La Garde Ecossaise Historical Fiction and Early Modern Studies Newsletter

Welcome

A warm welcome to the La Garde Ecossaise Historical Fiction newsletter – this is your fortnightly update on the novel series and early modern studies.

New Releases from La Garde Ecossaise

Audio Guide Chapter 13 Irlandais

Audio Guide Chapter 14 The Examination

Audio Guides can be found on Spotify, Apple Podcasts and YouTube.

Quote

I was taken to a door at the back of the palace and then up a narrow staircase leading to what can only be described as servant quarters in the attic. They were sparsely decorated but functional. It was residential accommodation for many of Louis XIVs servants….He [Murray] then led me down a long dark corridor towards a door, a plain door with oak panelling but without any of the famous decoration and style which France at this time had become known for. It was a simple door one that looked like an entrance to a simple cupboard or small storeroom. La Garde Ecossaise Book 1 p. 45.

Early Modern Digest

Sixteenth-century pilgrimage route that you can follow in Rome https://www.euronews.com/travel/2025/05/24/walk-this-epic-pilgrimage-route-around-rome-to-visit-its-seven-most-magnificent-churches

Hidden for a century an important painting is revealed https://www.christies.com/en/stories/cornelis-cornelisz-van-haarlem-portrait-of-a-standard-bearer-33e5e6df2c0f4a4c84488e63ef353a02

Burials in seventeenth-century Italian Crypt Reveal Lives of the Working Poor. https://www.science.org/content/article/thousands-buried-17th-century-italian-crypt-reveal-lives-working-poor

Was Scotland, not England, the birthplace of football? Discovery of a 17^th century football pitch in Scotland. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/where-was-soccer-invented-a-new-archaeological-discovery-suggests-scotland-not-england-was-the-sports-birthplace-180986678/

Overlooked sixteenth-century trade route between China and Mexico https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/long-view-the-16th-century-trade-route-that-brought-china-to-mexico/

Do You Know?

Between 1534 and 1542 Jacques Cartier from St Malo in Brittany sailed across the Atlantic and landed at Gaspe Bay in the Gulf of St Lawrence.  Indeed, the term Canada, comes from the Iroquoian word Kanata meaning ‘village’. See more about the early history of Canada here:  https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/discover-canada/read-online/canadas-history.html

 Feature Article: The Power of Early Modern Oaths

In La Garde Ecossaise, as part of Meldrum’s integration into the regiment, Meldrum is forced to take an oath:

Meldrum continues:

During the early modern period oaths were powerful and extremely important. They were used in many different contexts and served various functions throughout the early modern world. They could be oral, written and performative or all these and were used for important constitutional, legal and defensive purposes uniting people under a common bond and shared values.  An oath in whatever shape or context was seen as contractual. The wording within the oath would request that those taking it would perform an action or abide by its terms, sometimes for eternity. Any breach of an oath was severely frowned upon and in some cases, proved fatal. (See the murder of Archbishop James Sharp in Newsletter 8 Conscientious Ministers and Sinful Parishioners).

In examining oaths, we need to look at the following elements:

· The context: the historical events surrounding the creation, emergence, life and reception of the oath.

· The purpose: what was the oath used for and why did it come into being?

· The terms of the contract: what does the oath ask the signatory to do and for how long for. 

· How the oath was taken: not just the form of the oath (performative, oral or written) but to what extent does the signatory sincerely swear to that oath? Indeed, it was commonplace for contemporaries to use ‘equivocations’, which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as ‘the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself’.[3]

· Legacy and influence: some oaths influenced the creation of other oaths, either as a counter-oath or as a form of historical legacy and cultural heritage that inspired later oaths. The lifecycle of an oath could survive beyond its initial purpose and time. 

This feature article aims to introduce, outline and explain the importance of oaths in early modern society. To illustrate this, the article will focus on broadly three different oaths taken in France, the Holy Roman Empire and Scotland. It will not only show you just how important oaths were but how they were found at all levels of society throughout the early modern period.

France: Louis XIVs Coronation Oath and the Great Chain of Being

Louis XIV took his coronation oath on 7 June 1654 at Reims Cathedral. It was an oath he took incredibly seriously. The oath was in two parts, a promise and the oath itself. 

First the bishop requests the following promise from Louis XIV:

The king responds mirroring this request:

The King was making a solemn promise to the First Estate, the clergy, to do his duty as monarch. It was in effect a pact between the King and the clergy outlining the duties that Louis XIV was bound to discharge before God and the clergy bore witness to this promise. Indeed, there was nothing unusual about this as it was part of a long-established tradition in French coronations.[6] 

This was followed by Louis XIV taking a coronation oath:

Here, Louis XIV is effectively making an oath to God and his subjects to rule with justice, compassion and mercy. He also pledges to uphold the Catholic religion. Although Louis XIV is often seen as absolutist monarch and generally seen as a monarch with no restraints, this would be a wrong assumption to make. Louis XIV took his coronation oath extremely seriously and felt bound by the promise and the coronation oath. This commitment shaped policy during his reign.

This promise and oath reflect the concepts of divine right monarchy and the great chain of being. Both concepts were widely accepted during the early modern period. Divine right monarchy believed that the monarch was God’s lieutenant upon earth whose duty it was to uphold the Christian faith and govern his subjects according to the gospel. The ‘great chain of being’ was the societal structure or more accurately the natural order of the universe as created by God. In this ‘great chain of being’ the king as God’s lieutenant upon earth was at the top of the structure, followed by the clergy, nobility and then the people. It is this structure and natural order that Louis XIV’s promise, and oath swore to uphold. This was brought into sharper focus during the coronation, as this oath was sworn the year after the turbulent revolts known as The Fronde had come to an end.[8]

The promise and the oath reflect the view of royal authority as outlined by one of Louis XIVs leading bishops, Jacques Benigne-Bousset in his treatise on royal power. In his view royal authority was sacred as God anoints kings therefore they are ‘representatives for the divine majesty’, ‘the service of God and respect for kings is inseparable’.[9] Bousset also argues that the king is paternal, ‘kings hold the place of God, who is the true Father of the human race.’[10] Royal authority is absolute but is defined by what the law will permit. ‘The prince need account to no one for what he ordains’. ‘There is no co-active force against the prince.’  But ‘Nonetheless kings are not freed from the laws’ and ‘the Prince must know the law.’[11]

There is a close correlation between the promise, the oath and the church. This can be seen when examining Louis XIVs religious policies which were underpinned by Louis XIVs dedication to his coronation oath to uphold the Christian religion and destroy heresy. Disputes between French kings and the Papacy over control of the French church were rooted in the Gallican liberties, a series of religious laws within France dating back centuries which gave the French Catholic church some autonomy from Rome. French kings had claimed church revenues and could nominate clergy in the parishes in consultation with the Catholic Church. However, in 1673 Louis XIV decided to claim full authority over church appointments stating that it was part of his royal prerogative, which legally and theoretically was not the case. [12] Yet, the clergy complied and in 1682 the clergy drew up a ‘Declaration of the Clergy’ in defence of the Gallican Liberties and the Pope’s resistance to Louis’s interpretation of his religious responsibilities under his Royal Prerogative.[13]

Louis XIV also actively focused on banishing heresy from his kingdom as pledged within his coronation oath. Heresy under Louis XIV could include new and emerging forms of Catholicism such as Jansenism as well as the Calvinist Protestants known as Huguenots. The Jansenists believed that not all Catholics could receive God’s Grace which could only be bestowed on the few. This was seen as heretical both by the Papacy and Louis XIV because it challenged the widespread Catholic belief that every person could achieve forgiveness and salvation through God’s Grace. Furthermore, Jansenism’s core belief was very similar to that of Protestant Calvinists, such as the Huguenots who had already used their belief to defy and rebel against the monarch. Louis XIV saw a similar threat of rebellion and conflict from the Jansenists and viewed them with deep suspicion. On this issue the Papacy and Louis XIV were on the same side.[14]

However, the most marked and long-lasting impact of Louis XIVs dedication to his coronation oath was his treatment of the Huguenots and their emigration from France in their thousands. In the early 1660s, whilst the Huguenots had certain rights of worship under the Edict of Nantes, Louis hoped to gently convert the majority of Huguenots to Catholicism:

Effectively Louis XIV was abiding by the law and executing justice by following the Edict of Nantes to the letter but at the same time he was ensuring that the practices of the Huguenots which he saw as heretical would not spread throughout France. In doing so, he was abiding by his promise and coronation oath. 

However, as we have already discussed in a previous newsletter, Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes in October 1685, making the Protestant faith illegal in France. Was the motivation behind this a resurgence in his efforts to uphold his coronation oath? Historians debate over the causes of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes but this effort to banish heresy from his kingdom resulted in thousands of Huguenots fleeing France to other Protestant nations such as Britain and the United Provinces. Huguenot skills dominated some industries in France, and these were depleted in the exodus. This had a detrimental impact on the French economy as historian William Doyle states ‘The exodus signalled a decade of economic disruption in the areas left by the refugees, and Huguenot skills and energies permanently benefited the economies of the lands where they settled, among them some of France’s most formidable competitors.’ [16]

Law in the Holy Roman Empire: The Importance of Judicial Oaths in the Imperial Chamber Court

The Reichskammergericht or the Imperial Chamber Court in English, was the highest court in the Holy Roman Empire during the early modern period. Legal reforms were instituted by the Diet of Worms in 1495. These reforms included the establishment of the Imperial Chamber Court. Its chief role was a meditator in various disputes across the Germanic lands of the Empire. It dealt with disputes over religion between Catholics and Protestants and between the various territorial princes of the Empire and their people. Most remarkably in an early modern context it gave villagers the opportunity to challenge decisions by their landlords. The court became a symbol of peasant resistance. Indeed, the Imperial Chamber Court was an arbiter for every subject within the Holy Roman Empire. Furthermore, the Imperial Chamber Court could not be interfered with by the emperor and sat between the Reichstag (the German Parliament) and the courts at territorial and local levels. It was such an important institution within the Empire that it ran from 1495 to 1806.[17] 

Although the work of the court was slow and took years or even decades to see cases resolved, it sought to project an image of impartiality and equality in terms of its procedures and approach. Central to these procedures and the court’s role as a mediator were the oaths taken by the judges, notaries and witnesses. Judges were required to be non-confessional in their approach to cases and they had to swear an oath of neutrality after the Reformation. This not only ensured that the court upheld its standards but halted any sense of grievance or division within the Germanic lands of the Empire. Ideally, the notaries that were tasked to take the oaths of witnesses and their statements within the villages throughout the Empire were bound to remain impartial but there are questions about whether this ideal worked in practice. Witnesses were required to swear an oath before they gave legal testimony and statements. This oath was to ensure that witnesses told the truth, it was not just an earthly criminal punishment they had to fear if they bore false witness under oath but a divine one too as God would punish those who lied under oath in the next life. If dealing with a private feud, a specific oath was used to bring an end to the dispute. Oaths were the glue that held all aspects of court procedure together from witness statement to pronouncement.[18]

The Imperial Chamber Court and its practices had a major impact on the renewal and evolution of territorial courts within the Holy Roman Empire during the sixteenth century as many of the territorial courts copied its procedures and organisation.[19]

Religion: Scotland’s National Covenant: Scotland’s Marriage Day with God

In July 1637 a riot took place at St Giles Cathedral, Edinburgh. The violence of the riot was so extreme that the bishop giving the service had to be led out of the church under protection. He had been reading from the Scottish Book of Common Prayer which had been written to bring the church in Scotland into closer uniformity with the church in England. The book had been distributed throughout Scotland and had royal approval. However, many Scots, not only saw the new prayer book as an English imposition at odds with Scottish church practices and traditions, but they also saw the book as ‘Popish’ tainted with elements of Catholicism. Indeed, the more Calvinist Scottish Protestants saw the book as a threat to the purity of the Scottish Reformed Kirk. From July 1637 to February 1638, King Charles I was sent many supplications and petitions against the Scottish Book of Common Prayer from across Scottish society. However, Charles I ignored these supplications seeing them as a direct challenge to his authority as monarch. During these months the positions of the monarch and his Scottish subjects became more entrenched. Scottish lawyers and clergymen realising that they had reached an impasse decided to draw up a National Covenant for the defence of the reformed religion in Scotland.[20]

The National Covenant was far more than an oath to defend the reformed faith in Scotland. Its roots were embedded in the Scottish reformed tradition of ‘bands’ between co-religionists, it was in effect a national band to defend the reformed faith. Even more than this, it was a contract between the Scottish people, the King and God to uphold the reformed faith. This is why one of the Covenant’s creators, Archibald Johnston of Wariston called the first day of swearing the Covenant ‘Scotland’s marriage day with God.’  The first signatures of the National Covenant were taken in Greyfriars Kirk in Edinburgh in February 1638. Copies were then distributed throughout the country and hundreds of thousands of Scots from across the society signed the document. Legend has it that some had signed the document with their own blood such was the lifelong intense commitment they felt at the time.[21]

Despite the establishment of the National Covenant and the signatures taken throughout the country, the authors of the document assured Charles I that they were still loyal subjects. But Charles I saw the National Covenant as an act of rebellion and a challenge to his authority.  For a year Charles I contemplated using armed force against his Scottish subjects while the Scottish Privy Council overwhelmed with the acceptance of the National Covenant amongst the Scottish public created and released a counter-oath or counter-covenant known as the King’s Covenant. This Covenant only collected a fraction of the signatures compared to the National Covenant and many of these were obtained from the North-East of Scotland. Even amongst its creators, even Charles I himself, the King’s Covenant was seen as a tool to divide the Covenanters (as the King’s opponents were now known) rather than a sincere oath. Many of those who had already signed the National Covenant were highly reluctant to swear to the King’s Covenant. [22] 

The distance between the monarch and his Scottish subjects grew even wider. Despite months of negotiations and possible concessions Charles I was no closer to subduing his Scottish kingdom. He had contemplated armed force for months and the Covenanters were aware of this. Both sides in the dispute had organised their own armed forces and in the early months of 1639 Royalist and Covenanter forces were skirmishing with each other in the North-East of Scotland. The Wars of the Three Kingdoms (1639-1653) had begun, and the civil war spread and eventually engulfing Britain and Ireland for over a decade causing the deaths of people in the hundreds of thousands.[23]  

I hope you have enjoyed the latest edition of the newsletter. If you are reading this newsletter on the web and have any questions please leave a comment below or you can email me at [email protected]

[1] Kirsteen M MacKenzie, La Garde Ecossaise : The Life of John Hamilton c.1620-1689 Book 1 (Aberdeen, 2022) 70-71.

[2] MacKenzie, La Garde Ecossaise 71.

[3] OED ‘Equivocation’ https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?scope=Entries&q=equivocation accessed 31/5/2025.

[4] Published by Royal Authority,  Le Sacre et Couronnement De Louis XIV Roy De France et Navarre (Paris, 1654) 56. Translated into English from Latin.

[5] Le Sacre et Couronnement De Louis XIV Roy De France et Navarre 56. Translated into English from Latin. I’ve tried to be as accurate as possible whilst acknowledging the clear mirroring of the request from the clergy and the promise from the king.

[6] Philip Mansel, King of the World: the Life of Louis XIV (London, 2022) 65.

[7] Le Sacre et Couronnement De Louis XIV Roy De France et Navarre 57-58.  Translated into English from the Latin. 

[8] David L. Smith, Louis XIV (Cambridge, 1992) 3.

[9] William Beik, Louis XIV and Absolutism: A Brief Study with Documents (New York, 2000) 168.

[10] Beik, Louis XIV and Absolutism 168.

[11] Beik, Louis XIV and Absolutism 169-170.

[12] Smith, Louis XIV  60-62.

[13] Beik, Louis XIV 177-178.

[14] Smith, Louis XIV  64-67.

[15] Smith, Louis XIV  71.

[16] Smith, Louis XIV  72-73; Beik, Louis XIV and Absolutism 193-195; William Doyle ‘Politics: Louis XIV’ in William Doyle ed., Old Regime France (Oxford, 2001) 180-181.

[17] Ralf-Peter Fuchs, ‘The Supreme Court of the Holy Roman Empire: The State of Research and the Outlook’ Sixteenth Century Journal XXXIV (2013) 9-17.

[18] Fuchs, ‘The Supreme Court of the Holy Roman Empire’ 12; Matthais Bähr, ‘The Power of the Spoken Word Depositions of the Imperial Chamber Court: Power, Resistance and Orality’ in Thomas V. Cohen and Lesley K. Twomey eds., Spoken Word and Social Practice: Orality in Europe (1400-1700) (Leiden, 2015) 121-125.

[19] Peter Oestmann, ‘The Imperial Chamber Court and the Development of Law in the Holy Roman Empire’ in Guido Rossi ed., Authorities in Early Modern Law Courts (Edinburgh, 2020) 153.

[20] David Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution 1637-44 (East Linton, 2003) 62-83; Allan Macinnes, Charles I and the Making of the Covenanting Movement (Edinburgh, 1991) 155-182.

[21] Kirsteen M MacKenzie, The Solemn League and Covenant of the Three Kingdoms and the Cromwellian Union 1643-1663 (Abingdon, 2017) 3-6; Macinnes, Charles I and the Making of the Covenanting Movement 173-176. Capital Collections, https://www.capitalcollections.org.uk/view-item?i=43923&WINID=1749044929700 Accessed 04/06/2025. See images of the signatures here and the claim that some people signed their name in blood. 

[22] Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution 1637-44 110-113; Peter Donald, An Uncounselled King: Charles I and the Scottish Troubles (Cambridge, 1990) 76-188.

[23] Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution 127-140.