michel de l’hôpital & christophe de thou a much-needed corrective to early modern history. Still, it does not deny that there were times when the relationship between the crown and the sovereign courts underwent a definite downturn. One may list the reign of Charles IX(1560–1574), the Frondeparlementaire (1648–1649) under Louis XIV, and the later years of Louis XV’s long reign (especially 1754– 1774). These were the phases that turned the monarchy more reluctant to entertain traditional constitutional arguments. The reign of Charles IX stood out. The unfolding religiouscrises, and the opposition the king faced from the courts in implementing pacification policy, convinced him that it was necessary to rein in judicial interpretation and command strict application of the laws.6 This article examines the tangled relationship between the crown and the Parlement of Paris in the 1560s and explores the shifting meaning of royal justice. It attempts to cut through the complex mesh of constitutional pretensions and political contentions by focusing on two prominent judicial officials of the time, Michel de L’Hôpital and Christophe de Thou.7 L’Hôpital (1505?–1573) was Chancellor of France from 1560 to 1568 under the reigns of Francis II and Charles IXand the regency of Catherine de Medici. De Thou (1508–1582) was Premier Président of the Parlement of Paris from 1562 to his death.8 L’Hôpital is best known in history for his advocacy of the provisional coexistence of different religions. De Thou was arguably the most stabilizing force in politics during the tumultuous period of civil war.9 The chancellor of France and the Premier Président of the Parlement of Paris were the two most important royal officials in early modern France. They publicly squared off and at the same time constantly conferred and negotiated.10 L’Hôpital and de Thou, both former members of the Parlement of Paris, shared many attributes and achievements. Both played a pivotal role in creating a rational and unified legal system: Chancellor L’Hôpi6 Barbiche, Bernard 1999, p.110. 7 See Kim, Seong-Hak 1997; Crouzet, Denis 1998; Rousselet-Pimont, Anne 2005. 8 See Filhol, René 1937; Kim, Marie Seong-Hak 2004 p. 91-102; Kim, Marie Seong-Hak 2007 p. 169-86; Daubresse, Sylvie 1998 p. 389-422. 9 See Roelker, Nancy Lyman 1996. 10 Olivier-Martin, François 1997 p. 319. 134
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=