TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:
—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected.
—Whereas adequate character is unavalaible, superscripts are rendered
as word^[sup].
The
Wars of Religion in France
1559-1576
[Illustration: VIEW OF PARIS
From a sketch by Jacques Callot (1592-1635).]
The
Wars of Religion in France
1559-1576
The Huguenots Catherine de Medici
and Philip II
BY
JAMES WESTFALL THOMPSON, PH.D.
_Associate Professor of European History in
the University of Chicago_
[Illustration: LOGO ARMS DE LA ROCHELLE]
CHICAGO:
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
LONDON:
T. FISHER UNWIN, 1 ADELPHI TERRACE
1909
COPYRIGHT 1909 BY
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Published May 1909
Composed and Printed By
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A.
TO
MARY HAWES WILMARTH
THE LARGESS OF WHOSE SPIRIT HAS MADE THE
WORLD RICHER AND LIFE NOBLER
PREFACE
No one acquainted with the history of historical writing can have
failed to observe how transitory are its achievements. Mark Pattison’s
aphorism that “history is one of the most ephemeral forms of
literature” has much of truth in it. The reasons of this are not far
to seek. In the first place, the most laborious historian is doomed to
be superseded in course of time by the accumulation of new material.
In the second place, the point of view and the interpretation of one
generation varies from that which preceded it, so that each generation
requires a rewriting of history in terms of its own interest.
These reasons must be my excuse for venturing to write a new book upon
an old subject. It is now nearly thirty years since the appearance
of the late Professor Henry M. Baird’s excellent work, _The Rise of
the Huguenots_ (New York, 1879), and little that is comprehensive has
since been written upon the subject in English, with the exception
of Mr. A. W. Whitehead’s admirable _Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of
France_ (London, 1904). But the limitations imposed by biographical
history compel an author inevitably to ignore movements or events not
germane to his immediate subject, which, nevertheless, may be of great
importance for general history. Moreover, a biography is limited by the
term of life of the hero, and his death may not by any means terminate
the issue in which he was a factor—as indeed was the case with Coligny.
An enumeration of the notable works—sources and authorities—which
have been published since the appearance of Professor Baird’s work
may serve to justify the present volume. First and foremost must be
mentioned the notable _Lettres de Catherine de Médicis_, the lack of
which Ranke deplored, edited by the late Count Hector de la Ferrière
and M. Baguenault de la Puchesse (9 vols.), the initial volume of
which appeared in 1880. Of diplomatic correspondence we have the
_Ambassade en Espagne de Jean Ebrard, seigneur de St. Sulpice de 1562
à 1565_ (Paris, 1902), edited by M. Edmond Cabié, and thé _Dépêches de
M. Fourquevaux, ambassadeur du roi Charles IX en Espagne, 1565-72_,
in three volumes, edited by the Abbé Douais (Paris, 1896). Other
sources which have seen the light within the last three decades are
M. Delaborde’s _Vie de Coligny_ (3 vols., 1877-), the title of which
is somewhat misleading, for it is really a collection of Coligny’s
letters strung upon the thread of his career; the Baron Alphonse de
Ruble’s _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_ (4 vols., 1881); M.
Ludovic Lalanne’s new annotated edition of _D’Aubigné_ (1886), and
the new edition of Beza’s _Histoire ecclésiastique_ (ed. of Baum,
1883). Finally, among sources should be included many volumes in the
“Calendar of State Papers.” Professor Baird has rightly said that “Too
much weight can scarcely be given to this source of information and
illustration.” His praise would probably have been even greater if he
could have used the correspondence of Dale and Smith as freely as he
did that of Throckmorton and Norris.
When we pass from sources to authorities the list of notable works
is even longer. La Ferrière’s _Le XVI^[e] siècle et les Valois_—the
fruit of researches in the Record Office in London—appeared in 1879;
M. Forneron’s _Histoire de Philippe II_ (4 vols.) was published in
1887, and is even more valuable than his earlier _Histoire des ducs de
Guise_ (1877). Besides these, in the decade of the 80’s, are Durier’s
_Les Huguenots en Bigorre_ (1884); Communay’s _Les Huguenots dans le
Béarn et la Navarre_ (1886); Lettenhove’s _Les Huguenots et les Gueux_
(1885); the baron de Ruble’s _Le traité de Cateau-Cambrésis_ (1889),
and the abbé Marchand’s _Charles de Cossé, Comte de Brissac_ (1889).
M. de Crue’s notable _Anne, duc de Montmorency_ appeared in the same
year and his no less scholarly _Le parti des politiques au lendemain
de Saint Barthélemy_ three years later. M. Marlet’s _Le comte de
Montgomery_ was published in 1890; M. Georges Weill’s _Les théories
sur le pouvoir royal en France pendant les guerres de religion_, in
1891; M. Henri Hauser’s _François de La Noue_ in 1892; M. Bernard de
Lacombe’s _Catherine de Médicis entre Guise et Condé_ in 1899, and,
most recently of all, M. Courteault’s _Blaise de Montluc_ (1908).
Many contributions in the _Revue historique_, the _Revue des questions
historiques_, the _English Historical Review_, the _Revue d’histoire
diplomatique_, the _Revue des deux mondes_, and one article in the
_American Historical Review_, January, 1903, by M. Hauser, “The
Reformation and the Popular Classes in the Sixteenth Century,” are
equally valuable, as the notes will show. I have also consulted many
articles in the proceedings of various local or provincial historical
societies, as the Société de Paris et de l’Ile de France; the Société
de l’histoire de Normandie, the Société d’histoire et d’archéologie de
Genève, etc., and the admirable series known as the _Bulletin de la
Société du protestantisme français_, which is a mine of historical lore.
While the present work falls in the epoch of the French Reformation,
no attempt has been made to treat that subject in so far as
the Reformation is assumed primarily to have been a religious
manifestation. Doctrine, save when it involved polity, has been
ignored. But into the political, diplomatic, and economic activities of
the period I have tried to go at some length. As to the last feature,
it is not too much to say that our interpretation of the sixteenth
century has been profoundly changed within the last twenty years by the
progress made in economic history. Such works as Weiss’s _La chambre
ardente_ and Hauser’s _Ouvriers du temps passé_ have revolutionized the
treatment of this subject.
Such an interpretation is merely a reflection of our own present-day
interest in economic and social problems. In this particular it is the
writer’s belief that he is the first to present some of the results of
recent research into the economic history of sixteenth-century France
to English readers. My indebtedness to M. Hauser is especially great
for the help and suggestion he has given me in the matter of industrial
history. But I have tried to widen the subject and attempted to show
the bearing of changes in the agricultural régime, the influence of
the failure of crops owing to adverse weather conditions, and the
disintegration of society as the result of incessant war and the
plague, upon the progress of the Huguenot movement. In an agricultural
country like France in the sixteenth century, the distress of the
provinces through the failure of the harvests was sometimes nearly
universal, and the retroactive effect of such conditions in promoting
popular discontent had a marked influence upon the religious and
political issues.
It has been pointed out that “the religious wars of France furnish
the most complete instance of the constant intersection of native and
foreign influences.”[1] The bearing of the Huguenot movement upon
Spanish and Dutch history was intimate and marked, and this I have also
attempted to set forth. In so doing the fact that has impressed me
most of all is the development and activity of the provincial Catholic
leagues and their close connection with Spain’s great Catholic machine
in France, the Holy League.
The history of the Holy League in France is usually represented as
having extended from 1576 to 1594. This time was the period of its
greatest activity and of its greatest power. But institutions do not
spring to life full armed in a moment, like Athené from the head of
Zeus. “The roots of the present lie deep in the past,” as Bishop Stubbs
observed. Institutions are a growth, a development. The Holy League was
a movement of slow growth and development, although it has not been
thus represented, and resulted from the combination of various acts
and forces—political, diplomatic, religious, economic, social, even
psychological—working simultaneously both within and without France
during the civil wars. I have tried to set forth the nature and extent
of these forces; to show how they originated; how they operated; and
how they ultimately were combined to form the Holy League. Certain
individual features of the history here covered have been treated in an
isolated way by some writers. The late baron de Ruble and M. Forneron
have disclosed the treasonable negotiations of Montluc with Philip II.
M. Bouillé and more recently M. Forneron have followed the tortuous
thread of the cardinal of Lorraine’s secret negotiations with Spain.
Various historians, chiefly in provincial histories or biographies
like Pingaud’s _Les Saulx-Tavannes_, have noticed the local work of
some of the provincial Catholic associations. But the relation of all
these various movements, one to the other, and their ultimate fusion
into a single united movement has not yet been fully brought out.
What was the number and form of organization of these local Catholic
leagues? What influenced their combination? What bearing did they
have upon the course of Montluc and the cardinal of Lorraine? Or upon
Philip II’s policy? How did the great feud between the Guises and the
Montmorencys influence the formation of the Holy League and its hostile
counterpart—the Association of the Huguenots and the Politiques? These
questions I have tried to answer and in so doing two or three new
facts have been brought to light. For example, an undiscovered link
in the history of the Guises’ early secret intercourse with Philip II
has been found in the conduct of L’Aubespine, the French ambassador in
Spain in 1561; the treasonable course of the cardinal of Lorraine, it
is shown, began in 1565 instead of 1566, a fact which makes the petty
conflict known as the “Cardinal’s War” of new importance; the history
of the Catholic associations in the provinces, hitherto isolated in
many separate volumes, has been woven into the whole and some new
information established regarding them.[2]
The notes, it is hoped, will sufficiently indicate the sources used and
enable the reader to test the treatment of the subject, or guide him to
sources by which he may form his own judgment if desired.
In the matter of maps, the very complete apparatus of maps in Mr.
Whitehead’s _Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France_, has greatly
lightened my task, and I express my cordial thanks to Mr. Whitehead
and Messrs. Methuen & Co., his publishers, for permission to reproduce
those in that work. My thanks are also due to M. Ch. de Coynart and MM.
Firmin Didot et Cie for permission to reproduce the map illustrating
the battle of Dreux from the late Commandant de Coynart’s work entitled
_L’Année 1562 et la bataille de Dreux_; and to M. Steph. C. Gigon,
author of _La bataille de Jarnac et la campagne de 1569 en Angoumois_,
for permission to use his two charts of the battle of Jarnac. Those
illustrating the Tour of the Provinces in 1564-66, the march of the
duke of Alva and Montgomery’s great raid in Gascony are my own. Some
lesser maps and illustrations are from old prints which I have gathered
together, in the course of years, except that illustrating the siege of
Havre-de-Grace and the large picture of the battle of St. Denis, which
have been photographed from the originals in the Record Office.
During the preparation of this volume, which has entailed two prolonged
visits to Paris and other parts of France, and to London, I have
become the debtor to many persons. Among those of whose courtesy and
assistance I would make special acknowledgment are the following: His
Excellency, M. Jean-Jules Jusserand, French ambassador at Washington;
M. Henri Vignaud, chargé d’affaires of the American legation in Paris;
MM. Charles de la Roncière and Viennot of the Bibliothèque Nationale;
MM. Le Grand and Viard of the Archives Nationales, where I chiefly
worked in the K. Collection. At the Record Office, Mr. Hubert Hall and
his assistant, Miss Mary Trice Martin, were unfailing in the aid given
me. For the transcript of the “Discorso sopra gli humori del Regno di
Francia,” from the Barberini Library in Rome, I am indebted to P. Franz
Ehrle, prefect of the Vatican archives. I also hold in grateful memory
the friendship and assistance of the late Woodbury Lowery, author
of _The Spanish Settlements within the Present Limits of the United
States: Florida_ (1562-74), New York, 1905, with whom I was a fellow
worker at the Archives Nationales in the spring and early summer of
1903.
Finally, I owe much to the suggestive criticism of my friend and
colleague, Professor Ferdinand Schevill, and my friends, Professor
Herbert Darling Foster, of Dartmouth College, and Professor Roger B.
Merriman, of Harvard University, each of whom has read much of the
manuscript.
JAMES WESTFALL THOMPSON
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
January 1909
CONTENTS
PAGE
LIST OF MAPS AND PLATES xv
CHAPTER
I. THE BEGINNING OF THE HUGUENOT REVOLT. THE CONSPIRACY OF
AMBOISE 1
II. CATHERINE DE MEDICI BETWEEN GUISE AND CONDÉ. PROJECT OF A
NATIONAL COUNCIL 40
III. THE STATES-GENERAL OF ORLEANS 69
IV. THE FORMATION OF THE TRIUMVIRATE 91
V. THE COLLOQUY OF POISSY. THE ESTATES OF PONTOISE. THE EDICT
OF JANUARY, 1562 106
VI. THE FIRST CIVIL WAR. THE MASSACRE OF VASSY (MARCH 1, 1562).
THE SIEGE OF ROUEN 131
VII. THE FIRST CIVIL WAR (_Continued_). THE BATTLE OF DREUX
(DECEMBER 19, 1562). THE PEACE OF AMBOISE (MARCH 19, 1563) 172
VIII. THE WAR WITH ENGLAND. THE PEACE OF TROYES (1563-64) 198
IX. EARLY LOCAL AND PROVINCIAL CATHOLIC LEAGUES 206
X. THE TOUR OF THE PROVINCES. THE BAYONNE EPISODE 232
XI. THE TOUR OF THE PROVINCES (_Continued_). THE INFLUENCE
OF THE REVOLT OF THE NETHERLANDS UPON FRANCE. THE AFFAIR
OF MEAUX 283
XII. THE SECOND CIVIL WAR (1567-68) 326
XIII. THE THIRD CIVIL WAR (1568). NEW CATHOLIC LEAGUES. THE
BATTLE OF JARNAC 349
XIV. THE THIRD CIVIL WAR (_Continued_). THE PEACE OF ST. GERMAIN 378
XV. THE MASSACRE OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW 422
XVI. THE FOURTH CIVIL WAR 454
XVII. THE LAST DAYS OF CHARLES IX. THE CONSPIRACY OF THE
POLITIQUES 469
XVIII. HENRY III AND THE POLITIQUES. THE PEACE OF MONSIEUR (1576) 486
GENEALOGICAL TABLES 525
APPENDICES 529
INDEX 605
LIST OF MAPS AND PLATES
VIEW OF PARIS _Frontispiece_
FACING PAGE
HUGUENOT MARCH TO ORLEANS, MARCH 29-APRIL 2, 1562 139
CAMPAIGN OF DREUX, NOVEMBER TO DECEMBER, 1562 180
BATTLE OF DREUX, ACCORDING TO COMMANDANT DE COYNART 181
SKETCH MAP OF THE FORTIFICATIONS OF HAVRE-DE-GRACE 202
THE TOUR OF THE PROVINCES, 1564-66 232
MARCH OF THE DUKE OF ALVA THROUGH SAVOY, FRANCHE COMTÉ, AND
LORRAINE 308
EXECUTION OF EGMONT AND HOORNE IN THE MARKET SQUARE AT BRUSSELS 314
PARIS AND ITS FAUBOURGS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 327
BLOCKADE OF PARIS BY THE HUGUENOTS, OCTOBER-NOVEMBER, 1567 328
HUGUENOT MARCH TO PONT-À-MOUSSON AFTER THE BATTLE OF ST.
DENIS 329
THE BATTLE OF ST. DENIS _between_ pp. 332, 333
AUTUMN CAMPAIGN OF 1568 368
CROQUIS DU THÉATRE DE LA GUERRE POUR LA PÉRIODE DU 24 FÉVRIER AU
13 MARS 1569, ACCORDING TO M. S. C. GIGON 376
BATAILLE DE JARNAC, ACCORDING TO M. S. C. GIGON 377
CAMPAIGN OF THE SUMMER AND AUTUMN OF 1569 380
POITIERS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 386
PLAN OF THE FORTRESS OF NAVARRENS MADE BY JUAN MARTINEZ
DESCURRA, A SPANISH SPY 398
VOYAGE OF THE PRINCES AFTER THE BATTLE OF MONCONTOUR; MONTGOMERY’S
ITINERARY IN BIGORRE AND GASCONY; UNION OF COLIGNY AND MONTGOMERY
IN DECEMBER, 1569, AT PORT STE. MARIE 402
THE MASSACRE OF ST. BARTHOLOMEW 422
PLAN DE LA ROCHELLE EN 1572 458
LETTER OF HENRY III OF FRANCE TO THE DUKE OF SAVOY 484
LETTER OF HENRY III TO THE SWISS CANTONS 485
MAP OF FRANCE SHOWING PROVINCES 602
CHAPTER I
THE BEGINNING OF THE HUGUENOT REVOLT. THE CONSPIRACY OF AMBOISE
The last day of June, 1559, was a gala day in Paris. The marriages
of Philip II of Spain with Elizabeth of France, daughter of King
Henry II and Catherine de Medici, and that of the French King’s
sister, Marguerite with Emanuel Philibert, duke of Savoy, were to be
celebrated. But “the torches of joy became funeral tapers”[3] before
nightfall, for Henry II was mortally wounded in the tournament given
in honor of the occasion.[4] It was the rule that challengers, in this
case the King, should run three courses and their opponents one. The
third contestant of the King had been Gabriel, sieur de Lorges, better
known as the count of Montgomery, captain of the Scotch Guard,[5] a
young man, “grand et roidde,” whom Henry rechallenged because his
pride was hurt that he had not better kept his seat in the saddle in
the first running. Montgomery tried to refuse, but the King silenced
his objections with a command and reluctantly[6] Montgomery resumed
his place. But this time the Scotch guardsman failed to cast away the
trunk of the splintered lance as he should have done at the moment of
the shock, and the fatal accident followed. The jagged point crashed
through the King’s visor into the right eye.[7] For a minute Henry
reeled in his saddle, but by throwing his arms around the neck of his
horse, managed to keep his seat. The King’s armor was stripped from him
at once and “a splint taken out of good bigness.”[8] He moved neither
hand nor foot, and lay as if benumbed or paralyzed,[9] and so was
carried to his chamber in the Tournelles,[10] entrance being denied to
all save physicians, apothecaries, and those valets-de-chambre who were
on duty. None were permitted for a great distance to come near until
late in the day, when the duke of Alva, who was to be proxy for his
sovereign at the marriage, the duke of Savoy, the prince of Orange, the
cardinal of Lorraine, and the constable were admitted.[11]
[Illustration: MONTGOMERY IN TOURNAMENT COSTUME
(Bib. Nat., Estampes, _Hist. de France_, reg. Q. b. 19)]
After the first moment of consternation was past, it was thought that
the King would recover, though losing the sight of his eye,[12] since
on the fourth day Henry recovered his senses and his fever was abated.
Meanwhile five or six of the ablest physicians in France had been
diligently experimenting upon the heads of four criminals who were
decapitated for the purpose in the Conciergerie and the prisons of
the Châtelet. On the eighth day Vesalius, Philip II’s physician, who
had long been with the emperor Charles V, and who enjoyed a European
reputation, arrived and took special charge of the royal patient.[13]
In the interval of consciousness Henry commanded that the interrupted
marriages be solemnized. Before they were celebrated the King had lost
the use of speech and lapsed into unconsciousness, and on the morrow
of the marriages he died (July 10, 1559). On August 13 the corpse was
interred at St. Denis.[14] When the ceremony was ended the king of arms
stood up, and after twice pronouncing the words “Le roi est mort,” he
turned around toward the assembly, and the third time cried out: “Vive
le roi, très-chretien François le deuzième de ce nom, par la grace de
Dieu, roi de France.” Thereupon the trumpets sounded and the interment
was ended.[15] A month later, on September 18, Francis II was crowned
at Rheims. Already Montgomery had been deprived of the captaincy of
the Scotch Guard and his post given to “a mere Frenchman,” much to the
indignation of the members of the Guard.[16]
[Illustration: DEATHBED OF HENRY II
A. Catherine de Medici D. Couriers
B. Cardinal of Lorraine E. Courtiers
C. Constable Montmorency F. Physicians]
The reign of Henry II had not been a popular one. He had neither the
mind nor the application necessary in public affairs.[17] On the
very day of the accident the English ambassador wrote to Cecil: “It
is a marvel to see how the noblemen, gentlemen, and ladies do lament
this misfortune, and contrary-wise, how the townsmen and people do
rejoice.”[18] The wars of Henry II in Italy and in the Low Countries
had drained France of blood and treasure, so that the purses of the
people were depleted by an infinity of exactions and confiscations;
offices and benefices had been bartered, even those of justice, and
to make the feeling of the people worse, Henry II was prodigal to
his favorites.[19] Finally the treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis (1559) was
regarded as not less disadvantageous than dishonorable.[20]
Meanwhile much politics had been in progress.[21] The new king was not
yet sixteen years of age.[22] He was of frail health and insignificant
intellect, being quite unlike his wife, the beautiful and brilliant
Mary Stuart, who was a niece of the Guises, Francis, duke of Guise,
and his brother Charles, cardinal of Lorraine, who had been in no
small favor under Henry II. Even in the king’s lifetime the ambition
of the Guises had been a thing of wonderment and his unexpected death
opened before them the prospect of new and prolonged power. Henry II
had scarcely closed his eyes when the duke of Guise and the cardinal of
Lorraine took possession of the person of Francis II and conducted him
to the Louvre, in company with the queen-mother, ignoring the princes
of the blood, the marshals, the admiral of France, and “many Knights
of the Order, or grand seigneurs who were not of their retinue.” There
they deliberated without permitting anyone to approach, still less
to speak to the King except in the presence of one of them. Francis
II gave out that his uncles were to manage his affairs.[23] In order
to give color to this assumption of authority, as if their intention
was to restore everything to good estate again, the Guises recalled
the chancellor Olivier, who had been driven from office by Diane de
Poitiers, Henry II’s mistress.[24]
Even before these events the Guises had shown their hand, for on the
day of Henry II’s decease the constable, the cardinal Châtillon and his
brother, the admiral Coligny, had been appointed to attend upon the
royal corse at the Tournelles, by which maneuver they were excluded
from all active work and the way was cleared for the unhampered rule
of the King’s uncles. Rumor prevailed that D’Andelot, the third of the
famous Châtillon brothers, was to be dismissed from the command of
the footmen and the place be given to the count de Rochefoucauld.[25]
Before the end of the month the duke of Guise was given charge of the
war office and the cardinal of Lorraine that of finance and matters of
state.[26] At the same time, on various pretexts, the princes of the
blood were sent away,[27] the prince of Condé to Flanders, ostensibly
to confer with Philip II regarding the peace of Cateau-Cambrésis,[28]
the prince of La Roche-sur-Yon and the cardinal Bourbon to conduct
Elizabeth of France into Spain, so that by November “there remained
no more princes with the King save those of Guise,”[29] who had
influential agents in the two marshals, St. André[30] and Brissac.[31]
Much depended upon the attitude of Antoine of Bourbon, sieur de
Vendôme and king of Navarre, who was first prince of the blood, and
the person to whom the direction of affairs would naturally fall. At
the time of Henry II’s death he was in Béarn, whither La Mare, the
King’s valet-de-chambre, was sent to notify him,[32] the Guises having
shrewdly arranged to have the ground cleared of the opposition of the
Bourbons and Châtillons when he should arrive.[33]
But not all the opposition had been overcome. While Henry II had been
generous to the Guises, he had been even fonder of the constable
Montmorency, a bluff, hearty man of war, who became the royal favorite
upon the fall of the admiral Hennebault, after the death of Francis
I.[34] Montmorency was the uncle of the three Châtillons, Odet, the
cardinal-bishop of Beauvais, Gaspard, the admiral Coligny, and François
de Châtillon, sieur d’Andelot, and the King was openly accused of
having made a disadvantageous peace in order to protect the constable
and secure the ransom of Coligny, who was captured at the battle of
St. Quentin.[35] In order to prevent the constable and the king of
Navarre from meeting one another and concerting an arrangement, the
Guises contrived Montmorency’s summary dismissal from court,[36]
Francis II at their instigation sending him word to retire at once
(August 15). The old war-dog[37] took the affront gallantly, and like
an artful courtier said that he was glad to be relieved of active
duties on account of his age.[38] In the absence of the princes of the
blood, the opposition to the Guises gathered around Montmorency and
the Châtillons, the faction for a short time taking its name from the
constable’s title, being known as “connestablistes.”[39] The political
line of division was drawn very sharply, and the growing influence
of Huguenot teachings gave it a religious accentuation as well. The
less significant portion of the noblesse was inclined to repose after
the long wars and was indifferent to politics; but the upper nobility
were eager partisans, either having hopes of preferment or being, in
principle, opposed both to the usurpation and the religious intolerance
of the Guises.[40]
As to the clergy, its members almost without exception were supporters
of the faith and the government of the Guises. The mass of the people
as yet were disregarded by both factions, but were soon to come
forward into prominence for financial and other reasons.[41] Henry
II, unlike his father, had never suffered French Protestantism to
flourish,[42] but, on the contrary, had undertaken rigorous repressive
measures. The edicts of Paris (1549), of Fontainebleau (1550), and of
Chateaubriand (1551), made the Huguenots[43] subject to both secular
and ecclesiastical tribunals.
The Protestant issue was both a religious and a political one, for to
many men it seemed impossible to alter the religious beliefs of the
time without destruction of the state. Francis I recognized this state
of things in the rhymed aphorism:
Un roi
Une loi
Une foi
and his son rigidly sustained the dictum. The Edict of Compiègne, of
July 24, 1557[44] imposed the death penalty upon those who publicly or
secretly professed a religion other than the Catholic apostolic faith;
the preamble declaring that “to us alone who have received from the
hand of God the administration of the public affairs of our realm,”
clearly shows the intimate relation of the French state and the French
church. It is significant that the _Chambre ardente_ was established to
prosecute the Huguenots in Henry II’s reign.[45]
Ever since the duke of Alva had been in Paris the impression had
prevailed that Henry II and Philip II purposed to establish the
Inquisition in France,[46] and that the project had been foiled by the
French king’s sudden death. The Huguenots were convinced of it and keen
politicians like the prince of Orange and Count Egmont taxed Granvella
with the purpose in 1561.[47] What the government did do has been
carefully stated by another:
The Government largely increased the powers of the Ecclesiastical
Courts, and, _pari passu_, detracted from those of the regular Law
Courts called the Parlements. The Parlement of Paris protested
not only against the infringement of its privileges, but against
conversion by persecution, and the same feelings existed at Rouen,
where several members had to be excluded for heretical opinions.
The introduction of the Spanish form of inquisition, under a bull
of Paul IV, in 1557, still further exasperated the profession. The
Inquisitors were directed to appoint diocesan tribunals, which
should decide without appeal. The Parlement of Paris flatly refused
to register the royal edict, and continued to receive appeals.
The finale was the celebrated Wednesday meeting of the assembled
chambers, the Mercuriale, where the King in person interfered with the
constitutional freedom of speech, and ordered the arrest of the five
members, thus giving his verdict for the ultra-Catholic minority of
Parlement against the moderate majority. Marshal Vieilleville, himself
a sound Catholic, strongly dissuaded this course of action. Its
result was that one of the most influential elements of the State was
not indeed brought into connection with Reform, but as placed in an
attitude of hostility to the Government, and as the grievance was the
consequence of the religious policy of the Crown, it had at all events
a tendency to bring about a _rapprochement_ between the Reformers and
the judicial classes.[48]
[Illustration: EXECUTION OF DU BOURG
(Tortorel and Perissin)]
Five of the advocates of the Parlement of Paris, of whom Du Bourg
and Du Four were the most prominent, protested against this action,
both because of its intolerance and because they believed it to be a
political measure, at least in part, and were put under arrest for
this manifestation of courage. Men reasoned very differently regarding
this edict. The politicians and intense Catholics regarded it as
necessary, both to preserve the church and in order to suppress those
seditious spirits, who, under color of religion, aimed to alter or
subvert the government. Others, who had no regard either for policy
or religion, likewise approved of it, not as tending to extirpate the
Protestants, for they believed it would rather increase their numbers,
but because they hoped to be enriched by confiscations and that the
King might thereby be enabled to pay his debts, amounting to forty-two
millions, according to Castelnau, and thus restore his finances.[49]
The trial of the parliamentary councilors was postponed for some time
on account of Henry II’s death, but soon afterward they were brought
before “the bishops and Sorbonnists.”[50] Du Four, upon retraction, was
suspended from office for five years;[51] three others were fined and
ignominiously punished; but Du Bourg[52] was condemned and executed on
December 23, 1559, in spite of the solicitations of Marguerite, wife
of the duke of Savoy, and the count palatine who wrote to the King for
his life.[53]
At the same time the measures of the government were redoubled. In
November, 1559, a new edict ordained that all who went to conventicles,
or assisted at any private assemblies, should be put to death, and
their houses be pulled down and never rebuilt. By special decree the
provost of the city was authorized, because Huguenot sessions were
more frequent in Paris and its suburbs than elsewhere, to proclaim
with the trumpet that all people who had information of Protestant
assemblies should notify the magistrates, on pain of incurring the same
punishment; and promise of pardon and a reward of five hundred livres
was to be given to every informer. The _commissaires des quartiers_
of Paris were enjoined to be diligent in seeking out offenders and to
search the houses of those under suspicion from time to time using
the _archers de la ville_ for that purpose. Letters-patent were also
given to the lieutenant-criminal of the Châtelet and certain other
judges chosen by the cardinal of Lorraine to judge without appeal.
The curés and vicars in the parishes were to excommunicate all those
who had knowledge of Protestant doings and failed to report them.[54]
In order to discover those who were Calvinists, priests bore the host
(_corpus Domini_) through the streets and images of the Virgin were
set up at the street corners, and all who refused to bow the head and
bend the knee in adoration were arrested.[55] Similar measures were
adopted in Poitou, at Toulouse, and at Aix in Provence where the double
enginery of state and church was brought to bear in the suppression of
heresy.[56] So great was the volume of judicial business as a result
of these new measures that four criminal chambers were established at
the end of the year, one to try offenses carrying the death penalty,
the second for trial of those who might be condemned to make _amende
honorable_, the third to judge those who might be publicly burned,
the last to punish various other offenses.[57] The saner Catholic
opinion, as, for example, that of Tavannes, the brilliant cavalry
leader, reprobated this recourse to extraordinary tribunals on the
ground that the judging of criminals by special commissioners, who were
persons chosen according to the passion of the ruler, was bound to be
unjust or tyrannical, and that those counselors who were drawn from the
courts of the parlements to be so employed offended their consciences
and mingled in that which did not pertain to them. Tavannes justified
his contention, legally as well as morally, on the ground that the
King, being a party in the cause could not justly change the ordinary
judges.[58]
The assassination of Minard, vice-president of the Grand Chamber of
the Parlement of Paris, and one of the judges, who was shot in his
coach[59] on the night of December 18, the same day that Du Bourg
was degraded, was the protest against this order of things.[60] The
murder was committed in such a way that the author of it could never be
discovered.[61] This was followed by that of Julien Frène, a messenger
of the Parlement, while bearing some papers and instructions relating
to the prosecution of certain Protestants. These two crimes undoubtedly
hardened the government[62] and hastened the prosecution of Du Bourg,
who was put to death just a week later, on December 23, and led to some
new regulations. In order to protect the Parlement, it was commanded to
adjourn before four o’clock, from St. Martin’s Eve (November 10) until
Easter; a general police order forbade the carrying of any firearms
whatsoever[63] and in order to prevent their concealment, the wearing
of long mantles or large hunting-capes was forbidden.[64]
It is to be observed that the Huguenots were concerted not only for
religious, but for political interests. The distinction was fully
appreciated at the time, the former being called “Huguenots of
religion” and the latter “Huguenots of state.”[65] The former were
Calvinists who were resolved no longer to endure the cruelties of
religious oppression; the latter—mostly nobles—those opposed to the
monopoly of power enjoyed by the Guises.[66] The weight of evidence
is increasingly in favor of the view that the causes of the Huguenot
movement were as much if not more political and economic than religious.
It was only in the general dislocation and _désœuvrement_ of society
that followed the cessation of the foreign wars that the French began
to realize the weight of the burdens which their governmental system
laid upon them. Until the religious sense gave a voice to the dumb
discontent, social or political, first in the Huguenot rising and
afterward in the outbreak of the League, there was little to show the
real force of the opposition to the established order.[67]
Abstractly considered, the religious Huguenots were not very dangerous
to the state so long as they confined their activity to the discussion
of doctrine. This could not easily be done, however, nor did the
opponents of the church so desire; for the church was a social and
political fabric, as well as a spiritual institution, and to challenge
or deny its spiritual sovereignty meant also to invalidate its social
and political claims, so that the whole structure was compromised. Thus
the issue of religion raised by the Huguenots merged imperceptibly
into that of the political Huguenots, who not only wanted to alter
the foundations of belief, but to change the institutional order of
things, and who used the religious opposition as a means to attack the
authority of the crown. The most active of this class were the nobles,
possessed of lands or bred to the profession of arms, whom a species
of political atavism actuated to endeavor to recover that feudal power
which the noblesse had enjoyed before the powerful kings like Louis
IX and Philip IV coerced the baronage; before the Hundred-Years’ War
ruined them; before Louis XI throttled the League of the Public Weal
in 1465. The weakness of Francis II, the minority of the crown under
Charles IX, and, above all, the dissatisfaction of the princes of the
blood and the old aristocracy, like the Montmorencys, with the upstart
pretensions and power of the Guises—these causes united to make the
Huguenots of state a formidable political party. Religion and politics
together provoked the long series of civil wars whose termination was
not until Henry IV brought peace and prosperity to France again in
1598.[68]
It is necessary to picture the state of France at this time. The
French were not essentially an industrial or commercial nation in the
sixteenth century. France had almost no maritime power and its external
commerce was not great. The great majority of the French people was
composed of peasants, small proprietors, artisans, and officials.
If we analyze city society, we find first some artisans and small
merchants—the bourgeois and the _gens-de-robe_ forming the upper
class. The towns had long since ceased to govern themselves. Society
was aristocratic and controlled by the clergy and nobility. The upper
clergy was very rich. High prelates were all grand seigneurs, while the
lower clergy was very dependent. Monks abounded in the towns, and the
curates possessed a certain influence. The most powerful class was the
nobles, seigneurs, and gentlemen, who possessed a great portion of the
rural properties, and still had fortified castles. They were wholly
employed either at court or in war, or held appointments as governors
of provinces and captains of strongholds. The nobles alone constituted
the regular companies of cavalry, that is to say, the dominant element
of the army. This class was therefore of influence in the state and
the most material force in society. The government was an absolute
monarchy. The king was theoretically uncontested master and obeyed
by all; he exercised an arbitrary and uncontrolled power, and could
decide according to his pleasure, with reference to taxes, laws, and
affairs both of the state and of the church, save in matters of faith.
He named and revoked the commissions of all the governors and acted
under the advice of a council composed of the princes of the blood and
favorites. But this absolute authority was still personal. The king
was only obeyed upon condition of giving the orders himself. There was
no conception of an abstract kingship. If the king abandoned the power
to a favorite, the other great personages of the court would refuse
to obey, and declare that the sovereign was a prisoner. Everything
depended upon a single person. No one thought of resisting Francis I
or Henry II because they were men grown at their accession. But after
1559 we find a series of royal infants or an indolent monarch like
Henry III. Then began the famous rivalries between the great nobles,
rivalries out of which were born the political parties of the times, in
which the Guises, the Montmorencys, and the famous Châtillon brothers
figure so prominently.
Fundamentally speaking, the aims of both classes of Huguenots were
revolutionary, and were directed, the one against the authority
of the mediaeval church, the other against the authority of the
French monarchy. The latter was a feudal manifestation, not yet
republican. The republican nature of early political Huguenotism
has been exaggerated. There was no such feeling at all as nearly as
1560,[69] and even at the height of Huguenot activity and power in
1570-72, most men still felt that the state of France was _vrayement
monarchique_,[70] and that the structure of society and the genius
of the people was strongly inclined to the form of government which
eight centuries of development had evolved; that it was searching for
false liberty by perilous methods to seek fundamentally to alter the
state.[71] In a word, most political Huguenots in 1560 were reformers,
not revolutionists; the extremists were Calvinist zealots and those
of selfish purposes who were working for their own ends. For in every
great movement there are always those who seek to exploit the cause.
Mixed with both classes of Huguenots were those who sought to fish in
troubled waters, who, under the guise of religion or the public good,
took occasion to pillage and rob all persons, of whatever degree
or quality; who plundered cities, pulled down churches, carried off
relics, burnt towns, destroyed castles, seized the revenues of the
church and the king, informed for the sake of reward, and enriched
themselves by the confiscated property of others. Similar things are
not less true of the Catholics. For there were zealots and fanatics
among them also, who under pretext of religion and patriotism were
guilty of great iniquity and heaped up much ill-gotten wealth.[72]
The ascendency of the Guises quite as much as the suppressive measures
of the government against Calvinism served to bring this disaffection
to a head. The issues, either way, cannot be separated. The practical
aims of the Guises were large enough to create dismay without it being
necessary to believe that as early as 1560 they aimed to secure the
crown by deposing the house of Valois. It was unreasonable to suppose,
though it proved to be so in the end, that the four sons of Henry II
would all die heirless, and even in the event of that possibility,
the house of Bourbon still remained to sustain the principle of
primogeniture.
The Guises came from Lorraine, their father having been brother of
the old duke of Lorraine; and through their mother they were related
to the house of Bourbon. They were thus cousins-german of the king of
Navarre and the prince of Condé and related to the King and the princes
of the blood. Their income, counting their patrimony, church property,
pensions and benefits received from the king, amounted to 600,000
francs (nearly $500,000 today), the cardinal of Lorraine alone having
the disposal of half that sum. This wealth, united with the splendor of
their house, their religious zeal, the popularity of the duke of Guise,
and the concord which prevailed among them, put them ahead of all the
nobles of the realm. The provincial governments and the principal
offices were in their hands or those of their partisans.
The cardinal, who was the head of the house, was in the early prime
of life. He was gifted with great insight which enabled him to see in
a flash the intention of those who came in contact with him; he had
an astonishing memory; a striking figure; an eloquence which he was
not loath to display, especially in politics; he knew Greek, Latin,
and Italian, speaking the last with a facility that astonished even
Italians themselves; he was trained in theology; outwardly his life
was very dignified and correct, but, like many churchmen of the time
he was licentious. His chief fault was avarice, and for this he was
execrated. His cupidity went to criminal limits, and coupled with it
was a duplicity so great that he seemed almost never to tell the truth.
He was quick to take offense, vindictive, envious. His death would have
been as popular as that of Henry II.[73]
On the other hand, the duke of Guise was a man of war, famed as the
recoverer of Calais and the captor of Metz. He was as popular as his
brother was otherwise. But, like him, he was avaricious stealing even
from his own soldiers.[74] According to their opponents the ambition
of the Guises was not to be content with the throne of France merely.
The throne of St. Peter and the crown of Naples were also believed to
be goals of their ambition, the cardinal of Lorraine aspiring to the
first and his brother, the duke, aspiring to the other in virtue of the
relationship of the Guises to the house of Anjou, one-time occupants
of the Neapolitan throne.[75] Even this programme was to be excelled.
Their enterprises in Scotland in favor of Mary Stuart[76] are known to
every student of English history; and after having vanquished Scotland
many of the German princes feared that they might move their forces
into Denmark in order to put the duke of Lorraine, their relative and
the brother-in-law of the king of Denmark, into possession of the
kingdom.[77]
“La tyrannie guisienne”[78] was a practical ascendency, not a mere
fiction of their opponents. As uncles of Francis II, destined morally
to be a minor always, owing to his weakness of will and mediocre
ability, having in their hands the chief offices of state, the Guises
proceeded to build up a system of government wholly their own, not only
in central but in provincial affairs, to compass which the removal of
the constable and the princes of the blood from the vicinity of the
King was the first step. Then followed an attempt to acquire control
of the provincial governments. Montmorency, the late constable, was
deprived of the government of Languedoc;[79] the governments of
Touraine and Orleans, in the very heart of France, were given to
the duke of Montpensier and the prince de la Roche-sur-Yon. Trouble
arose, though, in January, 1560, when the Guises excluded the prince
of Condé from the government of Picardy and gave it to the marshal
Brissac, although “the office had been faithfully administered by his
predecessors.”[80]
The cardinal of Lorraine’s position with reference to the finances
enabled him to provide the Guise faction with the resources necessary
to back up its political intentions.[81] The onerous taxation of
Francis I had been increased by Henry II, both the taille and the
gabelle, the collection of which had caused a fierce outbreak at
Bordeaux in the middle of the last reign; loans were resorted to, “not
without great suspicion of their being applied to the King’s finances;”
and the wages of the soldiers in garrisons and officers withheld.[82]
This condition of things naturally drew the constable[83] and his
partisans toward the prince of Condé, who vainly endeavored to persuade
the king of Navarre, as first prince of the blood, and therefore the
natural supporter of the crown instead of the Guises, to take a firm
stand, Condé especially representing to him how great a humiliation it
was to the crown that the administration of the kingdom should fall
so completely into the hands of the “foreigners” of Lorraine; that,
considering the weakness of the King, the fact that the provincial
governorships and those of the frontier fortresses and the control of
finances (which enabled the Guises to subject the judiciary to their
devotion) were in their hands, foreboded ill to France.
Antoine of Bourbon listened to the complaints against the the Guises,
but did little. At this time he was forty-two years of age. He was tall
of stature, well-knit, robust; affable to everybody without affectation
or display. His manners were open and frank, and his generosity was
so great that he was always in debt. By the two merits of urbanity
and generosity he made a superficial impression that did not last. In
speech he was vain, and imprudent and inconstant in word and deed,
not having the strength of will to adhere to a fixed purpose. He was
suspected of indifference to religion and even of impiety at this time
because he renounced the mass, though it was generally thought that
this was with the purpose of making himself chief of the Huguenot party
and not for religious zeal. The Protestants themselves called him a
hypocrite.[84] Antoine would not make common cause with the constable
partly from natural vacillation of character, partly because he
believed that the constable had not supported his claims to the kingdom
of Navarre, which he had been in hopes of recovering during the late
negotiations at Cateau-Cambrésis.[85] With the conceit of a weak man
in a prominent position, the king of Navarre entertained schemes of
his own, which he proceeded to develop. His purpose was to play Spain
and England against one another, in the hope that he either might
persuade Philip II to restore the kingdom of Navarre to him by a firm
advocacy of Catholicism in France, which, of course, prevented him from
affiliating with the Huguenot party to which Condé and the Châtillons
were attached; or, in the event of failure in this, to side with the
Huguenots and enlist English support. Accordingly, shortly after his
arrival at the court from Béarn, on August 23, 1559, Antoine sent a
gentleman to Throckmorton, the English ambassador in France, desiring
him to meet him “in cape” in the cloister of the Augustine Friars on
that night. When they met, after a long declaration of his affection
for Elizabeth, he said that he would write to her with his own hand,
since he would trust no one except himself, for if either the Guises or
the Spanish ambassador knew of it, “it would be dangerous to both and
hinder their good enterprise.”[86]
In the interval, while waiting to hear from the English queen, Antoine
of Bourbon, who had been coldly received at court, found that there
was no room for a third party between those of the constable and the
Guises.[87] At the same time the latter were made fully aware of his
doings through the treachery of D’Escars, his chamberlain and special
favorite,[88] and shrewdly schemed to rid themselves of his presence
by sending him to Spain as escort for Elizabeth, the celebration of
whose marriage (by proxy) to the King of Spain had come to such a
fatal termination, and whose departure had been necessarily delayed
by her father’s death.[89] In order to bait the hook the Guises
represented to the beguiled king of Navarre that the opportunity was a
most excellent one to urge his claims to his lost kingdom, and called
in Chantonnay, the Spanish ambassador in France, to enforce this
argument.[90]
The spirit of unrest in France, both political and religious, was so
great that only a head was wanting, not members, in order to bring
things to a focus. The whole of Aquitaine and Normandy was reported, in
December, 1559, to be in such “good heart” as to be easily excited to
action if they perceived any movement elsewhere;[91] in February, 1560,
the turbulence in Paris was so great that Coligny was appointed to go
thither in advance of the King’s entrance “for the appeasing of the
garboil there.”[92] In order to repress this spirit of rebellion the
government diligently prosecuted the Huguenots.[93] The Guises hoped
that the severity exercised during the last few months in Paris and
many other cities against persons condemned for their religion, of whom
very great numbers were burnt alive,[94] would terrify the Calvinists
and the political Huguenots into obedience. But on the contrary,
local rebellion increased. At Rouen, at Bordeaux, and between Blois
and Orleans, Huguenots arrested by the King’s officers were rescued by
armed bands, in some cases the officers being killed. Indeed, so common
did these practices become that they were at last heard of without
surprise.[95]
Imagine a young king [wrote the Venetian ambassador] without
experience and without authority; a council rent by discord; the
royal authority in the hands of a woman alternately wise, timid, and
irresolute, and always a woman; the people divided into factions and
the prey of insolent agitators who under pretense of religious zeal
trouble the public repose, corrupt manners, disparage the law, check
the administration of justice, and imperil the royal authority.[96]
The interests of the religious Huguenots and the political Huguenot’s
continued to approach during the autumn and winter of 1559-60. In
order to make head against the usurpation of the Guises,[97] which
they represented as a foreign domination, the latter contended that it
was necessary to call the estates of France in order to interpret the
laws, just as the Calvinists contended for an interpretation of the
Scriptures. The contentions of the Huguenots, the tyrannical conduct of
the Guises, the menaces which they did not hesitate to utter against
the high nobles of the realm, the retirement into which they had driven
the constable, the removal of the princes of the blood which they had
brought about upon one pretext or another, the contempt they expressed
for the States-General, the corruption of justice, their exorbitant
financial policy, the disposal of offices and benefices which they
practiced—all these causes, united with religious persecutions,
constituted a body of grievances for which redress inevitably would
be demanded. The question was, How? The leaders of the Huguenots—and
the term is used even more in a political sense than in a religious
one—were not ignorant of the history of the Reformation in Germany,
nor unaware of the fact that politics had been commingled with religion
there.[98] The question of ways and means being laid before the legists
of the Reformation and other men of renown in both France and Germany,
it was answered that the government of the Guises could be _legally_
opposed and recourse made to force of arms, provided that the princes
of the blood, who, in such case had legitimate right to bear rule in
virtue of their birth, or any one of their number, could be persuaded
to endeavor to do so.[99] But the attempt necessarily would have to be
of the nature of a _coup de main_, for the reason that the King was
in the hands of the Guises and the council composed of them and their
partisans. After long deliberation it was planned, under pretext of
presenting a petition to the King, to seize the cardinal of Lorraine
and the duke of Guise, then to assemble the States-General for the
purpose of inquiring into their administration, and before them to
prosecute the ministers for high treason.[100] Three classes of men
found themselves consorting together in this movement: those actuated
by a sentiment of patriotism, conceiving this to be the right way to
serve their prince and their country; second, those moved by ambition
and fond of change; finally, zealots who were filled with religious
enthusiasm and a wish to avenge the intolerance and persecution which
they and theirs had suffered.[101] For such an enterprise Louis of
Bourbon, the prince of Condé, was the logical leader, both because of
his position as a prince of the blood and on account of his resentment
toward the Guises for having been excluded from the government of
Picardy. But the prince, when besought to attempt the overthrow of
the Guises for the deliverance of the King and the state, in view of
the dubious conduct of his brother, concluded that it would be too
perilous to the cause for him to be overtly compromised, in event
of failure.[102] Montmorency was not possible as a leader, for his
religious leanings were in no sense Calvinistic; he was not a prince of
the blood, and therefore his contentions could not politically have the
weight of Condé’s; and finally, his grievance was more a personal than
a party one.[103]
The conspirators found a leader in the person of a gentleman of
Limousin or Périgord, one Godfrey de Barry, sieur de la Renaudie,[104]
who had been imprisoned at Dijon, escaped and found refuge in
Switzerland;[105] he had a special grievance against the Guises, who
had lately (September 4, 1558) put his brother-in-law, Gaspard de Heu,
sieur de Buy, to death.[106]
The active participants were, in the main, recruited from the Breton
border, Anjou, Saintonge, and Poitou, with individual captains
from Picardy, Normandy, Guyenne, Provence, and Languedoc.[107]
Their rendezvous was at Nantes, in a house owned, it is said, by
D’Andelot.[108] But the author of the whole daring project was the
famous François Hotman, a French refugee at Geneva, and the real
inspiration of the movement came from Switzerland, for the unexpected
death of Henry II seemed to the French exiles in Switzerland to open
the door of the mother country again to them.[109]
[Illustration: CONSPIRACY OF AMBOISE
SURRENDER OF THE CHÂTEAU DE NOIZAY
(Tortorel and Perissin)]
The whole plot was concerted in a meeting held at Nantes on February
1, 1560,[110] which was chosen partly because of its remoteness,
partly because the Parlement of Brittany being in session, the
conspirators could conceal their purpose by pretending to be there
on legal business. A marriage festival also helped to disguise their
true purpose; and for the sake of greater caution, the principals were
careful not to recognize one another in public.[111] It was determined
to muster two hundred cavalry from each town in the provinces of
Guyenne, Gascony, Périgord, Limousin, and Agenois. For the maintenance
of this force they intended to avail themselves of the revenues and
effects of the abbeys and monasteries of each province, taxing them
arbitrarily and using force if unable to obtain payment in any other
way.[112] The initiative was to have been taken on March 6,[113]
under the form of presenting a petition to the King against the
usurpation of the Guises.[114] Unfortunately for the success of the
enterprise, it was too long in preparation and too widely spread to
keep secret.[115] The magnitude of the plot alarmed the Guises, in
spite of the full warning they had received.[116] Aside from outside
sources of information, the conspiracy was revealed by one of those
in it, an advocate of the Parlement named Avenelles, whose courage
failed him at the critical moment.[117] Thereupon, for precaution’s
sake, the court moved from Blois to the castle of Amboise, which the
duke, having the King’s authority to support him, immediately set about
fortifying. He likewise secured the garrison and townspeople, and found
a plausible pretext to watch the prince of Condé, by giving him one
of the gates to defend; but, at the same time, sent his brother, the
grand prior along with a company of men-at-arms of assured fidelity.
In view of alarming rumors a posse was sent on March 11 under command
of the count of Sancerre to Tours, where some ten or twelve of those
in the plot, notably the baron de Castelnau, the captain Mazères,
and a gentleman named Renay were already awaiting the money which was
to be distributed among companies of theirs secretly stationed in
the neighboring villages.[118] Twenty-five of the conspirators were
arrested without opposition, whilst incautiously walking outside the
Château de Noizay, between three and four leagues from Amboise, which
belonged to the wife of Renay, and the whole number of them, with
five others arrested at Tours by the count de Sancerre, were taken to
Amboise. Immediate examination, though, showed that some of them had
risen in arms, partly from friendship for certain captains under whom
they had served, while others had been tempted by a trifle of earnest
money in lieu of pay, as usual when soldiers were raised for companies,
without knowing the place of their service, or its purpose. They were
all dismissed, with the exception of one or two who remained prisoners,
the chancellor Olivier having admonished them and told them that though
they deserved to die the king of his clemency, for this once granted
them their lives.[119] To enable them to return home, the King had a
crown (teston = 10 to 11 sous) given to each man. But the alarm was not
yet ended. That night (March 14) several couriers arrived at the court
bringing new advices. The next morning at daybreak there was greater
commotion than ever before the castle, for two hundred cavalry made
their appearance in the town. They thought themselves almost sure of
not finding any sort of resistance and that they consequently would
be able to effect their purpose, as all the princes and lords, like
all the rest of the court, had no sort of defensive armour except
some coats of mail, and very few even of those, while their offensive
weapons were merely swords and daggers, with a few pistols, whereas,
on the contrary, the insurgents were well armed with both kinds of
weapons and were for the most part well horsed. Some boatmen saw the
insurgents following the course of the Loire, and their shouts aroused
the castle. One or two were killed, whereupon the rest took to flight
toward the country. But several were captured and two of them having
been recognized as among the company who had been pardoned on the
evening before, they were instantly hanged, with two others taken on
the preceding day, on the battlements over the castle gate.
[Illustration: THE EXECUTION OF AMBOISE, DEATH OF CASTELNAU
(Tortorel and Perissin)]
As a result of the new alarm there was a general scattering of bands
of arrest on the next day (March 15). The marshal St. André was
dispatched to Tours with nearly two hundred horse, with orders to
take five companies of men-at-arms from the garrison in the immediate
neighborhood. He was followed by Claude of Guise, the duke d’Aumale,
the duke de Nemours and the prince of Condé.[120] Marshal Termes
was sent to Blois; the marshal Vieilleville to Orleans; the duke
of Montpensier to Angers; La Rochefoucault to Bourges; Burie to
Poitiers.[121] During the day some forty others were taken. Fifteen
of those pursued retreated into a house and defended themselves most
obstinately, wounding many of their assailants who surrounded it, so
that the house was set on fire: one of them, rather than surrender,
burned himself alive by throwing himself into the flames. Toward
nightfall six or seven more of them were hanged. The duke of Guise,
whom the King in the exigency of the moment, made lieutenant-general
on March 17,[122] did not fail to take every precaution; he appointed
two princes and two knights of St. Michael for each quarter of Amboise,
keeping sentries there and sending out scouts as if the town were
besieged. The most exposed parts of the castle were repaired and
supplied with food, and above all with money, weapons, and artillery.
The most useful remedy, however, was the publication and transmission
for publication to all the towns and places in France of a general
pardon for all the insurgents who within twenty-four hours after its
notification should return to their homes, or otherwise they would
be proclaimed rebels and traitors, and license would be given to all
persons to slay them and inherit their property; but assuring the
insurgents, nevertheless, that if they wished to say anything, or to
present any request to the King they would be heard willingly, without
hurt, provided they made their appearance as loyal subjects.[123]
[Illustration: DEATH OF LA RENAUDIE
(Tortorel and Perissin)]
The prisoners confessed that in all the neighboring towns, viz.,
Blois, Orleans, Chartres, Chateaudun, and others, a great supply of
arms had been made in secret, most especially of arquebuses, one of
the men who were hanged having revealed that in one single house at
Blois there were six large chests full of these. During the next three
days nothing was attended to but fortifying the castle, repairing the
weakest places around it, and making a trench in front of the principal
gate, which opened on the country, in which some arquebuses and three
or four small pieces of artillery found accidentally and brought there
from neighboring places, were fixed. Round the town, besides cutting
the bridges which were at its gates, except the principal bridge over
the Loire, the moats were cleansed and restored, leaving but one gate
open.[124] Scouting parties were daily sent out, and on March 19 a
company of five fell in with an equal number of insurgents; after a
long and stout fight the posse at length killed their commander and
two of his men and made the other two prisoners. One of those killed
proved to be La Renaudie.[125]
But the Guises did not stop with these acts of punishment near by.
Besides sending letters of authority to all bailiffs and seneschals
ordering the arrest of all men, whether on foot or on horseback, to
be found in the country surrounding Amboise,[126] Tavannes, on April
12,1560, was ordered to do the like in Dauphiné, being actually armed
with _lettres de cachet_ issued in blank.[127]
Few other disturbances developed except at Lyons, and in Provence and
Dauphiné[128] but the government was anxious with regard to Gascony and
Normandy, “their populations being much more daring,”[129] “The whole
of Normandy is filled with Huguenotism,” wrote the Venetian ambassador,
“the people by thousands sing every night until ten o’clock the Psalms
of David and the men-at-arms dare not touch them. The people of
Dieppe every night in the market-place sing psalms and some days have
sermons preached to them in the fields; in most towns in Normandy
and many other places they do the same thing.”[130] In consequence
of this state of things, the marshal de Termes was appointed with
royal authority and full and absolute powers throughout the province
summarily to confiscate, imprison, condemn and put to death whomsoever
he pleased.[131]
In the end the government sent 1,200 of those implicated in the
conspiracy of Amboise or under suspicion to execution. A morbid desire
to witness the shedding of blood seized upon society, and it became a
customary thing for the ladies and gentlemen of the court to witness
the torture of those condemned after the manner of the _auto da fé_
in Spain.[132] D’Aubigné[133] the eminent historian of the French
Reformation, was an eye-witness of such incidents, and though but ten
years of age, swore like young Hannibal before his father, to devote
his life to vengeance of such atrocities.[134]