into prominent relief the apparent dominance of the Valois dynasty itself.
In fact, however, the ‘new monarchy’ inaugurated by Louis XI was by no means a centralized or integrated State. France was redivided into some 12 governorships, administration over which was entrusted to royal princes or leading nobles, who legally exercised a wide range of regalian rights down to the end of the century and factually could act as autonomous potentates well into the next.3 Moreover, there now also developed a cluster of local parlements, provincial courts created by the monarchy with supreme judicial authority in their areas, whose importance and numbers steadily grew in this epoch: between the accession of Charles VII and the death of Louis XII, new parlements were founded in Toulouse, Grenoble, Bordeaux, Dijon, Rouen and Aix. Nor were urban liberties yet gravely curtailed, although the position of the patrician oligarchy within them was reinforced at the expense of the guilds and small masters. The essential reason for these far-reaching limitations of the central State remained the insurmountable organizational problems of imposing an effective apparatus of royal rule over the whole country, amidst an economy without a unified market or modernized transport system, in which the dissociation of primary feudal relations in the village was by no means complete. The social ground for vertical political centralization was not yet ready, despite the notable gains registered by the monarchy. It was in this context that the Estates-General found a new lease of life after the Hundred Years’ War, not against but with the revival of the monarchy. For in France, as elsewhere, the initial impulse for the convocation of the Estates was the dynastic need for fiscal or foreign policy support from the subjects of the realm.4 In France, however, the consolidation of the Estates-General as a permanent national institution was blocked by the same diversity which had obliged the monarchy to accept wide political devolution even in the hour of its unitary victory. It was not that the three estates were especially divided socially when they met: the moyenne noblesse dominated their proceedings without much effort. But the regional assemblies which had elected their deputies to the Estates-General always refused to mandate them to vote national taxes; and since the nobility was exempt from the existing fisc, it had little incentive to press for the convocation of the Estates-General.5 The result was that since the French kings were unable to get the financial contributions they wanted from the national Estates, they gradually ceased to summon them at all. It was thus the regional entrenchment of local seigneurial power, rather than the centralist drive of the monarchy, which frustrated the emergence of a national Parliament in Renaissance France. In the short-run, this was to contribute to a complete break-down of royal authority; in the long-run, of course, it was to facilitate the task of Absolutism.
In the first half of the 16th century, Francis I and Henry II presided over a prosperous and multiplying realm. There was a steady decrease of representative activity: the Estates-General had lapsed again; the towns were no longer summoned after 1517 and foreign policy tended to become a more exclusively royal preserve. Legal officials – maîtres de requêtes – gradually extended the juridical rights of the monarchy, and parlements were overawed by special sessions or lits de justice in the presence of the king. Control of appointments in the ecclesiastical hierarchy was gained by the Concordat of Bologna with the Papacy. But neither Francis I nor Henry II were yet anything like autocratic rulers: they both consulted frequently with regional assemblies and carefully respected traditional noble privileges. The economic immunities of the Church were not infringed by the change of patronage over it (unlike the situation in Spain, where the clergy were heavily taxed by the monarchy). Royal edicts still in principle needed formal registration by the parlements to become law. Fiscal revenues doubled between 1517 and the 1540’s, but the tax-level at the end of Francis I’s reign was not appreciably above that of Louis XI sixty years earlier, although prices and incomes had risen greatly in the interval:6 the direct fiscal yield as a proportion of national wealth thus actually fell. On the other hand, the issue of public bonds to rentiers from 1522 onwards helped to maintain the royal treasury comfortably. Dynastic prestige at home was meanwhile assisted by the constant external wars in Italy into which the Valois rulers led their nobility: for these became a well-established outlet for the perennial pugnacity of the gentry. The long French effort to win ascendancy in Italy, launched by Charles VIII in 1494 and concluded by the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis in 1559, was unsuccessful. The Spanish monarchy – politically and militarily more advanced, strategically commanding the Habsburg bases in Northern Europe, and navally superior through its Genoese alliance – cleanly routed its French rival for control of the transalpine peninsula. Victory in this contest went to the State whose process of Absolutization was earlier and more developed. Ultimately, however, defeat in its first foreign adventure probably helped to ensure a sounder and more compact foundation for French Absolutism, forced back in on its own domestic territory. Immediately, on the other hand, it was the termination of the Italian wars, combined with the uncertainty of a succession crisis, which was to reveal how insecurely the Valois monarchy was still anchored in the country. The death of Henry II precipitated France into forty years of internecine strife.
The Civil Wars which raged after Cateau-Cambresis were, of course, set off by the religious conflicts attendant on the Reformation. But they provided a kind of radiography of the body politic in the late 16th century, in the way in which they exposed the multiple tensions and contradictions of the French social formation in the epoch of the Renaissance. For the struggle between the Huguenots and the Holy League for control of the monarchy, in practice politically vacant after the death of Henry II and the regency of Catherine of Medici, served as an arena for the coalescence of virtually every type of internal political conflict characteristic of the transition towards Absolutism. The Religious Wars were led, from first to last, by the three rival magnate lineages of Guise, Montmorency and Bourbon, each controlling a domanial territory, extensive clientele, leverage inside the State apparatus, loyal troops and international connections. The Guise family was master of the North-East from Lorraine to Burgundy; the Montmorency-Chatillon line was based on hereditary lands stretching through the whole Centre of the country; the Bourbon bastions lay essentially in the South-West. The inter-feudal struggle between these noble houses was intensified by the plight of needy rural squires all over France, previously habituated to plundering forays into Italy and now caught by the price inflation; this stratum provided military cadres ready for prolonged civil warfare, quite apart from the religious affiliations which divided it. Moreover, as the struggle wore on, the towns themselves split into two camps: many of the Southern cities rallying to the Huguenots, while the Northern inland towns became virtually without exception bulwarks of the League. It has been argued that differing commercial orientations (to the overseas or domestic market) influenced this division.7 It seems more probable, however, that the general geographical pattern of Huguenotism reflected a traditional regional separatism of the South, which had always lain farthest from the Capetian homelands in the He de France, and where the local territorial potentates had kept their independence longest. At the start, Protestantism had generally spread from Switzerland into France via the main river-systems of the Rhone, Loire and Rhine,8 providing a fairly even regional distribution of the Reformed faith. But once official toleration ceased, it rapidly reconcentrated in the Dauphine, Languedoc, Guyenne, Poitou, Saintonge, Beam and Gascgony – mountainous or coastal zones beyond the Loire, many of them harsh and poor, whose common characteristics were not so much commercial vitality as manorial particularism. Huguenotism always mustered artisans and burghers in its towns, but the appropriation of tithes by Calvinist notables ensured that the appeal of the new creed to the peasantry was very limited. Huguenot social leadership, in fact, was drawn overwhelmingly from the landowning class, where it could claim perhaps half the nobility in France in the 1560’s – while it never surpassed more than 10–20 per cent of the population as a whole.9 Religion retreated in the South into the embrace of aristocratic dissidence. The general strain of the confessional conflict can be seen as thus simply having split the tenuous fabric of French unity along its inherently weakest seam.
Once under way, however, the struggle unleashed deeper social conflicts than those of feudal secessionism. When the South was lost to Conde and the Protestant armies, a redoubled weight of royal taxation for the war fell on the beleaguered Catholic cities of the North. The urban misery that resulted from this development in the 1580’s provoked a radicalization
