themselves in the matter. For St. Sulpice, the French ambassador in
Spain, who succeeded L’Aubespine, on October 8, 1562, writes to Antoine
to this effect: “On lui a rapporté ‘comme les galères d’Espagne, venant
d’Italie à Barcelone, et passant près de la Saidaigne, les habitans
du pays, s’étaient mis en armes avec contenance de vouloir défendre
l’abordée de leurs portes ausd. galères, de quoi s’étant depuis venus
justifier par deça; ils avaient remontré qu’ils avaient entendu que ce
roi les voulait bailler à un autre prince et qu’ils craignaient que
lesd. galères y vinssent pour les contraindre de la recevoir à sgr.,
ce qu’ils ne voulaient permettre, le suppléant de ne les aliéner de sa
courrone,’” etc.—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 83. His correspondence
abounds with allusions to Sardinia, e. g., 17, 25, 35, 37, 79, 83, 84,
90, etc.
[377] In the presence of the king of Navarre, the constable, the dukes
of Guise, Nevers, Montpensier, and Aumale, and of spiritual lords, the
cardinal of Lorraine, who was archbishop of Rheims, and the bishops
of Laon, Langres, Châlons, Noyon, and Beauvais, the last being the
cardinal Châtillon, the only prominent Huguenot, who attended the
coronation. The prince of Condé, the admiral, the duke de Longueville,
the marshal Montmorency, and his brother Damville, were not present,
because they would not assist at mass (“M. Damville is the constable’s
best-beloved son, a Knight of the Order, one of the paragons of the
court and a favourer of the reformed faith.”—_C. S. P. For._, No.
395, §3, August 11, 1561). For a detailed account of the particulars
and party issues manifested at the ceremony see De Crue, 309, 310,
Catherine de Medici apparently took her time to advise Philip II of the
coronation, for her letter (without date) was not received by the King
until June 17, K. 1,494, No. 44.
[378] This mightily offended the Triumvirate, and the duke of Guise,
the constable, and the marshal St. André forthwith left the court in
high dudgeon.
Rochambeau, _Lettres d’Antoine de Bourbon et de Jeanne d’Albret_,
Inventaire Sommaire, No. CXLIII, 27 juin 1561—“Attestation de
Catherine de Médicis et Antoine de Bourbon, pour affirmer que la
retraite du duc du Guyse, de conestable de Montmorency, et du mareschal
de St. André n’est due qu’au seul respect et affection qu’ils portent
au service du roi et au repos de ses sujets.”—Bib. Nat., F. Fr.,
3,194, fol. 5.
[379] “Procès-verbal de la reconcilation entre le prince de Condé et le
duc de Guise en presence du roi Charles IX,” in K. 1,494, No. 92; _Nég.
Tosc._, III, 460; _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 449, August 24, 1561, 461,
August 30, 1561; La Place, 139, 140.
[380] “Requeste présenté au roi par les Deputez des Eglises esparses
parmi le royaume de France.” A printed copy is to be found in K. 1,495,
No. 42. It is a really eloquent petition.
[381] Castelnau, Book III, chap, iii; _C. S. P. For._, No. 304, §3,
July 13, 1561.
[382] Suriano definitely says the edict of July was the work of the
chancellor. He gives a summary of the edict in a despatch of July 27,
1561 (Huguenot Society).
[383] Cf. _C. S. P. For._, 1561, No. 237; _Despatches of Suriano_
(Huguenot Society), June 25, 1561.
[384] Chantonnay to Philip II, July 24, 1561, K. 1,495, No. 52; _C. S.
P. For._, No. 321, §2, Paris, July 16, 1561.
[385] Isambert, _Anc. lois franç._, XIV, 109 (Edit sur la religion,
sur le moyen de tenir le peuple en paix, et sur la répression des
séditieux).
[386] Suriano, August 25; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 453-58; Castelnau, Book
III; _C. S. P. For._, No. 357; Beza, _Hist. ecclés._, I, 294 (ed.
1841); La Place, 130; D’Aubigné, I, 309.
[387] Castelnau, Book III, chap. iii; he admirably depicts the divided
state of mind of the Parlement which resulted in the edict taking
this neutral form. Suriano pithily observes: “Con questi dispareri le
cose del Regno patiscono assai, et non si può far niuna deliberatione
d’importanza che sia ferma et rissoluta, et di quà hanno havuto
origine tanti editti nel fatto di Religione che sono stati publicati
li mesi passati, li quali non solamente sono ambigui, ma diversi l’uno
dall’altro et spesse volte contrarii, donde li heretici hanno preso
tanto fomento che sono fatti più indurati et più ostinati che mai”
(June 26, 1561).
Charles IX sent the Sieur d’Ozances to Spain to soften Philip’s anger
as much as possible. In a letter of July 18, from St. Germain to his
ambassador in Spain, after stating the motives which have led him to
dispatch D’Ozances, he adds: “Au demeurant, je ne doubte point qu’on
sème de beaulx bruictz par delà, touchant le faict de la Religion, et
qu’on ne nous face beaucoup plus malades que nous ne sommes; et, pour
ceste occasion il m’a semblé qu’il serait fort à propos que le Sr.
d’Auzances feist entendre au Roy, mon bon frère, les termes en quoy
nous en sommes.” Then follow details upon the edict of pacification.
This letter was sold at auction in 1877. It is catalogued in the
_Inventaire des autographes et des documents historiques composant la
collection de M. Benjamin Fillon_, Paris, Charavay, 1877 (Series I,
34, No. 132—“Lettre de Charles IX contre-sig. Robertet, à l’évêque de
limoges, ambassadeur en espagne; St. Germain, 18 juillet, 1561”).
[388] Claude Haton, I, 122.
[389] _Ibid._, I, 129. In consequence of this state of things we find
numerous ordinances passed in the summer of 1561 in restraint of
violence; cf. “Edit sur la religion, sur le moyen de tenir le peuple
en paix et sur la répression des séditieux, July 1561,” Isambert,
XIV, 109; “Edit pour remedier aux troubles, et sur la répression des
séditieux,” October 20, 1561, _ibid._, XIV, 122; “Edit sur le port
d’armes à feu, la vente de ces armes et les formalités à suivre par les
fabricants,” October 21, 1561, _ibid._, XIV, 123.
[390] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 237, February 17, 1561, says: “_one_
representative with absolute authority to treat and conclude what might
be approved by the majority of votes.” But La Place, III, 121, says two
representatives were chosen from each bailiwick. Cf. De Crue, _Anne de
Montmorency_, 300.
[391] The estates of the Ile-de-France demanded that the council and
government of the King should be formed according to the ancient
constitution of the realm; that the accounts of the previous
administration should be examined; that the queen mother should be
removed from the government and be content with being guardian of the
King’s person; that no stranger be admitted to be of the council; that
no cardinal, bishop, or other ecclesiastical person having made suit
to the Pope, should have any place in the Privy Council, not even
the cardinal Bourbon, though he was a prince of the blood, unless he
resigned his hat; that the king of Navarre be regent of the realm
with the title of lieutenant-general, and that with him be joined a
council of the princes of the blood and others; that the admiral and
M. de Rochefoucault should have charge of the education of the King.
On these conditions the Estates offered to discharge the King’s debts
in six years; but in the event of refusal, they declared that the King
must live upon the incomes of the royal domain, much of which was
mortgaged (_C. S. P. For._, No. 77, sec. 3, March 31). Cf. _Despatches
of Michele Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), June 10, 1561; De Crue, _Anne
de Montmorency_, 300, 301; letter of Hotman to Bullinger, April 2,
1561 in _Mém. de l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit._, CIV (1877), 656;
_Nég. Tosc._, III, 455-58. For other information, see “Remonstrances
du tiers-état du baillage de Provins,” in Claude Haton, II, 1137;
“Remonstrance ... des villes de Champagne,” _ibid._, III, 1140, which
shows the economic distress.
[392] La Place, 158 ff.; La Popelinière, I, 271 ff.; D’Aubigné, Book
II, chap, xvi; Beza, _Hist. ecclés._, ed. 1840, I, 320 ff.; L’Hôpital,
_Œuvres complètes_, I, 485 ff. De Thou, Book XXVIII, 74-77; Claude
Haton, I, 155. A test vote, however, on religion was taken, resulting
in 62 votes for liberty of worship in the case of the Huguenots, and 80
against it (letter of Hotman in _Rev. hist._, XCVII, March-April, 1908,
300).
[393] _C. S. P. For._, No. 396, August 11, 1561; La Place, 146, 147,
150.
[394] La Place, 150-52; De Thou, IV, 74, 75. The full text,
unpublished, of this discourse is in F. Fr., 3970, a volume which
contains much unused material for the history of the estates of
Pontoise. L’Hôpital’s address is one of the documents.
[395] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), August 24, 1561.
[396] _C. S. P. For._, No. 538, §5, September 26, 1561.
[397] De Crue, 312, 313; De Thou, IV, 74; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 461;
Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, III, 160; _Rel. vén._,
II, 21; K. 1,494, fol. 94. Notwithstanding this relief, the King
demanded a further subsidy amounting to three million gold crowns from
the local Estates to be paid in the following January (_C. S. P. For._,
No. 682, §10, November 26, 1561).
[398] _Ibid._; cf. No. 750, §7, December 28, 1561. Most of this debt
was held by Paris. It amounted to 7,560,056 livres.
[399] _Rel. vén._, I, 409-11. Upon the whole question, see De Crue,
_Anne de Montmorency_, chap. xiv; Esmein, _Histoire du droit français_,
632-33.
[400] De Ruble, _Le colloque de Poissy_ (1889); Klipfel, _Le colloque
de Poissy_ (1867).
[401] _C. S. P. For._, No. 265, §9, June 23, 1561; La Place, 131.
[402] Paris, _Négociations relatives au règne de François II_, 550,
615-22; _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VI, 137; Klipfel,
_Quis fuerit in Gallia factionum status_, Paris 1863, 23.
[403] Theodore Beza, “the Huguenot pope,” did not reach the court until
August 23, where he was cordially received by the prince of Condé,
before whom he preached “in open audience, whereat was a great press”
(_C. S. P. For._, No. 461, August 30, 1561). For the active agency of
Beza at court before the assembly at Poissy met, see La Place, 155-57.
[404] The Sorbonne protested against the whole proceeding, but its
request was not granted (La Place, 154; cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 458,
August 28, 1561, No. 485, September 8, 1561).
[405] _C. S. P. For._, No. 492, September 10, 1561.
[406] “Far diventar questo Regno cantoni di Svizzeri” ... (_Despatches
of Suriano_ [Huguenot Society], Aug. 15, 1561; cf. _English Hist.
Review_, VIII, 135). Elsewhere the Venetian ambassador says: “E cosi
si va alla via di redurre quella provincia a stato populare, come
Svizzeri; e distruggere la monarchia e il regno.”—_Rel. vén._, I, 538.
De Thou, Book XXV, observes: “Qui primam, quam Deo debebant, fidem
irritam fecissent; qua semel violate, minime dubitaverint regem ipsum
petere quo regnum everterent, et confusis ordinibus, in rei publicae
formam, Helvetiorum exemplo, redigerent.”
[407] _C. S. P. For._, No. 421, August 19, 1561; _ibid._, _Ven._, No.
280, September 8, 1561.
[408] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), September 18, 1561.
[409] “Demandes des ministres protestantes au roi,” K. 1,494, No. 95.
[410] Upon the personnel of the assembly, see the references in
D’Aubigné, I, 315, n. 4.
[411] _C. S. P. For._, No. 516, §7, September 20, 1561.
[412] “Paroles prononcées par Theodore de Beza touchant le
sacrement.”—K. 1,495, No. 77. 1, “Profession de foi concerté par les
prélats de France;” 2, “Première proposition des Catholiques; première
proposition des hérétiques.”—Latin, K. 1,495, No. 78; cf. _Rel. vén._,
II, 75.
[413] The cardinal’s definition of the church was, “the company of
Christians in which is comprised both reprobates and heretics, and
which has been recognized always, everywhere, and by all, and which
alone had the right of interpreting Scripture.”—_C. S. P. For._, No.
507, September 17, 1561; cf. Suriano (Huguenot Society), September 22.
His address is given at length in La Place, 179 ff. It was published at
the time. Suriano, August 23, 1561, says all the delegates “made very
long speeches.” Upon the doctrinal tactics of the cardinal of Lorraine
at the colloquy of Poissy, see the letters of Languet, _Epist. secr._,
II, 139, September 20, 1561; 159, November 26, 1561.
[414] The first president of the Parlement of Paris was committed to
keeping his house because of offensive agitation (_C. S. P. For._, No.
461, August 30, 1561).
[415] Proposition de Théodore de Bèze, K. 1,494, No. 96.
[416] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 280, September 8, 1561.
[417] _C. S. P. For._, No. 511, September 19, 1561.
[418] Not being a Frenchman, but an Italian—his name was Pietro
Martire Vermigli—he received a separate safe-conduct (Suriano
[Huguenot Society], August 23; _Rev. hist._, XCVII, March-April, 1908,
p. 302).
[419] La Place, 199.
[420] _C. S. P. For._, No. 602, October 1, 2 1561. For a description of
the last days of the Colloquy, see _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot
Society), October 16, 1561.
[421] _C. S. P. For._, No. 624, October 18, 1561. In K. 1,495, No.
66, is a résumé by the Spanish chancellery of Chantonnay’s dispatches
dealing with the colloquy.
[422] _C. S. P. For._, No. 753, from Strasburg, December 30, 1561.
Writing just a week earlier, on December 23, to his sovereign,
Chantonnay strongly condemned the course of Catherine at Poissy because
it had militated against the authority of Trent, and had given courage
to the heretics to continue their synods.—K. 1,494, No. 104. Other
references to the Colloquy of Poissy are De Thou, IV, 84 ff.; De Ruble,
_Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, 76 ff.; _Corresp. de Catherine
de Médicis_, I, Introd., ci, 239. Chantonnay’s correspondence, covering
both the colloquy and the meeting of the estates at Pontoise, is in
K. 1,494, No. 89, August 5; No. 90, August 20; No. 101, September 12
(especially valuable for the financial settlement); No. 102, September
15.
[423] _C. S. P. For._, No. 659, §10, November 14, 1561. Of these
the chancellor was the more aggressive, opposing the efforts of the
clerical party to delay and obstruct action (D’Aubigné, I, 311).
[424] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 248; _C. S. P.
For._, Nos. 225 and 245, June 6-13, 1561; No. 273, June 23, 1561. The
choice was a tactless one on the part of the Pope and one certain to
antagonize Catherine de Medici as well as the political Huguenots,
for the cardinal was a relative of the Guises by marriage. Don Luigo
d’Este, the duke of Ferrara’s brother, was the son of Alphonso d’Este
and Lucretia Borgia. He resigned his place in the church and married
the duchess of Estouteville, a marriage indicating the Guise policy of
aggrandisement (_C. S. P. For._, No. 904, March 27, 1560). The marriage
made bitter feeling between the House of Ferrara and the Guises.
“There is a breach between the Dukes of Ferrara and Guise touching the
former’s mother, who, being very rich, and lately fallen out with her
son, had secretly sent to the Duke of Guise, a gentleman with a message
that she would come to France and end her life there and be as his
mother. Word was sent her that she would be welcome; and if her son
would not permit her to come with her substance, he would take into his
hands the assignation made by the late king upon certain lands for the
payment of 100,000 crowns yearly to the Duke till such time as 600,000
crowns, borrowed from him at the Duke of Guise’s last voyage to Rome,
were paid off. The Duke keeps his mother with good watch for fear of
her escaping to France.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 446, August 22, 1561.
The cardinal traveled with great pomp, having no less than four hundred
horses in his train.
[425] _C. S. P. For._, No. 538, §1, September 26, 1561.
[426] D’Aubigné, I, 311; _Rel. vén._, II, 87; _C. S. P. For._, No. 602,
October 12, 1561.
[427] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), September 23, 1561.
[428] _Ibid._, October 22, 1561. For further details of the
negotiations, see _ibid._, November 3, 1561; _C. S. P. For._, No. 682,
§9, November 26; Baschet, _Journal du Concile de Trente_, 89.
[429] Philip II to Catherine, September 29, 1561; to Charles, _ibid._,
K. 1,495, No. 72. To Chantonnay he wrote three days later: “También
hazed entender á la Reyna como por este camino perdera su hijo, esse
reyno y la obediencia de sus vassalos.”—K. 1,495, No. 80. The words
were not merely urgent advice—they implied a threat.
[430] Weiss, _L’Espagne sous Phillippe II_, I, 114, 115; cf. Forneron,
_Histoire de Philippe II_, I, 253, n. 3. See also the remarkable
“Rapport sur une conférence entre l’ambassadeur de France et le duc
d’Albe, au sujet des affaires du roi de Navarre et des troubles pour
cause de la religion” (French transcript, apparently of a report of
the Spanish chancellery), in K. 1,496, No. 136, December 20, 1561. The
Pope indorsed the proposition of Spanish intervention in France (Vargas
to Philippe II, November 7, 1561, in _Papiers d’état du cardinal de
Granvelle_, VI, 398, 404).
[431] “Aux villes et pays où ils sont là declaires leur bailler
quelques lieux prochaine hors des dictes villes”—Résumé des points
principaux traités par l’ambassadeur de France auprès du roi Philippe
II (Communications du duc d’Alba), November 9, 1561, K. 1,495, No.
58; “Propositions faites par M. d’Ozance et l’ambassadeur ordinaire
en Espagne, l’évêque de Limoges, dans deux audiences à eux données
par le roi Philippe II” (Résumé avec annotations), Minute, Notes de
chancellerie, K. 1,495, No. 69, Madrid, September 17, 1561; “Points
principaux d’une négociation spéciale de M. d’Ozance, envoyé de
Catherine de Médici avec réponses notées à la marge, point par point:
Communications au duc d’Albe après une déliberation du Conseil d’état,
prise lui absent,” November 12, 1561, K. 1,495 No. 89; “Précis des
points traités par M. d’Ozance et de l’Aubespine, ambassadeur de
France,” K. 1,495, No. 94, December 10, 1561; “Réponses à faire par
ordre de Philippe II à M. d’Ozance, sur les nouvelles propositions
de cet ambassadeur,” K. 1,495, No. 98, December 15, 1561; “Memento
addressé par l’évêque de Limoges au duc d’Albe” (Note à communiquer
au roi Philippe II), K. 1,495 No. 100, December 20, 1561; Philip II
to Chantonnay: “Avis de ce qu’on a répondu à M. d’Ozance,” December
21, 1561, K. 1,495, No. 102; “Rapport sur une conférence entre
l’ambassadeur du France et le duc d’Albe, au sujet des affaires du
roi de Navarre et des troubles pour cause de la religion” (copié en
Français), K. 1,496, folio 136, Madrid, December 20, 1561.
[432] Summary of Philip II’s letter to Chantonnay of January 18, 1562,
in K. 1,496, No. 34.
[433] _Despatches of Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), November 4, 1561. The
_Journal du Concile de Trente_ (ed. Baschet), 89, says the intention
was to carry him into Lorraine, to prevent his becoming tainted
with heresy. Lignerolles, an intimate of the duke of Nemours, later
confessed the latter’s complicity in the plot to kidnap the young
prince and spirit him away to Savoy, but the affair was hushed up and
Lignerolles was shortly afterward released. The prince de Joinville,
Guise’s son, seems to have been more actively interested than his
father. The correspondence between Chantonnay and Philip leaves no room
for doubt of the fact that Nemours was acting as the agent of Spain
(K. 1,494, No. 106, October 31, from St. Cloud; No. 114, November 28,
1561), although Philip repudiated complicity in a letter to Catherine
(K. 1,495, No. 90, November 27, 1561), and Chantonnay declared the
whole story was a trick of the Huguenots.
[434] D’Aubigné, 321. Chantonnay seems to have been apprehensive lest
the circumstances might precipitate the civil war which every one
feared (Letter to Philip II, November 28, 1561, K. 1,494, No. 114),
and seized the opportunity afforded by it to read the queen mother
a lecture. The ambassador “used great threatenings toward the queen
mother and the king of Navarre for their proceedings in religion.”—_C.
S. P. For._, No. 659, §§1, 2.
Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, III, 245-50; De Crue,
_Anne de Montmorency_, 315, 316. The official inquiry entitled,
“Enquête sur l’enlèvement du duc d’Orleans,” is in F. Fr. 6,608.
[435] _C. S. P. For._, No. 715, §1, December 12, 1561.
[436] _Despatches of Michele Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), November 3,
1561; _C. S. P. For._, No. 659, §5, November 14, 1561.
[437] _C. S. P. For._, No. 717, §7, December 13, 1561. For some of the
famous Catholic preachers of Paris in 1561, see Claude Haton, I, 213,
214, and notes.
[438] Claude Haton, I, 177, 178.
[439] _C. S. P. For._, No. 617, October 15, 1561.
[440] _C. S. P. For._, No. 304, §4, July 23, 1561.
[441] K. 1,495, No.47, June 19, 1561. Cf. _Despatches of Suriano_
(Huguenot Society), October 1. Upon these insurrections in the south,
see D’Aubigné, I, 322-26; De Thou, II, 235 ff. (ed. 1740); _Mém.
de Condé_, III, 636; Long, _La réforme et les guerres de religion
en Dauphiné_; Pierre Gilles, _Hist. ecclés. des églises réformées
vaudoises_, chap. xxii; _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 211.
[442] “Aulx petites villes, elles se sont ralliez les unes
avec les autres en ung faict, ung monopole et une ligue
ensemble.”—_Mémoires-journaux du duc de Guise_ (M. & P., sér. I, VI,
467, col. 2); Letter of Joyeuse to the constable; duplicate to the duke
of Guise (September 16, 1561). For the work of this league see pp.
468-71. Guillaume, vicomte de Joyeuse; was lieutenant to the governor
of Languedoc and later a marshal of France.
[443] These princes were Wolfgang William, duke of Deuxponts; William,
landgrave of Hesse; Frederick the Pious, count palatine of the Rhine
(D’Aubigné, I, 333, 334; Le Laboureur, I, 673). The leading Protestant
princes of Germany were Augustus, elector of Saxony; Joachim II,
margrave of Brandenburg, John Frederick duke of Saxony; Christopher,
duke of Württemberg; Wolfgang William, duke of Deuxponts (Zweibrücken);
John Albert, duke of Mecklenberg; John the Elder, duke of Holstein;
Joachim Ernest, prince of Anhalt, and Charles, margrave of Baden. These
are enumerated in a letter of Hotman, December 31, 1560. See _Mém. de
l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit._, CIV, 653, and _Bulletin de la soc.
prot. franç._, 1860.
[444] _Mém. de l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit._, CIV (1877), 66; _C.
S. P. For._, No. 399, August 12, 1561.
[445] _C. S. P. For._, No. 319, July 15, 1561, from Strasburg. Hotman
visited the elector palatine at Germersheim; the landgrave of Hesse at
Cassel; the elector of Saxony at Leipsic, whence he went to Stuttgart.
He did not see the duke of Württemberg in person, and was compelled to
write to him instead. (See his letter, September 27, 1561, in _Mém.
de l’Acad des sc. moral. et polit._, CIV, 660.) Thence he went to
Heidelberg, from which point he wrote a second letter to the duke of
Württemberg, and one to the duke of Deuxponts.
[446] La Place, 121, 122; _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 249; Arch. nat., K.
1,495, folio 47, Chantonnay to Philip II, June 19, 1561.
[447] _C. S. P. For._, No. 736, November 26, 1561.
[448] Chantonnay’s correspondence shows that agents of the duke of
Guise were busy in Germany as early as October, 1561, K. 1,494, No.
105, October 28, 1561. Cf. Hubert Languet, _Epist. secr._, II, 142,
159, 202; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, I, 216-18, 226-52;
_Bulletin de la soc. de l’histoire du prot. français_, XXIV.
[449] _C. S. P. For._, No. 724, §2, December 14, 1561.
[450] _C. S. P. For._, No. 602, October 11, 1561, from Rome.
[451] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VI, 432-43: “Rapport
secret du secretaire Courtville,” December, 1561.
[452] Cf. Montluc, bishop of Valence, “Discours sur le bruit qui court
que nous aurons la guerre à cause de la religion,” _Mém. de Condé_, ed.
London, III, 73-82. A note adds: “Ce discours se trouve aussi au fol.
61 recto du MS R et il est à la suite d’une lettre de M. de Chantonnay,
du 24 mars 1561. Il dit à la fin de cette lettre, que l’on disoit
communement que ce Discours étoit de l’évêque de Valence (Montluc). Ce
Discours a été copié dans ce MS sur l’édition qui en fut faite dans le
tems.”
[453] On November 23, 1561, Charles IX wrote to the bishop of Limoges
in regard to Philip II: “Dites-lui que je le prie si l’on luy a donné
quelques doubtes et soupçons de mes déportements, qu’il vous en dye
quelcun et ce qu’il la mys en doubte, affin que s’il veult prendre tant
de paynes d’envoyer ung homme fidelle en lieux où il aura oppinion
qu’on fera quelques préparatifs, je luy face cognoistre que c’est
une pure menterie.”—_Catalogue ... de lettres autographes de feu M.
de Lajariette_, Charavay, Paris, 1860, No. 667. Five days later, on
November 28, 1561, Catherine de Medici wrote to the same ambassador:
“Je me défie tent de seux qui sont mal contens ... car je ne veos
ni ne suys conselliée de venir aus armes.”—_Collection de lettres
autographes ayant appartenu à M. Fossé-Darcosse_, Paris, Techener,
1861, No. 193.
[454] _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 211. Philip II was reputed to have
spent 350,000 crowns of his wife’s dowry in Germany (_C. S. P. For._,
No. 659, §18, November 14, 1561). Catherine sent a special agent,
Rambouillet, into Germany to assist Hotman in discovering information
about Spain’s intrigues there (_C. S. P. For._, No. 713, December,
1561; _Mém. de l’Acad. des sc. moral. et polit._, CIV [1877], 661).
D’Ozances in Spain received special instructions to decipher Philip
II’s conduct if possible.
[455] _C. S. P. For._, No. 265, §11, June 23, 1561. This was in
consequence of the apprehension aroused early in May by the appearance
of a large body of Spanish infantry and cavalry to survey Abbeville
whence they returned toward Guisnes (_ibid._, No. 248, from Paris, May
18, 1561).
[456] _Ibid._, No. 712, December 9, 1561, from Strasburg; No. 717,
§6, December 13, 1561, from Paris. There had been some anxiety lest
the Emperor might avail himself of the distraction in France to seize
the Three Bishoprics. But at this moment, on account of the activity
of both the Turk and the Muscovite, and because he was angry with the
Pope over the Council of Trent, Ferdinand, was friendly to France and
cordially received Marillac, the bishop of Vienne (D’Aubigné, I, 332,
333).
[457] “Le conseil du roi, voyant que les mouvements les plus
divers agitaient le royaume, décide que chaque gouverneur,
lieutenant, sénéschal et autres ministres, se rendissent à leurs
gouvernements.”—Baschet, _Journal du Concile de Trente_, 89.
[458] _C. S. P. For._, No. 595, October 9, 1561; No. 602, October 12,
1561; No. 624, October 18, 1561; No. 659, §20, November 14, 1561. The
appointments of Coligny and Condé never became operative, owing to the
outbreak of civil war early in the next year. They are important only
as they reflect Catherine’s policy of caution and craft.
[459] _Ibid._, No. 729. Thomas Shakerley was an Englishman by birth,
who had once been a page to Edward VI, while the latter was prince. He
had left England nine years before and had spent most of his time in
Rome, where, becoming an organist, he “obtained the estimation of a
cunning player for the substance and solemnity of music.” He came to
France in the suite of the cardinal of Ferrara. The Spanish ambassador
approached him with an offer to enter the secret service of Spain,
which Shakerley patriotically communicated to Throckmorton (_ibid._,
No. 730, §5, December 18; No. 750, §10, December 28, 1561).
[460] On December 27, the Protestants congregated in the Faubourg St.
Marceau, whereupon the priests and Papists assembled at St. Medard
and determined to attack them. One of the Protestant soldiers going
to remonstrate was run through. The Protestants who were appointed to
guard the assembly, seeing this, ran to his succor, but were driven
back by the numbers. Other Protestants coming up put their attackers
to rout and forced their way into the church, when the prince de la
Roche-sur-Yon, the King’s lieutenant, arrived with a strong force of
horse and foot and carried off several to the Châtelet (_ibid._, No.
783, January 4, 1561; _Mém. de Condé_, II, 541 ff.; Claude Haton, 179,
and note; _Arch. cur._, IV, 63 ff.; and an article in _Mém. de la soc.
de l’hist. de Paris_, 1886).
[461] _C. S. P. For._, No. 758, §13, December 31, 1561.
[462] _Ibid._, No. 789, §2, January 8, 1562. The prince de la
Roche-sur-Yon passed for a Calvinist, while the marshal Montmorency
was a liberal Catholic. The queen mother hoped the change would be
acceptable to both parties. Another reason for this change was that
the constable and the prince de la Roche-sur-Yon were the principals
in a law-suit involving 10,000 ducats income. It was possible for the
lieutenant of Paris to use influence with the Parlement of Paris before
which the case was to be tried, and this more obviously favored the
constable’s side of the suit. Cf. details in Chantonnay’s letter to
Philip II, January 5, 1562, K. 1,497, B. 15.
[463] _C. S. P. For._, No. 925; cf. Castelnau’s description of the
bandits in the Faubourg St. Marcel, Book III, chap. v.
[464] _C. S. P. For._, No. 789, §2, January 6, 1562.
[465] _Archives de la Gironde_, VIII, 207. The King sent a special
officer to put the offenders to death and destroy the village, but it
is significant that this commission was not intrusted to Villars, who
was sublieutenant in Languedoc and notorious for his treatment of the
Huguenots (_C. S. P. For._, No. 750, §10, December 28, 1561).
[466] Claude Haton, I, 195-98, 236, 237. His spleen is evidenced,
though, in saying that: “à cause de la grande liberté à mal faire et
dire qui leur estoit permise sans aulcune punition de justice ... si
le plus grand larron et voleur du pays eust esté prins prisonnier il
eust eschappé à tout danger voire à la mort, moyennant qu’il se feust
déclaré Huguenot et de la nouvelle prétendue religion.”—_Ibid._, I,
124. This is one of the earliest characterizations of the Huguenot
faith. It was afterward currently referred to as the “R. P. R.”
[467] _Archives de la Gironde_, XV, 57.
[468] Claude Haton, I, 194, 195, and note.
[469] Chantonnay to Philip II, January 5, 1562, K. 1,497, B. 15. The
Spanish ambassador violently expostulated with Catherine de Medici,
Antoine of Bourbon, and others after this address was over (K. 1,497,
January 11, 1562), for which Philip II commended him (K. 1,496, No. 34,
3 _verso_).
[470] Isambert, XIV, 124-29; Raynaldus, XXXIV, 292, 293. The original
document is on exhibition in the Musée des Archives at Paris. It is
catalogued K. 674, No. 4. Although authorized on January 17, the edict
was not printed until March 13, 1562 (_C. S. P. For._, No. 930, §11;
934, §1). The Edict of July had been only negative in its character,
simply forbidding judges and the magistrates from pursuing the
Huguenots, but not in any sense recognizing their religion. Castelnau,
Book I, chap. ii, makes this very clear. The Edict encountered strong
opposition in the Parlement, which twice rejected it by a plurality
vote (_C. S. P. For._, No. 849, January 28, 1562; Claude Haton, I, 185,
186). Benoist, _Histoire de l’Edit de Nantes_, I, Appendix, gives the
text together with the first and second mandamus of the King, February
14 and March 11, 1562, expressly enjoining the Parlement “to proceed to
the reading, publishing, and registering of the said ordinance, laying
aside all delays and difficulties.” The first mandamus, “Déclaration
et interprétation du roy sur certains mots et articles contenus dans
l’edict du XVII de janvier 1561,” declared that magistrates were not
officers within the meaning of the edict (Isambert, XIV, 129, n. 2).
Klipfel, _Le colloque de Poissy_, chap. iii, makes the point that the
Parlement of Paris was criminally wrong in arraigning itself upon the
side of violence and encouraging the intolerance of the populace. The
Parlement of Rouen was more complacent, and seems promptly to have
registered it (_C. S. P. For._, No. 891, §10, February 16, 1562).
The Edict of January is sometimes wrongly dated January 17, _1561_.
The error arises from the confusion of the calendar in the sixteenth
century. In 1561 the year in France legally began at Easter, which,
of course threw January 17, into the year 1561. But in 1564 a royal
_ordonnance_ abolished this usage and established January 1 as the
beginning of the year, which brought forward January 17 into its proper
year, 1562. The reform of the calendar by Gregory XIII would alter the
_date of the month_ also, according to modern reckoning. But it is
simpler to let established dates stand. Henry III authorized the use of
the Gregorian calendar in France in 1582. For a lucid account of these
changes see _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, Introd., x-xi by
the baron de Ruble.
[471] Baschet, _Journal du Concile de Trente_, 71.
[472] Claude Haton, I, 177, and n. 1. For other details see Castelnau,
Book III, chap. i; _Rel. vén._, II, 71.
[473] _Lettres de Pasquier_, II, 96. Mignet characterizes the
provisions of the Edict of January as “généréuses, simples, et sages.”
Mignet, “Les lettres de Calvin” (_Journal des savants_, 1859, p. 762),
and Haag, _La France protestante_, Introd., xix, as “le plus libéral
édit qui ait été obtenu par les réformés jusqu’à celui de Nantes.”
[474] _C. S. P. For._, No. 789, §1, January 8, 1562, and cf. No. 750,
§3, December 28, 1561. The importation of money from Germany into
Lorraine was no secret.
[475] _Ibid._, No. 729, §3, December 16, 1561. Catherine de Medici,
however, could speak the language (_ibid._, No. 2,155, December 3,
1571).
[476] _Ibid._, No. 729, §3, December 16, 1561. Chantonnay was morally
the leader of the Triumvirate, beyond a doubt, and guided its policy.
“The king of Navarre, the duke of Guise, the constable, the cardinal
of Ferrara, the marshals St. André, Brissac, and Termes, the cardinal
Tournon, have joined together to overthrow the Protestant religion and
exterminate the favorers thereof—_which enterprise is pushed forward
by the Spanish ambassador here and Spanish threatenings_.”—_C. S. P.
For._, No. 934, §1, March 14, 1562.
[477] _Ibid._, No. 758, §12, December 1; No. 531, §4, September 23,
1561.
[478] Antoine de Bourbon to Philip II December 7, 1561, K. 1,494, No.
116 (not in Rochambeau).
[479] _Despatches of Michele Suriano_ (Huguenot Society), October 18,
1561. The whole letter is exceedingly interesting.
[480] The Jesuits had long tried to get a legal status in France. Henry
II, was favorable to them, but the Parlement of Paris, the secular
clergy, and the Sorbonne were bitterly opposed. The Act of Poissy
recognized the Jesuits as a college but not as a religious order, to
the anger of the Sorbonne. See Douarche, _L’Université de Paris et les
Jesuites_, Paris, 1888, chap. iv. At the time of the expulsion of the
Jesuits from France in 1761, in reply to the question of the crown as
to their legal status, the cardinal de Choiseul made the following
answer: “Lorsqu’ils ont été reçus en France l’an 1561, par le concours
des deux puissances, ils se sont soumis et ont été astreints par la loi
publique de leur établissement à toute superintendance, jurisdiction
et correction de l’évêque diocésain et à se conformer entièrement à la
disposition du droit commun, avec la renonciation la plus formelle aux
privilèges contraires portés dans les quatre bulles par eux présentées
ou autres qu’ils pourraient obtenir à l’avenir.” ... “_Le véritable
état des Jésuites en France parâit donc être, suivant les lois
canoniques reçues dans le royaume, l’état des réguliers soumis à la
juridiction des ordinaires conformement au droit com mun._” Cf. Eugene
Sol, _Les rapports de la France avec l’Italie, d’après la série K. des
Arch. Nat._, Paris, 1905, 119, 120. The original document is in the
Archives nationales, K. 1,361, N. 1, C.
[481] _C. S. P. For._, No. 934, §2, March 14, 1562.
[482] _Ibid._, No. 931, March 9, 1562.
[483] _Ibid._, No. 924, §8, March 6, 1562; cf. _ibid._, No. 715, §4,
December 12, 1561: “The Spanish ambassador was wondrous hot with the
queen.”
[484] _Lettres du cardinal de Ferrare_, No. 14, March 3, 1562.
[485] _C. S. P. For._, No. 891, February 16, 1562.
[486] _Corresp. de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 17, March 25, 1562. This
circumstance is noticed by almost all the chroniclers: D’Aubigné, Book
V, chap, iii, 1; _Mém. de Condé_, I, 76, 77; _Arch. cur._, VI, 59.
[487] Claude Haton, I, 189.
[488] Beza, _Histoire ecclés._, I, 416.
[489] Collection Godefroy (Bibliothèque de l’Institut), Vol. XCVII,
folio 19, March 6, 1562.
[490] _Inventaire des archives communales d’Agen_, BB., “Inventaire
sommaire,” XXX, 28 (April 17, 1562).
[491] D’Aubigné, II, 7, gives a long list of cities where disturbances
occurred.
[492] Vassy was a little town in the diocese of Châlons-sur-Marne, in a
dependency of Joinville belonging to the Guises.
[493] In the _Mémoires de Condé_, III, 124, there is an elaborate
Protestant version of the massacre, preceded by a letter of the duke of
Guise. The Guise account is in the _Mémoires du duc de Guise_, 471-88.
Cf. D’Aubigné, 131; _Arch. cur._, IV, 103. The Spanish ambassador’s
long letter of March 16 is in K. 1,497, No. 14. The quotation from
Ranke is in his _Civil Wars and Monarchy in France_, 211.
[494] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, March 20, 1562, K. 1,497,
No. 16. Accounts of this event abound. See La Popelinière, I, 287;
Claude Haton, I, 208; D’Aubigné, II, 10; a letter of Santa Croce in
_Arch. cur._, VI, 55; La Noue, _Mém. milit._, ed. Petitot, 128—very
interesting; and a letter of an eye-witness in _Bull. de la Soc. de
l’hist. du prot. franç._, XIII, 5.
On March 16, 1562, an ordinance of the king of Navarre enjoined the
captains and lieutenants of each quarter of Paris who were elected by
the bourgeoisie to appoint ensigns, corporals, and sergeants, and to
enlist all the men capable of bearing arms in their divisions, both
masters and servants (Capefigue, 234, 235).
[495] L’Aubespine to his brother, the bishop of Limoges, French
ambassador at Madrid (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 22; _C. S. P. Eng.
For._, No. 987, §7; manifesto of the prince of Condé to Elizabeth,
April 7, 1562).
[496] This is D’Aubigné’s comparison, II, 14, and n. 2.
[497] Delaborde, II, 48; _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, I,
285, n.; _C. S. P. For._, No. 987, §12, March 31, 1562.
[498] “La mala reputacion que el chancellerio ne quanto à la
fé.”—_Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 16, March 20, 1562.
[499] Tavannes, 271; _C. S. P. For._, No. 943, March 20, 1652.
[500] Paris, _Négociations relatives au règne de François II_, 880.
[501] “Monsieur le conestable ayst d’opinion que l’on (fasse) une
lètre patente par laquelle le roy mon fils déclère qu’i ne voult poynt
ronpre l’édist dernier.... Ne distes rien deset que je vous dis de
l’ambassadeur (Chantonnay) qui ayst yci, mès au contrère distes qu’i
comense à se governer mieulx et plus dousement qu’i ne solet en mon
endroyt.”—Catherine de Medici to St. Sulpice, _circa_ April 11, 1562,
in _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 15, 16. This is a characteristic
example of the queen’s eccentric spelling.
[502] D’Aubigné, II, 15.
[503] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 22; _C. S. P. For._, No. 967,
March 31, 1562. Elizabeth wrote to Condé to “remember that in all
affairs second attempts be even more dangerous than the first.”—_C.
S. P. For._, No. 965, March 31, 1562. On the political theory of the
Huguenots that the King was a captive and that they were struggling for
his relief, see Weill, 66.
[504] _C. S. P. For._, No. 969, March 31, 1562.
[505] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, March 25, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 17.
He reports also that a boat was captured coming down the Seine loaded
with 4,000 arquebuses and other ammunition, all of which was taken to
the Hôtel-de-Ville.
[506] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 17, March 25, 1562.
[507] _C. S. P. For._, No. 967, §12, March 31, 1562.
[508] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, April 2-4, K. 1,497, No. 18;
April 11, _ibid._, No. 22.
[509] La Noue, _Mémoires_, chap. ii, has described this march.
[510] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, April 8 and 11, 1562, K. 1,497,
Nos. 21, 22.
[511] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 283.
[512] According to Hotman who had left Orleans on May 29, the Huguenot
forces consisted of 15,000 foot and 5,000 horse.—Letter to the
landgrave, June 7, 1562, in _Rev. hist._, XCVII March-April, 1908, p.
304.
[513] Condé had entered Orleans on April 2. On the 7th he wrote to the
Reformed churches of France, requiring men and money in the interest of
the deliverance of the King and the queen mother and the freedom of the
Christian religion (_Mémoires de Condé_, II, 212).
[514] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, April 11 1562, K. 1,497, No. 22.
[515] _Ibid._, No. 21, April 8, 1562; De Ruble’s edition of D’Aubigné,
II, 18-20; _C. S. P. For._, No. 997, April 10, 1562; No. 1,043, §2,
April 24, 1562. Cf. Boulanger, “La réforme dans la province du Maine,”
_Revue des Soc. savant. des départ._, 2^[e] sér., VII (1862), 548.
[516] “Leurs desseins cachés ont autre racine que celle de la religion,
encores qu’ils le veuillant couvrir de ce manteau.”—Catherine de
Medici to St. Sulpice, _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 59, August 9, 1562.
[517] “Déclaration faicte par monsieur le prince de Condé, pour
monstrer les raisons qui l’ont contrainct d’entreprendre la défense
de l’authorité du roy, du gouvernement de la royne, et du repos de çe
royaume” (Orleans, 1562); cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,003, Orleans,
April 1, 1562.
The prince of Condé is said to have issued a coinage of his own at
this time with the superscription, “Louis XIII.” Chantonnay, however,
says that they were medals (K. 1,497, No. 27, May 2, 1562). See the
memoir of Secousse: “Dissertation où l’on examine s’il est vrai qu’il
ait été frappé, pendant la vie de Louis I^[er], prince de Condé, une
monnie sur laquelle on lui ait donné le titre de roi de France,” _Mém.
de l’Acad. roy. des inscrip. et bell. lettres_, XVII (1751); Poulet,
_Correspondance du cardinal de Granvelle_, III, 85. Whitehead, _Gaspard
de Coligny_, 303, is convinced the story is a fabrication.
[518] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, April 11, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 22.
[519] K. 1,497, No. 21, April 8, 1562.
[520] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,013, §12, April 17, 1562.
[521] _Archives curieuses_, sér. I, IV, 175.
[522] Rouen was taken in the night of April 15. Floquet, _Histoire du
parlement de Normandie_, II, 380.
[523] Raynal, _Histoire du Berry_, IV, 35.
[524] The stopping of the couriers in the service of Spain by the
Huguenots was a source of great anxiety to Chantonnay. April 8 he wrote
to Philip advising that the couriers be sent via Perpignan and Lyons in
order to avoid being intercepted, as the Huguenots commanded the whole
line of the Loire. Cf. Letters to Philip II, April 24, 1562, K. 1,497,
No. 25; K. 1,497, No. 21; K. 1,497, No. 28.
His letter of May 5 (K. 1,497, No. 28) describes the adventure of a
courier bearing a dispatch of the bishop of Limoges. He was given
twenty blows with a knife, but managed to escape. St. Sulpice reports
a similar experience of “le chevaucher de Bayonne” in a letter to
Catherine, June 30, 1562. D’Andelot intercepted a letter from the duke
of Alva (K. 1,497, No. 26, April 28, 1562) and the prince of Condé one
from the bishop of Limoges to Catherine de Medici (K. 1,497, No. 33).
The activity of the Huguenots in Gascony gave the French and Spanish
governments special disquietude because they continually overhauled
the couriers bearing official dispatches between Paris and Madrid.
The letters of St. Sulpice contain many complaints because of the
rifling of his correspondence (see pp. 30, 35, 37, 38, 41, 59). But
the Huguenots were not the only ones who scrutinized letters unduly.
Philip II frequently asked to be shown the letters of Charles IX and
his mother to his wife, so that St. Sulpice advised Catherine always
to send two letters, one of which was to be a “dummy” to be shown to
the King (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 136). The Spanish ambassador
told Philip he would have to come out into the open and declare war
to protect his own interests (K. 1,497, No. 26, April 25, 1562). He
anticipated as early as this the probable combination of the French
Huguenots and the Dutch rebels, and warned Margaret of Parma to be on
her guard (_Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, Nos. 30, 33, to
Philip II).
[525] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,043, §2, April 24, 1562.
[526] On April 24 the cardinal of Lorraine came to Paris with 1,000
horse (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,043, §11, April 24, 1562; _Corresp. de
Chantonnay_, April 28, K. 1,497, No. 2).
[527] This famous document, which is dated April 21, 1562, is in K.
1,496, B, 14, No. 61, and is on exhibition in the Musée des Archives.
Chantonnay’s letter to Philip II on April 24 sheds an interesting
light on the situation. In it the ambassador advises the King to write
personally to the queen mother, but not to write individually to the
others, but rather a single letter, because if Antoine of Navarre were
not addressed as _King of Navarre_ he would refuse to receive it,
whereas if the letter were written to all in common, this complication
might be avoided (K. 1,497, No. 25).
[528] The Spanish King acceded to this request on June 8, 1562 (Philip
II to Margaret of Parma; Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur
les Pays-Bas_, II, 218-23.)
He promised to send 10,000 foot and 3,000 cavalry, chiefly Italians
and Germans; cf. De Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_,
IV, 214. At about the same time the constable appealed to Rome through
Santa Croce, for a loan of 200,000 écus and a body of soldiers (_Arch.
cur._, VI, 86).
[529] The Swiss Diet, which met at Soleure on May 22, offered 6,000
infantry to be commanded by the captain Froelich (Letter of Hotman in
_Revue hist._, XCVII, March-April, 1908, 305).
[530] _C. S. P. For._, No. 6, §1, May 2, 1562. The Spanish ambassador
was deeply incensed at Catherine for making this new overture. The
intermediary was the Rhinegrave, but Chantonnay persuaded the leaders
not to recognize him (_Corresp. de Chantonnay_, April 28, 1562; K.
1,497, No. 26). The duke of Savoy offered to furnish 10,000 footmen
and 600 horse, 3,000 of the former and 200 of the latter to be at his
expense. This was the fruit of Chantonnay’s interview with Moreta,
the Savoyard ambassador, early in April, when he discussed with him a
possible restoration of the fortresses in Piedmont (K. 1,497, No. 21,
April 8, 1562).
[531] The Pope offered to give 50,000 crowns per month.
[532] “Suisses, lansquenetz et reystres, seront en ce pays devant
la fin de ce moys, sans vostre secours d’Espagne.”—_L’Ambassade de
St. Sulpice_, 24, June 12, 1562. It must be understood that in many
European states, especially those of Germany, the maintenance of
regular troops did not yet obtain as a practice. Instead, the princes
depended upon mercenary forces recruited by some distinguished captain.
These troops, which answered to the _condottieri_ of Italy were
called _Lanzknechts_ or _Reiters_. Languet stigmatizes this practice
in _Epist. ad Camerariam_, 28; cf. _Arch. d’Orange-Nassau_, I, 104.
In Protestant Germany there was a feeling that the policy of France
threatened to extinguish the gospel in other regions besides France and
therefore should be opposed by common consent. The elector palatine,
the landgrave, and Charles, margrave of Baden, planned to send an
embassy into France in the name of the Protestant princes to allay the
dissensions there, and to ask that the same liberty of religion might
be granted as was allowed by the edict of January 17. Many advocated an
open league between all the Protestant states for mutual protection, in
the hope that the mere knowledge of such a league would restrain their
adversaries (_C. S. P. For._, No. 11, May 2, 1562). Opinion was divided
in Germany as to whether Condé also should make foreign enrolments,
or whether the territories of those who had suffered these levies
to be made should be invaded by the Lutherans. Agents of the Guises
circulated a printed apology for the massacre at Vassy (D’Aubigné, II,
16, and n. 2; La Popelinière, I, 327).
Rambouillet and D’Oysel, the agents of France in these countries (St.
Sulpice, 77; _Corresp. de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 364) made much of
the King of Spain’s aid and carried credentials from Chantonnay. The
duke of Guise even sent an agent, the count of Roussy, to England, to
discover Elizabeth’s intentions, and to ascertain the military state of
her kingdom (cf. Beza, _Hist. des églises réformées_, ed. of Toulouse,
I, 373; De Ruble, IV, 103 ff.; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 13; _C. S.
P. For._, No. 1,037, April 21, 1562).
The argument of the Catholics with the German Protestant princes and
imperial cities was that the Huguenots were political dissidents and
rebels, and that religion was a pretext with them (_L’Ambassade de
St. Sulpice_, 65). In order to counteract this teaching the Huguenots
circulated a pamphlet written by Hotman throughout the Rhine provinces
which attempted to neutralize the differences between Calvinism and
Lutheranism. (This curious pamphlet is printed in _Mém. de Condé_, II,
524; La Popelinière, I, 325. In this capacity Hotman was invaluable.
Some of his letters at this time are in _Mém. de l’Acad._, CIV, 662-65.)
The German princes as a whole tried to prevent soldiers from going
out of Germany. The landgrave Philip of Hesse arrested an officer of
cavalry who was secretly enlisting horsemen in Hesse and who said he
was doing so for Roggendorf, tore up the officer’s commission before
his face, and made him swear to leave his castle without a passport.
The duke of Württemberg also took care that no volunteers should march
through Montbéliard into France, and Strasburg forbade anyone to enlist
under severe penalties. The bishops of the Rhine kept quiet; only in
Lorraine and the Three Bishoprics was Catholic enlisting unimpeded. The
recruiting-sergeant of the Guises in Germany was the famous Roggendorf,
a Frisian by birth who had been driven out of his native land in 1548
and since then had lived the life of an adventurer, part of the time in
Turkey. (See an interesting note in Poulet, I, 542, with references.)
On April 8 the king of Navarre in the name of Charles IX, signed a
convention with him engaging the services of 1,200 German mounted
pistoleers and four cornettes of footmen of 300 men each (D’Aubigné,
II, 33, n.). These forces entered France late in July and reached the
camp at Blois on August 7 (D’Aubigné, II, 76, n. 3).
One reason why the Protestant princes of Germany were unable
immediately to make strong protest to the French crown was that the
envoys of the elector palatine, the dukes of Deuxponts and Württemberg,
the landgrave of Hesse and the margrave of Baden, were unprovided for
a month with letters of safe conduct, by the precaution of the Guises,
with the result that Roggendorf led 1,200 cavalry in the first week in
May across the Rhine and through Trèves into France for the Guises,
though the Protestant princes did all they could to hinder the passage
and expostulated with the bishops of Trèves and Cologne for allowing
them to be levied in their territories. Failing greater things, the
Protestant princes of Germany, in July, 1562, put Roggendorf under
the ban in their respective states (cf. _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 244 and
269, June 13 and July, 1562). In the end, despite the enterprise of
the Guises, the French Catholics may be said to have been unsuccessful
beyond the Rhine, that is in Germany proper, but not in Switzerland or
the episcopal states. D’Oysel, who was sent by Charles IX in July to
Heidelberg (D’Aubigné, II, 97, and n. 1; Le Laboureur, I, 430) received
a short and definite answer “which showed him how groundless were his
hopes of aid from that quarter, a document to which so much importance
was attributed that it was forthwith printed for wider circulation”
(_C. S. P. For._, No. 414, August 3, 1562, and the Introduction, xi).
The king of Spain’s captains had money and were ordered that as soon
as soldiers were taken from Germany into France they should enlist men
for the defense of his territories (_C. S. P. For._, No. 11, May 2,
1562). In the bishopric of Trèves soldiers were enrolled easily, as the
passage from thence to France was short (_ibid._, No. 74, May 19, 1562).
In Switzerland the Huguenots endeavored to prevail upon the Protestant
cantons to prevent the Catholic cantons from lending support to Guise
(_C. S. P. Ven._, No. 285, April 29, 1562). The Guises asked for a
levy of foot from the papist cantons of Switzerland in the King’s
name (_Corresp. de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 289, April 8, 1562).
The cantons promised to send 15 ensigns; but the Protestant cantons
especially Bern, told the prince of Condé that they would not suffer
any soldiers to be levied against him in their territory, on pain of
confiscation of goods. Nevertheless the Catholic Swiss managed to make
some enrolments, the men quitting home on July 8. On August 7 these
mercenaries arrived at Blois, having come by way of Franche Comté
(De Thou, Book XXX). They were commanded by Captain Froelich (see
D’Aubigné, II, 148; Zurlauben, _Hist. milit. des Suisses_, IV, 287 ff.;
Letter of Hotman in _Rev. hist._, XCVII, March-April, 1908, 307).
[533] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 22.
[534] “La fleur du monde.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 41. For
details see _ibid._, 24, 26-29, 36-38, 41, 50-54; _Correspondance du
cardinal de Ferrare_, Letter 40, July 3, 1562; D’Aubigné, II, 91, and
n. 2; Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, 220.
[535] St. Sulpice was dubious of Philip II’s purpose and suspected
political designs “sous le titre de notre secours” (_L’Ambassade
de St. Sulpice_, 39). Nevertheless he believed in Philip’s methods
of repression—even the Inquisition. See his letter to the French
ambassador at Trent on p. 28.
[536] _C. S. P. For._, No. 46, §3, May 11; No. 86, §1, May 23, 1562.
Cf. No. 248—Challoner to Elizabeth from Bilboa, June 24, 1562. Spain
established a naval base at La Réole to help Noailles, lieutenant of
the King in Guyenne (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 61).
[537] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 21, April 8, 1562;
_C. S. P. Eng. For._, No. 1,058, April 27, 1562; _ibid._, No. 6, §2,
May 2, 1562.
[538] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 33, May 2, 1562.
Philip has commented on the margin to the effect that if the Catholics
were as active as the Huguenots they would be better off.
[539] Chantonnay particularly notices this in a dispatch of April 18,
1562, K. 1,497. So also does the Tuscan ambassador (_Nég. Tosc._, III,
481, June, 1562). Traveling in France was dangerous (Windebank to
Cecil, _C. S. P. Dom._, XXII, 53, April 8, 1562).
[540] _C. S. P. Dom._, XXII, 60, April 17, 1562. Paris wore red and
yellow ribbons—the Guise colors. “Ceux de Paris disent publiquement
qu’on doit renvoyer la reine en Italie et qu’ils ne veulent plus avoir
de roi qui ne soit catholique. Ils en ont d’ailleurs un que Dieu leur
a donné, c’est le grand ‘roi de Guise.’” Letter of Hotman in _Rev.
hist._, XCVII, March-April, 1908, 305.
[541] D’Aubigné, Book II, chap. iv.
[542] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, K. 1,497, No. 36, May 28, 1562.
[543] The importance of Lyons so near the cantons of Switzerland and
Geneva is emphasized in _Nég. Tosc._, III, 488, July 6, 1562.
[544] _Correspondance de Chantonnay_, April 24, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 25.
On the situation in Rouen, see _Mém. de Condé_, III, 302 ff.; and the
diary of a citizen in _Revue retrospective_, V, 97. Montgomery who was
in western Normandy about Vire sent the King’s letter back to him after
polluting it with filth, at least so says Chantonnay, K. 1,497, No. 27,
May 2, 1562.
[545] See Carel, _Histoire de la ville de Caen sous Charles IX, Henri
III et Henri IV_, Caen, 1886.
[546] The duke of Bouillon, commandant of Caen Castle, made an attempt
to restrain the populace (_C. S. P. For._, No. 303, §7, July 12, 1562).
He posed as a neutral, but ultimately became a Huguenot.
[547] _C. S. P. For._, No. 101, May 27, 1562.
[548] _Ibid._, No. 68, May 18, 1562; cf. No. 69, §10.
[549] _C. S. P. For._, No. 69, §16, May 18, 1562.
[550] Forbes, II, 8; cf. Planche, _Histoire de Bourgogne_, IV, 556.
[551] Upon these negotiations see _Mém. de Condé_, III, 384, 388, 392,
393, 395.
[552] _C. S. P. For._, No. 106, §2, May 28, 1562. The King’s army had
but twenty-two pieces of artillery at the beginning of the first civil
war (_Rel. vén._, II, 101).
[553] _C. S. P. For._, No. 107, May 28, 1562; No. 174, June 9; _Mém.
de Condé_, III, 462. Another edict of the King put the military
government of Paris in the hands of the provost of the merchants
and the _échevins_ of the city (“Déclaration portant permission au
Prévost des Marchands et aux Echevins de la Ville de Paris, d’établir
ès Quartiers d’icelle, des Capitaines, Caporaux, Sergents des Bandes,
et autres Officiers Catholiques. A Monceaux, le 17 May 1562;” also in
_Ordonnances de Charles IX_, par Robert Estienne, fol. 187; _Mém. de
Condé_, III, 447), in compliance with a popular request made a week
earlier; “Ordonnance du Roy, donnée _en conséquence de la Requête_ des
Habitans de Paris, par laquelle il leur est permis de faire armes ceux
que dans cette Ville sont en état de porter les armes, et d’en former
des Compagnies, sous des Capitaines qui seront par eux choisesr,” May
10, 1562 (_Mém. de Condé_, III, 422, 423). The Venetian ambassador
wisely observed “Perciochè dar liberamente l’armi in mano ad un populo
cosi grande e cosi furiosi, benchè fosse cattolico, non era farse cosa
molto prudente.”—_Rel. vén._, II, 98; cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, 280.
[554] See Chantonnay’s letter to Philip II of May 28, inclosing the
edict and giving these and other details, K. 1,497, No. 36.
[555] “Cependant tout se ruyne et se font tous les jours infiniz
meurdres et saccagemens de part et d’autre vous verrez par les chemyn’s
une partye de la pitié qui y est, et ce royaume au plus callamiteux
estat qu’il est possible.”—L’Aubespine à l’Evêque de Limoges, June 10,
1562; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 22.
[556] Chaumet, “Procès-verbal des titres et ornements brûlés par les
protestants,” _Les protestants et le Cathédrale d’Angoulême en 1562_,
in _Bull. de la Soc. arch., etc._ 4^[e] sér., VI, 1868-69 (Angoulême,
1870), 497.
Gellibert des Seguins, _Aubeterre en 1562_; “Enquête sur le passage des
protestants en cette ville, le pillage de l’église Saint-Jacques et
la destruction des titres et papiers du chapitre,” _Bull. de la Soc.
arch., etc._, 1862, 3^[e] sér., IV (Angoulême, 1864).
[557] The strife in Toulouse was occasioned by an edict of the
parlement of Toulouse (May 2) forbidding Calvinist worship and the
wearing of arms by the Huguenots (K. 1,495, No. 35; a printed copy
of the edict). Both parties fought for three days for possession of
the Hôtel-de-Ville where arms were stored. Nearly 5,000 Protestants,
it is said, were killed (_Corresp. de Chantonnay_, 1497, No. 36, May
28, 1562; _Commentaires de Montluc_, Book V, 234-37,) La Popelinière
(who saw it), I, 311 ff.; D’Aubigné, Book II, chap. iv; _Lettres du
cardinal de Ferrare_, No. 30, June 23, 1562; cf. _Histoire véritable
de la mutinerie, tumulte et sedition faite par les prestres de St.
Medard contre les Fideles, le Samedy XXVII juin de 1562_; Bosquet,
_Histoire sur les troubles advenus en la ville de Tolose, l’an 1562, le
dix-septiesme may_, Nouv. édition, avec notes, Paris, 1862; _Histoire
de la délivrance de la ville de Toulouse_, 1862.
[558] Stanclift, _Queen Elizabeth and the French Protestants_
(1559-60), Leipzig, 1892.
[559] _Coll. des lettres autographes_, Hotel Drouot, March 18,
1899, No. 19; Cardinal Châtillon to the queen mother, May 28, 1562,
protesting that peace is impossible without the banishment of the
Guises from court. Cf. _R. Q. H._, January 1879, 14, 15.
[560] “Tous jours sur le point que messieurs de Guise, conestable
et mareschal de St. André se retirent de la cour.”—L’Aubespine,
sécretaire d’état à son frère M. de Limoges, ambassadeur en Espagne,
June 10, 1562; _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 22; cf. the same to
the same, June 12, p 24. On these unsuccessful negotiations, see
D’Aubigné, II, 33-35; La Popelinière, I, 323; _Mém. de. Condé_, 489; La
Noue, _Mém._, Book I, chap, ii; Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne
d’Albret_, IV, chap. xix.
Condé further justified the revolt of the Huguenots on the ground
that the King and his mother were “prisoners” in the hands of the
Triumvirate, but the statement was too transparent to be believed.
Catherine herself, in order to disprove it, took the King to Monceaux
with her (_Corresp. de Chantonnay_, May 28, 1562, K. 1,497, No. 36),
whence she wrote to the Parlement of Paris explaining the reason of her
action. The Parlement promptly approved her course. _Mém.—journaux du
duc de Guise_, 495, col. 2: “Acte par lequel la Reinemère et le Roy de
Navarre declarent que la retraite voluntaire que font de la cour du duc
de Guise, le Connestable et le mareschal de St. André, ne pourra porter
préjudice à leur honneur” (May 28, 1562).
[561] “Nostre camps et à douse lyeu d’Orleans et byentot nous voyront
set que en sera.”—Catherine de Medici to Elizabeth of Spain, June 13
or 14, 1562, in _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 31.
[562] A parley was held with the usual lack of success on June 21
between the prince of Condé and his brother at Beaugency, which was
neutralized for the purpose (D’Aubigné, II, 37, and n. 4). The baron de
Ruble discovered the correspondence of the principals in the interview.
The king of Navarre exhorted his brother to accept the conditions
offered by the King, i. e., to let the Huguenots dwell peaceably
in their houses until a council settled the matters in dispute. He
promised in any event that the Protestants should have liberty of
conscience. But when the prince insisted on having the edict enforced
in Paris even, Antoine replied that the crown would never consent to
such terms (_C. S. P. For._, No. 329, §§1, 2, July 17, 1562). Even
while the truce existed straggling prisoners were taken daily by either
side. (For other military details, see _Mém. de La Noue_ [ed. Panthéon
litt.], 284; D’Aubigné, II, 39, 40; Beza, _Histoire des églises
réformées_, I, 540, 541; and the “Discours ou récit des opérations
des deux armées catholique et protestante dans les premiers jours de
juillet,” in De Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, IV,
414).
[563] Not so the royal troops, which were quartered upon the towns of
the region and nearly consumed the people by their exactions (Claude
Haton, I, 279).
[564] The Catholics, in derision, called the Huguenot gentry “millers.”
During the interview on June 9 between the prince and the queen mother,
the latter said: “Vos gens sont meusniers, mon cousin,” a fling which
the prince of Condé more than matched by the rejoinder: “C’est pour
toucher vous asnes, madame!” This anecdote is related by D’Aubigné, II,
35.
[565] Cf. Guise’s letter to the cardinal of Lorraine, Appendix III; _C.
S. P. For._, No. 238; No. 264, §3, June 29.
[566] _Ibid._, No. 425, August 5, 1562; _Archives de la Gironde_, XVII,
270. The constable seized Tours and Villars Châtellerault (D’Aubigné,
II, 41-44). For the operations of Burie in Périgord, see _Archives de
la Gironde_, XVII, 271. At Bazas a local judge, with the aid of Spanish
troops actually crucified some Calvinists (_ibid._, XV, 57).
[567] La Noue admits that the boasted discipline of the Huguenots was
disgraced by their atrocities here (_Mém. milit._, chap. xvi; cf. _C.
S. P. Ven._, No. 288, July 16, 1562).
[568] On the war in Lyonnais, Dauphiné, Provence, and Languedoc, see
D’Aubigné, Book III, chap. vii. The notes are valuable. Des Adresse
proclaimed all Catholics in Lyonnais, Burgundy, Dauphiné, and Limousin
rebels to the King (_C. S. P. For._, 340). He was not a Huguenot in
the proper sense, but rebelled against the King, and sided with the
Huguenots because he was jealous of La Mothe Gondrin, who was made
_lieutenant du roi_ instead of himself in Dauphiné (see D’Aubigné, II,
49, n. 5).
[569] D’Aubigné, II, 48. He recovered Châlons-sur-Marne in June and
Macon in August (Tavannes, 339, 343).
[570] It was at this moment that D’Andelot was sent to Germany for
succor (_C. S. P. For._, No. 374, §7, July 27, 1562).
[571] At Pont Audemer the duke caused a preacher to be hanged, and
afterward some of the best citizens and even boys (_C. S. P. Ven._,
355, July 23, 1562). There was also fear lest the English would land
troops in Guyenne (_Archives de la Gironde_, XVII, 284).
[572] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 354, July 23, 1562; Claude Haton, I, 301;
_C. S. P. For._, 185, June 13, 1562; cf. 246, §24; but see the duke
of Aumale’s disclaimer to the queen mother, of July 9, asserting that
those of Rouen, Dieppe, and Havre were plundering indiscriminately
(Appendix IV).
[573] D’Aubigné, II, 52-73. The prince of Orange found himself in a
very difficult position. His principality was continually exposed to
the attacks of the king of France and those of the Pope from Avignon.
Moreover, the conduct of the Huguenots compromised him on account of
their violence toward the priests in the sanctuaries (_Archives de la
maison d’Orange-Nassau_, I, 71, 72; Raumer, II, 2111561).
[574] Forneron, _Histoire de Philippe II_, I, 294. Montluc is unequaled
in the keenness of his political penetration. The baron de Ruble
says with truth that the old soldier rivals Hotman and Bodin in this
respect. Witness the paragraph written in December, 1563, to be found
in the memoir he sent to Damville justifying his resignation of the
lieutenancy of Guyenne (_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 297,
298 and note).
[575] There are few more interesting annals in the history of war than
the racy, egotistical, garrulous, yet sometimes pithy narrative of this
veteran leader. The fifth book of Montluc’s _Commentaires_ is wholly
taken up with the war in Guyenne in 1562-63. His correspondence during
the same period is in IV, 111-225; add Beza, _Histoire des églises
réformées_, which is remarkably accurate and impartial.
[576] Coll. Trémont, No. 51.—Antoine de Bourbon to M. de Jarnac, from
the camp at Gien, September 12, 1562, relative to sending forces into
the south to join those of Burie and Montluc.
[577] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, II, 345, and note. His
title was “conservateur de la Guyenne” (O’Reilly, _Histoire de
Bordeaux_, 221).
[578] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, II, 357.
[579] _Ibid._, 416, 421.
[580] “The French spared the women there, but the Spaniards killed
them, saying they were Lutherans disguised. These ruffians slew some
300 prisoners in cold blood—not a man escaped saving two that I
saved.”—Montluc, II, 457, 458. When these Spaniards later mutinied and
deserted in the summer of 1563, not even the Catholics regretted their
departure (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 144, 152). For the terms on
which they came, see Montluc, IV, 452, 453; D’Aubigné, II, 91, n. 2;
94, n. 4.
[581] See _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 37 ff.; De Thou,
Book XXXIII; D’Aubigné, II, 95; _Bull. de la Soc. de l’hist., du prot.
franç._, II (1854), 230; _C. S. P. For._, 837 and 415, §12 (1562). I
have purposely built this account upon Montluc’s narration in Book V of
his _Commentaires_. An additional source for Lectoure and the battle
of Vergt is his long letter to Philip II, published in _L’Ambassade de
St. Sulpice_, 84-86; add also De Ruble, _Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne
d’Albret_, 244-56.
[582] _Mém. de Condé_, III, 756: “Fragment d’une lettre de
l’ambassadeur du duc de Savoye, à la Cour de France. De Paris du
dernier de juillet, 1562;” cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, 492, 493.
[583] See an article by De Crue, “Un emprunt des Huguenots français en
Allemagne et en Suisse (1562). Pleins pouvoirs données à M. d’Andelot
par le prince de Condé—Orleans, 7 juillet, 1562,” _Rev. d’hist. dip._,
1889, 195.
[584] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 77; _C. S. P. For._, 884, October
9, 1562. His instructions are in _Mém. de Condé_, III, 630. See a
letter of Hotman, July 27, 1562, to the elector palatine, _Mém. de
l’Acad. des inscrip. et belles-lettres_, CIV, 668. The original is in
the archives at Stuttgart. This letter was communicated to the duke of
Württemberg by the count palatine and was sufficient temptation to lead
the first of the famous hordes of German reiters across the border into
France.
[585] Claude Haton, 267. See in the _Mém. de Condé_, III, some letters
relating to the coming of the reiters in this year.
[586] “Ceux-ci [reiters] sont toujours prêts à se battre, mais en
tout le reste, ils n’obéissent à personne et montrent la plus grande
cruauté. Ils pillent tout, et cela ne leur suffit pas. Ils dévastent
tout et détruisent les vins et les récoltes.”—Letter of Hotman in
_Rev. hist._, XCVII, March-April, 1908, 311.
[587] Claude Haton, I, 294.
[588] _Ibid._ From an account in the Record Office, indorsed by Cecil,
we know what the wages of these hireling troops were: “The pay of every
reiter is 15 florins the month. The entertainment of the ritmeisters
is a florin for every horse, and each cornet contains 300 men. The
lieutenants have, besides the pay of one reiter, 80 florins. The
ensign, besides the pay of one reiter, has 60 florins, eight officers
having, besides a reiter’s pay, 15 florins apiece. The wage and
appointment of 4,000 reiters with their officers _per mensem_ equals
122,048 livres _tournois_, equals 81,532 florins. The colonel 3,000
florins; 15 officers equals 300 florins. To every ten reiters there
must be allowed a carriage with four horses, at 30 florins per month.
Total (not counting the money rebated) 127,448 livres _tournois_, or
84,966 florins. Total expense for four months, counting the levy,
569,792 livres _tournois_ equals 379,861 florins.
“For levying 6,000 lansknechts: for their levying, a crown per month.
The pay of every ensign of 300 men per month, 3,500 _livres tournois_.
The whole expense for four months 395,000 livres _tournois_ equals
263,337 florins. Sum total with other expenses, 1,759,792 livres
_tournois_ equals 211,174,175, 2d.”
[589] D’Andelot passed the Rhine on September 22, too late to relieve
Bourges.
[590] See Claude Haton’s vivid description of this recruiting. The new
levies did great damage to the country of Brie and Champagne, for they
were kept in villages for more than five weeks before going to camp,
and all this time the reiters were approaching closely (I, 295).
[591] Claude Haton, I, 295. He adds that Catherine de Medici sent
him secret orders to do so. But there is no evidence of this in her
correspondence, and D’Aumale’s subsequent blunder in 1569 by which
the Huguenots were able to get possession of La Charité justifies the
inference that his action was due to incapacity as a general.
[592] The long presence of the reiters in France during the civil
wars introduced many German words into the French language, for
example _bière_ (_Bier_); _blocus_ (_Blockhaus_); _boulevard_
(_Bollwerk_); _bourgmestre_ (_Burgmeister_); _canapsa_ (_Knapsack_);
_carousser_ (_Garaus machen_); _castine_ (_Kalkstein_); _halte_
(_halt_); _trinquer_ (_trinken_) and of course _reitre_ (_Reiter_)
and _lansquenet_ (_Lanzknecht_). See Nyrop, _Grammaire historique de
la langue française_, I, 51. Rabelais abounds with such words, e. g.,
“Je ne suis de cas importuns _lifrelofres_ qui, par force, poultraige
et violence, contraignent les lans et compaignons _trinquer_, voire
_carous_ et alluz qui pis est.” Rabelais, Book IV, prologue. So also in
Book IV, prol.: “Je n’y ay entendu que le _hault allemant_.”
[593] In Provins, on their own initiative, the townspeople taxed
their town, bailiwick, and _réssort_ (_sénéchausée_) to the amount of
7,000 livres _tournois_, the sum being imposed upon persons of every
class, those who had gone to the war in the King’s service alone being
exempted. This levy created great discontent, especially among the
clergy, who appealed against the bailiff and the _gens du roi_ to the
Court of Aids, alleging that the levy was made without royal commission
and without the consent of those interested. The bailiff compromised
by promising the clergy to restore the money paid by them and not to
demand more of them, and so the process was dropped (Claude Haton, I,
296, 297).
[594] On the siege of Bourges see D’Aubigné, II, 77 ff.; Raynal, _Hist.
du Berry_, IV; _Mém. des antiq. de France_, sér. III (1855), II, 191
ff.; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 494, 495; Boyer, _Doc. relat. au régime de
l’artillerie de la ville de Bourges dans le XVI^[e] siècle_, 641; in
_Bull. du Comité de la langue, de l’hist. et des arts de la France_,
III, 1855-56. The capitulation of Bourges is in _Mém. de Condé_, III,
634. See also the “Journal of Jean Glaumeau,” edited by M. Bourquelot
in _Mém. de la Soc. des antiq. de France_, XXII. Philip II expressed
his displeasure at the terms to St. Sulpice, saying, “que aulcunes des
conditions semblaient du tout assez convenables des sujetz à leur roi”
(_L’ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 70, 75. Alva’s opinion is given at p.
78).
[595] Claude Haton, I, 285. Philip II told St. Sulpice “quant un
voyage de Normandie, bien qu’il l’estimait être bien entrepris, qu’il
semblait qu’il eut été meilleur de s’adresser à Orleans, où étaient les
chefs, afin qu’ils ne se grossissent d’avantage.”—_L’Ambassade de St.
Sulpice_, 75.
[596] _C. S. P. For._, No. 374, §7, July 27, 1562; No. 510, §1, August
10, 1562. For the operations of the reiters around Paris in the summer
of 1562 see D’Aubigné, Book III, chap. xii; De Ruble’s notes are
valuable.
[597] Daval, _Histoire de la réformation à Dieppe, 1557-1657_. Publ.
pour la I^[re] fois avec introd. et notes par E. Lesens (Société
rouennaise de bibliophiles. 2 vols., 1879).
[598] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 975, 976, 1,002. This solicitation was
in the nature of an acknowledgment of an expression of interest in
them made by the English queen. For as far back as March she had sent
assurances of her interest to Condé and the admiral (_ibid._, No. 965,
March 3, 1562).
[599] _C. S. P. For._, No. 973, April 1, 1562.
[600] _Ibid._, No. 1,013, §13, April 17, 1562. Elizabeth considered
the suggestion of her ambassador so favorable that she sent Sir
Henry Sidney to France in the spring to aid Throckmorton. See the
instructions in _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,063, 1,064, April 28, 1562.
[601] “Et il assure que bien qu’elle prenne à dépit de voir que
les catholiques soient secourus de deça, elle est persuadée
que son meilleur est de se contenir et regarder de loin ce qui
adviendra.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 55, July, 1562.
[602] “Réponses du duc d’Albe à St. Sulpice, October 8, 1562,”
_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 79; cf. 92, 93, 103.
[603] Throckmorton, English ambassador in France, urgently pressed such
a policy, “even though it cost a million crowns” (_C. S. P. For._,
No. 418, August 4, 1562). It was in the form of alternative offers to
the Huguenots. Upon receipt of Havre-de-Grace, England was to deliver
three hostages in guaranty of the compact, to the count palatine of the
Rhine, and to pay in Strasburg 70,000 crowns; also to deliver at Dieppe
40,000 crowns within twenty days after the receipt of Havre-de-Grace,
and 30,000 crowns within twenty days following, to be employed by Condé
upon the defenses of Rouen and Dieppe and in the rest of Normandy,
with the understanding that Havre-de-Grace was to be delivered to
France upon the restoration of Calais, and the repayment of the 140,000
crowns advanced. The second offer was to this effect: Upon receipt
of Havre-de-Grace, England was to deliver three hostages and deposit
70,000 crowns in Germany, and to send 6,000 men into Normandy to serve
at Rouen and Dieppe (_C. S. P. For._, No. 268, July, 1562; cf. Nos.
662, 663). After prolonged negotiations which were conducted by the
vidame of Chartres, the treaty of Hampton Court was framed on these
lines, on September 10, 1562 (_Mém. de Condé_, III, 689; _Mém. du duc
de Nevers_, I, 131; D’Aubigné, II, 79, 80). Elizabeth’s proclamation
and justification of her action is at p. 693 of _Mém. de Condé_.
The alliance between the prince of Condé and the English, with the
implied loss of Calais to France, more than any other fact, reconciled
Catherine de Medici to Spanish assistance. After August she personally
urged this aid (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 58, 59). Still Philip
emphatically gave her to understand that “si l’ambassadeur de Espagne
avait fait espérer que son maître déclarerait la guerre aux Anglais il
avait dépassé ses instructions, car les Espagnols étaient depuis si
longtemps liés avec ces peuples qu’il était impossible de rompre cette
alliance.”—St. Sulpice to Charles IX, November 12, 1562 (_L’Ambassade
de St. Sulpice_, 93).
The constable was at Yvetot in October, 1562, at the time of the
descent of the English upon Havre and wrote to Charles IX that he was
unable to take the field. At a later season he complains to Catherine
of the calumnies heaped upon him, and bluntly says “that he is not in
the humor to endure such things.”—_Coll. de St. Pétersbourg_, CIII,
letters pertaining to the house of Montmorency; La Ferrière, _Rapport_,
46.
[604] Archambault to St. Sulpice, _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 71;
Charles IX to St. Sulpice, September 15, _ibid._, 74. The camps on the
Loire were broken up on September 14, only sufficient forces being left
to invest Orleans. The soldiers were sent to Normandy via Montargis,
Angerville-la-Rivière, and Etampes, leaving posts at Gien, Beaugency,
and Pithiviers to keep the lines open between north and south and to
prevent D’Andelot from getting to Orleans.
On the siege of Rouen, see Claude Haton, I, 286-89. The city was taken
October 26 (Floquet, _Hist. du Parlement de Normandie_, II, 435).
On Huguenot excesses in Rouen, see an arrêt of the Parlement of Rouen,
August 26, 1562, in _Mém. de Condé_, III, 613, and another ordering
prayers for the capture of Fort St. Catherine, October 7 (_ibid._, IV,
41).
[605] See his singular letter to Cecil of July 29, 1562, in _C. S. P.
For._, No. 389.
[606] Cf. articles for the English agent Vaughan, of August 30, in
Cecil’s handwriting (_ibid._, No. 550).
[607] _Ibid._, No. 763, Vaughan to Cecil, October 4, 1562; Forbes, II,
89.
[608] _C. S. P. For._, No. 790, October 7, 1562; Forbes, II, 93.
[609] Cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 803, October 8, 1562; Forbes, II, 101;
report of a military expert to Cecil.
[610] It was taken by assault by the duke of Guise (_Corresp. de
Catherine de Médicis_, I, 414, note; Claude Haton, I, 285; _Mém. de
Condé_, IV, 41).
[611] The English aid had been divided into three bodies, that portion
which entered Rouen being only the vanguard. It was the middle portion
which followed in ships up the river and was captured by Damville. The
third body was of the rear guard and returned to Havre-de-Grace (_C.
S. P. Ven._, No. 302, October 14, 1562). In the fight off Caudebec 200
English were killed, and 80 made prisoners, all of whom were hanged
by the French—a more rigorous punishment than even sixteenth-century
war nominally allowed (_ibid._, _For._, Nos. 870, 872, October 17, 18,
1562).
[612] _Ibid._, No. 901, October 23, 1562.
[613] _C. S. P. Ven._, October 27, 1562.
[614] _Ibid._, _For._, 932, §4, October 30, 1562.
[615] For details see _Corresp. de Catherine de Méd._, I, 420, note;
Claude Haton, I, 287-91; and a relation in _Arch. cur._, IV, sér. 1,
67. Also in _Mém. de Condé_, IV, 116. The same volume has some letters
addressed to the queen of Navarre upon his death. Cf. Le Laboureur,
III, 887. Claude Haton, I, 292, 293, has an interesting eulogy of him.
[616] Charles IX and his mother were eye-witnesses of this struggle,
viewing it from a window of the convent of St. Catherine “from which
they could see all that took place within and without the city.”—_C.
S. P. Ven._, October 18, 1562.
[617] It had been the queen’s hope that Rouen might be saved from sack,
and with this object she had offered 70,000 francs to the French troops
if they would refrain from pillage. But such a hope was slight, for
Rouen was the second city of the realm and one of great wealth (_C.
S. P. Ven._, October 17, 1562). Moreover, “Guise proclaimed before
the assault that none should fall to any spoil before execution of
man, woman, and child” (_ibid._, _For._, No. 920, Vaughan to Cecil,
October 28, 1562). Catherine de Medici also throws the responsibility
upon the duke of Guise (_Corresp._, I, 430). For other details of the
sack, see Castelnau, Book III, chap. xii. “Le ravage de ceste ville fut
à la mesure de sa grandeur et à sa richesse,” is D’Aubigné’s laconic
statement (II, 88). Fortunately, for the sake of humanity, the sack was
stayed after the first day. The German troopers committed the worst
outrages. The marshal Montmorency is to be given credit for mitigating
the horrors. Montgomery, though at first reported captured, escaped to
Havre, having disguised himself by shaving off his beard (_C. S. P.
For._, No. 939, October 30, 1562), and abandoned his wife and children,
to the indignation of Vaughan, who vented his outraged sentiments to
Cecil: “A man of that courage to steal away, leaving his wife and
children behind him” (_ibid._, No. 920, October 28, 1562).
Among those in Rouen who were officially executed were a Huguenot
pastor by the name of Marlorat, with two elders of the church, a
merchant and burgess of the city, named Jean Bigot, and one Coton;
Montreville, chief president of Rouen, De Cros, some time governor of
Havre-de-Grace, eight Scotchmen who had passports of Mary Stuart to
serve under Guise, and some French priests (D’Aubigné, II, 88; _C. S.
P. For._, No. 950, §14, October 31, 1562; No. 984, §2, November 4,
1562).
[618] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 307, October 31, 1562; _L’Ambassade de St.
Sulpice_, 91; “Montgoméry qui les faisait tenir s’est sauvé, laissant
le peuple livré à la boucherie.”—Letter of Catherine de Medici to St.
Sulpice.
[619] Orleans had 1,200 horsemen and 5,000 footmen in it, besides the
inhabitants, with provisions to last six months. Almost all the weak
places had been fortified with platforms, ravelins, and parapets. The
counterscarp was roughly finished. There were nine or ten cannon and
culverins with a good store of powder. The greatest menace was the
plague which daily diminished the number of the Protestants (_C. S. P.
Eng._, 596, §6, September 9, 1562—report of Throckmorton who was on
the ground).
[620] _C. S. P. Ven._, October 17, 1562. The Spanish ambassador had
foreseen the possibility of such a contingency and early in April had
cautioned Philip II not to play upon Antoine’s expectations to the
point of exasperation (K. 1,497, No. 17).
[621] _C. S. P. Eng._, 1,050, November 14, 1562.
[622] “His arm is rotten and they have mangled him in the breast and
other parts so pitifully”—in the endeavor to cut out the mortified
flesh.—_C. S. P. For._, 1,040, Smith to Cecil, November 12, 1562. Cf.
No. 932, October 30; for other details see _C. S. P. Ven._, November
8, 9, 10, 13, 1562; _Mém. de Condé_, IV, 116; D’Aubigné, II, 85. The
knowledge of his death was kept a secret for two days (_C. S. P. For._,
1,079, November 20, 1562). The Spanish court wore mourning for four
days in honor of his memory (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 103). He was
a “trimmer” to the last, on his deathbed professing the confession of
Augsburg, as a doctrine intermediate between Catholicism and Calvinism
(_Despatch of Barbaro_ [Huguenot Society], November 25, 1562).
[623] “Le roi catholique est content que la reine mère ait l’entier
gouvernement des affaires, tout en ayant près d’elle le cardinal de
Bourbon.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 109, January 19, 1562 (1563).
[624] “Il y eut toujours dans la ville quatre corps de garde, Charles
IX ordonna d’établir à Etampes un magasin de vivre pour fournir son
armée.”—_Annales du Gâtinais_, XIX, 105.
[625] _C. S. P. Eng._, No. 1,070, November 20, 1562.
[626] Claude Haton, I, 305.
[627] _C. S. P. For._, 193, December 5, 1562; _ibid._, _Ven._, December
3; Forbes II, 27. La Noue gives a motive which led Condé to besiege
Paris: “Non en intention de forcer la ville, mais pour faire les
Parisiens, qu’il estimoit les soufflets de la guerre et la cuisine dont
elle se nourissoit.”—_Mém. milit. de la Noue_, chap. ix.
[628] Charles IX to St. Sulpice December 11, 1562; _L’Ambassade de St.
Sulpice_, 98; _Despatch of Barbaro_ (Huguenot Society), December 7,
1562.
[629] Yet although the negotiations of the prince of Condé at this time
were tentative and the statements of the crown not intended by it to
obtain, nevertheless the claims advanced are to be observed, because
the lines along which religious toleration was to develop in France and
the outlines of subsequent edicts of toleration, like those of Amboise,
Longjumeau, and Bergerac, are foreshadowed in the articles proposed now.
Condé first proposed the following three articles: (1) liberty of
conscience with free exercise of religion where demanded; (2) security
of life and property unto all; (3) the summons of a free council within
six months, or, if that were impossible, then a general assembly of
the realm. To these proposals the government replied that Calvinist
preaching would not be permitted under any circumstances in Lyons
and other frontier towns, which were defined, nor near those with a
governor and garrison, nor in those towns which were seats of the
parlements. Condé then modified the Huguenot demands, as follows: (1)
That Calvinist preaching be permitted in the suburbs of frontier towns,
or in certain ones so appointed; (2) that it should obtain only in
those other places where it was practiced before the war began; (3)
except that it should be lawful for all gentlemen and all nobles to
have private service in their own houses; (4) all persons residing in
places where preaching was not permitted should be suffered to go to
the nearest towns or other places for the exercise of their religion,
without molestation. In reply, the government excepted Paris and the
_banlieue_ from these stipulations. All these conditions the government
and Condé accepted on December 3, 1562, Lyons being declared _not_ to
be a frontier city within the construction of the articles. Certain
minor stipulations followed as to amnesty, recovery of property, etc.
Cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,219, December 9, 1562; Beza, _Hist. des
églises réformées_, II, 121 ff., ed. 1841.
[630] “M. de Nevers has already here from 800 to 1,000 horse. They
look for 600 foot and horsemen, Spaniards and Gascons and Piedmontese,
to arrive shortly. All this while they had driven the prince off
with talk.”—_C. S. P. For._, 1,168, December 1, 1562—Smith to
Throckmorton. These reinforcements reached Paris on the night of
December 7, 1562; there were 10 ensigns of Gascons (40 or 50 in an
ensign), in all about 500 or 600 men; of the Spaniards, 14 ensigns,
“better filled,” about 2,500-3,000, all footmen, and few armed. Their
weapons were arquebuses and pikes, and some bills and halberds. “With
them a marvellous number of rascals, women and baggage” (Smith to
Cecil, _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,205, December 7, 1562; cf. Barbaro
[Huguenot Society], December 7, 1562. The Venetian ambassador went out
to view them). These reinforcements are much exaggerated in the _Mém.
de Condé_ (V, 103, 104, ed. London), which rates the Gascons as 3,000
and the Spaniards as 4,000.
[631] _C. S. P. Ven._, December 3 and 14, 1562. For an extreme example
of Chantonnay’s overbearing policy, see Barbaro’s account of a
conversation with the Spanish ambassador in the letter of January 25,
1563.
[632] _Ibid._, _For._, 1,183, December 3, 1562; No. 1,238, §7, December
13, 1562. It is fair to say, though, that Condé was almost without
artillery, having but eight guns, so that there was no possibility of
breaking the wall. The only way to take the city would have been by an
assault with scaling-ladders (letter of Hotman in _Rev. hist._, XCVII,
March-April, 1908, 311).
[633] Claude Haton, I, 307; _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 314, December 11,
1562. See Throckmorton’s earnest plea in _C. S. P. For._, 1,195,
December 6, 1562, for sending financial assistance to him. The English
intervention in Normandy was demonstrated to be a safe and profitable
venture; besides other advantages which they might draw from Rouen,
Havre, and Dieppe (which could safely be recovered) the archbishopric
of Rouen was worth 50,000 francs; the two abbeys inside the town
10,000; the abbey of Fécamp 40,000 francs; the benefices within the
town valuable; the _gabelle_ in salt and other royal rights in Rouen
and Dieppe worth 50,000 crowns, which would double when the English
merchants came, so that the military occupation of Normandy would cost
less than the profits therefrom. But arguments were in vain to persuade
Elizabeth’s double policy of caution and parsimony. Sir Nicholas drove
Smith’s warning of December 7 home by another one to Elizabeth, urging
her “to deal substantially” with Condé, “for wanting the queen’s force
of men it is not likely he will be strong enough to accomplish his
intents.”
[634] Too late the English government was alive to the danger of
its losing all, owing to the narrow policy hitherto pursued, and
Cecil hurried Richard Worseley, captain of the Isle of Wight, off to
Portsmouth on December 7 to secure 5,000 pounds, as earnest of more
money to be sent into France in aid of the Huguenots, whence he was to
hasten to Havre, warn the earl of Warwick not to give credit to any
reports of peace unless so informed by Throckmorton or Smith, and see
that the town was speedily fortified and guarded (_C. S. P. For._, No.
1,033, December 7, 1562; Forbes, II, 124, 125).
[635] Claude Haton, I, 307; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,240, December 13,
1562.
[636] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,238, December 13, 1562. On December
14, 1562, Condé wrote anxiously from his camp at St. Arneuil asking
for succor, especially that Montgomery, who had gone to England for
assistance, might be sent to him. (See Appendix V.) Montgomery was in
Portsmouth with Sir Hugh Poulet, who was commissioned to bring over the
balance of 15,000 pounds to Havre (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,270, December
16, 1562).
[637] _Ibid._, No. 1,276, December 18, 1562; No. 1,278, December 19,
1562.
[638] Guise had 22 cannon; Condé’s artillery consisted of 4
field-pieces, 2 cannon, and a culverin, which “never shot a shot”
(Throckmorton to the Queen, _C. S. P. For._, January 3, 1563. He was an
eye-witness of the battle. Forbes, II, 251).
[639] Claude Haton, I, 308, 309. Cf. note for other references.
[640] _C. S. P. Eng._, No. 228, 229, January 3, 1562; the admiral to
Montgomery (Delaborde, _Gaspard de Coligny_, II, 180), December 28,
1562, from the camp at Avarot; cf. _C. S. P. Eng._, No. 181, January 2,
1563—the admiral to Queen Elizabeth; Forbes, II, 247.
[641] De Thou, Book XXXIV, and Le Laboureur’s additions to Castelnau,
II, 81.
[642] “They did not strike a stroke” and “were defeated in running
away.”—_C. S. P. For._, January 3, 1563; Forbes, II, 251.
[643] Claude Haton, I, 311.
[644] For contemporary accounts of the battle of Dreux, see: “Discours
de la bataille,” in _Mém. du duc de Guise_, ed. Michaud, 497 ff.; Beza,
_Histoire des églises réformées_, I, 605 ff.; D’Aubigné, Book III,
chaps. xiii, xiv; Tavannes, 392 ff.; La Noue, _Mém. milit._, chap. x;
De Thou, Book XXXIV; _C. S. P. Eng._, No. 1,282, abstract of a printed
pamphlet; No. 1,316, December 21; No. 1,323, December 22, 1562—letter
of the admiral to the earl of Warwick; to Queen Elizabeth, Delaborde,
II, 178, 179. For details as to the number of prisoners, etc., see _C.
S. P. For._, Nos. 1,286-88, 1,316, 1,317, 1,335, §§4-6; 1,334, 1,353,
§6; 1,563, Nos. 12, 22, 28, narrative of Spanish troops. Excellent
accounts of the battle are to be consulted in De Ruble, _Antoine de
Bourbon et Jeanne d’Albret_, II, 366 ff.; Whitehead, _Gaspard de
Coligny_, 140-45; and the duke of Aumale’s _History of the Princes of
Condé_ (Eng. trans.), I, 150-68. The standard treatment of the subject
is Coynart, _L’Année 1562 et la bataille de Dreux: étude historique et
militaire; extraits divers, correspondance officielles du temps_ (1894).
Montaigne has an interesting essay upon some peculiar incidents of the
battle. Two curious occurrences happened. The duke of Guise was the
first to alight from his horse and courteously receive the prince of
Condé (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,326, December 26, 1562); the two slept
in the same bed that night (_ibid._, _Ven._, December 21, 1562). The
duke of Aumale was unhorsed and nearly the whole army rode and trampled
over him, yet he was unhurt, owing to the heavy suit of armor he wore
(_ibid._, _For._, No. 375, §3, 1563; cf. No. 400, §2).
[645] The Parlement ordered the bishops of France to declare that in
all parishes those who knew who were Huguenots should denounce them
within nine days to their priests under pain of excommunication. This
practice led to a large exodus of the Huguenots in many of the towns
(Claude Haton, I, 312, 316, 317, and note, 318).
[646] The German form of the name was Bessenstein.
[647] _C. S. P. For._, No. 14, §2, January 3, 1563.
[648] _Ibid._, No. 16, §2, January 3, 1563, and No. 32—D’Andelot to
Elizabeth from Orleans, January 5, 1563; cf. Forbes, II, 263.
[649] Sarpi, _Histoire du Concile de Trent_, Book VII, chap. xlviii.
[650] _C. S. P. For._, No. 15, §1, January 3, 1563.
[651] _Ibid._, _Eng. For._, No. 35, January 6, 1563; Forbes, II, 270;
No. 54, §2, January 7; No. 69, §1, January 11, 1563.
[652] La Mothe Fénélon to St. Sulpice, December 17, 1562; _L’Ambassade
de St. Sulpice_, 103, 104.
[653] _C. S. P. Ven._, December 27, 1562.
[654] Randolph wrote to Cecil on January 5, 1563: “We thought ourselves
happy till we heard of the prince’s taking, but despair not as longe as
the admiral kepethe the feeldes.”—_C. S. P. Scot._, I, 1, 160.
[655] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 83, January 13, 1563; No. 84, §3, same date;
No. 109, §6, January 17; No. 137, §5, January 23, 1563.
[656] _Ibid._, No. 83, §3, January 13, 1563.
[657] “Coll. d’un ancien amateur,” Hôtel Drouot, February 10, 1877,
No. 34: Eleanor de Roye to Catherine de Medici from Orleans, December
22, 1562, asking that pity be taken upon the prince of Condé; _C. S.
P. For._, No. 35, January 6, 1563; Forbes, II, 270; No. 146, §3: “This
night (January 24) Condé was brought into this town with a strong
guard. He came on horseback, and was brought through the town in a
coach covered with black velvet, by torch-light, and the windows of the
coach open; but the torch was so carried that none could see him.” The
government had good reason to fear an attempt would be made to rescue
him while he was at Chartres.
[658] “A ce soir bien tard j’ay receu la lettre qu’il vous a pleu
m’escripre par la poste et vous puis asseurer Madame qu’il y a deux
jours que Madame la Princesse et mon nepveu Dandelot veullent vous
envoyer la response et advis de mon nepveu monsieur l’admiral et de
toute leur compaigne. Mais je les en ay engarder sur la tente qu’auyons
au retour du Plessis qui devoit estre samedy au matin pour estre rendu
certain de vostre volonté, à quoy les voys tous fort affectionnés pour
faire une bonne paix,” etc., etc.—Montmorency to Catherine de Médicis,
Orléans, 12 janvier 1563 (Fillon Collection, No. 2652).
[659] _C. S. P. For._, No. 35, §2, January 6, 1563; Forbes, II, 270.
[660] Catherine expressed this determination as far back as October 20
in a letter to St. Sulpice (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 87; _C. S. P.
For._, No. 37, January 6, 1563).
[661] _C. S. P. Ven._, February 2, 1563.
[662] Cf. _L’Ambassade St. Sulpice_, 93, 108, 114, 116, and _Corresp.
de Cath. de Méd._, I, 508, 548. This was the real mission of Don
Fernando de Toledo, a bastard son of the duke of Alva and grand
prior of the order of St. John in Castile, who was sent to France to
congratulate Charles IX on the victory of Dreux (cf. _C. S. P. For._,
No. 187, January 29, 1563, from Madrid; No. 190, January 30, from
Madrid; No. 234, February 3, from Madrid). St. Sulpice this early
surmised that Alva, at any rate, though he did not yet so suspect the
political designs of Philip II, desired the continuation of civil
war in France in order that Spain might profit by her distress, and
so wrote to Catherine de Medici.—_L’ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 93,
November 12, 1562. In consequence of this attitude, religious and
political, the arguments of France fell upon deaf ears (see _ibid._,
122, and note).
[663] Cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 35, §2, January 6, 1563; No. 109, § 4,
January 17; No. 182, §9, January 28; Forbes, II, 270, 287.
[664] _C. S. P. Ven._, February 6, 1563.
[665] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 234, February 3, 1563, from Madrid. No. 194,
January 30, 1563. The money was used to purchase the services of 3,000
reiters and some new levies of Swiss. Pending their arrival, Charles IX
called out the _arrière-ban_—cavalry of the nobility obliged to serve
upon call—to prosecute the war (_C. S. P. Ven._, February 17, 1563).
See the interesting account of the interception of 13,000 écus d’or
probably by the Huguenots, though it may have been by robbers, sent
from Flanders in February, 1563 (Paillard, “De tournement au profit des
Huguenots d’un subsidé envoyé par Philippe II à Catherine de Médicis,”
_Rev. hist._, II, 490).
[666] _C. S. P. For._, No. 145, January 24, 1563; Forbes, II, 300.
[667] _Ibid._, _Eng. For._, No. 289, February 12, 1562. “If the
admiral,” wrote the earl, “should, for want of present aid, be
discomfited and driven to make composition, they may reckon not
only upon the whole power of France being bent against this place
(Harfleur), but that the same will, with the assistance of Spain and
Scotland and their confederates, be also undoubtedly extended against
England. But if he be now aided with 10,000 men and 200,000 crowns,
further inconvenience will be stayed and may serve a better purpose
than the employment at another time of a far greater number at larger
charges. It would be better for the queen to convert a good part of
her plate into coin than slack her aid.”—_Ibid._, _Eng._, No. 290,
February 12, 1563; add Nos. 285, 287. Warwick in seconding Coligny’s
appeal (_ibid._, _For._, No. 294, February 12, 1563) urged haste in
the matter of the money, as “if it is not sent in time it will be the
ruin of the cause through mutiny of the reiters, who may even kill the
admiral;” moreover, as the admiral’s forces were all cavalry, English
infantry was wanted.
[668] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 265, 276, 280, 282, 289, February, 1563.
[669] _Ibid._, _Eng._, No. 291. Throckmorton’s report of his conference
with Admiral Coligny, February 12, 1563. It is astonishing, after
this display of selfishness and greed, that Coligny should still have
retained patience with, and faith in, Elizabeth.
[670] The duke was short of heavy guns and had to send to Paris for
them to come to Corbeil by water, from thence to Montargis, and so
after by land to the river. The defenders had improvised a mill on the
island into a fortress but after the arrival of the heavy guns, so hot
a fire was poured upon them that they were compelled to retire across
the bridge, “leaving many to the mercy of the fish” (Claude Haton, I,
319).
[671] _C. S. P. For._, No. 323, February 17, 1563. Both D’Aubigné,
Book III, chap. xvi, and La Noue, _Mém. milit._, chap. x, have vivid
accounts of this siege; cf. also De Thou, Book XXXIV.
[672] Barbaro gives details of the havoc wrought by this explosion (_C.
S. P. Ven._, January 28, 1563); cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 239, § 3, No.
323, § 18, February 17, 1563.
[673] Throckmorton wrote to Cecil on February 21: “He is to be pitied,
for every hour he is in danger of his life and of being betrayed by his
reiters.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 333, §§1, 5, 9, February 20, 1563; No.
339, February 21, 1562.
[674] _Ibid._, No. 374, March 1, 1563; Forbes, II, 332.
[675] Montgomery to the Rhinegrave, Dieppe, 8 fevrier, 1563: “Les
habitans du plat pays m’ont faict entendre qu’ils seroient prestz de
se joindre à moy si je me vouloys metre en campagne pour les deffendre
des oppressions, pilleries et sacagementz qu’ilz disent estre exercés
par ceux qui vous suivent. Monsieur l’admiral [Coligny] n’est [pas] au
pays [l’Orléannais] que me mandez ou à tout le moings qu’il a faict
une extrème diligence et est plus près de nous qu’on ne cuyde, en
delliberation de metre bientost une fin à ces troubles, pour nous faire
tous jouyr du rang que nous debrons tenir prez la personne du Roi comme
ses vrays subjets et loyaulx serviteurs.”—Fillon Collection.
[676] _C. S. P. For._, No. 352, Warwick to the council, February 25,
1563; cf. Forbes, II, 336; _C. S. P. Eng. For._, No. 327, §3, February
18, 1563; Forbes, II, 334, 380, March 1, 1563; cf. Nos. 333, 344.
[677] The money reached Havre on February 25 and was brought by
Beauvoir, Briquemault, and Throckmorton under guard of eight pieces
of artillery to Caen at once (Delaborde, II, 226, 227). The reiters
received their pay at once. For some curious information about the
avarice of the reiters and the pay given them, see _Papiers d’état du
cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 129, note; VII, 407.
[678] _C. S. P. For._, 391; Forbes, II, 346.
[679] Catherine wrote with truth: “Ce royaume est réduit en telle
extrémité que la necessité veut que l’on ne perde l’occasion de faire
pacifier, principalement pour jeter hors les étrangers, mêmement les
Anglais.”—_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 101.
[680] “La guerre,” said Catherine with words of simple dignity, which
were repeated in the instructions of the special envoys sent to notify
the court of Vienna and Madrid, the Vatican and the Council of Trent,
“a tellement appauvri le royaume qu’il est réduit à un état digne de
commisération. La voie des armes était impossible; le remède propre
à un tel mal, l’expérience a démontré, c’est un libre et général
concile.”—_Corresp. de Cath. de Méd._, II, Introd., v. Philip II,
reproached the regent of Parma for not lending assistance to France.
See her letter justifying her conduct in Gachard, _Correspondance de
Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 266, August 12, 1563.
[681] The marshal Brissac succeeded to the command (_L’Ambassade de St.
Sulpice_, 120). For the influence of the death of the duke of Guise in
France, see Forneron, _Hist. des ducs de Guise_, II, 80; upon Flanders,
_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VII, 52, 61, 65; Gachard,
_Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I, 245. For interesting details see
D’Aubigné, Book III, chap. xx; _Mém. de Condé_, IV, 243; _C. S. P.
For._, No. 332, February 20, 1563; No. 354, §§2-5, February 26, 1562,
both from Smith to Queen Elizabeth, written from Blois. Cf. Forbes, II,
159; 361, §§1-8, 17, February 26, 424, §10 March 8, 1563; _C. S. P.
Ven._, letters of February 23, 27, and March 2, 23, 1563. It is said
the duke received warning from Montluc and Madame de St. André, but
that the word arrived too late. The news of his death was kept from
Mary Stuart for some time. See _C. S. P. Scotland_, VI, No. 1,173,
March 10, 1563; VIII, No. 17, March 18, 1563; No. 30, April 1, 1563;
No. 31, April 10, 1563. On the political theory of assassination, see
Weill, 69.
Poltrot was put to death on March 18; for the trial, see _Mém.-journ.
de François, de Lorraine_ (Michaud Coll.), 506, 537 ff.; Paulin Paris,
_Cabinet hist._, I^[ère] part., III, 49 ff. A conspicuous instance of
the high-mindedness of Jeanne d’Albret is the letter of consolation she
wrote to the duchess of Guise after the assassination of the duke (La
Ferrière, _Rapport_, 39).
[682] _C. S. P. For._, No. 422, March 8, 1562; Forbes, II, 350, 354,
356; _C. S. P. For._, No. 437, March 12, 1563; _ibid._, No. 424,
§§25-27; No. 435, March 11, 1562, Condé to Smith.
[683] _Ibid._, No. 473; 481, March 20, the Rhinegrave to Warwick on the
basis of a letter of the queen mother (Beza, II, 17, ed. 1841).
[684] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 395, §2, March 3, 1563; 419, §5, March 7;
424, §§3, 4; Forbes, II. “La retarder d’un jour,” said De Losses in one
of the sessions of the King’s council, “c’était exposer la ville de
Paris au sac et au pillage, laisser le roi et la reine à la merci des
protestants encore aux armes.” M. Gonnor, later the marshal Matignon,
dwelt upon the miserable state of the country and concluded: “Je parle
sans passion. Je ne suis pas huguenot et je supplie la cour de ne pas
différer l’enrégistrement de l’édit.”—_Corresp. de Cath. de Méd._, II,
Introd., iii.
[685] “Traité politique par lequel en quelque sorte la gentilhommerie
provinciale s’isolait du puritanisme de Génève.”—Capefigue, 260.
[686] “C’est trop grand pitié que de limiter ainssy certains lieux pour
servir à Dieu, comme s’il ne vouloit estre en tous endroicts.”—Fillon
Collection, 2,657, the admiral to the landgrave from Caen, March 16,
1563.
[687] “Edict et déclaration faite par le roy Charles IX sur la
pacification des troubles de ce Royaume: le 19 mars 1563,” Par., _Rob.
Estienne_, 1563; Isambert, XIV, 135. The various pieces showing the
evolution of the edict are to be found in _Mém. de Condé_, IV, 305,
333, 356, 498, 504. Cf. _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 428, 430, 431 (March 10,
1563).
Biron was sent into Provence in 1563 with instructions to give an
account to the King of the manner in which justice was administered
there and how the edict was executed. He was also to find the count
of Tendes and Sommerive and express the King’s displeasure of their
conduct. The royal instructions are evidence of the sincerity with
which the government started to execute the edict (La Ferrière,
_Rapport_, 46; cf. _Collection Trémont_, sér. 3, p. 124).
[688] _C. S. P. For._, No. 424, §16; No. 590, April 8, 1563; Forbes,
II, 379.
[689] _C. S. P. Ven._, March 23, 1563. “Response faicte par le Roy
(Charles IX) et son Conseil, aux Presidens et Conseillers de sa Cour
de Parlement de Paris: Sur la remonstrance faicte à sa dicte maiesté,
concernant la déclaration de sa Maiorité, et ordonnance faicte pour le
bien, et repos publique de son Royaume” (Lyons, Rigaud, 1563).
In the first week of May the King summoned the members of the Parlement
of Paris and the authorities of the city to St. Germain, commanding
them before the week was out to obey the Edict of Toleration, to
release those imprisoned for religion, and to lay down their arms (_C.
S. P. For._, No. 703, §3, May 4, 1563). Paris finally published the
edict, but observed it slightly, the Parlement admitting the “graces”
of the edict, but saying it could not in its conscience allow two
religions (_ibid._, No. 1190, 835, June 2, 1563). For an example of the
violence of the capital see No. 895, June 15, 1562. The public criers
and the very horses which they used in the crying of the edict in the
city of Paris were in danger of being killed by the populace, which
poured out of the mouths of the streets (Claude Haton, I, 328).
[690] “Le peuple y est fort sedicieux.”—Fourquevaux to St. Sulpice,
October 13, 1563, _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 165.
[691] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, Introd., iv.
[692] _C. S. P. Ven._, March 29, April 10 and 20, 1563. On the prince
de Porcien, see Le Laboureur, I, 389; also an article by Delaborde in
_Bulletin de la Soc. prot. franç._, XVIII, 2. Claude Haton gives some
vivid details about this retirement of the reiters (Vol. I, p. 355).
Cf. _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 15, 16, 42. On the
case of the Three Bishoprics see St. Sulpice, _ibid._; _C. S. P. Ven._,
March 29, April 10, 1563; _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 323, §8, and 419, §5,
420, 455; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 403.
[693] Claude Haton, I, 279, 280.
[694] See the interesting account of an unsuccessful attempt by the
reiters to storm a château (Claude Haton, I, 347-49).
[695] Claude Haton, I, 354.
[696] Quoted by Forneron, I, 277, note 1.
[697] _C. S. P. Ven._, April 21, 1563.
[698] _Correspund de Cath. de Méd._ Introd., cxlv-vi; cf. _R. Q.
H._, October 1869, 349-51. Charles IX was firmly resolved to enforce
the national traditions of the French monarchy with reference to the
papacy. The fearless speech of Du Ferrier occasioned a sensation in
the council. France was accused of wishing, like England, to secede
from Rome and found a national church and it was even proposed to hand
the ambassador over to the Inquisition (Frémy, _Un ambassadeur libéral
sous Charles IX et Henri III_, 1880, p. 49). So energetic were the
remonstrances of Lansac that he was derisively called the “ambassador
of the Huguenots” (Frémy, 21).
On April 15, 1563, the King wrote to the cardinal of Lorraine to
inform him that, having grown impatient at the slowness of the Council
of Trent, he was sending the president Biragues to Trent and then to
the Emperor with a mission to have the council transferred to a freer
place if possible. The King declared that if the reforms demanded by
Christianity were not accorded and confirmed by the council, France
would not hesitate to convoke a national council. (See the instruction
to D’Oysel in _Corresp. de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 1-3, note.)
[699] “Articles de l’alégation de messieurs les ambassadeurs, estant de
present à la cour; envoyez, l’un par nostre saint père le Pape, l’autre
par l’Empereur, Roy des Romains, l’autre par le Roy d’Espaigne, et le
Prince de Piedmont. Au Roy de France et princes de son sang, au mois
de Fevrier, 1563,” _Mém. de Condé_, V, 406-8; cf. _L’Ambassade de St.
Sulpice_, 135 and 167.
[700] Lansac and Du Ferrier were the ambassadors of France at Trent.
Lansac’s instructions, which outline the policy of France, are in
Baschet, _Journal du Concile de Trente_, etc., 251-65; add D’Aubigné,
Book III, chap. xxi; St. Sulpice, 28, 64, 102, 114, 130, 141, 160-63.
On Lansac, see _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, Index; upon
Du Ferrier, consult Frémy, _Un ambassadeur libéral sous Charles IX et
Henri III_, 1880.
The cardinal of Lorraine, while agreeing with Philip II, as to
religion and heresy, looked with resentment upon the King’s attempt
to appropriate the political destiny of Mary Stuart to his own ends
(St. Sulpice to Lansac, December 15, 1562, p. 103). The whole council
was filled with disaffection; 150 out of the 230 members present
were Italians, most of these pensioners of Rome, so that the others
resented their preponderance (Lansac to St. Sulpice, February 10, 1563,
_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 115).