HENRY VALOIS'S COURT AND ELECTIVE KINGSHIP IN THE POLISH–LITHUANIAN COMMONWEALTH, 1573–1574

Abstract Henry Valois (1551–89) was elected king of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1573 and arrived in Poland in January 1574. After five months, Henry fled Poland–Lithuania upon inheriting the French throne from his brother, Charles IX. As Henry III of France, he was branded a violent tyrant, who allowed his mignons to run the kingdom and isolated himself from his subjects. Historians have done much to rehabilitate Henry's reputation, but his first experience of kingship in the Commonwealth has been neglected in these reassessments. This article uses the previously unstudied treasury accounts of Henry's Polish court to re-examine his experience of the Polish–Lithuanian elective, parliamentary monarchy as crucial to the development of his characteristic style of kingship and court. Some of these practices were a response to the challenges posed by the Polish political system to a newly elected king. This allows us to recover a lost political connection between Poland and France. Secondly, the article demonstrates Henry's active engagement in the Polish–Lithuanian politics, challenging the narrative that he was a passive king anticipating his return to Paris. Instead, Henry planned to cement his rule in Poland by mounting his own faction and pursuing a bold diplomatic agenda.

reverse.  Even French coins minted in Henry's time bear his Polish title.  Not only was Henry thought of and represented as king of Poland during his lifetime, it was also an enduring part of his legacy. A book of Henry's ordinances for the order of the Holy Spirit published in  reproduces on the cover his double coat of arms: the French fleurs-de-lis together with the Commonwealth's Polish eagle and Lithuanian Pahonia.  These items were collected in an exhibition 'Fêtes et Crimes à la Renaissance: La Cour d'Henri III' held at Blois in . The beautifully illustrated catalogue includes essays on aspects of Henry's reign and court written by experts, but even though the objects tell the story of his dual identity, no essay contextualizes his Polish-Lithuanian experience.  That we little understand how Henry might have been shaped by his Polish kingship is compounded by the fact that the last significant Polish study of Henry's reign is Stanisław Grzybowski's  biography, which focuses on the religious issues that surrounded Henry's election and both kingships.  This followed Maciej Serwanśki's  biography, which focused on French-Polish diplomacy and the impact of Henry's election on the relationship between Poland and France until the coronation of Henry's successor, Stephen Bathory, in .  These biographies make extensive use of Polish sources, but neither has been translated into English or French, which means that their influence is largely limited to Polish historiography. Henry's reign does feature in important recent work on the constitutional history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but this focuses almost exclusively on the election, propaganda, and creation of the contractual documents, viz. the Henrician Articles and pacta conventa (discussed below), but otherwise tends to reproduce the Serwanśki and Grzybowski narratives.  This study seeks to address these multiple imbalances by using the previously neglected treasury accounts of Henry's Polish court held at the Central Archives of Historical Records in Warsaw. The accounts were mostly written in the hand of Mikołaj Socha, the dispensator, whose job was to deal with provisions for the court. They record, among other things, preparations for Henry's arrival, coronation expenses, daily lists of food and drink consumed at court often with notes on the king's daily activities, and details of receiving and dispatching ambassadors. These documents can be difficult to interpret because the Polish court remains a notoriously understudied area. Marek Ferenc's recent study of the court structures of the last Jagiellonian, Sigismund August, is an invaluable aid when making sense of Henry's accounts but does not attempt to interpret the role of the court in politics and the political system of the Commonwealth.  The last article to discuss the structures of the court of Stephen Bathory, elected after Henry was deposed, is now over a hundred years old and is similar to Ferenc's study in its focus.  As Urszula Augustyniak argued in her study of Vasa kingship, more work is needed on understanding the functioning of the royal court in the Polish-Lithuanian elective, parliamentary monarchy.  We still lack a historical understanding of how the structures and workings of the Polish court after the fall of the Jagiellonian dynasty related to the political structures of the Commonwealth, what its role was in governing the Commonwealth, and what challenges a newly elected foreign monarch might face in taking control of the court.
This article makes a twofold argument. First, it argues that Henry's Polish episode was crucial to the development of his characteristic style of kingship and court. By giving us a detailed insight into Henry's day-to-day activities and the workings of his court, the treasury accounts allow us to see that Henry's behaviour presaged the trademark characteristics of his later French kingship. Furthermore, this article shows that some of these practices, which were later thought outlandish in France, were a response to the particular challenges posed by the Polish political system to a newly elected king. James Collins was right to point out that historians too often think of the direction of political or intellectual influence as from West to East and Henry's example is a clear example of a reverse trajectory.  Henry's Polish rule was not an episode disconnected from his later rule in France. Indeed, his French kingship should be seen  Marek Ferenc, Dwór Zygmunta Augusta: organizacja i ludzie (Osẃiecim, ). There is a more general overview of the Jagiellonian court (-) in Urszula Borkowska's magisterial study of the dynasty: Urszula Borkowska, Dynastia Jagiellonów w Polsce (Warsaw, ), pp. -.    H E N R Y V A L O I S ' S C O U R T A N D K I N G S H I P as the continuation of the style of kingship he inaugurated in Poland in response to Polish circumstances. This allows us to recover a lost political connection between Poland and France, because through Henry the Polish political system had an impact on the French monarchy. This is particularly important because Henry's rule in France during the Wars of Religion helped usher in the absolutism of the seventeenth century.  To show this connection, this article examines the genesis of Henry's mignons, the politics of separating the king's table from the rest of the court, the use of countryside residences for secret dealings in important state matters as means of excluding the parliament, and faction building.
The second thread of argument demonstrates Henry's active engagement in Polish-Lithuanian politics, both internal and external, and challenges the widely accepted narrative that he was a passive king awaiting his imminent flight to Paris.  The unfortunate tendency to marginalize Poland's political importance and underestimate the extent of its relationships with Western European realms contributes to such representations of Henry's Polish reign.  But Charles IX's swift demise without an heir was not inevitable, and Henry was far from banking his political career on it. By using new evidence from the financial accounts, this article contends that Henry planned to cement his rule in Poland by mounting his own faction and shape the Commonwealth in the long term, and that his diplomatic agenda was more complex than simply keeping the peace on the eastern border until such a time as he deserted the throne.  Too often Henry's Polish reign has been approached from the perspective of his subsequent flight, or by exoticizing rather than contextualizing the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Seeing Henry's behaviour as intrinsically connected to his style of kingship rather than as a measure of his disdain for the Commonwealth and shifting the focus from the flight to his daily activities helps us better understand Henry as an active king, who shaped, admittedly for a short time, Polish politics and court culture. I Henry was elected into a unique system of elective and parliamentary monarchy, the outline of which had existed since the late fourteenth century. He was preceded by Sigismund II August, the last of the Jagiellonian dynasty, members of which had been elected for close to  years in order to maintain the personal union between the Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania.  In , shortly before Sigismund August's death, Poland and Lithuania were linked by a constitutional union at the parliament of Lublin, removing the union's dependence on the dynastic principle and opening the way to the so-called free elections, whereby any member of the European royal and princely houses could be a candidate. The establishment of the elective monarchy was accompanied by the rise of the Polish nobility, and the gradual development of the monarchia mixta, a system of government that theoretically gave equal powers to the king and the two parliament chambersthe Senate, which consisted of state and church officers, i.e. wealthy nobles appointed by the king for life, and the Chamber of Envoys, which included lower-ranking members of the nobility known as szlachta sent from local sejmiks.  The parliament had to consent to new legislation, taxes, and war, but the king also had significant powers because he appointed state officers and presided over the Senate.  Within this extraordinary political system, based in its principles on the Roman Republic, service to the Commonwealth rather than birth was the mark of status and power.  Notably, given the pervasive religious conflict of the period, the Protestant nobility enjoyed a relatively low level of persecution under Sigismund August, and many considered freedom of religion part of their political privileges.  This is the context in which Henry became a candidate to the Polish throne in the summer of . The French were already aware of the imminent election in , when Catherine de Medici's Polish dwarf, Jan Krassowski, alerted her to the opportunity Sigismund August's death would create for Henry.  The electoral campaign began in earnest in August  with the arrival in Poland of Jean Monluc, an experienced diplomat and Catholic bishop. Henry faced several rivals, but all were significantly disadvantaged one way or another. Most Polish nobles feared that the Habsburg candidate, Archduke Ernest of Austria, would seek to undermine the parliamentary system of government and make Poland-Lithuania another realm under the Holy Roman Empire; Protestants found him particularly difficult to stomach.  Ivan IV of Muscovy openly wanted to annex the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and made it a condition of his election, which fast rendered it unlikely. Jan III Vasa of Sweden was married to Catherine Jagiellon, Sigismund August's sister, which was to his advantage, but his Protestantism eventually proved too much for  H E N R Y V A L O I S ' S C O U R T A N D K I N G S H I P the Catholic Polish magnates. By the time of the election parliament, Henry remained the only viable candidate, though the Habsburg candidate retained some supporters particularly among ecclesiastical senators (i.e. bishops and archbishops).  Henry, it was supposed, would make France a lasting ally against the Habsburgs, raising the possibility of an alliance that included the Ottomans. However, Henry's central role in the St Bartholomew's Day massacre was a problem for opponents of religious persecution and especially those who had friends among French Protestants.  That Henry was not discounted can be attributed to Monluc's ability to present him as a tolerant prince and the massacre as an attempt to crush a rebellion against Charles IX.  Nevertheless, important Polish Protestant nobles like Jan Firlej, marshal of the crown, and Hieronim Buzėnśki, treasurer of the crown, remained sceptical.  The nobility gathered near Warsaw on  April  to elect their new king. All nobles were entitled to a vote and many came to Warsaw to take part in the election despite the difficult state of the roads following the winter. After much debate, collecting votes started on  May and it became clear by  May that Henry had the majority. The archbishop of Gniezno proclaimed Henry the king elect on  May to the displeasure of some Protestants under the leadership of Jan Firlej, who only accepted the nomination on  May.  If the end of the Jagiellonian line opened the opportunity to choose the new king, it also brought a constitutional development in terms of how the transfer of royal power would work in practice after the long period of relative stability provided by the Jagiellonian dynasty. Felicia Roș u argues that concern over legal codification was a broader characteristic of sixteenth-century European succession crises and that elections constituted points of 'constitutional renewal' in Poland-Lithuania and Transylvania.  Issues that had been largely settled over the course of the long relationship between the Jagiellonians and the nobility now had to be codified and sworn by each king. This resulted in the development of the two documents henceforth presented to newly elected monarchs. The Henrician Articles, named after Henry for whom they were first written and the only Polish king after  never to sign them, established the limitations on the king's power; the nobility's privileges, particularly the right to rebel should the king overstep his boundaries; the king's income and contribution to the running of the state; the king's responsibility to keep a permanent council made up of senators, and uphold the role of parliament in the political system and elective principle of the monarchy. The second document, the pacta conventa, henceforth drawn up for each newly elected monarch, contained a personalized set of obligations in terms of the financial and military assistance  Serwanśki, Henryk III, p. ; Grzybowski, Henryk Walezy, p. ; Roș u, Elective monarchy, p. .  Tazbir, 'Polskie echa', p. .  Grzybowski, Henryk Walezy, pp. -.  Serwanśki, Henryk III, pp. -, -.  Grzybowski, Henryk Walezy, p. .  Roș u, Elective monarchy, pp. , .
the new king owed the Commonwealth and the basis of the new alliance with his native realm.  Furthermore, in January , at the convocation parliament preceding the election, the nobles approved the acts of the Warsaw Confederation, guaranteeing peace between all religions and freedom from persecution for members of all faiths. Though rejected by many Catholic nobles and the Polish episcopate, the Warsaw Confederation acts were presented to Henry as part of the Henrician Articles. Henry was also confronted with a further document called postulata polonica, in which the Polish-Lithuanian Protestants demanded that persecution of Protestants in France ceased.  Religious issues outlined in these documents remained a bone of contention throughout Henry's short reign.
The pacta conventa, Henrician Articles, and postulata polonica were brought to Paris in August  by the Polish ambassadors who were to escort Henry to Poland. They were Adam Konarski (bishop of Poznan), Olbracht Łaski (voivode of Sieradz), Jan Teczynśki (castellan of Wojnice), Jan Tomicki (castellan of Gniezno), Andrzej Górka (castellan of Miedzyrzecz), Jan Herburt (castellan of Sanok), Stanisław Kryski (castellan of Raciaz), Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł (court marshal of Lithuania), Jan Zamoyski (starosta of Bełzėc), Mikołaj Firlej (starosta of Kazimierz), Jan Zborowski (starosta of Odlanów), Aleksander Pronśki (son of the voivode of Kiev), and Mikołaj Tomicki of Tomice.  As Catholic and Protestant members of the Senate and Chamber of Envoys, they were received with much ceremony by the French royal family.  However, Henry was not keen to sign any of the documents, as he reportedly felt that these conditions made him more a doge of Venice than a king. Several issues were particularly contentious. The financial settlement outlined in the pacta conventa required Henry to make an annual payment of , florins into the Commonwealth's coffers, pay off Sigismund August's debts, furnish the Baltic sea fleet, guarantee free trade with France and its colonies in the New World, and finance the exchange of academics and students between the Jagiellonian University and the University of Paris.  Instead, Henry proposed that he would bring an annual income of , florins to Poland for his personal rather than the state coffers. Also contentious was the insistence of the traditionally been served by people of different nations but in the event he agreed to bring only a few Frenchmen with him, who would leave soon after his coronation. Henry was also reluctant to swear to uphold the Warsaw Confederation, especially since he knew that many of his Catholic subjects, including important senators, were opposed.  As such, the Polish delegation did not present a unified front and much time was lost to debate until finally, or so the story goes, Jan Zborowski, a prominent Lutheran, shouted 'Si non iurabis, non regnabis!' ('if you do not swear, you will not rule!').  Henry confirmed the Henrician Articles during a festive mass in the presence of his brother on  September  and promised to swear to all the documents with the agreed alterations once he came to Poland.  Henry was not necessarily hostile to the underlying principles of the Polish political system. In the memorandum he wrote after the disastrous siege of La Rochelle in , which cost the lives of many French soldiers, including some of his close friends, he proposed reforms to the French monarchy predicated on a critique of a system that rewarded birth rather than the service of soldiers and office-holders to the state.  It was the first such document to be written by a member of the French royal family. Henry was also well-briefed on the workings of the Polish system by Guy du Favre de Pibrac, his translator and adviser chosen by Catherine de Medici, but still he avoided swearing the pacta conventa and other documents despite his coronation on  February .  The reasons are suggested by the detailed briefs prepared by Guy de Lansac, one of the diplomats who led Henry's election campaign, and Antonio Maria Graziani, who visited Poland as the secretary to the papal nuncio.  Both advised Henry to centralize the political system and Graziani even suggested that the Commonwealth was ripe for absolutism, arguing that the king's power to appoint state officers, who by these appointments became members of the Senate, could be used to strengthen his power. Henry was stalling, but the Poles were losing patience. The coronation parliament, which took place in Cracow between  February and  April, was largely concerned with trying to force Henry to sign the pacta conventa, Henrician Articles, and postulata polonica, but Henry managed to use the polarization of the parliament, I I From the start of his French reign, Henry surrounded himself with a group of young men who served as his advisers and gentlemen of his chamber. They both had and controlled access to the king, attracting much criticism concerning their effeminacy, debauchery, and general bad influence on the king. Nicolas Le Roux demonstrates that the siege of La Rochelle in  and his travel to Poland-Lithuania in the autumn/winter of the same year were crucial in the formation of these friendships.  However, the accounts suggest that these favourites, known as the mignons from , also had their genesis in the structures of the Polish-Lithuanian court. Le Roux focuses on the formation of 'la maison du roi de Pologne' before Henry set off from France and rightly shows the significance of the long journey to Poland via Germany in cementing the 'entourage of friends'. This was clearly important, and Henry was making a statement by knowingly disregarding the condition he agreed to in Paristo only bring a few Frenchmen with him.  However, Le Roux does not allow for how Henry's response to the Polish court, presented to him fully formed as a fait accompli, had the effect of consolidating his dependence of the mignons. The court that awaited Henry's arrival in Poland was filled with people appointed by the late Sigismund August. In part, the Poles insisted that Henry did not bring a French entourage with him because it was bound to be the source of significant political tension.
Again, it is important to recognize the significance of the transition from the Jagiellonians. In a hereditary monarchy, Henry would have grown up knowing his father's or older brother's officers. If he came to the throne, he would already have formed personal relationships with the existing officers of the court; and the hereditary system gave him considerable latitude to appoint his own companions to manage his court. Under the Jagiellonians, the formation of these traditional power relationships was still possible to some extent, but not under the conditions of the free elections. Henry had crossed the continent to find his court controlled by men he did not appoint or even know, men who might not have supported him in the election. His position was not helped by the fact that state offices in Poland were generally appointed for life, so it was difficult for Henry to remove inconvenient nobles appointed by his predecessor.  H E N R Y V A L O I S ' S C O U R T A N D K I N G S H I P Moreover, the most important officers of Henry's Polish court, the marshal of the crown, the chancellor of the crown, and the treasurer of the crown, were high-ranking senators with linked state and court responsibilities. These men were also prominent players during the election and not all supported Henry. Jan Firlej, the marshal of the crown and a prominent Protestant, opposed Henry's election to such an extent that after it was announced, he gathered his supporters and set up a separate camp; it took three days of negotiations for Firlej to acclaim the election. As marshal of the crown, the second minister after the primate, he was responsible for policing and the king's security, but also for internal affairs including management of royal audiences and embassies, calling Senate meetings, and organizing royal elections.  Another important office on the boundary of state and court was the chancellor of the crown. He put the royal seal on documents, something he could refuse if he thought that the document was unlawful, even if it had been signed by the king. He was also 'the king's lips' and made all parliament speeches on his behalf, as well as being the head of the royal judicial court which dealt with royal cities and lands.  Henry was in luck, as the existing chancellor, Walenty Dembicki, was his early supporter.  However, it remained the case that Henry could not displace any of these important senators who effectively controlled his court, even if he was able to appoint a small number of Poles to vacant offices during the coronation parliament, including a new marshal of the crown following Firlej's death.
The accounts give us insight into the lack of Henry's autonomy regarding his income, expenditure, and how the court was run, as well as demonstrating the particular importance of Hieronim Buzėnśki, the treasurer of the crown, to the organization of the daily life of Henry's Polish court. Buzėnśki became Sigismund August's secretary in  and advanced to the position of treasurer in . Henry's biographers barely mention Buzėnśki, but between September  and June , he paid various sums of money into the 'royal purse'. According to Alexander Jagiellon's statute from , the treasurer was in charge of state finances, both incomings and outgoings, minting coin, paying the army, including the collections of taxes for that purpose, and the management of vacant crown lands. It was also the treasurer's prerogative to pay money into the royal purse and he had some control over how it was spent.  The treasurer reported to the parliament, which had oversight of all state (including royal) expenditure. Buzėnśki was also the zupnik krakowski, the director of the company which traded salt from the royal mines in Wieliczka and Bochnia, one of the king's main sources of income.  In effect, Henry's income and expenditure were scrutinized and controlled by a state officer whom he had not appointed and with whom he did not necessarily have a close relationship.
Moreover, Buzėnśki was a Protestant and a signatory of the Warsaw Confederation; he had become sceptical about Henry's candidature following the St Bartholomew's Day massacre but eventually supported Henry as an evil lesser than a Habsburg. He famously cautioned Jean Monluc, the French diplomat who led Henry's electoral campaign, that Henry 'would find in this kingdom more reasons to be afraid of the nation than the nation to be afraid of his severity, should he wish to endanger their lifestyle and civil liberties'.  This certainly helps to explain why Henry was so determined to ensure that his French income was his private fund. Had it become part of the state treasury, Buzėnśki would have controlled that too. Henry's struggle reflects the broader controversy as to whether royal revenue should belong to the king or the Commonwealth and be controlled by the treasurer of the crown under the periodic scrutiny from parliament. Only in - was the crown treasury finally separated into state and court treasuries with revenues from specific lands and enterprises (such as the Wieliczka and Bochnia salt mines) designated to provide for the king and his court; parliament retained scrutiny of the expenses.  Henry not only had to deal with the treasurer, but also with the extensive network Buzėnśki used to distribute funds. He often sent money 'through the hands of' (Pl. 'przez rece', Lat. 'per' or 'per manis') several men, including Jan Buzėnśki, his own nephew.  For some of these men, working for Buzėnśki was a career path. For example, Buzėnśki's secretary, Walenty Krzepicki, was ennobled by Stephen Bathory in  on his employer's recommendation.  Furthermore, Buzėnśki was assiduous in his duties, which gave him significant insight into Henry's daily life. One example of this was his coordination of Henry's journey to Poland. Wine and expensive spices were sent to Henry's planned overnight stops in Germany and Buzėnśki arranged for envoys to be sent to greet Henry along the way. The entry from November  states that Walenty Krzepicki bought twelve półkowki and ten barrels of wine for this purpose 'on the treasurer of the crown's orders'.  On Henry's entry into Poland, servants, cooks, trumpeters, and further members of an 'entourage'even horses with groomswere sent ahead to Poznan, where Henry made his first appearance in January .
After the greeting in Poznan, Henry travelled south towards Cracow. In Kalisz, Henry stayed in a townhouse belonging to the Chwalczewskis, a prominent regional family. In advance of his arrival, close to fifty florins was spent on improvements including new membranes and glass for fitting windows (the accounts detail that a Jewish craftsman was paid), locks and keys, chimney improvements, various pieces of tableware, and even four tables and ten benches.  Henry was also provided with various luxuries on his journey, such as limes, lemons, oranges, and pomegranates delivered from Cracow.  Fifteen grosz (silver coins) covered 'the damages done by the French' in an inn en route to Cracow.  In all, the accounts report that close to , grosz was spent on the king's travel from Paris to Cracow.  Buzėnśki took an active interest in making provisions for the court and exercised control over the distribution of luxury goods, especially when it came to Henry's Frenchmen. In March, Buzėnśki ordered Jacob 'the Frenchman' to collect a small barrel of wine for Pibrac; good wine was very expensive in Poland, because it had to be largely imported.  The treasurer also took a broader interest in special provisions for guests. On  April, the 'second' ambassador of the voivode of Wallachia arrived, and the accounts report that he received the usual fare of beef, veal, capons, and bread. 'Nothing was given' on  April, 'but Mr Treasurer ordered on  April that the kitchens should prepare a dinner [for the ambassador]'.  Normally, there would have been a court treasurer, a less senior officer, who managed the royal purse, but Sigismund August did not reappoint the office after Jan Lutomirski died in , leaving Buzėnśki in sole charge until  May .  Henry then appointed Jakub Rokossowski, another signatory of the Warsaw Confederation. Rokossowski dealt with issues like paying the salaried members of Sigismund August's court in May .  He also probably took  AGAD, ASK  , fo. v. A półkowek was smaller than a barrel. If we compare values from the same account, a półkowek of wine cost  thalers and a barrel cost  thalers.
 AGAD, ASK  , fos. r-v.  Ibid., fo. v.  Ibid., fo. r.  AGAD, ASK  , fo. over some day-to-day decisions about provisions. However, Buzėnśki was chiefly responsible for provisioning the royal court for the majority of Henry's Polish reign and, as the treasurer of the crown, had oversight of the money paid into the royal purse for the entirety of Henry's reign. This hospitality organized by Buzėnśki was not unconditional and shed light on the tensions caused by the question of Henry's French entourage. As already noted, Henry did not adhere to the Paris agreement that he would only bring a few Frenchmen who would leave soon after the coronation. The list printed in Lyon in  reveals that Henry's entourage consisted of eighty-five Frenchmen with their own entourages, meaning at least  people on horseback, plus numerous non-riding Frenchmen.  Clearly, Henry's preparations for taking up his throne in Poland generated much interest and were broadcast by the Valois across France. Le Roux calls this the 'formation of the Polish king's household' and 'institutionalization of the entourage of friends'.  This might have been what the French thought at the time, but the Poles clearly did not recognize Henry's entourage as their king's household and refused to provide for them on the journey through Germany to Poland. Board was given only to the duc de Nevers (Louis de Gonzague), the marquis de Maine (Charles de Lorraine, duc de Mayenne), the marquis Elbeuf (Charles de Lorraine), the French king's ambassador (Pomponne de Bellièvre), the emperor's ambassador, the Swiss guards and their captain, some of the Gascon troops (promised in the election) with their capitan Roger de Bellegarde (Henry's trusted companion), musicians, and drivers.  Even if some of Henry's entourage, including Pibrac, were likely to eat at the king's table and entourages of other important Frenchmen at their tables, the provisions made were not enough to feed such a large number of people.  This evidence matches the complaints made by Frenchmen at the time that they were not given accommodation or otherwise provided for once arrived in Cracow, also corroborated by the accounts.  If Henry wanted to provide for them, he would have to do it from his own income and he clearly realized the full extent of this by the end of March when Frenchmen began leaving Poland and returning to France, grumbling about their abominable treatment. Serwanśki claims, with a certain dose of Polish fatalism, that Henry was paving the way for his return to France by systematically sending his entourage ahead of him; this is part of the 'flight narrative' which dominates the understanding of Henry in the Polish historiography.  The new evidence from the accounts brings this narrative into question, allowing an alternative explanation that fits better with the complaints made by the Frenchmen at the time. The refusal to house and feed Henry's large French entourage, a decision which would have been taken jointly by Buzėnśki (who controlled the funds) and Firlej (who was responsible for court accommodation), served as a reminder that the election conditions had real material implications and Henry's relaxed approach would not be tolerated. Henry was simply not prepared to pay for his extensive entourage from his own pocket, so some of them had to go back. This also allows us to understand the roots of the conflict between the mignons, especially Bellegarde, Nevers, duc de Retz (Albert de Gondi), Rambouillet, and René Villequier, Le Roux points to as the main reason for the French exodus.  The conflict was partly about Henry's decision to curb his spending on food for his entourage, despite Villequier's argument that Henry could afford to spend as much as , livres tournois monthly.  As such, the squabbles were also over the king's favour, which is unsurprising when we consider that the Polish system barred Henry's companions from holding important court offices as a sign of influence and prestige. The context of the Polish court helps us understand that Henry's favour could be the only sign of distinction for these young ambitious men. Bellegarde, who held an official position as the captain of the Gascon troops Henry brought with him to aid in the Muscovite war, was seemingly winning on that front and other mignons were jealous. Pibrac is an interesting exception, as the Poles clearly recognized his importance as Henry's translator with regular food deliveries following the arrival in Poland; he was the only Frenchman to be provided for like this during Henry's residence in Poland.  Lastly, there were real political advantages to sending many of the French entourage away, because to fulfil partially the promises Henry made in Paris would be a welcome show of goodwill following the turbulent coronation parliament.
All of this demonstrates that the royal court functioned as part of the Polish-Lithuanian state apparatus and was closely incorporated into its structures. A consequence of these structures was that a newly elected monarch would feel isolated and managed by people with whom he did not have a personal relationship. In these circumstances, having his own trusted people, a court within a court, so to speak, was important especially in his first months of kingship. With time, Henry would have had the opportunity to shape the Commonwealth and his court through appointing people as offices became vacant, but he left too soon to make significant changes. In any case, he would never have been able to appoint his French companions to state  Le Roux, La faveur, pp. -.  Ibid., p. .  AGAD, ASK  , fos. r, v, r, v, r, r, v, r, r, r, v, r, r, r, r, v, r.  K A T A R Z Y N A K O S I O R offices in the Commonwealth. One could be forgiven for thinking that elective monarchy would foster a transnational royal court in Poland, but the accounts make clear that this was possible in the main only outside of the formal court structures. In this, we find the structural genesis of Henry's mignons, some of whom had accompanied him to Poland, including François d'O, Jacques de Caylus, Charles de Balzac d'Entragues, Le Guast, François d'Espinay, and Nicolas d'Angennes (Rambouillet), who quickly came to positions of power during Henry's French reign. Indeed, Knecht suggests that Henry's French household was monopolized by the people who were with him in Poland.  Though the financial accounts do little to illuminate the workings of Henry's mignons in Poland, his correspondence offers occasional glimpses of his attempts to bypass the Commonwealth's establishment. For example, en route to Poland, Henry wrote to Rambouillet, his special ambassador, to ensure that the rooms prepared for him in Cracow, and 'especially the offices', had secret exits.  In another letter, he asks Rambouillet to make sure that his rooms were decorated in the French stylea request that Buzėnśki and Firlej would be more than likely to challenge. Indeed, Henry referred to his so-called 'mignons' as 'ma troupe' ('my team'), an obviously less derogatory term.  The accounts allow us to see why Henry might have felt that he needed a team of his own in the context of the Polish court, while Henry's extensive entourage justified Polish fears that the free elections risked the court becoming an essentially foreign establishment.

I I I
Soon after Henry's return to France, the French nobility criticized his new ordinance that during mealtimes he would be surrounded by his closest courtiers and served by the gentlemen of his chamberthe mignons.  No one was to speak to him and onlookers were to stay behind a barrier erected especially for this purpose. The barrier was removed when some courtiers left the court in protest, but from , Henry started using the antechamber as his dining room. Outraged courtiers in Paris marked these practices out as foreign, making scathing remarks about 'novelties' Henry brought back from Poland 'to mark him off from the human race'.  This accusation was not groundless. In Poland, Henry kept a close ring of trusted Frenchmen around him and limited the access of his Polish courtiers during mealtimes in a way that set a precedent for his later behaviour in France. However, we might also recognize how this was a personal response to immediate difficulties. Facing  H E N R Y V A L O I S ' S C O U R T A N D K I N G S H I P the close scrutiny of his new subjects and unable to appoint his companions to court offices made for a difficult start to Henry's Polish reign. His inability to communicate in Polish or Latin was a significant difficulty too, especially because much of Henry's time was spent in Senate meetings of which he could have understood very little. Notwithstanding Monluc's promises that Henry was fluent in Latin, he only knew French and very little Italian.  By dinner-time, Henry would have had enough of his Polish subjects and problems of translation.
The daily lists of food ingredients and weekly summaries of cellar outgoings document Henry's strategy of inclusion and exclusion. Socha, in whose hand this part of the accounts is written, was the dispensator closely working with Buzėnśki. He distinguished two tables, one called 'the king's' or 'the French' and the other 'the Polish' or 'the lords'' table. The distinction was already present during Henry's coronation feast on  February, three days after he arrived in Cracow. The accounts list separately the food delivered 'first to the king's kitchens', including  oxen,  rams,  calves,  deer,  'chunks of lard', a turkey (lit. 'Indian chicken'),  capons,  black grouse,  partridges,  geese,  hazel grouse, a wood grouse,  eggs, a pot of butter, pears, apples, and 'some tiny birds for roasting on a spit'.  Then follow provisions 'for princes, ambassadors, and Crown [Polish] lords', including  oxen,  calves,  deer,  lambs,  geese,  hares,  black grouse,  turkeys,  partridges,  suckling pigs,  capons,  rams,  pig's heads, a pig for roasting,  smoked beef tongues,  fresh beef tongues, cooked black sausage, sausages, obwarzanki (ring-shaped bread),  pieces of lard, a large pot of butter,  spits of tiny birds and  of bigger birds, milk,  eggs, apples, pears, wheat and wholemeal flour, onions, black mustard, a turnip, pike, vinegar, honey, horseradish, and cheese, to only name some.  The amount of food prepared for the king's table suggests that he was probably eating with some chosen comrades. That they were French is corroborated by the weekly summary of the cellar, which included beer and bread consumed that week, tallied up on Saturday  February (Saturdays were the usual day for such summaries). The barrels of beer and loaves of bread were segregated into just two categories: those for the 'French dinners' and the 'Polish dinners'.  Even if there was any question as to which category the king's table would belong to, on other occasions later in the year Socha interchanges 'French' with 'the 'king's' courtindicating that the division between 'Polish' and 'French' tables in  was unprecedented.  Access to Henry was restricted, just like in his French ordinances, marking his preference for a formal separation from much of his court.

I V
In older Polish accounts, Henry is most often represented as passive, because the dominant narrative about his reign comes from Sẃietosław Orzelski, one of his most vitriolic critics. This is hardly surprising, for Orzelski was a member of the Chamber of Envoys, which was particularly concerned with the need for Henry to uphold the Henrician Articles and other documents to guarantee the perpetuation of the parliamentary monarchy. Orzelski reports that until the end of March, as the parliament debated the Henrician Articles, pacta conventa, and postulata polonica, Henry pretended to be ill and locked himself in his rooms to play cards with his French companions and entertain French ladies.  Grzybowski, challenging Orzelski's account, says the illness was most likely real, if not serious, and Henry spent much of the time working, taking council with his personal advisers, preparing parliamentary speeches later delivered in Latin by Pibrac, and writing letters, many of which have been published.  The lists of medicines Henry was taking confirm his illness and suggest that the cause was severe indigestion. On  April, Good Friday, a pharmacist was paid just over two florins for making a concoction of prunes, figs, rice, small and big raisins, and rosehip vodka, all ingredients associated with improving digestive health.  Henry was particularly indisposed in the run up to the Easter weekend, because on Maundy Thursday ( April) he broke his fast to eat a capon 'for medicinal reasons'.  What is more, Henry occasionally had small quantities (usually a quart at a time) of rosehip vodka served with meals.  Henry's digestive health was almost certainly hindered by the Polish fasting regime during Lent. Jarosław Dumanowski's pioneering work on early modern Polish food culture provides crucial context for Henry's time in Poland. Dumanowski shows that the Polish fast strictly excluded all meat and dairy, such as butter, milk, and eggs.  Instead, Poles ate salted sea fish delivered