(eBook PDF) Environmental Sociology:

From Analysis to Action 4th Edition

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-environmental-sociology-from-analysis-to
-action-4th-edition/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

(eBook PDF) Contemporary Organizational Behavior: From

Ideas to Action

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-contemporary-
organizational-behavior-from-ideas-to-action/

(eBook PDF) An Invitation to Environmental Sociology

6th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-an-invitation-to-
environmental-sociology-6th-edition/

(Original PDF) Sociology in Action 3rd Canadian Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/original-pdf-sociology-in-
action-3rd-canadian-edition/

(eBook PDF) Global Environmental Politics: From Person

to Planet

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-global-environmental-
politics-from-person-to-planet/
(eBook PDF) Sociology in Action A Canadian Perspective
2nd

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-sociology-in-action-a-
canadian-perspective-2nd/

(eBook PDF) Psychology From Inquiry to Understanding

From Inquiry to Understanding 4th

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-psychology-from-inquiry-
to-understanding-from-inquiry-to-understanding-4th/

(eBook PDF) Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology

2nd

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-twenty-lessons-in-
environmental-sociology-2nd/

(eBook PDF) Biochemical Adaptation: Response to

Environmental Challenges from Life's Origins to the
Anthropocene

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-biochemical-adaptation-
response-to-environmental-challenges-from-lifes-origins-to-the-
anthropocene/

(eBook PDF) Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology

3rd Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-twenty-lessons-in-
environmental-sociology-3rd-edition/
Acknowledgments
For help, assistance, and great ideas on this fourth edition, we would like to
thank first and foremost our student assistants: Zoe Tilden, Samantha Peikes,
Kathryn Maurer, and Shea Leibow. Their insightful comments and questions on
dozens upon dozens of chapters and articles helped us narrow down our choices.
Zoe also helped us proofread and edit the pieces we included. In addition, we
thank our editor at Rowman & Littlefield, Nancy Roberts, and her assistant
Megan Manzano.

vii
Preface
We both strongly believe that humans have come to a turning point in terms of
our destruction of ecological resources and the endangerment of human health.
A daily look at the major newspapers points, without fail, to worsening envi-
ronmental problems and sometimes (but not often enough) a hopeful solution.
Humans created these problems, and we have the power to resolve them. Nat-
urally, the longer we wait, the more devastating the problems will become; the
more we ignore the sociological dimensions of environmental decline, the more
our proposed solutions will fail.
Out of our concern for and dedication to bringing about a more sustainable
future, we have worked hard to develop environmental sociology courses that
not only educate students about environmental issues but also show them their
potential role as facilitators of well-informed change. This reader results in large
part from our commitment to the idea that sociology can be a starting point for
social change, and we have sought to include in it work that reflects our vision.
Sociology, however, can be good at critiquing social arrangements and not as
good at highlighting positive change and explaining how that change has come
about. We tried to include a few selections that show how groups of people have
been able to effect positive changes, but be warned that some of the selections in
this reader, reflecting the discipline of sociology, reveal problems in which solu-
tions may seem elusive.
Anthologies seek to accomplish different things. One of our goals has been
to provide students and their instructors with shortened versions of fairly recent
academic research. Mostly, the articles and chapters included here were originally
intended for an academic audience; to make them more accessible to students
new to the discipline, we have shortened most of the selections and tried to pro-
vide a bit of context for each one.
We actively looked for readings that interest, motivate, and make sense to an
undergraduate audience. Choosing which selections to include has been exciting
and thought provoking, but it was not without a few dilemmas. For example, a
good deal of research in the subdiscipline of environmental sociology is quan-
titative. Some undergraduate students have the skills to read and interpret this
type of work, but many do not. Thus, we have leaned toward qualitative work
that is often more accessible to generalist audiences. Our selection process has
evolved over the four editions, and this edition is most pointedly focused on
pieces that would provoke productive discussion, whether for students in small
seminars or for students in larger classes. We do not include “classical” or foun-
dational works; instead, we provide an overview of more recent work in the field
to give students a sense of what types of research environmental sociologists are
currently engaging in. This field is relatively new and it’s evolving quickly—there
are many exciting new directions to discover.
In addition, several other good edited volumes and readers include the
“classics,” so we did not see a need to reinvent the wheel. One of our most
viii
 Preface ix

difficult decisions was to leave out many “big name” researchers who have pro-
foundly influenced the field. Some of this work represents a dialogue with a long
and intertwined body of thought and research. Understanding such a dialogue
would require reading the lineage of research leading up to it. In addition, much
of the theoretical work in environmental sociology (as in most of our subdisci-
plines) engages important, but very specialized, issues.
As a way of providing students with a beginning understanding of this lin-
eage, our introductory chapter presents a brief overview of the field for students
wishing to explore specific theoretical perspectives in greater depth. The works
in the book itself balance this introductory chapter—recent articles and book
chapters illustrate a wide variety of ways that sociologists might address environ-
mental questions. The field of environmental sociology has changed dramatically
since the first edition of this reader, published in 2004. Our main challenge, as
editors, in putting together the first edition was to find enough contemporary
pieces. By contrast, the main challenge that we faced in putting together the
fourth edition was choosing which excerpts to include given the abundance of
great work. This, as they say, is a good problem to have. We have watched the
field grow from a fringe sociology subdiscipline to a major force in research on
interdisciplinary environmental issues. It’s an exciting, and hopeful, time to be
an environmental sociologist. With this in mind, the introductory chapter of the
fourth edition, and the pieces republished in this volume, reflect changes and
growth that have occurred in the discipline over the last several years.
We also wanted this reader to be accessible to a maximum number of instruc-
tors, whether or not they are specialists in environmental sociology. Most sociol-
ogists and social scientists we know speak the language of inequalities, political
economy, and social constructionism; we tend not to be as fluent in the bio-
logical and mechanical details of energy production, watershed management, or
climate change. Thus, we organized our reader not by environmental issue but
by sociological perspective. The reader frames the issues in terms of sociologi-
cal concepts and seeks to show students how sociologists go about examining
­environment-related issues. We do want to emphasize, though, that in devel-
oping the reader’s conceptual blocks, we were careful to cover a broad range of
topics—from coal mining to overfishing to climate change.
Ultimately, we think the most important feature of the reader is not the
topics we chose or how we decided to organize the different chapters into cat-
egories; rather, it is the connection between power and environmental decision
making that is woven throughout the collection in the choice of material. Most
of the chapters address systems of power (e.g., inequalities in the distribution of
toxic waste or who gets blamed for environmental problems, among others). We
believe that good environmental decision making must incorporate sociological
perspectives, and we hope that activists, policy makers, and academics will benefit
from exposure to these frameworks.
Introduction

Environmental Problems
Require Social Solutions
Deborah McCarthy Auriffeille and Leslie King

What Is Environmental Sociology?

What is environmental sociology? The answer, of course, involves exploring two
ideas: sociology and environment. Sociology is, above all else, a way of viewing
and understanding the social world. It allows us to better understand social orga-
nization, inequalities, and all sorts of human interaction. Sociology is a multifac-
eted discipline that researchers use in diverse ways and, along with many others
(e.g., Feagin and Vera 2001), we think it has the potential to help us create
a more just world. Like sociology, environment can be an elusive term. Is the
environment somewhere outside, “in nature,” untouched by humans? Or are
humans part of the environment? Does it include places where you live and work
and what you eat and breathe? Or is it more remote: the rolling valleys of the
Blue Ridge Mountains, the pristine waters of Lake Tahoe, the lush rain forests of
Brazil?
For environmental sociologists, the answer is that the “environment”
encompasses the most remote regions of the earth as well as all the bits and
pieces of our daily lives—from the cleaners we use to wash our carpets to the
air we breathe on our way to work each day. Most environmental sociologists
assume, first and foremost, that humans and nature are part of each other and
are part of the environment and that environment and society can only be fully
understood in relation to each other. We build on this understanding to point
to fissures that are developing in the relationship between humans and nature.
These are problems that humans both have contributed to and are feverishly
attempting to solve. Our lack of understanding about the human-nature rela-
tionship has led to some of our worst environmental problems—climate change,
toxic waste, deforestation, and so on—and has limited our ability to solve those
problems.
In fact, some attempts to solve environmental problems have actually made
them worse. The Green Revolution, initiated in the mid-twentieth century, is
an example. Promoted by U.S.-based organizations, including the Rockefeller
Foundation, the Green Revolution entailed the transfer of large-scale agricultural
technologies and practices first to Mexico and later to several countries in Asia

1
2 Introduction

(Dawson, Martin, and Sikor 2016). The stated goal of the Green Revolution
was to increase world food yields through the transfer of Western agricultural
techniques, fertilizers, pesticides, knowledge, and equipment to lower-income
countries. The resulting shift massively reorganized agricultural production on a
global scale. Although the global rates of food production increased, the revolu-
tion, with its focus on export crop production, for-profit rather than sustainable
agriculture, mechanization, and heavy pesticide and fertilizer use, contributed
to the destabilization of social, political, and ecological systems in many regions
of the world (Dowie 2001: 106–40). For example, farmers must now engage in
a money economy in order to pay for pesticides and herbicides, and, as a result,
many small-scale farmers have lost their land (Bell 1998). What is more, as Peter
Rosset and colleagues (2000) point out, an increase in food production does
not necessarily lead to a decrease in hunger. In their words, “Narrowly focus-
ing on increasing production—as the Green Revolution does—cannot alleviate
hunger because it fails to alter the tightly concentrated distribution of economic
power, especially access to land and purchasing power. . . . In a nutshell—if the
poor don’t have the money to buy food, increased production is not going to
help them.” Importantly, the Green Revolution is not something that happened
only in the past. The Green Revolution continues to operate, and its impacts
continue to be felt (Sekhon 2017). One recent article documents that some of
the negative impacts of the Green Revolution in India include the loss of soil
fertility, erosion of soil, soil toxicity, diminishing water resources, pollution of
underground water, and increased incidence of human and livestock diseases
(Rahman 2015). Recently, Green Revolution strategies are being promoted in
African countries where, because it still primarily benefits large farms that are
geared toward production rather than subsistence, it is resulting in some of the
same deleterious effects, including poverty exacerbation and impairment of local
systems of knowledge (Dawson, Martin, and Sikor 2016).
With a better understanding of how political, cultural, and economic struc-
tures shape decision making, perhaps we can prevent such problems from occur-
ring again and build a more socially and environmentally sustainable future. The
collection of readings in this book represents a broad sample of work by many
writers and researchers who are attempting to illuminate social structures and
practices with a view toward creating a more socially just and ecologically sus-
tainable world.

Environmental Problems Are Social Problems

Sociologists, by focusing their research on questions of inequality, culture, econ-
omy, power, and politics, bring a perspective to environmental questions and
problems that is quite different from that of most natural and physical scien-
tists. Take the following examples: the devastating impact of the 2005 Hurri-
cane Katrina on communities in Louisiana and Mississippi; the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
disaster in Japan. Why are those not uniquely “natural science” or engineer-
ing issues? While scientists and engineers train their lenses on weather patterns,
 Introduction 3

wetland loss, or technological and engineering questions, sociologists look at

how social organization—a series of identifiable managerial steps, a collection of
beliefs, a set of regulations, or other social structures—contributes to or causes
what are often labeled as “natural disasters” or “accidents.” In the following
summaries, we consider several of these disasters in detail.
• Hurricane Katrina: Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast of Louisiana and
Mississippi on August 29, 2005. With a storm surge of 20–32 feet, Katrina
did enormous damage; over 1,800 people were killed, and between 700,000
and 1.2 million people were displaced (Gabe et al. 2005; Picou and Marshall
2007). New Orleans was devastated as its levees were breeched and much
of the city was flooded. While hurricanes are typically considered “natural
disasters,” Katrina’s extreme consequences must be considered the result of
social and political failures. Prior to Katrina, it was known that New Orleans
was at risk for flooding in the event of a powerful storm. According to Jenni
Bergal (2007: 4), “Numerous studies before Katrina cautioned that storm
protection plans weren’t moving fast enough, that the levees might not hold
in a strong hurricane, that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had used out-
dated data in its engineering plans to build the levees and floodwalls and that
the wetlands buffering the area from storms were disappearing.” Coastal
land that protected New Orleans had been lost due to human activities
including settlement, the building of canals to promote shipping, and the
digging of channels for oil and gas pipelines (Hiles 2007). The levee system
that provided additional protection was vulnerable due, among other things,
to design errors, and the emergency response that should have assisted resi-
dents in the aftermath of the storm proved grossly inadequate (Kroll-Smith,
Baxter, Jenkins 2015; McQuaid 2007).
• Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: The Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010 hap-
pened while British Petroleum (BP) was drilling for oil 5,000 feet under the
sea floor in the Gulf of Mexico (Krauss 2012). An explosion on the Deepwa-
ter Horizon rig destroyed the drilling platform, caused the death of eleven
people and resulted in a breeched wellhead; oil spilled for three months,
and by the time the well was capped, an estimated 4.9 million barrels (or
about 200 million gallons) of oil had flowed into the Gulf (Freudenburg and
Gramling 2011). In addition, 1.8 million gallons of dispersants to dissolve
the oil were applied, and there are serious safety concerns about these dis-
persants (Foster 2011). The U.S. Department of Interior (2012) reported
that the impacts of the spill were extensive and affected “important species
and their habitats across a wide swath of the coastal areas of Alabama, Flor-
ida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, and a huge area of open water in the
Gulf of Mexico. When injuries to migratory species such as birds, whales,
tuna and turtles are considered, the impacts of the Spill could be felt across
the United States and around the globe.”
The stage was set for this disaster by a series of human decisions guided
by BP’s desire to cut costs and the failure of the U.S. government to strictly
regulate and monitor the actions of the companies drilling in the Gulf of
4 Introduction

Mexico (Freudenburg and Gramling 2011). According to a report by Public

Broadcasting Service’s (PBS) Frontline and ProPublica (PBS 2010) BP, in
order to cut costs and increase profits, had a history of failing to prioritize
for the safety of workers and the environment. Prior to the Deepwater Hori-
zon disaster, there had been an explosion in one of BP’s Texas refineries in
2005 that killed twenty-six people, and there had been a major oil spill in
Alaska in 2006 that resulted from a ruptured pipeline. A reporter for the
New Orleans Times Picayune (Hammer 2010) wrote, “The rig’s malfunc-
tioning blowout preventer ultimately failed, but it was needed only because
of human errors. . . . The engineers repeatedly chose to take quicker, cheaper
and ultimately more dangerous actions, compared with available options.
Even when they acknowledged limited risks, they seemed to consider each
danger in a vacuum, never thinking the combination of bad choices would
add up to a total well blowout.” Thus, to understand an event such as the
Deepwater Horizon blowout, it is important to consider not only “techno-
logical failures” but also the social organization that allows for a series of
risky decisions by powerful actors.
• Fukushima Nuclear Disaster: In March 2011, a powerful earthquake struck
off the coast of Japan in the Pacific Ocean, generating an enormous tsu-
nami and ultimately causing catastrophic meltdowns at the Fukushima Daii-
chi Nuclear Plant. The tsunami disabled the backup generators that would
have been used to cool reactors that were shut down as a result of the
earthquake. The resulting disaster was the worst nuclear accident since the
meltdown at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986. Radiation releases at
the Fukushima plant necessitated the evacuation of 90,000 people (Fackler
2012) and caused extensive damage to Japan’s food and water supplies.
The Japanese government and the power company that ran the plant,
Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), were subsequently criticized for
failing to institute adequate safety measures, given that the plant was built in
an earthquake- and tsunami-prone area (Fackler 2012; Nöggerath, Geller,
and Gusiakov 2011). The plant was designed in the 1960s, when knowl-
edge and understanding of earthquakes and tsunamis was somewhat limited;
however, since that time, scientists have compiled a substantial amount of
data on these phenomena. A group of scientists writing in the Bulletin of
Atomic Sciences stated, “The knowledge, generally available by about 1980,
that magnitude 9 mega-quakes existed as a class should probably have trig-
gered a re-examination of the earthquake and tsunami counter-measures
at the Fukushima power station, but it did not” (Nöggerath, Geller, and
Gusiakov 2011: 40).
New York Times journalist Martin Fackler (2012) explained that a cozy
relationship between government officials and industry leaders led to a lax
regulatory climate. For example, a number of years before the disaster, a
seismologist serving on a high-level committee on offshore earthquakes in
northeastern Japan “warned that Fukushima’s coast was vulnerable to tsu-
namis more than twice as tall as the forecasts of up to 17 feet put forth by
regulators and TEPCO.” The seismologist was completely ignored, and to
 Introduction 5

the New York Times, he stated, “They completely ignored me in order to

save TEPCO money.” Similar to the aforementioned examples, the accident
at the Fukushima plant was not attributable to “natural” causes (i.e., the
earthquake and subsequent tsunami) alone. And while one could argue that
design flaws led to the accident, it is also clear that money and power—social
relations—played an important role in the decisions that were made by the
Japanese government and TEPCO.
Hurricane Katrina, Deepwater Horizon, and Fukushima represent crises
that occurred in a flash and left immediately visible human and ecological
tragedies in their wakes. Environmental disasters also occur in slow motion
and inflict damages that are harder to detect but are no less severe. Such
“slow-motion” disasters, including global air pollution and climate warm-
ing, among numerous environment-related problems, also have their roots
in human decision making and social structure.
• Air Pollution in the United States: Indoor and outdoor air pollution is a
major environmental problem, with serious health implications for millions
of people around the world. According to the World Health Organization
(WHO 2014), 7 million premature deaths worldwide could be attributed to
air pollution in 2014.
In the United States, as in other parts of the world, the ongoing danger
presented by a host of air pollution problems has roots in social processes,
one being the inability of governmental policies and laws to regulate indus-
try amid the rise of neoliberal agendas, which emphasize deregulation and
corporate rights. The 1970 Clean Air Act (and its 1977 and 1990 amend-
ments) sets standards for air pollution levels, regulates emissions from sta-
tionary sources, calls for state implementation plans for achieving federal
standards, and sets emissions standards for motor vehicles (Rosenbaum
2011). While U.S. air quality has improved since 1970 (EPA 2012), the
nation’s air remains unhealthy with one in four Americans living in coun-
ties with unhealthful levels of ozone or particle pollution (American Lung
Association 2018). This is especially true of two kinds of air pollution—
ground-level ozone (which forms when sunlight reacts with dirty air) and
fine particulates (particles smaller than the diameter of a human hair); both
of these are created by fuel combustion. Both ground-level ozone and fine
particulate matter can cause pulmonary inflammation, decreased lung func-
tion, exacerbation of asthma, and other pulmonary diseases. Fine particulate
matter is also associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality (Laum-
bach 2010). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2016) docu-
ments that most hazardous air pollutants come from human-made sources,
including mobile sources (cars, buses, planes, trucks, and trains) and station-
ary sources (factories, refineries, and power plants). Hazardous air pollution
is not just an engineering problem in need of a solution but is related to how
our economy and culture have become increasingly dependent on and inter-
twined with fossil fuel.
• Global Climate Change: While air pollution, as well as other forms of pollu-
tion, poses significant challenges to human and ecosystem health, solutions
6 Introduction

do exist. Laws could be enacted that would have almost immediate positive
effects on the quality of air or water. The threat of global climate change
from the release of greenhouse gases, on the other hand, is increasing at
an alarming rate, also much of the warming is irreversible. Global warm-
ing, which is caused primarily by the increasing release of human produced
greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, which is created in large part by the
burning of fossil fuels, cannot easily be turned back (IPCC 2014). Once
carbon dioxide is released, it accumulates and will remain in the atmosphere
for thousands of years. Even if we stopped human-caused carbon emissions
today, it would take forty years for the climate to stabilize at a tempera-
ture that is higher than what we now experience (Rood 2014). This means
that even with reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, significant changes
in climate patterns worldwide are inevitable. The question is not “whether”
climate change is happening, the question is how much we can reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions so that we can slow the rate of climate change and
limit the total overall temperature increase. We must also ask: how can we
adapt to the climactic changes that have occurred already and those that are
inevitably coming in the future?
The warming of the planet is problematic because it comes with an
increased rate of species loss, extreme weather events, coastal flooding, and
water scarcity in addition to lowered crop yields, among other ecological
problems. These ecological changes pose myriad challenges and risks to
human communities including, but not limited to, loss of homes, compro-
mised food supplies, lost work capacity, and increased food- and water-borne
diseases (IPCC 2014). While some media pundits would have us question
that climate change is problematic or even that it is taking place at all, the
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is certain. According to a 2018 Penta-
gon report, the DoD documented and expressed concern that many of their
military installations are highly vulnerable to a variety of climate change–
related weather events including increases in heat waves, flooding, drought,
and wildfires (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics 2018). Significant warming has already caused
“far more damage than most scientists expected,” including the loss of sum-
mer sea ice in the Arctic, more acidity in the oceans, and a wetter atmosphere
above the oceans, increasing the likelihood of floods (McKibben 2012).
When we first published this reader in 2005, we wrote one paragraph
detailing global climate change projections, and we discussed some of the
likely problems it would bring in the future. Fourteen years later, the future
is here. Many people around the globe already feel the effects of rising sea
levels, flooding, extreme temperatures, and so on. According to the Union
of Concerned Scientists (UCS), U.S. coastal communities are experiencing
increased climate-related flooding. By 2017, ninety U.S. communities faced
“chronic inundation” from flooding, and that number is expected to double
in the next twenty years (UCS 2017a). One of the editors of this reader lives
in one of these chronically flooded communities, Charleston, South Caro-
lina, where between 2015 and 2017 alone high-tide floods, including sunny
 Introduction 7

day floods, increased from thirty-eight to fifty per year (UCS 2017b). Many
communities are also, already, suffering the effects of increased heat waves
(UCS 2014a). Witness the 2015 heat wave in Pakistan that killed 1,300.
Increasing temperatures have also caused the wildfire season in California to
get longer and hotter (UCS 2014a). Look too at climate exacerbated insect
infestations that are on the rise; the recent bark beetle infestation in North
America killed 46 million acres of trees (more acreage than any other known
infestation in North America) (UCS 2014b).
In spite of these terrifying examples, the world’s leaders have so far failed to
collaborate in any meaningful way. The United States remains the only signatory
that has failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (an international treaty that commits
nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions); and even those countries that have
signed on have found it difficult to agree on specific action plans (Parks and
Roberts 2010).
While climate scientists and other specialists can do the work of tracking and
predicting weather patterns and describing current and future results of climate
change, effective solutions have eluded us because, in the end, climate change is
a social, political, and economic problem as much as it is a scientific and tech-
nological one. Proposed solutions to climate change and other environmental
problems need to be better grounded in the type of sociological research, much
of which is already available, that reveals, for example, how national and interna-
tional political practices and regulatory structures place the short-term interests
of corporations over the long-term interests of citizens and, more generally, life
on the planet.
Scientists have given the name “Anthropocene”—or the age of humans—to
the geologic era dating from the beginning of profound human impact on the
ecosphere and biosphere (there is debate over when exactly that began, but cer-
tainly human impact has increased dramatically since the beginning of the Indus-
trial Revolution in the early nineteenth century) and into our contemporary
time. However, sociologists note that such a label implies that all humans have
an equal impact on carbon emissions and climate change; this elides the role, for
example, of powerful corporate actors. Thus, historical sociologist Jason Moore
(2017) suggests we call the current era the “Capitalocene” to emphasize that the
beginning of the “Anthropocene” was enabled by global capitalism. Through the
unequal and often destructive workings of global capitalism, human systems have
changed the “nature” of earth. What is significant to us about this new epoch is
that it is also a moment for global-wide ecological and cultural transformation.
A number of the essays in this fourth edition document activities, both
technological and communal, that communities around the world are engag-
ing in to make a difference. In all cases, it is not enough. But they represent a
growing global awareness of our special point in history—of the connections
between inequality, environmental problems, and economic structures; and
the positive potential of our connections to each other, through new commu-
nicative forms made available by the Internet, social media, etc. On the other
hand, we are at risk of missing this moment—of getting stuck inside our own
8 Introduction

limited understanding of our contemporary, biased experience of this particu-

lar time period. As Ulrich Beck and other “risk society” theorists have pointed
out, modern people have come to expect environmental and other risks and the
cultural anxiety that comes with living with that insecurity (e.g., Beck 1992). It
has become normal. That is the real danger. But true tension does exist between
two current ways of being: the way of “getting fed up and making change, any
change” and the way of just “accepting that risk comes with modernization.”
While the problems outlined in this introduction are profoundly serious,
we believe there is still hope. Sociology, as a body of knowledge and as a way
of seeing the world, has to be a part of this problem solving. Sociologists have
the tools to follow the crumb trail of social facts left behind by climate change
and other ecological crises to envision a more just and sustainable future. Why
should we assume that human ingenuity begins and ends with the invention of
a fossil fuel-based economy? We have put our minds together to invent auto-
mobiles (which contribute to sprawl, asthma, and greenhouse gas production),
polyvinyl chlorides (which are carcinogenic), and nuclear energy (which has led
to the nuclear waste problem). Can we not apply our ingenuity to invent new
alternative and equitable forms of energy production and regulate or ban harm-
ful carcinogens like polyvinyl chlorides? We invite you to use the readings in this
collection as an opportunity to consider these questions.
Environmental sociologists teach us that environmental problems are inex-
tricably linked to societal issues (such as inequality, governance, and economic
practices). Endocrine-disrupting hormones, bioengineered foods, ocean dump-
ing, deforestation, asthma, and so on are each interwoven with economics, pol-
itics, culture, television, religious worldviews, advertising, philosophy, and a
whole complex tapestry of societal institutions, beliefs, and practices. Environ-
mental sociologists tend not to ask whether something—such as the methyl iso-
cyanate used to produce pesticides in Bhopal, India—is inherently good or bad.
Rather, the social organization of the pesticide industry is problematic. Blaming
methyl isocyanate for the massive death toll in Bhopal’s 1982 factory leak is like
cursing the chair after you stub your toe on it. Humans invent pesticides, and
humans decide how to manage those chemicals once they have been produced—
or they can decide to halt production. Who decides whether to ban or regulate
a toxin? How do we decide this? Do some citizens have more say than others?
How do the press, corporate advertising, and other forms of media shape our
understanding of a dangerous chemical or pollutant? These are just a whisper of
the chorus of questions sociologists are asking about environmental problems
and their solutions.
Sociology can also help us see that environmental concerns are not merely
about individual choices. Some people disregard environment-related problems,
explaining that “life itself is a risky business and the issue is ultimately about
choice and free will.” Along this line, the argument is that just as we choose to
engage in any number of risky activities (like downhill skiing without a helmet
or eating deep-fried Twinkies), we also choose to risk the increased cancer rates
that are associated with dry-cleaning solvents in order to have crisp, well-pressed
suits and dress shirts. A sociologist, however, would begin by pointing out that
 Introduction 9

not everyone is involved in that choice and not every community experiences the
same level of exposure to that toxin. The person who lives downstream from a
solvent factory may not be the same person who chooses the convenience (and
the risk) of dry-cleaned clothing (Steingraber 2000).
Finally, sociologists can likewise help us see past the limitations of
­individualist-based approaches. “Mainstream” environmentalists tend to pro-
mote individual-level, consumer-based solutions, such as green purchasing and
recycling (Maniates 2002). Perhaps because we feel most comfortable when act-
ing as consumers and because many of us don’t know how to engage politically,
environmental organizations often propose some variation of “20 Things I Can
Do to Save the Planet.” Often the suggestions involve “green” purchases, such
as hybrid cars or organic food. Consumer-based environmentalism is problem-
atic in that it rarely creates system-wide, structural change. In addition, only an
elite few can afford most “green” solutions. Another problematic example of
­individual-based environmentalism (promoted nearly everywhere as an import-
ant environmental action) is recycling. Samantha MacBride (2012) has shown
that the growth of the recycling industry allowed corporate interests to define
waste as an individual, consumer problem, rather than the responsibility of the
corporations that produce all of those bottles, cans, and plastic containers. Recy-
cling has allowed companies to produce “one-way” containers and disposable
packaging while not having to bear the cost of its post-use transport and dis-
posal. What is more, recycling is mostly an ineffective solution; once the costs—
financial and in carbon emissions—of transporting recyclables are taken into
consideration, it is not at all clear that recycling is a net environmental gain.
Green purchasing and recycling may help a bit—but they may also be harmful if
they draw attention away from the fact that larger structures, like the automobile
industry, are encouraging people to, for instance, buy hybrid cars. The develop-
ment of a hybrid vehicle market, then, potentially, deflects public support and
dollars away from investments in alternative transit (Maniates 2002).

A Brief History of Environmental Sociology

In the earlier sections, we defined environmental sociology and showed how
sociological understandings of “environment” or “ecology” typically differ from
those of the natural and physical sciences and also from mainstream environmen-
talism. In this section, we provide a broad and, by necessity, partial overview of
the subdiscipline of environmental sociology. Auguste Comte first coined the
term sociology in 1838. However, it wasn’t until the late 1960s and the 1970s
that a significant number of sociologists began studying the impacts of natu-
ral processes on humans and the reverse—the social practices that organize our
development and the use of products and technologies that impact nonhuman
ecological and human communities. Certainly many people in the early part of
the twentieth century were interested in a wide range of environmental issues—
from the conservation of vast expanses of wilderness to the improvement of
urban spaces (Taylor 1997). So why the long wait for an environment-focused
sociology?
10 Introduction

Part of the answer lies in the efforts of early sociologists to establish the
discipline of sociology as separate from other areas of study, especially the natu-
ral sciences (Hannigan 1995). Sociology provides an important counterpoint to
the natural sciences by showing how social interaction, institutions, and beliefs
shape human behavior—not just genetics, physiology, and the “natural” envi-
ronment. In addition, the sociological perspective has been a crucial tool for
dismantling attempts to use the natural sciences to justify ethnocentrism, racism,
sexism, and homophobism. Sociologists have traditionally been reluctant, there-
fore, to venture outside the study of how various social processes (e.g., politics,
culture, and economy) interact to look at human-nature interactions.1 Writing
about this trend in the discipline, Riley Dunlap and William Catton argued in the
1970s that sociologists should claim the study of the environment and not leave
the “natural” world to natural and physical scientists (Catton and Dunlap 1978;
Dunlap 1997). Catton and Dunlap thought environmental sociology ought to
examine how humans alter their environments and also how environments affect
humans. They developed a “new ecological paradigm,” which represented an
initial attempt to explore society-environment relations.
During the first decades of environmental sociology (the 1970s and 1980s),
researchers, most of them in the United States and Western Europe (Lidskog,
Mol, and Oosterveer 2015), focused primarily on the same issues that the
emerging environmental movement highlighted, including air and water pollu-
tion, solid and hazardous waste dumping, litter, urban decay, the preservation
of wild areas and wildlife, and fossil fuel dependence. These problems were easy
to measure and see: think of polluted rivers catching on fire, visible and smelly
urban smog, ocean dumping of solid and hazardous wastes, and the appearance
of refuse along the side of the road. Most early sociological studies focused on
people’s attitudes toward problems and the impacts of those problems on demo-
graphic trends (for instance, trends in health and mortality).2
During these early years of the subdiscipline, some environmental sociolo-
gists drew a distinction between the “realists,” who preferred not to question
“the material truth of environmental problems” (Bell 1998: 3), and the “con-
structionists,” who emphasized the creation of meaning—including the mean-
ing of “environment” and “environmental problems”—as a social phenomenon
(Bell 1998; Lidskog 2001). Social constructionism—which emphasizes the
process through which concepts and beliefs about the world are formed (and
reformed) and through which meanings are attached to things and events—has
always been a big part of sociology, and a number of environmental sociologists
have used this framework to understand environmental issues (e.g., Greider and
Garkovich 1994; Hannigan 1995; Burningham and Cooper 1999; Scarce 2000;
Yearley 1992). Realists worried that a focus on how meanings are contingent
would detract attention from what they saw as real and worrisome environmental
degradation. The debate between “realists” and “constructionists” has, however,
largely disappeared from the work of environmental sociologists. All sociology is,
to some extent, constructionist (Burningham and Cooper 1999). All along, the
difference was more in the extent to which the authors emphasized the process
through which meanings are created.
 Introduction 11

Potential and currently existing hazards that are socially, politically, and tech-
nologically complex, difficult to detect, potentially catastrophic, sometimes long-
range in impact, and attributable to multiple causes (e.g., environmental racism,
rain forest destruction, loss of biodiversity, technological accidents, and climate
change) began to attract the attention of the nascent environmental sociology
community beginning in the 1980s.3 Environmental sociologists of the late
twentieth and early twenty-first centuries are studying a broad range of issues—
from environmental racism to the international trade in electronic waste to lead
poisoning.4
Social scientists have developed a number of specialist lenses to explore the
increasingly complex relationships between environments and societies. Envi-
ronmental sociologists frequently focus on power and inequalities. They tend to
ask who (which groups or individual actors) have the power not only to make
policy decisions but also to create knowledge and set the terms of debate. In
addition, most sociologists see all things—from material items to institutions to
“nature”—as imbued with meaning by humans.
Environmental sociologists interested in power dynamics often explore
intersections between political and economic practices and structures; we often
use the term political economy to characterize this work. According to Rudel,
Roberts, and Carmin (2011: 222), “The political economy of the environment
refers to how people control and, periodically, struggle for control over the insti-
tutions and organizations that produce and regulate the flows of materials that
sustain people (corporations and the state).” Often, researchers using political
economy frameworks see environmental devastation and resource exhaustion as
inevitable consequences of capital accumulation (the process of increasing the
monetary value of an investment).5
There are numerous ways to approach a political economy of the environ-
ment (see Rudel, Roberts, and Carmin 2011 for a review). Sociologist Brett
Clark and colleagues (2018) discuss three theoretical perspectives taken up by
researchers concerned with understanding the social and environmental effects
of a growth-based economic system.
The “treadmill of production,” developed by Allan Schnaiberg (1980),
emphasizes the tendency of capitalist production to constantly seek to expand.
According to Schnaiberg and his colleagues, this emphasis on growth leads to
increased resource consumption as well as the increased generation of wastes and
pollutants (both from the by-products of production and from consumption).
Thus, according to this perspective, capitalist production, by its very nature, is at
odds with efforts to clean up or improve the environment. The exploitation of
people and the destruction of resources, however, continue and are often legit-
imated by institutions like the media (Bonds 2016) because, though everyone
suffers in the end, many also benefit in the short term, even if the benefits are
unequal.
A second perspective emphasizes metabolic processes, examining the
interchange of matter and energy between humans and the larger ecosystem
(Clark, Auerbach, and Zhang 2018; Foster 2010). John Bellamy Foster coined
the term metabolic rift to extend Marx’s views on ecological crisis. For Foster,
12 Introduction

the metabolic rift occurs when through capitalist processes, especially capital-
ist agriculture, energy is transferred out of an ecological resource and is not
replaced. For instance, the overuse of fertilizers can deplete the soil (Clark and
Foster 2009; Foster 2010). Researchers using this framework have also exam-
ined the rift between other exploitative processes, such as fossil fuel production,
and natural ecological processes (Clark and York 2005; Foster and Clark 2012).
In all cases, it is assumed that capitalist processes inevitably exceed their own
human labor and natural resource needs. The idea of the metabolic rift has more
recently been elaborated on to include less “binary” thinking—­emphasizing
“capitalism in nature” rather than “capitalism and nature” (Moore 2011). As
Jason Moore explains, “Capitalism does not develop upon global nature so
much as it emerges through the messy and contingent relations of humans with
the rest of nature” (110).
A third perspective has been labeled “ecologically unequal exchange” (Clark,
Auerbach, and Zhang 2018) and focuses on inequalities between countries.
Historically and currently, the labor and natural resources of countries in the
“Global South” (less affluent counties, most of them former colonies) have been
exploited by elites in wealthy countries. In addition, Global South countries are
increasingly the recipients of unwanted products of industrial production and
consumption. For example, electronic waste, which is often hazardous, is rou-
tinely exported from wealthy countries to Global South countries (Little and
Lucier 2017).
Not all sociologists, however, believe that capitalism is, by its very nature,
environmentally exploitative. “Ecological modernization,” developed mainly by
European social scientists, is less critical of current capitalist political economic
systems (e.g., Mol 1997; Spaargarten and Mol 1992). Ecological moderniza-
tion calls our attention to the ways in which environmental degradation may
be reduced or even reversed within our current system of institutions. Theorists
working within this framework believe that our institutions may be capable of
transforming themselves through the use of increasingly sophisticated technolo-
gies and that production processes in the future will have fewer negative environ-
mental consequences. Maurie Cohen (2006) has argued that the inability of the
U.S. environmental movement to embrace the principles of ecological modern-
ization to produce change has deprived the United States of some of the sustain-
ability successes witnessed in northern European countries, especially in regard
to energy efficiency and the development of clean production technologies.
Another important theoretical perspective developed in large part by Euro-
pean scholars focuses on risk and science. Ulrich Beck (1999), for example, has
argued that people in modern times feel increasingly at risk, due in large part
to environmental degradation. Beck developed the concept of the risk society.
According to Beck (1999: 72), we are now at “a phase of development in mod-
ern society in which the social, political, ecological and individual risks created
by the momentum of innovation increasingly elude the control and protective
institutions of industrial society.” In other words, even powerful actors in soci-
ety may be subject to harm from dangerous technologies they themselves have
created and/or profited from. Beck examines how risks, and especially the social
 Introduction 13

stresses associated with our perceptions of risks, are fostering deterioration in our
quality of life.
The study of risks and the study of health are necessarily interconnected,
and many environmental sociologists focus their research on the health conse-
quences of environmental risks and other types of degradation. For example,
Kari Marie Norgaard (2007) documents how in a rural region of Northern Cal-
ifornia controversy arose over the U.S. Forest Service’s proposed use of herbi-
cides on spotted knapweed. The Karuk tribe and other community members,
who perceived that they would suffer disproportionate health risks, successfully
fought the Forest Service’s plans for herbicide application. Norgaard shows that
the question of who faces risks from modern technology, as well as perceptions
about the existence of risks, is influenced by sociological factors such as gender,
race, and power. In the case study by Norgaard, conflict arose partly because
citizens had been left out of policy deliberations over how to deal with the weed
problem. Phil Brown and his colleagues (e.g., Brown and Mikkelsen 1990;
Brown 2007), meanwhile, have documented and promoted the idea of “popular
­epidemiology”—a process whereby nonscientist citizens become active produc-
ers and users of scientific data.6
Theoretical perspectives such as the treadmill of production, metabolic rift,
ecologically unequal exchange, ecological modernization, the risk society, and
popular epidemiology have been developed specifically to help us better under-
stand the human-environment nexus. In addition, many environmental sociolo-
gies call our attention to environmental inequalities. The study of environmental
justice is a major development that derives from a combination of social scien-
tists’ long-standing interest in inequalities and social movement activism that
has sought to remedy environmental inequities. Finally, sociologists have long
been interested in the cause and consequences of social movement activism, and
researchers working in this area of sociology have increasingly examined envi-
ronmental social movement organizations—such as Greenpeace or the Sierra
Club—and environmental movement objectives—such as reducing toxins (see
Pellow and Brehm 2013 for a review of research in environmental sociology as
well as several disciplines that speak to—or have influenced—it).
Lidskog and colleagues detailed in a 2015 article that while environmen-
tal sociology research was at first centered in the United States and Europe, in
more recent decades, regions across the globe have been contributing to the
­discipline—especially East Asia and Latin America. Work conducted by research-
ers in these regions are bringing new perspectives, new issues, and a more global
focus to environmental sociology. In Japan, for instance, environmental sociol-
ogists focus much of their research on region-specific case studies of victims of
environmental pollution, most recently, victims of the Fukushima nuclear disas-
ter. The Fukushima research is especially important as very little sociological
research on nuclear power and/or disasters has appeared in the twenty-first cen-
tury. Brazilian research, on the other hand, has taken a broader focus on socio-­
environmental problems in developing countries in general (Lidskog, Mol, and
Oosterveer 2015). The Brazilian work on food and agriculture has applicability
to the many agrarian regions of the developing world. Lidskog and colleagues
14 Introduction

express hope that as environmental sociology takes on a more global presence

and focus, it will “prevent the development of poorly connected/­integrated
place-based environmental sociology communities and . . . allow for much more
cross fertilization between different traditions, frames and approaches” (Lidskog,
Mol, and Oosterveer 2015: 356).

A Brief Look at What’s Included in the Reader

This reader provides a sampling of excerpts from recently published sociological
research on environment-related issues. The first selection, by Hillary Angelo
and Colin Jerolmack, shows how social forces affect how we see and understand
“nature” (chapter 1). Next, we include four works that use a political economy
perspective, examining, for example, how economic growth often leads to envi-
ronmental destruction. Some of these authors use ideas developed by Karl Marx.
Many of the authors in this section of the reader argue that there is a funda-
mental conflict between capitalism’s need for constant expansion and the protec-
tion of the environment, and they are wary of technological solutions that, they
argue, often fail to produce safer, healthier environmental conditions.
For example, in a provocative essay, John Bellamy Foster argues that we have
on our hands an ecological crisis so dire as to warrant an “ecological revolution”
that would also be a social revolution because, he contends (as do many envi-
ronmental sociologists), without addressing fundamental inequalities, we can-
not tackle climate change and other environmental issues (chapter 2).7 Daniel
Faber, in chapter 3, explains how environmental inequalities have deepened as
a result of globalization. Stefano B. Longo and Rebecca Clausen use a Marx-
ist framework to examine overfishing of tuna in the Mediterranean (chapter 4).
In an article very different from the previous three, Benjamin Vail (chapter 5)
describes ecological modernization, the idea that technological advances, within
the current capitalist system, will result in necessary changes to bring about sus-
tainability. To do this, he conducts a case study of Sweden’s broad-reaching envi-
ronmental policy and asks to what extent it has been guided by the precepts of
ecological modernization. Next, Richard York and his colleagues (chapter 6) use
a political economy lens to examine the ecological footprint of China, India,
Japan, and the United States from 1962 to 2003. The authors show that, con-
trary to the ideas of ecological modernization, increased efficiency does not lead
to smaller ecological footprints.
In the third section of the reader, we present readings that examine how
race, class, and gender intersect with environment. Brett Clark and colleagues
use an intersectional lens to study the historic case of guano production in
nineteenth-century Peru (chapter 7). Next, Karida Brown, Michael Murphy,
and Appollonya Porcelli investigate how African American coal miners created
meaning out of their Appalachian landscapes (chapter 8). In chapter 9, Valerie
Stull, Michael Bell, and Mpumelelo Ncwadi use the concept of “environmental
apartheid” to show how environmental injustices are not just enacted in space
but space itself can also be used as a mechanism for marginalization of vulnera-
ble groups. Finally, the piece by Lois Bryson, Kathleen McPhillips, and Kathryn
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
page 334. vol. viii.)
Page 43. line 11. Viscount de Lautrec.] Peter lord of Lautrec, brother
to the count of Foix (See note to vol. viii. p. 335.) married Catherine
daughter to John II. lord d'Estarac (or Astarac) by whom he had one
son, John afterwards lord de Lautrec. The house of Astarac is
derived from Garcia-Sanches, duke of the Gascons, who lived in the
10th century, from whose youngest son, Arnaud the unborn (so
called by a quibble similar to that of the witches respecting Macduff)
they trace 18 descents to Martha the heiress of the family who
married Gaston II, count of Candale (or Kendal) in whose house the
title afterwards remained.
Page 43. line 4. from the bottom. Froissart.] D'Estract. D'Estarac.
See above.
Page 46. line 12. from the bottom. Lord de Luce.] Luxe is the name
of a sovereign county in lower Navarre, which passed in 1593 into
the house of Montmorency Fosseux. It was Francois de
Montmorency, count of Luxe, of whom the court of Louis XIII. judged
it proper to make a memorable example by way of preventive to the
epidemical rage for duelling then prevalent. He was beheaded in
1627 for the honourable murders of the count de Thorigny and the
marquis de Bussy in two successive rencontres.
Page 74. line 4. from the bottom. Thomas Courson.] Thomas
Curzon, esq. captain of Harfleur. Stowe.
Page 77. line 13. Chancellor of France.] Afterwards also viscount of
Troyes. He was chancellor from 1445 to 1461 and again from 1465
to 1472, when he died.
Page 94. line 10. Thomas Aurmagan.] Sir Thomas Auringham (qu.
Erpingham?) Stowe. Captain of Harfleur in conjunction with Curzon.
Page 98. line 1. from the bottom. Daughter.] Monstrelet is
remarkably tender of the reputation of the "fair Agnes." She had, as
all other historians allow, not one only, but three daughters by the
king. Margaret, married to Olivier de Coetivy, seneschal of Guyenne;
Charlotte, married to James de Brezè, seneschal of Normandy, and
Jane, to Antony de Bueil, count de Sancerre. Of these, Charlotte
unfortunately followed the example of her mother's incontinence
without the excuse of an illustrious lover. Her tragical history will be
found recorded in the next volume.
By a species of retributive justice, Louis the son of this James de
Brezè, submitted voluntarily to the same disgrace which his father
thought that blood only could remove. His wife was the famous
Diana of Poîtiers. In these days, nobody of consequence could die in
his bed without the suspicion of poison. The death of Agnes was
attributed to that cause, and the dauphin is charged with having
been the perpetrator. Of this accusation all that Du Clos says is what
follows:
"Le peu d'union qu'il y avoit entre Charles sept et le Dauphin, fut
cause que celui-ci fut soupconné d'avoir fait empoisonner Agnés
Sorel qui mourut, regrettée du Roi, de la Cour, et des Peuples. Elle
n'abusa jamais de sa faveur, et réunit les rares qualitès d'Amante
tendre, d'Amie sure, et de bonne Citoyenne." He adds, "I can't tell
why Alain Chartier (the court poet) is so strenuous in defending her
chastity, seeing that she died in child-bed." The dauphin was not the
only person charged with this imaginary crime. Jacques Coeur,
superintendant of the finances, was also accused of it; but his
innocence was established by public trial. See note to page 196. vol.
ix.
Page 113. line 7. from the bottom. Godfrey de Boulogne.] Lord of
Montgascon.
Page 113. line 4. from the bottom. Lord de St Severe.] John de
Brosse, lord of St Severe, afterwards count of Penthievre, &c., son of
the marshal de Boussac. See before page 2.
Page 113. line 3. from the bottom. Lord de Chalençon.] Louis
Armand de Chalençon, viscount of Polignac, married Isabel, second
daughter of Bertrand III. lord of la Tour and his wife Mary countess of
Auvergne and Boulogne.
Page 121. line 7. Lord de Laval.] Guy XIV., lord, and in 1429 count of
Laval, son of John de Montford lord of Kergolay, who by his marriage
with the sister and heir of Guy XII, became lord of Laval, assumed
the name of Guy XIII, and died in his passage from the holy land in
1415. Guy XIV. married first, Isabel daughter of John VI. duke of
Brittany, and secondly Frances the widow of the lord Giles, of whom
see page 136. vol. ix.
Page 121. line 9. Lord de Touteville.] Qu. Estouteville. Louis, grand
butler of France.
Page 133. line 4 from the bottom. Maine.] Charles of Anjou, count of
Maine and Provence, mentioned before.
Page 128. line 10. from the bottom. Duke of Somerset.] Edmund
Beaufort, younger brother of John duke of Somerset, (who died in
1444, leaving no male issue) was in 1431 made earl of Mortaigne
(under which title he is named in some preceding parts of this
history) earl of Dorset in 1442, marquis of Dorset the year following,
and duke of Somerset in 1448. He was the great support of the
Lancastrian party, and was beheaded after the fatal battle of
Hexham in 1463.
Page 134. line 9. Andrew Troslet.] Andrew Trollope and Thomas
Cotton, esquires, were captains of Falaise, for the earl of
Shrewsbury, according to Stowe.
Page 136. line 5 from the bottom. Death.] Francis I. duke of Brittany,
left two daughters by his second wife Isabel, daughter of James I. of
Scotland. The eldest of these was Margaret, married to Francis II,
her cousin; the youngest Mary, married to the viscount de Rohan.
Francis I. was succeeded by his next brother, duke Peter II.
Page 133. line 3. Arthur of Montauban.] Arthur of Montauban, bailiff
of the Cotentin, &c. second son of William lord of Montauban,
chancellor to queen Isabel of Bavaria. So far from being hanged,
(which must be a mistake of the chronicle from which the following
account has been taken) this Montauban having professed at the
convent of the Celestins, at Marcoussis, advanced himself in the
church, became archbishop of Bordeaux, and died in 1468. (See
Moreri art. Montauban.)
Page 138. line 11. Others.] This is perhaps, a more probable
statement, as well as more favourable to the memory of the duke,
than that given by some other chroniclers, and hinted at in the
ensuing paragraph. The lord Giles of Brittany, the youngest of the
children of John VI., was brought up in the court of England; and he
was accused, perhaps justly, of having imbibed prejudices contrary
to the French interest from his earliest years. On his return to
Brittany in 1442, his wife, (the beautiful heiress of Chateaubriant and
Beaumanoir) is said to have excited the desire of Arthur de
Montauban, the wicked favourite at court; who, finding all attempts to
subdue her chastity ineffectual, contrived by intrigues, insinuations,
and at last by open charges, to render the lord Giles suspected by
his brother. On the other hand, he stimulated that unfortunate prince
to demand an extension of revenue and of power, which he took
care the duke should deny him. The two brothers being by these arts
alienated from each other, an open rupture ensued, which the
constable de Richemont, their uncle, in vain endeavoured to heal.
The lord Giles, apprehensive for his personal safety, fled to the
castle of Guildo; and most imprudently trusted its defence to a
company of English men at arms. This circumstance was soon
conveyed with all possible aggravation to the king of France, who
thereupon gave orders to the admiral de Coetivy to arrest him. The
admiral for some time neglected this order, but at last was obliged to
perform it; and the lord Giles was brought before the parliament, or
assembly of the states at Rennes, where his case was fairly
investigated, and himself about to be honourably acquitted, when a
letter to the king of England (said to be artfully forged by Montauban
himself) was found on his person, and he was immediately
committed to the castle of Moncontour. While a prisoner in this place,
his persecutor resorted to every wicked contrivance to remove him
without suspicion of violence. But his constitution resisted the effects
of repeated poisons, and a charitable old woman found means long
to preserve him from those of starvation. At length however his
health gave way to the continual assault of his enemies, and he
charged a priest (who attended privately to receive his confessions)
to repair to the duke his brother, and summon him within 40 days to
appear before the tribunal of God and answer for all his injustice
towards him. Still his gaolers thought the end of their charge too slow
in its approaches. They therefore strangled their unhappy victim,
already dying, and gave out to the world that he had died of a cold.
He was at that time not thirty years of age. The confessor executed
his commission as he met the duke returning from the siege of
Avranches; and Francis, struck to the heart by terror and
repentance, actually died on the 40th day from the date of the
summons. Montauban and Olivier de Mêele, his principal agent in
the murder, fled upon the duke's death, to a convent of Celestins; but
they were both dragged from their sanctuary by the orders of duke
Peter, and of the constable, and hanged at Vannes. Frances, the
widow of the murdered prince, and the innocent cause of his death,
brought him no children and was afterwards married again to Guy
XIV, lord of Laval. Such is the account of some chronicles, as
abridged by Moreri in his dictionary, art. Bretagne.
Page 139. line 10 from the bottom. Sir Pregent de Coetivy, lord of
Rais.] Pregent de Coetivy, admiral of France, was lord of Retz in
right of his wife, Mary the daughter of the marshal de Retz. (See
before page 211. vol. viii.)
Page 140. line 12. Thomas Gouvel. Q. Thomas Gonville, esq.
captain of Cherbourg. Stowe.
Page 160. line 11 from the bottom. Captal de Buch.] Gaston, count
of Longueville and Benanges, second son of Archambaud count of
Foix, enjoyed this title and transmitted it to his son John, who
married a niece of the great William de la Pole duke of Suffolk, and
was created by king Henry VI. earl of Kendal.
Page 160. line 6. La Bessiere.] Descended from a younger son of
Matthew, lord of Beauvau, who died about 1400. He was killed soon
afterwards at the siege of Castillon.
Page 163. line 4 from the bottom. Count d'Albreth.] Charles II. count
of Dreux, &c. of the house of Albret, son of the constable; John
viscount of Tartas, his eldest son, (who died before his father, leaving
Alan, lord Albret, his only son and heir) and Arnaud Amanjeu, lord of
Orval, his third son, afterwards lieutenant general for the king in
Roussillon. The second son of the count, was Louis cardinal bishop
of Cahors.
Page 168. line 7 from the bottom. Viscount de Turenne.] Agne III. de
la Tour, lord of Oliergues, of a younger branch of the family of la Tour
counts of Auvergne, &c. became viscount of Turenne and count of
Beaufort, in 1444, by marriage with Anne, daughter of Peter count of
Beaufort, who possessed those dignities by the donation of his
cousin Eleanor, heiress of the famous marshal Boucicaut.
Page 168. line 21. Lord de la Rochefoucault.] Foucault III, lord de la
Rochefoucault who married the sister of the lord of Rochechouart.
Page 168. line 23. Sir John de Rochedrouard.] Rochedrouard. Q.
Rochechouart? Foucault, lord of Rochechouart was about this time
governor of la Rochelle.
Page 168. line 5 from the bottom. Lord de Grimaux] Grimaux. Qu.
Grimoard? Antoine du Roure lord of Grimoard, and Guige de
Grimoard de Roure, lord of Beauvoir in the Gevaudan, were the
heads of two distant branches of this family.
Page 168. line 4 from the bottom. Sir Pierre de Montingrin.]
Montingrin. Q. Montmorin? Peter lord of Montmorin, bailiff of S.
Pierre le Moustier, and a chamberlain of the king, was one of the
knights made on his occasion.
Page 181. line 16. Lord de Noailles.] Francis, lord of Noailles and
Noaillac, who died after the year 1472, had but one brother of whom
Moreri, makes mention, viz. John de Noailles lord of Chambres and
Montclar, who became also lord de Noailles after the death of his
nephew, the son of Francis, in 1479.
Page 190. line 8. Emperor Frederic.] The emperor Frederic III.
married to Eleanor, eldest daughter of Edward king of Portugal. Their
only issue were Maximilian, afterwards emperor, and Cunegunda
married to Albert duke of Bavaria.
Page 197. line 12. Realm.] Jacques Coeur son of a merchant at
Bourges, whose enterprising commercial genius raised for him within
a short time a prodigious fortune. The ignorance of the age attributed
his success to the discovery of the philosopher's stone. He was
made Argentier, that is to say, superintendant of the finances, to
Charles VII. and master of the mint at Bourges. Through his
influence his son obtained the archbishoprick of his native city, and
his brother the bishoprick of Luçon. The conquest of Normandy was
atchieved, in great measure, by the sums which he supplied out of
his private purse. All these services did not guard him against the
consequences of malevolence and envy. Besides the accusations
here mentioned, he was charged with having procured the death of
Agnes Sorel by poison, but although his principal accuser on this
point, Jane de Vendôme, lady of Mortagne, was condemned to
perpetual banishment for her calumny, which was fully proved,
Jacques Coeur did not escape from the charges of peculation, &c.
which were probably equally unjust with the former. He was
condemned, chiefly, as was supposed, through the influence of
Anthony de Chabannes count of Dammartin, the court favourite of
the time, who certainly enriched himself considerably by his fall. By a
decree of the 19th of May, 1453, he was amerced in a sum of
400,000 crowns, equal, says Du Clos, to 4,228,360 livres tournois of
his time. "On prétend, peut-être sans fondement, que Jacques
Coeur, après sa condamnation, passa dans l'Isle de Chypre, où son
crédit, son habileté, et sa reputation, que ses malheurs n'avoient
point ternie, lui firent faire une fortune aussi considérable que celle
qu'il venoit de perdre." Du Clos.
Page 204. line 5 from the bottom. Thibaut and James.] Thibaud,
second son of Peter, and brother of Louis, count of St Pol, was lord
of Fiennes, and married Philippa of the house of Melun. James, the
third brother, was lord of Richebourg, and married Isabel de
Roubaix.
Page 204. line 4 from the bottom. Duke Cornille.] This is falsely
stopped. It should run thus, "Adolphus of Cleves, nephew to the
duke Corneille, bastard of Burgundy; and sir John de Croy."
Cornelius, the eldest of the numerous illegitimate progeny of duke
Philip, died unmarried, but left a bastard son, John lord of
Delverding. See the genealogical tables affixed to Pontus Heuterus.
Page 212. line 3 from the bottom. Sir Philip de Lalain.] Afterwards
killed at Montlehery.
Page 213. line 3. Sir James.] Killed soon after at the siege of the
castle of Poulcres, p. 262.
Page 213. line 17. Bastard de Cornille.] Not the bastard de Cornille,
but "Corneille the bastard." See before p. 204.
Page 214. line 11. Lord de Fiennes.] Brother of the count of St Pol.
See before p. 204 note.
Page 244. line 7. Sir Anthony the bastard.] Anthony, second of the
illegitimate sons of duke Philip, by Iolante de Presle, was lord of
Beveren, and married Mary de Viefville, by whom he had two sons
the lords of Vere and of Chapelle, and from these followed a long
line of descendants. See Pontus Heuterus, genealogical tables.
Page 259. line 16. Lord de Rubempré.] Anthony, lord of Rubempré, a
great favourite of Philip duke of Burgundy, married Jacqueline de
Croy lady of Bievres, daughter of John lord de Croy, grand butler of
France, by whom he had issue John de Rubempré lord of Bievres,
who was strongly attached to duke Charles, and perished by his side
at the battle of Nancy.
Page 260. line 3 from the bottom. Dormnast.] Qu. Dommart?
Anthony de Craon, lord of Dommart, son of James lord of Dommart
and Jane des Fosseux, was laid under confiscation by Louis XI, for
his adherence to the duke of Burgundy.
Page 262. line 4 from the bottom. Dead.] See vol. vii. p. 130. James
lord of Lalain, killed at this siege, was the eldest son of William lord
de Lalain there mentioned. He was succeeded in his title and estates
by his next brother, John who sold Lalain to Josse the son of Simon
lord of Montigny, younger brother of the lord William. Philip, the third
son of William, was killed at the battle of Montlehery; and Anthony,
the 4th son, lost his life in Switzerland, both under the command of
duke Charles the bold, so that there is no want of foundation for the
honourable testimony given by Comines to the merits of the family.
Page 267. line 17. Sir John de Hout.] Q. Sir John Holt?
Page 291. line 17. Sir Adolphus of Cleves.] Son of the duke of
Cleves, and often mentioned before. He was lord of Ravestein, and
not only nephew, but also son-in-law to the duke of Burgundy, having
married Anne, one of his bastard daughters, the lady of Ravestein
mentioned below.
Page 299. line 9. La Marche.] Louis de Puy, lord of Coudraimorlin,
baron of Bellefaye, &c. son of Geoffry du Puy who was killed at
Agincourt. He married a daughter of Antoine de Prie, lord of
Buzancais, before mentioned.
Page 299. line 15. Lord de Montauban.] See before, note to p. 133.
Page 303. line 4. Sir Hedoual Haul.] Sir Edward Hull. Stowe.
Page 303. line 14. The lord l'Isle.] The children of the great lord
Talbot were, by his first marriage with Maud Neville, three sons, viz.
Thomas, who died in his life time; John who succeeded him as earl
of Shrewsbury, &c.; and sir Christopher Talbot, knight. By his second
marriage with Margaret daughter of Richard Beauchamp earl of
Warwick, he had John (viscount l'Isle, so created in reference to the
titles of his mother's family), who being already signalized by his
valour on many great occasions, fell gloriously, together with his
father on this day. He served with two bannerets, 4 knights, 73 men
at arms, and 800 archers. He left issue Thomas Viscount l'Isle who,
in 1470, was slain in a private feud with the lord Berkeley, at Wotton-
under-edge in Staffordshire.
Page 303. line 8. Prisoner.] William lord Molyns, who was killed
before Orleans in 1429, left only a daughter, who was married to
Robert Hungerford, esq. grandson of Walter lord treasurer
Hungerford, in 1441. This Robert Hungerford, lord Molins in right of
his wife, was eldest son to Robert lord Hungerford, son of Walter,
and served in this year (1453) with one banneret, 2 knights, 56 men
at arms, and 600 archers. He remained a prisoner for seven years,
after which, siding with the Lancastrians, he was attainted 1 Edw. 4.
and beheaded after the battle of Hexham, two years afterwards.
Page 304. line 1. Count de Candale.] John Captal de Buche, (see
before p. 160.) was created earl of Kendal by king Henry VI.; and his
descendants retained the title metamorphosed into that of Candale
for several generations after they had submitted to the crown of
France.
Page 306. line 12. Lord de Lavedan.] Probably, Raymon-Garcias,
lord of Lavedan, who married Bellegarde daughter of Arsien V, lord
of Montesquieu.
Page 310. line 10. Lord Cameise.] Probably, Camois. The male line
of this barony was extinct in the time of Henry V; but Dugdale adds,
"of this family (without doubt) was also sir Roger de Camoise knight,
who in 22 H. 6 (1444) was taken prisoner in the wars of France, and
there detained in great misery. Whereupon, Isabel his wife, had an
assignation of 40l. per annum for her life, to be paid by the mayor
and commonalty of the city of London." Qu. Is this the same sir
Roger de Camois, released from captivity?
Page 310. line 20. Lord Clinton.] William, lord Clinton, (cousin and
heir of John lord Clinton, who distinguished himself, on the
expedition of Thomas Woodstock, 1380, and is noticed by Froissart)
was in all the wars of Henry IV, V, and VI; in 4 H. 6 he served in
France with 25 men at arms and 78 archers, in 9 H. 6 with one
knight 38 men at arms and 300 archers. He died 10 H. 6 (1432)
leaving his son and heir, John lord Clinton, the nobleman here
mentioned; who was made prisoner in the year 1441, and after
remaining in prison for six years, was ransomed at the sum of 6000
marks. He afterwards took part with the house of York during the civil
wars and served king Edward in many of his expeditions. Dugdale.
Page 332. last line. Sagripoch.] Q. Salonichi.
Page 332. last line. John Waiwoda.] Q. John Corvinus Hunniades,
Waivode of Transylvania; who is also, most probably the person
meant by "le Blanc, knight marshal of Hungary," in the following
chapter.
Page 335. line 7. Sambrine.] If in a narrative so full of confusion and
so crowded with errors, it is allowable to form a conjecture that may
tend to reconcile it any degree with fact, I should suppose this knight
marshal to be the great Hunniades, and the action to refer to the
famous siege of Belgrade which was raised by the exertions of that
heroic general. John Corvinus Hunniades was of ignoble birth, the
son of a Wallachian father by a Greek mother; so far the account of
Monstrelet tallies with the reality. He was appointed by king
Ladislaus to the government of upper Hungary, and the command in
chief of his armies. The operations for the relief of Belgrade were
carried on by a fleet on the Danube, as well as by land; so that the
mistake is natural enough, of calling the place a port; unless, from
the greater similitude of name, the reader should prefer Zarna, (to
which Mahomet afterwards retreated) as the representation of
Sambrina. See Bonfinius Rer. Ungar.
Page 337. last line. Hecuba.] Rather I should imagine, Hesione.
Page 347. line 12. Sir Guillot Destan.] This should be d'Esteing or
d'Estaing, the name of a very ancient and noble family in Rouergue.
William the second son of John I. viscount d'Esteing et de Cheilane,
was distinguished in the English wars, and rewarded by the
government of Rouergue, and by the posts of counsellor and
chamberlain to king Charles VII. His will bears date 1471. His
grandson, William d'Estaing, succeeded to the possessions of the
elder branch of the family about A.D. 1500, and became ancestor of
the counts of Estaing of later date.
Page 348. line 14. from the bottom. Gloucester.] There was no duke
of Gloucester at this time; for Humphrey duke of Gloucester, the
king's uncle, died under arrest, in the year 1447, and Richard third
son of the duke of York, was not created till the 1st of Edw. IV. Stow
in ann. 1454.—"The duke of Yorke with his friends wrought so
effectually, and handled his busines so politikly, that the duke of
Somerset was arrested in the queenes great chamber, and sent to
the Tower, where he kept his Christmas without great solemnity,
against whom in open parliament, were laid divers articles, beginning
thus, &c."
Page 348. line 9 from the bottom. Duke Charles of Bourbon.] On the
13th of November. She was already his first cousin, being daughter
of duke Charles by Agnes, sister of Philip the good. Her name was
Isabella.
Page 348. line 4 from the bottom. Prince.] John II. king of Castile,
&c. succeeded his father Henry III. in the year 1406, and died 1454.
By his first wife, Mary of Arragon, he had one son, Henry IV. his
successor. By his second marriage with Isabella of Portugal, he had
a son Alphonso, who died without issue, and a daughter, Isabella,
who succeeded her half brother, Henry, and, by her marriage with
Ferdinand of Arragon, united the two principal crowns of Spain.
Page 350. line 4. Duchy.] "Whilest king Henry lay sick, Ric. d. of
Yorke bare all the rule, and governed as regent, and did now
discover the sparkes of his hatred hid under dissimulation, against
the duke of Somerset; but when the king had recovered his strength
again, and resumed to him his princely government, he caused the
duke of Somerset to be sett at libertye, and preferred him to be
captain of Calais, wherewith not only the commons, but many of the
nobility, favorers of Richard duke of Yorke, were greatly grieved and
offended, saying, that he had lost Normandy, and would lose also
Calais."
Stow, ub. sup.
Page 355. line 6. Bishop, of Utrecht.] Adolphus of Diepenholt. Upon
his death, the electors being solicited on one side by this duke for his
son David, and on the other by the duke of Gueldres for Stephen of
Bavaria, in order to offend neither exasperated both, by chusing
Guisbert, a brother of Reginald lord of Brederode, for their bishop.
But, upon endeavouring to get their election confirmed by the pope,
they found themselves anticipated by the duke, who had already
obtained the papal sanction in favour of his son. The matter was
afterwards compromised as related in chapter LXV. and David held
the bishoprick of Utrecht for forty years. [Heuterus.]
Page 360. line 3. Kingdom.] This battle is called by the English
historians the first battle of St Alban's, and was fought on the 22d of
May 1455. Besides Edmund Beaufort, duke of Somerset, and Henry
Percy, earl of Northumberland, there were slain, on the king's side
two lords, five knights, and many gentlemen of good account.
Humphrey duke of Buckingham, and his son Humphrey earl of
Stafford were wounded besides the king. The victory, as appears by
the text, was decisive in favour of opposition.
The duke of Somerset left issue (by his wife Eleanor, daughter of
Richard Beauchamp earl of Warwick) Henry duke of Somerset,
beheaded in May 1464; Edward duke of Somerset after the death of
his brother, also beheaded 1472, and John, killed at Tewkesbury, but
none of these left any legitimate descendants. Henry alone left an
illegitimate son, Charles Somerset, who was afterwards created earl
of Worcester, and is the ancestor of the present duke of Beaufort.
Page 362. line 9. Season.] The relation which follows, is evidently
that of the famous siege of Belgrade; at which Huniades
commanded, and Capistranus acted as his lieutenant. The soldan of
Persia here mentioned, may very possibly mean the bashaw of Asia
Minor (Basseus Asiaticus) who is spoken of by Bonfinius as having a
high command in the Turkish army. He was killed in the siege.
Huniades was attacked by a fever, the consequence of his exertions,
and with difficulty removed as far as Semlin, where he died on the
4th of September 1456. His faithful companion, Johannes
Capistranus, attended at his bed-side during his last illness, and
supported him at the moment of his dissolution. His affection
followed him beyond the tomb, for from that hour he was never seen
to smile; and, not many weeks after, was summoned from the world
himself. The great Huniades left two sons, Ladislaus and Matthias
Corvinus. The first, though deserving of a better fate, became the
victim of state intrigues, and perished on a scaffold. The second was
elected king of Hungary in 1458.
Page 365. line 16. Battle.] This does not appear to have been the
case. Bonfinius calls his disorder a fever brought on by excessive
fatigue. See before.
Page 368. line 2. Laurentino. Q.] Perhaps Larina, the name of a town
in the Molise.
Page 368. line 8 from the bottom. Ancona. 2.] This is hardly
probable, for all the others are names of places in the Molise or one
of the Principati. Macchia has the nearest resemblance in sound of
any town in this neighbourhood.
Page 368. line 2 from the bottom. Sanguine. 2.] Castel del Sangro, in
Abruzzo? The river on which it stands is also called the Sanguine.
Page 369. line 10 from the bottom. Sermone. 2.] Isernia, a bishopric
in the Molise? or Sulmona, another city in Abruzzo?
Page 369. line 9. Oliveto. 2.] Alifi, in the Terra di Lavoro?
Page 371. line 14. Duke and Duchess of Savoy.] Lewis, duke of
Savoy, (son of Amadeus the first duke) and Anne de Lusignan,
daughter of James, king of Cyprus. The prince of Piedmont was their
son, Amadeus afterwards duke of Savoy, the second duke, and ninth
count, of the name. By this marriage with Yolande of France, he had
a numerous issue, but no descendants in the third generation.
Page 371. line 5 from the bottom. Duchy of Nemours.] This claim of
Charles of Navarre, prince of Viana to the duchy of Nemours, must
have been grounded on a grant made by king Charles VII. to his
grandfather Charles the noble, king of Navarre; which grant was held
to have been only personal, and to have terminated with the death of
the donee. The prince was therefore unsuccessful in his application.
Page 371. line 2 from the bottom. St Vincent.] This saint is not the
ancient deacon and martyr of that name, but St Vincent Ferrier a
Dominican, of Valencia in Spain, and a great converter of Saracens
and worker of miracles. He died in 1419, and was canonized by
order of pope Calixtus in 1455. He was buried at Vannes; the place
of his death, and the miracles which were attested to have been
wrought on his tomb, were the occasion of the distinguished honours
conferred on him.
Page 375. line 3 from the bottom. Duke of Gueldres.] Arnold of
Egmont duke of Gueldres, was married to Catherine, daughter of
Adolphus, duke of Cleves, by Mary, a sister of the duke of Burgundy.
In the note to p. 355. a sufficient reason will be found for his hostility,
of which, however, Heuterus takes no notice, saying only, that the
matters in dispute with the Deventrians and Frieslanders were
settled through the intervention of the duke of Cleves.
Page 378. last line. John Corvin.] If so, then le Chevalier Blanc could
not mean Huniades, since he is already disposed of in p. 362. The
truth is, that nothing can exceed the confusion and
misrepresentation with which Monstrelet's accounts from these
distant countries abound; and it is labour lost to attempt at finding a
meaning where there probably never was any. Capistran, who is
mentioned in the next page, died also immediately after, or very soon
upon his friend Huniades. I rather suspect that this is a mere
repetition of the preceding account, as the reader will find the
relation of the embassy in chapter LXIX. repeated again in chapter
LXXI. Probably towards the conclusion of his history Monstrelet set
down events without order or method, as he heard them in
conversation or otherwise, and did not live to arrange the
unconnected notes.
Page 385. line 2 from the bottom. Him.] The motive assigned by
Heuterus for this extraordinary display of friendship in the duke
towards the dauphin, is the hope "that this young prince, bound by
the immensity of the obligation, would, on his accession to the
throne, be the firm friend of his son Charles, and of the Belgian
states. But, adds the historian, it is in vain that benefits are heaped
on men of a depraved disposition, as king Charles himself
prophecied in the following words. You know not, duke Philip, the
nature of this savage animal. You cherish a wolf who will one day
tear your sheep to pieces. Remember the fable of the countryman,
who in compassion to a viper which he found half frozen in the fields,
brought it to his house, and warmed it by his fireside, till it turned
round and hissed at its preserver." (Heuterus.)
Page 386. line 6. Count of St Pol.] Thibaut de Luxembourg, lord of
Fiennes, younger son of Peter I. count of Brienne and St Paul,
married Philippa of Melun, daughter of John lord of Antoing, by
whom he had issue James lord of Fiennes, and count of Gaure, &c.
Philip, cardinal, and bishop of Mans, Francis viscount of Martigues,
and several daughters. It may be doubtful from what motive he
embraced the ecclesiastical profession, since a life of poverty was
certainly not included in his intention. He was made bishop of Mans
and abbot of Igni and Orcan and was prevented by death from
wearing the cardinal's hat, which was designed for him by pope
Sixtus IV. 1st September, 1477.
Page 387. line 13. Duke of Burgundy.] Charles duke of Bourbon, by
his marriage with Agnes of Burgundy, daughter of John the Fearless,
had a numerous issue, of whom the eldest succeeded to his duchy
by the title of John the Second, and was surnamed the good. Of the
other children, Charles was archbishop of Clermont; Lewis, bishop of
Liege; Peter was duke of Bourbon after the death of his brother,
John II. His five daughters were married respectively to the dukes of
Calabria, Burgundy, Gueldres, Savoy, and the prince of Orange.
Page 388. line 12. Lord de Quievrain.] Philip de Croy, lord of
Quievrain, eldest son of John count of Chimay.
Page 388. line 13. Lord d'Aymeries.] Anthony de Rollin, lord of
Aymeries. A particular account of this dispute is given by Heuterus,
by which it appears that Monstrelet's statement is very correct.
Page 390. line 5 from the bottom. Safety.] In vol. x. chapter XV. the
very same accident which is here made to befal the dauphin, is also
recorded to have happened to the count de Charolois when hunting
with the dauphin after his accession to the throne. Qu. Has not
Monstrelet made the two stories out of one?
Page 392. last line. Horse.] Ant. Bonfinius, in his Decades, says
nothing of the archbishop of Cologne, but mentions, as at the head
of this embassy, the bishop of Passau. Udalricus Pataviensium
Pontifex, opibus, auctoritate, moribus, et doctrinâ præcellens. He
says that it was by far the most magnificent embassy remembered in
his time, and that out of Hungary, Bohemia and Austria, and the
bishopric of Passau, there were chosen seven hundred noblemen to
attend it, such as "qui formâ, habitu, nobilitate, apparatuque
pollerent, et quisque regno dignus videretur." The greatest
expectations were entertained on the subject of this projected
alliance, and the preparations made for celebrating it at the imperial
court exceeded every thing of the kind before known. In the midst of
these preparations, Ladislaus, then only twenty-two years of age,
and a young man of the most promising character and attainments,
was taken suddenly ill while presiding at an assembly of the states,
with symptoms, as it is stated, of the plague, according to others, of
poison; and he lived but thirty-six hours after. Dying without issue,
George Podiebrad was elected by the states of Bohemia, and the
great Matthias Corvinus by those of Hungary, to succeed him in his
respective dominions.
Page 396. line 5 from the bottom. Count de Maulévrier.] This
nobleman is called, by Stow, sir Pierce Bressy, captain of Dieppe.
The same historian mentions that a second division of this expedition
sailed to the coast of Cornwall and burned the town of Fowey, under
the command of William lord de Pomyars.
Page 398. line 7. Galiot de Genouillac.] James Ricard de Genouillac,
called Galiot, lord of Brussac, &c. master of artillery in 1479,
seneschal of Beaucare in 1480, son of Peter Ricard lord of Gourdon,
and brother of John Ricard lord of Gourdon, and of John Ricard lord
of Acier en Quercy. This last lord had a son who was also called
Galiot, and distinguished himself at the battle of Fornova and upon
other occasions.
Page 402. last line. Earl of Warwick.] This is Richard Nevil, the
kingmaker, who, and his father the earl of Salisbury, were now the
principal supports of the York, or opposition, party. Richard Nevil the
father was brother of Ralph Nevil, earl of Westmoreland, and
became earl of Salisbury by marriage with Alice, only daughter and
heir of Montacute earl of Salisbury, who was killed at the siege of
Orleans. Richard Nevil, the son, married Anne, sister of Henry
Beauchamp duke of Warwick, and king of the Isle of Wight, and heir
by descent from her father to the earldom, which was conveyed by
marriage to her husband.
Page 408. line 14. Together.] This marriage was contracted by the
dauphin without the consent of his father, who prevented the young
couple from coming together for five years after they were betrothed
to each other. Their union was at last brought about by the duke of
Burgundy, who sent the lord of Montagu into Savoy, to bring away
the princess. She, it is added, was very ready to obey the mandate,
and the solemnity was shortly after concluded with great pomp at
Namur. This transaction by no means tended to reconcile the king to
his son. [See Vanderburch, Hist. Principum Sabaudonum.]
Page 405. line 15. Bishop of Constance.] Qu. Coutances?
Page 413. line 13. So.] See a particular account of this strange
ceremony of swearing on the peacock, or pheasant, in M. de St.
Palaye's Memoires sur l'Ancienne Chivalerie.
Page 415. line 4 from the bottom. Duchy.] In right of his mother,
Elizabeth duchess of Austria. See the genealogical table and note in
the present vol.
Page 416. line 15. Duchess of Burgundy.] John duke of Coimbra,
son of Peter, brother of Edward king of Portugal. He married
Charlotte, only daughter and heir of John III. king of Cyprus; but it
seems to be a mistake of Monstrelet's, where he calls her the
widowed queen. She survived the duke of Coimbra, and married for
her second husband Lewis prince of Savoy. The crown of Cyprus
was usurped by James; the bastard son of John III, and never
enjoyed either by Charlotte herself or by either of her husbands.
Isabella, duchess of Burgundy, was sister of Edward king of Portugal
and of Peter duke of Coimbra.
Page 424. line 11. Naples.] This great prince was succeeded in his
hereditary dominions of Arragon and Sicily by his brother John, who
was already king of Navarre in right of his queen, Blanche the
daughter of Charles the third. Alphonso claimed the right of conquest
in disposing of his kingdom of Naples in favour of his bastard,
Ferdinand. The succession of Arragon and Castile, and union of
crowns in the person of Ferdinand, the catholic, will be easily
comprehended by the following table.
Page 435. line 3. Bastard d'Armagnac.] John d'Armagnac, lord of
Gourdon, bastard son of John IV. count of Armagnac, and brother by
the same mother of another John d'Armagnac, called also de Lescun
archbishop of Auch. He was advanced by the dauphin, after he
became king, to several high offices of trust and favour, and was
made marshal of France in 1461. He married Margaret, daughter of
Louis I. marquis de Saluces, by whom he had one daughter, married
into the house of Amboise, and died A.D. 1472.
Page 435. line 14 from the bottom. Marshal of Burgundy.] Thibault
the ninth marshal of Burgundy and bailiff of Franche Comté. He died
in 1469, leaving by Bona of Chàteauvilain his wife, Thibault lord of
Hericourt, who died without issue, and Henry lord de Neufchâtel,
who was made prisoner at the battle of Nancy, and died in 1503, and
he was brother of John de Neufchâtel, lord of Montagu. This lordship
of Neufchâtel in Burgundy must be carefully distinguished from the
county of Neufchâtel in Switzerland, with which it had no connection
whatever.
H. Bryer, Printer,
Bridge-street, Blackfriars, London.