This chapter examines John’s legacy after his death, both at Fécamp and in
the wider medieval spiritual landscape. The chapter first shows how John’s
students and followers at Fécamp elaborated on the seeds of affective
devotion that John’s Confessio theologica planted: a cult to the precious
blood of Christ was established at Fécamp; John’s students Maurilius of
Rouen and Gerbert of Saint-Wandrille wrote affective prayers to a crucified
Christ; Guibert of Nogent, a Norman monk, wrote his own memoir in the style
of Augustine’s Confessions thanks to John; and, most famously, Anselm of Bec
wrote his prayers and meditations, following in the steps of the greatest
Norman abbot of the generation before him. This chapter moves on to discuss
how John’s Confessio theologic’s ideas changed in the hands of the
Cistercians, and how they circulated in the later Middle Ages, often
misattributed in manuscripts to Anselm or Bernard or Francis. This chapter
concludes by making clear the parts of John’s Confessio theologica’s
devotional method that served as the foundation for later medieval affective
devotional practice, and the parts of John’s ideas that abandoned in later
iterations of affective devotion practised by Cistercians, mendicants,
mystics, and the laity.
de Fontenay-Mareuil, Mémoires du Messire Du Val, ed. Louis
Monmerqué, 2 vols. (Paris, 1826), I, 458.
26 The 59 new knights were added to 28 existing ones, making 87 knights, the largest number
possible under the statutes, and with the 9 clerics and 4 ofﬁcers, a total of 100.
27 B.N., Ms. fr. 16802, fols.177–8; Fontenay-Mareuil, Mémoires, I, 459; McCorquodale, “The
Court of Louis XIII,” p. 176.
28 Anselme, Histoire généalogique, IX, 13.
29 McCorquodale, “The Court of Louis XIII,” p. 177; B.N., Ms. fr. 16802, fols. 177–8; Mercure
françois, VI (1620), 1–24.
’Arnauld d’Andilly 1614–1620 (Paris, 1857),
pp. 399–400; Héroard, Journal, II, 2521.
3 Ibid., II, 2487; Joseph Bergin, The Making of the French Episcopate (New Haven, 1996), pp. 431,
4 Louis Batiffol, Le Louvre sous Henri IV et Louis XIII (Paris, 1930), pp. 31–2.
5 Paul Phélypeaux de Pontchartrain, Mémoires concernant les affaires de France sous la régence de
Marie de Médicis, eds. Michaud and Poujoulat, 2nd ser., vol. 5 (Paris, 1837), p. 395; Georges
Poisson, La Duchesse de Chevreuse (Paris, 1999), pp. 9–57.
6 Mercure françois, V (1617), 97.
THE REWARDS OF FAVOR
Lb 36, Les Cérémonies royales faictes en baillant par la
maison du Roy l’espée du Connestable à Monseigneur le duc de Luynes le 2 avril (1621); Mercure
françois, 25 vols. (Paris, 1605–44), VII (1621), 277; Jean Héroard, Journal, ed. Madeleine
Foisil, 2 vols. (Paris, 1989), II, 2749–53; Eugène Halphen, ed., Journal inédit d’Arnauld
d’Andilly 1621 (Paris, 1891), pp. 19–20; B.I.F., Collection Godefroy 519, fols. 137–9; Henri
Griffet, Histoire du règne de Louis XIII, 3 vols. (Paris, 1758), I, 283.
2 Charles, comte Horric de Beaucaire, ed., Mémoires du Cardinal de
Alexei Kuropatkin, the Central Asian Revolt, and the long shadow of
Violent acculturation: Alexei Kuropatkin,
the Central Asian Revolt, and the long
shadow of conquest
Ian W. Campbell
On 1 May 1868, Alexei Nikolaevich Kuropatkin was far in rank and in distance from the heights his military career would later reach. The twenty-
year-old son of Pskov province and recent military school graduate had
got his first taste of real battle on campaign in the Central Asian emirate
of Bukhara, en route to Samarkand. As he described the experience in his
memoir fifty years later, he had not found it an edifying experience, still
together as a team to defeat the Queen Mother,
and they would govern France together the same way.
POWER AND REPUTATION
1 Guillaume Girard, The History of the Life of the Duke of Espernon, tr. Charles Cotton (London,
1670), pp. 347–50; J. Russell Major, “The Revolt of 1620,” Fr Hist Stud 14 (1986), 391; François
Du Val, marquis de Fontenay-Mareuil, Mémoires du Messire Du Val, ed. Louis Monmerqué, 2
vols. (Paris, 1826), I, 431–6; Achille Halphen, ed., Journal d’Arnauld d’Andilly 1614–1620
(Paris, 1857), pp. 447–8; Paul Phélypeaux de Pontchartrain, Mémoires
des guerres de Louis XIII contre les religionnaires rebelles (Paris, 1633),
pp. 205–30; Louis de Pontis, Mémoires du sieur de Pontis, ed. Petitot, 2nd ser., vol. 31
(Paris, 1824), 316; François Du Val, marquis de Fontenay-Mareuil, Mémoires du Messire Du
Val, ed. Louis Monmerqué, 2 vols. (Paris, 1826), I, 516–8; Claude Malingre, Histoire de
la rebellion excitée en France par les rebelles de la religion prétendue réformée (Paris, 1626), pp.
500–63, 611–20, 627–35; A.D. Lublinskaya, French Absolutism. The Crucial Phase 1620–1629
(Cambridge, 1968), pp. 189–94; Auguste
studies) producing fiction alongside their academic work, and teachers of
creative writing, of course, also publish it, as well as doing their own critical scholarship.2 At the same time, there has been a long-standing attempt by academics to
combine autobiographical with scholarly writing.3 Here we have no ambitions to
combine fictional and academic writing, or to move from the latter into straightforwardly autobiographical or memoir essays. This would be a slightly different
kind of book.4 Instead, all the contributors to Writing Otherwise are invested in
-evaluation of the Church’s absolutist doctrines concerning
permissible and impermissible sexual acts, but has done so from the perspective of
a generally friendly internal critic.1 To quote from his aptly titled memoir, Loyal
Dissent, Curran believes himself to have ‘generally agreed strongly with the broad
fundamental aspects of the Catholic theological tradition’ and to have worked
‘primarily out of that tradition’.2 He would ‘not feel comfortable in any other
tradition’; his ‘problems are with particular church teachings, not with its core dogma
or broad theological
course of the 1780s. La Blancherie grew jealous of his rivals’ success. At one
point, when he had to shut down temporarily, he lost many members to the
Musée de Monsieur. Despite the approbation he had received from the
Académie Royale des Sciences, some of his enemies even suggested that the
Musée de Monsieur should absorb the Salon de la Correspondance and take
over all of its functions. The editors of the Mémoires secrets virulently attacked
both La Blancherie and his club. They criticized the Académie Royale des
Sciences for its actions and compared La