PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 In Service to Maternal Love: Madame de Sévigné’s Household B ERTRAND L ANDRY (U NIVERSITY OF M OUNT U NION ) In early modern society, distinction between family and household was not clearly defined. Dictionaries loosely described both terms as people, including servants, living under the rule of the father. Maison, as Furetière defines it in his Dictionnaire, “signifie aussi le mesnage, les personnes qui composent une famille, qui habitent une maison […] 1 ”. Additionally, Furetière explains the word mesnage as “les personnes qui composent une famille”; and famille “se prend plus particulièrement pour un mesnage compose d’un chef & de ses domestiques, soit femmes, enfants, ou serviteurs 2 ”. In his groundbreaking work Familles: Parenté, maison, sexualité dans l’ancien régime, Jean-Louis Flandrin asserts that “c’est un anachronisme, répétons-le, de réduire la famille d’autrefois au père, à la mère et aux enfants. Les domestiques en faisaient partie, tous les textes de l’époque en témoignent 3 ”. However, if servants necessarily belonged to the household, they were treated differently. Family includes the multifaceted relationship between masters and servants in Seventeenth-Century France as Susan Broomhall explains: “[t]he pre-modern household was a critical social unit. It defined interactions and relationships both inside and beyond its walls. No relationship, be it created by ties of blood, marriage, social need or economics, can be devoid of emotional content 4 ”. Servants ran the sphere of manual work, but they also participated in the emotional realm within the household. 1 Antoine Furetière, Dictionnaire Universel, 1695, p. 1239. 2 Ibid., p. 1309 & p. 830 3 Jean-Louis Flandrin. Familles: Parentés, maison, sexualité dans l’ancien régime, Paris, Seuil, 1995, p. 164. 4 Susan Broomhall, “Emotions in the Household”, dans Susan Broomhall (dir.), Emotions in the Household, 1200-1700, New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, p. 1. Bertrand Landry PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 216 The correspondence of Madame de Sévigné certainly reveals that she uses her servants in a fashion that corroborates Broomhall’s statement. Indeed, the letters suggest that the master-servant relationship could be more complex, in this case drawing servants into the service of the imagining and enactment of maternal love. A look at Madame de Sévigné’s household is necessary to understand how the servants of a Seventeenth-Century aristocrat performed their emotional task as they insert themselves into their mistress’s intimate connection with her daughter, the Comtesse de Grignan. To cultivate her good graces, they became emotionally involved in the mother-daughter passionate relationship and played an unconventional part in their mistress’s life as recipients of her emotions. The representation of Madame de Sévigné’s interactions with her servants suggests that they allow her to involve them in her life, and she uses them to assert control over the life of her daughter in order to live vicariously through her, which is one of the topoi in the letters. Servants relinquish their emotions to the marquise in an echo to Discours de la servitude volontaire by Étienne de La Boétie, who suggested that people voluntarily submit to an authority, in our case the maternal authority. They are brought into the narrative of the letters when they participate in their mistress’s endless quest for self-definition as a mother. Thus, Jeannette, one of the marquise’s Briton neighbors, and Elisabeth de Montgobert, Madame de Grignan’s secretary, are physically instrumental in contacting her daughter in times of emotional need. In addition to performing a regular schedule of daily tasks, some servants such as her officier, Michel Dubut, and her maître d’hôtel, Michel Lasnier, nicknamed Beaulieu, emotionally invest themselves in the carrying of Sévigné’s letters. Her two chambermaids, Hélène Delan and Marie, become a voice and a recipient of her feelings as does Monsieur Busche, a coachman. Finally, Pilois, her gardener, shows himself as an interested courtesan, albeit a sincere courtesan, as he understands the importance of Madame de Grignan in his mistress’s life. Sévigné’s letters become the witness of the many involvements and contributions servants accomplished in the letter writer’s life, brings them back to life and give them a voice to underline their importance. The Sévigné’s Household It is in an October 12, 1677 letter that Louison’s name is first mentioned: “Je suis là [à Livry] avec Marie et Louison, et je suis la compagnie de Mme de Coulanges qui y est établie depuis cinq semaines 5 ”. Louison’s first name 5 Sévigné, Marie de Rabutin-Chantal, marquise de. Correspondance II, éd. Roger Duchêne, Paris, Gallimard (Éditions de la Pléiade), 1974, p. 579. In Service to Maternal Love : Madame de Sévigné’s Household PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 217 suggests that she is de la lie du peuple as memorialist Saint-Simon would put it. Her commoner’s name echoes those of Magdelon and Cathos, the Précieuses Ridicules that Molière labels “deux pecques provinciales” through the voice of his character La Grange. Louison would have remained anonymous because of her low birth if her mistress had not mentioned her name seven times in the thousands of letters she wrote. It is very little. It is for this very reason that it is not an easy task to accurately list all of Madame de Sévigné’s servants. However, it remains possible to obtain a clear idea of their position in the household. In her letters she regularly mentions fifteen men and women, some shared with the Grignans and other relatives. They worked mainly at her two residences, the Parisian town houses she rented throughout the years - and among them the famous Hôtel Carnavalet - and Les Rochers, the ancestral family seat in Brittany. As head of a household, Sévigné had many responsibilities, among them the management of her estates - with the help of her maternal uncles, and later her son Charles - and the supervision of numerous servants. In her book Domestic Enemies: Servants and Their Masters in Old Regime France, Cissie Fairchilds mentions the Sévigné household and adds precious information about domestic service and emotions: Master rarely mentioned their servants in the memoirs and letters. A good example is the famed letter writer Mme de Sévigné. She wrote literally thousands of letters to her beloved daughter, and few events in her life were too trivial to merit attention. Yet the thirty-odd servants who shared her household garnered only a handful of comments. And in this she was, I suspect, typical of men and women of the time. Perhaps this very silence is the key to masters’ attitudes toward their servants: they were indifferent to and almost oblivious of their existence 6. What seems quite a large number of servants to us as modern readers, was a modest figure for early modern aristocracy. Historian Jean-Pierre Gutton showed that the wealthiest families could own over one hundred servants. For instance, the duke and duchess of Gramont had one hundred and six, the illustrious ministerial Phélypeaux clan managed one hundred and thirteen, and the Grignans, as acting governors of Provence, kept eighty servants at their service. However, Fairchilds fails to appreciate the special relationships Sévigné had with some servants. She underlines that the letter writer did not mention her domestics as often as it could have been expected in a correspondence spanning almost fifty years. However, “thirty-odd” servants neces- 6 Susan Broomhall, “Emotions in the Household”, 2008, op. cit., p. 1. Bertrand Landry PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 218 sarily “[…] created, constructed or obstructed forms of affective sociability 7 ” within the household. On June 16, 1651, Madame de Sévigné’s husband dies in a duel and leaves her both a widow and a head of the household. Michèle Longino pointed out in her book Performing Motherhood: The Sévigné Correspondence that: “[w]idows commonly assumed the paternal role within and without the family 8 ”. Taking control of her life, the marquise refuses to remarry and dedicates her life to her two children. Her daughter, Madame de Grignan, takes center stage in her letters when the latter marries and moves to Provence. Between February 4, 1671 and May 10, 1694, date of the last recorded letter of the correspondence, an epistolary bridge is built between mother and daughter to fill the void caused by Madame de Grignan’s departure. Head of the pyramid-shaped microcosm that represents her household, Sévigné occupies the role of the “tyrant”, described by La Boétie, whose power depends on the power of others. Her end goals are to “install the mirror” as Michèle Longino wrote and perform maternal love as she will build and imagine it. To achieve this, the marquise uses all resources within her power, and her servants play a substantial part to bolster her life purpose. “La Jeune Personne” and Mademoiselle de Montgobert Servants are not necessarily plebeian. Men and women of lesser nobility attached themselves to the service of wealthier, more influential aristocratic families to advance in society. Jean-Pierre Gutton noticed that this practice was done in the hope that they would use their master’s power and consideration to move up in the world 9 . The Correspondence reveals that at least two young “ladies” were in Sévigné’s service. The first one is a neighbor named Jeannette. Her last name is not known and is never mentioned. She is the granddaughter, on her maternal side, of a poor gentleman, Joachim de Marcillé. The young girl, that Sévigné nicknamed la jeune personne (the young person), served as a secretary at a time when the marquise was suffering from rheumatism in her hand and could not write. Although the young lady apparently did not receive any monetary wages - the Correspondence does not yield any information about it, the letter writer praises Jeannette in such a 7 Ibid., p. 1. 8 Michèle Longino, Performing Motherhood: The Sévigné Correspondence, Hanover, Hew Hampshire, University Press of New England, 1981, p. 7. 9 Jean-Pierre Gutton, Domestiques et serviteurs dans la France de l’Ancien Régime, Paris, Aubier Montaigne, 1992, pp. 66-67. In Service to Maternal Love : Madame de Sévigné’s Household PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 219 fashion that the reader believes she had become quite indispensable to the marquise, as it is shown in a March 22, 1676 letter: [J]e me sers donc de ma petite personne pour la dernière fois. C’est la plus aimable enfant du monde ; je ne sais ce que j’aurais fait sans elle. Elle me lit très bien ce que je veux, elle écrit comme vous voyez, elle m’aime, elle est complaisante, elle sait me parler de Mme de Grignan ; enfin elle me prie de l’aimer sur ma parole 10 . This touching panegyric displays the young lady’s practical qualities highly regarded by the marquise. Jeannette reads and writes, but most importantly likes to talk about Madame de Grignan, stroking Sévigné’s ego and reinforcing her maternal fiber. Additionally, Jeannette quickly realizes how important this lady is. The jeune personne seems to deliberately harbor her mistress’ passion. Madame de Sévigné speaks highly about Jeannette who appears to briefly mirror the image of a younger Madame de Grignan. Broomhall’s observations on households is again enlightening here: the household offered a set of rules to order the emotional content of individuals, whether strangers or blood relatives. Often these rules imitated idealized family relationships. Scholars have noted how master-servant relations were often modeled on the advice literature for parent-child interactions, suggesting that societies attempting to find ways to locate interaction between unconnected individuals residing in the household in familiar emotional paradigms 11 . Jeannette disappears from the letters after March 1676 when Madame de Sévigné’s hand finally heals. Since nobody can replace Madame de Grignan, she is labeled an “article de rien du tout 12 ” when she is dismissed because her services are no longer required. Jeannette’s meteoric appearance in the letters highlights that even if she seems to be indispensable in times of need, she is quite disposable as her acquaintance is not crucial to Sévigné, her family, and her circle of fashionable, précieux friends. The most prominent servant featured in the Correspondence is undoubtedly Elisabeth de Montgobert. A brother of hers was a canon in the collegiate church of Grignan which probably explained why she became Madame de Grignan’s secretary. Born into a noble, though impoverished, family, her probable lack of financial means compelled her to become the countess’ companion to escape poverty. Familiarly called “Montgobert” in the letters, this young lady becomes very close to Madame de Grignan because of her position in her household. She quickly occupies an important place in the 10 Correspondance II, op. cit., p. 255. 11 Susan Broomhall, “Emotions in the Household”, op. cit., p. 4. 12 Correspondance II, op. cit., p.198. Bertrand Landry PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 220 letters since Madame de Sévigné befriended Elisabeth to ask her for letters providing further intimate details and exclusive news about her daughter. Montgobert’s correspondence becomes paramount in the marquise’s daily routine as her own daughter’s letters because Madame de Sévigné obtains a double confirmation of what Madame de Grignan tells her in her own letters: “Montgobert m’a écrit des merveilles. Elle me conte si naïvement toute votre aventure, et je me fie si fort à la naïveté de son style, qu’encore que je ne doute point de ce que vous dites, cette confirmation m’a fait beaucoup plaisir 13 ”. On January 10, 1680 she adds: “la bonne Montgobert me parle fort de vous et de votre santé, et j’aime fort les détails qu’elle me conte; je ne puis m’en passer 14 ”. The last remark highlights Montgobert’s importance in Sévigné’s life. This confidence proves to be relative as a question raised on December 29, 1675 reveals that the marquise begins to suspect that her “spy” may hide some details from her: “Montgobert ne me dirait-elle pas toujours de vos nouvelles? 15 ”. Sévigné’s suspicion is real and legitimate since Elisabeth finds herself facing a delicate position: she is caught between a rock and a hard place, as the popular saying goes. The young woman needs to keep her promise to the letter writer and provide her with information, but she also has to uphold her loyalty and discretion toward her mistress. Montgobert must not compromise her own integrity either and must satisfy, and not antagonize, both ladies while heeding her own interest. The letter writer realizes the connivance between the two women and sometimes complains about the interferences it creates with her enactment of maternal love: “c’est une chose étrange qu’après vous avoir demandé six fois, et à Montgobert, des nouvelles de vos coliques, et comme ce mal se passe, et s’il est toujours réglé, vous n’ayez pas voulu m’en dire un seul mot ; je vous prie de me répondre 16 ”. Sévigné’s unhappy tone is clearly noticeable as she vehemently asks for an explanation that her daughter is apparently not willing to give her. While Madame de Grignan’s decision not to share news of her ailing health may seem commendable, it backfires as the marquise worries about not receiving any mention about a topic very dear to her. Mademoiselle de Montgobert suddenly disappears from the correspondence in 1680. Her relationship with her mistress had soured over the years. Roger Duchêne explains that the young secretary thought the comtesse did not like her anymore and was jealous of a chambermaid named Madelon 17 . Elisabeth is last mentioned in an October 1680 letter in which she seems, 13 Ibid., p. 738. 14 Ibid., p. 790. 15 Ibid., p. 203. 16 Ibid., p. 829. 17 Ibid., p. 1531. In Service to Maternal Love : Madame de Sévigné’s Household PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 221 according to Sévigné, to have reconciled with Madame de Grignan: “Montgobert m’écrit des merveilles de son raccommodement. Il me paraît que désormais rien n’est capable de la séparer de vous; il me semblait que je voyais ce fond et que c’était dommage qu’il fût couvert d’épines et de brouillard 18 ”. Sévigné proves to be wrong as Elisabeth de Montgobert eventually leaves the Grignans’ service. The loss she suffers is important because she loses precious, extra information about the comtesse’s life, but she never mentions it again perhaps for her daughter’s sake. The Officiers’ Emotional Investment If Jeannette and Elisabeth de Montgobert held a privileged position in the household, Madame de Sévigné’s servants are ranked according to a strict hierarchy. Michel Dubut and Beaulieu are respectively described as the marquise’s “officier” and “maître d’hôtel”, which proves their high status in her household. Although they primarily head the office - a room continuous to the kitchen where all things needed to serve meals and drinks were stored, according to Furetière’s Dictionaire - and the kitchen, they both assume various other responsibilities, as it is customary at the time 19 . Their efficiency and fidelity to the family are remarkable, although expected. Jean-Pierre Gutton asserts that “à l’égard du maître, tous ces domestiques doivent une obédience sans limite 20 ”. Beaulieu was the valet de chambre (bedchamber servant) to Sévigné’s uncle, abbot Christophe de Coulanges, before joining the letter writer’s household when an aging Coulanges came to live with his niece. Beaulieu obviously received a basic education since he could read, write, and count. Beaulieu’s and Dubut’s most interesting and pertinent service for this study was to send, collect, and forward any letter Madame de Sévigné addressed to Madame de Grignan. The men stepped out of their specialized roles to fulfill their mistress’s wishes and orders. However, Sévigné’s choice of her top servants to execute such an easy task underlines its importance in the marquise’s mind, as well as her deep appreciation of the two men she considers as allies to the building of her epistolary bridge. Some letters describe Dubut’s diligence to serve and content his mistress: 18 Sévigné, Marie de Rabutin-Chantal, marquise de. Correspondance III, éd. Roger Duchêne, Paris, Gallimard (Éditions de la Pléiade), 1978, p. 50. 19 Cissie Fairchilds, Domestic Enemies: Servants and Their Masters in the Old Regime France, Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press, 1984, p. 24. 20 Jean-Pierre Gutton, Domestiques et serviteurs dans la France de l’Ancien Régime, Paris, Aubier Montaigne, 1992, p. 17. Bertrand Landry PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 222 vous pouvez mettre désormais, ma bonne sur vos paquets, à moi à Vitré, et une autre enveloppe à M. Riaux, commis au bureau général de la grand’poste, rue des Bourdonnais, à Paris ; c’est afin que la poste de Provence arrivant, il jette le paquet à celle de Bretagne, qui part le même jour. Dubut en a eu des soins admirables jusqu’ici 21 . Dubut’s soins admirables find an echo in his caring sympathy for his mistress. Madame de Sévigné greatly appreciates his logistics as she obviously counts on him to carry out this important task. In a November 20, 1675 letter, Dubut comforts his mistress when some letters she expected are delayed: “je n’ai point reçu de vos lettres, ma fille; c’est une grande tristesse. Dubut me mande que cela vient du mauvais temps 22 ”. Keen on bolstering the letter writer’s spirits, Dubut blames the weather, not Madame de Grignan, for the delay in the mail. He consequently buys into the rhetoric of sadness connected to a lack of provençale letters. The officier’s kindness toward Sévigné is touching, remarkable, and apparently genuine. In their book Interest and Emotion in Family and Kinship Studies: A Critique of Social History and Anthropology, Hans Medick and David Warren Sabean notice in their introduction that “the practical experience of family life does not segregate the emotional and the material [interest] into separate sphere but is shaped by both at once, and they have to be grasped in their systematic interconnection 23 ”. Beaulieu, and other servants, is emotionally invested in Sévigné’s service. On the other hand, the marquise relies on her servants to do this menial task that a lady of her rank and notoriety could not perform, as it was below her station. Servants submit to her emotional powers of persuasion as she herself depends heavily on servants to fashion her maternal persona when Madame de Grignan is away. All of the servants’ behaviors echo the writings of Étienne de La Boétie, in his essay, Discours de la servitude volontaire: Nous sommes ainsi faits que les devoirs communs de l’amitié absorbent une bonne part de notre vie. Il est raisonnable d’aimer la vertu, d’estimer les belles actions, d’être reconnaissants pour les bienfaits reçus, et de réduire souvent notre propre bien-être pour accroître l’honneur et l’avantage de ceux que nous aimons, et qui méritent d’être aimés. Si donc les habitants d’un pays trouvent parmi eux un de ces hommes rares qui leur ait donné des preuves d’une grande prévoyance pour les sauvegarder, d’une grande 21 Correspondance II, op. cit., p. 944. 22 Sévigné, Marie de Rabutin-Chantal, marquise de, Correspondance I, éd. Roger Duchêne, Paris, Gallimard (Éditions de la Pléiade), 1971, p. 257. 23 Hans Medick et David Warren Sabean, “Interest and Emotion in Family and Kinship Studies: A Critique of Social History and Anthropology”, dans Hans Medick et David Warren Sabean (dir.), Interest and Emotion. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994, p. 11. In Service to Maternal Love : Madame de Sévigné’s Household PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 223 hardiesse pour les défendre, d’une grande prudence pour les gouverner ; s’ils s’habituent à la longue à lui obéir et à se fier à lui jusqu’à lui accorder une certaine suprématie, je ne sais s’il serait sage de l’enlever de là où il faisait bien pour le placer là où il pourra faire mal ; il semble, en effet, naturel d’avoir de la bonté pour celui qui nous a procuré du bien, et de ne pas en craindre un mal 24. These words apply to all servants connected to Sévigné’s motherhood as they involve themselves in the patterns the marquise puts in place to refine her role as a mother. Another male servant, Beaulieu, also mirrors Dubut’s role of letter carrier. Early in the Correspondence the marquise’s maître d’hôtel, Beaulieu, emerges as another very important servant. In 1674, he marries Hélène Delan, one of the letter writer’s favorite chambermaids. This marriage may not seem to be a coincidence as Jean-Louis Gutton points out: “les maîtres étaient sujets à deux tentations: soit de ne jamais marier un bon serviteur pour le garder dans la maison […], soit de le récompenser à bon compte en l’imposant pour mari à l’héritière d’un riche vilain 25 ”. Beaulieu is too indispensable and trusted to be lost to another master, and his marriage to Sévigné’s chambermaid anchors his position at the top of the household. An August 28, 1689 letter testifies of his rank within the household: “je n’ai point reçu votre lettre, ma chère bonne […] je ne puis même envoyer à la poste; Beaulieu est malade. J’en suis fort incommodée 26 ”. Writing from Les Rochers, the marquise certainly had a number of domestics physically able to bring her letters to and from the post office, but not all were necessarily trusted to undertake this important mission. She seems to heavily rely on Beaulieu when Dubut is absent or incapacitated. For some days, the epistolary bridge has collapsed between Brittany and Provence and she is greatly distressed by the situation, and probably less by her servant’s illness. However, it seems as if only Beaulieu can handle this precious cargo. The correspondence sheds light on another facet of Beaulieu’s paramount impact on his mistress’s filial obsession. He becomes an informant for the marquise, mirroring Montgobert’s role, as he recounts his meetings with the marquis de Grignan, Sévigné’s grandson. In turn, she relays to her daughter what her maître d’hôtel has seen and learned: “j’ai mandé à Beaulieu de me bien conter tout ce qu’il [le marquis] dira, fera, et comme il est de sa petite personne 27 ”. She herself 24 Étienne de La Boétie, Discours sur la servitude volontaire. Singulier.eu, singulier.eu/ textes/ reference/ texte/ pdf/ servitude/ pdf. Accédé le 6 juin 2020, p. 3. 25 Jean-Pierre Gutton, Domestiques et serviteurs dans la France de l’Ancien Régime, 1992, op. cit., p. 166. 26 Correspondance III, op. cit., p. 677. 27 Correspondance III, op. cit., p. 794. Bertrand Landry PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 224 becomes an important, reliable, and inescapable source of information for Madame de Grignan whose son often fails to write to her about his whereabouts. Sévigné subtlety tells her daughter that letter writing is of great importance and that she must not herself forget to write to his mother. She puts her daughter in a dependent position that forces her to recognize that the marquise is an important and unavoidable person in her life. Intrinsically, she mirrors her relationship with her own mother, as the countess was rather an oppressive mother with her son as Jacqueline Duchêne showed in her book Françoise de Grignan ou le mal d’amour 28 . Sévigné therefore becomes an intermediary as she relays important information to her daughter about her grandson who often forgets to write to his mother. She mirrors the task she asked Elisabeth de Montgobert and Dubut to perform for her. Servants’ Voices Sévigné’s two principal chambermaids, Hélène Delan and Marie, also play noteworthy roles. Both women witness and quickly grasp the extent of the sorrow stemming from Madame de Grignan’s departure along with the importance of the letters in their mistress’ life. As chambermaids, they have immediate and close access to their mistress and are intimate witnesses to her deepest feelings. The marquise publicly and privately displays her passion for her daughter, and, unlike her contemporaries, she involves her servants in her most intimate moments, instead of excluding them. Two letters will illustrate this. The first letter was written on June 26, 1675 and underlines the level of intimacy some servants enjoyed: “Hélène baise précipitamment la plante de vos pieds, mais je crains qu’elle ne vous chatouille 29 ”. Sévigné highly appreciates Hélène’s playful familiarity with Françoise-Marguerite de Grignan and uses it to her advantage as she momentarily turns her daughter into the young Mademoiselle de Sévigné she misses so much. Undoubtedly Hélène’s role in the letter is an important one as she acts as a catalyst to a delightful trip down to memory lane. A male domestic named Demonville is the putative author of a second letter he wrote under Hélène and Marie’s dictation, which proves that both women could not write, and probably not read. This lack of skills did not stop them from interacting with their mistress, using one of her favorite means of communication. The letter is long lost, but the marquise talks about it at length in her June 21, 1680 letter. She even sends it to her daughter, as letters 28 Jacqueline Duchêne, Françoise de Grignan ou le mal d’amour, Paris, Fayard, 1995, pp. 261-62. 29 Correspondance I, op. cit., p. 743. In Service to Maternal Love : Madame de Sévigné’s Household PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 225 are commonly circulated. The chambermaids’ goal was to good-naturedly compose a letter to show support for a sulky and somewhat depressed Madame de Sévigné: mes femmes de chambre, me voyant occupée de ce beau chapelet, ont trouvé plaisant de m’écrire la lettre que je vous ai envoyée et qui a si parfaitement réussi qu’elles en ont été effrayées, comme nous le fûmes une fois à Fresnes pour une fausseté que cette bonne Scudéry avait prise trop âprement, vous en souvient-il? Elles me virent donc vous envoyer cette lettre, partagées entre pâmer de rire et mourir de peur. ‘Comment, disait Hélène, se moquer de sa maîtresse ! - Mais disait Marie, c’est pour rire ; cela réjouira Madame la Comtesse.’ Enfin elles ont tant tortillé autour de moi qu’ayant tâté et trouvé le terrain favorable, elles m’ont avoué qu’elles avaient fait écrire cette lettre par Demonville ; elles m’ont dit qu’elle était encore toute mouillée, que je devais bien la reconnaître pour une friponnerie plutôt que de vous l’envoyer, que depuis trois nuits elles ne dormaient pas, et qu’enfin elles me demandaient pardon. Voyez si vous ne reconnaissez pas votre mère à ces sottes simplicités, qui vous ont tant diverties à Livry et que je souhaite qui vous divertissent encore . Would this adventure appear in the Correspondence had it not involved a letter? It is not quite certain but what remains fascinating is the effect the letter creates on the marquise. Sévigné especially appreciates it since it reminds her of a rather amusing episode implicating her good friend Mademoiselle de Scudéry, a famous writer at the time and the epitome of préciosité and good taste. The content of the women’s letter is unknown, but Hélène and Marie turn into unsuspecting catalysts that prompt happy memories in Sévigné’s mind. The memories depict cherished past moments when Madame de Grignan, then Mademoiselle de Sévigné, was living with his mother. Cissie Fairchilds suggests that servants liked to mimic their master 31 , but the reader realizes that the two illiterate chambermaids understood the elite culture of letter writing and willingly participated in Madame de Sévigné’s everlasting sadness to be separated from her daughter. Momentarily, the marquise also gives the two women a voice through the narrative of her letters which themselves become evidence how she perceives herself as a mother. 30 Correspondance II, op. cit., p.981. 31 Cissie Fairchilds, Domestic Enemies: Servants and Their Masters in the Old Regime France, op. cit., p. 112. Bertrand Landry PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 226 Monsieur Busche, a Recipient of Feelings In 1671 a coachman named Monsieur Busche takes a brief importance in the letters since he has the responsibility of driving Madame de Grignan’s coach in Provence, where she is going to join her husband for the first time. Fearful of the long and dangerous journey, Sévigné literally begs Monsieur Busche to be extremely careful: Hélas! Je le rencontrai dans la rue, ce M. Busche, qui amenait vos chevaux. Je l’arrêtai, et tout en pleurs je lui demandai son nom ; il me le dit. Je lui dis tout en sanglotant : ‘Monsieur Busche, je vous recommande ma fille, ne la versez point ; et quand vous l’aurez menée heureusement à Lyon, venez me voir et me dire de ses nouvelles. Je vous donnerai de quoi boire 32 . Unpaved roads could be in terrible shape and travelers’ safety depended on the weather. The risk of being overturned was real and could be sometimes deadly. An April 10, 1671 letter, Madame de Sévigné recounts that her friend Brancas’ coach was overthrown but he thankfully survived, highlighting the dangers of coach traveling: “toutes ses glaces étaient cassées, et sa tête l’aurait été s’il n’était plus heureux que sage 33 ”. Lured by easy money and probably moved by a mother’s tears, Monsieur Busche keeps his promises and does not fail to pay her a visit upon his return to Paris, probably manipulated by the sobbing marquise who knows the power of gold, as a March 6, 1971 letter reveals: “M. Busche m’est venu voir tantôt […]. J’ai pensé l’embrasser en songeant comme il vous a bien menée. Je l’ai fort entretenu de vos faits et gestes, et puis je lui ai donné de quoi boire un peu à ma santé 34 ”. Sévigné’s passion for her daughter drives her to use every avenue she can imagine, and she almost befriends, if not bribes, a coachman in this case, to obtain unique details about Madame de Grignan’s daily life. She appeals to Busche’s empathy as well as his self-interest. This episode underlines and heightens the marquise’s maternal love to the point of exacerbation, and near hysteria, as her tears witnessed, along with the coachman’s material interest in the matter. During a split second, Sévigné tuns into a Mater Dolorosa, in a Pieta-like scene, mirroring one seen in many churches in Early Modern France. She touched a simple man’s heart as she temporarily re-enacts, through him, the details of his trip, and imagines her daughter’s every moves and moods. 32 Correspondance I, op. cit., pp. 156-57. 33 Ibid., pp. 217-18. 34 Ibid., p. 176. In Service to Maternal Love : Madame de Sévigné’s Household PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 227 A Courtesan’s Attention Was there a transmission of knowledge between Sévigné’s servants? Did they talk among themselves to share their mistress’s likes and dislikes? This type of gossip undoubtedly happened. However, servants were probably careful not to commit faux pas and to keep the marquise in the highest of spirits as it is witnessed in the letters. Jacques Pilois, Sévigné’s gardener at her Briton estate, brings a pleasant contribution to her correspondence. His name surfaces in the letters when the marquise came to spend time in Brittany to save money as her finances were strained. Rustic Pilois does not appear to be subtle enough to match his mistress’s emotions with his own interests. However, he embodies solid peasant stock paired with common sense, and he instinctively knows where his interest is. He is a hard-working gardener who understands Sévigné’s vision for her estate grounds. Year after year, he expands and embellishes the grounds, assisting his mistress in planting trees, and creating new alleyways. When the letter writer takes long strolls and reminisces about her daughter, Pilois’ work is partially responsible for Sévigné’s joy and well-being. She appreciates this simple and uneducated man for his common sense and his lack of pretenses. He also knows that her mistress loves trees that she often describes in her correspondence as her children. A letter written on December 2, 1671 depicts Pilois’ apparently genuine happiness after the birth of the marquise’s grandson, Louis-Provence de Grignan : “mais rien ne m’a été plus agréable que le compliment de Pilois, qui vint le matin, avec sa pelle sur le dos, et me dit : ‘Madame, je viens me réjouir, parce qu’on m’a dit que Mme la Comtesse était accouchée d’un petit gars 35 ”. His rustic language touches Sévigné as deep if not deeper than the finest, most sophisticated conversation she would have in the fashionable Faubourg Saint-Honoré in Paris, because it is frank and devoid of artifice. She particularly enjoys when the subject deals with Madame de Grignan. On the other hand, Pilois can also be quite a courtisan, as his mistress realized and once recounted in an August 28, 1680 letter: “vous croyez que Pilois ne connaît pas votre nom? Détrompez-vous, ma bonne; il est trop courtisan, et me parle souvent de cette pistole que vous lui donnâtes dans le comble de l’affliction de la mort de sa vache, et que, sans cela, il était perdu 36 ”. Pilois has many reasons to praise both his mistress and her daughter. He undoubtedly feels genuine affection for the marquise and her family. However, of course his own self-interest inevitably prompted some actions and conver- 35 Ibid., p. 385. 36 Ibid., p. 1059. Bertrand Landry PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 228 sations he had with his mistress. Pilois contributes to the marquise’s performance of motherhood, in his own simple ways. Louison’s stereotypical case will close this survey. She is probably the servant of the lowest rank in the Correspondence. Louison never reaches the status of Hélène and Marie. She is often associated with walks on the grounds of Les Rochers as someone who accompanies the marquise, not as companion like Mongobert: “C’est ce bois qui fait mes délices; il est d’une beauté surprenante. J’y suis souvent seule avec ma canne et avec Louison; Il ne m’en faut pas davantage 37 ”. Sévigné does not see Louison as a conversation partner either. She is out with the marquise because a lady would not go outside unaccompanied. Sévigné describes herself as “seule”, “avec sa canne et avec Louison” as she almost equates her servant to a prop, echoing the October 12, 1677 letter, in which only Madame de Sévigné is deemed good company to Madame de Coulanges. Conclusion In early modern society masters did not generally heed their servants, who they saw as mere commodities. Mentions of domestics and domesticity were undoubtedly considered as a trivial conversation piece for a salonnière such as Madame de Sévigné. However, the marquise mentions her servants in her letters more than was common at the time. Sévigné differs from her peers as she assigns them to the most unusual task, helping her with the performance of her maternal love. Domestics of higher social status, such as Jeannette and Elisabeth de Montgobert, have a physical role of writing letters, respectively, to and about Mme de Grignan, to alleviate Sévigné’s worries about keeping contact with her daughter and obtaining more information about her. Jeannette mirrors a younger version of her daughter, giving the marquise’s choice for a secretary an unexpected, though important, psychological turn. Elisabeth de Montgobert plays a fascinating game of balance and strategy between Madame de Grignan, her mistress, and the latter’s mother who is on friendly terms with her because she can provide her with unique information about her daughter. Montgobert becomes an ally to respect, consider, and cultivate. Their role remains ephemeral as both will disappear from the Correspondence once they are no longer needed. Servants play distinct roles according to their standing in the household. On top of the pyramid stand two men, trustworthy servants Dubut and Beaulieu who involve themselves physically as they mail, collect, and forward 37 Correspondance II, op. cit., p. 973. In Service to Maternal Love : Madame de Sévigné’s Household PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 229 letters addressed to Mme de Grignan, literally maintaining at arms’ length the epistolary bridge between the two women. Sévigné becomes heavily reliant on them as they involve themselves emotionally and seem to pledge an unbreakable oath of allegiance to the marquise’s construction of her maternal persona. Chambermaids Hélène and Marie’s role is paramount as they understand the importance of the aristocratic culture of letter writing and their easy access and intimacy with their mistress teach them to appreciate their mistress’s unconventional love for her daughter. They do not hesitate to forge a letter to alleviate Madame de Sévigné’s gloomy disposition when she misses her daughter. At the household bottom tier stand coachman Busche and gardener Pilois who have different roles in the Correspondence. Mirroring Beaulieu and Dubut’s roles, and to an extent Montgobert’s, baited with tears and money, Busche is drawn into Sévigné’s emotional world, conveying to the marquise intimate details about her daughter as he physically drives the Countess to Lyon and Provence. Pilois is empathetic, and also venal, a blend Sévigné seems to recognize as existing comfortably in the persona of this category of servant. As a courtesan, Pilois attends to his mistress’s ego in a kind of gesture of exchange for the money he had received from Madame de Grignan. In the very regimented and hierarchical household of the Seventeenth- Century, Sévigné offers her servants a superior place in her letters, a voice, and an existence that history would not otherwise have given them. Most importantly, she describes their feelings and emotions at a time when literary writing and developments in modes of self-expression are turning inward, more explicit interest in the psyche of the individual. She makes human beings out of these members of her household family. Her accounts also show servants involving themselves emotionally in the fashioning of their mistress’ motherhood and becoming voluntarily dependent in way that echoes Etienne de La Boétie’s philosophy on masters and servants in his book Discours sur la servitude volontaire. This study complements research on the history of emotions and the household with a detailed look at motherhood and correspondence in the work of a writer who has come to represent the prime exemplar of both. Moving from the general to the particular, I have tried to detail how a Sévigné’s vaunted invention and performance of motherhood grew as part of a network of interactions within her household. Servants are willing and sometimes unconscious tools the letter writer uses to crystallize her selfdefinition as a mother and her vicarious life through her daughter. Whatever their task may be, servants take a secondary place in the Correspondence following societal conventions, but a prime and original place in Sévigné’s performance of maternal love. Bertrand Landry PFSCL XLVII, 93 (2020) DOI 10.2357/ PFSCL-2020-0014 230 Bibliography Primary Sources Sévigné, Marie de Rabutin-Chantal, marquise de. Correspondance I, éd. Roger Duchêne. Paris, Gallimard (Editions de La Pléiade), 1971. Sévigné Marie de Rabutin-Chantal, marquise de. Correspondance II, éd. Roger Duchêne. Paris, Gallimard (Editions de La Pléiade), 1974. Marie de Rabutin-Chantal, marquise de. Correspondance III, éd. Roger Duchêne. Paris, Gallimard (Editions de La Pléiade), 1978. La Boétie, Etienne de. Discours sur la servitude volontaire. Singulier.eu, singulier.eu/ textes/ reference/ texte/ pdf/ servitude/ pdf. Accédé le 6 juin 2020. Works Cited Broomhall, Susan. “Emotions in the Household”, in Susan Broomhall (dir.), Emotions in the Household, 1200-1700. New York, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Duchêne, Jacqueline. Françoise de Grignan ou le mal d’amour. Paris, Fayard, 1985. Fairchilds, Cissie. Domestic Enemies: Servants and Their Masters in the Old Regime France. Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press, 1984. Flandrin, Jean-Louis. Familles: Parenté, maison, sexualité dans l’ancienne société. Paris, Seuil, 1995. Furetière Antoine. Dictionnaire Universel contenant generalement tous les mots François tant vieux que modernes et les Termes de toutes les Sciences et des Arts. 1695. Gutton, Jean-Pierre. Domestiques et serviteurs dans la France de l’Ancien Régime. Paris, Aubier Montaigne, 1992. Longino, Michèle. Performing Motherhood: The Sévigné Correspondence. Hanover, New Hampshire, University Press of New England, 1991. Medick, Hans et Sabean David Warren. “Interest and Emotion in Family and Kinship Studies: A Critique of Social History and Anthropology”, in Hans Medick et David Warren Sabean (dir.), Interest and Emotion. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp. 1-9.