The Tales Of The Heptameron Volume I Part 5

d'Escuranis, led her away and made her go to bed. Her death took place on December 21st, 1549, and just before expiring she grasped a crucifix that lay beside her and murmured, "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus." (1)

Although the King of Navarre had not always lived in perfect accord with his wife, he none the less keenly felt the loss he had sustained by her death. Olhagaray represents him when deprived of Margaret as no longer showing the same firm purpose of life, but as sad, discontented, and altering his plans at every trifle.(2) He gave orders that Margaret's remains should be interred in the Cathedral of Lescar, some four and a half miles from the Chateau of Pau, with which it is said to have been at that time connected by a subterranean pa.s.sage. Several of the Navarrese sovereigns had already been buried there, for the See was a kind of primacy, the Bishops being _ex-officio_ presidents of the States of Beam.(3)

1 M. Lalanne, in his edition of Brantome's works, maintains that Margaret did not die at Odos, near Tarbes, but at Audaux, near Orthez, basing this contention on the fact that Brantome calls the castle "Audos in Beam," and that Odos is in Bigorre. Tradition, however, has always pointed to the latter locality, though, on the other hand, it is stated that less than half a century after Margaret's death Odos was nothing but a ruin, and had long been in that condition.

In 1596 Henry IV. gave the property to John de La.s.salle, by whose descendants the chateau was restored (Bascle de Lagreze's _Chateau de Pau, &c._).

2 _Histoire de Foix et de Bearn, &c._, p. 506.

3 Lescar having ceased to be a bishopric since 1790, its church, which still exists, no longer ranks as a cathedral.

It was in this quaint old cathedral church, dating, so archaeologists a.s.sert, from the eleventh century, that Margaret's remains were interred with all due pomp and ceremony. The d.u.c.h.ess of Estouteville headed the procession, followed by the Duke of Montpensier, the Duke of Nevers, the Duke of Aumale, the Duke of Etampes, the Marquis of Maine, and M. de Rohan. Then came the _grands deuils_ or chief mourners, led by the Duke of Vendome, and three lords carrying the crown, sceptre, and hand of justice. The Viscount of Lavedan officiated as grand master of the ceremonies, and special seats were a.s.signed to the States of Navarre, Foix, Beam, and Bigorre, and to the chancellor, counsellors, and barons of the country; whilst on a platform surrounded by lighted tapers there was displayed an effigy of the Queen robed in black.(1) After the ceremony a banquet was served in accordance with Bearnese custom, the chief mourners being invited to the Duke of Vendome's table, whilst the others were served in different rooms.(2)

1 _Lettres de Marguerite (Pieces justificatives_. No. xi.).

2 Bascle de Lagreze's _Chateau de Pau, &c._

A few years later--in June 1555--the remains of King Henry, Margaret's husband, were in turn brought to Lescar for burial. The tombs of husband and wife, however, have alike vanished, having been swept away during the religious wars, when Lescar was repeatedly stormed and sacked, when Huguenot and Catholic, in turn triumphant, vented their religious frenzy upon the graves of their former sovereigns; and to-day the only tombs to be found in the old cathedral are those of personages interred there since the middle of the seventeenth century.

January 1893.

ON THE HEPTAMERON,

WITH SOME NOTICE OF PRECEDENT COLLECTIONS OF TALES IN FRANCE, OF THE AUTHOR, AND OF HER OTHER WORKS.

It is probable that every one who has had much to do with the study of literature has conceived certain preferences for books which he knows not to belong absolutely to the first order, but which he thinks to have been unjustly depreciated by the general judgment, and which appeal to his own tastes or sympathies with particular strength. One of such books in my own case is _THE HEPTAMERON_ of Margaret of Navarre. I have read it again and again, sometimes at short intervals, sometimes at longer, during the lapse of some five-and-twenty years since I first met with it. But the place which it holds in my critical judgment and in my private affections has hardly altered at all since the first reading.

I like it as a reader perhaps rather more than I esteem it as a critic; but even as a critic, and allowing fully for the personal equation, I think that it deserves a far higher place than is generally accorded to it.

Three mistakes, as it seems to me, pervade most of the estimates, critical or uncritical, of the _Heptameron_, the two first of old date, the third of recent origin. The first is that it is a comparatively feeble imitation of a great original, and that any one who knows Boccaccio need hardly trouble himself to know Margaret of Navarre. The second is that it is a loose if not obscene book, disgraceful for a lady to have written (or at least mothered), and not very creditable for any one to read. The third is that it is interesting as the gossip of a certain cla.s.s of modern newspapers is interesting, because it tells scandal about distinguished personages, and has for its interlocutors other distinguished personages, who can be identified without much difficulty, and the identification of whom adds zest to the reading. All these three seem to me to be mistakes of fact and of judgment. In the first place, the _Heptameron_ borrows from its original literally nothing but plan. Its stories are quite independent; the similarity of name is only a bookseller's invention, though a rather happy one; and the personal setting, which is in Boccaccio a mere framework, has here considerable substance and interest. In the second place, the accusation of looseness is wildly exaggerated. There is one very coa.r.s.e but not in the least immoral story in the _Heptameron_; there are several broad jests on the obnoxious cloister and its vices, there are many tales which are not intended _virginibus puerisque_, and there is a pervading flavour of that half-French, half-Italian courts.h.i.+p of married women which was at the time usual everywhere out of England. The manners are not our manners, and what may be called the moral tone is distinguished by a singular cast, of which more presently. But if not entirely a book for boys and girls, the _Heptameron_ is certainly not one which Southey need have excepted from his admirable answer in the character of author of "The Doctor," to the person who wondered whether he (Southey) could have daughters, and if so, whether they liked reading. "He has daughters: they love reading: and he is not the man I take him for if they are not 'allowed to open' any book in his library." The last error, if not so entirely inconsistent with intelligent reading of the book as the first and second, is scarcely less strange to me. For, in the first place, the identification of the personages in the framework of the _Heptameron_ depends upon the merest and, as it seems to me, the idlest conjecture; and, in the second, the interest of the actual t.i.ttle-tattle, whether it could be fathered on A or B or not, is the least part of the interest of the book. Indeed, the stories altogether are, as I think, far less interesting than the framework.

Let us see, therefore, if we cannot treat the _Heptameron_ in a somewhat different fas.h.i.+on from that in which any previous critic, even Sainte-Beuve, has treated it. The divisions of such treatment are not very far to seek. In the first place, let us give some account of the works of the same cla.s.s which preceded and perhaps patterned it. In the second, let us give an account of the supposed author, of her other works, and of the probable character of her connection with this one. In the third, without attempting dry argument, let us give some sketch of the vital part, which we have called the framework, and some general characteristics of the stories. And, in the fourth and last, let us endeavour to disengage that peculiar tone, flavour, note, or whatever word may be preferred, which, as it seems to me at least, at once distinguishes the _Heptameron_ from other books of the kind, and renders it peculiarly attractive to those whose temperament and taste predisposes them to be attracted. For there is a great deal of pre-established harmony in literature and literary tastes; and I have a kind of idea that every man has his library marked out for him when he comes into the world, and has then only got to get the books and read them.

Margaret herself refers openly enough to the example of the _Decameron_, which had been translated by her own secretary, Anthony le Macon, a member of her literary coterie, and not improbably connected with the writing or redacting of the _Heptameron_ itself. Nor were later Italian tale-tellers likely to be without influence at a time when French was being "Italianated" in every possible way, to the great disgust of some Frenchmen. But the Italian ancestors or patterns need not be dealt with here, and can be discovered with ease and pleasure by any one who wishes in the drier pages of Dunlop, or in the more flowery and starry pages of Mr. Symonds' "History of the Renaissance in Italy." The next few pages will deal only with the French tale-tellers, whose productions before Margaret's days were, if not very numerous, far from uninteresting, and whose influence on the slight difference of _genre_ which distinguishes the tales before us from Italian tales was by no means slight.

In France, as everywhere else, prose fiction, like prose of all kinds, was considerably later in production than verse, and short tales of the kind before us were especially postponed by the number, excellence, and popularity of the verse _fabliaux_. Of these, large numbers have come down to us, and they exactly correspond in verse to the tales of the _Decameron_ and the _Heptameron_ in prose, except that the satirical motive is even more strongly marked, and that touches of romantic sentiment are rarer. This element of romance, however, appears abundantly in the long prose versions of the Arthurian and other legends, and we have a certain number of short prose stories of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, of which the most famous is that of _Auca.s.sin et Nicolette_. These latter, however, are rather short romances than distinct prose tales of our kind. Of that kind the first famous book in French, and the only famous book, besides the one before us, is the _Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles_. The authors.h.i.+p of this book is very uncertain. It purports to be a collection of stories told by different persons of the society of Louis XI., when he was but Dauphin, and was in exile in Flanders under the protection of the Duke of Burgundy. But it has of late years been very generally a.s.signed (though on rather slender grounds of probability, and none of positive evidence), to Anthony de la Salle, the best French prose writer of the fifteenth century, except Comines, and one on whom, with an odd unanimity, conjectural criticism has bestowed, besides his acknowledged romance of late chivalrous society, _Pet.i.t Jehan de Saintre_ (a work which itself has some affinities with the cla.s.s of story before us), not only the _Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles_, but the famous satirical treatise of the _Quinze Joyes du Mariage_, and the still more famous farce of _Pathelin_. Some of the _Nouvelles_, moreover, have been putatively fathered on Louis XI. himself, in which case the royal house of France would boast of two distinguished taletellers instead of one. However this may be, they all display the somewhat hard and grim but keen and practical humour which seems to have distinguished that prince, which was a characteristic of French thought and temper at the time, and which perhaps arose with the misfortunes and hards.h.i.+ps of the Hundred Years'

War. The stories are decidedly amusing, with a considerably greater, though also a much ruder, _vis comica_ than that of the _Heptameron_; and they are told in a style unadorned indeed, and somewhat dry, lacking the simplicity of the older French, and not yet attaining to the graces of the newer, but forcible, distinct, and sculpturesque, if not picturesque. A great license of subject and language, and an enjoyment of practical jokes of the roughest, not to say the most cruel character, prevail throughout, and there is hardly a touch of anything like romance; the tales alternating between jests as broad as those of the Reeve's and Miller's tales in Chaucer (themselves exactly corresponding to verse _fabliaux_, of which the _Cent Nouvelles_ are exact prose counterparts, and perhaps prose versions), and examples of what has been called "the humour of the stick," which sometimes trenches hard upon the humour of the gallows and the torture-chamber. These characteristics have made the _Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles_ no great favourites of late, but their unpopularity is somewhat undeserved. For all their coa.r.s.eness, there is much genuine comedy in them, and if the prettiness of romantic and literary dressing-up is absent from them, so likewise is the insincerity thereof. They make one of the most considerable prose books of what may be called middle French literature, and they had much influence on the books that followed, especially on this of Margaret's.

Indeed, one of the few examples to be found between the two, the _Grand Paragon de Nouvelles Nouvelles_ of Nicolas de Troyes (1535), obviously takes them for model. But Nicolas was a dull dog, and neither profited by his model nor gave any one else opportunity to profit by himself.

Rabelais, the first book of whose _Pantagruel_ antic.i.p.ated the _Paragon_ by three years, while the _Gargantua_ coincided with it, was a great authority at the Court of Margaret's brother Francis, dedicated one of the books (the third) of _Pantagruel_ to her, before her death, in high-flown language, as _esprit abstrait, ravy et ecstatic_, and must certainly have been familiar reading of hers, and of all the ladies and gentlemen, literary and fas.h.i.+onable, of her Court. But there is little resemblance to be found in his style and hers. The short stories which Master Francis scatters about his longer work are, indeed, models of narration, but his whole tone of thought and manner of treatment are altogether alien from those of the "ravished spirit" whom he praises. His deliberate coa.r.s.eness is not more different from her deliberate delicacy than his intensely practical spirit from her high-flown romanticism (which makes one think of, and may have suggested, the Court of La Quinte), and her mixture of devout and amatory quodlibetation from his cynical criticism and all-dissolving irony. But there was a contemporary of Rabelais who forms a kind of link between him and Margaret, whose work in part is very like the _Heptameron_, and who has been thought to have had more than a hand in it. This was Bonaventure Desperiers, a man whose history is as obscure as his works are interesting. Born in or about the year 1500, he committed suicide in 1544, either during a fit of insanity, or, as has been thought more likely, in order to escape the danger of the persecution which, in the last years of the reign of Francis, threatened the unorthodox, and which Margaret, who had more than once warded it off from them, was then powerless to avert.

Desperiers, to speak truth, was in far more danger of the stake than most of his friends. The infidelity of Rabelais is a matter of inference only, and some critics (among whom the present writer ranks himself) see in his daring ridicule of existing abuses nothing inconsistent with a perfectly sound, if liberally conditioned, orthodoxy. Desperiers, like Rabelais, was a Lucianist, but his modernising of Lucian (the remarkable book called _Cymbalum Mund_), though pretending to deal with ancient mythology, has an almost unmistakable reference to revealed religion.

It is not, however, by this work or by this side of his character at all that Desperiers is brought into connection with the work of Margaret, who, if learned and liberal, and sometimes tending to the new ideas in religion, was always devout and always orthodox in fundamentals. Besides the _Cymbalum Mundi_, he has left a curious book, not published, like the _Heptameron_ itself, till long after his own death, and ent.i.tled _Nouvelles Recreations et Joyeux Devis_. The tales of which it consists are for the most part very short, some being rather sketches or outlines of tales than actually worked-out stories, so that, although there are no less than a hundred and twenty-nine of them, the whole book is probably not half the bulk of the _Heptameron_ itself. But they are extremely well written, and the specially interesting thing about them is, that in them there appears, and appears for the first time (unless we take the _Heptameron_ itself as earlier, which is contrary to all probability), the singular and, at any rate to some persons, very attractive mixture of sentiment and satire, of learning and a love of refined society, of joint devotion to heavenly and earthly love, of voluptuous enjoyment of the present, blended and shadowed with a sense of the night that cometh, which delights us in the prose of the _Heptameron_, and in the verse not only of all the Pleiade poets in France, but of Spenser, Donne, and some of their followers in England.

The scale of the stories, which are sometimes mere anecdotes, is so small, the room for miscellaneous discourse in them is so scanty, and the absence of any connecting links, such as those of Margaret's own plan, checks the expression of personal feeling so much, that it is only occasionally that this cast of thought can be perceived. But it is there, and its presence is an important element in determining the question of the exact authors.h.i.+p of the _Heptameron_ itself.

It can hardly be said that, except translations from the Italian (of which the close intercourse between France and Italy in the days of the later Valois produced many), Margaret had many other examples before her. For such a book as the _Propos Rustiques_ of Noel du Fail, though published before her death, is not likely to have exercised any influence over her; and most other books of the kind are later than her own. One such (for, despite its _bizarre_ t.i.tle and its distinct intention of attacking the Roman Church, Henry Estienne's _Apologie pour Herodote_ is really a collection of stories) deserves mention, not because of its influence upon the Queen of Navarre, but because of the Queen of Navarre's influence upon it. Estienne is constantly quoting the _Heptameron_, and though to a certain extent the inveteracy with which the friars are attacked here must have given the book a special attraction for him, two things may be gathered from his quotations and attributions. The first is that the book was a very popular one; the second, that there was no doubt among well-informed persons, of whom and in whose company Estienne most certainly was, that the _Heptameron_ was in more than name the work of its supposed author.

From what went before it Margaret could, and could not, borrow certain well-defined things. Models both Italian and French gave her the scheme of including a large number of short and curtly, but not skimpingly, told stories in one general framework, and of subdividing them into groups dealing more or less with the same subject or cla.s.s of subject.

She had also in her predecessors the example of drawing largely on that perennial and somewhat facile source of laughter--the putting together of incidents and phrases which even by those who laugh at them are regarded as indecorous. But of this expedient she availed herself rather less than any of her forerunners. She had further the example of a generally satirical intent; but here, too, she was not content merely to follow, and her satire is, for the most part, limited to the corruptions and abuses of the monastic orders. It can hardly be said that any of the other stock subjects, lawyers, doctors, citizens, even husbands (for she is less satirical on marriage than encomiastic of love), are dealt with much by her. She found also in some, but chiefly in older books of the Chartier and still earlier traditions, and rather in Italian than in French, a certain strain of romance proper and of adventure; but of this also she availed herself but rarely. What she did not find in any example (unless, and then but partially, in the example of her own servant, Bonaventure Des-periers) was first the interweaving of a great deal not merely of formal religious exercise, but of positive religious devotion in her work; and secondly, the infusing into it of the peculiar Renaissance contrast, so often to be noticed, of love and death, pa.s.sion and piety, voluptuous enjoyment and sombre antic.i.p.ation.

But it is now time to say a little more about the personality and work of this lady, whose name all this time we have been using freely, and who was indeed a very notable person quite independently of her literary work. Nor was she in literature by any means an unnotable one, quite independently of the collection of unfinished stories, which, after receiving at its first posthumous publication the not particularly appropriate t.i.tle of _Les Amants Fortunes_, was more fortunately re-named, albeit by something of a bull (for there is the beginning of an eighth day as well as the full complement of the seven), the _Heptameron_.

Few ladies have been known in history by more and more confusing t.i.tles than the author of the _Heptameron_, the confusion arising partly from the fact that she had a niece and a great-niece of the same charming Christian name as herself. The second Margaret de Valois (the most appropriate name of all three, as it was theirs by family right) was the daughter of Francis I., the patroness of Ronsard, and, somewhat late in life, the wife of the Duke of Savoy--a marriage which, as the bride carried with her a dowry of territory, was not popular, and brought some coa.r.s.e jests on her. Not much is said of her personal appearance after her infancy; but she inherited her aunt's literary tastes, if not her literary powers, and gave Ronsard powerful support in his early days.

The third was the daughter of Henry II., the "Grosse Margot" of her brother, Henry III., the "Reine Margot" of Dumas' novel, the idol of Brantome, the first wife of Henry IV., the beloved of Guise, La Mole, and a long succession of gallants, the rival of her sister-in-law Mary Stuart, not in misfortunes, but as the most beautiful, gracious, learned, accomplished, and amiable of the ladies of her time. This Margaret would have been an almost perfect heroine of romance (for she had every good quality except chast.i.ty), if she had not unluckily lived rather too long.

Her great-aunt, our present subject, was not the equal of her great-niece in beauty, her portraits being rendered uncomely by a portentously long nose, longer even than Mrs. Siddons's, and by a very curious expression of the eyes, going near to slyness. But the face is one which can be imagined as much more beautiful than it seems in the not very attractive portraiture of the time, and her actual attractions are attested by her contemporaries with something more than the homage-to-order which literary men have never failed to pay to ladies who are patronesses of letters. Besides Margaret of Valois, she is known as Margaret of Angouleme, from her place of birth and her father's t.i.tle; Margaret of Alencon, from the fief of her first husband; Margaret of Navarre, of which country, like her grand-niece, she was queen, by her second marriage with Henry d'Albret; and even Margaret of Orleans, as belonging to the Orleans branch of the royal house. She was not, like her nieces, Margaret of France, as her father never reigned, and Brantome properly denies her the t.i.tle, but others sometimes give it.

When it is necessary to call her anything besides the simple "Margaret,"

Angouleme is at once the most appropriate and the most distinctive designation. She was born on the 11th or 12th of April 1492, her father being Charles, Count of Angouleme, and her mother Louise of Savoy. She was their eldest child, and two years older than her brother, the future King Francis. According to, and even in excess of, the custom of the age, she received a very learned education, acquiring not merely the three tongues, French, Italian, and Spanish, which were all in common use at the French Court during her time, but Latin, and even a little Greek and a little Hebrew. She lived in the provinces both before and after her marriage, in 1509, to her relation, Charles, Duke of Alencon, who was older than herself by three years, and though a fair soldier and an inoffensive person, was apparently of little talents and not particularly amiable. The accession of her brother to the throne opened a much more brilliant career to her. She and her mother jointly exercised great influence over Francis; and the d.u.c.h.ess of Alencon, to whom her brother shortly afterwards gave Berry, was for many years one of the most influential persons in the kingdom, using her influence almost invariably for good. Her husband died soon after Pavia, and in the same year (September 1525) she undertook a journey to Spain on behalf of her captive brother. This journey, with some expressions in her letters and in Brantome, has been wrested by some critics in order to prove that her affection for Francis was warmer than it ought to have been--an imputation wanton in both senses of the word.

She was sought in marriage by or offered in marriage to divers distinguished persons during her widowhood, and this was also the time of her princ.i.p.al diplomatic exercise, an office for which--odd as it now seems for a woman--she had, like her mother, like her niece Catherine of Medicis, like her namesake Margaret of Parma, and like other ladies of the age, a very considerable apt.i.tude and reputation. When she at last married, the match was not a brilliant one, though it proved, contrary to immediate probability, to be the source of the last and the most glorious branch of the royal dynasty of France. The bridegroom bore indeed the t.i.tle of King of Navarre and possessed Beam, but his kingdom had long been in Spanish hands, and but for his wife's dowry of Alencon and appanage of Berry (to which Francis had added Armagnac and a large pension) he would have been but a lackland. Furthermore, he was eleven years younger than herself, and it is at least insinuated that the affection, if there was any, was chiefly on her side. At any rate, this earlier Henry of Navarre seems to have had not a few of the characteristics of his grandson, together with a violence and brutality which, to do the _Vert Galant_ justice, formed no part of his character.

The only son of the marriage died young, and a girl, Jane d'Albret, mother of the great Bourbon race of the next two centuries, was taken away from her parents by "reasons of state" for a time. The domestic life of Margaret, however, concerns us but little, except in one way. Her husband disliked administration, and she was the princ.i.p.al ruler in their rather extensive estates or dominions. Moreover, she was able at her quasi-Court to extend the literary coteries which she had already begun to form at Paris. The patronage to men of letters for which her brother is famous was certainly more due to her than to himself; and to her also was due the partial toleration of religious liberty which for a time distinguished his reign. It was not till her influence was weakened that intolerance prevailed, and she was able even then for a time to save Marot and other distinguished persons from persecution. It is rather a moot-point how far she inclined to the Reformed doctrines, properly so called. Her letters, her serious and poetical work, and even the _Heptameron_ itself, show a fervently pietistic spirit, and occasionally seem to testify to a distinct inclination towards Protestantism, which is also positively attested by Brantome and others; but this Protestantism must have been, so far as it was consistent and definite at all, the Protestantism of Erasmus rather than of Luther, of Rabelais rather than of Calvin. She had a very strong objection to the coa.r.s.eness, the vices, the idleness, the brutish ignorance of the cloister; she had aspirations after a more spiritual form of religion than the ordinary Catholicism of her day provided, and as a strong politician she may have had something of that Gallicanism which has always been well marked in some of the best Frenchmen, and which at one time nearly prevailed with her great-great-grandson, Louis XIV.

But there is no doubt that, as her brother said to the fanatical Montmorency, she would always have been and always was of his religion, the religion of the State. The side of the Reformation which must have most appealed to her was neither its austere morals, nor its bare ritual, nor its doctrines, properly so called, but its spiritual pietism and its connection with profane learning and letters; for of literature Margaret was an ardent devotee and a constant pract.i.tioner.

Her best days were done by the time of her second marriage. After the King's return from Spain persecution broke out, and Margaret's influence became more and more weak to stop it. As early as 1533 her own _Miroir de l'Ame Pecheresse_, then in a second edition, provoked the fanaticism of the Sorbonne, and the King had to interfere in person to protect his sister's work and herself from gross insult. The Medici marriage increased the persecuting tendency, and for a time there was even an attempt to suppress printing, and with it all that new literature which was the Queen's delight. She was herself in some danger, but Francis had not sunk so low as to permit any actual attack to be made on her. Yet all the last years of her life were unhappy, though she continued to keep Court at Nerac in Pau, to accompany her brother in his progresses, and, as we know from doc.u.ments, to play Lady Bountiful over a wide area of France. Her husband appears to have been rather at variance with her; and her daughter, who married first, and in name only, the Duke of Cleves in 1540, and later (1548) Anthony de Bourbon, was also not on cordial terms with her mother. By the date of this second marriage Francis was dead, and though he had for many years been anything but wholly kind, Margaret's good days were now in truth done. Her nephew Henry left her in possession of her revenues, but does not seem to have been very affectionately disposed towards her; and even had she been inclined to attempt any recovery of influence, his wife and his mistress, Catherine de Medici and Diana of Poitiers, two women as different from Margaret as they were from one another, would certainly have prevented her from obtaining it. As a matter of fact, however, she had long been in ill-health, and her brother's death seems to have dealt her the final stroke. She survived it two years, even as she had been born two years before him, and died on the 21 st December 1549, at the Castle of Odos, near Tarbes, having lived in almost complete retirement for a considerable time. Her husband is said to have regretted her dead more than he loved her living, and her literary admirers, such of them as death and exile had spared, were not ungrateful. _Tombeaux_, or collections of funeral verses, were not lacking, the first being in Latin, and, oddly enough, nominally by three English sisters, Anne, Margaret, and Jane Seymour, nieces of Henry VIII.'s queen and Edward VI.'s mother, with learned persons like Dorat, Sainte-Marthe, and Baf.

This was re-issued in French and in a fuller form later.

Some reference has been made to an atrocious slur cast without a shred of evidence on her moral character. There is as little foundation for more general though milder charges of laxity. It is admitted that she had little love for her first husband, and it seems to be probable that her second had not much love for her. She was certainly addressed in gallant strains by men of letters, the most audacious being Clement Marot; but the almost universal reference of the well-known and delightful lines beginning--

"Un doux nenny avec un doux sourire,"

to her method of dealing not merely with this lover but with others, argues a general confidence in her being a virtuous coquette, if somewhat coquettishly virtuous. It may be added that the whole tone of the _Heptameron_ points to a very similar conclusion.

Her literary work was very considerable, and it falls under three divisions: letters, the book before us, and the very curious and interesting collection of poems known by the charming if fantastic t.i.tle of _Les Marguerites de la Marguerite des Princesses_, a play on the meanings, daisy, pearl, and Margaret, which had been popular in the artificial school of French poetry since the end of the thirteenth century in a vast number of forms.

The letters are naturally of the very first importance for determining the character of Margaret's life as a woman of business, a diplomatist, and so forth. They show her to us in all these capacities, and also in that of an enlightened and always ready patroness of letters and of men of letters. Further, they are of value, though their value is somewhat affected by a reservation to be made immediately, as to her mental and moral characteristics. But they are not of literary interest at all equal to that of either of the other divisions. They are, if not spoilt, still not improved, by the fact that the art of easy letter-writing, in which Frenchwomen of the next century were to show themselves such proficients, had not yet been developed, and that most of them are couched in a heavy, laborious, semiofficial style, which smells, as far as mere style goes, of the c.u.mbrous refinements of the _rhetoriqueurs_, in whose flouris.h.i.+ng time Margaret herself grew up, and which conceals the writer's sentiments under elaborate forms of ceremonial courtesy.

Something at least of the groundless scandal before referred to is derived in all probability, if not in all certainty, from the lavish use of hyperbole in addressing her brother; and generally speaking, the rebuke of the Queen to Polonius, "More matter with less art," is applicable to the whole correspondence.

Something of the same evil influence is shown in the Marguerites. It must be remembered that the writer died before the Pleiade movement had been fully started, and that she was older by five years than Marot, the only one of her own contemporaries and her own literary circle who attained to a poetic style easier, freer, and more genuine than the c.u.mbrous rhetoric, partly derived from the allegorising style of the _Roman de la Rose_ and its followers, partly influenced by corrupt following of the re-discovered and scarcely yet understood cla.s.sics, partly alloyed with Flemish and German and Spanish stiffness, of which Chastellain, Cretin, and the rest have been the frequently quoted and the rarely read exponents to students of French literature. The contents of the _Marguerites_, to take the order of the beautiful edition of M. Felix Frank, are as follows: Volume I. contains first a long and singular religious poem ent.i.tled _Le Miroir de l'Ame Pecheresse_, in rhymed decasyllables, in which pretty literal paraphrases of a large number of pa.s.sages of Scripture are strung together with a certain amount of pious comment and reflection. This is followed (after a shorter piece on the contest in the human soul between the laws of the spirit and of the flesh) by another poem of about the same length as the _Miroir_, and of no very different character, ent.i.tled _Oraison de L'Ame Fidele a son Seigneur Dieu_, and a shorter _Oraison a Notre Seigneur Jesus Christ_ completes the volume. The second volume yields four so-called "comedies," but really mysteries on the old mediaeval model, only distinguishable from their forerunners by slightly more modern language and a more scriptural tone. The subjects are the Nativity, the Adoration of the Three Kings, the Ma.s.sacre of the Innocents, and the Flight into Egypt. The third volume contains a third poem in the style of the _Miroir_, but much superior, _Le Triomphe de l'Agneau_, a considerable body of spiritual songs, a miscellaneous poem or two, and some epistles, chiefly addressed to Francis. These last begin the smaller and secular division of the _Marguerites_, which is completed in the fourth volume by _Les Quatre Dames et les Quatre Gentilhommes_, composed of long monologues after the fas.h.i.+on of the Froissart-Chartier school, by a "_comedie profane_," a farce ent.i.tled _Trop, Prou [much], Peu, Moins_; a long love poem, again in the Chartier style, ent.i.tled _La Coche_, and some minor pieces.

Opinion as to these poems has varied somewhat, but their merit has never been put very high, nor, to tell the truth, could it be put high by any one who speaks critically. In the first place, they are written for the most part on very bad models, both in general plan and in particular style and expression. The plan is, as has been said, taken from the long-winded allegorical erotic poetry of the very late thirteenth, the fourteenth, and the fifteenth centuries--poetry which is now among the most difficult to read in any literature. The groundwork or canvas being transferred from love to religion, it gains a little in freshness and directness of purpose, but hardly in general readableness. Thus, for instance, two whole pages of the _Miroir_, or some forty or fifty lines, are taken up with endless playings on the words _mort_ and _vie_ and their derivatives, such as _mortifiez, and mort fiez, mort vivifiee and vie mourante_. The sacred comedies or mysteries have the tediousness and lack of action of the older pieces of the same kind without their _navete_; and pretty much the same may be said of the profane comedy (which is a kind of morality), and of the farce. Of _La Coche_, what has been said of the long sacred poems may be said, except that here we go back to the actual subject of the models, not on the whole with advantage: while in the minor pieces the same word plays and frigid conceits are observable.

But if this somewhat severe judgment must be pa.s.sed on the poems as wholes, and from a certain point of view, it may be considerably softened when they are considered more in detail. In not a few pa.s.sages of the religious poems Margaret has reached (and as she had no examples before her except Marot's psalms, which were themselves later than at least some of her work, may be said to have antic.i.p.ated) that grave and solemn harmony of the French Huguenots of the sixteenth century, which in Du Bartas, in Agrippa d'Aubigne, and in pa.s.sages of the tragedian Montchrestien, strikes notes hardly touched elsewhere in French literature. The _Triomphe de l'Agneau_ displays her at her best in this respect, and not unfrequently comes not too far off from the apocalyptic resonance of d'Aubigne himself. Again, the _Bergerie_ included in the Nativity comedy or mystery, though something of a Dresden _Bergerie_ (to use a later image), is graceful and elegant enough in all conscience.

But it is on the minor poems, especially the Epistles and the _Chansons Spirituelles_, that the defenders of Margaret's claim to be a poet rest most strongly. In the former her love, not merely for her brother, but for her husband, appears unmistakably, and suggests graceful thoughts.

In the latter the force and fire which occasionally break through the stiff wrappings of the longer poems appear with less difficulty and in fuller measure.

It is, however, undoubtedly curious, and not to be explained merely by the difference of subject, that the styles of the letters and of the poems, agreeing well enough between themselves, differ most remarkably from that of the _Heptameron_. The two former are decidedly open to the charges of pedantry, artificiality, heaviness. There is a great surplusage of words and a seeming inability to get to the point. The _Heptameron_ if not equal in narrative vigour and lightness to Boccaccio before and La Fontaine afterwards, is not in the least exposed to the charge of clumsiness of any kind, employs a simple, natural, and sufficiently picturesque vocabulary, avoids all verbiage and roundabout writing, and both in the narratives and in the connecting conversation displays a very considerable advance upon nearly all the writers of the time, except Rabelais, Marot, and Desperiers, in easy command of the vernacular. It is, therefore, not wonderful that there has, at different times (rather less of late years, but that is probably an accident), been a disposition if not to take away from Margaret all the credit of the book, at any rate to give a share of it to others. In so far as this share is attempted to be bestowed on ladies and gentlemen of her Court or family there is very little evidence for it; but in so far as the pen may be thought to have been sometimes held for her by the distinguished men of letters just referred to (there is no reason why Master Francis himself should not have sometimes guided it), and by others only less distinguished, there is considerable internal reason to favour the idea.

At all times and in all places--in France perhaps more than anywhere else--kings and queens, lords and ladies, have found no difficulty (we need not use the harsh Voltairian-Carlylian phrase, and say in getting their literary work "buckwashed," but) in getting it pointed and seasoned, trimmed and ornamented by professional men of letters. The form of the _Heptameron_ lends itself more than any other to such a.s.sistance; and while I should imagine that the setting, with its strong colour, both of religiosity and amorousness, is almost wholly Margaret's work, I should also think it so likely as to be nearly certain that in some at least of the tales the hands of the authors of the _Cymbalum Mundi_ and the _Adolescence Clementine_, of Le Macon and Brodeau, may have worked at the devising, very likely re-shaped and adjusted by the Queen herself, of the actual stories as we have them now.

The book, as we have it, consists of seven complete days of ten novels each, and of an eighth containing two novels only. The fict.i.tious scheme of the setting is somewhat less lugubrious than that of the _Decameron_, but still not without an element of tragedy. On the first of September, "when the hot springs of the Pyrenees begin to enter upon their virtue,"

a company of persons of quality a.s.sembled at Cauterets, we are told, and abode there three weeks with much profit. But when they tried to return, rain set in with such severity that they thought the Deluge had come again, and they found their roads, especially that to the French side, almost entirely barred by the Gave de Bearn and other rivers. So they scattered in different directions, most of them taking the Spanish side, either along the mountains and across to Roussillon or straight to Barcelona, and thence home by sea. But a certain widow, named Oisille, made her way with much loss of men and horses to the Abbey of Notre Dame de Serrance. Here she was joined by divers gentlemen and ladies, who had had even worse experiences of travel than herself, with bears and brigands, and other evil things, so that one of them, Longarine, had lost her husband, murdered in an affray in one of the cut-throat inns always dear to romance. Besides this disconsolate person and Oisille, the company consisted of a married pair, Hircan and Parlamente; two young cavaliers, Dagoucin and Saffredent; two young ladies, Nomerfide and Ennasuite; Simontault, a cavalier-servant of Parlamente; and Geburon, a knight older and discreeter than the rest of the company except Oisille.(1)

1 These names have been accommodated to M. Le Roux de Lincy's orthography, from MS. No. 1512; but for myself I prefer the spellings, especially "Emarsuitte," more usual in the printed editions.--G. S.

These form the party, and it is to be noted that idle and contradictory as all the attempts made to identify them have been (for instance, the most confident interpreters hesitate between Oisille and Parlamente, an aged widow and a youthful wife, for Margaret herself), it is not to be denied that the various parts are kept up with much decision and spirit.

Of the men, indeed, Hircan is the only one who has a very decided character, and is represented as fond of his wife, Parlamente, but a decided libertine and of a somewhat rough and ruthless general character--points which have made the interpreters sure that he must be Henry d'Albret. The others, except that Geburon is, as had been said, older than his companions, and that Simontault sighs vainly after Parlamente, are merely walking gentlemen of the time, accomplished enough, but not individual. The women are much more distinct and show a woman's hand. Oisille is, as our own seventeenth-century ancestors would have said, ancient and sober, very devout, regarded with great respect by the rest of the company, and accepted as a kind of mistress both of the revels and of more serious matters, but still a woman of the world, and content to make only an occasional and mild protest against tolerably free stories and sentiments. Parlamente, considerably younger, and though virtuous, not by any means ignorant of or wholly averse to the devotion of Simontault, indulging occasionally in a kind of mild conjugal sparring with her husband, Hircan, but apparently devoted to him, full of religion and romance and refinement at once, is a very charming character, resembling Madame de Sevigne as she may have been in her unknown or hardly known youth, when husband and lovers alike were attracted by the flame of her beauty and charm, only to complain that it froze and did not burn. Longarine is discreetly unhappy for her dead husband, but appears decidedly consolable; Ennasuite is a haughty damsel, disdainful of poor folk, and Nomerfide is a pure madcap, a Catherine Seyton of the generation before Catherine herself, the feminine Dioneo of the party, and, if a little too free-spoken for prudish modern taste, a very delightful girl.

Now when this good company had a.s.sembled at Serrance and told each other their misadventures, the waters on inquiry seemed to be out more widely and more dangerously than before, so that it was impossible to think of going farther for the time. They deliberated accordingly how they should employ themselves, and, after allowing, on the proposal of Oisille, an ample s.p.a.ce for sacred exercises, they resolved that every day, after dinner and an interval, they should a.s.semble in a meadow on the bank of the Gave at midday and tell stories. The device is carried out with such success that the monks steal behind the hedges to hear them, and an occasional postponement of vespers takes place. Simontault begins, and the system of tale-telling goes round on the usual plan of each speaker naming him or her who shall follow. It should be observed that no general subject is, as in the _Decameron_, prescribed to the speakers of each day, though, as a matter of course, one subject often suggests another of not dissimilar kind. Nor is there the Decameronic arrangement of the "king." Between the stories, and also between the days, there is often a good deal of conversation, in which the divers characters, as given above, are carried out with a minuteness very different from the chief Italian original.