*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75970 ***



  [Illustration: CÆDES COLIGNII ET SOCIORUM EJUS.

  THE MASSACRE IN PARIS.

  From the Picture in the Vatican by Vasari.]




                                  THE

                     MASSACRE OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW.

                             PRECEDED BY A

                 HISTORY OF THE RELIGIOUS WARS IN THE
                         REIGN OF CHARLES IX.

                            BY HENRY WHITE.

  [Illustration]

                          WITH ILLUSTRATIONS.

                               NEW YORK:

                    HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS,

                           FRANKLIN SQUARE.

                                 1868.




                               PREFACE.


In the following pages I have endeavored to describe the great struggle
which devastated France in the latter half of the sixteenth century,
and culminated in the memorable tragedy of St. Bartholomew’s Day.
The nature of that struggle can not be fairly understood, unless the
condition of the Protestants under Francis I. and his two immediate
successors be taken into consideration. In those fiery times of trial
the Huguenot character was formed, and the nation gradually separated
into two parties, so fanatically hostile, that the extermination of the
weaker seemed the only possible means of re-establishing the unity of
France.

The three preliminary chapters necessarily contain many notices of
the cruel persecutions which the Reformers had to suffer at the hands
of the dominant Church; but the author would be much grieved were it
supposed that he had written those chapters with any desire to rekindle
the dying embers of religious strife. On that portion of his work he
dwells with pain and regret; but such pages of history contain warnings
that it may be well to repeat from time to time. Though there may be
little danger of our drifting back to the atrocities of the sixteenth
century, and though we no longer burn men, mob-law and other forms
of terrorism are still employed to stifle free discussion, and check
individual liberty. From this to the prison, the rack, and the stake,
the step is not so wide as it appears. Moreover, it is good to revive
occasionally the memory of those who have “served God in the fire,” for
the instruction of their descendants, who have the good fortune to live
in times when they can “honor God in the sunshine.” Such examples of
patience and firmness under torture, of self-devotion, of child-like
reliance on the spiritual promises of their Divine Master, of obedience
to conscience, and of faithfulness to duty, are fruitful for all ages.
They serve to show not only that persecution is a mistake, but that
the final victory is not with the successful persecutor. Man’s real
strength consists in prudence and foresight--qualities which belong
but to few; and if this small intelligent class (and such the early
Reformers were, even by the confession of their enemies) be driven
out or exterminated, the ignorant masses are lost. Spain and Italy
have never recovered from the self-inflicted wounds of the sixteenth
century; and if France has suffered in a less degree, it is because
persecution did not so completely succeed in destroying freedom of
thought and liberty of conscience.

The author has tried to write impartially: he has weighed conflicting
evidence carefully, and has never willingly allowed prejudices to
direct his judgment. That he has succeeded in holding the balance
even, is more than he can venture to hope; but in such a cause there
is consolation even in failure. If he has not painted the unscrupulous
Catherine de Medicis and the half-insane Charles in such dark colors as
preceding writers, he has carefully abstained from whitewashing them.
He has shown that they both possessed many estimable qualities, and has
carefully marked the steps by which they attained such an eminence in
evil.[1]

In the earlier pages of this history the followers of the new creed
in France are called indifferently Protestants or Huguenots. The use
of the former word is not strictly correct; but it is preferable
to the awkward term “Reformed,” by which the French Dissenters
designate themselves. By their enemies they were usually denominated
Calvinists--a term which I have generally avoided on account of
the erroneous ideas connected with it among ordinary readers. In
the present day it is seldom used without a sneer. With all the
complacency of ignorance, men write of “grim Calvinists who justify the
burning of Servetus.” Calvinists, grim or otherwise, do not justify
persecution; and as regards Servetus, his execution was approved of
by all the Protestant divines of Germany and Switzerland, and Calvin
was perhaps the only man who tried to save the arch-heretic’s life.
Whatever may have been the errors of the Reformer of Geneva, he was
one of the greatest men of his day, and as an author he stands in
the first rank of early French prose-writers. Englishmen who owe so
many of their liberties to the influence of his opinions during the
counter-reformation of the seventeenth century, should be the last
people to look unkindly upon his failings.

Respecting the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, there are two theories.
Some writers contend that it was the result of a long premeditated
plot, and this view was so ably maintained by John Allen in the
_Edinburgh Review_ (vol. xliv. 1826), that nothing farther was
left to be said on the subject. Others are of opinion that it was the
accidental result of a momentary spasm of mingled terror and fanaticism
caused by the unsuccessful attempt to murder Coligny. This theory has
been supported by Ranke in a review of Capefigue’s “Histoire de la
Réforme,” printed in the second volume of his “Historisch-politische
Zeitschrift” (1836), and in the first volume of his “Französische
Geschichte;” by Soldan in his “Frankreich und die Bartholomäus-Nacht;”
by Baum in his “Leben Beza’s;” and by Coquerel in the “Revue
Théologique” in 1859. Since they wrote, many new materials tending to
confirm their views have come to light, some of which are for the first
time noticed in this volume.

Foremost in value among the materials for this portion of the French
history are the extracts from the “Simancas Archives,” published by
M. Gachard in the “Correspondance de Philippe II.” The letters of
Catherine de Medicis (as published by Alberi) throw a new light upon
some of the obscurer parts of the reign of Charles IX.; and though it
would be unwise to trust them implicitly, I can scarcely imagine a more
valuable contribution to French history than a complete collection of
her correspondence. Her letters are scattered all over France: a few
have been printed in local histories, but far the greater part of them
(including those in the collection of Mr. Murray of Albemarle Street)
remain almost unknown. Much curious information has been gleaned from
the “Relazioni” of the Venetian embassadors, edited by Alberi, or in
the more accessible volumes of Tommaseo and Baschet. I need not point
out the value of the documents contained in the correspondence of
Aubespine, La Mothe-Fénelon, Cardinal Granvelle, and in the “Archives
de la Maison d’Orange-Nassau,” published by Groen van Prinsterer. The
letters of the English agents in France, so singularly neglected by
many writers, help to explain several of the incidents of the Tumult
of Amboise and the proposed war in Flanders in 1572. The omission from
Walsingham’s correspondence of all account of the Massacre is much to
be lamented. Though I have sought for it in vain, I still entertain
a hope that it may some day be recovered. In the Record Office there
is a curious report by the famous Kirkaldy of Grange, of which Mr.
Froude has already made use in his last volume. Two other remarkable
contemporary letters--one in Spanish, the other in German--are noticed
in their proper place.

Either personally or through the help of kind friends the author
has searched far and wide among the provincial records of France.
The sources of the information thus acquired have been carefully
indicated in the notes, and the result has often been to discredit the
statements of the older writers, carelessly copied by their successors.
Two remarkable instances connected with Toulouse and Lyons will be
observed in the course of the history. The Médicis MSS. at Le Puy, the
manuscripts in the public library at Rouen, the letters of Charles IX.
at Tours, the Acts Consulaires of Lyons, the Consular and Parliament
Registers of Toulouse, the Registers of Caen, the Livre du Roi at
Dijon, the Municipal Archives and Baptismal Registers at Provins, the
Comptes Consulaires at Gap, have contributed to enrich this volume on
several important matters. The public records of Montpelier, Nismes,
Grenoble, Clermont-Ferrand, Bayeux, and other places, as well as the
unpublished Memoirs of Jacques Gaches, and the MS. of President Latomy,
which differs considerably from the printed text, have also furnished
their contingent of information. Much curious and interesting matter
has been found in Haag’s “France Protestante,” and in the “Bulletin de
la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme François.”

The reader will find very little in this volume about the internal
development of the Reformed Church; for such information he must look
to theological histories and to writers who have made theology their
study. Laymen who venture into that field rarely escape the imputation
of ignorance or heterodoxy.

   _December, 1867._




                               CONTENTS.


                              CHAPTER I.

                             INTRODUCTION.

                             [1500–1547.]

    Causes of the Reformation--Lefevre of Etaples--Francis
    I.--Revival of Learning--La Renaissance--Clerical
    Manners--Early Converts and first Victims--Jacques
    Pavannes, Berquin--Margaret of Valois--Calvin and
    his Institutes--The King’s Inconstancy--Edict of
    Fontainebleau--Two Heretics burned--Treaty of
    Crespy--Vaudois Persecution--The Baron of Oppède--Massacre
    at Mérindol--Cry of Indignation--Sadolet, Bishop of
    Carpentras--Tragedy of Meaux--A Cloud of Witnesses--Stephen
    Dolet and Robert Stephens--Marot--The last Martyr--Death of
    Francis I.--His Funeral Sermon--His Character                PAGE 1


                              CHAPTER II.

                               HENRY II.

                             [1547–1559.]

    Henry II.--Catherine and
    Diana--Montmorency--Coronation--King enters
    Paris--Fêtes--Heretic Burning--New Edicts--Chambres
    Ardentes--Edict of Chateaubriant--Persecution at Angers,
    Le Puy, Velay--Inquisition proposed--Resistance of
    Parliament--Siege and Battle of St. Quentin--Affair of the
    Rue St. Jacques--Martyrdom of Philippa de Lunz--Calvin’s
    Letter--Pré aux Clercs and Marot’s Psalms--Peace of
    Cateau-Cambresis--Divisions in the Paris Parliament--The
    Mercurial of June--Du Faur and Du Bourg arrested--First
    Synod of Reformed Churches--Confession of Faith and Book of
    Discipline--Edict of Ecouen--The Tournament--Henry’s Death       22


                             CHAPTER III.

                         REIGN OF FRANCIS II.

                             [1559–1560.]

    Catherine de Medicis--The Duke of Guise and the Cardinal of
    Lorraine--St. André--Anthony of Navarre and Condé--Coligny
    and Andelot--Disgrace of Montmorency--Persecuting
    Edicts--Execution of Du Bourg--Discontent in France--Edict
    of Chambord--La Renaudie--The Meeting at Nantes--Tumult
    of Amboise--Bloody Reprisals--Castelnau’s Trial
    and Execution--The Duke’s Viands--Aubigné and his
    Son--Grace of Amboise--Regnier de la Planche--Renewal
    of Persecutions--L’Hopital made Chancellor--Edict of
    Romorantin--Religious and Political Malcontents--Abuse
    of the Pulpit--The Tiger--General Lawlessness--Huguenot
    Violence--Demand for a Council--Montbrun and
    Mouvans--L’Hopital’s Inaugural Address--Les Politiques--The
    Notables at Fontainebleau--Montluc and Marillac--Meeting
    at Nerac--Address presented to Anthony--The Court at
    Orleans--Arrest and Trial of Condé--Death of Francis II.         61


                              CHAPTER IV.

                FRANCE AT THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES IX.

                                [1560.]

    Contrast--Power of King and Nobles--The
    Provinces--Roads--Rate of Traveling--Forests--Wild
    Animals--Brigandage--Inns--League of the
    Loire--Agriculture--Condition of the
    Peasantry--Rent--Serfage--Wages--Cost of
    Provisions--Food--Sumptuary Laws--Social
    Changes--Ignorance of the People--Population
    of France--Taxation--Army and Navy--The
    Clergy--Superstitions--Justice--Punishments--Brutality of
    Manners--Domestic Architecture--Paris--Cities of France:
    Orleans, Rouen, Bordeaux, Dieppe, Lyons, Boulogne, Dijon,
    Moulins, St. Etienne, and Toulouse                              112


                              CHAPTER V.

      FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES IX. TO THE MASSACRE OF VASSY.

                             [1560–1562.]

    Character of the Boy-King--Portrait of Catherine--The
    States-General--The Chancellor’s Address--Speeches of
    the Three Orators--Agitation in the Provinces--Religious
    Amnesty--Edict of July--Provincial Assemblies
    Convoked--Instructions of the Isle of France--The
    Triumvirate--States of Pontoise--Proposals of
    Reform--Colloquy of Poissy--Beza--Conference in the Queen’s
    Chamber--King’s Speech--Beza’s Defense--Catherine’s Liberal
    Spirit--Spread of New Doctrines--Monster Congregations--The
    Guises Intrigue with Spain--Violence of the
    Clergy--Massacres at Cahors and Aurillac--Amiens--Huguenot
    Outrages--Riot of St. Médard--Notables at St.
    Germains--Edict of January, 1562--Violence at Dijon and
    Aix--Anthony’s Apostasy--The Duke and the Cardinal at
    Saverne--Massacre at Vassy--Both Parties Arm--Guise Enters
    Paris--Plot to Seize the King                                   145


                              CHAPTER VI.

                         FIRST RELIGIOUS WAR.

                             [1562–1563.]

    Beginning of Reaction--Causes of the War--The
    Huguenots arm--Advice of Coligny’s Wife--Covenant of
    Association--Massacre at Sens and Sisteron--Discipline of
    the Armies--Catherine attempts to mediate--Conference
    at Thoury--Negotiations broken off--Fearful state of
    Paris--The Constable’s violence--Appeals to Foreign
    Sympathy--Successes of the Royalists--Atrocities at Blois
    and Tours--Rouen Besieged--The Breach stormed--The Hour
    of Vengeance--Pastor Marlorat hanged--Death of Anthony of
    Navarre--Disturbances in Normandy--Offer of Amnesty--Battle
    of Dreux--Condé and Montmorency captured--St. André
    killed--Siege of Orleans--Duke of Guise murdered--Poltrot
    de Méré--Pacification of Amboise--Distress caused by the
    War--Death of Coligny’s Son--Letter to his Wife                 195


                             CHAPTER VII.

                                CHAOS.

                             [1562–1563.]

    Nature of the Struggle--Montluc--His Barbarity--Des
    Adrets--His Ferocity--Murders at Gaillac--The Reform
    in Provence and Languedoc--Scenes at Orange--Revolt
    at Valence--Disturbances at Lyons--Compromise--La
    Rochelle--Massacre at Toulouse--Exodus of
    Sisteron--Sauteries of Macon--Limoux--Palm Sunday
    at Castelnaudary--The Monks of St. Calais--Violence
    in Berry--The Châtelaine of Avallon--The Proctor
    of Bar--Atrocities of the Bishop of Le Mans and
    his Lieutenant--Huguenot Cruelties at Dieppe and
    Bayeux--Angoulême--Quarrels at Court--Siege of
    Havre--Duplicity of English Government--Charles Proclaimed
    of Age--His Character--Council of Trent                         229


                             CHAPTER VIII.

                        THE MEETING AT BAYONNE.

                       [June, 1565–March, 1568.]

    The Royal progress--Bayonne in June--Identical
    note--Amusements--Political Deliberations--The Queen of
    Navarre Excommunicated--Catherine’s Remonstrance--The
    Pope yields--State of Gascony--Assembly of Notables at
    Moulins--Feud between Guise and Coligny--Montmorency and
    the Cardinal--Disturbed state of Maine--Montluc pacifies
    Gascony--Embassy from Germany--Rebellion in Flanders--March
    of Alva--Condé leaves the Court--Rumored Plot--Huguenot
    Meeting at Chatillon--War resolved upon--Attempt to seize
    Charles--Huguenot Rising--Battle of St. Denis--Death of the
    Constable--German Auxiliaries--Michelade of Nismes--Siege
    of Chartres--Peace of Longjumeau--Death of Coligny’s Wife       247


                              CHAPTER IX.

                        JARNAC AND MONCONTOUR.

                             [1568–1570.]

    State of the Country--The National Party--Atrocities
    and Retaliation--L’Hopital’s Retirement--The Catholic
    League--League of Toulouse--The New Plot--The
    Flight to Rochelle--Aid from England--Anjou,
    Commander-in-Chief--Battle of Jarnac--Death of
    Condé--Henry of Bearn--Siege of Cognac--Junction of Duke
    Wolfgang--Death of Brissac--Battle of Roche-Abeille--Siege
    of Poitiers--Moncontour--The Admiral’s letter to his
    Children--Siege of St. Jean D’Angely--Desmarais--The Great
    March--Cruelties at Orthez, Auxerre, Orleans, Cognat,
    Aurillac--Coligny’s illness--Battle of Arnay-le-Duc--Treaty
    of St. Germains                                                 283


                              CHAPTER X.

                      THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM.

                   [August, 1570, to August, 1572.]

    Albert and Pierre de Gondi, Birague, Strozzi,
    Nevers, and Henry of Guise--Marriage of Charles
    IX.--Nuptial Festivities at Paris--Embassy of the
    German Princes--Violent Sermons--Outrages at Orange
    and Rouen--Objects of the Politiques--Revolt in
    Flanders--Position of Affairs--Interview between the King
    and Prince Louis of Nassau--Spanish Threats--Coligny’s
    Marriage--The Admiral goes to Blois--Conferences with the
    King--Proposed Marriage of Henry and Margaret--Murder
    of Lignerolles--The Gastine Cross--Queen of Navarre
    at Blois--Alessandrino’s Special Embassy--Letters to
    Rome--Negotiations--Pope refuses the Dispensation--Fears of
    the Parisians                                                   319


                              CHAPTER XI.

                      THE MARRIAGE AND THE PLOT.

                            [August, 1572.]

    Proposed German and English Alliances--Anjou’s
    Refusal--Treaty with England--Capture
    of Mons--Defeat of Genlis--Walsingham’s
    Dispatches--War-Excitement--Deliberations in
    Council--Charles at Montpipeau--Catherine follows
    him--Her tears--Increasing influence of Coligny--His
    Death resolved on--Joan of Navarre in Paris--Her sudden
    Death--Distrust and Warnings--Coligny’s firmness--Plot
    and Counterplot--Henry of Navarre enters Paris--The
    Wedding--Masque at the Hôtel Bourbon--The Admiral’s
    last Letter--Plot to Assassinate him--The Duchess of
    Nemours--Maurevel sent for                                      353


                             CHAPTER XII.

                          THE ASSASSINATION.

                     [22d, 23d, and 24th August.]

    Coligny in the Tennis-Court--The Fatal Shot--The
    King’s Indignation and Threats--Letters to Provincial
    Governors--Precautions in the City--Interview between
    Charles and the Admiral--Despair of Catherine
    and Anjou--The Huguenot Council--Threats of
    violence--De Pilles and Pardaillan at the Louvre--The
    Turning-point--Conversation between Catherine and
    Anjou--Meeting in the Tuileries Garden--Guard sent
    to Coligny--Scene in the King’s Closet--Catherine’s
    Argument--De Retz Protests--Charles Yields at last--Guise
    in the City--Precautions--Anjou and Angoulême ride
    through Paris--Municipal Arrangements--Charles and La
    Rochefoucault--Margaret and her sister Claude--Coligny’s
    last Night                                                      379


                             CHAPTER XIII.

                        THE FESTIVAL OF BLOOD.

                     [August and September, 1572.]

    The Huguenot Gentleman Killed--Midnight at the
    Louvre--Charles still hesitates--The Conspirators
    at the window--The pistol-shot--Guise recalled too
    late--Scene at Coligny’s Hotel--The assault and
    murder--Indignities--Montfauçon--Scene at the Louvre--Queen
    Margaret’s alarm--Proclamations--Salviati’s letter--List
    of Atrocities--Death of Ramus and La Place--Charles
    fires upon the Fugitives--Escape of Montgomery, Sully,
    Duplessis-Mornay, Caumont--The Miracle of the White
    Thorn--Charles conscience-stricken--Thanksgiving
    and Justification--Execution of Briquemaut and
    Cavaignes--Abjuration of Henry and Condé                        404


                             CHAPTER XIV.

                      MASSACRE IN THE PROVINCES.

                      [August to October, 1572.]

    Instructions to the Governors--The Count of Tende--Nantes
    and Alençon--Massacres at Saumur, Angers, Lyons, Orleans,
    Troyes, Rouen, Meaux, Bordeaux, and Toulouse--St. Hérem’s
    letter--The stolen Dispatch--The Governor of Bayonne--The
    Bishop of Lisieux--Chabot at Arnay-le-Duc--Senlis, Provins,
    Château-Thierry, Dieppe, and Nismes spared--The Number of
    Victims--Contemporary Judgments--Dorat’s Panegyric--Jean
    Le Masle--Pierre Charpentier and Sorbin--Rejoicings at
    Rome--Exultation of Philip II.--Horror in England--John
    Knox’s Denunciation--The Emperor Maximilian’s regret            446


                              CHAPTER XV.

                          THE CLOSING SCENE.

                             [1572–1574.]

    Reaction--Tolerant Protestations of
    Government--Walsingham’s disbelief and caution--Renewal
    of Civil War--Mission of Cardinal Orsini--Siege of
    Rochelle--Honorable terms of Capitulation--Siege of
    Sancerre--Famine--Horrible scenes--Capitulation--Meeting
    at Montauban--Troubled state of France--Intrigues of
    Alençon--Shrove-Tuesday plot--La Mole and Coconnas
    executed--Charles falls ill--Conversation with
    Henry of Navarre--Charles’s visions--His Huguenot
    nurse--Her exhortations--The King’s remorse--His dying
    words--Suspicions of Poison--His character--His married
    life--Judgment of Posterity                                     471




                        LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.


    CÆDES COLIGNII ET SOCIORUM EJUS. THE MASSACRE IN
    PARIS (from the Picture in the Vatican by Vasari)   _Frontispiece._

    GASPARD DE COLIGNY                                               68

    CATHERINE DE MEDICIS                                            146




                                  THE

                     MASSACRE OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW.




                              CHAPTER I.

                             INTRODUCTION.

                             [1500–1547.]

   Causes of the Reformation--Lefevre of Etaples--Francis
   I.--Revival of Learning--La Renaissance--Clerical Manners--Early
   Converts and First Victims--Jacques Pavannes, Berquin--Margaret
   of Valois--Calvin and his Institutes--The King’s
   Inconstancy--Edict of Fontainebleau--Two Heretics Burned--Treaty
   of Crespy--Vaudois Persecution--The Baron of Oppede--Massacre
   at Merindol--Cry of Indignation--Sadolet, Bishop of
   Carpentras--Tragedy of Meaux--A Cloud of Witnesses--Stephen
   Dolet and Robert Stephens--Marot--The Last Martyr--Death of
   Francis I.--His Funeral Sermon--His Character.


The sixteenth century has been rightly called the era of the
Renaissance. Then learning and religion revived; the fine arts received
a fresh development. Then a new spirit breathed upon the nations, and
the people began to feel that they were intended to be something better
than hewers of wood and drawers of water--mere beasts of burden or
tribute-paying machines for the use of their lords. The great Reform
movement had been preparing from afar. Had Constantinople never fallen,
had Eastern learning not been driven to seek an asylum in the West,
the religious revolution might have been retarded; it could not have
been prevented. In the hour when Guttenberg printed the first sheet of
his Bible the spiritual despotism of Rome began to totter. It was a
strange period of excitement, when Vasco de Gama made his way to India
round the Cape of Storms, and when Columbus returned triumphant from
the discovery of a new world. A spirit of restlessness and scepticism
pervaded all Europe. Monks in their cloisters, hermits in their cells,
barons in their castles, lawyers in their courts, priests in their
rural parsonages, all felt it alike. Princes on the throne doubted
the infallibility of the Church, or drove the Holy Father from his
capital. There seemed to be nothing sacred against the attacks of the
wits and scholars of the day. Rabelais, under the mask of his cynical
buffoonery, made the clergy a laughing-stock. Erasmus, with a satire as
keen as Voltaire’s, assailed the most prominent abuses of the Church.
Ulrich von Hutten, in his “Epistles of Obscure Men,” attacked the same
abuses, with less polished weapons but in a more popular style. But
if the iconoclasts of the sixteenth century had used no other arms
than wit and satire, and done no more than brand the vicious lives and
extortionate practices of the clergy, they would never have reformed
the world. The doctrines of the Church had degenerated into an empty
formalism leaving the heart untouched, the life unchanged. On a sudden,
as if by mutual arrangement, a new race of preachers sprang up in
Europe. Lefevre in France, Zuingle in Switzerland, Tyndale in England,
and Luther in Germany, all taught the same doctrine. In each country
the Reformation assumed a peculiar form, though preserving the same
general characteristics; and just in the proportion as Protestantism
has yielded to, and in its turn moulded these characteristics, it has
survived and flourished to the present time. If the Reform was almost
crushed out in France, it was because it took too little account of
national character. And yet the French Reformation was exclusively of
native growth. Lefevre and his disciple Farel began to preach, some
years before Luther, that great doctrine of justification by faith
which was the foundation-stone of the new Church.

There are men who still deny the necessity of the great religious
revolution of the sixteenth century, and contend that a slight reform
in discipline, such as a pious pope would have conceded, was all that
the Church required. But if such a reform had been possible, would
it have been lasting? We have seen within these few years how little
that singular phenomenon, a liberal pope, can do--how impotent he is
when the clergy are opposed to him. It is very probable that if the
Church had seriously undertaken to reform itself, the great disruption
never would have taken place; for, as Ranke says, “Even the Protestants
severed themselves slowly and reluctantly from the communion of the
Church.”[2] France was fully prepared for a religious reform. The king
had made his court the most learned centre in Europe; for among the
many noble qualities possessed by Francis I., not the least of them
was the patronage he extended to artists and men of letters. The great
painters Leonardo da Vinci, Andrea del Sarto, and Rosso were invited
from Italy to adorn his palaces with their magic pencils. Lascaris,
a learned Greek, was commissioned to form the king’s library at
Fontainebleau. Under the advice of the learned Budæus the college of
France was established for the study of the Greek and Hebrew languages.
This great intellectual movement, especially the study of Hebrew,
“which turned Christians into Jews,”[3] so terrified that guardian of
orthodoxy, the theological college of the Sorbonne, that

                            They in their zeal splenetic
    Forbade the Greek and Hebrew tongues as heathen and heretic.

So wrote Marot, adding that they proved the truth of the old proverb,
“Learning has for enemy no creature but a dunce.”

The Church of France was no worse than many other portions of the Roman
fold. So long as the people themselves were ignorant, the ignorance
of the priesthood did not trouble them; but immediately their own
eyes were opened, they became conscious of the deficiencies of their
pastors. And it would have been well for them had ignorance been the
worst failing of the clergy: they were vicious also. A contemporary
manuscript tells us that “many are so ignorant that they can not
interpret what is said in the course of divine service, and are unable
to read or write; so negligent that they have left off preaching
altogether.... They take delight in worldly pleasures, and spend the
greater part of the day in taverns, drinking, gambling, and toying with
women, and keep a _truande_ in their houses.”[4] How the priests
abused the simple confidence of their flocks is evident from the pious
frauds they practiced, particularly in the matter of relics. Of one
instance of this tampering with the religious feelings of the people,
it was said, “that either the Virgin Mary must have had two mothers, or
her mother must have had two heads.” A feather from the angel Gabriel’s
wing, or a bottle of Egyptian darkness, were silly but harmless
deceptions; but there were others which to name is impossible.[5]

In the field thus prepared for the truth, the new doctrines spread
rapidly, one great help to their diffusion being the use of the French
language, while the orthodox clergy stuck so obstinately to their
Latin, that Antony de Mouchi, surnamed Demochares, felt it necessary to
apologize for using the vernacular in a work he had written in answer
to a Huguenot pamphlet.[6] At first the converts were more numerous
among the educated and high-born, than among the low and unlettered
multitude. They early received the baptism of fire. In 1524, while
Francis I. was in captivity at Madrid, the Parliament of Paris revived
an edict of Louis XII. concerning blasphemy, and nominated a commission
to try Lutherans and other heretics. In the following year, a brief of
Clement VII. ratified this encroachment on the rights of the Church,
approving of the commissioners or inquisitors appointed, permitting
them to enter upon their duties “with apostolical authority,” and
ordering them to try their prisoners “without noise and without form
of judgment, as is the custom in such cases.”[7] This bull, besides
condemning heretics to be punished in body and goods, forbade all
persons to supply them with corn, wine, oil, or other merchandise,
under pain of being treated as accomplices. That this bull was
something more than an empty threat, is evident from a letter written
by Clement to congratulate the Parliament of Paris on the way in which
they had carried it out, adding “that the new errors were as opposed to
the State as to the Church.” We need not stop to show that the kingdom
which has always put itself forward as the champion of Popery, both in
the East and in the West, is that in which the Church and the State
have suffered more from revolution than any Protestant country.

One of the first victims in Paris was Jacques Pavannes, who procured a
temporary respite by recanting. Although young in years, he afterward
showed a firmness and faith that would have become a veteran warrior
of Christ. Withdrawing his recantation, he was condemned to suffer by
fire, and when at the stake he spoke with such unction that a doctor
of the Sorbonne declared “it would have been better for the Church to
have paid a million of money than have allowed Pavannes to address
the people.” (1525). A more illustrious victim was Louis de Berquin,
scion of a noble family of Artois: by his scholarship and wit--he was
of the Erasmian school--he had mortally offended the monks and (if the
expression be allowable) the old fogyism of the Sorbonne. The king and
his sister, Margaret of Valois, had saved him two or three times; but
at last he was caught in the toils, and his trial was hurried on so
that Francis should not have the opportunity of interfering. (1529).
Fourteen victims of less note suffered not long after; but ideas are
not to be burned out at the stake or stifled in prisons, and it soon
became evident that the new doctrines were spreading wider and wider
every day. “The smoke of these sacrifices,” says Mezeray, “had got into
people’s heads.”

The followers of the new creed had but one friend at court, and this
was Margaret of Valois, the king’s sister, a pious tender-hearted
woman, who had interposed more than once to rescue the victims of
the Sorbonne and of Rome. She was not a Protestant, and shrank from
any rupture with Catholicism. She would have liked to see the old
and the new Church united, each yielding something to the other.
The age, however, was not one for compromises. Day by day the lines
of demarkation became more strongly marked, especially after the
publication of Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion” (1535),
which became at once the text-book and the charter of the evangelicals
in France. Calvin was a thorough-going reformer. To adopt a familiar
distinction, while Luther rejected nothing that was not condemned by
Scripture, Calvin accepted nothing that was not directly countenanced
by it. Luther’s system was, probably, the wiser, as it did not break
directly with the past; but either principle carried to extremes is
faulty. Looking at the subsequent history of Protestantism in France,
we can see how (under the Calvinistic form) it excited an antagonism
never felt in Germany; it seemed to aim at deposing the king as well as
the pope. And it is doubtful whether such a cold undecorated form of
religion is suited to the warm and impulsive temperament of the Celtic
race which forms the lowest stratum of the French population.

In France it was long before the Reformation reached the lower
classes--the masses, as it is the fashion to call them; the rural
gentry, the men of education, the well-to-do tradesmen, artists, and
“all who from their callings possessed any elevation of mind,” were
the first converts.[8] They were naturally opposed by the clergy and
the lawyers, for corporate bodies are always great enemies to change.

Francis I. appears to have seen the desirability of a reform in the
Church, not so much from religious as from political motives. He
hated the monks, and was thwarted by the Sorbonne; he read the Holy
Scriptures with his sister Margaret, and took the extraordinary step
of inviting Melanchthon to France in order to arrange some compromise
by which Popery and Protestantism might be united. It was a vain
dream, even if the king were sincere, which is exceedingly doubtful.
He might at one time have pleaded that the persecutions were carried
on without his knowledge and even in defiance of him; but on 21st
January, 1535, he took an active part in the burning of six unfortunate
“Lutherans.” In this case his pride had been hurt by some rude and
indefensible proceedings of the Reformed party;[9] but he could be
equally unfeeling and unscrupulous from mere political expediency. In
the same month of January, 1535, he issued a royal edict commanding
the instant extirpation of heresy in every form; all who aided or
harbored heretics, or did not inform against them, were to be punished
as principals; and informers were to receive one-fourth part of the
confiscation and fines--a sure mode of procuring victims. This decree
was modified in June, when Francis was coquetting with the Protestant
princes of Germany; but the pains and penalties were only remitted to
such as abjured their faith and returned to the bosom of the Church.
On 1st June, 1540, appeared the famous edict of Fontainebleau,
confirming all previous edicts, and ordering the strictest search to
be made for heretics; and, as if its provisions were not harsh enough,
letters patent were issued at the end of October, 1542, enjoining every
parliament in the kingdom to “execute prompt and rigorous judgment,”
so that the new heresy might be destroyed root and branch. No time was
lost in carrying out these dreadful instructions. Among the victims
of this renewed persecution was one Delavoye, who being told that a
warrant was out against him, and that the officers were on their way to
seize him, refused to hide himself as his friends advised. “Hirelings
and false prophets may do so,” he said; “but following the example of
St. Paul, ‘_I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die for the
name of the Lord Jesus._’” Another sufferer, Constantine by name,
was taken to execution in a scavenger’s cart. In allusion to this he
said, “Truly hath the apostle declared, ‘_We are as the filth of the
earth, and the offscouring of all things._’ We stink in the nostrils
of the men of this world; but let us rejoice, for the savor of our
death will be acceptable to God and serviceable to the Church.”

A German residing in Paris in the summer of 1542 wrote to a friend
an account of the execution of two heretics which he had witnessed.
In his letter we learn how sympathy for the victims tended to make
converts. One of them was a smooth-cheeked youth under twenty years
of age, the son of a shoe-maker; the other, a man with a long white
beard, stooping under the burden of fourscore years. The young man had
spoken contemptuously of images, comparing them to the gods of the
heathen; the old man had protested against prayers to the saints, and
had declared that all Christians were priests. Both were condemned to
suffer at the same stake for their “Lutheranism,” as it was called.
As the youth refused to retract, he was to have his tongue cut out.
No change could be observed in his face when the hangman approached
him to perform this first act of cruelty. He put the tongue out as far
as he could, the torturer pulled it out still farther with pinchers,
and cut it off, slapping the martyr with it on the cheek. He then
threw the tongue among the crowd, who, “it is said,” adds the writer
conscientiously, “picked it up and flung it back in the martyr’s face.
As he got out of the cart, he looked as if he were going to a feast
and not to punishment.” Unmoved by the howling and the savage cries
of the mob, he took his place calmly at the post, where a chain was
passed round him. He now and then spat the blood from his mouth, but
kept his eyes fixed on heaven, as if looking there for help. When the
executioner covered his head with sulphur and pointed to the fire, he
still smiled and bowed, as if to show he died willingly. The old man,
who was the father of a large family and much respected for his upright
life, had retracted, and his punishment was consequently modified. He
was strangled before being thrown into the flames; “yet some,” adds the
eye-witness, “thought this punishment too mild, and would have had him
burned alive.”[10]

The history of persecution contains little novelty: it is the same
story of calumnious accusations and savage fury from the letter of
Pliny to the invectives of the monks in the sixteenth century. The
council which assembled at Bourges in 1528 not only condemned all
Lutheran doctrines whatsoever, but compared heretics with sorcerers
and magicians in order to render them more odious. The Reformers were
accused of being bad subjects, rebels, revolutionists, aiming at the
overthrow of the monarchy as well as the perversion of religion. This
Francis I. pretended to believe, though he knew better; and it is
this charge which Calvin so eloquently refutes in his “Letter to the
King,” prefixed to his “Christian Institutes.” “Is it possible,” he
asks, “that we who have never been heard to utter a seditious word,
and whose lives have always been known to be simple and peaceable,
should be plotting the overthrow of the kingdom? And what is more,
being now driven from our homes (he is referring particularly to the
emigration after the persecutions of 1534), we cease not to pray for
your prosperity.... Praised be God, we have not profited so ill by the
gospel, that our lives can not hold forth to our detractors an example
of liberality, chastity, compassion, temperance, patience, modesty,
and all other virtues. Verily the truth beareth witness for us that we
fear and honor God purely, when by our life and by our death we desire
his name to be sanctified.” In the “Institutes” he went still farther,
laying down principles that almost consecrate oppression. “We must show
a wicked tyrant such honor as our Lord has condescended to ordain....
We must show this obedience through fear of God, as we serve God
himself, since it is from him that princes derive their power.” This
obedience, however, he is very careful to restrict to secular matters.
“When God ordained mortals to rule, he did not abdicate his rights. If
kings command any thing contrary to him it should have no honor, for,
says Peter, we ought to obey God rather than men.”

The cruelties of this age may be accounted for, though they can not
be excused. Within the memory of living men, political heretics have
been punished quite as severely (the stake excepted) as religious
heretics, and that too without the same excuse. The priest when he
burned the body hoped, or professed to hope, to save the soul: the
political heretic was often sacrificed to secure a party or a minister
in power. The persecutors of the sixteenth century must not, therefore,
be overwhelmed with inconsiderate reproval: they were but men, living
in an age when persecution was a duty, and heretics had no rights.
There is still too much of the savage in the human breast, though
civilization has done much to extinguish it; in the reign of Francis
I. the savage was uppermost. But so remarkably did the blood of the
martyrs prove the seed of the Church, that a Catholic writer compares
the “Lutherans” of this time to the fabulous hydra; when one head was
cut off, two sprang up in its place. And no wonder; for the author of
the “History of Heresies” writes of these martyrs, even while ascribing
their patient endurance to satanic influence, “that Christianity had
revived in all its primitive simplicity.”

In 1544 Francis I. concluded the treaty of Crespy with the Emperor
Charles V., by which the two monarchs bound themselves to exterminate
heresy within their respective dominions. The king chanced to be ill of
a dangerous disease brought on by his licentiousness, and for five or
six weeks his life hung upon a thread. The bigoted Cardinal de Tournon,
making him believe that his sufferings were a judgment from God, urged
him to propitiate heaven by destroying heresy. Moved by these motives,
and by misrepresentations which the victims had no opportunity of
correcting, for they were never heard, Francis issued an order for the
extirpation of the Waldenses of Provence, who appear to have excited
the wrath of the clergy to a terrible height. These Vaudois, as they
are usually called, the better to distinguish them from the Waldenses
of Savoy, lived in the south-east corner of France, between the Durance
and the Alps. They were a peaceable, God-fearing, industrious race,[11]
and had been a living protest against the Church of Rome for hundreds
of years--even from the days of Constantine, if their annals may be
trusted. Louis XII. is reported to have called them “better Christians
than himself;”[12] and a Romish missionary, who was sent to turn them
from the error of their ways, was himself converted and forced to
acknowledge that “he had learned more from the little Vaudois children
than he had ever done at college.” In the wildest valleys of the Alps,
and on rocky heights where the chamois could hardly keep his footing,
they built their huts and tended their flocks. They had covered a
barren district with smiling harvests, “making the desert blossom as
the rose.” Du Bellay, governor of Piedmont, describes them as “a simple
people,” paying their _taille_ to the crown and the _droits_
to their lord more regularly than their orthodox neighbors. But their
virtues were their chief crime in the eyes of the king’s clerical
advisers. In 1540 the Parliament of Provence had condemned twenty-three
of these poor creatures to be burned alive for contumacy, and ordered
their country to be laid waste. The sanguinary decree farther directed
the towns of Mérindol and Cabrières, and other places, which had been
the refuge and retreat of the heretics, to be razed to the ground, the
caves which had served them for an asylum to be destroyed, the forests
cut down, the fruit-trees rooted up, the rebel chiefs put to death,
and their wives and children banished for life.”[13] Some friends of
the poor Vaudois succeeded in getting the decree suspended until 1st
January, 1545; when Francis I., hoping to do a meritorious work that
would atone for his dissolute life, ordered it to be enforced. To
John Menier, baron of Oppède, and chief president of the Parliament
of Provence, was entrusted the task of carrying out the royal decree.
He was one of those happily rare individuals who delight in slaughter
from mere blood-thirstiness. He made no distinction between believers
and heretics. The troops under his orders--wild mercenaries with more
of the brigand than of the disciplined soldier--wasted the country
with fire and sword. From the frightful detail of cruelties one little
fact may be gathered characteristic of the man. All the inhabitants
of the town of Mérindol, which stood on the Durance,[14] were put to
the sword, with the exception of one person, a poor idiot, who had
ransomed his life by promising a soldier two crowns. Oppède heard of
it, and sending for the soldier, gave him the two crowns, and having
thus bought the prisoner, ordered him to be tied to a tree and shot
forthwith. “I know how to treat these people,” he roared out; “I will
send them, children and all, to live in hell.” The small town of
Cabrières, in the same neighborhood and a little south of the poetic
Vaucluse, was treated with similar severity. Every house was destroyed;
between 700 and 800 persons were killed in the streets or fields; a
number of women who had fled for refuge to a barn were burned to death,
and those who had escaped the sword and fire were sent to the galleys
“with circumstances of inhumanity,” says the historian, “that would
have deserved our pity on any other occasion.”[15] “In one church,”
says Guérin, “I saw between four and five hundred poor souls of women
and children butchered.” Twenty-five women--

    Præcipites atra ceu tempestate columbæ
    Condensæ--

who had taken refuge in a cavern in the papal territory of Avignon,
were smothered to death, the vice-legate kindling the fire with his own
hands.[16] In fine, twenty-four towns and villages were destroyed and
3000 persons put to death. Such little boys and girls as the soldiers
did not want were sold into slavery: they might be purchased for a
crown apiece. And that none might escape, the Parliament of Provence
issued a proclamation, forbidding the neighbors to offer the Vaudois
either food or shelter, so that many were starved to death in the
mountains.[17]

The tale of these fearful atrocities provoked a cry of indignation from
one end of the country to the other:[18] even the king complained that
his orders had been exceeded, but not until after the letters patent
of 18th August, 1545, approving of all that had been done. We are told
that the memories of these cruelties haunted his dying-bed, and that he
bequeathed to his son the duty of taking vengeance on the murderers of
the Vaudois. This may be true, but when the Swiss cantons remonstrated
with him for his cruelty, he bade them mind their own business, for
the heretics had merely received the just reward of their crimes. The
only person punished for these horrors--and that was at the suit of
Madame de Cantal, whose property had been ruined by the slaughter of
her peasantry--was one Guérin, king’s advocate in the Parliament of
Aix.[19] M. d’Oppède appears to have been so terrified at the mere
idea of being tried, that he fell ill and died in great suffering; a
judgment of God, as the Reformed declared it. A Catholic historian
of these days has ventured to apologize for cruelties which could
find no defender in the sixteenth century. “Certain names,” he says,
“are branded for what is the result of a popular force and movement
by which they are carried away. In a religious and believing state
of society there are necessities, as there have been cruel political
necessities at another epoch. Exaltation of ideas drives men to crime
as by a fatality.”[20] Such reasoning will justify any crime, public
or private. To admit the cowardly doctrine of “necessity,” is to
destroy moral responsibility, to make intellect subservient to matter,
and justice to brute force. It makes the usurper or the murderer
accuser, judge and executioner in his own cause. It is a vindication of
_coups d’état_--a deification of successful villainy. If generally
admitted, it would induce a moral torpor fatal to all intelligence.
There were men living in the Catholic communion in the sixteenth
century who thought very differently from the paradoxical historian
of the nineteenth. Sadolet, Bishop of Carpentras--a man so full of
kindness and charity that a modern writer has called him the “Fénelon
of his age”--interfered to suspend the execution of the first decree
against the Vaudois of Mérindol. He was a ripe scholar and corresponded
with all the learned men of the day, heretical or orthodox, including
Calvin and Melanchthon. To the latter he wrote: “I am not the man to
hate another because he differs from me in opinion.”[21] When Sturm of
Strasburg accused him of lying, he said: “You should have left such
coarse terms to Luther: they are unbecoming a mind like yours. But you
are mistaken, and I am sure you will return to your usual polite style.
If ever you, Bucer, or Melanchthon have need of me, I am ready to serve
you in more than words.” It is pleasing to meet with such a character,
when religious prejudice ran so high on both sides.

One of the most terrible tragedies to which the persecuting edicts
gave rise occurred at Meaux, in October, 1546, when sixty persons were
seized in the house of Stephen Mangin, where they had met to hear a
sermon. As the soldiers were taking them through the streets to prison,
some of the Protestant spectators burst out with Marot’s noble version
of the seventy-ninth Psalm--

    Behold, O God! how heathen hosts
      Have thy possessions seized;
    Thy sacred house they have defiled,
      Thy holy city raz’d.

From Meaux they were transferred to Paris for trial, which resolved
itself into an attempt to extort a confession from them by torture.
They were sentenced to be carried back to Meaux, and fourteen of them
were to be burned alive in the market-place, after suffering the
question extraordinary. Others were to be hung up by the shoulders
during the execution of their brethren, and then to be flogged and
imprisoned for life in a monastery. As they were passing through a
forest on their way back, a man followed them shouting: “Brethren,
remember Him who is in heaven above.” He was caught, flung into the
cart, and put to death with the rest. Stephen Mangin, who was regarded
as the ringleader, first had his tongue cut out; he was then dragged
on a hurdle from the prison to the place of execution, where he and
his companions, after being tortured, were burned at fourteen stakes
arranged in a circle, praising God to their last breath. One Dr.
Picard, a celebrated man in his day, preached a sermon on the occasion,
in which he declared it was necessary to salvation to believe that
these fourteen poor creatures were condemned to the bottomless pit;
and if an angel came from heaven to say the contrary, he must not
be listened to; “for God would not be God, if he did not damn them
eternally.”

The example thus set at Meaux was imitated in other parts of France;
but, far from checking the progress of the new doctrines, it served to
prove the strong faith of the converts. Thus Jean Chapot, who had been
denounced for bringing a bale of heretical books from Geneva, would
not give up the names of the persons to whom he had sold them, though
he was almost torn asunder on the rack. One Mark Moreau of Troyes
displayed similar firmness and constancy at the stake, to which he
was condemned after being tortured, because he refused to betray the
other Lutherans in that city. Francis Daugy cried out from the midst of
the flames: “Be of good cheer, brethren, I see heaven opening and the
Son of God stretching out his arms to receive me.” As the Demoiselle
Michelle de Caignoncle was going to the stake, one of her poor
pensioners ran by her side crying: “You will never give us alms again.”
“Yes, once more!” she said, and threw her slippers to the woman, who
was barefoot. One Thomas of St. Paul was taken out of the flames and
urged to recant. “Put me back into the fire,” he exclaimed: “I am on
the road to heaven.”

Among the victims of this reign was one whose name occupies a
conspicuous place in the history of the revival of learning. Stephen
Dolet, famous among the poets of the Renaissance, had set up a
printing-press at Lyons, where he appears to have been unpopular among
those of his own trade, through supporting the compositors who had
“struck” for higher wages. He had been twice condemned for heresy: once
on the information of the infamous Anthony Mouchi, a doctor of the
Sorbonne and heretic-finder to the Inquisition, who has transmitted his
name to posterity under the form of _mouchard_. Dolet had escaped
to Piedmont; but yearning with that love for his native country, which
is so strong a characteristic of the French people, he returned to
Lyons, where he was speedily arrested and carried to Paris. Here he
was accused and convicted of atheism, the charge being founded on his
translation of a passage in Plato. While in prison, hourly expecting
death, he exclaimed: “My whole life has been a struggle; thank God,
it is over at last.”[22] When he was led to the stake in the Place
Maubert, the executioner bade him invoke the Virgin and St. Stephen,
his patron saint, or else his tongue would be cut out and he would
be burned alive. Dolet repeated the required formula, and then was
hanged and burned (3d August, 1546). Dolet must not be ranked among the
martyrs of religion: he suffered because he had offended the clergy by
his independent spirit. The doctors of the Sorbonne would willingly
have forgiven his being a printer and an atheist, if he had not stood
forward as the champion of free thought.

Robert Etienne (or Stephens, as he is called by English scholars) was
more fortunate than Dolet. Up to the age of twenty-five he continued
in the Romish Church, professing a doubtful sort of orthodoxy, like
many other celebrated men of that day; and it is probable that he
would have continued in this undecided equivocal state all his life,
but for the virulent attacks made upon him by certain theologians, who
were violent in proportion to their stupidity. His quarrel with the
Sorbonne began as early as 1523, when that same body, which in 1470 had
invited the first printers to Paris, took alarm at the agitation of
men’s minds and turned fiercely against its own work. The presumption
of a young man, and he a layman, to correct a text of Scripture, seemed
monstrous. The publication of his Latin Bibles in 1528 and 1532, and
more especially that of the small portable Bible in 1534, aggravated
their hostility. But all this was as nothing to the rage excited by his
edition of the Latin Bible in 1545, wherein he had collected the notes
of that learned professor of Hebrew, Francis Vatable. In these notes
the active inquisitors of the Sorbonne found a number of heretical
propositions, such as a denial of the existence of purgatory, of the
efficaciousness of confession, and so forth. Hitherto Robert had
been able to escape the fate of his heterodox brother Dolet, through
the intervention of the king and the influence of John du Bellay and
others. But against this last tempest the royal authority seemed
powerless. The Faculty of Theology instituted proceedings against him,
when, unhappily for him, Francis I. died; and although Robert Etienne
found an equally kind patron in his successor, the character of the new
king was more impressionable. The Sorbonne attacked him more violently,
and foreseeing that Henry would be unable to protect him, he quitted
France, as Clement Marot, Olivetan, Amyot, and most of the professors
of the Royal College had done before him. Beza tells us that all
learning was suspected, and that hence many good but learned Catholics
were numbered among the heretics. A man was liable to be condemned for
not lifting his cap on passing an image (and they were at the corner
of almost every street), for not kneeling at the sound of the _Ave
Maria_ bell, and for eating meat on fast days. Clement Marot was
sent to prison and narrowly escaped burning for eating some bacon
during Lent.

              Ils vinrent à mon logement:
    Lors se va dire un gros paillard,
      Par là, morbleu, voilà Clement,
    Prenez-le, il a mangé le lard!

The fasting, or not fasting, on certain days soon became a test of
orthodoxy.

One of the last victims of this reign was Jean Brugière, who, after
several imprisonments and escapes, was taken to Paris, tried, and
condemned to be burned alive at Issoire (3d March, 1547). He was
transferred to Montferrand, where Ory, the inquisitor, discussed the
“real presence” with him. “If you deny,” said Ory, “that the body of
our Lord is in the host, when the priest has pronounced the sacramental
words, you deny the power of God, who can do every thing.” “I do not
deny the power of God,” answered Brugière, “for we are not disputing
whether God has power or not to do it, so much as what he has done
in his Holy Sacrament, and what he desires us to do.” When the time
of his suffering came, the priests pressed a crucifix to his lips,
and bade him call on the Virgin and saints. “Let me,” he said with a
smile, “let me think of God before I die. I am content with the only
advocate he has appointed for sinners.” While preparing the rope or
chain, the executioner slipped and fell. Brugière, who remained calm
and unmoved, held out his hand to raise him. “Cheer up! M. Pouchet, I
hope you are not hurt,” he said. When the fire was kindled, he raised
his eyes to the cross and exclaimed: “Oh heavenly Father, I beseech
thee, for the love of thy Son, that thou wilt be pleased to comfort me
in this hour by thy Holy Spirit, in order that the work begun in me
may be perfected to thy glory and to the benefit of thy poor Church.”
When all was over, the crowd withdrew in silence. The curate of Issoire
said, as he returned home: “May God give me grace to die in the faith
of Brugière.”[23]

Francis I. died slowly of a disgusting malady, the consequence of his
licentious amours. For a time his life was prolonged by the use of
potent medicines; but the opportunity thus given him of redeeming the
past was wasted in regrets that he had not extirpated heresy.[24] He
used often to say, if we may credit Brantome, that this novelty--the
Reformation--“tended to the overthrow of all monarchy, human and
divine.” Yet none of the kings who embraced the new creed lost their
thrones; while the devotee Henry III., and the converted Henry IV.,
both fell by orthodox daggers. The king’s funeral sermon was preached
by Pierre du Chastel, Bishop of Macon, whose orthodoxy had become
suspected in consequence of the attempts he had made to save Stephen
Dolet. When Cardinal de Tournon reproached him with this, the good
prelate made answer: “I acted like a bishop, you like a hangman.” When
the sermon was published, the Sorbonne hunted out several heretical
propositions, particularly a passage where the bishop, after extolling
Francis as a saint of the highest order, continued: “I am convinced
that, after so holy a life, the king’s soul, on leaving his body,
was transported to heaven without passing through the flames of
purgatory.”[25] The Sorbonne protested against this, and a deputation
of doctors went to St. Germains, where the court was staying, to
denounce the heretical panegyrist. They were received by John de
Mendoza, the first chamberlain, who desired them to be quite easy in
their minds: “If you had known His Majesty as well as I did, you would
have understood the meaning of the bishop’s words. The king could never
stop anywhere, however agreeable the place might be; and if he went to
purgatory, he only remained there long enough to look about him, and
was off again.” _Solvuntur risu tabulæ!_ The doctors retired in
confusion: there was no answering such a jest.

The character of Francis is a “mingled yarn.” He had great virtues,
but he also had great vices. He had noble aspirations, but he often
suffered them to be obscured by ignoble passions. All his life long he
allowed himself to be led by women. Had they all been like his sister,
Margaret of Valois, it would have been well for him, for France, and
for religion; but they were more frequently such as the Duchess of
Valentinois, and even worse. He was ambitious, but it was more for his
kingdom than for himself; he was a warrior, though not equal to his
rivals; he was sumptuous and extravagant, but architects and painters,
historians and poets, scholars and wits, were not neglected by him. He
was impressionable and superstitious, but he often checked the fiery
zeal of the persecutors, tried to reform the clergy in his dilettante
fashion, and was never bigoted except when frightened by the priests,
or when he fancied his personal dignity insulted. It is not wonderful
that Frenchmen look back to him with pride, for he represents the
national character in its best as well as in its worst phases.




                              CHAPTER II.

                               HENRY II.

                             [1547–1559.]

   Henry II.--Catherine and Diana--Montmorency--Coronation--King
   Enters Paris--Fêtes--Heretic Burning--New Edicts--Chambres
   Ardentes--Edict of Chateaubriant--Persecution at Angers, Le Puy,
   Velay--Inquisition Proposed--Resistance of Parliament--Siege and
   Battle of St. Quentin--Affair of the Rue St. Jacques--Martyrdom
   of Philippa de Lunz--Calvin’s Letter--Pre Aux Clercs and
   Marot’s Psalms--Peace of Cateau-Cambresis--Divisions in the
   Paris Parliament--The Mercurial of June--Du Faur and Du Bourg
   Arrested--First Synod of Reformed Churches--Confession of Faith
   and Book of Discipline--Edict of Ecouen--The Tournament--Henry’s
   Death.


Henry II. was twenty-nine years of age when he ascended his
father’s throne (31st March, 1547), his elder brother, the dauphin
Francis, having died almost ten years before. He was rather tall,
well-proportioned, fond of athletic sports, and vain of his skill
in the tournay--a weakness that proved fatal to him at last. His
hair was dark, his beard short and pointed, his complexion pale,
almost livid. His large, black, lively eyes somewhat contradicted his
melancholy, saturnine character. He rarely laughed, and, according to
the Venetian envoy, Matteo Dandolo, some of the courtiers declared
they had never seen him smile. His portraits would leave us to suppose
that he was of a mild and gentle disposition; but bigotry often made
him cruel, and his pride was impatient of opposition. He could be
liberal, too--especially with other persons’ money. Thus he gave the
notorious Diana of Poitiers the renomination of all the officials whose
posts had become vacant by the death of his predecessors, by which
she appropriated more than 100,000 crowns in the shape of fines and
presents. Henry possessed good natural abilities, and a retentive
memory, but was uninstructed;[26] he had a taste for music, and spoke
Italian and Spanish. He was also religious, so far at least as not to
ride out on Sunday until after mass. Though not much distinguished in
war, he never shrank from danger, and at Landrecy conducted himself as
a good captain and brave soldier.[27]

His queen was Catherine de Medicis, one of the most enigmatical
personages in history. Attempts have recently been made to reverse
the judgment of time, and rehabilitate her character,[28] which
possibly has been painted in darker colors than it deserved; but to
convert her into a martyr and victim, entitled to our respect and
sympathy, is to write not history but romance. In early life she had
more than one narrow escape, and her later career can hardly prevent
our regretting that she lived to be old. At her birth (so runs the
story) astrologers foretold that she would be the ruin of the family
and the place where she was married. She was accordingly put into a
convent; but when her uncle, Clement VII., besieged Florence, in 1530,
the council of that city proposed taking her out and hanging her in
a basket over the battlements, so that she might be killed by the
besieger’s cannon. A still worse fate was proposed by others, which, to
the honor of humanity, she escaped. Although the niece of a pope, she
was a portionless orphan, and apparently doomed to spend her days in
the seclusion of a cloister. Such a life would have been happier for
her and for France; but it was not to be so. Her marriage with Henry of
Valois, in 1533, was strictly a political one--a bond of union between
Francis I. and Clement VII. against the emperor. The child-bride[29]
displayed at this time none of the darker characteristics which
afterward distinguished her. She was rather below the middle height,
her eyes were large and sparkling--they were peculiar to her
family,[30] her complexion was beautiful, her voice clear as a bell;
she dressed with care, and exercised a singular fascination over all
who came near her. Foreigners who saw her twenty or thirty years later
describe her as still possessing an excellent figure, with a hand and
arm that were the despair of the sculptor. She possessed many shining
qualities, which she often marred by devoting them to evil purposes. In
an age when female purity was not held in high esteem, she preserved a
reputation that scandal scarce has touched. She was prompt in action,
fertile in resources, could read character well, and had perfect
control over her own feelings. She never designedly made an enemy of
any one; and with her sweet smile, musical voice, and courteous manner,
converted many an enemy into a friend.

After the disastrous battle of St. Quentin she gave the first
indications of her skill in public matters. The king had urgent need
of money, and as he was absent from Paris, Catherine went to the
parliament, explained the royal necessities, and obtained a grant of
300,000 livres. “She thanked them in such words that all wept with
tenderness.... Throughout the city men talked of nothing but her
majesty’s prudence.”[31] After this time (we are told) the king went
more into her society. During her husband’s life, she possessed but
little influence: his dislike to her at one time nearly approaching to
hatred. He often taunted her with her plebeian origin; and, but for
the love Francis I. bore her, she would have been repudiated and sent
back to her relations. In the earlier years of her wedded life she was
unpopular, because she was childless, and because her uncle, Clement,
who deceived all who trusted in him, had evaded his engagements. By
degrees, however, she won the love of the people, who would willingly
have shed their blood for her.[32]

If she did not love her husband, she made a great show of sincere
attachment. When he was away from her with the army, she would put
herself and her attendants into mourning; and go in procession to
various shrines to pray for his happiness and success. She has been
described as _molto religiosa_, but that means very little in
an Italian mouth. In later years, it was not easy to tell when she
was sincere, or when playing a part. She had been trained in that
school whence Machiavelli derived his maxims. She thought nothing
of right or wrong: her principles, if such they may be termed, were
prudence, expediency, and success; and she preferred a tortuous to a
straightforward policy. During the life of her husband, Catherine had
filled a subordinate position, having the title, but little of the
respect, that surrounds a queen. She never had fair play, and her early
years were blighted by the shadow cast upon them by Diana of Poitiers.

Diana, Duchess of Valentinois, was the widow of Louis de Brézé, high
seneschal of Normandy,[33] and the most beautiful woman of the age.[34]
In her youth she had captivated the affections, such as they were, of
Francis I., and even during his life-time had enthralled the future
king by her dazzling charms. Henry used to wear her colors, black and
white;[35] consult her on affairs of state, and permit her to dispense
the ecclesiastical patronage.[36] It has been said that the love
between them was purely platonic: the statement--borne out in some
degree by the difference of their years--is not, however, in accordance
with the opinion of her contemporaries.[37] The king at one time seems
to have been quite infatuated with her. At the foot of her portrait he
wrote the first words of Marot’s version of the forty-second Psalm--



    As pants the hart for cooling streams,
      While heated in the chase,
    So longs my soul for thee!

Brantome describes her as “a good Catholic and very devout;” but the
abbe’s standard is not a high one. He adds that “she hated those of
the religion.”[38] This we can believe, but her dislike did not extend
to their possessions, by which she grew enormously rich. The historian
Matthieu records that the people said of her: “For twelve years an
old woman kept heaven so close, that not a drop of justice fell on
France, except by stealth.” She was very extravagant in her tastes, to
meet which added much to an already oppressive taxation. The ruins
of her little palace of Anet, on the Eure, near Dreux, still exhibit
some faint traces of the splendor and elegance of its first occupant,
and of its architect Philibert de l’Orme. In 1547, Henry II. made her
a present of the castle of Chenonceau, a marvel of the Renaissance,
built by that unfortunate superintendent of finance, Jacques de
Beaune-Semblançay. In the letters patent conveying this magnificent
present to his favorite, the king declared it was “in consideration of
the great and most commendable services rendered to the crown by her
late husband, Louis de Brézé.” But when Henry died, Catherine forced
her to give up the château, and retained it for herself. To decorate
this building and add to its pleasure grounds, Henry imposed a tax upon
bells--twenty livres each. The people murmured loudly at this, and
Rabelais, echoing the popular complaints, pretended that “the king had
hung all the bells of the kingdom round the neck of his mare.”[39]

One of Henry’s first acts, after his accession, was to dismiss his
father’s ministers, and place the management of affairs in the hands
of Montmorency, conjointly with the Duke of Guise, the Cardinal of
Lorraine, and Marshal St. André, who had been the king’s playmate.
The constable was nearly sixty years of age when he was thus recalled
from the retirement to which Francis I. had banished him. He was a
man of harsh manners, ignorant,[40] greedy of money, and a bigot in
religion; or, perhaps it may be truer to say, vain of his descent
from Pharamond, and of being “the first Christian baron of France.”
At times he could be exceedingly pompous and haughty, and though he
had seen much service, he possessed but little military capacity. Some
of the stories told of his ferocity have a certain grim humor about
them, notwithstanding their brutality. While saying his prayers, he
would break off suddenly and order this man to be whipped, or that
to be hanged, or a village to be burned, and then continue (“tant
il était consciencieux,” says Brantome) as if he had done the most
natural thing in the world. These _paternosters_ had passed into
a proverb, during his life-time. When he marched to Bordeaux, to put
down an insurrection occasioned in the south-west of France by the
severity with which the infamous _gabelle_ or salt-tax was levied,
he told the citizens as they came out to present him with the keys of
the gates: “Begone with your keys. I don’t want them. I will open your
gates with mine (pointing to his cannon), and have you all hanged.
I’ll teach you to rebel against your king.” And for five weeks terror
reigned in the city. More than one hundred and forty persons were
hanged, decapitated, burned alive, or otherwise put to death; not a few
of them having been torn asunder by horses, impaled, or broken on the
wheel. “It was an exemplary punishment,” says Brantome, “but _not
so severe_ as the case required.” The country was laid waste far
and wide by an ill-disciplined, unpaid soldiery--a course of treatment
which did not increase the loyalty or orthodoxy of the inhabitants.
Montmorency was a great favorite with the king, and his son Francis
married Diana of Angoulême, Henry’s natural daughter.[41]

Henry II. was duly crowned at Rheims in July, 1547, and the particulars
recorded of the ceremony show that we have fallen off in the matter
of kingly pomp. On a platform erected before the gate of the city,
there was a representation of the sun, which appeared to expand like a
flower. In the centre was a crimson heart, out of which stepped a young
girl in costly attire, who offered the keys of the city to the monarch.
Henry suffered two years to elapse before he visited his capital. On
16th June, 1549, all Paris was in commotion. A grand procession of the
notabilities of the city, both lay and clerical, went out to meet and
harangue him, according to the wearisome custom of the age. The king,
richly dressed, rode a white horse, and was attended by the princes
of the blood, foreign ambassadors, marshals of France, and knights
of the various orders of chivalry, all well mounted. The glittering
procession took its way through streets hung with tapestry, and under
triumphal arches, to Notre Dame. After the usual _Te Deum_, Henry
was escorted with boisterous acclamations to the bishop’s palace, where
a royal banquet had been prepared for him in the great hall. Only the
princes of the royal house ate at his table. On his right sat the
Cardinals of Bourbon and Vendome: on his left the Dukes of Vendome,
Montpensier, and Roche-sur-Yon. The Constable Montmorency, by virtue of
his office, stood in front of him with a drawn sword. Henry remained at
the palace two days, until the solemn entry of the queen. She was in a
horse-litter profusely ornamented, and at her side rode the Cardinals
of Amboise, Chatillon, Boulogne, and Lenoncourt. Two other litters
were used by the princesses, their ladies following on hackneys, and
attended by pages on foot. After the customary prayers at Notre Dame,
and the dinner at the bishop’s palace, a ball was given (for churchmen
could dance in those days), at which the “enfants de la ville,” some
sixscore young men, danced with the court ladies, and acquitted
themselves with much grace, to the evident satisfaction of Henry, who
had arranged this little incident. After the ball there was a supper--a
collation of preserves and sweetmeats; and to end the feast, the
provost of the merchants and the aldermen presented the queen with a
“buffet complet,” a complete set of double silver-gilt plate, adorned
with fleur-de-lis and “crescents.”[42]

The morrow being Corpus Christi day, the provost and aldermen waited
upon the king at the palace of the Tournelles, to present him with a
piece of plate, which the chronicles are careful to tell us was of
“ducat gold.” It was a grand allegorical work of art, at that time
unmatched in Europe.[43] The provost made a complimentary speech on
presenting it, and the king, who was delighted with the gift, thanked
him in language as flattering as it was gracious. This emboldened the
provost to invite him to follow the example of his ancestors, and come
to the Grève next Sunday--the eve of St. John--and set fire to the
great tree. Henry complied with the request, and went, accompanied by
the queen, the princes and princesses, and kindled the fire with a
torch of white wax handed him by the provost. Thence he proceeded to
the Hotel de Ville, where, after the usual collation--a good custom
which still prevails in civic entertainments--the city dames had the
honor of dancing with the king and his court. It was still light when
he returned to his palace of the Tournelles.

During the month Henry remained in Paris, there were frequent tournays
in the lists, prepared by the city in the Rue St. Antoine. The provost
had also built a fort on the islet of Louviers in the Seine, to afford
the king the pleasing spectacle of a bombardment and a sea-fight. A
bridge of boats had been constructed from the island of Notre Dame to
that of Louviers for the passage of the troops that were to attack the
fort. These were harmless amusements compared with some that followed.
On Thursday, 4th July, Henry quitted the Tournelles at seven in the
morning, and rode in grand procession to the great cathedral, where he
heard high mass, and then went to dine at the episcopal palace, after
which the royal digestion was gently stimulated by the burning of some
heretics. On another occasion, after a similar procession and banquet,
some more heretics were burned in the Rue St. Antoine, “where the king
stopped and advised them to recant.”[44] Heretic-burning was one of the
popular sports of the day, at which--if contemporary engravings are any
authority in such matters--high-born dames attended in full dress. It
was on one of these occasions (4th July, 1549), that Henry witnessed
the execution of a poor tailor, who had offended Diana by language
not unlike that which John the Baptist used with regard to Herodias.
The sufferer, we are told, turned upon the king such a look of calm
reproach, that he withdrew frightened from the window, and for several
nights after fancied that the dying man haunted his bedside.

Meanwhile the reformed doctrines had been spreading fast. Extending
beyond the small circle of nobles, scholars, and church dignitaries, by
whom they were first taught and defended, and making their way into the
lower strata of society,[45] they had become more definite and radical.
The uneducated shoe-maker or ploughman could not appreciate such nice
distinctions as Margaret of Valois drew in her “Mass of Seven Points,”
and would not have cared for such subtleties if he had understood them.
These simple men heard the Bible read and explained to them, and the
doctrines of Free Grace and of the Atonement sank straight into their
hearts. There was very little but habit to keep the people faithful to
the old Church. “They are more affected,” says Matthieu, unconsciously
imitating Horace, “by example than by instruction, and estimate the
truth of a doctrine by the purity of a man’s life.” Such an example was
rarely found in the Catholic clergy. Another strong reforming agent was
the misery of the times. With reference to Normandy, which was better
off than many other provinces, a local historian writes: “The people
were easily seduced; the dues and taxes were so excessive that in many
villages there was no assessment. The _decimes_ were so high
that the parish priests and their curates ran away for fear of being
imprisoned, and ceased to perform divine service in many parishes near
Caen.... Seeing this, the preachers from Geneva took possession of the
churches and chapels.”[46]

Yet great as had been the increase of numbers, the Reformed at
this time could hardly have amounted to a hundredth part of the
population; even in 1558 they were not estimated at more than 400,000.
The cities along the course of the Rhone and those lying at the
foot of the Alps were strongly Calvinistic, as was also Languedoc,
where probably some relics of the old Albigensian spirit of revolt
still lingered. In this province the Romish Church was especially
hateful, as it had been enriched by the confiscated estates of the
Albigensian nobles.[47] Anjou and Normandy were divided; Picardy felt
the influence of Flanders, where the new doctrines were extending
with civil liberty. Nearly all the rest of France was Catholic. The
rural population was then, as now, under the influence of the clergy,
as also were the inhabitants of the smaller country towns. These are
usually a narrow-minded class, an almost inevitable consequence of
their isolation, and the dull nature of their habits and occupations.
In Paris, the mass of the population was Catholic, the dangerous
classes being especially demonstrative in their orthodoxy. The progress
of religious reform might have been more rapid but for certain
peculiarities in the state of society, which made every innovation
difficult. The guilds in the towns had their patron saints and annual
festivals. If a man adopted the reformed faith, he must renounce
these, and become a sort of outcast among his comrades, and perhaps
the severest persecution he had to undergo was that he endured at the
hands of his fellow-workmen. We all know how much this prevails in
large factories and in trade unions among us: and it must have been
incalculably worse at a time when the guilds were such close bodies
that it was impossible to carry on a trade independently of them.

Henry II., like his father, cared little about the new doctrines,
so long as they were confined to the learned and the well-born: but
when they spread among the lower classes, he determined to punish
heresy as worse than treason. His father’s edicts were carried out
with great severity; but they were so far from producing the desired
effect, that the Reform spread more and more. In order to hasten its
extirpation, a new edict was issued (19th November, 1549), in which,
after complaining that the bishops and their suffragans proceeded too
slowly and tenderly--a statement which it is hard to accept--Henry
established special chambers of Parliament for the trial and punishment
of heresy only. It was a kind of lay inquisition, of which all the
judges in the realm, both civil and ecclesiastical, were members
_ex officio_. These were the famous _chambres ardentes_,
so called, says Mezeray, “because they burned without mercy every
one they convicted.” But the new edict appears to have had as little
effect as its predecessors, for in the following month of February
the king by letters patent reproached the judges for want of zeal “in
discharging their duty in this holy and laudable work, so acceptable
to God.” Finally the sanguinary edict of Chateaubriant[48] was issued
(27th June, 1551), by which all the old laws on heresy were revised and
codified. In the preamble, after recounting the efforts of his father
as well as his own to suppress heresy, Henry declared that “the error
went on increasing day by day and hour by hour;” that it was “like
the plague, so contagious that in many large cities it had infected
the majority of the inhabitants, men and women of every station, and
even the little children had sucked in the poison;” and that he saw
no hope of amendment except by employing the severest measures “to
overcome the willfulness and obstinacy of that wretched sect, and to
purge and clear the kingdom of them.” The magistrates were, therefore,
ordered to search unceasingly for heretics, and to make domiciliary
visits in quest of forbidden books (among which the Latin Bible of
Robert Stephens was included).[49] This edict made denunciation a
trade by giving the informer one-third of the heretic’s confiscated
property, and farther enacted that a person acquitted of heresy in any
ordinary court of justice might be again tried before an ecclesiastical
tribunal, and _vice versâ_, thus depriving the poor Reformer of
all chance of escape. Every suspected person was required to possess a
certificate of orthodoxy, and even intercession on behalf of convicted
heretics was made penal. These severities--though they were called
“too lenient” by the pope--drove the Reformed to emigrate in such
numbers in spite of all attempts to stop them, that a president of the
Parliament of Bordeaux wrote to Montmorency expressing his alarm at
seeing on the one hand the emigration increasing every day, and on the
other the great progress made by Calvinism. But the king was not to be
moved from his purpose. “In God’s cause,” he said, “every one should be
ready to put his shoulder to the wheel.” A very proper sentiment, only
we must be sure that the cause is of God. When the Parliament of Paris
registered the edict of Chateaubriant, they compared Henry to Numa,
“quod Numa primus condidit templum fidei.” The decree was carried out
with extreme severity all over the kingdom, but particularly in Saumur,
Lyons, Nîmes, Toulouse, Paris, Guyenne, Bresse, and Champagne.

In Poitou and Anjou the fires of persecution blazed fiercely. Of
three pastors at Angers two were burned alive, and of the flock six
were put to death, and thirty-four who fled were burned as they were
caught. The Reformed meditated taking up arms in self-defense, but
were strongly advised by Calvin not to do so, and they obeyed. But the
trial of their endurance must have been severe; for so great was the
terrorism toward the end of 1556 that the Reformed ceased from writing
to one another, or if they wrote, directed their letters, “To the
brethren whom we _dare not name_ lest they should suffer harm.”

In other parts of France, especially in the south and centre, the
Reformers suffered less. At Le Puy the discontent first showed itself
in the destruction of a venerated crucifix during the Holy Week. The
sacrilege was atoned for by a solemn procession. The shops were closed,
all work ceased, the bells rang out noisily from the great belfry, and
the priests in a long line climbed the steep and narrow streets of that
gloomy-looking town, up that giant flight of one hundred and eighteen
steps to the grand portal of the cathedral. On this lofty platform the
procession halted--not to admire the wide prospect that now charms
every traveler--but to chant the penitential psalms before entering
that old grey temple. The bells, which had ceased their monotonous din
during this solemn moment, now pealed out joyously. The priests took
off the emblems of mourning which they had worn until this moment, and
entered the cathedral, the citizens following, each man in his own
guild. The very next night a similar outrage occurred, and as the real
culprits could not be found, two men were burned for heresy, their
tongues having been first torn out (July, 1552). But “justice” was not
overprecise in its nomenclature in those days, for we find two thieves
who stole a chalice put to death as heretics, and two coiners of base
money suffered a like fate. In 1555 two “most rascally heretics”
were burned to death in the midst of a pile of “pestilent books from
Geneva.” Oh, those books! how tyranny and falsehood hate them!

Two years later a wretched pedlar was convicted of selling “the
damnable writings of Calvin,” and his execution ordered to take place
on one of the chief festivals of the Church--that of Corpus Christi. It
was a bright morning in summer. The walls of the houses were hung with
drapery and the windows filled with spectators, while the procession
moved along more like a Roman triumph than a Christian celebration.
Music led the way, the guilds followed with their insignia, next came
the religious brotherhood with their banners, while troops of boys
and girls, all dressed in white, scattered roses and burned incense.
The clergy in their costliest robes followed next, escorting the Holy
Sacrament, which the bishop held up to be seen and worshiped by all.
Again came white-robed youths and maidens, and last of all the poor
pedlar in a shirt of sacking. He was barefoot, carried a lighted taper
in his hand, and the rope was round his neck. Every time the procession
halted, the wretched man fell on his knees and made the _amende
honorable_, according to the terms of his sentence. This long agony
lasted five hours, until at length the martyr was committed to the fire.

After this the heretics of Velay, where this mournful tragedy had been
enacted, grew bolder and began to assemble “in open day in fields,
gardens, barns, no matter where.... Their preachers were butchers,
brick-layers, publicans, and other venerable doctors of that sort,”
says a contemporary manuscript. The populace jeered and hooted at
them as they went to their meetings, and the Reformers retaliated
by fastening rosaries to their dogs’ necks, and breaking the images
of Our Lady, calling them “useless logs.” Sometimes the persons who
thus insulted the established religion were discovered and punished,
but heresy flourished nevertheless. The heretics banded together and
entered into a covenant of mutual aid. They established a sort of
benefit club, elected leaders, collectors, and treasurers, bought
arms and ammunition, and kept themselves ready for all eventualities.
The society numbered about four hundred--all resolute men, and strong
enough to ensure freedom of worship--at least for a time.

Confiscations, imprisonment, and death having failed to purge the
kingdom of heresy, the Cardinal of Lorraine suggested (in 1555) a
new edict, by virtue of which all persons convicted of heresy by the
ecclesiastical judges should be punished according to the magnitude
of the crime without appeal, and proposed the appointment of Ory as
“inquisitor of the faith in France;”[50] but bishops and Parliament
alike protested against it. The magistrates were especially offended
at having a court set over them, before which they were liable to be
tried. President Seguier remonstrated to the Council in language worthy
of the occasion: “We abhor the establishment of a tribunal of blood,
where secret accusation takes the place of proof; where the accused
is deprived of every natural means of defense, and where no judiciary
form is respected. Commence, Sire, by giving the nation an edict which
will not cover your kingdom with burning piles, or be wetted with the
tears and blood of your faithful subjects.” He suggested that instead
of employing fire and sword to establish and extend religion, they
should try the same means that had been employed to found it, namely,
“the revival of pure doctrine, combined with the exemplary lives of the
clergy.” Henry received the advice courteously, and the edict was not
enforced.

It might be supposed that there was little to choose between the
Inquisition and the Chambres Ardentes; but the difference was vital.
From the sentence of the Inquisition, which derived its authority from
the Holy See, there could be no appeal. Its victims were handed over
to the secular arm, and not even the king had power to come between
them and death.[51] But it was a fundamental principle of the French
law that the king alone, as supreme head of the state, had the power
of life and death over the subjects of the state; and that all appeals
should be heard and decided by lay judges.[52] In the next reign we
shall find the great Chancellor L’Hôpital declaring the edict of
Romorantin with all its harshness and restrictions to be more merciful
than any copy of the Spanish tribunals of blood could be.

The cardinal was not a man to be daunted by this repulse, and in April,
1557, he procured a bull from Pius IV. ordering the establishment
of an inquisitorial tribunal of which himself and the Cardinals of
Bourbon and Chatillon were named directors, with authority to set up
new courts of bishops and doctors of divinity, with full power to
arrest, imprison, and put to death, without regard to rank or quality,
all persons suspected of heresy. The king seems to have been as eager
as the cardinal to obtain this bull, his embassador at Rome being
ordered to press the matter as “the only means of extirpating false
doctrine.”[53] The pope also sent Henry a sword and helmet as symbols
of the war he had declared against heresy. We shall see ere long to
what use the sword was put. Again the Parliament stood forward and
resisted the establishment of the irresponsible tribunal. If their
motives were selfish, their object was good, and farther proceedings
were adjourned for a year. It is possible too that Henry yielded from
opposition of another kind, having discovered that the new doctrines
had made greater progress than he had imagined among the nobles, who
were not the men to suffer patiently like poor scholars and mechanics.
A certain amount of toleration was therefore conceded, until the treaty
of Cateau-Cambresis made persecution an international duty.

Although the persecution never ceased in France during the reign of
Henry II., there were intervals of reaction when the fires burned dim
and the sword of the executioner hung idle on the wall. These were
usually connected with the foreign policy of the government--a subject
not within the scope of these pages. It may be sufficient to mention
generally that as the basis of every diplomatic arrangement with the
Pope, the Emperor, or the King of Spain, was the extirpation of heresy,
so a certain toleration accorded to heretics was a means of showing
dissatisfaction with one or all of those three powers. The furious
outburst of persecution which occurred at the period we have now
reached, may be partly traced to the changes that had taken place in
foreign countries. Mary was fiercely persecuting her English subjects,
Cranmer having atoned for his weaknesses by his heroic martyrdom in
1556; Philip II. had succeeded to the throne of Spain and re-enacted
his father’s cruel edict of 1550; and Paul IV., the restorer of the
Inquisition, sat in St. Peter’s chair. France was at war with Spain and
had suffered many reverses; Francis, Duke of Guise, was unsuccessful in
Italy, where Alva, as yet unstained by blood, was carrying all before
him; while on the northern frontier the Constable Montmorency tried in
vain to make head against the impetuous attacks of Emmanuel Philibert
of Savoy, who commanded the Spanish troops in Flanders. Philibert
laid siege to St. Quentin, where Admiral Coligny held out stubbornly
against overwhelming odds. Montmorency marched to the relief of the
city and re-enforced the garrison by 500 soldiers, under the command of
Andelot, but suffered a bloody defeat (10th August, 1557) a few hours
afterward, when his cavalry was routed and his infantry cut to pieces.
He himself was wounded and made prisoner, along with Marshal St. André.
So complete was the rout, so crushing the defeat--the severest that
France had received since the battle of Agincourt--that the Parisians
trembled lest the conqueror should appear before their gates. More
than once has that beautiful city been spared by the procrastination
of a victorious enemy, and the fear of driving a gallant nation to
extremity. The fortress of St. Quentin fell on the 27th August, Coligny
and his brother Andelot being made prisoners.

Such national disasters were regarded as a judgment from heaven,
and the evangelicals were made the scape-goats. Priests went into
the pulpit and inflamed the passions of their ignorant hearers by
the coarsest vituperations. “God is punishing us,” they shouted,
“because we have not avenged his honor,” and the populace yielding
to the superstitious impulse caught up the cry.[54] They soon had an
opportunity of putting into practice the lesson they had been taught.
On the night of the 4th September, 1557,[55] a number of adherents
of the new religion, amounting to three or four hundred, assembled
at a private house in the suburbs on the left bank of the river for
the purpose of united worship. The men belonged chiefly to the upper
classes, and the women were of good families, some of them being ladies
in attendance on the queen.[56] The service had been conducted in
quiet, the Lord’s-supper administered, and the congregation was about
to separate when they found the street--the Rue St. Jacques--blockaded
by a furious mob bearing torches and armed with every weapon they
could catch up. “Death to the traitors! down with the Lutherans!” they
shouted, as they rushed to the door and tried to force an entrance.
They were kept at bay by a few resolute gentlemen who, by their rank,
were entitled to carry swords, while the women and the elders sought
to escape through the garden which opened into the fields. But every
outlet was guarded and all opportunity of flight cut off. What was to
be done? Death, a horrible death at the hands of the mob, appeared
imminent. The only chance of safety lay in seeking the protection
of the magistrates before the city gates were opened, and all the
ruffianism of Paris was let loose upon them. With this intent a few
gallant gentlemen volunteered to attempt to reach the Hotel de Ville,
the others remaining to guard the helpless women and old men. Suddenly
the door of the house was thrown open and the desperate little band
rushed out and cut its way through the crowd with the loss of only one
of their number. Throughout the long night those left behind waited in
trembling apprehension for the dawn. They prayed to God for support,
and sometimes one of their number would read a consolatory chapter from
the Bible, the yells of the populace frequently drowning the voice of
the reader.

Day-light came at last, but it brought no relief. The doors were
forced, and the unarmed worshipers would have been torn to pieces, when
a detachment of the city guard arrived and took them off to prison,
saving many of them for a still crueler death. As the helpless captives
were dragged through the streets, the mob reviled and cast mud at them.
On reaching the Châtelet, they were thrust into filthy dungeons from
which the vilest criminals had been removed to make room for them;
where the light of day hardly penetrated, and where “they could neither
sit nor lie down, they were so crowded.”[57]

The Reformed Church of Paris was in a pitiable state, so many of its
members being in peril of their lives. Extraordinary prayers were
offered up in every family for the delivery of the martyrs, and a
remonstrance drawn up by the elders was presented to the king, who put
it aside unnoticed. But (strange to say!) there was no eager haste to
punish the prisoners any farther, the example of their seizure having
frightened many back to orthodoxy. But orthodox agitators were busily
at work to keep up the popular excitement and prevent the escape of the
captives. The heretics and all who would shelter them were vehemently
denounced from the pulpit, and inflammatory placards were stuck on
every wall. A verse from one of these, posted all over Paris on
Christmas day, 1557, will show the style in which the popular fury was
stirred against the “Lutherans.”

    Paris, en ce temps froidureux
    Que les nuits sont longues et fraiches,
    Tu dois bien veiller sur tous ceux
    Qui font auprès de toi des prêches.
    Si, de bref, tu ne les dépêches,
    Jamais paix n’auront les chrétiens;
    Car ceux que tu souffres et tiens
    Te causeront tant de courroux,
    Que tu diras, toy et les tiens:
    Montagnes, tombez dessus nous.

When the excitement had abated, and the affair was almost forgotten,
the prisoners of the Rue St. Jacques were brought to trial. Their
lives were forfeited by the mere fact of their presence at an unlawful
assembly, and the alternative of recantation or death was presented to
them; but they would not yield an inch. They found that man’s weakness
was God’s strength.

Among the captives was Philippa de Lunz, a woman of good family, a
widow, and only twenty-two years old. She was interrogated several
times, but her answers were such as to destroy all hope of pardon. On
the 27th September, 1558, more than a year after her imprisonment,
she was led out to death, in company with Nicholas Clinet or Clivet,
a school-master, and Taurin Gravelle, an advocate, both elders in the
Reformed Church. Before they were placed in the tumbrel that was to
carry them to the stake in the Place Maubert, they were to have their
tongues cut out, to prevent their praying aloud or addressing the
people on the road to death. The two men suffered this cruel mutilation
without a groan. Turning to Philippa, the executioner roughly bade her
put out her tongue. She did so immediately. Even he was struck by her
intrepidity: “Come! that’s well, _truande_,” he said; “you are not
afraid then?” “As I do not fear for my body,” she replied, “why should
I fear for my tongue?” The knife flashed an instant before her eyes
and her tongue fell to the ground. She was then thrust into the cart
at the feet of her two companions and bound to the same chain. Before
leaving the prison she had taken off her widow’s weeds and put on the
best garments left her, saying: “Why should I not rejoice? I am going
to meet my husband.”

Around a pile of faggots in the Place Maubert there had collected all
that was vilest in Paris, dancing and calling out for blood, just as
some two hundred years later a similar mob danced round the victims
of the guillotine. The king is said to have been a spectator of the
horrible scene that followed. It was Philippa’s fate to look on while
her two companions were burned to death--to witness their horrible
convulsions, and hear the shrieks which the mounting flames extorted
from them. But even this did not shake her faith, which found support
in earnest prayer. And now her turn had come; the executioners roughly
seized her with their strong arms, shamefully tearing her clothes, and
held her over the hot ashes until her feet were burned to the bone.
Then with a horrible refinement of cruelty the savage torturers hung
her head-downward in the fire, until the scalp was burned off and her
eyes scorched out. After that she was strangled, and heaven received
another saint.

A few days later four more of the prisoners suffered death at the
same place. One of them, as he opened the shutter of his cell on the
morning of his execution, that he might behold the sunrise once more,
exclaimed: “How glorious it will be when we are exalted above all this.”

One of Calvin’s noblest letters was written at this time to the
prisoners still remaining in the Châtelet, and more particularly to the
women, whom he exhorted to imitate the strength and faith of Madame de
Lunz: “If men are weak and easily troubled,” he said, “the weakness
of your sex is still greater, according to the order of nature. But
God, that worketh in weak vessels, will show forth his strength in the
infirmity of his people.... He who sets us in the battle supplies us
from time to time with the necessary arms, and gives us skill to use
them.... Consider how great were the excellences and firmness of the
women at the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. When the apostles had
forsaken him, they still remained by him with marvelous constancy, and
a woman was his messenger to inform them of his resurrection, which
they could neither believe nor understand. If he so honored them at
that time and gave them such excellence, do you think he has less power
now, or that he has changed his mind?” Calvin showed that his was not a
barren sympathy by making every effort to induce the cantons of Berne
and Zurich and the German princes to intercede in behalf of the poor
prisoners. Their intercession prevailed to save such as remained alive.
The doors of the Châtelet were thrown open: the younger prisoners were
transferred to monasteries from which they easily escaped; while others
obtained a full pardon after making an ambiguous confession of faith
before the bishop’s officers. Pope Paul IV. complained bitterly of this
moderation, and declared that he was not astonished at the bad state
of affairs in France, now that the king trusted more in the support of
heretics than in the protection of heaven.[58]

Not only did the severe measures we have described fail of their
effect, after the first alarm had passed away, but the reformed
doctrines made so many new converts that Beza, writing to his friend
Bullinger about this time, declared “that the king must either destroy
entire cities, or make some concession to the truth.”[59] The severity
exercised upon the martyrs of the Rue St. Jacques had overleaped
itself. A contemporary historian and a Romanist says, that such
mournful sights disturbed many simple souls, who could not forbear
thinking that the men and women who could undergo such tortures with
calmness and resolution must have truth on their side, and he adds with
touching simplicity, “They could not contain their tears, their hearts
wept as well as their eyes.”[60]

The summer of 1558 witnessed a singular protest against the persecuting
and obstructive policy of the Church. It assumed a form, and was
carried out with a pertinacity and a _malice_ peculiarly French.
Clement Marot, the earliest of French poets and a favorite of the
late king, had translated some of the Psalms of David into verse,
which immediately became popular. They sold faster than they could be
printed. Francis I. quoted them on his dying-bed,[61] and by his order
the translator had presented a copy of his first series of thirty to
Charles V., who rewarded him for it and pressed him to continue it.[62]
The ladies and gentlemen of the French court took a strange delight in
singing them, but not always to the most appropriate tunes. The martyrs
of Meaux had sung them at the stake. Henry II., when dauphin, was fond
of singing them; and on one occasion, when recovering from an illness,
he had them chanted to him by his choristers, with the accompaniment
of “lutes, viols, spinnets, and flutes.” His favorite was the 128th
Psalm: _Blessed is every one that feareth the Lord_, which he is
reported to have set to music. Catherine had her favorite: _O Lord,
rebuke me not in thine anger_; that of Diana of Poitiers was the
solemn _De Profundis_ (Ps. 120). The King of Navarre selected the
43d: _Judge me, O Lord_; and even Charles IX., at a much later
period, used to repeat, _As pants the hart_; probably because of
its allusion to the chase. The Protestants of France sang them at all
times, and as neither the music nor the words could be condemned as
heretical,[63] they were sung when no other mode of divine worship
was practicable. Thus when the citizens took their evening walk in
the Pré aux Clercs,[64] the Hyde Park of those days, some student or
Reformer would strike up one of Marot’s Psalms, in which they would all
join. Many may have done this out of pure bravado, but others out of
love for the truths they contained. The King and Queen of Navarre were
fond of that pleasant promenade by the river-side, and took delight in
listening to this multitudinous singing.

These things cease to move us now, not because we are less religious,
but because we are less demonstrative, and there is no opposition to
force us into an external display of our faith. There have always been
occasions when large bodies of men have tried to conceal or perhaps to
alleviate their excitement by singing. Cromwell’s troopers thundered
out a Psalm as they marched up the breach at Dunkirk, and the Girondins
sang the Marseillaise as they stood at the foot of the guillotine.

But there was something more than this in the sudden popularity which
Marot’s Psalms acquired among all classes. It was the revival of an old
Christian custom; it popularized a new mode of worship. In the earlier
and purer days of the Church, singing had been congregational; but it
had long since become the business of priest and chorister solely. The
old tunes had grown obsolete, and airs wedded to mundane songs had been
introduced into the Church service. “The _Miserere_ is chanted to
a jig-tune,” said a Catholic writer. Other influences, many of them
sacerdotal, were at work to widen the interval between the priest
and his flock--to reduce public worship into a sort of theatrical
performance in which he and his colleagues were the actors, and the
others the spectators and listeners. But if the people did not sing
at church, there is ample evidence that they sang at home; and it is
probably owing to this circumstance that we possess so many partsongs
in our old music-books. It is one of the glories of the Reformation
that it gave a religious character to these songs. Luther and Calvin
both saw how music might be employed to advance the truth, and
neglected no opportunity of recommending the study of singing. Luther
had but a poor opinion of a school-master who could not sing, and
ranked music next to theology. “It has been commanded unto all men,”
he said, “to propagate the word of God by every possible means, not
merely by speech, but by writing, painting, sculpture, _psalms_,
_songs_, and musical instruments.” He composed many tunes: these
and the chorales of Senfel penetrated into France, and German airs form
the basis of a large part of the French hymnal. Calvin took no less
pains at Geneva, and the tunes composed by his desire were distributed
by thousands, each part being printed separately to facilitate their
execution. Even Catholics were to be found using these Protestant
scores--a practice which Florimond de Remond, the historian of heresy,
bitterly condemns: “The wise world--stupidly wise in this--which judges
of things by outward appearance only, praised this kind of amusement,
not seeing that under this chant, or rather new enchantment, a thousand
pernicious novelties crept into their souls.”[65] The time came,
however, when even psalm-singing was interdicted. At Bourges, in April,
1559, the Reformed began to hold open-air meetings, similar to those at
Paris, to the great annoyance of the orthodox, who caused proclamation
to be made forbidding the singing of Psalms under pain of death, and a
gibbet was erected, _in terrorem_, in the middle of the promenade
(the Pré Fichault); but even that grim monitor failed to terrify the
Reformers into submission. In the Velay, the opposition was equally
determined. The very day an order was issued forbidding the people to
sing the Psalms of that “sacrilegious apostate,” Marot, the heretics,
“fearing neither God, pope, king, law, nor justice, sang them all the
louder.”[66]

Meanwhile both France and Spain had grown weary of the war, and a
treaty of peace was concluded at Cateau-Cambresis (3d April, 1559),
France agreeing to give up all her conquests. Indeed that country was
exhausted, and her treasury empty, and there was little hope that the
people would submit to additional taxation. Philip II. on his part was
equally glad to put an end to hostilities, which prevented him from
turning his attention to the progress of heresy in the Low Countries.
The treaty was regarded by the Reformers as “disgraceful and injurious
to the kingdom,” and with our subsequent knowledge we may add, full
of danger to the Reformers themselves. During the negotiations, which
lasted from January to April, the Duke of Guise and the Cardinal of
Lorraine had sought a private interview with the Spanish Minister
Granvelle, Bishop of Arras, at Peronne, in which they expressed their
devotion to Spain, and entered into a league for the extirpation of
heresy in Navarre, France, and the Netherlands.[67] What after-thought
there may have been in the cardinal’s mind is uncertain, but he had
probably hoped for the support of Spain in the ambitious views of his
family upon the crown of France.

The treaty had been concluded in opposition to the advice of the
Guises, who consequently fell into disgrace at court, while the
constable triumphed. Henry seems, indeed, never to have liked the
Lorraine family, and his feeling toward them is strongly marked in
a letter he wrote to Montmorency, then a prisoner: “I have been
constrained to create the Duke of Guise lieutenant-general; also
affairs have now compelled me to conclude the marriage of the dauphin
with the duke’s niece (Mary Stuart), and likewise to do many other
things. Time, however, _m’en fera raison_.”[68] By the treaty
the Cardinal of Lorraine lost three sees, and he swore to be avenged
of Montmorency and the admiral. In this he so far succeeded, with the
help of Diana of Potiers, who worked upon the king by stories of the
increase of heresy, that the persecution which had been suspended by
the war (except in the affair of the Rue St. Jacques), broke out again,
and was conducted with more regularity.

The Parliament of France was originally, like the Parliament of
England, a national council with functions both legislative and
judicial.[69] In the course of time a separation of classes and powers
took place: in England the judicial power fell into disuse, and the
Parliament became a mere legislative body; in France, the Parliament
lost its legislative authority, and subsided into a high court of
justice of last resort, and a court of revenue. It consisted of a
fixed number of churchmen, lay peers, and councillors--all equal in
voice and authority. Each province had its independent Parliament,
over which that of Paris asserted, but was rarely able to enforce,
its authority. In the early days of the new religious movement, the
Parliament of Paris was hardly less hostile than the Sorbonne to the
new doctrines; but as time rolled on and the principles of the Reform
were better known, the Parliament became divided in opinion. As in all
similar bodies, there were three parties: those who sympathized with
the religious reform movement, those who were opposed to it, and those
who, either from policy or coldness of temper, floated between the
two. To this party belonged the elder De Thou, Harlay, and Seguier,
all members of the Tournelle. On the last Wednesday in April, 1559,
Bourdin, the king’s proctor-general, made a proposition that as the
laws were enforced so irregularly--the Grand Chamber burning heretics
implacably, the Tournelle only banishing them, to the great scandal
of justice--the two courts should come to some arrangement by which
uniformity of action would be insured. Each judge gave his opinion, and
there was naturally great diversity of sentiment. Arnauld du Ferrier
proposed the convocation of a general council for the settlement of all
religious controversies, and that in the mean time all measures against
the Reformed should be suspended. This learned lawyer, like many others
of his day, not only did not appear to contemplate the possibility of
the Romish and the Reformed religions existing quietly side by side in
France, but thought the differences between the two were so trifling
that union might be restored by a few mutual concessions. Arnauld’s
proposal was supported by a majority of the meeting,[70] and, among
others, by Anthony Fumée, whose father and grandfather had filled
the highest judicial offices. He not only vindicated the Calvinistic
interpretation of the doctrine of the Lord’s-supper, but advised an
address to the king, praying him to summon a general council, in which
all erroneous doctrines should be exposed, and all heresies condemned;
and that the persecution of those who held heterodox opinions upon
secondary points should cease. The matter began to look so serious that
the Duchess of Valentinois urged Henry II. “to hang half a dozen at
least of the councillors as heretics,” and show Spain (with whom the
marriage-treaty between Philip II. and Isabella was going on) that he
was firm in the faith, and would not tolerate heresy. The Cardinal of
Lorraine strongly advised a similar course; while Marshal Vieilleville
tried to dissuade the king: “Sire,” he said, “if you think of going
to play the theologian or inquisitor, we must get the cardinal to
come and teach us how to hold our lances in the tournament.”[71] But
the churchman prevailed; not, however, until the king was threatened
with the anger of God if he refused a _Mercurial_ against those
free-thinking lawyers. These Mercurials were assemblies of the
Parliament held on Wednesday (_dies Mercurii_), at which the
members of that body were censured for any thing they might have done
contrary to their dignity or duty. The word was afterward extended
to the censure or judgment itself. On the 15th June, 1559, “after
dinner” (about noon) Henry, attended by the Cardinals of Lorraine
and Guise, unexpectedly entered the great hall of the Augustines’
convent, where the sittings of Parliament were temporarily held, just
as the councillors were discussing the means of settling a uniform
jurisprudence in heretical matters.[72] After taking his seat, the
king said: “I desire to secure the repose of my kingdom, and the
maintenance of religion. Having concluded a peace abroad, I will not
have it disturbed at home by religious disorders. For this reason I am
come among you, that I may hear what is your opinion about the present
religious differences, and know why you have not carried out my edicts
constraining the judges to condemn all Lutherans to death.” Undismayed
by the king’s presence, the moderate party defended what they had
done. Louis du Faur acknowledged that the present troubles were caused
by religion, but he added: “We must trace them back to their source,
lest we be exposed to the reproach the prophet Elijah made to King
Ahab: ‘I have not troubled Israel, but thou and thy father’s house.’”
Anne du Bourg was equally bold in his language: “There are certain
crimes,” he said, “that deserve to be punished without mercy; such are
adultery, blasphemy, and perjury, which are countenanced daily by men
of disorderly life and infamous amours. But of what do men accuse those
who are handed over to the executioner? of treason?... They never omit
the name of the king from their prayers. What revolt have they headed?
what sedition have they stirred up? What! because they have discovered,
by the light of Holy Scripture, the great vices and the scandalous
offenses of the Roman Church--because they have petitioned for a
reform: is that an offense worthy of the stake?” The king trembled with
anger, but listened with pleasure to the first president, Gilles le
Maistre, who advised him to treat the new sectarians as the Albigenses
had been treated by Philip Augustus, who burned six hundred of them
in one day; and the Vaudois by Francis I., who killed them in their
own houses, or stifled them in the caverns to which they had fled for
refuge.[73] Henry closed the sitting by reprimanding the judges for
their laxness in administering the laws against heresy, and ordered
Du Faur and Du Bourg to be arrested--the first for having spoken of
Ahab, the second for condemning adultery, both of which the king
applied to himself. Montgomery, captain of the royal archers, seized
the two lawyers and conveyed them to the Bastille. This was the same
Montgomery who was shortly to be the innocent cause of Henry’s death,
and some years later to die on the scaffold as a heretic and traitor.
The two prisoners were put into separate dungeons, and denied the use
of paper, ink, and books, or communication with their friends. The
king, unwilling to leave them to be tried before an ordinary tribunal,
appointed a commission to hear and condemn them, unless they retracted,
and swore he would have them burned before his eyes.

Du Bourg’s arrest was not a solitary act of persecution. By the
treaty of Cateau-Cambresis, Henry and Philip had bound themselves
to maintain the Catholic worship inviolate, to assemble a general
council, and to extinguish heresy in their respective dominions.[74]
To William of Orange, rightly surnamed the Taciturn, then a hostage
for the due execution of the treaty, the king imparted the secret of
these negotiations with the King of Spain.[75] William listened, but
held his peace, and it was probably his knowledge of this projected
massacre--delayed for thirteen years--that converted him into the
liberator of the Netherlands.

The violence with which the storm of persecution raged may be conceived
from a few isolated examples. The edicts were enforced with such vigor
that the Reformed feared to meet in groups of more than twenty or
thirty at a time. In some places they ceased altogether to assemble,
or else they met in the woods and fields, in caves and quarries. Great
mystery was used in summoning the faithful together. On the evenings
when there was to be a sermon, a man would go through the streets and
whistle the signal. If there was reason to fear the watch or patrol,
the summoner carried a lantern of a peculiar form, and passed along
without uttering a word. The worshipers crept muffled up to the
place assigned, where they sang in a suppressed voice one of Marot’s
Psalms, prayed, and then separated, often without any sermon. It was
this meeting by night which gave a substance to the licentious and
calumnious stories told of the Reformed.[76]

The Parliament of Bordeaux received instructions to hold the “grand
jours,” or special assize, at Saintes, not that they might listen to
the grievances of the people, as was the ancient custom, but to operate
on a large scale against heresy. When all the prisons in Saintonge
were crammed, the rest of the heretics were sent to Bordeaux. In order
to remove the odium under which they labored, the Reformers of France
resolved to draw up a confession of their faith, and lay it before the
king, begging Anthony of Navarre, Governor of Guienne, to present it,
adding that they were prepared, if necessary, “one and all to seal
their faith with their blood.” But Anthony objected, and like a true
man of the world as he always was, advised them to keep quiet and
let the storm blow over. It was in circumstances such as these--in
the “midst of burning piles, and gibbets erected in every corner of
the city”--that the first Protestant synod met in Paris (May, 1559),
and continued sitting four days. Francis Morel, sire of Collonges, a
gentleman by birth, and now pastor of the metropolitan church, was
their president. Not more than a dozen provincial churches--there
is a slight discrepancy in the numbers--sent deputies; but, being
earnest men, they soon succeeded in giving French Protestantism the
organization which it has preserved, with few trifling exceptions,
until the present day. The church in Paris had been the first to
organize itself with pastor, elders, and deacons,[77] and the example
was speedily followed by many provincial cities; but these churches
were all isolated, and it was felt that by uniting into one body, they
would be stronger against their enemies, as well as richer in the
divine graces.

In thus assembling together the deputies carried their lives in their
hands, for, by an edict then in force, all preachers found in the
kingdom were to be put to death. But, undeterred by peril, they drew
up a Confession of Faith and a Book of Discipline, each consisting of
forty articles. In the former the doctrine of non-resistance was laid
down with a thoroughness somewhat startling. Thus the fortieth article
says: “We must obey the laws and ordinances, pay tribute, tax, and
other dues, and bear the yoke of subjection with good and hearty will,
even should the magistrates be infidels.... Furthermore, we detest
those who would reject superiorities, set up a community of goods, and
overthrow the order of justice.” The synod clenched these doctrines by
reference to Matthew xvii. 24, and Acts vi. 17–19. Calvin’s opinions
on this point are briefly shown in one of his sermons delivered three
or four years later: “All principalities are types of the kingdom of
Jesus Christ; we must hold them precious, and pray God to make them
prosper.”[78] Yet the ecclesiastical constitution which he drafted was
entirely republican in form, every thing being made to depend upon
the votes of the people, who elected a consistory (or kirk-session),
which chose the pastor, whose final appointment rested on the decision
of the congregation. A certain number of churches formed a conference
or presbytery which met twice a year, and in which each church was
represented by the pastor and one elder. These presbyteries united into
provincial synods, and above them all presided a general assembly, the
supreme court of legislation and appeal, composed of two pastors and
two elders from each provincial synod.

There can be little doubt that this organization of the Reformed
churches added another element of strife to the contest between the
two religions. The Romish clergy naturally abhorred it, as a sign
of the increasing power and boldness of the Reformed party; while
the statesmen of the day could not but look upon it with suspicion
as a sort of _imperium in imperio_--a dangerous rival to the
civil power, and savoring of rebellion, inasmuch as it ignored the
headship alike of pope and king, acknowledging that of God alone. Men
did not take the trouble to examine closely into the causes of their
dislike: they felt instinctively that such an organization proclaimed
the sovereignty of the people, and that the doctrine might easily be
extended from spiritual to temporal matters. The subsequent history
of the chief Calvinistic churches shows that this instinctive hatred
was not altogether unreasonable. In Switzerland and Holland, in
England and in North America, wherever this organization has been able
to control the political power, a republic has followed. These are
indeed the parts of the world where liberty flourishes most, and for
this noble fruit we may well love the tree that bore it; but in the
sixteenth century, the tendency of society was toward despotism, not
toward self-government; and the statesmen of Europe must be excused
if they were not clear-sighted enough to see that the new movement
must inevitably succeed, or wise enough to become the leaders and
controllers of the popular feelings. And so far it may be doubted
whether Calvin’s influence in France was altogether for good, and
whether the Reformed Church would not have struck deeper root in that
country, if its organization had been less antagonistic. By separating
itself entirely from antiquity, it risked a doubtful good for a certain
evil. As church-government is not a matter of faith but of discipline,
those have much to answer for who array Christians in hostile ranks on
a secondary matter.

The news of this synod and the merciful tendency of the Parliament
inflamed Henry’s orthodoxy to such an extent that he issued an edict
(June, 1559) more terrible even than those which had gone before.
It was dated from Ecouen, a castle belonging to the constable, and
situated about four leagues north of Paris. By that decree all
convicted Lutherans were to be punished with death--instant and without
the chance of remission. It was registered by all the Parliaments
without any limitation or modification whatsoever, and the judges were
forbidden, under severe penalties, to diminish the pains of the edict,
as they had lately been in the habit of doing. Such terrible powers
could scarcely have failed completely to eradicate heresy, if they
had been carried out as Henry II. intended they should be. But there
was a providence watching over France, by which the religionists were
unexpectedly saved from the jaws of the lion.

One of the regulations of the treaty of Cateau-Cambresis was that
Philip II.--now a widower through the death of Mary of England in
the preceding November--should marry Henry’s sister, Elizabeth of
Valois, then just turned of thirteen. The betrothal was to take place
at Paris, and thither came the Duke of Alva, attended by a numerous
suite of nobles and gentlemen. Even at such a time, when we might
suppose the king entirely occupied with nuptial festivities--for his
sister Margaret was also to be married--he proposed a crusade against
Geneva, “that sink of all corruption,”[79] and, but a few hours before
his death, he had given Montgomery instructions about an expedition
on a grand scale into the Pays de Caux for the extermination of the
Reformed. But the finger of God was upon him.

On the 26th June,[80] the Spanish marriage was celebrated, the Duke of
Alva acting as proxy for Philip II. Magnificent rejoicings followed
the ceremony, and a tournament was held in the lists erected at the
end of the Rue St. Antoine. It must have been a grand sight, that
old historic street. In front of the palace of the Tournelles stood
a gallery in which sat the youthful Queen of Spain under a canopy of
blue silk, ornamented with the device of her husband whom she had
not yet seen. Around her were grouped men destined to become famous
in history: Alva, the Prince of Orange, and Count Egmont. Catherine
sat in a gallery apart, with Mary Stuart on her right, and Margaret,
affianced to the Duke of Savoy, on her left. The king had declared his
intention of entering the lists, in order to display his skill before
the Spanish grandees. As if foreseeing evil, the queen besought him
to forego the dangerous pastime; but, confident in himself, he only
laughed at her fears. After two successful encounters with the Dukes of
Savoy and Guise, he challenged Gabriel de Lorges, Count of Montgomery.
De Lorges was captain of Henry’s Scotch guard, and had been sent to
Scotland by Francis I. in 1545, in command of the troops dispatched
to the assistance of the queen-regent Mary of Guise. In the first
course the advantage lay with the count, and the king, chafed by such a
partial discomfiture, challenged him to try another turn. The queen and
Marshal de Vieilleville entreated him to be satisfied, and Montgomery
declined a second encounter. But Henry would take no refusal. Once more
they met; their lances were shivered, but both retained their seats.
Again the trumpets sounded, again they spurred their horses, when
Montgomery’s lance struck the king’s helmet, knocked off the plume,
and snapped in two, a splinter from the lower portion of the shaft
entering his right eye. There was a loud shriek from the royal gallery,
which for a moment distracted the attention of the spectators from
the king, who had lost all command over his horse, and was reeling in
his saddle. The attendants were hardly quick enough to save him from
falling to the ground. His helmet was loosed and the splinter pulled
out. It was “of a good bigness,” says the English embassador, who was
an eye-witness.[81] “Nothing else was done to him upon the field;
but I noted him to be very weak, and to have the feeling of all his
limbs almost benumbed; for being carried away as he lay along, nothing
covered but his face, he moved neither hand nor foot, but lay as one
amazed. There was marvelous great lamentation made for him, and weeping
of all sorts, both men and women.” The wound proved more serious than
Throckmorton had imagined: Henry never left his bed again. Twice he
received the last sacraments of the Church, and calling for his son
Francis, “commended the Church and the people to his care.” After an
interval of repose--for the exertion of uttering these few words was
almost too great for him--he added: “Above all things, remain steadfast
in the true faith.”[82] Henry II. died on the 10th of July, leaving
behind him four sons, three of whom wore the crown of France. He also
left three daughters and a bastard son, Henry of Angoulême, who cruelly
distinguished himself at the massacre of St. Bartholomew.

The Protestants were accused of rejoicing at Henry’s death: they not
only made songs upon it, but “offered thanks, or rather blasphemies,
to God, daring to say that the Almighty had struck him under the walls
of the Bastille, where he detained the innocent in prison.”[83] It is
possible that there may be some foundation for this charge, for it
requires a great amount of true Christian feeling to make the victims
forbear from exulting at the removal of their persecutor by what seems
to them the judgment of God. In his dedicatory epistle of the _Psalms
done into French Verse_, Beza thus paints the second Henry:

    Je vois un masque avec sa maigre mine
    Qui fait trembler les lieux où il chemine.

But the “Lutherans” did not tremble: they bore their testimony with
Christian resolution, and acted up to the noble lines in the same poem:

    S’il faut servir au Seigneur de témoins,
    Mourons, mourons, louans Dieu pour le moins.
    Au départir de ces lieux misérables,
    Pour traverser aux cieux tant désirables.
    _Que les tyrans soient de nous martyrer
    Plutôt lassés, que nous de l’endurer._

The sincerity of Catherine’s grief for the loss of her husband has
been much doubted, but without sufficient cause. To a woman of her
temper the change wrought in her position by widowhood must at first
have been hard to bear. She certainly felt as much for her husband
while living, as such selfish natures can feel, and commemorated her
bereavement and regret in the ornaments of her palace of the Tuileries,
where the broken mirrors, plumes reversed, and scattered jewelry carved
on certain columns have been regarded as emblems of her sorrow.[84] A
garrulous contemporary (whom we shall have frequent occasion to quote),
lamenting the death of Henry II., praises him particularly for the
discipline he introduced into the army,[85] which was such “that the
peasants hardly deigned to shut the doors of their cellars, granaries,
chests, or other lock-up places for fear of the soldiers, who conducted
themselves most becomingly. When billeted in the villages, they would
not venture to touch the hens or other poultry without first asking
their host’s leave and paying for them.”[86] It is a pity to spoil
so Arcadian a story; but if it is true, there must have been a sad
falling off in the military discipline in a few months, for Francis II.
writes in 1560 to the Duke of Aumale, then in Burgundy, “to punish the
men-at-arms and archers who had lived without paying.”[87]




                              CHAPTER III.

                         REIGN OF FRANCIS II.

                             [1559–1560.]

   Catherine de Medicis--The Duke of Guise and the Cardinal of
   Lorraine--St. André--Anthony of Navarre and Condé--Coligny and
   Andelot--Disgrace of Montmorency--Persecuting Edicts--Execution
   of Du Bourg--Discontent in France--Edict of Chambord--La
   Renaudie--The Meeting at Nantes--Tumult of Amboise--Bloody
   Reprisals--Castelnau’s Trial and Execution--The Duke’s
   Viands--Aubigné and his Son--Grace of Amboise--Regnier
   de la Planche--Renewal of Persecutions--L’Hopital made
   Chancellor--Edict of Romorantin--Religious and Political
   Malcontents--Abuse of the Pulpit--The Tiger--General
   Lawlessness--Huguenot Violence--Demand for a Council--Montbrun
   and Mouvans--L’Hopital’s Inaugural Address--Les Politiques--The
   Notables at Fontainebleau--Montluc and Marillac--Meeting
   at Nerac--Address presented to Anthony--The Court at
   Orleans--Arrest and Trial of Condé--Death of Francis II.


Francis II., husband of the beautiful and unfortunate Mary Stuart, had
only reached his sixteenth year when he ascended the throne (10th July,
1559).[88] On the very day of his father’s funeral he gratified his
mother’s ruling passion by assuring her that all authority should be in
her hands, and that she should administer the government in his name.
But she had to hold her own against unscrupulous rivals; and in those
rude days the spindle had very little chance against the sword, unless
it were aided by dissimulation. We shall see that Catherine met force
with craft, proving herself at times more than a match for all her
rivals. She soon found that she had no chance with the queen-consort,
who used all her influence in behalf of the house of Lorraine. In a
letter to her daughter Elizabeth she says: “God has deprived me of your
father, whom I loved so dearly, as you well know, and has left me with
three children and in a divided kingdom. I have no one in whom I can
trust: all have some private end to serve.” Mary Stuart behaved to her
with all the insolence of youth and beauty, calling her a Florentine
shop-keeper,[89] and Catherine returned contempt for contempt.

It will be impossible to understand the stormy period upon which we
are now entering, unless we know something of the parties into which
France, as well as the court, was divided, and of the individuals at
their head. There were in reality only two parties, but it will be
more convenient to consider them as represented by the four houses of
Guise, Bourbon, Montmorency, and Chatillon. The most formidable of
these claimants of the government was the first--the family of Guise,
to which Mary Stuart belonged on her mother’s side. The power of this
house dates from the reign of Francis I. Genealogists delight to trace
its origin back to Charlemagne, and even to Priam, King of Troy: with
about equal truth in both cases. The chief of the family was Claude,
son of that Réné, Duke of Lorraine, who defeated and slew Charles
the Bold under the walls of Nancy. Being a younger son, he had gone
to the French court in search of fortune, and the search was not in
vain. He married Antoinette of Bourbon, a descendant of Louis IX.,
and dying, left six sons and four daughters, and an income of 600,000
livres, about equivalent to 160,000_l._ sterling. The eldest
of his sons was Francis, Duke of Guise, now in his fortieth year, a
skillful, violent, and unscrupulous soldier. He kept up an almost royal
establishment; and when his steward represented to him that the best
way of getting out of his pecuniary embarrassments would be to retrench
his expenditure, and that he would do well to dismiss a number of
poor gentlemen who lived at his expense, he replied: “It is true I
do not want them, but they want me.” He was exceedingly popular in
Paris, ever ready to listen to the complaints of the humblest citizen;
and was beloved by his soldiers, for he never failed to recompense
any remarkable exploit. After the surprise of Calais he appointed one
Captain Gourdan to be governor, passing over many officers of higher
rank; and when these murmured at the preference, the duke justified
his choice. “Captain Gourdan is very useful,” he said, “to guard the
place he helped to take, and where he left one of his legs during the
assault. You have two legs, gentlemen, with which you can go and seek
your fortune elsewhere.” He was cool in the midst of danger, brave
as his own sword, and even his name was a terror to his enemies. At
Terouenne, the Spaniards were checked in the very moment of victory by
shouts of “Guise! Guise!” Above all, the family of Lorraine professed
to be the champions of orthodoxy, and Duke Francis in particular seems
to have entertained an insurmountable aversion for heresy in every
form. He possessed almost every advantage that fortune can shower
upon a man. He was above the middle height, with oval face, large
eyes, and dark complexion, but his beard and hair were reddened by
exposure. He was not a fluent speaker, although he could use the right
word at the right time. He married Anne of Este, daughter of Renée of
France, granddaughter of Louis XII., and first cousin of Henry II.--a
connection which will partly account for the ambitious schemes of his
son.

The other members of the Lorraine family were Charles, the cardinal;
Claude, Duke of Aumale, who married Louisa de Brézé, eldest daughter of
Diana of Poitiers; Francis, grand-prior of Malta; Louis, Archbishop of
Sens and afterward cardinal; and René, Marquis of Elbœuf; besides three
sisters, one of whom married, first, Louis of Orleans, and second,
James V. of Scotland, to whom she bore a daughter, the unhappy Mary
Stuart of Scottish history. When they were at court, the four younger
brothers usually waited upon the cardinal at his rising, and then all
five proceeded to pay their respects to the duke, by whom they were
conducted to the king.

Charles, better known as the Cardinal of Lorraine, was one of the
wealthiest ecclesiastics of the day. In addition to his share of his
father’s large fortune, he possessed benefices yielding him a yearly
income of 300,000 livres.[90] This prelate, whom Pius V. called “the
Ultramontane Pope,” was a man of unbounded ambition, strong passions,
great craft, and such fertility of expedients, that his enemies
declared he must have a familiar spirit at his elbow. He was a graceful
speaker, and of goodly presence,[91] but such an arrant coward, that
(like Horace) he used to make a jest of it. Charles IX. gave him
permission to be attended by an armed guard even to the steps of the
altar, intermixing the smell of gunpowder with the odor of incense.[92]
His character has probably been much distorted. He had enemies
everywhere, and, in an unscrupulous age, slander and falsehood were
ready weapons to damage a rival. He was not so bad as many churchmen of
his time; for if he was profligate, he was not profligate openly. He
kept neither hawks nor hounds; he sang mass often, fasted regularly,
wore sackcloth, and always said grace before his meals. Claude de
Saintes, who was in almost daily attendance upon him for sixteen years,
speaks of the mortifications of his life, and denies his excessive
timidity.[93] Contarini, the Venetian ambassador, extols his virtuous
habits, so unlike those of other French cardinals; and Giovanni
Soranzo, writing seven years later (1558) says: “He is not much
beloved; he is far from truthful, naturally deceitful and covetous,
but _full of religion_.”[94] The religion thus praised was one of
forms only.

There is a letter of his in the public library at Rouen, addressed to
the French embassador to the court of Spain, in which, speaking of his
retirement to his diocese of Rheims during the season of Lent, he says:
“I have nothing to write about but prayers and preaching, in which I
am busied, instructing my little flock, whereat I assure you I take
as much pleasure as I once did in the cares and toils of court, and
I feel such sweetness and repose, that the desire to return to court
is far from me.”[95] This “world forgetting by the world forgot” is
too common with statesmen under a cloud to be taken literally. The
cardinal was vindictive as churchmen (and women) alone can be, and so
violent that he often marred his brother’s plans. The intoxication of
prosperity had made him intolerable.[96] Nor did his religion prevent
him from being covetous: he has been charged with robbing his uncle’s
creditors by taking his property, and with appropriating the estate of
Dampierre, which belonged to Treasurer Duval; that of Meudon, which
belonged to Cardinal Sanguin-Meudon; and that of Marchais, which
belonged to the Sire of Longueval. He also took up the mortgaged city
of Chevreuse without paying for it; and rich as he had become through
these exactions, he never paid his debts. He was a shameless pluralist,
holding at once the archiepiscopal sees of Lyons, Rheims, Sens, and
Narbonne, the bishoprics of Metz, Toul, Verdun, Terouenne, Luçon,
Alby, and Valence, and the abbeys of Fécamp, Clugny, and Marmoutier.
The last-named abbey he obtained by force. Hurant de Chiverny being
unwilling to resign, the cardinal shut him up in the Bastille, where he
died, and then took his abbey. In despite of his greediness the French
clergy had a boundless devotion for him.[97]

Among the chief adherents of the Lorraine party were the Duke of
Nemours, Brissac, and Jacques d’Albon, Marshal of St. André. The latter
had been a great favorite with Henry II., who loaded him with presents.
He was brave, insinuating in address, magnificent in disposition,
greedy, and always in want of money. He received the order of the
Garter from Edward VI., to whom he had been sent with the decoration of
St. Michael.

Another competitor for the government was Anthony of Bourbon, first
prince of the blood. He traced his descent from Louis IX., who left
two sons, Philip III. and Robert: from the former descended the house
of Valois, from the latter the house of Bourbon. Of this there were
two branches--Vendome and Montpensier. Anthony was the head of the
elder branch, but his younger brother, Louis of Condé, was its most
distinguished member. The family had lost much of its wealth and
influence--especially among the populace, who are always the first to
take up and the last to discard a personal prejudice--in consequence
of the treason of the Constable of Bourbon in the reign of Francis
I., but they were still powerful enough to venture to aspire to the
crown. Anthony, Duke of Vendome, as he was generally styled before
his marriage with Joan of Navarre,[98] was frank and affable, but
irresolute and deficient in moral courage; he was of noble presence,
fond of dress, and the “mirror of fashion” among the courtiers.
Brave in the field, he wanted energy in the council-chamber; he was
vacillating in religious principles, and of loose private morals. Thus
he became a mere tool in the hands of others, and though trusted by no
one, was courted for the splendor and prestige of his name. His only
aim in life seemed to be to exchange his petty nominal sovereignty of
Navarre for a real kingdom no matter where.

Louis, Prince of Condé, now in his twenty-ninth year, and the youngest
of the family, was the reverse of his brother Anthony. High-shouldered,
short, ungraceful, and at first sight ill-adapted either for court or
camp, he shone in both. He had shared with the Duke of Guise the honor
of defending Metz, and had rallied the flying troops after the defeat
at St. Quentin. From policy he seems early to have adopted the Reformed
religion, though he took no pains to live up to its principles. The
great Reformed party was to him a means of power and advancement. By
his marriage with Eleanor de Roye, the richest heiress in France,
he united against the Guises the powerful houses of Montmorency,
Chatillon, and Rochefoucault--the latter being connected with the royal
line of Navarre.

A third brother of this family was Charles, Archbishop of Rouen and
Cardinal of Bourbon, a weak man, not overburdened with sense, who
adhered to the Church of Rome. To the younger branch of the same house
belonged two brothers, the Duke of Montpensier and the Prince of
Roche-sur-Yon, both inclined to the Reform.

  [Illustration: GASPARD DE COLIGNY, ADMIRAL OF FRANCE.]

But besides the Duke of Guise and Anthony of Navarre, there was a
man of noble birth and large family influence--the representative of
a great party in the kingdom--whom it was not safe to neglect. This
was Gaspard de Coligny, Governor of Picardy, Admiral of France, and
second son of the Count of Chatillon. The Chatillons were originally a
sovereign house, and Gaspard’s father had been a marshal of France. He
had married Louisa of Montmorency, sister to the constable, and thus
became allied to one of the noblest houses in France. The eldest son of
this marriage was Cardinal Odet, the youngest François de Chatillon,
sieur of Andelot.[99] Gaspard, Count of Coligny, was born in 1518, and
in his earlier years was very intimate with Francis of Guise (then
Prince of Joinville). He was present at the battle of Renti, all the
glory of which the Lorraine party wished to ascribe to Prince Francis.
Coligny thought “he might have done better,” and this remark being
exaggerated by false friends, the coolness already beginning to exist
between them, and which was the work of Diana of Poitiers, gradually
increased until they became totally estranged. The admiral was at
one time a great favorite with Henry II. and the sharer of all his
pleasures. He was Governor of the Isle of France, captain of a hundred
men-at-arms (an expensive honor), and knight of the order of St.
Michael. He had been made prisoner at the battle of St. Quentin (1557),
and it was during the consequent enforced retirement from public life
that he strengthened those religious convictions which he had first
learned at his mother’s knee. Andelot, the younger brother, was the
first convert to the new opinions. Made prisoner in 1551, and detained
in the castle of Milan until 1556, he employed his long captivity in
studying the works of Calvin: “Such are the sad fruits of leisure and
idleness,” says Brantome with a sigh. He was taken with his brother
at the siege of St. Quentin, but made his escape, and was present at
the surprise of Calais. When he visited his vast estates in Brittany,
he encouraged two Reformed ministers in his suite to preach openly
wherever he halted, thus laying the foundations of many a Christian
church in the north-west of France. Returning to the court where he
was in high favor with Henry II., he was denounced by the Cardinal
of Lorraine as a heretic and impudent violator of the edicts. To the
king’s questions Andelot replied that he had never gone to the Pré
aux Clercs, although the religionists did nothing there but sing the
Psalms of David, and offer up prayers for the welfare of the king and
the safety of the kingdom. He confessed that he had forwarded books
of consolation to his brother the admiral, and had countenanced the
preaching of a good and sound doctrine, deduced from Holy Scripture.
“Your Majesty,” he continued, “has loaded me with such favor that
I have spared neither body nor goods in your service, and I will
continue to spare neither so long as I live. But having thus done my
duty, your Majesty will not think it strange if I employ the rest of
my time in caring for my own salvation. It is many years since I have
been to mass, and I shall never go again. I entreat your Majesty to
leave my conscience alone, and permit me to serve you with my body
and goods, which are wholly at your disposal.” Henry II., who could
bear no contradiction, flew into a passion, and seizing him by the
collar of St. Michael that was round his neck, exclaimed: “But I did
not give you this to use it thus--keeping away from mass and refusing
to follow my religion.” “I did not know then, what it was to be a
Christian,” answered Andelot, “or I should not have accepted it on such
conditions.” Henry could contain himself no longer. He seized a platter
which lay before him and threw it across the table, but it struck the
dauphin; he then drew his sword upon Andelot, who was hurried away by
the guards and afterward shut up in the castle of Melun. From prison
he wrote to the church of Paris: “_Christ shall be magnified in my
body, whether it be by life or by death. For me to live is Christ, and
to die is gain._” He also addressed a letter to the king: “Sire,”
he wrote, “if I have done any thing to displease you, I beseech you in
all humility to forgive me, and to believe that, the obedience I owe to
God and my conscience excepted, you can command nothing in which I will
not expose my goods, my body, and my life. And what I ask of you, Sire,
is not, thanks be to God, through fear of death, and still less from a
desire to recover my liberty, for I hold nothing so dear that I would
not resign it willingly for the salvation of my soul and God’s glory.”
He was alike unmoved by the tender entreaties of his wife, Claude de
Rieux, and by the prudent advice of his brother the cardinal, who urged
him to satisfy Henry II. if it were only by an apparent submission.
At length, however, he consented to hold a conference with a learned
doctor of the Sorbonne, and to hear mass in his presence, but without
previous abjuration. Calvin, who had written exhorting Andelot to be
firm, now reproached him for his weakness; but it was easy for the
Reformer of Geneva, who was in a place of safety, and who had never
been tested by the fires of persecution, to censure one whose faith was
weak, and whose affectionate, loyal nature was worked upon by those who
were dearest to him.

But Andelot’s elder brother, Gaspard, was made of sterner stuff. While
in prison the Bible was his constant companion and chief study. Calvin,
who had probably heard of his conversion through Andelot, wrote to him:
“I shall use no long exhortation to confirm you in patience, for I have
heard that our gracious God hath so strengthened you by the virtue of
his Spirit, that I have rather occasion to return thanks to him than
to excite you more. Only I would pray you to remember that God, by
sending you this affliction, hath wished to draw you out of the crowd,
that you may the better listen to him.” In the end, Gaspard adopted
the Reformed creed, and became the idol of the Reformed party. In his
wife, Charlotte de Laval, he found an affectionate sympathizer in his
religious opinions, and a support during many an hour of distress. He
was of the middle height, and well-proportioned; he stooped a little
as if in meditation, and his countenance was always calm and serious,
except on the battle-field, where (as we are told) his face lighted
up, and he would chew the tooth-pick which he used to carry in his
mouth.[100]

His intrepidity was remarkable, even among the fearless men of his day.
“Do not go to Blois to the king and the queen-mother,” his friends
said to him; “be sure there is some plot at the bottom.” “Yes, I will
go,” he answered; “it is better to die by one bold stroke than to live
a hundred years in fear.” He was not a fortunate commander, but was
so fertile in resource, and so rapidly did he reorganize his beaten
troops, that he was said to be more formidable after a defeat than
before it.[101]

At the death of Henry II. the Constable Montmorency was at the head
of the government, but he now learned that his influence had expired
with his old master. When a deputation from the Parliament of Paris
waited upon Francis II. to congratulate him on his accession, he told
them that he had selected his uncles the Cardinal of Lorraine and the
Duke of Guise to conduct the public affairs, and that to them they
must apply in future. Montmorency struggled for awhile, but finding
no support, he acted upon the king’s suggestion and retired to his
estate at Chantilly. He was deprived of the high-stewardship of the
household, and the office was conferred on the Duke of Guise, who,
besides assuming the war department, was lord chamberlain and master
of the hounds. The department of finance was assigned to the cardinal,
and thus the two brothers disposed of all France. “Not a crown could be
spent or a soldier moved,” says Buchanan, “without their consent.”[102]
Catherine sympathized with Montmorency in his disgrace. In a letter to
him she says: “I very much wish your health might permit you to remain
at court; for then I believe things would be better conducted than
now, and that you would aid me to deliver the king from tutelage, for
you have always desired that your master should be obeyed by all his
subjects.”

The constable, foreseeing the change that was likely to take place in
the new reign, had profited by the last few days of the late king’s
life, to urge Anthony of Navarre to come to court and assert his rights
as prince of the blood to be one of the new council. A meeting of the
chiefs of the Bourbon, or opposition, party was accordingly summoned
at Vendome to decide on the line of conduct to be pursued. Condé,
Coligny, Andelot, the Vidame of Chartres (Francis of Vendome), and
Prince Porcien, all relations and friends, attended the summons. In the
interval the Guises had been installed in office, and the question now
arose, how their government should be resisted. Condé, Andelot, and the
Vidame were for war; the admiral advised delay, as the queen-mother
would be sure to join them, if she found securities on their side, and
in that case the government must fall. Moderate counsels prevailed, and
Anthony, after much vacillation, started for the court; but Francis II.
refused to see him except in the presence of his ministers, who offered
him every indignity. At length Condé joined him, and instilling some of
his own spirit into his brother, urged him to assert his claim. It was
granted after some little demur; but he was too much in the way, and
to get rid of him honorably he was commissioned to escort the Princess
Elizabeth to Spain. He fell into the trap so cunningly laid for him,
and the Guises were once more sole masters. Catherine was still
ostensibly consulted, and the royal edicts continued to run in this
form: “It being the good pleasure of my lady the queen-mother, We also
approving the things which she advises, are content and command that,”
etc.

Whatever little influence she possessed was exerted to drive her
late rival Diana from court, and force her to disgorge much of her
ill-gotten wealth. At her instance, the king wrote to the fallen
favorite: “That in consequence of her evil influence (mali officii)
over the late king his father, she deserved severe punishment; but,
in his royal clemency, he would trouble her no farther, but she must
return to him all the jewels that had been given her by the king his
father.”[103]

The accession of the young king produced no amelioration in the
condition of the Lutherans. “In the midst of all these great matters
and business,” writes Throckmorton, “they here do not stay to make
persecution and sacrifice of poor souls. The 12th of this month [July]
two men and one woman were executed for religion.” This was a remnant
of the last reign. That the new reign would not be more tolerant was
shown by a proclamation issued the next day, “by sound of trumpet, that
all such as should speak either against the Church or the religion now
used in France, should be brought before the several bishops, and they
to do execution upon them.”[104] The edict of Villars-Cotteret (4th
September) forbade all “unlawful” meetings, whether by night or by day;
the houses in which such meetings were held were to be pulled down, and
the proprietors held to bail for their future good behavior. Another
edict (that of Blois, November, 1559) punished all who attended the
assemblies with death “without hope of pardon or mitigation.” By other
decrees (13th November) a reward of 100 crowns and a free pardon were
offered to any person who should give information of a secret meeting.
Nor were these severe measures confined to Paris. On 23d September,
1559, the magistrates of Poitiers issued an order forbidding religious
assemblies, enjoining all strangers to leave the town in twenty-four
hours, and innkeepers to send in lists of the lodgers in their houses.
There was to be no preaching in public or private, the citizens were
to give neither fire nor water to the pastors whom any body might
arrest, they were to be tried for sedition, and the lightest penalty
was confiscation of goods.[105] The result was that the country was
overrun with spies and informers, and the charge of heresy was often
made the means of gratifying private revenge.

Meanwhile neither Henry’s death nor the assassination of President
Minard by a man named Stuart,[106] had any power to suspend the trial
of Du Bourg. He made use of all the forms of the court to find some
loop-hole of escape, and lodged appeal after appeal, all of which were
decided against him. At length, on the 23d of December, 1559, the
long contest was brought to an end.[107] After sentence of death had
been delivered, he said: “I am sent to the stake, because I will not
confess that justification, grace, and sanctification are to be found
elsewhere than in Christ. This is the cause of my death, that I have
embraced the pure doctrine of the Gospel. Extinguish your fires and
return unto the Lord with real newness of heart, that your sins may be
blotted out. Let the wicked man forsake his way and turn unto the Lord.
Think upon these things; I am going to my death.” So great were the
apprehensions of the court of an attempt at rescue, that the streets
were barricaded and lined with armed men, and nearly 600 soldiers were
stationed round the Grève, the Tyburn of those days. Du Bourg met his
fate like a Christian hero: on reaching the place of execution he
said: “Six feet of earth for my body, and the boundless heaven for my
soul, are the only possession I shall soon have.” Then turning to the
spectators he said: “I am going to die, not because I am a thief and
a murderer, but because I love the Gospel. I rejoice to give my life
in so good a cause.” His last words were: “My God, my God, forsake
me not, lest I forsake thee.” The executioner then adjusted the rope
round his neck, uttered the terrible formula: _Messire le roi vous
salue_, and Anne du Bourg was a corpse. His lifeless body was
afterward burned to ashes. The royal historiographer, who rarely spares
a heretic, writes amplifying the words of the centurion at the foot of
the cross. “His execution inspired many persons with the conviction
that the faith possessed by so good a man could not be wrong.”[108]
Florimond de Remond, the historian of heresy, and at that time a young
man, was an eye-witness of Du Bourg’s death. “We burst into tears (he
says) in our colleges on returning from the execution, and pleaded his
cause after his decease, cursing those unrighteous judges, who had so
unjustly condemned him. His preaching at the gallows did more evil
than a hundred ministers could have done.”[109] Chandieu, pastor of
the church of Paris, shows us how it was that these executions made so
many converts. “Most people like what they see hated with such extreme
hatred. They think themselves fortunate in knowing what leads others
to the gibbet, and return home from the public places edified by the
constancy of those whom they have themselves reduced to ashes.”[110]

It is not necessary to dwell upon the sufferings or to count up the
number of the victims. Regnier de la Planche describes from personal
knowledge the lawless state of the capital. “From August to March
there was nothing but arrests and imprisonments, sacking of houses,
proclamations of outlawry, and executions of the members of the
religion with cruel torments.”[111] Numbers hastened to escape from
Paris, and sold their goods to procure the means of flight. The
streets were filled with carts laden with furniture, the houses were
abandoned to plunderers, the magistrates conniving at the wrong, so
that “the poor became rich and the rich poor.” We need not point out
what an incentive this was to denunciation, and how often men must
have been condemned as heretics whose only fault was their wealth,
or their having offended some neighbor. A remarkable passage from
Theodore Beza shows how wide and general was the ruin caused by this
terrorism. “Poor little children [the children of martyred Reformers],
who had no bed but the flag-stones, went crying piteously through the
streets with hunger, and yet no one dared relieve them, for fear they
should be accused of heresy. So that they were less cared for than
dogs.” The pettiest vexations were employed against the Reformers.
Crosses and images, with tapers always burning before them, were set
up at the corner of every street, and round them gathered a crowd of
noisy worshipers, singing, praying, and beating their breasts. If any
one refused to take off his hat as he passed, or to put money into
the alms-box before the shrine, some dirty priest or monk would raise
the cry of “heretic,” and the poor Reformer would be pelted, beaten,
and perhaps dragged through the mire to prison. “Death was made a
carnival,” says an eloquent Frenchman. It was indeed a show in which
the mob--and the same mob reappeared in 1792--feasted their eyes on
the sufferings of the Protestants, and often would not allow them to
be strangled before they were burned, lest their agonies should be
diminished. One Barbeville was thus tortured contrary to the sentence
condemning him to be hanged first; but at the same time they rescued
a thief from the gallows, “as if they desired to condemn Christ and
deliver Barabbas.” To call a man “Lutheran” was to doom him to certain
death, often too without any form of justice. By this lynch law
many a man worked out his own private revenge: the debtor paid his
creditor.[112] Even children dipped their hands in the martyrs’ blood
and boasted of it.

The treaty of Cateau-Cambresis had left a number of soldiers of every
rank without employment and without resources. There was a public debt
of forty-eight million livres, the interest of which was paid with
difficulty; the treasury was empty, and there were no ready means of
filling it. Perhaps the persecution of the heretics, which was always
attended with confiscation of property, may not have been entirely
unconnected with the financial difficulties of the royal household.
But there certainly was no money, and when the disbanded soldiers
applied to the Cardinal of Lorraine for their arrears of pay, he not
only threatened to hang them, but erected two gibbets before the gate
of the palace of St. Germains, or, as others say, of Fontainebleau. It
was a threat as unwise as it was cruel, and nearly cost the Guises very
dear. The malcontent soldiery joined the persecuted Huguenots--each
party feeling a common hatred against the “Lorrainers,” and resolved to
get rid of their common enemy. It has been asserted, but without any
solid grounds, that Catherine looked favorably on this coalition, she
being equally desirous of freeing herself from both duke and cardinal.
But, whatever she may have suspected, she certainly knew nothing of
what was actually preparing. In these humaner and more civilized days,
obnoxious ministers and administrators are got rid of by dismissal,
or by a vote in Parliament: in ruder times they were removed by
revolt or assassination. In the middle of the sixteenth century the
government of France was a despotism moderated by the dagger. Even
within a month of the death of Henry II. a union of the malcontents was
meditated, the Reformed only holding back until they should be assured
of its lawfulness. They consulted Calvin, who declared that “it would
be better they should all perish a hundred times over rather than
expose the name of Christianity and of the Gospel to the disgrace of
rebellion and bloodshed.” They were more successful with some German
divines, who thought “they might lawfully oppose the usurpation of
the Guises, even with arms, if the princes of the blood, their lawful
magistrates by birth, or even one of them, should be at their head.”

The discontent increased and grew bolder every day. “We will go and
complain to the king,” said the oppressed peasantry. As early as the
15th November, 1559, Killigrew wrote to Queen Elizabeth: “The king the
last day being on hunting, was (for what cause or upon what occasion
we know not) in such fear, as he was forced to leave his pastime, and
to leave the hounds uncoupled, and return to the court [at Blois].
Whereupon there was commandment given to the Scottish guard to wear
jackets of mail and pistols.”[113] And writing again at the end of
the year (29th December), he adds: “It is evident that the discontent
has reached a point when something desperate may be expected.” The
Guises knew this, and being conscious of the weak foundation on which
their authority rested, and fearing an insurrection, they forbade the
carrying of arms and the wearing of any kind of dress favorable to
the concealment of weapons.[114] At that time the ordinary cloak had
no sleeve, and reached to the middle of the calf of the leg, and the
large trunk hose were more than an ell and a half wide. This injunction
seems to have been binding only on the Protestants, and was intended to
prevent them from protecting themselves. That they sometimes did this
very effectually is proved by a little incident recorded by Killigrew.
Seventeen persons had been arrested at Blois “for the Word’s sake,” and
committed to the sergeants to be taken to Orleans for trial; but on the
road their escort was attacked by sixty men on horseback, who set them
all at liberty.

Although the Ordinance of Chambord (17th December, 1559), by
facilitating the trial of heretics and condemning to death all who
sheltered them, seemed intended to drive the Reformed to despair,
they as yet entertained no serious thoughts of rebellion. There were
not wanting men of their own class who preached the doctrine of
resistance,[115] yet none of the higher orders came forward as their
leaders. Without such champions they would be little better than an
undisciplined mob. At last, however, they found the man they wanted in
Bary de la Renaudie, a gentleman of a good family in Perigord, and a
soldier of some reputation--one of those daring men who always spring
up in troublous times. At one period attached to Francis of Guise, who
had helped him to escape from prison, he became his most violent enemy
in consequence of the duke’s barbarous cruelty to Gaspard de Heu, who
was allied to him by marriage.[116] Probably it was this enmity which
made him renounce his religion and join the Reformers. He was just
the man for getting up a conspiracy, and by his ability and address
soon won over great numbers in Switzerland as well as in France. He
constantly asserted that Calvin and Coligny approved of the design,
and that the Prince of Condé would declare himself at the proper
opportunity. As regards the two former, the statement is incorrect;
but Condé appears to have played an undecided part, “letting _I
dare not_ wait upon _I would_.”[117] The first meeting of the
conspirators was held at Nantes in February. It was a remote place, and
as the Parliament of Brittany was then assembled, their numbers would
not be noticed. In their articles or bond of agreement they swore to
respect the person of the king, but never to lay down their arms until
they had driven the Guises from power, brought them to trial (if not
worse),[118] and procured the suspension of every edict, both old and
new, against the Reformed, pending the assembly of the States-General.
Their plan was for each gentleman or captain, of whom there were
twenty, to collect a body of troops in his own district, and so to
arrange their march that they should all arrive at Blois at the same
time. The 6th of March was the appointed day, afterward changed to the
16th, when they hoped to find the Guises unprotected. It was an absurd
scheme, and could hardly fail to miscarry, even if it had not been
frustrated at the very outset by a circumstance which seems never to
have entered into the minds of the conspirators. The court removed from
the open town of Blois to the strong castle of Amboise on the Loire, in
accordance with arrangements which had been made some time before.[119]
That old royal residence had been forsaken by the court since the death
of Charles VIII. Its massive walls still tower boldly on the heights
above the river, and the cheerful little town clusters at their feet,
as if for protection. The Guises accompanied, or rather followed, the
king in perfect security: they did not so much as know that La Renaudie
was in the kingdom. They had heard rumors of plots, and warning letters
had been sent them from Spain, Italy, Germany, and Savoy; but nothing
reached them in a definite form until some days after their arrival at
Amboise, when one of La Renaudie’s friends[120] betrayed him to the
Cardinal of Lorraine. “The duke and the cardinal have discovered a
conspiracy _against themselves_, which they have bruited (to make
the matter more odious) to be meant only against the king; whereupon
they are in such fear as themselves do wear privy-coats [of mail], and
are in the night guarded with pistoliers and men in arms.

... On the 6th they watched all night long in the court, and the gates
of the town were kept shut.”[121] The cardinal was indeed thoroughly
frightened; but the duke, acting with great promptitude, strengthened
the garrison by troops hastily drawn together from every quarter. Still
the Guises were by no means free from apprehension, and Throckmorton
describes the condition of the little town in the middle of March: “The
17th, in the morning, about four of the clock, there arrived a company
of 150 horsemen well appointed, who approached the court gates and shot
off their pistolets at the church of the Bonhommes. Whereupon there was
such an alarm and running up and down in the court, as if the enemies
being encamped about them had sought to make an entry into the castle;
and there was crying ‘To horse! to horse!’ and a watch-word given by
shooting a harquebus that all men should be in readiness, and the drum
was striking. And this continued an hour and a half.” Sixty gentlemen
had bound themselves by a solemn oath to penetrate into Amboise during
the night, thirty of whom were to slip into the castle, and open one of
the gates to the other conspirators. But the duke was on the watch, and
had that gate walled up. Detachments of troops were stationed on the
roads leading to the town and along the banks of the Loire, by which
the various bands, coming up and ignorant of what had happened, were
captured or cut to pieces. In one of these encounters La Renaudie was
killed; his body was quartered and exposed at the four corners of the
bridge.

The Duke of Guise, who, so long as there appeared to be any danger,
had treated his prisoners with no undue severity, soon felt himself
strong enough to wreak a ferocious vengeance on his enemies. He and his
brother the cardinal, in the intoxication of their triumph, indulged
in excesses of murder that can hardly find a parallel except in the
massacre of St. Bartholomew, or the horrors of the French Revolution.
The streets of Amboise ran with blood; and when the public executioners
were wearied with decapitating so many victims, the remainder were
bound hand and foot and thrown into the river, thus anticipating the
frightful Noyades of 1793.[122] Throckmorton writes: “This heat caused
upon a sudden a sharp determination to minister justice. The two men
taken were the same forenoon hanged, and two others for company; and
afterward the same day divers were taken, and in the evening nine more
were hanged: all which died very assuredly and constantly for religion,
in singing of psalms. Divers were drowned in sacks, and some appointed
to die upon the wheel.... The 17th there were twenty-two of these
rebels drowned in sacks, and the 18th at night twenty-five more. Among
all these which be taken there be eighteen of the bravest captains of
France.” Twelve hundred persons are computed to have perished in this
massacre. The Baron of Castelnau-Chalosse, and Bricquemaut, Count of
Villemangis, a Genevese refugee, had with others surrendered to the
Duke of Nemours on condition that their lives should be spared; but
the Guises were not the men to be bound by such a condition, when
even Olivier the chancellor, not altogether a bad man, declared that
“a prince was not required to keep his word to a rebel subject.” The
Duke of Nemours had given a written pledge of safety, which, says
Vieilleville, “vexed him greatly, who was concerned only about his
signature; for if it had been his mere word, he would have been able
to give the lie at any time to any one who might reproach him with
it, and that without any exception, for the prince was brave and
generous.” Pretty morality for a gentleman! When Castelnau was under
examination he hesitated in some of his answers, upon which the Duke of
Guise bade him “Speak out; one would think you are afraid.” “Afraid!”
retorted the baron, “and where is the man so confident as not to be
afraid, on seeing himself encompassed by mortal enemies as I am, when
he has neither teeth nor nails with which to defend himself? In my
place you would be afraid too.” On being condemned for high treason
he remonstrated against the charge, not against the sentence, on
the ground that he had undertaken nothing against the king; that he
had merely leagued with a large portion of the nobility against the
Guises, and that “these must be made kings before he could be guilty of
lèze-majesté.”

Castelnau, like Coligny, had been taken prisoner by the Spaniards, and
had employed the long hours of his enforced inactivity in reading the
Bible. If it did not make him a Protestant, it shook his faith in the
Church of Rome. In the course of his examination at Amboise, Chancellor
Olivier taunted him with his “Puritanism.” Castelnau retorted: “When
I saw you on my return from Flanders, I told you how I had spent my
time, and you approved of it. We were then friends; why are we not so
now? Is it possible that you spoke with sincerity when you were not in
favor at court, and that now, in order to please a man you despise, you
are a traitor to God and your conscience?” The Cardinal of Lorraine
answered for the chancellor, upon which Castelnau appealed to Guise,
who replied that he knew nothing about theology. “Would to Heaven you
did,” said the baron; “for I esteem you well enough to think that if
you were as enlightened as your brother the cardinal, you would follow
better things.” A noble testimony to the character of the duke, who
somewhat churlishly rejoined that he understood nothing but cutting
off heads. Coligny and D’Andelot, as well as Francis II. and Mary,
entreated the duke and the cardinal to spare Castelnau’s life; but the
latter answered with a blasphemous oath: “He shall die, and no man in
France shall save him.” The baron died appealing to God, who would ere
long visit them with signal vengeance for the innocent blood they were
shedding. When Villemangis ascended the scaffold, he dipped his hands
in the blood of his comrades who had been executed before him, and
raising them toward heaven exclaimed: “Oh Lord! behold the blood of thy
children so unjustly shed; thou wilt avenge it.”

The Cardinal of Lorraine was the chief instigator of these murders: in
his excessive cowardice he could not think himself safe unless all his
enemies were killed. They threatened to _Stuart_ him--that is, to
shoot him with a poisoned bullet, as James Stuart had shot President
Minard; and one morning he found the following quatrain in his oratory:

    Garde-toi, Cardinal,
    Que tu ne sois traité
        A la Minarde
        D’une stuarde.[123]

Imagining every one must be as fond of blood as himself, he used to
conduct the young king and queen to the ramparts, or to the windows,
to witness the executions,[124] pointing out the most illustrious of
the victims and mocking at their agony. As they died almost all of them
with firmness and serenity, he bade Francis II. “look at those insolent
men, whom even death can not subdue. What would they not do with you,
if they were your masters?” One afternoon, for these executions usually
took place after dinner, for the amusement of the court, the Duchess
of Guise was present, but she could not endure the ghastly spectacle.
She nearly fainted away, and entering all pale and trembling into the
queen-mother’s closet, she exclaimed: “Oh, madame, what horrors! I
fear that a curse will come upon our house, and the innocent blood rest
upon our heads!”

The Duke of Longueville, who had been invited to Amboise, stayed
away under pretext of illness, but sent one of his gentlemen to make
his excuses. Guise was at table when the messenger arrived, and took
advantage of the opportunity to strike terror into the duke and all who
opposed the Lorraine faction. “Tell your master I am very well,” he
said, “and report to him the viands in which I indulge.” At the word a
tall, fine-looking man was brought in, a rope was immediately put round
his neck, and he was hanged to a bar of the window before the eyes of
the astonished gentleman.[125]

Whatever may have been the temporary success procured by this ferocious
victory, it disappointed the expectations of the Guises.[126] The moral
world is so constituted that crime sooner or later works out its own
punishment. “The butchers,” as the two Lorraine brothers were called,
had converted their victims into martyrs, and all over France a feeling
of resistance began to spring up that could not fail ere long to have a
violent termination. Most of those who suffered at Amboise were of the
Reformed religion; but there were others of the old faith who joined
the conspiracy out of dislike to the duke and the cardinal, and who
now began to think that no hope remained except in their swords. In
the market-place of Amboise, where most of the victims had been put
to death, Theodore Agrippa d’Aubigné was sworn, like young Hannibal,
to avenge the cause of his party. The elder D’Aubigné was taking the
boy to Paris, and passing through Amboise one fair-time, he saw the
ghastly heads of the conspirators still grinning horribly on the walls
and gates. Moved with indignation, he spurred his horse into the midst
of the assembled crowd, exclaiming: “The murderers! they have beheaded
France.” Being recognized as a Calvinist, he had to ride for his life,
and when he was out of danger he touched his son’s right hand: “My
boy,” he said, “do not spare your head to avenge the heads of those
honorable gentlemen. If you do, your father’s curse be upon you.” Young
Theodore never forgot this lesson, and his life was one long heroic, if
not always wise, devotion to the Reformed cause.

During the first terror inspired by the news of the conspiracy, an
attempt had been made to secure the neutrality of the Reformed by
issuing a proclamation to the effect, that “all persons (saving such
as be preachers) detained in prison on account of their religion,
should be immediately released”--on condition, however, that they lived
as good Catholics like the rest of the people. This act of grace was
issued (15th March) by the advice of Coligny, who having been hastily
summoned to Amboise (partly to try how far he was cognizant of the
plot), told the queen-mother plainly in a private audience that “the
Huguenots had so increased in number and were so exasperated that they
could not be induced to return to their duty, unless the persecutions
and violent measures of the administration were suspended.” Chancellor
Olivier was of the same opinion. “It is better to use mild measures
than strong ones,” he said. At the same time instructions were sent to
the Parliaments to make secret protests while registering the edict,
so as to render it nugatory. Six days after it was issued, the Duke of
Guise was named lieutenant-general (17th March, 1560). The pope sent
a special envoy to France complaining of the amnesty, and to point
out that “the true remedy for the disorders of the kingdom was to
proceed judicially against the heretics, and if their number was too
great, the king should employ the sword to bring his subjects back to
their duty.” He offered to assist in so good a work to the extent of
his ability, and to procure the support of the King of Spain and the
princes of Italy.

It was not Catherine’s policy to crush the Huguenots entirely, and she
appears to have taken some pains to conciliate them. In this tumult of
Amboise (which could hardly have been displeasing to her, considering
her antagonism to the Guises) she saw her opportunity, and sent for
Regnier de la Planche, that she might learn his opinion as to the
state of affairs. Regnier, who was a man of great political experience
and moderation, told her frankly that the religious persecutions had
armed many of the Huguenots, while the favor shown to the Guises
had increased the number of the discontented. He also argued that
a national council was the only means for settling the religious
differences. The advice was not very well received, and La Planche
nearly suffered for his plain-speaking. Coligny, who had left Amboise
to try and pacify Normandy, then almost in open rebellion, wrote to the
same effect to the queen-mother, advising also the assembling of the
States-General.

No sooner was the panic over and the Guises once more felt secure, than
the religious persecutions were renewed with all their former severity.
The old edicts against the Christaudins or Sacramentarians were
revived, and commissions were appointed to receive secret evidence. To
make the persecution more effectual, the Cardinal of Lorraine tried
once more to introduce all the forms of the Inquisition without the
name, and obtained a resolution of the royal council entrusting the
entire cognizance of heresy to the prelates of the Church, and ordering
that their sentence should be final, the heretics being handed over to
the secular arm for punishment. L’Hopital, the new chancellor, resisted
the encroachment on the broad grounds that the right of trial and
punishment of _all offenses_--whether against person, property,
or religion (except in the case of ecclesiastics)--lay with the king;
that the right of appeal to the royal tribunals could not be taken
away; and that the judgment on those appeals should be delivered by
lay judges. He succeeded thus far in establishing the axiom, that “no
power in the state possessed sovereign authority of life or death over
the subjects of such state, except the king.” But he was compelled
to yield in other points, and being of opinion that it is politic to
permit a small mischief to escape a greater, he gave an unwilling
consent to the edict of Romorantin (May, 1560), which declared that
the cognizance of heresy should remain with the bishops, who were to
proceed in the usual manner. This was a great sacrifice to intolerance,
but it really gave the bishops no new power. Other clauses declared all
persons attending conventicles guilty of high treason, and assigned
a reward of 500 crowns to informers; to which the singular provision
was appended, that all calumnious informers should be subjected to the
_peine du talion_, in other words, suffer the punishment to which
their victims were liable. To a certain extent this edict recognized
the complaints of the Reformers by ordering the bishops to reside
in their dioceses, and the parish priests to tend their flocks more
carefully, teach them properly, and live among them. The new chancellor
might well be proud of his work, the first hesitating step in the path
of toleration. The Parliament of Paris refused to register the decree
on the ground that it encroached on the civil power, and L’Hopital had
to struggle for ten days before he could overcome their resistance.
The fear of a repetition of the “tumult of Amboise” had frightened the
Cardinal of Lorraine into accepting the edict; but his brother Francis
bluntly declared he would never draw the sword in its defense. This was
quite in his style, for he hated the Reformed not only because they
were rebels against the Church, but because they were attached to the
Bourbon princes. Navarre, indeed, was not very formidable, it being
always possible to hold him in check by playing upon his selfishness;
but his brother, the Prince of Condé, was a high-spirited, clever,
resolute man, one to be kept down by all means.

In reading the history of this period it must be constantly borne in
mind, that the religious malcontents were often political malcontents
also,[127] their number being increased by all who hated the monopoly
of power so tenaciously held by the Guises. The small gentry, who in a
spirit of opposition had accepted the Reformed doctrines, brought a new
and fatal element into the movement. Despising Calvin’s advice to bear
injuries, and that opposition to lawful authority is a crime, they were
secretly preparing the means of resistance, which their ecclesiastical
organization greatly facilitated. The impetuous gentlemen and soldiers
returned insult for insult, and blow for blow. Thus day by day the
political character of the Huguenots[128] (as the Reformers were
called after the affair of Amboise) became more prominent. It was a
deplorable but almost inevitable result of the combination against the
house of Lorraine, and it proved the temporary destruction of French
Protestantism. Ere long France was divided into two hostile camps; and
although this will not excuse the harshness with which the Huguenots
were treated, it will in some measure account for it. The Romish party
were contending not only for religion but for supremacy, for place, for
authority. Who should govern the king and the state was a question now
quite as important as which faith was right, that of Geneva or of Rome?
The age was one of great superstition and ignorance, and the foulest
rumors were circulated against the Protestants, and greedily swallowed.
Claude Haton, who has left us a striking and truthful picture of his
time, supplies us with a curious illustration of the popular faith
touching the Huguenots. He says that mad dogs had decreased so much
during the last two years that people believed the devils had left
the dogs and entered into the Reformers.[129] The Catholics were by
no means scrupulous as to the weapons they employed to exasperate the
fierce passions of the lower classes. There were few who could read
the pamphlets, ballads, or broadsides which the printers poured forth
with astonishing profusion; but all could understand the rude wood-cuts
in which the Huguenots were represented as nailing iron shoes on the
bare feet of a pious hermit, or making a target of a priest nailed to
a cross. The pulpit was turned into an arena for abuse, whence the
monks, who were far more inveterate against the Reformers than the
secular clergy, inveighed with all the power of their lungs, and the
copiousness of their abusive vocabulary, against the new doctrines
and its professors. The Huguenots and their allies were not slow to
retaliate, and in fierce invective were by no means inferior to their
persecutors. The most notorious of their satires, or “libels,” was
that known as _The Tiger_,[130] written against the Cardinal of
Lorraine, and for selling which in the ordinary course of business, a
poor Parisian book-seller[131] was arrested in June, 1560, tortured
to make him give up the name of the author, which probably he did not
know, and then hanged. An unfortunate spectator, a merchant of Rouen,
who had manifested some compassion for the fate of poor Martin Lhomme,
was arrested and executed four days after as an accomplice.[132]

It was a time of almost universal lawlessness. “Every day,” writes
Throckmorton to Cecil, “there are advertisements of new stirs.”[133]
There was no public protection, no law enforced; every man had to
protect himself as best he could. In Paris the insecurity of life and
property was notorious. The Catholics armed themselves against the
Huguenots, and these in their turn procured arms in self-defense.
Even priests and monks shouldered the spear and arquebuse, and became
captains of companies. And when the war did really break out, such
victors would not be very merciful, especially when the vanquished
had imported a new element into the strife by defiling the churches,
destroying the images, and ridiculing the ceremonies. There were many
Huguenots who disgraced the name they assumed; but had they all been
pious, the triumphant Romanist would not have spared them. The cause
of pure religion suffered much from the violence of these hot-headed
partisans. At Rheims the “Lutherans” ate meat publicly in Lent, broke
the lanterns before the image of the Virgin over the great door of
the cathedral, and prowled about at night defacing the crosses and
pictures. One Gillet, a lawyer, drove a priest from a chapel, seized
the alms in the poor-box, and gave the sacerdotal robes to his wife,
who made caps and other articles of feminine attire out of them. At
Rouen, when a Catholic priest spoke of purgatory in his sermon, the
Huguenots called him “a fool,” and the children who had been trained
for the purpose, imitated the amorous noises of cats. The Reformed
doctrine was introduced into Brittany in 1558 by Andelot. At Croisic
the “new apostles” were so bold as to preach in the principal church,
Notre Dame de Pitié, of which the people and clergy complained as soon
as Andelot’s back was turned. The bishop of the diocese marched in
solemn procession through the streets, after which the clergy attacked
with a large culverine a house in which the preachers had taken refuge.
The inmates, nineteen in number, escaped during the night, and the
prelate was very properly condemned by the government, “such violent
practices being unusual in the kingdom,” which certainly was not a
correct statement.

It was supposed that a general council by restoring unity to the
Church would cure many of the evils under which France suffered.
The queen-mother supported this opinion, and we may imagine we hear
her speaking in a letter written by Francis II. to the Bishop of
Limoges: “The Church of God,” he says, “will never enjoy peace or
rest, never shall we see the end of the troubles and calamities which
this religious division is bringing over all the Christian world,
unless a general council be convened.... It is notorious that the
Council of Trent has not been received or approved by Germany or by
the Protestants, who have attacked its authority, as having been
held without them.... We Christian princes ought to try by all means
to invite the Protestants and Germans to the council, ... it being
my opinion that it had better not open at all, if the Germans and
Protestants are not invited, for it would be labor in vain.” Such
was the tone in which the king wrote to the pope, and such were the
sentiments he desired Limoges to lay before the King of Spain. He even
went so far as to threaten to hold a national council, if the pope were
obstinate. “It is undeniable,” he said, “that there are so many abuses
in the manners of churchmen, that there are but few of them who do
their duty. Now this neglect breeds that contempt for divine things, by
which men are led to forsake God and fall into those errors wherein we
now see them.” In a similar strain he wrote to the Bishop of Rennes,
his embassador at the imperial court.[134]

In a somewhat similar tone wrote the Cardinal of Lorraine to the same
bishop, urging the necessity of a council, and blaming the coldness of
the pope. He complains of the “pitiful condition into which religion
had fallen,” and declares a council to be “the only remedy for all our
ills.” In nearly the same words writes Florimond de Robertet, secretary
of state, adding that the king was resolved at all events “to convoke
an assembly of notables.”

These opinions compared with the instructions given to the French
prelates at the Council of Trent may be taken as evidence that the
court was sincere in its desire to purify the national church. Those
ecclesiastics were to demand that the ceremonial should be corrected
and all other things whereby the ignorant might be abused under a
show of piety; that the cup should be restored to the laity; that the
sacraments should be administered in the vulgar tongue; that during
mass the Word of God should be read and interpreted, and the young
people should be catechised, to the end that all might be instructed
in what they should believe, and how they should live so as to please
God; that prayers should be offered up in French, and that certain
times should be appointed, as well at high mass as at vespers, wherein
it might be lawful to sing psalms in the church. The prelates were also
instructed to complain of the unchaste lives of the clergy.[135]

There can be little doubt, therefore, that in the summer of 1560 France
was on the brink of a great religious change, perhaps of a national
reformation. Catherine de Medicis inclined toward it, not that she
cared much about creeds, but because it seemed an admirable political
weapon ready to her hand. The Cardinal of Lorraine did not oppose it,
probably hoping to increase his wealth by the plunder of the Church,
after the English example. All moderate-minded people wished for a
reformation that did not involve separation from Rome. Even the violent
Gaspard de Saulx-Tavannes listened for once to the voice of common
sense: “Mass ought not to be said in French, no change or reform should
be introduced into the ceremonies without the approval of a general
council. Nevertheless, I must confess (he added) that the people would
be much more stirred up to devotion, if they heard in their own tongue
the chants of the priests and the psalms that are sung in church.”

While these conciliatory measures were under discussion in the royal
council-chamber, the difference between the two creeds was growing
wider. The Reformers had increased so greatly in many of the large
towns, particularly in the south and west (as we shall presently see),
that in defiance of the edicts they gave up their secret meetings in
woods and barns, and worshiped in public. The king wrote to Tavannes
respecting the troubles in Dauphiny, ordering him to collect troops
and “cut the religious rebels in pieces.... There is nothing I desire
more than to exterminate them utterly, and so tear them up by the roots
that no fresh ones may arise.... Chastise them without mercy.”[136]
Six months later (Oct., 1560) the king sent Paul de la Barthe, marshal
of Termes, to Poitiers with 200 men-at-arms to check heresy, and
particularly to “catch the ministers and punish them soundly.” They
were to be hanged without trial. He was to permit no assemblies, and
if any were held, he was to fall upon them with the sword. “I beg of
you, cousin,” he wrote, “to sweep the country clear of such rabble
who disturb the world.”[137] Such orders were the fruit of the Guise
government; it is but just, however, to say, that it is doubtful
whether this letter was sent to the marshal, probably because on
reflection it appeared too cruel. The Count of Villars, describing the
effect produced by this merciless persecution, writes: “Part of the
inhabitants of Nismes, to the number of 3000 or 4000, have retired
into the mountains of the Gevaudan, whence they threaten to descend
into the plain, in which case those who appear the most submissive
will infallibly join them. The heresy extends every day.” As for the
prisoners, he continues, their number is so great that it is impossible
to put them all to death. On the 12th October, 1560, he informs the
constable that he has burned two mule-loads of books from Geneva,
valued at 1000 crowns, and set free a number of women on their promise
“to live in obedience to God, the Roman Church, and the King.”[138] In
the same month the magistrates of Anjou complain to the cardinal, that
“the seditious remnants of Amboise, uniting with the depraved nobility
to the number of 1000 or 1200, celebrate the communion and disturb the
country.”[139]

As the barbarous orders of the court could not be kept secret, they
only served to exasperate the Huguenots. Becoming more aggressive,
they appropriated many of the churches to their own use, turning out
the priests, whom they often cruelly maltreated. The sacred edifices
they purified, as they called it, by destroying the pictures, breaking
down the roods, throwing away the relics, and giving the consecrated
wafer to swine. We can hardly picture to ourselves the horror excited
in Catholic minds by such outrages. It may be compared with the thrill
of agony that ran through England, when the atrocities of the Sepoy
mutiny became known. The Duke of Guise retaliated with unrelenting
ferocity. He was governor of Dauphiny, and, to intimidate that
province, he ordered one Maugiron, a creature of his and afterward
governor of Lyons, to make an example of the people of Valence and
Romans. These places were taken by a foul stratagem, two of the
Huguenot ministers were beheaded, and the principal citizens were
hanged, and their houses given up to pillage. One ferocity begot
another. Two Reformed gentlemen, Montbrun and Mouvans, raised the
country, destroying or defiling churches, opening convents and turning
out the inmates, especially the nuns, and ill-using the priests,
and defiantly celebrating public worship under arms. The subsequent
history of Anthony Derichiend, seigneur of Mouvans, furnishes a
striking illustration of the lawlessness and insecurity of the times.
Being tired of war, he and his brother Paul returned to their homes
at Castellane in Provence, intending to pass the remainder of their
days in God’s service. They did not, however, find the quiet they had
expected. They were much annoyed by their neighbors, and during Lent
a grey friar went into the pulpit and so inflamed the people against
them that they were besieged in their own house by a mob of several
hundred men. They escaped this peril, and Anthony appealed to Henry
for protection, which was granted (1559). While he was on his way to
Grenoble, to lay his case before the Parliament, as the king had bidden
him, he halted at Draguignan. The children, instigated by certain
priests, began to hoot at him as “a Lutheran,” and in a short time
a fierce mob crowded round the house in which he had taken shelter.
Hoping to save his life, he surrendered into the hands of the officers
of justice, who were too weak, and probably not over-anxious, to
protect him. The mob tore him out of their hands, beat him to death,
and inflicted brutalities on his corpse which it is impossible to
describe. Among other things they plucked out his heart and other
portions, and carried them on sticks triumphantly round the town. One
of the wretches offered a morsel of the liver to a dog which refused to
touch it. With a kick and an oath the man howled out: “Are you too a
Lutheran like Mouvans?”[140] An inquiry was ordered into the outrage,
but the passions of all the province were too much excited to permit
justice to be done. “You have killed the old one,” said one of the
royal commissioners, “why don’t you kill the young one? I would not
give a straw for your courage. Down with all these rascally Lutherans,
kill them all.” Paul now took up arms, and after inflicting much damage
upon his adversaries, was finally compelled to take refuge at Geneva.

Of the morals of these “rascally Lutherans” in this part of France, we
have the unimpeachable testimony of Procureur Marquet of Valence, who
says that, for the eight years he held the office of town-clerk, not
a day passed but his registers were full of complaints of outrages of
every kind committed during the night. The streets were unsafe after
dark, and the citizens were not secure from robbery and violence even
in their own houses. Then he adds: “But after the preaching of the
Gospel, all that was altered, as if a change of life had accompanied
a change of doctrine.” No one was found bold enough to contradict such
testimony.

One of the first persons to raise his voice against the persecution of
the Huguenots was L’Hopital, the chancellor. In his inaugural address
to the Parliament of Paris (5th July, 1560) he boldly declared the
Church to be the cause of the religious disorders through its evil
example; the soldiers were unpaid and justified their violence; the
mass of the people both in town and country were ignorant and wicked,
because the priests preached to them about tithes and offerings, and
said nothing about godly living; and that the only remedy was a general
council. He went on to argue that the diseases of the mind are not
to be healed like those of the body, adding, that “though a man may
recant, he does not change his heart.”[141]

In this address L’Hopital spoke the sentiments of a small but
increasing party which, under the name of the “politicians,” tried to
hold a balance between the Huguenots and the Romanists. They might
indeed be called “constitutionalists,” for there is no doubt their
secret desire was to put an end to the ministerial usurpation and
despotism of the Guises. They maintained that the dissidents had a
right to be heard; but their arguments would have been ineffectual
had the exchequer been in a flourishing condition. The government
was in extreme want of money, the annual expenditure exceeding the
income by nearly three millions of livres. Loans could only be raised
at exorbitant rates of interest, and to impose new taxes would only
increase the disorders of the country and perhaps drive the peasants
into another Jacquerie. Thus all parties came at last to agree in
the necessity of calling the States-General together; preliminary to
which letters patent were issued, convening an assembly of Notables
at Fontainebleau, these Notables being persons of rank and influence
among the nobles and clergy, knights of the order of St. Michael, and
lawyers.

The king was escorted to the place of meeting by a strong guard, in
addition to the troops under the command of the Guises. The general
distrust and insecurity were shown by the number of armed men who
accompanied the great chieftains of each party. The constable was
attended by his two sons, Marshals Montmorency and Damville, and
followed by eight hundred gentlemen on horseback. Coligny, Andelot, the
Vidame of Chartres, and Prince Porcien entered with nine hundred of
the inferior nobility. The meeting was opened on the 21st August, in
the apartments of Catherine de Medicis. Grouped around the young king
were his brothers and their mother; the Cardinals of Bourbon, Lorraine,
Guise, and Chatillon; the Dukes of Guise and Aumale, the Constable and
the Admiral; Marshals St. André and Brissac, the knights of the order,
and other privy councilors. The two princes of the blood (Navarre and
Condé) were absent, having (it is said) come to an arrangement with
Coligny never to be present at the same place with him lest they should
all be caught in the trap at once. Francis II. opened the proceedings
with a few complimentary phrases, and then deputed his chancellor to
lay before the members the condition of the country. L’Hopital, who had
succeeded Olivier through the influence of the Duchess of Montpensier,
a special favorite of Catherine’s, was not a man of illustrious birth;
but by industry, integrity, and learning, he had risen step by step to
the highest office in the state. On this occasion, with rather less
prolixity than was customary in those days, he described the state
as being sick, the Church corrupted, justice weakened, the nobles
disorderly, and the zeal and loyalty which the people were wont to
show the king wonderfully cooled; and that the remedy for all these
evils was hard to find. He did not so much as venture to hint at
one of the remedies; but at the second sitting, two days later (22d
August), Coligny boldly opened up the matter by presenting a petition
from the Huguenots, in which they justified their faith by Scripture,
asserted their loyalty and love for the king, professed that they had
never understood their duty so well toward their sovereign as since
they had been converted to the new doctrine, prayed that a stop might
be put to the cruel persecutions under which they were suffering, and
asked permission to read the Bible and hold their meetings in open
day, offering in return “to pay larger tribute than the rest of His
Majesty’s subjects.” Strange to say, the prayer of the petition was
supported by two high ecclesiastical dignitaries--John de Montluc,
Bishop of Valence, and Charles de Marillac, Archbishop of Vienne.
Montluc was an eloquent speaker, much esteemed for his experience
in public affairs and knowledge of sacred literature. He denounced
the severities and tyranny of the judges toward the Lutherans, and
charged the Guises with violating the laws of the kingdom and sowing
dissensions between the king and his subjects. He described the
superior clergy as “idlers not having the fear of God before their
eyes, or that they would have to give an account of their flocks,”
adding that their only care was for the revenue of their sees, and
that thirty or forty of them were non-resident, leading scandalous
lives in Paris; the inferior clergy he characterized as ignorant and
avaricious. He went on to say: “Let your majesty see that the word of
God be no more profaned, but let the Scriptures be everywhere read and
explained with purity and sincerity. Let the Gospel be preached daily
in your house, so that the mouths of those may be shut who say that
God’s name is never heard there.” Then turning to the two queens, Mary
Stuart and Catherine de Medicis, he continued: “Pardon me, ladies, if I
dare entreat you to order your damsels to sing not foolish songs, but
the Psalms of David and spiritual hymns; and remember that the eye of
God is over all men and in all places, and is fixed there only where
his name is praised and exalted.” The remedy he proposed, and which
had been mentioned in the petition presented by Coligny, was a general
council.

In one part of his speech, when giving a sketch of the progress of
Reform in France, he passed a noble compliment on its ministers: “The
doctrine,” he said, “which finds favor with your subjects has not been
sown in one or two days, but has taken thirty years: it was brought
in by 300 or 400 ministers, men of diligence and learning, of great
modesty, gravity, and apparent holiness, professing to detest all vice,
especially avarice; fearing not to lose their lives so that they might
enforce their teaching, having Jesus Christ always on their lips ...
a name so sweet that it opens the closest ears and sinks easily into
the hearts of the most hardened. These preachers, finding the people
without pastor or guide, with no one to instruct or teach them, were
received readily, and listened to willingly. So that we need not be
surprised if great numbers have embraced this new doctrine, which has
been proclaimed by so many preachers and books.” On the other hand,
he said that bishoprics were frequently bestowed upon children, and
benefices conferred upon cooks, barbers and lacqueys.

Marillac, who had learned experience as embassador at the court of
Charles V., used similar but stronger language: he spoke of the
“corrupted discipline of the Church, of multiplied abuses, frequent
scandals, and licentious ministers,” and agreed that the only remedy
lay in a national council. “To prepare the way for that council,” he
said, “three or four things are necessary. Firstly, all the bishops,
without exception, must be forced to reside in their dioceses.
Secondly, we must show by our actions that we are determined to reform
ourselves, and to that end we must put down simony. For spiritual
things are given by God freely without money: _gratis accepistis,
gratis date_. Thirdly, we must fast and confess our sins, which
is the first step toward a cure. Fourthly, both factions must lay
down their arms.” The next day Coligny defended the petition he had
presented. “The king,” he said, “was beloved and not hated; and the
people did not like to be kept from him. All the discontent was against
those who managed affairs, and would easily be quieted, if they would
rule according to the laws of the kingdom.” He advised the assembling
of the States-General and the dismissal of the guard, which was not
required for the protection of the sovereign. He also suggested the
relaxation of the persecutions until the assembling of a council. “But
your petition,” said Francis II., “has no signatures.” “That is true,
Sire,” replied the admiral; “but if you will allow us to meet for the
purpose, I will in one day obtain in Normandy alone 50,000 signatures.”
“And I,” said the Duke of Guise,[142] interrupting him, “will find
100,000 good Catholics to break their heads.” He then contended that
a royal guard had become necessary since the affair of Amboise. “My
brother and I,” he said, “have never offended or given cause of
discontent to any as regards their private affairs.” The Cardinal of
Lorraine argued that, to permit the Reformed to have their temples and
the right of public worship was to approve of their “idolatry,” which
the king could not do without the risk of eternal damnation.[143]
He denied the loyalty of the petitioners, “who are obedient only on
condition that the king should be of their opinion and their sect, or
at least approves of it.” He gloried in the animosity of the Huguenots,
adding (as if aside) “there are twenty-two of their libels against me
now on my table, and I intend to preserve them very carefully.” In
conclusion he called for the severest measures against such “of the
religion” as should take up arms; but as for those who went unarmed to
the sermon, sang psalms, and kept away from mass, he did not advise
their punishment, seeing that all severity hitherto had been useless.
He even expressed regret that they should have been so cruelly treated,
and offered his life if that could bring the stray sheep back to the
fold. He ended with an exhortation to the clergy to reform themselves,
and desired that the bishops and others should inquire into the abuses
of the Church and report thereon to the king. Of good words and good
resolutions the cardinal always had an ample store upon which he could
draw at will. They were mere counters with which to play the game of
politics.

The discussion, which also embraced the subject of the tumult of
Amboise, the severity of the retaliation, and the alarming increase of
the royal body-guard (which was denounced in nearly the same terms as
our ancestors complained of a standing army), resulted in a decision
to convene, first, the States-General, and, afterward, a national
council, to decide upon the religious faith of the French people. The
King of Spain remonstrated through his embassador against the meeting
of the States, on the ground that it would “puff up the Huguenots;”
and offered his aid to chastise them. But money was wanted, and the
court was prepared to make any temporary sacrifice in order to procure
supplies. The Venetian embassador saw the importance of this official
recognition of the Reformed party. “Either their desires will be
satisfied,” he says, “or else, if any attempt is made to keep them
obedient to the pope, the court must resort to force, shed pitilessly
the blood of the nobility, divide the kingdom into two parties, and
come to a civil war, which will destroy both country and religion....
Religious changes always lead the way to political changes;”[144]
an assertion which is only partially true. Political and religious
changes, when national and not merely personal, are produced by the
operation of similar causes; and which change shall come first depends
upon circumstances that appear to vary in every case. In 1560 the
Venetian embassador certainly had not sufficient data from which to
draw so sweeping a conclusion. The court saw no danger in the proposed
assemblies, and writs were issued for the States-General to meet in
December, 1560, at Meaux in Brie, and for a national council of bishops
and other church dignitaries to assemble at Pontoise on the following
month of January. The letters of convocation ran that “they were to
confer together and resolve what should be laid before a general
council; and until that should assemble, the clergy were to suspend all
proceedings against heretics, and correct the abuses that had gradually
crept into the house of God.”[145]

After the Amboise failure, Anthony of Navarre kept himself aloof at
Nerac in Gascony, where he was joined by his brother Condé, who had
openly professed the new religion. The latter succeeded in inspiring
the king with some of his own spirit, but could not induce him to take
any step that would commit him with the Lorraine party. Meanwhile the
little town on the Baise became the general rendezvous of all the
discontented, who, undismayed by the past, were quite as ready to act
as to speak. But there was no one to lead them, for the eldest of the
Bourbon line still hesitated. It was supposed that a remonstrance from
the whole Huguenot body might move him, and with that intent the chiefs
of the Protestant party laid before him “a supplication,” in which
they (to the number of more than a million) offered him the disposal
of their lives and fortunes, provided he would make common cause
with them by putting himself at their head; threatening, in case of
refusal, to choose another leader, native or foreign. The supplication
was nominally addressed to both princes, but was really intended for
Navarre alone, who however was not bold enough to act upon it.

At the same time the Guises, repenting that they had permitted Condé,
“the dumb chief,” to leave Amboise, began to strengthen their hands.
Duke Francis, now lieutenant-general of the kingdom, having full
control over the military resources of the country, increased the
royal body-guard by the addition of several regiments, the command of
which he gave to the infamous Du Plessis-Richelieu, one time a monk
but now a soldier. He also received troops from Scotland, kept up the
veteran regiments of Brissac, which had just returned from Italy, and
negotiated for the assistance of Swiss and German mercenaries. This
step, as we shall see, necessarily drove the Huguenots to seek foreign
help. Meanwhile the King of Navarre and his brother appear to have
entered into a new plot against the Guises, of which a general Huguenot
insurrection formed a part. It was to begin with the seizure of Lyons,
an important town close to the Swiss frontier and on the northern
border of the most Protestant portion of France. Here Condé was to
rally all the disaffected nobility and gentry, while Navarre headed a
similar rising in the west. This plot, even more obscure than that of
Amboise, came to nothing, beyond implicating the two Bourbon princes,
whose share in it is, nevertheless, somewhat doubtful. This was another
triumph for the house of Lorraine, who determined to crush their rivals
at once and forever. Francis II. proceeded to Orleans escorted by a
numerous guard. The Prince of Roche-sur-Yon was made governor for the
occasion; the garrisons from the neighboring towns were called in,
which, added to the king’s escort of 4000 foot, composed a force of
nearly 10,000 men. Hither the two brothers were summoned to explain
their conduct, and the Count of Crussol, the bearer of the letters,
was instructed to hint that resistance was hopeless, as the king could
bring against them 48,000 French troops besides Swiss and German
lansquenets. Moreover the King of Spain had promised to assist with
two large armies, one entering France by Picardy, the other by the
Pyrenees. Anthony at first held back, despite these hints, and had he
been as enterprising as his brother, he might soon have been at the
head of a force as strong as any that the Guises could muster against
him, and for a time it was believed at court that he could do so.
But he was always mean-spirited, always crouching, and cringing, and
thinking of himself. Some time before this, in order to contradict a
report coming from Spain that he favored the Amboise conspirators,[146]
he fell upon some Protestant insurgents at Agen and cut them to
pieces. Both he and his brother had been warned of the impending
danger. The Princess of Condé wrote to her husband: “Every step you
take toward the court brings you nearer to destruction. If your death
is inevitable, it is surely more glorious to die at the head of an army
than to perish ignominiously on the scaffold.” Catherine also intimated
to him circuitously that “it was death for him to come to court.”[147]

After he had made up his mind to go to Orleans, Anthony moved so
slowly and irresolutely that the journey occupied him a month. On
the road he dismissed the little band of Huguenot gentlemen who had
gathered round him with the words: “I must obey, but I will obtain
your pardon from the king.” “Go,” said an old captain, “go and ask
pardon for yourself: our safety is in our swords.”[148] On the 31st
October, 1560, he reached Orleans. It was nearly dark when he entered
the city, accompanied by his brother Louis, the Cardinal of Bourbon,
and a few servants. No one dared go out to meet him, and extraordinary
precautions had been taken to guard against a hostile attack.
Immediately on the arrival of Francis II. the city had (to use a modern
term) been put under martial law. Artillery brought from Compiègne
was mounted on the walls, the sentries were doubled, and the citizens
ordered, under the severest penalties, to deliver up their arms, even
including such knives as were of unusual length. Numerous arrests had
been made of suspected persons, and among them was the high-bailiff of
the city. And now from the gates to the castle where the king lodged
armed men lined the streets in double file--an imposing but idle show.
When Anthony reached the royal quarters, he desired, according to his
privilege as a prince of the blood, to ride into the court-yard; but
the great gates were shut against him, and he had to dismount and enter
by a wicket. The Venetian embassador, Giovanni Michieli, thus describes
his appearance about this time:--“He is now between forty-four and
forty-five years of age. His beard is getting grey, his demeanor is
much more imposing than that of his brother, whose stature is low, and
figure awkward. He is tall, robust, and well-made, and his courage in
battle is highly extolled, though he is rather a good soldier than a
skillful general.” Another embassador mentions with astonishment the
rich ear-rings and other ornaments Anthony delighted to wear.

Francis received him frowningly, not condescending to raise his
hat, as he was wont to do to the meanest gentleman. After kneeling,
Anthony said he had come thither in obedience to the royal command,
to vindicate his character against calumnious charges; to which the
king replied that it was well, at the same time forbidding him to
quit Orleans without permission. As Condé did not utter a word, the
king angrily reproached him with conspiracy and rebellion. The prince
replied calmly that these were slanders invented by his enemies, and
that he would take care to justify himself; to which Francis made
answer that, to give him an opportunity of so doing, he would be kept
in prison until trial. The king then ordered the captains of his guard,
Chavigny and Brezay, to arrest the prince. As they were leading him
away, he said to the Cardinal of Bourbon, who had persuaded him to
trust the king: “By your exhortations you have betrayed your brother
to death.”[149] He was guarded very strictly; the windows of the house
in which he was confined were closely barred, sentinels were posted
round it, and no one was allowed to have access to him. “The King
of Navarre,” says Throckmorton, “goeth at liberty, but as it were a
prisoner, and is every other day on hunting.”[150] He was under strict
surveillance; all his words and acts were closely watched.

The Chatillons had been duly summoned to attend at Orleans. Andelot,
suspecting treachery, retired to Brittany; while his brother the
admiral, who was equally suspicious of the Guises, determined to be
present in his place. He bade farewell to his wife, shortly to become
a mother, as if he was never to see her face again, desiring her to
have the babe christened by the “true ministers of the word of God.”
Catherine received him cordially, and indeed put him on his guard, it
being her interest thus to play off one party against the other.

And now once more the Guises were triumphant, and their hands were
strengthened by the acts of those who had plotted their ruin. Now
that the prey was in their grasp, they would show no mercy. But
first they must be revenged on the Huguenots, “those silly folks who
bring such scandal on the honor of God,” as the cardinal wrote to
De Burie. “We must make a striking example of them, so that, by the
punishment of a few bad men, the good may be preserved.” The pastors
were especially singled out, that their fate might be a warning for
the future. Condé was to be tried before a packed commission, of whose
verdict and sentence there could be no doubt. His brother’s fate was
equally certain,[151] and as soon as the two princes of the blood were
dispatched, the admiral with Montmorency and all the opponents of the
Lorraine family were to be got rid of. Such a scheme of wholesale
murder is hardly credible, though supported by the strong testimony
of the Spanish embassador, who feared the Guises were going a “little
too fast.”[152] Anthony of Navarre was to be the first victim. One
day he was summoned to an audience with the king, at which it had
been arranged that a quarrel should be got up between him and Francis
II.; that the latter should draw his sword as in self-defense; and
that the creatures of the Guises should then rush in and murder the
prince. It is alleged that Anthony had been informed of the plot, but
nevertheless would not shrink from the audience. As he was leaving his
quarters, he said to Captain Renty, one of his faithful followers:
“If I perish, strip off my shirt and carry it to my wife, and bid her
take it to every Christian king in Europe, and call on him to avenge
my death.” As soon as Anthony entered the presence-chamber, the door
was closed behind him. Francis made some insulting observations, but
hesitated--was it through fear or pity?--to give the signal for his
uncle’s murder. “The coward!” muttered the Duke of Guise, who stood
watching on the other side of the door. Anthony survived the perilous
interview.[153]

The Chancellor L’Hopital and five judges were appointed as a commission
to try Condé in prison, and although he refused to plead before them,
it availed him nothing. This protest and such answers as he did make
having been laid before the king in council, the prince was found
guilty of high treason, and condemned to lose his head. But before the
sentence could be carried out, great changes took place in France.
About the middle of November the king, whose health had never been
very robust, “felt himself somewhat evil-disposed of his body, with a
pain in his head and one of his ears.”[154] He rapidly grew worse; all
means of relief were tried, but tried in vain. He was suffering from
internal abscess. While he lay between life and death, the Guises made
a desperate effort to get rid of the only antagonist whom they really
feared. They urged Catherine to make away with their common enemy
before it was too late; but Catherine, knowing that, in the strife
of parties, the enemy of Guise must be a friend to her, refused to
do any thing without consulting the chancellor. L’Hopital found the
queen “weeping among her women, who surrounded her in deep silence,
their eyes fixed on the ground.” It did not give him much trouble to
show the illegality as well as the impolicy of the proposed act, and
Condé was saved. On the 5th of December Francis II. expired in great
agony, and as it was part of the popular faith to believe that no great
personage could die a natural death, Ambrose Paré, the famous surgeon,
was accused of poisoning the youthful king by pouring “a leporous
distillment” into his ear, by command of the queen-mother.[155]
Coligny, as one of the chief officers of the crown, had the melancholy
charge of watching the dying king, and did not leave the bedside until
Francis had breathed his last. Then--turning to the courtiers who were
present, and who had gathered round the Duke of Guise--he said, with
the pious gravity that was natural to him: “Gentlemen, the king is
dead; let that teach us how to live.” Returning to his quarters as soon
as he could leave the king’s chamber, he sat in deep thought before
the fire, his tooth-pick, as usual, in his mouth, and his feet on the
embers. Fontaine, one of his suite, observing his abstraction, caught
him by the arm: “Sir, you have been wool-gathering enough. You have
burned your boots.” “Ah! Fontaine,” replied the admiral, “only a week
ago you and I would have thought ourselves well off with the loss of
a leg each, and now we have only lost a pair of boots. It is a good
exchange.”

The Huguenots were accused of exulting at the king’s death; and we
can almost excuse them, considering what they had suffered during his
brief reign. Calvin looked upon it as the judgment of God. “Did you
ever hear or read of any thing so opportune as the death of the little
king,” he said. “Just when there was no remedy for our extreme evils,
God suddenly appeared from heaven, and he who had pierced the eye of
the father struck the ear of the son.”[156] Beza also regarded it in
the same light. He says, the sword was already at our throats when “the
Lord our God rose up and carried off that miserable boy by a death as
foul as it was unforeseen. No royal honors were paid his corpse, and
the enemy of the Lutherans was buried like a Lutheran.”[157]

The people were but little attached to Francis, and called him “the
king without vices,” to which the Huguenots added, “and without
virtues.” He was in fact just what the persons about him made him. He
was educated by Jacques Amyot, the learned translator of Plutarch, in
an age when translating had not become a mechanical art. He had always
been a sickly child, and there is a letter extant of his father’s, from
which we learn, not only that Henry II. loved his children, but also
the weakness of the dauphin’s constitution.[158] Voltaire very fairly
describes him as a

    Faible enfant qui de Guise adorait les caprices,
    Et dont on ignorait et les vertus et les vices.

                                             _Henriade._


                                 NOTE.

   One of the most violent of the satires aimed at the Cardinal of
   Lorraine was that called “The Tiger,” about which very little is
   known. The authorship is doubtful, the title disputed, and of
   two works recently brought to light, it is hard to say which is
   the original. De Thou speaks of a “libellus cui _Tigridi_
   præfixus.” In a tract, “Religionis et Regis adversus Calvini,
   Bezæ et Ottomanni conjuratorum factionis defensio prima” (8vo.
   1562, fol. 17), we read: “Hic te, Ottomanne, excutere incipio.
   Scis enim ex cujus officina _Tigris_ prodiit, liber certe
   tigridi parente dignissimus. Tute istius libelli authorem....”
   There is also extant a letter to Hotmann from Sturm, who was
   rector of the High School of Strasburg in June, 1562: “Ex hoc
   genere _Tygris_, immanis illa bellua quam _tu hic_
   contra cardinalis existimationem divulgare curasti.” But if
   these two authorities are conclusive as to Hotmann’s authorship,
   they leave us in doubt as to what was the real title of the
   satire, and which is the original of two contemporary libels.
   To the researches of M. Charles Nodier we owe the discovery of
   a manuscript poem entitled: “Le Tigre, Satire sur les Gestes
   mémorables des Guysards” (4to, 1561), and beginning thus:

    Méchant diable acharné, sépulcre abominable,
    Spectacle de malheur, vipère épouvantable,
    Monstre, tygre enragé, jusques á quand par toi
    Verrons-nous abuser le jeune âge du roy?

   The title of the other satire is “Epistre envoiée au Tygre de
   la France,” and begins thus:--“Tigre enragé, vipère vénimeuse,
   sépulcre d’abomination, spectacle de malheur, jusques à quand
   sera-ce que tu abuseras de la jeunesse de nostre roy?” It
   charges the Cardinal with incest, but the “sister” was a
   sister-in-law, Anne of Este, wife of Duke Francis of Guise: “Qui
   ne voit rien de saint que tu ne souilles, rien de chaste que tu
   ne violes, rien de bon que tu ne gâtes. L’honneur de ta sœur ne
   se peut garantir d’avec toy. Tu laisses ta robe, tu prens l’épée
   pour l’aller voir. Le mari ne peut être si vigilant que tu ne
   deçoives sa femme,” etc. This was first printed at Strasburg
   in 1562, and it was for selling one or other of these that
   Martin Lhomme was put to death. The indictment mentions “épîtres
   divers et cartels diffamatoires,” but no verse--which is not
   however conclusive against the poem. The date appears adverse
   to the claim of the prose satire; but both versions are so much
   alike as to suggest community of origin. May there not have
   been a Latin original, and may not Henri Étienne, author of the
   “Discours merveilleux,” have had more to do with it than Francis
   Hotmann, professor of civil law at Strasburg? The proclamation
   issued against it by the Parliament of Paris bears date 13th
   July, 1560. [See Brunet: “Manuel du ibraire,” ii. 193.]




                              CHAPTER IV.

                FRANCE AT THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES IX.

                                [1560.]

   Contrast--Power of King and Nobles--The Provinces--Roads--Rate
   of Traveling--Forests--Wild Animals--Brigandage--Inns--League
   of the Loire--Agriculture--Condition of the
   Peasantry--Rent--Serfage--Wages--Cost of
   Provisions--Food--Sumptuary Laws--Social Changes--Ignorance of
   the People--Population of France--Taxation--Army and Navy--The
   Clergy--Superstitions--Justice--Punishments--Brutality of
   Manners--Domestic Architecture--Paris--Cities of France:
   Orleans, Rouen, Bordeaux, Dieppe, Lyons, Boulogne, Dijon,
   Moulins, and St. Etienne.


In the middle of the sixteenth century, France was not the centralized,
orderly, well-policed country which the traveler of the nineteenth
century is so eager to visit, and which he leaves with so much regret.
It was in name a monarchy; but unless the king were a man of resolute
will, he became a mere pageant in the state. The nobility inherited
much of the haughty turbulent spirit of their Frank ancestors, and
despite--if not in consequence of--what Louis XI. had done, they still
looked upon the sovereign as little more than the first among peers,
_primus inter pares_, paying him the respect due to his position
as their nominal superior; but resisting him when they pleased, and
only kept in order by the power of rival barons. When Montluc summoned
the mutinous nobles of the South to return to their allegiance, and
obey the king, they exclaimed: “What king? We are the king. The one
you speak of is a baby king: we will give him the rod, and show him
how to earn his living like other people.” It was very much in this
spirit that the house of Guise behaved toward Francis II. and his two
successors.

France was divided into numerous provinces,[159] partially independent
under their own governors and parliaments, and with hardly more
sympathy between them than there is now between Belgium and Holland.
In almost every province you heard a separate dialect: the Normans
and the Gascons were mutually unintelligible, and the inhabitant of
Brittany had as little in common with the dweller in Languedoc as the
Sussex boor with his fellow-laborer in Picardy. The river Loire divided
the kingdom into two parts--morally as well as geographically. Even to
this day the traveler observes a difference between the people, their
speech, their customs, and their dress, immediately he crosses that
boundary line. Great part of the country north of the Loire had for
centuries been governed by traditionary rules similar to our common
law; to the south, the code of Justinian had never fallen into complete
desuetude; and the forms--shadowy enough sometimes--of the Roman
municipalities still existed. The former had a strong resemblance to
England as it was at the close of the Wars of the Roses; the latter
reminded the Italian traveler of his native land. On both sides of the
river there was the same impatience of that central authority which
the modern Frenchman worships. The provincial parliaments registered
or rejected the king’s decrees at their pleasure, and the taxes were
levied by order of their own estates; self-government in form more than
in reality. The governor of many a petty castle would set at naught the
king’s express orders.

Nothing has greater power to amalgamate the various parts of an empire,
and smooth away differences, than good roads. Three (some reckon four)
royal roads, passing through the whole length of France--the great
highways constructed by the Roman conquerors of Gaul--were kept in
tolerable condition, as the importance of such great arteries required;
but the lateral communications were, with few exceptions, in a most
unsatisfactory state. In winter, when the rivers overflowed their
banks, or the snow lay deep, large towns within a few miles of each
other were completely cut off from all intercourse. It often happened
that one district was suffering from famine, while its neighbor had
more than it could consume. The wines which in Anjou and the Orleannais
sold for one sol the measure and even less, cost twenty and twenty-four
sols in Normandy and Picardy. Sometimes this scarcity and variation
in price may have been occasioned by foolish local restrictions upon
the importation and exportation of provisions; but the more frequent
cause was the want of branch roads--those which existed being often
mere horse-tracks, and as impassable in bad weather as the famous road
from Balaklava to Inkermann. Catherine de Medicis, “flying on the wings
of desire and maternal affection,” went from Paris to Tours in three
days.[160] Joan of Navarre, traveling with “extraordinary speed,” spent
eighteen days on the road from Compiègne to Paris. It took eight days
to carry the news of the St. Bartholomew Massacre to Toulouse along
one of the best roads in France, and the same time to go from Mende
to Paris. Thirty years later it took Coryat five hours to travel from
Montreuil to Abbeville, a distance of twenty miles, his carriage being
a two-wheeled cart covered with an awning stretched over thin hoops,
not unlike that still used by our village carriers. In 1560 L’Hopital
was twelve days going from Nice to St. Vallier (Drome), and he too was
hurrying on as quickly as possible. Lippomano, the Venetian embassador,
traveling on urgent business, could not exceed four leagues a day.
These examples, taken from various parts of France, and from persons of
different degrees of social rank, show decisively the difficulties of
communication.

This had much to do with the isolation of various parts of France. In
the sixteenth century nobody traveled who could help it. To journey
from Paris to Toulouse, now a matter of a few hours by railway, was
then a work of time and danger. Large forests were numerous--of twenty
miles and more in circuit: there was one near Blois of not less than
ninety miles. Here the brown bear, the wild boar, and the deer still
roamed at liberty. In the forest of Landeac, the Viscount Rohan
preserved a drove of six hundred wild horses. Wolves would occasionally
issue from the forests, and ravage the country in packs, as they still
do in Poland and Russia.[161] In 1548 one of these packs issued from
the forest of Orleans, devouring men, women, and children, until the
peasantry rose _en masse_ to exterminate them.[162] But worse
than these hungry animals were the brigands who found shelter “in the
merry greenwood,” preying upon their neighbors, and especially upon
travelers. One band of ruffians, five hundred in number, roamed the
country, storming towns and castles, burning villages and farmsteads,
pillaging, murdering, and committing fouler atrocities. Travelers
rarely journeyed alone: they formed into a sort of caravan, sometimes
escorted by soldiers, hardly less to be feared than the robbers
themselves. If the adventurous merchant passed safely through forest
and over heath, he arrived at an inn to find himself carefully classed.
If he journeyed on foot, he could not dine and lodge like one who went
on horseback. The dinner of the first was fixed by tariff at six sols,
and the bed at eight; the latter paid respectively twelve and twenty.
In many cases the traveler had to carry his bed and food with him, or
he would have to go without.

The rivers, now so full of busy life, were rarely disturbed by oar or
sail; and up to the reign of Charles IX. the merchants trading along
the Loire were forced to combine into a hanse or league in order to
protect their property from plunder and excessive toll. They entered
into treaties with the riverain Rob Roys, paying an annual black-mail
which saved them from still greater exactions.[163] It was rare to find
a bridge without fort and bar which none could pass, by land or water,
without payment of pontage.

The country was better cultivated than might have been expected from
the rude implements employed; but then, far more than now, the fields
were rarely divided by hedges. In Beauce, the traveler might journey
for many a long mile through a fertile district, where the corn rippled
in golden waves beneath the summer sun; but there was no plantation,
scarcely a tree upon which to rest the weary eye. Few signs of life
were visible from the highway: the peasants, for so many centuries the
victims of foreign or domestic war, had wisely built their huts in the
hollows and valleys, as far as possible removed from the routes of the
brigands who composed the armies of those days.[164] Here and there a
moated grange, or isolated farm-house, was visible, with its cluster
of fruit-trees, a greener oasis in the surrounding plain; but it was
enclosed with a high wall.

The lot of the agricultural population--of farmers as well as of
laborers--was a hard one. Serfage still existed in many places, and the
ploughman or the hedger could no more wander in search of employment,
or higher wages, than the low-roofed church in which he was christened,
where he was married, and beneath whose shadow his weary limbs would
rest at last. Rent was usually paid in kind or in service. If in
kind, it was a certain share of the produce, which in Brittany was
a twelfth.[165] But the great influx of gold and silver consequent
upon the discovery of America was gradually introducing money rents,
which, however, were so variable and uncertain, that no average appears
possible. In Auvergne, in 1514, we find it as high as seven sols an
acre, and in 1568 as low as four deniers and a measure (setier) of
seigle. Although the feudal superior was gradually passing into the
modern landlord, serfage was so tenacious of life that it existed more
than two centuries longer. Only two years before the outbreak of the
Revolution the serfs of twenty-three communities belonging to the abbey
of Luxeul refused to be emancipated, choosing to remain as they were
rather than pay the moderate fine required for their enfranchisement.
A few months later the serfs of Trépot had consented to pay the sum
demanded by their lord, when the Revolution came and freed them
gratuitously.[166]

The agricultural population had been almost untouched by that spirit
of progress which had been felt in the great cities and towns, and had
led the way to the revival of religion. Their condition was hardly
better than in the days of Louis XII., when the farmer was at times
compelled to plough his land by night, lest the tax-gatherers, who
swarmed like locusts, should come and seize his cattle. The peasants
in their remonstrance added piteously: “And when they are taken, we
yoke ourselves to the plough.” Their houses were like the cabins
still to be met with in the south and west of Ireland, and in the
remoter parts of Scotland. In Brittany the traveler may still see many
such dwellings--clay or mud-built, covered with turf or rushes from
the neighboring pool. The beaten earth was the floor, a man could
rarely stand upright beneath its low roof. In that single room, often
windowless, the whole family huddled together. They were without the
commonest comforts now rarely absent from the laborer’s cottage. The
rate of labor was not high, and most of the payments were in kind. A
laboring man received twelve deniers a day and a woman six: this was
at a time when a dozen eggs cost eight deniers, a bushel of turnips
four deniers, a fowl from two to six sols, a calf five livres, a sheep
twenty-four sols, a fat pig three livres, and an ox, three or four
years old, ten livres. The setier or twelve bushels of wheat sold for
twenty sols, the same quantity of rye for ten, of barley for eight, and
of oats for five. These are but uncertain data on which to calculate
the purchasing power of a man’s wages, for at that time prices varied
considerably more in different localities and from year to year than
they do now.[167] Black unleavened bread--the “damper” of the gold
diggings--formed the principal article of food among the poorer people,
and was made of rye, barley, or buckwheat.[168] Maize appears to have
been used more for cattle than for men. About thirteen years before
the time of which we are treating, the poor of La Mans supported
themselves during a famine upon acorn bread. The usual meat was pork or
bacon--a diet which is supposed to have contributed to the virulence
of the leprosy in earlier days, and hence a _languayeur_ had been
appointed, whose sole business it was to examine the pigs’ tongues for
leprosy spots. The odious _gabelle_ made salt so dear that the
farmer had often to sell one-half of a pig to procure the means of
pickling the other half.

The people of the sixteenth century were gross and unclean eaters,
delighting in viands we should now relegate to the tables of the
Esquimaux. Thus they would eat dog-fish, porpoise,[169] and whale, as
well as herons, cormorants, bitterns, cranes, and storks. Champier
saw on the table of Francis I. “a pudding made of the blood, fat, and
entrails of the sea-calf.” Frogs[170] fricasseed, snails boiled, and
tortoises stewed in their shells were among the “dainty dishes” of this
period. To wash such coarse viands down the people drank so much beer
that the tax on it produced two-thirds more than the tax upon wine.
The beer was sweet, for hops (if introduced) were scarce; and it was
“doctored” by the addition of aromatics, spice, butter, honey, apples,
bread-crumbs, etc. A taste for unsophisticated liquors is one of the
results of advancing civilization.

These were the times of sumptuary laws and other regulations to
preserve the distinction of ranks, and fill the treasury at the expense
of human vanity. Custom, quite as much as law, regulated the costumes
of the different classes, from the silks and the scarlet robes of
the nobles to the blue serge of the laborer. But on fête and gala
days, which were more numerous than now, the variety of costumes was
strikingly picturesque, especially where the inhabitants of different
provinces met together. The tendency of modern civilization to bring
every thing to one monotonous uniformity has robbed us of this variety.
It still lingers here and there in France, where the women with
honest pride cling to the costume peculiar to their calling, while
the men have become lost in the common herd.[171] No bourgeois could
build what sort of house he pleased; nor, when built, was he free to
decorate it as he liked. Even the number of steps up to the door was
regulated by law. The house might be painted with certain colors,
but gilding was strictly prohibited.[172] In 1867 there is scarcely
a mechanic so poor that his wife can not boast of a silk gown, but,
three hundred years ago, no woman, below the rank of duchess, except
“dames et demoiselles de maison” living “à la campagne et hors des
villes,” could wear any silk except as trimming, and then only under
certain restrictions, so that the “fashion” should not cost more than
sixty sols for each dress.[173] Nay, worse than that, a fine of two
hundred livres _parisis_ awaited any woman who should venture
to wear a _vertugale_ or hooped petticoat more than an ell and
a half round--a restriction which a modern house-maid would think
very tyrannical. Although silk was not so scarce as these regulations
would seem to imply, certain manufactures of it were so rare that
historians record that Henry II. wore silk stockings at his coronation.
Thirty years later such an article of dress was still regarded as an
extravagant and wicked luxury.[174] The Ordonnance of Orleans (1560)
forbade the use of perfumery among certain classes, who seem to have
had no other resource but to shut up a particular kind of apple in
their wardrobes in order to impregnate their dresses with its odor.
Sumptuary laws regulated the meals. By the edict of January, 1563,
Charles IX. forbade more than three courses, no course to consist
of more than six dishes, each containing one kind of viand. The
entertainer who infringed this impracticable law was fined 200 livres
for the first offense, and 400 for the second; the guests who did not
turn informers against their hosts were fined forty livres; while the
unfortunate cook, who merely obeyed his master’s orders, was fined
ten livres and imprisoned for a fortnight with only bread and water
for his fare. For a second offense the penalty was doubled; and if he
transgressed a third time, he was scourged and banished from the town.
Experience has shown legislators the impossibility of restraining
luxury by sumptuary laws; yet the statesmen of the fifteenth century
may be excused for attempting thus clumsily to check the extravagant
fashions of the day. Brantome describes, with all the minuteness of a
modern reporter at a city dinner, the particulars of a banquet given
by the Vidame of Chartres. The ceiling of the dining-hall, which was
painted to represent the sky, suddenly opened, and clouds laden with
dishes descended upon the tables. The same contrivance was used to
remove the dishes. During the dessert an artificial storm poured down
for half an hour a rain of perfumed water and a hail of sugar-plums.

One great social change took place about this period. “The women,”
writes L’Hopital to De Thou, “are _now_ seen boldly sitting down
at table with the men.” Before that time, it was the custom for the
husband only to sit with his guests, while the mistress of the house
attended to the manner in which the table was served. Christopher de
Thou, father of the historian, was the first person, not of royal
or noble blood, who rode in a carriage in Paris. Until then there
were only two in use at the court--the queen’s and that belonging to
Diana, natural daughter of Henry II. Carriages were rarely employed
for traveling purposes: the roads were, for the most part, too bad
for vehicles much less rude than the country wains that bore the
produce of the farm to market. Those who could not afford the pomp of
litters rode on horseback: the ladies sometimes on a pillion behind
a servant,[175] but frequently astride, like the men. Catherine de
Medicis introduced the side-saddle. In 1571 a royal permission was
granted for “coches à la mode d’Italie” to go from Paris to Orleans--a
privilege soon extended to other cities of France “pour le soulagement
de personnes.”[176] In 1562 forty-six post-horses were registered in
Paris, the hire seems to have been twenty sols each a day.

The dispatches of Killigrew, embassador to the court of France about
this time, present a striking picture of the misery and ignorance of
the lower classes. On the 15th November, 1559, he writes: “It is very
secretly reported that the French king is become a leper, and for fear
of his coming to Chatelherault the people have (it is said) removed
their children; and of late there be certain of them wanting about
Tours, which can not be heard of, and there is commandment given that
there shall not be any pursuit made for the same.” A horrible light
is thrown on these last words by a letter of the 28th January, 1560:
“The 20th of this present month there was a man executed here at Blois,
who lately, with a companion, traveled abroad in the country to seek
fair children, to use their blood for curing of a disease which, they
said, the king had: alleging that they had a command so to do. The one
of them used to go before to make search for them, and the other came
after to ask if such a man had been there for such a purpose: whereupon
the people made lamentation for their children.” It was of course only
an impudent means of extorting money.

The population of France at the accession of Charles IX. has been
variously estimated, but it probably did not much (if at all) exceed
fifteen millions, of whom almost one-third lived in towns. Yet
complaints of over-population were frequent; and La Noue, speaking of
the multitude of inhabitants before the religious wars, says: “They
swarm!” They paid in taxation a greater proportional amount than is
contributed by their more numerous and fortunate posterity under the
second empire. Finance was in its infancy, and taxes were levied so
as to produce the greatest amount of vexation to the payer and the
smallest result to the royal treasury. At the end of the century--forty
years later than the period at which we have arrived--the duties and
aids were farmed for 232 millions of livres, equivalent to £42,000,000
sterling.[177]

Taxes were imposed upon no regular plan, and whatever arrangement was
made, it was liable to be broken through by the “good pleasure” of
the king. This was especially the case in the reign of Francis I.,
whose subjects, when groaning under oppressive charges of _tailles_,
_taillons_, _aides_, _subsides_, _impôts_, and _gabelle_, looked back
and longed for the good old times of Louis XII. Francis squandered
his income in the most reckless manner; every body plundered the
national exchequer, especially his favorites and mistresses. So great
were the expenses of the marriage (the _nôces salées_) of his niece
Joan of Albret with the Duke of Cleves in 1541, that to make up the
deficiency he not only extended the gabelle or salt tax to several
of the southern provinces, but doubled it in those where it already
existed, expecting that the returns would be doubled also. In this
he was disappointed, and new sources of revenue had to be invented.
The coinage was debased, raising the value of the silver mark from
£165 to £185;[178] a multitude of offices was created, all to be had
for money; judgeships were made venal, lotteries were established,
additional _décimes_ imposed on the clergy;[179] the churches were
robbed of their ornaments of gold, silver, and precious gems;[180]
loans were raised by means of _rentes_ or stock offered for sale at
the Hotel-de-Ville of Paris, and the citizens were expected to become
purchasers. Eightscore thousand crowns were thus borrowed _au denier
douze_; that is to say, at 8⅓ per cent. The superintendents of finance
were bound to procure money, even if they had to borrow it on their own
security; and, when all other means failed, and a large sum was wanted
instantly for some royal caprice or some new mistress, a financier
was hanged and his property confiscated. Such measures necessarily
discontented every body and profited none but a few persons at court;
yet by some means or other Francis I. contrived to leave four millions
of livres in the treasury, which Henry II., aided by Diana of Poitiers,
soon squandered. The new king took one important step toward financial
accountability by dividing the kingdom into seventeen généralités,
each of which was farmed at a very high rate.[181] Under his two
successors, the government speculated in French vanity by making titles
of nobility purchasable. Pasquier thought this an “inexhaustible source
of supply,” but it does not appear to have made any large return to
the treasury. The “deficit” became periodical, and to fill up the gulf
the taxes (especially the gabelle) were augmented,[182] financiers
were prosecuted and heavily mulcted, many useless offices were created
on purpose to be sold, and new loans were contracted. Among other
devices--all of them very startling to a modern chancellor of the
exchequer--was a proposal to appoint 13,000 sergens, or baillies.
Pasquier hopes this will not be done, for “it would eclipse the memory
of the 11,000 devils spoken of in the time of our grandfathers.”

The taxation fell very heavily on the Tiers état, and particularly
upon the agricultural classes. The towns-people, the bourgeoisie,
were to some degree protected by charters and privileges, and had an
organization of their own by which the taxes were levied. They were
exempt from foreign garrisons, elected their own officers (with the
exception of the provost of the merchants), enrolled a citizen guard,
and had the right to barricade the streets and shut their gates,
even against the king.[183] No charters or securities guaranteed the
peasant from injustice. Michieli, writing in 1561, describes the
oppression in some provinces (especially in Normandy and Picardy)
as so excessive, that the peasantry were forced to abandon the
country.[184] The burdens were the more severe and invidious, that
while the seigneurs mercilessly exacted their rents, dues, corvées,
customs, etc., they contributed nothing to the state beyond what
they gave of their free-will as a gift. Clergy, nobility, soldiers,
members of the king’s household, and of the high courts of parliament,
school-masters, officers of finance, free cities (villes de franchise)
like Paris, and noble cities (villes nobles) like Troyes, were all
exempt; not that they did not contribute to the revenue, but only
so much as they chose to assess themselves. In the reign of Francis
I. the French clergy, with the consent of the pope, agreed to pay a
_décime_, or one-tenth of their revenue, which in the next reign
was doubled. At Poissy, in 1561, they entered into an arrangement to
pay sixteen hundred thousand livres annually, on condition of their
future exemption from all other taxes. Considering that they possessed
about one-third of the landed and house-property in France, this was
but a small contribution to the necessities of the crown. The yearly
rental of the whole kingdom has been estimated, on what are indeed very
vague data, to have amounted to fifteen millions of crowns, of which
six belonged to the clergy[185] and one and a half to the king. The
exports of corn, wine, salt, and wood were valued at twelve millions of
francs, more than Spain received from her mines of Mexico and Peru.

The army and the navy are the great causes of expenditure in our days;
but in the sixteenth century both were so insignificant that their
burden was hardly appreciable. France has now about three-quarters
of a million of men under arms, but in 1560 the army barely amounted
to 20,000 men, and these were so scattered, and under so many local
restrictions, that the crown could not collect 10,000 men without the
aid of mercenaries. Although the main strength consisted in cavalry,
the importance of infantry was beginning to be felt. They were long
looked upon as a very inferior arm; indeed, the feeling is not yet
extinct in some countries; but every improvement in fire-arms so
increased the power of the foot-soldier, that far-sighted men began
to see that the victory must ultimately remain with the general who
could make the best use of his infantry. The artillery was rude and
awkward; the guns were clumsily mounted, and the balls rarely fitted
the barrel. With all these defects it must not excite surprise that on
an average they could not be discharged more than once in five minutes.
When fixed in battery, they might be trusted to breach the wall of a
city or castle, where the object of the engineer seems to have been to
expose as much as possible of his defenses to the fire of the enemy.
The cannons were almost utterly useless in the field against a body of
men in motion; but the noise they made proved at times as effectual in
dispiriting the enemy as their accuracy of fire. The army was officered
by the nobility: a commoner might rise to be a sergeant, but it was
impossible for him to obtain a commission. It was partly on this ground
of unpaid military service that the nobles claimed exemption from
taxation.

The French navy existed but in name. When Francis I. was at war with
England he brought twenty-five galleys from the Mediterranean into the
Channel, the Genoese lent him ten vessels, and with others in his
harbors he mustered a fleet of one hundred and fifty ships of large
tonnage, and sixty small ones. One great ship of a hundred guns, called
the _Caracon_, had been built, but it never put to sea, being
burned in harbor. We are all familiar with the uncouth yet strangely
picturesque forms of those ships, standing high out of the water,
with their castles at each end, and looking as if a breath of wind
would blow them over. They were slow and bad sailers, deficient in
accommodation for their two crews--the soldiers to fight and the seamen
to sail them. The navy was not quite so exclusive and aristocratic
as the army; but if seamen worked the ship, landsmen as captains and
admirals commanded it, as they did, until comparatively a late period,
in our own service.

The clergy were the most wealthy body in the state. La Noue reckons
one hundred episcopal and archiepiscopal sees in France, 650 abbeys
belonging to the orders of St. Bernard and St. Benedict, all
“beautified with good kitchens” and 2500 priories. Jean Bouchet has
left a curious picture of the clergy at the early part of the century,
and there are no grounds for believing that they had at all improved in
the interval before his death in 1555. He complains that the candidates
for holy orders possess all the qualities not wanted, and none that
are. Of the cardinals and bishops he says, they ought to preach the
Gospel, and be

                      Du peuple la lumière,
    Le bon exemple et la clarté première.

Montluc, Bishop of Valence, declared in a sermon preached in 1559,
that out of ten priests there were eight who could not read. We may
charitably suppose that he exaggerates.

The clergy by no means dwelt together in unity, and their quarrels
became such a nuisance that, in 1542, the bishops were commanded to
put a stop to the practice of delivering abusive sermons from the
pulpit. The order would seem to have been ineffectual, for, in 1556,
the priests were forbidden to preach unless they had first submitted
their sermons to the diocesan. This regulation may have been partly
intended as a watch over heretical opinions; but in the same year the
procurator-general issued an order of Parliament against all such as
had indulged in “abusive language” in the pulpit. The fact is, that
the sixteenth century was one of singular excitement in every respect.
Society was in travail. The clergy shared in the general restlessness,
and the press not being quick enough, they resorted to their pulpits to
refute an antagonist, and preached sermons instead of writing leading
articles. They spared nobody who attacked them, or did not support
them. A friar of the order of Minims, Jean de Haas by name, preached
in his Advent sermons (Dec., 1561) so violently against the edict of
that year, and the king and queen-mother for sanctioning it, that the
provost was ordered to arrest him “early in the morning,” and take him
bound and gagged to St. Germains; but the citizens, immediately they
heard of his capture, marched out in crowds to the royal residence,
and, irritated with this “indignity,” as Pasquier terms it, demanded
the preacher back. The king was forced to give him up, and Jean
returned in triumph to Paris, “as if he were a great prince.” The
next day he celebrated his deliverance by a solemn procession to the
Church of St. Bartholomew.[186] At the beginning of 1572 Sorbin, the
king’s preacher, declaimed violently against the king because he would
not give immediate orders for murdering the Huguenots, and publicly
exhorted the Duke of Anjou to undertake the task himself, holding
out hopes to him of the primogeniture, as Jacob prevailed over Esau.
But the heretics could be as violent as the orthodox. The Huguenot
ministers poured the rankest abuse on what John Knox called “the
monstrous regiment of women;” and some of them--unless they are greatly
belied--even went so far as to preach regicide. The minister Sureau
was arrested for saying that it was lawful to kill the king and his
mother, if they did not accept the Gospel according to Calvin.[187]

The state of public opinion with regard to the clergy can be more
easily detected in the amusements of the people than in the writings of
scholars, or the acts of government. Before the Reformation there was
a strong anti-papal feeling throughout Europe, which showed itself in
the light literature of the day--the tales, the poetry, and the dramas
with which all classes amused their leisure hours. For instance, in the
tales ascribed to Margaret of Navarre, and in the grotesque romance
of Gargantua, monks and the secular clergy are the chief victims. In
the rude theatrical representations of this time, the abuses of the
Church are dealt with most unsparingly. One of these was exhibited
before the King of Navarre and his wife, the pious Joan of Albret, in
the year 1558. In the first scene a poor woman is represented as at the
point of death, and crying loudly for relief from her sufferings. The
sympathizing gossips round her bed send off hastily for the parson, who
goes through the usual religious ceremonial, but fails to alleviate
her anguish. Then several monks appear--some bearing relics, others
indulgences--none of which bring relief. She is next invested with the
frock and scapulary of St. Francis, but this too fails to restore her
to health. At length, after much good advice has been wasted, one of
the bystanders says there is a stranger in the town who has a certain
specific for the poor woman’s pains. He will guarantee a perfect cure;
but the man is a homeless wanderer, who hides himself from the eyes of
the world, flees the light of day, lives in obscure corners, and comes
out at night only. The sufferer begs that he may be sent for, and after
much trouble he is found. He appears in dress and gait like other men.
Approaching the sick bed, he whispers something in the patient’s ear,
places a little book in her hand, which he assures her is full of
remedies for her disorder, and vanishes. And so the scene ends.

In the next, we find the woman restored to perfect health: her eyes
sparkle with animation, and she can walk with ease. She announces
her recovery, eulogizes the unknown physician, extols his remedy,
and recommends it to the audience. She adds that she would willingly
lend it, “but it is hot to the touch, and smells of fire and faggot.”
However, if they desire to know the name of the remedy and of the
disease of which she had been cured, they must find it out for
themselves. She retired amid loud applause, and the spectators of that
day found no more difficulty in solving the enigma than we do.[188]

The ritual and services of the Church were not free from superstitious
usages. The more the substance of religion died out in their hearts,
the more the clergy adhered to the forms. Thus not to fast on Friday
was a heinous sin; and at Angers, in 1539, those who were found to have
eaten meat on that day were burned alive if they remained impenitent,
and hanged if they repented. The poet Clement Marot narrowly escaped
burning for having eaten pork in Lent. “If any one eats meat,” says
Erasmus, they all cry out: “Heavens! the Church is in danger; the
world is overrun with heretics.” They punish every one who “eats pork
instead of fish.” In 1534 the Bishop of Paris gave the Countess of
Brie permission to eat meat on “meagre” days, but only on condition
that she ate in private and fasted regularly every Friday. Brantome
relates that, during a procession in a certain country town, one woman
attracted peculiar attention by her fervor, even to walking barefoot.
She then went home to prepare her husband’s dinner. The smell of roast
meat attracting the notice of some priests, they entered the house and
caught her in the act of cooking, for which she was sentenced forthwith
to go in penance through the streets carrying the half-roasted meat
round her neck. The morals of the clergy were very relaxed, and they
would hardly have thanked Lippomano if they had read his doubtful
compliment.[189] But this is a subject upon which it would be as
superfluous as it would be disagreeable to enlarge.

The sixteenth century was an age of superstitions, the inevitable
parasites of a debased religion, and often stronger than religion
itself. Both Catherine and Charles IX. had their astronomers and
alchemists; and an agreement is extant between the king and one Jean
des Gallans, in which the latter promises to transmute “all imperfect
metals into fine gold and silver.”[190] The early death of Charles is
ascribed by Bodin to his having spared the life of the famous sorcerer
Trois Échelles.[191] Catherine was so credulous as to believe that La
Mole and Coconnas had compassed the king’s death by melting a waxen
image of him before the fire, and they were particularly “questioned,”
or tortured, as to whether they had not _envouté_ Charles IX. A
singular chain, or amulet, once worn by the queen-mother, has been
often engraved.[192] Nostradamus was the great oracle of the age, and
thousands visited the little town of Salon in Provence to purchase of
him the secrets of the future. He is reported to have shown Catherine
the throne of France occupied by Henry IV. This was shortly before
the accident that befell Henry II., whose death the astrologer was
supposed to have prophesied, in a barbarous quatrain.[193] Almanacs
and prognostications of the future were forbidden to be published as
“against the express command of God,” unless they had received the
imprimatur of the bishop or archbishop, who thus enjoyed a monopoly
of fortune-telling.[194] Strange visions appeared; the Wandering Jew
was seen in many places, a tall man with long white hair floating over
his shoulders and walking barefoot. Signs were visible in the heavens:
fiery swords flashed across the midnight sky, and rivers flowed back
toward their sources. Diabolical possession was common, men and women
were turned into wolves, and prowled about the cemeteries. The witches
held their sabbaths undisturbed by the thunders of a Church which
took no steps to remove the general ignorance. It has always been the
policy of Rome to keep men ignorant, that she may keep them slaves. The
sorcerers whom the Senate of Toulouse held to trial in 1577 were alone
more numerous than all other classes of criminals for two years before.
More than 400 were condemned to perish by fire, and, most surprising!
nearly all of them bore the mark of the devil on their person.[195]
Gregory does not tell us whether they were all executed; but it is easy
to conclude that people, accustomed to such sentences and such judicial
massacres, could not have felt much sympathy toward a few wretched
heretics burned or hanged for reviling the _Bon Dieu_.

A blundering sort of justice was meted out to criminals in those days,
it being quite as probable that an innocent man would suffer as that
the guilty would be convicted. But some one was punished, an example
was made, and the law was satisfied. Occasionally special commissions
were issued to try such powerful criminals as defied the ordinary
courts of justice. The “grands jours,” or special assize of Poitou, was
held under a guard of four hundred men, and lasted all the months of
September and October. Twelve persons were beheaded for their crimes,
one heretic was burned, and the houses of some gentlemen who had
refused to appear were burned down.

Many of the punishments were grossly trivial and indecent, others were
barbarously severe. All England rings with execrations if the agony of
a convicted murderer is unnecessarily prolonged by the bungling of the
hangman; but in the sixteenth century offenses were sometimes punished
with a refined ferocity worthy of the kingdom of Dahomey. No code was
mild three hundred years ago, but practices survived in France which
the more merciful instincts of our law had banished from England.
Traitors were scourged, their ears were cut off, and their tongues
pierced with a red-hot iron, after which they were hanged or torn in
pieces by horses. Highway robbers were condemned by a special edict
(1534), to have their arms broken in two places, as well as their ribs,
legs, and thighs;[196] they were then to be extended face uppermost
on a wheel elevated on a tall pole, and “there they should remain to
repent so long as our Lord should please to let them linger.” “If the
criminals are favored,” says an English traveler, “their breast is
first broken. That blow is called the _blow of mercy_, because it
doth quickly bereave them of their life.”[197] Kindness to the weak,
tenderness and commiseration even for the criminal are the slow growth
of civilizing influences.[198] The pen almost refuses to describe
how some women--Huguenot women--were on one occasion buried alive.
They were placed, each in a box or coffin without a top but with bars
across, after which they were lowered into a deep trench and the earth
was thrown upon them. The executioner was a master (maître) in those
days, and represented rather the sheriff than the Calcraft of 1867. He
was a salaried officer of justice, not very far below the judge in
rank. The office was frequently hereditary, and its emoluments great.
At Carcassonne in 1538, his gloves for one execution cost at one time
twelve deniers, and twenty at another. He was paid five sols for the
tumbrel or hurdle on which the criminal was dragged to the place of
execution; ten for hanging him, twenty for beheading him, and five for
the pole on which the head was exhibited. For flogging a culprit round
the town he received seven sols six deniers. For burning a heretic at
Toulouse, the wood, straw, chain, turpentine, brimstone, etc., cost
five livres six sols, with an additional couple of livres if the victim
was burned alive.

The savage punishments of the age tended to brutalize the manners of
the people, one evil thus fostering and reacting upon another. In the
small town of Provins, now so famous for its roses, there lived one
Crispin, who was accused of robbery and murder, tried, convicted, and
sentenced to be hanged. As he passed for a Huguenot, the priests, up to
the last moment, urged him to recant; but he remained firm--“_si ne
sçavoit pas bien lire ni écrire_.” In due course he was executed,
and the dead body left hanging on the gallows. A crowd of a hundred
boys or more, and none over twelve years old, gathered round the spot;
some of the more daring mounted the ladder, cut the rope and let the
corpse fall. A cord was now fastened round the neck, another round the
ankles, and the boys began to pull in different directions for the
mastery. As the sides were pretty evenly matched, a truce was agreed
upon, during which they got up a mock trial on the question, in what
manner a Huguenot ought to be dragged to the voirie or dunghill. The
juvenile court decided that “the said heretic should be dragged by the
heels like a dead beast,” and were actually pulling the body to the
Changy gate, when another gang of boys met them and insisted that the
body should be burned. A fire was kindled into which the corpse was
thrown, while a crowd of spectators looked on encouraging the boys by
words and gestures. After the body had lain some time in the flames,
it was again dragged out and thrown into the river, where a bargeman
cut off an ear and wore it as a trophy in his hat.[199] Comment upon
such an incident would be superfluous. It is a picture painted by a
contemporary of a state of society that had not existed in Europe since
the fall of Rome. The men of Provins who looked on approvingly while
the boys were making a plaything of Crispin’s lifeless body, were the
fathers of those who committed the atrocities of the Reign of Terror.

Under the Valois dynasty, the towns and cities of France were very much
as they had been through the long period of the Middle Ages. During the
last fifty years, the spirit of change and improvement has spread so
rapidly, that, except in the remoter parts of the country, the traces
of the old towns have almost disappeared. The towns were surrounded
with high walls, such as may still be seen confining the Haute Ville of
Boulogne-sur-Mer, or parts of York, Chester, and Norwich. The streets
were narrow and winding, the houses tall, the successive stories
sometimes projecting over each other, so as almost to exclude the sun.
With the exception of the mansions of the nobles, and sometimes of the
wealthier traders, the houses were built of wood--often straw-thatched,
and with windows formed alike to exclude air and light. This was one
cause of the frequent pestilences which ravaged Europe, and of the low
average of human life. The mansions of the nobles and gentry still
retained a semi-fortified aspect. They were entered by huge gate-ways,
and few windows looked into the street. The shops of the traders
resembled greatly the modern greengrocers’ or butchers’, in being
without glazed windows, and open to the street as soon as the shutter
was let down. Sometimes they were connected by a sort of arcade, still
traceable in the _Piliers des Halles_, where the name remains
while the thing has disappeared. These middle-class dwellings were
often covered externally with slates, or the intervals between the
timbers were filled up with bricks arranged in fantastic patterns. The
external wood-work was often as exquisitely carved as the internal. A
spacious staircase with massive balustrades occupied a disproportionate
share of the house. The roof was so arranged as to show a gable to the
street, and it often projected so far as to permit a small gallery to
be built out of the top story, where the inmates might enjoy the fresh
air under shelter.

There were no facilities for pedestrians: the roadways were unpaved
(except in a few rare instances), and no smooth _trottoir_ invited
the curious or the idle to stroll and gaze at the shops. In wet weather
the streets were impassable from mud, in hot and dry weather they were
almost as troublesome from the dust and stench; for the road was the
general receptacle of the rubbish of the houses, and the scavenger’s
trade was in embryo. Drainage was unknown, and even in Paris there was
only one sewer, namely that constructed by Aubriot in the reign of
Charles V.

Churches and convents were numerous in every city and town, not
unfrequently occupying one-half of their area. At Rouen there were
forty convents and thirty-six parish churches, without reckoning the
collegiate churches and the cathedral. Each city and town had its
governor, who lived in the citadel or castle, which was generally so
detached as to be secure when the town had fallen into the hands of
the enemy. The well-known town of Boulogne-sur-Mer presents us with an
easily accessible example of this arrangement.

In the middle of the sixteenth century the population of Paris was
between four and five hundred thousand.[200] The walls were seven
leagues in circuit, according to Corrozet; while Giustiniani (1535)
says that a man could make the circuit in three hours’ easy walking,
which is nearer Coryat’s calculation (1608) of ten miles.[201] It was
surrounded by stone walls flanked by towers, and pierced by eleven
gates, five on the south side and six on the north. The bulwark
enclosing the northern part of the city started from the arsenal on the
river, ran along the boulevards of the Bastille, St. Antoine, Temple,
St. Martin, and St. Denis to the Place des Victoires, the Palais Royal,
and the Louvre. On the south, it ran from the Pont de la Tournelle,
behind the gardens of the college of Henry IV., across the streets
of St. Jacques and Mazarin to the river at the Pont des Arts.[202]
Houses even now were found in clusters beyond the Porte St. Honoré, on
each side of the road as far as the present Barriers of Roule and of
Chaillot. The Faubourg Montmartre was without the walls, along the line
of the Chaussée d’Antin, and beyond the Temple the Faubourg St. Antoine
was fast growing in size. Giovanni Capello writing in 1554 describes
Paris as the largest city he had ever seen, and Coryat declares it to
be well called “_Lutetia_ (from _lutum_, mud), for many of
the streets are the dirtiest and the stinkingest of all he ever saw.”
It contained from three to four hundred houses of the yearly value of
6000 livres, two hundred of 10,000, one hundred of 30,000, and twenty
at least of 50,000.[203] Every Wednesday and Saturday 2000 horses
entered the city laden solely with poultry and game, all of which was
sold in two hours.

The streets were dark, narrow, and winding, with a gutter running
down the middle. In that part called the Cité the houses were tall
and black, grim as prisons, and swarming with a squalid famishing
population. Many of the streets were little wider than the curious rows
or alleys in Yarmouth in which you can hardly turn a wheelbarrow. No
lamps shed even a feeble light to guide the belated citizen. The tapers
in the shrines at the street corners alone helped to direct his steps,
if he chanced to be abroad without torch or lantern. It need hardly
be said that the streets were very insecure, and acts of violence
frequent. At intervals during the night, the watch, a company of armed
men, went their round, but the noise they made and the torches they
carried, were a warning to the evildoer to make his escape.

The clear waters of the Seine cut the city into two parts. The stately
quays that now line its banks scarcely existed in the reign of Charles
IX. The gardens of private citizens extended in many places down to
the water’s edge. The river flowed beneath five bridges--one of which
(the Millers’ or the Birds’ bridge) was for foot passengers only. It
joined what is now the Quai de la Mégisserie to the Quai de l’Horloge,
and was swept away, both houses and inhabitants, by the flood of 1596.
Thirty-four houses stood on each side of the bridge of Notre Dame, and
the street thus formed was the favorite promenade of the Parisians. The
road was so wide that three carriages could pass abreast, and the rents
were higher than in any other part of the city. Among the attractions
of this street, Gilles Corrozet does not forget to mention the charming
women who served in the shops.[204]

The modern traveler now seeks in vain for the ten islands which once
interrupted the navigation of the Seine. That of Louviers, where
Charles IX. used to bathe, and where he was once entertained with a
naval fight, was united to the Quai Morland in 1847. The islands of
Notre Dame and Vaches, composing the Isle of St. Louis, were once
separated by a narrow ditch, which is now the Rue Poulletier. The
Jews’ Island, where Jacques Molay was beheaded, was united to the Cité
by Henry IV., and formed the Place Dauphine and the spur of the Pont
Neuf, upon which the statue of the first Bourbon king still stands.
The island of the Louvre, never little better than a mere sand bank,
has been dredged away. The others have disappeared in the course of
improving the navigation of the river, and, La Cité alone remains.
This old quarter of Paris, the hot-bed of sedition, disease, and crime,
has been so entirely metamorphosed by the hand of improvement, that
travelers who knew it thirty years ago recognize it with difficulty.

Even at this time Paris was noted for its _orfévrerie_, its works
in gold and silver being much sought after. The Rue St. Denis was the
principal street; its shops and warehouses were famous all over Europe.
Along that street kings and queens used to make their solemn entrance
into the capital, when the merchants spent their money like water to
decorate their houses in welcome of their sovereign. Between it and
the Rue aux Fers was the Church of the Innocents, round which lay the
famous cemetery, enclosed with dank and sombre arcades, filled with
shops and stalls. They were the favorite resort of lawyers, and the
rendezvous of fashion and intrigue, as the Cathedral of St. Paul’s was
to the English court or city gallants in the reign of the Stuarts.
The Rue Jacob (St. Jacques) was like Paternoster Row, full of shops
plentifully furnished with books--diversos libros diversis artibus
aptos.

The chief royal residence was the Louvre. The palace of the
Tournelles--the Place Royale now occupies its site--was deserted after
the accident to Henry II. The brick-fields which gave their name to the
new palace of the Tuileries had disappeared in the previous century;
and Catherine, having purchased the Marquis of Villeroy’s hotel with
the adjoining property, gave Philibert Delorme instructions to commence
that striking monument of her architectural taste.

A Venetian embassador reckons that there were at this time one hundred
and thirty-two cities in France; but as he gives no definition of the
term “city,” his calculation is of little service. He probably meant
walled towns, to distinguish them from such as were unfortified. The
approaches to the cities were not then marked by airy suburbs and
scattered villas; but the cultivated country or forest ran close up
to the walls. One ornamental erection alone serves to mark the great
change that has taken place. Coryat has frequent occasion to describe
the “fair gallows of stone,” which adorned the entrance to every town.
Most of them remained until they were swept away by the Revolution.

The principal cities of France, after Paris, were Lyons, Orleans,
Rouen, Bordeaux, and Dieppe. A paved causeway led from the capital to
each of these places. Orleans was so large and beautiful that Charles
V. called it the finest in France. It was populous and well-built, and
its university contained 1600 students, “all men and not boys, as in
the other seats of education.”

Rouen, sometimes called the second city in the kingdom, carried on a
large trade, but it had not yet become the “Manchester” of France. It
had four yearly fairs, and its quays were crowded with ships, sometimes
as many as two hundred “small vessels” being there at the same
time.[205] Then, as now, the poorer people drank no wine but “bira di
pere e poma.” When Henry II. and Catherine visited Rouen in 1550, the
citizens welcomed them with a remarkable ballet or masque. The banks
of the Seine were transformed so as to present a picture of Brazilian
life. There is an old wood-cut representing the curious scene. A
meadow, sloping down to the river, is planted with trees, colored and
trimmed so as to resemble those of South American forests. Parroquets
and other gaily-colored birds are flying about them, and apes and
monkeys clambering among the branches. The natives are represented by
three hundred mariners of Rouen, Dieppe, and Havre, who, unencumbered
with the slightest clothing, are hunting, dancing, and fighting with as
much animation as the fifty “real savages just arrived from America.”
Offensive as the exhibition would be to our tastes, it was otherwise in
the sixteenth century. The queen was delighted “aux jolys esbatements
et schyomachie des sauvages.”[206] A somewhat similar but less undraped
scene was represented before Charles IX. when he visited Bordeaux in
April, 1565. Representatives--most of them stage representatives--of
twelve nations defiled before him, among them being some real
“Canarians, savages, Americans, Brazilians, and Taprobanians,” each
speaking in his native tongue. A picture was painted to perpetuate the
memory of the scene.[207] Bordeaux was a wealthy city, its foreign
trade extensive, its population so numerous that it could furnish
10,000 fighting men, and its parliament ranked next after Paris and
Toulouse.

In 1560, Dieppe possessed a mercantile marine equal to that of all
the rest of France. The population of the city amounted to 60,000,
now it is about 20,000. The ship-owners of this “northern Rochelle”
may compare with the Medicis. When John Ango entertained Francis I.
at his chateau of Varengeville (now an undistinguishable heap of
ruins), he received the king with a magnificence unusual even in those
magnificent times. The rooms were decorated with costly hangings,
curious furniture, Italian sculpture, and precious vases. Ango lent
money and ships to the court, and often had as many as twenty armed
vessels afloat, with which he ventured to measure strength with the
King of Portugal. When the government of the Low Countries seized all
the French ships in Flemish waters, Henry II. ordered Coligny to equip
a fleet instantly and take summary vengeance. But the ports were empty,
and there were no ships. “It is only the people of Dieppe,” said the
admiral, “who can supply your majesty with a fleet.” The citizens,
proud of the honor, offered to pay half the expense, and fitted out
nineteen vessels of one hundred and twenty tons each. Ships of Caen
went to Africa and the New World, bringing back so much more gold than
could be exchanged, that the king permitted the merchants to have a
mint of their own.

Lyons, owing to its fairs, possessed a stronger foreign element among
its inhabitants than any other town in France. In 1575 Lippomano called
it “one of the most celebrated cities;” and there was a proverb that
“Lyons supported the crown by its taxes, and Paris by its presents.”
The revenue contributed by the former city alone was so great, that
when there was a talk of suspending the fairs, it was calculated
that the change would involve a loss of ten millions of gold yearly.
The immense business led to the appointment of special tribunals for
the fairs, and a sort of clearing-house for bills of exchange. The
principal merchants and bankers were Italians: Capponi, Gondi, Spini,
Deodati. Lorenzo Capponi, one of the most munificent of his class,
kept open house during each fair, and entertained more than 4000
persons. After the introduction of silk-growing, Lyons received a
great development. The first mulberry-tree planted in the 16th century
at Alais, about a league from Montelimart, was still alive in 1802.
In this century all Europe was supplied with books from the presses
of Lyons--no city, Venice perhaps excepted, circulating more. The
names of Gryphæus and Dolet, Tournes and Roville, are familiar to all
book-collectors. In the house of Henry Stephens (Etienne) every body
spoke Latin from garret to cellar. The old city occupied the space
between the Cours Napoleon and a line drawn from the Pont Morand to the
Pont de la Feuillée, the Church of St. Nizier being about the middle.
There were only two bridges--one over each river; and a small suburb
on the right bank of the Saone, clustering round the cathedral and the
Church of St. Lawrence. The superior comfort of the inhabitants may be
estimated from the report of a traveler, who mentions as a circumstance
worthy of note, that “most of their windows were made of white paper;”
although in some of the better houses the upper part of the window was
filled with glass.

The smaller towns of France have all undergone a change more or less
great: even those in the agricultural districts have outgrown their
walls. At Boulogne-sur-Mer the lower town consisted of two or three
convents and a few fishermen’s huts clustered round the Church of St.
Nicholas. A populous suburb now covers the site of the old harbor.

Dijon, now a mere provincial town, was once a great parliament centre:
a little capital in Eastern France.[208] It had a vast ducal palace;
churches and abbeys were crowded close together. Of the palace of Jean
sans Peur, the fire has spared little beyond a tall tower and some
precious fragments. Modern improvements and renovations have destroyed
much of the old city; but that gem of the Renaissance La Maison
Milsand, in the Rue des Forges, still remains as an unapproachable
model of architectural decoration.

The charming little town of Moulins in the Bourbonnais filled the
space now enclosed by the inner promenade--the Cours Doujar, d’Aquin,
and Berulle--constructed on the ditches of the old wall. None of the
“curious birds and beasts” remain in the park; and of the magnificent
chateau where Charles IX. held his court little has survived beyond the
huge unbattlemented tower; and of the steeples for which the town was
once so famous, only one (the clock-tower) still soars above the houses.

The greatest change of all has taken place in the district that lies
around the great manufacturing town of St. Étienne. In 1560 it was a
pleasant wooded valley; no clanging engines disturbed its silence,
no clouds of smoke defiled the air. Now it is one of the busiest
centres of modern industry, and in noise and dirt may almost vie with
Birmingham.

Toulon, now the great arsenal of the French navy, was a small port
containing only 637 houses, and covering an area of 660 acres. Its
whole artillery consisted of two bombardes and twenty-five pounds of
powder. Its naval importance dates from the reign of Henry IV. In 1543,
when Barbarossa’s fleet was received into the harbor, the inhabitants
were ordered to abandon the town for six months under pain of death,
leaving their houses and all they could not remove at the mercy of the
Turks.[209]

From this imperfect sketch of the condition of France at the
outbreak of the Religious Wars, the reader may in some degree be
able to understand how such a crime as the St. Bartholomew massacre
was possible. Although right and wrong are always the same, our
appreciation of them depends in the main upon our education and the
circumstances around us; and it would be unfair to judge the men of the
sixteenth century by our nineteenth century standard.




                              CHAPTER V.

      FROM THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES IX. TO THE MASSACRE AT VASSY.

                             [1560–1562.]

   Character of the Boy-King--Portrait of Catherine--The
   States-General--The Chancellor’s Address--Speeches of the Three
   Orators--Agitation in the Provinces--Religious Amnesty--Edict
   of July--Provincial Assemblies Convoked--Instructions of the
   Isle of France--The Triumvirate--States of Pontoise--Proposals
   of Reform--Colloquy of Poissy--Beza--Conference in the Queen’s
   Chamber--King’s Speech--Beza’s Defense--Catherine’s Liberal
   Spirit--Spread of New Doctrines--Monster Congregations--The
   Guises Intrigue with Spain--Violence of the Clergy--Massacres
   at Cahors and Aurillac--Amiens--Huguenot Outrages--Riot of
   St. Médard--Notables at St. Germains--Edict of January,
   1562--Violence at Dijon and Aix--Anthony’s Apostasy--The Duke
   and the Cardinal at Saverne--Massacre at Vassy--Both Parties
   Arm--Guise Enters Paris--Plot to Seize the King.


The accession of Charles IX., a child not eleven years old, was a
revolution. “Now we fell from a fever into a frenzy,” quaintly writes
an old historian; “a reign cursed in the city and cursed in the field;
cursed in the beginning and cursed in the ending.”[210]

The new king is described by the Venetian embassador as an amiable,
handsome boy, with fine eyes and graceful carriage, eating and drinking
little, quick-witted and spirited, gentle and liberal.[211]

The same gossiping writer supplies a striking picture of the
queen-mother at this time. He speaks of her keen comprehension, her
business habits, and her sound understanding. “She never loses sight
of the king, and permits no one to sleep in his room. She knows that
she is envied because she is a foreigner.... Her plans are deep, and
she holds every thing in her own hands.... She lives carelessly,
has an enormous appetite, and, to keep down her fat, she takes much
exercise, walks much, rides much on horseback, and hunts with the king.
Her complexion is very dark, and she is already [_ætat._ 43] a
stout woman.”[212] A letter she wrote about this time to her daughter
Elizabeth is eminently characteristic:[213]

“As I have given the messenger instructions to say many things to you,
I write only to pray you, my child, not to feel sadness on my behalf;
for I will try to demean myself so that God and the world may approve
of my actions; for my chief care shall be the honor of God and the
conservation of my authority; not, however, for my own benefit, but
for the preservation of this realm and the good of your brothers,
whom I love for the sake of him who was your common father. My dear
child, commend your happiness to the keeping of the Almighty; for you
have seen me as happy and prosperous as you are now yourself, when
my only sorrow was the fear of not being sufficiently beloved by the
king your father, who gave me more honor than I merited, but whom I so
loved that, in his presence, I always felt awe. God has bereaved me of
my husband; and now I weep for your brother. He has committed to my
charge three little children, a kingdom distracted by divisions, within
which there is not one individual in whom I can trust, or one who is
not swayed by private partiality. Therefore, my dear, take warning by
my fate: confide not exclusively in the love which you bear toward
your husband, and which he renders back to you; nor in the pomps and
luxuries of your present power: but lift up your heart to Him alone
who can continue these blessings to you; and who, when it is His
sovereign will, can bring you to my present condition; the which I
would rather die than see you suffer, from dread lest your constancy
might fail under the bitter trials which I have endured, solely through
His sustaining aid and protection.”

  [Illustration: CATHERINE DE MEDICIS.]

There can be no doubt that Catherine was fully sensible of the
difficulties and dangers of her position. More than once she quoted
the well-known words: “_Væ tibi, terra, cujus rex est puer!_”
She toiled and intrigued and struggled for herself and for her
children--not for France. The Guises threatened both, and her task
was how to thwart, if not defeat, her rivals: “_Virilibus curis
vitia muliebria._” She was not persistent enough. Correro calls her
“timid,”[214] and her heart often failed her at a decisive moment. Her
first care, however, was to tranquilize the country; or, to use her
own words to the Bishop Limoges, her embassador in Spain, “to restore
gently all that the wickedness of the times had damaged in France.”
Nor was this an easy matter, if we may trust the Venetian reports,
which tell of “an administration almost without rule or guide, justice
violated and polluted, deadly hatreds, the passions and caprices of the
powerful ones, the opposing interests of the princes, which varied with
the opportunities; religious troubles; disobedience and tumult among
the people, with revolt among the grandees.”[215]

Charles being only ten years old--he was born on the 27th June,
1550--his mother, with the approval of the council of state,[216]
assumed the authority though not the title of regent. Condé was
released from prison and Anthony made lieutenant-general of France,
while the Constable Montmorency resumed the superintendence of the
army, and Guise retained his place of grand-master. When the Constable
entered Orleans, he dismissed the soldiers he found at the gate: “I
will take care,” he said, “that the king shall travel safely, without
guard, all over the kingdom.”

The members of the States-General were silent but not unobservant
spectators of these things. Having been summoned to meet at Orleans by
Francis II., the curious constitutional question arose, Whether they
were not _ipso facto_ dissolved? but it was ingeniously argued,
that though the man may die, the king does not, and therefore their
sittings would be perfectly legal.

The States-General, or assembly of the three orders (clergy, nobles,
and commons), date from the beginning of the fourteenth century, when
Philip the Fair called them together on the occasion of his quarrel
with Pope Boniface VIII. They held but one session, yet, in that, they
proclaimed the temporal independence of France, and scattered forever
the ideas of universal monarchy entertained by the papacy. The States
met at indeterminate epochs, and were at one time in a fair way to
lead the European nations in the difficult path of representative
government. In the assembly held at Tours, in 1484, they called for
extensive reforms, and asserted a claim to be summoned every two
years. They went farther, and in language as bold as that of our
Petition of Rights, a century and a half later, declared that “the said
States-General expected that henceforward no taxes would be imposed on
the people until they had been consulted on the subject, nor unless
the imposition of such taxes should be made with their free-will and
consent, as the guardians and keepers of the liberties and privileges
of the realm.” These resolutions came to nothing: the crown continued
to levy taxes by proclamation, and nearly fourscore years elapsed
before the Estates[217] were called together again. And now in 1560,
when France was in great peril from internal commotions, they were
to meet once more in the city of Orleans. Even had the country been
entirely quiet, the financial condition of the state was such, that
extraordinary means of raising supplies would have been required.
The expenditure exceeded the annual revenue by ten millions, and
though such a deficit may be easily met by modern finance-ministers,
there were not three hundred years ago the same convenient methods of
filling an empty exchequer. The Guises knew that the summoning of the
States-General was a hostile measure aimed at them, but had not opposed
it for two reasons: firstly, it would relieve them of the unpopularity
they might possibly incur by attempting to raise the necessary supplies
by increasing taxation under the royal mandate; secondly, they hoped
to receive a large accession of strength from the Catholic members.
Each party, indeed, labored to gain the popular support, and at the
electoral meetings throughout the kingdom there was an excitement that
augured well for the revival of constitutional forms of government. The
Huguenots of Paris went to the Hotel-de-Ville and insisted that their
remonstrance and confession should be embodied in the _cahier_
of instructions. In that drawn up by the municipality of Provins the
grievances of the people were declared in plain and forcible language.
“The clergy,” they said, “are too rich, the Church too wealthy; the
priests should have less money and keep fewer concubines; they should
give the people more instruction in good manners, distribute more
liberal alms to the poor, and be less disorderly in their passions,
less luxurious in their dress, less given to haunting taverns and
houses of ill-fame; they should not ride out a hunting so frequently
with hawks and hounds, or so grind the people in body and goods....
Justice is too dear, the fees are excessive, and the judge ought to
be paid out of the public purse.... The people are oppressed by the
soldiery, who beat and plunder them, and turn them out of house and
home, and kill them. They are grievously oppressed by taxes, from
which the rich by favor are exempt.... The salt is not good, dry, or
pure; it contains a sixth part of rubbish.... The gentry do not defend
their people or neighbors, as they are bound to do; they hold taxable
property, and carry on trades without paying for licenses.”[218]

The assembly of the Three Estates was solemnly inaugurated on the 13th
December, 1560, in the great hall of the castle of Orleans, where the
Black Prince had feasted, and Joan of Arc had sat in council with
Dunois, La Hire, Xaintrailles, and the flower of French chivalry,
while “the English wolves” under Talbot were prowling round the city
walls. The vaulted roof, long since crumbled to ruins, was painted
and decorated with fleur-de-lis; the walls were hung with tapestry
representing mythological and allegorical scenes. On a small carpeted
platform or dais, at the upper end, sat Charles IX.; at his left, the
queen-mother; beyond her the king’s sister and the Queen of Navarre;
while the king’s brother and Anthony of Navarre occupied similar places
to the right of the infant monarch. At the end of the platform sat the
Duke of Guise with his ivory staff as grand-master of the household;
at his right the constable with the naked sword of state; at his left
the chancellor with his golden mace. These were on low-backed chairs,
according to the strict etiquette of the court; all the other members
of the States sat on benches. To the right of the throne were the
cardinals in their robes of scarlet, and the high dignitaries of the
Church; opposite them, the nobility in court dresses of every costly
material and hue. The members of the Third Estate, dressed in sober
garments, faced the throne. Four secretaries of state were present to
record the proceedings. Soldiers with spear and cross-bow, halberd and
partisan, lined the walls; chamberlains and equerries, the esquires
of the nobles, and the chaplains and deacons in attendance upon the
churchmen, filled up the hall. A little behind the throne were two
galleries set apart for the ladies and other spectators, among whom
were several Huguenots of mark, whose grave faces and dress seemed
almost out of place among their brilliant companions.

The proceedings were opened by an address from the Chancellor Michel
de l’Hopital, one of the greatest and noblest men of the sixteenth
century. When he rose to speak, his lofty stature, pale face, and long
white beard filled the spectators with admiration, and an involuntary
murmur ran through the assembly. He seemed the very model of a senator
and magistrate. First bending the knee to his royal master, and then
seating himself again at the king’s desire, he proceeded to state the
motives that had induced the government to call the Estates together,
and to point out very explicitly that they were mere “counters in the
king’s hands,” and that their sole duty was to “petition and obey.”
It did not occur to any of his hearers to ask why they were assembled
at all if such were their duties and position. Adverting to the
religious dissensions, the chancellor advised the Catholic members “to
adorn themselves with virtue and holy living,” and to attack their
adversaries with arms of charity, prayer, and persuasion. “The sword,”
he added, “is of little avail against the understanding; gentleness
will make more converts than violence.” Yet even this large-hearted
man could not see the possibility of two forms of religion existing
side by side in the same state: he wanted uniformity, where he should
have been satisfied with harmony. “It is foolish,” he said, “to look
for peace, repose, and friendship between persons of different creeds.
An Englishman and a Frenchman may live together on good terms,
but not two people of different religions, who dwell in the same
city. One faith, one law, one king.” For this reason he proposed a
national council, which might reform abuses, and so reconcile the two
parties, adding “that if the pope did not call one the king would.”
The chancellor concluded his long harangue by drawing their attention
to the disordered state of the finances. “No orphan was ever more
destitute of resources than our young king,” he said. The public debt
amounted to forty-three million livres, paying the enormous though
ordinary rate of interest, namely, twelve per cent. Nor was it easy
to see how such a debt could be met, considering that the expenditure
exceeded twenty-two million livres, while the total annual revenue
barely amounted to twelve millions.[219]

The assembly now broke up, the three Estates proceeding to their
separate deliberations: the Clergy in the refectory of the
Franciscans, the Nobles at the Dominicans’, and the Tiers État at
the Carmelites’.[220] The first act of each body was to choose its
orator or speaker. The Clergy elected the Cardinal of Lorraine, and
recommended the other two orders to concur in their choice. This they
refused to do,[221] on the ground that they might have something to say
against him[222]--a hint which drove the cardinal from Orleans. Jean
Quentin, a canon of Notre Dame, was elected in his place, the Nobles
having chosen Jacques de Silly, baron of Rochefort; and the Third
Estate, an advocate of Bordeaux, named Lange (Angelus) or Langin.

On the 1st January, 1561, the Three Estates assembled again in the
great hall of the castle, where the king attended to hear the Speakers
of the orders deliver their addresses. Jean Lange began by denouncing
“the three ruling passions of the clergy--ignorance, avarice, and
wantonness. Livings are given to those who have never learned. Bishops
transfer their duties to unworthy deputies; while the prelates ruin
themselves by prodigality and loose living. These things can only be
reformed by means of a council--a national council.” He went on farther
to demand the restitution to the clergy of the right of electing the
bishops, as in the time of the primitive Church, the dedication of a
portion of the ecclesiastical property to the foundation of hospitals,
colleges, and schools, the suppression of every kind of tribute or
payment to the court of Rome, and a check upon the tyranny of the
nobles over the peasantry. Of the sufferings of this class, Lange’s
cahier presented a distressing picture. It may be overcolored, but its
substantial truth is unfortunately established by other evidence. “Some
poor creatures,” he said, “having been robbed of their little store to
pay their taxes, have starved to death during the winter. Others in
despair have murdered their wives and children and then themselves.
Others have been dragged to prison and there left to die for want of
food. Some have forsaken their families and fled. Many are in such
distress, that, having neither horse nor ox, they are constrained to
harness their own bodies to the plough.” The last of the three hundred
and fifty articles of this cahier contained a demand which would have
changed the current of French history had it been granted: it was that
the States-General should be held every five years.

Jacques de Silly, the orator of the Nobility, began by making a
preposterous defense of the divine origin of his order, and went on
to accuse the Clergy of encroaching on the power of the judicial
tribunals.[223] “It is your business,” he said, “not to interfere
with edicts, but to pray, preach, and administer the sacraments.” The
Nobility were more eager for change than the Tiers État. Those of
Touraine demanded a church reform in conformity with the pure word of
God; others, that all religious differences should be decided by the
Bible alone.

The Clergy wisely thought that their best policy would be to stand
mainly on the defensive.[224] Their orator, Jean Quentin, who read his
speech, acknowledged that their discipline needed correction, but that
such a reform could not be brought about by profaning the churches,
destroying the images, and expelling the priests. “I contend,” he said,
“that it is necessary to preserve the Catholic religion in France, and
consequently to refuse liberty of conscience to such as dissent from
it.” He then argued that all ecclesiastical property ought to be used
according to the wishes of the donors, and that the clergy should be
relieved of the _décimes_ and other imposts by which they were
oppressed. In the course of his speech, Quentin went out of his way to
insult Coligny, as a “reviver of old heresies;” and advised “that any
one petitioning for freedom of worship should be declared heretical,
and proceeded against accordingly, so that the evil might be removed
from among us.”[225] He gave point to his words by looking at the
admiral, who complained of such language and demanded an apology, which
was made. This humiliation, added to the satires and epigrams showered
upon him by the offended Huguenots, gave poor Quentin such a shock that
he is reported to have died a few days after.

In the last sitting of the Estates the Abbot of Bois Aubry, secretary
of the Clergy in the preparation of their cahier, strongly condemned
the use of force in religious matters. “The conscience,” he said,
“suffers no one to command it but reason; and therefore to desire in
our days to deprive the followers of the pretended Reformed religion
of the exercise of their reason can produce nothing but evil. It would
be driving them to atheism;--a thing which every good Catholic should
hold in horror and execration.... It is only by means of a Council
that we can remedy the evil of religious diversity now among us, and
not by the sword or the gibbet. Nine royal edicts were issued during
the former reigns, and the courts of Parliament have published decrees
without number, in order to abolish this so-called Reformed religion,
by the punishment of fire and other severe pains and penalties. They
omitted nothing to prevent its growth, and did not succeed. Our Holy
Father (it is said) will never consent to permit the exercise of their
religion; but what answer would he make if any one should ask him why
he allows the Jews the exercise of their religion at Rome and Avignon,
and in all the States of the Church? Would he say that the religion of
the Jews, who do not believe in Christ, is better than the religion of
those who do believe in him?”

The Estates separated without settling any thing: they did nothing
toward reconciling the two religious parties or relieving the finances
of the kingdom. They called for the redress of many grievances; and
when the court would have been willing to concede a few reforms
in exchange for pecuniary supplies, the Estates said that their
instructions, which they could not exceed, gave them no power or
authority to raise money. They thus virtually threw away “the keys of
the purse”--the most potent guarantee of good government. It was a
fatal mistake, but it does not appear that the court observed it any
more than the Estates. The government saw only that the States-General
was a body too numerous for the dispatch of business, and it was agreed
that the provincial Estates, grouped into thirteen assemblies, should
each elect three deputies, and that the thirty-nine thus returned
should meet in the following August. The bishops were also convoked to
this assembly, and a great number of them actually obeyed the summons.

The meeting of the States-General did not quiet the agitation in the
provinces. The war of words soon became a war of blows, and serious
riots occurred in many large towns. At Beauvais, Cardinal Chatillon,
the admiral’s brother, nearly lost his life, because on Easter Sunday
he had celebrated divine service in his private chapel and not in the
cathedral, and had administered the holy communion in both kinds, after
the Huguenot fashion. The mob broke into the houses of some persons
suspected of heresy, and catching one Adrian Fourré, a priest, they
killed him, and were dragging him to the _voirie_ to burn him,
when the public executioner interfered, asserted his rights, and burned
the body himself amid the shouts of the populace. Some of the rioters
were afterward hanged, when the fanatic people rose and hanged the
executioner. At Le Mans a Protestant was killed, and the bishop did
not scruple to write to the king, asking pardon for the murderers.
At Rennes, the Huguenots ventured to worship openly, for which they
were attacked by a “noisy bawling bully” of a grey friar, who exhorted
his hearers to fall upon them by night. The municipal officers did
not attempt to silence him, fearing that if they should not succeed
they would next day be “publicly and scandalously preached at before
the people.”[226] In December, 1560, an image of the Virgin was found
lying in the kennel at Carcassonne. The sacrilege was imputed to the
Huguenots, and the mob rose upon them, and many were killed. One man
had his mouth cut from ear to ear, and an iron bit was fastened into
it. The town hangman murdered five Huguenots, whom he skinned, and then
ate the heart of one of them. He also sawed another, a private enemy,
in two.

It must not, however, be supposed that the provocation and insult
were all on one side. On the 25th March, 1561, the high bailiff of
Blois sent the queen-mother a long account of the mischievous doings
and profanity of the Huguenots; how they had broken open churches,
shattered images and crucifixes, and carried away thirteen young women
from the convent of Guiche. Even in Paris, the hot-bed of Romish
fanaticism, the Huguenots broke the images set up in the streets, and
in some of the churches. They also held tumultuous meetings in the Pré
aux Clercs, which were at last put down.

The government, desirous of acting with mildness in the distracted
state of the country, had summoned a meeting of the Privy Council on
the very day of the dissolution of the States-General of Orleans, in
order to take into consideration the petitions of the Huguenots for
leave to celebrate their worship in private. The prayer was refused,
for the Lorraine party was still strong; but the queen-mother not
long after issued a general pardon, liberating all persons who had
been imprisoned for their religion, and commanding the magistrates
to restore the property of which the lawful owners had been deprived
in consequence of their heretical opinions. At the same time all the
king’s subjects were exhorted to conform to the rites and usages of
the national Church, and the penalty of death was denounced against
those who, under pretense of supporting the interests of religion,
should disturb the public tranquillity. As this was not a sufficient
protection to the Reformed party, letters patent were issued in April,
repeating the former salutary provisions, forbidding men to revile
each other with the odious appellations of Papist and Huguenot, or to
assemble in large bodies, or to make domiciliary visits under pretense
of discovering religious practices contrary to law; and permitting the
return of all who had been forced to leave the kingdom in consequence
of their opinions, provided they were willing to conform externally
to the Catholic religion. Such persons as would not submit to these
regulations had liberty to sell their property and leave France.
The revised edict was ordered to be read in all the churches, and a
cordelier at Provins introduced it in the following grotesque terms:
“My dear Christian brethren, I have received instructions to read an
edict ordering the cats and mice to live in peace together, and that we
in France--that is to say, the Heretics and the Catholics--should do
the same, and that such is the king’s pleasure. I am sorry for it, and
I am grieved to see the new reign begin so unpromisingly.”

Even the small concessions made by this edict were severely blamed
by the pope and the King of Spain;[227] while numerous outbreaks in
various parts of France--bloody protests against toleration, like our
own Gordon riots--showed that the people were very much divided in
their sentiments upon it. In order, therefore, to tranquillize the
public mind, the chancellor advised the queen-mother to consult the
Parliament of Paris on the best means of suppressing these religious
disorders. A solemn meeting was held in July (1561), Charles,
Catherine, and the chief nobility being present. The debate, which
De l’Hopital opened with a wise and conciliatory address, was long
and stormy. “We have not met to discuss points of doctrine,” he said,
“but to deliberate on the best means of preventing the dissensions
occasioned by the difference of religious opinion, and to put an end
to the license and rebellion of which that difference has hitherto
proved a constant source. The devil has entered into these contests,
and no one thinks of reforming himself.” In other words, religion
was a mere pretext. The parliament was much divided: some contended
that the edicts against the Huguenots ought to be wholly suspended
until a meeting of the National Council; another that they should be
carried out more strictly; while a third party were of opinion that
the sole cognizance of heresy should be assigned to the bishops, and
that a severe penalty, short of death, should be inflicted upon all
who assembled, even peacefully, for religious worship.[228] This
proposal was carried by a majority of three votes, and the result was
the Edict of July, 1561, forbidding, under pain of death, the use of
insulting terms, and any act of violence under color of religion. All
public and private meetings were interdicted; the bishops were still
to take cognizance of the crime of heresy, but the penalties were
restricted to banishment; and, finally, the king granted a general
amnesty, on condition that every body lived peaceably and catholically.
The Huguenots gained little by this decree beyond the abolition of
the death penalty in cases of heresy; indeed, it actually diminished
the toleration they already enjoyed; and yet the Parliament of Paris
would only register it provisionally, on the ground that it was too
favorable. That this opinion was not shared by the Huguenots is clear
from a hymn written on the occasion, of which the following is a
portion:

    Quant à moi, je ne peux vivre
      Qu’avec ce qu’il interdit;
    Aussi le mien corps je livre
      Aux peines de son Édit.
    Qu’il me commande exiler,
    Qu’il fasse mes os brûler,
    Qu’il m’étrangle d’une corde,
    Je le veux et m’y accorde....

    N’aie donc, ô peuple, crainte
      Du supplice qui t’attend,
    Car cette dure contrainte
      Jusqu’à l’âme ne s’étend.

That the restrictions and penalties of the July edict were unnecessary
is clear enough from indisputable contemporaneous evidence. On April
25th of this very year De Crussol wrote to the queen-regent from
Montpellier, that the Reformed had petitioned him to be allowed to
live in peace; that he found in them nothing but “great obedience and
reverence,” and that they were loyal subjects. He goes on to complain
of the Parliament of Toulouse, infringing the edict and detaining
the Huguenots in prison: “It looks as if they wanted to amend the
said edict, or to make a new one.” Six months later we find Prosper
de Sainte Croix (Santa Croce), the papal legate, equally emphatic in
his praise of the Reformed. Writing to Cardinal Borromeo, the pope’s
nephew, on the 16th October, 1561, he says: “In Gascony and other
places, I saw no mutilated images, no broken crosses, no deserted
churches, as I had been told I should;” and then proceeds to speak of
the proper feeling of the people on the matter where a cross had been
broken.

Ever since the accession of Charles IX. the Huguenots had been growing
in favor at court, and the true cause of this favor was not far to
seek. Philip II. was known to be intriguing with the Guises to marry
the widowed Mary Stuart to his son Don Carlos. This was the first step
in a well-devised plot to aggrandize Spain and crush the Reformation.
By this marriage Philip would become master of Scotland, paralyze
England by exciting the hopes of the Romanists in both countries, and
prevent Elizabeth from sending aid to the rebels in Flanders. The
influence of the Guises would also be so far increased that France
would be entirely under their control. All this Catherine saw, and to
checkmate Spain she drew nearer to England, and only three years later
(Sept. 1564) actually proposed a marriage between Charles IX. and
Elizabeth.[229]

The favor shown to the Huguenots greatly annoyed the orthodox party.
Old Montmorency was greatly scandalized that Condé, Coligny, and others
ate meat in Lent; and that Archbishop Montluc, brother of the brutal
soldier of that name, openly preached that it was not wrong to pray
to God in French, and that the Scriptures ought to be translated into
the vulgar tongue. The halls of St. Germain’s and Fontainebleau were
thrown open to Huguenot ministers, and “it seemed as if the whole court
had become Calvinist,” says the Jesuit Maimbourg. Catherine received
the Protestant leaders with favor, and assumed the character of a
devout inquirer after truth.[230] Chantonnay, the Spanish embassador,
scarcely wrote a letter to his royal master in which he did not
complain of the toleration shown to heretics,[231] and of the influence
of the admiral, whose chaplain often preached to a congregation of
more than 300 persons. Another time he writes: “The day after Easter
Sunday the public preachings in the great court of Fontainebleau,
before the lodgings of Admiral Coligny, in the presence of M. de Condé,
have been forbidden.” On the 9th July he says that not a day passes
without preaching “in the mansion of some lord or lady of the court.”
The same busy correspondent informs us that in August, 1561, Beza
preached in the hotel of the Prince of Condé at St. Germains and in
the royal palace, and that the Reformed ministers “were more confident
than the Catholic.” At another time we read that, in consequence of
the favor shown to the heretics, there had occurred every day at
Paris and elsewhere, “seditions, tumults, and murders of Protestants
and Catholics.”[232] A little later Chantonnay mentions that certain
bishops, adopting the doctrine and language of the heretics, called for
reform in the Church; and that the clergy were made a laughing-stock in
the presence even of the papal legate. “After supper the other evening,
when the cardinal-legate was with the queen, the king, his brother the
Duke of Orleans, and the Prince of Bearn, entered the room, followed
by many others, all of them dressed up as cardinals, bishops, abbots,
and priests, riding upon asses, and each carrying on the crupper behind
him a page dressed as a loose woman.[233] There was a good laugh at
it, and they continue to amuse themselves, calling the Prince of Bearn
legate, because he was dressed as a cardinal.” The nuncio complained of
this masque, for which Catherine apologized as being “only a childish
jest.” Margaret of Valois, afterward wife of Henry IV., writes in her
memoirs that “all the court was infected with heresy,” that “many of
the lords and ladies tried to convert her,” that “her brother of Anjou
[afterward Henry III.] had not escaped the unhappy influence, and that
he used to throw her prayer-book into the fire and give her Huguenot
hymns instead.” Considering that Margaret was at this time barely
eight years old, her testimony, given nearly forty years later, is
of little value, except as corroborating from another point of view,
the evidence of other witnesses. The Duke of Bouillon writes in his
memoirs, that another of Margaret’s brothers, Alençon, “favored the
cause of the Religion.”[234] From all this it is pretty clear that
France, at the beginning of the new reign, was on the brink of great
changes, and that, if Catherine had been a woman of good principles,
the current of French history would have been turned into another and
a better channel. The Huguenots, believing her to be sincere in her
protestations, exhorted her “to say but one word, and Christ would be
worshiped in truth and purity throughout the kingdom.” But that word
the queen-mother had no intention of uttering. Like many of those
trained beneath the shadow of St. Peter’s, she was outwardly fervent
enough, “pious after the Italian fashion,” but at heart she believed
more in witchcraft and astrology than in God.

Preparatory to the reassembling of the States-General, it had been
thought advisable to call together the provincial assemblies with
the view of coming to an understanding regarding the matters to be
brought before the general body. Each locality had its grievances
and its remedies to propose, the clergy being the chief object of
attack. But an unexpected turn was given to the course of events by
the constituency of the Isle of France, who suggested the propriety of
making those court favorites disgorge, who had been enriched by the
prodigality of former reigns.[235] The idea of being called upon to
restore his ill-gotten gains alarmed Montmorency, not only for himself
but for his son, who had married a daughter of the notorious Diana
of Poitiers. He was also offended by the Huguenot opinions of his
nephews, the Chatillons, and the favor shown them by the queen-mother.
In such a state of mind it needed but little persuasion on the part of
Diana--fit instrument for such a scheme--to reconcile the constable
with the Lorraines. A common danger drew them close together, and that
fatal TRIUMVIRATE was formed which brought so much evil upon
France.[236] In token of reconciliation, and as a pledge of mutual
support, Montmorency, the Duke of Guise, and Marshal St. André took the
sacrament together. The constable, who feared that a religious would
lead to a political change, carried the whole weight of his influence
to the Catholic side, toward which the King of Navarre was gradually
inclining. His brother Condé, aided by Coligny, alone resisted the
violent proposals of the Romish party, and advocated the assembling
of a national council to arrange the religious differences, in which
course they were supported by petitions from the Huguenots too numerous
to be neglected. To gratify so just a request, a meeting of the clergy
was summoned, at which a number of Protestant divines were to appear to
explain and defend their doctrine.

In the interval came the meeting of the States of Pontoise (17th
August, 1561), and their first step was to confirm the minutes of
the Orleans meeting. The chancellor, who had grown in wisdom and
toleration, said in his opening speech: “I do not understand those who
desire to exclude the new religion from the kingdom--to issue edict
after edict against it. Our only concern is, to learn whether the
interests of the state are best served by the permission, or by the
prohibition of the meetings of the Calvinists. To decide this, we need
not inquire into their doctrine; for supposing the Reformed religion to
be bad, is that a sufficient reason for proscribing its professors? Is
it not possible to be a good subject without being a Catholic or even
a Christian? Can not fellow-citizens, differing in religious opinions,
still live in harmony? We have met not to establish articles of faith,
but to regulate the state.”

The orator of the nobility demanded, with the almost unanimous consent
of the order, that all religious controversies should be decided in
conformity with Holy Scripture;[237] that heresy should no longer be
considered an offense against the state; and that the Apostles’ and the
Athanasian Creeds should be the only test of orthodoxy. The nobles also
called for reforms in the judicature and in the government, but their
scope belongs rather to the political than the religious history of the
times.

The orator of the Tiers État demanded still greater changes: such
as a national council, under the royal presidency, in which all the
controverted questions should be decided by the Word of God; and a
cessation of persecution, on the ground that it was unreasonable to
force any man to do what his conscience condemned. The Third Estate
farther proposed that cardinals and bishops should be disqualified
for seats in the royal council; that the States-General should be
convened every two years; and that the Reformed should enjoy full
liberty of worship, either in the existing churches, or in such as
they might build for themselves. “As both religions have the same
foundation,” said one speaker, “there is no reason why they should
hate and persecute one another. Perseverance in penal enactments
will kindle a fire which no power under heaven can extinguish.”
After suggesting various ecclesiastical reforms, he continued: “If
the king wants money, let him do as they have done in Germany and
England--take the money that makes the Church luxurious. One-third of
what it possesses is enough for its wants. The people are ruined and
can pay no more taxes.” The idea of paying their debts and getting
rich by seizing the property of the clergy pleased even the orthodox;
but the churchmen caught the alarm, and set every engine at work to
ward off the threatened blow. The property of the Church was valued at
one hundred and twenty millions. Out of this it was proposed to allot
forty-eight millions, which would produce a revenue of four millions
for the clergy, and which, men argued, was quite ample for their
support. Forty-two millions were to be appropriated to the payment of
the debt, and the balance of thirty millions would, if judiciously
distributed in loans among the chief cities of France, develop trade
and increase the general wealth of the country, while the interest
would suffice to pay the army and keep the fortresses in repair. To
carry out such a sweeping confiscation required a strong government,
and then it could be done only at the risk of a revolution; but the
very proposal made the clergy more willing to take their share of the
public burdens, and they offered not only to redeem at their own cost
all the royal domains pawned or mortgaged by the crown, but to pay
annually for six years a tribute of sixteen hundred thousand livres.
The queen-regent having thus obtained the necessary supplies, and a
promise of more, the popular demands (with a few trivial exceptions)
were evaded, but liberty of conscience was promised. If the meetings at
Orleans and Pontoise did not effect much good, they materially promoted
the interests of the Huguenots by recognizing the great principle of
toleration, though more than two centuries were to pass away before it
was fully carried out.

As soon as the meetings at Pontoise were ended, all eyes were turned
to the approaching colloquy to be held at Poissy. The clergy, in
return for their liberal contribution toward the burdens of the state,
had called for the thorough execution of the Edict of July. “_Non
impetrarunt_,” says Beza laconically. The regent took the money,
but answered their prayer in very vague terms. What she really thought
of the matters in dispute between the two religious parties may be
gathered from her instructions to Cardinal Ferrara to be laid before
the pope (4th August, 1561):--“The number of those professing the
Reformed religion is so great, and their party is so powerful, that
they are no longer to be put down by severe laws or force of arms. They
are neither anabaptists nor libertines; they believe all the articles
of the Apostles’ Creed, and therefore many are of opinion that they
ought not to be cut off from communion with the Church. What danger can
there be in removing the images from the churches, and doing away with
certain useless forms in the administration of the sacraments? It would
farther be advantageous to allow to all persons the communion under
both kinds, and to permit divine worship to be celebrated in the vulgar
tongue.”[238]

How far Catherine was sincere in her letter to Cardinal Ferrara is
hardly a question for those who hold her to have been always more
influenced by policy than by principle. She was sincere, when it served
her purpose to be so. Long before the Triumvirate--that precursor of
the League--took a definite form, she had seen the necessity of uniting
with the Huguenots, in order to counterbalance the Lorraine party.
It was this that made her write to the pope; that made her pretend
to entertain Calvinistic ideas; in short, that made her deceive both
parties. Without entirely adopting the views of Davila (at the end of
his 2d book), we agree in his conclusion, that “she deceived not only
simple people, but the craftiest and most skillful also.”

Whatever may have been Catherine’s motives, the pope would not yield an
inch; he wrote to encourage the Catholic party to resistance. Meanwhile
Chancellor de l’Hôpital was addressing the Calvinists of Geneva,
praising in the king’s name--in reality according to the queen-mother’s
instructions--the purity of their motives and the rectitude of their
principles, and exhorting them to restrain “the malice of certain
preachers and dogmatizers who abuse the name and purity of the religion
which they profess, by sowing in the minds of the king’s subjects a
damnable disobedience, not only by their libels and slanders, but by
their sermons.”[239]

It was under such circumstances and in accordance with the promise
made in the Edict of July, that the celebrated colloquy of Poissy
was held, in September, 1561. On both sides great preparations had
been made for the grand discussion; and in order to counterbalance
the eloquence and skill of the Catholic party, Calvin, Beza, Peter
Martyr,[240] and other ministers were invited, under safe conduct, from
Switzerland. Calvin did not answer to the appeal, but the Protestants
had no cause to regret his absence, for Theodore Beza was altogether
a fitter person for such an occasion. Beza was a man of noble birth
and a ripe scholar; he had seen much of courts, and in the fashionable
society of Paris had acquired a remarkable grace of manner. He was
converted by a serious illness: “As soon as I could leave my bed,” he
told his friend and tutor, Melchior Wolmar, “I broke all my chains and
went into voluntary exile with my wife to follow Christ.” At Geneva,
he was nominated professor of theology, and ordained to the ministry;
and became so strongly attached to Calvin that he scarcely ever left
him. His appearance was a recommendation, being a handsome man of
middle stature and pleasing address. On the 23d August, the day after
his arrival at St. Germain’s, he preached before the court in Condé’s
apartment, and was summoned at midnight to a private conference in the
drawing-room of the Queen of Navarre,[241] where he was graciously
received by the queen-mother, the Cardinals of Lorraine and Bourbon,
and others. Catherine asked him many questions about Calvin’s health,
age, and occupations. The Cardinal of Lorraine, after some well-turned
compliments, declared that the difference in the Christian churches
on transubstantiation and consubstantiation were not in his opinion a
sufficient cause of schism. Beza replied: “We hold the bread to be the
sacramental body, and we define _sacramentaliter_ by maintaining,
that though the body be now in heaven and nowhere else, and the
signs on earth with us, yet it is as truly given and received by us,
through faith in eternal life, as the sign is given naturally by the
hands.” The cardinal, turning to the queen-mother, observed: “Such is
my belief, madam, and I am satisfied.” Beza took advantage of this
unexpected concession to add, “And these are the Sacramentarians who
have been so long and so cruelly persecuted and slandered.”

Early on the morning of the 9th of September, 1561, Beza left St.
Germain’s for Poissy (a small town about four leagues from Paris),
escorted by a brilliant train of gentlemen, among whom must have been
many of his old friends.[242] The members of the council, or colloquy
as it was termed, in order not to wound the susceptibility of the papal
court, assembled in the refectory of the great convent. The king, then
only eleven years of age, presided, and around him were gathered the
princes of the blood royal, with the officers and ladies of the court.
On the two sides of the hall were ranged, according to their rank,
six cardinals with archbishops and bishops to the number of forty and
more, besides a vast array of doctors and lawyers who accompanied these
prelates, all in scarlet or purple robes. Along the lower part of the
room ran a bar, but the space beyond it was empty, the Protestants
not being as yet admitted into the presence of the king. Charles IX.
opened the proceedings by reading a formal speech, in which he said
that he hoped “they would inquire into the things necessary to be
reformed, without passion or prejudice, but solely for God’s honor,
the discharge of their consciences, and the public peace.”...“What I
desire,” he continued, “is that you will not separate until you have
put matters into such good order that my subjects may live together
in peace and unity.”[243] He was followed by Chancellor de l’Hopital,
who, by the king’s express order, kept his seat while speaking. After
a formal explanatory introduction he went on, “I caution you against
subtle and curious questions that lead to nothing. We do not require
many books, but only to understand thoroughly the Word of God, and to
live in conformity with it as well as we can. The ministers of the new
sect have been invited hither by his majesty to confer with you. I pray
you receive them as a father receives his children, and graciously
teach and instruct them, so that they can not hereafter say, they were
condemned unheard.”

After some little discussion on the chancellor’s speech, which had
offended the Cardinal de Tournon by its liberality, the Huguenots
were introduced into the chamber. They were thirty-three in number,
eleven ministers and twenty-two lay deputies[244] from the Calvinistic
churches. Immediately on entering the hall they knelt down in homage
to the king, and taking advantage of that position, Beza implored the
Divine blessing upon the assembly. As they stood below the bar at the
lower end of the room, their homely dark dresses formed a striking
contrast to the silks and furs, and gold and bright colors of the
dignitaries of the Romish Church, who sat on the two sides of the hall.

Standing a little in front of his colleagues, Beza proceeded to explain
the articles of the faith held by himself and his brethren. His speech,
which presents few salient points for modern readers, was a remarkable
mixture of address, wisdom, and Scripture. He had gained the ear of an
unwilling audience, and was listened to with many marks of approval,
until he came to the doctrine of the Eucharist. He admitted (as we
have already seen) the spiritual presence of Christ, but qualified
it thus: “We say that his body is as remote from the bread and wine,
as heaven is from earth.”[245] This so startled the Romish prelates,
“that they began to murmur and make a great noise,”[246] calling him a
“blasphemer.” Beza, however, took no notice of it, but continued his
address, winding up by a statement of their doctrines on the obedience
due to the king, appealing to their writings, to the condition of
the Protestant states in Germany, and to Scripture. Such a defense
would appear unnecessary in these days; but the orthodox constantly
maintained that those who were rebels against the Church were also and
necessarily rebels against the State. After a week’s adjournment the
prelates, through their mouth-piece, the Cardinal of Lorraine, put in
a reply to Beza’s statement, but would allow of no discussion except
upon two points: the authority of the Church in matters of faith and
the Real Presence. Beza offered to reply immediately, but the court
rose, and when the turn of the Huguenot champion came, he spoke not
so much with the hope of converting his antagonists as of softening
them.[247] After his speech the public proceedings were discontinued,
as the discussion was becoming unpopular; but at the suggestion of the
queen-mother, several private conferences were held, at one of which a
monk named Saintes maintained “that tradition was based on a firmer and
surer foundation than Scripture;” and at another, the Jesuit Lainez,
to the great scandal of all present, called the ministers “wolves,
foxes, serpents, and assassins,” and declared that “women and soldiers
could be no judges of points of faith.” The Reformed delegates put
in a declaration on the Lord’s Supper, which the bishops rejected as
heretical; and presenting a counter confession of their own, called
upon the queen-mother to “compel the Huguenots to accept it, or else
exterminate them, for France is a country that has never put up with
heresy.” Catherine, however, did not yield, but sharply charged them
with a perverse desire to prolong the disturbances of the kingdom. The
Moderate party still clung to the hope of reconciliation, and at a
later meeting the chancellor boldly said: “The State and Church are two
things, not one. A man may be a good subject, though a bad Christian.
You may excommunicate a man, but he is still a citizen.” L’Hopital was
too far in advance of his age.[248]

Catherine appears to have acted in a straightforward manner during the
colloquy; and, when the members had separated, she did not relax in her
exertions to arrive at an acceptable compromise. She suggested that the
French bishops should present an address to the king, praying him to
move the pope to permit the marriage of priests and the communion in
both kinds. They did so, and Pius IV. replied that he had always held
these changes to be right and fair, for which he had been taunted with
Lutheranism at the last conclave; but he could do nothing without the
cardinals, who would not consent.[249] Writing to the embassador at the
imperial court (16th February, 1562), the queen-regent complains of the
time spent in “idle disputes;” and in a letter to De Lisle, his envoy
at Rome, Charles defends what had been done at Poissy, on the ground
that it was impossible to carry out the existing edicts; “I therefore
resolved,” he says, “to leave my kingdom no longer in a confusion,
which became greater the more the remedy was deferred.” The government,
enlightened by what had taken place in Germany and Switzerland, began
to look upon Protestantism as a barrier against anarchy. Minds that
had left the safe anchorage of the Church of Rome were drifting to
and fro, and the only resting-place against the torrent which had
hurried so many into the errors of anabaptism was the creed of Luther
and of Calvin. Heresy was better than a revival of the excesses of
Munster.[250]

During the colloquy a synod was held, at which the impracticable
temper of the Huguenot pastors was forcibly shown by a memoir they
drew up, demanding “the exclusion of women from the government of the
state, and the establishment of a legitimate regency;” thus alienating
the queen-mother, who was drawing nearer to them every day. They
also called for severe measures against “infidels, libertines, and
atheists;” like some modern patriots, who love liberty so much that
they would keep it all for themselves.

Although the colloquy came to nothing, the actual result was a victory
to the Huguenots by clearing their character from the many aspersions
cast upon it. They had shown that they were not disloyal subjects,
and were not in the habit of practicing infamous crimes; and their
faith spread so rapidly in consequence, that the demand for pastors to
preside over the new congregations was greater than the Swiss churches
could supply. The countenance of the court gave them boldness. During
the sittings at Poissy they assembled by thousands outside the walls
of Paris to listen to Beza, whose enemies have computed his hearers
at 8000, and whose friends at 50,000.[251] The smaller number appears
quite large enough for any voice to reach in the open air. Necessity
very early compelled these congregations to assume a sort of military
formation. The women and children were placed in the centre nearest
the preacher; behind them stood the men on foot, next came the men
on horseback, and outside all were ranged armed men, soldiers or
arquebusiers, to protect the unarmed crowd. As Paris was particularly
lawless, Condé collected a volunteer guard of about 400 gentlemen,
to whom were added 300 old soldiers under Andelot, with 300 students
and as many citizens. Certainly no public worship was safe without
some such precautions, but the wisdom of such a display of force, when
private worship was possible, is open to doubt.

From a list presented to the queen-mother about this time by Coligny,
it would seem that there were more than 2000 Reformed and organized
churches in France. Some have calculated the Huguenots to number
one-half of the population, while the least sanguine reckoned them at
one-tenth. The Chancellor l’Hopital estimated that “a fourth part of
the kingdom was separated from the communion of the Church.” This part,
he adds, “consists of gentlemen, of the principal citizens, and of such
members of the poorer sort as have seen the world and are accustomed
to bear arms. They have with them more than three-fourths of the men
of letters, and a great proportion of the large and good houses,
both of the nobility and third estate, being on their side, they do
not want money to carry on their affairs.”[252] To the same effect
wrote Castelnau; and Micheli, the Venetian embassador, one of the
shrewdest of observers, declared that there was no province of France
untainted by Protestantism; and that Normandy and Brittany, Gascony
and Languedoc, Poitou and Touraine, Provence and Dauphiny--comprising
three-fourths of the kingdom--were full of it. “In many provinces,”
he says, “meetings are held, sermons preached, and rules of life
adopted, entirely in accordance with the example of Geneva, and without
any regard to the royal prohibition. Every one has embraced these
opinions, and, what is most remarkable, even the religious body, not
only priests, monks, and nuns--very few of the convents have escaped
the infection--but even the bishops and many of the most distinguished
prelates.... Your highness (the Doge) may be assured that, excepting
the common people, who still zealously frequent the churches, all have
fallen away. The nobles most especially, the men under forty almost
without exception; for although many of them still go to mass, it is
only from regard to appearances and through fear. When they are sure
to be unobserved, they shun both mass and church.”[253] He considered
it indispensable that religious freedom--at least an “_interim_,”
as he called it--should be accorded to the French Protestants, if they
would avoid a general war.

Catherine and the least fanatical portion of her advisers saw clearly
enough that a compromise was necessary. Though greatly disappointed
at the result of the Poissy conference, she recognized the necessity
of moderation, and had called upon the chiefs of the Huguenots to
assist her by restoring the churches which their followers had seized
for their religious services. She then gave them tacit permission to
assemble to the number of five hundred[254] in places appointed for
that purpose, forbidding them at the same time to wear arms, or to
indulge in irritating language.[255] In Paris, the number who could
meet together was limited to two hundred, and that in private.[256]
But the question of toleration or persecution was too important to be
settled in this irregular fashion, and the queen-regent summoned an
assembly of Notables, composed of the ordinary members of the Privy
Council, with two delegates from each parliament in the kingdom, to
advise with her on what had become a matter of high state policy.

The fanatical Romish party were by no means pleased with these
tolerant symptoms in the court and government; and finding their power
and influence diminishing every day, they began to look about them for
foreign help. In their perplexity they naturally turned to the pope and
the King of Spain; and there is a story of a petition, emanating from
the Cardinal of Lorraine and certain doctors of the Sorbonne, imploring
Philip II. to aid the Church of France against the heretics, on the
ground that he was the mightiest and most religious of princes. The
petition never reached its destination in consequence of its bearer,
a priest, being arrested and compelled to give it up. The story is
not well authenticated, but there is evidence enough without it to
show that the Guises and a part of the French clergy were engaged in
a treasonable correspondence. Supported by this correspondence, the
King of Spain took a high tone in his letters to the queen-regent,
blaming her for holding the colloquy at Poissy, and condemning the
mere idea of a national council. He said bluntly that all heretics
ought to be punished without respect of persons, and added that if she
failed in her duty, he was determined to sacrifice every thing, even
his life, to check the progress of the pestilence, which was equally
threatening to France and to Spain. The Spanish embassador Chantonnay,
whom Anquetil describes as “acting the part of a French minister of
state,” scarcely wrote a letter to his royal master in which he did
not denounce Catherine’s favor to the Protestants. As it was Philip’s
interest to keep France in a disturbed state, he naturally courted the
Guise faction, promising them both men and money, but not willing to
give either very liberally. Secret as were their manœuvres, they did
not escape Catherine’s vigilance, and to prevent any violent outbreak
she disarmed the populace of Paris.[257]

Catherine became more unpopular every day among the extreme Romanists,
and the discontent with her policy became general: many of the nobility
remonstrated with her for her toleration, and the monks gladly seized
the opportunity of arousing the fanaticism of the populace. One of
these tonsured preachers of sedition actually exhorted the citizens
of Paris not to permit the watch, who were paid by them, to protect
the heretics. The violence of the Romish clergy--especially of the
regulars--at this time can hardly be exaggerated. Simon Vigor,[258]
whose sermons are still extant, spoke thus ferociously from his pulpit:
“Our nobility will not strike.... Is it not very cruel, they say, to
draw the sword against one’s uncle or father?... Come now, which is
nearest and dearest to you, your Catholic and Christian brother or
your carnal Huguenot brother? The spiritual affinity or relationship
is much higher than the carnal, and therefore I tell you that since
you will not strike the Huguenots, you have no religion. Accordingly
some morning God will execute justice, and permit this bastard
nobility to be trodden down by the commonalty. I do not say that it
ought to be done, but that God will permit it to be done.”[259] The
garrulous Claude Haton declares that Vigor far surpassed all others
in violence, and gives an outline of a sermon in which he accused the
king’s government of favoring Huguenotry, and “destroying the Church of
Christ.” Claude de Sainctes, who was in the household of the Cardinal
of Lorraine, declared in one of his writings, “that if the fires which
had been lighted up in France for the destruction of Calvinism had not
been extinguished, that sect would not have spread.”[260]

This incendiary language produced the intended effect, and the whole
kingdom became the theatre of frightful disorders. At Cahors the tocsin
called the people to arms (26th December, 1561). The Catholics shut up
the Huguenots in their place of meeting and then set fire to it. As the
poor wretches forced their way through the flames, they were struck
down by the pikes and swords of the savage crowd. Similar disturbances
occurred in other parts of France--at Pamiers, Dijon, Troyes,
Amiens, Abbeville, Tours, Bordeaux, Montpellier, Marseilles--the
Roman Catholics being determined to prevent all assemblies that were
not authorized by edict. François Channeil and Louis de Brezous,
accompanied by 600 horse and foot, entered Aurillac, and shutting the
gates so that none might escape, began to fire upon the inhabitants,
killing one of their own number. Many Protestants were thus murdered.
The soldiers hanged without trial a book-seller and a hosier, who died
bravely singing the 27th Psalm to the last moment:

    God is my strong salvation,
      What foe have I to fear?
    In darkness and temptation
      My light, my help is near.

It was impossible that such “lynch-law” violence could have any
permanent repressive effect upon men who felt that “persecution was the
ladder by which they were to reach heaven.”[261] The Huguenot was not
likely to be less fervent than the Mahometan, who looks upon the sword
of his enemy as the key to Paradise.

There were perhaps few cities where the magistrates showed so much good
sense as at Amiens in adopting vigorous measures to preserve peace
between both religious parties. About four years before this time
the heretics in that city were estimated at 500, a body too numerous
to be openly molested. The monks, therefore, organized processions
of children between the ages of eight and twelve, and these to the
number of 200 paraded the streets at night with toy crosses and
banners, halting from time to time and singing the _Ave Maria_
at certain doors, according as their leader, a man bearing a sword,
directed them: “Sing, children, sing, in spite of the Huguenots.”
The Jacobin preachers used their pulpits as instruments of sedition,
employing language that could hardly fail to lead to rioting. Indeed
(to anticipate our narrative), on the 7th and 8th of December, 1561,
the tocsin was rung, the Catholics fell upon the Huguenots as they were
returning from divine worship, wounded many, and maltreated some of the
civic officers and others who had come to help the weaker party. It was
in consequence of these and similar outbreaks that the magistrates, in
order to prevent the mere possibility of rioting, interfered so far
with individual liberty as to forbid the inhabitants to assemble in
the streets to the number of more than four, or to leave their houses
after curfew, to carry arms, to discuss the sermons, or to call each
other names, such as “Huguenots, Lutherans, papists, hypocrites, and
caffards,” under pain of death. Still the magistrates were not in the
least inclined to tolerate heterodoxy, for they went on to prohibit
assemblies either in the city or without, for the purpose of preaching,
reading, or psalm-singing, contrary to the practice of the Church.[262]
Although the Catholic party appears to have become stronger in the
municipal body, still their measures inclined to tolerance. On the 22d
May, 1562, the ministers were ordered to leave the city within three
days, and school-masters were forbidden to teach the new doctrine to
their pupils. Five days later we find the Notables assembled to devise
means for compelling some eighteen or twenty Huguenots to decorate
their houses for the procession of the Holy Sacrament, with a view “to
avoid any demonstration of feeling on the part of the people, who would
be scandalized by any want of reverence.” The men were summoned before
them, and consented under protest to adorn their windows. “They pleaded
their conscience,” says the register; “and when they were asked
how that could be wounded by such an act, they refused to give any
explanation.”[263] The men, however, did not keep their word, and were
sent to prison. A proclamation was then issued ordering all persons to
decorate their houses under pain of being fined twenty livres parisis;
but this had so little effect that, the very next Sunday, two hundred
and sixty persons refused to comply with the order.

Although the liberal-minded Christians of our days may think these
Amiens Reformers overscrupulous, we are hardly in position to blame
them. They looked upon the procession of the Corpus Christi as an act
of idolatrous worship, and to hang tapestry on the walls of their
houses was indirectly to countenance the idolatry. It is not very long
ago that a similar argument was urged in the House of Commons against
the turning-out of the guard at Malta when the host was carried past
the guard-house.

But the Huguenots were almost as turbulent as the Romanists: in many
places they had become strong enough to defy the penal laws passed
against them. They seized upon the churches, drove the monks from
their convents, made bonfires of the crosses, images, and relics, and
demanded an enlargement of their privileges. During the procession of
the Fête Dieu at Lyons (5th June, 1561) a Huguenot tried to snatch the
host out of the priest’s hand. There was an instant riot: “Down with
the heretics! To the Rhone with them!” was the cry. Many were drowned,
and the principal of the college of the Trinity was dragged a corpse
through the streets. In all times of excitement there are hot-headed
partisans who add to the confusion and thwart the exertions of those
who are inclined to conciliatory measures. The early Reformed Church
was not without them: each Protestant country had its iconoclasts.
These indiscreet Reformers were the dread of the moderate Beza: “I fear
our friends more than our enemies,” he wrote.[264] After receiving
intelligence of an outrage at Montpellier he said that, if he were
judge, he would punish those “madmen” with extreme severity.[265] And
in a letter to Calvin he says (18th January, 1562): “You will scarcely
believe how intemperate our people are, as if they wanted to rival our
enemies in impatience.” It was necessary to do something, for the two
parties were coming into collision, and blood had been shed not only
in Paris, the head-quarters of orthodoxy, but in other parts of the
country.

One day the populace of the capital having insulted the Huguenots as
they were returning from divine service, the gentlemen of the Reform
resolved to be present at the next meeting to the number of 2000
horsemen, with the intention, if the insult should be repeated, of
seizing upon the adjoining churches and expelling the monks. There
were frequent conflicts in the city, and in one of them, known as the
riot of St. Medard, both parties were equally violent and equally
guilty. It appears that, on St. John’s Day, the priests of the Church
of St. Medard, in the southern suburb beyond the walls, rang the
bells in their belfry to drown the voice of the Huguenot preaching
in an adjoining house. The congregation remonstrated, and one of
their number was fired on and killed. The Huguenots drew their swords
directly. Andelot entered the Church on horseback, and in the struggle
that followed fifty persons were killed and wounded. The riot was
renewed the next day by the Catholics, who broke into the house where
the Protestants used to worship, and burned it to the ground after
smashing the pulpit and benches to pieces. The matter was taken up by
the Parliament of Paris, and the next year (1562), at the close of a
procession to expiate the profanation of the church, a great number
of citizens suspected of heresy were hanged or drowned without trial,
among them being the captain of the watch[266] and some archers whose
only crime was that they had not stopped the riot. They were pelted by
the children, and “if they had possessed a hundred lives all would have
been taken, the people were so exasperated.” The corpses of the poor
wretches were seized by some fanatics, who dragged them through the
streets and then flung them into the river.[267] The nuncio Santa Croce
wrote to the court of Rome: “Some Huguenots are put to death every day.
Yesterday, four of those who committed such sacrilege in the Church of
St. Medard were burned, and to-day they are preparing for a similar
spectacle.”[268]

Such was the condition of France when the assembly of Notables met
at St. Germains. The Chancellor L’Hopital, who had been growing more
tolerant every day, addressed them in a speech full of eloquence and
sound sense. He called their attention to the actual state of the
Huguenots, their number, and their strength; and showed the injustice
and impolicy of those who wished the king to put himself at the head
of one part of his subjects, and establish peace by the destruction of
the other. “In such a war,” he continued, “where is the king to find
soldiers? Among his subjects. Against whom is he to lead them? Against
his subjects. A triumph or a defeat is equally the destruction of his
subjects. I resign controversies on religion to the theologians; our
business is not to settle articles of faith, but to regulate the state.
A man may be a good subject without being a Catholic. I see no reason
why we should not live in peace with those who do not observe the same
religious ceremonies as ourselves.”

After a long and warm discussion the opinions of the Moderate or
“political” party triumphed, and sixteen articles were drawn up, which
became the basis of the celebrated Edict of January, 1562. It suspended
all preceding edicts, and authorized “those of the religion” to
assemble unarmed outside the towns to preach, pray, and perform other
religious exercises. By this means it was hoped to avoid collision
with the Catholics. The edict farther stipulated that the Protestants
should restore the churches and other ecclesiastical property they
had seized; that they should not resist the collection of tithes, or
criticise the ceremonies of the Catholic religion in their sermons,
books, or conversation. They were also forbidden to hold synods without
the permission of the crown, or to travel from town to town to preach,
but were to confine themselves to one church. As a natural corollary
Catholic preachers were likewise enjoined to abstain from invectives,
“as things serving rather to excite the people to sedition than
persuade them to devotion.” The various Parliaments at first refused
to register the edict, without which ceremony it would not have the
force of law; but their opposition was overcome in every instance
except that of Dijon, where it was “virtuously resisted” by Gaspard
de Saulx-Tavannes, lieutenant-general of Burgundy, a stanch partisan
of the Guises, and one of the most sanguinary leaders of the age. The
Parliament of Paris was characteristically obstinate. To the first
summons they replied, _Nec possumus nec debemus_; and when they
yielded at last to a threat of physical force, they would only register
the edict under protest, “considering the urgent necessity of a
temporary measure.” The Cardinal of Lorraine accepted it, acknowledging
to Throckmorton that some reformation was necessary, but he seemed to
think that the reform should come from above, and not from “men of
their own authority.”[269]

The Huguenots received the edict with gratitude, if not with
exultation. Limited as were the privileges it granted, still it was a
victory over their opponents. The right of assembling was conceded to
them, and for such a right the blood of their martyred brethren had
not been shed in vain. The preachers took immediate advantage of the
liberty given them by the edict, and preached more boldly than ever in
fields and gardens or any open space, and, if the weather was bad, in
such sheds and barns as they could find. “The people,” says Castelnau,
“curious about every thing new, crowded to hear them, Catholics as
well as Protestants.” The Romish party, who undoubtedly formed the
great majority of the nation, and the most ignorant portion of it, were
greatly disgusted with this Edict of Pacification, imperfect as it
was, and began to range themselves in opposition to the crown. Brulart
only echoed the public opinion when he declared the Edict of January
to be “the most pernicious possible for the repose and welfare of the
state, and the support of the kingdom,” and “a wholesale approval of
that wretched Calvinistic sect.” Tn certain provinces it had been well
received; but, in Burgundy, Tavannes would hear of no toleration. He
drove a large number--report says more than 2000--of the Reformed out
of Dijon, and issued an order to the neighboring peasantry “to massacre
all who prayed elsewhere than in the churches, and to refuse drink,
food, and shelter to the expelled rebels.” At Aix, the Protestants had
been accustomed to worship under a fir-tree outside the walls. Every
morning for weeks men and women were seen hanging from its branches;
they had been seized in the night, and executed without trial, on the
mere denunciation of an enemy.

The Cardinal of Lorraine and the Duke of Guise had retired from the
Privy Council in December, in order that they might take no part in
deliberations in which they knew the majority would be against them.
Such a silent protest added largely to their popularity, and they
were already looked upon as the heads of an anti-Huguenot league.
They placed orthodoxy before loyalty, and were ready to oppose the
crown whenever it showed any toleration to heretics. Nearly twelve
months before this date the duke had told the queen-mother in answer
to her question, that the Catholics would not obey the king if he
changed his religion. Still there are good reasons to believe that all
would have gone on quietly but for the defection of the weak-minded
Anthony of Navarre, whose ruling passion was to change his nominal
sovereignty of Navarre for a real crown and real subjects. The Guises
played upon this weakness; Philip II. gave him a choice of several
thrones; and the pope’s legate “very cleverly” offered to divorce him
from his excellent wife Joan of Albret, so that he might marry the
widowed Mary Stuart. But there was one condition: he must apostatize.
By such a man as Anthony, who had no principle, that little obstacle
was soon surmounted; and in February, 1562, he sold himself to the
enemy. Davila’s language leaves no doubt as to the motives of his
conversion.[270]

Anthony’s secession brought a great increase of power to the side of
the Triumvirate by placing at their disposal the troops that obeyed
him as lieutenant-general of France. The insolence of the Guises
increased with success. Their pride and contempt for all who did not
belong to their family or dependents almost bordered on insanity.
They could brook no opposition, and that the Huguenots should think
for themselves was a crime to be expiated only by death. They aimed
at political supremacy, and Coligny, now the acknowledged Huguenot
chief, though Condé was the nominal head, stood in the way of their
ambition. The Triumvirate, therefore, decided upon carrying matters to
extremity, and willingly accepted the aid proffered them by the King
of Spain. Philip II., the self-constituted champion of Romanism, the
“démon du midi,”[271] was trying to crush the Reform in Flanders by
a persecution unparalleled for its merciless severity in the history
of the world. He saw clearly that if France were reformed, or even
if the Reformers were tolerated, success would be impossible; and he
had therefore instructed his embassador, Chantonnay, as early as the
16th October, 1561, to tell the regent that if religious matters were
not arranged--by which he meant, unless the late proscriptions were
renewed--he would send troops to the aid of the Catholics. Catherine
was not the woman to submit to such an unsolicited intervention, even
at the hands of her royal son-in-law, and she answered the ambassador
haughtily, that “she did not know what his Spanish Majesty meant, but
the king had troops enough to enforce obedience from his subjects,
and that she would severely punish any who sought for foreign aid
without the authority of the crown.” There can hardly be a doubt that,
at this time, Catherine was sincere in her determination to maintain
a religious toleration, even at the risk of hostilities with Spain;
and she appears to have consulted Coligny as to the number of men the
Reformed churches could bring into the field.[272] But events moved so
swiftly that she had for the time no alternative but to go with the
stream.

Anthony’s defection had destroyed that balance of parties which the
queen-mother had so diligently labored to maintain. As rash and violent
now as he had previously been dilatory and weak, he had hastened to
Paris, whence he wrote, inviting Guise to join him, and make a combined
attack upon the Protestants. The Duke was at the castle of Joinville
in Champagne, having just returned from Saverne in Alsace, where the
Lorraine princes had met Duke Christopher of Wurtemberg. Their object
in visiting Germany was to mislead the Protestants of that country,
and alienate them entirely from the Calvinists of France, thinking
that, if the latter were deprived of all external support, they must
soon be crushed.[273] The Cardinal of Lorraine twice preached sermons
so Lutheran in spirit, that his open adoption of the Confession of
Augsburg was eagerly looked for;[274] and the language of the Duke
of Guise and his brother Charles, in their conferences with Duke
Christopher and his chancellor, Brentz, is so extraordinary, and, as
regards Duke Francis, so unlike what we read of him at other times,
as almost to shake our faith in the genuineness of the report of the
conference.[275] Brentz entreated the cardinal to put an end to the
persecutions in France. “I will do so,” he replied, adding with a
solemn look, “that he had not put one single man to death on account of
his religion.” Francis corroborated his brother’s words, and said: “We
will do the Reformed no injury.” We shall see how well the two Lorraine
princes kept their promise.

Vassy is a small fortified town of Champagne (Haute Marne), on
the river Braise, about sixty leagues from Paris. It now contains
a population of little more than 3000, and, three centuries ago,
probably did not contain half that number. The Reformed Church,
however, must have been strong in that quarter, for on Christmas Day,
1561, as many as 3000 persons are reported to have assembled for
divine worship, of whom 900 partook of the Holy Communion.[276] Such
an assertion of liberty of thought greatly offended Antoinette de
Bourbon, the dowager duchess of Guise. She could not understand how her
vassals--or, to speak more correctly, the vassals of Mary Stuart, her
granddaughter--should dare choose a religion for themselves, and urged
her son Francis to punish their presumption. The duke, notwithstanding
what he had promised at Saverne, needed no stimulants to the discharge
of so agreeable a duty. His way to Paris lay through Vassy, and
as he came near the town on Sunday morning (1st March, 1562), he
heard the sound of a bell. “What noise is that?” he asked. “They are
calling the Huguenots to their sermon,” was the reply. “Huguenots!
Huguenots!” he swore; “S’death! I will _huguenotize_ them before
long.” He rode into the town, alighted at the convent where he dined,
and after dinner--for that meal was then eaten in the forenoon--he
ordered out his soldiers, between 200 and 300 in number, and marched
them to the barn in which the Huguenots, trades-people for the most
part, had assembled to hear a new preacher who had just been sent to
them from Geneva. The ducal retainers began the strife by abusing
the congregation as “heretics, dogs, and rebels,” murdering three,
and wounding several who attempted to close the door. The Huguenots
endeavored to defend themselves with such weapons as they could snatch
up: two, who were probably gentlemen, drew their swords, others flung
stones, one of which struck the duke in the cheek as he stood near the
door. In a whirlwind of rage he gave his followers orders to spare
nobody, and these orders were but too faithfully carried out.[277]
Such as escaped the sword were killed by the arquebuse as they were
making their way through the windows or over the roof. For one hour the
bloody work continued, during which time between fifty and sixty of the
Huguenots were murdered on the spot, and about two hundred wounded,
some of them mortally. “There were left forty-two poor widows burdened
with orphan children,” wrote Beza. Many who succeeded in escaping from
the barn, were pursued and killed in the town, and probably none would
have been spared but for the Duchess of Guise, who, remembering the
bloody scenes at Amboise, interceded for the women. When all was over a
book was brought the duke; he looked at it contemptuously, he had never
seen such a volume before. “Here,” said he, handing it to the cardinal,
“here is one of the Huguenot books.” “There is no harm in it,” his
brother answered; “it is the Bible.” It was probably the one used in
public worship. “S’blood! how is that? This book has only been printed
a year, and they say the Bible is more than fifteen hundred years old.”
“My brother is mistaken,” quietly observed the cardinal, as he turned
away to hide a smile of contempt at the duke’s ignorance.[278]

The news of the “blood-bath of Vassy” spread like wild-fire through
France, everywhere creating the deepest agitation. Such an outrage was
not only an infringement of the Edict of January, the ink of which
was scarcely dry, but a direct defiance of it; the act (as it were)
of a man who, in pursuance of his own ends, had resolved to trample
upon all law.[279] If the offense were not punished, no one would be
safe hereafter; no law would be binding. As soon as the tidings of
the massacre reached Paris, Marshal Montmorency, the governor, who
was not unfriendly to the Huguenots, advised the ministers to adjourn
their preachings for a few days, lest there should be a riot; but with
characteristic obstinacy they refused, as it would be “acknowledging
they were in the wrong.” They farther asked for a guard to protect them
in their ministrations. Meanwhile Beza went to Monceaux, and appealed
personally to the queen-regent. The apostate Anthony of Navarre
attempted to defend the Duke, and, throwing the blame on the Huguenots,
said that Beza ought to be hanged.[280] Beza replied that the Church of
Christ was more apt to receive blows than to inflict them, adding, in
words that have since passed into a proverb, “Remember, Sire, it is an
anvil on which many a hammer has been broken.” The queen-mother made a
gracious answer, and promised that the edict should be enforced. She
bade Navarre watch over the safety of the king, and summoned Guise to
court, “unattended by any men-at-arms.” Marshal St. André was ordered
to repair to his government at Lyons, but refused to go.

The excitement was so great in Paris that each party took up arms,
declaring they did so in self-defense; and had there been a reckless
leader on either side, the streets would have run with blood shed in
civil strife. The hotels of Montmorency and of Guise were turned into
fortresses, and strongly garrisoned by their respective partisans. The
constable, as representative of the oldest barony of France, was urged
by his wife to act up to his motto, and defend the faith; and he would
possibly have been induced to adopt an extreme course but for his son
Marshal Montmorency, who advised moderation, and urged that it would be
wiser to conciliate the queen-mother than attempt to coerce her.

The slaughter at Vassy was as much exulted over by the ignorant and
fanatical Catholic populace as it was bewailed by the Calvinists.
Priests in the pulpit declared Duke Francis to be a second Moses, a
Jehu, who “by shedding the blood of the wicked had consecrated his
hands, and avenged the Lord’s quarrel.” Ballads were made upon it,
and the orthodox street-singers extolled the Duke of Guise in very
laudatory if not very polished strains:

    Nous avons un bon seigneur
      En ce pays de France,
    Et prince de grand honneur

      Vaillant par excellence,
      Et très-humain,
      Doux et bénin;

    C’est le bon duc de Guise,
      Qui à Vassy,
      Par sa merci,
    A défendu l’église.

The Calvinists replied in coarse and more vigorous terms:

        Un morceau de pâte
          Il fait adorer,
        Le rompt de sa patte
          Pour le dévorer,
        Le gourmet qu’il est!
    Hari, hari l’âne, le gourmet qu’il est!
          Hari bouriquet.

        Le dieu qu’il fait faire
          La bouche le prend,
        Le cœur le digère,
          Au ventre le rend
        Au fond du retrait.
    Hari, hari l’âne, au fond du retrait.
          Hari bouriquet.

Meanwhile the duke, escorted by a body of 1200 gentlemen on horseback,
continued his journey to Paris, which he entered in triumph by the
St. Denis gate--a gate usually reserved for kings.[281] The multitude
cheered him loudly as he passed down that long narrow street, hailing
him as a second Judas Maccabæus; the trades harangued him, and called
upon him to extirpate heresy. On the same day--or on the next, as
others write--Beza preached a sermon beyond the city walls, which the
Prince of Condé attended with three or four hundred men, horse and
foot, armed with pistols and arquebuses, to protect the preacher, who
also wore a breastplate. The prince had gone to Paris to support the
governor and obtain justice for the massacre. He charged the duke with
attempting to seize the government, and advised Catherine to accept
the aid of the Protestants. The queen-mother did not know how to act,
fearing to trust herself wholly to either party. At last she prevailed
upon Condé and Guise to leave the capital so as to avoid all chances of
collision. The duke readily consented, feeling secure of the citizens;
on the other hand, Condé clearly foresaw that he would lose the city if
he quitted it; but being too weak to hold his ground, he withdrew to
his estate at La Ferté-sous-Jouarre, on the Marne, to the north-east of
Paris.

The queen-mother soon found out that she had made a great mistake
in urging Condé to leave the capital: she saw that the power had
passed out of her hands, and that the Guises were preparing to make a
tyrannous use of it. She feared the Triumvirate, for herself as well
as for her son; and there is a story that she overheard St. André
proposing to throw her into the Seine. To preserve her freedom of
action she quitted Monceaux in great secrecy, and removed to Melun,
taking Charles IX. with her,[282] having apparently made up her mind
to act with decision. She appealed to Condé to protect her and the
young king “from the greatest enemy France can have, and who is also
yours:” and the prince lost no time in summoning Coligny, Andelot, La
Rochefoucauld, and other chiefs of the Huguenot party to meet him at
Meaux, to take the queen’s letters into consideration. As they were
not strong enough to force their way back to Paris, they resolved to
get possession of the king’s person, and carry him off to Orleans,
knowing well the great strength their cause would derive from the royal
presence among them. But the Triumvirate were equally clear on this
point, and being more prompt became masters of the coveted prize.

Meanwhile the Parisians had begun to murmur at the absence of their
sovereign, and to quiet their remonstrances the queen-mother removed at
Easter to Fontainebleau, which was farther from Condé’s head-quarters
at Meaux. The Guises, suspecting her intentions, determined to
anticipate them by a _coup-de-main_. The King of Navarre was
dispatched with a strong body of Catholic gentlemen, including the
constable, to escort the young king to Paris, on the ground that he
was not safe so long as the Huguenots were at Meaux. Anthony, as
first prince of the blood, was to a certain extent the guardian of
his infant master, and no doubt he would have asserted that right had
Catherine resisted. She held out indeed for a time, but gave way at
last, saying, “I know how useless it is to speak to you of your duty;
but alone, deserted, and betrayed as I am, I shall defend the liberty
of my son--your king.” Being thus “benetted round with villains,” she
yielded only when Navarre had actually issued orders for dismantling
the royal apartments; for such were the scanty comforts even of royalty
in those days, that when the court moved from place to place, carpets,
tapestry, beds and furniture were moved also. The queen-regent sent off
a hasty express to Condé, in the hope that he would be able to rescue
her on the road; but the hope was vain. The journey to Paris--or, to
be verbally accurate, to Melun and Vincennes--was a sad one; Catherine
hardly spoke a word to the escort during the three days it occupied;
and the boy-king, who imagined they were taking him to prison, wept
several times with all the violence of childish grief.

Condé came at last, but only to see the king and his mother carried
off in triumph; his force was not strong enough to rescue them,
even had the attempt been safe. Henceforth the regent was in the
hands of the reactionists, and must follow wherever they led. With
contemptuous politeness they assured her, if we may believe Chantonnay,
“that they had never thought of depriving her of the government, and
would not attempt it, so long as she gave her hand to the support
of true religion and of the king’s authority.”[283] Supporting true
religion meant depriving the Huguenots of their privileges, the
first step toward which was to interdict the Reformers of Paris from
meeting to worship within the walls of the capital--a deprivation
partly justifiable under the circumstances. The mutual jealousy of
the triumvirs prevented the exercise of any harsh measures toward
Catherine: each intrigued against the other, and hoped to make use of
her for his own private ends. Each was aware that if she were removed,
his own position would be imperiled by the rival ambitions of his
colleagues.




                              CHAPTER VI.

                         FIRST RELIGIOUS WAR.

                             [1562–1563.]

   Beginning of Reaction--Causes of the War--The Huguenots
   arm--Advice of Coligny’s Wife--Covenant of Association--Massacre
   at Sens and Sisteron--Discipline of the Armies--Catherine
   attempts to mediate--Conference at Thoury--Negotiations broken
   off--Fearful state of Paris--The Constable’s violence--Appeals
   to Foreign Sympathy--Successes of the Royalists--Atrocities
   at Blois and Tours--Rouen Besieged--The Breach stormed--The
   Hour of Vengeance--Pastor Marlorat hanged--Death of Anthony of
   Navarre--Disturbances in Normandy--Offer of Amnesty--Battle
   of Dreux--Condé and Montmorency captured--St. André
   killed--Siege of Orleans--Duke of Guise murdered--Poltrot de
   Méré--Pacification of Amboise--Distress caused by the War--Death
   of Coligny’s Son--Letter to his Wife.


All great efforts are followed by a reaction. We have seen how
Protestantism had been spreading over France during the last forty
years, the attempts to crush it serving but to give it greater
vitality. We are now approaching a period of counter-revolution; the
tide of reform has reached its flood and will soon begin to ebb,
slowly, irregularly, but certainly, so that at last we entirely lose
sight of religion in the political struggle that ensued.

Attempts have been made to fix upon the Huguenots the terrible
responsibility of beginning the civil strife. It is easy to prove
this, or any other historical untruth, by a skillful manipulation of
documents; but the evidence of eye-witnesses of, and actors in, the
events of the spring of 1562, points to the opposite conclusions. La
Noue, who was present at Meaux, positively affirms that there was no
plan or previous arrangement. “Most of the nobility,” he says, “hearing
of the slaughter at Vassy, partly of a voluntary good-will, and partly
for fear, determined to draw toward Paris, imagining that their
protectors might stand in some need of them.”[284] And that there was
good ground for this fear appears certain from a contemporary letter,
in which the writer says: “Every thing is in such confusion at court
that, if God does not lend a helping hand, I fear that in less than ten
days you will have news of the prettiest (_plus beau_) massacre
that ever was.”[285]

Is it wonderful if in such a state of things the Protestant gentry
thought it necessary to take counsel together? Of their deliberations
we know nothing, but the result was a resolution to take up arms.
Coligny alone appears to have held back, and without his countenance
and support the chances of success were very small. There is a story
told of him, which we could hope to be true, though it is at variance
with certain known facts. He had long kept aloof, notwithstanding
the entreaties of his brothers Andelot and the Cardinal of Chatillon
that he would take the field; and when his wife added her entreaties
to theirs, he drew a terrible picture of civil war and the possible
fate of herself and their children, and begged her take three weeks
to weigh the matter deliberately in her mind. “The three weeks are
already past,” replied the heroic dame; “you will never be conquered
by the virtue of your enemies; employ your own, and do not take upon
your head the murders of three weeks.” He hesitated no longer, and the
next day set off to join Condé at Meaux, where the Huguenot gentlemen
held rendezvous. That prince had already committed himself too far not
to see that none but the boldest measures could save him: “It is all
over,” he said; “we have plunged in so deep that we must either drink
or drown.”

The confederate, knowing how greatly success depended upon prompt
action, spent but few moments in deliberation. Their first step must be
to secure some strong town, in which they could make a safe stand until
reinforcements arrived. For obvious strategical and political reasons
they selected Orleans, and thitherward, to the number of two thousand,
they turned their horses’ heads. As the delay of even a few minutes
might be dangerous, they rode on like a fierce whirlwind, not stopping
to pick up any one who fell on the road. Once in Orleans, which they
entered on the 2d April, 1562, they sent secret orders to their
co-religionists all over France, and their first measures were crowned
with success. Almost on the same day the Huguenots made themselves
masters of Havre, Rouen, Caen, and Dieppe in Normandy; Blois, Tours,
and Angers on the Loire; Poitiers and Rochelle in Poitou; Chalons and
Troyes in Champagne; Macon in Burgundy; Gap and Grenoble in Dauphiny;
and Nismes, Montpellier, Béziers, and Montauban in Languedoc; as well
as a large number of castles in the north, west, and south, with the
Cevennes district between Lyons and Toulouse.

From all these quarters the best gentlemen in France rallied round
Condé in defense of the rights of their body and the princes of
the blood-royal against the usurpation and violence of the Guises,
who were foreigners. Many of them were related to Condé: the three
Chatillons were the uncles of his wife; Prince Porcien the husband of
his niece; La Rochefoucault had married his sister-in-law. Viscount
Rohan represented the nobles of Dauphiny; Andelot the Pays de France;
the Count of Grammont led the Gascons; Montgomery the Normans; and
Genlis the sober and industrious Picards. Their first step was to
sign a Covenant of Association, binding them to spend their goods and
their lives in restoring the king to liberty, and procuring freedom of
worship to all Frenchmen. They necessarily made Condé their leader, and
then sent off letters (7th May) to all the churches, desiring them “in
God’s name” to furnish both men and money. “We have taken up arms,”
said the confederates, “that we may deliver the King and Queen from
the hands of their enemies, and secure the full execution of the Edict
of January.” Condé also thought it his duty to dispatch a messenger to
the queen-mother, with an explanation of the motives which had driven
him to such extreme measures. Catherine would not commit herself to a
written answer, but desired the Baron de la Garde to tell the Prince,
“that she would never forget what he might do for the king her son.”

The Catholics, if less prompt, were not less vigorous in their
proceedings. In 1561 the citizens of Paris had been disarmed as a
measure of precaution; now every member of the “ancient Catholic
religion,” capable of bearing arms, was ordered to procure them and
attend drill.[286] By this means fifteen corps of infantry, amounting
to the almost incredible number[287] of 30,000 men (others say 24,000),
were placed at the disposal of the Triumvirate for the protection
of the capital. By another order, issued by Marshal Brissac, who
had succeeded Montmorency as governor, all persons, “notoriously
famed as being of the new religion,” were ordered to leave the city
within twenty-four hours, or they would be hanged; as for such as
were “suspected” only, they were required to get a certificate of
confession.[288] The populace did not fail to take advantage of the
opportunity thus placed within their reach, by informing against those
whom, from any personal or other motive, they wanted to turn out of
their houses; and if the Huguenots did not go, they were plundered and
ill-used.

And now began a war of manifestoes and remonstrances. The walls of the
capital were covered with placards in which the Huguenots declared
that they had taken up arms in self-defense and not for plunder,
and the Catholics replied in terms that exhausted the vocabulary of
abuse. The Lorraine party, or the Triumvirate, was the Ultramontane or
foreign party; the Protestant party was especially that of national
independence. The Huguenots, like the English Parliamentarians of
1642, represented the middle classes, and were (perhaps unconsciously)
democratic in their tendencies; the Royalists (as we may call them,
since they held the king’s person, although they were not more loyal
than their opponents) were supported by the clergy, the ignorant rural
population, and the poverty of the towns. Both parties sought political
power to carry out their views.

It may be said that, if ever there was a time when Christians were
justified in resorting to the sword, it was the present. The laws in
favor of the Huguenots were constantly and systematically broken. The
massacre at Vassy was only the first of a series of outrages equally
barbarous. At Sens in Burgundy, a Huguenot having insulted a Catholic
procession, the tocsin was rung, and there was a general onslaught upon
the Reformed, without regard either to age or sex. The bodies of the
victims, stripped and fastened to planks, were thrown into the river
and floated down to Paris, twenty leagues distant. One of them, that of
a Gascon officer, was dragged through the streets by boys leaping and
shouting: “Take care of your pigs, for we have got the pigkeeper.” The
fanatic populace destroyed every thing, even rooting up the vines in
the Calvinist vineyards. For three days the hideous carnival of murder
went on, and ceased only from want of victims.[289]

The massacre of Sens took place in April, while the Baron de la Garde
was on his mission of peace in the Protestant camp. It was said to
have been perpetrated at the instigation of the Cardinal of Lorraine,
who was archbishop of that city, and who took no steps to prevent
the murders. As soon as the news reached the ears of Condé, he broke
off all negotiations, and declared that he would not lay down his
arms “until he had driven his most cruel enemies (the Guises) out of
France.” The nuncio Santa Croce seems to allude to two massacres:
“Since the massacre at Sens, of which I wrote in my last, another great
slaughter of eighty Huguenots has happened, and some thirty of their
houses have been burned in that city.” Perrenot de Chantonnay, the
Spanish embassador, writes exultingly: “Already in many parts of this
kingdom, as at Sens, Toulouse, Castel-Navarre, and Villefranche, the
Catholics have risen against the Huguenots, who have had the worst of
it; and in some places the preachers were burned in the market-place.”

All over France, from the Channel to the Mediterranean, similar
ferocious outbreaks occurred. At Sisteron, beneath the shadow of the
Lower Alps, three hundred women and children, refugees from all parts
of Provence, were pitilessly murdered, the men having made their
escape. One poor woman with a baby in her arms was taken outside the
town and put to death, and her body buried beneath the ruins of the
house where she used to worship.

All comment on these things[290] would be superfluous. Is it wonderful
that in such a state of lawlessness the Reformed nobles and gentlemen
armed in self-defense? With indignant eloquence, Agrippa d’Aubigné
vindicates the rebellion in which the Huguenots sought to protect
themselves: “So long as the adherents of the new religion were
destroyed merely under the form of law, they submitted themselves to
the slaughter, and never raised a hand in their own defense against
those injuries, cruel and iniquitous as they were. But when the public
authorities and the magistracy, divesting themselves of the venerable
aspect of justice, put daggers into the hands of the people, abandoning
every man to the violence of his neighbors; and when public massacres
were perpetrated to the sound of the drum and of the trumpet, who
could forbid the unhappy sufferers to oppose hand to hand, and sword
to sword, and to catch the contagion of a righteous fury from a fury
unrestrained by any sense of justice?”

This appeal to arms was quite contrary to the principles of the founder
of the French Church. In 1556, when Calvin had reason to fear that the
Reformed would resist if they were attacked, he wrote to the church of
Angers: “I pray you put aside such counsels; they will never be blessed
by God, or come to a good issue.” And to the church at Paris he wrote
in the same strain: “Show yourselves like lambs against the rage of the
wolves, for you have the promise of the Good Shepherd, who will never
fail you. It is better that we be all destroyed than for the Gospel to
be reproached with leading the people to sedition and tumult. God will
always fructify the ashes of his servants, whilst violence and excess
will bring nothing but barrenness.”[291]

It is with great hesitation that I venture to differ from so high
an authority as Calvin; but--to oppose authority to authority--St.
Augustine acknowledges that overwhelming necessity may justify
Christians in drawing the sword.[292] And Knox went still farther,
maintaining in his “Appellation” that it was not only the duty of
a nation to resist a persecuting sovereign, but (as in the case of
the Marian persecutions) also to depose the queen, and even “punish
her to death, with all the sort of her idolatrous priests.” But the
propriety of arming in defense of religion can hardly in these days
be maintained on such grounds. The Huguenots of 1562 felt that their
only choice lay between extermination, hypocritical conformity, or
rebellion. They were contending against intolerable oppression; the
laws were no protection to them; and in such circumstances they
believed resistance to be justifiable. Why should they apostatize,
or be burned, while they had strength to wield the sword, especially
as the letter of the law was in their favor? Such a line of argument
may fall below the great ideal of the Founder of Christianity, in
which the highest victory is gained through suffering: “Unto him that
smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the other.” But how can we
apply such a rule to a whole nation, the mass of which consists of
ordinary individuals? Upon men of low moral constitutions persecution
has a searing, hardening, revengeful effect. It would not raise the
victims into martyrs, or lift them up to the divine spirit of the
Crucifixion. To forbid the use of the sword for any and every cause,
as one very narrow sect does, is intelligible; but to say that we may
draw it in defense of our homes and our goods, but not in defense of
our faith, is to count the latter of less value than the former. Those
who sympathize with Calvin argue that the midnight assassin, or the
violator of woman’s purity, may be lawfully resisted, even unto death;
not so another who would force a man to abjure his faith. This is
putting the purse above the conscience. Calvin had never been tested in
the fire. Brentius and Languet, who had both been face to face with the
enemy, thought differently.[293] The latter, speaking of a meeting at
La Cerisaye, which had been attacked, says: “There were some who would
have rather been beaten than draw their swords, but I was not of their
opinion.”[294] It may indeed be urged that the differences between
the Romanists and Huguenots were not important enough to justify armed
resistance; but the alternative appeal is to the conscience; and if
men and women, young and old, rich and poor, through a long series of
years, held their faith as dearer than their life, we must infer that
the differences to them were vital.

There is, however, a potent element of evil in armed resistance. When
Christians unite into armies, they are too apt to become a political
party, and losing sight of the motives and principles which first
banded them together, to contend for mere temporal objects like any
other body of men. It was perhaps a misfortune that the Reformed were
so numerous in France; had they been a small, insignificant body, they
would hardly have created such malignant animosity, and might have
escaped being mixed up in the civil war, which was sooner or later
inevitable between the political parties.

Both armies now began to prepare for the coming struggle. Never before
in all history, and only once since, has any thing been seen like the
discipline at first maintained among the Huguenots. A form of prayer,
drawn up by Beza, was repeated every night and morning; and the troops
were “to beware of oppressing the poor commons.” As they marched over
the open country, “they neither spoiled nor misused their hosts, but
were content with a little.... Most of them paid honestly for all
things.” La Noue aptly describes it as a “well-ordered disorder.”
Speaking of the discipline of the army while it lay for a fortnight in
the camp at Vassadonne near Orleans, he says: “Among all this great
troop, ye should never hear God’s name blasphemed. There was not a pair
of dice or cards, the fountains of many brawls and thefts, walking in
any quarter.... Truly, many wondered to see them so well-disposed, and
my late brother the Lord of Teligny and myself, discoursing thereof
with the Lord Admiral, did greatly commend it. Whereupon he said unto
us: ‘It is indeed a goodly matter if it would continue; but I fear this
people will pour forth all their goodness at once, so as within these
two months they will have nothing but malice left. I have a great while
governed the footmen, and do know them. They will fulfill the proverb:
A young saint, an old devil. If this fail, we may make a cross upon the
chimney.’ We smiled, but took no farther heed thereof, until experience
taught us that herein he was a prophet.” The admiral had not long to
wait for the fulfillment of his prophecy. At Beaugency, the Huguenot
force treated with more cruelty the Protestants who had been unable
to escape than they did the Catholic soldiers who had held the town
against them. “Thus,” continues the amusing chronicler, “thus did our
footmen lose their virginity, and of this unlawful conjunction ensued
the procreation of Lady Picoree, who is since grown into such dignity
that she is now termed madame; yea, if this civil war continue, I
doubt she will become a princess. Of the Catholics, I will say that at
the beginning they were likewise well ordered, and did not much annoy
the commons.” The Huguenots were the first to make the war support
itself by contributions levied upon the enemy. When the admiral was in
Normandy, the Catholic population of Caen was required to furnish the
sum of 10,000, not, however, until Beza’s appeal to his co-religionists
for money had utterly failed.[295]

Before the two armies came into actual collision, Catherine interposed
as a peace-maker. She saw plainly that, whichever side conquered, the
crown must suffer, and that it would be ruinous to her power to allow
one party to exterminate the other. Accordingly, several attempts
were made to induce the Huguenots to lay down their arms. Montluc and
Vieilleville were successively dispatched to Orleans, and as they could
obtain nothing from the confederated nobles, Catherine determined to
try the effect of her own power of persuasion.

A conference took place on the 2d of June between her and Condé at
Thoury in Beauce, ten leagues from Orleans. La Noue describes the armed
escorts on each side, sitting on horseback and looking at each other
for half an hour, “each coveting to see, one his brother, another
his uncle, cousin, friend, or old companion.” At last they got leave
from their respective commanders to speak with one another. They met
with great “demonstrations of amity.” “The Catholics, imagining the
Protestants to be lost, exhorted them to see to themselves, and not
to enter obstinately into this miserable war, wherein near kinsmen
must murder one another. Hereto they answered that they detested it;
howbeit, if they had no recourse to their defense, they were assured of
like entreaty as many other Protestants had received, who were cruelly
slain in sundry parts of France. Each provoked the other to peace,
and to persuade their superiors to hearken thereto.” An eye-witness
writes: “On the 17th of June the queen set off again from the forest of
Vincennes in great haste, and it was believed this time that she would
conclude a peace before her return. She had taken medicine and been
bled the day before, being ill through a fall from her hackney, going
and coming with such dispatch.”

At a subsequent interview at Talcy[296] (28th June, 1562), Condé,
yielding to the persuasions of Montluc, Bishop of Valence, offered to
show his good faith by leaving the country, provided the Guises would
do the same; and a meeting was fixed for the next day at which the
conditions of this singular agreement were to be arranged. La Noue
tells us how “the prince returned to his camp laughing (but between his
teeth) with the chief of his gentlemen who had heard all his talk; some
scratching their heads where they itched not, others shaking them;
some were pensive; and the younger sort gibed at one another, each one
devising with what occupation he should be forced to get his living
in a foreign land.” With similar lightness of heart, but not with
equal chivalry, the gentlemen of France forsook their country in 1789,
trusting to return in a few weeks to a land which most of them never
saw again.

Condé’s officers refused to follow him. Coligny supposed the
queen-mother meant no harm, but thought that “those who had weapons
in their hands did circumvent her to the end to betray them.” Andelot
said to the prince: “If you forsake us now, it will be said that you
do it for fear. The best way of coming to an agreement is to lead us
within sight of the enemy. We can never be perfect friends, before
we have skirmished a little together.” The Lord of Boucarde, one of
the bravest gentlemen in the realm, “whose head was fraught with fire
and lead,” declared: “I would be loth to walk up and down a foreign
land with a tooth-pick in my mouth, and in the mean time see some
flattering neighbor be the master of my house, and fatten himself with
my revenues.” These opinions being generally approved of, Condé gave
way, and “they all shook hands in confirmation thereof.” Beza, who was
present at this council, afterward besought the prince “not to give
over the good work he had begun which God, whose honor it concerned,
would bring to perfection.” Thus the conference came to nothing; the
queen-mother and Condé separated, “each very sorry that they had no
better success.”

The Huguenots had lost much valuable time by this attempted mediation;
while the clergy and Parliament of Paris, improving the opportunity,
issued an order for those of the true Church to take up arms and kill
the heretics like mad dogs. A contemporary denounces this proclamation
as “a means to arm thieves, vagabonds, and villains. It made the
ploughman to leave the plough, and the craftsman to shut up his shop;
it changed the multitude into tigers and lions, and fleshed them
against their own countrymen.”[297] Woe to the vanquished, for atrocity
begets atrocity! A manuscript journal of this year, kept by some person
attached to the court, describes the fearful state of Paris. Every day
had its tale of outrage and murder by sword, rope, or water. Houses
were pillaged and razed to the ground; cemeteries were broken open, and
the relics of the dead scattered to the winds. The voice of the law was
silent, and the government looked on, as if powerless to prevent, but
in reality pleased to see their enemies exterminated. On one occasion,
a child, hardly six months old, who had been christened by a Huguenot
pastor, was rechristened at the Church of St. Germain l’Auxerrois. More
than 10,000 spectators were witnesses of the ceremony: the bells rang
out joyous peals from every steeple, and the crowd shouted: “Praised
be God for the recovery of the poor little soul.” These profanations
of the holy rite of baptism were not confined to Paris. At Le Puy the
infant of “an apostate” was christened with great pomp of minstrels,
arquebusiers, and “taborins,” the lord-bishop of the city being
godfather.[298]

On the last day of June several persons were murdered, and among them
a woman accused of not going to mass for ten years. She was cruelly
beaten and then flung into the Seine, when the boatmen knocked her on
the head with oars and poles. Two men also were killed and thrown into
the river, charged with being Huguenots. The blood-stained doublet of
one of them was fastened to a stick and carried in procession through
the streets of Paris by a troop of noisy children. “This, or something
of the sort, was done every day,” says the court chronicler, “so that
no one could be punished.”[299] The blood-thirstiness of the multitude
spread even to the young. Santa Croce writes to Cardinal Borromeo:
“Monsieur d’Enghien, who is only a little boy of seven, is always
saying that we must no longer delay to burn all the Huguenots without
mercy.... This I learned from the constable, who expressed how greatly
he was pleased to hear it.”

The Constable Montmorency, who, as governor of Paris, should have
supported the authority of the law, was one of the foremost to break
it. He took such pleasure in destroying the Huguenot places of worship,
that even the Catholics nicknamed him _Mr. Burn-bench_. In one
day he pulled down the two meeting-houses at Popincourt,[300] and the
mob bringing the timber to the square in front of the Hotel-de-Ville,
burned it there with shouts of “God has not forgotten the city of
Paris.” The pulpit was used with great effect to inflame the multitude.
At the Fête Dieu, Charles of Guise, “the bloody cardinal,”[301] told
his hearers “it was better to shed the last drop of their blood than
permit God’s honor and his Church to be defiled by the presence of any
other religion in France than that of their ancestors.”[302] Matters
became so bad that at last Queen Elizabeth instructed her embassador
to leave Paris, “because he could not witness such great cruelties.”
What the queen-mother said or did to conciliate her royal sister is
not known; but it is certain that Catherine was much grieved at this
state of affairs--_diu multumque flevit_. There is a story of
her adopting a rather oriental manner of learning the opinions of the
citizens. Putting on a mask, such as the Italian ladies were accustomed
to wear, she walked through the streets, accompanied by the Queen of
Navarre. They went into the shops, pretending to purchase, and, as
may be imagined, heard many strange things about themselves and the
government.[303]

All efforts at conciliation having failed, each party tried to
strengthen itself by foreign alliances. Guise, Montmorency, and
St. André had already, as we have seen, entered into a treasonable
arrangement with Philip II., by which that monarch bound himself
to aid with money and men in the extirpation of heresy in France;
“on no pretense to spare the life of any heretic,” says the
_Sommaire_.[304] The duke was specially charged “to blot out
entirely the name, family, and race of Bourbon, lest from them some
one should arise hereafter to restore the new religion.” In pursuance
of this agreement the King of Spain wrote to the queen-mother offering
military support.[305] Pius V. ordered collections to be made in the
states of the Church, gathered contributions from the Italian princes,
and sent a small force of mercenaries across the Alps.[306]

In self-defense the Huguenots were forced to appeal to their brother
Protestants for help; nor were Swiss, Germans, or English deaf to
their appeal. By the treaty of Hampton Court (20th Sept., 1562)
Elizabeth agreed to furnish 6000 men, of whom one-half were to garrison
Havre, as a material guarantee until the end of the war. This was an
impolitic concession on the part of the Huguenots; it turned many
friends into enemies, and necessarily drove Catherine into the arms
of the coalition. The Duke of Guise, only a few years before, had by
the capture of Calais expelled the English from the “sacred soil” of
France; and now the Huguenots were traitorously inviting them back.
Unfortunately Elizabeth’s behavior only served to strengthen the
suspicions of the French people. Her declared object was “to check the
aspirations of the Guisian conspirators, who would never be satisfied
until Scotland and England were united under one crown, and that worn
by Mary Stuart.”[307] To the King of Spain she wrote, immediately after
signing the treaty, that her aim was to preserve peace “by securing
such ports as be next us from them (Guisians), without intent of
offense to the king.”[308] But she did not preserve peace, and her
actions did offend.

Hostilities broke out long before these negotiations were concluded.
By the middle of June the two armies were in the field and ready for
action. They were not large: that under Navarre consisting of 4000
foot and 3000 horse, that under Condé of 6000 foot and 2000 horse. The
first movements were favorable to the Catholics. Having frustrated an
attempt to surprise them, the royal forces prepared to attack Orleans,
the Huguenot head-quarters, by cutting it off from the surrounding
country. They retook Blois, Tours, Poitiers, Angers, and Bourges,
almost without striking a blow, signalizing the capture of these cities
by atrocities which could have been perpetrated only when the passions
of a fierce soldiery were inflamed by religious fanaticism. At Blois a
woman found praying with some neighbors was thrown into the water, and
as she floated was beaten with sticks and pelted with stones until she
died. An old man of seventy caught reading the Bible was immediately
massacred; another had his eyes plucked out and was then knocked on
the head; another was paraded through the city on an ass, with his
face to the tail, pelted, hooted, and drowned. The pastor Chassebœuf
was, by Guise’s express order, hung up to a tree without any form of
trial.[309] There was much in the appearance of Tours to rouse the
fanaticism of the soldiery. For some weeks the town had been in the
hands of the Huguenots, who seized upon the churches, stole the plate,
broke the images and ornaments, burned the service-books, desecrated
the relics, and ordered every ecclesiastic to leave the place in
twenty-four hours under pain of imprisonment. Contemporary records
describe the destruction of a “Calvary” of gold and azure, one of the
wonders of the world, which sixty years before had cost the large sum
of ten thousand ducats. The plunder of the churches served to keep up
the war. That of St. Martin at Tours furnished Condé with 1,200,000
livres, without counting the jewels in the shrines.[310]

When the king’s authority was restored in Tours, mass was ordered to
be sung in St. Martin’s Church, but every thing in it had been broken
or destroyed, except the stalls in the choir and a few of the painted
windows. This was on the 13th June, and on the 14th and 15th of the
following month the massacre occurred. The interval is sufficient to
show that it was caused by something more than the usual military
license of those rough days. We shall find a horrible sameness in these
stories: men and women, young and old, were murdered indiscriminately;
even children were not spared. Boats filled with victims were sunk
in the river; thus anticipating, by more than two centuries, the
_noyades_ of the infamous Carrier. Three hundred persons were
shut up in a church, and after being kept there for three days without
food, were bound two and two and taken to the _escorcherie_ (the
knacker’s yard) and there killed. “Little children (whose parents had
been murdered) could be bought for a crown apiece,” adds D’Aubigné. In
five or six days the banks of the river down to Angers were covered
with dead bodies, “dont les bestes mêmes s’espouvantoyent,” says
Crespin, “at which even the wild beasts were horror-stricken.” After
order had been restored by the Duke of Montpensier, a minister was
hanged for preaching a sermon not to the taste of his hearers. Because
the fronts of certain houses had not been decorated with hangings
during the procession of Corpus Christi, some of the inhabitants
were drowned, others imprisoned, and in every case the houses were
thoroughly gutted. Two women were dragged to the river and flung into
water so shallow, that they could not drown, whereupon they were beaten
to death with oars and poles. Jean Bourgeau, president of the city, was
caught while attempting to escape in a boat (30th Nov., 1562). He was
first drowned and then hanged to a tree and disemboweled, “because not
only had he been averse to punishing the heretics, but had moreover
favored them by adhering to their erroneous opinions and oppressing the
Catholics.”[311]

From Tours the king’s forces marched to Poitiers, which fell after
three days’ cannonade, and Bourges surrendered after a siege of ten
days. The terms of capitulation conceded to the inhabitants were
an amnesty for the past and liberty of conscience according to the
Edict of January. Orleans was now quite insulated; but the Catholic
chiefs, instead of following up their successes in that direction,
drew off their army to Rouen, through which they feared that English
forces might be poured into the country. Rouen was at that time one of
the most important cities of France: there was none in the north to
equal it in commerce, wealth, and population. Situated on the Seine,
midway between its mouth and Paris, it commanded the main highway into
the interior; and, so long as it was in hostile hands, no serious
attempt could be made upon the strong city of Orleans. Strategical
and political reasons being thus in favor of attacking Rouen, the
royal army, now 18,000 strong, under the orders of the constable, sat
down before the city on the 25th September. The Count of Montgomery’s
garrison was about 4000 men, of whom nearly half were English. The
trenches were opened to the sound of music, as was done more than
once in the time of Louis XIV. In the town, as in the Huguenot armies
generally, all was serious and severe; prayer-meetings and sermons
with psalm-singing were the amusements of the garrison, who, like
the Covenanters and Puritans, fought none the worse because they
had bent the knee to God before marching to battle. The siege was
pressed vigorously, for the cold nights and heavy rains of autumn were
approaching, when the royal army would be unable to keep the field. The
citizens of Paris, who were anxious to recover a city which interrupted
all traffic with the sea, offered the king 200,000 crowns to pay and
victual the besieging force.[312] Catherine, attended by her licentious
maids of honor--her “flying squadron,” as they were afterward
called--visited the army to encourage the troops by her presence. It
is said that she went every day to Fort St. Catherine, where the fire
was hottest; and when the constable and Guise remonstrated with her,
representing that it was not her duty to expose her life, she answered:
“Why should I spare myself more than you? Have I less interest in
the result, or less courage? True, I have not your strength of body,
but I have equal resolution of mind.” The soldiers called her “mater
castrorum.”

On the 26th October the breach was stormed. The fatigued and
overmatched garrison made but a feeble resistance, and the city was
won. Montgomery escaped, but those who remained had to suffer all the
extremities of a town abandoned to the passions of an unscrupulous
soldiery. The commanders had forbidden all pillage--for the besieged,
though rebels, were still the king’s subjects--but the indiscipline
of the army was too strong. The Swiss mercenaries obeyed the order,
“but the French soldiers would sooner be killed than come away so long
as there was any thing to take.” For three days the license endured,
when the king, attended by his mother and the parliament, made his
triumphal entry through the breach, and put an end to the outrages of
the soldiery.[313]

And now the hour of vengeance had come. The Catholics remembered how,
one Sunday in May, the Huguenots, in the exultation of their triumph,
had sacked and defaced the cathedral and thirty-six parish churches.
“They made such work,” says Beza, “that they left neither altar nor
image, font nor benitier.”[314] That this was not the act of a lawless
mob, or of a sudden excitement, but of calmness and deliberation,
is probable from what happened about the same time at Caen, in the
same province, where the minister Cousin told the judges “that this
idolatry had been put up with too long, and that it must be trampled
down.” And here the destroyers, after scattering the ashes of William
the Conqueror, breaking organs, pictures, pulpits, and statues, to the
estimated value of 100,000 crowns, had the impudence to ask the town
council to pay them for their two days’ work--which was done.[315]
At Rouen, the anger of the Catholic soldiery was increased by the
conduct of the Huguenot clergy, who had refused the honorable terms of
surrender which had been offered them, declaring that Heaven would work
a miracle, if all human means should fail, to prevent their falling
into the hands of the Romanists. That miracle was not worked, and
one of the first victims of this tampering with the Divine will was
Marlorat, chief pastor of the city. He had been an Augustine monk,
and, leaving his convent, escaped to Geneva, where he abjured Romanism.
Apostate as he was in the eyes of the Catholics, he was permitted to
appear at the conference of Poissy, where he acted as the Protestant
leader until Beza arrived. Such an instance of toleration ought not to
be overlooked.

When Rouen fell, Marlorat hid himself, but his hiding-place was
betrayed, and he was imprisoned. The constable went to visit him in
his dungeon, and charged him with seducing the people. “If I have, God
seduced me first,” he answered; “for I have preached nothing but his
pure word.” He suffered in company with two of his flock, exhorting
them to the last. The high bailiff swore a terrible oath, and struck
him with his official staff to make him hold his tongue; and, as he was
hanging, a soldier hacked his legs. Beza, who records these things,
traces the finger of God in the misfortunes that subsequently befell
Marlorat’s persecutors: “The captain who betrayed him was killed three
weeks after; two of his judges died of strange diseases; the soldier
who hacked his legs was killed by a sword; and the high bailiff in
his cups quarreled with Marshal Vieilleville, who cut off the hand
with which he had struck the martyr.” Many other victims fell besides
the pastors, and the prisons were so crammed with pious men and women
that Brevedent, the lieutenant of police, thought it his duty to
remonstrate: “Why do you crowd the dungeons?” he asked. “Can you doubt
what you ought to do? Is the river yet full?”

In the course of the siege, Anthony of Navarre received a bullet wound
in his shoulder, of which he died on the 17th November at Andelys.[316]
During his feverish wanderings, he talked to his attendants of
the orange groves of his expected kingdom of Sardinia, and of the
golden sands of its rivers. No wife with loving hand smoothed his
dying-pillow. She was far away in the south, training up her children
in all godliness; but his mistress, Louise de Rouet, stayed with him
to the last. Her character of him is by no means flattering: “The
prince (she said) changed his religion and party almost as easily as
he changed mistresses.” After he had received extreme unction, his
uneasy conscience would not let him rest. “Read me a chapter of the
Bible,” he said to his physician; and after the latter had read a
portion of Scripture, Anthony interrupted him, and with tears in his
eyes exclaimed: “If I do but get well, I will cause the Gospel to be
preached throughout France.” But his good resolutions, if sincere, came
too late; and, at the age of forty-four, he died regretted by neither
party. Garnier mentions a curious peculiarity of this unworthy king
without a kingdom: he was so irresistibly given to pilfering that,
after he had gone to bed, the pages used to search his pockets in order
to restore the property he had stolen.

Condé was much grieved at the Rouen cruelties, particularly with
the hanging of Marlorat and others, and ordered three persons to
be hanged in retaliation.[317] The army, also, was so exasperated,
that they massacred all the priests they found in Pluviers; and when
the Catholics contended that the king might hang his rebellious
subjects, they replied that “his name shrouded other men’s malice,
wherefore, according to the proverb, they would make _such bread such
brewisse_.” The prince’s jest is well known: “Our enemies have given
us two shrewd checks in taking our rooks (meaning Rouen and Bourges),
but I hope that now we may catch their knights, if they take the
field.” But he was caught himself.

The fall of Rouen not only did not restore peace, but the province of
Normandy became more disturbed than ever. Both parties were equally
violent, equally unscrupulous. They burned or plundered each other’s
houses and farmsteads. The neighborhood of Rouen became a wide waste,
and the people were reduced to beggary.[318] The government took
advantage of their success to make a display of generosity which, had
it been sincere, might have terminated the war. A royal edict promised
a full and complete amnesty to all who had taken up arms, on condition
that they ceased to attend Protestant sermons, and conformed outwardly
to Catholicism. The numerous exceptions to this act of grace included
the heads of the party, persons notoriously seditious, and such as had
profaned the churches. A few gentlemen accepted these terms, but the
vast majority saw that the edict was a mere trick to separate the army
from its leaders.

Battles and sieges now followed in quick succession, and in all parts
of France at once. Condé, who had been reinforced by 4000 lansquenets
and 300 reiters, brought from Germany by Andelot, after threatening
Paris had moved into Normandy, in order to meet the auxiliaries, about
3000 in number, promised by Queen Elizabeth. He was followed by the
Duke of Guise, who came up with him on the banks of the Eure, a long
narrow plain separating the two armies. The force under Condé amounted
to 5000 foot and 8000 horse, while that under Guise consisted of 16,000
foot and 3000 horse.[319] The latter fortified “against all chances”
the petty town of Dreux, at the foot of a hill on whose top there stood
a castle even then of some antiquity. A small stream ran through the
plain, which was covered with wood, with here and there a hamlet of a
few houses. Early in that dark winter’s morning (19th December) Condé
prepared for battle. The prince went through the ranks exhorting his
followers to do their duty as became Christians and loyal subjects,
for they were fighting not against the king, but against his evil
advisers; and reminded them of their parents and friends burned and
massacred. After singing a psalm, wherein the God of Israel summons
his people to avenge his cause, the troops knelt down in prayer,
and as soon as the chaplain had ended, the whole army thundered out
_Amen!_ For two hours the armies remained face to face within
cannon-shot. “Every man stood fast,” says La Noue, “imagining in
himself that they that came against him were no Spaniards, Englishmen,
or Italians, but Frenchmen, and those of the bravest; among whom were
their companions, friends, and kinsfolks, and also that within one hour
they were to slay each other. This bred some horror, nevertheless,
without quailing in courage, they thus stayed until the armies moved
to join.” About one o’clock, Condé gave the signal to advance: before
sunset it was all over. Heading the attack in person, he cut through
the enemy’s line, captured some of his cannon, and took the constable
prisoner. But, like Rupert at Edgehill, he followed up the pursuit so
eagerly and so far, that he left his infantry exposed.[320] The Duke
of Guise saw the opportunity, and sweeping down upon them with the
cry of “They are ours! they are ours!” drove the German footmen off
the field.[321] The native Huguenot infantry, now uncovered, resisted
stoutly, but suffered in proportion. Meanwhile Condé, who was making
his way back to the point of danger, fell to the ground in a small
hedge-row, and before he could extricate himself from his horse, which
had been knocked down by a bullet, a troop of Damville’s[322] brigade
came up and took him prisoner. Coligny, who had been trying to make up
for the prince’s rashness, saw that all was over, and made preparations
to save the relics of the defeated army. Gathering round him the
few troops that remained unbroken, he flung himself between the
fugitives and the pursuing foe, to whom he presented such a resolute
face that Guise dared not attack him. There is a story to the effect,
that when the duke’s friends advised him to pursue the Huguenots, he
said, “Peace, peace; I have to fight with a worse beast than all the
Huguenots put together.” He meant Catherine de Medicis. Several fierce
charges were made upon the Huguenot rear-guard, in one of which St.
André was captured, and afterward murdered in cold blood.[323] Although
a drawn battle[324] the number of killed and wounded, according to a
statement by Ambrose Paré, was enormous: “I saw the earth covered for
a good league all round,” he says; “they were reckoned at 2500 men at
the outside. All that had been _polished off_ in less than two
hours.”[325] Until 1789 a solemn procession took place every year at
Dreux to commemorate this triumph of the Catholic cause.

When the news of this battle reached Paris, the citizens gave way to
transports of delight. The houses were illuminated; _Te Deums_
were sung in the churches; salvos of artillery were fired from the
Bastille. The Duke of Guise was made lieutenant-general and decorated
with the Order of the Holy Ghost. Catherine shared the common joy, and
when the good tidings reached Trent, where the council was sitting,
they clapped their hands in exultation. The Catholics had, indeed,
every reason to exult, for if victory had declared in favor of the
Huguenots, the fortunes of France might have changed with its religion.
“Well, then, we still have to say our prayers in French,” said
Catherine, when the first reports of the battle assigned the victory to
Condé.

Both armies now retired to winter-quarters: Coligny leading the remnant
of the Huguenot forces to Orleans, and Guise returning to Paris with an
escort of 2400 Spanish arquebusiers. Now that St. André was killed and
Montmorency a prisoner, the duke found himself the most powerful man
in the kingdom. Reorganizing his troops and being strongly reinforced,
he marched out early next year to lay siege to Orleans, for winter
brought little cessation to the strife. Coligny, who was in great
want of money, had moved into Normandy, to re-open his communications
with England, having left his brother Andelot in command of the city.
The latter, though suffering severely from a quartan ague, took the
most active measures of defense; but Guise was no mean soldier, and
had had large experience in sieges. He captured one of the suburbs by
assault; his lines drawing closer every day effectually cut off all
succor; the admiral was too weak to attempt to raise the siege, and the
duke had fixed the final attack for the 19th February. Writing to the
queen-regent, he expressed a hope that she would not be displeased if
he destroyed every thing within the walls, “even to the dogs and rats,”
and sowed the foundations of the city with salt. It is probable that
there would have been a terrible massacre; but just as all hope seemed
lost, the hand of an assassin brought deliverance (18th February,
1563). On his death-bed Duke Francis attempted to justify himself for
the atrocities at Vassy, protesting that he had neither premeditated
nor ordered them. But death-bed confessions are rarely authentic
enough to be relied on: they are too often colored by the report of
interested witnesses.[326] On this point Maimbourg and Varillas are at
variance--the latter affirming that the duke prayed God to pardon all
his faults, “except that of Vassy.” He is also reported to have sent a
message to the queen-regent, advising her to make peace without delay,
adding that “the man who would prevent it is an enemy to the king and
state.” The near approach of death had probably brought that wisdom and
calm judgment in which he was so deficient, for only a month earlier
Throckmorton wrote of him: “The duke will in no wise accord to peace
till the Protestants be utterly exterminated.”[327] When Catherine
heard the news of his murder, she spoke her mind pretty plainly about
him: “The man is dead I hated most of all the world.” And when Condé
characterized his death as the removal of a burden, she continued: “If
the kingdom has been relieved of one burden, ten have been taken off my
bosom.”

The murderer was Jean Poltrot de Méré, a gentleman of Angoumois and
a convert to the Reformed faith, whose temper had been soured by
misfortune. Imagining the Duke of Guise to be the great obstacle to the
victory of the Huguenot cause, he determined upon his assassination,
and after watching him for several days, succeeded in shooting his
victim as he was passing, slenderly escorted, through a wood.[328]
Poltrot fled, and would probably have escaped; but not knowing the
country, he rode round and round until he returned nearly to the spot
where he had fired at the duke. He was soon captured and taken to
Paris, where, after being tortured to force him to reveal the names
of his accomplices, he was sentenced to a cruel death. He was dragged
to the place of execution on a hurdle, surrounded by a strong guard
to prevent his being torn in pieces by the populace. His right hand
was cut off, his flesh torn by pincers, and melted lead poured into
the wounds. His limbs were then tied to four horses, who, pulling in
opposite directions, endeavored to tear him asunder; but they pulled in
vain, until the hangman severed the muscles with a sword. Finally his
head was cut off and his body burned to ashes.

While stretched upon the rack in the torture-chamber, Poltrot
acknowledged that he had been bribed by Coligny to kill the duke. It is
true he had been much in the Huguenot camp, and the admiral had given
him money to purchase a horse--circumstances that tended to corroborate
his confession; but his hasty execution, without confronting him
with the admiral, or giving the latter an opportunity of vindicating
himself, was highly suspicious. Some persons have supposed that the
queen-regent had a share in the murder, on the ground that she once
said (or is reported to have said) to Tavannes: “The Guises wished to
make themselves kings, but I took good care of them before Orleans.”
Both suspicions are equally baseless, but the Guise family persisted
in charging Coligny with the murder; and it must be acknowledged that
the admiral’s conduct and language were not altogether satisfactory.
In his remarks on Poltrot’s interrogatory he says, that when some
one declared he would kill the duke in the midst of his soldiers, he
had not discouraged him (ne l’avait point détourné), adding that he
remembered well his last meeting with Poltrot, who went so far as to
say that it would be easy to kill M. de Guise, and that he (Coligny)
had made no reply to it, “considering it to be mere idle talk.” In a
letter to the queen-mother, which accompanied these remarks, he says:
“During the last few months, I have no longer contested the matter
against those who displayed such intentions, because I had information
that certain persons had been practiced upon to kill me.... Do not
imagine, however, that what I say proceeds from any regret which the
duke’s death occasions me. No, far from that, I esteem it the greatest
blessing that could possibly have befallen this kingdom, the Church of
God, and more especially myself and all my house.”[329] This leaves
no doubt that Coligny assented, if he did not consent to the crime.
He was not unwilling to profit by it, though he would do nothing to
further it. This may diminish the lofty moral pedestal on which some
writers have placed the Protestant hero; but he was a man, and had all
a man’s failings, though he may have controlled them by his religious
principles. Nor was assassination considered at all cowardly or
disgraceful in those days; not more so than killing a man in a duel was
until very recently among us.

The news of the duke’s murder was received with a cry of horror among
the Catholic party. Pius IV. ordered a magnificent funeral ceremony
to be performed in St. Peter’s, and Julius Poggianus, in his sermon
on the occasion, comparing Francis to Judas Maccabæus, called him the
preserver of France. In a funeral service at Notre Dame in Paris,
the vicar-general of Rouen extolled the duke, but would not pray for
him, “car fait injure au martyr qui prie pour le martyr.” He treated
Guise as a sort of demi-god, and declared that nothing restrained
him from reckoning the murdered man among the saints but his respect
for the pope, who had not yet canonized him.[330] On the other hand,
these honors only served to call forth a torrent of vituperation from
his enemies. The murder was openly defended, Poltrot was compared to
Judith, and ballads were sung in his praise.[331] He was called

    L’exemple merveilleux
      D’une extrême vaillance,
    Le dixième des preux,
      Libérateur de France.

In another ballad we are told that

    Dieu suscita le vaillant de Méré,
    Qui le Guisart a massacré.

Even Beza conferred on him the martyr’s crown, and Cecil “was
very glad to hear of the duke’s hurt, and could wish his soul in
heaven.”[332]

The times were favorable for peace. The Duke of Guise dead and the
constable a prisoner, there was no one to take the command of the
royal army. “I was obliged to command it myself,” said Catherine, “for
Brissac was so ill that he could not leave his bed.” On the other hand,
the Prince of Condé, with all his desire for liberty, was unwilling to
change “the soft air of the court and the smiles of the ladies” for
the austerities of the Huguenot camp. His offer to become the channel
of negotiations between the two religions was accepted, though not
without opposition from the embassadors of Philip II. and the pope,
who were for continuing the war. The Duke of Tuscany expressed his
dissatisfaction at the negotiations; and the queen-regent, to quiet
them, seems to have hinted that the pacification would be only a trap.
Santa Croce writes: “If any opportunity is found of infringing the
articles of this treaty, they will not be kept.... Should the queen
do as she promises, means will be found of punishing these people
when they are disarmed and dispersed.” But the peace party was too
strong, and the terms of a treaty were soon agreed upon. Before finally
accepting them, the Prince of Condé consulted the synod then assembled
at Orleans; but that impracticable body, while claiming absolute
liberty for themselves, would have denied it to those whom they
called “atheists, libertines, and anabaptists.” As it would have been
useless to attempt to reconcile the extreme fanatics on both sides,
the Pacification of Amboise was signed on the 19th March, 1563. The
right of public worship conceded by the Edict of January was greatly
restricted, the Huguenots being no longer permitted to assemble outside
the walls of the cities, but only in a single place within every
bailliage inhabited by Protestant nobles and their retainers. On the
other hand, one clause expressly bore that “every man should live at
liberty in his own house, without search or molestation, and without
being vexed or constrained for conscience’ sake.” Although the treaty
was acceptable to the majority of the Huguenot party, who were growing
tired of the war, all were not equally pleased. The admiral, who had
protested against it, characterized it by a single phrase: “That stroke
of the pen throws down more churches than the enemy’s soldiers could
have destroyed in ten years.”

Notwithstanding the insinuations of Cardinal Santa Croce, that “she
would pacify every thing in a few hours whenever she pleased,”[333]
there does not appear to be any reason to doubt Catherine’s sincerity.
It was her interest to pacify the country in a sense very different
from that intended by the papal envoy: she had something more to fear
than the hostility of the Huguenots. Spain was looking on, eager to
take advantage of the distresses of France, and a continuation of the
war could bring nothing but disaster whichever side prevailed. Less
than a year of civil strife had been sufficient to exhaust the finances
of the country, to accumulate an immense debt, to destroy commerce,
and to throw half the land out of cultivation. Castelnau’s testimony
in this matter is indisputable: “Agriculture was abandoned; multitudes
of towns and villages, pillaged and burned, were deserted, and the
poor laborers, driven from their homes, dispoiled of their furniture
and cattle, robbed to-day by one party, to-morrow by another, fled
like wild beasts, leaving all they had to the mercy of those who were
without mercy. Commerce was quite given up: no one was secure of his
property or life.... Thus the war, undertaken for religion, annihilated
religion and piety.”[334] “The Catholics,” adds Claude Haton, “were
as great thieves and brigands as the Huguenots.” The husbandman, no
longer able to till his fields in safety, either joined the army or
turned robber--a difference more in name than in reality. In many parts
they banded together to protect themselves, but they soon became little
better than brigands, attacking travelers, and ransoming the smaller
towns and villages. In the Vendomois they were so violent that the
gentlemen of the province united to repress their excesses and restore
order, putting at their head the poet Ronsard, a gentleman and also
a parish priest. “There are too many people in France,” shouted the
leader of one of the wild gangs called Barefeet (_Pieds-Nus_);
“we will kill a lot of them and make bread cheap.”[335] These ruffians
committed horrible atrocities in Champagne, sacking the houses of rich
and poor alike, killing the men and reserving the women for a worse
fate. At Céant-en-Othe, inhabited chiefly by Protestants, they burned
the villagers alive in their cottages. A poor girl, after enduring
unutterable barbarities, was covered with straw and roasted alive, as
they would have scorched a dead pig. One man was tied to a post and
used as a target for their arquebuses.

Trade suffered not less than agriculture, for commerce can not thrive
without the security of peace and law. Intercourse between town and
town was almost entirely cut off, for the highways were no longer
safe except to strong bodies of armed men. Tradesmen and mechanics,
therefore, quitted their counters and workshops for the camp; and
members of the inferior clergy, whose revenues had been extinguished by
the troubled state of affairs, flung aside the frock and assumed the
cuirass. And as if to make the confusion more complete, justice could
not be administered, so much were the tribunals overawed everywhere. In
Paris the anarchy seems to have been complete, each man being a law to
himself. Not even in the terrible revolution that closed the eighteenth
century were the bonds of society more thoroughly relaxed.

The royal edict which carried out the provisions of the treaty of
Amboise met with considerable opposition from the Catholics. At first,
all the parliaments of the kingdom refused to register it, and their
resistance was only to be overcome by the direct intervention of the
crown. The Parliament of Paris yielded under protest; that of Dijon
would not give way. The Duke of Aumale, brother to the murdered Francis
of Guise, and governor of Burgundy, supported the parliament in their
resistance, and declared, “There shall sooner be two suns in heaven
than two religions in my government.” When the municipality of Amiens
was in due course instructed to act in conformity with the edict, they
pleaded that the instructions were insufficient, and put them aside
until the king wrote to them in a tone that was not to be trifled with.
The disappointment of the fanatic Catholics is manifest from a plot
formed by a “fraternal association” to massacre all the Huguenots in
the capital. All not of the Guise faction, and such as were moderate
either in religion or politics, were termed “suspects,” and as such
condemned to be sacrificed. L’Hopital, “the traitor chancellor,” and
Montmorency, “le mauvais riche,” were to be the first victims. The plot
was discovered and frustrated by Joan of Navarre, and some of the most
violent of the civic conspirators were hanged at their own windows
without any form of trial.[336]

The pope did not openly protest against the Pacification of
Amboise, but virtually condemned it by a bull to the cardinal
inquisitors-general (7th April, 1563), permitting them to take
proceedings against heretics and their supporters, even in the states
beyond their jurisdiction. The opposition of the court of Spain was
entirely selfish. Philip II. knew that peace in France was dangerous to
tyranny in the Netherlands. Strengthened by his discontent, the Spanish
faction openly set the treaty at defiance. The government, however, was
sincere in its desire for tranquillity, and Catherine labored earnestly
to conciliate the malcontents. When Jacques Philippeaux was sent to
Gap, he called upon the Huguenots to deliver up their arms, but granted
them liberty of conscience, and permitted them to bury their dead in
the general cemetery with their own forms and ceremonies, until another
place could be provided. But such instances of toleration and charity
were rare; for France was like the sea, where the waves continue to
rise long after the storm has ceased.

Early in the course of the war, Coligny had the misfortune to lose
his son after a short illness of six days. He felt the blow keenly,
and to comfort his wife, who took it very much to heart, he wrote the
following letter: “Although you may grieve over the loss of our dear
child, yet I must remind you that, as it was God’s pleasure to take
him, so it should be ours to obey His will. He was a good child, and
we might have entertained great hopes of one so well conducted; but
remember, dearest, that we can not live without offending God, and that
our boy is happy in dying at an age when he was exempt from sin. It was
God’s will, and I offer Him my other children, if it be His pleasure.
Do the same, if you desire He should bless you, for in Him we should
place all our hope. Farewell, my dearly beloved. I hope to see you
shortly, which will be a great joy to me.”




                             CHAPTER VII.

                                CHAOS.

                             [1562–1563.]

   Nature of the Struggle--Montluc--His Barbarity--Des Adrets--His
   Ferocity--Murders at Gaillac--The Reform in Provence and
   Languedoc--Scenes at Orange--Revolt at Valence--Disturbances at
   Lyons--Compromise--La Rochelle--Massacre at Toulouse--Exodus
   of Sisteron--Sauteries of Macon--Limoux--Palm Sunday at
   Castelnaudary--The Monks of St. Calais--Violence in Berry--The
   Chatelaine of Avallon--The Proctor of Bar--Atrocities of the
   Bishop of Le Mans and his Lieutenant--Huguenot Cruelties at
   Dieppe and Bayeux--Angoulême--Quarrels at Court--Siege of
   Havre--Duplicity of English Government--Charles Proclaimed of
   Age--His Character--Council of Trent.


While the events we have described in the preceding chapter were taking
place in the north and west of France, the rest of that beautiful land
was a prey to anarchy and all the direst evils of civil war. In our
favored country, where internecine strife has been so long unknown, and
where, even in its worst days, Englishmen never forgot that they were
brothers, we can hardly picture to ourselves the frightful condition of
France during the whole reign of Charles IX. A few scattered incidents
must be taken as a sample of the hideous mass of horrors: to repeat
a tenth part of them would sicken and disgust the least sensitive of
readers.

Foremost among the blood-stained heroes of these cruel scenes are two
personages, distinct yet alike, to whom no parallel can be found except
in the sanguinary butchers of the Revolution of 1789. They are Montluc
and Des Adrets.

Blaise de Montluc had distinguished himself in the Italian wars of
Francis I. He had been made prisoner at Pavia, and had decided the
wavering fortunes of Cerisoles. As lieutenant of Guyenne he was
ordered to reduce that province to submission, and he did it in a very
characteristic manner, putting his Huguenot prisoners to death without
permitting them to say a word, “for they have golden tongues.” Terror
was his great weapon, and he used to boast that any one could know
which way he had passed by the “marks” he left upon the trees by the
roadside, adding, with a grim smile, that “one man hanging frightens
more than a hundred slain.” His “Commentaries,” an autobiographical
sketch, which he composed when years and disease prevented his using
the sword any longer, are a curious illustration of the state of mind
to which a man can be brought who makes mere military discipline the
principle of his actions. Reform was insubordination; “obedience to
the king’s edict or death”--he allowed no middle course. One day
he hanged six prisoners without a minute’s delay. “Why,” said the
terrified neighbors when they heard of it, “he puts men to death
without trial.” What need of trial? he would have replied; you are
in arms against the king. At St. Mezard four prisoners were brought
before him as he stood in the church-yard, his two executioners behind
him with their swords drawn; they always accompanied him, with cords
and other implements of their office. One of the prisoners was charged
with seditious language. Montluc caught him violently by the throat:
“Rascal, how dare you insult the king with your ribald tongue?” “Mercy,
mercy!” cried the man. “What! expect me to spare you when you have
not spared your king!” And, in a towering passion, Montluc threw the
poor wretch to the ground, his head falling on a broken monument.
“Strike, scoundrel!” roared Blaise to one of his executioners; and
at the word the sword fell, decapitating the man, and chipping a
fragment of stone from the slab. Two others were hanged on a tree hard
by, and the fourth was scourged so severely that he died a few days
after. Montluc complacently adds, “And this was the first execution
I ordered after starting from home, without trial or sentence, for I
have heard say that in these matters you should hang first.... It shut
the mouths of many seditious people.” He avenged M. Fumel’s murder by
hanging or breaking on the wheel in one day between thirty and forty
persons, innocent as well as guilty. The hot-headed Huguenots of the
south retaliated at Cahors by hanging as many Catholics as they could
catch, fourteen or fifteen in number, who had assisted Montluc in his
atrocities. At Gironde he made a capture of some eighty Huguenots, of
whom he hanged seventy to the pillars of the market-house “sans autre
cérémonie.” Describing his doings at the village of Feugaroles, he
says: “We were so few that we were not able to kill all: the bandoliers
shot them down like game.” In one of his expeditions he fell in with
the Queen of Navarre, who received him very badly, and to his great
surprise “called him a tyrant,” and otherwise reproached him. His
ferocity he considered a virtue, and justified his cruelty as necessary
to get the better of his enemies. “God,” he adds, “must be very
merciful to us, considering the evils we commit.”[337] He was thankful
not without reason, for at the end of the war he was richer by 100,000
crowns.

Still more ferocious, and, if possible, with still fewer redeeming
qualities, was François de Beaumont, baron des Adrets, whose name is
still used in the south to scare naughty children. Ostensibly he was
a Protestant, but in reality a mere agent of the queen-mother against
the Lorraine party.[338] He would sometimes amuse himself by making
his prisoners leap from the top of a tower, or from a high window, on
the pikes of his soldiers stationed below. On one occasion--it was
at Montbrison, in August, 1562--a prisoner hesitated, upon which Des
Adrets reproached him with cowardice. The other retorted: “I dare
you to do it in ten times,” which caused his life to be spared. The
slaughter in that little town was fearful: more than eight hundred
men, women, and children were murdered; the streets were strewn with
corpses, and “the gutters looked as if it had rained blood,” says a
contemporary. At another time, though this belongs to a different
period of his history--the baron marched to besiege Valence, where
(as we shall see presently) the Reformed had revolted and seized upon
the Grey Friars’ Church. In defiance of his threats, they publicly
celebrated the Lord’s Supper in the appropriated church, as many as
5000 partaking of the sacrament. They afterward came to terms with
him, agreeing to open their gates and restore the church; but Des
Adrets had no sooner entered than he seized a number of Protestants
and sentenced them to lose their heads. They were taken to punishment
with their mouths gagged; and after being dismembered, their limbs were
fastened to the doors of the church they had profaned.[339] Strange to
say, however, the baron professed to deplore the cruel necessities of
war, and excused his barbarities by pleading that it was not cruelty
to retaliate. “The first acts are cruelties,” he said, “the second
mere justice.” De Thou, who saw him at Grenoble, describes his green
and vigorous old age, his fierce eyes, and thin, fleshless features,
marked, like Sylla’s, with red spots, as of blood.[340]

The ferocity of Des Adrets was exceeded by the atrocities committed
under the eyes of Cardinal Strozzi, Bishop of Albi, who excited the
populace of Gaillac to massacre their Protestant brethren, with whom
they had hitherto lived on friendly terms. About seventy Huguenots
were seized as they were attending divine worship, and thrust into a
dungeon of the abbey of St. Michael, situated on a precipitous rock
above the river Tarn. A laborer, wearing the judicial cap and robe
of a magistrate whom he had killed, went through the farce of trying
the prisoners and condemning them to be thrown from the wall into the
river. Boatmen were stationed on the banks of the stream to brain such
as were not killed by the fall.

In the south of France, the Reformed doctrines had extended more
widely and struck deeper root than in other parts of that kingdom.
This difference was owing to a combination of many causes. The great
cities of Provence and Languedoc still retained many of their municipal
privileges, dating from the time of the Roman dominion, which made them
almost republican. This begat the spirit of independence which always
accompanies self-government. Moreover, the Albigensian crusade of the
thirteenth century had not exterminated heresy: the opinions that had
been so bitterly persecuted fastened their roots deep in the hearts of
the southern population, where they lay, generation after generation,
waiting for the opportunity of displaying themselves. It came at
last, and with it a desire to revenge themselves on the descendants
of those who had devastated the fair south with fire and sword. It
was an oppressed nation rising against their oppressors, the sins of
the fathers being visited upon the children. At the first outbreak
of hostilities, the Huguenots seized upon the churches, which they
purified of all marks of idolatry, destroying the relics and making
a jest of the consecrated wafer. In some towns they entirely forbade
the Catholic worship, turned the nuns from their convents, and even
compelled them to marry. Beza, in a letter to the Queen of Navarre,
expressed himself plainly, though not very strongly, upon the matter:
“About this destruction of images I can say nothing more than what I
have always felt and preached, that such a mode of procedure does not
at all please me.” The violation of sepulture he declared to be utterly
without excuse, and that Condé was determined to punish it.

At Orange, the capital of the little principality which gave a title to
William III. of England, and to his still more illustrious predecessor,
the liberator of Holland, the Huguenots had long enjoyed an unusual
immunity from persecution; but the news of the massacre at Vassy, and
the threatening language of their orthodox neighbors, made them arm in
self-defense. This but accelerated the crisis; the Catholics attacked
the city, which, after a stout resistance, was captured, and treated as
a fortress taken by storm (6th May, 1562). Serbelloni, who commanded
the pontifical auxiliaries, excited his followers to their bloody
work. They spared neither age nor sex: all the sick in the hospital
were killed, some being tossed from the windows on the spears of the
soldiers below. Women were hanged to the balconies of houses, and
made targets to be shot at. But this was the least of the atrocities
they had to suffer at the hands of a licentious soldiery, who often
took pleasure in destroying their victims by the most lingering
tortures they could devise.[341] When Montbrun captured Mornas, where
these butchers had taken refuge, he put them all to death, and threw
their bodies into the river, having stuck on them a notice to the
“toll-keepers of Avignon to permit the ruffians to pass, as they had
paid the toll already.”

On the 25th April, 1562, the Seigneur de la Motte-Gondrin, who was
governor of Dauphiny in the absence of the Duke of Guise, seized the
gates of Valence; but his force was not strong enough to hold the city,
which the next day was retaken by the Huguenot citizens, aided by their
brethren of Montelimart and other places. Gondrin himself was attacked
at his lodging, and the rebels having set fire to it to drive him out,
he and all his party were slain. Among them was the provost of the
city, upon whom was found a missive from the Duke of Guise, ordering
him to “massacre and put to death all followers of the Gospel without
any regard to age or sex.”[342]

The disturbances at Lyons began in the night of the 12th April, when
the Catholics, “without any provocation,” rose in several parts of the
city. About a dozen persons were murdered, and among them a woman, who
fell by the hand of her own son. The governor, De Saulx, called in
reinforcements, while the Huguenots were strengthened by the arrival of
two hundred men from the surrounding Protestant towns. Both parties,
watching each other, kept under arms for a fortnight, until Wednesday
the 26th, when the Protestants, to the number of 1200, assembled
in their temple, and after invoking the blessing of God upon their
enterprise, marched out, occupied the Saone bridge, and made themselves
masters of the city. Every convent was broken open, every friar and
nun turned out.[343] In this tumult only three persons were killed,
and as many wounded. A treaty was now arranged with the Senate, who
promised to assign churches to the Protestants. The citizens who had
left for religion were permitted to return, the mass was abolished,
liberty of conscience proclaimed, and the Senate was in future to be
composed of twelve Protestant and as many Catholic councilors.[344] But
the Huguenots do not appear to have kept to the spirit of the treaty,
however faithfully they may have adhered to the letter. They committed
devastations that would have disgraced the Vandals. Churches were
ravaged, tombs broken open, coffins stripped of their lead and their
gold or silver plates; the bells were broken up and the basilica of the
Maccabees destroyed by gunpowder. There does not appear to have been
any private plunder, and this is the only redeeming feature in these
riotous scenes.

The flagrant violations of the January edict by the Catholics roused
the Huguenots of La Rochelle to assert their rights, and accordingly
the Lord’s Supper was administered with much solemnity--not without the
walls, but in the very heart of the city--in the Place de la Bourserie,
on the 31st May. Armed men closed every avenue, and a guard of forty
soldiers patrolled the adjacent streets to prevent violence. About four
in the afternoon, the people, excited by the novelty of the spectacle
and the language of the preachers, rushed to the churches, threw down
the altars, and burned the images.[345] The Count of Jarnac and the
mayor, who were both Calvinists, vehemently but ineffectually condemned
such violence, and were supported by the ministers. Some priests who
had been shut up in the Lantern Tower were stabbed and thrown half dead
into the sea. One Stephen Chamois, a Carmelite monk, had escaped from
the city; but being recognized at Aunai in Saintonge, he was called
upon to abjure, and, on his refusing to do so, was murdered on the spot.

The city of Toulouse was notorious for the ferocity of its
population--a character which it has preserved nearly to our own
day. At this time the Protestant inhabitants were estimated at
20,000 souls--a manifest exaggeration, although it was one of the
most populous cities of France. Their number was certainly numerous
enough to ensure a certain amount of toleration, and matters went on
quietly until the Pacification of Amboise. When the Parliament of
Toulouse received the edict, with instructions to see it properly
observed, they protested and sent a deputation to the king, praying
him, in case the edict could not be altered, “to permit them to sell
their property and go elsewhere, preferring to lose their goods,
and even their lives, rather than their faith.” Their petition had
received no answer, when in the month of April (1562) a disturbance
occurred at a funeral. Some lives were lost and the murderers were
punished. The excited Protestants immediately rose and seized the
gates and the Hôtel-de-Ville; and the parliament, determined to crush
the insurrection at any cost, called upon the populace to arm in the
defense of religion and order. They rushed like beasts of prey upon
their victims; they filled the prisons, tossed Huguenots alive out of
the windows of their houses, threw them into the Garonne, and if the
poor wretches tried to crawl out of the water, they were beaten down
with stones and staves. In May the two parties came to an arrangement
by which the Huguenots agreed to leave the city in a body; but they
were not to escape so easily. The Catholic peasants of the neighborhood
waylaid the smaller and unarmed bodies, and killed between 3000 and
4000 of them. Thrice the king granted an amnesty to the Protestant
citizens; thrice the parliament refused to register it, and continued
their vindictive measures.[346]

On the other side of France a similar voluntary expatriation occurred.
The inhabitants of Sisteron left their city. For twenty-two days a
crowd of both sexes and all ages wandered through the wild inhospitable
country of the Upper Durance, passing the night in remote and desert
valleys. Many perished by the swords of the Catholics; many died of
hunger and exhaustion; the remainder at last entered the friendly walls
of Grenoble, singing psalms of deliverance.

At Macon, where the church was barely two years old, the Huguenots
made themselves masters of the city, which was recovered by Tavannes
a few months later (19th August, 1562). He plundered every thing
on which he could lay his hand, and is reported to have picked up
enough to buy an estate of 10,000 livres a year. His wife, who was
equally unscrupulous, contrived to fill one hundred and eighty trunks
with linen, jewelry, ornaments, etc. No wonder that, after such an
example, men of high rank fomented discord and cherished persecution.
St. Point was appointed governor. He was the son of a priest, and
“thoroughly bloody and more than cruel,” said Beza. After dinner, when
the ladies went out to walk, he used to amuse them by throwing his
prisoners off the bridge into the Saone, jesting at their struggles
to save their lives. This savage sport the Catholics named “la farce
de St. Point;” but it is better known in history as the “sauteries,”
or “leaps of Macon.” The governor justified these cruelties as being
mere retaliation for similar barbarities committed by Des Adrets at
Montbrison, which the latter in his turn justified by the outrages
at Orange. Thus one excess leads to another: _abyssus abyssum
invocat_.

At Limoux in Languedoc, the disturbances were so many and so often
accompanied by loss of life that Marshal de Foix entered the town to
enforce the law (6th June, 1562). This he effected by letting his
soldiery loose upon the inhabitants without distinction of religion.
One Catholic, dwelling outside the walls, had his eyes plucked out
and his nose cut off; another was killed as he left mass, and his
body thrown naked into the road. The value of the booty acquired by
the marshal was estimated at three or four hundred thousand livres.
At Castelnaudary, as the Catholics were walking in procession on Palm
Sunday (1562), they set fire to a mill in which the Protestants were
worshiping outside the town, and killed all who tried to escape. The
number of victims amounted to sixty, among whom were the treasurer of
Catherine de Medicis, three municipal councilors, and the minister,
whose bowels were torn out and burned in a bonfire. At St. Calais
in the Vendomois the Protestants put a garrison in the monastery,
which was like a fortress, with its ditches, ramparts, and flanking
towers. The monks called for help, and one day, when the bell rang for
vespers, they headed their allies and killed thirty of the Huguenots.
A bloody retaliation soon followed: a resolute band, collected from
the surrounding district, stormed the abbey and put to death nearly all
the priests and monks they found in it. At Issoudun in Berry (Aug.,
1562), the soldiery rebaptized the little Huguenot children, even a
girl of thirteen being held naked over the font. One Furet was about
to be hanged without trial, and had already mounted the ladder, when
the king’s advocate suggested that it would be well to go through
some judicial formality. Accordingly Furet was led back to prison,
confronted with witnesses, condemned, and executed within an hour.
At Roquebrun two Catholics who protested against the cruelties there
perpetrated had their eyes plucked out by order of De Brezons. At
Aurillac every house was stripped from roof to cellar.[347] At Auxerre,
a street riot in the month of August, in which a man was killed, was
the signal for a rising. The wife of the castellan of Avallon was
stabbed with many daggers, and flung into the river. Being young
and strong, she swam for some time, until a boatman killed her with
an oar. Her body was then drawn ashore and exposed to unmentionable
brutalities. Two months later, when the Protestants were assembled for
worship at a _pressoir_ outside the town, they were attacked, but
fortunately escaped. Their houses, however, were pillaged and one man
so maltreated that he died shortly after. Tavannes was sent to restore
order, and he hanged three Catholics, but by way of compensation
inflicted a similar punishment on five Huguenots. At Bar-sur-Seine,
Ralet, the king’s proctor, put his own son to death for being found
among the Protestants.[348] The historian who reports this adds that
the Catholics cut open the bodies of women and children to eat their
hearts. These and other abominations which he records are probably the
invention, or at least the exaggeration, of religious party spirit.

In the little town of Bellesme a man was hanged for declaring the
costume of the Virgin to be indecent, and another shot because he would
not go to vespers. At Epernay in Champagne, a man who had been thrown
half dead into the Marne, was revived by the shock. He floated down the
river until he reached a sheltered place, where he got out, but was
followed, caught, and drowned in a deep hole. Some of the spectators,
who were Catholics, could not restrain their tears, for which they
were beaten and left for dead. Charles d’Argennes, Bishop of Le Mans,
who had been expelled by the Huguenots, raised a band of ruffians
who plundered the farm-houses and robbed the travelers on the roads.
One victim was hung up by the feet after his eyes were plucked out.
The bishop hanged two hundred persons, some of whom were very young
boys, and two madmen, who went singing and dancing to the gallows. A
woman was killed and her mouth stuffed with leaves torn from the New
Testament. The bishop’s lieutenant, Boisjourdan, distinguished himself
by a crime without parallel even in that cruel age. Two children, whose
mother had been put to death, went and begged him to restore part of
her confiscated property to keep them from starvation. He received
them kindly, and sat them down at table to dine with him. At a given
signal a soldier took the boy, a lad of fourteen, under the pretense of
showing him his bed, led him into the garden, there strangled him, and
threw the body into a pond. He then fetched the sister, who went out
joyfully to meet her brother, whose fate she shared after she had been
foully abused. For such atrocities the pope rewarded Argennes by making
him a cardinal in 1570.

Similar ferocities were alleged against the Huguenots, many of which
are unfortunately too true. Thus we find the people of Dieppe (the
Rochelle of northern France) pillaging and defacing churches, and
melting down the sacred vessels, from which they collected 1200
pounds of silver. In bands of 200 and 300 they made forays into the
adjacent districts--to Eu and Arques--from which they never returned
empty-handed. We read of their dragging priests into Dieppe tied
to their horses’ tails and flogging them at beat of drum in the
market-place. Some were thrown into the sea in their sacerdotal robes;
some were fastened to a cross and dragged through the streets by ropes
round their necks; and, to crown all, some were buried in the ground
up to the shoulders, while the Huguenots, as if playing a game of
nine-pins, flung huge wooden balls at their heads.[349]

A few weeks after the war broke out, the Protestants of Bayeux rose
against the clergy, committing the customary devastations, besides
violating the tombs and throwing out the mouldering corpses. They
gutted the bishop’s palace, and made a bonfire of the chapter library,
then the richest in all France. The priests and others who opposed them
were barbarously murdered and tossed from the walls into the ditch.
When the Duke of Etampes restored order, the Catholics took a terrible
revenge on their former persecutors. Once more, in March 1565, the
Huguenots gained the upper hand, when the troops under Coligny refused
to be bound by the terms of capitulation. Private houses were stripped
of all the gold, silver, copper, and lead that could be found; priests
who resisted were flogged, dragged up and down the streets by a rope at
their necks, and then killed. Children were murdered in their mothers’
arms; one Thomas Noel, a lawyer, was hanged at his own window; and an
unhappy woman had her face stained with the blood of her own son, who
had been killed before her eyes. Here, too, more priests were buried up
to the neck, and their heads made to serve as targets for the soldiers’
bullets; others were disemboweled and their bodies filled with straw.
The priest of St. Ouen--we shudder as we record such horrors--was
seized by four soldiers, who “larded” him like a capon, roasted him,
cut him up, and threw the flesh to the dogs.[350]

It would have been well had these deeds of brutality been confined to
Normandy; but they were repeated all over France. One Friar Viroleau
died of the consequences of a barbarous mutilation. Other priests or
Catholic people were killed by hanging, speared to death, left to die
of hunger, sawn in two, or burned at a slow fire. All this happened in
Angoulême. At Montbrun a woman was burned on her legs and feet with
red-hot tongs. The lieutenant-general of Angoulême and the wife of the
lieutenant-criminal of that city were first mutilated, then strangled,
and their corpses dragged through the streets. At Chasseneuil in the
vicinity, a priest, one Loys Fayard, was shot to death after having
been tortured by having his hands plunged in boiling oil, some of
which had been poured into his mouth. The vicar of St. Auzanni was
mutilated, shut up in a chest, and burned to death. In the parish of
Rivières others had their tongues cut off, their feet burned, and
their eyes torn out; they were hung up by the legs, or thrown from
the walls. Other atrocities were committed which can not be described
without offending propriety. One Huguenot is said to have gone about
with a chain of priests’ ears around his neck.[351] In 1562 men did
not stop to ask whether these things were true or false; they were
passed from mouth to mouth and believed, just as the vulgar even now
believe any story, however wild or improbable, that falls in with their
peculiar temper or prejudices. The Catholic burned with indignation
as he listened to the story of these outrages--sometimes related to
him from the pulpit--outrages against the men and the things that he
reverenced most upon earth. Blasphemy against God might be pardoned,
but against the Virgin Mary--never! They retaliated immediately upon
all the Huguenots within their power, and with all the more cruelty and
persistency that they fervently believed they were doing God a service.

But these are scenes too disgusting to dwell upon, and we gladly turn
to less savage, though hardly to purer scenes. The hostility between
the two sects showed itself at court by quarrels between the ladies,
the Princess of Condé and the Duchess of Ferrara heading one party, and
the widowed Duchess of Guise the other. The queen-mother tried in vain
to check their feminine disputes. The Huguenot ladies would not give
way. Chantonnay says of them: “They do little else at court than preach
sermons and sing psalms. Daily prayers are said in the apartments of
the Prince of Condé, with the help of all who have the will and the
ability to go there.”

These party questions were momentarily silenced by the necessity of
getting rid of the foreign garrison which still occupied Havre. The
Huguenots, as well as the Catholics, were pleased at the opportunity
of showing their prowess against “the natural enemy of France.” The
former, aware of the great blunder they had committed in the treaty of
Hampton Court, were eager to drive out the English, who did not feel
the slightest inclination to depart. Queen Elizabeth’s policy may have
been national, but it was very shabby and prejudicial to the Huguenot
cause. “We are resolutely determined to keep Newhaven [Havre], except
they will resolve to restore us Calais,” wrote Cecil on Christmas Day,
1562.[352] When he heard that peace had been made at Orleans “without
consideration of us,” he added: “If it be so, I know the worst, which
is, by stout and stiff dealing, to make our own bargain.”[353] And yet,
after these big words, the English government did nothing, though the
governor of Havre (the Earl of Warwick) urgently demanded supplies and
reinforcements, which did not sail until the place had capitulated.
With sanctimonious resignation Sir E. Warner wrote to Cecil: “The loss
of Newhaven so suddenly and in such sort, as it seemeth, I am sorry
for to the bottom of my heart. But against God’s ordinance no man can
stand.” The garrison had suffered terribly from the plague, which they
brought with them to England, where it is computed to have killed
20,000 persons in London and the out-parishes.

Condé, who had fought valiantly at Havre, hoped that his services
to the monarchy would be repaid by promotion to the office of
Lieutenant-General of France, vacant by the death of his elder brother,
Anthony of Navarre. Catherine had held this out as a lure without
the remotest intention of keeping her promise. She probably found
that the throne would be weakened by being kept longer in tutelage,
and therefore, with L’Hopital’s concurrence, anticipated the young
king’s majority by twelve months, ordering it to be declared as soon
as he entered his fourteenth year, and thus obviated the necessity
of appointing a new lieutenant-general. The ceremony took place at
Rouen, it being feared that the Parliament of Paris, in which Condé had
friends, would refuse to register the edict of majority. On the 17th
August, 1563, Charles went down to the courts of law in great state,
and after announcing the close of his minority, he declared that he
would not permit the repetition of such acts of insubordination as he
had witnessed during the recent hostilities, and that he desired the
Edict of Pacification should be kept in all its provisions.

Charles appears at this time to have been an amiable youth: he
possessed good natural qualities, and his attempts in poetry (if they
are his own) are not entirely unworthy of Marot, to whom they are
addressed. He had in early days a fair taste for literature, and had he
continued under the training of Amyot and Cipierre, he might have been
worthy of the throne. With such a mother as Catherine, and such tutors
as she gave him, he could hardly fail to become treacherous and cruel.
We shall see at times his better nature breaking through, but the evil
spirit within him was never thoroughly conquered.

There exists a curious letter written about this time by Catherine to
her son, giving him instructions as to the conduct of his life.[354] He
is exhorted to rise early, to go to mass with his four secretaries, to
dine not later than eleven o’clock, to ride or walk for three hours, to
hunt, to read his letters every day and see that they are punctually
answered, and to have the keys of the palace brought to him each night
and placed under his pillow. There are other exhortations of a similar
nature--such as would make him “the first gentleman of the day,” but
would not tend to make him a good Christian. Had she wished to see her
son a good man, Catherine would have given him proper tutors, and not
such as Gondi, whom Brantome describes as “cunning, corrupt, false, and
blasphemous.”

The termination of the sittings of the Council of Trent (December,
1563), imported another element of confusion into the religious
differences of the age. The council, although summoned in 1541, did
not actually meet until December, 1545. It had been hoped that some
means would be found of healing the divisions in the Church, but one
after another every form of Protestant opinion was eliminated from the
new creed, and reconciliation became impossible. The articles of the
council were made compulsory in every Catholic state; but the Church
of France was so far independent that the solemn consent of the crown
was required to make the decrees valid. They might, indeed, be received
as articles of faith, but could not be pleaded in a court of law until
ratified by the sovereign. To procure that ratification, the King of
Spain dispatched an embassador, accompanied by a deputation from the
Dukes of Tuscany and Lorraine, inviting Charles to send commissioners
to Nancy, where an assembly of princes was to meet to consult on the
best measures to be adopted for the extirpation of heresy. L’Hopital,
foreseeing the deadly consequences of such a step, advised the
queen-mother to receive the embassy and deputation very politely,
detain them at court as long as possible, and dismiss them at last with
an evasive answer. “The government,” says Languet, “have no idea of
taking away the liberty granted by the late edict; for (to omit other
reasons) they see that it can not be done without a disturbance, as our
churches are more crowded than they have ever been.”[355] Independently
of this consideration, we find Santa Croce writing to Cardinal Borromeo
(12th Oct., 1564) an account of an interview with the queen. After
listening patiently to his message from the Holy Father relative to the
introduction of the Tridentine decrees, she replied: “No one can feel a
more ardent desire for the observance of the council than myself; but
affairs are in such a state that I am compelled to handle them very
delicately, and it is impossible to issue any fresh edicts just now.
Whenever circumstances permit, I will do as his Holiness desires.” This
was no new language. In the instructions to his embassadors at the
council, the king declared that considering the number of the heretics,
he could not attempt to put down the new religion by force, without
endangering both crown and state.[356]




                             CHAPTER VIII.

              THE MEETING AT BAYONNE AND THE SECOND WAR.

                       [June, 1565–March, 1568.]

   The Royal progress--Bayonne in June--Identical
   note--Amusements--Political Deliberations--The Queen of Navarre
   Excommunicated--Catherine’s Remonstrance--The Pope yields--State
   of Gascony--Assembly of Notables at Moulins--Feud between Guise
   and Coligny--Montmorency and the Cardinal--Disturbed state of
   Maine--Montluc pacifies Gascony--Embassy from Germany--Rebellion
   in Flanders--March of Alva--Condé leaves the Court--Rumored
   Plot--Huguenot Meeting at Chatillon--War resolved upon--Attempt
   to seize Charles--Huguenot Rising--Battle of St. Denis--Death of
   the Constable--German Auxiliaries--Michelade of Nismes--Siege of
   Chartres--Peace of Longjumeau--Death of Coligny’s Wife.


In order to test the state of public feeling and apply a remedy to
the great disorders of the realm, the queen-mother decided upon an
extensive tour through the south and west of France, which would
give her an opportunity of showing the king to his subjects and
strengthening him in their affections. It is not necessary to trace
the progress of the court step by step; a few incidents, however, may
be quoted to show the intolerant temper of the Catholic party. In many
of the towns of Burgundy, Charles was received with shouts of “Long
live the King!” and “The Mass forever!” At Chalons a medal was struck,
representing the monarch trampling on Heresy, depicted as a Fury
pouring out torrents of fire. At Lyons the foundations were laid of a
citadel intended to crush the heretical tendencies of the inhabitants.
The walls of several Protestant towns were demolished, and numerous
addresses were presented to the young monarch, praying him to interdict
the exercise of any form of religion but the Romish.

In the middle of June, 1565, the court reached the city of Bayonne,
near the Spanish frontier, where the famous meeting took place at
which it was generally supposed the extirpation of Protestantism was
arranged. As early as April, 1561, Catherine had suggested a similar
meeting, when she was agitated by the fear of a marriage between the
widowed Mary Stuart and Don Carlos. She pretended a great desire to
discuss with Philip II. the religious condition of France and the
affairs of the King of Navarre, hoping by such an interview to thwart
the Scottish matrimonial project.[357]

The ostensible cause of the meeting four years later was the queen’s
desire to see her daughter, who had just recovered from a severe
illness. Political motives were not forgotten, and among other matters
to be considered between the sovereigns of France and Spain--for
Catherine hoped that Philip would accompany his wife--was undoubtedly
the repression of heresy. There exists among the state papers at
Simancas what is called by diplomatists an “identical note” of the
subjects to be discussed at Bayonne. In it we read that the two powers
engaged not to tolerate the Reformed worship in their respective
states, that the canons of the Council of Trent should be enforced,
that all nonconformists should be incapacitated for any public office,
civil or military, and that heretics should quit the realm within
a month, permission being accorded them to sell their property.
Although Catherine gave her assent to these declarations, so far as
the discussion of them was concerned, we have indisputable evidence
that she did not intend to adopt them in the same sense as Philip of
Spain, for at this very time she was corresponding with the Bishop of
Rennes, the French embassador to the imperial court, on the propriety
of making concessions to the Huguenots. A long and tedious negotiation
ensued between the two courts of France and Spain--a fencing-match
of deceit--which ended in an arrangement that Isabella should go to
meet her mother and brothers alone, attended by the Duke of Alva as
embassador extraordinary. Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, Duke of Alva, had
not yet attained that evil eminence which has linked his name with all
that is blood-thirsty. He was now in his fifty-seventh year, and the
most successful general in Europe. He had fleshed his maiden sword at
the battle of Fontarabia, when he was only sixteen; had served under
the emperor Charles V. in Germany; saved the Spanish infantry from
destruction at the siege of Metz; and, as viceroy of Naples, foiled all
the efforts of the Duke of Guise to recover the throne of that country
for France. He had accompanied Philip II. to England during that
monarch’s brief matrimonial expedition, and afterward waged a fruitless
war in Italy against Francis of Guise and the pope. As a statesman he
possessed great capacity, although at Bayonne he entirely failed in the
chief object of his mission.[358]

The mother and daughter first met at Irun on the banks of the Bidassoa,
and thence proceeded to Bayonne, where the French court had taken up
its quarters. The magnificence of the processions and _fêtes_ in
that remote corner of France put to shame all modern attempts of a
similar kind. Isabella entered Bayonne riding on a milk-white palfrey,
whose trappings of velvet, silver, and pearls were estimated at 25,000
ducats.[359] Four of the principal citizens bore a canopy of crimson
velvet over her head, as she rode from the gate to the cathedral
through streets hung with arras; and as the day was drawing to a
close, every house and church was illuminated, and each member of the
_cortège_ bore a lighted torch. A _Te Deum_, “accompanied
by excellent cornets,” was sung by choristers from the chapel-royal
of the Louvre, Cardinals Guise and Strozzi officiating with a number
of French and Spanish bishops. The weather was so intensely hot
that six soldiers of the queen’s escort fell dead, the victims of
sun-stroke.[360] Other casualties of a similar nature occurring in the
small and crowded city, a proclamation was issued ordering that all
the sick, aged, and infirm should seek shelter in certain villages
specified, at a distance from Bayonne.[361]

Some years later, when Walsingham referred to this meeting as the
origin of a “general league” against the Protestants, Catherine
affirmed that it “tended to no other end but to make good cheer.”[362]
And so it would seem, for _fête_ followed _fête_ in rapid
succession, the political business being transacted at odd moments,
after those more serious occupations of the day were ended.

One day there was a grand tilting-match, the prize being a valuable
diamond given by Isabella. Charles IX. and his brother of Anjou headed
one band of noble tilters, all arrayed in fancy costumes; another band
was led by the Duke of Nemours, while the horsemen composing that
following the Duke of Longueville were dressed in cloth of gold with
wings of silver tissue, so as to imitate butterflies. On the evening
of another day a masque was performed in a large hall constructed for
the purpose. The scene represented a giant’s castle, where a number
of beautiful maidens were imprisoned in an enchanted chamber. The
entrance, defended by a revolving wheel and guarded by six frightful
demons, was attacked by a troop of French and Spanish gentlemen headed
by Charles IX., who, after several unsuccessful assaults, overcame
every obstacle, killing the giant, routing the demons, and delivering
the imprisoned damsels, whom he led as witnesses of his prowess to the
feet of his sister Isabella.

A pageant of a more elaborate description followed the next day. It
began with a romantic prologue. A herald presented himself at Charles’s
apartments in the castle, and having been led into the king’s presence,
he related how, during a recent journey, he had fallen in with a
gallant company of knights, who, unable to decide on the superiority of
LOVE or VIRTUE, had agreed to refer the difference to the arbitration
of his Majesty of France. A deputation from the supporters of each
opinion was waiting below, desirous to plead their cause. The knights
were admitted, they made their speeches; but the matter in dispute
was so knotty that Charles declared it could only be settled by arms.
A tournament was proclaimed, and all proceeded to the lists, the two
queens taking their seats in a gallery hung with velvet. And now the
pageant began. First came VIRTUE, seated on a rock, and attended by
six nymphs. She wore an azure robe, and carried a lighted torch in
her hand. After making the circuit of the arena, the car stopped
before Queen Isabella, when VIRTUE, reciting some appropriate verses,
presented her and each of her ladies with a massive gold chain. As
soon as the goddess had retired, LOVE entered the lists in a chariot
drawn by four piebald horses. He too halted before the Queen of Spain
and sang some verses in praise of the joys and triumphs of love. The
tournament now commenced, Charles maintaining the cause of VIRTUE, the
Duke of Anjou that of LOVE. The two troops first engaged hand to hand,
the king and his brother breaking a lance together. Then they divided
into fours, until at last the _mêlée_ became general. At the end of
about half an hour, the trumpets sounded, the combatants retired to
their own side of the list, and Charles and the duke, riding forward,
embraced each other, to show “that, VIRTUE and LOVE being brother and
sister, the triumph of each was the glory of the other.”

On another occasion, Isabella was entertained at a rural _fête_,
where the collation was spread under the leafy branches of an oak-tree,
from whose root issued a fountain, the construction of which cost
a sum equivalent to £400 sterling. Another day the pageant took the
singular form of a whale fishery. A turtle, on which sat six Tritons,
floated down the Adour; then came Neptune in a car drawn by sea-horses,
with Arion on a dolphin. When the company landed, there followed
a pastoral ballet, in which the dancing of the French ladies and
gentlemen so delighted the Spaniards that it was repeated again and
again until midnight.[363]

One of the masques given at Bayonne is remarkable for the curious
picture it presents of a “wild Scotchman.” After the Prince-dauphin of
Auvergne and his train of six gentlemen, all dressed like women, had
filed off, the Duke of Guise and another six followed, all dressed “à
l’écossais sauvage.” Over a white satin shirt embroidered with gold
lace and crimson silk, they wore a _casaquin_ of yellow velvet
with short skirts closely plaited “according to the custom of the
savages”--it appears to have been a kilt--trimmed with a border of
crimson satin, and ornamented with gold, silver, pearls, and other
jewels of various colors. Their yellow satin hose was similarly
adorned, and their silk boots were trimmed with silver fringe and
rosettes. On their heads they wore a cap _à l’antique_ of cloth
of gold, and for crest a thunder-bolt pouring out a fragrant jet of
perfumed fire--the said thunder-bolt being twined round by a serpent
reposing on a pillow of green and satin. Each cavalier wore on his
arm a Scotch shield or targe covered with cloth of gold and bearing
a device. The horses’ trappings were of crimson satin with plumes
of yellow, white, and carnation. So much for the Frenchman’s ideal
of a Scotchman! The suite of the Duke of Longueville was still more
extraordinary: it consisted of six winged demons whose head-dresses
were all flames of fire.[364]

While the younger and fairer portion of the court were indulging
in these gayeties, Catherine and Alva did not entirely forget more
important matters, though the queen-mother seems to have put them off
as long as possible. She would probably have evaded them altogether had
not Cardinal Granvelle urged his royal mistress to take the initiative.
At a private interview, on the 19th June, Isabella urged her mother to
make known the important business which she had declared could only be
told to Philip or to herself. Catherine replied: “It would be useless
to do so, for I have been informed that his Catholic majesty shows
such signs of distrust toward me and my son as must inevitably lead
to war ere long.” As this was shifting the ground, and Isabella could
not get her mother to talk of any thing else, she ended the interview
by saying: “Your majesty must excuse me. As the king my husband has
not commanded me to take an active share in the negotiations, I must
refer you, madam, to the embassadors.” At a second meeting, two days
later, Alva was present when the closer union of the royal houses of
France and Spain by the marriage of Margaret of Valois to Don Carlos
was advocated by the queen-mother, as “the best means of healing the
differences everywhere prevailing, and also of placing the affairs of
religion on a stable foundation.” In his account of this interview,
Don Francisco of Alava wrote to his royal master: “Never was princess
in greater embarrassment than this queen. One person advises her
majesty to act this way, another quite the contrary; and she herself
dares not decide nor even evince a preference.... The principal
Roman Catholics of this court show much zeal, but they are men of
words more than of deeds.” In the evening of the 23d, Alva was again
summoned to the queen’s presence; he found her walking alone with her
daughter in a long gallery. Isabella pressed her to dismiss L’Hopital,
the chancellor: “I am persuaded,” she continued, “that so long as
he is maintained in his present post, your good subjects alone will
have reason to dread and fear, while the bad will find shelter and
countenance.” To which Catherine replied: “I can not admit the truth
of my daughter’s observations.” Alva, to excuse her, added: “The queen
my mistress has only pressed your majesty thus hardly because the king
my master wishes to ascertain positively from your majesty and the king
your son whether it is the intention of your majesties to put down
heresy or not, as in either case my master will know how to govern his
conduct.” To this Catherine replied, with no little haughtiness: “The
council will give the reply demanded by my son the Catholic king.”

The last conference was held on the 28th June, and at it were present
the king and the two queens, Anjou, Alva, Don Juan Manrique, Don
Francisco Alava, Montpensier, the Cardinals of Bourbon, Guise, and
Lorraine, and the Constable Montmorency. After some remarks about
accepting the canons of the Council of Trent, the discussion turned on
the best mode of settling the religious differences. The Duke of Alva
said: “It seems to me that this is not the moment to root out the evil
with the sword, or to treat it merely with mildness and dissimulation;
for, on the one hand, my master can hardly approve that your majesty
should raise an army and lead it against your own subjects, and,
on the other, there seems no sufficient reason for leaving those
unpunished who are too audacious. I would not set religion on the
uncertain footing of the chances of a war, in which one evil accident
may throw all into the greatest danger.... Some persons, as I have
been told, have advised your majesty to take up arms against those of
the religion. I have not come to France to do it so bad a service,
nor would the king my master have sent me for such a purpose.”[365]
Cardinal Granvelle was of the same opinion; there were safer ways of
getting rid of troublesome enemies than by war: the government had
only to seize five or six of the chief Huguenots and cut off their
heads.[366] That the King of Spain entertained similar views we learn
from his remarks to Sigismond Cavalli, the Venetian embassador, that
the French troubles were owing to the neglect of the advice he had
given them years before.[367] Neither Charles nor Catherine would make
any promises; they thought the state of France was satisfactory, but
would willingly listen to any suggestions and deliberate very carefully
upon them. For one incident of the conference we are indebted to Prince
Henry of Navarre, who was allowed to visit Bayonne, because, said
Philip, “he is still a child, whom God will not allow to remain in
ignorance.” One day when the Duke of Alva and Catherine were conversing
together, the former, putting Tarquin’s gesture into words, advised
her to get rid of the Huguenot nobles, after which all would be easy
work: “Ten thousand frogs,” he said, “are not worth the head of one
salmon.”[368] Henry overheard him, and the words struck him so much
that he repeated them to Soffrey de Calignon, one of his attendants, by
whom they were transmitted to the Queen of Navarre. They soon became
known to the Huguenot leaders, and aroused a suspicion, which it would
have been well for them had they never laid aside. The words produced
a deep impression upon Catherine, and more than once she tried to act
upon them, until at last she succeeded but too well. Giovanni Correro,
the Venetian envoy, writing to his government in 1569, gives us a
little insight into the queen-mother’s opinions about this time. Being
one day in a confidential mood, she said to her fellow-countryman:
“While at Carcassone, on my way back from Bayonne, I read a manuscript
chronicle about the mother of St. Louis, a boy only eleven years old.
She had to contend against malcontent nobles, but with time the king
grew up and crushed his enemies beneath the vengeance they had drawn
upon themselves. I applied the case to myself.” Correro observed:
“Your majesty must have found comfort therein, for as the present is
an image of the past, so you may be sure the end will not be unlike.”
At this the queen began to laugh, as was her custom when she heard any
thing that pleased her, and replied: “But I should not like any body
to know that I have read that chronicle, for they would say that I am
taking Queen Blanche of Castile for my pattern.”[369] It was not likely
this precedent would be forgotten when opportunity served.

It is certain that nothing was settled at the Bayonne meeting,
Catherine being steadfast in her purpose to maintain her power by
holding the balance between the two hostile parties. “She has promised
to do wonders,” wrote Granvelle (20th August, 1565), “but will do
nothing of any service.” The king, young as he was, proved equally
immovable. “It is easy to see that he has been tutored,” wrote Alva
contemptuously to his master. And thus terminated the interview from
which so much had been expected.[370] It left, however, a very bitter
feeling among the Huguenots, who believed that some devilish plot had
been contrived against them, and tended to alienate them from the
crown, although they still professed great loyalty to the king, not
confounding him with the government, as the Parliamentarians expressed
their devotion to Charles I.

As soon as Isabella had recrossed the Spanish frontier, the French
court proceeded to Nerac in Gascony to visit Joan, the widowed Queen
of Navarre. When her husband apostatized, he would have made her
apostatize also; but she refused, and took refuge in Bearn. Anthony
ordered Montluc to stop her and keep her prisoner--a danger she happily
escaped, as also a conspiracy entered into by some of her Catholic
subjects to seize and deliver her to the King of Spain. Joan abolished
popery in her hereditary states, and confiscated the church property
for the benefit of the new clergy and of education. For this the pope
summoned her to appear at Rome to answer a charge of heresy, on pain
of being excommunicated and deprived of her territories (1564).[371]
In this Pius IV. overshot the mark: his proceedings endangered every
crowned head in Europe. He had also about the same time issued a
citation against the Cardinal of Chatillon,[372] the Bishop of Valence,
and four other prelates. The papal citation being a gross infringement
of the privileges of the Gallican Church, a special embassador was sent
to Rome to remonstrate with the Holy Father, and the opinions of the
government may be gathered from a letter written by the queen-mother
to the Bishop of Rennes, her embassador in Germany: “We acknowledge
no authority or jurisdiction on the pope’s part over those who bear
the title of king or queen, and that it is not for him to give away
states and kingdoms to the first conqueror.... Let me know how the
emperor takes this matter, for it concerns all rulers to understand
whether it is for the pope at his own pleasure to assume authority and
jurisdiction over them, and to make a prey of their territories and
dominions. We for our part are determined never to submit to it.” The
pope retreated: the citations against the bishops were abandoned, the
bull against the Queen of Navarre was revoked. But a more formidable
danger than this threatened Joan not long after, Philip II. having
concerted a plan with Montluc to seize her and her two children, and
carry them to Spain, where they would be committed to the cruel mercies
of the Inquisition. Treatment like this confirmed the queen in her
faith; she swept her dominions of every vestige of Romanism, and denied
to her Catholic subjects that religious liberty which she claimed for
her co-religionists in France.

In some respects the province of Gascony, through which the court
was now traveling, had suffered more than any part of France from
the effects of the war. The Protestants had succeeded in putting
down Romanism, and at every step he took Charles was reminded of the
outrages offered to his religion; he restored the old form of worship,
but the scenes he then witnessed appear never to have been forgotten.
As he rode along by the side of the Queen of Navarre, who accompanied
him to Blois, he pointed to the ruined monasteries, the broken crosses,
the polluted churches; he showed her the mutilated images of the Virgin
and the saints, the desecrated grave-yards, the relics scattered to the
winds of heaven. The impression of that day’s ride long haunted the
Protestant queen and filled her with a distrust of the king and his
mother which she never entirely shook off.

At the end of the year the king summoned an assembly of Notables to
meet at Moulins for the purpose of remedying many grievances that had
become known during the recent progress, and also of reconciling the
chiefs of the rival factions. The ambiguities of the Edict of Amboise
and the obstacles to carrying it out fully in many places had already
called forth several interpretative edicts, one of which had been
published at Roussillon in Dauphiny (August, 1564), restraining the
hitherto unlimited freedom of worship in private dwellings. The nobles
were to admit to their chapels none but members of their household or
their vassals; no synods were to be held or collections made in the
temples; and the pastors were forbidden to open schools or preach out
of their districts. It farther renewed the injunction for the married
priests and nuns to return to their cloisters or leave the kingdom--the
latter alternative being generally preferred.

Moulins in the Bourbonnais is one of the neatest and prettiest towns
in France. Of the magnificent castle where Charles and Catherine de
Medicis sat in council very little remains save a fragment of a tower,
strangely named _Malcoiffée_, which rises high above the brick
buildings, and a small pavilion built by the queen-mother. Beside the
banks of the smiling Allier, and in those irregular streets where
many a house of variegated brick, red and white, still dates back
beyond this period, were crowded the princes of the blood, several
cardinals and bishops, the chief nobility, and the principal officers
of the parliaments of France. The resolutions they adopted were merely
administrative, reforming many judicial abuses, but they remained a
landmark in French jurisprudence until all law was swept away in the
great Revolution. But law reform was merely a secondary object with
Catherine. With every motive for desiring a continuance of peace,
she saw that this was impossible unless the hostile leaders would
agree to lay aside their private feuds and become friends. Between
the Guises and Coligny there could be no amity, so long as they held
him to be the instigator of the late duke’s murder. At the signing
of the treaty of Amboise, the Prince of Condé had come forward as a
compurgator--to adopt a well-known Anglo-Saxon term--and taken oath
that Coligny was innocent. The family were still dissatisfied. One day
a funeral procession was seen in the streets of Meulan,[373] where
the court then resided. It was Antoinette of Bourbon, mother of the
murdered duke, and Anne of Este, his wife, accompanied by her four
children, and attended by their friends and partisans, who in long
mourning robes and with veiled faces were going to the king to sue
for justice. In gloomy silence, broken only by their sobs, the two
ladies entered the palace and fell at the king’s feet, demanding
justice. Charles raised them graciously and promised what they asked.
Their case was laid before the Parliament of Paris, from which it
was transferred to the privy-council, with the injunction that no
farther steps should be taken within three years. Various attempts at
reconciliation were made during the interval, and as this blood-feud
had indisputably very much to do with the massacre of St. Bartholomew,
it may not be a waste of time to show the progress of the quarrel. In
December, 1563, Morvilliers, Bishop of Orleans, wrote to the Bishop of
Rennes, embassador to the emperor: “One would willingly find a way of
arrangement between them; but the means are very difficult considering
the offense and the particulars of the feud. It is impossible
but at last this should burst (_crève_) under some dagger
(_coustel_), and that the one party for revenge or the other for
security, should attempt something.” Eleven days later the same writer
continues: “We are in great trouble through the difference between the
family of the late Duke of Guise and the admiral, and many people would
be pleased to see a disturbance. The queen-mother does all she can to
prevent it: the poor lady watches and toils incessantly.”?[374] On the
23d December, Morvilliers writes again: “The king and queen are always
in trouble through the discords of the Guises and the admiral. No court
can settle it, for the admiral objects to the parliaments and the
others to the great council.”

Several temporary arrangements had been made, and at last, when the
three years had nearly expired, the Guises, whose desire for vengeance
had grown all the stronger for being repressed, appeared at Moulins and
renewed their cries for justice. On the 12th January, 1566, Charles
published a declaration that “it was his desire to bring the difference
about the homicide to a happy issue, and that he forbade each of the
two houses to attempt any thing against the other.” After a wearisome
series of explanations, more worthy of pettifogging attorneys than of
brave soldiers, Coligny, in the presence of the king, declared “that
he had not committed the murder or abetted it, and that he had never
approved of it, then or now.”[375] With this the widow and the Cardinal
of Lorraine expressed themselves satisfied, and declared they would
no longer entertain revengeful feelings. Thereupon the two parties
embraced; but the young Duke Henry of Guise still held out, and in
the very presence of the queen challenged Coligny to single combat.
“The admiral charges me,” he said, “with plotting his assassination.
I will not deny it, but shall esteem it a singular favor to be shut
up with him in a room, when I will show him that I am quite capable
of defending myself, and need not employ other people to settle my
quarrels.”

So far the queen-mother’s plans were frustrated, and she was hardly
more successful in arranging the difference between Marshal Montmorency
and the Cardinal of Lorraine. In consequence of the quarrels between
the partisans of the two religions, the possession and carrying of
arms--especially fire-arms--had been strictly prohibited in Paris.
Montmorency, “a wise man and loving the public peace,”[376] who after
Marshal Brissac’s death had been made governor of Paris, enforced
the edict in a manner never contemplated by the king. The Cardinal
of Lorraine, returning from the Council of Trent, was escorted to
the capital by a number of gentlemen and relatives, but they were
forbidden to enter unless they laid aside their spears and arquebuses
(8th January, 1565). The prelate paid no attention to the order, upon
which Montmorency fell upon his escort at the Innocents’ Cemetery in
the Rue St. Denis, killed some, wounded others, and so frightened the
churchman that he leaped off his horse and took refuge in a neighboring
house, whence he safely reached his own hotel during the night,

    Pâle en couleur, de ses membres tremblant,
    Mieux un corps mort qu’homme vif ressemblant.

The cardinal said he had permission under the king’s letters patent
to travel with an armed retinue. “Then he ought to have shown them to
me,” said Montmorency, “and I would have allowed him to pass.” The
governor, rendered uneasy by the threatening posture of the Lorraine
party in the city, invited the assistance of Coligny, who entered
Paris with 1200 gentlemen, greatly to the terror of the citizens, who
feared their streets would be converted into a battle-field; but the
admiral conducted himself so prudently, that he was complimented by the
University and the trade guilds.

But nothing that the king or his mother could do was effectual to
dissipate the mutual distrust with which Catholics and Huguenots still
regarded each other. Every act was viewed with suspicion, and to a
great extent the misgivings of the Protestants were justified by the
way in which the edicts of toleration were strained against them. “The
Huguenots,” says Pasquier, who was no friend to them, “have lost more
by edicts in time of peace than by force in time of war.”[377]

At Lyons they were accused of an attempt to blow up the city with
gunpowder, and on this idle charge the governor prevented their
assembling for public worship. Every Protestant was expelled from
Avignon, and the city and surrounding districts were put under martial
law. At Foix a number of Huguenots were murdered; at Toulouse many were
judicially put to death. These are but a small sample of the Protestant
grievances.

A remonstrance presented to the king by the nobles of the Reformed
religion in Maine displays a terrible picture of the disturbed state of
that province. The Dame de la Guynandière was murdered, with her son,
three daughters, and two waiting-women, by a troop of ruffians from Le
Mans, who afterward turned the pigs into the house to devour the dead
bodies. The bishop of the diocese, a man of dissolute life, used to
ride about attended by one hundred and fifty men armed with pistols or
arquebuses. One Hélie, a priest, was accused of indescribable acts of
brutality toward nine little girls. That and many other such horrors
fill a pamphlet of more than one hundred pages, and the perpetrators
(as was usually the case) escaped punishment.[378]

On the other hand, the Catholics had their complaints. At Pamiers the
Huguenots attacked a procession, killed some of the clergy and burned
their houses.[379] At Soissons they pillaged the churches, demolished
the beautiful painted windows, broke the organ, melted the bells,
stripped the lead off the roofs, plundered the shrines of their gold
and jewels, burned the relics of the saints, and tore up the charters
and title-deeds belonging to the clergy. Similar tumults occurred at
Montauban and other towns. Where the Catholics were the strongest, they
fell upon the Huguenots; where the latter, they attacked the Catholics.
At one time there is a rumor of an attempt to assassinate the king; at
another, of an atrocious book ascribed to Sureau, a Protestant pastor,
in which the doctrine is boldly affirmed that “it is lawful to slay a
king or a queen who resists the Gospel Reformation.” Then an anonymous
letter is found at the door of Catherine’s bed-chamber, threatening her
with the fate of President Minard and the Duke of Guise, unless she
permits complete liberty of conscience to the Reformed party.

Many of the atrocities we have recorded were owing to the weakness
of the central government. It must be remembered that the several
provinces of France were under their own governors, who held their
offices by an almost hereditary right, and that the king had not always
the power, even when he had the inclination, to preserve peace. There
were few like that rough warrior Montluc, who kept Gascony so quiet
that for three years “horseman or footman did not steal so much as a
pullet.” He hanged two Catholic soldiers for infringing the edict,
and two Huguenots who had committed a similar offense “were shortly
strung up to keep the others company.” And he continues: “When these
good people saw that neither one side nor the other would meet with any
indulgence if they transgressed, they began to like and associate with
one another. I believe if every one had done the same, without favor to
either side, we should never have had so many troubles.”

Charles, whose dislike toward “those of the religion” needed no
stimulus, occasionally indulged in bursts of irritation which he was
too young to repress. One day when the admiral remonstrated with him
on the restrictions put upon the last edict, he replied: “Not long
ago you were satisfied to be tolerated by the Catholics, now you want
to be their equals; in a short time, I suppose you will desire to be
alone and to drive us from the kingdom.” Coligny made no reply, as
indeed no reply would have satisfied the angry boy, who burst into his
mother’s apartments, and added, after telling her what had passed: “The
Duke of Alva was right: such heads are too tall in a state. We must
put them down by force.”[380] Catherine appears at this time to have
been exceedingly ill-disposed toward Coligny. Writing to her daughter
Isabella, she says: “Although the admiral remains at court, he will be
as one dead;[381] because, with God’s help, I shall not suffer myself
to be governed by either party, for I know they all love God, the king,
and your mother less than their own advantage and ambition; and as they
know full well that I will not permit the king or the kingdom to be
ruined by them, they love me in words only.”

It was about this time also that several German princes, including
the Palatine of the Rhine and the Dukes of Saxony and Wurtemberg,
dispatched an embassy to Charles, interceding in behalf of their French
co-religionists. With expressions of great attachment, they prayed
him to observe the Edict of Pacification; to permit the ministers
to preach as well at Paris as elsewhere, and to allow the people to
listen to them in any number. He answered them sharply that he could
be friends with his cousins of Germany only so long as they abstained
from meddling in the domestic affairs of his kingdom. After a pause he
continued in a still more angry tone: “I might also pray them to permit
the Catholics to worship freely in their own cities.” It was an apt
retort, for so far as concerned public worship the Romanists in many
parts of Protestant Germany and Switzerland were very little, if at
all, better off than the Huguenots of France.

Every thing seemed tending toward an explosion. The Huguenots and the
Catholics, like two hostile nations on the same soil, were ready to
fly at each other, and the treacherous truce, which substituted riots
and assassination for open war, could not last much longer. Still
the actual rupture might have been deferred, but for circumstances
connected with the state of the Netherlands. The Protestants of that
country had been goaded into rebellion by the infamous persecutions
of Philip II. of Spain. William, Prince of Orange, put himself at
their head, and although unsuccessful, the movement was considered so
dangerous that the ferocious and uncompromising Alva was commissioned
to crush it utterly. For this purpose it was necessary to increase
the Spanish army in Flanders; and as that could not be done by sea,
on which the rebels were superior, a force of ten thousand picked
veterans[382] was transported from Carthagena to Genoa, whence they
made their way through the passes of Mont Cenis into Burgundy and
Lorraine. Catherine, who distrusted Philip, thought it prudent to
watch their march, and for that purpose collected all the forces she
could muster to form an army of observation. These being insufficient
for the purpose, Condé and the admiral advised the enrolment of 6000
Swiss mercenaries.[383] The queen, delighted at such an opportunity of
raising soldiers without offending the susceptibility of the Huguenots,
promptly acted upon the advice. But when the prince asked for the
command of the troops with the quality of lieutenant-general of the
kingdom, the constable withdrawing his claim on account of his age, she
fenced and prevaricated, although the appointment was promised in one
of the secret articles of the late treaty of peace. The Duke of Anjou,
Catherine’s favorite son, aspired to the same office, and hearing of
Condé’s application, the insolent boy said to him: “If ever I catch you
failing in respect to me, I will make you as little as you aspire to be
great.”[384] Surprised at such language, the prince left the court.[385]

As soon as the Spanish troops had crossed the frontier and entered the
Netherlands, it was expected that the royal army would be disbanded;
but, instead of that, it was marched to the neighborhood of Paris. This
was of itself quite enough to excite the alarm of the Huguenot leaders,
who were farther startled by information of a plot to seize both Condé
and the admiral; to imprison the former for life, and put the other to
death; and to place garrisons in the towns favorable to the Reformed
religion, the exercise of which was to be prohibited all over the
kingdom.[386] The heads of the Huguenot party immediately took council
with the admiral at his castle of Chatillon. Their deliberations were
long and serious. No doubt seems to have been entertained regarding the
truth of the report. The suspicions aroused by the Bayonne meeting,
corroborated by stories of the projected massacre at Moulins, which
failed only because the Huguenots were present in too great number,
were strengthened by the insolence of Anjou and the queen-mother’s
insincerity. The edicts of toleration had not been fairly brought into
operation; new interpretation edicts were continually encroaching
upon the privileges of the Reformed; Alva was at hand in Flanders to
assist in carrying out the scheme he had suggested only a few months
before. Men in a panic never reason fairly, never indeed examine into
the truth of the rumors by which their alarm has been roused. It was
so in the present instance when the more violent party said: “Shall
we tarry until they come and bind us hand and foot, and so draw us
unto their scaffold at Paris, there by our shameful deaths to glut
others’ cruelty? Do we not see the foreign enemy marching armed toward
us, and threatening to be revenged on us for Dreux? Have we forgotten
that about 3000 of our religion have, since the peace, endured violent
deaths, for whom we can have no redress? If it were our king’s will we
should be thus injured, we might perhaps the better bear it; but shall
we bear the insolence of those who shroud themselves under his name and
try to alienate his good-will from us? For more than forty years our
fathers professed the true religion in secret, and endured all sorts
of tortures and injuries with patience inexhaustible. If we who are
so numerous, and who are able to profess our religion openly, should
betray a righteous cause by a disgraceful silence and unseasonable
moderation, we should fall into an apostasy unworthy of the two goodly
titles of Christian and gentleman. We should be wanting not only to
ourselves but to God, and besides losing our own souls should be the
cause of ruin to others.”[387] Coligny advised them to be patient: “I
see clearly how we may rekindle the fire,” he said; “but not where we
may find water to quench it.” His brother Andelot was for more vigorous
measures: “If we wait until we are shut up in prison, what will our
patience avail us? If we give our enemies the advantage of striking
the first blow, we shall never recover from it.” But before coming to
a final decision, a deputation of the Huguenot nobility waited upon
Catherine and entreated her to be more just to their co-religionists.
Their reception was such that there seemed no alternative left them but
to draw the sword.

It was an unfortunate decision, and not justified by the real facts.
But the mistake committed by the Huguenot chiefs is patent enough, and
they were thought by their contemporaries to have acted very wisely. La
Popelinière, whose evidence on this point is of great weight, speaks
of “the approach of the Swiss who had been levied under color of
preventing the entrance of the King of Spain and the Queen of England;
and since then, the necessity having passed, the declaration made to
them by Barbazieux, the king’s lieutenant in Champagne, that they were
to be employed against those of the religion.”[388] Alva, in a letter
to his royal master, written on the 28th June, 1567, testifies to the
satisfaction felt in France at the vicinity of the Spanish troops.[389]
Languet writes from Strasburg on the 22d October, that the Huguenot
chiefs knew for certain that the pope and the other princes who had
conspired against the true religion, had determined, as soon as it
was put down in Lower Germany, to do the same in France, and for that
purpose the king had raised a strong force of Swiss.”[390]


The Huguenot counterplot was to seize the king and his mother, then
residing at her castle of Monceaux in Brie, just as the Guise faction
had seized them five years before. Indistinct rumors of a Protestant
rising reached the court, and a messenger was sent to watch the
admiral. On his return he reported that he had found the old warrior
busily engaged in getting in his vintage.[391] Two days later (28th
September, 1567), all France was in flames. Fifty towns were seized,
and a strong force of Huguenot cavalry was preparing for a dash upon
Meaux, about ten leagues east of Paris, whither the court had proceeded
upon the first intelligence of the outbreak. Confusion prevailed in
that little city: Catherine feared to leave it lest she should be
intercepted by the Huguenots, and the Swiss troops, though not far off,
were not so near as the cavalry under Condé. The Swiss were ordered to
be brought up with all speed; but L’Hopital suggested that the wiser
plan would be to disband those mercenaries--a concession which would
satisfy the Huguenots, and induce them to lay down their arms. “Will
you guarantee that they have no other aim than to serve the king?”
asked Catherine. “I will,” he replied, “if I am assured there is no
intention of deceiving them.” But either the queen was meditating
treachery, as L’Hopital’s remark would almost imply, or the risk
appeared too great. The Swiss made their appearance, and, under their
safeguard, the king reached Paris in twelve hours. “But for Nemours
and my good friends the Swiss, I should have lost both liberty and
life,” said Charles. The Duke of Nemours, who, from his marriage with
Anne of Este, widow of the murdered Duke Francis, was held in great
respect by the Guises, commanded a body of volunteers composed of
gentlemen attached to the court, who acted as a sort of light cavalry,
and covered the king’s retreat. More than once Charles turned upon his
pursuers and fought at the head of his gallant little body-guard. The
constable, seeing the unnecessary danger to which he exposed himself,
caught his horse by the bridle and stopped him, saying: “Your majesty
should not risk your person like this: it is too dear to us to permit
you to be accompanied by a troop of less than 10,000 French gentlemen.”

But Condé with his five hundred horse could do nothing against the 6000
Swiss, who “stood fast awhile and then retired close, still turning
their head as doth the wild boar whom the hunters pursue.”[392] The
prince had lost his opportunity. While he was wasting time in an idle
conference with Montmorency, whom the queen-mother had ostensibly sent
to demand the cause of his arming, the Swiss were hurrying to Meaux
with the utmost speed. His irresolution was a great mistake: he ought
never to have made the attempt to seize the king’s person, or to have
risked every thing to clutch the prize within his reach. His failure
made him a traitor as well as a rebel, and inflamed the anger of
Charles against the Huguenots more than success could have done.[393]
In the latter case the king would, in spite of appearances, have found
them to be loyal and faithful subjects, and would have had the best
of evidence that in their hands neither his life nor his liberty were
imperiled. As it was, he never forgave their attempt to seize him, and
he swore with one of his usual blasphemous oaths, that he would some
day be revenged on them.

The Cardinal of Lorraine, knowing that he had little to hope for
should he fall into the hands of the Huguenot chiefs, fled in another
direction, losing his baggage on the road, and got safe to Rheims,
where he entered into a traitorous correspondence with the King of
Spain, offering to place several frontier towns in his hands, and
support his claims to the throne of France in right of his wife.[394]
But his plots were frustrated by the course of events.

Both parties now made the most strenuous exertions to increase their
forces. The king, writing to Simiane de Gordes, governor of Dauphiny,
instructing him to raise troops and keep down the heretics, uses
language worthy of the St. Bartholomew: “You will cut them in pieces,
_not sparing one, for the more dead the fewer enemies_.”[395]
Before the actual outbreak of hostilities, attempts were made by the
Moderates, or _Parti Politique_, to effect a reconciliation. Condé
demanded complete toleration of the Reformed religion all over the
kingdom, without distinction of place or person; to which Charles IX.
replied, through Marshal Montmorency, that “he would not tolerate two
religions in his kingdom.” There was nothing more to be done: the sword
must decide between them. The train-bands of Paris were called out; new
taxes were imposed; the clergy made a voluntary gift of 250,000 crowns,
a loan of 100,000 crowns was raised at Venice, and one to a similar
amount at Florence.

Although the Huguenot force was very small--1200 foot and 1500
horse--the chiefs boldly marched to Paris, which they hoped to blockade
and starve into submission before any help could reach that city
from the more distant provinces. But here again Catherine’s wonderful
talent for negotiation was exerted to keep the Protestant leaders in
check, until the reinforcements--impetuously summoned from various
quarters--were hurriedly marched into the capital. Condé had placarded
the walls of Paris with a protest that he had taken up arms only to
deliver the king’s subjects from the oppression of Italian favorites;
but he was no match for those wily Italians who, now feeling safe,
broke off the negotiations. On the 10th November, the Huguenots found
themselves in the presence of the royal forces on the great plain of
St. Denis. It was then quite open and highly cultivated, the only
buildings on it were a solitary farm-house and a few windmills. Across
it ran that broad highway, along which travelers from the north used
to pass before the railroad had diverted the living stream. The troops
under Constable Montmorency were five times more numerous than those
under Condé, and had the advantage of artillery. The scene of the
contest was about a mile from Paris, between Montmartre, Pantin, and
St. Denis. The gibbet of Montfauçon was on the edge of the field. Being
so near the walls, crowds of idlers, including many women, went to look
on.[396] Ballad singers were already celebrating Montmorency’s victory,
quacks on their frail platforms were extolling their salves and
plasters for wounds; the swindlers and ruffians, the cheats and rogues,
who live by the vices, or prey upon the weaknesses of society--all the
vermin of a great city--were there in crowds; monks mingled in the
throng, chanting their litanies and selling beads; and more numerous
than all was that foul horde which always gathers, like birds of prey,
upon a battle-field.

There was not much time to lose in manœuvring, for the day was drawing
to a close. Condé charged furiously upon the advancing enemy, sweeping
every thing before him, so much to the admiration of the spectators
that they loudly applauded the gallant Huguenots. “If my master had
only 6000 horsemen like those white-coats[397] yonder,” exclaimed the
sultan’s envoy, who had been watching the fight from the city walls,
“he would soon be master of the world.” But the Huguenots were so
outnumbered that they were gradually hemmed in by the larger masses
of the enemy, and compelled to retreat. The approach of night saved
them from farther disaster. The battle was fatal to the constable,
who seems to have fallen a victim to private malice. In the heat of a
charge, when wounded and separated from his troops, he saw one Robert
Stuart ride up to him and present a pistol. The constable, expecting
to be made a prisoner, called out: “You do not know me!” “It is just
because I do know you,” replied the Scotchman, “that I give you
this.” And he fired,[398] the ball shattering Montmorency’s shoulder
and throwing him to the ground, not however before he had broken
Stuart’s jaw with the fragment of the sword he still grasped in his
warlike hand. His death was like his life. When a priest approached to
administer religious consolation, he smilingly begged to be left in
peace, “for it would be a shameful thing,” he added, “to have known
how to live fourscore years, and not know how to die one short quarter
of an hour.” The queen-mother went to visit him before his death,
and, as she bent over his bed to console him, he advised her to make
peace as soon as possible, adding that “the shortest follies are the
best.”[399] Marshal Vieilleville was of the same opinion. “It was not
your majesty that gained the battle,” said he to the king, “much less
the Prince of Condé!” “Who then gained it?” asked Charles. “The King
of Spain,” answered Vieilleville; “for on both sides valiant captains
and brave soldiers have fallen, enough to conquer Flanders and the Low
Countries.” The united loss was nearly six hundred.

The death of the constable was a serious blow to the Moderate party,
although he did not actually belong to them. He had learned wisdom
as he advanced in life, showing himself one of those rare men--rare
at all times, but especially so in the sixteenth century--who could
accommodate themselves to altered circumstances. His deep loyalty
to the crown made him suspicious of the Lorraine faction; and his
relationship to Condé and the Chatillons tempered the zeal of his
orthodoxy. He saw clearly that no one would gain by the war, except the
enemies of France. Languet adds that, taught by experience, Montmorency
had learned that the Huguenots could not be crushed without the ruin of
the kingdom; and he labored strenuously to carry out the Pacification
of Amboise to the great disgust of the pope and Philip of Spain.[400]

Before the end of the year, a body of 2000 foot and 1500 horse,
dispatched by Alva from Flanders under the Count of Aremberg,
accompanied by a choice band of the Catholic nobility of the Low
Countries, had joined the royal camp of Paris. At the same time the
Huguenots were expecting reinforcements from Germany, and, in order
to meet them, Condé left his head-quarters at Chalons, marched above
twenty leagues in three days, through the rain and over bad roads,
losing neither wagons nor artillery. There was some doubt whether the
royal forces would not intercept the Germans before they could join
the Huguenots. “And what will you do, in case they do not come to the
rendezvous?” asked some one of Condé. “I think we should have to blow
on our fingers,” he jestingly replied, “for the weather is very cold.”
But they were not reduced to such extremity, having formed a successful
junction with the German auxiliaries, commanded by John Casimir, son
of the elector-palatine. This force consisted of 7000 cavalry and 4000
infantry--all mercenary troops who fought solely for pay and plunder.
Before they would move another step, the reiters (as they were called)
demanded a bounty of 100,000 crowns; and as the military chest was
empty, the French force voluntarily subscribed money, jewels, rings,
gold chains, and other ornaments to the amount of 30,000 crowns, with
which the Germans, astonished at so much self-denial, were momentarily
satisfied. “Even soldiers, lackeys, and boys gave every one somewhat,”
says La Noue, “so as in the end it was accounted a dishonor to have
given a little.” The old warrior takes the opportunity furnished by
this incident to describe some of the difficulties with which the
Huguenot chiefs had to contend. It required “great art and diligence to
feed an unpaid army of above 20,000 men.” The admiral was remarkably
careful in all the arrangements of his commissariat department, and
acted up to the spirit of the old saying, that “a soldier fights upon
his belly.” Whenever there was any question of forming an army, he
used to say: “Let us begin the shaping of this monster by the belly.”
“This devouring animal,” continues La Noue, “passing through so many
provinces, could still find some pasture wherewith was sometimes
mixed the poor man’s garment, yea, and the friend’s too; so sore did
necessity and desire to catch incite those that wanted no excuses to
color their spoil.”

Civil war now raged with increased fury all over France. Although the
two main armies did not again come into collision, there were little
partisan campaigns in every province and almost every large town. It
was during this period that Nismes became the theatre of that terrible
tragedy known as the _Michelade_, from its occurring at the feast
of St. Michael in 1567. The new doctrines had made such progress in the
old Roman city that, in the year 1562, the municipal council decided
that the cathedral with some other churches should be made over to the
Reformed, and farther ordered the bells of the convents to be cast
into cannon, the convents to be let “for the good of the state,” the
relics and their shrines to be sold, and the non-conforming priests to
leave the city. Damville, governor of Languedoc, and second son of the
Constable Montmorency, was sent to Nismes to restore order, which he
succeeded in doing by severe and arbitrary measures. At Uzès, a person
named Mouton having ventured to blame these high-handed proceedings,
was taken and hanged on the spot without any form of trial.[401] If
such was the beginning, we may imagine what the Reformed had to suffer
afterward. At length a trifling circumstance led to an explosion. About
six in the morning of the 30th September, 1567, the second day of St.
Michael’s fair, some Albanians belonging to Damville’s guard, lounging
outside the city gates, stopped several women bringing vegetables to
market, and in mere wantonness upset the baskets and trampled upon
their contents. There was an immediate uproar: the women screamed,
the neighbors ran to their assistance, and the crowd was swelled by
the peasants coming from the country, at whose menacing gestures the
foreigners drew their swords to defend themselves. On a sudden there
was a shout: “To arms! to arms! Kill the Papists!” Hundreds rushed out
of their houses and collected on the esplanade. The Consul Gui Rochette
tried to calm them, but they violently rejected his prudent advice.
When the news of the tumult reached the bishop he exclaimed: “This is
the prince of darkness! blessed be the holy name of Heaven!” and then
knelt down in prayer, momentarily expecting martyrdom. He succeeded,
however, in escaping from the mob, who, in their angry disappointment,
sacked his palace and killed the vicar-general. A number of Catholics,
including the consul and his brother, had been shut up in the cellars
of the episcopal residence. About an hour before midnight they
were dragged out and led into that grey old court-yard, where the
imagination can still detect the traces of that cruel massacre.[402]
One by one the victims came forth; a few steps, and they fell pierced
by sword or pike. Some struggled with their murderers, and tried to
escape, but only prolonged their agony. By the dim light of a few
torches between seventy and eighty unhappy wretches were butchered in
cold blood, and their bodies, some only half-dead, were thrown into the
well in one corner of the yard, not far from an orange-tree, the leaves
of which (says local tradition) were ever afterward marked with the
blood-stains of this massacre.

The Michelade has been contrasted with the St. Bartholomew, but there
is this difference between the two crimes: the former was committed in
despite of the exhortations of the pastors, and no one has attempted
to justify it. After the peace of Longjumeau, the Parliament of
Toulouse prosecuted all who had taken any part in the murders. More
than a hundred persons were condemned by default to be hanged and to
pay 200,000 livres, of which 60,000 were allotted to the repair of the
churches, 6000 to Gui’s widow, and the remainder to the families of
the victims. Only four were caught, who, after being dragged through
the city at the horse’s tail, were beheaded, and their quarters hung
up over the principal gates. In the September of the following year,
the brutal scenes of violence were renewed: the city was plundered, and
its streets were dyed with Catholic blood. The governor, St. André, was
shot and thrown out of the window, and his corpse was torn in pieces
by the lawless mob.

In the country round Nismes forty-eight unresisting Catholics were
murdered; and at Alais the Huguenots massacred seven canons, two
grey-friars, and several other churchmen. Even at the little town of
Gap, far away among the Upper Alps, the followers of the two religions,
who had hitherto lived together on friendly terms, now sought each
other’s blood. The outbreak was occasioned by the attempt of the
Catholics to wear a white cross--a badge of distinction recently
adopted among the Romanists. The two parties came to blows, and, says
their historian, “they vied with one another in cruelty.”[403] It was
the same wherever the two armies marched. “Our people,” writes Languet,
“burn all the monasteries and destroy all the churches they come near:
but the Germans (that is, the reiters) spoil friends and enemies
alike.” Castelnau confirms this statement: “When Blois capitulated,
faith was not kept with the governor and inhabitants on the ground
that the Catholics boasted of not keeping their promise to the
Huguenots. So that on both sides the _droit des gens_ was violated
without any shame.... What the Huguenots spared was plundered by the
Catholics.”[404] Even the dead were not left in peace; in more than one
instance the corpses were exhumed and treated with savage barbarity.

But these scattered hostilities, much as they increased the misery of
France, had very little influence on the main course of events. So
long as Condé and Coligny were in the field, the cause of independence
was safe. The young Duke of Anjou, who, as lieutenant-general of the
kingdom, had been put at the head of the royal forces, was no match for
his experienced antagonists; nor could he always check the dissensions
between the veteran generals who, nominally under his orders, were
really the directors of all his movements. The Huguenot leaders saw
the favorable opportunity, and, with unexpected caution and rapidity,
Condé moved his army toward Chartres, in the hope of securing it as a
base of operations against Paris. But the Royalists were too quick for
him, and the garrison was reinforced before he could reach the city.
Determined to take the town at all hazards--for it was on the main line
of communication between Paris and the west and south--Coligny pressed
the siege, when Catherine, seeing that affairs had reached a crisis,
took the bold step of appearing in the enemy’s camp.

A timely remonstrance from the pen of Chancellor L’Hopital had a marked
effect in turning the minds of the people toward peace. Beginning with
a comparison of the two parties he says, “The Huguenots are not a mob
hastily collected together, but men, warlike, resolute, and in despair
... ready to venture all that men hold most dear in defense of their
wives and children. The Catholic party is ill-constructed, all are
tired of the war, and, even among the common people, there is nothing
but murmuring.... To exterminate the enemy is impossible, unless you
would fill the country with pestilence, famine, and starvation. Look
at Champagne--a desert, so utterly wretched that there is nothing left
the poor inhabitants but to die of hunger and despair.... But if we
could destroy them all, what will you do with their innocent children?
If you, spare them, will they not grow up to avenge their fathers?
If the king should lose a battle, he would be deserted by thousands
who now follow him through fear or love of plunder: it would be the
destruction of his throne.” After combating the arguments of those who
contend that the king is bound to punish rebels, and that he can not
capitulate with his subjects, he advises Charles “to use clemency, as
he shall meet it from God; to forget his own resentment toward his
subjects, and they will forget their evil dispositions toward him,
and forget their very selves to honor and obey him.”[405] If the
queen-mother was not influenced by these arguments, she saw at least
that it was time to put an end to the war. She had often boasted that
her tongue and her pen were more than a match for the lances of her
enemies; and their power was never more strikingly shown than in the
present instance. She offered an amnesty for all past offenses, and an
unconditional acquiescence in the demands of her son’s “loyal though
misguided subjects.” The admiral was suspicious, and hesitated. “They
have not forgiven us the surprise of Meaux,” he said. “But the desire
of all for peace,” observes La Noue, “was as a whirlwind which they
could not resist.”[406] Meanwhile the Huguenot army melted away, whole
bodies going off without asking leave, and Condé hurriedly signed the
Treaty of Longjumeau (20th March, 1568),[407] which restored the Edict
of Amboise, bound the court to pay the foreign auxiliaries in the rebel
service, and left the Reformed party, says Mezeray, “at the mercy of
their enemies, with no other guarantee than the word of an Italian
woman.”[408]

While the admiral was negotiating the treaty of Longjumeau his wife
fell ill and died at Orleans of a fever contracted in the course of
her charitable labors in that crowded and unhealthy city. As soon as
she felt the approaches of death, she wrote the following pathetic
letter to her husband: “I feel very unhappy in dying so far from you,
whom I have always loved more than myself; but I take comfort from the
knowledge that you are kept away from me by the best of motives. I
entreat you, by the love you bear me, and by the children I leave you
as pledges of my love, to fight to the last extremity for God’s service
and the advancement of religion.... Train up our children in the pure
religion, so that if you fail them, they may one day take your place;
and as they can not yet spare you, do not expose your life more than is
necessary. Beware of the house of Guise; I know not whether I ought to
say the same of the queen-mother, being forbidden to judge evilly of my
neighbor; but she has given so many marks of her ambition that a little
distrust is pardonable.” It was two or three days before the admiral
could leave the army, and when he reached Orleans all was over. His
wife had been dead twenty-four hours, leaving him with three boys and
one girl. For a time the bereaved husband was inconsolable: “Oh, God,
what have I done?” he exclaimed, in the anguish of his heart; “what
have I done that I should be so severely chastised, so overwhelmed with
calamities?” At last the consolations of religion began to temper his
sorrow. “Would that I might lead a holier life and present a better
example of godliness! Most Holy Father, look upon me, if it please
thee, and in the multitude of thy mercies, relieve my sufferings!”[409]
As soon as the state of affairs permitted he retired to his estate at
Chatillon, but was not long permitted to enjoy the rest and privacy
he sought. In a short time he became the centre of a little court.
The crowd was so great that, “when two gentlemen left by one door,
twenty entered by another.” The admiral was so beloved that he was
overwhelmed with presents, the members of his party forcing them upon
him notwithstanding his protests. “It is only right,” they urged, “to
help the man who is ruining himself for love of us.”

Peace found the finances of the kingdom in a very dilapidated
condition. The expenditure was eighteen millions of livres, and the
revenue less than half that amount; besides which there were arrears
due to the foreign auxiliaries--not only those whom Condé had enrolled,
but a large body under the Duke of Saxony, who claimed five months’
pay, although they had not drawn a sword and scarcely entered the
French territory. These reiters were a terrible scourge to France,
and it was necessary to get rid of them at any sacrifice. Davila
paints them as sweeping through the country like a frightful hurricane
(_spaventosa tempesta_). Armed to the teeth in black mail, drawn
up in squadrons sixteen deep and with a front of thirty, they rode down
the weak lines of the French cavalry. Fierce in demeanor, brutal in
habits, as intractable as they were insolent, and a nuisance alike to
friend and foe, they were insatiable pillagers, and their long train of
wagons filled with plunder often caused irremediable delay in the march
of the Huguenot army. None knew how to drive a hard bargain better than
they did. Castelnau gives a curious account of his negotiations with
these men, who, in the true spirit of mercenary soldiers, were ready to
turn their arms against any body, if they were paid for it. The only
means of raising money to meet the various claims upon the treasury was
to sell church property, which was done to the amount of 100,000 crowns
rental. Although the pope had given his consent to this alienation,
provided the money was employed to extirpate heresy, the Parliament of
Paris long refused to register the decree authorizing the sale, on the
factious ground that “things consecrated to God could not be touched.”




                              CHAPTER IX.

                         THE THIRD CIVIL WAR.

                             [1568–1570.]

   State of the Country--The National Party--Atrocities and
   Retaliation--L’Hopital’s Retirement--The Catholic League--League
   of Toulouse--The New Plot--The Flight to Rochelle--Aid from
   England--Anjou, Commander-in-Chief--Battle of Jarnac--Death
   of Condé--Henry of Bearn--Siege of Cognac--Junction of Duke
   Wolfgang--Death of Brissac--Battle of Roche-Abeille--Siege
   of Poitiers--Moncontour--The Admiral’s letter to his
   Children--Siege of St. Jean D’Angely--Desmarais--The Great
   March--Cruelties at Orthez, Auxerre, Orleans, Cognat,
   Aurillac--Coligny’s illness--Battle of Arnay le Duc--Treaty of
   St. Germains.


Short as the war had been it was full of horrors. Wherever the two
armies passed the country was laid waste. The towns-people were
comparatively safe behind their walls, but the peasantry were between
two millstones: there was no escaping except by flight to the woods
and leaving the fields uncultivated, the consequence of which was
famine and pestilence. In Schiller’s picturesque language, “men
became savage like their countries.”[410] After the proclamation of
peace a few governors did all they could to check the disorders of
the royal troops in their provinces. Marshal Damville, commanding in
Guienne, Poitou, and Dauphiny, issued many regulations to pacify the
country and restrain the license of the soldiery, who had assumed the
administrations of several towns by turning out the magistrates and
substituting drum-head justice for the regular courts of law. They
appropriated the contents of the city chests, and the only limits to
their extortions were the means of the citizens to pay. Many large
towns had been half deserted by their inhabitants, who in despair had
formed into volunteer partisan corps, which roamed over the country,
making the roads unsafe, and plundering friend and foe alike. They were
under a rude kind of military discipline, resembling in this as in
other respects the brigand bands of modern Greece and Southern Italy.
To remedy this great evil, Damville ordered the officers and soldiers
to permit the exiles to return on condition that they gave up their
arms, gentlemen and others having the privilege of wearing swords being
excepted. Charles himself frequently complained that the provincial
governors did not attempt to carry out the treaty of Longjumeau. On the
31st March he wrote to Condé regretting that the edict of toleration
had not been observed as fully as he had desired, and declared it to be
his wish that all his subjects, without respect of religion, should be
protected alike. He grieved that justice was not so purely administered
as it ought to be--a state of things he would remedy as far as possible.

If it should be urged that these are mere words, which cost the writer
nothing, the same objection can hardly be made to the king’s letter
to D’Humières of the 30th April, wherein he directed that those who
had left their homes during the late troubles should not be hindered
from returning and living in liberty according to the edict. There are
also other letters extant proving the reality of this conciliatory
feeling. Thus on 9th May, 1568, Charles wrote to the mayor of Tours,
ordering the place of Reformed worship to be removed as far as possible
from Tours, but to that extent sanctioning it.[411] There are several
letters on the same subject from others, and in a considerate tone;
but the most remarkable of all is one to the mayor from Francis of
Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier, dated 15th June, 1568, and referring to
the police arrangements in Tours for the approaching _Fête Dieu_:
“Nevertheless, if you know that they are likely to be obstinate and
refuse to obey, only so far as concerns the decorations of the streets
and houses, and that it may cause offense and disturbance, there will
be no harm in your tacitly making good their deficiencies, according to
your means, without showing that one is more favored than another, with
the assurance that you will be able to arrange matters so wisely that
every thing may turn out to the honor and glory of God.”[412]

However unfavorable the treaty of Longjumeau may have been to the
Huguenots, there can be no doubt of their desire to live in peace. They
had won toleration at the point of the sword; by aiming at supremacy
they would risk all they had gained. War could advantage them but
little: in peace they might hope to extend the silent conquests of
their religion. It is very questionable, however, if the great body of
the Catholics, or their leaders, were equally desirous of a permanent
cessation of hostilities. Peace might be fatal to the ambitious designs
of the house of Lorraine; Condé and the admiral were formidable rivals
to the cardinal and the Italian followers of the queen-mother. The
treaty was the work of the moderate section of the royal council, to
which Marshal Montmorency had given the influence of his name. It
was drawn up by the Chancellor L’Hopital, another member of the same
party, and supported by the bishops of Orleans and Limoges.[413] Their
task had not been without difficulty, for the mere rumor of peace had
called forth strong protests from the papal and Spanish embassadors,
who almost threatened war if any arrangement were come to with the
heretics; but the king is reported to have made a reply that quite
startled them.[414] This is just what we should expect from Catherine,
whose object all her life was to keep the Spaniard out of France.
The Huguenots were the truly national party--the stout defenders of
national independence. They were the first to assert the doctrine of
non-intervention, although they did not act up to their theory. This
was the link which connected them with the moderate section of the
Catholic party. While their antagonists esteemed Guise and Philip II.
and the pope far more than they did their king, the Huguenots were
especially Frenchmen. They were loyal in the best sense of the word,
as were the English Catholics, who, under a popish admiral, drove the
Armada from the seas.

But the “politicians,” as they are usually called, were in advance of
their age: the time for moderation had not yet come. The Cardinal of
Lorraine still raised his voice for extermination, and the pride of
both Catherine and Charles had been deeply wounded by the undignified
flight from Meaux. Philip II., who dreaded to see France at peace,
continued to intrigue with the most bigoted of the king’s advisers.
Alva, too, reminded the queen-mother that it was “much better to have
a kingdom ruined in preserving it for God and the king by war, than to
have it kept entire without war, to the profit of the devil and his
heretical followers.”[415] In addition to all this, the peace had made
Catherine unpopular even among those of her own religion; both she
and the king were most absurdly suspected of heresy, and, adds Claude
Haton, “it is certain that they were the support and prop of the rebel
Huguenots.” Speaking of the Lent Sermons in this year (1568) he says,
that “the clergy from the pulpits taxed the king, his mother, and the
council, with being by the said peace the cause of the entire ruin of
the kingdom and of the Catholic religion.” This language was reported
to their majesties, who immediately ordered the clergy to preach the
Gospel, and not abuse their sovereign, under pain of the severest
punishment. But if the preachers moderated their tone toward the king
and the queen-mother, they became more violent in their attacks upon
the Huguenots. From every pulpit fanatical monks hounded on their
already too eager listeners to farther deeds of blood, not only by
proclaiming that faith ought not to be kept with heretics, but that
it was a meritorious act to slay them. The system of forced baptisms
was continued, the rights of the individual being as little regarded
under Charles IX. in 1568 as under Louis XIV. at the close of the
following century. At Provins, a babe six weeks old was carried to the
church and christened, the mother being taken thither in the custody
of the police, and the father left in the hands of the soldiers until
the ceremony was over. In the municipal archives of Tallard we read:
“Paid six sols to a royal sergeant sent by the deputy bailiff of Gap
to publish an order that the children who had been baptized in the
new religion should be rebaptized in the Catholic religion.”[416] At
Dieppe, the midwives were required to make a declaration within two
hours of the birth of every Huguenot infant, who was taken away and
christened publicly.

The petty annoyances and vexations to which the Reformed were
subjected, were at times harder to bear than actual persecution. In
the one case pride and conscience might make the severest torture
endurable; in the other, there was all the consciousness of the martyr
without a sufficient injury to awaken the sympathy of others. The
annoyances inflicted by the municipal authority on the Huguenots of
Provins must have been to many more intolerable than any amount of
physical pain. They were forbidden to take lodgers, to assemble in any
manner, or to leave their houses after 7 P.M. in the summer
and 5 P.M. in the winter. They were not allowed to walk on the
ramparts by night or by day, under pain of death; and they could not
take a stroll into the country without the written pass of the officer
of the gate.[417] At Amiens the privilege of keeping inns was taken
from them; they were turned out of such of their houses as happened to
be near the walls or the gates; they could not meet more than three
together, and were liable to be hanged if found in the streets between
seven at night and six in the morning.[418]

During this “peace which was no peace,” as La Noue says, more than
2000 Huguenots--surely an exaggerated number--were put to death at
Amiens, Bourges, Rouen, and other places. The teaching of the clergy
had produced the desired effect. Under the pretext of imaginary crimes,
Sigognes, governor of Dieppe, arrested all whom he suspected, or
drove them out of the town. The soldiers insulted the women as they
went to their meetings; the men interfered to protect them; there was
a riot, and the governor always sided with the ruffians. Open war
seemed better than such insecurity. M. de Cypierre was murdered, with
thirty-six of his companions and suite, as he was passing through
Provence. Remonstrances and appeals for justice were vainly made to
the government, which affected to be more powerless than it really
was. Under these circumstances, it is no wonder that the Huguenots
again took up those arms in self-defense which they had laid aside in
accordance with the treaty; no wonder that in their fury they once more
defiled the altars, destroyed the churches, and perpetrated a thousand
retaliatory atrocities. Briquemaut, one of their leaders, cheered them
on to murder, wearing a string of priests’ ears round his neck. On the
other side, Louis de Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier, far surpassed all
others in barbarity, even to the disgust of Charles himself, who was
not over-nice in such matters. One punishment, which he was proud of
inventing, is so foul and horrible that we dare not name it. Correro,
the Venetian embassador, describes the whole population as in a state
of fury.

Pope Pius V. actively supported the fanatical party in their opposition
to the treaty of 1568, by letters of advice and pecuniary aid. On
the 5th of July he wrote to the Duke of Nemours, congratulating him
on being the first who, in the cities of Lyons and Grenoble, refused
to observe the conditions of Longjumeau, “as fatal to the Catholic
religion and derogatory to the king’s dignity.” “Would to God,” he
continues, “that all the great ones of the kingdom and all governors of
provinces would imitate your example.”[419]

Meanwhile, great changes had taken place in the royal council. By slow
degrees the Italian party had recovered their supremacy, and were
advocating the most violent measures. The Moderate party was listened
to with impatience. “Even the king no longer dared give his opinion,”
says L’Hopital, who felt it a duty to resign his office rather than
countenance measures of which he disapproved. He was succeeded for a
brief interval by Jean de Morvilliers.

In the middle of 1568 the foundations were laid of that formidable
League which shook the throne and brought France to the brink of
destruction. On the 25th June, “The Associates of the Christian and
Royal League of the province of Champagne” met and took a solemn oath
“to maintain the Catholic Church in France, and preserve the crown
in the house of Valois, so long as it shall govern according to the
Catholic and Apostolic religion.”[420] Seventy years later another
famous league was signed “for the defense of religion,” which brought a
king to the scaffold. Those who admire the Scottish Covenant should not
find fault with a Romish league which brought two kings of France to a
sudden and bloody end.

At Toulouse a somewhat similar league had been formed, and a
proclamation issued against the followers of the new religion. In that
singular document, which was founded on a bull issued by Pius V. in
March, 1568, the Protestants are described as “atheists, men living
without God, without faith, and without law.” Jesus Christ himself
inspires all good Catholics with “the idea of assuming the cross,
taking up arms, and preparing a war like Mattathias and the other
Maccabees.” The faithful are reminded of the heretical Albigenses
destroyed in that very district to the number of 60,000; and are
exhorted to pursue with the same fervor these “new enemies of God,”
and to show them no mercy. If the crusaders die in the expedition,
“their blood will serve them as a second baptism, washing out all their
sins; and they will go with the other martyrs straight to paradise.”
The qualifications for taking up the cross in this holy war were “to
confess their sins and arm themselves with the body and blood of our
Lord;” but these arms were not thought sufficient. “If the capitouls
[magistrates] will lend a few cannons, things will go on all the
better. Resolved at Toulouse, 21st September, 1568. The above is done
under the authority of our Holy Father the Pope.” Priests were to be
the captains of this “holy army of faith,” and its motto was: _Eamus
nos; moriamur cum Christo_.[421]

Immediately after the signing of the treaty of Longjumeau the
Protestant army had been disbanded, and the reiters in their pay had
returned to Germany, not without excesses on the road; but under
various excuses the royal army, including the Swiss mercenaries and
the Italian auxiliaries, was still kept on foot. The motive soon
became apparent: the reactionary party meditated a bold stroke that
should cripple, if not entirely crush, the Huguenot party. Condé, the
admiral and other chiefs were to be seized, and of the fate intended
for some of them there can be no doubt. Only two months earlier,
Alva’s “blood council” had condemned Counts Egmont and Horn to a
violent death. As early as May, all the bridges along the Loire were
guarded. This may have been a mere matter of police in the disturbed
state of the country; but the Huguenots very reasonably considered
it as a means of controlling their movements and preventing their
escape, if danger threatened them. Their leaders were widely separated;
Andelot was in Brittany, La Rochefoucault in Angoulême, D’Acier in
Languedoc, Bruniquet and Montglas in Gascony, Genlis and Mouy in
Picardy, Montgomery in Normandy, the Admiral at Tanlay, and Condé at
his castle of Noyers in Burgundy. These two places are so near that
tradition speaks of a subterranean passage between them. Tanlay is
placed in a secluded spot between Tonnerre and Montbard. On a splendid
chimney-piece in the large hall may still be seen a head of Coligny in
a plumed helmet, admirably carved in delicately tinted marble.[422]

The admiral had gone to this charming retreat, to consult with his
brother to whom it belonged, and who had joined him there. The aspect
of affairs was threatening. The news which they had received from
their friends at court, as well as the frequent movements of troops to
the Loire, were enough to fill them with suspicion. Attended by fifty
horsemen, they rode over to Noyers, and while there an intercepted
dispatch from Tavannes, the governor of the province, bade them in
ambiguous but significant language look to their safety: “_Le cerf
est aux toiles, la chasse est préparée_.” With all secrecy the
Huguenot leaders prepared for flight, and though encumbered by women
and children, succeeded in escaping to Rochelle (August, 1568). A ford
near Sancerre had been left unguarded, and by it the fugitives were
able to cross the Loire, and were protected from pursuit by a sudden
rise of the waters.[423] “It touched the hearts of all men with sincere
commiseration,” says Matthieu, “to witness the lamentable plight in
which the first prince of the blood traveled. The heat of the weather
was intense; the princess, being great with child, traveled in a
litter; the prince had three little children in the cradle; besides
which he was accompanied by the admiral and his family, by Andelot and
his wife, there being altogether a great number of children and nurses.
Their escort consisted of only 150 men.”

The enemy followed them so closely as to come in sight of the
fugitives, but the swollen river lay between them. The Cardinal of
Chatillon, at that time living quietly in his episcopal palace at
Beauvais, received timely warning and escaped to England. Joan of
Albret, Queen of Navarre, who was threatened in her own estates, also
sought a refuge within those walls which already sheltered the Prince
of Condé. She brought her son Henry with her, then a boy of 15, and a
force of 4000 men, the nucleus of an army that soon swelled to more
formidable dimensions than that which had been disbanded a few months
before. The command was offered to Henry, but graciously refused by him
in favor of his uncle Condé.

The position of the Huguenot chiefs was full of peril; but they saw
clearly that they were standing in the breach of Protestantism, and
fighting not merely their own battle but the battle of the Reformed
religion in every country. In Flanders Alva was not only trampling
out Protestantism with his iron heel, but usurping the rights of the
Prince of Orange. This was a matter that touched Condé nearly, for he
too was thought worthy of the hatred of “the Demon of the South.” All
the nobility indeed were, more or less, affected by any attack on the
rights of the princes of the blood; but the majority willfully shut
their eyes against it. The meeting at Bayonne was bearing fruit. In
February, 1568, the Spanish Inquisition solemnly condemned all the
inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics--a few persons only
being excepted by name. Nor was this condemnation a mere idle form, for
ten days later Philip II. issued a proclamation, ratifying the sentence
and ordering it to be carried into instant execution without regard to
sex, age, or condition. The eloquent historian of the Dutch republic
has told us how the king was obeyed, and unveiled the perfidious
designs of the Spanish cabinet. These were strongly suspected by the
French Huguenots, who had not the opportunity we possess of reading
the secret dispatches of Philip and his ministers. But Condé and
Coligny knew quite enough to make them suspicious: they knew that if
the Flemish Protestants were crushed, their turn would come next; and
they not only prevented the French government from assisting Alva,
but by their attitude made the King of Spain unwilling to send the
reinforcements to the Low Countries, which Alva so much needed to
complete his crusade. Had they done no more than this, they would have
earned the eternal gratitude of all Protestantism. By paralyzing Alva
at this moment the Reformed religion on the Continent was saved. We may
even go farther, and say that our own liberties were dependent on this
Huguenot movement. The French leaders had heard that the Protestant
Queen of England was threatened, that a bill of excommunication was to
be fulminated against her, that a hundred daggers were preparing to be
plunged into her heart. Though Elizabeth never cordially helped the
Huguenots, and with her lofty monarchical notions looked coldly on them
and the Flemings as rebels, yet a common enemy and a common danger
drew them together, and for a time smoothed away all differences. She
forwarded to Rochelle six pieces of artillery with their ammunition,
and a sum of 100,000 angelots (50,000_l._) with a promise of
more,[424] and permitted Henry Champernon,[425] a near kinsman of Sir
Walter Raleigh, then only seventeen years old, to raise a troop of 100
gentlemen volunteers, with which he passed over into France. De Thou
describes them as “a gallant company, nobly mounted and accoutred,
having on their colors the motto: _Finem det mihi virtus_:
Let valor decide the contest.” They fought at Jarnac and again at
Moncontour, but beyond what Raleigh says himself, there is no trace of
them in history.[426]

The fanatical party, not content with drawing the sword, threw away
the scabbard. The great want of the court was money, and in July--the
treaty of Longjumeau had only been signed in March--the queen-mother
obtained a papal bull, permitting her (as we have seen) to alienate
church property to the amount of a million and a half of francs, on
condition that the money was employed in the extirpation of Huguenotry.
It does not appear that any of the money was spent as Pius V.
stipulated, and with a view to hide the misappropriation and satisfy
the urgent demands of the pope, the king issued several edicts in
September, 1568, completely annulling that of January, forbidding the
public celebration of the Reformed worship under pain of death, and
ordering the ministers to leave the kingdom within a fortnight. In this
revocation of religious privileges it is easy to trace the influence of
the more violent members of the privy council--the Cardinal of Lorraine
and René de Biragues.

Henry of Anjou, a youth only fifteen years old, was once more placed at
the head of the royal army, with Tavannes by his side to direct the
military operations. Tavannes’s object was to confine the Protestants
to Poitou and Saintonge, while the Huguenot plan was to march into
Burgundy and meet the troops which the Prince of Orange was levying for
their support. But the winter of 1568 passed away without any striking
event, the Huguenot army losing 5000 men through illness and the
inclemency of the season. The cold was so intense that the water in a
caldron set before the fire was frozen at the back while boiling at the
front. All the rivers were cartable, and wine became so solid in the
casks that it was cut up and carried away in sacks.[427]

As soon as the weather broke, the two armies were once more in the
field, and on the 13th March, 1569, came into collision at Jarnac on
the banks of the Charente, between Angoulême and Cognac. There is
still the same wide plain, under tillage, with a cluster of houses in
one corner, that could easily be turned into a barricaded fort. It is
near a little hill, at whose foot still flows the sluggish brook on
whose banks the chief struggle occurred. The Huguenot force had been
injudiciously divided, while that under Anjou had been reinforced by
2200 reiters commanded by the Rheingrave and Bassompierre. It was
Anjou’s plan to prevent the junction of Condé’s forces, but he was
disappointed in this by the prince’s sudden march to Niort, thence
by St. Jean d’Angely to Cognac, and next day to Jarnac, where he met
Andelot with the advanced guard of cavalry, supported by four guns. The
following morning, Condé, accompanied by the admiral and his brother,
advanced with all the cavalry to reconnoitre Anjou’s position, and had
the audacity to offer battle. The king’s brother declined the offer
and moved away in the direction of Cognac, where he was again met by
Condé with the second division, the admiral being left with the first
at Jarnac. The result of these marchings and counter-marchings was
that the Huguenot cavalry was taken by surprise, when the infantry
was so far off as to be quite unserviceable. Condé stood his ground
manfully, but what could 1500 men do against a force twice as strong?
He made desperate efforts to cut his way through the dense ranks of the
enemy, though his leg had been broken by a kick from a horse ridden
by one of his suite.[428] At last his horse fell, and he lay at the
mercy of his foes. Being recognized by two gentlemen, he called to
one of them: “Ho! D’Argence, my friend, save my life, and I will give
you one hundred thousand crowns.” D’Argence promised, and raised the
prince from the ground. Seeing the Duke of Anjou approach, Condé said:
“There is Monseigneur’s troop; I am a dead man.” “No, my lord” replied
D’Argence; “cover your face,” for he had taken off his helmet. At this
moment up rode Montesquieu, captain of the duke’s Swiss guard, who,
recognizing the prisoner, foully shot him in the back of the head. “Now
I hope you are satisfied,” exclaimed the prince, and they were his last
words.[429] It is supposed that orders had been given to spare none of
the Huguenot leaders. The celebrated La Noue, who was made prisoner
in this battle, owed his life to the intervention of the veteran
Martigues, “the soldier without fear.” The Scotchman who had murdered
the constable at the battle of St. Denis himself met with a similar
end, while other prisoners like him were slain in cold blood. A little
episode of this unequal fight shows the sterling stuff of which the
Huguenot army was composed. When Condé was thrown from his horse, among
those who made a living rampart of their bodies to protect him was
an old man, Lavergne de Tressan by name, who, with twenty-five young
men, his sons, grandsons, and nephews, fought desperately until he and
fifteen of the heroic band were killed.

Condé’s body was treated with the utmost contumely. “We found him,”
says the biographer of the Duke of Montpensier, “lying across an ass,
and the Baron de Magnac asked me if I should know him again? But as he
had one eye beaten out of his head, and was otherwise much disfigured,
I knew not what to answer. The corpse was brought in before all the
princes and lords, who ordered the face to be washed, and recognized
him perfectly. They then put him into a sheet, and he was carried
before a man on horseback to the castle of Jarnac, where the king’s
brother went to lodge.” Thence the remains of the ill-fated prince were
removed to the church, and afterward given up to his friends. La Noue,
who knew Condé well, thus writes his epitaph: “In boldness or courtesy
no man of his time excelled him. Of speech he was eloquent, rather by
nature than by art. He was liberal and affable unto all men, and withal
an excellent captain, although he loved peace. He bare himself better
in adversity than in prosperity.” In 1818, a monument was raised to his
memory on the field of Jarnac, with the inscription:

                                  HIC
                         NEFANDA NECE OCCUBUIT
                       ANNO MDLXIX ÆTATIS XXXIX
                     LUDOVICUS BORBONIUS CONDÆUS,
                 QUI IN OMNIBUS BELLI PACISQUE ARTIBUS
                            NULLI SECUNDUS;
                      VIRTUTE, INGENIO, SOLERTIA
                     NATALIUM SPLENDOREM ÆQUAVIT;
                       VIR MELIORI EXITU DIGNUS.

Great was the exultation at court when the news of this brilliant
success arrived,[430] and the nominal conqueror, Henry of Anjou, was
extolled in language that would have been extravagant if applied to a
Marlborough or Napoleon. He fought well, and had a horse killed under
him; but Charles was not far wrong when he asked whether Tavannes and
Biron were not the real heroes of the day? A solemn _Te Deum_
was chanted for the victory at Jarnac, and the captured standards,
twelve in number, were sent to Rome as a present to the pope. Pius V.,
who in earlier days had exercised the office of inquisitor-general in
Lombardy with fanatical severity, wrote to congratulate the king on
the victory, bidding him “be deaf to every prayer, to trample upon
every tie of blood and affection, and to extirpate heresy down to its
smallest fibres (_etiam radicum fibras funditus evellere_).” He
pointed to the example of Saul slaying the Amalekites, and condemned
every feeling of clemency as a temptation of Satan.[431] This was the
same pope who, having sent military aid to the French Catholics, blamed
their commander “for not obeying his orders to slay instantly every
heretic that fell into his hands:”[432] and yet he would complain with
all sincerity that “but for the support of prayer, the cares of the
papacy would be more than he could endure.” Contemporary writers tell
us that “he performed his religious duties most devoutly, frequently
with tears;” and always rose from his knees with the conviction that
his prayers had been heard. Such are the contradictions in the human
heart!

When the news of the victory reached Provins, there was the usual
holiday: the shops were closed, the houses decorated, and a general
procession of clergy and laity, bearing relics and banners, marched
through the crowded streets to the Jacobin’s convent to hear the Lent
preacher. He was an apt pupil of the foul-mouthed Father Ivole. With
thundering voice, and animated gestures, he declared the prince’s death
to be a divine judgment, and described him as “the chief of robbers,
murderers, thieves, rebels, Huguenots, and heretics in France; a prince
degenerated from the virtues and religion of his ancestors, a man
foresworn, guilty of treason against God and the king, a profaner of
temples, a breaker of images, a destroyer of altars, a contemner of the
sacraments, a disturber of the peace, a betrayer of his country, and a
renegade Frenchman,” with many other flowers of monkish rhetoric, which
the chronicler Haton forbears to quote.

Although the loss of the Prince of Condé was, considering his rank
and influence, a great blow to the French Protestants, they comforted
themselves by the thought that it was “rather an advancement than a
hindrance to their affairs,” as Sir Walter Raleigh said, in consequence
of his “over-confidence in his own courage.” Coligny naturally
succeeded to the command of the Huguenot forces, which soon recovered
from the disaster at Jarnac. While they were rallying and reorganizing
at Niort, Joan of Albret suddenly appeared in their camp, bringing with
her two youths of fifteen. One of them was her nephew Henry, son of the
murdered prince; the other her own son, Henry of Bearn, destined after
many struggles to become Henry IV. of France. Addressing the assembled
captains in a tone well calculated to raise their drooping spirits, she
said: “I offer you my son, who burns with a holy ardor to avenge the
death of the prince we all regret. Behold also Condé’s son, now become
my own child. He succeeds to his father’s name and glory. Heaven grant
that they may both show themselves worthy of their ancestors!”

The Huguenot troops hailed the young Prince of Bearn with acclamations
as their commander-in-chief, and the protector of their churches.
The gallant boy welcomed the perilous commission, and coming forward
exclaimed: “Soldiers, your cause is mine. I swear to defend our
religion, and to persevere until death or victory[433] has restored us
the liberty for which we fight.” In the “Memoirs of Nevers” there are
some letters written two years before this by the principal magistrate
of Bordeaux, containing several interesting particulars of the young
prince’s person and manners:--“He is a charming youth. At thirteen he
has all the riper qualities of eighteen or nineteen. He is agreeable,
polite, obliging, and behaves to every one with an air so easy and
engaging, that wherever he is, there is always a crowd. He mixes in
conversation like a wise and prudent man, speaks always to the purpose,
and when it happens that the court is the subject of discourse, it is
easy to see that he is perfectly well acquainted with it, and never
says more or less than he ought wherever he may be. I shall all my life
hate the new religion for having robbed us of so worthy a subject....
His hair is a little red, yet the ladies think him not less agreeable
on that account. His face is finely shaped, his nose neither too large
nor too small, his eyes full of sweetness, his skin brown but clear,
and his whole countenance animated with an uncommon vivacity.”[434]

The Huguenot loss at Jarnac was not great numerically--400 men at the
utmost; and the various scattered corps were so soon brought together,
and presented so bold a front to the enemy, that Anjou did not care to
risk his newly-acquired laurels in a second encounter. He appeared to
have lost all energy. Tavannes proposed the laying waste of Poitou,
“the Huguenot milch cow;” but, instead of following his advice, the
young duke seems to have thought that the best means of terminating the
war would be to capture Rochelle, the real base of Huguenot operations.
And probably victory would have crowned his plans, had he moved
rapidly on that city, which was hardly in a condition to withstand a
_coup de main_. But the middle course which he adopted served no
other purpose than to strengthen his enemies. While he was besieging
Cognac, Duke Wolfgang of Deux Ponts, with an auxiliary force of 14,000,
succeeded in marching across France, and effecting a junction with
the admiral, despite the efforts of Nemours and Aumale to stop him.
On other points the royal forces had been equally unsuccessful. Anjou
was forced to raise the siege of Cognac, stoutly defended by D’Acier
with 1500 men, and lost one of his best officers, Cossé-Brissac, before
the walls of a petty fortress in Périgord. Living or dying, Brissac,
although rather a favorite of the queen-mother’s, had but little
influence on the course of events; but if not naturally cruel, he was
a striking illustration of the hardness of heart engendered by civil
strife. A contemporary, who knew him well, describes him as “quick to
slay, and so fond of killing, that he would attack a person with his
dagger, and cut him so that the blood spurted in his face.”

More serious were the deaths of Wolfgang and Andelot, both caused by
fatigue and anxiety.[435] The former, who did not live to meet Coligny,
was succeeded by the Count of Mansfield; the latter by Jacques de
Crussol, better known as Jacques d’Acier, the chivalrous leader of the
southern Huguenots. The admiral was deeply afflicted by the loss of
his brother, whom he describes as “a most faithful servant of God, and
most excellent and renowned captain. No one,” he continues in a letter
to his own children and to their bereaved cousins, “surpassed him in
the profession of arms.... I have never known a juster or more pious
man; and I pray God that I may quit this life as piously and happily
as he did.... Temper my grief by showing his virtues living again in
yourselves.”

Coligny, strengthened by the arrival of the German mercenaries and
of reinforcements from Languedoc, now marched out to meet the royal
army, still superior in numbers but weakened by disease and divided
authority. They came in sight of each other at Roche-Abeille: 25,000
men marched under the Huguenot banners; Anjou’s force had been
increased to 30,000 by auxiliaries from every quarter. The pope had
sent a body of 4000 foot and 800 horse under the Count of Santa Fiore,
one of the most experienced captains of the age. The Duke of Tuscany
sent 2200 men; and Alva spared from Flanders 300 lances and a regiment
of Walloons 3000 strong. The country round Roche-Abeille is woody
and irregular, and the royal army was posted on the top of a rugged
hill, at whose foot ran a small stream. A marsh, crossed by a narrow
road, protected the Huguenot position. The king’s troops, having the
city of Limoges in their rear, were well supplied with provisions;
while Coligny found it difficult to feed his army in the mountains
and barren country behind him. Should he starve, retreat, or fight?
The only safety lay in fighting, for the Germans had already begun
to murmur. At day-break the Huguenots were under arms, and with six
cannons, two companies of horse, and two brigades of infantry, prepared
to attack Anjou’s position. Strozzi, the new colonel-general of the
French infantry, had thrown up some rude breastworks round his camp
with an advanced battery for his artillery, which swept the marsh
over which the enemy would have to pass. The gallant De Piles, who
led the attack, was at first repulsed, and severely harassed by four
ensigns of Italian horse, who came down the hill while he was engaged
in trying to extricate his guns which had stuck fast in the ground.
Disengaging himself from the marsh, he renewed the attack, and having
driven off the Italian horse, Coligny ordered Anjou’s position to be
assaulted in flank, while a fierce cannonade was directed against
the advanced battery. An opening was soon made in the enemy’s line,
through which the Huguenot cavalry poured like a torrent, and the day
was won, Strozzi being made prisoner (23d June, 1569). Six hundred of
the royal army, including thirty officers, were left upon the field,
the Huguenots showing no mercy to the Italian troops, “the soldiers
of Antichrist,” as they were called. The result would have been still
more fatal had it not been for the skill displayed by Tavannes in
remedying Anjou’s mistakes. But, notwithstanding his success, Coligny
was compelled to retire to a more convenient position, and not long
after the king’s army was broken up, the weather being too hot for
field operations. Davila mentions that this resolution was agreed to by
a council at which Catherine was present and advised moderation. “It is
not usual,” she said, “to cut off a diseased limb, except in extreme
necessity.”

Coligny had taken advantage of his success at Roche-Abeille to make
overtures for peace. He wrote to the king that the Huguenots “desired
nothing but to live in peace, pursue their avocations in quiet, and
enjoy their property in security;” and that, in religious matters,
they asked for toleration only until the assembling of a national
council. The letter was sent through Montmorency, who was instructed
to answer that “the king would hear nothing until the Huguenots had
returned to their obedience.” The admiral saw clearly that to lay down
their arms without conditions would be to expose themselves to certain
destruction; he therefore replied to the marshal’s letter, that “having
done their part to avert the dangers which threaten ruin to the state,
they must now more than ever seek their own remedies.” Accordingly he
resumed hostilities, his plan being to clear Poitou of the Royalist
forces. Overruled by his officers, he consented to begin by attacking
Poitiers, thus repeating the blunder which Anjou had committed before
Cognac. The admiral not only failed after a two months’ siege, but
his forebodings as to the damage to his own army were more than
realized. With a force weakened by the loss of 3000 men and disunited
by the quarrels of the German auxiliaries, he once more encountered
Anjou’s army in the wide and treeless plain of Assay near Moncontour.
The duke, who had been reinforced, was on his way to Loudun, hoping
to cut off the Huguenot magazines, when Coligny, divining his plans,
pushed forward to the plain of St. Clair, to the left of the village
of La Chaussée, on the road from Loudun to Poitiers, where he drew
up in order of battle; but as no enemy appeared, he retired toward
Moncontour, whither he had sent his guns and baggage. Before this
movement was completed, the Duke of Montpensier suddenly appeared and
fell on the rear-guard, driving it in confusion before him. Coligny
continued his march, supposing the whole of the royal army to be behind
him; but when he discovered that it was only Montpensier’s division,
he turned and drove it back, capturing two flags. This gave him the
opportunity of crossing the Dive in safety, over which little stream
the enemy made a vain attempt to pursue him. As soon as it was night he
continued his march, and reached Moncontour on the 2d October, where a
council of war was held, at which Coligny proposed a farther retreat to
Airvault, but the majority decided for immediate battle. The Germans
now declared they would not lift a lance until they were paid, and with
some difficulty the money was found; but so much precious time had been
lost, that the admiral was unable to select an advantageous position to
compensate for his inferiority in number.

From eight in the morning until three in the afternoon (3d October,
1569), the two armies kept up a fierce cannonade upon each other,
two of Anjou’s batteries on a hill causing great damage, and finally
compelling some Huguenot regiments to shift their ground. Anjou
observing this, ordered a forward movement, with the right wing
strengthened so as to turn the enemy’s left. At the first shock both
wings gave way. Coligny rallied them, and by a vigorous onset beat back
Anjou’s first line. The duke immediately brought up his second line,
and the Huguenot centre began to waver, when Anjou’s German cavalry
rode down upon them like a hurricane, and in half an hour all was
over. The Huguenots went into battle 18,000 strong, and before night
it was a difficult matter to collect 1000 men to cover the retreat
of the two princes to Parthenay. There was little mercy shown by the
conquerors.[436] A brigade of German lansquenets laid down their arms
and begged for quarter, which was refused, with shouts of “Remember
Roche-Abeille.” A body of French infantry met with a similar fate. One
incident of the battle deserves to be rescued from the dusty oblivion
of the old histories. When all was in confusion, the Count of St. Cyr,
a veteran soldier of eighty-five, whose snow-white beard flowed down
to his waist, contrived to rally three companies of cavalry with which
he attempted to cover the retreat. His chaplain, who rode by his side,
suggested that he should say a few words to encourage his little troop.
“Brave men need few words,” he cried; “do as you see me do.” Then
setting spurs to his horse, he rode a score or so of yards in front of
his men, and fell, struggling to the last against the advancing enemy.
Two hundred colors were taken, and “the slaughter was greater than any
for these hundred years past.”[437] The number of Huguenots alone who
were left upon the field has been estimated at little less than 6000.
The retreat was covered by Count Louis of Nassau,[438] who by his
ability saved the relics of the broken and fugitive army. “I was an
eye-witness of it,” says Raleigh, who had good reason to thank him for
it.[439]

The position of the admiral was most discouraging: he had lost half his
army, his jaw had been fractured by a pistol-shot, he had been declared
a traitor, a price of 50,000 livres had been set upon his head, he had
been hanged in effigy in Paris, his house had been burned down, and
his estates pillaged,[440] the wreck of his forces were in mutiny,
and many of his friends had forsaken him with reproaches. Yet, in the
midst of all these troubles, we find him within a fortnight rising
from his sick-bed and writing the following letter to his children. It
bears date 16th October, 1569:--“We must not count upon what is called
prosperity, or repose our hopes on any of those things in which the
world confides, but seek for something better than our eyes can see or
our hands can touch. We will follow in the steps of Jesus Christ, our
great commander, who has gone before. Men have taken from us all they
can, and as such is the good pleasure of God, we will be satisfied and
happy. Our consolation is, that we have not provoked these injuries by
doing any wrong to those who have injured us; but that I have drawn
upon me their hatred through having been employed by God in the defense
of his Church. I will, therefore, add nothing more, except that, in
his name, I admonish and conjure you to persevere undauntedly in your
studies and in the practice of every Christian virtue.”

When the news of the great victory reached the court, the exultation
surpassed even that caused by the success at Jarnac. Anjou was extolled
in terms that excited the jealousy of his brother Charles. “Am I to
play the sluggard king,” he said one day to his mother, “and let the
duke be my mayor of the palace? I will lead my own armies to the
field, like my grandfather.” Pius V. wrote to congratulate Charles on
his victory, and exhorted him not to screen the conquered from the
vengeance of heaven, “for there is nothing more cruel than such mercy.
Punish all who have taken up arms against the Almighty.”[441] Philip
II. wrote in a somewhat similar strain, but apparently with no effect
upon the royal councils. Tavannes once more urged Anjou to act with
decision; but once more that frivolous youth lost valuable time in
sieges, when he should have been pressing hard upon Coligny’s scattered
and disheartened forces. He was detained for two months before St. Jean
d’Angely, a little town of Saintonge, in a valley on the banks of the
Boutonne, a tributary of the “gently flowing Charente.” It fell at last
(2d December, 1569), but at the cost of 4000 men and one of the king’s
best generals, Viscount Martigues. Charles was present during the
siege, and constantly in the trenches, exposing his life, as if he were
a common soldier. He was so fascinated with the excitement of war, that
he declared he would gladly share the crown with his brother of Anjou,
if he might alternately command the forces.

Winter was now coming on: the nights were growing cold, and the
rains had set in. The pope and the King of Spain had recalled their
troops, and Anjou was sick. As there was nothing more to be done until
spring, Charles, dismissing a large portion of his army, retired to
Angers. This town had been recovered some time before by “that savage
butcher,” the Duke of Montpensier. The Catholic historian of the city
enumerates fifty-two persons who suffered a violent death, ten of them
being murdered by the mob. The whole province now submitted, with the
exception of a rough old soldier named Desmarais, who held out in the
ruined castle of Rochefort. Here he was besieged in form, and for a
time he kept off the enemy by means of frequent sorties. Suffering
from want of men, food, and gunpowder, he crossed the hostile lines
and reached Saumur, where his friends would have detained him, as his
defeat was certain. “I promised to go back and die with them,” he
said, and prepared to return with thirty men, who all deserted him
through fear. After a bombardment, in which every man of the garrison
was wounded, a traitor opened the gate and all were murdered, except
Desmarais, whose life was promised him. Montpensier, however, declaring
that no faith was to be kept with heretics, dragged him to Angers.
There his limbs were broken on a cross, after which he was fastened to
a wheel, and for twelve hours the old Puritan fought against death,
amid the insults and jeers of a cruel and cowardly mob.

Immediately after the disaster at Moncontour, the Queen of Navarre,
and the chiefs of the Huguenot party had written to their friends in
England, Germany, and Switzerland, representing the defeat as far less
decisive than it really was, and asking for more help, on the ground
that their destruction would be the ruin of all the countries that had
embraced the Reformed religion. The position was indeed desperate.
Their army had been so cut up that it was alike impossible to make any
resistance in the open field, or reorganize it in the presence of the
enemy. It was therefore determined to retire from the open country and
take shelter behind the walls of Niort, Angoulême, St. Jean d’Angely,
and La Rochelle, while Coligny moved southward in quest of recruits,
hoping at the same time to draw a portion of the royal army after
him, and thus relieve the pressure upon the troops left in garrison
behind him. And now began that celebrated march through France, almost
unexampled in modern history. His aim was to reach the mountains of
Upper Languedoc, where he could winter unmolested by the royal army,
and recruit his forces.

Starting from Saintes with 3000 men, chiefly cavalry, and unencumbered
with baggage, he crossed the Dordogne, and pushing through Guienne,
Rouergue and Quercy, he passed the Lot below Cadenac. Halting for
two days at Montauban, he was there joined by Montgomery and 2000
veterans from Bearn. This nobleman had been engaged in putting down
an insurrection of the Catholics in that province, which he did with
savage harshness. Orthez was stormed, and so many of the inhabitants
were put to death without distinction of age or sex, that the river
Gave was dammed up by the number of bodies thrown into it. The
monasteries and nunneries were burned, not one inmate escaping--the
total slaughter being estimated at 3000. When the citadel was taken,
every ecclesiastic who was proved to have borne arms--and the proof was
none of the strictest--was bound hand and foot, and tossed over the
bridge into the river. From Montauban Coligny marched up the Garonne
to Toulouse, where he avenged the cruelties that had been inflicted on
Rapin, the bearer of the king’s dispatch announcing the peace of 1568.
Advancing still nearer to the Mediterranean, he placed his army in
winter-quarters round Narbonne.

Let us take advantage of this interval of repose to see what had been
doing in other parts of France. A certain Captain Blosset, who held a
small castle at Regeane in the diocese of Auxerre, was besieged by the
Catholics of the neighborhood and forced to surrender. He contrived to
make his escape, but all the garrison were cruelly murdered. One of
these, Cœur de Roy by name, was taken to Auxerre, stripped, killed,
and cut in pieces. His heart was torn out of his body, and slices of
it were offered for sale. Some were such brutes (says the historian)
as to set them on the fire and eat them half-roasted. “And these are
the pious Christian duties,” he adds, “which we are taught by these
troubles!” This was in June: in August (1569) the houses in which 200
Huguenots had been shut up at Orleans were set on fire by the mob,
who drove back such as endeavored to escape from the flames. “A part
of them,” says a contemporary, “were seen clasping their hands in the
fire and calling upon the name of the Lord.” Some jumped out of the
windows and were immediately “bludgeoned” by the people in the street.
Others were shot like game. Some women also were killed, who, heedless
of the sacking of their houses, were lamenting the deaths of their
husbands, brothers, and others, whom they saw so pitilessly burned. It
is pleasanter to read of Marie de Barbançon, a widow lady, who gave an
asylum in her castle of Bonegon to the fugitive Protestants. The little
fortress, which was defended by 50 men only, was attacked by a force of
3000 horse and foot provided with artillery. They battered the walls
for fifteen days, but the brave woman still held out, and would not
surrender until all of her little garrison were killed or wounded.[442]
Nismes was captured in a singular manner. A Huguenot inhabitant of the
city, by the patient labor of fifteen nights, filed away the bar of an
iron gate which ran across a brook, and through the opening twenty of
the banished citizens re-entered the place and made themselves masters
of it in a few minutes.

At Cognat, near Gannat, the Calvinists of Auvergne, under the command
of Poncenac and Valbeleix, gained a pitched battle over the Catholics,
in whose ranks the Bishop of Le Puy, armed in helmet and cuirass,
fought like Orson with a ponderous club. At Dieppe the Huguenots were
commanded to leave the town or go to mass, and all refugees were
summoned to return under pain of having their property confiscated.
Not one obeyed the order. No Catholic was allowed to keep a Huguenot
servant; and all resistance was punished by the strappado, or by
a penitential progress through the city, which sometimes ended in
a flogging in the market-place, more frequently in a hanging. But
violence was not confined to one side only. The Protestants of the
neighborhood of Aurillac surprised that city, which in retaliation
for the brutalities committed in 1562 they sacked and destroyed. They
buried some Catholics alive up to the chin, and after a series of
filthy outrages, used their heads as targets for their muskets.[443]
Four hundred persons were put to death, of whom 130 were heads of
families.

Early in the spring the Huguenot army moved northward, and halting
at Nismes, which they reached in April, Coligny laid before them
the plan of his new campaign. He proposed marching up the Rhone, and
through Burgundy, so as to threaten Paris on the east, while the royal
armies were occupied in the west, and separated from him by rugged
mountain ranges. The boldness of the design startled the southern
Protestants, who refused to be taken so far from their homes; but about
5000 men agreed to follow him, of whom 3000 were arquebusiers, whom he
mounted on horseback.[444] With this flying camp he advanced to the
Rhone, and sending a detachment up the right bank to seek recruits in
the Vivarrais and the Cevennes, he crossed with the remainder into
Dauphiny, where Gordes was too weak to make effectual resistance.
Continual skirmishes, and petty sieges harassed, but did not interrupt,
Coligny’s progress; but the army suffered such great hardships, that
his illness, which compelled them to halt on St. Etienne in Forez, was
considered as any thing but a calamity. For some time he lay between
life and death, and his soldiers now first learned his value from their
fear of losing him. During three weeks the troops remained inactive; a
precious time which they employed in repairing some of the damage they
had suffered during their long march, and where they received a most
welcome reinforcement of 1500 cavalry under Briquemault.

Here, too, they were joined by the corps detached to the Vivarrais.
They had to make their painful way over rugged crests and along
horrible precipices, “the image of a world falling into ruin and
perishing of old age.”[445] Nothing grows on the stony flanks of these
exhausted craters but chestnut-trees, whose coarse fruit was not then
ripe.[446] In the higher passes the snow lay deep, as it frequently
does far into summer, and horse and rider often missed the way and
were seen no more. Few towns or even villages are to be found even
now in these wild districts, and the peasantry fare hard upon the
scanty supply of their flocks of sheep and goats. From gloomy gorges,
many of which are aptly named _Enfer_ or _Diable_, where
black precipitous rocks almost exclude the day, and through which dash
impetuous torrents, often dry in summer, and in winter impassable--from
these gorges the army suddenly emerged into a smiling valley, now the
scene of a most thriving industry!

As soon as Coligny had recovered his strength, the army was once more
put in motion, and in June reached Arnay-le-Duc in Burgundy, after a
march of nearly 1200 miles. Here Marshal Cossé attempted to stop him
with an army of 12,000 foot and 4000 horse with artillery, while the
Huguenot force barely exceeded 6000 men, mostly cavalry and no guns, so
great had been the losses since they left Poitou the previous autumn.
The battle began on the edge of a little brook which the Catholics
attempted to cross; but all their attacks, whether in front or in
flank, were unsuccessful. Throughout that long summer day (27th June,
1570), Cossé tried again and again, but every movement was met promptly
and resisted vigorously. At length night came--a welcome relief to the
petty band of Huguenots, whose losses, though numerically small, were
greater than Coligny could afford. The next day the two armies remained
face to face, the marshal being evidently afraid of so desperate an
enemy. “Here,” says Prince Henry, “was my first exploit in arms,[447]
the question being whether I should fight or retire. My nearest place
of retreat was forty miles distant, and, if I halted, I must certainly
lie at the mercy of the country people. By fighting, I ran the risk of
being taken or slain, for I had no cannon, and the king’s forces had,
and a gentleman was killed not ten paces distant from me by a cannon
shot. But commending the success of the day to God, it pleased him to
make it favorable and happy.”[448] Coligny warmly complimented the
young prince on his courage, and gave him some advice which he did
not forget in after years: “Do not ask how many have fallen? They are
Frenchmen, and I hope that ere long you and I will have to shed no more
French blood in our own defense.... If I have taught you by my firmness
to triumph over the cruelest obstacles, you have still to learn a more
valuable lesson from me--to avoid civil war at any price.”

Arnay le Duc is only sixty leagues from Paris, toward which Coligny
was advancing with a speed which the defeated and encumbered army of
Marshal Cossé could not overtake, even if he were anxious (which is
doubtful) to do so. A fresh body of auxiliaries was on its way from
Germany to reinforce Prince Henry; La Noue had not only saved Rochelle,
but recovered the greater part of Poitou; and the admiral had reached
Chatillon-sur-Loing, his patrimonial seat.[449] This was enough to
alarm the court and turn their thoughts to peace. After the battle
at La Roche-Abeille there had been an attempt at arrangement, and
also after Moncontour, but in both cases the language of the king and
council was very discouraging. At this juncture, however, the Moderate
party had recovered their ascendancy in the cabinet: “Five out of the
eight were atheists or Huguenots,” says the Spanish embassador.[450]
Yielding to their influence, the king and his mother were inclined to
be conciliatory, and to grant any reasonable terms; for the treasury
was empty, and the Swiss auxiliaries were threatening to return home
unless their arrears were paid. Nor were the Huguenots much better off.
Their army had received no pay for some time, their arms and equipments
were worn out, and they were far from their resources. La Noue tells us
that the prospect of a cessation of hostilities was not popular with
the extreme party on either side: the Catholics declaring it to be
“an unworthy deed to make peace with heretics, who deserved grievous
punishment; the Huguenots deeming it to be nothing but treason.”
Coligny himself appears to have held back at first, thinking probably
that no good could come from the negotiations; but his feelings on the
matter may be gathered from the faithful La Noue, who reports that
after the peace was signed he exclaimed: “I would rather die than fall
into the like confusions again, and see so many mischiefs committed
before my face.”

After some preliminary discussion, five negotiators were
appointed--Teligny, Beauvais, La Nocle, Cavaignes, and La
Chassetière--by whom the conditions of a treaty were soon arranged
and presented for the ratification of the king and the confederate
princes. Once more the papal nuncio and the Spanish embassador exerted
all their influence to prolong the war, even threatening Charles with
their master’s displeasure. But the French king, who had set his
mind upon peace, would listen to nothing, and the treaty was signed
at St. Germains in August, 1570. It conceded a full amnesty for the
past, all prisoners of war were to be released, and all confiscated
property restored; the appropriated churches were to be given back
to the Catholic priests; no one was to be troubled on account of his
religion; and the right of public worship was conceded to the Reformed
under certain restrictions. Huguenots were to enjoy equal rights with
the Catholics, and be eligible to every office in the State. The right
of appeal from the provincial parliaments was extended, and--galling
condition!--four cities (La Rochelle, Montauban, Cognac, and La
Charité) were to be held for two years by Huguenot garrisons as pledges
for the fulfillment of the treaty stipulations.

Immediately after the signing of the treaty, the Huguenots disbanded
their army; the German auxiliaries were paid off by a levy on the
Protestant churches; and the leaders proceeded to La Rochelle, where
Joan of Navarre was holding a little court. The royal army was marched
to various garrison towns and then partly disbanded. On their route
northward, an incident occurred which shows how little regard was felt
for human life: nothing hardens the heart more than civil war. When
Strozzi had to cross the Loire, he found his march so embarrassed
by the number of female camp-followers, who would not obey the
proclamations to leave the army, that he threw more than 800 of them
into the Loire at Pont de Cé above Angers.[451]

The color given to the next two years of the reign of Charles IX.
depends much upon the view we take of the Peace of St. Germains. Was
the court sincere, or only playing a part to entice the Huguenots into
a trap, and so get rid of them at one blow? This is the opinion of
many, and particularly of Davila, who says positively that the peace
was a snare.[452] But he is occasionally too subtle: he belongs to
that class of historians who think that kings and statesmen regulate
their policy by grand schemes of far-sighted calculation, instead of
living, as it were, from hand to mouth. The _imprévu_, to use an
apt French word, plays a much more important part in human affairs than
some historians are willing to believe. The Treaty of St. Germains--and
we have Walsingham’s express testimony to that effect[453]--was the
work of the Politicians, all good Catholics, like Cossé, Damville, and
Montmorency. Walsingham adds that the king had sharply rebuked the
mutinous Parisians, and told them that he meant to have the treaty
“duly observed.” He farther explains why Charles should have desired
peace: “His own disposition, necessity, pleasure, misliking with
certain of his council and favoring of others.” Walsingham already saw
the small cloud rising that would soon overshadow France: “Monsieur
(Anjou) can hardly digest to live in the degree of a subject, having
already the reputation of a king.”[454]

Languet’s testimony is equally decisive as to the pacific disposition
of Charles IX.[455] Contarini speaks doubtfully about the treaty,
although he says “peace was the aim and desire of the king and
queen.”[456] Indeed it was not Catherine’s policy to crush the
Huguenots utterly: she needed them as a counterpoise to the Guises,
who, though at this time rather out of favor at court, were, perhaps,
all the more popular among the fanatic masses.

It must be farther borne in mind that, at this turning-point of
Catherine’s policy, not only the pope was not consulted, but the court,
in making peace, acted in direct opposition to his representations. In
January, Pius V. strongly advised a continuance of the war,[457] and
when he heard of the treaty of St. Germains, he wrote to the Cardinals
of Lorraine and Bourbon, expressing his “fears that God would inflict
a judgment on the king and all who counseled and took part in the
infamous negotiations. We can not refrain from tears as we think how
deplorable the peace is to all good men; how full of danger, and what a
source of bitter regret.”

It would have been very easy to quiet the holy father by telling him
that the treaty was a snare; but nothing of the kind was done; and,
on the contrary, the king and his mother both represented to him
the necessity of peace. Pius replied in angry tones, and the court
made answer that the king was master in his own dominions to do as
he pleased. In a somewhat similar manner, Spain tried to thwart the
negotiations; Philip II. even offered to send Charles a force of 3000
horse and 6000 foot, provided he would engage never to make peace with
the heretic rebels. But this attempt to prolong the war also failed,
and we learn from Walsingham’s dispatches that a great coolness sprang
up between the two courts.

There is a letter written on the 10th December, four months after
the signature of the treaty, which shows very plainly the feeling of
the government. The clergy of Tours had complained of the licensed
Protestant meeting-place at Maillé, and petitioned that it should be
removed to Montdoubleau or elsewhere. Charles replied that he would
willingly grant their prayer, could he do so without contravening
the Edict, which he was determined “to keep and observe inviolably;”
but he promised to consult with Navarre and Condé on the matter, and
if possible, with their consent, the change should be made.[458]
Two months later (13th February, 1571), Charles writes to Humières,
governor of Peronne and an old friend, expressing his satisfaction
at the peaceful state of the country and his intention to reduce the
army.[459]

In the Archives of Gap there is a letter from the king to the
_baillis_, in which he rejoices at the prosperous state of the
kingdom and good conduct of the people; testifies the liveliest
desire to consolidate union and concord between all his subjects, and
recommends them “de tenir la main à l’exécution exacte de son édit
de pacification, et de punir ceux qui y contreviendraient” (4th May,
1572). Charles was proud of the treaty of St. Germains, spoke of it as
his own treaty and his own peace, artfully insinuating (adds Sully,
a prejudiced witness) that he consented to this peace in order to
support the princes of the blood against the overweening presumption
of the Guises, whom he accused of conspiring with Spain to throw the
kingdom into confusion. The Guises certainly had nothing to do with
the treaty. They opposed it instead of supporting it; a course they
would hardly have adopted had they been aware that it was a trap for
the Huguenots. The Cardinal of Lorraine even wished to leave the court,
so strongly did he disapprove of the negotiations. Fornier indeed,
in his unpublished history of the house of Guise, says that it was
the cardinal who proposed “ce grand coup d’état”--the peace and the
massacre--and that it was approved of by the king in a council to which
the queen-mother, Anjou, the Duke of Guise, and De Retz, “tous gens
d’un secret inviolable,” were summoned;[460] but the duke was not in
favor at the time, and the statement is entirely unsupported. It is
also positive that Anjou greatly disapproved of the negotiations.

But it is contended that all these things were part of the
plot--Anjou’s dislike, the duke’s absence, the king’s zeal. It may
be so; but this hypothesis involves us in greater difficulties than
the other. If we assume that the government was sincere, every thing
becomes clear for the next two years; if we adopt the contrary opinion,
the course of events up to the eve of the massacre is an inextricable
maze. True, it is impossible to say whether Catherine accepted the
treaty without any _arrière-pensée_, any mental reservation;
for she accepted every thing, and was sincere in nothing except her
master-passion--to govern France. For this, she not only played one
party against the other, but habitually dallied with opposing schemes,
intriguing now on this side, now on that, deceiving and betraying all.
The most serious objection to the sincerity of the government is the
shyness, the unwillingness of the Reformed chiefs to go to court, or
even to visit their own estates. But then, if they suspected treachery,
why did they consent to the treaty of St. Germains, or to any treaty,
thus preparing a snare for themselves? Better die in the field
struggling for liberty, than perish ingloriously like rats in a trap.
Sully, in a measure, clears away the doubt just raised. In his “Royal
Economies” he says: “With a view of giving _a more solid foundation
and consistency to their affairs_, they resolved to take up their
residence _permanently_ at La Rochelle, within the walls of which
they could alone consider themselves in security.”




                              CHAPTER X.

                      THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM.

                   [August, 1570, to August, 1572.]

   Albert and Pierre de Gondi, Birague, Strozzi, Nevers, and
   Henry of Guise--Marriage of Charles IX--Nuptial Festivities at
   Paris--Embassy of the German Princes--Violent Sermons--Outrages
   at Orange and Rouen--Objects of the Politiques--Revolt in
   Flanders--Position of Affairs--Interview between the King and
   Prince Louis of Nassau--Spanish Threats--Coligny’s Marriage--The
   Admiral goes to Blois--Conferences with the King--Proposed
   Marriage of Henry and Margaret--Murder of Lignerolles--The
   Gastine Cross--Queen of Navarre at Blois--Alessandrino’s Special
   Embassy--Letters to Rome--Negotiations--Pope refuses the
   Dispensation--Fears of the Parisians.


The Peace of St. Germains was a severe blow to the foreigners by whom
the court was infested. Their interests were entirely opposed to those
of France, and their great object was to enrich themselves, by any
means however base and unworthy. They were found everywhere--filling up
the rich sees, wealthy abbacies, court places--where money could be got
without peril to life or toil of body. Their expulsion seemed to be the
only means of saving the country and ensuring that permanent concord at
which the “Politiques” had aimed in supporting the late treaty.

The chief among these foreigners were Gondi, Birague, and Strozzi.
Albert de Gondi--better known in history as Marshal de Retz--was a man
of low origin, his mother acting as wet-nurse to Catherine’s children,
so that Albert and Charles IX. were foster-brothers, and thus there
naturally grew up a strong attachment between them. After the death
of Henry II. Albert rose rapidly, and was made successively knight of
the orders of St. Michael and of the Holy Ghost, first gentleman of
the bed-chamber, privy councilor, general of the galleys, duke, peer,
marshal, and governor of Provence, in which he succeeded Marshal Tende,
“to the great indignation of the nobility,” says De Thou.[461] It was
this man who, appointed governor to the young king Charles, corrupted
and perverted all his promising qualities. His latter days were very
miserable: for twenty years he lingered on, not living but suffering,
and died in 1602, an example of divine justice.[462]

    Abstulit hunc tandem Rufini pœna tumultum,
    Absolvitque Deos.

Pierre de Gondi was chancellor to the queen, bishop, Duke of Langres,
and then of Paris, the possessor of four abbeys, commander of the order
of the Holy Ghost, and cardinal. There was another brother, Charles,
also well provided for.

René de Birague, who had succeeded the virtuous L’Hopital in the
chancellorship, was a Milanese, and in succession lawyer, soldier,
courtier, priest, chancellor, and cardinal. He was a thorough Italian,
careless of religion, unscrupulous, fond of intrigue, time-serving,
and slavishly submissive to the king’s caprices. Mezeray describes him
as “a magistrate without learning or application, who bent like a reed
before every breath of wind from the court.” It was he who advised
Charles IX. to get rid of the Huguenots, not by the help of soldiers
but of cooks--in other words, by poison. Philip Strozzi, son of the
brave but unfortunate Marshal Pietro Strozzi, became, at the early age
of twenty-two, quarter-master of the French guards, and colonel-general
of the French infantry, which gave him almost unlimited authority. The
French soldiers murmured at being placed under his orders.[463]

Louis de Gonzaga was another of this Italian band. One historian calls
him “a worthy prince,” but his worth was due more to his timidity
than to his honesty.[464] These were the principal confidants of the
queen-mother, and their only aim was to preserve what they had got. The
chief of the Guises was Henry of Lorraine, surnamed “le Balafré.” He
was not so good a soldier as his father, but was a tall, handsome man,
with keen eye, light beard and curly hair; liberal to profusion, easy
in speech, well read in Tacitus, and perfect in all bodily and military
exercises. But his good qualities were marred by an insatiable thirst
for glory and a desire for authority. When Henry III. asked how it was
that Duke Henry enchanted every body, the reply was: “He does good to
all and speaks ill of none.” He had succeeded to most of the great
charges of his father, as grand master, high chamberlain, and governor
of Champagne.

The peace of St. Germains was acceptable to the larger portion of the
Huguenot party, many of whom had not visited their homes since the
first outbreak of the wars, and their affairs had become so disordered
that ruin appeared almost inevitable. The noise of the trumpet and the
drum had drowned the quieter voice of religion, the Protestant churches
were decaying, discipline was relaxed, and doctrine becoming unsound.
A general synod was required to put these matters straight, and this,
the seventh, was by the king’s permission held at Rochelle in April,
1571, under the presidency of Theodore Beza. The Queen of Navarre
and the young princes of Bearn and Condé were present at the opening
ceremony along with the admiral and Count Louis of Nassau. The great
work of this synod was to revise the confession of 1559, and issue an
authoritative text, of which three copies on parchment were made. One
of these standards was to be kept at Rochelle, another at Geneva, and a
third at Pau in Bearn. The first and last disappeared during the civil
wars.

Very different were the occupations of the court, which an historian,
whom I have often consulted with advantage, describes as being “more
licentious than that of Francis I., without the varnish of gallantry
which conceals the excesses of passion.”[465] Catherine was fond of
ease: her voluptuous Italian nature delighted in balls and masquerades,
in _fêtes_ and banquets. She could now once more indulge her
taste for the arts, and during this period we find her busy with her
new palace of the Tuileries, laying out gardens, talking with Bernard
Palissy, now a man of note; or with Jean Bullant, whose reputation has
been dwarfed by the greater renown of his predecessor Philip de l’Orme.
Wherever she went, a gay troop of beautiful women accompanied her.
Their charms were employed to convert the queen’s foes into friends,
and to learn the secrets of her enemies. “Le bal marcha toujours,”
growls that rough old warrior Montluc.

The king’s marriage was an opportunity for gayeties not to be lost.
It is said that one of his motives for concluding the treaty of St.
Germains was the unwillingness of the Emperor Maximilian to part with
his daughter while France was in a state of civil commotion. There
may have been other causes of delay, for very unfavorable reports
of the king’s health and disposition had got abroad. His character
certainly had not improved during the few years he had occupied the
throne. He was fond of athletic sports, and excelled in jumping and
tennis. He took delight in shoeing horses and working at the forge,
like a blacksmith.[466] He was addicted to the chase “even to frenzy,”
passing whole days and nights in the woods.[467] This made him “cruel
toward beasts, but _not_ toward men.”[468] Sometimes he and his
madcap associates would tear along the roads, decapitating any unlucky
donkey he might encounter, or transfixing stray pigs with his hunting
spear.[469] Then, as if maddened by the sight of blood, he would dabble
in their entrails like a butcher. He was fond of practical jokes; often
at night he would break into the bedrooms of his young companions, pull
them out of bed, and flog them as if they were school-boys. He was not
licentious, and Marie Touchet was the object of a sincere passion.
Perjury seemed to him nothing but a figure of speech and no crime; he
therefore violated his word as often as it seemed profitable to do
so. But fortunately for the human race “men are not all evil,” and in
his lucid moments--for Charles was at times quite insane--he appears
affectionate and desirous of doing what is right. When at Bayonne, he
quite disgusted the unscrupulous Alva by saying that to take up arms
against his own subjects was quite out of the question, and could only
be followed by general ruin. Though no soldier, he had seen service
at the sieges of Bourges, Rouen, Havre, and St. Jean d’Angely, and
possessed all the ambition of his race to extend the frontiers of
his kingdom. There were times when he courted the society of men
of letters, and would shut himself up with “his friends” Ronsard,
Baif, Passerat, or Theodore Corneille, to compose verses. Nor was he
himself a stranger to the Muses, if the fragments ascribed to him
are really from his pen. Even his treatise on hunting--_La Chasse
royale_--shows him to have possessed considerable skill. Such was
the man to whose word the Huguenots had entrusted their property and
lives, and to whom the Emperor of Germany was about to entrust his
daughter. Perhaps it was hoped that the amiable Elizabeth would tame
him down, as in later years and in another country Peter the Czar was
controlled by the low-born Catherine.

The betrothal took place at Spires on the 22d of October, and the
marriage was solemnized on the 26th of November at Mézières. The
festivities by which it was followed lasted all winter. In the
following March the new queen entered Paris under a rustic gate-way,
“finer than had ever been seen before, and looking quite natural on
account of the herbs, snails, and lizards depicted on it.” We could
almost fancy it a contrivance of Bernard Palissy’s. The queen rode
in an open litter hung with cloth of silver within and without, and
the mules that bore it were similarly adorned. Elizabeth herself
was covered with jewels, and wore a dazzling crown on her head. The
corporation of the city made their usual tiresome harangues, which they
followed up by presenting the young queen with a silver gilt buffet,
and then invited her to partake of a collation at the Hôtel-de-Ville,
at which the refreshments were of the choicest description. “There was
every kind of fruit found in the world, and every sort of meat and
fish, all made out of sugar and looking quite natural.” The dishes
containing these _chefs-d’œuvre_ of the confectionery art were
also of silver. Poets and musicians contributed in their respective
departments, and the king was so pleased with their performances that
they were induced--especially Baif and Theodore Corneille--to propose
the founding of an Academy of Music and Poetry.

The decorations of the bridge of Notre Dame will serve to show the
magnificence of the age and the feelings entertained by the court with
regard to the recent pacification. A triumphal arch had been erected
at each extremity, and the roadway covered in by an awning on which
the ciphers and heraldic bearings of the royal pair were represented
in flowers and evergreens. “It looked like a vision of the Elysian
fields.”[470] Between every window on the first floor of the houses
were half-figures of nymphs bearing fruits and flowers; above them
were wreaths of laurel from which depended the shields of the several
members of the royal family with emblematical devices. At the crown of
each arch stood a statue on an altar: in one place a Victory, bound to
an olive-tree, “indicated allegorically how the marriage of Charles and
Elizabeth secured the welfare and repose of their people.” On one of
the panels of the base an altar was represented, by the side of which
stood a priest in his sacerdotal robes, and near him a lamb for the
sacrifice. This was intended to signify that whosoever violated the
Edict of Pacification should suffer the fate of the lamb. At the four
corners stood four armed men representing the four marshals of France,
empowered to carry out and enforce the edict. _Fœdus immortelle_
was the motto. On another panel bees were represented storing honey
among a pile of arms, with two lines from Ovid, showing the happy
effects of peace.

In another place a spider was seen weaving his web over a bundle of
swords, gauntlets, morions, and such like, with an inscription from
Theocritus, explaining how sure a sign this was of peace and oblivion
of past quarrels. But among the masques given during these nuptial
festivities there was one in which Charles IX. appeared as Jupiter,
Elizabeth as Minerva, and Catherine as Juno, while the Huguenots were
represented as Typhon and the Giants. One of the devices was strikingly
suggestive of impending treachery:

    Cadme, relinque ratem; pastoria sibila finge;
    Fas superare dolo, quem vis non vincit aperta.

It would, however, be unfair to give political importance to what was
probably nothing more than the unauthorized language of a court poet.
One little incident connected with these rejoicings may be adduced,
however, to show the bigoted temper of the Parisians: they were
scandalized that the court should amuse itself with balls and banquets,
and other festivities during the season of Lent!

One thing was wanting to these rejoicings--none of the Protestant
leaders were present. They still kept aloof at Rochelle, endeavoring to
give consistency to their affairs. “And they did wisely,” says the Abbé
Perau in his Life of Coligny; “for orders had been issued to arrest
the principal of them immediately upon their arrival.” This statement,
although corroborated by the compiler of the “Mémoires de l’Etat de
France,” may well be doubted. The air was thick with suspicions, some
of which had evidently reached the German Protestant courts; and to
show the interest they took in the condition of their co-religionists
in France, the electors-palatine of Saxony and Brandenburg, the dukes
of Bavaria, Brunswick, and Wurtemburg, and others, resolved to send
an embassy to congratulate Charles on his marriage. Charles received
the embassadors at Villars-Cotterets, a magnificent mansion built by
Francis I. They began by complimenting him: “Our masters know that your
majesty, being so young, was not the author of the late war. It was the
work of certain turbulent and wicked men, who take delight in disorders
and confusion. Continue to deserve that most august of titles--the
_Peacemaker_--and punish sternly every one who attempts to cause
any fresh disturbance in your kingdom.... In the multitude of people,
as the Wise Man saith, is the king’s honor (Proverbs xiv. 28), and
the principal law imposed by God and nature upon kings and princes
is the preservation of their subjects. Those who would induce you to
break your faith, saying that it is impossible for a state to exist
where there is a diversity of religion, speak differently from what
they think, or are ignorant of what has been done in many great and
flourishing states.” The embassadors showed him that the Grand Turk
permitted Christians to live at peace in his dominions, that the
Emperor Charles V. had come to terms with the Protestants of Germany,
and that even the pope suffered Jews to settle in his states. “God
alone,” they said, “can command the consciences of men; and be assured,
Sire, that those are your best subjects and your best friends who urge
you to the observance of all you have promised in your edicts of
peace.” Charles thanked them for their kind expressions, and said that
it was his ardent desire to maintain peace between all his subjects,
as the sole means of prosperity to his kingdom. He then dismissed the
embassadors in the most courteous manner, embracing them and loading
them with presents. Charles used similar language in his address to
the Parliament of Paris in March, 1571. “I thank God,” he said “that
the troubles are over, and hope above all things to establish peace so
surely, that my subjects will never fall again into the calamities from
which they have been rescued. I will set to work earnestly, and trust
that you will support me.”[471]

Such an appeal was quite necessary, for the conciliatory Edict of St.
Germains--a mere repetition of the articles of the treaty--had not
always been scrupulously carried out. This depended in great measure
upon the views the provincial governors took of the edict; some
rendering it almost nugatory by the way in which they interpreted it,
others giving it the most liberal construction. Thus in the regulations
published at Gap (10th February, 1571), Montmorency-Damville, relying
upon the Thirteenth Article of the treaty, forbade the Reformers to
assemble to the number of more than ten at the funeral of one of their
co-religionists. And yet this was considered a pacificatory order. He
also assigned the town of Chorges, four leagues north of Gap, as the
authorized place of worship for the Upper Alps. It was a long distance
for the Reformers to go every Sunday; but these were times of religious
fervor, and as the Huguenots walked along, singing their hymns, they
forgot the fatigues of the way.[472]

In many places, the clergy in their pulpits pandered to the worst
passions of their ignorant flocks. The king and the queen-mother were
denounced as traitors--one was a Judas, the other a Jezebel--because
they did not order the “rascally heretics” to be slaughtered. The fires
of Sodom and Gomorrah were invoked upon the heads of the Huguenots.
“Arise, Joshua, and smite Makkeddah with the edge of the sword.” Joshua
was Anjou, and Makkeddah Rochelle. These ravings did not fall to the
ground.[473] On Sunday, the 4th March, 1571, as the Protestants of
Rouen were going to divine worship outside the city walls, they were
attacked and beaten, and fifteen were killed. Still greater atrocities
had been perpetrated at Orange in the preceding month, the murders
continuing for three days, during which the popular fury spared neither
women nor children. Such things naturally tended to make the Huguenot
chiefs suspicious, and to perpetuate the division of the people into
two hostile camps.

The great object of the _Politicians_ who had brought about the
Treaty of St. Germains, was to make France independent at home and
respected abroad; above all things, to get rid of Spanish influence
in their domestic affairs. That patriotic party knew well how Philip
II. had fomented their civil dissensions,[474] and they saw that a
long continuance of peace was hopeless unless the foreign intriguers
could be got rid of. The king himself had a glimpse of this truth, and
was besides very jealous of the position assumed by his brother of
Anjou. The queen-mother also expressed her dislike of the attitude
taken by Philip; but she was so thoroughly false that no reliance could
be placed upon any thing she said. It is not necessary to go back
to the Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis in 1559, which contained nothing
particularly humiliating, and had been condoned by the subsequent
intercourse between the two countries, although it must have been very
galling to French pride--as indeed to the pride of any nation--to
surrender its conquests. The active interference of Spain in the
politics of France began with the criminal intrigues of the house
of Lorraine. Their fanatical and spurious orthodoxy was, as we have
seen, ardently supported by Philip II., who never ceased personally,
or through his embassador, to urge the complete destruction of the
Huguenots. He even went so far, on more than one occasion, as to
threaten war, if the court made any concession to the heretics. We
have seen the result: France had been rent in pieces by civil war, and
Protestantism was as strong as ever. To this Spain had brought them:
might it not be possible, by reversing the policy, to reverse the
results? The opportunity was not unfavorable, and there were grievances
to be redressed. The Flemings were still in open revolt: the cruelties
of the blood-thirsty Alva had given an intensity to their hatred,
which nothing but total extermination could subdue. It would not be
prudent to allow the duke to go too far, and if by a word from France
the insurgents could be stimulated to farther sacrifices, Philip II.
would be so weakened that he would cease to be a dangerous neighbor. It
must not be forgotten that Spain was at this time the first power in
Europe. The successes of Alva, the expulsion of the Moors, the victory
of Lepanto, and the conquests in Northern Africa, showed that her vigor
was undiminished; and though her humiliation was at hand, nothing at
this time indicated any failure of her resources. It was the image of
Daniel: gold, silver, brass, and iron, but with feet of clay; and the
small stone destined to smite it was one of the smallest powers in
Europe. Had France seen her own true interest, she, and not England,
might “have become a great mountain and filled the whole earth.”

The Venetian embassador, Correro, writing on the prospect of war with
Spain, represents, as one of the many grounds of hatred between the
Spaniards and the French, that Flanders naturally belongs to France,
and that a campaign to recover it would give employment to the cadets
of the noble families. It would not cost a drop of blood, if France
were only to promise “the same liberty of conscience which her own
subjects enjoyed.” Add to this, Charles was offended: “Spain seemeth to
set the king here very light, which engendreth in him a great desire of
revenge, but lacketh treasure to make open demonstration thereof.”[475]

These were the ideas, not of Protestants only, but of undoubted
Catholics, men of whose orthodoxy there can be no suspicion. L’Hopital
had once been the directing spirit of this moderate party; but, since
his retirement from public life, Marshal Francis Montmorency, eldest
son of the constable, became their leader. Philip knew him well, and
feared him as the most formidable of his enemies in France. He was
seconded by his brother Damville, by Cossé, Biron, and others. It
was Montmorency who (according to Tavannes) had saved the Huguenots
at Moncontour by preventing the victory from being followed up; and,
according to Walsingham, the Peace of St. Germains was his work. By
the mere force of personal character, he had become a very influential
man, and Charles showed him the greatest affection. One day, when the
king had visited him at his castle of Chantilly, he told his royal
master that there could be no lasting peace, unless Protestants and
Catholics could be persuaded to live together in harmony: that, or the
extermination of one of the parties, was the only alternative. But how
was the present hostile state of things to be remedied? By uniting both
parties against their common enemy, Spain.[476] It is not known with
whom the idea arose, whether with Montmorency or Cossé; but it was
eagerly taken up by the king, who hoped in the coming war to gather
laurels that would shame those won by his brother of Anjou.

A feeling of uneasiness and distrust had for some time past been
growing up between France and Spain. When the Duke of Alva had asked
permission to recruit volunteers in France for the Flemish war,
it was refused, lest the Huguenots should think it “a device to
reach themselves.”[477] To the demand that certain ships, supposed
to be fitting out at La Rochelle against Spain, should be seized,
Mondoucet, the French agent to Alva, replied that some of the ships
were intended to act against the pirates who infested the narrow seas,
and as for those which belonged to private persons, the crown could
not interfere. St. Goar, the embassador at Madrid, was instructed to
make similar explanations. This was a mere evasion, for the power of
the crown had never been so limited in France. As William of Orange
was in want of funds to carry on his heroic struggle in Flanders, his
brother Louis of Nassau endeavored to procure a loan from Duke Cosmo
I. of Florence. Charles supported the scheme by offering to recognize
the duke’s title to the crown of Tuscany, and aid him in his attempt
on Corsica, provided he would assist the Flemish insurgents with
money.[478] The duke refused, but the king still continued faithful
to his idea of a war against Spain. The diplomatic correspondence of
the period is full of references to it. During all this time Coligny
was actively corresponding with Montmorency; and at his suggestion a
private interview was arranged between Charles and Count Louis, which
took place in a garden of the castle of Lumigny, about a league from
Fontenay-en-Brie, where the king had gone on the pretense of rabbit
hunting. Its object was kept a secret from the royal councilors; for
Charles was well assured that if they became acquainted with it, they
would communicate it to the court of Spain. We may imagine that the
count spoke of his recent conversations with the admiral, and that, as
a Protestant, he would not start objections to any plan of assisting
his fellow-countrymen which the king might entertain. He gave weight
to his prayer for aid by offering in return the valuable provinces of
Flanders and Artois (for which promise he had no authority from his
brother William); and hinted that, at the next vacation of the empire,
the choice of the electors might fall upon Charles. Louis succeeded in
convincing him that his former advisers had counseled him unwisely,
and that he had narrowly escaped falling into the same position as
Philip II. held toward his Flemish subjects. The king promised to take
into his most serious consideration all that the count had told him,
reserving to himself the right to disavow any projects that might
be ascribed to him, until the time for action had arrived.[479] The
secret interview soon became known, and the Spanish embassador, Alava,
threatened the displeasure of his royal master. Charles and his mother
both answered evasively, adding: “As for fearing us with wars, you
do mistake us; let every one do therein what best liketh him.”[480]
Affairs were hurrying on more quickly than Charles had anticipated;
Spain was threatening war, and no preparations had been made. A
matrimonial alliance between Anjou and Elizabeth, which would place
the resources of England at the disposal of France, was the key of the
position; but the queen was coy, and refused to give a decided answer.
Without such close alliance war with Spain was impossible; for England
cast a longing eye on Flanders, and would regard the French conquests
in that quarter with suspicion. What was to be done? Should Charles
give way, or brave the consequences? There was only one man in France
competent to advise on such a point, and he still remained aloof at
Rochelle.

When Louis of Nassau left that city to confer with Charles, he bore a
letter from the admiral, complaining of a plot that had been got up to
treat the Huguenots worse than before, and that no attempt had been
made to punish the perpetrators of the outrages at Orange and Rouen.
He then went on to justify his suspicions and his absence from the
court: “It will be difficult for those of the religion to believe that
your majesty desires things should go on well, so long as they see the
authors of the tumults about him.” He followed up this side-blow at
the Guises by suggesting that all suspicions would be allayed were the
king to punish the perpetrators of the outrages at Rouen and Orange.
Charles IX. acted upon the advice: he sent a commission of inquiry to
Rouen. Many of the rioters were hanged, but the ringleaders escaped
and found shelter among the Catholics, who seem to have received them
rather as heroes than as criminals; much in the same way as a murderer
is still harbored among the Irish peasantry. The king also manifested
great displeasure toward his brother of Anjou, and so openly insulted
the Duke of Guise that he had no alternative but to leave the court.

Count Louis returned to Rochelle strongly impressed with the king’s
gracious demeanor, and urged Coligny to accept his sovereign’s
invitation to court. He spoke of the projected matrimonial alliance
between England and France, which was manifestly hostile to Spain,
and would strengthen the Huguenot cause; and showed the draft of a
treaty, by which Charles promised to attack Flanders on one side, while
the Prince of Orange attacked it on the other. Marshal Cossé, one of
the “Politicians,” confirmed this report. The admiral’s son-in-law,
Teligny, had also returned from the court with a flattering account of
the king’s demeanor. Charles at this time was seen in a most favorable
light, and it was evident that the quiet influence of his amiable wife
was beginning to be felt in his character. He was less boisterous in
his amusements, less changeable in temper, and seemed to have buried
the past in oblivion. Indeed he went so far in his display of good-will
toward the Huguenots as to raise a suspicion that he supported them
designedly against his mother, his brother Henry, and the Guises. “I
am no longer so young,” he said, “as to need a governor. I am willing
to listen to advice, but will receive no orders. I am sick of war,
and _my peace_ shall be observed. I have been deceived all along
about the Huguenots, and for the future will keep the factions in order
myself.” He complained to Teligny, for whom he had conceived a strong
liking,[481] that his mother kept him in thraldom, and preferred Anjou
to him; that she governed the realm in such a way that he was of no
account; and that to remedy this he was resolved to send both of them
away from the court; and that he wanted Coligny’s advice, especially
with regard to the proposed war in Flanders. In fact every thing seemed
now to turn upon the admiral’s presence at court.

While these negotiations were in progress, the little Huguenot court at
Rochelle was the scene of nuptial festivities, the admiral having taken
a second wife, and given his daughter Louisa to Teligny.[482] Coligny’s
marriage had a tinge of romance in it that could hardly have been
expected. Jacqueline of Montbel, Countess of Entremont, and widow of
Claude, Baron of Anthon, who was killed at Dreux (or, as others write,
at St. Denis), was so captivated by his heroism that she made him an
offer of her hand, having the ambition (as she said) to be the Marcia
of the new Cato.[483] As if he were of royal lineage, the admiral was
married by proxy. When the bride approached Rochelle, escorted by fifty
gentlemen of her kindred, the bridegroom went out a league to meet her.
Cannon roared a noisy salute, and all the bells which the Huguenots
had spared rang merrily from the steeples, as the noble lady entered
the city. To show their esteem for the admiral, the citizens mustered
under arms and lined the streets from the gate to the Hôtel Coligny,
where a great concourse of nobles and gentlemen had assembled to do
him honor. The marriage was a happy one, despite the inversion of the
ordinary mode of courtship. On becoming a widow once more, Jacqueline
returned to Savoy, where she was imprisoned on a charge of witchcraft,
her wealth being the real crime. Henry IV. ineffectually interceded for
her, and she died insane at the castle of Nice, 1599.

Coligny, happy in his domestic life, had little desire to leave
Rochelle for the treacherous atmosphere of the court. But Charles could
not do without him, and Elizabeth of England felt that his presence was
necessary for the success of the delicate negotiations then in hand.
Walsingham had written to her, recommending that she should hint to
La Mothe-Fénelon, the French embassador, that she would like to see
Charles “calling the princes and admiral to court, and that so rare a
subject as the admiral is, was not to be suffered to live in such a
corner as Rochelle.” Walsingham adds that the king was now “very well
affected toward him” (Coligny). In another letter he says he is going
to Blois, where the princes and the admiral are to meet, and that all
“opposition was vain.” “I am most constantly assured that the king
conceiveth of no subject he hath better than of the admiral, and great
hope there is that the king will use him in matters of greatest trust;
for of himself he beginneth to see the insufficiency of others: some
for that they are more addicted to others than to himself; other, for
that they are more Spanish than French.... The queen-mother, seeing
her son so well affected toward the admiral, laboreth by all means to
cause him to think well of her.”[484] Catherine had assured Teligny
and Count Louis that she earnestly desired the Treaty of St. Germains
to be observed for the repose and welfare of the kingdom; that the
king needed the admiral’s advice; and that it was a sad thing for the
princes of the blood to keep aloof from the court. Coligny gave way at
last; and when the Queen of Navarre expostulated with him he replied:
“Madame, I confide implicitly in the word and honor of my royal master.
It is not life to exist in the midst of perpetual alarms; and I would
rather die by one effectual blow, than live a hundred years subject to
cowardly apprehensions.” He received many warnings, but took no heed of
them.

The admiral left Rochelle escorted by fifty gentlemen, “not because he
doubted the king’s word, but to be secure against private enemies,” and
arrived at Blois on the 12th September, where he was received with the
most flattering attentions. Being conducted into the audience-chamber
he fell on his knees, but Charles raised him up saying, as he embraced
him, “Father, we have you at last; you shall not escape when you wish.
This is the happiest day of my life. You are more welcome than any
one I have seen these twenty years.” The queen-mother kissed him,
and took him into Anjou’s apartments, for the young duke was just
then “a little indisposed.”[485] The admiral was quite charmed with
his youthful sovereign: they were so much together, and so often in
private conference, that Catherine grew jealous: “He sees too much of
the admiral,” she said, “and too little of me.”[486] The chief topic
of their conversation was the proposed war in Flanders. It was a maxim
with Coligny, that France could not be quieted down except by engaging
in a foreign war. When Brantome was at Rochelle he told the gossiping
abbé, that if “the Huguenots were not occupied and amused abroad, they
would certainly begin their quarrels again at home; such restless
fellows are they, and so fond of plunder.” In the Low Countries he saw
a field for their activity. Warming at the thoughts of the sufferings
which the Protestants of Flanders had endured so long, he expatiated
to the king on the heroic patience of William of Orange, and the
glorious opportunity then presented of repaying Spain for the evils she
had inflicted on France. Charles caught fire at the eloquent appeal:
the martial ardor of his race broke out in him: “I too shall win
battles--in my own name--with my own sword.” He entered into the scheme
with his whole heart, and promised effectual help to the Prince of
Orange, to whom he had already restored his little principality on the
banks of the Rhone. Nor did he forget the admiral, whose property had
been confiscated: he was reinstated in his seat at the council-board,
and received a present of 100,000 crowns, “not so much a wedding-gift
as a tribute to the first captain of the age.” Charles farther promised
to use his influence with the Duke of Savoy to restore the estates
of his wife which had been sequestered. He also interceded in behalf
of certain Vaudois, who for fighting under Coligny had been stripped
of their property and expelled from their homes. “I wish to make you
a request,” wrote the king to the duke, “and it is on a matter that
I have very much at heart. At my special prayer and recommendation,
pray receive these poor creatures into favor again, and restore them
to their homes and their goods. The cause is so just and so earnestly
desired on my part, that I feel assured you will listen to me. Written
at Blois, 28th September, 1571.”

After a brief stay at court the admiral went to Chatillon, where he
tried to restore order to his affairs. The king regularly corresponded
with him, chiefly on his favorite subject, the war with Spain.
Meanwhile the Duke of Guise was in Paris, and the rumor of his
proceedings and conversations became so threatening, that Coligny
petitioned for a guard of soldiers to protect him. Charles replied with
his own hand, that he would be pleased to see the admiral “using all
diligence in providing for his personal safety,” and permitted him to
have the guard he needed.[487] Coligny stayed five weeks at Chatillon,
receiving many warnings as to the treachery of the court, but paying
no attention to them, making the same answer to all which he had given
to his wife before leaving Rochelle: “I must not upon ill-grounded
suspicion cause the king to change the good feeling he entertains for
us into a hatred which it would be impossible to make him lay aside
again.” At the end of October he went to Paris, whither he had been
summoned. Catherine took him in her arms and kissed him, and Charles
received him as if honoring him above all his subjects.[488] The object
of the visit was to consult about the marriage of Henry of Bearn with
Margaret of Valois, the king’s sister.

While Charles was on a visit to Chantilly, Francis of Montmorency had
suggested that the best means of conciliating the hostile parties
would be to unite his sister Margaret to Prince Henry of Bearn.[489]
This union between the two branches of the royal house was no new
scheme. The prince, while yet a child, was presented to Henry II.,
who was so pleased with the boy that he asked him if he would be his
son. “This is my father,” replied the child in the Bearnais patois,
pointing to the King of Navarre. “Well then,” said the king, “will you
be my son-in-law?” “Oh! with all my heart,” answered the sturdy little
fellow, and from that time his marriage with Margaret, a princess four
years old, was resolved upon. Anthony of Navarre was delighted, and
wrote to his sister the Duchess of Nevers (Margaret of Bourbon), that
“this alliance was the thing in the world he most desired to obtain,
and which from thenceforward placed both his repose and prosperity
upon a secure basis.” Joan also wrote to an old friend: “To cheer and
console you in your sickness, I send you the news ... that his majesty
has been pleased to grant this favor, for which I will not try to
conceal the joy and satisfaction I feel.” This was in 1557; and in
1560, soon after the death of Francis II., Catherine wrote to the Queen
of Navarre, pressing her to visit the court, and proposing to connect
the families still closer by a marriage between “little Catherine” of
Bearn and Henry Duke of Anjou: “Such an alliance,” she said, “will
render our union indissoluble.” This, however, never came to any thing;
but in 1562 we find the project revived, when Catherine feared that
Anthony of Navarre was slipping out of her control.[490]

At one time it had been proposed to give Margaret to Sebastian of
Portugal, the same romantic king who died battling valiantly against
the Moors in Africa. But that match failing through the hostility
of Philip II., who grossly insulted the French court, an alliance
was sought nearer home. Margaret tells us how the matter was first
broached, and what was her reply: “I begged my mother to remember
that I was very Catholic.” Joan of Navarre, who had since adopted the
Reformed creed, was not so eager for the marriage as she had once
been. Far from being dazzled by the prospect of such a brilliant
alliance for the heir of the petty house of Navarre, she said: “I
would rather descend to be the lowliest woman in France, than sacrifice
my son, or my son’s soul, to grandeur.”[491] It would have been well
for Prince Henry had the obstacles raised against the marriage proved
insurmountable. It was naturally opposed by the Guises; not, as some
write, because the duke aspired to Margaret’s hand; for he had been
married several months to Catherine of Cleves, the widow of Prince
Porcien;[492] but because it would strengthen the throne, and make the
Huguenot influence predominant. The nuncio and the Spanish embassador
also opposed the match;[493] but Charles was not to be diverted from
his purpose.[494]

Thus the summer of 1571 passed away: on the one side, Spain, the pope,
and the house of Lorraine striving to prevent a reconciliation between
the two religious parties; on the other the “Politicians,” with Coligny
and the English embassador, trying to bring about two marriages that
would, it was hoped, counterbalance the influence of the Catholic
powers. Catherine was ostentatiously sincere,[495] and Charles anxious
to do what was right, and in his weakness leaning on Coligny, whom he
had learned to trust as a child trusts his father. There was much in
the admiral to attract the king: he was a man of probity and honor,
actuated by no mean or selfish motives, but by the purest desire for
the greatness of France. Charles had never possessed such a friend
before. What he thought of those about him may be conjectured from his
remarks one day to Teligny: “Tavannes is a good councilor, but jealous
of any encroachment upon his fame; Vieilleville loves nothing but good
wine; Cossé is a miser, who would sell every thing for ten crowns;
Montmorency is a good man, but then he is always away with his hawks
and hounds; Retz is a Spaniard in heart, and the rest of my court and
council are fools. My secretaries are traitors, so that I do not know
whom to trust.”[496] The censure is too sweeping; but the language
shows how weary Charles had grown of his old councilors, and how he
clung to the new. At another time, conversing with the admiral about
the Flemish campaign, he said: “Father, there is another matter which
you must carefully heed. The queen, my mother, is always poking her
nose everywhere, as you well know, and she must not be told of this
enterprise, at least not in detail. She would mar our design.” “As you
please, Sire; nevertheless I hold her majesty for so good a mother,
that even if she were told all, she would offer no obstacle; on the
contrary, she might naturally aid our design; while I apprehend many
difficulties in hiding the matter.” “You are quite wrong,” rejoined the
king; “leave the matter to me. My mother is the greatest mischief-maker
on the face of the earth.”

If this anecdote were authenticated, it would show that the king
and the admiral were actually plotting against the government; for,
whatever may have been Coligny’s position as private adviser to his
sovereign, he was not a minister, although in the council, and held
no responsible position. But it is scarcely credible that Catherine,
with her influence and means of procuring information, could have been
kept in the dark; and, besides, it is quite clear from her language
to the Spanish embassador, that she knew all about the proposed war
in Flanders. Nor does she appear at any time to have objected to it.
If the English matrimonial alliance was the key of her policy, the
war against Spain was an inevitable pendant. Union between France and
England in the sixteenth century necessarily meant armed opposition to
the policy of Philip II.

During the winter an event occurred which has tended very much to
complicate this period of history. The king had gone to Bourgueil
on the Loire, about ten miles from Saumur, to receive a Protestant
deputation. Their chief spokesman, Briquemaut, after complaining of
the infringement of the Edict of St. Germains, more by omission than
commission, imprudently added that, unless their grievances were
remedied, it was to be feared that the Huguenots would take counsel
of despair, and once more rush to arms. The king listened calmly and
dismissed the deputation graciously; but as soon as they had retired,
he burst into a violent passion, and indulged in sanguinary threats.
Lignerolles, one of the “mignons” of the Duke of Anjou, drawing near,
whispered in his majesty’s ear: “Be patient, Sire, a little while
longer, and you will have them all in your net.” The king was startled
to hear another give utterance to his own secret thoughts, and resolved
to make away with a man whom he suspected of knowing the particulars
of a plot which had been craftily devised to get rid of the admiral
and the chief Huguenots at one blow. The authenticity of this very
circumstantial story is more than doubtful. All we know for certain is,
that Lignerolles was murdered, and that the assassins were imprisoned,
and would have been punished, had not the great massacre intervened,
when they were liberated. Five versions of the story are current, the
most probable of all being Walsingham’s, namely, that Lignerolles was
an instrument employed by the Guise faction to prevent the English
marriage.[497] He represents the death “as no small furtherance to the
cause.” But why was he murdered? Perhaps the following passage from a
letter written by the queen-mother to the French embassador in England
may supply an answer: “We strongly suspect Villequier, Lignerolles, or
Sarret; and it is possible that all three may be the authors of these
fancies [Anjou’s refusal to marry Elizabeth]; if I were sure of it, I
give you my word they should repent it.”

If this foul murder be supposed to tell against the king, the affair
of the Gastine Cross should be taken as a proof of his desire to
conciliate his Protestant subjects. In the Rue St. Denis at Paris there
lived a wealthy tradesman, Philip Gastine by name, who with his son
Richard was accused and hanged for heresy and lending money to the
rebels; another son was sentenced to the galleys for life; and the
third banished (30th June, 1569). His house was pulled down, and in its
place was erected a huge cross, with an inscription to the effect, that
they had suffered “principally because they had celebrated the Lord’s
Supper in that place.” According to the thirty-second article[498]
of the Third Edict of Pacification, this cross was to be destroyed.
The king gave the necessary orders, and Claude Marcel, provost of the
merchants, fearing opposition, began to pull it down one dark night
in December. He was interrupted by the populace, who paraded the city
calling to arms. “The common people,” said Walsingham, “ease their
stomachs only by uttering certain seditious words.” They went however
beyond words, for there was a fierce riot, during which the mob burned
two houses and killed a “sermoner.” The provost seems to have been
rather faint-hearted in the matter, and the parliament actually wrote
to remonstrate with the king for keeping his promise. Charles, who was
then at Amboise, returned a very sharp answer (15th December, 1571):
“I have received your remonstrance, which I will always listen to
graciously so long as you show me due obedience. But seeing how you
have behaved since my accession, and that you imagine I will suffer my
orders to be despised, I will let you know that there never was a king
more determined to be obeyed than I am.”[499] The captain of the watch
was sent to Amboise to explain: he found the king very excited. “I am
thoroughly vexed,” said Charles, “that the cross has not been pulled
down or removed. I will have no delay: it is time it were down and
over.[500] If you catch any rioter, hang him up at once with a label
of _Séditieux_ round his neck.” The parliament apologized, and
said very falsely that they had had nothing to do with the riots. On
the night of the 19th December the cross was taken down and re-erected
in the cemetery of the Innocents;[501] but the people were in such
a mutinous state, and it was so difficult to keep the peace, that,
on the 21st, the Duke of Montmorency hurried to Paris with a strong
force of soldiers to put down the rioters. Some were killed, many ran
away, and the mob was cowed at last by the exemplary punishment of a
coster-monger, who was hanged from the window of a house he had just
plundered.

A report from the Provost of the Trades to the king shows the condition
of the capital in the winter of 1571: “After curfew, there is much
stabbing in the streets. A great number of dead bodies have been fished
up at St. Cloud, or found on the river-bank near Chaillot.... In
consequence of this hugonotry, trade is almost dead, manufacturers are
frightened away by our divisions, and cross the mountains to settle in
Italy. The Catholics want to have an end of it.... Would your majesty
but reflect; your crown is endangered, Paris alone can save it.” But
Charles knew the Parisians well, and desired to have his crown upheld
by trustier supporters than the unruly populace of the capital.

Before the end of the year, Coligny paid another visit to Blois, when
the war in Flanders and the marriage of the Prince of Bearn became
once more the chief subjects of deliberation. It is not necessary
to trace the proceedings day by day. The admiral’s arguments were
very cogent, but the most pressing matter was the marriage. On this
subject Coligny wrote to the Queen of Navarre, praying her not to
oppose a union wherein the Reformed would have the advantage. “It
will be,” he said, “a seal of friendship with the king; and the
greatest mistake you can fall into will be to show suspicion.” The
king too was very earnest in the matter. “I have made up my mind,” he
said to one of Joan’s agents, “to give my sister to my good brother
Henry; for by this means I hope to marry the two religions.” When
it was again objected that the proposal could hardly be regarded as
sincere, so long as the Guises continued about the court: “They are
my subjects,” Charles replied, “and I will make them conform to my
behests.” Catherine wrote to the Queen of Navarre: “I pray you gratify
the extreme desire we have to see you among us. You will be loved and
honored as you deserve to be.” Biron was the bearer of this letter,
and Joan gave way at last. In the month of February she started for
Blois, and, traveling slowly, reached that city early in March.[502]
The king gave her a hearty welcome, calling her “his dear good aunt,
his best beloved, his darling,” and so on, just as he had been wont to
do in earlier days. He kept by her side, and was so demonstrative in
his marks of affection, that, according to the gossiping chronicler,
“every one was astonished.” In the evening, after Joan had retired,
Charles turned to Catherine laughing, and said: “Now, mother, confess
that I play my little part well.”--“Yes, you play it well enough,
but you must keep it up.”--“Trust me for that,” said the king; “you
shall see how I will lead them on.”[503] Many of these stories are
nothing but idle street gossip, and some of them, in which we may
include the one before us, were invented in after years to support the
theory of a long-premeditated plot. But the words, even if accurately
reported, will hardly bear such a formidable superstructure: they
may refer to the marriage, which was yet unsettled, as well as to
the projected massacre. Farther, if Charles compassed the death of
Lignerolles because the wretched man was supposed to have become master
of the king’s secret, would Charles (with his presumed craft and
reticence) have spoken thus openly of what he desired to keep in utter
obscurity?[504]

Never had the little town of Blois been more gay than it was in the
spring of 1572. Banquets, balls, and _fêtes_ followed each other
in rapid succession, much to the discomfort of Joan, whose principles
and sober taste did not harmonize with such gayeties. The king, who was
delighted at the share his young queen took in these amusements, was
among the liveliest of the court, and was seen to the best advantage.

If the marriage of Henry and Margaret was part of the scheme by which
the Huguenots were to be lured to their destruction, there was very
little probability in March, 1572, that it would ever be accomplished.
Even the mere rumor of it had aroused all the antagonism of Spain
and Rome; but now that it appeared certain, those powers tried every
means to thwart it. The pope ordered his nephew, then legate at
the court of Portugal, to hasten to France and stop the marriage.
Alessandrino actually reached Blois before the Queen of Navarre, having
rudely passed her on the road. The particulars of his interviews
with Charles are given by several contemporary writers, but all are
manifestly derived from the same source. The cardinal, one of the
most accomplished and eloquent men of his day, pressed the king to
give Margaret to the King of Portugal, as had been once proposed,
and enter into the holy alliance then forming against the Turks. The
connection between these proposals is not very clear; but Alessandrino
probably hoped that the excitement of war, which might bring increase
of territory to France, would divert Charles from subjects nearer home.
“It would be ruinous to your realm and to the Catholic Church,” urged
the nuncio, “to form any alliance with the Huguenots.”

At the close of one of these interviews, when Alessandrino had been
more than usually pressing, Charles took him by the hand: “What you
say is very good, and I thank you and the pope for it. If I had any
other means of being revenged upon my enemies, I would not go on with
this marriage; but I have not.” When Alessandrino heard of the August
massacre, he exclaimed: “This, then, is what the King of France was
preparing. God be praised, he has kept his promise.”[505] At the close
of the interview, Charles drew a valuable ring from his finger, and
pressed the nuncio to accept it, as a pledge of his good faith and
obedience to the holy see. He declined, saying, with a bitterness of
manner that greatly displeased the king: “The most precious of your
majesty’s jewels are but mud in the eyes of the faithful, since your
zeal for the Catholic religion is so cold.”[506] Sir Thomas Smith, who
was at Blois, wrote to Burghley: “The foolish cardinal went away as
wise as he came: he neither brake the marriage with Navarre, nor got no
dimes, ... and the foolishest part of all his going away, he refused a
diamond which the king offered him of 600 crowns.”[507]

There are serious objections to this story--especially to Catena’s
version of it--which is in contradiction to documents above all
suspicion. One of these is a letter from Charles to his embassador at
Rome, with instructions about the dispensation. On the 31st July he
recapitulates to De Ferrails the four conditions on which the pope
is willing to grant the said dispensation, and says that Henry will
never concede them.[508] He then argues that the marriage will be the
best means of converting the prince, and hopes the pope “will not risk
every thing by holding the cord too tight in matters which belong
much more to state policy than to religious scruples.” He threatens
that he will do without a dispensation, if he should be driven to
consult on the best means of tranquilizing his kingdom and proceeding
to the said marriage. In a postscript the king adds, that he has
just seen Salviati, the papal nuncio, to whom he had communicated
the substance of the dispatch, and begged him to write to the pope
to the same effect. Did Salviati write as requested? He did, and all
his correspondence shows that up to the very day of the massacre he
was entirely ignorant of any treachery being contemplated. On the
very day of the massacre the king gave instructions to Beauville, who
was going to Rome, to the effect that the marriage was justifiable
on the ground that it would bind the Huguenots to the crown, and he
also wrote to De Ferrails on the same date, that the marriage was
necessary, and therefore it had been solemnized without waiting for
the dispensation, “to the great satisfaction of all his subjects.”
That no allusion is made to a plot in these dispatches is proof that
none such existed.[509] We must not, therefore, lay too great stress
upon Ossat’s letter, which, after all, only repeats hearsay.[510] The
strongest evidence in favor of Alessandrino’s story is found in the
mysterious ending of a letter in which he alludes to matters that had
passed between him and Charles, and that he had reserved for the pope’s
ear alone.[511] The veil of this mystery--if there really was any
mystery--has never been uplifted.

Joan’s arrival at Blois did not accelerate the negotiations for the
marriage so much as had been anticipated. The queen-mother appeared
of late to have grown indifferent, if not averse, to the proposed
union, and every possible obstacle was thrown in the way. Her inventive
faculties were severely tested by the good faith of the Queen of
Navarre.[512] She could have managed a diplomatist of her own stamp,
but honesty was a weapon she did not understand. “Certes,” says an old
writer, “her majesty’s adulterations of truth were of the most amazing
extent and description.” Joan, who heartily disliked Catherine, at last
refused to treat with her, and the negotiations were almost broken off,
when it was agreed to appoint three commissioners on each side, by whom
the final arrangements should be made. Margaret--whose “Memoirs” must
be read with extreme caution--interested herself but little in the
marriage.

In those days young maidens, whether of high or low degree, had little
voice in the selection of a husband. Of her proposed daughter-in-law,
Joan writes thus to her son on the 8th March: “Madame is handsome,
graceful, and discreet, but she has been brought up in the midst
of the most vicious and corrupt court that can be imagined. Your
cousin [afterward wife of Prince Henry of Condé] is so changed by it,
that there is no appearance of religion in her save thus far, that
she does not go to mass; but as to the rest of her mode of living,
except idolatry, she does the same as the Papists, and my sister [the
Princess of Condé] still worse.” In a pregnant phrase she describes
the corrupt nature of court life: “It is not the men here who entice
the women, but the women who entice the men.” To this Catherine and
her “flying squadron” of gay damsels had brought the court. The Queen
of Navarre was a rigid Calvinist, and her opinions on court amusements
and pleasures were probably rather austere. At another time she writes
to Henry: “Madam Margaret has paid me every honor and welcome in her
power to bestow, and frankly owned to me the agreeable ideas she has
formed of you. [They had not seen each other since the meeting at
Bayonne.] With her beauty and wit, she excites great influence over the
queen-mother and the king.”[513]

The difference of religion was long an almost insuperable obstacle.
Catherine pretended scruples of conscience on behalf of her daughter;
and Joan of Navarre, who was really anxious on the matter, hesitated
so much, that up to the 29th March the marriage continued doubtful.
“I have now the wolf by the ears,” said the Queen of Navarre, “for in
concluding or not concluding the marriage, I see danger every way.”
“But,” adds the English embassador, “I do not think assuredly that
hardly any cause will make them break--so many necessary causes there
are why the same should proceed.”[514] The Huguenot ministers, like
unpractical divines as they were, looked more coldly upon the projected
union than the nobility and gentry, who valued it as a great stroke of
policy. There were some even of these who foreboded nothing but evil.
Rosny, father of the illustrious Sully, refused to take any part in
the ceremony, declaring that “the wedding-favors would be crimson.”
His party stoutly advocated a marriage with Elizabeth of England. What
would have been the fortunes of the two countries had they been thus
united?

At length all the negotiations were ended, the settlements drawn up,
and the contract signed by the plenipotentiaries on each side (11th
April, 1572). A few days later Charles expressed to La Mothe-Fénelon
his satisfaction at the happy conclusion of the tedious business,
adding that “if the queen had been a little more strengthened against
those ailments, which are usual to women in her condition, the
wedding-day would have been already fixed. We shall depart hence
[Blois?] to go toward Paris and Fontainebleau, where my wife will
lie in.” The only obstacle now was the dispensation, which Pius V.
refused to grant: “I would rather lose my head than grant a marriage
dispensation to a heretic.”[515] Charles determined to proceed in
spite of the pope: “If he tries it on too far, I will take Margaret by
the hand and see her married in open conventicle.”[516] His written
answer to Pius V. was to the same effect, but in more courtly strain.
He expressed his sincere love for the Catholic Church, but urged that
the country and the exchequer were exhausted by civil war. As for the
marriage and the heresy, he continued: “Mild remedies are usually more
efficacious than sharp ones in curing this disease, especially in the
minds of princes. I am persuaded that Henry will not only become all
that you can wish him, but will some day be a great ornament and help
to the Church.... If he who is now the chief of the wanderers should
be brought back to the true fold, how great the advantage!” Charles
then proceeded to indulge in that ambiguous language which has made
this period of history so difficult to understand: “I confess that I
am under necessity, and have had to put up with many disagreeable
things; but I swear I would rather imperil my kingdom than leave the
outrages against God unpunished. But what my designs are can not yet
be told.”[517] To the Cardinal of Lorraine, then in Rome, he wrote
that whether the pope’s answer was favorable or not, he should go
on with the marriage.[518] To his friends he repeated his assurance
that he married his sister not only to the Prince of Bearn but to
the whole Protestant party: “It will be the strongest bond between
my subjects,” he said, “and a sure evidence of my good-will toward
those of the religion.” It was Joan’s desire that the wedding should
be celebrated at Blois, on account of the fanatical temper of the
inhabitants of the metropolis; but as Charles objected with reason to
a solemn state ceremony being performed anywhere but in the capital,
the Queen of Navarre gave way. It is a curious coincidence that the
Parisians should have been equally adverse to the celebration of the
marriage within their walls. “They feared,” says Claude Haton, “that
they would be robbed and despoiled in their own houses by the seditious
Huguenots.”[519]




                              CHAPTER XI.

                      THE MARRIAGE AND THE PLOT.

                            [August, 1572.]

   Proposed German and English Alliances--Anjou’s Refusal--Treaty
   with England--Capture of Mons--Defeat of Genlis--Walsingham’s
   Dispatches--War-Excitement--Deliberations in Council--Charles
   at Montpipeau--Catherine follows him--Her tears--Increasing
   influence of Coligny--His Death resolved on--Joan of Navarre
   in Paris--Her sudden Death--Distrust and Warnings--Coligny’s
   firmness--Plot and Counterplot--Henry of Navarre enters
   Paris--The Wedding--Masque at the Hôtel Bourbon--The Admiral’s
   last Letter--Plot to Assassinate him--The Duchess of
   Nemours--Maurevel sent for.


The Treaty of St. Germains was a serious blow to Spanish influence
in France. We have seen that peace had not only been concluded in
opposition to the remonstrances of Philip II., but that monarch had
experienced several slights from his brother-in-law which even so
cold-blooded a man must have felt deeply. In proportion, too, as the
loyalty and worth of Coligny became known, the distance between the two
courts grew wider. The “Politicians” took advantage of this change,
and becoming daily more convinced of the necessity of war with Spain,
tried to strengthen France by foreign alliances. Their choice was not
very great. Rome would never aid a power that went to war with Spain
to support heresy in Flanders. The Emperor of Germany would remain
neutral, for by reserving his forces he would be able to interfere
effectually between the combatants, when exhausted or tired of war.
The Catholic States of Northern Italy would take part with Spain and
threaten France on the Alpine frontier; and Switzerland would sell her
sword to either party. There only remained England and the Protestant
States of Germany, with whose help France might safely venture to
attack the power of Spain. That monarchy was held to be the greatest in
the world: it was not indeed so great as it appeared to be, for it was
rapidly declining, but the halo of its former glory still shone round
it.

The negotiations with Germany were so mismanaged that they came to
nothing. Those with England had assumed, as we have seen, the form of
proposals for a matrimonial alliance between Elizabeth and the Duke of
Anjou. Catherine, who believed in an old prophecy that all her sons
should be kings, was very earnest in the matter.[520] The Huguenots,
who are wrongly supposed to have originated the plan, also felt
anxious, and the correspondence of the English agents at the court of
France is full of their hopes and fears. They saw that such a union of
the two crowns would strengthen them, and help to preserve the fruits
of their past struggles; while they dreaded a failure, which would
discredit the Moderate party and bring back the Guises, and perhaps
plunge them again into all the miseries of civil strife from which
they had so recently escaped. The negotiations extended over many
months. It is doubtful whether Elizabeth was at any time sincere; but
it is certain that as one objection after another was removed, and
as she appeared to be more inclined to the match, Anjou grew cooler,
professed a great horror of heresy, and urged that his conscience would
not allow him to share the crown of the Queen of England. Still, as
he did not absolutely refuse the match, the English ministers were
frightened lest Elizabeth should anticipate him, and ruin every thing
by declaring her preference for a celibate life. A refusal from her
would ruin the Huguenot hopes. Elizabeth would probably have spoken
out, had not the various intrigues of which Mary Stuart was the prime
mover kept her silent and cautious. She would dally with France so
long as there was any danger from Spain. But Anjou, who was never
in want of evil advisers, listened to the seductions of the Spanish
court, and, allured by a large bribe from the pope,[521] refused--twice
refused--to wed a mature maiden of thirty-eight. The queen-mother was
confounded, and with reason; for the suspicions of Spain had been
aroused, and France unaided could not hope, in its state of exhaustion,
to withstand a well-directed attack. There was danger, too, on the
other side, for Elizabeth was touchy and susceptible; and though she
might have been insincere throughout, her feminine vanity might be
so wounded that she would not hesitate to avenge it by taking part
with Spain. The Moderate party were in despair; but fortunately the
negotiations were in the hands of prudent men. Walsingham in France
and La Mothe-Fénelon in England felt all the importance of the crisis,
and after some difficulty succeeded in arranging a defensive treaty
between the two countries (29th March, 1572). Though manifestly
directed against Spain, it was expressed in general terms, so as not
to wound the susceptibilities of the French Catholics.[522] Each
promised to aid the other with 6000 infantry and six ships of war. The
English statesmen were perhaps more anxious about this treaty than
their French colleagues; for Mary Stuart, now a prisoner in England,
was actively engaged in a complication of intrigues with Spain,[523]
the success of any of which would have endangered the cause of
Protestantism. Montmorency, “a lover of England as much as any man in
France,” was sent over to receive the ratification, and--if he saw fit
opportunity--to make a formal proposal of the Duke of Alençon to Queen
Elizabeth.[524] The marshal--or rather the Moderate party of which he
was leader--felt convinced that some foreign support was more necessary
than ever to keep the Catholic reactionists in check, and to neutralize
the efforts of Spain to rekindle the civil wars now so happily ended.
Spain was uneasy and wavering. St. Goar writes from Madrid (22d June,
1572): “I believe that Philip would fain avoid a rupture;” and again
(1st July): “The king assures me he would willingly preserve peace, but
that he has great cause to fear an attack from France.” Charles also
told St. Goar, in a letter dated 25th June, that “if he were only sure
they would undertake nothing against him, he would not mix himself up
with foreign transactions.”[525]

As soon as the important matters of the Navarre marriage and the
English treaty were concluded, Charles left Touraine (May 5th), and
proceeded by way of Fontainebleau to Paris, and thence to St. Maur.
The admiral attended him more as a friend than as one of the great
officers of state. The Guises had left the court almost in despair. If
any credit can be given to an intercepted dispatch of the 28th January
from the Countess of Northumberland, the duke had paid a long secret
visit to Alva.[526] This was denied by Catherine, but may have been
true, nevertheless. Although this visit may have had more to do with
the affairs of Mary Stuart, we may be sure that the state of France
and the Anjou marriage were not forgotten. It is not clear when the
Guises fell into disgrace, but their position at court in the spring
of 1572 is accurately discussed in a letter from Alva to Philip II.,
who had written advising him to keep up friendly relations with the
duke and the cardinal. The general replied that he had always seen
the importance of doing so: “But at this time there are two things
to be considered, namely, that none of the family have any share in
the management of public business, except the Cardinal of Lorraine;
and he, when in favor, is insolent and forgets every body, and when
in disgrace, is good for nothing.” Then, as if to brand the treason
of the churchman, and show the unfriendly nature of the relations
between the courts of Paris and Madrid, Alva continues: “He has warned
me, through Fray Garcia de Ribeira, to be on my guard, as he foresees
trouble in France, and believes that the fleet assembling at Rochelle
is intended to operate against the Low Countries.”[527] When the Duke
of Guise and Coligny were at Paris in May, the former was forbidden to
undertake any thing against the Chatillons, to which he replied, that
if the admiral had any thing to complain of, he was ready to meet him
at any time in single combat.[528] The king, finding the duke (whom he
called “un mauvais garçon”) so implacable, required of him a complete
and formal denial of every project of outrage against Coligny, which he
gave, though with reluctance (12th May, 1572). There is another story
that the king did not press Duke Henry to be reconciled, having already
had proof of his impracticable character; but to Aumale, his brother,
who seemed more tractable, he said: “Have a little patience, and you
will soon see a pretty game.”[529] Were the story true, it would not
necessarily imply the existence of a plot to get rid of the Huguenots.

The deliberations about the Flemish war now became more frequent than
ever. The time was opportune for the projected invasion. In Flanders
the first part of the year had been distinguished by a series of
triumphs. “With one fierce bound of enthusiasm,” says the eloquent
historian of the Dutch Republic, “the nation shook off its chain.” Alva
was ill, and anxiously awaiting his successor. The hour was approaching
when Charles IX. would feel it safe as well as politic to throw off
all disguise. “When you have captured two of the frontier cities, the
king will once more take council about the war,” said Tavannes to Count
Louis; and before the end of May, Mons and Valenciennes were in his
hands. With the connivance of the government, Louis had got together
a number of Huguenot gentlemen, including Genlis and La Noue, besides
some 1500 soldiers, and with these he surprised Mons. He was soon
after strongly reinforced by nearly 5000 French troops. Alva had no
doubt whence the blow came, and threatening to repay Catherine in her
own coin, immediately prepared to recover the town. Unless he were
reinforced, Count Louis had no hope of resisting with success, and
accordingly Genlis was dispatched to France to procure more troops.
The admiral strongly advised Charles to back up the count with a large
force; but the king was still unwilling to declare himself openly,
though he had committed himself almost beyond recall. “You would be
astounded,” writes Albornez to Secretary Cayas, “could you see a
letter in my hands written by the King of France to Prince Louis.”
It was dated the 27th April, 1572, and in it Charles expressed his
determination to do all in his power “to extricate the Low Countries
from the oppression under which they groaned.”[530]

In this juncture the Huguenot champion, who was “daily at court and
very well used by the king and his brothers,”[531] laid before his
royal master a memoir drawn up by the celebrated Duplessis-Mornay, in
which he argued that a foreign war was necessary to preserve internal
peace. “The Frenchman,” he says, “who has once had a taste of war
will often, from mere _gaieté de cœur_, or from want of some
other enemy, fight his own countryman and friend. The Spaniard,” he
continued, “is weak from the dispersion of his forces, and you have
England on your side, who formerly used to take part in every quarrel
against us. You will acquire a province superior to any in France by
the fertility of its soil, the beauty of its cities, and the wealth of
its inhabitants. The Germans will fear you, your own people will be
enriched by commerce, and you, Sire, will reap immortal honor from the
conquest.”[532] The motives are not very noble, but they were admirably
adapted to Charles’s temper: a higher morality would have fallen dead
upon his ear. Still he hesitated to declare himself, leaning toward
Coligny at one moment, and toward the Catholic party at the next.
Meanwhile Genlis had succeeded in collecting a number of volunteers,
and was making his way toward Mons, with about 4000 men,[533] when he
was met and defeated by a Spanish force under Don Frederick of Toledo
(19th July, 1572). Twelve hundred of the French were left upon the
field, and a much larger number were butchered by the peasantry as they
were seeking to escape. Tavannes, a trustworthy authority on such a
point, says that Don Frederick had been treacherously informed of the
road Genlis would take with his troops.

The news of this terrible overthrow caused an extraordinary agitation
at court. Some fancied in their panic that the Spaniard was already
at the gates of Paris; while the outspoken admiral declared that the
catastrophe lay at the doors of those who had dissuaded the king
from declaring himself. The government everywhere ostentatiously
protested--at Rome, Vienna, Brussels, and Madrid--that they desired
peace, and were not privy to the attack on Mons or the advance of
Genlis; indeed Mondoucet congratulated Alva on his success over the
invaders, while St. Goar assured Philip that his master saw with regret
his vassals joining the rebels in the Low Countries. Neither Alva
nor Philip believed this, but were determined to give no cause for a
rupture of friendly relations.[534] And hence it was that when the
Spanish army captured some sixty Frenchmen who tried to enter Mons,
Alva only hanged a part, taking the others to Ruppelmonde to be drowned
secretly in the river.

Walsingham’s correspondence reflects minutely the state of feeling
among the Huguenots at this moment. “Such of the religion as before
slept in security,” he writes to Burghley on the 26th July, “begin
now to awake and to see their danger, and do therefore conclude,
that unless this enterprise in the Low Countries have good success,
their cause groweth desperate. They have therefore of late sent to
the king, who is absent from home, to show him that if the Prince of
Orange quail, it shall not lie in him [Charles] to maintain him in
his protection by virtue of his edict; they desire him, therefore,
out of hand, to resolve upon something that may be of assistance,
offering themselves to employ therein their lives, lands, and goods.”
Writing the same day to the Earl of Leicester, the embassador says:
“Those of the religion have made demonstration to the king that his
[Orange’s] enterprise lacking good success, it shall not then lie in
his power to maintain his edict;” apparently meaning, that if the
Flemish rebels were subdued, Spain would again be so formidable that
it would be dangerous to tolerate the Huguenots in defiance of Philip
II. Walsingham then adds that the Reformed party “desire him to weigh
well, whether it were better to have foreign war with advantage, or
inward war to the ruin of himself and his estate.” This was one of
those unfortunate passages which Catherine afterward employed with so
much effect to terrify Charles into the August massacre. The meaning
of the words is plain enough, but an unscrupulous advocate would easily
convert them into a threat of rebellion against the king’s authority.

As soon as the French had recovered from the first shock caused by the
news of Genlis’s defeat, they began to vapor and talk of revenge; and
their hostile feelings were still farther exasperated by the report
of certain contemptuous expressions ascribed to Alva. Every thing
betokened an approaching rupture between France and Spain, and ere
long the rumors of war became so loud that the Venetian Senate hastily
dispatched an embassador with authority to mediate between the angry
governments.[535] Michieli writes in July to his superiors of volunteer
expeditions of horse and foot setting off daily: “For four or five days
war was regarded in Paris as declared; it was openly talked of.”[536]

On the 23d July, Petrucci, the Tuscan embassador, writes to his ducal
master, that the royal council have been in deliberation about the
ransom of the prisoners, but “does not know how the king [Charles] can
grant this, without giving the greatest suspicion to the Catholic king;
and yet he shows great interest in the matter.”[537]

Elizabeth had done her part in the anti-Spanish movement by sending
troops to Flushing. Sir T. Smith wrote to inform Walsingham that Sir
Humphrey Gilbert had been “sent over with his band of Englishmen and
some Frenchmen, who have taken Sluys and besieged the castle.”[538]

Just at this juncture the queen-mother happened to be in Lorraine
tending her sick daughter, and the news of the martial outburst brought
her back in haste to Paris. She was too wise to oppose her son’s
warlike humor openly, but she so far shook his resolution as to have
the whole subject brought before the council. She was adverse to the
war on many grounds, but principally because she felt assured that if
Coligny carried on a successful campaign, his influence with the king
would quite supersede her own. She did not know how far the king and
the admiral had gone already. The latter, who was always with Charles,
even to a late hour, wrote on the 11th August to Prince William of
Orange, that there could be no doubt as to the king’s earnestness
(Walsingham says: “But for the king, all had quailed long before”),
and that he hoped in a few days to come to his help with 12,000
arquebusiers and 3000 cavalry. Yet only one day before this, Walsingham
wrote home: “Commonly it is given out that the king will no more
meddle, ... yet I am assured that underhand he is content there shall
[be] somewhat done, for that he seeth the peril that will befall unto
him, if the Prince of Orange quail.” The English embassador’s means of
information were so complete, that he actually knew more of what was
going on in the cabinet than the admiral did.

The extreme Catholic party had rallied and were trying every thing in
their power to destroy the Huguenot ascendancy at court, and Charles’s
resolution fluctuated from day to day. That he might enjoy a little
quiet, he suddenly started for Montpipeau, a pleasant hunting-lodge,
intending to remain there until the eve of his sister’s marriage.
Meanwhile bad news reached the French court; Catherine discovered that
Queen Elizabeth was playing her false, and while pretending zeal for
an alliance against Spain, was actually treating with that power. De
Foix and Fénelon both wrote from private information that she had been
advised to recall her troops from Flanders and not quarrel with Spain.
“Whereupon,” writes Walsingham, on the 10th August, “the queen-mother
fell into such fear that the enterprise must necessarily fail without
the aid of England.”[539] The report was untrue, and was probably a
mere invention of some of the traitors in the English council.[540] But
it frightened Catherine, and she determined to make one more attempt to
recover her ascendancy over the king. She hurried to Montpipeau with
such impetuous haste that two of her horses fell dead on the road.
With tears in her eyes, she accused Charles of ingratitude to a mother
“who had sacrificed herself for his welfare and incurred every risk
for his advantage.” “You hide yourself from me,” she continued, “and
take counsel with my enemies. You are about to plunge your kingdom into
a war with Spain, and yet England, in whose alliance you trusted, is
false to you. Alone you can not resist so powerful an enemy. You will
only make France a prey to the Huguenots, who desire the subversion
of the kingdom for their own benefit. If you will no longer be guided
by my advice, suffer me to return to my native country, that I may
not witness such disgrace.” “This artful harangue,” says Tavannes,
“frightened the king, who, wondering to see his secret counsels
revealed, confessed them all, begged his mother’s pardon, and promised
obedience.” Tavannes, whose authority for circumstances of which he
was not an eye-witness is rather doubtful, alludes to the common rumor
that M. de Sauve, the king’s secretary, had revealed these “secret
counsels” to his wife, Charlotte de Beaune, by whom they were told to
her lover the Duke of Anjou, who, in his turn, communicated them to his
mother. Whatever secrets may have been divulged, certainly this of the
projected Flemish war was not one; for if it was unknown to Catherine,
she must have been the only person in the court ignorant of it.[541]
She was undoubtedly alarmed at the apparently isolated position of
France; and we shall see that, finding all other methods fail of
averting war, she did not shrink from murder. No doubt her “affetto
di signorreggiare” had much to do with her bloody resolution; but she
may also have believed Coligny to be a dangerous adviser, and in an
unscrupulous age there was little difficulty in getting rid of such a
man.

The exact date of the interview at Montpipeau is not known, but it
probably took place during the first week in August, for Walsingham
evidently refers to it in his letter of the 10th of that month:
“Touching Flanders matters, such of the council here as incline to
Spain have put the queen-mother in such a fear, that she _with
tears_ had dissuaded the king for the time, who otherwise was very
resolute.... The admiral in this brunt, whose mind is invincible and
foreseeth what is like to ensue, doth not now give over, but layeth
before the king his peril if the Prince of Orange quail.” And again:
“The king is _grown cold_, who before was _very forward_,
and nothing prevailed so much as _the tears of his mother_....
How perplexed the admiral is, who foreseeth the mischief that is
likely to follow, your lordship [Leicester] may easily guess. He never
showed greater magnanimity, nor never was better followed nor more
honored of those of the religion, than he now is, _which doth not a
little appall_ the enemies. He layeth before the king and council
the peril and danger of his estate; and though he can not obtain
what he would, yet doth he obtain something from him.”[542] This was
the admiral’s death-warrant. Charles listened to him rather than to
his mother. “What do you learn in your long conversations with the
admiral?” asked Catherine one day. “I learn,” he replied, “that I have
no greater enemy than my mother.” She saw her power slipping from
her, and her son Anjou, her beloved, her favorite son, in danger; for
she knew how violent Charles could be when he was once aroused. And
all depended upon the life of one man! And when in those days did any
body, especially an Italian man or woman, allow a single life to stand
between them and their desire? Coligny must be got rid of; then the
queen-mother would recover her influence; then there would be an end of
this perplexing Flemish business; and with Henry of Navarre, the head
of the Huguenot party, married to her daughter, there would be no cause
to fear a revival of internal disturbances.

But these political negotiations and discussions were not permitted to
delay the preparations for the marriage that was to unite Catholics and
Reformers into one homogeneous people.

On the 6th of May Joan left Blois, and arrived in Paris eight or nine
days after, such being the rate at which royalty traveled a distance
that now does not require as many hours. She took up her abode in
a house belonging to Jean Guillart, Bishop of Chartres, one of the
prelates who had been excommunicated in 1563 for his liberal opinions.
The removal to Paris was fatal to her: within a month she sickened
and died (9th June, 1572),[543] not without suspicion of poison
administered by means of a pair of gloves sent to her by René, the
queen-mother’s perfumer. There is not the slightest ground for the
suspicion: the season was unhealthy. “People are dying here very fast,”
wrote the dowager Princess of Condé, “for which reason I do not send
for my children.”[544] What wonder, then, that the Queen of Navarre,
who was ill at ease, should pine and sicken in the hot ill-cleansed
streets of Paris.[545] De Thou says she died of an abscess brought on
by excessive fatigue. Although suffering acutely, she bore the pain
without a word of impatience or complaint. When she saw her women
weeping round her bed: “Do not cry,” she said; “God is calling me to
that better life, which I have always longed for.” Her great anxiety
was about her children--her son Henry and her daughter the amiable
Catherine: “I trust that God will be a father and protector to them, as
he has been to me in my sorest trials. To his providence I commit them,
feeling sure he will provide for them.” With these words she died, at
the age of forty-four, leaving a name still mentioned with fond respect
among the mountains of Bearn. There were some who openly exulted in her
death, calling it “a judgment from heaven upon Jezebel the Huguenot
queen.” But hers was a character which, though deficient in some of the
milder features of a woman’s nature, could despise such uncharitable
judgment. Voltaire describes her as

    Grande par des vertus qui manquaient à son fils,

and one of her contemporaries, adopting the words of Quintus Curtius,
speaks of her as possessing _nil muliebre nisi sexum_ (nothing in
common with her sex except the name of woman). After her conversion,
she devoted all her energies to the propagation of the Reformed
faith, even (it is said) to the extent of preaching, though the
strongest evidence that she ever ascended the pulpit is a doubtful
contemporaneous caricature. Queen Elizabeth was as much attached to
her as her vain and selfish nature permitted. Henry, fully alive
to the importance of keeping up this friendship, wrote to announce
his mother’s death, and to request a continuance of her friendship:
“Entertaining the same desire which the late queen, my mother, always
manifested toward you, I most humbly entreat you will impart to me that
friendship and kindness which you always showed her, and the effects
of which we have known in so many instances that I shall always feel
myself your debtor, which I will testify in every thing you may be
pleased to command me to obey and do service, whenever I have the
power.”[546]

The queen’s death increased the distrust with which many of the
Huguenot party looked upon the demonstrations and favors of the court.
From every quarter the admiral continued to receive cautions and
warnings of treachery; but firm in his own integrity and good faith,
he put them all aside.[547] Many of his friends urged him to be on his
guard. The people of La Rochelle sent him more than one address on the
rumors that were abroad and on the suspicious aspect of affairs; but
he told them there was no occasion to fear (7th August). Another time
he made answer: “A man would never be at ease, if he interpreted every
action to his own disadvantage. It would be better to die a hundred
times than live in constant apprehension. I am tired of such alarms,
and have lived long enough.” To others who advised him to leave Paris,
he said: “By so doing I must show either fear or distrust. My honor
would be injured by the one, the king by the other. I should be again
obliged to have recourse to a civil war; and I would rather die a
thousand deaths than see again the miseries I have seen, and suffer
the distress I have already suffered.” Another time he said: “I can
not leave without plunging the country into fresh wars. I would rather
be dragged through the gutters than resort to such extremity.” An
intercepted letter from Cardinal Pelvé to the Cardinal of Lorraine, who
had just departed for Rome, was brought to him. He read in it: “There
are great hopes of success in the enterprise; the admiral suspects
nothing; the war with Flanders is a mere trick; the King of Spain knows
all about it.” The letter was manifestly a forgery--a device to prevent
the marriage, and the admiral treated it with contempt. Many of the
warnings he received were like prophetic dreams--remembered only when
the event confirms their forecastings. How could a man of such a noble
and generous character be suspicious when his royal master was treating
him with so much kindness and deference! Charles had learned at last
that Philip was continually intriguing and fomenting disturbances in
France. He was not so blind as his mother thought him: with all her
art, she could not effectually repress those generous flashes which
from time to time burst out only to make us regret that a better
education had not fitted Charles for his royal station. When he wrote
inviting the admiral to leave Chatillon and come to Paris, the latter
declined on account of the hostility of the citizens. “You have no
cause to fear,” replied the king; “they will attempt nothing against
my will.” At the same time he ordered Marcel, the provost of the
merchants, to see that there was no “scandal” (disturbance) on account
of the admiral’s arrival, or he would be answerable for it.

Coligny had need of all his patience and all his loyalty. What he built
up one day the queen-mother pulled down the next. Catherine told the
Venetian envoy, Giovanni Michieli, that she would not go to war against
Spain unless Philip compelled her: “Assure their lordships of Venice,”
she added, “that not only my words but my acts shall prove the firmness
of my resolutions.”[548] In a few hours, as we have seen, Catherine had
recovered her empire over her son, who, though physically brave, had
no moral courage, and could not bring himself to tell the admiral of
his altered purposes. No one else would venture to do so, and it was
therefore suggested that, in consequence of certain intelligence which
the king had received, Coligny should be requested to lay his plans
before a committee of the council (consisting of Montpensier, Louis of
Gonzaga, Cossé, and others), who were certain to condemn them. They
unanimously opposed the war, and after ineffectually trying to bend
the king, he turned to the queen-mother, and said: “Madam, the king
refuses to enter upon a war with Spain. God grant he may not be engaged
in another which he may perhaps find it not so easy to renounce.”[549]
This, which is the language of disappointed hopes, sounded very like a
threat, and there may probably have been a bitterness in his tone that
gave a meaning to his words he never intended they should bear. He only
meant, what he had often said before, that the best mode of healing the
wounds of the past wars would be to march the two parties side by side
to fight a common enemy. But his enemies put the worst construction on
his language, and his death was resolved on.[550] The king was very
impressionable: if he were suffered to consult with the admiral again,
the old ascendancy might be recovered, and would Coligny be inclined
to use his new power mercifully? The blow must be struck at once, but
first the union of the two families must be cemented by the marriage of
Henry and Margaret.

On the 8th of July, Henry, now King of Navarre, entered Paris, attended
by the Prince of Condé, the Cardinal of Bourbon, the admiral, and
800 of the most gallant gentlemen in France, all dressed in mourning
garments, very different from the gay costumes worn by the Catholic
gentlemen, who went out to meet him. At the gate of St. Jacques he was
received by the Duke of Anjou and a magnificent train of nobles and
officers attached to the court. The corporation of the city attended in
their scarlet robes. Condé and his brother the marquis rode between the
Duke of Guise and the Chevalier d’Angoulême; Henry between the king’s
two brothers, Anjou and Alençon. The united trains, amounting to 1500
horsemen, proceeded in ominous silence through the crowded streets
to the Louvre. No voice was raised to greet the Huguenot princes,
though many a murmur showed the feeling of the populace, who from time
to time raised the cry of “Guise” or “Anjou.” But the ladies at the
windows were more demonstrative, as Henry of Navarre with his handsome
features and winning smile bowed to the saddle-bow, or occasionally
pointed to some group more attractive than usual, which caught his eye
in balcony or window. In after years, he used to look back to this as
the happiest day of his life.

For a moment the mocking humor of the Parisian populace was overawed.
But when the escort began to separate and to move in smaller bodies
through the streets to gain their lodgings, the mob recovered their
audacity: “Come and see the accursed Huguenots, these outcasts of
heaven!” As the Protestants wandered through the city, they greatly
offended the superstitious prejudices of the citizens by neglecting
to raise their hats as they passed the crosses or the images at the
corners. “Deniers of God!” muttered the bigoted priests, as they
scowled on the men who passed them with a look of scorn and pity. The
Huguenots have been accurately designated as “quasi aliens,”--men
alien in language, costume, and religion. For years the sound of
psalm-singing had not offended Parisian ears, and now the hated
words of Marot were heard once more in their streets. What wonder if
there were frequent quarrels, if blood was shed, and if it was found
necessary to keep the Huguenots pretty much by themselves. “Both
parties,” says Haton, “were armed and equipped as if about to enter
upon a campaign.” The Protestants were walking over a volcano, and
there were bigots and fanatics among them who seemed to court rather
than avoid an explosion.

The wedding-day had been originally fixed for the 10th June, but
difficulties about the dispensation, and then the illness and death of
Joan of Navarre, had caused the ceremony to be delayed. Pius V. had (as
we have seen) constantly opposed the marriage, and refused to grant the
dispensation required when the parties were of different religions,
and also so nearly related. But the new pope, Gregory XIII., appears
to have been more compliant, or the letter stating that the bull of
dispensation was on the road must have been a forgery.[551] There were
many reasons why the marriage should be put off no longer. As the young
queen’s health was delicate, and she was soon to become a mother, it
was advisable to get her away as early as possible from the noise and
malaria of the capital.[552] It was therefore arranged that the wedding
should take place on the 18th August. The betrothal was solemnized the
day before at the Louvre, whence, after a supper and ball, the bride
was conducted by the king and queen, the queen-mother, the Duchess of
Lorraine, and other lords and ladies, to the palace of the Bishop of
Paris, where, according to the ceremonial observed in such cases, she
passed the night. On Monday the King of Navarre went to fetch her: he
was accompanied by Anjou and Alençon and a host of other lords of both
religions. Charles, Henry, and Condé were dressed alike to show their
close affection. “Every body hates me but my brother of Navarre,” the
king once said; “and he loves me, and I love him.” Their dress was of
pale yellow satin, embroidered with silver, and adorned with pearls
and precious stones. The other lords were richly dressed according
to their fancy, and contemporaries speak with wonder of the costly
ornaments they wore. Michieli, the Venetian embassador, says: “You
would not believe there was any distress in the kingdom. The king’s
toque, charger, and garments cost from five to six hundred thousand
crowns. Anjou, among other jewels in his toque, had a set of thirty-two
pearls bought for the occasion at the cost of 23,000 gold crowns of
the sun. More than one hundred and twenty ladies dazzled the eyes
with the brilliancy of their sumptuous silks, brocades, and velvets,
thickly interwoven with gold or silver.” Margaret very complacently
describes her own large blue mantle with its train four ells long.
According to the custom observed on the marriage of a king’s daughter,
the nuptial ceremony was to be performed in a pavilion constructed on
the open space fronting the cathedral of Notre Dame. It was a beautiful
summer day; cannons roared, the bells rang out cheerily from every
steeple, and every roof, window, or spot of ground whence a view of the
procession could be caught was densely crowded. But the spectators were
not so joyous as they usually are when any great parade of state is to
be exhibited. The marriage was not popular, and ominous murmurs against
the heretics were heard from time to time. A raised covered platform
led from the bishop’s palace to the pavilion, and along it marched
bishops and archbishops leading the way in copes of cloth of gold.
Then came the cardinals resplendent in scarlet, knights of St. Michael
with their orders, followed by all the great officers of state, whose
places and the interval between them were regulated by the strictest
etiquette. Among these was Henry, Duke of Guise, then twenty-two years
old, one of the handsomest men of the day. Countless fingers were
pointed to him, and his reception, compared with that afterward given
to the king, reminds us of that so inimitably described by our great
dramatic poet:

    You would have thought the very windows spoke,
    So many greedy looks of young and old
    Through casements darted their desiring eyes
    Upon his visage; and that all the walls,
    With painted imagery, said at once:
    Jesus preserve thee! welcome!

When “the well grac’d actor left the stage,” men’s eyes would have
“idly bent” upon the rest of the procession, but that it consisted
of the fairest dames and damsels of the court, chief of whom was the
bride herself, whose beauty deserved all the raptures that poets have
lavished upon it. Ronsard calls her “the fair grace Pasithea,” and
compares her hands to the “fingers of young Aurora, rose-dyed and
steeped in dew.” At church her dazzling beauty disturbed the devotions
of the worshipers. She had just completed her twentieth year: her
complexion was clear, her hair black, her eyes full of fire, though at
times remarkable for a dreamy languor, which gave her a voluptuous and
tender look, as if to indicate a heart that was framed for love. All
her movements were full of grace and majesty. She was unrivaled in the
dance, and played on the lute and sang with exquisite taste. But there
was a frightful reverse to this charming picture: she was untruthful,
vain, extravagant, and hoped by her devotion to the forms of religion
to atone for the errors of her daily life. In justice, however, to
Margaret, let it be said that this last defect was not peculiar to
herself or to the sixteenth century; nor dare we affirm that such
compromises between God and the world were more common then than they
are now.

Margaret’s dress on her wedding-day was long the talk of court gossips.
In such matters her taste was peculiar and exquisite. Brilliants flamed
like stars among her hair; her stomacher was sprinkled with pearls, so
as to resemble a silvery coat of mail; her dress was of cloth of gold,
and rare lace of the same precious metal fringed her handkerchief and
gloves.

After the marriage ceremony had been performed in the pavilion,[553]
Henry led his bride into the Church of Notre Dame to hear mass, and
then withdrew with Condé, the admiral, and other lords, who passed
the interval walking up and down the cathedral close. The historian
De Thou, then a youth at college, was among the spectators of the
ceremony. After the bridal train had left the church, he leaped over
the barriers, and found himself close to the admiral, who was showing
Damville the banners captured at Jarnac and Moncontour, which hung as
trophies from the wall. “I heard him say,” continues De Thou: “Ere long
these will be down, and others more agreeable to the eyes put up in
their place.”

Henry conducted his wife to the bishop’s palace, where a magnificent
dinner had been prepared for them; but there was no dancing: not that
bishops had any objection to such amusements, but because there was
no time, for a magnificent supper awaited all the wedding-party at
the Louvre. The next three days were passed in festivities, balls and
banquets, masques and tourneys, in which both Huguenots and Catholics
took part. Old enmities seemed forgotten.[554] In all these amusements
Henry of Navarre distinguished himself. He had a kind word for every
body, was ready with jest and humor, charmed the ladies by his
gallantry, which, though rather unpolished (for he had seen more of
camps than of courts) was the more pleasing from its novelty. Charles
grew fonder of him than ever, while his dislike for Anjou increased
proportionately.

On the evening of Wednesday, the 20th August, a splendid masque was
represented, in which some historians imagine that the coming tragedy
was actually prefigured. In the great hall of the Hotel Bourbon,
which adjoined the Louvre, the eternal struggle between good and
evil was depicted in a very curious way. On the right was Paradise,
defended by three armed knights (the king and his two brothers): on
the left was Hell, and between them flowed the Styx, on which Charon
plied his ferry-boat. Behind Paradise lay the Elysian fields and
Heaven resplendent with glittering stars. A body of knights, armed
_cap-à-pie_, and distinguished by various scarves and favors,
attempted to make their way into Paradise, but they were all defeated
and dragged into Hell, to the great exultation of the devil and his
imps, who closed the doors upon them. And now Heaven opened, and
there descended from it Mercury and Cupid. After a song to the three
victorious knights, Mercury (who was Étienne le Roi, the first singer
of the day) re-entered his car, which was borne by a cock that kept
crowing lustily, and was taken back to Heaven. A ballet followed, then
a tilting-match--the combatants, it is to be presumed, were on foot.
The amusements were terminated by firing trains of gunpowder laid
round a fountain in the centre of the hall. It is absurd to attach any
importance to these allegorical representations, which were the fashion
of the day, and were probably prepared by the court poet as a mere
matter of business, and who certainly would not have been let into the
secret--if there were any. But after the massacre the Catholics used
to boast that the king had driven the Huguenots into hell. The next
day, Thursday, other shows were exhibited, to the great disgust of the
admiral, who wanted to leave Paris, which he could not do until he had
transacted some very important business with the king, and Charles was
so taken up with the wedding festivities, and entered into them so
heartily, that he scarcely gave himself time for sleep, much less for
business. “Give me three or four days more of relaxation,” he said,
“and after that I promise you, on my royal word, that you shall be
satisfied.” Still the admiral wanted to get away, and would probably
have left, but for a deputation from the Huguenot churches, who prayed
him to remain until their affairs were satisfactorily arranged. The
admiral longed to be at home. On the wedding-day of the King of
Navarre, he wrote to his wife the last letter she was ever to receive
from him.

    PARIS, 18th August, 1572.

    MY DEAREST AND MOST BELOVED WIFE.

   To-day the marriage of the king’s sister with the King of
   Navarre was celebrated, and the next three or four days will be
   occupied with banquets, masques, and other amusements; and when
   these are over the king has promised to devote some days to an
   inquiry into the complaints that are made from different parts
   of the kingdom about the infractions of the edict, in which
   it is most reasonable that I should employ myself as much as
   possible; and though I have an infinite desire to see you, yet
   I should be very sorry, and I believe you would grieve also, if
   I failed to interest myself to the extent of my power. At all
   events the delay will not be long, and I hope to leave next
   week. If I studied my own convenience only, I would rather be
   with you than stay any longer at court, for reasons I will tell
   you; but we must set the public advantage before our own.[555] I
   have much to tell you, when I see you, which I desire night and
   day. As for news--the wedding-mass was sung this afternoon at
   four o’clock, the King of Navarre walking about in a court-yard
   with all those of the religion who had accompanied him. Other
   matters I leave till we meet; meanwhile I pray God to have you,
   my beloved wife, in his holy keeping.

          *       *       *       *       *

   P.S. Three days ago I suffered with colic pains, which lasted
   eight or ten hours, but I thank God that by his goodness I am
   now quite free from them. Be assured that during these pastimes
   and festivities I will give offense to no man. Farewell, from
   your beloved husband,

    CHATILLON.

On Wednesday the admiral had an audience of the king, in the course of
which Charles spoke to him about the Guise faction, remarking that he
was not sure of them; they had come in strong force to the wedding, and
were well armed; and to keep them in order he proposed to introduce
“his arquebusiers” into the city under certain officers whom he named.
Coligny thanked his majesty: “Although I believe myself quite safe,
I willingly leave the matter in your hands.” In the course of the
day, 1200 of the guard marched into Paris, and were quartered in the
Louvre and its vicinity. This was a measure of precaution. There was
every probability of a collision in the streets, and a strong force
was necessary to command the respect of both factions. Charles was
gradually recovering from the effects of his mother’s entreaties at
Montpipeau: the more he saw of the admiral, the more he was pleased
with the loyalty and honesty of the old Huguenot warrior. Anjou and
Catherine had attentively watched the change. In that remarkable
statement which the duke is believed to have made to one of his
attendants, he says: “We had observed that if either of us ventured to
speak with the king after the long and frequent conversations he used
to have with the admiral, we found him strangely out of temper; he
looked angry, and the answers he gave were unaccompanied by the honor
and respect he used to show the queen. One day, shortly before the
massacre, I went expressly to see the king, and entered his closet as
the admiral left it; but as soon as my brother observed me, he began
to pace the room angrily, looking at me askance, and playing with the
handle of his dagger, so that I expected he would attack me every
minute. As he continued in this furious mood, I began to regret having
entered the room, and with some trouble contrived to leave it without
attracting his notice. I went straight to my mother, and told her what
had happened, and after comparing things together, we came to the
conclusion that the admiral had inspired the king with some sinister
opinion of us, and we therefore determined to get rid of him, and to
concert the means with the Duchess of Nemours, whom alone we ventured
to admit into the plot, because of the mortal hatred she bore to the
admiral.”[556] One account says that a council was held at Monceaux,
shortly after the scene at Montpipeau, at which Anjou, Tavannes,
Retz, Sauve, and Catherine were present, and where it was resolved to
assassinate Coligny; that Catherine told the Duchess of Nemours, and
that the court then returned to Paris. This does not contradict Anjou’s
narrative, though it does not exactly harmonize with it.

The Duchess of Nemours was the widow of the late Duke of Guise. She had
married again, but still nourished the most rancorous hatred against
the supposed murderer of her first husband. Her son, who had been
admitted into the plot, proposed that she should kill the admiral with
her own hand, in the midst of the court festivities, and before the
eyes of the king.[557] When the duchess refused to take so active a
part in Coligny’s murder, they sent for Maurevel, the king’s assassin
(_le tueur du roi_), as he was called.[558] This man had been
brought up in the late Duke of Guise’s household; and when a price had
been set upon the admiral’s head, he made an attempt on Coligny’s life,
but killed Jacques de Mouy instead. He was rewarded, however, for his
good intentions, and not only received the promised 2000 crowns, but at
the king’s express desire the collar of the Order was conferred upon
him. This was the ruffian whom Anjou and Henry of Guise hired to murder
the great Huguenot leader. After receiving the necessary instructions
he repaired to his post; and while he was watching day after day for
his victim, Catherine was devising fresh amusements in honor of her
daughter’s marriage.[559]




                             CHAPTER XII.

                          THE ASSASSINATION.

                     [22d, 23d, and 24th August.]

   Coligny in the Tennis-Court--The Fatal Shot--The
   King’s Indignation and Threats--Letters to Provincial
   Governors--Precautions in the City--Interview between Charles
   and the Admiral--Despair of Catherine and Anjou--The Huguenot
   Council--Threats of violence--De Pilles and Pardaillan
   at the Louvre--The Turning-point--Conversation between
   Catherine and Anjou--Meeting in the Tuileries Garden--Guard
   sent to Coligny--Scene in the King’s Closet--Catherine’s
   Argument--De Retz Protests--Charles Yields at last--Guise
   in the City--Precautions--Anjou and Angoulême ride
   through Paris--Municipal Arrangements--Charles and La
   Rochefoucault--Margaret and her sister Claude--Coligny’s last
   Night.


The 22d of August, 1572, fell on Friday. Early in the morning Coligny
had gone to the Louvre on business, and was on his way home, when he
met the king coming from chapel. He turned and accompanied Charles to
the tennis-court, where he stood a short time watching a match which
his son-in-law, Teligny, and another were playing against the king and
the Duke of Guise. When he took his leave, it was past ten o’clock, and
near his dinner-hour. To reach his hotel[560] in the Rue de l’Arbre
Sec, at the corner of the Rue de Bethisy, he had to pass along the Rue
des Fossés de St. Germain. As he was turning the corner with De Guerchy
on one side and Des Pruneaux on the other, a shot was fired from the
latticed window of a house on his right, known as the Hotel de Retz,
near one of the large doors of the cloister of St. Germain l’Auxerrois
adjoining the deanery. The admiral, who was reading a petition that
had just been placed in his hands, staggered backward, exclaiming, “I
am wounded,” and fell into the arms of the Sieur de Guerchy. He was
hit with two bullets: one carried off the first finger of the right
hand, the other wounded him in the left arm. Pointing to the house
whence the shot had proceeded, he bade Yolet, one of his esquires, go
to the king and tell him what had happened. Des Pruneaux hastily bound
a handkerchief round the wounded hand, and assisted the admiral to
his hotel, which was fortunately not more than a hundred yards off.
Meanwhile some of his attendants broke into the house, but found nobody
there except the old woman in charge and a horse-boy, from whom they
learned that the assassin Maurevel had escaped through the adjoining
cloisters, that the house belonged to Canon Villemur, formerly tutor to
the Duke of Guise, and that the horse on which Maurevel rode away came
from the duke’s stables. The arquebuse still lay in the window, and on
examination proved to belong to one of Anjou’s body-guard.

With this important but unsatisfactory information they returned to the
admiral, whom they found lying on his bed. Ambrose Paré, the king’s
surgeon-royal, had already amputated the finger and extracted the ball
from his arm; but the operation was a painful one, for the famous
surgeon’s instruments were not in good order. The admiral bore the
torture better than his friends, who could not restrain their tears:
“Why do you weep?” he asked; “I think myself blessed to have received
these wounds in God’s cause. Pray that he will strengthen me.” Then
turning to his chaplain Merlin, who was much distressed: “Why do you
not rather comfort me?” he said. “There is no greater or surer comfort
for you,” answered Merlin, “than to think continually that God does you
a great honor in deeming you worthy to suffer for his name’s sake.”
“Nay, dear Merlin, if God should handle me according to my deserts, I
should have far other manner of griefs to endure.” The conversation
then turned upon the attempted murder: “I forgive freely and with all
my heart,” said the admiral, “both him that struck me and those who
incited him to do it; for I am sure it is not in their power to do me
any evil, not even if they kill me.”

The news of the outrage spread instantaneously through Paris. A
messenger, all breathless, burst into the tennis-court, where the king
had continued playing after Coligny had left, and shouted: “The admiral
is killed! the admiral is killed!” Charles eagerly questioned him, and
then turning abruptly away, threw down his racket, angrily exclaiming
as he left the ground: “S’death! shall I never have a moment’s quiet?
Must I have fresh troubles every day?”[561] He withdrew to his
apartments, declaring that he would avenge the admiral, and, writing to
Mandelot a few hours later, he said: “I have sent in every direction to
try and catch the murderer and punish him, as his wicked act deserves.”
Then continuing in language whose sincerity can not be doubted: “And
insomuch as the news may excite many of my subjects on one side or the
other, I pray you make known everywhere how the affair happened, and
assure every body of my intention to observe inviolably my edicts of
pacification and to chastise sharply all who infringe them, so that
they may be convinced of my sincerity and follow my example.” To La
Mothe-Fénelon, Charles wrote that he would investigate this “infamous
deed,” and not suffer his edict to be outraged. He ordered Teligny
to mount his horse and ride after the assassin,[562] and sent to the
Provost of Paris, bidding him take precautions against any outbreak.
The municipal council were sitting when the royal messenger arrived,
and without delay they took such measures as seemed necessary to
preserve the public peace, which at that moment was in far greater
danger from the incensed Huguenots than from the amazed Catholics.
The civic guards were mustered, the post at the Hotel-de-Ville was
strengthened, the sentries at the gates were doubled, the citizens were
forbidden to close their shops, and no person was allowed to come armed
into the streets.[563]

Meanwhile the King of Navarre, accompanied by some 600 or 700 Huguenot
gentlemen, visited the admiral, threatening vengeance upon the
assassins. Marshals Damville and Cossé came in together. “Never in my
life,” said the former, “have I suffered such a heavy blow. Tell me
what I can do to serve you. I wonder who could be the contriver of
so foul an outrage.” “I suspect no one,” replied the admiral, adding
after a pause, “unless it be the Duke of Guise, and that I dare not say
for certain. I am grieved to find myself kept to my bed, as I wished
to show the king how much I would have done for his sake. Would God I
might talk a little with him, for there are certain things which he
ought to know, and I am afraid there is no one who dares tell him.”
Teligny immediately proceeded to the Louvre, where he met Henry of
Navarre and the Prince of Condé, who had just left the royal presence.
They had gone to ask permission to leave the court on the ground that
they could no longer remain there in security. Charles was greatly
excited, and earnestly begged them to stay. Breaking into one of his
tempestuous passions he declared, with his usual blasphemous oaths,
that the admiral’s blood should be atoned for; that he would punish
all concerned in the outrage, “so that the child unborn should rue
the vengeance of the day.” Even Catherine was alarmed at this burst
of fury, and, with tears in her eyes, exclaimed, that if this bloody
deed were suffered to pass unavenged, the king would not be safe in his
palace. Teligny delivered his message that the admiral desired to see
the king before he died, and Charles promised to visit his old friend.
It seems pretty clear that Charles suspected whence the blow proceeded.
His sister Margaret, whose memory on this point at least is likely to
be faithful, says that “if M. de Guise had not kept out of the way that
day, he would have been hanged.” And no doubt the king, in the first
burst of passion, would have carried out his threats.

All this time the queen-mother and Anjou were in a dreadful state of
agitation. The blow had failed, and if the victim recovered from his
wounds, their participation in the plot could not be concealed. “Our
notable enterprise[564] having miscarried,” says the duke, “my mother
and myself[565] had ample matter for reflection and uneasiness during
the greater part of the day.” There was still hope, for the bullets
might be poisoned, or the wounds mortal. There was danger all around
them; Paris was in a terrible ferment; the Huguenots were angry and
suspicious. The Queen of Navarre had been poisoned (they said), and
now their old leader was assassinated. Who would be the next victim?
Murmuring crowds filled the streets, and it seemed almost impossible to
prevent an outbreak.

About two o’clock in the afternoon, Charles, accompanied by his mother
and his brother Henry, and attended by many who were a few hours later
to stain their hands in innocent blood, went to see Coligny. The king
walked in moody silence, so absorbed with his own thoughts as to omit
lifting his hat to an image of the Virgin at a street corner. He hardly
responded to the salutations of the people who crowded the street in
front of the admiral’s hotel, which also was filled with anxious and
uneasy friends. Up the wide staircase, lined with veterans who had
fought by the side of Coligny on many a bloody field--through the
antechamber, where the Huguenot gentry frowned defiance at Catherine
and Anjou, whose enmity to the admiral was well known--into the large
chamber whose windows overlooked the court-yard--passed the royal
party. Charles went to the admiral’s bedside, and calling him by the
affectionate name of “father,” asked him how he felt. “I humbly thank
your majesty,” he replied, “for the great honor you have done me, and
the great trouble you have taken on my account.” Charles desired him
to cheer up, and hoped he would soon be well of his wounds. “There
are three things about which I longed to talk with your majesty. The
first is my own faithfulness and allegiance toward your highness. So
may I have the favor and mercy of God, at whose judgment-seat this
mischance will probably set me ere long, as I have ever borne a good
heart toward your majesty’s person and crown. And yet I am well aware
that malicious persons have accused me to your highness, and condemned
me as a troubler of the State.[566] But God will judge between me and
my slanderers, and decide according to his righteousness.... Now as to
the Flanders matter, a straw can scarcely be stirred in your secret
council but it is by and by carried to the Duke of Alva. Sire, I would
very fain that you had a care of this thing.[567]... The last which I
would wish you to have no less care of, is the observing of your Edict
of Pacification. You know you have oftentimes confirmed it by oath,
and you know that not foreign nations only, but also your neighbors
and friends are witnesses of the oft renewing of the same oath. Oh,
Sire, how unseemly is it that this your oath should be counted but for
a jest and a mockery. Within these few days past, a nurse was carrying
home a young babe from baptism, not far from Troyes in Champagne, after
attending a sermon in a certain village, by you assigned for the same
purpose, when certain persons, who lay in wait by the way, killed both
the nurse and the child, and some of the company which had been bidden
to the christening. Consider, I beseech you, how terrible that murder
was, and how it may stand with your honor and dignity to suffer such
great outrages to go unrevenged and unpunished in your kingdom.”

The king replied that he had never doubted the admiral’s loyalty,
but had always taken him for a good subject and excellent captain,
without his peer in the whole realm. “If I had any other opinion
of you,” he exclaimed, “I should never have done what I have.” He
made no reference to the Flemish war, but promised that the Edict of
Pacification should be kept faithfully and strictly; for which purpose
he had sent commissioners into all parts of the kingdom, appealing to
the queen-mother for confirmation. “My lord, there is nothing truer,”
she said; “commissioners have been sent into all parts.”--“Yes, madam,
I know it,” returned Coligny, “and of that sort of men who valued my
head at 50,000 crowns.” Charles now interposed: “My lord admiral, we
will send others; you are getting too excited. It is better that you
should be quiet. You bear the wound, but I the smart.[568] I swear by
God’s life that I will take such terrible revenge, that it shall never
be forgotten.” He added that two persons were already in custody,
and inquired whether the admiral desired to have any of his friends
in the commission of investigation. “I refer it to your majesty’s
discretion and justice, but as you ask my opinion, I could desire to
see Cavaignes, Masparault, and another appointed. Surely there needs no
great search be made for the culprit.” Upon this the king and Catherine
drew nearer the admiral’s pillow, and talked with him so low that none
in the room could hear what passed. At the end the queen-mother said:
“Although I am only a woman, yet I am of opinion that it is to be
looked to betimes.”

The Duke of Anjou gives a somewhat different account of this portion
of the interview: “As the admiral desired to speak privately with
the king, his majesty made a sign to my mother and to myself to
retire.[569] We accordingly quitted the bedside, and stood in the
middle of the chamber, full of suspicion and uneasiness. We saw
ourselves surrounded by more than 200 Huguenot captains, who filled
the adjoining chamber and also the hall below. Their countenances
were melancholy, and they showed by their gestures how disaffected
they were, omitting to pay us due reverence, as if they suspected
us of having caused the admiral’s wound. We began to feel great
apprehension, so much so that the queen determined to put a stop to
the conversation between the king and the admiral under some plausible
pretext. Approaching the king, she said: ‘Your majesty is wrong in
permitting the admiral to excite himself by talking; pray put off the
rest until another day.’” The king with great reluctance broke off the
conversation. As he was leaving, he proposed that the admiral should
be removed to the Louvre, lest there should be any commotion in the
city. The surgeons protested against the step, and with regard to the
possible tumult, some one, probably Teligny, answered: “The Parisians
are no more to be feared than women, so long as the king continues his
faithful good-will toward the admiral.” The speaker knew little of the
temper of the inhabitants of that turbulent city.

Before he quitted the room, Charles asked to see the ball, and praised
the admiral for the firmness with which he had endured the pain of the
operation. The queen-mother then took the bullet, and poising it in
her hand, said slowly and significantly: “I am very glad that it is
not still in the wound, for I remember that when the Duke of Guise
was killed before Orleans, the surgeons told me that if the ball had
been extracted, even though poisoned, his life would not have been
in danger.” Why did Catherine revert to the duke’s murder? Was it
to remind Coligny that he had been suspected of a guilty knowledge
of Poltrot’s designs, and that the son was but the minister of the
father’s vengeance?

On their way back to the palace, the queen-mother asked Charles to tell
her what the admiral had said to him in private.[570] At last, annoyed
by her importunity, he answered, “short and angrily,” with his usual
oath: “S’death, madam, the admiral only told me the truth. He said that
kings are respected in France only so long as they have the power to
reward and punish their subjects, and that the power and administration
of the whole realm had slipped into your hands, and that such a state
of affairs might one day be prejudicial to me and my kingdom. Of this
he wished to warn me, as a faithful servant and subject, before he
died. And now you know what the admiral said to me.” Anjou and the
queen-mother were greatly vexed; but, hiding their feelings, they tried
to excuse and justify themselves all the way to the Louvre. Leaving the
king in his closet, Anjou went to his mother, whom he found in great
agitation, fearing that Coligny’s advice would lead to some change in
her position, and in the administration of public affairs. Catherine,
usually so fertile in resources, was quite confounded: she could
think of nothing, devise nothing that could extricate them from their
embarrassed position; and the two conspirators separated for the night,
hoping that the morrow would bring them the means of deliverance.

Not long after the royal visitors had left Coligny’s room, Ferrers,
vidame of Chartres, entered and congratulated the admiral that his
enemies dared not assail him openly: “Blessed and happy are you that
the memory of your prowess has extended so far.” “Nay,” replied the
wounded man, “I think myself blessed because God has vouchsafed to
pour out his mercy upon me; for they are rightly happy whose sins God
forgiveth.” The vidame presently withdrew to a lower room, where the
King of Navarre, Condé, and other Huguenot lords had met to consult on
the course to be adopted. “Let us arm ourselves and garrison the house;
for this is only the beginning of the tragedy,” said some. “To horse,
and away from Paris,” said others; “and we will take the admiral with
us.” This the physicians[571] declared to be impossible, unless they
wished to kill him outright. The more reasonable gentlemen argued that
it would be unwise to do more than demand justice at the king’s hands
upon the murderers--an opinion which Teligny warmly supported. “I know
the king’s mind thoroughly,” he said; “you will only offend him if you
doubt his desire to do justice.” For a long while the more violent
party would not give way, and at last the meeting broke up without
coming to any decision farther than that they should consult his
majesty, whether the admiral should be removed or the Huguenots collect
round him. As they marched off in military array through the streets,
threatening the Guises, Anjou, the queen-mother, and even the king
himself, or thundering out one of the Huguenot psalms, such as they had
often sung as a war-song on the eve of battle, the prospect of an armed
collision must have struck many thoughtful observers. The position was
very dangerous: an explosion might take place at any moment. Indeed,
the only doubt among the fiercest spirits of both parties was when to
begin. That very evening a body of Huguenot gentlemen, headed by those
“stupid clumsy fools”[572] De Pilles and the Baron of Pardaillan,
paraded tumultuously through the streets to the Louvre. As they passed
before the Hotel de Guise, in the Marais,[573] they shouted loud
defiance, flourishing their swords, and some are reported to have
discharged their pistols at the windows. When admitted to the presence,
while the king was at supper, they fiercely demanded vengeance, and by
their looks did not spare Anjou, who was at his brother’s side. “If the
king refuses us justice,” they cried, “we will take the matter into our
own hands.”

The night of the 22d was the turning-point of Catherine’s policy. The
threats of the Huguenots had so alarmed her, that her nerves were
quite unstrung; visions of danger started up before her wherever she
turned. Treacherous herself, she may have believed the tales (if they
were not of her own invention) of Huguenot conspiracies, which she
afterward employed so effectually to exasperate the impetuous king.
Her policy of “trimming” no longer seemed possible. Early the next
morning Anjou had another interview with his mother. The night had not
brought wisdom, but doubt. Catherine still wavered between contending
schemes. On one point alone she had made up her mind--that the admiral
must be got rid of at any sacrifice, now that Maurevel had so unluckily
failed.[574] Had the assassin’s bullet struck a vital part, Catherine’s
trouble would have been at an end.[575] She had nothing to fear from
the Huguenots without a leader: Condé and Navarre were young; they
were in her power, and could do nothing. There might be a street riot
between the partisans of Guise and of the admiral; perhaps the duke
himself might be killed in the fray. But now, if Maurevel were caught,
his employers would be known to a certainty. Had not the rack forced
Poltrot to confess? Then what would become of her beloved Henry,
against whom Charles was already so violently angered? It was not
probable that the Duke of Guise would endure the odium, or silently
put up with the king’s displeasure. He was too powerful to be made
the scape-goat of another’s crimes, and was such a favorite with the
Parisians that to give him up might be perilous to herself and her
sons. As she had not strength to control and restrain both parties,
she must side with one of them. Yet there was danger either way--even
had her hands been pure from Coligny’s blood. The victory of the
Huguenots might lead to the establishment of a republic; the victory
of the Guises (as she afterward learned to her sorrow) might lead to
the deposition of her son. There was no escape: Catherine was caught
in the meshes of her own crime. Maurevel’s work must be completed. But
how? “Ruse and finesse,” says Anjou, “were now out of the question.”
The murder must be done openly. There were serious difficulties in the
way. Coligny was under the king’s protection, and how could Charles be
prevailed upon to sacrifice his “friend and father?”

There are three different narratives of the proceedings at the Louvre
on Saturday, 23d August. The Calvinist account, given in the “Mémoires
de l’Etat de France,” may be dismissed without a word; Margaret’s
statements are almost as unreliable; so that none remains but that
which bears the name of the Duke of Anjou. Even with his help it is
very difficult to trace the real order of events, or to make his
narrative coincide with the entries in the register of the City of
Paris. One thing alone is clear, that Anjou (or his reporter Miron) is
not telling the whole truth.

In order to escape observation, the queen-mother summoned her intimate
advisers to meet her at the Tuileries.[576] The Louvre was too crowded,
too open to Huguenot observation; but in the private gardens of her
country house beyond the city walls, they could talk without danger.
Anjou, Tavannes, Birague, De Retz, and Nevers were present, but of
their deliberations no record exists, and they can only be imagined
from the result. They agreed that there was not a moment to be lost.
The admiral was out of danger: to-morrow he might be removed beyond
their reach. He must be got rid of that very night. If he and five or
six other Huguenot chiefs were dispatched, all would be well.[577]
There is a worthless story of a sort of proscription list having been
drawn up, at the head of which stood the names of Henry of Navarre and
the Prince of Condé. The younger Tavannes claimed for his father the
credit of saving their lives; but they really owed their safety to the
queen-mother, who feared that their deaths would make the Guise party
too strong. But nothing could be done without the king’s consent, and
to obtain that would be no easy matter, for “he was very fond (says
Margaret) of the admiral, La Rochefoucault, Teligny, La Noue, and other
Huguenot leaders, whom he hoped to make use of in Flanders.”

All that Saturday Paris continued in a very restless state. People
feared some great catastrophe; and yet their fears took no definite
shape. Suspicion was in the air, and the wildest stories were
circulated. There was “much huffling and shuffling in the city;” guards
had been posted at unusual places, and there was “much carrying to and
fro of arms and armor,” so that the Huguenots felt it expedient “to
consult of the matter betimes, for no good was to be looked for of such
turmoiling.” There was a great assemblage at the hotel of the Duchess
of Guise, and to the Huguenots nothing seemed more likely than that the
duke would make a sudden attack upon Coligny, and finish what had been
so inauspiciously begun. The admiral’s friends accordingly dispatched
Cornaton to the king, with a request that his majesty would be
pleased to order a guard to be posted at the admiral’s house. Charles
would scarcely believe the messenger, and desired the presence of the
queen-mother. Catherine had hardly entered the room when the king,
“being in a great chafe,” burst out: “What means all this? This man
tells me that my people are in commotion and arming themselves.” “They
are doing no such thing,” she calmly replied; “you know you gave orders
that every man should keep in his own ward, as a security against
tumult.” “That is true,” said Charles, who manifestly did not believe
his mother’s denial; “yet I gave charge that no man should take up
arms.” The Parisians had been disarmed some time before the court had
returned to the Louvre; but the weapons which had been taken away were
now being removed from the stores in the arsenal to the Hôtel-de-Ville,
that they might be ready when needed. If, as the Huguenot narrative
implies, this removal of the arms took place in the early part of the
day, it may have been an innocent measure of precaution, but its wisdom
is doubtful under any circumstances; if in the latter part of the day,
it was probably in connection with the projected massacre.

Coligny’s messenger having repeated the request for a guard, Anjou, who
had come in with his mother, said: “Very well, take Cosseins and fifty
arquebusiers.” “Nay, my lord, it will be enough for us if we have but
six of the king’s guard with us; for they will have as much influence
over the people as a greater number of soldiers.” The king rejoined:
“Take Cosseins with you; you can not have a fitter man.” Cosseins
was the admiral’s mortal enemy; but he was also at variance with the
Guises, and it might have been supposed that in case of any outbreak
of the latter, the marshal would not spare them. As Cornaton left the
presence, Thoré, the brother of Marshal Montmorency, whispered in his
ear: “You could not have had a more dangerous keeper.” “What could I
do?” was the rejoinder; “you saw how absolutely the king commanded it.
We have committed ourselves to his honor, but you are a witness of my
first answer to the king’s appointment.” A few hours later Cosseins
posted his fifty soldiers in two houses close to the admiral’s;[578]
and orders came from the king--other authorities say from the Duke of
Anjou--commanding the inhabitants to remove out of the street in order
to accommodate the friends of Coligny. It is not known how far this
order was carried out: probably not at all; but it has usually been
regarded as a very Machiavellian contrivance to get all the Huguenots
together, that they might be killed the more easily. On the other hand,
by collecting a little Huguenot garrison around him, the admiral would
be safer than if he had remained alone in the street. Had there been
the slightest resistance at first, the plot would have miscarried,
and neither Anjou nor his mother would have been so weak as to put
obstructions in the way of their own success.

Meanwhile the government was busily occupied in sending dispatches all
over the country and abroad, describing the events of the previous
day. It was most important to prevent a rising of the Huguenots,
whose suspicions had been so cruelly confirmed by the attempt on
the admiral’s life. In order to calm them, the provincial governors
and magistrates were directed to assure them that justice should be
executed on the perpetrators and abettors of the crime. The letter
to D’Esquilly, governor of Chartres, may be taken as a sample of the
whole. In it the king ascribes the attempt to the Guise faction, adding
that it arose out of a private quarrel between the two houses of
Chatillon and Guise, which he had tried all in his power to arrange.
He orders the edict to be observed “as strictly as ever,” for fear the
recent outrage should provoke his subjects to rise against each other,
and great massacres be perpetrated in the cities, for which he would
feel “a marvelous regret.”[579] Coligny also wrote to the Protestant
churches, desiring them to be calm, for his wounds were not mortal, and
the assassins were being pursued.

During the forenoon of Saturday the Duke of Guise, having heard of
the king’s angry speeches against him, went to the Louvre with his
uncle Aumale, and pretending to fear the violence of the Huguenots,
begged his majesty’s permission to leave the court for awhile. Charles,
scarcely condescending to look at them, bade them begone: “If you are
guilty, I shall know where to find you.” Collecting his suite together,
the duke rode ostentatiously out of one of the gates, and stealthily
re-entered by another, keeping himself ready for any emergency.

The commotions in the city were but a faint copy of the tumults by
which the bosom of the queen-mother was agitated. She had staked
every thing upon the hazard of a throw. Nothing farther could be done
without the king’s consent, and that must be obtained _per fas et
nefas_. According to Anjou’s evidence, Charles retired into his
cabinet after dinner, and, as the dinner-hour was eleven, the time
must have been about midday. He was followed by his brother, the
queen-mother, Nevers, Tavannes, Retz, and Birague. It was an ordinary
council meeting, and they assembled to consult as to what should be
done to preserve tranquillity. Catherine immediately began a long story
about the Huguenots arming against the king on account of the admiral’s
wound. “From letters that have been intercepted, I learn that they
have sent into Germany for 10,000 reiters and to Switzerland for 6000
foot. Many Huguenot officers have already started for the provinces to
raise soldiers, and the mustering-places have been all arranged. Such
a force as the Huguenots will soon have under arms, your majesty’s
troops are not strong enough to resist. Before long the whole kingdom
will be in revolt under the pretext of the public good, and, as your
majesty has neither men nor money, I see no place of security for you
in France.... Your majesty should also know that a still greater danger
threatens your person. They have conspired to place Henry of Navarre
on the throne.” The latter statement, although supported by Alva’s
bulletin,[580] is unworthy of a moment’s credit. Margaret’s silence
is conclusive evidence against it. The former statement is equally
opposed to the truth. Walsingham writes that Montgomery paid him a
visit between nine and ten on Friday night, and told him, “that as he
and those of the Reform had just occasion to be right sorry for the
admiral’s hurt, so had they _no less cause to rejoice to see the king
so careful_ [anxious], as well for the curing of the admiral, as
also for the searching out of the party that hurt him.”[581]

The queen-mother continued: “There is another matter of great
importance that ought not to be kept from you. The Catholics are
thoroughly tired of the long wars, and of being crushed by all sorts of
calamities, and they will endure it no longer. They will make an end of
this state of things, once for all.”

“What would they have?” interrupted Charles. “I am as weary of war as
any of them, and as determined that my peace shall be kept. What better
hope of success have they now than at Moncontour or Jarnac? I will hang
the first man that draws a sword.”

CATHERINE.--But your majesty has not the power; things are
gone too far. They have resolved to elect a captain-general and make
a league offensive and defensive against the Huguenots. Your majesty
will thus stand alone, without power and authority. France will be
divided into two great camps, over which you will have no control.
There will be danger to all of us, and certain death and destruction to
many thousands, all of which may be prevented by a single stroke of the
sword.

KING.--I do not understand you, _ma mère_; you speak in riddles.

CATHERINE.--To speak plainly, then, we must cut off the head
and author of the civil wars. M. de Chatillon must be disposed of.

At these words the king burst into one of his fits of passion, which so
alarmed the council that none of them ventured to interpose a word. The
queen-mother allowed Charles to exhaust himself, and then resumed in
her most insinuating manner: “The remedy, I confess, is desperate, but
there is no other. The Huguenot plans, now ripe for execution, will die
with their leader. The Catholics, satisfied by the sacrifice of two or
three men, will remain obedient, and all will be well.”

Other arguments were used, to which the king listened moodily, turning
from one to another of his councilors, as if to ask whether his mother
was speaking the truth. But their trained looks confirmed the cunning
tale. Still he was not convinced, and once more giving way to a burst
of passion, he swore he would not have M. de Chatillon touched: “Woe to
any one who injures a hair of his head! He is the only true friend I
have; all the rest are knaves, they are all sold to the Spaniard--all,
except my brother of Navarre.”

Still the queen-mother did not flinch; she had too much at stake. “Do
what you will,” she appears to have said, “the attack on the admiral
will be laid at our door, unless M. de Guise is punished, and he is too
strong for us--at least in Paris. France will again be torn by civil
war, and I see but one way of escape. If we must fight, let us strike
the blow at once, while the enemy is still in Paris and unorganized.”
And probably thinking of Alva’s advice nine years before, she added:
“If we cut off the chiefs, the others are powerless. We must either
have the Guises with us or against us. Our only safety is to call Duke
Henry to our side, make him our tool, and ... (here she paused, as if
to watch the effect of her words) ... and afterward ruin him forever by
throwing all the blame upon him.” As Charles was still unmoved by such
reasoning, and divided between love for Coligny and respect for his
mother, he asked the advice of his council. They gave their opinions
separately, and all agreed with Catherine, except De Retz, who, to
their great astonishment, said: “No man can hate the admiral and his
party more than I do; but I will not, at the expense of the king my
master, avenge myself on my private enemies by a counsel so dangerous
to him and to his kingdom, and so dishonorable to all. We shall be
taxed with perfidy and disloyalty, and by one act shake all confidence
in the faith and word of a king, and consequently of treating afterward
for the pacification of the kingdom in the case of future wars. We
shall be deceived if we think to escape foreign armies by such a
treacherous act, and we shall never see the end of the calamity and
ruin it would bring upon us.”[582] This answer quite staggered the
queen-mother and her advisers; but as no one supported De Retz, his
opinion had no weight, and that may be why he gave utterance to it.

Still the king was not convinced: he sat moody and silent, biting his
nails as was his wont. He would come to no decision. He asked for
proofs, and none were forthcoming, except some idle gossip of the
streets and the foolish threats of a few hot-headed Huguenots. Charles
had learned to love the admiral: could he believe that the gentle
Teligny and that Rochefoucault, the companion of his rough sports,
were guilty of the meditated plot? He desired to be King of France--of
Huguenots and Catholics alike--not king of a party. Catherine, in
her despair, employed her last argument. She whispered in his ear:
“Perhaps, Sire, you are afraid.” As if struck by an arrow, he started
from his chair. Raving like a madman, he bade them hold their tongues,
and with fearful oaths exclaimed, “Kill the admiral if you like,
but kill all the Huguenots with him--all--all--all--so that not one
be left to reproach me hereafter. See to it at once--at once; do you
hear?”[583] And he dashed furiously out of the closet, leaving the
conspirators aghast at his violence.

But there was no time to be lost: the king might change his mind; the
Huguenots might get wind of the plot. The murderous scheme must be
carried out that very night, and accordingly the Duke of Guise was
summoned to the Louvre. And now the different parts of the tragedy
were arranged, Guise undertaking, on the strength of his popularity
with the Parisian mob, to lead them to the work of blood. We may
also imagine him begging as a favor the privilege of dispatching the
admiral in retaliation for his father’s murder. The city was parted
out into districts, each of which was assigned to some trusty officer,
Marshal Tavannes having the general superintendence of the military
arrangements. The conspirators now separated, intending to meet again
at ten o’clock. Guise went into the city, where he communicated his
plans to such of the mob-leaders as could be trusted. He told them
of a bloody conspiracy among the Huguenot chiefs to destroy the king
and royal family and extirpate Catholicism; that a renewal of war was
inevitable, but it was better that war should come in the streets
of Paris than in the open field, for the leaders would thus be far
more effectually punished and their followers crushed. He affirmed
that letters had been intercepted in which the admiral had sought the
aid of German reiters and Swiss pikemen, and that Montmorency was
approaching with 25,000 men to burn the city, as the Huguenots had
often threatened. And, as if to give color to this idle story, a small
body of cavalry had been seen from the walls in the early part of the
day.

Such arguments and such falsehoods were admirably adapted to his
hearers, who swore to carry out the duke’s orders with secrecy and
dispatch. “It is the will of our lord the king,” continued Henry of
Guise, “that every good citizen should take up arms to purge the city
of that rebel Coligny and his heretical followers. The signal will be
given by the great bell of the Palace of Justice. Then let every true
Catholic tie a white band on his arm and put a white cross on his cap,
and begin the vengeance of God.” Finding upon inquiry that Le Charron,
the provost of the merchants, was too weak and tender-hearted for
the work before him, the duke suggested that the municipality should
temporarily confer his power on the ex-provost Marcel, a man of a very
different stamp.

About four in the afternoon Anjou rode through the crowded streets
in company with his bastard brother Angoulême. He watched the aspect
of the populace, and let fall a few insidious expressions in no
degree calculated to quiet the turbulent passions of the citizens.
One account says he distributed money, which is not probable, his
afternoon ride being merely a sort of reconnaissance. The journals of
the Hotel-de-Ville still attest the anxiety of the court--of Catherine
and her fellow-conspirators--that the massacre should be sweeping
and complete. “Very late in the evening”--it must have been after
dark, for the king went to lie down at eight, and did not rise until
ten--the provost was sent for.[584] At the Louvre he found Charles, the
queen-mother, and the Duke of Anjou, with other princes and nobles,
among whom we may safely include Guise, Retz, and Tavannes. The king
now repeated to him the story of a Huguenot plot, which had already
been whispered abroad by Guise and Anjou, and bade him shut the gates
of the city, so that no one could pass in or out, and take possession
of the keys. He was also to draw up all the boats on the river-bank
and chain them together, to remove the ferry, to muster under arms the
able-bodied men of each ward under their proper officers, and hold them
in readiness at the usual mustering-places to receive the orders of
his majesty. The city artillery, which does not appear to have been so
formidable as the word would imply, was to be stationed at the Grève to
protect the Hotel-de-Ville, or for any other duty required of it. With
these instructions the provost returned to the Hotel-de-Ville, where
he spent great part of the night in preparing the necessary orders,
which were issued “very early the next morning.”[585] There is reason
for believing that these measures were simply precautions in case the
Huguenots should resist, and a bloody struggle should have to be fought
in the streets of the capital. The municipality certainly took no part
in the earlier massacres, whatever they may have done later. Tavannes
complains of the “want of zeal” in some of the citizens, and Brantome
admits that “it was necessary to threaten to hang some of the laggards.”

That evening the king had supped in public, and the hours being
much earlier than with us, the time was probably between six and
seven. The courtiers admitted to witness the meal appear to have
been as numerous as ever, Huguenots as well as Catholics, victims
and executioners. Charles, who retired before eight o’clock, kept
Francis, Count of La Rochefoucault, with him for some time, as if
unwilling to part with him. “Do not go,” he said; “it is late. We will
sit and talk all night.” “Excuse me, Sire, I am tired and sleepy.”
“You must stay; you can sleep with my valets.” But as Charles was
rather too fond of rough practical jokes, the count still declined,
and went away, suspecting no evil, to pay his usual evening visit
to the dowager Princess of Condé. He must have remained some time in
her apartments, for it was past twelve o’clock when he went to bid
Navarre good-night. As he was leaving the palace, a man stopped him at
the foot of the stairs, and whispered in his ear. When the stranger
left, La Rochefoucault bade Mergey, one of his suite, to whom we are
indebted for these particulars, return and tell Henry that Guise and
Nevers were about the city. During Mergey’s brief absence, something
more appears to have been told the count, for he returned up stairs
with Nançay, captain of the guard, who, lifting the tapestry which
closed the entrance to Navarre’s antechamber, looked for some time at
the gentlemen within, some playing at cards or dice, others talking.
At last he said: “Gentlemen, if any of you wish to retire, you must do
so at once, for we are going to shut the gates.” No one moved, as it
would appear, for at Charles’s express desire, it is said--which is
scarcely probable--these Huguenot gentlemen had gathered round the King
of Navarre to protect him against any outrage of the Guises.[586] In
the court-yard Mergey found the guard under arms. “M. Rambouillet, who
loved me (he continues) was sitting by the wicket, and as I passed out,
he took my hand, and with a piteous look said: ‘Adieu, Mergey; adieu,
my friend.’ Not daring to say more, as he told me afterward.”

In the apartments of the queen-mother all was not equally calm.
Margaret had no suspicion of the terrible tragedy that was preparing.
“The Huguenots,” she writes in her _Memoirs_, “suspected me
because I was a Catholic, and the Catholics doubted me, because I had
married the King of Navarre: so that between them both I knew nothing
of the coming enterprise.” She was sitting by her sister Claude, who
appeared pensive and sorrowful, when her mother ordered her to retire
to her own room. She rose, and was about to obey, when the Duchess of
Lorraine caught her by the arm, exclaiming: “Sister, for the love of
God, do not leave us.” Catherine sternly rebuked the duchess, and bade
her be silent; but Claude, with true sisterly affection, would not let
Margaret go. “It is a shame,” she said, “to send her to be sacrificed,
for if any thing is discovered, they [meaning the Catholics] will be
sure to avenge themselves upon her.” Still Catherine insisted: “No harm
will befall the Queen of Navarre, and it is my pleasure that she retire
to her own apartments, lest her absence should create suspicion.”
Claude kissed her sister, and bade her good-night with tears in her
eyes. “I departed, alarmed and amazed,” continues Margaret, “unable
to discover what I had to dread.” She found her husband’s apartments
filled with Huguenot gentlemen. “All night long,” says Margaret, “they
continued talking of the accident that had befallen the admiral,
declaring that they would go to the king as soon as it was light, and
demand justice on the Duke of Guise, and if it were not granted, they
would take it into their own hands.... I could not sleep for fear,” she
continues; but when day-light came, and her husband had gone out with
the Huguenot gentlemen to the tennis-court, to wait for his majesty’s
rising, she fell off into a sound slumber.

Coligny’s hotel had been crowded all day by visitors; the Queen of
Navarre had paid him a visit, and most of the gentlemen in Paris,
Catholic as well as Huguenot, had gone to express their sympathy. For
the Frenchman is a gallant enemy, and respects brave men; and the foul
attempt upon the admiral, whom they had so often encountered on the
battle-field, was felt as a personal injury. A council had been held
that day, at which the propriety of removing in a body from Paris and
carrying the admiral with them, had again been discussed. Navarre and
Condé opposed the proposition, and it was finally resolved to petition
the king “to order all the Guisians out of Paris, because they had too
much sway with the people of the town.” One Bouchavannes, a traitor,
was among them, greedily listening to every word, which he reported
to Anjou, strengthening him in his determination to make a clean sweep
that very night.

As the evening came on, the admiral’s visitors took their leave.
Teligny, his son-in-law, was the last to quit his bedside. To the
question whether the admiral would like any of them to keep watch
in his house during the night, he answered, says the contemporary
biographer, “that it was labor more than needed, and gave them thanks
with very loving words.” It was after midnight when Teligny and Guerchy
departed, leaving Ambrose Paré and Pastor Merlin[587] with the wounded
man. There were besides in the house two of his gentlemen, Cornaton
(afterward his biographer) and La Bonne; his squire Yolet, five
Switzers belonging to the King of Navarre’s guard, and about as many
domestic servants. It was the last night on earth for all except two of
that household.




                             CHAPTER XIII.

                        THE FESTIVAL OF BLOOD.

                     [August and September, 1572.]

   The Huguenot Gentleman Killed--Midnight at the Louvre--Charles
   still hesitates--The Conspirators at the window--The
   pistol-shot--Guise recalled too late--Scene at Coligny’s
   Hotel--The assault and murder--Indignities--Montfauçon--Scene at
   the Louvre--Queen Margaret’s alarm--Proclamations--Salviati’s
   letter--List of Atrocities--Death of Ramus and La
   Place--Charles fires upon the Fugitives--Escape of Montgomery,
   Sully, Duplessis-Mornay, Caumont--The Miracle of the White
   Thorn--Charles conscience-stricken--Thanksgiving and
   Justification--Execution of Briquemaut and Cavaignes--Abjuration
   of Henry and Condé.


It is strange that the arrangements in the city, which must have been
attended with no little commotion, did not rouse the suspicion of the
Huguenots. Probably, in their blind confidence, they trusted implicitly
in the king’s word that these movements of arms and artillery, these
postings of guards and midnight musters, were intended to keep the
Guisian faction in order. There is a story that some gentlemen, aroused
by the measured tread of soldiers and the glare of torches--for no
lamps then lit up the streets of Paris--went out-of-doors and asked
what it meant. Receiving an unsatisfactory reply, they proceeded to
the Louvre, where they found the outer court filled with armed men,
who, seeing them without the white cross and the scarf, abused them
as “accursed Huguenots,” whose turn would come next. One of them, who
replied to this insolent threat, was immediately run through with a
spear. This, if the incident be true, occurred about one o’clock on
Sunday morning, 24th August, the festival of St. Bartholomew.

Shortly after midnight the queen-mother rose and went to the king’s
chamber,[588] attended only by one lady, the Duchess of Nemours, whose
thirst for revenge was to be satisfied at last.[589] She found Charles
pacing the room in one of those fits of passion which he at times
assumed to conceal his infirmity of purpose. At one moment he swore he
would raise the Huguenots, and call them to protect their sovereign’s
life as well as their own. Then he burst out into violent imprecations
against his brother Anjou, who had entered the room but did not dare
say a word. Presently the other conspirators arrived: Guise, Nevers,
Birague, De Retz, and Tavannes. Catherine alone ventured to interpose,
and in a tone of sternness well calculated to impress the mind of her
weak son, she declared that there was now no turning back: “It is too
late to retreat, even were it possible. We must cut off the rotten
limb, hurt it ever so much. If you delay, you will lose the finest
opportunity God ever gave man of getting rid of his enemies at a blow.”
And then, as if struck with compassion for the fate of her victims, she
repeated in a low tone--as if talking to herself--the words of a famous
Italian preacher, which she had often been heard to quote before: “É
la pietà lor ser crudele, e la crudeltà lor ser pietosa” (Mercy would
be cruel to them, and cruelty merciful). Catherine’s resolution again
prevailed over the king’s weakness, and the final orders being given,
the Duke of Guise quitted the Louvre, followed by two companies of
arquebusiers and the whole of Anjou’s guard.

As soon as Guise had left, the chief criminals--each afraid to lose
sight of the other, each needing the presence of the other to keep his
courage up--went to a room adjoining the tennis-court overlooking the
Place Bassecour.[590] Of all the party, Charles, Catherine, Anjou, and
De Retz, Charles was the least guilty and the most to be pitied. They
went to the window, anxiously listening for the signal that the work
of death had begun. Their consciences, no less than their impatience,
made it impossible for them to sit calmly within the palace. Anjou’s
narrative continues: “While we were pondering over the events and
the consequences of such a mighty enterprise, of which (to tell the
truth) we had not thought much until then, we heard a pistol-shot. The
sound produced such an effect upon all three of us, that it confounded
our senses and deprived us of judgment. We were smitten with terror
and apprehension of the great disorders about to be perpetrated.”
Catherine, who was a timid woman (adds Tavannes), would willingly
have recalled her orders, and with that intent hastily dispatched a
gentleman to the Duke of Guise, expressly desiring him to return and
attempt nothing against the admiral.[591] “It is too late,” was the
answer brought back: “the admiral is dead”--a statement at variance
with other accounts. “Thereupon,” continues Anjou, “we returned to our
former deliberations, and let things take their course.”

Between three and four o’clock in the morning, the noise of horses and
the measured tramp of foot-soldiers broke the silence of the narrow
street in which Coligny lay wounded. It was the murderers seeking
their victim: they were Henry of Guise with his uncle the Duke of
Aumale, the Bastard of Angoulême, and the Duke of Nevers, with other
foreigners, Italian and Swiss, namely, Fesinghi (or Tosinghi) and
his nephew Antonio, Captain Petrucci, Captain Studer of Winkelbach
with his soldiers, Martin Koch of Freyberg, Conrad Burg,[592] Leonard
Grunenfelder of Glaris, and Carl Dianowitz, surnamed Behm (the
Bohemian?). There were besides one Captain Attin, in the household of
Aumale, and Sarlabous, a renegade Huguenot and commandant of Havre.
It is well to record the names even of these obscure individuals who
stained their hands in the best blood of France. De Cosseins, too, was
there with his guard, some of whom he posted with their arquebuses
opposite the windows of Coligny’s hotel, that none might escape.

Presently there was a loud knock at the outer gate: “Open in the king’s
name.” La Bonne, imagining it to be a message from the Louvre, hastened
with the keys, withdrew the bolt, and was immediately butchered by
the assassins who rushed into the house. The alarmed domestics ran
half awake to see what was the uproar: some were killed outright,
others escaped up stairs, closing the door at the foot and placing
some furniture against it. This feeble barrier was soon broken down,
and the Swiss who had attempted to resist were shot. The tumult woke
Coligny from his slumbers, and divining what it meant--that Guise had
made an attack on the house--he was lifted from his bed, and folding
his robe-de-chambre round him, sat down prepared to meet his fate.[593]
Cornaton entering the room at this moment, Ambrose Paré asked him
what was the meaning of the noise. Turning to his beloved master, he
replied: “Sir, it is God calling us to himself. They have broken into
the house, and we can do nothing.” “I have been long prepared to die,”
said the admiral. “But you must all flee for your lives, if it be not
too late; you can not save me. I commit my soul to God’s mercy.” They
obeyed him, but only two succeeded in making their way over the roofs.
Pastor Merlin lay hid for three days in a loft, where he was fed by a
hen, who every morning laid an egg within his reach.[594]

Paré and Coligny were left alone--Coligny looking as calm and collected
as if no danger impended. After a brief interval of suspense the door
was dashed open, and Cosseins, wearing a corslet and brandishing a
bloody sword in his hand, entered the room, followed by Behm, Sarlabous
and others, a party of Anjou’s Swiss guard, in their tricolored
uniform of black, white, and green, keeping in the rear. Expecting
resistance, the ruffians were for a moment staggered at seeing only two
unarmed men. But his brutal instincts rapidly regaining the mastery,
Behm stepped forward, and pointing his sword at Coligny’s breast,
asked: “Are you not the admiral?” He replied: “I am; but, young man,
you should respect my grey hairs,[595] and not attack a wounded man.
Yet what matters it? You can not shorten my life except by God’s
permission.” The German soldier, uttering a blasphemous oath, plunged
his sword into the admiral’s breast.

        Jugulumque parans, immota tenebat
    Ora senex.[596]

Others in the room struck him also, Behm repeating his blows until
the admiral fell on the floor. The murderer now ran to the window
and shouted into the court-yard: “It is all over.” Henry of Guise,
who had been impatiently ordering his creatures to make haste, was
not satisfied. “Monsieur d’Angoulême will not believe it unless he
sees him,” returned the duke.[597] Behm raised the body from the
ground, and dragged it to the window to throw it out; but life was
not quite extinct, and the admiral placed his foot against the wall,
faintly resisting the attempt.[598] “Is it so, old fox?” exclaimed
the murderer, who drew his dagger and stabbed him several times. Then
assisted by Sarlabous, he threw the body down. It was hardly to be
recognized. The Bastard of Angoulême--the chevalier as he is called in
some of the narratives--wiped the blood from the face of the corpse.
“Yes, it is he; I know him well,” said Guise, kicking the body as he
spoke.[599] “Well done, my men,” he continued, “we have made a good
beginning. Forward--by the king’s command.” He mounted his horse and
rode out of the court-yard, followed by Nevers, who cynically exclaimed
as he looked at the body: _Sic transit gloria mundi_. Tosinghi
took the chain of gold--the insignia of his office--from the admiral’s
neck, and Petrucci, a gentleman in the train of the Duke of Nevers, cut
off the head and carried it away carefully to the Louvre.[600] Of all
who were found in the house, not one was spared, except Ambrose Paré,
who was escorted in safety to the palace by a detachment of Anjou’s
guard.[601]

Thus died, in the fifty-sixth year of his age,[602] one of the noblest
men of whom France, so rich in great men, can boast. His character has
been described in his actions. In stature he was of middle height, of
ruddy complexion, and well proportioned. His countenance was serene,
his voice soft and pleasant, but his utterance was rather slow. His
habits were temperate: he drank but little wine, and ate sparingly.
He had been blessed with five children: Louisa, who married Teligny,
and afterward William of Orange, ancestor of our William III.; Francis
and Odet, who escaped the massacre; Charles, who fell a victim in
the general massacre; his other son had died in battle. A posthumous
daughter was born to him, of whose fate nothing is known.

Le Laboureur, a Catholic priest, says of Coligny: “He was one of the
greatest men France ever produced, and I venture to say farther,
one of the most attached to his country.” The papal legate Santa
Croce describes him as “remarkable for his prudence and coolness.
His manners were severe; he always appeared serious and absorbed in
his meditations. His eloquence was weighty. He was skilled in Latin
and divinity, and he grew in people’s love the more they knew his
frankness and devotedness to his friends.” He never told a lie (minime
mentiretur); but then, adds the legate, “he had no pretensions to
refined manners, and always kept a straw in his mouth to clean his
teeth with.”[603]

    Il est mort toutefois, non au combat vaincu,
    Non en guerre surprins, non par ruze déceu,
      Non pour avoir trahi son roy où sa province;
    Mais bien pour aymer trop le repos des Françoys,
    Servir Dieu purement, et révérer ses loix,
      Et pour s’estre fié de la foy de son Prince.[604]

Coligny’s headless trunk was left for some hours where it fell, until
it became the sport of rabble children, who dragged it all round
Paris. They tried to burn it, but did little more than scorch and
blacken the remains, which were first thrown into the river, and then
taken out again “as unworthy to be food for fish,” says Claude Haton.
In accordance with the old sentence of the Paris Parliament, it was
dragged by the hangman to the common gallows at Montfauçon,[605] and
there hung up by the heels.[606] All the court went to gratify their
eyes with the sight, and Charles, unconsciously imitating the language
of Vitellius,[607] said, as he drew near the offensive corpse, “The
smell of a dead enemy is always sweet.”[608] The body was left hanging
for a fortnight, or more, after which it was privily taken down by
the admiral’s cousin, Marshal Montmorency, and it now rests, after
many removals, in a wall among the ruins of his hereditary castle
of Chatillon-sur-Loing. What became of the head no one knows. It was
intended to be sent to Rome as a peace-offering to the pope; but it
probably never got farther than Lyons, Mandelot, the governor of that
city, having received orders to stop the messenger--one of Guise’s
servants--and take it away. What can have been the king’s object? Was
he conscience-stricken, and did he repent of the foul indignities
offered to the man for whom he had once professed such love? Or was
he jealous of the credit Duke Henry might acquire by laying the
arch-Huguenot’s head at the feet of the holy father? All that appears
certain is--that the head never reached Rome. The Abbé Caveyrac states
that he saw fragments of a skull in a coffin at Chatillon containing
the admiral’s remains; but, accepting the abbé’s testimony as to what
he saw, it by no means follows that the bones were a part of Coligny’s
head.

When Guise left the admiral’s corpse lying in the court-yard, he went
to the adjoining house in which Teligny lived. All the inmates were
killed, but he escaped by the roof. Twice he fell into the hands of the
enemy, and twice he was spared; he perished at last by the sword of a
man who knew not his amiable inoffensive character.[609] His neighbor
La Rochefoucault was perhaps more fortunate in his fate. He had hardly
fallen asleep, when he was disturbed by the noise in the street. He
heard shouts and the sound of many footsteps; and scarcely awake and
utterly unsuspicious, he went to his bedroom door at the first summons
in the king’s name. He seems to have thought that Charles, indulging
in one of his usual mad frolics, had come to punish him, as he had
punished others, like school-boys. He opened the door and fell dead
across the threshold, pierced by a dozen weapons.

When the messenger returned from the Duke of Guise with the answer that
it was “too late,” Catherine, fearing that such disobedience to the
royal commands might incense the king and awaken him to a sense of all
the horrors that were about to be perpetrated in his name, privately
gave orders to anticipate the hour.[610] Instead of waiting until the
matin-bell should ring out from the old clock-tower of the Palace of
Justice, she directed the signal to be given from the nearer belfry of
St. Germain l’Auxerrois.[611] As the harsh sound rang through the air
of that warm summer night,[612] it was caught up and echoed from tower
to tower, rousing all Paris from their slumbers.

Immediately from every quarter of that ancient city uprose a tumult as
of hell. The clanging bells, the crashing doors, the musket-shots, the
rush of armed men, the shrieks of their victims, and high over all the
yells of the mob, fiercer and more pitiless than hungry wolves--made
such an uproar that the stoutest hearts shrank appalled, and the sanest
appear to have lost their reason.[613] Women unsexed, men wanting every
thing but the strength of the wild beast, children without a single
charm of youth or innocence, crowded the streets where the rising day
still struggled with the glare of a thousand torches.[614] They smelled
the odor of blood, and thirsting to indulge their passions for once
with impunity, committed horrors that have become the marvel of history.

Within the walls of the Louvre, within the hearing of Charles and his
mother, if not actually within their sight, one of the foulest scenes
of this detestable tragedy was enacted. At day-break, says Queen
Margaret of Navarre,[615] her husband rose to go and play at tennis,
with a determination to be present at the king’s _lever_, and
demand justice for the assault on the admiral. He left his apartment,
accompanied by the Huguenot gentlemen who had kept watch around him
during the night. At the foot of the stairs he was arrested,[616] while
the gentlemen with him were disarmed, apparently without any attempt
at resistance. A list of them had been carefully drawn up, which the
Sire d’O, quarter-master of the Guards, read out. As each man answered
to his name, he stepped into the court-yard, where he had to make his
way through a double line of Swiss mercenaries. Sword, spear, and
halberd made short work of them, and two hundred[617] (according to
Davila) of the best blood of France soon lay a ghastly pile beneath the
windows of the palace[618] Charles (it is said) looked on coldly at the
horrid deed,[619] the victims appealing in vain to his mercy. Among
the gentlemen they murdered were the two who had been boldest in their
language to the king not many hours before: Segur, Baron of Pardaillan,
and Armand de Clermont, Baron of Pilles, who with stentorian voices
called upon the king to be true to his word. De Pilles took off his
rich cloak and offered it to some one whom he recognized: “Here is a
present from the hand of De Pilles, basely and traitorously murdered.”
“I am not the man you take me for,” said the other, refusing the
cloak.[620] The Swiss plundered their victims as they fell; and
pointing to the heap of half-naked bodies, described them to the
spectators as the men who had conspired to kill the king and all the
royal family in their sleep, and make France a republic.[621] But more
disgraceful even than this massacre was the conduct of some of the
ladies in Catherine’s train, of her “flying squadron,” who, later in
the day, inspected and laughed[622] at the corpses as they lay stripped
in the court-yard, being especially curious about the body of Soubise,
from whom his wife had sought to be divorced on the ground of nullity
of marriage.

A few gentlemen succeeded in escaping from this slaughter. Margaret,
“seeing it was day-light,” and imagining the danger past of which
her sister had told her, fell asleep. But her slumbers were soon
rudely broken. “An hour later,” she continues, “I was awoke by a man
knocking at the door and calling, _Navarre! Navarre!_ The nurse,
thinking it was my husband, ran and opened it. It was a gentleman
named Léran,[623] who had received a sword-cut in the elbow and a
spear-thrust in the arm; four soldiers were pursuing him, and they all
rushed into my chamber after him. Wishing to save his life, he threw
himself upon my bed. Finding myself clasped in his arms, I got out on
the other side, he followed me, still clinging to me. I did not know
the man, and could not tell whether he came to insult me, or whether
the soldiers were after him or me. We both shouted out, being equally
frightened. At last, by God’s mercy, Captain de Nançay of the Guards
came in, and seeing me in this condition, could not help laughing,
although commiserating me. Severely reprimanding the soldiers for
their indiscretion, he turned them out of the room, and granted me the
life of the poor man who still clung to me. I made him lie down and
had his wounds dressed in my closet, until he was quite cured. While
changing my night-dress, which was all covered with blood, the captain
told me what had happened, and assured me that my husband was with
the king and quite unharmed. He then conducted me to the room of my
sister of Lorraine, which I reached more dead than alive. As I entered
the anteroom, the doors of which were open, a gentleman named Bourse,
running from the soldiers who pursued him, was pierced by a halberd
three paces from me. I fell almost fainting into Captain de Nançay’s
arms, imagining the same thrust had pierced us both. Being somewhat
recovered, I entered the little room where my sister slept. While
there, M. de Miossans, my husband’s first gentleman, and Armagnac, his
first valet-de-chambre, came and begged me to save their lives. I went
and threw myself at the feet of the king and the queen my mother to ask
the favor, which at last they granted me.”

When Captain de Nançay arrived so opportunely, he was leaving the
king’s chamber, whither he had conducted Henry of Navarre and the
Prince of Condé. The tumult and excitement had worked Charles up to
such a pitch of fury, that the lives of the princes were hardly safe.
But they were gentlemen, and their first words were to reproach the
king for his breach of faith. Charles bade them be silent: “_Messe
ou mort_,”--Apostatize or die. Henry demanded time to consider;
while the prince boldly declared that he would not change his religion:
“With God’s help it is my intention to remain firm in my profession.”
Charles, exasperated still more by this opposition to his will, angrily
walked up and down the room, and swore that if they did not change in
three days he would have their heads. They were then dismissed, but
kept close prisoners within the palace.[624]

The houses in which the Huguenots lodged having been registered, were
easily known. The soldiers burst into them, killing all they found,
without regard to age or sex, and if any escaped to the roof they were
shot down like pigeons. Day-light served to facilitate a work that was
too foul even for the blackest midnight. Restraint of every kind was
thrown aside, and while the men were the victims of bigoted fury, the
women were exposed to violence unutterable. As if the popular frenzy
needed excitement, Marshal Tavannes, the military director of this deed
of treachery, rode through the streets with dripping sword, shouting:
“Kill! kill! blood-letting is as good in August as in May.”[625] One
would charitably hope that this was the language of excitement, and
that in his calmer moods he would have repented of his share in the
massacre. But he was consistent to the last. On his death-bed, he made
a general confession of his sins, in which he did not mention the
day of St. Bartholomew; and when his son expressed surprise at the
omission, he observed: “I look upon that as a meritorious action, which
ought to atone for all the sins of my life.”

The massacre soon exceeded the bounds upon which Charles and his mother
had calculated. They were willing enough that the Huguenots should
be murdered, but the murderers might not always be able to draw the
line between orthodoxy and heresy. Things were fast getting beyond
all control; the thirst for plunder was even keener than the thirst
for blood. And it is certain that among the many ignoble motives by
which Charles was induced to permit the massacre, was the hope of
enriching himself and paying his debts out of the property of the
murdered Huguenots. Nor were Anjou and others insensible to the charms
of heretical property. Hence we find the Provost of Paris remonstrating
with the king about “the pillaging of houses and the murders in the
streets by the guards and others in the service of his majesty and the
princes.” Charles, in reply, bade the magistrates “mount their horses,
and with all the force of the city put an end to such irregularities,
and remain on watch day and night.” Another proclamation, countersigned
by Nevers, was issued about five in the afternoon, commanding the
people to lay down the arms which they had taken up “that day by the
king’s orders,” and to leave the streets to the soldiers only--as if
implying that they alone were to kill and plunder.[626]

The massacre, commenced on Sunday, was continued through that and the
two following days. Capilupi tells us, with wonderful simplicity, “that
it was a holiday, and therefore the people could more conveniently
find leisure to kill and plunder.” It is impossible to assign to each
day its task of blood: in all but a few exceptional cases, we know
merely that the victims perished in the general slaughter. Writing in
the midst of the carnage, probably not later than noon of the 24th,
the nuncio Salviati says: “The whole city is in arms; the houses of
the Huguenots have been forced with great loss of lives, and sacked by
the populace with incredible avidity. Many a man to-night will have
his horses and his carriage, and will eat and drink off plate, who had
never dreamt of it in his life before. In order that matters may not
go too far, and to prevent the revolting disorders occasioned by the
insolence of the mob, a proclamation has just been issued, declaring
that _there shall be three hours in the day during which it shall
be unlawful to rob and kill_; and the order is observed, though
not universally. You can see nothing in the streets but white crosses
in the hats and caps of every one you meet, which has a fine effect!”
The nuncio says nothing of the streets encumbered with heaps of naked
bleeding corpses, nothing of the cart-loads of bodies conveyed to the
Seine, and then flung into the river, “so that not only were all the
waters in it turned to blood,” but so many corpses grounded on the
bank of the little island of the Louvre, that the air became infected
with the smell of corruption.[627] The living, tied hand and foot,
were thrown off the bridges. One man--probably a rag-gatherer--brought
two little children in his creel, and tossed them into the water as
carelessly as if they had been blind kittens. An infant, as yet unable
to walk, had a cord tied round its neck, and was dragged through the
streets by a troop of children nine or ten years old. Another played
with the beard and smiled in the face of the man who carried him; but
the innocent caress exasperated instead of softening the ruffian, who
stabbed the child, and with an oath threw it into the Seine. Among the
earliest victims was the wife of the king’s plumassier. The murderers
broke into her house on the Notre Dame bridge, about four in the
morning, stabbed her, and flung her still breathing into the river. She
clung for some time to the wooden piles of the bridge, and was killed
at last with stones, her body remaining for four days entangled by her
long hair among the wood-work. The story goes that her husband’s corpse
being thrown over fell against hers and set it free, both floating
away together down the stream. Madeleine Briçonnet, widow of Theobald
of Yverni, disguised herself as a woman of the people, so that she
might save her life, but was betrayed by the fine petticoat which hung
below her coarse gown. As she would not recant, she was allowed a few
moments’ prayer, and then tossed into the water. Her son-in-law, the
Marquis of Renel, escaping in his shirt, was chased by the murderers
to the bank of the river, where he succeeded in unfastening a boat.
He would have got away altogether but for his cousin Bussy d’Amboise,
who shot him down with a pistol.[628] One Keny, who had been stabbed
and flung into the Seine, was revived by the reaction of the cold
water. Feeble as he was he swam to a boat and clung to it, but was
quickly pursued. One hand was soon cut off with a hatchet, and as he
still continued to steer the boat down stream, he was “quieted” by a
musket-shot. One Puviaut or Pluviaut, who met with a similar fate,
became the subject of a ballad.[629]

Captain Moneins had been put into a safe hiding-place by his friend
Fervacques, who went and begged the king to spare the life of the
fugitive. Charles not only refused, but ordered him to kill Moneins if
he desired to save his own life. Fervacques would not stain his own
hands, but made his friend’s hiding-place known.

Brion, governor of the Marquis of Conti, the Prince of Condé’s brother,
snatched the child from his bed, and without stopping to dress him,
was hurrying away to a place of safety, when the boy was torn from his
arms, and he himself murdered before the eyes of his pupil. We are told
that the child “cried and begged they would save his tutor’s life.”

The houses on the bridge of Notre Dame, inhabited principally by
Protestants, were witnesses to many a scene of cruelty. All the inmates
of one house were massacred, except a little girl, who was dipped,
stark naked, in the blood of her father and mother, and threatened to
be served like them if she turned Huguenot. The Protestant book-sellers
and printers were particularly sought after. Spire Niquet was burned
over a slow fire made out of his own books, and thrown lifeless,
but not dead, into the river. Oudin Petit[630] fell a victim to the
covetousness of his son-in-law, who was a Catholic book-seller. René
Bianchi, the queen’s perfumer, is reported to have killed with his
own hands a young man, a cripple, who had already displayed much
skill in goldsmith’s work. This is the only man whose death the
king lamented, “because of his excellent workmanship, for his shop
was entirely stripped.” One woman was betrayed by her own daughter.
Another, whose twenty-first pregnancy was approaching its term, was
exposed to tortures unutterable. Another pregnant woman was drowned,
after she had been compelled to walk over the face of her husband.
Another woman, in a similar state, was shot as she tried to escape by
the roof of her house, and the immature fruit of her womb was dashed
against the wall. Frances Baillet, wife of the queen’s goldsmith, after
seeing her husband and her son murdered, leaped out of the window,
and broke both her legs by falling into the court beneath. A neighbor
had compassion on her, and hid her in his cellar; but being “less
brave than tender-hearted,” he was frightened by the threats of the
assassins, and gave up the poor woman to them. The brutes dragged her
through the streets by the hair, and in order to get easily at her gold
bracelets, they chopped off both her hands, and left her all bleeding
at the door of a cook-shop. The cook, annoyed by her groans, ran a
spit into her body and left it there. Some hours later, her mutilated
remains were thrown into the river, and dogs gnawed her hands which
had been left in the street. In the list of victims we find the name
of Gastine--a widow, and mother of two young children. Hers had been
a life of suffering: her husband, father-in-law, and uncle had been
hanged; one relative banished, another sent to the galleys, their goods
confiscated, and their house leveled to the ground.[631]

Few of the Huguenots attempted any resistance, though many of them
were veteran soldiers. Had they done so, the whole body might have
found time to rally. As it was, they were equally unable to defend
themselves or to fly: their faculties seemed benumbed. Agrippa
d’Aubigné gives a curious instance of the panic felt by the Huguenots.
He was riding along the high-road several days after the massacre,
accompanied by fourscore soldiers, among whom were some of the most
daring in France, when a man shouted out: “There they are,” and
immediately they galloped off, as fast as their horses could carry
them. The next day half of the same panic-stricken men routed 600
Catholics. In the memoirs of Gamon we read that the Huguenots of
Annonay (Ardèche) were so terrified by the massacre, that at the least
noise or movement among the Catholics they would run away, though no
one pursued them.

Three men only in Paris are recorded as having fought for their
lives. Taverny, a lieutenant of Maréchaussée, stood a regular siege
in his house. For eight or nine hours he and one servant kept the mob
at bay, and when his leaden bullets were exhausted, he used pellets
of pitch.[632] As soon as these were spent, he rushed out, and was
overwhelmed by numbers. His wife was taken to prison; but his invalid
sister was dragged naked through the streets, until death ended her
suffering and her ignominy. Guerchy also struggled unsuccessfully for
his life, his only weapon being a dagger against men protected with
cuirasses. Soubise also fought like a hero--one against a host--and
died beneath the windows of the queen’s apartments, among the earliest
of the victims.

Jean Goujon, the sculptor, was killed while at work. Another victim,
less widely known except among scholars, was Peter Ramus. He was a man
of poor parentage: his grandfather had been a charcoal-burner, and his
father a ploughman. By day he worked with his hands, and studied by
night, rising by degrees to be professor of philosophy and eloquence
at the College of Presle.[633] He made many enemies by attacking the
authority of Aristotle, and more than once had to fly for his life.
During the horrors of the massacre he had hidden himself in a cellar,
where he was discovered by the assassins whom his rival Charpentier
had sent to murder him. He was robbed of his little wealth, and then
thrown from a window. Some of the youths of the university, urged by
other tutors, dragged his body through the streets, inflicting on it
various indignities.[634] A surgeon passing by cut off the head and
carried it away, while the trunk was tossed into the river. Gilbert
Genebrad, Archbishop of Aix, speaking of the “guilty victims” of the
St. Bartholomew, declares Ramus to have been “justly punished for his
turbulence and folly, which dared attack languages, arts, science,
and even theology.”[635] Charpentier exults over his death as “making
ample atonement to us or rather to the republic.”[636] Lambin, a rigid
Catholic and “royal reader,” was so horror-stricken on being told of
the murder, that he could not survive it.

Another distinguished victim was Pierre de la Place, president of the
Court of Aids. He lived in an isolated house at the extreme border of
the Marais, and the first news he had of the massacre was from one
Captain Michel, who with arquebuse on his shoulder, white ribbon on
his left arm, and pistol at his belt, entered the library at six in
the morning and said: “M. de Guise has just killed the admiral by the
king’s order. All the Huguenots, of whatever rank or station, are
destined to die. I have come hither expressly to save you from this
calamity; but you must show me what gold and silver you have in the
house.” “Where do you think you are?” returned La Place. “Have we no
longer a king?” Michel answered with an oath: “Come with me and speak
to the king, that you may know his pleasure.” La Place did not follow
his advice, but made his escape by the back door; while Michel, for a
consideration of 1000 crowns, put the president’s wife and children
in safety with a Catholic family. La Place had not benefited by his
escape; he had wandered up and down, but could find no asylum; all
doors were closed against him, and he was glad at last to return home.
His wife, a lady adorned with every grace of mind and person, had
returned before him, hoping to find him, and resolved (now that her
children were in safety) to stay at the head of her little household.
In the evening--for it was Sunday--the servants and relations assembled
for divine worship. After reading and commenting on a chapter of Job,
La Place prayed and prepared his little congregation for the worst.
“Let us learn (he said) how to conduct ourselves firmly and temperately
in this condition of trial. Let us show that God’s word has been
copiously poured into our souls.” He had not ended his exhortation when
he was told that Provost Senescay was at the door with archers sent to
protect him and escort him to the Louvre. He feared to go, the danger
was too great, but eight men were left with him to garrison the house.
On Monday Senescay returned with express orders to take him to the
king. His wife, suspecting treachery, fell at his knees and prayed to
accompany her husband. Raising her up, he said cheerfully: “My dear,
we must not have recourse to the arm of man, but to God alone.” Seeing
his son with a paper cross in his hat, which had been put there as a
precaution, he added: “Take it out, my child, take out that mark of
sedition; the true cross which you must now wear is the affliction
which God sends as a sure earnest of life eternal.” The president then
took up his cloak, embraced his wife, and bidding her have the honor
and fear of God before her eyes, departed in a cheerful humor. He was
escorted by twelve armed archers, but at the corner of the street was
stopped by four men with daggers. The escort made no resistance, and La
Place fell to the ground, stabbed through the heart.[637] His body was
taken to a stable at the Hotel-de-Ville, whence it was afterward thrown
into the Seine, and his house was pillaged. He was probably a victim of
private vengeance, murdered by the hirelings of Stephen de Neuilly, who
succeeded to his various charges.

Mezeray writes that 700 or 800 people had taken refuge in the
prisons, hoping they would be safe “under the wings of justice;” but
the officers selected for this work had them brought out into the
fitly-named “Valley of Misery,”[638] and there beat them to death
with clubs and threw their bodies into the river.[639] The Venetian
embassador corroborates this story, adding that they were murdered in
batches of ten. Where all were cruel, some few persons distinguished
themselves by especial ferocity. A gold-beater, named Crozier, one of
those prison-murderers, bared his sinewy arm and boasted of having
killed 4000 persons with his own hands.[640] Another man--for the sake
of human nature we would fain hope him to be the same--affirmed that
unaided he had “dispatched” 80 Huguenots in one day. He would eat his
food with hands dripping with gore, declaring “that it was an honor
to him, because it was the blood of heretics.” On Tuesday a butcher,
Crozier’s comrade, boasted to the king that he had killed 150 the night
before. Coconnas, one of the _mignons_ of Anjou, prided himself on
having ransomed from the populace as many as thirty Huguenots, for the
pleasure of making them abjure and then killing them with his own hand,
after he had “secured them for hell.”[641]

About seven o’clock the king was at one of the windows of his palace,
enjoying the air of that beautiful August morning, when he was startled
by shouts of “Kill! kill.” They were raised by a body of 200 Guards,
who were firing with much more noise than execution at a number of
Huguenots who had crossed the river: “to seek the king’s protection,”
says one account: “to help the king against the Guises,” says another.
Charles, who had just been telling his mother that “the weather seemed
to rejoice at the slaughter of the Huguenots,”[642] felt all his savage
instincts kindle at the sight. He had hunted wild beasts, now he would
hunt men: and calling for an arquebuse, he fired at the fugitives, who
were fortunately out of range. Some modern writers deny this fact,
on the ground that the _balcony_ from which Charles is said to
have fired was not built until after 1572. Were this true, it would
only show that tradition had misplaced the locality. Brantome[643]
expressly says the king fired on the Huguenots--not from a balcony,
but “from his bedroom window.” Marshal Tesse heard the story (according
to Voltaire) from the man who loaded the arquebuse. Henault, in
his “Abrégé Chronologique,” mentions it with a “dit-on,” and it is
significant that the passage is suppressed in the Latin editions.
Simon Goulart, in his contemporary narrative,[644] uses the same words
of caution. In Barbier’s “Journal” we read of the destruction of the
former Garde Meuble in the Rue des Poulies on the quay, in which there
was a balcony whence the king fired. Agrippa d’Aubigné speaks in his
“Universal History” of letters written by the same hand “with which
he brought down the fugitives.”[645] As for the date of the building,
the king’s bed-chamber in the south-west pavilion of the Louvre
(not the balcony) was completed in 1556, and so far as regards the
pavilion itself, it is represented in the “Bastiments de France” of
Androuet de Cerceau, published in 1576. Now if any one will consider
the time it must necessarily have taken to get up such a work as the
“Bastiments”--a conscientious undertaking of great labor--he can not
but come to the conclusion that the pavilion was in existence four
years earlier.[646] There is no good reason, therefore, to regard this
story of the king’s ferocity as unhistoric.

Not many of the Huguenot gentlemen escaped from the toils so skillfully
drawn around them on that fatal Saturday night: yet there were a few.
The Count of Montgomery--the same who was the innocent cause of the
death of Henry II.--got safe away, having been forewarned by a friend
who swam across the river to him.[647] Guise set off in hot pursuit,
and would probably have caught him up, had he not been kept waiting for
the keys of the city gate. Some sixty gentlemen also, lodging near him
in the Faubourg St. Germain, were the companions of his flight.

Sully, afterward the famous minister of Henry IV., had a narrow escape.
He was in his twelfth year, and had gone to Paris in the train of Joan
of Navarre for the purpose of continuing his studies. “About three
hours after midnight,” he says, “I was awoke by the ringing of bells,
and the confused cries of the populace. My governor, St. Julian, with
my valet-de-chambre, went out to know the cause; and I never heard of
them afterward. They no doubt were among the first sacrificed to the
public fury. I continued alone in my chamber dressing myself, when in a
few moments my landlord entered, pale and in the utmost consternation.
He was of the Reformed religion, and having learned what was the
matter, had consented to go to mass to save his life, and preserve his
house from being pillaged. He came to persuade me to do the same, and
to take me with him. I did not think proper to follow him, but resolved
to try if I could gain the College of Burgundy, where I had studied;
though the great distance between the house in which I then was and the
college made the attempt very dangerous. Having disguised myself in a
scholar’s gown, I put a large prayer-book under my arm, and went into
the street. I was seized with horror inexpressible at the sight of the
furious murderers, running from all parts, forcing open the houses,
and shouting out: _Kill, kill! Massacre the Huguenots!_ The blood
which I saw shed before my eyes redoubled my terror. I fell into the
midst of a body of Guards, who stopped and questioned me, and were
beginning to use me ill, when, happily for me, the book that I carried
was perceived and served me for a passport. Twice after this I fell
into the same danger, from which I extricated myself with the same good
fortune. At last I arrived at the College of Burgundy, where a danger
still greater than any I had yet met with awaited me. The porter having
twice refused me entrance, I continued standing in the midst of the
street, at the mercy of the savage murderers, whose numbers increased
every moment, and who were evidently seeking for their prey, when it
came into my head to ask for La Faye, the principal of the college, a
good man by whom I was tenderly beloved. The porter, prevailed upon
by some small pieces of money which I put into his hand, admitted me;
and my friend carried me to his apartment, where two inhuman priests,
whom I heard mention _Sicilian Vespers_, wanted to force me from
him, that they might cut me in pieces, saying the order was--not to
spare even infants at the breast. All the good man could do was to
conduct me privately to a distant chamber, where he locked me up. Here
I was confined three days, uncertain of my destiny, and saw no one
but a servant of my friend’s, who came from time to time to bring me
provisions.”[648]

Philip de Mornay, or, as he was usually designated, Duplessis-Mornay,
was among those who suspected treachery, and refused to take part in
the rejoicings on the marriage of Henry with Margaret. He got his
mother out of Paris, but not seeing how he could honorably leave the
city himself, while the chiefs of the Huguenot cause remained, he
resolved to share the perils of his leaders. His resolution well-nigh
proved fatal to him. He had scarcely time to burn his papers and hide
between the two roofs of the house in which he lived. On Monday, as the
mob became more furious, his host, a conscientious Catholic, begged
him flee, as his continuance there might prove the ruin of both,
adding that “he should have disregarded his own danger, if it could
have secured the safety of the other.” Duplessis, therefore, assumed
a plain black dress, girded on his sword and departed, while the mob
were plundering the next house, whose owner they murdered and threw
out of the window. He got safely to his law-agent, by name Girard,
who received him favorably and set him to work in the office. This
place of refuge being discovered, early next day he had to leave the
house conducted by one of the clerks. They were stopped and questioned
at the St. Denis gate, when Duplessis represented himself to be a
lawyer’s clerk going to spend the holidays with his family at Rouen.
They were allowed to pass, but had scarcely reached Villette, between
Paris and St. Denis, when farther progress was checked by the “carters,
quarrymen, and plasterers of the faubourg.” They dragged Duplessis
toward the river, and he was saved only by the cool assurance of his
companion, who asserted that the men were mistaken, that the other
really was a lawyer’s clerk going to Rouen, and that he was well known
in the environs of Paris. “Surely,” interposed young Mornay, “you do
not want to kill one man for another.” He referred them to several
individuals, among others to Girard, and then they all went off to
breakfast. Just at this moment the Rouen coach passed along; the
mob stopped it to ascertain if the fugitive was known to any of the
passengers, and being recognized by no one, they called him a liar and
again threatened to drown him. After being kept some time in suspense
he was released, the messengers who had been dispatched to Mr. Girard
having returned with a certificate that “Philip Mornay his clerk was
neither rebellious nor disaffected.” But all was not over yet. At
Ivry-le-Temple, where he passed the night of Thursday, some persons,
who probably suspected him, entered the room in which he was sitting,
observing to each other that they smelled a Huguenot. On his way to
Buhy, his birthplace, he narrowly escaped falling into the hands of a
one-eyed monster named Montafié, who at the head of a band of ruffians
was scouring the French Vexin. His house he found desolate, his family
dispersed no one could tell where. At length, after undergoing many
privations and more perils, he escaped from Dieppe to England. It was
nine days after the massacre.[649]

Madame de Mornay herself had to undergo many dangers. Her cook, a
Huguenot, awoke her in the morning with cries that “they were murdering
every body.” From her window, which looked into the Rue St. Antoine,
she saw an excited restless crowd and several soldiers with white
crosses in their hats. Hastily secreting some of her valuables, she
sent the maid away with her little girl, and at eight in the morning
took shelter with one of the king’s household. More than forty persons
found refuge in the same charitable asylum; the owner, M. de Perreuze,
or his wife, standing occasionally at the door to exchange a word
with Guise, Nevers, and other lords, as they passed to and fro; and
also with the “captains of Paris,” who were sacking the adjoining
houses belonging to Huguenots. On Tuesday the house was searched,
and Madame Duplessis (or to speak more correctly, the young widow of
M. de Feuquères) had to conceal herself. From her hiding-places she
could hear “the strange cries of the men, women, and children they
were murdering in the streets.” Her next refuge was in the house of a
blacksmith, a seditious fellow and the captain of his ward, who had
married her waiting-maid. “He passed the night,” says the lady, “in
cursing the Huguenots and seeing to the booty that was brought in
from the plundered houses.” After various changes of refuge, eleven
days after the massacre she went on board the passage-boat for Sens,
where she was accused of being a Huguenot and told that she ought to
be drowned. A woman came up and asked what they were going to do with
her. “Why, this is a Huguenot, and we intend to throw her into the
river.” The woman replied: “You know me well; I am no Huguenot; I go
every day to mass; but I am so frightened, that I have had a fever this
week past.” “And I too,” rejoined one of the soldiers: “j’en ai le bec
tout galeux.” This saved her life; but she had the horror of listening
to the rejoicings of her fellow-passengers (there were two monks and
a priest among them) over what they had seen in Paris. Twenty-seven
days after the massacre a body of soldiers, the Swiss guard of Queen
Elizabeth, searched the village where she lay hid, but did not find
any Huguenots. It was not until the 1st November that she got beyond
all danger by reaching the town of Sedan. In her flight, she had gone
near the country seat of the Chancellor de l’Hopital. This, by the
king’s express order, was held by a strong garrison, possibly by way
of protection; but the lawless soldiers compelled Madame de l’Hopital,
who had been converted to the new religion, to go to mass; and the
ex-chancellor assured the fugitive that if he received her beneath his
roof, she would have to do the same.[650]

Young Caumont, a boy about twelve years old, and better known in after
life as the Duke of La Force, escaped in a singular manner. A number
of dead bodies had been thrown upon him, those of his father and
brother being among them. He lay for some hours beneath this horrible
load, when the marker from an adjoining tennis-court, attracted by one
of his stockings, tried to pull it off. While doing so, he uttered
an exclamation of pity, which the boy heard. “I am not dead,” he
whispered; “pray save me.” He was saved, but, as the murderous ruffians
were still in sight, he had to remain some time longer beneath the
bloody heap. He was taken, not without difficulties, to the arsenal,
where Marshal de Biron, as master of the ordnance, commanded. Here
young Caumont was kept several days disguised as a page. This was told
the king, with the addition that several other Huguenots had found
refuge in the same place. Charles determined to have it searched; and
when the marshal heard of it, he declared angrily “he would take very
good care to hinder any one from entering who wanted to control his
actions,” and “thereupon pointed three or four pieces of cannon toward
the gate of the arsenal.”[651]

The Duchess René of Ferrara, daughter of Louis XII., sheltered many in
her hotel, and among them were the wife and child of Pastor Merlin.
Even the Duke of Guise was not all blood-thirsty, at least one Huguenot
owing his life to him.[652] Some were saved at the house of the English
embassador, although a guard had been set over it, as much to keep
out refugees as to protect the English who had been hastily collected
within its walls.[653] Two or three are reported to have fallen in
the massacre, from not receiving the warning early enough. Kirkaldy,
so famous in the history of Mary Stuart, had a narrow escape for his
life.[654] Hubert Languet was saved by Jean de Morvilliers, Bishop of
Orleans, who sheltered him in his own house. Anne d’Este, widow of the
Duke of Guise, saved the life of L’Hopital’s daughter, for which the
father thanked her:

    Vivit adhuc, vivitque tuo servata recenti
    Munere, dum tota cædes flagraret in urbe,
    Præterea nec spes occurreret ulla salutis.[655]

In the very height of the massacre, the rumor of a miracle revived
the flagging zeal of the Parisians. In the ancient cemetery of the
Innocents there stood a small chapel dedicated to the Virgin Mary,
and in front of it a white-thorn bush which for four years had shown
neither leaf nor flower. All of a sudden, on the morning of the
massacre, it became covered with beautiful white blossoms, filling
the air with their delicious perfume. It continued in bloom for a
fortnight, and every body went to see it. The king and his court
proceeded thither in long procession. Sick persons were healed by
merely looking at it; and the superstitious crowd, which included
nearly every one in Paris, believed that it was “a sign from heaven of
God’s approval of the Catholic uprising and the admiral’s death.” All
the city guilds and companies, all the ecclesiastical fraternities,
marched out to the cemetery with much pomp and loud music, killing
the Huguenots they found in their road. The nuncio Salviati, who had
probably formed one of the royal procession, writes very incredulously
to the Papal Secretary of State: “The people ran to see it with such
eagerness, that should any of the priests who live in the convent dare
say publicly that it had blossomed some days before the event, he would
be stoned and flung into the river.”[656]

Not until the second day does there appear to have been any remorse or
pity for the horrors inflicted upon the wretched Huguenots. Elizabeth
of Austria, the young queen who hoped shortly to become a mother,
interceded for Condé, and so great was her agitation and distress
that her “features were quite disfigured by the tears she had shed
night and day.” And the Duke of Alençon, a youth of by no means
lovable character, “wept much,” we are told, “over the fate of those
brave captains and soldiers.” For this tenderness he was so bitterly
reproached by Charles and his mother, that he was forced to keep out
of their sight. Alençon was partial to Coligny, and when there was
found among the admiral’s papers a report in which he condemned the
appanages, the grants usually given by the crown to the younger members
of the royal family, Catherine exultingly showed it to him: “See what
a fine friend he was to you.” “I know not how far he may have been my
friend,” replied the duke, “but the advice he gave was very good.”[657]

If Mezeray is to be trusted, Charles broke down on the second day of
the massacre. Since Saturday he had been in a state of extraordinary
excitement, more like madness than sanity, and at last his mind gave
way under the pressure. To his surgeon Ambrose Paré, who kept at his
side all through these dreadful hours, he said:[658] “I do not know
what ails me. For these two or three days past, both mind and body
have been quite upset. I burn with fever: all around me grin pale
blood-stained faces. Ah! Ambrose, if they had but spared the weak
and innocent!” A change indeed had come over him; he became more
restless than ever, his looks savage, his buffoonery coarser and more
boisterous. “Nè mai poteva pigliar requie,” says Sigismond Cavalli.
Like Macbeth, he had murdered sleep. “I saw the king on my return
from Rochelle,” says Brantome, “and found him entirely changed. His
features had lost all the gentleness (_douceur_) usually visible
in them.”[659]

“About a week after the massacre,” says a contemporary, “a number of
crows flew croaking round, and settled on the Louvre. The noise they
made drew every body out to see them, and the superstitious women
infected the king with their own timidity. That very night Charles
had not been in bed two hours, when he jumped up and called for the
King of Navarre, to listen to a horrible tumult in the air: shrieks,
groans, yells, mingled with blasphemous oaths and threats, just as they
were heard on the night of the massacre. The sound returned for seven
successive nights, precisely at the same hour.”[660] Juvenal des Ursins
tells the story rather differently. “On the 31st August I supped at
the Louvre with Madame de Fiesque. As the day was very hot, we went
down into the garden and sat in an arbor by the river. Suddenly the
air was filled with a horrible noise of tumultuous voices and groans,
mingled with cries of rage and madness. We could not move for terror;
we turned pale and were unable to speak. The noise lasted for half an
hour, and was heard by the king, who was so terrified that he could not
sleep the rest of the night.” As for Catherine, knowing that strong
emotions would spoil her digestion and impair her good looks, she kept
up her spirits: “For my part,” she said, “there are only six of them on
my conscience;”[661] which is a lie, for when she ordered the tocsin
to be rung, she must have foreseen the horrors--perhaps not all the
horrors--that would ensue.

Before the bodies of their first victims were cold, Catherine and
her advisers became aware of the great political blunder they had
committed. That it was a crime affected them little, if at all; but
they had perpetrated an act of treachery which they would have to
justify in the eyes not only of France, but of the civilized world.
Thousands shrank with horror from the deed and its perpetrators; and
many even of those who applauded the end, could not vindicate the
means.[662] Catherine and her Italians--for Charles was now the merest
puppet in their hands--hastily made up their minds to throw upon the
Duke of Guise the blame of the attempt upon the admiral’s life, and
the massacre as the result of a riot between the two parties, in which
the Huguenots were the weakest. They also represented that the king
himself was hardly safe in the Louvre. “I am here with my brother of
Navarre and my cousin of Condé, ready to share the same fortune with
them,” wrote Charles.[663] On the evening of the massacre a circular
note was issued, ascribing all the mischief to “the private quarrel
which had long existed between the houses of Lorraine and Chatillon,”
and which the king had vainly tried to arrange. It went on to say that
the Edict of Pacification must be observed as strictly as ever. On the
next day, Charles wrote to Schomberg, “bitterly deploring what had
happened;” while to La Mothe-Fénelon he said that he was exceedingly
vexed (_infiniment marry_) at the assault upon the admiral, and
promised to investigate the case and punish the offender. On the 24th
he wrote that the Guises had begun the massacre, “because they had
heard that Coligny’s friends would retaliate;” and that he had been
compelled to employ guards to keep the Louvre safe; and on the 27th he
wrote again to the same effect, but with a significant variation in the
phraseology.[664]

But by this time the massacre had assumed such enormous proportions,
that the Duke of Guise, who had returned from the pursuit of
Montgomery, refused to bear the odium of it alone. Besides, the
excuse was such an acknowledgment of weakness, that in the eyes of
the orthodox it elevated the duke into the position of the true
defender of the Church. The only way to remedy the blunder was for
Charles boldly to assume the responsibility. Catherine dreaded Henry
of Guise fully as much as she had hated the admiral. The new policy
would indeed compel them to tell another lie; but lying carried no
disgrace with it at the court of France. On the 25th the king hinted
something about a conspiracy to the Spanish embassador;[665] on the
26th all timidity and hesitation had disappeared. Charles, accompanied
by his mother and brothers, attended by a numerous crowd of ladies and
gentlemen, moved in stately procession through the streets of Paris.
The populace welcomed the king with shouts of joy, and some of the more
villainous of the ruffians pushed their way through the Guards, and
displaying their bloody weapons and ensanguined arms, boasted to him of
the numbers they had killed. One Protestant gentleman was hunted out
and murdered before his very eyes: “Would to God he were the last!”
exclaimed Charles fiercely. He went to the cathedral Church of Notre
Dame to return thanks to God, as was his duty (says Capilupi) for such
a happy issue, that without shedding the blood of a single believer,
the kingdom had been so graciously delivered from those pernicious and
wicked people. From the church he proceeded to the Palace of Justice,
where, before the foreign embassadors and parliament assembled in the
Gilded Chamber, he declared that the massacre had taken place “by his
express orders, not from any religious motive, or in contravention
of his Edicts of Pacification, which he still intended to observe,
but to prevent the carrying out of a detestable conspiracy, got up
by the admiral and his followers against the person of the king, the
queen-mother, her other sons, and the King of Navarre.”[666] The story
deceived none but the most ignorant and fanatical. Salviati declared at
once that it was “false in every respect,” and that a man of the least
“experience in worldly matters would be ashamed to believe it.”[667]
This is the “third lie” they were obliged to invent, says Tavannes.

The royal speech was afterward amplified, and published as a
manifesto.[668] It accused the Huguenots of infringing the Edict in
various ways, and murdering Catholics; of threatening war, if their
importunities were not attended to; and of plotting against the king
and his mother, declaring all the while that the king was plotting
against them. “All these inventions were forged in the admiral’s
shop.” He was trying to cause a rupture with Spain by giving succor to
the rebels in the Low Countries, when a man, whom he had threatened
to hang, shot him as he was leaving the palace. His majesty was
deliberating how he could execute prompt and exemplary justice on the
author of such a wicked deed, when the admiral resolved to avenge
himself at one blow upon the king and the royal family, so that he
might the easier make himself sole master of the kingdom. “If my arm
is wounded,” he said, “my head is not;[669] if I must lose my arm, I
shall have the heads of those who caused the loss. They thought to kill
me, but I shall be beforehand with them.” When he was told that the
king was sorry for his suffering: “It is all made up,” he replied; “I
understand their tricks. I know how to catch them all.” On Saturday,
after dinner, the admiral held a secret council of his friends, at
which it was resolved to kill the king and all who were opposed to
their designs.[670] His majesty was informed of this in the evening by
“some trustworthy persons,” and even by some of the conspirators, who
would not join in “so barbarous and enormous a crime.” The king thought
he must apply a “prompt, sovereign, and vigorous remedy to so cruel
a plot;” for in matters where the lives of princes are concerned,
punishment and “execution must precede inquiry:” in plain English,
hang first and try afterward. He therefore resolved, in council with
his mother and others, “to anticipate the conspiracy by a prompt and
sovereign execution,” and accordingly gave orders that on Sunday
morning at day-break they should commence the punishment by killing
the admiral and all his faction, which was done with such “felicity,
diligence, and celerity,” that by seven o’clock the admiral, his
chief officers, and others were put to death, very few escaping with
their lives. Hence the king argued the goodness of God, who kept the
Huguenots in ignorance of the design against them. The people of Paris,
who are stanch Catholics, and very fond of their prince, remembering
their past sufferings, and exasperated by the story of the plot, “fell
upon the Huguenots, killed many, and sacked their houses,” in their
praiseworthy desire to support and defend their prince. If a few
robberies were committed, “we must excuse the fury of a people impelled
by honest zeal--a fury hard to restrain when once aroused.” Such was
the defense of the massacre put forward at the time.[671] To us, who
know its weakness and the falsehood of its chief point, it seems
contemptible enough; but to the fanatics of those days, it must have
been an appeal thrilling every nerve in their bodies.

The obsequious parliament, by the mouth of their president De Thou,
thanked the king for his gracious communication, and for the vigor
he had shown in crushing the conspiracy not only against the throne
but against the Church. He quoted with approbation the villainous
maxim of Louis XI., “Qui nescit dissimulare nescit regnare” (He who
knows not how to dissemble knows not how to reign): his whole speech
being a cowardly defense and eulogy of the massacre.[672] That the
chief magistrate of France should stoop so low, is one of the saddest
incidents of the time; but the French have always been too prone to
worship the _fait accompli_, to become the servile flatterers of
success. There can be no hope for the political life of a nation, until
it learns to apply the same rules of morality to public as to private
affairs. At that moment Charles was nobler than De Thou.[673] There is
something in great crimes which fascinates and attracts. The king had
struck a desperate blow, which, had it failed, might have cost him his
throne and perhaps his life. The first president of the Parliament of
Paris ostentatiously defended and extolled in public a deed which he
condemned in private. His son tells us that in his copy of Statius he
marked the following lines, giving them a significance of which the
poet never dreamed:

    Excidat illa dies ævo, nec postera credant
    Sæcula! nos certe taceamus; et obruta multa
    Nocte tegi propriæ patiamur crimina gentis.[674]

At the suggestion of Pibrac the king’s words were entered in the
register of minutes; and then the same man, braver and more humane than
his fellows, prayed that Charles would order the massacre to cease. The
king seems immediately to have issued the necessary directions, that no
one should from that hour presume to kill or plunder a fellow-citizen
under pain of death. But another advocate of the same court, by name
Morvilliers,[675] had the baseness to propose that Coligny should be
tried and attainted for the plot he had contrived against the king. At
the same time the castle of Chatillon was ordered to be razed to the
ground, one tower alone remaining of that princely mansion.

Although nothing had been found in the admiral’s papers to justify
the charge of conspiring against the throne, there were two prisoners
in custody who, it was hoped, might be induced to save their lives
by confessing the existence of a plot. They were Briquemaut and
Cavaignes, with whose judicial execution the horrors of the massacre
may be considered to have terminated. Colonel Briquemaut, who was
upward of seventy years old (he had served in the Italian wars of
Francis I.), had saved himself in the night of the 24th by stripping
and hiding under a pile of dead bodies, from which horrible shelter
he made his escape to the house of the English embassador, where he
was discovered in the disguise of a groom.[676] Cavaignes, “chancellor
of the cause,” had recently been appointed Master of Requests at the
admiral’s petition. A few days before the massacre, Charles had begged
him not to leave the court, as he required his advice to perpetuate the
happy peace which he (Cavaignes) had helped to negotiate. A special
commission was appointed to try the prisoners, but their innocence was
so manifest that the judges ordered their discharge. This decision was
appealed against, and after another trial they were found guilty and
condemned to die. It was hoped they would confess. Tavannes asserts
that they were promised life and liberty if they would only say what
they were asked; but they refused; and Walsingham thus describes the
closing scene of their life: “On October 22, the young queen was
brought to bed of a daughter; and the same day, between five and six
in the evening, Briquemaut and Cavaignes were hanged by torch-light,
the king, the queen-mother, and the King of Navarre, with the king’s
brothers and the Prince of Condé, being lookers-on. As Briquemaut was
going up the ladder, the under-provost of the town said that the king
had sent him to know whether he could say any thing touching the late
conjuration, which, if he would confess, he should save his life.
He answered, that the king had never a more faithful subject than he
was; but this I know proceeded not of himself, but of evil councilors
about him; and so lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, ‘Oh my God,
upon whose tribunal seat I stand, and whose face I hope shortly to
see, thou knowest well that I know nothing nor did not so much as ever
think of any conjuration against the king nor against his estate;
though contrariwise they have entirely put the same in my process; but
I beseech my God that he will pardon the king and all those that have
been the cause of this my unjust death, even as I desire pardon at thy
hands for my sins and offenses committed against thy divine majesty.’
Being then drawn up another step on the ladder, he uttered only these
words: ‘I have somewhat to utter unto the king, which I would be glad
to communicate unto him, but see that I may not.’ And so shrunk up
his shoulders to forbear to use any farther speech. As his constancy
was much commended, so was his death much bewailed of many Catholics
that were beholders of the same. Cavaignes used no speech, but showed
himself void of all magnanimity, who before his death, in hope of
life, made some show to relent in religion. Two things were generally
much misliked at this execution: the one the presence of the king,
as a thing unworthy of the head of justice to be at the execution of
justice; the other that Briquemaut, being a gentleman, was hanged, a
thing very rare in France, especially he being reputed by his enemies
to be innocent.” Charles’s presence at the execution added a new horror
to the pangs of death: “Nero tamen subtraxit oculos jussitque scelera,
non spectavit: præcipua sub Domitiano miseriarum erat, videre et
aspici.”[677]

Walsingham continues his narrative: “About an hour after the execution,
the cruel and bloody people of this town, not content with their death,
took [their bodies] down from the gallows, and drew them about the
streets, thrusting them through with daggers and shooting of dags
[pistols] at them, cutting off their ears, and omitting no other kind
of villainous and barbarous cruelty.” There were others to be executed,
but the queen-mother “with no small difficulty,” persuaded her son to
respite them for awhile. “The king is now grown so bloody-minded,”
concludes Walsingham, “that they who advised him thereto do repent
the same, and do fear that the old saying will prove true--_malum
consilium consultori pessimum_.”[678] After this we can well believe
the story that Charles ordered torches to be held near the faces of
his two victims, that he might the clearer see their dying agonies.
When the cruel tragedy on the Grève was over, the royal spectators,
including Henry of Navarre, retired to a magnificent supper provided
for them at the Hotel-de-Ville, at the windows of which they had been
sitting.[679]

About a month after the massacre, Henry of Navarre and the Prince of
Condé both abjured. The instrument of their conversion to orthodoxy
was Sureau du Rozier, at one time minister at Orleans, and the fanatic
apologist of Poltrot’s crime; but yielding to temptation, and partly
also to fear, he abjured Protestantism, and, like all new converts,
was eager to show his zeal by converting his late brethren. The two
princes listened to his arguments, and professed themselves convinced;
but they only temporized with a king who was capable, in one of his
mad bursts of passion, of ordering them to execution. At the beginning
of October the princes wrote to the pope, expressing sorrow for their
past errors and promising to be faithful sons of the Catholic Church in
future. The pope graciously accepted their recantations, and returned
them the necessary dispensations for their marriages.[680] Henry went
farther than was necessary to show his new zeal, by abolishing the
Reformed religion in his maternal states. “M. Grammont hath commission
from the king,” writes Walsingham, “to suppress all preaching in Bearn,
and to plant there the Catholic religion, which is a verification of
the king’s [Charles] intention touching the observation of his edict
irrevocable for the toleration of religion.”[681] But the Bearnese
stoutly refused to act upon the order, on the ground that the king was
a prisoner in Paris and under constraint.




                             CHAPTER XIV.

                      MASSACRE IN THE PROVINCES.

                      [August to October, 1572.]

   Instructions to the Governors--The Count of Tende--Nantes
   and Alençon--Massacres at Saumur, Angers, Lyons, Orleans,
   Troyes, Rouen, Meaux, Bordeaux, and Toulouse--St. Hérem’s
   letter--The stolen Dispatch--The Governor of Bayonne--The
   Bishop of Lisieux--Chabot at Arnay-le-Duc--Senlis, Provins,
   Château-Thierry, Dieppe, and Nismes spared--The Number of
   Victims--Contemporary Judgments--Dorat’s Panegyric--Jean
   Le Masle--Pierre Charpentier and Sorbin--Rejoicings at
   Rome--Exultation of Philip II.--Horror in England--John Knox’s
   Denunciation--The Emperor Maximilian’s regret.


The writers who maintain that the tragedy of St. Bartholomew’s Day
was the result of long premeditation, support their opinions by
what occurred in the provinces; but it will be found after careful
examination, that these various incidents tend rather to prove the
absence of any such premeditation. Unless we suppose Catherine and
her Italian advisers to have been the clumsiest of conspirators, they
would naturally have made arrangements for a general massacre of the
Huguenots throughout the kingdom to take place on the same day; but
it did not, and the murders committed were in many instances the
consequences of popular commotions that broke out after the arrival
of the news from Paris.[682] There is indeed a well-known letter from
the queen-mother to Strozzi,[683] which he was not to open until the
24th of August, and in which he read: “This is to inform you that
_to-day_ the admiral and all the Huguenots in this place are
killed.” But the letter is manifestly spurious, and with it falls the
principal item of evidence to show premeditation.

It would appear that on the 23d, as soon as the king’s assent had
been gained, instructions to massacre the Protestants were forwarded
to various parts of the country. Alberi[684] emphatically says that
there remain no traces in any provincial registers of orders received
to this effect; but even were there no such record, there is abundant
evidence that such instructions were sent. Davila says that messengers
were dispatched on the 23d. De Thou, who was in a position to know
the truth, declares that _verbal orders_ were sent;[685] which
is confirmed by a letter to the governor of Chartres withdrawing
_all verbal orders_.[686] There is also a letter from Charles
to Matignon, canceling all the orders he may have given _by word
of mouth_.[687] Writing to Longueville on the 26th of August, he
recalls “_le mandement verbal_;”[688] and the next day he reminds
the mayor of Troyes of the “letters he had received” ordering the
extermination of the heretics. Puygaillard, writing in the king’s name
(August 26) to the governor of Angers, to put the principal Huguenots
to death, bids him wait for _no farther orders_, as he will have
none. It is clear, therefore, that Charles desired to act up to his
resolution, to permit no Huguenot to survive to reproach him with his
breach of faith. That his orders were not carried out, depended in
many cases upon the character of the governors or municipalities to
whom they were addressed. A messenger, named La Molle, was sent to the
Count of Tende, governor of Provence, with a letter ordering him to
massacre all the Huguenots. A postscript, however, bade him neither
do nor believe what La Molle told him. The count, unable to reconcile
these contradictory instructions, sent his secretary to the king, who
told him to “put a few Huguenots to death.” But Tende dying in the
interval, his successor, the Count of Courcis, refused to act without
farther instructions, and the result was an order, which the messenger
was directed on peril of his life to communicate to none but De
Courcis, “not to execute the massacre.”[689]

Louis, Duke of Bourbon-Montpensier, governor of Brittany, wrote to the
municipal officers of Nantes, desiring them to carry out the massacre.
They refused, and their refusal is commemorated in the following
inscription:

“_L’an MDLXXII, le 8 jour de septembre, le Maire de Nantes, les
échevins, et les suppóts de la ville avec les juges-consuls, réunis à
la Maison Commune, font le serment de maintenir celui précédemment fait
de ne point contrevenir à l’Édit de Pacification rendu en faveur des
Calvinistes, et font défense aux habitants de se porter à aucun excès
contre eux._”

At Alençon there was no massacre, owing to the energy of the governor,
who, observing that the Catholics were arming with a murderous intent,
closed the city gates, strengthened the posts, and issued a severe
proclamation, forbidding any injury to the Huguenots. The latter were
ordered to assemble, to give up their arms, to send in thirty-two
hostages, and to take a new oath of fidelity. This they did, and all
were spared. Matignon’s name was long revered as a household word among
the people of Alençon.[690]

At Angers the massacre had some distinct characteristics. After
Montsoreau, the governor of Saumur, had killed all the Huguenots in
that town according to the instructions from an agent of the Duke
of Anjou, he hastened to Angers (29th August), which he reached at
day-break. Ordering the gates to be shut, he went to the house of La
Barbée, a Huguenot gentleman, who escaped, but his less fortunate
brother was killed as he lay sick in bed. Montsoreau next called on
the pastor La Rivière, with whom he had long been on friendly terms.
Courteously saluting his wife, Montsoreau passed into the garden to her
husband. After the usual embrace, he said: “I have the king’s orders
to put you to death instantly.” The minister asked for a few moments’
delay to collect his thoughts and to pray, which being granted,
he commended his soul to God and fell pierced through the heart.
Montsoreau then went and killed two other ministers. Meanwhile the news
spread, and some Catholics assembled in the streets, with the white
cross in their hats. Montsoreau’s words aroused their fanaticism: they
dragged the dead bodies to the river, rang the alarm-bell, and chased
the Huguenots from house to house. But the citizens held aloof, the
magistrates interposed, and the massacre was stopped.[691] Later in the
day a messenger arrived from the Duke of Anjou, ordering the property
of heretics to be set aside, it being valued at 100,000 livres. The
highway robbers of those days gave their victims the alternative of
money or life: the duke took both.

A week after the massacre in Paris, the Huguenots of Lyons were taken
one after another “like sheep,” says Capilupi, and shut up in prison.
When the governor desired the executioner to put some of them to death,
he replied: “I am not an assassin: I work only as justice commands
me.” But this did not save them. Three hundred soldiers were found
ready to do the bloody work. Those confined in the archbishop’s palace
were first robbed, and then cut to pieces, children hanging round
their parents’ necks, brothers and sisters exhorting one another to
suffer patiently in the cause of God. All who had been shut up in the
Rouane, a public prison, were dragged to the bridge and then flung
into the river.[692] As night came on, the murderers, now joined by
the mob, threw off all restraint. “In the square of St. John,” says
D’Aubigné, “a pile of bodies was collected so vast and terrible as to
exceed description.” In this city alone, 4000 persons, including the
famous musician Goudimel, are estimated to have been killed;[693] and
yet Mandelot wrote to the king, regretting that a few had escaped, and
begging for a share of the spoils.[694] At Arles the river became so
putrid from the corpses rolling down from Lyons, that the inhabitants
were for several days unable to drink its waters.[695]

At Orleans the massacre had its peculiar features of atrocity.[696]
One La Bouilli invited his friend La Cour to supper, and stabbed him
as he sat at table. Taillebois, a professor of law, was murdered by
his own pupils. Some of them went to his house and begged to see his
library; and when he showed it them, they began to ask him for some
of his books, which he gave them. “This is not all,” they said; “we
intend to kill you.” Falling on his knees, he prayed a few minutes in
silence and then exclaimed, “I am ready! slay me at once.” This they
would not do, but drove him into the street, where his courage failed
at the sight of a poor shoe-maker who lay bleeding to death. Though
scarcely able to walk, he was driven forward, until he came in front
of the Law Schools where he used to teach. There the murderers put an
end to his long agony. Nicholas Bongars lay at the point of death when
some ruffians broke into his room. They respected the dying man, but
murdered the apothecary who was attending upon him. The next day a man
who had been in the habit of visiting Bongars, went to the house, and
saluting his mother at the door, as she like a good Catholic was going
to mass, went up stairs, stabbed the sick man, wiped his dagger in the
bed-clothes, and departed as he had come, without betraying the least
emotion. Of the victims, some were tossed into a ditch, and then left
to be devoured by wolves and dogs; others were thrown into the Loire,
which became so discolored that the Catholics refused to drink the
water or to eat the fish caught in it. Of the fourteen hundred victims,
one hundred and fifty were women.

The massacre at Bordeaux did not begin until the 3d of October. The
populace had been inflamed by the sermons of one Auger, a Jesuit;
on Michaelmas Day he said from the pulpit: “Who executed the divine
judgments at Paris? The angel of God. Who in Orleans? The angel of
God. Who in a hundred cities of this realm? The angel of God. And who
will execute them in Bordeaux? The angel of God, however man may try
to resist him.” The slaughter was carried out by an organized band of
ruffians wearing the “bonnet rouge,” which afterward became so famous
in history. Many of the Huguenots found a safe refuge in the houses
of certain priests and Catholic laymen, who were horrified at the
barbarities they had witnessed. Others found a secure asylum in the
castles of Ham and Trompette.

At Meaux, all the houses in the market-place were completely gutted,
and many of their inhabitants killed. The next day (August 26), the mob
entered the prison, which was crammed with Huguenots to the number of
two hundred and more. They were called out one by one into the yard,
and such as sword and pike failed to kill instantly, had their brains
beaten out with the sledge hammers used by the butchers to knock down
their bullocks. Some were buried, still breathing, in a trench dug to
receive them, and when this was filled, the rest were thrown into the
Marne.

The news of the massacre reached Troyes on the 26th of August, when the
gates were immediately closed to prevent the frightened Huguenots from
escaping. Many were taken to prison, but there was no general slaughter
until the 4th of September, when one Belin, an apothecary, arrived
from Paris with the king’s orders of the 28th of August, forbidding
the Protestants to be molested.[697] This wretch persuaded the high
bailiff and the council to murder the prisoners, and then issue the
proclamation. The public executioner refused to lend himself to the
foul plot. “It was his duty,” he said, “to put to death only such as
had been legally condemned.” This did not save the prisoners, who were
butchered by a drunken mob, and their blood flowing under the gate into
the street filled the humane Catholics with horror.

The governor of Rouen hesitated to execute the orders he had received,
and asked for fresh instructions. The answer being unfavorable, he
locked up all the Protestants he could find, and on the 17th of
September the city gates were shut, and military posts established in
the squares. A band of assassins then went to the prisons, and killed
with clubs and daggers about sixty Huguenots, according to a list they
carried with them. They next searched the private houses, where the
number of victims of both sexes amounted to more than six hundred.

On the last day of August the _capitouls_ of Toulouse received
a letter from Joyeuse, lieutenant-general in Languedoc, giving an
account of the massacre of the 24th, and adding that the king “would
not permit any infringement of the Edict of Pacification.”[698]
He farther instructed the magistrates to be on the watch lest the
Protestants should rise, and ordered the guards to be doubled, “in the
quietest way possible, so as to incommode nobody.” Jean d’Affis, the
first president, communicated this message to the magistrates, desiring
them particularly to see that there were “no assemblies, riots, or
cruelties, to the prejudice of public tranquillity.” As far as the
language of the proclamation went, nothing could be more conducive to
peace and good-will among the followers of both religions. According to
the Edict, the Huguenots were forbidden to assemble for worship within
a certain distance of the city; but, as their ordinary meeting-place
was at Castanet, a little village just within the prescribed limits,
the magistrates, for some reason unknown, determined on a literal
interpretation of the law, and arrested all who were present at divine
worship on the 4th of September. The prisoners were not ill treated,
but held in safe custody until the king’s pleasure should be known. Of
the 300 captured, more than 200 managed to escape with the connivance
of their jailers. On the 1st of October a number of ruffian soldiers,
armed with pike and arquebuse, entered Toulouse, and soon made known
their business by threatening peaceable citizens in the streets,
abusing them as “Patarins, Parpaillots, and Huguenots.”[699] Having
found a leader in one Latour, prior of the College of St. Catherine,
they broke open the prisons and murdered the prisoners. The ruffians,
now masters of the city, began to attack the Catholics also, for
plunder, not religion, was their real object. One of their victims
was a priest named Guestret, murdered by Latour, with whom he had a
lawsuit;[700] and Jean Coras, the famous legist.

But, happily for human nature, the history of this period is not one of
unrelieved treachery and murder. There were many brave and honorable
gentlemen in France, who refused to obey the bloody rescripts of the
court. St. Hérem of Montmerin, governor of Auvergne, wrote to the king:
“Sire, I have received an order under your majesty’s seal to put to
death all the Protestants in my province. I respect your majesty too
much to suppose the letter is other than a forgery; and if (which God
forbid) the order really proceeds from your majesty, I have still too
much respect for you to obey it.” Although the Huguenots of Auvergne
escaped the massacre, there are reasons for doubting the authenticity
of the letter. The Dulaure manuscripts contain a very circumstantial
account of how one Captain Combelle was sent by the king to M. de
St. Herrent (Hérem) with a dispatch containing orders to exterminate
the Huguenots. On the road he fell in with another traveler, who had
escaped from the massacre at Paris, and represented himself as the
bearer of instructions to Marshal Damville in Languedoc to put all the
Calvinists in his government to death. They traveled together, and the
end was that Combelle’s dispatch was stolen at Moulins, where they both
slept in the same room. The thief hurried to Issoire, gave the packet
to the minister Claude Baduel, bidding him warn his co-religionists
to flee at once. Combelle continued his journey, and told St. Herrent
the contents of the lost letter.[701] If this narrative be true, St.
Hérem could hardly answer a letter he did not receive. It is certain,
however, that he imprisoned all the Protestants at Issoire, while
waiting for farther orders, and that at Aurillac in his government
eighty Protestants were murdered.

Viscount Orte or Orthez, governor of Bayonne, wrote a letter which
one would fain believe to be true, in spite of the discredit recently
thrown upon it:[702] “Sire, I have communicated your majesty’s
commands to the faithful inhabitants and garrison of this city. I have
found among them many good citizens and brave soldiers, but not one
executioner.” One thing is certain, that the Huguenots in Bayonne were
saved.

When the king’s lieutenant waited upon James Hennuyer, Bishop of
Lisieux, to communicate the orders he had received to kill the
Huguenots in that city, “No, no, sir,” he replied, “I oppose, and
will always oppose, the execution of such an order, to which I can
not consent. I am pastor of the church of Lisieux, and the people you
are commanded to slay are my flock. Although they are wanderers at
present, having strayed from the fold which has been confided to me by
Jesus Christ, the supreme pastor, they may nevertheless return, and I
will not give up the hope of seeing them come back. I do not read in
the Gospel that the shepherd ought to suffer the blood of his sheep to
be shed; on the contrary, I find that he is bound to pour out his own
blood and give his own life for them. Take the order back again, for it
shall never be executed so long as I live.”[703] And the Huguenots of
Lisieux were spared.

When the fatal order was brought to Arnay-le-Duc by two messengers in
rapid succession, Elinor Chabot, Count of Charny, asked the advice
of the council. That body was divided in opinion, until a young and
obscure advocate quoted a law enacted by Theodosius when suffering
under remorse for a massacre executed by his orders at Thessalonica. By
this law, all governors were forbidden to carry out any such commands
in future, until the lapse of thirty days, during which interval they
were to demand a written confirmation of the order. Moderate counsels
prevailed, and two days later came a fresh mandate from the king,
revoking the former order. Chabot, as prudent as he was brave, boldly
declared that “the severity and cruelty which had been exercised toward
the Protestants had hitherto only served to exasperate them; and that
the best means of bringing them back to the Church was to treat them
with kindness.” So that there was little blood shed in Burgundy (says
De Thou), and nearly all the Protestants returned to the religion of
their ancestors.[704]

The royal orders were received at Senlis on the 24th; but the
Catholics, unwilling to stain their hands with the blood of their
fellow-citizens, only enjoined them to leave the town, which was done
“in a quiet and orderly manner.”[705] Bertrand de Gordes, governor
of Dauphiny, having received a _written_, order revoking all
_verbal_ orders, wrote to the king saying he had received no
orders, verbal or otherwise; to which Charles replied that “he need
not trouble himself, for the orders were given only to some that were
about him.” The historian of the religious wars in Dauphiny says
with a “dit-on” that Gordes “refused to obey the orders of the court,
or at least contrived to avoid carrying out his instructions.”[706]
Another historian tells us that he would not believe the king could
have desired the death of so many innocent persons. In this he was
supported by the first president, “who, like all men of learning,
was an enemy to violence.”[707] The king can have had nothing to do
with such a massacre, he said. “His power and authority are abused by
foreigners, and it is our duty as magistrates and Frenchmen to preserve
his subjects for him.” On October 11, Gordes issued an order that any
attempt upon the lives of the Huguenots would be punished with death;
and at the same time certain precautionary restrictions were imposed on
religious assemblies. On the 18th, he exhorted the king’s officers and
governors “to comfort and assist such as manifest a desire to return to
the true Church.”[708]

At Provins many Huguenots thought it prudent to be converted; and,
says Claude Haton, “for eight days and nights they dared not show
themselves.” But there was no blood shed in that little town.
The garrulous chronicler tells us how the Huguenot gentlemen and
demoiselles of the environs, notwithstanding their châteaux-forts, ran
away or emigrated: some to Sedan, others to Germany or Geneva. The
men wore white crosses on their hats and sleeves; the women had beads
in their hands or fastened to their girdles. These were very common
practices to save life. At Château-Thierry, where heretics were few in
proportion to the population, no violence was committed, and not a drop
of blood was shed, though the town was immediately dependent on the
king.

When the governor of Dieppe received the fatal instructions, he
assembled the Huguenots in the great hall of the Palace of Justice and
read the letter to them, following it up by a characteristic speech:
“Citizens, the orders I have received can only concern rebellious and
seditious Calvinists, of whom, thanks be to God! there are none in this
place. We read in the Gospel that love to God and our neighbor is the
duty of Christians; let us profit by the lesson, which Christ himself
has given us. Children of the same Father, let us live together as
brothers, and having for each other the charity of the Samaritan. These
are my sentiments, and I hope you all share them; they make me feel
assured that in this town there does not exist a man who is unworthy
to live.” Touched by his words, says the historian, the Huguenots
recanted, and vowed to live and die in the Catholic faith.

The order to sweep Nismes clear of every Huguenot within its walls
reached that venerable city on August 29, when Jean de Montcalm,
the _juge-mage_, called an extraordinary council, before which
he placed the royal missive. Unanimously they resolved not to act
upon it. Thinking it unnecessary and possibly dangerous to make any
public explanation, the magistrates took every precaution to preserve
order, and called upon the leading men of both religions to swear to
watch over the safety of all and to defend each other. In order to
keep out strangers, every gate was closed, except one, and the guard
of that was given to two trusty citizens. When this was done, they
informed Joyeuse, the commander of the province, who approved of their
measures.[709]

What was the number of victims sacrificed to the policy of Catherine
and the jealousy of Anjou? It is impossible to arrive at any thing like
a correct estimate; for hardly two historians give the same figures,
and none of them mention the grounds of their estimate. It is evident
that in many instances they are mere random guesses, and as such
without any weight.

The following table for Paris only will show the impossibility of
accepting any of the statements:

       AUTHORITIES.           NUMBERS.

    Caveyrac       }            1000
    La Popelinière }
    Kirkaldy[710]  }
    Papyr Masson }              2000
    Tocsin       }
    Tavannes     }
    Aubigné  }                  3000
    Capilupi }
    Alva’s Bulletin             3500
    Bonanni  }                  4000
    Brantome }
    Gomez da Silva    }
    Mezeray           }         5000
    Simancas Archives }
    Neustadt Letter[711]        6000
    Claude Haton [712]          7000
    Art de Vérifier   }
    Davila            }
    Etat de France    }       10,000
    Peleus: Henry IV. }
    Réveille-Matin    }

Probably the number of victims may have amounted to 6000; but to
reduce it as low as 1600 for all France, which Dr. Lingard has done,
is monstrously absurd. All that we know positively is that a certain
number of bodies were buried, and beyond that all is conjecture.
The length of time through which the massacre was continued, is one
evidence of the numbers that were slain. The nuncio Salviati wrote on
the 15th of September: “Every night some tens of Huguenots, caught
by day in various places, are thrown into the river without any
disturbance.” On the next day the Count of St. Pol, embassador from
the Duke of Savoy, wrote: “They are continuing the great execution
against these folks, who are thrown into the river by night;” and
as late as the 26th, more than a month after the first outbreak, he
reported: “They are daily putting Huguenots to death in Paris and
elsewhere.” The registers of the Hotel-de-Ville supply us with a
curious comment upon the massacre. On September 9th, fifteen livres
tournois were paid to the sextons of the cemetery of St. Innocent and
their eight helpers for burying the dead bodies round the convent of
Nigeon (Bonshommes of Chaillot) “to prevent the spread of infection.”
On the 23d, twenty livres were paid to the same men for burying in
one week 1100 bodies found in the neighborhood of St. Cloud, Auteuil,
and Chaillot. If we suppose the payments proportionate to the numbers
buried, those paid for on the 9th must have been nearly 1500; thus
giving for all Paris a _known_ massacre of 2600. The same rolls
record the payment of one Nicholas Sergent, who had stopped the ferries
and prevented the crossing of the Seine, and also 80 livres for medals
struck to commemorate the massacre, to be distributed among the
municipal officers.

But the dead accounted for above could not have been all that perished:
there is indeed direct evidence to the contrary. Many were buried in
the city, as Oudin Petit in his cellar, and there is a tradition that
475 were interred near the Church of St. Gervais, and that theirs were
the bones discovered in 1851.[713]

In Alva’s Bulletin we read that more than 3500 were dispatched “in
a short time,” and that the principal gentlemen were flung into the
Clerks’ Well (Puis aux Clercs), where “dead animals were thrown.”
When Gomicourt, Alva’s agent, had his farewell audience, he asked
the queen-mother for her answer to his commission. She replied that
she could give him no other answer than what Christ said to John’s
disciples: _Ite et nunciate quæ vidistis et audivistis: cæci
vident, claudi ambulant, leprosi mundantur_; bidding him also not
forget to tell the duke in addition, _Beatus qui non fuerit in me
scandalizatus_. Such blasphemous application of Holy Writ is perhaps
unparalleled in history.

An equal uncertainty prevails as to the number murdered all over
France. The calculations or guesses range from 2000 to 100,000.

         AUTHORITIES.        NUMBERS.

    Caveyrac                    2000
    Papyr Masson              10,000
    Martyrologue              15,000
    De Thou        }
    Montfauçon     }          20,000
    La Popelinière }
    Bonanni                   25,000
    Mém État de France }
    Félibien           }      30,000
    Pibrac             }
    Serranus           }
    Davila                    40,000
    Sully                     70,000
    De Furoribus }           100,000
    Pèrefixe     }

If it be necessary to choose from these hap-hazard estimates, that of
De Thou is preferable, from the calm, unexaggerating temper of the
man. But whatever be the number,[714] not all the waters of the ocean
can efface the stain upon the characters of those concerned in the
massacre. A few of the murderers--men of overheated fanaticism--may
have truly believed that they were doing God a service by putting
heretics to death; for these we may feel pity even while we condemn.
But the majority of the assassins were impelled by the lowest of all
possible motives. Jealousy and ambition filled the breast of Catherine
de Medicis; Anjou was envious of merit and virtues he could never hope
to imitate, and which were a standing reproach to his licentiousness;
Guise dreamed but of revenge; and sinking lower in the scale of
society, but not lower in motives, the people were eager for plunder,
jealous of the success of the industrious and thrifty Huguenots, and
ignorantly impelled to murder by a clergy scarcely less ignorant than
themselves. We have already seen one instance in which plunder was
manifestly the object principally aimed at, and other instances are not
wanting. In Paris alone, 600 houses were pillaged.[715] The Duke of
Anjou was accused of conniving at the robbery of the house of a wealthy
lapidary, by which he put 100,000 crowns into his purse. The Bastard of
Angoulême stripped the house of the Bishop of Chartres, in which Queen
Joan of Navarre had lodged; and Capilupi estimates that the king’s
share of the plunder amounted to three millions of gold.[716]

“The equity of history,” says the eloquent historian of the Tudor line,
“requires that men be tried by the standard of their times.”[717] But
low as that standard was in the court of Charles IX. and Catherine
de Medicis, there were men honest enough to condemn the crimes which
have made the Feast of St. Bartholomew memorable in all history.
Such a purely gratuitous massacre is unexampled in the annals of the
world. The Greeks of Lesser Asia rose and slew 80,000 Romans living
among them. In our own history we read that the Britons massacred
whole settlements of the invading Danes. In the Sicilian Vespers
20,000 French were put to death without distinction of age or sex. But
these massacres, however condemnable, were committed in the name of
freedom--to drive out a foreign conqueror, to throw off the yoke of the
invader; but the massacre of St. Bartholomew arose out of the paltriest
and most selfish motives. Envy, jealousy, greediness--such were the
motives of Catherine, of Anjou, and of their councilors. The plea of
religion was never put forward, though it is a plea too often employed
to extenuate what can not be justified.

But if the moral tone of the age had not been low, Catherine and
Charles would never have contemplated so foul a deed. Truth and honor,
either among men or women, were held in slight esteem at court; and the
modern respect for human life was a thing unknown. Might made right.
Private assassination was a venial crime, if it were not even a lawful
means of getting rid of an enemy. Even Coligny did not speak of the
murder of Guise before Orleans in very emphatic terms of condemnation.
Many Catholics looked upon the massacre as merely a sort of reprisals
for the blood shed by the Huguenots during the wars, or as a clever
mode of disabling them forever. This is the tone of Pibrac’s defense
and of Dorat’s song. The poet congratulates Charles and his brother as
“crowning the work of ten years’ war.” These wars shall supply a new
Homer with matter for a new Iliad. But after a struggle of ten years,
all was not over. Ulysses had not yet taken Troy, and above all had
not killed the suitors! “One night did this deed. By the counsel of
another Pallas (Catherine de Medicis) see Pergamus overthrown, Paris
dead with Gaspar, and lying in blood those who aspired not to the hand
of Penelope, but to thy crown, O king. Their detestable ambuscades were
detected, their treachery anticipated. The suitors were slain like
pigs.”[718]

We need make very little allowance for poetical exaggeration: Dorat
merely gave bolder expression to what was in many persons’ thoughts.
Jean le Masle published in 1573 a “Bref Discours sur les Troubles,” in
which he eulogizes the king and court for their share in the massacre,
and writes of Coligny:

                  Ce malheureux
    (Qui mérite cent fois avoir la roue)
    Fut mis à mort, et son corps par la boue
    De mainte rue honteusement traîné.[719]

And as if to show to all the world that the massacre was not an
unpremeditated outbreak of fanaticism, the poet says in another place:

    Il faut punir d’une mort très-cruelle
    (Comme autrefois) le premier qui grommelle
    Contre l’église, et nous pourrons encor
    Voir luire ici le temps et le siècle d’or.

Pierre Charpentier, a renegade Protestant and the murderer of Ramus,
wrote an apologetic “Lettre à François Portès Candiois,” which has
been described as a “monster unique of its kind.”[720] The most
labored defense was that of Arnault Sorbin,[721] entitled “Le Vray
Resveille-matin des Calvinistes et Publicans François” (1576), and
dedicated “to the eternal memory and immortality of the soul of the
late Charles IX.” He says the universe will call the Feast of St.
Bartholomew “le jour de la grande justice,” adding that “on good days
good deeds are done.”

Charles IX. had two medals struck: one represents the king sitting on
the throne and trampling on corpses, with the motto, VIRTUS IN
REBELLES;[722] the other, Hercules destroying the hydra with fire,
NE FERRUM TEMNAT SIMUL IGNIB’ OBSTO. On the 27th of August
the metropolitan bishop ordered a solemn procession for the following
Sunday to thank God for this happy beginning (de felici incepta
extirpatione heresium). On the 25th of August, 1583, William Cecil
wrote to Lord Burghley: “Upon St. Bartholomew’s Day we had here [Paris]
solemn processions and other tokens of triumph and joy in remembrance
of the slaughter committed this time eleven years past.”[723] The
procession was continued for twenty years, until Henry IV. entered
Paris. In 1602, when the Landgrave of Hesse visited Henry IV. and
afterward traveled through France, he left Marseilles before the Feast
of St. Bartholomew to escape the invitation of the Duke of Guise, then
governor of Provence, who celebrated “that day of mournful memory by
running at the ring, by balls and banquets.”[724]

Some defended the massacre as a great act of state policy. Among them
was Gérard de Groesbeck, an enlightened tolerant prelate, who governed
the principality of Liége. Replying to Alva’s bulletin announcing
the slaughter, he calls it “a clear sign that our Lord God wishes to
arrange matters for the greater tranquillity of his service.”[725]
But Charles evidently felt less confident. Writing to De Cély, the
president of the Parliament of Paris, he ordered him to keep “_very
secret_” any papers he might have relative to the arrangements made
for the massacre, so that they might not get into print, adding that he
had done the same with the documents in his possession.[726] Does this
refer to some mystery that has escaped the eyes of the historians of
the massacre?

When the news of the massacre reached Rome, the exultation among the
clergy knew no bounds. The Cardinal of Lorraine rewarded the messenger
with a thousand crowns; the cannon of Saint Angelo thundered forth a
joyous salute; the bells rang out from every steeple; bonfires turned
night into day; and Gregory XIII.,[727] attended by the cardinals and
other ecclesiastical dignitaries, went in long procession to the Church
of St. Louis, where the Cardinal of Lorraine chanted a _Te Deum_.
A pompous Latin inscription in gilt letters over the entrance describes
Charles as an avenging angel sent from heaven (“angelo percussore
divinitus immisso”) to sweep his kingdom from heretics.[728] A medal
was struck to commemorate the massacre,[729] and in the Vatican may
still be seen three frescoes by Vasari[730] describing the attack
upon the admiral, the king in council plotting the massacre, and the
massacre itself. Gregory sent Charles the golden rose; and four months
after the massacre, when humaner feelings might have been supposed to
have resumed their sway, he listened complacently to the sermon of a
French priest, the learned but cankered Muretus, who spoke of “that day
so full of happiness and joy when the most holy father received the
news and went in solemn state to render thanks to God and St. Louis....
That night the stars shone with greater lustre, the Seine rolled her
waters more proudly to cast into the sea the corpses of those unholy
men;” and so on in a strain of rhapsody unendurable by modern ears.

With such damning evidence as this against the Church of Rome, a
recent defender of that church vainly contends[731] that the clergy
had no part in the massacre, and that the rejoicings were over rebels
cut off in the midst of their rebellion, and not heretics murdered for
their religion.

                            Periere latebræ
    Tot scelerum; populo venia est erepta nocenti,
    Agnovere suos.[732]

There is no retreat for the Church which approved of and justified such
a crime, even if the victims were political rebels.[733]

Philip II. was, if possible, more delighted than the pope. When
he received the news, he laughed aloud--for the first time in his
life;[734] for Charles had not only destroyed heresy, but weakened
France by the murder of so many veteran soldiers. And Flanders, too,
was safe![735] He professed to be quite offended with St. Goar and all
who “tried to make him believe that it had taken place on a sudden
and without deliberation.”[736] The news reached him on the 12th
of September, and on the 18th he told the Marquis of Ayamonte, his
embassador at Paris, to congratulate the king “for a resolution so
honorable, Christian, and valiant;” and that the news was “one of the
greatest pleasures he had ever known.”[737] To Catherine, who had
spoken of “God’s favor in giving her son the means of getting rid of
his subjects, rebels against Heaven and their king, and of preserving
himself from their hands,”[738] he replied: “The just punishment
inflicted on the admiral and his followers was an act of such courage
and prudence, and of so great service to God’s glory and honor, and
such universal benefit to Christendom ... that it was the best and most
delightful news I could receive.”[739] Philip went even farther than
this, urging the king to exterminate all the heretics in his dominions,
and offering his services toward so desirable an end. There is a story
in Brantome that Philip sent the letter containing the first account
of the massacre to the Admiral of Castile, who received it while at
supper, and thinking to promote the cheerfulness of his guests, read it
aloud. The Duke of Infantado, one of the party, asked if Coligny and
his friends were Christians. He was answered in the affirmative. “How
is it, then, that being Frenchmen and Christians, they have been killed
like brutes?” “Gently, duke,” said the admiral, “do you not know that
war in France means peace for Spain?”

Alva, who was more clear-sighted, condemned the massacre; and Micheli,
the Venetian embassador, affirms that all thinking men, without
distinction of creed, protested against the crime, denouncing it as
an act of unbridled tyranny, which none but an “Italiana Fiorentina e
di casa dei Medici” could contrive, and none but Italians carry into
execution.

In England a thrill of horror ran through the nation on receiving
intelligence of the slaughter. A treaty had just been concluded with
France, and negotiations were actively proceeding for the marriage of
Alençon with Elizabeth. On a sudden it was perceived that the nation
had been duped, and that popery was as dangerous as ever. For some days
the queen refused to receive the French embassador: at length he was
summoned to Richmond, where the court was staying. Hume thus describes
the scene: “A melancholy sorrow sat on every face: silence as the dead
of night reigned through all the chambers of the royal apartment;
the courtiers and ladies, clad in deep mourning, were ranged on each
side, and allowed the embassador to pass without offering him a salute
or a favorable look, until he was admitted to the queen herself.” La
Mothe-Fénelon candidly expressed his disapprobation of the murder,
and declared that he was ashamed to be counted a Frenchman.[740] Lord
Burghley told him in most undiplomatic language, that “the Paris
massacre was the most horrible crime which had been committed since
the crucifixion of Christ.... It was a deed of unexampled infamy.”
Sir Thomas Smith wrote to Walsingham: “Grant that the admiral and his
friends were guilty, what did the innocent men, women, and children at
Lyons? What did the sucking children and their mothers at Rouen, and
Caen, and elsewhere? _Will God sleep?_” But more plainly still
spoke Knox to Du Croc, the French embassador: “Go, tell your king,”
said the bold apostle of Scotland, “go tell your master, that God’s
vengeance shall never depart from him nor from his house; that his name
shall remain an execration to posterity; and that none proceeding from
his loins shall enjoy the kingdom in peace unless he repent.”[741]

In Germany the sense of horror was hardly less than in England. The
Emperor Maximilian II. thus expressed his feelings on the matter: “As
for that strange action so tyrannically committed upon the admiral and
his confederates, I can by no means approve it, and it is with great
sorrow of heart I am informed that my son-in-law suffered himself
to consent to so foul a massacre. Now, though I know that others
govern more than he, yet that will not excuse the fact or palliate
the villainy.... He has so stained his honor with this piece of work,
that he will not easily wash out the spot. May God forgive those who
have had a hand in it; for I very much apprehend that in course of
time the same treatment will be returned for them. Matters of religion
are not to be ordered or decided by the sword.”[742] When Henry of
Anjou was on the way to Poland, he stopped at Heidelberg, where the
elector-palatine, when showing him over the castle, drew his attention
to two pictures: one a portrait of Coligny, another a representation
of his death. “Of all the French nobles it has been my good fortune to
know,” said he, “I esteem the original of this portrait to have been
the most zealous for the glory and welfare of his country, and his loss
is a public calamity which his most Christian majesty will never be
able to repair.”




                              CHAPTER XV.

                          THE CLOSING SCENE.

                             [1572–1574.]

   Reaction--Tolerant Protestations of Government--Walsingham’s
   disbelief and caution--Renewal of Civil War--Mission
   of Cardinal Orsini--Siege of Rochelle--Honorable terms
   of Capitulation--Siege of Sancerre--Famine--Horrible
   scenes--Capitulation--Meeting at Montauban--Troubled state of
   France--Intrigues of Alençon--Shrove-Tuesday plot--La Mole
   and Coconnas executed--Charles falls ill--Conversation with
   Henry of Navarre--Charles’s visions--His Huguenot nurse--Her
   exhortations--The King’s remorse--His dying words--Suspicions of
   Poison--His character--His married life--Judgment of Posterity.


The story of the massacre has been told, but this history would be
incomplete if it were not continued to the death of the principal
character in that memorable tragedy. As kings are esteemed great and
glorious by the noble deeds done in their reigns, so must they bear the
odium of the crimes perpetrated under the cloak of their authority. A
few pages will suffice for a brief record of the last twenty months of
the life of the most wretched Charles.

The court had gained nothing by their treachery. The German Protestant
powers were alienated, and the English nation shrank in horror from the
French alliance. Charles must now conciliate Spain, a power which he
had always disliked, and which he now hated with all the intensity of
impotence. Besides which, a reaction had set in: the influence of the
Moderate party once more began to be felt. “This manner of proceeding,”
wrote Walsingham, on the 13th September, “is by the Catholics
themselves utterly condemned.” Cardinal Fabio Orsini (Des Ursins),
whom the pope had sent to congratulate the king on the massacre, and
urge him to accept the decrees of the Council of Trent, was surprised
to find that the atrocities of August were not thought of so highly
in France as at Rome. The general feelings of the people, which had
been surprised, had recovered their sway, and they were ashamed of
themselves and of their rulers, who had played upon their loyalty.

Catherine had gained nothing. She was so entirely at the mercy of the
Guise faction, which consisted of all that was most violent in France,
that she was forced to follow where they led. She was fully conscious
of the terrible mistake she had made, and bitterly must she have
repented it in after years; but now her sole aim was to re-assure the
disheartened Huguenots, and soften the impression which the news of the
massacre had created in foreign courts. Her embassador in London was
instructed to make the most lavish protestations of tolerance; and in
Paris both Catherine and Charles tried to convince Walsingham that they
were hurried away to the committal of a deed necessary to their safety,
but entirely unconnected with religion. The far-seeing Englishman was
not to be deceived by their fair professions; but wrote home again
and again, that “now there is neither regard had to word, writing, or
edict,” and that “nothing is meant but extremity toward those of the
religion.”[743]

During the massacre and for some time after it, the Huguenots were so
panic-stricken that they seemed incapable of the commonest actions
for preserving their lives. But as soon as they recovered from their
consternation, they once more ran to arms, and France was again exposed
to the very evils which the massacre was intended to make impossible.
Civil war now became justifiable in the eyes of the Reformed party;
for horrible as it might be to draw the sword against a brother, it
seemed less horrible than to sit still and suffer that brother to cut
your throat. They were not fighting against the crown, but against a
tyrant who had stained his hands with the blood of his people. It was
a nice distinction, but distinctions equally nice were drawn at the
commencement of our Great Rebellion. Each party strove to justify their
appeal to arms by showing that law and justice were on their side. When
the citizens of Nismes were summoned to admit the royal troops, they
were told that firmness alone could save them, and they kept their
gates shut. Rochelle and Sancerre, Aubenas, Sommières, Milhaud, Anduze,
and scores of other towns, large and small, did the same, so that in
a short time the whole country from the Channel to the Mediterranean
was again divided into two hostile camps. The Protestants were so
exasperated and so desperate, that compromise seemed impossible.
Unhappily, most of their leaders had perished in the massacre. La Noue
was still left them--himself a host; but Henry of Navarre and the
Prince of Condé were prisoners at court. Still there was no shrinking
from the unequal strife: the Huguenot veterans left their farms and
their shops, and rallied round the gentry of their neighborhood. But
their force was small, while the king was soon able to put four armies
in the field, one of which was marched against Sancerre, and another
against Rochelle. Biron, and afterward Anjou, commanded the latter,
which was by far the best appointed. It was composed of veteran troops,
and counted the Dukes of Guise and Alençon, Henry and Condé, among its
officers.

Rochelle was admirably adapted for a place of refuge where the
Huguenots could make a last stand in defense of religious freedom.
On the land side it was protected by marshes, which allowed of only
one narrow approach from the north. Toward the sea it was hardly more
accessible. The stormy nature of the coast prevented a successful
blockade, and the gales that drove off a hostile fleet were favorable
to the entrance of friends. The city itself was fortified according to
the best rules of the military art of that day, with broad ditches,
thick ramparts, and threatening bastions. But strong as it was by its
position among the marshes of Poitou, it had been made stronger still
during the interval left its inhabitants by the tardy and irresolute
movements of the court. The garrison consisted of 1500 veteran soldiers
and 2000 well-trained citizens, the stores of all kinds were ample, and
aid was coming from England. The commander of the city was the brave
and upright La Noue--the _chevalier sans peur et sans reproche_ of
the Huguenot party, and not unworthy successor of the great Coligny.
Being a prisoner in the hands of Alva at the time of the massacre,
he fortunately escaped death; and, on his restoration to liberty, he
went to court, where the king received him with open arms and gave him
the confiscated estates of Teligny. When the Rochellers closed their
gates, he was commissioned by Charles IX. to treat with them and try to
procure their submission. The result was not what the king expected,
for La Noue joined the citizens, and was made governor. Here, while
fighting bravely and doing his best to preserve the city, he never lost
an opportunity of recommending conciliatory measures.

The Catholic party made it a point of honor to reduce the capital of
Protestantism. The siege was begun with a vigor that would have honored
a better cause. From the hills which commanded the defenses a continual
storm of fire was poured upon the devoted city. Assault after assault
was gallantly made and repelled with equal spirit and determination.
Even the women mounted the walls, cheering the combatants, tending
the wounded, carrying ammunition, water and food to the soldiers, and
sometimes with a boldness beyond their sex wielding the weapons that
had fallen from dying hands. These alone, occasionally aided by the
ministers, hurled from huge caldrons floods of boiling water and melted
pitch upon the assailants in the breach. For five months Anjou attacked
the place in vain--each month diminishing the ardor of the besiegers.

The siege would probably have been more closely pressed (instead of
being relaxed) as time went on, had there been unity of purpose in the
royal army. Cabals were formed among the officers, some of whom refused
to obey the orders of a man who was openly charged with the murder of
the admiral. Strange stories circulated through the camp. Men told one
another with a shudder how one day, when the Duke of Guise was playing
at hazard, blood dropped from his hand as he threw the dice on the
table.[744] But there was perfect harmony among the besieged, although
La Noue had quitted the city where his courage, military ability, and
simple character had been poorly appreciated. The pastors and he were
constantly at variance; they thwarted his plans and excited the people
against him. Brave as were the Rochellers, they must have yielded at
last but for the election of Anjou to the crown of Poland. This made
him listen readily to pacific counsels, and on the 11th July, 1573,
a treaty was concluded by which the inhabitants surrendered on the
following conditions: That there should be a complete amnesty for the
past; that the cities of Montauban, Nismes, and La Rochelle should
retain their old privileges; that the Reformed should enjoy freedom
of worship, provided they met in small numbers and unarmed; that the
gentry might celebrate marriages and baptisms in their own houses,
provided not more than ten persons were present; that all prisoners for
religious offenses should be set at large; and that all who desired
to leave the kingdom might sell their goods freely and go where they
pleased, except into enemy’s country. Such good terms might not have
been obtained but for two things: the siege had cost 40,000 men in
battle or by disease, and the king had neither money nor credit to pay
his troops.

When the inhabitants of Sancerre heard that they were not included
in the treaty of Rochelle, they determined to perish rather than
surrender. The little town was excepted, because the Catholics imagined
its fall to be near and inevitable; but another motive was assigned,
namely, that as the city belonged to a particular seigneur, the king
(who had suddenly become scrupulous) would not prejudice the rights
of the superior lord. In January, 1573, an army of 5000 infantry, 500
horse, and 1600 sappers sat down before this petty town, whose garrison
consisted of about 800 men. After summoning the place to surrender,
La Châtre opened the trenches, and from two batteries of sixteen guns
discharged 2000 shot in two months. By the middle of March he had made
a breach 300 paces wide, but failed to carry it by storm. Drawing his
lines still closer, he entirely cut off all external relief, so that
in the beginning of April the towns-folk began to run short of food.
They eat the asses and mules, and afterward fell to horses, dogs,
cats, mice, moles, and leather, and, sinking lower still, tried horns,
harness, wild roots, and parchment. “I have seen some served up,”
writes an eye-witness, “on which the writing was still visible, and one
might read from the pieces placed upon the table to be eaten.” By the
end of June, three-fourths of the inhabitants had no bread to eat. Some
attempted substitutes of flax-seed, others of all kinds of herbs, mixed
with bran, others even tried straw, nut-shells, and slate, by which
the stomach was distended and the pangs of hunger were temporarily
assuaged. Grease and tallow served for soups and for frying: “Yea,
some (a strange thing and never heard of) labored to encounter the
cruelty of their hunger by the excrements of horses and men.” But
there is worse to be told. On the 19th June a laboring man and his
wife “satisfied their hunger with the head and entrails of their young
daughter, about three years old.” They were tried and executed for the
murder, for which there was the less excuse, as that very day they had
been “relieved with a pottage made of herbs and wine.”[745] The young
children under twelve almost all died. A boy only ten years old, seeing
his parents weeping over him, said: “Mother, why do you cry because
I am hungry? I do not ask you for bread, for I know you have none.
But as it is God’s will that I should die, I must be content. Did not
holy Lazarus suffer hunger?” And with these words, adds De Serres, “he
gave back his soul to God.” The historian sums up in this short but
pregnant sentence: “During the siege, fourscore men died by the sword,
but of starvation above five hundred.” On the 19th August, through
the intervention of the Polish deputies, the inhabitants were granted
honorable terms of capitulation.[746]

But the Huguenots were not intimidated. On the anniversary of the
massacre in Paris, they assembled at Montauban, and demanded the strict
fulfillment of the treaty of St. Germains. They went farther, indeed,
and required, among other things, that the open exercise of their
religion should be permitted everywhere in France; that they should
pay tithes to their own ministers only; that such of the clergy as
had embraced the Reformed doctrines and married should be allowed the
privileges of citizenship; that the authors and perpetrators of the
August massacres should be punished; and that a parliament or supreme
court of justice, composed of Huguenots only, should be appointed to
try all causes in which they were concerned.

When their petition was presented to the king, he listened and made
no remark; but Catherine haughtily replied: “If Condé were alive and
in the heart of France with 100,000 horse and foot, he would not ask
one-half of what these people demand.” Their prayer was refused;
and had it been granted, we may doubt whether the condition of the
Huguenots would have been much improved. France seemed to be given over
to all the evils that misgovernment, which is rarely unaccompanied
with other and more damning vices, can bring upon a nation. Although
the Duke of Anjou had been elected King of Poland, and had departed
for his kingdom, his evil influence remained behind. The court was the
arena of the most disgraceful intrigues: honor among men, chastity
among women, had become unmeaning words. The Duke of Alençon, a poor
weak fool, gaining courage by the absence of the more resolute Anjou,
entered into all sorts of schemes to prevent his brother’s return
to France and secure the reversion of Charles’s throne to himself.
Two parties looked up to him as their head; the Politicians and the
Huguenots. The threads of the intrigues, in which he was a mere
stalking-horse, are difficult to unravel, and it is scarcely within
the scope of this history to make the attempt. It is sufficient to
say that the result was a plot for a general rising of the Huguenot
party on Shrove-Tuesday, 22d February, 1574, with the object of
driving Catherine from court, excluding Anjou from the succession, and
making Monsieur--as Alençon was now called--lieutenant-general of the
kingdom and heir to the throne. Great was the consternation at St.
Germains when the news arrived that La Noue had surprised Lusignan;
that Fontenay, Royau, Talmont, Coulombier, and other places had opened
their gates to the Huguenots; and that a body of cavalry under Guitry
was almost at the palace gates. All fled; Charles alone refusing to
move: “Why could they not have waited for my death?” he asked, as
he lay on his sick-bed--to him the bed of death. The ministers and
their followers hurried away as soon as possible, some in disguise,
some by land, others by the river, others by circuitous routes.
Agrippa d’Aubigné gives an amusing though exaggerated description of
the “flight of the courtiers.” It was a race who should reach Paris
first, he says. “Half-way from St. Germains, the cardinals of Bourbon,
Lorraine, and Guise, with Birague the chancellor and Morvilliers, were
met mounted on spirited chargers, grasping the pommels of their saddles
to keep themselves steady; and feeling as much affrighted at their
horses as they did at the enemy. They were followed by two retainers
only of all their sumptuous trains.” The movement ended in complete
failure, and cost the lives of several persons, the best known being
La Mole and Coconnas, whose fate alone has rescued them from oblivion.
Joseph Boniface, Lord of La Mole, was a vain, frivolous intriguer, whom
Charles IX. so detested that he is reported to have twice commanded
Anjou to strangle the wretched sycophant who preyed upon the weakness
of Alençon.[747] He is said also to have been in the good graces of
Queen Margaret, who desired his bleeding head to be brought to her.
On seeing the hideous sight, she burst into a violent transport of
rage and grief, kissing the lifeless features and bathing them with
her tears.[748] Coconnas was a Piedmontese noble and captain of the
guard to Monsieur. When on the scaffold, he stamped with vexation,
exclaiming to the spectators: “You see how it is; the little ones are
caught, and the big ones are left.” There was an attempt to implicate
Henry of Navarre in the plot; and though it failed,[749] he was still
kept prisoner at the court. Marshals Montmorency and Cossé were in like
manner detained in the Bastile for many months. The charlatan Ruggieri,
who lent himself to any vile scheme, was sent to the galleys, but was
soon released by Catherine, and rewarded by the gift of the rich abbey
of St. Mahé.

But the end was at hand. Charles, whose health had been slowly
declining since the massacre, now became seriously ill. He suffered
extreme pain, and had frequent fainting fits; yet from hatred of Anjou
and abhorrence of his mother, he still clung to the royal power.
A few days before his death, when the English embassador, Leyton,
arrived at Vincennes, he insisted upon giving him audience, and for
three-quarters of an hour listened patiently to the envoy’s harangue,
replying to it in a few pertinent remarks. Much of his suffering was
mental; his conscience was smitten with an incurable wound. As he felt
his last fatal illness coming on, he sent for Henry of Navarre, who
had to pass through the vaults of the castle between a double line
of guards under arms ready to dispatch him. Henry started back a few
paces, clapped his hand on his sword, and refused to advance. It was a
sensational trick of Catherine’s. Being assured there was no danger,
he proceeded and entered the king’s room, where Charles received him
affectionately. “I have always loved you,” he said; “and to your care
I confide my wife and daughter--I commend them to your love.” The king
went on cautioning him to distrust--: the name was not distinctly heard
by the persons in the chamber; but Catherine, who still hovered like an
evil genius over her son, remarked: “Sire, you should not say that.”
“Why not?” asked Charles, “is it not true?” Probably he was speaking of
his brother of Anjou. Henry had no opportunity of obeying the king’s
dying injunctions: the child did not live, and the mother returned to
Germany.

Charles could not sleep at night, and often when he had closed his
eyes from very weakness, he would start up, exclaiming that he
heard strange sounds in the air. Music was employed to soothe his
irritability, and the voice of his favorite chorister, Lassus, or
Étienne le Roi, chanting the penitential Psalms, often lulled him to
sleep. He saw nothing but blood around him, and the ghosts of those
he had caused to be murdered stood threateningly at his bedside. As
his malady increased, he began to spit and vomit blood; and in the
paroxysms of his pain, the blood would ooze through his skin at every
pore[750]--a symptom which the Huguenots regarded as a mark of the
divine displeasure.

His nurse, Philippe Richarde, was a Huguenot, who had reared him
when an infant, and whom he loved to the last. One night as she sat
watching by his bedside, she heard him sobbing, and as she drew aside
the curtains to learn what was the matter, he exclaimed through his
tears: “Oh nurse, my dear nurse, what bloodshed and murder! Oh! that
I should have followed such wicked advice. Pardon me, O God, and have
mercy on me.... What shall I do? I am lost.... I am lost.” The nurse
soothed him, and bade him trust in the Lord. “The blood is upon those
who caused you to shed it,” she added. “If you repent of the murders,
God will not impute them to you, but cover them with the mantle of his
Son’s righteousness, in which alone you must seek refuge. But for God’s
sake let your majesty cease weeping.” Hereupon she went to get a dry
handkerchief, for the king’s was all wet with tears. When he had taken
it, he made a sign to her to go away and let him sleep.[751]

The next day Catherine hurried into the sick-chamber with good news:
Montgomery was a prisoner in her hands--Montgomery, whom she had
never forgiven as the innocent cause of her husband’s death. But to
Charles all such earthly passions were now indifferent. “Madame,” he
said to his mother, “such things affect me no longer: I am dying.”
On Whitsunday, 30th May, 1574, Charles received the last rites of
the Church from the hands of Sorbin and the learned Amyot, Bishop
of Auxerre.[752] Catherine, Alençon, Henry, and Margaret, with the
officers of state, were present, and partook of the consecrated
elements. It does not appear that his queen was there, but we learn
that she was often seen kneeling, and in tears, before the altar of the
castle chapel, where “she was still to be found when the soul of her
husband and lord passed from this world.” After confession, Charles
rallied a little, and had strength to direct his ministers to obey the
queen-mother as they would have obeyed himself. But his weakness soon
returned: he breathed with such difficulty that he could scarcely bid
a tender farewell to his mother, after which he faintly whispered: “If
Jesus my Saviour should number me among his redeemed!”--a late and
involuntary testimony to the exhortations of his pious nurse. Thrice he
repeated these words, and then spoke no more.

There were rumors of poison, and people remembered how Catherine,
in bidding farewell to Anjou, told him to be of good cheer, for he
would not be away long. Poisoning in that day had been raised to the
dignity of a science; and ignorant as the alchemists were of the true
principles of their art, they had extorted certain secrets from nature
which modern chemists can not recover. The criminal annals of recent
years do not permit us to doubt of the efficacy of slow poisoning;
and the symptoms under which Charles suffered strongly remind us of
those produced by minute doses of hemlock alternating with arsenic.
Unfortunately, in those days, detection was difficult, because tests
for poison were unknown. There were so many interested in getting rid
of the king, that his early death was regarded as a certainty. If he
had lived, the influence of his amiable wife might have grown stronger,
he might have thrown off his mother’s trammels, and placing himself
in the hands of the Politicians, might have driven Catherine and her
friends from power. Then what would have become of Henry of Anjou,
now reigning in barbarous and distant Poland? Ambrose Paré declared
the king’s death was caused by injuries done to his lungs from the
immoderate use of his hunting-horn in the chase.[753] The explanation
was rejected at the time, and although we are unwilling to believe
that a mother would coldly speculate upon the death of her son and
connive at his murder, Catherine never was the woman to allow scruples
of conscience or morality to stand in her way. There is a well-known
anecdote of Louis XIII., who, on being cautioned against too violent
exercise and frequent use of the hunting-horn, replied: “Stuff! Charles
IX. died after dining with Gondi, immediately after a quarrel with his
mother.”

Thus died Charles at the early age of twenty-four, rejoicing that
he had left no son to wear that crown which had wrought him so much
sorrow; for, he added from his own bitter experience, “France needs a
man to govern her, and not a babe in swaddling-clothes, with a woman
for his support.”[754] How differently soever his character may be
estimated by different writers, there are some points on which all
must agree. His virtues were his own, his vices the result of his
training.[755] He had a great capacity of affection. His mistress,
Marie Touchet, and the boy she bore him were anxiously cared for as
he lay dying. His love for his mother was strong, but mingled with
fear: he submitted to her, not merely as the weak mind submits to the
stronger, but because he felt that she loved him after her animal
fashion, and that it was his duty to honor her. We know but little of
his married life, but from the few glimpses we catch of it, he seems
to have been attached to his young wife Elizabeth, and she to him. When
she heard of the murders of St. Bartholomew’s Day, she asked, with
horror in every feature: “Does the king, my husband, know of this?”
On being told that Charles had commanded it, she burst into tears,
exclaiming: “Oh God! what councilors hast thou given him! Pardon this
crime, I implore thee, oh God! for if thou shouldst exact vengeance, it
is a sin never to be forgiven.” Thereupon she retired into her oratory,
and passed the remainder of the day in prayer, and refused to join the
procession that traversed the blood-stained streets. There are coarse
stories recorded of the last days of Charles, which (if they were true)
would throw great doubt upon his conjugal fidelity; but they are mere
back-stairs scandal.

Charles IX. was a compound of the most opposite qualities. He was a
firm friend to the few whom he loved; fond of rough pleasures; not
without a taste for poetry and music, and master of that graceful
eloquence so captivating on the lips of princes. But he had great
defects, made greater by the peculiarity of his character, which
his friends, both true and false, knew so well how to play upon. He
could be as violent in action as in language: his anger was fearful
to withstand. He could be false and treacherous, so that his admirers
actually praise him for his duplicity.[756] A contemporary Juvenal
describes him as

    Plus cruel que Néron, plus rusé que Tibère ...
    Sans parole, sans foi, sinon à se venger,
    Exécrable joueur et public adultère ...
    Il mourut enfermé comme un chien enragé.

For three hundred years Charles has been the execration of mankind, and
after carefully weighing the evidence of contemporaries, the historian
can find no solid grounds for reversing the judgment. But he was
not the chief criminal. French writers, even while they condemn the
barbarous deed that has cast so foul a stain upon their annals, may
justly plead that the chief contriver was an Italian woman brought up
in the school of Machiavelli, and that the chief instruments were all
foreigners.




                                INDEX.


              A.

    Agriculture in France, 116.

    Agrippa d’Aubigné, 85.

    his defense of the war, 200.

    Aix, Huguenots hanged at, 184.

    Alençon, Huguenots uninjured at, 448.
      Duke of, proposed as a husband for Elizabeth, 356.
        his partiality for Coligny, 435.
        his intrigues, 478.

    Alessandrino (nuncio), audience at Blois, 347.
      failure of his embassy, 347.

    Alva, Duke of, at Bayonne, 249.
      his opinion on the state of France, 253.
      Tarquinian advice, 255, 272.
      marches through Burgundy, 266.
      his opinion of Cardinal Lorraine, 357.

    Amboise, tumult of, 81.
      act of grace of, 86.
      pacification and edict of, 224.

    Amiens, judicious arrangements at, 178.

    Andelot offends Henry II., 68.
      introduces reform in Brittany, 91.
      urges war, 267.
      death of, 301.

    Angers, persecutions at, 34.
      massacre at, 448.

    Angoulême, the bastard of, 409.

    Anjou, Prince of, threatens Condé, 266.
      made lieutenant-general, 278.

    Anjou commands royal army, 294.
      wins battle of Jarnac, 296.
        Moncontour, 305.
      proposed marriage with Elizabeth, 332, 354.
      his account of the massacre, 375, 383, 386, 387, 394, 396,
          405, 406.
      his fear of the king, 376.
      disappointment at Maurevel’s failure, 383.
      visit to the wounded admiral, 384.
      share of the plunder, 467.
      scene with the elector-palatine, 470.

    Anthony of Navarre, 66.
      his hesitation, 103.
      invited to Orleans, 105.
      plot to murder him, 108.
      his apostasy, 185.
      justifies the Vassy massacre, 190.
      death of, 215.

    Army, French, in sixteenth century, 126.

    Arnay-le-Duc, battle of, 312.

    Aurillac, murders at, 178.
      Protestant retaliation, 310.

    Avallon, chatelaine of, 239.


               B.

    Banquet in sixteenth century, 121.

    Baptisms, forced, 287.

    Bar, the proctor of, 239.

    Barbeville burned, 76.

    Battle of Dreux, 217.
      St. Denis, 272.
      Jarnac, 296.

    Battle of Roche-Abeille, 302.
      Moncontour, 304.
      Arnay-le-Duc, 312.

    Bayeux, Huguenot sacrilege at, 240.

    Bayonne, the meeting at, 248.
      amusements at, 249.
      diplomatic discussions at, 253.

    Bearnese refuse to suppress the preaching, 445.

    Beauvais, Easter riots at, 156.

    Behm, the admiral’s murderer, 408, 409.

    Berquin, Louis de, burned, 5.

    Beza at Poissy, 167.
      audience of queen-mother, 168.
      address to the king, 170.

    Birague, his origin, 320.

    Blois, edict of, 73.
      violence of Huguenots at, 156.
      cruelties at capture of, 210.
      festivities at, 347.

    Bois Aubry, Abbot of, secretary of clergy, his speech, 154.

    Bordeaux, the massacre at, 451.

    Bouchavannes, a traitor, 402.

    Bricquemaut of Villemangis, executed at Amboise, 82.

    Brigandage in France, 115.

    Briquemaut, Colonel, his necklace, 288.
      rash language to Charles, 341.
      hanged, 442.

    Brissac, governor of Paris, 197.
      death of, 301.

    Brugière burned, 19.


              C.

    Cahors, bloody riot at, 178.

    Calvin and his Institutes, 6.
      defense of Reformers, 10.
      letter to the prisoners, 43.

    Cambresis, treaty of, 48.

    Carcassonne, sacrilege at, 156.

    Carriages introduced, 121.

    Castelnau, trial and execution, 82.

    Castelnaudary, Palm Sunday at, 238.

    Catherine de Medicis, early life, 23.
      skill in business, 24.
      grief at Henry’s death, 59.
      letter to her daughter, 146.
      policy, 147.
      instructions to Cardinal Ferrara, 166.
      letters to Rome and the emperor, 172.
      unpopularity with Romanists, 177.
      bold reply to Chantonnay, 186.
      summons Condé to her assistance, 192.
      defies Anthony of Navarre, 193.
      message to Condé, 198.
      attempts at negotiation, 204.
      goes abroad masked, 208.
      is present at siege of Rouen, 213.
      exultation at victory of Dreux, 219.
      advice to Charles, 245.
      diplomacy at Bayonne, 248.
      letter on the papal jurisdiction, 257.
      suspected of heresy, 286.
      desires treaty to be observed, 336.
      reception of Coligny, 355.
      described by Joan of Navarre, 349.
      opposes war in Flanders, 362.
      interview with Charles at Montpipeau, 363.
      plots Coligny’s death, 377.
      at his bedside, 385.
      plots a general massacre, 389.
      consultation at the Tuileries, 390.
      reveals a pretended Huguenot plot, 394.
      extorts king’s consent to massacre, 397.
      checks the king’s irresolution, 405.
      letter to Strozzi, 446.
      message to Alva, 460.
      discovers her mistake, 472.
      reply to the Montauban demands, 477.
      exultation at Montgomery’s capture, 481.

    Caumont, Duc de la Force, his singular escape, 432.

    Cavaignes hanged, 442.

    Cevennes, march through the, 312.

    Chabot protects the Huguenots, 456.

    Chambord, ordinance of, 78.

    Chambres ardentes, 33.

    Chantonnay complains of toleration, 161.

    Chapot, Jean, on the rack, 16.

    Charles IX., his accession, 145.
      opens the States-General, 150.
      amnesties heretical prisoners, 157.
      issues letters patent of April, 157.
      acts in a court masque, 161.
      presides over colloquy of Poissy, 169.
      calls an Assembly of Notables, 175.
      Triumvirate plot to seize him, 192.
      brought from Fontainebleau to Paris, 193.
      declared of age, 244.
      reply to Alva, 256, 265, 323.
      reproaches Coligny, 264.
      plot to seize king, 269.
      savage letter to Gordes, 271.
      letters to Condé and Humières, 284, 317.
      at siege of St. Jean d’Angely, 307.
      advice to justices of Gap, 317.
      marriage, 322, 324.
      mad sports, 323.
      La Chasse Royale, 323.
      supports William of Orange, 331.
      invites Coligny to court, 333.
      distrust of Anjou, 334.
      attachment to Teligny, 334.
      reception of Coligny, 336.
      letter to Duke of Savoy, 337.
      reception of Queen Joan, 345.
      answer to Alessandrino, 347.
      letter to Pius V. on Margaret’s marriage, 351.
      promises help to Prince Louis, 358.
      goes to Montpipeau, 362.
      offers Coligny a guard, 376, 403.
      jealous of Anjou, 377.
      wrath on hearing of attack on Coligny, 318.
      threatens to punish the assassins, 382.
      visits Coligny, 384.
      tells his mother what Coligny said to him, 387.
      letters to pacify the Huguenots, 393.
      consents reluctantly to the massacre, 394.
      tries to save Rochefoucault, 400.
      irresolution, 405.
      looks from a window at the murders, 414.
      fires at the fugitive Huguenots, 426.
      remorse and visions, 436.
      justifies the massacre before the parliament, 438.
      present at execution of Briquemaut, 442.
      orders to provincial governors, 447.
      medals to commemorate massacre, 464.
      conspiracy to dethrone him, 478.
      last illness and death, 480.

    Charpentier’s apology for the massacre, 464.

    Chateaubriant, edict of, 33.

    Chatillon, Cardinal of, assaulted, 156.
      deliberations at, 267.

    Church property, its confiscation proposed, 165.

    Clergy, corruption of, 3.
      their power and wealth, 127.
      abusive sermons, preached by, 90, 286, 327.

    Coconnas executed, 479.

    Cognac besieged, 301.

    Coligny, Gaspard de, 67.
      advice at Amboise, 86.
        Fontainebleau, 99.
        Orleans, 112.
      his wife’s advice, 196.
      saves the army at Dreux, 218.
      charged with plotting the murder of Guise, 222.
      letter on his son’s death, 228.
      reconciliation with Guises at Moulins, 260.
      reproached by king, 264.
      dissuades from war, 268.
      skill and discipline, 272.
      death of his wife, 280.
      visit to Tanlay, 291.
      flight to Rochelle, 291.
      defeated at Jarnac, 296.
      victory at Roche-Abeille, 302.
      wounded at Moncontour, 305.
      letter to his children, 306.
      marches to the south, 308.
      victory at Arnay-le-Duc, 312.
      remonstrance with Charles, 333.
      marries Jacqueline of Montbel, 334.
      arrival at court, 336.
      influence with Charles, 340.
      urges war with Flanders, 344.
      memoir on proposed war, 358.
      letter to William of Orange promising aid, 362.
      warnings and cautions neglected, 367.
      remarks at Henry’s wedding, 373.
      last letter to his wife, 375.
      wounded by an assassin, 379.
      last interview with Charles, 384.
      murdered by Behm, 408.
      outrages to his corpse, 411.

    Combelle robbed of his dispatches, 454.

    Condé, Henry, Prince of, life saved by Elizabeth’s
        intercession, 434.
      abjuration, 444.

    Condé, Louis, Prince of, 67.
      invited to Orleans, 105.
      reception at court, 105.
      trial, 107.
      attempts to rescue king, 193.
      speech at Meaux, 196.
      appointed leader of Huguenot force, 197.
      manifesto to the Protestant churches, 198.
      made prisoner at Dreux, 218.
      claims to be appointed lieutenant-general, 266.
      battle of St. Denis, 272.
      marches to meet the reiters, 275.
      flight to Rochelle, 291.
      killed at Jarnac, 296.

    Confession of faith of French Reformers, 54.

    Cornaton asks king for a guard for Coligny, 391.
      escapes from the massacre, 407.

    Correro, France in 1571, 323.

    Cosseins appointed to guard Coligny’s house, 393.
      assists in the murder, 407.

    Council proposed, 92.

    Court-masques, 161, 250.

    Crespy, treaty of, 11.

    Crozier and his blood-stained comrade, 425.

    Cypierre murdered, 288.


              D.

    Damville at Nismes, 276.

    D’Aubigné at Amboise, 85.

    De Crussol’s account of Huguenots, 159.

    Delavoye, martyrdom of, 8.

    De Nançay, captain of the guard, 401.
      protects Margaret, 416.

    De Pilles, his foolish threats, 388.
      murdered in the Louvre, 415.

    De Retz, his origin, 319.
      rapid rise, 320.
      voice against proposed massacre, 397.

    Des Adrets, his ferocious retaliation, 231.
      description of, by De Thou, 232.

    Desmarais, his stout defense, 307.

    De Thou eulogizes the king’s severity, 440.
      private opinion of the massacre, 441.

    Diana of Poitiers, character of, 26.

    Dieppe, its wealth and commerce, 141.

    Dieppe, ferocity of Huguenots at, 240.
      Huguenots punished, 310.
      the governor’s speech at, 458.

    Discontent in France, 77.

    Dloet burned, 17.

    Dorat’s congratulations on the massacre, 453.

    Dramatic amusements, 129.

    Dress of people, 119.

    Dreux, battle of, 218.

    Du Bourg, his speech in Parliament, 51.
      trial and execution, 74.

    Duplessis-Mornay’s memoir on the Flemish war, 358.
      escapes from the massacre, 430.
      escape of his wife, 431.


              E.

    Ecouen, edict of, 56.

    Edict of Fontainebleau, 8.
      Chateaubriant, 33.
      Ecouen, 56.
      Villars-Cotteret, 73.
      Blois, 73.
      Chambord, 78.
      Amboise, 86.
      Romorantin, 88.
      April, 157.
      July, 158.
      January, 183.
      St. Germains, 314.

    Elector-palatine extols Coligny, 470.

    Electoral excitement, 149.

    Elizabeth, Queen of France, her marriage, 322, 324.
      enters Paris, 325.
      intercedes to save Condé, 434.
      affection for Charles IX., 482.
      horror at the massacre, 484.

    Elizabeth of England, proposed marriage with Anjou, 332, 354.
      Alençon, 356.

    Elizabeth of England, cold reception of the French embassador, 468.

    England, treaty with, 355.
      horror at the massacre, 468.

    Etienne, Robert, in exile, 18.

    Executioner, his wages, 133.


              F.

    Fontainebleau, edict of, 8.
      meeting of Notables at, 197.
      resolutions of, 102.

    Flemish war, 357, 358, 359, 362.

    Food of people, 119.

    France, condition of, in 1560, 112.
      distressed condition of, 217, 225.

    Francis I., patronage of learning, 3.
      persecutes Reformers, 7.
      orders persecution of Vaudois, 10.
      death of, 20.

    Francis II., accession, 61.
      alarm at court, 73.
      letters ordering persecution, 94.
      illness and death, 108.


               G.

    Gap, dissensions at, 278.
      edict neutralized at, 327.

    Gastine cross, 343.

    Genlis defeated and made prisoner, 359.

    German princes, embassy from, 326.

    Gibbets of Fontainebleau, 77.

    Gondi: _see_ De Retz.

    Gondrin killed at Lyons, 234.

    Gonzaga; _see_ Nevers, Duke of.

    Gordes hesitates to carry out the order, 456.

    Gregory XIII. approves of the massacre, 466.

    Guise, Francis, Duke of, 63.
      lieutenant-general, 86.
      combines with Montmorency, 163.
      retires from privy council, 184.
      goes to Saverne, 186.
      orders the massacre at Vassy, 188.
      ostentatiously enters Paris, 191.
      plots to seize the king, 192.
      gains victory at Dreux, 217.
      besieges Orleans, 220.
      murdered by Poltrot, 221.

    Guise, Henry of, refuses to be reconciled to Coligny, 261.
      character, 321.
      threatening proceedings of, 338.
      visits Alva, 356.
      offers to fight Coligny, 357.
      proposal to murder Coligny, 377.
      asks leave to quit Paris, 394.
      visits the city in secret, 398.
      receives the final orders, 405.
      recalled too late, 406.
      insults the corpse of Coligny, 409.
      blood drops from his hand, 475.


               H.

    Hampton Court treaty, 209.

    Havre surrendered to English, 209.
      siege and capture of, 243.

    Henry II., accession of, 22.
      crowned at Rheims, 28.
      present at burning of heretics, 30.
      favorite Psalm, 45.
      orders arrest of Du Bourg, 52.
      wounded, 58.
      death, 58.

    Henry of Navarre at Bayonne, 255.
      speech to the army, 300.
      description of, 300.
      retreat from Moncontour, 305.
      first command, 312.
      proposed marriage with Margaret, 338.
      letter to Queen Elizabeth on his mother’s death, 366.
      comes to Paris, 369.
      marriage with Margaret, 372.
      indignation at attack on Coligny, 328.
      proposals to murder him, 391.
      put under arrest, 424.
      abjures, 444.
      at the siege of Rochelle, 473.
      Charles entrusts his wife and child to him, 480.

    Heresy at court, 160.

    Huguenot army, its discipline, 203.

    Huguenots, their number estimated, 174.
      regain courage, 472.
      rush to arms, 473.
      demands at Montauban, 477.


               I.

    Ignorance of the people, 122.

    Infants rechristened, 207.

    Inns in France, 115.

    Inquisition, introduction of, resisted, 37.


               J.

    January, edict of, 183.
      resisted by Tavannes, 184.
      Huguenot rejoicings over, 184.

    Jarnac, battle of, 296.

    Joan of Navarre, her reforms in Bearn, 257.
      takes refuge in Rochelle, 292.
      fears for Coligny, 336.
      on her son’s marriage, 340.
      death at Paris, 356.

    July edict, 158.


               K.

    Knox, John, his denunciation of the murderers, 469.


              L.

    La Mole executed, 479.

    Lange, orator of Third Estate, 152.
      address to king, 152.

    La Noue describes origin of war, 196.
      on army discipline, 203.
      the conference at Thoury, 204.
      on the reiters, 275.
      governor of Rochelle, 474.

    La Place, Pierre de, murdered, 425.

    La Renaudie, 79.
      killed at Amboise, 81.

    La Rochefoucault, king tries to save him, 400.
      murdered, 421.

    Lavergne de Tressan at Jarnac, 312.

    League of the Loire, 115.
      Champagne, 289.
      Toulouse, 290.

    Lefevre, the first Reformer, 2.

    Le Laboureur, his panegyric of Coligny, 410.

    Le Mans, the bishop of, 240.

    Le Puy, procession at, 35.
      infant rebaptized, 207.

    Léran saved by Margaret, 415.

    Lignerolles murdered, 342.

    Limoux, cruelties at, 238.

    Lisieux, Bishop of, protects the Huguenots, 455.

    L’Hopital appointed chancellor, 87.
      inaugural address, 97.
      origin, 98.
      speech to States of Orleans, 151.
      address to parliament, 158.
      speech at Pontoise, 164.
      letter to Genevan Calvinists, 167.
      speech at Poissy, 169.
      to the Notables at St. Germains, 182.
      plot to murder him, 227.
      proposes concessions to Huguenots, 269.
      remonstrance to the king, 279.
      joins the Politicians, 285.
      resigns the chancellorship, 289.
      escapes the massacre, 431.

    Longjumeau, treaty of, 280.

    Lorraine family, 63.

    Lorraine, Cardinal of, 64.
      discussion with Beza, 168.
      retires from Privy Council, 184.
      goes to Saverne, 186.
      forbidden to enter Paris, 261.
      runs away from Meaux, 271.
      disgusted with St. Germains treaty, 317.
      goes to Rome, 351.
      rewards messenger of the massacre, 465.

    Louvre, the murders at, 404, 414.

    Lyons in 1560, 140.
      Huguenot turbulence at, 180.
      mastered by Huguenots, 235.
      massacre at, 449.


              M.

    Macon, leaps of, 238.

    Maine, sad condition of, 263.

    Mandelot begs a share of the plunder, 450.

    Margaret of Valois, 6.

    Margaret, Princess, proposed marriage with Henry of Navarre, 339.
      description of, 349.
      alarmed by her sister, 402.
      scene in her chamber, 415.
      saves Léran’s life, 416.
      weeps over head of La Mole, 479.

    Marie de Barbançon, her intrepidity, 310.

    Marie Mouchet, 323, 483.

    Marillac, Archbishop, his speech at Fontainebleau, 100.

    Marlorat hanged, 215.

    Marot imprisoned, 19.
      his Psalms, 46.

    Martyrdoms, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, 19.

    Massacre in Paris, the, 417, 444.

    Massacre in Paris, number of victims in, 459, 461.

    Maugiron, cruelties at Valence, 95.

    Maurevel hired to kill the admiral, 378, 380.

    Maximilian II., his thoughts on the massacre, 469.

    Meaux, the martyrs of, 15.
      royal flight from, 269.
      the massacre at, 452.

    Medals, commemorative, 464, 466.

    Mercurial of Henry II., 51.

    Mergey, adieu of Rambouillet, 401.

    Mérindol destroyed, 12.

    Merlin, the admiral’s chaplain, consoles Coligny, 380.
      singular escape, 408.

    Micheli’s account of the Huguenots, 174.

    Michelle de Caignoncle’s alms, 18.

    Minard, President, shot, 74.

    Miracle of the flowering thorn, 434.

    Moderate party, 285, 315, 328, 330.

    Monceaux, meeting of conspirators at, 377.

    Moncontour, battle of, 305.

    Mons, capture of, 358.

    Montauban, Huguenot assembly at, 477.

    Montbrun takes up arms, 95.

    Montfauçon, the gibbet at, 411.

    Montgomery kills Henry II., 58.
      governor of Rouen, 213.
      escapes from Paris, 428.
      made prisoner, 481.

    Montluc, Bishop, his speech at Fontainebleau, 99.

    Montluc, Blaise de, his barbarities, 230.
      wise severity, 264.

    Montmorency, Constable, 27.
      his cruelty, 28.
      dismissed, 71.
      combines with Guise and St. André, 163.
      burns the meeting-houses, 208.
      made prisoner at Dreux, 220.
      killed at St. Denis, 273.

    Montmorency, Marshal, threatens Cardinal Lorraine, 261.
      advises war with Spain, 331.
      tries to negotiate with Huguenots, 339.

    Montsoreau, his treachery and cruelty, 448.

    Moreau burned at Troyes, 16.

    Moulins, assembly at, 258.
      Coligny and Guise reconciled at, 260.

    Mouvans, death of, 96.

    Muretus panegyrizes the murderers, 466.

    Music, decline of, in church, 46.


               N.

    Nantes, meeting at, 79.
      refusal of magistrates to kill Huguenots, 448.

    Nassau, Count Louis of, at Moncontour, 305.

    Nassau, Count Louis of, interview with Charles at Lumigny, 331.

    Navarre, King of; _see_ Anthony.

    Navy, French, in sixteenth century, 126.

    Nemours, Duke of, 270.
      Duchess of, proposal that she shall assassinate Coligny, 377.

    Nerac, meeting at, 103.

    Nevers, Duke of, his timidity, 321.

    Nismes, results of persecution at, 94.
      Michelade of, 276.
      captured by Huguenots, 310.
      order preserved, 458.

    Noises in the air, 436.

    Normandy, distress in, 31.

    Notables, Assembly of, at St. Germains, 175.

    Number of the victims in Paris, 459.
      the provinces, 461.


               O.

    Oppède, Baron of, his cruelty, 12.

    Orange, butchery at, 234.

    Organization of Reformed Church, 55.

    Orleans, the court at, 104.
      seized by Huguenots, 197.
      besieged by Duke of Guise, 220.
      Huguenots burned at, 309.
      massacre at, 450.

    Orsini’s mission, 471.

    Orthez, his reply to Charles, 455.


               P.

    Palissy, Bernard, patronized by Catherine, 322.

    Paré, Ambrose, tends Coligny’s wounds, 380.
      a witness of the murder, 408.
      escorted to the Louvre, 410.
      singular confession of king to, 435.
      on the death of Charles, 482.

    Pardaillan, his foolish threats, 389.
      murdered in the Louvre, 415.

    Paris, lawlessness of, 76.
      in 1560, 137.
      arming of the citizens, 198.
      outrages in, 207.
      disturbed state of, in winter of 1571, 344.
      panic at news of Genlis’s defeat, 359.

    Parliament of Paris, divisions in, 49.

    Pavannes, martyrdom of, 5.

    Peasantry, condition of, 117.

    Pedlar burned at Velay, 36.

    Petrucci cuts off the admiral’s head, 409.

    Philip II. intrigues against France, 160, 176.
      treasonable correspondence with Triumvirate, 209.
      offers aid to France, 316.
      threatens war, 329.
      joy at the massacre, 467.

    Philippa de Lunz burned, 42.

    Philippe Richarde, the king’s Huguenot nurse, 481.

    Pieds Nus, les, their atrocities, 226.

    Pius V., congratulatory letters, 289, 298, 306.
      advises continuance of war, 314.

    Placards, affair of, 7.
      inflammatory, 42.

    Pluviers, Huguenot retaliation at, 216.

    Poissy, colloquy at, 166.
      opened, 169.

    Poitiers, severities at, 74.

    Politiques, les, 286, 315, 328, 330.

    Poltrot murders Francis of Guise, 221.
      extolled as a martyr by Huguenots, 223.

    Pontoise, the States of, 163.

    Population in 1560, 122.

    Pré aux Clercs, psalm-singing, 46.

    Progress of reform, 31.

    Provinces of France, 113.

    Provins, brutal scene at, 135.
      grievances, 149.
      rejoicings at news of Jarnac, 299.
      flight of the Huguenots, 457.

    Provost of Paris, king’s instructions to, 399.

    Punishments, 133.


               Q.

    Quentin, Jean, orator of the clergy, 152.
      speech at Orleans, 154.


               R.

    Raleigh, Walter, joins the Huguenots, 294.
      opinion of Condé, 299.

    Ramus, Peter, murdered, 423.

    Reformed Church, its organization, 55.
      doctrines, their rapid extension, 174.

    Regnier de la Planche, 87.

    Reiters, their cupidity, 275, 281.

    Relics, abuse of, 4.

    Religious wars, First, 195.
      Second, 269.
      Third, 291.

    Renaudie, Bary de la, 79, 81.

    Rennes, disturbances at, 156.

    Rents in Auvergne, 117.

    Revival of learning, 3.

    Roads in France, 114.

    Roche-Abeille, battle of, 302.

    Rochelle, violence at, 236.
      besieged by Anjou, 474.
      siege raised, 474.

    Rome, exultation at, 466.

    Romorantin, edict of, 88.

    Ronsard, the poet, 226.

    Rouen, ballet at, 141.
      besieged, 213.
      reprisals at, 214.
      the massacre at, 452.

    Rue St. Jacques, affair of, 40.


               S.

    Sadolet, his charity, 15.

    St. André, 66.
      joins the Triumvirate, 163.
      killed at Dreux, 219.

    St. Calais, monks of, 238.
      Croix; _see_ Santa Croce.
      Cyr, Count of, his desperate charge, 305.
      Denis, battle of, 272.
      Germains, Notables at, 182.
      peace of, 314.
      Hérem refuses to obey order, 454.
      Médard, riot of, 181.
      Quentin, defeat at, 40.

    Salviati’s report of the massacre, 418.

    Sancerre, the siege of, 476.
      capitulates, 477.

    Santa Croce praises Reformers, 159.
      describes the state of Paris, 182.
      praises the admiral, 410.

    Saverne, conference at, 186.

    Senlis, Huguenots exiled, 456.

    Sens, massacre at, 199.

    Sermons and congregations, 173.

    Shrove-Tuesday plot, 478.

    Sigognes, governor of Dieppe, 288.

    Silly, Jacques de, orator of the nobles, 152.
      speech at Orleans, 152.

    Sisteron, massacre at, 200.
      deserted by Huguenots, 237.

    Soubise, his resistance, 422.
      indignities to corpse, 415.

    States-General of Orleans, 148.
      opened by king, 150.

    Street architecture, 135.

    Strozzi, Cardinal, his atrocities, 232.

    Strozzi, Colonel-general, captured at Roche-Abeille, 303.
      drowns the camp-followers, 315.
      unpopular in army, 320.

    Stuart, Robert, murders the constable, 273.

    Sully escapes the massacre, 428.

    Sumptuary laws, 120.

    Superstitions, 131.

    Synod, first Reformed, meets in Paris, 54.
      of Poissy, impracticable temper of Huguenot ministers, 173.
      of Rochelle, 321.


               T.

    Tailor, martyrdom of a, 31.

    Talcy, interview at, 205.

    Tavannes suggests ecclesiastical reforms, 93.
      plunders Macon, 237.
      appointed military superintendent during massacre, 398.
      complains of apathy of citizens, 400.
      sanguinary cry, 447.

    Taverny, stout resistance of, 422.

    Taxation in 1560, 123.

    Teligny, his mission to the king, 334.
      marries the admiral’s daughter, 334.
      sent in pursuit of Maurevel, 381.
      last night with Coligny, 403.
      murdered, 412.

    Tende, Count of, 447.

    Thomas of St. Paul burned, 17.

    Thoury, negotiations at, 204.

    “Tiger,” the, a satire, 90.
      note on the, 111.

    Tocsin rung, 413.

    Tossinghi steals the admiral’s gold chain, 409.

    Toulon in 1560, 143.

    Toulouse, massacres at, 237, 453.

    Tournament in Paris, 57.

    Tours, massacre at, 211.

    Traveling in France, 114.

    Trent, instructions to Council of, 92.
      Council of, 245.

    Triumvirate, the, formed, 163.
      treasonable correspondence with Philip II., 209.

    Troyes, the massacre at, 452.


               V.

    Valence, reform in, 96.

    Vaudois, massacre of, 12.

    Vassy, massacre at, 187.
      Catholic exultation over, 190.

    Velay, contests in, 36.

    Vendome, meeting at, 72.

    Victims, number of, 459, 461.

    Vigor, Simon, ferocious sermon of, 177.

    Villars, Count of, describes state of Nismes, 94.

    Villemangis beheaded, 84.


               W.

    Wages in 1560, 117.

    Walsingham on Anjou’s ambition, 316.
      opinion of king, 336.
      letter on defeat of Genlis, 359.
      on war in Flanders, 360.
      report of meeting at Montpipeau, 364.
      describes the execution of Briquemaut, 443.

    Wild animals in France, 115.




                        Valuable Standard Works

                   FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIBRARIES,

               PUBLISHED BY HARPER & BROTHERS, NEW YORK.

   _For a full List of Books suitable for Presentation, see_ HARPER
   & BROTHERS’ TRADE-LIST _and_ CATALOGUE, _which may be had
   gratuitously on application to the Publishers personally, or by
   letter enclosing Five Cents_.

   HARPER & BROTHERS _will send any of the following works by Mail,
   postage prepaid, to any part of the United States, on receipt of
   the Price_.


   NAPOLEON’S LIFE OF CÆSAR. The History of Julius Cæsar. By His
   Imperial Majesty NAPOLEON III. Volumes I. and II. now ready.
   Library Edition, 8vo, Cloth, $3 50 per volume; Half Calf, $5 75
   per volume.

        _Maps to Vols. I. and II. sold separately. Price $1 50
                              each_, NET.

   MOTLEY’S DUTCH REPUBLIC. The Rise of the Dutch Republic. A
   History. By JOHN LOTHROP MOTLEY, LL.D., D.C.L. With a Portrait
   of William of Orange. 3 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $10 50; Sheep, $12
   00; Half Calf, $17 25.

   MOTLEY’S UNITED NETHERLANDS. History of the United Netherlands:
   from the Death of William the Silent to the Synod of Dort. With
   a full View of the English-Dutch Struggle against Spain, and
   of the Origin and Destruction of the Spanish Armada. By JOHN
   LOTHROP MOTLEY, LL.D., D.C.L., Author of “The Rise of the Dutch
   Republic.” 4 vols., 8vo, Cloth $14 00; Sheep, $16 00; Half Calf,
   $23 00.

   WOOD’S HOMES WITHOUT HANDS. Homes Without Hands: Being a
   Description of the Habitations of Animals, classed according
   to their Principle of Construction. By J. G. WOOD, M.A.,
   F.L.S., Author of “Illustrated Natural History.” With about
   140 Illustrations, engraved by G. Pearson, from Original
   Designs made by F. W. Keyl and E. A. Smith, under the Author’s
   Superintendence. 8vo, Cloth, Beveled Edges, $4 50; Full Morocco,
   $8 00.

   ALCOCK’S JAPAN. The Capital of the Tycoon: A Narrative of a
   Three Years’ Residence in Japan. By Sir RUTHERFORD ALCOCK,
   K.C.B., Her Majesty’s Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
   Plenipotentiary in Japan. With Maps and Engravings. 2 vols.,
   12mo, Cloth, $3 50.

   ALFORD’S GREEK TESTAMENT. The Greek Testament: with a
   critically-revised Text; a Digest of Various Readings; Marginal
   References to Verbal and Idiomatic Usage; Prolegomena; and a
   Critical and Exegetical Commentary. For the Use of Theological
   Students and Ministers. By HENRY ALFORD, D.D., Dean of
   Canterbury. Vol. I., containing the Four Gospels. 944 pages,
   8vo, Cloth, $6 00; Sheep, $6 50; Half Calf, $8 25.

   ALISON’S HISTORY OF EUROPE. FIRST SERIES: From the Commencement
   of the French Revolution, in 1789, to the Restoration of the
   Bourbons, in 1815. [In addition to the Notes on Chapter LXXVI.,
   which correct the errors of the original work concerning the
   United States, a copious Analytical Index has been appended
   to this American edition.] SECOND SERIES: From the Fall of
   Napoleon, in 1815, to the Accession of Louis Napoleon, in 1852.
   8 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $16 00; Half Calf, $34 00.

   BURNS’S LIFE AND WORKS. The Life and Works of Robert Burns.
   Edited by ROBERT CHAMBERS. 4 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $6 00.

   BARTH’S NORTH AND CENTRAL AFRICA. Travels and Discoveries in
   North and Central Africa: Being a Journal of an Expedition
   undertaken under the Auspices of H.B.M.’s Government, in the
   Years 1849–1855. By HENRY BARTH, Ph.D., D.C.L. Illustrated.
   Complete in 3 vols., 8vo, Cloth. $12 00; Half Calf, $18 75.

   BEECHER’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY, &c. Autobiography, Correspondence, &c.,
   of Lyman Beecher, D.D. Edited by his Son, CHARLES BEECHER. With
   Three Steel Portraits and Engravings on Wood. In 2 vols., 12mo,
   Cloth, $5 00; Half Calf, $8 50.

   BRODHEAD’S HISTORY OF NEW YORK. History of the State of New
   York. By JOHN ROMEYN BRODHEAD. First Period, 1609–1664. 8vo,
   Cloth, $3 00.

   CARLYLE’S FREDERICK THE GREAT. History of Friedrich II., called
   Frederick the Great. By THOMAS CARLYLE. Portraits, Maps, Plans,
   &c. 6 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $12 00; Half Calf, $22 50.

   CARLYLE’S FRENCH REVOLUTION. History of the French Revolution.
   Newly Revised by the Author, with Index, &c. 2 vols., 12mo,
   Cloth, $3 50.

   CARLYLE’S OLIVER CROMWELL. Letters and Speeches of Oliver
   Cromwell. With Elucidations and Connecting Narrative. 2 vols.,
   12mo, Cloth, $3 50.

   CHALMERS’S POSTHUMOUS WORKS. The Posthumous Works of Dr.
   Chalmers. Edited by his Son-in-Law, Rev. WILLIAM HANNA, LL.D.
   Complete in 9 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $13 50; Half Calf, $29 25.

   JOHNSON’S COMPLETE WORKS. The Works of Samuel Johnson, LL.D.
   With an Essay on his Life and Genius, by ARTHUR MURPHY, Esq.
   Portrait of Johnson. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $4 00.

   CLAYTON’S QUEENS OF SONG. Queens of Song: Being Memoirs of some
   of the most celebrated Female Vocalists who have performed on
   the Lyric Stage from the Earliest Days of Opera to the Present
   Time. To which is added a Chronological List of all the Operas
   that have been performed in Europe. By ELLEN CREATHORNE CLAYTON.
   With Portraits. 8vo, Cloth, $3 00; Half Calf, $5 25.

   COLERIDGE’S COMPLETE WORKS. The Complete Works of Samuel Taylor
   Coleridge. With an Introductory Essay upon his Philosophical and
   Theological Opinions. Edited by Professor SHEDD. Complete in 7
   vols. With a fine Portrait. Small 8vo, Cloth, $10 50; Half Calf,
   $22 75.

   CURTIS’S HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION. History of the Origin,
   Formation, and Adoption of the Constitution of the United
   States. By GEORGE TICKNOR CURTIS. Complete in two large and
   handsome Octavo Volumes. Cloth, $6 00; Sheep, $7 00; Half Calf,
   $10 50.

   DAVIS’S CARTHAGE. Carthage and her Remains: Being an Account
   of the Excavations and Researches on the Site of the Phœnician
   Metropolis in Africa and other adjacent Places. Conducted under
   the Auspices of Her Majesty’s Government. By Dr. DAVIS, F.R.G.S.
   Profusely Illustrated with Maps, Woodcuts, Chromo-Lithographs,
   &c. 8vo, Cloth, $4 00.

   GIBBON’S ROME. History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
   Empire. By EDWARD GIBBON. With Notes by Rev. H. H. MILMAN and M.
   GUIZOT. A new cheap Edition. To which is added a Complete Index
   of the whole Work, and a Portrait of the Author. 6 vols., 12mo
   (uniform with Hume), Cloth, $9 00; Half Calf, $19 50.

   DOOLITTLE’S CHINA. Social Life of the Chinese: With some Account
   of their Religious, Governmental, Educational, and Business
   Customs and Opinions. With special but not exclusive Reference
   to Fuhchau. By Rev. JUSTUS DOOLITTLE, Fourteen Years Member of
   the Fuhchau Mission of the American Board. Illustrated with
   more than 150 characteristic Engravings on Wood. 2 vols., 12mo,
   Cloth, $5 00; Half Calf, $8 50.

   DRAPER’S AMERICAN CIVIL POLICY. Thoughts on the Future Civil
   Policy of America. By JOHN W. DRAPER, M.D., LL.D., Professor of
   Chemistry and Physiology in the University of New York, Author
   of a “Treatise on Human Physiology,” and a “History of the
   Intellectual Development of Europe.” Crown 8vo, Cloth, $2 50.

   DRAPER’S INTELLECTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPE. A History of the
   Intellectual Development of Europe. By JOHN W. DRAPER, M.D.,
   LL.D., Professor of Chemistry and Physiology in the University
   of New York. 8vo, Cloth, $5; Half Calf, $7 25.

   MISS EDGEWORTH’S NOVELS. With Engravings. 10 volumes, 12mo,
   Cloth, $15 00; Half Calf, $32 50.

   GROTE’S HISTORY OF GREECE. 12 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $18 00; Half
   Calf, $39 00.

   MRS. HALE’S WOMAN’S RECORD. Woman’s Record; or, Biographical
   Sketches of all Distinguished Women, from the Creation to the
   Present Time. Arranged in Four Eras, with Selections from Female
   Writers of each Era. By Mrs. SARAH JOSEPHA HALE. Illustrated
   with more than 200 Portraits, 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.

   HALL’S ARCTIC RESEARCHES. Arctic Researches and Life Among the
   Esquimaux: Being the Narrative of an Expedition in Search of Sir
   John Franklin, in the Years 1860, 1861, and 1862. By CHARLES
   FRANCIS HALL. With Maps and 100 Illustrations. The Illustrations
   are from Original Drawings by Charles Parsons, Henry L.
   Stephens, Solomon Eyting, W. S. L. Jewett, and Granville
   Perkins, after Sketches by Captain Hall. A new Edition. 8vo,
   Cloth, Beveled Edges, $5 00; Half Calf, $7 25.

   HALLAM’S CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND, from the Accession
   of Henry VII. to the Death of George II. 8vo, Cloth, $2 00.

   HALLAM’S LITERATURE. Introduction to the Literature of Europe
   during the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries. By
   HENRY HALLAM. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $4 00.

   HALLAM’S MIDDLE AGES. State of Europe during the Middle Ages. By
   HENRY HALLAM. 8vo, Cloth, $2 00.

   HARPER’S NEW CLASSICAL LIBRARY. Literal Translations.

    The following volumes are now ready. Portraits. 12mo, Cloth, $1
                               50 each.

    CÆSAR.
    VIRGIL.
    SALLUST.
    HORACE.
    CICERO’S ORATIONS.
    CICERO’S OFFICES, &C.
    CICERO ON ORATORY AND ORATORS.
    TACITUS. 2 vols.
    TERENCE.
    SOPHOCLES.
    JUVENAL.
    XENOPHON.
    HOMER’S ILIAD.
    HOMER’S ODYSSEY.
    HERODOTUS.
    DEMOSTHENES.
    THUCYDIDES.
    ÆSCHYLUS.
    EURIPIDES. 2 vols.

   HARPER’S PICTORIAL HISTORY OF THE REBELLION. Harper’s Pictorial
   History of the Great Rebellion in the United States. Vol. I. now
   ready. More than 500 Illustrations. 4to, $6 00. Vol. II. is now
   being Published in Numbers.

   HILDRETH’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. _First Series_: From
   the First Settlement of the Country to the Adoption of the
   Federal Constitution. _Second Series_: From the Adoption of the
   Federal Constitution to the End of the Sixteenth Congress. 6
   vols., 8vo, Cloth, $18 00; Half Calf, $31 50.

   HUME’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. History of England, from the Invasion
   of Julius Cæsar to the Abdication of James II., 1688. By DAVID
   HUME. A New Edition, with the Author’s last Corrections and
   Improvements. To which is prefixed a short Account of his Life,
   written by Himself. With a Portrait of the Author. 6 Vols.,
   12mo, Cloth, $9 00; Half Calf, $19 50.

   JAY’S WORKS. Complete Works of Rev. William Jay: comprising his
   Sermons, Family Discourses, Morning and Evening Exercises for
   every Day in the Year, Family Prayers, &c. Author’s enlarged
   Edition, revised. 3 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $6 00; Half Calf, $12 75.

   KINGLAKE’S CRIMEAN WAR. The Invasion of the Crimea: Its Origin,
   and an Account of its Progress down to the Death of Lord Raglan.
   By ALEXANDER WILLIAM KINGLAKE. With Maps and Plans. 2 Vols. Vol.
   I. Maps. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.

   LAMB’S COMPLETE WORKS. The Works of Charles Lamb. Comprising his
   Letters, Poems, Essays of Elia, Essays upon Shakspeare, Hogarth,
   &c., and a Sketch of his Life, with the Final Memorials, by T.
   NOON TALFOURD. Portrait. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3 00.

   DR. LIVINGSTONE’S SOUTH AFRICA. Missionary Travels and
   Researches in South Africa; including a Sketch of Sixteen Years’
   Residence in the Interior of Africa, and a Journey from the
   Cape of Good Hope to Loando on the West Coast; thence across
   the Continent, down the River Zambesi, to the Eastern Ocean.
   By DAVID LIVINGSTONE, LL.D., D.C.L. With Portrait, Maps by
   Arrowsmith, and numerous Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $4 50; Half
   Calf, $6 75.

   LIVINGSTONE’S ZAMBESI. Narrative of an Expedition to the Zambesi
   and its Tributaries; and of the Discovery of the Lakes Shirwa
   and Nyassa. 1858–1864. By DAVID and CHARLES LIVINGSTONE. With
   Map and Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00; Half Calf, $7 25.
   [_Uniform with Livingstone’s “South Africa.”_]

   LOSSING’S FIELD-BOOK OF THE REVOLUTION. Pictorial Field-Book
   of the Revolution; or, Illustrations by Pen and Pencil of the
   History, Biography, Scenery, Relics, and Traditions of the War
   for Independence. By BENSON J. LOSSING. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $14
   00; Sheep, $15 00; Half Calf, $18 00; Full Turkey Morocco, $22
   00.

   MACAULAY’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. The History of England from the
   Accession of James II. By THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY. With an
   original Portrait of the Author. 5 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $10 00;
   Half Calf, $21 25; 12mo, Cloth, $7 50; Half Calf, $16 25.

   MARCY’S ARMY LIFE ON THE BORDER. Thirty Years of Army Life on
   the Border. Comprising Descriptions of the Indian Nomads of the
   Plains; Explorations of New Territory; a Trip across the Rocky
   Mountains in the Winter; Descriptions of the Habits of Different
   Animals found in the West, and the Methods of Hunting them; with
   Incidents in the Life of Different Frontier Men, &c., &c. By
   Brevet Brig.-General R. B. MARCY, U.S.A., Author of “The Prairie
   Traveller.” With numerous Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, Beveled
   Edges, $3 00.

   TICKNOR’S HISTORY OF SPANISH LITERATURE. With Criticisms on the
   particular Works, and Biographical Notices of prominent Writers.
   3 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $5 00.

   THE POETS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. Selected and Edited by the
   Rev. ROBERT ARIS WILLMOTT. With English and American Additions,
   arranged by EVERT A. DUYCKINCK, Editor of “Cyclopædia of
   American Literature.” Comprising Selections from the greatest
   Authors of the Age. Superbly Illustrated with 132 Engravings
   from Designs by the most Eminent Artists. In elegant Small 4to
   form, printed on Superfine Tinted Paper, richly bound in extra
   Cloth beveled, gilt edges, $6 00; Half Calf, $6 00; Full Turkey
   Morocco, $10 00.

   BANCROFT’S MISCELLANIES. Literary and Historical Miscellanies.
   By GEORGE BANCROFT. 8vo, Cloth, $3 00.

   BOSWELL’S JOHNSON. The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. Including a
   Journey to the Hebrides. By JAMES BOSWELL, Esq. A New Edition,
   with numerous Additions and Notes, by JOHN WILSON CROKER, LL.D.,
   F.R.S. Portrait of Boswell. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $4 00.

   DR. OLIN’S LIFE AND LETTERS. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3 00.

   DR. OLIN’S TRAVELS. Travels in Egypt, Arabia Petræa, and the
   Holy Land. Engravings. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $3 00.

   DR. OLIN’S WORKS. The Works of Stephen Olin, D.D., late
   President of the Wesleyan University. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth, $3
   00.

   LAURENCE OLIPHANT’S CHINA AND JAPAN. Narrative of the Earl of
   Elgin’s Mission to China and Japan, in the Years 1857, ’58,
   ’59. By LAURENCE OLIPHANT, Private Secretary to Lord Elgin.
   Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $3 50.

   MRS. OLIPHANT’S LIFE OF EDWARD IRVING. The Life of Edward
   Irving, Minister of the National Scotch Church, London.
   Illustrated by his Journals and Correspondence. By Mrs.
   OLIPHANT. Portrait. 8vo, Cloth, $3 50.

   PAGE’S LA PLATA. La Plata: The Argentine Confederation
   and Paraguay. Being a Narrative of the Exploration of the
   Tributaries of the River La Plata and Adjacent Countries, during
   the Years 1853, ’54, ’55, and ’56, under the orders of the
   United States Government. By THOMAS J. PAGE, U.S.N., Commander
   of the Expedition. With Map and numerous Engravings. 8vo, Cloth,
   $5 00; Half Calf, $7 25.

   SHAKSPEARE. The Dramatic Works of William Shakspeare, with the
   Corrections and Illustrations of Dr. JOHNSON, G. STEEVENS, and
   others. Revised by ISAAC REED. Engravings. 6 vols., Royal 12mo,
   Cloth, $9 00; Half Calf, $19 50.

   PRIME’S COINS, MEDALS, AND SEALS. Coins, Medals, and Seals,
   Ancient and Modern. Illustrated and Described. With a Sketch
   of the History of Coins and Coinage, Instructions for Young
   Collectors, Tables of Comparative Rarity, Price-Lists of English
   and American Coins, Medals, and Tokens, &c., &c. Edited by W. C.
   PRIME, Author of “Boat Life in Egypt and Nubia,” “Tent Life in
   the Holy Land,” &c., &c. 8vo, Cloth, $3 50.

   RUSSELL’S MODERN EUROPE. History of Modern Europe, with a View
   of the Progress of Society, from the Rise of Modern Kingdoms to
   the Peace of Paris in 1763. By W. RUSSELL. With a Continuance of
   the History, by WM. JONES. Engravings. 3 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $6
   00.

   WILKINSON’S ANCIENT EGYPTIANS. A Popular Account of their
   Manners and Customs, condensed from his larger Work, with some
   new Matter. Illustrated with 500 Woodcuts. 2 vols., 12mo, Cloth,
   $3 50; Half Calf, $7 00.

   SPEKE’S AFRICA. Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the
   Nile. By Captain JOHN HANNING SPEKE, Captain H. M. Indian Army,
   Fellow and Gold Medalist of the Royal Geographical Society,
   Hon. Corresponding Member and Gold Medalist of the French
   Geographical Society, &c. With Maps and Portraits and numerous
   Illustrations, chiefly from Drawings by Captain GRANT. 8vo,
   Cloth, uniform with Livingstone, Barth, Burton, &c., $4 00; Half
   Calf, $6 25.

   SPRING’S SERMONS. Pulpit Ministrations; or, Sabbath Readings.
   A Series of Discourses on Christian Doctrine and Duty. By Rev.
   GARDINER SPRING, D.D., Pastor of the Brick Presbyterian Church
   in the City of New York. Portrait on Steel. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth,
   $6 00.

   MISS STRICKLAND’S QUEENS OF SCOTLAND. Lives of the Queens
   of Scotland and English Princesses connected with the regal
   Succession of Great Britain. By AGNES STRICKLAND. 8 vols. 12mo,
   Cloth, $12 00; Half Calf, $26 00.

   ADDISON’S COMPLETE WORKS. The Works of Joseph Addison, embracing
   the whole of the “Spectator.” Complete in 3 vols., 8vo, Cloth,
   $6 00; Half Calf, $12 75.

   THE STUDENT’S HISTORIES.

   France. Engravings. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.

   Gibbon. Engravings. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.

   Greece. Engravings. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.

   The same, abridged. Engravings. 16mo, Cloth, $1 00.

   Hume. Engravings. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.

   Rome. By Liddell. Engravings. 12mo, Cloth, $2 00.

   Smaller History of Rome. Engravings. 16mo, Cloth, $1 00.

   THOMSON’S LAND AND THE BOOK; or, Biblical Illustrations drawn
   from the Manners and Customs, the Scenes and the Scenery of
   the Holy Land. By W. M. THOMSON, D.D., Twenty-five Years a
   Missionary of the A.B.C.F.M. in Syria and Palestine. With two
   elaborate Maps of Palestine, an accurate Plan of Jerusalem,
   and _several Hundred Engravings_, representing the Scenery,
   Topography, and Productions of the Holy Land, and the Costumes,
   Manners, and Habits of the People. 2 elegant Large 12mo Volumes,
   Cloth, $5 00; Half Calf, $8 50.

   VÁMBÉRY’S CENTRAL ASIA. Travels in Central Asia. Being the
   Account of a Journey from Teheran across the Turkoman Desert,
   on the Eastern Shore of the Caspian, to Khiva, Bokhara, and
   Samarcand, performed in the Year 1863. By ARMINIUS VÁMBÉRY,
   Member of the Hungarian Academy of Pesth, by whom he was sent on
   this Scientific Mission. With Map and Woodcuts. 8vo, Cloth, $4
   50; Half Calf, $6 75.

   ABBOTT’S HISTORY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. The French Revolution
   of 1789, as viewed in the Light of Republican Institutions. By
   JOHN S. C. ABBOTT. With 100 Engravings. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00; Half
   Calf, $7 25.

   ABBOTT’S NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. The History of Napoleon Bonaparte.
   By JOHN S. C. ABBOTT. With Maps, Woodcuts, and Portraits on
   Steel. 2 vols., 8vo, Cloth, $10 00; Half Calf, $14 50.

   ABBOTT’S NAPOLEON AT ST. HELENA; or, Interesting Anecdotes and
   Remarkable Conversations of the Emperor during the Five and a
   Half Years of his Captivity. Collected from the Memorials of Las
   Casas, O’Meara, Montholon, Antommarchi, and others. By JOHN S.
   C. ABBOTT. With Illustrations. 8vo, Cloth, $5 00; Half Calf, $7
   25.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] In judging these and other great historical criminals, we must
bear in mind the age in which they lived. To borrow the language of
Mr. Hepworth Dixon in his eloquent vindication of Lord Bacon: “The cry
of pain, the gasp of death, were no such shocks to the gentle heart as
they would be in a softer time. Men had been hardened in the [martyrs’]
fire. Minds were infected by the atrocities of [Huguenot] plots. The
ballads sung in the streets were steeped in blood.” In such times of
frenzy even the merciful become cruel.

[2] _Hist. of Popes_, i. 120 (Mrs. Austin’s).

[3] From a sermon quoted by Sismondi, _Hist. des Français_.

[4] _Mém. de l’Acad. Stanislas_, Nancy, 1862, p. 369.

[5] Here are some of the objects once preserved in the cathedral of
Clermont:--“Imprimis de umbilico Filii Dei cum quinque unguibus de
sinistra manu; præpucium ipsius cum duabus unguibus de dextra manu, et
de pannis quibas fuit involutus, et undecimam partem sudarii quod fuit
ante oculos ejus cum sanguine ipsius, et de tunica, et de barba, et
de capillis, et de præcincto ejus cum sanguine et tres ungues ejus ex
recisione manus dexteræ et partem spinæ coronæ, et de pane quem ipse
benedixit, et ex spongia ejus, et ex virgis quibus cæsus fuit, et de
capillis Beatæ Mariæ tres et brachiale ejus, et de vestimento ipsius
cum lacte.”--Baluze, ii. p. 39; Dulaure, _Descript. Auvergne_, p.
197.

[6] _Réponse à quelque apologie_, etc. 1558, fol. 2.

[7] “De plano, sine strepitu et figura judicii, prout in similibus
consuevit.”--Isambert: _Recueil des Lois Fr._ t. xii. p. 231.

[8] Florimond de Rémond: _Histoire de la naissance, etc. de l’hérésie
de ce siècle_, bk. vii. p. 931.

[9] Beza: _Hist. Eccles._ liv. i. For this “Affair of the
Placards” see Merle d’Aubigné: _Reform. in time of Calvin_,
vol. iii. bk. iv. ch. 9 to 12. A passage like this must have been
as offensive as it was unjustifiable: “Nous ne voulons croire à vos
idoles, à vos lieux nouveaux et nouveaux Christs, qui se laissent
manger aux bêtes et à vous pareillement, qui êtes pires que bêtes, en
vos badinages lequels vous faites à l’entour de votre dieu de pâte
duquel vous vous jouez comme un chat d’une souris,” etc.

[10] Eustathius de Knobelsdorff to George Cassander, in _Illustr.
et Clar. Viror. Epist. Selectæ._, Lugd. Bat. 1617, quoted in Baum:
_Leben Beza’s_.

[11] _Hist. des guerres dans le Venaissin_, etc. i. p. 39.
Published anonymously, but the author was Father Justin, a Capuchin
monk. See also Muston: _Israël des Alpes_, 1851.

[12] Bossuet (_Hist. des Variations_, liv. xi. § 143) acknowledges
their piety, but calls it “feigned,” and ascribes their virtues to the
inspiration of the devil.

[13] Cabasse: _Hist. Parl. Provence_.

[14] Il n’existe plus rien du bourg florissant de Mérindol. Lacretelle:
_Guerres de Rél._ i. p. 31.

[15] Mezeray, iii. p. 1034.

[16] Some years ago a cave in a wild and almost inaccessible valley of
the Maritime Alps, near the village of Castiglione, was pointed out
to me as one of these places of refuge. It could be reached only by a
rope, and consisted of at least three chambers, one below the other. In
the Vivarrais there are many such caverns.

[17] Bouche calls them, “plutôt ignorans que rebelles,” and adds, “On
trouve dans l’histoire des nations les plus fanatiques et les plus
sauvages peu d’exemples d’une atrocité pareille.”--_Essai sur l’Hist.
de Provence_, ii. p. 83. See Papon, _Hist. de Provence_, for a
less favorable account of the Vaudois.

[18]

                  Viros et morte peremptos
    Indigna, raptasque soluto crine puellas,
    Et late miseris subjecta incendia vicis.

    L’Hôpital, _De Causa Merindoli_.


[19] All the papers connected with this inquiry have perished. One of
the accused was the famous sea-captain Baron de la Garde, the same who
disputed the command of the Channel against Henry VIII., and occupied
the Isle of Wight in 1533. In the religious wars he sided with the
Huguenots.

[20] Capefigue: _Hist. de la Réforme_, ch. xvi.

[21] Non ego sum qui, ut quisque a nobis opinione dissentit, statim eum
odio habeam.

[22] In a poem composed at this time, he says, with more of Pagan
stoicism than Christian fortitude--

    Sus, mon esprit, montrez vous de tel cœur,
      Votre assurance au besoin soit connue;
    Tout gentil cœur, tout constant belliqueur,
      Jusqu’à la mort sa force a maintenue.


[23] Imberdis: _Hist. Guerres Civ._ 8vo. Moulins, 1840.

[24] A curious apology has been made for Francis I. Mezeray, answering
an Italian writer, who had insinuated that the king had permitted the
spread of heresy by taking no heed of it, says:--“Quoi donc, faire six
ou sept rigoureux édits pour l’étouffer, convoquer plusieurs fois le
clergé, assembler un concile provincial, dépêcher à toute heure des
ambassades vers tous les princes de la chrétienté pour en assembler un
général, brûler les hérétiques par douzaines, les envoyer aux galères
par centaines, et les bannir par milliers: est-ce là permettre, ou n’y
prendre pas garde,” etc. ii. p. 1038.

[25] _P. Castellani Vita_, auct. P. Gallandio, 8vo. 1674.

[26] _Petri Paschalii Histor. Fragm._ Dupuy MSS. Raumer: _Hist.
16th and 17th Centuries_, i. 261.

[27] Matteo Dandolo in 1542 and Lorenzo Contarini in 1551 describe
Henry in nearly the same terms. See Alberi: _Relazioni degli Ambas.
Veneti_. (8vo. Firenze.) Ser. I. vol. iv. 1860, pp. 27 and
60.

[28] M. Capefigue has attempted this in his one-sided fashion; but
Alberi extols her as a model of almost every Christian virtue.

[29] Sismondi says she was only 13, but from her birth, 13th April,
1519, to her wedding-day is 14½ years.

[30] “Li occhi grossi proprj alla casa de’ Medici.” Suriano. On the
ceiling of a room in the château of Tanlay, between Tonnerre and
Moutbard, which once belonged to the Chatillons, there was (and
probably still is) a figure of Catherine as Juno, with two faces: one,
masculine and sinister, the other with a remarkable sweetness and
dignity of expression. In the gallery at Eu there were two portraits
(probably copies) representing her as exceedingly fair: in one, the
hair was of a reddish tinge; in the other, the eyebrows were light and
the eyes hazel.

[31] Giovanni Soranzo, 14th August, 1557. _Relazioni_, p. 8.

[32] “Non si troveria persona che non si lasciasse cavare del sangue
per fargli avere un figlio.”--Matt. Dandolo.

[33] His tomb, by Jean Goujon, is in Rouen cathedral.

[34] Brantome describes her at the age of sixty-five as being “so
lovely that the most insensible person could not look upon her without
emotion;” and ascribes her beauty to a bouillon she took every morning
composed of “or potable et autres drogues que je ne sais pas.” De
Thou says she made Henry constant to her “philtris et magicis (ut
creditur) artibus.” A hideous story of her bathing in blood to preserve
her beauty is told of “cette Hérodias” in the _Mélange critique de
Littérature_, ii. p. 113. At Dijon there is a three-quarter portrait
of her entirely undraped. The form is exceedingly lovely, the face a
long oval, the eyes dark, eyebrows delicate, hair a bright auburn, and
complexion fair.

[35] They were the emblems of mourning which widows in those days never
put off.

[36] “Particolarmente la dispensazione delli benefici ecclesiastici è
in man sua.”--Soranzo.

[37] “Il quale l’ha amata, ed ama e godi cosi vecchia come è.” L.
Contarini (1551): _Relazioni Veneti_, iv. 1860, p. 78; Baschet:
_La Diplomatie vénitienne_, p. 432. G. Soranzo (1558) writes to
the same effect; but M. Cavalli is of quite a contrary opinion. “Questo
amore non sia lascivo, ma come materno filiale.”--Raumer, i. p. 259.

[38] The pope significantly sent her a pearl necklace shortly
after Henry’s accession. The French have recently erected a statue
to her memory. It is painful to see a noble nation so deficient
in self-respect as to make idols of the mistresses of their
sovereigns--Agnes Sorel, Diana, Gabrielle d’Estrées, and others.

[39] “Au col de sa jument.”--_Gargantua_, liv. i. ch. 17.

[40] “Il ne savait ni lire ni écrire.”--Marsollier: _Hist. duc de
Bouillon_, i. 7 (Paris, 1719).

[41] He was named Anne, after his godmother Anne of Brittany. He had
four sons and five daughters; his sister Louisa, a widow, married
Gaspard de Coligny, the father of the Admiral. Louisa’s first husband
was the Marshal de Maille, and her daughter Dame de Roye was mother of
the Dame de Rove who married Condé.

[42] These “crescents,” so often found interlaced with H, are supposed
to be the device of Diana of Poitiers; I am more inclined to regard
them as a fanciful C, to indicate Catherine.

[43] Félibien: _Hist. de la Ville de Paris_, tom. ii. liv. xx. p.
1031 (fol. 1725).

[44] Félibien, tom. v. p. 378.

[45] The intellect of the day was on the side of the Reform: “Peintres,
orlogiers, imagiers, orfèvres, libraires, imprimeurs, et autres, qui en
leurs métiers, ont _quelque noblesse d’esprit_.”--Flor. de Remond,
an unimpeachable witness.

[46] Bras de Bourgueville: _Recherches sur Caen_, 2^e partie, p.
162; Cte Hector de la Ferrière-Percy: _Hist. du Canton d’Athis_.
8vo. Paris, 1858.

[47] Montluc says the nobles adopted the Reform out of a spirit of
opposition. “Il n’était fils de bonne maison qui ne voulut goûter de
cette réforme nouvelle.”

[48] About the same time another edict forbade the faithful to send
money to Rome.--Lacretelle.

[49] On the 19th June, 1551, the papal nuncio represented to the king
that he “must forbid the printing and circulation of all heretical
books.... If your majesty fail to punish these damnable writers, the
evil may proceed so far as to defy all remedy.”--Raumer, i. 262. The
severities of the Chateaubriant edict proving ineffectual, it was
declared by another edict (27th May, 1558), that the illegal printing
of any book on religion would be punished by “confiscation de corps et
de biens.”

[50] Matthew Ory, of the order of Preaching Friars, had been invited
from Italy by Cardinal de Tournon, and by letters patent of Francis
I. (30th May, 1536) permitted to exercise the office of inquisitor at
Lyons, in which post he was confirmed by the edict of Henry II. (22d
June, 1550).

[51] On this point see the continuation of Longueval’s _Hist. Eglise
Gall._ by J. M. Prat (4to, 1847), t. xix. p. 96.

[52] “L’autorité et souveraineté tant du roi que de sa couronne
serait grandement diminuée quand les sujets naturels du roi seraient
prévenus et entrepris par un official ou inquisiteur.”--_Hist. des
Martyrs._ f. 463.

[53] Minute of Secretary Ribier, p. 677; Sismondi, xviii. p. 59. See
also Belcarius: _Rer. Gall. Comment._ p. 868.

[54] “Existimant omnis publicæ cladis, omnis popularis incommodi
Christianos esse causam. Si Tiberis ascendit in mœnia, si Nilus non
ascendit in arva, sicœlum stetit, si terra movet, si fames, si lues,
statim--Christianos ad leonem!”--Tertullian, _Apol._ c. 40.

[55] Pasquier: _Lettres_, p. 195 (ed. Arras. 1598) says it
happened in August, three days after the battle of St. Laurent, before
the walls of St. Quentin, which was taken six weeks later. But these
letters were written for effect--many of them some time after the
events they record. Drion (_Chronol._) says “May.”

[56] Her favorite, Madame de Crussol, Duchess of Usez, held the
Reformed opinions.

[57] Bonnet: _Lettres de Calvin_, ii. 125, _note_. Letter
from Fr. Morel. The prisoners were 120 to 130 in number.

[58] Raynald: _Ann. Eccles._ ad an. 1557; Sarpi: _Concil.
Trent_, lib. v. No. 33.

[59] “Aut integras urbes absumere aut veritati locum aliquem
concedere.”--Baum: _Leben Beza’s_, i. p. 453.

[60] Florimond de Remond: _Hist. des Martyrs_, fol. 395.

[61] Strada: _De Bello Belg._ dec. i. lib. 3.

[62] Marot translated fifty, Beza the remainder.

[63] Somewhat later (in 1561) the Sorbonne formally declared the
singing of Psalms _not_ contrary to the Catholic faith.

[64] The Pré aux Clercs exists no longer, not even in name. It was a
pleasant meadow on the banks of the Seine, between the abbey of St.
Germain des Prés and the Invalides.

[65] _Hist. Heres._ f. 1033.

[66] “Criant par dépit comme crieurs d’oublies.”--_MS. de Médicis._

[67] This probably is what the English commissioner alludes to,
when writing in January, 1559, he says: “There was an appointment
made between the late pope, the King of Spain, and the French king,
for the joining of their forces together for the suppression of
religion.”--Forbes: _Full View of the Public Transactions in the
Reign of Queen Elizabeth_, i. p. 196 (fol. Lond. 1740).

[68] Vauvilliers, i. p. 89.

[69] During the period embraced in this volume there were only eight
Parliaments, those of Paris, Toulouse, Grenoble, Bordeaux, Dijon,
Rouen, Aix, Rennes.

[70] _La vraie Hist. de la Proc. contre Du Bourg.: Mém. de Condé_,
i. 220.

[71] _Mem. de Vieilleville_, p. 705 (Panthéon Litt.)

[72] The date is uncertain; some give the 10th March, but the
discussion did not begin until the 26th April. Felice says the 10th
August, which must be a misprint.

[73] Throckmorton to Queen, 19th June, 1559, gives an account of this
remarkable sitting, in which the Cardinal of Lorraine displayed his
usual violence of language. Forbes: _Full View_, i. p. 126.

[74] Abbé Caveyrac says: “It was his fixed intention to destroy the
Protestants.”--_Apologie de Louis XIV._ p. 33.

[75] Groen van Prinsterer: _Archives_, Ser. I. 1841, vol. i. p.
34. The plot was first made known in the Apology published by the
Prince of Orange. Alva said that Henry had made peace, “para que el
quedasse la mano libera para remediar lo.”--Gachard, ii. p. 181;
Raynald: _Ann. Eccles._

[76] Du Puis, a Jacobite priest, asserted “qu’à leur prêche les femmes
s’abandonnaient,” etc. See Flocquet: _Hist. parl. de Normandie_,
ii. p. 365.

[77] This organization was to a great extent the work of a gentleman
of Maine, by name La Ferrière, who had removed to Paris to escape
religious surveillance (1555).

[78] Calvin: _Serm. sur Timothée_, p. 65 (4to 1563).

[79] Alva to Philip: _Journ. des Savants_, 1857, p. 171.

[80] Art de vérifier les dates. Other authorities give June 21 and 24.

[81] Throckmorton to Council, 1st July, 1559; Forbes, i. 151;
_Lettere dei Principi_ (14th July, 1559), iii. 196. Montgomery
escaped to England, where he embraced the Reformed doctrines.

[82] Some authorities state that, though Henry lingered eleven days,
he never recovered either speech or reason. In the _Chanson de
Montgommery_ (1574) we read that he “prononça _à voix haute_,
Que n’avais nullement vers lui commis la faute.”

[83] Mezeray, ii. 1137. Claude Haton charges the Protestants with
trying to kill Henry in 1558, considering him “le tyran persécuteur de
l’église de Jésus Christ.”

[84] Gail: _Tableaux chronologiques_, p. 96 (8vo. Paris, 1819);
also Brantome.

[85] This discipline was in reality the work of Coligny.

[86] Claude Haton.

[87] Aubespine: _Doc. Hist. François II._, tom. ii. p. 428.

[88] Born 20th January, 1544, N.S. The medals say he was crowned on the
17th, Mezeray the 19th, and De Thou the 20th Sept., 1559. Such are the
discrepancies continually to be met with even in trivial matters.

[89] Card. Santa Croce writes: “La Regina di Scotia un giorno gli disse
che non sarebbe mai altro che figlia di un mercante.”

[90] Le Plat, v. p. 517.

[91] “Pulchro aspectu, procera statura, facie oblonga [the true
Lorraine face], fronte ampla et eminente.” _Gallia purpurata._
Beza said: “Had I the cardinal’s eloquence, I should hope to convert
half France.”

[92] Auberi: _Hist. Card. Richelieu_, i. liv. ii. p. 87 (ed. 1666).

[93] “Me participem fecit, ut tentationum ct passionum quibus per tot
annos quotidie moriebatur, omni hora de vita periclitabatur ... tam
_parum_ timidus quam _nimium_ esse putabatur.” Bayle, _sub
voce_.

[94] “Licenziosissimo per natura ... ingordizia inestimabile ... gran
duplicità.” _Relazioni d. Amb. Ven._ (ed. Alberi), p. 441.

[95] 9th April, 1561. MS. in Rouen Library; Leber, bundle B, No. 5720.
On the other side, see the “Supplication,” etc., reprinted in Bouillé:
_Hist. Guise_, p. 77.

[96] Micheli speaks of the “odio universale conceputo contro di lui per
i molti effetti d’offesa che mostrò verso ognuno mentre nel governo
ebbe l’autorità.”

[97] In the museum of Orleans there is a striking portrait of the
cardinal and of his nephew, Henry, the hero of the Massacre of St.
Bartholomew.

[98] He was born in 1518, and in 1548 married the heiress of Navarre
(born 1528), whose dowry consisted of the principality of Béarn and
the counties of Armagnac, Albret, Bigorre, Foix, and Comminges. Upper
Navarre had been seized by Spain.

[99] Marc Duval’s engraving of the three brothers is well known, and
has often been copied. In the Lenoir Collection (now belonging to the
Duke of Sutherland) there is a painting of the three brothers; and, if
I am correctly informed, there are other portraits at Knowle Park.

[100] Brantome quotes an Italian saying: “Dio me guarda del bel gigneto
del Principe (di Condé) e dell’ animo e _stecco_ dell’ Amiraglio.”
There was another saying: “Défiez-vous du _cure-dents_ de
l’Amiral, du _non_ du Connétable, et du _oui_ de Catherine.”

[101] Mr. Crowe, who seems to have taken his history of this period
from Davila, calls Coligny “a man of bold and imposing character,” and
says that he and Andelot were the inspiring causes of the religious
wars. So far as the admiral is concerned, this is quite contrary to the
fact.

[102] _Rer. Scot. Hist._ lib. xvi. p. 567 (ed. 1668).

[103] Lippomano in Baschet, p. 494; Throckmorton to Queen, 13th July,
1560, in Forbes, i. p. 159.

[104] Throckmorton says that the cardinal took pattern from the
proclamations and injunctions of Pole and Bonner. Forbes, i. p. 161 and
233.

[105] Regnier de la Planche, p. 227.

[106] December 12th, 1559. This same Stuart claimed Queen Mary’s
protection as a blood-relation. He made the constable prisoner at
Dreux, mortally wounded him at St. Denis, and being taken at Jarnac,
fighting on the Huguenot side, was murdered by permission, if not by
order, of Henry of Anjou. Claude Haton has a story that he was hanged
at Paris in July, 1569. He was in the Amboise plot, and escaped by
flight.

[107] Authors differ as to the day of his death; the dates given are
20th November; 20th, 21st, 22d, and 23d December. “Duodecimo kal.
Januarii,” says Belcarius, p. 921.

[108] Mezeray, _Abrégé Chron._ He appears to be copying Regnier de
la Planche.

[109] _Hist. de l’Hérésie_, p. 865.

[110] _Hist. des Perséc. de l’Église de Paris_, p. lxiv.

[111] _Hist. État de France sous François II._ (8vo. 1576). This
work is generally ascribed to La Planche, but if so, he would hardly
sneer at himself (p. 404) as “plus politique que religieux.” It was
probably written by Jean de Serres, author of the _Commentarii de
Statu Religionis_.

[112] “Certains garnements n’avaient plutôt crié: Au luthérien, au
christandin--qu’ils ne fussent non seulement quittes de leurs dettes.”
Regnier de la Planche.

[113] Forbes, i. p. 262.

[114] Ibid., p. 292.

[115] The _Défense contre les Tyrans_ of Hubert Languet treats
of the limits of obedience to kings, of the causes which justify
arming, and when foreign aid may be sought. Davila confesses that the
Protestants were forced to measures of self-defense, “per liberarsi
della durezza della condizione presente.”

[116] Barthold: _Deutschland und die Huguenotten_, i. p. 262.

[117] The “mute chief” was certainly Condé. Belcaire calls him “ducem
ἀνώνυμον.”

[118] “At si viribus superiores fuissent, haud dubium quin utrumque
[of the Guises] immaniter trucidaverint, quibus Franciscum Stuardumque
reginam addidissent, aut saltem hanc ad Elizabetham Angliæ reginam,
æmulam et _ejus conjurationis consciam_, (?) misissent.”
Belcarius: _Rer. Gall. Comment._ There is not the slightest ground
for supposing Elizabeth knew any thing of the Amboise plot.

[119] “The French king removeth hence toward Amboise the 5th February.”
Killigrew to Queen, 28th Jan. 1560; Forbes, i. pp. 315, 320. “The 23d,
the French king arrived, which was two days sooner than he was looked
for.” Forbes, i. p. 334.

[120] Of this Des Avenelles there are very contradictory accounts. He
was rewarded with a judicial appointment in Lorraine, and De Thou adds
that he remained a Protestant until death.

[121] Throckmorton to Cecil, 7th March; Forbes, i. 353.

[122] “Il s’en trouvait en la rivière tantôt 6, 8, 10, 12, 15 attachés
à desperches.... Les rues d’Amboise étaient coulantes de sang, et
tapissées de corps morts, si qu’on ne pouvait durer par la ville pour
la puanteur et infection.” Regnier de la Planche, p. 257; Montfauçon:
_Monuments de la Monarchie Fr._ v. p. 81; Forbes, i. 378.

[123] This poisoned ball, says Brantome, was of mixed metal, so hard
that no armor could resist it.

[124] See a plate in _De Leone Belg._, representing the execution
of Villemangis.

[125] Throckmorton, writing to the Lords of the Council on the 21st
March, speaks of the general pardon offered the insurgents if they
should disperse quietly, and goes on to say: “Although things be thus
calmed, yet the Duke of Guise and the Cardinal of Lorraine live still
in marvelous great fear, and know not whom they may well trust.”
Forbes, i.

[126]

    Las nous estions du temps que la fureur françoise
    Commença nos malheurs au tumulte d’Amboise,
    Nous en avons l’horreur encor peinte en nos cœurs,
    Malheureuse aux vaincus, dommageable aux vainqueurs.

    Jean Vauquelin de la Fresnaye: _Les Foresteries_.


[127] Taillandier: _Nouv. Recherches sur de l’Hopital_, p. 273
(Paris, 1861). “Les _Huguenots de religion_, pour ne pouvoir
supporter plus la rigueur et cruauté exercées à l’encontre d’eux; et
les _Huguenots d’état_, pour ne plus comporter l’usurpation faite
par lesdits de Guise.” _Commentaires_, p. 63. This is what Regnier
de la Planche told the queen-mother.

[128] There has been much dispute about the origin of this word, but
it probably came from Geneva, where the citizens had long been divided
into two politico-religious parties, known as the _Mamelukes_
and _Huguenots_. Merle d’Aubigné: _Reformation in Time of
Calvin_, vol. i. p. 118.

[129] Claude repeats all the popular scandals against the Protestants,
but he speaks _generally_, refraining from charging with such
infamies those of his own town (Provins), whom he knew from personal
observation.

[130] See note at end of chapter.

[131] “Pauperculus librarius.” De Thou.

[132] Regnier de la Planche: _De l’Estat de France_, pp. 312, 313
(Coll. du Panthéon).

[133] Wright’s _Elizabeth_, i. p. 33.

[134] _Aubespine Correspondence_, pp. 431, 433, 434, 442, 501.

[135] The instructions were signed by the King and Catherine, Guise,
Montmorency, the Cardinal of Lorraine, L’Hopital, and Charles of
Bourbon. See Le Plat, v. p. 561.

[136] _Aubespine: Corresp._ 12th April, 1560, pp. 342, 361.

[137] _Ibid._ 1st October, 1560.

[138] _Ibid._ p. 655.

[139] Aubespine: _Corresp._ 14th October, 1560.

[140] Regnier de la Planche, p. 290.

[141] “Quand un homme ayant mauvaise opinion faisait l’amende
honorable, et prononçait les mots d’icelle, il ne changeait pour cela
son cœur, _l’opinion se muant par oraisons à Dieu_, parole, et
raison persuadée.” _Commentaires_, p. 73 verso.

[142] _Commentaires_, p. 101 verso. Regnier assigns the duke’s
retort to his brother the Cardinal. See also Mignet, _Journal des
Savants_, 1859, p. 25; Bouillé: _Hist. Guise_, ii. p. 86.

[143] “Sans être perpétuellement damné.” Mayer, _États gén._ x.
296.

[144] Baschet, p. 506.

[145] Mayer: _Coll. États gén._ x. p. 310.

[146] Letter of Francis II. to Anthony, April 15: _Colbert_,
_MSS._ vol. xxviii.

[147] Castelnau in his _Mémoires_ says, that the queen-mother
assured them they might come “without fear,” and would be as safe in
Orleans as in their own houses. Both stories may be true, and this is
not the only time when her public and private opinions were at variance.

[148] Voltaire: _Essai sur les Guerres civiles_.

[149] _Comment. de l’Estat_, p. 112. Regnier adds: “Dont il (the
cardinal) fut tellement contristé qu’il n’eut recours qu’ á ses larmes.”

[150] Hardwicke: _State Papers_, i. p. 129; Letter to the Queen,
17th of November, 1560.

[151] The duke and the cardinal openly boasted that, at two blows, they
would cut off the heads of heresy and rebellion. Davila, liv. ii.

[152] “Seria mas acertado castigar poco á poco los culpados que prender
tantos de un golpe.” _Simancas Archives_: Journ. des Savants,
1839, p. 39.

[153] I give this incident as I find it, but hold it to be a fiction.
It is inconsistent with the king’s character and the state of his
health at the time.

[154] Throckmorton to Chamberlayne, 21st November, 1560; Wright’s
_Elizabeth_, i. p. 57.

[155] _Vie de Coligny_, p. 221.

[156] Calvin to Sturm, 16th Dec. 1560. Bonnet: _Lettres de Calvin_.

[157] “Non minus fœdo quam inexpectato mortis genere sustulit. Mortuo
nullus, ut regi, honos habitus.... Lutherano more sepultus Lutheranorum
hostis.” Beza to Bullinger, 22d Jan. 1561; Baum’s _Theodor Beza_,
ii. p. 18, _Suppl._

[158] Paris: _Cabinet historique_, ii. p. 57.

[159] The following were the twelve leading provinces: Normandy,
governed by the Dauphin; Brittany, by the Duke of Etampes; Gascony, by
the King of Navarre; Languedoc and the Isle of France, by Constable
Montmorency; Provence, by the Count of Tende; Dauphiny and Champagne,
by Guise; Lyonnais and the Bourbonnais, by Marshal St. André; Burgundy,
by the Duke of Nevers; and Picardy, by Coligny.

[160] _Mém. de Marguérite de Valois_, p. 18.

[161] There were rewards for killing these beasts: 5 sols for a wolf,
10 sols for a she-wolf. MS. penes auct.

[162] Du Tillet: _Recueil des Roys_, ii p. 192; _Chronique_
(4to. 1618).

[163] MS. penes auct.

[164]

    S’il lui reste encor de sa pauvre cueillette,
    Quelque petit amas que sa femme discrette
    Aura par un long temps, pour l’aider en saison,
    Reservé chichement au coin de sa maison,
    Le soldat lui survient, pire que n’est l’orage.

    _Le Contr’ Empire des Sciences._ Lyon, 1599.


[165] “Un douzième de la prisaie du produit.” _Monteil MSS._ i.
250.

[166] MS. penes auct.

[167] From a list of delicacies supplied in December, 1578, to the
wife of Charles de Vienne, Governor of Burgundy, when in childbed,
we learn that a Mayence ham cost 50 sols, Italian sausages 15 sols
a lb., olives 12 sols, an ounce of musk 18 crowns of the sun, fine
white sugar 23 sols a lb., inferior sort 22 sols, dried currants 12
sols, and preserved pears 3 sols. At Mende, in 1568, a quintal of
hay at 20 sols, and of straw at 8 sols, were reckoned very dear; the
horse-soldier’s pay being arranged on the supposition that he could get
those quantities of hay and straw for 8 and 4 sols, and a setier of
oats for 25. (L’Abbé Bosse: _Le Gevaudan pendant la dernière Guerre
civile_. Mende, 1864.) At Toulouse a soldier’s food cost 4 sols a
day, probably equivalent to rather more than 20 sols or a franc now.
About this time the salary of a president in the Toulouse Parliament
was 100 sols a day, and of his huissier or beadle 30 sols.

[168] “Sans ce grain (le sarrasin) qui nous est venu depuis 60 ans, les
pauvres gens auraient beaucoup á souffrir.” _Contes d’Eutrapel._

[169] “Celui-là même que nous avons en délices ès jours maigres.”
Bélon: _Observations_, etc. 1563.

[170] Champier wonders how people could eat such an _insect_.

[171] Without going to the Pyrenees, or even to Burgundy, the English
traveler may still see relics of the old time in the high cap of the
Normande _bonne_ and in the dress of the fishing-classes in the
Pas de Calais, where the girl who ventures to wear a bonnet is looked
upon as lost.

[172] The Ordonnance of Orleans (1560) forbids the “manans et habitans
de nos villages toutes sortes de dorures sur plomb, fer, ou bois.”

[173] St. Allais: _Ancienne France_, i. 558, gives extracts from
the edicts of 1561.

[174]

    Qui vit jamais porter bas des chausses de soye
    De 8 ou 10 escus, au lieu d’avoir du pain
    Pour les pauvres....
                    ... On eust veu femme
    Porter dessus son ventre un _miroir_ en l’église.

    Artus Desiré: _Le Dèsordre de France_. Paris, 1577.


[175] De Thou describes his mother “in equo post tergum sessoris
domestici tapeti et stapedæ insidens.”

[176] Corrozet: _Antiquités de Paris_, p. 210 (ed. 1577).

[177] Calculating the actual value of the livre tournois at francs
4·50, according to the quantity of corn it represented, on the average
of frs. 31·71 the setier.

[178] In 1540 the _marc d’or_ (= 8 onces, or 244·75 grammes) was
worth £165 7_s._ 6_d._ of our money; in 1561 it had risen to
£185, and in 1573 to £200.

[179] The _sol par livre_ seems to have been the constitutional
tax, which Francis raised to two sols. The _Traicté des Aydes_, by
L. du Crot, may be consulted with advantage.

[180] Francis I. took away the silver rails that had been set by Louis
XI. round the tomb of St. Martin of Tours.

[181] Du Crot: _Traicté des Aydes_, ad fin.

[182] The salt tax, oppressive enough by itself, was made more so by
the way in which it was levied. It sometimes reached 25 sols the pound,
and purchasers were forced to buy a certain quantity, and renew their
store every three months, whether it was consumed or not. Bernard
Palissy gives a curious account of the working of this tax.

[183] A relic of this custom still exists in the practice of closing
Temple Bar on the accession of a new sovereign.

[184] “Sono stati forzati ad abbandonnar il paesi.” _Relazione_,
iii. (Ser. I.) p. 423. Du Crot confirms this: _Traicté des Aydes_,
p. 114.

[185] La Noue sets it down at twenty million francs.

[186] _Mém de Condé_, tom. vi. p. 603 (Collect. Michaud).

[187] “Fas esse interficere ... nisi obedire evangelio Calviniano.”
_De justa Reipubl. Christi in Regis Auctorit._ 386 recto. See
Labitte: _Démoc. de la Ligue_, p. li.

[188] Arcère: _Hist. Rochelle_ (4to. 1756), i. p. 333.

[189] “Il prete francese [non] molto libidinoso e inclinato solo al
vizio della crapula (gluttony).” The sense requires the addition of the
negative _non_.

[190] _Révue rétrospective_, i. 1833.

[191] _Démonomanie_, p. 152. This man, according to Mezeray, gave
Charles the names of 1200 of his associates. In Bodin and L’Estoile the
numbers are set down at 30,000 and 3000; Boguet says “trois cents mil.”

[192] The following title of a libelous pamphlet throws a curious light
upon the subject in the text: _Les Sorcelleries de Henri de Valois,
et les Oblations qu’il faisoit au Diable dans le Bois de Vincennes,
avec la Figure des Démons d’Argent doré auxquels il faisoit Offrande,
et lesquels se voyent encore en ceste Ville_. Paris, 1589.

[193]

    Le lion jeune le vieux surmontera;
      En champ bellique par singulier duel,
    Dans cage d’or les yeux lui crèvera,
      Deux plaies une, puis mourir, mort cruelle.


[194] Isambert: _Anciennes Lois Franç_, xiv. p. 71; Ordonnance of
Orleans, January, 1560.

[195] Gregorius: _Tertia Syntag. Juris Univ. Pars_, lib. 74, c.
21. The evidence would hardly satisfy an English jury.

[196] Gregorius: _Tertia Syntag. Juris Univ. Pars_, lib. 74, c. 21.

[197] Coryat, _Crudities_, p. 8.

[198] Joannes Millæus: _Praxis Criminis persequendi_ (fol. Paris,
1541), contains well-executed plates representing various kinds of
torture.

[199] Claude Haton, ii. 704.

[200] Giovanni Soranzo (1558) says 400,000 or more.

[201] Corrozet (dd. 1568) says: “... Cette ville est de unze portes....
Lequel enclos sept lieues lors contient.” See also Tommaseo, p. 43;
Coryat’s _Crudities_, p. 17.

[202] Brun and Hogenburg: _Théâtre des principales Villes_.

[203] _Mém. de Vieilleville_ (Panthéon Litt.), 1836, p. 510.

[204]

    Miror et innumeras forma præstante puellas,
    Tam lascivo habitu cultas, adeoque facetas
    Ut Priamum aut veterem succendere Nestora possint.

    _La Fleur des Antiquitez_, Paris, 1533.


[205] Marino Giustiniano in Tommaseo.

[206] _C’est la déduction du sumptueux ordre de Rouen, etc._ Small
4to. Rouen, 1551.

[207] Favin: _Hist. de Navarre_, an. 1565; Godefroy: _Cérémonial de
France_, i. p. 909; Aubigné: _Hist._ liv. iv. ch. 5; Popelinière, i.
liv. 10; Abel Jouan: _Voyage de Charles IX._

[208]

    Et ainsi Dijon a le bruit
    D’être l’une, sans point de tache,
    Des plus belles villes qu’on sache.

    _Blason et Louenge de la noble Ville de Dyjon._


[209] _Régistres du Conseil de Toulon_, B, No. 10, fol. 247.

[210] _A General Hist. of France_, by John de Serres (Serranus).
Fol. Lond. 1624, p. 692.

[211] Beza had a favorable opinion of the boy-king, but not of the
mother: “De rege optimam spem esse, et hoc tibi, ut certissimum,
confirmo. Sed puer est et matrem habet.” Beza to Haller, 24th January,
1561, in Baum’s _Beza_, ii. p. 25, App.

[212] Baschet, p. 510.

[213] Aubespine _Négotiations_, p. 781. The translation of this
unctuous letter is from Miss Freer’s _Elizabeth of Valois_, i. p.
230.

[214] Walsingham describes her as “naturally timid;” Travannes
(_Mém._ ii. 256): “ambitieuse et craintive;” Suriano: “timida e
irresoluta;” and again, “per paura di se stessa;” and Languet (Epist.
i. 41): “Regina, ut est mulier, territa.”

[215] Baschet, p. 518.

[216] The chief members of this council were Anthony of Navarre; the
Cardinals of Bourbon, Lorraine, Tournon, Guise, and Chatillon; the
Prince of Roche-sur-Yon; the Dukes of Guise and Aumale, the Chancellor,
Marshals St. André and Brissac, with the Bishops of Orleans, Valence,
and Amiens. Condé could not act, being in prison.

[217] The lawyers and parliaments were always jealous of the
States-General. Pasquier, who was a “parliamentarian,” calls the appeal
to the Three Estates a “vieille folie courant en l’esprit français.”

[218] F. Bourquelot: _Hist. de Provins_, ii. p. 132. An ordonnance
of 1565 throws a curious light on the morals of the clergy:--“Ad
instantiam promotoris inhibitum fuit omnibus et singulis hujus ecclesiæ
[St. Quiriace at Provins], canonicis, capellariis, vicariis, et aliis
habituatis (?) ne, quovis quæsito colore, audeant mulieres scandalosas
de lapsu et incontinentia carnis, quovis modo suspectas, in eorum domos
claustrales introducere vel intromittere, et si quas habeant, illico
et incontinenti ejiciant et expellant, sub pœna excommunicationis et
amendæ summæ decem librarum et amplius.”

[219] On the calculation that a livre would purchase as much in 1560
as twelve francs would now, the debt was equivalent to twenty millions
sterling.

[220] MSS. _L’Ordre et Séance, etc._

[221] “Ipsius audaciam nobilitas et plebs magno cum fremitu
repulissent.” Beza to Bullinger; Baum’s _Beza_, ii. p. 20, App.

[222] “Habere quædam in mandatis quæ contra ipsum card. promere
jubebantur.” Thuanus, v. lib. 27, p. 14 (Paris, 1609).

[223] The assembly acted up to this principle by ordering (7th January)
the release of all prisoners confined on account of religion; but it
was done secretly “for fear of scandal.”

[224] The language of their cahiers was more moderate than Quentin’s
speech; but in the text they have, for obvious reasons, been treated as
one document.

[225] “Ut auferatur malum de medio nostri.”

[226] Lobineau, _Hist. Bretagne_, ii. 280; Bertrand d’Argentré to
the Duke of Estampes.

[227] Chantonnay to Catherine, 22d April, 1561; _Mém de Condé_,
ii. p. 6.

[228] It is hinted in a contemporary letter, that many feared to
speak their minds lest they should be treated like Du Bourg. Languet
disapproves of the Edict of July, and says of Catherine: “Non mihi
videtur caute egisse.” Lib. ii. Ep. liv. p. 137.

[229] _Mém. de Castelnau_; see also Mignet, _Journ. des Savants_, 1847,
pp. 651–659. In a letter (dated 1565) Castelnau says of Elizabeth: “Je
ne la vis jamais plus belle ni plus jolie, et vous promets qu’il y a
telle fille de quinze ans, qui pense être belle, qui n’en approche
point. Au reste, elle a de grandes et rares vertus, et _un grand
royaume_” (no doubt in his eyes her greatest virtue).

[230] “Elle leur donne à entendre qu’elle veut faire instruire le roi
son fils en leur religion.” _Discours Merveilleux_, p. xxi. On
this matter we may suppose the writer of that scurrilous pamphlet to
be well informed, though we may doubt Catherine’s sincerity. See also
Agrippa d’Aubigné (liv. iv. ch. 3) on the “langage de Canaan” the queen
employed in her conversations with the Protestant pastors. Sec also
_Laboureur_ (i. p. 283), where she is described as “infected with
this venom.”

[231] Chantonnay advised that the heretics should be punished,
Catherine replied: “Il n’était pas possible, vu le grand nombre ...
sans ruiner toute chose et exciter une guerre civile.” Lett. of 8th
January, 1561; _Mém. de Condé_, ii. p. 601.

[232] _Mém. de Condé_, ii. p. 11.

[233] “Vestido como putas.” Chantonnay to Philip II., 28th October,
1561; Simancas Archives: _Journal des Savans_, 1859, p. 159.

[234] In 1561, Micheli, the Venetian embassador, says that
three-fourths of the kingdom are filled with heresy. They met and
preached without any regard to the royal prohibition; and he notes
it as very remarkable, that “priests, monks, and nuns, and even
bishops, and many of the most distinguished prelates, had caught the
infection.... Excepting the common herd, all have fallen away.”

[235] The queen-mother was specially excepted.

[236] There were actually six confederates, the three others being
Cardinal Tournon, Marshal Brissac, and M. de Montpensier. Chantonnay to
Philip II., 9th April, 1561; Bouillé, ii. 132.

[237] “Tous articles ... soient décidés et résolus par la seule parole
de Dieu.” Bibl. Impér. 8927, États de Pontoise.

[238] “Audio Reginam curasse scribi formam emendationis ecclesiarum.”
Languet (11th December, 1561), _Epist._ ii. 184. Also Chantonnay
(22d January, 1561): “Aussi verrez-vous un discours que l’on sème
faussement avoir été envoyé par la Reine au Pape.” He hints that it was
written by Montluc, Bishop of Valence, “pour (sous prétexte de piété)
semer la fausse doctrine.” _Mém. de Condé_, ii. 20.

[239] Alberi: _Vita di Caterina de’ Medici_ (Firenze, 1838), p.
291. See also letter in Bayle’s _Dictionary_, art. _Marot_,
dated 26th August, 1559.

[240] Calvin writes to P. Martyr: “Audio quidem Regis matrem ita esse
tui audiendi cupidam.” 17th August, 1561. Baum’s _Theodor Beza_,
ii. p. 40, App. Peter Martyr, who had a great reputation for eloquence,
waited upon Catherine as soon as he reached Paris. After a long and
friendly interview she dismissed him saying: “Quod deinceps sæpius
mecum sed secreto colloqui vellet.” P. Martyr Senatui Turicensi, 12th
September, 1561. _Ibid._ p. 63.

[241] Bèze à M. d’Espeville, 25th August, 1561; Baum’s _Theodor
Beza_, ii. p. 45, Append. There is a Latin copy of this letter which
differs in several respects from the French.

[242] Beza tells us that his escort numbered a hundred horsemen, and
that the Duke of Guise received him “vultu quam maximè potuit ad
humanitatem composito.” Beza Calvino, 12th September, 1561, Baum. ii.
p. 60, App.

[243] Chantonnay’s dispatch confirms this. He says that the king and
the chancellor “ne bougeraient de là, que l’on n’eut trouvé ordre pour
apaiser les tumultes de ce royaume.” _Mém. de Condé_, ii. 16.

[244] Some historians reckon twelve ministers and a score of lay
delegates; but the difference is unimportant. Besides Beza and Peter
Martyr there were present Viret, Marlorat and Jean Malo, ex-priests,
Reimond, and others.

[245] Beza afterward found it necessary to explain himself more fully
upon this point in a letter to the queen-mother: “Il y a grande
différence de dire que Jésus-Christ est présent en la Sainte Cène, en
tant qu’il nous y donne veritablement son corps et son sang; et de dire
que son corps et son sang sont conjoints avec le pain et le vin. J’ai
confessé le premier, j’ai nié le dernier.”

[246] “Adeo exasperati atque exacerbati sunt, ut proruperint:
Blasphemavit, blasphemavit Deum!” Struckius ad Hubertum, 18th
September, 1561; Baum ii. p. 66, App. Catherine, writing to the
Bishop of Rennes, embassador to the emperor, complains of Beza’s
speech: “Etant enfin tombé sur le fait de la Cène il s’oublia en une
comparaison si absurde et tant offensive des oreilles de l’assistance,
que peu s’en fallut que je ne lui imposasse silence.” (14th September,
1561.)

[247] “Ut saltem æquiores nobis fiant.” Beza Calvino, 27th September,
1561.

[248] His orthodoxy was suspected. “Homo quidem doctus, sed nullius
religionis, ut verè dicam ἄθεος.” Belcarius: _Rer. Gall. Comment._
p. 937. “Il cancelliere che è scoperto nemico della religione
cattolica.” Tommaseo, i. 530.

[249] De Lisle to the king, 6th November, 1561. _Mém pour le Concile
de Trente_ (4to ed.), p. 110.

[250] “Una gran parte del popolo crede a costoro talmente che col mezzo
loro si potranno ridurre alla via buona, come che altrimente siano per
diventare Anabatisti o peggio.” Santa Croce to Cardinal Borromeo.

[251] _Vie de Coligny_, p. 242; La Noue, p. 350 (Engl. transl.).
Pasquier writes of 8000 and 9000 assembling in October, and of an
“incredible concourse.” _Lettres_, p. 233. Languet speaks of
12,000 to 13,000 present at a sermon in Orleans (_Arcana Secreta_,
Ep. lv.); in Ep. lxii. he describes a meeting at which he was present:
“non ducenti aut trecenti, sed duo, tria, et interdum novem aut decem
millia ... hodie vero existimo non pauciores 15,000 interfuisse.” p.
155.

[252] After the massacre of Vassy (February, 1562), Condé offered
the queen-mother the support of 2150 Reformed churches. Montfauçon,
_Monumens de la Monarchie_, fol. 1733, v. p. 109. In 1598, the
date of the Edict of Nantes, it was calculated that there were in
France 694 public chapels and 257 private, over which 2800 ministers
and 400 curates presided. There were 274,000 families, making about
1,250,000 souls, and of those families 2468 were noble. In 1561 there
may have been 250,000 more.

[253] “Maxima nobilium parte ad eos accedente adeo ut cœtus
Calvinistarum magna frequentia omnibus prope et nobilissimis quidem
regni urbibus habebantur palam.” Eytzinger: _Leo Belg._ p. 25
(anno 1560).

[254] Beza Calvino, 23d October, 1561; in Baum: _Leben Bezas_, p.
210.

[255] Castelnau, p. 68.

[256] Baum (30th October, 1561), p. 117. Languet writes (26th October,
1561). “Dummodo non plures quam 200 conveniant, et sine armis.” _Arc.
Secr._ ii. p. 153.

[257] “Admodum severe nunc exequuntur edictum de usu armorum
interdicto.” Languet (26th October, 1561): _Arc. Secr._ ii. p.
153. The Huguenots were allowed to retain their arms: “Sotto pretesto
che non avrebbe a seguir qualche seditione ... gli Ugonotti la
portassero per sicurtà sua.” Barbaro: _Relazione_, 1564.

[258] “Calvinistis infestissimo doctore.” Sanctesius: _Resp. ad
Apolog. Bezæ_ (ap. Lannoium, _Hist. Gym. Navarræ_, p. 770).

[259] _Sermon cath. sur les Dimanches_, ii. p. 25. This sermon,
though actually of a later date, is a fair specimen of the style of the
day.

[260] Sanctesius: _Ad Edicta vet. princ. de Licentia Sect._ 1561.

[261] _Complainte apologétique au Roi_, p. 288.

[262] Thierry: _Recueil des Monumens inéd. de l’Hist. du Tiers
État_, ii. p. 683 (4to. Paris).

[263] Thierry: _Tiers État_, ii. p. 712.

[264] “Nostros potius quam adversarios metuo.” (4th Nov. 1561). Baum’s
_Beza_.

[265] “Me non minus severe in rabiosos istos impetus vindicaturum.”
_Ibid._ ii. _Anhang_, 129.

[266] This was Pierre Craon, called Nez d’Argent, because he had lost
his nose in a drunken brawl, and it was replaced by one of silver. He
was at one time Professor of Humanity at Rheims, but resigned his chair
on turning Protestant, and removed to Paris. The children used to sing
a song about him. He was “fort renommé en science,” and worked quite a
revolution in pronunciation and orthography, sounding _c_ like _ch_,
and substituting _k_ for _c_ in calendrier, Catherine, etc. He also
introduced parentheses, commas, accents, diphthongs, and apostrophes.
One account says he was hanged in December, 1561. See Jean Lefèvre:
_Hist. des Troubles_, i. p. 140.

[267] _Arrêt du Parlement_; _Archives curieuses_, tom. iv.;
_Histoire véritable_ (a Huguenot account): _ibid._ p. 49–75.

[268] “Un altro simile spettacolo.” Lett. to Card. Borromeo.

[269] Forbes, ii. pp. 337–338.

[270] Davila: _Hist. Guerres civiles de France_, I. p. 78 (4to.
Paris, 1657).

[271] Psalm xci. (_Vulgate_, xc.): “Non timebis ab incursu et
dæmonio meridiano.”

[272] Beza Calvino, 6th January, 1562. Baum. App. The _Posidonius_
of the text is evidently the admiral.

[273] See Varillas, i. p. 121; Gacon: _Cour de Cath. d. Méd._

[274] “A rigidioribus pontificiis accusatur Lutheranismi ... jam
pulchre simulet ... videatur non multum a nostris dissentire.” Languet,
_Epist._ 44, lib. 2. p. 112; 45, p. 116; 63, p. 159 (26th
November, 1561).

[275] The original report of the Saverne Conference is given in the
_Bulletin de l’Hist. Prot. Français_, iv. p. 184.

[276] It is hardly necessary to caution the reader against accepting
these numbers literally.

[277] A print in Montfauçon, which has been often copied, represents
the duke himself stabbing a woman.

[278] There are many contemporary and contradictory accounts of the
Vassy massacre. _Description du Saccagement exercé cruellement en
la Ville de Vassy_. Caen, 1562; _Discours au Vrai de ce qui est
dernièrement advenu à Vassi_. Paris, 1562. This account says that
the duke heard mass at Dampmartin, and then went on to Vassy, where
he alighted at the convent. The _Discours entier de la Persecution
... en la Ville de Vassy, le 1 mars 1562_, says that the duke was
disturbed at mass by the singing of the Huguenots [who were outside the
walls], and that on his sending to desire them to “wait until mass was
over, when they might sing till they burst,” they sang all the louder.
See also Alberi: _Vita di Caterina de Medici_, p. 92, note. Dr.
Lingard asserts that Brantome was present at the massacre, but the
abbé says plainly, “Je n’y étais pas.” The account in the text is
substantially Davila’s; the duke’s own statement is in Castelnau.

[279] The duke afterward attempted to justify himself on the ground
that the Protestants had begun the attack; but it is not probable
that a body of unarmed persons, including many women and children,
would have provoked an armed body of men commanded by one of the first
soldiers in France. If what Davila says is true, the duke did not
regret this opportunity of showing how much he detested the January
edict (liv. iii.).

[280] Ste Croix, 15th March, 1562; Cimber, vi. 51.

[281] “Magnifico apparatu,” says Eytzinger; “with 2000 gentlemen and
3000 horses,” says Brulart. The date is uncertain, the authorities
giving 15th, 16th, and 20th March.

[282] Monceaux was an undefended country-house, 1½ leag. S.W. of St.
Denis, and ¾ leag. E. of Neuilly.

[283] Letter of 12th April, 1562; _Mém. de Condé_, ii. 53.

[284] La Noue: _Politicke Discourses_, Lond. 1587. This translation
preserves much of the spirit of the original French.

[285] Luillier to Lymoges, 20th April, 1562. Paris: _Cabinet
Historique_, ii. p. 291.

[286] In spite of the disarming edicts, the arms had not been given up,
the Huguenots retaining theirs in some districts. Accordingly, on 28th
April, 1562, the king wrote to De la Mothe Gondrin, ordering the arms
to be restored to the Catholics, “pour leur sûreté et conservation,
_leur défendant néanmoins très-expressement_, de par moy, _de
n’en mal user_, et de n’entreprendre aucune chose de mauvais,
_sous peine d’être punis et châtiés exemplairement_.” Ordinances
and letters of Charles IX. in Archives of Lyons.

[287] This statement, if correct, must be the number on paper merely,
and even then it would be one in four of the whole population of Paris.

[288] From the _Enqueste sur la Profession religieuse de noble homme
Jehan de Montruillon_, 1570, it would appear, that the certificate
required to be signed by the parish priest and his curate, the
church-wardens and sexton, the district judges and others. It states
that the bearer attends mass and confession, that he is married, and
that his children were christened in the parish church.

[289] “Ut occidendorum penuria interficiendi finem fecerit.” Eytzinger:
_Leo Belg._ p. 31.

[290] It may be objected that, as some of the cases cited in the text
occurred after Condé’s revolt, they can not be used to justify it. They
are introduced to show the state of public feeling at the time.

[291] See also letter to church of Blois, 18th September, 1557.

[292] “Nobis bellum non esse bonæ voluntatis, ut pax, sed necessitatis
... necessitas quæ nos premit nullam patitur legem contra naturam.”

[293] The reformer Brentius was at one time a decided advocate of
the principle of non-resistance; but as he grew older, and witnessed
the terrible persecutions of the emperor, he altered his mind, and
contended that the subordinate powers, as being also of God, were
called upon to resist the higher powers, if they should turn their
swords against the people of God.

[294] “Fuerunt aliqui, qui maluerint, plagas accipere quam stringere
gladios, ego non fui in ea sententia.” _Epist._ ii. 149 (12th
October, 1562).

[295] Trebutien: _Caen, Précis de son Histoire_; also, _Recherches et
Antiquités de Caen_.

[296] Talcy (dép. Loir et Cher) is on the right bank of the Loire,
not far from Beaugency. One room in the chateau is still called the
“chambre de Médicis.” There is a tradition that the Bartholomew
Massacre was planned here. It is now in the possession of a Protestant;
but, owing to frequent alteration, little remains of the original
building, except the donjon and a tower or two.

[297] This edict is computed to have caused the death of 50,000
persons. Jean de Serres (Engl. transl.), p. 703; _Mém. de Condé_;
Brulart’s _Journal_ (13th June, 1562); _Gacon_, i. 58. Castelnau speaks
of the “licence débordée de mal faire.”

[298] Medicis MSS.

[299] Claude Haton reckons that 800 or 900 heretics were killed in
Paris in June, 1562, and adds: “God knows that many porters and
rag-gatherers were made rich, and many Huguenots poor.”

[300] The Pincourt or Paincourt of the plans. It was in the Faubourg
St. Jacques, beyond the walls, and on the road to Ménilmontant. The Rue
Popincourt forms the chief communication between the Rue Ménilmontant
and the Faubourg St. Antoine.

[301] Les Tragiques: _Les Fers_, p. 226 (ed. Jannet, Paris, 1857).

[302] Pasquier: _Lettres_, p. 272; Bayle, _sub voce_ “Lorraine.”

[303] _Revue Retrospective_, v. p. 81.

[304] _Sommaire des Choses accordées entre les Ducs de Guise, de
Montmorenci et Marèchal Saint-André._ Capefigue recognizes the
authenticity of this atrocious document.

[305] Chaloner writes from Madrid (1st May, 1562): “They devise how
the Guisians may be assisted, for ... the prevailment of that side
importeth them as the ball of their eyes.” Haines: _State Papers_,
p. 382.

[306] Throckmorton writes: “The Pope hath lent 100,000 crowns, and doth
monthly pay besides 6000 soldiers.” Forbes: _State Papers_, ii. p.
4.

[307] Forbes: _State Papers_, ii. pp. 16–20, 22–25.

[308] _Ibid._ p. 54; see Latin version of letter, pp. 55–57.

[309] The popular tradition says that Chassebœuf was hanged
_after_ the St. Bartholomew, by order of Henry of Guise.

[310] In order to disappoint the enemy, the clergy often appropriated
the church treasures, and thus the circulating medium of the kingdom
was quadrupled. Brantome declares that “there was now in France more
millions of gold than there had previously been livres of silver.”

[311] Paris: _Cab. Hist._ vi. p. 205. Perissin’s vigorous
engraving, “Le massacre fait à Tours par la populace, 1562,” represents
dead bodies lying naked on the river bank gnawed by dogs and birds;
men in boats braining with clubs such as tried to save themselves by
swimming, soldiers shooting at them in the water; men tied to trees and
disemboweled, etc.

[312] _Vie de Coligny_, p. 269.

[313] For an English account of the siege, see Forbes: _State
Papers_, pp. 117–127.

[314] La Poupelière, whom some writers have confounded with the
historian, La Popelinière, says: “En tous les rencontres de ceux de la
religion, il a fait piller, ne laissant que les murailles et que les
terres qui ne se pouvaient emporter.” _Canton d’Athis_, p. 44.

[315] Cf. De Bras de Bourgeville, a contemporary. _Mém. de l’Acad. de
Caen_, 1852.

[316] “Par l’oreille, l’épaule, et l’œil Dieu a mis trois rois au
cercueil;” meaning Francis II., Navarre, and Henry II.

[317] Jean de Troyes, abbot of Gastines, and Sapin, a councillor of
parliament. The life of a third, Odo de Selves, was spared, but he died
a few days after of fright.

[318] “Errants et vacables par les champs.” Floquet: _Hist. du Parl.
de Norm._ ii. p. 408. The _Registres_ of the Hôtel-de-Ville of
Rouen (4th Nov., 1562) contain a conciliatory letter from Catherine
worthy of more attention than it has hitherto received.

[319] Castelnau, p. 125; Throckmorton to Queen, 3d January, 1563, in
Forbes, _State Papers_, pp. 251, 263, 276.

[320] “The cavalry left their ranks, thinking it no shame to enrich
themselves with the spoils of the Papists.” _Vie de Coligny_, p.
277.

[321] Montaigne, liv. i. ch. xlv. (_De la Battaille de Dreux_),
highly extols this movement, comparing it with that where Philopœmen
defeated Machanidas.

[322] Damville was the constable’s second son.

[323] “The constable, so hated by the Reformed, had met with the same
fate, but for the interference of a gentleman named Vesines, who showed
them the baseness of the act.” _Vie de Coligny_, p. 277.

[324] “Ita tantæ pugnæ exitum moderatus est Deus, neutra uti pars victa
aut victrix dici possit.” Eytzinger, p. 43; Throckmorton’s letter in
Forbes, p. 251; and Andelot’s on p. 263.

[325] Paré: _Œuvres_, p. 796 (fol. Lyons, 1641). La Noue estimates
the killed alone at 9000; but nothing can be more hap-hazard than the
way in which writers of the period speak of numbers. Jean de Serres
says the prince lost about 2200 foot and 150 horse. 800 gentlemen
alone were killed. Forbes, p. 276. Beza speaks of 150 horse killed and
taken; but on the enemy’s side “infinita sunt vulnera et cædes maxima.”
Walsingham reckons the admiral’s force after the battle as 5000 horse
and 2000 foot, while Guise had 3000 horse and 16,000 foot. Forbes, p.
259. Coligny writes to Elizabeth: “Notre cavalerie est intacte.”

[326] Martin thinks the account of the Bishop of Riez “evidemment
arrangé, surtout en ce qui regarde Vassi.” _Hist. France_, ix. p.
152, note.

[327] Forbes, p. 277.

[328] _Ibid._ pp. 339 and 343.

[329] Schardius redivivus (fol. 1673): _Responsio_, iii. p. 113;
_Epistola_, iii. 119.

[330] Labitte, p. 15.

[331] Paris: _Cab. Hist._ ii. p. 289; iii. p. 48; _Vie de
Coligny_, p. 289; _Recueil des Chants Hist._ Paris, 1842.

[332] Wright’s _Elizabeth_, i. 125.

[333] Letter dated 29th March, 1563.

[334] Correro, the Venetian embassador, writes: “Come cominciorno
a rubare, rovinare e ammazzare, usando mille crudeltà, questo fu
avvertimento alle povere gente, che da loro istessi cominciorno a dire:
Ma che religione è questa? Costoro che fanno professione d’intender
meglio l’evangelio di nissuno altra, e dove trovano mai che Cristo
comandasse che se pigliasse la robba del prossimo e si ammazzasse
il compagno? E con simili considerazioni si frenevano, ne piu si
precipitavano come prima.” Tommaseo, ii. p. 118.

[335] Jean de Serres puts a similar reply into the mouth of the Duke
of Guise, when a complaint was made to him that, in these “uncivil
tumults” many Catholics were slain: “There is no remedy,” he made
answer; “we have too much people in France. I will deal so as victuals
shall be good cheap.” _Hist._ p. 703 (transl.).

[336] The particulars of this plot are given in a letter from Claude of
Lorraine to Damville, the date of which has been fraudulently altered
from 1563 to 1560. See Vauvilliers, i. 315. Tavannes says the plot was
concocted at Trent by the cardinal, and Lestoile dates the League from
this period.

[337] Blaise de Montluc: _Commentaires_ (Panthéon Littéraire,
Paris, 1836). His shattered monument may still be seen at Estillac
near Agen. The warrior, armed from head to foot, lies bare-headed on a
marble slab, his arms crossed over his breast; his features are coarse
and bold, his beard and mustache thick and long.

[338] The Abbé Caveyrac in his _Apology for Louis XIV._ (note, p.
7) says of the subsequent recantation of this blood-thirsty renegade,
that “he returned _sincerely_ to God.” Let us hope he did, but on
better grounds than Caveyrac’s word for it.

[339] Le Baron de Chapuys-Montlaville: _Hist. de Dauphiné_, ii. p.
358 (8vo. Paris, 1829).

[340] “Ruboribus interfusa, ut lutum sanguine maceratum.” Thuanus:
_De Vita sua_, lib. i. p. 1165.

[341] _Archives curieuses_, iii. 227; Varillas: _Hist. Charles
IX._ (Cologne, 1684).

[342] Discours de ce qui a été faict ès villes de Vallence et Lyon.
1562. A party pamphlet to be read with great caution.

[343] In one of these convents was found “La machination écrite
et signée faisant rôles des maisons des évangelistes et de toutes
autres personnes (qui n’avaient point de maison), pour les mettre à
mort, hommes, femmes et enfants, dans le 4 du dit mois de Mai.” This
“machination” had no existence but in the imagination of the writer.

[344] Pilot: _Occupation de Grenoble par les Protestants_.

[345] Arcère: _Hist. de la Ville de Rochelle_, i. p. 358 (4to.
Rochelle, 1756); Vincent: _Recherches sur les commencements de
Rochelle_: “La maladie d’abattre les images était quasi universelle.”

[346] One George Bosquet wrote a justification of this massacre:
“_Hugoneorum heret. Tolosæ conjur. profligatio memoriæ posita_,”
which was condemned by the council as a defamatory libel (18th June,
1563).

[347] Imberdis, p. 3.

[348] Jean de Serres (Serranus) adds that in the following year, 1563,
a troop of fifty horse surprised the town, tied Ralet to the top of his
house, and fired at him until they killed him (p. 701).

[349] Vitet: _Hist. Dieppe_, p. 77. (Paris, 1844.)

[350] De Bras: _Antiquités de Caen_, p. 170.

[351] The whole of this frightful catalogue will be found in the
“Théâtre des cruautés des hérétiques de notre temps, 1588.” Reprinted
in the _Archives curieuses de France_ (Cimber and Danjou), tom.
vi. series 1. p. 299. See also in the same collection, chap. xiv. of
the _Discours sur le Saccagement des Églises, etc. en 1562_, by
Claude de Sainctes, and the _Vrai Tocsain_. We must not accept for
truth all recorded by this writer, but after the most ample deduction
from his narrative there remains much to lament and condemn.

[352] Wright’s _Elizabeth_, i. 118.

[353] _Ibid._ i. 131.

[354] This letter was partly the composition of L’Hopital, and was
written by Montaigne, the essayist, at that time one of the royal
secretaries.

[355] Langueti Epist. ii. 281, (20th January, 1564): “Se enim satis
expertum quantum malorum.... Reginam nihil jam minus cogitare quam....”

[356] Instructions dated 1562, in Le Plat, v. pp. 151, 155.

[357] See a remarkable dispatch on this subject in the Rouen Library,
Leber, Bundle D, No. 5725.

[358] A portrait of Alva, by Titian, is at Warwick Castle.

[359] See Freer: _Elizabeth de Valois_, ii. ch. 2. In this chapter
we prefer to call the queen by her Spanish name, Isabella.

[360] Per il gran caldo. _Li Grandissimi Apparati_, etc. Padova,
1565.

[361] Walsingham to Smith, 14th September, 1572. Digges: _Compleat
Ambassador_, p. 241.

[362] The attendants of the court were so numerous, that they could not
be accommodated in the town, but had to lodge in the adjacent villages
or live in tents pitched in the surrounding fields.

[363] Abel Jouan: _Voyage de Charles IX._, printed by Baschi,
Baron d’Aubais, in his _Pièces fugitives pour servir à l’histoire de
France_. 4to. Paris, 1759. See also _Mém. de Marguerite_.

[364] _Recueil des choses notables qui ont esté faites à Bayonne_,
etc. 8vo. Paris, 1566; _Li Grandissimi Apparati e Reali Trionfi fatti
nella città di Baiona_. 8vo. Padova, 1565.

[365] Raumer: _Illustrations_, i. p. 121.

[366] _Papiers d’État_ de Granvelle, ix. p. 298. 4to. Paris, 1852,
ed. Weiss.

[367] “Che a loro sono occorse questi ruine per non aver voluto creder
e far quello che lui più di 8 anni li avvisò,” etc. 7th May, 1568.

[368] Davila gives the same idea in different words: lib. iii. Mathieu
(_Hist. France_, i. 283) says his authority was Calignon, a
Catholic, whose Memoirs were published by Gomberville in his Supplement
to the _Memoirs of Nevers_.

[369] Baschet: _La Diplomatie Vénitienne_, p. 522. Paris, 1862.

[370] It is clear from Alva’s letters first published in the _Papiers
d’Etat du Cardinal Granvelle_, ix. pp. 281–330, that the general
belief in a league to exterminate the Huguenots is erroneous, although
Adriani (_Storia Fiorent._) says expressly that Catherine had
agreed upon what they called “Sicilian Vespers,” and that the king was
to retire to the strong castle of Moulins in the Bourbonnais, where he
would be safe. But Adriani is the only person who ever saw the MSS. in
which he professed to read this. De Thou evidently did not believe the
story (ii. 377, _scribunt_ is his word); and Castelnau (liv. vi.
ch. 1) implies as much.

[371] Monitorium et Citatio in _Mém. de Condé_. 4to. 1743.
The French protest and remonstrance are in the same collection. A
remarkable memoir by Bapt. Dumesnil is given in Bouchel: _Bibl. du
Droit Franç._ p. 549; and _Preuves des lib. Egl. Gall._ chap.
iv. No. 27.

[372] The cardinal had occasioned great scandal by taking a wife and
calling her Countess of Beauvais, after his diocese.

[373] Some authorities give “Paris,” for even in a matter which ought
to be well known do the contemporary accounts differ.

[374] Paris: _Cab. Hist._ iii. p. 56.

[375] “Qu’il n’avait fait, ni fait faire l’homicide, et qu’il ne
l’avait approuvé ni approuvait.” Brulart’s _Journal_, 29th
January, 1566. This is hardly consistent with what he wrote at the time
of the murder: supra, p. 222.

[376] Jean de Serres.

[377] _Lettres_, liv. v. lett. 3.

[378] _Remonstrance envoyée au Roi par la Noblesse de la R. R. du
Maine_. 1565.

[379] Cimber, vi. 309; _Discours des troubles_ (5th June, 1566).

[380] This was said in the hearing of L’Hopital. Davila, i. 163 (Fr.
transl.).

[381] “Il y sera comme s’il était mort.” Archives de l’Empire,
_Papiers Simancas_, carton B. In reading Catherine’s letters to
her daughter we must not forget that they were to be seen by Philip
also, and that she could not be truthful, even when writing to her own
children.

[382] Brantome speaks in rapture of this “gentille et gaillarde armée,”
which was accompanied by “quatre cents courtisanes à cheval, belles et
braves comme princesses, et huit cents à pied, bien en point aussi.”

[383] Had Coligny’s proposal to stop Alva’s march been adopted, France
might have been saved much misery; for among other things it would have
satisfied the craving for war felt by that restless nation: “A quoi
(_sc._ la guerre) la plûpart étaient portés par le génie de la
nation, qui ne saurait demeurer en repos.” _Vie de Coligny_, p.
319.

[384] Schardius: _De Rebus gest. sub. Maximil._ ii. 64.

[385] Bouillon: _Mém._ i. p. 21.

[386] Capefigue: _La Réforme_, ch. xxxii., gives the text of the
“Instruction à M. Feuquières.” La Noue speaks of “certain intercepted
letters coming from Spain,” p. 389 (Engl. transl.).

[387] La Noue, p. 390 (Engl. transl.); De Thou, liv. xlii.

[388] La Popelinière, xiii. 81.

[389] Alva to king, 28th June, 1567: “Es increible el contentamiente
con que estan los catolicos de Francia de ver pasar estas fuerzas de
VM. en Flandres, que les paresce ser esta su redempcion; y así me dijo
un secretario del Card. de Lorena ... que el Card. su amo y toda la
casa de Guisa estavan resueltos como las fuerzas de VM. estuviesen en
Flandres, irse ellos á la corte, donde entien que esto les hará tan
gran sombra que serán vistos diferentemente de como lo han sido hasta
aqui.” Navarrete: _Docum. ined._ vi. 371.

[390] “Certo sciverunt Pontif. Rom. et reliquos principes ...
constituisse jam tentare Galliam ... conduxit itaque rex ad eam rem
perficiendam xx. signa Helvetiorum.”--To the same purport writes
Castelnau, 383.

[391] “Habillé en ménagier faisant ses vendanges.” Pasquier,
_Lettres_, ii. 117 (ed. 1723).

[392] La Noue, p. 395 (Engl. transl.).

[393] Had the Huguenots succeeded, they would have burned Paris. For
the proofs of such an improbable story see _Hist. relig. pol. etc. de
la Comp. de Jésus_, by J. Crétineau-Joly (3 éd. Paris, 1859), ii.
ch. ii. p. 85.

[394] Gachard: _Corresp. Philippe II._, tom. i. p. 593.

[395] “Car tant plus de morts, moeingz d’ennemys.” Letter of 8th
October, 1567. _Livre du Roy_. Grenoble MS. Gordes proving too
merciful in carrying out these harsh instructions, the cruel and
intemperate Maugiron was appointed his colleague.

[396] As crowds of American ladies are reported to have gone out to
witness the first battle of Bull Run.

[397] The Huguenots adopted white, the king’s color, to indicate their
loyalty; their opponents chose red, the emblem of Spain.

[398] One account says that the constable was really killed by “un
autre Ecossais,” who shot him in the loins.

[399] “Expetebat pacem, et ob eam rem adduxerant eum in suspicionem
apud vulgus ii qui sperant se ex calamitatibus publicis aucturos suas
opes et suam potentiam.... Fuit amans patriæ et moderatior,” etc.
Languet, _Epist._ i. 33

[400] “Edoctus suo malo ... omnino hoc incumbit ut Edictum ubique
mandetur executioni.” Languet, _Epist._ ii. 357.

[401] Borrel: _Hist. de l’Église Réf. de Nimes_, 12mo. Toulouse,
1856, p. 51.

[402] Baragnon: _Hist. de Nimes_, tom. ii.; an anonymous
_Histoire de la Ville de Nimes_, 8vo. Amsterd. 1767.

[403] Charronet: _Les Guerres de Religion dans les Hautes Alpes_,
p. 50. (8vo. Gap, 1863).

[404] “Ce qui restait du pillage des Huguenots était repillé par les
Catholiques.” Castelnau.

[405] “Discours des Raisons,” etc., in _Anc. Collect. Mém.
France_, xlviii. p. 224.

[406] La Noue, p. 409.

[407] Longjumeau is about four leagues south of Paris, on the old
coach-road to Orleans.

[408] Mezeray: _Abrégé_, iii. p. 1051. Montluc says: “Le prince et
l’amiral firent un pas de clerc, car ils avaient l’avantage des jeux.”
_Comment._

[409] Memoirs of Gaspar de Coligny (Edin. 1844), p. 116.

[410] Die Menschen verwilderten mit den Ländern.

[411] Archives of Tours. Luzarche (Victor): _Lettres historiques_,
p. 81 (Tours, 1861).

[412] Archives of Tours. Luzarche (Victor): _Lettres historiques_,
p. 89 (Tours, 1861).

[413] Languet, i. 58.

[414] “Reclamarunt autem quantum potuerunt legati pontif. Rom. et reg.
Hisp. immo aiunt eos Regi minitatos esse bellum, si hæreticis pacem
concederet, sed Regem ita respondisse ut eos terruerit.” Languet, i. 62.

[415] Gachard: _Corresp. de Philippe II._, vol. i. p. 609 (4to.
Bruxelles, 1848).

[416] Archives of Provins: Registres de Baptême. Charronnet: _Guerres
de Religion_, p. 60. Comptes consulaires de Gap. 1569.

[417] Claude Haton, p. 534.

[418] Thierry: _Tiers-État_, ii. 726.

[419] _Laderchii Ann. Eccles._ xxiii. 125, in Sismondi, xix. p. 21.

[420] _Journal de Lestoile._ The Orange Societies were originally
bound by a similar oath to “pay allegiance to the king and his
successors so long as they support the Protestant ascendancy.” The
loyal Catholics threatened to shut up Charles in a convent, and put
another in his place, if he tried to protect the Huguenots. De Thou, v.
p. 516.

[421] Dom Vaissette: _Hist. Languedoc_, tome v. p. 216, _note_.

[422] On the vaulted ceiling of the Tour de la Ligue is a striking
fresco representing Condé as Mars, Biragne as Vulcan, Catherine as
Juno, Margaret of Valois as a Muse, with other well-known historic
=characters=.

[423] Of this passage, Jean de la Haize, orator of La Rochelle, said:
“La faveur du ciel s’étant déclarée si miraculeusement pour votre
conservation, que la délivrance des enfans d’Israël par la Mer Rouge
n’est point plus admirable et extraordinaire.” _Second Discours
bref_, in Arcère, i. p. 369, _note_. Villegomblain (_Mém._
i. p. 16), says they crossed “near Les Rosiers,” four leagues below
Saumur, which must be a mistake. A spot just above Cosne was pointed
out to me by a lineal descendant of one of the sharers of this flight.

[424] In the Cotton MSS. (_Caligula_ E, vi. fol. 90) there is an
inventory of jewels and trinkets mortgaged to Elizabeth by Joan of
Navarre, Condé, and the admiral, 12th June, 1569.

[425] Champernon married a daughter of the famous Count of Montgomery.

[426] Raleigh’s Works, vi. pp. 157–158, 211.

[427] Mezeray describes the frost of 1570–71 as lasting three months,
during which the fruit-trees, even in Languedoc, were frozen down to
their roots. In March, 1572, Smith, the English embassador, writes from
Blois, complaining of “thirty days’ continued frost and snow.”

[428] Leicester to Randolph (March 13), blames Condé’s “overmuch
rashness,” and says his arm was broken by a shot. Wright’s
_Elizabeth_, i. 313.

[429] Champollion-Figéac: _Documents hist. inédits_, iv. p. 486
(4to. Paris, 1848).

[430] When Charles heard the news of Condé’s death “surgit e lecto,
properat ad summam ædem, alta voce depromit canticum _Te Deum_,
jubet campanas omnes solenniter pulsari.”

[431] One of the medals struck at Rome to commemorate this victory
represents the pope and cardinals kneeling and receiving from heaven an
answer to their prayers: the inscription is from the _Te Deum_:
“Fecit potentiam in brachio suo; dispersit superbos.” Bonanni:
_Numism. Pontif. Rom._ No. 14 (2 vols. fol. Romæ, 1699).

[432] Catena, _Vita di Pio V._ p. 85. He wrote to Catherine to
fight the enemies of God “_ad internecionem usque_;” and to Anjou
to show himself “_omnibus inexorabilem_.” He describes Coligny
as “_exsecrandum illum ac detestabilem hominem_, si modo homo
appellandus est.” See also No. xi. to Charles (6th March, 1569), in
Potter’s _Lettres de Pio V._ (8vo. Paris, 1826), where “punire
hæreticos eorumque duces omni severitate” will hardly support the
writer in the _Dublin Review_ (October, 1865), who contends that
the Church exulted over the St. Bartholomew massacre, not because the
victims were _heretics_, but because they were _rebels_. In
the prayer ordered by Clement IX. to be read on 1st May, Pius V. is
described as elect “ad conterendos ecclesiæ hostes.”

[433] “Death or Victory” had been Henry’s motto in certain court
masques, until Catherine, whose curiosity was piqued by the three Greek
initials he used, ordered him to discontinue them.

[434] Some years ago there was in the cabinet of Alfred de Vigny,
the author of _Cinq Mars_, a portrait, by an unknown painter,
of Prince Henry, when not more than three years old. It was full of
character and life.

[435] Sir James Stephen says that Andelot was slain at Moncontour.
_Lectures, Hist. France_, ii. p. 123. He died at Saintes, 27th
May; Moncontour was fought 3d October.

[436] D’Acier was ransomed for 10,000 crowns, on hearing of which
the pope wrote angrily to Count Santa Fiore, “che non avesse il
comandamento di lui osservato _d’ammazzar subito qualunque
heretico_ gli fosse venuto alle mani.” Catena: _Vita Pio V._

[437] _Simancas Archives_, Bouillé, ii. 448.

[438] Henry of Nassau had left his studies to join his brothers:
“dantem operam literis Argentorati fratres secum abduxerunt.” Languet:
_Epist. Secr._ i. 117.

[439] Raleigh: _Hist. World_, bk. v. ch. ii. sec. 8, p. 356 (fol.
1614).

[440] _Mém. de Perussis_ in Aubais, p. 106. The furniture
and valuables--sculptures by Goujon, and pictures by Italian
artists--filled 80 wagons, and produced 400,000 dollars by public
auction in Paris.

[441] _Epist. Pii papæ V._ Edid. Gouban, Antwp. 1640: “Nihil est
eâ misericordià crudelius.” Lib. iii. ep. 45, Octob. 20.

[442] _Hist. France_ (Le Fère and Piguerre), fol. 1581, p. 119,
_b_.

[443] De Thou. v. p. 610.

[444] Villegomblain: _Mém. des Troubles_, i. 255.

[445] Gilbert de Voisins: _Traité de Géognosie_.

[446] Weld’s _Auvergne and Piedmont_ contains an interesting and
picturesque description of a portion of this district.

[447] Henry and the Prince of Condé had each a regiment at the head of
which they made their apprenticeship in arms.

[448] Matthieu, i. liv. v. p. 327.

[449] Chatillon-sur-Loing (not _sur-Loire_), is in Loiret, five
leagues S.E. of Montargis, and 16 leagues E. of Orleans, on the left
bank of the Loing.

[450] _Simancas Archives_: Bouillé, ii. p. 454.

[451] Le Pipre: _Abrégé chron. de la Maison du Roi_, p. 30. (4to.
ed.).

[452] See also J. Rondinelli: _Oratio in exequiis Karoli IX._
Florentiæ, 1574.

[453] Walsingham to Leicester, 29th August, 1570.

[454] Digges: _Compleat Ambassador_, p. 7.

[455] Ad Camer. p. 132. “Omnes affirmant esse eximiæ voluntatis regem;
sed potentes sunt factiones eorum qui pacem improbant ... omnia sunt
hic tranquilla, nec dubitat quisquam regem esse pacis cupidissimum.” p.
136.

[456] Baschet, p. 252.

[457] “Nullam luci cum tenebris communionem, nullamque catholicis cum
hæ. reticis ... compositionem esse posse.” Letter of 29th January,
1570, Potter.

[458] Tours Archives. Luzarche: _Lettres historiques_ (1861), p.
129.

[459] “Voyant maintenant les affaires de mon royaume réduites au bon
état qu’elles sont (Dieu merci), après qu’il lui a plu pacifier des
troubles qui y étaient.” MSS. Bibl. Imp. in Soldan: _Frankreich und
die Bartholomæusnacht_.

[460] Bouillé, ii. 456, _note_. See also _État de France_, i.
12 _b_ (ed. 1579). _Le Tocsain_, p. 93 (ed. 1579).

[461] “Non sine magna procerum indignatione.” Elsewhere he is described
as a “monstrum nulla virtute redemptum.”

[462] “Miroir de la Justice divine.” L’Estoile.

[463] Davila, i. p. 500.

[464] He was made Duke of Nevers after his marriage with Henrietta of
Nevers, sister of Catherine of Cleves, the widow of Prince Porcien.
Henrietta was the eldest daughter of the Duke of Nevers and Margaret of
Bourbon, sister to Anthony of Navarre. Maria, the youngest daughter,
married Henry of Condé in 1572.

[465] Capefigue.

[466] He is reported to have spent several hours at his forge on the
very eve of the massacre.

[467] Under date 22d March, 1751, Smith writes to Burghley from Blois:
“Inordinate hunting, so early in the morning and so late at night,
without sparing frost, snow, or rain, and in so despotic a manner as
makes her (Catherine) and those that love him to be often in great
fear.”

[468] “Sanguineum reddebat in feras, _non_ in homines.” Raumer (i.
p. 271) suggests the omission of _non_, as being at variance with
history.

[469] The _Archives curieuses_ (viii.) contain a statement of the
sums paid by the king for the animals thus slain.

[470] _Recueil de ce qui a été faict à l’entrée_, etc., in the
Library of Ste. Geneviève.

[471] _Hist. de France_ (by Le Fère de Laval and Piguerre), fol.
1581. _Mém. État de France_, i. 40.

[472] Charronet, p. 65.

[473] A “chanson” of this period strikingly prefigures the massacre of
1572. Here is one verse:

    Nos capitaines, corporiaux,
    Ont des corselets tout nouveaux
      Et des cousteaux
    Pour Huguenots egorgetter
      Et une escharpe rouge
    Que tous voulons porter, etc.

    _Le Roux de Lincy_, ii. 295.

In another chanson (No. xvii.) Coligny is threatened:

    Pendu à une potence,
    Paissant de sa chair et peau
      Le corbeau.


[474] “There were men near to his sovereign (Charles IX.) who wished to
bring him up in the Reformed religion; but he (Philip) would anticipate
them, and embroil all the world beforehand.” Letter in Le Plat: _Mon.
Hist. Concil. Trident. Collect._ v. p. 571 (4to. Lovain, 1781–1787).

[475] Walsingham, 25th June, 1571.

[476] “Che ’l Francese sia quasi necessitato desiderare la guerra con
Spagnuoli.” Tommaseo: _Relations Vénitiennes_, ii. p. 171.

[477] Walsingham to Leicester, 5th March, 1572; Digges, p. 49.

[478] Alberi: _Vita di Caterina de’ Medici_.

[479] Walsingham (6th August, 1571) gives an account of this interview
from the report of the prince himself. Digges, p. 174. The _État de
France_ (i. 44.) says Catherine was present, which is a mistake.

[480] Walsingham to Burleigh, 12th August, 1571. “Galli apud Hispanos
in tantum suspicionem vivere.” _Schardius Rediv._ iv. p. 177.

[481] Walsingham to Leicester (22d April, 1571) shows Teligny’s footing
with the king. The embassador hints at opposition to the war against
Spain lest it should give the management to other hands and parties.

[482] After Teligny’s murder she married William of Orange. The present
Count of Paris is descended from Louisa of Coligny, through his mother
Helena of Mecklenburg.

[483] She admired in Coligny “un assortiment rare de vertus et de
talens qui lui rendaient la haute idée de l’ancien héroïsme.” Arcère:
_Hist. Rochelle_ (4to. 1756), i. p. 392. In order to prevent the
marriage, the nuncio Salviati proposed her assassination: “Le remède
serait de se débarrasser, par tous les moyens possibles, de cette
méchante fiancée.” Coquerel: _La Sainte-Barthélemy_ (Paris, 1859),
p. 27, _note_.

[484] Digges, p. 122. Walsingham to Burghley, 12th August, 1571.

[485] About this time Catherine wrote to La Mothe-Fénelon: “L’amiral
est ici avec nous, qui ne désire rien plus que d’aider en tout ce qu’il
peut ... comme aussi à s’employer en toutes choses concernant le bien
du service du roi comme son fidèle sujet.” 27th September, 1571.

[486] Fénelon to the king, 30th September, 1571, repeating Walsingham’s
dispatch to his own government.

[487] _Mém. of Coligny._ Translated by D. D. Scott (12mo.
Edinburgh, 1844).

[488] Fénelon’s Dispatches, October, 1571.

[489] “La maison de Montmorency étaient ceux qui en avaient porté les
premières paroles.” _Mém. de Marguerite._

[490] Chantonnay’s letter of 23d May, 1562; also hinted at in
Aubespine, p. 844.

[491] Walsingham to Leicester, 17th February, 1571.

[492] He was married 17th September, 1570.

[493] Popelinière, ii. fol. 44 _b_.

[494] Charles to De Ferrals, 5th October, 1571. “The most eminent and
faithful of my servants agree with me that, in the present condition of
my kingdom, this marriage is the best means of ending all troubles.”
Raumer, i. 277. The correspondence in Digges is to the same effect.

[495] Walsingham writes 16th August: “The queen-mother had provided
both jewels and wedding.” Digges, p. 135.

[496] _Le Tocsain_ (ed. 1579), p. 77.

[497] “Linerolles, who by the house of Guise and the rest of the
Spanish faction was made an instrument to dissuade his master....” (8th
December, 1571.) “Linerolles, the chief dissuader of the marriage.”
31st December, 1571, in Digges. For another account see Freer’s
_Henry III._ i. p. 72. Sorbin (_Le vray Resveille-Matin_)
says he was killed at Bourgueil, _not_ at Blois.

[498] “Toutes marques, vestiges, et monumens des dites exécutions, etc.
... ordonnons le tout estre osté et effacé.”

[499] Felibien, ii. p. 1112.

[500] There is a letter from Charles to Marshal Cossé (6th November,
1571): “Je veux que vous fassiez ôter la pyramide, et _que vous me
fassiez obéir_, car le temps est venu qu’il le faut faire.” Soldan,
ii. p. 423.

[501] It stood here until destroyed in the Revolution.

[502] Anquetil, Peyrat, and others say _May_, but Sir Thomas
Smith, writing from Blois, 3d March, 1572, says: “This day the Queen
of Navarre is looked for;” and Walsingham (29th March) reports an
interview with her at Blois. Charles writes to Fénelon (8th March) that
the Queen of Navarre arrived eight or nine days ago.

[503] L’Estoile (_Journ. Henri III._) and Sully both give the same
story, evidently from common gossip.

[504] The whole tenor of Charles’s letter to Fénelon (8th March, 1572)
is in contradiction to the story given in the text. He says: “My aunt
shows a good disposition to conclude the marriage.... There is a very
good appearance of it.”

[505] _Lettres du Card. d’Ossat_ (fol. Paris, 1641), Lettre 185,
p. 426. The Edinburgh reviewer (June, 1826) pressed this very unfairly
against Dr. Lingard. The “enemies” might have been Spain. Catena, who
had been secretary to the cardinal, speaks out more distinctly, but
his report will not bear examination: “Io voglio punir questi malvaggi
e felloni, facendogli tagliar tutti a pezzi, o non esser re, perdendo
affatto la corona.” _Vita del Papa Pio V._ p. 196 (Roma, 1647).

[506] Davila, liv. v.; Capilupi: _Lo Stratagema_; and De Thou give
this story, but the latter does not believe it. Ant. Gabut (_Vita
Pii V._) gives the inscription on the ring which Charles sent to
Alessandrino after the death of Pius V.: “Non minus hæc solida est
pietas, ne solvi.” In the _Mém. Etat de France_, the legate “s’en
allait bien content.” I. 150.

[507] Digges, 3d March, 1572, p. 193.

[508] “Il est du tout impossible de l’y disposer si chaudement.” L.
Paris: _Cab. Hist._ ii. p. 231.

[509] Soldan treats it as a fable, _note_ 142.

[510] Mackintosh: _Hist. England_, iii. Appendix D. Raumer, i.
p. 281. After a description of the admiral’s murder and the massacre,
the king “hopes that _now_ the holy father will make no more
difficulties about the dispensation.”

[511] “Con alcuni particolari che io porto, de’ quali ragguaglierò N.
S^{ne} a bocca, posso dire di non partirmi affatto male expedito.”
Letter to Rusticucci (6th March, 1572), in _Lettere del Sr. Ch.
Alessandrino_, quoted by Ranke, _Franz. Gesch._ bk. iv. ch. 3.

[512] Her description of Catherine’s facility of lying is short and
graphic: “Elle me le renie _comme beau meurtre_ et me rit au nez.”

[513] Baschet, p. 488.

[514] Walsingham to Burghley, 29th March, 1572; Digges.

[515] “Capitis sui jacturam facturum esse” Gabut: _Vita Pii V._ in
_Acta Sanctorum_ (Maii), I. cap. v. § 240 (fol. Antverp. 1580).

[516] _Journal de L’Estoile_, p. 73. The words are rather
different in the _Reveille-Matin_, but the sense is the same.

[517] Grabut, _Vita Pii V._ cap. v. § 244. If Charles was not
misleading the pope, these “designs” may have been the Flemish war.

[518] Bouillé: _Hist. Guise_, ii. 492.

[519] Claude Haton: _Mém._ ii. p. 663.

[520] This is clear from her despairing language to Fénelon: “Vous êtes
sur le point de perdre un tel royaume et grandeur pour mes enfans ...
nous pourrions avoir ce royaume entre les mains d’un de nos enfans.” 2d
February, 1571, _Corresp. diplom._ Paris, 1840–41, ed. by Teulet.

[521] The nuncio promised him 100,000 crowns. Walsingham to Cecil, 8th
February, 1572, in Wright’s _Elizabeth_, p. 386. See also letter
of 17th February, in Digges, p. 43.

[522] Charles, writing to Fénelon (19th Jan. 1572), mentions a
discussion about inserting the words “_of attacks under pretext of
religion_,” and what Walsingham had said on the matter about a
general Protestant Confederation. See Digges, pp. 169–173.

[523] There is abundant evidence in the Fénelon correspondence. On the
20th March, 1572, Charles writes that Queen Mary “had exhorted the Duke
of Alva to hasten to send ships to Scotland to seize her son,” and
that “she would commit herself to the King of Spain.” He bids Fénelon
tell her to write no more such ciphers, and “de se départir de telles
pratiques et menées.” Walsingham’s correspondence shows that Spain,
Guise, the pope, and others were conspiring to prevent Elizabeth from
helping Flanders by an invasion of Ireland, “to which the king was not
privy.” Digges, p. 36 (Letter of 8th February), p. 38.

[524] Charles to Fénelon, 20th March, 1572: “We are in great hope of
the marriage (of Alençon).... If it be accomplished, I shall not be
ungrateful.”

[525] Raumer, i. 196.

[526] _Simancas_ Archives. Paris: _Cab. Hist._ iii. 67.

[527] Gachard: _Bull. Acad. Brux._ xvi. 1849 (pte. 1).

[528] _Simancas Archives._ Paris: _Cab. Hist._ iii. 67.

[529] “Quelque bon jeu.” Bouillé.

[530] Gachard: _Corresp. de Philippe II._ 4to. Bruxelles, 1848, t.
ii. p. 269.

[531] Ellis’s _Letters_, p. 10; see also pp. 16 and 18.

[532] _Mém. de Duplessis-Mornay_, Paris, 1824.

[533] Walsingham to Burghley, 18th July, 1572. Grotius, _Ann._ p.
37, says 5000 foot and 500 horse.

[534] Alva’s letters of 13th and 21st June, and 18th July.

[535] The Grand Seignor heard of the proposed Flemish war, and offered
to help Charles with two galleys and some troops. Sully: _Mém._ i.
p. 15 (Engl. ed.).

[536] Baschet, p. 540: “La guerra per quattro o sei di continui fu
tenuta deliberata.” Tommaseo: _Relations Vénitiennes_, ii. p. 171.

[537] “Tuttavia ne far ogni maggiore istanza.” See also his letters
dated 20th and 23d August. Alberi: _Vita di Caterina de Medici_,
4to. Florence, 1838.

[538] Digges, p. 231.

[539] Letter to Burghley. Digges, pp. 231–234.

[540] Sir Thomas Smith writes 22d August: “There is no revocation
(recall of troops) done nor meant.” Digges, p. 237.

[541] The Memoirs of Tavannes put this beyond a doubt.

[542] Digges, p. 234.

[543] Favyn says 10th June; an inscription in the _État de France_
gives _Idus Junii_ (13th).

[544] Letter to Mdlle. de Guillerville, 12 June, 1572; Paris. _Cab.
Hist._ ii. p. 227. Sir H. Norris testifies to the unhealthiness of
Paris: he took a house beyond the walls, “to be out of the corrupt
air of the town, which surely is such as none other to be compared
to Paris.” Wright: _Elizabeth_, i. 306. See also Coryat:
_Crudities_.

[545] Mdlle. Vauvilliers, whose conscientious biography of Joan of
Navarre is marred by the absence of dates and authorities, says that an
autopsy was _several times ordered, but never made_ (iii. p. 194).
On the other hand, the _Chronologie Novennaire_ expressly states
that Caillard, her physician, and Desnœuds, her surgeon, dissected the
queen’s brain, which they found in a sound state. On her death, see
Villegomblain: _Mém. des Troubles_, i. 259; Bury: _Hist. Henri
IV._ (4to. Paris, 1765); Favyn: _Hist. Navarre_, p. 863 (fol.
Paris, 1612).

[546] _Lettres missives de Henri IV._ i. p. 31. _Collect. des
Doc. Hist. France._

[547] Matthieu, I. liv. vi. p. 343. A long list of these warnings will
be found in the _Reveille-Matin_.

[548] “Non solo con le parole ma con gli effetti;” and Michieli adds,
“quanto agli effetti, quello che è poi seguito contra gli Ugonotti.”

[549] Michieli: _Relazione_; Baschet. Salviati wrote (24th
August): “Quando scrissi ai giorni passati che l’ammiraglio _s’avanza
troppo_, e che gli darebbero sù l’unghe (a rap on the knuckles), già
mi era accorto che non lo volevano più tollerare.” Walsingham was quite
of Coligny’s opinion about the war.

[550] Tavannes says: “There was no other resolution for the massacre
than what the admiral and his adherents occasioned.”

[551] Grabut says the marriage took place, “Gregorii XIII. permissu.”
_Acta Sanctorum._

[552] “Lunedì (25 Agosto) la corte se ritira a Fontanablo, dove la
regina farà il suo parto.” Petrucci, letter 20th August. On the 23d,
giving Duke Cosmo an account of the attempt on the admiral’s life, he
says: “Si pensava che la corte partisse martedì prossimo” (26th August).

[553] Davila says that when she was asked whether she would take Henry
for her husband, she made no reply, and that Charles with his own hand
bent her head as if to nod assent. Margaret is silent on the matter.

[554] Charles IX. to Ferrails, 24th August: “All my subjects have
exhibited the greatest joy and contentment” at the marriage. It is
clear from this letter that the dispensation had not arrived. Raumer,
i. 281.

[555] This is in direct contradiction to Tavannes, who says: “il
continue ses audaces, importune, se fâche, _menace de partir_,”
etc. P. 416.

[556] We abridge rather than translate Anjou’s narrative, whose
authenticity is doubtful. It will not bear minute comparison with other
statements of indisputable truthfulness.

[557] See Salviati’s letter of 24th August. Mackintosh: _Hist.
England_. Anjou does not mention the presence of the duke at this
meeting.

[558] “Maurevers et non pas Maurevel,” according to the _Art de
Vérifier_, but erroneously; he is also called Moruel, Montravel,
Maurevert, and Moureveil. His real name was Louvier, sire de Maurevert
en Brie. For his murderous services he was rewarded with two good
abbeys. L’Estoile’s _Journal_. He accompanied Marshal de Retz
on his embassy to England in 1573, and on his arriving at Greenwich,
where the court was staying, he was recognized by a page, and pointed
out as “the admiral’s murderer!” A shout of execration was raised, he
was chased by the rabble, and never dared show himself again. _Etat
de France_, ii. 217. He was killed in 1583, in the Rue St. Honoré,
by young Arthur Mouy, who was immediately after shot by one of the
guards who always attended the _tueur du roi_. Villegomblain,
_Mém._ p. 144. _Journal du Règne de Henri III._ p. 71, ed.
Cologne, 1672. This last epithet could hardly have been earned by the
commission of one murder--that of Mouy. At the siege of Rochelle, none
of the principal officers would associate with him, and he was sent to
an isolated post. See Bouillon’s _Memoirs_, p. 14.

[559] Some writers have supposed that through her daughter Margaret,
Catherine discovered a scheme concerted between Charles and Coligny to
banish both her and the Guises from court; and that a common danger
made her combine with Duke Henry to crush the Huguenots, trusting to
find the means afterward of counterbalancing the house of Lorraine.

[560] It was the hotel of the Counts of Ponthieu; and in the 18th
century became an inn, under the title, “Hotel de Lisieux.” _Hommes
illustres de la France_, 1747.

[561] He left with a “sad and dejected countenance,” says the
_Reveille-Matin_: “Si facesse pallido e restasse smarrito
oltro modo, e senza dir parola si ritirasse.” Giovanni Michieli,
_Relazioni_, November, 1572.

[562] Letter of Petrucci, 23d August. _Archiveo Mediceo._

[563] Cimber, vii. p. 211.

[564] Michieli, the Venetian embassador, says that Guise had nothing
to do with it (Baschet: _Relazioni_, p. 551), and adds that on
_Friday_ night the queen and Anjou told Charles of the plot.

[565] The Neustadt letter has “Brüdern und Mütter.” _Archiv. f.
Geschichte, etc._ xvii. 1826 p. 278 (8vo. Wien). This periodical
contains a curious letter from an eye-witness of the massacre addressed
to L. Gruter, bishop of Wiener-Neustadt, entitled _Relation der
franz. auff St. Bartholomäi Tag vorgegangenen erschröcklischen
Execution über die Hugenoten, 1572, den 24 Augusti, anno 1572_.

[566] With a few verbal changes, the account of this interview is taken
from Golding’s _Life of Jasper Coligny_. London, 1576.

[567] La Chapelle des Ursins made the same reproach to Catherine, July,
1572. St. Foix: _Hist. Ordre Saint-Esprit_, i. p. 203.

[568] “So ime auf den Füss trette, wolle er demsellben auf die Versen
tretten.” _Neustadt Letter_, p. 278.

[569] “Hic regi in arcano quædam a Colinio insinuata divulgatum est;
alii tamen negant et secretum hoc de industria a regina impeditum,
ne....” De Thou.

[570] This is from Anjou’s narrative; but whether proceeding from him,
or De Retz (as some think), there are no means of testing it.

[571] “Il avait alentour de lui neuf médecins et onze chirurgiens.”
_Mém. de l’État de France_, ii. 31 _b._

[572] La Noue.

[573] The Hôtel de Clisson, afterward de la Miséricorde, was purchased
by the Duchess of Guise in 1553. The old gate-way forms the entrance to
the modern École des Chartes.

[574] “Le malheur avait voulu que Maurevel avait failli son coup.”
_Mém. de Marguerite._

[575] “Se l’archibugiata ammazava subito l’ammiraglio, non mi risolvo a
credere che si fosse a un pezzo.” Salviati’s letter of August 24.

[576] This meeting is not mentioned in Anjou’s narrative; but there
must have been some such preliminary consultation between the
conspirators.

[577] Catherine afterward asserted that she had desired the death of
six men only: “Reginam dictitare se tantum sex hominum interfectorum
sanguinem in suam conscientiam recipere.” Serranus: _Status
Reipubl._ x. 29.

[578] It is stated in the Neustadt letter that the Swiss soldiers of
Navarre mounted guard inside the house, while the French guard were
posted outside, immediately after the king’s visit on Friday, and that
the pass-word was very strict, in order to prevent any fresh attempt on
the admiral’s life. _Archiv. für Geschichte_, etc. xvii. 1826, p.
278.

[579] Paris: _Cabinet Hist._ ii. 259.

[580] _Archives de Mons._

[581] Digges, p. 254.

[582] Brantome calls De Retz the first and principal adviser of the
deed; Davila says that he obtained the king’s consent to the massacre;
and Margaret states that the queen-mother sent him to Charles between
nine and ten o’clock at night, “because he (De Retz) had more influence
with him,” and that he justified his mother and Anjou for trying to
get rid of that pest “the admiral.” Tavannes partly supports these
statements. I give the preference (reluctantly) to Anjou’s narrative,
because it removes much of the confusion which would otherwise envelop
the remainder of this eventful day.

[583] On this Menselius remarks, that if the account be true, “Ipse
(Anjou) cum matre minime cædis detestandæ particeps habendus esset,
sed solus rex Carolus eandem animo concessisset.” _Bibliotheca
Historica_, vii. pars 2^a, p. 213. Lipsiæ, 1795. Few will agree with
the conclusion.

[584] Juan de Olaegni says that Marcel, “cabeça de los vezinos,”
was sent for, but the city registers say Le Charron. Gachard:
_Particularités inédites_ in _Bull. Acad. Sci. Bruxelles_,
xvi. 1849, p. 235. If the “au soir bien tard” of Anjou’s narrative
means “late in the afternoon,” there were probably two meetings, at the
latter of which Marcel was present.

[585] “Envoiez et portez ... de fort grand matin.” _Registres_ in
Cimber’s _Archives Curieuses_.

[586] _Réveille-Matin._ Margaret, writing twenty-four years after
the event, says that Henry, by the king’s advice, had invited them to
the Louvre, where they would be safer in case of tumult. I give the
preference to her statement.

[587] Mr. Froude (x. 397) writes _Malin_, which is probably a
misprint.

[588] Favyn (_Hist. Navarre_, p. 867) says that after supper,
“about eleven o’clock,” the king went down to his forge with Navarre,
Condé, and others, where they all worked as usual, until between one
and two, when the tocsin was rung.

[589] The _Réveille-Matin_ and the _Mém. État de France_ say,
“attended only by a fille-de-chambre.”

[590] “Ainsi que le jour commençait à poindre.” Now as the sun rose
that day at five o’clock, this would make it a little after four, which
does not harmonize with other statements.

[591] We must remember that Anjou is vindicating himself, and that his
narrative, like the confession of a criminal, endeavors to extenuate
his crime.

[592] According to Burg, he, Koch, and Grunenfelder were the admiral’s
murderers; he does not mention Dianowitz. “At unus [M.K.] e tribus
audacior bipenni (_i. e._, halberd) ilium miserum transfixit,
tertio ipse [C.B.] eum graviter percussit, itaque septimo tactus
tandem (mirum!) in caminum cecidit.” Letter of August 26, from Joachim
Opserus, then at the College of Clermont, to the Abbot of St. Gall.
_Archives de l’Hist. Suisse_, Zürich, ii. 1827. The Neustadt
letter does not corroborate this account.

[593] The Neustadt letter says the admiral was in bed, pretending to be
asleep: “Danach wider zu Beth gelegt, und schlaffendt angenomen, dan er
woll gedacht es wurde ime ietzo gelten.” P. 279.

[594] A similar story--too well founded on the traditions of Würtemberg
to admit of doubt--is told of the reformer Brenz (Brentius); but in his
case the period during which the hen supplied him with food was eight
days.

[595] “Tened piedad de la vejez,” writes Olaegui.

[596] Beza: _Mors Ciceronis_.

[597] Juan de Olaegui says that Guise “le dió un pistoletazo en la
cabeza,” and then flung him from the window. This is probably the
pistol-shot which so alarmed the royal murderers at the Louvre, though
another report (Alva’s _Bulletin_) says it was fired at the body
as it lay dead in the court-yard. The Neustadt letter represents
Coligny as struggling vigorously against four Swiss soldiers (das irer
vier kümmerlich ime bezwingen mögten), and that a French soldier killed
him by shooting him in the mouth. Behm was rewarded with the hand of
a natural daughter of Cardinal Lorraine, and Philip II. gave him 6000
scudi (ostensibly as a dowry) for his life. See Petrucci’s letter
(September 16, 1572), in Alberi, _Vita di Caterina_, p. 149. In
1575 he was captured by the Huguenots near Jarnac, as he was returning
from Spain, and put to death.

[598] Alva’s _Bulletin_. Tavannes says: “embrasse la fenêtre;”
Serranus: “brachio fenestræ columnam complectitur, ibi acceptis aliquot
vulneribus.”

[599] It is uncertain to whom the disgrace of this last indignity
attaches, some imputing the cowardly act to Angoulême. Alva, who was
instructed by Gomicourt, says Guise did it; so also the _Journal de
Henri III._: “Le roi donna un coup de pied ... ainsi que le Duc de
Guise en avait donné au feu amiral,” p. 118. (Cologne, 1672.)

[600] The Neustadt letter says it was cut off for the sake of the
reward: “damit noch 2000 Kronen zu gewinnen.” Alva says: “la mettant au
bout de son épée, la portait par la ville, criant, Voilà la tête d’un
méchant.” _Bulletin_, p. 563. He adds the body was torn in pieces
by the mob, so that “jamais on n’en sût recouvrer pièce.” At the time
Gomicourt wrote to Alva, it was not known what had become of it.

[601] Malgaigne, the latest biographer of Paré, does not believe the
tradition that the great surgeon was specially saved from massacre, and
denies that he was a Huguenot.

[602] Some writers make him two or three years younger.

[603] _De Civilibus Galliæ dissentionibus_, lib. 2, Nos. 39 and
52, apud Martene, _Veter. Script._ tom. v. 1459. Jacques Coppier,
in a versified pamphlet on the massacre, called the _Déluge des
Huguenots_, calls the admiral “Ce grand Caspar au curedent.”

[604] Harleian MSS. No. 1625. In the _Complainte et Regretz du G.
de C._ (Paris, 1572) the dead admiral is supposed to express his
regret: “J’ai honni ma maison en trahissant la France--Et ruiné les
miens par mon outrecuidance.” See also another abusive pamphlet: _Le
Discours sur la Mort du G. de C._, Paris.

[605] Coryat (p. 16) describes it as “the fairest gallows” he ever saw.
It was on a hill, and consisted of fourteen pillars of freestone, and
was “made in the time of the Guisian massacre to hang the admiral.”
In this he is wrong; other authorities reckon sixteen pillars on a
stone platform, tied together by two rows of beams. The bodies were
left a prey to beasts and birds; and the bones fell into a charnel
where the filth of the streets was shot. _Le Gibet de M._
by Firmin-Maillard, 18mo. Paris, 1863; _Des Anciennes fourches
patibulaires de M._, by M. de la Villegille, Paris, 1836.

[606] “After the massacre his body was exposed with the eternal
_tooth-pick in his mouth_.” _Edinb. Review_, cxxiv. 1866, p.
369. This is a mistake, the body was headless.

[607] “Graveolentiam scilicet hostilium cadaverum, quibusvis odoribus
et pigmentis esse sibi fragrantiorem.”

[608] Even Brantome is disgusted: he says the smell is certainly not
sweet; “point bonne, et la parole aussi mauvaise.”

[609] The Neustadt letter says that Teligny offered to ransom his life
for 1000 crowns, which the captain agreed to accept if Guise would
permit him. “I am a poor fellow, and 1000 will be of great use to
me.”--“You are a fool,” answered the duke; “don’t you think the king
will reward you better?” Teligny and his wife were poniarded. Teligny’s
wife was _not_ killed; she afterward married William of Orange.

[610]

    At furiis agitata novis regina superba
    Signa cani properat, venturæ nuncia cædis,
    Ne regis mutata loco sententia cedat.

    _Tragica historia de miseranda laniena_, by R. Fresner, Emdæ, 1583.


[611] The tower on the Quai de l’Horloge, pointed out to strangers as
that from which the signal was given, is of later date.

[612] “Á las iij horas de la mañana.” Olaegui. Beza’s account would
place it a little later. “C’était au point du jour.” _Mém. de l’État
de France_, i. 217.

[613] Jean de Gorris, years after his conversion, was so terrified at
seeing his litter surrounded by soldiers, whom he imagined about to
repeat the heresies of the Saint Bartholomew, that he was struck with
paralysis.

[614] The sun rose at 5h. 6m. on August 24.

[615] There are great difficulties in fixing the time of this murderous
scene. Davila and the Neustadt letter (p. 272) place it _before_
the ringing of the tocsin, that is to say, before day-light; while it
is hard to believe that Margaret could be mistaken, or that the murders
were committed _after_ the tocsin. Probably it was a little after
four o’clock, as from an experiment made last 24th August, it would not
have been possible to distinguish the king’s features earlier.

[616] The Neustadt letter says the night was far advanced (folgentz
spädt in der Nacht) when the king sent for Henry, after which the
Duke of Bouillon posted the soldiers told off to murder the Huguenot
gentlemen.

[617] Margaret says thirty or forty, which is more probable.

[618] French history has an unfortunate habit of repeating itself in
its worst characteristics:--“He is at the outer gate, conducted into a
howling sea; forth under an arch of wild sabres, axes, and pikes; and
sinks hewn asunder. And another sinks, and another, and there forms a
piled heap of corpses, and the kennels were red.” Carlyle: _French
Revolution_ (September 4–6, 1792), pt. 3, bk. 1.

[619] _Etat de Fr._ i. 209 _b_; at ii. 25. Henry of Navarre
is said to have witnessed the murders.

[620] _Discours simple et véritable_, p. 36. Only two days before
this, Charles and De Pilles had bathed together in the Seine, the
latter holding the king’s chin and teaching him how to swim. Brantome:
_Hom. Ill._ x. p. 193.

[621] _De Furoribus Gallicis_; _Réveille-Matin, etc._

[622] “Non sine magno et effuso risu.” Serranus.

[623] The name of this individual is not of importance; but he is
called _Lerac_ by Brantome, and _Teyran_ by Mongez. _Hist.
Marg. de Valois._ He was probably Gabriel de Levis, Viscount of
Léran, the “Leiranus” of De Thou, and Leyran of Laval and Piguerre.

[624] Some accounts place this scene on the 26th, after Charles
returned from the _lit de justice_. Did he threaten them twice?
A similar threat is recorded on September 9, when Elizabeth his queen
intervened with tears.

[625] The same figure is used by the author of the _Illustre
Orbandole, où Hist. de Châlons-sur-Saone_. Lyon, 1672, b. 1, pt. 2,
p. 10. “Une saignée fut si sagement ordonnée pour éteindre la chaleur
d’une fièvre que des remèdes plus doux n’avait (_sic_) fait
qu’irriter.”

[626] Cimber, _Arch. Cur._ vii. 217, Registres. _Réveille-Matin_, 64.
Mezeray, iii. p. 258. _Mém. État de France_, i. 216.

[627] _Comptes de l’Hotel-de-Ville_, Félibien, ii. 1121.

[628] Bussy thus effectually gained his suit about the earldom of
Renel. “Hérite-t-on, Seigneur, de ceux qu’on assassine?”

[629]

    Comme les autres Pluviaut
    A, faute de vin, bu de l’eau.


[630] It is written Odet Petit in Duplessis-Mornay’s _Memoirs_.

[631] Supra, p. 343.

[632] Pasquier, _Lettres_, p. 363. Some Englishmen are reported to
have defended themselves successfully.

[633] In a receipt for his stipend (_penes auct._) dated 1563,
he is called “Seigneur de la Ramée,” and a “noble et scientifique
personne.”

[634] There is a picture by Robert Fleury, exhibited about 1840, in
which Ramus is represented sitting up in a bed on the floor, while his
servant listens anxiously at the door.

[635] _Chronographia_, p. 776, fol. Paris, 1600.

[636] “Nobis vel potius reip. satis pœnarum dedit.” In the dedication
of his “Comparison between Plato and Aristotle,” published in January,
1573, Charpentier compliments the Cardinal of Lorraine on the
“brilliant and sweet day that shone over France in the month of August
last.” Dorat says of Ramus punningly: “Maximum _ramum_ maxima
furca decet.”

[637] Claude Haton says he was killed “more than a week after the
declaration,” as he was riding to his court.

[638] Now the Quai de la Mégisserie, between the Pont Neuf and the Pont
au Change.

[639] Jacques Coppier jests on the bodies “envoyés à Rouen sans
bateau.” Another writer thus plays on the memorable _mot_ of
Charles IX.:

    Cumque tuæ passim submersa cadavera plebis
      Volvat in æquoreas Sequana tristis aquas,
    Tu pisces illis vesci, qui mandere pisces
      Noluerint, Roma præcipiente, refers.

    _Illustr. aliquot Germ. Carm. lib. de immani laniena._ Vilnæ, 1573,
      p. 8.

A pamphleteer declares:

    Ha! vous serez ingrats, poissons, vous auriez tort,
    Si ne les recevez, du moins, après la mort,
    Puisque tant ils vous ont donné de courtoisie,
    De ne vouloir jamais vous manger en leur vie.

    _Discours sur les Guerres intestines_; par I. T., Paris, 1572.


[640] Agrippa d’Aubigné gives us the sequel of this man’s history. He
assumed a hermit’s frock, and murdered the passengers he lured to his
hermitage, “so unquenchable was his thirst for blood.” He met his tardy
reward on the gibbet.

[641] _Journ. de Henri III._, i. p. 32 (anno 1574).

[642] _Le Tocsain_, p. 145 (Rheims, 1579).

[643] Fronde says hastily, that the story rests only on the “worthless
authority of Brantome.” _Hist. Engl._ x. 406. Now Brantome was a
terrible gossip, but what could induce him to coin such a detestable
story? Smedley (_Prot. Ref. France_, ii. 367) also says, “the fact
is not mentioned by D’Aubigné,” which a subsequent note will show to
be a mistake. Mezeray (_Abrégé_, 1665) says: “Le roy ... tâchait
de les canarder;” Bossuet: “Le roi qui les tirait par les fenêtres.”
The _Réveille-Matin_, published in 1574, mentions it: so that the
story was at least contemporaneous.

[644] _Mém. État de France_, i. 1579 (2d ed.), 212 _b_.

[645] “De laquelle ce prince _giboyait_ de la fenêtre,” ed. 1626,
p. 548. In his poem of _Les Tragiques_ he refers to the same
report, using the same characteristic expression:

    Ce roy, non juste roy, mais juste harquebusier,
    Giboyait aux passans trop tardif à noyer,
    Vantant ses coups heureux.

    _Les Fers_, p. 240.

This paints the king firing on the yet living bodies as they floated
down the river. Agrippa is not an authority for the fact; but it is
something to show that the report existed so early. I am told that a
plate of the time represents this window as walled up. If this be true,
why was it closed?

[646] Du Cerceau farther tells us that, at the time when the first part
of his work appeared, the great gallery intended to unite the Louvre
with the Tuileries had been begun.

[647] The time was about five, which gave him two hours’ start of Guise.

[648] _Memoirs of Sully_ (transl.), 4to. London, 1761, p. 27.

[649] _Mém. et Corresp. de Duplessis-Mornay_ (8vo. Paris,
1824–34), i. p. 45. He escaped to Rye, which, after suffering from a
severe pestilence, had been “replenished by the French, who sheltered
themselves here from the great massacre ...; so that, in 1582, were
found inhabiting here 1534 persons of that nation.” Jeake (Sam.):
_Charters of the Cinque Ports_ (Lond. 1728), p. 108.

[650] Granvelle, hearing that L’Hopital and his wife were murdered,
writes exultingly, and hopes that Catherine will soon be disposed of.
See Michelet: _La Ligue_, p. 475.

[651] _Mém. authentiques de Jacques Nompar de Caumont_: ed. by
Marquis de la Grange, 8vo. Paris, 1843. Voltaire in his poetry adopts
Mezeray’s account, that the father and his two sons lay in the same
bed; that two were killed, and the third saved as by a miracle: but in
his notes to the _Henriade_ accepts the true version. De Thou and
Sismondi also adopt the erroneous story.

[652] Mezeray says that he saved “more than 100 Huguenots.”
_Abrégé_, v. 157.

[653] Burghley to Walsingham in Digges, September 9, 1572.

[654] To them of the Castle of Edinburgh, August 25, at noon. _MSS.
Mary Q. of Scots_, Record Office.

[655] Ad Annam Æstensem.

[656] Mezeray, who half believes in the miracle, tries to account
for it on natural causes: “On pourrait dire que la cause qui avait
excité dans les esprits ce violent et extraordinaire accès de fureur,
était aussi celle qui avait échauffé cet arbre, soit qu’elle procédât
de la terre, soit qu’elle vînt de quelque influence des astres.”
_Abrégé_, iii. 1085. Favyn (_Hist. Navarre_), then a boy six
years old, was taken to see the thorn. His memory must have been very
strong to retain the circumstances he records.

[657] Henault, _Abrégé_, p. 443.

[658] Sully, _Mém._ i. p. 30.

[659] Charles reminds us of Nero after his mother’s murder: “modo per
silentium defixus, sæpius pavore exsurgens, et mentis inops lucem
opperiens tanquam exitium allaturam.” Tacitus, _Annal._ xiv. 10.

[660] Agr. d’Aubigné (_Hist. Univ_.) heard the story from Henry
himself.

[661] _De Statu Religionis_, iv. 33. Guise also said “qu’on avait
fait plus qu’il ne voulait ... qu’il n’en voulait qu’à l’amiral.”
_Mélanges: Journ. de Leipsic_ (June, 1693), p. 293. This is
confirmed by a sort of newsletter from Paris, preserved in the Record
Office (_MSS. France_, September, 1572.) “For the admiral’s death
he was glad; but he thought for the rest that the king had put such to
death as, if it pleased him, might have done good service.”

[662] The Catholics condemned “non tanto il fatto quanto il modo e la
maniera del fare ... chiamano questa via di procedere con assoluta
potestà, senza via di giudizio, via di tirannide, _attribuendolo alla
regina come Italiana_.” Baschet: _Relazioni_, p. 295.

[663] _Corresp. de Charles IX. et de Mandelot_, p. 39. _Mém. de
l’État de France_, f. 215. _Recueil de Lettres, etc._, ed. by
Merlet.

[664] “Lasché la main à MM. de Guise.” _Fénelon Corresp._ See also
_Revue Rétrosp._ v. 1834, p. 358, Charles to Matignon, August 26.

[665] “Nous préservant de leurs mains.” Cath. to Philip, August 25.
_Simancas Papers_ (_Bibl. Nat._), B, No. 144.

[666] See the “Official Declaration.”

[667] “_Ces grimaces_ n’imposèrent à personne,” says Bossuet.
Montluc disbelieved the story; “Je sais bien ce que j’en crus.”

[668] _Discours sur les Causes de l’Exécution, etc._ Rouen, 1572.

[669] In a circular to the churches dispatched in his name on the 23d,
Coligny really used this phrase, but it was to quiet, not to excite
them.

[670] This was the meeting at which Bouchavannes played the spy.

[671] Eytzinger got his information from a pamphlet, probably the royal
justification, published at Paris, “cui lector tantum fidei tribuat
quantum volet,” which is pretty plain, considering he was a Catholic.
_Leo Belg._ p. 127.

[672] Félibien, a Benedictine monk, evidently disapproves of the
“discours sur lequel il ne nous appartient pas de porter notre
jugement” (ii. 1122).

[673] It is said in the _Mém. de l’État de France_, that one
Rouillard was killed “at the instigation of the first president,” a
statement we gladly believe unfounded.

[674] Statius: _Silv._ v. 2, l. 88.

[675] Others call him Bishop of Orleans.

[676] An account of this violation of asylum must have been reported
by Walsingham, but I have sought for it in vain. Sir Philip Sydney was
then in Paris: Charles had appointed him one of his gentlemen of the
bed-chamber only a few days before.

[677] Tacitus: _Agricola_. _Choisnin_ in his _Mémoires_ describes the
king and Anjou as “marris de ce que les exécuteurs n’étaient assez
cruels.”

[678] Walsingham to Smith, November 1, 1572. Digges, p. 278.

[679] The cost of this banquet is given by Sauvai, iii. 368.

[680] The Bull (6 Kal. November, 1572) was never registered in
Parliament. I may add that Sureau, unable to stifle his conscience,
fled to Germany, recanted, and died neglected by all.

[681] Digges, p. 267. Letter to Smith, October 8. On September 7 he had
written, “that there is a compact to destroy all persons that be of the
religion.” _Archæologia_, xxii. 1829, p. 325.

[682] See _Martyrologue_, respecting Orleans, p. 712 _recto_;
respecting Bourges, 724 _recto_; respecting Bordeaux, “il
n’entendait pas que cette exécution passât outre et s’étendît plus
avant que Paris,” p. 730 _recto_.

[683] It is given in Olagharray, p. 628, and the _Réveille-Matin_.

[684] _Vita di C. de’ Medici_, p. 155.

[685] Tom. vi. lib. 52, p. 421.

[686] Paris: _Cabinet Hist._ ii. 258.

[687] Raumer, i. 282.

[688] _Revue rétrospect._ v. (1834) p. 359.

[689] Raumer: _Hist. 16th and 17th Cent._, Letter 31.

[690] When the Duke of Alençon revolted against Henry III., and the
city rose in arms, Matignon was sent to reduce it, and as soon as the
Protestants saw his banners, they opened the gates to him. Odolant
Desnos: _Mém. Hist. d’Alençon_, ii. p. 285 (8vo. Alençon, 1787).

[691] The account in the _État de France_ varies from that in the
text.

[692] There is a curious story of an apothecary who discovered that the
fat of the bodies was valuable and would fetch a high price, and of a
general scramble for the bodies in the river, which were dragged out,
that the fat might be extracted and sold. _Mém. État de France_,
i. 263 _b_.

[693] “In one day,” says one account, which is not probable. A
contemporary _brochure_ more moderately sets down the total
at 1800. _Massacre de ceux de la Rel._ 1572: _Mém. État de
France_.

[694] De Thou says that the Huguenots who fled to the Celestine
monastery were killed; but Golnitz affirms the contrary: “In hanc
evangelicorum truculentam necem noluisse etiam consentire dicuntur
canonici in æde Cœlestinorum.” _Ulysses_, p. 331. So also _Mém.
État de France_, i. 260 _b_.

[695] Ten leaves, probably containing an account of the massacre, are
suspiciously torn out of the _Actes Consulaires_ of the city. The
Catholic historian says briefly: “Huit jours après, le même massacre
fut fait à Lyon; je n’ai rien à dire là-dessus.” An expressive silence!
Montfalcon, _Hist. Lyon_, ii. p. 685.

[696] The order for the massacre was transmitted by Sorbin, the king’s
preacher. The author of the _Martyrologue_ says the murders began
without orders. P. 712, _recto_.

[697] See Martin: _Hist. France_, t. ix. p. 337, _note_.

[698] “Ne voulait que aulcune chose fust attentée ni innovée contre
l’édict de la paix.” _Registre des Conseils_, iv. p. 137. See also
the _Registre du Parlement_ for 1572. “Questi ordini (says Homero
Tortora) non giunsero a tempo in molti luoghi per che la fama che vola
per tutto il reame di quanto era avvenuto a Parigi invita cattolici di
molte città a fare il medesimo.” _Ist. di Francia_, 4to. Venezia,
1619.

[699] _Memoirs of Latomy, MSS._ The autograph copy differs
materially from the printed text, which is of little value. Jacques
Gâches, a Huguenot, has left memoirs, portions of which would repay
publication.

[700] Félice in a paragraph of a few lines manages to include almost as
many mistakes. The arrests did not take place on August 31; the number
of victims was not 300, and d’Affis gave no order for their execution.
The magistrates, having no regular police or armed force at their
disposal, were unable to resist the mob and the soldiers. _Archives
of Toulouse_, ad ann.

[701] This curious story will be found in the Dulaure MSS., preserved
in the public library of Clermont-Ferrand. This (to say nothing of the
instances already given) disposes of Capefigue’s “inability to find
any proof of orders issued by the king to massacre in the provinces.”
_Hist. de la Réforme_, iii. p. 229, _note_.

[702] Capefigue says the letter is a forgery of the age of Louis XIV.;
but it is published by Agrippa d’Aubigné in 1618. Adiram d’Aspremonte,
Vicomte d’Orte (as he is sometimes called), was a cruel man, cruel to
both parties. Even Charles IX. was forced to write to him in 1574, and
tell him to be more moderate.

[703] The bishop is said to have been in Paris at this time with the
court as almoner. This, if true, is fatal to the correctness of the
anecdote. I do not lay much stress upon the language of his epitaph:
“Contre lesquels [the Huguenots] il ne faisait pas faute de se montrer.”

[704] De Thou, tom. vi. p. 432 (4to ed.). See also, La Virotte:
_Annales d’Arnay_, 8vo. 1837.

[705] Journal of Mallet and Vautier, _Esprit de la Ligue_, ii. p.
51 (Paris, 1808).

[706] Long: _Guerres de Religion dans le Dauphiné_. De Thou (vi.
428) says Gordes excused himself on the ground that the Huguenots were
too strong.

[707] Chorier: _Hist. Dauphiné_, fol. ii. p. 647.

[708] Long. The historian gives a circular (December 6, 1572), in
which Gordes exhorts the Huguenots to return to the Romish religion,
“parceque le roi s’est résolu à n’en endurer autre.”

[709] Borrel: _Hist. Église Réf. de Nimes_, 8vo. Toulouse, 1856.

[710] To them of the Castle. Record Office, _MS. Queen of Scots_.
He writes at noon on the 25th.

[711] “Seint pleiben bey 1000 Personen und sonst gemeiner Personen über
5000 welche meisten theills ebendig, theils todt ins Wasser geworffen,
theils heuffig in Campo Clericorum vergraben worden.”

[712] “Plus de 7000 personnes _bien connues_, sans autres jetées
dans la rivière qui ne furent connues.” P. 679.

[713] See note to M. Ath. Coquerel’s monograph, “La St.-Barthélemy,” in
the _Nouvelle Revue de Théologie_.

[714] In the _Mém. État de France_ (vol. i.) the names of nearly
eight hundred victims all over the kingdom are given. See also ii. 20
and 25.

[715] Bonanni: _Numism. Pontif._ i. 336. Mezeray, iii. 256.
_Abrégé_, iii. 1082.

[716] “Fu il sacco e la preda grandissima per due milioni d’oro.”
Baschet, p. 549. It is evident that these are mere guesses.

[717] “Il faut juger un temps d’après son esprit, ses émotions et ses
mœurs.” Gachard.

[718] “Ut porci cecidere proci.” Exulting over Coligny, he says, with a
coarse play upon words:

    Parte sacerdotes solitus mutare pudenda,
      Cuncta pudenda gerens, nulla pudenda gerit.


[719] The year before (1572) he published a _Chant d’Allégresse sur
la Mort de Coligny_, with the motto of Judas: “He went to his own.”

[720] He charges Beza with giving orders “qu’on coupast τὰ αἰδοῖα aux
prestres et aux moynes, ajoutant qu’il en vouloit remplir un puy.” From
the date of the letter (September 15), some are of opinion that it must
have been written before the massacre. Portès’s answer is given in vol.
ii. of the _Mém. État de France_.

[721] Sorbin was chaplain to Charles IX., and wrote a eulogistic
account of his life, in which he skips over the massacre thus: “Le jour
de la St.-B. se passe, où les principaux chefs furent châtiés selon
leurs mérites, au grand regret de ce bon roy.”

[722] See vignette on title-page.

[723] Ellis: _Letters_ (sec. ser.) iii. p. 23.

[724] Rommel: _Corresp. inéd. de Henri IV._ Paris, 1840.

[725] Bruxelles, _Bulletin_, ix. 1841 (pt. 1), p. 560.

[726] March, 1573; _Revue rétrospect._ iii. 1835, p. 195. Sir
Henry Ellis (_Archæologia_, xxii. 1829, p. 323) held it to be “a
strong proof of a deliberate plot,” that the documents on this subject
had disappeared from the Public Records in France; but we have given
ample evidence that such is not the case.

[727] Mezeray and De Sancy call the pope, Innocent XIII.; Brantome and
Sully, Pius V.; but the latter died on 1st May, 1572.

[728] Twelve months after the massacre, the cardinal publicly applauded
Charles to his face for his “holy dissimulation.” Dale’s dispatch:
Macintosh, _Hist. Engl._ iii. 226, _note_.

[729] The genuineness of this medal has been disputed on very
insufficient grounds. It is engraved in Bonanni’s _Numismata
Pontificum_ (2 vols. fol. Romæ, 1689) tom. i. p. 336. It is No. 27
of the series of Gregory XIII. L’Estoile mentions it, under “Lundi, 30
juin, 1618,” as the “pièce que le pape Grégoire XIII. fit faire à Rome
l’an 1572.”

[730] “In Constantini quæ nunc et visitur aula.” Thuanus Posteritati.
The outline of one of these frescoes in the frontispiece to this volume
is taken from De Potter’s _Lettres de Pie V._

[731] See _Dublin Review_ for October, 1865.

[732] Lucan, iv. 192.

[733] In Gregory’s instructions to Cardinal des Ursins (Fabio Orsini),
he is to exhort Charles “ut cœptis insistat fortiter, neque curam
asperis remediis inchoatam prospere, perdat leniora miscendo.” Bonanni,
i. p. 323, 336, No. xxvii. _Ann. Eccles._ ad ann. 1572, in Potter.
_Hist. du Christ._ vii. p. 330.

[734] “Who otherwise never laughed.” St. Goar to Queen; Raumer, i. p.
199.

[735] “Deconcertaron todos los planes del gabinete de Isabel [Elizabeth
of England] é impedieron que se realizase su famosa liga con Francia.”
_Mem. Acad. Madrid_, vii. p. 374.

[736] Juan de Cuniga, embassador at Rome, writes to Philip II. that
“the French _here_ declare that the king meditated this stroke
since the day he made peace;” but in another place he adds, that “he
was credibly informed, if the assault on the admiral was projected a
few days before, and authorized by the king, all the rest was inspired
by circumstances.” _Bulletin Acad. Sci. Bruxelles_, xvi. (1849) p.
250.

[737] “Uno de los mayores contentamientos que he recibido en mi vida.”

[738] Letter of August 25. _Simancas Archives._

[739] “La mejor y mas alegre nueve que al presente me pudiera venir.”
Gachard: _Simancas Archives_.

[740] Burghley to Walsingham, September 9, 1572, in Digges, p. 247.

[741] M’Crie: _Life of Knox_ (1841), p. 337.

[742] Brandt: _Hist. Ref. of Low Countries_ (Chamberlayne’s
transl.), fol. Lond. 1720, vol. i. p. 329.

[743] Walsingham to Smith, 16th and 24th September.

[744] Ranke: _Franz. Gesch._ t. iv. ch. 4. This is said in one
account to have occurred on the eve of the massacre, when he was
playing with Henry of Navarre. St. Foix: _Essais hist. sur Paris_,
i. 74.

[745] Agrippa d’Aubigné, unless he refers to another story, says the
child was “disinterred and then devoured” by its parents, who were
condemned, the man to be burned alive, and the woman to be hanged. See
also _Mém. État de France_, ii. 224. Jean de Leri: _Hist. Siége
de R._; Paris: _Cab. Hist._ vii. There is a Latin version,
Heidelbg. 1576.

[746] _Discours de l’extrême Famine, etc._ par Jean Leri:
_Archives curieuses_, viii. p. 19. _Mém. État de France_, ii.
219 _b_ (ed. 1578).

[747] Among other charges, La Mole was accused of endeavoring to
destroy the king’s life by witchcraft; by means of a waxen image having
a needle pierced through the heart, which an Italian astrologer, Cosmo
Ruggieri, had prepared for him.

[748] “Mollis vita, mollior interitus.” Punning epitaph on La Mole.

[749] His defense was written by his wife Margaret, “God giving her the
grace to compose it.” _Mémoires._

[750] This bloody sweat is an ordinary though rare pathological
phenomenon. Dr. Bourdin describes the case of a farm-servant,
thirty-three years old, from whose forehead blood suddenly began to
issue and continued to flow for half an hour (April, 1859). In No. 40
of the _Gazette Hebdomadaire_ (1859), Dr. Jules Parrot gives the
case of a lady who had suffered from these hemorrhages from six years
of age, and which continued after her marriage. Chemical analysis and
microscopic examination combine to prove that the liquid thus secreted
is truly blood.

[751] _Journal de L’Estoile._ I am afraid the authority is not
very good. See also Peleus: _Vie de Henri IV._ ii. pp. 385–390.

[752] Better known as the translator of Plutarch than as Grand Almoner
of France.

[753] The nuncio wrote to the pope that Charles was killing himself
with the chase; that he had nearly killed 5000 dogs and broken the
wind of all his horses, valued at 30,000 francs. Salviati Cavalli
writes to the same effect: “mal modo di vivere,” etc. See Drelincourt:
_Libitinæ Trophæa_. Lugd. Bat. 1680. He broke out in large
pustules and buboes all over his body: Villegomblain. His stomach was
covered with livid spots: De Thou.

[754] There is an old prophecy: “Væ et iterum væ! quando puer sedebit
in sede lilii.”

[755] His first tutors were the virtuous Carnavalet, the learned Amyot,
and M. de Cipierre, a man of antique type and probity. The latter was
succeeded by Gondi, “fin, corrompu, menteur,” who taught Charles to
swear and blaspheme, “et le pervertit du tout.” Brantome. “Princeps
præclara indole et magnis virtutibus, nisi....” De Thou.

[756] Among others Claude Haton: “fut une grâce de Dieu comment le roi
sut si bien dissimuler.”


Transcriber’s Notes:

1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been
corrected silently.

2. Where hyphenation is in doubt, it has been retained as in the
original.

3. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have
been retained as in the original.

4. Italics are shown as _xxx_.

5. Bold print is shown as =xxx=.



*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75970 ***