of the episcopal discipline in the first part of the sixteenth century
contributed to the growth of this spirit, and finally led to a Catholic
reaction. The city was more inclined, however, to Calvinism than to
Lutheranism. Charles V prohibited the exercise of the Lutheran faith,
but nevertheless, the Protestants of Metz made an alliance with the
Smalkald League. Under the French domination the city passed definitely
from Lutheranism to Calvinism. The French governor, Vieilleville,
was a moderate in policy and granted the Huguenots a church in the
interior of the town. During the first civil war the Protestants in
Metz remained tranquil, but soon afterward Farel visited the city
for the third time, and thereafter the city’s religious activity was
considerable. The cardinal of Lorraine suppressed Protestant preaching
in the diocese and closed the church. When Charles IX visited Metz in
1564 the edifice was destroyed and Protestant worship was forbidden.
After the death of the Marshal Vieilleville, the count de Retz was made
governor. One of the motives of the support of the Huguenot cause by
John Casimir, the prince palatine, was a promise made by the Huguenots
that he would be given the governorship of Metz. On the subject as
a whole see Thirion, _Etude sur l’histoire du protestantisme à Metz
et dans le pays Messin_, Nancy, 1885; Le Coullon, _Journal (1537-87)
d’après le manuscrit original_, publié pour la première fois et annoté
par E. de Bouteiller, Paris, Dumoulin, 1881.
[1044] _Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 462, 463.
[1045] Granvella to Perez, October 15, 1565; _ibid._, IX, 594, 595.
[1046] See Philip II’s letter to Chantonnay, October 22, 1565; _ibid._,
IX 609 ff.
[1047] He had served in Italy in 1555 and became the cardinal’s bailiff
and revenue-collector in the bishopric of Metz after the treaty of
Cateau-Cambrésis (_Commentaire et lettres de Montluc_, I, 228).
[1048] For an account of the “Cardinal’s War” see De Thou, V, Book
XXXVII, 37-40. There is another account in the _Mém. de Condé_, V, 27,
supposed to have been written by Salzedo himself. In F. Fr. 3, 197,
folio 92, there is an unpublished letter of Salzedo’s (see Appendix
IX), and another of the duke of Aumale upon this incident. Chantonnay
comforted Philip for the disappointment over Metz by telling him, that
while the restoration of the Three Bishoprics was indeed important,
because of their bearing upon the situation in Flanders, the trouble
had averted a marriage alliance between France and Austria which would
have been more calamitous (Letter to Philip II, October 30, 1565, in
_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, IX, 625).
Two years later we find the tricky cardinal of Lorraine still
protesting his innocence to Catherine and praying her not to be
suspicious of him (Letter of December 6, 1567, Fillon Collection, No.
316).
[1049] Forneron, I, 346, on the basis of Alva’s letter to Philip on May
19, 1566, and the cardinal’s own letter, written at the same time (both
preserved in K. 1,505, No. 99, and K. 1,509), assumes that the secret
intercourse between Philip II and the Guises began in the year 1566
and ascribes the immediate occasion of it to the troubles in the Low
Countries. He missed the inception of it by a year. Granvella’s letter
conclusively shows that it began in July, 1565. Every word of this
letter is of weight. It is to be found in _Papiers d’état du cardinal
de Granvelle_, IX, 399-402.
[1050] Johnson, _Europe in the Sixteenth Century_, 328. For interesting
details by an eye-witness, see Bourgon, _Life and Times of Sir Thomas
Gresham_, II, 121 ff.
[1051] Poulet, I, 509; Gachard, _Don Carlos et Philippe II_, 354; _La
Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris_, II, 213. The disastrous news reached
the King on September 5. For ten days he was ill with a high fever
in consequence. Fourquevaux, writing from Segovia on September 11,
to Charles IX, gives some details of Philip’s illness and how he was
treated by the physicians and then adds: “Les Espagnols sont bien
marriez d’entendre que les Lutheriens dud. pais (Flanders) ont commencé
s’empoigner aux eglises et reliques, et à fere marier les prebtres et
nonnains, avec infiniz autres maulx qu’ilz font, qui est le semblable
commencement des doleurs qui advindrent en votre Royaume du temps des
troubles.”—_Dépêches de M. Fourquevaux_, I, 124, 125.
[1052] The Austrian lands were invaded by the Turks in the autumn of
1566 (_Négociations dans le Levant_, II, 721; Languet, _Epist. secr._,
I, 15).
[1053] It was a pose of Philip’s that the expedition was purely
political; cf. Gachard, _Les bibliothèques de Madrid et de l’Escurial_,
94 ff., based on the correspondence of the archbishop of Rossano.
[1054] Dispatch to Charles IX, December 9, 1566 (Fourquevaux, I,
147-52). He waited in great anxiety for instructions from Paris, daily
growing more suspicious because the Spanish King said not a word to
him on the subject, although he sent for him in audience on January
14, 1567 (_ibid._, 167-72; dispatches of Jan. 5 and 18, 1567). The
tremendous financial operations of the Spanish government (consult
Gachard, _Don Carlos et Philippe II_, II, 369, 370) filled him with
alarm, and he made an unsuccessful effort to bribe the secretary of one
of Philip II’s ministers. He gathered that the Spanish forces would
likely sail for Barcelona and disembark at Nice or Genoa (_ibid._, 176,
177, February 13, 1567).
[1055] Forneron, I, 347, on authority of Alva’s dispatch in K. 1,507,
No. 2; cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, 527.
[1056] Gachard, _La Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris_, II, 228. The
dispatch was delayed on account of the illness of the courier and
the heavy snows he encountered in the Pyrenees, and did not reach
the ambassador until January 15, 1567 (Fourquevaux, I, 168). The
correspondence of Bernardo d’Aspremont, viscount of Orthez, governor
of Bayonne—unfortunately much scattered in the volumes of the
Bibliothèque Nationale—shows the standing danger the southern
provinces of France were in from Spanish invasion (_Commentaires et
lettres de Montluc_, III, 400, note).
[1057] Poulet, II, 183.
[1058] D’Aubigné, II, 229, note.
[1059] Poulet, II, 495.
[1060] D’Aubigné, II, 228; Zurlauben, _Hist. milit. des Suisses_, IV,
335.
[1061] We learn this from a letter of George Paulet. See Appendix X.
[1062] Poulet, II, 183; _Dépêches de M. Fourquevaux_, I, 173.
[1063] _Dépêches de M. Fourquevaux_, I, 174, February 4, 1567. Philip
II took these military preparations of the French with remarkable
equanimity—even Charles IX’s positive refusal to allow the Spanish
army to traverse France (March 24, 1567). He seemed to be sincerely
anxious to avoid friction with France (see his letter to Granvella,
February 17, 1567, in Poulet, II, 255, 256). The danger in the
Low Countries was too great to allow any outside controversy. The
clandestine operation of Protestant preachers in Spain itself and the
smuggling of heretical books into the land, concealed in casks of wine,
disquieted him more than France did at this season. (For information on
this head see Poulet, II, 126, 142, 199; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 506; Weiss,
_Spanish Protestants in the Sixteenth Century_.)
[1064] Fourquevaux (February 15, 1567), I, 180, 181. Granvella
apparently, immediately after learning of the image breaking, and
anticipating that either the King himself or the duke of Alva, would
have to go to Brussels, sent a remarkable memoir to Philip II, in which
he discusses all the various routes by which he might go, and the
advantages and disadvantages of each of them. The physical difficulties
of governing the Low Countries from Madrid are very evident (see
Poulet, I, 469-80).
[1065] The Pope’s nuncio had pointed out to Philip II what a splendid
achievement the overcoming of Geneva would be for Christendom. The
scheme was an old one. See a letter of Pius IV to Francis II, June
14, 1560, in Raynaldus, XXXIV, 64, col. 2. The King, after some weeks
of consideration, declared that he could not think of it; that even
the duke of Savoy was against the project. (See Gachard, _Corresp.
de Philippe II_, II, 552, and his _Les bibliothèques de Madrid et de
l’Escurial_, 100.) On the political ambition of the duke of Savoy see
_Rel. vén._, I, 453. He had made a treaty with Bern in 1565 (Collection
Godefroy, XCIV, fol. 21). There are three excellent German monographs
on Switzerland in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: Planta, _Die
Geschichte von Graubunden in ihren Hauptzügen_, Bern, 1892; _idem_,
_Chronik der Familie von Planta_, Zurich, 1892; Salis-Soglio, _Die
Familie von Salis_, Lincau-im-B., 1891. For a review of the last two
see _English Historical Review_, VIII, 588.
[1066] See _Revue d’histoire diplomatique_, XIV (1900), 45-47.
[1067] “Mais le faisant, c’estoit remectre le feu et le glaive dans
la France plus et plus cruel qu’ilz n’y ont esté.”—_Dépêches de M.
Fourquevaux_ (March 15, 1567), I, 189.
[1068] I have given the figures of Mendoza, which probably is the
strength of the forces when they arrived. The official roster is in the
_Correspondencia_, No. CXXII.
[1069] “The front of every company by a new invention was flanked with
fifteen supernumeraries, armed with musketoones, and rests wherein they
laid the barrow that could not be managed by the hands. For before his
time, such huge muskets as unmanageable were drawn upon carriages and
only used at sieges, from whence being transmitted into the field, and
those that carry them mixed with the lesser musketeers, they have been
found extraordinarily serviceable in battle.”—Stapylton’s transl. of
Strada, Book VI, 31.
Brantôme’s statement is more graphic: “Il fut luy le premier qui leur
donna en main les gros mousquetz, et que l’on veid les premiers en
guerre et parmy les compagnies; et n’en avions point veu encores parmy
leurs bandes, lors que nous allasmes pour le secours de Malte; dont
despuis nous en avons pris l’usage parmy nos bandes, mais avec de
grandes difficultéz à y accoustumer nos soldats comme j’en parle au
livre des couronnelz. Et ces mousquetz estonnzarent fort les Flamans,
quand ilz les sentirent sonner à leurs oreilles; car ilz n’en avoient
veu non plus que nous: et ceux qui les portoient les nommoit-on
Mousquetaires; très bien appoinctéz et respectéz, jusques à avoir de
grands et forts gojatz qui les leur portoient, et avoient quatre ducats
de paye; et ne leur portoient qu’en cheminant par pays: mais quand ce
venoit en une faction, ou marchans en battaille, ou entrans en garde
ou en quelque ville, les prenoient. Et eussiez dict que c’estoient des
princes, tant ils estoient rogues et marchoient arrogamment et de belle
grace: et lors de quelque combat ou escarmouche, vous eussiez ouy crier
ces mots par grand respect: _Salgan, salgan los mosqueteros! Afuera,
afuera, adelante los mosqueteros!_ Soudain on leur faisoit place; et
estoient respectéz, voire plus que capitaines pour lors, à cause de
la nouveauté, ainsy que toute nouveauté plaist.”—Brantôme, _Vies des
Grands Capitaines_: “Le Grand Duc d’Albe.”
[1070] Mendoza, _Comentarios_, II, chaps. i-iii. There is a French
translation of this work by Loumier (Soc. de l’histoire de Belge), 2
vols., 1860.
[1071] “The duke arrived in the Low Countries offending none in his
passage nor being himself offended by any one, though the French
appeared in arms upon the marches of Burgundy and Colonel Tavannes
by command from the French king with 4,000 foot and some troops were
defence of course of the borders, ‘costed’ the Spanish army. Indeed I
do not think that ever army marched so far and kept stricter rules of
discipline, so that from Italy even to the Low Countries, not only no
towns but not any cottage was forced or injured.”—Strada, VI, 31.
The only instance of plundering seems to have been in the case of
the property of the prince of Orange in Burgundy (_C. S. P. For._,
1562, August 7, 1567). This discipline is all the more remarkable,
considering the fact that there were fifteen hundred women with the
army. “Lon a sceu le passaige du duc d’Albe et de sa trouppe; quon dict
estre de six mille espaignolz et quinze cens femmes.”—Guyon to M. de
Gordes, July 11, 1567. Cited by the duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des princes
de Condé_, I, Appendix XVI.
[1072] Poulet, II, 183, December 25, 1566.
[1073] Morillon to Granvella, April 7, 1566: “Pas ce boult veult l’on
gaigner le magistrat des villes et le peuple: que ne sera si facille
comme l’on pense.”—Poulet, I, 203. The following is explicit: “Et
dict encores plus que, s’il se fust joinct à la première lighe des
seigneurs, la religion fust bien avant venue, car de là, dict-il,
‘tanquam ex fonte emanasse has undas,’ et que le Roy le doibt entendri
ainse et y pourveoir avant toutte euvre, puisque de celle là est née la
seconde de la religion.”—Poulet, II, 75. Cf. 118: “la première lighe
et la secunde engendrée d’icelle.”—Granvella to Viglius, November
23, 1566. As late as May 9, 1567, it is called “la gentille ligue”
(Poulet, II, 434). Granvella, in a letter to Philip in 1563, attributed
the formation of the association to Count Hoorne (_Papiers d’état du
cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 12). Noircarmes, who was better informed,
makes Brederode the moving spirit of it (Poulet, II, 613, 614).
The Gueux even had a branch organization, though one historically
different in origin, in Franche Comté, in the Confrérie de Ste. Barbe.
The seigneurs of the house of Rye enjoyed high civil and ecclesiastical
station in both Burgundies in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
Marc and Claude François of Rye, father and son, were rivals and
political enemies of the Perrenots—the family of Granvella and
Chantonnay—and regarded them as upstarts. The Confrérie de Ste. Barbe
was organized by them in Franche Comté on lines similar to the Gueux
and had dealings with the latter—the members even wearing their
emblem. Cardinal Granvella accused the seigneurs of Rye of aiming to
establish Protestantism, in Franche Comté from Flanders. This probably
was true but in a less degree. Protestant agitation was a means to
an end, not an end in itself, it seems to me. If otherwise, such a
_catholic_ title for the association is very singular. On the Confrérie
de Ste. Barbe consult Poulet, I, 29; II, 44, 141. I am somewhat
inclined to think that Tavanne’s Confraternity of the Holy Spirit in
ducal Burgundy may not impossibly have been influenced by the Confrérie
de Ste. Barbe in the adjoining county of Burgundy, for Tavannes had a
long political conflict with the Parlement of Dôle in Franche-Comté
(see Collection Godefroy, CCLVII, Nos. 22, 23), and was familiar with
things there.
[1074] Poulet, I, 223.
[1075] _Ibid._, II, 269. This revised form of the Gueux in which
Calvinism is interjected is often alluded to as the “second league” in
the letters which pass between Granvella and the provost Morillon, e.
g., _ibid._, 280, 437, 600.
[1076] Poulet, II, 42.
[1077] For some examples see _ibid._, 183.
[1078] This organization seems to have been perfected by February,
1567. Poulet, II, 244, has a brief note on this matter. For an
extended article see _Bulletin historique et littéraire de la société
de l’hist. du protestantisme Français_, March, 1879. Cf. Gachard,
_Corresp. de Guill. le Taciturne_, II, cx, cxi, and notes. Marnix was
treasurer-general of the confederation (Poulet, II, 262, n. 1).
[1079] Poulet, II, 335, 336, 396. “Sine qua factum nihil,” wrote the
provost, whose conception of government was Draconian in simplicity, to
his confidential friend (_ibid._, 353).
[1080] _Ibid._, 469 and 508.
[1081] _Ibid._, 396, 438.
[1082] See Gachard, _Corresp. de Philippe II_, 461, 471, 473; Poulet,
I, 461, 521; II, 102, 106, 139, 143, 187, 394, 440, 451, 659, 675.
[1083] Morillon to Granvella, August 31, 1567, in Poulet, II, 605:
“La première chose que l’on doibt faire sera de munir et asseurer les
frontières et renvoier chascun à son gouvernement, d’aultant que les
François semblent voulloir esmouvoir, du moingz les Hugonaux.” The
cardinal had advised the duke of Alva to do this in the May preceding,
when he was at Genoa on his way northward (Poulet, II, 448, 454).
Montluc’s repeated warnings to Philip II, in the course of their
secret correspondence, of the succor French Calvinists were giving to
his Flemish rebels (K. 1,506, Nos. 46-48) led the King to enlarge the
system of espionage which he maintained in France. The movements of
the admiral, the prince of Condé, and other leaders, were carefully
reported (_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 75, note). On the
whole practice see Forneron, I, chap. xi.
[1084] Mundt to Cecil from Strasburg, July 8, 1567 (_C. S. P. For._,
No. 1,418).
[1085] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, Introd., v.
[1086] Fourquevaux (July 17, 1567), I, 237. St. Sulpice had held
similar language in 1564: “Le meilleur moyen pour le prince
d’avoir la paix est d’être toujours en état de repousser ses
voisins.”—_L’Ambassade de. St. Sulpice_, 269.
[1087] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,402, July 6, 1567. Sir Henry Norris
writes to Cecil on March 25, 1567: “A better time than this could not
be found to demand Calais, they being in such distrust of their own
force, wherefore it might be understood that some preparation of arms
was making in England.”—_Ibid._, No. 1,048. A year earlier than this
Cecil had been advised to make common cause with the Emperor, the one
to recover the Three Bishoprics, the other Calais (_ibid._, No. 326,
April 29, 1566; cf. _ibid._, _Ven._, 394, July 3, 1567). There is a
brief account of the negotiations in _Bulletins de la Comm. royale
d’histoire_, séries IV, Vol. V, 386 ff. Cf. _C. S. P. For._ (1587),
Nos. 1039, 1044, 1046, 1083.
[1088] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, Introd., iii; _C.
S. P. Ven._, Nos. 389, May 16, 1567.
[1089] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, Introd., iv.
[1090] “The prince of Condé wrote to the queen mother against the
king’s revoking the edict of pacification, who assured him on the faith
of a princess that as long as she might prevail, she should never break
it, and if he came to court, he would be as welcome as his heart could
devise, and as for the _Swiss_ they were _to defend the frontiers_ in
case the Spanish forces should attempt to surprise any peace.”—Norris
to Queen Elizabeth, August 29, 1567, _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,644.
Catherine de Medici ordered the dispersal of the Huguenot bands on the
Picard border in 1567 (_R. Q. H._, January, 1899, p. 21).
[1091] The words are from a letter of Sir Henry Norris to the earl
of Leicester in _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,537, July 21, 1567, and sound
like a paraphrase of the admiral’s language. The implication is that
Coligny’s withdrawal had some connection with the purported stealing of
Alava’s cipher in the May before. See _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,230, May
24, 1567. But according to Fourquevaux, I, 227, the Spanish ambassador
accused Catherine de Medici of the stealing, _not_ Coligny. If this
be true, then Coligny must have wanted to find a pretext for leaving
the court without arousing the suspicion or animosity of the King,
as might have been the case if he had done so openly out of sympathy
for the prince of Condé. Claude Haton, I, 406, says that Coligny
was piqued because Strozzi was given the command of the new forces
instead of himself. The prince of Condé retired to Valéry, Coligny to
Châtillon. D’Andelot soon afterward followed suit, resigning his post
as colonel-general of infantry on the ground that the marshal Cossé
refused to obey his orders, and retired to Tanlay near Tonnerre. The
fine château is still standing.
Thenceforward it was of interest to the prince to stir up doubt and
distrust among the Huguenots by misrepresenting the true reasons for
the crown’s military preparation (_Correspondance de Catherine de
Médicis_, III, Introd., vi; _C. S. P. For._, _anno_ 1567, p. 305).
[1092] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,629, August 23, 1567.
[1093] Claude Haton, I, 405.
[1094] _C. S. P. Ven._, July 12, 1567.
[1095] La Popelinière, XI, 36, 37.
[1096] See Rosseeuw-Saint-Hilaire, “Le duc d’Albe en Flandre. Procès
des comtes d’Egmont et de Hornes (1567-1568),” _Séances et travaux
de l’Acad. des sc. moral et polit._, 4^[e] sér., XVI (LXVI^[e] de la
collect.), 1863, p. 480.
[1097] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,155, May 1, 1567.
[1098] D’Aubigné, I, Book IV, chap. vii.
[1099] This château was a gift to the prince of Condé by the widow of
marshal St. André, who was infatuated with him. After the prince’s
second marriage she wedded Geoffrey de Caumont (Claude Haton, I, 363).
See also Clément-Simon, _La Maréchale de Saint-André et ses filles_,
Paris, 1896.
[1100] The rendezvous was at Rosay-en-Brie (La Popelinière, Book XII,
37; D’Aubigné, IV, chap, vii; Claude Haton, I, 424, 425).
[1101] The Venetian ambassador Correro, in his relation of the
conspiracy, expresses astonishment that the secret of the Huguenot
leaders did not leak out, and attributes the fact to the perfection of
the Protestant organization (quoted by La Ferrière in _Correspondance
de Catherine de Médicis_, III, ix). It seems to me that this feature
was less due to perfect organization than to the promptitude with which
Condé and Coligny endeavored to carry out the project. The lesson
of the conspiracy of Amboise seven years before could not have been
lost upon them. Moreover, the queen mother did have some intimation,
notwithstanding her surprise when the shock came. For on September 10,
while the court was staying at Monceaux, some armed bands of horsemen
were seen hovering around, which caused the King’s hasty removal to
Meaux (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,683, September 13, 1567, Norris to
Leicester). From that hour Catherine was on the alert, though she
refused to attach alarmist importance to the signs she had seen until
her eyes were opened.
[1102] Claude Haton, I, 434.
[1103] Zurlauben, _Hist. milit. des Suisses_, IV, 351; Laugel,
“Les régimens suisses au service de France pendant les guerres, de
religion,” _Revue des deux mondes_, November 15, 1880, pp. 332 ff.
Pfiffer had served in France during the first civil war and was made a
colonel after the battle of Dreux. There is a life of him in German by
Segesser, _Ludwig Pfyffer und seine Zeit_, Bern, 1880. Other versions
of this incident are in D’Aubigné, II, 230-32; Claude Haton, I, 428,
429; Castelnau, VI, chap. iv; De Thou, Book XLII; _Nég. Tosc._, III,
530. La Popelinière, XII, 38, 39, gives a good account of the behavior
of the Swiss. The duke of Bouillon, an eye-witness of these incidents,
has left a striking account in his _Mémoires_, ed. Petitot, 75.
[1104] For Charles IX’s own version of the affair of Meaux see a letter
of the King to the baron de Gordes, begun at Meaux and finished at
Paris, September 28, 1567, in Duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des princes de
Condé_, I, Appendix XXII. His letter to Montluc of the same date is in
_Archives de la Gironde_, X, 437.
[1105] _Rel. vén._, II, 187.
[1106] The Guises made capital out of the event of Meaux and sedulously
exploited the King’s animosity. Martin, _Histoire de France_, IX, 216,
suggests that Charles IX’s conduct on St. Bartholomew’s Day may have
been influenced by this episode.
[1107] _Rel. vén._, II, 112, 113.
[1108] “Discipline of the Reformed Churches in France Received and
Enacted by Their First National Synod at Paris in 1559,” chap. vii,
canon 1, published in Quick, _Synodicon in Gallia_, 2 vols., London,
1692.
The first consistorial regulation which we possess has been published
by the Protestant pastor, Eugene Arnaud, from a manuscript at Grenoble.
It bears the title “Articles Polytiques par l’Eglise Réformée selon le
S. Evangile, fait à Poitiers 1557.” See _Synode général de Poitiers
1557_, _Synodes provinciaux de Lyon, Die, Peyraud, Montelimar et Nîmes
en 1561 et 1562_, _assemblée des Etats du Dauphiné en 1563_, _etc._,
par E. Arnaud. Grenoble, ed. Allier, 1872, 91 pages.
At the synod of Lyons (1563) the canons of the three preceding national
synods held at Paris, Poitiers, and Orleans, were reduced to a single
series of articles. The deliberations of most of the provincial synods
still remain in manuscript or are lost (Frossard, _Etude historique et
bibliographique sur la discipline ecclésiastique des églises réformées
de France_, 18).
[1109] Chap. vi, canon 1.
[1110] Chap. viii, canon 2. Chap. v, canon 1, provides that “a
consistory shall be made up of those who govern it (the individual
churches), to-wit, of its pastors and elders.” In some cases deacons
discharged the elder’s office (chap. v, canon 2).
[1111] Chap. viii, canon 8. Elders were elected by the joint suffrage
of pastor and people, upon oral nomination (chap. iii, canon 1).
[1112] Chap. viii, canon 9.
[1113] Chap. viii, canon 14.
[1114] Chap. viii, canon 15.
[1115] The synod of Nîmes in 1572 also divided Normandy into two
provinces (_Synodicon in Gallia_, I, 111, 112). At the same time Metz
was annexed to Champagne.
[1116] _Rel. vén._, II, 115, and n. B; _Commentaires et lettres de
Montluc_, II, Book V, 338; L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice, 107; _Mémoires
de Philippi_, 360, col. 1 (ed. Buchon); Collection Godefroy, CCLVII,
No. 46; Claude Haton, I, 425.
[1117] The democratic revolutionary character of the Huguenot movement
in Guyenne probably owes some of its intensity to the memory of the
revolt of 1548 and the merciless suppression thereof (observation of
M. Henri Hauser, _Rev. hist._, XCVII (March-April, 1908), 341, n. 6, a
review of Courteault _Blaise de Montluc_).
[1118] “Temevano prima i cattolici, non perchè fossero inferiori di
numero (che ... del popolo minuto non vi è la trigesima parte ugonotta;
la nobilita è più infetta; e s’io dicessi di un terzo, forse non
fallirei); ma perchè questi; sebben pochi, erano però uniti, concordi,
e vigilantissimi nelle loro cose.”—_Rel. vén._, II, 120.
The Huguenots fired guns instead of ringing bells as a signal of alarm
(_ibid._, 107). The _tocsin_, even before St. Bartholomew, was the
Catholic signal.
[1119] _Rel. vén._, II, 115.
[1120] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, I, 552; Ranke, _Civil
Wars and Monarchy in France_, 287; Forneron, _Les ducs de Guise_, II,
221; Anquetil, _Histoire des assemblées politiques des réformes de
France_, I, 18.
[1121] Forneron, II, 164 ff.; _Hist. de Languedoc_, V, 543, 544;
Armstrong, “The Political Theories of the Huguenots,” _English
Historical Review_, IV, 13; Merriam, _History of the Theory of
Sovereignty since Rousseau_, 13-15; Beaudrillart, _Jean Bodin et son
temps_.
[1122] “Si le roy tenoit sa loy, le royaulme en seroit mieulx régy et
gouverné, les antiens, qui ont tenu les concilles, ont bien regardé à
cella quant ilz ont uny nostre foy avec la continuation de la monarchie
des princes, car ilz ont bien poysé que le peuple, qui est gouverné
sous ung monarque, est beaucoup plus assuré et tenu en la craincté de
Dieu et à l’obéyssance qu’il doibt porter à son roy, que non celluy
qui est soubz une républicque, en laquelle sa loy admene tout le monde
et destruict les monarchies. Qui me voldra nyer que le roy prent ceste
loy qu’il ne faille que sa personne mesmes et son royaulme soit régy
et gouverné par les gens qui auront esté esleuz par les estatz, qui
sera son conseil sans lequel le roy ne pourra faire chose aucune.
Et s’il veult une chose et le conseil une aultre, le pays ne fera
sinon ce que le conseil ordonnera, parce qu’il aura esté (esleu) par
les estatz; et si le roy mesmes veult quelque chose pour luy ou pour
aultre, fauldra que, le bonnet à la main, il le viegne demander à son
conseil et les prier, là où en nostre loy il commende au conseil et à
tous, tant que nous sommes. Que l’on regarde dès ceste genre ce que
se faict en Angleterre et en Escosse, et si ce n’est plustost manière
d’aristocracie ou de démocracie que non de monarchie. Et quand le
roy sera grand, il voldra demander sa liberté, laquelle ne luy sera
concédée et s’il faict semblant de la voloir avoir par force, son
conseil mesmes luy couppera la guorge et feront un aultre roy à leur
plaisir.”—_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 297, 298 (December
1563). The baron de Ruble, in a note remarks: “Nulle part peut-être,
pas même dans les écrits de François Hotman et de Bodin, les réformes
politiques que promettait le calvinisme ne sont exposées avec autant de
clarté que dans ce mémoire de Monluc.”
[1123] Paulet to Cecil, October 13, 1567; _C. S. P. Dom._, Add.
[1124] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 549. On September 29, 1567, permission was
given the populace of Paris to arm themselves.—Lettres patentes du Roy
Charles IX pour l’establissement des capitaines de la ville de Paris
et permission aux citizens d’icelle de prendre les armes. Felibien,
_Histoire de Paris_, III, 703, 704.
[1125] La Popelinière, XII, 39; Claude Haton, I, 439; La Noue, chap.
xiv; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,427, September 30, 1567. Norris gives the
names of the towns taken by the prince of Condé’s forces.—_State
Papers, Foreign_, Elizabeth, Vol. XCIV No. 1,338. See Appendix XI.
According to Baschet, _La diplomatie vénitienne_, 543 and note, the
prince of Condé planned to burn Paris.
[1126] La Popelinière, Book XII, 51, 51 _bis_. The slaughter at the
bridge was terrible. The King’s captain and the color-bearer, who
managed to escape to Paris, were hanged by Charles IX.—_C. S. P.
For._, No. 1,804, November 2, 1567.
[1127] _Ibid._, No. 1,763, October 14, 1567.
[1128] Claude Haton, I, 444-46.
[1129] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 407, October 18, 1567.
[1130] Claude Haton, I, 439-45, and La Noue, chap. xvi, give some
graphic details.
[1131] Claude Haton, I, 444, 445.
[1132] “Ordonnance du Roy, portant permission à toutes personnes,
d’apporter, et faire apporter, conduire et amener à Paris, tant
par eau que par terre, toutes espèces de vivres, bleds, vins et
autres; sans payer pour iceux aucunes daces, subsides, ou imposition
quelconques.”—Paris, R. Estienne, 1567.
[1133] “Lettre addressée aux échevins de Rouen par un de leurs
délégués,” _Bulletin de la Société de l’histoire de Normandie_,
1875-80, p. 279. The whole letter is of interest.
[1134] Alva’s reply October 24, 1567, is in _Correspondance de Philippe
II_, II, 594. Cf. Gachard, _La Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris_, I, 395;
II, 459; and _Histoire des troubles des Pays-Bas_, ed. Piot, I, 293
(chap. xlvi).
[1135] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,789, October 27, 1567.
[1136] These demands were presented in writing to the queen’s
emissaries. De Thou, Book XLII; Claude Haton, I, 447; D’Aubigné, II,
232-34, have summarized them. La Popelinière, Book XII, 41-43 gives
the text. There is a monograph by Baguenault de Puchesse: _Jean de
Morvillier, évêque d’Orléans: Etude sur la politique française au XVI^[e]
siècle, d’après des documents inédits_, Didier, Paris, 1870.
[1137] La Popelinière, Book XII, 50 _bis_; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,856,
October 10, 1567.
[1138] Davila, I, 195.
[1139] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,777, October 22, 1567.
[1140] A list of officers and the number of horsemen commanded by each
who were sent to the king of France by the duke of Savoy.—_C. S. P.
For._, No. 1,735, September, 1567.
[1141] He wrote to Philip II, to Emanuel Philibert of Savoy, and the
Venetian government urging them to succor Charles IX “against the
rebels and heretics” within his kingdom, and to the duke of Lorraine
to stop the reiters.—Potter, _Lettres de St. Pie V sur les affaires
religieuses de son temps en France_, Paris, 1828. To Philip II, October
13, 1567—Potter, p. 1 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 22, p. 50); to the duke
of Savoy, October 18, 1567—Potter, p. 8 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 25,
p. 54); to Priuli, Venetian ambassador in France, October 18—Potter,
p. 6 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 24, p. 53). At the same time the Pope
wrote to the duke of Nevers in terms of rejoicing that Charles IX had
escaped at Meaux.—Potter, p. 3 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 23, p. 51),
October 16, 1567. Within a month the Pope’s word began to be made good,
for 10,000 pieces of gold were en route to France in the middle of
November.—Potter, p. 10 (ed. Gouban, Book I, No. 26, p. 56), letter
to the duke of Savoy of November 16, 1567. In it the Pope says he has
written the duke of Lorraine to stop the reiters about to enter France.
[1142] The question of payment of the Swiss still remained to be
settled and Charles IX was at his wits’ end and actually offered
a mortgage of his frontier towns, save Lyons and the frontier of
Burgundy, paying 5 per cent. interest in order to quiet the importunate
demands of the cantons.—_Revue d’histoire diplomatique_, XIV (1900),
49, 50.
[1143] Request of Charles IX to the bishop of Mainz to permit the
reiters to pass, December 9, 1567.—Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 4. John
Casimir, second son of the elector palatine, Frederick III, levied
troops for the Protestants. When protest was made against this action,
he gave an evasive reply. See Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 27; _Archives
de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, II, 163, 164; La Noue, ed. 1596, p. 897.
On the other hand the landgrave was hostile to the prince of Condé
and was fearful also of compromising himself with the Emperor and
Spain.—_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 128, 164;
Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 35.
[1144] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,864, December 15, 1567.
[1145] This is shown by a passage in which the elector of Saxony makes
mention of an alliance which the French nobles had offered (_Archives
de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 131, 134). Although the prince
of Condé in December declared that he had not entered into a treaty
with the Flemish Calvinists (_ibid._, 143), it is probable that these
proposals were accepted some months later. There is in existence the
minute of a treaty with Condé and Coligny dated August, 1568 (_ibid._,
III, No. 321, p. 285).
[1146] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,756, October 10, 1567.
[1147] La Popelinière, XII, 52 _bis_; D’Aubigné II, 236. La Noue
himself, with characteristic modesty, scarcely mentions this feat.
[1148] “Journal de Lépaulart relig. du monastère de
Saint-Crepin-le-Grand de Soissons, sur la prise de cette ville par les
Huguenots en 1567,” _Bull. d. Soc. arch._, XIV (Soissons, 1860).
[1149] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,804, November 2, 1567. Metz was captured
late in October by the Huguenots, but not the citadel.
[1150] _Ibid._, No. 1,822, November 16, 1567.
[1151] La Popelinière, XII, 52.
[1152] On the identity and career of Robert Stuart, see Claude Haton,
I, 458, n. 2.
[1153] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 410, November 11, 1567. Montmorency
lingered two days and died on November 12.
[1154] There are accounts of the battle of St. Denis in La Noue,
_Mémoires_, chap. xiv; _Mém. du duc de Bouillon_, 379; D’Aubigné, Book
IV, chap. ix; Claude Haton, I, 457; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 551 ff. The
editor has subjoined a note (2) giving the literature of the subject.
[1155] Claude Haton, I, 495; _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_,
III, Introd., xv.
The duke of Guise was criticized for not having pursued the Huguenots
more hotly and cut the road by Charenton, or Corbeil, or at the ford
of Lagny, which might have been done, for their army was in great
disorder and depressed on account of the losses which it had suffered.
The reason of the delay is probably to be found in the fact that the
breach between the Guises and the Montmorencys was wider than ever at
this moment. For the duke of Montpensier and the duke of Montmorency
each claimed command of the vanguard. The King finally decided in favor
of the former, whereupon Montmorency laid down his command. See Claude
Haton, I, 461, 462 and note; _Bulletin de la Societé d’histoire de
Normandie_, 1875-80, p. 279; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,833, November 24;
No. 1,837, November 29, 1567; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 557.
[1156] Claude Haton, I, 495 and note.
[1157] The admiral sent Teligny to the King on November 13 for this
purpose.—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,822, November 16, 1567; cf. No. 1,836.
We know, from a letter of Charles IX to his brother, what the King’s
terms would have been: (1) in the case of nobles, authorization of
Protestant worship to those possessed of high justice or possessors of
“pleins fiefs de haubert” i. e., fiefs that were noble, yet did not
confer title, provided it were conducted within their own dwellings
in the presence of their families and not more than fifty outside
persons, and without arms; (2) absolute limitation of other worship to
the places specifically granted in the edict of Amboise; (3) surrender
of places and property seized by the Huguenots; (4) suppression of the
Protestant cult within the walls of Lyons, but permission to worship
at two leagues’ distance from the city; (5) interdiction of levies
of money or men in the future and the discontinuance of Protestant
associations and synods.—_Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II,
Introd., xiv. It is a very remarkable fact that these precise terms had
been recommended to Charles IX as a basis of settlement by Montluc in a
memoir sent to the King in February 1565. See _Commentaires et lettres
de Montluc_, V, 3-9. Montluc made the further recommendation that the
governments be divided by _sénéchaussées_ instead of by rivers, on the
ground that rivers sometimes divided towns into two jurisdictions. His
friction with Damville (cf. _ibid._, 103-6) probably accounts for the
proposed change. Montluc also advised abolition of the _vice-sénéchaux_
(_ibid._, 8).
[1158] See the proclamation of Charles IX commanding the provost Paris
to search out all gentlemen who have retired to their homes since the
battle of St. Denis; and ordering them to return to the army under
pain of forfeiture of their fiefs and property. Printed in Appendix
XII. In the second part of _Coll. de St. Pétersbourg_, Vol. XXI, is
a group of letters from Charles IX to the duke of Anjou running from
December 2, 1567. In every page the question of the military operations
of the second civil war comes up. It is evident that the gentlemen of
the _maison du roi_ complained loudly of the service required of them,
especially because they were so ill lodged.—La Ferrière, _Deux ans de
mission à St. Pétersbourg_, 24.
[1159] During the occupation of the army all Protestant children who
had been baptized in the Reformed religion by preachers were rebaptized
according to the rites of the Roman religion, and godfathers and
godmothers were given them and new names which were approved by the
church.—Claude Haton, I, 512 and note.
[1160] Claude Haton, I, 504-12.
[1161] On December 6 he published a declaration in favor of the
Huguenots.—_Bulletin de la Société du prot. franç._ XVI, 118. See also
_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,920, the elector to Charles IX, January 4, 1568.
[1162] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,911, from the camp at Dessay, January 3,
1568.
[1163] _Ibid._, No. 1,806, November 3, 1567; No. 1,864 § 2, December
15, 1567. His resolution to assist the Huguenots led to the dismissal
of his ambassador at the French court on December 17th.—_Ibid._, No.
1,889. In _ibid._, No. 1,956 there is an abstract of a long letter
of the elector palatine written to Charles IX in remonstrance of the
action of the King, and in justification of his own course.
[1164] A meeting of the electors was called for January 6, 1568, at
Fulda, ostensibly for the purpose of preventing German enrolments
for the war in France, but in reality that the Emperor might broach
the possibility of recovering the Three Bishoprics.—Mundt to Cecil,
January 6, 1568 in _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,927. I cannot understand how
Hubert Languet could have fallen into the error of thinking that the
queen mother made no opposition to the enlistment of troops in Germany
for the Huguenot cause, as he says in _Epp. Arc._, I, 43. The statement
puzzled Ranke (p. 233) who left it unsolved. The dispatch of Norris
in _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,864, December 15, 1567, to the effect that
Lignerolles was sent to Germany by the queen for this purpose clears
up the matter. Catherine’s correspondence fails us on this head. But
it is well known that many of her letters are scattered in private
collections and were not procurable by La Ferrière.
[1165] Alva had no flattering opinion of the cardinal of Lorraine.
In 1572 he wrote to Philip II: “Quand en faveur il est insolent et
ne se souvient de personne, tandis que, quand il est en disgrace, il
n’est bon à rien.”—Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les
Pays-Bas_, II, 267.
[1166] Gachard, _ibid._, I, 593, 594, Alva to Philip, November 1, 1567.
On the margin of this dispatch Philip wrote this piece of casuistry
with his own hand: “Me parece muy bien que hiziese lo que aqui dice, y
tanto mas que aquello no hera romper la paz, pues yo no la hizé, ni la
tengo, sino con el rey de Francia, y no con sus vasallos ereges, como
seria, si esto se hiziese no estando él libre, como aqui se dice.”
[1167] “En caso de muerte del rey y de sus hermanos, tomarse ya la voz
que el cardinal dize de rey de Francia para V. M., por el derecho de
la reyna nuestra señora; que la ley salica, que dizen, es baya, y las
armas la allanarian” (_ibid._, 594).
[1168] “Esto es el punto en que me parece que ay mas que mirar, porqué
esto se podria mal hazer sin romper; y por otra parte, parece que seria
duro dexar de abrazar á quien por tal causa se pone en mys manos; y
pues creo que por este caso avra tiempo, qu’él me avise de su parecer
sobre ello, segun allá estubienen las cosas.”—Gachard, _loc. cit._
[1169] Philip II approved this.—Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe
II_, I, 598: to Alva, November 12, 1567.
[1170] Gachard, I, 606-7, from Paris, December 4, 1567; _Correspondance
de Catherine de Médicis_, Letter CLII; _Correspondance de Philippe II_,
I, 605-7. The queen mother seems to have been frightened after the
battle of St. Denis for she disclaims blame in advance, “before God and
all the Christian princes,” if, in default of help, she be forced to
make peace with the prince of Condé. At about the same time, she also
wrote to Philip II in the same strain (quoted in part by Forneron, I,
348 from K. 1,507, No. 29). I do not find that this letter has been
printed.
[1171] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, II, 62.
[1172] Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, I,
608.
[1173] “Porqué seria mala burla yr á meter fuego en casa agena,
començandose á arder la propria.”—_Ibid._, 597: Alva to Philip II,
November 6, 1567.
[1174] It was à propos of Catherine de Medici’s weakness at this time
that the marshal Vieilleville bluntly said to Charles IX.: “Ce n’est
point Votre Majesté qui a gagné la bataille [of St. Denis]; encore
moins le prince de Condé. C’est le roi d’Espagne.”—Weiss, _L’Espagne
sous Philippe II_, I, 119.
[1175] On the military state of Sens at this time see Charles IX’s
postscript to his mother’s letter to Fourquevaux of December 7 in
_Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, 89, note.
[1176] Norris, writing to Queen Elizabeth on December 15, in one place
says, “the reiters are 4,000 with 4,000 lansquenets” (§2); later
in the course of the same letter, which is a long one and probably
the information of several days running, he says, “6,800 with 6,000
lansquenets” (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,864, December 15, 1567). This
seems to be confirmed by another report from France, December 26, which
says “the reiters who have arrived amount to 6,500 men” (_ibid._, No.
1,882).
[1177] _Ibid._, No. 1,864 §2, No. 1,882, December 15-26, 1567. The
reiters came “with certain pieces of artillery and 700 or 800 empty
wagons, trusting to be no greater losers by this dissension than by the
last” (_ibid._, No. 1,864, §3. Norris to Elizabeth).
[1178] _Ibid._, No. 1,889, December 28, 1567; No. 1,911, January 3,
1568. In _ibid._, Nos. 1,976 and 2,011, the following is given as the
strength of the two armies: “Army of the King, 20,600 horsemen and
10,000 Swiss footmen; the numbers of the other footmen are not set
down. Condé’s army, footmen 13,000; horsemen 11,900 where of reiters
6,200”—January, 1568. List of the troops of the prince of Condé with
their commanders, amounting in all to 15,000 or 16,000 foot, and 14,000
horse, exclusive of those in garrison or serving in other parts of
France—February 15, 1568. Norris wrote in February, 1568: “The prince
has crossed the Seine, and is at present nothing inferior in number
to the King’s army in infantry, but they are not esteemed so good for
battle by reason of the Switzers. He has 3,000 more cavalry than the
king has.”—_Ibid._, No. 1,981.
[1179] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,864, §4, December 15, 1567. Names of
the different noblemen commanding in the army of the King of France
(_ibid._, No. 1,918, January 4, 1568). Letters-patent of Charles IX,
dated December 16, 1567, ordered the exodus of all of the “pretended
Reformed religion” from Paris and enjoined the seizure of all their
benefices and lands, which were to be annexed to the crown property,
and the sale of all the goods of such subjects (_ibid._, Nos. 1,877,
1,878, December 21-24, 1567). In January a supplementary order
commanded the sale of all goods and movables of those with the prince
of Condé, and the annexation of all their lands and hereditaments to
the crown (_ibid._, 1,914, January 3, 1568)—decrees which “were not
left unexecuted in any point to the utmost” (Norris to Cecil, _ibid._,
No. 1,889, December 28, 1567, §1). Cf. Charles IX’s letters-patent of
February 21, 1568, bidding that the houses and real property held by
base tenure belonging to rebels shall be sold in the same manner as
personal property (_ibid._, No. 2,200, February 21, 1568). The same
sort of measures were practiced elsewhere. For instance, in Agen,
Protestant merchants suffered confiscation of grain and wine to the
amount of 1,014 livres, 7 sous (_Arch. Commun._, Agen, Reg. CC, 302).
[1180] The original letter of Charles IX, written from Paris, December
17, 1567 to the duke of Anjou, reciting the terms of peace to be
presented to the prince of Condé was sold in Paris in 1845. The duke’s
instructions were to renew hostilities if the terms were not accepted.
In Coll. Godefroy, XCVI, No. 8, is the safe-conduct given to the
cardinal Châtillon by the duke of Anjou. It is dated December 25, 1567.
[1181] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,890, January 4, 1568.
[1182] _Ibid._, No. 1,919, January 4, 1568.
[1183] Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, II,
7, to Alva, January 22, 1568.
[1184] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 430, September 11, 1568; “A Florentine
merchant greatly esteemed by these majesties and very useful to them in
money matters called upon me today and gave me information concerning
the king’s inability from want of money to continue the war.” Account
of the sums of money paid to the troops, native and foreign, in the
French king’s service during the month of January 1568, amounting to
987,052 livres, or 116,646£ 9_s._ sterling. The amounts reduced from
French to English money by Cecil (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,978, January
1568).
[1185] _Ibid._, No. 1,914, January 3, 1568. For an amusing instance see
No. 1,670.
[1186] _Ibid._, No. 2,024, February 12, 1568.
[1187] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,024, §1, February 24, 1568.
[1188] “The King’s army, finding what disorder the want of a good head
has bred hitherto, are now content to accept any, be it not a marshal
of France. It is now said that Mons. de Tavannes shall be M. d’Anjou’s
lieutenant” (_ibid._, No. 2,024, February 24, 1568).
[1189] Some of them were captured by the King’s forces in a skirmish
near Châtillon between the duke of Nevers and Montgomery, and broken
upon the wheel. The poor wretches under the torture compromised
twenty-five others of the Guard, who on March 6 were also horribly
put to death (_ibid._, No. 2,062, March 12, 1568). After the peace of
Longjumeau the Scotch captains who had joined the prince of Condé were
deprived of their commissions, although the action was contrary to the
edict. In fact a reorganization of the whole _maison du roi_ was made
(_ibid._, No. 2,135, April 18, No. 2,178, May 12, 1568). The vacancies
were filled by Swiss instead (_ibid._, Nos. 1,981, 1,987, February 1
and 6, 1568), so that the famous Scotch Guard in the end became the
King’s Swiss Guard, which lasted down to the Revolution.
[1190] _Ibid._, No. 1,981, February 1, 1568.
[1191] He was accused of having “pretermitted many fair occasions to
have fought with the prince.”
[1192] _Ibid._, No. 2,024, §2, February 24, 1568.
[1193] Claude Haton, I, 498 and note; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,833,
November 24, 1567.
[1194] Claude Haton, I, 524.
[1195] These high prices were partly owing to the fact that speculators
had bought up much of the grain, which rose in April to between 60 and
70 livres per muid. But in May, with the promise of a good harvest,
the price dropped over one-half, from 15 sous tournois per bichet to 7
sous 6 deniers, to the great regret of the merchants who had counted
upon a scarcity. On the other hand, the price of oats went higher,
being sold at from 10 to 12 sous per bichet, or boisseau, for there was
very little to be had after the passage of the troops; and because it
ripened earlier, almost all of it was taken (Claude Haton, II, 523).
[1196] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,024, February 24, 1568.
[1197] So ominous was the temper of the Parisians that even the minor
gates of the Louvre were equipped with drawbridges (_ibid._, No.
2,040, §4, March 1, 1568). Part of the indignation of Paris was due to
the outrages of some reiters in the King’s army from Luxembourg and
Lorraine, who robbed priests and despoiled churches, notwithstanding
that they were in Catholic service, so much so that “the Parisians had
rather had the prince of Condé’s people should approach Paris as they”
(_ibid._, Nos. 2,040, 2,041, March 1, 1568).
[1198] _Rel. vén._, II, 145.
[1199] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,040, §3, March 1, 1568.
[1200] _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, 136. La Rochelle
was already the Huguenots’ most important point and already large
supplies of gunpowder and ammunition, chiefly from England, were being
brought in there (cf. the captain of La Rochelle to Queen Elizabeth,
_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,057, March 10, 1568). La Popelinière, XII,
68-70, has a dissertation upon the history and institutions of La
Rochelle.
The peace of Longjumeau put an end to Montluc’s plan for the seizure of
La Rochelle, for which he had received the King’s sanction in February.
See the documents in F. Fr. 15,544, fol. 187; 15,548, foll. 163 ff.
[1201] In the controversy between the count palatine and the King the
former had asked that the word “perpetual” be inserted in the edict,
so that the edict might not be revoked at will (_C. S. P. For._, No.
1,968, 1567-68).
[1202] The balance was to be paid in two instalments at Frankfurt (_C.
S. P. For._, No. 2,135, April 18, 1568). All gifts and pensions were
revoked until the debt was paid (_ibid._, No. 2,248, June 4, 1568).
In Coll. Godefroy, CCLVII, Nos. 35, 41-43 are a number of documents
dealing with the pay of the reiters at this time. The whole sum
required for the reiters was 1,440,000 livres, and the government at
once set to work to collect it. The first collection seems to have
been a sort of _don patriotique_ made by a house-to-house visitation,
showing how pressing was the necessity. The government tried to borrow
the money which John Casimir had raised for the Protestants, but which
was not used on account of the peace, and offered to pay 16 per cent.
interest for it (_C. S. P. For._, March 28, 1568). On March 23 the King
issued letters patent forbidding all notaries and others receiving any
contract for annuities or mortgages before the sum of 1,400,000 livres
_tournois_ had been raised (_ibid._, No. 2,085). The duke of Alva was
in a state of great anxiety for fear lest the reiters would come into
the Netherlands and thought he discovered a plot to throw St. Omer into
their hands (_ibid._, No. 2,230, April 25, 1568).
All the records abound with allusions to the rapacity of the reiters:
“La nazione tedesca, nazione avara” (_Rel. vén._, II, 125 and notes).
“Les reîtres trouvaient beaucoup meilleur l’argent qu’on leur
promettait d’Angleterre que les cidres de Normandie.”—La Noue.
“L’importunità dei Tedeschi che mai cessavano de domandare donazioni o
paghe.”—Davila, I, 137.
“Ils consommeraient un gouffre d’argent—Facheux, avares,
importuns.”—Brantôme, III, 196, 310.
[1203] But restricted as they were, the terms yet mightily offended the
Guises, especially the cardinal of Lorraine who “did marvellously storm
that the king would condescend to any peace with his subjects, whereat
the king said he would agree thereto ‘maugre luy.’” (On the entire
negotiations see _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,025, Feb. 24; Nos. 2,040-41,
March 1-4; No. 2,054, March 9; Nos. 2,057, 2,058, March 10-11; No.
2,092, March 27, 1568). The final draft was completed on March 23; the
edict was signed by Charles IX on March 26. It was published at Paris
on the next day (_ibid._, Nos. 2,092-93).
[1204] _Ibid._, No. 2,058, March 11, 1568. Granvella expressed fear
of universal famine in France, followed by the plague (Gachard,
_Correspondance de Philippe II_, II, 17).
[1205] The preachers and the doctors in Paris in their sermons decried
the King and his Council (Claude Haton, II, 527 and note; cf. _ibid._,
531; _Rel. vén._, II, 121).
[1206] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,273, June 17, 1568; _Hist. du Languedoc_,
V, 482 ff.; _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 18, 88, 142, 156;
D’Aubigné, Book IV, chaps. xii-xiv.
[1207] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 2,115, 2,135, April 8-10, 1568.
[1208] _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 441.
[1209] For details see _ibid._, 443-64.
[1210] Montluc even ascribed the ravages of the plague to Damville in
order to create popular prejudice against him! (_Hist. du Languedoc_,
V, 449). His own words are: “Pour se montrer au peuple, qui avoit une
marvelleuse envie de le voir, n’y pouvant arrêter à cause de la grande
peste qui y est.” (Cf. his letters to Damville, December 31, 1567, and
August 26, 1569, in _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 103 and
159.) Montluc was doubly incensed at this moment because the peace of
Longjumeau canceled orders which he had received in February to attempt
to take La Rochelle by sea (_ibid._, VII, 148 ff.; V, 107 note, 109
note, 184 note).
[1211] _Bulletin de la Soc. acad. du Var_, 1876.
[1212] Claude Haton, II, 525. He repeats at different times the
current play upon words which designated these free-booting nobles as
“gens-pille-hommes” (gentilhommes). In general, in his estimation, the
nobility had much degenerated. See Vol. I, Introd., p. lxii.
[1213] Volunteer bands of searchers visited Huguenot houses, to inquire
into their faith (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,191, May 17, 1568). At the
court, certain of the nobles promised Charles to assure for all members
of their retinue to be good Catholics (_ibid._, Nos. 2,191, 2,235,
2,236, 2,243, 2,248, May 17 to June 4, 1568).
[1214] “D’Anjou has marvellously stomached these dealings, and has kept
his chamber, having uttered most despiteful words against them of the
religion, saying that he hoped to march upon their bellies” (_C. S. P.
For._, No. 2,177, May 12, 1568).
[1215] _Ibid._, No. 2,115, §1, April 8, 1568.
[1216] See the revelations of Norris to Cecil in _ibid._, No. 2,100,
March 30, 1568. As earnest of the royal purpose the marshal Montmorency
set at once about disarming the people of Paris.
[1217] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 22, 23.
[1218] Probably neither the cardinal nor Montluc knew that the other
had been in secret correspondence with Philip II. Knowing Philip’s
methods, it is likely that he kept them in ignorance of it. This was
his way (cf. Forneron, I, 327).
[1219] Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 328, 329,
letter of March 5, 1564.
[1220] _Ibid._, V, 76, 77 and notes.
[1221] _Ibid._, V, 145.
[1222] Cited by Forneron, _Histoire de Philippe II_, I, 327.
[1223] The ordinance of Moulins specifically alluded to the growing
popular nature of these confraternities: “Qu’on abolisse entièrement
les confréries établies sous prétexte de religion parmi le _petit_
peuple, les festins, les répas, les bâtons (bâtons de Confrérie,
qui servent à porter aux confréries l’Image de quelque saint, ou la
représentation de quelque mystère) et autres choses semblables, qui
donnent lieu à la superstition, aux troubles, à la débauche, aux
querelles, et aux monopoles” (De Thou, V, Book XXXIX, p. 183, in the
article prohibiting them). But it was as impossible then as now to
enforce a law in the face of a public opinion which did not sympathize
with the provision. Public opinion not merely favored their formation;
the very officers of the crown promoted their organization. La
Popelinière, XI, 12, makes this point.
[1224] “Discorso sopra gli umori di Francia di M^[r]. Nazaret, 1570,”
Barberini Library 3,269, fol. 63. See Appendix XIII.
[1225] D’Aubigné, III, 2.
[1226] _Mémoires de Tavannes_, ed. Michaud and Poujoulat, séries I,
VIII, 288, 289; Pasquier, Book IV, letter 23; Collection Trémont,
Nos. 1,367, 1,382; cf. La Popelinière, XI, 7-12; Pingaud, _Les
Saulx-Tavannes_, p. 61.
[1227] _State Papers, Foreign_, Elizabeth, XCVII, No. 1,711. A printed
pamphlet. See Appendix XIV.
[1228] Raynal, _Histoire du Berry_, IV, 79-83. The text of the act is
found in Thauvessière’s _Histoire du Berry_, 189.
[1229] The text is given in Claude Haton, II, 1152. Cf. Vicomte de
Meaux, _Luttes religieuses en France_, 177, 178; Capefigue, _La réforme
et la ligue_, 360.
[1230] Feret, _Clermont-en-Beauvaisis pendant les troubles de la
ligue_, Clermont, 1853.
[1231] _State Papers, Foreign_, Elizabeth, C, No. 1,863. See Appendix
XV.
[1232] _Hist. du Languedoc_, XI, 509-10 and XII; _Preuves_, No. 300, p.
cxiii; _Cabinet historique_, II, 217. This league was much more formal
in its organization than any of the others. In addition to securing the
authorization of the Parlement, the leaders had secured the sanction of
Pius V in the March _preceding_. The bull was granted March 15.
[1233] _Cabinet historique_, II, 219.
[1234] Bordenave, _Hist. de Béarn et de Navarre_, 139-45. I venture
to suggest the cardinal of Lorraine as a possible instigator, from
Bordenave’s words: “quelques autres ... sollicitez par quelques uns
des _principaux du conseil_ de France.” Philip II threw new troops
into Spanish Navarre at this time, either in consequence of Jeanne
d’Albret’s energetic action or to co-operate with the league, if it
were successful. Fourquevaux ascertained the fact, but was in the dark
as to the reason for it (_Dépêches de Fourquevaux_, II, 25, November,
1568).
[1235] A letter of Coligny, July 29, 1568, shows that the Huguenot
leader was aware of the formation of these provincial leagues. After
complaining of the assassination of one of D’Andelot’s lieutenants,
he protests against the general violence: “Ce que faict croire que ce
sont des fruictz et offices des confraires du Saint-Esprit et sainctes
ligues qu’ils appellent; mais si on voit que infiniz meurtres et
massacres qui se sont faictz avec une effrénée licence en tous les
endroictz de ce royaume depuys la paciffication il n’en ayt esté faict
aucune justice ou chastiment, quelque déclaration que Vostre Majesté
ayt faicte de sa volonté et intention, je n’en espère pas davantage
de cestuy-cy, estant bien facile à cognoistre que ce sont choses
projectées et délibérées avec les gouverneurs des provinces, et que
cela ne se faict poinct sans adveu ou pour le moins sans un tacite
consentement.”—_Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, III, 163,
note.
[1236] Montmorency continually threw his influence in favor of peace
and moderation, slapping the Guises, however, in his utterances.
“The Duke Montmorency said there was nothing more necessary for the
maintenance of the king’s estate than the sincere observance of the
edict of pacification, and such as labour to the contrary are neither
friends to the king nor his crown; and for his own part if the king
did not foresee in time with due execution of justice this growing
mischief, he was resolved with his leave to depart the court with his
friends and allies, and so to withdraw himself from such as under the
pretext of maintenance of their religion, continually nourished this
division, and in the end put out the glory and renown of the French
empire.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,177, §1, May 12, 1568.
On June 17 Norris wrote to Cecil: “Montmorency has come to the court.
The process between him and the duke of Guise for the county of
Dammartin will in the end break into open enmity.”—_Ibid._, No. 2,273.
[1237] “The four marshals agree all in one against the
Cardinal.”—_Ibid._, No. 2,235, May 31, 1568.
[1238] “All things are ruled now by M. d’Anjou, who though young is a
most earnest and cruel enemy against the favourers of religion, and has
his privy counsellors, the cardinal of Lorraine being the chiefest, and
further has his chancellor, who seals all such things as the good old
chancellor of the King refuses to seal; who neither for love nor dread
would seal anything against the statutes of the realm.”—_Ibid._, No.
2,178, May 12, 1568. On the whole affair, see _ibid._, No. 2,177, §2,
May 12, 1568.
[1239] _Ibid._, No. 2,115, §2, April 8; No. 2,177, §3, May 12, 1568.
[1240] Duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des princes de Condé_, II, App. I.
[1241] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,235, May 31, 1568.
[1242] “The garrisons in the Ile-de-France are thought to attend no
other thing but till the corn be off the ground to begin where they
left off.”—_Ibid._, No. 2,178, May 12, 1568.
[1243] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 2,235, 2,243, 2,248, May 31, June 2-4,
1568.
[1244] As to localities see Duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des princes de
Condé_, II, 284.
[1245] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,296, June 22, 1568. They feared a plot
to capture them by trickery, as Egmont and Hoorne had been trapped
in Flanders. According to report, Lavallette was to have seized the
prince, Chavigny the admiral, and Tavannes D’Andelot. The warning
was probably given by some secretary whom Coligny had corrupted, for
shortly after this time several secretaries to the Catholic leaders
were dismissed (_ibid._, No. 2,256, June 7, 1568; cf. D’Aumale,
_Histoire des princes de Condé_, II, 12, n. 2, and p. 287). Coligny
also bribed the secretary of Don Francesco de Alava, Spanish ambassador
in France (see _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,230, May 24, 1568 and Introd., p.
xxvi).
[1246] _Ibid._, Nos. 2,256, 2,304, 2,323, June 7, 28, July 5, 1568. For
an instance of the feeling between the prince and the cardinal see Sir
Henry Norris to the queen, _ibid._, No. 2,248, June 1, 1568 and Duc
d’Aumale, _Histoire des princes de Condé_, II, 12 and n. 1.
[1247] This was the time the word first appeared (D’Aumale, II, 12,
note 3).
[1248] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,295, Norris to Cecil, June 23, 1568. On
the whole negotiation see Robinson, “Queen Elizabeth and the Valois
Princes,” _Eng. Hist. Rev._, II, 40; Hume, _Courtships of Queen
Elizabeth_, 114-49. Hume, however, is in error, p. 115, in believing
that the negotiation arose _after_ the peace of St. Germain in 1570.
The intercourse must have been kept very much in the dark, judging from
the obscure allusions in the following: Sir Henry Norris to the earl
of Leicester, _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,241, August 20, 1568—Marshal
Montmorency is very desirous to have answer to the letter which he
wrote to Leicester; the queen to the duchess of Montmorency, _ibid._,
No. 2,472, August 27, 1568—Thanks her for her courteous and honorable
entertainment in her house, and near her person of the daughter of
her chamberlain, Lord Edward Howard. Walsingham warned his government
at this time against spies of the cardinal of Lorraine in London. See
Appendix XVI.
[1249] “More have been murdered since the publishing of the peace than
were all these last troubles. Daily murders are committed without any
punishment to the offenders, others violently taken out of their houses
in the night and led to the river being without remorse drowned.”—_C.
S. P. For._, Nos. 2,383, 2,339, 2,407, July 31-August 7, 1568.
[1250] The proceedings here on both sides are measured by the success
in Flanders (_ibid._, No. 2,273, June 17, 1568; _Archives de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, II, 47; _Dépêches de Fourquevaux_, II, 24).
[1251] In February, 1568 the wholesale condemnation of the people of
the Low Countries had been pronounced by the inquisition and confirmed
by the Philip II, (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 171).
[1252] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,432, August 17, 1568, Mundt to Cecil from
Strasburg.
[1253] Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 60; _Epist. ad Camer._, 79 and 84.
[1254] Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 64; _Archives de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 208.
[1255] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau,_ III, 207; Coll.
Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 7, Marshal Cossé to the King, June 20, 1568.
[1256] See Haag, _La France protestante_, art., “Cocqueville.” The
admiral Coligny disavowed any complicity in the enterprise. For the
fate of the other columns see _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_,
III, 212, 220, 227.
[1257] _Ibid._, 239, 255. The prince of Orange anticipated the disaster
of Jemmingen, for he disapproved of the rash policy of his brother. See
a letter on this head written by him to Louis of Nassau in July, 1568
(_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 257, and the latter’s
reply, July 17, _ibid._, III, 264, 265). Alva had been so certain of
Spanish victory that in advance of it he offered Charles IX the use of
Spanish troops (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,379, §2, July 29, 1568).
[1258] “They (Huguenots) attend the success of the war in
Flanders.”—_Ibid._
[1259] In September, 1568, a royal edict was promulgated forbidding the
_public_ profession of any but the Catholic religion, and revoking all
former edicts. Text in _Recueil de Fontanon_, IV, 294. Montluc claims
that he was the author of the idea and that he sent a rough draft of
such an edict to Charles IX (De Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de
Montluc_, V, 153, 154). In intimation of this policy, in August an oath
of allegiance and obedience had been exacted by Charles IX of all the
Huguenot leaders (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,419, August 9, 1568; cf. No.
2,407, August 7 and Duc d’Aumale, _Hist. des princes de Condé_, II, 9).
[1260] _Rel. vén._, II, 123.
[1261] Claude Haton, II, 532; _Coll. des autographes de M. de L—— de
Nancy_ (Paris, 1855), No. 477; Henry, duke of Anjou to Matignon, King’s
lieutenant in Normandy, October 8, 1568, recommending him to distribute
the gendarmerie in places most suitable to protect the country.
[1262] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 2,352, 2,379, July 14 and 29, 1569.
[1263] _Ibid._, No. 2,379, July 29, 1568; on the calculative policy
of the French crown see Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 92 and La Noue’s
comments in _Mémoires militaires_, chap. xii.
[1264] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,379, July 29, 1568.
[1265] Letter of August 23, 1568 analyzed in De Thou, Book XLIV.
[1266] See the complaints of the prince of Condé to the King, under
date of June 29 and July 22, 1568 in Duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des
princes de Condé_, II, App. I.
[1267] See the gist of the prince of Condé’s petition, summarized in
_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,451, August 23, 1568. As an instance of the
care of the government to b forehanded, agents of the crown secretly
measured even the height of the wall in the case of towns of doubtful
allegiance. Coligny complained of the attacks which his gentlemen and
those of his brother D’Andelot suffered. At Dijon the prince of Condé
prosecuted a person whom he accused of secretly having measured the
walls of Noyers (Claude Haton, II, 537, note).
[1268] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,464, August 25, 1568; cf. No. 2,484.
[1269] Claude Haton, II, 539; Le Laboureur, II, 593.
[1270] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,441, August 20, 1568; Condé was at
Noyers, Coligny at Tanlay (Yonne): D’Aubigné, Book III, 5, note; Duc
d’Aumale, _Hist. des princes de Condé_, II, 367.
[1271] Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 64, 69.
[1272] _Ibid._, I, 75; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III,
284-86. The prince of Orange at this time was near Cleves having an
army but no money. See a letter of the prince of Orange to the duke of
Württemberg and the margrave of Baden asking for pecuniary assistance.
September 17, 1568 (_ibid._, III, 291). His plans again failed. He
tried to enter Picardy for the purpose of uniting with the Huguenots.
But the alertness of the marshal Cossé again prevented Genlis as it
had foiled Cocqueville, and the prince was compelled to abandon his
purpose. At Strasburg his army was dissolved (_ibid._, III, 295, 303,
313-16; Languet, _Epist. ad Camer._, 89; _Epist. secr._, I, 75).
[1273] Even La Noue, 804 and Beza, II, 277, assert this.
[1274] Elizabeth of Valois, queen of Spain, had died October 3, 1568.
[1275] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 2,640, 2,666, November 22, December 8,
1568.
[1276] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,441, August 20, 1568.
[1277] Tavannes, chap. xxi.
[1278] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,477, August 29, 1568. Norris states
the fact that Condé and the admiral were warned by the letters they
intercepted. The duc d’Aumale (_Hist. des princes de Condé_, II, 13)
has shown the deliberate intention of Tavannes so to do.
[1279] D’Aubigné, III, 24: “Le prince ... fit publier les loix
militaires.” Issued from La Rochelle, September 9, 1568. Summary in _C.
S. P. For._, No. 2,514. De Serres gives the text at p. 158. Delaborde
gives the admiral Coligny the credit for these regulations (III, 522).
Cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,486, discourse of the cardinal Châtillon,
who attributes the evils of France to the cardinal of Lorraine and
refutes the charge of ambition brought against the Huguenot leaders.
The cardinal fled to England at this time (see La Ferrière, _Le XVI^[e]
siècle et les Valois_, 217; D’Aubigné, III, 12, note 31). He died
in 1571. There was a rumor that Coligny, too, had gone to England
(Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 109).
[1280] Fontanon, IV, 292, 294; Claude Haton, II, 540; (September 25)
_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,561, §1, September 30, 1568; _ibid._, _Ven._,
No. 433, September 28, 1568. A supplementary edict suppressed all
offices of judicature and finance held by the Huguenots (_C. S. P.
For._, No. 2,674, December 16, 1568).
[1281] _Ibid._, No. 2,363, July 20, 1568.
[1282] _Ibid._, No. 2,467, August 27, 1568.
[1283] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 430, September 11, 1568. Other sources of
revenue were a loan upon the security of the wine duties for several
years—a heavy burden upon the people (Claude Haton, II, 547)—which
yielded about 300,000 crowns per annum. In addition, the King raised
a benevolence of 50,000 crowns from Paris, and Venice loaned 100,000
crowns (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,640, November 22, 1568) later increased
to 200,000. The Pope later authorized the sale of 50,000 crowns’ worth
of the temporalities of the church, but the sales were so managed
by certain of the clergy that the government got little from them
(_ibid._, No. 233, April, 1569, summary of an ordinance of Charles IX).
[1284] For details see Norris to Cecil, _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,550,
September 25, 1568.
[1285] Taillander, _Vie de L’Hôpital_, 200.
[1286] Even Biragues, now the chancellor, was in the secret pay of
Spain (_Papiers d’état du cardinal de Granvelle_, VIII, 387).
[1287] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,490, September 1; No. 2,529, September
15, 1568. The two Protestant places of worship in Orleans were burned
(_ibid._, No. 2,561, §2, September 30, 1568). Things would have gone
worse with the Protestants of Orleans had it not been for the Politique
marshal Vieilleville, whose government it was, and who did all in his
power to protect the Huguenots (_ibid._, No. 190, March 24, 1569).
[1288] Jeanne d’Albret, who had been at Nérac, reached La Rochelle on
September 28, having crossed the Garonne “under the nose of Montluc”
(Olhagaray, 575), who, it is said, had orders to intercept her (Palma
Cayet, Part I, 166). Montluc glosses over his negligence in this
particular (_Commentaires_, III, 175).
[1289] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,561, September 30, 1568. D’Andelot was in
Brittany, (_ibid._, No. 2,527, September 15, 1568), but on September
16 he crossed the Loire (La Noue, chap. xix) with 1,500 horse and 20
ensigns of foot (D’Aubigné, III, 13, note 7) in spite of the strict
injunctions of the King to prevent him (D’Aubigné, III, 14, note).
[1290] _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,610, §2, October 29, 1568. Duke William
of Saxony earnestly begged Charles IX to employ his soldiery (_ibid._,
No. 2,640, §5, November 22, 1568) and the margrave of Baden accepted
a command of reiters in the King’s army (Le Laboureur, II, 724). The
duke of Deuxponts offered 8,000 reiters and 40 ensigns of lansquenets
to Condé (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,666, §1, December 8, 1568). They were
to have no pay for two months, expecting to pay themselves by seizing
the towns and castles belonging to the house of Guise in Lorraine and
Champagne. In the end England paid for their services (see the record
of the receipts in _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,011, September 10, 1571; No.
2,123, November 13, 1571). The Catholic reiters were to be paid by a
forced loan exacted of the Parisians (_ibid._, No. 2,666, December 8,
1568).
[1291] North to Cecil, _C. S. P. For._, December 30, 1568, January 11,
1569.
[1292] For description of it see _C. S. P. For._, No. 2,640, §15,
November 22, 1568. The engagement of Jazeneuil that followed, November
17, was a blow to them (see La Noue, chap. xxi; D’Aubigné, III, 37; _C.
S. P. For._, No. 2,640, §1). The minute account of the duc d’Aumale
may be found in _Hist. des princes de Condé_, II, 26-34. Whitehead,
_Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France_, 204-9, has an admirable
account.
[1293] Condé’s army before the defeat at Jazeneuil was estimated at
12,000 foot and 4,000 horse, all well mounted and armed, besides a very
large number of irregular troops.
[1294] Fourquevaux to Catherine de Medici, January 13, 1569, on the
authority of a letter of the Spanish ambassador in France, dated
January 7, 1568 (_Dépêches de Fourquevaux_, II, 47). Alava must have
regarded the news as highly important, for the courier was only six
days in making the journey to Madrid.
[1295] Fourquevaux, II, 31, 54.
[1296] Coll. Godefroy, XCVI, William of Orange to Charles IX, December
21, 1568.
[1297] Alva sent word to Charles IX at all hazards to hold the prince
of Condé back, himself promising to take care of Orange. The King sent
the Spanish duke a very large commission, not only to levy upon the
country for necessities but even to enter the French walled towns—so
far were the two crowns now in accord (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,666,
December 8, 1568).
[1298] The alarm of the government at this hour over Paris may be
measured by two police regulations of the time. One ordered search to
be made throughout the town twice a week, in all hostelries and other
places, and forbade mechanics to leave their houses on certain days.
The other allowed those of the religion who had been forbidden to leave
their houses on certain days to appoint one of their servants to go
about the town on their affairs. He was to have a certificate signed
by the captain and _commissaires_ of the quarter, and to be unarmed.
The _commissaires_ were to make a weekly search in the houses of those
of the religion, to make _procès-verbal_ of the names of all the
domestics, signed by the master of the house, and to remove all arms
found therein (_ibid._, No. 2,671, December 11; No. 2,684, December
23, 1568). Both ordinances were registered by the Parlement. During
the Christmas season no Calvinist was permitted to stir out of doors
(_ibid._, No. 2,688, §3, December 26, 1568).
[1299] “The good disposition and order that is kept in the prince’s
army is much to be commended, nothing like oppressing the country where
they pass, as that of M. d’Anjou, which was waxed hateful by their
insolent behavior, both to Protestants and Catholics. M. d’Anjou has
bestowed the greatest part of his army in the towns upon the river of
Loire.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 12, January 4, 1569.
The presence of the royal army in Anjou, under the command of the duke
of Anjou, was a heavy burden upon the people of the province, which
already had suffered heavily from the depredations of the Huguenots
in the preceding year. The municipal council of Angers, on November
4, was called upon to furnish 800 pairs of stockings, 1,500 pairs of
shoes, powder, bread, hay, straw, oats, pikes, shovels, mattocks, and
other implements. The town was filled with sick and wounded soldiers
(Joubert, _Les misères de l’Anjou, etc._, 36).
[1300] Orange was also in want of pay for his troops (Languet, _Epist.
secr._, I, 82).
[1301] _Revue d’histoire diplomatique_, XIV (1900), 51-52, 64.
[1302] _C. S. P. For._, No. 22, January 10, 1569; No. 151, March 5,
1569; La Popelinière, Book XV; De Thou and D’Aubigné add nothing new.
[1303] On the hardness of the winter of 1568-69 see La Noue, chap,
xxiv; _Hist. du Lang._, V, 514; _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_,
V, 156; Whitehead, _Coligny_, 202.
[1304] Coll. Godefroy, CCLVII, No. 57. Remonstrance of Jean de Montluc
against the continuance of the war, December 2, 1568. In the council
of the King a motion was made that the Protestants should be permitted
to enjoy the benefit of the edicts granted before; that Condé should
be given the government of Saintonge, and be given leave to aid Orange
against Spain. But neither Catherine de Medici nor the King would
listen to the proposal, and the cardinal of Lorraine argued that it
would be dangerous to further Condé in any way (_C. S. P. For._, No.
23, January 10, 1569).
[1305] Potter, _Pie V_, 19; ed. Gouban, Book III, No. 4, p. 135, letter
to the cardinal Bourbon, January, 1569; _ibid._, p. 23; ed. Gouban,
Book III, No. 5, p. 138, letter to the cardinal of Lorraine, same date.
[1306] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 439, November 9, 1568 and No. 448, January
6, 1569. The distress of commerce and the legal complications arising
from the semi-piratical acts were very great (see _C. S. P. Dom._,
1547-80, pp. 378, 386, May 29, 1570, July 29, 1570).
[1307] _Ibid._, _Ven._, No. 448, January 6, 1569. The cardinal
Châtillon was the Huguenot agent in England (see _ibid._, _For._, No.
71, January 22, 1569; No. 82, January 30, 1569). On his financial
negotiations see the detailed note of the baron de Ruble in D’Aubigné,
III, 61.
[1308] Count Mansfeldt to the duke of Aumale, January 22, 1569, Coll.
Godefroy, CCLVII, No. 58; _C. S. P. For._, No. 172, March 15, 1569.
They came, not merely with weapons and bringing horses, but with great
vans, flails, and harvest tools, with which to plunder the fields.
[1309] The forces of D’Aumale were 5,500 reiters, 26 companies of
French horsemen, and 30 ensigns of foot, besides others. The troops
that the King had were 26 companies of gendarmes, 15 companies of the
regular French army, 4,500 Swiss, 2,500 reiters, and his household
troops. Montmorency retired to Chantilly owing to the combination
against him (_C. S. P. For._, No. 75, January 25, 1569. For the details
see _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 315). There had
been a fierce strife between the factions of Guise and Montmorency
for D’Aumale’s place, the three marshals, Montmorency, Vieilleville,
and Cossé resisting his appointment. The hostility of the Parisians
to Montmorency, though certainly not the accusation of the cardinal
of Lorraine that the constable’s son had secret intelligence with the
prince of Orange, militated against him. The English ambassador even
believed that Montmorency and the duke of Bouillon might appear in arms
for Condé. Sir Henry Norris to the queen: “On the 23d ult. the duke
of Montmorency required the captains and _échevins_ of Paris to come
to the Louvre to speak with him, and declared that their disorders
and unaptness to be ruled was not unknown to the King. Lignerolles,
of the court of Parlement, and captain-general of twenty-two ensigns,
answered that Paris was like to a ship, whereof the master, neglecting
his charge, it is requisite that the pilots do put hand to the helm;
where unto Montmorency coldly replied, ‘qu’il parloyt en curtault de
butique’” _(C. S. P. For._, No. 50, January 15, 1569).
[1310] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 516.
[1311] Claude Haton, II, 516 and note; _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 42, 50,
January 11, 15, 1569.
[1312] It appears that the German princes thought of sending a
deputation into France to remonstrate with Catherine de Medici.
At least the minute of a letter to the queen has been preserved
which intimates as much. In it they deplore the sad effects of the
persecutions in France (see _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_,
II, 99-100, June, 1567). On January 24, 1569, a decree of the elector
of Saxony commanded all captains and soldiers who were his subjects and
who might be serving under the duke of Alva or the King of France, to
return home within two months after the date of the publication of the
decree; and further ordered his officers to arrest any persons whom
they might find setting forth for these services.—Dresden, January 24,
1569 (_C. S. P. For._, No. 74). In March, Augustus of Saxony, the count
palatine, and other German princes sent 50,000 silver crowns to Condé
(_ibid._, _Ven._, No. 452, March 15, 1569).
[1313] William of Orange with his two brothers went into Germany
in order to push the plan in conjunction with the duke of
Deuxponts—D’Aubigné, III, 45, 60 (_C. S. P. For._, No. 131,
February 24, 1569). For the detail of this movement see Gachard, _La
Bibliothèque Nationale à Paris_, II, 275, 278, 280. The duke of Aumale
has published some of his letters at this time (_Hist. des princes de
Condé_, II, 406 ff.).
[1314] D’Aumale at this time lay at Phalsburg and Saverne, with 4,000
reiters, 2,000 French horse, and 10,000 footmen. His penetration within
the imperial frontier offended and alarmed Strasburg where a French
faction had unsuccessfully plotted to betray the town.
[1315] See News-Letter from La Rochelle, January, 1569, in Appendix
XVII.
[1316] _C. S. P. For._, No. 105, February 10, 1569.
[1317] _Ibid._, No. 151, March 5, 1569; Claude Haton, II, 517.
[1318] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 155, March 5, 1569; on the desertions from
D’Aumale’s army see No. 172.
[1319] _Ibid._, No. 105, February 10, 1569.
[1320] For contemporary accounts of the battle of Jarnac see La
Popelinière, Book XV; Jean de Serres, 315 ff; D’Aubigné, Book V, chap.
viii; Claude Haton, II, 548 and notes. The best modern accounts are
Gigon, _La bataille de Jarnac et la campagne de 1569 en Angoumois_,
Angoulême, impr. Chasseignac (Extrait du _Bulletin de la Société
archéologique et historique de la Charente_), 1896; Patry, in _Bull.
Soc. protest. franç._, LIII, March 1902; Duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des
princes de Condé_, II, Book I, chap. i; Whitehead, _Gaspard de Coligny,
Admiral of France_, 204-9, an extremely lucid account. The evidence
upon the assassination of the prince is sifted by Denys d’Aussy,
“L’assassin du prince de Condé à Jarnac (1569),” _R. Q. H._, XLIX, 573,
and summarized (with some new additions) in Whitehead, 206, note 2.
The text of the famous dispatches, which were found in the gauntlet of
the prince of Condé are printed in full in Duc d’Aumale, _Histoire des
princes de Condé_, II, App. iii.
[1321] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 454, March 15, 1569; cf. Brantôme, III, 329.
[1322] Claude Haton, II, 549, 550.
[1323] Compare the Pope’s letter of March 6, informing Charles IX
that he has sent troops to him under Sforza and has prayed to God for
victory (Potter, _Pie V_, 28; ed. Gouban, Book III, letter 9, p. 148)
with the letter of congratulation of March 28, after he had learned of
the battle (_ibid._, p. 31; ed. Gouban, Book III, letter 10, p. 151).
The duke of Anjou sent the flags and standards captured at Jarnac to
Rome (Potter, _Pie V_, p. 54; ed. Gouban, Book III, 167, letter 17,
April 26, 1569).
[1324] “L’amiral demeurant toujours le principal gouverneur et
conseiller en toutes les affaires des huguenots.”—Castelnau, Book VII,
chap. vi.
[1325] Jean de Serres, 333.
[1326] D’Aubigné, III, 58.
[1327] Claude Haton, II, 557.
[1328] _Ibid._
[1329] D’Aubigné, III, 57; Jean de Serres, 326, gives details.
[1330] Jean de Serres, 331.
[1331] _C. S. P. For._, No. 294, June 6, 1569.
[1332] Queen Elizabeth was perfectly safe in making the loan, as the
jewels were worth three times the sum advanced (Bourgon, _Life and
Times of Sir Thomas Gresham_, II, 334-36). _C. S. P. For._, No. 258,
May 12, 1569; Duc d’Aumale, I, 70, note 2; John Casimir and the duke of
Deuxponts both promised reiters.
[1333] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 460, September 15, 1569.
[1334] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 252, May 9, 1569; the prince of Navarre
and other leaders of the Huguenot army in Saintonge to the duke of
Deuxponts and certain noblemen in his camp, and to the prince of
Orange, earnestly urging them to advance on the Loire, and declaring
that notwithstanding the death of the prince of Condé their other
losses have been small and that their forces are not diminished or
disheartened thereby. Not published in _Lettres missives de Henri IV_.
[1335] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 316; Languet,
_Epist. ad Camer._, 105; _Epist. secr._, I, 81. Copies of five letters
written by De Francourt, the agent for the Huguenot party with the
duke of Deuxponts’ and the prince of Orange, to the Huguenot leaders,
expressing regret for the death of the prince of Condé, and assuring
them of the continued adherence of the duke of Deuxponts and his
reiters to their cause are cited in _C. S. P. For._, No. 207, April,
1569. The duke of Lorraine is said to have offered Deuxponts 100,000
crowns if he would withdraw his reiters (_ibid._, No. 234, April 18,
1569).
[1336] Claude Haton, II, 517.
[1337] D’Aubigné, III, 66.
[1338] Preparations looking forward to this movement had begun as far
back as March, when the expulsion of all who would not conform to
Catholicism was ordered by the cardinal of Lorraine as bishop of Metz
and a prince of the empire (_C. S. P. For._, No. 194, March 26, 1569;
cf. Charles IX’s proclamation to the same effect on April 6; see also
Nos. 179, 197, the opposing petitions of the clergy of Metz and of the
Protestants, dated March 19 and 30 respectively).
The correspondence of the duke of Alençon pertaining to the second
civil war is in two volumes listed Nos. 36, 36 _bis_, in the St.
Petersburg collection. The duke remained in Paris, and attended to the
forwarding of powder, provisions, and money. In a letter of November
17, 1569, he writes to Charles IX that it is impossible for him to send
the sums demanded unless he sells the plate and jewels of the King.
In another he sends information of the duke of Tuscany, who was ready
to loan 100,000 écus upon the jewels of the crown. He advises that
this be done. According to his estimate they were worth 500,000 livres
(La Ferrière, _Rapport sur les recherches faites à la Bibliothèque
imperiale de St. Pétersbourg_, 27).
[1339] Proclamation by Charles IX: Commands all gentlemen and soldiers
to repair to the camp of the duke of Anjou by the 20th of June,
properly armed and equipped for service. Requires his officers to
search out the names of such as disobey this order and send them to
him, in order that they may be punished in such manner as he may
think fit (_C. S. P. For._, No. 281, May, 1569). The King is levying
a new army and is disfurnishing his garrisons in Picardy and Normandy
(_ibid._, No. 287, June 3, 1569). Alva promised 4,000 Spanish troops
(_Nég. Tosc._, III, 591).
[1340] Castelnau, Book VII, chap. v. Alva advised him to treat Coligny
_et al._ as he had treated Egmont and Hoorne.
[1341] _Ibid._, _loc. cit._; _C. S. P. For._, No. 236, April 23, 1569.
[1342] Duke of Anjou to Catherine de Medici, May 23, 1569, Coll.
Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 12; La Popelinière, Book XVI; Castelnau, Book
VII, chaps. v, vi; D’Aubigné, III, 67 and note 2; _Archives de la
maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 317; La Noue, chap. xxiv; _C. S. P.
For._, No. 286, June 3, 1569, Sir Henry Norris to the Queen: “The
duke of Deuxponts’ army being before La Charité, he caused 600 French
harquebusiers and certain companies of reiters to pass over the river,
besieging the town on both sides, and having made a breach which was
scant scalable, they made a proud assault, not without loss of some of
their soldiers, and entered the town by force, and put to the sword as
many as they found within the same. The Cardinal, to save his brother
from the stigma of the loss of La Charité, made Count Montmeyo the
scapegoat” (_C. S. P. For._, No. 293, June 7, 1569). For other details
see Hippeau, “Passage de l’armée du duc des Deux-Ponts dans la Marche
et le Limousin en 1569,” _Rev. des Soc. savant des départ._, 5^[e] série,
V (1873), p. 571; Le Bœuf (Jean), _Histoire de la prise d’Auxerre par
les Huguenots, et de la délivrance de la mesme ville, les années 1567
et 1568_, avec un recit de ce qui a précedé et de ce qui a suivi ces
deux fameux événemens et des ravages commis à la Charité, Gien, Cosne,
etc. et autres lieux du diocèse d’Auxerre, le tout précedé d’une ample
préface sur les antiquités d’Auxerre et enrichi de notes historiques
sur les villes, bourgs et villages et sur les personnes principales
qui sont nommées dans cette histoire, par un chanoine de la cathédrale
d’Auxerre, Auxerre, 1723.
[1343] Castelnau, Book VI, chap. vi; _C. S. P. For._, No. 286,
June 3. The reiters and the Swiss in the royal service were paid,
to the disadvantage of the King’s subjects, so that many captains
resigned (_ibid._, No. 351, July 27, 1569). “L’esquelz n’estoient si
sanguinaires ni saccageurs d’églises et de prebstres que ceux des
huguenots, toutesfois estoient aussi larrons les ungs que les aultres
pour serrer sur leurs harnois ce qu’ilz trouvoient à leur commodité; et
par ainsi fut la France pleine d’estrangers pour la désoler et quasi
rendre déserte” (Claude Haton, II, 547).
The temper of the Catholic army is shown in a dispatch of the duke of
Montpensier to Catherine, May 1, 1569, from the camp at Villebois,
reciting the death of young Brissac, the marshal’s son before Mussidan.
The town was taken by storm. “J’en trouve meilleu est qu’ils n’ont
laissé reschapper ung tout seul de tous ceuls qui estoyent dedans que
tout n’ayt esté passé par le fil de l’épée, ce qui semble être le vray
droict de ceste guerre.”—Collection Fillon, No. 2,656.
[1344] “The admiral minds ... to refresh his reiters, and after the
harvest to march towards Paris.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 311, June 30,
1569.
[1345] _C. S. P. For._, No. 272, May 27, 1569.
[1346] _Ibid._, No. 300, Norris to Cecil, June 14, 1569.
[1347] _Ibid._, No. 286, June 3, 1569. He required Charles IX, in the
name of the empire, to withdraw his troops from Metz (_ibid._, No. 286,
Norris to Cecil, June 3, 1569; _ibid._, No. 305, Mundt to Cecil, from
Frankfourt [?], June 23, 1569).
[1348] _C. S. P. For._, No. 286, June 3, 1569; Claude Haton, II, 692.
Marguerite herself is evidence for this: “La maison de Montmorency
aient ceux qui en avaient porté les premières paroles.”—_Mém. de
Marguerite de Navarre_ (ed. Guisson, 23), 24.
[1349] “Depuis que je y suis, jé fayst marcher vostre armaye en tele
diligense, que cet les reystres eusent vole u marcher jeudi, le jour
de la feste Dyeu, je me pouvès dyre le plus heureuse femme du monde,
et vostre frère le plus glorieux, car vous eusiés heu la fin de cete
guere, aystent réduis le duc de Dus Pons.”—Catherine de Médicis à
Charles IX de Limoges, 12 juin 1569, Fillon Collection, No. 127.
[1350] The duke of Deuxponts died on June 11, 1569, of excessive
drinking. See Janssen, VIII, 50; D’Aubigné, III, 69, note 1; Jean
de Serres, 364; _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 208.
Fortunately for the Huguenots his death made little difference in
the disposition of his army, for Wolrad of Mansfeldt, his able
lieutenant, succeeded to the command. His prudence saved the reiters
after the battle of Moncontour (see Niemarn, _Geschichte der Grafen v.
Mansfeldt_, 1834).
[1351] D’Aubigné, III, 73, 74: a graphic account; cf. _Bulletin de la
Soc. archéol. et hist. du Limousin_, IV.
“On l’appela _arquebuse à croc_ quand on l’eut munie d’un axe de
rotation reposant sur une fourchette ou _croc_ et facilitant le
pointage. L’arquebuse à croc était souvent d’un poids considérable.
Elle lançait parfois des balles de plomb de 8, 12 et 13 livres.
Jusqu’au commencement du XVI^[e] siècle, on mettait le feu à la charge au
moyen d’une mèche allumée que le coulevrinier portait enroulée autour
du bras droit. A Pavie, les Espagnols se servirent d’une arquebuse
perfectionnée par eux, dans laquelle la mèche était mise en contact
avec l’amorce pour faire partir le coup, au moyen d’un _serpentin_,
sorte de pince qu’une détente faisait agir, sans que le pointage en
fût dérangé. Disposer la mèche à la longueur voulue, en aviver le feu
avant de tirer constituait l’opération de maniement d’arme designée
sous ce nom compasser la mèche.”—_La grande encyclopédie_, III, art.
“Arquebuse.”
[1352] La Popelinière, Book XVII; D’Aubigné, III, 80, 81.
[1353] D’Aubigné, Book V, chap, xii; Jean de Serres, 355, 356.
[1354] Schomberg offered to make a levy of 4,000 Poles; 8,000 Swiss
were asked of the Catholic cantons (_C. S. P. For._, No. 351, July
27, 1569). To support them Paris was mulcted for 700,000 francs and
confiscation of Protestant lands to the crown eked out the balance
(_ibid._, No. 355, July 29, 1569).
The following summary from Sir Henry Norris’ letter to Queen Elizabeth
sets forth the government’s fiscal policy at this time: “On the 1st
instant the king went to the Palais, where in the end, the Parlement
made a general arrest of all the goods, lands, and offices of those who
bore arms against the king, and that all their lands held in fee—or
knight-service—should revert to the crown; and that for the other
lands, first there should be alienated for the sum of 50,000 crowns
by the year, and given to the clergy, in recompense of their demesne,
which the king had license to sell, and the remainder bestowed on such
as had suffered loss by the religion and done service in these wars.
It is accounted that this attainture will amount to 2,000,000 francs
a year. The same day they made sale, by sound of trumpet, of the
admiral’s goods in Paris. Some moved to have him executed in effigy,
which was thought unmeet, as serving only to irritate him to proceed
the more extremely. The king borrows 300,000 £ and offers to perpetuate
the Councillors of Parlement’s offices to their children, on their
giving a certain sum of money; besides this they tax all citizens
throughout the realm to make great contributions. The cardinals of
Bourbon and Lorraine, to show an example to the clergy, have offered to
sell 4,000 £ rent of the monasteries of St. Germain and St. Denis” (_C.
S. P. For._, No. 375, August 5, 1569).
[1355] D’Aubigné, II, 38, 39.
[1356] Louise de Bourbon, abbess de Fontevrault, daughter of François,
comte de Vendôme, and of Marie de Luxembourg, died in 1575.
[1357] For a graphic description of Poitiers in the sixteenth century
see Ouvré, _Histoire de Poitiers_, 24, 25.
[1358] _Rel. vén._, II, 271.
[1359] All the historians narrate the history of the siege of Poitiers
(see Claude Haton, II, 375 ff.; La Popelinière, Book XVII; D’Aubigné,
Book V, chap, v; Claude Haton, II, 534; De Thou, Book XLV; Liberge,
_Ample discourse de ce qui s’est fait au siège de Poitiers_, 1569, new
ed., 1846, by Beauchet-Felleau; _Mém., de Jean d’Antras_, ed. Cansalade
and Tamizey de Larroque, 1880; see also Whitehead, _Gaspard de Coligny,
Admiral of France_, 215, 216; Babinet, _Mém. de la Soc. des antiq. de
l’ouest_, séries II, Vol. XI). The story of the siege is also related
in an unpublished letter of Charles IX to the duke of Nevers, September
10, 1569, F. Fr., 3,159, No. 195.
[1360] Catherine de Medici to the duke of Anjou: approving of his false
attack upon Châtellerault (see Appendix XVIII), not published in the
_Correspondance_.
[1361] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 595.
[1362] Both La Noue, chap, xxvi, and D’Aubigné, III, 119, emphasize the
condition of the army.
[1363] The custom of kissing the ground at the moment of charging
the enemy seems to have been peculiar to the Swiss and the Germans
(D’Aubigné, Book V, chap. xvii, 120; Brantôme, VI, 221 and 522).
[1364] Claude Haton, II, 581.
[1365] Claude Haton, II, 585.
[1366] _Ibid._, 582.
[1367] La Noue, chap. xxvi. Both Henry and Louis of Nassau were in
this engagement, the latter having quitted his university studies
for war.—Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 117; _Archives de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 323.
[1368] Jean de Serres, 526, 527. See the letter of Norris, December 19,
1569, Appendix XIX.
[1369] Delaborde, III, 162.
[1370] _Mém. de Condé_, I, 207; D’Aubigné, III, 113, 114; _Arch.
cur._, séries I, VI, 875. Pius V’s letter of felicitation to the queen
mother, October 17, 1569, characterizes Coligny as “hominem unum omnium
fallacissimum, execrandaeque memoriae, Gasparem de Coligny, qui se pro
istius regni admirante gerit.”—Potter, _Pie V_, 67, ed. Gouban, Book
III, letter 43, p. 236. The admiral’s office had been declared vacant
on July 15, 1569 (Coll. Godefroy, CCLVII, No. 69).
[1371] _C.S.P. For._, Nos. 456, 459, 464, 486, October 5, 6, 10, 27,
1569. This was far from paying the reiters what the government owed
them. They had been serving for thirteen months and received pay
but for three; 2,000,000 crowns were still owing (_ibid._, No. 543,
December 19, 1569).
[1372] On the resistance of St. Jean-d’Angély see D’Aubigné, Book V,
chap. xix; La Noue, chap. xxvii; La Popelinière, Book XX.
[1373] _Ibid._, No. 511, November 21, 1569. Both the duke of Alençon
and the princess Marguerite, Henry IV’s future wife, were among the
number. The disease was smallpox (_ibid._, No. 502, November 3, No.
543, December 19, 1569).
[1374] Delaborde, III, 72; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 608.
[1375] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 514, 515, 576, November 24, 25, 1569.
[1376] _C. S. P., For._, November 24, 1569, Jeanne d’Albret to the
princes of Navarre and Condé. Not in Rochambeau, _Lettres d’Antoine de
Bourbon et de Jehanne d’Albret_.
[1377] An awkward delay occurred at this time owing to the fact that
Teligny’s safe-conduct provided for his coming to the King, but made
no statement as to his departure. On December 14 the queen of Navarre
and her son demanded “un passeport plus ample” from the King. When it
came with a revised form, negotiations were resumed (_Commentaires et
lettres de Montluc_, III, 263, note; _C. S. P. For._, No. 643, January,
1570. For details of these protracted negotiations see La Popelinière,
Book XXII; Delaborde, III, 176 ff.). In Appendix XX will be found a
long document consisting of a great number of articles proposed by
the queen of Navarre, the princes of Navarre and Condé, and the other
chiefs of the Huguenot party, for the pacification of France, and
divided under the heads of religion, restitution of goods and estates,
council and justice, arms, and finances, together with measures to be
taken to insure the performance of the edict (February 4, 1570).
[1378] _C. S. P. For._, No. 644, January 1570, articles sent by the
queen of Navarre to the King.
[1379] _Hist. du Lang._, V, 508, note. The parlement of Toulouse was a
special object of criticism by the Huguenots. In the act of peace they
were exempted from its jurisdiction.
[1380] _C. S. P. For._, No. 672, February 3, 1570; cf. _R. Q. H._,
XLII, 112-15, copied from Record Office; Delaborde, _Coligny_, III, 180.
[1381] _C. S. P. For._, No. 682, February 10, 1570. Not in Rochambeau.
[1382] _Ibid._, No. 674, February 5, 1570. This information had been
conveyed to Jeanne d’Albret by a packet which had been intercepted
(_ibid._, No. 689, February 17, 1570).
[1383] Waddington, “La France et les Protestants allemands sous Charles
IX et Henri III,” _Revue Hist._, XLII, 256 ff.
[1384] The queen of Navarre to Charles IX. Has received his letter
and communicated his reply to her son and nephew, and the noblemen
who are with them. Assures him that it is impossible for them to live
without the free exercise of their religion, which in the end he will
be constrained to grant, and declares that all those who advise him
otherwise are no true subjects to him (_C. S. P. Spain_, No. 683,
February 11, 1570). Not in Rochambeau.
[1385] De Thou definitely says Paris and the court were indifferent as
to the fate of the remoter provinces so long as the war did not touch
them too (Vol. VI, Book XLVII, p. 37).
[1386] “Compertum nobis est nullam esse Satanae cum filiis lucis
communionem; ita inter catholicos quidem et haereticos nullam
compositionem, nisi fictam fallaciisque plenissimam, fieri posse pro
certo habemus.”—Potter, _Pie V_, 86 (ed. Gouban), Book 4, letter I, p.
269; Pius V to Charles IX, January 29, 1570. At p. 272 is a letter in a
similar vein to the duke of Anjou, written on the same day.
[1387] De Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, VII, 184, note;
V, 135; letter of Montluc, October 31, 1568.
[1388] _Ibid._, IV, 335.
[1389] It is to be regretted that there is no monograph upon the
history of these viscounts. It would be quite worth doing. Communay,
_Les Huguenots dans le Béarn et la Navarre_, and Durier, _Les Huguenots
en Bigorre_, 1884, are valuable collections of documents. The sources
are largely in the local archives of Upper Languedoc, Guyenne, Quercy,
the Agenois, and Rouergue. My information is gathered entirely from the
two works named above and Montluc; D’Aubigné; _Hist. du Languedoc_, V;
Courteault, _Blaise de Montluc_, Paris, 1908; and Marlet, _Le comte de
Montgomery_, Paris, 1890.
[1390] _Hist. du Lang._, V, 155, 156.
[1391] De Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, IV, 354, 399,
note.
[1392] _Hist. du Lang._, V, 501; _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_,
II, 399, note; V, 268 note.
[1393] _Hist. du Lang._, V, 495.
[1394] _Hist. du Lang._, V, 495, 496; La Popelinière, Book XIII.
[1395] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 208.
In _State Papers, Foreign_, Elizabeth, Vol. CXV, No. 990 is a document
showing the provinces held by the Protestants. It is undated but the
mention of the viscounts in it shows that it is of this time (printed
in Appendix XXI).
[1396] _Hist. du Lang._, V, 576, note.
[1397] Bordenave, 166; _Hist. du Lang._, V, 575.
[1398] Bordenave, _Hist. de Béarn et de Navarre_, 268-77.
[1399] Olhagaray, _Histoire de Foix, de Navarre et de Béarn_ (1609),
578, however, gives the date March 4.
[1400] Bordenave, _Histoire de Béarn et de Navarre_, 216.
[1401] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 245.
[1402] In F. Fr., 15,558, fol. 293, is a memoir of Jean de Montluc to
the King, of July, 1569, enumerating the munitions and provisions of
the army before Navarrens.
[1403] _Mém. de Gaches_, 90.
[1404] I do not know that the actual text of this joint commission
is known. Montgomery, in his letter at this time styled himself as
follows: Lieutenant-général du roy en Guyenne, despuis la cousté de
la Dordoigne jusques aux Pyrénées, en l’absence et sous l’autorité
de messeigneurs les princes de Navarre et de Condé, lieutenant
et protecteur de Sa Majesté, conservateur de ses édits et aussi
lieutenant-général de la reine de Navarre en son comté de Bigorre!—De
Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 266, note.
[1405] Montgomery’s itinerary is printed in Appendix XXII.
The two parts of Montgomery’s expedition south of the Dordogne, first
the union with the viscounts, and second, the campaign against Terride
are to be distinguished, although they have been much confounded.
The sources and authorities for the history of this brief war are:
Communay, _Les Huguenots dans le Béarn et la Navarre_; Durier, _Les
Huguenots en Bigorre_; Bordenave, _Hist. de Béarn et de Navarre_, Book
VII; Montluc, _Comment. et Lettres_, III, Book VII, pp. 254-89, and his
letters for September, 1569 in Vol. V, pp. 164 ff.; D’Aubigné, Book V,
chap. xiv; La Popelinière, Book XVIII; _Hist. du Lang._, V, 578-87;
Dupleix, _Histoire de France_—his father was one of Montluc’s captains
and for some time marshal of the camp to Biron in Guyenne; Marlet,
_Le comte de Montgomery_; Courteault, _Blaise de Montluc_, chap. xi.
The baron de Ruble, ed. Montluc, V, 211, note, says: “Les documents
inédits sont presque innombrables. Outre les lettres conservées à la
Bibliothèque Nationale, principalement dans la collection Harlay, St.
Germain, vol. 323 et suivants, nous citerons, aux archives de Pau la
série B 952 à 958: les registres consulaires d’Auch, les registres
de Larcher aux archives de Tarbes, les registres consulaires de
Bagnères-de-Bigorre.” The local archives of Bigorre contain many of
Montgomery’s letters. Some of them have been published in _Arch. de la
Gascogne_, VI.
[1406] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 286.
[1407] _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 164.
[1408] Damville ignored the railings of Montluc until November, when
he wrote to the King in vindication of himself, giving a full account
of their campaign against Montgomery (De Ruble, _Commentaires et
lettres de Montluc_, V, 243-57, notes; Coll. Godefroy, CCLVII, Nos.
75 and 84. The first is printed in _Archives de la Gironde_, II, 148;
_Hist. du Lang._, V, 521, note 2; the latter is given in tome XII,
preuves, note 304). Damville seems to have anticipated an inquiry,
for he carefully laid aside all of Montluc’s letters from May 26 to
October 22, 1569. On February 27, 1570, Damville sent the King a
stinging indictment of Montluc’s course. In it he declared Montluc was
a rash impostor and accused him of forcing the people of Guyenne to
pay unjust ransoms; of violating women; of misusing public moneys; and
asserted that he courted investigation of his own conduct (De Ruble,
_Montluc_, III, 394; V, 269, and notes; _Hist. du Lang._, V, 529, note
3; the letter was first published by Le Laboureur in the _Additions
to Castelnau_, II, 130, from a copy in the Dupuy Coll., Vol. 755. M.
Tamizey de Larroque discovered the original in the Coll. Godefroy in
the Bib. de l’Institut). Most men of the time, however, deplored the
contest between these two Catholic chiefs of the south, without taking
sides (see _Archives de la Gironde_, II, 148). Montluc’s Spanish spy,
Bardaxi, naturally reproaches Damville (K. 1,574, No. 154). Probably
no judgment may fairly be pronounced until all the sources have been
carefully examined. A life of Damville is a work sorely needed; it is a
rich subject for some historical student.