Epistre envoyée de Venize à Madame la Duchesse de Ferrare
par Clement Marot
- Composition summer 1536,
- unpublished in the 16th
century,
- two manuscript versions
available.
Sources:
-
Recueil
Montmorency, 1538 (facsimile and transcription published by Fr. Rigolot,
Droz, 2010)
-
Ms. B.N. fonds
français 4967 (undated manuscript), first published in the 19th Century by
Guiffrey (vol. III); present in any edition afterwards, Mayer (vol I,
Epistres), Defaux (vol. II), Rigolot (vol. II).
-
Harvard - Houghton
library - Ms. 337 (acquired in 1981). A curious story surrounds this
manuscript : this manuscript was already transcribed by Ch. du Mont and
published by Herminjard in the 19th Century (Correspondance VI), then got
lost; it was bought by the Houghton library in 1981 but not properly
studied. In 2005 F. Rouget identified this MS as the lost manuscript and
published an article about its origin (Turin, the court of Marguerite de
Berry (Duchess of Savoye); she probably had met Marot in her childhood,
certainly cherished his memory, and definitely protected his tomb and
epitaph in the Turin Cathedral against demolition as long as she lived she;
see my article about Marot's tomb and epitaph).
The text is almost identical to Ms. 4967. The few differences suggest that
Ms. Harvard 337 might well a copy of the the original Epistle, sent to Renée
in Ferrara. In Ms. 4967 'coquilles' in the text are corrected and in one
case a superior reading is present (v. 40 Pieces de bois is
poetically less attractive than images peints, because of the close
connection with v. 43, where images vives are present in opposition).
Here you find a short introduction; the text of the two
different versions - juxtaposed - are on a
separate page (for layout reasons)
Introduction
This Epistle Marot sent to Renée, duchess of Ferrara, from
Venice (hence the title: envoyée de Venize). Mid 1536 Marot had
left Ferrara, in quite obscure circumstances, but probably because he was wanted
by the Inquisition. With the help of the French Ambassador of Venice, George de
Selve, he had fled Ferrara (overnight it seems, hiding in his escort), a narrow
escape. As already announced in the general introduction, the most intriguing
aspect of this epistle is that it is known in two versions, one with a quite
explicit attack on the corruption in/of the Church, and the other in which all
reminiscences to this evangelical attack are carefully removed,[1]
because the addressee was no longer Renée who sympathised with the Reformation,
but the new Constable of France, Anne De Montmorency, known for his rigorous
conservatism in religious matters. Both share a severe critique of the
materialism and low morals of the Venetians. This harangue as such was a topos,[2]
but in the longer version the root of the evil is not sought in epicurism, but
in the total depravation of the Church and its worship.
Adoration in ‘spirit and truth’ has been replaced by the
adoration of ‘images peinctz, qu’à grandez despens ilz dorent’ (v. 40) and this
happens at the expense of the ‘ymaiges vives’ (sc. human beings) which have to
live in poverty and are languishing away (vv. 43–4). The Church itself is
completely poisoned and populated only by ‘caphardz,’ except for a chosen
remnant of truly faithful (vv. 52–6). Joining the popular anti–papal brawl, the
apocalyptic image of the great whore of Babylon is evoked (vv. 57-66)[3]
:
|
O
Seigneur Dieu, faictz que le demourant
Ne voyse pas les pierres adorant!
C’est ung abus d’ydollastres sorty,
Entre
Chrestiens plusieurs foys amorty,
Et remys sus
tousjours par l’avarice
De la
paillarde et grande meretrice,
Avec qui ont
faict fornication
Les roys de
terre, & dont la potion
Du vin public
de son calice immonde
A si
longtemps enyvré tout le monde. |
O Lord God, make that what remains
should not witness stones being worshipped.
That is an abuse, originated by idolaters,
Several times abolished amongst Christians
But ever again restored by the avarice
Of that great lecherous whore
with whom have committed fornication
the kings of this earth, and of whom the potion
of public wine in her noisome cup
has so long intoxicated the entire world. |
Even if the level of this anti–papal sentiment had been
raised to reflect the sentiments of the addressee, Renée, who was harassed by
the Duke’s campaign against her French–speaking and Evangelical entourage, the
virtuoso way in which Marot plays the apocalyptic language register to defame
the Pope strongly suggests that Marot airs his own convictions as well. After a
long description of the wonders of the port of Venice present in both versions,
the two poems end on different lines (vv. 125–6). I am here juxtaposing
them, the Recueil version on the right:
Parquoy
clorray ma lettre mal aornée,
Te suppliant, Princesse deux foys née,
Te souvenir, tandis qu’icy me tien,
De cestuy là que retiras pour tien
Quand il
fuyoit la fureur serpentine
…la
fureur et les ruses
Des enemys de la belle Christine.[4]
Des enemys d’Apollo et des Muses.
The last lines refer to the reason of Marot’s flight to Ferrara, which in the
original version is linked to persecution by the enemies of the true Church,
personified as ‘la belle Christine,’ with the enemies linked to the source of
all evil, ‘la fureur serpentine’ (the snake’s fury). Even this veiled reference
to the religious background of his flight must have appeared to Marot as too
hazardous to maintain in the Recueil, so he changed it into a harmless
cultural one. In the epistle to Marguerite we again encounter similar and
similarly veiled references to the religious side of the matter, when metaphors
are used to refer to the sisterhood and brotherhood of the Evangelicals.[5]
I am convinced that the Recueil version is a later adaptation of the
original Epistle to Renée (two reasons 1. internal consistency and 2. it was
after all addressed to Renée first).
First I offer both texts in juxtaposition (as far as possible, since some
elements are moved and/or rephrased), that the reader may judge for himself.
Next to the parts they really have in common, I used colours and italics
to mark phrases that are unique to both versions or in which there is a
similarity. First I offer both texts in juxtaposition (as far as possible, since
some elements are moved and/or rephrased), that the reader may judge for
himself. I used colours and italics to mark phrases that are
unique to both versions or in which there is a similarity or
contrast. Sometimes the reader has to look a little further to discover that
lines or elements are inserted at a different place (orthographical differences
and minor differences not affecting meaning I leave aside) |
