Towards A New Reading of the Political Thought of the Dévot Faction: The Opposition to Cardinal Richelieu’s Ministériat

Caroline Maillet-Rao

doi:10.3390/rel4040529

Abstract

For a long time, historiography has considered the political thought of the dévot party, led by Mathieu de Morgues and Michel de Marillac, to be supportive of a traditional monarchy, Catholicism and the extermination of Protestants, while being opposed to the Thirty Years War. This faction’s political thought has been looked upon as being in contrast to that of Cardinal Richelieu, which was comparatively regarded as profoundly absolutist and modern. Such an understanding of the dévots’ political thought, albeit disputed, continues to prevail. The present article intends to demonstrate that the dévots were in fact on the side of the absolutists, which explains their opposition to Richelieu. Indeed, they never criticized absolutism, but rather, the illegitimate leadership of the government by an all-powerful premier ministre, namely, Richelieu. According to the dévots, the ministériat actually betrayed the very essence of absolute monarchy. Before proposing a new perspective on its political thought, it is important to reflect upon the definition of the dévot party. This will be followed by an overview of the lives and work of the principal representatives of this faction, Mathieu de Morgues (1582–1670) and Michel de Marillac (1560–1632). An examination of the historiography on this subject enables this article’s conclusions to be situated in a broader context.

Highlights

The political thought of the dévots is the subject of new interpretations that do not, necessarily, invalidate those that predate them, to the extent that today, it is nearly impossible to determine whetherReligions 2013, 4 the dévots are to be viewed as bons français or bons catholiques
The most recent works pertaining to the dévots made much of the idea that when it came to foreign policy concerns, Marillac was opposed to any war with Spain and the House of Austria, as his intent was to defend the interests of Catholicism to the detriment of those of the State ([2], pp. 1–24; [10], pp. 49–69)
Before detailing this study’s view of the dévots’ political thought, it is worth reflecting upon a definition of the dévots; this will be followed by an examination of the life and work of those who clearly appear as the representatives of the dévot party: Mathieu de Morgues and Michel de Marillac

Summary

Introduction

The political thought of the dévots is the subject of new interpretations that do not, necessarily, invalidate those that predate them, to the extent that today, it is nearly impossible to determine whether. Marillac’s absolutism illustrate that the differences between the political thought of the dévots and that of Richelieu were not nearly as radical as the relevant historiography has made them out to be. These studies have insisted on the points of convergence between the two parties. Before detailing this study’s view of the dévots’ political thought, it is worth reflecting upon a definition of the dévots; this will be followed by an examination of the life and work of those who clearly appear as the representatives of the dévot party: Mathieu de Morgues and Michel de Marillac. This, in turn, will be followed by an analysis of the historiographies in order to contextualize any conclusions

The Dévot Party Represented by Mathieu de Morgues and Michel de Marillac

The Historiographical Point of View on the Political Thought of the Dévots

A New Vision of the Political Thought of the Dévots

Conclusions

Conflicts of Interest