Funeral rituals in the French Renaissance

Renaissance Studies Vol. 9 No. 4

Funeral rituals in the French Renaissance JENNIFER WOODWARD

The famous cries, ‘Le Roi est Mort! Vive le Roi!’ are perhaps all that remains familiar to us today of the sophisticated funeral rituals of the French Renaissance kings. They point at once to the central concern of these rituals: succession. From the late thirteenth century the beginning of a new king’s reign was always dated from the day of his predecessor’s death and legally he acquired full authority from that moment. Yet the elaboration of the c o n secration and coronation ritual in the late medieval and Renaissance periods indicates that while the king’s rights did not depend on his coronation, his public image did. This left a liminal period of vulnerability, what might be termed a ‘ceremonial interregnum’ between the demise of one king and the coronation of his successor.

At the funeral of Charles VI in 1422, where the contested succession placed a spotlight on the funeral rituals, there were two developments that attempted to fill up this ceremonial interregnum. It was here that the traditional call to pray for the soul of the deceased king was first countered with the cry ‘Vive le roi!’. This was followed by the proclamation of the new king, Henry VI of England, and constituted an effort to forestall the claims of the Dauphin with a ritual demonstration and acknowledgement of the succession.

There remained, however, a ‘ceremonial interregnum’ between the decease of the old king and his burial. This gap was filled by a lifelike effigy of the defunct monarch. The effigy, dressed in the royal robes of estate and holding the royal sceptre, was borne at shoulder height on a litter covered by a funeral pall, by the hanouars, or salt-carriers, of the city of Paris. The porters were concealed by the pall; the visible ritual bearers, who held the four corners of the mortuary drape, were the four Presidents of the parlement of Paris in fur-lined red robes.

The reasons for the introduction of the effigy are uncertain. However, we are clear about the source, for a model for the French had been provided by the funeral procession of the English king, Henry V. He had died in France just two months previously. An effigy had been displayed, perhaps from St Denis and certainly from Rouen, Normandy, in the convoy that had transported his corpse back to England. This was in accordance with an English tradition that went back to the funeral of Edward 11. The adoption of the effigy ritual in France, then, was due to the peculiar circumstances of the year 1422. Later it was to become the focal point of the royal funeral.

In this paper I investigate the development in the ritual that surrounded the effigy. Inevitably, given the limits on space I have had to simplify much

0 1995 Thc So&& fm Rtnaissance Studies, Oxfwd University Press

386 lennijk Woodward

of the discussion. I hope, however, to draw attention to some of the ways in which ritual operates, why it is compelling, and to the performative aspects of power.

The introduction of the effigy set up a dialectical tension between effigy and corpse. The first effects of this were seen in the most public arena of the funeral ritual, the procession.’ At the funeral of Charles VIII in 1498 display of the corpse and display of the effigy were temporally separated. Prior to the Paris entry the convoy was dominated by the black-draped, encoffined body and a concomitant mood of dolour. As it entered Paris, a transformation occurred. The richly dressed effigy, lying on a brilliant cloth- of-gold pall, was placed on top of the coffin and the mood became one of triumph.

At the funeral of Francis I (1547) the dialectic between triumph and dolour was deliberately exaggerated by the spatial separation of corpse and effigy in the procession. The convoy, which included representatives of a range of social groups, was hierarchically organized, mirroring society. A crescen- do of dignity built up and reached its climax around the effigy before tail- ing off again towards the end of the procession. The central symbolic resonance of the effigy was marked by, among other things, a concentration of heraldic signifiers and a canopy. The coffin was relegated to an earlier section of the convoy, less symbolically resonant and lower in the hierar- chical order.

Ernst Kantorowicz has provided a well-known commentary on the French royal funeral, interpreting it in terms of the English politicolegal theory of the king’s two bodies and throwing a great deal of light on the symbolism of the effigy.* The French jurists of the sixteenth century never arrived at such an explicit and consistent theory as the English. However, they were fully aware of the different manifestations of the individual king: the mortal body and the immortal Majesty, that is, the public aspect of sovereignty vested in the king.3 More than that, they were aware of the implications of the distinction for royal ritual. In discussing the ceremonial regalia worn by the king, the French legist Pierre Gregoire made the striking comment, ‘The Majesty of God appears in the Prince externally, for the utility of the subjects; but internally there remains what is human’ (De Replblicu 1578). In the funeral ceremony the effigy was the external manifestation of the royal Majesty while the coffin enclosed the human remains. In Kantorowicz’s words, ‘the king’s person seemingly doubled; the two bodies unquestionably united in the living king, were visibly segregated on the king’s demi~e’ .~

‘ Ralph E. Giesey, The Royal Funeral Ceremony in the Renaissance France (Geneva, 1960), 108-12. ’ The theory of the king’s two bodies was most famously expounded by the lawyer Edmund

Ernst H. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in MedicVal Political Theology (Princeton, Plowden in relation to the duchy of Lancaster case in 1564.

N.J., 1957), 446. ‘ Ibid. 423.

Funeral rituals in the French Renaissance 387

Support for Kantorowicz’s interpretation can be found in certain aspects of the royal funeral ritual itself. Great care was taken to ensure the effigy resembled the dead monarch as closely as possible. The face was modelled from a death mask.5 It was fashioned in wax, the hair and beard being secured with putty and the face painted, ‘aprb le vif et naturel’.‘j Anyone who has seen the surviving English funeral effigies in the Undercroft museum at Westminster Abbey will recall the striking realism of their faces, particularly that of Henry VII. Such verisimilitude in the construction of the effigy confirms that in some sense the old king was to ‘live on’. The fact that the effigy was dressed in the king’s ceremonial robes and bore the royal regalia suggests that this immortal aspect was the king’s Majesty.’

Absence of the new king heightened the effigy’s potency. Up until 1380, well before the introduction of the effigy, the succeeding monarch had participated in his father’s obsequies. At each of the four following royal funerals, the successor was absent for demonstrable reasons: minority status at the funerals of Charles V (1380) and Louis XI (1483); contested sucession at that of Charles VI (1422); and estrangement from the father at the funeral of Charles VII (1461). The non-attendance of Louis XI1 at the funeral of his father Charles VIII (1498), however, seems only explicable in terms of the now-established effigy ritual. The image of the dead king, symbol of perpetual Majesty, could not appear at the same time as the new king.8

Ceremonial developments at the funeral of Francis I served to reinforce the symbolic weight of the effigy and its concomitant mood of immortality and triumph. For the first time the effigy entered the lyingin-state ritual where only the coffin had been found before. Here the fiction of the effigy perpetuating the dead monarch’s sovereignty reached its zenith: the effigy being treated just as if it were the still living king. For a period of eleven days the effigy lay in state on a richly decorated bed in the salle d’honneur while meals were served to it at the usual hours of dinner and supper with all the forms and ceremonies that had been observed during the king’s lifetime.

The following is taken from the du Chaste1 account of the funeral ceremony:

The table was set and spread with the reverences and samplings that were customarily made. After the bread was broken and prepared, the meat and other courses were brought in. Then a steward presented the napkin to the most dignified person present to wipe the hands of the King. A cardinal proceeded to bless the table, and then bowls of water for washing the hands were presented at the seat of the King, just as if he had still

‘ Ernst Benkard, Undying Faces: A Collection of Death Marks, trans. Margaret M. Green (London,

‘ Paris, BibliothCque Nationale, fonds frangais, 18536. ’ Kantorowicz, 424. ” Ciesey. 46. Henry I1 aspersed the body of his father not the effigy: Kantorowicz. 428.

1929).

388 lennijkr Woodward

been living. The three courses of the meal were acted out just as usual, not omitting the presentation of the cup at the times when the King had been accustomed to drink at each of his meals. J%e repast concluded with the offering of water to wash and the saying of grace.

The ritual enacted the perpetuity of Majesty more emphatically than ever. An engraving of Henry Ws funeral effigy in its bed of state shows the

effigy in a half-sitting position, its hands raised as if gesturing in response to a question. Two sets of hands were provided for the effigies, one for the procession where the effigy bore the sceptre and the 'hand of justice', the other for the lying in state.

I now wish to turn to the funeral of Francis I's grandson, Charles IX. Charles IX died on 30 May 1574 in the midst of the social and political tur- moil of the French civil wars. His successor, Henry 111, was in Poland and would not arrive back in France until the end of the summer? The reign had seen a serious weakening of crown authority and growing factionalism amongst the nobility. The need to demonstate that royal authority was unaf- fected by the death of the king was particularly great. Let us look at what happened to the effigy ritual in the funeral.

The officials in charge of organizing the proceedings enhanced the role of the effigy, placing greater emphasis than ever on the theme of immortality. The encofined corpse of Francis I had been served for a full three weeks before the display of his effigy. However, at the funeral of Charles IX the ritual continuation of the service of the king's household was only played out to the effigy. Ambiguity in the du Chaste1 account of the funeral of Francis I made the original form of the ritual unclear. Thus the expansion of the role of the effigy may have been due to accident and have been innocent of political intent. Yet regularization of the ritual could have taken other forms. Besides, the organizers had access to the wealth of material on royal ceremonial gathered by Jean du Tillet in the 15409, material that would later be published in his ReczceiE &s Roys de Du Tillet's view was that the effigy was to be served for only eight to ten days and then replaced by the encoffined corpse. It is tempting to think that we are dealing with a calculated attempt to impress the factious nobility with a strong ritual statement of the perpetuity of royal authority. As du Tillet is at pains to stress, the ritual ser- ving of meals to the effigy was to involve not just the late king's household but all those who had been accustomed to speak or respond to his majesty during his lifetime. This included noblemen and women and high dignitaries of the Church." So the nobility had prescribed roles in the ritual. If they

' Henry III amved in Lyon in September; cf. R J. Knecht, The French Wars ofReligion 1559-1598 (Harlow, 1989), 55.

lo Jean du Tillet had witnessed the funeral of Francis I and later wrote a historical treatise and analysis of the royal funeral ceremonial. He was Clerk of the pdttnent of Paris. See Ciesey, 122 and Sarah Hanley. The 'Lit deJurtiu of the K i q s of h n c e : Gmstiiutiond I&&w in Lqend, R i h d and Disrourse (Princeton, NJ., 1983). 103-25.

' I Jean du Tillet, R m . 1 des Roys de France: burs courrone et maison (Paris, 1567), 243.


wished to avoid overt rebellion, they had little choice about their participa- tion. The effigy ritual allowed the crown to demonstrate its power both to and over the nobility whose very presence implied support for the monarchy. In the staging of the effigy ritual, the monarchy created power. Power can be a performative act.

The lyingin-state ritual allowed for a demonstration of crown solidarity with the elite. What of the general populace? Devotional processions and public prayers were held in towns and villages before Charles IXs death was announced.l* Durkheimian analysis might lead to the interpretation of these rituals as spontaneous examples of ‘collective effervescence’, expres- sions of commonly held values and attitudes recreating and strengthening social integration. In fact, however, these demonstrations were deliberately staged. Shortly before his death, Charles sent orders to all the archbishops and bishops to organize communal prayers and processions in the parishes of their sees. The response was marked, at least amongst loyal Catholics, the group specified in Claude Haton’s account of the processions. It was not simply an act of obedience, since their own desire for order was bound up with sympathy and support for the monarchy. Thus the demonstrations were examples of the mobilization of bias - the attempt of a particular group to realize power through the performance of an act of solidarity.

The prayers for Charles IX’s recovery turned into mourning after the king’s demise. The public arena of the procession provided another opportunity for staging a demonstration of general support for the monarchy. In accordance with tradition, the very streets of Paris became part of the theatre of death. Houses were draped with mourning blacks and each had a burning torch decorated with the arms of the city at its door.13

Once again the officials organizing the funeral took no chances. Orders were issued to all leaders of the sixteen districts of Paris, the quarteniers, tell- ing them to warn each householder to place a burning torch at his d00r.l~ However, the crown had no such control over the citizens of Paris who would come to line the streets.

Marxist approaches to the study of ritual often suggest that ceremonies of the ruling elite are deliberately staged to exploit the people, and that this exploitation is achieved through the process of mystification. Such approaches oversimplify the ways in which rituals operate and obscure or deny the two-way relationship involved. Many of the Parisians observing the royal funeral were too sophisticated to be mere pawns and would have been sen- sitive to the symbolic dimensions of the effigy ritual. Some of the signifiers were particularly accessible: the use of a canopy which recalled Corpus Christi processions celebrating the immortal presence of Christ in the Host and the

I f Claude Haton, MLmoarcs, ed. Felix Bourquelot, Collection de Documents InCdits sur 1’Histoire

” Giesey, 11 n. 40. I‘ FranGois Bonnardot (ed.), Rlgirtres des diliberations du bureau de la ville de Paris (18 vols., Paris,

de France (2 vols., Paris, 1857), II, 765.

1885-1953), VII, 5-8; and Claude Malingre, Lus antiquitez de la uillc de Paris (Paris, 1640), 675.

390 lennijkr Woodward

marked likeness between the effigy and the dead king. A sense of the para doxical status of the effigy, a lifeless statue representing the dead king living on, was not beyond the audience. Such symbolism could appeal to the average citizen, giving a reassuring sense of the axiomatic and ordered nature of the universe. There is extant no explicit contemporary commentary on the significance of the effigy ritual to confirm or deny a popular understanding of its ‘meaning’. However, it is in this very ambiguity that the symbolic potency of the effigy is rooted. Ambiguity, together with con- densation of meaning and multivocality, are key attributes of symbols enabl- ing them to mean different things to different people simultane~usly.’~ Thus they can help to build consensus on the cognitive level.

Yet the effigy as symbol operated, perhaps most effectively, on more un- conscious levels. As a whole, the funeral ritual had a strong sensory appeal, operating through the full range of senses. Heraldic badges and banners, chivalric crests and shields, and the gorgeous robes of the effigy made the Renaissance funeral procession a surprisingly colourful affair. Trumpets and hautboys delighted the ear, and the periodic censing of the corpse and effigy filled the air with a rich aroma. Part of the attraction of the ritual was the sheer enjoyment of a highly stimulating occasion. Multiple sensory stimulation can have the effect of fusing into a higher order experience which is satisfying in itself.I6

It would seem useful, then, to replace the term ‘mystification’ with Gluckman’s concept of ‘sublimation’. This refers to the physical energy that is ‘evoked by a set of symbolical physiological referents and transposed to strengthen social and moral values which are simultaneously exhibited in . . . symbol^'.'^ ‘Sublimation’ takes account of the active part played by all observers and participants in the funeral ritual.

The anthropologist Stanley Tambiah’s concept of indexical symbols can help us to accommodate these speculations about the process of sublimation with a more immediate functionalist approach. Indexical symbols are seen to operate both on the ideological or cosmological level and in the real political world where they directly affect the participants, ‘creating, affirming or legitimating their social postitions and power’.18 Thus the duality of ritual performance is recognized.

In the political dimension, where the functionalist view is paramount, what people actually believe is not important. The very fact that attendance at a ritual can have many motivations other than political support can be ex-

’’ D. Kertzer, Ritual, Politics and Power (London, 1988). 10. ’‘ On sensory stimulation, see Gilbert Lewis, Day of thc Shining Red: An Essay cm Undcrs&atkfhg

R i t d (Cambridge, 1980). 221; Victor Turner, ‘Variations on a theme of liminality’, in Seculor Ritual, ed. Sally F. Moore and Barbara D. Myerhoff (Amsterdam, 1977). 40; Barbara D. Myerhoff, ‘We don’t wrap herrings in printed page: fusions, fictions and continuity in secular ritual’, ibid 199; and Stanley 1. Tambiah, Culture, Thought and Social Action (Cambridge, Mass., 1985), 1.124.

I’ Mary Gluckman and Max Gluckman, ‘On drama, games and athletic contests’, in Moore and Myerhoff, 234.

Tambiah, 156.

Funeral rituals in the French Renaissance 39 1

ploited by its organizers. While political support is not a necessary corollary of attendance, the very presence of an observer, nonetheless, functions as a demonstration of political consensus in the eyes of others, unless his behaviour (e.g. booing) should indicate otherwi~e.’~ Ritual is thus used to try to build political reality in the absence of consensus.2o What the organizers of the royal funeral needed to do was to prevent the occurrence of disruptive behaviour. The orders to the quarteniers thus included a call to the captains of the guard to be on duty.

However, the real threat to the crown did not come from the observers, nor from the nobility in the closed ritual form of the lyingin-state, but from disputes between the bishops and the purlemat of Paris over a question of precedence: which party had the right to march with the effigy of the king at the heart of the funeral procession?*’ The separation of the corpse and effigy, and, in particular, the heavy symbolic weighting in favour of the effigy, had introduced an element of potential conflict and vulnerability. N o object has intrinsic symbolic meaning but becomes symbolic only in its rela- tions with other objects or people.22 There was no living royal representative in the funeral procession to tap the potency of the effigy. Instead, it was vulnerable to appropriation by others. Thus both bishops and purlemat wanted to march close to the effigy.

It is unclear whether these disputes were kept safely within what Erving Goffman describes as the ‘back regions’. Accounts of the funeral procession of Charles IX differ. Brantame, a royalist nobleman who had participated, reports a general abandonment of the whole procession by the nobility, Church, purlement and City.2s Simon Goulart, a Calvinist preacher, states that in the event, the bishop of Paris and the Grand Almoner did march with the effigy rather than the body.24

The account in the Registers of purlement, however, stated that the bishops were relegated to the corpse section of the convoy. If this was fabrication, purlement made a strong and public attempt to actualize it at the next royal funeral, that of Henry IV in 1610. On this occasion, bishops and members of purlement were vying for positions closest to the effigy all the way to Notre- Dame. P u r k t met the next morning in an attempt to settle the issue before the procession to Saint-Denis. It concluded that the bishop of Paris’s duty was to administer holy things to the natural body of the king. Thus he should

Jack Goody, ‘Against “ritual”: Loosely structured thoughts on a loosely defined topic’, in

Kertzer. 11 . Moore and Myerhoff, 33.

“ L’art de v t r i j i i l a dotes des faits historique, 3rd edn (3 vols.. Paris 1783);Journal de [Pierre de]

’’ Firth (1973). 245. cited by Lewis, 33; Edmund Leach, Disarmament (1965). cited by Elizabeth

” Pierre de Bourdeille. seigneur de BrantBme, Oeuvres completes, (11 vols., Paris, 1864-82), \TI,

‘‘ Simon Goulart, Mimires de lEstat de France sow Charles Neujiesme, 2nd edn (3 vols., Heidelberg.

1’Estoile pour le r@ de Hmri MI, cited by Giesey, 123 n. 73.

Tonkin, ‘Masks and powers’, Man, n.s. 14 (1979). 246.

326.

1578), III, 374-86.

392 /enn@r Woodwurd

follow the encoffined corpse in the funeral procession. It was purlement that should surround the effigy, l’image de la justice vivante de su Mujesti. They were the representatives of the king’s justice. Their red robes, symbolic of triumph and immortality, functioned as signifiers of this role.25

While the bishops were their immediate opponents in the context of the funeral procession, what lies behind purlement’s rhetoric is a veiled attack on the monarchy itself. Purlement, they said, should surround the effigy, ‘not to honour itself, but pour repisenter le Roi duns toute su s p w r ’ ; yet the very assertion carried with it the opposite implication. The potentially unifying symbolism of the red-robed members of purlemat surrounding the effigy, of purlemat and the king as joint upholders of Justice was radically undermined. Purlement wanted to appropriate the symbolism of the effigy, making itself the sole representative of royal authority in the ceremonial interregnum.*6

The behaviour of the members of the purlement after the funeral feast of Charles IX made explicit its exaggerated claims. They sent for the Grand Almoner and ordered him to offer thanks to them after dinner as he did to the king. He refused and hid while the cardinal tried to smooth matters over. Purhmt, however, maintained its pretensions to royal majesty and authority, claiming that it represented the king tout en tout in the continued absence of the successor, Henry III.p7 In this more open segment of the ritua1,purhent attempted to enact a power that it didn’t have, knowing that the very performance could give reality to its claims.*8

This appropriation of the funeral ritual of Charles IX was the culmina- tion of a struggle between crown and purlemat that had lasted most of the reign. Charles came to the throne in 1560 as a minor. Purlement exploited the weakness of the crown under these circumstances and repeatedly challenged legislation introduced by the regency government.99 Out of this insecurity came the need for a robust demonstration of royal power and in 1563 Charles held a lit de justice at Rouen to declare his majority.50 A lit L justice was a state appearance of the king in purlement to treat of matters of constitution and public law.

The very location was a snub directed against thepurlement of Paris which was attempting to establish itself as the supreme court of France. Rhetoric

’’ Nicolas Rigault’s continuation of Histme universelle de Jacque$Augucic de Thou (London, 1737), XVI, 112-18, cited by Giesey, 123. In the event the bishops managed to get a royal order confirming their right to stand next to the effigy and on the following morning, despite jostling, they did so. The red robes had been identified as signifiers of perpetual justice as early as 1461: Giesey, 56.

Parlnnmt had participated in royal funerals from at least 1364, bearing the pall in 1378, but not claiming perpetual existence separately from the king until 1483; cf. Giesey, 53-4, 185-8. ’’ Giesey, 60-1 and n. 34. *’ On open segment8 of ritual, see Moore and Myerhoff, 19. F, Paris had been the centre of royal administration since the fifteenth century but did not have

a constitutionally higher postition than the provincial parlrmmts: see Lawrence M. Bryant, The King and the City in the Parisian Royol Enhy Orrmony: Politics, Ritual md Art in the Rnaicsancc (Ceneva, 1986), 22.

J. H. M. Salmon, Society in Crisis: Frame in the Sixteenth Cmtuy (London, 1975), 348.


and rituals of homage were used to affirm the authority of the king. Then the reformist Chancellor, Michel de L‘HBpital, spoke, using juristic arguments to confirm the status of royal authority during a minority. L‘HBpital invented his own phrase to stress the continuity of the monarchy: ‘le royaume n’est jamais vacant’. L‘HBpital’s remarks were not original. They had medieval precedents more recently re-expressed in Jean Bodin’s ‘le roi ne meurt j a m a i ~ ’ . ~ ~ However they had important implications for the royal funeral, as L’Hbpital himself recognized. The fictive nature of the ceremonial interregnum filled by the effigy was emphasized. It had never had and most emphatically now did not have any basis in law.

In the course of his speech, Michel de L‘HBpital made a case for making the majority lit de justice the dominant succession ritual.s2 The behaviour of p a r h t at the funeral feast of Charles IX and the disputes over precedence would confirm his conviction that the whole matrix of royal ceremonial needed revision. The ritual display ofparlemat as the representative of royal justice built into the effigy symbolism enacted the very real incursions into crown power that parlement was attempting to make. Further, the funeral included open segments, such as the feast, which were vulnerable to appropriation by antagonistic parties. The crown needed a more closed ritual form that would give it more effective control over the participants and the opportunity to demonstrate its supreme authority very soon after the death of the king. The lit de justice appeared to meet these requirement^.^^

Deliberate promotion of the lit &justice by the monarchy was paralleled by the decision to ‘run down’ the traditional succession rituals, the coronation and the funeral. The last full performance of the Renaissance royal funeral ceremony, which significantly included the last appearance of a funeral effigy, was that of Henry IV in 1610. However, the symbolism of the effigy ritual had been completely undermined by Marie de Medici’s decision to have Louis XI11 appear in an inaugural lit de justice the day after the news of Henry Iv’s assassination, and a good two weeks before his burial.34 Louis’s status as king was ritually confirmed before the effigy ritual of his father had been enacted. Thus it was deprived of symbolic significance. Visually the appearance of the young successor on the canopied ‘lit de justice’ pre-echoed the appearance of the funeral effigy on its ‘lit d’estat’ in a ritual shift towards dynasticism. More than providing a new natural body for the preservation or resurrection of the abstract qualities of kingship, Louis XI11 was the physical or personal image of his father.

My discussion has illustrated that royal funeral rituals in Renaissance France were not occasions of ‘collective effervescence’ but of the ‘mobilization of bias’. The form of the funeral was manipulated in order to magnify

” See Kantorowicz, 383-450; Giesey, 178-9; Hanley, 162, 172. ’ I Hanley. 174; and ThCodore Godefroy, Lc cirimoniol dc France (3 vols., Paris, 1619). 11, 571-2. ” Hanley, 177.

Giesey, 180; Jackson, 10, 15; Hanley, 231-53.

394 /ennifer Woodward

its potential as an occasion for the display of royal authority. Yet while the organizers aimed at demonstrating order and consensus, the ritual was vulnerable and conflict occurred between interested parties who sought power through performance. The funerals reveal the strong interdependence of power and pageantry.

University of Warwick

Funeral rituals in the French Renaissance

Documents

Transcript of Funeral rituals in the French Renaissance