557-59, goes at length into this feud between Montluc and Damville. In
the main the author sides with the marshal—“Damville acceptait les
faits accomplis et ne jugeait pas utile de combattre Mongonmery” (p.
551). He declares that “prudemmement, il [Montluc] a passé dans son
livre ce grave incident sous silence” (p. 551). He admits, however,
that if the King had ordered an investigation Damville would have had
something to answer for (p. 559).
There are numerous letters of Charles IX to Montluc in the St.
Petersburg archives. In them Charles harps upon the disagreeable
conduct of Montluc toward Jeanne d’Albret, and tries at one and the
same time to repress the queen’s indefatigable propaganda lest it anger
Spain, and to restrain Montluc because of his outrageous conduct and
the illustrious blood of the queen of Navarre (La Ferrière, _Rapport_,
22.) Letters of the marshal Montmorency and of marshal Damville are
also in this volume. Those of the latter cover the history of all the
campaigns of Montgomery in Béarn. He condemns Montluc for the death
of Terride. The marshal’s laconic language is strikingly in contrast
with Montluc’s rhetorical complaint (La Ferrière, _Rapport_, 44). If we
may believe Brantôme, “dans toutes les guerres Montluc gagna la pièce
d’argent; auparavant il n’avoit pas grandes finances, et se trouva
avoir dans ses coffres cent mille escus.” Charles IX once sharply
reminded Montluc in a letter of November, 1562, that he was getting
500 livres per month for his table. (La Ferrière, _Blaise de Montluc
d’après sa correspondance inédite_, Mém. lus à la Sorbonne, 1864.)
[1409] Coligny was quick to seize the opportunity afforded in the
south to continue the war there until the crown came to terms with
the Huguenots. After the King’s capture of St. Jean-d’Angély, Coligny
crossed the Loire to join Montgomery (cf. Delaborde. III, 157, 161,
169, 170; _Montluc_, III, 347, October; _C. S. P. For._, No. 577,
December, 1569; Letters from La Rochelle to the cardinal of Châtillon).
The cardinal has received letters from his brother the admiral, dated
from Montauban November 22, informing him that the princes are well,
that their army is increasing, that the reiters are content and
have received pay, and that there is no difficulty in joining with
Montgomery and the viscounts. Their army will consist of 6,500 horse
and 12,000 arquebusiers. For the proclamation issued from Montauban
see Appendix XXIII. In _C. S. P. For._, No. 667, January, 1570, is an
extract of a letter from La Rochelle, describing the position of the
armies of the admiral and the count of Montgomery, who are on either
bank of the Garonne, and in good spirits and health.
[1410] De Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 263, 264.
Letter of Montluc to Charles IX, January 9, 1570. He writes almost
broken hearted.
[1411] So great was the desolation inflicted that the King was obliged
to remit the _taille_ in Agenois (_Arch. municip. d’Agen reg. consul._,
fol. 262). The Protestants were so encouraged that even those living
in Agen, Montluc’s own town, dared to revolt (_Bull. du Com. de la
langue et de l’hist. de France_, I, 478; _Reg. munic. d’Agen_, fol.
254). An interesting comparison might be made between the rules for the
government of the camp issued by Coligny at this time—they are in K.
1,575, No. 7—and those issued by the prince of Condé at Orleans, in
April, 1562. For an example of the severe discipline in the Protestant
army see Claude Haton, II, 568; cf. De Thou, Book XXX.
[1412] De Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 74.
[1413] _Ibid._, 314.
[1414] De Ruble, _op. cit._, III, 315-29; Montluc’s sang-froid is
amazing as he writes.
[1415] Delaborde, III. 157, 161, 169, 170. Early in 1569 Montluc sent a
complaint to Charles IX protesting against this export of grain. This
trade redounded to the advantage of the commander of the Gascon coast,
who was a brother of the bishop of Agen, and Montluc’s complaint gave
rise to an acrimonious correspondence preserved in Coll. Harley St.
Germain, No. 323, which throws some light on the interesting question
of trade in the sixteenth century (see _Commentaires et lettres de
Montluc_, III, 395, note).
[1416] See Montluc’s observations in III, 368, 369. He gives a spirited
account on p. 367 of an attack of the reiters on Monbrun, describing
the way they fought in the close quarters of a town.
[1417] _C. S. P. For._, No. 543, December 19, 1569.
[1418] Ruble, _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 262.
[1419] He took it long before historians attributed the honor to him
(_ibid._, 382).
[1420] _Ibid._, 366.
[1421] “Il devoit considérer l’importance de la place qui estoit sur
deux rivières.”—_Ibid._
[1422] _Ibid._, V, 266.
[1423] All this happened on the night of December 15 and 16
(_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 384, 385). De Thou, V, Book
XLV, 666-68, and Popelinière, Book XXII, both tell the tale. A learned
dissertation in _Hist. du Lang._, XII, note 5, clears up a number of
obscure points in these accounts.
[1424] The last of them got across by January 3, 1570 (_Montluc_, III,
384-91, and his letter of January 9, in V, 261-64).
[1425] For a description of Blaye see _Rel. vén._, I, 22, 23.
[1426] For a description of Brouage see _Rel. vén._, I, 27.
[1427] The sources are unanimous on this point, both Protestant
and Catholic (La Noue, _Disc. polit. et milit._, chap. xxix; La
Popelinière, Book XXII; Montluc, _Comment._, III, 395; Brantôme, ed.
Lalanne, IV, 322; _Hist. du Lang._, V, 527-29, note; Delaborde, III,
189). The outrages of the reiters were so great that a special order of
the day was required to govern their conduct (see K. 1,575, No. 17).
[1428] During the nine months which elapsed between the battle of
Moncontour and the peace of St. Germain, the Huguenot army marched over
300 leagues.
[1429] La Popelinière, Book XXII; La Noue, chap. xxix; _Revue hist._,
II, 542, 543.
[1430] La Noue’s observation on this point is curious; cf. Delaborde,
III, 205.
[1431] Cf. Elizabeth’s declarations of neutrality to Norris, (_C.
S. P., For._, No. 704, February 23, 1570). Across the Channel the
cardinal of Châtillon did all he could to secure the support of the
English queen for the Huguenots (_ibid._, No. 742, the cardinal
to Cecil, March 9, 1570; cf. Delaborde, _Coligny_, III, 185); La
Ferrière, _Le XVI^[e] siècle et les Valois_, 254-56; and a letter of the
cardinal to the prince of Orange, April 23, 1570, (_Arch. de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 373-77). But it was not from England direct, but
from Germany, under the stimulus of English gold, that France looked
for assistance to come to the Huguenots (_C. S. P. Ven._, No. 476,
February 26, 1570).
[1432] See Appendix XXIV.
[1433] _State Papers, Foreign_, Elizabeth, Vol. CXII, No. 693 J, the
cardinal of Lorraine to——. May 4, 1570, see Appendix XXV.
[1434] _Coll. des autographes de M. Picton_, No. 67. Order signed by
the cardinals of Lorraine, Bourbon, and Pellevé, June 24, 1570, for the
alienation of 50,000 _écus de rente_ of the property of the church.
[1435] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 332.
[1436] The actual document is still preserved in the Archives
nationales, K. 1,725, No. 41. It is dated June 16, 1570, and
countersigned by L’Aubespine.
[1437] He borrowed 4,000 livres, chiefly in Bordeaux; the munitions
came from Toulouse and Bayonne. The provinces were required to furnish
the supplies (_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 400). The
consular registers of Agen and Auch still preserve the records of his
requisitions. According to the report of a Spanish spy, in K. 1,576,
No. 5, the forces consisted of 10,000 footmen, 1,500 horse, and 18
pieces of artillery. This is surely exaggerated. His _Commentaires_
imply that his men were few in number and he expressly says that he was
short of munitions and artillery.
[1438] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 401.
[1439] _Commentaries of Blaise de Montluc_, translated by Cotton,
368, 369. This occurred on July 23, 1570. To consummate Montluc’s
humiliation, Charles IX filled his place, without giving him
opportunity to resign, by appointing the marquis de Villars to be his
successor. He did not reach Guyenne until October 22. In the meantime
his brother, Jean de Montluc, bishop of Valence, and _commissaire des
finances_ in Guyenne, and as much a Politique as the other was a bigot,
exercised authority for him. Gascony was governed by the seigneur de
Vigues (_Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, III, 434).
[1440] _C. S. P. Spain_, No. 687, February 15, 1570.
[1441] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 1,023, June 20, 1570, La Noue to the
cardinal of Châtillon; _ibid._, No. 1,107, July 22, 1570; Hauser, _La
Noue_, 20-22. He received the name “Iron Arm” (Bras-de-fer) from the
circumstance that he afterward wore a mechanism made of iron, with
which, at least, he was able to guide his horse.
[1442] On Coligny’s campaign in Rouergue and the Cévennes in the spring
of 1570, see _Revue hist._, II, 537-39, letters of the cardinal of
Armagnac of April 1, April 11, and May 10.
[1443] Delaborde, III, 209-15.
[1444] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 618.
[1445] The parlement of Toulouse strongly protested against the edict
(_Hist. du Lang._, V, 538, note 5). The Peace of St. Germain was
registered by the Parlement on August 11, 1570 (_C. S. P. For._, August
11, 1570; cf. Delaborde, III, 230, 231). The Pope wrote with mingled
alarm and regret over the Peace of St. Germain to the cardinals of
Bourbon and Lorraine, on September 23, 1570 (Potter, _Pie V_, 103, 107,
ed. Gouban, Book IV, letter 7, pp. 282, 285).
[1446] For an excellent discussion of the feudal interests and policy
of the Huguenots in the civil wars, see Weill, _Les théories sur le
pouvoir royal en France pendant les guerres de religion_, 73-80.
[1447] See the letter of the papal nuncio to Philip II, June 26, 1570,
in Appendix XXVI. The Pope had protested even earlier than this (brief
of Pius V to the cardinal of Lorraine, March 2, 1570, disapproving
of the conditions of peace). The King, even if vanquished, ought not
to have consented to such detestable terms. The Pope’s sorrow is
the greater because of the cardinal’s assent to them (La Ferrière
_Rapport_, 55).
[1448] In 1562 on account of fear lest the Moriscos might enter into
relation with the Moors of Africa, the government of Spain forbade the
use of arms among them. In 1567 an attempt was made to suppress their
language and abolish their national customs. A terrible war ensued. Don
John of Austria finally suppressed the revolt after it had lasted for
ten years. But in 1570, in anticipation of a Turkish attack from the
west the Moors again rebelled and Spain had to compromise (_Archives de
la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 361; cf. Lea, _The Moriscos of Spain_).
[1449] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 485, July 20, 1570.
[1450] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 439.
[1451] “Montmorency bears the vogue in court.”—_C. S. P. For._, No.
1,216, Norris to the Queen, August 31, 1570. To enhance his prestige at
this time, Montmorency’s claim of right of precedence at court which
the duke of Mayenne contested was decided by the Privy Council in his
favor (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,083, July 9, 1570).
[1452] Christopher de Thou to the King, December 2, 1570 defending the
Parlement against the accusation that it is unjust to the Calvinists:
“Mais un tel crime et si execrable ne se scauroit asses punir, et
seroit plus tost à craindre que nous fussions reprehensibles de trop
grande rémission que de grand severité, qu’ils appelent cruauté.”
He and his colleagues wish that the duke of Anjou might enter into
possession of his appanage in order that the duchy of Alençon may be in
the jurisdiction of the Parlement of Paris and not in that of Normandy
(Collection la Jarriette, No. 2,796).
[1453] Sir Henry Norris under date of September 23, testifies that “the
state here is very quiet, where all strife and old grudges seem utterly
buried, and men live in good hope of the continuance thereof, since
the occasioner of all the troubles [the cardinal of Lorraine] in this
realm is out of credit” (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,285, Norris to Cecil).
The reiters in the course of their return home, pillaged the fair of
Champagne (Claude Haton, II, 592 and note).
[1454] Thirty articles complaining of infractions of the Edict of
Pacification, and desiring that they may be redressed, with the King’s
answers in the margin (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,323, October, 1570).
[1455] _Ibid._, No. 1,359. Pierre Ramus was excluded from the College
of Presles by this decree.
[1456] Ordonnance du Roy sur les defences de tenir Escolles,
Principaultez, Colleges; ny lire en quelque art; ou science que ce
soit, en public, privé ou en chambre, s’ilz ne sont congenuz et
approuvez esté de la Religion catholique et romaine. Avec l’Arrest de
la court du Parlement. Poictiers, B. Noscereau, 1570.
[1457] Claude Haton, II, 610 and 617.
[1458] _Ibid._, 629.
[1459] _Ibid._, 740.
[1460] The vidame of Chartres to the Marshal Montmorency, October 3,
1570. See Appendix XXVII. The scheme originated with the vidame de
Chartres and the cardinal Châtillon (see La Ferrière, “Les projets de
marriage d’une reine d’Angleterre,” _Revue des deux mondes_, September
15, 1881, p. 310); cf. Hume, _Courtships of Queen Elizabeth_, 115. In
1563 the prince of Condé had actually proposed the marriage of Charles
IX and Elizabeth (_Revue des deux mondes_). August 15, 1881, p. 861.
[1461] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,521, January 27, 1571. Walsingham to
Cecil.
[1462] Such an offer, in the nature of things, could not have been
accepted. Aside from the fact that France at this juncture was
unwilling to further any cause advocated by Spain, there was too much
practical advantage to France in maintaining the _entente cordiale_
with the Turks. Turkish influence might be brought to bear upon the
Emperor to neutralize his opposition to French enterprise in Poland;
moreover, France had but recently concluded an advantageous commercial
treaty with the Sultan. For accounts of the relations of France and
Turkey at this time see Du Ferrier, _Un ambassadeur liberal sous
Charles IX et Henri III_, 44-102; Flament, “La France et la Ligue
contre le Turc (1571-73),” _Rev. d’hist. dip._, XVI, 1902, p. 619;
Janssen, _History of the German People_, VIII, chap. v, “Turkish
wars up to 1572.” The league of the Christian powers, whose efforts
culminated in the famous engagement of Lepanto was formed in May, 1571.
The king of Spain, the Pope and Venice were the principals thereof.
Spain was to provide one-half of the forces, the Venetians one-third,
and the Pope the remainder. The capture of Cyprus by the Turks in the
spring of 1570 was the immediate cause of its formation (cf. _La vraye
et très fidelle narration des succès, des assaults, defences et prinse
du royaume de Cypre_, faicte par F. Ange de Lusignan, Paris 1580;
_Commentari della guerra di Cipro e della lega dei principi cristiani
contro il Turco_, di Bartolomeo Sereno, 1845; Herre, _Europäische
Politik in cyprischen Krieg_, 1570-73, Leipzig, 1902—there is a
review of this in _English Hist. Review_, XIX, 357; Miller, “Greece
under the Turks 1571-1684,” _English Hist. Review_, XIX, 646). Europe
expected a double attack on the part of Mohammedanism, both in the
Mediterranean and by land against Hungary and Transylvania, as in 1530.
Venice trembled for Zara in Dalmatia. These fears were not misplaced.
The warlike preparations of the Sultan went so far as to offer pardon
to all malefactors, except rebels and counterfeiters, who would serve
in the galleys. The allied fleet lay at Candia during the winter of
1570-71 awaiting reinforcements. But there was a vast amount of anxiety
and discontent among the allies, for nothing but the sense of a common
peril could have united Venice and Spain, or Venice and the Pope. In
the politics of Europe Venice was a neutral power, and neutrality in
the religious politics of the time, in Philip II’s eyes, was almost
tantamount to heresy. Moreover, as was inevitable, the tediousness
of the preparations and the corruption of officials of the fleet was
so great that men even died of hunger inflicted through fraud. Only
Venice’s administration seems to have been efficient.
[1463] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 150.
[1464] _Négociations dans le Levant_, III, 13.
[1465] _L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 261, 267.
[1466] _Dépêches de M. Fourquevaux_, II, 28; III, 41.
[1467] Sir Thomas Smith, the English ambassador in France, described
her in January, 1571 as “a pretty little lady, but fair and
well-favored.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 8.
[1468] Even at the official ceremony (Godefroi, _Ceremonial français_,
II, 20) of betrothal in the cathedral at Speyer the latent hostility
of France and Spain was manifested. The Spanish ambassador refused
to give precedence to the ambassador of Charles IX, and so absented
himself, the Venetian envoy being compelled to do the same, because
of the alliance between these two powers (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,355,
Cobham to Cecil, October 22, 1570). For other details cf. Nos. 1,267,
1,275, 1,377, 1,430. On the negotiations see _Mém. de Castelnau_ (ed.
Le Laboureur), II, Book VI, 467.
[1469] _Rel. vén._, II, 255. Killigrew in a letter to Lord Burghley,
December 29, 1571, shrewdly observed, à propos of the change, that
“divers of the followers of Guise have not letted to say that the duke
of Alva knew the way to Paris’ gates.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,196.
For an example of Biragues’ intriguing, and this of the most shameful
sort, in connection with the proposed marriage of Henry of Navarre and
Marguerite of Valois see La Ferrière, _Rapport_, 43. The Huguenots had
hoped for L’Hôpital’s recall.—_Nég. Tosc._, III, 641.
[1470] Janssen, _History of the German People_, VIII, 117 ff.
[1471] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,590, March 5, 1571.
[1472] This is the keen observation of the Venetian ambassador (cf. _C.
S. P. Ven._, 515, August 1, 1571).
[1473] The duke of Montmorency to Lord Burghley, May 20, 1571, see
Appendix XXVIII. On the whole negotiation see La Ferrière, “Elisabeth
et le duc d’Anjou,” _Revue des deux mondes_, August 15, 1881, p. 857;
September 15, 1881, p. 307.
[1474] The words were used to De Foix (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,632,
April 1, 1571, Walsingham to Burghley).
[1475] _Ibid._, No. 1,739, May 25, 1571; No. 1,813, Francis Walsingham
to Lord Burghley: He told her that he had delivered a form of the
English prayers to Monsieur de Foix, which form the Pope would have
by council confirmed as Catholic if the Queen would have acknowledged
the same as received from him (Note in margin, “an offer made by the
Cardinal of Lorraine as Sir N. Throgmorton showed me”). That the Queen
was bound to prefer the tranquillity of her realm before all other
respects. There was never before offered to France like occasion of
benefit and reputation.
[1476] Report of conference between Walsingham and De Foix, _C. S. P.
For._, No. 1,732, May 25, 1571.
[1477] Anecdote reported by Walsingham to Burghley, _C. S. P., For._,
No. 1,813, June 21, 1571.
[1478] _Ibid._, _Ven._, No. 576, August 16, 1571; _ibid._, _For._, No.
1,928, August 17, 1571.
[1479] _Ibid._, No. 1,883, July 27, 1571. De Foix and Montgomery were
deeply discouraged, the former protesting to Walsingham that he had
“never travailled more earnestly in any matter in his life” (_ibid._,
No. 1,732). “The queen mother never wept so much since the death of her
husband” (_ibid._, No. 1,886, July 30, 1571). “The queen mother was in
tears.... M. de Limoges said that ... he never saw the King in greater
chafe, and the Queen Mother wept hot tears” (_ibid._, January 8, 1572).
[1480] _Ibid._, No. 1,886, July 30, 1571.
[1481] _C. S. P. For._, No. 20, January 7, 1572.
[1482] _C. S. P. For._, No. 23, January 9, 1572, Smith to Burghley.
[1483] The Queen to Walsingham: Directs him to express her great regret
to the French king and the queen mother that she cannot assent to their
proposal brought by M. de Montmorency for her marriage with the duke of
Alençon, and to assure them that the only impediments arise from the
great disparity in their age, and from the bad opinion that the world
might conceive of her thereby (_C. S. P. For._, No. 496, July 20, 1572;
cf. No. 375, May 25, instructions to the earl of Lincoln).
[1484] This objection was one so difficult to make without giving
offense that it required all the delicacy of the English envoys to say
anything at all. In _C. S. P. For._, No. 494 under date of July 20,
1572, will be found a draft of instructions to Walsingham in Burghley’s
handwriting on this matter, and by him endorsed: “Not sent.” Burghley
evidently preferred to leave this delicate subject to his sovereign.
See the queen to Walsingham, _ibid._, No. 502, July 23, 1572, printed
in full by Digges, p. 226.
[1485] Smith’s comments to Burghley are candor itself. “These two
brethren be almost become ‘Capi de Guelphi et Gibellini.’ The one has
his suite all Papists, the other is the refuge and succour of all the
Huguenots, a good fellow and lusty prince.”—_Ibid._, No. 23, January
9, 1572. He glosses over Alençon’s imperfections by the remark that “he
is not so tall or fair as his brother, but that is as is fantasied,”
and adds: “Then he is not so obstinate, papistical, and restive like a
mule as his brother is.”—_Ibid._, No. 28, January 10, 1572.
[1486] See below for details of this treaty. Coligny’s letter is
analyzed in _C. S. P. For._, No. 500, July 22, 1572 (not in Delaborde).
[1487] La Ferté to——; draft, endd. by Burghley: Windsor, 6th
September, 1572.—_C. S. P. For._, No. 555.
[1488] _C. S. P. For._, No. 502, July 23, 1572, the Queen to Walsingham.
[1489] Walsingham to Lord Burghley: “ ... and if he sees no hope then
to further what he may the league.”—_C. S. P. For._, January 17, 1572;
_Hatfield Papers_, II, 46.
[1490] Charles IX to M. de la Mothe-Fenelon: Directs him to inform the
queen of England that the duke of Alva does all he can to encourage the
500 or 600 English refugees in Flanders in their enterprise against
England, in which they will be assisted by Lord Seton with 2,000 Scots,
who have determined to seize on the prince of Scotland, and send him
into Spain. Directs him and M. de Croc to watch and do all in their
power to frustrate this design (_C. S. P. For._, No. 330, May 2, 1572;
cf. Introd., xii, xiii and No. 257).
[1491] On the efforts of Alva to revive the commerce of Flanders see
D’Aubigné, Book V, chap. xxxii, p. 265; _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 94, 95,
January 28 and 31, 1572; Motley, _Rise of the Dutch Republic_, chap.
v; Altmeyer, _Histoire des relations commerciales des Pays-Bas avec
le Nord pendant le XVI siècle_; Bruxelles, 1840; Reiffenberg, _De
l’etat de la population, des fabriques et des manufactures des Pays-Bas
pendant le XV^[e] et le XVI^[e] siècle_, Bruxelles, 1822.
[1492] “The answer of the Merchant Adventurers to the French king’s
offer to establish a staple in France” in _C. S. P. For._, No. 515,
July, 1572: It would be no commodity for them to have a privilege in
France, as those things in which they are principally occupied, viz.,
white cloths, are chiefly uttered in Upper and Lower Germany. Besides,
if they alter their old settled trade, they would also have to seek
for dressers and dyers in a place unacquainted with the trade. It is
dangerous to have the vent of all the commodity of the realm in one
country, especially seeing the French have small trade to England.
There is besides such evil observance of treaties and so evil justice
in France. The drapers of France so much mislike the bringing of cloth
into France that they will not endure it, insomuch as January last, by
proclamation, all foreign cloth was banished. The converting of the
whole trade of England into France would be hurtful to the navy, for
that the ports there are so small that no great ship may enter.
For the Merchant Adventurers in the sixteenth century see Burgon, _Life
and Times of Sir Thomas Gresham_, I, 185-89.
[1493] _C. S. P. For._, No. 278, April 20, 1572, Queen Elizabeth to
Charles IX.
[1494] Walsingham, _ibid._, No. 135.
[1495] _Ibid._, No 143, September 26, 1571.
[1496] _Ibid._, No. 247.
[1497] Walsingham to Lord Burghley: Has been asked whether that
enterprise having good success, and the French king lending all his
forces to the conquest of Flanders, the queen of England would be
content to enter foot in Zealand, Middleburgh being delivered into
her hands. They fear that the French king will not be content with
Flanders, whatsoever is promised (_C. S. P. For._, No. 2,202, December
31, 1571).
[1498] _Rel. vén._, I, 543; _C. S. P. For._, No. 687, February 15,
1570. Sir Henry Norris to Cecil. The King keeps his chamber, which they
marvel not at who know his diet.
[1499] For a character-sketch of Charles IX see Baschet, _La diplomatie
vénitienne_, 539-41; cf. _Rel. vén._, II, 43 and 161. Lord Buckhurst,
in a letter to Queen Elizabeth of March 4, 1571, gives an account
of one of Charles’ hunting parties in the Bois de Vincennes, which
illustrates his temperament. “After dinner,” he relates, “the King
rode to a warren of hares thereby, and after he had coursed with much
pastime, he flew to the partridge with a cast of very good falcons; and
that done, entered the park of Bois de Vincennes, replenished with some
store of fallow deer. Understanding that Lord Buckhurst had a leash of
greyhounds, he sent to him that he might put on his dogs to the deer,
which he did, but found that the deer ran better for their lives than
the dogs did for his pastime. After this the King and all the gentlemen
with him fell to a new manner of hunting, chasing the whole herd with
their drawn swords, on horseback, so far forth as they being embosked
were easily stricken and slain; they spared no male deer, but killed of
all sorts without respect, like hunters who sought not to requite any
part of their travail with delight to eat of the slain venison.”—_C.
S. P. For._, No. 1,589, March 4, 1571. In the spring of 1573 the
French consul in Alexandria sent Charles three trained leopards for
deer-hunting (Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 51). In June, 1571, the
King was somewhat seriously injured while hunting, by striking his
head against the branch of a tree (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,777, June
8, 1571). In March, 1572, he again was injured (letter of the King
to the duke of Anjou, March 21, 1572, in Coll. Pichon, No. 28). His
passion for the chase often led him to neglect the business of state,
conduct which Coligny once sharply reproved (_C. S. P. For._, No.
2,156, November 29, 1571), and he was frequently ill from fatigue or
exposure (_L’Ambassade de St. Sulpice_, 301). The King himself inspired
the French translation of a Latin treatise of the sixteenth century
on hunting, by Louis Leroy de Coutances, _Libre du roy Charles_.
His patronage also inspired another work on the same subject: “Du
Fouilloux, La Vénerie de lacques du Fouilloux, Gentilhomme, Seigneur
dudit lieu, pays de Gastine, en Poitou. Dédise au Roy Très-Chrestien
Charles, neufiesme de ce nom. Avec plusieurs Receptes et Remèdes pour
guérir les Chiens de diverses maladies. Avec Privilege du Roy. A
Poitiers, Par les de Marnefz, et Bouchetz, frères, circa 1565.” Charles
IX was also given to low practical jokes. For example this is reported
of him from Paris, September 18, 1573: The King, in an old cloak and
evil-favoured hat, withdrew himself “to a little house upon the bridge
from all the ladies, and there cast out money upon the people to get
them together, and made pastime to cast out buckets of water upon them
while they were scrambling for the money.”—_C. S. P. For._, Paris,
September 18, 1573.
[1500] Walsingham reported to Burghley in August 12, 1571: “This prince
is of far greater judgment than outwardly appears. There is none of any
account within his realm whose imperfections and virtues he knows not,”
although, he adds, “those who love him lament he is so overmuch given
to pleasure.”—_Ibid._, No. 1,921.
[1501] In May 1571 the Guises were in discredit. The duke went to
Joinville, the cardinal of Lorraine to Rheims, the duke of Mayenne
started for Turkey. Guise did not come back to Paris till January 1572
(Bouillé, _Histoire des ducs de Guises_, II, Book IV, chap. iv).
[1502] “He appeared at all hours near his majesty’s chair upon the same
terms as the lords who had never left the court” (_C. S. P. Ven._, No.
576, September 15, 1570). Coligny first became a member of the _conseil
du roi_ at this time (Soldan, _Vor d. St. Barthloomäusnacht_, 39).
Blois was practically the capital of France at this time. Paris was
avoided both to save creating suspicion among the Huguenots and because
of its Guisard sympathies. “He would change from white to black the
moment he was in Paris” said Walsingham of the King. Capefigue, _Hist.
de la réforme_, III, 92, points out Blois was “le siège naturel d’un
gouvernement qui voulait s’éloigner du catholocisme fervent. Placé à
quelques lieues d’Orleans, donnant la main à la Rochelle, et par la
Rochelle, se liant au Poitou, à la Saintonge, au Béarn.”
[1503] The King conceives of no other subject better than of the
admiral, and there is great hope that he will use him in matters of the
greatest trust, for he begins to see the insufficiency of others, some
being more addicted to others than to him, others more Spanish than
French, or given more to private pleasures than public affairs (_C. S.
P. For._, No. 1,921, August 12, 1571).
[1504] Alva to Philip II, April 5, May 22, 1572, in Gachard,
_Correspondance de Philippe II_, II, 239. In December, 1570, the
marshal Cossé was sent to La Rochelle. In March, 1571, Cossé and Biron
were sent a second time.
[1505] See Walsingham, Letter of August 12, 1571, to Leicester. He
gained a great ascendency over Charles IX (Languet, _Epist. ad Camer._,
132-36, 140. “Count Ludovic is the King’s avowed pensioner.”)—_C. S.
P. For._, No. 2,156, November 29, 1571. Some of his correspondence is
in _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III.
[1506] On the secret interview of Charles IX, Louis of Nassau, and La
Noue at Blois, see D’Aubigné, Book VI, chap. i, 282; _Mémoires de la
Huguerye_, I, 25. The Dutch cause suffered fearfully in this autumn.
On November 1 and 2 a frightful storm made terrible inundations on the
coast; hundreds of vessels were wrecked; in West Frisia alone nearly
20,000 persons were drowned (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_,
III, 385).
[1507] For details, see Capefigue, III, 44. Charles IX gave evasive
replies to all the remonstrances of the Spanish ambassador (Languet,
_Epist. secr._, I, 177, August 15, 1571).
[1508] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,578, Walsingham to Cecil; _Nég. Tosc._,
III, 694.
[1509] Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, II,
239—Alva to Philip II, April 5, 1572; cf. p. 250; _Archives de la
maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 441. The Prince of Orange in 1569 began
the practice of issuing letters of marque and reprisal in virtue of his
position as sovereign prince of Orange. As a result in the next year
the English Channel and the Bay of Biscay were crowded with vessels
hostile to Spain. The most famous of these marauders soon destined to
become known as the “Beggars of the Sea” was Adrian de Bergues. On
one occasion within the space of two days, he overhauled and captured
two merchant fleets, the one of 40, the other of 60 sail (_Arch. de
la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 351). Upon the importance of La
Rochelle as a seaport, see La Noue, chap. xxviii. Some of Strozzi’s
correspondence when in command of the fleet before La Rochelle in 1572
is in F. Fr., XV, 555; cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, 760-63.
[1510] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,921, August 12, 1571. Languet makes
Charles IX’s reply less emphatic than this. Languet, _Epist. secr._,
I, 177, August 15, 1571. I am inclined to believe that Walsingham
colored the anecdote. Languet shows the hesitations and vacillations of
Charles IX, pp. 132, 136, 140. The Spanish ambassador’s grounds of fear
for Flanders were the more substantial because the garrisons that had
occupied St. Jean-d’Angély, Niort, Saintes, and Angoulême during the
late war were newly stationed in the border fortresses of Picardy. To
Alava’s alarmed inquiry Charles IX blandly replied that “the reason why
these troops were sent to the frontiers was to give them employment,
because if the King had disbanded them all at once the soldiery might
have mutinied for lack of pay” (_C. S. P. Ven._, No. 499, February 19,
1571; No. 575, August 1, 1571).
[1511] “The only impediment to the marriage between the prince of
Navarre and the lady Margaret is religion.”—_C. S. P. For._, No.
2,038, Walsingham to Cecil, September 16, 1571. The whole matter was
referred to eight counselors to settle: those of the Huguenots were
Jeanne d’Albret, La Noue, Louis of Nassau, and Francourt (_C. S. P.
For._, March 29, 1572; _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III,
417). The Pope made objection that, aside from the difference of
religion, the parents of Henry of Navarre and Marguerite of Valois
were relatives within the third degree, and refused to grant the
dispensation for the marriage (_Nég. Tosc._, III, 712-14). To this
demur the Huguenots triumphantly argued that it was not necessary for
the Pope or any other priest to give dispensation, since it was a
_royal_ marriage and it was not fitting for the King’s authority to
be demeaned by that of the church (Claude Haton, II, 661). There was
violent opposition by radical Huguenots, especially the pastors, to
the marriage, and fear lest the Pope’s refusal to grant a dispensation
might lead to a rupture between France and Rome like that of England
under Henry VIII (_Nég. Tosc._, III, 733 and 740). Finally it was
arranged that the marriage should be celebrated by a priest of the
church of Rome, and that Henry would accompany his wife to mass in the
church where the ceremony was to be held, but that he was to retire
before the service so that he was neither to be present at the mass
nor hear it said (_ibid._, 662 and note, 663, note). The cardinal
of Lorraine, with his usual “trimming” wrote to the queen mother:
“Madame, je vous baise très humblement les mains de ce qu’il vous
plaît me mander la conclusion du marriage de madame vostre fille,
puisqu’il est au contentement de vos majestés et selon les désirs des
catholiques.”—_Collection des autographes_, No. 278, April 17, 1572.
For the preliminaries of the marriage of Marguerite of Valois and Henry
of Navarre see _Revue des deux mondes_, October 1, 1884, pp. 560-64.
[1512] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 516; August 15, 1571. Spain and France
clashed in Switzerland, too, at this time. For Switzerland refused
to permit forces to fight the Turk on the ground that the Swiss were
unused to maritime warfare, yet the Grisons and the Tyrol raised two
regiments for the French King (_ibid._, _For._, No. 189, March 25,
1572, from Heidelberg or Strasburg).
[1513] “There have been no other speeches but war with
Spain.”—Killegrew to Lord Burghley, December 8, 1571; _C. S. P. For._,
No. 2,163; cf. _Nég. Tosc._, III, dispatches of April 17 and 20, 1572
and _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 2,156, 2,162, November 29, December 7, 1571.
Alva fully expected war (Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur
les Pays-Bas_, II, 259, Alva to Philip II, May 24, 1572).
In the spring of 1572 Schomberg was dispatched to Germany to
contract alliances with the Lutheran princes (_Arch. de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 403; _C. S. P. For._, No. 189, March 25, 1572).
The German princes anticipated that if the Low Countries were united to
the crown of France that power would become too formidable. They wanted
France to content herself with Flanders and Artois. As for Brabant
and the other provinces that were once dependent upon the empire,
their purpose was to put them upon their old footing and to give the
government of them to some prince of Germany, who could not be other
than the prince of Orange. Holland and Zealand were to be united to
the crown of England (Walsingham, 143, French ed., letter of August
12, 1572 to Leicester). Yet momentous as the French project in the Low
Countries was, it was but part of a grander scheme, for France aimed
also to acquire a decisive influence in Germany, with the ultimate
purpose of acquiring so great ascendency over the German states as to
be able to transfer the crown of the empire, for centuries hereditary
in the house of Hapsburg, to the head of the French prince (_Rel.
vén._, I, 445). This project was part of the mission of Schomberg
in Germany (_Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, Introd., 23,
268-73). In Germany the elector of Saxony and the landgrave of Hesse
were strong partisans of France (_ibid._, IV, Introd., 25).
The strongest advocate of France for the imperial crown was the elector
palatine, who burned with an ambition to “Calvinize the world,” and
embraced with ardor a project which could not fail to redound to the
honor of the Huguenots. The elector of Saxony and the landgrave were
less complacent. The first was a friend of the emperor Maximilian and
expressed his indignation at the imperial pretensions of Charles IX.
Even William of Hesse, in spite of his hereditary attachment to the
crown of France, returned a guarded reply (_ibid._, IV, Introd., 28 and
123).
[1514] The revolt took place on Easter Sunday, April 6, 1572. On
the whole subject of the revolt of the Netherlands at this time see
Janssen, _History of the German People_, VIII, chap. ii; La Gravière,
“Les Gueux de Mer,” _Revue des deux mondes_, September 15, 1891, p.
347; November, 1891, p. 98; January 15, 1892, p. 389.
[1515] See the letter of President Viglius to Hopper in _Arch. de la
maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 415, and _C. S. P. For._, No. 260, April
19, 1572.
[1516] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 418-19. On the
alliance concluded at the Frankfurt Fair see _ibid._, III, 448. For
the whole subject consult Waddington, “La France et les protestants
allemands sous les règnes de Charles IX et Henri III,” _Revue
historique_, XLII, 266 ff.
[1517] The treaty of Blois provided for a defensive league between
Queen Elizabeth and Charles IX and stipulated the amount of succor
by sea or land to be rendered by either party in case of need; if
either party were assailed for the cause of religion or under any
other privileges and advantages for the pretext, the other was bound
to render assistance; a schedule of the number and description of the
forces to be mutually furnished, together with their rates of pay, was
annexed. De Frixa and Montmorency were sent to England to ratify the
treaty. A full account of the gorgeous reception of Montmorency will be
found in Holinshed and the Account Book of the Master of the Revels.
The earl of Lincoln left for France, May 26, 1572. He was instructed to
say, if any mention was made of the Alençon marriage, that Elizabeth
felt offended by the way she had been treated in the Anjou negotiations
and that in any case “the difference in age should make a full stay.”
Text of the treaty of Blois in Dumont, _Corps diplomatique_, V, Part
I, 211. The letter of the King to Elizabeth after the signature is in
_Bulletin de la société du prot. français_, XI, 72.
[1518] _Mémoires et correspondance de Du Plessis-Mornay_, I, 36-38
(Paris, 1824).
[1519] _Ibid._, II, 20-39; cf. Whitehead, _Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral
of France_, 248. On the authorship of the memoir consult same volume
Appendix II.
[1520] _C. S. P. For._, No. 419, Captain Thomas Morgan to Lord Burghley
from Flushing, June 16, 1572; Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II_,
II, 268, Alva to Philip II, July 18, 1572.
[1521] La Popelinière, XXVII, 108; Fillon Collection, No. 133, Charles
IX to the Duke of Longueville, governor of Picardy from Blois, May 3,
1572. Enjoins him to repair the fortifications of Picardy, and to be
on guard against the duke of Alva, who was arming under the pretext of
repressing the Gueux.
[1522] Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II_, II, 356 and note 3;
_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 425-26; _Mém. de la
Huguerye_, 105; see La Popelinière’s account (XXVII, 107), of the
situation of the city. It was the capital of Hainault.
[1523] _C. S. P. For._, No. 406, June 10, 1572, to Torcy.
[1524] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 437.
[1525] Coll. Godefroy, CCLVIII, No. 8. French dispute with Spain over
navigation of the Sluys.
[1526] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 441-42.
[1527] In _ibid._, 463-64, 467-68, will be found a list of the
principal officers of the prince of Orange and of the towns at his
devotion (cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 374, July, 1572).
[1528] _Ibid._, Nos. 478, 511, July, 1572.
[1529] The estates met at Dordrecht on July 15 (_Archives de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 447).
[1530] He had received his recall and the duke of Medina-Coeli had been
sent to succeed him, and at this hour was on the ground urging a policy
of moderation (Raumer, I, 202). Yet Alva refused to give up (_Archives
de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 437).
[1531] The march of the Spanish army that intercepted Genlis was
so accurate as to give rise to the belief that Alva had prior
information. It is uncertain. Mendoza, who was with the Spanish army
(_Commentaires_, Book VI, chap. vii) seems to confirm the suspicion.
His account (chaps. vii-xiii) is very vivid. Only thirty of Genlis’
men escaped; the rest were either killed or drowned. On the warnings
given to Genlis, see a relation in _Archives curieuses_, VII. There is
an unpublished account of Genlis’ defeat in F. Fr., 18,587, fol. 541.
According to La Huguerye, 125, he was strangled in prison.
[1532] It did so on September 19. See a letter of William of Orange
to his brother John, September 24, 1572, in _Archives de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 511. La Noue prophesied the fall of the city
when he saw the heights of Jemappes occupied by the troops of Spain
(Hauser, _La Noue_, 33).
[1533] As late as August 11, 1572, the Prince of Orange was still
looking for the coming of the admiral Coligny into the Low Countries
(see a letter of his to his brother John, of this date in _Archives de
la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, III, 490).
[1534] Albornoz to secretary of state Cayas, from Brussels, July 19,
1572 (see Gachard, _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_,
II, 269). A note of M. Gachard adds: “Cette lettre, datée de St.
Leger, le 27 avril 1572, était écrite par Charles IX au comte Louis de
Nassau. Il y disait qu’il était déterminé, autant que les occasions et
la disposition de ses affaires le permettraient à employer les forces
que Dieu avait mises en sa main à tirer les Pays-Bas de l’oppression
sous laquelle ils gémissaient. Une traduction espagnole de cette lettre
existe aux Archives de Simancas, _papeles de Estado_, liasse 551.”
Charles IX. repudiated its authenticity (see a letter to Mondoucet,
French agent in Flanders, dated August 12, 1572, in _Bulletin de la
Commission d’hist. de Belgique_, séries II, IV, 342). The admiral
Coligny, without knowing of the incriminating evidence in Alva’s hands
after the failure before Mons, urged Charles IX to declare war upon
Spain at once as the shortest and safest way out of the difficulty
(Brantôme, _Vie des grandes capitaines françois_—M’l’admiral de
Châtillon).
[1535] As late as August 21, France had the hardihood to protest her
innocence of any enterprise in Flanders (Gachard, _Correspondance de
Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, II, 271, Philip to Alva, August 2, 1572;
_ibid._, II, 273, Alva to Philip, August 21, 1572).
[1536] There is in existence the record of an extremely curious
conversation of the admiral Coligny upon this subject with Henry
Middelmore, one of the English agents in France, in which the latter
frankly said: “Of all other thinges we colde least lyke that France
shulde commaunde Flawnders, or bryng it under theyr obedience, for
therein we dyd see so apparawntlye the greatnes of our dainger, and
therefore in no wyse colde suffer it.”—Ellis, _Original Letters_, 2d
series, III, 6. I find the same thought expressed in a letter of Thomas
Parker to one Hogyns, written from Bruges, June 17, 1572. See Appendix
XXIX.
[1537] On this last phase see _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_,
IV, Introd., xlix ff., and Froude, _Hist. of England_, X, 312.
[1538] For a particular account see Whitehead, _Gaspard de Coligny,
Admiral of France_, 257-64. Two of Lord Burghley’s correspondents give
accounts (_C. S. P. For._, Nos. 537, 538, August 22, 1572). See also an
interesting extract from the registers of the Bureau of the Ville of
Paris in _Archives curieuses_, VII, 211.
[1539] For the order of Marcel, provost of the merchants, immediately
before the massacre, see _Arch. cur._, VII, 212. On the council
of August 24, see Cavalli, 85. Charles IX at first denied any
responsibility and blamed the Guises. When this proved a dangerous
explanation, he asserted the massacre was made to foil a similar plot
on the part of the Huguenots.
[1540] At Blois not only the Huguenots were not mistreated but the city
became a city of refuge (D’Aubigné, III, 344, note 6). The Mayor of
Nantes refused to carry out the orders for massacre (_Bulletin de la
Soc. du prot. franç._, I, 59). Hotman was saved from the massacre at
Bourges by his students; on the massacre at Troyes see the relation in
_Arch. cur._, VII, 287; and for that at Lyons an article by Puyroche
in _Bulletin de la Soc. du prot. franç._, XVIII, 305, 353, 401; for
Normandy, _ibid._, VI, 461; _Revue retrospective_, XII, 142 (Lisieux);
on the massacre at Rouen, Floquet, _Hist. du parlement de Normandie_,
III, 126 ff.; on the massacre at Bordeaux see _Arch. de la Gironde_,
VIII, 337. De Thou, Book LIII, says there were 264 victims. On the
massacre at Toulouse see _Bull. de la Soc. du prot. franç._, August
15, 1886; _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 639. On the non-execution of the
massacre in Burgundy see _Bull. de la Soc. du prot. franç._, IV, 164,
and XIV, 340 (documents). The reason for this leniency was the nearness
of Burgundy to the frontier.
[1541] The contemporary literature on the massacre is given by M.
Felix Bourquelot, editor of the _Mém. de Claude Haton_ in a long note
in II, 673-76. Summarized, these opinions are the following: 1. The
massacre was done in order to avert a massacre by the Huguenots, after
the wounding of Coligny. This was the belief of Marguerite of Navarre
(_Mémoires_, ed. Guessard, 264).
2. The massacre was premeditated by Charles IX and his mother from the
time of the Bayonne conference.
3. The massacre was intended to be a military stroke, the government
preferring to attempt their overthrow in this way rather than by battle
on the open field.
Salviati, the papal nuncio, who ought to have known, explicitly denies
the rumor that a conspiracy was on foot by the Huguenots. In a dispatch
of September 2 (I quote the French translation of Chateaubriand who
copied them for the Paris archives) he says: “Cela n’en demeurera pas
moins faux en tous points, et ce sera une honte pour qui est à même de
connaître quelques choses aux affaires de ce monde de le croire.” In
reply to the Pope’s urgency to extirpate the Protestants, he wrote on
September 22: “Je lui fis part de la très grand consolation qu’avaient
procuré au Saint Père les succès obtenus dans ce royaume par une
grace singulière de Dieu, accordée à toute la Chrétienté sous son
pontificat. Je fis connaître le désir qu’avait sa Sainteté, de voir
pour la plus grande gloire de Dieu, et le plus grand bien de France,
tous les hérétiques extirpés du royaume, et j’ajoutai que dans cette
vue le Saint Père estimait que très à propos que l’on revoqua l’édit
de pacification.” On October 11th, he writes: “Le Saint Père, ai je
dit en éprouve une joie infinie, et a ressenti une grande consolation
d’apprendre que sa Majesté avait commandé d’écrire qu’elle espérait
qu’avant peu la France n’aurait plus d’Huguenots.” Cardinal Orsini, who
was dispatched as legate from Rome to congratulate Charles IX and to
support the exhortations of Salviati, describes his audience with the
King on December 19. Orsini assured the King that he had eclipsed the
glory of all his house, but urged him to fulfil his promise that not
a single Huguenot should be left alive in France: “Se si rigardavva
all’objetto della gloria, non potendo niun fatto de suoi antecessori,
se rettamente si giudicava, agguagliarsi al glorioso ac veramente
incomparabili di sua Maesta, in liberar con tanta prudentia et pietà
in un giorno solo il suo regno da cotanta diabolica peste.... Esortai
... che con essendo servitio ni di Dio, ni di sua Maesta, lasciar
fargli nuovo piede a questa maladetta setta, volesse applicare tutto
il suo pensiero e tutte le forze sue per istirparla affatto, recandosi
a memoria quelle che ella haveva fatto scrivere a sua Santità da
Monsignor il Nuntio, che infra pochi giorni non sarebbe pi un ugonotto
in tutto il suo regno.”—Bibliothèque Nationale, MSS Ital., 1,272. The
Pope proclaimed a jubilee in honor of the massacre.
Subjoined is a list of the leading authors and articles upon this
subject. The most recent consideration which sifts all preceding
investigation is that by Whitehead, _Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of
France_, London, 1904, chaps. xv, xvi; Phillipson, “Die römische Curie
und die Bartholomaüsnact,” _West Europa_, II, 255 ff.; Baguenault de
Puchesse, “La St. Barthélemy: ses origines, son vrai caractère, ses
suites,” _R. Q. H._, July-October, 1866; “La premeditation de St.
Barthélemy,” _R. Q. H._, XXVII, 272 ff.; Boutaric, “La St. Barthélemy
d’après les Archives du Vatican,” _Bib. de l’école des Chartes_, sér.
III, 3; Theiner, Continuation of Baronius, I (Salviati’s letters);
Gandy, “Le massacre de St. Barthélemy,” _Revue hist._, July, 1879;
cf. review in _Bull. de la Soc. prot. français_; Rajna, in _Archivio
storico ital._, sér. V, No. XXIII, January 15, 1899; Michiel et
Cavalli, “La Saint-Barthélemy devant le sénat de Venise. Relation
des ambassadeurs ... traduite et ann. par W. Martin,” Paris, 1872;
Soldan, _Hist. Taschenbuch_, 1854; G. P. Fisher, “The Massacre of St.
Bartholomew,” _New Englander_, January, 1880; Loiseleur, “Les nouvelles
controverses sur la St. Barthélemy,” _Rev. hist._, XV, 1883, p. 83;
“Nouveaux documents sur la St. Barthélemy,” _Rev. hist._, IV, 1877, p.
345; Tamizey de Larroque, “Deux lettres de Charles IX,” _R. Q. H._,
III, 1867, p. 567; “La St. Barthélemy, lettres de MM. Baguenault de
Puchesse et G. Gandy,” _R. Q. H._, XXVIII, 1880, p. 268; Dareste, “Un
incident de l’histoire diplomatique de Charles IX,” _Acad. des sc.
moral. etc._, LXXI-II, 1863, p. 183; Laugel, “Coligny,” _Revue des deux
mondes_, September, 1883, pp. 162-85.
[1542] The duke of Guise is not so bloody, neither did he kill any man
himself but saved divers; he spake openly that for the admiral’s death
he was glad, for he knew him to be his enemy. But for the rest, the
King had put to death such as might have done him very good service
(_C. S. P. For._, No. 584, September, 1572).
[1543] Montluc clearly appreciated that this was the case and developed
the idea in his _Commentaires_, VI, 231-33. Quite as remarkable are
the observations of the Venetian ambassador: _Rel. vén._, II, 171.
Spain anticipated the possibility of a French attempt to recover the
Milanais: “The King of Spain being suspicious of the said league has
given commission that Italy and Milan be in readiness.”—_C. S. P.
For._, No. 120, February 7, 1572, from Venice.
[1544] _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 528, note, 544, note 2. On the siege of
Montauban, see La Bret, _Histoire de Montauban_, 2 vols., 1841. There
is a letter of the marshal Brissac on the resistance in F. Fr., No. 15,
555, fol. 104.
[1545] See abstract of Biron’s commission in _C. S. P. For._, November
6, 1572; cf. _Correspondance inédite d’Armand de Gontaut Biron,
maréchal de France_, par E. de Barthélemy, Paris, 1874, from the
originals at St. Petersburg.
[1546] _Coll. des autographes_, 1844, No. 104, Charles IX to the duke
of Longueville, November 4, 1572.
[1547] _C. S. P. For._, No. 640, November 13, 1572; cf. No. 637;
_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 38-39, letter of Brunynck,
secretary to the prince of Orange, to John of Nassau, December, 1572.
[1548] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 667, 673, §§17-20 (1572).
[1549] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 683 and 755, Worcester to the Queen,
February 5, 1573.
[1550] This petition is a remarkable compound of current politics and
biblical history. In it the inhabitants of La Rochelle, her “tres
obeissains fidelles subjects,” beg that she will consider and follow
the example of Constantine, who broke off all alliance with his friend
Licinius to whom he had given his sister in marriage, on account of
his tyranny practiced on the Christians of the East. They remind her
also of the evil done by Herod in keeping his rash oath. She ought not
therefore to keep the league with those who wish to exterminate her
people in Guyenne, which belongs to her, and whose arms she bears. If
she will succour them they will willingly expose their lives and goods
in order to acknowledge her as their sovereign and natural princess
(_ibid._, No. 682, 1572).
[1551] _Ibid._, No. 800, February 28, 1573; No. 948, May 3, 1573;
_Chroniques Fontenaisiennes_, 166, 167.
[1552] See Claude Haton, II, 710, 711, 717, 718, 722-25, 726, 729, 731.
The government sent out inspectors to make an inventory of the grain
still available. Much of it was confiscated for the use of the army at
an established price, and a maximum price fixed for the sale of the
remainder.
[1553] _Ibid._, 715, 716 (see a discourse upon the extreme dearth in
France and upon the means to remedy it, in _Arch. cur._, VI, 423). The
dearness of all things, according to the writer, probably Bodin, is the
result of the excessive luxury which prevails among the higher classes
and the combination made by the merchants to raise prices. He proposes
the establishment of public granaries and that the government price be
made obligatory for all dealers.
[1554] _C. S. P. For._, No. 800, February 28, 1573.
[1555] _Ibid._, No. 1,000, May 31, No. 1,027, June 9, 1573.
[1556] The Politiques hoped to persuade Charles IX to stop the war
at home and exact redress from Spain for the massacre in Florida by
attacking the Spanish West Indies. Even the duke of Anjou favored this.
See Appendix XXX.
[1557] La Popelinière, XXI, 214 and 232 _bis_; _C. S. P. For._, No.
1,042, Dr. Dale to Lord Burghley, June 16, 1573: “The hearts of all men
were being discouraged with the long siege” and the King’s heart bled
“to see the misery of his people that die for famine by the ways where
he rode.”
[1558] La Rochelle at first refused to let La Noue enter. On the whole
matter see Hauser, _La Noue_, chap. ii.
[1559] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,547, March 21, 1573; Raumer, II, 265;
the marshals Biron and Strozzi, with Pinart, were commissioned for the
purpose (_Arch. hist. du Poitou_, XII, 233). The negotiations may be
seen in detail in Loutzchiski, _Doc. inédits_, 62 ff.
[1560] _Vie de La Noue_, 95; Letter of Charles IX to the duke of
Anjou, February 7, 1573, Coll. Lajariette, Paris, 1860, No. 669; Coll.
Godefroy, CCLVI, No. 57. At the same time Charles IX wrote in person to
Montgomery, trying to lure him from the enterprise he was engaged in.
See Appendix XXXI.
[1561] _C. S. P. Ven._, Nos. 540, 541, April 6 and 20, 1573.
[1562] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 1,050, June 22, 1573; _Chroniques
fontenaisiennes_, 169.
[1563] See the series of documents on this head in Coll. Godefroy,
CCLVI, Nos. 25, 29, 30, 38, 41-43. 46, 73, 77.
[1564] When the army disbanded, it was a frequent sight in the villages
to see the wounded or sick being transported in baggage wagons (Claude
Haton, II, 737). The villages near La Rochelle where the camp had been
established were burned upon the evacuation of the troops “to prevent
the plague which began to be hot.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,107, Wilkes
to Walsingham, July 31, 1573; cf. No. 1,052, June 25, to the same
effect.
[1565] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,072, Dr. Dale to the Queen, late in June,
1573.
[1566] The articles were sent to the Catholic camp on July, 6.
[1567] _Hist. du Languedoc_, V, 543, note; _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,090,
July 11, 1573.
[1568] Lery, _Histoire mémorable de la ville de Sancerre_, contenant
les entreprises, buteries, assaux et autres efforts des assiégeans:
les résistances, faits magnanimes, la famine extrème et délivrance des
assiegez, 1574; Discours de l’extrème famine etc. dont les assiegez de
la ville de Sancerre ont été affligez et ont usé environ trois mois,
_Arch. cur._, VIII, 21.
[1569] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,101, July 23, No. 1,107, July 31, 1573.
In Languedoc and Dauphiné the Huguenots were strong, and possessed of
many towns (see a letter of Louis of Nassau in _Archives de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 75 and the “Names of all the towns in the south
of France of which the Huguenot party could be sure of, together with a
list of the noblemen attached to the party” in Appendix XXXII).
[1570] _Vie de La Noue_, 99; _C. S. P. For._, No. 965, May 16, No.
1,095, July 23, 1573. A deputation of Huguenots of Languedoc came to
Fontainebleau in September, 1573 (cf. Letter of Schomberg to Louis of
Nassau, September 29, 1573, _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_,
IV, 211 and Appendix 117).
[1571] Long, 115, 116. The instrument of government contained 89
articles.
[1572] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 972, 986, March 20 and 30, 1573. The
collection of these forced loans was expedited by the presence of
Strozzi’s men-at-arms and the Scotch Guard in the Louvre; and two bands
of Swiss at St. Cloud. In this way, Charles IX was able to collect
the money “without danger of commotion,” and avoided that worst of
expedients to the crown, the States-General (see particulars in Dr.
Dale’s letter to Burghley of January 11, 1573, _ibid._, No. 1,291).
In June the assembly of the clergy agreed to furnish the queen mother
200,000 livres and within three years to redeem 1,800,000 livres’
worth of the King’s debts. The clergy made a great stroke by obtaining
the creation of four receivers-general for the collection of these
subsidies, the appointments to which they sold for between 600,000
and 700,000 livres, thus saving themselves that amount in the final
(_ibid._, No. 1,027, June 9, 1573). But this relief came too late
for the government to continue the prosecution of the war before La
Rochelle. The capitulation with the Rochellois was too far advanced to
be withdrawn. Moreover, the crown itself was anxious to close the war.
[1573] Catherine de Medici to Schomberg, September 13, 1572, _Arch. de
la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, Appendix, No. 13; Weill, 86; _Revue
retrospective_, V, 363.
[1574] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 876. On July 7 the Tuscan ambassador wrote:
“E, se questo regno si liberassi delle guerre civili, saria facil cosa
la rompessi con Spagna; chè questo, credo, sia il fine di tutti li
trattamenti che fa Orange in questo regno.”—_Ibid._, 883.
[1575] _Ibid._, IV, 108, 109.
[1576] In the same month William of Orange dispatched to France the
Seigneur de Lumbres, whose popularity with the King was so great that
he even offered to take him into his service (_Archives de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, Introd., p. 21, and p. 165), and another agent with
instructions to treat with the King and the queen mother (_ibid._,
IV, 119-24, May, 1573). William stipulated for the preservation of
the rights and privileges of whatever provinces and towns might be
conquered by France, and that in case of open war by France upon Spain,
in lieu of an annual subsidy of 400,000 florins, France should give
assistance with men and ships of war, besides the sum mentioned, to
be paid within two years after the conclusion of peace (_ibid._, IV,
116-19; cf. the prince of Orange to Louis of Nassau upon the proposed
French alliance, June 17, 1573).
[1577] _Ibid._, IV, 33. On May 15, 1573, the prince of Orange concluded
a treaty with England, permitting the English to enter the Scheldt
in return for which the prince was to be permitted to purchase
arms and ammunition and powder in England (_Archives de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 94). For William of Orange’s connection with La
Rochelle see _ibid._, 43 and 56. Compare letter of Charles IX to the
duke of Anjou, March 18, 1573, complaining of the depredations of the
“Wartegeux” on the Norman coast (Coll. Godefroy, CCLVIII, No. 49).
[1578] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 273, 274;
_Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_, IV, 270, 271, note.
[1579] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 270 and Appendix
43. Schomberg and Louis of Nassau drew up the articles of the proposed
treaty. In Appendix 44 will be found the articles as originally drawn
up, and on p. 116 the modified form of them as they were changed by
the prince of Orange. The most important change is that whereby the
prince altered the word “subjection” as applied to the Netherlands to
“protectorate.” The further idea is expressed that these negotiations
would be fruitless unless the Edict of Pacification were established
with full force in France (_ibid._, IV, 270, 271). On the whole subject
of French negotiations in Germany after St. Bartholomew see Waddington,
_Rev. hist._, XLII, 269 ff.
[1580] De Thou, VII, 37 (cf. Louis of Nassau’s letter to his brother
on the subject in _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 278
ff.). Charles IX was ill at the time and the queen mother went alone
to Blamont (_ibid._, IV, 276, 277; _Mém. du duc de Bouillon_). The
Spanish ambassador in France was not unobservant of the favorable
policy of Charles toward the Netherlands and so informed the duke of
Alva (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 132). The peace
of La Rochelle was a hard blow to Spain (Languet, _Epist. secr._, I,
201; St. Goard to Charles IX, July 17, 1573 in _Archives de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 164-69). These negotiations of the prince of
Orange and his brother with England and France, however, came too late
to save Haarlem. On July 12 the unhappy city succumbed. On the 14th the
Spaniards entered and began a regular massacre, in which nearly 1,800
persons were either slain with the sword, hanged, or drowned (_ibid._,
IV, 173; cf. a letter of the prince of Orange to Louis of Nassau,
giving details of the surrender on July 22, 1573, _ibid._, 175).
[1581] _C. S. P. For._, No. 686 (1572).
[1582] _Ibid._, No. 673, December 20, 1572.
[1583] These were Montluc, bishop of Valence, and M. de Rambouillet.
The former’s speeches (April 10 and 22), are printed in _Mém. de
l’estat de France_, II, 147, 224, in a French translation. The original
discourses were in Latin. In _Arch. cur._, IX, 137, is a letter of one
of Rambouillet’s suite.
[1584] See the account of the election in _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,082,
June 5, 1573; cf. Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 189; Castelnau, ed.
Le Laboureur, III, 298. The news of the duke of Anjou’s success was
naturally received with greater pleasure in Paris than anywhere else in
Europe. Bonfires were lighted and the _Te Deum_ sung in honor of his
election (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,027, June 9, 1573). The clergy, in the
assembly of the clergy which took place soon after the news arrived,
voted the duke a subsidy of 300,000 crowns (_ibid._, No. 992).
[1585] Claude Haton, II, 734; _Nég. Tosc._, III, 886, 887.
[1586] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 886, 887.
[1587] Claude Haton, II, p. 735.
[1588] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,100, July 23, 1573.
[1589] The existence of a plot to kidnap the duke of Anjou in Germany
in order to force France to return the Three Bishoprics was suspected
by Schomberg (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, Appendix,
Nos. 112, 113). The duke was also afraid to go to Poland by way of
Germany, fearing to get into difficulties on account of the massacre
of St. Bartholomew, which still vividly angered the Protestant
princes (_ibid._, IV, Introd., p. xxvi, and pp. 15, 19, 26, 32). His
first thought was to go by way of Venice and Ragusa, through Servia,
Bulgaria, and Moldavia (Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, 197; _Archives
de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 168, note). The advantage of the
ancient alliance between France and Venice at this time would have
been great. There was also some thought of his going entirely by sea,
and the good offices of England were invoked to protect his journey
(Castelnau, ed. Le Laboureur, III, 345). The young prince of Condé had
been invited to go along, but excused himself on the ground that he was
afraid of being arrested for his father’s debts, “being a marvellously
great sum.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,245, December 12, 1573.
[1590] _Ibid._, No. 1,097, July 18, 1573, from Frankfurt.
[1591] _Ibid._, No. 1,177, September 20, 1573; _Archives de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 295.
[1592] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,168, September 18, 1573.
[1593] For Catherine’s intense interest in the Polish question, see
Vol. IV of her _Correspondance_, _passim_, and _Arch. de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 267.
[1594] _Commentaires et lettres de Montluc_, V, 299-306, 309-18,
322-24—a series of remarkable political judgments.
[1595] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 31; Appendix, No.
69 and p. 96.
[1596] _Ibid._, IV, Appendix, Letters 1-8 refer to Schomberg’s mission
to Germany in the spring and summer of 1572.
[1597] The history of Henry of Anjou’s career in Poland has been
written at length by the marquis de Noailles, _Henri de Valois et la
Pologne_, Paris, 1867 (see also L’Epinois, “La Pologne en 1572,” _R. Q.
H._, IV, 1868, p. 266; Bain, “The Polish Interregnum,” _English Hist.
Review_, IV, 645). In Coll. Godefroy, CCLVI, Nos. 54, 62, 64, 66, 70,
72, is a series of letters dealing with French interest in Poland at
this time.
[1598] _Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, Appendix, Nos. 69
and 71.
[1599] _Ibid._, IV, Appendix, No. 17, Schomberg to Catherine de Medici,
October 9, 1572. The landgrave bluntly said that twice before such
overtures had been made to German princes—in 1567 and 1571—and that
civil war and the massacre had followed (_ibid._, No. 72).
[1600] St. Goard to Charles IX, July 9, 1573, _ibid._, IV, Appendix,
No. 66; Schomberg to the duke of Anjou, February 10, 1573, _ibid._,
Appendix, No. 34. The intense Catholic prejudices of the duke of Anjou,
now king of Poland, were a serious bar to the progress of Schomberg’s
negotiations in Germany. He warned the duke not to give the impression
of Spanish leanings (Schomberg to the duke of Anjou, October 9, 1572,
_ibid._, IV, Appendix, No. 18), and seems almost to have persuaded him
to abandon his intense Catholic-Spanish predilection (_ibid._, pp. 15,
268). The duke of Anjou is even said to have given Schomberg 100,000
francs. The letter is said to have been burned at the time of the
Coconnas conspiracy in order to shield the duke of Alva’s son (_ibid._,
IV, 384).
[1601] Charles IX to St. Goard, May 10, 1573, regarding a dispatch of
the Spanish ambassador to Philip II telling of the negotiations of the
King with Louis of Nassau (_ibid._, IV, Appendix, No. 55).
[1602] _Ibid._, IV, Appendix, No. 51.
[1603] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,202, 1,286, November 11, 1573, January
2, 1574.
[1604] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 894, December 23, 1573.
[1605] _Ibid._, 891-93, November 5, 1573.
[1606] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,132, 1,138, August 18-22, 1573.
[1607] The attack was aggravated by a heavy cold taken while hunting
so that Charles IX was compelled for a season to quarter himself in a
small inn at Vitry. He was not scarred by the pox but he lost flesh
alarmingly by reason of the illness and never recovered his health, and
passed into quick consumption (cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,229, November
18, 1573, Dr. Dale to Burghley).
[1608] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 891; _R. Q. H._, XXXIV, 485.
[1609] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,235, November, 1573.
[1610] The écu which formerly had circulated as 57 sous _tournois_ went
up to 58; Spanish pistols, which were at 55 rose to 56; testons de
France valued at 12 sous by the edict rose to 12 sous 6 d. _tournois_.
Bad coin was driven out of the realm. Claude Haton, II, 749, 750.
[1611] _Ibid._, 752, 753.
[1612] Claude Haton, II, 760 (1574).
[1613] See details in _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 567, December 30, 1573. The
queen mother was accused of planning to take La Rochelle by surprise
(_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 309-11; _Nég. Tosc._,
III, 896).
[1614] _C. S. P. Ven._, Nos. 568, 569, January 22, February 1, 1574.
[1615] For details of this war see _Chronique des guerres en Poitou,
Aunis, Xaintonge et Angoumois de 1574 à 1576_, ed. by Fontenelle de
Vaudoré, Paris, 1841.
[1616] _C. S. P. For._, No. 570, February 6, No. 572, February 28;
_ibid._, _Eng._, No. 1,336, March 8, No. 1,338, March 8, No. 1,357,
March 23, No. 1,342, March 15 (1574).
[1617] On March 9, 1573, Sir Thomas Smith wrote to Walsingham: “Pirates
of all nations infest our seas and under the flag of the prince of
Orange or the count of Montgomery, pillage the English and foreigners
impartially.” (Cf. Walsingham, 392. _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 575, March 24,
1574.)
[1618] Montgomery to Burghley, from Carentan, March 23, 1574 (C. S. P.
For., 1351; cf. _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 576, March 26; Delisle, _Les deux
sièges de Valognes en 1562 et 1574_, St. Lô, 1890).
[1619] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,352. Commission from the King to the
sieur de Torcy, etc., dated Bois de Vincennes, March 11, 1574.
Montgomery’s reply is subjoined, dated March 22; _ibid._, _Ven._, No.
577, April 2, 1574. Montgomery must have been in error as to the date
of his arrival at Coutances, which he puts on March 11. It must have
been earlier. Torcy’s commission bears this date. On May 29 the chief
of the Huguenots, or rather, Montgomery, wrote to Lord Burghley from
Carentan, justifying the taking up arms, and stating what need there is
of the favor and protection of the Queen (_ibid._, _For._, No. 1,429,
May 24, 1574).
[1620] Weill, 128, 129.
[1621] _Mém. du duc de Bouillon_, 89. The scheme was to deprive the
duke of Anjou of the command before La Rochelle and put the duke of
Alençon and Henry of Navarre in command both by land and by sea. It
failed, though Charles IX seems to have been willing, because Anjou
flatly refused to resign (see letter in Appendix XXXIII).
[1622] Forneron, _Histoire des ducs de Guise_, II, 276. On the whole
question see De Crue, _Le parti des Politiques au lendemain de la St.
Barthélemy_, Paris, 1892; Weill, 133 ff.
[1623] Weill, 88, 89. The actual author was Beza.
[1624] Weill, 132; citing La Huguerye, II, 84.
[1625] Weill, 95-97.
[1626] _Ibid._, 133.
[1627] See Corvière, _L’organisation politique du parti protestant tenu
à Millau_ (1886).
[1628] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,349, 1,356, March 17 and 30, 1574. There
were ten ensigns in every regiment, each of 300 men.
[1629] _Ibid._, No. 1,388, April, 1574. The prince was reputed to have
about 6,000 or 7,000 reiters, “French, German, or Swiss.”—_Ibid._, No.
1,433, Wilkes to Walsingham, May 31, 1574.
[1630] See details in _ibid._, No. 1,322, February 16, 1574.
[1631] Hume supposes (_Courtships of Queen Elizabeth_, 177) that
Elizabeth, knowing that this plot was in progress, again withdrew her
permission for an interview with the duke of Alençon. She feared the
result if the interview were unsuccessful; she would not allow a public
visit under any circumstances, and did not wish a private. The recent
expedition against La Rochelle had also angered her subjects, so that
now the negotiations were once more apparently at a standstill. But we
must not forget her private scheme. Nothing could be more in line with
Elizabeth’s policy than to promote a family quarrel in the French royal
house. That she was well informed of the plot can scarcely be doubted,
for March 16, 1574, we find a safe-conduct for Alençon in the foreign
papers; and the permission given for him to come to the Queen as soon
as he has notified her of his arrival in England. April 1, moreover,
Dale wrote to Walsingham, “The Duke has hope in the Queen and feareth
much”—there is nothing more to explain the reference. Hume does not
explicitly state Elizabeth’s connivance and the editor of Hall, Vol.
II, does not mention the plot at all (p. xxi); neither does Burlingham
in his résumé. It can scarcely be doubted, however, that Elizabeth was
actively interested or, at least, informed of its progress.
[1632] _Mém. de madame Mornay_, 74, 75.
[1633] De Thou, Book LVII; _Arch. cur._, VII, 105.
[1634] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 572, February 28, and _ibid._, _For._, Nos.
1,331, 1,336, 1,350, March 2, 8, 22, 1573.
[1635] The duke of Alençon and the king of Navarre issued a declaration
denying all knowledge of Guitery’s enterprise against the King at St.
Germain. Tractprinted at Paris by Frederic Morel, 1574, p. 8; cf.
_Lettres de Henri IV_, I, 60; _Mém. de la Huguerye_, I, 182, note 2.
[1636] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 573, March 10, 1574.
[1637] _Ibid._, No. 574, March 17, 1574.
[1638] _Ibid._
[1639] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,377, 1,378, April 10-12, 1574; _ibid._,
_Ven._, Nos. 580, 581, April 9-10.
[1640] But it is not to be doubted that back of the affair was a secret
movement of the liberal Huguenots and the Politiques to put Alençon
upon the throne in event of the death of Charles IX and so foil the
succession of the bigoted Henry of Anjou. _Vie de Mornay_, 23: Jalluard
à Taffin, ministre du St. Evangile, May 8, 1574: “L’emprisonnement du
duc d’Alençon, roy de Navarre, mareschal de Montmorenci, et autres, ont
apporté non seulement un grand estonnement, mais aussi rompu des grands
desseins.”—_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, V, 2; cf. IV, 375.
Moderate men perceived the value of Alençon as a counterpoise to Henry
of Poland (cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,431, May 25, 1574). On the entire
matter see De Crue, “La Molle et Coconat et les négociations du parti
des Politiques,” _Rev. d’hist. dip._, VI, 1892, p. 375.
[1641] _Arch. cur._, VIII, 127 ff. Among other charges, La Mole
was accused of practicing sorcery—“that there should be an image
of wax and a strange medal in the chamber of La Mole for some
enchantment.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,398, Dr. Dale to Burghley, April
27, 1574.
[1642] _Ibid._, April 22, 1574; No. 1,398, April 27, 1574.
[1643] _Ibid._, _Ven._, No. 586, May 2, 1574.
[1644] _Ibid._, and _ibid._, _For._, No. 1,401, Dale to Burghley, April
30, 1574. The whole process was a mockery of justice. According to
another report the King promised “that he would write to the Parlement
to delay the proceedings. But the bearer of the letters, on arriving
at Paris found the Porte St. Antoine closed. The execution was so much
hurried that in a moment they were both executed. It is said this was
done by reason of a perfumer relating to the first President what
had passed in Court, and that the Queen Mother had obtained their
pardon. For which cause they were made to come more quickly from the
Conciergerie, the carriage made to journey hastily, and directly they
arrived at the place of execution they were executed without the usual
proclamations.”—_C. S. P. For._, No 1,403, May 2, 1574.
[1645] Claude Haton, II, 765.
[1646] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 584, April 19, 1574. Both Henry of Navarre
and his fellow-prisoner seemed to have believed in these days that if
Charles IX should die their own expectation of living would be slender,
and their only hope be in corrupting the guard. But they were without
money. This is the purport of a cipher dispatch, dated May 22, from
Paris and sent to Burghley to be deciphered by him personally. This he
actually did, for the draft is in his handwriting (_ibid._, _For._,
No. 1,422, 1574; cf. No. 1,431). His reply—to Walsingham—was sent
three days later (by a slip of the pen he has, however, written “March”
instead of May).
[1647] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,408, Dr. Dale to Burghley, May 5, 1574.
See a letter of Emanuel Philibert of Savoy, to Charles IX protesting
against the arrest of Montmorency, May 19, 1574, in Coll. Godefroy,
CCLVI, No. 92. Elizabeth seems to have interested herself very much
in their fate and sent Thomas Leighton to France in their behalf.
The face of affairs thus was changed, for to give some credibility
to her stories of a happy family, Catherine had to allow the princes
more liberty. Besides, Leighton was captain of Guernsey, and could be
of great assistance to Montgomery so that he had to be well treated
and his desires gratified. The Guises, however, were gaining great
influence in court again and in event of the King’s death, Alençon
expected the Bastille. To escape this he desired money from Elizabeth
to bribe his guards and Burghley actually recommended that this course
be followed. De Thoré, the youngest of the constable’s sons, fled
to Cassel for safety (Claude Haton, II, 763 and note). The fury of
the Guises pursued him even in Germany (see a letter of one Davis
to count John of Nassau, June 7, 1574, in _Archives de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, 19, giving some particulars on this head, and one
of Schomberg to the same, August 28, at p. 49).
[1648] See _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,417, May 17, 1574; _Hist. du Lang._,
V, 520, note 1.
[1649] Yesterday he was more ill-at-ease than ordinarily, and no one
entered his room, but at sunrise several gentlemen and priests came
in. The priests performed the service, at which the queen mother
was present. He has been of better countenance since hearing of the
execution of De la Mole and Coconnas, and said he hoped to live to see
the end of all his conspirators (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,403, May 2,
1574). Early in April, two couriers were dispatched to Poland to warn
Henry of Anjou to be ready for any emergency (_ibid._, _Ven._, No. 590,
May 2, 1574). Dr. Dale, the English ambassador, reports, under date of
May 22: “On the 22d the King fell suddenly sick. The audience appointed
with the ambassador of the duke of Florence was countermanded, the
best physicians sent for, and the opinion is that the King is in great
danger. The falling down of blood into his lungs is come to him again,
and the physicians gave their opinion that if it should happen again
they could not assure him of any hope. Paris, 22 May, 1574.”—_C. S. P.
For._, No. 1,422.
[1650] Frémy, _Un ambassadeur liberal sous Charles IX et Henri III_,
226. The King actually said “Tirez moy ma _custode_,” from the
Latin word _custodire_, to protect. Claude Haton, II, 767, gives an
impressive account of the deathbed scene.
[1651] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 591, May 30, 1574. For other accounts see
_Arch. cur._, VIII, 253, 271. There is a remarkable tract in the State
Paper office “giving particulars of the ancestors and birth of Charles
IX, the civil wars of his reign, his victories, the massacre of St.
Bartholomew, his famous sayings, his wife and daughter, his decrees,
his motto, his favorite servant, his master and nurse, his liberality,
his sports, his study of music and singing, the fiery spectre seen by
him, his breaking the law, his speech in the senate, his amours, his
affliction of the ecclesiastics, his study of liberal sciences, his
food, drink, and sleep, a prodigy preceding his death, his sickness,
his discourse before his death, his death and testament, description of
his body and stature.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,628 (1574). The queen of
France returned to Vienna and died in a convent in 1592.
[1652] Isambert, XIV, 262.
[1653] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,448, June 10, 1574.
[1654] Henry III, to Elizabeth (see Appendix XXXV).
[1655] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 1,449 and 1,464, _anno_ 1574.
[1656] Catherine risked a Protestant uprising in order to sate her
vengeance upon the man who had slain Henry II. The Venetian ambassador,
however, conjectured that there was more of policy than of revenge
in the act. “It was certainly more to please the Parisians from whom
she hoped to have efficient aid than for any other reason that she
had Montgomery put to death.”—_C. S. P. Ven._, No. 588, May 20,
No. 597, June, 1574. Matignon was made a marshal of France as his
reward (_ibid._, _For._, No. 176, June 13, 1575). For particulars
of Montgomery’s execution see _Arch. cur._, VIII, 223 ff.; and the
_Discours de la mort et execution de Gabriel comte de Montgommery, par
arrest de la court, pour les conspirations par luy commises contre le
roy_, Lyon: Benoist Rigaud, 1574.
[1657] _Nég. Tosc._, III, 926-27, April 5 and May 11, 1574.
[1658] “Tenuti per forastieri e Alemanni.”—_Rel. vén._, II, 228.
[1659] Claude Haton, II, 778. These bandits were sometimes called
“Foruscits” or “Fuorisciti,” from the Italian _uscir fuora_ (see a
letter of the cardinal of Armagnac in _Rev. hist._, II, 529).
“En 1576 les paysans du Dauphiné s’étant soulevés, entreprirent
vainement ce qu’ils ont exécuté plus de deux siècles après cette
époque. Ils se rassemblèrent en un corps considérable pour piller et
brûler les châteaux, et exterminer les gentilshommes. Mandalot, à la
tête d’une troupe déterminée, dissipa avec promptitude ce rassemblement
qu’on appela la ‘Ligue des Vilains.’”—_Histoire ou mémoire de ce qui
se passa à Lyons pendant la ligue, appelée la Sainte-Union, jusqu’à la
reddition de la ville sous l’obeissance du roi Henri IV_, Bibliothèque
de Lyon, No. 1,361.
[1660] “On taschast de réconcilier par tous moyens les malcontens et
principalement ceux qui, par le passé, ont eu crédit et autorité en
France, qui pourront augmenter les troubles et soustenir la mauvaise
et pernicieuse volonté de ceux qui voudroient invertir l’ancienne
et naturelle succession de la couronne de France.”—Du Ferrier to
Catherine de Medici, June, 1574, in Frémy, _Un ambassadeur liberal sous
Charles IX et Henri III_, 235.
[1661] Articles proposed by the count palatine’s ambassador for a
pacification (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,556, _anno_ 1574). The post
was subsidized by the French King by way of Reinhausen, Neustadt,
Kaiserslautern, Limbach (near Hamburg), Saarbrück, St. Avold, and Metz
(_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, V, 49).
[1662] _Vie de La Noue_, 87.
[1663] The Poles made a hard attempt to prevent Henry from leaving
the kingdom. They were dissatisfied that he assumed the title of King
of France without consulting them, and wanted him to govern his new
kingdom through ministers chosen from among them, and to employ himself
in military exploits against the Tartars and Turks (Languet, _Epist.
secr._, I, 121).
[1664] Frémy, _Un ambassadeur liberal sous Charles IX et Henri III_,
232.
[1665] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,543, September 10, 1574.
[1666] The duke and his fellow-captives made several efforts to escape,
in one of which Alençon narrowly missed doing so (see the account
in _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 600, July 26, 1574). In consequence, when
Catherine started to meet her son at Lyons, leaving the government of
Paris in care of the Parlement (_ibid._, No. 1,509, July 10, 1574), the
young princes traveled in the coach with her. “Her chickens go in coach
under her wing, and so she minds to bring them to the King.”—_Ibid._,
_For._, No. 1,511, Dale to Walsingham, August 9, 1574.
[1667] _Ibid._, No. 1,537, Dale to Sir Thomas Smith and Francis
Walsingham, September 2, 1574, from Lyons.
[1668] See the striking comments of the Venetian ambassador, _Rel.
vén._, II, 245, 246.
[1669] _Rel. vén._, II, 245, 246.
[1670] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,543, September 10, 1574, No. 1,555,
September 11, 1574; Thomas Wilkes to Walsingham and Dr. Dale to
Sir Thomas Smith and Walsingham. There were 6,500 Swiss at Châlons
(_ibid._, No. 1, 537, September 2, 1574). Henry III had sent orders in
advance of his coming, commanding that on the 30th of August all the
companies of ordinance should retire in garrison and await the orders
of the provincial governors. Troops were levied in Picardy, Champagne,
Brie, Burgundy, and Lorraine, to prevent the Protestant reiters from
gaining entrance into the country and were put under the command of the
duke of Guise, Vaudemont, and the marshal Strozzi (Claude Haton, II,
779).
[1671] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,590, November 4, 1574. The headquarters
of the Catholic forces were between Dijon and Langres, but troops
patrolled the whole course of the Marne and extended westward to Sens.
Artillery was sent up the Seine from Paris. The camp of the horse was
fixed near Troyes (Claude Haton, III, 779).
[1672] De Thou, Book L, chap. xii; _Vie de Mornay_, 23; Coll. Godefroy,
CCLIX, No. 2, “Les habitants du diocèse de Montpellier au roi, 4 juin,
1574.”
[1673] For other interesting details see _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,568,
September 29, 1574.
[1674] Le Laboureur, II, 135.
[1675] _C. S. P. For._, No. 1,584, October 23, 1574.
[1676] Schomberg’s comment is amusing: “Monsieur le mareschal Damphille
se contint sagement, dont les ennemis de ceste maison s’arrachent la
barbe.”—August 28, 1574, in _Arch. de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, 49.
[1677] _Chroniques fontenaisiennes_, 228-32; L’Estoile, I, 37; Weill,
137, note 3.
[1678] “A little piece of money might win the reiters to join with them
of the religion.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,623, December 23, 1574.
[1679] Aigues-Mortes was a strong port and the staple of salt for
Languedoc, Dauphiné, the Lyonnais, and Burgundy (_ibid._, No. 17,
January 25, 1575). Dr. Dale thought that the project was to connive
at a Turkish attack in Germany for the purpose of embarrassing the
Catholic princes there (_ibid._, No. 1,620, December 23, 1574).
[1680] The plot was an old one and long in preparation. See a letter
of St. Goard to the King, May 20, 1573 (_Archives de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, IV, Appendix, No. 59). The Spanish had been advised
by word from Besançon, on April 3, that those of Geneva and Bern had
confederated with the Lutheran cantons and secured the favor of the
duke John Casimir, whose purpose was to overcome Besançon and the free
county of Burgundy (cf. letter of De Grantyre, the French agent in the
Grisons, to Bellièvre, April 8, 1573, Coll. Godefroy, CCLVIII, No.
52, and the letter of Charles IX to Bellièvre, May 9, 1573, _ibid._,
No. 55). The author of the plan was a Dr. Butterich, councilor of the
elector (_Archives de la maison d’Orange-Nassau_, V, 89, 99, 101, 107,
120-3). The Swiss cantons were also appealed to, but Beza hesitated
(_ibid._, 111). Spain had secret information of the plot (_ibid._, 89).
It finally failed (see a letter of Butterich to John of Nassau, June 6,
1575, _ibid._, 214; cf. Languet, _Epist. secr._, I, Part II, 106, July
11, 1575).
[1681] An example of eccentric partisanship is afforded by the duke
d’Uzes, who was a Huguenot, but who for enmity toward Damville joined
the King. Henry III made him a marshal and left him in chief command
when he went to Rheims (_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,617, December 23, 1574;
No. 13, January 16, 1575). Bellegarde was also made marshal in this
year (_ibid._, No. 1,570, September 29, 1574).
[1682] “Seminario della guerra.”—_Rel. vén._, II, 230.
[1683] Claude Haton, I, 782, 783.
[1684] See the luminous _Relazione del Giovanni Michel_, the Venetian
ambassador in France in 1575, ed. Tommaseo, II, 229-33.
[1685] _Correspondance de Philippe II sur les Pays-Bas_, III, 105,
note, June 15, 1574.
[1686] _Ibid._, 165-66, Requesens to Philip II, September 24, 1574:
“Il y a en France beaucoup d’Espagnols qui ont déserté des Pays-Bas;
il sont recueillis par M. de Guise et d’autres qui leur font un
bon traitement et leur donnent de grosses payes.” M. Gachard has
paraphrased the letter.
[1687] “La longa continuazione della guerra, che tutti li paesani
che prima erano disarmati e vilissimi, tutti dati all’arte del campo
e all’agricoltura, ovvero ad alcuna delle arti mecaniche, adesso
sono tutti armati, e talmente essercitati e agguerriti che non si
distinguono dalli più veterani soldati; tutti fatti archibugieri
eccellentissimi.”—“Relazione del Giovanni Michel,” _Rel. vén._,
II, 232; cf. Long, 167: “Des violences et des outrages exercés par
quelques petits gentilhommes sur des paysans excitèrent la vengeance
des villageois voisins, qui, furieux, accoururent en grand nombre. Les
provocateurs imprudents se sauvèrent, mais leur maisons furent pillées
et saccagées. On voit déjà _la haine du peuple_, poussé au desespoir
par les impôts et par les exacteurs, contre les privilegiés. Le peuple,
si mal disposé, ne devait pas être provoqué dans son ressentiment. Les
defenseurs de la cause commune vont se lever.”
[1688] The English ambassador gives particulars of the cardinal’s
death. “The King would needs go in procession with the Battus, who
are men that whip themselves as they go as a sort of penance. The
cardinal went in this solemn procession well-nigh all the night, and
the next day he said mass for a solemnity, wherewith he took a great
cold and a continual fever which brought him into a frenzy, wherein he
continued divers days. A Jew took upon him to work wonders and gave
him a medicine whereby he came to his remembrance for a time. Upon the
medicine there did break out certain pustules or spots in his body like
the pourpres, whereby some would say he was poisoned. Shortly after he
fell into his old frenzy and so died, the 18th day after he first fell
sick.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 1,624, December, 1574.
[1689] _Ibid._, No. 58, March 23, 1575. This letter is not printed in
the _Correspondance de Catherine de Médicis_. The Venetian ambassador
has a long and interesting character-sketch of the queen in _Rel.
vén._, II, 243. There are several monographs upon this “pure, douce et
mélancolique figure” [Galitizin, _Louise de Lorraine reine de France
(1553-1601)_; Meaume, _Etude historique sur Louise de Lorraine reine
de France (1553-1601)_, Paris, 1882; Baillon, _Histoire de Louise de
Lorraine, reine de France, 1553-1601_, Paris, 1884].
[1690] _C. S. P. For._, No. 33, March 3, 1575.
[1691] The Pope finally advanced a sum upon the security of the crown
jewels (_C. S. P. For._, No. 168, June 6, 1575).
[1692] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 55, 57, 67, March, 1575. The clergy in
Dauphiné protested against the burden laid upon the church there by the
King’s measure, complaining that its support was not costing the crown
a sou there; one of them even had the face to declare that they had
more to hope from Damville than from the King (_ibid._, No. 67, March,
1575).
[1693] Declaration et protestation de Henry de Montmorency, seigneur
Damville, mareschal de France, gouverneur et lieutenant général pour
le Roy en Languedoc. Issued from Nîmes, April 25, 1575. There is an
abstract of it in _C. S. P. For._, No. 106, 1575.
[1694] “L’organisation politique de cette Union (Union protestante)”fut
élaborée dans les assemblées tenues à Milhau, en décembre, 1573, et
en juillet, 1574. La base fut l’autonomie des villes, que usurpèrent
peu à peu l’administration. La Rochelle et Montauban confièrent
l’autorité à des chefs électifs, pris dans la bourgeoisie. En suite ces
républiques urbaines se fedérèrent. Il fut décidé que chaque généralité
aurait son assemblée et que délégués des généralités formeraient les
états généraux de l’Union. Ainsi se constitua au sein du royaume une
république fédérative, où l’élément aristocratique ne tarda pas à
dominer (Lavisse et Rambaud, “_Histoire générale_, V, 147;” cf. Cougny,
“Le parti républicain sous Henri III,” _Mémoires de la Sorbonne_, 1867;
Hippeau, “Les idées républicaines sous le règne de Henri III,” _Revue
des Soc. savant. des départ._, IV^[e] sér., III).
[1695] L’Estoile, I, 3, 38.
[1696] I have availed myself of the synopsis in _C. S. P. For._, No.
112, May, 1575.
[1697] Dr. Junius to the prince of Condé, _Archives de la maison
d’Orange-Nassau_, V, 237.
[1698] See Dr. Dale’s observations in letter to Burghley, May 21, 1575;
_C. S. P. For._, No. 138.
[1699] _Ibid._, No. 121, May 4, 1575. Through the duke of Savoy Henry
III seems to have offered to set Montmorency free, provided Damville
would deliver up Aigues-Mortes (_ibid._, No. 168, June 6, 1575).
[1700] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 114 and 287, _anno_ 1575.
[1701] Letter of the duke of Guise to M. de Luxembourg from Châlons,
September 3, 1575, _Coll. des autographes_, 1846, No. 213. The duke of
Guise was anxious for the safety of Langres.
[1702] _C. S. P. For._, No. 235, July 15, 1575, from Cracow.
[1703] _C. S. P. For._, No. 345, September 13, 1575. In Appendix XXXIV
will be found a long account in Latin from the pen of Dr. Dale upon the
condition of France at this time.
[1704] _C. S. P. For._, No. 120, _anno_ 1575. Even before leaving
Poland Henry III had anxiously written to Elizabeth urging the good
offices of his ambassador in England, De la Mothe-Fenelon (see the
letter in Appendix XXXV). The articles of peace agreed to during the
life of King Charles provided that in the event of the death of one
of the contracting parties, that party’s successor should be allowed
the space of one year to accept or refuse the conditions of peace,
the other party being bound by the articles to continue in friendship
in the event of the former accepting these articles; the Queen now
insisted that, when these articles were first agreed to, the French
King was at peace with all his vassals and had by the Edict of January
conceded to the Huguenots the free exercise of their religion, and
therefore at the present time he was bound to observe all that had been
promised (_C. S. P. Ven._, No. 624, April 24, 1575).
[1705] _Correspondance de Philippe II_, III, 209 and note.
[1706] _Ibid._, 271.
[1707] _Ibid._, 333.
[1708] _Ibid._, 348.
[1709] _Correspondance de Philippe II_, III, 319, 320.
[1710] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 622, March 22, 1575. In Arch. nat., K.
1537, No. 22, is the report of a Spanish spy, written from Calais on
March 18, 1575, which confirms the suspicion of English tampering in
France. Printed in Appendix XXXVI.
[1711] Schomberg’s observations were absolutely just, for on July 23,
1575, at Heidelberg, an instrument was signed by Charles Frederick, the
elector palatine, Henry, prince of Condé, and Charles de Montmorency,
in which the count palatine acknowledged the receipt from the English
Queen of 50,000 “crowns of the sun, each crown being of the value
of six English shillings sterling,” which amount was transferred to
“Henri de Bourbon, prince de Condé, chief of those of the religion in
France, as well as of those Catholics with them associated” (i. e.,
the Politiques). Elizabeth’s name was to be shielded throughout, the
elector assuming entire liability for repayment which was to be made
“before the army now levied in Germany for service in France shall
depart to France” (see _C. S. P. For._, No. 254, “The obligation
and quittance of the prince of Condé,” July 23, 1575, Heidelberg;
cf. _ibid._, _Ven._, 627; July 12, 1575, the guess of the Venetian
ambassador in France). Cf. _ibid._, No. 633, September 7, 1575. The
Venetian ambassador seems to have thought that trouble in Ireland would
prevent England from advancing any more to the Huguenots (_ibid._, No.
631, August 9, 1575). The harvest of 1575 was generally good. But no
invading army would enter France before the grain was cut and stacked
(cf. _ibid._).
[1712] _C. S. P. Ven._, No. 634, September 11, 1575.
[1713] _Ibid._, _For._, No. 388, October 3, 1575; L’Estoile, _anno_
1575; see the interesting details of Henry III’s curious fits of
contrition in Frémy, “Henri III, pénitent; étude sur les rapports de ce
prince avec diverses confréries et communautés parisiennes,” _Bull. du
Com. d’hist. et d’archéol. du diocèse de Paris_, 1885.
[1714] Claude Haton, II, 780; Walsingham to Burghley, _State Papers,
Foreign,_ Elizabeth, CV, No. 51, printed in Appendix XXXVII. From Dreux
the duke issued a manifesto, September 17, 1575, in which he explained
his conduct and complained of the undue taxation and the imposition
which the people were suffering in the King’s name, declaring
that he would take under his protection all the French of the two
religions, and demanding the call of the Estates-General for redress
of grievances (Claude Haton, II, 781 and note). Alençon styled himself
“Gouverneur-général pour le roy et protecteur de la liberté et bien
publique de France” (_C. S. P. For._, No. 365, September, 1575).
[1715] Claude Haton, II, 784, 785.
[1716] Paris furnished the King 4,000 soldiers at its own expense. The
new troops were lodged in the faubourgs of St. Germain, St. Marceau,
and Notre-Dame des Champs (_ibid._, 787).
[1717] Claude Haton, II, 788-89; D’Aubigné, Book VII, chap. xix. From
this circumstance the duke was often called Le Balafré. (_C. S. P.
For._, No. 450, November 10, 1575.)
[1718] Claude Haton, II, 797.
[1719] _C. S. P. For._, No. 422, October 29, 1575. The King called
these pilgrimages “nouaines” (cf. _ibid._, No. 506, Dr. Dale to Lord
Burghley, December 20, 1575).
[1720] Protestant worship was provisionally authorized in the towns
held by the confederates. Angoulême and Bourges refused to open their
gates to Alençon and so he was offered Cognac and St. Jean-d’Angély
instead. The prince of Condé was refused admittance to Mezières (Claude
Haton, II, 805, note).
[1721] For details as to this levy, see Claude Haton, II, 804. This
tax was laid upon the clergy, as well as others, and called forth a
protest from the former, who pleaded an edict issued by Henry III at
Avignon shortly after his return from Poland, forbidding the governors
to enforce the payment of tailles, munitions, etc., upon the clergy.
[1722] Fontanon, IV, 840.
[1723] Claude Haton, II, 820.
[1724] Paris remonstrated against this (_ibid._, 828 and note 1).
[1725] _Ibid._, 817; L’Estoile, I, 46.
[1726] Claude Haton, II, 806-8.
[1727] _C. S. P. For._, No. 535.
[1728] Dr. Dale writes on February 28: “The Guises are nothing privy to
the queen mother’s doings and she likes as evil of them.”—_C. S. P.
For._, No. 634, February 28, 1576.
[1729] _C. S. P. For._, No. 592, January 1576: “The King of Spain makes
the King very great offers to break the peace.”
[1730] Dr. Dale to Sir Thomas Smith and Walsingham. All the fair
promises of the delivery of Bourges and La Charité are like to come to
nothing, as may appear by the enclosed letter of Monsieur to the Court
of Parliament. There is a secret League between Guise, Nemours, Nevers,
Maine, and others of that house, together with the Chancellor, against
all that would have any peace, and if it should be made, to begin a
sharp war afresh (_C. S. P. For._, No. 583, _anno_ 1576). From the
first Languet was skeptical. He anticipated reaction (_Epist. secr._,
I, Part II, 181, 205).
[1731] M. Frémy has published a work in which he makes the bizarre
claim that the origin of the Académie française is to be at least
remotely ascribed to Henry III (_Les origines de l’Académie française._
_L’Académie des derniers Valois, 1570-1585_, d’après des documents
nouveaux et inédits, 1888. There is a review of it in the _English
Hist. Review_, III, 576). Some one has said that “all the Valois
kings were either bad or mad.” The aphorism would seem to apply to
the character of Henry III, in both capacities. He was a mountebank,
a roisterer, a dabbler in philosophy, a religious maniac, and a moral
pervert. L’Estoile and Lippomano especially abound in allusions or
accounts of him (e. g., _Rel. vén._, II, 237-39). Compare this account
with the earlier observations of Suriano, _ibid._, I, 409, and Davila,
VII, 442. On the “mignons,” Henry III’s favorites, see L’Estoile, I,
142, 143. Henry III’s very handwriting manifests his character: “Son
écriture semble tout d’abord régulière, mais elle n’est pas formée,
les lettres s’alignent sans s’unir, sans se rejoindre, certainement
c’est une des écritures les plus difficiles à déchiffrer.... C’est
l’homme qui s’y révèle l’indolent, l’efféminé monarque qui de son lit
écrivait ces lignes à Villeroy: ‘J’ay eu le plaisir d’avoir veu vostre
mémoire très bien faict comme tout ce qui sort de vostre boutique, mais
il fault bien penser, car nous avons besoin de regarder de près à nos
affaires. Je seray sitost là que ce seroit peine perdue d’y répondre.
Aussi bien suis-je au lit _non malade, non pour poltronner, mais pour
me retrouver frais comme la rose_.’”—La Ferrière, _Rapport de St.
Pétersbourg_, 27.
[1732] See the remonstrance in _C. S. P. For._, No. 505, December 19,
1575.
[1733] _Ibid._, No. 584, January 9, 1576.
[1734] For particulars see Dale’s letter to Smith and Walsingham,
_ibid._, No. 605, February 6, 1576; Claude Haton, II, 829.
[1735] _C. S. P. For._, Nos. 614, 625, 662, February 14-22, March 8,
1576. Mayenne, whose marquisate was erected into a duchy on January 1,
1576, had succeeded his brother, the duke of Guise, as chief commander
of the royal forces, and advanced toward Lorraine in order to prevent
the reiters from joining the enemy. Henry III had sent Biron (he had
been made a marshal in the June preceding—_ibid._, No. 178, June 13,
1575) to them to persuade them not to enter France, representing that a
truce had been concluded between the King and the duke of Alençon. But
the prince of Condé replied that if the duke had made his peace with
the King, he, the prince, had not. Biron failed and La Noue was sent,
who likewise was unsuccessful (Claude Haton, II, 824, 825).
[1736] _C. S. P. For._, No. 662, Dale to Smith and Walsingham, March 8,
1576; Claude Haton, II, 832.
[1737] _C. S. P. For._, No. 740, April 17, 1576.
[1738] Dr. Dale wrote truly to Lord Burghley saying that the
Protestants had “gotten more without any stroke stricken than ever
could be had before this time by all the wars, as appears by the note
of the provinces that are to be under the government of them and their
friends.”—_C. S. P. For._, No. 777, May 11, 1576.
[1739] La Popelinière, III, 361.
[1740] This claim ran back to the reign of Charles VII; the original
amount was 25,000 livres. Louis XI altered it to 6,000 livres, plus the
county of Gaure and the town of Fleurance, and this revised form was
approved by Charles VIII in 1496 (cf. _C. S. P. For._, No. 672, §5; May
16, 1576).
[1741] Henry of Navarre’s memoir is given _in extenso_ in _ibid._, No.
671, May 15, 1576.
[1742] La Popelinière, III, 365.
[1743] Maffert, _Les apanages en France du XVI^[e] au XIX^[e] siècle_
(1900).
[1744] Articles du maréchal de Dampville, gouverneur de Languedoc et
des Etats du pays, présentés au Roi pour la décharge de la province,
May 2, 1576.—Coll. Godefroy, XCIV, No. 21.
[1745] Nusse, “La donation du duché de Château-Thierry par le duc
d’Alençon à Jean Casimir, comte palatin du Rhin,” _Annales de la
Société hist. et archéol. de Château-Thierry_, Vol. XI (1875), p. 61.
[1746] The text of the Paix de Monsieur is in Isambert, XIV, 280. The
sources for the history are many. The correspondence of Dale, the
English ambassador in France, and the other English agents, Wilkes and
Randolph, in _C. S. P. For._, 1876, for March, April, and May, is full
and detailed (cf. D’Aubigné, Book VIII, chap. xxvii; De Thou, Book
LXXII). La Popelinière, III, 360 ff., gives the text of the treaty and
the letters-patent of the King. The act was registered in Parlement on
May 14, 1576, though signed by the King on May 2.
[1747] Two days before this scene took place, the newly elected king of
Poland Stephen Bathori, prince of Transylvania, had written informing
the deposed Valois that he had assumed the Polish crown and desiring to
know what Henry would have done with the household stuff he had left
behind in Poland (_C. S. P. For._, No. 789, May 29, 1576). The Emperor
had had numerous partisans, but refused to accept the condition that he
fix his residence in Poland (_Epist. secr._, I, Part II, 143).
[1748] See the vivid details in Claude Haton, II, 834-40, 847, 851, 858.
[1749] _Ibid._, 855-60.
[1750] The words in brackets are faded and are supplied from No. 460.
[1751] Ellipses indicate places where the MS is faded or creased so as
to be illegible.
[1752] The words in brackets are faded and are supplied from No. 455.
[1753] The date is in Burghley’s hand.
[1754] The MS is torn here.
[1755] The reference to the original cipher is “State Papers, Scotland,
Elizabeth, Vol. III, No. 82.” (This is not signed addressed or
endorsed. Pencil note by editor: “See April 29.”)
[1756] The Editor’s pencil note to the cipher (Scotland ii. 82) is
“March 12,” but the letter is calendared under [March 20].
[1757] Cayas, secretary to Philip II.
[1758] On the margin, in the writing of Philip II: “Es menester tener
prevenido lo que se les ha de dar para este tiempo.”
[1759] This heading is in another hand.
[1760] This copy is on the other side of the same sheet of paper.
[1761] For _est_.
[1762] The original probably has _amener_.
[1763] _Il_ is missing.
[1764] M. d’Auzances (or Ausances) was lieutenant of the king in the
district of Messin.
[1765] Places in Lorraine.
[1766] Laon.
[1767] Soissons.
[1768] Boulogne.
[1769] This letter is printed V. and is altered in ink to B.
[1770] From Communay, _Les huguenots dans le Béarn et la Navarre_,
p. 175. The italicized portions are further details which I have
added.—J. W. T.
[1771] Cf. Courteault, p. 553 n. 2.
[1772] Cf. _Les huguenots en Béarn_, p. 64.
[1773] _Ibid._, pp. 65, 68.
[1774] _Ibid._, p. 68.
[1775] The above document was sent by Biron to M. de Fourquevaux,
French ambassador in Spain. There is an extract from the letter of
Biron to Forquevaux translated into Spanish, same carton (K. 1,515),
pièce No. 69. Biron’s letter is dated March 17, 1570, from Narbonne.
[1776] A space is left blank to the MS.
[1777] This letter of Sir Henry Norris is a draft originally
intended to be sent to the Queen, with the terms of address altered
throughout—_your highness_ altered to _your honour_, etc.
[1778] The MS is torn here.
[1779] The postscript is in the same hand as the king’s signature.
[1780] A space is left blank in the MS.
[1781] See the subscription and the notice of receipt at the end of the
despatch.
[1782] Although the Catalogue has the date February 18 it is a mistake;
the document has very clearly 17th.
[1783] The postscript is found thus, between the date and the signature.
[1784] Altered in Burghley’s hand from _Iº Julii._