on reconnaissait bien à ce Dijon had appeared to souci l’esprit communal bourguignon’. have no trouble-makers, de Yet by spring 1589, there was désordre ‘pas “caboches”’. ‘un guerre and à des de mairie contre les social… [u]ne sociale’; ‘quant l’hostilité “ligueux” gentilshommes, tous les gentilshommes, et contre les officiers, fait In c’est là certain’. essence, Drouot discerned in Burgundy serious conflict within the The bourgeoisie. – – lower ranks later more felicitously called bourgeoisie – ‘les bourgeoisies mineurs’, ‘la found themselves unable to rise to join the privileged few who constituted seconde’ – ‘les For them the way forward seemed to lie in espousing the cause. Ligue grands bourgeois’. In overturning the royalist tradition of a led by (at least for Burgundy) Ligue n’er-do-wells work marked a break from the past. In fact, what was truly new was the Drouot’s method used, for the significance of frustrations within the had bourgeoisie ‘scientific’ been noted before. que wrote one nineteenth-century ‘Ainsi l’observe Palma-Cayet,’ essayist, qui avait poussé bien des gens à se mettre du parti de ‘ce l’union, c’était l’espoir par une révolution dans à des charges plus élevées, à des emplois plus d’arriver l’état lucratifs que ceux qu’ils occupaient’. thesis did not win universal acceptance. Whilst noting the evident significance of Drouot’s social tension, Mousnier considered religion to be the key determinant of affiliation to the More recently Mack P. Holt has cast doubt upon the degree and impact of social Ligue. tension in Dijon and has suggested that a more critical factor there was Mayenne’s patronage. Nonetheless, broadly speaking, work marked a sea-change in Ligue Drouot’s studies and stimulated debate. Although focused on Burgundy, its relevance to investigations into Paris was apparent to J.H.M. Salmon and to Robert Descimon. Ligueur
on reconnaissait bien à ce souci l’esprit communal bourguignon’. Dijon had appeared to have no trouble-makers, ‘pas de “caboches”’. Yet by spring 1589, there was ‘un désordre social… [u]ne guerre sociale’; and ‘quant à l’hostilité des “ligueux” de mairie contre les gentilshommes, tous les gentilshommes, et contre les officiers, c’est là fait certain’. In essence, Drouot discerned – in Burgundy – serious conflict within the bourgeoisie. The lower ranks – ‘les bourgeoisies mineurs’, later more felicitously called ‘la bourgeoisie seconde’ – found themselves unable to rise to join the privileged few who constituted ‘les grands bourgeois’. For them the way forward seemed to lie in espousing the Ligue cause. In overturning the royalist tradition of a Ligue led by n’er-do-wells (at least for Burgundy) Drouot’s work marked a break from the past. In fact, what was truly new was the ‘scientific’ method used, for the significance of frustrations within the bourgeoisie had been noted before. ‘Ainsi que l’observe Palma-Cayet,’ wrote one nineteenth-century essayist, ‘ce qui avait poussé bien des gens à se mettre du parti de l’union, c’était l’espoir d’arriver par une révolution dans l’état à des charges plus élevées, à des emplois plus lucratifs que ceux qu’ils occupaient’. Drouot’s thesis did not win universal acceptance. Whilst noting the evident significance of social tension, Mousnier considered religion to be the key determinant of affiliation to the Ligue. More recently Mack P. Holt has cast doubt upon the degree and impact of social tension in Dijon and has suggested that a more critical factor there was Mayenne’s patronage. Nonetheless, broadly speaking, Drouot’s work marked a sea-change in Ligue studies and stimulated debate. Although focused on Burgundy, its relevance to investigations into Ligueur Paris was apparent to J.H.M. Salmon and to Robert Descimon.