Judging the French Reformation: Heresy Trials by Sixteenth-Century Parlements (review)

Judging the French Reformation: Heresy Trials by Sixteenth-Century Parlements. By William Monter. [Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. 1999. Pp. ix, 324. $49.95.]

William Monter's Judging the French Reformation thoroughly revises our understanding of the persecution of Protestants in sixteenth-century France. Monter shows that the traditional view that the repression of heresy in French courts increased in intensity as the Protestant movement grew and organized owes more to legend than to history. It is based on extrapolation from sixteenth-century Protestant martyrologies and not on systematic archival research. The reason that no one had previously tested the thesis became evident to Monter when he announced his ambition of seeking out the records of all of the heresy cases remaining in the archives of the French Parlements for the period between the first prosecutions in the 1520's and the outbreak of religious war in the 1560's. The task, he was told, was impossible. The eight to ten Parlements operating in this period had left too many records, and they were too poorly organized and too poorly catalogued for a single scholar to work through in a single lifetime. Happily, Monter proved the naysayers wrong. With his usual diligence, a gift for getting quickly to the heart of the matter, and a real talent for synthesis, he dove into the archives, recovered the relevant cases, and re-emerged with a powerfully convincing story--a story that turns the traditional view on its head.

The French courts did not steadily increase their repression of the Protestant heresy as the movement grew and organized with the arrival of Calvinist ministers from Geneva and the organization of clandestine churches. Rather the courts were, from the 1520's, eager to take the initiative for the repression of heresy through legal means. Their efforts, however, were met with impediments that were both technical--that is to say, ingrained in the cumbersome mechanics of the legal process--and political in nature. Even before Catherine de' Medici, serving as regent for her young son Charles IX, effectively decriminalized Protestant worship in late 1560, the ability of the courts successfully to prosecute Protestant believers for heresy had been seriously undermined. Indeed, the high point of judicial repression was actually reached during the last years of the reign of Francis I, and not under Henry II, as has usually been assumed. The infamous "Chambre ardente" introduced by Henry II "did not maintain existing levels of antiheretical activity at Paris, let alone increase them" (p. 116).

Monter has grounded his work in careful study of the French legal system, and his book usefully explains how the criminal-justice system worked, as well as explaining the limits of the system as a tool against heresy. Some readers may wish for more concrete explanations of the motivations of the judges, but Monter is surely wise in refraining from too much speculation here. Judicial decisions are both formulaic and terse; they seldom explain adequately the reasoning that went into them. In addition, the variety of viewpoints the judges brought to their decisions on the heresy cases makes generalizations risky. If many judges were committed Catholics eager to use the sword of royal justice for the defense of the faith, there were also Protestant sympathizers on many of the courts. This is a book that all historians interested in the interaction of politics and religion in early modern Europe will want to read.

Barbara B. Diefendorf
Boston University

...