Th. doct.--Montpellier--Université de Montpellier III, 2000. / Bibliogr. p. 608-654. Index.

Proefschrift - Leiden.

This dissertation explores the relationship between faith and family, specifically French noble families in the sixteenth century and their members' decisions to remain in a community of faith or to join another. The nobility's relationship with religious pluralism is examined by focusing upon a great French noble family that was divided along confessional lines. The Mornay boasted a membership that included the Huguenot counselor, negotiator, and polemicist Philippe Duplessis-Mornay (1549-1623) as well as multiple Catholic bishops; their extended network included several notable Catholic and Huguenot families. The rich collection of sources from the their kin and patronage networks is used as a lens with which the processes and mechanisms of religious selection and perseverance are viewed. Throughout the Middle Ages, family members cooperated in order to advance their fortunes. In the sixteenth century, however, religious division jeopardized this cooperation and threatened their success. Most members remained Catholic but enough converted so that the family was rendered spiritually bifurcated at every level. Members converted for multiple reasons ranging from the religious to rank opportunism. Family did not preserve religious unity but rather facilitated division as members acted as advocates, exploited their relationships, and attempted to win relatives to their communities. When members converted, they formed distinct religious communities within the family. Members of each religious community followed traditional strategies that had brought the family success but they restricted these in order to benefit only members of their own spiritual group. Each community faced particular challenges and achieved different degrees of success. Members of each spiritual group occasionally breeched the divide the confessional divide and cooperated with one another. They did so on a limited basis but in various situations for numerous reasons. Members negotiated the Edict of Nantes and created a national platform for co-confessional existence that reflected their experiences in the family. Members of the different religious communities continued to compete and collaborate with one another for generations within the domain of history. Family facilitated spiritual division, but the social structures of kinship proved flexible enough to accommodate religious pluralism.

With the discourse analysis as framework, this study focuses on the ethos, the representation of the Other and the argumentation in the discourse of religious controversy of the protestant Philippe Duplessis-Mornay. The corpus, which consists of the prefaces of two editions of the Traité de l’eucharistie (1598 and 1604), was subject to a systematic survey of the personal pronouns je, nous, vous as well as references to Duplessis-Mornay’s direct opponents, in a diachronic perspective (the two editions have been compared). The analysis has shown the discursive strategies of Duplessis-Mornay, including a subtle management of the ethos and the relationship with the Other in order to convince the reader. The build-up of an ethos by an interposed author (frequent use of quotations), observed in the edition of 1598, has increased in that of 1604. This edition is also characterized by an ethos of justification which intends to invalidate an unfavourable prediscursive ethos resulting from adverse reactions to the first edition. The ethos of caritas and the authorial ethos are also very present in the discourse of the author in both editions. In his relation to the Other, Duplessis-Mornay uses a strategic approach, alternating nous inclusif and nous exclusif, and referring most often the notion of vous dans l’erreur to authors recognized by Catholics themselves, through quotations. Only direct opponents of the author are stigmatized by their representation in the third person. Duplessis-Mornay’s discourse, in both prefaces, is characterized by a diplomatic and persuasive attitude.

With the discourse analysis as framework, this study focuses on the ethos, the representation of the Other and the argumentation in the discourse of religious controversy of the protestant Philippe Duplessis-Mornay. The corpus, which consists of the prefaces of two editions of the Traité de l’eucharistie (1598 and 1604), was subject to a systematic survey of the personal pronouns je, nous, vous as well as references to Duplessis-Mornay’s direct opponents, in a diachronic perspective (the two editions have been compared). The analysis has shown the discursive strategies of Duplessis-Mornay, including a subtle management of the ethos and the relationship with the Other in order to convince the reader. The build-up of an ethos by an interposed author (frequent use of quotations), observed in the edition of 1598, has increased in that of 1604. This edition is also characterized by an ethos of justification which intends to invalidate an unfavourable prediscursive ethos resulting from adverse reactions to the first edition. The ethos of caritas and the authorial ethos are also very present in the discourse of the author in both editions. In his relation to the Other, Duplessis-Mornay uses a strategic approach, alternating nous inclusif and nous exclusif, and referring most often the notion of vous dans l’erreur to authors recognized by Catholics themselves, through quotations. Only direct opponents of the author are stigmatized by their representation in the third person. Duplessis-Mornay’s discourse, in both prefaces, is characterized by a diplomatic and persuasive attitude.

Scholars have become increasingly aware of the need to understand the religious context of early modern natural philosophy. Despite some great strides in relating certain areas of Christian doctrine to the study of the natural world, the category ‘natural theology’ has often been subject to anachronism and misunderstanding. The term itself is difficult to define; it is most fruitful to think of natural theology as the answer to the question, ‘what can be known about God and religion from the contemplation of the natural world?’ There have been several erroneous assumptions about natural theology – in particular that it only consisted of rational proofs for the existence of God, that it was ecumenical in outlook, and that it was defined as strictly separate from Scriptural revelation. These assumptions are shown to be uncharacteristic of the late-sixteenth and early-seventeenth century. The study of natural theology needs to be better integrated into three contexts – the doctrinal, confessional, and chronological. Doctrinally, natural theology does not stand alone but needs to be understood within the context of the theology of revelation, justification, and the effects of the Fall. These doctrines make such a material difference that scholars always ought to delineate clearly between the threefold state of man (original innocence, state of sin, state of grace) when approaching the topic of ‘natural’ knowledge of God. Confessionally, scholars need to recognise that the doctrine of natural theology received different treatments on either side of the sectarian divide. In Catholicism, for instance, there were considerable spiritual benefits of natural theology for the non-Christian, while in Protestantism its benefits were restricted to those saved Christians who possessed Scriptural insight. Chronologically, natural theology does not remain uniform throughout the history of Christian theology but, being subject to changes occasioned by philosophical and theological faddism and development, needs to be considered within a particular locus. Research here focuses on late sixteenth-century orthodoxy as defined in confessional and catechismal literature (which has been generally understudied), and demonstrates its application in a number of case-studies. This thesis begins the work of putting natural theology into these three contexts. An improved understanding of natural theology, with more rigorous and accurate terminology and better nuanced appreciation of confessional differences, makes for a better framework in which to consider the theological context of early modern natural philosophy.