Although I did not once mention his name in my feature on the subject in caption (The Sunday Times, January 13) so as to avoid any misinterpretation of the facts that I presented, it would seem that in his contribution (The Sunday Times, January 20) Giovanni Bonello has indeed mis­interpreted me when he pontificates that I should have found a “right way of contradicting” him. He is wrong. I never intended to contradict him,or anyone else, for that matter.

In the 16th and 17th century his Valette family was also officially known in the realm of France and even beyond as the de la Valette family- Denis De Lucca

My sole aim was to present some historical facts about the Valette family of France, drawing some conclusions (as I have every right to do) which would disseminate and enrich readers’ knowledge on the Grand Master’s illustrious French family.

In this context, I think the cannon fire (or should I say, musket fire) that Dr Bonello deemed fit to launch at me in his contribution for daring to express (in just one short paragraph of a 35-paragraph article) my opinion that “it is equally correct to refer to the hero of the Great Siege as Grand Master de Valette, or alternatively, as Jean de la Valette” is uncalled for and unacceptable, to say the least.

His tirade adds “plenty of nothing” to the contents of my article. Dr Bonello has one opinion based on one type of evidence (which, surprisingly, he had already produced in an article on the Grand Master that had recently appeared in The Sunday Times), and I have another based on a very different type of evidence.

One is therefore now faced with the following scenario: On one hand, the absence of any signature, coin, medal or certificate calling the Grand Master Jean de la Valette is being taken by Dr Bonello to constitute definitive evidence that it would be wrong to refer to the same Grand Master as anyone but Jean de Valette.

On the other hand, the implications of an important August 10, 1539, royal ordinance promulgated by the King of France during the lifetime of the Grand Master (which could throw more light on the use of the ‘de Valette’ and ‘de la Valette’ surnames in French legal documents of the time) is totally ignored.

And this although, as Dr Bonello himself states, the Grand Master’s nephew – perhaps more sensitive to the ordinance of his king – started using at this time the ‘de la Valette’ version of his Valette surname. And this although, as stated in my contribution giving full historical details, the Nogaret branch of the Valettes, continuously used the surname ‘de Nogaret de la Valette’.

And this although Victor Cauchi, in his letter (The Sunday Times, January 20), drew readers’ attention to the importance of exploring further the linguistic conse­quences of the 1539 royal ordinance of King Francis I of France after his return from a period of captivity in Spain.

It is clear that in the context of all the evidence, “members of the Valette family in 16th and 17th century France used both ‘de’ and the ‘de la’ in their surnames” – as I correctly stated in my contribution.

Today, both refer to the same family (of which the Grand Master was a member) and both are therefore correct when post-1539 references are made to all members ( including the Grand Master) of that illustrious family. This was what I said in my contribution and this is what I still maintain.

One should perhaps add for good measure that there is ample written proof in European archives and libraries to suggest that it had become conventional since early modern times to refer to the famous Grand Master of Malta as Jean de la Valette. Such long established conventions are perfectly acceptable in con-temporary historiography which tends to shun recognition of blinker­ed controversies when referring to out­standing historical personalities.

In conclusion; far from wasting time to study any “right way of contradicting” Dr Bonello since, I repeat, this was not at all my intention, my feature aimed at dis-semi­nating historical knowledge about facts concerning the origins and some scions of the illustrious family of the Grand Master in early modern France, in an incisive and concise and well-illustrated manner, irrespective of whether Dr Bonello would be interested or not in this information. I did not have any interest or reason to question the fact that the Grand Master signed his letters or minted his coins and medals as as Jean de Valette.

What I did, however, maintain and still maintain – in the absence of proof to the contrary – was that in the 16th and 17th century his Valette family was also officially known in the realm of France and even beyond as the de la Valette family, implying that there is nothing wrong at all in calling the Grand Master Jean de la Valette, as so many eminent historians of international fame have.

Although probably conscious during his lifetime of what would have been happening in his homeland since 1539 concerning the surname of his family, and also considered in the context of the bitter feud that then existed between France and Spain in which he wanted to have no part by, among other more important things, arguing about surnames, I am sure that the hero of the Great Siege would have been much more conscious of his far more onerous responsibilities in directing his cannon and musket fire against the common enemy, at a time of great peril to Christian Europe.

As a final note, Dr Bonello’s comment regarding the ‘Bosio’ illustration is correct but I deny any responsibility for it or its caption since I only sent to The Sunday Times five illustrations to accompany my text. This illustration was not one of them.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.