Academic literature on the topic '1520-1598'

Summary The article focuses on the treatment of the noun (nomen) in the grammar published in 1584 by the first Slovenian grammarian, Adam Bohorič (c.1520–1598), under the title Arcticae horulae succisivae de Latinocarniolana literatura (“Spare winter hours on Latin-Carniolan grammar”). The chapter on the noun is examined in the larger context of European grammar-writing, revealing the Bohorič grammar to be a fully-fledged humanist text. In addition, the article explains certain aspects of the work which have sometimes been criticised as weaknesses, provides graphic representations of its structure, and describes Bohorič’s debt to Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560), the similarities between his work and the German grammar by Johannes Clajus (1535–1592), and the parallels with other grammarians. Moreover, some new findings are presented concerning the glossaries accompanying the paradigms.

INTRODUCTION We aimed to evaluate the role of routine measurements of serum amylase and lipase in the diagnosis of acute abdominal pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS We identified all patients who had serum amylase and lipase assays over a 62-day period at a single university teaching hospital and reviewed their case notes. RESULTS We excluded 58 of the 1598 patients on grounds of ineligibility (< 18 years of age and those transferred from other hospitals). A complete data set was obtained for 1520 (98.7%) of the remaining 1540 patients. Only 9.1% of requests were based on a clinical suspicion of acute pancreatitis. Of the 44 (2.9%) patients who had acute pancreatitis, only 28 (63.6%) had an associated rise in serum amylase and/or lipase 3 times above the maximum reference range, the remainder being diagnosed radiologically. At this cut-off range, the sensitivity and specificity for serum amylase were 50% and 99%, and those for serum lipase 64% and 97%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Routine measurements of serum amylase and lipase are unhelpful in the diagnosis of acute abdominal pain unless there is clinical suspicion of acute pancreatitis. In these patients, assay of lipase alone is preferable to assay of amylase alone or both enzymes.

This essay investigates accounts of the Kurds and Kurdistan by sixteenth- and seventeenth-century British travellers to the Ottoman and Safavid empires by placing them alongside contemporary Kurdish and Iranian chronicles by Sharaf al-Din Khan Bedlisi (1597) and Eskandar Beg Monshi (1616-29). Although considerable attention has been paid in recent scholarship to early-modern British travellers’ accounts of the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim communities of the Levant, Middle East, and Persia, the Kurds have been entirely ignored. Early British travellers most often encountered Kurds in and around Aleppo, where the Levant Company established its headquarters during the 1580s. Remarkably few, however, commented on the Kurdish presence. Further east, Anthony Shirley and his companions on their mission to visit Shah Abbas in 1598 recognised Kurdistan to be a province between Baghdad and Qazvin, and regarded the Kurds as uncivilised and rootless vagabonds; for Shirley himself they provided a means to magnify his own importance. While earlier Venetian merchants “described Kurdistan and Kurds with perspicacity and in detail” (Galletti, 1995: 99), the accounts by the first British travellers alternated between description and fabrication.ABSTRACT IN KURMANJIGerokên Brîtanî, kurd û Kurdistan: dîrokeke nivîskî ya kurt, c. 1520-1680Ev gotar li ser wan neql û berhemên derbarê kurdan û Kurdistanê de ye ku ji teref gerokên brîtanî (îngilîz) yên sedsalên 16 û 17an ên li nav împeratoriyên Osmanî û Safewî hatine nivîsandin; gotar, wan dide ber berhemên dîrokî yên kurd û îranî yên hevdemên wan, wek Şerefxanê Bidlîsî (1597/8) û Îskender Beh Monşî (1616-29). Digel ku di xebatên nûjen de baleke girîng hatiye dayîn bo zanyariyên gerokên Brîtanî yên serdema berî-modern li ser civakên Xirîstiyan, Yahûdî û Misilman ên Levant, Rojhilata Navîn û Îranê de, kurd bi temamî hatine piştguhkirin. Gerokên brîtanî yên ewil bi piranî li Heleb û derdora wê rastî kurdan hatine ji ber ku Şîrketa Levantê di salên 1580an de baregeha xwe li wir ava kiribû. Lê belê, gelek kêm ji wan behsa hebûna kurdan kiriye. Bêtir li aliyê rojhilat, Anthony Shirley û hevrêyên wî di serdana Şah Ebbas ya 1580an de, Kurdistan wek parêzgeheke di navbera Bexda û Qezwînê de destnîşan kiriye û kurd wek tolazên hov û bêesl dîtine, û ji bo Shirley bi xwe ew amrazek bûn ku girîngiya xwe qat-qat zêdetir bike. Tucarên Venedîkî yên ewil “Kurdistan û kurdan bi hişmendî û hûrbînî terîf kirine” (Galleti, 1995:99), lê belê, neql û terîfên gerokên brîtanî di navbera terîf û derewan de diguherin.ABSTRACT IN SORANIGerîde Berîtanîyekan, Kurd û Kurdistan; puxteyek le mêjû 1520-1680Em nusîne kêwmallî mijarekanî Kurd û Kurdistan le ‌ sedekanî şazdehem û ḧevdehem dekat, le jêr roşnayî nêrrînî gerrîde Berîtanyayiyekan le herdû împiratorî 'Usmanî û Sefewîda be leberçawgirtinî herdû şakarî Şerefedîn Xanî Bedlîsî (1597/8) û Eskender Begî Munşî (1616-29) herçende zorbey kare zanistîyekan tîşkyan xistûwete ser karekanî gerrîde‌Bberîtanîyekan le berebeyanîy modêrneda; bellam ziyatir leser Cûwekan, Krîstiyanekan, Musellmanekan le Şam, Rojhellatî Nawerast û willatî Fars rawestawn û betewawî Kurdyan piştgwê xistûwe. Gerrîde berîtanîye berayiyekan zorcar çawyan be kurd le naw yan ledewrî Ḧeleb kewtuwe‌; katê ke mekoy serekîy‌ Kompanyay Şam damezra le sallî 1580kanda. Bellam zor be kemî leser bûnî kurd lewnaweda dwawin. Ziyatir bewer rojhellat, Anthony Shirley û hawrêkanî le rêgey seferyanda bo çawpêkewtin be Şa 'Ebas le sallî 1598, Kurdistanyan be wîlayetêk nasanduwe lenêwan Beẍdad û Qezwînda û Kurdanyan wek xellkêkî namedenî û koçer nasanduwe. Mebestî Shirley ‌le derxistinî basî Kurdan ziyatir bo nîşandanî giringîy xoy buwe. Bellam bazirgane Vînîsyayiyekan wesfî Kurd û Kurdistanyan be deqîqtir û dûrudrêjtir kirduwe. (Galletti 1995: 99), baskirdinî Kurdan lelayen gerrîde berîtanyayiyekanewe ziyatir wesfkarîy wirûkeşane buwe.ABSTRACT IN ZAZAKIRaywanê brîtanyayijî, kurdî û Kurdîstan: tarîxo edebîyo kilm, dorê 1520-1680îNa meqale raporê ke Împeratorîyanê Osmanî û Sefewîyan de hetê raywananê brîtanyayijan yê seserranê şîyês û hewtêsinan ra derheqê kurd û Kurdîstanî de virazîyayî, înan ser o cigêrayîş kena û ê raporî kronîkanê hemdeman yê kurdan û îranijan yê Şerefxanê Bedlisî (1597/8) û Îskender Beg Munşî (1616-29) de nana pêver o. Herçiqas ke cigêrayîşanê peyênan de xeylê eleqe musnîyaye raporanê raywananê modernanê verênan yê Brîtanya ke derheqê komelanê xirîstîyan, yahudî û muslumanan yê Levant, Rojhelatê Mîyanênî û Îranî de virazîyayî, kurdî pêro pîya ameyî peygoş kerdene. Raywananê brîtanyayijan ê verênan kurdî zafane Haleb û derûdorê ci de dîyî, cayo ke Şîrketê Levantî serranê 1580an de merkezê xo nabî ro. Çi esto ke înan ra zaf tay kesan estbîyayîşê kurdan ser o şîrove kerd. Hîna zaf hetê rojhelatî de, Anthony Shirley û hevalê ey serra 1598î de kewtbî mîsyon ke Şah Abbasî zîyaret bikerê. Înan Kurdîstan sey wîlayetê mabênê Bexdad û Qazvînî de nas kerd û çimê înan de kurdî gewendeyê bê ristim û bê medenîyet bîyî. Seba Shirleyî kurdî tena wasitayêk bîyê ke pê înan muhîmîya xo berz bikero. Herçiqas ke bazirgananê venedîkijan “Kurdîstan û kurdî bi aqilo tuj û teferuat tarîf kerd” (Galletti, 1995: 99), raporanê raywananê brîtanyayijanê verênan mabênê terîf û pêardişî de ca girewt.

Summary The earliest Netherlandic lexicographical works were not only strongly influenced by foreign vocabularies and dictionaries, but they also strongly influenced lexicography abroad. Adaptations of the earliest vocabularies, which mainly aimed at the learning of Latin, were produced in various countries, with the vernacular language adapted to the idiom of each country. In German speaking regions originated for instance the Vocabularius Ex quo (ca. 1400), the Liber Vagatorum> (ca. 1509) and the Synonymorum Collectanea (1513) of Hieronymus Cingularius (ca. 1464–1558), and in Italian speaking regions the polyglot Dilucidissimus Dictionarius (1477 Introito e porta), which afterwards in the Netherlands were provided with a Netherlandic text. In the middle of the 16th century Netherlandic lexicography was strongly influenced by the already modern looking, in a humanistic spirit fashioned and very copious dictionaries of the Italian Ambrosius Calepinus (ca. 1440–1510) and the Frenchman Robert Estienne (1503–1559). But it is also true that several Netherlandic lexicographical works were adapted into other languages. There are for instance German adaptations of the Latin-Netherlandic vocabularies Gemmula Vocabulorum (1484), Vocabularius Optimus (1495), Dictionarium Gemmagemmarum (1511) and Curia Palacium (ca. 1477–85), of the topical dictionary of Petrus Apherdianus (ca. 1520–1580) and of the conversation book of Simon Verepaeus (1522–1598), there are German and Czech adaptations of the topical dictionary of Johannes Murmellius (1480–1517) and German and English adaptations of the synonym dictionary of Simon Pelegromius (ca. 1507–1572). In the Netherlands originated polyglot works, such as the Vocabulare (ca. 1530) of Noel de Berlaimont (died 1531), the Nomenclator (1567) of Hadrianus Junius (1511–1575), as well as the Calepinus Pentaglottos (1545), experienced a large international diffusion. This survey suggests that the initial phase of lexicography in Western and Central European languages can only be adequately understood if seen within an international context.

Francisco Suárez expone su comprensión metafísica sobre la maldad en las D.M. XI. All. sostiene la imposibilidad de la existencia del mal como principio positivo de los entes o como su atributo. En cualquiera de los casos queda clara la ausencia de un tratamiento reflexivo sobre el mal metafísico en la filosofía griega (XI, I, 2), y por contraposición, la presencia especulativa de este típico en el cristianismo de la época patrística y la herencia de sus tesis en la escolástica medieval previa a la condena parisina de 1277 (XI, I, 13). El entendimiento de Suárez traza el mentado itinerario deteniéndose en tres autoridades de modo particular y que aquí consideraremos con detalle: Agustín de Hipona, Dionisio Areopagita y Tomás de Aquino. Palabras clave Francisco Suárez, Agustín de Hipona, Dionisio Areopagita, Tomás de Aquino, malicia. Referencias Areopagita, D. (2007). Los nombres divinos. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Losada. [Translated by Pablo Cavallero] Areopagita, D. De divinis nominibus. PG 3. Aristóteles. (1998). Metafísica. Madrid, España: Gredos. [Translated by Valentín García Yebra. 2da ed. trilingüe]. Barroso Fernández, Ó. (2006). Suárez, filósofo de encrucijada o del nacimiento de la ontología. Pensamiento, 62(232), 121-138. Belda Plans, J. (2000). La Escuela de Salamanca y la renovación de la teología en el siglo XVI. Madrid, España: BAC. De Almeida Oliveira, J. (2010). Francisco Suárez: a metafísica na aurora da modernidade. Theoria - Revista Eletrônica de Filosofia, 02(04), 44-57. Aquino, T. (1888). Summa Theologiae. Romae: Textum Leoninum. Aquino, T. (1971). Sententia Metaphysicae. Romae: Textum Taurini. Hipona, A. De natura boni contra Manichaeos liber unus. PL 42. Hipona, A. Contra Julianum libri VI. PL 44. Esposito, C. (2015). Suárez and the Baroque Matrix of Modern Thought. En V. Salas and R. Fastiggi. (Ed.), A Companion to Francisco Suárez (pp. 124-147). Leiden, Netherland: Brill. Florido, F. L. (2010). Las filosofías en la Edad Media. Crisis, controversias y condenas. Madrid, España: Biblioteca Nueva. Hale, J. R. (2016). La Europa del Renacimiento 1480-1520. Madrid, España: Siglo XXI. Monserrat, J. (2018). Proyección histórica de Francisco Suárez: Xavier Zubiri. Pensamiento, 74(279), 31-61. Parker, G. (2017). Europa en crisis 1598-1648. Madrid, España: Siglo XXI. Poncela González, Á. (2011). Aristóteles y los jesuitas. La génesis corporativa de los cursus philosphicus. Cauriensia, VI, 65-101. Prieto López, L. (2013). Suárez y el destino de la metafísica. De Avicena a Heidegger. Madrid, España: BAC. Prieto López, L., Villagrasa Lasaga, J., y Advani, S. (2017). Francisco Suárez, between Modernity and Tradition. Cauriensia, XII, 63-92. Rodrigues Ferreira Guilherme Raposo, E. (2010). Francisco Suárez. Último medieval, primeiro moderno: a ideia exemplar. Cauriensia, V, 261-281. Salas, V., Fastiggi, R. (2015). The Man and His Work. En V. Salas and R. Fastiggi. (Ed.), A Companion to Francisco Suárez (pp. 1-28). Leiden, Netherland: Brill. Senent-De Frutos, J. A. (2019). Francisco Suárez and the Complexities of Modernity. Journal of Jesuit Studies, 6, 559-576. Suárez, F. (1960-1966). Disputaciones Metafísicas. Madrid, España: Gredos. [Translated by Edición Sergio Rábade Romeo, Salvador Caballero Sánchez y Antonio Puigcerver Zanón].

The purpose of the article is to analyse the philosophical and aesthetical processes, which at the beginning of Modern Times had led to the formation of new musical-aesthetical paradigm, thereby changing the world of music and resulting in creating of the emotionally colored music as we know it. This belated Renaissance in music is inextricably linked to the emergence of opera and to the reconstructions of the antique musical-aesthetical philosophical ideas, attitudes and values in Northern Italy at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century. One of the first scholars who appealed to the long-abandoned ancient Greek philosophical doctrine of ethos was Nicola Vicentino (1511-1572). In his magnum opus L’antica musica ridotta alla moderna prattica (1555) he insisted that music should be connected to the lyrics (i.e. to the passions and ideas contained in it). The same position defended Girolamo Mei (1519-1594), who clearly states on it in his multiple letters to Vincenzo Galilei (1520-1591). Vincenzo Galilei, in turn, was the mastermind and inspirer of famous Florentine Camerata (also known as Camerata de’ Bardi) – the club of thinkers, poets and composers, which was founded in 1573 in order to put into practice ancient Greek musical aesthetical principles. The most famous members of Camerata – Giulio Caccini, Jacopo Peri, Vincenzo Galilei, Giovanni Battista Doni, Ottavio Rinuccini, Piero Strozzi. Of course, the most visible result of the activity of Camerata was creating the first works of dramma per musica – “Dafne” (1598), “Euridice” (1600) by Jacopo Peri and “Euridice” (1602) by Giulio Caccini. But the most important and widely disseminated at the time experimenting in the field of new musical art was concentrated in the genre of madrigal. Due to such activity at the late XVI – early XVII centuries arises new musical-aesthetical paradigm, which on the external level has revealed itself in emerging of the new, mostly homophonic representative stile (stile rappresentativo) as opposition to the old polyphonic stile (stile antico, stile grave, stile osservato). In this new representative style musical content is subordinate to lyrics. Most clearly the switch of musical-aesthetical paradigm was manifested in the MonteverdiArtusi controversy between the greatest composer of the time Claudio Monteverdi and the scholar Giovanni Artusi, who was criticizing new music. Monteverdi, as an apologist of a new musicalaesthetical principles described his famous concept of Seconda pratica (the Second Practice) in the following texts: Afterword for the 5th Book of Madrigals (1605), Forward for the 8th Book of Madrigals, The Letters to Unknown, 22 October 1633 and 2 February 1634. But the most complete statement of his ideas can be found in Dichiarazione of his brother Giulio Monteverdi, which was published in the collection of pieces Scherzi musicali by Claudio Monteverdi (1607). As the result of such philosophical and practical activity at the late XVI – early XVII centuries, the emotionally neutral consonant church polyphony was replaced by new affective musical material based not on the perfect ratios and proportions, but on the affect as a reflection of the human nature. The article focused on the reflection of this transitional period in the history of music, which conditionally ends with the creation of the first-ever true musical drama – “L’Orfeo” by Claudio Monteverdi (1607).

AbstractThree works can be undisputedly attributed to Mechtelt van Lichtenberg toe Boecop (circa 1520-1598). The Pietà (fig. I), dated 1546, is an example of her Utrecht period. The Adoration of the Shepherds of 1572 (fig. 2) and The Last Supper of 1574 (fig. 3) were painted after she moved to Kampen. In the corners of The Last Supper, a depiction of the institution of the sacrament of the Eucharist, are the arms of her own family and those of her husband, Egbert toe Boecop. Another Last Supper (1560/70) in Kampen (fig. 4), formerly attributed to Mechtelt, shows the announcement of Judas' betrayal of Christ. A painting in the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Lille (fig. 5) bears a close resemblance to the Last Supper with the representation of the Eucharist. Even the colouring is similar. Attribution of this panel to Jacob Maler is based on correspondences with a Last Supper ascribed to him and dated 1552, likewise in Kampen (fig. 6). The most important publication on the Last Suppers in Kampen is by J. L. Siesling (1980), who does not refer to the Lille painting. The absence of a signature and the difference in iconography prompted Siesling to reject Mechtelt as the painter of the 'betrayal' Last Supper (fig. 4). The two pieces differ chiefly in the depiction of the various events of the Last Supper. Siesling sees the fact that Mechtelt opted to depict the institution of the Eucharist (fig. 3) in 1574 instead of the announcement of the betrayal as evidence of a counter-reformational spirit. The religious conflicts of the sixteenth century did after all centre on Eucharistic dogma. According to Catholic doctrine, the consecrated bread and wine were actually converted into Christ's body and blood. The Protestants, however, objected to the sacrifical character of the sacrament and the transubstantiation. They regard the Last Supper as a commemorative meal at which bread and wine have a symbolic function. Mechtelt's choice of the Eucharist, however, is not remarkable in itself. Her fellow-townsman Jacob Maler had already depicted this traditional Kampen theme twice (figs. 5 and 6). Siesling places the unsigned 'betrayal' painting (fig. 4) in the South Netherlandish tradition as far as meaning and design are concerned. He suggests that Mechtelt based her own Last Supper (fig. 3) on the Last Supper formerly ascribed to her (fig. 4). One reason for suggesting Mechtelt's involvement with the latter piece is the presence in it of two portraits. There has been a certain amount of speculation as to the identities of these two men, who are recognizable as contemporaries by their similar ruffled collars. They are thought to be the brothers Egbert and Arent toe Boecop, Mechtelt's husband and brother-in-law. They also occur in a picture of the Four Evangelists painted in 1574 by Mechtelt's daughter, Margaretha toe Boecop (fig. 8). The young man holding a beaker is also portrayed in the signed Last Supper (fig. 3). On stylistic considerations, the Lille Last Supper attributed to Jacob Maler (fig. 5) fits in between his painting of 1552 (fig. 6) and Mechtelt's of 1560/70 (fig. 4). Mechtelt's signed piece (fig. 3) is virtually identical with the Last Supper in Lille (fig. 5). In view of the aformentioned similarity of colouring, she is unlikely to have painted her copy from a print. This is not the first time that a sludy of Mechtelt's paintings has revealed an imitative tendency which seems to have been quite common in the sixteenth century. The Virgin and Christ group in the Pietà, Mechtelt's earliest painting, appears to have been copied from an epitaph in Utrecht which is only known from a small photograph. The Adoration of the Shepherds is an almost perfect copy of a print by Giorgio Ghisi after a painting by Angelo Bronzino, and, as we have seen, there are several versions of the Last Supper. Copying other artists' work, whether from prints or otherwise, was certainly not uncommon, and Mechtelt exemplifies practice in this period.

The 128 letters sent by William Cecil, Lord Burghley (1520–1598) to his son, Sir Robert Cecil, later 1st earl of Salisbury (1563–1612), represent the majority of their extant correspondence in what had been a nearly daily exchange of notes and papers between 1593–1598. The correspondence demonstrates how Burghley directed affairs and communicated with the Queen through his son as well as devolving responsibility for certain matters to him. In doing so, Burghley trained Cecil in the role of Principal Secretary to Queen Elizabeth, a role which he came to perform de facto before his official appointment. Burghley trained his son during a particularly difficult period which was characterized by dearth, war, Irish rebellion, and waning continental commitments, as well as domestic strain throughout the shires, towns, and cities.

Ce travail vise à révéler les publics des premiers imprimeurs de musique parisiens derrière leurs "politiques éditoriales". Les catalogues, sondés comme résultant de l'analyse de marché de leurs concepteurs, sont étudiés selon une grille unique : pour chacun, le premier chapitre décrit le positionnement commercial initial (atouts, choix, détection de niches, rapport aux concurrents) ; le deuxième pénètre aucoeur du contenu musical des catalogues, afin de donner une autre image des usages et publics visés ; le troisième affine la destination des séries par la prise en compte des caractères matériels des ouvrages, ce qui permet de préciser l'organisation du catalogue et d'en comprendre les superstructures (publics plus larges dont les pratiques et les ambitions convergent). L'étude aboutit à quatre lectures singulières des publics des imprimés de musique, en même temps qu'elle fait apparaître la spécificité du positionnement culturel de leurs imprimeurs
This work aims at determining the publics of the first Parisian printers of music behind their publishing politics. Catalogues, probed as resulting from the market analysis of their originators, are studied according to a single grid : for each one, the first chapter describes initial commercial positioning (assets, choices, detection of niches, relationship with competitors) ; the second penetrates the musical contents of the catalogues in order to give another view of uses and publics ; the third refines the destination of the series by taking into account the material characters of the books, so that we can precise the catalogues organization and understand their superstructures (broader publics whose practices and ambitions converge). The study leads to four singular readings of publics of printed music, at the same time as it reveals the specificity of cultural positioning of their printers

Pourquoi la ville de Senlis demeura-t-elle fidèle à son roi alors que les cités voisines d'île-de-France et de Picardie adhéraient massivement à la Ligue ? Au-delà de l'attachement précoce des élites officières à un ordre politique corporatiste neutralisant les passions religieuses, l'unanimisme urbain incarné dans la fidélité à la personne royale se renforça au lendemain des guerres de Religion. Ici comme ailleurs, le service du roi qui assurait promotion et reconnaissance sociale permit de légitimer le pouvoir d'une oligarchie dominée par les officiers royaux. Toute la société se retrouva dans des célébrations civiques où le patriotisme urbain fusionnait avec le culte monarchique. Ces rites s'imposèrent d'autant plus facilement qu'ils avaient bénéficié, indirectement, d'une restauration de la Tradition locale (culte du saint patron) sous l'impulsion réformatrice gallicane des évêques depuis 1520. Le cas de Senlis permet ainsi de mettre en évidence le tour de force de la monarchie qui détourna à son profit le fruit des efforts entrepris par l'Église depuis plus d'un demi-siècle pour réparer la déchirure religieuse.

François de Lorraine, duc de Guise, fut l’un des principaux acteurs politiques du royaume de France de 1547 à sa mort en 1563. Célèbre, il n’a pourtant pas fait l’objet d’une étude historique approfondie alors que les matériaux sont nombreux pour retracer son parcours. Plus qu’une biographie traditionnelle, le doctorat a eu pour visée d’articuler la problématique de l’identité aristocratique et la question de l’engagement d’un homme qui se pensait entre Dieu et le Roi. Prince de la Renaissance, François de Lorraine construisit son rôle en se fondant d’une part sur l’intégration d’un riche capital identitaire en grande partie constitué de la geste de son lignage lorrain, et d’autre part sur la force qu’il tirait de la maison de Guise, en particulier grâce à l’association étroite de son frère Charles, cardinal de Lorraine. Le duc poursuivit sa quête de salut divin et de reconnaissance sociale dans deux contextes très différents qui déterminèrent des oscillations dans son jeu d’acteur. Le premier est celui du règne d’Henri II (1547-1559), durant lequel il s’imagina être le bras armé du Roi Très-Chrétien en vue d’établir une monarchie universelle. Le second (1559-1563) fut marqué par la crise profonde et multiforme du royaume de France : le duc aspira à être alors le défenseur des catholiques face au calvinisme qu’il associa à une hérésie et contre lequel il assuma d’être tel un nouvel envoyé de Dieu aux côtés des jeunes rois François II puis Charles IX
François de Lorraine, duc de Guise, was one of France’s most influential politicians from 1547 to 1563, at the time of his death. Although a potent figure, he hasn’t been the subject of any serious historical study. Yet, historical sources are numerous. This thesis is much more than a traditional biography : it aims at questioning the identity of De Guise as an aristocrat and his commitment as a man who figured himself as standing between God and his king.Prince of the Renaissance, François de Lorraine built up his influence by relying on both his heritage and identity as a member of the Lorraine family and his power derived from the de Guise family and his close association with his brother Charles, the Bishop of Lorraine. The duke undertook his quest for divine salvation and political recognition in two different historical contexts which determined and influenced his actions. First, under the reign of Henry II (1547-1559), he acted as the Christian king’s executioner with the view to establishing a universal monarchy.Then, between 1559 and 1563, when the kingdom of France suffered from crises which were deep and manifold, the duke posed as the protector of the Catholics against Calvinism which he considered as heresy. He resisted it by assuming the role of a protector sent by God to assist the two young kings, François II and Charles IX

François de Lorraine, duc de Guise, fut l’un des principaux acteurs politiques du royaume de France de 1547 à sa mort en 1563. Célèbre, il n’a pourtant pas fait l’objet d’une étude historique approfondie alors que les matériaux sont nombreux pour retracer son parcours. Plus qu’une biographie traditionnelle, le doctorat a eu pour visée d’articuler la problématique de l’identité aristocratique et la question de l’engagement d’un homme qui se pensait entre Dieu et le Roi. Prince de la Renaissance, François de Lorraine construisit son rôle en se fondant d’une part sur l’intégration d’un riche capital identitaire en grande partie constitué de la geste de son lignage lorrain, et d’autre part sur la force qu’il tirait de la maison de Guise, en particulier grâce à l’association étroite de son frère Charles, cardinal de Lorraine. Le duc poursuivit sa quête de salut divin et de reconnaissance sociale dans deux contextes très différents qui déterminèrent des oscillations dans son jeu d’acteur. Le premier est celui du règne d’Henri II (1547-1559), durant lequel il s’imagina être le bras armé du Roi Très-Chrétien en vue d’établir une monarchie universelle. Le second (1559-1563) fut marqué par la crise profonde et multiforme du royaume de France : le duc aspira à être alors le défenseur des catholiques face au calvinisme qu’il associa à une hérésie et contre lequel il assuma d’être tel un nouvel envoyé de Dieu aux côtés des jeunes rois François II puis Charles IX
François de Lorraine, duc de Guise, was one of France’s most influential politicians from 1547 to 1563, at the time of his death. Although a potent figure, he hasn’t been the subject of any serious historical study. Yet, historical sources are numerous. This thesis is much more than a traditional biography : it aims at questioning the identity of De Guise as an aristocrat and his commitment as a man who figured himself as standing between God and his king.Prince of the Renaissance, François de Lorraine built up his influence by relying on both his heritage and identity as a member of the Lorraine family and his power derived from the de Guise family and his close association with his brother Charles, the Bishop of Lorraine. The duke undertook his quest for divine salvation and political recognition in two different historical contexts which determined and influenced his actions. First, under the reign of Henry II (1547-1559), he acted as the Christian king’s executioner with the view to establishing a universal monarchy.Then, between 1559 and 1563, when the kingdom of France suffered from crises which were deep and manifold, the duke posed as the protector of the Catholics against Calvinism which he considered as heresy. He resisted it by assuming the role of a protector sent by God to assist the two young kings, François II and Charles IX

Aux trois moments que constituent d’abord la décennie 1550, temps fort de la conversion nobiliaire au protestantisme, puis le temps des affrontements religieux de 1560 à 1598, et enfin celui de la fondation de l’absolutisme, à quelle fidélité le gentilhomme réformé doit-il consentir en ces temps d’incertitudes où désormais l’unité religieuse n’existe plus ? Obéit-il à une fidélité confessionnelle dictée par sa conscience ou à une exigence politique et relationnelle qui le lie naturellement, et à son seigneur, et à son roi ? Si le noble de foi réformée ne ressent pas au XVIe siècle de contradiction entre les deux sphères, celle du politique et celle du religieux : il n’a pas en effet le sentiment de se couper de son roi, en combattant dans les rangs de l’armée protestante, bien au contraire. Progressivement la distance se creuse vis-à-vis de ces seigneurs, et on perçoit alors l’extrême liberté des attaches politiques qui les lient au chef de parti. Mais la revendication d’une liberté irrépressible n’est rendue possible que par une stratégie mise en place de longue date par ces nobles protestants. Celle-ci repose d’abord et surtout sur une base solide et indéfectible, une nébuleuse d’amis et de parents. La proximité avec l’Angleterre et la Cour d’Elisabeth facilite également cette attitude distancée. Enfin, au XVIIe siècle, elle s’appuie aussi sur le véritable bouclier qu’a pu représenter l’édit de Nantes pour la noblesse ; ce dernier permet l’établissement d’un culte de fief et les protestants nobles chercheront à exploiter tous les ressorts juridiques du texte pour préserver leur foi intacte. Les alliances matrimoniales et l’action des femmes, filles ou épouses, serviront à la consolidation de la foi réformée. Alors que la répression, ciblée sur quelques individus, n’épargne pas le second ordre, certains nobles chercheront à trancher le dilemme soumission par la conversion ou désobéissance par l’exil, en dissociant les deux services, en refusant de choisir entre Dieu et le roi
The important steps of French nobility: At first, 1550: part of the French nobility chooses to Protestantism. Then, 1560 and 1598: the French Religious Civil Wars. Finally, it was the start of Absolute Monarchy. When the unity of the Faith no longer existed, the choice of the French nobility was either to be faithful to the King or to god. Therefore, there were a gap between the religious faith and the political loyalties to the King. At first, the French nobles kept trusting their King, but a certain misunderstanding started to develop and the nobles gradually chose freedom over their loyalty to the French King. England’s proximity and Elisabeth 1st’s Court help them keep their distance with the King. They could rely on too their friends and family and parents to keep their faith alive, and the Edict of Nantes re-established the French nobility’s civil and religious rights. However the persecution of the Protestant did already start. Therefore many French Protestants nobles chose exile. Otherwise they were banished by the French Kingdom. Some of them hid their real faith, refusing to have to choose between their God and their king

Abstract The date of her birth is unknown, but she was The daughter of Sir James Melville Laird of Halhill (a courtier, diplomat, and memoir-writer) and Christina Boswell. Her uncle, also James Melville, was a Presbyterian minister, professor of Oriental languages at St andrews, and The author of a famous diary written in racy, idiomatic Scots. By 1598 Elizabeth was married to John Colville of Wester-Cumbrae, who later inherited, although he did not assume, The title Lord of Culross. Their first son, Alexander, was an eminent Scottish Episcopalian and biblical scholar; for a time he held The chair of Hebrew and Theology at The University of Sedan. AnoTher son, Samuel Colvil, also wrote verse: he was The author of ‘The Whig’s Supplication or Scotch Hudibras’. Elizabeth Melville was, like her husband, deeply and sincerely Presbyterian.