The King’s Two Daughters: Isabelle of France and the University of Paris, Fille du Roy Daisy Delogu University of Chicago B orn in 1354 and 1363 respectively, products of the University of Paris and more particularly of the Collège de Navarre,1 the royal secretary and diplomat Jean de Montreuil and his contemporary Jean Gerson, chancellor of the University of Paris, emerged from the same intellectual and social milieu. They were both ardent defenders of the kingdom of France and the Valois dynasty, politically engaged public intellectuals who used their writings to meet the combined threats of external and civil war, to safeguard the authority of the king, and to shape and proclaim a distinctly French national identity. Montreuil and Gerson also situated themselves on the same side of the Armagnac-Bourguignon conflict that divided France in the years following the 1407 assassination of Louis d’Orléans. Indeed, Jean de Montreuil would be among those massacred during the Burgundian takeover of Paris in 1418, from which Jean Gerson, busy at the Council of Constance, was fortuitously absent. Although the nature of their textual production differs, Montreuil and Gerson both employ the language and categories of gender and sexuality, particularly as they relate to real and The present essay draws upon material that I develop further in my monograph in progress, provisionally entitled Allegorical Bodies: Power and Gender in Late Medieval France. I am grateful to the members of the University of Chicago working group on the premodern body for their attentive reading of previous versions of this essay and to the anonymous reader for the Republics of Letters for his or her useful suggestions. 1 On the importance of colleges within the University of Paris, see Jacques Verger, Les universités au Moyen Âge (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1973), 71–76. Delogu, Daisy. “The King’s Two Daughters: Isabelle of France and the University of Paris, Fille du Roy.” Republics of Letters: A Journal for the Study of Knowledge, Politics, and the Arts 3, no. 2 (November 15, 2013): http://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/king%E2%80%99s-two-daughters-isabelle-france-and-university-paris -fille-du-roy-0. 2 republics of letters figurative royal daughters, in their attempts to provide a structural and institutional response to the challenges faced by the Valois dynasty. For Jean de Montreuil, female sexuality is con- nected to anxiety about the susceptibility of France to English aggression. Montreuil fashions the so-called Salic law in an effort to exclude royal daughters and their offspring from succession to the kingdom of France, thus disproving the legitimacy of English claims to the French crown. Montreuil thereby regulates and represses the threatening sexuality of royal daughters in order to safeguard the integrity of the masculine body politic. Salic law will help to shape and define the French as a people, and the very basis of this self-definition is the exclusion of women from the official exercise of royal power. During the same period, Jean Gerson casts the University of Paris in the role of fille du roy and in that capacity requires it to assume an important position in the governance of the king- dom and the preservation and transmission of royal authority. Like Montreuil, Jean Gerson also excludes real women from the political realm, but in a very different manner. The structures and language of kinship, understood in terms of parenting, nurture, and love, occupy an important place in the chancellor’s thought. Accordingly, the strong positive connotations of kinship, and of daughterhood in particular, are deployed to establish a state-building and governing role for the university. And yet, here too, actual women are bypassed, as reproduction and kinship are recast in nonliteral terms. Daughter of the king, fecund mother of the university masters and students, what the female allegorical body of the university conceals is the exclusively male population of which this institution is composed. Effective kingship and political stability are guaranteed and upheld by men like Gerson himself, presented in rhetorical terms as the loving and dutiful—not to mention dynastically and politically nonthreatening—fille du roy. Before embarking on an examination of the works of our two Jeans, it is useful to review the social and political circumstances that drove and shaped their textual production. The over-for- ty-year rule of Charles VI of France (1380–1422) was marked by turmoil.2 Charles inherited a war that had begun in 1337, as well as a duty to defend the Valois dynasty against the ideological and military challenges of the English, challenges that date back to the early fourteenth century and the final decades of Capetian rule.3 Charles VI was crowned in 1380, just shy of his twelfth birth- day, and during his minority the kingdom was governed by his fractious and striving uncles, three paternal and one maternal. In 1389, at the encouragement of his younger brother Louis d’Orléans, Charles embarked upon his personal rule, but just three years later he suffered the first of what would prove to be countless attacks of insanity. Initially it was believed that the king could be cured, and many efforts were made to do so. But as the years wore on, it became clear that Charles’s “absences,” as they came to be called, were a permanent feature of his person and his reign. Though Charles’s absences varied in severity, duration, and frequency, they effectively precluded his governing during these times. Unlike his ancestor Louis IX (r. 1226–70), whose mother, Blanche of Castile, officially governed as regent of the realm both during the king’s 2 On the reign of Charles VI, see Françoise Autrand, Charles VI: La folie du roi (Paris: Fayard, 1986); R. C. Famiglietti, Royal Intrigue: Crisis at the Court of Charles VI (1392–1420) (New York: AMS Press, 1986); and Bernard Guenée, Un meurtre, une société: L’assassinat du duc d’Orléans 23 novembre 1407 (Paris: Gallimard, 1992). 3 On the problematic series of successions that marked the end of the Capetian dynasty, see A. W. Lewis, Royal Succession in Capetian France: Studies on Familial Order and the State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981); and Charles Wood, “Queens, Queans, and Kingship: An Inquiry into Theories of Royal Legitimacy in Late Medieval England and France,” in Order and Innovation in the Middle Ages, ed. William Jordan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 385–400. delogu | the king’s two daughters 3 minority and while he was on crusade, Charles VI did not entrust the kingdom to his queen, Isabeau de Bavière.4 Instead, in imitation of his father, who had sought to balance the power of his brothers, Charles VI stipulated that a council, composed of the princes of the blood—initially his brother and uncles—and the wise advisors of the realm, would rule.5 The alternation between the oligarchic rule of the council and periods of personal rule by the king meant that royal direc- tives were constantly subject to change. Moreover, like Charles V’s brothers, the members of the king’s council did not govern harmoniously. In 1404 Philippe de Bourgogne, the most influential of Charles VI’s uncles, died. His son, Jean sans Peur, competent and ambitious, sought to control the royal council and the kingdom. The tension between Jean sans Peur and Louis d’Orléans mounted, culminating in the assassi- nation of the latter in November 1407. The unrepentant Jean sans Peur defended his actions on the basis that he had rid the kingdom of a tyrant. This stance created an impossible situation. The king could not forgive someone who refused to acknowledge his crime, and the widow and children of Louis d’Orléans, as well as their allies, demanded justice. The kingdom broke into two factions, one of which, the Burgundians, eventually made common cause with the English. For the remainder of Charles VI’s reign and for many years afterward, civil war compounded the troubles already engendered by the war with England. In addition to these internal tensions, the accession of Henry V to the English throne in 1413, and his commitment to pursuing the English claims to the kingdom of France, gave renewed urgency to the French responses to English challenges. As we shall see, the conflicts that arose from the contested exercise of power came to be articulated through discourses that focused on gender. This is in part because the dynastic crises of the fourteenth century, and the English challenges to Valois legitimacy, raised questions concerning the rights of women to rule or to transmit such a right to their male offspring. But in addition, gender provided a ready-made and apparently natural hierarchy that allowed French writers to draw boundaries, establish or pro- claim legitimacy, and conceptualize the relationship between self and society. I shall first focus on the fabrication of a myth of national identity. The principles concerning female exclusion from royal rule that were developed over the course of the fourteenth century were brought together in the fifteenth century by Jean de Montreuil under the rubric of Salic law.6 Although Salic law was—and still is—often discussed in connection to the fitness of women to 4 Though not named regent, this is not to say that Isabeau played no role in governing. On her involvement in the royal council, see Tracy Adams, “Christine de Pizan, Isabeau of Bavaria, and Female Regency,” French Historical Studies 32, no. 1 (2009): 1–32; Rachel Gibbons, “Isabeau of Bavaria, Queen of France (1385–1422): The Creation of an Historical Villainess,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 6th ser., 6 (1996): 51–73; and Guenée, Un meurtre, une société. 5 On the emergence of the concept of princes of the blood, see Charles de Miramon, “Aux origines de la noblesse et des princes du sang: France et Angleterre au XIVe siècle,” in L’hérédité entre Moyen Âge et époque moderne: Perspectives historiques, ed. Maaike van der Lugt and Charles de Miramon (Florence: Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2008), 157–210. 6 On fourteenth-century references to female exclusion from royal rule, see, among others, Colette Beaune, Naissance de la nation France (Paris: Gallimard, 1985), the chapter entitled “La loi salique”; Philippe Contamine, “‘Le royaume de France ne peut tomber en fille’: Fondement, formulation et implication d’une théorie politique à la fin du Moyen-Âge,” Perspectives médiévales, June 1987, 67–81; Ralph Giesey, Le rôle méconnu de la loi salique: La succession royale XIVe–XVIe siècles (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007); Jacques Krynen, L’empire du roi, idées et croyances politiques en France XIIIe–XVe siècle (Paris: Gallimard, 1993); and Craig Taylor, “The Salic Law and the Valois Succession to the French Crown,” French History 15, no. 4 (2001): 358–77. Taylor notes that actually it was the English who first cited Salic law in relation to the Valois succession, in 1389. 4 republics of letters occupy certain social and political roles, it was resurrected and refashioned in the fifteenth cen- tury not for the exclusive or primary purpose of condemning women (though it did!) but rather as a post facto justification for a series of contested royal successions.7 Jean de Montreuil was the first explicitly to employ the term “Salic law” as part of his argument that women could nei- ther succeed to the throne of France nor serve as “pont et planche” on behalf of their male issue, thereby demonstrating that the claims of the English kings to the kingdom of France—claims based upon Edward III of England’s descent from Isabelle of France—were unfounded.8 Salic law, in the works of Montreuil, functions as a kind of shorthand for a complex set of ideas about French collective identity that were then deployed by subsequent writers with great regularity. By examining the works of Montreuil I shall show how Salic law was used to define, proclaim, and diffuse a nationalistic agenda and how institutionalized or structural misogyny became part of the basis of French collective identity. jean de montreuil and salic law Jean de Montreuil has sometimes been credited with “inventing” Salic law, but the idea that women ought be excluded from royal rule existed long before he began composing his treatises in the early fifteenth century. The exclusion of women from royal rule began to be clearly and explicitly artic- ulated in the first quarter of the fourteenth century, during the final years of Capetian rule.9 In 1314 King Philippe IV le Bel (r. 1285–1314) died and his eldest son ascended the throne as Louis X. However, Louis X died in 1316, leaving a young daughter and a pregnant wife. During the queen’s pregnancy Louis’s younger brother Philippe served as regent, and when the queen’s newborn son died, Philippe succeeded in excluding Louis’s daughter from the throne on the basis that the “cus- toms” of France did not allow women to rule.10 These supposed customs were founded more on the serendipitous fact that for over three hundred years the Capetian kings had consistently pro- duced sons capable of succeeding their fathers than on the existence of any established laws related to succession. Thus, Louis X’s death without a male heir raised questions that had not previously been considered, and as Paul Viollet demonstrated in his seminal article on the exclusion of women from royal rule, Philippe V’s victory was the product of political cunning, bribery, and intimidation and was not at all a foregone conclusion, nor certainly one based upon any clear-cut legal founda- 7 On the contested successions of 1316 and 1328, see Contamine, “‘Le royaume de France ne peut tomber en fille’”; Craig Taylor, “Edward III and the Plantagenet Claim to the French Throne,” in The Age of Edward III, ed. James Bothwell (Woodbridge, UK: Boydell and Brewer, 2001), 155–69; and Paul Viollet, “Comment les femmes ont été exclues, en France, de la succession à la couronne,” Mémoires de l’Institut national de France, Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 34, pt. 2 (1895): 125–78. 8 The expression “pont et planche,” which will be picked up by a number of subsequent authors, is Montreuil’s. See Jean de Montreuil, Opera, vol. 2, L’œuvre historique et polémique, ed. Nicole Grévy, Ezio Ornato, and Gilbert Ouy (Turin: Giappichelli, 1975), e.g., at 169, 211, 276. All references are to this edition, and page numbers will be provided in parentheses in the text; translations are mine. 9 Eliane Viennot, La France, les femmes, et le pouvoir, vol. 1, L’invention de la loi salique (Ve–XVIe siècle) (Paris: Perrin, 2006). Viennot takes a feminist perspective that situates female exclusion from rule and the emergence of Salic law within a long-standing and complex tradition of misogyny. Her work helps to explain why the discourse of gender provided a useful means for articulating ideas about hierarchy and about inclusion and exclusion. 10 The fact that Louis’s first wife, Marguerite de Bourgogne, was found guilty of adultery did not help the cause of their young daughter. Louis’s posthumous son, Jean, was born of the king’s second wife, Clemence of Hungary. On the implications of the queen’s sexual conduct, see Peggy McCracken, The Romance of Adultery: Queenship and Sexual Transgression in Old French Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998); and Wood, “Queens, Queans, and Kingship.” delogu | the king’s two daughters 5 tion.11 Over a century later Jean Juvénal des Ursins affirmed that at the time of Louis X’s death, “il fut dit, jugié, sentencié et prononcié par maniere d’arrest que fille ne devoit point succeder ne ne succederoit ou royaulme” (it was said, judged, concluded, and proclaimed in the form of a decree that a maiden ought not to succeed nor would succeed to the kingdom).12 If only this were true, the events of the fourteenth century might have unfolded quite differently than they did. Unfortunately for the Valois, Philippe V did not wish to appear to be breaking new legal ground, and while it is true that various assemblies of notables and of the university masters approved, first, Philippe’s regency and, later, his succession to the throne, these meetings produced no proclamations or ordinances governing royal succession. Indeed, it is precisely this documentary void that the Valois support- ers found themselves still seeking to overcome a century later, and in the context of which Salic law proved so useful. When Philippe V died in 1322 leaving only daughters, his contemporaries seemed to have no doubts that his brother Charles de la Marche would succeed him. Charles IV, the last son of Philippe IV, died in 1328 leaving daughters and a pregnant wife. Charles IV’s death presented a new problem, for he was the last son of Philippe le Bel, and so there were no more brothers to serve as regent for a pregnant queen or to whom the throne might pass. The regency was entrusted to Philippe de Valois. He was the son of Philippe le Bel’s brother Charles and therefore the first cousin of the last three Capetian kings and a direct descendant of Saint Louis through a cadet line. When Charles IV’s wife gave birth to a daughter, there was no question of her inheriting, for by this time the custom of female exclusion from rule had been firmly established. Philippe de Valois was of course a clear candidate for the throne, but there was another claimant, Edward III of England (r. 1327–77), the son of Philippe IV’s daughter Isabelle and nephew of the last three Capetian kings. Edward was the closest male heir to Charles IV, but his claim passed through a cognate line. Could a woman transmit a right that she could not herself exercise or possess? Given the overlapping and sometimes-conflicting legal authorities that might be invoked, and the lack of any royal ordinance or directive on this subject, both sides were able to marshal plau- sible arguments in favor of their candidate. In the end, an assembly of barons decided in favor of Philippe de Valois on the basis that, just as women could not rule in France, neither could they transmit the right to rule to their male issue. All this legal to-and-fro-ing obscures one of the most important questions at issue in the Valois succession, which, for Paul Viollet, could be summed up in clear and simple terms: “La France devait rester aux Valois parce que les Valois étaient français” (France ought to remain with the Valois because the Valois were French).13 While one might argue that Viollet overstated the role played by identity politics with respect to the Valois succession of 1328, I contend that nationalistic concerns were very much at the heart of the fifteenth-century resurrection and refashioning of Salic law. In 1413, the central issue was not whether women were fit to rule but how to ensure that only French might rule the kingdom of France. As we shall see, the perception of fundamental difference from the English and the anxiety about the vulnerability of France to foreign elements—both far more pronounced in Jean de Montreuil’s works than in the decisions 11 Viollet, “Comment les femmes ont été exclues, en France, de la succession à la couronne.” See also Giesey, Le rôle méconnu de la loi salique; and Lewis, Royal Succession in Capetian France. 12 Jean Juvénal des Ursins, Écrits politiques de Jean Juvénal des Ursins, vol. 2, Tres crestien, tres hault, tres puissant roy, ed. P. S. Lewis (Paris: Klincksieck, 1992), 46. 13 Viollet, “Comment les femmes ont été exclues, en France, de la succession à la couronne,” 149. 6 republics of letters of 1316 and 1328—are conceptualized through discourses that focus on gender and, in particular, through discussions of the Salic law. Though initially he accepted the kingship of Philippe VI, Edward III eventually asserted his claim to the French throne, resulting in the ongoing series of conflicts that we know as the Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453).14 In the Treaty of Brétigny (1360) Edward renounced his claims to the throne in exchange for greatly expanded Continental possessions that he was to hold in full sovereignty, that is, not as a fief from the king of France. These are more or less the claims that the English would continue to press until Henry V once again asserted—though on an entirely new basis—his right to the kingdom of France. Jean de Montreuil’s “invention” of Salic law, as I have discussed elsewhere in more detail, must be understood in relation to his humanist spirit of philological inquiry, reliance upon doc- umentary evidence, and faith in the capacity of the written word to effect cultural and political change. Salic law provides an important example of how Montreuil relied upon historical docu- ments as proof of French rights. In his treatise A toute la chevalerie, Montreuil explains that Edward III’s claims are based on his descent from Isabelle of France, the daughter of Philippe le Bel. But, Montreuil says, “par constitucion et ordonnance bien fondee et approuvee par tout le royaume, femme ne masle qui ne vient que de par femme ne succedent point au royaume ne a la couronne de France” (131; by a law and ordinance well founded and approved throughout the kingdom, a woman, or a man who is descended only from a woman, does not succeed to the kingdom or to the crown of France). This is essentially what the assemblies of 1328 had indeed said, though their deliberations pertained specifically to the problem at hand, and they did not frame their conclusions more broadly in the guise of an ordinance or legal precedent. As Montreuil’s use of the passive voice makes clear, he is not able to say precisely who “founded and approved” what, nor in what context. According to Montreuil the custom of female exclusion is founded on reason, and therefore, “il appert que ladite ordonnance pouoit et devoit estre faicte en tous temps” (132; it is clear that the aforesaid ordinance could and should have been made for all times). Since, as Montreuil also observes, French history offers no example of a queen ruling the kingdom in her own right, the principle of female exclusion must be very old, as old as the kingdom itself. It would seem that Montreuil did not so much invent Salic law as go looking for something that he believed from the outset must exist somewhere among the French archives and histories: a written legal basis for the exclusion of women from royal power. What he found, of course, was the Lex Salica. What came to be referred to simply as the Salic law in France is in fact but one clause of one article from the Lex Salica, the law code of the Salian Franks. This code was first compiled c. 507–11 and consisted originally of sixty-five articles, most of which specify the price to be paid for various injuries and harms inflicted upon others. It was updated during the reign of Pepin the Short, c. 763–64, and expanded to about one hundred articles. During the reign of Charlemagne a new version of the code was promulgated, with seventy articles. The article that so interested Jean de Montreuil and others is called “De alode” or “De alodis,” that is to say, “Concerning Immovable Goods” (alleux in Old French). This article lists, in order of preference, who should inherit the goods of individuals who die without leaving living children, and the final clause states, in one of the most ancient versions: “De terra vero nulla in muliere hereditas non 14 For an overview of the Hundred Years’ War, see Jean Favier, La guerre de cent ans (Paris: Fayard, 1980); and Jonathan Sumption, The Hundred Years’ War, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991–2009). delogu | the king’s two daughters 7 pertinebit, sed ad virilem sexum qui fratres fuerint tota terra perteneunt” (As for the land, none of the inheritance will belong to the woman, but to the viril sex who were brothers all of the land belongs).15 In its original context, the article says nothing about transmission of the crown, nor does it identify the terra as the kingdom of France.16 In A toute la chevalerie Montreuil describes how “j’ay oy dire au chantre et croniqueur de Saint Denis, personne de grant religion et reverence, qu’il a trouvé par tres anciens livres que ladicte coustume et ordonnance, qu’il appelle la loy Salica, fu faicte et constituee devant qu’il eust oncques roy chrestien en France. Et je mesmes l’ay veu, et leu ycelle loy en un ancient livre, renouvelee et confermee par Charlemaingne” (132). (I heard it said by the chanter and chronicler of Saint Denis, a person of great devotion and piety, that he had found in a very ancient book that the aforesaid custom and ordinance, which he called the Salic law, was made and constituted before there ever was a Christian king in France. And I myself saw it, and read this law in an ancient book, updated and confirmed by Charlemagne.) This passage contains many elements intended to demonstrate the authenticity and inviolability of the law in question, as well as its applicability to the kingdom and the crown of France: Montreuil’s information comes from a reliable individual; the text is associated with the Abbey of Saint Denis, the source and repos- itory of the official history of the kingdom; the manuscript in question is very ancient, which Montreuil had supposed it must be, given the timeless quality he attributes to the principle of female exclusion; the law code was crafted by the original founders of the kingdom of France and predates even the conversion of the kingdom; finally, the code was revised and reaffirmed by none other than the emperor Charlemagne.17 Montreuil then quotes the relevant passage.18 This genealogy of Salic law, always with the repetition of the most important elements—pre-Christian establishment of the law, reaffirmation by Charlemagne—is included in Montreuil’s subsequent treatises; indeed, it often appears more than once in the same text. Montreuil’s version of Salic law counters the English assertion that the law of female exclusion was unearthed or formulated specifically in order to deny the claims of Edward III. More importantly, his history of Salic law endows the French with a law that is particular to them and identifies France as a kingdom that 15 Later versions of the clause add the word salica after terra. 16 On the early history of Salic law, I have followed Viennot, La France, les femmes, et le pouvoir, vol. 1, esp. pt. 1, Les fondations (Ve–IXe siècles). Viennot shows how this article was modified over time to gradually privilege inheritance by men and paternal relatives. 17 In the Traité du sacre written during the reign of Charles V, Jean Golein affirmed that Charlemagne ordained “que le royaume de France fust tenu par succession de hoir masle le plus prochain de la lignie” (that the kingdom of France be held by succession of the closest male heir), thereby demonstrating an even earlier link between Charlemagne and the eventual Salic law of the French. See Jean Golein, Le racional des divins offices de Guillaume Durand, bk. 4, ed. Charles Brucker and Pierre Demarolle (Geneva: Droz, 2010). 18 In fact, as numerous scholars have noted, he misquotes it—whether intentionally or in error we shall never know with certainty—by adding the phrase “in regno,” a mistake that he corrects in subsequent citations of the law. See Giesey, Le rôle méconnu de la loi salique, chap. 5. Montreuil’s interpolation has been called a “forgery”; see Sarah Hanley, “The Politics of Identity and Monarchic Government in France: The Debate over Female Exclusion,” in Women Writers and the Early Modern British Political Tradition, ed. Hilda Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 295. I find that such strong and negative terms overstate the case. What were called translations in the Middle Ages were in fact works of linguistic and cultural adaptation that were often unfaithful, in a literal sense, to their originals. I contend that Montreuil provided what he believed to be the intent of the clause. Indeed, in his later citations of the Salic law Montreuil omits the words “in regno” and simply explains the meaning of the passage as he understood it (or wanted it to be understood), that is, “absolument que femme n’ait quelconque portion ou royaume, c’est a entendre a la couronne de France” (168; absolutely that woman might not have any part in the kingdom, that is to say, in the crown of France). 8 republics of letters is distinct from all others. In this way, the emergent categories France and French are defined, in part, as an effect of the law. The interest of Montreuil’s Salic law is not the exclusion of women from rule per se or its place within misogynistic discourses.19 Indeed, there would have been little point in searching for and promoting a law that affirmed the inferiority of women, since authorities from the church fathers to Aristotle had already furnished a range of frameworks within which to discuss wom- en’s many physical, moral, and intellectual failings. Rather, the force of Salic law, as Montreuil presents it, resides in the law’s capacity to shape and define the French as a people. In A toute la chevalerie Montreuil stages an allegory of the crown of France, who rhetori- cally asks the English king, “ne sces tu pas que femmes, par qui cause le roy Edouart prenoit le tiltre, ne succedent point en ce royaume? et—la merci Dieu—oncques n’ot en ce royaume ne ja n’aura—se Dieu plaist—creature du plus grant au plus petit qui voulsist souffrir ou consentist jusques a la mort que Angloiz en chief ou comme roy seignorist en France” (108; do you not know that women, by whom King Edward took the title, do not succeed in this kingdom? and—thank God—there never has been in this kingdom, nor will there ever be—may it please God—a crea- ture from the most important to the most humble who would suffer or consent, under pain of death, that an Englishman rule as head or as king in France). In this passage Montreuil moves rhetorically from female exclusion to the French refusal of an English king as though the two were causally connected. The idea that consent of the subjects is a prerequisite to legitimate rule is one of Montreuil’s most important theoretical bases for the exclusion of Edward III, and one that he repeats throughout his treatises. In this passage the juxtaposition of female exclusion and consent of the ruled suggests an association between the two, though the nature of the relation- ship between these ideas is not explained or developed here. We shall see that gendered language will be used elsewhere to explore the idea of consent. In Montreuil’s multiple iterations of what we might call his legal and theoretical talking points, a set of ideas is consistently presented in sequence. First, Montreuil affirms that “selon la diversité des pays sont diverses constitutions et loys” (166, also 272; according to the diversity of countries there are different constitutions and laws). The uniqueness of Salic law is inscribed in its history, which, as we have seen, associates the law with recognized icons of French national identity, such as the Abbey of Saint Denis and Charlemagne. The possession of a unique French law renders Roman or other law codes inapplicable, and it also constitutes yet another way in which the French monarchy is original and superior to those of other kingdoms. Second, the law of female exclusion is “tres raisonnablement fondee” (131; very reasonably founded). All legal arguments aside, Montreuil invites us to imagine that a king of France died, 19 On this point I disagree with Sarah Hanley, who has argued in a series of articles that Jean de Montreuil invented Salic law as a direct response to what she perceives as Christine de Pizan’s humiliating defeat of Montreuil in the quarrel of the Roman de la rose. See Sarah Hanley, Les droits des femmes et la loi salique (Paris: Indigo et côté- femmes éditions, 1994), 7–20; Sarah Hanley, “Mapping Rulership in the French Body Politic: Political Identity, Public Law, and the King’s One Body,” Historical Reflections 23 (1997): 1–21; Sarah Hanley, “Identity Politics and Rulership in France: Female Political Place and the Fraudulent Salic Law in Christine de Pizan and Jean de Montreuil,” in Changing Identities in Early Modern France, ed. M. Wolfe (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1997), 78–94; Hanley, “The Politics of Identity and Monarchic Government in France.” Given the historical scholarship that traces the development of the principle of female exclusion from rule over the course of the fourteenth century (see n. 6, above), I find this argument unconvincing. See also Craig Taylor’s refutation of Hanley’s argument in “The Salic Law, French Queenship, and the Defense of Women in the Late Middle Ages,” French Historical Studies 29 (2006): 543–64. delogu | the king’s two daughters 9 leaving but a single daughter, married to the king of Constantinople. “Ne seroit ce pas mieulx raison . . .  que un autre masle du sang royal—et fust encores tres loingtain de la couronne— fust roy de France, que tel empereur estrangier venist a tout ses Grez gouverner un tel royaume comme cely de France, qui est le plus noble des chrestiens?” (131; Would it not be more reason- able . . .  that another male of royal blood—be he even far removed from the crown—become king of France than that such a foreign emperor come with all his Greeks to govern such a kingdom as is that of France, which is the most noble among all Christians?).20 It is important to note that the reason alleged first and foremost for female exclusion has nothing to do with the aptitude of women to rule but rather with anxiety about the penetration of the French body politic by for- eign elements, specifically foreign men. Royal women, who marry foreign men and bear their children, are the means by which France is rendered vulnerable to domination, contamination, and miscegenation, and it is their marital and sexual associations with non-French partners that make possible this transgressive crossing or blurring of boundaries. To render the body politic impermeable, to preclude the disturbing potential for foreign control, royal women—and their offspring—must be completely excluded from rule. Whereas in the discourse of the allegorical crown, cited above, the exclusion of women from royal rule was only implicitly connected to consent of the governed, here Montreuil shows explicitly how women introduce threatening foreign elements. The third idea in the sequence also centers on consent of the governed and the integrity of the body politic. In the first version of his Traité contre les anglais Montreuil asserts that the English “facent que folz de se efforcier d’avoir terres ne seigneuries en ce royaume contre la vou- lenté du souverain et des subgiéz” (178; behave quite outrageously in striving by force to possess lands or lordship in this kingdom against the will of the sovereign and the subjects). The word efforcier, unlike the closely related term forçoier, can be used to denote rape.21 This linguistic choice and the precision of the statement that the English are acting “contre la voulenté” of the French suggest a sexualized violence perpetrated against the French by the English, the rape of the kingdom by the English king. We find a similar formulation in the third Traité contre les anglais. Here, Montreuil denounces the English failure to respect the French law of female exclu- sion and their efforts to impose other laws upon the French monarchy: “estoit grant oultrage et temerité aux Anglois d’entreprendre et eulx efforcer de mectre sus telles nouvelletéz, et que si noble et puissant royaume comme celluy de France, contre ses loiz et ses coustumes, se gouver- nast et feust limitéz et rieugléz a l’ordonnance de gens d’estranges païs et diverse langue” (276; it was a great outrage and imprudence on the part of the English to undertake and to impose such novelties, and that so noble and powerful a kingdom as is that of France, against its laws and cus- toms, be governed and delimited and ruled according to the disposition of people of a foreign land and a different tongue). The effort to impose foreign laws is conveyed using the word efforcer, once again imagining the imposition of foreign rule as gendered, sexual violence perpetrated against a feminized body politic. Moreover, linguistic difference is introduced as the element that signals the fundamental foreignness of the English and, therefore, their unsuitability to 20 The Greek emperor in fact visited Paris in the early fifteenth century. 21 See Frédéric Godefroy, Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue française et de tous ses dialectes du IXe au XVe siècle, 10 vols. (Paris: Librairies des sciences et des arts, 1938). Among the many meanings and connotations of forçoier, rape is not included, whereas the terms esforcement, esforceor, and esforcier all include rape or sexual violence among their meanings. Indeed, it is one of the principal meanings of esforcier, as Godefroy lists it third of over a dozen possible meanings. 10 republics of letters rule over the French. In attempting to violently force himself and his customs upon the French, Edward infringes upon not only French laws but also natural law, because there is no legitimate rule without the consent of the subjects: “Et comme il ne soit droicte ne seure seigneurie . . .  que celle qui vient de bonne amour et vraie obeissance des subgectz, ainsi qu’il a esté de tous les natiz du royaume de France, qui tousjours ont exposé corps et chevance jusques a la mort pour le droit du roy Phelipe . . .  et pour ses successeurs roys de France, s’ensuit . . .  que Edoart, qui contre la voulenté des François et par violence vouloit regner sur eulx, faisoit incivilement et contre droit naturel” (279; And since there is no legitimate or sure lordship . . .  but that which comes from good love and true obedience of the subjects, as has been the case with those born of the kingdom of France, who always have exposed their persons and their goods unto death for the rights of King Philip . . .  and for his successors, kings of France, it follows . . .  that Edward, who, against the will of the French and by violence wanted to reign over them, acted uncivilly and against natural law [emphasis added]). The word natiz distinguishes between native and foreign and aligns politi- cal loyalty with the facts of one’s birth. It is on the basis of their birth that the French exhibit the “good love and true obedience” that is the foundation for legitimate rule. Positive or enacted law aside, natural law says that the French could never consent to English rule, and Edward’s efforts to impose himself are again conveyed using the language of sexualized violence. Jean de Montreuil’s fabrication and repetition of the content, history, and significance of Salic law allows us to observe the construction of a legend of French collective identity. His works were employed and diffused by later authors, and despite the subsequent recognition that Salic law did not hold up from a juridical standpoint, nevertheless it remained meaningful because, I would argue, it had become one of the constitutive elements of French national identity.22 Just as the French monarchs had thaumaturgic powers, a holy balm, and arms sent by God, so too the French people had a special law that governed the succession of their kings. As Montreuil and his followers would have it, Salic law was ancient, unique to the kingdom of France, confirmed by Charlemagne, and ensured that the “very Christian king” would never be a queen. On one level, conversations about Salic law are, of course, about actual women. After all, Salic law excludes women from royal rule, and the undesirability of female governance for this or that reason was a usual component of explanations and justifications of Salic law. However, it is equally true that ideas about women and discourses of gender also provided a language and a conceptual framework by means of which to think through other sorts of issues, in particular the profound fear and anxiety on the part of the French about domination of the kingdom by foreign kings, specifically by the English. The threat of foreign invasion is articulated in gendered terms. Queens are imagined as the means by which foreign elements insinuate themselves into the king- dom, as in the specter of the emperor and his Greeks. At the same time, the vulnerability of the kingdom is conveyed using the language of sexual violence in which the English attempt to force their king, their laws, their language, and their rule upon the unwilling French. The kingdom of 22 Montreuil’s original misquotation of Salic law was discovered, as well as the ways in which he had framed the text to suggest an application not present in the original document. On the later influence and applications of Salic law, see the second half of Giesey, Le rôle méconnu de la loi salique; Craig Taylor, ed., Debating the Hundred Years War: “Pour ce que plusieurs (La loy salicque)” and “A Declaracion of the trew and dewe title of Henry VIII” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 1–49; Craig Taylor, “Sir John Fortescue and the French Polemical Treatises of the Hundred Years War,” English Historical Review (February 1999): 112–29; and Eliane Viennot, La France, les femmes, et le pouvoir, vol. 2, Les résistances de la société (XVIIe–XVIIIe siècle) (Paris: Perrin, 2008).