by saying that in his gamble, he had kept the actual parchment inside and had only bet the box that held it, which was made of gold and adorned with precious stones. I have often heard this story exchanged between the lady and the nobleman in a very joyful manner, and I have sometimes laughed heartily about it.
Hereanent will I say one thing: to wit, that there be ladies,—and myself have known sundry such,—which in their loves do prefer to be defied, threatened, and eke bullied; and a man will in this fashion have his way with them better far than by gentle dealings and complacencies. Just as with fortresses, some be taken by sheer force of arms, others by gentler means. Yet will no women endure to be reviled and cried out upon as whores; for such words be more offensive to them than the things they do represent.
Here’s what I'll say about that: Some ladies—I’ve known a few—actually prefer it when men are bold, threatening, and even aggressive in their affections. A man can get further with them this way than by being gentle and accommodating. Just like with fortresses, some are taken by brute strength, while others yield to softer approaches. However, no woman will tolerate being insulted or called derogatory names; such words are more hurtful to them than the actions they imply.
Sulla would never forgive the city of Athens, nor refrain from the utter overthrow of the same root and branch, not by reason of the obstinacy of its defence against him, but solely because from the top of the walls thereof the citizens had foully abused his wife Metella and touched her honour to the quick.[77*]
Sulla would never forgive the city of Athens, nor hold back from completely destroying it, not because of its stubborn defense against him, but simply because the citizens had shamefully insulted his wife Metella from the top of its walls and disrespected her honor to the quick.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
In certain quarters, the which I will not name, the soldiery in skirmishes and sieges of fortified places were used, the one side against the other, to cast reproach upon the virtue of two of their sovereign Princesses, going so far as to cry forth one to the other: “Your Princess doth play ninepins fine and well!”—“And yours is downright good at a main too!” By dint of these aspersions and bywords were the said Princesses cause of rousing[129] them to do havoc and commit cruelties more than any other reason whatever, as I have myself seen.
In some circles, which I won't name, the soldiers in battles and sieges of fortified places were used against each other to insult the honor of two of their ruling Princesses, even going so far as to shout at one another: “Your Princess is really good at ninepins!”—“And yours is great at a main too!” Because of these slanders and jabs, the Princesses ended up provoking them to cause destruction and commit acts of cruelty more than any other reason, as I have witnessed myself.[129]
I have heard it related how that the chiefest motive which did most animate the Queen of Hungary[78*] to light up those her fierce fires of rage about Picardy and other regions of France was to revenge sundry insolent and foul-mouthed gossips, which were forever telling of her amours, and singing aloud through all the countryside the refrain:
I’ve heard it said that the main reason the Queen of Hungary got so fired up about Picardy and other parts of France was to get back at various rude and foul-mouthed gossips who were constantly talking about her love affairs and loudly singing the refrain throughout the countryside:
—a coarse song at best, and in its loud-voiced ribaldry smacking strong of vagabond and rustic wit.
—a rough song at best, and in its loud and crude humor, it strongly reflects the cleverness of wanderers and country folks.
4.
4.

Cato could never stomach Cæsar from that day when in the Senate, which was deliberating as to measures against Catiline and his conspiracy, Cæsar being much suspected of being privy to the plot, there was brought in to the latter under the rose a little packet, or more properly speaking a billet doux, the which Servilia, Cato’s sister, did send for to fix an assignation and meeting place. Cato now no more doubting of the complicity of Cæsar with Catiline, did cry out loud that the Senate should order him to show the communication in question. Thus constrained, Cæsar made the said letter public, wherein the honour of the other’s sister was brought into sore scandal and open disrepute. I leave you then to imagine if Cato, for all the fine airs he did affect of hating Cæsar[130] for the Republic’s sake, could ever come to like him, in view of this most compromising incident. Yet was it no fault of Cæsar’s, for he was bound to show the letter, and that on risk of his life. And I ween Servilia bare him no special ill-will for this; for in fact and deed they ceased not to carry on still their loving intercourse, whereof sprang Brutus, whose father Cæsar was commonly reputed to have been. If so, he did but ill requite his parent for having given him being.
Cato could never tolerate Cæsar from that day in the Senate when they were discussing actions against Catiline and his conspiracy. Cæsar was highly suspected of being involved in the plot, and a little packet, or more accurately, a billet doux, was discreetly delivered to Catiline. This note was sent by Servilia, Cato’s sister, to arrange a meeting. With no doubt left about Cæsar’s involvement with Catiline, Cato loudly demanded that the Senate force him to reveal the communication. Under pressure, Cæsar made the letter public, which brought significant shame and scandal to the honor of Cato's sister. You can imagine how, despite his claims of hating Cæsar for the sake of the Republic, Cato could never come to like him after this compromising incident. However, it was not Cæsar's fault, as he was obligated to reveal the letter, risking his life in doing so. And I believe Servilia did not hold any deep resentment against him for this; in fact, they continued their romantic relationship, which led to the birth of Brutus, who was commonly thought to be Cæsar's son. If that’s true, he did not repay his father's gift of life well.
True it is, ladies in giving of themselves to great men, do run many risks; and if they do win of the same favours, and high privileges and much wealth, yet do they buy all these at a great price.
It's true that women who give themselves to great men take many risks; and even if they gain the same favors, high privileges, and significant wealth, they still pay a steep price for it all.
I have heard tell of a very fair lady, honourable and of a good house, though not of so great an one as a certain great Lord, who was deep in love with her. One day having found the lady in her chamber alone with her women, and seated on her bed, after some converse betwixt them and sundry conceits concerning love, the Lord did proceed to kiss the lady and did by gentle constraint lay her down upon the bed. Anon coming to the main issue, and she enduring that same with quiet, civil firmness, she did say thus to him: “’Tis a strange thing how you great Lords cannot refrain you from using your authority and privileges upon us your inferiors. At the least, if only silence were as common with you as is freedom of speech, you would be but too desirable and excusable. I do beg you therefore, Sir! to hold secret what you do, and keep mine honour safe.”
I’ve heard about a very beautiful lady, respectable and from a good family, although not as high-ranking as a certain great Lord who was deeply in love with her. One day, he found the lady in her room alone with her attendants, sitting on her bed. After some conversation between them and various playful jokes about love, the Lord proceeded to kiss the lady and gently laid her down on the bed. Getting to the main point, and with her accepting it with calm, polite firmness, she said to him: “It’s a strange thing how you great Lords can’t help but use your power and privileges on us your inferiors. If only silence were as common for you as freedom of speech, you would be more desirable and understandable. I ask you, Sir! to keep what you’re doing a secret, and protect my honor.”
Such be the words customarily employed by ladies of inferior station to their superiors. “Oh! my Lord,” they cry, “think at any rate of mine honour.” Others say,[131] “Ah! my dear Lord, an if you speak of this, I am undone; in Heaven’s name safeguard mine honour.” Others again, “Why! my good Lord! if only you do say never a word and mine honour be safe, I see no great objection,” as if wishing to imply thereby a man may do what he please, an if it be in secret. So other folk know naught about it, they deem themselves in no wise dishonoured.
Such are the words usually used by women of lower status when speaking to those above them. “Oh! my Lord,” they cry, “please think of my honor.” Others say, [131] “Ah! my dear Lord, if you mention this, I am finished; for Heaven’s sake, protect my honor.” Others again say, “Well! my good Lord! if just you don’t say a word and my honor is safe, I have no real objections,” as if to suggest that a man can do as he likes, as long as it’s kept a secret. Since no one else knows about it, they think themselves in no way dishonored.
Ladies of higher rank and more proud station do say to their gallants, if inferior to themselves: “Be you exceeding careful not to breathe one word of the thing, no matter how small. Else it is a question of your life; I will have you thrown in a sack into the water, or assassinated, or hamstrung;” such and suchlike language do they hold. In fact there is never a lady, of what rank soever she be, that will endure to be evil spoke of or her good name discussed however slightly in the Palace or in men’s mouths. Yet are there some others which be so ill-advised, or desperate, or entirely carried away of love, as that without men bringing any charge against them, they do traduce their own selves. Of such sort was, no long while agone, a very fair and honourable lady, of a good house, with the which a great Lord did fall deep in love, and presently enjoying her favours, did give her a very handsome and precious bracelet. This she was so ill-advised as to wear commonly on her naked arm above the elbow. But one day her husband, being to bed with her, did chance to discover the same; and examining it, found matter enough therein to cause him to rid him of her by a violent death. A very foolish and ill-advised woman truly!
Women of higher status and pride tell their suitors, if they are of lower rank: “Make sure not to say a word about this, no matter how minor. Otherwise, it could cost you your life; I’ll have you thrown into the water in a sack, or killed, or crippled.” They use such strong language. In fact, no woman, regardless of her rank, will tolerate being talked about negatively or having her good name questioned, even slightly, in the palace or among men. Yet, there are some who are so misguided, desperate, or completely swept away by love, that they end up tarnishing their own reputations without anyone accusing them. Not long ago, there was a very beautiful and respectable lady from a good family, with whom a great lord fell deeply in love. After enjoying her company, he gave her a very nice and valuable bracelet. She foolishly chose to wear it openly on her bare arm above the elbow. One day, her husband, while in bed with her, happened to notice it. After examining it, he found enough evidence to justify taking her life violently. What a foolish and misguided woman indeed!
I knew at another time a very great and sovereign Prince who after keeping true to a mistress, one of the[132] fairest ladies of the Court, by the space of three years, at the end of that time was obliged to go forth on an expedition for to carry out some conquest. Before starting, he did of a sudden fall deep in love with a very fair and honourable Princess, if ever there was one. Then for to show her he had altogether quitted his former mistress for her sake, and wishing to honour and serve her in every way, without giving a second thought to the memory of his old love, he did give her before leaving all the favours, jewels, rings, portraits, bracelets and other such pretty things which his former mistress had given him. Some of these being seen and noted of her, she came nigh dying of vexation and despite; yet did she not refrain from divulging the matter; for if only she could bring ill repute on her rival, she was ready to suffer the same scandal herself. I do believe, had not the said Princess died some while after, that the Prince, on his coming back from abroad, would surely have married her.
I once knew a very powerful Prince who, after being faithful to a mistress, one of the[132] most beautiful ladies at Court, for three years, had to leave on a military campaign for conquest. Just before he left, he suddenly fell deeply in love with a stunning and honorable Princess, if there ever was one. To prove that he had completely moved on from his former mistress for her sake, and wanting to honor and serve her in every way, without a second thought to his past love, he gave her all the favors, jewels, rings, portraits, bracelets, and other lovely gifts that his former mistress had given him. When she saw and noticed some of these, she nearly died from frustration and spite; however, she couldn’t help but spread the news because, if she could tarnish her rival's reputation, she was willing to endure the same scandal herself. I believe, had that Princess not died shortly after, the Prince would have surely married her when he returned home.
I knew yet another Prince,[79] though not so great an one, which during his first wife’s lifetime and during his widowhood, did come to love a very fair and honourable damsel of the great world, to whom he did make, in their courting and love time, most beautiful presents, neck-chains, rings, jewels and many other fine ornaments, and amongst others a very fine and richly framed mirror wherein was set his own portrait. Well! presently this same Prince came to wed a very fair and honourable Princess of the great world, who did make him lose all taste for his first mistress, albeit neither fell aught below the other for beauty. The Princess did then so work upon and strongly urge the Prince her husband, as that he did anon send to[133] demand back of his former mistress all he had ever given her of fairest and most rich and rare.
I knew another Prince, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ though he wasn’t as impressive as some. While he was still married to his first wife and during his time as a widower, he fell in love with a very beautiful and respectable lady from high society. During their courtship, he gave her many exquisite gifts—necklaces, rings, jewels, and other fine ornaments, including a stunningly crafted mirror with his own portrait in it. Eventually, this same Prince married a very beautiful and noble Princess from high society, who completely made him lose interest in his first love, even though both women were equally beautiful. The Princess then used her influence and strongly urged her husband, the Prince, to demand that his former mistress return all the most beautiful, valuable, and rare gifts he had ever given her.
This was a very sore chagrin to the lady; yet was she of so great and high an heart, albeit she was no Princess, though of one of the best houses in France, as that she did send him back all that was most fair and exquisite, wherein was a beautiful mirror with the picture of the said Prince. But first, for to decorate the same still better, she did take a pen and ink, and did scrawl inside a great pair of horns for him right in the mid of the forehead. Then handing the whole to the gentleman, the Prince’s messenger, she spake thuswise to him: “Here, my friend, take this to your master, and tell him I do hereby send him back all he ever gave me, and that I have taken away nor added naught, unless it be something he hath himself added thereto since. And tell yonder fair Princess, his wife, which hath worked on him so strongly to demand back all his presents of me, that if a certain great Lord (naming him by name, and myself do know who it was) had done the like by her mother, and had asked back and taken from her what he had many a time and oft given her for sleeping with him, by way of love gifts and amorous presents, she would be as poor in gewgaws and jewels as ever a young maid at Court. Tell her, that for her own head, the which is now so loaded at the expense of this same Lord and her mother’s belly, she would then have to go scour the gardens every morning for to pluck flowers to deck it withal, instead of jewelry. Well! let her e’en make what show and use she will of them; I do freely give them up to her.” Any which hath known this fair lady will readily understand she was such an one as to have said as much; and herself did tell me[134] she did, and very free of speech she aye was. Yet could she not fail but feel it sore, whether from husband or wife, to be so ill treated and deceived. And the Princess was blamed of many folk, which said ’twas her own fault, to have so despitefully used and driven her to desperation the poor lady, the which had well earned such presents by the sweat of her body.
This was a huge disappointment for the lady; still, she had such a strong and noble spirit, even though she wasn’t a princess, being from one of the best families in France, that she sent back everything he had given her, including a beautiful mirror with the Prince’s picture. But first, to make it even more memorable, she took a pen and ink and drew a big pair of horns right in the middle of his forehead. Then she handed the whole thing to the gentleman, the Prince’s messenger, and said to him, “Here, my friend, take this to your master, and tell him I’m returning everything he ever gave me, and that I haven’t taken away or added anything, except for what he might have added himself since. And tell that lovely Princess, his wife, who has pushed him so hard to ask back all his gifts to me, that if a certain powerful Lord (naming him, and I know who it was) had done the same to her mother, asking back and taking from her what he had given her time and again for sleeping with him as love gifts, she would be as broke in trinkets and jewels as any young lady at Court. Tell her that for all those fancy things she wears now, which cost this same Lord and come from her mother’s past, she would then have to go gather flowers in the gardens every morning to decorate her head instead of wearing jewelry. Well! Let her do whatever she likes with them; I freely give them up to her.” Anyone who knows this fair lady can easily understand she was someone who would say just that; and she told me herself[134] that she did, and she was always very outspoken. Yet she couldn’t help but feel hurt, whether from husband or wife, to be treated so poorly and deceived. And the Princess faced criticism from many people, who said it was her own fault for so shamefully mistreating and driving the poor lady to desperation, someone who had truly earned those gifts through her hard work.
This lady, for that she was one of the most beautiful and agreeable women of her time, failed not, notwithstanding she had so sacrificed her virtue to this Prince, to make a good marriage with a very rich man, though not her equal in family. So one day, the twain being come to mutual reproaches as to the honour they had done each the other in marrying, and she making a point of the high estate she was of and yet had married him, he did retort, “Nay! but I have done more for you than you have done for me; for I have dishonoured myself for to recover your honour for you;” meaning to infer by this that, whereas she had lost hers when a girl, he had won it back for her, by taking her to wife.
This woman, because she was one of the most beautiful and charming women of her time, didn’t let the fact that she sacrificed her virtue for this Prince stop her from making a good marriage to a very wealthy man, even though he wasn’t her equal socially. One day, the two started exchanging harsh words about the honor they had given each other by marrying, and she emphasized her high status and how she still chose to marry him. He shot back, “No! I’ve done more for you than you have for me; I’ve dishonored myself to restore your honor,” implying that even though she lost her honor as a girl, he had regained it for her by marrying her.
I have heard tell, and I ween on good authority, how that, after King Francis I. had quitted Madame de Chasteaubriand, his most favourite mistress, to take Madame d’Etampes, Helly by her maiden name, whom the Queen Regent had chosen for one of her Maids of Honour and did bring to the King’s notice on his return from Spain to Bordeaux,—and he did take her for his mistress, and left the aforesaid Madame de Chasteaubriand, as they say one nail doth drive out another,—his new mistress Madame d’Etampes, did beg the King to have back from the Chasteaubriand all the best jewels which he had given her. Now this was in no wise for the price or value of the[135] same, for in those days pearls and precious stones had not the vogue they have since gotten, but for liking of the graceful mottoes[80*] which had been set, imprinted and engraven thereon, the which the Queen of Navarre, his sister, had made and composed; for she was a past mistress of this art. So King Francis did grant her prayer, and promising he would do this, was as good as his word. To this end he did send one of his gentlemen to her for to demand their return, but she on the instant did feign herself sick and appointed the gentleman to come again in three days’ time, when he should have what he craved. Meantime, in her despite, she did send for a goldsmith, and had him melt down all the jewels, without any regard or thought of the dainty devices which were engraven thereon. Then anon, when the messenger was returned, she did give him all the ornaments converted and changed into gold ingots. “Go, carry this,” she said, “to the King, and tell him that, as it hath pleased his Majesty to ask back what he did erst so generously give me, I do now return and send back the same in gold ingots. As for the mottoes and devices, these I have so well conned over and imprinted on my mind, and do hold them so dear, as that I could in no wise suffer any other should use or enjoy the same and have delight therein but myself.”
I've heard, and I believe from reliable sources, that after King Francis I had left Madame de Chasteaubriand, his favorite mistress, to take up with Madame d’Etampes, born Helly, whom the Queen Regent had chosen as one of her Maids of Honor and introduced to the King upon his return from Spain to Bordeaux, he took her as his mistress and dismissed Madame de Chasteaubriand, like the saying goes, one nail drives out another. His new mistress, Madame d’Etampes, asked the King to get back all the best jewels he had given to Chasteaubriand. This wasn’t about their price or worth, since pearls and precious stones weren’t as fashionable then as they are now, but it was about the elegant mottoes that had been set, printed, and engraved on them, which the Queen of Navarre, his sister, had created, as she mastered this art. So King Francis agreed to her request, promising he would do so and kept his word. To this end, he sent one of his gentlemen to ask for their return, but she immediately pretended to be ill and scheduled the gentleman to come back in three days when she would have what he requested. In the meantime, despite this, she called a goldsmith to melt down all the jewels, without any regard for the delicate designs engraved on them. Then, when the messenger returned, she gave him all the decorations converted into gold ingots. “Go, take this,” she said, “to the King, and tell him that since it pleases His Majesty to ask back what he once generously gave me, I now return it in gold ingots. As for the mottoes and designs, I have memorized them so well and cherish them so much that I couldn’t bear for anyone else to use or enjoy them but myself.”
When the King had received the whole, ingots and message and all, he made no other remark but only this, “Nay! give her back the whole. What I was for doing, ’twas not for the worth of the gold (for I would have gladly given her twice as much), but for liking of the devices and mottoes; but seeing she hath so destroyed these, I care not for the gold, and do return it her again.[136] Herein hath she shown more greatness and boldness of heart than ever I had dreamed could come of a woman.” A noble-spirited lady’s heart, chagrined so and scorned, is capable of great things.
When the King got everything back—gold bars, the message, and all—he didn’t say much except, “No! Give it all back to her. I didn’t do this for the gold’s value (I would’ve happily given her twice as much), but because I liked the designs and slogans. But since she has ruined those, I don’t care about the gold, so I’ll return it to her.”[136] In this, she has shown more greatness and courage than I ever thought a woman could. A noble-hearted lady, hurt and disrespected, is capable of amazing things.
These Princes which do so recall their presents act much otherwise than did once Madame de Nevers, of the house of Bourbon, daughter of M. de Montpensier.[81*] This same was in her day a very prudent, virtuous and beautiful Princess, and held for such both in France and Spain, in which latter country she had been brought up along with Queen Elisabeth of France, being her cup-bearer and giving her to drink; for it must be known this Queen was aye served by her gentlewomen, dames and damsels, and each had her rank and office, the same as we Courtiers in attendance on our Kings. This Princess was married to the Comte d’Eu, eldest son of M. de Nevers, she worthy of him as he was right well worthy of her, being one of the handsomest and most pleasing Princes of his time. For which cause was he much loved and sought after of many fair and noble ladies of the Court, amongst others of one which was both this, and a very adroit and clever woman to boot. Now it befell one day that the Prince did take a ring from off his wife’s finger, a very fine one, a diamond worth fifteen hundred or mayhap two thousand crowns, the which the Queen of Spain had given her on her quitting her Court. This ring the Prince, seeing how his mistress did admire it greatly and did show signs of coveting its possession, being very free-handed and generous, did frankly offer her, giving her to understand he had won the same at tennis. Nor did she refuse the gift, but taking it as a great mark of affection, did always wear it on her finger for love of him. And thus Madame de Nevers,[137] who did understand from her good husband that he had lost the ring at tennis, or at any rate that it was lying pawned, came presently to see the same on the hand of her rival, whom she was quite well aware was her husband’s mistress. Yet was she so wise and prudent and had such command of herself, as that, merely changing colour somewhat and quietly dissembling her chagrin, without any more ado she did turn her head another way, and did breathe never a word of the matter either to her husband or his mistress. Herein was she much to be commended, for that she did show no cross-grained, vixenish temper, nor anger, nor yet expose the younger lady to public scorn, as not a few others I wot of would have done, thus delighting the company and giving them occasion for gossip and scandal-mongering.
These princes who recall their gifts act very differently than Madame de Nevers, from the Bourbon family, daughter of M. de Montpensier. In her time, she was a very wise, virtuous, and beautiful princess, held in high regard in both France and Spain, where she grew up alongside Queen Elisabeth of France, serving as her cup-bearer. It’s important to note that this queen was always served by her ladies-in-waiting, each with their own rank and duties, just like we courtiers do for our kings. This princess married the Comte d’Eu, the eldest son of M. de Nevers, and she was deserving of him as he was of her, being one of the most handsome and charming princes of his day. Because of this, he was greatly admired and sought after by many beautiful and noble ladies at court, including one who was both attractive and very astute. One day, the prince took a very fine ring, a diamond worth fifteen hundred or maybe two thousand crowns, off his wife’s finger. This was a ring the Queen of Spain had given her when she left her court. Seeing how much his mistress admired it and showed signs of wanting it, the prince, being generous, offered it to her, suggesting he had won it playing tennis. She accepted the gift, seeing it as a significant token of his affection, and wore it on her finger as a sign of love for him. Then Madame de Nevers, who learned from her good husband that he had lost the ring at tennis, or at least it was pawned, soon saw it on the hand of her rival, fully aware that this woman was her husband’s mistress. Yet, she was so wise and composed that, merely changing color slightly and hiding her anger, she turned her head away without saying a word about it to her husband or his mistress. She deserves commendation for not showing a bitter temper, nor anger, nor exposing the younger lady to public ridicule, as many others I know would have done, thus entertaining the crowd and providing them with gossip and scandal.
Thus we see how necessary is moderation in such matters and how excellent a thing, as also that here no less than elsewhere doth luck and ill-luck prevail. For some ladies there be which cannot take one step aside or make the very smallest stumble in the path of virtue, or taste of love but with the tip of their finger, but lo! they be instantly traduced, exposed and satirized right and left.
Thus we see how important moderation is in these matters and how wonderful it is, as well as the fact that, just like everywhere else, luck and misfortune play a role here too. Some women can’t take even the smallest step away from the path of virtue or experience love without being criticized or negatively judged, and before they know it, they are instantly slandered, exposed, and mocked from all sides.
Others again there be which do sail full before the wind over the sea and pleasant waters of Venus, and with naked body and wide spread limbs do swim with wide strokes therein, wantoning in its waves, voyaging toward Cyprus and the Temple of Venus there and her gardens, and taking their fill of delight in love; yet deuce a word doth any say about them, no more than if they had never been born. Thus doth fortune favour some and mislike others in matter of scandal-making; myself have seen not a few examples thereof in my day, and some be found still.
Others, on the other hand, sail directly with the wind across the sea and the pleasant waters of Venus, swimming with wide strokes and arms spread out, enjoying the waves, heading toward Cyprus and the Temple of Venus and her gardens, and indulging in love. Yet not a single word is said about them, as if they had never existed. This is how fortune favors some and disapproves of others when it comes to gossip; I have seen many examples of this in my time, and some still exist.
[138]
[138]
In the time of King Charles was writ a lampoon at Fontainebleau, most base and scurrilous, wherein the fellow did spare neither the Royal Princesses nor the very greatest ladies nor any others. And verily, an if the true author had been known, he would have found himself in very ill case.
In the time of King Charles, a nasty satire was written at Fontainebleau, very crude and offensive, in which the writer showed no mercy to the Royal Princesses, the highest-ranking ladies, or anyone else. And truly, if the true author had been known, he would have been in serious trouble.
At Blois moreover, whenas the marriage of the Queen of Navarre was arranged with the King, her husband, was made yet another, against a very great and noble lady, and a most scurrilous one, whereof the author was never discovered. But there were really some very brave and valiant gentlemen mixed up therein, which however did carry it off very boldly and made many loud general denials. So many others beside were writ, as that naught else was seen whether in this reign or in that of King Henri III.—and above all one most scurrilous one in the form of a song, and to the tune of a coranto which was then commonly danced at Court, and hence came to be sung among the pages and lackeys on every note, high and low.
At Blois, when the marriage of the Queen of Navarre was arranged with the King, another scandal was created against a very prominent and noble lady, though the author was never discovered. There were some brave and valiant gentlemen involved, who handled it boldly and made many loud denials. So many others were written that nothing else was seen during this reign or that of King Henri III. —and especially one very scandalous one in the form of a song, to the tune of a coranto that was commonly danced at Court, and it ended up being sung by the pages and servants everywhere, both high and low.
5.
5.

In the days of our King Henri III. was a yet worse thing done. A certain gentleman, whom I have known both by name and person, did one day make a present to his mistress of a book of pictures, wherein were shown two and thirty ladies of high or middling rank about the Court, painted in true colours, a-bed and sporting with their lovers, who were likewise represented and that in the most natural way. Some had two or three lovers, some more, some less; and these thirty-two ladies did figure forth more than seven[139] and twenty of the figures or postures of Aretino, and all different. The actors were so well represented and so naturally, as that they did seem actually to be speaking and doing. While some were disrobed, other were shown clad in the very same clothes, and with the same head-dresses, ornaments and weeds as they were commonly to be seen wearing. In a word, so cunningly was the book wrought and painted that naught could be more curious; and it had cost eight or nine hundred crowns, and was illuminated throughout.
In the time of King Henri III, a truly shocking act occurred. A certain gentleman, whom I knew by both name and appearance, one day gifted his mistress a book of pictures. This book contained images of thirty-two ladies of notable or average rank at court, depicted vividly, in bed, and enjoying time with their lovers, who were also portrayed in a very lifelike manner. Some ladies had two or three lovers, while others had more or fewer; these thirty-two women illustrated more than twenty-seven of Aretino’s poses, each one different. The figures were so realistically represented that they seemed to come alive in conversation and action. While some were shown undressed, others were depicted in the exact outfits, hairstyles, accessories, and garments they typically wore. In short, the book was crafted and painted with such skill that nothing could be more remarkable; it cost about eight or nine hundred crowns and was fully illuminated.
Now this lady did show it one day and lend it to another, her comrade and bosom friend, which latter was much a favourite and familiar of a great Lady that was in the book, and one of the most vividly and vigorously represented there; so seeing how much it concerned herself, she did give her best attention. Then being curious of all experience, she was fain to look it over with another, a great lady, her cousin and chiefest friend, who had begged her to afford her the enjoyment of the sight, and who was likewise in the pictures, like the rest.
Now, this lady showed it one day and lent it to another, her close friend, who was quite favored and familiar with a prominent lady featured in the book, one of the most vividly and powerfully depicted there; noticing how much it involved her, she paid close attention. Curious about the whole experience, she was eager to review it with another lady, her cousin and closest friend, who had asked her to share the enjoyment of seeing it and who was also among the figures in the illustrations, just like the others.
So the book was examined very curiously and with the greatest care, leaf by leaf, without passing over a single one lightly, so that they did spend two good hours of the afternoon at the task. The fair ladies, far from being annoyed or angered thereat, did find good cause for mirth therein, seeing them to admire the pictures mightily, and gaze at them fixedly.
So the book was examined very closely and with a lot of care, page by page, without skipping any of them, so they spent a good two hours in the afternoon on the task. The lovely ladies, instead of being annoyed or angry about it, found it quite funny, watching them admire the pictures greatly and stare at them intently.
These two dames were bolder and more valiant and determined than one I have heard tell of, who one day looking at this same book with two others of her friends, so ravished with delight was she and did enter into such an ecstasy of love and so burning a desire to imitate these[140] same luscious pictures, as that she cannot see out of her eyes till the fourth page, and at the fifth did fall in a dead faint. A terrible swoon truly! very different to that of Octavia, sister of Cæsar Augustus, who one day hearing Virgil recite the three verses he had writ on her dead son Marcellus (for which she did give him three thousand crowns for the three alone) did incontinently swoon right away. That was love indeed, but of how different a sort!
These two women were bolder, braver, and more determined than one I've heard about, who one day, while looking at this very book with two of her friends, was so overwhelmed with joy and filled with such a passionate desire to recreate those same captivating images that she couldn't actually see until the fourth page, and by the fifth, she fainted dead away. What a dramatic faint it was! Very different from Octavia, the sister of Caesar Augustus, who once swooned instantly after hearing Virgil recite the three lines he had written about her deceased son Marcellus (for which she had paid him three thousand crowns for those three lines alone). That was love for sure, but it was a completely different kind!
I have heard tell, in the days when I was at Court, of a great Prince of the highest rank, old and well stricken in years, and who ever since the loss of his wife had borne him very continently in his widowhood, as indeed was but consistent with his high repute for sanctity of life. At last he was fain to marry again with a very fair, virtuous and young Princess. But seeing how for the ten years he had been a widower he had never so much as touched a woman, and fearing to have forgot the way of it (as though it were an art that a man may forget), and to get a rebuff the first night of his wedlock, and perform naught of his desire, was anxious to make a previous essay. So by dint of money he did win over a fair young maid, a virgin like the wife he was to marry; nay more, ’tis said he had her chosen to resemble somewhat in features his future wife. Fortune was so kind to him that he did prove he had by no means forgot as yet his old skill; and his essay was so successful that, bold and happy, he did advance to his wife’s fortress, and won good victory and high repute.
I heard a story back when I was at Court about a great prince, highly ranked, who was old and had experienced many years. Ever since he lost his wife, he had been very devoted in his widowhood, which matched his well-known reputation for a saintly life. Eventually, he was eager to marry again, choosing a very beautiful, virtuous, and young princess. However, after being a widower for ten years without even touching a woman, he worried that he might have forgotten how to be intimate (as if it were a skill one could lose over time), and he feared being embarrassed on his wedding night if he couldn't fulfill his desires. To ease his worries, he decided to do a test run. With some money, he managed to persuade a beautiful young maiden, a virgin like his future wife; it's even said he chose her to resemble his future wife a bit in looks. Luckily for him, he found that he had not forgotten his old skills at all; the test was so successful that, feeling bold and happy, he approached his wife's hold and achieved both victory and a great reputation.
This essay was more successful than that of another gentleman whose name I have heard, whom his father, although he was very young and much of a simpleton,[141] did desire should marry. Well! first of all he was for making an essay, to know if he would be a good mate with his wife; so for this end, some months aforehand, he did get him a pretty-faced harlot, whom he made to come every afternoon to his father’s warren, for ’twas summer-time, where he did frisk and make sport with the damsel in the freshness of the green trees and a gushing fountain in such wise that he did perform wonders. Thus encouraged, he feared no man, but was ready enough to play the like bold part with his wife. But the worst of it was that when the marriage night was come, and it was time to go with his wife, lo! he cannot do a thing. Who so astonished as the poor youth, and who so ready to cry out upon his accursed recreant weapon, which had so missed fire in the new spot where he now was. Finally plucking up his courage, he said thus to his wife, “My pretty one, I cannot tell what this doth mean, for every day I have done wonders in the warren,” and so recounted over his deeds of prowess to her. “Let us to sleep now, and my advice is, to-morrow after dinner I will take you thither, and you shall see very different sport.” This he did, and his wife found him as good as his word. Hence the saying current at Court, “Ha, ha! an if I had you in my father’s warren, you should see what I would do!” We can only suppose that the god of gardens, Dan Priapus, and the fauns and wanton satyrs which haunt the woods, do there aid good fellows and favour their deeds of prowess.
This essay was more successful than that of another guy whose name I’ve heard, whose father, even though he was very young and not the brightest, wanted him to get married. So, first, he decided to test if he would be a good match for his wife; to do this, a few months beforehand, he found a pretty-faced prostitute, who he brought to his father’s estate every afternoon during the summer. There, he would play and have fun with her amidst the fresh green trees and a bubbling fountain, impressing everyone with his exploits. Feeling confident, he wasn't afraid of anything and was ready to act boldly with his wife. But the worst part was when the wedding night finally arrived, and it was time to be with his wife—he couldn't perform at all. Who was more shocked than the poor guy, and who was quicker to curse his useless member, which had failed him in this new situation? Finally, mustering his courage, he said to his wife, “My dear, I can’t explain this because every day in the estate, I’ve done amazing things,” and he went on to recount his feats to her. “Let’s go to sleep now, and my advice is, tomorrow after dinner, I’ll take you there, and you’ll see a very different kind of fun.” He did just that, and his wife found him true to his word. Hence, the saying at Court goes, “Ha, ha! if I had you in my father’s estate, you’d see what I could do!” We can only assume that the god of gardens, Priapus, along with the fauns and playful satyrs that roam the woods, are there to help good men and support their heroic deeds.
Yet are not all essays alike, nor do all end favorably. For in matter of love, I have both seen and heard tell of not a few good champions which have failed to remember their lessons and keep their engagements when they came to the chief task of all. For while some be either too[142] hot or too cold, in such wise that these humours, of ice or of fire, do take them of a sudden, others be lost in an ecstasy to find so sovran a treat within their arms; others again grow over fearful, others get instantly and totally flaccid and impotent, without the least knowing the reason why, and yet others find themselves actually paralysed. In a word there be so many unexpected accidents which may occur just at the wrong moment, that if I were to tell them all, I should not have done for ages. I can only refer me to many married folk and other amateurs of love, who can say an hundred times more of all this than I. Now such essays be good for the men, but not for the women. Thus I have heard tell of a mother, a lady of quality, who holding very dear an only daughter she had, and having promised the same in marriage to an honourable gentleman, avant que de l’y faire entrer et craignant qu’elle ne pût souffrir ce premier et dur effort, à quoi on disait le gentilhomme être très rude et fort proportionné, elle la fit essayer premièrement par un jeune page qu’elle avait, assez grandet, une douzaine de fois, disant qu’il n’y avait que la première ouverture fâcheuse à faire et que, se faisant un peu douce et petite au commencement, qu’elle endurerait la grande plus aisément; comme il advint, et qu’il y put avoir de l’apparence. Cet essai est encore bien plus honnête et moins scandaleux qu’un qui me fut dit une fois, en Italie, d’un père qui avait marié son fils, qui était encore un jeune sot, avec une fort belle fille à laquelle, tant fat qu’il était, il n’avait rien pu faire ni la première ni la seconde nuit de ses noces; et comme il eut demandé et au fils et à la nore comme ils se trouvaient en mariage et s’ils avaient triomphé, ils répondirent l’un et l’autre: “Niente.—A[143] quoi a-t-il tenu?” demanda à son fils. Il répondit tout follement qu’il ne savait comment il fallait faire. Sur quoi il prit son fils par une main et la nore par une autre et les mena tous deux en une chambre et leur dit: “Or je vous veux donc montrer comme il faut faire.” Et fit coucher sa nore sur un bout de lit, et lui fait bien élargir les jambes, et puis dit à son fils: “Or vois comment je fais,” et dit à sa nore: “Ne bougez, non importe, il n’y a point de mal.” Et en mettant son membre bien arboré dedans, dit: “Avise bien comme je fais et comme je dis, Dentro fuero, dentro fuero,” et répliqua souvent ces deux mots en s’avançant dedans et reculant, non pourtant tout dehors. Et ainsi, après ces fréquentes agitations et paroles, dentro et fuero, quand ce vint à la consommation, il se mit à dire brusquement et vite: Dentro, dentro, dentro, dentro, jusqu’à ce qu’il eût fait. Au diable le mot de fuero. Et par ainsi, pensant faire du magister, il fut tout à plat adultère de sa nore, laquelle, ou qu’elle fit de la niaise ou, pour mieux dire, de la fine, s’en trouva très bien pour ce coup, voire pour d’autres que lui donna le fils et le père et tout, possible pour lui mieux apprendre sa leçon, laquelle il ne lui voulut pas apprendre à demi ni à moitié, mais à perfection. Aussi toute leçon ne vaut rieu autrement.
Yet all essays are not the same, nor do they all end well. In matters of love, I've seen and heard about many good champions who have failed to remember their lessons and keep their commitments when it mattered most. Some are either too hot or too cold, overtaken by sudden emotions of ice or fire; others are so overwhelmed by the joy of having such a treasure in their arms that they lose themselves; some become overly fearful, while others become completely flaccid and impotent without knowing why, and still, others find themselves literally paralyzed. In short, there are so many unexpected mishaps that can occur at the worst moment that if I were to list them all, it would take ages. I can only point to many married people and other love enthusiasts who could tell you a hundred times more about this than I could. Such experiences are beneficial for men, but not for women. For instance, I heard of a mother, a woman of high social standing, who cherished her only daughter deeply. Having promised her in marriage to a respectable gentleman, fearing her daughter might not withstand that initial and intense effort—said to be very rough and well-endowed—she made her try it out first with a young page she had, who was quite tall, about a dozen times. She said that it was just the first painful opening that was hard to endure and that if her daughter made herself a little gentle and small at the beginning, she would manage the bigger task more easily, which happened to be the case. This attempt is still much more honorable and less scandalous than one I heard about in Italy, of a father who married off his son, who was still an inexperienced young man, to a very beautiful girl. Despite being foolish, he was unable to accomplish anything on either the first or second night of their marriage. When he asked both the son and the bride how they were doing and if they had triumphed, they both replied: “Niente.” “What did he accomplish?” the father asked his son. The son stupidly said he didn’t know how to go about it. So, he took his son by one hand and the bride by the other and led them both into a room and said, “Now I’ll show you how it’s done.” He had his bride lie on one end of the bed, telling her to spread her legs, and then he said to his son, “Now watch how I do it,” and told his bride, “Don’t move, it’s all good.” As he inserted himself, he said, “Pay attention to how I do it and what I say, Dentro fuero, dentro fuero,” repeating these two words frequently while advancing and retreating, though not entirely pulling out. And so, after these frequent motions and phrases, dentro and fuero, when it came to the climax, he suddenly and quickly said: “Dentro, dentro, dentro, dentro,” until he finished. Forget about the word fuero. Thus, thinking he was teaching a lesson, he ended up committing adultery with his daughter-in-law, who, whether she was naive or, better said, cunning, managed quite well that time, and even for the other times the son and father gave her, likely to better teach him his lesson, which he didn’t want to teach her halfway or in part, but perfectly. After all, no lesson is worth anything otherwise.
I have heard many enterprising and successful Lovelaces declare how that they have often seen ladies in these faints and swoonings, yet always readily coming to again afterward. Many women, they said, do cry out: “Alackaday! I am a-dying!”—but ’tis, I ween, a mighty agreeable sort of death. Others there be which do turn back their eyes in their head for excess of pleasure, as if about to expire outright, and let themselves[144] go absolutely motionless and insensible. Others I have been told do so stiffen and spasmodically contract their nerves, arteries and limbs, as that they do bring on cramp; as one lady I have heard speak of, which was so subject thereto she could never be cured.
I’ve heard many ambitious and successful Lovelaces say that they’ve often seen women faint and swoon, yet they always come around again afterwards. Many women cry out, “Oh no! I’m dying!”—but I think that’s actually a pretty pleasant way to go. There are others who roll their eyes back in their heads from too much pleasure, as if they’re about to completely pass out, and then they just become utterly still and unresponsive. I’ve also been told that some women stiffen up and spasm in their muscles, arteries, and limbs, causing cramps; like one lady I heard about who was so prone to them that she could never get better.
Anent these same swoonings, I have heard tell of a fair lady, which was being embraced by her lover on top of a large chest or coffer. Very suddenly and unavoidably for herself, she did swoon right off in such wise that she did let herself slide behind the coffer with legs projected in the air, and getting so entangled betwixt the coffer and the tapestry of the wall, that while she was yet struggling to free herself and her cavalier helping her, there entered some company and so surprised her in this forked-radish attitude. These had time enough to see all she had,—which was all very pretty and dainty however,—and all the poor woman could do was to cover herself up as best she might, saying so and so had pushed her, as they were playing, behind the coffer, and declaring how that she would never like the fellow again for it.
Regarding these fainting episodes, I've heard about a beautiful woman who was being embraced by her lover on top of a large chest. Suddenly and against her will, she fainted and slid behind the chest with her legs sticking up in the air. She got so tangled between the chest and the wall tapestry that while she was still trying to free herself, her partner was helping her. Some people walked in and caught her in this awkward position. They had plenty of time to see everything she had—though it was all quite lovely—and all the poor woman could do was cover herself as best as she could, claiming that he had pushed her there while they were playing and insisting that she would never like him again for it.
Cette dame courut bien plus grande fortune qu’une que j’ai ouï dire, laquelle, alors que son ami la tenait embrassée et investie sur le bord de son lit, quand ce vint sur la douce fin qu’il eut achevé et que par trop il s’étendait, il avait par cas des escarpins neufs qui avaient la semelle glissante, et s’appuyant sur des carreaux plombés dont la chambre était pavée, qui sont fort sujets à faire glisser, il vint à se couler et glisser si bien sans se pouvoir arrêter que, du pourpoint qu’il avait, tout recouvert de clinquant, il en écorcha de telle façon le ventre, la motte le cas et les cuisses de sa maitresse que vous eussiez dit que les griffes d’un chat y avaient passé; ce qui cuisait[145] si fort la dame qu’elle en fit un grand cri et ne s’en put garder; mais le meilleur fut que la dame, parce que c’était en été et faisait grand chaud, s’était mise en appareil un peu plus lubrique que les autres fois, car elle n’avait que sa chemise bien blanche et un manteau de satin blanc dessus, et les caleçons à part e si bien que le gentilhomme.
This lady had much greater fortune than one I’ve heard about, who, while her friend held her embraced and laid at the edge of her bed, when it came to the sweet moment he finished and stretched too much, happened to be wearing new high-heeled shoes with slippery soles. Leaning on the tiled floor of the room, which was very prone to slipping, he ended up sliding so much that he couldn’t stop, and from the jacket he wore, all covered in shiny material, he scraped her belly, her thighs, and other sensitive areas so badly that you would have thought a cat's claws had passed over them. This hurt the lady so much that she let out a loud cry and couldn’t hold back; but the best part was that the lady, because it was summer and very hot, had dressed in a somewhat more revealing way than usual, as she only had on her very white chemise and a white satin robe over it, with her undergarments separate, which caught the gentleman's attention.
The lady told the story to one of her female friends, and the gentleman to one of his comrades. So the thing came to be known, from being again repeated over to others; for indeed ’twas a right good tale and very meet to provoke mirth.
The lady shared the story with one of her female friends, and the gentleman told it to one of his buddies. So the story spread as it was shared with others; after all, it was a really great tale and perfect for making people laugh.
And no doubt but the ladies, whenas they be alone, among their most privy bosom-friends, do repeat merry tales, everywhit as much as we men-folk do, and tell each other their amorous adventures and all their most secret tricks and turns, and afterward laugh long and loud over the same, making fine fun of their gallants, whenever these be guilty of some silly mistake or commit some ridiculous and foolish action.
And no doubt the ladies, when they’re alone with their closest friends, share funny stories just as much as we men do. They talk about their romantic experiences and all their little secrets, and afterward, they laugh heartily over it, making fun of their suitors whenever they make some silly mistake or do something ridiculous.
Yea! and they do even better than this. For they do filch their lovers the one from the other, and this sometimes not so much for passion’s sake, but rather for to draw from them all their secrets, the pretty games and naughty follies they have practised with them. These they do then turn to their own advantage, whether still further to stir their ardour, or by way of revenge, or to get the better one of the other in their privy debates and wranglings when they be met together.
Yeah! And they do even better than that. They actually steal their lovers from each other, and not always out of passion, but rather to uncover all their secrets, the cute tricks and naughty antics they’ve shared. They then use this information to their own advantage, whether to ignite their desire even more, as revenge, or to one-up each other during their private arguments and disputes when they're together.
In the days of this same King Henri III. was made that satire without words consisting of the book of pictures I have spoke of above, of sundry ladies in divers postures and connections with their gallants. ’Twas exceeding[146] base and scurrilous,—for the which see the above passage wherein I have described the same.
In the time of King Henri III, there was a wordless satire made up of the illustrated book I mentioned earlier, featuring various ladies in different poses and situations with their lovers. It was extremely vulgar and insulting—refer to the earlier passage where I described it.
Well! enough said on this matter. I could wish from my heart that not a few evil tongues in this our land of France could be chastened and refrain them from their scandal-making, and comport them more after the Spanish fashion. For no man there durst, on peril of his life, to make so much as the smallest reflection on the honour of ladies of rank and reputation. Nay! so scrupulously are they respected that on meeting them in any place whatsoever, an if the faintest cry is raised of lugar a las damas, every man doth lout low and pay them all honour and reverence. Before them is all insolence straitly forbid on pain of death.
Well! Enough said on this matter. I really wish that not a few malicious people in our land of France could be silenced and stop their gossiping, and conduct themselves more like they do in Spain. Because over there, no one would dare, at the risk of their life, to make even the slightest remark about the honor of ladies of status and respect. In fact, they are so carefully respected that whenever they are encountered anywhere, if the slightest call of lugar a las damas is heard, every man bows low and shows them all honor and respect. Any rudeness before them is strictly forbidden, punishable by death.
Whenas the Empress,[82] wife of the Emperor Charles, made his entry into Toledo, I have heard tell how that the Marquis de Villena, one of the great Lords of Spain, for having threatened an alguasil, which had forcibly hindered him from stepping forward, came nigh being sore punished, because the threat was uttered in presence of the Empress; whereas, had it been merely in the Emperor’s, no such great ado would have been made.
When the Empress, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ wife of Emperor Charles, entered Toledo, I heard that the Marquis de Villena, one of Spain's great Lords, almost faced serious consequences for threatening an alguasil who had forcefully stopped him from moving forward. This happened in front of the Empress; if it had only been in front of the Emperor, it wouldn’t have been such a big deal.
The Duc de Feria being in Flanders, and the Queens Eleanor and Marie taking the air abroad, and their Court ladies following after them, it fell out that as he was walking beside them, he did come to words with an other Spanish knight. For this the pair of them came very nigh to losing their lives,—more for having made such a scandal before the Queen and Empress than for any other cause.
The Duke of Feria was in Flanders, and Queens Eleanor and Marie were outside getting some fresh air, with their court ladies following them. While he was walking next to them, he ended up having a heated exchange with another Spanish knight. Because of this, both of them nearly lost their lives—not so much because of the fight itself, but more for causing such a scene in front of the Queen and Empress.
The same befell Don Carlos d’Avalos at Madrid, as Queen Isabelle of France was walking through the town;[147] and had he not sped instantly into a Church which doth there serve as sanctuary for poor unfortunate folk, he had been straightway put to death. The end was he had to fly in disguise, and leave Spain altogether; and was kept in banishment all his life long and confined in the most wretched islet of all Italy, Lipari to wit.
The same happened to Don Carlos d’Avalos in Madrid while Queen Isabelle of France was walking through the town;[147] and if he hadn't quickly jumped into a church that serves as a sanctuary for unfortunate people, he would have been killed on the spot. In the end, he had to flee in disguise and leave Spain for good; he lived in exile for the rest of his life, confined to the most miserable island in Italy, Lipari.
Court jesters even, which have usually full license of free speech, an if they do assail the ladies, do get somewhat to remember. It did so fall out one time to a Fool called Legat, whom I once knew myself. Queen Elizabeth of France[83*] once in conversation speaking of the houses at Madrid and Valladolid, how charming and agreeable these were, did declare she wished with all her heart the two places were so near she could e’en touch one with one foot and the other with the other, spreading her legs very wide open as she said the words. The Fool, who heard the remark, cried, “And I should dearly wish to be in betwixt, con un carrajo de borrico, para encarguar y plantar la raya,”—that is, “with a fool’s cudgel to mark and fix the boundary withal.” For this he was soundly whipped in the kitchens. Yet was he well justified in forming such a wish; for truly was she one of the fairest, most agreeable and honourable ladies was ever in all Spain, and well deserving to be desired in this fashion,—only of folk more honourable than he an hundred thousand times.
Court jesters, who usually have the freedom to speak freely, often face consequences if they offend the ladies. One time, a jester named Legat, whom I knew, found himself in trouble. Queen Elizabeth of France__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ was talking about the homes in Madrid and Valladolid and mentioned how lovely and delightful they were. She expressed a wish that the two places were so close that she could touch one with one foot and the other with the other, spreading her legs widely as she said this. The jester, overhearing her, exclaimed, “And I would love to be in between, con un carrajo de borrico, para encarguar y plantar la raya,” which means, “with a fool’s cudgel to mark the boundary.” For this, he was thoroughly punished in the kitchens. Still, he was justified in having such a thought; for she was truly one of the fairest, most charming, and honorable ladies ever in all of Spain, and deserved to be desired like this—just by people much more noble than him a hundred thousand times over.
I ween these fine slanderers and traducers of ladies would dearly love to have and enjoy the same privilege and license the vintagers do possess in the country parts of Naples at vintage time. These be allowed, so long as the vintage dureth, to shout forth any sort of vile word and insult and ribaldry to all that pass that way, coming[148] and going on the roads. Thus will you see them crying and screaming after all wayfarers and vilifying the same, without sparing any, whether great, middling or humble folk, of what estate soever they be. Nor do they spare,—and this is the merry part on’t,—the ladies one whit neither, high-born dames or Princesses or any. Indeed in my day I did there hear of not a few fine ladies, and see them too, which would make a pretext to hie them to the fields on purpose, so as they might pass along the roads, and so hearken to this pretty talk and hear a thousand naughty conceits and lusty words. These the peasants would invent and roll off in plenty, casting up at the great ladies their naughtiness and the shameful ways they did use toward their husbands and lovers, going so far as to chide them for their shameful loves and intimacies with their own coachmen, pages, lackeys and apparitors, which were of their train. Going yet further, they would ask them right out for the courtesy of their company, saying they would assault them roundly and satisfy them better than all the others could. All this they would let out in words of a fine, natural frankness and bluntness, without any sort of glossing or disguising. The ladies had their good laugh and pastime out of the thing, and there an end, making their servants which were with them answer back in the like strain and give as good as they got. The vintage once done and over, there is truce of suchlike language till another year, else would they be brought to book and sore punished.
I think these fine slanderers and defamers of women would love to have the same freedom and license that the wine harvesters have in the rural parts of Naples during grape-picking season. While the harvest lasts, they are allowed to shout any kind of vile words, insults, and crude remarks at everyone passing by on the roads. You’ll see them yelling and berating all travelers, sparing none, whether they are important, average, or humble, no matter their status. They don’t even spare the ladies at all, whether they’re noblewomen or princesses. In fact, in my time, I heard about several highborn ladies, and saw them too, who made excuses to go out to the fields just so they could walk along the roads and listen to this entertaining banter and hear a host of naughty jokes and daring words. The peasants would come up with plenty of these remarks, throwing their outrageous comments at the noblewomen about their scandalous behavior towards their husbands and lovers, going as far as to scold them for their shameless affairs with their own drivers, pages, footmen, and attendants. They would even directly invite them to join in, claiming they would give them more satisfaction than anyone else could. All of this was shared with a refreshing honesty and directness, without any pretense or disguise. The ladies would have a good laugh and enjoy themselves, occasionally prompting their attendants to respond in the same way and give as good as they got. Once the harvest was done, that kind of talk would stop until the next year, or else they would face consequences and be severely punished.
I am told the said custom doth still endure, and that many folk in France would fain have it observed there also at some season of the year or other, to enjoy in[149] security the pleasure of their evil speaking, which they do love so well.
I hear that the custom still exists and that many people in France would like to have it practiced there at some time of year so they can safely enjoy their love of gossip.
Well! to make an end of the subject, ’tis very meet all ladies be respected of all men, and the secret of their loves and favours duly kept. This is why Pietro Aretino said, that when lovers were come to it, the kisses that man and maid did give each other were not so much for their mutual delight as for to join connection of the mouths together and so make signal betwixt them that they do keep hid the secret of their merry doings. Nay, more! that some lustful and lascivious husbands do in their wantonness show them so free and extravagant in words, as that not content with committing sundry naughty profligacies with their wives, they do declare and publish the same to their boon-companions, and make fine tales out of them. So much so that I have myself known wives which did conceive a mortal repugnance to their husbands for this cause and would even very often refuse them the pleasures they had erst afforded them. They would not have such scandalous things said of them, albeit ’twas but betwixt husband and wife.
Well! To wrap up the topic, it's essential that all ladies receive respect from all men, and that the secrets of their love and affection are kept confidential. This is why Pietro Aretino mentioned that when lovers are intimate, the kisses they share aren’t just for their enjoyment but are also a way to connect their mouths and signal that they keep the secrets of their joyful moments hidden. Furthermore, some lewd and shameless husbands, in their silliness, express themselves so openly and excessively that, not satisfied with indulging in various inappropriate behaviors with their wives, they share and boast about it to their friends, turning it into amusing stories. I've even seen wives develop a strong aversion to their husbands for this reason and frequently deny them the pleasures they had once welcomed. They wouldn’t want such scandalous things to be said about them, even if it was just between husband and wife.
M. du Bellay, the poet, in his book of Latin epitaphs called Les Tombeaux, which he hath composed, and very fine it is, hath writ one on a dog, that methinks is well worth quoting here, for ’tis writ much in our own manner. It runneth thus:
M. du Bellay, the poet, in his book of Latin epitaphs called Les Tombeaux, which he has composed, and it's very fine, wrote one about a dog that I think is worth quoting here because it’s written in a style similar to ours. It goes like this:
(By my barking I did drive away thieves, with a quiet tongue I did greet lovers. Thus I did please my master, and thus my mistress.)
(By my barking, I drove away thieves; with a soft tone, I greeted lovers. This is how I pleased my master and my mistress.)
[150]
[150]
Well! if we are so to love animals for discreetness, how much more must we not value men for holding silence? And if we are to take advice on this matter of a courtesan which was one of the most celebrated of former days, and a past mistress in her art, to wit Lamia, here it is. Asked wherein a woman did find most satisfaction in her lover, she replied ’twas when he was discreet in talk and secret as to what he did. Above all else she said she did hate a boaster, one that was forever boasting of what he did not do, yet failing to accomplish what he promised,—two faults, each as bad as the other. She was used to say further: that a woman, albeit ready enough to be indiscreet, would never willingly be called harlot, nor published abroad for such. Moreover she said how that she did never make merry at a man’s expense, nor any man at hers, nor did any ever miscall her. A fair dame of this sort, so experienced in love’s mysteries, may well give lessons to other women.
Well! If we are to love animals for their discretion, how much more should we value men for keeping quiet? And if we’re taking advice on this from a famous courtesan of the past, the talented Lamia, here it is. When asked what a woman finds most satisfying in her lover, she answered that it was when he was discreet in conversation and kept his actions private. Above all, she said she hated a braggart, someone who constantly boasts about what he hasn’t done while failing to deliver on his promises—two faults that are equally awful. She would also say that although a woman might be tempted to be indiscreet, she would never want to be called a harlot or publicly labeled as such. Furthermore, she claimed she never mocked a man nor allowed any man to mock her, and no one ever insulted her. A well-experienced woman in the mysteries of love can certainly teach other women a thing or two.
Well, well! enough said on these points. Another man, more eloquent than I, might have embellished and ennobled the subject better far. To such I do pass on hereby mine arms and pen.
Well, well! Enough said on these points. Another man, more articulate than I, might have decorated and elevated the topic much better. To such individuals, I now hand over my arms and pen.
Concerning married women, widows and maids,—to wit, which of these same be better than the other to love.
Regarding married women, widows, and single women—specifically, which of these is better to love.
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION

One day when I was at the Court of Spain at Madrid, and conversing with a very honourable lady, as is the way at Kings’ Courts, she did chance to ask me this question following: Qual era mayor fuego d’amor, el de la biuda, el de la casada, o de la hija moça,—“which of the three had the greater heat of love, widow, wife or maid?” After myself had told her mine opinion, she did in turn give me hers in some such terms as these: Lo que me parece d’ esta cosa es que, aunque las moças con el hervor de la sangre, se disponen á querer mucho, no deve ser tanto como lo que quieren las casadas y biudas, con la gran experiencia del negocio. Esta razon debe ser natural, como lo seria la del que, por haver nacido ciego de la perfeccion de la luz, no puede cobdiciar de ella con tanto deseo como el que vio, y fue privado de la vista.—“What I think on the matter is this: that albeit maids, with all that heat of blood that is theirs, be right well disposed to love, yet do they not love so well as wives and widows. This is because of the great experience of the business the latter have, and the obvious fact that supposing a man born blind, and from[152] birth robbed of all power of vision, he can never desire the gift so strongly as he that hath sweetly enjoyed the same a while and then been deprived thereof.” To which she did presently add this further remark: Con menos pena se abstiene d’ una cosa la persona que nunca supo, que aquella que vive enamorada del gusto pasado—“How that one could with a lesser ado refrain from a thing one had never tried, than from one already known and loved.” Such were the reasons this lady did adduce on this moot point.
One day while I was at the Court of Spain in Madrid, chatting with a very respectable lady, as is common at royal courts, she happened to ask me the following question: Qual era mayor fuego d’amor, el de la biuda, el de la casada, o de la hija moça—“which of the three had the greater intensity of love, widow, wife, or maiden?” After I shared my opinion, she in turn expressed hers in roughly these terms: Lo que me parece d’ esta cosa es que, aunque las moças con el hervor de la sangre, se disponen á querer mucho, no deve ser tanto como lo que quieren las casadas y biudas, con la gran experiencia del negocio. Esta razon debe ser natural, como lo seria la del que, por haver nacido ciego de la perfeccion de la luz, no puede cobdiciar de ella con tanto deseo como el que vio, y fue privado de la vista.—“What I think about this is that although maidens, with all their youthful passion, are very willing to love, they do not love as deeply as wives and widows, due to the latter’s substantial experience in these matters. This reasoning seems natural, just like someone born blind, who, having never seen the perfect light, cannot desire it as intensely as someone who has enjoyed it for a while and then lost it.” To which she immediately added this further observation: Con menos pena se abstiene d’ una cosa la persona que nunca supo, que aquella que vive enamorada del gusto pasado—“It’s easier for someone who has never experienced something to abstain from it than for someone who is in love with a pleasure they once knew.” Such were the reasons this lady provided on this debated topic.
Again the respected and learned Boccaccio, among the questions discussed in his Filicopo,[85*] doth in the ninth treat of this same problem: Which of these three, wife, widow or maid, a man should rather fall in love with, in order the more happily to carry his desire into effect? The author doth answer by the mouth of the Queen he doth there introduce speaking, that although ’tis of course very ill done and against God and one’s own conscience to covet a married woman, which is in no sense another’s, but subject to her husband, it is natheless far easier to come to the point with her than ever with maid or widow, albeit such love is dangerous,—seeing the more a man doth blow the fire, the more he rouseth it, whereas otherwise it dieth down. Indeed all things do wane in the using, except only wantonness, which doth rather wax. But the widow, which hath been long without such exercise, doth scarce feel it at all, and doth take no more account of love than if she had never been married, and is more heated by memory of the past than by present concupiscence. Also the maid, which hath no knowledge nor experience of what it is, save by imagination, hath but a lukewarm longing therefor. On the other hand[153] the married woman, heated more than the others, doth oft desire to come to the point and enjoy this pleasure, in spite of its sometimes bringing on her her husband’s sore displeasure manifested in words and eke blows. For all this, fain to be revenged on him (for naught is so vengeful as a woman), as well as for sake of the thing itself, doth the wife make him cuckold right out, and enjoy the desire of her heart. Beside, folk do soon weary of eating ever of the same meat, and for this cause even great Lords and Ladies do often leave good and delicate viands for to take others instead. Moreover, with girls, ’tis a matter of overmuch pains and consumption of time to tame them and bring them round to the will of men; nay! an if they do love, they know not that they do. But with widows, the old fire doth readily recover its vigour, very soon making them desire once more what by reason of long discontinuance they had forgot the savour of. Thus they be not slow to come back again to the old delights, only regretting the time wasted and the weary nights of widowhood passed all alone and uncomforted in their cold beds.
Once again, the esteemed and knowledgeable Boccaccio, among the topics discussed in his Filicopo,__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ addresses this same question in the ninth treatise: Which of these three—wife, widow, or maid—should a man fall in love with to fulfill his desires more happily? The author answers through the voice of the Queen he features, stating that while it is certainly wrong and against God and one's own conscience to desire a married woman, who technically belongs to her husband, it's still much easier to get close to her than to a maid or a widow. However, such love is risky, as the more a man feeds the fire of desire, the more it intensifies, whereas, otherwise, it dies down. Indeed, all things fade with use, except for lust, which only grows. As for the widow, who has been without such attentions for a long time, she hardly feels it at all and thinks about love as if she had never been married, being more stirred by memories of the past than by present desire. Meanwhile, the maid, who knows nothing of love except through her imagination, has only a tepid yearning for it. On the other hand, the married woman, more passionate than the others, frequently craves to experience such pleasures, despite the fact that it may provoke her husband’s anger, sometimes expressed with words and even blows. For all that, eager to take revenge on him (for nothing is as vengeful as a woman), and for the pleasure itself, the wife openly makes him a cuckold and enjoys what her heart desires. Moreover, people quickly tire of eating the same food, which is why even great Lords and Ladies often choose to set aside good and delicate dishes for something different. Furthermore, with young women, it requires too much effort and time to tame them and bring them around to the will of men; indeed, even if they do love, they might not realize it. But with widows, the old flame quickly rekindles, causing them to desire once again what they had long forgotten. Thus, they are not slow to return to old pleasures, only lamenting the time wasted and the lonely nights of widowhood spent in their cold beds.
In answer to these arguments of the Queen, a certain gentleman named Faramond doth make reply. Leaving married women aside altogether, as being so easy to get the better of without a man’s using any great reasoning to persuade them to it, he doth consider the case of maids and widows, maintaining the maid to be more steadfast in love than the widow. For the widow, who hath experienced in the past the secrets of passion, doth never love steadfastly, but always doubtfully and tentatively, quickly changing and desiring now one, now another gallant, never knowing to which she should give herself for[154] her greater advantage and honour! Nay! sometimes so vacillating is she in her long deliberations she doth choose never an one at all, and her amorous passion can find no steadfast hold whatever. Quite opposite is the maid, he saith, and all such doubts and hesitations be foreign to her. Her one desire is to have a lover true, and after once choosing him well, to give all her soul to him and please him in all things, deeming it the best honour she can do him to be true and steadfast in her love. So being only too ardent for the things which have never yet been seen, heard or proven of her, she doth long far more than other women which have had experience of life, to see, hear and prove all such matters. Thus the keen desire she hath to see new things doth strongly dominate her heart; she doth make enquiries of them that know,—which doth increase her flame yet more. Accordingly she is very eager to be joined with him she hath made Lord of her affections, whereas this same ardour is not in the widow, seeing she hath passed that way already.
In response to the Queen's arguments, a gentleman named Faramond replies. Setting aside married women, who can be easily persuaded without much effort, he focuses on the case of maids and widows, arguing that a maid is more loyal in love than a widow. The widow, having experienced passion before, never loves steadily but always with doubt and hesitation, quickly shifting her affections from one suitor to another, never sure of the best choice for her own advantage and honor. Sometimes, her indecision leads her to choose no one at all, leaving her love life without any firm attachment. In contrast, Faramond says the maid is free from such doubts and hesitations. Her sole desire is to have a true lover, and once she chooses well, she is all in, wanting to please him in every way, considering it her greatest honor to be loyal in her love. Driven by an intense yearning for things she's yet to see, hear, or experience, she longs much more than other women who have lived through life's trials to discover and embrace new experiences. This strong desire to explore new possibilities fills her heart; she asks those who know, which only fuels her passion more. As a result, she is eager to unite with the man she has chosen to be the Lord of her affections, unlike the widow, who lacks that same fervor since she has already traveled that path.
Well at the last the Queen in Boccaccio, taking up the word again and wishing to give a final answer to the question, doth thus conclude: That the widow is more painstaking of the pleasure of love an hundred fold than the virgin, seeing the latter is all for dearly guarding her precious virginity and maidenhead. Further, virgins be naturally timid, and above all in this matter, awkward and inept to find the sweet artifices and pretty complaisances required under divers circumstances in such encounters. But this is not so with the widow, who is already well practised, bold and ready in this art, having long ago bestowed and given away what the virgin doth make so much ado about giving. For this cause she hath[155] no fear of her person being looked at, or her virtue impugned by the discovery of any mark of lapse from honour; and in all respects she doth better know the secret ways for to arrive at her end. Beside all this, the maid doth dread this first assault of her virginity, which in many women is sometimes rather grievous and painful than soft and pleasant, whereas widows have no such fear, but do submit themselves very sweetly and gently, even when the assailant be of the roughest. Now this particular pleasure is quite different from many others, for with them a man is oft satisfied with the first experience and goeth lightly to others, whereas in this the longing to return once more to the same doth ever wax more and more. Accordingly the widow, which doth give least, but giveth it often, is an hundred times more liberal than the maid, when this last doth at length consent to abandon her most precious possession, to the which she doth direct a thousand thoughts and regrets. Wherefore, the Queen doth conclude, ’tis much better for a man to address himself to a widow than to a maid, as being far easier to gain over and corrupt.
At last, the Queen in Boccaccio, picking up the conversation again and wanting to give a final answer to the question, concludes: The widow is far more attentive to the pleasures of love than the virgin, since the latter is mostly focused on protecting her precious virginity. Moreover, virgins are naturally shy and often clumsy in navigating the sweet tricks and little niceties needed in various situations during such encounters. This isn't the case with the widow, who is already experienced, confident, and skilled in this art, having long ago given away what the virgin fusses so much about. Because of this, she isn't afraid of being looked at or of her virtue being questioned by any sign of a loss of honor; in every respect, she knows the secret ways to achieve her desires. In addition to all this, the maiden fears the initial encounter with her virginity, which can be quite painful for many women rather than gentle and pleasurable, while widows have no such worries but submit very sweetly and gently, even if their partner is rough. This particular pleasure is quite different from many others, as men often feel satisfied after the first experience and move on to others easily. However, in this case, the desire to return to the same experience only grows stronger. Thus, the widow, who gives less but does it often, is a hundred times more generous than the maiden, who, when she finally agrees to give up her most treasured possession, has a thousand thoughts and regrets about it. Therefore, the Queen concludes that it’s much better for a man to pursue a widow than a maiden, as it is much easier to win over and tempt.
[156]
[156]

ARTICLE I
OF THE LOVE OF MARRIED WOMEN
OF THE LOVE OF MARRIED WOMEN

Now to take and further consider these arguments of Boccaccio, and expand them somewhat, and discuss the same, according to the words I have heard spoke of many honourable gentlefolk, both men and women, on these matters,—as the result of ample knowledge and experience, I declare there can be no doubt that any man wishing quickly to have fruition of love, must address him to married ladies, an if he would avoid great trouble and much consumption of time; for, as Boccaccio saith, the more a fire is stirred, the more ardent doth it grow. And ’tis the married woman which doth grow so hot with her husband, that an if he be lacking in the wherewithal to extinguish the fire he doth give his wife, she must needs borrow of another man, or burn up alive. I did once know myself a lady of good birth, of a great and high family, which did one day tell her lover, and he did repeat the tale to me, how that of her natural disposition she was in no wise keen for this pleasure so much as folk would think (and God wot this is keen enough), and was ready and willing many a time to go without, were it not that her husband stirring her up, while yet he was not strong or capable enough to properly assuage her heat, he did make her so fierce and hot she was bound to resort for succour in this pass to her lover. Nay! very often not[157] getting satisfaction enough of him even, she would withdraw her alone, to her closet or her bed, and there in secrecy would cure her passion as best she might. Why! she declared, had it not been for very shame, she would have given herself to the first she met in a ballroom, in any alcove, or on the very steps, so tormented was she with this terrible feeling. Herein was she for all the world like the mares on the borders of Andalusia, which getting so hot and not finding their stallions there to leap them and so unable to have satisfaction, do set their natural opening against the wind blowing in these plains, which doth so enter in and assuageth their heat and getteth them with foal. Hence spring those steeds of such fleetness we see from those regions, as though keeping some of the fleetness and natural swiftness of the wind their sire. I ween there be husbands enough would be right glad if their wives could find such a wind as this, to refresh them and assuage their heat, without their having to resort to their lovers and give their poor mates most unbecoming horns for their heads.
Now to take and further consider Boccaccio's arguments, to expand on them a bit, and discuss them based on what I've heard from many respectable gentlemen and ladies about these issues—based on extensive knowledge and experience, I can say there’s no doubt that any man who wants to quickly enjoy love should go after married women if he wants to avoid a lot of trouble and wasted time. Because, as Boccaccio says, the more you stir a fire, the hotter it gets. And it’s the married woman who becomes so passionate with her husband that if he isn’t able to satisfy her, she must seek out another man or risk burning out completely. I once knew a well-born lady from a prominent family who, one day, told her lover—who later shared the story with me—that she wasn’t as eager for this pleasure as people might think (and believe me, she was eager enough) and was often ready to go without. But her husband would stir her desires, and since he wasn’t strong or capable enough to cool her passion, he made her so hot and bothered that she had to turn to her lover for relief. Often, even when she didn’t get enough satisfaction from him, she would isolate herself in her room or bed and try to handle her cravings as best as she could in secret. She admitted that if it weren’t for her own shame, she would have given in to the first person she saw at a dance, in any corner, or even on the stairs, so overwhelmed was she by this intense feeling. She was just like the mares in Andalusia, which, when they become so heated and can’t find their stallions, press their bodies against the wind in those plains, which helps cool them down and gets them pregnant. That’s how those swift horses from that region come about, seemingly inheriting some of the speed and natural swiftness of the wind that fathered them. I believe there are many husbands who would be quite happy if their wives could find such a wind to cool them down and satisfy their desires without needing to turn to their lovers and giving poor husbands unwanted horns to wear.
Truly a strange idiosyncrasy in a woman, the one I have just adduced,—not to burn, but when stirred of another. Yet need we be in no way astonished thereat, for as said a Spanish lady: Que quanto mas me quiero sacar de la braza, tanto mas mi marido me abraza en el brazero,—“The more I am for avoiding the embers, the more my husband doth burn me in my brazier.” And truly women may well be kindled that way, seeing how by mere words, by touching and embracing alone, even by alluring looks, they do readily allow themselves to be drawn to it, when they find opportunity, without a thought of the consideration they owe their husbands.
Truly a strange quirk in a woman, the one I just mentioned—not to desire it, but when tempted by someone else. But we need not be surprised by this, for as a Spanish woman said: Que quanto mas me quiero sacar de la braza, tanto mas mi marido me abraza en el brazero,—“The more I try to avoid the embers, the more my husband burns me in the brazier.” And indeed, women can easily be ignited in this way, as they often allow themselves to be drawn in by mere words, by touch and embraces alone, even by enticing looks, when the chance arises, without considering their loyalty to their husbands.
[158]
[158]
For, to tell the real truth, what doth most hinder every woman, wife or maid, from taking of this pleasure again and again is the dread they feel of having their belly swell, without eating beans,—an event married ladies do not fear a whit. For an if they do so swell, why! ’tis the poor husband that hath done it all, and getteth all the credit. And as for the laws of honour which do forbid them so to do, why! Boccaccio doth plainly say the most part of women do laugh at these, alleging for reason and justification: that Nature’s laws come first, which doth never aught in vain, and hath given them such excellent members to be used and set to work, and not to be left idle and unemployed. Nature neither forbiddeth the proper exercise of these nor imposeth disuse on these parts more than on any other; else would the spiders be building their webs there, as I have said in another place, unless they do find brushes meet to sweep them away withal. Beside, from keeping themselves unexercised do very oft spring sore complaints and even dangers to life,—and above all a choking of the womb, whereof so many women die as ’tis pitiful to see, and these right fair and honourable dames. All this for sake of this plaguey continence, whereof the best remedy, say the doctors, is just carnal connection, and especially with very vigorous and well provided husbands. They say further, at any rate some of our fair ones do, that this law of honour is only for them that love not and have got them no true and honourable lovers, in whom no doubt ’tis unbecoming and blameworthy to go sacrifice to the chastity of their body, as if they were no better than courtesans. But such as truly love, and have gotten them lovers well chosen and good, this law of honour doth in no wise forbid them to[159] help these to assuage the fires that burn them, and give them wherewithal to extinguish the same. This is verily and indeed for women to give life to the suppliant asking it, showing themselves gentle-hearted benefactresses, not savage and cruel tyrants.
Because, to be honest, what mostly prevents every woman, whether married or single, from enjoying this pleasure repeatedly is the fear of getting a swollen belly without even eating beans—something married women aren't worried about at all. If they do swell up, well, it's the poor husband who gets blamed and takes all the credit. And as for the codes of honor that discourage them from doing so, Boccaccio clearly says that most women laugh at these, arguing that the laws of nature take precedence, which never act in vain, and have given them such wonderful body parts to use and not leave idle. Nature doesn't forbid the proper use of these parts any more than it does for others; otherwise, spiders would be building their webs there, as I've mentioned before, unless they find proper tools to sweep them away. Furthermore, remaining inactive can often lead to painful issues and even life-threatening dangers—especially a choking of the womb, which causes many women to die, including those who are quite beautiful and respectable. All this is for the sake of this pesky chastity, when the best remedy, say the doctors, is sexual connection, particularly with strong and well-equipped husbands. They also say that, at least some of our lovely ladies believe, this code of honor is only for those who don’t love and haven’t found true and honorable lovers, for whom it’s certainly inappropriate and blameworthy to sacrifice their bodily chastity, as if they were nothing more than courtesans. But for those who truly love and have chosen well and good lovers, this code of honor in no way forbids them from helping these lovers to quench their burning desires, providing them with what they need to extinguish them. This is genuinely for women to give life to those who seek it, showing themselves to be kind-hearted benefactors, not cruel and savage tyrants.
This is what Renaldo said, whom I have spoke of in a former discourse, when telling of the poor afflicted Ginevra. As to this, I did once know a very honourable lady and a great one, whom her lover did one day find in her closet, translating that famous stanza of the said Renaldo beginning, Una donna deve dunque morire,—“A lady fair was like to die,” into French verse, as fair and fairly wrought, as ever I have seen,—for I did see the lines after. On his asking her what she had writ there, she replied: “See, a translation I have just made, which is at once mine own judgment by me delivered, and a sentence pronounced in your favour for to content you in that you desire,—and only the execution doth now remain;” and this last, the reading done, was promptly carried out. A better sentence i’faith than was ever given in the Bailey Court of the Paris Parliament![86] For of all the fine words and excellent arguments wherewith Ariosto hath adorned Renaldo’s speech, I do assure you the lady forgat never an one to translate and reproduce them all well and thoroughly, so as the translation was as meet as ever the original to stir the heart. Thus did she let her lover plainly understand she was ready enough to save his life, and not inexorable to his supplication, while he was no less apt to seize his opportunity.
This is what Renaldo said, whom I mentioned in a previous conversation when talking about the unfortunate Ginevra. At one point, I knew a very honorable and distinguished lady whose lover one day found her in her room, translating that famous line from Renaldo that starts with Una donna deve dunque morire—“A lady fair was like to die”—into French verse, crafted as beautifully as I have ever seen, since I did see the lines later. When he asked her what she had written, she replied, “Look, a translation I just made, which is both my own judgment expressed and a statement made in your favor to satisfy your desires,—and only the execution remains;” and this last part, once read, was quickly put into action. A better sentence, truly, than has ever been given in the Bailey Court of the Paris Parliament! __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ For of all the fine words and excellent arguments that Ariosto has embellished Renaldo’s speech with, I assure you the lady didn't forget a single one while translating and reproducing them all thoroughly, so that the translation was as fitting as the original to stir the heart. Thus, she made it clear to her lover that she was more than willing to save his life and not unyielding to his pleas, while he was equally eager to take his chance.
Why then shall a lady, when that Nature hath made her good and full of pity, not use freely the gifts given her, without ingratitude to the giver, and without resistance[160] and contradiction to her laws? This was the view of a fair lady I have heard speak of, which watching her husband one day walking up and down in a great hall, cannot refrain her from turning to her lover and saying, “Just look at our good man pacing there; has not he the true build of a cuckold? Surely I should have gone sore against dame Nature, seeing she had created him and destined him for this, an if I had contradicted her intent and given her the lie!”
Why then should a woman, when Nature has made her kind and compassionate, not use her gifts freely, without being ungrateful to the giver or going against her own nature?[160] This was the perspective of a lovely lady I once heard speak. One day, as she watched her husband pacing back and forth in a large hall, she couldn’t help but turn to her lover and say, “Just look at our good man walking there; doesn’t he have the perfect look of a cuckold? I would have been betraying Nature if I went against her by doubting her design in creating him for this purpose!”
I have heard speak of another lady, which did thus complain of her husband, which did treat her ill and was ever jealously spying on her, suspecting she was making him a set of horns: “Nay! he is too good,” she would cry to her lover; “he thinks his fire is a match for mine. Why! I do put his out in a turn of the hand, with four or five drops of water. But for mine, which hath a very different depth of furnace, I do need a flood. For we women be of our nature like dropsical folk or a sandy ditch, which the more water they swallow, the more they want.”
I’ve heard about another woman who complained about her husband. He treated her poorly and was always suspicious, thinking she was cheating on him: “No way! He’s too good,” she would tell her lover. “He thinks his fire can compete with mine. I can put his out with just four or five drops of water. But for my fire, which is fueled by a whole different kind of passion, I need a flood. We women are naturally like people with dropsy or a sandy ditch; the more water we take in, the thirstier we become.”
Another said yet better, how that a woman was like chickens, which do get the pip and die thereof, if they be stinted of water and have not enough to drink. A woman is the same, which doth breed the pip and oft die thereof, if they are not frequently given to drink; only ’tis something else than spring water it must have. Another fair lady was used to say she was like a good garden, which not content with the rain of heaven only, doth ask water of the gardener as well, to be made more fruitful thereby. Another would say she would fain resemble those good economists and excellent managers which do never give out all their property to be guided and a profit[161] earned to one agent alone, but do divide it among several hands. One alone could not properly suffice to get good value. After a similar fashion was she for managing herself, to make the best thereof and for herself to reap the highest enjoyment.
Another person said even better that a woman is like chickens, which can get sick and die if they don’t have enough water to drink. A woman is the same; she can suffer and often die if she isn’t given enough to drink frequently; but she needs something other than just spring water. Another lovely lady used to say she was like a good garden, which, not satisfied with just the rain from heaven, also asks the gardener for water to become more abundant. Another would say she wanted to be like those smart economists and excellent managers who never give all their resources to a single agent to handle and earn a profit for them alone, but instead divide it among several hands. One person alone couldn’t provide enough value. In a similar way, she managed herself to make the most of her situation and to enjoy it to the fullest.
I have heard of yet another lady which had a most ill-favoured lover, and a very handsome husband and of a good grace, the lady herself being likewise very well-looking. One of her chiefest lady friends and gossips remonstrating with her and asking why she did not choose a handsomer lover, “Know you not,” she said, “that to cultivate well a piece of land more than one labourer is wanted, and as a rule the best-looking and most dainty be not the most meet workers, but the most rustical and hardy?” Another lady I knew, which had a very ill-favoured husband and of a very evil grace, did choose a lover as foul as he; and when one of her friends did ask her the reason why, “’Tis the better,” quoth she, “to accustom me to mine husband’s ugliness.”
I’ve heard about another woman who had a really ugly lover and a very handsome husband who was quite charming, and the woman herself was also very attractive. One of her close friends and gossiping companions asked her why she didn’t choose a better-looking lover. She replied, “Don’t you know that to really take care of a piece of land, you need more than one worker, and usually, the prettiest and most delicate aren’t the best workers, but the most robust and hardy?” Another lady I knew had a very unattractive husband who was quite unpleasant, and she chose a lover just as ugly as he was. When one of her friends asked her why, she said, “It’s better to get used to my husband’s ugliness.”
Yet another lady, discoursing one day of love, as well her own as that of other fair ladies her companions, said: “An if women were alway chaste, why! they would never know but one side of life,”—herein basing on the doctrine of the Emperor Heliogabalus, who was used to declare, “that one half of a man’s life should be employed in virtues, and the other half in vices; else being always in one condition, either wholly good or wholly bad, one could never judge of the opposite side at all, which yet doth oft serve the better to attemper the first.” I have known great personages to approve this maxim, and especially where women were concerned. Again the wife of the Emperor Sigismund, who was called Barba,[87*] was used to[162] say that to be forever in one and the same condition of chastity was a fool woman’s part, and did much reprove her ladies, wives or maids, which did persist in this foolish opinion, and most surely for her own part did very thoroughly repudiate the same. For indeed all her pleasure lay but in feasts, dances, balls and love-makings, and much mockery was for any which did not the like, or which did fast to mortify the flesh, and were for following a quiet life. I leave you to imagine if it went not well at the Court of this Emperor and Empress,—I mean for all such, men and women, as take joy in love’s pleasures.
Yet another woman, discussing love one day—both her own and that of her fellow ladies—said, “If women were always chaste, they would never experience more than one side of life.” She was referencing the belief of Emperor Heliogabalus, who claimed, “One half of a man's life should be spent in virtues and the other half in vices; otherwise, if one is always in one state, either completely good or completely bad, one could never truly understand the opposite side, which often helps to balance the first.” I've seen important people agree with this idea, especially in relation to women. Furthermore, the wife of Emperor Sigismund, known as Barba, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, often said that being perpetually chaste was foolish, frequently criticizing other ladies—married or single—who held onto this outdated belief, and certainly she herself rejected it completely. Her enjoyment came solely from feasts, dances, balls, and romantic pursuits, and she mocked anyone who didn't participate or who chose to fast in a bid to discipline their desires and lead a quiet life. I’ll let you imagine how things went at the court of this Emperor and Empress—for everyone who finds joy in the pleasures of love.
I have heard speak of a very honourable lady and of good repute, which did fairly fall ill of the love which she bare her lover, yet did never consent to risk the matter, because of this same high law of honour so much insisted on and preached up of husbands. But seeing how day by day she was more and more consumed away and burned up, in such wise that in a twinkling she did behold herself wax dry, lean, and languishing, and from being aforetime fresh, plump and in good case, now all changed and altered, as her mirror informed her, she did at length cry: “Nay! how shall it be said of me that in the flower of mine age, and at the prompting of a mere frivolous point of honour and silly scruple making me overmuch keep in my natural fire, I did thus come to dry up and waste away, and grow old and ugly before my time, and lose all the bloom of my beauty, which did erst make me valued and preferred and loved. Instead of a fair lady of good flesh and bone I am become a skeleton, a very anatomy, enough to make folk banish me and jeer at me in any good company, a laughing-stock to all and sundry. No! I will save me from such a fate; I will use the remedies[163] I have in my power.” And herewith, what she said, she did, and contenting her own and her love’s desires, she soon gat back her flesh again and grew as fair as before,—without her husband’s ever suspecting the remedy she had used, but attributing the cure to the doctors, whom he did greatly honour and warmly thank for having so restored his wife to health for his better profit and enjoyment.
I’ve heard about a very respectable lady who became seriously lovesick for her partner, yet she never dared to act on it due to the strict rules of honor that husbands always emphasize. However, as the days went by, she wasted away more and more, watching herself go from fresh and healthy to dry, thin, and weak. Her reflection showed her the drastic change. Eventually, she exclaimed: “How can it be said that in the prime of my youth, I let a trivial point of honor and foolish doubts stop me from embracing my natural desires? Now, I’m drying up and aging before my time, losing the beauty that once made me valued and loved. Instead of being a beautiful woman, I’ve become a skeleton, just a figure that would make people shun me and mock me in any decent company, a joke for everyone. No! I refuse to accept such a fate; I will take the measures I can.” With that determination, she did what she planned, satisfying both her own desires and her lover’s, and soon regained her figure and beauty again—without her husband ever suspecting the real cause of her recovery, thinking instead that the doctors he respected and thanked were responsible for restoring her health for his benefit.
I have heard speak of another great lady, one of a merry humour and a pretty wit, to whom, being sick, her physician did one day declare how that she would never be well, unless she changed her habits. Hereupon she answered straight, “Well then! let us do it.” So the physician and she did take one with the other joy of heart and body. One day she said to him, “People all declare you do it for me; but there, ’tis all one, as I am so much better. And all ever I can, I will go on doing it,—as mine health doth depend on it.”
I’ve heard about another amazing woman, known for her cheerful nature and sharp wit, who, when she was sick, was told by her doctor that she would never get better unless she changed her habits. She immediately replied, “Well then! Let’s do it.” So, the doctor and she happily embraced the change together. One day, she told him, “Everyone says you do this for me; but honestly, it doesn’t matter, since I feel so much better. And as long as I can, I’ll keep doing it—my health depends on it.”
These two dames last spoke of were quite unlike that honourable lady of Pampeluna in Spain, whom I have already mentioned in a previous passage, and who is described in the Cent Nouvelles of the Queen of Navarre. This lady, being madly in love with M. d’Avannes, did think it better to hide her flame, and keep hid in her bosom the passion that was consuming her, and die thereof, than lose her honour. But by what I have heard sundry honourable lords and ladies say in discussing the matter, she was a fool for her pains, and little regardful of her soul’s salvation, seeing she did bring about her own death, it being in her power to avoid this extremity, and all for a trifle. For in very fact, as an old French proverb doth put it, “D’une herbe de pré tondue et d’un c... f...,[164] le dommage est bientôt rendu.” And what is it, when all is done? The business, once done, is like any other; what sign is there of it to men’s eyes? Doth the lady walk any the less upright? doth the world know aught? I mean of course when ’tis done in secret, with closed doors, and no man by to see. I would much like to know this, if many of the great ladies of mine own acquaintance, for ’tis with such love doth most take up abode (as this same lady of Pampeluna saith, ’tis at high portals that high winds do beat), if these do therefore cease to walk abroad with proudly lifted head, whether at this Court of France or elsewhere, and show them as unabashed as ever a Bradamant or Marfisa of them all. And pray, who would be so presumptuous as to ask them if they condescend to it? Even their husband (I tell you), the most of them at any rate, would never dare to charge them with it, so well do they understand the art of concealment and the keeping of a confident show and carriage. But an if these same husbands, any of them, do think to speak thereof and threaten them, or punish them with harsh words or deeds, why! they be undone; for then, even though before they had planned no ill against them, yet do they straightway plot revenge and give them back as good as they have gotten. For is there not an old proverb which saith, “When and so soon as a husband doth beat his wife, her body doth laugh for joy”? That is to say, it doth presently look for good times, knowing the natural bent of its mistress, who unable to avenge her wrongs by other weapons, will turn it to account as second and best ally, to pay her husband back with her lover’s help, no matter what watch and ward the poor man keep over her.
These two women I just mentioned were nothing like that honorable lady from Pampeluna in Spain, who I talked about earlier, and who is described in the Cent Nouvelles of the Queen of Navarre. This lady, madly in love with M. d’Avannes, thought it better to hide her feelings and keep the passion that was consuming her buried inside, even if it meant she would die from it, rather than lose her honor. But from what I’ve heard various honorable lords and ladies say when discussing this matter, she was foolish for her troubles and didn’t care much for her soul’s wellbeing, since she brought about her own death, having the power to avoid this fate, all for something trivial. For in reality, as an old French proverb goes, “D’une herbe de pré tondue et d’un c... f...,[164] le dommage est bientôt rendu.” And what does it matter, really? Once it’s done, it’s like anything else; what visible sign exists for others? Does the lady walk any less proudly? Does the world know anything at all? I mean, of course, when it’s done in secret, behind closed doors, with no one around to see. I would love to know if many of the high-born ladies I know—because it’s usually with such love that they get involved (as this same lady from Pampeluna says, it’s at grand entrances that strong winds blow)—if these ladies stop walking around with their heads held high, whether in this Court of France or elsewhere, looking as unapologetic as any Bradamant or Marfisa. And really, who would be bold enough to ask them if they indulge in it? Even their husbands (I’m telling you), most of them at least, wouldn’t dare confront them about it, as well as they know how to keep up the art of secrecy and maintain a confident demeanor. But if any of these husbands think they can bring it up, threatening them or using harsh words or actions, well! They’re done for; because then, even if they hadn’t planned any wrongdoing before, they immediately start plotting revenge and retaliate just as fiercely as they’ve been treated. After all, isn’t there an old saying that goes, “As soon as a husband hits his wife, her body laughs for joy”? Meaning that it immediately anticipates good times, knowing its mistress’s nature, who, unable to take revenge by other means, will use her body as her second and best ally to get back at her husband with the help of her lover, no matter how closely the poor man watches over her.
[165]
[165]
For verily, to attain their end, the most sovran means they have is to make their complaints to one another, or to their women and maids of the chamber, and so win these over to get them new lovers, if they have none, or an if they have, to convey these privily to places of assignation; and ’tis they which do mount guard that neither husband nor any other surprise them at it. Thus then do these ladies gain over their maids and women, bribing them with presents and good promises. In certain cases beside they do make agreement and composition with these, on the terms that of all the lover may give their lady mistress, the servant shall have the half or at least the third part thereof. But the worst is, very often the mistresses do deceive their servants, taking the whole for themselves, making excuse that their lover hath given them no more than so small a share as that they have not enough to spare aught for others. Thus do they hoax these poor wenches and serving maids, albeit they stand sentinel and keep good watch. This is a sore injustice; and I ween, were the case to be tried with proper arguments pleaded on this side and that, ’twould afford occasion for much merriment and shrewd debate. For ’tis verily theft, no less, so to filch their benefices and emoluments duly agreed upon. Other ladies there be however who do keep faithfully their promise and compact, and hold back naught, for to be the better served and loyally helped, herein copying those honest shop-keepers, who do render a just proportion of the gain and profit of the talent their master or partner hath entrusted them withal. And truly such dames do deserve to be right well served, seeing they be duly grateful for the trouble, and good watch and ward of their inferiors. And these last[166] do run many risks and perils,—as one I wot of, who keeping guard one day, the while her mistress was with her lover and having merry times, both the twain being right well occupied, was caught by the husband’s house-steward. The man did chide her bitterly for what she was at, saying ’twere more becoming for her had she been with her mistress than to be playing procuress like this and standing sentinel outside her door. ’Twas a foul trick she was playing her mistress’ husband, and he would go warn him. However the lady did win him over by means of another of her maids, of whom he was enamoured and who did promise him some favour at her mistress’ prayers; beside, she did make him a present, and he was at last appeased. Natheless she did never like him afterward, and kept a shrewd eye on his doings; finally spying an opportunity and taking it on the hop, she did get him dismissed by her husband.
For sure, to reach their goals, the most effective way they have is to share their complaints with each other or with their women and maids, winning them over to help them find new lovers if they don’t have any, or if they do have partners, to discreetly arrange meetings. They are the ones who stand guard to make sure neither the husband nor anyone else catches them at it. This is how these ladies win over their maids and women, bribing them with gifts and promises. In some cases, they even make deals with them, so that of everything the lover gives to their lady, the servant receives half or at least a third. However, the worst part is that often the mistresses cheat their servants, keeping everything for themselves and making excuses that their lover hasn't given them enough to share. Thus, they trick these poor girls, even though they stand watch diligently. This is a real injustice; and I believe, if we were to debate this properly, it would give rise to much laughter and clever discussion. For it is truly theft to take their agreed-upon benefits and rewards. There are, however, some ladies who keep their promises and do not hold back anything, to ensure they are well served and loyally assisted, resembling honest shopkeepers who provide a fair share of the profits from what their employer or partner has entrusted them with. And truly, such women deserve to be well served, as they are genuinely grateful for the efforts and good care from their subordinates. These last ones face many risks and dangers—like one I know of, who was standing watch one day while her mistress was with her lover, having a good time. Both of them were preoccupied when the husband’s steward caught her. He scolded her harshly for what she was doing, saying it would have been more fitting for her to be with her mistress than playing the go-between and guarding her door. It was a rotten trick she was pulling on her mistress’ husband, and he would go and inform him. However, the lady managed to win him over through another maid he was in love with, who promised him some affection at her mistress’ request; besides, she gave him a gift, and he eventually calmed down. Nevertheless, she never liked him afterward and kept a close watch on his actions; finally, she spotted an opportunity and took it, leading her husband to dismiss him.
I wot of a fair and honourable lady,[88*] which did take a serving maid of hers into great intimacy and high favour and friendship, even allowing her much intimacy, having trained her well for such intercourse. So free was she with her mistress that sometimes when she did see this lady’s husband longtime absent from his house, engaged either at Court or on some journey, oft would she gaze at her mistress as she was dressing her, (and she was one of the most beautiful and lovable women of her day), and presently remark: “Ah, me! is he not ill-starred, Madam, that husband of yours, to possess so fair a wife, and yet have to leave her thus all alone so long without ever setting eyes on her? Doth he not deserve you should cuckold him outright? You really ought; and if I were as handsome as you, I should do as much to mine husband,[167] if he tarried so much away.” I leave you to judge if the lady and mistress of this serving maid did find this a tasty nut to crack, especially finding as she did shoes all ready to her feet, whereof she did after make good use, freely employing so handy an instrument.
I know of a beautiful and honorable lady, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ who brought one of her serving maids into close friendship and high regard, allowing her much closeness after training her well for such a relationship. She was so familiar with her mistress that sometimes, when she noticed this lady’s husband was away for a long time, either at court or on some trip, she would often gaze at her mistress while she was getting ready (and she was one of the most beautiful and charming women of her time), and then say: “Oh, isn’t it unfortunate, Madam, that your husband has such a lovely wife, yet has to leave her alone for so long without ever seeing her? Doesn’t he deserve for you to be unfaithful? You really should; and if I were as pretty as you, I would do the same to my husband, if he stayed away for so long.” I’ll let you decide if the lady and mistress of this serving maid found this an intriguing suggestion, especially since she had shoes perfectly fitted for her, which she later made good use of, utilizing such a convenient means.
Again, there be ladies which do make use of their serving maids to help them hide their amours and prevent their husbands observing aught amiss, and do give them charge of their lovers, to keep and hold them as their own suitors, under this pretext to be able at any time to say, if the husbands do find them in their wives’ chambers, that they be there as paying court to such or such an one of their maids. So under this cloak hath the lady a most excellent means of playing her game, and the husband know naught at all about it. I knew a very great Prince indeed which did set him to pay court to a lady of the wardrobe to a great Princess, solely to find out the secret intrigues of her mistress, and so the better gain success in that quarter.
Once again, there are women who use their maids to help them hide their affairs and keep their husbands from noticing anything wrong. They assign their lovers to these maids, pretending that they're just suitors for the maids themselves. This way, if the husbands catch them in their wives' rooms, they can say they were there to court one of the maids. Under this cover, the lady has a perfect way to play her game, while the husband remains completely unaware. I knew a very powerful prince who actually paid attention to a lady-in-waiting of a great princess just to uncover the secret dealings of her mistress, hoping to succeed in that area.
I have seen plenty of these tricks played in my lifetime, though not altogether in the fashion followed by a certain honourable lady of the world I once knew, which was so fortunate as to be loved of three brave and gallant gentlemen, one after the other. These on quitting her, did presently after love and serve a very great lady, whereon she did very pleasantly and good-humouredly deliver herself to this effect. ’Twas she, she said, who had so trained and fashioned them by her excellent lessons, as that coming now into the service of the said great Princess, they were exceeding well formed and educated. To rise so high, she declared, ’twas very needful first to serve smaller folk, in order not to fail with greater; for to arrive at any supreme[168] degree of skill, a man must needs mount first by small and low degrees, as is seen in all arts and sciences.
I've seen a lot of these tricks throughout my life, but none quite like those of a certain honorable lady I once knew, who was lucky enough to be loved by three brave and chivalrous gentlemen, one after the other. After leaving her, these gentlemen quickly went on to love and serve a very important lady, which prompted her to humorously and good-naturedly comment. She said it was she who had trained and shaped them with her excellent lessons so that now, in the service of this great princess, they were exceptionally well-prepared and educated. To reach such heights, she asserted, it was essential to first serve those of lesser stature in order not to fail when it came to those of greater importance; for to achieve any high level of skill, one must first rise through the smaller and lower ranks, as is evident in all arts and sciences.
This did her great honour. Yet more deserving still was another I have heard tell of, which was in the train of a great lady. This lady was married, and being surprised by her husband in her chamber receiving a little paper note or billet doux from her lover, was right well succoured by her subordinate. For this last, cleverly intercepting the note, did swallow down the same at one gulp without making any bones about it and without the husband perceiving aught, who would have treated his wife very ill indeed, if he had once seen the inside. This was a very noble piece of service, and one the great lady was always grateful for.
This brought her a lot of respect. However, even more deserving was another story I've heard about, which involved a great lady. This lady was married and was caught by her husband in her room receiving a little paper note or love letter from her lover. Thankfully, her maid came to her aid. The maid quickly intercepted the note and swallowed it in one go without making a fuss and without the husband noticing anything. He would have really mistreated his wife if he had seen what was in the note. This was a very noble act, and the great lady was always thankful for it.
On the other hand I wot well of ladies which have found them in evil case for having overmuch trusted their serving maids, and others again for not having trusted them at all. I have heard speak of a fair and honourable lady, who had taken and chose out a gentleman, one of the bravest, most valiant and well accomplished of all France, to give the same pleasure and delight of herself. She would never trust any one of her women, and assignation being given in a friend’s house, it was concerted and arranged there should be but one bed in the chamber, her women all sleeping in the antechamber. As settled, so done. And as there was a cat’s-hole in the door, which they had not remembered or provided for till the moment, they bethought them to stop this with a thin board, to the end that if any pushed it down, it would make a rattle, which they would hear and could take measures accordingly. One of her women, suspecting a snake in the grass, and angry and hurt because her mistress had not confided[169] in her, whom she had ever made her chiefest confidante, and had given many proofs thereof, doth now make up her mind, so soon as her mistress was to bed, to keep a look out and listen at the door. She could hear quite well a low murmuring, yet was sure ’twas not the reading aloud her mistress had for some days indulged in in bed, with a candle, the better to dissemble what she was going to do. Just as she was on the tip-toe of curiosity, to know more, an excellent occasion did present itself most opportunely. For a kitten happening to come into the room, she and her companions take the animal and push it through the cat’s-hole into her mistress’ chamber, not of course without knocking down the board that kept it closed and making a clatter. At this the pair of lovers, sore startled, did suddenly sit up in bed, and saw by the light of their candle ’twas only a cat that had come in and knocked down the board. Wherefore without troubling more about it, they laid them down again, seeing ’twas now late and everybody presumably asleep, but never shut to again the cat’s-hole, leaving the same open for the cat to go out again by, as they did not care to have it shut up in their room all night long. Seizing so good an opportunity, the said waiting maid and her companions had a fine chance to see enough and to spare of their mistress’ doings. These they did after reveal to the husband, whence came death for the lover, and shame and disgrace for the lady.
On the other hand, I know of ladies who have found themselves in difficult situations because they either trusted their maids too much or not at all. I've heard about a beautiful and respectable lady who chose a gentleman, one of the bravest and most skilled in all of France, to enjoy her company. She refused to trust any of her women. When a meeting was arranged at a friend’s house, it was agreed that there would be only one bed in the room, with her women sleeping in the antechamber. As planned, that’s what happened. They hadn’t accounted for a cat flap in the door until the last moment, so they decided to cover it with a thin board. This way, if anyone pushed it open, it would make a noise that they could hear and respond to. One of her maids, suspicious and upset that her mistress hadn’t trusted her—despite being her most trusted confidante in the past—resolved to keep an eye on things and listen at the door once her mistress went to bed. She could clearly hear a low murmuring, but she was sure it wasn’t the reading her mistress had been indulging in for the past few days, using a candle to disguise her true intentions. Just as she was eager to know more, a perfect opportunity arose. A kitten wandered into the room, and she and her friends pushed the little animal through the cat flap into her mistress’ chamber, of course knocking down the board that was in place and making a noisy disturbance. Startled, the couple sat upright in bed and saw by candlelight that it was just a cat that had come in and knocked the board down. Without worrying about it any further, they laid back down, thinking it was late and everyone was likely asleep, but they didn’t bother to close the cat flap again, leaving it open for the cat to leave, not wanting it trapped in their room all night. Taking advantage of this moment, the maid and her friends had a great opportunity to see everything their mistress was doing. They later revealed this to the husband, resulting in the lover's death and the lady's shame and disgrace.
This is what doth come of despite and want of confidence shown folk, which be often just as productive of ill consequences as over-confidence. I have heard of a very great nobleman which was moved one time to take all his wife’s waiting-maids (and she was a well-born and very[170] fair lady), and have them tortured to make them confess all their misdeeds and the services they had rendered her in her amours. However his first intent was carried no further, to avoid too horrible a scandal. The first suggestion came from a lady whose name I will not give, who had a grudge against the said great lady. For the which God did punish her later.
This is what happens when people show contempt and a lack of confidence, which can often lead to negative outcomes just like being overconfident. I've heard of a very powerful nobleman who, at one point, was moved to take all of his wife's maids (and she was a well-bred and very[170] beautiful lady) and have them tortured to confess all their wrongdoings and the services they had provided her in her love affairs. However, he didn't go through with his initial plan to avoid a horrific scandal. The first idea came from a lady whose name I won't mention, who held a grudge against the noblewoman. For that, God punished her later.
[171]
[171]

ARTICLE II
OF THE LOVE OF MAIDS
OF MAIDS' LOVE
1.
1.

So now, following the order of Boccaccio, our guide in this discourse, I come next to maids. These, it must certainly be allowed, be of their nature exceeding timid at first beginning, and dare in no wise yield up what they hold so dear, spite of the constant persuasion and advice their fathers, mothers, kinsfolk and mistresses do give them, along with most moving threats. So it is that, though they should have all the good will thereto in the world, yet they do deny themselves all ever they can; beside they have ever before their eyes the terror lest their bodies do play them false and betray them, else would they try many a tasty morsel. Yet all have not this scrupulousness; for shutting their eyes to all reflection, some do rush boldly into it,—not indeed with head down, but rather thrown well back. Herein do they make a sore mistake, seeing how terrible is the scandal of a maid deflowered, and of a thousandfold more import than for married woman or widow. For a maid, this treasure of hers once lost, is made the object of endless scandal and abuse, is pointed at by all men, and doth lose many a good opportunity of marriage. For all this, I have[172] known not a few cases where some rough fellow or other hath been found, either willingly, or of sudden caprice, knowingly or unwittingly, on compulsion, to go throw himself into the breach, and marry them, as I have described elsewhere, all tarnished as they were, but right glad to get them churched after all.
So now, following the lead of Boccaccio, our guide in this discussion, I will next talk about young women. It must be acknowledged that they are typically very timid at the beginning and are reluctant to give up what they hold so dear, despite the constant persuasion and advice from their fathers, mothers, relatives, and guardians, along with very compelling threats. Thus, even if they genuinely want to, they deny themselves as much as they can; moreover, they constantly worry that their bodies might betray them, or else they would indulge in many delightful experiences. However, not everyone feels this way; some, ignoring all thoughts of caution, boldly jump into it—not with their heads down, but rather with their heads held high. In doing this, they make a serious mistake, considering how terrible it is for a young woman to lose her virginity, which comes with far more scandal than for a married woman or widow. Once a young woman loses this treasure, she becomes the target of endless gossip and criticism, is pointed at by men, and loses many good marriage opportunities. Despite all this, I have seen several instances where a rough man has willingly or impulsively, knowingly or not, been compelled to step in and marry them, as I have described elsewhere, all tarnished as they were, but ultimately happy to have them married at last.
Many such of either sex have I known in my day, and in especial one maid which did most shamefully let herself be got with child by a great Prince,[89*] and that without an attempt at hiding or dissembling her condition. On being discovered, all she said was this: “What was I to do? ’tis not my frailty you must blame, nor my lustfulness, but only my over heedlessness and lack of foresight. For an if I had been as clever and knowing as the most part of my companions, which have done just as ill as I, or even worse, but have had wit enough to cure their pregnancy or conceal their lying-in, I should not now be in this strait, nor had any known a word about it.” Her companions did for this word wish her mighty ill; and she was accordingly expelled the band by her mistress, albeit ’twas reported this same mistress had ordered her to yield to the wishes of the Prince, wishing to get an hold over him and win him to herself. For all this, however, the girl failed not some while after to make a good match and contract a rich marriage, and presently give birth to a noble offspring. Thus we see, an if the poor child had been as wily as her comrades and other girls, this luck had never been hers. And truly in my day I have seen mere girls as clever and expert in these matters as ever the oldest married woman, nay! going so far as to be most effective and experienced procuresses, and not content with their own satisfaction[173] only, to be after contriving the same delights for others to boot.
I’ve known many people of both genders in my time, especially one girl who shamefully got pregnant by a powerful Prince,__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ without even trying to hide or disguise her condition. When she was found out, all she said was, “What was I supposed to do? Don’t blame my weakness or my desire, but only my carelessness and lack of foresight. If I had been as clever and aware as most of my friends, who have done just as badly as I have, or even worse, but were smart enough to terminate their pregnancies or hide their situations, I wouldn’t be in this mess, and no one would even know about it.” Her friends wished her lots of bad luck for saying that; and she was kicked out of the group by her mistress, although it was rumored that her mistress had pushed her to submit to the Prince’s desires, hoping to gain influence over him and win him for herself. Still, the girl managed to arrange a solid marriage and quickly had a wealthy husband and gave birth to a noble child. So, we see, if the poor girl had been as sly as her friends and other girls, this fortune would have never been hers. Truly, in my time, I’ve seen young girls as clever and skillful in these matters as any older married woman, even going so far as to become proficient and experienced matchmakers, not just looking for their own pleasure but also creating the same experiences for others as well.[173]
’Twas a lady in waiting at the French Court which did invent and have performed that fine Comedy entitled the Paradis d’Amour (Paradise of Love) in the Salle de Bourbon with closed doors, at which performance were none but actors and actresses present, forming players and audience both together. Such as do know the story will know what I mean. The play had six characters, three male and three female. Of these one was a Prince, who had his fair one, a great lady, though not too great neither, yet did he love her dearly; the second was a Lord, who did intrigue with the great Lady, a lady very liberal of her favours; the third was a simple gentleman, who did carry on with the maid, whom he did marry later. For the gallant authoress was fain to see her own character represented on the stage no less than the rest! Indeed ’tis ever so with the author of a Comedy; he doth put himself in the play, or else in the prologue. And so did this one, and on my faith, girl as she was, did play the part as well as the married women, if not better. The fact is she had seen more of the world than just her own country, and as the Spaniards say rafinada en Secobia,—had had a Segovia polish or fining. This is a proverb in Spain, Segovia being where the best cloths are fined.
There was a lady in waiting at the French Court who created and had performed that fine comedy titled Paradise of Love in the Salle de Bourbon with closed doors, attended only by the actors and actresses, who made up both the cast and the audience. Those who know the story will understand what I mean. The play featured six characters: three men and three women. One was a Prince who loved his lady, a high-ranking woman, although not overly so; he adored her deeply. The second was a Lord who was involved with the great Lady, who was quite generous with her affections. The third was a simple gentleman who was with the maid and later married her. The talented author was eager to see her own character represented on stage just like the others! This is always the case with a comedy writer; they include themselves in the play or in the prologue. And so did she, and honestly, as young as she was, she performed the role as well as, if not better than, the married women. The truth is, she had experienced more of the world than just her homeland, and as the Spaniards say, rafinada en Secobia—she had a Segovia polish or refinement. This is a Spanish proverb, with Segovia known for producing the finest cloth.
I have heard tales told of many maids, who while serving their lady mistresses as Dariolettes, or confidantes, have been fain to taste and try the same dainties. Such ladies moreover be often slaves in their own women’s hands, from dread of their discovering them and publishing abroad their amours, as I have noted above. ’Twas[174] a lady in waiting who did one day tell me her opinion,—that ’twas a mighty piece of folly for maids to sacrifice their honour to their passions, and while some silly creatures were restrained therefrom by their scruples, for herself she would not deign to do it, the whole thing ending in mere shame and disgrace. On the other hand the trick of keeping one’s affair privy and secret made all right, and girls were mere fools and unfit for this wicked world which cannot help themselves and manage the thing quietly.
I've heard stories about many maids who, while serving their lady mistresses as Dariolettes or confidantes, couldn't resist sampling the same treats. These ladies often find themselves at the mercy of their own female counterparts, fearing that they will reveal their romantic escapades, as I mentioned earlier. One day, a lady-in-waiting shared her views with me, saying that it was incredibly foolish for maids to sacrifice their honor for their desires. While some naive girls held back due to their moral reservations, she would never lower herself to such things, as it only led to shame and disgrace. On the other hand, keeping one's affairs private and secret made everything fine, and girls were just foolish and unprepared for this wicked world if they couldn't handle things discreetly.
A Spanish lady, thinking her daughter was afraid of the violence of the first wedding night, went to her and began to encourage her and persuade her ’twas naught at all and she would feel no pain, adding that herself would be right glad to be in her place the better to show her how to bear it. To this the girl replied, Bezo las manos, señora madre, de tal merced, que bien la tomaré yo por mi,—“Much thanks, my lady mother, for your kind offer, but I will manage very well by myself.”
A Spanish woman, thinking her daughter was scared of the intensity of the first wedding night, approached her to offer encouragement and reassurance that it wouldn’t be anything at all and she wouldn’t feel any pain. She added that she would be happy to take her place to better show her how to handle it. To this, the girl replied, Bezo las manos, señora madre, de tal merced, que bien la tomaré yo por mi,—“Thank you very much, my lady mother, for your kind offer, but I’ll manage just fine on my own.”
I have heard a merry tale of a girl of very high birth, who had contrived to afford herself much pleasure in her life so far, and whom her family now spake of marrying in Spain. One of her most special and privy friends said one day to her, by way of jest, how surprised he was to find that she, which had so dearly loved the rising quarter, was now about to travel toward the setting or western, because Spain lies to the westward. To this the lady made answer, “Truly, I have heard mariners say, men that have travelled far, how that the navigation of the rising quarter is right pleasant and agreeable; and indeed myself have steered many a time thither by the compass I do alway carry on me. So I will take advantage[175] of this same instrument, when I am in the land of the setting sun, yet to hie away me straight to the rising.” Judicious commentators will find it easy enough to interpret the allegory and make a shrewd guess at what I point to. I leave you to judge by these words whether the damsel had invariably limited her reading to the “hours” of Our Lady, and none other.
I’ve heard a cheerful story about a girl from a noble family, who had managed to enjoy her life up until now, and her family was discussing marrying her off in Spain. One of her closest friends joked one day about how surprised he was that she, who had loved the east so much, was now heading toward the west, since Spain is to the west. She replied, “Honestly, I’ve heard sailors say that traveling to the east is really pleasant and enjoyable; in fact, I’ve navigated that way many times using the compass I always carry with me. So, I will use this same tool when I’m in the land of the setting sun, yet I’ll still make my way straight back to the east.” Insightful readers will find it easy to interpret the symbolism and guess what I’m hinting at. I leave it to you to decide from these words whether the young lady had strictly limited her reading to the “hours” of Our Lady and nothing else.
Another damsel I have heard of, and could give her name, who hearing of the wonders of the city of Venice, its singular beauties and the liberties there enjoyed of all, and especially of harlots and courtesans, did exclaim to one of her bosom friends, “I would to God we had despatched thither all our wealth by letter of credit, and were there arrived ourselves for to lead the gay and happy existence of its courtesans, a life none other can come near, even though we were Empresses of all the whole world!” Truly a good wish and an excellent! And in very deed I opine they that be fain of such a life could hardly dwell in a better spot.
I’ve heard of another young woman, and I could tell you her name, who, upon hearing about the wonders of the city of Venice—its unique beauty and the freedoms enjoyed by everyone, especially the prostitutes and courtesans—exclaimed to one of her closest friends, “I wish to God we could send all our money there by a letter of credit, and that we could arrive ourselves to live the joyful and carefree life of its courtesans, a life that nothing else can compare to, even if we were Empresses of the entire world!” Truly a great wish and an excellent one! I honestly think that those who desire such a life could hardly find a better place to be.
No less do I admire another wish, expressed by a lady of former days. She was questioning a poor slave escaped from the Turks as to the tortures and sufferings these did inflict on him and other unhappy Christian captives, who did tell her enough and to spare of cruelties so inflicted of every sort and kind. Presently she did ask him what they did to women. “Alas and alas! Madam,” said he, “they do it to them, and go on doing it, till they die.”—“Well! I would to God,” she cried, “I might die so, a martyr to the faith.”
I also admire another wish expressed by a lady from the past. She was asking a poor slave who had escaped from the Turks about the tortures and sufferings they inflicted on him and other unfortunate Christian captives, who told her enough about the cruelties of all kinds. Then she asked him what they did to women. “Alas! Madam,” he replied, “they do it to them and keep doing it until they die.” — “Well! I wish to God,” she exclaimed, “that I could die like that, a martyr to the faith.”
Three great Ladies, of whom one was a maid, being together one day, as I am told, did begin telling their wishes. One said, “I would fain have an apple-tree that[176] should bear every year as many golden apples as it doth common fruit.” The second, “I would have a meadow that should yield me jewels and precious stones as many as it doth flowers.” The third, which was a maid, “And I would choose a dovecote, whereof the openings should be worth as much to me as such and such a lady’s coop, such and such a great King’s favourite, whose name I will not speak; only I should like mine to be visited of more pigeons than is hers.”
Three great ladies, one of whom was a maid, were together one day, as I’ve heard, and they started sharing their wishes. One said, “I wish I had an apple tree that produced as many golden apples each year as it does regular fruit.” The second said, “I want a meadow that gives me as many jewels and precious stones as it does flowers.” The third, who was a maid, said, “And I would choose a dovecote, where the openings would be worth as much to me as that lady’s coop, or that famous favorite of a certain king, whose name I won’t mention; I just want mine to have more pigeons visiting than hers.”
These dames were of a different complexion from a certain Spanish lady, whose life is writ in the History of Spain, and who, one day when Alfonzo the Great, King of Aragon, made a state entry into Saragossa, threw herself on her knees before his Majesty to ask justice of him. The King signifying his willingness to hear her, she did ask to speak to him in private, and he did grant her this favour. Hereupon she laid a complaint against her husband, for that he would lie with her two and thirty times a month, by day no less than a-nights, in such wise that he gave her never a minute of rest or respite. So the King did send for the husband and learned of him ’twas true, the man deeming he could not be in the wrong seeing it was his own wife; then the King’s council being summoned to deliberate on the matter, his Majesty did issue decree and ordered that he should touch her but six times,—not without expressing his much marvel at the exceeding heat and puissance of the fellow, and the extraordinary coldness and continence of the wife, so opposite to the natural bent of other women (so saith the story), which be ever ready to clasp hands and beseech their husbands or other men to give them enough of it, and do make sore complaint[177] an if these do give to others what is their share by rights.
These women were quite different from a certain Spanish lady, whose story is written in the History of Spain. One day, when Alfonzo the Great, King of Aragon, made a formal entry into Saragossa, she fell to her knees before him to seek justice. The King indicated he was willing to listen, and she requested to speak to him privately, which he granted. She then lodged a complaint against her husband, stating that he wanted to be with her thirty-two times a month, both day and night, leaving her no time to rest. The King summoned the husband, who confirmed the claim, believing he was not in the wrong since she was his own wife. The King’s council was then called to discuss the issue, and his Majesty issued a decree stating the husband could only be with her six times, expressing his astonishment at the man's excessive desire and the unusual chastity of the wife, which was contrary to what is typical for most women (as the story goes), who are always eager to embrace their husbands or other men and often complain if they think these partners are sharing their affections with others instead of fulfilling their duties.
Very different from this last was another lady, a young girl of a good house, who the day after her wedding, recounting over to her companions her adventures in the night just done, “What!” cried she, “and is that all? For all I had heard some of you say, and other women, and men to boot, which do boast them so bold and gallant, and promise such mountains of wondrous deeds, why! o’ my faith, friends and comrades mine, the man (meaning her husband), that made himself out so hot a lover and valiant a wight, and so fine a runner at the ring, did run but four all counted,—as it were the regular three for the ring and one for the ladies.” We can but suppose, as she made such complaint of scanty measure, she would fain have had a round dozen to her share; but everyone is not like the Spanish gentleman of our last story.
Very different from the last lady was another young woman from a good family, who the day after her wedding, while sharing her experiences from the previous night with her friends, exclaimed, “What!” She cried, “Is that all? With everything I heard some of you say, and what other women and even men bragged about, promising incredible things, I can’t believe it! Oh my goodness, friends of mine, the man (referring to her husband), who portrayed himself as such a passionate lover and brave hero, and who boasted about being so skilled at running the ring, ended up running only four times in total—three for the ring and one for the ladies.” We can only assume that since she complained about the lack of excitement, she would have preferred a full dozen experiences to her name; but not everyone is like the Spanish gentleman from our last story.
This is how they do make mock of their husbands. So one, who when just wed on her first marriage night, did play the prude and was for obstinately resisting her husband. But he did bethink him to declare that, and if he had to take his big dagger, ’twould be another game altogether, and she would have something to cry out for; whereat the child, fearing the big weapon he did threaten her withal, did yield her instantly to his wishes. But next time, she was no longer afeared, and not content with the little one, did ask at first go off for the big one he had threatened her with the night before. To which the husband replied he had never a big one, and had said so but in jest; so she must e’en be satisfied with what little provision he had about him. Then she cried, “Nay! ’tis very ill done, so to make mock of poor, simple[178] maids!” I wot not whether we should call this damsel simple and ignorant, and not rather knowing and artful, as having tried the thing before. I do refer the question to the learned for decision.
This is how they tease their husbands. One woman, who on her first wedding night acted all prim and proper and stubbornly resisted her husband. But he remembered to say that if he had to use his big dagger, it would be a completely different situation, and then she would have a real reason to scream. Hearing about the big weapon he threatened her with, she quickly gave in to his wishes. The next time, though, she wasn’t scared anymore and, not satisfied with the little one, she immediately asked for the big one he had mentioned the night before. The husband replied that he didn’t have a big one and had only said that in jest, so she would have to make do with what little he had. Then she exclaimed, “No! It’s very unfair to make fun of poor, simple maids!” I don’t know if we should call this girl simple and ignorant, or rather clever and cunning, since she had been through it before. I leave the matter to the scholars to decide.
Bien plus estait simple une autre fille, laquelle s’estant plaincte à la justice que un gallant l’ayant prise par force, et lui enquis sur ce fait, il respondit: “Messieurs, je m’en rapporte à elle s’il est orai, et si elle i’a pris mon cas et l’a mis de sa main propre dans lie sien.—Ha! Messieurs, (dit la fille) il est bien orai cela, mais qu’il ne l’enst fait? Car, amprés qu’il m’ent couchée et trousée, il me mit sou cas roide et poinctu comme un baston contre la ventre, et m’en domisit de si grands coups que j’ens peur qu’il me le percast et m’y fist im trou. Dame! je lui pris ahers et le mis dans le tron qui estoit tout fait.” Si cette fille estoit simplette, on le contrefaisoit, j m’en rapporte.[90*]
Bien plus, il y avait une autre fille, qui s’est plainte à la justice qu’un homme l’avait agressée. Lorsqu'on lui a demandé ce qui s'était passé, il a répondu : “Messieurs, je laisse à elle le soin de dire si c’est vrai, et si elle a pris mon cas et l’a mis de sa propre main dans le sien. — Ah ! Messieurs, dit la fille, c’est bien vrai, mais qu’en est-il de l’acte ? Car, après qu’il m’a couchée et déshabillée, il m’a mis quelque chose d’aussi dur et pointu qu’un bâton contre le ventre, et il m’a donné de si grands coups que j’ai eu peur qu’il ne me blesse et ne me fasse un trou. Eh bien ! Je l’ai attrapé et l’ai mis là où ça devait être.” Si cette fille était naïve, elle a été moquee, j’en reste là. _A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0_
I will now tell a couple of stories of two married women, of as great a simplicity as the last,—or, if you prefer it so, of as great artfulness. The first was a very great lady of mine acquaintance, a very fine woman and much sought after for this reason. One day a very great Prince did make offers to her, pressing her right eagerly and promising her very fine and most advantageous conditions, rank and riches without end for herself and her husband, so much so that she did hearken at first and give a willing ear to such seductive temptations. However she would not right off consent, but in her simplicity as a new made wife, knowing naught of the wicked world, she did come and reveal the whole matter to her husband, asking his advice whether she should do it or[179] no. The husband firing up instantly, cried, “Never, never, by God! little wife; what are you talking about, what would you be at? ’Tis a foul deed, an irreparable stain on both of us!”—“But, Sir,” returned the lady, “we shall both be such grand folk, no one will have a word to say against us.” In a word the husband did refuse absolutely; but the lady, beginning presently to pluck up a spirit and understand the world, was loath to lose the chance, and did take her fling with the said Prince and others beside, quite forgetting her erstwhile simpleness. I have heard the story told by one which had it of the Prince in question. The lady too had confided it to him; and he had chid her, counselling her that in such affairs one should never consult the husband, who was of necessity a prejudiced party.
I’m going to share a couple of stories about two married women, both very straightforward—or, if you prefer, both very clever. The first one was a very important lady I knew, a beautiful woman who was highly sought after because of it. One day, a powerful Prince made her an offer, eagerly pushing for her to accept and promising her incredible benefits, status, and endless wealth for herself and her husband. She listened at first, tempted by such alluring offers. However, she didn’t immediately agree; in her innocence as a newlywed, knowing nothing of the harsh world, she went to her husband to discuss it, asking for his advice on whether she should accept or not. Her husband instantly got fired up and exclaimed, “Never, never, my dear! What are you talking about? This would be a vile act, a permanent stain on both of us!” The lady replied, “But, Sir, we would both be so important that no one would dare say anything against us.” Ultimately, the husband firmly refused; but the lady, starting to gain some confidence and understanding of the world, was reluctant to lose the opportunity and ended up pursuing her fling with that Prince and others, completely forgetting her earlier innocence. I’ve heard this tale from someone who got it straight from the Prince himself. The lady also shared it with him, and he had scolded her, advising that in such matters, one should never consult the husband, who is naturally biased.
Not less simple-minded, or very little, was another young married dame I have heard of, to whom one day an honourable gentleman did proffer his love, at the husband’s very elbow, who for the moment was holding discourse with another lady. The suitor did suddenly put son instrument entre les mains. Elle le prit et, le serrant fort étroitement et se tournant vers son mari, lui dit: “Mon mari, voyez le beau présent que me fait ce gentilhomme; le recevraije? dites-le-moi.” Le pauvre gentilhomme, étonné, retire à soi son épervier de si grande rudesse que, recontrant une pointe de diamant qu’elle avait au doigt, le lui esserta de telle façon d’un bout à l’autre qu’elle le crut perdre du tout, and suffered very great pain and even came in danger of his life. He rushed frantically from the room, watering all the place with his gore which flowed in torrents. The husband[180] made no ado about running after him to utter any recriminations on the matter; all he did was to burst out a-laughing heartily, at once at the simplicity of his poor little wife, and because the fellow was so soundly punished.
Not much less naive was another young married woman I've heard of, to whom one day a respected gentleman offered his love right next to her husband, who at that moment was talking to another lady. The suitor suddenly placed his instrument in her hands. She took it and, holding it tightly and turning toward her husband, said: "My husband, look at the beautiful gift this gentleman is giving me; should I accept it? Please tell me." The poor gentleman, surprised, pulled back his hawk with such force that it accidentally jabbed the diamond ring she had on her finger, hurting it so much that she feared she had lost it completely, and he suffered significant pain and even risked his life. He rushed out of the room in a panic, bleeding all over the place. The husband[180] didn’t bother to chase after him to complain; all he did was burst out laughing wholeheartedly, both at the foolishness of his poor little wife and because the guy got what he deserved.
Well! here is a village story I must needs tell, for ’tis not a bad one. A village wench, as they were leading her to church on her wedding-day to the sound of tabor and flute, and with much rustic ceremony, chancing to catch sight of her girlhood’s lover, did shout out these words to him, “Farewell, Pierre, farewell! I’ve got.... You’ll never give it me any more. My mother’s married me now,”—blurting the word right out. Her simplicity was no less admirable than the soft regret she showed for past days.
Well! Here’s a village story I have to share, because it’s a good one. A village girl, as they were leading her to church on her wedding day to the sound of drum and flute, with plenty of rural ceremony, happened to see her childhood sweetheart and shouted these words to him, “Goodbye, Pierre, goodbye! I’ve got… You’ll never give it to me again. My mother’s married me off now,”—she blurted that right out. Her innocence was as admirable as the gentle regret she felt for the days gone by.
One more, as we are on village tales. A pretty young girl took a load of wood to sell at the market town. Asked how much, she kept continually raising her price at each offer made her by the dealers. “You shall have so much,” they cried, “and something else into the bargain.”—“’Tis well said,” she cried, “and thank you! you’re the very man.”
One more, since we're on village stories. A pretty young girl took a load of wood to sell in the market town. When asked how much she wanted, she kept raising her price with every offer the dealers made. "We'll give you this much," they said, "and we'll throw in something extra." "That's a good offer," she replied, "and thank you! You're just the person I needed!"
Right simple-minded wenches these, and very different, they and their like, (for there be plenty such), from a whole host of others in this wicked world, which be far more double-dealing and knowing than these, never asking counsel of their husbands nor never showing them such presents as they may get.
Right simple-minded girls these, and very different, they and their kind (for there are plenty like them), from a whole bunch of others in this wicked world, who are much more deceitful and savvy than these, never asking for advice from their husbands nor ever sharing the gifts they might receive.
I heard an anecdote once in Spain of a young girl who the first night after her marriage, as her husband was struggling and sweating sore and hurting himself in his attempts, did set up a laugh and tell him, Señor, bien es[181] razon que seays martyr, pues que io soy virgen; mas pues que io tomo la paciencia, bien la podeys tomar,—“Sir, ’tis but right you should be a martyr, since I am a virgin; but as I am so patient, you must be patient too.” Thus in revenge of his making fun of his wife, did she make fine fun of him. And in good sooth many a girl hath good cause to make mock at such a time, especially when they have learned afore what it all is, or have been informed of others, or have themselves dreamed and pictured out this mighty moment of delight, which they do suppose so great and lasting.
I once heard a story in Spain about a young girl who, on the first night of her marriage, laughed at her husband as he struggled, sweating and hurting himself in his efforts. She said, “Sir, it’s only right you should be a martyr since I’m a virgin; but since I’m so patient, you must be patient too.” In response to his making fun of her, she turned the tables and made fun of him. Honestly, many girls have good reason to laugh at such a moment, especially when they already know what it entails, have heard about it from others, or have dreamed and imagined this grand moment of pleasure that they believe will be so great and lasting.[181]
Another Spanish bride, telling over next morning her husband’s merits, found several to praise, “only” she added, “que no era buen contador aritmetico, porque no sabia multiplicar,—that he was not a good arithmetician at all, for he couldn’t multiply.”
Another Spanish bride, recounting her husband’s qualities the next morning, found several to praise, “only,” she added, “that he wasn’t a good mathematician, because he didn’t know how to multiply.”
Another young maid of good birth and family (one myself have known and talked with), on her wedding night, when all the company were listening outside the door according to custom, and the husband had just given her the first embrace, and as he did rest a while, though not yet asleep, asked her if she would like some more of the same, “An if it please you, Sir!” she said. Imagine the gallant bridegroom’s astonishment at such an answer, and how he must have rubbed his ears.
Another young maid from a good family (whom I have known and spoken with), on her wedding night, when everyone was listening outside the door as per tradition, and her husband had just given her the first embrace, paused for a moment, even though he wasn’t asleep yet, and asked her if she wanted more of the same. “If it pleases you, Sir!” she replied. Just picture the gallant bridegroom’s shock at such a response and how he must have rubbed his ears in disbelief.
Maids which do say such tricky things so readily and so soon after marriage, may well rouse strange suspicions in their poor husbands’ breasts, and lead them to suppose they be not the first that have dropped anchor in their bay, nor will be the last so to do. For we cannot doubt, an if a man do not strive hard and nigh kill himself to work well his wife, she will soon bethink her of giving[182] him a pair of pretty horns, or as an old French proverb put it,
Maids who say such tricky things so easily and quickly after getting married can definitely raise odd suspicions in their poor husbands’ minds, making them think they aren't the first ones to explore their harbor and won’t be the last either. Because we can’t deny, if a man doesn’t work hard and almost exhaust himself to please his wife, she will soon consider giving[182] him a pair of pretty horns, or as an old French proverb puts it,
Yet when a woman doth get all ever she can out of a man, she doth knock him clean over, just doing him to death. ’Tis an old saying: A woman should not take of a lover all she would have, but must spare him what she can; not so with an husband, him she should drain to the very bones. And this is why, as the Spanish saw hath it, que el primero pensamiento de la muger, luego que es casada, es de embiudarse.—“A married woman’s first thought is to contrive to make herself a widow.” This saying is not universally true, as I do hope to show in another place; it doth only apply to some women, and not all.
Yet when a woman takes everything she can from a man, she completely overwhelms him, wearing him down to the point of exhaustion. There’s an old saying: A woman shouldn't take everything she desires from a lover but should leave him with something; however, with a husband, she should drain him to the very core. This is why, as the Spanish saying goes, que el primero pensamiento de la muger, luego que es casada, es de embiudarse. —“A married woman’s first thought is to plan how to become a widow.” This saying isn’t universally true, as I hope to demonstrate elsewhere; it applies only to some women, not all.
Some girls there be which, when no longer able to restrain themselves, be ready to give themselves only to Princes and great Lords, folk very meet to stir their passion, both by reason of their gracious condescension and the fine presents they make, as well as for love of their good looks and pretty ways, for indeed all is fine and point-device, though they may be silly coxcombs and no more, as myself have seen some. Other girls again do not seek after such at all, but do rather avoid them all they can, because they have something of a repute for being scandal-mongers, great boasters, indiscreet and garrulous. They do prefer instead simple gentlemen of prudent and discreet complexion, but alas! the number of such is very small. Happy she who doth meet with such an one! To avoid all these inconveniences, girls do[183] choose, (at least some do) their men-servants, some being handsome men, some not,—and I have myself known ladies which have acted so. Nor doth it take much urgency to persuade the fellows; for putting them to bed and getting them up as they do, undressing them, putting their foot-gear on and off, and even changing their shifts,—and I have seen many young girls at Court and elsewhere which did make no sort of difficulty or scruple about all this,—seeing so many pretty sights as they must, they cannot but feel temptation. And I ween some of their mistresses do of set purpose let them see their charms freely. The end can only be that, when the eyes have done their office, other senses be presently called in to execute theirs.
Some girls there are who, when they can no longer hold back, are ready to give themselves only to princes and high-ranking lords, people very likely to ignite their passion, both because of their gracious nature and the nice gifts they offer, as well as for their good looks and charming ways. Everything about them is appealing, even if they might be foolish braggarts, as I have seen some myself. Other girls, on the other hand, don’t seek this type at all; instead, they try to avoid them as much as possible because they have a reputation for being gossipers, boastful, indiscreet, and talkative. They prefer instead simple gentlemen with a sensible and discreet disposition, but sadly, such men are quite rare. Lucky is the girl who finds one! To steer clear of all these issues, some girls choose their own male servants, some being handsome and some not, and I have known ladies who have acted this way. It doesn’t take much effort to persuade the guys either; since they help them get to bed and wake them up, undress them, put their shoes on and off, and even change their shirts — and I’ve seen many young girls at court and elsewhere who didn’t hesitate about any of this. Being surrounded by so many attractive sights, they can't help but feel tempted. I suspect some of their mistresses intentionally let them see their charms freely. The outcome can only be that once their eyes have done their job, the other senses quickly follow suit.
I knew once a fair damsel of the great world, a beauty if ever there was one, which did make her man-servant share her with a great Prince, who kept her as his mistress and supposed he was the only happy possessor of her favours. But herein the valet marched step by step with him; and indeed she had made no ill choice, so handsome a man was he and of so fine a figure; indeed, no difference was to be noted. In fact the valet did have the advantage of the Prince in many beauties of person; and the latter knew never a word about the intimacy till he finally quitted the lady on his marriage. Nor did he for this treat the man any the worse, but was always glad to see him; and whenever he caught sight of him in passing, he would merely cry, “Is it possible now this fellow was my rival? Well, well! I can quite believe it, for barring my rank, he hath the better of me otherwise.” He bore the same name as the Prince, and was a most excellent tailor, one of the most famous at Court. There[184] was hardly a woman there, single or married, but he did dress them, when they were for exquisite costumes. I cannot tell whether he was used to dress them in the same fashion he dressed his mistress, but they were invariably well put on.
I once knew a beautiful woman from high society, a real beauty if there ever was one, who made her male servant share her with a wealthy prince. The prince kept her as his mistress and thought he was the only one enjoying her affections. But the servant was right there with him, and honestly, she hadn't made a bad choice; the servant was a handsome guy with a great figure, and you couldn’t really tell the difference. In fact, the servant had some advantages over the prince in terms of looks. The prince was completely unaware of their closeness until he ended things with her to get married. Even then, he didn’t treat the servant any worse; he was always happy to see him. Whenever he spotted him while passing by, he would just say, “Can you believe this guy was my rival? Well, well! I can totally see it because besides my title, he’s got the better looks.” He had the same name as the prince and was an excellent tailor, one of the most well-regarded at court. Almost every woman there, whether single or married, had him dress them up when they needed something exquisite. I can't say if he dressed them the same way he dressed his mistress, but they always looked great.
I knew once a young girl of a good house, which had a boy lackey of only fourteen, whom she had made her fool and plaything. Amid their plays and foolings, she did make no kind of difficulty whatever to let him kiss her, as privily as it had been only a woman,—and this very often before company, excusing it all by saying he was her pretty fool and little playmate. I wot not whether he went further, but I do know that afterward, as wife and widow, and wife once more, she was ever a most notable whore. Remember how she did kindle her match at this first fire, so that she did never after lack flame in any of her later and greater passions and escapades. I had tarried a good year before I saw this lady; but when I did behold her at home and with her mother, who had the repute of being one of the most accomplished of sham prudes of her day, laughing and making light of the whole thing, I did foresee in a moment how this little game would lead to a more serious one, and one played in downright earnest, and that the damsel would one day grow a very glutton at it, as was afterward the case.
I once knew a young girl from a good family who had a boy servant just fourteen years old, whom she made her fool and plaything. During their games and antics, she had no hesitation at all in letting him kiss her, as casually as if it were just another woman—she did this quite often in front of others, justifying it by saying he was her cute fool and little playmate. I don’t know if things went further, but I do know that later, as a wife, then a widow, and a wife again, she became a notorious promiscuous woman. Remember how she ignited her interest with that first spark, so she never lacked passion in her later and more intense affairs. I had waited a whole year before I finally saw this lady; but when I did, at home with her mother, who was known for being one of the most skilled pretenders of her time, laughing and making light of the situation, I could instantly see how this little game would lead to something much more serious, and one played with real intent, and that the girl would one day become completely addicted to it, which eventually turned out to be true.
I knew two sisters of a very good old family in Poitou, and both unmarried, of whom strange tales were told, and particularly with regard to a tall Basque footman of their father’s. This fellow, under pretext of his fine dancing, (for he could dance not only his native brawls, but all the other dances as well), would commonly take[185] them out to dance and teach them the steps and be partner to them. Later he did teach them the harlot’s reel, and they gat themselves finely talked about. Still they found no difficulty in getting husbands, for they were very wealthy folk; and this word wealth covereth up all defects, so as men will pick up anything, no matter how hot and scalding. I knew the said Basque afterward as a good soldier and brave man, and one that showed he had had some training. He was dismissed his place, to avoid scandal, and became a soldier in the Guard in M. d’Estrozze’s regiment.
I knew two sisters from a well-respected old family in Poitou, both of whom were single, and there were some odd stories about them, especially regarding a tall Basque footman who worked for their dad. This guy, under the guise of showcasing his excellent dancing skills (since he could perform not just his native brawls, but all kinds of dances), would often take them out to dance, teach them the steps, and be their partner. Eventually, he even taught them the provocative reel, and they became the talk of the town. Still, they had no trouble finding husbands because they came from a wealthy background; after all, wealth tends to overshadow any flaws, causing men to overlook anything, no matter how inappropriate. I later came to know that the Basque was a good soldier and a brave man with some training. He lost his job to avoid any scandal and enlisted as a soldier in M. d’Estrozze’s regiment.
I knew likewise another great house, and a noble, the lady mistress whereof did devote herself to bringing up young maids of birth in her household, amongst others sundry kinswomen of her husband’s. Now the lady being very sickly and a slave to doctors and apothecaries, there was always plenty of these to be found thereabouts. Moreover young girls be subject to frequent sicknesses, such as pallors, anæmia, fevers and the like, and it so happened two of them fell ill of a quartan ague, and were put under the charge of an apothecary to cure them. And he did dose them well with his usual drugs and medicines; but the best of all his remedies was this, that he did sleep with one of them,—the presumptuous villain, for he had to do with as fair and honourable a maid as any in France, and one a great King had been well content to enjoy; yet must Master Apothecary have his will of her.
I also knew another grand house, where the lady of the house dedicated herself to raising young women of noble birth in her home, along with various relatives of her husband. The lady was quite sickly and relied heavily on doctors and pharmacists, so there were always plenty of them around. Young girls often suffer from frequent illnesses, like pale skin, anemia, fevers, and the like, and it so happened that two of them got sick with a quartan fever and were put under the care of a pharmacist to treat them. He dosed them well with his usual drugs and medicines; however, the most shocking of his remedies was that he slept with one of them—the arrogant scoundrel. He had relations with a girl who was as beautiful and respectable as any in France, one whom a great King would have been pleased to be with; yet Master Pharmacist felt entitled to take advantage of her.
Myself knew the damsel, who did certainly deserve a better lover. She was married later, and given out for virgin,—and virgin she was found to be. Herein did she show her cunning to some purpose; for car, puisqu’elle[186] ne pouvait tenir son eau, elle s’adressa à celui qui donnait les antidotes pour engarder d’engrosser, car c’est ce que les filles craignent le plus: dont en cela il y en a de si experts qui leur donnent des drogues qui les engardent très bien d’engrosser; ou bien, si elles engrossent, leur font écouler leur grossesse so subtilement et si sagement que jamais on ne s’en aperçoit, et n’en sent-on rien que le vent.
I knew the girl, who definitely deserved a better lover. She got married later and was claimed to be a virgin — and she was found to be one. In this, she showed her cleverness for a good reason; for since she couldn't hold her water, she turned to the person who provided remedies to prevent pregnancy, because that’s what girls fear the most: there are some experts who give them potions that keep them from getting pregnant very effectively; or, if they do get pregnant, they can cause the pregnancy to end so subtly and wisely that no one notices, and you only feel a little gas.
Ainsi que j’en ai ouï parler d’une fille, laquelle avait été autrefois nourrie fille de la feue reine de Navarre Marguerite. Elle vint par cas fortunt, ou à engrosser sans qu’elle y pensât pourtant. Elle rencontra un rusé apothicaire, qui, lui ayant donné un breuvage, lui fit évader son fruit, qui avait déjà six mois, pièce par pièce, morceau par morceau, si aisément, qu’étant en ses affaires jamais elle n’en sentit ni mal ni douleur; et puis après se maria galamment, sans que le mari y connut aucune trace; car on leur donne des remèdes pour se faire paraître vierges et pucelles comme auparavant, ainsi que j’en ai allégué un au Discoups des Cocus. Et un que j’en ouï dire à un empirique ces jours passés, qu’il faut avoir des sangsues et les mettre à la nature, et faire par là tirer et sucer le sang: lesquelles sangsues, en suçant, laisent et engendrent de petites ampoules et fistules pleines de sang; si bien que le galant mari, qui vient le soir des noces les assaillir, leur crève ces ampoules d’où le sang sort, et lui et elle s’ensanglantent, qui est une grande joie à l’un et à l’autre; et par ainsi, l’honor della citella è salva. Je trouve ce remède plus souverain que l’autre, s’il est vrai; et s’ils ne sont bons tous deux, il y en a cent autres qui sont meilleurs, ainsi que le savent très bien ordonner, inventer et appliquer ces messieurs les médecins savants et experts apothicaires. Violà pourquoi[187] ces messieurs ont ordinairement de très belles et bonnes fortunes, car ils savent blesser et remédier, ainsi qui fit la lance de Pélias.
I heard about a girl who was once raised as the daughter of the late Queen of Navarre, Marguerite. She unexpectedly became pregnant and ran into a clever apothecary who, after giving her a potion, helped her deliver her baby, which was already six months along, piece by piece, so easily that she felt no pain or discomfort. Then she got married happily, and her husband was none the wiser because they have remedies that make them appear as virgins and maidens as before, just like I mentioned in the Survivor's Guide for Betrayed Partners. And I heard about another method from a quack recently, which involves using leeches and placing them on the body to draw and suck out blood. These leeches, while sucking, leave and create small blisters and sores filled with blood; so when the groom comes to his bride on their wedding night, he pops these blisters, causing blood to flow, and both of them get bloodied, which is a great joy for them both; thus, the honor of the bride is preserved. I find this remedy more effective than the other, if it’s true; and if neither are good, there are hundreds of others that are better, as these clever and skilled doctors and apothecaries know very well how to order, invent, and apply them. That’s why these gentlemen usually have very nice and good fortunes, because they know how to wound and heal, just as the lance of Pelias did.
Myself knew the Apothecary I spake of but now, as to whom I will add only one word more in passing,—how I saw him at Geneva the first time I did visit Italy, for at that time the common road for French travellers thither was by Switzerland and the Grisons, because of the wars then raging. He came to see me at my lodging. Of a sudden I did ask him what he was doing in that town, and whether he was there to medicine pretty girls, the same as he had done in France. He answered me he was there to repent of such misdoings. “What!” said I, “you have not such dainty bits to taste here as you had there?”—“Ah! Sir,” he replied, “’tis because God hath called me, and I am enlightened of his spirit, and I have now knowledge of his Holy Word.”—“Yes! yes!” I went on, “in those days too you were a pious Protestant, and did combine medicine for the body and for the soul, preaching to the girls and giving them some fine instruction.”—“But, my dear Sir, I do know my God better these days,” he returned again, “than then, and would fain sin no more.” I need not repeat much other discourse we had on this subject, both seriously and in jest; but the impudent scamp did certainly enjoy that pretty bit of flesh, more meet for some gallant gentleman than for such as he. It was as well for him he did quit that house pretty smartly; else had he fared ill. However, enough of this. Cursed be the fellow, for the hate and envy I do bear him,—as did M. de Ronsard to a physician which was used to come night and morning rather to see the poet’s mistress, and feel her breasts and bosom and[188] rounded arm, than to medicine her for the fever she had. He writ a very charming sonnet on the subject; ’tis in the second book of his Amours, and begins thus:
I knew the apothecary I just mentioned, and I want to add one quick thing—how I saw him in Geneva the first time I visited Italy. Back then, the usual route for French travelers was through Switzerland and the Grisons because of the ongoing wars. He came to visit me at my place. Suddenly, I asked him what he was doing in that town, and whether he was there to treat pretty girls, just like he had done in France. He told me he was there to repent for such wrongdoings. “What!” I said, “are there not as many lovely ladies to enjoy here as there were there?”—“Ah! Sir,” he replied, “it’s because God has called me, and I’ve been enlightened by His spirit, and I now understand His Holy Word.”—“Yes! yes!” I continued, “back then, you were also a devout Protestant, mixing medicine for the body with spiritual guidance, preaching to the girls and offering them some fine lessons.” He responded, “But, my dear Sir, I know my God much better now than I did then, and I don’t wish to sin anymore.” I don’t need to repeat all the other conversations we had on this topic, both serious and playful; still, that cheeky rascal certainly enjoyed that beautiful piece of flesh, more suited for some dashing gentleman than for someone like him. It was probably good for him that he left that place quickly; otherwise, he would have been in trouble. But enough of this. Curse the guy, for the hatred and envy I feel towards him—just like what M. de Ronsard felt for a physician who would rather come morning and night to see the poet’s mistress, touching her breasts and rounded arms, than to treat her for the fever she had. He wrote a really charming sonnet on the subject; it’s in the second book of his Amours, and it starts like this:
I do bear a like fierce jealousy against a physician which did similarly toward a fair and noble lady I was enamoured of,[91*] and from whom I never gat any such privileges and familiarities, though I had loved them better than the winning of a little kingdom. These gentry are for sure exceeding agreeable to dames and damsels, and do have fine adventures with them, an if they seek after such. I have known two physicians at Court, one M. Castellan, physician to the Queen Mother, the other the Seigneur Cabrian, physician to M. de Nevers, and who had held the same office with Ferdinand de Gonzague. Both have enjoyed successes with women, by all one hears, that the greatest noblemen at Court would have sold their souls to the devil for to have gone shares with them.
I have a strong jealousy towards a doctor who treated a beautiful and noble lady I was in love with, and from whom I never received any privileges or closeness, even though I would have valued them more than gaining a small kingdom. These people are definitely very appealing to ladies, and they have exciting experiences with them if they pursue such things. I have known two doctors at Court, one being M. Castellan, physician to the Queen Mother, and the other, Seigneur Cabrian, physician to M. de Nevers, who previously held the same position with Ferdinand de Gonzague. They've both had success with women, and I've heard that the greatest noblemen at Court would have sold their souls to have a part in their affairs.
We were discoursing one day, the late Baron de Vitaux and myself, with M. Le Grand, a famous physician of Paris, a man of agreeable manners and excellent counsel, he having come to visit the said Baron, who was ill of some amorous indiscretion. Both of us questioning him on sundry little ways and peculiarities of the ladies, he did entertain us finely, and told us a round dozen of tales that did verily take the prize. So engrossed did he grow[189] herewith, that, nine o’clock striking, he cried, getting up from the chair where he was seated: “Truly, I am a greater simpleton than you two, which have kept me here two good hours chattering with you rascals, and all the while I have been forgetting six or seven sick folk I am bound to go visit.” So with a word of farewell, he doth hie him away, though not without a further last word in reply to us, when we called after him: “Rascal yourself, Doctor! Oh! you doctors know some fine things and do ’em too, and you especially, for you talk like a past master of the art.” He answered us, looking down, “True enough, true enough! we both know and do some fine doings, for we do possess sundry secrets not open to all the world. But I’m an old man now, and have bid a long farewell to Venus and her boy. Nowadays I leave all this to you younger rascals.”
One day, the late Baron de Vitaux and I were talking with M. Le Grand, a well-known physician in Paris, a friendly guy with great advice, who had come to visit the Baron, who was unwell due to some romantic trouble. Both of us asked him about the various quirks and habits of women, and he entertained us wonderfully, sharing a full dozen of stories that were truly entertaining. He became so wrapped up in the conversation that, when the clock struck nine, he exclaimed, getting up from his chair: “Honestly, I’m more of a fool than both of you for spending two whole hours chatting with you rascals while completely forgetting about six or seven patients I need to see!” With a quick goodbye, he left, but not before responding to our call after him: “You rascal, Doctor! Oh, you doctors know some impressive things and actually do them too, especially you, since you talk like a real expert in the field.” He responded, looking down, “That’s true enough! We do know and we do some impressive things since we have certain secrets not known to everyone. But I'm getting old now, and I’ve said a long farewell to Venus and her little boy. Now I leave all this to you younger rascals.”
2.
2.
We read in the life of St. Louis, in the History of Paulus Aemilius, of a certain Marguerite, Countess of Flanders, sister of Jeanne, daughter of Baldwin I., Emperor of the Greeks, and his successor, seeing she had no children,—so says History. She was given in her early girlhood a teacher named Guillaume, a man esteemed of an holy life and who had already taken minor orders. Yet did this in no wise hinder him to get two children of his fair pupil, which were christened Baldwin and John, and all so privily as that few folk knew aught of the matter. The two boys were later declared legitimate by the Pope. What fine teaching, and what a teacher! So much for History.
We read in the life of St. Louis, in the History of Paulus Aemilius, about a certain Marguerite, Countess of Flanders, who was the sister of Jeanne, daughter of Baldwin I, Emperor of the Greeks. Since she had no children—so says History—she was given a teacher named Guillaume in her early girlhood, a man known for his holy life who had already taken minor orders. However, this did not stop him from having two children with his young student, who were named Baldwin and John, and it was kept so private that only a few people knew about it. The Pope later declared the two boys legitimate. What a remarkable education and what a teacher! That's History for you.
[190]
[190]
I knew a great Lady at Court which had the repute of being over familiar with her reader and teacher,—so much so indeed that one day Chicot, the King’s jester,[92*] did openly reproach her therewith in presence of his Majesty and many other personages of the Court, asking her if she were not ashamed to have herself loved (saying the word right out) of so ugly and base a loon as yonder fellow, and if she had not wit to choose a better man. The company hereon began to laugh uproariously and the lady to weep, supposing that the King had abetted the game; for strokes of the sort were quite in character with his usual play. Other very great ladies and high Princesses I have known, which every day would amuse themselves with making their Secretaries, whom I have likewise known, write, or rather pretend to write, and have fine games. Or if they did not call for them to write, having naught to say, then would they make them read aloud, for to give a better colour to the whole thing, declaring how reading themselves did weaken their sight.
I knew a great lady at court who was rumored to be too familiar with her reader and teacher—so much so that one day Chicot, the King’s jester, openly confronted her in front of his Majesty and many other court members, asking her if she was ashamed to be loved by such an ugly and base fool as that guy, and whether she didn’t have the sense to choose a better man. The crowd erupted in laughter while the lady began to cry, thinking that the King supported the mockery since that kind of teasing was typical of him. I’ve also known many other high-ranking ladies and princesses who would regularly entertain themselves by making their Secretaries, whom I also knew, write—or rather pretend to write—and have fun games. And if they didn’t call for them to write, having nothing to say, they would make them read aloud, claiming that reading themselves hurt their eyesight.
Great ladies which do make choice of suchlike paramours be quite inexcusable and most blameworthy, seeing they have their liberty of action, and full freedom and opportunity to choose whom they will. But poor girls which be abject slaves of father and mother, kinsfolk and guardians and mistresses, and timid to boot, are constrained to pick up any stone they can find for their purpose, never thinking whether it be cold or hot, roast or boiled. And so, according as occasion offer, they do generally resort to their men-servants, to their school-master and teacher, to fellows of the artist craft, lute-players, fiddlers, dancing masters, painters, in a word[191] their different instructors in knowledge and accomplishments, and even sometimes preachers of religion and holy monks, as Boccaccio doth describe and the Queen of Navarre in her Nouvelles. The like is done by pages, as myself have noted, lackeys, and especially stage-players, with whom I have known two maids of honour desperately in love and not scrupling to indulge the same. Poets too I have known in some cases to have debauched fair maids, wives and widows.
Great ladies who choose such lovers are completely inexcusable and very blameworthy, as they have the freedom to choose whoever they want. But poor girls, who are practically slaves to their parents, relatives, guardians, and mistresses, and are also timid, are forced to settle for whatever they can find, never considering whether it’s good or bad. So, when the opportunity arises, they generally turn to their male servants, their schoolmasters and teachers, craftsmen, lute players, violinists, dance instructors, painters—in short, their various mentors in skills and knowledge—and sometimes even religious preachers and holy monks, as Boccaccio describes and the Queen of Navarre in her Nouvelles. The same goes for pages, as I have observed, footmen, and especially actors, with whom I have seen two maids of honor fall desperately in love without hesitation. I have also known poets, in some cases, to have seduced young maidens, wives, and widows.
These do fondly love to be praised and worshipped, and with this bait are caught, as indeed by almost any they do find convenient and can attract to them. Lawyers again be very dangerous folk in these matters.
These people really love to be praised and admired, and they're easily caught by this flattery, just like by almost anyone they find suitable and can draw in. Lawyers can also be quite dangerous in these situations.
Now note why ’tis Boccaccio and other writers with him do find maids to be more constant in love and more steadfast than wives or widows. ’Tis because they do resemble persons afloat on a river in a sinking boat. They that cannot swim at all do spring at the first branches they can catch hold of, and do grasp these firmly and obstinately till they see help arrive. Others that can swim, do leap into the water and strike out boldly till they have reached the bank. Even so young maids, whenas they have gotten a lover, do hold and keep him steadfastly, the one they have first chose, and will in no wise let him go, but love him steadfastly. This cometh of the dread that, having no free choice and proper opportunity, they may not be able, an if they lose him, to get another such as they would wish. Whereas married women and widows, which do know the wiles of love and are well experienced, and have full liberty and all convenience to swim in all waters without danger, may choose what mate they please; and if they weary of one[192] lover or lose him, why! they can straight get another, or even take two. For with them ’tis ever a case of “one lost, two got back.”
Now notice why Boccaccio and other writers believe that young women are more faithful in love and more committed than wives or widows. It’s because they resemble people in a sinking boat on a river. Those who can’t swim at all will reach for the first branches they can grab onto and hold on tightly until help arrives. Others who can swim will jump into the water and confidently make their way to the shore. Similarly, when young women find a partner, they hold onto him tightly—the first one they choose—and won’t let him go, loving him faithfully. This is due to the fear that, without a genuine choice and proper chance, they won’t be able to find another like him if they lose him. In contrast, married women and widows, who know the tricks of love and have plenty of experience, as well as the freedom to explore different relationships without risk, can pick whoever they want; if they tire of one lover or lose him, they can easily find another or even take on two. For them, it’s always a case of “one lost, two gained.”
Beside, young girls have not the means, the money and crown-pieces, to win them new lovers every day; for all ever they can give their lovers is some small gift of a lock of hair, a little seed pearl or so, a bracelet, a small ring or a scarf, or other insignificant presents that cost almost naught. For high-born as a girl may be (I have seen it myself), and no matter of how great an house and how rich an heiress, she is kept so short of money, by father, mother, kinsfolk or guardians, as the case may be, that she simply hath not the means to give much to her lover, nor scarce ever to untie her purse widely,—unless it be her purse in front. Besides, girls be of themselves miserly, if for no other reason, yet because they be forced to it, having scarce any means of extravagance; for generosity in giving doth rest and depend above all on the ability to gratify it. On the contrary wives and widows can dispose of their wealth very freely, when they have any; and above all, when they have fancied a man, and be taken with passion and caprice for him, there is naught they will not sell and give away to the very shift on their back, rather than not have enjoyment of him. Herein they are just like gluttons and folk that be slaves of their mouths, who taking a fancy to a tid-bit, must have the same, no matter what it cost them at the market. Poor maids be in quite other case; whatsoever they can get, be it good or bad, this must they stop and buy.
Besides, young girls don’t have the means, the money, or the coins to attract new lovers every day; all they can offer their lovers is a small gift like a lock of hair, a tiny seed pearl, a bracelet, a little ring, or a scarf—other insignificant presents that hardly cost anything. No matter how high-born a girl may be (I've seen it myself), regardless of how great a family and how rich an heiress she is, she’s kept so short on cash by her father, mother, relatives, or guardians that she simply cannot afford to give much to her lover, nor can she hardly ever open her purse widely—unless it's her purse in front. Moreover, girls tend to be stingy, if for no other reason than because they have barely any means for extravagance; generosity in giving fundamentally relies on the ability to indulge it. In contrast, wives and widows can spend their wealth quite freely when they have any; especially when they take a liking to a man, filled with passion and whims for him, there’s nothing they won’t sell or give away, even to the last piece of clothing on their backs, rather than miss out on being with him. In this way, they are just like gluttons and those who are slaves to their appetites, who, when they crave a delicacy, must have it regardless of the cost. Poor maids are in an entirely different situation; whatever they can get, be it good or bad, they have to save up and buy.
I could bring forward a whole host of their intrigues, and their divers appetites and curious preferences. But I should never get me done at that rate; beside what[193] would such tales be worth, unless the subjects were given by name and surname. But this is a thing I will not do at any price, for I desire to bring shame on no woman; and I have made profession to avoid in this my book all evil-speaking whatsoever, so that none may have aught to reproach me with on the score of scandal-mongering. However to tell my tales, suppressing the names, in this can be no harm. I do leave my readers to guess the persons intended; and many a time they will suppose it to be one, though all the while ’tis quite another.
I could share a ton of their secrets, along with their different interests and unusual tastes. But if I went down that path, I’d never finish; plus, what would those stories even be worth if I didn’t name names? But I won’t do that at any cost because I don’t want to shame any woman; and I’ve committed to avoiding all gossip in this book, so that no one can accuse me of spreading scandal. However, telling my stories without revealing the names can’t hurt. I’ll let my readers figure out who I’m talking about; and many times they’ll think it’s one person, but it’s actually someone completely different.
3.
3.
Now just as we do see different sorts of wood of such different nature, that some will burn when quite green, as the ash and the beech, but others, be they as dry, old and well seasoned as you please, for instance the elm, the alder and others, do burn only as slowly and tediously as possible, while many others, following the general nature of all dry and old wood, do blaze up in their dryness and oldness so rapidly and suddenly ’tis rather a destroying and instant reducing to ashes than burning proper, so is the like true of women, whether maids, wives or widows. Some, so soon as ever they be come to the first greenness of their age, do burn so easily and well, you would say from their very mother’s womb they do draw thence an amorousness; as did the fair Laïs from her fair mother Tymandra, that most famous harlot, and an hundred thousand others which herein do take after the good whores their mothers. Nay! sometimes they do not so much as wait for the age of maturity, that may be put[194] at twelve or thirteen, to begin loving, but are at it sooner yet. This happened not twelve years agone at Paris to a pastry-cook’s child, which was discovered to be pregnant at nine years of age.[93] The girl being very sick with her pregnancy, and her father having taken a specimen of her urine to a physician, the latter said at once she had no other sickness but only that she was with child. “What!” cried the father; “Why, Sir! my daughter is only nine years old.” Who so astonished as the doctor? “’Tis all one,” said he; “of a surety, she is with child.” And after examining her more closely, he did indeed find her so. The child afterward confessing with whom she had had to do, her gallant was condemned to death by the judges, for having gone with her at so very tender an age. I much regret I have come to give this example and mention the thing here, seeing I had made up my mind not to sully my paper with suchlike mean folk, but to deal only with great and well-born persons.
Now just like we see different types of wood that have such varying characteristics—some burn easily even when they're fresh, like ash and beech—others, no matter how dry or well-seasoned, like elm and alder, burn slowly and laboriously. There are also many types of dry wood that catch fire quickly and fiercely, almost turning to ash instantly rather than burning in a typical way. The same is true for women, whether they are young girls, wives, or widows. Some, as soon as they reach the first bloom of their youth, ignite with such passion that it seems they inherit their desire directly from their mothers, like the beautiful Laïs from her mother Tymandra, that well-known courtesan, and countless others who follow in their mothers' footsteps. Some don’t even wait for the age of consent, which might be around twelve or thirteen, to start loving; they get involved even sooner. This happened just twelve years ago in Paris when a baker’s daughter was discovered to be pregnant at just nine years old. The girl was very sick due to her pregnancy, and when her father took a sample of her urine to a doctor, the doctor immediately diagnosed her, saying she wasn’t sick with anything other than being pregnant. “What?” shouted her father. “But, sir! My daughter is only nine!” The doctor was just as shocked, but replied, “It doesn’t matter; she is definitely pregnant.” After examining her more closely, he confirmed it. The girl later admitted who the father was, and her lover was sentenced to death by the judges for being with her at such a young age. I truly regret having to present this example and mention such a matter here, as I intended to focus solely on notable and noble individuals.
Herein I have somewhat gone wide of my purpose, but the story being so rare and uncommon, I must e’en be excused.
Here, I have strayed a bit from my main point, but since the story is so unique and unusual, I hope you'll forgive me.
This doth remind me of a tale of a brave and gallant Lord if ever there was one, since dead, which was one day making complaint of the amplitude of women’s affairs with whom he had had to do, as well maids as married ladies. He declared ’twould come to his having to look for mere children, just come from the cradle so to speak, so as not to find so wide a space of open sea as he had done with the rest, but get better pleasure by swimming in a narrow strait. An if he had addressed these words to a certain great and honourable dame I do know, she would[195] have made him the same answer she did to another gentleman of the great world, to whom, on his making a like complaint, she did retort thus: “I wot not which hath better cause of complaint, you men of our width and over amplitude, or we women of your tenuity and over smallness, or rather your tiny, tiny littleness; truly we have as much to lament in you as ever you in us.”
This reminds me of a story about a brave and noble lord, now deceased, who once complained about the wide range of women’s affairs he had encountered, both maids and married ladies. He stated that he might as well start looking for mere children, fresh from the cradle, to avoid such vast waters, and to find more pleasure by swimming in a narrower strait. If he had said this to a certain great and honorable lady I know, she would have responded the same way she did to another gentleman of high society, who complained similarly. She retorted, “I don't know who has more cause for complaint, you men with your width and excess, or we women with your thinness and smallness, or rather your tiny, tiny littleness; truly, we have just as much to lament in you as you do in us.”
The lady was right enough in what she said. Similarly another great lady, one day at Court looking curiously at the great bronze Hercules in the fountain at Fontainebleau, as she was a-walking with an honourable gentleman which did escort her, his hand beneath her arm, did complain that the said Hercules, albeit excellently well wrought and figured otherwise, was not so well proportioned in all his members as should be, forasmuch as his middle parts were far too small and out of proper measure, in no wise corresponding to his huge colossus of a body. The gentleman replied he did not agree with what she said, for ’twas to be supposed that in those days ladies were not so wide as at the present.
The lady was correct in her observations. Similarly, another distinguished lady, while walking at Court with a respectable gentleman who was accompanying her, his hand under her arm, expressed her thoughts on the impressive bronze Hercules in the fountain at Fontainebleau. She complained that although the statue was artistically crafted, it wasn’t proportioned well in some areas; specifically, that his midsection was far too small and out of proportion, not matching his massive colossus of a body. The gentleman responded that he disagreed with her assessment, suggesting that in those times, ladies were not as full-figured as they are today.
A very great lady and noble Princess[94] learning how that certain folk had given her name to a huge great culverin, did ask the reason why. Whereupon one present answered: “’Tis for this, Madam, because it hath a calibre greater and wider than all the rest.”
A very great and noble lady, Princess __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ learning that some people had named a massive cannon after her, asked why. One person present answered, “It’s because, Your Highness, it has a larger and wider caliber than all the others.”
Si est-ce pourtant qu’elles y ont trouvé assez de remède, et en trouvent tous les jours assez pour rendre leurs portes plus étroites, carrées et plus malaisées d’entrée; dont aucunes en usent, et d’autres non; mais nonobstant, quand le chemin y est bien battu et frayé souvent par continuelle habitation et fréquentation, ou passages d’enfants, les ouvertures de plusieurs en sont toujours plus grandes[196] et plus larges. Je me suis là un peu perdu et dévoyé; mais puisque ç’a été à propos il n’y a point de mal, et je retourne à mon chemin.
If they have found enough remedies there, and continue to find enough every day to make their doors narrower, squarer, and harder to enter; some use this, while others do not; but regardless, when the path is well-trodden and frequently used due to constant habitation and the passage of children, the openings of many are always larger and wider.[196] I got a little lost and sidetracked there; but since it was relevant, it’s no trouble, and I return to my path.
Many other young girls there be which let safely pass this early, tender, sappy time of life, waiting a greater maturity and dryness, whether because they be naturally cold at first beginning and start, or that they be kept close guarded, as is very needful with some. Others there be so steadfast, the winds and tempests of winter would avail naught to shake or stir them. Others again be so foolish and simple-minded, so raw and ignorant, as that they would not so much as hear the name of love. So have I heard of a woman which did affect the virtuous prude, that an if she did hear the word harlot mentioned, she would instantly faint. A friend telling this story to a certain great Lord in presence of his wife, the latter did exclaim: “She’d better not come here, that woman; for if she doth faint to hear speak of whores, she’ll die right out to see one.”
Many other young girls safely go through this early, tender, emotional time of life, waiting for greater maturity and stability, whether because they are naturally reserved at first or because they're kept closely guarded, which is very necessary for some. Others are so steady that the winds and storms of winter wouldn't shake or move them. Then there are those who are so naive and simple-minded, so inexperienced and clueless, that they wouldn’t even recognize the word love. I've heard of a woman who pretended to be very virtuous; if she heard the word harlot mentioned, she would instantly faint. A friend told this story to a certain powerful lord in front of his wife, and she exclaimed: “That woman better not come here; if she faints at the mention of whores, she’ll surely die if she sees one.”
On the other hand there be some girls which from the first moment they begin to feel they have a heart, grow so tame they will eat from the hand at once. Others be so devout and scrupulous, fearing so sore the commandments of the Lord our God, that they do quite neglect that of love. Yet have I seen many of these same devout patterers of prayers, these women that be forever a-kissing of images and all but living in churches, which did under this hypocritical veil cover and conceal the fire of their passions, to the end that by such false and feigned semblance the world might perceive never a trace of them, but deem them perfect prudes, or even half way to being saints like St. Catherine of Sienna, by the which professions[197] they have often succeeded in deceiving all mankind. Thus have I heard it related of a very great Princess, a Queen indeed, now dead, who when she was fain to make love to any man, (for she was exceeding given that way), would invariably begin her conversation with the love we do owe to God, and then suddenly bring it round to carnal love, and what she did want of her interlocutor, whereof she did before long come to the practice or quintessential part. This is how these devotees, or bigots rather, do cajole us men; such of us that is as be not well versed in wiles of the sort and know not life.
On the other hand, there are some girls who from the moment they realize they have a heart, become so gentle that they will take food from your hand right away. Others are so devout and careful, fearing the commandments of the Lord our God so much, that they completely ignore the commandment of love. Yet, I have seen many of these same devoted pray-ers, these women who are always kissing images and practically living in churches, hiding and concealing the fire of their passions under this hypocritical facade, so that by such false and feigned appearances, the world might see no trace of them, but think they are perfect prudes or even on the way to being saints like St. Catherine of Siena, with which pretenses[197] they have often succeeded in deceiving everyone. Thus, I have heard it told of a very great princess, a queen indeed, now deceased, who when she wanted to seduce any man (for she was extremely inclined that way), would always start her conversation with the love we owe to God, and then suddenly shift it to carnal love, and what she wanted from her conversation partner, from which she eventually moved on to the actual practice or essence of it. This is how these devotees, or rather bigots, manipulate us men; those of us who aren’t well-versed in such tricks and don’t understand life.
I have heard a tale, though I wot not if it be true. Anyway of late years, on occasion of a general procession at a certain city, was seen a woman, well born or not, bare-footed and in great contrition, playing the penitent with might and main,—and it was in Lent. Straight from there she hied her away to dine with her lover on a quarter of kid and a ham. The savour did penetrate to the street, and going up to her chamber, folk found her in the midst of this glorious feast. She was arrested and condemned to be led through the town with the joint on a spit over her shoulder and the ham hanging at her neck. Was not this a meet and proper punishment?
I've heard a story, though I don't know if it's true. Anyway, in recent years, during a public procession in a certain city, a woman—whether she was well-born or not—was seen barefoot and deeply remorseful, playing the part of a penitent with all her might—and it was during Lent. Right after that, she went off to have dinner with her lover, enjoying a quarter of kid and some ham. The smell wafted out into the street, and when people went up to her room, they found her in the middle of this lavish feast. She was arrested and sentenced to be paraded through the town with the joint on a spit over her shoulder and the ham hanging around her neck. Wasn't this a fitting punishment?
Other ladies there be so proud and haughty they do scorn heaven and earth in a way of speaking, and utterly snub and reject men and all their offers. But for such all that is need is to wait and have patience and perseverance, for with these and time you do surely subdue them and find them humble enough at last, for ’tis the property of highmindedness and pride, after much swelling and exaltation, presently to come down and bate its lofty claims. And with these same proud dames, I have seen[198] many instances where after scorning love and all that spake to them thereof, they have given in and loved like any others, or have even wedded husbands of mean estate and in no way their equals. Thus doth Love make mock of them and punish them for their hard-heartedness, taking especial delight in attacking them more than other folk, forasmuch as the victory is then a prouder one, as vanquishing pride.
Other women there are so proud and haughty that they look down on heaven and earth, and completely ignore and reject men and all their advances. But for such women, all that’s needed is to wait and have patience and perseverance, because with these and time, you can surely win them over and find them humble enough in the end. It’s the nature of high-mindedness and pride, after much boasting and elevation, to eventually come down and lessen its lofty claims. And with these same proud women, I have seen many instances where, after scornfully rejecting love and everything related to it, they have surrendered and loved just like anyone else, or even ended up marrying husbands of lower status and who are in no way their equals. Thus, Love makes a mockery of them and punishes them for their hard-heartedness, taking particular pleasure in targeting them more than others, because the victory is then all the sweeter, as it conquers pride.
I knew erstwhile a Court damsel, so proud and scornful that when some gallant man of the world would come to address her and speak of love, she would ever answer him so haughtily and with so great contempt, in words so fierce and arrogant (for she had a gift of speech as good as any), that presently they did cease altogether. But an if any did chance now and again still to try and vanquish her pride, ’twas a sight how she would snub them and send them packing with words and looks and scornful gestures; for she was very clever at this game. In the end Love did surprise and sore punish her, for she gave in to one which did get her with child some score of days only before her marriage; yet was this lover in no wise to be compared with many other honourable gentlemen which had aforetime been fain to be her suitors. Herein we can only say with Horace, sic placet Veneri, “such is Venus’ pleasure,”—for these be miracles.
I once knew a court lady, so proud and disdainful that when any charming man would come to speak with her and express his love, she would always respond with such haughtiness and contempt in fierce, arrogant words (for she had a talent for speech as good as anyone), that they would soon stop trying altogether. But if anyone happened to persist in trying to win her over, it was a sight to see how she would dismiss them and send them away with scornful words, looks, and gestures; she was very skilled at this game. In the end, Love caught her off guard and threw her a harsh lesson, as she yielded to someone who got her pregnant just a few days before her wedding; yet this lover could not be compared to the many honorable gentlemen who had previously wished to be her suitors. Here we can only say with Horace, sic placet Veneri, "such is Venus’ pleasure,"—for these are miracles.
’Twas my humour once while at Court to be lover to a fair and honorable damsel, accomplished and expert if ever woman was, and of a very good house, but proud and highhanded; and I was very much smit with her indeed. I did make up my mind to court her, but alway to deal with her in the same arrogant spirit she did use in her words and answers to me,—as the proverb saith,[199] “When Greek meets Greek.” Yet did she show no resentment for all this, for indeed, all the while I was treating her so cavalierly, I was used to praise her exceedingly, seeing there is naught doth more soften a woman’s heart than commendation whether of her beauty and charms or of her proud spirit, even declaring how that her port did much become her, forasmuch as she kept her from all common familiarity, and that any woman, damsel or dame, which did make her too common and familiar, not maintaining a haughty port and high repute, was not worthy to be so courted. For all which I did but respect her the more, and would never call her by any other name but my lady Disdain. Whereat she was so well pleased she did herself likewise choose to call me always Master Arrogance.
It was once my humor while at Court to be in love with a beautiful and honorable woman, talented and skilled, if any woman ever was, and from a very good family, but proud and assertive; and I was completely smitten with her. I decided to pursue her, but I always acted with the same arrogance she used in her words and responses to me, as the saying goes, [199] "When Greek meets Greek." Yet she showed no annoyance at all, because the whole time I was treating her so casually, I would praise her a lot, knowing that nothing softens a woman's heart more than compliments, whether about her beauty and charms or her proud demeanor. I even stated how much her poise suited her, as it kept her from being too familiar, and that any woman, maid or matron, who made herself too common and friendly, without maintaining a lofty presence and good reputation, did not deserve to be courted like that. Because of all this, I respected her even more and would never refer to her by any other name but my lady Disdain. She was so pleased by this that she herself chose to call me Master Arrogance from then on.
So ever continuing, I did court her long and faithfully; and I may boast me I had as large a share of her good graces as any great Lord at Court which did care to court her, or larger. However a chief favourite of the King, a brave and gallant gentleman without a doubt, did take her from me, and by favour of his King did win and marry her. Natheless, so long as she did live, the connection was ever kept up betwixt us, and I have always honoured her well. I know not an if I shall be blamed for having told this tale, for ’tis a common saying that all tales about a man’s self be bad. Anyway I have let it out this time; as indeed throughout my book I have related not a few stories of myself in divers relations, though I do generally suppress the name.
So as I continued, I pursued her for a long time and faithfully; and I can say I enjoyed her favor as much as any high-ranking Lord at Court who sought her, or even more. However, a close favorite of the King, a truly brave and impressive gentleman, took her from me, and with the King's influence, won and married her. Nevertheless, as long as she lived, we maintained our connection, and I always respected her. I’m not sure if I’ll be criticized for sharing this story, as it’s often said that all stories about oneself are not good. Still, I’ve shared it this time; in fact, throughout my book, I’ve recounted several stories about myself in different situations, although I usually leave out the names.
Other girls there be again of so merry a complexion and so lighthearted, so devoted to amusement and enjoyment, they never have another thought in their heads[200] but to laugh, and make sport and pastime, and never time to hear or dream of anything else but only their little amusements. I have known many such which had rather hear a fiddle play, or dance or leap or run, than hearken to any love discourse whatsoever; while other some do so adore the chase they should better be called servants of Diana than of Venus. I did once know a brave and valiant Lord, since dead, which fell so deep in love with a maid, and a great lady to boot, that he was like to die; “for whenas I am fain,” he used to say, “to declare my passion, she doth answer me never a word but about her dogs and her hunting. I would to heaven I were metamorphosed into a hunting-dog or greyhound, and my soul entered in their body, according to Pythagoras’ opinion, to the end she might give some heed to my love, and I be healed of my wound.” Yet afterward did he leave her, for he was not good lackey or huntsman enough to go everywhere a-following her about, wherever her lusty humours, her pleasures and amusements might lead her.
There are other girls who are so cheerful and carefree, completely focused on fun and enjoyment, that they never think about anything else except laughing and having a good time. I've known many like this who would rather listen to music, dance, jump, or run than engage in any talk about love. Some adore hunting so much that they would be better off as followers of Diana than of Venus. I once knew a brave and noble lord, now deceased, who fell so deeply in love with a maid, a lady of high status, that he was almost driven to despair. “Whenever I try to confess my feelings,” he would say, “she only talks about her dogs and hunting. I wish to heaven I could be turned into a hunting dog or a greyhound, and my soul be placed in their body, as Pythagoras believed, so that she might pay attention to my love and heal my heart.” But eventually, he left her, as he wasn’t quite the loyal follower or huntsman needed to chase after her wherever her lively interests and amusements led her.[200]
Yet must we note one fact. Maids of this sort, after leaving their chickenhood behind and outgrowing the pip, (as we say of poultry), having taken their fill of these childish amusements, do always come, at long last, to essay a woman’s pleasures too. Such young girls do resemble little wolf-cubs, which be so pretty, engaging and playful in their downy youth; yet being come to maturity, they do ever take to evil courses and ravening and killing. The sort of girls I am speaking of do ever the like, who after much sport and youthful merriment, after pleasures of all kinds, hunting, dancing, leaping, skipping and jigging, do always, I ween, indulge at last in dame Venus’ gentle sport. In a word, to put it briefly,[201] scarce ever a one of the sex is seen, maid, wife or widow, but sooner or later she and all her sisters do burn, in season or out of season,—as do all woods, excepting only one, yclept the larix, the which they do in no wise resemble.
Yet we must note one fact. Young women like this, after leaving their innocence behind and outgrowing childish things (as we say about young birds), having had their fill of these youthful amusements, eventually seek out the pleasures of adulthood. These young girls are like playful wolf-cubs, cute and charming in their fluffy youth; but once they mature, they often turn to reckless behavior and become wild. The type of girls I’m talking about are the same way; after a lot of fun and youthful joy, enjoying all sorts of activities—hunting, dancing, jumping, skipping, and partying—they inevitably indulge in the tender pleasures offered by Venus. In short, to summarize, hardly a single woman—whether a maiden, wife, or widow—can be found who, sooner or later, doesn’t burn with desire in season or out of season, just like all woods do, except for one, called the larix, which they do not resemble at all.[201]
Now this Larix is a wood which will never burn, and maketh neither fire, flame nor ash, as Julius Cæsar did find. On his return back from Gaul, he had ordered the inhabitants of Piedmont to furnish him vivers, and establish magazines on his main line of march. He was duly obeyed, except by the garrison of a castle called Larignum, whither had withdrawn certain ill-disposed rascals, recusants and rebels, the result being Cæsar had to turn back and besiege the place. Coming nigh the fortress, he saw its defences were only of wood, whereat he did straightway make mock, deeming they would immediately take the same. Wherefore he did give orders at once to collect large plenty of fagots and straw to set fire to the bulwarks, and soon was there so huge a conflagration and mass of flame that all hoped soon to see the ruin and destruction of the fort. But lo! whenas the fire was burned out and the flame disappeared, all were exceeding astonished, for they beheld the stronghold in the same state as before and quite unhurt, neither burned nor ruined one whit. This did compel Cæsar to resort to other means, mining to wit, which did at last bring those within to come to terms and render up the place. From this Cæsar did learn the virtues of this larix-wood, from the which the castle had its name of Larignum, because it was built and defended of the same.
Now, this Larix is a type of wood that never burns and creates no fire, flame, or ash, as Julius Caesar discovered. On his return from Gaul, he instructed the people of Piedmont to supply him with provisions and set up storage for his main route. They complied, except for the garrison of a castle called Larignum, where some troublemakers, dissenters, and rebels had gathered, leading to Caesar having to turn back and lay siege to the place. When he approached the fortress, he saw that its defenses were made only of wood, which he mocked, thinking they would easily fall. So, he ordered the collection of plenty of bundles and straw to set fire to the walls, and soon there was such a massive blaze and flames that everyone expected to see the fort destroyed. But when the fire was out and the flames disappeared, everyone was shocked to see the stronghold unchanged and completely unharmed, neither burned nor damaged at all. This prompted Caesar to use other methods, namely mining, which eventually forced those inside to negotiate and surrender the place. From this, Caesar learned about the properties of this larix wood, from which the castle took its name Larignum, since it was built and fortified with it.
I ween there be many fathers, mothers, kinsmen and husbands, that would dearly like their daughters and[202] wives should share the properties of this wood, that they should burn fiercely without its leaving mark or effect behind. They would have a far more unruffled mind and not so many suspicions a-buzzing in their heads, nor would there be so many whores on show nor cuckolds before the world. But ’tis not really desirable in any shape or form, for the world would be clean depopulated, and folk would live therein like blocks of stone, without pleasure or satisfaction. So many persons I wot of, of either sex, would say; and indeed Nature would be left imperfect, instead of very perfect as she is. Following her kindly lead as our best captain, we need never fear to lose the right path.
I think there are many fathers, mothers, relatives, and husbands who would really like their daughters and[202] wives to have the benefits of this wood, burning intensely without leaving any trace or impact behind. They would have much calmer minds, with fewer suspicions buzzing in their heads, and there wouldn’t be so many prostitutes on display or cuckolds in front of everyone. But that’s not really a good idea at all, because the world would be completely depopulated, and people would live there like lifeless stones, without joy or fulfillment. So many people I know, from both genders, would agree; and indeed, Nature would be left imperfect instead of wonderfully perfect as she is. By following her gentle guidance as our best leader, we need never fear losing our way.
[203]
[203]

ARTICLE III
OF THE LOVE OF WIDOWS
WIDOWS' LOVE
1.
1.

Well! enough said of maids; ’tis but right we now proceed to speak of widows in their turn.
Alright! that’s enough about maids; it’s only fair that we now move on to talk about widows.
The love of widows is good, easy and advantageous, seeing they be in full liberty of action, and in no sense slaves of fathers, mothers, brothers, kinsmen and husbands, nor yet of any legal bar, a still more important point. A man may make love and lie with a widow as much as ever he please, he is liable to no penalty, as he is with maids or married women. In fact the Romans, which people hath given us the most of the laws we have, did never make this act punishable, either in person or property. I have this from a great lawyer, who did cite Papinian for confirmation of the point, that great Roman jurisconsult, who treating of adultery declares; if occasionally under this term adultery hath been inadvertently included lawless intercourse with maid or widow, ’tis a misuse of words. In another passage the same authority saith: the heir hath no right of reproach or concern with the character of the deceased man’s widow, except only if the deceased had in his lifetime brought action against his wife on this ground; then could the said heir take up and carry on the prosecution,[204] but not otherwise. And as a fact in all the whole of Roman law is no penalty ordained for the widow, except only for one that did marry again within the year of her mourning, or who without re-marrying had borne a child subsequently to the eleventh month of her first year of widowhood, this first year being deemed sacred to the honour of her former husband. There was likewise a law made by Heliogabalus, that no widow must marry again for one year after the death of her husband, to the end she might have due leisure to bewail his loss and deliberate carefully on the choice of a successor. A truly paternal law, and an excellent reason i’ faith! As for a widow’s original dowry, the heir could not in any case rob her thereof, even though she should have given her person to every possible form of naughtiness. And for this my authority did allege a very good reason; for the heir having no other thought but only the property, if once a door were opened to him to accuse the widow in hope of making her forfeit this and so rob her of her dowry, she would be exposed at once to every calumny his malignity could invent. So there would be never a widow, no matter how virtuous and unoffending, could safeguard her from slanderous actions on the part of enterprising heirs.
The love of widows is good, easy, and beneficial, since they have complete freedom of choice and are not in any way controlled by fathers, mothers, brothers, relatives, or husbands, nor by any legal restrictions, which is even more crucial. A man can pursue and sleep with a widow as much as he wants without facing any penalties, unlike with maids or married women. In fact, the Romans, who have provided us with most of our laws, never made this act punishable, whether in person or property. I got this from a respected lawyer who cited Papinian to support the point, that esteemed Roman legal expert, who when discussing adultery states that if occasionally the term adultery has mistakenly included unlawful relations with a maid or widow, it is a misuse of the term. In another passage, the same authority says that an heir has no right to criticize or interfere with the character of the deceased man’s widow, unless the deceased had taken legal action against his wife for this reason in his lifetime; only then could the heir pursue the case, but not otherwise. And in fact, in all of Roman law, there is no penalty imposed on the widow except for one who remarries within the year of mourning, or who, without remarrying, bears a child after the eleventh month of her first year of widowhood, with the first year being deemed sacred in honor of her late husband. There was also a law made by Heliogabalus stating that no widow could remarry for one year after her husband's death, so she would have proper time to mourn his loss and carefully consider the choice of a new partner. A truly compassionate law and a remarkable reason indeed! Regarding a widow’s original dowry, the heir could never deny her this right, even if she engaged in every kind of immoral act. My authority provided a solid reason for this; if the heir could accuse the widow in hopes of making her lose her dowry, she would be subject to every accusation his malice could conjure. Thus, no widow, regardless of how virtuous or innocent, could protect herself from slanderous actions by ambitious heirs.[204]
All this would seem to show, I think, that the Roman ladies did have good opportunities and occasion for self-indulgence. No need then to be astonished if one of them, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, (as is found writ in that Emperor’s life), as she was walking in her husband’s funeral procession, and in the midst of all her cries, sobs, sighs, tears and lamentations, did so strictly press the hand of the gentleman which was her escort, as to surely signify thereby her willingness for another taste of love[205] and marriage. Accordingly at the end of a year,—for he could not marry her before, without a special dispensation, as was done for Pompey whenas he did wed Cæsar’s daughter, but this was scarce ever given but to the greatest personages,—he did marry the lady, having meantime enjoyed some dainty foretastes, and picked many an early loaf out of the batch, as the saying goes. Mighty fain was this good lady to lose naught by procrastination, but take her measures in good time; yet for all this, she did lose never a doit of her property and original dowry.
All this seems to show that Roman women had plenty of chances to indulge themselves. So it shouldn't be surprising if one of them, during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (as noted in that Emperor’s biography), was walking in her husband’s funeral procession, and amidst all her cries, sobs, sighs, tears, and lamentations, tightly grasped the hand of the man who was escorting her, clearly indicating her willingness for another romantic relationship and marriage. After a year—since he couldn’t marry her sooner without a special permission, which was rare and usually only granted to the most prominent figures, like when Pompey married Caesar’s daughter—he eventually married her, having enjoyed some delightful moments together beforehand, and had taken many early opportunities, as the saying goes. This determined lady was eager not to lose anything by delaying, but she made her moves in good time; yet despite all this, she never lost a single penny of her property and original dowry.[205]
Thus fortunate were Roman widows,—as are still in the main their French sisters, which for giving heart and fair body satisfaction, do lose naught of their rights; albeit several cases hereanent have been pleaded before our parliaments. Thus I wot of a great and wealthy French Lord, which did carry on a long process against his sister-in-law concerning her dowry, charging her that her life had been lascivious and with another crime of a less gay sort to boot. Natheless did she win her case; and the brother-in-law was obliged to dower her handsomely and give her all that did belong to her. Yet was the governance of her son and daughter taken from her, seeing she had married again. This the judges and noble councillors of the parliaments do look to, forbidding widows that re-marry to have guardianship of their children. In spite of this I do know of widows which within the last few years have successfully asserted their rights, though re-married, over their daughters being under age, against their brothers-in-law and other kinsmen; but then they were greatly helped by the influence of the Prince which was their protector. Indeed there is never a law a fine motte cannot traverse. Of these subjects I do now[206] refrain me from speaking more, seeing ’tis not my trade; so thinking to say something mighty clever, ’tis very like I may say what is quite from the point. I do refer me to our great men of the law.
Thus fortunate were Roman widows,—as are still mostly their French counterparts, who, in seeking love and physical satisfaction, do not lose any of their rights; although several cases regarding this have been brought before our parliaments. I recall a wealthy French lord who engaged in a lengthy legal battle against his sister-in-law over her dowry, accusing her of living a promiscuous life and committing another less appealing offense. Nevertheless, she won her case, and her brother-in-law was forced to provide her with a generous settlement and give her everything that belonged to her. However, her rights to raise her son and daughter were taken away, as she had remarried. The judges and noble counselors of the parliaments enforce this, prohibiting widows who remarry from having custody of their children. Despite this, I know of widows in recent years who have successfully claimed their rights concerning their underage daughters in disputes against their brothers-in-law and other relatives after remarrying; they were greatly assisted by the influence of the prince who was their protector. Indeed, there is no law that a good argument cannot overcome. On these subjects, I will refrain from speaking further, as it is not my area of expertise; thinking I might share something truly insightful, I may instead stray off topic. I leave it to our esteemed legal experts.
Now of our widows some be alway glad to try marriage once again and run its risks, like mariners that twice, thrice and four times saved from shipwreck do again and again go back to the sea, and as married women do, which in the pains of motherhood do swear and protest they will never, never go back to it again, and no man shall ever be aught to them, yet no sooner be they sound and clean again, but they take to the same old dance once more. So a Spanish lady, being in her pangs, had a candle lighted in honour of Our Lady of Mont-Sarrat, who much succours women in child-birth. Yet did she fail not to have sore pain and swear right earnestly she would never go back to it any more. She was no sooner delivered but turning to her woman who held the candle still alight, she said, Serra esto cabillo de candela para otra vez, “Put away that bit of candle for another time.”
Now, some of our widows are always eager to try marriage again and face the risks, much like sailors who, after being saved from shipwreck multiple times, keep going back to the sea. Just like married women who, during the struggles of motherhood, swear they will never, ever go through it again, claiming no man will ever mean anything to them, yet as soon as they are healthy and back to normal, they jump back into the same routine. For instance, a Spanish woman, in her labor pains, had a candle lit in honor of Our Lady of Mont-Serrat, who helps women during childbirth. Yet, she still experienced intense pain and swore earnestly that she would never go through it again. No sooner was she delivered than she turned to her woman holding the still-lit candle and said, Serra esto cabillo de candela para otra vez, “Put away that bit of candle for another time.”
Other ladies do prefer not to marry; and of these are always some, and always have been, which coming to be widows in the flower of their age, be content to stay so. Ourselves have seen the Queen Mother, which did become a widow at the age of seven or eight and thirty years, and did ever after keep that state; and fair, pleasant and agreeable as she was, did never so much as think of any man to be her second husband. No doubt it may be said on the other side,—Whom could she have wedded suitable to her lofty estate and comparable with the great King Henri, her late lord and master; beside she would thereby have lost the government of the Kingdom, which was[207] better worth than an hundred husbands, and its enjoyment more desirable and pleasant? Yet is there no advantage Love doth not make women forget; wherefore she is the more to be commended and worthy to be recorded in the temple of fame and immortality. For she did master and command her passions,—not like another Queen, which unable to restrain herself, did wed her own steward of the household, by name the Sieur de Rabodanges.[95*] This the King, her son, did at first beginning find exceeding strange and bitter; but yet, because she was his mother, he did excuse and pardon the said Rabodanges for having married her; and it was arranged that by day, before the world, he should serve her alway as steward, not to deprive her, being the King’s mother, of her proper state and dignity, but by night she should make of him what pleased her, using him either as servant or master at her choice, this being left to their own discretion and good pleasure. We may readily imagine who was master then; for every woman, be she as high-born as she may, coming to this point, is ever subject to the superior male, according to the law of nature and humanity in this matter. I have the tale from the late Grand Cardinal de Lorraine, second of the name and title, which did tell it at Poissy to King Francis II., the time he did institute the eighteen knights of the Order of Saint Michael,—a very great number, and one never seen or heard of before then.[96*] Among others was the Seigneur de Rabodanges, a very old man, that had not been seen for years at Court, except on occasion of some of our warlike expeditions, he having withdrawn soon after the death of M. de Lautrec out of disappointment and despite, a common enough case, having lost his good master, the Captain of whose Guard he[208] was, on his journey to the Kingdom of Naples, where he died. And the Cardinal did further say he did believe this M. de Rabodanges was descended of the marriage in question.—Some while agone a lady of France did marry her page, so soon as ever his pagehood was expired and he his own master, thinking she had worn her widow’s weeds quite long enough.
Other ladies prefer not to marry, and among them, there have always been some who, after becoming widows at a young age, choose to remain single. We have seen the Queen Mother, who became a widow when she was around thirty-seven or thirty-eight, and she stayed that way for the rest of her life; despite being beautiful, charming, and agreeable, she never considered marrying another man. It could be argued that who could she have married that would match her high status and compare to her late husband, King Henri? Plus, she would have given up control of the Kingdom, which was worth more than a hundred husbands and much more enjoyable. Yet, there is no benefit that love can't make women forget; thus, she deserves more praise and recognition in the annals of fame and immortality. She mastered her passions — unlike another Queen, who couldn’t control herself and married her own steward, the Sieur de Rabodanges. The King, her son, initially found this very strange and bitter, but since she was his mother, he excused and pardoned Rabodanges for marrying her. It was arranged that publicly, during the day, he would always serve her as steward, preserving her status and dignity as the King’s mother, but at night, she could use him however she pleased, treating him as either servant or master at her discretion. We can easily guess who was the master then; for every woman, no matter how highborn, is ultimately subject to the superior male according to the laws of nature and humanity in this regard. I got this story from the late Grand Cardinal de Lorraine, the second of that name, who shared it with King Francis II at Poissy when he established the eighteen knights of the Order of Saint Michael—a significant number that had never been seen or heard of before. Among them was the Seigneur de Rabodanges, a very old man who hadn’t been seen at Court for years, except during some military campaigns, having withdrawn after the death of M. de Lautrec out of disappointment and resentment, which is common enough after losing a good master, the Captain of whose Guard he was, on his way to the Kingdom of Naples, where he died. The Cardinal also mentioned that he believed M. de Rabodanges was descended from the marriage in question. Not long ago, a lady from France married her page as soon as he was no longer a page and was his own master, believing she had been a widow long enough.
Well, to leave this sort of widows, and say somewhat of more high-minded and prudent dames.
Well, let's move on from these kinds of widows and talk about more noble and sensible ladies.
We have had our Queen of France, Donna Isabelle of Austria, which was wife to the late King Charles IX., whom we may in all ways declare to have been one of the best, gentlest, wisest and most virtuous Queens that ever reigned of all the Kings and Queens that ever were. This I may confidently affirm, and every one that hath ever seen her or heard her speak will say the same, and this without disparaging others and with the most perfect truth. She was a very beautiful Princess, with features and face as fair and delicate as any lady at the Court, and most affable. Her figure too was very fine, albeit she did scarce reach the middle height. She was very sensible and prudent moreover, most virtuous and good-natured, and one that did never hurt or displeasure any, or give offence by so much as the smallest word. And indeed she was very careful of her speech, saying but very little and alway in her native Spanish.
We had our Queen of France, Donna Isabelle of Austria, who was the wife of the late King Charles IX. We can confidently say she was one of the best, kindest, wisest, and most virtuous queens to ever reign. I can assure you of this, and anyone who has seen her or heard her speak would agree, all without undermining others and with complete honesty. She was a very beautiful princess, with features and a face as fair and delicate as any lady at the court, and she was very approachable. Her figure was also quite lovely, even though she was barely of average height. Additionally, she was very sensible and prudent, exceptionally virtuous and good-natured, and she never harmed or upset anyone, nor did she offend with so much as a single word. In fact, she was very careful with her words, speaking very little and always in her native Spanish.
She was truly pious, but no wise bigoted, not overmuch manifesting her religion by outward acts and shows, and an extremity of devotion, such as I have seen some of our prayer-patterers display, but rather without missing any of the regular hour for supplication to God, she did employ these well and sufficiently, without going out of[209] her way to borrow other extraordinary ones. ’Tis very true, as I have heard some of her ladies declare, that whenas she was to bed apart and hid, and her curtains close drawn, she would kneel there devoutly in her shift and make prayer to God by the space of an hour and a half, beating and tormenting her breast in her zeal of devotion.
She was genuinely religious, but not overly dogmatic, not excessively showing her faith through outward actions or extreme devotion like some of our overly pious people do. Instead, she observed her regular prayer times with sincerity, using them well without seeking out extra forms of prayer. It's true, as some of her ladies have said, that when she was alone in bed with her curtains drawn, she would kneel there in her nightgown and pray to God for about an hour and a half, beating her breast in her fervor.
This habit had never been noted at all till after the death of King Charles her husband. But one night after she had gone to bed and all her women were retired, one of those which did sleep in her chamber, hearing her sighing, did bethink her to peep between the curtains, and saw her in the posture described, so praying and beseeching God, which practice she did continue well nigh every evening. At length the said bedchamber-woman, who was on very familiar terms with her, did venture to remonstrate one day with her on the ground she was hurting her health. The Queen was angered against the woman for her discovery and advice, and fain almost to deny the thing, and did straitly charge her to breathe never a word about it. Wherefore for that evening she did desist; but in the night she did fully make up for it, supposing her women would not observe it. But they saw her, and found how it was, by the reflexion of her chamber-light of wax, the which she did keep burning by her bedside next the wall, for to read in her Book of Hours and pray God at whiles, using for this pious purpose the same space where other Queens and Princesses do keep their table of refection. Suchlike prayers do little resemble those of hypocrites, which wishing to appear religious before the world, do make their orisons and devotions publicly, and[210] aye with mumbling of the lips, to the end folk may deem them exceeding devout and sanctified.
This habit hadn’t been noticed until after the death of King Charles, her husband. But one night, after she had gone to bed and all her ladies had retired, one of the women sleeping in her chamber heard her sighing. Curious, she peeked between the curtains and saw her in the position previously described, praying and pleading with God. This practice continued almost every evening. Eventually, the said lady-in-waiting, who was on very friendly terms with her, dared to confront her one day, claiming it was harming her health. The Queen got upset with the woman for her discovery and advice, and almost denied it, firmly instructing her not to speak of it again. So, that evening, she stopped; however, at night, she made up for it, thinking her ladies wouldn’t notice. But they did see her and realized the truth by the light of the wax candle she kept burning by her bedside next to the wall, which she used to read her Book of Hours and pray occasionally, utilizing the same space where other Queens and Princesses kept their dining table. Her prayers were very different from those of hypocrites who, wishing to seem religious in public, make their prayers and devotions openly, always mumbling under their breath so people might consider them extremely pious and holy.
Thus would our good Queen pray for the soul of the King, her husband, whom she did sorely grieve for, yet all the whole making her moan and lamentation not like a wild and desperate woman, screaming, and tearing her cheeks and hair, nor yet merely counterfeiting one that is commended for her tears, but sorrowing gently, dropping her fair and precious tears so tenderly, sighing so soft and low, as that ’twas plain to see she was restraining her grief all she could, to the end people might not think her desirous of making a fine seeming and grand impression (a thing I have seen many ladies do in such case), yet failing not at all to convince all of the deep anguish of her heart. Even so a torrent is ever more violent whose course is stayed than when it hath free space to run in. I do well remember me how, all through the King’s malady, her dear lord and husband, he lying in his bed and she coming to visit him, she would quick sit her down by his side, not close to his bed’s-head, as is usual, but a little withdrawn, yet within his sight, where remaining without speaking scarce at all to him, or he to her, she would keep her eyes all the while so fixed upon him, that never taking them from off his face she did verily seem to be warming him in her heart with the heat of all the love she bare him. Presently she might be seen dropping tears so soft and secret, that any which had not chanced to note them, would have never known her grief. There would she sit, drying her wet eyes under pretence of using her handkerchief, that ’twas downright pity to every soul there (I saw the thing myself) to see her so troubled to hide her grief and love, and prevent the King from seeing the signs of her sorrow. Such was ever[211] her practise in her husband’s sickness; whereafter she would rise and hie her to her prayers for his restoration to health. She did truly love and honour him exceedingly, albeit she knew him of amorous complexion and that he had mistresses, whether for his renown or for his pleasure. But yet was she never a whit less kind, nor ever said an ill word to him, patiently bearing her little load of jealousy and the wrong he did her. She was a very meet and proper mate for him; for ’twas indeed fire and water come together in one, the King being naturally quick, hot and stirring, she cool and temperate in all things.
Thus, our good Queen would pray for the soul of the King, her husband, whom she deeply mourned. However, her expressions of grief were not wild and desperate, screaming, or tearing at her cheeks and hair, nor was she simply pretending to be upset for the sake of appearances. Instead, she grieved quietly, shedding her beautiful and precious tears with tenderness, sighing softly, clearly trying to hold back her sorrow so that people wouldn’t think she was seeking to make a grand impression (something I’ve seen many ladies do in such situations), while still conveying the deep pain in her heart. It’s like how a torrent of water is more violent when it’s held back than when it flows freely. I remember well how, throughout the King's illness, when her dear husband lay in bed, she would quickly sit by his side—not right next to his head like is common, but a bit away, still within his sight. While there, she barely spoke to him, nor he to her, yet she kept her eyes fixed on him, seeming to warm him with all the love she had for him. She would be seen dropping soft, secret tears that anyone who didn’t notice them would never have guessed indicated her grief. There she remained, drying her tear-filled eyes while pretending to use her handkerchief, making it downright heartbreaking for anyone present (I witnessed it myself) to see her struggle to hide her grief and love, trying to prevent the King from noticing her sorrow. This was her usual practice during her husband’s illness; afterwards, she would rise and hurry off to pray for his recovery. She truly loved and honored him greatly, even though she knew he had a nature inclined toward romance and had mistresses, whether for his reputation or pleasure. Yet, she was never unkind to him and never spoke a bad word, patiently bearing her small load of jealousy and the hurt he caused her. She was a fitting mate for him; they were indeed fire and water brought together, with the King being naturally quick, hot, and restless, while she was cool and temperate in all things.
I have been told on good authority, how that after her widowhood, among certain of her more privy ladies, which were for giving her such consolation as they could suggest, was one (for, as you may suppose, among so great a band there will alway be one more maladroit than the rest), which, thinking to please highly, did address her thus: “At least, Madam, an if instead of a daughter he had but left you a son, you would at this moment be the King’s Queen Mother, and your dignity by so much increased and strengthened.”—But her answer was: “Alas! alas! say not such a thing. As if France had not misfortunes enough already, without my having caused yet another to be her utter ruin. For had I had a son, this would only have mean more factions, troubles and seditions for to get the care and guardianship of the young King during his infancy and minority. Hence would have sprung more war and strife than ever, each striving to make his profit and draw advantage by plundering the poor child, as they were fain to do to the late King, my husband, and would have done but for the Queen, his mother, and his good[212] servants which did oppose such doings. But an if I had had a son, I should have but found unhappiness in the thought of having borne him, and gotten a thousand maledictions of the people, whose voice is the voice of God. Wherefore I tell you I do praise my God, and am right thankful for the fruit he hath vouchsafed me, be it for better or for worse to me in the end.” Such was the kindness of this good-hearted Princess toward the country of her adoption.
I’ve heard from reliable sources that after her husband died, among some of her close ladies, who were trying to comfort her as best they could, there was one who, trying to be helpful, said to her: “At least, Madam, if he had left you a son instead of a daughter, you would right now be the King’s Queen Mother, and your status would be significantly higher and more secure.” But her response was: “Oh no! Please don’t say such a thing. As if France didn’t already have enough problems without me adding another that could lead to its complete ruin. If I had had a son, it would only have led to more factions, troubles, and conflicts over who would take care of the young King during his childhood and minority. This would have caused even more war and strife than ever, with everyone vying to take advantage of the poor child, just like they tried to do with the late King, my husband, and would have succeeded if not for his mother, the Queen, and his loyal servants who opposed such actions. If I had a son, I would only find misery in knowing I had given birth to him, and I would have received countless curses from the people, whose voice is the voice of God. Therefore, I tell you, I thank God and am truly grateful for the child He has given me, no matter what the outcome may be for me in the end.” Such was the compassion of this kind-hearted Princess for her adopted country.
I have likewise heard tell how at the massacre of the Saint Bartholomew, the Queen, knowing naught of it and having never the least suspicion in the world of what was plotting, did get her to bed in her usual fashion. On her waking in the morning, she was first thing informed of the fine mystery that was a-playing. “Woe is me!” she did cry out instantly, “the King, my husband, doth he know of it?”—“Of a surety, Madam,” came the answer; “’tis he that doth order it.”—“Great God,” she cried in horror, “what thing is this? and what counsellors be they which have given him this advice? Oh, God! I do beseech and pray thee to pardon this sin, for an if Thou be not pitiful, this offence, I fear me sore, is beyond all pardon.” Then she did quick ask for her Book of Hours, and so to prayers and supplication to the Almighty, the tears dropping from her eyes.
I’ve also heard about how during the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, the Queen, completely unaware and having no suspicion of the plotting, went to bed as usual. When she woke up in the morning, she was immediately informed about the horrific events unfolding. “Woe is me!” she exclaimed, “Does the King, my husband, know about this?”—“Certainly, Madam,” came the reply; “he is the one who ordered it.”—“Great God,” she cried in horror, “what is this? And what advisors have given him this counsel? Oh, God! I beseech and pray to You to forgive this sin, for if You are not merciful, I fear this offense is beyond all forgiveness.” Then she quickly asked for her Book of Hours and began praying and supplicating to the Almighty, tears streaming down her face.
Prithee consider the wisdom and goodness the said Queen did manifest in not approving of such a merrymaking and the cruel game that was played thereat, and this although she had much cause to desire the utter extermination of the Admiral (Coligny) and his fellow religionists, seeing they were absolutely opposed in every way to her own faith, the which she did adore and honour more than aught else in all[213] the world, and on the other hand because she could plainly see how they did trouble the Kingdom of her gracious lord and husband. Moreover the Emperor her father had actually said to her, as she was setting forth with him on her way to France: “My daughter,” he said, “you are going as Queen to a Kingdom the fairest, strongest and most puissant in the world, and so far I do hold you a very happy woman. Yet would you be happier still, an if you could but find it at peace within its borders and as flourishing as erstwhile it was used to be. But you will actually find it sorely torn, dismembered, divided and weakened, for albeit the King, your future husband, is on the right side, yet the Princes and Lords of the Protestant faith do much hurt and injury on the other.” And indeed she did find it even as he said.
Please consider the wisdom and goodness that the Queen showed by rejecting such a celebration and the brutal game that took place there, even though she had every reason to want the complete destruction of the Admiral (Coligny) and his fellow believers, as they were completely opposed to her own faith, which she cherished and honored above all else in the world. On the other hand, she clearly saw how they were troubling the Kingdom of her gracious lord and husband. Moreover, the Emperor, her father, had actually said to her while they were on their way to France: “My daughter,” he said, “you are going as Queen to the fairest, strongest, and most powerful Kingdom in the world, and for that reason, I consider you a very fortunate woman. But you would be even happier if you could find it at peace within its borders and as prosperous as it once was. However, you will indeed find it severely torn, disfigured, divided, and weakened, for although the King, your future husband, is on the right side, the Princes and Lords of the Protestant faith are causing much harm and injury on the other.” And indeed, she found it exactly as he said.
Being now a widow, many of the most clear-sighted folk I wot of at Court, both men and women, did deem the new King, on his arrival back from Poland, would marry her, in spite of the fact she was his sister-in-law. But then he could well do so by virtue of the Pope’s dispensation, who can do much in this respect, and especially where great personages be concerned, in view of the public advantage involved. And there were many reasons for concluding the said marriage, the which I have left to more authoritative writers than myself to deduce, without my alleging them here. But amongst others one of the chiefest was to recognise by the marriage the great obligations the King lay under to the Emperor on the occasion of his quitting Poland for to return to France. For there can be no reasonable doubt, an if the Emperor had chose to put the smallest obstacle in his path, he would never have been able to get away and cross the[214] frontier and make his way to France. The Poles were anxious to keep him, only he did leave them without ever a farewell; while the Germans were on the watch on every side to capture him (as was done to the gallant King Richard of England, on his return from the Holy Land, as we read in our Chronicles), and would have certainly held him prisoner and made him pay ransom, or maybe worse. For they were exceeding sore with him, for the sake of the Feast of Saint Bartholomew,—or at any rate the Protestant Princes were. However, he did voluntarily and without ceremony throw himself suddenly on the protection of the Emperor, which did receive him very graciously and lovingly, and with great honour and much gracious familiarity, as if the twain had been brothers. Then presently, after he had tarried with him some days, he did in person convoy him a day or two’s journey on his way, and give him a perfectly safe passage through his dominions, so by his favour he did eventually win to Carinthia, the Venetian territories, Venice itself, and presently his own kingdom.
Now that she's a widow, many sharp-eyed people I know at Court, both men and women, believed that the new King would marry her upon his return from Poland, even though she was his sister-in-law. He could do so thanks to the Pope’s dispensation, which allows for such arrangements, especially for significant figures, considering the public benefit involved. There were many reasons to support this marriage, which I’ll leave to more authoritative authors to explain, rather than list here. One of the main reasons was to acknowledge the King’s significant obligations to the Emperor after leaving Poland to return to France. There’s no reasonable doubt that if the Emperor had wanted to, he could have created the slightest obstacle, preventing the King from escaping and crossing the border into France. The Poles were eager to keep him, and he left without even saying goodbye, while the Germans were ready to capture him (as happened to the brave King Richard of England on his return from the Holy Land, as recorded in our Chronicles), and they would have certainly imprisoned him and demanded a ransom, or worse. They were particularly upset with him because of the Feast of Saint Bartholomew—or at least the Protestant Princes were. Nevertheless, he voluntarily and without ceremony sought the Emperor’s protection, which was graciously and warmly given, with great honor and familiarity, as if they were brothers. After staying with the Emperor for a few days, he personally escorted the King for a day or two on his journey and ensured he had safe passage through his lands, allowing him to eventually reach Carinthia, the Venetian territories, Venice itself, and soon after, his own kingdom.
Such was the obligation the King of France lay under to the Emperor, one which many persons, as I have said, did suppose the former would have paid back by binding yet firmer his alliance with him. But at the time he went into Poland, he had seen at Blamont in Lorraine, the fair Louise de Lorraine, Mademoiselle de Vaudémont, one of the most beautiful, virtuous and accomplished Princess in all Christendom. On her he did cast such ardent eyes as that being presently inflamed with deepest love, and keeping his passion warm all the while he was away, he did straightway on his return to Lyons despatch M. du Gua,[97*] one of his chiefest favourites (as truly he did in every way[215] deserve to be), to Lorraine. Arrived there, he did settle and conclude the match betwixt him and her very easily and with no great disputing, as you may well imagine, such good fortune being beyond the utmost hopes of him and his daughter,—the one to be father-in-law of the King of France, the other to be Queen of that Realm. Of this Princess I do propose to speak elsewhere.
The King of France had a debt to the Emperor, which many people believed he would repay by strengthening their alliance. However, when he went to Poland, he had encountered the beautiful Louise de Lorraine, Mademoiselle de Vaudémont, in Blamont, Lorraine. He was immediately captivated by her and fell deeply in love, keeping that passion alive while he was away. Upon returning to Lyons, he quickly sent M. du Gua,__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, one of his closest favorites (who truly deserved it), to Lorraine. Once there, he easily arranged the match between her and the King, with little argument, as this incredible fortune was far beyond their expectations—one becoming the father-in-law of the King of France, and the other set to be Queen of the realm. I plan to discuss this princess further in another section.
2.
2.
To return once more to our little Queen. Wearied of a longer tarrying in France for sundry reasons, and in especial because she was not properly respected and appreciated there as she did deserve to be, she did resolve to go finish out the remainder of her virtuous days with the Emperor, her father, and the Empress, her mother. During her residence at their Court, the Catholic King was widowed of his Queen, Anne of Austria, own sister of the said French Queen Elisabeth. The latter he would fain have married and did send to beg the Empress, who was sister of the said Catholic King, to open the first proposals to that effect. But she would never hearken, once, twice or three times that her mother spake to her of the matter, appealing to the ashes of the late King, her husband, the which she declared she would never insult by a second marriage, and likewise alleging the over close consanguinity and near relationship which was betwixt the two, whereby the marriage might well anger God sorely. Whereupon the Empress and the King her brother did bethink them to have a Jesuit Father, a very learned and very eloquent man, speak with her, who did exhort and sermonize her[216] all ever he could, not forgetting to quote all the most telling passages of Holy Scripture of every sort that might advance his object. But the Queen did straight confound him with other as good and more appropriate quotations, for since her widowhood she had applied her earnestly to the study of God’s Word, alleging moreover her fixed determination, which was her chiefest bulwark, never to forget her husband in a second marriage. The end was the Jesuit came back with naught accomplished. However, being strongly urged there by letters from the King of Spain, he did return once again to the attack, not content with the firm answer he had already had of the said Princess. The latter, unwilling to waste more time in vain contest with him, did treat him to some strong words and actual menaces, cutting him short with the warning that if he would persist in deafening her any more with the matter, she would make him repent his interference, even threatening she would have him whipped in her kitchen. I have further heard tell,—I know not with how much truth,—that, the man having attacked her for the third time, she went beyond threats, and had him chastised for his insolence. But this I do not believe, seeing she did too well love folk of holy life, such as these men be.
To go back to our little Queen once again. Tired of staying in France for various reasons, especially because she wasn’t getting the respect and appreciation she deserved, she decided to spend the rest of her virtuous life with her father, the Emperor, and her mother, the Empress. While she was at their court, the Catholic King lost his wife, Anne of Austria, who was the sister of the French Queen Elisabeth. He wanted to marry her and asked the Empress, who was the King’s sister, to make the first proposals. But she wouldn’t listen, no matter how many times her mother brought it up, saying she wouldn’t insult her late husband’s memory by remarrying. She also mentioned the close blood relation between them, which could anger God. So, the Empress and her brother, the King, thought to have a Jesuit Father, a very learned and eloquent man, talk to her. He tried to persuade her and quoted all kinds of relevant passages from the Bible to make his point. But the Queen countered him with even better and more suitable quotes, as she had dedicated herself to studying God’s Word since her husband’s death. She firmly stated her determination, which was her strongest shield, never to forget her husband by marrying again. In the end, the Jesuit returned empty-handed. However, pushed by letters from the King of Spain, he made another attempt, not satisfied with the clear answer he had already received from the Princess. She, not wanting to waste more time on pointless arguments, shot back with strong words and actual threats, warning him that if he kept bothering her, he would regret interfering, even threatening to have him whipped in her kitchen. I have also heard—though I don’t know how true it is—that after he confronted her for the third time, she went beyond threats and had him punished for his insolence. But I don’t believe this, as she truly loved people of holy life, like these men.
Such was the constancy and noble firmness of this virtuous Queen,—a constancy she did keep unbroken to the end of her days, ever honouring the sacred ashes of her husband.[98*] Faithfully did she water these with her mournful tears, whose fountain at the last drying up, she did succumb to her sorrow and die very young. She could not have been more than five and thirty at her decease,—truly a quite inestimable loss, for she might long have[217] been a mirror of virtue to all honourable ladies throughout Christendom.
The Queen was incredibly steadfast and noble, maintaining her strength until the end of her life, always honoring the sacred remains of her husband. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ She faithfully watered these with her sorrowful tears, and when her tears finally dried up, she succumbed to her grief and died at a very young age. She was no more than thirty-five when she passed away—truly an immeasurable loss, as she could have long served as a shining example of virtue for all honorable ladies across Christendom.
And verily, showing as she did the love she bare the King, her husband, by her constancy, virtuous continence and unceasing plaints, she did manifest the same even more finely toward the Queen of Navarre, her sister-in-law. For knowing her to be in great extremity of distress, and reduced to live in a remote Castle of Auvergne,[99*] all but deserted of all her friends and followers and by the most part of those she had erstwhile obliged, she did send to greet her and offer her every assistance. In fact she did presently give her one-half of all her jointure which she did enjoy in France, sharing with her as if she had been her own proper sister. They say indeed this high-born Queen would have had no little hardship to endure but for this great liberality of her good and gentle kinswoman. Accordingly she did pay her great respect, loving and honouring her so well she had all the difficulty in the world to bear her death with proper patience. Indeed, for twenty days running she did keep her bed, weeping and crying and making continual moan; and ever after did naught but regret and deplore her loss, devoting to her memory the noblest words, such that there could be no need to borrow better to praise her withal and keep her remembrance immortally green. I have been told further that Queen Elisabeth too did compose and indite a work of such beauty it cometh near God’s own word, as also one containing the history of all that did hap in France while she was in that country. I know not if this be true, but I have been assured the book was seen in the hands of the Queen of Navarre, as though it had been sent her as a last present before the other’s death.[218] ’Twas most highly thought on of her, and pronounced a most admirable production. At the word of so noble and divine an oracle, what can we do but believe ’twas verily so?
And truly, showing the love she had for the King, her husband, through her loyalty, virtuous self-control, and constant sorrow, she demonstrated the same even more beautifully towards the Queen of Navarre, her sister-in-law. Knowing that the Queen was in serious distress, living in a nearly deserted castle in Auvergne, cut off from her friends and supporters and most of those she had once helped, she sent greetings and offered her full support. In fact, she immediately gave her half of all her income from her properties in France, sharing with her as if she were her own sister. They say this noble Queen would have faced significant hardship if not for the generous help of her kind-hearted relative. As a result, she respected her greatly, loving and honoring her so much that it was incredibly difficult for her to cope with her death. Indeed, for twenty consecutive days, she stayed in bed, weeping and mourning, and afterward, she did nothing but regret and lament her loss, dedicating the most beautiful words to her memory, so much so that there was no need to find better ones to praise her and keep her memory alive. I have also been informed that Queen Elisabeth wrote a work of such beauty that it comes close to God's own word, as well as one detailing everything that happened in France while she was in that country. I don't know if this is true, but I've been assured the book was seen in the hands of the Queen of Navarre, as if it had been sent to her as a final gift before the other’s death. It was highly regarded and considered an admirable creation. With the words of such a noble and divine source, what can we do but believe it was indeed so? [218]
Such then is the summary account I have been able to give of our good Queen Elisabeth, of her kindness, virtue, constancy and faithfulness, and her true and loyal love toward the King, her husband. And ’twas but her nature to be so good and virtuous (I have heard M. de Lansac,[100*] who was in Spain when she died, tell how the Empress said to him on that occasion, El mejor de nosotros es muerto,—“The best of us all is dead”), and we may well believe how in such actions this Queen was but for imitating her own mother, her great aunts and aunts. For the Empress, her mother, albeit she was left a widow when still quite young and very handsome, would never marry again, but did ever after continue in her widowhood, right wisely and steadfastly, having quitted Austria and Germany, the scene of her rule, after the death of the Emperor, her husband. She went to join her brother in Spain, having been summoned of him and besought to go thither to help him in the heavy burden of his affairs. This she did, for indeed she was a very prudent and well-counselled Princess. I have heard the late King Henri III., who was more skilled in reading character than any other man in all his Kingdom, declare she was in his opinion one of the most honourable, wise and accomplished Princesses in the world.
Here’s the summary I’ve been able to provide about our good Queen Elisabeth, highlighting her kindness, virtue, constancy, and loyalty, as well as her true and devoted love for the King, her husband. It was just in her nature to be so good and virtuous. I heard M. de Lansac,__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, who was in Spain when she died, mention that the Empress said to him at the time, El mejor de nosotros es muerto—“The best of us is dead.” We can certainly believe that in her actions, this Queen was simply following the example of her mother, great aunts, and aunts. The Empress, her mother, although she became a widow when she was still quite young and very beautiful, never remarried. Instead, she wisely and steadfastly remained in her widowhood, having left Austria and Germany, her realm, after the death of her husband, the Emperor. She went to join her brother in Spain after he summoned her and asked her to help him with the heavy burden of his responsibilities. She did this because she was indeed a very prudent and well-advised Princess. I have also heard the late King Henri III, who was more skilled at reading character than anyone else in his Kingdom, say that she was, in his opinion, one of the most honorable, wise, and accomplished Princesses in the world.
On this, her journey to Spain, after passing through the divers States of Germany, she did presently arrive at Genoa in Italy, where she embarked. But seeing ’twas in winter, in the month of December, that she took ship, a[219] storm did overtake her at Marseilles, at which port she was forced to cast anchor in the roads. Yet would she never come within the harbour, she or her galleys, for fear of giving any ground for umbrage or suspicion; nor did herself enter the town but only once, to see the sights. Off this port she did tarry seven or eight days, a-waiting for fair weather. Her most favourite course was every morning to leave her galley (for she did usually sleep a-board), and so during the day to go hear the service of mass at the Church of St. Victor with very devout attention. Then presently, her dinner having been brought and made ready in the Abbey, she would there dine; after which she would indulge in discourse with her ladies, or her folk generally, or else with divers gentlemen of Marseilles, which did show her all the honour and respect due to so noble a Princess, the King of France indeed having bid them specially to receive her as it were his own kingly person in recompense for the good welcome and excellent cheer she had given him at Vienna. This she did readily enough perceive; and for that reason would converse very intimately with them and show herself exceeding condescending, treating them more after the German and French fashion than the Spanish. In fact they were no less delighted with her than she with them, and did write a most courteous letter to the King, thanking him and informing him they were as worthy and honourable folk as ever she had seen in any place. Moreover she did make separate mention by name of some score or so of them, among whom was M. Castellan, known as the Seigneur Altyvity, Captain of the King’s Galleys, a man much renowned for having wedded the fair Chasteauneuf, a Court lady, and for having killed the Grand Prior,[220] himself falling along with him, as I do hope to relate in another place. It was none other than his wife which did relate to me what I here set down, and did tell me of all the perfections of this noble Princess, and how pleasant she did find her enforced stay at Marseilles, and how she admired and enjoyed the place in her walks abroad. But evening once come, she did never fail to return to sleep on board her galley, to the end, the moment fine weather and a favourable wind should come, she might straight make sail, or mayhap because she was anxious to give no cause of umbrage. I was at Court at the time these facts were reported to the King concerning her passing visit, who was most anxious to know if she had been well received, and how she was, and did wish her well in all respects. The said Princess is yet alive, and doth continue in her good and virtuous behaviour, having done her brother excellent service, by all I am told. She did later retire for her final abode and dwelling-place to a Convent of religious women, called the descalçadas (unshod), because they do wear neither shoes nor stockings. This house was founded by her sister, the Princess of Spain.
On her journey to Spain, after traveling through various regions of Germany, she arrived in Genoa, Italy, where she boarded a ship. However, since it was winter and the month of December when she set sail, a storm caught her off the coast of Marseilles, forcing her to anchor in the harbor. She refused to enter the port with her ship, fearing it might lead to misunderstandings or suspicions, and only visited the town once to sightsee. She stayed off the coast for seven or eight days, waiting for better weather. Each morning, she would leave her ship (since she usually slept on board) and attend mass at the Church of St. Victor with great devotion. Afterward, once her lunch was prepared in the Abbey, she would dine there and then engage in conversations with her ladies, her entourage, or various gentlemen from Marseilles, who honored and respected her as a noble princess. The King of France had specifically instructed them to treat her as if she were his royal self, in gratitude for the warm welcome and generous hospitality she had extended to him in Vienna. She noticed this readily and, for that reason, conversed warmly with them, treating them more like the German and French than the Spanish. In fact, they were just as delighted with her as she was with them, and they wrote a very polite letter to the King, thanking him and informing him that they were among the most worthy and honorable people she had encountered anywhere. She also mentioned by name about twenty of them, including Mr. Castellan, known as Seigneur Altyvity, Captain of the King's Galleys, a man famous for marrying the lovely Chasteauneuf, a court lady, and for killing the Grand Prior, who also fell in that encounter, as I hope to recount elsewhere. It was his wife who shared these details with me and told me about the many admirable qualities of this noble princess, including how she enjoyed her forced stay in Marseilles and admired the place during her walks. However, each evening, she always returned to sleep on her ship, so that as soon as the weather improved and a favorable wind arose, she could immediately set sail, or perhaps because she wanted to avoid causing any unease. I was at court when news about her visit reached the King, who was eager to know if she had been well received and how she was doing, wishing her well in every aspect. The princess is still alive and continues to uphold her good and virtuous character, having reportedly served her brother exceptionally well. She later retired to a convent of religious women, called the descalçadas (unshod), because they do not wear shoes or stockings. This convent was founded by her sister, the Princess of Spain.
This same Princess of Spain was a very beautiful lady in her day, and of a most courtly dignity.[101*] Else truly she would not have been a Spanish Princess; for of a surety, fine bearing and becoming grace do ever go along with Royalty, and above all with Spanish Royalty. Myself have had the honour of seeing her and speaking with her on terms of some intimacy, whenas I was in Spain after my return from Portugal. The first time I went to pay my duty to our Queen Elisabeth of France, and was discoursing with her, answering her many questions as to the news from France and Portugal, they came to inform[221] the Queen that the Princess of Spain was coming in. Instantly she said to me: “Nay! do not retire, Monsieur de Bourdeille; you will see a very fair and noble Princess, and will find pleasure in so doing. She will be very glad to see you and to ask you news of the King, her son, as you have just lately seen him.” Hereupon cometh the Princess herself, whom I thought exceeding handsome, and in my opinion very becomingly attired, on her head a Spanish cap of white crêpe, coming low down in a point over the face, but not otherwise in widow’s weeds, according to the Spanish fashion, for indeed her almost constant wear was silk. At first I did gaze long at her and admire her beauty, till just as I was growing quite enthralled, the Queen did call me up, and told me the Princess was fain to hear news of me concerning the King her son; for I had already overheard the Queen informing her how she had but now been conversing with a gentleman of the King’s, late come from Portugal. At this, I came forward, and did kiss her gown in the Spanish mode, whereupon she did greet me very graciously and familiarly, and began asking me news of the King, her son, his behaviour, and what I thought of him. For at the time a proposed match was being talked of betwixt him and the noble Princess Marguerite of France, the King’s sister and now Queen of Navarre. I did give her abundance of information; for in those days I did speak Spanish as well as my native French, or even better. Among other questions, she did ask me, “Was her son handsome, and who was he most like?” I told her he was one of the handsomest Princes in Christendom, as truly he was, and that he was like her in every way, and the living image of her[222] beauty, whereat she gave a little smile and blush, plainly showing her pleasure at what I had said.
This same Princess of Spain was a stunning lady in her time, with a remarkable grace. Otherwise, she wouldn’t have been a Spanish Princess; after all, elegance and charm always come with Royalty, especially with Spanish Royalty. I had the honor of meeting her and chatting with her somewhat closely when I was in Spain after returning from Portugal. The first time I went to pay my respects to our Queen Elisabeth of France, while discussing France and Portugal, they informed the Queen that the Princess of Spain was coming in. Immediately, she told me, “No! Don't leave, Monsieur de Bourdeille; you’ll see a very beautiful and noble Princess, and it will be a pleasure for you. She’ll be glad to see you and will want to know about the King, her son, since you’ve just seen him.” Then the Princess entered, whom I found extremely attractive and, in my opinion, very nicely dressed, wearing a white crêpe Spanish cap that came low over her face but not in widow's attire, as was the Spanish style; in fact, she usually wore silk. At first, I gazed at her and admired her beauty until, just as I was becoming completely captivated, the Queen called me over and told me that the Princess wanted to hear news about the King, her son; I had already overheard the Queen telling her that she had been speaking with a gentleman from the King who had recently come from Portugal. At this, I stepped forward and kissed her gown in the Spanish manner, to which she responded graciously and warmly, asking me about the King, her son, his character, and what I thought of him. At the time, there was talk of a possible match between him and the noble Princess Marguerite of France, the King's sister and now Queen of Navarre. I provided her with plenty of information; during that period, I spoke Spanish as well as my native French, if not better. Among other questions, she asked me, “Is my son handsome, and who does he resemble the most?” I told her he was one of the most handsome Princes in Christendom, which he truly was, and that he resembled her in every way, being the living image of her beauty, to which she smiled slightly and blushed, clearly pleased with my response.
After we had conversed a long while together, the Queen’s attendants came to summon her to supper, and so the two sisters separated. Then did the Queen say to me (she had been amusing herself at the window, yet had heard most of what we said), with a laugh: “You did please her mightily by what you said as to the likeness betwixt her son and her.” Presently she asked what I thought of her, and if I did not think her a noble lady, and such as she had described her, and anon remarked: “I imagine she would be right glad to wed the King, my brother, and I should dearly love it.” All this I did duly report later to the Queen Mother, when I was returned back to the French Court, which was at the time at Arles in Provence. But she did declare the Princess was too old for him, old enough to be his mother. I informed her moreover of what I had been told in Spain, and did consider of good authority, to wit that she was firm resolved never to marry again, an it were not to wed the King of France, or failing this to withdraw from the world altogether.
After we had talked for a while, the Queen’s attendants came to call her to dinner, and so the two sisters went their separate ways. Then the Queen, who had been having fun by the window but had heard most of our conversation, laughed and said to me, “You really impressed her with your comments about the resemblance between her and her son.” She then asked what I thought of her, and if I didn’t consider her a noble lady, just as she had described herself, and added, “I think she would be very happy to marry my brother, the King, and I would love that.” I reported all this later to the Queen Mother when I returned to the French Court, which was at that time in Arles, Provence. However, she insisted that the Princess was too old for him, almost old enough to be his mother. I also told her about what I had heard in Spain, which I believed to be credible; specifically, that the Princess was determined never to marry again unless it was to the King of France, or if that didn’t happen, to withdraw completely from society.
And truly she did grow so enamoured of this high match and fair prospect, for she was of high heart and ambition, and she did firmly believe she was approaching its accomplishment, or failing this, was resolved to end her days in the convent I have spoken of, where already she was having buildings constructed against her possible retirement from the world. Accordingly she did long cling to this hope and belief, ever wisely maintaining her widowhood, till she did learn of the King’s marriage with her niece. Then, all her hopes frustrated, she did pronounce these words expressive[223] of despite or something like it, as I have been told: Aunque la nieta sea por su verano mas moza, y menos cargada de años que la tia, la hermosura de la tia, ya en su estio toda hecha y formada por sus gentiles y fructiferos años, vale mas que todos los frutos que su edad florescida da esperanza à venir; porque la menor desdicha humana los harà caer y perder ni mas ni menos que alguinos arboles, los quales, en el verano, por sus lindas y blancos flores nos prometen linda fruta en el estio, y el menor viento que acade los lleva y abate, no quedando que las hojas. Ea! dunque pasase todo con la voluntad de Dios, con el qual desde agora me voy, no con otro, para siempre jamas, me casar,—“True the niece is younger and in her first prime, and less advanced in years than the aunt, yet is the beauty of the latter, already in its summer glory, fully grown and formed by the gracious years, and bearing fruit, better worth than all the fruits that the other’s age, now but beginning to bloom, doth give expectation of. For the smallest human accident will destroy the same, withering and ruining them, just like trees in the springtime, which by their fair white blossoms do promise us fair and excellent fruits in summer. But let only a little blast of wind arise, and lo! they be broken off and beaten down and spoiled, and naught left but only leaves. Well! God’s will be done, with whom I am about to wed for all eternity, and with no human bridegroom at all.” So said, so done; and thereafter she did lead a life so good and holy, altogether removed from the wicked world, as that she hath left behind to all ladies, great and small, a noble example for their imitation.
And truly she became so infatuated with this high match and bright future because she was ambitious and had a strong spirit. She firmly believed she was getting closer to achieving it, or if that failed, she was determined to spend her days in the convent I mentioned, where she had already started building facilities for her possible retirement from the world. Thus, she held onto this hope and belief for a long time, wisely maintaining her widowhood, until she learned of the King’s marriage to her niece. Then, with all her hopes dashed, she uttered these words that expressed contempt, or something similar, as I have been told: Aunque la nieta sea por su verano mas moza, y menos cargada de años que la tia, la hermosura de la tia, ya en su estio toda hecha y formada por sus gentiles y fructiferos años, vale mas que todos los frutos que su edad florescida da esperanza à venir; porque la menor desdicha humana los harà caer y perder ni mas ni menos que alguinos arboles, los quales, en el verano, por sus lindas y blancos flores nos prometen linda fruta en el estio, y el menor viento que acade los lleva y abate, no quedando que las hojas. Ea! dunque pasase todo con la voluntad de Dios, con el qual desde agora me voy, no con otro, para siempre jamas, me casar,—“True, the niece is younger and in her prime, and less advanced in years than the aunt, yet the beauty of the latter, already in its summer glory, fully grown and shaped by her fruitful years, is worth more than all the fruits that the other’s age, which is just beginning to bloom, promises. For the slightest misfortune can bring them down and ruin them, just like trees in the spring that, with their lovely white blossoms, promise us beautiful and excellent fruits in summer. But let a little gust of wind arise, and look! They get broken off, brought down, and spoiled, leaving nothing but leaves. Well! God’s will be done, with whom I am about to marry for all eternity, and with no human groom at all.” So she said, and so it happened; thereafter, she led a life so good and holy, completely removed from the wicked world, that she left behind a noble example for all ladies, great and small, to follow.
Some folks might possibly say, “Well! God be thanked she could not marry King Charles; for be sure, and if this[224] could have been brought about, she would have sent far enough the hard life of a widow, and been right glad to take up again the soft and pleasant one of a wife.” This may well be allowed; but this likewise it must be granted on the other hand, that the great wish she did display to wed this puissant Monarch was but a manifestation of her proud and ambitious Spanish heart, for to show her high spirit, and prove she would in no wise take a lowly place; but seeing her sister an Empress, not able to be one too, yet fain to rival her, she did therefore aspire to be Queen of the realm of France, which is as good as any Empire, or better, and, if not in actual fact, yet in will and desire to be on an equal footing with her. Such motives do well accord with her character, as I have heard it described. To make an end, she was in mine opinion one of the most noble and high-bred foreign Princesses I have ever seen, albeit she may perhaps be reproached with her retirement from the world, due rather to despite than to genuine devotion. Yet she did thus piously withdraw her; and her good life and holy have sufficiently made manifest the true sanctity of her character.
Some people might say, “Well! Thank goodness she couldn't marry King Charles; because if that had happened, she would have happily left behind the tough life of a widow and taken up the easy and enjoyable life of a wife.” This can certainly be accepted; but it must also be acknowledged that her strong desire to marry this powerful king was just a reflection of her proud and ambitious Spanish heart, showing her high spirit and proving she wouldn’t settle for a low status. Since her sister was an Empress and she couldn't be one too, she was eager to rival her by aspiring to be Queen of France, which is as good as any Empire, if not better, and at least in her will and desire to be equal to her. Such motives fit well with her character, as I've heard it described. In my opinion, she was one of the most noble and high-bred foreign princesses I've ever seen, although some might criticize her for withdrawing from the world, more out of spite than true devotion. Still, she did choose to withdraw piously, and her good and holy life have shown the true sanctity of her character.
3.
3.
Her aunt, Queen Mary of Hungary, did the like, but at a very advanced age, and this no less from her own desire to retire from the world than in order to help her brother the Emperor to serve God well and piously. This same Queen was widowed at a very early age, having lost King Louis, her husband, which fell very young in a battle he fought with the Turks,—a battle he should never of rights have lost,[225] but for the obstinacy of a Cardinal, which had much influence over him and did over-persuade him against his better judgement, declaring ’twas not meet to distrust God’s power and a righteous cause. Though he should have but ten thousand Hungarians, more or less, on his side, yet these being all good Christians and fighting in God’s quarrel, he should easily rout ten thousand Turks. In fine he did so incite and push him to recklessness, as that he did lose the battle; and presently attempting to retreat was entangled in a marsh and there choked.
Her aunt, Queen Mary of Hungary, did the same, but at a much older age, motivated both by her desire to withdraw from the world and to assist her brother the Emperor in serving God well and faithfully. This Queen became a widow at a young age, having lost her husband, King Louis, who died young in a battle against the Turks—a battle he should have won, if not for the stubbornness of a Cardinal who had a lot of influence over him and persuaded him against his better judgment, saying it wasn’t right to doubt God’s power and a just cause. Although he had only around ten thousand Hungarians on his side, all of whom were good Christians fighting for God’s cause, he should have easily defeated ten thousand Turks. In the end, he was so incited and pushed to act recklessly that he lost the battle, and when he tried to retreat, he got stuck in a marsh and drowned.[225]
The same fate befell the last King of Portugal, Don Sebastian,[102*] which did perish miserably, having risked battle with too weak a force against the Moors, that were three times as strong as himself. This was done through the advice, preaching and obstinacy of sundry Jesuits, which were forever alleging the power of Almighty God, who with a look could strike a whole host dead, above all when this was banded together against him. An excellent and a true doctrine doubtless; yet must we not be over confident and abuse God’s promises, for His secret purpose will alway be past our finding out. Some say the Jesuit Fathers gave the counsel they did in all good faith, as is quite credible; others that they were traitors and had been gained over by the King of Spain, to the end they might so bring about the undoing of the young and gallant King of Portugal, courageous and fiery as he was, and himself be the better able to lay his hands on that he did after seize. Be this as it may, ’tis certain both these disasters befell through these folk, which be fain to manage armies, yet have never learned the trade of war.
The same fate happened to the last King of Portugal, Don Sebastian, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ who met a miserable end after engaging in battle with a force that was too weak against the Moors, who were three times as strong as he was. This was influenced by the advice, preaching, and stubbornness of various Jesuits, who were always insisting on the power of Almighty God, who could strike down an entire army with just a look, especially when they were united against him. It’s undoubtedly an excellent and true teaching; however, we should not be overly confident and misuse God’s promises, as His secret purposes are always beyond our understanding. Some say the Jesuit Fathers gave their advice in good faith, which is quite believable; others claim they were traitors, influenced by the King of Spain, so they could bring about the downfall of the young and brave King of Portugal, as courageous and passionate as he was, and be in a better position to seize what he later took. Regardless of the truth, it’s clear that both of these disasters happened because of these people, who are eager to lead armies but have never truly learned the art of war.
And this is why the great Duc de Guise, after he had been sore deceived in his Italian expedition, was often used[226] to say, “I do love God’s Church, yet will I never undertake a conquest on the word and faith of any Priest.” By this he was for chiding the Pope, Caraffa, known as Paul IV., which had not kept his promises made to him in the most impressive and solemn words, or mayhap the Cardinal, his brother, who had gone all the way to Rome to discuss the matter and see how the land lay, after which he did recklessly urge his brother to the enterprise. It may well be the aforesaid Duc de Guise had in his mind both Pope and Cardinal; for undoubtedly, as I have been informed, whenever the Duke did repeat this saying, as oft he did, before his brother, the latter deeming it a stone pitched into his garden, would be secretly much enraged and furiously angry. This is a digression, but my subject seemed to warrant it.
And this is why the great Duke of Guise, after he had been seriously misled during his Italian campaign, often used to say, “I love God’s Church, but I will never go into battle based solely on the word and faith of any Priest.” With this, he was likely criticizing the Pope, Caraffa, known as Paul IV, who had not kept his promises made to him in the most earnest and solemn language, or maybe the Cardinal, his brother, who had traveled all the way to Rome to discuss the situation and see what was going on, after which he recklessly urged his brother to take on the venture. It’s quite possible that the Duke of Guise had both the Pope and the Cardinal in mind; for undoubtedly, as I have been told, whenever the Duke repeated this saying, which he often did, in front of his brother, the latter considered it a personal attack and would become secretly very upset and extremely angry. This may be a digression, but my subject seemed to justify it.
To return now to our good Queen Mary of Hungary. After this disaster to her husband, she was left a very young and beautiful widow, as I have heard many persons say which have seen her, as also according to the portraits of her I have seen, which do all represent her as very fair, giving her never an ugly or censurable feature, except only her heavy, projecting mouth, or “Austrian lip.”[103*] However this doth not really come from the House of Austria, but from that of Burgundy, as I have heard a lady of the Court at that time relate. She said how once when Queen Eleanor was passing by way of Dijon on her way to pay her devotions at the Monastery of the Chartreuse in that region, and to visit the reverend sepulchres of her ancestors, the Dukes of Burgundy, she was curious to have these opened, as many monarchs have done with theirs. Some of the bodies she did find so whole and well preserved she did recognise many of their[227] features, and amongst others the mouth. Whereupon she did suddenly cry: “Ah! I thought we did take our mouths from them of Austria; but by what I see here, we seem rather to get them from Mary of Burgundy, our ancestress, and the Dukes of Burgundy, our ancestors. If ever I see the Emperor, my brother, I will tell him; nay! I will write him at once.” The lady which was then present told me she did herself hear these words, declaring further the Queen did pronounce them as if pleased at her discovery. And in this she was very right, for truly the House of Burgundy was every whit as good as that of Austria, springing as it did from a son of France, Philip le Hardi, from whom they had inherited much wealth and courage and high spirit. Indeed I imagine there were never four greater Dukes, one after the other, than were these four Dukes of Burgundy. Truly I may be charged with everlastingly wandering from my subject; but ’tis an easy matter to excuse me, I think, seeing I have never been taught the art of careful and correct writing.
To go back to our good Queen Mary of Hungary. After her husband’s unfortunate fate, she became a very young and beautiful widow, as many people have told me who have seen her, as well as from the portraits I've looked at, which all depict her as very fair, lacking any unattractive or blameworthy features, except for her heavy, protruding mouth, or “Austrian lip.” However, this trait doesn’t actually originate from the House of Austria, but rather from Burgundy, as a lady from the Court at that time mentioned. She recounted how once, when Queen Eleanor was passing through Dijon on her way to pay her respects at the Monastery of the Chartreuse in that area, and to visit the revered tombs of her ancestors, the Dukes of Burgundy, she was curious to have them opened, as many monarchs have done with their own. Some of the bodies she found were so intact and well-preserved that she recognized many of their features, including the mouth. She suddenly exclaimed: “Ah! I thought we inherited our mouths from the Austrians; but from what I see here, it seems we actually got them from Mary of Burgundy, our ancestress, and the Dukes of Burgundy, our ancestors. If I ever see the Emperor, my brother, I will tell him; in fact, I will write to him right away.” The lady present told me she personally heard these words, adding that the Queen expressed them as if she was pleased with her discovery. And she was completely right, for the House of Burgundy was just as good as that of Austria, having descended from a son of France, Philip le Hardi, from whom they inherited much wealth, courage, and high spirit. I truly believe there were never four greater Dukes, one after another, than these four Dukes of Burgundy. I might be accused of endlessly straying from my topic; but it’s easy to excuse me, I think, since I’ve never been taught the art of careful and exact writing.
Our Queen Mary of Hungary then was a most fair and agreeable Princess, and a very amiable, albeit she did show herself somewhat over masculine. But for that she was none the worse for love, nor yet for war, which she did take for her chiefest exercise. The Emperor, her brother, seeing her meet for this work and very apt therein, did send to summon her and beg her to come to him, for to give her the charge of her aunt Marguerite of Flanders had held, which was a very wise Princess and one that did govern his Province of the Low Countries with as much gentleness as the other had used severity. Wherefore so long as she lived, King Francis did never direct his arms toward that quarter, saying he would fain avoid giving[228] displeasure to so noble a Princess, which did show her so well disposed to France, and so wise and virtuous to boot. Unhappy too beyond her deserts in her marriages, whereof the first was with King Charles VIII., by whom she was while still quite a girl sent back to her father’s house; the second with the King of Aragon’s son, John by name, of whom she had a posthumous son that died soon after its birth. The third was with the handsome Duke Philibert of Savoy, of whom she had no offspring, and for that cause did bear the device, Fortune infortune, fors une. She doth lie with her husband in the beautiful and most splendid Cloister of Brou, near the town of Bourg en Bresse, a Church I have myself visited.
Our Queen Mary of Hungary was a very beautiful and charming princess, and though she had a somewhat masculine demeanor, it didn’t lessen her capacity for love or her skill in war, which she made her main focus. Her brother, the Emperor, recognizing her suitability for this role and her talent, sent for her to ask her to take over the responsibilities once held by her aunt, Marguerite of Flanders. Marguerite was a wise princess who governed the Low Countries with the same gentleness that others used severity. Because of this, King Francis never directed his military efforts towards that region while she lived, saying he wanted to avoid displeasing such a noble princess, who was so well-disposed towards France and was wise and virtuous as well. Unfortunately, her marriages brought her more misfortune than she deserved. Her first was to King Charles VIII, who sent her back to her father's house while she was still quite young. Her second marriage was to John, the son of the King of Aragon, and from that union, she had a posthumous son who died shortly after birth. Her third marriage was to the handsome Duke Philibert of Savoy, and since they had no children, she bore the motto, Fortune infortune, fors une. She lies with her husband in the beautiful and splendid Cloister of Brou, near the town of Bourg en Bresse, a church that I have personally visited.
This same Queen of Hungary then did greatly help the Emperor, seeing how isolated he was. ’Twas true he had Ferdinand, King of the Romans, his brother; yet was it all he could do to make head against that great conqueror, the Sultan Soliman. The Emperor had moreover on his hands the affairs of Italy, which was at that time all a-fire; while Germany was little better by reason of the Grand Turk, and he was harassed to boot with Hungary, Spain at the time of its rebellion under M. de Chièvres, the Indies, the Low Countries, Barbary, and France, which last was the most sore burden of all, in a word with the business of nigh half the world, in a manner of speaking.[104*] He did make his sister Governess General of all the Netherlands, where by the space of two or three and twenty years she did him such excellent service I really cannot tell what he would have done without her. So he did entrust her with entire charge of the government of those districts, and even when himself was in Flanders, did leave all the management of his provinces in that quarter[229] in her hands. The council was held under her direction and in her apartments even when the Emperor was present and did attend, as I have been told he often did. ’Tis true she was very able and did manage it all for him, reporting to him all that had taken place at the meeting when he was not there, in all which he did find the utmost pleasure. She did carry out some very successful wars too, whether by her generals or in person, always riding a-horse, like a noble-hearted Amazon-queen.
This same Queen of Hungary greatly assisted the Emperor, recognizing how isolated he was. It was true he had his brother, Ferdinand, King of the Romans; but that was all he could do to hold his own against the formidable conqueror, Sultan Suleiman. The Emperor was also burdened with the situation in Italy, which was in turmoil at that time; and Germany was not much better off due to the Ottoman threat. He was additionally troubled by Hungary, Spain during its rebellion under M. de Chièvres, the Indies, the Low Countries, Barbary, and France, which was the heaviest burden of all, in short, dealing with the issues of nearly half the world, so to speak. He appointed his sister as the Governor General of all the Netherlands, where for about twenty-two or twenty-three years, she provided him with such outstanding service that I truly can’t imagine what he would have done without her. He entrusted her with full responsibility for the governance of those regions and even when he was in Flanders, he left the management of his provinces in that area in her hands. The council met under her direction and in her quarters, even when the Emperor was present and attended, as I’ve heard he often did. It’s true she was very capable and managed everything for him, updating him on everything that happened at the meeting when he was absent, which he thoroughly appreciated. She also conducted some very successful military campaigns, whether through her generals or personally, always riding on horseback like a noble-hearted Amazon queen.
She it was which did first begin those burnings of strongholds in our land of France, destroying thus some of the finest houses and castles, and in especial that of Folembray,[105*] a beautiful and agreeable residence our Kings had built them for the delight and pleasure of the chase. At this the King did feel so sore despite and displeasure as that no long while after she did get of him as good as she gave, for he took his revenge on her noble house of Bains, the which was held for one of the marvels of the world, shaming so to speak all other beautiful buildings of the earth, and I have heard those say that had seen it in its perfection, comparable even to the seven wonders of the world, so renowned in Antiquity. ’Twas there she did entertain the Emperor Charles and all his Court, the time when his son, King Philip, came from Spain to Flanders for to visit his father, such excellence and perfection of magnificence being then displayed that naught else was spoke of at the time save only las fiestas de Bains, as the Spaniards said. Moreover I do remember on the journey to Bayonne, when some very splendid shows were given, tilting at the ring, combats, masquerades and games, ’twas all naught to be compared with these famous fiestas de Bains,—as sundry old Spanish noblemen which had[230] witnessed them did declare, and as I have seen myself in a Work writ in Spanish on purpose to celebrate them. And it may be certainly said there hath never aught been done or seen finer, equalling even the splendours of Roman days, and copying their old-time sports, always excepting the fights of Gladiators and wild beasts. But with this only exception, the feasts of Bains were finer, more agreeable, as well as more varied and general.
She was the one who first started those burnings of strongholds in our land of France, destroying some of the finest houses and castles, especially that of Folembray, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, a beautiful and pleasant home our Kings had built for their enjoyment of hunting. This made the King feel so hurt and displeased that not long after, she got back as good as she gave, for he took his revenge on her noble house of Bains, which was considered one of the marvels of the world, overshadowing all other lovely buildings on earth. I've heard people say who saw it in its prime that it was comparable even to the seven wonders of the world, as renowned in ancient times. It was there she hosted Emperor Charles and all his Court, the time when his son, King Philip, came from Spain to Flanders to visit his father. The level of magnificence displayed was so remarkable that nothing else was talked about at the time except las fiestas de Bains, as the Spaniards called it. Moreover, I remember on the journey to Bayonne, when some grand displays were held—tilting at the ring, combats, masquerades, and games—nothing could compare to these famous fiestas de Bains, as numerous old Spanish noblemen who witnessed them declared, and as I have seen myself in a work written in Spanish specifically to celebrate them. It's safe to say that nothing finer has ever been done or seen, equaling even the splendor of Roman days while imitating their ancient sports, always excluding the gladiator fights and wild beast contests. But aside from that, the feasts of Bains were finer, more enjoyable, as well as more diverse and extensive.
These fêtes I would most dearly love to describe here, according to the particulars I have gleaned from this Spanish work, as well as learned from sundry eye-witnesses, and in especial from Madame de Fontaine, surnamed Torcy,[106*] acting as sister for the time being to Queen Eleanor; but I should be blamed as too continually digressing from my subject. So I must e’en keep it for a tid-bit some other time, the matter really meriting full description. Amongst the most splendid of the shows, I will name but this. She had a great fortress of brick, which was assaulted, defended, and relieved by a body of six thousand foot-men of veteran regiments, bombarded by thirty pieces of ordnance, whether in the trenches or on the walls, with all identical methods and ceremonies as in actual war. The siege did last three days and an half, and so fine a sight was never seen; for assaults were delivered, relief brought up, the besieged beaten back, both cavalry and infantry participating in the manœuvres, under charge of the Prince of Piedmont, the place being eventually surrendered on terms, in part favourable, in part rather hard, the garrison being granted their lives and withdrawing under escort. In a word no detail of real war was forgot,—all to the singular gratification of the Emperor.
I would really love to describe these celebrations here, based on the details I've gathered from this Spanish work and what I learned from various eyewitnesses, especially Madame de Fontaine, also known as Torcy, who was like a sister to Queen Eleanor at the time. However, I would get criticized for straying too much from my topic. So I have to save it for another time, as it really deserves a full description. Among the most impressive displays, I’ll mention just this one. She had a massive brick fortress that was attacked, defended, and rescued by six thousand seasoned foot soldiers, bombarded by thirty cannons, using all the same tactics and rituals as in actual warfare. The siege lasted three and a half days, and it was an incredible sight; there were assaults, reinforcements, the beleaguered were pushed back, with both cavalry and infantry taking part in the maneuvers under the command of the Prince of Piedmont. The place was eventually surrendered under terms that were partly favorable and partly harsh, with the garrison granted their lives and leaving under escort. In short, no aspect of real war was overlooked—all for the distinct pleasure of the Emperor.
[231]
[231]
Rest assured, if the Queen was lavish on that occasion, ’twas but to show her brother that what he had had of him, estates, pensions, benefits, share of his conquests, all was vowed to the further heightening of his glory and pleasure. Wherefore the said Emperor was greatly pleased and did highly commend and approve the great expenditure, and especially that lavished on his own chamber. This was hung with tapestry of a raised warp, all of gold, silver and silk, where were figured and represented in their true colours all the famous conquests, high emprises, warlike expeditions and battles, he had ever made and won, above all not forgetting the defeat of Soliman before Vienna, and the taking prisoner of King Francis I. In fact there was naught therein that was not of the best and most highly wrought.
Rest assured, if the Queen was extravagant on that occasion, it was only to show her brother that everything he had—estates, pensions, perks, and his share of conquests—was dedicated to enhancing his glory and enjoyment. Therefore, the Emperor was very pleased and greatly praised the lavish spending, especially what was spent on his own chambers. These were decorated with raised-warp tapestries made of gold, silver, and silk, depicting in true colors all his famous conquests, grand achievements, military campaigns, and battles he had fought and won, especially remembering the defeat of Soliman before Vienna and the capture of King Francis I. In fact, there was nothing there that wasn’t of the highest quality and craftsmanship.
But truly the unfortunate mansion did lose all its splendour later, forasmuch as it was utterly devastated, pillaged, ruined and overthrown. I have heard say how its mistress, on learning this ruin, did fall in such distress, despite and fury, that ’twas many days ere she could be appeased. Subsequently, when one day passing near the spot, she was fain to see the remains, and gazing very sadly at these, did swear, the tears in her eyes, that all France should repent the deed and be right sorry for these conflagrations, and that she would never be content till yonder proud Castle of Fontainebleau, whereof folk did make so much, was levelled with the earth and not one stone left on another. And in very deed she did spew out her anger right fiercely over the unhappy land of Picardy, which felt the sore effects of her wrath and the fires she kindled there; and I ween, if truce had not interfered, her vengeance would have been startling. For[232] she was of a proud and hard heart, and slow to be appeased, and was generally held, of her own people as well as ours, somewhat over cruel; but such is ever the bent of women, especially of high-born women, which be very ready to take vengeance for any offence done them. The Emperor, by all they say, did only love her the more for this.
But really, the unfortunate mansion lost all its glory later on, as it was completely devastated, looted, ruined, and destroyed. I've heard that when its mistress found out about the ruin, she was so distressed and furious that it took her many days to calm down. Eventually, one day as she passed near the site, she wanted to see the remains, and looking sadly at them, she swore, with tears in her eyes, that all of France would regret what had happened and be truly sorry for these fires. She vowed she wouldn't rest until that proud Castle of Fontainebleau, which people valued so much, was reduced to rubble, with not one stone left on another. Indeed, she unleashed her anger fiercely over the unfortunate land of Picardy, which felt the harsh consequences of her wrath and the fires she started there; and I believe, if a truce hadn't intervened, her vengeance would have been shocking. For, she was proud and hard-hearted, slow to be appeased, and was generally considered somewhat cruel by both her own people and ours; but that's often the nature of women, especially noblewomen, who are very quick to seek revenge for any offense against them. The Emperor, according to what everyone says, only loved her more for this.
I have heard tell how, when the Emperor did abdicate at Brussels and strip him of his power, the ceremony being held in a great Hall wherein he had called together an assembly of his Estates, after he had made a set speech and said all he wished to his son, and had likewise humbly thanked his sister, Queen Mary, which was seated by the side of the Emperor her brother, the latter presently rising from her seat, and with a deep reverence to her brother, did address the people with a grave and dignified port and much confidence and grace, and said as follows: “Gentlemen, for these three and twenty years past that my brother, the Emperor, hath been pleased to grant me the charge and government of these Low Countries, I have ever employed in the said task all the means and abilities that God, Nature and Fortune have bestowed on me, for to perform the same to the utmost of my powers. But an if in aught I have made failure, I am surely to be excused, for I think I have never forgot my duty nor spared the proper pains. Yet, and if I have lacked in anything, I do beg you to forgive me. However, if there be any one of you will not so do, but is ill content with me and my government, why! ’tis the smallest of my cares, seeing the Emperor, my brother, is well content, and to please him, and him alone, hath ever been the chiefest of my desires and cares.” With these words and another[233] deep reverence to the Emperor, she did resume her seat. I have heard some say this speech was found of many somewhat over proud and haughty, more especially on occasion her giving up her charge and bidding farewell to a people she was about to leave. ’Twould surely have been more natural, had she desired to leave a good savour in their mouth and some grief behind her on her departure. But for all this she had never a thought, seeing her sole end was to please and content her brother, and from henceforth to take no heed of the world but keep her brother company in his retirement and life of prayer.
I’ve heard how, when the Emperor abdicated in Brussels and lost his power, the ceremony took place in a grand hall where he had gathered his Estates. After delivering a speech and expressing everything he wanted to say to his son, he also humbly thanked his sister, Queen Mary, who was sitting next to him. She then rose from her seat and, with deep respect for her brother, addressed the people with a serious and dignified demeanor, speaking with confidence and grace. She said: “Gentlemen, for the past twenty-three years, my brother, the Emperor, has entrusted me with the responsibility of governing these Low Countries. I have always done my best in this role, using all the resources and abilities that God, Nature, and Fortune have given me. If I have failed in any way, I hope to be excused, as I believe I have never forgotten my duty or avoided putting in the necessary effort. Still, if I have fallen short in any regard, I ask for your forgiveness. However, if any of you cannot grant me this, due to your discontent with me and my leadership, it’s the least of my worries; my brother, the Emperor, is satisfied, and pleasing him has always been my primary goal.” With these words and another deep bow to the Emperor, she sat back down. Some have said this speech came across as somewhat proud and haughty, especially given the occasion of her stepping down and saying goodbye to the people she was leaving behind. It would have seemed more natural for her to want to leave a good impression and evoke some sadness as she departed. Yet, she never seemed to consider that; her only aim was to please her brother and, from then on, to focus on being with him during his retirement and his life of prayer.
This account I had of a gentleman of my brother’s suite, which was at the time at Brussels, whither he had gone to treat of the ransom of my brother aforesaid, he having been taken prisoner in Hedin, and having spent five years in confinement at Lille in Flanders. The said gentleman was present throughout this assembly and mournful abdication of the Emperor; and did tell me how not a few persons were something scandalized in secret at this haughty pronouncement of the Queen’s, yet did never dare say a word or let their opinion appear, seeing plainly they had to do with a masterful dame, which, if angered, would surely before her final departure have done something startling for a last stroke.
I heard this story from a gentleman who was part of my brother's entourage while they were in Brussels. He had gone there to negotiate my brother's ransom after he was captured in Hedin and spent five years confined in Lille, Flanders. This gentleman attended the entire assembly and sad abdication of the Emperor. He told me that quite a few people were secretly shocked by the Queen's arrogant declaration, but they never dared to speak out or show their true feelings because it was clear they were dealing with a forceful woman who, if provoked, might do something dramatic before she left.
Presently freed of all her charge and responsibility, she doth accompany her brother to Spain; which land she did never after quit, either she or her sister Queen Eleanor, till the day of death. Of the three, each did survive the other by one year; the Emperor died first, the Queen of France next, being the eldest, then the Queen of Hungary after the two others, her brother and sister. Both sisters did behave them wisely and well in widowhood; the Queen[234] of Hungary was a longer time widow than her sister, and did never marry again, while her sister did so twice, partly to be Queen of France, a dainty morsel, partly by the prayers and persuasion of the Emperor, to the end she might be a sure pledge of peace and public quietness. Not that the said pledge did avail for long while, for War brake out again presently, as cruel as ever. However this was no fault of the poor Princess, who did all she could. Yet for all that did King Francis, her husband, treat her but scurvily, hating and abominating the connection, as I have been told.
Now free from all her duties and responsibilities, she goes with her brother to Spain, a place she and her sister Queen Eleanor never left until the day they died. Each of the three outlived the other by one year: the Emperor died first, then the Queen of France, the eldest, and finally the Queen of Hungary, after her brother and sister. Both sisters managed their widowhood wisely and well; the Queen of Hungary remained a widow longer than her sister and never remarried, while her sister married twice, partly to become the Queen of France—an enticing position—and partly due to the Emperor’s urging, to serve as a reliable symbol of peace and stability. However, this promise didn't last long, as war broke out again soon, just as brutal as before. The poor Princess did everything she could, yet despite that, King Francis, her husband, treated her poorly, despising and resenting their union, as I have been told.
4.
4.
After the departure of the Queen of Hungary there was left no great Princess with King Philip (now Sovereign Lord invested with his domains in the Netherlands and elsewhere), but only the Duchesse de Lorraine, Christina of Denmark,[107*] his cousin german, later entitled Her Highness, which did always hold him good company, so long as he tarried in these parts. She did add much to the brilliance of his Court, for truly no Court, whether of King, Prince, Emperor or Monarch, no matter how magnificent it be, is of much account, if it be not accompanied and seconded by a Queen’s or Empress’s Court, or at least a great Princess’s, and thereat a good abundance of noble dames and damsels, as both myself have observed and have heard pronouncement to the same effect in the highest quarters.
After the Queen of Hungary left, there was no major princess with King Philip (now Sovereign Lord ruling over his lands in the Netherlands and elsewhere), except for the Duchesse de Lorraine, Christina of Denmark, his cousin, who later became known as Her Highness. She always provided him with good company while he stayed in these areas. She added a lot to the grandeur of his Court, because truly, no Court—whether that of a King, Prince, Emperor, or Monarch, no matter how splendid—counts for much if it isn’t supported by a Queen’s or Empress’s Court, or at least a prominent princess’s Court, with plenty of noble ladies and maidens, as both I have observed and have heard affirmed in the highest circles.
This said Princess was in mine opinion one of the most beauteous and most well accomplished Princesses I have ever seen,—in face very fair and pleasing, her figure very[235] tall and fine, her conversation agreeable, and above all her dress most excellent. In fact all her life she was the pattern and model of fashion to all the ladies of France. This mode of dressing head and hair and arranging the veil was known as the Lorraine way, and ’twas a pretty sight to see our Court ladies so attired. These were ever a-making grand fêtes and splendid shows, the better thereat to show off their dainty adornments, all being à la Lorraine and copied after Her Highness. In especial she had one of the prettiest hands ever seen; and I have heard the Queen Mother herself praise the same, and liken it to her own for perfection. She had an excellent seat on horseback, and rode with no little grace, always using the stirrup attached to the saddle, the mode whereof she had learned of the Queen Marie, her aunt, and the Queen Mother, so I have heard say of her; for previously she had ridden with help of the old-fashioned “planchette,”[108] which was far from properly showing off her grace and her elegant seat like the stirrup. In all this she was for imitating the Queen her aunt, never mounting any but Spanish horses, Turks, Barbs and the very best jennets, which could go well at the amble. Of such I have seen a dozen capital mounts at one time in her stable, all so excellent, ’twere impossible to say one was better than another. The said aunt did love her dearly, as well for the exercises they both were fond of, hunting, riding and the like, as for her virtues, the which she did observe in her. Accordingly, after her marriage, she did often go to visit her in Flanders, as I have heard Madame de Fontaines relate; and indeed after she became a widow, and especially after her son had been taken from her, she did quit Lorraine altogether in despite, so proud and high of heart[236] was she. She did thereafter take up her abode with the Emperor her uncle and the Queens her aunts, all which great personages did receive her with no small pleasure.
This princess was, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful and accomplished princesses I have ever seen—her face was very attractive, her figure tall and elegant, her conversation pleasant, and above all, her dress was exceptional. Throughout her life, she was the trendsetter and model of fashion for all the ladies of France. This style of dressing her head and hair and arranging her veil was known as the Lorraine way, and it was a lovely sight to see our court ladies dressed like this. They were always hosting grand fêtes and luxurious displays, all to show off their beautiful outfits, all done à la Lorraine and inspired by her Highness. In particular, she had one of the prettiest hands ever seen; I’ve heard the Queen Mother herself praise it and compare it to her own for perfection. She had a great seat on horseback and rode with considerable grace, always using the stirrup attached to the saddle, a style she learned from her aunt Queen Marie and the Queen Mother, as I've been told; previously, she rode with the outdated “planchette,” __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ which didn’t showcase her elegance and fine seat like a stirrup would. In all of this, she aimed to mimic her aunt the Queen, only riding Spanish horses, Turks, Barbs, and the best jennets, which could amble well. I've seen a dozen great mounts at one time in her stable, all so excellent that it was impossible to pick one as better than the others. Her aunt loved her dearly, both for their shared interests in activities like hunting and riding, and for the virtues she observed in her. After her marriage, she often visited her in Flanders, as I’ve heard Madame de Fontaines say; and indeed, after she became a widow, especially after losing her son, she left Lorraine entirely out of spite, so proud and high-spirited was she. After that, she settled with her uncle the Emperor and her aunts the Queens, all of whom welcomed her with great pleasure.
She did bear exceeding hardly the loss and absence of her son, and this in spite of all possible excuses which King Henri did make her, and his declared intention of adopting him as his son. But presently, finding no assuagement, and seeing how they were giving him one M. de La Brousse as tutor, instead of the one he now had, namely M. de Montbardon, a very wise and honourable gentleman the Emperor himself had assigned to that office, having long known him for a worthy man, for he had been in the service of M. de Bourbon, and was a French refugee, the Princess, thinking all desperate, did seek out King Henri one Holy Thursday in the great Gallery at Nancy, where all his Court was assembled. Thus, with an assured grace and that great beauty which did make her yet more admirable, she did advance, with no undue awe or any sort of abasement at his grandeur, albeit bowing low in reverence before him; and in suppliant wise, with tears in her eyes, the which did but make her more fair and more delightsome to look upon, did remonstrate with the King as to the wrong he was doing her in taking away her son,—the dearest possession she had in all the world. Little did she deserve, she added, so harsh treatment, seeing the high station she was born in and the fact she had never dreamed of doing aught to his disservice. All this she said so well and with so excellent a grace, with reasoning so cogent and complaint so pitiful, as that the King, always very courteous toward ladies, was deeply stirred with compassion,—and not he alone,[237] but all the Lords and Princes, great and small, which were present at the sight.
She struggled immensely with the loss and absence of her son, despite all the excuses King Henri made for her and his declared intention to adopt him as his son. However, feeling no relief and noticing they were assigning M. de La Brousse as his tutor instead of the current one, M. de Montbardon—who was a very wise and honorable gentleman that the Emperor himself had put in that role, having long known him to be a worthy man, having served M. de Bourbon and being a French refugee—the Princess, feeling desperate, sought out King Henri one Holy Thursday in the great Gallery at Nancy, where all his Court was gathered. With assured grace and the great beauty that made her even more admirable, she approached without excessive awe or any sort of submission to his grandeur, though she bowed low in respect before him. With tears in her eyes, which only made her more beautiful and delightful to look at, she pleaded with the King about the wrong he was doing her by taking away her son—the most precious thing she had in the world. She expressed that she did not deserve such harsh treatment, considering her high status and the fact that she had never intended to do him any disservice. She articulated all this so well, with such excellent grace, compelling reasoning, and heart-wrenching emotion, that the King, always very courteous towards ladies, was deeply moved with compassion—and not just him, but all the Lords and Princes, great and small, who were present at the moment. [237]
The King, who was the most respectful monarch toward ladies hath ever been in France, did answer her in very honourable terms, albeit with no rigmarole of words nor by way of set harangue, as Paradin doth represent the matter in his History of France; for indeed of his nature this monarch was not so prolix, nor copious in reasons and fine speeches, nor a mighty orator. Neither had he any need to be, nor is it becoming that a King should play the philosopher and rhetorician, the shortest replies and briefest questions being more meet for him and more becoming. This I have heard argued by not a few great men, amongst others by M. de Pibrac,[109*] whose judgment was much to be relied on by reason of the competence of knowledge he did possess. Moreover any one that shall read the speech as given by Paradin, as supposed by him to have been delivered in this place by King Henri, will credit never a word of it; besides which, I have heard positively from a number of great folk which were there present that he did not make any such lengthy harangue as the historian saith.
The King, who was the most respectful monarch towards women ever in France, answered her in very honorable terms, without any unnecessary words or lengthy speech, as Paradin describes in his History of France; for this monarch wasn't one to be long-winded or overflowing with reasons and eloquent speeches, nor was he a great orator. He didn't need to be, and it's not appropriate for a King to act like a philosopher or a rhetorician; brief responses and short questions are more suitable for him. I've heard this argued by several prominent individuals, including M. de Pibrac, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ whose judgment was highly regarded due to his significant knowledge. Moreover, anyone who reads the speech that Paradin claims was delivered here by King Henri will not believe a word of it; in addition, I've heard from numerous respected individuals who were present that he did not give any lengthy speech as the historian states.
’Tis quite true at the same time that he did condole with her in very honourable and proper phrase on her alleged grievance, saying she had no real reason to be troubled thereat, for that ’twas to assure the lad’s estate, and not out of any selfish hostility toward him, he was fain to have her son by his side, and to keep him along with his own son and heir, to share his bringing up and fashion of life and fortune. Further that himself being French, and the boy of French extraction, he could scarce be better off than to be reared at the French Court and[238] among French folk, where he had so many kinsmen and friends. In especial he forgat not to add how the house of Lorraine did lie under greater obligation to that of France than to any other in all Christendom, alleging the countenance given by France to the Duke of Lorraine as against Duke Charles of Burgundy, that was slain before Nancy. For that ’twas an undoubted truth to say that but for that Country’s help, the said Duke would have utterly undone the Duke of Lorraine and his Duchy to boot, and made him the most unhappy Prince in the world. He did further allege the gratitude they of the House of Lorraine did owe to the French, for the great assistance rendered them by the latter in their successes in the Holy Wars and conquests of Jerusalem, and the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily. Further he did declare how neither his natural bent nor true interests were like to set him on ruining and undoing Princes, but rather to help the same in all ways, when in danger and difficulty,—as he had actually done to the little Queen of Scots, a near kinswoman of his son, to the Duke of Parma, as well as to Germany, that was so sore pressed it was nigh coming to utter ruin without such help. The same kindness and generosity, he said, was his motive for taking the young Prince of Lorraine under his protection, for to bring him up to an higher estate than else he could aspire to, and make him his son by marrying him eventually to one of his own daughters; in fine that she had no sort of call to be afflicted at his action.
It’s true that he expressed his condolences to her in a very respectful and appropriate manner about her supposed grievance. He told her she had no real reason to be upset because it was to secure the boy’s future, not out of any personal animosity toward him, that he wanted her son by his side, alongside his own son and heir, to share in his upbringing and lifestyle. He also mentioned that as a Frenchman, and with the boy being of French descent, it would be ideal for him to grow up at the French Court among French people, where he had many relatives and friends. He particularly stressed how the house of Lorraine was more indebted to France than to any other place in all of Christendom, referencing the support France offered to the Duke of Lorraine against Duke Charles of Burgundy, who was killed before Nancy. It was a clear fact that without France’s help, Duke Lorraine would have faced complete ruin, making him the most unfortunate prince in the world. He further pointed out the gratitude the House of Lorraine owed to the French for their significant support in the Holy Wars and the conquests of Jerusalem, Naples, and Sicily. He declared that neither his natural inclination nor true interests would lead him to destroy princes but rather to assist them in times of danger and difficulty, as he had done for the young Queen of Scots, who was closely related to his son, the Duke of Parma, and Germany, which was on the brink of utter ruin without such assistance. He said the same kindness and generosity motivated him to take the young Prince of Lorraine under his protection, aiming to elevate him to a higher status than he could otherwise achieve and to eventually make him his son by marrying him to one of his daughters; in short, she had no reason to be troubled by his actions.
Yet could not all these fine words and excellent reasons in any wise calm her grief, neither enable her to bear her loss one whit more patiently. So presently with another deep reverence, and still shedding many pathetic tears,[239] she did withdraw her to her own chamber, the King himself conducting her to the door thereof. Next day, before quitting the place, he did visit her in her chamber to bid her farewell, but without her winning any concession as to her petition. Accordingly having thus seen her beloved son torn from her and carried away to France, she did resolve for her part to leave Lorraine altogether and retire to Flanders to the side of her uncle the Emperor (oh! the fine sound of that word) and to the company of her cousin King Philip and the Queens her aunts—a noble alliance and a great! This she did; and did never leave Flanders more, till after conclusion of the peace betwixt the two Kings, when he of Spain took ship and sailed away for that country.
Yet none of those nice words and great reasons could ease her sorrow or help her handle her loss any better. So, after another deep bow and still shedding many heartfelt tears,[239] she retired to her own room, with the King himself escorting her to the door. The next day, before leaving the place, he visited her in her chamber to say goodbye, but she didn't manage to get any agreement regarding her request. Having watched her beloved son taken from her and carried away to France, she decided to leave Lorraine completely and move to Flanders to be with her uncle the Emperor (oh! the beautiful sound of that word) and her cousin King Philip and her aunts, the Queens—a noble alliance and a grand one! She did this and never left Flanders again until after peace was made between the two Kings, when the King of Spain set sail for that country.
To the making of the said peace she did no little avail, my! rather was the chiefest contributor thereto. For the delegates of the one side and the other, by what I have heard said, after having laboured and sweated all in vain at Cercan for several days, without arranging or settling aught, were still at fault and off the scent, as we say in hunting, when she, whether inspired by wisdom from on high or urged thereto by Christian zeal and her own kind heart, did take up the chase, and carry this important negotiation to a good end and one so fortunate to all Christian peoples. And of a truth ’twas said no other could have been found so meet to move and set in place this great corner stone, seeing she was a lady of skill and experience if ever there was one, as well as of high and weighty authority,—and there can be never a doubt but petty, low-born folk are not so apt for the like business as great personages be. For this and many other reasons the King her cousin did feel much trust and[240] confidence in her, well knowing her good qualities. He did ever love her well, bearing her much affection and esteem; and indeed she did help him much and contribute greatly to the splendour and renown of his Court, the which without her would have sorely lacked brilliancy. Yet afterward, I have been told, he did show her but poor gratitude and treated her scurvily with regard to her lands which did fall to her for jointure in the Duchy of Milan, where she had been married in first wedlock with the Duke Sforza; for by what I have been informed, he did rob her and bring her short of some portion of these.
To create the peace mentioned, she played a significant role, in fact, she was the main contributor. The delegates from both sides, as I've heard, worked hard and exhausted themselves in Cercan for several days without managing to arrange or settle anything. They were still lost and off track, as we say in hunting, when she, whether inspired by wisdom from above or driven by Christian zeal and her own kind heart, took up the task and successfully carried this important negotiation to a fortunate conclusion for all Christian communities. Truly, it was said that no one else could have been better suited to initiate and establish this crucial foundation since she was a skilled and experienced lady, as well as a person of high and significant authority—and there’s no doubt that common, low-born people are not as capable in such matters as great individuals are. For this and many other reasons, the King, her cousin, had great trust and confidence in her, well aware of her good qualities. He always held her in high regard, having a deep affection and esteem for her; indeed, she helped him a lot and contributed greatly to the splendor and reputation of his Court, which would have been greatly lacking in brilliance without her. However, I have been told that afterward, he showed her little gratitude and treated her poorly concerning the lands that were due to her as jointure in the Duchy of Milan, where she had been first married to Duke Sforza. According to what I have been informed, he deprived her of some portion of these lands.
I have heard it said that after the loss of her son, she did remain very ill content with the Duc de Guise and the great Cardinal her brother, holding them to blame for having advised the King to that course, by reason of their ambition, both because they were fain to see their near cousin adopted as son and married within the House of France, and because she had some while before refused M. de Guise in marriage, which had sent to her to make such offer. She being one of the proudest of womankind, made answer she would never wed the younger son of the house whereof she had been wife of the eldest. For this rebuff the Duke did ever after bear her a grudge, and this although he did lose naught in his subsequent marriage, his wife being of a most illustrious house and granddaughter of a King, Louis XII., one of the best and bravest monarchs have ever sat on the French throne,—and what is more, being one of the most beautiful women in Christendom.
I’ve heard that after the loss of her son, she was really upset with the Duke of Guise and her brother, the great Cardinal, blaming them for advising the King to take that path due to their ambition. They wanted to see their close cousin adopted as a son and married into the House of France, and also because she had previously turned down M. de Guise’s marriage proposal. She, being one of the proudest women, replied that she would never marry the younger son of the family where she had once been the wife of the eldest. Because of this rejection, the Duke held a grudge against her, even though he gained nothing from his later marriage, as his wife came from a very prestigious family and was the granddaughter of King Louis XII, one of the best and bravest monarchs to ever sit on the French throne—and what’s more, she was one of the most beautiful women in Christendom.
Hereanent I have heard tell how the first time these two beauteous Princesses met, both were so curious to mark one the other, whether directing their gaze straight in[241] the face, or askance or sideways, as that neither could look long enough, so set were they and eager to examine each other’s charms. I leave you to fancy all the divers thoughts must have traversed these fair ladies’ minds. Just so we do read how a little before the great battle was fought in Africa betwixt Scipio and Hannibal, which did put a final end to the War of Rome and Carthage, how previous to its beginning, they did come together in a short truce of some two hours’ duration. Whenas they were approached near each other, there the twain of them stood some little while wrapped in contemplation one of the other, each thinking of the valour of the other, so renowned by their exploits and so well represented in their gallant visages, their persons, and their fine, warlike ways and bearing. Then after so tarrying entranced in these noble dreams the one of the other, they did presently set them to negotiation after the fashion Livy hath so well described. Thus valour doth make itself esteemed in the midst of enmity and hate, as doth beauty in the midst of mutual jealousy,—as proven in the case of the two fair Princesses I have spoke of.
I’ve heard that when the two beautiful princesses first met, they were both so curious to look at each other that they couldn’t hold their gaze for long, whether they were staring straight at each other or glancing sideways, so eager were they to admire each other's beauty. Just imagine all the different thoughts that must have crossed their minds. Similarly, we read about how, just before the great battle in Africa between Scipio and Hannibal, which ultimately ended the War between Rome and Carthage, they came together for a short truce of about two hours. When they approached each other, they stood for a while, deep in thought about one another, each appreciating the other's courage, renowned through their remarkable deeds and evident in their impressive looks and noble, martial bearing. After being lost in these admirable thoughts, they quickly turned to negotiations, just as Livy described so well. This shows how valor earns respect even amidst hostility and hatred, just as beauty does amidst jealousy, as demonstrated in the case of the two fair princesses I’ve mentioned.
Truly the beauty and charming grace of these twain might well be pronounced equal, only that Madame de Guise mayhap did in some ways bear the bell. But she was well content to surpass her rival in these qualities only, never a whit in pride and high bearing; for indeed she was the most gentle, good, condescending and affable Princess ever known, albeit she could show herself at need high-spirited and gallant. Nature had framed her so, no less by reason of her tall and noble figure than of her dignified port and stately carriage, so that to look at her a man might well fear and think twice about addressing[242] her in speech, yet having plucked up courage so to accost her, naught would he find in her but all sweetness, candour and good-nature,—these pleasant qualities being inherited from her grandfather, the good father of his people, and the kindly French habit. ’Tis true enough however she knew very well how to keep her dignity and show her pride, when need was. I do hope to further speak of her specially in another place.
Truly, the beauty and charm of these two could easily be considered equal, though Madame de Guise may have had the edge in some ways. However, she was more than happy to excel over her rival in those qualities alone, never in pride or demeanor; for she was the gentlest, kindest, most approachable, and friendly Princess ever known, even though she could also be spirited and brave when necessary. Nature had made her this way, not just due to her tall and noble figure but also because of her dignified posture and graceful presence. When a man looked at her, he might hesitate and think twice before approaching her, yet once he found the courage to speak to her, he would discover nothing but sweetness, honesty, and a good nature—qualities passed down from her grandfather, who was a beloved leader of his people, and the warm French culture. It is true, however, that she knew very well how to maintain her dignity and show her pride when needed. I hope to talk more about her specifically elsewhere.
Her Highness of Lorraine on the contrary was exceeding proud and somewhat overweening. This myself did note on sundry occasions in her bearing toward the Queen of Scots, who after she was a widow, did make a journey to Lorraine, where I then was. Not seldom you would have thought the aforesaid proud Princess was eager to take advantage and encroach somewhat upon the unhappy Queen’s majesty. Yet the latter, who was a woman of the world and of a high spirit, did never give her occasion to glory over her or in any wise encroach on her dignity, albeit her bearing was always gentleness itself. Indeed the Cardinal her brother had duly warned her and given her an inkling of the haughty humour of the said Princess.
Her Highness of Lorraine, on the other hand, was extremely proud and somewhat arrogant. I noticed this on several occasions in the way she interacted with the Queen of Scots, who made a trip to Lorraine after becoming a widow, where I was at the time. More than once, you might have thought that this proud Princess was eager to take advantage of and infringe upon the unhappy Queen’s dignity. However, the latter, being a worldly woman with a strong spirit, never gave her a reason to feel superior or encroach on her dignity, even though her demeanor was always incredibly gentle. In fact, her brother the Cardinal had properly warned her and hinted at the proud nature of the Princess.
Never could this latter entirely rid her of her pride, yet was she fain to modify the same somewhat toward the Queen Mother (Catherine de Medici), when they met. Verily ’twas pride against pride; for the Queen Mother was the very proudest woman in all the world, when need was, as I have myself seen, and heard the same character given her of many great personages,—and above all if it were necessary to lower the pride of some presumptuous person, for she would ever contrive to abase such to the very bowels of the earth. Yet did she always bear herself courteously toward her Highness, treating her with sufficient[243] deference and respect, yet ever keeping a tight rein, hand high or hand low as occasion did demand, for fear she should mayhap forget herself and presume on some liberty; and myself did hear her twice or thrice declare, “Yonder is the proudest woman I ever saw!” This was at the time she came to the coronation of our late King Charles IX. at Reims, whither she was invited. On her entry into that city, she would not ride a-horseback, fearing thereby to derogate something of her dignity and rank, but did arrive in a coach magnificently furnished, all covered with black velvet, by reason of her widowhood, and drawn by four white barbs, the finest could anywhere be chosen, harnessed four abreast, as it had been a triumphal chariot. Herself was at the carriage door, splendidly attired, though all in black, in a velvet robe, but her head dress all of white, magnificently arranged and set off. At the other door was one of her daughters, which was after Duchess of Bavaria;[110*] and within, her maid of honour, the Princess of Macedonia. The Queen Mother, desiring to see her enter the outer court in this triumphant guise, did set her at a window, exclaiming in an undertone, “Oh! the haughty dame it is!” Presently when she had stepped down from her carriage and mounted to the great hall above, the Queen did go forward to meet her only so far as the midmost of the hall, or mayhap a little farther and somewhat nearer the entrance door than the upper end. Yet did she receive her very graciously, and showed her great honour; for at the time she was ruler in all things, in view of the youth of the King her son, and did govern him and make him entirely conform to her good pleasure. All the Court, great and small alike, did esteem and much admire the[244] said Princess, and much appreciate her beauty, albeit she was coming nigh the decline of her years, which might then be something over forty; yet was no sign of change or decay in her, her Autumn altogether surpassing other women’s Summer. None can do other than think highly of this fair Princess, seeing how beautiful she was, and yet did safeguard her widowhood to the tomb, and so inviolably and chastely, indulging in no third marriage, keep her faith to the manes of her husband.
She could never completely let go of her pride, but she was somewhat willing to tone it down when she met the Queen Mother (Catherine de Medici). It was truly a contest of pride; the Queen Mother was the proudest woman in the world when necessary, as I have seen for myself and heard from many notable figures. She always managed to bring down anyone she considered too arrogant, reducing them to nothing. However, she maintained a courteous demeanor towards her Highness, treating her with enough deference and respect, always keeping a firm grip on the situation—either raising or lowering her hand as needed—to ensure she didn’t get too comfortable or overstep. I heard her say a few times, “That is the proudest woman I’ve ever seen!” This was during the coronation of our late King Charles IX in Reims, where she was invited. Upon arriving in the city, she refused to ride a horse, fearing it might undermine her dignity, and instead came in a lavish black velvet coach, drawn by four fine white horses, arranged in a way that resembled a triumphal chariot. She stood at the carriage door, dressed splendidly in a black velvet gown, with her headpiece adorned in white, elegantly styled. At the other door was one of her daughters, who later became the Duchess of Bavaria, and inside was her maid of honor, the Princess of Macedonia. The Queen Mother wanted to see her enter the outer court in this grand fashion, so she positioned herself by a window, quietly exclaiming, “Oh! That haughty woman!” Once she stepped down from her carriage and moved up to the great hall, the Queen approached to greet her just about halfway across the hall or perhaps a bit closer to the entrance than the far end. She welcomed her graciously and honored her greatly, as she was in charge of everything at that time, given her son the King’s youth, and governed him to fit her wishes. Everyone at Court, both high and low, admired the Princess and appreciated her beauty, even though she was nearing her forties. Still, there were no signs of aging in her; her Autumn outshone other women’s Summers. Anyone would think highly of this beautiful Princess, who maintained her widowhood till death, faithfully honoring her late husband by not remarriage and keeping her chastity intact.
She did die within a year after hearing the news of her being Queen of Denmark, whence she did spring, and the Kingdom of which had fallen to her. In this wise before her death she did see her title of Highness, the which she had borne so long, changed to that of Majesty, which yet was hers but a short while, less than six months in all. I ween she would gladly enough have borne the old title still, an if she could have kept therewith her erstwhile bloom of youth and beauty, for truly all empires and kingdoms be as nothing compared with youth. Natheless was it an honour and consolation to her before her death to bear this name of Queen; but for all this, by what I have heard say, she was firm resolved not to go to her kingdom, but to finish out the rest of her days on her jointure lands in Italy, at Tortona. And the folk of that country did call her naught else but the Lady of Tortona—not a very grand title and quite unworthy of her. Thither she had retired a good while before her decease, as well for sake of certain vows she had sworn to perform at the holy places of that region, as to be nearer the baths of those parts; for she had fallen into bad health and grown exceeding gouty.
She died within a year of hearing the news that she was Queen of Denmark, from where she originally came, and which kingdom had fallen to her. Before her death, she saw her title of Highness, which she had held for so long, change to that of Majesty, but she only held it for a short time, less than six months in total. I believe she would have preferred to keep her old title if it meant she could also retain her former youth and beauty, because truly all empires and kingdoms mean nothing compared to youth. Nevertheless, it was an honor and comfort to her before she died to carry the title of Queen; however, according to what I've heard, she was determined not to return to her kingdom, but to spend the rest of her days in her jointure lands in Italy, in Tortona. The people there referred to her simply as the Lady of Tortona—not a very grand title and quite unworthy of her. She had retreated there long before her death, both to fulfill certain vows she had made to visit the holy sites in that area and to be closer to the local baths, as her health had declined and she had become very gouty.
Her life was spent in very pious, holy and honourable[245] exercises,—praying God and giving much alms and charity toward the poor, and above all toward widows, among whom she did not forget the unfortunate Madame Castellane of Milan, the which we have seen at Court dragging out a miserable existence, had it not been for the help of the Queen Mother, which did always provide her somewhat to live on. She was daughter of the Princess of Macedonia, being a scion of that great house. Myself have seen her a venerable and aged dame; and she had been governess to her Highness. The latter, learning the extreme poverty wherein the poor lady did live, sent to seek her out, and had her brought to her side and did treat her so well she never more felt the sore distress she had endured in France.
Her life was devoted to very religious, holy, and honorable activities—praying to God and generously giving alms and charity to the poor, especially widows. Among them, she didn’t forget the unfortunate Madame Castellane of Milan, who we saw at Court struggling to survive, if not for the support of the Queen Mother, who always provided her with enough to live on. She was the daughter of the Princess of Macedonia, a member of that great family. I have seen her as a respected and elderly woman; she had been the governess to her Highness. When her Highness learned about the extreme poverty the poor lady was living in, she sent for her, brought her to her side, and treated her so well that she never felt the deep distress she had experienced in France again.
Such is the summary account I have been able to give of this great and noble Princess, and how, a widow and a very beautiful woman, she lived a most wise and prudent life. True, it may be said she was married previously to the Duke Sforza. Well and good! but he did die immediately after, and they were married less than a year, and she was made a widow at fifteen or sixteen. Whereupon her uncle the Emperor did wed her to the Duke of Lorraine, the better to strengthen himself in his divers alliances. But once again she was widowed in the flower of her age, having enjoyed her fine marriage but a very few years. The days which were left her, the best of her life and those most highly to be valued and most delightfully to be enjoyed, these she did deliberately spend in a retired and chaste widowhood.
This is the summary I've managed to provide about this great and noble Princess. As a widow and a stunningly beautiful woman, she led a wise and prudent life. It's true that she was previously married to Duke Sforza. That's fine, but he passed away shortly after, and they were married for less than a year, leaving her a widow at just fifteen or sixteen. Following this, her uncle the Emperor married her off to the Duke of Lorraine to strengthen his various alliances. Yet again, she found herself widowed at a young age, having had only a short time to enjoy her marriage. She chose to spend the remaining days of her life—the best and most precious ones—living in a quiet and chaste widowhood.
Well! seeing I am on the subject, I must e’en speak of some other fair widows in briefest phrase,—and first of one of former days, that noble widow, Blanche de Montferrat,[111*] [246] one of the great and ancient houses of Italy, which was Duchess of Savoy and the most beauteous and most perfect Princess of her time, and one of the most prudent and well advised. So well and wisely did she govern her son’s minority and his lands, that never was seen so prudent a dame and so excellent a mother, left a widow as she was at three and twenty.
Well! Since I’m on the topic, I should mention some other lovely widows briefly, starting with an earlier figure, the noble widow, Blanche de Montferrat, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ [246] from one of the great and ancient houses of Italy, who was Duchess of Savoy and the most beautiful and extraordinary princess of her time, as well as one of the wisest and most thoughtful. She managed her son’s minority and his lands so skillfully and wisely that no one has ever seen a more prudent lady or a better mother, especially as she was left a widow at just twenty-three.
She it was which did receive so honourably the young King Charles VIII., on his way to his Kingdom of Naples, in all her lands, and above all in her good town of Turin, where she did afford him a very stately entry. Herself was pleased to be present, and did walk in the progress very sumptuously attired, showing she well understood her dignity as a great lady; for she was in imposing array, clad in a long robe of cloth of gold fretted, and all bordered with great diamonds, rubies, sapphires, emeralds, and other rich jewels. Her head likewise was encircled with the like precious stones, while at her neck she wore a necklace or collar of huge Oriental pearls of priceless worth, and on her arms bracelets of the same. She was mounted on a fine white hackney, very magnificently caparisoned and led by six tall lackeys, dressed in figured cloth of gold. Following her came a large company of damsels, very richly, neatly and charmingly dressed in the Piedmontese fashion, that ’twas a pleasure to see them, and after these a very strong body of gentlemen and knights of the country. Then after her train did enter and march into the city King Charles himself under a rich canopy of state, lighting down at length at the Castle, where he was lodged. There at the Gate, before entering in, the Duchess of Savoy did present her son to him, which was yet a mere boy; after which she did make[247] him a very excellent speech of welcome, putting at his service all her lands and goods, both her own and those of her son. This courtesy the King did accept with gratitude, thanking her heartily and expressing great obligation to her. Through all the city were to be seen the scutcheons of France and of Savoy, bound together with a true lovers’ knot, uniting the two scutcheons and the two blazons, with these words, Sanguinis arctus amor (Close the tie of blood), as described in the Chronicle of Savoy.[112*]
She was the one who honored young King Charles VIII on his way to his Kingdom of Naples, especially in her lands, and most notably in her beautiful town of Turin, where she gave him a grand welcome. She was delighted to be present and walked in the procession dressed very elegantly, showing she understood her status as a noblewoman; she wore an impressive long robe made of intricate cloth of gold, adorned all around with large diamonds, rubies, sapphires, emeralds, and other precious jewels. Her head was also surrounded by similar precious stones, while around her neck hung a necklace of huge, priceless Oriental pearls, and she wore matching bracelets on her arms. She rode a splendid white horse, richly decorated, led by six tall attendants dressed in patterned cloth of gold. Following her was a large group of young ladies, dressed beautifully and charmingly in the Piedmontese style, making it a delight to see them, and after them came a strong contingent of gentlemen and knights from the region. Then King Charles himself entered the city beneath a rich ceremonial canopy, eventually dismounting at the Castle where he would stay. At the Gate, before entering, the Duchess of Savoy presented her young son to him, who was still just a boy; afterward, she gave him an excellent welcome speech, offering all her lands and possessions, both her own and her son’s, for his service. The King accepted this courtesy gratefully, thanking her sincerely and expressing deep appreciation. Throughout the city, the coats of arms of France and Savoy were visible, intertwined with a true lovers' knot, uniting their heraldry with the words, Sanguinis arctus amor (Close the tie of blood), as described in the Chronicle of Savoy.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
I have heard sundry of our fathers and mothers, which had it of their own parents as eye-witnesses, and in especial of the noble lady, the Séneschale de Poitou, my grandmother, who was then a maid of honour at the Court, declare how in those days naught else was talked of but the beauty, wisdom and prudence of this same Princess, and how all the Courtiers and gallants of the King’s suite, when they were returned back to France from their journey thither, were forever discoursing of her and entertaining the dames and damsels of the Court with praises of her beauty and virtue, and the King more than any, which did show every sign of being smit to the heart with love for so beautiful a lady.
I’ve heard many stories from our parents, who heard them from their own parents as eyewitnesses, especially from the noble lady, the Séneschale de Poitou, my grandmother, who was a lady-in-waiting at the Court. They say that back then, everyone was talking about the beauty, intelligence, and wisdom of this Princess. When the courtiers and gentlemen returned to France from their journey, they couldn’t stop discussing her and delighting the ladies and young women of the Court with praise for her beauty and virtues. The King himself, more than anyone else, showed clear signs of being deeply in love with such a beautiful lady.
Yet apart from her beauty altogether, he had much occasion to love her well; for she did help him by every means she could, and did even strip her of all her precious stones, pearls and jewelry, to lend them him to raise money on in whatsoever way seemed good to him. This was indeed a great obligation and sacrifice, seeing what great attachment women do always have for their precious stones, rings and jewelry, so as they would almost rather lend and put in pawn some precious part of their own[248] body than their wealth of such things; I mean some would, though not of course all. At any rate the kindness done was a very great one; for but for this generosity, and likewise that of the Marquise de Montferrat, another very noble and very fair lady, he would have come to downright shame in no long time, and must have returned from his expedition before it was half done, having undertaken the same without money. Herein he was in the like sorry case with a certain French Bishop that went to the Council of Trent without money and without Latin. Verily a putting to sea without biscuit! Yet is there a difference ’twixt the two; for what the one did was of his fine, high spirit and noble ambition, the which did close his eyes to all inconveniences, finding naught impossible to a brave heart, whereas the other was in lack both of mother wit and proper experience, offending out of sheer ignorance and stupidity, unless indeed it were that he hoped to send round the bag when he got to his destination.
Yet aside from her beauty, he had many reasons to love her deeply; she supported him in every way she could, even going so far as to give up all her precious stones, pearls, and jewelry so he could use them to raise money however he thought best. This was truly a significant obligation and sacrifice, considering how attached women typically are to their valuables, like stones, rings, and jewelry. They might almost prefer to lend or pawn a part of their own body rather than their wealth in such possessions; some might, though certainly not all. In any case, her kindness was immense; without this generosity, along with that of the Marquise de Montferrat, another very noble and beautiful lady, he would have faced outright shame in a short time and would have had to return from his mission before even halfway through, having set out without any money. He was in a similar predicament to a certain French Bishop who went to the Council of Trent without money and without Latin. Truly, it was like setting sail without provisions! Yet there is a difference between the two; the first was driven by his noble spirit and high ambitions, which blinded him to any disadvantages, finding nothing impossible for a brave heart, whereas the other lacked both common sense and proper experience, acting out of sheer ignorance and stupidity, unless he hoped to fund his trip once he arrived.
In the description given of this magnificent entry I have spoke of just above, is to be noted the splendour of the attire and adornments of this same Princess, which were more in accord (some will say) with what is becoming a wife than a widow. On this the ladies did say at the time that, to welcome so great a King, she might well be excused so far, albeit he did hardly claim so great expenditure; and further that great folk, men and women, be a law to themselves, and that in those days widows, so they said, were not so straightlaced and exact in their dress as they have been for the last forty years. The fact is a certain great lady I wot of, being in high favour with a King, indeed his mistress, did dress her somewhat[249] in more quiet and modest garb than most, yet always in silk, to the end she might the better conceal and hide her game; wherefore the widows then at Court, being fain to imitate her, did adopt the same fashion. Natheless was she by no means so strict with herself, nor so stern in her moderation, but that she dressed both prettily and richly, only all in black and white, displaying more worldliness therein than did exactly accord with strict widow’s weeds, and in especial ever making a point of showing her beautiful bosom.
In the description of this magnificent entrance I mentioned earlier, it’s worth noting the impressive attire and ornaments of the Princess, which some might argue are more suitable for a wife than a widow. At the time, the ladies commented that, to welcome such a great King, she could be forgiven for this, even though he didn't require such lavishness; and that important people, both men and women, set their own standards, and in those days, widows, they said, weren’t as rigid and precise about their clothing as they have been for the past forty years. The truth is, there’s a certain high-ranking lady I know, who was in the King’s favor, in fact, his mistress, who dressed in a somewhat more subdued and modest style than most, yet always in silk, so she could better conceal her intentions; as a result, the widows at Court, eager to emulate her, adopted the same style. However, she wasn't so strict with herself or so severe in her moderation, but rather dressed charmingly and lavishly, all in black and white, showing more worldly flair than would typically fit the conventional widow's attire, particularly making a point of revealing her beautiful décolletage.
Myself did hear the Queen, mother of King Henri III., on occasion of the coronation and marriage of that monarch, say the same: how that widows in days gone by had not the same carefulness as to their attire, modest bearing and strict life, as nowadays. She had seen this in the time of King Francis, who did love an easy-going Court in all respects. Widows did even dance thereat, and were taken as partners as readily as maids or wives. In fact she did once command and beg M. de Vaudemont,[113*] by way of honouring the occasion, to lead out the Dowager Princess of Condé to the dance. This he did, and danced a full round with her, as they which were present for the coronation, as I was myself, did see and well remember. Such the freedom widows did then enjoy. Nowadays all this is forbid them as if ’twere a sacrilege, as also the wearing of colours, for none now dare wear aught but black and white; though as for underskirts and petticoats, these as well as their stockings, may be grey, drab, violet or blue. Some indeed I have seen which have so far indulged them as to adopt red, scarlet and chamois-yellow, as in former days; for they could then wear any colour[250] for bodices and stockings, though not for robes, by what I am told.
I heard the Queen, mother of King Henri III, mention during the coronation and wedding of that monarch that widows in the past didn’t pay as much attention to their clothing, modesty, and strict behavior as they do today. She observed this during King Francis’s reign, who preferred a relaxed court atmosphere in all respects. Widows even danced there and were chosen as partners just as readily as single women or wives. In fact, she once requested M. de Vaudemont, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ to honor the occasion by leading the Dowager Princess of Condé onto the dance floor. He did so, and they danced a complete round, which those present at the coronation, myself included, witnessed and remembered well. Such was the freedom widows enjoyed back then. Nowadays, all of this is forbidden as if it were sacrilege, including wearing colors, as no one dares wear anything but black and white; although for underskirts and petticoats, shades like grey, drab, violet, or blue are allowed. I have indeed seen some who went so far as to adopt red, scarlet, and chamois-yellow, as was common in earlier times; for they could then wear any color for bodices and stockings, but not for gowns, according to what I’ve been told. [250]
Moreover this same Duchess we have been speaking of might well enough wear such a robe of cloth of gold, seeing ’twas her proper ducal habit and state costume, and therefore becoming and lawful, for to display the sovranty and high dignity of her exalted rank. And this is even now done by our Countesses and Duchesses, the which can and do wear the robes belonging to their several orders on state occasions. Only our widows of to-day dare under no circumstances wear jewelry, except only in rings, and on mirrors and Books of Hours and the like, and set in handsome belts, but not on neck or arms, or even any great display of pearls in necklaces and bracelets. Yet I do declare solemnly I have seen widows as becomingly attired in their white and black, and every whit as attractively, as some of our tawdrily dressed wives and maids.
Moreover, this same Duchess we’ve been talking about could definitely wear a robe made of gold cloth, since it’s her official ducal outfit and state costume, making it fitting and appropriate to show off the sovereignty and high status of her noble rank. This is still done by our Countesses and Duchesses, who wear the gowns that belong to their respective orders on formal occasions. However, our widows today are forbidden to wear jewelry, except for rings and on mirrors and Books of Hours and similar items, and set in nice belts, but not on their necks or arms, or any significant display of pearls in necklaces and bracelets. Still, I must say that I’ve seen widows dressed elegantly in their white and black, just as appealing as some of our gaudily dressed wives and maids.
5.
5.
However enough said concerning this foreign Princess. ’Tis time to say somewhat of our French Princesses, and I would wish first to deal with our fair and unsullied Queen, Louise de Lorraine,[114*] wife of King Henri III., late deceased. This Princess can and ought to be commended on many grounds. In her marriage she did bear her towards the King her husband so wisely, modestly and loyally, as that the knot wherewith she was bound in wedlock with him did always remain so firm and indissoluble, no breaking or slackness of the same was ever found, and this although[251] the King did sometimes wander elsewhither to satisfy his passions, as great folks will, the which have a special freedom accorded them. Beside this, quite at the very beginning of their married life, in fact within ten days of their union, he did give her no slight cause for displeasure, for that he did deprive her of her women of the chamber and maids of honour, which had ever been with her and in her service, when still a girl, whereat she was exceeding sorry. ’Twas a heavy blow to her affection, in especial for Mlle. de Changy, a very fair and most honourable damsel, and one little deserving to be banished the company of her mistress and expelled the Court. Indeed ’tis ever a sore despite to lose a trusty companion and confidante. I have heard how one day a lady, one of her most privy friends, was presuming enough to chide her and urge, by way of jest and half-serious flaunt, that, seeing she could never have children by the King, for many reasons then commonly alleged, she would do well to borrow secret aid of some third person, for to have offspring, to the end she might not be left without authority, supposing her husband did chance to die, but might some day very like be Queen Mother of a King of France, and hold the same rank and high estate as the Queen mother-in-law. But the lady did long regret her counsel, semi-burlesque as it was; for the Queen took the same exceeding ill, and did never after like her worthy adviser, preferring to base her dignity on her chastity and virtuous life rather than on a lineage sprung of evil-doing. Still the advice, in a worldly point of view and according to Machiavelli’s doctrine, was not to be despised.
However, enough has been said about this foreign Princess. It’s time to talk about our French Princesses, and I would like to start with our noble and pure Queen, Louise de Lorraine, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, wife of the late King Henri III. This Princess deserves praise for many reasons. In her marriage, she treated her husband, the King, with such wisdom, modesty, and loyalty that the bond of their wedlock remained strong and unbreakable; there was never any sign of strain or looseness, even though the King sometimes looked elsewhere to satisfy his desires, as is often allowed for those in high positions. Moreover, right at the beginning of their marriage, within just ten days, he gave her cause for great disappointment by taking away her ladies-in-waiting and maids of honor, who had always been with her since she was a girl, which made her extremely sad. It was a significant blow to her affections, especially for Mlle. de Changy, a beautiful and honorable young woman who certainly did not deserve to be removed from her mistress's company and banished from the Court. Losing a trusty companion and confidante is always a hard pill to swallow. I’ve heard that one day, a lady, one of her closest friends, daringly teased her, suggesting in a half-joking way that since she might never have children with the King for various commonly discussed reasons, she should secretly seek help from someone else to have offspring. This way, she wouldn’t be left without power if her husband happened to die, and could potentially become the Queen Mother of a King of France, enjoying the same rank and status as her mother-in-law, the Queen. But the lady later regretted her advice, joking as it was, because the Queen took it very poorly and never liked her trusted advisor afterward. She preferred to base her dignity on her purity and virtuous life rather than on a lineage born of wrongdoing. Still, from a pragmatic perspective and according to Machiavelli’s teachings, the advice wasn’t without merit.
Very different was the behaviour, so ’tis said, of Queen Mary of England, third wife of King Louis XII. Being[252] but ill-content and distrustful of the feebleness of the King her husband, she was fain to sound these waters for herself, taking for guide in crossing the ford the noble Comte d’Angoulême, the same which was afterward King Francis, then a young, handsome and charming Prince, to whom she did show much favour, always addressing him as “My excellent son-in-law;” as indeed he was, having already married Madame Claude, daughter of King Louis. The fact is she was smit with love for him; and he on seeing her was in much the same case. The end was the pair were very nigh coming together, the which they would surely have done but for the late M. de Grignaux,[115*] a nobleman of honour and good birth from Périgord, a prudent and well advised man, who had been gentleman in waiting to the Queen Anne, as we have above said, and was so still to Queen Mary. He seeing the play was very like to come off, did chide the aforesaid Comte d’Angoulême for the fault he was about to commit, saying with an angry energy: “Nay! by the Risen God (this was his favourite oath), what would you be at? See you not this woman, keen and cunning as she is, is fain to draw you to her, to the end you may get her with child? But an if she come to have a son, what of you? You are still plain Comte d’Angoulême, and never King of France, as you do hope to be. The King her husband is old, and cannot now make her children. You must needs meddle and go with her, you with your young hot blood, and she the same, and by the Risen Lord! the end will be she will just catch on like a limed bird, conceive you a child, and there you are! After that you’ve only to say, ‘Goodbye! my chance of the fair Kingdom of France!’ Wherefore I say, reflect.”
The behavior of Queen Mary of England, the third wife of King Louis XII, was very different, or so it’s said. Not being satisfied and feeling distrustful of her husband’s weakness, she decided to explore things for herself. She chose the noble Comte d’Angoulême, who would later become King Francis, to guide her across the ford. He was a young, handsome, and charming prince, and she showed him a lot of favor, always calling him “My excellent son-in-law,” since he had already married Madame Claude, the daughter of King Louis. The truth is, she had fallen in love with him, and he felt the same way upon seeing her. They were very close to becoming involved with each other, which would have definitely happened if it weren’t for the late M. de Grignaux, a nobleman of honor and good lineage from Périgord, a wise and sensible man who had served as a gentleman-in-waiting to Queen Anne, as mentioned earlier, and was still in that role for Queen Mary. Seeing what was about to unfold, he scolded Comte d’Angoulême for the mistake he was about to make, saying with passionate intensity, “No! By the Risen God (his favorite oath), what are you thinking? Can’t you see this woman, as sharp and sly as she is, wants to lure you in so she can get pregnant? But if she has a son, what happens to you? You’ll still just be Comte d’Angoulême, and never the King of France, as you hope to be. Her husband is old and can no longer father children. You’re young and full of passion, and she is too, and by the Risen Lord! In the end, she’ll catch you like a bird in a trap, conceive a child, and then what? You’ll just have to say, ‘Goodbye! My chance at the beautiful Kingdom of France!’ So, I advise you to think carefully.”
[253]
[253]
In fact the said Queen was for practising and proving true the Spanish saw or proverb, which saith, munca muger aguda murio sin herederos, “no clever woman ever died without heirs;” or in other words, an if her husband make her none, she will call in other help to get her end. Now M. d’Angoulême did reflect and sware he was going to be wise and refrain; yet tried and tempted again and again with the wiles and advances of the fair Englishwoman, did presently throw him more fiercely than ever into the pursuit of her. Such the effects of love and passion! such the power of a mere bit of flesh and blood, that for its sake men will surrender kingdoms and empires, and altogether lose the same, as we find over and over again in History. Eventually M. de Grignaux, seeing the young man was bent on his own undoing and the carrying further of his amour, told Madame d’Angoulême, his mother, of the matter, which did so reprove and smartly chide him, as that he gave up the sport once and for all.
In fact, the mentioned Queen was proving the Spanish saying that goes, munca muger aguda murio sin herederos, “no clever woman ever died without heirs;” in other words, if her husband doesn’t provide any, she’ll seek help from elsewhere to achieve her goal. Now, M. d’Angoulême did reflect and swear he would be wise and hold back; yet, time and time again, tempted by the charms and advances of the beautiful Englishwoman, he threw himself into pursuing her more fiercely than ever. Such are the effects of love and passion! Such is the power of a mere bit of flesh and blood, that for its sake, men will give up kingdoms and empires and ultimately lose everything, as we see repeatedly in history. Eventually, M. de Grignaux, seeing the young man was determined to ruin himself and continue his affair, informed Madame d’Angoulême, his mother, about the situation, which led her to scold and reprimand him so harshly that he gave up the pursuit once and for all.
None the less ’tis said the Queen did all she could to live and reign as Queen Mother for some little while before and after the death of the King her husband. However she lost him too soon, and had no sufficient time to carry through her purpose. Yet even so, she did spread the report, after the King’s death, that she was pregnant. Accordingly, albeit naught really inside her belly, ’tis said she would swell out the outside thereof by means of linen wrappages gradually more and more every day, and that when her full time was come, she did propose to have ready a supposititious child of another woman, and produce this at the instant of her pretended delivery. But the Queen Regent, which was from Savoy and knew somewhat about child-bearing and the like, seeing things were[254] going somewhat too fast for her and her son, had her so well watched and examined of physicians and midwives, that her wrappages and clouts being noted, she was found out and baulked in her design, and instead of being Queen Mother was incontinently sent back to her own country.
Nonetheless, it's said that the Queen did everything she could to live and reign as Queen Mother for a little while before and after her husband, the King's, death. However, she lost him too soon and didn't have enough time to fulfill her plans. Even so, after the King's death, she spread the rumor that she was pregnant. So, even though there was nothing actually in her belly, it's said she would gradually stuff her belly with linen wraps more and more each day. When the time came, she planned to have a pretend child from another woman ready to present at her supposed delivery. But the Queen Regent, who was from Savoy and had some knowledge about childbirth, noticed things were moving too quickly for her and her son. She had the Queen closely watched and examined by doctors and midwives, and when her wraps and bandages were investigated, her scheme was uncovered. Instead of being Queen Mother, she was promptly sent back to her own country.
See the difference betwixt this Princess Mary and our good Queen Louise, which was so wise, chaste and virtuous, she did never desire, whether by true or false pretence, to be Queen Mother. But an if she had wished to play the like game as other, there would have been little difficulty, for there was none to watch her with any care,—and ’twould have sore surprised not a few. And for her behaviour our present King doth owe her much thanks, and should love and honour her greatly; for an if she had played this game, and had brought forward an infant, her own or another’s, the King instead of being what he is, would have been but a Regent of France, mayhap not even that. And this feeble title would ill have guarded him from many more wars and troubles than he hath actually had.
See the difference between this Princess Mary and our good Queen Louise, who was wise, pure, and virtuous. She never desired, whether for genuine or false reasons, to be Queen Mother. But if she had wanted to play the same game as others, it wouldn’t have been difficult at all, since no one was watching her closely—and it would have surprised quite a few people. For her conduct, our current King owes her a lot of gratitude and should love and honor her greatly; because if she had played this game and had presented a child, hers or someone else's, the King, instead of being who he is, might have been just a Regent of France, or maybe not even that. And this weak title wouldn’t have protected him from many more wars and troubles than he has actually faced.
I have heard some, both men of religion and of the world, hold and maintain this opinion: that our Queen would have done better to have played this part, and that in that case France would never have endured so much wretchedness, poverty and ruin as she hath now, and is like to have, and the True Faith better supported into the bargain. As to this I can but refer me to those gallant and curious questioners which do debate these points (but myself do believe never a word of it, for we be all right well satisfied with our King, God save him!) for them to pronounce judgment thereon; for they have a fine subject, and one admitting wide discussion as to the[255] State’s best interests, though not as to God’s, as seemeth me. To Him our Queen hath always been deeply devoted, loving and adoring Him so well, that to serve Him, she would e’en forget herself and her high estate. For being a very beauteous Princess (the King indeed did choose her for her beauty and high virtues), and young, tender and most charming, she did give up herself to naught else but only to serve God, do her devotions, visit constantly the hospitals, heal the sick and bury the dead, forgetting nor omitting any of the good and holy works which in this province the holy devout and righteous ladies, Princesses and Queens of days of yore, did practise in the early Church. After the death of her husband, she did ever lead the same life, spending her time in weeping and mourning for him, beseeching God for his soul; and in fact her life as a widow was of the same holy character as her married life had been.
I’ve heard some people, both religious and worldly, say that our Queen would have been better off taking a different approach. They argue that if she had, France would not be experiencing so much suffering, poverty, and ruin as it is now, and the True Faith would be better supported as well. As for this, I can only refer to those brave and curious individuals who debate these matters (but I personally don’t believe a word of it, as we are all quite satisfied with our King, God save him!) for them to make their judgment; they have a great topic for discussion regarding the state’s best interests, though not concerning God’s, in my opinion. Our Queen has always been deeply devoted to Him, loving and adoring Him so much that she would forget about herself and her high status just to serve Him. Being a very beautiful Princess (the King indeed chose her for her beauty and high virtues), and young, tender, and most charming, she dedicated herself solely to serving God, performing her devotions, regularly visiting hospitals, healing the sick, and burying the dead, not neglecting any of the good and holy works that the devout ladies, Princesses, and Queens of past centuries practiced in the early Church. After her husband’s death, she continued to lead the same life, spending her time weeping and mourning for him, praying to God for his soul; in fact, her life as a widow was just as holy as her married life had been.
’Tis true she was supposed, during her husband’s lifetime, to have leaned somewhat to the side of the party of the Union, because, being so good a Christian and Catholic as she was, she did naturally prefer them which were fighting and contending for her Faith and Religion; yet did she never more favour them, but quitted their faction altogether, after their assassination of her husband, though claiming no other vengeance of punishment as a right but what it should please God to inflict, not that she did not duly petition men, and above all our King, with whom lieth the performing of justice for this monstrous deed of a man of religion.[116] Thus both an married life and widowhood, did this excellent Princess live blameless. Eventually she died in the enjoyment of a most noble and worthy repute, having long languished in sickness[256] and grown hectic and parched,—’twas said owing to her overmuch indulgence in sorrow. She made a very excellent and pious end. Just before her death, she had her crown placed at the head of her bed close beside her, and would never have it removed from there so long as she yet lived, directing that after her death she should be crowned and so remain till her body was laid beneath the ground.
It’s true she was thought to have leaned somewhat toward the Union side during her husband’s life because, being a good Christian and Catholic, she naturally preferred those fighting for her faith and religion. However, she never supported them again and left their faction entirely after her husband's assassination, claiming no other punishment as a right but what God would choose to inflict. She did appeal to people, especially our King, who is responsible for delivering justice for this monstrous act by a man of faith. Thus, in both married life and widowhood, this remarkable Princess lived with integrity. Eventually, she died with a noble and honorable reputation, having suffered from a long illness and becoming weak and emaciated, allegedly due to excessive sorrow. She had a very commendable and pious end. Just before her death, she had her crown placed at the head of her bed, close beside her, and would not allow it to be removed for as long as she lived, directing that after her death, she should be crowned and remain so until her body was buried.
She did leave behind her a sister, Madame de Joyeuse,[117*] which was her counterpart in her chaste and modest life, and did make great mourning and lamentation for her husband; and verily he was a brave, valiant and well accomplished Lord. Beside, I have heard say, how when our present King was in such straits, and shut up and imprisoned as in a bag in Dieppe, which the Duc du Maine held invested with forty thousand men, that an if she had been in the place of the Commander of the town De Chastes, she would have had revenge of the death of her husband in a very different fashion from the said worthy Commander, who for the obligations he lay under to M. de Joyeuse, ought never to have surrendered, in her opinion. Nor did she ever like the man afterward, but did hate him worse than the plague, being unable to excuse a fault as he had committed, albeit others deem him to have kept faith and loyalty according to his promises. But then an angry woman, be the original cause of offence just or unjust, will take no satisfaction; and this was the way with this Princess, who could never bring herself to like our reigning monarch, though she did sore regret the late King and wore mourning for him, and this although she did belong to the League; for she always declared both her husband and she did lie under many obligations to[257] him. In fine, she is a good and a wise Princess, and one that is honoured by the grief and respect she did show to the ashes of her husband,—for some while that is, for eventually she did marry again with M. de Luxembourg. So young as she was, was she to consume away in vain regrets forever?
She left behind a sister, Madame de Joyeuse, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, who mirrored her chaste and modest life. She mourned deeply for her husband, who was truly a brave, valiant, and accomplished lord. I've heard how, when our current King was trapped and imprisoned in Dieppe, surrounded by Duc du Maine and his forty thousand men, if she had been in the position of the town’s Commander De Chastes, she would have avenged her husband's death very differently from that Commander. In her opinion, he should never have surrendered, given his obligations to M. de Joyeuse. She never liked the man afterward and hated him more than the plague, unable to excuse the mistake he made, even though others saw him as loyal to his promises. But an angry woman, whether the initial cause of offense was just or unjust, will find no satisfaction, and that was the case with this Princess. She could never bring herself to like our reigning monarch, even as she deeply mourned the late King and wore black for him, despite belonging to the League. She always claimed that both she and her husband owed much to him. In short, she is a good and wise Princess, respected for the grief and honor she showed to her husband's memory—for a time, that is, because eventually she married M. de Luxembourg. Was she really meant to waste away in endless regrets forever, despite her youth?
6.
6.
The Duchesse de Guise, Catherine of Clèves, one of the three daughters of the house of Nevers (all three Princesses that can surely never be enough commended, no less for their beauty than for their virtue and on whom I have writ a separate chapter in another place), hath celebrated and doth celebrate all her days in right worthy fashion the irreparable loss of her noble husband; but indeed what a husband was he! He was truly the nonpareil of the world, and this and no less she did call him in sundry of her letters, the which she writ to some of her most familiar friends and lady companions, which myself also did see after her bereavement, showing them plainly therein by the sad and mournful words she used with what sore regrets her soul was wounded.
The Duchess of Guise, Catherine of Clèves, one of the three daughters of the house of Nevers (all three princesses who can absolutely never be praised enough, both for their beauty and for their virtue, and whom I have written about in a separate chapter elsewhere), has celebrated and continues to celebrate every day in a truly honorable way the deep loss of her noble husband; but indeed, what a husband he was! He was truly unmatched in the world, and this is what she called him in several of her letters to some of her closest friends and lady companions, which I also saw after her loss, clearly showing through her sad and mournful words how deeply her soul was hurt by his absence.
Her noble sister-in-law, Madame de Montpensier,[118*] of whom I do hope to speak further elsewhere, did also bewail her husband bitterly. Albeit she did lose him when still very young, and beautiful and charming for many perfections both of mind and body, she did never think of marrying again,—and this although she had wedded him when a mere child in years, and he might have been her grandfather, so that she had tasted but sparely with[258] him of the fruits of wedlock. Yet would she never consent to indulge a second taste of the same and make up her defect and arrears in that kind by another marriage.
Her esteemed sister-in-law, Madame de Montpensier, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ whom I hope to discuss further elsewhere, mourned her husband deeply. Even though she lost him when she was still very young, beautiful, and charming with many qualities of both mind and body, she never thought about marrying again. This was despite the fact that she had married him when she was just a child and he could have been her grandfather, which meant she hadn’t really experienced the benefits of marriage with him. Still, she refused to indulge in a second marriage to make up for what she missed out on.
I have heard not a few noblemen, gentlemen and great ladies oftentimes express their wonder that the Princesse de Condé, the Dowager Princess I mean, of the house of Longueville, did always refuse to marry again, seeing how she was one of the most beautiful ladies in all France, and one of the most desirable. But she did remain satisfied with her condition of widowhood, and would never take a second husband, and this though left a widow very young.
I've heard many noblemen, gentlemen, and highborn ladies often express their surprise that the Dowager Princess de Condé, from the house of Longueville, always refused to remarry, especially considering she was one of the most beautiful and desirable women in all of France. However, she remained content with her status as a widow and never took a second husband, even though she became a widow at a very young age.
The Marquise de Rothelin, her mother, did the like, who beautiful woman as she was, died a widow. Verily mother and daughter both might well have set afire a whole kingdom with their lovely eyes and sweet looks, the which were renowned at Court and through France for the most charming and alluring ever seen. And doubtless they did fire many hearts; yet never a word was ever to be spoke of love or marriage, both having loyally kept the faith once pledged to their dead husbands, and never married again.
The Marquise de Rothelin, her mother, did the same. She was a beautiful woman who died a widow. Truly, both mother and daughter could have set an entire kingdom ablaze with their lovely eyes and sweet looks, which were famous at Court and throughout France for being the most charming and alluring ever seen. And undoubtedly, they captured many hearts; yet never was there a word spoken about love or marriage, as both remained loyal to the vows they had made to their deceased husbands and never remarried.
I should never have done if I were to name all the Princesses of our Kings’ Courts in similar case. I must e’en defer their panegyric to another place. So I will leave them now, and say somewhat of sundry other ladies, which though no Princesses, be yet of as illustrious race and generous heart as they.
I really shouldn't try to name all the Princesses from our Kings' Courts in this situation. I’ll have to save that praise for another time. So, I’ll set them aside for now and talk about several other ladies who, while they aren't Princesses, are just as noble and kind-hearted as they are.
Fulvia Mirandola, Madame de Randan, of the noble house of Admirande, did remain unwed, though left a widow in the flower of her age and her exquisite beauty. So great mourning did she make over her loss, that never[259] more would she deign to look at herself in her mirror, but refused the sight of her lovely face to the pellucid crystal that was so fain to see the same. Her act though not her words were like those of an ancient dame, which breaking her mirror and dedicating the fragments to Venus, spake these words to the Goddess:
Fulvia Mirandola, Madame de Randan, from the noble house of Admirande, remained unmarried, even though she was widowed at a young age and in her stunning beauty. She mourned so deeply for her loss that she never again allowed herself to look in a mirror, refusing to show her beautiful face to the clear glass that longed to see it. Her actions, though not her words, resembled those of an ancient woman who, after breaking her mirror and dedicating the pieces to Venus, said to the Goddess:
(To thee, Venus, I do dedicate my mirror, for such as I am now, I care not to see myself, and such as I was, I cannot more.)
(To you, Venus, I dedicate my mirror, for the way I am now, I don't want to see myself, and the way I was, I can no longer be.)
Not that Madame de Randan did scorn her mirror for this reason, for indeed she was very beautiful, but by reason of a vow she had made to her husband’s shade, who was one of the best and noblest gentlemen of all France. For his sake she did altogether leave the world and its vanities, dressing her always very soberly. She wore a veil habitually, never showing her hair; yet spite of careless head-dress and her neglect of appearances, her great beauty was none the less manifest. The late M. de Guise, late deceased, was used always to call her naught but the nun; for she was attired and put on like a religious. This he would say by way of jest and merriment with her; for he did admire and honour her greatly, seeing how well affectioned and attached she was to his service and all his house.
Not that Madame de Randan scorned her mirror for this reason; she was indeed very beautiful, but because of a vow she had made to her husband’s spirit, who was one of the best and noblest gentlemen in all of France. For his sake, she completely left the world and its vanities, always dressing very modestly. She usually wore a veil, never showing her hair; yet despite her simple appearance and neglect of looks, her great beauty was still evident. The late Mr. de Guise, who had passed away, always referred to her simply as the nun; she was dressed and looked like a religious woman. He would say this jokingly and lightheartedly to her because he admired and respected her greatly, seeing how devoted and loyal she was to his service and his entire household.
Madame de Carnavalet, twice a widow, did refuse to wed for the third time with M. d’Espernon, then known as M. de la Valette the younger, and at the commencement of his[260] high favour at Court. So deep was he in love with her, that unable to get of her what he would so fain have had, for truly she was a very lovely widow and very charming, he did follow her up persistently and press her sore to marry him, inducing the King three or four times over to speak to her in his favour. Yet would she never put herself again under a husband’s yoke. She had been married twice, her first husband being the Comte de Montravel, the second M. de Carnavalet. And when her most privy friends, myself first and foremost, who was much her admirer, did chide her for her fault she was committing in refusing so high a match, one that would place her in the very midmost and focus of greatness, wealth, riches, favour and every dignity, seeing how M. de la Valette was chiefest favourite of the King, and deemed of him only second to himself, she would answer: that her delight lay not at all in these things, but in her own free-will and the perfect liberty and satisfaction.
Madame de Carnavalet, twice widowed, refused to marry for a third time with M. d’Espernon, who was then known as M. de la Valette the younger, just as he was rising in the King's favor. He was so deeply in love with her that, unable to get her to agree to what he so desperately wanted, he pursued her relentlessly and pressured her to marry him, even getting the King to speak to her on his behalf three or four times. Yet she would never again put herself under a husband’s control. She had been married twice before, first to the Comte de Montravel and then to M. de Carnavalet. When her closest friends, including myself, who admired her greatly, scolded her for passing up such a high-profile match that would place her in the center of greatness, wealth, and every form of dignity, since M. de la Valette was the King's chief favorite and considered second only to the King himself, she would reply that her happiness did not lie in those things, but in her own freedom and the complete liberty and satisfaction she enjoyed.
Madame de Bourdeille, sprung of the illustrious and ancient house of Montbron and of the Counts of Périgord and Viscounts of Aunay, being left a widow at the age of seven or eight and thirty, a very beautiful woman (and I do think that in all Guienne, of which province she was, was never another that in her day did surpass her in beauty, charm and good looks, for indeed she had one of the finest, tallest and most gracious figures could anywhere be seen, and if the body was fair the mind was to match), being so desirable and now widowed, was wooed and sought after in marriage by three great and wealthy Lords. To them all she made reply as follows: “I will not say, as many dames do, that they will never, never marry again, adding such asseverations you can in no[261] wise doubt their firm intention. But I am ready to declare that, unless God and my carnal being give me not very different desire to what I feel at this present, and change me utterly, I have very surely said farewell forever to matrimony.” Then when another did further object: “Nay! Madam, but would you wish to burn away in the flower of your age?” she added: “I wot not what you mean by burning away; but I do assure you that up to the present hour, it hath never yet been possible for me to warm me even, all alone in my bed which is widowed and cold as ice. Yet in the company of a second husband, I say not but that, coming nigh his fire, I might not mayhap burn as you say. But forasmuch as cold is more easy to endure than heat, I am resolved to continue in my present condition, and abstain from a second marriage.” And this resolve she did so express, she hath kept to this day, having remained a widow twelve years, without losing aught of her beauty, ever maintaining and holding sacred one fixed determination. This is truly a great obligation to her husband’s ashes, and a testimony how well she loved him, as well as an exceeding binding claim on her children to honour her memory forever, seeing how she did end her days a widow.
Madame de Bourdeille, from the distinguished and ancient house of Montbron and the Counts of Périgord and Viscounts of Aunay, was left a widow at around thirty-seven or thirty-eight. She was a very beautiful woman (and I believe that in all of Guienne, the province she was from, there was never anyone who surpassed her in beauty, charm, and good looks. Indeed, she had one of the finest, tallest, and most graceful figures you could find anywhere, and if her body was fair, her mind was equally impressive). Being so desirable and now a widow, she was pursued for marriage by three wealthy lords. To each of them, she replied as follows: “I won’t say, like many ladies do, that I will never, ever marry again. You can’t doubt their firm intention when they make such declarations. But I’m ready to say that, unless God and my own desires change significantly from what I feel now, I have definitely said farewell to marriage forever.” When one of them further objected: “But Madam, do you wish to waste away in the prime of your life?” she responded: “I don’t know what you mean by wasting away, but I assure you that until now, it’s been impossible for me to even warm myself in this cold, lonely bed. Yet with a second husband, I can’t say that I wouldn’t feel warm near his fire. But since I find cold easier to endure than heat, I’ve decided to remain as I am and avoid a second marriage.” And this determination, she expressed clearly, she has upheld to this day, having remained a widow for twelve years, without losing any of her beauty, always maintaining and holding sacred one firm resolve. This is truly a great obligation to her husband’s memory and a testament to how well she loved him, as well as a strong encouragement for her children to honor her memory forever, given that she ended her days as a widow.
The late M. d’Estrozze was one of the aspirants to her hand, and had had his wishes conveyed to her. But great, noble and allied with the Queen Mother as he was, she did refuse the match, excusing herself in seemly terms. Yet what a strange humour, after all, to be beautiful, honourable and a very rich heiress, and finish out one’s days over a pen or a solitary seam, lone and cold as ice, and spend so many widowed nights! Oh! how many dames there be of a very different complexion,—though not a few also[262] of the like! But an if I were for citing all these, I should never have ended; and especially if I should include among our Christian ladies those of pagan times. Of these was that right fair, and good and gentle Roman lady of yore, Martia, second daughter of Cato of Utica, sister to Portia, who after losing her husband incessantly bewailing the said loss, being asked when would be the last day of her mourning, did make answer ’twould be only when the last day of her life should come. Moreover being both very beautiful and very rich, she was more than once asked when she would marry again, to which she replied: “’Twill be when I can find a man that will marry me rather for my merits than for my wealth.” And God knoweth she was both rich and beautiful, and no less virtuous, than either, nay! far more so; else had she not been Cato’s daughter nor Portia’s sister. Yet did she pass this rebuff on her lovers and suitors, and would have it they did seek her for her wealth and not for her merits and virtues, albeit she was as well furnished with these as any. Thus did she readily rid her of these importunate gallants.
The late M. d’Estrozze was one of the contenders for her hand and had expressed his desires to her. However, despite being great, noble, and connected to the Queen Mother, she rejected the proposal gracefully. Yet, how odd it is to be beautiful, noble, and a wealthy heiress, only to end up spending one’s days with a pen or sewing alone, cold as ice, and enduring so many nights in widowhood! Oh! How many women are quite the opposite—though there are also quite a few like her! If I were to list all these, I would never finish, especially if I included those among our Christian ladies from pagan times. One of these was the beautiful, good, and kind Roman lady of old, Martia, the second daughter of Cato of Utica and sister to Portia, who, after losing her husband, mourned endlessly for him. When asked when her mourning would end, she replied it would be only when her life came to an end. Additionally, being both very beautiful and very wealthy, she was asked multiple times when she would marry again, to which she said, “It will be when I find a man who will marry me for my character rather than my money.” And she was indeed both rich and beautiful, and even more virtuous than either; otherwise, she wouldn’t have been Cato’s daughter or Portia’s sister. Yet, she turned down her admirers and suitors, insisting they sought her for her wealth rather than her qualities and virtues, even though she possessed them in abundance. Thus, she easily dismissed these persistent suitors.
Saint Jerome in a letter he wrote to one Principia, a virgin, doth celebrate the praises of a gentle Roman lady of his time, which was named Marcella, of a good and noble house, and sprung from a countless line of consuls, pro-consuls, Praetors, and one that had been left a widow very young. She was much sought after, both for her youth and for the antiquity of her house, as well as for her lovely figure, the which did singularly entrance the will of men (so saith Saint Jerome, using these very words; note his observation), and her seemly mien and virtuous character. Among other suitors was a rich and[263] high-born Roman Lord, likewise of Consular rank, and by name Cerealis, which did eagerly seek to persuade her to give him her hand in second marriage. Being something far stricken in years, he did promise her great wealth and superb gifts as chiefest advantage in the match. Above all her mother, Albina by name, did strongly urge her to the marriage, thinking it an excellent offer and one not lightly to be refused. But she made answer: “An if I had any wish to throw myself in the water and entangle me in the bonds of a second marriage, and not rather vow me to a second chastity, yet would I fain prefer to get me an husband rather an inheritance.” Then, the lover deeming she had said this with an eye to his advanced age, he made reply: that old folk might very well live long, and young ones die early. But she retorted: “True, the young may die early, but an old man cannot live long.” At which word he did take umbrage, and so left her. I find this fair lady’s saying admirable and her resolve most commendable.
Saint Jerome, in a letter to a virgin named Principia, praises a gentle Roman lady of his time named Marcella. She came from a noble family with a long line of consuls, pro-consuls, and praetors, and became a widow at a young age. Many sought her out, attracted by her youth, her family’s history, and her beautiful appearance, which captivated men (as Saint Jerome notes—pay attention to his observation), along with her graceful demeanor and virtuous character. Among her suitors was a wealthy and high-ranking Roman lord named Cerealis, also of Consular rank, who eagerly tried to convince her to marry him a second time. Although he was somewhat older, he promised her great wealth and lavish gifts as the main advantage of the match. Above all, her mother, named Albina, strongly encouraged her to accept the marriage, considering it an excellent offer that should not be easily declined. But Marcella replied, “If I desired to leap into the water and get caught in the ties of a second marriage, rather than commit myself to a second chastity, I would prefer to find a husband than an inheritance.” The suitor, thinking she was referring to his age, replied that old people could live long, while the young might die early. She shot back, “True, the young may die early, but an old man cannot live long.” At this, he took offense and left her. I find this noble lady’s words admirable and her determination truly commendable.
Not less so was that of Martia, named above, whose behaviour was not so open to reproof as that of her sister Portia. For the latter, after the death of her husband, did determine to live no longer, but kill herself. Then all instruments of iron being removed, wherewith she might have taken her life, she did swallow live coals, and so burned all her inwards, declaring that for a brave woman means can never be lacking whereby to contrive her death. This hath been well told by Martial in one of his Epigrams, writ expressly on this lady’s fate, and a fine poem it is. Yet did she not, according to certain philosophers, and in especial Aristotle in his Ethics, (speaking of courage or fortitude) show herein any high[264] degree of courage or magnanimity in killing herself, as many others have done, and her own husband; for that, to avoid a greater ill, they do throw themselves upon the less. On this point I have writ a discourse elsewhere.
Not less notable was Martia, mentioned earlier, whose actions were not as easily criticized as her sister Portia's. After her husband passed away, Portia decided she could no longer live and chose to end her own life. After all the iron tools were taken away, which she could have used to take her life, she swallowed live coals, burning herself from the inside, declaring that for a brave woman, there are always ways to arrange her own death. This has been well expressed by Martial in one of his Epigrams specifically about her fate, and it is quite a beautiful poem. However, according to some philosophers, particularly Aristotle in his Ethics, she did not, in this act of taking her own life, demonstrate any significant courage or nobility, as many others have done, including her own husband; they choose to face a lesser evil to escape a greater one. I have written more on this topic elsewhere.
Be this as it may, ’twould surely have been better, had this same Portia rather devoted her days to mourning her husband and avenging his death than in contriving her own. For this did serve no good end whatsoever, except mayhap a gratification of her own pique, as I have heard some women say in blame of her action. Natheless for myself, I cannot enough commend her, and all other widows, which do show their love for their dead husbands as lively as in their lifetime. And this is why Saint Paul hath so highly praised and commended them, holding this doctrine of his great Master. Yet have I been taught of some of the most clear sighted and most eloquent persons I know, that beautiful young widows which do remain in that condition in the very flower of their sweet age and heyday of their life, do exercise an over great cruelty upon themselves and nature, so to conspire against their own selves, and refuse to taste again the gentle joys of a second marriage. This much doth divine law no less than human allow them, as well as nature, youth and beauty; yet must they needs abstain in obedience to some vow and obstinate resolve, the which they have fantastically determined in their silly heads to keep to the vain and empty simulacra of their husbands, that standing like sentinels forgot in the other world, and dwelling yonder in the Elysian fields, be either altogether careless of them and their doings or mayhap do but deride the same. On this question generally all such dames should refer them to the eloquent remonstrances and[265] excellent arguments the which Anna doth bring forward to her sister Dido, in the Fourth Book of the Aeneid. These be most excellent for to teach a fair young widow not over sternly to swear a vow of never altering her condition, rather out of bigotry than real religion. An if after their husbands’ death, they should be crowned with fair chaplets of flowers or herbs, as was the custom of yore, and as is still done with young maids in our day, this triumph would be good and creditable while it lasted, and not of over long duration. But now all that may be given them, is a few words of admiration, the which do vanish into air so soon as spoken and perish as quick as the dead man’s corse. Well then, let all fair young widows recognise the world and its claims, since they be of it still, and leave religion to old women and the strait rule to perpetual widowhood.
Be that as it may, it would definitely have been better if Portia had spent her days mourning her husband and avenging his death instead of plotting her own. This served no good purpose whatsoever, except perhaps to satisfy her own resentment, as I’ve heard some women criticize her actions. However, I can’t help but admire her, as well as all other widows who show their love for their deceased husbands as vividly as they did in life. That’s why Saint Paul praised and commended them so highly, following the teachings of his great Master. Yet I have been told by some of the most insightful and eloquent people I know that beautiful young widows, who remain in that state in the prime of their youth and the height of their lives, inflict great cruelty upon themselves and nature by conspiring against their own happiness and refusing to embrace the gentle joys of a second marriage. Both divine and human law, as well as nature, youth, and beauty, allow them to remarry; yet they choose to abstain out of some vow and stubborn determination, which they have foolishly resolved to keep for the empty memories of their husbands, who stand forgotten like sentinels in the afterlife, either completely indifferent to them and their lives or perhaps mocking them. On this matter, all such women should consider the eloquent arguments that Anna presents to her sister Dido in the Fourth Book of the Aeneid. These are excellent lessons for a young widow not to rigidly vow never to change her status, driven more by bigotry than true faith. If after their husbands’ deaths they were to be crowned with beautiful garlands of flowers or herbs, as was the custom in the past and still done for young maidens today, this celebration would be wonderful and commendable, albeit short-lived. But now all they are given is a few words of admiration, which vanish into thin air as soon as they’re spoken and fade away as quickly as the deceased man’s body. So let all beautiful young widows acknowledge the world and its demands, since they are still part of it, and leave strict religious commitments to older women and the rigid path of perpetual widowhood.
7.
7.
Well! enough said of widows which go fasting. ’Tis time now to speak of another sort, to wit those which detesting all vows and abnegations against second marriages, do wed again and once more claim the aid of the gentle and agreeable God Hymen. Of such there be some which, over fond of their admirers during their husband’s life, be already dreaming of another match before these be well dead, planning aforehand betwixt them and their lovers the sort of life they will lead together: “Ah, me! an if mine husband were but dead,” they say, “we would do this, we would do that; we would live after this pleasant fashion, we would arrange it after that,—and all so discreetly none should[266] ever suspect our bygone loves. A right merry life we would have of it then; we would go to Paris, to Court, and bear us so wisely naught should ever do us hurt. You would pay court to such and such a great lady, I to such and such a great nobleman; we would get this from the King, and that. We would get our children provided with tutors and guardians, and have never a care for their property and governance. Rather would we be making our fortunes, or else enjoying theirs, pending their coming of age. We would have plenishing enough, with that of mine husband to boot; the last for sure we could not lack, for I wot well where be the title deeds and good crown pieces. In a word, who so happy as we should be?”—and so on and so on.
Well! Enough said about widows who spend their time mourning. It's now time to talk about another kind, namely those who, detesting all promises and restrictions against remarrying, go ahead and marry again, seeking the help of the kind and pleasant God Hymen. Some of these women, overly fond of their suitors while their husbands are still living, are already dreaming of another relationship even before their husbands are gone, planning in advance with their lovers the kind of life they will share together: “Oh, if only my husband were dead,” they say, “we would do this, we would do that; we would live in this pleasant manner, we would arrange it just so—that no one would ever suspect our past loves. We would have such a cheerful life then; we would go to Paris, to Court, and behave so wisely that nothing would ever harm us. You would court this or that important lady, I to this or that nobleman; we would get this favor from the King, and that. We would arrange for our children to have tutors and guardians, and wouldn’t worry about their property and management. Instead, we would focus on making our own fortunes, or enjoying theirs until they come of age. We would have enough wealth, including what my husband left behind; the latter we certainly wouldn’t lack, as I know exactly where the title deeds and good coins are hidden. In short, who could be happier than we would be?”—and so on and so forth.
Such the fine words and pleasant plans these wives do indulge in to their lovers by anticipation. Some of them do only kill their husbands in wishes, words, hopes and longings; but others there be that do actually haste them on the way to the tomb, if they be over laggard. Cases of this sort have been, and are yet to-day, more plenty before our Courts of Law and Parliaments than any would suppose. But verily ’tis better and more agreeable they do not as did a certain Spanish dame. For being ill treated of her husband, she did kill him, and afterward herself, having first writ this epitaph following, which she left on the table in her closet, indited in her own hand:
Such fine words and pleasant plans these wives share with their lovers in anticipation. Some only wish harm upon their husbands in their thoughts, words, hopes, and longings; but others actually push them toward the grave if they are too slow. Cases like these have existed, and still exist today, more often in our Courts of Law and Parliaments than anyone might think. But truly, it’s better and more agreeable that they don’t act like a certain Spanish woman. After being mistreated by her husband, she killed him, and then took her own life, having first written the following epitaph, which she left on the table in her room, in her own handwriting:
(Here lieth one which did seek a wife, yet could not satisfy a wife; to other women, but not me, though near me, he would give contentment. And for this, and for his cowardice and insolence, I have killed him, to punish him for his sins. Myself likewise I have done to death, for lack of understanding, and to make an end of the unhappy life I had.)
(Here lies one who sought a wife but couldn’t satisfy one; he could bring happiness to other women, just not to me, even though I was close to him. For this, along with his cowardice and arrogance, I killed him to punish him for his wrongs. I have also put myself to death due to my lack of understanding, and to end the unhappy life I lived.)
This lady was named Donna Madallena de Soria, the which, in the judgment of some, did a fine thing to kill her husband for the wrong he had done her; but did no less foolishly to slay herself,—and indeed she doth admit as much, saying “for lack of understanding she did herself to death.” She had done better to have led a merry life afterward, were it not, mayhap, she did fear the law and dread to get within its clutches, wherefore she did prefer to triumph over herself rather than trust her repute to the authority of the Judges. I can assure you, there have always been, and are yet women more astute than this; for they do play their game so cunningly and covertly, that lo! you have the husband gone to another world, and themselves living a merry life and getting their complaisant gallants to give ’em no mere artificial joys with godemiches and the like, but the good, sound, real article.
This woman was named Donna Madallena de Soria, who, in the opinion of some, did a brave thing by killing her husband for the wrongs he committed against her; but she acted just as foolishly by taking her own life—and she even admits as much, saying “out of lack of understanding she brought her own death.” She would have been better off living a joyful life afterward, unless perhaps she feared the law and dreaded falling into its grasp, which is why she chose to triumph over herself rather than risk her reputation with the authorities. I can assure you, there have always been, and still are, women who are smarter than this; they play their game so cleverly and discreetly that, lo! you have the husband gone to another world while they’re enjoying a happy life and having their accommodating lovers provide them with real pleasures instead of just fake ones with godemiches and the like.
Other widows there be which do show more wisdom, virtue and love toward their late husbands, with never a suspicion of cruelty toward these. Rather they do mourn, lament and bewail them with such extremity of sorrow you would think they would not live one hour more. “Alackaday!” they cry, “am not I the most unhappy[268] woman in all the world, and the most ill-starred to have lost so precious a possession? Gracious God! why dost not kill me straight, that I may follow him presently to the tomb? Nay! I care not to live on after him; for what is left me in this world or can ever come to me, to give me solace? An it were not for these babes he hath left me in pledge, and that they do yet need some stay, verily I would kill myself this very minute. Cursed be the hour ever I was born! If only I might see his ghost, or behold him in a vision or dream, or by some magic art, how blessed should I be e’en now! Oh! sweetheart, sweet soul! can I in no way follow thee in death? Yea! I will follow thee, so soon as, free from all human hindrance, I may be alone and do myself to death. What could make my life worth living, now I have had so irreparable a loss? With thee alive I could have no other wish but to live; with thee dead, no wish but only to die! Well, well! is’t not better for me to die now in thy love and favour and mine own good repute and satisfaction, than to drag on so sorrowful and unhappy a life, wherein is never a scrap of credit to be gotten? Great God! what ills and torments I endure by thine absence! what a sweet deliverance, an if I might but see thee soon again, what a crown of bliss! Alas! he was so handsome, he was so lovable! He was another Mars, another Adonis! and more than all, he was so kind, and loved me so true, and treated me so fondly! In one word, in losing him, I have lost all mine happiness.”
Other widows out there show more wisdom, virtue, and love toward their late husbands, without a hint of cruelty towards them. Instead, they mourn, grieve, and weep for them with such intensity that you’d think they couldn't live another hour. “Oh, what a day!” they cry, “Am I not the unhappiest woman in the world, cursed to have lost such a precious possession? Gracious God! Why don’t you just take me so I can follow him to the grave right away? No, I don’t want to live after him; what is left for me in this world or what could ever comfort me? If it weren’t for these children he left me, needing my care, I swear I would take my own life right now. Cursed be the hour I was born! If only I could see his ghost, or catch a glimpse of him in a dream or through some magic, how blessed I would be! Oh, sweetheart, dear soul! Is there no way for me to follow you in death? Yes! I will follow you as soon as I am free from all human obstacles and can be alone to end my life. What could make my life worth living now that I’ve suffered such an irreparable loss? With you alive, I couldn’t wish for anything but to live; with you dead, my only wish is to die! Well, isn’t it better for me to die now, knowing I had your love and favor, along with my own good reputation and satisfaction, than to drag on in such a sorrowful and unhappy life, in which I can’t gain any credit? Great God! The pains and torments I suffer from your absence! What sweet relief it would be if I could just see you again—what a blissful reward! Alas! He was so handsome, so lovable! He was like another Mars, another Adonis! And above all, he was so kind, loved me so truly, and treated me so affectionately! In summary, in losing him, I have lost all my happiness.”
Such and an infinity of the like words do our heart-broken widows indulge in after the death of their husbands. Some will make their moan in one way, others in another, but always something to the effect of what I have set down. Some do cry out on heaven, others curse this earth[269] of ours; some do blaspheme God, others vent their spleen on the world. Some again do feign to swoon, while others counterfeit death; some faint away, and others pretend to be mad and desperate and out of their wits, knowing no one and refusing to speak. In a word, I should never have done, if I were to try to specify all the false, feigned, affected tricks they do use for to prove their grief and mourning to the world. Of course I speak not of all, but of some, and a fine few these be and a good round number.
Heartbroken widows often express their sorrow in countless ways after their husbands die. Some mourn in one fashion, others in another, but it’s always something similar to what I’ve described. Some cry out to heaven, while others curse our earth; some blaspheme God, and others take their anger out on the world. Some pretend to faint, while others simulate death; some actually faint, and others act mad and desperate, not recognizing anyone and refusing to speak. In short, I could go on forever trying to list all the false, feigned, and exaggerated ways they try to show their grief and mourning to others. Of course, I’m not talking about everyone, just some, and there are quite a few of them. [269]
Good folk of either sex that would console suchlike doleful widows, thinking no ill and supposing their grief genuine, do but lose their pains and none is a whit the better. Others again of these comforters, when they see the poor suffering object of their solicitude failing to keep up the farce and make the proper grimaces, do instruct them in their part, like a certain great lady I wot of, which would tell her daughter, “Now faint, my pet; you don’t show near enough concern.”
Good people, regardless of gender, who try to comfort sad widows, believing their sorrow is real, just waste their time and no one benefits. Other comforters, noticing that the unfortunate person they’re concerned about isn’t able to keep up the act or display the right emotions, end up teaching them how to perform their role, like a certain noblewoman I know, who would tell her daughter, “Now faint, my dear; you’re not showing enough concern.”
Then presently, after all these wondrous rites performed, just like a torrent that after dashing headlong down its course, doth anon subside again and quietly return to its bed, or like a river that hath overflowed its banks, so you will see these widows recover them and return to their former complexion, gradually get back their spirits, begin to be merry once again and dream of worldly vanities. Instead of the death’s-heads they were used to wear, whether painted, engraven or in relief, instead of dead men’s bones set crosswise or enclosed in coffins, instead of tears, whether of jet or of enamelled gold, or simply painted, you will see them now adopt portraits of their husbands worn round the neck, though still adorned with death’s-heads and tears painted in[270] scrolls and the like, in fact sundry little gewgaws, yet all so prettily set off that spectators suppose they do use and wear the same rather by way of mourning for their deceased husbands than for worldly show. Then presently, just as we see young birds, whenas they quit the parental nest, do not at the very first make very long flights, but fluttering from branch to branch do little by little learn the use of their wings, so these widows, quitting their mourning habits and desperate grief, do not appear in public at once, but taking greater and greater freedom by degrees, do at last throw off their mourning altogether, and toss their widows’ weeds and flowing veil to the dogs, as the saying is, and letting love more than ever fill their heads, do dream of naught else but only a second marriage or other return to wanton living. So we find their great and violent sorrow hath no long duration. It had been better far to have exercised more moderation in their sorrow.
Then soon after all these amazing rituals are done, just like a rushing river that calms down and flows back to its banks, or like a river that has overflowed its edges, you’ll see these widows bounce back, return to their usual selves, gradually lift their spirits, start to enjoy life again, and think about worldly pleasures. Instead of the skulls they used to wear, whether painted, engraved, or in relief, instead of the crossed bones or those enclosed in coffins, instead of tears made of jet or enamelled gold, or simply painted, you’ll now see them wear portraits of their husbands as necklaces, though still adorned with skulls and tears painted in scrolls and such, along with various little trinkets, all so nicely displayed that onlookers believe they wear them as a way to mourn their deceased husbands rather than for show. Then, just as we see young birds, when they leave the nest, don’t fly far at first but flutter from branch to branch, gradually learning how to use their wings, these widows, shedding their mourning clothes and deep sadness, don’t appear in public right away, but little by little gain more freedom, ultimately casting off their mourning attire completely, tossing their widow's weeds and flowing veils to the dogs, as the saying goes, and letting love fill their heads even more, dreaming only of a second marriage or a return to a carefree life. Thus, we find that their deep and intense sorrow doesn’t last long. It would have been much better if they had been more moderate in their grief.
I knew once a very fair lady, which after her husband’s death was so woebegone and utterly cast down that she would tear her hair, and disfigure her cheeks and bosom, pulling the longest face ever she could. And when folk did chide her for doing such wrong to her lovely countenance, “My God!” she would cry, “what would you have? What use is my pretty face to me now? Who should I safeguard it for, seeing mine husband is no more?” Yet some eight months later, who but she is making up her face with Spanish white and rouge and besprinkling her locks with powder,—a marvellous change truly?
I once knew a very beautiful woman who, after her husband died, was so heartbroken and completely devastated that she would tear her hair out and scratch her cheeks and chest, making the most miserable face possible. When people scolded her for ruining her lovely appearance, she would exclaim, “My God! What do you want from me? What good is my pretty face to me now? Who am I supposed to protect it for, since my husband is gone?” Yet, about eight months later, there she was, putting on makeup with face powder and blush and sprinkling her hair with powder—a truly amazing transformation.
Hereof I will cite an excellent example, for to prove my contention, that of a fair and honourable lady of Ephesus, which having lost her husband could find no consolation[271] whatever in spite of all efforts of kinsmen and friends. Accordingly following her husband’s funeral, with endless grief and sorrow, with sobs, cries, tears and lamentations, after he was duly put away in the charnel-house where his body was to rest, she did throw herself therein in spite of all that could be done to hinder, swearing and protesting stoutly she would never leave that place, but would there tarry to the end and finish her days beside her husband’s corpse and never, never abandon the same. This resolution she did hold to, and did actually so live by the space of two or three days. Meantime, as fortune would have it, a man of those parts was executed for some crime and hanged in the city, and afterward carried forth the walls to the gibbets there situate to the end of the bodies of malefactors so hanged and put to death should there remain for an example to others, carefully watched by a band of officers and soldiers to prevent their being carried off. So it fell out that a soldier that was guarding the body, and was standing sentry, did hear near by a very lamentable voice crying and approaching perceived ’twas in the charnel-house. Having gone down therein, he beheld the said lady, as fair and beautiful as day, all bathed in tears and lamenting sore; and accosting her, set him to enquiring the reason of her pitiful state, the which she told him gently enough. Thereupon doing his endeavours to console her grief, but naught succeeding for the first time, he did return again and once again. Finally he was enabled to gain his point, and did little by little comfort her and got her to dry her eyes; till at length hearkening to reason, she did yield so far as that he had her twice over, holding her on her back on the very coffin of her husband, which did serve as their couch. This done,[272] they did swear marriage, one with the other; after which happy consummation, the soldier did return to his duty, to guard the gibbet,—for ’twas a matter of life and death to him. But fortunate as he had been in this fine enterprise of his and its carrying out, his misfortune now was such that while he was so inordinately taking his pleasure, lo! the kinsfolk of the poor dangling criminal did steal up, for to cut the body down, an if they should find it unguarded. So finding no guard there, they did cut it down with all speed, and carried the corpse away with them swiftly, to bury it where they might, to the end they might rid them of so great dishonour and a sight so foul and hateful to the dead man’s kindred. The soldier coming up and finding the body a-missing, hied him in despair to his mistress, to tell her his calamity and how he was ruined and undone; for the law of that country was that any soldier which should sleep on guard and suffer the body to be carried off, should he put in its place and hanged instead, which risk he did thus run. The lady, who had but now been consoled of him, and had felt sore need of comfort for herself, did quick find the like for him, and said as follows: “Be not afeared; only come help me to lift mine husband from his tomb, and we will hang him and set him up in place of the other; so they will take him for the other.” No sooner said than done. Moreover ’tis said the first occupant of the gibbet had had an ear cut off; so she did the same to the second, the better to preserve the likeness. Next day the officers of justice did visit the place, but found naught amiss. Thus did she save her gallant by a most abominable deed and wicked act toward her husband,—the very same woman, I would have you note, which had so grievously deplored and lamented[273] his loss, so that no man would ever have expected so shameful an issue.
I will share a great example to support my point, that of a fair and honorable woman from Ephesus. After losing her husband, she couldn't find any comfort despite the efforts of her family and friends. Following her husband's funeral, filled with endless grief and sorrow, sobbing, crying, and lamenting, once he was laid to rest in the cemetery, she threw herself in there despite all attempts to stop her. She swore and strongly protested that she would never leave that spot, declaring she would stay there until the end of her days beside her husband's corpse and would never abandon him. She held to this decision and actually lived that way for two or three days. Meanwhile, as luck would have it, a man from the area was executed for a crime and hanged in the city, then carried outside the walls to the gallows, where the bodies of criminals were left to serve as a warning to others, watched over by a group of officers and soldiers to prevent them from being taken away. It happened that a soldier on guard duty heard a very mournful voice nearby and recognized it was coming from the cemetery. When he went down there, he saw the lady, beautiful as ever, all in tears and lamenting deeply. He approached her and asked about her distress, which she explained to him gently. He tried to comfort her, but nothing worked the first time, so he returned again and again. Eventually, he managed to get her to calm down and dry her eyes. Listening to reason, she allowed him to have her twice, laying her back on her husband's coffin, which served as their bed. After that, they swore to marry each other; following this happy union, the soldier returned to his duty at the gallows—his life depended on it. However, while he was enjoying himself, his bad luck struck. The family of the dead criminal snuck up to cut down the body, hoping to find it unguarded. Finding no guard there, they quickly cut it down and took the corpse away to bury it elsewhere, wanting to avoid the disgrace and ugly sight for the deceased's relatives. The soldier returned and discovered the body missing, racing in despair to his mistress to share his misfortune and how he was ruined; the law in that country stipulated that any soldier who slept on guard and allowed the body to be taken would be hanged in its place, and he faced that risk. The lady, who had just been consoled by him, and who was in urgent need of comfort for herself, quickly provided it for him, saying, “Don’t be afraid; just help me lift my husband from his tomb, and we will hang him up in place of the other, so they will mistake him for the other.” It was done as quickly as it was said. It’s also said that the first victim of the gallows had an ear cut off, so she did the same to the second to maintain the resemblance. The next day, the officials came to the site but found nothing wrong. Thus, she saved her lover through a truly horrendous and wicked act against her husband—the very same woman who had mourned and lamented his loss so much that no one would have expected such a shameful outcome.
The first time ever I heard this history, ’twas told by M. d’Aurat,[119*] which did relate it to the gallant M. du Gua and sundry that were dining with him. M. du Gua was not one to fail to appreciate such a tale and to profit thereby, no man in all the world loving better a good anecdote or better able to turn the same to account. Accordingly soon after, being come into the Queen’s chamber, he saw there a young, new-made widow, but just bereaved and all disconsolate, her veil drawn half way down her face, sad and pitiful, with scarce a word for any man. Of a sudden M. du Gua said to me: “Dost see yonder widow? well! before a year be out, she will one day be doing as the lady of Ephesus did.” And so she did, though not altogether so shamefully; but she did marry a man of base condition, even as M. du Gua had foretold.
The first time I heard this story, it was told by M. d’Aurat, who shared it with the brave M. du Gua and a few others who were dining with him. M. du Gua was someone who truly appreciated a good story and knew how to make the most of it; no one loved a good anecdote more or was better at using one. Shortly after, when he entered the Queen’s chamber, he noticed a young widow, newly bereaved and clearly heartbroken, her veil pulled halfway down her face, looking sad and pitiful, hardly speaking to anyone. Suddenly, M. du Gua said to me, “Do you see that widow? Well, before a year passes, she will end up doing something similar to what the lady of Ephesus did.” And she did, although not quite as disgracefully; she ended up marrying a man of low status, just as M. du Gua had predicted.
The same story I had also of M. de Beau-Joyeux, valet of the chamber to the Queen Mother, and the best violin player in Christendom. Not only was he perfect in his art and music generally, but he was likewise of an amiable disposition, and well instructed, above all in excellent tales and fine stories, little known and of rare quality. Of these he was by no means niggardly with his more intimate friends, and beside could relate sundry from his own experience, for in his day he had both seen many good love adventures and had not a few of his own; for what with his noble gift of music and his good, bold spirit, two weapons very meet for love, he could carry far. The Maréchal de Brissac had given him to the Queen Mother, having sent him to her from Piedmont with his company of violins, the whole most exquisite and complete. He was[274] then called Baltazarin, but did after change his name. Of his composition were those pretty ballets that be always danced at Court. He was a great friend of M. du Gua and myself; and we would often converse together. On these occasions he had always some good tale ready to tell, especially of love and ladies’ wiles. Among such he did tell us that of the lady of Ephesus, already heard from M. d’Aurat, as I have mentioned, who said he had it from Lampridius. Since then I have read it also in the Book of Obsequies (des Funérailles), a right excellent work, dedicated to the late M. de Savoie.
I also heard the same story about M. de Beau-Joyeux, the Queen Mother's chamber valet and the best violinist in the world. Not only was he a master of his craft and music in general, but he also had a friendly personality and was well-educated, especially in exceptional tales and rare stories that not many knew. He was generous in sharing these with his close friends and could tell various ones from his own experiences because he had seen many great love adventures and had a few of his own; with his incredible musical talent and bold spirit—two great assets in love—he could go far. The Maréchal de Brissac had gifted him to the Queen Mother, sending him along with a complete and exquisite company of violins from Piedmont. He was then known as Baltazarin but later changed his name. He created those charming ballets that are always danced at Court. He was a great friend of M. du Gua and me, and we would often chat together. During these times, he always had a good story to share, especially about love and the tricks of women. Among those stories, he told us about the lady of Ephesus, which I had already heard from M. d’Aurat, who mentioned he got it from Lampridius. Since then, I’ve also read it in the Book of Obsequies (des Funérailles), a truly excellent work dedicated to the late M. de Savoie.
The author might surely have spared us this digression, some may object. Yea!—but then I was fain to make mention of my friend hereanent, which did oft bring the story to my mind, whenever he beheld any of our woe-begone widows. “Look!” he would exclaim, “see yonder one that will some day play the part of our lady of Ephesus, or else mayhap she hath played it already.” And by my faith, ’twas a mighty strange tragi-comedy, an act full of heartlessness, so cruelly to insult her dead husband.
The author could have definitely skipped this side note, some might say. True!—but I felt compelled to mention my friend regarding this topic, who often reminded me of the story whenever he saw one of our sorrowful widows. “Look!” he would shout, “there’s one who will someday take on the role of our lady of Ephesus, or maybe she’s already done it.” And honestly, it was a very bizarre tragi-comedy, an act full of callousness, so cruelly disrespecting her deceased husband.
At the massacre of the Saint Bartholomew was slain the Seigneur de Pleuviau, who in his time had been a right gallant soldier, without a doubt, in the War of Tuscany under M. de Soubise, as well as in the Civil War, as he did plainly show at the battle of Jarnac, being in command of a regiment there, and in the siege of Niort. Some while after the soldier which had killed him did inform his late wife, all distraught with grief and tears,—she was both beautiful and wealthy,—that an if she would not marry him, he would kill her and make her go the same way as her husband; for at that merry time, ’twas[275] all fighting and cut-throat work. The unhappy woman accordingly, which was still both young and fair, was constrained, for to save her life, to celebrate wedding and funeral all in one. Yet was she very excusable; for indeed what could a poor fragile, feeble woman have done else, unless it had been to kill herself, or give her tender bosom to the murderous steel? But verily
At the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the Seigneur de Pleuviau was killed. He had been a brave soldier during the War of Tuscany under M. de Soubise, as well as in the Civil War, which he clearly demonstrated at the Battle of Jarnac, where he commanded a regiment, and during the siege of Niort. Some time later, the soldier who killed him informed his widow, who was devastated with grief and tears—she was both beautiful and wealthy—that if she didn’t marry him, he would kill her and make her meet the same fate as her husband; during that chaotic time, it was all fighting and brutal violence. The unfortunate woman, still young and lovely, was forced to have a wedding and a funeral all at once to save her own life. She was very much justified in her actions; after all, what could a fragile, weak woman have done otherwise, except to take her own life or let herself be killed? But truly
and these fond fanatics of yore exist no more. Beside, doth not our holy Christian faith forbid it? This is a grand excuse for all widows nowadays, who always say,—and if ’twere not forbid of God, they would kill themselves. Thus do they mask their inaction.
and these devoted fanatics from the past no longer exist. Besides, doesn’t our holy Christian faith prohibit it? This is a great excuse for all widows today, who always say—and if it weren’t forbidden by God, they would take their own lives. This is how they disguise their inaction.
At this same massacre was made another widow, a lady of very good family and most beauteous and charming. The same, while, yet in the first desolation of widowhood, was forced by a gentleman that I know well enough by name; whereat was she so bewildered and disconsolate she did well nigh lose her senses for some while. Yet presently after she did recover her wits and making the best of her widowhood and going back little by little to worldly vanities and regaining her natural lively spirits, did forget her wrongs and make a new match, gallant and high-born. And in this I ween she did well.
At this same massacre, another widow was created, a woman from a very good family who was beautiful and charming. While she was still in the intense grief of her widowhood, she was pressured by a gentleman I know well enough by name; this left her so confused and heartbroken that she nearly lost her senses for a while. However, soon after, she collected herself and gradually started to embrace her widowhood, returning to worldly pleasures and regaining her lively spirit. She eventually forgot her past wrongs and made a new match with a gallant and well-born man. I think she did well in this.
I will tell yet another story of this massacre. Another lady which was there made a widow by the death of her husband, murdered like the rest, was in such sorrow and despair thereat, that whenever she did set eyes on a poor unoffending Catholic, even though he had not[276] taken part in the celebration at all, she would either faint away altogether, or would gaze at him with as much horror and detestation as though he were the plague. To enter Paris, nay! to look at it from anywhere in the neighbourhood within two miles, was not to be thought of, for neither eyes nor heart could bear the sight. To see it, say I?—why! she could not bear so much as to hear it named. At the end of two years, however, she did think better, and hies her away willingly enough to greet the good town, and visit the same, and drive to the Palace in her coach. Yet rather than pass by the Rue de la Huchette, where her husband had been killed, she would have thrown herself headlong into fire and destruction rather than into the said street,—being herein like the serpent, which according to Pliny, doth so abhor the shade of the ash as that ’twill rather adventure into the most blazing fire than under this tree so hateful is it to the creature.
I will share another story about this massacre. Another woman who was there became a widow because her husband was murdered like the others. She was in such grief and despair that whenever she saw a poor, innocent Catholic, even if he hadn't participated in the celebration at all, she would either faint completely or stare at him with such horror and disgust as if he were the plague. To enter Paris, or even look at it from anywhere nearby within two miles, was out of the question, as her heart and eyes couldn't handle the sight. To see it, I say?—she couldn't even stand to hear it mentioned. However, after two years, she changed her mind and willingly set off to greet the good town, visit it, and drive to the Palace in her carriage. Yet, rather than pass by Rue de la Huchette, where her husband had been killed, she would have thrown herself into fire and destruction rather than enter that street—similar to the serpent, which, according to Pliny, so despises the shade of the ash tree that it would rather venture into the fiercest flames than go under that tree.
In fact, the late King, the then reigning King’s brother, was used to declare he had never seen a woman so desperate and haggard at her loss and grief as this lady, and that ’twould end by their having to bring her down and hood her, as they do with haggard falcons. But after some while he found she was prettily enough tamed of her own accord, in such sort she would suffer herself to be hooded quite quietly and privily, without any bringing down but her own will. Then after some while more, what must she be at but embrace her Paris with open arms and regard its pleasures with a very favourable eye, parading hither and thither through its streets, traversing the city up and down, and measuring its length and breadth this way and that, without ever a thought of any vow to the[277] contrary. Mighty surprised was I myself one day, on returning from a journey, after an absence of eight months from Court, when after making my bow to the King, I did suddenly behold this same widow entering the great Hall of the Louvre, all tricked out and bedecked, accompanied by her kinswomen and friends, and there appearing before the King and Queen, the Royal personages and all the Court, and there receiving the first orders of marriage, affiancing to wit, at the hands of a Prelate, the Bishop of Digne, Grand Almoner of the Queen of Navarre. Who so astonished as I? Yet by what she did tell me after, she was even more astounded, whenas thinking me far away, she saw me among the noble company present at her affiancing, standing there gazing at her and challenging her with mine eyes. Neither of us could forget the oaths and affirmations made betwixt us, for I had been her admirer and suitor for her hand and indeed she thought I had come thither of set purpose to appear on the appointed day to be witness against her and judge of her faithlessness, and condemn her false behaviour. She told me further, how that she would liever have given ten thousand crowns of her wealth than that I should have appeared as I did, and so helped to raise up her conscience against her.
In fact, the late King, the brother of the then reigning King, often said he had never seen a woman look so desperate and worn out from her loss and grief as this lady. He believed it would end with them having to bring her down and hood her, like they do with wild falcons. But after a while, he realized she had tamed herself quite nicely, allowing herself to be hooded quietly and secretly, without any need for force. Then, after some more time, what did she do but embrace Paris with open arms and enjoy its pleasures wholeheartedly, walking around the streets, exploring the city without a single thought of any vow to the contrary. I was very surprised one day, after returning from a journey and being away from the Court for eight months, when I greeted the King and suddenly saw this same widow entering the grand Hall of the Louvre, all dressed up and adorned, accompanied by her relatives and friends, appearing before the King, Queen, and the entire Court, receiving the first orders of marriage, getting engaged by a Prelate, the Bishop of Digne, Grand Almoner of the Queen of Navarre. Who was more astonished than I? Yet, according to what she told me later, she was even more shocked when she saw me among the noble guests at her engagement, standing there watching her and confronting her with my gaze, believing me to be far away. Neither of us could forget the promises and vows we made to each other; I had been her admirer and suitor for her hand, and she thought I had come specifically to witness her unfaithfulness and judge her for it. She told me that she would have preferred to give away ten thousand crowns of her wealth than see me appear as I did, raising doubts in her conscience against her.
I once knew a very great lady, a widowed Countess, of the highest family, which did the like. For being a Huguenot of the most rigorous sort, she did agree to a match with a very honourable Catholic gentleman. But the sad thing was that before the completion of the marriage, a pestilential fever that was epidemic at Paris did seize her so sore as to bring her to her end. In her anguish, she did give way to many and bitter regrets, crying:[278] “Alas! can it be that in a great city like Paris, where all learning doth abound, never a doctor can be found to cure me! Nay! let him never stop for money; I will give him enough and to spare. At any rate ’twere not so bitter, an if my death had but come after my marriage, and my husband had learned first how well I loved and honoured him!” (Sophonisba said differently, for she did repent her of having wedded before drinking the poison.) Saying these and other words of like tenour the poor Countess did turn her to the other side of the bed, and so died. Truly this is the very fervour of love, so to go about to remember, in midst of the Stygian passage to oblivion, the pleasures and fruits of passion she would so fain have tasted of, before quitting the garden!
I once knew a remarkable woman, a widowed Countess from a prestigious family, who faced a similar situation. Being a strict Huguenot, she agreed to marry a very respectable Catholic gentleman. Unfortunately, before the marriage could take place, she was struck down by a deadly fever that was spreading through Paris, which eventually led to her death. In her pain, she expressed many deep regrets, crying: [278] “Oh! Is it possible that in a large city like Paris, where knowledge is abundant, there isn't a doctor who can cure me? No! He shouldn't worry about the cost; I'll pay him more than enough. Still, it wouldn't be so painful if my death had come after my marriage, so my husband could have known how much I loved and respected him!” (Sophonisba had a different thought, as she regretted getting married before taking the poison.) While saying these and similar words, the poor Countess turned to the other side of the bed and died. Truly, this reflects the depth of love, as she tried to recall, in the midst of her journey to oblivion, the joys and rewards of passion she longed to experience before leaving the garden!
I have heard speak of another lady, which being sick unto death, overhearing one of her kinsfolk abusing another (yet are they very worthy folk really), and upbraiding her with the enormous size of her parts, she did start a-laughing and cried out, “You pair of fools, you!” and so turning o’ the other side, she did pass away with the laugh on her lips.
I’ve heard about another woman who was on her deathbed. While she was sick, she overheard a relative insulting another one of her family members (and they really are great people, by the way) and criticizing her for her size. She started laughing and exclaimed, “You two are such fools!” Then, turning to the other side, she passed away with a smile still on her lips.
Well! an if these Huguenot dames have made such matches, I have likewise known plenty of Catholic ladies that have done the same, and wedded Huguenot husbands, and that after using every hang-dog expression of them and their religion. If I were to put them all down, I should never have done. And this is why your widow should always be prudent, and not make so much noise at the first beginning of her widowhood, screaming and crying, making storms of thunder and lightning, with tears for rain, only afterward to give up her shield of defence and get well laughed at for her pains. Better far it[279] were to say less, and do more. But themselves do say to this: “Nay! nay! at the first beginning we must needs steel our hearts like a murderer, and put on a bold front, resolved to swallow every shame. This doth last a while, but only a while; then presently, after being chief dish on the table and most observed of all, we be left alone and another takes our place.”
Well! If these Huguenot women have made such matches, I've also known plenty of Catholic ladies who did the same and married Huguenot husbands, despite using every insulting term about them and their religion. If I were to list them all, I would never finish. And that's why your widow should always be careful and not make such a fuss at the start of her widowhood, screaming and crying, causing storms of thunder and lightning, with tears for rain, only later to drop her guard and get laughed at for her efforts. It's much better to say less and do more. But they say, “No! No! at the beginning we must harden our hearts like a murderer and put on a brave face, willing to endure every humiliation. This lasts for a while, but only for a while; then soon, after being the main focus and center of attention, we are left alone and someone else takes our place.”
I have read in a little Spanish work how Vittoria Colonna, daughter of the great Fabrice Colonna, and wife to the great and famous Marquis de Pescaïre, the nonpareil of his time, after losing her husband,—and God alone knoweth how good an one he was,—did fall into such despair and grief ’twas impossible to give or afford her any consolation whatever. When any did offer any form of comfort, old or new, she would answer them: “For what would you give me consolation?—for my husband that is dead? Nay! you deceive yourselves; he is not dead. He is yet alive, I tell you, and stirring within mine heart. I do feel him, every day and every night, come to life and move and be born again in me.” Very noble words indeed these had been, if only after some while, having taken farewell of him and sent him on his way over Acheron, she had not married again with the Abbé de Farfe,—an ill match to the noble Pescaïre. I mean not in family, for he was of the noble house of the Des Ursins, the which is as good, and eke as ancient, as that of Avalos,—or more so. But the merits of the one did far outweight those of the other, for truly those of Pescaïre were inestimable, and his valour beyond compare, while the said Abbé, albeit he gave much proof of his bravery, and did work very faithfully and doughtily in the service of King Francis, was yet employed only in small, obscure and[280] light emprises, far different from those of the other, which had wrought great and conspicuous deeds, and won right famous victories. Moreover the profession of arms followed by the Marquis, begun and regularly pursued from his youth up, could not but be finer far than that of a churchman, which had but late in life taken up the hardier calling.
I read in a small Spanish book about Vittoria Colonna, the daughter of the great Fabrice Colonna and wife of the renowned Marquis de Pescaïre, a standout of his time. After losing her husband—of whom God alone knows how great he was—she fell into such deep despair and grief that no comfort could help her. When anyone tried to offer consolation, she would reply, “What do you think your comfort could do for me? For my husband who is dead? No! You are fooling yourselves; he is not dead. He is still alive, I tell you, and lives on in my heart. I feel him every day and every night, coming to life and being reborn in me.” These words would have been very noble indeed if, after some time and saying goodbye to him when sending him on his way across Acheron, she hadn't married again, this time to the Abbé de Farfe—a poor match compared to the noble Pescaïre. Not that the Abbé came from a lesser family, as he was from the noble house of Des Ursins, which is just as good and possibly older than that of Avalos. But the merits of Pescaïre far outweighed those of the Abbé; truly, Pescaïre's qualities were priceless and his bravery unmatched, while the Abbé, despite showing plenty of proof of his courage and serving King Francis faithfully, only engaged in small, obscure tasks far removed from the great and notable deeds of Pescaïre, who achieved renowned victories. Furthermore, the Marquis’s military career, which he started and followed from his youth, was undoubtedly more impressive than that of a churchman, who only took up the more challenging role later in life.
Saying this, I mean not to imply thereby think ill of any which after being vowed to God and the service of his Church, have broke the vow and left the profession of religion for to set hands to weapons of war; else should I be wronging many and many a great Captain that hath been a priest first and gone through this experience.
Saying this, I don't mean to suggest that I think poorly of anyone who, after dedicating themselves to God and serving His Church, has broken their vow and left their religious life to take up arms. Otherwise, I would be doing a disservice to many great leaders who were priests first and have gone through this experience.
8.
8.
Cæsar Borgia,[120*] Duc de Valentinois, was he not first of all a Cardinal, the same which afterward was so great a Captain that Machiavelli, the venerable instructor of Princes and great folk, doth set him down for example and mirror to all his fellows, to follow after and mould them on him? Then we have had the famous Maréchal de Foix, which was first a Churchman and known as the Protonotary de Foix, but afterward became a great Captain. The Maréchal Strozzi likewise was first vowed to holy Church; but for a red hat which was refused him, did quit the cassock and take to arms. M. de Salvoison, of whom I have spoke before (which did follow close at the former’s heels, and was as fit as he to bear the title of great Captain,—and indeed would have marched side by side with him, an if he had been of as great a house,[281] and kinsman of the Queen), was, by original profession, a wearer of the long robe; yet what a soldier was he! Truly he would have been beyond compare, if only he had lived longer. Then the Maréchal de Bellegarde, did he not carry the lawyer cap, being long named the Provost of Ours? The late M. d’Enghien, the same that fell at the battle of St. Quentin, had been a Bishop; the Chevalier de Bonnivet the same. Likewise that gallant soldier M. de Martigues had been of the Church; and, in brief, an host of others, whose names I cannot spare paper to fill in. I must say a word too of mine own people, and not without good cause. Captain Bourdeille, mine own brother, erst the Rodomont of Piedmont in all ways, was first dedicate to the Church. But not finding that to be his natural bent, he did change his cassock for a soldier’s jacket, and in a turn of the hand did make him one of the best and most valiant captains in all Piedmont. He would for sure have become a great and famous man, had he not died, alas! at only five and twenty years of age.
Cæsar Borgia, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Duke of Valentinois, wasn’t he first and foremost a Cardinal? Later, he became such a great Captain that Machiavelli, the esteemed teacher of Princes and influential figures, lists him as an example and model for others to follow and emulate. Then there’s the famous Maréchal de Foix, who was initially a clergyman and known as the Protonotary de Foix, but went on to become a great Captain. The Maréchal Strozzi was also originally committed to the Church; however, after being denied a red hat, he swapped his cassock for armor. M. de Salvoison, whom I mentioned earlier, followed closely in the footsteps of the former and was just as capable of earning the title of great Captain—he would have marched alongside him if he belonged to as prominent a family, being a relative of the Queen. He originally started out in law, yet what a soldier he became! Truly, he would have been unparalleled had he lived longer. Then there’s the Maréchal de Bellegarde—didn’t he wear the lawyer's cap, being long known as the Provost of Ours? The late M. d’Enghien, who fell at the battle of St. Quentin, had been a Bishop; the Chevalier de Bonnivet, too. Also, that brave soldier M. de Martigues was once in the Church; and, in short, there are countless others whose names I don’t have enough space to list. I should also mention my own family, and not without reason. Captain Bourdeille, my own brother, once the boastful figure of Piedmont in every way, was initially dedicated to the Church. But not finding that to be his true calling, he exchanged his cassock for a soldier’s jacket and quickly became one of the best and most valiant captains in all of Piedmont. He surely would have become a great and renowned man if he hadn't tragically died at just twenty-five years old.
In our own day and at our own Court of France, we have seen many such, and above all our little friend, the noble Clermont-Tallard, whom I had seen as Abbé of Bon-Port, but who afterward leaving his Abbey, was seen in our army and at Court, one of the bravest, most valiant and worthy men of the time. This he did show right well by his glorious death at La Rochelle, the very first time we did enter the fosse of that fortress. I could name a thousand such, only I should never have done. M. de Soleillas,[121] known as the young Oraison, had been Bishop of Riez and after had a regiment, serving his King right faithfully and valiantly in Guienne, under the Maréchal de Matignon.
In our time and at our Court in France, we've seen many like this, especially our little friend, the noble Clermont-Tallard. I had first known him as the Abbé of Bon-Port, but later, after leaving his Abbey, he was part of our army and at Court, becoming one of the bravest, most valiant, and admirable men of the era. He proved this by his glorious death at La Rochelle, the very first time we entered the ditch of that fortress. I could name a thousand more like him, but I'd never finish. M. de Soleillas, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, known as the young Oraison, had been the Bishop of Riez and later led a regiment, serving his King faithfully and valiantly in Guienne, under Maréchal de Matignon.
[282]
[282]
In short I should never have done, an if I were for enumerating all such cases. Wherefore I do stop, both for brevity’s sake, and also for fear I be reproached for that I indulge overmuch in digressions. Yet is this one not inopportune I have made, when speaking of Vittoria Colonna which did marry the Abbé. An if she had not married again with him, she had better deserved her name and title of Vittoria, by being victorious over herself. Seeing she could not find a second husband to match the first, she should have refrained her altogether.
In short, I should never have done this, and if I were to list all such cases, I would stop, both for the sake of brevity and also because I'm afraid I’d be criticized for going off-topic too much. However, this digression about Vittoria Colonna, who married the Abbé, isn’t out of place. If she hadn’t remarried him, she would have better deserved her name and title of Vittoria by conquering her own desires. Since she couldn’t find a second husband who compared to the first, she should have completely held back.
I have known many ladies which have copied her however. One I knew did marry one of mine uncles, the most brave, valiant and perfect gentleman of his time. After his death, she did marry another as much like him as an ass to a Spanish charger; but ’twas mine uncle was the Spanish steed. Another lady I knew once, which had wedded a Marshal of France,[122*] a handsome, honourable gentleman and a valiant; in second wedlock she did take one in every way his opposite, and one that had been a Churchman too. What was yet more blameworthy in her was this, that on going to Court, where she had not appeared for twenty years, not indeed since her second marriage, she did re-adopt the name and title of her first husband. This is a matter our courts of law and parliament should look into and legislate against; for I have seen an host of others which have done the like, herein unduly scorning their later husbands, and showing them unwilling to bear their name after their death. For having committed the fault, why! they should drink the cup to the dregs and feel themselves bound by what they have done.
I have known many women who have copied her, though. One I knew married one of my uncles, the bravest, most noble, and perfect gentleman of his time. After his death, she married another man, who was as different from him as a donkey is from a Spanish stallion; but my uncle was the Spanish steed. There was another woman I knew who married a Marshal of France, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, a handsome, honorable, and brave man; in her second marriage, she took a man who was completely his opposite and had even been a clergyman. What was even more blameworthy was that when she went to court, where she hadn’t shown up in twenty years, not since her second marriage, she used the name and title of her first husband again. This is something our courts and parliament should examine and make laws against; I have seen many others do the same, unfairly dismissing their later husbands and unwilling to carry their name after their death. If they’ve made that choice, they should face the consequences and honor their commitment.
Another widow I once knew, on her husband’s dying,[283] did make such sore lamentation and so despairing by the space of a whole year, that ’twas hourly expected to see her dead right off. At the end of a year, when she was to leave off her heavy mourning and take to the lighter, she said to one of her women: “Prithee, pull me in that crêpe becomingly; for mayhap I may make another conquest.” But immediately she did interrupt herself: “Nay! what am I talking about? I am dreaming. Better die than have anything more to do with such follies.” Yet after her mourning was complete, she did marry again to a husband very unequal to the first. “But,”—and this is what these women always say,—“he was of as good family as the other.” Yes! I admit it; but then, what of virtue and worth? are not these more worth counting than all else? The best I find in it all is this, that the match once made, their joy therein is far from long; for God doth allow them to be properly ill-treated of their new lords and bullied. Soon you will see them all repentance,—when it is too late.
Another widow I once knew, when her husband died,[283] mourned so deeply and hopelessly for an entire year that everyone expected her to die from grief. At the end of the year, when she was supposed to stop her heavy mourning and switch to something lighter, she told one of her friends, “Please, help me put this black fabric on nicely; I might find someone new.” But then she caught herself and said, “Wait! What am I saying? I must be out of my mind. I’d rather die than deal with such nonsense.” Yet once her mourning period was over, she did marry again, to a man who was definitely not as good as her first husband. “But,”—and this is what these women always say,—“he came from a good family just like the other.” Yes, I get that; but what about character and worth? Aren’t those more important than anything else? The best part about all of this is that once they do get married, their happiness doesn’t last long; God allows them to be mistreated and bossed around by their new husbands. Soon enough, you’ll see them all regret their choices—when it’s too late.
These dames which do thus re-marry have some opinion or fancy in their heads we wot not of. So have I heard speak of a Spanish lady, which desiring to marry again, when they did remonstrate with her, asking what was to become of the fond love her husband had borne her, did make answer: La muerte del marido y nuevo casamiento no han de romper el amor d’una casta muger,—“The death of husband and a new marriage should in no wise break up the love of a good woman.” Well! so much shall be granted, an if you please. Another Spanish dame said better, when they were for marrying her again: Si hallo un marido bueno, no quiero tener el temor de perderlo; y si malo, que necessidad he del,—“An if I find[284] a good husband, I wish not to be exposed to the fear of losing him; but if a bad, what need to have one at all?”
These women who remarry have thoughts or ideas in their heads that we don't know about. I've heard about a Spanish lady who, when she was asked about her love for her late husband while considering a new marriage, replied: La muerte del marido y nuevo casamiento no han de romper el amor d’una casta muger—“The death of a husband and a new marriage should not break the love of a good woman.” Well, I can agree with that, if you like. Another Spanish woman expressed it even better when they were trying to marry her again: Si hallo un marido bueno, no quiero tener el temor de perderlo; y si malo, que necessidad he del—“If I find a good husband, I don’t want to fear losing him; but if he’s a bad one, what do I need him for?”
Valeria, a Roman lady, having lost her husband, whenas some of her companions were condoling with her on his loss and death, said thus to them: “’Tis too true he is dead for you all, but he liveth in me for ever.” The fair Marquise I have spoke of a little above, had borrowed a like phrase from her. These expressions of these noble ladies do differ much from what a Spanish ill-wisher of the sex declared, to wit: que la jornada de la biudez d’ una muger es d’un dia,—“that the day of a woman’s widowhood is one day long.” A lady I must now tell of did much worse. This was Madame de Moneins, whose husband was King’s lieutenant, and was massacred at Bordeaux, by the common folk in a salt-excise riot. So soon as ever news was brought her that her husband had been killed and had met the fate he did, she did straight cry out: “Alas! my diamond, what hath become of it?” This she had given him by way of marriage present, being worth ten to twelve hundred crowns of the money of the day, and he was used to wear it always on his finger. By this exclamation she did let folk plainly see which grief she did bear the more hardly, the loss of her husband or that of the diamond.
Valeria, a Roman lady, having lost her husband, while some of her friends were offering condolences for his passing, said to them: “It’s true he is gone for all of you, but he lives on in me forever.” The beautiful Marquise I mentioned earlier had borrowed a similar sentiment from her. These statements by these noble women are quite different from what a Spanish critic of their gender expressed: que la jornada de la biudez d’una muger es d’un dia,—“that a woman’s day of widowhood lasts only a day.” I must also mention a lady who did much worse. This was Madame de Moneins, whose husband was the King’s lieutenant and was killed during a salt tax riot in Bordeaux by the locals. As soon as she heard the news of her husband’s death and the circumstances surrounding it, she immediately cried out: “Oh no! My diamond, what has happened to it?” This was a diamond she had given him as a wedding gift, valued at about ten to twelve hundred crowns of that time, and he wore it on his finger at all times. With this outcry, she made it clear what grief she found harder to bear: the loss of her husband or that of the diamond.
Madame d’Estampes was a high favourite with King Francis, and for that cause little loved of her husband. Once when some widow or other came to her asking her pity for her widowed state, “Why! dear heart,” said she, “you are only too happy in your condition, for I tell you, one cannot be a widow by wishing for’t,”—as if implying she would love to be one. Some women be so situate, others not.
Madame d’Estampes was a close favorite of King Francis, and that made her husband not very fond of her. Once, when a widow came to her looking for sympathy about her situation, she said, “Why! sweetheart, you’re actually lucky to be in your position because, let me tell you, you can’t just wish to be a widow,”—implying that she would love to be one. Some women find themselves in such situations, while others do not.
[285]
[285]
But what are we to say of widows which do keep their marriage hid, and will not have it published? One such I knew, which did keep hers under press for more than seven or eight years, without ever consenting to get it printed and put in circulation. ’Twas said she did so out of terror of her son,[123*] as yet only a youth, but afterward one of the bravest and most honourable men in all the world, lest he should play the deuce with her and her man, albeit he was of very high rank. But so soon as ever her son fell in a warlike engagement, dying so as to win a crown of glory, she did at once have her marriage printed off and published abroad.
But what are we to make of widows who keep their marriage a secret and refuse to make it public? I knew one who kept hers hidden for more than seven or eight years, never agreeing to have it printed and circulated. It was said she did this out of fear for her son, son, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, who was only a young man at the time, but later became one of the bravest and most honorable men in the world. She feared he would cause trouble for her and her husband, even though he was of very high rank. But as soon as her son fell in battle, dying in a way that earned him great glory, she immediately had her marriage published and made it public.
I have heard of another widow, a great lady, which was married to a very great nobleman and Prince, more than fifteen years agone. Yet doth the world know nor hear aught thereof, so secret and discreet is it kept. Report saith the Prince was afeared of his mother-in-law, which was very imperious with him, and was most unwilling he should marry again because of his young children.
I’ve heard about another widow, a highborn lady, who was married to a very prominent nobleman and prince over fifteen years ago. Yet the world is unaware or hears nothing about it, as it’s kept very secret and discreet. Rumor has it that the prince was afraid of his mother-in-law, who was quite domineering with him, and she was very opposed to him remarrying because of his young children.
I knew another very great lady, which died but a short while agone, having been married to a simple gentleman for more than twenty years, without its being known at all, except by mere gossip and hearsay. Ho! but there be some queer cases of the sort!
I knew another remarkable woman who passed away not long ago. She had been married to an ordinary man for over twenty years, and no one really knew about it, except through gossip and rumors. Wow! There are some strange situations like that!
I have heard it stated by a lady of a great and ancient house, how that the late Cardinal du Bellay was wedded, being then Bishop and Cardinal, to Madame de Chastillon, and did die a married man. This she did declare in a conversation she held with M. de Mane, a Provençal, of the house of Senjal and Bishop of Fréjus, which had served the said Cardinal for fifteen years at the Court of[286] Rome, and had been one of his privy protonotaries. Well! happening to speak of the Cardinal, she did ask M. de Mane if he had ever told him or confessed to him that he was married. Who so astounded as M. de Mane at such a question? He is yet alive and can contradict me, if I lie; for I was present. He made answer he had never heard him speak of it, either to him or to others. “Well, then! I am the first to tell you,” she replied; “for nothing is more true than that he was so married; and he died actually the husband of the said Madame de Chastillon, before a widow.” I can assure you I had a fine laugh, seeing the astonished face of poor M. de Mane, who was a very careful and religious man, and thought he knew every secret of his late master; but he was out of court for this one. And indeed ’twas a scandalous license on the Cardinal’s part, considering the sacred office he held.
I heard from a woman from a prominent and old family that the late Cardinal du Bellay, who was a Bishop and Cardinal at the time, was married to Madame de Chastillon and died as a married man. She mentioned this during a conversation with M. de Mane, a Provençal from the Senjal family and the Bishop of Fréjus, who had served the Cardinal for fifteen years at the Court of[286] Rome and was one of his trusted protonotaries. While discussing the Cardinal, she asked M. de Mane if he had ever told or confessed to him that he was married. M. de Mane was so surprised by the question! He is still alive and can correct me if I'm wrong; I was there. He replied that he had never heard the Cardinal mention it, either to him or anyone else. “Well, then! I'm the first to tell you,” she said; “because it’s absolutely true that he was married; and he actually died the husband of Madame de Chastillon, not a widower.” I can assure you I had a good laugh seeing the shocked expression on poor M. de Mane, who was a very careful and devout man and thought he knew all the secrets of his late master; but he was caught off guard with this one. And indeed, it was quite a scandalous thing for the Cardinal, given the holy position he held.
This Madame de Chastillon was the widow of the late M. de Chastillon, the same which was said to chiefly govern the young King Charles VIII. along with Bourdillon, Galiot and Bonneval, the guardians of the blood royal. He died at Ferrara, having been wounded at the siege of Ravenna, and carried thither to be healed. She became a widow when very young, being both fair and also wise and virtuous,—albeit but in appearance, as witness this marriage of hers,—and so was chosen maid of honour to the late Queen of Navarre. She it was that did tender the excellent advice to this noble lady and great Princess, which is writ in the Cent Nouvelles of the said Queen. The tale is of her and a certain gentleman which had slipped by night into her bed by a little trap-door in the wainscot beside her bed, and was fain to enjoy the reward[287] of his address; yet did win naught but some fine scratches on his pretty face. The Queen being purposed to make complaint of the matter to her brother, he did remonstrate with her very judiciously, as may be read in the Nouvelle or Tale in question, and did give her the excellent advice referred to, as good and judicious and as well adapted to avoid scandal as could possibly be devised. Indeed it might have been a First President of the Parliament of Paris that gave the advice, which did show plainly, however, the lady to be no less skilled and experienced in such mysteries than wise and judicious; wherefore there can be little doubt she did keep her affair with the Cardinal right well hidden.
This Madame de Chastillon was the widow of the late M. de Chastillon, who was said to primarily govern the young King Charles VIII along with Bourdillon, Galiot, and Bonneval, the guardians of the royal blood. He died in Ferrara after being wounded at the siege of Ravenna and was taken there to recover. She became a widow at a very young age, being both beautiful and wise and virtuous—though only in appearance, as shown by this marriage of hers—and thus she was chosen as a lady-in-waiting to the late Queen of Navarre. It was she who offered the excellent advice to this noble lady and great Princess, which is recorded in the Cent Nouvelles of said Queen. The story involves her and a certain gentleman who slipped into her bed at night through a small trap-door in the paneling next to her bed, eager to enjoy the fruits of his efforts; however, he only ended up with some fine scratches on his handsome face. The Queen intended to complain about the incident to her brother, but he wisely advised her, as can be read in the Nouvelle or Tale in question, and provided her with excellent counsel that was both prudent and well-suited to avoid scandal. Indeed, it might have been akin to advice from the First President of the Parliament of Paris, which clearly showed that the lady was no less skilled and experienced in such matters than she was wise and judicious; therefore, there is little doubt that she kept her affair with the Cardinal very well concealed.
My grandmother, the Séneschale de Poitou, had her place after her death, by choice of King Francis himself, which did name and elect her to the post, sending all the way to her home to summon her. Then he did give her over with his own hand to the Queen his sister, forasmuch as he knew her to be a very prudent and very virtuous lady,—indeed he was used to call her my knight without reproach,—albeit not so experienced, adroit and cunning in suchlike matters as her predecessor, nor one that had contracted a second marriage under the rose. But an if you would know who are intended in the Tale, ’twas writ of the Queen of Navarre herself and the Admiral de Bonnivet, as I have been assured by my grandmother. Yet doth it appear to me the Queen need never have been at pains to conceal her name, seeing the other could get no hold over her virtue, but did leave her all in confusion. Indeed she was only too wishful to make the facts public, had it not been for the good and wise advice given her by that same maid of honour, Madame de Chastillon.[288] Anyone that hath read the Tale will find it as I have represented it. And I do believe that the Cardinal, her husband as aforesaid, which was one of the cleverest and wisest, most eloquent, learned and well-advised men of his day, had instilled this discreetness in her mind, to make her speak so well and give such excellent counsel. The tale might mayhap be thought somewhat over scandalous by some in view of the sacred and priestly profession of the Cardinal; but, an if any be fain to repeat the same, well! he must e’en suppress the name.
My grandmother, the Séneschale de Poitou, had her position after her death, by the choice of King Francis himself, who appointed her to the role, sending all the way to her home to summon her. He then personally handed her over to his sister, the Queen, because he recognized her as a very wise and virtuous lady—he even referred to her as my knight without reproach—although she wasn't as experienced, clever, and sly in such matters as her predecessor, nor had she engaged in a second marriage secretly. If you want to know who the characters in the Tale are, it was written about the Queen of Navarre herself and the Admiral de Bonnivet, as my grandmother confirmed. However, I believe the Queen never needed to hide her name, considering that the other had no power over her virtue and left her in confusion. In fact, she was eager to make the facts public, if not for the wise and good advice provided by her maid of honour, Madame de Chastillon.[288] Anyone who has read the Tale will find it as I have described it. I believe that the Cardinal, her husband as mentioned before, who was one of the cleverest, wisest, most eloquent, learned, and well-advised men of his time, instilled this discretion in her mind, allowing her to speak so well and offer such excellent advice. Some might consider the tale a bit too scandalous given the Cardinal's sacred and priestly profession; but if anyone wants to share it, well! they must suppress the name.
Well! if this marriage was kept secret, ’twas by no means so with that of the last Cardinal de Chastillon.[124*] For indeed he did divulge and make it public quite enough himself, without need to borrow any trumpet; and did die a married man, without ever having quitted his gown and red hat. On the one hand he did excuse himself by alleging the reformed faith, whereof he was a firm adherent; on the other by the contention that he was desirous of still retaining his rank and not giving up the same (a thing he would most surely never have done in any case), so as he might continue of the council, whereof being a member he could well serve his faith and party. For ’tis very true he was a most able, influential and very powerful personage.
Well! if this marriage was kept a secret, it was certainly not the case with the last Cardinal de Chastillon. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ He openly shared and publicized it enough all on his own, without needing to sound a horn; and he died a married man, without ever having taken off his gown and red hat. On one hand, he justified himself by claiming his adherence to the reformed faith; on the other hand, he argued that he wanted to maintain his rank and not give it up (which he definitely would not have done anyway), so that he could remain a part of the council, where, as a member, he could effectively serve his faith and party. It is indeed true that he was a very capable, influential, and powerful individual.
I do imagine the aforenamed noble Cardinal du Bellay may have done the like for like reasons. For at that time he was no little inclined to the faith and doctrine of Luther, and indeed the Court of France generally was somewhat affected by the taint. The fact is, all novelties be pleasing at first, and beside, the said doctrine did open an agreeable license to all men, and especially to ecclesiastics, to enter the married state.
I think the previously mentioned noble Cardinal du Bellay might have done something similar for similar reasons. At that time, he was quite inclined towards the faith and teachings of Luther, and in fact, the Court of France as a whole was somewhat influenced by that idea. The truth is, all new ideas are appealing at first, and also, that doctrine allowed everyone, especially church officials, to get married.
[289]
[289]
9.
9.
However let us say no more of these dignified folk, in view of the deep respect we do owe their order and holy rank. We must now something put through their paces those old widows we wot of that have not six teeth left in their chops, and yet do marry again. ’Tis no long while agone that a lady of Guienne, already widowed of three husbands, did marry for a fourth a gentleman of some position in that province, she being then eighty. I know not why she did it, seeing she was very rich and had crowns in plenty,—indeed ’twas for this the gentleman did run after her,—unless it were that she was fain not to surrender just yet, but to win more amorous laurels to add to her old ones, as Mademoiselle Sevin, the Queen of Navarre’s jester, was used to say.
However, let’s not talk any more about these dignified people, out of respect for their status and holy position. Now we need to take a look at those old widows we know of who have barely six teeth left and still get married again. Not long ago, a lady from Guienne, who had already buried three husbands, took a fourth husband, a man of some standing in that region, when she was eighty years old. I don’t know why she did it, since she was very wealthy and had plenty of crowns—indeed, it was for this reason that the gentleman pursued her—unless it was because she didn’t want to give up just yet, wanting to earn more romantic accolades to add to her existing ones, as Mademoiselle Sevin, the Queen of Navarre’s jester, used to say.
Another great lady I knew, which did remarry at the age of seventy-six, wedding a gentleman of a lower rank than her previous husband, and did live to an hundred. Yet did she continue beautiful to the last, having been one of the finest women of her time, and one that had gotten every sort of delight out of her young body, both as wife and widow, so ’twas said.
Another great woman I knew remarried at the age of seventy-six, marrying a man of a lower status than her first husband, and lived to be a hundred. She remained beautiful until the end, having been one of the finest women of her time, and she enjoyed every kind of pleasure from her youth, both as a wife and a widow, or so it was said.
Truly a formidable pair of women, and of a right hot complexion! And indeed I have heard experienced bakers declare how that an old oven is far easier to heat than a new one, and when once heated, doth better keep its heat and make better bread.
Truly a powerful duo of women, and with a really warm complexion! And I’ve heard seasoned bakers say that an old oven is much easier to heat than a new one, and once it’s hot, it holds the heat better and bakes better bread.
I wot not what savoury appetites they be which do stir[290] husbands and lovers to prefer these hot-loaf dainties; but I have seen many gallant and brave gentlemen no less eager in love, nay! more eager, for old women than for young. They tell me ’twas to get worldly profit of them; but some I have seen also, which did love such with most ardent passion, without winning aught from their purse at all, except that of their person. So have we all seen erstwhile a very great and sovran Prince,[125] which did so ardently love a great dame, a widow and advanced in years, that he did desert his wife and all other women, no matter how young and lovely, for to sleep with her only. Yet herein was he well advised, seeing she was one of the fairest and most delightsome women could ever be seen, and for sure her winter was better worth than the springtide, summer and autumn of the rest. Men which have had dealings with the courtesans of Italy have seen, and do still see, not a few cases where lovers do choose the most famous and long experienced in preference, and those that have most shaken their skirts, hoping with them to find something more alluring in body or in wit. And this is why the beauteous Cleopatra, being summoned of Mark Antony to come see him, was moved with no apprehension, being well assured that, inasmuch as she had known how to captivate Julius Cæsar and Gnæus Pompeius, the son of Pompey the Great, when she was yet but a slip of a girl, and knew not thoroughly the ways and wiles of her trade, she could manage better still her new lover, a very fleshly and coarse soldier of a man, now that she was in the full fruition of her experience and ripe age. Nor did she fail. In fact, the truth is that, while youth is most meet to attract the love of some men, with others ’tis maturity, a sufficient age, a practised wit,[291] a long experience, a well-hung tongue and a well trained hand, that do best serve to seduce them.
I don't know what tasty cravings drive husbands and lovers to prefer these hot, fresh delicacies; however, I've seen many gallant and brave gentlemen just as eager in love, if not more so, for older women than for younger ones. They say it's for financial gain; but I've also seen some who passionately loved such women without getting anything from their wallet at all, except for their company. We've all seen a very great and powerful prince who loved a prominent older woman, a widow, so intensely that he left his wife and all other women, no matter how young and beautiful, just to be with her. Yet, he made a smart choice since she was one of the fairest and most delightful women ever, and certainly her winter years were more valuable than the spring, summer, and autumn of others. Men who have spent time with courtesans in Italy have seen, and still see, many cases where lovers prefer the most experienced and famous, hoping to find something more enticing in body or mind. This is why the beautiful Cleopatra, when summoned by Mark Antony to see him, felt no apprehension, being confident that, since she had successfully captivated Julius Caesar and Gnaeus Pompeius, the son of Pompey the Great, when she was just a young girl and didn’t fully understand the ways of her trade, she could handle her new lover, a very physical and rough man, even better now that she was fully experienced and of mature age. And she did not fail. In fact, the truth is, while youth is often most appealing to some men, for others it's maturity, sufficient age, practiced wit,[291] a wealth of experience, a skilled tongue, and a well-trained hand that are the best tools for seduction.
There is one doubtful point as to which I did one time ask doctors’ opinion,—a question suggested by one who asked why his health was not better, seeing all his life long he had never known nor touched old women, according to the physicians’ aphorism which saith: vetulam non cognovi, “I have known never an old woman.” Among many other quaint matters, be sure of this,—these doctors did tell me an old proverb which saith: “In an old barn is fine threshing, but an old flail is good for naught.” Others say: “Never mind how old a beast be, so it will bear.” I was told moreover that in their practice they had known old women which were so ardent and hot-blooded, that cohabiting with a young man, they do draw all ever they can from him, taking whatever he hath of substance, the better to moisten their own drouth; I speak of such as by reason of age be dried up and lack proper humours. The same medical authorities did give me other reasons to boot; but an if readers be still curious, I leave them to ask further for themselves.
There's one questionable point that I once asked doctors about—a question raised by someone who wondered why his health wasn't better, considering he's never known or interacted with old women, in line with the saying from physicians: vetulam non cognovi, “I have known never an old woman.” Among many other interesting things, you should know this: these doctors shared an old proverb that says, “In an old barn, there’s great threshing, but an old flail isn't worth much.” Others say, “It doesn't matter how old a beast is, as long as it can bear.” I was also told that in their practice, they had encountered old women who were so passionate and hot-blooded that when they were with a young man, they took everything they could from him, siphoning off whatever he had of value to better satisfy their own dryness; I mean those who, because of age, are dried up and lack proper fluids. The same medical experts offered me more reasons, but if readers are still curious, I’ll leave them to investigate further on their own.
I have seen an aged widow, and a great lady too, which did put under her tooth in less than four years a third husband and a young nobleman she had taken for lover; and did send the pair of them under the sod, not by violence or poison, but by mere enfeeblement and distillation of their substance. Yet to look at this lady, none had ever supposed her capable of aught of the sort; for indeed, before folk she did rather play the prude and poor-spirited hypocrite, actually refusing to change her shift in presence of her women for fear of their seeing her naked. But as one of her kinswomen declared, these objections[292] were all for her women, not for her lovers and admirers.
I’ve seen an elderly widow, who was also a high-ranking lady, manage to bury a third husband and a young nobleman she had taken as her lover in less than four years. She didn’t do it through violence or poison, but simply by weakening them over time. Yet, looking at her, no one would have thought she was capable of such things; in fact, she put on a show of being a prude and a weak-minded hypocrite, even refusing to change her clothes in front of her female staff for fear they might see her naked. But as one of her relatives pointed out, these concerns were only for her maids, not for her lovers and admirers.
But come, what is the difference in merit and repute betwixt a woman which hath had several husbands in her life,—and there be plenty that have had as many as three, four or even five, and another which in her life shall have had but her husband and a lover, or two or three,—and I have actually known some women continent and faithful to that degree? As to this, I have heard a noble lady of the great world say she found naught to choose betwixt a lady who had had several husbands, and one that had had but a lover or so, along with her husband,—unless it be that the marriage veil doth cover a multitude of sins. But in point of sensuality and naughtiness, she said there was not a doit of difference. Herein do they but illustrate the Spanish proverb, which saith that algunas mugeres son de natura de anguilas en retener, y de lobas en excoger,—“some women are like eels to hold, and she-wolves to choose,” for that the eel is mighty slippery and ill to hold, and the she-wolf doth alway choose the ugliest wolf for mate.
But come on, what's the difference in value and reputation between a woman who has had several husbands in her life—there are plenty who have had three, four, or even five—and another who has only had her husband and one or two lovers? I've actually known women who are completely devoted and faithful to that extent. A noble lady from high society once said she saw no difference between a lady who had multiple husbands and one who had just a lover or two alongside her husband—unless the marriage veil covers up a lot of wrongdoings. But in terms of sensuality and bad behavior, she said there was no difference at all. This just illustrates the Spanish proverb that says algunas mugeres son de natura de anguilas en retener, y de lobas en excoger—“some women are like eels to hold onto, and she-wolves to choose,” because the eel is very slippery and hard to catch, and the she-wolf always chooses the ugliest wolf as her mate.
It befell me once at Court, as I have described elsewhere, that a lady of a sufficiently exalted rank, which had been four times married, did happen to tell me she had just been dining with her brother-in-law, and I must guess who ’twas. This she said quite simply, without any thought of roguishness; and I answered with a touch of waggery, yet laughing the while: “Am I a diviner to guess such a riddle? You have been married four times: I leave to the imagination how many brothers-in-law you may have.” To this she retorted: “Nay! but you speak knavishly,” and named me the particular brother-in-law.[293] “Now you do talk sense,” I said then; “before you were talking all at large.”
It happened to me once at Court, as I’ve mentioned before, that a lady of notable rank, who had been married four times, told me she had just dined with her brother-in-law and challenged me to guess who he was. She said this very casually, without any hint of mischief, and I replied playfully, while laughing: “Am I supposed to be a psychic to solve such a puzzle? You’ve been married four times; I’ll let you imagine how many brothers-in-law you might have.” She shot back, “No! You're being sly,” and then named the specific brother-in-law.[293] “Now that makes sense,” I said; “before that, you were just being vague.”
There was in old days at Rome[126] a lady which had had two and twenty husbands one after other, and similarly a man which had had one and twenty wives. The pair did hereupon bethink them to make a suitable match by remarrying once more to each other. Eventually the husband did outlive the wife; and was so highly honoured and esteemed at Rome of all the people for this his noble victory, that like a successful General, he was promenaded up and down in a triumphal car, crowned with laurel and palm in hand. A splendid victory truly, and a well deserved triumph!
There was once in ancient Rome Rome__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ a lady who had twenty-two husbands one after another, and a man who had twenty-one wives. They decided to match up by getting married to each other again. In the end, the husband outlived the wife and was so honored and respected by all the people in Rome for this great achievement that, like a victorious general, he was paraded in a triumphal chariot, crowned with laurels and holding palm branches. A truly magnificent victory and a well-deserved celebration!
In the days of King Henri II., there was at his Court a certain Seigneur de Barbazan, Saint-Amand by surname, which did marry thrice—three wives one after other. His third was daughter of Madame de Monchy, governess to the Duchesse de Lorraine, who more doughty than the other two, did quite surpass them, for he died under her. Now whenas folk were mourning his loss at Court, and she in like wise was inordinately afflicted at her bereavement, M. de Montpezat, a very witty man, did rebuke all this demonstration, saying: that instead of compassionating her, they should commend and extol her to the skies for the victory she had gotten over her man, who was said to have been so vigorous a wight and so strong and well provided that he had killed his two first wives by dint of doing his devoir on them. But this lady, for that she had not succumbed in the contest but had remained victorious, should be highly praised and admired of all the Court for so glorious a success,—a victory won over so valiant and robust a champion; and that for the[294] same cause herself had every reason to be proud. What a victory, and what a source of pride, pardy!
In the days of King Henri II, there was a certain Seigneur de Barbazan at his court, whose surname was Saint-Amand. He married three times—his wives one after the other. His third wife was the daughter of Madame de Monchy, the governess to the Duchesse de Lorraine. She was stronger than the previous two and outshone them, for he died under her. Now, when people at court were mourning his loss, she was also deeply affected by her grief. M. de Montpezat, a very witty man, criticized this display of sorrow, saying that instead of feeling sorry for her, they should praise and celebrate her for the victory she achieved over her husband, who was said to have been so vigorous and strong that he had killed his first two wives by being with them. But this lady, having not succumbed in the struggle but instead remaining victorious, should be highly praised and admired by the entire court for such a glorious success—a victory over such a valiant and robust opponent; and for that reason, she had every reason to be proud. What a victory, and what a source of pride, indeed!
I have heard the same doctrine cited a little above maintained also by a great nobleman of France, who said: that he did find no difference ’twixt a woman that had had four or five husbands, as some have had, and a whore which hath had three or four lovers one after other. Similarly a gallant gentleman I wot of, having wedded a wife that had been three times married already, one I also know by name, a man of ready tongue and wit, did exclaim: “He hath married at last a whore from the brothel of good name.” I’faith, women which do thus marry again and again be like grasping surgeons, that will not at once bind up the wounds of a poor wounded man, so as to prolong the cure and the better to be gaining all the while their bits of fees. Nay! one dame of this sort was used actually to say outright: “’Tis a poor thing to stop dead in the very middle of one’s career; one is bound to finish, and go on to the end!”
I’ve heard the same idea mentioned earlier, also supported by a high-ranking nobleman in France, who said he saw no difference between a woman who has had four or five husbands, as some have, and a prostitute who has had three or four lovers one after the other. Similarly, a gentleman I know, who married a woman that had been married three times before, a man known for his quick tongue and wit, exclaimed, “He finally married a whore with a good reputation.” Honestly, women who marry repeatedly are like greedy surgeons who won't quickly treat the wounds of a poor injured man, dragging out the healing process so they can keep making money from their fees. In fact, one woman of this kind would openly say, “It’s silly to stop dead in the middle of your career; you have to finish and see it through to the end!”
I do wonder that these women which be so hot and keen to marry again, and at the same time so stricken in years, do not for their credit’s sake make some use of cooling remedies and antiphlogistic potions, so as to drive out all these heated humours. Yet so far be they from any wish to use the like, as that they do employ the very opposite treatment, declaring suchlike cooling boluses would ruin their stomach. I have seen and read a little old-fashioned tract in Italian, but a silly book withal, which did undertake to give recipes against lasciviousness, and cited some two and thirty. But these be all so silly I recommend not women to use them, nor to submit themselves to any such annoying regimen. And so I have[295] not thought good to copy them in here. Pliny doth adduce one, which in former days the Vestal virgins were used to employ; the Athenian dames did resort to the same remedy during the festivals of the goddess Ceres, known as the Thesmophoria, to cool their humours thereby and take away all hot appetite of concupiscence. ’Twas to sleep on mattresses of the leaves of a tree called the agnus castus. But be sure, an if during the feast they did mortify themselves in this wise, after the same was over, they did very soon pitch their mattresses to the winds.
I really wonder why these women, who are so eager to marry again, and at the same time quite older, don’t use some cooling remedies and anti-inflammatory potions to get rid of all these heated emotions for their own good. Yet, far from wanting to use anything like that, they actually go for the opposite treatment, claiming that such cooling pills would ruin their stomachs. I’ve seen and read a bit of an old Italian booklet, but it’s a silly book, really, that tried to provide recipes to combat lust and listed about thirty-two of them. But they’re all so ridiculous that I wouldn’t recommend women to try them or put themselves through any annoying regimen. So I haven’t thought it wise to include them here. Pliny mentions one that the Vestal virgins used to use; the Athenian women resorted to the same remedy during the Ceres festival, known as the Thesmophoria, to cool their emotions and curb their hot desires. They would sleep on mattresses made from the leaves of a tree called agnus castus. But be sure, if they practiced this self-denial during the festival, once it was over, they quickly tossed their mattresses out.
I have seen a tree of the sort at a house in Guienne belonging to a very high-born, honourable and beautiful lady. She would oft times show the tree to strangers which came thither as a great rarity, and tell them its peculiar property. But devil take me if ever I have seen or heard tell of woman or dame that hath sent to gather one single branch, or made the smallest scrap of mattress from its leaves. Certainly not the lady that owned the said tree, who might have made what use she pleased thereof. Truly, it had been a pity an if she had, and her husband had not been best pleased; for so fair and charming a dame was she, ’twas only right nature should be allowed her way, and she hath borne to boot a noble line of offspring.
I’ve seen a tree like that at a house in Guienne owned by a very highborn, honorable, and beautiful lady. She often showed the tree to visitors who came by as a rare find and would tell them about its unique qualities. But I swear, I’ve never seen or heard of any woman who has sent someone to gather even a single branch or made any kind of mattress from its leaves. Definitely not the lady who owned that tree, who could have used it however she wanted. Honestly, it would have been a shame if she had, especially since her husband might not have been too happy about it; for such a fair and charming woman, it was only right that nature should take its course, and she has also given birth to a noble line of descendants.
[296]
[296]
10.
10.
And to speak truth, suchlike harsh, chill medicines should be left to poor nuns and prescribed to them only, which for all their fasting and mortifying of the flesh, be oft times sore assailed, poor creatures, with temptations of the flesh. An if only they had their freedom, they would be ready enough, at least some would, to take like refreshment with their more worldly sisters, and not seldom do they repent them of their repentance. This is seen with the Roman courtesans, as to one of whom I must tell a diverting tale. She was vowed to take the veil, but before her going finally to the nunnery, a former lover of hers, a gentleman of France, doth come to bid her farewell, ere she entered the cloister forever. But before leaving her, he did ask one more gratification of his passion, and she did grant the same, with these words: Fate dunque presto; ch’ adesso mi veranno cercar per far mi monaca, e menare al monasterio,—“Do it quick then, for they be coming directly to make me a nun and carry me off to cloister.” We must suppose she was fain to do it this once as a final treat, and say with the Roman poet: Tandem hæc olim meminisse juvabit,—“’Twill be good to remember in future days this last delight.” A strange repentance insooth and a quaint novitiate! But truly when once they be professed, at any rate the good-looking ones, (though of course there be exceptions), I do believe they live more on the bitter herb of repentance than any other bodily or spiritual sustenance.
And to be honest, such harsh, cold medicines should be reserved for poor nuns, prescribed only to them. Despite all their fasting and self-denial, these unfortunate creatures are often troubled by temptations of the flesh. If only they had their freedom, many of them would gladly indulge in the same pleasures as their more worldly sisters, and it’s not uncommon for them to regret their regret. This can be seen in the case of Roman courtesans, one of whom I must share an amusing story. She had vowed to become a nun, but before she finally joined the convent, a former lover of hers, a gentleman from France, came to say goodbye before she entered the cloister forever. But before leaving her, he asked for one last indulgence of his passion, and she agreed, saying: Fate dunque presto; ch’ adesso mi veranno cercar per far mi monaca, e menare al monasterio—“Do it quickly then, because they’re coming right now to make me a nun and take me off to the convent.” We can assume she was eager to do this one last time as a final treat, echoing the Roman poet: Tandem hæc olim meminisse juvabit—“It will be nice to remember this last pleasure in the future.” A strange kind of repentance and a peculiar initiation! But truly, once they are professed—especially the attractive ones (though there are exceptions)—I believe they end up living more on the bitter herb of regret than on any other physical or spiritual nourishment.
Some however there be which do contrive a remedy for this state of things, whether by dispensation or by sheer[297] license they do take for themselves. For in our lands they have no such dire treatment to fear as the Romans in old days did mete out to their Vestal virgins which had gone astray. This was verily hateful and abominable in its cruelty; but then they were pagans and abounding in horrors and cruelties. On the contrary we Christians, which do follow after the gentleness of our Lord Christ, should be tender-hearted as he was, and forgiving as he was forgiving. I would describe here in writing the fashion of their punishment; but for very horror my pen doth refuse to indite the same.
Some, however, do find a way to fix this situation, whether through special exceptions or by simply taking what they want for themselves. In our lands, they don’t have to fear the harsh treatment the Romans used to impose on their Vestal virgins who strayed. That was truly hateful and cruel, but they were pagans steeped in horrors and brutality. In contrast, we Christians, who follow the kindness of our Lord Christ, should be compassionate like he was, and forgiving as he was forgiving. I would describe in writing the way they were punished, but out of sheer horror, my pen refuses to write it down.
Let us now leave these poor recluses, which I do verily believe, once they be shut up in their nunneries, do endure no small hardship. So a Spanish lady one time, seeing them setting to the religious life a very fair and honourable damsel, did thus exclaim: O tristezilla, y en que pecasteis, que tan presto vienes à penitencia, y seis metida en sepultura viva!—“Poor creature, what so mighty sin have you done, that you be so soon brought to penitence and thus buried alive!” And seeing the nuns offering her every complaisance, compliment and welcome, she said: que todo le hedia, hasta el encienso de la yglesia,—“that it all stank in her nostrils, to the very incense in the church.”
Let’s now leave these poor recluses, which I truly believe, once they are locked away in their convents, endure significant hardship. One time, a Spanish lady, seeing them dedicate a very beautiful and respectable young woman to the religious life, exclaimed: O tristezilla, y en que pecasteis, que tan presto vienes à penitencia, y seis metida en sepultura viva!—“Poor thing, what terrible sin have you committed, that you are brought to penitence so quickly and buried alive like this?” And when she saw the nuns offering her every kindness, compliment, and welcome, she said: que todo le hedia, hasta el encienso de la yglesia—“that it all stank in her nose, even the incense in the church.”
Now as to these vows of virginity, Heliogabalus did promulgate a law to the effect that no Roman maid, not even a Vestal virgin, was bound to perpetual virginity, saying how that the female sex was over weak for women to be bound to a pact they could never be sure of keeping. And for this reason they that have founded hospitals for the nourishing, rescuing and marrying poor girls, have done a very charitable work, no less[298] to enable these to taste the sweet fruit of marriage than to turn them from naughtiness. So Panurge in Rabelais, did give much wealth of his to make such marriages, and especially in the case of old and ugly women, for with such was need of more expenditure of money than for the pretty ones.
Now regarding these vows of virginity, Heliogabalus established a law stating that no Roman maid, not even a Vestal virgin, was required to remain a virgin forever, claiming that women were too weak to be held to a commitment they could never be sure of keeping. For this reason, those who have set up hospitals to support, rescue, and marry poor girls have done a very charitable job, enabling them to experience the joys of marriage as much as helping them avoid mischief. Similarly, Panurge in Rabelais donated a lot of his wealth to facilitate such marriages, especially for older and less attractive women, as they often required more financial support than the pretty ones.
One question there is I would fain have resolved in all sincerity and without concealment of any kind by some good lady that hath made the journey,—to wit, when women be married a second time, how they be affected toward the memory of their first husband. ’Tis a general maxim hereanent, that later friendships and enmities do always make the earlier ones forgot; in like wise will a second marriage bury the thought of the first. As to this I will now give a diverting example, though from an humble source,—not that it should therefore be void of authority and to be rejected, if it be as they say, that albeit in an obscure and common quarter, yet may wisdom and good intelligence be hid there. A great lady of Poitou one day asking a peasant woman, a tenant of hers, how many husbands she had had, and how she found them, the latter, bobbing her little country curtsey, did coolly answer: “I’ll tell you, Madam; I’ve had two husbands, praise the Lord! One was called Guillaume, he was the first; and the second was called Collas. Guillaume was a good man, easy in his circumstances, and did treat me very well; but there, God have good mercy on Collas’ soul, for Collas did his duty right well by me.” But she did actually say the word straight out without any glozing or disguise such as I have thrown over it. Prithee, consider how the naughty wench did pray God for the dead man which was so good a mate and so lusty,[299] and for what benefit, to wit that he had covered her so doughtily; but of the first, never a word of the sort. I should suppose many dames that do wed a second time and a third do the same; for after all this is their chiefest reason for marrying again, and he that doth play this game the best, is best loved. Indeed they do always imagine the second husband must need be a fierce performer,—though very oft they be sore deceived, not finding in the shop the goods they did there think to find. Or else, if there be some provision, ’tis oft so puny, wasted and worn, so slack, battered, drooping and dilapidated, they do repent them ever they invested their money in the bargain. Of this myself have seen many examples, that I had rather not adduce.
One question I'd really like to have answered sincerely and openly by some good lady who's been through it—specifically, when women get married for the second time, how do they feel about their first husband? There's a common saying that new friendships and rivalries tend to make us forget the old ones; similarly, a second marriage will bury the memory of the first. To illustrate this, I’ll share an amusing example, albeit from a humble source—not that this makes it any less valid; as they say, wisdom can be found in the most ordinary places. A noblewoman from Poitou once asked a peasant woman who worked for her how many husbands she’d had and what she thought of them. The peasant woman, giving a little country curtsy, replied coolly: “I’ll tell you, Madam; I’ve had two husbands, thank the Lord! One was named Guillaume, my first; and the second was named Collas. Guillaume was a good man, well-off, and treated me well; but God rest Collas’ soul, he really did his duty by me.” She actually said it straightforwardly, without any embellishments like I've added. Just think about how that cheeky woman prayed for the soul of the dead man who was such a good husband and so vigorous, yet didn't say a word about the first! I imagine many women who marry a second or third time feel the same way; after all, that's often their main reason for marrying again, and whoever does this best is the most cherished. They always think the second husband has to be quite the performer—though they are often sadly mistaken, not finding the quality they expected. And if they do find something, it's often so lacking, worn out or damaged that they regret ever spending their money on it. I've seen many examples of this myself, though I'd rather not mention them.
We read in Plutarch how Cleomenes, having wedded the fair Agiatis, wife of Agis, after the death of the latter, did grow fondly enamoured of the same by reason of her surpassing beauty. He did not fail to note the great sadness she lay under for her first husband’s loss; and felt so great compassion for her, as that he made no grievance of the love she still bare her former husband, and the affectionate memory she did cherish of him. In fact, himself would often turn the discourse to her earlier life, asking her facts and details as to the pleasures that had erstwhile passed betwixt them twain. He had her not for long however, for she soon died, to his extreme sorrow. ’Tis a thing not a few worthy husbands do in the case of fair widows they have married.
We read in Plutarch how Cleomenes, after marrying the beautiful Agiatis, who was the wife of Agis before him, became deeply enamored with her due to her exceptional beauty. He noticed the profound sadness she carried from losing her first husband and felt such compassion for her that he didn’t mind the love she still held for him or the fond memories she cherished. In fact, he often steered their conversations toward her past, asking her about the joys they had shared together. However, he didn’t have her for long, as she soon passed away, leaving him heartbroken. This is something that many caring husbands do when they marry lovely widows.
But ’tis time now surely, methinks, to be making an end, if ever end is to be made.
But it's surely time now, I think, to wrap things up, if we're ever going to finish.
Other ladies there be which declare they do much better love their second husbands than their first. “For as to[300] our first husbands,” some of these have told me, “these we do more often than not take at the orders of our King or the Queen our mistress, or at the command of our fathers, mothers, kinsmen, or guardians, not by our own unbiased wish. On the other hand, once widowed and thus free and emancipated, we do exercise such choice as seemeth us good, and take new mates solely for our own good will and pleasure, for delight of love and the satisfaction of our heart’s desire.” Of a surety there would seem to be good reason here, were it not that very oft, as the old-time proverb saith,—“Love that begins with a ring, oft ends with a halter.” So every day do we see instances and examples where women thinking to be well treated of their husbands, the which they have in some cases rescued from justice and the gibbet, from poverty and misery and the hangman, and saved alive, have been sore beaten, bullied, cruelly entreated and often done to death of the same,—a just punishment of heaven for their base ingratitude toward their former husbands, that were only too good to them, and of whom they had never a good word to say.
Other women claim they love their second husbands much more than their first. “As for our first husbands,” some of them have told me, “we often marry them out of obligation to our King or Queen, or at the request of our fathers, mothers, relatives, or guardians, not because we want to. But once we’re widowed and free, we have the choice that seems best to us, and we choose new partners purely for our own enjoyment and satisfaction of our heart’s desires.” Surely, this makes sense; however, as the old saying goes, “Love that starts with a ring often ends with a noose.” Every day we see examples where women, thinking they will be well-treated by their husbands—whom they sometimes saved from prison, poverty, and execution—end up being severely abused, mistreated, and even killed by the same men. This seems like a just punishment from heaven for their ingratitude toward their former husbands, who were nothing but good to them and of whom they had nothing nice to say.
These were in no way like one I have heard tell of, who the first night of her marriage, when now her husband was beginning his assault, did start sobbing and sighing very sore, so that at one and the same time she was in two quite opposite states, cold and hot, winter and summer, both at once. Her husband asking her what cause she had to be so sad, and if he were not doing his devoir well, “Alas! too well, good sir!” she made answer; “but I am thinking of mine other husband, which did so earnestly pray me again and again never to marry afresh after his death, but to bear in mind and have compassion[301] on his young children. Alackaday! I see plainly I shall have the like ado with you. Woe’s me! what shall I do? I do think, an if he can see me from the place he now is in, he will be cursing me finely.” What an idea, never to have thought on this afore, nor to have felt remorse but when ’twas all too late! But the husband did soon appease her, and expel this fancy by the best method possible; then next morning throwing wide the chamber window, he did cast forth all memory of the former husband. For is there not an old proverb which saith, “A woman that burieth one husband, will think little of burying another,” and another, “There’s more grimace than grief, when a woman loseth her husband.”
These were nothing like the one I've heard about, who on her first night of marriage, as her husband was starting his advances, began to sob and sigh intensely, experiencing two completely opposite feelings at once—cold and hot, winter and summer. When her husband asked why she seemed so sad and if he wasn't doing his duty well, she replied, “Oh, you’re doing it too well, dear sir! But I’m thinking about my other husband, who earnestly begged me time and again never to marry again after his death, asking me to remember and have compassion on his young children. Oh dear! I can clearly see I’ll have the same issue with you. What am I supposed to do? I think if he can see me from where he is now, he’ll be cursing me.” What a thought, never to have considered this before, or to have felt regret only when it was far too late! But her husband quickly comforted her and dispelled this notion in the best way possible; then the next morning, throwing open the chamber window, he cast away all memories of the former husband. For isn’t there an old saying that goes, “A woman who buries one husband will think little of burying another,” and another, “There’s more show than sorrow when a woman loses her husband”?
I knew another widow, a great lady, which was quite the opposite of the last, and did not weep one whit the first night. For then, and the second to boot, she did go so lustily to work with her second husband as that they did break down and burst the bedstead, and this albeit she had a kind of cancer on one breast. Yet notwithstanding her affliction, she did miss never a point of amorous delight; and often afterward would divert him with tales of the folly and ineptitude of her former mate. And truly, by what I have heard sundry of either sex tell me, the very last thing a second husband doth desire of his wife is to be entertained with the merits and worth of her first, as though jealous of the poor departed wight, who would like naught so well as to return to earth again; but as for abuse of him, as much of that as ever you please! Natheless there be not a few that will ask their wives about their former lords, as did Cleomenes; but this they do, as feeling themselves to be strong and vigorous; and so delighting to institute comparisons, do[302] cross-question them concerning the other’s sturdiness and vigour in these sweet encounters. In like wise have I heard of some which to put their bedfellows in better case, do lead them to think their former mates were prentice hands compared with them, a device that doth oft times answer their purpose well. Others again will say just the opposite, and declare their first husbands were perfect giants, so as to spur on their new mates to work like very pack mules.
I knew another widow, a great lady, who was completely the opposite of the last one, and she didn't shed a tear the first night. In fact, for the first and even the second night, she enthusiastically got busy with her second husband so much that they broke the bed frame, even though she had a kind of cancer in one breast. Yet despite her illness, she didn’t miss out on any romantic fun; she often entertained him with stories about the foolishness and incompetence of her first husband. And honestly, from what I’ve heard from many people, the last thing a second husband wants from his wife is to hear all about her first husband, as if he’s jealous of the poor guy who would give anything to come back to life. But when it comes to making fun of him, feel free to go ahead! However, there are quite a few who will ask their wives about their previous husbands, just like Cleomenes did; but they do this because they feel confident and strong, and they enjoy comparing themselves by questioning their wives about the other man’s strength and stamina in these intimate moments. Similarly, I've heard of some who, to make their partners feel better, lead them to believe their former spouses were just amateurs compared to them, a tactic that often works well. Others will do the exact opposite and claim that their first husbands were like giants, just to motivate their new partners to work like pack mules.
11.
11.
Widows of the sort just described would be in good case in the island of Chios,[127*] the fairest, sweetest and most pleasant of the Levant, formerly possessed by the Genoese, but now for five and thirty years usurped by the Turks,—a crying shame and loss for Christendom. Now in this isle, as I am informed of sundry Genoese traders, ’tis the custom that every woman desiring to continue a widow, without any intent to marry again, is constrained to pay to the Seigneurie of the island a certain fixed sum of money, which they call argomoniatiquo, which is the same as saying (with all respect to the ladies), an idle spot is useless. So likewise at Sparta, as Plutarch saith in his Life of Lysander, was a fine established by law against such as would not marry, or did marry over late, or ill. To return to Scio (Chios), I have enquired of certain natives of that island, what might be the aim and object of the said custom, which told me ’twas to the end the isle might always be well peopled. I can vouch for this, that our land of France will surely never be left desert or infertile[303] by fault of our widows’ not marrying again; for I ween there be more which do re-marry than not, and will pay never a doit of tribute for idle and useless females. And if not by marriage, at any rate in other ways, these Chiotes do make that same organ work and fructify, as I will presently show. ’Tis well too for our maids of France they need not to pay the tax their sisters of Chios be liable to; for these, whether in country or town, if they do come to lose their maidenhead before marriage, and be fain after to continue the trade, be bound to pay once for all a ducat (and surely ’tis a good bargain to compound for all their life after at this price) to the Captain of the Night Watch, so as they may pursue their business as they please, without let or hindrance. And herein doth lie the chiefest and most certain profit this worthy Captain doth come by in his office.
Widows like the ones just described would be in a good situation on the island of Chios, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, the most beautiful, sweetest, and most pleasant place in the Levant, which was once owned by the Genoese but has been taken over by the Turks for the past thirty-five years—an absolute shame and loss for Christendom. Now on this island, as I’ve heard from several Genoese traders, it’s customary for any woman who wants to remain a widow, with no intention of marrying again, to pay a certain fixed sum of money to the Seigneurie of the island, which they call argomoniatiquo, meaning (with all due respect to the ladies), an idle spot is useless. Similarly, at Sparta, as Plutarch states in his Life of Lysander, there was a fine established by law against those who wouldn’t marry, or who married too late or poorly. Back to Scio (Chios), I asked some locals what the purpose of this custom was, and they told me it was to ensure that the island remains well-populated. I can assure you that our land of France will definitely not be left deserted or infertile due to our widows not remarrying; in fact, I believe more of them remarry rather than not and won’t pay a single penny in taxes for idle and useless women. And if not through marriage, at least in other ways, these Chiotes make that same organ work and thrive, as I will explain shortly. It’s also good for our young women in France that they don’t have to pay the tax that their sisters in Chios do; for those, whether in the countryside or the city, if they lose their virginity before marriage and later want to continue their lifestyle, must pay a one-time fee of a ducat (which is a pretty good deal to settle for the rest of their lives) to the Captain of the Night Watch, so they can carry on their business freely, without interference. And this is where the main and most certain profit comes from for this worthy Captain in his position.
These dames and damsels of this Isle be much different from those of olden days in the same land, which, by what Plutarch saith in his Opuscula, were so chaste for seven hundred years, that never a case was remembered where a married woman had done adultery, or a maid had been deflowered unwed. A miracle! ’twill be said, a mythic tale worthy of old Homer! At any rate be sure they be much other nowadays!
These ladies of this island are very different from those of ancient times in the same land, which, as Plutarch says in his Opuscula, were so pure for seven hundred years that there was never an instance remembered where a married woman committed adultery or an unmarried girl lost her virginity. A miracle! It will be said, a legendary story worthy of old Homer! In any case, you can be sure they are quite different now!
Never was a time when the Greeks had not always some device or other making for wantonness. So in old times we read of a custom in the isle of Cyprus, which ’tis said the kindly goddess Venus, the patroness of that land, did introduce. This was that the maids of that island should go forth and wander along the banks, shores and cliffs of the sea, for to earn their marriage portions by the generous giving of their bodies to mariners, sailors and[304] seafarers along that coast. These would put in to shore on purpose, very often indeed turning aside from their straight course by compass to land there; and so taking their pleasant refreshment with them, would pay handsomely, and presently hie them away again to sea, for their part only too sorry to leave such good entertainment behind. Thus would these fair maids win their marriage dowers, some more, some less, some high, some low, some grand, some lowly, according to the beauty, gifts and carnal attractions of each damsel.
There was never a time when the Greeks weren’t coming up with some way to indulge in pleasure. In ancient times, we read about a custom on the island of Cyprus, which is said to have been introduced by the goddess Venus, the protector of that land. This custom involved the young women of the island going out to stroll along the banks, shores, and cliffs of the sea, to earn their marriage portions by generously offering their bodies to sailors, mariners, and other seafarers along the coast. These men would often go out of their way to land there, taking a break from their journeys, and would gladly pay for the enjoyment before quickly setting sail again, regretting to leave such good company behind. In this way, the young women would earn their dowries—some more, some less, some large, some small, some extraordinary, and some simple—depending on each girl's beauty, charm, and physical attractiveness.
Nowadays ’tis different. No maids in any Christian nation do thus go wandering forth, to expose them to wind and rain, cold and heat, sun and moon, and so win their dower, for that the task is too laborious for their delicate and tender skins and white complexions. Rather do they have their lovers come to them under rich pavilions and gorgeous hangings, and do there draw their amorous profit from their paramours, without ever a tax to pay. I speak not now of the courtesans of Rome, who do pay tax, but of women of higher place than they. In fact for the most part for such damsels their fathers, mothers and brothers, be not at much pains to gather money for their portion on marriage; but on the contrary many of them be found able to give handsomely to their kinsfolk, and advance the same in goods and offices, ranks and dignities, as myself have seen in many instances.
These days, it’s different. No maids in any Christian nation wander around anymore, exposing themselves to wind and rain, cold and heat, sun and moon, just to earn their dowries, because that would be too hard on their delicate skin and fair complexions. Instead, their lovers come to them in lavish pavilions and beautiful drapes, allowing them to gain romantic benefits without any cost. I’m not talking about the courtesans of Rome, who do pay taxes, but about women of higher status. In fact, for the most part, families of these young women don’t need to work hard to gather money for their marriage dowries; instead, many of them are often found able to generously support their relatives and help them advance in wealth, jobs, social status, and honor, as I have seen in many instances.
For this cause did Lycurgus ordain in his Laws that virgins should be wedded without money dowry, to the end men might marry them for their merits, and not from greed. But, what kind of virtue was it? Why! on their solemn feast-days the Spartan maids were used to sing[305] and dance in public stark naked with the lads, and even wrestle in the open market-place,—the which however was done in all honesty and good faith, so History saith. But what sort of honesty and purity was this, we may well ask, to look on at these pretty maids so performing publicly? Honesty was it never a whit, but pleasure in the sight of them, and especially of their bodily movements and dancing postures, and above all in their wrestling; and chiefest of all when they came to fall one atop of the other, as they say in Latin, illa sub, ille super; ille sub et illa super,—“she underneath, he atop; he underneath, she atop.” You will never persuade me, ’twas all honesty and purity herein with these Spartan maidens. I ween there is never chastity so chaste that would not have been shaken thereby, or that, so making in public and by day these feint assaults, they did not presently in privity and by night and on assignation proceed to greater combats and night-attacks. And no doubt all this might well be done, seeing how the said Lycurgus did suffer such men as were handsome and well grown to borrow other citizens’ wives to sow seed therein as in a good and fruitful soil. So was it in no wise blameworthy for an old outwearied husband to lend his young and beautiful wife to some gallant youth he did choose therefor. Nay! the lawgiver did pronounce it permissible for the wife herself to choose for to help her procreation the next kinsman of her husband, then an if he pleased her fancy, to couple with him, to the end the children they might engender should at least be of the blood and race of the husband. Indeed there is some sense in the practice, and had not the Jews likewise the same law of license betwixt sister-in-law and brother-in-law? On the other hand our[306] Christian law hath reformed all this, albeit our Holy Father hath in divers cases granted dispensations founded on divers reasons. In Spain ’tis a practice much adopted, but never without dispensation.
For this reason, Lycurgus established in his laws that virgins could be married without a dowry, so that men would choose them for their qualities, not out of greed. But what kind of virtue was that? On their festive days, Spartan maids would sing and dance in public completely naked with the boys, and even wrestle in the open marketplace—though history claims this was done in all honesty and good faith. But what kind of honesty and purity was this? It’s fair to ask about the appropriateness of watching these lovely maids perform publicly. There was never any true honesty in it; it was about the pleasure of watching them, especially their physical movements and dancing, and particularly in their wrestling; especially when they ended up on top of each other, as they say in Latin, illa sub, ille super; ille sub et illa super—"she underneath, he on top; he underneath, she on top." You'll never convince me that this was all about honesty and purity with these Spartan maidens. I think there's never been chastity so pure that could withstand that, nor can we believe that after such public displays during the day, they didn't engage in more serious intimate encounters privately at night. Clearly, this was possible since Lycurgus allowed good-looking, strong men to borrow other citizens’ wives to have children as if cultivating good soil. So it was by no means scandalous for a tired old husband to lend his young and beautiful wife to a handsome young man of his choosing. In fact, the lawmaker even permitted the wife to pick her husband’s closest relative for procreation, if she found him appealing, so that their children would at least share the bloodline of the husband. There is some rationale in this practice, and didn’t the Jews have a similar law regarding relationships between siblings-in-law? On the other hand, our Christian laws have changed all this, although our Holy Father has granted dispensations in various cases based on different reasons. In Spain, this practice is quite common, but always with a dispensation.
Well! to say something more, and as soberly as we may, of some other sorts of widows,—and then an end.
Well! to say a bit more, and as seriously as we can, about some other types of widows,—and then we’ll be done.
One sort there is, widows which do absolutely refuse to marry again, hating wedlock like the plague. So one, a lady of a great house and a witty woman withal, when that I asked her if she were not minded to make her vow once again to the god Hymen, did reply: “Tell me this, by’r lady; suppose a galley-slave or captive to have tugged years long at the oar, tied to the chain, and at last to have got back his freedom, would he not be a fool and a very imbecile, an if he did not hie him away with a good heart, determined never more to be subject to the orders of a savage corsair? So I, after being in slavery to an husband, an if I should take a fresh master, what should I deserve to get, prithee, since without resorting to that extreme, and with no risk at all, I can have the best of good times?” Another great lady, and a kinswoman of mine own, on my asking her if she had no wish to wed again, replied: “Never a bit, coz, but only to bed again,” playing on the words wed and bed, and signifying she would be glad enough to give herself some treat, but without intervention of any second husband,—according to the old proverb which saith, “A safer fling unwed than wed.” Another saying hath it, that women be always good hostesses, in love as elsewhere; and a right saying ’tis, for they be mistresses of the situation, and queens wherever they be,—that is the pretty ones be so.
There’s a type of woman who absolutely refuses to marry again, hating marriage like the plague. One such lady, from a prominent family and quite witty, when I asked her if she was considering making her vows to the god Hymen again, replied: “Tell me this, my lady; if a galley slave or captive had been rowing for years, chained up, and finally got his freedom, wouldn’t he be a fool if he didn’t leave with joy, determined never to be under the command of a brutal corsair again? So I, after being enslaved to a husband, if I were to take another master, what would I deserve, pray tell, since without going that far and with no risk at all, I can enjoy myself to the fullest?” Another distinguished lady, who is a relative of mine, when I asked her if she wanted to marry again, replied: “Not at all, cousin, just to have a bed partner again,” playing on the words wed and bed, meaning she would be happy to have some fun, but without involving any second husband—just like the old saying goes, “It’s safer to play around without being married than to be married.” Another saying claims that women are always good hosts, in love as in other things; and it’s a true saying, because they are in control and queens wherever they are—at least the attractive ones are.
I have heard tell of another, which was asked of a[307] gentleman which was fain to try his ground as a suitor for her hand, an if she would not like an husband. “Nay! sir,” she answered, “never talk to me of an husband, I’ll have no more of them; but for a lover, I’m not so sure.”—“Then, Madame, prithee, let me be that lover, since husband I may not be.” Her reply was, “Court me well, and persevere; mayhap you will succeed.”
I’ve heard about another situation, where a guy who wanted to try his luck as a suitor for her hand asked her if she would like a husband. “No way!,” she replied, “don’t even mention a husband, I don’t want any more of them; but for a lover, I’m not so sure.” — “Then, please let me be that lover, since I can’t be a husband.” Her response was, “Pursue me well and keep at it; maybe you’ll succeed.”
A fair and honourable widow lady, of some thirty summers, one day wishing to break a jest with an honourable gentleman, or to tell truth, to provoke him to love-making, and having as she was about to mount her horse caught the front of her mantle on something and torn it somewhat in detaching it, taking it up said to him: “Look you, what you have done, so and so” (accosting him by his name); “you have ripped my front.”
A fair and honorable widow lady, around thirty years old, one day wanting to make a joke with an honorable gentleman, or to be honest, to tease him into flirting, and as she was about to get on her horse, she caught the front of her cloak on something and tore it a bit while pulling it free. She picked it up and said to him: “Look what you’ve done, [his name]; you’ve ripped my cloak.”
“I should be right sorry to hurt it, Madam; ’tis too sweet and pretty for that.”
“I’d really hate to hurt it, Ma’am; it’s too nice and lovely for that.”
“Why! what know you of it?” she replied; “you have never seen it.”
“Why! What do you know about it?” she replied, “You’ve never seen it.”
“What! can you deny,” retorted the other, “that I have seen it an hundred times over, when you were a little lassie?”
“What! can you deny,” replied the other, “that I’ve seen it a hundred times before, when you were just a little girl?”
“Ah! but,” said she, “I was then but a stripling, and knew not yet what was what.”
“Ah! but,” she said, “I was just a kid back then and didn’t really know what was what.”
“Still, I suppose ’tis yet in the same place as of old, and hath not changed position. I ween I could even now find it in the same spot.”
“Still, I guess it's probably still in the same place as before, and hasn’t moved. I think I could even now find it in the same spot.”
“Oh, yes! ’tis there still, albeit mine husband hath rolled it and turned it about, more than ever did Diogenes with his tub.”
“Oh, yes! It’s still there, even though my husband has rolled it and flipped it around more than Diogenes ever did with his tub.”
“Yes! and nowadays how doth it do without movement?”
“Yes! And how is it doing nowadays without any movement?”
[308]
[308]
“’Tis for all the world like a clock that is left unwound.”
“It’s just like a clock that hasn't been wound.”
“Then take you heed, lest that befall you that doth happen to clocks when they be not wound up, and continue so for long; their springs do rust by lapse of time, and they be good for naught after.”
“Then pay attention, so that what happens to clocks when they aren’t wound up doesn’t happen to you, especially if it goes on for a while; their springs rust over time, and they’re useless afterward.”
“’Tis not a fair comparison,” said she, “for that the springs of the clock you mean be not liable to rust at all, but keep in good order, wound or unwound, always ready to be set a-going at any time.”
“That's not a fair comparison,” she said, “because the springs of the clock you’re talking about don’t rust at all, but stay in good condition, whether wound or unwound, always ready to be started whenever needed.”
“Please God,” cried the gentleman, “whenas the time for winding come, I might be the watchmaker to wind it up!”
“Please God,” cried the gentleman, “when the time comes to wind it up, I hope I'll be the watchmaker to do it!”
“Well, well!” returned the lady, “when that day and festive hour shall arrive, we will not be idle, but will do a right good day’s work. So God guard from ill him I love not as well as you.”
“Well, well!” replied the lady, “when that day and festive hour comes, we won’t be idle, but we’ll get a lot of work done. So God protect from harm the one I don’t love as much as you.”
After this keen and heart pricking interchange of wit, the lady did mount her horse, after kissing the gentleman with much good-will, adding as she rode away, “Goodbye, till we meet again, and enjoy our little treat!”
After this sharp and heartfelt exchange of wit, the lady got on her horse, giving the gentleman a warm kiss and adding as she rode away, “Goodbye, until we meet again and enjoy our little treat!”
But alas! as ill fate would have it, the fair lady did die within six weeks whereat her lover did well nigh die of chagrin. For these enticing words, with others she had said afore, had so heartened him with good hope that he was assured of her conquest, as indeed she was ready enough to be his. A malison on her untimely end, for verily she was one of the best and fairest dames you could see anywhere, and well worth a venial fault to possess,—or even a mortal sin!
But unfortunately, as fate would have it, the beautiful lady died within six weeks, which nearly caused her lover to die from grief. Her tempting words, along with others she had said before, had filled him with so much hope that he was certain of winning her over, and she was definitely ready to be his. A curse on her untimely death, for truly she was one of the best and most beautiful women you could find anywhere, and well worth a small fault to have—or even a serious sin!
Another fair young widow was asked by an honourable gentleman if she did keep Lent, and abstain from eating[309] meat, as folks do then. “No!” she said, “I do not.”—“So I have observed,” returned the gentleman; “I have noted you made no scruple, but did eat meat at that season just as at any other, both raw and cooked.”—“That was at the time mine husband was alive; now I am a widow, I have reformed and regulated my living more seemly.”—“Nay! beware,” then said the other, “of fasting so strictly, for it doth readily happen to such as go fasting and anhungered, that anon, when the desire of meat cometh on them, they do find their vessels so narrow and contracted, as that they do thereby suffer much incommodity.”—“Nay! that vessel of my body,” said the lady, “that you mean, is by no means so narrow or hunger-pinched, but that, when mine appetite shall revive, I may not afford it good and sufficient refreshment.”
Another young widow was asked by a respectable gentleman if she observed Lent and avoided eating meat like everyone else at that time. “No!” she replied, “I don’t.” — “I figured as much,” the gentleman said; “I noticed you had no hesitation and ate meat during that season just like any other, both raw and cooked.” — “That was when my husband was alive; now that I’m a widow, I’ve changed my ways and improved my living habits,” she responded. — “Well! Be cautious,” said the gentleman, “about fasting too strictly, because those who fast and go hungry often find that when the urge to eat hits them, their stomachs feel so tight and constricted that they end up suffering quite a bit.” — “Oh! The vessel of my body you’re talking about isn’t so tight or deprived that when my appetite returns, I won’t be able to give it proper and sufficient nourishment.”
I knew another great lady, which all through her unmarried and married life was in all men’s mouths by reason of her exceeding stoutness. Afterward she came to lose her husband, and did mourn him with so extreme a sorrow that she grew as dry as wood.[128] Yet did she never cease to indulge her in the joys of former days, even going so far as to borrow the aid of a certain Secretary she had, and of other such to boot, and even of her cook, so ’twas reported. For all that, she did not win back her flesh, albeit the said cook, who was all fat and greasy, ought surely, I ween, to have made her fat. So she went on, taking now one, now another of her serving-men, all the while playing the part of the most prudish and virtuous dame in all the Court, with pious phrases ever on her lips, and naught but scandal against all other women, and never a word of good for any of them. Of like sort was that noble woman of Dauphiné, in the Cent[310] Nouvelles of the Queen of Navarre, which was found lying flat on the grass with her groom or muleteer by a certain gentleman, that was ready to die of love for her but this sight did quick cure his love sickness for him.
I knew another remarkable woman who was talked about by everyone throughout her single and married life because of her incredible plumpness. Afterward, she lost her husband and mourned him with such profound sorrow that she became as thin as a stick. Yet she never stopped indulging in the pleasures of her past, even going so far as to enlist the help of a certain secretary she had, along with others, and even her cook, so it was rumored. Despite that, she didn’t regain her figure, even though the cook, who was quite fat and greasy, should have helped her gain weight. So she continued, taking one or another of her servants, all the while pretending to be the most prim and virtuous woman in all the court, with pious phrases constantly on her lips, casting scandalous remarks about all other women and never saying anything good about them. Similarly, there was that noble woman from Dauphiné, in the Cent[310] Nouvelles of the Queen of Navarre, who was found lying on the grass with her groom or muleteer by a gentleman, who was ready to die for her, but this sight quickly cured his love sickness.
I have heard speak of a very beautiful woman at Naples, which had the repute of going in like manner with a Moor, the ugliest fellow in the world, who was her slave and groom, but something made her love him.
I’ve heard about a really beautiful woman in Naples who was known for being with a Moor, the ugliest guy in the world, who was her servant and stable hand, but for some reason, she loved him.
12.
12.
I have read in an old Romance, Jehan de Saintré, printed in black letter, how the late King John of France did rear the hero Jehan as his page. Now by custom of former days, great folk were used to send their pages to carry messages, as is done likewise to-day. But then they were wont to go everywhere, and up and down the countryside, a-horseback; I have even heard our fathers say they were not seldom sent on minor embassies, for by despatching a page and horse and a broad piece, the thing was done and so much expense well spared. This same little Jehan de Saintré (for so he did long continue to be called)[129*] was very much loved of his master the King, for that he was full of wit and intelligence, and was often sent to carry trifling messages to his sister, who was at the time a widow,—though the book saith not whose widow. This great lady did fall enamoured of the lad, after he had been several times on errands to her; so one day, finding a good opportunity and no one nigh, she did question him, asking him an if he did not love some lady or other at Court, and which of them all liked him best.[311] This is a way a great many ladies have, whenas they be fain to score the first point and deliver their first attack on one they fancy, as myself have seen done. Well! little Jehan de Saintré, who had never so much as dreamed of love, told her, “No! not yet,” going on to describe several Court ladies, and what he thought of them. Then did she hold forth to him on the beauties and delights of love, but he only answered, “Nay! I care less than ever for’t.” For in those old days, even as to-day, some of our greatest ladies were slaves to love and much subject to detraction; for indeed folk so adroit as they have grown since, and ’twas only the cleverest that had the good fortune to impose on their husbands and pass as good women by virtue of their hypocrisies and little wiles. The lady then, seeing the lad to be well-favoured, goes on to tell him how she would give him a mistress that would love him well, provided he was a true lover to her, making him promise under pain of instant shame and disgrace, that above all he should be sure and secret. Eventually she did make her avowal to him, and tell him herself would fain be his lady and darling,—for in those days the word mistress was not as yet in vogue. At this the young page was sore astonished, thinking she did but make a mock of him, or wished to trap him and get him a whipping.
I read in an old romance, Jehan de Saintré, printed in black letters, about the late King John of France raising the hero Jehan as his page. Back in the day, wealthy people used to send their pages to deliver messages, just like they do today. But then, they would ride all over the countryside; I’ve even heard our fathers say that they were often sent on minor errands, since sending a page on horseback with a good amount of cash was an efficient way to handle things and saved money. This same little Jehan de Saintré (that’s what he continued to be called) was very much loved by his master the King because he was bright and smart, and he was often sent to carry small messages to his sister, who was a widow at the time, though the book doesn’t say whose widow she was. This noble lady fell in love with the boy after he had been sent on errands to her a few times; so one day, finding a good moment with no one around, she asked him if he loved any lady at court, and which of them liked him the most.[311] This is a tactic many ladies use when trying to make the first move on someone they’re into, as I have seen happen. Well, little Jehan de Saintré, who had never even thought about love, told her, “No! Not yet,” then went on to describe several court ladies and what he thought of them. She then started talking to him about the beauties and joys of love, but he just replied, “No! I care even less for it.” Because even back then, like today, some of our most prominent ladies were slaves to love and quite prone to gossip; indeed, people have become so skilled since then that only the cleverest managed to deceive their husbands and pass as good women through their hypocrisies and little tricks. The lady, seeing that the boy was good-looking, went on to tell him that she would find him a mistress who would love him well, provided he was a faithful lover to her, making him promise under the threat of immediate shame and disgrace to keep it all secret. Eventually, she confessed to him and told him she would like to be his lady and darling, since back then the term mistress hadn’t yet become popular. At this, the young page was very surprised, thinking she was just teasing him or trying to trap him for a beating.
However she did very soon show so many unequivocal signs of fire and heat of love and such tender familiarities, as that he perceived ’twas no mockery; while she kept on telling him she would train and form him and make him a great man. The end was their loves and mutual joys did last a long while, during his pagehood and after he was no more a page, till at the last he had to depart[312] on a distant journey,—when she did change him for a great, fat Abbé. This is the tale we find in the Nouvelles du monde advantureux, writ by a gentleman of the chamber to the Queen of Navarre, wherein we see the Abbé put an affront on the said Jehan de Saintré, that was so brave and valiant; yet did he in no long while pay the worthy Abbé back in good coin and three times over. ’Tis an excellent Tale, and cometh from the book I have named.[130*]
However, she soon showed so many clear signs of passion and affection, as well as such tender behaviors, that he realized it wasn't just a joke; while she kept saying she would guide and shape him into a great man. In the end, their love and shared happiness lasted for a long time, during his time as a page and after he stopped being one, until finally, he had to leave on a distant journey—when she replaced him with a big, fat Abbé. This story can be found in the Nouvelles du monde advantureux, written by a gentleman of the chamber to the Queen of Navarre, where we see the Abbé insult the brave and valiant Jehan de Saintré; however, it wasn't long before he got his revenge on the worthy Abbé, and then some. It’s an excellent tale, and it comes from the book I have named .__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
Here we see how ’tis not only of to-day that fair ladies do love pages, above all when they be gay and speckled like partridges. And verily, what creatures women be!—that be ready enough to have lovers galore, but husbands not! This they do for the love of freedom, which is indeed a noble thing. For they think, when once they be out of their husband’s rule, they are in Paradise, having their fine dower and spending it themselves, managing all the household, and handling the coin. All goeth through their hands; and instead of being servants, they be now mistresses, and do make free choice of their pleasures, and such as do best minister to the same.
Here we see that it's not just today that attractive women love flirtatious men, especially when they’re lively and colorful like partridges. And honestly, what interesting creatures women are!—they're quick to have many lovers, but not so much to want husbands! They do this for the sake of freedom, which is truly a noble pursuit. They believe that once they’re out from under their husband’s control, they’ve entered Paradise, enjoying their wealth and spending it as they wish, running the household, and managing the finances. Everything passes through their hands; instead of being servants, they become the mistresses and freely choose their pleasures that best serve them.
Others again there be, which do surely hate the notion of making a second marriage, from distaste to lose their rank and dignity, their goods, riches and honours, their soft and luxurious living, and for this cause do restrain their passions. So have I known and heard speak of not a few great dames and Princesses, which from mere dread of their failing to find again the grandeurs of their first match, and so losing rank, would never marry again. Not that they did cease therefor one whit to follow after love and turn the same to their joy and delight,—yet all the while never losing their rank and dignity, their[313] stools of state and honourable seats in Queens’ chambers and elsewhere. Lucky women, to enjoy their grandeur and mount high, yet abase them low, at one and the same time! But to say a word of reproach or remonstrance to them, never dream no such thing! Else no end would there be of anger and annoyance, denials and protestations, contradiction and revenge.
There are others who really hate the idea of getting married a second time because they don’t want to lose their status, wealth, and comforts. Because of this, they hold back their feelings. I’ve known and heard of many high-ranking women and princesses who, out of fear of not finding the same level of greatness in a second marriage and thus losing their status, would never marry again. It’s not that they stopped pursuing love and enjoying life—quite the opposite—but they always make sure to maintain their rank and dignity, their[313] places of honor and seats in Queens' chambers and elsewhere. Lucky women, who can enjoy their high status while also bringing themselves down to earth! But to say anything negative or challenging to them? Don't even think about it! Otherwise, you’d face endless anger, annoyance, denials, protests, contradictions, and revenge.
I have heard a tale told of a widow lady, and indeed I knew her myself, which had long enjoyed the love of an honourable gentleman, under pretext she would marry him; but he did in no wise make himself obtrusive. A great Princess, the lady’s mistress, was for reproaching her for her conduct. But she, wily and corrupt, did answer her: “Nay! Madam, but should it be denied us to love with an honourable love? surely that were too cruel.” Only God knoweth, this love she called honourable, was really a most lecherous passion. And verily all loves be so; they be born all pure, chaste and honourable, but anon do lose their maidenhead, so to speak, and by magic influence of some philosopher’s stone, be transformed into base metal, and grow dishonourable and lecherous.
I've heard a story about a widow lady, and I actually knew her myself, who had long been loved by a respectable gentleman, under the pretense that she would marry him; but he never pushed himself on her. A great princess, who was her mistress, wanted to scold her for her behavior. But she, sly and corrupt, replied: “No! Madam, must we be denied the right to love in an honorable way? That would be too cruel.” Only God knows that this love she called honorable was truly just a lustful desire. And really, all loves are like that; they start out all pure, chaste, and honorable, but soon lose their innocence, so to speak, and through some magical influence like a philosopher's stone, they turn into base metal and become dishonorable and lustful.
The late M. de Bussy, who was one of the wittiest talkers of his time, and no less pleasing as a story-teller, one day at Court seeing a great lady, a widow, and of ripe years, who did still persist in her amorous doings, did exclaim: “What! doth this hackney yet frequent the stallion?” The word was repeated to the lady, which did vow mortal hate against the offender. On M. de Bussy’s learning this, “Well, well!” he said, “I know how to make my peace, and put this all right. Prithee, go tell her I said not so, but that this is what I really said,[314] ‘Doth this filly[131] yet go to be mounted? For sure I am she is not wroth because I take her for a light o’ love, but for an old woman; and when she hears I called her filly, that is to say a young mare, she will suppose I do still esteem her a young woman.’” And so it was; for the lady, on hearing this change and improvement in the wording, did relax her anger and made it up with M. de Bussy; whereat we did all have a good laugh. Yet for all she might do, she was always deemed an old, half-foundered jade, that aged as she was, still went whinnying after the male.
The late M. de Bussy, one of the wittiest speakers of his time and also a great storyteller, one day at Court saw a prominent lady, a widow of considerable age, who still insisted on pursuing romantic affairs. He exclaimed, "What! Is this old mare still chasing after the stallion?" The remark was relayed to the lady, who vowed to hate the person who made the comment. When M. de Bussy found out, he said, "Well, well! I know how to make things right. Please, go tell her I didn’t say that, but that what I really meant was, ‘Does this young female horse[131] still want to be mounted? Surely she won't be upset because I think of her as a flirt, but rather for being an older woman; and when she hears that I called her a filly, which means a young mare, she’ll believe I still see her as a young woman.’” And so it happened; when the lady heard this change in words, she calmed down and reconciled with M. de Bussy, which made us all laugh. Still, despite all she might do, she was always considered an old, worn-out nag, who even at her age continued to whinny after men.
This last was quite unlike another lady I have also heard tell of, who having been a merry wench in her earlier days, but getting well on in years, did set her to serve God with fast and prayer. An honourable gentleman remonstrating and asking her wherefore she did make such long vigils at Church and such severe fasts at table, and if it were not to vanquish and deaden the stings of the flesh, “Alas!” said she, “these be all over and done with for me.” These words she did pronounce as piteously as ever spake Milo of Croton, that strong and stalwart wrestler of old, (I have told the tale elsewhere, methinks), who having one day gone down into the arena, or wrestlers’ ring, but only for to view the game, for he was now grown very old, one of the band coming up to him did ask, an if he would not try yet a fall of the old sort. But he, baring his arms and right sadly turning back his sleeves, said only, gazing the while at his muscles and sinews: “Alas! they be dead now.”
This last was quite different from another lady I’ve heard about, who, after being a lively young woman in her earlier days, decided to dedicate herself to God through fasting and prayer as she got older. An honorable gentleman pointed out and asked her why she spent so much time in church and had such strict fasts at the table, wondering if it was to overcome and numb her physical desires. “Alas!” she replied, “those days are all behind me.” She said these words as mournfully as Milo of Croton, that strong and mighty wrestler from long ago (I believe I’ve told that story elsewhere), who one day went down to the arena just to watch the match, as he had grown quite old. One of the wrestlers approached him and asked if he would like to try wrestling again. But he, rolling up his sleeves and sadly looking at his muscles and sinews, simply said, “Alas! they are dead now.”
Another like incident did happen to a gentleman I wot of, similar to the tale I have just told of M. de Bussy.[315] Coming to Court, after an absence of six months, he there beheld a lady which was used to attend the academy, lately introduced at Court by the late King. “Why!” saith he, “doth the academy then still exist? I was told it had been abolished.”—“Can you doubt,” a courtier answered him, “her attendance? Why! her master is teaching her philosophy, which doth speak and treat of perpetual motion.” And in good sooth, for all the beating of brains these same philosophers do undergo, to discover perpetual motion, yet is there none more surely so than the motion Venus doth teach in her school.
Another similar incident happened to a gentleman I know, just like the story I just told about M. de Bussy.[315] When he returned to Court after being away for six months, he saw a lady who used to attend the academy, recently introduced at Court by the late King. “What!” he said, “does the academy still exist? I was told it had been shut down.” — “Can you doubt her presence?” a courtier replied. “Her master is teaching her philosophy, which talks about and explores perpetual motion.” And truly, despite all the brainpower these philosophers use to try to find perpetual motion, there is none more certain than the motion Venus teaches in her school.
A lady of the great world did give even a better answer of another, whose beauty they were extolling highly, only that her eyes did ever remain motionless, she never turning the same one way or the other. “We must suppose,” she said, “all her care doth go to move other portions of her body, and so hath she none to spare for her eyes.”
A woman from high society gave an even better response to someone whose beauty was being praised, only because her eyes always stayed still, never turning one way or the other. “We can assume,” she said, “that all her effort goes into moving other parts of her body, so she doesn’t have any left for her eyes.”
However, an if I would put down in writing all the witty words and good stories I know, to fill out my matter, I should never get me done. And so, seeing I have other subjects to attack, I will desist, and finish with this saying of Boccaccio, already cited above, namely, that women, maids, wives and widows alike, at least the most part of them, be one and all inclined to love. I have no thought to speak of common folk, whether in country or in town, for such was never mine intention in writing, but only of well-born persons, in whose service my pen is aye ready to run nimbly. But for mine own part, if I were asked my true opinion, I should say emphatically there is naught like married women, all risk and peril on their husbands’ side apart, for to win good enjoyment[316] of love withal, and to taste quick the very essence of its delights. The fact is their husbands do heat them so, they be like a furnace, continually poked and stirred, that asks naught but fuel, water and wood or charcoal to keep up its heat for ever. And truly he that would have a good light, must always be putting more oil in the lamp. At the same time let him beware of a foul stroke, and those ambushes of jealous husbands wherein the wiliest be oft times caught![132*]
However, if I were to write down all the clever words and good stories I know to elaborate on my ideas, I would never finish. So, since I have other topics to tackle, I will stop and conclude with this saying from Boccaccio, which I mentioned earlier: that women, maidens, wives, and widows, for the most part, are all inclined to love. I don’t intend to discuss common people, whether in the countryside or in the city, as that was never my goal in writing, but rather to focus on well-born individuals, for whom my pen is always ready to move swiftly. However, if you were to ask for my honest opinion, I would say without a doubt that there’s nothing like married women—setting aside the risks and troubles for their husbands. They provide the greatest enjoyment in love and let you truly experience its delights. The truth is, their husbands fuel their passions, like a furnace that is constantly lit and stirred, needing just fuel, water, and wood or charcoal to keep the fire going. And it’s true that to keep a good light, one must continually add oil to the lamp. At the same time, one should beware of a nasty blow and the traps set by jealous husbands in which even the cleverest can often get caught![316]
Yet is a man bound to go as circumspectly as he may, and as boldly to boot, and do like the great King Henri, who was much devoted to love, but at the same time exceeding respectful toward ladies, and discreet, and for these reasons much loved and well received of them. Now whenever it fell out that this monarch was changing night quarters and going to sleep in the bed of a new mistress, which expecting him, he would never go thither (as I learn on very good authority) but by the secret galleries of Saint-Germain, Blois or Fontainebleau, and the little stealthy back-stairs, recesses and garrets of his castles. First went his favourite valet of the chamber, Griffon by name, which did carry his boar-spear before him along with the torch, and the King next, his great cloak held before his face or else his night-gown, and his sword under his arm. Presently, being to bed with the lady, he would aye have his spear and sword put by the bed’s-head, the door well shut, and Griffon guarding it, watching and sleeping by turns. Now I leave it to you, an if a great King did give such heed to his safety (for indeed there have been some caught, both kings and great princes,—for instance the Duc de Fleurance Alexandre in our day), what smaller folks should do, following the[317] example of this powerful monarch. Yet there are to be found proud souls which do disdain all precaution; and of a truth they be often trapped for their pains.
Yet a man is obliged to be as careful as he can, and also bold, like the great King Henri, who was deeply devoted to love but always showed great respect for women, and was discreet, which made him greatly loved and well-received by them. Whenever this king had to change his night quarters and go to sleep with a new mistress waiting for him, he would never go there (as I know from very reliable sources) without using the secret passageways of Saint-Germain, Blois, or Fontainebleau, and the little hidden backstairs, nooks, and attics of his castles. First, his favorite valet, named Griffon, would go ahead carrying his boar-spear and a torch, and then the King would follow with his cloak held in front of his face or his nightgown, and his sword tucked under his arm. When he was in bed with the lady, he would always have his spear and sword placed at the head of the bed, the door securely shut, and Griffon guarding it, watching and taking turns napping. Now I leave it to you—if a great King took such care of his safety (for indeed there have been others caught, both kings and great princes—such as the Duc de Fleurance Alexandre in our time), what should lesser folks do, following the example of this powerful monarch? Yet there are proud souls who disdain all caution; and truly, they often find themselves trapped for their arrogance.
I have heard a tale related of King Francis, how having a fair lady as mistress,[133*] a connection that had long subsisted betwixt them, and going one day unexpectedly to see the said lady, and to sleep with her at an unusual hour, ’gan knock loudly on the door, as he had both right and might to do, being the master. She, who was at the moment in company of the Sieur de Bonnivet, durst not give the reply usual with the Roman courtesans under like circumstances, Non si puo, la signora è accompagnata,—“You cannot come in; Madam has company with her.” In this case the only thing to do was to devise quick where her gallant could be most securely hid. By good luck ’twas summer time, so they had put an heap of branches and leaves in the fire-place, as the custom is in France. Accordingly she did counsel and advise him to make at once for the fire-place, and there hide him among the leafage, all in his shirt as he was,—and ’twas a fortunate thing for him it was not winter. After the King had done his business with the lady, he was fain to make water; so getting up from the bed, he went to the fire-place to do so, for lack of other convenience. And so sore did he want to, that he did drown the poor lover worse than if a bucket of water had been emptied over him, for he did water him thoroughly, as with a garden watering-pot, all round and about, and even over the face, eyes, nose, mouth and everywhere; albeit by tight shut lips he may have escaped all but a drop or so in his chops. I leave you to fancy what a sorry state the poor gentleman was in, for he durst not move, and what a[318] picture of patience and grim endurance he did present! The King having done, withdrew, and bidding his mistress farewell, left the chamber. The lady had the door immediately shut behind him, and calling her lover into her, did warm the poor man, giving him a clean shift to put on. Nor was it without some fun and laughter, after the fright they had had; for an if he had been discovered, both he and she had been in very serious peril.
I’ve heard a story about King Francis. He had a beautiful mistress, and they had been connected for a long time. One day, he unexpectedly decided to visit her and spend the night at an unusual hour. He knocked loudly on the door since he had every right to do so as the master. The lady was with Sieur de Bonnivet at that moment and couldn’t respond with the usual line of Roman courtesans, Non si puo, la signora è accompagnata, meaning “You can’t come in; Madam has company.” So, she quickly had to figure out where her lover could hide safely. Luckily, it was summer, and they had piled up some branches and leaves in the fireplace, which is common in France. She advised her lover to hide in the fireplace among the foliage, which was fortunate for him since it wasn’t winter. After the King was done with the lady, he needed to relieve himself, so he got up from the bed and went to the fireplace because there was no other place. He was so desperate that he soaked the poor lover more than if a bucket of water had been dumped on him, watering him thoroughly all around, even on his face, eyes, nose, mouth, and everywhere. However, he managed to keep his lips tightly shut, escaping most of it except for a drop or two. Just imagine the sorry state the poor guy was in! He couldn’t move, a perfect picture of patience and grim endurance. After the King finished, he left and said goodbye to his mistress. She quickly shut the door behind him and called her lover in, warming him up and giving him a clean shirt to put on. They laughed and joked after the scary situation they had just faced, knowing that if he had been discovered, they both would have been in serious trouble.
’Twas the same lady, which being deep in love with this M. de Bonnivet, and desiring to convince the King of the contrary, for that he had conceived some touch of jealousy on the subject, would say thus to him: “Oh! but he’s diverting, that Sieur de Bonnivet, who thinks himself so handsome! and the more I tell him he is a pretty fellow, the more he doth believe it. ’Tis my great pastime, making fun of the man, for he’s really witty and ready-tongued, and no one can help laughing in his company, such clever retorts doth he make.” By these words she was for persuading the King that her common discourse with Bonnivet had naught to do with love and alliance, or playing his Majesty false in any wise. How many fair dames there be which do practise the like wiles, and to cloak the intrigues they are pursuing with some lover, do speak ill of him, and make fun of him before the world, though in private they soon drop this fine pretense; and this is what they call cunning and contrivance in love.
It was the same lady, who, being deeply in love with M. de Bonnivet and wanting to convince the King otherwise—since he had begun to feel a bit jealous about it—would say to him: “Oh! but that Sieur de Bonnivet is so entertaining, thinking he’s so handsome! And the more I tell him he’s a pretty guy, the more he believes it. I really enjoy teasing him, because he’s genuinely witty and quick with words, and no one can help but laugh in his presence with the clever comebacks he makes.” With these words, she aimed to persuade the King that her casual talks with Bonnivet had nothing to do with love or deceit towards his Majesty. How many beautiful ladies engage in similar tricks, pretending to disdain the men they are involved with, making jokes about them in public while secretly dropping that act in private; this is what they call cunning and strategy in love.
I knew a very great lady,[134*] who one day seeing her daughter, which was one of the fairest of women, grieving for the love of a certain gentleman, with whom her brother was sore angered, did say this to her amongst other things: “Nay! my child, never love that man. His[319] manners and form be so bad, and he’s such an ugly fellow. He’s for all the world like a village pastry cook!” At this the daughter burst out a-laughing, making merry at his expense and applauding her mother’s description, allowing his likeness to a pastry-cook, red cap and all. For all that, she had her way; but some while after, in another six months that is, she did leave him for another man.
I knew a truly remarkable lady, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ who one day saw her daughter, one of the most beautiful women, upset over her feelings for a certain guy, whom her brother was really angry with. She said to her among other things: “No, my child, you should never love that man. His behavior and looks are so terrible, and he’s quite ugly. He looks just like a village baker!” Hearing this, the daughter burst into laughter, enjoying the joke at his expense and applauding her mother’s description, imagining his resemblance to a baker, red hat and all. Regardless, she ended up with him; but after some time, six months later, she left him for another man.
I have known not a few ladies which had no words bad enough to cast at women that loved inferiors,—their secretaries, serving-men and the like low-born persons, declaring publicly they did loathe such intrigues worse than poison. Yet would these very same ladies be giving themselves up to these base pleasures as much as any. Such be the cunning ways of women; before the world they do show fierce indignation against these offenders, and do threaten and abuse them; but all the while behind backs they do readily enough indulge the same vice themselves. So full of wiles are they! for as the Spanish proverb saith, Mucho sabe la zorra; mas sabe mas la dama enamorada,—“The fox knoweth much, but a woman in love knoweth more.”
I have known quite a few women who had no words harsh enough to throw at those who loved lower-status people—like their secretaries, servants, and other such low-born individuals—publicly claiming to detest such affairs even more than poison. Yet, these same women would willingly give in to those base pleasures just like anyone else. Such are the cunning ways of women; in front of others, they express outrage against these offenders, threatening and insulting them, but all the while, behind closed doors, they easily indulge in the same vice themselves. They are full of tricks! As the Spanish proverb goes, Mucho sabe la zorra; mas sabe mas la dama enamorada—"The fox knows a lot, but a woman in love knows even more."
13.
13.
However, for all this fair lady of the tale told above did to lull King Francis’ anxiety, yet did she not drive forth every grain of suspicion from out his head, as I have reason to know. I do remember me how once, making a visit to Chambord to see the castle, an old porter that was there, who had been body servant to King Francis, did[320] receive me very obligingly. For in his earlier days he had known some of my people both at Court and in the field, and was of his own wish anxious to show me everything. So having led me to the King’s bed-chamber, he did show me a phrase of writing by the side of the window on the left hand. “Look, Sir!” he cried, “read yonder words. If you have never seen the hand-writing of the King, mine old master, there it is.” And reading it, we found this phrase, “Toute femme varie,” writ there in large letters. I had with me a very honourable and very able gentleman of Périgord, my friend, by name M. des Roches, to whom I turned and said quickly: “’Tis to be supposed, some of the ladies he did love best, and of whose fidelity he was most assured, had been found of him to vary and play him false. Doubtless he had discovered some change in them that was scarce to his liking, and so, in despite, did write these words.” The porter overhearing us, put in: “Why! surely, surely! make no mistake, for of all the fair dames I have seen and known, never a one but did cry off on a false scent worse than ever his hunting pack did in chasing the stag; yet ’twas with a very subdued voice, for an if he had noted it, he would have brought ’em to the scent again pretty smartly.”
However, for all the soothing words this fair lady in the story used to calm King Francis's worries, she didn’t manage to erase every bit of suspicion from his mind, as I know all too well. I remember one time when I visited Chambord to see the castle, an old porter there, who used to be King Francis's body servant, welcomed me very kindly. He had known some of my family both at Court and on the battlefield, and he was eager to show me everything. He took me to the King’s bedroom and pointed out a writing on the wall by the window on the left. “Look, Sir!” he exclaimed, “read those words. If you’ve never seen my old master’s handwriting, there it is.” As I read it, we found the phrase, “Toute femme varie,” written in big letters. I was accompanied by a very respectable and capable gentleman from Périgord, my friend M. des Roches, to whom I quickly said: “One must assume that some of the ladies he loved most, and of whose loyalty he felt most certain, turned out to be unfaithful. Surely, he must have noticed some change in them that he didn’t like, and so, out of spite, wrote these words.” The porter, overhearing us, chimed in: “Oh, absolutely! Make no mistake; out of all the beautiful ladies I’ve seen and known, not one has stayed true – they were worse than my hunting dogs chasing a deer; yet he spoke with a very quiet tone because if he had noticed it, he would have brought them back to the right path pretty quickly.”
They were, ’twould seem, of those women, which can never be content with either their husbands or their lovers, Kings though they be, and Princes and great Lords; but must be ever chopping and changing. Such this good King had found them by experience to be, having himself first debauched the same and taken them from the charge of their husbands or their mothers, tempting them from their maiden or widowed estate.
They seemed to be the kind of women who are never satisfied with either their husbands or their lovers, no matter if they are Kings, Princes, or great Lords; they always have to be switching partners. This good King had learned this from experience, having himself first seduced them and taken them away from their husbands or mothers, tempting them from their maiden or widowed status.
[321]
[321]
I have both known and heard speak of a lady,[135*] so fondly loved of her Prince, as that for the mighty affection he bare her, he did plunge her to the neck in all sorts of favours, benefits and honours, and never another woman was to be compared with her for good fortune. Natheless was she so enamoured of a certain Lord, she would never quit him. Then whenas he would remonstrate and declare to her how the Prince would ruin both of them, “Nay! ’tis all one,” she would answer; “an if you leave me, I shall ruin myself, for to ruin you along with me. I had rather be called your concubine than this Prince’s mistress.” Here you have woman’s caprice surely, and wanton naughtiness to boot! Another very great lady I have known, a widow, did much the same; for albeit she was all but adored of a very great nobleman, yet must she needs have sundry other humbler lovers, so as never to lose an hour of her time or ever be idle. For indeed one man only cannot be always at work and afford enough in these matters; and the rule of love is this, that a passionate woman is not for one stated time, nor yet for one stated person alone, nor will confine her to one passion,—reminding me of that dame in the Cent Nouvelles of the Queen of Navarre, which had three lovers all at once, and was so clever she did contrive to manage them all three most adroitly.
I have both known and heard of a lady, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ who was so deeply loved by her Prince that he showered her with all sorts of favors, benefits, and honors, making her incomparable to any other woman in terms of good fortune. However, she was so infatuated with a certain Lord that she would never leave him. Whenever he would warn her how the Prince would bring ruin upon both of them, she would respond, “No! It’s all the same to me. If you leave me, I’ll ruin myself just to bring you down with me. I’d rather be called your mistress than the Prince’s.” This certainly shows a woman's fickleness and brazen mischief! I also knew another very high-ranking lady, a widow, who did much the same; even though she was almost worshipped by a very prominent nobleman, she still had to have several other less important lovers, so she wouldn’t waste a single moment or ever be bored. After all, one man alone can't always be there and provide enough in these matters; the rule of love is that a passionate woman doesn't stick to one set time, nor one person, nor will she be limited to a single passion—reminding me of that lady in the Cent Nouvelles of the Queen of Navarre, who had three lovers simultaneously and was so clever that she managed to handle all three of them very skillfully.
The beautiful Agnes Sorel, the adored mistress of King Charles VII., was suspected by him of having borne a daughter that he thought not to be his, nor was he ever able to recognize her. And indeed, like mother, like daughter, was the word, as our Chroniclers do all agree. The same again did Anne Boleyn, wife of King Henry VIII. of England, whom he did behead for not being[322] content with him, but giving herself to adultery. Yet had he chose her for her beauty, and did adore her fondly.
The beautiful Agnes Sorel, the beloved mistress of King Charles VII, was suspected by him of having a daughter he believed wasn’t his, and he could never acknowledge her. And indeed, like mother, like daughter, as all our Chroniclers agree. The same happened with Anne Boleyn, the wife of King Henry VIII of England, whom he had executed because she wasn’t satisfied with him and committed adultery. Yet he chose her for her beauty and adored her deeply.
I knew another lady which had been loved by a very honourable gentleman, but after some while left by him; and one day it happened that these twain fell to discussing their former loves. The gentleman, who was for posing as a dashing blade, cried, “Ha! ha! and think you, you were my only mistress in those days? You will be much surprised to hear, I had two others all the while, would you not?” To this she answered on the instant, “You would be yet more surprised, would you not? to learn you were anything but mine only lover then, for I had actually three beside you to fall back on.” Thus you see how a good ship will always have two or three anchors for to ensure its safety thoroughly.
I knew another woman who had been loved by a very respectable gentleman, but after a while, he left her. One day, these two started talking about their past relationships. The gentleman, trying to act cool, said, “Ha! Ha! And did you think you were my only girlfriend back then? You’d be pretty surprised to know I had two others the whole time, wouldn’t you?” She quickly replied, “You’d be even more surprised to learn that you weren’t my only love, either, because I actually had three others besides you to rely on.” So you see, a good ship will always have two or three anchors to ensure its safety.
To conclude,—love is all in all for women, and so it should be! I will only add how once I found in the tablets of a very fair and honourable lady which did stammer a little Spanish, but did understand the same language well enough, this little maxim writ with her own hand, for I did recognize it quite easily: Hembra o dama sin compagnero, esperanza sin trabajo, y navio sin timon; nunca pueden hazer cost que sea buena,—“Man or woman without companion, hope without work, or ship without rudder, will never do aught good for much.” ’Tis a saying equally true for wife, widow and maid; neither one nor the other can do aught good without the company of a man, while the hope a lover hath of winning them is not by itself near so like to gain them over readily as with something of pains and hard work added, and some strife and struggle. Yet doth not either wife or widow give so much as a maid must, for ’tis allowed of all to be an[323] easier and simpler thing to conquer and bring under one that hath already been conquered, subdued and overthrown, than one that hath never yet been vanquished,—and that far less toil and pains is spent in travelling a road already well worn and beaten than one that hath never been made and traced out,—and for the truth of these two instances I do refer me to travellers and men of war. And so it is with maids; indeed there be even some so capricious as that they have always refused to marry, choosing rather to live ever in maidenly estate. But an if you ask them the reason, “’Tis so, because my humour is to have it so,” they declare. Cybelé, Juno, Venus, Thetis, Ceres and other heavenly goddesses, did all scorn this name of virgin,—excepting only Pallas, which did spring from her father Jupiter’s brain, hereby showing that virginity is naught but a notion conceived in the brain. So, ask our maids, which will never marry, or an if they do, do so as late as ever they can, and at an over ripe age, why they marry not, “’Tis because I do not wish,” they say; “such is my humour and my notion.”
To conclude, love means everything to women, and it should! I’ll just add that once I found notes from a very beautiful and respected lady who spoke a bit of Spanish, but understood it well enough. In her own handwriting, she wrote this little saying that I recognized easily: Hembra o dama sin compagnero, esperanza sin trabajo, y navio sin timon; nunca pueden hazer cost que sea buena,—“Man or woman without a companion, hope without work, or a ship without a rudder will never do anything good for long.” It’s a saying that's true for wives, widows, and maids; none can do anything good without the company of a man. The hope a lover has of winning them over isn’t nearly as effective without some effort and hard work, along with some conflict and struggle. Yet neither a wife nor a widow has to put in as much effort as a maid, because it’s generally easier to win over someone who’s already been conquered than someone who’s never been defeated. And it takes a lot less effort to walk a well-trodden path than one that hasn’t been marked out. As for the truth of these examples, I leave that to travelers and soldiers. And so it goes with maids; in fact, some are so stubborn that they refuse to marry, preferring to stay single forever. But if you ask them why, they say, “It’s just how I feel.” Cybele, Juno, Venus, Thetis, Ceres, and other celestial goddesses all rejected the title of virgin—except for Pallas, who sprang from her father Jupiter’s head, illustrating that virginity is just an idea formed in the mind. So, if you ask our maids why they won’t marry, or if they do marry, it’s as late as possible when they’re overripe, they answer, “It’s because I don’t want to,” saying, “that’s just how I feel.”
Several such we have seen at the Court of our Princes in the days of King Francis. The Queen Regent had a very fair and noble maid of honour, named Poupincourt,[136*] which did never marry, but died a maid at the age of sixty, as chaste as when she was born, for she was most discreet. La Brelandière again died a maid and virgin at the ripe age of eighty, the same which was governess of Madame d’Angoulême as a girl.
Several like this we've seen at the Court of our Princes during the time of King Francis. The Queen Regent had a very beautiful and noble maid of honor named Poupincourt, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, who never married but remained single and died at the age of sixty, just as pure as when she was born, because she was very discreet. La Brelandière also died single and a virgin at the age of eighty; she was the governess of Madame d’Angoulême when she was a girl.
I knew another maid of honour of very great and exalted family, and at the time seventy years of age, which would never marry,—albeit she was no wise averse to[324] love without marriage. Some that would fain excuse her for that she would not marry, used to aver she was meet to be no husband’s wife, seeing she had no affair at all. God knoweth the truth! but at any rate she did find a good enough one to have good fun elsewhere withal. A pretty excuse truly!
I knew another maid of honor from a very high-ranking family who, at seventy years old, would never marry—even though she wasn’t really against love without marriage. Some people who tried to justify her choice not to marry claimed she wasn’t suited to be a wife since she had no affairs at all. God knows the truth! But either way, she did find a suitable partner to have fun with elsewhere. What a nice excuse that is!
Mademoiselle de Charansonnet, of Savoy, died at Tours lately, a maid, and was interred with her hat and her white virginal robe, very solemnly, with much pomp, stateliness and good company, at the age of forty-five or over. Nor must we doubt in her case, ’twas any defect which stood in the way, for she was one of the fairest, most honourable and most discreet ladies of the Court, and myself have known her to refuse very excellent and very high-born suitors.
Mademoiselle de Charansonnet from Savoy recently passed away in Tours. She was a maid and was buried with her hat and her white virginal robe, in a very solemn manner, with great pomp, dignity, and good company, at the age of forty-five or older. We mustn't doubt that there was any flaw in her case, as she was one of the most beautiful, honorable, and discreet ladies at Court. I have seen her turn down very distinguished and high-born suitors.
Mine own sister, Mademoiselle de Bourdeille, which is at Court maid of honour of the present Queen, hath in like wise refused very excellent offers, and hath never consented to marry, nor never will. So firm resolved is she and obstinate to live and die a maid, no matter to what age she may attain; and indeed so far she hath kept steady to her purpose, and is already well advanced in years.
My sister, Mademoiselle de Bourdeille, who is currently a lady-in-waiting to the Queen, has also turned down very great proposals and has never agreed to marry, nor will she ever. She is so determined and stubborn about living and dying as a single woman, regardless of how old she may get; in fact, she has remained committed to her choice and is already quite advanced in age.
Mademoiselle de Certan,[137*] another of the Queen’s maids of honour, is of the same humour, as also Mademoiselle de Surgières, the most learned lady of the Court, and therefore known as Minerva,—and not a few others.
Mademoiselle de Certain, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ another one of the Queen’s maids of honor, shares the same temperament, as does Mademoiselle de Surgières, the most knowledgeable woman in the Court, and is therefore known as Minerva,—along with several others.
The Infanta of Portugal, daughter of the late Queen Eleanor, I have seen of the same resolved mind; and she did die a maid and virgin at the age of sixty or over. This was sure from no want of high birth, for she was well born in every way, nor of wealth, for she had plenty,[325] and above all in France, where General Gourgues did manage her affairs to much advantage, nor yet of natural gifts, for I did see her at Lisbon, at the age of five and forty, a very handsome and charming woman, of good and graceful appearance, gentle, agreeable, and well deserving an husband her match in all things, in courtesy and the qualities we French do most possess. I can affirm this, from having had the honour of speaking with this Princess often and familiarly.
The Infanta of Portugal, daughter of the late Queen Eleanor, was equally determined in her mindset; she lived her whole life as a single woman and died a virgin at sixty or older. This wasn't due to any lack of noble birth, as she was well-born in every sense, nor a shortage of wealth, as she had plenty—especially in France, where General Gourgues managed her affairs to great advantage. It also wasn't because of any lack of natural gifts; I saw her in Lisbon when she was forty-five, a very attractive and charming woman with a graceful demeanor—gentle, likable, and deserving of a husband truly befitting her, matching her in courtesy and the qualities we French highly value. I can confidently say this, as I had the honor of speaking with this Princess often and casually.[325]
The late Grand Prior of Lorraine, when he did bring his galleys from East to West of the Mediterranean Sea on his voyage to Scotland, in the time of the minority of King Francis II., passing by Lisbon and tarrying there some days, did visit and see her every day. She did receive him most courteously and took great delight in his company, loading him with fine presents. Amongst others, she gave him a chain to suspend his cross withal, all of diamonds and rubies and great pearls, well and richly worked; and it might be worth from four to five thousand crowns, going thrice round his neck. I think it might well be worth that sum, for he could always pawn it for three thousand crowns, as he did one time in London, when we were on our way back from Scotland. But no sooner was he returned to France than he did send to get it out again, for he did love it for the sake of the lady, with whom he was no little captivated and taken. And I do believe she was no less fond of him, and would willingly have unloosed her maiden knot for him,—that is by way of marriage, for she was a most discreet and virtuous Princess. I will say more, and that is, that but for the early troubles that did arise in France, into the which his brothers did draw him and kept him engaged[326] therein, he would himself have brought his galleys back and returned the same road, for to visit this Princess again and speak of wedlock with her. And I ween he would in that case have hardly been shown the door, for he was of as good an house as she, and descended of great Kings no less than she, and above all was one of the handsomest, most agreeable, honourable and best Princes of Christendom. Now for his brothers, in particular the two eldest, for these were the oracles of the rest and captains of the ship, I did one day behold them and him conversing of the matter, the Cardinal telling them of his voyage and the pleasures and favours he had received at Lisbon. They were much in favour of his making the voyage once more and going back thither again, advising him to pursue his advantage in that quarter, as the Pope would at once have given him dispensation of his religious orders. And but for those accursed troubles I have spoke of, he would have gone, and in mine opinion the emprise had turned out to his honour and satisfaction. The said Princess did like him well, and spake to me of him very fondly, asking me as to his death,—quite like a woman in love, a thing easily enough perceived in such circumstances by a man of a little penetration.
The late Grand Prior of Lorraine, when he brought his galleys from East to West across the Mediterranean on his journey to Scotland, during the youth of King Francis II., passed through Lisbon and stayed there a few days, visiting her every day. She welcomed him warmly and enjoyed his company, showering him with lavish gifts. Among other things, she gave him a chain to hang his cross on, made of diamonds, rubies, and large pearls, beautifully crafted, which could be worth four to five thousand crowns, circling his neck three times. I believe it was worth that amount because he could always pawn it for three thousand crowns, as he did once in London on our way back from Scotland. But as soon as he returned to France, he had it retrieved because he cherished it for the lady, with whom he was quite smitten. I believe she felt the same way about him and would have gladly loosened her maiden knot for him—that is, through marriage, as she was a very wise and virtuous Princess. Furthermore, I will add that if it weren’t for the early troubles that arose in France, which his brothers drew him into and kept him entangled in[326], he would have brought his galleys back and taken the same route to visit this Princess again and discuss marriage with her. And I think that in that case, he would hardly have been turned away, for he came from as prestigious a family as she, descended from great Kings no less than she was, and above all, he was one of the most handsome, charming, honorable, and distinguished Princes in Christendom. As for his brothers, especially the two eldest, who were the leaders of the rest and captains of the ship, I once saw them talking about the matter with him, the Cardinal sharing stories of his journey and the pleasures and favors he enjoyed in Lisbon. They were fully supportive of him returning there, encouraging him to seize that opportunity, as the Pope would have readily granted him a dispensation from his religious orders. If it weren’t for those cursed troubles I mentioned, he would have gone, and in my opinion, the venture would have turned out to his honor and satisfaction. The said Princess was fond of him, and she spoke to me about him very affectionately, asking about his fate—just like a woman in love, something easily perceived by a man with a little insight in such situations.
I have heard yet another reason alleged by a very clever person, I say not whether maid or wife,—and she had mayhap had experience of the truth thereof,—why some women be so slow to marry. They declare this tardiness cometh propter mollitiem, “by reason of luxuriousness.” Now this word mollities doth mean, they be so luxurious, that is to say so much lovers of their own selves and so careful to have tender delight and pleasure by themselves and in themselves, or mayhap with their[327] bosom friends, after the Lesbian fashion, and do find such gratification in female society alone, as that they be convinced and firmly persuaded that with men they would never win such satisfaction. Wherefore they be content to go without these altogether in their joys and toothsome pleasures, without ever a thought of masculine acquaintance or marriage.
I’ve heard another reason from a very clever person, I won't say if she’s a maid or a wife, and she might have experienced the truth of it, about why some women are so slow to marry. They say this delay comes propter mollitiem, “because of indulgence.” This word mollities means they are so indulgent, meaning they love themselves so much and are focused on finding tenderness and pleasure within themselves or perhaps with their close female friends, after the Lesbian way, and they find such satisfaction in female company alone that they believe they could never find such happiness with men. Therefore, they are happy to enjoy their pleasures and joys without any thought of male companionship or marriage.
Maids and virgins would seem in old days at Rome to have been highly honoured and privileged, so much so that the law had no jurisdiction over them to sentence them to death. Hence the story we read of a Roman Senator in the time of the Triumvirate, which was condemned to die among other victims of the Proscription, and not he alone, but all the offspring of his loins. So when a daughter of his house did appear on the scaffold, a very fair and lovely girl, but of unripe years and yet virgin, ’twas needful for the executioner to deflower her himself and take her maidenhead on the scaffold, and only then when she was so polluted, could he ply his knife upon her. The Emperor Tiberius did delight in having fair virgins thus publicly deflowered, and then put to death,—a right villainous piece of cruelty, pardy!
Maids and virgins in ancient Rome seemed to be highly honored and privileged, so much so that the law couldn't sentence them to death. This leads us to the story of a Roman Senator during the time of the Triumvirate, who was condemned to die along with other victims of Proscription, and not just him, but all his offspring as well. When a daughter of his household appeared on the scaffold, a very beautiful young girl, still innocent and untouched, it was necessary for the executioner to deflower her himself and take her virginity on the scaffold, and only after she was violated could he use his knife on her. Emperor Tiberius took pleasure in having beautiful virgins publicly deflowered and then executed—a truly villainous act of cruelty, indeed!
The Vestal Virgins in like manner were greatly honoured and respected, no less for their virginity than for their religious character; for indeed, an if they did show any the smallest frailty of bodily purity, they were an hundred times more rigorously punished than when they had failed to take good heed of the sacred fire, and were buried alive under the most pitiful and terrible circumstances. ’Tis writ of one Albinus, a Roman gentleman, that having met outside Rome some Vestals that were going somewhither a-foot, he did command his wife and[328] children to descend from her chariot, to set them in it and so complete their journey. Moreover they had such weight and authority, as that very often they were trusted as umpires to make peace betwixt the Roman people and the Knights, when troubles did sometimes arise affecting the two orders. The Emperor Theodosius did expel them from Rome under advice of the Christians; but in opposition to the said Emperor the Romans did presently depute one Symmachus, to beseech him to restore them again, with all their wealth, incomings and privileges as before. These were exceedingly great, and indeed every day they were used to distribute so great a store of alms, as that neither native Roman nor stranger, coming or going, was ever suffered to ask an alms, so copious was their pious charity toward all poor folk. Yet would Theodosius never agree to bring them back again.
The Vestal Virgins were similarly highly honored and respected, both for their virginity and their religious significance. If they showed even the slightest sign of losing their bodily purity, their punishment was far harsher than if they neglected the sacred fire; they would be buried alive under the most tragic and horrific conditions. It is written of a Roman gentleman named Albinus that, upon encountering some Vestals walking outside Rome, he ordered his wife and children to get out of their chariot to let the Vestals inside so they could complete their journey. They held such influence and authority that they were often trusted as mediators to resolve conflicts between the Roman people and the Knights whenever issues arose between the two groups. Emperor Theodosius expelled them from Rome at the urging of the Christians, but the Romans quickly appointed a man named Symmachus to appeal to him to restore them along with all their wealth, income, and privileges. These were indeed substantial, and every day they distributed such a large amount of alms that no Roman or foreigner, whether arriving or leaving, was ever allowed to ask for charity, as their generosity towards all the poor was so abundant. Yet, Theodosius never agreed to bring them back.
They were named Vestals from the Latin word vesta, signifying fire, the which may well turn and twist, shoot and sparkle, yet doth it never cast seed, nor receive the same,—and so ’tis with a virgin. They were bound so to remain virgins for thirty years, after which they might marry; but few of them were fortunate in so leaving their first estate, just like our own nuns which have cast off the veil and quitted the religious habit. They kept much state and went very sumptuously dressed,—of all which the poet Prudentius doth give a pleasing description, being apparently much in the condition of our present Lady Canonesses of Mons in Hainault and Réaumond in Lorraine, which be permitted to marry after. Moreover this same Prudentius doth greatly blame them because they were used to go abroad in the city in most magnificent coaches, correspondingly attired, and to the Amphitheatres[329] to see the games of the Gladiators and combats to the death betwixt men and men, and men and wild beasts, as though finding much delight in seeing folk thus kill each other and shed blood. Wherefore he doth pray the Emperor to abolish these sanguinary contests and pitiful spectacles altogether. The Vestals at any rate should never behold suchlike barbarous sports; though indeed they might say for their part: “For lack of other more agreeable sports, the which other women do see and practise, we must needs content us with these.”
They were called Vestals from the Latin word vesta, meaning fire, which can flicker, shine, and spark, but never produces seeds nor accepts them—and that's how it is with a virgin. They were required to stay virgins for thirty years, after which they could marry; however, very few were lucky enough to leave their original status, much like our own nuns who have taken off their veils and left the religious life. They carried themselves with dignity and dressed very elegantly—of which the poet Prudentius gives a delightful account, reflecting the situation of our current Lady Canonesses of Mons in Hainault and Réaumond in Lorraine, who are allowed to marry afterward. Moreover, this same Prudentius criticizes them for going out in the city in extravagant coaches, dressed to match, and attending the amphitheaters[329] to watch the gladiatorial games and deadly fights between men and between men and wild beasts, seemingly enjoying watching people kill each other and spill blood. Therefore, he urges the Emperor to eliminate these bloody contests and pitiful spectacles entirely. The Vestals, in any case, should never witness such brutal events; though they might argue: “In the absence of other more enjoyable activities that other women see and participate in, we must settle for these.”
As for the estate of widows in many cases, there be many which do love just as soberly as these Vestals, and myself have known several such; but others again would far fainer take their joy in secret with men, and in the fullness of complete liberty, rather than subject to them in the bonds of marriage. For this reason, when we do see women long preserve their widowhood, ’tis best not over much to praise them as we might be inclined to do, till we do know their mode of life, and then only, according to what we have learned thereof, either to extol them most highly or scorn them. For a woman, when she is fain to unbend her severity, as the phrase is, is terribly wily, and will bring her man to a pretty market, an if he take not good heed. And being so full of guile, she doth well understand how to bewitch and bedazzle the eyes and wits of men in such wise they can scarce possibly recognize the real life they lead. For such or such an one they will mistake for a perfect prude and model of virtue, which all the while is a downright harlot, but doth play her game so cunningly and furtively none can ever discover aught.
As for the situation of widows, in many cases, there are some who love as sincerely as these Vestals, and I have known several like that; but others would much rather enjoy their freedom with men secretly, and in total liberty, rather than be tied down by marriage. For this reason, when we see women maintaining their widowhood for a long time, it's best not to praise them too much, as we might be tempted to do, until we understand their way of life. Only then, based on what we learn, can we either highly praise them or look down on them. When a woman wants to relax her strictness, as the saying goes, she can be very clever, leading a man to quite a dilemma if he's not careful. Being so cunning, she knows how to enchant and dazzle the eyes and minds of men in such a way that they can hardly recognize the real lives they are living. They might mistake someone for a perfect prude and a model of virtue, while all along she is actually a total deceiver, but she plays her role so skillfully and discreetly that no one can ever find out the truth.
I have known a great Lady in my time, which did[330] remain a widow more than forty years, so acting all the while as to be esteemed the most respectable woman in country or Court, yet was she sotto coverto (under the rose) a regular, downright harlot. So featly had she followed the trade by the space of five and fifty years, as maid, wife and widow, that scarce a suspicion had she roused against her at the age of seventy, when she died. She did get full value of her privileges as a woman; one time, when a young widow, she fell in love with a certain young nobleman, and not able otherwise to get him, she did come one Holy Innocents’ day into his bed-chamber, to give him the usual greetings. But the young man gave her these readily enough, and with something else than the customary instrument. She had her dose,—and many another like it afterward.[138*]
I have known a great lady in my time who remained a widow for over forty years, during which she was regarded as the most respectable woman in the country or court. Yet, beneath the surface, she was a complete, outright harlot. She practiced her trade for fifty-five years as a maid, wife, and widow, and by the time she was seventy and passed away, she had raised hardly a suspicion against her. She took full advantage of her privileges as a woman; once, when she was a young widow, she fell in love with a young nobleman. Unable to win him over through any other means, she entered his bedroom one Holy Innocents’ day to offer him her usual greetings. The young man welcomed her warmly, giving her more than just the customary greetings. She got what she wanted—and many more like it afterward. afterward.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
Another widow I have known, which did keep her widowed estate for fifty years, all the while wantoning it right gallantly, but always with the most prudish modesty of mien, and many lovers at divers times. At the last, coming to die, one she had loved for twelve long years, and had had a son of him in secret, of this man she did make so small account she disowned him completely. Is not this a case where my word is illustrated, that we should never commend widows over much, unless we know thoroughly their life and life’s end?
Another widow I knew kept her widow's estate for fifty years, enjoying it quite lavishly, but always with a very proper demeanor, and she had many lovers at various times. In the end, as she was dying, she completely disregarded the man she had loved for twelve long years, with whom she had secretly had a son. Doesn't this show my point that we shouldn't praise widows too highly unless we really know their lives and how they end?
But at this rate I should never end; and an end we must have. I am well aware sundry will tell me I have left out many a witty word and merry tale which might have still better embellished and ennobled this my subject. I do well believe it; but an if I had gone on so from now to the end of the world, I should never have made an end; however if any be willing to take the trouble[331] to do better, I shall be under great obligation to the same.
But at this rate, I'll never finish; and we need to have an ending. I know some will say I've left out plenty of clever words and funny stories that could have enhanced this topic even more. I truly believe that; but if I kept going on like this until the end of time, I would never finish. However, if anyone is willing to put in the effort[331] to do better, I would be very grateful to them.
Well! dear ladies, I must e’en draw to an end; and I do beg you pardon me, an if I have said aught to offend you. ’Tis very far from my nature, whether inborn or gotten by education, to offend or displeasure you in any wise. In what I say of women, I do speak of some, not of all; and of these, I do use only false names and garbled descriptions. I do keep their identity so carefully hid, none may discover it, and never a breath of scandal can come on them but by mere conjecture and vague suspicion, never by certain inference.
Well, ladies, I must wrap this up; and I sincerely apologize if I’ve said anything to upset you. It's very much against my nature, whether it's innate or learned, to offend or displease you in any way. When I talk about women, I’m referring to some, not all; and for those, I only use fictitious names and vague descriptions. I keep their identities so well hidden that no one can figure it out, and no gossip can reach them except through mere guesswork and vague suspicion, never by definite proof.
I fear me ’tis only too likely I have here repeated a second time sundry witty sayings and diverting tales I have already told before in my other Discourses. Herein I pray such as shall be so obliging as to read all my works, to forgive me, seeing I make no pretence to being a great Writer or to possess the retentive memory needful to bear all in mind. The great Plutarch himself doth in his divers Works repeat several matters twice over. But truly, they that shall have the task of printing my books, will only need a good corrector to set all this matter right.
I’m afraid it’s likely that I’ve repeated some witty sayings and entertaining stories I’ve already shared in my other writings. I ask those who are kind enough to read all my works to forgive me, as I don’t pretend to be a great writer or have the perfect memory needed to remember everything. Even the great Plutarch repeats several points across his various works. But honestly, those who will be printing my books will only need a good editor to sort all this out.
[333]
[333]

NOTES
NOTES

[335]
[335]

NOTES
[1] P. 3:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 3:
◆At first this discourse was the last; it is outlined in the manuscript 608 as follows: “Discourse on why beautiful and faithful women love valiant men, and why worthy men love courageous women.”
◆At first, this discourse was the final one; it is outlined in manuscript 608 as follows: “Discussion on why beautiful and loyal women love brave men, and why admirable men love strong women.”
[2] P. 5:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 5:
◆Virgil, in his Æneid (Bk. I), makes Penthesileia appear only after Hector’s death. For these accounts on the Amazons, consult Traité historique sur les Amazones, by Pierre Petit, Leyde, 1718.
◆Virgil, in his Æneid (Bk. I), introduces Penthesileia only after Hector’s death. For more information on the Amazons, check out Traité historique sur les Amazones, by Pierre Petit, Leyden, 1718.
[3] P. 6:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 6:
◆See Boccaccio, De Claris Mulieribus.
◆See Boccaccio, *De Claris Mulieribus*.
◆Æneid, IV., 10–13.
◆Aeneid, IV., 10–13.
[4] P. 8:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 8:
◆A Latin work of Boccaccio in nine books.
◆A Latin work by Boccaccio in nine volumes.
◆Bk. IX., Chap. 3.
◆Bk. IX, Ch. 3.
[5] P. 9:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 9:
◆Nouvelle, 1554–1574.
◆New, 1554–1574.
◆Bandello, t. III., p. 1 (Venice, 1558).
◆Bandello, t. III., p. 1 (Venice, 1558).
[6] P. 11:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 11:
◆The Duc d’Anjou, afterwards Henri III. of France, is meant. He was the third son of Henri II. and Catherine de Medici, and was born at Fontainebleau 1551. On the death of his brother Charles IX. in 1574 he succeeded to the throne. Died 1589. The victories referred to are those of Jarnac and Montcontour.
◆The Duc d’Anjou, later known as Henri III of France, is being referred to. He was the third son of Henri II and Catherine de Medici, born in Fontainebleau in 1551. After the death of his brother Charles IX in 1574, he became king. He died in 1589. The victories mentioned are those at Jarnac and Montcontour.
[7] P. 12:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 12:
◆Ronsard, Œuvres, liv. 1, 174th sonnet.
◆Ronsard, Works, book 1, 174th sonnet.
[8] P. 13:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 13:
◆“Petit-Lit” is Leith,—the port of Edinburgh, on the Firth of Forth. The English army under Lord Grey of Wilton invaded Scotland in 1560, and laid siege to Leith, then occupied by the French. The place was stubbornly defended, but must soon have fallen, when envoys were sent by Francis II. from France to conclude a peace. These were Monluc, Bishop of Valence, and the [336] Sieur de Rendan mentioned in the text; the negotiators appointed to meet them on the English side were the Queen’s great minister Cecil and Wotton, Dean of Canterbury. The French troops were withdrawn.
◆“Petit-Lit” is Leith—the port of Edinburgh, on the Firth of Forth. The English army under Lord Grey of Wilton invaded Scotland in 1560 and laid siege to Leith, which was then occupied by the French. The place was fiercely defended, but it likely would have fallen soon when envoys were sent by Francis II. from France to negotiate peace. These were Monluc, Bishop of Valence, and the Sieur de Rendan mentioned in the text; the negotiators appointed to meet them on the English side were the Queen’s top minister Cecil and Wotton, Dean of Canterbury. The French troops were withdrawn.
◆The little Leith. (Cf. Jean de Beaugué, Histoire de la guerre d’Ecosse, reprinted by Montalembert in 1862, Bordeaux.)
◆The little Leith. (See Jean de Beaugué, Histoire de la guerre d’Ecosse, reprinted by Montalembert in 1862, Bordeaux.)
◆Jacques de Savoie, Duke de Nemours, died in 1585.
◆Jacques de Savoie, Duke of Nemours, passed away in 1585.
◆Charles de La Rochefoucauld, Count de Randan, was sent to England in 1559, where he arranged peace with Scotland.
◆Charles de La Rochefoucauld, Count de Randan, was sent to England in 1559, where he negotiated peace with Scotland.
[9] P. 14:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 14:
◆An imaginary king without authority.
◆A pretend king with no power.
◆Philibert le Voyer, lord of Lignerolles and of Bellefllle, was frequently employed as a diplomatic agent. He was in Scotland in 1567. He was assassinated at Bourgueil in 1571, because he was suspected of betraying Charles IX.’s avowal regarding Saint Bartholomew.
◆Philibert le Voyer, lord of Lignerolles and Bellefllle, was often used as a diplomatic agent. He was in Scotland in 1567. He was assassinated in Bourgueil in 1571 because he was suspected of leaking Charles IX’s confession about Saint Bartholomew.
◆Brantôme knew quite well that the woman the handsome and alluring Duke de Nemours truly loved was no other than Mme. de Guise, Anne d’Este, whom he later married.
◆Brantôme knew very well that the woman the handsome and captivating Duke de Nemours truly loved was none other than Mme. de Guise, Anne d’Este, whom he later married.
[10] P. 15:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 15:
◆XVIth Tale. Guillaume Gouffier, lord of Bonnivet.
◆XVIth Tale. Guillaume Gouffier, lord of Bonnivet.
◆Marguerite de Valois took Bussy d’Amboise partly because of his reputation as a duellist.
◆Marguerite de Valois chose Bussy d’Amboise partly because of his reputation as a skilled duelist.
[11] P. 17:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 17:
◆Jacques de Lorge, lord of Montgomerie, captain of Francis I.’s Scotch Guard and father of Henri II.’s involuntary murderer.
◆Jacques de Lorge, lord of Montgomerie, captain of Francis I’s Scottish Guard and father of Henri II’s accidental killer.
[12] P. 18:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 18:
◆Claude de Clermont, Viscount de Tallard.
◆Claude de Clermont, Viscount de Tallard.
◆François de Hangest, lord of Genlis, captain of the Louvre, who died of hydrophobia at Strassburg in 1569.
◆François de Hangest, lord of Genlis, captain of the Louvre, who died of rabies in Strassburg in 1569.
[13] P. 19:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 19:
◆It is undoubtedly Louise de Halwin, surnamed Mlle. de Piennes the Elder, who later married Cipier of the Marcilly family.
◆It is definitely Louise de Halwin, known as Mlle. de Piennes the Elder, who later married Cipier from the Marcilly family.
◆It is to this feminine stimulation that King Francis I. alluded in the famous quatrain in the Album of Aix, which is rightly or wrongly attributed to him.
◆It is this feminine influence that King Francis I referred to in the famous quatrain in the Album of Aix, which is attributed to him, whether accurately or not.
[337]
[337]
[14] P. 20:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 20:
◆Agnès Sorel, or Soreau, the famous mistress of Charles VII., was daughter of the Seigneur de St. Gérard, and was born at the village of Fromenteau in Touraine in 1409. From a very early age she was one of the maids of honour of Isabeau de Lorraine, Duchess of Anjou, and received every advantage of education. Her wit and accomplishments were no less admired than her beauty.
◆Agnès Sorel, or Soreau, the well-known mistress of Charles VII, was the daughter of the Lord of St. Gérard and was born in the village of Fromenteau in Touraine in 1409. From a young age, she was a lady-in-waiting to Isabeau de Lorraine, Duchess of Anjou, and received a top-notch education. Her intelligence and skills were just as admired as her beauty.
She first visited the Court of France in the train of this latter Princess in 1431, where she was known by the name of the Demoiselle de Fromenteau, and at once captivated the young King’s heart. She appeared at Paris in the Queen’s train in 1437, but was intensely unpopular with the citizens, who attributed the wasteful expenditure of the Court and the misfortunes of the Kingdom to her. Whatever may be the truth of Brantôme’s tale of the astrologer, there is no doubt as to her having exerted her influence to rouse the King from the listless apathy he had fallen into, and the idle, luxurious life he was leading in his Castle of Chinon, while the English were still masters of half his dominions.
She first visited the Court of France as part of this later Princess's entourage in 1431, where she was known as the Demoiselle de Fromenteau, and immediately won over the young King’s heart. She appeared in Paris with the Queen’s entourage in 1437, but was extremely unpopular with the citizens, who blamed her for the extravagant spending of the Court and the hardships faced by the Kingdom. Regardless of the truth behind Brantôme’s story about the astrologer, there’s no doubt that she influenced the King to shake off the indifference he had fallen into and the lazy, luxurious lifestyle he was leading in his Castle of Chinon, while the English still controlled half of his territories.
She was granted many titles and estates by her Royal lover,—amongst others the castle of Beauté, on the Marne, whence her title of La Dame de Beauté, and that of Loches, in the Abbey Church of which she was buried on her sudden death in 1450, and where her tomb existed down to 1792.
She was given many titles and properties by her royal lover, including the Castle of Beauté on the Marne, from which she got the title La Dame de Beauté, and Loches, where she was buried in the Abbey Church after her sudden death in 1450, and where her tomb remained until 1792.
◆Charles VII., son of the mad Charles VI., born 1403, crowned at Poitiers 1422, but only consecrated at Reims in 1429, after the capture of Orleans and the victories due to Jeanne d’Arc. The adversary of the Burgundians and the English under the Duke of Bedford and Henry V. of England. Died 1461.
◆Charles VII, son of the insane Charles VI, was born in 1403 and crowned at Poitiers in 1422, but he was only consecrated at Reims in 1429, after the capture of Orleans and the victories led by Joan of Arc. He opposed the Burgundians and the English under the Duke of Bedford and Henry V of England. He died in 1461.
◆Henry V. of England, reigned, 1413–1422.
◆Henry V of England, reigned 1413–1422.
◆Bertrand du Guesclin, Constable of France, the most famous warrior of the XIVth Century, and one of the greatest Captains of any age, was born about 1314 near Rennes of an ancient and distinguished family of Brittany. He was the great champion of France in the wars with the English, and the tales of his prowess are endless. Died 1380.
◆Bertrand du Guesclin, Constable of France, the most famous warrior of the 14th century and one of the greatest military leaders of all time, was born around 1314 near Rennes into an ancient and notable family from Brittany. He was the great defender of France in the wars against the English, and stories of his bravery are countless. Died 1380.
[15] P. 21:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 21:
◆Béatrix, fourth daughter of Raymond-Béranger IV., Count de Provence.
◆Béatrix, the fourth daughter of Raymond-Béranger IV, Count of Provence.
[16] P. 22:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 22:
◆Isabeau de Lorraine, daughter of Charles II., married René d’Anjou.
◆Isabeau de Lorraine, daughter of Charles II, married René d’Anjou.
[338]
[338]
[17] P. 24:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Pg. 24:
◆He called himself René de La Platière, lord of Les Bordes, and was ensign in Field Marshal de Bourdillon’s company; he was killed at Dreux. He was the son of François de La Platière and Catherine Motier de La Fayette.
◆He referred to himself as René de La Platière, lord of Les Bordes, and served as ensign in Field Marshal de Bourdillon’s company; he was killed at Dreux. He was the son of François de La Platière and Catherine Motier de La Fayette.
◆Brantôme, in his eulogy of Bussy d’Amboise, relates that he reprimanded that young man for his mania of killing. The woman whom he compares here to Angélique was Marguerite de Valois.
◆Brantôme, in his tribute to Bussy d’Amboise, mentions that he scolded the young man for his obsession with killing. The woman he compares to Angélique was Marguerite de Valois.
[18] P. 27:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 27:
◆Brantôme is unquestionably referring again in this paragraph to Marguerite de Valois and Bussy d’Amboise.
◆Brantôme is definitely talking about Marguerite de Valois and Bussy d’Amboise again in this paragraph.
[19] P. 28:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 28:
◆Orlando furioso, canto V.
◆Orlando Furioso, canto V.
[20] P. 30:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 30:
◆That is why Marguerite de Valois turned away “that big disgusting Viscount de Turenne.” She compared him “to the empty clouds which look well only from without.” (Divorce satyrique.)
◆That’s why Marguerite de Valois rejected “that repulsive Viscount de Turenne.” She compared him “to the empty clouds that only look good from the outside.” (Divorce satyrique.)
◆This is very likely an adventure that happened to Brantôme, and he had occasion to play the rôle of the “gentilhomme content.”
◆This is very likely an adventure that happened to Brantôme, and he had the chance to play the role of the “gentleman content.”
[21] P. 32:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 32:
◆According to Lalanne, the two gentlemen are Le Balafré and Mayenne. If the “grande dame” was Marguerite, she bore Mayenne no grudge, whom she described as “a good companion, big and fat, and voluptuous like herself.”
◆According to Lalanne, the two gentlemen are Le Balafré and Mayenne. If the “grande dame” was Marguerite, she held no ill will against Mayenne, whom she called “a good companion, big and fat, and voluptuous like herself.”
[22] P. 37:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 37:
◆It is Madeleine de Saint-Nectaire or Senneterre, married to the lord of Miramont, Guy de Saint-Exupéry; she supported the Huguenots. She defeated Montal in Auvergne, and according to Mézeray, killed him herself in 1574. (See Anselme, t. IV., p. 890.) In 1569, Mme. de Barbancon had also fought herself; she, too, was formerly an Italian, Ipolita Fioramonti.
◆It is Madeleine de Saint-Nectaire or Senneterre, married to the lord of Miramont, Guy de Saint-Exupéry; she supported the Huguenots. She defeated Montal in Auvergne, and according to Mézeray, killed him herself in 1574. (See Anselme, t. IV., p. 890.) In 1569, Mme. de Barbancon had also fought herself; she, too, was formerly an Italian, Ipolita Fioramonti.
[23] P. 39:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 39:
◆On the large square with the tower, in the centre of Sienna.
◆On the large square with the tower, in the center of Sienna.
[24] P. 40:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 40:
◆Livy, Bk. XXVII., Chap. XXXVII.
◆Livy, Book 27, Chapter 37.
[25] P. 42:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 42:
◆Orlando furioso, cantos XXII. and XXV.
◆Orlando Furioso, cantos XXII and XXV.
◆Christophe Jouvenel des Ursins, lord of La Chapelle, died in 1588.
◆Christophe Jouvenel des Ursins, lord of La Chapelle, passed away in 1588.
◆Henri II.
◆Henry II.
[339]
[339]
[26] P. 44:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 44:
◆Ipolita Fioramonti, married to Luigi di Malaspina, of the Padua branch; she was general of the Duke of Milan’s armies. (Litta, Malaspina di Pavia, t. VIII., tav. xx.)
◆Ipolita Fioramonti, married to Luigi di Malaspina from the Padua branch; she was the commander of the Duke of Milan’s armies. (Litta, Malaspina di Pavia, t. VIII., tav. xx.)
◆Famous fortified city and seaport on the Atlantic coast of France; 800 miles S. W. of Paris, capital of the modern Department of Charente-Inférieure.
◆Famous fortified city and seaport on the Atlantic coast of France; 800 miles southwest of Paris, the capital of the modern Department of Charente-Inférieure.
[27] P. 45:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 45:
◆The interview between François de La Noue, surnamed Bras-de-Fer (iron arm), and the representatives of Monsieur, François, Duke d’Alencon, took place February 21, 1573. The scene that Brantôme describes happened Sunday, February 22.
◆The interview between François de La Noue, known as Bras-de-Fer (iron arm), and the representatives of Monsieur, François, Duke d'Alencon, happened on February 21, 1573. The scene that Brantôme describes took place on Sunday, February 22.
[28] P. 46:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 46:
◆What Brantôme advances here is to be found in Jacques de Bourbon’s La grande et merveilleuse oppugnation de la noble cité de Rhodes, 1527.
◆What Brantôme presents here can be found in Jacques de Bourbon’s La grande et merveilleuse oppugnation de la noble cité de Rhodes, 1527.
◆The siege took place in 1536.
◆The siege took place in 1536.
[29] P. 47:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 47:
◆August 14, 1536. Count de Nassau besieged Péronne at the head of 60,000 men; the population defended itself with the uttermost energy. Marie Fouré, according to some, was the principal heroine of this famous siege; according to others, all the honor should go to Mme. Catherine de Foix. (Cf. Pièces et documents relatifs au siège de Péronne, en 1536. Paris, 1864.)
◆August 14, 1536. Count de Nassau laid siege to Péronne with 60,000 troops; the residents put up a fierce defense. Some say Marie Fouré was the main heroine of this well-known siege, while others believe the credit belongs to Mme. Catherine de Foix. (Cf. Pièces et documents relatifs au siège de Péronne, en 1536. Paris, 1864.)
◆The siege of Sancerre began January 3, 1573; but the rôle of the women was more pacific than at Péronne; they nursed the wounded and fed the combatants. The energetic Joanneau governed the city. (Poupard, Histoire de Sancerre, 1777.)
◆The siege of Sancerre started on January 3, 1573; however, the role of the women was more peaceful than at Péronne; they cared for the injured and fed the fighters. The determined Joanneau managed the city. (Poupard, Histoire de Sancerre, 1777.)
◆Vitré was besieged by the Duke de Mercœuer in 1589. This passage of Brantôme’s is quoted in the Histoire de Vitré by Louis Dubois (1839, pp. 87–88).
◆Vitré was under siege by the Duke de Mercœuer in 1589. This excerpt from Brantôme is quoted in the Histoire de Vitré by Louis Dubois (1839, pp. 87–88).
◆Péronne, a small fortified town of N. W. France, on the Somme and in the Department of same name. It was bombarded by the Prussians in 1870, and the fine belfry of the XIVth Century destroyed. Its siege by the Comte de Nassau was in 1536.
◆Péronne, a small fortified town in northwestern France, located on the Somme River in the same-named Department. It was bombed by the Prussians in 1870, and the beautiful belfry from the 14th century was destroyed. The town was besieged by Comte de Nassau in 1536.
◆Sancerre, a small town on the left bank of the Loire, modern Department of the Cher, 27 miles from Bourges. The Huguenots of Sancerre endured two terrible sieges in 1569 and 1573.
◆Sancerre, a small town on the left bank of the Loire, now part of the Cher department, is located 27 miles from Bourges. The Huguenots of Sancerre went through two devastating sieges in 1569 and 1573.
[340]
[340]
◆Vitré, a town of Brittany, modern Department Ille-et-Vilaine, of about 10,000 inhabitants. Retains its medieval aspect and town walls to the present day.
◆Vitré, a town in Brittany, now part of the Ille-et-Vilaine department, has about 10,000 residents. It still maintains its medieval look and town walls to this day.
[30] P. 48:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 48:
◆Collenuccio, Bk. V.
◆Collenuccio, Book V.
[31] P. 49:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 49:
◆Boccaccio has arranged this story in his De claries mulieribus, cap. CI. Vopiscus, Aurelius, XXVI–XXX, relates this fact more coolly.
◆Boccaccio has organized this story in his De claries mulieribus, cap. CI. Vopiscus, Aurelius, XXVI–XXX, shares this detail in a more relaxed manner.
◆Zenobia, the famous Queen of Palmyra, widow of Odena—thus, who had been allowed by the weak Emperor Gallienus to participate in the title of Augustus, and had extended his empire over a great part of Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt. She was eventually defeated by Aurelian in a great battle on the Orontes not far from Antioch. Palmyra was destroyed, and its inhabitants massacred; and Zenobia brought in chains to Rome.
◆Zenobia, the renowned Queen of Palmyra and widow of Odena, was permitted by the ineffectual Emperor Gallienus to share the title of Augustus. She expanded his empire across much of Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt. Ultimately, she was defeated by Aurelian in a major battle on the Orontes, not far from Antioch. Palmyra was destroyed, its people massacred, and Zenobia was taken in chains to Rome.
◆The Emperor Aurelian was born about 212 A. D., and was of very humble origin. He served as a soldier in almost every part of the Roman Empire, and rose at last to the purple by dint of his prowess and address in arms, succeeding Claudius in 270 A. D. Almost the whole of his short reign of four years and a half was occupied in constant fighting. Killed in a conspiracy 275 A. D.
◆The Emperor Aurelian was born around 212 A.D. and came from very humble beginnings. He served as a soldier throughout nearly all of the Roman Empire and eventually became emperor through his skill and talent in battle, succeeding Claudius in 270 A.D. Most of his brief reign of four and a half years was spent in continuous warfare. He was killed in a conspiracy in 275 A.D.
[32] P. 53:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 53:
◆Perseus, the last King of Macedon, son of Philip V., came to the throne 179 B. C. His struggle with the Roman power lasted from 171 to 165, when he was finally defeated at the battle of Pydna by the consul L. Aemilius Paulus. He was carried to Rome and adorned the triumph of his conqueror in 167 B. C., and afterwards thrown into a dungeon. He was subsequently released, however, on the intercession of Aemilius Paulus, and died in honourable captivity at Alba.
◆Perseus, the last King of Macedon and son of Philip V, ascended the throne in 179 B.C. His conflict with Roman power lasted from 171 to 165, culminating in his defeat at the Battle of Pydna by Consul L. Aemilius Paulus. He was taken to Rome and paraded in his conqueror's triumph in 167 B.C., and afterward imprisoned. However, he was later released at the request of Aemilius Paulus and died in dignified captivity in Alba.
◆Maria of Austria, sister of Charles V., widow of Louis II. of Hungary, and ruler over the Netherlands; she died in 1558. It was against her rule that John of Leyden struggled.
◆Maria of Austria, sister of Charles V, widow of Louis II of Hungary, and ruler over the Netherlands; she passed away in 1558. It was against her reign that John of Leyden fought.
◆Brantôme has in mind Aurelia Victorina, mother of Victorinus, according to Trebillius Pollio, Thirty Tyrants, XXX.
◆Brantôme is referring to Aurelia Victorina, the mother of Victorinus, as noted by Trebillius Pollio in Thirty Tyrants, XXX.
[33] P. 54:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 54:
◆In Froissart, liv. I, chap. 174.
◆In Froissart, vol. I, chap. 174.
[341]
[341]
◆Henri I., Prince de Condé, died in 1588 (January 5), poisoned, says the Journal de Henri, by his wife Catherine Charlotte de la Trémolle.
◆Henri I, Prince de Condé, died in 1588 (January 5), poisoned, according to the Journal de Henri, by his wife Catherine Charlotte de la Trémolle.
◆Isabella of Austria, daughter of Philip II.
◆Isabella of Austria, daughter of Philip II.
◆Jeanne de Flandres.
◆Jeanne of Flanders.
[34] P. 55:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 55:
◆Jacquette de Montberon, Brantôme’s sister-in-law.
◆Jacquette de Montberon, Brantôme’s sister-in-law.
◆Machiavelli, Dell’arte della guerre, Bk. V., ii.
◆Machiavelli, The Art of War, Bk. V., ii.
[35] P. 56:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 56:
◆Paule de Penthièvre, the second wife of Jean II. de Bourgogne, Count de Nevers.
◆Paule de Penthièvre, the second wife of Jean II. de Bourgogne, Count de Nevers.
[36] P. 57:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 57:
◆Richilde, Countess de Hainaut, who died in 1091.
◆Richilde, Countess of Hainaut, who passed away in 1091.
◆Hugues Spencer, or le Dépensier.
◆Hugues Spencer, the spender.
◆Jean de Hainaut, brother of Count de Hainaut.
◆Jean de Hainaut, brother of Count de Hainaut.
◆Cassel and Broqueron.
◆Cassel and Broqueron.
◆Edward II. of Caernarvon, King of England, was the fourth son of Edward I. and Queen Eleanor. Ascended the throne 1307, and married Isabel of France the following year. A cowardly and worthless Prince, and the tool of scandalous favourites, such as Piers Gaveston. Isabel and Mortimer landed at Orwell, in Suffolk, in 1326, and deposed the King, who was murdered at Berkeley Castle, 1327.
◆Edward II of Caernarvon, King of England, was the fourth son of Edward I and Queen Eleanor. He ascended the throne in 1307 and married Isabel of France the following year. He was seen as a cowardly and ineffective ruler, often influenced by scandalous favorites like Piers Gaveston. Isabel and Mortimer landed at Orwell in Suffolk in 1326 and deposed the King, who was murdered at Berkeley Castle in 1327.
[37] P. 58:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 58:
◆Eleonore d’Acquitaine.
◆Eleanor of Aquitaine.
[38] P. 59:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 59:
◆Thevet wrote the Cosmographie; Nauclerus wrote a Chronographie.
◆Thevet wrote the Cosmographie; Nauclerus wrote a Chronographie.
[39] P. 60:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 60:
◆Vittoria Colonna, daughter of Fabrizio Colonna and of Agnes de Montefeltro, born in 1490, and affianced at the age of four to Ferdinand d’Avalos, who became her husband. The letter of which Brantôme speaks is famous; he found it in Vallès, fol. 205. As for Mouron, he was the great Chancellor Hieronimo Morone.
◆Vittoria Colonna, daughter of Fabrizio Colonna and Agnes de Montefeltro, was born in 1490 and engaged at the age of four to Ferdinand d’Avalos, who later became her husband. The letter that Brantôme mentions is well-known; he discovered it in Vallès, fol. 205. As for Mouron, he was the great Chancellor Hieronimo Morone.
[40] P. 61:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 61:
◆Plutarch, Anthony, Chap. xiv.
◆Plutarch, *Anthony*, Chap. 14.
[342]
[342]
[41] P. 62:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 62:
◆Catherine Marie de Lorraine, wife of Louis de Bourbon, Duke De Montpensier.
◆Catherine Marie de Lorraine, wife of Louis de Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier.
◆Henri III., assassinated at Paris, 1589.
◆Henri III, assassinated in Paris, 1589.
[42] P. 65:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 65:
◆The other man was Mayenne.
◆The other guy was Mayenne.
[43] P. 67:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 67:
◆Poltrot de Méré was tortured and quartered (March 18, 1563). As regards the admiral, he was massacred August 24, 1572.
◆Poltrot de Méré was tortured and executed by being quartered (March 18, 1563). As for the admiral, he was killed on August 24, 1572.
[44] P. 68:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 68:
◆Philibert de Marcilly, lord of Cipierre, tutor of Charles IX.
◆Philibert de Marcilly, Lord of Cipierre, mentor to Charles IX.
[45] P. 71:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 71:
◆On this adventure, consult the Additions au Journal de Henri III., note 2.
◆On this adventure, check the Additions to the Journal of Henri III., note 2.
[46] P. 72:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 72:
◆Louis de Correa, Historia de la conquista del reino de Navarra.
◆Louis de Correa, History of the Conquest of the Kingdom of Navarra.
[47] P. 76:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 76:
◆Louise de Savoie.
◆Louise of Savoy.
[48] P. 77:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 77:
◆Charlotte de Roye, married to Francis III. de La Rochefoucauld in 1557; she died in 1559.
◆Charlotte de Roye, married to Francis III de La Rochefoucauld in 1557; she passed away in 1559.
[49] P. 78:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 78:
◆Marguerite de Foix-Candale, married to Jean Louis de Nogaret, Duke d’Eperon.
◆Marguerite de Foix-Candale, married to Jean Louis de Nogaret, Duke of Éperon.
[50] P. 79:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 79:
◆Renée de Bourdeille, daughter of André and Jacquette Montberon. She married, in 1579, David Bouchard, Viscount d’Aubeterre, who was killed in Périgord in 1593. She died in 1596. The daughter of whom Brantôme is about to speak was Hippolyte Bouchard, who was married to François d’Esparbez de Lussan. The three daughters whom he later mentions were: Jeanne, Countess de Duretal, Isabelle, Baroness d’Ambleville, and Adrienne, lady of Saint-Bonnet.
◆Renée de Bourdeille, daughter of André and Jacquette Montberon. She married David Bouchard, Viscount d’Aubeterre, in 1579, who was killed in Périgord in 1593. She passed away in 1596. The daughter that Brantôme is about to talk about was Hippolyte Bouchard, who was married to François d’Esparbez de Lussan. The three daughters he mentions later were: Jeanne, Countess de Duretal, Isabelle, Baroness d’Ambleville, and Adrienne, lady of Saint-Bonnet.
[51] P. 80:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 80:
◆Married subsequently to François d’Esparbez de Lussan, Maréchal d’Aubeterre.
◆Later married to François d’Esparbez de Lussan, Maréchal d’Aubeterre.
[52] P. 83:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 83:
◆Renée de Clermont, daughter of Jacques de Clermont-d’Amboise, lord of Bussy; she was married to the incompetent Jean de Montluc-Balagny (bastard of the Bishop de Valence), created Field Marshal of France in 1594.
◆Renée de Clermont, daughter of Jacques de Clermont-d’Amboise, lord of Bussy; she was married to the inept Jean de Montluc-Balagny (illegitimate son of the Bishop de Valence), who was made Field Marshal of France in 1594.
[343]
[343]
[53] P. 84:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 84:
◆Gabrielle d’Estrées.
◆Gabrielle d'Estrées.
[54] P. 85:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 85:
◆Popular song of the day; Musée de Janequin. See Recueil of Pierre Atteignant.
◆Popular song of the day; Musée de Janequin. See Recueil by Pierre Atteignant.
[55] P. 89:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 89:
◆Renée Taveau, married to Baron Mortemart. François de Rochechouart.
◆Renée Taveau, married to Baron Mortemart. François de Rochechouart.
[56] P. 91:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 91:
◆There is a copy of this sixth discourse in the MS. 4788, du fonds français, at the Bibliothèque Nationale: this copy is from the end of the sixteenth century.
◆There is a copy of this sixth discourse in MS. 4788, du fonds français, at the Bibliothèque Nationale: this copy dates back to the end of the sixteenth century.
[57] P. 92:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Pg. 92:
◆Charlotte de Savoie, second wife of Louis XI., daughter of Louis, Duke de Savoie.
◆Charlotte de Savoie, the second wife of Louis XI, and daughter of Louis, Duke of Savoie.
◆Louis XI. is generally supposed not only to have bandied many such stories with all the young bloods at the Court of Philippe le Bon, Duke of Burgundy, where he had taken refuge when Dauphin, but actually to have taken pains to have a collection of them made and afterwards published in the same order in which we have them, in the Work entitled “Cent Nouvelles nouvelles,” lequel en soy contient cent chapitres ou histoires, composées ou récitées par nouvelles gens depuis naguères,—“An Hundred New Romances,—a Work containing in itself an hundred chapters or tales, composed or recited by divers folk in these last years.” This is confirmed by the words of the original preface or notice, which would appear to have been written in his life-time: “And observe that throughout the Nouvelles, wherever ’tis said by Monseigneur, Monseigneur the Dauphin is meant, which hath since succeeded to the crown and is now King Louis XI.; for in those days he was in the Duke of Burgundy’s country.” But as it is absolutely certain this Prince only withdrew into Brabant at the end of the year 1456, and only returned to France in August 1461, it is quite impossible the Collection can have appeared in France about the year 1455, as is stated without sufficient consideration in the preface of the latest editions of this work. Two ancient editions are known, one,—Paris 1486, folio; the other also published at Paris, by the widow of Johan Treperre, N. D., also folio. Besides this, two modern editions, with badly executed cuts, printed at Cologne, by Pierre Gaillard, 1701 and 1736 respectively, 2 vols. 8vo.
◆Louis XI is generally thought to have shared many stories with the young nobles at the court of Philippe le Bon, Duke of Burgundy, where he sought refuge when he was the Dauphin. He reportedly took steps to compile these tales and later published them in the same order as we have them today, in the work titled “Cent Nouvelles nouvelles,” which contains a hundred chapters or stories, composed or recited by various people in recent years — “A Hundred New Romances — a work that includes a hundred chapters or tales, created or narrated by different folks in these last years.” This is supported by the wording of the original preface or notice, which seems to have been written during his lifetime: “And note that throughout the Nouvelles, wherever it says Monseigneur, it refers to Monseigneur the Dauphin, who later became king and is now King Louis XI; for at that time, he was in the Duke of Burgundy’s territory.” However, it is absolutely certain that this Prince only moved to Brabant at the end of 1456 and returned to France in August 1461, so it’s impossible for the Collection to have been published in France around 1455, as is inaccurately stated in the preface of the latest editions of this work. Two ancient editions are known, one from Paris 1486, folio; the other also published in Paris by the widow of Johan Treperre, no date, also folio. Additionally, there are two modern editions, with poorly made illustrations, printed in Cologne, by Pierre Gaillard, in 1701 and 1736, respectively, 2 volumes, 8vo.
[58] P. 93:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 93:
◆By Bourguignonne the King meant étrangère (foreigner).
◆By Bourguignonne the King meant foreigner.
[344]
[344]
[59] P. 94:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 94:
◆See the sojourn of Charles VIII. at Lyons: Séjours de Charles VIII. et Louis XII. à Lyon sur le Rosne jouxte la copie des faicts, gestes et victoires des roys Charles VIII. et Louis XII., Lyon, 1841.
◆See the stay of Charles VIII. in Lyon: Séjours de Charles VIII. et Louis XII. à Lyon sur le Rosne jouxte la copie des faicts, gestes et victoires des roys Charles VIII. et Louis XII., Lyon, 1841.
◆Louis XII. had really been a “good fellow,” without mentioning the laundress of the court, who was rumored to be the mother of Cardinal de Bucy, he had known at Genoa Thomasina Spinola, with whom, according to Jean d’Authon, his relations were purely moral.
◆Louis XII. had genuinely been a "nice guy." Not counting the court's laundress, who was said to be the mother of Cardinal de Bucy, he had known Thomasina Spinola in Genoa, with whom, according to Jean d’Authon, his relationship was strictly platonic.
[60] P. 97:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 97:
◆Francis I. forbade by the decree of December 23, 1523, that any farces be played at the colleges of the University of Paris “Wherein scandalous remarks are made about the King or the princes or about the people of the King’s entourage.” (Clairambault, 824, fol. 8747, at the Biblilothèque Nationale.) This king maintained, as Brantôme says, that women are very fickle and inconstant; he wrote to Montmorency of his own sister Marguerite de Valois, November 8, 1537: “We may be sure that when we wish women to stop they are dying to trot along; but when we wish them to go they refuse to budge from their place.” (Clairambault, 336, fol. 6230, vo.)
◆Francis I banned, by decree on December 23, 1523, any performances at the colleges of the University of Paris “that make scandalous remarks about the King, the princes, or the people in the King’s circle.” (Clairambault, 824, fol. 8747, at the Bibliothèque Nationale.) This king maintained, as Brantôme noted, that women are very fickle and unreliable; he wrote to Montmorency about his sister Marguerite de Valois on November 8, 1537: “We can be sure that when we want women to stop, they are eager to move on; but when we want them to go, they won’t budge from where they are.” (Clairambault, 336, fol. 6230, vo.)
[61] P. 98:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 98:
◆Paul Farnese, Paul III.—1468–1549.
◆Paul Farnese, Paul III.—1468–1549.
◆The queen arrived at Nice, June 8, 1538, where the king and Pope Paul III. were. The ladies of whom Brantôme speaks should be the Queen of Navarre, Mme. de Vendôme, the Duchess d’Etampes, the Marquess de Rothelin—that beautiful Rohan of whom it was said that her husband would get with child and not she—and thirty-eight gentlewomen. (Clair., 336, fol. 6549.)
◆The queen arrived in Nice on June 8, 1538, where the king and Pope Paul III were. The ladies that Brantôme mentions should be the Queen of Navarre, Madame de Vendôme, the Duchess of Etampes, the Marquess of Rothelin—that stunning Rohan, of whom it was said that her husband could become pregnant but not she—and thirty-eight gentlewomen. (Clair., 336, fol. 6549.)
◆John Stuart, Duke of Albany, grandson of James II., King of Scotland. He was born in France in 1482 and died in 1536. The anecdote that Brantôme relates is connected with the journey of Clement VI. to Marseilles at the time of the marriage of Henri II., then Duke d’Orléans, with the niece of the pope, Catherine de Medici. The marriage took place at Marseilles in 1533.
◆John Stuart, Duke of Albany, grandson of James II, King of Scotland. He was born in France in 1482 and died in 1536. The story that Brantôme tells is related to Pope Clement VI's trip to Marseilles during the marriage of Henry II, then Duke of Orléans, to the pope's niece, Catherine de Medici. The wedding took place in Marseilles in 1533.
[62] P. 100:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 100:
◆Louise de Clermont Tallard, who married as her second husband the Duc d’Uzes. Jean de Taix was the grand master of artillery.
◆Louise de Clermont Tallard, who married the Duc d'Uzes as her second husband. Jean de Taix was the chief master of artillery.
[63] P. 107:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 107:
◆He was called Pierre de La Mare, lord of Matha, master [345] of the horse to Marguerite, sister of the king. (Bib. Nat., Cabinet des Titres, art. Matha.) Aimée de Méré was at the court from 1560 to 1564. Hence this adventure took place during that time. (Bib. Nat. ms. français 7856, fol. 1186, vo.)
◆He was known as Pierre de La Mare, lord of Matha, and the horseman for Marguerite, sister of the king. [345] (Bib. Nat., Cabinet des Titres, art. Matha.) Aimée de Méré was at the court from 1560 to 1564. So, this adventure happened during that time. (Bib. Nat. ms. français 7856, fol. 1186, vo.)
[64] P. 108:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 108:
◆Povided with “bards,” plate-armour used to protect a horse’s breast and flanks.
◆Equipped with “bards,” plate armor that was used to protect a horse's chest and sides.
[65] P. 109:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 109:
◆This Fontaine-Guérin was in all likelihood Honorat de Bueil, lord of Fontaine-Guérin, gentleman of the king’s bed-chamber, councillor of State, who died in 1590. He was a great favorite of Charles IX.
◆This Fontaine-Guérin was probably Honorat de Bueil, lord of Fontaine-Guérin, gentleman of the king’s bedchamber, state councillor, who passed away in 1590. He was a close favorite of Charles IX.
[66] P. 112:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 112:
◆The lady in question was Françoise de Rohan, dame de La Garnache, if we are to believe Bayle in the Dict. Critique, p. 1817, 2nd. ed., though there would seem to be some doubt about it. The “very brave and gallant Prince” was the Duc de Nemours.
◆The woman we're talking about was Françoise de Rohan, dame de La Garnache, if we trust Bayle in the Dict. Critique, p. 1817, 2nd ed., although there seems to be some uncertainty about that. The “very brave and gallant Prince” was the Duc de Nemours.
◆A German dance, the Facheltanz.
◆A German dance, the Facheltanz.
[67] P. 113:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 113:
◆Marie de Flamin.
◆Marie de Flamin.
[68] P. 114:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 114:
◆The son of this lady was Henri d’Angoulème, who killed Altoviti and was killed by him at Aix, and not at Marseilles, June 2, 1586. Philippe Altoviti was the Baron of Castellane; he had married the beautiful Renée de Rieux-Châteauneuf.
◆The son of this woman was Henri d’Angoulème, who killed Altoviti and was killed by him in Aix, not in Marseilles, on June 2, 1586. Philippe Altoviti was the Baron of Castellane; he had married the beautiful Renée de Rieux-Châteauneuf.
[69] P. 115:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 115:
◆Le Tigre—a pamphlet by François Hotman directed against the Cardinal de Lorraine and the Duchesse de Guise, 1560.
◆Le Tigre—a pamphlet by François Hotman targeting Cardinal de Lorraine and the Duchesse de Guise, 1560.
[70] P. 116:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 116:
◆Philibert de Marcilly, lord of Cipierre.
◆Philibert de Marcilly, lord of Cipierre.
[71] P. 117:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 117:
◆That pamphlet was aimed at Anne d’Este, Duchess de Guise, at the time of her marriage with the Duc de Nemours.
◆That pamphlet was directed towards Anne d’Este, Duchess de Guise, during her marriage to the Duc de Nemours.
[72] P. 119:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 119:
◆Brantôme alludes to the hatred of the Duchess de Montpensier.
◆Brantôme mentions the hostility towards the Duchess de Montpensier.
[73] P. 120:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 120:
◆Marie de Clèves, who died during her lying-in in 1574.
◆Marie de Clèves, who passed away during childbirth in 1574.
◆Catherine Charlotte de La Trémolle, Princess de Condé.
◆Catherine Charlotte de La Trémolle, Princess of Condé.
[74] P. 122:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 122:
◆Not found anywhere in Brantôme’s extant works.
◆Not found anywhere in Brantôme’s existing works.
[346]
[346]
[75] P. 125:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 125:
◆Du Guast or Lignerolles. However, it may refer to Bussy d’Amboise.
◆Du Guast or Lignerolles. However, it might refer to Bussy d’Amboise.
[76] P. 126:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 126:
◆Marie Babou de la Bourdaisière, who married Claude de Beauvillier Saint-Aignan in 1560.
◆Marie Babou de la Bourdaisière, who married Claude de Beauvillier Saint-Aignan in 1560.
[77] P. 128:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 128:
◆Plutarch, Sylla, cap. XXX.
◆Plutarch, Sylla, ch. 30.
[78] P. 129:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 129:
◆Queen Maria of Hungary, ruler of the Netherlands, and sister of Charles V.
◆Queen Maria of Hungary, ruler of the Netherlands, and sister of Charles V.
◆Plutarch, Cato of Utica, cap. XXXV.
◆Plutarch, Cato of Utica, chapter 35.
[79] P. 132:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 132:
◆The personages in question are Henri III., Renée de Rieux-Châteauneuf, then Mme. de Castellane, and Marie de Clèves, wife of the Prince de Condé.
◆The individuals in question are Henri III, Renée de Rieux-Châteauneuf, later known as Mme. de Castellane, and Marie de Clèves, wife of the Prince de Condé.
◆Louis de Condé, who deserted Isabeau de La Tour de Limeuil to marry Françoise d’Orléans. The beauty of which Brantôme speaks can scarcely be seen in the portrait in crayon of Isabeau de Limeuil who became Mme. de Sardini.
◆Louis de Condé, who left Isabeau de La Tour de Limeuil to marry Françoise d’Orléans. The beauty that Brantôme mentions is hard to recognize in the crayon portrait of Isabeau de Limeuil, who became Mrs. de Sardini.
[80] P. 135:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 135:
◆Mottoes were constantly used at that time.
◆Mottoes were frequently used back then.
[81] P. 136:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Pg. 136:
◆Anne de Bourbon, married in 1561 to François de Clèves, Duke de Nevers and Count d’Eu.
◆Anne de Bourbon married François de Clèves in 1561, who was the Duke of Nevers and Count of Eu.
[82] P. 146:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 146:
◆The empress was Elizabeth of Portugal; the Marquis de Villena, M. de Villena; the Duke de Feria, Gomez Suarez de Figueroa, Duke de Feria; Eleonor, the Queen of Portugal, later married to François Ier; Queen Marie, the Queen of Hungary.
◆The empress was Elizabeth of Portugal; the Marquis de Villena, M. de Villena; the Duke de Feria, Gomez Suarez de Figueroa, Duke de Feria; Eleonor, the Queen of Portugal, later married to François Ier; Queen Marie, the Queen of Hungary.
[83] P. 147:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 147:
◆Elizabeth, daughter of Henri II.
◆Elizabeth, daughter of Henry II.
[84] P. 151:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 151:
◆The MS. of this discourse is at the Bibliothèque Nationale (Ms. fr. 3273); it is written in a good hand of the end of the sixteenth century. It is dedicated to the Duke d’Alençon.
◆The manuscript of this discussion is at the National Library (Ms. fr. 3273); it's written in a neat hand from the late sixteenth century. It is dedicated to the Duke of Alençon.
[85] P. 152:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 152:
◆Opere di G. Boccaccio, Il Filicopo, Firenze, 1723, t. II., p. 73.
◆Works by G. Boccaccio, The Filicopo, Florence, 1723, vol. II, p. 73.
[86] P. 159:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 159:
◆La Tournelle in the original. This was the name given to the Criminal Court of the Parliament of Paris.
◆La Tournelle in the original. This was the name used for the Criminal Court of the Parliament of Paris.
[347]
[347]
[87] P. 161:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 161:
◆Barbe de Cilley; she died in 1415.
◆Barbe de Cilley; she passed away in 1415.
[88] P. 166:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 166:
◆Brantôme is undoubtedly referring to Mme. de Villequier.
◆Brantôme is definitely talking about Mme. de Villequier.
[89] P. 172:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 172:
◆This is again Isabeau de La Tour Limeuil.
◆This is once again Isabeau de La Tour Limeuil.
[90] P. 178:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ pg. 178:
◆See XXVth Tale in Cent Nouvelles nouvelles.
◆See the 25th Tale in Cent Nouvelles nouvelles.
[91] P. 188:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 188:
◆Honoré Castellan.
◆Honoré Castellan.
◆Baron de Vitteau was this member of the Du Prat family; he killed Louis de Béranger du Guast.
◆Baron de Vitteau was a member of the Du Prat family; he killed Louis de Béranger du Guast.
[92] P. 190:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 190:
◆Chicot was Henri III.’s jester who killed M. de La Rochefoucauld on Saint Bartholomew’s Day.
◆Chicot was Henri III's jester who killed M. de La Rochefoucauld on Saint Bartholomew's Day.
[93] P. 194:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 194:
◆Alberic de Rosate, under the word “Matrimonium” in his Dictionary reports an exactly similar instance. Barbatias has something even more extraordinary, how a boy of seven got his nurse with child.
◆Alberic de Rosate, under the term “Matrimonium” in his Dictionary, mentions a very similar case. Barbatias describes something even more astonishing: how a seven-year-old boy made his nurse pregnant.
[94] P. 195:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 195:
◆The Queen Mother Catherine de Medici. The author gives her name in his book of the Dames Illustres, where he tells the same story.
◆The Queen Mother Catherine de Medici. The author mentions her name in his book of the Dames Illustres, where he shares the same story.
[95] P. 207:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 207:
◆Jean de Rabodanges, who married Marie de Clèves, mother of Louis XII. She was reine blanche, that is, she was in mourning; at that time the women of the nobility wore white when in mourning.
◆Jean de Rabodanges, who married Marie de Clèves, mother of Louis XII. She was reine blanche, meaning she was in mourning; back then, noblewomen wore white when they were grieving.
[96] P. 207:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 207:
◆These eighteen chevaliers, who were elevated in one batch, caused a good deal of gossip at the court.
◆These eighteen knights, who were promoted all at once, created quite a stir at the court.
[97] P. 214:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 214:
◆Louis de Béranger du Guast.
◆Louis de Béranger du Guast.
[98] P. 216:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 216:
◆She was thirty-five; she died three years later.
◆She was thirty-five; she passed away three years later.
[99] P. 217:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 217:
◆It is the Château d’Usson in Auvergne.
◆It’s the Château d’Usson in Auvergne.
[100] P. 218:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 218:
◆Louis de Saint-gelais-Lansac.
◆Louis de Saint-Gelais-Lansac.
[101] P. 220:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 220:
◆Jeanne, married to Jean, Prince of Portugal. She died in 1578.
◆Jeanne, married to Jean, Prince of Portugal. She passed away in 1578.
[348]
[348]
[102] P. 225:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 225:
◆Sébastien, died in 1578. This passage in Brantôme is not one of the least irreverent of this hardened sceptic.
◆Sébastien died in 1578. This passage in Brantôme is one of the more irreverent comments from this hardened skeptic.
[103] P. 226:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 226:
◆The portraits of Marie disclose a protruding mouth. She is generally represented with a cap over her forehead. This feature is to be found in a marked degree in Queen Eleanore; and her brother Charles V. also had a protruding mouth. The drooping lip was likewise characteristic of all the later Dukes de Bourgogne.
◆The portraits of Marie show her with a prominent mouth. She is usually depicted with a cap over her forehead. This feature is especially noticeable in Queen Eleanore, and her brother Charles V also had a prominent mouth. The drooping lip was also a common trait among all the later Dukes of Burgundy.
[104] P. 228:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 228:
◆The entanglements of which Brantôme speaks were: the revolt of the Germanats, in Spain, in 1522; of Tunis or Barbarie, 1535; the troubles in Italy, also in 1535; the revolt in the Netherlands, provoked by the taxes imposed by Maria, in 1540. M. de Chièvres was Guillaume de Croy.
◆The conflicts that Brantôme refers to were: the revolt of the Germanats in Spain in 1522; the events in Tunis or Barbarie in 1535; the issues in Italy, also in 1535; and the revolt in the Netherlands caused by the taxes imposed by Maria in 1540. M. de Chièvres was Guillaume de Croy.
[105] P. 229:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 229:
◆Folembray, the royal residence occupied by François I^{er} and later by Henri II. Henri IV. negotiated there with Mayenne during the Ligue.
◆Folembray, the royal residence used by François I and later by Henri II. Henri IV negotiated there with Mayenne during the League.
◆Bains en Hainaut.
◆Baths in Hainaut.
[106] P. 230:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 230:
◆Claude Blosset, surnamed Torcy, lady of Fontaine Chalandray.
◆Claude Blosset, known as Torcy, lady of Fontaine Chalandray.
[107] P. 234:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 234:
◆Christine of Denmark, daughter of Christian II., first married to Francesco Maria Sforza, Duke of Milan. In 1540, five years after her husband’s death, she married Francis I. of Lorraine. Her son was Charles II. of Lorraine.
◆Christine of Denmark, daughter of Christian II, was first married to Francesco Maria Sforza, Duke of Milan. In 1540, five years after her husband's death, she married Francis I of Lorraine. Her son was Charles II of Lorraine.
◆N. de La Brosse-Mailly.
◆N. de La Brosse-Mailly.
[108] P. 285:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 285:
◆A small plank attached to the saddle of a lady’s horse, and serving to support the rider’s feet. Superseded by the single stirrup and pommel.
◆A small plank attached to the saddle of a lady's horse, used to support the rider's feet. Replaced by the single stirrup and pommel.
[109] P. 236:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 236:
◆Guy du Faur de Pybrac.
◆Guy du Faur de Pybrac.
[110] P. 243:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 243:
◆Renée, wife of Guillaume V., Duke de Bavière.
◆Renée, wife of Guillaume V, Duke of Bavaria.
[111] P. 246:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 246:
◆Blanche de Montferrat, wife of Charles I^{er}, Duke de Savoie; she died in 1509.
◆Blanche de Montferrat, wife of Charles I, Duke of Savoy; she died in 1509.
[112] P. 247:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 247:
◆Paradin, Chronique de Savoye, III, 85.
◆Paradin, Chronique de Savoye, III, 85.
[349]
[349]
◆The seneschal’s lady of Poitou was Mme. de Vivonne.
◆The seneschal’s lady of Poitou was Mrs. de Vivonne.
[113] P. 249:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 249:
◆Nicolas de Lorraine-Vaudemont, father-in-law of Henri III.
◆Nicolas de Lorraine-Vaudemont, the father-in-law of Henri III.
◆Françoise d’Orléans, widow of Louis, Prince de Condé.
◆Françoise d’Orléans, widow of Louis, Prince de Condé.
[114] P. 250:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 250:
◆Louise, daughter of Nicolas de Lorraine-Vaudemont, married in 1575; she died in 1601.
◆Louise, daughter of Nicolas de Lorraine-Vaudemont, got married in 1575; she passed away in 1601.
[115] P. 252:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 252:
◆Jean de Talleyrand, former ambassador at Rome.
◆Jean de Talleyrand, former ambassador in Rome.
[116] P. 255:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 255:
◆Refers of course to the assassination of Henri III., by the monk Clément (1589).
◆This refers, of course, to the assassination of Henri III by the monk Clément (1589).
[117] P. 256:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 256:
◆Marguerite de Lorraine, whose second marriage was with François de Luxembourg, Duke de Piney.
◆Marguerite de Lorraine, who was married for the second time to François de Luxembourg, Duke of Piney.
◆Mayenne, Duke du Maine.
◆Mayenne, Duke of Maine.
◆Aymard de Chastes.
◆Aymard de Chastes.
[118] P. 257:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 257:
◆Catherine de Lorraine.
◆Catherine of Lorraine.
[119] P. 273:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 273:
◆Jean Dorat, died in 1588. Louis de Béranger du Guast.
◆Jean Dorat, died in 1588. Louis de Béranger du Guast.
[120] P. 280:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 280:
◆Caesar Borgia, son of Pope Alexander VI.
◆Caesar Borgia, the son of Pope Alexander VI.
◆Thomas de Foix, lord of Lescun, brother of Mme. de Châteaubriant.
◆Thomas de Foix, lord of Lescun, brother of Mme. de Châteaubriant.
◆Piero Strozzi, Field Marshal of France.
◆Piero Strozzi, Field Marshal of France.
[121] P. 281:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 281:
◆Jean de Bourdeille, brother of Brantôme. He died at the age of twenty-five at the siege of Hesdin. It was from him that the joint title of Brantôme passed on to our author.
◆Jean de Bourdeille, brother of Brantôme. He died at the age of twenty-five during the siege of Hesdin. It was from him that the joint title of Brantôme was passed on to our author.
◆Henri de Clermont, Viscount de Tallard.
◆Henri de Clermont, Viscount de Tallard.
◆André de Soleillas, Bishop of Riez in Provence, in 1576. He had a mistress who was given to playing the prude, but whose hypocrisy did not deceive King Henri IV. That Prince, one day [350] rebuking this lady for her love affairs, said her only delight was in le jeune et l’oraison,—fast and prayer.
◆André de Soleillas, Bishop of Riez in Provence, in 1576. He had a mistress who pretended to be modest, but her hypocrisy was obvious to King Henri IV. One day, that prince scolded her for her romantic escapades, saying her only true joys were in fasting and prayer. [350]
[122] P. 282:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 282:
◆This widow of a Field Marshal of France was very likely the lady of Field Marshal de Saint-André. She wedded as a second husband Geoffroi de Caumont, abbé de Clairac. She called herself Marguerite de Lustrac. As for Brantôme’s aunt, it should be Philippe de Beaupoil; she married La Chasteignerie, and as a second husband François de Caumont d’Aymé.
◆This widow of a Field Marshal of France was probably the wife of Field Marshal de Saint-André. She married Geoffroi de Caumont, the abbot of Clairac, as her second husband. She referred to herself as Marguerite de Lustrac. As for Brantôme’s aunt, she was likely Philippe de Beaupoil; she married La Chasteignerie and then François de Caumont d’Aymé as her second husband.
[123] P. 285:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 285:
◆Anne d’Anglure de Givry, son of Jeanne Chabot and René d’Anglure de Givry. Jeanne married as a second husband Field Marshal de La Chastre.
◆Anne d’Anglure de Givry, child of Jeanne Chabot and René d’Anglure de Givry. Jeanne remarried Field Marshal de La Chastre.
◆Jean du Bellay and Blanche de Tournon.
◆Jean du Bellay and Blanche de Tournon.
[124] P. 288:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 288:
◆Odet de Coligny, Cardinal de Chastillon, married to Elizabeth de Hauteville.
◆Odet de Coligny, Cardinal de Chastillon, married to Elizabeth de Hauteville.
[125] P. 290:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 290:
◆Henri II., who neglected his wife, the Queen, for the Duchesse de Valentinois (Diane de Poitiers), who was already quite an old woman and had been his father, the preceding King’s, mistress.
◆Henry II, who ignored his wife, the Queen, for the Duchesse de Valentinois (Diane de Poitiers), who was already quite elderly and had been his father, the previous king’s, mistress.
[126] P. 293:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 293:
◆About the year 400 of the Christian era, St. Jerome witnessed the woman’s funeral, and he it is reports the fact mentioned in the text. Epist. ad Ageruchiam, De Monogamia.
◆Around the year 400 AD, St. Jerome attended the woman's funeral, and he is the one who reports the fact mentioned in the text. Epist. ad Ageruchiam, De Monogamia.
◆Charles de Rochechouart.
◆Charles de Rochechouart.
[127] P. 302:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 302:
◆Scio was taken in 1566 by the Turks.
◆Scio was conquered by the Turks in 1566.
[128] P. 309:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 309:
◆It was to her that King Henri IV. said at a court ball by way of amusing the company, that she had used green wood and dry wood both. This jest he made at her expense, because the said lady did never spare any other woman’s good name.
◆It was to her that King Henri IV said at a court ball, trying to entertain the guests, that she had used both green wood and dry wood. This joke was at her expense because the lady never held back in tarnishing another woman's reputation.
[129] P. 310:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 310:
◆L’histoire et Plaisante cronique du Petit Jehan de Saintré, par Antoine de La Salle. Paris, 1517.
◆The enjoyable story and chronicle of Little Jehan of Saintré, by Antoine de La Salle. Paris, 1517.
[130] P. 312:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Page 312:
◆XLVth Tale.
◆45th Tale.
[131] P. 314:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 314:
◆According to Rabelais, poultre (filly) is the name given to a mare that has never been leapt. So Bussy was not speaking with strict accuracy in using the term in this case.
◆According to Rabelais, poultre (filly) is what you call a mare that has never been bred. So Bussy wasn't being completely accurate when he used the term in this case.
[132] P. 316:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 316:
◆An allusion to the affair of Jarnac, who killed La Chasteignerie, Brantôme’s uncle, in a duel (1547) with an unexpected and decisive thrust of the sword.
◆An allusion to the duel of Jarnac, who unexpectedly killed La Chasteignerie, Brantôme’s uncle, in 1547 with a decisive thrust of his sword.
[351]
[351]
◆Alesandro de Medici, killed, in 1537, by his cousin Lorenzino.
◆Alesandro de Medici was killed in 1537 by his cousin Lorenzino.
[133] P. 317:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 317:
◆Mme. de Chateaubriant.
◆Ms. de Chateaubriant.
[134] P. 318:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 318:
◆Perhaps Marguerite de Valois and the ugly Martigues.
◆Maybe Marguerite de Valois and the unattractive Martigues.
[135] P. 321:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 321:
◆The one-eyed Princess d’Eboli and the famous Antonio Perez.
◆The one-eyed Princess d’Eboli and the well-known Antonio Perez.
[136] P. 323:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ p. 323:
◆Jeanne de Poupincourt.
◆Jeanne de Poupincourt.
[137] P. 324:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 324:
◆Anne de Berri, Lady de Certeau, at the court in 1583. Hélène de Fonsèques.
◆Anne de Berri, Lady de Certeau, at the court in 1583. Hélène de Fonsèques.
◆This princess was very ugly.
This princess was very unattractive.
[138] P. 330:
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ P. 330:
◆In the sixteenth century it was customary to whip lazy people in bed. See Marot’s epigram: Du Jour des Innocens.
◆In the sixteenth century, it was common to whip lazy people in bed. See Marot’s epigram: Du Jour des Innocens.
End of Volume Two
End of Volume Two
The book contains long passages of older French in which the reader will notice many flaws in grammar, spelling and accents. These may make some of the French difficult to read but it will be obvious that this cannot be fixed without sometimes inadvertently changing the intended meaning. For that reason all passages in French are presented unchanged in this transcription.
The book includes lengthy sections of older French where readers might spot numerous mistakes in grammar, spelling, and accents. These errors may make some of the French hard to read, but it’s clear that fixing them could unintentionally alter the intended meaning. For this reason, all French passages are included as they are in this transcription.
Similarly with the passages in Italian and Spanish.
Similarly with the sections in Italian and Spanish.
For the rest of the text, the many inconsistencies in English spelling, capitalisation, and hyphenation have been left unchanged except where noted below. Other minor typographical errors have been corrected without note.
For the rest of the text, the various inconsistencies in English spelling, capitalization, and hyphenation have been kept as they are except where indicated below. Other minor typographical errors have been fixed without mention.
Page xxviii – “or” changed to “of” (a contemporary of)
Page xxviii – “of” changed to “of” (a contemporary of)
Page 93 – “nay” changed to “any” (scarce any account of her)
Page 93 – “any” changed to “any” (scarce any account of her)
Page 126 – “may” changed to “many” (how many stages)
Page 126 – “may” changed to “many” (how many stages)
Page 138 – “Fontainbleau” changed to “Fontainebleau” (at Fontainebleau)
Page 138 – “Fontainbleau” changed to “Fontainebleau” (at Fontainebleau)
Page 259 – “Randam” changed to “Randan” (Madame de Randan)
Page 259 – “Randam” changed to “Randan” (Madame de Randan)
Page 290 – “Cnæus” changed to “Gnæus” (Gnæus Pompeius)
Page 290 – “Cnæus” changed to “Gnæus” (Gnæus Pompeius)
The numbered references to endnotes on the pages of the book are incorrect in most cases. Many other pages of the book should have had references to endnotes but those references are missing.
The numbered references to endnotes in the book are mostly wrong. Many other pages should have included references to endnotes, but those references are missing.
In order to reindex the references in this transcription, a temporary ‘placeholder’ reference was added to those pages where there should have been at least one numbered reference to endnotes but it was omitted in the book.
In order to reindex the references in this transcription, a temporary 'placeholder' reference was added to the pages where there should have been at least one numbered reference to endnotes, but it was left out in the book.
The transcriber has retained these placeholder references as they are helpful to the reader. Placeholder references are distinguished by an asterisk next to the index number (as in [99*], for example). Their role is exactly the same as that of the references originally present in the book; namely to direct the reader to the correct page header in the endnotes. Under that page header will be found all the author’s notes relevant to the page.
The transcriber has kept these placeholder references because they help the reader. Placeholder references are marked with an asterisk next to the index number (like [99*], for example). They serve the same purpose as the original references in the book; specifically, to guide the reader to the right page header in the endnotes. Under that page header, you will find all the author's notes related to the page.
Where originally there were more than one numbered reference to endnotes on a page of the book, these now have the same index number in this transcription. That index number links to the respective page header in the endnotes.
Where there used to be multiple numbered references to endnotes on a page of the book, these now all share the same index number in this transcription. That index number connects to the corresponding page header in the endnotes.
Endnotes have been reformatted so that each separate note is distinguished by a prefixing ◆ character.
Endnotes have been reformatted so that each separate note is distinguished by a prefixing ◆ character.
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!