Talk:Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis (1559)

Some discrepancies between primary sources and literature

First of all I'd like to thank @Robinvp11: for creating this article separate from Italian War of 1551–1559; it was high time someone did it. I also appreciate the very scholarly manner in which this article has been written and sourced, better than the original. A few hours ago I found the original French text of the Franco-Spanish Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis of 3 April 1559 as published by Bertrand Haan, Une paix pour l'éternité. La négociation du traité du Cateau-Cambrésis (2010), p. 197–224. Madrid: Casa de Velázquez. I copied the text to French Wikisource under the title s:fr:Traité du Cateau-Cambrésis (France et Espagne), to distinguish it from s:en:Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis (England and France). Haan 2010 cited two primary sources:

• Bibliothèque nationale de France (BNF), Mélanges de Colbert (Mél. Colbert 372), n° 289, orig.
• Ministère de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères (MAE), Traités multilatéraux, Espagne, orig.
  

I couldn't find any online photocopies of the originals, but at least the BNF website has an item on it, and the MAE website mentions it in several lists of diplomatic documents, but that's it. Be that as it may, I have little doubt that Haan faithfully reproduced the original texts. The problem is that Kenneth M. Setton, whose 1976 The Papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571 p. 708–709 is extensively quoted here in order to summarise the clauses of the Franco-Spanish treaty, sometimes seems to claim that there are certain stipulations in the treaty that I can't find in Haan's edition. More troubling, Setton seems to quote the text twice, but I can't find those words back anywhere in Haan's edition of the treaty's text:

• "By withdrawing French troops from the Senese so that the Sienese might be unmolested in the re-establishment of their "premier estat de république," Henry in effect recognized Cosimo de' Medici's acquisition of Siena." The phrase "premier estat de république" appears nowhere in the treaty. The only mention of 'premier estat' is in Article 6 and refers to William of Orange; the word république never occurs, it is always spelt as republicque; and there is no occurrence of the phrase 'estat de republicque' either. Whatever text Setton is quoting, it is not the original treaty.
• "The erstwhile imperial cities of Metz, Toul, and Verdun remained in French posession, "ainsi qu'elles [i.e., ces villes] sont, et ont esté iusques icy," and so they do to this day." Again, this phrase does not appear anywhere in the treaty; the only time the three cities are mentioned is in Article 44 and the phrase is not found there. In this case it may well be that Setton is quoting a later historian or author, although he doesn't say which one with a footnote. This is sloppy and confusing, and makes him unreliable as a witness.
  

In another case, Setton misquotes the treaty and misattributes the quote to Corsica rather than Savoy:

• 'By the terms of the treaty Henry agreed to restore to Philip's Genoese allies all "les villes, places, et forteresses" that the French had occupied on the island of Corsica...'. The only phrase that comes close to it is found in Article 39, where Haan 2010 provides the original text as: "...led. sr roy des Espaignes laissera aussy led. sr de Savoye en l’entiere et libre possession de toutes les villes, places, chasteaulx et forteresses de ses pays esquelles led. sr roy d’Espaigne tient garnison de gens de guerre, dont il les fera sortir et vuyder incontinant pour en joyr par led. sr de Savoye, ses hoirs et ayans cause franchement, librement, paisiblement et sans aucun empeschement, tout ainsy que faisoit auparavant le commancement des guerres le feu duc son pere." Clearly, this stipulation is not about the French king, Corsica, or the Genoese, but about Savoy and the Spanish king. Corsica (Corseque/Corsegue) is only mentioned in Articles 24 and 43, but not with the phrase "les villes, places, et forteresses" or somesuch. The phrase "...restituera toutes les places que presentement il tient en l’isle de Corseque et y ont esté par luy occuppées, detenues et fortiffiées depuis la derniere guerre en l’estat qu’elles sont..." does convey the same idea, but it means Setton is once again not properly quoting the original treaty.
  

And once, Setton 'misquotes' the treaty in the sense that he uses modern French spelling, which seems to indicate he did not consult the original text, but a reprint with updated spelling or another author's quote with updated spelling (which at the very least is scholarly sloppy):

• 'According to the treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis, the kings of France and Spain were to employ their full powers to bring about the "convocation and celebration" of an oecumenical council of the Church "tant nécessaire à la réformation et réduction de toute l'Église Chrétienne en une vraie union et concorde." Haan 2010 provides the original text as: "...convocation et celebration d’un sainct concile universel, tant necessaire à la refformation et reduction de toute l’Eglise chrestienne en une vraye unyon et concorde,..."
  

I think this demonstrates that Setton 1976 is not a reliable secondary source, because he misrepresents the text of the original treaty many times. He seems not to have had access to it, drawing upon others who quoted parts of it in modern spelling, or incorrectly thinking they quoted the treaty but were in fact paraphrasing it or also misrepresenting it (e.g. at some point 'chasteaulx' must have disappeared from the quoted text, and this phrase was incorrectly associated with Corsica rather than Savoy).

Besides, I am doubtful that the treaty really stipulates that "Henry II of France recognises Philip II of Spain as ruler of Milan, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia". For starters, neither the treaty nor Setton p. 709 says anything about Sardinia, so that claim fails verification immediately. The only time the treaty mentions 'Sicily' is in Article 7, which seems to be about compensation for war-time damages and the retrieval of immovable property by dispossessed people:

• "Et s’entend le contenu en ce present article en tous lieux et endroictz de la subjection desd. srs Roys Très Chrestien et Catholicque, sauf quant aux fouruscides de Naples, Sicille et du duché de Milan, lesquelz ne seront compris en ce present traicté ny joyront du benefice d’iceluy." My 16th-century French is not great, but I think this says nothing more than: "And concerning the content in this article in all sites and places subjected to the aforementioned sires Kings Very Christian [=the French king] and Catholic [=the Spanish king], except as regards the Fouruscides [=exiles] of Naples, Sicily and the Duchy of Milan, which will not be included in this present treaty nor will enjoy the benefit thereof." Clearly, they are not talking about the possessions of the kings themselves, but about the exiles of Naples, Sicily and the Duchy of Milan, who will not be compensated for their war-time immovable property losses. It does not say that the French king is relinquishing his hereditary claims to the possession of these three territories in their entirety in favour of the king of Spain; the vocabulary and grammar simply do not allow such an interpretation (although I'll happily be corrected).
  

I'll start with this, but there is more to it. I think we really need critical re-examination of the primary sources by scholars who had access to them, and not quotes from quotes from quotes which are misleading or incorrect, as appears to be the case with Setton 1976. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Visconti (2003) seems to believe in what Haan (2010) calls 'the second myth', that (Article 2 of) the Treaty amounted to an agreement between the French and Spanish kings to exterminate all Protestant 'heretics' in their own lands. Perhaps this Edict of Nice (15 February 1560) really existed, but did it really flow from the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis or was an independent initiative? Moreover, Saluzzo is not mentioned in the Treaty, although Visconti essentially implies that it is, or makes an argument from silence that Saluzzo was excluded from Savoy's restitutions because it is not mentioned; either way, it is sloppy scholarship. Even though he claims he has a master's degree in European history, Visconti does not cite any sources in his entire book, and I must confess it doesn't look as scholarly as I originally held it to be. The back page narrates how the author was driven by a religious call to explore his Protestant heritage and then began writing this book; a red flag that he may not be driven by a quest for verifiable knowledge and objectivity. I'm considering removing him as a source, at least for the given statement. I already removed Saluzzo because that's not tenable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Haan (2010) notes that it may well be possible that Protestants have later misinterpreted/stretched the Treaty to include a Catholic alliance to exterminate Protestant heresy in French and Habsburg lands, and that William of Orange has propagated and aggravated this misconception by claiming 20 years later (when he had converted to Calvinism himself, and was in irreconcilable rebellion against Philip II of Spain) that he had heard "from the own mouth" of Henry II that the Duke of Alba « traictoit des moiens pour exterminer touts les suspects de la religion en France, en ce païs (les Pays-Bas) et par toute la chrestienté ». This assertion, the authenticity of which cannot be determined, is not far from the spirit of the steps then taken by the Duke to remedy the assertion of the Reformation in France. Henry II, however, does not seem to particularly adhere to the project. The attack by the leader of the opposition to Philip II in Flanders aims above all to blacken Alba's image, and more generally to denounce the intransigent and tyrannical inclinations of the Spanish government. This testimony has however had a considerable weight on historiography.' Indeed, this story that William of Orange had known about a Franco-Spanish plot to exterminate heretics, and that it was either part of the 1559 negotiations, the Treaty, or subsequent negotiations, has a strong tradition in Dutch nationalist and Orangist historiography, with people claiming Orange knew about this plot, but decided to stay silent because he could do nothing against it until he could muster more opposition (hence his name William "the Silent", see William the Silent#Epithet). Given that Orange is mentioned several times in the Treaty, and would later grow out as the champion of the Dutch Protestant cause, later readers will have had motives to try and explain why Orange did nothing against this so-called plot if he had known about it, or to explain how this incident was one of many on his journey out of Catholicism into Protestantism. These are potential motives to look for evidence of an anti-Protestant plot in the Treaty, even where there is none. Even though Romier (a non-Protestant) also argued for religion as the primary motive for the Treaty, Haan argues 'There is nothing to confirm that [Henry II] decided in the spring of 1558 to renounce his conquests in order to devote himself body and soul to restoring religious unity in his States. Because he sees in Henri II only a persecutor, Lucien Romier, for his part, has taken the plunge. One cannot, however, link as closely as he does the international situation, the public demonstrations of the reformers and the king's reactions.' Haan may well have been onto something in challenging the traditional religious interpretations of the Treaty. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Despite all the criticism I have of Setton, it is interesting that he never mentions religion as part of his summary of the Treaty's stipulations. Given his work's focus on the Papacy, that is remarkable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The claim that "France agreed not to support the claim of Mary, Queen of Scots, to the English throne, securing Elizabeth's northern border and providing space to establish her regime.", which is supposedly supported by Setton p. 709, is ridiculous. Neither Setton's main text nor his footnotes on page 709 says anything about England and Scotland, nor does page 708 for that matter. The only times 'Elizabeth' is mentioned on p. 708 is in relation to her marriage to Philip II.

But disregarding Setton, where does it say this in the Treaty itself? Article 14 'That during this period of eight years it shall not be lawful either for the King of France, or the King and Queen of Scotland, or the Queen of England, to make any hostile attempt upon the realm or subjects of the other'? Because Article 16 states 'All suits and claims between the King of France and the King and Queen of Scotland on the one hand, and the Queen of England on the other, shall mutually remain whole and entire.' To say that France hereby agreed not to support the Queen of Scotland's claims on the English throne is quite a stretch; the claims remained intact, but were not to be acted upon by the claimants themselves for 8 years. Nothing is said about support for each other's claims. Setton fails verification, and without RS, this is OR/SYNTH, so I'm just going to remove this entire point. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)